patrick.net

sack says

But the dividends have already been taxed once as corporate tax, taxing it again is probably netting the government more than your 35% (which I doubt many of us are paying). And you discount the fact that investments is what finances others to be "productive".

I could see that money distributed as dividends should probably be deductible from corporate earnings since it is going to be someone else's income. But it should be taxed at the same rate as ordinary income at the maximum marginal rate then. None of this 15% bullshit which is a forced gift to billionaires from working people.

OTOH, you could say that the corporate income tax is simply the cost of incorporation. If the legal benefits of incorporation (no liability for shareholders) are not worthwhile with the corporate income tax taken into account, then don't incorporate.

rootvg says

No one's killing his dream or yours other than the guy in the White House and possibly the people running the EPA.

At least you agree that the 1% is using EPA regulations to prevent competition from Honest Abe, you, and me.

Corruption of government by corporate interest is the one and only problem. Nothing else is significant.

Obama's just a Republican in Democratic clothing. He voted for the bailouts (but so did McCain), he kept the unfairly low capital gains and dividend rates without objection, he sold out health care reform to the insurers by ditching the public option, and worst of all, he signed the NDAA, which is the Republican wet dream of imprisoning anyone, any time, for no reason at all, forever.

We don't really have any choice in elections, since both parties are funded by the same 1%.

Did you see Bulworth?

Watch replies by email

Patrick, how is it that I'm VERY sure I could bring you my buddy in Dallas who's a retired full bird Army Colonel (and Vietnam era Green Beret) with a PhD, who would cut your and your friend's arguments to pieces? I should get him up here and have us all meet at a restaurant. God, that would be FUN.

We are TWO separate nations in many ways...and you can obviously believe what you want (as I do) but there are only 55 Electoral votes here and there are at least 160 in the so called values states and that's before we get to Ohio, Pennsylvania and Missouri.

You're not in control. You'll never be in control!

This is why Democrats have served so few years in the White House since the end of World War II. This is what happened to Carter and is about to happen to Obama. It's a familiar pattern: something bad happens, we elect Democrats to the White House and Congress, they go in there and show us how bad they really are, the Republicans get religion and we put them back in for another 15-20 years. Over and over and over...that's how it goes.

We don't live in the United States of California, where the wine and food and climate make us all feel like we can do anything we want and not pay the price!

It's a center right nation, California and Massachusetts be damned.

The whole left-right thing is a deliberately cultivated distraction from the main issue, which Teddy Roosevelt put perfectly:

"To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day."

Nomograph says

rootvg says

Patrick, how is it that I'm VERY sure I could bring you my buddy in Dallas who's a retired full bird Army Colonel (and Vietnam era Green Beret) with a PhD

Wow. Did you meet him on Usenet?

No, I met him when he was a database consultant for a retailer.

My main concern is simply this: Big Money (whether extremely wealthy individuals or large businesses) buying our politicians. That's not democracy, that's a de-facto aristocracy.

I'm not sure how that could be reduced. But some countries are better at it than others:

Data is from "Transparency International." I don't know how they come up with their data.

sack says

Yeah, when shown a fact/logic for which people have no answer, make a claim that it is fecal matter of some animal. Classic.

You posted nothing at all to support your claim and I easily showed how your logic can be defeated in the same post so you're blatantly lying when you say "I have no answer".

sack says

Sales tax and gas taxes are consumption tax, and even the rich pay the same. More you consume, more you pay.

No duh. The thing is the rich get a leg up on the rest of us since their income is taxed as capital gains instead of "wages" at a lower rate. There is also such a thing as marginal utility of the dollar at work here, which I won't bother to source since that sort of thing is econ 101 stuff which no one sane even tries to dispute, and the fact that the rich need only a tiny fragment of their income to live on while the non-rich have to spend a much higher amount.

