Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
DirtyFries
-777 Followers
Agnostic_god_
1868 Followers
E Pluribus Unum
246 Followers
Eduardo Cantoral
1730 Followers
eraptorFeb 23, 2012
"Mr. Obama’s proposal, outlined by Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner at a midday briefing, also would establish a minimum tax on multinational corporations’ foreign earnings — a feature that Republicans immediately denounced..."
This pretty much says it all... Conservatives/Republicans are unfit to serve in the public sector in ANY capacity.
While I recognize the "middle of the road" approach the President is proposing, he shouldn't be too eager to placate empty claims by corporate CEO's that tax cuts will "somehow" produce U.S. investment and hiring on blind faith alone. Instead, he should tie corporate tax rate reductions/increases (not the loophole/taxbreak eliminations) to ACTUAL economic contributions, NOT their empty promises. Consider it "pay for performance", a concept most of those corporate bozos are unfamiliar with...
arpadFeb 23, 2012
Yes, the U.S. definitely should have just a single, political party.
Because that's worked out so well everywhere else it's been tried.
PickledsoulFeb 23, 2012
they pretty much do, its not like either side actually cares about people in any way. the Democrats are just better at hiding their corruption and lunacy.
Closed AccountFeb 23, 2012
No. As we've seen during the last three years alone, REPUBLICANS are willing to unabashedly make Americans' lives a living hell for the sole purpose of regaining power. I've never known Democrats to declare war on American citizens and DELIBERATELY try to antagonize and screw the to hell. Fals equivalency, bud.
arpadFeb 23, 2012
Doesn't it hurt when you twist yourself into a pretzel like that?
The Dems got pretty thoroughly spanked in the mid-terms which suggests that either the American people want to have their lives made a living hell or you're wrong.
I'm going with "you're wrong" since it's easier to believe that a frustrated, Digg lefty will go through any gyrations to avoid the conclusion that America's losing interest in their message then that the American people want to bring a party to power whose desire it is to make American's lives a living hell.
But thanks for giving me an early morning laugh.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountFeb 23, 2012
"The Dems got pretty thoroughly spanked in the mid-terms which suggests that either the American people want to have their lives made a living hell or you're wrong."
--Really? Is that what you right wingers thought in '06 and '08 when Republicans got smacked down at the ballot box? That Americans were expressing their deep and enduring admiration for the Democratic party? Is that why you started acting crazy well before President Obama had even given his inaugural address? The people had spoken and made their wishes clear? The approval rating for Congress is now even worse (though only scarcely so) than it was when Pelosi was House Speaker. Is that an indicator that America is in love with the GOP?
The Dems got spanked because we have an extremely poorly educated electorate made up of smug, short-sighted, simple-minded people who actually believe our elections tell us anything more meaningful than which party Americans hate the least right that moment.
"I'm going with "you're wrong" since it's easier to believe that a frustrated, Digg lefty will go through any gyrations to avoid the conclusion that America's losing interest in their message then that the American people want to bring a party to power whose desire it is to make American's lives a living hell."
--Now you're teetering over the abyss of insanity. If anyone is trying to "avoid conclusions" it's delusional jack-booted right wing storm troopers on their racist, extreme voter suppression scampaign. You clowns refuse to earn votes and you're not even pretending anymore. With wild abandon, you're CRAPPING all over women, blacks, gays, hispanics, Muslims...you name it--and yet *somehow* you've convinced your sorry asses that elections are being stolen from you. You're the ones who don't believe in your message (not unlike the extreme insecurity you perpetually show regarding your religious beliefs).
Please let's not review the long list of unprecedented, demonstrably sleazy behavior the GOP has engaged in (all under the watchful eyes of racist, poorly educated, thug teabaggers, might I add) since Obama was elected. Let's not take that trip down memory lane, sweetheart. ;-P
eraptorFeb 23, 2012
@Pickledsoul,
Democratic legislative initiatives and their campaign rhetoric undermine your theory that Democrat's are "equally" corrupt and crazy.
treehugger87Feb 23, 2012
I don't believe that the U.S. should be run by a single political party.
That's why it's so important for "conservatives" to start behaving and governing rationally.
When Republicans exhibit such extreme behavior they only prove themselves to be unfit. Rather than making baboons out of themselves, they should work to find rational middle ground. Obama has demonstrated over and over again that he is more than willing to meet them halfway.
Your comment only proves to demonstrate this. eraptor isn't asking Republicans to go away, he/she is asking them to behave rationally.
bille3Feb 23, 2012
Yeah, and they always choose the communist party.
eraptorFeb 23, 2012
@arpad,
I'm not advocating for a single, political party so don't waste our time with your straw man accusation.
It should be noted we already have one pro-corporate political constituency in ALL 3 branches of government. Conservatives simply represent the MOST radical pro-corporate element of it.
Conservative relevance to our society has diminished by THEIR hand, not mine. It's a shame that truth is lost on you along with the illusion that Conservatives represent the majority of Americans in ANY capacity.
For future reference, a genuine multi-party political system would be one that does NOT uniformly serve corporate/top 1% interests ALONE.
clitniblr036Feb 23, 2012
I agree with the "pay for performance" concept. But I don't think Conservatives/Republicans should be excluded from government.
