Should we make the corporate tax rate 0%?

[Toddsterpatriot]

U.S. Companies Overtaxed? Please. Study Shows Large Firms Paid 16.6% Federal Rate In '10

What rate should they have paid?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This shall be paid for eliminating useless leftist government programs.

The good things from this?

Many MANY Jobs will be created in America, since companies will return to their homeland.

Many corporations pay 0%. They are sitting on historic levels of cash.

Problem is, they lack customers. The middle class is currently digging itself out from 30 years of debt-based consumption. -and 30 years of losing jobs to Communist China so that our suppliers could realize the benefits of ultra-cheap labor.

Lower taxes and deregulation made sense in the 80s , but now supply side policies have been over cooked ... and we need to bring back the demand centered policies of the postwar years.

Obama, mostly because of the sequester, has cut more government jobs than Reagan or Bush. In fact, Reagan added more jobs to the Federal payroll than any modern president, especially defense jobs (in places like Southern California). Reagan refused to cut jobs during his recession because he understood that people with American jobs spend money on Main Street, thus allowing small business to stay afloat.

Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Savage, Levine, OReilly, and FOX have one answer: cut taxes on the wealthy. But the best employment happened under, LBJ, Truman, Eisenhower and Nixon (when taxes were above 70% on the top bracket).

Son, here is what you don't understand. Until recently, the state has always played both sides of the economic divide. It subsidized and bailed out suppliers, while boosting the solvency and purchasing power of consumers through a myriad of fiscal tools and government programs. But make no mistake: we had great results when we effectively taxed the surplus capital on top so that it could be used for something other than lobbying and election funding, which is where corporate money currently goes in order to perpetuate our no-bid rat's nest of dysfunctional monopolies.

Our postwar government understood that if middle class consumers had more spending money, capital would go after that money. Nothing spurs job growth more than a fat middle class wallet.

Unfortunately, Reagan - who was a closet Keynesian - convinced us to remove all the supports and programs for the non-wealthy. He got us to double down on suppliers through tax, regulatory, labor and trade policy. And he converted the Fed from an agency that concerned itself with full employment to one that fought inflation. He said that all these measures would incentivize capital investment and grow jobs. So we got rid of 70% of what the government did to boost middle class purchasing power in order to make room for tax cuts and reduce the labor costs of our suppliers. Then we watched jobs slowly trickle to Asia because Nike investors simply make more money when their sneaks area made by workers who get paid $5/day and live beneath brutal freedom hating dictators.

As Americans lost good jobs and as their subsidized education, health care and transportation was removed, they had less and less money for consumption. So we quietly expanded credit and have spent the last 30 years fueling domestic consumption with debt. By the Bush years too many Americans were spending more than they made. Now our middle class is digging out from unprecedented levels of debt. They can no longer borrow enough to fuel job growth (through consumption). Lowering the taxes of suppliers who are sitting on historic levels of cash will not enable the consumption of those too indebted to consume.

We are facing the largest demand crisis in over 1/2 a century. To apply more supply side policies would only make the problem worse. Just like we smartly reformed Keynesian policies in the 80s, we now need to dismantle the Republican special interests which are preventing us from finally reforming the supply side policies which have greatly outlived their utility.

Many corporations pay 0%.

Which ones?
Where's your list?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Should we make the corporate tax rate 0%?

The corporate tax rate is why we have a $17 trillion national debt. Those that have almost everything pay nothing. Comcast just bought Time Warner cable for $45 billion, to get rid of the competition, so they could charge raise everyone's rates. The future is monopolies, not free market. Soon it will be called the CORPORATE STATES OF AMERICA, where 98% of the people are slaves to pay the national debt.

The corporate tax rate is why we have a $17 trillion national debt.

Clowns in DC spending too much to buy votes is why we have a $17 trillion national debt.

Cut spending, now.
Term limits, now.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Corporations made a record $824 billion in profits last year as well, while the stock market has had one of its best performances since 1900 while Obama has been in office.

