US Companies Only Pay 1/3 Corporate Tax Rate

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]2busy wrote:

[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.

[/quote]
How did I come up with that? I looked at the current situation in Europe and the current situation in the U.S… Booming stock market and high unemployment. No correlation.

Wow the Manhattan Institute funded by the Koch brothers, Exxon Mobile and Chase Manhattan to name a few. Gee wonder if there studies are skewed to benefit those who fund them? Try looking at Mr. Black’s expose of The Heritage Foundation where he marshalls evidence to prove that they use “fake empiricism” to come up with the results that there funders need tham to come up with.

62

Correlation does not imply causation.

Please learn.

63

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
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.
[/quote]

-I don’t agree that mob rule is good.

-When has a coercive monopoly ever been created by the market? A coercive monopoly, which is what you’re talking about, can only be built with government assistance.

-The institution I was talking about was outlawed when Teddy Roosevelt was a young child.

64

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
“turn to government for assistance” You mean like the big banks?[/quote]

Yes, exactly.

65

[quote]Zeppelin795 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]

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]
You are a fucking idiot. Period.

66

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 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]

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]
You are a fucking idiot. Period. [/quote]

So succinct and learned you are.

67

[quote]2busy wrote:
Correlation does not imply causation.

Please learn.

[/quote]

I would advise that you learn. People say that the market is doing great and often make the assumption the economy is doing the same. A lot of this comes from right-wing economists or conservative talking heads. I’m merely pointing out this is a fallacy propagated by the right. Also you didn’t bother to address all of my points and just focused on the difference between correlation and causation.

68

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
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.
[/quote]

-I don’t agree that mob rule is good.

-When has a coercive monopoly ever been created by the market? A coercive monopoly, which is what you’re talking about, can only be built with government assistance.

-The institution I was talking about was outlawed when Teddy Roosevelt was a young child.[/quote]

The market is made up of people it is not mythical. Greedy people love no competition so they can guarantee their profits are protected. This happens all the time with government help. Is it your position that the corporations bear no responsibility?

69

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]2busy wrote:
Correlation does not imply causation.

Please learn.

[/quote]

I would advise that you learn. People say that the market is doing great and often make the assumption the economy is doing the same. A lot of this comes from right-wing economists or conservative talking heads. I’m merely pointing out this is a fallacy propagated by the right. Also you didn’t bother to address all of my points and just focused on the difference between correlation and causation. [/quote]

Look. You constantly ignore points.

In a previous thread when I pointed out errors in your views on health care using statistics from the CDC, you then stated you didn’t consider the CDC to be reliable.

Why don’t you point out the fallacy of the left-winged propaganda?

If you were TRULY the bringer of truth that you imagine yourself to be, you would present facts. Not slanted by any view.

And you would verify your own “facts”. Not demand someone prove you wrong.

Your opinion of having unions manage corporate profits just goes to show you’re another left winged viewpoint without a clue on how to make something work in the real world.

70

[quote]2busy wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]2busy wrote:
Correlation does not imply causation.

Please learn.

[/quote]

I would advise that you learn. People say that the market is doing great and often make the assumption the economy is doing the same. A lot of this comes from right-wing economists or conservative talking heads. I’m merely pointing out this is a fallacy propagated by the right. Also you didn’t bother to address all of my points and just focused on the difference between correlation and causation. [/quote]

Look. You constantly ignore points.

In a previous thread when I pointed out errors in your views on health care using statistics from the CDC, you then stated you didn’t consider the CDC to be reliable.

Why don’t you point out the fallacy of the left-winged propaganda?

If you were TRULY the bringer of truth that you imagine yourself to be, you would present facts. Not slanted by any view.

And you would verify your own “facts”. Not demand someone prove you wrong.

Your opinion of having unions manage corporate profits just goes to show you’re another left winged viewpoint without a clue on how to make something work in the real world.
[/quote]
Don’t ever remember saying the CDC has no reliability.

Ultimately I think the workers ought to own the factories.

