There are two things wrong with Daves naive analysis:

1-companies get deductions that are not available to mere citizens. They can deduct all their expenses; citizens can only deduct only a few favored expenses, like mortgage payments. The bulk of citizen earnings are tax targets. Unless, of course, they have enough power to demand and get tax-favored forms of income. In any case, they have tremendous lobbying power, not available to weenie citizens, that gives them a huge advantage at the government bargaining table when seeking favors. And it shows: 40 years ago 70% of taxes were paid by corps and now it's less than 25%. So the field is tilted in favor of companies from the start.

2-companies can be owned by anyone in the world, and they often are owned by foreigners. So the benefits that fall to companies go, in large part, to foreigners. At the expense of USA citizens. Is that a good thing to promote?

Bliffle, thank you for proving my point that those on the left are so dogmatically anti-corporate and tax-obsessed that they are completely incapable of exercising basic common sense on an issue like this.

1-companies get deductions that are not available to mere citizens.

Yes they do. And they also get taxed under a separate tax structure accordingly. What's more, their production is often taxed twice, both with the corporate income tax AND with sales taxes.

They can deduct all their expenses;

Actually, not all of them. But are you really arguing that they should be taxed on gross revenues rather than on net profits? That sure would put an end to our economy.

citizens can only deduct only a few favored expenses, like mortgage payments. The bulk of citizen earnings are tax targets. Unless, of course, they have enough power to demand and get tax-favored forms of income.

Which has zero to do with this issue. Though I'm all for lowering personal income taxes too.

In any case, they have tremendous lobbying power, not available to weenie citizens, that gives them a huge advantage at the government bargaining table when seeking favors. And it shows: 40 years ago 70% of taxes were paid by corps and now it's less than 25%. So the field is tilted in favor of companies from the start.

So? It's still too much. Those taxes are just passed on to citizens in the form of price increases. Corporations don't pay taxes in any real way no matter how much you charge them.

2-companies can be owned by anyone in the world, and they often are owned by foreigners. So the benefits that fall to companies go, in large part, to foreigners. At the expense of USA citizens. Is that a good thing to promote?

So you'd rather foreign companies stay overseas and don't do business here or employ Americans?

Do you EVER think about the silliness you write?

Dave

Dave,

You say: "Corporations don't pay taxes in any real way no matter how much you charge them."

Doesn't that obviate your entire premise?

I see the logic of your position, but it may well be far more complex than you suggest.

Taxes are an obsession of yours. Yet overall we are not taxed nearly so much as those in other countries. Government costs money. Waging war costs BIG money. There is a great deal of waste in government - not the least of which is all the billions that have been misspent in Iraq and probably Afghanistan or that has simply disappeared into a black hole.

Conservatives hate to see money spent on social programs, but love to throw money at all things military. Spend big bucks to kill. Spend as little as possible to help people in any way.

I know that the above was not the focus of your article, but taxes all come down to how much is spent and for what.

B

You say: "Corporations don't pay taxes in any real way no matter how much you charge them."

Doesn't that obviate your entire premise?

Not at all. If taxes are lower then overhead is lower, so they can sell their products for a lower price, be more competitive and make more money.

I see the logic of your position, but it may well be far more complex than you suggest.

It's certainly far more complex than Durgan and Levin think it is.

Taxes are an obsession of yours. Yet overall we are not taxed nearly so much as those in other countries.

A popular untruth. In actuality because we pay property, sales, state income, federal income and corporate taxes the overall tax burden on Americans is quite high. Belgium, Germany, Greece, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Japan, Norway, New Zealand and Switzerland all have lower total effective tax burdens per capita.

Government costs money. Waging war costs BIG money. There is a great deal of waste in government - not the least of which is all the billions that have been misspent in Iraq and probably Afghanistan or that has simply disappeared into a black hole.

I think we can take all this as a given. All the more reason not to drive away businesses which could create jobs and provide more revenue.

Conservatives hate to see money spent on social programs, but love to throw money at all things military. Spend big bucks to kill. Spend as little as possible to help people in any way.

What a lovely collection of stereotypes you have. Conservatives are all for spending to make psoples lives better through education and private charity and expanding the economy to make more jobs available. As for the military, many conservatives would like to see that money spent a lot more efficiently and responsibly, but military spending is one of the largest sources of pork and it's hard to pry legislators of both parties away from that.

