Should GOP focus on coporate tax reduction?

[ugonow]

"Kristol Stumbles Onto The Truth: GOP Shouldn’t Focus On Corporate Taxes, ‘Corporations Have A Ton Of Cash’
By Pat Garofalo and Igor Volsky on Jun 5, 2011 at 11:14 am

Both the House Republican budget and the GOP “jobs plan” released last week include a cut in the top corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. Even though the Congressional Budget Office has found that cutting the corporate tax rate is not a particularly effective way to create jobs, the GOP has continually pushed this cut as a prescription for what ails the economy.

On Fox News Sunday today, conservative commentator Bill Kristol threw cold water on the GOP’s fixation with the corporate tax rate, saying that Republicans “are making a mistake” because “the corporate tax rate is not killing big business in America”:

Republicans are making a mistake if they focus on big businesses and corporate tax rates. Corporations have a ton of cash. The corporate tax rate is not killing big business in America.



Kristol is not right about much, but he is on the money here. Corporations are sitting on trillions in cash reserves and corporate profits have rebounded to record highs. In fact, “the Fortune 500 generated nearly $10.8 trillion in total revenues last year, up 10.5%. Total profits soared 81%.”

But none of that has translated into sustainable job growth. The only economic indicator that has been going up is CEO pay.

Republicans are not only looking to cut the corporate tax rate, but they have been pushing to open a permanent tax loophole by switching to what’s known as a “territorial” corporate tax system, which would mean that corporations could permanently park money offshore and never pay taxes on it. The Republicans have also endorsed a misguided push to give corporations a tax windfall worth tens of billions of dollars through a tax repatriation holiday. "

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Bill Kristol is an idiot. He's a big government loving guy whose magazine propelled W to the White House. How'd that work out for fiscal sanity-- and for the prospects of the Republican Party? He was a fan of the expansion of Medicare (Part D), he never saw a war he didn't feel we should fight, he's a proponent of the green energy boondoggle, amnesty for illegal immigrants, and on and on. He's not someone conservatives need to turn to for advice right now.

Here is the Feb 10, 1997 issue of The Weekly Standard that helped launch George W. Bush's campaign for the Presidency...

[mwcpa]

the issue should not be the corporate tax rates, the issue should be focusing on the corporate welfare and special interest provisions contained within the law.... get rid of the welfare then you can lower rates..... no ill feelings to GE (and other big companies), but why should their federal tax be zero (they surely derive tremendous benefits from our system), GE did nothing wrong, but the welfare in the system provided them a windfall....

the highest corporate tax rate was 94% in 1944.... the lowest was 7% in 1913..... the current maximum rate (not a flat rate as many believe, there is a 15% and 25% bracket in the system for smaller companies) of 35% was established in 2003.

[fairlycrazy23]

Well, mixed feelings, for the good of the country, yes they should focus on reducing all burdens (especially taxation) on businesses operating in the United States. However, this will probably be a losing proposition because it is so easy to demagogue.

But mwcpa is correct, the simplification of the tax code is paramount, big companies with there army of tax accountants and lobbyist are able to greatly reduce there tax burden while the little guy doesn't have the same resources. Big government enables big corporations.

Companies are sitting on cash because they don't know what Federal Government is going to do in the way of regulations, so they are reluctant to expend capital on expansion, I think this is especially true for regulations and laws around employment (primarily healthcare). Second a lot of companies have this cash sitting outside the US and if they brought it into the US it would be subject to high taxes, so they leave it outside the US.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

We need to fire back. Demogoguery that doesn't get challenged becomes "truth". I'd think after George W. Bush's "new tone" in Washington D.C. we'd have learned that? We need to euthanize the class warfare argument once and for all.

[fairlycrazy23]

Jun 6, 2011 9:51:51 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

We need to fire back. Demogoguery that doesn't get challenged becomes "truth". I'd think after George W. Bush's "new tone" in Washington D.C. we'd have learned that? We need to euthanize the class warfare argument once and for all.

I hope we can get a majority in the Senate and hopefully even the Presidency, if the GOP can gain control again, I would hope they would actually abide by there fiscal mantra, but more likely they would not.

They would push social issues and make token spending reductions. (Yes, I'm very pessimistic about the GOP).