That has always been true but now the situation is even more out of whack now then during the 70's.

sack says

the company gets taxed at corporate rates (which I believe is higher than personal taxes, but I am no tax expert)

The nominal tax rate is decently high but the effective tax rate is very low.

Note that pic is a few years old now IIRC. There have been cases of very large corps paying effectively zero taxes or even getting billions back at the end of year due to loop hole abuse. A fair number of them have been doing that for years: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/11/03/360185/30-corporations-no-taxes/?mobile=nc

sack says

So don't you tell me that only the poor pay 4 times the taxes

You need to re-read what I said because that isn't what I claimed. What do you think the phrase, "by this logic" even meant in that case?

rootvg says

It's a center right nation, California and Massachusetts be damned.

I dunno about Mass. but CA sure as hell isn't a Liberal state. The parts that trend left are San Diego, SF Bay area, and some of the northern part of the state. The rest of the state is very very far right and has more people too.

Others already gave you a good break down of some of the far right legislation and policies that have passed in CA. You don't seem to be considering that info. at all, why?

tts says

Note that pic is a few years old now IIRC. There have been cases of very large corps paying effectively zero taxes or even getting billions back at the end of year due to loop hole abuse. A fair number of them have been doing that for years:

Difference between published SEC financial statements vs IRS tax return.

Temp and perm tax differences.. Book and Tax Depreciation is one of these differences... take upfront depreciation MACRS plus Bonus Depreciation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_tax

They are not loop holes, if you claim a loss this year and had a profit prior years year you carry back the losses 2 years and claim a refund under the IRS code for prior years. As clear as black and white in the tax code.

They turned a profit though. Profits are what are supposed to get taxed.

tts says

They turned a profit though. Profits are what are supposed to get taxed.

What you see published/disclosed to public are the GAAP based Financial Statements. Audited by the Accounting Firms.

What is filed out on their tax return, undisclosed to the public, prepared by internal or external tax accountants, is based on IRS tax rules.

They are different... Salary & other cash compensation over $1M paid to officers are disqualifed expenses as is 50% of Meals and Ent. Even though both were actually paid and expensed..Disallow for accrual bad debt reserves, fines and penalties, Fed Tax payable/expense. Therefore these make Actual Net taxable profit higher...

Factor in Higher Tax depreciation ( per tax vs gaap), AMT, carry over losses and credits.. may well be in a lower tax or loss situation.

Plus you only tax US net income... ( which is often half of total global income). International income was already taxed and paid to foreign govt.

May not be as clear and simple... yet the liberals in Congress who make these laws seem to forget that when they talk about corporate tax rates being unfair. Odd isnt it..

marquismark says

The nominal tax rate is decently high but the effective tax rate is very low

Any corporation you can pick back in the 50s (Ford, GE, or Coke) only sold products in the US. Over the next 50-60 years they grow internationally, Today having only 50% net profits being US only and applied to US tax). Yes, your effective tax rate based on global net income has dropped.

So what about the Foreign Companies doing business in the US. Toyota, Siemens, BMW, Nestle, Tata... dont they pay US Corporate Income Tax ?... has their share of US TAX BILL grown?

Yes it has !!!

Why dont the Demos in Congress tell you this ?

thomas.wong1986 says

International income was already taxed and paid to foreign govt.

Its funny, as an American individual working over seas you're required to pay whatever foreign taxes necessary and still pay your US taxes as well. For some reason though its unreasonable to expect the same out of the corps.

Your logic re: US corp taxation rates in the 50's vs today is faulty too. They often don't pay taxes over seas either by opening head quarters in countries that allow them to pay no taxes, like Ireland for instance.

This is why corporate profits are through the roof, even higher now than before the credit bubble burst.

tts says

Its funny, as an American individual working over seas you're required to pay whatever foreign taxes necessary and still pay your US taxes as well. For some reason though its unreasonable to expect the same out of the corps.

Individual Tax Code ?

