US Companies Only Pay 1/3 Corporate Tax Rate

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]drunkpig wrote:
You almost sound like an anarchist. Not that there should be no rules, but the notion that rational people can come to the agreements required to advance society without the millstone of government placed around everyone’s neck.
[/quote]

I probably am, but I have no faith anarchy would work(too many people are willing to cede any semblance of individual sovereignty in order to feel safe, and would bow down to the first person or group that promised them something-I think we need something to pacify them). So I guess I’m an anarchist in principle, but a minarchist in practice(as long as someone’s around to tell them they’re okay, they won’t panic too much).[/quote]

I had the same epiphany, as it were, back in early December last year.

Theoretically, I cannot disagree with anything true anarchists believe. Practically - none of it will work. I think the Founders came as close as anyone could ever possibly get to true anarchism.

Too bad, especially given today, that we have strayed so far from the greatest document ever created short of the Bible.

42

[quote]drunkpig wrote:
I had the same epiphany, as it were, back in early December last year.

Theoretically, I cannot disagree with anything true anarchists believe. Practically - none of it will work. I think the Founders came as close as anyone could ever possibly get to true anarchism.

Too bad, especially given today, that we have strayed so far from the greatest document ever created short of the Bible.
[/quote]

I think the Articles would have worked, given the time to do so.

43

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]drunkpig wrote:
I had the same epiphany, as it were, back in early December last year.

Theoretically, I cannot disagree with anything true anarchists believe. Practically - none of it will work. I think the Founders came as close as anyone could ever possibly get to true anarchism.

Too bad, especially given today, that we have strayed so far from the greatest document ever created short of the Bible.
[/quote]

I think the Articles would have worked, given the time to do so.[/quote]

Probably so - but it couldn’t pass muster 250 years ago. I prefer to go off what we have. Given our current situation, the Constitution is all we have, and the only document worth defending.

44

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Multi-billion dollar corporations pay less taxes on their profits than a typical middle class families in taxes. Surprise!

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=10393[/quote]

Corporate profits are taxed at two levels, the company level and the shareholder level.

So, for example, Exxon earns $100. It’s taxed 35%, leaving $65. Then the shareholder is taxed at $39.5%, leaving $39.33.

In short, for every $100 in profits Exxon distributes, the Obama Regime takes $60.68, for a total tax rate of 60.61%.[/quote]
Here is another theoretical falsehood. 35% is the nominal tax rate, not the effective rate. A big difference![/quote]

So, what is a “fair” rate?[/quote]
Not the point. The poster tried to pretend that corporations pay 35% and they do not. Fed tax rate was over 90% in the 1950’s and the economy grew at a much better rate than today. So you tell me…[/quote]

I wasn’t addressing your point. You brought up what wasn’t fair, I was asking you a direct question. What is? What is fair to take from a company? At what minimum rate is it unfair to allow a company to keep from its’ earnings?[/quote]
Since the nominal tax rate was over 90% in the 1950’s and the economy grew at a faster rate then I would say that it makes sense. You? [/quote]

So, your stance it that it is unfair for a corporation to be allowed to keep more than 10% of the wealth it creates?[/quote]
Is it your stance that multi-billion dollar corporations should be able to pay less taxes than their average worker?

The tax rate was over 90% in the 1950’s and the economy did better than today. Just pointing that out.[/quote]

Do I need to re-ask the question? If you think you have the right to take the vast majority of their earnings by threat of violence and at the end of a gun, then just state it. The sniveling dodging and hiding doesn’t become you.

I think that what is right or wrong is not defined by the relative status of others. If your definition of fair requires you to compare one thing or person to another, then you approach the concept like a child. “but Timmy down the street gets to stay up until 10, it’s not fair that I have to go to bed at 9.”

And because I believe in non-violence, I think all taxation is unfair.[/quote]

No one is asking some one to do anything violent , by the CJS own words if people want services then they have to pay for them . If they wish not to live in a society that offers services , by all means leave America and find a nice little country that has no infrastructure or services , I guarantee lower tax rates
[/quote]

Yes, and someone with come to my house with guns to make me leave too.

All government exists exclusively under threat of violence.