Look, I don't agree with what the current crop of Conservatives/Republicans are doing, but that doesn't mean they don't have a right to be heard.
I would rather we could get back to having members from whatever area of the political spectrum being able to sit down and hash out a solution to a particular set of problems through negotiation and compromise rather than close ranks and not even try to meet anyone half way.
eraptorFeb 23, 2012
I don't oppose the expression of ANYONE'S views, I oppose the forced imposition of deeply flawed public policies with LONG track records of failure. This is particularly true of economic and fiscal policies because the wide ranging consequences of broken ideas inflicts far too much pain on the innocent/country.
Compromise for the sake of compromise only works when the best of both sides, not the worst, emerges from it. Unfortunately, we keep seeing the worst that Conservative ideology offers. Conservative extremists dig in their heels to the point it endangers our country's fiscal health while Democrat's capitulate to their demands in the name of political expediency and refuse to fight for the correct public policies out of political self-preservation alone.
ghengiskhan1Feb 23, 2012
Half of all Americans do not pay federal income tax. Talk about your loopholes!
We must end all loopholes. No earned income credits (loophole). No mortgage interest deductions (loophole). No medical expenses writeoffs (loophole).
And the worst loophole of all is the loophole that prevents half of Americans from paying their fair share. Make EVERYONE pay their fair share, not just half of the country.
Of course youll disagree with me because you probably dont pay federal income tax and this would hurt you. But you dont mind when taxes go up on everyone else. Especially if that money gets funneled back to you.
If I stick and gun in your face and tell you to give me your money that is robbery.
If the government sticks a gun in my face, tells me to give them my money and then gives that money to you its called social justice.
eraptorFeb 23, 2012
While you are technically correct, those people don't pay taxes because they're deadbeats. They don't meet the taxable income minimums required to create a tax obligation. While you may enjoy kicking people when they're down, I don't for the simple reason that impoverishing people FURTHER will NOT solve this country's fiscal challenges. Do you REALLY think these people prefer poverty to having sufficient income for a tax obligation?
The solution to the problem you cite requires the country to abandon the stupidity of Free Trade and begin creating decent paying jobs in the U.S. AGAIN. Once that occurs, most of those incomes will rise and, once again, create widespread taxable income without the need to IMPOVERISH them further. Think of it as a blood transfusion for an accident victim who has lost most of it. Would you consider draining them of blood to solve their low blood supply challenges too? The fiscal approach you favor defies common sense.
Narcississm is clouding your economic/fiscal judgment, Doc. I certainly hope you're not practicing at a medical facility which accepts Medicare patients. If you are, your tax position would amount to self-destructive rhetoric since it would gut your employer's revenue/income.
If you want to criticize someone for being a tax deadbeat, aim your rhetorical "guns" at people like Mitt Romney and many Wall Street bankers/hedge fund managers who pay less in taxes as a percentage of their income than MOST Americans. Now, THERE is some low-hanging fruit for your righteous indignation.
ghengiskhan1Feb 23, 2012
"If you want to criticize someone for being a tax deadbeat, aim your rhetorical "guns" at people like Mitt Romney and many Wall Street bankers/hedge fund managers who pay less in taxes as a percentage of their income than MOST Americans."
That is mathmatically impossible since half the country doesnt pay any federal income tax.
You are calling half the country deadbeats (not something I disagree with).
I think plenty of people that live on government assistance and do not pay taxes are perfectly happy with their standard of living. What is not to like? Free food, housing supplimentation, free health care and often times free transportation. Being poor in America is better than being middle class anywhere else in the world. They only appear poor next to rich Americans. Poor Americans have cell phones, cable TV and plenty of money for booze, drugs and smokes. They are destroying their host because those host is running out of money to support them.
asfinktersezwutFeb 23, 2012
"I think plenty of people that live on government assistance and do not pay taxes are perfectly happy with their standard of living. What is not to like?"
As someone who has lived through a period in my life where I was forced into living off the welfare system for a time due to circumstances beyond my control I would like to tell you nice and clearly the following: You are an ass-h**e who has no clue just wtf you are talking about. You know nothing - and most likely care nothing - about the pain and the struggles of people trapped in these conditions.
They do not only "appear poor next to rich Americans" - their lives are a constant struggle to pay bills and get fed or educated while being trapped in a system that makes it very difficult to better themselves. I was fortunate enough to "get a hand up" many years ago and lift myself out of poverty, finish my degree and go on to own businesses in 3 countries with hundreds of employees. I spend a considerable amount of my time, money and energy paying it forward to help others going through what I suffered while jerks like you sit back and blame the victims in a self-righteous orgy of ignorance and bile.
People like you make me sick.
ghengiskhan1Feb 23, 2012
Good for you. You, clearly, do not fit the description I gave for the typcial, chronic welfare recipient. You hated being poor and did something about it. That is how poverty is supposed to work. It is supposed to motivate you to work harder. Hunger works to motivate you to find food. Weird, I know.
However, there are more than plenty of welfare recipients that do not share your motivation and they remain on welfare forever. They teach their kids how to use the welfare system and they then become chronic welfare recipients.
