Patrick.net

Corporate Tax Rates under Obama Lowest in 40 years

By rooemoore   Follow   Wed, 13 Jun 2012, 9:38am   5,711 views   64 comments
In San Francisco CA 94108   Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

What a commie.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204662204577199492233215330.html

Most Liked Comments

1. SFace Follow Befriend (2) 60 threads 1,297 comments Premium

   1   3:18pm Wed 13 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Protected   For corporations, Effective tax rates is current tax + deferred tax. Cash receips is essentially current tax. With 100% bonus depreciation, which effected cash receipts, corporations will pay a lower current tax and higher deferred tax. Temporaary diffence do not effect ETR. Research credits, domestic productions, foreign rate diffential effects ETR, but these are not related to Obama.

2. edvard2 Follow Befriend 34 threads 2,085 comments

   2   9:42am Wed 13 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Ah yes- reality

3. YesYNot Follow Befriend (2) 15 threads 428 comments Reston, VA

   3   2:47pm Wed 13 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Ruki says No, it is Corporate Tax RECEIPTS that are at their lowest in 40 years, not tax RATES. ... But libs either don't or are not willing to understand the difference between rates and receipts, typically. It threatens their ideology to do so. Want to get more revenue (that means more in tax receipts for the ignorant)? Then cut the rate at least to levels competitive with world average levels (about 20% - 25% vs our 35% rate). Oh, the irony. Total corporate tax receipts divided by total tax profits is equal to the average effective tax rate. You really shouldn't be trying to correct people. Here are your liberal friends at Fox making fun of your favorite idol. Those liberal dummies use the term 'tax rate' in the same manner as the OP. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/13/president-obama-paid-lower-tax-rate-than-his-secretary/

4. thomas.wong1986 Follow Befriend 16 threads 4,426 comments

   4   4:35pm Wed 13 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   "U.S. companies are booking higher profits than ever. But the number crunchers in Washington are puzzling over a phenomenon that has just come into view: Corporate tax receipts as a share of profits are at their lowest level in at least 40 years." Are these same think tanks or research including foreign companies that pay US income tax ? You think US subs of Toyota, BMW, Sony, Bayer arent paying US Taxes ? There is a difference between SEC published Net Income and unpublished Corporate IRS returns (Taxable Income).

5. rooemoore Follow Befriend 41 threads 905 comments Ross, CA

   5   8:17pm Wed 13 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Ruki says Read the above. Do you see the word 'effective' in the title of this blog? Or in the article? You're such an intellectual lightweight, I don't know why we bother. Shooting fish in a barrel, I guess. Apples to apples, the 'effective' tax rate now is lower than the 'effective' tax rate has been in 40 years. There are several reasons for this, but none of them are because Obama hates business and is a socialist or communist. Obama is very pro business. Find a different talking point. Like he is soft on terrorists.

6. marcus Follow Befriend (5) 166 threads 5,053 comments

   6   9:16pm Wed 13 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Ruki says No, it is Corporate Tax RECEIPTS that are at their lowest in 40 years, not tax RATES. Try reading your own article that you source in support for your incorrect claim Ruki says But libs either don't or are not willing to understand the difference between rates and receipts, typically. It threatens their ideology to do so. Right and your ideology sounds so sensible. It goes something like this: Tax receipts as a percentage of profits are the lowest they've been in 40 years. Therefore we need to lower corporate tax rates. Oh, I see. It's the old lower tax rates to increase revenues trick. Ahhh yes. Brilliant. Never mind that it takes some mental gymnastics to even start to believe it. Here's another version of this shrekian logic: The problem with these high corporate tax rates is they are an unfair burden on corporations making it impossible for them to compete globally, as demonstrated by the record breaking low taxes they are paying. Ruki says cut the rate at least to levels competitive with world average levels It's like this. Our corporations pay less taxes than corporations in other countries, but can't you see that it's the higher rates here that make it impossible for our corporations to compete. Sheeesh ! What's so hard to understand about that ?? If we lower tax rates on corporations, not only will they all be more profitable, but they will all pay more in taxes as well. Hey, it's a brave new world out there, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

7. marcus Follow Befriend (5) 166 threads 5,053 comments

   7   9:32pm Wed 13 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Ruki isn't even talking supply side voodoo economics. That would be where lower taxes paid, free up money to be spent, thus stimulating the economy. In this case the taxes now being paid by corporations are low, and according to shrek, lowering rates (that is the official rate - not what gets paid after the tax attorneys have their fun), will actually increase revenues to the government, and simultaneously make corporations more globally competitive (while they are paying more taxes as a percentage of profits than before). YOu can't make this stuff up. OH, wait, ummm actually that's exactly what Shrek and his heroes do. They make this stuff up.

