Another wag unsure of the distinction between a factual statement of causation and an opinion blog...
Clue #1, at the top of the article:
"Wonkblog"
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I'm Done Eating At Burger King
- Thread starter DaGoose
- Start date
Another wag unsure of the distinction between a factual statement of causation and an opinion blog...
Clue #1, at the top of the article:
"Wonkblog"
DrDoomNGloom
Gold Member
Corporate tax rates table
This table provides a view of global corporate tax rates between 2006 and 2014.
Use our interactive Tax rates tool to compare tax rates by country or region.
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Location 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Footnotes Afghanistan 0 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 + Show Albania 20 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 15 + Show Algeria 25 19 + Show Angola 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 + Show Argentina 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 + Show Armenia 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 + Show Aruba 35 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 + Show Australia 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 + Show Austria 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 + Show Bahamas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Show Bahrain 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Show Bangladesh 30 30 30 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 + Show Barbados 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 + Show Belarus 24 24 24 24 24 24 18 18 18 + Show Belgium 33.99 33.99 33.99 33.99 33.99 33.99 33.99 33.99 33.99 + Show Bermuda 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Show Bolivia 25 25 25 25 25 + Show Bonaire, Saint Eustatius and Saba 0 0 0 + Show Bosnia and Herzegovina 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 + Show Botswana 25 25 25 25 25 22 22 22 22 + Show Brazil 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 25 + Show Bulgaria 15 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 + Show Cambodia 20 20 20 20 20 + Show Canada 36.1 36.1 33.5 33 31 28 26 26 26.5 + Show Cayman Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Show Chile 17 17 17 17 17 20 18.5 20 20 + Show China 33 33 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 + Show Colombia 35 34 33 33 33 33 33 25 25 + Show Costa Rica 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 + Show Croatia 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 + Show Curacao 34.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 + Show Cyprus 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 12.5 12.5 + Show Czech Republic 24 24 21 20 19 19 19 19 19 + Show Denmark 28 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 24.5 + Show Dominican Republic 30 25 25 25 25 29 29 29 28 + Show Ecuador 25 25 25 25 25 24 23 22 22 + Show Egypt 20 20 20 20 20 20 25 25 25 + Show El Salvador 30 30 30 + Show Estonia 23 22 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 + Show Fiji 31 31 31 29 28 28 28 20 20 + Show Finland 26 26 26 26 26 26 24.5 24.5 20 + Show France 33.33 33.33 33.33 33.33 33.33 33.33 33.33 33.33 33.33 + Show Georgia 15 15 + Show Germany 38.34 38.36 29.51 29.44 29.41 29.37 29.48 29.55 29.58 + Show Ghana 25 25 + Show Gibraltar 35 35 33 27 22 10 10 10 10 + Show Greece 29 25 25 25 24 20 20 26 26 + Show Guatemala 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 28 + Show Guernsey 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Show Honduras 30 30 30 30 25 35 35 35 30 + Show Hong Kong SAR 17.5 17.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 + Show Hungary 16 16 16 16 19 19 19 19 19 + Show Iceland 18 18 15 15 18 20 20 20 20 + Show India 33.66 33.99 33.99 33.99 33.99 32.44 32.45 33.99 33.99 + Show Indonesia 30 30 30 28 25 25 25 25 25 + Show Iraq 15 15 + Show Ireland 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 + Show Isle of Man 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Show Israel 31 29 27 26 25 24 25 25 26.5 + Show Italy 37.25 37.25 31.4 31.4 31.4 31.4 31.4 31.4 31.4 + Show Jamaica 33.33 33.33 33.33 33.33 33.33 33.33 33.33 25 25 + Show Japan 40.69 40.69 40.69 40.69 40.69 40.69 38.01 38.01 35.64 + Show Jersey 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Show Jordan 25 25 25 25 14 14 14 14 14 + Show Kazakhstan 30 30 30 20 20 20 20 20 20 + Show Kenya 30 30 30 + Show Korea, Republic of 27.5 27.5 27.5 24.2 24.2 22 24.2 24.2 24.2 + Show Kuwait 55 55 55 15 15 15 15 15 15 + Show Latvia 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 + Show Lebanon 15 15 Libya 40 40 40 40 20 20 20 20 + Show Liechtenstein 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 + Show Lithuania 15 15 15 20 15 15 15 15 15 + Show Luxembourg 29.63 29.63 29.63 28.59 28.59 28.8 28.8 29.22 29.22 + Show Macau 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 + Show Macedonia 15 12 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 + Show Malawi 30 30 30 + Show Malaysia 28 27 26 25 25 25 25 25 25 + Show Malta 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 + Show Mauritius 25 22.5 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 + Show Mexico 29 28 28 28 30 30 30 30 30 + Show Montenegro 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 + Show Morocco 30 30 + Show Mozambique 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 + Show Namibia 34 34 33 33 + Show Netherlands 29.6 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25 25 25 25 + Show New Zealand 33 33 30 30 30 28 28 28 28 + Show