|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Not even sure what you are saying jonny. Typical one line garbage post.
|
On April 16 2014 06:34 IgnE wrote:
Not even sure what you are saying jonny. Typical one line garbage post.
Lol, what are you saying? % of revenue is pretty irrelevant when revenue has grown so much as a percent of the economy. Corporate profits were higher back then too. So what's your argument? That we need to cut taxes, spending and increase profits??
|
On April 16 2014 06:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 06:34 IgnE wrote:
Not even sure what you are saying jonny. Typical one line garbage post. Lol, what are you saying? % of revenue is pretty irrelevant when revenue has grown so much as a percent of the economy. Corporate profits were higher back then too. So what's your argument? That we need to cut taxes, spending and increase profits??
I'm pretty sure corporate profit were not lower back then, or at least marginal taxation rate. The problem when talking about corporate taxation is you need to take into consideration who is taxed too. In the US corporate taxation is part federal part at state level, so the overall taxation rate is really diverse.
|
On April 16 2014 05:21 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 05:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 16 2014 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2014 03:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- A pair of senators have introduced legislation that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using its authority to preemptively block or to revoke permits for mine waste disposal. The move has roiled those in Alaska who want EPA to use this authority to block a massive copper and gold mine that could put a major salmon fishery at risk.
The bill, from Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), would limit the time period in which the EPA can deny permits. It would preclude the agency from invoking its authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to protect certain areas before a company has formally applied for a permit, and would also prevent the agency from revoking a permit once it has been issued.
The senators have named the bill the Regulatory Fairness Act of 2014. In announcing the bill last month, Manchin argued that the EPA "has been waging a destructive war against energy production." Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and James Risch (R-Idaho) have also signed on as co-sponsors.
Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to prohibit or restrict the dumping of dredge or fill material into waterways if the agency finds that doing so will have an "unacceptable adverse impact" on resources.
There have been several recent cases where the EPA has used this authority to block or revoke mining permits. The first was the EPA's decision in 2011 to withdraw a permit for the Spruce No. 1 coal mine in West Virginia. In issuing its decision, the EPA's assistant administrator for water said that the mine "would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend." Mine owner Mingo Logan Coal Co. sued over the EPA's decision, and just last month the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the company's challenge. Source Obviously the self regulation in the mining and energy sectors has a spotless record with no reason to think they would do anything to risk the environment. While they appreciate profit, above all else comes their commitment to the success of the United States followed by their undying desire to do the right thing. There are no examples of mining or energy companies poisoning water, destroying habitat, or intentionally avoiding rules and regulations intended to protect the people on the front lines of the energy frontier. Obstacles like the EPA (and Clean-Water Act) are impediments in the progress of the mining and energy sectors. Energy and mining companies have given no reason for people to believe that they would place profit above the safety and health of Americans. Removing the EPA's ability to revoke permits, protects vulnerable corporations who never give the EPA a good reason to do so. There are no reliable studies that show any significant danger to the environment or people around energy projects. To legislate as if there is, seems tyrannical. With only $23 billion in 3rd quarter profits for the top 5 energy companies it's clear regulations like these are devastating to the industry. Considering they only net ~$280 in profit for each ~$1 spent on lobbying it's obvious why they need senators to introduce legislation protecting them from the dire situation they are in. If senators don't stand up for these innocent defenseless Americans getting trampled by the government, they may not survive. Source The United States also has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Do you have a source on that? (not the nominal rate, the effective rate)
Highest nominal, close to highest effective. PricewaterhouseCoopers cited, 2012. We only trail Japan, but get on it leftists, its only about 6%.
|
On April 16 2014 05:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2014 03:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- A pair of senators have introduced legislation that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using its authority to preemptively block or to revoke permits for mine waste disposal. The move has roiled those in Alaska who want EPA to use this authority to block a massive copper and gold mine that could put a major salmon fishery at risk.
The bill, from Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), would limit the time period in which the EPA can deny permits. It would preclude the agency from invoking its authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to protect certain areas before a company has formally applied for a permit, and would also prevent the agency from revoking a permit once it has been issued.
The senators have named the bill the Regulatory Fairness Act of 2014. In announcing the bill last month, Manchin argued that the EPA "has been waging a destructive war against energy production." Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and James Risch (R-Idaho) have also signed on as co-sponsors.
Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to prohibit or restrict the dumping of dredge or fill material into waterways if the agency finds that doing so will have an "unacceptable adverse impact" on resources.
There have been several recent cases where the EPA has used this authority to block or revoke mining permits. The first was the EPA's decision in 2011 to withdraw a permit for the Spruce No. 1 coal mine in West Virginia. In issuing its decision, the EPA's assistant administrator for water said that the mine "would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend." Mine owner Mingo Logan Coal Co. sued over the EPA's decision, and just last month the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the company's challenge. Source Obviously the self regulation in the mining and energy sectors has a spotless record with no reason to think they would do anything to risk the environment. While they appreciate profit, above all else comes their commitment to the success of the United States followed by their undying desire to do the right thing. There are no examples of mining or energy companies poisoning water, destroying habitat, or intentionally avoiding rules and regulations intended to protect the people on the front lines of the energy frontier. Obstacles like the EPA (and Clean-Water Act) are impediments in the progress of the mining and energy sectors. Energy and mining companies have given no reason for people to believe that they would place profit above the safety and health of Americans. Removing the EPA's ability to revoke permits, protects vulnerable corporations who never give the EPA a good reason to do so. There are no reliable studies that show any significant danger to the environment or people around energy projects. To legislate as if there is, seems tyrannical. With only $23 billion in 3rd quarter profits for the top 5 energy companies it's clear regulations like these are devastating to the industry. Considering they only net ~$280 in profit for each ~$1 spent on lobbying it's obvious why they need senators to introduce legislation protecting them from the dire situation they are in. If senators don't stand up for these innocent defenseless Americans getting trampled by the government, they may not survive. Source Those companies pay a huge share of the tax haul governments at the local state and federal level receive a year. The United States also has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Seems to me like the government is getting quite a big return on huge energy company profits. Obviously regulation and government-business cooperation has been a great environmental success with the US being environmentally much better now (water, air, soil, forests, reintroduction of endangered species, etc.) than it was not so long ago. People still alive who aren't that old remember all kinds of pollution that back then was common and that is now considered outrageous and happens much much less. I guess it works if people who already hate corporations read it... Show nested quote +He is right tho. Haven't you had enough spills recently in the US to show you the need for proper regulation and oversight? googling around doesn't look like the US has had disproportionately more oil spills than the rest of the world recently (considering the US' status as a top 3 producer of oil)
I agree! The tax burden at the federal level is clearly too much as noted here.