I know that the above was not the focus of your article, but taxes all come down to how much is spent and for what.

But what the money is spent on is really not relevant here. This is all about improving the business environment so potential sources of revenue don't go overseas.

Dave

historically speaking - private charity (and the so-called 'social economy' generally) has been as much a system of redistributing illth as our present government run entitlement approach to ensuring social well being...why would this be different in an empowered modern iteration - ?

...one other question - has there been an instance when a reduction in corporate taxes has not been followed by an increase in tax revenue - ?

A single worker in the U.S. pays approximately 30% of his or her earnings in all types of taxes as compared to some countries wherein the average single worker pays up to 55% of their total earnings. The U.S. is ranked no worse than 21st out of 29 countries polled.

As a % of our GDP, the U.S. tax burden is just under 30%, far less than many developed countries in the world.

B

I pretty much agree completely, as would most people who finished high school economics with the least understanding of diminishing returns.

The problem is that sensible ideas from both conservatives and liberals are often rejected by people from the other side without fair consideration of merits, because of association with the political "enemy".

Maybe someday we will have leadership who can build unity instead of division, and then ideas from both sides can get more reasonable consideration, and none of us will be painted as the enemy.

Baritone, I don't know what source you were using, but I found 13 contries which were rated at 28% or lower among developed nations. The US should not be in the top half of developed nations for total tax burden. The fact that some countries are even worse off than we are doesn't make our current tax situation acceptable, especially when our high corporate tax rate is driving companies away from our shores.

I actually missed one important point in the article. I forgot that in addition to our federal corporate tax a majority of our states ALSO have a corporate tax, with the result that we actually have a higher total corporate tax rate than France.

Our average corporate tax rate taking state taxes into account is actually 39.27%,higher than every developed nation except Japan.

Dave

I think that all companies,just as people should have to pay federal taxes,then maybe we would not be in a 10 trillion dept

Another genius votes Democrat...

Dave

I wouldn't mind being in the 10 trillion department, as long as that's the salary paid to employees.

Salary? Salary???

That's what my tax bill was last year.

The yacht business is good...

Our Tax System Explained:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beers and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested a plan to reduce each man's bill, and he worked out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Note that the tenth man got the smallest percentage reduction and now paid 61.25% of the total bill, where he previously paid 59% of the bill.

While I'm struggling to remain in the middle class with today's soaring energy prices, I realize that I am better off than a lot of folks. I also understand that without the economic opportunity that comes with the investment of the rich people far outweighs the supposed unfair tax breaks they get. Read on. This is where it gets good.

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20 declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

The naive idea that corporations really pay no taxes because they merely pass the tax on to their customers, seems to be persistent, in spite of it's obvious flaws.

In fact, corps DO pay taxes. Honest injun. I've owned a couple of corps, and by Jove, we really paid taxes. Quarterly, and accompanied by profuse paperwork. Had I gone to my customers and asked them to chip in they would have laughed at me.

But going from mere reality to Daves rich fantasy world for a moment, if it were true, the would it not also be true that individuals never pay any taxes? Don't individual taxpayers/employees/freelancers/whatever also pass on their taxes to the customers/employers/etc. who pay them?

Same for Sales taxes. Don't the customers who pay the sales tax also pass that on to their source of income?

So by Daves interesting premise, no one anywhere ever REALLY pays a tax and all taxes are ineffective.

QED.

The naive idea that corporations really pay no taxes because they merely pass the tax on to their customers, seems to be persistent, in spite of it's obvious flaws.

Bliffle. Sometimes I wonder if you really are incapable of understanding simple concepts or if you're just being deliberately obtuse just to be annoying.

In fact, corps DO pay taxes. Honest injun. I've owned a couple of corps, and by Jove, we really paid taxes. Quarterly, and accompanied by profuse paperwork. Had I gone to my customers and asked them to chip in they would have laughed at me.

Yes, you were responsible for paying taxes as a corporation. Are you telling me that the money you paid those taxes with came from a source other than sales or whatever your customers paid you for services? Are you telling me that you didn't calculate those taxes into your prices as part as your overhead? If not, that may explain why you always mention these businesses in the past tense.

But going from mere reality to Daves rich fantasy world for a moment, if it were true, the would it not also be true that individuals never pay any taxes? Don't individual taxpayers/employees/freelancers/whatever also pass on their taxes to the customers/employers/etc. who pay them?