Nigeria 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 + Show Norway 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 27 + Show Oman 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 + Show Pakistan 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 34 + Show Panama 30 30 30 30 27.5 25 25 25 25 + Show Papua New Guinea 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 + Show Paraguay 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 + Show Peru 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 + Show Philippines 35 35 35 30 30 30 30 30 30 + Show Poland 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 + Show Portugal 27.5 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 23 + Show Qatar 35 35 35 35 10 10 10 10 10 + Show Romania 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 + Show Russia 24 24 24 20 20 20 20 20 20 + Show Samoa 29 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 + Show Saudi Arabia 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 + Show Serbia 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 15 15 + Show Sierra Leone 30 + Show Singapore 20 20 18 18 17 17 17 17 17 + Show Sint Maarten (Dutch part) 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.5 + Show Slovakia 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 23 22 + Show Slovenia 25 23 22 21 20 20 18 17 17 + Show South Africa 36.89 36.89 34.55 34.55 34.55 34.55 34.55 28 28 + Show Spain 35 32.5 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 + Show Sri Lanka 32.5 35 35 35 35 28 28 28 28 + Show Sudan 35 30 15 15 15 35 35 35 35 + Show Suriname 36 34.5 Sweden 28 28 28 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 22 22 + Show Switzerland 21.3 20.63 19.2 18.96 18.75 18.31 18.06 18.01 17.92 + Show Syria 35 28 28 28 28 28 28 22 22 + Show Taiwan 25 25 25 25 17 17 17 17 17 + Show Tanzania 30 30 30 30 30 30 + Show Thailand 30 30 30 30 30 30 23 20 20 + Show Trinidad and Tobago 25 25 25 + Show Tunisia 35 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 25 + Show Turkey 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 + Show Uganda 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 + Show Ukraine 25 25 25 25 25 25 21 19 18 + Show United Arab Emirates 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 + Show United Kingdom 30 30 30 28 28 26 24 23 21 + Show United States 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 + Show Uruguay 30 30 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 + Show Vanuatu 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Show Venezuela 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 + Show Vietnam 28 28 28 25 25 25 25 25 22 + Show Yemen 35 35 35 35 35 20 20 20 20 + Show Zambia 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 + Show Zimbabwe 30.9 30.9 30.9 30.9 25.75 25.75 25.75 25.75 25.75 + Show Africa average 30.82 30.56 28.65 28.75 28.38 28.55 29.02 28.29 27.85 Americas average 29.97 29.27 28.84 28.82 28.28 29.28 28.67 28.35 27.62 Asia average 28.99 28.46 27.99 25.73 23.96 23.1 22.89 22.05 21.91 Europe average 23.7 22.99 21.95 21.64 21.46 20.81 20.42 20.6 19.68 Oceania average 30.6 30.2 29.6 29.2 29 28.6 28.6 27 27 North America average 38.05 38.05 36.75 36.5 35.5 34 33 33 33.25 Latin America average 29.07 28.3 27.96 27.96 27.52 28.83 28.3 27.96 27.15 EU average 24.83 23.97 23.17 23.11 22.93 22.7 22.51 22.75 21.34 OECD average 27.67 27 25.99 25.64 25.7 25.4 25.15 25.32 24.11 Global average 27.5 26.95 26.1 25.38 24.69 24.5 24.4 23.71 23.57
This forum software sucks, will not let me out of this fucking frame. No matter how many time I hit enter it only grows the pane bigger, isn't that fucked up??
DrDoomNGloom
Gold Member
Look at the US => 40% .......
Not some bull shit liberal propaganda .......
Corporate tax rates table KPMG GLOBAL
Not some bull shit liberal propaganda .......
Corporate tax rates table KPMG GLOBAL
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
Look at the US => 40% .......
Not some bull shit liberal propaganda .......
Corporate tax rates table KPMG GLOBAL
I think we all understand that you don't know the difference between a statutory and an effective tax rate. No need to remind us further.
Flopper
Diamond Member
Burger King has jointed a long list of business that have move overseas. Chances are you're doing business with many of them now.When an American Company moves its headquarters out of the nation to avoid paying taxes then it is no longer an American company and not worthy of my business.
Burger King to buy Tim Hortons with help from Warren Buffett move headquarters to Canada - NY Daily News
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
Replace the corporate tax with a national sales tax.
Will that make you people happy?
Will that make you people happy?
DrDoomNGloom
Gold Member
They're doing very well economically. Have been for awhile. They don't have the crushing Debt and their Tax situation has improved dramatically. Once they lowered their Corporate Tax Rate, things really took off for em. We could learn a lot from Canada.
And yet American business pays less than 15%. What part of that don't you understand?
I believe this started the conversation, Corporate tax rates are being discussed, 1%'er does not make the distinction, she merely makes a claim and states a figure. Corporate tax rates was the topic of conversation, what
Look at the US => 40% .......
Not some bull shit liberal propaganda .......
Corporate tax rates table KPMG GLOBAL
I think we all understand that you don't know the difference between a statutory and an effective tax rate. No need to remind us further.