It's obvious that the 2-8% taxes these companies are paying need to be reduced in order for them to produce jobs. At least in tandem with the federal EPA getting out of local matters of unproven allegations of 'ground water contamination' or other 'environmental impacts' that are specious at best.
I also agree that the EPA and local Agencies have showed exemplary improvements as evidenced by the Kingston ash spill.
The $11.5 million in fines were noticeably excessive compared to the paltry $1 billion the cleanup has cost so far. With only about 300 acres covered in up to 6 feet of toxic sludge the environmental impact was reasonably small. The river was able to open a mere 2 years after the spill. As compared to other countries where the clean up could take longer.
Source
|
On April 16 2014 06:54 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 05:21 Roe wrote:On April 16 2014 05:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 16 2014 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2014 03:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- A pair of senators have introduced legislation that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using its authority to preemptively block or to revoke permits for mine waste disposal. The move has roiled those in Alaska who want EPA to use this authority to block a massive copper and gold mine that could put a major salmon fishery at risk.
The bill, from Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), would limit the time period in which the EPA can deny permits. It would preclude the agency from invoking its authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to protect certain areas before a company has formally applied for a permit, and would also prevent the agency from revoking a permit once it has been issued.
The senators have named the bill the Regulatory Fairness Act of 2014. In announcing the bill last month, Manchin argued that the EPA "has been waging a destructive war against energy production." Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and James Risch (R-Idaho) have also signed on as co-sponsors.
Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to prohibit or restrict the dumping of dredge or fill material into waterways if the agency finds that doing so will have an "unacceptable adverse impact" on resources.
There have been several recent cases where the EPA has used this authority to block or revoke mining permits. The first was the EPA's decision in 2011 to withdraw a permit for the Spruce No. 1 coal mine in West Virginia. In issuing its decision, the EPA's assistant administrator for water said that the mine "would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend." Mine owner Mingo Logan Coal Co. sued over the EPA's decision, and just last month the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the company's challenge. Source Obviously the self regulation in the mining and energy sectors has a spotless record with no reason to think they would do anything to risk the environment. While they appreciate profit, above all else comes their commitment to the success of the United States followed by their undying desire to do the right thing. There are no examples of mining or energy companies poisoning water, destroying habitat, or intentionally avoiding rules and regulations intended to protect the people on the front lines of the energy frontier. Obstacles like the EPA (and Clean-Water Act) are impediments in the progress of the mining and energy sectors. Energy and mining companies have given no reason for people to believe that they would place profit above the safety and health of Americans. Removing the EPA's ability to revoke permits, protects vulnerable corporations who never give the EPA a good reason to do so. There are no reliable studies that show any significant danger to the environment or people around energy projects. To legislate as if there is, seems tyrannical. With only $23 billion in 3rd quarter profits for the top 5 energy companies it's clear regulations like these are devastating to the industry. Considering they only net ~$280 in profit for each ~$1 spent on lobbying it's obvious why they need senators to introduce legislation protecting them from the dire situation they are in. If senators don't stand up for these innocent defenseless Americans getting trampled by the government, they may not survive. Source The United States also has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Do you have a source on that? (not the nominal rate, the effective rate) Highest nominal, close to highest effective. PricewaterhouseCoopers cited, 2012. We only trail Japan, but get on it leftists, its only about 6%.
You know it's wrong right ? Did you even read the paper you quoted ? It's effective taxation rate on "six different industries (Automotive, Aerospace and Defense, Chemicals, Engineering and Construction, Industrial Manufacturing and Metals, and Transportation and Logistics)". No informations about the weight of the firms monitored too.
|
On April 16 2014 06:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 06:34 IgnE wrote:
Not even sure what you are saying jonny. Typical one line garbage post. Lol, what are you saying? % of revenue is pretty irrelevant when revenue has grown so much as a percent of the economy. Corporate profits were higher back then too. So what's your argument? That we need to cut taxes, spending and increase profits??
You know that's not what I'm saying. You are willfully obtuse. That post was a cryptic one liner that doesn't mean anything and doesn't make sense from any frame of reference, as if you were blending sarcasm with sincerity and got lost. I'm saying that anyone who thinks the US "hates corporations" because of its high corporation tax rate is delusional. Corporate profits are at record highs actually. Higher than back then.
![[image loading]](http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/2013/05/blogs/graphic-detail/20130525_gdc686.png)
|
On April 16 2014 06:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 06:24 IgnE wrote:On April 16 2014 05:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 16 2014 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2014 03:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- A pair of senators have introduced legislation that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using its authority to preemptively block or to revoke permits for mine waste disposal. The move has roiled those in Alaska who want EPA to use this authority to block a massive copper and gold mine that could put a major salmon fishery at risk.
The bill, from Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), would limit the time period in which the EPA can deny permits. It would preclude the agency from invoking its authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to protect certain areas before a company has formally applied for a permit, and would also prevent the agency from revoking a permit once it has been issued.
The senators have named the bill the Regulatory Fairness Act of 2014. In announcing the bill last month, Manchin argued that the EPA "has been waging a destructive war against energy production." Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and James Risch (R-Idaho) have also signed on as co-sponsors.
Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to prohibit or restrict the dumping of dredge or fill material into waterways if the agency finds that doing so will have an "unacceptable adverse impact" on resources.
