Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The US Corp tax rate is 39.2%...Now that is a raw number. Government itself offers tax incentives and breaks to companies as incentives to do certain things. However, the raw number is the focus. If the tax rate were lower, the incentives and breaks would disappear and that would attract new business, expand existing business and at the end of the day, that is good for job creation and the overall economy.No, we are talking about applying taxes to business as they are now applied but at a 9% rate rather than the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. (And that is only a fraction of a percentage below the highest corporate tax rate in the world.)
you really like that talking point, don't you? Wouldn't it be nice if you could add the facts regarding the rate that is actually paid by US corporations. But...then it wouldn't be as much fun.
How anyone could object to that is a mystery.
corp tax rate link..........U.S. to have Highest Corporate Tax Rate in the World
To be fair...here is a link from a liberal website....
The claim of 55% of all companies pay no tax comes with no data to support that claim. I will stipulate that effective rates are probably lower but I will require stipulation that those nations who rates are lower also offer breaks and incentives. The possibility of this being inaccurate is remote.
That assumes that ALL items would be taxable.'Scuse me?....A national sales tax would be applied with no such intent.
That tax would insure that pruchases and not earnings would be taxed. I cannot think of anything more equitable than that.
People of means buy more goods. They buy more expensive goods. Therefore they would bear a heavier burden than their less well off counterparts.
I think that you are confused.
1: Taxing income has a preferred outcome to taxing expenditure.
2: By far and away, people of lesser means are more likely to spend a larger share of their earnings than do wealthier folks. They (we), overall, account for the largest share of expenditure in the marketplace.
3: When looking at burden cast by tax and regulation, 'heavy' should represent proportions of overall strength... like how a basketball is heavy for a toddler, not for an adult.
4: If this is the US, how would our constitution accommodate a fed sales tax?
That assumes that ALL items would be taxable.'Scuse me?....A national sales tax would be applied with no such intent.
That tax would insure that pruchases and not earnings would be taxed. I cannot think of anything more equitable than that.
People of means buy more goods. They buy more expensive goods. Therefore they would bear a heavier burden than their less well off counterparts.
I think that you are confused.
1: Taxing income has a preferred outcome to taxing expenditure.
2: By far and away, people of lesser means are more likely to spend a larger share of their earnings than do wealthier folks. They (we), overall, account for the largest share of expenditure in the marketplace.
3: When looking at burden cast by tax and regulation, 'heavy' should represent proportions of overall strength... like how a basketball is heavy for a toddler, not for an adult.
4: If this is the US, how would our constitution accommodate a fed sales tax?
For example, necessities would most likely be tax exempt. In New Jersey for instance clothing, paper goods for school and business, shoes and unprepared foods are all tax exempt.
The federal national sales tax could very likely be modeled in this way.
That pretty much trumps your idea.
One thing is clear, government cannot control an individuals money management or lack thereof. Poor people are poor not only because they earn less, but because they spend unwisely. That cannot be everyone else's problem. As a matter of fact, middle class people who have the availability of credit often fall into this very same trap of spending far more than their means currently allows. That is supposed to be our problem as well?
You're stuck in the paradigm of "10% of 10,000 is more than 10% of 100,000". It isn't
Each person is left with 90% of their money. The next thing we deal with is the "fairness argument". That's when I get a case of ADD.
The fairness argument always, at least from the point of of view of the Lef,t ends up in the realm of punishment of those who are higher earners.
The US Corp tax rate is 39.2%...Now that is a raw number. Government itself offers tax incentives and breaks to companies as incentives to do certain things. However, the raw number is the focus. If the tax rate were lower, the incentives and breaks would disappear and that would attract new business, expand existing business and at the end of the day, that is good for job creation and the overall economy.you really like that talking point, don't you? Wouldn't it be nice if you could add the facts regarding the rate that is actually paid by US corporations. But...then it wouldn't be as much fun.
How anyone could object to that is a mystery.
corp tax rate link..........U.S. to have Highest Corporate Tax Rate in the World
To be fair...here is a link from a liberal website....
The claim of 55% of all companies pay no tax comes with no data to support that claim. I will stipulate that effective rates are probably lower but I will require stipulation that those nations who rates are lower also offer breaks and incentives. The possibility of this being inaccurate is remote.
Not probably......certainly.
The Gap Between Statutory and Real Corporate Tax Rates
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/business/economy/03rates.html
and...especially for foxy........... High Corporate Tax Rate Is Misleading - SmartMoney.com
In just the past two months, at least six countries have announced plans to cut their corporate tax rates: Canada, Hong Kong, Korea, South Africa, Spain and Taiwan. In an interview in the Korea Times, Choi Kyung-hwan, a member of the new Administration's Presidential Transition Committee, said, "The corporate income tax reduction is not a matter of choice, but a matter of life and death for Korea in an increasingly globalized business environment.''
