posted August 12, 2011 07:11 PM            

Her article took things even a step further providing this context:

The World Bank also produces another -- and broader -- statistic. This measure factors in not only the corporate profit tax but also a range of other taxes paid by businesses, including the cost of employee taxes borne by the employer. When the World Bank ranked countries from the lowest level of taxes to the highest, the U.S. ranked 124th out of 183 -- meaning corporate taxes were relatively high. A number of other large and/or democratic countries were higher, including Austria, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Hungary, India, Italy, Spain and Sweden.

posted August 12, 2011 07:56 PM            

so apparently randall you DO agree that INCOME tax is applicable to corporations - and NOT LABOUR.

now while i understand that one escapes the tax on profit by reinvesting it in the company, shouldn't that mean reinvesting it HERE in the USA and not in every cheap labour-and-parts country EXCEPT here? why is it that PROFIT made here can be shipped abroad to pay chinese labour and not made to stay here and pay american workers?

posted August 13, 2011 08:51 AM            

Do you think it's clever to argue against what is manifestly true?

Any half-wit could have found the information that the US has the highest corporate tax RATE in the industrialized world.

Last year, I made note here that the US had the 2nd highest corporate tax RATE in the industrialized world and would soon have the highest when Japan lowered it's rate.

So, when I said the US has the "highest corporate tax RATE" in the industrialized world, the statement was manifestly true and remains true.

There's nothing clever about being wrong on almost every issue but leftists are blinded to the truth by their absurd ideology.

Randall is right.

Taxes are paid on profits, not income. Income diverted from the bottom line into business re-investment projects are either not taxed in the current year..and perhaps never if they're "expensed"...or, invested in equipment and put on a depreciation schedule where taxes on what would have been "profits" are spread over a number of years.

Leftists moaning about CEOs flying around on corporate jets and oil companies taking tax deductions to avoid taxes apparently don't know that it was O'Bomber and the demoscats in congress who put those provisions into O'Bomber's disastrous stimulus bill only a few years ago. Now, O'Bomber and demoscats are attempting to demonize the very tax breaks they passed...and the people who took them at face value and acted on them.

posted August 13, 2011 03:00 PM            

I really don't know how people can be absolutely wrong on every issue. I think a lot of people just unquestioningly believe whatever they are told by the establishment.

posted August 15, 2011 01:51 PM            

No, there is no winning this argument for you, Jwhop. Context is everything. You don't get to say you're right, when in practicality you are dead wrong. No CEO of a large American corporation would assume that his/her corporation paid the full tax rate as listed on the books. They'd expect to have paid less as they routinely have. This is what is "Manifestly true." Perhaps you should re-acquaint yourself with the meanings of those terms.

posted August 15, 2011 05:59 PM            

What's also manifestly true is that you're on the wrong side of almost every issue...and those issues about which you are wrong are legion.

posted August 15, 2011 11:39 PM            

Which is why I said acoustic was attempting to change the subject away from what is manifestly true to a different statement which may or may not be true.

Whether a corporation pays the full corporate tax load depends on their circumstances. Some may not be in a financial position to purchase new manufacturing equipment and take advantage of tax credits, tax rebates, accelerated depreciation schedules etc. Only oil producers are in a position to take the oil depletion allowance. Most refiners are not also producers and cannot....just for instance. Then, there's the hundreds of thousands of small corporations and Sub Chapter S corporations which are not in any position to capitalize on tax breaks built into the IRS code. So, for them, acoustic's statement would not be true..manifestly or otherwise.

posted August 15, 2011 11:45 PM            

I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off.

posted August 16, 2011 12:16 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
since you seem to be studiously avoiding the buffet piece, jwhop, let me highlight just a couple of sentences for you!

[b] I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone ? not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 ? shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off.