45

[quote]drunkpig wrote:
Probably so - but it couldn’t pass muster 250 years ago. I prefer to go off what we have. Given our current situation, the Constitution is all we have, and the only document worth defending.
[/quote]

I meant to edit my post, since getting rid of the Articles of Confederation just proved that people are always looking for something to protect them. Interestingly, one of the reasons we got rid of the Articles of Confederation was because of a $42 million national debt(more than $40 billion today). Our current national debt is approximately $16,737,246,099,998…

46

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]drunkpig wrote:
Probably so - but it couldn’t pass muster 250 years ago. I prefer to go off what we have. Given our current situation, the Constitution is all we have, and the only document worth defending.
[/quote]

I meant to edit my post, since getting rid of the Articles of Confederation just proved that people are always looking for something to protect them. Interestingly, one of the reasons we got rid of the Articles of Confederation was because of a $42 million national debt(more than $40 billion today). Our current national debt is approximately $16,737,246,099,998…[/quote]

Looking for someone tho protect us is the giant leap of faith required to go from organized governance to anarchism.

That one issue is the only resaon I am not a balls-in anarchist. Without some form of governance, the worst of man will rise to the surface much faster than the best.

47

[quote]drunkpig wrote:
Looking for someone tho protect us is the giant leap of faith required to go from organized governance to anarchism.

That one issue is the only resaon I am not a balls-in anarchist. Without some form of governance, the worst of man will rise to the surface much faster than the best.

[/quote]

No doubt about it, but I would drop the, “Without some form of governance,” since that obviously has nothing to do with the worst of man rising.

48

[quote]drunkpig wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

I was wondering where your stupid ass was…

On effective corporate taxation: The Gap Between Statutory and Real Corporate Tax Rates ⋆ Reclaim Democracy!
[/quote]

Your source - and kudos for not using your standard propaganda site - uses the term “statutory 35% tax rate”.

This is just not true. There is no statutory corporate tax rate. It is a progressive tax rate. In fact - from 1993 to 2002, there were no fewer than 8 different corporate tax brackets.

This is a link to a PDF from the IRS. You know - the guys who actually collect the taxes imposed by congress? Yeah - those guys.

I would invite you, or anyone to find a 90% tax bracket listed in any year between 1902 and 2002.
[/quote]

You are right. I was confusing personal income tax with corporate tax. Statutory tax is the amount that should be levied on the multi-billion dollar corporations (currently 35%) since their profits are in the billions. But this simple mix up does nothing to unravel the facts of the post.
Some corporations do not pay any tax on profits and actually get a refund. With all the fiscal cliff talk and short fall on government revenues it would be a nice study to figure out how much the U.S. is being denied it’s tax receipts from these corporations. I’m sure this shortfall has already been calculated.

49

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Multi-billion dollar corporations pay less taxes on their profits than a typical middle class families in taxes. Surprise!

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=10393[/quote]

Corporate profits are taxed at two levels, the company level and the shareholder level.

So, for example, Exxon earns $100. It’s taxed 35%, leaving $65. Then the shareholder is taxed at $39.5%, leaving $39.33.

In short, for every $100 in profits Exxon distributes, the Obama Regime takes $60.68, for a total tax rate of 60.61%.[/quote]
Here is another theoretical falsehood. 35% is the nominal tax rate, not the effective rate. A big difference![/quote]

So, what is a “fair” rate?[/quote]
Not the point. The poster tried to pretend that corporations pay 35% and they do not. Fed tax rate was over 90% in the 1950’s and the economy grew at a much better rate than today. So you tell me…[/quote]

I wasn’t addressing your point. You brought up what wasn’t fair, I was asking you a direct question. What is? What is fair to take from a company? At what minimum rate is it unfair to allow a company to keep from its’ earnings?[/quote]
Since the nominal tax rate was over 90% in the 1950’s and the economy grew at a faster rate then I would say that it makes sense. You? [/quote]

So, your stance it that it is unfair for a corporation to be allowed to keep more than 10% of the wealth it creates?[/quote]
Is it your stance that multi-billion dollar corporations should be able to pay less taxes than their average worker?

The tax rate was over 90% in the 1950’s and the economy did better than today. Just pointing that out.[/quote]

Do I need to re-ask the question? If you think you have the right to take the vast majority of their earnings by threat of violence and at the end of a gun, then just state it. The sniveling dodging and hiding doesn’t become you.

