Kerry's 5% corporate tax reduction to encourage job growth is

[MrSoundAndVision]

characterized by one of the following:

[mhr]

1. Proposals Like This Are Why Many Are Not excited By Kerry

Just more pandering to the corporate classes.

[elperromagico]

2. Well, I liked Edwards' plan better,

wherein those companies that keep jobs in the US receive tax incentives. I think that was his plan, anyway...

An across the board tax cut for all businesses won't cut it, because it encourages them to maintain the status quo.

[DaveSZ]

4. I believe

The "corporate tax cut" may be a way to get his broader economic growth package through the GOP House. We'll see.



A Kerry Team, a Clinton Touch
By LOUIS UCHITELLE

Published: March 28, 2004


HEY are a motley team, the four members of John Kerry's war room for economic policy.

Remember Roger C. Altman, the high-ranking Treasury official in the early Clinton years, forced out for being too loyal to his boss in the Whitewater investigation? He is one of them. Gene Sperling, a White House insider in all eight Clinton years, is another. Then there are two less-known 30-somethings: Jason Furman, a Harvard-trained economist, hired so recently that he is still working out of his Greenwich Village apartment, and Sarah Bianchi, who was Al Gore's policy adviser in 2000 and is now Mr. Kerry's. Both got their start in the Clinton White House, as young aides barely out of college.



http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/28/business/yourmoney/28kerry.html?pagewanted=1&th

[MrSoundAndVision]

7. I see preamble...

and a high-schooler's description of what the Kerry team will look like. Nothing substantive here, just because the NYT says so.

And, fuck the GOP house, people here at the DU need to be out on the streets going door to door taking those people's jobs with the TRUTH. Not being impotent here at the DU, hoping for a scrap from the NYT.

NO COMPROMISE. This is our country. Corporations aren't people, they're rashes.

[GreenArrow]

9. "Corporations aren't people, they're rashes"

No, they are not rashes. They are, for the most part, fucking parasites. Or cancers. Rashes is far too kind a word.

[MrSoundAndVision]

10. Agreed.

Sorry for the mischaracterization. I don't want to come off as too friendly to the corporations. But I do have this great idea: let's give the corporations, say, a 5% tax cut, to provide their workers with a state-of-the-art working conditions, as defined by the standard corporate standards of corporate America. I mean, these guys would clean up their act in weeks.

[Terry_M]

13. I like to call them leeches

And the current system has moved from capitalism to corporate Leechism.

[jfxgillis]

16. I disagree. Here's why ...

... and the funny thing is, Edwards's plan is LESS progressive in the long run.

If you give "tax incentives," eventually the corporations will learn how to game the system without performing the public duty they've supposedly been incentivized to perform.

EVERY paragraph added to the corporate tax code is an invitation to chisel. And if you invite corporations to chisel on taxes, they'll chisel. ALWAYS.

In my view (controversial, I admit, especially on this board), the Left should start trading off cuts in business taxes for eliminations of deductions. Keep it revenue neutral if possible, but we gotta start doing it.

It's one of the most potent weapons of righty-corporatist demagoguery and if we don't take control of the tax code--even at slightly reduced revenues--we're going to wind up devolving sovereignty to the multi-nationals.

[jfxgillis]

3. God. I'm only going to say this once

It's a REVENUE NEUTRAL proposal.

It's not a tax cut, it's not a tax raise.

In fact, to the extent that it has any fundamental policy implications at all, it's marginally progressive simply because it eliminates a defereal option and a complicating factor in the tax code.

Did you see the game today?

[MrSoundAndVision]

8. I'm sorry...

what did you say? It eliminated what? It changes the tax code but doesn't at the same time...do you smell something? Now my nose, in the progressive sense of the word nose, is pretty attuned and I smell something...fishy.

[jfxgillis]

12. It eliminates

An option for U.S. corporations to defer a tax obligation (in effect, it's a tax abatement because they can defer the obligation forever).

Kerry's plan captures that revenue by eliminating the deferal, then offsets the new revenue with a reduction in rates. MORE income is taxed at a LOWER rate.