There have been several recent cases where the EPA has used this authority to block or revoke mining permits. The first was the EPA's decision in 2011 to withdraw a permit for the Spruce No. 1 coal mine in West Virginia. In issuing its decision, the EPA's assistant administrator for water said that the mine "would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend." Mine owner Mingo Logan Coal Co. sued over the EPA's decision, and just last month the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the company's challenge. Source Obviously the self regulation in the mining and energy sectors has a spotless record with no reason to think they would do anything to risk the environment. While they appreciate profit, above all else comes their commitment to the success of the United States followed by their undying desire to do the right thing. There are no examples of mining or energy companies poisoning water, destroying habitat, or intentionally avoiding rules and regulations intended to protect the people on the front lines of the energy frontier. Obstacles like the EPA (and Clean-Water Act) are impediments in the progress of the mining and energy sectors. Energy and mining companies have given no reason for people to believe that they would place profit above the safety and health of Americans. Removing the EPA's ability to revoke permits, protects vulnerable corporations who never give the EPA a good reason to do so. There are no reliable studies that show any significant danger to the environment or people around energy projects. To legislate as if there is, seems tyrannical. With only $23 billion in 3rd quarter profits for the top 5 energy companies it's clear regulations like these are devastating to the industry. Considering they only net ~$280 in profit for each ~$1 spent on lobbying it's obvious why they need senators to introduce legislation protecting them from the dire situation they are in. If senators don't stand up for these innocent defenseless Americans getting trampled by the government, they may not survive. Source Those companies pay a huge share of the tax haul governments at the local state and federal level receive a year. The United States also has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Seems to me like the government is getting quite a big return on huge energy company profits.
Obviously regulation and government-business cooperation has been a great environmental success with the US being environmentally much better now (water, air, soil, forests, reintroduction of endangered species, etc.) than it was not so long ago. People still alive who aren't that old remember all kinds of pollution that back then was common and that is now considered outrageous and happens much much less. I guess it works if people who already hate corporations read it... He is right tho. Haven't you had enough spills recently in the US to show you the need for proper regulation and oversight? googling around doesn't look like the US has had disproportionately more oil spills than the rest of the world recently (considering the US' status as a top 3 producer of oil) What a fucking joke. Only 10% of the federal government's income comes from corporate taxes in 2013. Individual taxes account for 81%. This is the polar opposite from what it was back in the 50's and 60's, aka the golden age of capitalism in America, where everyone was prospering with a little house out in Levittown. 50 years ago the corporate income tax provided ~40-50% of the tax income. Corporations are paying less than ever, while payroll taxes have grown enormously. How you could possibly say this when 26 of the top corporations paid no tax at all from 2008 to 2012 blows my mind. The good old days? When corporate profits were higher and the government taxed less?
huh?
|
On April 16 2014 07:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 05:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 16 2014 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2014 03:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- A pair of senators have introduced legislation that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using its authority to preemptively block or to revoke permits for mine waste disposal. The move has roiled those in Alaska who want EPA to use this authority to block a massive copper and gold mine that could put a major salmon fishery at risk.
The bill, from Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), would limit the time period in which the EPA can deny permits. It would preclude the agency from invoking its authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to protect certain areas before a company has formally applied for a permit, and would also prevent the agency from revoking a permit once it has been issued.
The senators have named the bill the Regulatory Fairness Act of 2014. In announcing the bill last month, Manchin argued that the EPA "has been waging a destructive war against energy production." Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and James Risch (R-Idaho) have also signed on as co-sponsors.
Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to prohibit or restrict the dumping of dredge or fill material into waterways if the agency finds that doing so will have an "unacceptable adverse impact" on resources.
There have been several recent cases where the EPA has used this authority to block or revoke mining permits. The first was the EPA's decision in 2011 to withdraw a permit for the Spruce No. 1 coal mine in West Virginia. In issuing its decision, the EPA's assistant administrator for water said that the mine "would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend." Mine owner Mingo Logan Coal Co. sued over the EPA's decision, and just last month the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the company's challenge. Source Obviously the self regulation in the mining and energy sectors has a spotless record with no reason to think they would do anything to risk the environment. While they appreciate profit, above all else comes their commitment to the success of the United States followed by their undying desire to do the right thing. There are no examples of mining or energy companies poisoning water, destroying habitat, or intentionally avoiding rules and regulations intended to protect the people on the front lines of the energy frontier. Obstacles like the EPA (and Clean-Water Act) are impediments in the progress of the mining and energy sectors. Energy and mining companies have given no reason for people to believe that they would place profit above the safety and health of Americans. Removing the EPA's ability to revoke permits, protects vulnerable corporations who never give the EPA a good reason to do so. There are no reliable studies that show any significant danger to the environment or people around energy projects. To legislate as if there is, seems tyrannical. With only $23 billion in 3rd quarter profits for the top 5 energy companies it's clear regulations like these are devastating to the industry. Considering they only net ~$280 in profit for each ~$1 spent on lobbying it's obvious why they need senators to introduce legislation protecting them from the dire situation they are in. If senators don't stand up for these innocent defenseless Americans getting trampled by the government, they may not survive. Source Those companies pay a huge share of the tax haul governments at the local state and federal level receive a year. The United States also has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Seems to me like the government is getting quite a big return on huge energy company profits. Obviously regulation and government-business cooperation has been a great environmental success with the US being environmentally much better now (water, air, soil, forests, reintroduction of endangered species, etc.) than it was not so long ago. People still alive who aren't that old remember all kinds of pollution that back then was common and that is now considered outrageous and happens much much less. I guess it works if people who already hate corporations read it... He is right tho. Haven't you had enough spills recently in the US to show you the need for proper regulation and oversight? googling around doesn't look like the US has had disproportionately more oil spills than the rest of the world recently (considering the US' status as a top 3 producer of oil) I agree! The tax burden at the federal level is clearly too much as noted here. It's obvious that the 2-8% taxes these companies are paying need to be reduced in order for them to produce jobs. At least in tandem with the federal EPA getting out of local matters of unproven allegations of 'ground water contamination' or other 'environmental impacts' that are specious at best. I also agree that the EPA and local Agencies have showed exemplary improvements as evidenced by the Kingston ash spill. The $11.5 million in fines were noticeably excessive compared to the paltry $1 billion the cleanup has cost so far. With only about 300 acres covered in up to 6 feet of toxic sludge the environmental impact was reasonably small. The river was able to open a mere 2 years after the spill. As compared to other countries where the clean up could take longer. Source
Your source is disingenuous / ignorant. Obviously companies that operate overseas are going to pay taxes to those governments. The rest of the world isn't our colony to exploit.
