Bill Clinton: Let's End Tax Inversions By Lowering The Corporate Tax Rate

[Clementine]

Question is whether he seriously feels guilty for helping make the corporate income tax the highest in the world or whether he is already trying to win votes for Hillary by suggesting that she holds the same opinion when it comes to lowering the corporate tax rate by around 14% to make us comparable to the average of other countries. Hillary hasn't chimed in yet, but I know people who have said they'll vote for Hillary just to have Slick Willy back in the WH. I expect that we'll hear a lot from Mr. Clinton in the next few years, but he can't make campaign promises for Hillary. If people like what he says, it might win Hillary some votes. I have a feeling he'll be charming a lot of people and Hillary will benefit from it.

He's right on this point and following the advice would likely keep jobs here and help us a great deal. He is in agreement with Republicans on this. Thing is, he's not running for anything and is just another citizen expressing an opinion. Doesn't mean Hillary will listen or agree.

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States currently has the highest combined corporate income tax rate in the industrialized world.


Along with the lower taxes Clinton would like to see a variety of loopholes closed which, of course, is pretty much the exact argument that Republicans have been making for years. However, it usually falls on the deaf ears of statist sheep who love to scream about the evils of capitalism and yap about how the tax rates are actually too low.

Currently, the OECD simple average stands at 25%, meaning that Clinton could be advocating as much as a 14% cut. Even if he's speaking of the weighted average, that would still be a 10% drop.

It may have taken him fifteen years too long, but it's nice that the former President seen the error of his ways. We assume his newfound love of lower taxes will last right up until the very moment that presidential candidate Hillary Clinton issues some shrill proclamation about how companies "don't pay their fair share."

Then, it's back to tax-and-spend.

Bill Clinton: Let's end tax inversions by lowering the corporate tax rate
http://www.caintv.com/bill-clinton-lets-end-tax-inve

 

[The Rabbi]

This is why Clinton is remembered as being a good president, despite his impeachment and lack of most accomplishments. He basically adopted the GOP economic agenda in the second term and ran with it.
Obama is constitutionally unable to do the same. Which is why he is a failure.

 

[Pennywise]

This is why Clinton is remembered as being a good president, despite his impeachment and lack of most accomplishments. He basically adopted the GOP economic agenda in the second term and ran with it.
Obama is constitutionally unable to do the same. Which is why he is a failure.

He was the last man standing of democrats with a modicum of sanity. They are full blown excrement eating, drooling loons at this point.

 

[The Rabbi]

This is why Clinton is remembered as being a good president, despite his impeachment and lack of most accomplishments. He basically adopted the GOP economic agenda in the second term and ran with it.
Obama is constitutionally unable to do the same. Which is why he is a failure.

He was the last man standing of democrats with a modicum of sanity. They are full blown excrement eating, drooling loons at this point.

It wasnt sanity and I think Bill is a psychopath. But he is also a narcissist and his basic principle is Bill. So if he needed to adapt the GOP agenda to be successful, he'd do it. These others are driven by radical leftist ideology that demonizes anyone who disagrees with them.

 

[Care4all]

does the Fed gvt have any control over what individual state taxes corporations? If not, then why are they being blamed ALONE for the COMBINED corporate tax rate? States can lower their own corporate tax rates, right?

 

[OriginalShroom]

Damnation.. Bill finally got one right! We have the Highest Corporate tax rate in the world. BTW, Obama's plan is doom to failure.

All the companies have to do is make it appear, legally, that the foreign company is buying them. No inversion. No Punishment.

 

[TooTall]

Question is whether he seriously feels guilty for helping make the corporate income tax the highest in the world or whether he is already trying to win votes for Hillary by suggesting that she holds the same opinion when it comes to lowering the corporate tax rate by around 14% to make us comparable to the average of other countries. Hillary hasn't chimed in yet, but I know people who have said they'll vote for Hillary just to have Slick Willy back in the WH. I expect that we'll hear a lot from Mr. Clinton in the next few years, but he can't make campaign promises for Hillary. If people like what he says, it might win Hillary some votes. I have a feeling he'll be charming a lot of people and Hillary will benefit from it.

He's right on this point and following the advice would likely keep jobs here and help us a great deal. He is in agreement with Republicans on this. Thing is, he's not running for anything and is just another citizen expressing an opinion. Doesn't mean Hillary will listen or agree.

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States currently has the highest combined corporate income tax rate in the industrialized world.


Along with the lower taxes Clinton would like to see a variety of loopholes closed which, of course, is pretty much the exact argument that Republicans have been making for years. However, it usually falls on the deaf ears of statist sheep who love to scream about the evils of capitalism and yap about how the tax rates are actually too low.

