PDA

View Full Version : Good News for Corporations but Bad News for Small Business


Pony Boy
07-31-2013, 08:28 AM
Obama says Top Tax Rate Should Be 28% for Corporations, 40% for Small Businesses

The New York Times reports that President Obama is reviving an old proposal to lower the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent (and 25 percent for manufacturers). Obama's push to lower the corporate tax rate to 28 percent comes less than a year after he raised the top individual income tax rate, paid by many small businesses, to 39.6 percent.

In a speech delivered Tuesday afternoon, Obama did not explain why he thinks it's a sound economic idea to raise the top marginal tax rate on small businesses but lower it for corporations.

"Right now, our tax code is so riddled with wasteful loopholes that many companies doing the right thing and investing in America pay 35%, while the corporations with the best accountants stash their money abroad and pay little or nothing at all," Obama said, according to the text of his prepared remarks. "Iím willing to simplify our tax code in a way that closes those loopholes, ends incentives to ship jobs overseas, and lowers rates for businesses that create jobs right here in America."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-top-tax-rate-should-be-28-corporations-40-small-business_742312.html


Even at 28%, Obama's new tax rate would be higher than the 25% average paid by our main competitors.

So with one hand the president giveth, and with the other he taketh away. Worse, he seems intent on rewarding big companies with tax cuts while punishing small companies that account for 85% of all new jobs.

Most small businesses aren't corporations, so they won't pay the lower tax. Instead, they'll continue to pay a top rate on their income of close to 44%, thanks largely to Obama's tax hikes on entrepreneurs.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/073013-665741-obamas-grand-bargain-is-a-trap-for-the-gop.htm

B-Large
07-31-2013, 09:44 AM
I hate the tax code. Go Flat tax, take the power to manipulate the entire nation away from Polticians.

Arkie
07-31-2013, 11:10 AM
I hate the tax code. Go Flat tax, take the power to manipulate the entire nation away from Polticians.

We have to abolish the Federal Reserve too. :thumbs:

B-Large
07-31-2013, 11:37 AM
We have to abolish the Federal Reserve too. :thumbs:

word...

Fedaykin
07-31-2013, 11:55 AM
Obama suggests lowering taxes.

The right complains.

****ing hilarious! It really is true, no matter what Obama proposes, the right will fight it tooth and nail.

Also, the 39.6% tax rate is not a corporate tax rate and any silly claim that is is is nothing more than blatant dishonesty. It's the ****ing personal income tax rate on regular earnings above $400,000. No matter what size business you work for/own, if you take personal income in that bracket, you pay that rate. Even Tim Cook (not Apple) pays 39.6% on any regular income he makes above $400,000.

B-Large
07-31-2013, 11:59 AM
I guess you could argue that small business wil be getting tax credits from the ACA to help cover employees, large companies will not.

B-Large
07-31-2013, 12:04 PM
Obama suggests lowering taxes.

The right complains.

****ing hilarious! It really is true, no matter what Obama proposes, the right will fight it tooth and nail.

Also, the 39.6% tax rate is not a corporate tax rate and any silly claim that is is is nothing more than blatant dishonesty. It's the ****ing personal income tax rate on regular earnings above $400,000. No matter what size business you work for/own, if you take personal income in that bracket, you pay that rate. Even Tim Cook (not Apple) pays 39.6% on any regular income he makes above $400,000.

to be perfectly accurate, Mitch McConnell was unabashed when he said "our #1 goal is to make Barack Obama a one term President"... now that he already got a second term, the strategy didn't change. He could say he want to privatize Medicare and GOP'ers would cry he hates Old People. He could say we shoudl cut food stamps funding in half, and th GOP would pass a special resolution doubling the SNAP budget.

Its really quite comical in the second term. The question wil be do they have the stamina to obstruct for 11 more years after Hillary cleans their clocks?

BroncoBeavis
07-31-2013, 12:10 PM
Obama suggests lowering taxes.

The right complains.

****ing hilarious! It really is true, no matter what Obama proposes, the right will fight it tooth and nail.

Also, the 39.6% tax rate is not a corporate tax rate and any silly claim that is is is nothing more than blatant dishonesty. It's the ****ing personal income tax rate on regular earnings above $400,000. No matter what size business you work for/own, if you take personal income in that bracket, you pay that rate. Even Tim Cook (not Apple) pays 39.6% on any regular income he makes above $400,000.

