Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditI bet you don't want to hear about taxes right now, but that's the topic of this post. Or more precisely, I want to write about John McCain's plans to give extra help to corporations should he become the president of the United States:
In yesterday's speech, McCain played to his maverick image, taking corporate chieftains to task for their "extravagant salaries and severance deals." He even called out by name Angelo R. Mozilo, the chief executive of imploding mortgage giant Countrywide, and James E. Cayne, former chief executive of Bear Stearns, which was bailed out by an emergency line of credit from the Federal Reserve Board.Note the last two paragraphs, because they are important to remember simultaneously. Conservatives tend to argue that American firms cannot compete abroad because of the high corporate tax rate in this country. What conservatives forget to mention are those loopholes. They are so big and comfortable that the taxes American firms ultimately pay are the fourth lowest as a percentage of the GDP of all OECD countries. It's hard to see how that tax burden would keep U.S. firms from being competitive."In my administration, there will be no more subsidies for special pleaders, no more corporate welfare," McCain said.
But much of what he detailed was a corporate special pleader's dream: a cut in the corporate income tax rate, from 35 percent to 25 percent, a proposal to allow businesses to write off the cost of new equipment and technology from their taxes, a ban on Internet and new cellphone taxes, and a permanent tax credit for research and development.
He promised to remove the "myriad corporate tax loopholes that are costly, unfair and inconsistent with a free-market economy," but he offered no specifics.
Perhaps McCain really intends to close all those loopholes while also intending to cut the tax rate. Who knows. But adding new corporate write-off rules doesn't look like getting tough with corporations.
International competitiveness is not the only argument conservatives propose to justify giving firms "tax relief." They also point out that firms with lower taxes will have more money left over to invest, to expand and to employ more workers. Thus, ultimately the workers will benefit from this help to someone else.
Except for two tiny snags: First, the firms don't have any obligation whatsoever to spend their tax savings on employing more people. Second, even if they do use the savings in that manner the employment effect might take place in Pakistan, India or China, given the ease with which jobs are outsourced these days.
There are better and more effective ways to give American workers some relief. But McCain's proposal is a pretty good one for continuing a policy of corporate welfare.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Your problem, Ms Goodrich, isn't economics...but politics. (though conservatives are right to point out our high corporate tax, liberals also are right to point out the large number of loopholes).
McCain is sounding "centrist-right"...even slightly "populist".
He can hammer the "big money boys and their huge salaries"...promise to end corporate welfare and loopholes....AND push for a corporate tax cut....and it'll win votes.
Especially if Obama (or say she pulls it out, Her Nibs) is pushing some corporate tax HIKE which can be painted (fairly or unfairly if you like) as a "jobs killer".
The old liberal promises of "gonna GIT them evil Big Corporations" don't play well...even today. Sure, go after guys like Mozilo or Cayne...but talk GROWTH and tax credits for research and ESPECIALLY "bans on Internet taxes"?(That'll win him some liberals, not to mention Democrats)....
and "Maverick John" may have a winning formula.
Posted by Mask at 04/17/2008 @ 2:44pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/17/2008 @ 4:16pm
Eliminating the income tax?....that would be going back to ...
"before Teddy Roosevelt"....wouldn't it???
heheh
Posted by Mask at 04/17/2008 @ 4:38pm
Finally, as I've noted before, corporations do not pay taxes. They merely pass on the cost to consumers.
This is not quite true. You are talking about the incidence of taxation here, and it depends on the relative demand and supply elasticities. To what extent taxes or cost increases, say, can be passed on to consumers depends on those market conditions. In one extreme case none of that can be passed on, while in the other extreme case all of it could be passed on. To find out what actually happens requires looking at the data.
Posted by jgoodrich at 04/17/2008 @ 4:51pm
Posted by HAPPY2 04/17/2008 @ 3:41pm
What's the point of getting rid of the loopholes if you are going to lower taxes enough so that they are paying less than when they had the loopholes? Why not just leave the loopholes and count them when you lower the corporate tax. It's because he is trying to politically pander to both sides instead of just being honest about what he is doing.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/17/2008 @ 4:54pm
It would seem that closing loopholes and reducing the overall marginal tax-rate for corporations would be the way to go as it would have a "leveling effect" on the business playing field. After all, some businesses are going to naturally be more proficient and/or aggressive at uncovering and exploiting loopholes while the tax-rate itself strikes all businesses equally.
I also tend to sympathize with the school of thought that says taxes on corporations are really a tax on the consumers that ultimately purchase their products or services. Corporations exist to make a profit and provide a return on investment for their shareholders. Any cost of doing business--including taxes--that can possibly be passed on will ultimately be paid by all of us.
Personally, I would rather pay a lower price for whatever widget I wish to purchase than have the satisfaction of knowing that we are "sticking it to the man".