Got that?

Now. It's marginally progressive because it eliminates a corporate option. In other words, to a very slight degree it asserts state control over a greater sphere of corporate conduct than at present.

Is it the reincarnation of Frederick Engles? No. But it's not a corporate giveaway, either.

[MrSoundAndVision]

15. Okay...Kerry's plan deals with tax "obligations" by....

"capturing" the revenue by eliminating deferral. This means companies will no longer be allowed to defer? What about money already owed? And how is decreasing corporate taxes related to increasing funds for services to the American people?

And I don't see how: "MORE income is taxed at a LOWER rate." That doesn't make any sense at all. I mean, were you expecting me to be confused by the word deferral? Maybe you should leave Washington and live like those people who work to serve you soy/burgers all day to pay to live in the Day's Inn every night. It's a pathetic life, and it has nothing to do with tax deferrals and incantations of complex tax law.

[jfxgillis]

18. The money is not "already owed"

Until the U.S. corporation decides to re-patriate it.

If ever.

And you make my point. Here you are screeching about the "incantations of complex tax law" when Kerry's proposal makes the tax law marginally LESS complex.

If a $100 billion company has $10 billion parked overseas, currently it pays taxes on $90 billion. At 10%, that's $9 billion. Kerry's proposal is that the entire $100 billion be taxed at a 9% rate.

[unblock]

11. yay! the voice of reason!

thought i was the only one.

a comical stereotype republicans have of us lefties is the thought that we can't support any tax cut and can't oppose any tax hike.

fact is, us lefties INVENTED this type of use of the tax code: revenue-neutral shifts in tax burden to steer the economy in a more fair, more equitable, and ultimately, more successful economy.

progressive income taxation is just one aspect of this, kerry's plan to punish outsourcing and reward domestic job creation is part of it.


the responses to this thread are so comical, as if the republican stereotype was true. what, should we just tax the shit out of all corporations because they're eeevil? are we really just the mirror image of the religious radical right?

[jfxgillis]

14. I've turned into a devotee of Dick Armey on tax simplification ...

... but not neccessarily on rates.

Took me twenty years to figure it out, but the Grover Nordquist righties implement their noxious ideology by having it both ways ... they benefit from the deductions that comprise the boggling complexity of the code, then they demagogue the issues by claiming to attack the craziness of the IRS when what they really mean is, "We want low rates AND myriad deductions."

The Left has to take one of those two weapons away from these extremists or we won't have a functioning government anymore.

To be fair (and to reduce the shock of citing Dick Armey), my position is very similar to Jerry Brown's as well.

[MrSoundAndVision]

17. YES AND NO

To what degree you are the mirror image is up to you I suppose.

From 1953-1957, all income in the US over $400,000 was taxed at 94%? Did you know that? Do you know what else happened during that time? The explosion of the middle class.

Stop being such a diluted leftist. These tax structures would heal our lower class, and that is a noble cause. Did you know that the tax structure in France is over 65%, and that they have universal health care, universal transportation, and a full-employment economy? Yep, and it didn't destroy the fabric of their society to do that.

DEMOCRATS: Remember who you are, and where we've come from.

Good night.

[Bill Todd]

20. It was difficult to choose which of these cheerleading posts to reply to

but I selected this one because of the phrase "kerry's plan to punish outsourcing and reward domestic job creation".

1. Kerry's plan addresses 'off-shoring' (the movement of jobs offshore within a company), not 'out-sourcing' (the purchase of goods or services from some other company, whether here or overseas).

2. Kerry's plan does not punish off-shoring, it merely stops rewarding off-shoring by eliminating a tax break for it. This one portion of the plan is at least heading in the right direction, though probably relatively ineffective in addressing the off-shoring issue (i.e., other measures will need to be taken as well).

3. Kerry's plan does not reward domestic job creation: it is neutral toward domestic job creation, unless you truly believe that an across-the-board cut in corporate taxation from 35% to 33.25% creates jobs (if you do, I've got a trickle-down plan to sell you...).

