Shifting the tax burden to the wealthy class does NOT harm the economy

[PredFan]

Hey moron, I said that they are the highest in the industrialized world, and that is a fact you can easily look up.

Oh right the ACTUAL MARGINAL rate that no multinational Corp comes close to paying. AND?

Hint Obama proposed lowering it to 28%, AND THE GOP OF COURSE SAID NO. Weird right?

BUT MEASURING THE CORP TAX BURDEN % OF GDP (THE WAY ECONOMISTS DO) THE US IS 3RD LOWEST, ONLY CHILE/MEXICO ARE LOWER IN THE "DEVELOPED" WORLD BUBBA!

Hey moron, I said that they are the highest in the industrialized world, and that is a fact you can easily look up.

Oh right the ACTUAL MARGINAL rate that no multinational Corp comes close to paying. AND?

Hint Obama proposed lowering it to 28%, AND THE GOP OF COURSE SAID NO. Weird right?

BUT MEASURING THE CORP TAX BURDEN % OF GDP (THE WAY ECONOMISTS DO) THE US IS 3RD LOWEST, ONLY CHILE/MEXICO ARE LOWER IN THE "DEVELOPED" WORLD BUBBA!

I love how you freely and openly display your ignorance for all to see. You twist and spin statistics to make them say what you want. Comparing the tax to the GDP is ludicrous.

I'll ask you the same question again: just how stupid are you exactly?

Talk about being stupid:

• During the 1950s, federal corporate tax revenue averaged 4.7 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). But by the most recent decade (2000-2009), corporate taxes had fallen to just 1.9 percent of GDP (see Figure 1).As a result of this trend and other policy changes, the corporate tax now contributes considerably less to federal revenues than it once did: between 2000 and 2009, 10.7 percent of federal revenues were collected through the corporate tax, down from 29.8 percent of revenues in the 1950s.

• In recent decades, and especially since the start of the 1980s, corporate profits have increased as a share of GDP — but corporate tax revenues have not followed suit. The non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) recently summarized the upshot of this trend: "Despite concerns expressed about the size of the corporate tax rate, current corporate taxes are extremely low by historical standards, whether measured as a share of output [i.e., GDP]or based on the effective tax rate on income."

Between 2000 and 2005, the share of corporate operating surplus that U.S. corporations pay in taxes — a proxy for the average tax rate — was the second lowest among the studied G7 leading industrialized nations and nearly 3 percentage points below the average of member nations in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), according to a 2007 Treasury Department report (see Figure 2, next page).[3] As that report summarized, "The contrast between [the United States'] high statutory corporate income tax rate and low average corporate tax rate implies a relatively narrow corporate tax base, due to accelerated depreciation allowances, corporate tax preferences, and tax-planning incentives created by [the] high statutory rate."The U.S. corporate tax code includes a host of special provisions that significantly reduce the taxes that most corporations owe.


Six Tests for Corporate Tax Reform | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


HOW'D DUBYA'S "AMNESTY" AT 5% WORK OUT AGAIN??? LOL

Hey stupid, again, comparing the corporate tax rate to the GDP is a bull shit attempt to make the fact that we have the highest rate less important. Your cut and paste job is as irrelevant as it is stupid.

Yep those silly economists and their measuring it with the GDP

Weird the GOP opposes Obama proposal to lower the MARGINAL RATE to 28% right Bubs? FOURTH TIME??? LOL

Do you know what the GDP is, moron?
Do you know how the GDP is produced, idiot?
Can you even read higher than a 3rd grade level?

Fact: the U.S. Has the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. That is what I stated, it is the truth and you are too fucking stupid for me to waste any more of my time on.

 

[Dad2three]

I think Mr. Buffett is directing the debate away from the obscene corporate bailouts that have been going on since the financial crisis of 2008 and on to a contrived issue of class warfare that will do little to address America’s severe financial problems. If we are really serious about fixing the deficit, then let’s stop the bailouts. Mr. Buffett is supposed to be an expert investor. So, why do so many of the companies he owns or invests in need to be bailed out! What kind of strategy is this? It looks to me like Buffett made some bad bets, and when they blew up, he became an advisor to the administration. Then, he watched as the bailouts not only saved his bacon, but made him and his shareholders even more insanely rich than they already were.

Yes, the bailouts have entirely warped our capitalist system. Broken, corrupt business models are being shored up by the government, keeping more efficient and transparent business models from thriving and succeeding. The corruption and fraud of the bad models is being condoned and sanctioned by the State.

It's sickening.

Amidst all the screams of depression and job salvation....and the cries of academics pining for more government money.....

The bailouts were an awful idea.

The government should have stayed clear.

You can keep your claims of "saved" for someone who thinks you might have a chance of making a case.

This.

The sad part is that the debate is centered around tax rates when tax rates are irrelevant - the rich don't pay taxes based on those tax rates anyway. Those 0.1% that the left are always complaining about don't actually pay taxes based on income tax rates. Most of their money is sheltered from tax in general. The core problem with taxes is not the rates but the massively complex tax structure that no one alive understands (and is mostly built around social engineering).

The bailouts were a massive payoff to the super rich to allow them to continue to get far more wealth without actually giving up the corrupt and inefficient systems that they were a part of. I am amazed that the left who are always berating the wealth pooling at the top back one of the largest and most disgusting shifting of wealth from the people to the extremely wealthy.

NOTE the EFFECTIVE tax rate PRE REAGANOMICS?

And?

The effective tax rate is lowered on the top earners because of loopholes. This was already pointed out.

We already have progressive taxation. If you live in New York of Massachusetts you are already paying half of your income in taxes. In the rest of the states its around 40%. How much more "progressive" do you libs want to make it?