Posted by vertigoskippy at 04/17/2008 @ 5:19pm
So it would seem the real need is to eliminate the bloated salaries of top-heavy corporate America.
Posted by leftofcenter at 04/17/2008 @ 5:41pm
I agree the real scandal is the ineptness and/or cronyism displayed by many corporate boards when it comes to the issue of executive compensation. There is a real need for reform here. Attaching part of a Chief Executive's pay to the overall performance of the company under his/her stewardship is not a bad idea. Allowing those same executives to cash in when they wreck the company through mismanagement or incompetence is a very bad idea that provides a complete disservice to the shareholders of the corporation.
Posted by vertigoskippy at 04/17/2008 @ 6:26pm
In the 30+ years that I spent in the corporate world, every business I ever worked for, large or small, factored in taxes in pricing. That is true even in government contract bidding.
This is different from the final incident of the taxes. For instance, suppose that the industry you are in allows you to do this. What will happen next? Given that the price is higher now consumers will look at alternative ways of satisfying whatever their needs are. Some will buy less than before. The quantities sold will drop and the revenues may, too, depending on the price elasticity of the demand. At the next pricing spot the price may have to be adjusted back downwards for what superficially looks like the reason of falling demand, even though the real reason is with the original attempt to cover the increase in taxes or some cost item.
Posted by jgoodrich at 04/17/2008 @ 7:12pm
"Any cost of doing business--including taxes--that can possibly be passed on will ultimately be paid by all of us."
companies charge what the market will bear, high taxes or low. if you think prices will drop if the corporate tax rate is lowered, I have a bridge to sell you.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/17/2008 @ 7:38pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/17/2008 @ 5:13pm
LVLIB, been trying to add up all the "years" you've been doing stuff, and need a little help.
So it was a stint in the Army "occasionally" seeing the front in 'Nam....then "30+ years in the corporate world"....then "teaching for 3 years"....and now minister to Sin City.
So...you really haven't been a minister that long, have you?
Posted by Mask at 04/17/2008 @ 7:43pm
Given that the price is higher now consumers will look at alternative ways of satisfying whatever their needs are. Some will buy less than before.----Posted by JGOODRICH 04/17/2008 @ 7:12pm
Ms Goodrich...what if there IS no alternative, and little means to "buy less"....say fuel oil or diesel for transport trucks?
Posted by Mask at 04/17/2008 @ 7:45pm
"teaching for 3 years"
Posted by MASK 04/17/2008 @ 7:43pm
He taught for 30 years not 3
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/17/2008 @ 7:47pm
Posted by MASK 04/17/2008 @ 7:43pm
don't forget the time in the mossad.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/17/2008 @ 7:50pm
Pardon the "multi-post" all, but am leaving a message for Frankgrits re: (but all are welcome to view) his good old "Dubya's Pre-war Fireside Chat" on my ISP at:DUBYA
Posted by leftofcenter at 04/17/2008 @ 8:17pm
'Anti-tax' Repubs are merely shifting the tax burden onto the workers by slashing federal revenue sharing to the states, necessitating higher state sales taxes as well as cuts in state services.
That's why now is a good time to sell stocks and buy bonds; deflation, the bondholder's friend, is being exacerbated by the 'conservative' policy of bankrupting the federal government and beggaring the states, leaving nothing for relief or economic stimulus beyond token rebates.
Posted by samcrossett at 04/17/2008 @ 8:50pm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=samcrossett
only trouble is, they pay almost no interest, I'm told. used to be that they'd double in seven years. now?
Posted by emile duBois at 04/17/2008 @ 9:01pm
and how about those banks. they charge 20% on loans they make, and give 1% on the money youlend them. nifty huh. it's called loan sharking.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/17/2008 @ 9:03pm
True, Emile, investment-grade bonds pay less than 5% today; if you buy a bond fund and automatically reinvest dividends, you can compound the return somewhat, but the real reason for buying bonds is that history repeats itself.
Twenty years ago financial institutions failed due to execs' thievery, profits and stock values crashed due to declining wages and government didn't have the reserves or credit to reflate the economy. The result was that bonds were the only investment that afforded any positive return at all.
Posted by samcrossett at 04/17/2008 @ 9:43pm
Posted by CCCOMFO1 04/17/2008 @ 7:47pm
How does he teach for 30 years....and work in the corporate world for 30 years...and was old enough to serve in Vietnam....
doesn't seem to add up?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 04/17/2008 @ 9:44pm
Posted by SAMCROSSETT 04/17/2008 @ 9:43pm | ignore this person
my grandfather, who experienced two complete devaluations in Germany, put his money in a stamp collection. easier to transport than gold, persian carpets and such.
he lost it when the Russians forced him to flee in East Prussia. c'est la guerre.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/17/2008 @ 9:49pm
Posted by MADLIB 04/17/2008 @ 9:59pm |
It DOES seem a bit contradictory, or atleast "vague" a lot of the time.