It's funny that you take The Zero-Vote Budget President's fiscal proposals so seriously. I mean, since absolutely nobody else does.

Fedaykin
07-31-2013, 12:11 PM
It's funny that you take The Zero-Vote Budget President's fiscal proposals so seriously. I mean, since absolutely nobody else does.

Poor attempt at a deflection.

BroncoBeavis
07-31-2013, 12:12 PM
Its really quite comical in the second term. The question wil be do they have the stamina to obstruct for 11 more years after Hillary cleans their clocks?

Speaking of comical timing, and second terms... any guesses as to why the President waited until LameDuck:30 to finally approach the idea of lowering corporate tax rates? You know the kind of rates our normal Proggers insist aren't high enough? LOL

BroncoBeavis
07-31-2013, 12:15 PM
Poor attempt at a deflection.

Sometimes you guys need a nice deflection into reality.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/07/30/obamas-grand-bargain-pitch-smacks-of-campaign-politics

Fedaykin
07-31-2013, 12:15 PM
Speaking of comical timing, and second terms... any guesses as to why the President waited until LameDuck:30 to finally approach the idea of lowering corporate tax rates? You know the kind of rates our normal Proggers insist aren't high enough? LOL

Who insists the marginal rate isn't high enough?

Fedaykin
07-31-2013, 12:20 PM
Sometimes you guys need a nice deflection into reality.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/07/30/obamas-grand-bargain-pitch-smacks-of-campaign-politics

Bottom line is, Obama is saying "lets cut taxes", and the "cut taxes!!!!!!!!" party is having none of it. It's nothing more than obstruction for the sake of obstructionism.

BroncoBeavis
07-31-2013, 12:21 PM
Who insists the marginal rate isn't high enough?

Please, you kids complain about corporations' effective tax rates all the time.

Fedaykin
07-31-2013, 12:24 PM
Please, you kids complain about corporations' effective tax rates all the time.

LMAO. Yep, and the marginal rate is NOT the same thing as the effective rate.

Moron!

BroncoBeavis
07-31-2013, 12:28 PM
LMAO. Yep, and the marginal rate is NOT the same thing as the effective rate.

Moron!

No ****. Which is why you so epically miss the point.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2013/07/30/president-obamas-plan-for-corporate-tax-reform-a-grand-bargain-or-simply-another-name-for-an-old-proposal/

Read up. Repackaged tax and spend is all this is. In hindsight, the sum total of Obama's economic plan.

Pony Boy
07-31-2013, 12:32 PM
Obama suggests lowering taxes.

The right complains.

****ing hilarious! It really is true, no matter what Obama proposes, the right will fight it tooth and nail.

Here's the thread title " Good News for Corporations but Bad News for Small Business".

So how do you get that I was complaining about lowering taxes for corporations?

Let me make this perfectly clear "I'm happy that BO realized that raising taxes on corporations would drive more business overseas". He doesn't want to lower it on small business because they don't have that option.

Fedaykin
07-31-2013, 12:36 PM
Here's the thread title " Good News for Corporations but Bad News for Small Business".

So how do you get that I was complaining about lowering taxes for corporations?

Let me make this perfectly clear "I'm happy that BO realized that raising taxes on corporations would drive more business overseas". He doesn't want to lower it on small business because they don't have that option.

.. and you go on to quote an article complaining (dishonestly) about how it's punishing small businesses (which it's not). Not my fault you apparently didn't not read or understand what you you copying and pasting.

The entire point of lowering the marginal rate and cutting loopholes is to take a step toward leveling the playing field between big corporations and small businesses.

Rigs11
07-31-2013, 12:37 PM
LMAO. Yep, and the marginal rate is NOT the same thing as the effective rate.

Moron!

Yep, and according to the same link that the blog references,the marginal tax rate was lowered from 39.6% by dubya to 38.6% in 2002..but with the condition that it would go back to 39.6% after 10 years. Basically it's the expiration of the bush tax cuts.very dishonest there righties.

