[MTP Reggie]

We’re No. 1: In highest corporate taxes
3/30/2012
washingtonexaminer.com

<More Here>

Come Sunday, America finally has something to crow about in its economic war with China and Japan: It will have the highest jobs-killing corporate tax rate in the industrialized world.

No, it’s not an April Fool’s joke. When Japan officially slashes its rate to 36.8 percent Sunday, America’s will be tops at 39.2 percent.

President Obama has proposed a rate of 28 percent, but Republicans charge that it comes with $350 billion in new, off-setting taxes. The GOP is pushing for a cut to 25 percent, but the election year is getting in the way of any deal.

The Business Roundtable has been pushing for a clean cut in corporate tax rates, claiming it would spur job growth and industrial reinvestment. They even cite a recent move by England to cut their tax rates from 28 percent to 22 percent, which officials called “an advertisement for investment and jobs in Britain.”

Tita Freeman of the Business Roundtable told Secrets, “Comprehensive tax reform is an imperative for the U.S. if we are going to remain a leader in the worldwide economy.”

(snip)

<More Here>

This post has been edited by MTP Reggie: 30 March 2012 - 12:20 PM

[r12driver]

We're #1!!! We're #1!!! We're....wait a minute!!

[Adam Smithee]

MTP Reggie, on 30 March 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

No, it’s not an April Fool’s joke. When Japan officially slashes its rate to 36.8 percent Sunday, America’s will be tops at 39.2 percent.

President Obama has proposed a rate of 28 percent, but Republicans charge that it comes with $350 billion in new, off-setting taxes. The GOP is pushing for a cut to 25 percent, but the election year is getting in the way of any deal.

Show me a corporation that's actually paying 39.2 percent, and I'll show you a corporation that needs to line their entire accounting department against the wall and shoot them. It's all smoke and mirrors, little more than talking points for the talking heads, because any discussion of the published tax rate is meaningless without considering the actual effective tax rate.

The traditional go-to tactic for the Democrats has been to throw a bone to their base by pretending to stick it to the man^TM by, with much fanfare, raising taxes on The Rich and corporations....and give it all back with tailor-made deductions if you grease their palms just right.

The Republicans, starting with Reagan, played a different game: Lower taxes, again with much fanfare and especially aimed at the middle class, but take it back elsewhere by 'closing loopholes' and raising 'fees'. The net result being not really cutting taxes per se but merely shifting taxes.

Its all a clever shell game specifically aimed at being win-win for both sides; Each side can demagogue the issue all day long without ever having to do any heavy lifting (aka "cutting spending").

Obama has cheated by stealing from the Republican playbook. But what the heck - he's nothing if not a streetsmart con man who knows a good scam when he sees it.

[zurg]

Adam, when you're wrong, you're wrong! Poor analysis and worse intuition. Oh well, whatever dude.

[Scootaloo]

Actually Zurg, he's right. Between loopholes, kickbacks, subsidies, and all that, most large corporations really don't pay much by way of taxes. When you see "32% corporate tax rate," remember that there are a lot of asterisks after that "32%." The actual figure is "0% - 32% corproate tax rate," with 32% being the highest it will possibly go. It's a cap, not a baseline. Hell, some of the largest corporations in America are totally tax-exempt. Like the Catholic Church.

Now, my question is. The top 20% of income earners own 93% of the wealth in our country. Republicans love to call these folks "job creators." The question... How much more money do we need to give them before they stop threatening to un-create jobs?

It's hilarious watching you guys contort yourselves. You sputter in rage and near-homocidal hatred if a Union threatens strikes for better pay, but if bossman demands the taxpayers foot a larger portion of his bills or he'll fire everyone, you Republicans are first in line to kowtow, genuflect, and empty your wallets for him.

Why is that?

This post has been edited by Scootaloo: 31 March 2012 - 12:17 AM

[Hieronymous]

Scootaloo, on 31 March 2012 - 12:15 AM, said:

Actually Zurg, he's right. Between loopholes, kickbacks, subsidies, and all that, most large corporations really don't pay much by way of taxes. When you see "32% corporate tax rate," remember that there are a lot of asterisks after that "32%." The actual figure is "0% - 32% corproate tax rate," with 32% being the highest it will possibly go. It's a cap, not a baseline. Hell, some of the largest corporations in America are totally tax-exempt. Like the Catholic Church.

Now, my question is. The top 20% of income earners own 93% of the wealth in our country. Republicans love to call these folks "job creators." The question... How much more money do we need to give them before they stop threatening to un-create jobs?

It's hilarious watching you guys contort yourselves. You sputter in rage and near-homocidal hatred if a Union threatens strikes for better pay, but if bossman demands the taxpayers foot a larger portion of his bills or he'll fire everyone, you Republicans are first in line to kowtow, genuflect, and empty your wallets for him.

Why is that?

Adam is right, but you are not. His argument isn't based on class warfare. Your argument is, with a heavy dose of hyperbole. The top 20% of income earners pay over 3/4s of all federal income taxes. But that's irrelevant to the topic of the thread, which is about corporate tax rates. Is the Catholic Church a corporation? This is just one of those issues people like you are unable to discuss, because you invariably start to grind that axe against people who have more money than you. By the way, if you earned more than 1,500 dollars last year you are one of the top 20% of income earners in the world. You're rich. Get over it.