Posted by Mask at 04/17/2008 @ 10:01pm
So many leftwingnuts are so close to the intellect of vegtables they will NEVER be able to grasp that basic concept no matter how many times you post it!
so few vegetables understand that, whether or not corporations pass the costs onto consumers, corporations nonetheless pay taxes and are taxed.
and, since we don't have the data available to us, it is impossible to know which corporations actually pass onto the consumers the costs of what they are taxed.
do vegetables comprehend this?
Posted by darladoon at 04/17/2008 @ 11:22pm
keeping in mind what i just said, how do so-called "conservatives" back corporate welfare, but not welfare for the working classes? and how do so-called "conservatives" reconcile their disdain for welfare for the working classes while at the same time supporting corporate welfare?
seems like the rio bravos of the world are the real vegetables.
Posted by darladoon at 04/17/2008 @ 11:36pm
can a vegetable grasp this question?
what is the difference to a consumer if he/she has to pay more for goods and services, in return for universal health care and education, as opposed to paying less for goods and services, in return for paying health insurance companies and student loan guarantors?
i repeat: can a vegetable grasp this question?
Posted by darladoon at 04/17/2008 @ 11:48pm
one more question: if more vegetables are living in western europe, then why is the euro kicking the dollar's ass? why is the quality of life so high for vegetables?
Posted by darladoon at 04/17/2008 @ 11:50pm
Can you give us a couple of examples where "none" can be passed on?
Based on a real quick scan this Wikipedia site gives you the limits and some examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence
Can you give us a couple of examples where "none" can be passed on?
Posted by jgoodrich at 04/18/2008 @ 12:39am
My apologies. That Wikipedia link is not to a corporate profit tax but to something more like a sales tax, so it's not directly relevant. This article [cbo.gov], despite being ten years old, is a pretty good introduction to some of the issues.
Posted by jgoodrich at 04/18/2008 @ 01:32am
Some (although weak) conclusions can be drawn from this survey of the literature:
o The short-term burden of the corporate tax probably falls on stockholders or investors in general, but may fall on some more than on others, because not all investments are taxed at the same rate.
o The long-term burden of corporate or dividend taxation is unlikely to rest fully on corporate equity, because it will remain there only if marginal investment is not affected by those taxes. Most economists believe that the corporate tax system has some effect on investment decisions.
o Most evidence from closed-economy, general-equilibrium models suggests that given reasonable parameters, the long-term incidence of the corporate tax falls on capital in general.
o In the context of international capital mobility, the burden of the corporate tax may be shifted onto immobile factors (such as labor or land), but only to the degree that the capital and outputs of different countries can be substituted.
o In the very long term, the burden is likely to be shifted in part to labor, if the corporate tax dampens capital accumulation.
o Most attempts to distribute the burden of corporate taxation have neglected the possible importance of effects on the relative prices of products.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/18/2008 @ 02:10am
Auten and Kalambokidis propose a practical methodology that recognizes that at least some of the corporate tax burden falls on consumption. Although they treat a majority of the corporate tax (76 percent) as a pure income tax, they interpret the remainder (24 percent) as a corporate cash flow tax with a deduction for employee compensation. They distribute the income tax component according to the capital income of households and distribute the cash flow portion as a consumption tax plus a tax cut for wage earners. Auten and Kalambokidis determine the 76/24 split by comparing the implicit costs of capital under the taxes on pure income and cash flow with the costs implied by the actual corporate tax structure.
Not surprisingly, the authors find that the treatment of a portion of the corporate tax as a cash flow tax makes the corporate tax look less progressive than under the standard method, in which the burden is allocated to capital income only.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/18/2008 @ 02:15am
Most economists view the corporate income tax as a tax levied on the return from the equity capital of corporations, but avoidable by firms, their stockholders, or their consumers through various types of substitution. Among those are the following kinds of substitutions:
o Factor: The corporation can substitute labor for capital in its mix of inputs. That tends to spread the tax burden to capital in general (and not just corporate capital) and to provide gains to labor.
o Financial: The corporation can adjust financial policies, such as substituting debt for equity financing. Such measures tend to reduce returns from some forms of investment and raise returns from others.
o International: Investors can shift physical capital or investment out of a taxed country into other countries ("capital flight"). The burden of the corporate tax is thus shifted onto immobile factors of production (labor or land).
o Intertemporal: Investors can decrease the amount they save (substitution of consumption among time periods) as a result of the decreased net rate of return from capital. That substitution shifts the burden onto labor by reducing the total amount of capital, thus decreasing the productivity of labor and hence wages.
o Portfolio: Investors can substitute other forms of investment for corporate stock. That reduces the value of corporate assets (capitalization effects) and tends to shift the burden from new investors onto holders of existing stock.
o Intersectoral: Higher prices of products produced by firms encourage consumers to move away from those products toward noncorporate products (the "output effect"). The resulting reduction in the firm's output level tends to shift the tax burden toward the factor (capital or labor) that is used intensively in the corporate sector because the demand for that factor has decreased.