Answer this: if a person makes one million per year, how much of that should he pay in federal income tax? how much in state and local income tax? Give us some %'s.

So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

But here is really the only tax graph you need: It's total tax burden by income group. And as you'll see, every income group is paying something, and the rich aren't paying much more, as a percentage of their incomes, then the middle class.

That's really what the American tax system looks like: Not 47 percent paying nothing, but everybody paying something, and most Americans paying between 25 percent and 30 percent of their income -- which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011*.

The one tax graph you really need to know

those charts are an attempt to confuse the issue of federal income taxes by including all forms of taxation.

Show us a chart that includes only federal income taxes and you will see that 47% pay zero federal income taxes.

Why does the source of that tax matter though?

As far as I am concerned, I don't care what particular agency or section of the state takes my money - it is just as gone.


Again, the absolute best part of his rant was that there is ONE SINGLE tax structure that addressed the lefts chief complaint: a simplified flat rate tax. I hear all the time about how the Romneys out there are paying a paltry 10 percent when the rest of us are paying so much more. Considering that there is no 10 percent bracket anywhere at all it is blatantly obvious that the problem is not centered around rates - he would use the overly complex tax system to avoid whatever rates that were set.

The left HATES a flat tax though. It is mind boggling as to why.

ALL flat taxes ARE regressive. Period. Even the FAIR tax is towards the middle class, yet STILL will not get enough to run Gov't at 30% rate, while the rich lower their tax "burden"!

By definition, they cannot be regressive.

LOOPHOLES? Didn't they have loopholes pre Reaganomics when the MARGINAL RATE was 91% to 70% from 1932-1980 AND the EFFECTIVE TAX RATE WAS MUCH,. MUCH, MUCH more on MUCH smaller shares of income?


By definition flat taxes CAN'T be regressive? lol

Should perhaps tell economist that AS the FAIR tax (and ANY FLAT TAX) hits the middle class harder than the upper brackets. Weird right?

 

[Dad2three]

Oh right the ACTUAL MARGINAL rate that no multinational Corp comes close to paying. AND?

Hint Obama proposed lowering it to 28%, AND THE GOP OF COURSE SAID NO. Weird right?

BUT MEASURING THE CORP TAX BURDEN % OF GDP (THE WAY ECONOMISTS DO) THE US IS 3RD LOWEST, ONLY CHILE/MEXICO ARE LOWER IN THE "DEVELOPED" WORLD BUBBA!

Oh right the ACTUAL MARGINAL rate that no multinational Corp comes close to paying. AND?

Hint Obama proposed lowering it to 28%, AND THE GOP OF COURSE SAID NO. Weird right?

BUT MEASURING THE CORP TAX BURDEN % OF GDP (THE WAY ECONOMISTS DO) THE US IS 3RD LOWEST, ONLY CHILE/MEXICO ARE LOWER IN THE "DEVELOPED" WORLD BUBBA!

I love how you freely and openly display your ignorance for all to see. You twist and spin statistics to make them say what you want. Comparing the tax to the GDP is ludicrous.

I'll ask you the same question again: just how stupid are you exactly?

Talk about being stupid:

• During the 1950s, federal corporate tax revenue averaged 4.7 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). But by the most recent decade (2000-2009), corporate taxes had fallen to just 1.9 percent of GDP (see Figure 1).As a result of this trend and other policy changes, the corporate tax now contributes considerably less to federal revenues than it once did: between 2000 and 2009, 10.7 percent of federal revenues were collected through the corporate tax, down from 29.8 percent of revenues in the 1950s.

• In recent decades, and especially since the start of the 1980s, corporate profits have increased as a share of GDP — but corporate tax revenues have not followed suit. The non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) recently summarized the upshot of this trend: "Despite concerns expressed about the size of the corporate tax rate, current corporate taxes are extremely low by historical standards, whether measured as a share of output [i.e., GDP]or based on the effective tax rate on income."

Between 2000 and 2005, the share of corporate operating surplus that U.S. corporations pay in taxes — a proxy for the average tax rate — was the second lowest among the studied G7 leading industrialized nations and nearly 3 percentage points below the average of member nations in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), according to a 2007 Treasury Department report (see Figure 2, next page).[3] As that report summarized, "The contrast between [the United States'] high statutory corporate income tax rate and low average corporate tax rate implies a relatively narrow corporate tax base, due to accelerated depreciation allowances, corporate tax preferences, and tax-planning incentives created by [the] high statutory rate."The U.S. corporate tax code includes a host of special provisions that significantly reduce the taxes that most corporations owe.


Six Tests for Corporate Tax Reform | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


HOW'D DUBYA'S "AMNESTY" AT 5% WORK OUT AGAIN??? LOL

Hey stupid, again, comparing the corporate tax rate to the GDP is a bull shit attempt to make the fact that we have the highest rate less important. Your cut and paste job is as irrelevant as it is stupid.

Yep those silly economists and their measuring it with the GDP

Weird the GOP opposes Obama proposal to lower the MARGINAL RATE to 28% right Bubs? FOURTH TIME??? LOL

Do you know what the GDP is, moron?
Do you know how the GDP is produced, idiot?
Can you even read higher than a 3rd grade level?

Fact: the U.S. Has the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. That is what I stated, it is the truth and you are too fucking stupid for me to waste any more of my time on.

True Bubba, the MARGINAL rate IS the highest BUT the EFFECTIVE rate is quite low AND even lower when you look at it compared to GDP.


Good little rightie holding onto the marginal rate when NO COMP WORKING OUT OF THE US (THOSE THAT CAN'T FLEE THE US) PAYS THAT RATE!