RealClearMarkets - Don t Believe the Economists About Low U.S. Corporate TaxesFebruary 18, 2014
Don't Believe the Economists About 'Low' U.S. Corporate Taxes
By William McBride
Have you ever been caught in the rain on a day the forecast said was supposed to be sunny and wondered, did the weatherman even look outside before issuing his forecast? Is his weather model really that bad?
So it is with the government economists who continue to issue sunny reports about the burden of U.S. corporate taxes in the face of glaring evidence to the contrary.
The latest of these sunny forecasts comes from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which reports that the "average corporate tax rate" was 16 percent last year, up from 13 percent in 2011 and 15 percent in 2012. About the same time, however, Bloomberg reported that since 2012, at least 13 companies have engaged in a form of self-help tax reform by re-incorporating in low-tax countries like Ireland.
So what's reality here? Why would companies such as chipmaker Applied Materials move their headquarters to another country if the corporate tax burden is that low? After all, compared to the 35 percent statutory federal corporate tax rate-the highest in the developed world-paying a 16 percent effective rate after deductions sounds like a pretty good deal.
It turns out that the economists at CBO and a number of government agencies-such as the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Congressional Research Service, and the White House-are all vastly understating the actual burden of corporate taxes in the U.S. And they are doing so either because of faulty methodology, bad models, bias, or simply because they have not looked out the window at what is really going on outside.
For example, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) also says that the U.S. corporate effective tax rate is low - about 13 percent, or they did until criticism from the Tax Foundation and Drew Lyon of PWC led them to revise upward their estimate to 23 percent. Their mistake was failing to properly account for foreign taxes and foreign income, which is a growing share of income for U.S. based multinational corporations. The GAO also failed to properly adjust for net operating losses carried forward from the financial crisis and other timing issues.
The CBO understated the corporate effective tax rate by using an inflated profit measure that includes S corporations even though they are not subject to corporate tax. That is, they divided C corporation tax collections by the combined profits of C and S corporations. But S corporations are pass-through entities, meaning profits are passed through to owners who report the income on their individual tax returns. S corporations have grown to be about 30 percent of the profit measure used by CBO.
Excluding the S corporation data means the real C corporation effective tax rate is about 50 percent higher than CBO's estimate. The most recent data from the IRS (tax year 2010) on C corporations confirms this, indicating that the effective C corporation tax rate is about 21 or 22 percent (which is lower than usual due mainly to temporary bonus depreciation).
Because of the growth of S corporations and other pass-through businesses, more business income is taxed under the individual code than the corporate code. Indeed, there are fewer C corporations today than at any time since the 1970s. It is clear that millions of businesses have fled the corporate tax code, even though government economists say corporate effective tax rates are low.
The CBO and GAO are not the only ones to get this measurement wrong. President Obama claims to want a lower corporate tax rate, but in a major policy paper from 2012 the White House understated the U.S. corporate effective tax rate and overstated effective tax rates in other countries. The report, jointly published by the White House and Treasury Department and titled "The President's Framework for Business Tax Reform," claims that the U.S. corporate "effective marginal tax rate" for 2011 was below average for G-7 countries - lower than the rate in Canada, the U.K. and Japan.
However, the Tax Foundation recently published an analysis by Jack Mintz and Duanjie Chen of the University of Calgary showing that the White House achieved this ranking by misrepresenting property taxes and failing to account for sales taxes on capital goods. Mintz and Chen publish an annual ranking of corporate marginal effective tax rates (METR) for 90 countries. Since 2007, the U.S. has had the highest METR in the developed world, and now is only surpassed by a few third-world countries in Africa.
This is similar to the findings of Michael Devereux and other researchers at Oxford University, who find that the U.S. has the highest effective rates in the developed world after Japan, and this is before Japan started cutting their corporate tax rate in 2012.
Finally, last month the Congressional Research Service (CRS) issued a report claiming the U.S. corporate effective tax rate is "about the same" as the average among developed countries, when the average is weighted by each country's GDP. This is based on a selection of studies, many of which were done prior to the major corporate tax reforms that have occurred over the last 10 years in countries such as Canada, the U.K., Germany and Japan.
The most recent studies show the U.S. has nearly the highest effective corporate tax rate in the developed world. For instance, the World Bank's latest Paying Taxes report finds the U.S. has an effective tax rate on profits of 28 percent - higher than any developed country except New Zealand.
Another recent report, soon to be published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, is by accounting professors Douglas Shackelford and Kevin Markle, who use the financial statements of thousands of corporations to conclude that the U.S. corporate effective tax rate is 28 percent - higher than any developed country except Japan. Again, this is for tax year 2011, before Japan began cutting their corporate tax rate in 2012.
There is a clear pattern of government economists misreporting the basic facts on corporate taxes and understating the U.S. corporate tax burden relative to that in other countries. Whether this is by intent or incompetence, the result is that these "official estimates" have made it appear that the U.S. tax code is more competitive than it is, greatly undermining the case for corporate tax reform. It is time for these taxpayer-supported economists to either bring their methods up to international standards, or stick their heads out of the window and see for themselves how dreary the U.S. corporate tax climate really is.