Understanding the nature and extent of those substitution effects is crucial in understanding corporate tax incidence, because the effects determine how relative prices and real incomes adjust in response to the tax, and hence how individuals may face different tax burdens according to the ways in which they earn or spend their income.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/18/2008 @ 02:24am
Posted by HAPPY2 04/17/2008 @ 10:52pm
You've got me a bit there happy. It used to be said that if you were paying company tax that was good because you were making a profit. More tax equates to more profit. If the tax costs are able to be passed on to the customers by increasing the prices that leads to the possibility of making larger profits (on a higher turnover) and so the prices are increased again to cover the extra tax on extra the profit and so on. Sort of like a dog chasing its tail. Makes one's head spin.
However it does seem to me that US Corporate tax rates are exceptionally high by world standards (see below) and are more likely to effect the global competitiveness of corporations or lead to American companies moving offshore.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1471.html
One needs to ask why the Europeans, who are into more government handouts than we get given to us, (or so the lefties tell us) have reduced their corporate tax rates so radically over recent years and are now so much below ours, particularly seeing they are supposed, in general, to be real deal welfare gluttons.
Maybe they get their kicks out of taxing the workers to make up for a shortfall. Or heaven forbid lower corporate tax rates really do put more money into government coffers by encouraging business in this way. Perhaps McCain is more economically literate than we ever imagined he could be.
Posted by harvey 79 at 04/18/2008 @ 06:18am
Dear Ms Goodrich: Who said; "You can never underestimate the stupidity of the people."? wasn't that John Mayhard Keynes? Pleas keep answering the most blatantly wrong posts, love it, thanks.
Wish your had been teaching when I took eco 101
Posted by julien38 at 04/18/2008 @ 06:55am
Posted by JULIEN38 04/18/2008 @ 06:55am
Ever heard this one: "If you want ten different answers, ask ten different economists the same question."
Economics is a branch of the social sciences and not one of the natural sciences, like physics so don't expect too much of it.
Posted by harvey 79 at 04/18/2008 @ 08:57am
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=harvey%2079
the problem has not been corporations moving off shore, but rather corporations moving the jobs off shore. this is something that Marx predicted a long time ago.
what can be done about it? massive spending on education, something like what we did after Sputnik was launched back in the day.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/18/2008 @ 09:00am
Posted by HARVEY 79 04/18/2008 @ 08:57am | ignore this person
what nonsense. if people were more economically literate maybe they would not continually fall for voodoo economics.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/18/2008 @ 09:02am
"Russia, the EU countries, China, Japan, South Korea, just to name a few, all subsidize manufacturing or agriculture, or both," said "LVLiberty."
So does the USA. Of course, our practice here is more likely to be to grant a loophole than to grant a subsidy. But the net effect may not be as different as we imagine.
I believe we would do better with a unicameral Congress and reduced veto power for the Executive - the line item veto has got to go, along with those "signing statements." We need to be able to change our laws more quickly, because we have a lot of bad laws on the books - including both out-of-date subsidies and out-of-date loopholes - and we can't get rid of them fast enough.
The Founding Fathers, as I've argued here often before, imagined that by slowing the pace of legislation, they'd prevent the creation of bad laws in the first place. What they failed to take into account is that any assembly of imperfect human beings will create a few bad laws, and if this assembly is slowed by structural barriers (such as the need to approve every bill twice or three times), then over the period of several centuries, these bad laws will accumulate, especially if their rich beneficiaries fight to keep them on the books. Eventually, the slow pace of legislation will mean that we cannot get rid of a tremendous backlog of bad, or at least seriously out-of-date laws.
This, I argue, is the situation in which we find ourselves today.
Posted by JakobFabian at 04/18/2008 @ 09:08am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/18/2008 @ 02:24am
Wow, "Frosty Zoom," what an erudite lecture on loopholes!
Posted by JakobFabian at 04/18/2008 @ 09:13am
Posted by JULIEN38 04/18/2008 @ 06:55am
Actually that was H.L. Mencken.
Posted by Mask at 04/18/2008 @ 09:20am
Again, two questions I'd like to see answered...HARV asked it before-
1. Why have countries in Europe DROPPED their corporate tax rate...the prime example is Ireland?
2. Ms Goodrich claims that "passing the tax onto consumers" won't work, because they'll seek alternatives or buy less....okay, how does that apply to "Big Oil"?.
"windfall profits tax"?...sure. But then don't Exxon-Mobil and the boys simply raise prices to account for expected profits and the tax on it?
