Next Time A Republican Tells You Cutting Corporate Taxes Will Save Or Create Jobs, Tell Them This

[ihavenobias]

A Republican representative repeated the tired line today that "the U.S. has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world". He said this while trying to defend some new Republican tax proposals, and he added that if we don't cut the corporate tax rate we're sure to lose more jobs overseas. There's just one small problem with his argument:

According to the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO), .

This is from a report back in August, so you'd think it would've become public knowledge by now, but unfortunately it hasn't. I wonder if that's because the "second highest tax rate" lie is rarely if ever challenged in the mainstream media, especially on television.

, and I'm assuming more were lost from 2003-2005. While job creation and loss is more complicated than just tax rates, doesn't the fact that we lost millions and millions of jobs despite ZERO taxes for over 2/3 of corporations destroy the Republican argument that we need lower corporate taxes rates?

It should. Speaking of 'shoulds', the cable news talking heads *should* be aware of this fact and *should* use it to clobber anyone who makes this tired tax cut argument.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. The tax *rate* doesn't determine how much tax is actually paid.

There are many loopholes available to corporations and wealthy individuals. If they are actually paying the rate set by the Internal Revenue Code, they have lousy accountants.

[trof]

34. Bingo! The repug parses very finely.

(loudly) THE U.S HAS THE HIGHEST CORPORATE TAX RATE IN THE WORLD!

(whisper) But very few corporations pay it.
:eyes:

[DaLittle Kitty]

87. What did you Expect From Mainstream Media err CORPORATE MEDIA?

:puke:

[MajorChode]

89. You don't expect the Repugs to actually tell the truth, do you?

If they did, their constituency would only consist of the richest 1% of America. You gotta reel the stooges in one way or another.

[omega minimo]

2. .

[lonestarnot]

14. Ain't that the troof! and grand pic of Ronnie Ray Gun!

:thumbsup:

[omega minimo]

24. sums it up, don't it? looks just like him, too

[stevedeshazer]

16. Awesome image.

[Kalyke]

51. Have you seen Paul Ryan?

He's the guy to which the OP was referring (I think).

I took one look at him on Keith Olbermann last night and told my husband he was trying hard to look like Reagan and would probably be on the 2012 ticket for the RepubliCONs.




I'm guessing Nancy told him exactly what kind of hair gel to use and how to store it.

[BrklynLiberal]

59. Chris Matthews sliced and diced him...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x291622

[ihavenobias]

108. Thanks for the link! n/t

[omega minimo]

66. OMG sure looks like Ryan's tryin

:scared: Doesn't look quite robotic enough yet...

[Marie26]

107. LOL, just LOL. nt

[OhioChick]

3. Thanks...

I wasn't aware of this gem:

"According to the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO), nearly two-thirds of U.S. companies and 68% of foreign corporations in the U.S. paid NO federal income taxes from 1998-2005."

K&R

[ihavenobias]

4. It's a great point against free traders.

You know, the idea that so many jobs were outsourced because of the "second highest corporate tax rate".

[imdjh]

7. But does it make sense?

If corporate tax rates were zero, wouldn't call center jobs and factory jobs still be moved to Twentycentsanhour and Dollaranhour Republic?
Have the Republicans proposed a binding deal with US corporations? "We won't tax you if you will move all the jobs you moved offshore back onshore." ?

[ihavenobias]

8. I'm not sure what you're asking?

We lots millions of jobs *with a 0% tax rate* on 2/3 of corporations. I'm not sure why offering them more of the same would entice them back.

[Wetzelbill]

19. yes they would still move them

Because it's a race to the bottom. They're always looking for a way to get around something, whether it's our minimum wage, workforce protections, any health care obligations or environmental laws. It's not necessarily the tax rate that they don't like, it's any number of things they would outsource jobs to circumvent.

[bvar22]

90. That is why Obama's plan to end tax breaks for outsourcers is pure smoke.

The "tax break" is nothing compares to the corporate profits reaped from slave labor.

[tclambert]

104. Well, you know, slave labor is very economical.

If you have no ethics except economic benefit, you have to be in favor of slavery. Pure, unadulterated corporate economics leads to slavery, murder for profit, theft, fraud, Ponzi schemes, abandoning the elderly to poverty and starvation, you know, the Republican ideal.