In a refrain that is equally applicable to the U.S., Choi went on to say, "Hong Kong and Singapore, which impose significantly lower corporate taxes than Korea, have further slashed taxes recently to draw more foreign investors. Also, France currently levies a 34.4 percent corporate income tax but plans to reduce the tax to as low as 20 percent. Unless Korea cuts corporate taxes, we will not be able to win over multinational firms."3
The Tax Foundation - U.S. States Lead the World in High Corporate Taxes
That assumes that ALL items would be taxable.'Scuse me?....A national sales tax would be applied with no such intent.
That tax would insure that pruchases and not earnings would be taxed. I cannot think of anything more equitable than that.
People of means buy more goods. They buy more expensive goods. Therefore they would bear a heavier burden than their less well off counterparts.
I think that you are confused.
1: Taxing income has a preferred outcome to taxing expenditure.
2: By far and away, people of lesser means are more likely to spend a larger share of their earnings than do wealthier folks. They (we), overall, account for the largest share of expenditure in the marketplace.
3: When looking at burden cast by tax and regulation, 'heavy' should represent proportions of overall strength... like how a basketball is heavy for a toddler, not for an adult.
4: If this is the US, how would our constitution accommodate a fed sales tax?
For example, necessities would most likely be tax exempt. In New Jersey for instance clothing, paper goods for school and business, shoes and unprepared foods are all tax exempt.
The federal national sales tax could very likely be modeled in this way.
That pretty much trumps your idea.
One thing is clear, government cannot control an individuals money management or lack thereof. Poor people are poor not only because they earn less, but because they spend unwisely. That cannot be everyone else's problem. As a matter of fact, middle class people who have the availability of credit often fall into this very same trap of spending far more than their means currently allows. That is supposed to be our problem as well?
You're stuck in the paradigm of "10% of 10,000 is more than 10% of 100,000". It isn't
Each person is left with 90% of their money. The next thing we deal with is the "fairness argument". That's when I get a case of ADD.
The fairness argument always, at least from the point of of view of the Lef,t ends up in the realm of punishment of those who are higher earners.
Foxy....let me try again. The reason our economy sucks has nothing to do with the statutory corporate tax rate. Your repeating the mantra, complete with the little caveat about our being just a pubic hair behid Japan , in arguing your point is disingenuous.
US corporations are friggin' exploding with profits.
I pointed out earlier that you went off track and were posting nonsense. With that left all doubt out of the equation.That assumes that ALL items would be taxable.I think that you are confused.
1: Taxing income has a preferred outcome to taxing expenditure.
2: By far and away, people of lesser means are more likely to spend a larger share of their earnings than do wealthier folks. They (we), overall, account for the largest share of expenditure in the marketplace.
3: When looking at burden cast by tax and regulation, 'heavy' should represent proportions of overall strength... like how a basketball is heavy for a toddler, not for an adult.
4: If this is the US, how would our constitution accommodate a fed sales tax?
For example, necessities would most likely be tax exempt. In New Jersey for instance clothing, paper goods for school and business, shoes and unprepared foods are all tax exempt.
The federal national sales tax could very likely be modeled in this way.
That pretty much trumps your idea.
One thing is clear, government cannot control an individuals money management or lack thereof. Poor people are poor not only because they earn less, but because they spend unwisely. That cannot be everyone else's problem. As a matter of fact, middle class people who have the availability of credit often fall into this very same trap of spending far more than their means currently allows. That is supposed to be our problem as well?
You're stuck in the paradigm of "10% of 10,000 is more than 10% of 100,000". It isn't
Each person is left with 90% of their money. The next thing we deal with is the "fairness argument". That's when I get a case of ADD.
The fairness argument always, at least from the point of of view of the Lef,t ends up in the realm of punishment of those who are higher earners.
But not ONLY because they spend unwisely? What percentage of their being poor is due to their being financial dummies?
Foxy....let me try again. The reason our economy sucks has nothing to do with the statutory corporate tax rate. Your repeating the mantra, complete with the little caveat about our being just a pubic hair behid Japan , in arguing your point is disingenuous.
US corporations are friggin' exploding with profits.