So how are facts slanted?

And talk about something not working in the real world try right wing economic fallacies.

Why don’t YOU point out the fallacies of the left-wing?

And what are the follies of my views on healthcare? That it is the number one reason for BK in this country, that we have to spend twice as much as any other country?

71

Convenient how you seem to forget.

72

[quote]2busy wrote:
Convenient how you seem to forget.
[/quote]

Convenient how you can’t defend your arguments so you switch tactics.

73

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
The market is made up of people it is not mythical. Greedy people love no competition so they can guarantee their profits are protected. This happens all the time with government help. Is it your position that the corporations bear no responsibility?[/quote]

I am the one who realizes the market is not mythical. You operate under the belief that the market can be made to fit the whims of government.

No, some corporations bear some of the responsibility, but without government assistance, they would have no coercive power. The government is the problem.

If a quadriplegic threatens to whip your ass and take your lunch money, would you really need to respond? That’s how little power a business would have over others without government involvement.

74

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
The market is made up of people it is not mythical. Greedy people love no competition so they can guarantee their profits are protected. This happens all the time with government help. Is it your position that the corporations bear no responsibility?[/quote]

I am the one who realizes the market is not mythical. You operate under the belief that the market can be made to fit the whims of government.

No, some corporations bear some of the responsibility, but without government assistance, they would have no coercive power. The government is the problem.

If a quadriplegic threatens to whip your ass and take your lunch money, would you really need to respond? That’s how little power a business would have over others without government involvement. [/quote]

Funny that they have such power over the elected officials. If they didn’t have such huge amounts of money they wouldn’t have such power and therefore would not be able to bribe members of Congress and the White House. You and your ilk are so fond of blaming the government without equal vitriol of the moronic CEO’s who bribe then to form monopolies.

These are the same fools who will send their attack dogs on corporate news sources ABC, Limbaugh etc. to extoll the virtues of the “free market” all the while doing their best to stifle competition.

And I disagree it is you and your idealogues who believe the “free market” is mythical and can create magic. Too bad it is made up of people and subject to their whims.

Government passed Glass-Steigel and it worked. They eventually got rid of the regulations -you know because regulations stifle creativity- and then the whole economic system almost came crumbling down. More right-wing economic fantasies.

Governments in other industrialized countries run the healthcare system and they pay half the cost of the U.S. public pays and do not force it’s inhabitants to file for BK because of the extreme costs. Government can do the right thing and all the Regan bullshit is nothing more than ideology cheerleading.

75

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]2busy wrote:
Convenient how you seem to forget.
[/quote]

Convenient how you can’t defend your arguments so you switch tactics.
[/quote]

You are the one who switches tactics or suddenly decides something that is a fact is not true.

From the Healthcare thread

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]2busy wrote:
Look, Zep, you’re a left wing ideologue who molds truth to fit your views.

Let’s just look at this claim.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
More people die overall in the U.S. because of our healthcare systems.
[/quote]

Really?

The number one cause of death in the US is Cardiovascular issues.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

What causes Caridovascular disease?

“Atherosclerosis is the most common form of this disorder. Atherosclerosis is also the most common cause of cardiovascular disease, and it’s often caused by an unhealthy diet, lack of exercise, being overweight and smoking. All of these are major risk factors for developing atherosclerosis and, in turn, cardiovascular disease.”

"Causes of heart arrhythmia
Common causes of abnormal heart rhythms (arrhythmias), or conditions that can lead to arrhythmias include:

Heart defects you’re born with (congenital heart defects)
Coronary artery disease
High blood pressure
Diabetes
Smoking
Excessive use of alcohol or caffeine
Drug abuse
Stress
Some over-the-counter medications, prescription medications, dietary supplements and herbal remedies
Valvular heart disease"

From http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/heart-disease/DS01120/DSECTION=causes

So the US Healthcare system is causing people to have eat an unhealthy diet, not exercise, be fat, and smoke?

How about, people are not being responsible for themselves?

