that would be a pretty small meal considering that how few hold so much in this nation.

Ironically though, Cannibals will eat somebody who they feel is doing harm to the community.

Coincidence?

I know right! screw History when it doesn't fit my ideology. Wheres a big black marker when i need one? Why can't I just make up theories and not base them off of past events?! man the past is such a Debbie downer.

Perhaps it wouldn't have been so bad if the document wasn't what it was.

QFT

Yeah I'm sure that Jeffery Dalmer thought his victims were doing harm to the community. :roll:

I've said 100 times here, corporations don't care about the tax as long as they can buy regulation/loopholes. Both parties have been behind the loopholes, but the GOP are the big players. Everytime they've lowered corporate taxes, we got more loopholes not less, you think I would believe
them again. Let's get rid of all the loopholes first, then we can talk lowering the rate.

I cringe when I see corporations giving 300-600 million dollar stock options to CEO's, they generate hefty tax deductions.

Obama was right when he said.

"There are so many loopholes that have been written into the tax code...that we actually see our businesses pay effectively one of the lowest tax rates in the world."

They pay about 25% at best. Has it created more jobs, built our economy, nope? It's creating a two class economy

In the end it's a stupid smoke and mirrors game. I agree we need spending caps, but again, let's see what they choose to spend on. As I understand this is just a cap, later behind closed doors they'll decide what to spend on what.

I agree. Actually the US corporate tax system is more like the old income tax system when it had higher rates, and far more loopholes.

That's why I said up the thread that the US should pass a very l;ow corporate rate, but with zero loopholes. 14 or 15%, flat.

BTW, I think that the rate should apply to churches as well. The "gentleman's agreement" that churches will not engage in ay political activity has always been BS. As such, I don't think they meet 501c3 (note that this applies to any entity that is at all partisan).

Anyway, you cannot compare income taxes from the past without a heavy weighting applied, as well as good data on what the actual effective rates were. The weighting applies to tax revenue as a % of GDP weighted to spending. For a long time it was thought enough for the federal government to spend ~1% of GDP per year. It's past 20% now. Even under FDR it was mostly under 10% of GDP.

SPENDING is the problem, not taxation. Cut federal spending to 10% of GDP, and taxes can be far lower. The pitch to democrats can simply be "we want a New Deal, exactly the same as FDR had it!" (don't tell the hoi polloi that this means hacking spending by over a factor of 2, just pitch it as Rooseveltian socialism).

This is easy to accomplish. ~2/3 of spending is "entitlements." Cut entitlements by 75%, and you've just halved the budget—and you'll still be spending far more than FDR did on social programs.

Which would be bad for business, "loopholes" are there for a reason, you need to stop abuse of "loopholes" not close them.
Passing a low corporate rate will achieve very little, there is always somewhere which will offer a lower rate.

So you know what that means don't you...more government and more regulation:yep:
The very things they say they need less of.

No loopholes.

Loopholes are there as payback. The US tax code is so large no one understands it. Lawyers specialize in segments of it (I know a few tax attorneys). They also exist because the rates are too high. The base US rate is very high because they know there are a million loopholes and no one pays the base rate.

That's why you pick a low rate, then stick to it. Loopholes are not "abused," they are used as intended. Eliminate loopholes entirely, but set a rate that is fair.

Total corporate profits are what, around 1.5 trillion dollars? That means that 15% would generate 225 billion. Corp income taxes during the Bush admin (collected) were higher than right now, at over 300 billion. Assuming our 1.5 trillion profit (~10% of GDP), this means that maybe the corporate rate should be a little higher than 15% (I just picked a number). At 20%, flat, we'd be looking at ~300T$.

There is no good reason for tax loopholes, IMO. Better to design a good tax to start with, and avoid the unfairness that comes from one business getting a break while another does not.

That means LESS regulation, and fewer tax collectors since no one has to determine who falls into the special class of payers that get a subsidy. The same applies to a flat income tax.

Note also that this creates a more predictable business environment. You can easily tell what your tax liability should be.

You have problems understanding some very basic concepts on tax and business.

That shows you have very little understanding of what they are.

No, I don't. The loopholes were specifically created to incentivize certain businesses—often (always?) as payback by politicians. Pol A will vote for a certain bill in return for votes to add a new tax code that allows the principle employer in his district to pay lower taxes. That is exactly how such loopholes are created.

The good reason would be (as I said) incentives. Economists love incentives, but they are poorly understood in reality, such that they always have unexpected consequences. Such unexpected consequences are NOT "abuse." In fact, there should be no unexpected consequences—they know everyone who possibly can will take advantage of every possible loophole. That is a given, it's why tax attorneys are on staff for every major company (and retained by every smaller one).

I think that a fair tax system eliminates the need for incentives. I also think that incentives are bad in general. If, for example, "green" energy is viable, then it does not need to be incentivized. It should sink or swim on its economic merits, not based on government subsidy by " tax incentives."

BTW, there is a reason why some companies get to use the loopholes who congress didn't mean to. It's because congress cannot single out specific businesses. They want to (because of the political payback/give-and-take mentioned above), but the code must be written to look like it doesn't single anyone out. So they can give a break for making widgets of a certain material using a certain process, thinking that only their target firms will get the break, but then another type of firm figures out they can alter what they make to fit the broadly written law, and then they get it too.