[FiveGoodMen]

5. Excellent point!

[navarth]

6. yep. K & R.

[pleah]

9. K&R

[Mithreal]

98. K&R and ihavenobias got a mention on Thom Hartmann' show today. Congrats. nt

[pleah]

101. Wow! That is great!

Thanks. I didn't know that.:)

[yellerpup]

10. To protect an intellectual property my partner and I had to incorporate.

We spent a lot of money on lawyers, we spent a lot of money on getting things set up, we spent a fortune on getting our taxes done correctly (the term 'fortune' being relative to how much money was actually brought in) and when I paid myself the princely sum of $10K/year, I paid double tax on what I would normally pay in fed, state, medicare, social security, & local payroll tax on the salary that I would have paid had I been working for someone else. (because that other person's corporation would have kicked in half instead of me paying it all) On the other hand, I was able to deduct all operating expenses, etc., and because so little money was at stake, I never had to pay "corporate" taxes. That bit of insight being laid down, I will totally agree that the stated corporate tax rate is NOT too high because hardly anyone has to pay it if they spend enough and that good jobs for American workers need to be brought back home so we can manufacture goods for our own consumption.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

72. I'm not a corporation, just a sole proprietor, but I can deduct

all sorts of things that an individual can't deduct, such as office supplies, computer equipment, travel to visit clients or attend conferences, getting business cards printed, and, since I have a home office, the portion of my rent and utilities that covers that area of the apartment.

[yellerpup]

94. After five years or so, we dissolved the corporation and returned to

sole proprietorship (which we had had before for about 20 years). Forming the corporation was not something we wanted to do but had to do to protect our personal assets after getting involved in a contract dispute with some unsavory characters. A sole proprietorship is much preferable IMO. Sounds like you have yourself set up very well. :hi:

[libodem]

11. Excellent!

Thanks for the research. Great post, ihavenobias. This is important work.

[20score]

12. Good one Mr. Nobias! K&R

[GinaMaria]

13. nice work!

[lonestarnot]

15. K & R!

[mzmolly]

17. K

and R. Excellent work IHNB. :hi:

[truedelphi]

18. It used to make sense to let the rich keep their money

They opened up large centers of employment like Steel mills, and refineries, textile mills, call centers, and whatever. But now they don't set anything up here in this country, so why shouldn't we tax the bigger corporations at a bigger rate.

[JJ]

27. Sure they did.

and when I was a kid, Santa brought me presents, and the Easter Bunny brought me eggs and candy, and the tooth fairy gave me money for my baby teeth.

It must have also made sense to let the cotton plantation owners keep all the money because of all the employment opportunities they supplied for African immigrants.

[OwnedByFerrets]

49. I dont believe its EVER made sense to let the rich keep their money...

If they are taxed at a high rate, like 91% which is what it used to be, instead of hoarding all their money like they do now, they would instead invest it in their companies and in their work force. Its one of the things that grew the middle class in the 50s and early 60s.

"After the Republican Great Depression, FDR put this nation back to work, in part by raising taxes on income above $3 to $4 million a year (in today’s dollars) to 91 percent, and corporate taxes to over 50% of profits.



Every billion dollars (a half-week in Iraq) invested in infrastructure in America created 47,000 good-paying jobs as Americans built America.



Reagan promptly cut income taxes on the very rich from 70% down to 27%. Corporate tax rates were also cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983 (they’re still in that neighborhood, the lowest in the industrialized world).

Regan to cover his tax cuts doubled the tax paid only by people earning less than $40,000/year (FICA), and then began borrowing from the huge surplus this new tax was accumulating in the Social Security Trust Fund. Even with that, Reagan had to borrow more money in his 8 years than the sum total of all presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter combined. Reagan’s tax cut greatly diminished expenditures on infrastructure (bridges, roads, hospital, colleges, etc.)

When Reagan dropped the top income tax rate from over 70% down to under 30%, all hell broke loose. With the legal and social restraint to unlimited selfishness removed, “the good of the nation” was replaced by “greed is good” as the primary paradigm.

In the years since then, mind-boggling wealth has risen among fewer than 20,000 people in America (the top 0.01 percent of wage-earners), but their influence has been tremendous. They finance “conservative” think tanks (think Joseph Coors and the Heritage Foundation), change public opinion (Walton heirs funding a covert effort to change the “estate tax” to the “death tax”), lobby congress and the president (who calls the “haves and the have-more’s” his “base”), and work to strip down public institutions.

