Time to eliminate the federal corporate tax

October 25, 2011

OPINION By GORDON MULLIN

The unemployment rate remains stuck around 10 percent; higher for youth and minorities.

Incomes are stagnant and the greatest wealth creation machine in history, the U.S. economy, is jammed in neutral.  You can hear the gears of industry grinding away but there’s no forward movement.  The happiest comment I’ve read lately is that we’re not sliding backwards.

Pundits all have their “fix” and me too.  If I had to pick just one policy change to get the economy moving again—just one— I’d lower the federal corporate tax to…..zero.

We all hope and pray for an uptick in the economy and thereby creating job growth and rising incomes. However we’re at historic lows in interest rates, taking away the Fed’s principal tool, and the federal government has tried throwing money at the problem, to the tune of over $800 billion dollars, and nothing changed.  The reason is that governments can’t create jobs nor increase incomes.  All it can do is tax away current income (or worse, borrow income from my grandchildren via increased debt) and hand it back out to other levels of government or the politically favored. These policies were tried over the last three years and, as we know, failed.

Now this is not to say that the public sector accomplishes nothing, it does. But it can’t create wealth and income. Only the private sector can do that.

And the private sector job creating machine is business, both big and small. Only private enterprise can create those four wonderful things which we all love: goods, services, jobs and income. The government can’t or when it tries, it does it badly.

It’s a long standing axiom in economics that companies don’t pay taxes, they only collect them.  To understand why that is, let’s do a thought experiment.  Mary’s widget manufacturing company paid $1000 in corporate taxes last year.  Now the tax rate goes up 10 percent.  They owe $1100 in taxes but had the same amount of sales and expenses as last year. Where can they get the extra $100?  Only by passing the increased cost on to one of four places.

One, from the shareholders/owners. They will get $100 less income or dividends and therefore pay less tax on their share of the profit.

Or, from the employees. Their wages are cut proportionately and they in turn pay less tax on their foregone income.

Next, consumers. One of the perverted advantages of a universal business tax is that every business, except those who buy favored treatment from our politicians (the ‘tax loopholes’  we all despise), will jointly experience a raise in cost and thus will pass it along, in full, to you and me as consumers.

Finally, the suppliers are paid less, if they comply and, note, they in turn must pass along the loss to the same categories on their balance sheet which also must experience a loss of income and thereby pay less tax.

In short, people, not business, pay all taxes.

Of course, the reverse happens when taxes go down.  Either the shareholders get to keep more, or the employees get paid more or the consumers pay less- or some combination- but you get the idea.  When this happens, there is more income which in turn is then taxed come April on the individual’s taxes at their marginal rate.

Again, companies don’t pay taxes; they only collect them. If we just wait till the increased income generated by this policy lands in the pocket of the effected players, it will more than pay for itself.  Taxes will not be lost to the Treasury, simply repositioned to incomes of taxpayers.

So, what happens when we chop our insanely high corporate tax rate, the second highest in the world, down to zero?

First will come the flood of profits held offshore to avoid our punitive tax rates. Next, business, including non-American, will flock to our shores and set up shop, creating jobs and income.  We will become the tax haven for the world’s businesses.  American based industry will respond to the incentive and create more jobs here rather than overseas.

The profits then being reinvested in industry here will prod our economy in a far more efficient way than any government stimulus or the Fed’s Quantitative Easing could do.  Think increased productivity—the font of our wealth as a society.

The businesses of America will have access to their own capital and hence will be less likely to borrow from banks.  A perversion of the current corporate tax system is that it encourages borrowing, which can be deducted as an expense, rather than by raising capital which can’t.

Incomes will rise and go into the pockets of both capital and labor, which is after all the purpose of this exercise and total tax revenues will increase because economic growth will occur once again.

Another dysfunction inherent in our current system is that politically favored sectors and corporations get special tax treatment that is unavailable to the not-so-well-connected. To wit-General Electric paid no taxes last year.  We all know the tax code is riddled with special favors- i.e. tax preferences, loopholes, etc.  Politicians love having the tax code to play with and thereby can offer up these favors to supporters by way of the tax system- “well, there is an election just around the corner and I do need funding for my campaign” says the congresswoman.  You know the rest.

Eliminate the corporate income tax and we diminish much of the lobbying that corporate America does with congress.

We must accompany this course of action with solid assurance that the rules won’t change for long periods so planning and capital can have certainty. Business needs that and they don’t have it now.  Currently American industry is sitting on a pile of retained earnings but they won’t spend it because of the political and economic ambiguity.

Still not convinced?  Consider that we’ve created institutions in our world to accomplish that which we cannot do as individuals (or find it very difficult to do).  Charities, fraternal organizations, co-ops, federally chartered credit unions, churches, not for profit medical associations and the Lawn and Garden Club, et al, exist to achieve specific tasks.  We applaud their works and many of us devote considerabile time, effort and income to support these institutions and their goals.  And, yet we tax none of them.  The only institution we tax in our world is business. Why?