Currently, the OECD simple average stands at 25%, meaning that Clinton could be advocating as much as a 14% cut. Even if he's speaking of the weighted average, that would still be a 10% drop.

It may have taken him fifteen years too long, but it's nice that the former President seen the error of his ways. We assume his newfound love of lower taxes will last right up until the very moment that presidential candidate Hillary Clinton issues some shrill proclamation about how companies "don't pay their fair share."

Then, it's back to tax-and-spend.

Bill Clinton: Let's end tax inversions by lowering the corporate tax rate
http://www.caintv.com/bill-clinton-lets-end-tax-inve

This is Obama's solution to tax inversion:

Obama Administration Issues New Rules to Combat Tax Inversions

Actions Intended to Make Inversions Harder to Accomplish, Less Profitable

The Treasury Department tightened tax rules Monday to deter U.S. companies from moving their legal headquarters to lower-tax countries, part of a White House effort to slow a wave of so-called corporate inversions that effectively reduce federal revenues.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/treasury-to-unveil-measures-to-combat-tax-inversions-1411421056

 

[Clementine]

Obama isn't interested in helping the economy or jobs. He wants their money to continue to lure people into government dependence. Tear down and rebuild. That's his game.

 

[Old Rocks]

Let's see, under Bush we had a near Depression, and the greatest loss in jobs since the First Great Republican Depression. Under Obama, the market has come back, and the jobs are slowly coming back.

Now, as to corperate taxes. OK, lower the tax, and make sure that that is the amount paid. No fancy loopholes for evasion. And if a corperation is found to have been using illegal means to avoid taxes, the CEO goes to prison. A federal hard time lockup, not the present white collar criminal country clubs.

 

[Piss Bucket]

Let's see, under Bush we had a near Depression, and the greatest loss in jobs since the First Great Republican Depression. Under Obama, the market has come back, and the jobs are slowly coming back.

Now, as to corperate taxes. OK, lower the tax, and make sure that that is the amount paid. No fancy loopholes for evasion. And if a corperation is found to have been using illegal means to avoid taxes, the CEO goes to prison. A federal hard time lockup, not the present white collar criminal country clubs.

I am afraid that I do not quite understand where you are coming from with your post. Bush really did not have much to do with the "near depression" that began late in his administration. Other than maintaining high government spending levels which reduced the value of the US Dollar, and the prolonged occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan which destabilized the region and caused fluctuations in petroleum and in equities markets, Bush really did not have much to do with the economic downturn.

The 2 biggest factors in said downturn originated under Clinton. First, Clinton pushed a housing initiative that put low-income people in mortgages for homes. This was facilitated with ARM mortgages and underwriting by Freddie and Fannie. I work in finance and remember back then when EVERYBODY was buying houses. There were 0% down mortgages, "no look" mortgages, 125% second mortgages, and of course the ARM which enabled people to broker loans by deferring the risk. Customers were flocking into the mortgage market, and EVERYBODY was lending.

The second problem was the deregulation law Clinton signed that allowed depository institutions to trade in securities. Admittedly, Republican lawmakers were complicit. Banks began packaging all those high risk ARM mortgages and selling them. They also bought them and inflated their balance sheets with them. When the default rate went through the roof, it became apparent that most of the mortgage backed securities were worthless. Lending institutions failed as a result.

In addition, you can throw in a ton of fraud that occurred during the mortgage boom, from the initial transaction brokered by the real estate people up to the securitization of these instruments and the insuring of the same. It was truly a perfect financial storm.

The total picture of the economic collapse is still more complicated. However, I have covered a good bit of it. Bush did not have much of anything to do with this, except maybe for failing to act sooner. However, it is certain that the ball started rolling during Clinton's administration. By the time Bush came to office the events were already set in motion. Then 9/11 came along and national security matters usurped much of the President's time and attention. However, mitigation actions and remedial measures were instituted during the Bush years.

As far as the recovery, it sucks. There are several concrete actions OBAMA could have taken at the beginning of his presidency, and now, that will accelerate the recovery. However, for whatever reason he chooses not to do so. Until we can sustain growth at around 4% we are going to remain mired in this sluggish recovery. Plus, the economy just will not recover until we endure some correction, meaning the Fed has got to increase interest rates. There will have to be a period of inflation before the economy recovers. It is inevitable.

Obama has taken affirmative actions that have resulted in the retarding of the needed correction. For example, the HARP program is subsidizing mortgage principal reductions to encourage loan modifications in an attempt to slow foreclosures. A much better macro policy is to allow the foreclosure of defaulted properties in order to capitalize the market. Further, with the Justice Department suing every mortgage holder and servicer out there, inventories of distressed, OREO properties are massive. As these inventories sit there, more and more money is being pissed away. That is money that could be used to capitalize the market with money to lend to customers.