The middle class is being replaced by the working poor. American infrastructure built with tax revenues during the 1934-1981 is now crumbling and disintegrating. Hospitals and highways and power and water systems have been corporatized. People are dying." Thom Hartmann

.

[FailureToCommunicate]

57. And Reagan, with Michael Deaver's help, made everyone believe it was the 'tax and

spend' DEMOCRATS that screwed hard working Americans.
Thanks for your good analysis, "Owned"

[indypaul]

63. And in 1980 that 70% rate applied only to

TAXABLE incomes of $108,300 if single, $215,400 if married
and filing a joint return, $107,700 if married filing a
separate return and $161,300 if filing as head of household.
That taxable income is AFTER all deductions and exemptions.
And let's not forget those were the hay-days of tax shelters.
The question is, how many persons in 1980 realized that amount of
income, and what would those amounts be in 2009 dollars? It
makes me sick when I hear views expressed about those "high"
rates of tax when in reality they affected very few persons.
And certainly only those persons who could well afford paying
such an amount.

[truedelphi]

74. I am not sure why everyone jumped on me.

I hate the unfairness in our system just as much as everyone here.

But I was pointing out one small perhaps tangible EXCUSe for why the origianl offer to have the rich keep their money did make some sense. They did, in the old days, use it to buikld factories here.

Was it a fabulous, complaint free world? Of course not. When I read myhistory, Was I on the side of Pullman or the strikers in 1893? Myself, I favored the strikers.

[OwnedByFerrets]

85. What I was trying to point out....and must have failed horribly....

is that when they are "allowed" to keep their money, they DONT build factories. Rich people dont hire people because they have lots of money. Its a lie perpetrated by the reich wing.

[Wetzelbill]

20. K and R

Excellent work!

[matthewf]

21. k&RRRR

[democracy1st]

22. K & R

[lpbk2713]

23. We had eight years of doing it their way.

And that's why we are in the mess we are in today.

[digidigido]

68. Actually we've had over 25 years of doing it their way

[ihavenobias]

109. Exactly. n/t

[Rhiannon12866]

25. K&R! Excellent post, and so very true.

I usually have cable news on whenever I'm home, and all they seem to be talking about is the economy, the corporate bailout and taxes. But you're absolutely right, nobody mentions this... :-(

[Turborama]

26. Very good points that I, for one, hadn't known about

:kick: & R for a great destruction of an enormous Repugnant lie/myth/bullshit about taxes.

[lamp_shade]

28. Dorgan on the senate floor Monday brought this up. The republicans insist

US corp tax rate is #3 highest among industrial nations.... HOWEVER, after loopholes and tax breaks, the US is placed #3 FROM THE BOTTOM.

[ihavenobias]

112. Hartmann said #2 from the bottom, but either way! n/t

[Political Heretic]

29. The information is slightly misleading.

This is one of my favorite points to make and believe me I throw that report around all the time. However, I stumbled across some comments that I think are important to read that qualifies this data a little bit. Unfortunately I don't have the name of the internet poster who make this post, as it was some time ago. But I saved the comments. Judge for yourself:

But let's look at the GAO report, itself (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08957.pdf).

From the Executive Summary, the GAO explains why it conducted this study: "Concerns about transfer pricing abuse have led researchers to compare the tax liabilities of foreign- and U.S.-controlled corporations … GAO was asked to update the previous reports by comparing (1) the tax liabilities of foreign-controlled domestic corporations (FCDC) and U.S.-controlled corporations (USCC) – including those reporting zero tax liabilities for 1998 through 2005 … and (2) characteristics of FCDCs and USCCs such as age, size, and industry. GAO analyzed data from the Internal Revenue Service's Statistics of Income samples of corporate tax returns."

The report, in short, has been requested to try to identify if foreign-controlled U.S. corporations are abusing transfer prices ... not to prove that U.S. corporations are not paying taxes. That discovery was an outcome of the research.

