This needs to come to an ubrupt end.

[sangha]

We don't encourage them to keep them overseas. We have laws that claim those assets. Our issue is closing loopholes, not expanding loopholes.

Actually, the issue is the secrecy "privacy" laws in nations known as "tax havens" which allow businesses to hide profits.

 

[Unrepresented]

Actually, the issue is the secrecy "privacy" laws in nations known as "tax havens" which allow businesses to hide profits.

You say "tomato," I say a slightly less common pronunciation of "tomato."

If we wanted to close those loopholes we could, putting pressure on nations that violate our interests isn't difficult.

 

[sangha]

so any money a company earns, no matter where it was earned.....you believe the US government is entitled to a piece of it, because the company has part of the business here?

i dont want to put words in your mouth....but is that your take?

I believe US corps should pay taxes on income, no matter where it was earned because the corp is a legal entity of the US and protected by our govt.

That's my take

do you think they should pay taxes twice on the same earnings? once in country where it was earned, and again here?

Corps can deduct the taxes they pay to other govts from the taxes they owe on overseas income so, in the end, they don't get taxed twice

 

[sangha]

You say "tomato," I say a slightly less common pronunciation of "tomato."

If we wanted to close those loopholes we could, putting pressure on nations that violate our interests isn't difficult.

Yes, it is just a rewording. I just wanted to make sure you understood the problem wasn't *our* laws; it's the laws of nations that are tax havens.

 

[Unrepresented]

Yes, it is just a rewording. I just wanted to make sure you understood the problem wasn't *our* laws; it's the laws of nations that are tax havens.

I'm a big picture guy. I try not to let details and facts slow me down.

 

[JumpinJack]

"Paying their fair share" rhetoric is not going to fix this, going after the corporate tax code as it exists today will.

I agree. The corporate tax rate needs to be raised substantially. It has been slashed from the 90% rate during Reagan's Presidency.

U.S. companies pay among the lowest ACTUAL taxes for First World countries in the world. With the tax subsidies, credit, deductions, on top of a low rate, they have gotten a windfall for the last 15 years. This has contributed to the deficit to a large extent.

The corporate tax rate in the U.S. is reasonably low, ranging from 15% to 35% on taxable income (it's a graduated rate). The NOMINAL rate is stated to be 35%....but corporations don't really pay that. There are subsidies, credits, and deductions. On top of that, many transactions are not taxable (mergers, acquisitions, liquidations). Then there's the graduated rate (they pay only 15% on income within a certain range).

When comparing to other countries, look at what you get for your taxes. You get to do business in one of the largest economies in the world, and access to its multiple millions of consumers with expendable income. There is also a lot of infrastructure to maintain in such a large country. Infrastructure that supports doing business in the country. The U.S. has many more miles of highways and roads to be maintained and repaired, as well as bridges, than, say, Great Britain.

Raise the rate. Corporations should pay their fare share.

The average corporate tax rate in the U.S. in 2011 was about 12%. Asking the taxpayers out there: What tax rate did you end up paying in 2011 after deductions? I paid a lot more than 12%, that's for sure.

 

[ttwtt78640]

My taxes are withheld at a 25% rate. Believe me, I don't get more than 5% of that back when I file my return...so yeah...I already pay around 20%. And that comes off the top...before expenses.

Why should a business be treated any different?

Because it cannot vote for one. That is taxation without representation - the stated cause of our revolution.

 

[Mycroft]

Because it cannot vote for one. That is taxation without representation - the stated cause of our revolution.

That's BS.

Businesses are made up of people.

 

[dpcal]

I agree. The corporate tax rate needs to be raised substantially. It has been slashed from the 90% rate during Reagan's Presidency.

U.S. companies pay among the lowest ACTUAL taxes for First World countries in the world. With the tax subsidies, credit, deductions, on top of a low rate, they have gotten a windfall for the last 15 years. This has contributed to the deficit to a large extent.

The corporate tax rate in the U.S. is reasonably low, ranging from 15% to 35% on taxable income (it's a graduated rate). The NOMINAL rate is stated to be 35%....but corporations don't really pay that. There are subsidies, credits, and deductions. On top of that, many transactions are not taxable (mergers, acquisitions, liquidations). Then there's the graduated rate (they pay only 15% on income within a certain range).

When comparing to other countries, look at what you get for your taxes. You get to do business in one of the largest economies in the world, and access to its multiple millions of consumers with expendable income. There is also a lot of infrastructure to maintain in such a large country. Infrastructure that supports doing business in the country. The U.S. has many more miles of highways and roads to be maintained and repaired, as well as bridges, than, say, Great Britain.

Raise the rate. Corporations should pay their fare share.

The average corporate tax rate in the U.S. in 2011 was about 12%. Asking the taxpayers out there: What tax rate did you end up paying in 2011 after deductions? I paid a lot more than 12%, that's for sure.