Meanwhile, workers are getting the short end of the stick. As CNN Money explained, “a separate government reading shows that total wages have now fallen to a record low of 43.5% of GDP. Until 1975, wages almost always accounted for at least half of GDP, and had been as high as 49% as recently as early 2001.”
Corporate Profits Hit Record High While Worker Wages Hit Record Low | ThinkProgress

So if all corporate profits were taxed at 100% it wouldn't even pay the interest on the national debt. So the national debt would still never go down. Corporate business has created a Ponzi scheme that has already destroyed America.

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1#reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&903=58

Personal Income, under section 2, table 2.1 of the above link, was nearly $14.3 trillion last quarter.
Employee compensation was nearly $9 trillion. Wages and salaries, over $7.2 trillion.

 

[RKMBrown]

This shall be paid for eliminating useless leftist government programs.

The good things from this?

Many MANY Jobs will be created in America, since companies will return to their homeland.

Many corporations pay 0%. They are sitting on historic levels of cash.

Problem is, they lack customers. The middle class is currently digging itself out from 30 years of debt-based consumption. -and 30 years of losing jobs to Communist China so that our suppliers could realize the benefits of ultra-cheap labor.

Lower taxes and deregulation made sense in the 80s , but now supply side policies have been over cooked ... and we need to bring back the demand centered policies of the postwar years.

Obama, mostly because of the sequester, has cut more government jobs than Reagan or Bush. In fact, Reagan added more jobs to the Federal payroll than any modern president, especially defense jobs (in places like Southern California). Reagan refused to cut jobs during his recession because he understood that people with American jobs spend money on Main Street, thus allowing small business to stay afloat.

Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Savage, Levine, OReilly, and FOX have one answer: cut taxes on the wealthy. But the best employment happened under, LBJ, Truman, Eisenhower and Nixon (when taxes were above 70% on the top bracket).

Son, here is what you don't understand. Until recently, the state has always played both sides of the economic divide. It subsidized and bailed out suppliers, while boosting the solvency and purchasing power of consumers through a myriad of fiscal tools and government programs. But make no mistake: we had great results when we effectively taxed the surplus capital on top so that it could be used for something other than lobbying and election funding, which is where corporate money currently goes in order to perpetuate our no-bid rat's nest of dysfunctional monopolies.

Our postwar government understood that if middle class consumers had more spending money, capital would go after that money. Nothing spurs job growth more than a fat middle class wallet.

Unfortunately, Reagan - who was a closet Keynesian - convinced us to remove all the supports and programs for the non-wealthy. He got us to double down on suppliers through tax, regulatory, labor and trade policy. And he converted the Fed from an agency that concerned itself with full employment to one that fought inflation. He said that all these measures would incentivize capital investment and grow jobs. So we got rid of 70% of what the government did to boost middle class purchasing power in order to make room for tax cuts and reduce the labor costs of our suppliers. Then we watched jobs slowly trickle to Asia because Nike investors simply make more money when their sneaks area made by workers who get paid $5/day and live beneath brutal freedom hating dictators.

As Americans lost good jobs and as their subsidized education, health care and transportation was removed, they had less and less money for consumption. So we quietly expanded credit and have spent the last 30 years fueling domestic consumption with debt. By the Bush years too many Americans were spending more than they made. Now our middle class is digging out from unprecedented levels of debt. They can no longer borrow enough to fuel job growth (through consumption). Lowering the taxes of suppliers who are sitting on historic levels of cash will not enable the consumption of those too indebted to consume.

We are facing the largest demand crisis in over 1/2 a century. To apply more supply side policies would only make the problem worse. Just like we smartly reformed Keynesian policies in the 80s, we now need to dismantle the Republican special interests which are preventing us from finally reforming the supply side policies which have greatly outlived their utility.

Many corporations pay 0%.

Which ones?
Where's your list?

The ones that don't have a profit dumb ass.

 

[FA_Q2]

U.S. Companies Overtaxed? Please. Study Shows Large Firms Paid 16.6% Federal Rate In '10

What rate should they have paid?

The more pertinent point is that this is an indication of a borked tax code in general.

One of the KEY reasons that company tax rates should be set to zero is because the massive companies get to enjoy MASSIVE tax breaks while smaller companies do not.

That completely skews the competition creating ever larger and ever growing companies. This is a major reason that so many things are so fucked up here now.

 

[P@triot]

Do record corporate profits trickle down according to Reaganomics?

Profits always "trickle down".

