Democrats and Republicans Are Quietly Planning a Corporate Giveaway — to the Tune of $400 Billion

[ThickStemz]

What happened to the "corporate taxes get pushed onto the customer" argument?

Now it's the "but we have to be competitive in the global economy!" argument?


What does it matter if US corporations are competitive if none of the benefits for being competitive are dispersed among the US population? Why in the world should I care if Walmart can pay their executives exceedingly higher salaries because of lower corporate taxes if their employees aren't even earning a living wage?

It seems like you're saying we have to give corporations these low tax rates because it'll benefit the American people, and if we don't, prices will rise.. Well, ever since we started progressively lowering the corporate tax rates, average CEO compensation has skyrocketed by 325%, average hourly earnings have stagnated, the tax burden placed on individuals has risen by more than 30% since the 1960s, and prices still rise..

So forgive me, but what the fuck else is it going to take for you to realize that no, lower corporate tax rates are not good for the American people? What can you point to and conclude that lower corporate tax rates have been a success?

They're not mutually exclusive.

I never said just customers. I said individuals.

I also said there were so many layers to this your simplistic straw man of my position was erroneous.

I see what you're saying now. You keyed off on me saying they could go way way up and it would be fine becuase it would effect them all.

This statement was made with passing those costs on to the consumers and individuals in mind. That's the reason if we were in a closed system you could tax the fuck out of corporations and it wouldn't hurt the corp. That cost gets passed to the customer and others, and no outside corp with lower taxes could out compete them.

 

[Padawanbater2]

How is +325% "hurting" corporations?

With "the highest corporate tax in the world", they are still managing obscene returns and record breaking profits, so where is all this pain felt by the corporate world in the US that you speak of?

 

[ThickStemz]

How is +325% "hurting" corporations?

With "the highest corporate tax in the world", they are still managing obscene returns and record breaking profits, so where is all this pain felt by the corporate world in the US that you speak of?

Do you know why?

You have a very myopic and short sighted view of this my friend. If you're every going to actually read and try to understand one of my posts make it this one.

What is the interest rate from the fed? It's crazy low. I don't know the exact rate today but they're historically low by low historical standards. What does this mean?

It means that the rich and corporations that hold a lot of their wealth in stocks are doing great on paper and making great gains becuase of the rise in the stock market.

Whats the flip side? Retired people and savers are getting killed becuase interest is far lower than inflation.

That's a federal policy that Bush started and obama has doubled down on.

With the quantitative easing cash has been devalued, making this even worse.

Your answer to this is raise taxes on the rich and raise the minimum wage. It's not even treating the symptoms. It would have little to no effect.

Only a tiny portion of minimum wage earners are also the primary income earner of the family. I'm not saying it wouldn't help. It would. Just hardly at all.

Want to fix it with taxes? Ok. The top 20% averages paying in about $45k a year. The second 20% pays $700 on average. The bottom 60% doesn't pay a federal income tax... I'm not saying they pay no taxes, strictly speaking about the income tax.

You're right in what you point out are problems. They are problems. But they're not THE problem.

It's so complex and has so many interacting pieces I know I don't fully understand it and any one on this forum is a fool if they think they fully understand it.

We've touched in other topics about how technology has boosted productivity and reduced the need for skilled workers which has reduced the wage at which those workers will work for.

Near zero interest rates are killing savers and retired people.

It's hard to know where to begin but you're not even scratching the surface. You're complaining about tax rates that don't have anything to do with this, they're a result of it.

In looking up an answer to buck something occurred to me... tell me what you think of it. We have the highest corporate tax rates in terms of just the listed rate. It's arguable that with all the deductions out Corp taxes are below average. Those deductions also are only granted if the company spends money on things that are not in furtherance of the business goals...

This has given people who think like me, and people who think like you, just enough to look at and say to the other "see, you're wrong, becuase of this and that..."

What if we have two parties in this country who care more about being in power than about governing well. What if they've made a series of deals that have fucked us so bad, but they've covered their tracks with enough confusing rules to keep people like me and you distracted...

Becuase in know we each have some understanding of this, but neither one of us is anything like an expert and not even qualified to attempt to explain what the true experts mean. Problem is I can find experts that disagree with your experts.