I think that what is right or wrong is not defined by the relative status of others. If your definition of fair requires you to compare one thing or person to another, then you approach the concept like a child. “but Timmy down the street gets to stay up until 10, it’s not fair that I have to go to bed at 9.”

And because I believe in non-violence, I think all taxation is unfair.[/quote]

I’m not advocating taking anything by gunpoint. It needs to be done by the people via unions and elected government officials to name 2 ways.

50

More sources

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/19/1359401/chart-the-global-corporate-tax-rate-plummeted-in-the-last-decade/?mobile=nc

51

We got us some smart guys that know what they are talking about.

Oh Zep sorry did not see you there. Well I guess one not so smart guy in the room is not that bad. Maybe you will learn something.

52

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Since the nominal tax rate was over 90% in the 1950’s and the economy grew at a faster rate then I would say that it makes sense. You? [/quote]

lol. yes, because the world is so similar to that of 1950. That will work out just fine.

Dumb[/quote]

Zep does not understand a company could write off a lot more and depreciate faster all of it assets in the 1950’s, so the actual tax paid was closer to zero. When Reagan was President he changed that. He lowered the tax rates and closed the loop holes that Liberals love to scream about. Liberals and the Realnewz.omg have no clue what they are talking about.

The 1950’s were great because we were the only place on the planet that had factories to produce anything. Europe was decimated, and so was Japan. The 1950’s were great for America but not the rest of the world. Now the rest of the World is catching up with America. The Reagan and Bush policies of the 1980’s helped us more than anything done by liberals in the 1950’s. Learn your History Zep and maybe the realnewz.omg could actually learn how to put statistics into context.
[/quote]

Nor does he understand that cutting into company profits will cut jobs, reduce pay and increase the price of goods. While foreign competitors don’t have this problem and can further undercut prices of goods further reducing company profits and increasing job loss.
Allowing companies to make money is good for the economy. Driving them out of business or forcing them to move out of the country is bad for the economy. This is really simple stuff.

The proof is in the pudding, removing the payroll tax credit on corporations from based on obama’s recent compromise took money out of my paycheck, the company did not suffer at all, they just passed along the tax.

53

In the heated political debate that Americans are having about federal spending and revenue, advocates of higher taxes often cite the 1950s as a Golden Age. Then, it is claimed, the wealthy paid higher federal taxes and the system was fairer. A closer look at the facts, however, does not support this assertion.

In fact:

In the 1950s, very few people paid the very high income-tax rates aimed at the wealthiest.

Claims that wealthy people paid more taxes rest instead on the assumption that the rich, as stock owners, bore the entire burden of higher corporate taxes of that era. There are good reasons to doubt this assumption about corporate taxes.

Even if we leave these assumptions unchallenged, the economy of the 1950s was so different from our own that its tax structure cannot be reproduced today.

The most plausible viable paths to higher taxes in todayâ??s economy would render the tax system less fair, not more so.

[quote]2busy wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Since the nominal tax rate was over 90% in the 1950’s and the economy grew at a faster rate then I would say that it makes sense. You? [/quote]

lol. yes, because the world is so similar to that of 1950. That will work out just fine.

Dumb[/quote]

Zep does not understand a company could write off a lot more and depreciate faster all of it assets in the 1950’s, so the actual tax paid was closer to zero. When Reagan was President he changed that. He lowered the tax rates and closed the loop holes that Liberals love to scream about. Liberals and the Realnewz.omg have no clue what they are talking about.

The 1950’s were great because we were the only place on the planet that had factories to produce anything. Europe was decimated, and so was Japan. The 1950’s were great for America but not the rest of the world. Now the rest of the World is catching up with America. The Reagan and Bush policies of the 1980’s helped us more than anything done by liberals in the 1950’s. Learn your History Zep and maybe the realnewz.omg could actually learn how to put statistics into context.
[/quote]
Really, so corporations effective tax rate in the 50’s was close to zero? Care to provide any proof? Cite any sources?[/quote]

54

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
I’m not advocating taking anything by gunpoint. It needs to be done by the people via unions and elected government officials to name 2 ways.
[/quote]

Unions are fine as long as they don’t turn to the government for assistance. You’re a welder and team up with other welders to say none of you will work for less than $25/hour, then get that pay…fine. You’re a welder and team up with other welders to say none of you will work for less than $25/hour, then your boss says, “Okay, see you later, then,” don’t cry for help from the government when he hires people willing to work for $20/hour.