All institutions work to insure that, come the end of their fiscal period, they have money left in the bank. If you’ve ever been involved in a non-profit that is sliding backwards financially, you know the feeling- dread.  Every effort will be given to get back into the black for all know that if they can’t the institution will die. But, if there is money left at the end of the year, we don’t tax the excess as we do businesses.

You might say that all others are devoted to ‘good works’ but business is motivated by greed, i.e. profit.  So what?  A number of these institutions overtly exist to benefit their members financially- e.g. credit unions, co-ops, and not-for-profits such as health associations. Aren’t lessened costs just the flip side of the income coin? And, note, all of these institutions must strive to be in the black on their financial statements, otherwise they die. They have profits.

All institutions exist to benefit humanity in their own way; business too.  Moreover, is there any greater advantage to our society than an institution that creates those wonderful benefits that we all, obviously, clearly love- goods, services, jobs and income (from which flows wealth).  Why do we want to discourage the creation of these benefits by taxing the excess, i.e. the profits. I want more jobs and income flowing to the American public and private enterprise is, hands down, the best institution to create them.

This isn’t a new idea; it’s been around for a long time.  The Fair Tax, another fine idea, is based on it.

We all want more jobs created; it’s as simple as that.  t’s one of the few national aspirations that all can agree on and this is the best way to get there.

More jobs, more income, more wealth, more tax revenues. What’s not to like?

Gordon Mullin is a financial advisor in San Luis Obispo.


Loading...
Typoqueen

I don’t know why CCN keeps letting this guy contribute to this fine news site. His rantings are extreme, he only cares for and is a pawn for the 1%. I read the headline followed by the authors name and that was enough for me. Perhaps you could have a column for extreme righties ie Roger F. and this guy to put their editorials in, you could call it the ‘The Tool Zone’. That would be useful so those more level headed could just skip past these silly editorials without wasting our time, life is too short to waste on cr@p. I read the headline and then saw the name and then regretted that I wasted the millisecond that it took to read that much. I’m sure that my con friends will be happy to hear that not only am I boycotting Roger F. I’m also boycotting this Mullin guy.


{no tool zone}


racket

I’m calling shenanigans, Typo.


I think you read the whole thing, and relished in your disdain for the author.


That notwithstanding, what do you think of the content of this opinion piece?


Typoqueen

Trust me racket, I already know what it says and I didn’t read anything other than the headline and the name after it. I have been reading the posts though. Okay, I’ll bit, why would I ‘relish’ in my disdain for the author, just curious?


Oh you asked about what I think of the content of this opinion piece, based on his radio interview with Dave and this headline,,,it’s a bunch of cr@p from a pawn for the wealthy. Same old lockstep right wing BS.


racket

I think you relish the opportunity to get worked up about stuff. I think you have a hard time passing by any opportunity to be indignant. But what do I know — this is the internet.


Typoqueen

Isn’t that part of the point of posting here, to give our opinions. How would it be if I just always said ‘yeah, JonnyB, I agree’, ‘yeah zap that’s right’, ‘yeah hotdog, you tell em’? I know that I wouldn’t want to just see you posting ‘I agree and what a wonderful day in the neighborhood’. Also CCN publishes a lot of hot button topics. I’m sure if they published for example the story of the baby being pulled from the rubble in Turkey that I wouldn’t be ‘indignant’ but that’s not the type of stories that they usually publish and even if they did, how much can one say other than ‘wow, that’s great’? BTW, I’m not indignant, I’m very happy and I have never left my keyboard mad or upset over what some right wing posters have to say, I would never let someone that I don’t know rent space in my brain.


r0y

Maybe they do it to demonstrate the open-mindedness of folks who always encourage tolerance? That’s just my guess.


Typoqueen

I gave you thumbs up,,just for the heck of it.


SewerHeightsRez

Utter BS. Regardless of tax rates, companies do not and will not spend money in order to meet non-existent demand. If and when there is demand, they will hire / spend / expand, and not before.


MaryMalone

And without American employment, there will be less demand from America.


That’s why American corporations and big investors are abandoning the U.S., and focusing on China, India, and other countries–TO WHICH THEY SENT OUR FRACKING JOBS, WHICH IS WHY THEIR ECONOMIES ARE BOOMING.


We will be basically a tourist service industry based country, if the big corporations have their way.


BeenThereDoneThat

I see a bigger help would be not regulating the heck out of businesses but I don’t think cutting their taxes will help. I was just listening to talk radio last week, talking about the fact that many big companies are sitting on mounds of cash right now but won’t spend it because they are not sure of economy. So we give them more money in their pockets with a tax cut. There is still the possibility that all you will do is give them a bigger pile to sit on and nothing else.


We have been that route the last couple years and as noted by other posters look at GE as an example. They are offshore. I think that it isn’t just taxes that is pushing companies out of this country. It is regulations.


Typoqueen

Gosh, I hate to admit it, I really don’t want to say this,,,please don’t let it get out. I agree with you. We need regulations but the govt. does have a tendency to over-do it.