Obama has ass backward economic policies. Anyone who is educated in the area of finance and investing knows this. It is maddening to watch.

I do not call the Obama recovery a recovery at all. To the extent some economic numbers are positive, that occurred despite Obama's policies, not because of them. Obama came to DC with an agenda that did not include economic recovery. This is painfully clear. It ought to be clear to everyone.

On the tax issue the answer is easy. If you want to increase tax revenue then you do not increase rates. Rather, you increase the number of taxing events that occur in the economy. How do you do this? Simple. You make it more attractive for those taxing events to occur by lowering the rates. There is no doubt that reducing rates causes more economic activity, which in turn creates more taxation events, which results in more gross revenue.

Obama has shown that he is not interested in this. Rather, he wants to use the tax code to extract some sort of amorphous type of social justice from business. Such a policy does nothing to create wealth.

Obama's economic policies are counter productive and irrational. It pains me to hear folks like you make these conclusory statements supporting Obama and all he has allegedly done to bring recovery to our economy.

To be blunt, you are just not bright enough to understand how our economy works. It is scary that people who go to the polls to vote lack a basic understanding of economic matter, as well as foreign affairs and other areas necessary to nation. It is fucking sad to think that our future may very well be in the hands of single-issue morons.

 

[asterism]

does the Fed gvt have any control over what individual state taxes corporations? If not, then why are they being blamed ALONE for the COMBINED corporate tax rate? States can lower their own corporate tax rates, right?

State corporate tax rates are secondary to federal corporate tax rates. Even if a state has not corporate tax, the corporations still have to pay the federal taxes. If a state has high corporate tax rates, it only collects at at a rate net of federal corporate taxes paid.

In other words, federal taxes paid are deducted from income for state taxation.

 

[asterism]

Let's see, under Bush we had a near Depression, and the greatest loss in jobs since the First Great Republican Depression. Under Obama, the market has come back, and the jobs are slowly coming back.

The point that you folks on the left miss is that the Obama economic team (correctly) predicted a recovery without any intervention at all. So blame Bush all you want, but Obama took the helm knowing that things were bad and he promised to make them better over an above doing nothing at all. His results are far below both measures.

Now, as to corperate taxes. OK, lower the tax, and make sure that that is the amount paid. No fancy loopholes for evasion. And if a corperation is found to have been using illegal means to avoid taxes, the CEO goes to prison. A federal hard time lockup, not the present white collar criminal country clubs.

I agree 100%.

 

[Clementine]

Let's see, under Bush we had a near Depression, and the greatest loss in jobs since the First Great Republican Depression. Under Obama, the market has come back, and the jobs are slowly coming back.

Now, as to corperate taxes. OK, lower the tax, and make sure that that is the amount paid. No fancy loopholes for evasion. And if a corperation is found to have been using illegal means to avoid taxes, the CEO goes to prison. A federal hard time lockup, not the present white collar criminal country clubs.

I am afraid that I do not quite understand where you are coming from with your post. Bush really did not have much to do with the "near depression" that began late in his administration. Other than maintaining high government spending levels which reduced the value of the US Dollar, and the prolonged occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan which destabilized the region and caused fluctuations in petroleum and in equities markets, Bush really did not have much to do with the economic downturn.

The 2 biggest factors in said downturn originated under Clinton. First, Clinton pushed a housing initiative that put low-income people in mortgages for homes. This was facilitated with ARM mortgages and underwriting by Freddie and Fannie. I work in finance and remember back then when EVERYBODY was buying houses. There were 0% down mortgages, "no look" mortgages, 125% second mortgages, and of course the ARM which enabled people to broker loans by deferring the risk. Customers were flocking into the mortgage market, and EVERYBODY was lending.

The second problem was the deregulation law Clinton signed that allowed depository institutions to trade in securities. Admittedly, Republican lawmakers were complicit. Banks began packaging all those high risk ARM mortgages and selling them. They also bought them and inflated their balance sheets with them. When the default rate went through the roof, it became apparent that most of the mortgage backed securities were worthless. Lending institutions failed as a result.

In addition, you can throw in a ton of fraud that occurred during the mortgage boom, from the initial transaction brokered by the real estate people up to the securitization of these instruments and the insuring of the same. It was truly a perfect financial storm.