In summarizing what it found, it says: "FCDCs reported lower tax liabilities than USCCs by most measures shown in this report. A greater percentage of large FCDCs reported no tax liability in a given year from 1998 through 2005. For all corporations, a higher percentage of FCDCs reported no tax liabilities than USCCs through 2001 but differences after 2001 were not statistically significant. Mostlarge FCDCs and USCCs that reported no tax liability in 2005 also reported that they had no current-year income. A smaller proportion of these corporations had losses from prior years and tax credits that eliminated tax liability."

The report begins with a letter to Senator Carl Levin of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. It points out that the study is in response to the committee's long standing concerns about whether foreign-controlled U.S. corporations are abusing transfer prices and avoiding U.S. income tax. Transfer prices are "the prices related companies, such as a parent and a subsidiary, charge on intercompany transactions. By manipulating transfer prices, multinational corporations can shift income from higher to lower tax jurisdictions, reducing the companies' overall tax liability." Previous reports had suggested that transfer price abuses might explain some of the differences in tax liabilities paid by foreign-controlled U.S. corporations vs. U.S.-controlled corporations, but limitations in data collection made it hard to determine the exact extent of this problem. The letter also reports that the GAO analyzed data from the Internal Revenue Service's Statistics of Income (SOI) samples of corporate tax returns for tax years 1998-2005. It provides some warnings about the nature of the data (based on returns, as filed, and did not reflect audits or net operating losses; reported data are estimates, and differences between estimates may not be significant; different types of corporations use different forms; etc.).

"We also report separately for large corporations – those with at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in gross receipts – because, though they account for less than one percent of all corporations, they make up over 90 percent of all assets reported on corporate returns." (pages 1-2)

In short, while Bloomberg is correct in pointing out that the report included data from millions and millions of U.S. corporations (not necessarily mom- and pop-companies, though, as Bloomberg stated), and that lots and lots might skew the overall data (as evidenced by the graph on the first page AND repeated in Figure 1, below, that Bloomberg refered to -- the one showing that 2/3 of all corporations did not pay taxes) ... Bloomberg neglects to report that the GAO separated out data from LARGE corporations and reported on them separately. As we shall see, the data is not quite as damning as the 2/3 figure quoted in the MSM, but it is still pretty darn high.

Results in Brief (page 3): "… large FCDCs were more likely to report no tax liability over multiple years than large USCCs …

(page 7): Figure 1: Percentages of FCDCs and USCCs That Reported No Tax Liability, Tax Years 1998 through 2005 shows that 60-70% of ALLforeign controlled and U.S. controlled corporations paid no taxes AND that 25-55% of LARGE foreign-controlled and U.S. controlled corporations paid no taxes.

(Here's where both sides, in trying to make their case, neglected to include ALL the data)

(page 8): Figure 2: Percentage of Large FCDCs and USCCs That Reported No Tax Liability for Multiple Years between 1998 and 2005 shows that 72% of LARGE FCDCs and 57% of LARGE USCCs reported at least one year of no tax liability between 1998 and 2005. About 57% of LARGE FCDCs and 42% of LARGE USCCs reported multiple years (2 or more) of no tax liability, while 34% of LARGE FCDCs and 24% of LARGE USCCs reported no tax liability for at least half of the period (4 or more years).

Appendix II (page 23): The number of LARGE FCDCs ranged from 898 to 1802, while the number of LARGE USCCs ranged from 3451 to 5463. These numbers are, indeed, small compared to ALL FCDCs and USCCs (42,567 and 1,375,182 respectively) – but data was kept separately for both .

And that's the pudding. The percentage of large "American" corporations -- whether owned by U.S. firms or foreign firms -- paying zero taxes is somewhat less than the extremely high 67% reported in the mainstream media; but half (or more) ... though a smaller number ... is still a significant number of profit-making operations that are avoiding paying taxes on their income.

And, to the best of my knowledge, this does not even count "American" corporations who have moved headquarters to tax-friendly off-shore locations so they don't pay taxes, either.

[ihavenobias]

75. Thanks! We're actually having this same conversation over at www.theyoungturks.com right now

There are some conservatives/libertarians who watch the show (and or hit the message boards where the rules are far more lenient than they are here).

But here's the thing, Republicans out right LIE about the "second highest tax rate". We can parse out the 67% details later (i.e. was it small business or large corporations and how does that skew the numbers) IF someone in the MSM and the Dems in Congress will *at least* bother to explain the difference between the on paper tax rate an the effective (aka, actual) tax rate.

On that I'm sure we agree!