I’ll add that we need to cut out all the crazy tax loop holes. The only part that I agree with regarding the rights stance on this tax issue is that they should continue to allow deductions for charitable contributions. Cutting taxes for anyone during a economic down turn like we’re having now is crazy. We need to encourage people to give to those that need it, especially now. If a rich guy or anyone for that matter wants to donate lots of $$ for cancer research and use it as a right off then fine give them the right off. I’m surprised that I haven’t heard anyone on my side of the isle speak to this.


r0y

Sadly, a lot of these regulations and requirements are often part of what drives people to incorporate.


In the end, we all learn that the government is less than no good at creating any jobs, and seem only skilled at getting in the way. Sure, there is a need for regulations and laws (obviously); however, no one sane would say we do not have enough laws or regulations on the books.


MaryMalone

Government has proven itself to be very good at creating jobs. In fact, our government will send our children, wives, husbands, loved ones to their slaughter in the Middle East so that contractors can have a never-ending supply of contracts to bid on.


Another thing our government is very good at…encouraging companies to send American jobs overseas. Thanks to the Clintons, American corporations get incentives to send their jobs to other countries. I kid you not. This is something that started over a decade ago, and it continues now, even with our unemployment stagnating at 15%.


This is what is killing our country. Jobs are created here using American resources, including our infrastructure, schools, etc. The people who work the jobs initially here in America are able to do so because of American schools. These jobs could not be created in India–no infrastructure to support job creation. But, as soon as the jobs have been created and American workers have problem-solved production so that it can be done efficiently, those jobs are sent overseas.


Are you thinking about seeing the spin-off of the Shrek series, “Puss and Boots”? I couldn’t wait for it to open! I loved the character, and thought Antonio Banderas (voice of the cat) was the best thing to happen to the Shrek series.


Well, I wanted to see it UNTIL I read the LATimes article (below).


That’s it for me and Dreamworks. They would not be where they were if they would have started their company in India. They used American know-how and workers, taking advantage of all America has to offer, and then, when we need the jobs the most, they ship them off to India.


I regret every dime I paid to see a Dreamworks movie and, by God, they’ll never see a penny from me again.


——————————


http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/29/business/la-fi-ct-dwa-india-20111029


‘Puss in Boots’ showcases work by India animators for DreamWorks


‘Puss in Boots’ marks the first time DreamWorks has relied on Indian animators to help produce a full-length feature film. The Bangalore, India, animation studio has become an increasingly important piece of DreamWorks’ production pipeline.

October 29, 2011|By Richard Verrier, Los Angeles Times

When the cat bandit “Puss in Boots” strides onto the big screen this weekend, Vanitha Rangaraju and her colleagues in Bangalore, India, will take special pride in the feline’s starring role on the global stage.

A spinoff of the hit “Shrek” movies, “Puss in Boots” represents a milestone for DreamWorks Animation and for the fledgling animation industry in the world’s second most populous nation.

The film, starring Antonio Banderas and Salma Hayek, marks the first time that the Glendale studio has relied on a crew of Indian animators to help produce a full-length feature film. Until now, DreamWorks Animation had used the studio it operates in Bangalore to produce mainly TV specials and DVD bonus material. But after investing more than $10 million over the last three years, DreamWorks has turned the Bangalore studio into an increasingly important piece of its production pipeline.

The investment underscores how Hollywood is increasingly farming out animation and visual effects work to India, both to capitalize on the country’s low labor costs and to tap into a large pool of English-speaking workers with sought-after computer skills. The pace of production also is accelerated because of the 24-hour cycle that can be maintained by pairing the Bangalore workers with their counterparts in Hollywood.

“We’re very excited because we’ve been working toward this for three years,” said Rangaraju, head of lighting for the India animation unit. “This is the first time this has happened in India, and it’s going to encourage a lot of people to move into the industry.”

DreamWorks is among several studios tapping into the labor pool in India. Sony Pictures Entertainment and Rhythm & Hues, the Los Angeles animation and visual effects house, each have facilities in India that have done work on such feature films as “Yogi Bear” and “Alvin and the Chipmunks.” Walt Disney Studios partnered with Mumbai-based Prana Studios to produce its 2008 computer-animated movie “Tinker Bell.” Additionally, several large Indian companies, such as Reliance Group, Tata Elxsi and Prime Focus, have established beachheads in Hollywood to do visual effects and 3-D conversion work on films such as “Spider-Man 3” and “Clash of the Titans.”

Traditionally, much of the film and TV work Hollywood has outsourced to India has involved low-skill, labor-intensive tasks such as wire removal — the tedious process of digitally erasing wires used to suspend stunt people and stars in action movies. The animation work has been confined mostly to TV series or made-for-DVD movies. But that’s beginning to change, as evidenced by “Puss in Boots.”

A team of about 100 animators in Bangalore spent six months animating three major scenes in the feature film — including one complex sequence in which Puss, Humpty Dumpty (Zach Galifianakis) and Kitty Softpaws (Hayek) enter a giant’s castle surrounded by a lush jungle in the clouds. “Except for the story boarding, we did everything from start to finish,” said Philippe Gluckman, creative director for the DreamWorks India unit, housed on the eleventh floor of a building in a high-tech park in a suburb of Bangalore. “I would hope nobody would be able to tell which sequences came from India.”