You can’t blame Jiffy Lube for your car engine shelling its bearings because you chose to change the oil every 50,000 miles.

I’m convinced you need to move to Cuba. You will be happy there.

And look, it will reduce the amount of stress in your life. You know, that’s one of those factors that can cause heart arrhythmia.[/quote]

Even if your heart disease statement is true it doesn’t deflate my statement. Read it again.
[/quote]

“Even if your heart disease statement is true?”

I cited the CDC statistics. Provided the LINK so you can confirm it.

And besides, it STATES the major cause of death is HEART DISEASE. Not that the Health industry kills them.

You conveniently ignore facts.

Please go live in one of your Marxist wonderlands.

76

[quote]2busy wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]2busy wrote:
Convenient how you seem to forget.
[/quote]

Convenient how you can’t defend your arguments so you switch tactics.
[/quote]

You are the one who switches tactics or suddenly decides something that is a fact is not true.

From the Healthcare thread

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]2busy wrote:
Look, Zep, you’re a left wing ideologue who molds truth to fit your views.

Let’s just look at this claim.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
More people die overall in the U.S. because of our healthcare systems.
[/quote]

Really?

The number one cause of death in the US is Cardiovascular issues.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

What causes Caridovascular disease?

“Atherosclerosis is the most common form of this disorder. Atherosclerosis is also the most common cause of cardiovascular disease, and it’s often caused by an unhealthy diet, lack of exercise, being overweight and smoking. All of these are major risk factors for developing atherosclerosis and, in turn, cardiovascular disease.”

"Causes of heart arrhythmia
Common causes of abnormal heart rhythms (arrhythmias), or conditions that can lead to arrhythmias include:

Heart defects you’re born with (congenital heart defects)
Coronary artery disease
High blood pressure
Diabetes
Smoking
Excessive use of alcohol or caffeine
Drug abuse
Stress
Some over-the-counter medications, prescription medications, dietary supplements and herbal remedies
Valvular heart disease"

From http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/heart-disease/DS01120/DSECTION=causes

So the US Healthcare system is causing people to have eat an unhealthy diet, not exercise, be fat, and smoke?

How about, people are not being responsible for themselves?

You can’t blame Jiffy Lube for your car engine shelling its bearings because you chose to change the oil every 50,000 miles.

I’m convinced you need to move to Cuba. You will be happy there.

And look, it will reduce the amount of stress in your life. You know, that’s one of those factors that can cause heart arrhythmia.[/quote]

Even if your heart disease statement is true it doesn’t deflate my statement. Read it again.
[/quote]

“Even if your heart disease statement is true?”

I cited the CDC statistics. Provided the LINK so you can confirm it.

And besides, it STATES the major cause of death is HEART DISEASE. Not that the Health industry kills them.

You conveniently ignore facts.

Please go live in one of your Marxist wonderlands.[/quote]

So are you claiming that every other country who has a from of government healthcare and pays half as much do not have heart disease problems? And this is the main reason why healthcare in the U.S. is so expensive? Also how do you explain away the much better efficiency of Medicare? Do people who have Medicare not get heart disease?

77

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

This guy has been practicing economy for longer than you have been an accountant.[/quote]

Great. Doesn’t mean a damn thing.

When “practicing economists” teach accounting courses and CPE lectures on a regular basis, you will then, and only then have a point.

I’m not afraid of anything, nor would I be showing anyone the “right way”. I would simiply be pointing out they are spending an awful lot of time and energy comparing apples to beaver pelts. Much like I’ve already pointed out here.

[quote] Maybe it’s that your ignorant of economics since you are an accountant. Just some thoughts.
[/quote]

Well, then unless you have a degree in economics or “practice it” does that not make you the ignorant one?

I mean I was required to take a few courses in economics to get my degrees, and was also tested on it to earn my letters. So I would say, no, I’m not ignorant.