Fedaykin
07-31-2013, 12:37 PM
No ****. Which is why you so epically miss the point.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2013/07/30/president-obamas-plan-for-corporate-tax-reform-a-grand-bargain-or-simply-another-name-for-an-old-proposal/

Read up. Repackaged tax and spend is all this is. In hindsight, the sum total of Obama's economic plan.

So, you decided to talk about that by confusing the concept of a marginal and an effective tax rate?

LMAO

BroncoBeavis
07-31-2013, 12:42 PM
So, you decided to talk about that by confusing the concept of a marginal and an effective tax rate?

LMAO

No I was highlighting the fact that you crazy kids who only used to care about effective rates now suddenly want to highlight published marginal tax rates in a scheme that ultimately taxes even more and spends even more.

Then you limp around with "I canna unastan why Rethugs don't support this!" LOL

What exactly should they like about it?

Fedaykin
07-31-2013, 12:46 PM
No I was highlighting the fact that you crazy kids who only used to care about effective rates now suddenly want to highlight published marginal tax rates in a scheme that ultimately taxes even more and spends even more.

Then you limp around with "I canna unastan why Rethugs don't support this!" LOL

What exactly should they like about it?

Total BS.

The net effect of lowing the marginal rate and removing loopholes will be to make the tax code more fair to all. Anyone with a lick of sense should be able to get behind that.

BroncoBeavis
07-31-2013, 12:52 PM
Total BS.

The net effect of lowing the marginal rate and removing loopholes will be to make the tax code more fair to all. Anyone with a lick of sense should be able to get behind that.

From the article I linked below...

Now, if youíre particularly sharp, you might have noticed an oddity in that opening sentence. Specifically, if corporate tax rates would go down, why would there be additional tax revenue available to spend on job creation?

Thatís because along with the promised tax rate reduction, President Obama would broaden the tax base by eliminating many of the deductions and preferences available under todayís law. The net effect of these two changes would result in an increase in total tax revenue collections; in other words, the reduction in rates would be more than offset by the lost deductions.

This is a bit of a departure from the Presidentís previous proposals for corporate reform, which have always been promised to be revenue neutral. In a revenue neutral plan, only enough deductions would be cut to generate the revenue necessary to ďpay forĒ the revenue lost to lower tax rates. No more, no less.

So essentially the President tacks left, calls it a "Grand Bargain" and you run to the closet to get out the pom poms and ticker tape.

Funny, and yet kinda sad at the same time.

Fedaykin
07-31-2013, 12:56 PM
From the article I linked below...



So essentially the President tacks left, calls it a "Grand Bargain" and you run to the closet to get out the pom poms and ticker tape.

Funny, and yet kinda sad at the same time.

Nothing you quote actually disputes what I'm saying. Try again.

BroncoBeavis
07-31-2013, 01:01 PM
Nothing you quote actually disputes what I'm saying. Try again.

Republicans (while holding the power of the purse) are naturally going to oppose anything that expands the size and scope of (our record-sized) government. Which is exactly what Obama proposes to do. If the President really wanted flatter tax rates, he'd make his proposal at least revenue-neutral and leave the campaign-bundler pork out of it.

Fedaykin
07-31-2013, 01:09 PM
Republicans (while holding the power of the purse) are naturally going to oppose anything that expands the size and scope of (our record-sized) government. Which is exactly what Obama proposes to do. If the President really wanted flatter tax rates, he'd make his proposal at least revenue-neutral and leave the campaign-bundler pork out of it.

Again, you're lost. More fiar (i.e. flatter) taxes is exactly what this would produce. As far as not being revenue neutral, even your own links talk about how similar proposals that were revenue neutral were also blocked for the sake of being blocked despite being something the republicans claim to support (a more fair tax code to support small businesses).

This would be a good deal that both R's and D's could work together on. More fair taxes to help out small businesses, and an investment in infrastructure that is sorely needed and could be done much more effectively with a honest effort (by both parties) to do so.

Face it. This president could propose pretty much anything and the R's would fight it -- just because he proposed it.

Fedaykin
07-31-2013, 01:21 PM
As far as the proposal being non-revenue neutral. I am completely unsympathetic. Corporate tax revenue as a % of GPD is currently at record lows (less than 50% of the average since 1950), and not just because of the recession.