The maximum foreign earned income exclusion is adjusted annually for inflation. For 2011, the maximum exclusion has increased to $92,900. Couple married -- $185,800.

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p54/ar01.html

tts says

Your logic re: US corp taxation rates in the 50's vs today is faulty too. They often don't pay taxes over seas either by opening head quarters in countries that allow them to pay no taxes, like Ireland for instance.

Oh yes they do! .. they want a piece of the action as well.. not only Income Tax... Payroll Tax, Pensions, and other taxes...

Ireland is more recent item, it has limited application. Certainly UK, Gremany, France, and the others arent too happy about it. Doesnt work well when dealing with Asian tax authorities.

You can also say the same about State Income Taxes... why are many registered in Delaware like Google, Apple, Intel and not in California.

Lower Taxes... Do you hear the Democrats complaining about that ?

Incorporation in Delaware

Over 50% of U.S. publicly traded corporations and 60% of the Fortune 500 companies are incorporated in Delaware;[38] the state's attractiveness as a corporate haven is largely because of its business-friendly corporation law. Franchise taxes on Delaware corporations supply about one-fifth of its state revenue.[39] Although Delaware is ranked first tax haven in the world by Tax Justice Network,[40] it is not listed on the OECD's 2009 "Black List", despite objections of Luxembourg's and Switzerland's authorities.

tts says

This is why corporate profits are through the roof, even higher now than before the credit bubble burst.

Well higher revenues due to global markets does translate to higher bottom line... its called growth! Crap happens!

Dude you not even really responding at this point not to me or Patrick, just spamming the thread with your incorrect "knowledge" and talking points. What the hell is point of that anyways?

The problem is this: too much SPENDING...not on needs, but on wants.

Dumnocrats = tax and spend. Repubs = borrow and spend. The major part of the problem? Excess spending. Another major part = politicians (sociopaths with political power).

One potential solution? Power to the people, not the government, but thats what the constitution was for - before it got shredded.

Honest Abe says

One potential solution? Power to the people, not the government

I do agree with you that it would help if the people had more direct power, so that the corporate 1% could not simply write our laws in their favor.

What's the best way to do that? Petitions probably won't work well, because it costs a lot of money to gather signatures, and the 1% are the only people with the budget.

Maybe online signatures somehow?

thomas.wong1986 says

This Thread is about senseless left wing politics rather than facts...

Throw some meat to the masses.. they want their 10 lbs of flesh.

There's a place downtown Danville called the Tower Grille (has great food), and on a Friday night about half of the patrons look like the guy on the right hand side of your photo.

I think a lot of the tax stuff is a "shell game."

Maybe corporate taxes could be reduced, but capital gains & dividend taxes could be increased? Either way, you're taxing corporate profits (directly or indirectly).

thomas.wong1986 says

Salary & other cash compensation over $1M paid to officers are disqualifed expenses as is 50% of Meals and Ent. Even though both were actually paid and expensed..

Stop saying this - it is disingenuous at best and plain untrue at worst. Here is section C of the actual tax code:

"C) Other performance-based compensation
The term “applicable employee remuneration” shall not include any remuneration payable solely on account of the attainment of one or more performance goals, but only if—

(i) the performance goals are determined by a compensation committee of the board of directors of the taxpayer which is comprised solely of 2 or more outside directors,
(ii) the material terms under which the remuneration is to be paid, including the performance goals, are disclosed to shareholders and approved by a majority of the vote in a separate shareholder vote before the payment of such remuneration, and
(iii) before any payment of such remuneration, the compensation committee referred to in clause (i) certifies that the performance goals and any other material terms were in fact satisfied. "

So, if the renumeration is performance based (which all bonuses in corporate america are) then it is deductable from net income for the corporation. I promise you every public corporation (which the $1M rule applies) meets all requirements of this rule and deducts executive pay over $1M.