[HughBeaumont]

30. K & R. Them facts . . . they don't lie.

Really.

They Don't.

The top corporate rate is the lowest it's been in 75 YEARS. Where are they getting this bag of bull paddies?

Probably the same place they dig up other profound truths, such as
"Peace through Strength",
"Big Government IS the problem" (even though the largest government expansions happened during two Republican presidencies),
"Got to fight the Terrsts over THERE, so the good people of Westchestertonfieldville, Ohio won't have to fight them in THEIR town"
"Because of President Bewsh, there've been no terrorist attacks for seven years" (never mind that a) the statement's a fallacy of cause and effect and b) the largest terrorist attack happened ON HIS WATCH WITH HIS FOREKNOWLEDGE.)
"'Axis of Evil'" (Yes, because two mortal enemies and the most diplomatically isolated country in the world somehow have an alliance. Simply STUNNING.)

[Divine Discontent]

31. thank you! K&R eom

[theFrankFactor]

32. Awesome! and No One Else on Earth Gets the Executive Pay Like US Corp.

K&R

LISTEN TO MY STUPID SHOW:
http://media.switchpod.com/users/jd/TheFrankFactorShow12033009.mp3

[droidamus2]

33. Could it be?

If you listen to the way the free trade Republicans talk you would think the ultimate governmental structure for corporate well being would be no taxes and no regulations and reinstatement of slavery and indentured servitude so they don't have to pay those damn 'labor' people anything. There whole ideology is based on funneling as much money and wealth into as few hands as possible. Basically a return to aristocracy where the guy controlling the most wealth becomes king and the rich sobs are the lords and ladies. Yeah just what we need!

[safeinOhio]

56. Don't forget, privatize the air you breath.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[4_TN_TITANS]

38. They took care of the tax issue years ago, and for years

they've been whittling away at the real expense businesses want to avoid - LABOR COSTS.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Occulus]

64. *BUUUUURrrrp*

DU feels better now.

:party:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

70. WOW! Was all of that the same thing said over and over or what?

I can haz scoop plz?

[Occulus]

77. No, I think DU just let go a good, loud, long belch.

It happens, from time to time.

:D

edit: it was probably a glitch- the mods left one copy of Sharon Boomer Athena alive. As you can see, there were many copies, all programmed to think they were human.

:P

[ihavenobias]

113. I still don't know what that was? n/t

[tomm2thumbs]

48. This needs to go to the top!! KR, KR!!

I hope they can produce names!!!! WE WANT NAMES!!!!!!!!! These corporations better not be receiving bailout money because that would be so sickenly wrong, it would turn the stomach of everyone with a tax form in front of them right now -

[nxylas]

50. Who has the highest?

Just wondering.

[EC]

52. It's not the taxes

it's the insurance cost that breaks the backs of corps here...they won't say that, because they make money off the statis quo...


I think required safty conditions plays a lot into it here too...since so many hire illegals because they won't report abuses and unsafe conditions...

[The Wizard]

53. cheap-labor conservatives

For those of you just arriving, who haven’t seen the lead article, the following is the operative concept. From “Defeat the Right in Three Minutes”:

When you cut right through it, right-wing ideology is just “dime-store economics” – intended to dress their ideology up and make it look respectable. You don’t really need to know much about economics to understand it. They certainly don’t. It all gets down to two simple words.

“Cheap labor”. That’s their whole philosophy in a nutshell – which gives you a short and pithy “catch phrase” that describes them perfectly. You’ve heard of “big-government liberals”. Well they’re “cheap-labor conservatives”.

Once you understand the general concept, you will frequently find yourself in debate over specific issues, like healthcare, social security privatization, public school vouchers, the “war on drugs” and of course the war in Iraq. What better way to put your conservative opponent on the defensive than by exposing the true motivation for his position – “cheap labor”. Can you really find the “cheap labor” angle in every conservative policy initiative, and every conservative position on any particular issue?