 

[Elwood Diggler]

Ever hear of after tax earnings? You think you made a valid argument?

the point beavis, is that corps do in fact pay fucking taxes. only an idiot would state otherwise

 

[Padawanbater2]

What is the interest rate from the fed? It's crazy low. I don't know the exact rate today but they're historically low by low historical standards. What does this mean?

It means that the rich and corporations that hold a lot of their wealth in stocks are doing great on paper and making great gains becuase of the rise in the stock market.

Whats the flip side? Retired people and savers are getting killed becuase interest is far lower than inflation.

That's a federal policy that Bush started and obama has doubled down on.

With the quantitative easing cash has been devalued, making this even worse.

Considering we're talking about two completely separate issues; Economic growth & Individual savings, I'll humor you on this point for a minute to illustrate something

The interest rate is 0.36%, the rate of inflation is 1.4%, meaning there is a 1.04% annual devaluation of savings. Meaning if I have $100,000 saved today, that same amount next year will equal $98,960 in purchasing power

Please explain to me why you believe this has anything to do with the tools that are available to us to grow the economy. Look at the numbers, the problem is not that people's savings are depreciating through inflation and low interest rates, the problem is that not enough people are spending money to circulate it throughout the economy. It is an issue, but it's entirely separate from the point of this thread and has little to do with actually stimulating economic growth on the scale we need

Your answer to this is raise taxes on the rich and raise the minimum wage. It's not even treating the symptoms. It would have little to no effect.

I've shown exactly how raising corporate tax rates would actually benefit the American people and provided the evidence to back it up. You're saying "that's wrong", but you're not providing any evidence to why it's wrong. That's step 2

Only a tiny portion of minimum wage earners are also the primary income earner of the family. I'm not saying it wouldn't help. It would. Just hardly at all.

Raising the federal minimum wage would raise wages from between 35 to 38 million workers

"Raising the federal minimum wage is an important part of strengthening the economy. A raise for minimum wage earners will put more money in more families' pockets, which will be spent on goods and services, stimulating economic growth locally and nationally."

Want to fix it with taxes? Ok. The top 20% averages paying in about $45k a year. The second 20% pays $700 on average. The bottom 60% doesn't pay a federal income tax... I'm not saying they pay no taxes, strictly speaking about the income tax.

Top 20% = people who make $92,000 and up. You want everyone in that single bracket to pay the same amount in income tax, $45,000, meaning using current numbers, those at the bottom of the bracket ($92K) would effectively be paying a 49% income tax rate, and those at the top ($350K and up) would be paying a 13% (or lower) income tax rate, which is regressive, which is why it's important to have more tiers for higher incomes and why a flat tax harms poorer people

You're right in what you point out are problems. They are problems. But they're not THE problem.

Again, I've shown my evidence, where is your evidence? Anybody can make a claim, can't they?

It's so complex and has so many interacting pieces I know I don't fully understand it and any one on this forum is a fool if they think they fully understand it.

Who is saying they fully understand it?

We've touched in other topics about how technology has boosted productivity and reduced the need for skilled workers which has reduced the wage at which those workers will work for.

Near zero interest rates are killing savers and retired people.

Not nearly as much as you claim, see above

It's hard to know where to begin but you're not even scratching the surface. You're complaining about tax rates that don't have anything to do with this, they're a result of it.

How are current corporate tax rates a result of the performance of the economy?

In looking up an answer to buck something occurred to me... tell me what you think of it. We have the highest corporate tax rates in terms of just the listed rate. It's arguable that with all the deductions out Corp taxes are below average. Those deductions also are only granted if the company spends money on things that are not in furtherance of the business goals...

This has given people who think like me, and people who think like you, just enough to look at and say to the other "see, you're wrong, becuase of this and that..."

What if we have two parties in this country who care more about being in power than about governing well. What if they've made a series of deals that have fucked us so bad, but they've covered their tracks with enough confusing rules to keep people like me and you distracted...

I'm not interested in entertaining "what if" scenarios without any evidence. You're bordering on conspiracy theories that are effectively useless

Becuase in know we each have some understanding of this, but neither one of us is anything like an expert and not even qualified to attempt to explain what the true experts mean. Problem is I can find experts that disagree with your experts.

Nobody is claiming to be an expert, why do you constantly attempt to obfuscate the legitimate points that are made?