The statutory corporate tax rates are not all of it, but they are certainly a component of it. Did you read ANY of the links I posted? I have been reading and reading and reading and reading everything I can find on this including leftwing sources and rightwing sources that I trust to have their eye on the ball as well as anybody does. The pro-Obama, pro-statist, pro-political class are all scrambling and spinning like crazy to defend Obama's anti-business and soak-the-rich agenda, and almost nobody else is. That alone should make thinking people back up and consider what is going on here.
Confidence in government and class envy can make people believe funny things. But when I see so many business experts agree that the reason the USA is bleeding jobs like crazy is because the profits are so much better elsewhere, I think we have to look at that. And the corporate tax rate along with regulatory policy and government mandates are all components of that.
I explained that already. What difference does it make? None. Your premise and the rest of the anti-profit pro high tax movement is that other countries provide ZERO tax breaks and incentives. I also stated very clearly that possibility is most likely to be remote.The US Corp tax rate is 39.2%...Now that is a raw number. Government itself offers tax incentives and breaks to companies as incentives to do certain things. However, the raw number is the focus. If the tax rate were lower, the incentives and breaks would disappear and that would attract new business, expand existing business and at the end of the day, that is good for job creation and the overall economy.you really like that talking point, don't you? Wouldn't it be nice if you could add the facts regarding the rate that is actually paid by US corporations. But...then it wouldn't be as much fun.
How anyone could object to that is a mystery.
corp tax rate link..........U.S. to have Highest Corporate Tax Rate in the World
To be fair...here is a link from a liberal website....
The claim of 55% of all companies pay no tax comes with no data to support that claim. I will stipulate that effective rates are probably lower but I will require stipulation that those nations who rates are lower also offer breaks and incentives. The possibility of this being inaccurate is remote.
Not probably......certainly.
The Gap Between Statutory and Real Corporate Tax Rates
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/business/economy/03rates.html
and...especially for foxy........... High Corporate Tax Rate Is Misleading - SmartMoney.com
Foxy....let me try again. The reason our economy sucks has nothing to do with the statutory corporate tax rate. Your repeating the mantra, complete with the little caveat about our being just a pubic hair behid Japan , in arguing your point is disingenuous.
US corporations are friggin' exploding with profits.
The statutory corporate tax rates are not all of it, but they are certainly a component of it. Did you read ANY of the links I posted? I have been reading and reading and reading and reading everything I can find on this including leftwing sources and rightwing sources that I trust to have their eye on the ball as well as anybody does. The pro-Obama, pro-statist, pro-political class are all scrambling and spinning like crazy to defend Obama's anti-business and soak-the-rich agenda, and almost nobody else is. That alone should make thinking people back up and consider what is going on here.
Confidence in government and class envy can make people believe funny things. But when I see so many business experts agree that the reason the USA is bleeding jobs like crazy is because the profits are so much better elsewhere, I think we have to look at that. And the corporate tax rate along with regulatory policy and government mandates are all components of that.
I've already shown that the effective corporate tax rate is not a profit taker. The effective rates in other places are just as high.
Where have the jobs gone? Are they going to places with no government mandates?
What SPECIFIC regulations are a hindrance to business? Of those which are products of the Obama administration?
No they are not. If that were the case, financial markets would be booming.Foxy....let me try again. The reason our economy sucks has nothing to do with the statutory corporate tax rate. Your repeating the mantra, complete with the little caveat about our being just a pubic hair behid Japan , in arguing your point is disingenuous.
US corporations are friggin' exploding with profits.
The statutory corporate tax rates are not all of it, but they are certainly a component of it. Did you read ANY of the links I posted? I have been reading and reading and reading and reading everything I can find on this including leftwing sources and rightwing sources that I trust to have their eye on the ball as well as anybody does. The pro-Obama, pro-statist, pro-political class are all scrambling and spinning like crazy to defend Obama's anti-business and soak-the-rich agenda, and almost nobody else is. That alone should make thinking people back up and consider what is going on here.
Confidence in government and class envy can make people believe funny things. But when I see so many business experts agree that the reason the USA is bleeding jobs like crazy is because the profits are so much better elsewhere, I think we have to look at that. And the corporate tax rate along with regulatory policy and government mandates are all components of that.
I've already shown that the effective corporate tax rate is not a profit taker. The effective rates in other places are just as high.
Where have the jobs gone? Are they going to places with no government mandates?
What SPECIFIC regulations are a hindrance to business? Of those which are products of the Obama administration?
You've shown ONE leftwing source that thinks the tax rates aren't too high. No statist, political class site is going to think the tax rates are high enough, however. I have posted sufficient links to rebutt your source that I won't bother to do so again.
The links I have posted also provide sufficient information for why the business climate elsewhere is so much more favorable than what many companies find here in the USA.
