EPTMillitron, your whole point of view is based on the idea that taxation has overall a negative impact on the economy. It also help to regulate flux, flux that are not well regulated by a "free" market. As soon as corporate taxation were brought down in the 70s (especially for the biggest firms, who have more bargaining power) what we saw in the US was not an increase in long term growth and profit, but a slow erosion of small to middle corporations with the appearance of giants and multinationals.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 995
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
Millitron, your whole point of view is based on the idea that taxation has overall a negative impact on the economy. It also help to regulate flux, flux that are not well regulated by a "free" market. As soon as corporate taxation were brought down in the 70s (especially for the biggest firms, who have more bargaining power) what we saw in the US was not an increase in long term growth and profit, but a slow erosion of small to middle corporations with the appearance of giants and multinationals. | ||
nimdil
Poland3752 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On April 16 2014 07:01 WhiteDog wrote: I assume that you actually looked at the cited study rather than pick the first thing attackable that you read. They break it down into industry and disclose the businesses included in each. If you have problems with their weighting, state which was given undue weight since they have the breakdowns. If you have anything other than your firm belief that US corps have very low effective rates, bring up your source.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. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On April 17 2014 01:23 Danglars wrote: I assume that you actually looked at the cited study rather than pick the first thing attackable that you read. They break it down into industry and disclose the businesses included in each. If you have problems with their weighting, state which was given undue weight since they have the breakdowns. If you have anything other than your firm belief that US corps have very low effective rates, bring up your source. I just wanted a source that compares effective US corporate tax rates to other countries in the world | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
WASHINGTON, April 15 (Reuters) - U.S. greenhouse gas emissions fell nearly 10 percent from 2005 to 2012, more than halfway toward the United States' 2020 target pledged at United Nations climate talks, according to the latest national emissions inventory. The report showed that emissions dropped 3.4 percent from 2012 to 2011, mostly due to a decrease in energy consumption and fuel switching from coal to natural gas. The Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday published the United States' 19th annual emissions tally to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. The United States uses 2005 pollution levels as its benchmark to measure emissions cuts, and has a target to lower emissions by 17 percent from that starting point by 2020. Since 1990, the first year the United States kept the inventory, carbon dioxide emissions - largely energy-related emissions and the most prevalent greenhouse gas - rose just 5.4 percent. Meanwhile hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), super greenhouse gases used primarily as refrigerants, saw a dramatic rise of over 309 percent. Source | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On April 17 2014 01:23 Danglars wrote: I assume that you actually looked at the cited study rather than pick the first thing attackable that you read. They break it down into industry and disclose the businesses included in each. If you have problems with their weighting, state which was given undue weight since they have the breakdowns. If you have anything other than your firm belief that US corps have very low effective rates, bring up your source. OK. http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/sorrystateofcorptaxes.php Profitable corporations are supposed to pay a 35 percent federal income tax rate on their U.S. profits. But many corporations pay far less, or nothing at all, because of the many tax loopholes and special breaks they enjoy. This report documents just how successful many Fortune 500 corporations have been at using these loopholes and special breaks over the past five years. The report looks at the profits and U.S. federal income taxes of the 288 Fortune 500 companies that have been consistently profitable in each of the five years between 2008 and 2012, excluding companies that experienced even one unprofitable year during this period. Most of these companies were included in our November 2011 report, Corporate Taxpayers and Corporate Tax Dodgers, which looked at the years 2008 through 2010. Our new report is broader, in that it includes companies, such as Facebook, that have entered the Fortune 500 since 2011, and narrower, in that it excludes some companies that were profitable during 2008 to 2010 but lost money in 2011 or 2012. Some Key Findings: • As a group, the 288 corporations examined paid an effective federal income tax rate of just 19.4 percent over the five-year period — far less than the statutory 35 percent tax rate. • Twenty-six of the corporations, including Boeing, General Electric, Priceline.com and Verizon, paid no federal income tax at all over the five year period. A third of the corporations (93) paid an effective tax rate of less than ten percent over that period. • Of those corporations in our sample with significant offshore profits, two thirds paid higher corporate tax rates to foreign governments where they operate than they paid in the U.S. on their U.S. profits. These findings refute the prevailing view inside the Washington, D.C. Beltway that America’s corporate income tax is more burdensome than the corporate income taxes levied by other countries, and that this purported (but false) excess burden somehow makes the U.S. “uncompetitive.” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42726.pdf One of the main points of contention in the debate over the corporate tax is that the 35% tax rate is too high. This rate is the statutory federal tax rate, defined as the legally imposed rate on taxable income. But this rate alone does not determine how much corporations pay in taxes. Because of a number of business tax benefits (deductions, credits, exemptions, etc.) in the corporate tax system, the effective (or actual) tax rate paid by corporations is typically less than the statutory rate.[...] It is also important to understand that effective tax rates can vary substantially among U.S. corporations and across corporations in the same industry. For example, some corporations rely more on debt financing, which is treated more favorably than equity financing in the tax code. The corporate income tax generally only applies to C corporations (also known as regular corporations). These corporations—named for Subchapter C of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), which details their tax treatment—are generally treated as taxable entities separate from their shareholders[...] Currently, about 6% of businesses are organized as C corporations, and thus subject to the corporate income tax. As Figure 2 shows, this change is a significant decrease from the 17% of businesses that choose the corporate form in 1980.[...] The share of business income generated by C corporations has also changed over time. In 1980, for example, corporations were responsible for nearly 80% of total business income. Today, corporations generate less than half of total business income, with the remainder coming from pass-throughs. 28 C corporations, however, still generate a disproportionate share of all business income. ![[image loading]](https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-zz4Weholobk/U064lbZ_DkI/AAAAAAAAAGw/MjmM8Y5lZpU/w620-h546-no/corporation+effective+taxation.jpg) ![[image loading]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-SA2DEyejTDI/U064bSfOsqI/AAAAAAAAAGM/-4dtFnQHLoo/w579-h241-no/effective+corporte+tax+rates.png) I never said corporate income tax were particulary low in the US, what I said is they were not progressive enough, and touched more some business than others. Saying that the US has "the second biggest corporate taxation rate" is just false tho - it's just average across the board (low for some and pretty high for a small part of corporations). On April 17 2014 02:06 Roe wrote: I just wanted a source that compares effective US corporate tax rates to other countries in the world The last board that I linked gives all that. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
The mayor of a small Missouri town has mostly nice things to say about the white supremacist accused of killing three people at Jewish facilities last weekend. Marionville, Mo. Mayor Dan Clevenger spoke warmly this week of Frazier Glenn Miller, who allegedly went on a killing rampage on Sunday in Overland Park, Kan. "He was always nice and friendly and respectful of elder people, you know, he respected his elders greatly. As long as they were the same color as him," Clevenger said while laughing, according to television station KSPR. "Very fair and honest and never had a bit of problems out of him." Clevenger said he sympathized with some of Miller's views, but didn't like to broadcast that. "Kind of agreed with him on some things but, I don't like to express that too much," Clevenger, the owner of a local repair shop, said. He told CNN this week that he didn't buy some of Miller's claims. "He had a lot of hate built up inside of him," Clevenger said. "And every time he'd come down here, he'd go on about different races -- mainly Jews. He claims they're all bad, but I don't believe that." However, KSPR unearthed a letter to the editor that the mayor sent nearly a decade ago to a newspaper in Aurora, Mo. in which he expressed admiration for Miller's mission. Source | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Ready For Hillary, the super PAC laying the grassroots groundwork for a presumed 2016 campaign, has hired new staff to oversee its field operations in four regions across the country. They've divided the country into Western, Southern, Midwestern and Northern regions, and the new staffers bring experience in key primary states like Iowa, New Hampshire and California. As TPM reported last month, the new hires are intended to help the group further expand its volunteer base on the ground. They'll be based out of California, Iowa, New Hampshire and Virginia, but covering the surrounding states as well and traveling constantly, the group said. Jessica Mejia, who was a field director during the Clinton 2008 campaign, will head the Western office. Hans Goff, who worked in North Carolina for President Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign, will cover the South. Derek Eadon, who had work in Iowa for the Obama campaigns, will lead the Midwestern office. Sean Downey, who was New Hampshire political director for Obama 2012, will be the group's organizing director for the Northern region. Source | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
