Corporations Calling To ‘Fix The Debt’ Want $134 Billion In Tax Breaks

  • metta

    Posts: 39169

    Nov 14, 2012 1:52 AM GMT
    Corporations Calling To ‘Fix The Debt’ Want $134 Billion In Tax Breaks

    http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/11/13/1179931/corporations-fix-the-debt/
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Nov 14, 2012 2:09 AM GMT
    There's that denial again. They deny that their blind followers were the ones who voted for Romney.

    I think they're trying to push Elizabeth Warren's buttons. At least I hope so.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 14, 2012 2:18 AM GMT


    Well now that's interesting. I've heard so much about how Corporations pay high high high federal corporate tax, but just look what happens.


    Taxable Income ($) Tax Rate[25]
    0 to 50,000 15%
    50,000 to 75,000 $7,500 + 25% Of the amount over 50,000
    75,000 to 100,000 $13,750 + 34% Of the amount over 75,000
    100,000 to 335,000 $22,250 + 39% Of the amount over 100,000
    335,000 to 10,000,000 $113,900 + 34% Of the amount over 335,000
    10,000,000 to 15,000,000 $3,400,000 + 35% Of the amount over 10,000,000
    15,000,000 to 18,333,333 $5,150,000 + 38% Of the amount over 15,000,000
    18,333,333 and up 35%


    Now look at this:

    220px-US_Effective_Corporate_Tax_Rate_19

    Now let's compare this to Canada, who many a conservative has said is better than the US:

    For Canadian-controlled private corporations claiming the small business deduction, the net tax rate is 11%.

    For the other corporations, the net tax rate is decreased as follows:

    19% effective January 1, 2009
    18% effective January 1, 2010
    16.5% effective January 1, 2011
    15% effective January 1, 2012
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 14, 2012 2:25 AM GMT


    lol our two countries are as a result of the US system of tax havens and shelters, roughly the same.

    ....and where are all the jobs?

    Where, where oh where.


    In both our countries corporations are not a social service, as much as they piously posture and infer they are. They do not hire excess staff to grow the consumer base and help all those poor people out.
    Their mandate is to make ever increasing profits, and at the same time cut costs.

    Look at this:

    US_Corporate_Profits_1947-2011.jpg

    Oh, the suffering of US and Canadian Corporations. We really must start up a charity for them.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Nov 14, 2012 2:29 AM GMT
    Anything that corporations are proposing is bound to benefit corporations, and no one else.
  • maxferguson

    Posts: 321

    Nov 18, 2012 11:23 AM GMT
    maxferguson said
    meninlove said

    lol our two countries are as a result of the US system of tax havens and shelters, roughly the same.

    ....and where are all the jobs?

    Where, where oh where.


    In both our countries corporations are not a social service, as much as they piously posture and infer they are. They do not hire excess staff to grow the consumer base and help all those poor people out.
    Their mandate is to make ever increasing profits, and at the same time cut costs.

    Look at this:

    US_Corporate_Profits_1947-2011.jpg

    Oh, the suffering of US and Canadian Corporations. We really must start up a charity for them.


    Yes, look at that... and then this

    534759_10151249449369029_1990586064_n.jp


    It's all government spending driving up corporate profits.
  • maxferguson

    Posts: 321

    Nov 18, 2012 12:24 PM GMT
    meninlove said

    lol our two countries are as a result of the US system of tax havens and shelters, roughly the same.

    ....and where are all the jobs?

    Where, where oh where.


    In both our countries corporations are not a social service, as much as they piously posture and infer they are. They do not hire excess staff to grow the consumer base and help all those poor people out.
    Their mandate is to make ever increasing profits, and at the same time cut costs.

    Look at this:

    US_Corporate_Profits_1947-2011.jpg

    Oh, the suffering of US and Canadian Corporations. We really must start up a charity for them.


    Another comment on that chart - it's not to scale. Of course corporate profits are higher today than in 1945...the economy is larger. In fact though, when you discount $1500B at 2.2% (average real GDP growth since 1890) for 50 years, corporate profits in 1940's terms are $505B. If you drew a straight line between the level 50 years ago and $500 in 2011, it'd be a much more relevant graph.
  • maxferguson

    Posts: 321

    Nov 18, 2012 12:29 PM GMT
    meninlove said

    Well now that's interesting. I've heard so much about how Corporations pay high high high federal corporate tax, but just look what happens.


    Taxable Income ($) Tax Rate[25]
    0 to 50,000 15%
    50,000 to 75,000 $7,500 + 25% Of the amount over 50,000
    75,000 to 100,000 $13,750 + 34% Of the amount over 75,000
    100,000 to 335,000 $22,250 + 39% Of the amount over 100,000
    335,000 to 10,000,000 $113,900 + 34% Of the amount over 335,000
    10,000,000 to 15,000,000 $3,400,000 + 35% Of the amount over 10,000,000
    15,000,000 to 18,333,333 $5,150,000 + 38% Of the amount over 15,000,000
    18,333,333 and up 35%


    Now look at this:

    220px-US_Effective_Corporate_Tax_Rate_19

    Now let's compare this to Canada, who many a conservative has said is better than the US:

    For Canadian-controlled private corporations claiming the small business deduction, the net tax rate is 11%.