This, of course, is why the difference between effective tax rate, and marginal tax rate (that Beavis completely fails to comprehend) is talked about all the time. A top marginal tax rate of 35% is almost completely meaningless as a indicator of actual tax rate (it only defines an upper limit).

Small businesses that can't take advantage of the spagetti code that is the current tax code pay much closer to that maximum than the giant corporations that can pay an army of tax experts to exploit that. Lower and marginal rates and remove loopholes, and that difference gets a bit smaller.

Raise some extra revenue (almost entirely from the coffers of the most exploitative businesses) and it's even better.

BroncoBeavis
07-31-2013, 01:31 PM
This, of course, is why the difference between effective tax rate, and marginal tax rate (that Beavis completely fails to comprehend) is talked about all the time. A top marginal tax rate of 35% is almost completely meaningless as a indicator of actual tax rate (it only defines an upper limit).

My understanding aside, just curious... if it makes so much sense, why does the President feel the need to attach it to yet another federal spending spree? (while federal spending vs GDP remains at a record pace)

baja
07-31-2013, 01:48 PM
because Obama is big corporation's dandy boy.

baja
07-31-2013, 01:49 PM
Re OP title;

What else is new.

Fedaykin
07-31-2013, 01:54 PM
My understanding aside, just curious... if it makes so much sense, why does the President feel the need to attach it to yet another federal spending spree? (while federal spending vs GDP remains at a record pace)

What do you see as wrong with making the rate small businesses pay closer to the rate huge corporations pay, regardless of the overall rate?

Rigs11
07-31-2013, 02:09 PM
Republicans (while holding the power of the purse) are naturally going to oppose anything that expands the size and scope of (our record-sized) government. Which is exactly what Obama proposes to do. If the President really wanted flatter tax rates, he'd make his proposal at least revenue-neutral and leave the campaign-bundler pork out of it.

both dubya and your hero raygun grew gubmint and deficits.

BroncoBeavis
07-31-2013, 02:11 PM
What do you see as wrong with making the rate small businesses pay closer to the rate huge corporations pay, regardless of the overall rate?

Yeah, the best solution to disparate levels of punishment is to increase the amount of punishment so it can be more evenly spread. LOL

BroncoBeavis
07-31-2013, 02:15 PM
both dubya and your hero raygun grew gubmint and deficits.

Ultimately, this stuff is up to Congress. Obama had control of it ('til he blew it on the ACA trainwreck) Reagan never did.

Meck77
07-31-2013, 02:31 PM
Getting re-elected will do that to a guy.

Obama will make 50-100 million on the back end.

elsid13
07-31-2013, 03:04 PM
My understanding aside, just curious... if it makes so much sense, why does the President feel the need to attach it to yet another federal spending spree? (while federal spending vs GDP remains at a record pace)

That is one most worthless metrics ever to use when discussing policies and economy. The president is proposing additional federal funding because we have major problems (piss poor infrastructure, horrible aircraft control system, worthless weather predication tools, getting beat by the Germans on the 3d Metallic Printer Manufacturing and basic RD) that need public funds to address and all those project will also boost private sector growth. WVU and others have published peer reviewed studies that for every dollar spent by Federal Government you spent on fixing infrastructure, you get 3 dollar generate in the secondary markets support those projects.

Also for the record if you are small business owner and you are tying your personnel income to the business then you need to relook at your operations. Because for all small businesses I been apart of or know, no owner if they have brain would get their business taxed at 39% level.

Fedaykin
07-31-2013, 03:08 PM
Yeah, the best solution to disparate levels of punishment is to increase the amount of punishment so it can be more evenly spread. LOL

A small step toward leveling the playing field between businesses of various sizes is what this would do. That you are so desperate to remain willfully ignorant and to frame it as something else is just highlighting your own partisanship.

BroncoBeavis
07-31-2013, 03:23 PM
A small step toward leveling the playing field between businesses of various sizes is what this would do. That you are so desperate to remain willfully ignorant and to frame it as something else is just highlighting your own partisanship.

Leveling the playing field between American companies will have little impact on keeping jobs onshore. Especially if that 'leveling' involves an even larger federal haircut.