Bliffle, do employees have the ability to charge their employers more if they are being taxed more? Your comparison makes no sense at all.

Same for Sales taxes. Don't the customers who pay the sales tax also pass that on to their source of income?

Again, if sales tax goes up do you have the ability to increase your salary at will in response?

You ought to try thinking just a little bit before commenting.

Dave

It is rather obvious, at least to me, that businesses pass along to their customers whatever taxes they pay to the extent that they are able to do so. This results in higher costs of goods and services, and constitutes regressive, not progressive, taxation. I have often wondered why "progressives" insist upon regressive taxation of this sort, and the only answer I have been able to come up with is that a scapegoat is needed and "rich" businesses are the best ones available.

Does this undercut Dave's point? Not at all. Businesses outsource many of their activities because it reduces their costs. They form offshore entities into which they funnel profits so that they become exempt from U.S. taxation. They also form new entities which actually manufacture stuff in foreign countries, at least in part to take advantage of lower business tax rates there. By reducing taxes on businesses, businesses would be able to reduce the costs charged for their goods and services, and competition would be a strong incentive to do so. It also seems probable that, like Ireland, significantly reduced business taxes would induce more foreign companies to develop businesses in the U.S., hiring U.S. workers and thereby increasing the level of domestic employment.

Unfortunately, these things almost certainly will not happen, and the beatings will continue until morale improves.

Dan

Companies dealing with their clients have to compete, exactly the same as employees dealing with their employers. So taxes have the same effect.

Really, a businessman who goes to his customers with a price increase occasioned by a tax increase cannot DEMAND anything, any more than an employee can demand a salary increase because his taxes increased.

They are the same.

Companies dealing with their clients have to compete, exactly the same as employees dealing with their employers. So taxes have the same effect.

Really, a businessman who goes to his customers with a price increase occasioned by a tax increase cannot DEMAND anything, any more than an employee can demand a salary increase because his taxes increased.

They are the same.

Bliffle,

The company cannot demand anything. It can, however, establish a price at which it is willing to sell. Assuming comparable tax increases for other businesses similarly situated, they can and probably will do much the same thing, with the result that prices will go up -- a form of regressive taxation. Depending on the elasticity of demand, the company might sell a bit less.

The workers can demand whatever they want, and if they (and their unions) persist will possibly get wage increases, causing the prices of goods and services to increase again.

We call these effects inflation. If that's a good thing, then lowering taxes on businesses is probably a rotten idea. In my view, lowering taxes is a good thing and inflation is not. It probably all depends on one's point of view.

Dan

That money was well spent at UVA.

I suppose not lowering taxes and encouraging inflation, loss of jobs and companies going overseas COULD be an attractive idea if your plan was to destroy the economy so that people would beg government to put them all on the dole and nationalize every business. But who would want that...

Oh yeah, socialists.

Dave

I've come around a little on corporate taxes. At least if taxes must be collected, everyone who buys the products will be paying the same share of passed on taxes by the corp. In that way it really is a "fair" tax. Buy more product, pay more tax.

The best way to make the point to liberals who insist that corporations eat the taxes is to say fine, renters pay no property tax, The landlord is the only one gouged. Of course, they'll still deny,(yes to the corp., no to the landlord) but that's just how liberals are.

One point they might have is that big corp., and big landlords may be able to absorb more tax liability through volume, but that cut's against their big business bad / little guy good creed. Although little landlords probably aren't on their favorite's list either.

Dan sez:

"...big business bad / little guy good creed. "

How quickly these economic discussions turn into little morality plays! Why?

"How quickly these economic discussions turn into little morality plays! Why?"

It hardly seems fair to criticize for pitching morality. Some would say redistribution of wealth is a moral question.

I'm just sayin that liberal sentiment is with small operations and against big ones. In times of tax distress, bigger operations would be better able to absorb a portion of the hit because of volume.

Dave has been making the case that you can't tax corporations anyway, since they pass taxes on to their customers.

So why not just double corp taxes, since they're passed on anyway? It wouldn't affect business at all.

Bliffle,

I understand every word in your comment #25. I myself have used each of them on occasion. My problem is simply that when they are assembled as they are there, I don't fully understand their collective meaning.