    For the other corporations, the net tax rate is decreased as follows:

    19% effective January 1, 2009
    18% effective January 1, 2010
    16.5% effective January 1, 2011
    15% effective January 1, 2012


    Also, lower corporate taxes actually makes it easier to discriminate the tax incidence across the wealth spectrum. When a corporation pays taxes, 3 people bear the cost: the employees, the customers, and the shareholders (in proportions dependent on what the firm is selling). An increase in corporate taxes on an oil company, a product wiht relatively inelastic demand, easily gets passed on to the consumer. A corporate tax hike on say Ford, would be eaten by the shareholders and employees, as it can't be passed off in the price of a car as easily to the consumer. Lower corporate taxes offset by more discriminatory (and higher) personal taxes allows governments more precision in their policy implementation. Not to mention that 52% of all US equities are owned by pension funds; a tax savings passed on to shareholders makes pension liabilities easier to fulfill.
  • maxferguson

    Posts: 321

    Nov 18, 2012 12:51 PM GMT
    Here is how the graph looks when you factor out inflation (the label on the side for real earnings should read 1947, not 1940. my bad) ....Compare it against the corporate earnings macro drivers chart and it also becomes very evident that the driver behind the recent increase in margins is, in fact, government overspending.
    484977_10151249521824029_2008249038_n.jp
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2012 3:20 PM GMT
    Interesting Max, but Occam's razor and real world evidence.suggests otherwise.

    . ...you should really try that argument with Mr Harper. icon_wink.gif

    http://business.financialpost.com/2011/04/12/harper-challenged-on-corporate-tax-cut-in-debate/

    You might also remind him that Corporations are not a Social Service, and do not create jobs just because they pay lower taxes.

    And Max, I chose the graph not to do comparisons to the 1940s but to show whats been going since the 80s.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2012 3:32 PM GMT
    ..I often find your posts suspect, as I know you also want to do away with minimum wages..as an aside and off topic.(what I find about the young and very well educated is a myopia that assumes everyone has the same abilities to garner skilled employment rather than what too many call 'unskilled' employment.)

    icon_wink.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2012 3:34 PM GMT
    Webster666 saidAnything that corporations are proposing is bound to benefit corporations, and no one else.


    Of course; it would be a pretty crappy corporation to do otherwise.
  • maxferguson

    Posts: 321

    Nov 19, 2012 10:31 AM GMT
    meninlove said ..I often find your posts suspect, as I know you also want to do away with minimum wages..as an aside and off topic.(what I find about the young and very well educated is a myopia that assumes everyone has the same abilities to garner skilled employment rather than what too many call 'unskilled' employment.)

    icon_wink.gif



    You caught me on the minimum wage (in the States...);p but, I wouldn't eliminate it permanently, only in the short run to get the increasingly large labour pool with no jobs back to work and earning some income, even if it's small. If the gov't can afford it, phasing out unemployment benefits gradually while slowly adding back to the minimum until it's around where it was before.

    As for "unskilled" labour, that's where I have to disagree with you. I recently graduated and I've been job hunting since May in Calgary. Calgary is doing so/so, but of the 1M+ cities in Canada, it's doing the best (or near it) and people's willingness to move here for work is very high so the unemployment rate is reasonable, but the pool of applicants is enormous. I've actually decided to move back to Regina to go back to school for a bit, trade, and work for my Dad, (who's a custom home builder), doing pricing, general labour. Lol, so for the time being, I'm an oddjob, but like any other worker on a site, whether you walk away with a detailed knowledge of land development and some good ideas is up to the individual. Academics are one thing, but without experience, you're nothing but a narrow minded professor who can make *anything* work on a chalkboard and (google "Bed of Procrustes," it sums up how I feel about academics who don't earn some experience outside of academia) and then a bunch of other people who do the same give you credit. I asked an instructor (not a prof, but someone who works in industry and teaches at night) one day, "Of what use is the mind of an academic who doesn't confine themselves to the limits of eventual practicality?" He told me the best minds can impress inside those limits. Everyone else has to imagine a world beyond reality that caters flawlessly to the idea they had *before* they imagined that world - idealistic.

    Whether it comes out in my posts or not, I adamantly believe that the bias of confusing educated with education creates a glass ceiling in people's lives. Not because it limits them in itself, but because the people around them who don't have that bias will catch far more opportunity in life and go far enough past them (personally and professionally) that being left behind could only feel like looking up through a glass ceiling at everyone who passed you. I don't think anyone is truly educated until they've got a bit of both ;p.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Nov 19, 2012 12:17 PM GMT
    American Business has been working on the model of Capitalize the gains and Socialize the losses for decades

    ..... and For Them? It works icon_biggrin.gif