If every welfare recipient were like you we probably wouldnt need much welfare would we?
So, thank you for proving my point even though you didnt intend to do that. :)
(By the way, I grew up poor, hated being poor, went to college, worked my ass off and now I own my own business too!)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorFeb 24, 2012
Trust me when I tell you that I oppose social deadbeats WHEREVER they exist. Entitlement mindsets and laziness are NOT limited to the poor contrary to what some Americans mistakenly believe. I've opposed and confronted social hustlers and deadbeats throughout my career. But, that's not the source of problem/solution we're discussing here.
Most of the Americans you're criticizing have had their economic/income opportunities taken from them by business/government "leaders" who pursued self-destructive economic policies. They did NOTHING wrong and they don't deserve the economic crimes perpetrated against them. Culpability for their financial circumstances rests with those "leaders", NOT the people you are criticizing (at least not the majority of them). How do I know this? I've been practicing finance/economics/tax compliance for close to 3 decades and I've seen the economic/financial data up close and personal. I've even worked with some of the key players RESPONSIBLE for our current economic/fiscal predicament. I warned some of them it would happen but they blew off those warnings out of "IBG/YBG", blind greed and mistaken ideological beliefs.
I commend your rise from poverty, but none of us should forget the "helping hands" we got throughout our lives or the social ladder which made our ascent out of poverty possible. At the very least, we owe it to this country to make sure that those who come behind us get the same chances in life we did. I don't begrudge anyone their success in life as long as they earned it with honesty, hard work and the highest ethical/moral standards.
On the other hand, I take great exception to white collar criminals/weasels solely because their financial "success" comes from dishonesty, laziness/short cuts, and the lowest ethical/moral standards imaginable. More often than not, their behavior comes at an enormous cost to society at large.
My intolerance for this behavior comes from years of witnessing, confronting/prosecuting and repairing a variety of their crimes in the business world. I suppose it would be similar to the same aversion a conscientious pulmonary specialist feels every time they see a smoker lighting up in a crowd of people.
eraptorFeb 23, 2012
You're relying on a false ideological argument without truly understanding the economic/financial theories behind our nations tax policies.
Tax rates are based upon one's ABILITY to pay them, not whether they are actually paying taxes. If the people I cited were earning the same low incomes as though who aren't paying taxes, they would ALSO not have a tax liability. You act as though the country is "picking on" or favoring people for tax treatment when it ISN'T.
Have you ever lived on government assistance? NO, then be VERY careful about criticizing those who have no other choice but to rely on it. THEY didn't decide to destroy their economic opportunities, THAT decision was made for them by business/government
"leaders". Trust me, as someone who routinely speaks with people from every element of the socio-economic spectrum, the VAST majority of people in our society PREFER self-reliance over government assistance. Tragically, they've had their economic legs ripped out from under them by narcississtic, incompetent and corrupt "leaders" under the guise of deeply flawed ideology.
You need to know that government welfare as you understand it, was gutted during the Clinton years. It no longer exists. The only thing left behind is food stamps (which prevents starvation), public housing (which no one would "choose" to live in) and unemployment (which ends before most people have a chance to find decent employment opportunities in this market). NONE of this is a substitute for middle class living by ANY stretch of imagination. As for our "poor" being the equivalent of the middle class in foreign countries. That's a false comparison. Quality of life is based upon cost of living, NOT geographic location. Make no mistake...U.S. poverty EQUALS foreign poverty based upon standard of living.
I don't condone poor financial skills and I can assure you that there is AS much of that among rich people as there is among the poor. I've seen millionaires/billionaires who were FAR worse at managing their money than the poor you're attacking. Having wealth does NOT make someone a good money manager. I've witnessed as much as a financial professional over 25+ years of experience. Professional confidence prevents me from going into the nasty details.
ghengiskhan1Feb 23, 2012
My scientific back ground and firm "faith" in logic and reason cause me to see the horrific flaw in reinforcing negative behaviors through the tax code and welfare system.
If more people were allowed to fail (and sometimes that failure would be death) then fewer people would actually fail.
Humans have been thriving and advancing for hundreds of thousands of years without social engineering or safety nets. I view these "advances" as actual deteriments to human progress.
As with any other species on this planet, we will only progress as far and as fast as our weakest memebers. Conversely, we will advance faster and further if we allow mother nature to only allow the fittest to survive.
We have temporarily suspended the laws of nature and allowed way too many non viable humans to survive and reproduce. When those laws are enforced, and they will be, we will all suffer greatly.
Unless you believe God loves every human on the planet and has some kind of divine plan to rescue us.
eraptorFeb 24, 2012
I see where you're headed with that Darwinian social theory, but let's apply that theory to your scientific background.
Take a Diabetic for instance. As a natural consequence (i.e., genetics or illness), their body is incapable of producing sufficient insulin to sustain life for long. As a medical professional, one would face two options...a) they could choose to treat that patient by giving them insulin or b) they could choose to do nothing (Hippocratic Oath aside).
If one chose to forego treatment (i.e., injecting insulin) that patient would surely die in time as their body naturally broke down from it's inability to process sugar. However, if one choose to treat that patient then they would help that patient live a fruitful, productive life for the foreseeable future.