There are only two things that can happen in an economy: trickle up poverty (Dumbocrats) or trickle down prosperity (Republicans). Dumbocrats prefer poverty because it keeps the masses dependent on government and thus assures them power (which is all people like Clinton and Obama crave).

 

[KNB]

There are currently a record number of billionaires while 49 million Americans are unable to afford food for themselves or their children.

When do those record corporate profits trickle down?

 

[zeke]

Oh dog, why don't you post some recent Repub success of "trickle down" spreading the prosperity?
It would really help your credibility if there was just one success of trickle down working. Go ahead. Post it complete with reputable links.

The SUCCESS of TRICKLE DOWN is coming. Dogs gonna bring it. Come on dog.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Many corporations pay 0%. They are sitting on historic levels of cash.

Problem is, they lack customers. The middle class is currently digging itself out from 30 years of debt-based consumption. -and 30 years of losing jobs to Communist China so that our suppliers could realize the benefits of ultra-cheap labor.

Lower taxes and deregulation made sense in the 80s , but now supply side policies have been over cooked ... and we need to bring back the demand centered policies of the postwar years.

Obama, mostly because of the sequester, has cut more government jobs than Reagan or Bush. In fact, Reagan added more jobs to the Federal payroll than any modern president, especially defense jobs (in places like Southern California). Reagan refused to cut jobs during his recession because he understood that people with American jobs spend money on Main Street, thus allowing small business to stay afloat.

Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Savage, Levine, OReilly, and FOX have one answer: cut taxes on the wealthy. But the best employment happened under, LBJ, Truman, Eisenhower and Nixon (when taxes were above 70% on the top bracket).

Son, here is what you don't understand. Until recently, the state has always played both sides of the economic divide. It subsidized and bailed out suppliers, while boosting the solvency and purchasing power of consumers through a myriad of fiscal tools and government programs. But make no mistake: we had great results when we effectively taxed the surplus capital on top so that it could be used for something other than lobbying and election funding, which is where corporate money currently goes in order to perpetuate our no-bid rat's nest of dysfunctional monopolies.

Our postwar government understood that if middle class consumers had more spending money, capital would go after that money. Nothing spurs job growth more than a fat middle class wallet.

Unfortunately, Reagan - who was a closet Keynesian - convinced us to remove all the supports and programs for the non-wealthy. He got us to double down on suppliers through tax, regulatory, labor and trade policy. And he converted the Fed from an agency that concerned itself with full employment to one that fought inflation. He said that all these measures would incentivize capital investment and grow jobs. So we got rid of 70% of what the government did to boost middle class purchasing power in order to make room for tax cuts and reduce the labor costs of our suppliers. Then we watched jobs slowly trickle to Asia because Nike investors simply make more money when their sneaks area made by workers who get paid $5/day and live beneath brutal freedom hating dictators.

As Americans lost good jobs and as their subsidized education, health care and transportation was removed, they had less and less money for consumption. So we quietly expanded credit and have spent the last 30 years fueling domestic consumption with debt. By the Bush years too many Americans were spending more than they made. Now our middle class is digging out from unprecedented levels of debt. They can no longer borrow enough to fuel job growth (through consumption). Lowering the taxes of suppliers who are sitting on historic levels of cash will not enable the consumption of those too indebted to consume.

We are facing the largest demand crisis in over 1/2 a century. To apply more supply side policies would only make the problem worse. Just like we smartly reformed Keynesian policies in the 80s, we now need to dismantle the Republican special interests which are preventing us from finally reforming the supply side policies which have greatly outlived their utility.

Many corporations pay 0%.

Which ones?
Where's your list?

The ones that don't have a profit dumb ass.

Yeah, the ones that went out of business.
Now go read a book, idiot.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There are currently a record number of billionaires while 49 million Americans are unable to afford food for themselves or their children.

When do those record corporate profits trickle down?

Obama has been president for 5 years now, can't he fix anything? LOL!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

GE Filed 57,000-Page Tax Return, Paid No Taxes on $14 Billion in Profits | The Weekly Standard

GE made billions in profit and paid no taxes a couple years back. Just more proof that our tax code is COMPLETELY broken.

Tax or dont tax but make the playing field fair for Christ's sake.