8. CBOEtrader Follow Befriend (2) 26 threads 502 comments Chicago, IL

   8   10:42am Thu 14 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   The difference between receipts and rates is a nice measurement of crony capitalism. Given our comparatively high rate, and comparatively low receipts-- this is situation is such that small businesses (read: competition) pay way too much and the crony corporations pay too little. Arguing about the tax rate here is missing the point. A free market is the only cure for cronyism.

9. rooemoore Follow Befriend 41 threads 905 comments Ross, CA

   9   10:58am Thu 14 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   CBOEtrader says A free market is the only cure for cronyism. Good luck with that after Citizen's United...

10. JeremyB Follow Befriend 1 comments

    10   11:15am Thu 14 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Out of curiousity, talking about comparing apples to apples, what's the average ETR for the world? Because it sounds like some people are talking about the actual US corporate tax rate compared to the rest of the world's actual corporate tax rate, and other people are saying the ETR is what matters, but nobody has said anything about the average global ETR.

11. rooemoore Follow Befriend 41 threads 905 comments Ross, CA

    11   12:22pm Thu 14 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   This is corporate rates. This was under 2006 -2009. We've come down some because of businesses deferring taxes more and because of some credits from the current administration. Most countries don't have a tax code that is as complicated and packed with loopholes as the United States. That is what I've read, but not sure.

12. bdrasin Follow Befriend 6 threads 488 comments Alameda, CA

    12   7:43pm Thu 14 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   rooemoore says This is corporate rates. The non-US average looks like its getting skewed by a bunch of 3rd world oil producing states who don't need to raise money from corporate taxes. Germany and Japan both have higher tax rates than we do as you can see. Also worth considering: in most other countries the corporations don't have to pick up the tab for health insurance the way they do here.

13. YesYNot Follow Befriend (2) 15 threads 428 comments Reston, VA

    13   7:24am Fri 15 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   There is no specific definition for 'tax rate.' There are fairly specific definitions for 'effective tax rate' and 'marginal tax rate.' The generic 'tax rate' is used all the time to refer to either. Ruki's insistence that 'tax rate' always refers to the marginal rates is a pointless rhetorical adventure. His contribution to the thread is to derail the original conversation and mark the place up with mental hemorrhage. Here are some publications that use 'tax rates' as the OP did, all on the first page or two of google links for romney tax rates. Where 'tax rate' and 'effective tax rate' are used as synonyms. http://media.talkingpointsmemo.com/slideshow/mitt-romney-taxes http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/24/mitt-romney-tax-returns_n_1225968.html http://news.yahoo.com/obama-paid-20-5-pct-tax-rate-2011-145921502.html http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/13/us-usa-campaign-romney-taxes-idUSBRE83C1KD20120413 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/us/politics/facing-pointed-attacks-romney-urges-focus-on-obama.html http://news.yahoo.com/obama-paid-20-5-pct-tax-rate-2011-145921502.html This guy always uses 'effective tax rate' http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-beats-romney-for-tax-return-political-savvy/2012/04/16/gIQA9FtPMT_story.html

14. rooemoore Follow Befriend 41 threads 905 comments Ross, CA

    14   7:37am Fri 15 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Ruki says Who is shrek? http://www.facebook.com/friend.shrekengast Also known as "Zyndryl" and "Dennis". That help ya?

15. zzyzzx Follow Befriend (9) 410 threads 4,107 comments Baltimore, MD

    15   8:06am Fri 15 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   thomas.wong1986 says You think US subs of Toyota, BMW, Sony, Bayer arent paying US Taxes ? Yes. That's usually how it works since the Japanese auto makers Us subsidiaries (on paper) make no profits.