[ugonow]

IMO,tax rates and taxes paid are 2 different creatures.Other countries do not offer the write offs,depreciations,credits,incentives,etc that we do. And letting companies transfer profits to another country to avoid taxes is not a good move imo,either.

[mwcpa]

the problem is that both parties speak out of both sides of their mouths.... I am pessimistic about both parties and the tea partiers...

in my opinion, most politicians say one thing in public to get elected and then do the complete opposite behind closed doors to keep their power and get paid or funded.... term limits for all should be the starting point, maybe only publicly financed elections could be another to keep "opinion" out and force candidates to address real issues, not allowing for misleading attacks... .... I do not think a lifer in the Senate of House of Rep is not what was envisioned back in the 1700s.... we have seemed to have created a ruling class by being passive and from more than 1/2 the population, not voting....

[fairlycrazy23]

I'm for actually getting rid of completely all income and payroll taxes and replace it with a retail sales tax.
This would save a tremendous amount of resources that are essentially wasted on tax compliance and it would allow businesses to not make business decisions based on tax code (well except for deciding that the United States would by far be the best tax haven in the world).

[mwcpa]

"This would save a tremendous amount of resources that are essentially wasted on tax compliance"

I beg to differ..... who would bear the cost of complying with this new tax.... the small business who make retail sales.... so, they would not see a cut in the cost of compliance, actually they may see an increase..... so, an IBM would benefit but I do not see them passing on the savings to consumers....this would be a windfall to the big manufacturers....and a cost to retailers.....

who would administer this supposed retail sales tax.... you are going to have some sort of federal administration, may not be called the IRS, but it will be a similar group.... you do not want states to administer this.... ever been through a state sales tax audit.... they make an IRS audit look like a day in the park..... ?

everything I hear about the supposed fair tax says that their will be some sort of "credit" given to the "poor"..... who will administer that.... what reporting will be required.... so, will more cost will be passed on to those who previously did not have a cost to bear for compliance....?

whose rules would apply, a new standard, or one already on the books in many states (plus DC) and numerous locals that have some form of sales and or use tax.....? so, in state A clothing is tax free, but in state B it is not, and in state C clothing is taxable, but county 1 adds a local tax and county 2 does not.... now we need to add a new federal rule on top of them... talk about adding more confusion....and more compliance costs....

how would the "regressive" nature of a sales tax be addressed.... given the fact that the "rich" save and the "poor" spend much more of their incomes.... ?

for the states that have an income tax, would you expect them to just go away?

I could see Congress coming up with some sort of national sales tax in addition to the income tax.... just like Europe.... but Europe does not "state and local" issues to the same degree that we seem to have......

[fairlycrazy23]

Of course there problems with a national sales tax as with any tax, but they are dwarfed by the burden of our current code.

Under the Fairtax everything is taxed there is no special category for clothes or food. The prebate addresses the tax burden of the poor and would be simple to administer.
The states are paid to administer the fairtax, and small businesses that did retail sales would be expected to collect sales tax, but the in turn would no longer by paying income or payroll taxes.
No state income tax would not go away, but some state may opt to get rid of it some may not.

It is incomprehensible to me for someone to think the fair tax would be anywhere near a burden as the monstrosity that is our current federal tax code.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

The GOP had better damn well start making the case that when the rich are targeted, that's your pension. Teachers, police, firefighters-- those taxes on evil, rich corporations-- that's your job. That's your pension. That's your 401(k). That's your IRA. Old fogies- those are the assets that produce the fixed income you rely on. When Barry targets the "rich" he's targeting YOU. When he destablizes the economy with his destructive policies- that's you! That's your chances of getting a job and moving up. That's your job he's threatening. That's your pension, your retirement, and you better wake your ass up and quit supporting these policies because if you don't it's just cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[skweet]

The major argument for a sales tax or fair tax is that it makes people aware of how much our national spending is costing them. The cost of goods would not increase, but awareness of the portion of that cost of goods which becomes tax revenue would slap you in the face, if it were a line item on your receipt. The rich save and the poor pay, today and the rich would save and the poor would pay under a sales tax scenario, nothing changes there, because it is the nature of being rich or poor. A hamburger that costs $1 today would likely cost $0.75 tomorrow, but the tax collected would be $0.25, and the total bill would be the same $1. The reason that an idea like this could never pass, is that government does not want the hamburger consumer to know how much of that price they are frittering away. Can you imagine the change in political discussion when "tax the rich" (which ultimately raises the price of a hamburger say $0.05) were changed to "raise your cost of goods 5%"?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