|
On April 16 2014 07:27 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 06:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 16 2014 06:34 IgnE wrote:
Not even sure what you are saying jonny. Typical one line garbage post. Lol, what are you saying? % of revenue is pretty irrelevant when revenue has grown so much as a percent of the economy. Corporate profits were higher back then too. So what's your argument? That we need to cut taxes, spending and increase profits?? You know that's not what I'm saying. You are willfully obtuse. That post was a cryptic one liner that doesn't mean anything and doesn't make sense from any frame of reference, as if you were blending sarcasm with sincerity and got lost. I'm saying that anyone who thinks the US "hates corporations" because of its high corporation tax rate is delusional. Corporate profits are at record highs actually. Higher than back then. + Show Spoiler +
Depends on the accounting / definitions / classifications. For example:
![[image loading]](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=xp9)
We probably shouldn't nit pick over it though and I do agree that we don't hate corporations... at least I hope we don't. Your wording prolly just rubbed me the wrong way 
|
On April 16 2014 07:27 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 06:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 16 2014 06:24 IgnE wrote:On April 16 2014 05:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 16 2014 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2014 03:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- A pair of senators have introduced legislation that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using its authority to preemptively block or to revoke permits for mine waste disposal. The move has roiled those in Alaska who want EPA to use this authority to block a massive copper and gold mine that could put a major salmon fishery at risk.
The bill, from Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), would limit the time period in which the EPA can deny permits. It would preclude the agency from invoking its authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to protect certain areas before a company has formally applied for a permit, and would also prevent the agency from revoking a permit once it has been issued.
The senators have named the bill the Regulatory Fairness Act of 2014. In announcing the bill last month, Manchin argued that the EPA "has been waging a destructive war against energy production." Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and James Risch (R-Idaho) have also signed on as co-sponsors.
Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to prohibit or restrict the dumping of dredge or fill material into waterways if the agency finds that doing so will have an "unacceptable adverse impact" on resources.
There have been several recent cases where the EPA has used this authority to block or revoke mining permits. The first was the EPA's decision in 2011 to withdraw a permit for the Spruce No. 1 coal mine in West Virginia. In issuing its decision, the EPA's assistant administrator for water said that the mine "would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend." Mine owner Mingo Logan Coal Co. sued over the EPA's decision, and just last month the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the company's challenge. Source Obviously the self regulation in the mining and energy sectors has a spotless record with no reason to think they would do anything to risk the environment. While they appreciate profit, above all else comes their commitment to the success of the United States followed by their undying desire to do the right thing. There are no examples of mining or energy companies poisoning water, destroying habitat, or intentionally avoiding rules and regulations intended to protect the people on the front lines of the energy frontier. Obstacles like the EPA (and Clean-Water Act) are impediments in the progress of the mining and energy sectors. Energy and mining companies have given no reason for people to believe that they would place profit above the safety and health of Americans. Removing the EPA's ability to revoke permits, protects vulnerable corporations who never give the EPA a good reason to do so. There are no reliable studies that show any significant danger to the environment or people around energy projects. To legislate as if there is, seems tyrannical. With only $23 billion in 3rd quarter profits for the top 5 energy companies it's clear regulations like these are devastating to the industry. Considering they only net ~$280 in profit for each ~$1 spent on lobbying it's obvious why they need senators to introduce legislation protecting them from the dire situation they are in. If senators don't stand up for these innocent defenseless Americans getting trampled by the government, they may not survive. Source Those companies pay a huge share of the tax haul governments at the local state and federal level receive a year. The United States also has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Seems to me like the government is getting quite a big return on huge energy company profits.
Obviously regulation and government-business cooperation has been a great environmental success with the US being environmentally much better now (water, air, soil, forests, reintroduction of endangered species, etc.) than it was not so long ago. People still alive who aren't that old remember all kinds of pollution that back then was common and that is now considered outrageous and happens much much less. I guess it works if people who already hate corporations read it... He is right tho. Haven't you had enough spills recently in the US to show you the need for proper regulation and oversight? googling around doesn't look like the US has had disproportionately more oil spills than the rest of the world recently (considering the US' status as a top 3 producer of oil) What a fucking joke. Only 10% of the federal government's income comes from corporate taxes in 2013. Individual taxes account for 81%. This is the polar opposite from what it was back in the 50's and 60's, aka the golden age of capitalism in America, where everyone was prospering with a little house out in Levittown. 50 years ago the corporate income tax provided ~40-50% of the tax income. Corporations are paying less than ever, while payroll taxes have grown enormously. How you could possibly say this when 26 of the top corporations paid no tax at all from 2008 to 2012 blows my mind. The good old days? When corporate profits were higher and the government taxed less? huh?
Federal, state and local revenue:
![[image loading]](http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/usgs_line.php?title=Total%20Direct%20Revenue&units=p&size=m&year=1930_2019&sname=US&bar=0&stack=1&col=c&legend=&source=i_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_i_a_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_e_g_g_g_g_g_g_g&spending0=14.61_16.29_17.29_18.87_16.92_16.75_16.00_16.70_20.00_18.87_17.30_16.22_17.08_19.75_28.84_29.56_27.01_24.84_24.38_24.05_22.21_23.76_27.26_26.89_27.68_24.97_26.58_27.20_27.05_25.47_28.18_28.18_26.66_26.98_26.84_26.03_26.42_27.86_26.88_29.40_29.84_28.04_28.52_28.65_29.66_29.23_29.14_30.24_29.77_30.26_30.95_31.63_32.19_30.35_30.23_31.00_31.36_32.48_31.91_32.21_32.24_32.10_32.08_32.37_32.49_33.15_33.72_34.26_35.07_34.67_35.72_33.20_30.05_30.03_31.69_32.41_33.89_35.71_31.71_25.40_31.47_32.77_29.96_31.93_33.00_33.99_34.24_34.49_34.68_34.85)
|
Payroll taxes which disproportionately impact the bottom 80% of workers are largely responsible for the increase. Corporate tax burden has gone down, especially for those corporations that are most successful.
If you want to complain about how the rest of the world isn't America's to exploit like a colony then you should be for raising the corporate tax rates here and abroad. The lower tax rates abroad encouraging companies to leave the US for greener pastures are precisely the kind of economic imperialism that the IMF and other multinational organizations have encouraged at the expense of workers across the world, even here in the US, where corporations contribute as little as possible to funding basic human rights and services, like social security, healthcare, and public infrastructure.
|
On April 16 2014 07:50 IgnE wrote:
Payroll taxes which disproportionately impact the bottom 80% of workers are largely responsible for the increase. Corporate tax burden has gone down, especially for those corporations that are most successful.