Everything elected officials do is done at gunpoint(at least figuratively-I guess literally it’s only the threat of violence).

55

Zeppelin, do you really think that anyone has a right to the property of another?

Do you really believe that a majority opinion validates anything?

Do you really believe that if three people are in a room and two decide they deserve the third’s property, then they are justified in taking it by whatever means necessary?

If I remember correctly, it seems we once had a system where some people profited from others, and the others were allowed to keep only what the some allowed. It seems like we even passed a Constitutional amendment outlawing that type of thing.

56

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Since the nominal tax rate was over 90% in the 1950’s and the economy grew at a faster rate then I would say that it makes sense. You? [/quote]

lol. yes, because the world is so similar to that of 1950. That will work out just fine.

Dumb[/quote]

Zep does not understand a company could write off a lot more and depreciate faster all of it assets in the 1950’s, so the actual tax paid was closer to zero. When Reagan was President he changed that. He lowered the tax rates and closed the loop holes that Liberals love to scream about. Liberals and the Realnewz.omg have no clue what they are talking about.

The 1950’s were great because we were the only place on the planet that had factories to produce anything. Europe was decimated, and so was Japan. The 1950’s were great for America but not the rest of the world. Now the rest of the World is catching up with America. The Reagan and Bush policies of the 1980’s helped us more than anything done by liberals in the 1950’s. Learn your History Zep and maybe the realnewz.omg could actually learn how to put statistics into context.
[/quote]

Nor does he understand that cutting into company profits will cut jobs, reduce pay and increase the price of goods. While foreign competitors don’t have this problem and can further undercut prices of goods further reducing company profits and increasing job loss.
Allowing companies to make money is good for the economy. Driving them out of business or forcing them to move out of the country is bad for the economy. This is really simple stuff.

The proof is in the pudding, removing the payroll tax credit on corporations from based on obama’s recent compromise took money out of my paycheck, the company did not suffer at all, they just passed along the tax.[/quote]
i completely disagree with Obama’s raise of the payroll tax it only takes money out of the workers pockets. A true hallmark of a so called “socialist”.

If the effective tax rate was close to zero can you provide evidence? Corporate tax rates were about 52% and personal tax rates were over 90% and the economy grew much faster than today when taxes are much lower.

Since you are so brilliant why don’t you post these so called facts on their website to disprove the propaganda of these economists?

57

[quote]2busy wrote:
In the heated political debate that Americans are having about federal spending and revenue, advocates of higher taxes often cite the 1950s as a Golden Age. Then, it is claimed, the wealthy paid higher federal taxes and the system was fairer. A closer look at the facts, however, does not support this assertion.

In fact:

In the 1950s, very few people paid the very high income-tax rates aimed at the wealthiest.

Claims that wealthy people paid more taxes rest instead on the assumption that the rich, as stock owners, bore the entire burden of higher corporate taxes of that era. There are good reasons to doubt this assumption about corporate taxes.

Even if we leave these assumptions unchallenged, the economy of the 1950s was so different from our own that its tax structure cannot be reproduced today.

The most plausible viable paths to higher taxes in todayâ??s economy would render the tax system less fair, not more so.

[quote]2busy wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Since the nominal tax rate was over 90% in the 1950’s and the economy grew at a faster rate then I would say that it makes sense. You? [/quote]

lol. yes, because the world is so similar to that of 1950. That will work out just fine.

Dumb[/quote]

Zep does not understand a company could write off a lot more and depreciate faster all of it assets in the 1950’s, so the actual tax paid was closer to zero. When Reagan was President he changed that. He lowered the tax rates and closed the loop holes that Liberals love to scream about. Liberals and the Realnewz.omg have no clue what they are talking about.

The 1950’s were great because we were the only place on the planet that had factories to produce anything. Europe was decimated, and so was Japan. The 1950’s were great for America but not the rest of the world. Now the rest of the World is catching up with America. The Reagan and Bush policies of the 1980’s helped us more than anything done by liberals in the 1950’s. Learn your History Zep and maybe the realnewz.omg could actually learn how to put statistics into context.
[/quote]
Really, so corporations effective tax rate in the 50’s was close to zero? Care to provide any proof? Cite any sources?[/quote]

Then what about other countries who have high taxation (Sweden, Germany) but are the least effected economically from European austerity?