Does the U.S. Really Have the World’s Highest Corporate Tax Rate?
Ending a favorite U.S. myth, in 10 facts.
By [URL='http://www.theglobalist.com/author/theglobalist/']The Globalist
[/URL], October 28, 2013
Credit: OtnaYdur - Shutterstock.com
Takeaways
- The US business lobby asserts that the US corporate tax rate is 35%, higher than the OECD average.
- The effective US corporate tax rate (after deductions, credits and loopholes are counted) is ~26%.
- The problem in the US isn’t over-taxing corporations; it’s that some are unfairly taxed or exempted.
- Some sectors pay as low as 14% effective US corp. tax rate, while others pay as much as 31%.
1. The U.S. business lobby never misses an opportunity to point out that the 35% corporate tax rate is the highest in the industrialized world. (With state taxes, it’s about 39%.)
2. This is said to compare unfavorably to the statutory rate averages of around 30% for most industrialized countries (the OECD’s 2012 GDP-weighted average was 32%).
3. However, what corporations are really concerned about is not the statutory rate, but the effective tax rate.
4. That rate covers the percent of profits paid in taxes once all the deductions, credits and other complex provisions of the tax code are taken into account.
5. The U.S. business lobby is usually completely mum about this rate, effectively misleading the American and global public.
6. In terms of the effective corporate tax rate, the United States is actually below the average of the big industrial countries, at about 26%.
7. As a result, the oft-heard claim that the U.S. corporate tax rate is crippling the competitiveness of American business is, at best, “vastly overstated.”
8. The real issue in the United States isn’t the level of taxation, but the huge variation in effective tax rates paid by different companies in different industries.
9. That is an entirely homemade problem – and the consequence of all the shady lobbying that happens in Washington, D.C. day in and day out.
10. The U.S. Treasury estimates that U.S. retailers and wholesalers, for example, pay an average effective federal tax rate of 31%, while U.S. utilities pay an average of 14%. Other industries fall somewhere in between.
Does the U.S. Really Have The Highest Corporate Tax Rates
How about 26% effective tax rate, here are just a few of my sources ............
Got anything besides that bull shit graph to back your assertions??
Jarlaxle
Gold Member
Sorry Bo but "Jeep moving to China" stands as the worst foot-in-mouth faux pas of that entire presidential campaign and one of the worst ever in recent history in terms of pure demagoguic bullshit.
Know what makes it so poignant?
Not only was Jeep planning to restart and expand abandoned plants in China (as well as in Ohio and Michigan, all of which was testimony to how well the company was doing, thereby making the opposite point from what he intended) but Romney was in a unique position to know the Jeep business since his own father literally ran the company. The level of blind ignorance from a guy claiming to have business acumen as a selling point, when anyone with a Google page could see the company had actually started China production over thirty years ago, let alone the history of a company that was literally in his own family, cannot be overstated.
I think that preposterous gaffe cost him both Ohio and his birth state of Michigan, where voters with new and expanded jobs could see the level of bullshit they were being spoon fed.
The Romney's never ran GM.
*facepalm*
What does GM have to do with Jeep?!
And no, George Romney ran the company that bought Jeep from Kaiser, five owners ago! (AMC, Chrysler Corporation, Daimler-Chrysler, Chrysler LLC, Fiat.)
SmarterThanTheAverageBear
Gold Member
- Aug 22, 2014
- 29,410
- 4,280
- 280
- Banned
- #469
Replace the corporate tax with a national sales tax.
Will that make you people happy?
yep
Peach
Gold Member
- Jan 10, 2009
- 20,864
- 2,729
- 245
1. The chart is meaningless without current information on the deductions and exemptions of each nation calculated into the rate; thus factoring the percentage of corporate income not taxable.
2. Gross iincome does not equal taxable income; along with declining popularity, and poor management, 'BK' (that is an example of a bad decision, KFC brings the product to mind, BK does not) faces increased competition. Most chains now let you "have it your way". BK has not come up with any recent "grab the attention" features. McDonald's has playgrounds, Hardees (Carl Jr's in the western US) has "real" milkskakes, seasoned fries and an attempt at BBQ; Wendy's is hawking faux gormet items.
3. The move has as much to do with markets as taxes; neither Hardees nor Krystal are competing in Canada. BK should be able to get a chunk of the market and the coffee/doughnut angle may sell in the US.
4. McDonalds has Ronald, Wendys has Wendy, Krystal has the tiny square burger, Hardees the smilng star............................what does BK have? "Have it your way" & "flame broiled" are worn out.
2. Gross iincome does not equal taxable income; along with declining popularity, and poor management, 'BK' (that is an example of a bad decision, KFC brings the product to mind, BK does not) faces increased competition. Most chains now let you "have it your way". BK has not come up with any recent "grab the attention" features. McDonald's has playgrounds, Hardees (Carl Jr's in the western US) has "real" milkskakes, seasoned fries and an attempt at BBQ; Wendy's is hawking faux gormet items.