I'll note for the 5th time, you went right on by Obama's proposal to lower the marginal rate that the GOP is blocking Bubba!

 

[Dad2three]

Oh right the ACTUAL MARGINAL rate that no multinational Corp comes close to paying. AND?

Hint Obama proposed lowering it to 28%, AND THE GOP OF COURSE SAID NO. Weird right?

BUT MEASURING THE CORP TAX BURDEN % OF GDP (THE WAY ECONOMISTS DO) THE US IS 3RD LOWEST, ONLY CHILE/MEXICO ARE LOWER IN THE "DEVELOPED" WORLD BUBBA!

Oh right the ACTUAL MARGINAL rate that no multinational Corp comes close to paying. AND?

Hint Obama proposed lowering it to 28%, AND THE GOP OF COURSE SAID NO. Weird right?

BUT MEASURING THE CORP TAX BURDEN % OF GDP (THE WAY ECONOMISTS DO) THE US IS 3RD LOWEST, ONLY CHILE/MEXICO ARE LOWER IN THE "DEVELOPED" WORLD BUBBA!

I love how you freely and openly display your ignorance for all to see. You twist and spin statistics to make them say what you want. Comparing the tax to the GDP is ludicrous.

I'll ask you the same question again: just how stupid are you exactly?

Talk about being stupid:

• During the 1950s, federal corporate tax revenue averaged 4.7 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). But by the most recent decade (2000-2009), corporate taxes had fallen to just 1.9 percent of GDP (see Figure 1).As a result of this trend and other policy changes, the corporate tax now contributes considerably less to federal revenues than it once did: between 2000 and 2009, 10.7 percent of federal revenues were collected through the corporate tax, down from 29.8 percent of revenues in the 1950s.

• In recent decades, and especially since the start of the 1980s, corporate profits have increased as a share of GDP — but corporate tax revenues have not followed suit. The non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) recently summarized the upshot of this trend: "Despite concerns expressed about the size of the corporate tax rate, current corporate taxes are extremely low by historical standards, whether measured as a share of output [i.e., GDP]or based on the effective tax rate on income."

Between 2000 and 2005, the share of corporate operating surplus that U.S. corporations pay in taxes — a proxy for the average tax rate — was the second lowest among the studied G7 leading industrialized nations and nearly 3 percentage points below the average of member nations in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), according to a 2007 Treasury Department report (see Figure 2, next page).[3] As that report summarized, "The contrast between [the United States'] high statutory corporate income tax rate and low average corporate tax rate implies a relatively narrow corporate tax base, due to accelerated depreciation allowances, corporate tax preferences, and tax-planning incentives created by [the] high statutory rate."The U.S. corporate tax code includes a host of special provisions that significantly reduce the taxes that most corporations owe.


Six Tests for Corporate Tax Reform | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


HOW'D DUBYA'S "AMNESTY" AT 5% WORK OUT AGAIN??? LOL

Hey stupid, again, comparing the corporate tax rate to the GDP is a bull shit attempt to make the fact that we have the highest rate less important. Your cut and paste job is as irrelevant as it is stupid.

Yep those silly economists and their measuring it with the GDP

Weird the GOP opposes Obama proposal to lower the MARGINAL RATE to 28% right Bubs? FOURTH TIME??? LOL

Do you know what the GDP is, moron?
Do you know how the GDP is produced, idiot?
Can you even read higher than a 3rd grade level?

Fact: the U.S. Has the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. That is what I stated, it is the truth and you are too fucking stupid for me to waste any more of my time on.

The Sorry State of Corporate Taxes

What Fortune 500 Firms Pay (or Don’t Pay) in the USA And What they Pay Abroad — 2008 to 2012

Read the Report


Profitable corporations are supposed to pay a 35 percent federal income tax rate on their U.S. profits. But many corporations pay far less, or nothing at all, because of the many tax loopholes and special breaks they enjoy. This report documents just how successful many Fortune 500 corporations have been at using these loopholes and special breaks over the past five years.


Some Key Findings:

• As a group, the 288 corporations examined paid an effective federal income tax rate of just 19.4 percent over the five-year period — far less than the statutory 35 percent tax rate.

YOU KEEP GETTING HUNG UP ON A MARGINAL RATE BUBBA, LOL

The Sorry State of Corporate Taxes | Citizens for Tax Justice

 

[PredFan]

I love how you freely and openly display your ignorance for all to see. You twist and spin statistics to make them say what you want. Comparing the tax to the GDP is ludicrous.

I'll ask you the same question again: just how stupid are you exactly?

Talk about being stupid:

• During the 1950s, federal corporate tax revenue averaged 4.7 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). But by the most recent decade (2000-2009), corporate taxes had fallen to just 1.9 percent of GDP (see Figure 1).As a result of this trend and other policy changes, the corporate tax now contributes considerably less to federal revenues than it once did: between 2000 and 2009, 10.7 percent of federal revenues were collected through the corporate tax, down from 29.8 percent of revenues in the 1950s.

• In recent decades, and especially since the start of the 1980s, corporate profits have increased as a share of GDP — but corporate tax revenues have not followed suit. The non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) recently summarized the upshot of this trend: "Despite concerns expressed about the size of the corporate tax rate, current corporate taxes are extremely low by historical standards, whether measured as a share of output [i.e., GDP]or based on the effective tax rate on income."

Between 2000 and 2005, the share of corporate operating surplus that U.S. corporations pay in taxes — a proxy for the average tax rate — was the second lowest among the studied G7 leading industrialized nations and nearly 3 percentage points below the average of member nations in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), according to a 2007 Treasury Department report (see Figure 2, next page).[3] As that report summarized, "The contrast between [the United States'] high statutory corporate income tax rate and low average corporate tax rate implies a relatively narrow corporate tax base, due to accelerated depreciation allowances, corporate tax preferences, and tax-planning incentives created by [the] high statutory rate."The U.S. corporate tax code includes a host of special provisions that significantly reduce the taxes that most corporations owe.