Or, what about Cable TV? Few going to dump it...heck, we'd miss Ms vanden Heuvel on "Hardball", wouldn't we?
So if we slam Comcast, Time-Warner, and Charter Comm. with a hefty corporate tax...don't they simply plough that into their cable subscriber fees? An extra penny for The Food Network, extra nickel for MSNBC, a dime for CNN?
Posted by Mask at 04/18/2008 @ 09:27am
the line item veto has got to go, along with those "signing statements."
jake, the pres does not have a line item veto. he'd like to. the signing statements are an anathema to the constitution. if the signing statements result in laws not being enforced by the executive branch, the pres should be impeached.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/18/2008 @ 09:46am
Wow, "Frosty Zoom," what an erudite lecture on loopholes!
Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 04/18/2008 @ 09:13am |
oops. i thought it would be obvious that that was from ms. goodrich's link:
Posted by JGOODRICH 04/18/2008 @ 01:32am
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/18/2008 @ 09:55am
So if we slam Comcast, Time-Warner, and Charter Comm. with a hefty corporate tax...don't they simply plough that into their cable subscriber fees? An extra penny for The Food Network, extra nickel for MSNBC, a dime for CNN?
Posted by MASK 04/18/2008 @ 09:27am
if you read the link ms. goodrich provided you will see that there is no consensus as to the impact of corporate taxes on prices.
i think it is very industry specific.
the examples you site do however point to some of the dangers of being subjected to oligopolies.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/18/2008 @ 10:00am
I have averaged about 3-4 hours of sleep since I was 12.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/18/2008 @ 10:01am
i didn't know they made meth back then....
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/18/2008 @ 10:04am
what nonsense. if people were more economically literate maybe they would not continually fall for voodoo economics.
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 04/18/2008 @ 09:02am
Economics is not my game but then one does not need that qualification to observe that "voodoo" economics is practiced right around the world with varying degrees of success. Brilliantly in some countries and less so in others.
Look I don't know why I do it, apart from the fact that I also help little old ladies across the road, but I've taken an ongoing interest in your education so here's some more of the good oil:
Lesson No.1: "US Corporations with High Tax Induced Itchy Feet 101".
RANKED #6: CORPORATE TAX RATE
"Since the United States has the highest corporate income tax rate among the OECD nations, it's no wonder this factor was ranked high in importance by the respondents to Area Development's Corporate Survey."
By Alexander Frei, MBA, and Tim Danielson, Senior Director of Corporate Services, Pollina Corporate Real Estate, Inc. (Jun/Jul 06)
"Corporate tax rate is considered one of the most important site selection factors for one simple reason: it has become a significant part of the debate by companies relative to whether to stay in the United States or move offshore. If the economic development communities, states, and federal government do not provide companies with corporate tax assistance, among other incentives, then companies have little choice than to look for a new community, state, or country that will provide such assistance. In today's global competition, companies are struggling to find every advantage they can to stay profitable."
"Not only is the United States encouraging companies to move offshore by the way we have structured our tax code, but we are trying to tax them at home to the point that they must move offshore. The Tax Foundation released a study in November 2005 that showed that the United States now has the highest overall corporate income tax rate (39.4 percent combined federal and sub-federal) of all countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Japan at 39.0 percent and Germany at 38.9 percent are ranked second and third, with the average for all OECD countries being 29.2 percent. The federal rate would need to be reduced to 25 percent, which when coupled with state rates would then approach the OECD average."
I don't know about you but I find I get more out of my studies when I do a bit of work myself. So how about you get your finger out and start with this:
http://tinyurl.com/4lyzz2
Posted by harvey 79 at 04/18/2008 @ 10:07am
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=harvey%2079
condescending and patronizing. thanks.
why do corporations, like car manufacturers come here and set up factories?
I believe that moving jobs off shore has been a far greater threat to our prosperity than a few corporations moving away.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/18/2008 @ 10:16am
this is actually very funny. we should look to europe for lower corporate taxes, yet ALL the other things that europeans do to provide for their citizens, are off limits.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/18/2008 @ 10:18am
sometimes we have to take the dumb out of freedom.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/18/2008 @ 10:35am
Eliminating the income tax would be a great start towards that end.LUVVY
More from the far out right fringe, slave apologist war monger.
do you plan on visiting Wesley Snipes in prison?
Posted by crabwalk at 04/18/2008 @ 10:45am
Posted by crabwalk at 04/18/2008 @ 10:47am
if you read the link ms. goodrich provided you will see that there is no consensus as to the impact of corporate taxes on prices.----Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/18/2008 @ 10:00am
So there's no concensus that they're NOT harmful, as well, right?