DreamWorks launched the India studio in early 2008 as part of a partnership with Technicolor, which acquired the Indian animation company Paprika Animation Studios. Technicolor owns the facility but has tapped DreamWorks to hire and train 220 illustrators who work there. DreamWorks sent staff members to India to train the crews and hold master classes on topics such as how to properly shape mouths.

Before embarking on a full-length feature film, the DreamWorks India unit started with smaller projects, such as holiday TV specials including “Merry Madagascar” and “Scared Shrekless” (a separate unit with the Technicolor studio animated the successful Nickelodeon TV series “The Penguins of Madagascar”). Currently, the group is working on its next film projects, including “Madagascar 3,” due out next summer, and is expected to have a role in the upcoming Bollywood-style musical “Monkeys of Mumbai.”

“It has been a very steep learning curve for all of them,” Gluckman said.

“Puss in Boots” Director Chris Miller said he was impressed with the quality of the work from India. “The work that came out of it was terrific and stands up to anything that was done here,” said Miller, who also directed “Shrek the Third.”

The ability to farm out even a small portion of the work to India has obvious financial advantages to DreamWorks, given the substantially lower labor costs — about 40% less than in the U.S. — and the increasingly competitive market in the U.S. The typical DreamWorks film costs about $130 million to produce.

But Joe Aguilar, head of the Indian operation for DreamWorks and producer on “Puss in Boots,” said the primary rationale for expanding into India was about tapping a scarce resource: people. The studio didn’t have enough people to meet its production needs at its two principal centers: in Glendale and at the PDI/DreamWorks facility in Redwood City. That became apparent when the studio began producing as many as three films in a year, he said.

“For us to continue to expand our capacity, we needed to have this facility,” Aguilar said. “There is a tremendous amount of talent there.”

Aguilar acknowledged some initial concerns within DreamWorks when the studio, which employs 1,561 people in Glendale and 557 in Redwood City, opened its facility in India.

“There has been fear in our studio,” he said. “But, if anything, we’ve just built more space in Glendale to increase our capacity there, and we’re moving into a bigger office in Redwood City. We’re not reducing jobs in the U.S.”


racket

Jeffrey Immelt, GE’s C.E.O, is heralded as the mastermind behind GE’s tax strategy. He is also chairman of Obama’s “council on jobs and competitiveness.” Don’t ask me why.


http://theweek.com/article/index/213590/why-doesnt-general-electric-pay-taxes


r0y

Immelt is pretty good at creating jobs, that’s why!


(actually, there are more, but three links, three different years should be enough).


LoL, people hoping in change…


JonnyB

Regulations, taxes aren’t killing small business, owners say


“Government regulations are not ‘choking’ our business, the hospitality business,”


The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is among the most vocal critics of the Obama administration, blaming excessive regulation and the administration’s overhaul of health care laws for creating an environment of uncertainty that’s hampering job creation.


When it’s asked what specific regulations harm small businesses _which account for about 65 percent of U.S. jobs — the Chamber of Commerce points to health care, banking and national labor. Yet all these issues weigh much more heavily on big corporations than on small business.


None of the business owners complained about regulation in their particular industries, and most seemed to welcome it.


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/01/122865/regulations-taxes-arent-killing.html#ixzz1bqif8LaV


Typoqueen

You’re correct. I spoke out of turn in my post, it’s not so much the regulation as it the govt. bureaucracy that makes me crazy (no smart a$$ remarks please). That bureaucracy is not just with small businesses it’s with anything to do with the govt. and IMO that is huge waste of money.


whatisup

GE pays zero U.S. corporate income taxes, but is sending jobs overseas. A lower corporate tax alone does nothing to create jobs in the U.S. All tax breaks and/or incentives for business should be for one reason and one reason only right now — generating jobs in the U.S. Tax the heck out of the corporations and give them no incentives if they are not creating new U.S. jobs.


zaphod

GE is the number two defense contractor and owns the number ONE news network.


Typoqueen

I don’t understand why Obama would appoint GE CEO has head of his jobs committee. Is Obama encouraging corps to take our jobs offshore?


I heard something last night about these defense jobs. Legally they’re not supposed to take any defence manufacturing off shore, but they can buy all the parts off shore. So yes, the jet engine has to put together here but GE can buy all the parts from thier Chinese or Indian factorys (or where every they produce this stuff).


r0y

Because you do not understand Obama. Sorry, due to your ideology, Obama will remain a mystery to you until it is far too late.


You can hate Bush at the drop of a hat, but when a light-skinned mulato does the very same things (or MUCH worse), it’s just hard to understand, huh?


Didn’t people on the left scream when Bush did crap like this? I know I did, and I’m not on the left!


racket

Not sure what race has to do with it, but I’m with you on the rest.


I think Obama dazzled the left with charm/novelty/youth. Hopefully the left has figured out the honeymoon is over…


JonnyB
Typoqueen

I still think there’s hope for him. I feel that he’s given his best shot at trying to work with the right and now he’s finely seeing the light (I hope). That being said I’m disappointed that when we had congress that he gave it away to the right and not just the regular right but to the baggers, the extreme of the extreme. But it’s not too late, I feel that he’s listening, it will happen, he’ll get it together. Besides that his foreign policies can’t be matched, he’s done an outstanding job in that area.