Six Tests for Corporate Tax Reform | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


HOW'D DUBYA'S "AMNESTY" AT 5% WORK OUT AGAIN??? LOL

Hey stupid, again, comparing the corporate tax rate to the GDP is a bull shit attempt to make the fact that we have the highest rate less important. Your cut and paste job is as irrelevant as it is stupid.

Yep those silly economists and their measuring it with the GDP

Weird the GOP opposes Obama proposal to lower the MARGINAL RATE to 28% right Bubs? FOURTH TIME??? LOL

Do you know what the GDP is, moron?
Do you know how the GDP is produced, idiot?
Can you even read higher than a 3rd grade level?

Fact: the U.S. Has the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. That is what I stated, it is the truth and you are too fucking stupid for me to waste any more of my time on.

The Sorry State of Corporate Taxes

What Fortune 500 Firms Pay (or Don’t Pay) in the USA And What they Pay Abroad — 2008 to 2012

Read the Report


Profitable corporations are supposed to pay a 35 percent federal income tax rate on their U.S. profits. But many corporations pay far less, or nothing at all, because of the many tax loopholes and special breaks they enjoy. This report documents just how successful many Fortune 500 corporations have been at using these loopholes and special breaks over the past five years.


Some Key Findings:

• As a group, the 288 corporations examined paid an effective federal income tax rate of just 19.4 percent over the five-year period — far less than the statutory 35 percent tax rate.

YOU KEEP GETTING HUNG UP ON A MARGINAL RATE BUBBA, LOL

The Sorry State of Corporate Taxes | Citizens for Tax Justice

Shame about your reading comprehension difficulties. Good luck with that.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yes, the bailouts have entirely warped our capitalist system. Broken, corrupt business models are being shored up by the government, keeping more efficient and transparent business models from thriving and succeeding. The corruption and fraud of the bad models is being condoned and sanctioned by the State.

It's sickening.

Amidst all the screams of depression and job salvation....and the cries of academics pining for more government money.....

The bailouts were an awful idea.

The government should have stayed clear.

You can keep your claims of "saved" for someone who thinks you might have a chance of making a case.

This.

The sad part is that the debate is centered around tax rates when tax rates are irrelevant - the rich don't pay taxes based on those tax rates anyway. Those 0.1% that the left are always complaining about don't actually pay taxes based on income tax rates. Most of their money is sheltered from tax in general. The core problem with taxes is not the rates but the massively complex tax structure that no one alive understands (and is mostly built around social engineering).

The bailouts were a massive payoff to the super rich to allow them to continue to get far more wealth without actually giving up the corrupt and inefficient systems that they were a part of. I am amazed that the left who are always berating the wealth pooling at the top back one of the largest and most disgusting shifting of wealth from the people to the extremely wealthy.

NOTE the EFFECTIVE tax rate PRE REAGANOMICS?

And?

The effective tax rate is lowered on the top earners because of loopholes. This was already pointed out.

So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

But here is really the only tax graph you need: It's total tax burden by income group. And as you'll see, every income group is paying something, and the rich aren't paying much more, as a percentage of their incomes, then the middle class.

That's really what the American tax system looks like: Not 47 percent paying nothing, but everybody paying something, and most Americans paying between 25 percent and 30 percent of their income -- which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011*.

The one tax graph you really need to know

those charts are an attempt to confuse the issue of federal income taxes by including all forms of taxation.

Show us a chart that includes only federal income taxes and you will see that 47% pay zero federal income taxes.

Why does the source of that tax matter though?

As far as I am concerned, I don't care what particular agency or section of the state takes my money - it is just as gone.


Again, the absolute best part of his rant was that there is ONE SINGLE tax structure that addressed the lefts chief complaint: a simplified flat rate tax. I hear all the time about how the Romneys out there are paying a paltry 10 percent when the rest of us are paying so much more. Considering that there is no 10 percent bracket anywhere at all it is blatantly obvious that the problem is not centered around rates - he would use the overly complex tax system to avoid whatever rates that were set.

The left HATES a flat tax though. It is mind boggling as to why.

ALL flat taxes ARE regressive. Period. Even the FAIR tax is towards the middle class, yet STILL will not get enough to run Gov't at 30% rate, while the rich lower their tax "burden"!

By definition, they cannot be regressive.

LOOPHOLES? Didn't they have loopholes pre Reaganomics when the MARGINAL RATE was 91% to 70% from 1932-1980 AND the EFFECTIVE TAX RATE WAS MUCH,. MUCH, MUCH more on MUCH smaller shares of income?


By definition flat taxes CAN'T be regressive? lol

Should perhaps tell economist that AS the FAIR tax (and ANY FLAT TAX) hits the middle class harder than the upper brackets. Weird right?

Those loopholes continue to increase at an alarming rate or did you not know that the tax code has not been static. Perhaps you would be surprised to find out that the tax code is not even remotely similar to the one that you seem to have the need to compare it to. You are, essentially, comparing apples to oranges and believing them to be remotely similar.

They are not.

It seems that you do not know what regressive means. Not surprised.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The Tax Rate is relatively unimportant because of all the deductions and loopholes available to the ultra wealthy and corporations.

They have far more deductions / loopholes than YOU are allowed.

And you can't employ a team of lobbiests to give Congressmen million dollar bribes to make loopholes for you or your company.

WHAT COUNTS IS THE effective TAX RATE.