Posted by Mask at 04/18/2008 @ 10:51am
Nobody "drives" a company offshore. They decide to do it all on their own. Normally I would think a patriot would consider that act un-patriotic. Add in the fact that by continuing to go offshore, removing that source of funding, means that the war mongers must borrow money from communists and Islamic dictators.
aren't they great, these "patriots"?
Iran is evil, but Dick Cheney should let Halliburton do business with them, and pay no tax.
Iraq is evil, but Dick Cheney should let Halliburton do business with them, and pay no tax.
Socialism is evil, but we should let companies move to China, and pay no tax.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/18/2008 @ 10:55am
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/18/2008 @ 10:01am
Boy, you're like a modern-day Baron von Munchausen, aren't you?
or More like Andy Devine as "Frisby"? [youtube.com]
Posted by Mask at 04/18/2008 @ 10:56am
condescending and patronizing. thanks.
why do corporations, like car manufacturers come here and set up factories?
I believe that moving jobs off shore has been a far greater threat to our prosperity than a few corporations moving away.
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 04/18/2008 @ 10:16am
That's OK young fella but you did lead with your chin and I always like to oblige.
We imagine it is happening only to us but the loss of certain jobs to cheaper producing countries, for reasons, such as economy of scale, cheaper energy sources, lower wages, better access to raw materials etc is happening all round the world in highly developed economies and is here to stay.
Those jobs have gone, if not forever, at least until those producer countries approximate the living standards of countries like ours.
(Making autos, at least by American companies, hasn't been all that profitable lately but you will find the current manufacturing innovations mean less man hours per auto so even there, as in the steel industry there are now significantly less jobs than there once were for the same output.).
Obama, McCain, Clinton or any US president is absolutely unable to do anything about it. It is a global phenomenon that requires the right responses from us if we are to keep unemployment at the present historically low levels. That response, as has been noted here many times, must focus on re-skilling those whose jobs have disappeared offshore or through workplace productivity gains, via automation and other technological advances. That probably needs some government liaison with industry and educational institutions. And shock horror some grants (more tax breaks) to industry to take on the task. (Market oriented private industry is generally better at picking winners than governments so that probably leads to a more efficient use of government funds advanced or foregone).
Posted by harvey 79 at 04/18/2008 @ 10:59am
The "good ol days". How to pay for a war, build interstate highways, a top notch public school system, build up safety nets for the less fortunate.
Internal Revenue Code of 1954
Corporate Tax Rates. Temporarily extended 5 percentage point increase in corporate tax rates through 3/31/55.
Dividend Tax Credit. Created 4% dividend tax credit for individuals.
Excise Tax Reduction Act of 1954
Excise Tax Increases. Temporarily extended 1951 excise tax increases through 3/31/55.
Excise Tax Rates. Reduced excise tax rates on telephones, admissions, jewelry, etc.
Revenue Act of 1951
Individual Income Tax. Temporarily increased individual income tax rates through 1953.
Corporate Tax. Temporarily increased corporate tax rates 5 percentage points through 3/31/54.
Excise Taxes. Temporarily increased excise taxes on alcohol, tobacco, gasoline, and autos through 3/31/54.
Revenue Act of 1950
Individual Income Tax. Eliminated portion of the individual income tax rate reductions from 1945 and 1948 acts.
Corporate Tax. Eliminated 53% corporate tax rate "bubble"; increased top corporate rate from 38% to 45%.
Excess Profits Tax of 1950
Corporate Tax Rate. Increased top corporate tax rate from 45% to 47%.
Excess Profits Tax. Created temporary excess profits tax of 30% through 6/30/53.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/18/2008 @ 11:00am
"He that goes aborrowing, goes asorrowing." Ben Franklin
Posted by crabwalk at 04/18/2008 @ 11:15am
Those jobs have gone, if not forever, at least until those producer countries approximate the living standards of countries like ours.
this shows the bankruptcy of your argument. most likely our standards will fall to theirs.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/18/2008 @ 11:23am
That's OK young fella
I'm older than you, twit.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/18/2008 @ 11:24am
when a German company moves jobs away, what happens to their workers? well, we know what doesn't happen, they don't lose their health insurance. the gov't provides generous unemployment and training. someone going bankrupt because of medical bills? that simply does not happen over there.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/18/2008 @ 11:27am
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 04/18/2008 @ 11:27am
Ahhh....the Fatherland again, land of milk and honey!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 04/18/2008 @ 11:33am
This is a few years old, does anybody know if the E/I Bank still receives these subsidies?
The Export-Import Bank: Corporate Welfare At Its Worst by Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)-2002
This country has a $6 trillion national debt, a growing deficit and is borrowing money from the Social Security Trust Fund in order to fund government services. We can no longer afford to provide over $125 billion every year in corporate welfare - tax breaks, subsidies and other wasteful spending - that goes to some of the largest, most profitable corporations in America.