MaryMalone

You have to be kidding.


He is nothing but a well-paid bait-and-switch scam artist. He has done more damage to our country than Bush/Cheney ever hoped to do.


Typoqueen

Come on r0y you are just jumping on the old ‘I didn’t agree with Bush’ right wing BS. You know that none of you had a problem with anything he did when he was in office but now that history is showing what a buffoon he was you’re all jumping on that wagon.


Don’t be a jerk r0y, I don’t believe that I have accused you of being racist why are you bringing race into this?


I don’t hate Bush BTW, he can’t help it if he’s a tool (and not the sharpest tool in the shed). Obama has NEVER done anything even close to the stupid things that Bush did. Regarding GE CEO, this is Obama again appeasing to the right and from after the first year in office I have criticized him for this. But Bush can’t even be compared to Obama, in every way Obama is ten times more intelligent and a much more moral person that Bush.


r0y

The mulato was a trick used to show how inherently petrified of race many here can be, it is not a racist term, nor was used in a racist way. By the way, there is only one race: the human race.


To point out that someone was elected based on the color of their skin is not racism, it is a fact. Take away his color and Obama never would have seen the light of day, politically, and I think even you race-baiters know this. Would it not have been better to elect a person based on their character, and not the color of their skin? We’re now seeing the character that many elected NOT to see during the campaign, or his entire political career.


Second, people on the right and the left were screaming at the things Bush did! Are you kidding me? You think I want my freedoms eroded in the name of the fight against terrorism? You think I wanted to bail out ANY company, large or small? You think I wanted to throw more federal dollars down the education toilet than any president prior to him? Oh, I can go on and on. I will just say that the double-standard is evident everywhere, but people on the left are NOTORIOUS hypocrites.


The “democrats” that are upset with Obama are, in all reality, the “working families” infiltrators and similar like-minded radicals that have taken over that party. He is not radical enough for them! It’s just not enough to destroy the economy for everyone, pass mounds of regulation and laws, completely LIE about transparency, have the most criminal AG in history… Let’s face it, if you are a democrat or republican today, you’ve LOOOONG since lost your party.


Typoqueen

You underestimate the minds of the American people. Obama didn’t get elected because of his color and that is a very condescending statement. You can make up all the excuses you want but you brought race into a conversation where it wasn’t the topic and I find that pathetic


There is nothing wrong with Obama’s character. Although I don’t agree with some of his political decisions I still believe him to be a good man with good morals. Yes there’s talk about lobbyist and all that but this story isn’t’ over yet and he pales in comparison to right regarding being sold out. But to smear his character is very telling about you. Unlike so many others he came from a modest family, his mother worked hard to get him through school, he worked hard and got good grades without any issues, not even a DUI as our past prez. He is a good father and seems to have good family values. I don’t believe that he’s lied to us as our last prez did. He’s taken out more terrorists than any prez in history and all without boots on the ground, without any American bloodshed. That’s because unlike the right he cares about our troops, he doesn’t just go start wars without regard to human life. He’s a very moral man and even with my disagreements on how he’s dealt with the right I respect him as our president and as a man. I honor his achievements and I believe that history will show that other than blowing it by trying to appease the right and continuing Bush’s bailouts, that in this trying time he did a pretty good job.


What do you mean by the most criminal AG in history?


MaryMalone

r0y, your attempt to put a partisan or racial boogey-man in every fracking issue that comes along is getting real old.


MaryMalone

YES, Obama is encouraging American corporations to send our jobs to other countries. In fact, corporations get a nice fat tax cut if they do! I am not kidding.


———————–


http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2010-09-21/news-by-industry/27629489_1_outsourcing-jobs-tax-structure-barack-obama


Tax incentives should be cut for firms outsourcing jobs: Obama

PTI Sep 21, 2010, 04.51am IST


WASHINGTON: Making a strong pitch to discourage outsourcing of jobs, US President Barack Obama today said America”s present tax structure gives incentives for shipping jobs overseas, a trend that needs to be reversed with incentives aimed at creating jobs inside the country. In the midst of a mid-term election campaign, Obama has already made his stand on the issue clear, and has supported cutting down tax incentives to companies outsourcing jobs.

The issue of outsourcing has been a matter of concern for India, which is today largely recognised as the world”s back office, and benefits from a major chunk of outsourced jobs. Criticising the policies of the last Republican administration, Obama said: “We had two tax cuts that weren”t paid for, two wars that weren”t paid for that were hugely expensive.

We put off solving health-care costs that were skyrocketing. We didn”t solve college tuition costs that were skyrocketing”.

“We didn”t have an energy policy. We were seeing jobs being shipped overseas because of the way our tax structure gave them incentives,” Obama said……


————————


JonnyB

“Incomes are stagnant”


UNLESS YOU ARE IN THE TOP 1% PAL!


Where do you get these libertarians and their bogus talking points from? Is Heritage secretly sending CCN a check?


