Taxes, Taxes, Taxes

[Mashuri]

Since both candidates have been pretty vague about their tax details, and the MSM hasn't done much to help clarify them, here's a good comparison between both. Just click the Dem and Rep boxes:

The Tax Foundation - Candidates 2008

The one I'd pay attention to (and one I've been very unhappy with Bush and Clinton about) is the corporate tax rate. For all those who complain that jobs are moving overseas, a big part of the reason is because it makes more financial sense for domestic companies to move operations outside and for foreign companies to keep operations outside. Look at where we stand just within the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development):

The Tax Foundation - U.S. Corporate Taxes Now 50 Percent Higher than OECD Average

I bet most of you didn't know this. Out of the 30 countries in OECD, the U.S., at 39.25%, ranks 2nd highest (just missing #1 by .29%) in corporate tax rates. We're 50% higher than the OECD average:



That's not including non-OECD countries like, for example, the Cayman Islands that also provide very low tax incentives. McCain has the right idea -- 25% would at least put us back below the average, although still nowhere near Ireland's 12.5%, while Obama hasn't said anything. Last January, China cut its corporate rate from 33% to 25%. That's right, China has lower rates than us!

If we want more wealth and jobs in America we have to stop punishing companies so severely for setting up operations here.

[RockyMt]

BRAVO!!!!! Someone GETS IT!

-Rocky-

[jschmidt]

This "tax rate" scam compares apples and oranges. This rate is the tax rate pre-deductions and compares to other countries that have different tax schemes. All business expenses here are deductible.

Don't be fooled, after deductions, we have one of the lowest tax collections in the industrialized world.

[Mashuri]

Originally Posted by jschmidt

This "tax rate" scam compares apples and oranges. This rate is the tax rate pre-deductions and compares to other countries that have different tax schemes. All business expenses here are deductible.

Don't be fooled, after deductions, we have one of the lowest tax collections in the industrialized world.

Funny how you don't back your claim up with any data. What you are talking about are effective tax rates. That is the rate companies actually pay after deductions and credits. The C.D. Howe Institute (FYI, a Canadian entity) regularly publishes effective tax rates for OECD countries. The latest report I can find is for 2007:

http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/ebrief_52.pdf

As I pointed out earlier, in just marginal rate, the U.S. is #2 highest but, when measured by effective rate, the U.S. is #1. Hey, we like to be #1 don't we?!?!

BTW, notice how Belgium is ranked 4th highest by margin only but the lowest (30th) of all in effective rate? Now THAT'S tax incentives!

[998Junkie]

Originally Posted by Mashuri

BTW, notice how Belgium is ranked 4th highest by margin only but the lowest (30th) of all in effective rate? Now THAT'S tax incentives!

Wow...but yet most US production seems to have moved to China or Asia, there must be other reasons. How many US Corporations have moved to Belgium to realize these incentives?


The Greek menace - Paul Krugman - Op-Ed Columnist - New York Times Blog

Run for the hills! Excessive taxes on corporations are threatening American prosperity, because we can’t match the low, low taxes of other advanced countries. Or so says the Tax Foundation, which is rolling out a new campaign called Compete USA. John McCain has already made big cuts in corporate taxes a large part of his agenda.
There’s a lot to say about this stuff, but right now I’d just like to mention one aspect. The Tax Foundation people start off with a graph that’s supposed to be terrifying, with the headline “Europe cuts rates while U.S. stands still”; the graph shows European tax rates dropping far below the US rate.
What they don’t make clear is that:
1. The graph shows the “statutory” tax rate, which is the maximum rate a corporation can pay in principle. But because corporate tax rules allow all kinds of deductions and exclusions, the statutory rate is a poor guide to the actual disincentives the corporate tax creates.
2. Even more important, while they don’t explain how they calculate the “average” tax rate, the fact that their own data show that all the big economies have tax rates above 30%, while their graph shows an average rate of about 27%, seems to indicate that they’re showing us an unweighted average — that is, one that makes small economies like Ireland and Greece seem as important as big economies like Japan and Germany. And whaddya know, corporate taxes in big economies tend to be higher than those in small economies, and similar to those in the United States, a point made by the Congressional Budget Office in the study from which the chart above is drawn. (Yes, Germany cut rates this year. Big deal.)
So basically, the Tax Foundation wants us to be frightened of the little guys. How can American business survive in a world in which Greek corporations have a big tax advantage?