If you want to complain about how the rest of the world isn't America's to exploit like a colony then you should be for raising the corporate tax rates here and abroad. The lower tax rates abroad encouraging companies to leave the US for greener pastures are precisely the kind of economic imperialism that the IMF and other multinational organizations have encouraged at the expense of workers across the world, even here in the US, where corporations contribute as little as possible to funding basic human rights and services, like social security, healthcare, and public infrastructure.
Well, the payroll taxes you mentioned are paid half by workers, half by businesses (roughly). You can argue that the taxes paid by businesses are transferred to the worker, but the same can be said (to an extent) for corporate taxes. I'll point out that US companies contribute a lot to healthcare spending too.
I'll agree on international tax coordination. Those Dutch Irish sandwiches sound like a big waste
|
On April 16 2014 07:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 07:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2014 05:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 16 2014 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2014 03:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- A pair of senators have introduced legislation that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using its authority to preemptively block or to revoke permits for mine waste disposal. The move has roiled those in Alaska who want EPA to use this authority to block a massive copper and gold mine that could put a major salmon fishery at risk.
The bill, from Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), would limit the time period in which the EPA can deny permits. It would preclude the agency from invoking its authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to protect certain areas before a company has formally applied for a permit, and would also prevent the agency from revoking a permit once it has been issued.
The senators have named the bill the Regulatory Fairness Act of 2014. In announcing the bill last month, Manchin argued that the EPA "has been waging a destructive war against energy production." Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and James Risch (R-Idaho) have also signed on as co-sponsors.
Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to prohibit or restrict the dumping of dredge or fill material into waterways if the agency finds that doing so will have an "unacceptable adverse impact" on resources.
There have been several recent cases where the EPA has used this authority to block or revoke mining permits. The first was the EPA's decision in 2011 to withdraw a permit for the Spruce No. 1 coal mine in West Virginia. In issuing its decision, the EPA's assistant administrator for water said that the mine "would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend." Mine owner Mingo Logan Coal Co. sued over the EPA's decision, and just last month the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the company's challenge. Source Obviously the self regulation in the mining and energy sectors has a spotless record with no reason to think they would do anything to risk the environment. While they appreciate profit, above all else comes their commitment to the success of the United States followed by their undying desire to do the right thing. There are no examples of mining or energy companies poisoning water, destroying habitat, or intentionally avoiding rules and regulations intended to protect the people on the front lines of the energy frontier. Obstacles like the EPA (and Clean-Water Act) are impediments in the progress of the mining and energy sectors. Energy and mining companies have given no reason for people to believe that they would place profit above the safety and health of Americans. Removing the EPA's ability to revoke permits, protects vulnerable corporations who never give the EPA a good reason to do so. There are no reliable studies that show any significant danger to the environment or people around energy projects. To legislate as if there is, seems tyrannical. With only $23 billion in 3rd quarter profits for the top 5 energy companies it's clear regulations like these are devastating to the industry. Considering they only net ~$280 in profit for each ~$1 spent on lobbying it's obvious why they need senators to introduce legislation protecting them from the dire situation they are in. If senators don't stand up for these innocent defenseless Americans getting trampled by the government, they may not survive. Source Those companies pay a huge share of the tax haul governments at the local state and federal level receive a year. The United States also has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Seems to me like the government is getting quite a big return on huge energy company profits. Obviously regulation and government-business cooperation has been a great environmental success with the US being environmentally much better now (water, air, soil, forests, reintroduction of endangered species, etc.) than it was not so long ago. People still alive who aren't that old remember all kinds of pollution that back then was common and that is now considered outrageous and happens much much less. I guess it works if people who already hate corporations read it... He is right tho. Haven't you had enough spills recently in the US to show you the need for proper regulation and oversight? googling around doesn't look like the US has had disproportionately more oil spills than the rest of the world recently (considering the US' status as a top 3 producer of oil) I agree! The tax burden at the federal level is clearly too much as noted here. It's obvious that the 2-8% taxes these companies are paying need to be reduced in order for them to produce jobs. At least in tandem with the federal EPA getting out of local matters of unproven allegations of 'ground water contamination' or other 'environmental impacts' that are specious at best. I also agree that the EPA and local Agencies have showed exemplary improvements as evidenced by the Kingston ash spill. The $11.5 million in fines were noticeably excessive compared to the paltry $1 billion the cleanup has cost so far. With only about 300 acres covered in up to 6 feet of toxic sludge the environmental impact was reasonably small. The river was able to open a mere 2 years after the spill. As compared to other countries where the clean up could take longer. Source Your source is disingenuous / ignorant. Obviously companies that operate overseas are going to pay taxes to those governments. The rest of the world isn't our colony to exploit.
Yes what's disingenuous are people claiming that the tax burden is too low. Companies like Google and/or its subsidiaries have been forced to pay a cumbersome but manageable "overseas tax rate of about 5 per cent( on it's royalty payments), less than half the rate in... Ireland, where it books most of its international sales."
Critics claims use the fact that "Google had a UK tax bill of 35 million pounds ($55 million) in 2012, on sales of $4.9 billion (~10% of global) to British customers, its accounts showed." to say that legal financial instruments like the 'Dutch sandwich' result in tax revenues not being reflective of where the profit is derived from.
Obviously the ~2.8% Google paid prevents the UK from being a 'colony to exploit' Hard to imagine how hard headed leftists would continue to think companies like Google are avoiding paying their 'fair share'
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
these double irish dutch sandwiches and shell companies in le cayman islands etc are the low hanging fruits of tax reform. with globalization it's natural for people to rearrange their tax burden to have their revenue take on the most porous form with respect to sovereign national control.
workers and capital equipment on the ground are less porous than financial assets and intellectual property. whether it is due to high corporate tax rate or the existence of loopholes, that U.S. companies have a huge part of their profits floating around unable to enter the country is a pretty bad loss for the economy.
|
On April 16 2014 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 07:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 16 2014 07:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2014 05:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 16 2014 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2014 03:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- A pair of senators have introduced legislation that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using its authority to preemptively block or to revoke permits for mine waste disposal. The move has roiled those in Alaska who want EPA to use this authority to block a massive copper and gold mine that could put a major salmon fishery at risk.
The bill, from Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), would limit the time period in which the EPA can deny permits. It would preclude the agency from invoking its authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to protect certain areas before a company has formally applied for a permit, and would also prevent the agency from revoking a permit once it has been issued.