One thing is for certain about the above two caricatures: Most leftists pay big bucks for housing and to gas their limos to live next to the above two guys rather than the unwed mothers and minorities of Democrat neighboroods in inner cities such as Oakland, East Los Angeles, or SE DC. LOTS of cheap housing for the left there and quick commute times to those high tech IT jobs too! (While they last before the newest Democrat electorate comprised of semi-legal H1B's takes them away!) Plus, there's gun control so that makes them safe neighborhoods!

At one time in the not too far off past, the bubba type character on the left was the primary voter for the Dixiecrat, Jim Crow era Democrat party and FDR's core base that he was going to "help" by "taxing the rich! Then they were tossed under the bus. Someone else's turn will come next. Soon. Then they can be made fun of too! Hahahaha! Looking forward to it!

rootvg says

Patrick, how is it that I'm VERY sure I could bring you my buddy in Dallas who's a retired full bird Army Colonel (and Vietnam era Green Beret) with a PhD, who would cut your and your friend's arguments to pieces? I should get him up here and have us all meet at a restaurant. God, that would be FUN.

Why bother with the meet-and-greet? Just have your pal post his rebuttal here. After all that is what this forum is for.

leoj707 says

rootvg says

Patrick, how is it that I'm VERY sure I could bring you my buddy in Dallas who's a retired full bird Army Colonel (and Vietnam era Green Beret) with a PhD, who would cut your and your friend's arguments to pieces? I should get him up here and have us all meet at a restaurant. God, that would be FUN.

Why bother with the meet-and-greet? Just have your pal post his rebuttal here. After all that is what this forum is for.

That's a good idea.

I'll see what I can do.

It's sad how people fall for wedge issues. Worst of all, I have seen the people who failed in life and they take out their frustrations on minorities, gays, and unionized employees. However, they will never criticize the extremely rich people. It's almost like they are fundamentalists in their thinking.

Dublin, aren't you a failure for your inability to become extremely rich? If you did, then you would be in the position to give away money to others in order to set an example for how rich people should act.

How is your "taking out your frustrations" on the "extremely rich" somehow different than minorities, gays, and unionized employees?

PolishKnight says

Dublin, aren't you a failure for your inability to become extremely rich?

You are incorrectly assuming that the amount of wealth accumulated is how everyone should measure their success or failure.

PolishKnight says

If you did, then you would be in the position to give away money to others in order to set an example for how rich people should act.

Ah... adorably naive to think that the world would work this way...

PolishKnight says

How is your "taking out your frustrations" on the "extremely rich" somehow different than minorities, gays, and unionized employees?

The extremely rich aka. the "aristocracy" actually have power to effect the lives of the 99.9%. Minorities, gays, and unionized employees do not (unless of course they are within the aristocracy.)

YES, knight! Down on your knee and bow to the aristocracy who you serve.

Leoj, your comment is a perfect allegory for the intellectual and moral vacuousness of the leftist belief system.

Even as you claim I'm incorrectly assuming that wealth is a measure of success or failure, you turn around and proclaim that the ultra wealthy are the only ones who actually have power to effect the lives of others. Doesn't that mean that even if the bubbas were to "wise up" and "take one for the team" and toss themselves under the bus for the leftist diversity utopia, that these wealthy aren't going to let their leftist crony politician buddies really take away their vast wealth anyway, yes? Only a Bolshevek style bloody revolution could achieve such a thing and American leftists don't like to use guns!

And in the meantime, the only ones encouraged under the left to form special interest group monopolies are gays, so-called minorities, and unionized employees to send money over to politicians to demand special privileges for their group and set up their own 0.1 percenters. In other words, the average leftist worships the ultra wealthy and powerful. You crave to be a caddy for Obama while he golfs in Martha's Vineyard and chats up the ultra wealthy handing out Solyndra loans. (I hope he plays golf better than he bowls!!!)

