Obama Administration Plans Corporate Tax Cut in Year of Record Profits - TheNation

[WillyT]

Obama Administration Plans Corporate Tax Cut in Year of Record Profits
Allison Kilkenny - TheNation
May 5, 2011

<snip>

...

The surge in unemployment comes at a time when US corporations are more profitable than ever. The end of 2010 saw some of the biggest gains in the business world, according to data from the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis. Corporations reported an annualized profit of $1.68 trillion in the fourth quarter, up from the previous record of $1.65 trillion in the third quarter of 2006.

In the first quarter of 2011, Exxon-Mobil, the world’s biggest and most profitable corporation, raked in $10.7 billion. That’s a 69 percent increase over the same quarter last year, and the highest quarterly profit since 2008. This is happening during a time when citizens are searching underneath the couch cushions to scrape together enough change in order to fill their gas tanks so they can go file for unemployment benefits.

Exxon also happens to be one of US Uncut’s top targets. The oil giant uses offshore subsidiaries in the Caribbean to avoid paying taxes in the United States. The company paid zero US income tax in 2009, while enjoying billions in taxpayer-funded subsidies and its CEO’s total compensation reached over $29 million.

Now, in addition to raking in record profits by sheltering revenue in foreign tax havens, Exxon and its Fortune 500 comrades, rest on the brink of enjoying more sweeteners in the form of tax breaks.

...

<snip>

More: http://www.thenation.com/blog/160454/obama-administration-plans-corporate-tax-cut-year-record-profits

:kick:

[Donnachaidh]

1. kick and Rec! n/t

[OKNancy]

2. if it even passes and it's not all horrible if the loopholes

are closed.
This article is more informative than the above blog IMO.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54246.html

[WillyT]

3. Closing The Loopholes...

that's one GIANT "If"...

:shrug:

[emulatorloo]

18. You are cherry-picking the plan if you skip closing the loopholes and slashing exemption

Shrug your shoulders all you want, but it is a two part plan

- lower tax rate
- close loopholes and slash exemptions.

Of course we don't know how it will come out.

But that is the plan, and if you talk only half of the plan in order to create some kind of DU Rec fest, that is not cool.

It is actually the kind of thing Republican spin-meisters do all the time. You are better than that.

[WillyT]

22. What I Did, Was Post An Article From 'The Nation'... It's Right There In The Title...

THEIR title... their article... and a link to said article, was provided.

It's a chance for all of us to discuss the upcoming plan...

That's not only "cool", that's what THIS site is supposed to be all about.

You know... a DISCUSSION BOARD !

:shrug:

[emulatorloo]

24. But The Nation article ALSO notes:"the proposal calls for closing loopholes and slashing exemptions"

You on the other hand left that part out.

So your OP tells only part of the truth about the plan.

You picked the part that DU'er would react negatively to.

You did not choose to provide DU'ers with the part of the plan designed to bring in more tax revenue from corporations than they pay now.

You misrepresented the plan by very highly selective quotation.

How can we discuss the plan on a DISCUSSION BOARD if you misrepresent what the plan is.

[WillyT]

25. And I'm Only Allowed To Post 4 Paragraphs Of An Article...

Why don't you post the 4 paragraphs that support your contention.

:shrug:

[emulatorloo]

26. I doubt Skinner would tombstone you for including a single sentence.

You had at least two SIMPLE ways to have made your OP less dishonest.

- you could have summarized in your own words that part of the plan involving loopholes and slashing exceptions

or

You could have included the SINGLE SENTENCE which starts the 2nd paragraph of the article

"In order to pay for the cuts, the proposal calls for closing loopholes and slashing exemptions."

Instead you choose not to.

You cherry picked and MISREPRESENTED the plan. It is your responsibility as a discussion member to not do that.

Not sure why you are doubling down on this. Much better to admit you were wrong to do this and say you will watch it next time. Or say that it wasn't deliberate, it was a mistake.

[WillyT]

27. Maybe... Just Maybe... I Don't Believe It's Gonna Happen The Way You Do...

Can you say, "Public Option" ???

:shrug:

And BTW - When did you become the net nanny? Maybe you ought to sign up for moderator if you want to enforce DU rules.

:D

[emulatorloo]

28. Now you are a) trying to change the subject and b) putting words into my mouth I didn't say

Your attempting to change the subject from "what is the plan" to your predictions about what will happen to the plan.

Your predictions about the plan is a different topic, and certainly one worth discussing. But it is a change of subject.

As to putting words into my mouth:

- "When did you become the net nanny?"