3. The move has as much to do with markets as taxes; neither Hardees nor Krystal are competing in Canada. BK should be able to get a chunk of the market and the coffee/doughnut angle may sell in the US.
4. McDonalds has Ronald, Wendys has Wendy, Krystal has the tiny square burger, Hardees the smilng star............................what does BK have? "Have it your way" & "flame broiled" are worn out.
Lakhota
Diamond Member
I don't eat much fast food, but I prefer Burger King when I do.
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,520
- 2,165
- Banned
- #472
Why not eat there?
Write your congress and state lege critters to write inversion offset taxes at the fed and state levels, like your state does if you buy a car in another state with cheaper taxes and registration and title. Your state takes the difference between that and locally. Of course, it costs more and then no you don't get the difference back.
Just apply an inversion offset tax to every business that does commerce in the USA.
Write your congress and state lege critters to write inversion offset taxes at the fed and state levels, like your state does if you buy a car in another state with cheaper taxes and registration and title. Your state takes the difference between that and locally. Of course, it costs more and then no you don't get the difference back.
Just apply an inversion offset tax to every business that does commerce in the USA.
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,163
- 47,312
- 2,180
Look at the US => 40% .......
Not some bull shit liberal propaganda .......
Corporate tax rates table KPMG GLOBAL
I think we all understand that you don't know the difference between a statutory and an effective tax rate. No need to remind us further.
So tell us what the effective tax rate is in all those countries.
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,163
- 47,312
- 2,180
They're doing very well economically. Have been for awhile. They don't have the crushing Debt and their Tax situation has improved dramatically. Once they lowered their Corporate Tax Rate, things really took off for em. We could learn a lot from Canada.
And yet American business pays less than 15%. What part of that don't you understand?
I believe this started the conversation, Corporate tax rates are being discussed, 1%'er does not make the distinction, she merely makes a claim and states a figure. Corporate tax rates was the topic of conversation, what
Look at the US => 40% .......
Not some bull shit liberal propaganda .......
Corporate tax rates table KPMG GLOBAL
I think we all understand that you don't know the difference between a statutory and an effective tax rate. No need to remind us further.
RealClearMarkets - Don t Believe the Economists About Low U.S. Corporate TaxesFebruary 18, 2014
Don't Believe the Economists About 'Low' U.S. Corporate Taxes
By William McBride
Have you ever been caught in the rain on a day the forecast said was supposed to be sunny and wondered, did the weatherman even look outside before issuing his forecast? Is his weather model really that bad?
So it is with the government economists who continue to issue sunny reports about the burden of U.S. corporate taxes in the face of glaring evidence to the contrary.
The latest of these sunny forecasts comes from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which reports that the "average corporate tax rate" was 16 percent last year, up from 13 percent in 2011 and 15 percent in 2012. About the same time, however, Bloomberg reported that since 2012, at least 13 companies have engaged in a form of self-help tax reform by re-incorporating in low-tax countries like Ireland.
So what's reality here? Why would companies such as chipmaker Applied Materials move their headquarters to another country if the corporate tax burden is that low? After all, compared to the 35 percent statutory federal corporate tax rate-the highest in the developed world-paying a 16 percent effective rate after deductions sounds like a pretty good deal.
It turns out that the economists at CBO and a number of government agencies-such as the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Congressional Research Service, and the White House-are all vastly understating the actual burden of corporate taxes in the U.S. And they are doing so either because of faulty methodology, bad models, bias, or simply because they have not looked out the window at what is really going on outside.
For example, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) also says that the U.S. corporate effective tax rate is low - about 13 percent, or they did until criticism from the Tax Foundation and Drew Lyon of PWC led them to revise upward their estimate to 23 percent. Their mistake was failing to properly account for foreign taxes and foreign income, which is a growing share of income for U.S. based multinational corporations. The GAO also failed to properly adjust for net operating losses carried forward from the financial crisis and other timing issues.
The CBO understated the corporate effective tax rate by using an inflated profit measure that includes S corporations even though they are not subject to corporate tax. That is, they divided C corporation tax collections by the combined profits of C and S corporations. But S corporations are pass-through entities, meaning profits are passed through to owners who report the income on their individual tax returns. S corporations have grown to be about 30 percent of the profit measure used by CBO.
Excluding the S corporation data means the real C corporation effective tax rate is about 50 percent higher than CBO's estimate. The most recent data from the IRS (tax year 2010) on C corporations confirms this, indicating that the effective C corporation tax rate is about 21 or 22 percent (which is lower than usual due mainly to temporary bonus depreciation).
Because of the growth of S corporations and other pass-through businesses, more business income is taxed under the individual code than the corporate code. Indeed, there are fewer C corporations today than at any time since the 1970s. It is clear that millions of businesses have fled the corporate tax code, even though government economists say corporate effective tax rates are low.