One of the most egregious forms of corporate welfare can be found at a little known federal agency called the Export-Import Bank, an institution that has a budget of about $1 billion a year and the capability of putting at risk some $15.5 billion in loan guarantees annually. At a time when the government is under-funding veterans' needs, education, health care, housing and many other vital services, over 80% of the subsidies distributed by the Export-Import Bank goes to Fortune 500 corporations. Among the companies that receive taxpayer support from the Ex-Im are Enron, Boeing, Halliburton, Mobil Oil, IBM, General Electric, AT&T, Motorola, Lucent Technologies, FedEx, General Motors, Raytheon, and United Technologies.
You name the large multinational corporation, many of which make substantial campaign contributions to both political parties, and they're on the Ex-Im welfare line. Needless to say, many of these same companies receiving taxpayer support pay exorbitant salaries and benefits to their CEOs. IBM, for example, gave their former CEO Lou Gerstner over $260 million in stock options while they were lining up for their Ex-Im handouts.
The great irony of Ex-Im policy is not just that taxpayer support goes to wealthy and profitable corporations that don't need it, but that in the name of "job creation" a substantial amount of federal funding goes to precisely those corporations that are eliminating hundreds of thousands of American jobs. In other words, American workers are providing funding to companies that are shutting down the plants in which they work, and are moving them to China, Mexico, Vietnam and wherever else they can find cheap labor. What a deal!
For example, General Electric has received over $2.5 billion in direct loans and loan guarantees from the Ex-Im Bank. And what was the result? From 1975-1995 GE reduced its workforce from 667,000 to 398,000, a decline of 269,000 jobs. In fact, while taking the Ex-Im Bank subsidies, GE was extremely public about it's "globalization" plans to lay off American workers and move jobs to Third World countries. Jack Welch, the longtime CEO of GE stated, "Ideally, you'd have every plant you own on a barge."
I would note that Jack Welchs retirement perks are being paid by consumers/taxpayers, yet the neo-cons don't seem to have a problem with that. I guess what I come a way with is... if one person benefits greatly, the cons are for it, if it benefits a lot of people, they are agin it.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/18/2008 @ 11:36am
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS
If one reads the statements here and over on the slavery blog, one can only come up with a quote
"Let them eat cake"
Pickers do NOT deserve an extra penny a pound, but Halliburton deserves subsidies. WWJD?
Posted by crabwalk at 04/18/2008 @ 11:42am
Shouldn't you feed the lepers, Supply Side Jesus?
No, Thomas, that would just make them lazy.
Then shouldn't you at least heal them, Supply Side Jesus?
No, James. Leprosy is a matter of personal responsibility. If people knew I was healing lepers, there would be no incentive to avoid leprosy.
--
Supply Side Jesus, I think I've got a great line for your sermon on the mount. "It is easier to pass through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.
For shame, Peter! That's class warfare.
- AL Franken's "Supply Side Jesus"
Posted by crabwalk at 04/18/2008 @ 11:53am
So there's no concensus that they're NOT harmful, as well, right?
Posted by MASK 04/18/2008 @ 10:51am
i guess. there's lots of capitalreductionmarginalcostdividend talk, but it seems that no one really knows.
because of the multitude of ways the cost of corporate tax can be distributed, generalizations are difficult to reach and a case by case system seems more appropriate.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/18/2008 @ 12:07pm
Further evidence that Al Franken is an idiot and ignorant.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/18/2008 @ 12:02pm
but those quotes sound just like the arguments I read from "your side"!
Posted by crabwalk at 04/18/2008 @ 12:08pm
"I'm on the 100 dollar bill" -- Ben Franklin
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/18/2008 @ 12:10pm
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 04/18/2008 @ 11:27am
but their jazz sucks.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/18/2008 @ 12:11pm
just kidding.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/18/2008 @ 12:11pm
"KVH, where is the proof that Florida farmers are exploiting its workers? The real fuss is coming from the Florida Tomato Growers Exchange (FTGE) and other fringe anti-agribusiness groups. They're upset that big agribusiness won't cave in to their demands.
--God forbid any of the big agribusinesses goes belly up. Not only would the worker lose his livelyhood, but his union won't be around to help him while he's unemployed. ACOOK
I think we should just encourage all labor-intensive cultivation of agricultural commodities to leave the U.S. These farm worker complaints have been w/us my entire life HAPPY2
Posted by crabwalk at 04/18/2008 @ 12:12pm
" I grew Hemp"- George W.
"I boinked slaves"- Thom J.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/18/2008 @ 12:13pm
BARACK OBAMA IS SALLY HEMINGS'S MULATTO LOVE CHILD!!!!!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/18/2008 @ 12:16pm
You are conflating government aid versus personal aid and assistance.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/18/2008 @ 12:13pm
but a well run government is the perfect vehicle for spreading charity across faiths in projects grander than a rummage sale to send bibles to afghanistan.
or is your church ready to open an oncology clinic?