Never. Just because I am pointing out your cherry-picking and selective quotation doesn't mean I have any desire to babysit you. But if you are going to cherry pick the facts, you should expect you will be called out on it. This time it was me, next time it will be somebody else. ( you will see that a couple others in the thread noted it too ) That's what happens on discussion boards, especially one like DU - if you try to pull a fast one, people will call you on it.

In my case you certainly shouldn't take it personally, I enjoy reading your posts etc. But I couldn't let this go by without pointing it out.

======================

- "Maybe you ought to sign up for moderator if you want to enforce DU rules."

Where in any of my posts have I claimed a "rule violation"? Nowhere. You are the one who brought up the rules, using the four paragraph rule as an "excuse"

---

Have a great night.

[Better Believe It]

29. Are you a moderator or a new administrator?

If not, why are you laying down new rules for DU posting?

I don't like such arrogance.

Shall I put you on ignore?

[SpartanDem]

4. Removing deductions, then lowering the marginal rate isn't a tax cut

Obama has spoken doing this before

[WillyT]

5. I'll Believe It When I See It

Let's start by removing the oil subsidies...

As a sign of good faith.

:shrug:

[TheWraith]

20. Precisely. It's a fairness measure: raise taxes for big business, lower them for small business.

Right now, if you have the money to pay for plenty of accountants to do the loopholes, then you get a lot lower rate than the smaller businesses which actually PAY taxes, and lower than this proposal which closes the loopholes.

[SidDithers]

30. +1...nt

Sid

[Tarheel_Dem]

6. This o.p. is one huge, stinking pile of FAIL!

:rofl:

[Bluenorthwest]

10. In what respect, Charlie?

Your comment is a wee emoticon, lacking in content. Rude. Empty.

[emulatorloo]

19. OP only presents half on the plan. Plan contains two parts: Lower rate/close loopholes

That means more corps would pay taxes and there would be more tax revenue coming into the treasuring.

OP is cherry picking. That's not cool.

It is the kind of things that Republican talking heads do, I know WillyT and he is better than that.

[Hannah Bell]

7. kr

[girl gone mad]

8. Bad policy..

for a dozen reasons.

[Oasis_]

9. I don't think it's bad policy

but there is a danger of lowering the tax rate and closing the loopholes may potentially result in Big Business simply accepting it, then a little ways down the road lobbying for said loopholes to be re-implemented into the tax code.

Oasis

[bvar22]

11. "closing the loop holes"

THAT is the new Public Option,
a shiny object used for distraction
while the Primary Objective, Shifting the Tax Burden to the Working Class, is cemented in place.




Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
"By their WORKS you will know them."

[WillyT]

21. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

Exactly !!!

:kick:

:hi:

[xchrom]

23. Agreed. Nt

[lame54]

12. .

[TheWebHead]

13. the U.S. has the world's highest corporate tax rate

if you want jobs to stay here or even have some return here, you can't have a tax rate that drives companies overseas except for the largest that have lobbyists to give them tax credits in politically favored industries. The Exxon example neglects that the last fiscal year, they paid $21.5 billion in taxes on $53.2 billion in earnings, or a 41% tax rate with the tax "breaks" that are so often mentioned. It can't be stressed enough that corporate taxes are a tariff on a country's own goods, and having the distinction of having the world's highest domestic tariff has consequences.

[Oasis_]

14. I completely agree

Great post. There's an inherent cost (and it's significant) for large companies to simply do business when you factor in the enormous expense of compliance (retaining and paying tax attorneys, applying for credits, the myriad of tax laws on the books etc)

Simplifying the code is a great start. Reducing the rate altogether makes our business environment much more attractive to companies (foreign and domestic).

Rate reductions (and in some cases removals) need to be paid for, though. The military budget being a prime candidate for a significant budget adjustment. the saving realized would more than pay for the possible loss of revenue (although an actual revenue loss is debatable--especially if it spurs job growth and business expansion)

Oasis

[Enthusiast]

32. Right wing talking points are great posts?

Not on DU.

[bobbolink]

15. And at the same time, proposes 8.9 BILLION in cuts to low-income housing.

:puke:

[Wabbajack_]

16. You know what???

ONLY the rich and the corporations should pay taxes. How about that. Raise it on them and let the working man off the hook for funding death squads and bailouts and sugar subsidies.

[G_j]

17. kick

[Enthusiast]

31. The Plan: Pretend to close loopholes,

lower the corporate tax rate, continue to whine about entitlements causing the deficit. Wash, repeat.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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