I don't have the time or inclination to list all the regulations and mandates that are a hindrance to business growth and expansion, but surely you have seen enough of those listed in threads all over the internet to know which ones I would list.
And it doesn't matter who instigated the mandates and regulations that do not need to be there. What matters is who has the intelligence and will to get rid of them. Obama obviously likes them. I think somebody like Herman Cain would have the intelligence and will to push to get rid of them.
Here is the problem folks, and why we need a President with the savvy and the conviction to turn it around. Our current Fearless Leader has demonstrated that he has neither.
And it is NOT lack of demand that is creating the phenomenon:
American multinationals have long tapped foreign markets to take advantage of lower labor costs, looser regulations, and simpler tax structures that can make doing business overseas more cost-efficient than in the U.S. But it's not just jobs migrating abroadit's now tax dollars too, a senior index analyst at Standard & Poor's says. (S&P, like BusinessWeek, is owned by The McGraw-Hill Companies
Last year marked the first time that American companies contributed more to the tax pools of foreign governments than they did domestically, according to analyst Howard Silverblatt's annual S&P 500 Global Sales report, released July 14. The study was based on income taxes paid and reported to the U.S. government by just over half the companies on the S&P 500. Companies are not obligated to provide such detailed breakdowns of foreign sales. In 2008 foreign income tax payouts accounted for more than 55% of their total income tax expenditures, up from 45% in 2007an $11.5 billion increase. Federal income tax payouts declined 29%, or almost $44 billion, over the same period.
This trend has been occurring for some time. Over the past four years, U.S. companies have increasingly paid a higher percentage of their total income taxes to foreign governments, which accounted for 45% in 2007, up from 39% in 2005. But Silverblatt's findings represent another data point among many showing that the U.S. was hit harder than many foreign countries in 2008 as the global financial crisis picked up steam. While the U.S. economy contracted, emerging economies grew to take market share. Just as important, he notes, the results further prove that an enormous middle class is emerging for products that U.S. companies provide
U.S. Companies Paid More Taxes Overseas - BusinessWeek
That's a good point. The more balanced tax structure will so reduce the cost of producing many of the things that we buy that a lower cost may offset all or most of the sales tax.
Corporate tax rates are just one item that the federal government burden placed on small and large business that makes it very expensive and this very difficult to turn a profit.
Do most people pay state and city sales taxes or not?That assumes that ALL items would be taxable.I think that you are confused.
1: Taxing income has a preferred outcome to taxing expenditure.
2: By far and away, people of lesser means are more likely to spend a larger share of their earnings than do wealthier folks. They (we), overall, account for the largest share of expenditure in the marketplace.
3: When looking at burden cast by tax and regulation, 'heavy' should represent proportions of overall strength... like how a basketball is heavy for a toddler, not for an adult.
4: If this is the US, how would our constitution accommodate a fed sales tax?
For example, necessities would most likely be tax exempt. In New Jersey for instance clothing, paper goods for school and business, shoes and unprepared foods are all tax exempt.
The federal national sales tax could very likely be modeled in this way.
That pretty much trumps your idea.
One thing is clear, government cannot control an individuals money management or lack thereof. Poor people are poor not only because they earn less, but because they spend unwisely. That cannot be everyone else's problem. As a matter of fact, middle class people who have the availability of credit often fall into this very same trap of spending far more than their means currently allows. That is supposed to be our problem as well?
You're stuck in the paradigm of "10% of 10,000 is more than 10% of 100,000". It isn't
Each person is left with 90% of their money. The next thing we deal with is the "fairness argument". That's when I get a case of ADD.
The fairness argument always, at least from the point of of view of the Lef,t ends up in the realm of punishment of those who are higher earners.
I'd leave the fairness bit to little kids to concern themselves. Fairness has (and should have) little or nothing to do with determining tax policy.
While making necessities exempt would preclude starvation, taxing consumption in a consumer economy is not a good idea. Certainly, I don't advocate building policy around folks who can't account for their next meal here in the easiest place in the world to eat.
That said, a tax on goods is more inflationary while still communicating weaker demand for goods... that is a pinch that will be born by profit-margins, and ultimately by the people in the economy. All tax is like that, but sales tax is worse because it directly affects demand
No they are not. If that were the case, financial markets would be booming.Foxy....let me try again. The reason our economy sucks has nothing to do with the statutory corporate tax rate. Your repeating the mantra, complete with the little caveat about our being just a pubic hair behid Japan , in arguing your point is disingenuous.
US corporations are friggin' exploding with profits.
That is obviously not the case.