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/18/2008 @ 12:18pm
Breaking news!
the guvt is for the people , by the people
they are not aliens from The Death Star.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/18/2008 @ 12:23pm
Frosty, please, Obama is clearly the love child of Saddam Hussein and Rev Wright.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/18/2008 @ 12:25pm
Posted by CRABWALK 04/18/2008 @ 12:25pm
OOH! SATAN IS GOING TO BE SOOOOOOOO JEALOUS!
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/18/2008 @ 12:29pm
but those quotes sound just like the arguments I read from "your side"!
Posted by CRABWALK 04/18/2008 @ 12:08pm
No you haven't
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/18/2008 @ 12:13pm
"KVH, where is the proof that Florida farmers are exploiting its workers? The real fuss is coming from the Florida Tomato Growers Exchange (FTGE) and other fringe anti-agribusiness groups. They're upset that big agribusiness won't cave in to their demands.
--God forbid any of the big agribusinesses goes belly up. Not only would the worker lose his livelyhood, but his union won't be around to help him while he's unemployed. ACOOK
I think we should just encourage all labor-intensive cultivation of agricultural commodities to leave the U.S. These farm worker complaints have been w/us my entire life HAPPY2
Posted by CRABWALK 04/18/2008 @ 12:12pm
you're right, LUVVY, I did not read this stuff.
Hey!, BTW, how is Faluja doing after you advocated leveling it to weed out the terrorists?
Posted by crabwalk at 04/18/2008 @ 12:30pm
the government is on the people, buy the people.
(so for the bad parallel structure -- grammar can be so punnishing)
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/18/2008 @ 12:31pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/18/2008 @ 12:29pm
His favorite daughter will calm him down after she wins the nomination.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/18/2008 @ 12:32pm
weed out the terrorists?
Posted by CRABWALK 04/18/2008 @ 12:30pm
we need to genetically alter muslims so they are round-up ready.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/18/2008 @ 12:32pm
Posted by CRABWALK 04/18/2008 @ 12:32pm
nancy grace is running for office?
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/18/2008 @ 12:33pm
You're a good man FZ!
a note to the cons, broken loose from the my memory nodules by FZ,
Round-up is manufactured mostly in China, as the plants will not meet the environmental standards set forth by the anti-business American people. These plants pollute so much that the socialist guvt of China will CLOSE THEM DOWN 2 weeks before and after the Genocide Olympics.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/18/2008 @ 12:38pm
ttfn
Posted by crabwalk at 04/18/2008 @ 12:42pm
Monsanto Confirms Australian Rye Grass Resistant to Roundup
Matt Brown / Weed World - Australian Broadcasting Corp. 14sep97
Summary:
One of the world's biggest chemical companies, the Monsanto Corporation, has confirmed that a notorious Australian weed, rye grass, has developed tolerance to its pesticide* - Roundup. Roundup is the world's best selling weed killer. And the Australian rye grass is the world's first confirmed case of Roundup tolerance.
*[herbicide]
let the revolution begin! ĦĦĦarriba las plantas!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/18/2008 @ 12:44pm
forge on, brother. forge on.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/18/2008 @ 12:45pm
hungry children? serves them right. lousy schools because the state spends half what it spends for suburban kids? too bad. no money for college? tough luck. Germany incidentally has free universities.
shame on y'all, ya greedy creeps, you know who you are.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/18/2008 @ 1:11pm
full disclosure: I received a free college education here in the US, CCNY which had been free for over 100 years, and had more nobel prize winners than Harvard. no more. now the tuition is 4 Gs a year.
the founder of Intel, incidentally went to CCNY, and recently provided them with a large endowment.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/18/2008 @ 1:14pm
Welfare recipients produce... more welfare recipients, and an endless stream of whining, and complaints about how I owe them more.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/18/2008 @ 2:32pm
More gospel from Supply Side Jesus.
You did not read it here.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/18/2008 @ 2:39pm
Ask a neo-con ten different questions and you'll get 2 answers
grr kill, grrr
tax cuts.
Isn't this fun?
Posted by crabwalk at 04/18/2008 @ 2:44pm
Enlighten us oh Great Actuary! What exactly did ENRON produce to entitle them to my tax money? Other than brown-outs in California.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/18/2008 @ 2:47pm
One of the best that we support is World Vision.----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/18/2008 @ 1:17pm
Hmm?...that' s odd. Given I just Googled this up on them? [lifesitenews.com]
Posted by Mask at 04/18/2008 @ 2:51pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 04/18/2008 @ 2:03pm
No throw-back, Darin. You make your case and state how it ONLY applies to financial services, not service and manufacturing industries.
Posted by Mask at 04/18/2008 @ 2:54pm