The CBO and GAO are not the only ones to get this measurement wrong. President Obama claims to want a lower corporate tax rate, but in a major policy paper from 2012 the White House understated the U.S. corporate effective tax rate and overstated effective tax rates in other countries. The report, jointly published by the White House and Treasury Department and titled "The President's Framework for Business Tax Reform," claims that the U.S. corporate "effective marginal tax rate" for 2011 was below average for G-7 countries - lower than the rate in Canada, the U.K. and Japan.
However, the Tax Foundation recently published an analysis by Jack Mintz and Duanjie Chen of the University of Calgary showing that the White House achieved this ranking by misrepresenting property taxes and failing to account for sales taxes on capital goods. Mintz and Chen publish an annual ranking of corporate marginal effective tax rates (METR) for 90 countries. Since 2007, the U.S. has had the highest METR in the developed world, and now is only surpassed by a few third-world countries in Africa.
This is similar to the findings of Michael Devereux and other researchers at Oxford University, who find that the U.S. has the highest effective rates in the developed world after Japan, and this is before Japan started cutting their corporate tax rate in 2012.
Finally, last month the Congressional Research Service (CRS) issued a report claiming the U.S. corporate effective tax rate is "about the same" as the average among developed countries, when the average is weighted by each country's GDP. This is based on a selection of studies, many of which were done prior to the major corporate tax reforms that have occurred over the last 10 years in countries such as Canada, the U.K., Germany and Japan.
The most recent studies show the U.S. has nearly the highest effective corporate tax rate in the developed world. For instance, the World Bank's latest Paying Taxes report finds the U.S. has an effective tax rate on profits of 28 percent - higher than any developed country except New Zealand.
Another recent report, soon to be published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, is by accounting professors Douglas Shackelford and Kevin Markle, who use the financial statements of thousands of corporations to conclude that the U.S. corporate effective tax rate is 28 percent - higher than any developed country except Japan. Again, this is for tax year 2011, before Japan began cutting their corporate tax rate in 2012.
There is a clear pattern of government economists misreporting the basic facts on corporate taxes and understating the U.S. corporate tax burden relative to that in other countries. Whether this is by intent or incompetence, the result is that these "official estimates" have made it appear that the U.S. tax code is more competitive than it is, greatly undermining the case for corporate tax reform. It is time for these taxpayer-supported economists to either bring their methods up to international standards, or stick their heads out of the window and see for themselves how dreary the U.S. corporate tax climate really is.
Does the U.S. Really Have the World’s Highest Corporate Tax Rate?
Ending a favorite U.S. myth, in 10 facts.
Byhttp://www.realclearmarkets.com/art...ists_about_low_us_corporate_taxes_100907.htmlThe Globalist, October 28, 2013
Credit: OtnaYdur - Shutterstock.com
Takeaways
1. The U.S. business lobby never misses an opportunity to point out that the 35% corporate tax rate is the highest in the industrialized world. (With state taxes, it’s about 39%.)
2. This is said to compare unfavorably to the statutory rate averages of around 30% for most industrialized countries (the OECD’s 2012 GDP-weighted average was 32%).
3. However, what corporations are really concerned about is not the statutory rate, but the effective tax rate.
4. That rate covers the percent of profits paid in taxes once all the deductions, credits and other complex provisions of the tax code are taken into account.
5. The U.S. business lobby is usually completely mum about this rate, effectively misleading the American and global public.
6. In terms of the effective corporate tax rate, the United States is actually below the average of the big industrial countries, at about 26%.
7. As a result, the oft-heard claim that the U.S. corporate tax rate is crippling the competitiveness of American business is, at best, “vastly overstated.”
8. The real issue in the United States isn’t the level of taxation, but the huge variation in effective tax rates paid by different companies in different industries.
9. That is an entirely homemade problem – and the consequence of all the shady lobbying that happens in Washington, D.C. day in and day out.
10. The U.S. Treasury estimates that U.S. retailers and wholesalers, for example, pay an average effective federal tax rate of 31%, while U.S. utilities pay an average of 14%. Other industries fall somewhere in between.
Does the U.S. Really Have The Highest Corporate Tax Rates
How about 26% effective tax rate, here are just a few of my sources ............
Got anything besides that bull shit graph to back your assertions??
How is this "effective tax rate" calculated, and what is the effective tax rate for every other country on the list?
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,163
- 47,312
- 2,180
Replace the corporate tax with a national sales tax.
Will that make you people happy?
Nope. Replace the income tax with a national sales tax and I will be happy.
They're doing very well economically. Have been for awhile. They don't have the crushing Debt and their Tax situation has improved dramatically. Once they lowered their Corporate Tax Rate, things really took off for em. We could learn a lot from Canada.
And yet American business pays less than 15%. What part of that don't you understand?
I believe this started the conversation, Corporate tax rates are being discussed, 1%'er does not make the distinction, she merely makes a claim and states a figure. Corporate tax rates was the topic of conversation, what
Look at the US => 40% .......
Not some bull shit liberal propaganda .......