From 1950-1980 the bottom 90% of US grew our incomes 75%. Next 27 years? 1%.


From 1945-1980 the top 1% took 6%-9% of ALL US income, BUT by 2007? 23%.


Adjusted Gross Income Shares


Top 5%


1980 21.01%

2007 37.44%


Bottom 50% of US?


1980 17.68%

2007 12.26%


THEY LOST 30%+ OF THEIR PIECE OF THE PIE!


THE PIE HAS 100% NO MATTER HOW LARGE IT GETS!


http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html


GOVERNMENT POLICY MATTERS!


We used “trickle down” for 30+ years, it’s a proven failure. Dubya ramped up Ronnie’s failed policy’s, and brought US and the world to the brink of the second great Repugliuthan depression.


WHEN are they going to start taking responsibility for their failed policy’s?


Milton Friedman got his “free markets” reforms in Chile from 1973-1979, HOW DID IT WORK OUT FOR THEM AGAIN?


Oh that’s right, the bottom 90% lost income the next 20+ years, they were the worst performing Latin American nation economically, and the promised 25% more incomes from privatizing SS turned out to be 10% less than if left in the Government funds!


Google Chile Experiment. CONservatives, failed policy’s enacted over and over based on ideology!!!


zaphod

Google Chile Experiment

and colony dignidad for those folks in Chile who didn’t agree with the neo con overlords Pinochet military juanta

part of the anti labor Operation Condor


JonnyB

MORE right wing talking points on a false premise, one that they can’t show correlations to either jobs/tax rates!


Are Taxes in the U.S. High or Low?


One would not know from the Republican document that corporate taxes are expected to raise just 1.3 percent of G.D.P. in revenue this year, about a third of what it was in the 1950s.


The G.O.P. says global competitiveness requires the United States to reduce its corporate tax rate.


But the United States actually has the lowest corporate tax burden of any of the member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/


AFTER MINDS LIKE YOURS DESTROYED THE US AND WORLDS ECONOMY’S WHY SHOULD WE TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY AGAIN?


For over 30+ years the CONservatives have been wrong, they just keep moving the goal posts and creating new narratives. WHEN WILL THE US WAKE UP?


asthecrowphlies

First I would like to thank whoever it is at CCN that picks the coo-coos they want in the opinion page . Really , I am laughing out loud .


Gordon Mullin is the exact reason why my republican party is going to hell . Gordon Mullin is the face of American corporate greed . I am thankful he not my financial advisor . I don’t have the patients to go over all his lies . For now , I’d just like to say he’s distilled that Julie Tacker crazy juice down to crystals and is free basing it .


NEAK !


asthecrowphlies

Feel free to log back in as many times as you like to give me a thumps down .


Typoqueen

thumbs up.


r0y

The unemployment rate remains stuck around 10 percent – that’s only if you believe their magic numbers. I’ve never trusted government data since I worked for them years ago.


Unfortunately, so many people for so many generations have been weened on the notion that corporations are not people (“corporations don’t matter, people matter” etc) and are so emotionally bent on not seeing that corporations ARE people, and that it IS people who are what is wrong (or right) with a corporation. This failure of education, history in particular, will not easily be overcome.


Look at what the unions have done creating the occupy space movements! They have unlimited fodder from their brethren in academia and they coalesce into this twisted depraved morass and hope that one of the many messages will resonate with people who do not look too deep into the “movement.”


Poland is one of the few countries in Europe that isn’t being decimated by the failure of a socialist economic model; Poland also has one of the lowest Corporate Tax Rates in Europe (around 19%) – which is also one of the lowest in the “western world.” I do not think that coincidence.


Enter Herman Cain and his 9-9-9 plan. While it will spread the tax burden more evenly and has a potential to hurt the impoverished (without the details of any relief zones or exemption mechanisms) it is the best plan (only plan) I have heard from a politician since some flaky liberal named BROWN wanted a flat tax… what ever happened to that, Jerry? (I digress)


Mr. Cain has not been torn apart by the usual suspects, as any threat to the current socialist/democrat trend has been, likely due to the fact that the establishment has decided on our choices and the media just follows along. We’ll see.


We’ve all been told that recovery will be PAINFUL, and it’s no surprise to thinkers; but so many of us have been indoctrinated NOT to think, but to depend that any serious fix (which requires serious change) will be met with intolerance and, likely, violence. It always is.


A zero percent tax rate is a good idea, but there should be SEVERE restrictions placed on corporations as far as reimbursements go. You want to be filthy rich? Do it unincorporated, taking all of the risks to get all of the rewards. As it stands now, many (especially in the financial corporate world) take little or no risks, but reap all of the rewards.


As Bush began, and Obama continued and doubled down with, corporate bailouts only spread risk to the public, while the rewards are private. Not good. The bailouts were, and always will be a mistake (if one truly wants a free and capitalist society).


JonnyB

More hogwash PAL!


“corporations are not people”


Should have stopped there. CORPS ARE NOT PEOPLE! Corps were severally restricted by our Founders:


Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States


When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.


Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end.