Yes, you can. Here is a catalogue of some of the major issues on the national agenda. In every single one of them, the conservative position advances the cause of “cheap labor”. I defy any conservative reading this to show me one single conservative position, belief, principle or policy that has any tendency to boost the earning power of labor.
http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/16

[stubtoe]

60. Succinct and to the point, Wizard. n/t

[jfkraus]

54. Cutting taxes will never lead to job growth.

The flaw with the "tax breaks create jobs" meme is this--

The ONLY reason a corporation will ever hire more people is if DEMAND for their goods and services INCREASES. Giving them more cash in the form of tax breaks will not do this, ever! No sane businessperson would hire more people just because they have some extra cash lying around. In fact, they'll probably just give themselves a bigger bonus or invest in technology just SO they don't have to hire more people.

[LiberalFighter]

67. Which is probably why too many of them have outrageous bonuses

instead of investing the money back into the company.

[rurallib]

55. If profits = jobs then wouldn't Exxon be hiring in huge numbers?

Can't remember where I heard it and I can't find it on the innertubes, but I believe Exxon has made well over $100 billion in profit in the past 3 years yeat laid off some huge number like 100,000.

[FailureToCommunicate]

58. Rich tax cheats and corporations paying ZERO taxes are SO comforting while we surfs

fill out and send in our tax forms. ("Its cold. May the bookkeepers have another lump of coal for the fire, Mr Scrooge?")

[stubtoe]

61. Posts like this illustrate why it's important to read DU.

OP digs up and points out a fact that SHOULD be COMMON KNOWLEDGE, but for our friends in Congress and the MSM.

Bookmarkin'.

Thanks!

[Blue_Tires]

62. thanks for this

The "cutting corporate taxes to lure business/create jobs" meme is like the first commandment around here....

[sutz12]

65. I think I would suggest a cap on corporate salaries....

Put a cap on how much of their top end salaries can be deducted as an expense.

[cascadiance]

88. REMOVING the cap on payroll tax would also benefit this equation too!

Payroll tax is a regressive tax that hits those at or under $100k a lot harder than those above it.

Now, in order to do it right, so that the wingnuts couldn't accuse Obama of going back on his promise not to tax on those making $250k or less, you find out what percentage the current amount that a person making $250k is now in payroll tax, and change it so that the same amount is a percentage of $250k instead of $100k and apply that percentage to ALL salary levels, in effect giving everyone under $250k a payroll tax CUT! Then take away the cap altogether, and everyone above $250k will have to pay that flat rate on ALL of their income.

This would do a number of things:
1) It would provide in effect a big tax cut for all workers under $250k which would do the same things that a targeted income tax would do.
2) Since the company has to make matching payments for each employee, the larger the amount is compared to a person's salary, that makes them that much more of a liability to the company when it comes to layoffs, etc. By removing the cap and lowering the actual percentage, the CEOs and management at the top suddenly become a lot BIGGER liability for the company than the rank and file employees paid $250k or less, especially if they are getting paid too much like many of them are. This will form an incentive for companies to try to reduce their salaries more to reduce their liabilities, if they are trying to follow rules for optimizing profits that are in place now, and less to do massive layoffs where their payroll tax liabilities are higher as they are now.
3) And I would expect that it would grow the revenue for payroll tax too, which should hopefully safeguard social security a lot more than it is now in the foreseeable future.

[jillan]

69. Just bookmarked this thread - this is definitely one that I want to keep handy.

:toast: Excellent reporting! :toast:

[barbtries]

71. unfortunately

as has been true for years, what the corporate media "should" do and what they "will" do are worlds apart.

edited to change miles to worlds.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

73. The reason that the Republican get away with that talking point is

that most Americans think that corporations are taxed the same way as individuals, i.e. just a few piddling deductions, and that they have to pay their expenses after income taxes, as individuals do, so that high taxes leave less disposable income.

However, that notion is WRONG.

They aren't aware, for instance, that salaries and benefits for employees are fully deductible, i.e. paid with pre-tax income, as are supplies, inventory, advertising, legal and accounting expenses, and a host of others. Smaller businesses even get to expense (write off in one year instead of using standard depreciation methods) purchases of equipment up to a couple hundred thousand dollars.

[dflprincess]

76. Hey! Thom Hartmann just mentioned this thread

Way to go Ihavenobias! :bounce:

[ihavenobias]

81. Awesome!

This is the best Hartmann compliment I've had since I won a signed copy of his book screwed for having the comment of the day, but that was almost 2 years ago or so.

:)

[alfredo]

78. Kick

[Royal Sloan 09]

79. Hey, great job

Tom Hartman gave this posting a mention on his radio show this morning, way to go!