No, you cannot produce "experts" that disagree with the academics and economists that these ideas originate from because they're right, and anybody that disagrees with them isn't an expert. Even experts who study the other main school of economic thought now largely acknowledge the contributions of Keynesian economics. You can even find stitches of wisdom that echo Keynesian theory in classical economists works like Adam Smith and David Ricardo, the only reason to remain so rigid about one side of the economic equation is, as it usually is with people who argue about it, political... The republican party has very effectively shoved Reaganomics down American's throats for 35 years and people in your generation have eaten it up - you're about 41, right?


If you can switch that part of your conservative brain off, you can come join the party on the other side, we have plenty of evidence and nacho's

 

[Red1966]

That must be why they spend millions lobbying the government to lower them huh, for the customers...

Really dense.

 

[Red1966]

the point beavis, is that corps do in fact pay fucking taxes. only an idiot would state otherwise

Where do they get the money to pay those taxes, butthad? That would be from you, would it not?

 

[Red1966]

Let's examine how ignorant this claim is..

"Corporations don't pay taxes, their customers pay them."

Meaning, if we raise the corporate tax codes, prices will rise because their customers are paying more to make up the difference in higher taxes. If this is true, the inverse should also be true, that if we lower the corporate tax codes, prices will fall because the money that would have gone to paying higher taxes will now go to profit

Let's look at the CPI again...

OK, so beginning around the 1970s, prices steadily begin to rise. What happens to the corporate tax rate during that same period?

They go from around 50% in 1950 to 18% in 2011, a decrease of -32%


So if corporations are shifting their tax burden off onto their customers, and their customers are paying the lower corporate tax rate, why are they still paying higher prices?

"Inflation" does not account for the -32% decrease we see in the drop in corporate tax rates

The rate of inflation has remained relatively constant (which is why the slope on the CPI graph is a gradual incline) since 1960 sub the 'hyperinflation' of the 1970s. You can actually identify both slight peaks in increased prices on the first graph (represented by the gray shaded areas) that represent both of those spikes of inflation in the 70s and 80s on the Rate of Inflation graph. You can also identify the drop in prices just after the 08 financial crisis when the rate of inflation dropped below 0%.


So there you have it. Corporate tax rates have absolutely nothing to do with consumer prices. Prices rise and fall because of the rate of inflation and competition in the marketplace.

All your little charts are irrelevant. Corporate taxes rise and fall because of the rate of inflation and competition in the marketplace. also. 100% of corporate taxes are passed through to the consumer. All of them. Every single penny.

 

[Padawanbater2]

All your little charts are irrelevant. Corporate taxes rise and fall because of the rate of inflation and competition in the marketplace. also. 100% of corporate taxes are passed through to the consumer. All of them. Every single penny.

No they don't

 

[Elwood Diggler]

Where do they get the money to pay those taxes, butthad? That would be from you, would it not?

same place you do numbnuts.....selling goods and services. do you pay taxes out of your paycheck?


you do understand the difference between taxes on earnings and a company just collecting sales taxes and passing them on right?

 

[ThickStemz]

All your little charts are irrelevant. Corporate taxes rise and fall because of the rate of inflation and competition in the marketplace. also. 100% of corporate taxes are passed through to the consumer. All of them. Every single penny.

Red, I agree with you, in general, but please stop saying customers becuase it isn't true. I know what you mean, Pada doesn't and he is twisting your words.

Use individuals... eventually competition limits how much of that tax a company can put on customers. It then has to turn to employees, shareholders, and also potential employees becuase they might not make an expansion they otherwise would have.

 

[ThickStemz]

Considering we're talking about two completely separate issues; Economic growth & Individual savings, I'll humor you on this point for a minute to illustrate something

The interest rate is 0.36%, the rate of inflation is 1.4%, meaning there is a 1.04% annual devaluation of savings. Meaning if I have $100,000 saved today, that same amount next year will equal $98,960 in purchasing power

Please explain to me why you believe this has anything to do with the tools that are available to us to grow the economy. Look at the numbers, the problem is not that people's savings are depreciating through inflation and low interest rates, the problem is that not enough people are spending money to circulate it throughout the economy. It is an issue, but it's entirely separate from the point of this thread and has little to do with actually stimulating economic growth on the scale we need

I've shown exactly how raising corporate tax rates would actually benefit the American people and provided the evidence to back it up. You're saying "that's wrong", but you're not providing any evidence to why it's wrong. That's step 2

Raising the federal minimum wage would raise wages from between 35 to 38 million workers

"Raising the federal minimum wage is an important part of strengthening the economy. A raise for minimum wage earners will put more money in more families' pockets, which will be spent on goods and services, stimulating economic growth locally and nationally."