A couple known examples of "abuse" I can easily remember are for import duties. The US has a lower tax rate (significantly) on cotton garments than "man-made" fabrics. Garments must be over 50% cotton to get the better tax. Poly stuff, OTOH, is cheaper. So what the Chinese (largely, though others as well) do, is they like to make stuff with less cotton than required to get the tax break, while still using the cheaper poly at a higher % in the blend. Over millions of garments, the small savings by making a few % more poly is gravy to them. As a result, stuff requires testing to make sure it is over 50%.

Another is toys. TOys have no duty. Bedding does. Wonder why they have bedding called "pillow pets" (pillow that look like stuffed animals)? No duty, but as bedding they get picked up by stores that would not sell stuffed animals.

I don't consider the latter abuse, though faking a higher cotton content on the label IS abuse.

When will we realize that since it took us decades to get into this mess (both parties are equally guilty) it may take decades to get us out.

Unfortunately, that requires the political parties to commit themselves to working for the country and not for their party. :har::har::har::har::har: There goes *that* fantasy. :yep:

A series of small incremental changes allowing time for the economy to adjust is the solution, in my opinion

I saw an interesting comment on the Politico site that just like the Democrats made the mistake of thinking thay had a "mandate" to reform health care after 2008, the Republicans now think they have a "mandate" to cut spending.

reining in spending is a laudable goal, but far from a priority when the USA is in the worst recession since the Great Depression. The number one goal now is getting the economy back on its feet.

The housing market in the USA has hit its lowest prices in 9 years. Up to half of homeowners in certain states owe more on their house than its worth. Many economists think it may take 10-20 years, if ever, before all the excess housing stock is absorbed, all the while dragging down any potential recovery.

And why are the Politicians threatening to shut down the government? over whether they should cut 30 or 40 billion dollars out of last year's budget. Spending for 2010-11 is budgeted at 3,500 billion dollars, so 30 or 40 is only 1%.

Exactly why I posted that Onion article in the beginning of this thread. None of the proposals do anything to address any of the spending or debt problems they say they do. Apparently the last minute negotiations between both sides of clowns came down to bill riders such as defunding support for Planned Parenthood (which is completely stupid no matter which side of the abortion debate you fall on as PP's goal is to prevent pregnancy and thus the need for abortions) and minuscule things that DON'T MATTER and will not have ANY meaningful effect on the national debt or spending. It's pure ideology being sold as fiscal responsibility. Politics at its finest.

You want spending cuts? Here's your $82 billion in spending cuts. Done. Next problem.

http://i.imgur.com/Vu42d.png

it's a nice thought..but that will never happen. at least not the weapons development.

It seems to me, the core problem with both parties (GOP especially, but both are culpable) can be summed up in one picture:

http://spectrain.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/my-way.jpg

It's like their stuck on their ideology, they act like their at war, and they both think that their the only ones who live in this country. They also seem to be oblivious of very novel word called "Compromise". Hell, some of the representives elected went to their post stating they had no intention of making any compromises. That's not exactly what i'd call a team player. And what effort is made at compromise, is laiden down with so much pork, as to be laughable at best.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand." - Abraham Lincoln

If this is how the two parties are going to operate for now on, the "American Experiment" will be doomed to failure. Perhaps it already has. Go ahead. Shut down the F'ing governtment, and revoke all pay for every Assclown in congress while were at it. If i had my way, id lock them all in a room for however long it takes, without pay, until they come up with a joint and united solution.

"Bipartisanship" has two meanings now. To the majority party, it means "You have to do things our way!", to the minority party it means "You guys should be nice to us or we'll walk all over you when it's our turn!"

I suggest we lock them in, and start fining them the equivalent of their salaries for each day the shutdown lasts.

It's politics. Compromise is a sign of weakness. Anything that your opponent can claim as a victory hurts you in your next re-election bid. It's not enough to oppose your foe. You have to destroy him.

You can't just oppose Bill Clinton's policies - you have to impeach him. You can't oppose Bush's ideas - you have to insult his intelligence and claim treason and 9/11 was an inside job. You can't oppose Obama's proposal - you have to delegitimize his presidency by claiming he's a Kenyan socialist Muslim Manchurian Candidate.

Yeah, heaven forbid they make the country their number 1 priority like their supposed to instead of getting re elected. F'ing C*********s.

The march has been inexorably in one direction for a long time. The amount of spending (the vast majority of which is on "social programs" (ie: "socialism")) has been going up and up. Compromise usually means that the insane spenders pitch some increase, and the supposed fiscal conservatives pitch a very slightly lower figure. Doesn't matter, now we spend over 20% of GDP on big government, when 100 years ago it was a tiny fraction of that %.

During the huge government spending days of the Great Depression we broke 5%, and got up above 10% of GDP!

The increase (other than WW2) was not driven by military spending, but by socialist programs.

Faced with mono-directional "change" we need something different. Note that the single direction is regardless of party, only the rate of change is altered, and even that is slight.

US politics has been polarized since the Washington administration, BTW.