The total picture of the economic collapse is still more complicated. However, I have covered a good bit of it. Bush did not have much of anything to do with this, except maybe for failing to act sooner. However, it is certain that the ball started rolling during Clinton's administration. By the time Bush came to office the events were already set in motion. Then 9/11 came along and national security matters usurped much of the President's time and attention. However, mitigation actions and remedial measures were instituted during the Bush years.

As far as the recovery, it sucks. There are several concrete actions OBAMA could have taken at the beginning of his presidency, and now, that will accelerate the recovery. However, for whatever reason he chooses not to do so. Until we can sustain growth at around 4% we are going to remain mired in this sluggish recovery. Plus, the economy just will not recover until we endure some correction, meaning the Fed has got to increase interest rates. There will have to be a period of inflation before the economy recovers. It is inevitable.

Obama has taken affirmative actions that have resulted in the retarding of the needed correction. For example, the HARP program is subsidizing mortgage principal reductions to encourage loan modifications in an attempt to slow foreclosures. A much better macro policy is to allow the foreclosure of defaulted properties in order to capitalize the market. Further, with the Justice Department suing every mortgage holder and servicer out there, inventories of distressed, OREO properties are massive. As these inventories sit there, more and more money is being pissed away. That is money that could be used to capitalize the market with money to lend to customers.

Obama has ass backward economic policies. Anyone who is educated in the area of finance and investing knows this. It is maddening to watch.

I do not call the Obama recovery a recovery at all. To the extent some economic numbers are positive, that occurred despite Obama's policies, not because of them. Obama came to DC with an agenda that did not include economic recovery. This is painfully clear. It ought to be clear to everyone.

On the tax issue the answer is easy. If you want to increase tax revenue then you do not increase rates. Rather, you increase the number of taxing events that occur in the economy. How do you do this? Simple. You make it more attractive for those taxing events to occur by lowering the rates. There is no doubt that reducing rates causes more economic activity, which in turn creates more taxation events, which results in more gross revenue.

Obama has shown that he is not interested in this. Rather, he wants to use the tax code to extract some sort of amorphous type of social justice from business. Such a policy does nothing to create wealth.

Obama's economic policies are counter productive and irrational. It pains me to hear folks like you make these conclusory statements supporting Obama and all he has allegedly done to bring recovery to our economy.

To be blunt, you are just not bright enough to understand how our economy works. It is scary that people who go to the polls to vote lack a basic understanding of economic matter, as well as foreign affairs and other areas necessary to nation. It is fucking sad to think that our future may very well be in the hands of single-issue morons.

Best post of the year. Could not agree with you more, PissBucket.

Just a reminder to some about what really started the financial meltdown, let's re-visit the 2004 senate hearings where Republicans were looking into the practices of Fannie and Freddie and predicting an eventual disaster.

Dems defended the practices and would not agree to more oversight or tightened regulations. The 2004 hearings were not the first or the last time that Republicans sounded the alarms about an impending meltdown because of the practices of the lenders. They were accused of not wanting poor people to own homes and Dems claimed that the hearings were a political lynching of Franklin Raines, who ran the bank into the ground before leaving with millions in bonuses for his efforts. They also defended, and still defend, Clinton's revival of Carter's Community Reinvestment plan that forced banks to stop redlining high risk neighborhoods and offer loans to people with bad or no credit. Everyone took advantage of the no-docs loans and were buying houses they would never be able to pay for. This was what Dems called fairness in lending. Fannie and Freddie are still at it today. They've learned nothing.

2004 hearings fannie freddie - Yahoo Search Results

 

[RKMBrown]

Whether Bill did what he did for personal reasons or for this country out of selflessness... I can't say. However, I've always felt that Bill was a Democrat that loved this country and for the most part did what he thought best for it. I can't say the same for Obama. 99% of the stuff Obama does is clearly out of his hate for this country.

Why did the democrats switch from guys like Bill to guys like Obama to run their party? More importantly, why can't the democrats see Obama for what he is?

 

[Plasmaball]

i blame Islam

 

[RKMBrown]

i blame Islam

Good point... Obama after all was Islamic before he supposedly converted.

 

[Clementine]

Clinton may have been genuine in his love for America. I think the problem is that he subscribes to some liberal ideas that just plain don't work. Obama is much different and he openly criticizes America at every opportunity. He finds the country arrogant and shows himself to be the arrogant one in the manner in which he bashes us. He has made it clear that he doesn't believe in American exceptionalism. He thinks it's wrong for America to be the superpower in the world and has been helped the radical Muslims to advance. He believes capitalism is wrong, though practices in crony capitalism. His disrespect for our national security is evident in the way he funds terrorist groups and increased the illegal immigration problem.

He also isn't interested in doing anything to improve the economy. The Dems have done everything to undermine a recovery, but take credit for the few survivors of their policies.