Now, you're probably wondering why I chose this particular example. The answer is that it serves as an appropriate metaphor for the discussion we're having...what do do with those who aren't able to pay their taxes.
As a society we face two choices with the less fortunate in our society...(a) we could abandon them upon which their circumstances would worsen significantly (along with our crime rates), OR we could lend them a helping hand to enable them to lead a fruitful, productive AND self-reliant life. Unfortunately, we can't achieve the latter option WITHOUT creating genuine economic opportunities in the country and income levels which ENABLE self-reliance. This is something THEY can't do alone.
By the way, that diabetic was the metaphorical "poor" and that "insulin" is economic opprtunity/money. We shouldn't attack the poor for their lack of economic opportunity any more than we should attack diabetics for their inability to produce insulin. Instead, we should give BOTH groups a helping hand (where possible) so they can be more self-reliant. Yanking that help out from under them is simply cruel.
u2canfailFeb 27, 2012
Median income is under $27,000, or 1/2 are living in poverty. Seems right they pay no taxes.
damian75Feb 23, 2012
This is a very smart approach. It presents as pro business but if you are really closing the loopholes the businesses will actually be made to pay their proper taxes generating more revenue.
usarugulaFeb 23, 2012
While promoting jobs in America.
DiggPiggletFeb 23, 2012
No, it will never make it through congress. They've been sitting on this plan for a long time and now they whip it out because of Romneys tax plan. Simple election politics here.
The plan won't work either.
http://www.businessinsider.com/geithner-should-resign-over-obamas-corporate-tax-plan-2012-2Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
treehugger87Feb 23, 2012
It might never make it through Congress, but that doesn't mean it's a bad plan.
How could closing loopholes be a bad thing? How can setting a minimum tax on foreign companies operating within the United States be a bad thing?
What your article completely ignores is that while times are hard for ordinary Americans, they are booming for the wealthy and the corporations. Profits are up, the economy is growing, sales are up and the stock market is making everyone money (everyone who has enough money to invest in the stock market, that is). It is clearly time for those who are enjoying the benefits of this steadily growing economy to start helping pay back for the debt we accumulated during the lean times in 2008-2009.
eraptorFeb 23, 2012
I've seen Romney's tax plan and it's nothing but the SAME Randian joke Conservatives have been hawking for the past 30 years. We ALREADY know that "plan" won't work because we've witnessed it's consequences firsthand (i.e., wealth redistribution FROM the midle class TO the top 1%).
I looked at your citation, but the businessinsider missed a MAJOR element with their criticism. It is illogical to set corporate tax rates based PURELY on what other countries charge.
Why? Because most of the countries compared do NOT have the SAME infrastructure REQUIREMENTS as the U.S. (emerging nations NEVER do) and many of them obtain their revenue by OTHER means. For example, China mandates a MAJOR ownership stake from any company which wants to do business in their country ALONG with intellectual property transfers. What's the fiscal significance? What difference does it make if China, India, or any other country charge a lower corporate tax rate when they ALSO derive a DIRECT "tax" of about 50% through their ownership stake/share of profits and ill-gotten technology transfers (it's not as if they've spent $millions/$billions developing that technology...consider the economic advantages that provides).
Try adding that "partnership" share of income to foreign corporate tax rates. Financially speaking, you'll find it EXCEEDS effective U.S. corporate tax rates by a WIDE margin. Tragically, Obama has bought into the Conservative narrative on taxes (hawked by some in his Administration...**cough** TimmAAY **cough**) and he's making horrible economic/fiscal decisions as a consequence.
China spends 9% of it's GDP on infrastructure investment while the U.S. spends less than 2% (and dropping thanks to Conservative efforts) of it's GDP on infrastructure. Are we to assume China draws that money out of "thin air"? HARDLY!
Conservative "tunnel vision" makes them political "loose cannons" this country can't afford to keep in office. Make no mistake...low tax policies are costing this country FAR more than we can afford.
eraptorFeb 23, 2012
I recently heard a comment that Obama's proposed corporate tax changes are "revenue neutral". If true, this is a MAJOR problem. The country needs MORE revenue in order to reduce it's debt load. It does not need to continue giving corporations the SAME revenue break they've been enjoying over the past 30 YEARS.
DemonoirFeb 23, 2012
he succumbed too.
well at least he closed the loopholes.
gkiltzFeb 23, 2012
About time!!!
captswuitsFeb 23, 2012
Not to sound like a debbie downer, but its amazing what is being done around election time.
chilidogsFeb 23, 2012
http://whatthef**khasobamadonesofar.com/
captswuitsFeb 23, 2012
One, I am not against Obama. Two, I know he has done a good bit, but do you have a like for all the negative things too? Double edged sword.
kasha34Feb 23, 2012
## Pissed away $800 billion on "stimulus" that did not "stimulate."
## Crammed through a job-killer budget-buster Obamacare bill. It's so bad he had to give exemptions to 1,000 organizations already. Mostly unions.