The French economist Thomas Piketty (Paris School of Economics) will present a lecture on his new book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century. In this landmark work, Piketty argues that the main driver of inequality—the tendency of returns on capital to exceed the rate of economic growth—threatens to generate extreme inequalities that stir discontent and undermine democratic values. He calls for political action and policy intervention. Joseph Stiglitz (Columbia University), Paul Krugman (Princeton University), and Steven Durlauf (University of Wisconsin–Madison) will comment. The event will be introduced and moderated by Janet Gornick and Branko Milanovic (The Graduate Center, Luxembourg Income Study Center). Starting in a few minutes. I don't think Piketty will be that interesting, but Stiglitz and Krugman have been, for the last 3 or 4 years, really surprising. They've come from great mainstream economists to touch all question everything type of economists. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23631 Posts
On April 17 2014 06:44 WhiteDog wrote: http://www.cuny.tv/capital-in-the-21st-century Starting in a few minutes. I don't think Piketty will be that interesting, but Stiglitz and Krugman have been, for the last 3 or 4 years, really surprising. They've come from great mainstream economists to touch all question everything type of economists. Thanks for the reminder I'll be tuning in at least in the background while I get some work done. I just hope the takeaway for certain people isn't just to get bigger and better weapons to protect themselves from the 'discontent' haha | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) endorsed former Oklahoma House Speaker T.W. Shannon in the Republican primary for outgoing Sen. Tom Coburn's (R-OK) Senate seat. "T.W. Shannon is a strong conservative who will fight for individual liberty and help turn our country around,” Sen. Cruz said in a statement on Wednesday. “T.W. embodies the American dream. I’m proud to offer T.W. my enthusiastic endorsement because not only will he vote the right way, but he’ll stand up and fight with us in the Senate to stop President Obama’s assault on our liberties and defend America’s founding principles." Shannon is running in the primary against Rep. Jim Lankford (R-OK). The endorsement is Cruz's first of the cycle. Cruz has vowed to stay out of primaries where tea party candidates are challenging incumbent Republicans but since Shannon, a favorite of some of the outside groups like the Senate Conservatives Fund (SCF), isn't challenging an incumbent senator, Cruz isn't violating that promise. Source | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Nearly half of Americans, 49%, believe middle-income people -- a group many Americans consider themselves part of -- pay too much in taxes, up from 42% a year ago and the highest Gallup has found since 1999. At the same time, the 42% who say middle-income Americans pay their "fair share" in taxes is down 11 percentage points from last year. This is also the first time since 2007 that a higher percentage of the public says middle-income Americans are paying too much rather than their fair share. ![[image loading]](http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/lxg5xtdjt0sooiqwke1d1q.png) These results are from Gallup's annual Economy and Personal Finance poll, conducted April 3-6. While the April 15 tax deadline may not be the most popular day on the nation's calendar, over the past decade, stable pluralities and sometimes majorities have said that middle-income Americans pay their fair share in taxes, rather than too much or too little. But the perception has grown since 2012 that middle-income Americans pay too much in taxes; this comes as income taxes increase for the first time in 20 years, though mainly for the top earners. President Barack Obama and Congress allowed the Bush tax cuts on the marginal rates for the highest income earners to expire last year, which increased the tax rate for 2013 income from 35.0% to 39.6%. Other taxes, such as capital gains taxes, have also increased, and the bill is now coming due for many taxpayers. Though the bulk of the higher tax rates affect those in the top income bracket -- $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for married couples -- there has not been a noticeable climb in the proportion of Americans who believe upper-income people pay too much. That figure stands at 13% today, essentially unchanged from 11% last year. A robust majority, 61%, believe that upper-income people pay too little, while about a quarter believe they pay their fair share. ![[image loading]](http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/jmvbwybzxkanpphyb9spfw.png) Source | ||