The government fears the fair tax because in theory we could launch a legal tax protest under the fair tax. Americans are wealthy. We don't "need" most of what we purchase that would generate taxes. The fair tax would exempt all if not most real necessities, and we could en masse have a "buy nothing" period that would stiffle government-- and they hate that. With an income tax and policies that make it easier to borrow, and borrow, and borrow-- they have a nation dutifully spinning its wheels to support government. After all, debt laden home owners don't go on strike. They can't afford to.

[fairlycrazy23]

Point of correction, the fair tax doesn't actually exempt the tax on necessities, it simply gives families a prebate that covers the cost of the tax for the necessities, the truly poor would pay no tax.

And yes the rich save more, but they also spend more a lot more.

[jkapp]

Jun 6, 2011 10:32:01 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

I'm for actually getting rid of completely all income and payroll taxes and replace it with a retail sales tax.
This would save a tremendous amount of resources that are essentially wasted on tax compliance and it would allow businesses to not make business decisions based on tax code (well except for deciding that the United States would by far be the best tax haven in the world).

The problem with that is now you have forced all businesses to now be tax collectors and have to abide by every little stupid new tax law the government creates. I deal with 30 different states and their ridiculous sales tax codes and can tell you it all sucks to high heaven! ;D

[jkapp]

Jun 7, 2011 9:14:37 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The GOP had better damn well start making the case that when the rich are targeted, that's your pension. Teachers, police, firefighters-- those taxes on evil, rich corporations-- that's your job. That's your pension. That's your 401(k). That's your IRA. Old fogies- those are the assets that produce the fixed income you rely on. When Barry targets the "rich" he's targeting YOU. When he destablizes the economy with his destructive policies- that's you! That's your chances of getting a job and moving up. That's your job he's threatening. That's your pension, your retirement, and you better wake your ass up and quit supporting these policies because if you don't it's just cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Exactly...just like I love it when the left slams those greedy shareholders - yeah like those greedy bastard Pension Fund shareholders, right? Take em down!

[Deleted]

Businesses will not hire people until they need to so that they can raise production. Higher production won't be needed until people are buying again. (It's a circle). I think we will sloowly recover this time. President Obama's stimulus package was a joke & ill aimed. It also created an 800 lb gorilla over our heads with it taking our debt to the limits that were set. All of that added together created caution (at least), if not fear. Businesses that are afraid will always sit on money because it gives them options.

My guess is that President Obama will pull out all the stops to try to stimulate the economy before the elections so that he will be elected again. Will "all the stops" do the job, I really don't know. I believe that President Obama key men for advise (at least the one's he listens to) are probably long time friends who don't really have the knowledge needed to advise him on this matter (God knows they haven't done well so far on just general stuff). So if I were to guess I would say that there is about a 40% chances that we will pull out of this mess if nothing is done. That increases to about 70% if the right things are done. On the other side of the coin is the chance that something might be done (like the stimulus package) that is just the wrong thing to do. (Further loosening of house buying requirements would be a good example). That would tell a lot of smart people that they don't know what to do & really hurt the economy. Just my thoughts & I could of course be wrong. Oh & of course raising taxes right now would be bad but he may have to do it (it's either that or cutting spending & I really don't see that happening).

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

My guess is that President Obama will pull out all the stops to try to stimulate the economy before the elections so that he will be elected again. Will "all the stops" do the job, I really don't know.

Nearly all the stimulus went to state and local govts, merely delaying the inevitable.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