Corporate tax rates table KPMG GLOBAL
I think we all understand that you don't know the difference between a statutory and an effective tax rate. No need to remind us further.
RealClearMarkets - Don t Believe the Economists About Low U.S. Corporate TaxesFebruary 18, 2014
Don't Believe the Economists About 'Low' U.S. Corporate Taxes
By William McBride
Have you ever been caught in the rain on a day the forecast said was supposed to be sunny and wondered, did the weatherman even look outside before issuing his forecast? Is his weather model really that bad?
So it is with the government economists who continue to issue sunny reports about the burden of U.S. corporate taxes in the face of glaring evidence to the contrary.
The latest of these sunny forecasts comes from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which reports that the "average corporate tax rate" was 16 percent last year, up from 13 percent in 2011 and 15 percent in 2012. About the same time, however, Bloomberg reported that since 2012, at least 13 companies have engaged in a form of self-help tax reform by re-incorporating in low-tax countries like Ireland.
So what's reality here? Why would companies such as chipmaker Applied Materials move their headquarters to another country if the corporate tax burden is that low? After all, compared to the 35 percent statutory federal corporate tax rate-the highest in the developed world-paying a 16 percent effective rate after deductions sounds like a pretty good deal.
It turns out that the economists at CBO and a number of government agencies-such as the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Congressional Research Service, and the White House-are all vastly understating the actual burden of corporate taxes in the U.S. And they are doing so either because of faulty methodology, bad models, bias, or simply because they have not looked out the window at what is really going on outside.
For example, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) also says that the U.S. corporate effective tax rate is low - about 13 percent, or they did until criticism from the Tax Foundation and Drew Lyon of PWC led them to revise upward their estimate to 23 percent. Their mistake was failing to properly account for foreign taxes and foreign income, which is a growing share of income for U.S. based multinational corporations. The GAO also failed to properly adjust for net operating losses carried forward from the financial crisis and other timing issues.
The CBO understated the corporate effective tax rate by using an inflated profit measure that includes S corporations even though they are not subject to corporate tax. That is, they divided C corporation tax collections by the combined profits of C and S corporations. But S corporations are pass-through entities, meaning profits are passed through to owners who report the income on their individual tax returns. S corporations have grown to be about 30 percent of the profit measure used by CBO.
Excluding the S corporation data means the real C corporation effective tax rate is about 50 percent higher than CBO's estimate. The most recent data from the IRS (tax year 2010) on C corporations confirms this, indicating that the effective C corporation tax rate is about 21 or 22 percent (which is lower than usual due mainly to temporary bonus depreciation).
Because of the growth of S corporations and other pass-through businesses, more business income is taxed under the individual code than the corporate code. Indeed, there are fewer C corporations today than at any time since the 1970s. It is clear that millions of businesses have fled the corporate tax code, even though government economists say corporate effective tax rates are low.
The CBO and GAO are not the only ones to get this measurement wrong. President Obama claims to want a lower corporate tax rate, but in a major policy paper from 2012 the White House understated the U.S. corporate effective tax rate and overstated effective tax rates in other countries. The report, jointly published by the White House and Treasury Department and titled "The President's Framework for Business Tax Reform," claims that the U.S. corporate "effective marginal tax rate" for 2011 was below average for G-7 countries - lower than the rate in Canada, the U.K. and Japan.
However, the Tax Foundation recently published an analysis by Jack Mintz and Duanjie Chen of the University of Calgary showing that the White House achieved this ranking by misrepresenting property taxes and failing to account for sales taxes on capital goods. Mintz and Chen publish an annual ranking of corporate marginal effective tax rates (METR) for 90 countries. Since 2007, the U.S. has had the highest METR in the developed world, and now is only surpassed by a few third-world countries in Africa.
This is similar to the findings of Michael Devereux and other researchers at Oxford University, who find that the U.S. has the highest effective rates in the developed world after Japan, and this is before Japan started cutting their corporate tax rate in 2012.
Finally, last month the Congressional Research Service (CRS) issued a report claiming the U.S. corporate effective tax rate is "about the same" as the average among developed countries, when the average is weighted by each country's GDP. This is based on a selection of studies, many of which were done prior to the major corporate tax reforms that have occurred over the last 10 years in countries such as Canada, the U.K., Germany and Japan.
The most recent studies show the U.S. has nearly the highest effective corporate tax rate in the developed world. For instance, the World Bank's latest Paying Taxes report finds the U.S. has an effective tax rate on profits of 28 percent - higher than any developed country except New Zealand.
Another recent report, soon to be published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, is by accounting professors Douglas Shackelford and Kevin Markle, who use the financial statements of thousands of corporations to conclude that the U.S. corporate effective tax rate is 28 percent - higher than any developed country except Japan. Again, this is for tax year 2011, before Japan began cutting their corporate tax rate in 2012.