Just these two cancel out everything else a thousand times over.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
chilidogsFeb 23, 2012
There are no "exemptions" There are one year waivers granted to employers who already provide insurance that does not meet all of the standards.
kasha34Feb 23, 2012
And the employer said it was too expensive to meet the standards. They'd have to either lay off employees. Or drop coverage altogether. And Obamacare would be blamed.
So a one year exemption gets us past...Oh! The election!
chilidogsFeb 24, 2012
How old is healthcare reform? Oh right, not one year.
eraptorFeb 23, 2012
Psst...you forgot to mention the multi-TRILLION dollar money pit Dubya and Conservatives dug before Obama was elected and which continues to add to our growing debt problems.
You can't credibly blame Obama for the economic/fiscal ramifications of public policies Conservatives put in place before he was elected and fight "tooth and nail" to keep.
kasha34Feb 23, 2012
I agree that we spent too much under George W.
But it's a fact that Obama has added more debt in three years than Bush did in eight.
And that's before Obamacare really hits in 2014.
eraptorFeb 24, 2012
@Kasha,
Let's take a good look at where the money (aka spending) has gone during the Obama years:
http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-bush-policies-deficits-2010-6
Whoops! Nothing like a little ugly truth to undermine baseless accusations, huh? Dubya's "policies" are STILL burying us in debt.
As for the impact of healthcare reform, you haven't seen eye-popping healthcare costs yet but we WILL if Conservatives succeed in undermining Obama's healthcare initiative. The healthcare industry has become a VERY costly loose cannon which has not only undermined our economy, but now threatens our country's solvency too. Privatized healthcare is rapidly becoming economically obsolete since most of the country can't afford it.
chilidogsFeb 23, 2012
One, nobody said that you are against anything. Two, you need to specify which negative things you are talking about before I can tell you if I "have a like" for them or not.
treehugger87Feb 23, 2012
Not so sound like a nutsack-licking Obama worshipper, but it's amazing that anybody thinks that this is a bad proposal
ghengiskhan1Feb 23, 2012
Half of Americans do not pay federal income tax. Talk about loopholes!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105131/HALF-Americans-dont-pay-income-tax-despite-crippling-government-debt.html
End all loopholes! Make EVERYONE pay their fair share!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ncmusicFeb 23, 2012
But President Santorum wants to increase that number by increasing the child income tax credit, and earned income tax credit.
ghengiskhan1Feb 23, 2012
Santorum is a moron and should not be allowed to be president.
laurahoustonFeb 23, 2012
daily mail./snicker at paid media-.ok no more deducations for your children on irs.
ghengiskhan1Feb 23, 2012
How about the New York Times?
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/who-doesnt-pay-federal-income-taxes-legally/
And I quote: "During the 1990s, about 24 percent of filers had no income tax liability, but this number took a big jump during the George W. Bush administration as Republicans added a large child credit to the tax code. The percentage of filers with no income tax liability rose to 36.3 percent in 2008, from 25.2 percent in 2000.
According to new data from the Tax Policy Center, this year 46.4 percent of tax filers will have no federal income tax liability. The following table presents the data."
You can thank the GOP for drastically reducing the number of tax payers in the pool. You can also thank the GOP for royally f@#king up the economy. You can thank Obama for continuing the same stupid GOP policies that got us here in the first place.
countess666Feb 23, 2012
that bottom half also has just a few percent of the total income of the country, and its less and less every year.
and they pay PLENTY of other taxes.
they are paying their fair share. its just not very large.
chassupFeb 23, 2012
Obama's shell game-- cut rates from 35% to 28%-- so far good. Then remove many deductions-- still not bad. But the effective rate paid is now 44%...hmmm, still punishes successful companies and pushes investments out of the United States.
He's got the right idea, but just can't do it the right way.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
laurahoustonFeb 23, 2012
make another political tax free charity to shelter your company from income and state taxes
eraptorFeb 23, 2012
Psst...effective corporate tax rates are closer to ZERO than 44%. Effective tax rates (i.e., what they ACTUALLY pay) is NOT the same thing as stautory tax rates (i.e., what they SHOULD pay).
chassupFeb 23, 2012
Psst, I know what it means. You don't really think Obama is actually planning to lower taxes, do you?
eraptorFeb 23, 2012
Psst...He's ALREADY lowered taxes.
countess666Feb 23, 2012
no, he want to make them simpler and fairer, and not reward companies for shipping some of their stuff overseas just to avoid taxation here.
everyone know that a near 0% effective tax rate isn't the way to go, so anything that does away with that can be called a tax increase. it'll save billions in account fee's and government bureaucratise though.
stevanoskiFeb 24, 2012
You know it and so do they.
jpurdyFeb 23, 2012
Good to see something positive, and rational supporting comments. The US has the highest corporate taxes of any industrialized nation other than Japan. That's absurd.