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/history_corporations_us.html


Beware of the soulless corporations

For-profit corporations are by nature amoral, not patriotic, not compassionate, and held to no standard other than whether their actions improve earnings

http://www.newtimesslo.com/commentary/6002/beware-of-the-soulless-corporations/


The 147 Companies That Control Everything


http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2011/10/22/the-147-companies-that-control-everything/


mkaney

You could do us ALL a giant favor by forming your own ideas, and typing them out as complete sentences. Then add the link afterward to document your own words. You are making the comment section very difficult to read with your incessant vomiting out of links and pasted text from unrelated articles.


JonnyB

Don’t read them PAL!


Typoqueen

Your posts are very good, don’t change a thing.


shelworth

I always thought that would be a great idea, and a flat income tax (or national sales tax instead). Unfortunately, the folks in Congress would never give up so much power.


r0y

True, it’s like asking lawyers to push for tort reform (which would also greatly benefit the economy and drastically lower costs of almost everything).


Children rarely like to give up their favorite candy.


JonnyB

You LOVE right wing talking points don’t you PAL? How about proving your premise that tort reform “also greatly benefit the economy and drastically lower costs of almost everything”?


Cali has had tort reform on Medical malpractice for over 20 years, capping pain and suffering at $250,000. HOW HAS THAT WORKED? Besides giving a windfall to Corps!!!!


mkaney

YOU are the one with the talking points buddy. You are such a rude “in your face” poster it’s ridiculous.


JonnyB

You’re right PAL, I AM RUDE, TO CONservatives!


I find them the most dishonest, despicable types, especially the libertarians like YOU!


Of course IF all I had was talking points, you would be able to refute them, as I do with yours and Roys. But since you can’t and ONLY go with ideology (Austrian school, lol) I’ll stick with my current process!


r0y

Netiquette would have me call him a Troll. I just skip his stuff. It’s easy to find, it’s a bunch of copy/paste words taken from elsewhere to push an extremely narrow and short-sighted agenda.


He is bringing down the quality of the comment section. PAL! (lol, what a tool)


Typoqueen

r0y, you skip his stuff because he’s correct and so far he’s been correct with every post,,you just can’t handle the truth so you close your eyes and hold your ears. He’s no more a troll than you are.


r0y

No, typo, he is wrong in so many places it’s just not worth it. God forbid, someone have a different theory! He will attack anyone who is not a far left zealot, using far-left media sources to back up his far-left agenda.


I have no agenda; I know people who are on the left are the masters of name-calling and insults – one just has to read the words they post here.


He often takes a small snapshot of something, out of context, and blows it up into an entire argument. Ask a simple question, and he attacks. It’s completely out of Rules for Radicals – an interesting read. Just attack, attack, attack, and hope that no one remembers what the question was, or that it was completely dodged. I have no use for political radicals, thankfully it is still my right.


JonnyB

LOL’


At least you project well PAL…


r0y

See? Case in point.


JonnyB

STILL waiting for you to give EVIDENCE of YOUR tort reform false premise above PAL!


Typoqueen

“I have no agenda” {giggle} hmm okay.


” I know people who are on the left are the masters of name-calling and insults – one just has to read the words they post here”


Are yo kidding? Oh yeah, that’s the ticket, no one on the right in this forum insults me or calls me names, now that is a funny.

Are you saying that you’re offended because Jonny calls you ‘pal’?


I might have missed a post but I haven’t seen one post that he’s taken out of context. Jonny doesn’t dodge any questions as a matter of fact it seems that the reason that are so upset is because he (could be a she, one never knows) is very direct. So far the links that I’ve seen him post were very fair.


I only regret that Jonny probably won’t stick around for long, and then it will be just a few of us again against the extreme right wing feces thrown at us. I never see you saying anything to the people that insult me on a regular basis but because this guy calls you ‘pal’ you get your knickers in a knot. Well r0y put on your big boy pants and stop whining. It’s not that big a deal, he’s direct not insulting. Besides, there’s nothing wrong with a little dig here and there, you do it all the time.


asthecrowphlies

r0y is so infected with Fox propaganda he cannot form a personal thought of his own . Don’t even waste your time with him .


r0y

Yes, assumptions and insults are a great way to show one’s humanity. Very well done.


asthecrowphlies

NEAK !


r0y

OK, JonnyB, I will answer your question so you may answer mine.


You LOVE right wing talking points don’t you PAL?

I don’t know, I’ve never seen them. Send me a link, I’ll read through them and let you know. Also, I’m pretty sure I am not your PAL – I’m not even your NTSC!


How about proving your premise that tort reform “also greatly benefit the economy and drastically lower costs of almost everything”?

1) Regulation through litigation subverts the democratic process (seperation of powers, etc, etc.). Subverting the process enables lobbyists and media campaigns. It can be argued that all costs generally are passed to the end consumer, thus NOT paying for additional lobbyists or media campaigns can lower the cost to the end consumer.


2) Ask any professional, licensed individual how much they have to pay in professional insurance (malpractice, errors and omissions, liability, etc) – is it a significant part of their budget? Just the cost of what? Ah, doing business. This is not to say do away with it, but frivolous lawsuits only add to everyone’s cost and are often encouraged under many tort systems.