In other words, it's all a load of nonsense and even most leftists know this at a subconscious level as limosine liberals. It doesn't make any sense kind of like flying around in private jets and lecturing about how evil oil is while claiming it's not their fault that gas prices are skyrocketing. Good luck with that in November, Obama! Nothing makes voters love the left more than buck a gallon gasoline! Hahaha!

PolishKnight says

In other words, the average leftist worships the ultra wealthy and powerful.

No need to say "leftists" in this comment. The average american worships the ultra-wealthy.

Why the need to be so divisive on an issue that clearly is dear to the hearts of people on the left and right?

PolishKnight says

Doesn't that mean that even if the bubbas were to "wise up" and "take one for the team" and toss themselves under the bus for the leftist diversity utopia, that these wealthy aren't going to let their leftist crony politician buddies really take away their vast wealth anyway, yes?

This run on sentence makes no sense to me. Could you please rephrase your thought more clearly, thanks?

PolishKnight says

Only a Bolshevek style bloody revolution could achieve such a thing and American leftists don't like to use guns!

Bolshevek or not let's hope it does not come to that, also clearly you have to been to the same gun ranges as I have.

Leoj707, it's not a run on sentence. A run on sentence is by definition two or more sentences joined together improperly. But I'll be happy to break it down for you:

"Doesn't that mean that" means I'm restating your claim but in a format I prefer and asking for confirmation. This is followed by:

"even if the bubbas were to "wise up" and "take one for the team" and toss themselves under he bus for the leftist diversity utopia," is a condition leading to a conclusion such as "If X were to happen, then Y would occur". So far, not a runoff!

"that these wealthy aren't going to let their leftist crony politician buddies really take away their vast wealth anyway" Is the conclusion. Followed by ", yes?" which is a rhetorical statement of confirmation.

So there you go. Hope that helps!

Finally, regarding your distaste for violence. If you think it's naive for a newly wealthy member of the 0.1 percent to give away all his wealth to the 99.9%, then wouldn't it be equally naive to assume he'll just stand by and let the self-proclaimed wise leftists just take it away from them? It would probably be trivial to simply buy off the leftists by giving them or their relatives high profile jobs. In other words, have them join you and beat 'em that way!

So bottom line: Getting rid of the dehumanized bubba above, either by politically marginalizing him, sending him off to a Gulag, etc. won't make the USA and ultimately the world into a Swedish style paradise. The left is instead building a combination both by demographics and political style a combination of Mexico, Algeria, Argentina, and of course, Kenya. Not exactly the kind of place that Bay Area snobs living in mostly white suburbs of the Bay Area aspire to. On the bright side, that should drive the value of those suburbs up since EVERYONE apparently wants to live in such places!!!!

PolishKnight says

Finally, regarding your distaste for violence.

Who said I had a distaste for violence?

Article from NPR! LOL
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508/the-weekly-standard-obama-vs-bush-on-debt

copied from NPR Article!
To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush's record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama's presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2012/03/21/national-debt-increase-more-under-obama-bush-politico-ignores-developm

Nomo, time to face the music.

Honest Abe says

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2012/03/21/national-debt-increase-more-under-obama-bush-politico-ignores-developm

Only because Bush left the table without paying for all his food. The bill came in on Obama's term. Hence the graphic Nomograph showed above where Bush's policies cost four times as much as Obama's.

Yes, Obama sucks ass on balancing the budget and paying of the debt, but Bush sucks ass and monkey balls. Either hate them both or neither.

Remember, Cheney said "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter.". He believed that.

That's why we need someone like Ron Paul in charge. For all his crazy ideas, at least Paul would reduce the debt and spending.

Honest Abe says

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2012/03/21/national-debt-increase-more-under-obama-bush-politico-ignores-developm

Nomo, time to face the music.

For one it is not saying much for a website when it's tag line is its self a lie.

That and nothing that article you linked actually addresses the issues noted in the graph posted by Nomo.

NewsBusters is a far-right propaganda mill.

No it isn't, its a site that exposes liberal bias in the media.