Top 20% = people who make $92,000 and up. You want everyone in that single bracket to pay the same amount in income tax, $45,000, meaning using current numbers, those at the bottom of the bracket ($92K) would effectively be paying a 49% income tax rate, and those at the top ($350K and up) would be paying a 13% (or lower) income tax rate, which is regressive, which is why it's important to have more tiers for higher incomes and why a flat tax harms poorer people

Again, I've shown my evidence, where is your evidence? Anybody can make a claim, can't they?

Who is saying they fully understand it?

Not nearly as much as you claim, see above

How are current corporate tax rates a result of the performance of the economy?

I'm not interested in entertaining "what if" scenarios without any evidence. You're bordering on conspiracy theories that are effectively useless

Nobody is claiming to be an expert, why do you constantly attempt to obfuscate the legitimate points that are made?

No, you cannot produce "experts" that disagree with the academics and economists that these ideas originate from because they're right, and anybody that disagrees with them isn't an expert. Even experts who study the other main school of economic thought now largely acknowledge the contributions of Keynesian economics. You can even find stitches of wisdom that echo Keynesian theory in classical economists works like Adam Smith and David Ricardo, the only reason to remain so rigid about one side of the economic equation is, as it usually is with people who argue about it, political... The republican party has very effectively shoved Reaganomics down American's throats for 35 years and people in your generation have eaten it up - you're about 41, right?


If you can switch that part of your conservative brain off, you can come join the party on the other side, we have plenty of evidence and nacho's

I can tell you didn't follow the instructions. Know how I know?

The tax part. You obviously didn't take any effort to understand what I wrote.

I didn't propose taxing the top 20% a flat 45k. That is their average tax. The second 20% pays an average of 700. Below that no one pays an income tax.

The Earned income tax credit has been more succusful in lifting people out of poverty than many other programs and conservatives have advocated ending the penalty for single people with no kids and giving it also to both married people's in lower income households.

You can't fix this by taxing people or business.

Low corporate taxes have no impact on this issue. We don't have a revenue problem, and as I pointed out our corporate taxes are not low.

Our stated rate is the highest of any developed country. The deductions that make it lower are only given when the corp spends money on social type things that aren't for business interest. So that's not much different than a tax.

Our business are being taxed the shit out of right now. And they cut corners wherever else they can.

 

[NLXSK1]

"The interest rate is 0.36%, the rate of inflation is 1.4%, meaning there is a 1.04% annual devaluation of savings. Meaning if I have $100,000 saved today, that same amount next year will equal $98,960 in purchasing power

Please explain to me why you believe this has anything to do with the tools that are available to us to grow the economy. Look at the numbers, the problem is not that people's savings are depreciating through inflation and low interest rates, the problem is that not enough people are spending money to circulate it throughout the economy. It is an issue, but it's entirely separate from the point of this thread and has little to do with actually stimulating economic growth on the scale we need"

The government pushes inflation at 2% to discourage savings and encourage deficit spending. That is completely despicable as it is good for the government but bad for everyone else.

Until we get our debt under control and the massive interest payments we make eliminated.

The problem is that the government is meddling in the economy in ways they were never authorized to do nor are capable of managing efficiently.

 

[ttystikk]

If you can switch that part of your conservative brain off, you can come join the party on the other side, we have plenty of evidence and nacho's

This is going in my signature! LMFAO!

You're a genius. Nachos and nearbeer and we could have a while new swing voting constituency!

HAHAHAHA!

 

[ttystikk]

How did you come across the book?

I was in B&N and saw the Pulitzer Prize sticker on the cover of GG&S, read that, was blown away and started looking at Diamond's other works. My exgf got me Collapse for my birthday which is funny considering the book

We should swap reading lists, I bet there's a ton of good stuff on yours!