Every consumer, everyone who has a job with a corporation, anyone with a 401k or other investments in stocks or bonds, benefits from healthy profitable corporations. Lower the overall tax rates; eliminate loopholes that benefit congressional campaign contributors, lobbyists and social engineering; and we'll all be better off.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
chilidogsFeb 23, 2012
What is the effective corporate tax rate?
jpurdyFeb 23, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/business/economy/03rates.html
treehugger87Feb 23, 2012
I think that "U.S. Business Has High Tax Rates but Pays Less" was exactly chilidogs point. The rates may be higher, but what corporations pay is considerably less than that. Indeed, that is *exactly* the point of Obama's plan - cut the loopholes that allow giant multinational corporations to set up shop here and pay no taxes at all.
jpurdyFeb 23, 2012
"Corporate taxes" should be "corporate tax rates", my mistake. As someone recently pointed out, any corporation that pays taxes at the highest tax rate has really stupid accountants. Only small companies that can't afford good accountants or are above questionable tax avoidance accounting pay the highest tax rates.
martin92003Feb 24, 2012
But the conservatives will still vote against it..no body can do anything right except a conservative...or so they would say.
markglFeb 24, 2012
Yeah Obama is such a champion of cutting taxes right. What are you a conservative?
markglFeb 23, 2012
An administration official promised the plan would not “add a dime to the deficit,” which would mean that some companies could benefit from the changes while others would find themselves paying for them, Wall St. Cheat Sheet reports.
In fact, many businesses that slip through loopholes or enjoy subsidies and pay an effective tax rate that is substantially less than the 35 percent corporate tax could end up paying more under the president’s plan.
It’s worth noting that reducing the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent would reduce tax revenues by about $700 billion over the next decade, according to an estimate prepared in October by the Joint Committee on Taxation.
“That means lawmakers would have to find about $70 billion a year in tax increases to keep the package from adding to the budget deficit [emphasis added],” the AP reports.
Well, that’s — um — great news. What tax increases are we talking about here?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
countess666Feb 23, 2012
if your company now pay close to 0% taxes now, then yet its fare you are going to pay more.
markglFeb 23, 2012
Here's a loophole, half of American's don't pay taxes. The other half needs to step up and start contributing to this mess like we do.
ncmusicFeb 23, 2012
"half of American's don't pay taxes" Citation needed
markglFeb 23, 2012
I'm not Wikipedia. Look it up yourself.
But since you're lazy here you go.
http://digg.com/news/politics/half_of_americans_don_t_pay_income_tax_despite_crippling_government_debtComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ncmusicFeb 23, 2012
Maybe you should specify income taxes if that's what you mean.
markglFeb 24, 2012
It's what everyone always refers to. You guys I swear.
ncmusicFeb 24, 2012
Doesn't make it correct.
markglFeb 24, 2012
Want a wahmburger with those french cries.
chilidogsFeb 23, 2012
That doesn't say what you claim that it does. Are you stupid or lying?
laurahoustonFeb 23, 2012
have the states cut property taxes from homeowners
laurahoustonFeb 23, 2012
half of americans don't make the salary in the first place to federal income tax-pay .
although all those americans do pay quite a bit of taxes on everything they consume and the very homes they live in.
markglFeb 24, 2012
If they can't pay income tax I'm pretty sure they don't own homes either so they're not paying jack squat.
eraptorFeb 23, 2012
@markgl,
So what? If conservatives want them to pay taxes...RAISE THEIR INCOMES and STOP stonewalling realistic efforts in Congress to create economic opportunities for them!
markglFeb 24, 2012
Raise their incomes. Mine too? Get real.
eraptorFeb 24, 2012
If you fall into the lower/middle class, that would indeed include you too.
If not, you've already earned more than your fair share of the nation's income.
fyi - I fall into this latter category and I'm happy to forego some future earnings growth to get this economy operating more effectively. Why? Because it creates GREATER economic opportunities for ALL, not FEWER as we see today. Once the economy is fully restored, I'd be able to recoup my upfront "investment". Of course, that requires being a strategic long-term thinker who understands the value of short-term sacrifice.
markglFeb 24, 2012
Your thoughts on how to fix things boggle me. Pay them more so they get taxed more. That's complete opposite of the way this country is to be run.
eraptorFeb 24, 2012
Of course my ideas boggle you, they're founded on decades of solid, common sense economic/financial practices that WORK. Since Conservatives don't adhere to those practices, they fail to understand them and in the process keep FAILING themselves and the nation. It's counter-intuitive.
It's how life works. Consider this metaphor...let's say, for instance, your air supply is slowly squeezed off. In time, your respiratory function would begin to fail and your body would eventually die. However, if oxygen was reintroduced soon enough, your body would restore it's normal healthy function.
The same holds true when choking off economic oxygen (i.e., money) from ANYONE (i.e., lower/middle class taxpayers) or anything (i.e., government...hence, "starving the beast").
As for your assumption that this theory runs contrary to how our country functions. You couldn't be MORE wrong. The U.S. economy once THRIVED when economic resources were more fairly divided and distributed. Then, subsequently, began to fail when those same economic resources became TOO concentrated.
It's common sense and an economic history you appear to be missing. For your sake, get a clue.
markglFeb 24, 2012
The practice of paying people more money just because? Don't think so. I can't go back and forth with you anymore because you don't understand anything.
eraptorFeb 24, 2012
Holy Crap! Could you be any MORE clueless about how business/economics works or what I'm saying? It sure as Hell doesn't appear so.