 

[ScienceRocks]

GE Filed 57,000-Page Tax Return, Paid No Taxes on $14 Billion in Profits | The Weekly Standard

GE made billions in profit and paid no taxes a couple years back. Just more proof that our tax code is COMPLETELY broken.

Tax or dont tax but make the playing field fair for Christ's sake.

Time to force them to pay all that back....I agree the playing field should be a equal percentage no matter if you're poor, middle or rich!

 

[RandomVariable]

Business & Technology | Tax 'subsidies' at GE, Boeing and Verizon targeted by group | Seattle Times Newspaper
June 1, 2011
By Steven Sloan and Richard Rubin
Bloomberg News

Eleven U.S. corporations including Boeing, General Electric and Wells Fargo together reported $62 billion in domestic profits in 2010 while paying a negative 3.6 percent federal tax rate, according to data released Wednesday by Citizens for Tax Justice.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Business & Technology | Tax 'subsidies' at GE, Boeing and Verizon targeted by group | Seattle Times Newspaper
June 1, 2011
By Steven Sloan and Richard Rubin
Bloomberg News

Eleven U.S. corporations including Boeing, General Electric and Wells Fargo together reported $62 billion in domestic profits in 2010 while paying a negative 3.6 percent federal tax rate, according to data released Wednesday by Citizens for Tax Justice.

Another post for a flat tax, no subsidies and no write offs.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Business & Technology | Tax 'subsidies' at GE, Boeing and Verizon targeted by group | Seattle Times Newspaper
June 1, 2011
By Steven Sloan and Richard Rubin
Bloomberg News

Eleven U.S. corporations including Boeing, General Electric and Wells Fargo together reported $62 billion in domestic profits in 2010 while paying a negative 3.6 percent federal tax rate, according to data released Wednesday by Citizens for Tax Justice.

I agree, we need to eliminate corporate subsidies, especially stupid ones like "green energy" subsidies.

2010 might not be the best year to look at banks, considering the big losses they took in 2009.

 

[RKMBrown]

Many corporations pay 0%.

Which ones?
Where's your list?

The ones that don't have a profit dumb ass.

Yeah, the ones that went out of business.
Now go read a book, idiot.

You don't need a profit to be in business dumb ass.

 

[RandomVariable]

Another article from the Citizens for Tax Justice data, and an image I found. Amazon has kept a borderline, or below borderline, profit its whole existence.
Apple, Google, Amazon Pay Corporate Income Tax Well Below Official Rate

Apple paid a top tax rate of just 9.8 percent in 2011, the report says. Google paid a rate of 11.9 percent, while Yahoo paid 11.6 percent and Microsoft paid 18.9 percent. Xerox paid 7.3 percent of its income in taxes, while Amazon paid only 3.5 percent, according to the report.

None of these instances is as egregious as, say, General Electric, which was once infamously reported to have paid no federal income taxes in 2008, 2009 or 2010 -- an assertion that the company disputed -- and which has reportedly paid an average corporate tax rate of just 2.3 percent over the past decade, according to an analysis by the group Citizens for Tax Justice.

Still, among those familiar with tax policy, the practices described in the Greenlining report might raise some eyebrows. For the sake of comparison, the report says, Apple (and Xerox and Amazon) paid a lower tax rate in 2011 than an American household making $42,500 a year.

How the Revenue/Income game is played. All a corporation has to do is push income into something, even CEO pay, and it is not "income" but "operating costs".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The ones that don't have a profit dumb ass.

Yeah, the ones that went out of business.
Now go read a book, idiot.

You don't need a profit to be in business dumb ass.

The post I responded to claimed they were sitting on piles of cash, not a lot of unprofitable companies can do that.
Maybe you have a list?
Until then, you're just making yourself look stupid(er).

 

[RKMBrown]

Yeah, the ones that went out of business.
Now go read a book, idiot.

You don't need a profit to be in business dumb ass.

The post I responded to claimed they were sitting on piles of cash, not a lot of unprofitable companies can do that.
Maybe you have a list?
Until then, you're just making yourself look stupid(er).

How many do you have to read about before you will come to the realization of how dumb you are?

Facebook Likely To Pay No Federal Income Tax This Year, Despite $1 Billion In Profits: Report

By your measure Facebook does not exist.