[Scootaloo]

Hieronymous, on 31 March 2012 - 12:48 AM, said:

Adam is right, but you are not. His argument isn't based on class warfare.

Mr. Bosch, when the richest people in the country are demanding that we the taxpayers foot their bills, that is class warfare. When they threaten to fire us, and ship their jobs to other nations if we do not acquiesce to their blackmail, that is class warfare. Tell them "lol, no, pay your taxes, asshats" is not class warfare.

I would strongly suggest you you and many other conservatives put a little thought and study into these terms before you try to use them. You use them like The simpsons uses catchphrases - you've repeated them to the point of meaninglessness.

Quote

Your argument is, with a heavy dose of hyperbole. The top 20% of income earners pay over 3/4s of all federal income taxes. But that's irrelevant to the topic of the thread, which is about corporate tax rates.

Funny then that I'm not the one who brought up income taxes, isn't it? You're not answering the question I did bring up, though; How much more money do we have to shovel into the pockets of hte "job creators" before they start creating jobs, rather than threatening to destroy them?

I thought "appeasement" was a dirty word for conservatives?

Quote

Is the Catholic Church a corporation?

Yes, religious institutions need to be incorporated and organized to be eligible for that tax-exempt status. it's why I can't go "I am now the church of Scootaloo, I don't pay taxes!"

Quote

This is just one of those issues people like you are unable to discuss, because you invariably start to grind that axe against people who have more money than you.

When people who have more money than me, come knocking at my door and ask me to open my wallet for them... wait no, let me start over.

When people who have more money than me come knocking sat my door and threaten me and my livelihood unless I dole out money to them, yes, I'm going to have an axe to grind. Maybe you should, too.

Quote

By the way, if you earned more than 1,500 dollars last year you are one of the top 20% of income earners in the world. You're rich. Get over it.

Oh, I understand that very well. See, concepts such as "inequal distribution of the world's wealth" pretty much come pre-packaged with the "leftist" label. I'm happy that you can see that inequality as well - many conservatives cannot. Now, can you tell me why this inequality exists? Do you think this is an acceptable or ethical situation for the world to be in? That someone such as you or I - for all our complaints about how hard we work and how asinine our managers are - get paid vast sums above and beyond the majority of the world who, in most cases, bust their asses much more than we do?

Another question... a little off-topic, but in a similar vein... How much of all that money you or I have translates into actual, existing wealth, and how much only exists as an assurance by a creditor?

This post has been edited by Scootaloo: 31 March 2012 - 01:42 AM

[MTP Reggie]

Scootaloo, on 31 March 2012 - 01:39 AM, said:

When people who have more money than me come knocking sat my door and threaten me and my livelihood unless I dole out money to them, yes, I'm going to have an axe to grind.

Better start sharpening your axe...

[Wyn]

Scootaloo, on 31 March 2012 - 01:39 AM, said:

When people who have more money than me come knocking sat my door and threaten me and my livelihood unless I dole out money to them, yes, I'm going to have an axe to grind. Maybe you should, too.

Kinda like Barry Hussein and Obamacare.

[erp]

Scootaloo, on 31 March 2012 - 01:39 AM, said:

Mr. Bosch, when the richest people in the country are demanding that we the taxpayers foot their bills, that is class warfare. When they threaten to fire us, and ship their jobs to other nations if we do not acquiesce to their blackmail, that is class warfare. Tell them "lol, no, pay your taxes, asshats" is not class warfare.

I would strongly suggest you you and many other conservatives put a little thought and study into these terms before you try to use them. You use them like The simpsons uses catchphrases - you've repeated them to the point of meaninglessness.



Funny then that I'm not the one who brought up income taxes, isn't it? You're not answering the question I did bring up, though; How much more money do we have to shovel into the pockets of hte "job creators" before they start creating jobs, rather than threatening to destroy them?

I thought "appeasement" was a dirty word for conservatives?



Yes, religious institutions need to be incorporated and organized to be eligible for that tax-exempt status. it's why I can't go "I am now the church of Scootaloo, I don't pay taxes!"



When people who have more money than me, come knocking at my door and ask me to open my wallet for them... wait no, let me start over.

When people who have more money than me come knocking sat my door and threaten me and my livelihood unless I dole out money to them, yes, I'm going to have an axe to grind. Maybe you should, too.



Oh, I understand that very well. See, concepts such as "inequal distribution of the world's wealth" pretty much come pre-packaged with the "leftist" label. I'm happy that you can see that inequality as well - many conservatives cannot. Now, can you tell me why this inequality exists? Do you think this is an acceptable or ethical situation for the world to be in? That someone such as you or I - for all our complaints about how hard we work and how asinine our managers are - get paid vast sums above and beyond the majority of the world who, in most cases, bust their asses much more than we do?

Another question... a little off-topic, but in a similar vein... How much of all that money you or I have translates into actual, existing wealth, and how much only exists as an assurance by a creditor?