Our real competition is international. In the real world, you have to worry about the taxes our corporations pay vs what they'd pay if they moved (or moved profits at least) outside the country. "Level" the field for American companies by further burying a select group of them, and all you really accomplish is rewarding their foreign competition. But keep telling us that the solution to all our problems is Churchill's Equal Sharing of Misery. In reality, competitiveness is most important.

chadta
07-31-2013, 04:29 PM
So for 10 years all weve heard from democrats is how big business needs to pay, they should pay more. We see the righties sticking to the same old same old of finding something wrong with anything obozo does, and we see the lefties drinking the koolaid and supporting it, what the heck happened to corporations need to pay more ? if this was bush doing this you guys would be outraged, yet here you are talking about how great this is. All thats missing is labf with some stupid cartoon showing how much better things have gotten since the savior took office.

Rohirrim
08-01-2013, 06:35 AM
Nobody seems to be able to just lay their cards on the table. This is what it's all about: Corporations want all the benefits of doing business in the U.S., they just don't want to pay for it.

BroncoBeavis
08-01-2013, 07:16 AM
Nobody seems to be able to just lay their cards on the table. This is what it's all about: Corporations want all the benefits of doing business in the U.S., they just don't want to pay for it.

Benefits such as...?

Rohirrim
08-01-2013, 07:38 AM
Benefits such as...?

I thought you lived in the U.S.?

BroncoBeavis
08-01-2013, 07:52 AM
I thought you lived in the U.S.?

You can live in the US and own a foreign company. We're talking about what benefits a company gains by incorporating in the US.

I want to hear what they are.

Rohirrim
08-01-2013, 07:53 AM
You can live in the US and own a foreign company. We're talking about what benefits a company gains by incorporating in the US.

I want to hear what they are.

I take it that it is not self-evident to you that America is an "exceptional" country?

BroncoBeavis
08-01-2013, 07:56 AM
I take it that it is not self-evident to you that America is an "exceptional" country?

Exceptional in it's foundational principles (which we chip away at daily :) )

Absolutely.

But the question is how that exceptionality extends to those who file their incorporation paperwork in the US vs say Bermuda or Ireland.

Flesh that out for me. What benefit does that give a company?

Rohirrim
08-01-2013, 08:04 AM
Exceptional in it's foundational principles (which we chip away at daily :) )

Absolutely.

But the question is how that exceptionality extends to those who file their incorporation paperwork in the US vs say Bermuda or Ireland.

Flesh that out for me. What benefit does that give a company?

Ahh, I see. So the "exceptional" label is limited to something that took place over two hundred years ago?

baja
08-01-2013, 08:10 AM
Benefits such as...?


One of the most efficient & productive labor forces on the planet.

Great distribution systems

Built in market place

One of the best supply lines in the world.

To name a few.

Too bad it is being systematically dismantled by the corporate overlords that not have seized control of the US government.

Rohirrim
08-01-2013, 08:12 AM
One of the most efficient & productive labor forces on the planet.

Great distribution systems

Built in market place

One of the best supply lines in the world.

To name a few.

Too bad it is being systematically dismantled by the corporate overlords that not have seized control of the US government.

Detroit is a microcosm of what global corporatism is doing to America.

baja
08-01-2013, 08:13 AM
Detroit is a microcosm of what global corporatism is doing to America.

Exactly, and there are plenty more examples on the horizon.

BroncoBeavis
08-01-2013, 08:14 AM
One of the most efficient & productive labor forces on the planet.

Great distribution systems

Built in market place

One of the best supply lines in the world.

To name a few.

Too bad it is being systematically dismantled by the corporate overlords that not have seized control of the US government.

All of those things are available to foreign companies operating in the US. What reason would they have for seeking incorporation here?

BroncoBeavis
08-01-2013, 08:16 AM
Detroit is a microcosm of what global corporatism is doing to America.

I'll agree that that's part of it. But the other part is an ideology that tells people they can legislate away difficult changes.

Other cities adapted while Detroit stonewalled. That's why it was the first major chip to fall.

baja
08-01-2013, 09:13 AM
All of those things are available to foreign companies operating in the US. What reason would they have for seeking incorporation here?

Oh I see your point now, There is no advantage and that should be a crime. Just more proof that the USA has been taken over without a shot being fired.