16. bob2356 Follow Befriend 2 threads 2,495 comments

    16   1:25pm Fri 15 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Ruki says Tax revenues almost doubled under Reagan. Did you know that? But according to your world view, you require some mental gymnastics to believe it. They also shot up after the Kennedy Tax cuts in the 1960s and right after Congress forced Clinton to agree to a capital gains cut. And when Nixon raised the capital gains tax rate? Investment and production plummeted. A big duh moment for Ruki. Tax revenue went from 3.5 to 4.9 under Reagan. That's not almost doubled, more like 50%. Maybe 10% average inflation rates for 3 years then 4-5% the next 5 had just a little to do with that. I'll leave the compounding math to you. Capital gains is a big double yawn. The GAO did a big report to congress right after Clinton left office which isn't available online any more that I can find. It said that in the 6 months leading up to an decrease cap gains taxes fell almost to zero then after the decrease skyrocketed for 6 months. Same but opposite for an increase in capital gains tax. Obviously lots of people held off or cashed in while the law worked it's way through congress. The GAO concludes if you take the one year period with the cut/increase in the middle you get big swings. Extend it out to 18 months on either side of the rate change and the actual capital gains (not the taxes) go back to baseline. Bottom line the "increases" in capital gains collections from a rate cut or "decreases" after a rate increase are fictitious, just a temporary blip while people game the tax system.

17. bob2356 Follow Befriend 2 threads 2,495 comments

    17   1:37pm Fri 15 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   zzyzzx says thomas.wong1986 says You think US subs of Toyota, BMW, Sony, Bayer arent paying US Taxes ? Yes. That's usually how it works since the Japanese auto makers Us subsidiaries (on paper) make no profits. If the homeowner isn't insulted by your offer...you didn't bid low enough!!! Since my understanding of international tax law is limited, I have a question to anyone that knows. Does the effective tax rate in the chart include all the profits that have been washed to offshore accounts (for example apples billions of dollars sitting in the caymans) or just domestic? If just domestic profits are included in the calculation then the effective tax rate is actually much lower. Not only that but it would amount to yet another example of socialized losses. A company could sit on the offshore profits for years until it suffered a loss then bring them back and not pay any taxes. A company without this pool of untaxed profits would simply have to take pay taxes on all their profits during profitable years and not be able to offset at a much later date. The taxpayers would be on the hook for the profits that were never taxed, just stashed offshore until needed to cover a loss. The other question that comes to mind is whether offshore profits represent double dealings for executives. Do they include the profits that go offshore as part of the basis for salaries and bonuses. In which case they are essentially stealing from the stockholders, since this pool of profits is being used to calculate how much to pay them but is not available for dividends to be distributed. Any one a good enough international accountant to comment?

18. bob2356 Follow Befriend 2 threads 2,495 comments

    18   2:21am Sat 16 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Ruki says The true gains in revenue from capital gains tax cuts are not from the cap gains tax revenue itself, but the increases in over all income and corporate tax revenues from the increased economic growth that results from cap gains increases. Ditto for the reverse when they are raised. Your proof of this is?

19. thomas.wong1986 Follow Befriend 16 threads 4,426 comments

    19   3:08am Sat 16 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   rooemoore says Most countries don't have a tax code that is as complicated and packed with loopholes as the United States. That is what I've read, but not sure. Pretty much many if not all other countries have Accounting Net Income = actual Govt taxable income. I wouldnt call it loopholes however, since for example top officers salary over $1M isnt a deductable expense under IRS code. And there are many other permanent and deferred items that create a difference. Thats how you get a lower effective rate vs taxable rates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_tax

20. thomas.wong1986 Follow Befriend 16 threads 4,426 comments

    20   3:24am Sat 16 Jun 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   bdrasin says Also worth considering: in most other countries the corporations don't have to pick up the tab for health insurance the way they do here. Actually, Asian and European companies do pick up the tab for Health and Social (retirement plans, social securities) from their employees salaries and from the foreign companies like we have here. Foreign companies doing business also pick up the tab having workers in the host Asian and Euro country. As do foreign companies doing business in the US. Nothing is free!