[Mashuri]

Originally Posted by 998Junkie

Wow...but yet most US production seems to have moved to China or Asia, there must be other reasons. How many US Corporations have moved to Belgium to realize these incentives?


The Greek menace - Paul Krugman - Op-Ed Columnist - New York Times Blog

Want to take a guess as to why they're moving to Asia and not Belgium? C'mon, you can do it. Hint: It has something to do with future growth potential...

EDIT: BTW, we could get into things like labor costs (something the U.S. tops the charts on too) but I don't want to complicate things yet...

[dabyabby]

The fact of it is easy to understand, if you spend (War) more than you take in you will have to raise taxes! no if's and's or buts!!! We all have to pay, some more than others!!! Live with it and get over it!

[Baasinator]

Originally Posted by dabyabby

The fact of it is easy to understand, if you spend (War) more than you take in you will have to raise taxes! no if's and's or buts!!! We all have to pay, some more than others!!! Live with it and get over it!

Apparently it's not so easy to understand, and it's amusing that you don't understand the issue at all. You just gave a perfect example of the simpleton mindset that some politicians appeal to so easily.

Two quick things:
1) The war is not our biggest expense, and our budget is full of better opportunities to cut spending. We can balance the budget and lower everbody's tax burden if we had a government that believed in spending responsibly, but we don't.
2) When you say "raise taxes", what do you mean? Tax rates? Tax collections? Would you believe that they aren't the same thing!?! Holy cow.

[Area 51]

Originally Posted by dabyabby

The fact of it is easy to understand, if you spend (War) more than you take in you will have to raise taxes!

Unless you are a neocon. Then you can borrow from your friends in China and expect your children and grandchildren to pay the debt. That's called GOP creative financing. Yet another example of lack of leadership, discipline, and ethics. Why do you think Bush's approval rating is so low? Only the base is behind him now and that's only because he is a man of God (which makes God look even worse, in my eyes).

[Area 51]

Originally Posted by Baasinator

Two quick things:
1) The war is not our biggest expense, and our budget is full of better opportunities to cut spending. We can balance the budget and lower everbody's tax burden if we had a government that believed in spending responsibly, but we don't.

They won't cut spending because more spending buys them votes (look at Ted Stevens and Sarah Palin in Alaska for a prime example). It's the system that is corrupt, not necessarily the people. Money out of politics is the answer. No donations from anyone other than individual citizens and a low limit per person, like $1,000 max. No bundling. No corporate donations. No party or PAC donations. Just the citizens and their representatives, that's it.

And while they're at it they can ditch the tax code and institute a consumption tax that is simple and free from evasion.

That's what I'd do if I were President.

[Baasinator]

Originally Posted by Area 51

Why do you think Bush's approval rating is so low? Only the base is behind him now and that's only because he is a man of God (which makes God look even worse, in my eyes).

The funny thing about approval ratings is that they are only used to criticize Bush's performance. Why does nobody mention the fact that Bush's approval rating is far higher than that of the Pelosi Congress? You remember - the one that was going to change everything two years ago? Bush's approval rating is often double!

We see what kind of change these Liberal Democrats are capable of. Obama's camp is already trying to downplay expectations. It's a joke. We need change on a grand scale, but it's not coming from Obama or McCain or Palin or Pelosi... they will all give us a bigger government, and that's exactly what we don't need.

[jschmidt]

Originally Posted by Mashuri

Funny how you don't back your claim up with any data. What you are talking about are effective tax rates. That is the rate companies actually pay after deductions and credits. The C.D. Howe Institute (FYI, a Canadian entity) regularly publishes effective tax rates for OECD countries. The latest report I can find is for 2007:

http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/ebrief_52.pdf

As I pointed out earlier, in just marginal rate, the U.S. is #2 highest but, when measured by effective rate, the U.S. is #1. Hey, we like to be #1 don't we?!?!

BTW, notice how Belgium is ranked 4th highest by margin only but the lowest (30th) of all in effective rate? Now THAT'S tax incentives!

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/26/55/33717506.xls

[nero]

That's because the crazy freakin' euros finally realize why socialism doesn't work. Only the looney left in America does now.