I don't have any financial expertise, and the closest I get is occasionally reading the WSJ. However, given global markets for both products and equities, its not clear how you could increase corporate taxation without resulting in US corporations being acquired by multinationals. I suppose its possible, but at the moment I can't picture how it could be done.

 

[blaxshep]

The people gave corporations the rights of the people, then the corporations made the people second class citizens.

 

[dpcal]

My taxes are withheld at a 25% rate. Believe me, I don't get more than 5% of that back when I file my return...so yeah...I already pay around 20%. And that comes off the top...before expenses.

Why should a business be treated any different?

Because the money collected by a business is used for very different purposes than the money you receive. Consider a grocery store... the profit margins in the grocery business are between 1-2%. In other words 98.5% of every dollar you pay them, is used by the store to purchase the groceries and do the other hundreds of things that are necessary for you to be able to walk in and pick up what you need. That 98.5% is not going to the owners of the market, but its being paid to literally thousands of people whose labor brought you the product. The only thing you are doing with the money you receive is to spend it yourself(family,etc). Put a 20% tax rate on the stores receipts, and your grocery bill rises 20%.

 

[Mycroft]

Because the money collected by a business is used for very different purposes than the money you receive. Consider a grocery store... the profit margins in the grocery business are between 1-2%. In other words 98.5% of every dollar you pay them, is used by the store to purchase the groceries and do the other hundreds of things that are necessary for you to be able to walk in and pick up what you need. That 98.5% is not going to the owners of the market, but its being paid to literally thousands of people whose labor brought you the product. The only thing you are doing with the money you receive is to spend it yourself(family,etc). Put a 20% tax rate on the stores receipts, and your grocery bill rises 20%.

Or...as some people have suggested...reduce their taxes to 0%.

 

[dpcal]

Or...as some people have suggested...reduce their taxes to 0%.

If a national sales tax was used to raise the bulk of government revenue and incorporated national health insurance, it would significantly improve our competitiveness in the global marketplace and if coupled with low corporate rates, the employment picture in this country would improve substantially. If you funded nothing more than national health insurance and eliminated the cost of employee healthcare for business.... that alone would be a huge boost for global competitiveness.

 

[cpwill]

Then it wouldn't have to be 20%, would it? It could be lowered.

Hint: 20% was just for example purposes.

Why would we lower it, when here in magic-land, companies do not respond to the incentive structures they are faced with?

 

[Mycroft]

If a national sales tax was used to raise the bulk of government revenue and incorporated national health insurance, it would significantly improve our competitiveness in the global marketplace and if coupled with low corporate rates, the employment picture in this country would improve substantially. If you funded nothing more than national health insurance and eliminated the cost of employee healthcare for business.... that alone would be a huge boost for global competitiveness.

How about we leave national health insurance out of it. Companies don't HAVE to provide health insurance...or they didn't until Obamacare came along. But letting companies...and people...keep more of their own money is a good thing.

Of course, that means the federal government won't have the money to spend on every thing some Tom, Dick and Harry thinks it should.

 

[dpcal]

How about we leave national health insurance out of it. Companies don't HAVE to provide health insurance...or they didn't until Obamacare came along. But letting companies...and people...keep more of their own money is a good thing.

Of course, that means the federal government won't have the money to spend on every thing some Tom, Dick and Harry thinks it should.

Given that most US businesses that compete in the global markets, provide healthcare insurance, this is likely to be an even greater disadvantage to US corporations than a higher corporate tax rate... just something think about.....

 

[JumpinJack]

I don't have any financial expertise, and the closest I get is occasionally reading the WSJ. However, given global markets for both products and equities, its not clear how you could increase corporate taxation without resulting in US corporations being acquired by multinationals. I suppose its possible, but at the moment I can't picture how it could be done.

Most large corporations ARE multinational.

Just a few years ago, the amount of taxes paid by Exxon and GE was reported. Even with the "stupendously HIGH" corporate tax rate of 35% (which is on only part of the earnings, and before subsidies, deductions and credits), the amount of taxes paid by each was: $0.00. (that's not a typo)

Now do you see the truth? The 35% is NOMINAL. They really pay far less than that because of all the tax breaks. Buffett himself has reported he pays about 3%.

Paying another 2% to 5% will not hit businesses in the least (except to skim some money off the huge bonuses to officers), and will help begin to pay down the deficit. The DECREASE in the taxes is what contributed significantly to the deficit.

 

[blaxshep]

There is really two classes of business, small and Corporate monstrosities. They really should be treated differently when demands are being made like more taxes. Sure GE won't even feel it but mom and pop could be pushed out of business.

 

[dpcal]

Most large corporations ARE multinational.