GM CEO says economic outlook uncertain
www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/07/us-gm-idUSTRE7562Y720110607?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
By Ben Klayman
DETROIT | Tue Jun 7, 2011 9:58am EDT
DETROIT (Reuters) - The U.S. economy is on increasingly unsteady footing, hurt by stubbornly high unemployment and volatile oil prices, the head of General Motors Co told reporters on Tuesday.
"There's a lot of uncertainty about a jobless recovery, how strong is the recovery going to be? There's a lot of concern about oil prices ... so there's some question about how strong the recovery will be," said Daniel Akerson, who has served as chief executive of the largest U.S. automaker since September 2010.
Ahead of the company's first meeting with shareholders since emerging from bankruptcy in 2009, Akerson said the company wants to grow profitably and will not price vehicles to gain market share at the cost of profit margins.
He also said the United States must address the issue of its rising federal deficit, and that it would shake global debt markets if the country were to default on its obligations.
The U.S. government, which funded the bailout that allowed GM to emerge from bankruptcy, still owns 32 percent of GM's common shares.
Many investors see the Treasury stake in GM as an overhang on the stock's value. Sources told Reuters last month that the government does not plan to start selling its remaining shares until August at the earliest, after GM's second-quarter results.
BUYBACKS HINGE ON U.S. STAKE
That, in turn, is holding up any decision by GM to buy back its shares, which have lost some 22.5 percent of value so far this year, at a time when the broad Standard & Poor's 500 index is up 2 percent.
"The primary driver of any further balance sheet activities will, I think, in the near term be driven by the government's decision of when or when they will not exit the company," Akerson said.
Investors will also get a deeper look into rival Ford Motor Co later on Tuesday when that company's management meets with analysts to lay out their long-term growth strategies, particularly for emerging markets.
Akerson acknowledged that the company still faces many challenges.
"We've strung five consecutive quarters of profitability together, but no one said this was going to be a lay-up," he said. "There's a lot of work to be done over the next couple of years, not only at General Motors but throughout the industry."
GM's shares gained about 6 cents to $28.62 in early trading on the New York Stock Exchange.
(Reporting by Ben Klayman, additional reporting by Deepa Seetharaman; Writing by Scott Malone; Editing by Maureen Bavdek)

[fairlycrazy23]

Jun 7, 2011 9:58:55 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Jun 6, 2011 10:32:01 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

I'm for actually getting rid of completely all income and payroll taxes and replace it with a retail sales tax.
This would save a tremendous amount of resources that are essentially wasted on tax compliance and it would allow businesses to not make business decisions based on tax code (well except for deciding that the United States would by far be the best tax haven in the world).

The problem with that is now you have forced all businesses to now be tax collectors and have to abide by every little stupid new tax law the government creates. I deal with 30 different states and their ridiculous sales tax codes and can tell you it all sucks to high heaven! ;D

Well they are already required to collect there own taxes (income/payroll) this would replace that.
The fairtax would be simple compared to most state/local sales tax.

I understand that there is a burden with compliance with the fairtax, just as there is with anything the government requires, but I feel it would be vastly superior to the current Federal Income/payroll tax code.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Well they are already required to collect there own taxes (income/payroll) this would replace that.
The fairtax would be simple compared to most state/local sales tax.

I understand that there is a burden with compliance with the fairtax, just as there is with anything the government requires, but I feel it would be vastly superior to the current Federal Income/payroll tax code.

Most if not all payrolls are outsourced to payroll companies such as ADP for example, which includes deposits of fed/payroll taxes. Managing a sales tax scenario would be a nightmare and quagmire of exemptions, rules, regulations and tax authorities.
Just imagine a scenario of an internet retailer being required to handle 1000s of taxing authorities, all with their own intricate rules.

[fairlycrazy23]

Jun 7, 2011 11:25:31 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

Well they are already required to collect there own taxes (income/payroll) this would replace that.
The fairtax would be simple compared to most state/local sales tax.

I understand that there is a burden with compliance with the fairtax, just as there is with anything the government requires, but I feel it would be vastly superior to the current Federal Income/payroll tax code.

Most if not all payrolls are outsourced to payroll companies such as ADP for example, which includes deposits of fed/payroll taxes. Managing a sales tax scenario would be a nightmare and quagmire of exemptions, rules, regulations and tax authorities.
Just imagine a scenario of an internet retailer being required to handle 1000s of taxing authorities, all with their own intricate rules.

What exemptions, and this is only 1 taxing authority the Federal Government

[floridayankee]

Jun 7, 2011 11:25:31 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

Most if not all payrolls are outsourced to payroll companies such as ADP for example, which includes deposits of fed/payroll taxes. Managing a sales tax scenario would be a nightmare and quagmire of exemptions, rules, regulations and tax authorities.
Just imagine a scenario of an internet retailer being required to handle 1000s of taxing authorities, all with their own intricate rules.

The fair tax has absolutely nothing to do with state taxes.