The senators have named the bill the Regulatory Fairness Act of 2014. In announcing the bill last month, Manchin argued that the EPA "has been waging a destructive war against energy production." Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and James Risch (R-Idaho) have also signed on as co-sponsors.
Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to prohibit or restrict the dumping of dredge or fill material into waterways if the agency finds that doing so will have an "unacceptable adverse impact" on resources.
There have been several recent cases where the EPA has used this authority to block or revoke mining permits. The first was the EPA's decision in 2011 to withdraw a permit for the Spruce No. 1 coal mine in West Virginia. In issuing its decision, the EPA's assistant administrator for water said that the mine "would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend." Mine owner Mingo Logan Coal Co. sued over the EPA's decision, and just last month the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the company's challenge. Source Obviously the self regulation in the mining and energy sectors has a spotless record with no reason to think they would do anything to risk the environment. While they appreciate profit, above all else comes their commitment to the success of the United States followed by their undying desire to do the right thing. There are no examples of mining or energy companies poisoning water, destroying habitat, or intentionally avoiding rules and regulations intended to protect the people on the front lines of the energy frontier. Obstacles like the EPA (and Clean-Water Act) are impediments in the progress of the mining and energy sectors. Energy and mining companies have given no reason for people to believe that they would place profit above the safety and health of Americans. Removing the EPA's ability to revoke permits, protects vulnerable corporations who never give the EPA a good reason to do so. There are no reliable studies that show any significant danger to the environment or people around energy projects. To legislate as if there is, seems tyrannical. With only $23 billion in 3rd quarter profits for the top 5 energy companies it's clear regulations like these are devastating to the industry. Considering they only net ~$280 in profit for each ~$1 spent on lobbying it's obvious why they need senators to introduce legislation protecting them from the dire situation they are in. If senators don't stand up for these innocent defenseless Americans getting trampled by the government, they may not survive. Source Those companies pay a huge share of the tax haul governments at the local state and federal level receive a year. The United States also has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Seems to me like the government is getting quite a big return on huge energy company profits. Obviously regulation and government-business cooperation has been a great environmental success with the US being environmentally much better now (water, air, soil, forests, reintroduction of endangered species, etc.) than it was not so long ago. People still alive who aren't that old remember all kinds of pollution that back then was common and that is now considered outrageous and happens much much less. I guess it works if people who already hate corporations read it... He is right tho. Haven't you had enough spills recently in the US to show you the need for proper regulation and oversight? googling around doesn't look like the US has had disproportionately more oil spills than the rest of the world recently (considering the US' status as a top 3 producer of oil) I agree! The tax burden at the federal level is clearly too much as noted here. It's obvious that the 2-8% taxes these companies are paying need to be reduced in order for them to produce jobs. At least in tandem with the federal EPA getting out of local matters of unproven allegations of 'ground water contamination' or other 'environmental impacts' that are specious at best. I also agree that the EPA and local Agencies have showed exemplary improvements as evidenced by the Kingston ash spill. The $11.5 million in fines were noticeably excessive compared to the paltry $1 billion the cleanup has cost so far. With only about 300 acres covered in up to 6 feet of toxic sludge the environmental impact was reasonably small. The river was able to open a mere 2 years after the spill. As compared to other countries where the clean up could take longer. Source Your source is disingenuous / ignorant. Obviously companies that operate overseas are going to pay taxes to those governments. The rest of the world isn't our colony to exploit. Yes what's disingenuous are people claiming that the tax burden is too low. Companies like Google and/or its subsidiaries have been forced to pay a cumbersome but manageable "overseas tax rate of about 5 per cent( on it's royalty payments), less than half the rate in... Ireland, where it books most of its international sales." Critics claims use the fact that "Google had a UK tax bill of 35 million pounds ($55 million) in 2012, on sales of $4.9 billion (~10% of global) to British customers, its accounts showed." to say that legal financial instruments like the 'Dutch sandwich' result in tax revenues not being reflective of where the profit is derived from. Obviously the ~2.8% Google paid prevents the UK from being a 'colony to exploit' Hard to imagine how hard headed leftists would continue to think companies like Google are avoiding paying their 'fair share' Source
First, it's not very wise to argue policy by anecdote unless you have some specific thing you are targeting.
Second, the first article you linked cited the issue of companies paying more taxes overseas (where they mainly operate) and so not paying so much to the US government. Now you're arguing the opposite - Google not paying much overseas and still being able to defer US taxes (still owed, not paid yet).
|
On April 16 2014 06:24 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 05:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 16 2014 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2014 03:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- A pair of senators have introduced legislation that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using its authority to preemptively block or to revoke permits for mine waste disposal. The move has roiled those in Alaska who want EPA to use this authority to block a massive copper and gold mine that could put a major salmon fishery at risk.
The bill, from Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), would limit the time period in which the EPA can deny permits. It would preclude the agency from invoking its authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to protect certain areas before a company has formally applied for a permit, and would also prevent the agency from revoking a permit once it has been issued.
The senators have named the bill the Regulatory Fairness Act of 2014. In announcing the bill last month, Manchin argued that the EPA "has been waging a destructive war against energy production." Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and James Risch (R-Idaho) have also signed on as co-sponsors.
Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to prohibit or restrict the dumping of dredge or fill material into waterways if the agency finds that doing so will have an "unacceptable adverse impact" on resources.
There have been several recent cases where the EPA has used this authority to block or revoke mining permits. The first was the EPA's decision in 2011 to withdraw a permit for the Spruce No. 1 coal mine in West Virginia. In issuing its decision, the EPA's assistant administrator for water said that the mine "would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend." Mine owner Mingo Logan Coal Co. sued over the EPA's decision, and just last month the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the company's challenge. Source Obviously the self regulation in the mining and energy sectors has a spotless record with no reason to think they would do anything to risk the environment. While they appreciate profit, above all else comes their commitment to the success of the United States followed by their undying desire to do the right thing. There are no examples of mining or energy companies poisoning water, destroying habitat, or intentionally avoiding rules and regulations intended to protect the people on the front lines of the energy frontier. Obstacles like the EPA (and Clean-Water Act) are impediments in the progress of the mining and energy sectors. Energy and mining companies have given no reason for people to believe that they would place profit above the safety and health of Americans. Removing the EPA's ability to revoke permits, protects vulnerable corporations who never give the EPA a good reason to do so. There are no reliable studies that show any significant danger to the environment or people around energy projects. To legislate as if there is, seems tyrannical. With only $23 billion in 3rd quarter profits for the top 5 energy companies it's clear regulations like these are devastating to the industry. Considering they only net ~$280 in profit for each ~$1 spent on lobbying it's obvious why they need senators to introduce legislation protecting them from the dire situation they are in. If senators don't stand up for these innocent defenseless Americans getting trampled by the government, they may not survive. Source Those companies pay a huge share of the tax haul governments at the local state and federal level receive a year. The United States also has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Seems to me like the government is getting quite a big return on huge energy company profits.