4. There is no intrinsic connection between the elimination of the deferred off-shore taxation and the across-the-board 5% corporate tax cut save for the desire to keep the overall package revenue-neutral.

5. There are multiple good reasons not to make the package revenue-neutral:

a) A package that's revenue-neutral today won't necessarily be revenue-neutral tomorrow, after corporations adjust their behavior to the new tax policies. In particular, the across-the-board tax cut is a fixed benefit, so when they start to find ways to get around the elimination of the tax deferral (e.g., by spinning off their off-shore divisions into independent corporations) the result tips the package into an absolute corporate tax reduction.

b) Corporations today contribute around 10% of our total tax revenue. This is a historical low: a few decades ago, they contributed around 30% of our total tax revenue. So rather than try to make this package revenue-neutral, Kerry should simply eliminate the tax incentive to move work off shore (thus allowing the corporate tax burden to at least start shifting back to historical norms) and use the proceeds for more worthwhile areas such as social programs, deficit reduction, or low-income tax relief.

In sum, this is a tax proposal truly worthy of the Bush-lite DLC. We can, and should, do better.

- bill

Edit: Oh, yes - this should have been a multiple-choice poll, since I wanted to vote for choices 1, 2, and 4. Now, should I go with 4 because it's clearly so much more 'electable', or with one of the more straight-talking other choices?

[Imalittleteapot]

24. It's politics folks.

Now, the pukes can't say that Kerry is against corporations.

[MrSoundAndVision]

5. Yeah it's bullshit...though I couldn't include that as an option

It only shows what a sorry state OUR party is in right now. Our candidate, after all we have been through, offering tax cuts to non-citizen corporations, in the supposed hope that they will once again participate in the betterment of American society. He's sort of, castrating himself and pledging his loyalty to the corporate class at the same time. Agree?

I'm not afraid to be the Democratic wing of the Democratic party, are you? Let's change things together.

[Fovea]

6. I dislike this idea

It is cynical *and* ineffective.

[sandnsea]

19. How about the rest of it?

Did you read the rest of his proposal? Or just focus on this one thing which offsets the tax incentive to take jobs overseas?

[Justpat]

21. Huge corporations are not all there is.

My husband and I are a small business corporation and I imagine
that a reduction in the tax rate would help us to actually make
a few bucks as opposed to just breaking even the way it is now.

The way things are right now for us, there is basically no reason
to go to work every day as we pay every cent that we make in
payroll taxes, worker's comp, disability tax, liability and then
on top of all that we should have to pay corp taxes at the current
rate? I don't think so.

[trogdor]

22. You have to read the whole thing.

Step 1: Pull the tax breaks from corporations that offshore jobs.

Step 2: Use the savings (or part of it, at least) to restructure the corporate tax code.

Thus, it's kind of a carrot and stick approach. I neither wholly agree nor disagree with step 2, but it will make the bill pass more easily through Congress. Taken together, it is a more common-sense approach than the current one, which is to cut taxes now, and assume that corporations will be nice and hire people instead of putting the money in their own pockets.

I'm not an economist, but I'd guess it would be more effective at creating or at least holding the line on jobs in this country.

You want left? You have to go through the center to get there.

[cindyw]

23. How could any good liberal/progressive not like this idea?

I really thought the people here were smarter. Kerry is talking about cutting the rate, but cutting loop holes. So it could be argued that in some cases he will be raising taxes on some corporations. Let us also not forget that there are corporations who use those loop holes to get REFUNDS. Kerry's plan will stop that. So here, here for proposing something that forces corporations to finally pay a their fare share and for proposing something that will make creating jobs a plus for corporations and not just an option of what to do with higher profits.

This is real progressive taxation at it's finest. Bush has bastardized the idea of progressive taxation. We all know how it works. Set a high tax rate and then create hundreds of loopholes so that the rich and corporations pay a lower rate than grandma on her Social Security. KERRY IS PROPOSING SOMETHING THAT PUTS THE PROGRESSIVE BACK IN CORPORATE TAXES. Learn to love it people. This guy is the Real Deal.