Basically there is no correlation between less taxes and more jobs i.e. stronger economy. Just like there is no correlation between the stock market and a strong economy.

58

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Zeppelin, do you really think that anyone has a right to the property of another?

Do you really believe that a majority opinion validates anything?

Do you really believe that if three people are in a room and two decide they deserve the third’s property, then they are justified in taking it by whatever means necessary?

If I remember correctly, it seems we once had a system where some people profited from others, and the others were allowed to keep only what the some allowed. It seems like we even passed a Constitutional amendment outlawing that type of thing.[/quote]

Yes I do think the majority opinion ought to validate something.

The problem with your example is that you don’t see both sides of the story. When people build up wealth they consolidate power and use that to build up even more power to see their means to an end that usually tramples on the public. Do you think it’s okay for a minority to build up monopoly power that is eventually used and negatively against the majority?

Teddy Rosevelt saw this and made it his goal to bust up these monopolies. He had the balls to take on these monopolies after their paid for President McKinnley was assassinated.

59

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
I’m not advocating taking anything by gunpoint. It needs to be done by the people via unions and elected government officials to name 2 ways.
[/quote]

Unions are fine as long as they don’t turn to the government for assistance. You’re a welder and team up with other welders to say none of you will work for less than $25/hour, then get that pay…fine. You’re a welder and team up with other welders to say none of you will work for less than $25/hour, then your boss says, “Okay, see you later, then,” don’t cry for help from the government when he hires people willing to work for $20/hour.

Everything elected officials do is done at gunpoint(at least figuratively-I guess literally it’s only the threat of violence).[/quote]

“turn to government for assistance” You mean like the big banks?

60

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]2busy wrote:
In the heated political debate that Americans are having about federal spending and revenue, advocates of higher taxes often cite the 1950s as a Golden Age. Then, it is claimed, the wealthy paid higher federal taxes and the system was fairer. A closer look at the facts, however, does not support this assertion.

In fact:

In the 1950s, very few people paid the very high income-tax rates aimed at the wealthiest.

Claims that wealthy people paid more taxes rest instead on the assumption that the rich, as stock owners, bore the entire burden of higher corporate taxes of that era. There are good reasons to doubt this assumption about corporate taxes.

Even if we leave these assumptions unchallenged, the economy of the 1950s was so different from our own that its tax structure cannot be reproduced today.

The most plausible viable paths to higher taxes in today�??�?�¢??s economy would render the tax system less fair, not more so.

[quote]2busy wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Since the nominal tax rate was over 90% in the 1950’s and the economy grew at a faster rate then I would say that it makes sense. You? [/quote]

lol. yes, because the world is so similar to that of 1950. That will work out just fine.

Dumb[/quote]

Zep does not understand a company could write off a lot more and depreciate faster all of it assets in the 1950’s, so the actual tax paid was closer to zero. When Reagan was President he changed that. He lowered the tax rates and closed the loop holes that Liberals love to scream about. Liberals and the Realnewz.omg have no clue what they are talking about.

The 1950’s were great because we were the only place on the planet that had factories to produce anything. Europe was decimated, and so was Japan. The 1950’s were great for America but not the rest of the world. Now the rest of the World is catching up with America. The Reagan and Bush policies of the 1980’s helped us more than anything done by liberals in the 1950’s. Learn your History Zep and maybe the realnewz.omg could actually learn how to put statistics into context.
[/quote]
Really, so corporations effective tax rate in the 50’s was close to zero? Care to provide any proof? Cite any sources?[/quote]

Then what about other countries who have high taxation (Sweden, Germany) but are the least effected economically from European austerity?

Basically there is no correlation between less taxes and more jobs i.e. stronger economy. Just like there is no correlation between the stock market and a strong economy.[/quote]
[/quote]
How did you come up with THAT analysis when the studies show the opposite?

50’s economy boomed because although the taxes SEEMED high, really they were not.

I really think you need to move to Cuba.

You also need to improve your quoting skills here.