[Area 51]

Originally Posted by Baasinator

The funny thing about approval ratings is that they are only used to criticize Bush's performance. Why does nobody mention the fact that Bush's approval rating is far higher than that of the Pelosi Congress? You remember - the one that was going to change everything two years ago? Bush's approval rating is often double!

We see what kind of change these Liberal Democrats are capable of. Obama's camp is already trying to downplay expectations. It's a joke. We need change on a grand scale, but it's not coming from Obama or McCain or Palin or Pelosi... they will all give us a bigger government, and that's exactly what we don't need.

The people aren't being poled on who's Congress it is. Just because the speaker is a Democrat does not mean the people disapprove of Pelosi or Democrats, per se. The people disapprove of Congress on the whole. Maybe they disapprove of Congress largely because congressional Republicans have stood in the way of progress, blocking votes etc. Have you considered that? ONE party is never solely to blame unless they have a filibuster-proof majority. Come on. Surely, you know that.

Government must get bigger because population grows, GDP grows, everything grows. Isn't that obvious? The problem is efficiency of government. I'm sure we'd all agree on that problem.

It's natural for a President to have a bottom possible rating that is higher than Congresses because the President is of just one party. The base will never admit a mistake or a failure of their choice. On the other hand, it's easy for either side to say Congress is a failure because there is always a large number of the opposition present. Again, isn't this obvious? Or are you just trying to stir up an argument?

[Gog]

He's trying to be stupider than he was yesterday...

[Area 51]

it's a never-ending quest. Like waiting for the return of the messiah.

[Mashuri]

Are those graphs extrapolated from

Originally Posted by jschmidt

Ok, so that graph just shows that the U.S. currently has the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the OECD. In fact, it's a graphic illustration of my OP. Take notice that it only compares 17 countries and not all 30, hence why the average is higher.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/26/55/33717506.xls

This is confined to a study on taxes for incorporated small businesses only. Is that the best you can come up with?

[Baasinator]

Originally Posted by Area 51

Government must get bigger because population grows, GDP grows, everything grows. Isn't that obvious? The problem is efficiency of government. I'm sure we'd all agree on that problem.

It's natural for a President to have a bottom possible rating that is higher than Congresses because the President is of just one party. The base will never admit a mistake or a failure of their choice. On the other hand, it's easy for either side to say Congress is a failure because there is always a large number of the opposition present. Again, isn't this obvious? Or are you just trying to stir up an argument?

No, I'm not trying to stir up an argument, and I agree with your above points about money's corrupting influence on all things political. However, I do not believe you can justify the size of the government by saying that the population and the GDP have grown. The federal government is seriously bloated and should be reduced drastically. Why would you be opposed to scaling down the powers of the federal government and moving most government responsibilities to a more local level where they belong?

I do believe Pelosi is more despised than Bush, and I believe she's less effective. Mostly, I just find the whole change thing very amusing. Somehow she forgot to end the war as soon as she got power. Change, my ass. Anybody can say anything, but when it's time to act things really do change, don't they? Like I said, Obama has already started trying to lower expectations. You gotta admit that's funny. In a pathetic sort of way. I can understand people voting for him just because they despise Bush and they would vote against any Republican. I can't understand people being so enthusiastic about him - they look silly. Especially when they are Canadian.

[Mashuri]

Originally Posted by Baasinator

No, I'm not trying to stir up an argument, and I agree with your above points about money's corrupting influence on all things political. However, I do not believe you can justify the size of the government by saying that the population and the GDP have grown. The federal government is seriously bloated and should be reduced drastically.

I do believe Pelosi is more despised than Bush, and I believe she's less effective. Mostly, I just find the whole change thing very amusing. Somehow she forgot to end the war as soon as she got power. Change, my ass. Anybody can say anything, but when it's time to act things really do change, don't they? Like I said, Obama has already started trying to lower expectations. You gotta admit that's funny. In a pathetic sort of way. I can understand people voting for him just because they despise Bush and they would vote against any Republican. I can't understand people being so enthusiastic about him - they look silly. Especially when they are Canadian.

One of my favorite bumper stickers: "The 'Winds of Change' Just Blow the Leaves Around"

[Baasinator]

Originally Posted by Mashuri

One of my favorite bumper stickers: "The 'Winds of Change' Just Blow the Leaves Around"

That's a good one. I might have to use that as a signature, since I still can't get Gog or Le Kiwi to buy any Carbon Credits from me.