It is obvious that when I majored in economics in college I should have been more attentive. Had I been, I might understand the logic of your argument. Unfortunately, I apparently missed some of the more complex aspects of demand curves and elasticity of demand. I would be deeply indebted were you to provide an explanation I could understand. But please, do keep it simple.

Dan

@#26:

ROFLMAO!!

...when I majored in economics in college...

Yeah, but you're a self-described old fart, and besides, the Econ curriculum at Yale (home of Skull and Bones) is dictated by the Rothschilds and taught by card-carrying Bilderbergers.

In any case, Economics, like Medicine, has advanced since then. For one thing, the UN repealed the Law of Supply and Demand years ago, in response to entreaties from the then Soviet Union. The deal was negotiated on an initiative by Reagan, in exchange for tearing down the Berlin Wall.

I understand every word in your comment #25. I myself have used each of them on occasion. My problem is simply that when they are assembled as they are there, I don't fully understand their collective meaning.

This is because you lack the benefitsof a modern education with the 'whole language' sysem of learning English where words and grammar are no longer relevant and you discover meaning by mystical induction.

Dave

Frankly, I recommend Paul Samuelsons textbook on econ. It's been around a long time and has been regularly updated, and they used it at MIT where a lot of students had the math background to understand advanced concepts. I'm sure it's available at any used textbook store near a college. I bet that it's even available in BitTorrent as a PDF.

But I'm not an economist, just an interested amateur.

Samuelsons expositions of things like the Thrift Paradox or the Irish Potato Famine Paradox make econ almost thrilling. If such a thing could be.

But if I were an econ grad student I'd apply the physics/math ideas of Relaxation Oscillations and Small Perturbation Long Timebase theories to Samuelsons models, which would explain (I'm bragging) Joseph Schumpeters arguments. YMMV.

Really, you shouldn't sleep thru your classes.

Samuelson's text actually was the one used in my Econ 101 and 102 classes.

Of course, back then it was printed in hand calligraphy on parchment.

Samuelson's text was used in my econ 101 course as well. Back then, it was chiseled on stone tablets, and carrying the thing around was a lot of work. They were, however, useful for throwing at the mastodons which then roamed the campus.

Dan

Samuelson was first published in 1948 and has had several editions since then. IIRC, the 1970 or 1980 edition is considered best by aficianados and subsequent editions inferior as his co-author starts to revise.

We used Samuelson in my high school economics class and had John Kenneth Galbraith come in as a guest lecturer.

Dave

Bliffle,

I think that Chaos Theory might be more useful. Economic problems are all due to those damn butterflies in China.

Dan

You're being flippant, of course, but there's a germ of truth in your little joke. In a system as extensive and complex as an Economic system the number of connections is astronomical and you need to use tools designed for massive problems to determine interrelationships. We have those tools in the scientific community and that is where we should look for solutions, not to the simple-minded hortatory screeds of preachers and partisans.

Dave writes:

"I suppose not lowering taxes and encouraging inflation, loss of jobs and companies going overseas COULD be an attractive idea if your plan was to destroy the economy so that people would beg government to put them all on the dole and nationalize every business. But who would want that...

Oh yeah, socialists."

Dave, Bush cut taxes, remember? And exactly where are we today?

"The consumer price index climbed 0.8 percent in July, the Labor Department said yesterday, twice as much as Wall Street anticipated. It was the third straight month of high inflation, and the 5.6 percent year-over-year change was the highest since January 1991, when the economy was in recession.

The government data showed that companies, which have been struggling all year with fast-rising prices for oil and other raw materials they need to manufacture and transport their goods, are increasingly passing the higher costs on to consumers."

WP.

NAFTA Net Displacement Was One Million Workers and a Net Job Loss of Over 44,100 in Pennsylvania. A 2006 Economic Policy Institute study found that NAFTA had displaced just over 1 million jobs in this country, and net job loss of 44,173 in Pennsylvania. [Scott, Salas & Campbell,
Obviously, letting corporations skip out on paying taxes hasn't fostered any feelings of loyalty to the American worker, or the nation in general. Hell, I didn't even bring up the subsidies, corporate welfare and bail-outs corporations receive off the backs of we, the tax payer.

Corporations should be TAXED, and FORCED to pay those taxes. I, as an American citizen, am forced to do same, under penalty of law.