Obviously regulation and government-business cooperation has been a great environmental success with the US being environmentally much better now (water, air, soil, forests, reintroduction of endangered species, etc.) than it was not so long ago. People still alive who aren't that old remember all kinds of pollution that back then was common and that is now considered outrageous and happens much much less. I guess it works if people who already hate corporations read it... He is right tho. Haven't you had enough spills recently in the US to show you the need for proper regulation and oversight? googling around doesn't look like the US has had disproportionately more oil spills than the rest of the world recently (considering the US' status as a top 3 producer of oil) What a fucking joke. Only 10% of the federal government's income comes from corporate taxes in 2013. Individual taxes account for 81%. This is the polar opposite from what it was back in the 50's and 60's, aka the golden age of capitalism in America, where everyone was prospering with a little house out in Levittown. 50 years ago the corporate income tax provided ~40-50% of the tax income. Corporations are paying less than ever, while payroll taxes have grown enormously. How you could possibly say this when 26 of the top corporations paid no tax at all from 2008 to 2012 blows my mind.
It was the "golden age of capitalism" in spite of corporate taxes, not because of them. We had just got done with WW2, which kicked our manufacturing into overdrive. We had thousands of surplus, cargo-carrying Liberty Ships which were sold off dirt cheap to manufacturing and transportation interests. We still had very easy access to all the natural resources we could ever want. We had millions of vets returning home with unheard of discipline and lots of training in working with heavy equipment, which lent itself well to construction, which further fueled the boom. Further, you have the development of the interstate highway system, along with no real competition as far as gross exports go, since all the other previous major players had just gotten bombed back into the stone age.
Taxation was entirely irrelevant, the boom in the 50's was practically destined. It would've happened with 0% corporate taxes and it would've happened with 80%. The boom in the 50's doesn't really say anything about taxation.
I'm not saying tax rates are good or bad right now*, just that the 50's aren't a very good talking point.
*I personally think they're too high, but they should be lowered by cutting spending, not taxing someone else more.
|
On April 16 2014 11:43 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 06:24 IgnE wrote:On April 16 2014 05:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 16 2014 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2014 03:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- A pair of senators have introduced legislation that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using its authority to preemptively block or to revoke permits for mine waste disposal. The move has roiled those in Alaska who want EPA to use this authority to block a massive copper and gold mine that could put a major salmon fishery at risk.
The bill, from Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), would limit the time period in which the EPA can deny permits. It would preclude the agency from invoking its authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to protect certain areas before a company has formally applied for a permit, and would also prevent the agency from revoking a permit once it has been issued.
The senators have named the bill the Regulatory Fairness Act of 2014. In announcing the bill last month, Manchin argued that the EPA "has been waging a destructive war against energy production." Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and James Risch (R-Idaho) have also signed on as co-sponsors.
Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to prohibit or restrict the dumping of dredge or fill material into waterways if the agency finds that doing so will have an "unacceptable adverse impact" on resources.
There have been several recent cases where the EPA has used this authority to block or revoke mining permits. The first was the EPA's decision in 2011 to withdraw a permit for the Spruce No. 1 coal mine in West Virginia. In issuing its decision, the EPA's assistant administrator for water said that the mine "would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend." Mine owner Mingo Logan Coal Co. sued over the EPA's decision, and just last month the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the company's challenge. Source Obviously the self regulation in the mining and energy sectors has a spotless record with no reason to think they would do anything to risk the environment. While they appreciate profit, above all else comes their commitment to the success of the United States followed by their undying desire to do the right thing. There are no examples of mining or energy companies poisoning water, destroying habitat, or intentionally avoiding rules and regulations intended to protect the people on the front lines of the energy frontier. Obstacles like the EPA (and Clean-Water Act) are impediments in the progress of the mining and energy sectors. Energy and mining companies have given no reason for people to believe that they would place profit above the safety and health of Americans. Removing the EPA's ability to revoke permits, protects vulnerable corporations who never give the EPA a good reason to do so. There are no reliable studies that show any significant danger to the environment or people around energy projects. To legislate as if there is, seems tyrannical. With only $23 billion in 3rd quarter profits for the top 5 energy companies it's clear regulations like these are devastating to the industry. Considering they only net ~$280 in profit for each ~$1 spent on lobbying it's obvious why they need senators to introduce legislation protecting them from the dire situation they are in. If senators don't stand up for these innocent defenseless Americans getting trampled by the government, they may not survive. Source Those companies pay a huge share of the tax haul governments at the local state and federal level receive a year. The United States also has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Seems to me like the government is getting quite a big return on huge energy company profits.
Obviously regulation and government-business cooperation has been a great environmental success with the US being environmentally much better now (water, air, soil, forests, reintroduction of endangered species, etc.) than it was not so long ago. People still alive who aren't that old remember all kinds of pollution that back then was common and that is now considered outrageous and happens much much less. I guess it works if people who already hate corporations read it... He is right tho. Haven't you had enough spills recently in the US to show you the need for proper regulation and oversight? googling around doesn't look like the US has had disproportionately more oil spills than the rest of the world recently (considering the US' status as a top 3 producer of oil) What a fucking joke. Only 10% of the federal government's income comes from corporate taxes in 2013. Individual taxes account for 81%. This is the polar opposite from what it was back in the 50's and 60's, aka the golden age of capitalism in America, where everyone was prospering with a little house out in Levittown. 50 years ago the corporate income tax provided ~40-50% of the tax income. Corporations are paying less than ever, while payroll taxes have grown enormously. How you could possibly say this when 26 of the top corporations paid no tax at all from 2008 to 2012 blows my mind. It was the "golden age of capitalism" in spite of corporate taxes, not because of them. We had just got done with WW2, which kicked our manufacturing into overdrive. We had thousands of surplus, cargo-carrying Liberty Ships which were sold off dirt cheap to manufacturing and transportation interests. We still had very easy access to all the natural resources we could ever want. We had millions of vets returning home with unheard of discipline and lots of training in working with heavy equipment, which lent itself well to construction, which further fueled the boom. Further, you have the development of the interstate highway system, along with no real competition as far as gross exports go, since all the other previous major players had just gotten bombed back into the stone age. Taxation was entirely irrelevant, the boom in the 50's was practically destined. It would've happened with 0% corporate taxes and it would've happened with 80%. The boom in the 50's doesn't really say anything about taxation. I'm not saying tax rates are good or bad right now*, just that the 50's aren't a very good talking point. *I personally think they're too high, but they should be lowered by cutting spending, not taxing someone else more.