3) Properly implemented medical malpractice tort reform can reduce the cost of medical malpractice insurance; whether someone passes those savings on, only fair competition in a free market would allow (heh, argument against nationalized medicine AND for tort reform!) You can read more here (and that’s actuary data, not some lefty newsite focusing on a heart-wrenching story).


4) The main problem with the current system is lawsuits over socially beneficial practices increase the costs of those practices, and thus improperly deter innovation and other economically desirable activity. Additionally, small businesses are typically hurt worse by the threat of litigation than large corporations are, because the legal expenses from a single lawsuit can bankrupt a small businessperson.


Finally, just so it won’t be confused, an argument for tort reform is not an argument to do away with the legal system. Unlike occupy spacers, sometimes reform can be accomplished without completely trashing the existing system. Change can by dynamic and evolutionary, “organic” if you will, and occur over time with fixes here and there until a better system can be had.


Now, go answer my question before you copy/paste your left-leaning media links and passive-aggressive caps-lock text.


JonnyB

Got it ONION, NOTHING EMPIRICAL, LOL


ALL you have is opinion PAL, WHY? Can’t you PROVE your assertion that


“it’s like asking lawyers to push for tort reform (which would also greatly benefit the economy and drastically lower costs of almost everything).”


LIKE I POINTED OUT, CALI HAS HAD IT FOR 20 = YEARS, WHERE’S THE BENEFIT?


Passive aggressive? PAL, ALL aggressive against the CONservative types like you.


CONservatives have been wrong about everything for 40+ years, be it tax cuts bring in more revenues, to privatization of SS, to trickle down, etc.


CONservatives constantly move the goal posts when their predictions don’t come true!


BTW, Can you point to ONE city, county, state or nation EVER to thrive under your libertarian system? EVER?


JonnyB

Yes, WHY should the wealthy pay for US right? They NEED more tax breaks!


Flat taxes are regressive, even the “fair tax”. Just MORE bogus right wing BS to push their goals. NOT based on facts or truth!


r0y

I’d love for you to answer your own questions: why should SOMEONE ELSE pay for you? What gives YOU a right to another’s labors?


JonnyB

lol


I THOUGHT YOU SKIP MY POSTS? How about answering mine first PAL? It’s right above about tort reform you just skipped by!!!


But unlike the CONservatives, I’ll answer. THEY AREN’T PAYING FOR ME. They ARE however paying for US. The military, roads, schools, etc that they disproportionately benefit from!


Here’s how the top tax bracket has changed:


1920 73%

1935 63%

1940 81.1%

1945 94%

1950 84.36%

1955 91%

1960 91%

1965 70%

1970 71.75%

1975 70%

1980 70%

1985 50%

1990 28%

1995 39.6%

2000 39.6%

2001 35%


Note that in our country’s time of need – WWI and WWII – the tax rate on the top income bracket went up to 77% and 94%, respectively.


Now in our country’s time of need again, when we are fighting not one but two wars, the rich no longer feel it is their patriotic duty to come to the aid of their country.


Instead, the richest Americans pay near the lowest tax rate they have paid in the last century, and argue for their taxes to be cut further!


It is time for the richest Americans to shut their mouths and quit complaining and do their patriotic duty and pay their fair share of taxes.


Typoqueen

Well said!!


r0y

This is so wrong on so many fronts, but honestly, I do not want to be like you and feel it’s my duty to re-educate. You’re happy with your ideology, you seem to like your self-imposed quest to belittle anyone who disagrees with said ideology. Fine. It’s your right.


I’ll just say, that in the far-left world you seem to be working so hard to bring about, it is the very vocal, belligerent radicals that are often the first to disappear (once they’ve been used). I hope you recognize this irony.


BTW: WWI ended in 1919, your data doesn’t start until after the War; second, you must completely not understand economies if you’re only basing your argument on percentages. How about looking up productivity and GDP, GNP, etc? How about looking up revenues taken in? Really, that was a pretty weak argument, and you end it with a “shut up and pay” demand?


You asked me to answer your question (typical response to any challenge to your points) – but I am not sure you even HAVE a question. All I see is personal attacks, name-calling, and generally rude behavior people often expect of spoiled children. If you want to have an adult conversation, ask your question – see? I’m not even pressing the fact that you’ve NOT answered the most fundamental question posed to you and your ideology: why should SOMEONE ELSE pay for you? What gives YOU a right to another’s labors?


(hint: I don’t expect an answer)


JonnyB

Yet you STILL wont answer the question, lol


PAL, You need to work a LOT harder if you want to try to disprove my point other than to say my 80 year time line wasn’t long enough!!!


You can’t AND don’t EVER try to refute ANYTHING I post PAL, either here or on the Trib, just spout it’s ideology driven as you go about spouting Rush and Becks latest talking points and attack methods.


Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

Abraham Lincoln


r0y

You’ve proved my point. Thank you.


Typoqueen

LOL oh r0y stop already.


zaphod

Chart of the day, from the radicals and malcontents @ the congressional budget office.


Typoqueen

Good link!