Corporations and Americans citizens are both viewed as 'entities" under the law, however, as an American citizen, I pledge allegience to the flag of the United States of America. A corporation pledges allegience to profit margins and share holders.

See the difference, Dave?

--Cobra

Corporations should be TAXED, and FORCED to pay those taxes. I, as an American citizen, am forced to do same, under penalty of law.

Go ahead, tax the living shit out of those oppressive corporations; you'll send still more jobs (and corporations) offshore, and you'll still be paying the taxes the corporations who stay behind will be paying, through the raising of prices to cover those higher taxes.

Wouldn't it be better to lower corporate taxes (which we, the consumers pay, anyway) and thereby encourage corporations to stop sending jobs overseas, making them more competitive in world export and job markets, while also stimulating our own economy?

Clavos writes:

"Wouldn't it be better to lower corporate taxes (which we, the consumers pay, anyway) and thereby encourage corporations to stop sending jobs overseas, making them more competitive in world export and job markets, while also stimulating our own economy?"

Clavos, if the majority of corporations both foreign and domestic are NOT paying ANY taxes, and getting away with it, what will be their incentive to START paying taxes, no matter the rate? If you don't enforce a law, or penalize its violators, there's no incentive to follow it.

Second, corporations are sending jobs overseas because of trade agreements that encourage finding cheap labor in governments with lax environmental protections, human rights & working condition standards.

NYT

Most corporations are soul-less entities without a conscience. As long as they can cut costs, they'll do business with practically anybody, from countries we've waged war against (Vietnam) to so-called "axis of evil" members (Iran).

Why these entities are held in such high-esteem, I'll never know.

--Cobra

Clavos, if the majority of corporations both foreign and domestic are NOT paying ANY taxes, and getting away with it...

You have a credible, unbiased citation for that? Link it.

While I'm certain that many corporations are avoiding (as opposed to evading) all or part of their tax burden, according to this St. Louis Post-Dispatch article, at most 25% of US corporations are paying no tax, and many of them are doing so because they are losing, rather than making, money.

Here's another article, in US News and World Report, which goes into much greater detail than I did on the reasons for lowering corporate tax rates.

The same arguments that Clavos believes applies to corporation taxes also apply to all other taxes. So, by that argument, we should eliminate ALL taxes. What a paradise that would be! It is left as an exercise for the student to figure out how to pay government bills, such as a trillion dollar war 10,000 miles from home that has no profit-making potential.

As usual, bliffle, your reading comprehension is on a third grade (or lower) level.

I didn't advocate eliminating corporate (or any other) taxes, I suggested we lower them, to stimulate the economy and to induce corporations that have gone overseas seeking lower taxes (such as in Ireland), to come back home, thereby re-creating some of the jobs we've lost in recent years.

I don't advocate eliminating taxes; that's obviously impossible. But we should all realize, when stumping for raising ANY taxes, that WE, the citizens ultimately are the taxpayers; any hike in taxes comes out of OUR pockets, directly or indirectly.

Clavos writes:

"You have a credible, unbiased citation for that? Link it."

Most Corporations Don't Pay Income Taxes Tuesday 12 August 2008 by: Richard Rubin, Congressional Quarterly

One excellent example is our good friends at HALIBURTON. Which secured no-bid contracts for BILLIONS of dollars US taxpayers are responsible for (we're deficit spending, remember), yet pay NO income tax back to the United States due to moving themselves and the offices of their subsidiaries off-shore to the Cayman Islands.

If I claim some deduction that the IRS may have a quibble with on my tax form, I get audited. Why do you want me to CRY for Haliburton and other ungrateful corporations who take from our nation's coffers without giving back what's due?

What's so "patriotic" about that?

--Cobra

Thanks for the Truthout citation, Condor. Did you read it? Here are couple of passages:

Small companies were much more likely to pay no taxes than larger companies.

And:

The report said about 80 percent of the companies studied paid no taxes because they didn't generate any profit after expenses. Money-losing companies can legitimately owe no tax, and others can use provisions of the tax code to lower or eliminate their liability. (emphasis added)

Taxes are levied on net income. If you don't have any income left after you pay your expenses, you don't owe any taxes. As your article says, 80% of the companies that didn't pay taxes in 2005 fell in this category. So, you're right: "most companies didn't pay taxes," but that's not the whole story; they legitimately didn't pay taxes because they didn't make any money.