Yes We Cannabis!:smoke:

[cascadiance]

82. Beat me to it... Just heard it on the road a few minutes ago...

We need some major tax reform to *reverse* the wealth transfer to the wealthy elites that's been going on for so many decades now...

[Sebastian Doyle]

80. Hey a Thom Hartmann shout out and a bunch of deleted Repuke posts

This must be a classic thread. (and I haven't even read it yet!)

[Fire1]

83. Nothing shuts them up. I've used this rebuttal during the

primaries only to be countered with 'bullshit,' which is all they know.

[Catamount]

84. Another great thread--another k&r

[JohnnyRingo]

86. As if GM closes plants because of high taxes

Or if a pizza shop owner would look around the store and say: "I don't need anyone else here, but since I got a tax cut, I'll hire another server".

RepubilcanLand is a fantasy park complete with wavy mirrors that flatter the visitor and a ride to the future that's based on a backward merry-go-round.

In RepublicanLand, wealthier vacationers get a discount on admission and the gates are closed altogether to minorities, gays, atheists, union members and women. The theory is, the less they charge at the door, the more money they make.

The biggest draw in RepublicanLand is a tent where various ranters like Limbaugh, Beck, and O'Reilly scream incoherently all day at visitors in repetitious tirades.

That would be the freak show.

[Brucie Kibbutz]

91. That's how it is in their parallel universe.

Too bad there are so many impressionable people willing to believe their talking points.

[VPStoltz]

92. This is a couple hundreds word too many if you're trying to make a point with a Repug!

I am thinking of two choice words that would wrap that argument up...
Yep, those are the ones I'm thinking of.

[Window]

93. Bravo Tom. K/R & Bookmarked.

:kick:

[Norrin Radd]

95. kr

[tnlefty]

96. Whoa!! You're getting a shout out from Thom Harmann!

Congrats. :thumbsup:

[Marie26]

97. Or as Roseanne would say:

Roseanne's one of my favorite shows of all time - I still watch the reruns sometimes & one of the episodes had this great exchange:


"At Roseanne's Door: moments before, Dan was sucking up to his banker in order to convince him to allow late payment on the mortgage.

Door-bell rings. Roseanne answers.

...Mike Summers: "Hi, I'm Mike Summers, your state representative. How'ya doin'?

Roseanne: Great.

Mike Summers: Good, I'm going door-to-door, trying to get to know my constituents.

Roseanne: Oh, door-to-door, huh. That takes a lot of time. Why don'tcha just go down to the unemployment office, and see everybody all at once.

Mike Summers: ... We can't let this area's work-force lay idle. That's why bringing in new business is my number-one priority.

Roseanne: How?

Mike Summers: Through tax incentives. See, we're gonna make it cheaper for out-of-state businesses to set up shop right here in Lanford.

Roseanne: So they get a tax break?

Mike Summers: Yea, that's why they come here.

Roseanne: Well, who's gonna pay the taxes that they ain't paying?

Mike Summers: Well, you, you will, but you'll be working, good, steady employment.

Roseanne: Union wages?

Mike Summers: Well, now, part of the reason these companies are finding it so expensive to operate in other locations is...

Roseanne: Soooo, they're gonna dump the union, so they can come here and hire us at scab wages, and then for THAT privilege, we get to pay their taxes!

Mike Summers: *pauses* "Is your husband home?..."


Funny but true.

[ihavenobias]

99. I might have to borrow this.

:)

[Marie26]

106. Please do! nt

[Fire1]

102. Excellent summation.

[newtothegame]

100. To be fair, not-for-profits make up a HUGE portion of US companies. Of course they don't pay taxes.

[Political Heretic]

110. The are not incorporated, and are not included in the GAO report

[jeff30997]

103. Feed the rich...

Starve the poor.

[thesquanderer]

105. I bet even fewer corps pay income tax this year

The other thing to remember is that the corporations only pay income tax on profit (not gross revenue). With so many companies currently making very little profit (or even generating losses), there will probably be even fewer companies paying corporate income tax this year. Lowering the tax rate for people who aren't paying anything in the first place doesn't seem like much of an economic plan to me.

[B Calm]

111. My employer was in the news a few months back for owing 68 million

in back taxes. Now he reports the US government owes him 68 million. . . UNFREAKINBELIVABLE!