Just a few years ago, the amount of taxes paid by Exxon and GE was reported. Even with the "stupendously HIGH" corporate tax rate of 35% (which is on only part of the earnings, and before subsidies, deductions and credits), the amount of taxes paid by each was: $0.00. (that's not a typo)

Now do you see the truth? The 35% is NOMINAL. They really pay far less than that because of all the tax breaks. Buffett himself has reported he pays about 3%.

Paying another 2% to 5% will not hit businesses in the least (except to skim some money off the huge bonuses to officers), and will help begin to pay down the deficit. The DECREASE in the taxes is what contributed significantly to the deficit.

I'm a bit of a dinosaur... I oppose "free trade", and I oppose any taxes on business or corporations that put business or corporations at a disadvantage relative to global marketplace.... if a taxation system meets that criteria I'm all ears. Frankly, the best thing we could do for our global competitiveness is national health insurance. Perhaps you can see why I have very few friends!

I don't understand why you wouldn't corporations to pay big salaries to execs, as opposed to stashing the cash somewhere. If paid as salaries, the execs will pay a substantial amount of taxes.

 

[gdgyva]

Most large corporations ARE multinational.

Just a few years ago, the amount of taxes paid by Exxon and GE was reported. Even with the "stupendously HIGH" corporate tax rate of 35% (which is on only part of the earnings, and before subsidies, deductions and credits), the amount of taxes paid by each was: $0.00. (that's not a typo)

Now do you see the truth? The 35% is NOMINAL. They really pay far less than that because of all the tax breaks. Buffett himself has reported he pays about 3%.

Paying another 2% to 5% will not hit businesses in the least (except to skim some money off the huge bonuses to officers), and will help begin to pay down the deficit. The DECREASE in the taxes is what contributed significantly to the deficit.

GE & Exxon paid what was owed.....nothing more.....nothing less

why they owed zero taxes differed on both

for GE, a company i own a fair stake of, it was because of previous years losses.....yes or no

and to be more specific, it was losses in their financial side of the business....GECAL

which got caught up in the same mortgage bull**** that killed other financial companies

now...that either makes sense, or it doesnt to you

you want the headline to be GE PAYS ZERO TAX.....when in reality, GE pays zero tax this year, because they lost billions the last couple of years in mortgages

and as Paul Harvey would say......now you know the REST of the story

 

[Mycroft]

Most large corporations ARE multinational.

Just a few years ago, the amount of taxes paid by Exxon and GE was reported. Even with the "stupendously HIGH" corporate tax rate of 35% (which is on only part of the earnings, and before subsidies, deductions and credits), the amount of taxes paid by each was: $0.00. (that's not a typo)

Now do you see the truth? The 35% is NOMINAL. They really pay far less than that because of all the tax breaks. Buffett himself has reported he pays about 3%.

Paying another 2% to 5% will not hit businesses in the least (except to skim some money off the huge bonuses to officers), and will help begin to pay down the deficit. The DECREASE in the taxes is what contributed significantly to the deficit.

You have such a one-dimensional view on things, it's hard to decide how to respond to a post such as this. Others have made valid points in response to this drivel, so I'll just limit myself to a few of issues.

1. You say a business won't be hit hard by a tax increase...except for the bonuses to officers. But there's a reason those officers get those bonuses. The business feels it's advantageous to their bottom line to offer and pay those bonuses. In short...it makes them more money. In reality, it's just another expense. If a business doesn't spend money, they don't make money.

2. It'll begin to help pay down the deficit. LOL!! This betrays your pie-in-the-sky, idealistic view of our government. Believe me, whatever increased revenue the government gets from increasing taxes won't do a thing to "pay down the deficit". It'll just get spent on NEW things and, more likely, the deficit will end up increasing because the government will decide the new spending can be more than the revenue increase.

3. The decrease in taxes is NOT what contributed to the deficit...spending money we don't have is the sole cause of the deficit. Now...you can certainly make the case that increasing taxes will help, but that help won't be as much as if we just decided to stop spending so much.

 

[blaxshep]

Believe me, whatever increased revenue the government gets from increasing taxes won't do a thing to "pay down the deficit". It'll just get spent on NEW things and, more likely, the deficit will end up increasing because the government will decide the new spending can be more than the revenue increase.

The decrease in taxes is NOT what contributed to the deficit...spending money we don't have is the sole cause of the deficit. Now...you can certainly make the case that increasing taxes will help, but that help won't be as much as if we just decided to stop spending so much.

You will never get a liberal to understand this. To a liberal the budget is determined by whatever is spent, to everyone else what is spent is determined by a budget.

 

[MickeyW]

I wish I could get away with paying a 1% tax-rate ...

You can...........................have endless yard sales or find a cash only business....they are out there..

Oh....and be sure and read my sig line