Halliburton is an excellent example of the kind of company I was talking about that were driven offshore in the first place because the US taxes are among the highest of the developed nations. By raising Halliburton's taxes beyond a sustainable level, the government has lost ALL tax revenue from them. They, and other companies could be induced to bring their operations back (and along with them, jobs and revenue for their American suppliers) if our taxes were more competitive with other nations.

Economics is global. We are at a disadvantage, in terms of taxation, competing against nations like Ireland, which is rapidly attracting the high tech industry to relocate there because of its favorable tax rates. As a result, it's only a matter of time before American firms like IBM, HP, Intel, Apple, and Micron relocate what remains of their operations to countries like Ireland. This will occur even faster if we raise taxes even further.

And finally, I will note once more what I have said repeatedly in this and other threads: corporations that do pay taxes include those taxes in the price of their goods or services; so in reality, the taxes are paid, in the end, by their customers: US.

You asked:

What's so "patriotic" about that?

I never mentioned patriotism, which has nothing whatever to do with either business or paying taxes.

Sorry, #43 is addressed to Cobra, not Condor.

Dave, Bush cut taxes, remember? And exactly where are we today?

On average about 3% better off than we would be otherwise. I find it bizaree that on top of all the problems consumers face right now you'd like to take more of their money and throw it down the sinkhole of government in the form of higher income taxes AND higher prices because of higher corporate taxes.

"The government data showed that companies, which have been struggling all year with fast-rising prices for oil and other raw materials they need to manufacture and transport their goods, are increasingly passing the higher costs on to consumers."

I quote your own source here. If corporate taxes were raised or collected more efficiently, then you could add that additional cost into what's passed on to the consumers. Surely if you understand that costs of oil and raw materials are factored in to prices, then so are taxes.

NAFTA Net Displacement Was One Million Workers and a Net Job Loss of Over 44,100 in Pennsylvania.

So if we accept that figure, in the course of 12 years we lost 1 million jobs to Mexico. During that same period we had, what, something like 10 million unfilled jobs that we had to fill with illegal immigrants? Hardly seems like America is lacking for jobs.

Corporations should be TAXED, and FORCED to pay those taxes. I, as an American citizen, am forced to do same, under penalty of law.

Of course they should, but at a reasonable level. Not at a high level which forces them to move out of the country so that we collect NO taxes and they provide no jobs. You can't apply force to them to collect unreasonable taxes because then they will just leave and you get nothing.

Corporations and Americans citizens are both viewed as 'entities" under the law, however, as an American citizen, I pledge allegience to the flag of the United States of America. A corporation pledges allegience to profit margins and share holders.

Shareholders who are average American citizens including their employees in most cases.

"See the difference, Dave?

No. It's in your head.

Dave

Cobra,

A couple more excerpts from your own Truthout citation:

But companies looking for lower-taxed jurisdictions often take profits out of the United States. The country's 35 percent top rate on corporate income is among the highest in the industrialized world.

And:

Many tax experts and lawmakers from both parties, including Ways and Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel , D-N.Y., and presidential candidate Sen. John McCain , R-Ariz., have called for lowering the corporate tax rate.

Clav,

You miss the point. Corporations (as well, I suppose, as partnerships, limited partnerships, etc.) are bad and are raping not only the poor consumers but the environment and everything else. They should therefore be taxed out of existence, or at least out of the country. Don't worry. The Government will take care of our needs. That is something you can believe in (sorry to use a preposition to end a sentence with).

Dan

Dave and Clavos,

I want to thank you for your responses. I just don't think you understand that you're making my point for me.

Both of you are basically endorsing GREED.

That's right. GREED. We can go point by point if you like.

"Taxes are levied on net income. If you don't have any income left after you pay your expenses, you don't owe any taxes. As your article says, 80% of the companies that didn't pay taxes in 2005 fell in this category. So, you're right: "most companies didn't pay taxes," but that's not the whole story; they legitimately didn't pay taxes because they didn't make any money."

A business that doesn't make money, or loses money by definition, is a FAILED business. If you're saying that the majority of businesses in America, based upon the statistics we both source, are FAILURES, then how is this a ringing endorsement of the alleged capitalistic free entrerprise system you both claim should be rewarded with tax cuts? To me, it sounds like a poor investment. UNLESS...a large portion of these companies are cooking the books and reporting as little as possible to avoid paying taxes.