Which is what they actually pay after deductions / credits / loopholes.

But you just want to complain about the top tax rate without any consideration for the fact that VERY VERY FEW PAY THAT RATE. And when they do it is only on the last million or so of their income.

But focusing and complaining about the TOP TAX RATE when you know very well that they don't actually pay that is a form of lying.

Moron,

You've finally discovered what they've been saying.

You are dense.

 

[Dad2three]

Talk about being stupid:

• During the 1950s, federal corporate tax revenue averaged 4.7 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). But by the most recent decade (2000-2009), corporate taxes had fallen to just 1.9 percent of GDP (see Figure 1).As a result of this trend and other policy changes, the corporate tax now contributes considerably less to federal revenues than it once did: between 2000 and 2009, 10.7 percent of federal revenues were collected through the corporate tax, down from 29.8 percent of revenues in the 1950s.

• In recent decades, and especially since the start of the 1980s, corporate profits have increased as a share of GDP — but corporate tax revenues have not followed suit. The non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) recently summarized the upshot of this trend: "Despite concerns expressed about the size of the corporate tax rate, current corporate taxes are extremely low by historical standards, whether measured as a share of output [i.e., GDP]or based on the effective tax rate on income."

Between 2000 and 2005, the share of corporate operating surplus that U.S. corporations pay in taxes — a proxy for the average tax rate — was the second lowest among the studied G7 leading industrialized nations and nearly 3 percentage points below the average of member nations in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), according to a 2007 Treasury Department report (see Figure 2, next page).[3] As that report summarized, "The contrast between [the United States'] high statutory corporate income tax rate and low average corporate tax rate implies a relatively narrow corporate tax base, due to accelerated depreciation allowances, corporate tax preferences, and tax-planning incentives created by [the] high statutory rate."The U.S. corporate tax code includes a host of special provisions that significantly reduce the taxes that most corporations owe.


Six Tests for Corporate Tax Reform | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


HOW'D DUBYA'S "AMNESTY" AT 5% WORK OUT AGAIN??? LOL

Hey stupid, again, comparing the corporate tax rate to the GDP is a bull shit attempt to make the fact that we have the highest rate less important. Your cut and paste job is as irrelevant as it is stupid.

Yep those silly economists and their measuring it with the GDP

Weird the GOP opposes Obama proposal to lower the MARGINAL RATE to 28% right Bubs? FOURTH TIME??? LOL

Do you know what the GDP is, moron?
Do you know how the GDP is produced, idiot?
Can you even read higher than a 3rd grade level?

Fact: the U.S. Has the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. That is what I stated, it is the truth and you are too fucking stupid for me to waste any more of my time on.

The Sorry State of Corporate Taxes

What Fortune 500 Firms Pay (or Don’t Pay) in the USA And What they Pay Abroad — 2008 to 2012

Read the Report


Profitable corporations are supposed to pay a 35 percent federal income tax rate on their U.S. profits. But many corporations pay far less, or nothing at all, because of the many tax loopholes and special breaks they enjoy. This report documents just how successful many Fortune 500 corporations have been at using these loopholes and special breaks over the past five years.


Some Key Findings:

• As a group, the 288 corporations examined paid an effective federal income tax rate of just 19.4 percent over the five-year period — far less than the statutory 35 percent tax rate.

YOU KEEP GETTING HUNG UP ON A MARGINAL RATE BUBBA, LOL

The Sorry State of Corporate Taxes | Citizens for Tax Justice

Shame about your reading comprehension difficulties. Good luck with that.

I get it Bubba, ANOTHER right winger when confronted with FACTS that although the top MARGINAL rate is 35%, no Corp doing Biz outside the US pays near that in the EFFECTIVE tax rate which is at 40 year lows!

I'll note for the 6th time you ignore Obama's lowering the marginal rates and the GOP saying NO. Weird considering the US HAS ONLY THE TOP MARGINAL CORP TAX RATE RIGHT? lol

 

[Dad2three]

Amidst all the screams of depression and job salvation....and the cries of academics pining for more government money.....

The bailouts were an awful idea.

The government should have stayed clear.

You can keep your claims of "saved" for someone who thinks you might have a chance of making a case.

This.

The sad part is that the debate is centered around tax rates when tax rates are irrelevant - the rich don't pay taxes based on those tax rates anyway. Those 0.1% that the left are always complaining about don't actually pay taxes based on income tax rates. Most of their money is sheltered from tax in general. The core problem with taxes is not the rates but the massively complex tax structure that no one alive understands (and is mostly built around social engineering).

The bailouts were a massive payoff to the super rich to allow them to continue to get far more wealth without actually giving up the corrupt and inefficient systems that they were a part of. I am amazed that the left who are always berating the wealth pooling at the top back one of the largest and most disgusting shifting of wealth from the people to the extremely wealthy.

NOTE the EFFECTIVE tax rate PRE REAGANOMICS?

And?

The effective tax rate is lowered on the top earners because of loopholes. This was already pointed out.

those charts are an attempt to confuse the issue of federal income taxes by including all forms of taxation.

Show us a chart that includes only federal income taxes and you will see that 47% pay zero federal income taxes.

Why does the source of that tax matter though?

As far as I am concerned, I don't care what particular agency or section of the state takes my money - it is just as gone.


Again, the absolute best part of his rant was that there is ONE SINGLE tax structure that addressed the lefts chief complaint: a simplified flat rate tax. I hear all the time about how the Romneys out there are paying a paltry 10 percent when the rest of us are paying so much more. Considering that there is no 10 percent bracket anywhere at all it is blatantly obvious that the problem is not centered around rates - he would use the overly complex tax system to avoid whatever rates that were set.