I dunno, we've kind of hit the highlights of mine already. I'm trying to write one now.

I like sci-fi and Robert Reich columns these days, and articles like these;

http://www.kunc.org/post/cash-crop-basement-growers-cannabis-has-caught-eye-colorados-farmers#stream/0

http://www.kunc.org/post/once-forgotten-niche-farm-tech-investing-explodes

http://www.kunc.org/post/growing-colorado-cannabis-energy-hungry-work-innovation-could-change

 

[Padawanbater2]

I didn't propose taxing the top 20% a flat 45k. That is their average tax. The second 20% pays an average of 700. Below that no one pays an income tax.

What does that mean? How much income tax would someone who makes $10,000,000 pay? How much would someone making $92,000 pay? Both of those individuals make up "the top 20%", how do they both pay an "average" of $45K?

The Earned income tax credit has been more succusful in lifting people out of poverty than many other programs and conservatives have advocated ending the penalty for single people with no kids and giving it also to both married people's in lower income households.

Why do you believe subsidizing poor people's incomes through the taxpayers is a better solution than raising the minimum wage and having employers pay those wages? Unless you raise taxes, you would just add to the national debt, so are you suggesting raising taxes on the rich to provide a higher EITC for the poor?

Low corporate taxes have no impact on this issue. We don't have a revenue problem, and as I pointed out our corporate taxes are not low.

Corporate taxes are at historically low levels;

When were they ever lower in the US than they are now?

Our stated rate is the highest of any developed country.

And yet they still manage obscene returns and record breaking profits. How do they manage that if they simply can't compete with other multinational corporations who pay lower corporate tax rates?

 

[ThickStemz]

What does that mean? How much income tax would someone who makes $10,000,000 pay? How much would someone making $92,000 pay? Both of those individuals make up "the top 20%", how do they both pay an "average" of $45K?

Why do you believe subsidizing poor people's incomes through the taxpayers is a better solution than raising the minimum wage and having employers pay those wages? Unless you raise taxes, you would just add to the national debt, so are you suggesting raising taxes on the rich to provide a higher EITC for the poor?

Corporate taxes are at historically low levels;

When were they ever lower in the US than they are now?

And yet they still manage obscene returns and record breaking profits. How do they manage that if they simply can't compete with other multinational corporations who pay lower corporate tax rates?

With the 10 mill earner and 92K earner what I mean by average tax of the top 20% is this. .. add up all the taxes that group pays, in total by all membersof the top 20 %. What ever that sum is, divide it by the number of tax payers that make up the top 20%. The answer is that the average tax payment of members of the top 20% is 46,500... 45k for short.

I don't see how that's complicated. The purpose is to show what group pays income tax. Top 20% avg is the 45k. The second 20% is 700 on average. The bottom 60 percent either doesn't pay income tax, or they receive more in taxes than they pay in.

To your 2nd questions... the reason eitc is more effective than raising the minimum wage is its more targeted. If you raise the minimum wage you'll be giving more money to a lot of teenage kids of the 1%. The people who earn the eitc can be targeted. Not only that... raising the minimum just slightly increases the monthly income. The eitc gives poor people what they almost never have, lump sum payments for large purchases, buying a car or some other necessary high price item.

To your third question, they can afford it becuase they're not increasing the wages of their employees and haven't been for some time. You know that.

Corporate tax revenues aren't at all time lows becuase the rates are too low. They're at all time lows becuase so many have moved over seas. The tax base has shrunk. There are many reasons. There isn't just one.

 

[Padawanbater2]

With the 10 mill earner and 92K earner what I mean by average tax of the top 20% is this. .. add up all the taxes that group pays, in total by all membersof the top 20 %. What ever that sum is, divide it by the number of tax payers that make up the top 20%. The answer is that the average tax payment of members of the top 20% is 46,500... 45k for short.

I don't see how that's complicated. The purpose is to show what group pays income tax. Top 20% avg is the 45k. The second 20% is 700 on average. The bottom 60 percent either doesn't pay income tax, or they receive more in taxes than they pay in.

How much income tax would a person making $10,000,000 pay?

How much income tax would a person making $92,000 pay?