There needs to be the same vigor in AUDITING the books of these businesses as there is going after the American Citizen Taxpayer, IMHO. The IRS would certainly have no mercy on you or me.

Clavos writes:

"Halliburton is an excellent example of the kind of company I was talking about that were driven offshore in the first place because the US taxes are among the highest of the developed nations. By raising Halliburton's taxes beyond a sustainable level, the government has lost ALL tax revenue from them. They, and other companies could be induced to bring their operations back (and along with them, jobs and revenue for their American suppliers) if our taxes were more competitive with other nations."

You see? That's what I'm talking about in regards to "patriotism." Why on EARTH do you give a no-bid, government contract to a company that moved off shore to avoid paying that same government their fair share of taxes?

Without sounding too partisan, there are many in this country, mostly on the right, who feel it's not too much to ask young people of this country to pick up a gun, go overseas to Iraq and sacrifice their health, or even their lives for America.

I find it STUPIFYING that many of the same people on the right feel it's "too much to ask" for corporations to sacrifice SOME of their profits in the form of taxes when they get huge no-bid contracts for the SAME war effort, paid for by the American citizens.

GREED.

I wouldn't trade ONE of our brave military service people for any hundred Halliburton execs, and the American people are paying salaries for BOTH.

Clavos writes:

"Economics is global. We are at a disadvantage, in terms of taxation, competing against nations like Ireland, which is rapidly attracting the high tech industry to relocate there because of its favorable tax rates. As a result, it's only a matter of time before American firms like IBM, HP, Intel, Apple, and Micron relocate what remains of their operations to countries like Ireland. This will occur even faster if we raise taxes even further."

Tell me something that hasn't already happened. It's GREED. It's a race to the bottom. I bet the companies in Ireland are probably already scouting for a better tax haven. Manufacturers who found a good deal in China are already out searching for even CHEAPER labor, even if it involves almost slave conditions.

But I think both you and Dave forget that we are in a DEFICIT. We are running up a debt to hand over to the next generation that is staggering. I say, if you want to do business in the US--

Pay what you owe.

Dave writes:

"On average about 3% better off than we would be otherwise. I find it bizaree that on top of all the problems consumers face right now you'd like to take more of their money and throw it down the sinkhole of government in the form of higher income taxes AND higher prices because of higher corporate taxes."

And you'd rather throw it down the sinkhole that is Iraq, where that country now has budget SURPLUSES? And since government, through these contracts and subsidies, is giving corporations money anyhow, you want the American Taxpayer to get pimped out even further?

Dave writes:

"During that same period we had, what, something like 10 million unfilled jobs that we had to fill with illegal immigrants? Hardly seems like America is lacking for jobs."

"We" didn't have to fill anything.

Companies, who didn't want to hire American workers hired those illegals. It's called "in-sourcing." It's also called GREED.

Dave writes:

"Shareholders who are average American citizens including their employees in most cases."

Except in cases where corporations buy back their own stock to artificially inflate them.

Note: That lobbyists come to Washington influencing politicians to lower corporate taxes should come as no surprise.

--Cobra

Cobra, your deep, fundamental mistake here is in thinking that 'GREED' is a bad thing. Greed is just a motivation. It is what drives business. All the people involved from the customer to the CEO want to benefit from what that company does. That's all greed is, the desire to obtain benefit, whether it's a cheaper and better product, a stock that increases in value or pays a dividend, a bonus or a raise for doing a good job for the company, or the satisfaction of a job well done. All of those things are what you lump in as 'GREED' which is a simplistic and negative way of redefining what is actually a positive value.

So long as you have that attitude which is hostile to the basic ideals which America and capitalism in general are founded on you will never be able to approach this issue in any effective way.

A business that doesn't make money, or loses money by definition, is a FAILED business. If you're saying that the majority of businesses in America, based upon the statistics we both source, are FAILURES, then how is this a ringing endorsement of the alleged capitalistic free entrerprise system you both claim should be rewarded with tax cuts? To me, it sounds like a poor investment. UNLESS...a large portion of these companies are cooking the books and reporting as little as possible to avoid paying taxes.