The left HATES a flat tax though. It is mind boggling as to why.

ALL flat taxes ARE regressive. Period. Even the FAIR tax is towards the middle class, yet STILL will not get enough to run Gov't at 30% rate, while the rich lower their tax "burden"!

By definition, they cannot be regressive.

LOOPHOLES? Didn't they have loopholes pre Reaganomics when the MARGINAL RATE was 91% to 70% from 1932-1980 AND the EFFECTIVE TAX RATE WAS MUCH,. MUCH, MUCH more on MUCH smaller shares of income?


By definition flat taxes CAN'T be regressive? lol

Should perhaps tell economist that AS the FAIR tax (and ANY FLAT TAX) hits the middle class harder than the upper brackets. Weird right?

Those loopholes continue to increase at an alarming rate or did you not know that the tax code has not been static. Perhaps you would be surprised to find out that the tax code is not even remotely similar to the one that you seem to have the need to compare it to. You are, essentially, comparing apples to oranges and believing them to be remotely similar.

They are not.

It seems that you do not know what regressive means. Not surprised.

Good you don't refute the EFFECTIVE tax rates on those "job creators" hasn't been this low since 1932


Yes, regressive taxes ARE flat taxes dumbass



A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.


"Regressive" describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, referring to the way the rate progresses from high to low, so that the average tax rate exceeds the marginal tax rate.


In terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich: there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay, as measured by assets, consumption, or income. These taxes tend to reduce the tax burden of the well-to-do (people with higher ability to pay), as they shift the burden disproportionately to the needy (those with lower ability to pay).
Regressive tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The regressivity of the flat tax is another big problem. Our current federal income tax code is progressive (rates rise with income), and every distributional analysis I’ve ever seen of a flat tax shows a transfer of the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class. According to the Tax Policy Center’s score of the Perry tax plan, the tax bill of families with incomes between $30,000 and 40,000 would go up by about $450, while that of millionaires would fall by about half a million bucks.

It would also lower revenue by between $500 billion and $1 trillion per year.

The flat tax falls flat for good reasons

 

[Dad2three]

The Tax Rate is relatively unimportant because of all the deductions and loopholes available to the ultra wealthy and corporations.

They have far more deductions / loopholes than YOU are allowed.

And you can't employ a team of lobbiests to give Congressmen million dollar bribes to make loopholes for you or your company.

WHAT COUNTS IS THE effective TAX RATE.

Which is what they actually pay after deductions / credits / loopholes.

But you just want to complain about the top tax rate without any consideration for the fact that VERY VERY FEW PAY THAT RATE. And when they do it is only on the last million or so of their income.

But focusing and complaining about the TOP TAX RATE when you know very well that they don't actually pay that is a form of lying.

Moron,

You've finally discovered what they've been saying.

You are dense.

Yet the GOP blocks Obama's proposal to drop the "highest Corp tax rate in the world" US's 35% to 28%. Weird

 

[Dad2three]

More proof that the rationale behind the Bush tax cut doesn’t hold up comes from the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan group run by the Library of Congress. In mid-September CRS released a paper that analyzed economic growth and changes to the top marginal tax rates, both for personal income and capital gains, from 1945-2010. “The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth,” it concludes. “The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the pie.”

 

[FA_Q2]

This.

The sad part is that the debate is centered around tax rates when tax rates are irrelevant - the rich don't pay taxes based on those tax rates anyway. Those 0.1% that the left are always complaining about don't actually pay taxes based on income tax rates. Most of their money is sheltered from tax in general. The core problem with taxes is not the rates but the massively complex tax structure that no one alive understands (and is mostly built around social engineering).

The bailouts were a massive payoff to the super rich to allow them to continue to get far more wealth without actually giving up the corrupt and inefficient systems that they were a part of. I am amazed that the left who are always berating the wealth pooling at the top back one of the largest and most disgusting shifting of wealth from the people to the extremely wealthy.

NOTE the EFFECTIVE tax rate PRE REAGANOMICS?

And?

The effective tax rate is lowered on the top earners because of loopholes. This was already pointed out.

Why does the source of that tax matter though?

As far as I am concerned, I don't care what particular agency or section of the state takes my money - it is just as gone.


Again, the absolute best part of his rant was that there is ONE SINGLE tax structure that addressed the lefts chief complaint: a simplified flat rate tax. I hear all the time about how the Romneys out there are paying a paltry 10 percent when the rest of us are paying so much more. Considering that there is no 10 percent bracket anywhere at all it is blatantly obvious that the problem is not centered around rates - he would use the overly complex tax system to avoid whatever rates that were set.

The left HATES a flat tax though. It is mind boggling as to why.

ALL flat taxes ARE regressive. Period. Even the FAIR tax is towards the middle class, yet STILL will not get enough to run Gov't at 30% rate, while the rich lower their tax "burden"!

By definition, they cannot be regressive.

LOOPHOLES? Didn't they have loopholes pre Reaganomics when the MARGINAL RATE was 91% to 70% from 1932-1980 AND the EFFECTIVE TAX RATE WAS MUCH,. MUCH, MUCH more on MUCH smaller shares of income?


By definition flat taxes CAN'T be regressive? lol

Should perhaps tell economist that AS the FAIR tax (and ANY FLAT TAX) hits the middle class harder than the upper brackets. Weird right?

Those loopholes continue to increase at an alarming rate or did you not know that the tax code has not been static. Perhaps you would be surprised to find out that the tax code is not even remotely similar to the one that you seem to have the need to compare it to. You are, essentially, comparing apples to oranges and believing them to be remotely similar.

They are not.

It seems that you do not know what regressive means. Not surprised.