And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what?s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation. [/B]

---

posted August 16, 2011 11:22 AM            

HOWEVER his basic point is still true. if you have money to invest, which at least half of the country DOES NOT, and you make more on it, why quibble about a few percentage points? you are still profiting

a woman whose company i worked for for years decided she didn't like paying employees and their taxes, even though the result of spending that money was a profitable venture and the result of NOT spending it was a dying one! because she found paying taxes distasteful she scuppered the whole venture! and now she wonders where it went!

if you win the lottery you can take your money in installments and avoid taxes, or you can take the lump sum and give up 40+% of the whole. but with that lump sum you can make a fortune and only pay 15% on the proceeds! don't know about you but i would rather pay the 40% and use the money as i choose (to make more with as well as to invest in real estate - especially now!).

have you never heard the story of the goose who laid the golden eggs?

posted August 16, 2011 11:28 AM            

quote:

---

Your version being true (if it is) does not make Jwhop's statement false.

---

It's not my version. This is a widely reported reality. If the IRS is saying that they regularly receive less than the posted tax rate (the rate JWhop refers to), then obviously the effective tax rate is much less. In every corner of the corporate world, you're going to speak in terms of the effective tax rate, not some number that is effectively meaningless.

quote:

---

The definition of manifest is "clear and unmistakable" or "to show a thing clearly." So, in that vein, Jwhop's statement is manifestly true. To think otherwise is a an exercise in futility.

---

Once again proclaimly something false as if you're an authority (much like your global warming stance). What is clear and unmistakable is that large corporations aren't paying the corporate tax rate that governs them. There is no arguing this point. If corporations AREN'T paying that rate, then that rate is effectively MOOT.

quote:

---

Jwhop's statement is clear, concise, to-the-point, easily verifiable, and with no exceptions to it--making it the most manifestly true (clear and unmistakable) statement of the three.

---

Now you're claiming that there are exceptions to what I've said without proving such a point. What I've said is no less easily verifiable, and contains no less exceptions. My statement is the MOST true, because it incorporates the reality of the situation. That is something sorely lacking from Jwhop's statement. That is what makes JWhop's statement moot.

quote:

---

Which is why I said acoustic was attempting to change the subject away from what is manifestly true to a different statement which may or may not be true.

---

posted August 16, 2011 11:39 AM            

Is this a reality? Do corporations have a difficult time doing business here due to the tax rate?

posted August 17, 2011 12:34 PM            

Wrong statement acoustic...and one I didn't say on this thread The US isn't hostile towards business. The US has a very long history of business and economic freedom.

However, O'Bomber and his congressional comrades definitely are hostile towards business. That shines through all the blathering bullshiiit coming out of leftist butts.

posted August 17, 2011 04:12 PM            

quote:

---

The United States has the highest corporate tax rate among the industrialized nations.

---

I don't know why you guys are repeating yourselves. Do you think that does something?

quote:

---

Wrong statement acoustic...and one I didn't say on this thread The US isn't hostile towards business. The US has a very long history of business and economic freedom.

---

Ok, so you're disproving "America is now a tax haven for the wealthy." Let's give you a report card on whether your statement undoes this claim.

Do "wealthy" corporations indeed pay the largest tax rate in the world? No. They don't. What must be happening for them not to be paying what they owe? They're using the tax code to their favor. Is tax haven for the wealthy a fair statement? Yes.

Do "wealthy" people pay as much in taxes as a percentage of their income as their lower paid employees? Not according to Warren Buffett as we all were recently reminded. Once again, is "tax haven for the wealthy" a fair statment? Yes.

You didn't undo the claim that started this thread with what you said.

quote:

---

However, O'Bomber and his congressional comrades definitely are hostile towards business.

---

I don't know which is worse: saying the same thing over and over again in hopes that it changes something, or just making stuff up.

posted August 17, 2011 06:26 PM            

Yeah, I think repeating that which is manifestly true does...something!

The very best thing repeating what is manifestly true does..."The United States has the highest corporate tax rate among industrialized nations"...is:

1) prevent people like you from misleading others with your nonsense

2) further rational discussion about what the US corporate tax rate should be to grow the US economy and create private sector jobs