Yeah we did have all those things. Who built the interstate highways? What money did they use to build them?
|
On April 16 2014 12:13 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 11:43 Millitron wrote:On April 16 2014 06:24 IgnE wrote:On April 16 2014 05:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 16 2014 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2014 03:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- A pair of senators have introduced legislation that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using its authority to preemptively block or to revoke permits for mine waste disposal. The move has roiled those in Alaska who want EPA to use this authority to block a massive copper and gold mine that could put a major salmon fishery at risk.
The bill, from Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), would limit the time period in which the EPA can deny permits. It would preclude the agency from invoking its authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to protect certain areas before a company has formally applied for a permit, and would also prevent the agency from revoking a permit once it has been issued.
The senators have named the bill the Regulatory Fairness Act of 2014. In announcing the bill last month, Manchin argued that the EPA "has been waging a destructive war against energy production." Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and James Risch (R-Idaho) have also signed on as co-sponsors.
Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to prohibit or restrict the dumping of dredge or fill material into waterways if the agency finds that doing so will have an "unacceptable adverse impact" on resources.
There have been several recent cases where the EPA has used this authority to block or revoke mining permits. The first was the EPA's decision in 2011 to withdraw a permit for the Spruce No. 1 coal mine in West Virginia. In issuing its decision, the EPA's assistant administrator for water said that the mine "would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend." Mine owner Mingo Logan Coal Co. sued over the EPA's decision, and just last month the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the company's challenge. Source Obviously the self regulation in the mining and energy sectors has a spotless record with no reason to think they would do anything to risk the environment. While they appreciate profit, above all else comes their commitment to the success of the United States followed by their undying desire to do the right thing. There are no examples of mining or energy companies poisoning water, destroying habitat, or intentionally avoiding rules and regulations intended to protect the people on the front lines of the energy frontier. Obstacles like the EPA (and Clean-Water Act) are impediments in the progress of the mining and energy sectors. Energy and mining companies have given no reason for people to believe that they would place profit above the safety and health of Americans. Removing the EPA's ability to revoke permits, protects vulnerable corporations who never give the EPA a good reason to do so. There are no reliable studies that show any significant danger to the environment or people around energy projects. To legislate as if there is, seems tyrannical. With only $23 billion in 3rd quarter profits for the top 5 energy companies it's clear regulations like these are devastating to the industry. Considering they only net ~$280 in profit for each ~$1 spent on lobbying it's obvious why they need senators to introduce legislation protecting them from the dire situation they are in. If senators don't stand up for these innocent defenseless Americans getting trampled by the government, they may not survive. Source Those companies pay a huge share of the tax haul governments at the local state and federal level receive a year. The United States also has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Seems to me like the government is getting quite a big return on huge energy company profits.
Obviously regulation and government-business cooperation has been a great environmental success with the US being environmentally much better now (water, air, soil, forests, reintroduction of endangered species, etc.) than it was not so long ago. People still alive who aren't that old remember all kinds of pollution that back then was common and that is now considered outrageous and happens much much less. I guess it works if people who already hate corporations read it... He is right tho. Haven't you had enough spills recently in the US to show you the need for proper regulation and oversight? googling around doesn't look like the US has had disproportionately more oil spills than the rest of the world recently (considering the US' status as a top 3 producer of oil) What a fucking joke. Only 10% of the federal government's income comes from corporate taxes in 2013. Individual taxes account for 81%. This is the polar opposite from what it was back in the 50's and 60's, aka the golden age of capitalism in America, where everyone was prospering with a little house out in Levittown. 50 years ago the corporate income tax provided ~40-50% of the tax income. Corporations are paying less than ever, while payroll taxes have grown enormously. How you could possibly say this when 26 of the top corporations paid no tax at all from 2008 to 2012 blows my mind. It was the "golden age of capitalism" in spite of corporate taxes, not because of them. We had just got done with WW2, which kicked our manufacturing into overdrive. We had thousands of surplus, cargo-carrying Liberty Ships which were sold off dirt cheap to manufacturing and transportation interests. We still had very easy access to all the natural resources we could ever want. We had millions of vets returning home with unheard of discipline and lots of training in working with heavy equipment, which lent itself well to construction, which further fueled the boom. Further, you have the development of the interstate highway system, along with no real competition as far as gross exports go, since all the other previous major players had just gotten bombed back into the stone age. Taxation was entirely irrelevant, the boom in the 50's was practically destined. It would've happened with 0% corporate taxes and it would've happened with 80%. The boom in the 50's doesn't really say anything about taxation. I'm not saying tax rates are good or bad right now*, just that the 50's aren't a very good talking point. *I personally think they're too high, but they should be lowered by cutting spending, not taxing someone else more. Yeah we did have all those things. Who built the interstate highways? What money did they use to build them?
Most of the money to build them came from State taxes, not Federal ones.
Even if all of it came from the feds, that's still only one thing I mentioned being affected at all by taxes.
|
Capitalism went into overdrive once the USSR weakened and finally fell.
There was no "other" big/strong entity anymore to keep the "free market extremists" in check... Not that the USSR was any good, but the idea that there was a big/strong socialist country made it harder to just fuck over the lower and middle class due to one ideology having "won".
The success story of ~1950-1980 wasn't about CAPITALISM, it was about Social Capitalism.
The good thing wasn't that people made tons of money, it was that most people made money, not just "the chosen few".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