There is a clear pattern of government economists misreporting the basic facts on corporate taxes and understating the U.S. corporate tax burden relative to that in other countries. Whether this is by intent or incompetence, the result is that these "official estimates" have made it appear that the U.S. tax code is more competitive than it is, greatly undermining the case for corporate tax reform. It is time for these taxpayer-supported economists to either bring their methods up to international standards, or stick their heads out of the window and see for themselves how dreary the U.S. corporate tax climate really is.
Does the U.S. Really Have the World’s Highest Corporate Tax Rate?
Ending a favorite U.S. myth, in 10 facts.
ByDoes the U.S. Really Have The Highest Corporate Tax RatesThe Globalist, October 28, 2013
Credit: OtnaYdur - Shutterstock.com
Takeaways
1. The U.S. business lobby never misses an opportunity to point out that the 35% corporate tax rate is the highest in the industrialized world. (With state taxes, it’s about 39%.)
2. This is said to compare unfavorably to the statutory rate averages of around 30% for most industrialized countries (the OECD’s 2012 GDP-weighted average was 32%).
3. However, what corporations are really concerned about is not the statutory rate, but the effective tax rate.
4. That rate covers the percent of profits paid in taxes once all the deductions, credits and other complex provisions of the tax code are taken into account.
5. The U.S. business lobby is usually completely mum about this rate, effectively misleading the American and global public.
6. In terms of the effective corporate tax rate, the United States is actually below the average of the big industrial countries, at about 26%.
7. As a result, the oft-heard claim that the U.S. corporate tax rate is crippling the competitiveness of American business is, at best, “vastly overstated.”
8. The real issue in the United States isn’t the level of taxation, but the huge variation in effective tax rates paid by different companies in different industries.
9. That is an entirely homemade problem – and the consequence of all the shady lobbying that happens in Washington, D.C. day in and day out.
10. The U.S. Treasury estimates that U.S. retailers and wholesalers, for example, pay an average effective federal tax rate of 31%, while U.S. utilities pay an average of 14%. Other industries fall somewhere in between.
How about 26% effective tax rate, here are just a few of my sources ............
Got anything besides that bull shit graph to back your assertions??
How is this "effective tax rate" calculated, and what is the effective tax rate for every other country on the list?
"Effective tax rate" = taxes paid / income x 100. It's the percentage of income actually paid in taxes, after deductions, shelters and everything else.
1. The chart is meaningless without current information on the deductions and exemptions of each nation calculated into the rate; thus factoring the percentage of corporate income not taxable.
2. Gross iincome does not equal taxable income; along with declining popularity, and poor management, 'BK' (that is an example of a bad decision, KFC brings the product to mind, BK does not) faces increased competition. Most chains now let you "have it your way". BK has not come up with any recent "grab the attention" features. McDonald's has playgrounds, Hardees (Carl Jr's in the western US) has "real" milkskakes, seasoned fries and an attempt at BBQ; Wendy's is hawking faux gormet items.
3. The move has as much to do with markets as taxes; neither Hardees nor Krystal are competing in Canada. BK should be able to get a chunk of the market and the coffee/doughnut angle may sell in the US.
4. McDonalds has Ronald, Wendys has Wendy, Krystal has the tiny square burger, Hardees the smilng star............................what does BK have? "Have it your way" & "flame broiled" are worn out.
As pointed out earlier (but easily buried), 3G (BK's majority owner) divested the BK properties in Canada as part of its restructuring after it took over in 2010. So buying Tim Horton's, a national iconic brand known in every corner of Canada, gives them an instant "back in" in terms of financial interest.
Which is not a cheap investment considering TH has close to five thousand stores, but that's why I it doesn't make sense to put up umpteen billion dollars to buy a Canadian company just to do a relocation when, if that were the real motivation, all you'd have to do would be to drive over the bridge to Windsor and rent an office space.
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,163
- 47,312
- 2,180
How is this "effective tax rate" calculated, and what is the effective tax rate for every other country on the list?
"Effective tax rate" = taxes paid / income x 100. It's the percentage of income actually paid in taxes, after deductions, shelters and everything else.
Wrong. The rate you pay is a percentage of your income, which is defined as gross revenues minus expenses (deductions, in other words). One has to wonder what you're calling "income" in your equation. You can have gross revenues of $100 billion and income of $1.00 and pay income taxes of $0.39. That doesn't make your "effective rate" 0.000000000001%. It makes your effective rate 39%
How is this "effective tax rate" calculated, and what is the effective tax rate for every other country on the list?
"Effective tax rate" = taxes paid / income x 100. It's the percentage of income actually paid in taxes, after deductions, shelters and everything else.
Wrong. The rate you pay is a percentage of your income, which is defined as gross revenues minus expenses (deductions, in other words). One has to wonder what you're calling "income" in your equation. You can have gross revenues of $100 billion and income of $1.00 and pay income taxes of $0.39. That doesn't make your "effective rate" 0.000000000001%. It makes your effective rate 39%
I don't see how anything you've posted contradicts what I said...
Similar threads
- Replies
- 21
- Views
- 145
- Replies
- 56
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 21
- Views
- 900
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 40
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8487
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 481
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-