|
BallinWitStalin
1177 Posts
The amount of cognitive dissonance in the American public is astounding. How such a plurality/majority can believe these things, and then vote Republican, never ceases to amaze me. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23631 Posts
On April 17 2014 11:02 BallinWitStalin wrote: The amount of cognitive dissonance in the American public is astounding. How such a plurality/majority can believe these things, and then vote Republican, never ceases to amaze me. Conservatives have a larger proportion of people who are tortured as children. A majority of Republicans are threatened/brainwashed as children to believe the earth is 10,000 years old along with a lot of other equally insane ideas. If they refuse those or don't refuse other ideas they are promised not only will their life be essentially cursed* but they will spend an eternity after that likely miserable life in the worst condition imaginable for eternity, literally. So you imagine a child surrounded by people who fervently believe and who consistently reinforce that belief, add the fact that in most cases they are discouraged from/punished for interacting with people who don't, until they are allowed to really only interact with them when necessary or attempting to convert/help them, compound onto that many of them are channeled into educational settings where those narratives wont be challenged let alone dismissed, and you start to see how by the time they can vote many of them have been so thoroughly indoctrinated their world view leaves them with a choice between the lesser of two evils and one party is definitely 'going to hell' and at least the republicans have a chance not to. So while the republican party may or may not shit on them (economically) during 'this life' they believe that more people would end up in heaven under republican rule, [so since this life means little compared to eternity they have been trained to choose the option that leads to heaven.] (<--extreme simplification here) There are other aspects that are diminished through these methods. Like listening to others opinions, using reason and logic to parse rhetoric and emotion, reconstructing world views based off of best available information, etc.. All of these things and more lead us down to much of the behavior you see in the Republican party. To be fair there are variations of this within the democratic party just most of them don't entail potentially spending eternity in the worst place imaginable suffering the worst possible torments. + Show Spoiler + *the degree or perception of the curse varies by sect and interpretation but the concept is there in one degree or another. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23631 Posts
On April 17 2014 11:58 Danglars wrote: Caricatures abound, vitriol is on the rise. Relax a little bit. Enjoy one of Boehner's primary challengers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JykDa7hAB9Q When watching this commercial I can't help but think about how republicans are fine with Viagra being covered by insurance but think covering birth control is ridiculous. What's sad is a commercial like that is going to get more votes than one that actually had substance. Not that the guy really has a snowballs chance in hell anyway. As is betrayed by his commercial this guy is only really going to get the anti-Boehner conservative votes. I just wish we were closer to consistently getting decent candidates from either party. It would be refreshing to see reasonable logical people in Washington actually debating and discussing issues with a reasonable intent to reach conclusions and solutions comprised of sensible compromises. But instead it seems like we are heading in opposite directions guided by distinctly different realities with one having much less grounding in an objective reality than others. | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On April 17 2014 12:25 GreenHorizons wrote: When watching this commercial I can't help but think about how republicans are fine with Viagra being covered by insurance but think covering birth control is ridiculous. What's sad is a commercial like that is going to get more votes than one that actually had substance. Not that the guy really has a snowballs chance in hell anyway. As is betrayed by his commercial this guy is only really going to get the anti-Boehner conservative votes. I just wish we were closer to consistently getting decent candidates from either party. It would be refreshing to see reasonable logical people in Washington actually debating and discussing issues with a reasonable intent to reach conclusions and solutions comprised of sensible compromises. But instead it seems like we are heading in opposite directions guided by distinctly different realities with one having much less grounding in an objective reality than others. You can blame Citizens United, and that whole train of thought. Money wins campaigns, so the banks just buy both candidates. Regardless of who wins the election, bankers are the real winners. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — An official familiar with the investigation said the New York Attorney General's Office has issued subpoenas to six firms and sent a letter to another for details about split-second stock trading and any unfair advantages. The official told The Associated Press Wednesday that the subpoenas went last week to trading firms including Chicago-based Jump Trading LLC and Chopper Trading LLC and Tower Research Capital in New York. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to publicly discuss the subpoenas. He said he did not know the names of the other companies. Jump Trading, Chopper Trading and Tower Research did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has said advantages in computer hardware and placement enable some traders to get millisecond timing advances to make "rapid and often risk-free trades before the rest of the market can catch up." Source | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23631 Posts
On April 17 2014 13:04 Millitron wrote: You can blame Citizens United, and that whole train of thought. Money wins campaigns, so the banks just buy both candidates. Regardless of who wins the election, bankers are the real winners. Speak of the Devil and he shall appear. "When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy. " ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JDd3HBx.jpg) Source | ||
|
Introvert
United States4894 Posts
On April 17 2014 11:52 GreenHorizons wrote: Conservatives have a larger proportion of people who are tortured as children. A majority of Republicans are threatened/brainwashed as children to believe the earth is 10,000 years old along with a lot of other equally insane ideas. If they refuse those or don't refuse other ideas they are promised not only will their life be essentially cursed* but they will spend an eternity after that likely miserable life in the worst condition imaginable for eternity, literally. So you imagine a child surrounded by people who fervently believe and who consistently reinforce that belief, add the fact that in most cases they are discouraged from/punished for interacting with people who don't, until they are allowed to really only interact with them when necessary or attempting to convert/help them, compound onto that many of them are channeled into educational settings where those narratives wont be challenged let alone dismissed, and you start to see how by the time they can vote many of them have been so thoroughly indoctrinated their world view leaves them with a choice between the lesser of two evils and one party is definitely 'going to hell' and at least the republicans have a chance not to. So while the republican party may or may not shit on them (economically) during 'this life' they believe that more people would end up in heaven under republican rule, [so since this life means little compared to eternity they have been trained to choose the option that leads to heaven.] (<--extreme simplification here) There are other aspects that are diminished through these methods. Like listening to others opinions, using reason and logic to parse rhetoric and emotion, reconstructing world views based off of best available information, etc.. All of these things and more lead us down to much of the behavior you see in the Republican party. To be fair there are variations of this within the democratic party just most of them don't entail potentially spending eternity in the worst place imaginable suffering the worst possible torments. + Show Spoiler + *the degree or perception of the curse varies by sect and interpretation but the concept is there in one degree or another. The same person who doesn't understand Jim Demint and his comment about society at the time of the civil war is now telling us why conservatives are conservative- that the reason people are conservative could have nothing to do with values or their own thought process, but must be the result of a tortuous childhood. It could only be because they are ALL creationist, brainwashed children. Obviously when one really thinks logically, the only conclusion is that big government= better. One could not even argue otherwise! And this is why the right says the left is arrogant. When they have most of the media to push their ideas and values, it's somehow true that liberals know more about conservatism and its causes than actual conservatives do. Somehow in today's culture it is possible for the vast majority of conservatives to be completely isolated from other opinions yet liberals are all the enlightened ones. The time for openmindedness has ended- the result is clear. I think you may be analyzing yourself. You mention creationists at every possible opportunity and use the words "Republican Party" far more than anyone else. I think you are the partisan in the bubble. No other poster is more obsessed with party- most argue ideas and individual things, but somehow you always come back to the Republican party, as if Conservatives are fans of the party. Shows how little you know. Your posts reek of arrogance but this one really sums it up so nicely. Between this and sub40 telling me how much I hate Mexicans I am really glad to participate in this thread- I am learning so much about myself. | ||
| ||