That is what I have been trying to point out for years on this board only to be called out concerning;

My bravery

My place of residence

My military service

Calling me a traitor for pointing out the elephant in the middle of the room.

....and a long laundry list of issues all directed at the messenger rather than take a sober look at what is taking place at the level of the federal government in the the USA. Now it may be too late???

Fedaykin
08-01-2013, 10:03 AM
Leveling the playing field between American companies will have little impact on keeping jobs onshore. Especially if that 'leveling' involves an even larger federal haircut.

Our real competition is international. In the real world, you have to worry about the taxes our corporations pay vs what they'd pay if they moved (or moved profits at least) outside the country. "Level" the field for American companies by further burying a select group of them, and all you really accomplish is rewarding their foreign competition. But keep telling us that the solution to all our problems is Churchill's Equal Sharing of Misery. In reality, competitiveness is most important.

We will never compete with slave labor that is quite happy to get paid a bag of rice a week. We could tax Apple 0% (hell, we could start giving them money) and they would not be able to make iX devices more cheaply in the U.S. than in China.

Not going to happen.

We absolutely must level the playing field between large international corporations and small, local businesses. Before a democrat president said this, no one on the right would have argued otherwise.

Fedaykin
08-01-2013, 10:14 AM
All of those things are available to foreign companies operating in the US. What reason would they have for seeking incorporation here?

The issue is not where a corporation is incorporated, it's with how and where it does business. There are certainly massive benefits to doing business in the U.S.: Lots of money and disposable income, stable politics, great existing infrastructure (for now).

Access to our great market is what they want, and what they should have to contribute to in order to participate in.

Fedaykin
08-01-2013, 10:21 AM
So for 10 years all weve heard from democrats is how big business needs to pay, they should pay more. We see the righties sticking to the same old same old of finding something wrong with anything obozo does, and we see the lefties drinking the koolaid and supporting it, what the heck happened to corporations need to pay more ? if this was bush doing this you guys would be outraged, yet here you are talking about how great this is. All thats missing is labf with some stupid cartoon showing how much better things have gotten since the savior took office.

I've been arguing for a more sane tax system (both for businesses and for individuals) for years. I am 100% behind any effort that moves us away from the current highly exploitable system.

Ideally we would have a tax system for businesses that taxes access to our market (i.e. a VAT or national sales tax) rather than profit made by the company, but barring that, we should have a simple, low rate, progressive tax system that allows deductions only for charitable contributions to U.S. charities.

Big businesses should be paying more, and small business should be paying less. That's what lowering the marginal rate and removing deductions will do.

BroncoBeavis
08-01-2013, 10:49 AM
The issue is not where a corporation is incorporated, it's with how and where it does business. There are certainly massive benefits to doing business in the U.S.: Lots of money and disposable income, stable politics, great existing infrastructure (for now).

Access to our great market is what they want, and what they should have to contribute to in order to participate in.

There's a difference between "should have to" and "do"

I might've said this before, but if you decide you don't want an internationally competitive tax rate, you need to start erecting barriers to entry. Free trade is good in that it keeps you competitive. But coupling free trade with a reluctance to be competitive delivers the worst of both worlds. Which creates a lot of our problem.

BroncoBeavis
08-01-2013, 10:52 AM
We will never compete with slave labor that is quite happy to get paid a bag of rice a week. We could tax Apple 0% (hell, we could start giving them money) and they would not be able to make iX devices more cheaply in the U.S. than in China.

Not going to happen.

We absolutely must level the playing field between large international corporations and small, local businesses. Before a democrat president said this, no one on the right would have argued otherwise.

I'm not against leveling that field. So long as it doesn't create an even more unlevel field between our companies and their foreign competitors.

And I think free trade with slave states is a bad idea. We should restrict free trade to only democratic countries with solid records on human rights. That should help protect against our current race to the bottom. Although it's probably too little too late at this point.

W*GS
08-01-2013, 03:04 PM
We should restrict free trade to only democratic countries with solid records on human rights. That should help protect against our current race to the bottom. Although it's probably too little too late at this point.

Bye, bye China.

BroncoBeavis
08-01-2013, 03:31 PM
Bye, bye China.

Yeah, that's probably why we're too late.