So are these wealthy folks using the force of government to take your stash? Because you do realize that only government has the power to take your stuff at the point of a gun, right?


Scary that you actually believe this tripe that you post.

[erp]

Wyn, on 31 March 2012 - 08:16 AM, said:

Kinda like Barry Hussein and Obamacare.

I know, right? Where is little scootie in condemning Obamacare for forcing him, or her, into purchasing a product he/she might not want to purchase.

Nope, our little scootie believes evil rich people are taking her poor little self's cash, and threatening her livelihood.


Simply amazing.

[fishandchips]

Slang, on 31 March 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

I know, right? Where is little scootie in condemning Obamacare for forcing him, or her, into purchasing a product he/she might not want to purchase.

Nope, our little scootie believes evil rich people are taking her poor little self's cash, and threatening her livelihood.


Simply amazing.

Not when you take her modus operandi into account. She just tries to bait other members into answering her silly posts, then she goes on with more rambling gibberish. She doesn't need to believe a word she writes to try to rile you up.

[zurg]

Now both Adam and Scoot are wrong. Amazing coincidence.

[Adam Smithee]

zurg, on 30 March 2012 - 04:56 PM, said:

Adam, when you're wrong, you're wrong! Poor analysis and worse intuition. Oh well, whatever dude.

And where exactly am I wrong ?

Did Ronald Reagan NOT lower the published individual tax rate while at the same time removing deductions and broadening the AMT, and increasing the corporate rate ?

Did George W Bush NOT also lower the published individual rate whilst simultaneously increasing the various hidden taxes and 'fees' on everything from cellphone calls to tires to airline tickets?

Do the Democrats NOT have a long history of rising the published rate whilst making sure their own big donors aren't hurt by it (see: ObamaCare exemptions) ?

[zurg]

Adam Smithee, on 31 March 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

And where exactly am I wrong ?

Did Ronald Reagan NOT lower the published individual tax rate while at the same time removing deductions and broadening the AMT, and increasing the corporate rate ?

Did George W Bush NOT also lower the published individual rate whilst simultaneously increasing the various hidden taxes and 'fees' on everything from cellphone calls to tires to airline tickets?

Do the Democrats NOT have a long history of rising the published rate whilst making sure their own big donors aren't hurt by it (see: ObamaCare exemptions) ?

Wrong on all three.

You have a point in the "literal" sense, but the actual impact dollar or percentage wise is smaller by an order of magnitude compared to Barry Hussein's fiscal nightmare.

The kind of nuance you posted is just wrong because you don't quantify any of it.

[Timothy]

zurg, on 31 March 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

Wrong on all three.

You have a point in the "literal" sense, but the actual impact dollar or percentage wise is smaller by an order of magnitude compared to Barry Hussein's fiscal nightmare.

The kind of nuance you posted is just wrong because you don't quantify any of it.

The main point that I got out of his post was that what the rate is on paper and what people pay in practice can be and is drastically different.

Effective tax rate is what matters.

This post has been edited by Timothy: 31 March 2012 - 08:30 PM

[pict]

Timothy, on 31 March 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

The main point that I got out of his post was that what the rate is on paper and what people pay in practice can be and is drastically different.

Effective tax rate is what matters.

Not in this case. The bolded applies to reducing taxes for various reasons such as purchasing equipment etc. Corporate tax is applied to net profits, so the higher the corporate tax rate the less profit a company is allowed to keep and/or invest.

[JerryL]

Timothy, on 31 March 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

The main point that I got out of his post was that what the rate is on paper and what people pay in practice can be and is drastically different.

Effective tax rate is what matters.

Funny that. The left continues to push for higher and higher tax rates in all areas for successful people and businesses. This appeals to the masses of victims and economically envious that are their base. Then they make the code so convoluted and full of loopholes that their monied supporters and leaders (Kerry, Gore, Obama, Pelosi, GE, Soros, Unions, etc.) don't even have to pay the higher rates.

This has nothing to do with ACTUALLY collecting more taxes and increasing revenue and all to do with pandering for votes while simultaneously protecting the political funding.

With the incredible economic fraud, waste, and abuse of the federal government, I can't believe that anyone...including the most hard line leftists, who claim that they are NOT socialist or Marxist...can support sending even one more dollar to those crooks.

Note: when I say "federal government," that is meant in a 100% non-partisan manner.

This post has been edited by JerryL: 01 April 2012 - 07:23 AM

[Howsithangin]

Scootaloo, on 31 March 2012 - 01:39 AM, said:

How much more money do we have to shovel into the pockets of hte "job creators" before they start creating jobs, rather than threatening to destroy them?

So that's what you call allowing them to keep more of their own money rather than sending it to DC for redistribution?

very telling

[Howsithangin]

Scootaloo, on 31 March 2012 - 12:15 AM, said:

The question... How much more money do we need to give them before they stop threatening to un-create jobs?

see previous comment.

Ya know Copi---sorry, scooby--there is another option: cut down on the tomes of federal regulations and requirements thereby making it easier to start and maintain a new business. I know, I know, what a radical idea

This post has been edited by Howsithangin: 01 April 2012 - 08:06 AM