You don't get it at all. It has nothing to do with success or faulure. It has to do with responsibility. A business which pays more in taxes or for raw materials than it has to is irresponsible and mismanaged. It is failing in its fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders. It may become a failed business as a result, but if it is a competently run business it will find ways to minimize expense and maximize profit. That is its primary responsibility. If taxes in one country are higher than in another then it is responsible management to move operations to where taxes are less of a burden.

You see? That's what I'm talking about in regards to "patriotism." Why on EARTH do you give a no-bid, government contract to a company that moved off shore to avoid paying that same government their fair share of taxes?

Because you also want to run your government operations responsibly and that company gave you the lowest price bid. Taking it is your responsibility to the taxpaying citizen.

I find it STUPIFYING that many of the same people on the right feel it's "too much to ask" for corporations to sacrifice SOME of their profits in the form of taxes when they get huge no-bid contracts for the SAME war effort, paid for by the American citizens.

It's not unreasonable to expect companies to pay taxes. It is unreasonable to expect them to pay higher taxes to do business in the US than they would pay to do business in other developed nations. We are pricing ourselves out of the market with rapacious business taxes and we don't have the right or the power to compel payment if the companies can move overseas.

When we send our soldiers to fight in Iraq or wherever, they are volunteers. Companies are volunteers too. They can choose not to participate in business in America if they find the environment hostile.

Dave

When we cut taxes we have to make up the revenue loss either by taxing someone else, incurring debt, or reducing spending. Everybody talks about reducing spending but nobody does anything about it. We, apparently, are too cowardly to make corresponding increases in other taxes for fear of making transparent that we are transferring wealth from one sector to another. So the result is that we increase debt.

The proof is in the pudding. This admin cut taxes and increased debt to pay for it. We've increased debt by $5trillion, and devalued our currency by 40% to pay for our extravagances.

Is this wise? Can we keep doing this?

How long do we keep doing it? Until US citizens are as poor as Chinese citizens? Until the New York environment is as polluted as Beijing? What advantage do we get from debasing ourselves to be as miserable as a Chinese peasant?

If a globalized economy results in US companies being at a disadvantage because of US corp taxes, might that not cause one to contemplate reigning in a rush to globalization?

Dave writes:

"Cobra, your deep, fundamental mistake here is in thinking that 'GREED' is a bad thing."

Well, it IS one of the Seven Deadly Sins, Dave. I can't find many mainstream religions that endorse greed and covetousness. I suppose a social Darwinist could endorse a philosophy based entirely of selfish engorgement, but when you break it down all "Gordon Gekko" like that...

Dave writes:

"When we send our soldiers to fight in Iraq or wherever, they are volunteers. Companies are volunteers too. They can choose not to participate in business in America if they find the environment hostile."

Yeah, they're volunteers... for now. If another President with an imperialistic, neo-con, invade/regime change/occupy foreign governments philosophy gets elected, all bets are off.

If companies choose not to do business in America because they want a free ride, I say good riddance. I'm not crying for them.

bliffle writes:

"How long do we keep doing it? Until US citizens are as poor as Chinese citizens? Until the New York environment is as polluted as Beijing? What advantage do we get from debasing ourselves to be as miserable as a Chinese peasant?"

That's pretty much the goal of Neo-con economics. Borrow and Spend until there is nothing left but a fuedal system of serfs and lords.

--Cobra

If a globalized economy results in US companies being at a disadvantage because of US corp taxes, might that not cause one to contemplate reigning in a rush to globalization?

last I checked, bliffle, we don't rule the world, so your idea is silly.

Bertrand Russell, one of my few heroes and a (gasp) "liberal," contended that were we all motivated by enlightened self interest, the world would be a far better place. I have seen quite a lot during my lifetime to support his view, and very little if anything to counter it. The operative word is "enlightened," which connotes (among other things) long term rather than short term.

Dan(Miller)

And Cobra, go ahead and raise the corporate taxes more.

Prices will go up, but not for long, because the practice of moving firms overseas will accelerate,turning into a headlong rush, and then you WILL hear a "giant sucking sound," as jobs and capital go with them.

We can control our own imports and exports without the consent of the rest of the world. But we surrender sovereignty when we empower the WTO and as we allow US businesses to practice unrestricted international trade.

That's the way everyone used to do it until about 20-30 years ago, so we know it can work. What seems NOT to work is unrestrained globalization. The neocons are providing the proof of the PaleoCons contention that a one-world government would be disastrous.