To your 2nd questions... the reason eitc is more effective than raising the minimum wage is its more targeted. If you raise the minimum wage you'll be giving more money to a lot of teenage kids of the 1%. The people who earn the eitc can be targeted. Not only that... raising the minimum just slightly increases the monthly income. The eitc gives poor people what they almost never have, lump sum payments for large purchases, buying a car or some other necessary high price item.

Where is the evidence that shows the EITC is more effective at generating economic growth than raising the minimum wage?

To your third question, they can afford it becuase they're not increasing the wages of their employees and haven't been for some time. You know that.

Are you suggesting raising taxes on the rich to provide a higher EITC for the poor?

If not, how would we increase the EITC without contributing to the national debt?

Corporate tax revenues aren't at all time lows becuase the rates are too low. They're at all time lows becuase so many have moved over seas. The tax base has shrunk. There are many reasons. There isn't just one.

Go to Google, look up the history of the US corporate tax rate;

When has it ever been lower in the US than it is now?

 

[ThickStemz]

How much income tax would a person making $10,000,000 pay?

How much income tax would a person making $92,000 pay?

Where is the evidence that shows the EITC is more effective at generating economic growth than raising the minimum wage?

Are you suggesting raising taxes on the rich to provide a higher EITC for the poor?

If not, how would we increase the EITC without contributing to the national debt?

Go to Google, look up the history of the US corporate tax rate;

When has it ever been lower in the US than it is now?

Pada, in reverse order this time...

I didn't say tax rate. I said tax revenue. You said in your previous post that tax revenue was at all time low for the corp tax... your claim. Not mine.

Of course eitc is better than better than min wage. THAT is your claim, you supply the evidence that minimum wage is better. How does raising the wage for the kids of rich people help the poor? Would not giving extra money to the working poor be much more efficient than raising the pay of summer work for rich highs hoop kids?

Are you dense? Why does it matter what the tax bill is for a 10mill and 92K earner? It's totally irrelevant.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I didn't say tax rate. I said tax revenue. You said in your previous post that tax revenue was at all time low for the corp tax... your claim. Not mine.

The corporate tax rate is the same as the corporate tax revenue, I addressed that in post #14 of this same thread. Revenue is collected at the current tax rate, if the tax rate falls, the amount of revenue collected also falls

Of course eitc is better than better than min wage. THAT is your claim, you supply the evidence that minimum wage is better. How does raising the wage for the kids of rich people help the poor? Would not giving extra money to the working poor be much more efficient than raising the pay of summer work for rich highs hoop kids?

Raising the minimum wage benefits between 35 and 38 million low wage workers

How many kids of rich people do you think work minimum wage jobs?

I support the EITC, unlike the republican congress. I believe there is evidence that shows both raising the minimum wage and increasing the EITC would benefit poor people. You're against raising the minimum wage because it would come out of employers pockets and wouldn't be subsidized by American taxpayers even though it would stimulate the economy and benefit poor people

Are you dense? Why does it matter what the tax bill is for a 10mill and 92K earner? It's totally irrelevant.

It matters because you said this about how to change the tax codes to "fix it";

Want to fix it with taxes? Ok. The top 20% averages paying in about $45k a year. The second 20% pays $700 on average. The bottom 60% doesn't pay a federal income tax... I'm not saying they pay no taxes, strictly speaking about the income tax.

You suggested fixing the tax issue by making everyone in the top 20% of income earners pay "an average" of $45,000. I told you the top 20% of income earners includes people making $92,000 a year, meaning that if their income tax "averages" out at $45,000, they have an effective income tax rate of 49%

Then you said;

I didn't propose taxing the top 20% a flat 45k. That is their average tax. The second 20% pays an average of 700. Below that no one pays an income tax.

So what do you mean by "average tax"? If everyone in the top 20% paid an "average" of $45,000 in income tax, those at the top of the bracket would have much lower rates than those at the bottom (regressive)

If we did what you're suggesting - add up all the taxes the top 20% pays, then divide by the number of people in the 20% to "average" out at ~$45,000, who pays that amount? Does the guy making $92,000 a year pay that much in income taxes? Does the guy making $10,000,000 a year pay that much in income taxes?

If not, how much do they pay in income taxes, respectively, to "fix this problem"?


Seems like a pretty straight forward question to me, I'm not really sure why you're having such a hard time with it..