Good you don't refute the EFFECTIVE tax rates on those "job creators" hasn't been this low since 1932


Yes, regressive taxes ARE flat taxes dumbass



A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.


"Regressive" describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, referring to the way the rate progresses from high to low, so that the average tax rate exceeds the marginal tax rate.


In terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich: there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay, as measured by assets, consumption, or income. These taxes tend to reduce the tax burden of the well-to-do (people with higher ability to pay), as they shift the burden disproportionately to the needy (those with lower ability to pay).
Regressive tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The regressivity of the flat tax is another big problem. Our current federal income tax code is progressive (rates rise with income), and every distributional analysis I’ve ever seen of a flat tax shows a transfer of the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class. According to the Tax Policy Center’s score of the Perry tax plan, the tax bill of families with incomes between $30,000 and 40,000 would go up by about $450, while that of millionaires would fall by about half a million bucks.

It would also lower revenue by between $500 billion and $1 trillion per year.

The flat tax falls flat for good reasons

Yet you contend that Romney and the others in the 0.1 percent pay LESS than the poor.
And somehow you call the current system 'progressive.'

That would make you the dumbass.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boom."

THE TRUTH ABOUT TAXES: High Rates On Rich People Do Not Hurt The Economy - Business Insider

The true driving force of the economy is the middle class - not the wealthy. This economy depends on consumer spending. That is why you all should care about income inequality. Despite productivity skyrocketing over the previous decades, wages have remained mostly flat in the lower class and most of the income gains have gone to the top 1%.. The middle class is shrinking and the U.S. has the worst child poverty rate in the developed world.

Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Why didn't Obama raise taxes to 90% to usher in a new era of Socialist prosperity?????

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's kind of weird how good it was then and now how bad it is today since the rich have been getting away with this crap.

We spent far more on infrastructure, science, r&d and education when we had the revenue to do so.

BS

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Economics for Dummies (liberals) | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When the American economy was rockin' and rollin' back in the 60's and 70's we had a top tax rate on the wealthy of 91% and a 10% usery law that prevented charging more than 10% interest.

The peasants were also allowed to deduct 100% of the interest they paid on everything on their income taxes both state and federal.

Until Ronald Reagan created the largest tax increase on the middle class in history when he took the interest deduction away, except for your home mortgage -- and he WANTED to take that away too.

Having a high tax rate on the uber wealthy serves two purposes.

1) It raises more money to pay down the country's debt -- thanks to Bush's Follies.

2) It motivates the wealthy to use their remaining money to start more businesses and expand the one's they own in order to get more money.

If a man has 100 million dollars rs a year coming in from his factory, and the government lets him keep 92 million, he has little motivation to expand his plant or start another business.

If he had 100 million dollars a year coming in from his factory, and the government lets him keep 10 million, he has LOTS of motivation to expand his operations and start more.

He still owns his yacht and mansions and now needs more money to KEEP them just like his employees need to make money to pay their rent / house payment.

He's still a rich man, nobody took his factory away from him, but with a high tax rate he pays more to society for the better life he is receiving from society. And that helps society.

Proof of my statement is that when we HAD high tax rates on the wealthy ... they DID expand their businesses and start more. Times were booming.

But, since Reagan and the massive give aways to the wealthy under the pretense it would create more jobs ( which has been proven untrue ) we have cut the taxes on the wealthy and they just hide their money overseas and sit on their wealth.

The conservatives claim that giving welfare to the poor encourages them not to work.

Well, tax cuts for the rich are the same thing as welfare to the poor --- only it's welfare for the RICH.


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

It's kind of weird how good it was then and now how bad it is today since the rich have been getting away with this crap.

We spent far more on infrastructure, science, r&d and education when we had the revenue to do so.

Dumbest post ever, you must be a Liberal

 

[The Rabbi]

When the American economy was rockin' and rollin' back in the 60's and 70's we had a top tax rate on the wealthy of 91% and a 10% usery law that prevented charging more than 10% interest.

The peasants were also allowed to deduct 100% of the interest they paid on everything on their income taxes both state and federal.

Until Ronald Reagan created the largest tax increase on the middle class in history when he took the interest deduction away, except for your home mortgage -- and he WANTED to take that away too.

Having a high tax rate on the uber wealthy serves two purposes.

1) It raises more money to pay down the country's debt -- thanks to Bush's Follies.

2) It motivates the wealthy to use their remaining money to start more businesses and expand the one's they own in order to get more money.

If a man has 100 million dollars rs a year coming in from his factory, and the government lets him keep 92 million, he has little motivation to expand his plant or start another business.

If he had 100 million dollars a year coming in from his factory, and the government lets him keep 10 million, he has LOTS of motivation to expand his operations and start more.

He still owns his yacht and mansions and now needs more money to KEEP them just like his employees need to make money to pay their rent / house payment.

He's still a rich man, nobody took his factory away from him, but with a high tax rate he pays more to society for the better life he is receiving from society. And that helps society.

Proof of my statement is that when we HAD high tax rates on the wealthy ... they DID expand their businesses and start more. Times were booming.

But, since Reagan and the massive give aways to the wealthy under the pretense it would create more jobs ( which has been proven untrue ) we have cut the taxes on the wealthy and they just hide their money overseas and sit on their wealth.

The conservatives claim that giving welfare to the poor encourages them not to work.

Well, tax cuts for the rich are the same thing as welfare to the poor --- only it's welfare for the RICH.


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

It's kind of weird how good it was then and now how bad it is today since the rich have been getting away with this crap.

We spent far more on infrastructure, science, r&d and education when we had the revenue to do so.

Dumbest post ever, you must be a Liberal

It isnt that he doesnt know anything.
It's that everything he knows is untrue.
The 70s were a great time in the economy? I was there. What has he been smoking?