Employment ALWAYS creates FAR more economic value for the business owner than it it costs them. If it didn't, NO business would survive..."genius". I'm not suggesting business owners run themselves out of business, simply that they begin to contribute to /invest in the market/economy which makes their profits POSSIBLE. If that requires shaving a smidge off their profit margins in the short run, it's an investment that WILL pay off in time as the market recovers from the resulting INCREASE in consumer demand (aka the REAL REASON corporate CEO's give for NOT hiring/investing in the U.S.).
Our market/economy was never designed to be a charity to employees OR employers. Pull the Randian stick out of your a**!! Absent consumer demand growth, your economic dreams and "investments" WILL eventually collapse, leaving you penniless, TOO.
Are you also going to accuse yourself of being a shiftless, welfare grubbing loser when that day arrives?
countess666Feb 23, 2012
its LESS then half (47%), and they dont pay FEDERAL INCOME TAXES. they pay PLENTY of other taxes, including federal taxes, but also state and local taxes.
man i thought we had this one nipped in the bud months ago. seems some of you still haven't gotten the message.
markglFeb 24, 2012
Says who? It's always been a problem. You're insane to think it's not a problem.
asfinktersezwutFeb 23, 2012
Without context, your point is almost entirely meaningless despite the fact that you love to spam it here endlessly.
1/2 of Americans pay no taxes for 2 very different reasons:
Some with very high incomes are able to take advantage of amazing loopholes and foreign tax-havens and virtually (or even completely) eliminate their tax burden.
Some at the other end of the scale have incomes which are so low that they cannot even feed their families and thus, their tax burdens remain nil.
Are you criticizing those who cannot afford to eat or those who avoid their fair share?
markglFeb 24, 2012
Yeah, everyone has to contribute. And I really don't see a bunch of skinny dying people on the streets so you thing about starving people is just a bunch of crap.
kcast985Feb 23, 2012
funny how he announces this the same day Romney unveils his tax plan. Maybe he is starting to realize that tax breaks actually help the economy. It's too late now the damage has already been done on the economyComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
treehugger87Feb 23, 2012
"It's too late now the damage has already been done on the economy". Yeah, from 2001 to 2009.
kcast985Feb 23, 2012
lmao liberal policies led to the housing collapse
countess666Feb 23, 2012
which would have been near instantly fixed by TARP, had republicans not voted to repeal glass steagal, which allowed the value of those sub-prime mortgages to be increased beyond all reasonable measure.
the sub-prime was just the trigger, and it could have been anything, and sort of economic problem.
the real problem that caused this recession was unregulated derivatives, allowed by the repeal of glass steal.
ka5p3rFeb 23, 2012
oboma will be out of office long before this idea ever happens.
treehugger87Feb 23, 2012
Republicans plan to have a large enough minority to continue obstructing this and all of the Obama's other plans for 5 more years? Good luck with that.
markoloFeb 24, 2012
Teclast A10T Tablet PC
http://www.openbluebox.com/teclast-a10t-tablet-pc-9-7-inch-android-2-3-8gb-1g-ram-hdmi-2160p-aluminum-shell-camera.html
laurahoustonFeb 23, 2012
I have not seen any irs reports on large businesses (has anyone?) except one that went to court and had to show their income tax report.
They made millions and paid FIVE dollars in income tax They also under valued their product at 10 cents (to avoid export tax???) had illegals working there,and then sell their product for 40 dollars once it's OUT of America.
The President also needs to examine export taxes paid as fraudsters are dodging those taxes aswell.
Then there is the 'trick' cheneny set-up where product is shipped to Dubai tax free? something shady going on there.
All these corporations have been stealing from America for so long...they should be cut off the profit tit already!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
laurahoustonFeb 23, 2012
good move, now multi-task them more Mr. President they don't have enough on their plates to keep them from their dubai vacation resorts.
mrpitherFeb 23, 2012
This is how you buy votes.
usarugulaFeb 23, 2012
So you're coming out for higher taxes?
kasha34Feb 23, 2012
It will be lower taxes for his favored businesses...
And higher taxes for his non favored businesses.
usarugulaFeb 23, 2012
Favorite businesses....you mean like manufacturers that innovate? And develop and employ skilled labor?
kasha34Feb 23, 2012
No, I mean what you lefty/libs call "green" industries.
What we call black-holes-for-taxpayer-dollars. Or Friends-of-Obama-payoffs.
usarugulaFeb 23, 2012
Hmm. I don't see that in the article. I only see: "President Obama asked Congress on Wednesday to scrub the corporate tax code of dozens of loopholes and subsidies to reduce the top rate to 28 percent, from 35 percent, while giving preferences to manufacturers that would set their maximum effective rate at 25 percent."
That aside, which green industries do you stand against?
Also, I'm a left-leaning moderate.
kasha34Feb 23, 2012
I didn't see it in the article. But it will be in the bill, if it gets that far. That's how he rolls. And/or some other industry due from payback. Maybe unions, as he did with GM and Chrysler.
Which green industries am I against?
I am against virtually ALL govt subsidy of business.
And I'm not a AGW believer.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
usarugulaFeb 23, 2012
What does believing or not believing in climate change have to do with developing cleaner technology? Is clean air and water not healthier for you?
kasha34Feb 23, 2012
At the current time, "green" means global warming.