78

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Funny that they have such power over the elected officials.
[/quote]

No, it’s not. What IS funny(and sad) is that those who want to limit the “power” of corporations continue to vote for the philosophy that gives corporations and government the legal ability to coerce.

You and those like you are too stupid to understand that you are the ones who have given corporations any power they have.

When you give those with the right to use force the “right” to control the economy, then you should expect just what you claim to be/think you’re against. Your average citizen has nothing with which to persuade government officials, but those with big money do. You live in a fantasy world in which people are not persuaded by money, and continue to grant power to your rulers.

You are a slave who gleefully takes his/her beating, then begs for more.

79

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]2busy wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]2busy wrote:
Convenient how you seem to forget.
[/quote]

Convenient how you can’t defend your arguments so you switch tactics.
[/quote]

You are the one who switches tactics or suddenly decides something that is a fact is not true.

From the Healthcare thread

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]2busy wrote:
Look, Zep, you’re a left wing ideologue who molds truth to fit your views.

Let’s just look at this claim.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
More people die overall in the U.S. because of our healthcare systems.
[/quote]

Really?

The number one cause of death in the US is Cardiovascular issues.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

What causes Caridovascular disease?

“Atherosclerosis is the most common form of this disorder. Atherosclerosis is also the most common cause of cardiovascular disease, and it’s often caused by an unhealthy diet, lack of exercise, being overweight and smoking. All of these are major risk factors for developing atherosclerosis and, in turn, cardiovascular disease.”

"Causes of heart arrhythmia
Common causes of abnormal heart rhythms (arrhythmias), or conditions that can lead to arrhythmias include:

Heart defects you’re born with (congenital heart defects)
Coronary artery disease
High blood pressure
Diabetes
Smoking
Excessive use of alcohol or caffeine
Drug abuse
Stress
Some over-the-counter medications, prescription medications, dietary supplements and herbal remedies
Valvular heart disease"

From http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/heart-disease/DS01120/DSECTION=causes

So the US Healthcare system is causing people to have eat an unhealthy diet, not exercise, be fat, and smoke?

How about, people are not being responsible for themselves?

You can’t blame Jiffy Lube for your car engine shelling its bearings because you chose to change the oil every 50,000 miles.

I’m convinced you need to move to Cuba. You will be happy there.

And look, it will reduce the amount of stress in your life. You know, that’s one of those factors that can cause heart arrhythmia.[/quote]

Even if your heart disease statement is true it doesn’t deflate my statement. Read it again.
[/quote]

“Even if your heart disease statement is true?”

I cited the CDC statistics. Provided the LINK so you can confirm it.

And besides, it STATES the major cause of death is HEART DISEASE. Not that the Health industry kills them.

You conveniently ignore facts.

Please go live in one of your Marxist wonderlands.[/quote]

So are you claiming that every other country who has a from of government healthcare and pays half as much do not have heart disease problems? And this is the main reason why healthcare in the U.S. is so expensive? Also how do you explain away the much better efficiency of Medicare? Do people who have Medicare not get heart disease?
[/quote]

Look who’s changing topics?

The issue was you discrediting CDC statistics. “Even if your heart disease statement is true”…

You proved perfectly in your response how you avoid facts.

I’ll make it VERY SIMPLE for you. Maybe you can follow along.

You stated as FACT “More people are killed by the US Heathcare System then any disease.”

Nothing to back it up.

I counter with statistics from the CDC that refuted that, ALONG with related link to verify.

Your response was “Even if your heart disease statement is true”

I point out exactly when you discredit CDC statistics, which you claim to have no knowledge having done.

And you turn it into trying some crap about other governments and their healthcare systems.

How the fuck does that have anything to the point of you avoiding CDC statitics that prove your assumptions wrong?

You’re Non Sequiter, Zep.

Here’s the definition so you might understand Formal fallacy - Wikipedia

I posted a link showing the WASTE and ABUSE of Medicare in that same thread, BTW.

80

[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]

Anywhere up to 100% is fair (Not necessarily smart though). Companies only exist by government grace. They could not exist in a free market.