 

[Redfish]

More proof that the rationale behind the Bush tax cut doesn’t hold up comes from the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan group run by the Library of Congress. In mid-September CRS released a paper that analyzed economic growth and changes to the top marginal tax rates, both for personal income and capital gains, from 1945-2010. “The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth,” it concludes. “The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the pie.”

Obama kept the Bush tax rates in place, sooooooooooooo they are now the obama tax cuts. Deal with it, idiot. Even obozo the clown understood that raising taxes hurts the economy.

 

[Redfish]

NOTE the EFFECTIVE tax rate PRE REAGANOMICS?

And?

The effective tax rate is lowered on the top earners because of loopholes. This was already pointed out.

ALL flat taxes ARE regressive. Period. Even the FAIR tax is towards the middle class, yet STILL will not get enough to run Gov't at 30% rate, while the rich lower their tax "burden"!

By definition, they cannot be regressive.

LOOPHOLES? Didn't they have loopholes pre Reaganomics when the MARGINAL RATE was 91% to 70% from 1932-1980 AND the EFFECTIVE TAX RATE WAS MUCH,. MUCH, MUCH more on MUCH smaller shares of income?


By definition flat taxes CAN'T be regressive? lol

Should perhaps tell economist that AS the FAIR tax (and ANY FLAT TAX) hits the middle class harder than the upper brackets. Weird right?

Those loopholes continue to increase at an alarming rate or did you not know that the tax code has not been static. Perhaps you would be surprised to find out that the tax code is not even remotely similar to the one that you seem to have the need to compare it to. You are, essentially, comparing apples to oranges and believing them to be remotely similar.

They are not.

It seems that you do not know what regressive means. Not surprised.

Good you don't refute the EFFECTIVE tax rates on those "job creators" hasn't been this low since 1932


Yes, regressive taxes ARE flat taxes dumbass



A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.


"Regressive" describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, referring to the way the rate progresses from high to low, so that the average tax rate exceeds the marginal tax rate.


In terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich: there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay, as measured by assets, consumption, or income. These taxes tend to reduce the tax burden of the well-to-do (people with higher ability to pay), as they shift the burden disproportionately to the needy (those with lower ability to pay).
Regressive tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The regressivity of the flat tax is another big problem. Our current federal income tax code is progressive (rates rise with income), and every distributional analysis I’ve ever seen of a flat tax shows a transfer of the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class. According to the Tax Policy Center’s score of the Perry tax plan, the tax bill of families with incomes between $30,000 and 40,000 would go up by about $450, while that of millionaires would fall by about half a million bucks.

It would also lower revenue by between $500 billion and $1 trillion per year.

The flat tax falls flat for good reasons

Yet you contend that Romney and the others in the 0.1 percent pay LESS than the poor.
And somehow you call the current system 'progressive.'

That would make you the dumbass.

the poor pay zero federal income tax, ya damn fool.

 

[Dad2three]

NOTE the EFFECTIVE tax rate PRE REAGANOMICS?

And?

The effective tax rate is lowered on the top earners because of loopholes. This was already pointed out.

ALL flat taxes ARE regressive. Period. Even the FAIR tax is towards the middle class, yet STILL will not get enough to run Gov't at 30% rate, while the rich lower their tax "burden"!

By definition, they cannot be regressive.

LOOPHOLES? Didn't they have loopholes pre Reaganomics when the MARGINAL RATE was 91% to 70% from 1932-1980 AND the EFFECTIVE TAX RATE WAS MUCH,. MUCH, MUCH more on MUCH smaller shares of income?


By definition flat taxes CAN'T be regressive? lol

Should perhaps tell economist that AS the FAIR tax (and ANY FLAT TAX) hits the middle class harder than the upper brackets. Weird right?

Those loopholes continue to increase at an alarming rate or did you not know that the tax code has not been static. Perhaps you would be surprised to find out that the tax code is not even remotely similar to the one that you seem to have the need to compare it to. You are, essentially, comparing apples to oranges and believing them to be remotely similar.

They are not.

It seems that you do not know what regressive means. Not surprised.

Good you don't refute the EFFECTIVE tax rates on those "job creators" hasn't been this low since 1932


Yes, regressive taxes ARE flat taxes dumbass



A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.


"Regressive" describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, referring to the way the rate progresses from high to low, so that the average tax rate exceeds the marginal tax rate.


In terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich: there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay, as measured by assets, consumption, or income. These taxes tend to reduce the tax burden of the well-to-do (people with higher ability to pay), as they shift the burden disproportionately to the needy (those with lower ability to pay).
Regressive tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The regressivity of the flat tax is another big problem. Our current federal income tax code is progressive (rates rise with income), and every distributional analysis I’ve ever seen of a flat tax shows a transfer of the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class. According to the Tax Policy Center’s score of the Perry tax plan, the tax bill of families with incomes between $30,000 and 40,000 would go up by about $450, while that of millionaires would fall by about half a million bucks.

It would also lower revenue by between $500 billion and $1 trillion per year.

The flat tax falls flat for good reasons

Yet you contend that Romney and the others in the 0.1 percent pay LESS than the poor.
And somehow you call the current system 'progressive.'

That would make you the dumbass.

Yes the TOP 1% pay a BARELY progressive INCOME tax burden that the top1/10th of 1% doesn't. Doesn't mean the top 1% isn't BARELY progressive but that the US NEEDS THE BUFFET RULE, MIN 30% fed tax on in $1,000,000+ incomes DUMBASS!

.01% less than poor? SOURCE? Didn't think so liar!



Thanks for agreeing the flat tax IS regressive however