Green means no carbon emissions. Has nothing to do with what we used to call pollution. Carbon monoxide, poisons, etc. As you know.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Feb 23, 2012
"I didn't see it in the article."
it's in the VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH.
which part of the article did you see, the title? but hey, dont let that stop you from being against it. it's got "Obama introduces plan.." in it, doesnt it?
asfinktersezwutFeb 24, 2012
"Has nothing to do with what we used to call pollution. Carbon monoxide, poisons, etc. As you know."
Lol... WTF? You never been to New York or LA in the summertime? It's not near as bad as it was in the past - thanks to those regulations and agencies you right-wing nutjobs want to axe, but more efficient, less polluting vehicles would be absolutely amazing for most moderate to large American cities.
kasha34Feb 24, 2012
Of course. LA air is mostly cleaned up. Likewise NYC.
And the Hudson River that was terrible in the seventies is swimable now.
All from regs back two or three decades old.
Since then, it's gone wild. Now regulations are chasing carbon dioxide -- the phony pollutant.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kasha34Feb 23, 2012
"Here is Obama’s own Jobs Council:
While most other developed nations have adopted territorial systems that exempt most or all foreign income from taxes when they are repatriated, the U.S. subjects all worldwide earnings to the corporate income tax when they are brought home to the U.S. "
http://www.businessinsider.com/geithner-should-resign-over-obamas-corporate-tax-plan-2012-2
The NY Times should be ashamed.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
usarugulaFeb 23, 2012
"Most other developed nations" are smaller. Texas is almost twice the size of Germany. The US is about twice the size of Europe. Most other countries fewer roads, fewer people and smaller infrastructure to service. When you discuss international commerce in "Most other developed nations", you are essentially discussing the equivalent of interstate commerce in the US.
kasha34Feb 23, 2012
Texas is almost twice the size of Germany? In acres. How about in population? That's what matters.
Anyway, I disagree. It's wrong to tax a corporation on profits they made somewhere else (and were taxed on somewhere else)
And worse than wrong....it's counterproductive.
To my eyes, it's taxed three times then. Once in the foreign land. Then when the profit dollar hits the USA. Then a third time when that profit dollar reaches the stockholder.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
usarugulaFeb 23, 2012
"Texas is almost twice the size of Germany? In acres. How about in population? That's what matters."
So an interstate across Texas is twice the length of a road across Germany, but has a smaller population to subsidize it. Once again, you are making an argument for higher US taxes.
kasha34Feb 23, 2012
To your kind, EVERYTHING is an argument for higher US taxes.
kingnovaFeb 23, 2012
lmao. When you can't face the facts, throw out an ad hom.
usarugulaFeb 23, 2012
kasha34, a math problem for you:
Group A contains 5 people who need a single road costing $1 million.
Group B contains 10 people who need a single road costing $1 million.
Individually, each member of which group will pay more to get their road?
FrankLuskaFeb 23, 2012
How very true.
FrankLuskaFeb 23, 2012
@kingnova, what facts, that for the last 30 years we have wasted money policing the world, saving swap rats for Pelosi and all the other BS giveaways, sent jobs overseas for the rich to get richer, wasted billions upon billions for advanced military, grants out the ying yang for assault vehicles for micro towns, etc.. all adding up to Trillions of dollars in waste, while purposely declining funds for infrastructure, education and the welfare of citizens in American.
Ya both parties are great.
kasha34Feb 23, 2012
@kingnova
That's not an ad hom. If I said he was stupid or ugly or had low standards of personal grooming, that would be ad hom.
@usarugula
Group B needs more road. Wider. More lanes. And will need more maintenance.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kasha34Feb 23, 2012
They're already paying tax in the foreign country where the profit was made. And the stockholders will pay tax on their share of the profit. And Obama wants them to pay again.
Geez.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
salbatrossFeb 23, 2012
You pay the price for the chance to make higher profits. Everything in business costs something; quit trying to make it sound like it's an injustice.
FrankLuskaFeb 23, 2012
The injustice is a sole-proprietorship paying normal taxes while GE pays none, but to say that a company who already paid taxes overseas has to pay them again here is just pure greed. And this is the major reason corporations don't want to bring the money back, money that could otherwise be added to our economy, to add jobs and produce value added products, and maybe if were lucky, export them.
The real problems are still not being deal with, just avoided, stop spending so much damn money, stop wasting money, stop printing money and balance the budget.
Novel concepts lost to the elites.
kasha34Feb 23, 2012
They need the money to buy votes.
The Democrats have it now so almost half of American workers pay zero income taxes.
ncmusicFeb 23, 2012
And President Santorum wants to increase that number by tripling the child income tax credit!
bille3Feb 22, 2012
His voters in OWS will not take this very well....
usarugulaFeb 23, 2012
Feel free to explain. I'm guessing the answer will include a lot of right wing myths about Occupy Wall Street.
markglFeb 23, 2012
So I guess all the audio and video we've seen of OWS is fake. When they destroy private and public property and do nothing all day.
bille3Feb 23, 2012
Giving big business a tax break instead increasing their taxes will be applauded by OWS???