RealGM

Continued from here

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/26/world ... homepage-t

This is getting uglier. I personally applaud Snowden.

That being said, expect a mass international exodus within the next few years from US based "free" internet service companies.

The internet is moving towards Chinese style firewalled national intranets, with portions available internationally after approval. Now most privacy focused individuals understand why.

The current administration has moved the timetable for such a scenario 10 years earlier than expected. Silicon Valley C level execs/VCs/board members are so frustrated with the current administration it's astounding. I say this with first hand knowledge.

One example of a major fallout, is the EU will insist next year that android and apple based handsets no longer have the requirement to have Google or apple IDs and a full "no track" setting for the entire phone. "Dumb phones" are also now the phone of choice for most foreign dignitaries and politicians.

Bizarre. Worst part is the larger public information gathered/pilfered hasn't even been analyzed properly.....and never will be.

Census Bureau: Means-Tested Gov't Benefit Recipients Outnumber Full-Time Year-Round Workers –

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence ... jMtqf.dpuf

Wow, I am not sure how I missed this one...

In case you haven't already read it, the article below from today's WAPO is the most informative corporate tax reform piece I have ever seen.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... stop-them/

popper wrote:In case you haven't already read it, the article below from today's WAPO is the most informative corporate tax reform piece I have ever seen.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... stop-them/

Unfortunately Mr. Sullivan didn't have access to the latest data - he should probably start over.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 1744452490

Although he does effectively point out that the pass through for corporations should be audited... But if indeed those pass throughs are being taxed at a high individual rate, than that is fine, right? Remember, some of those pass throughs are for "corporations like law firms" etc. Why do we care if they pay a high individual rate? Example: Should we have S corps pay 35% and then have that money passed through to pay another 35%? That would be a 57.75% effective tax rate before state taxes. I don't think that would make us very competitive?

And he does point out that corporations don't pay a high tax on overseas earnings. But should they? They didn't make that money here. And not letting them bring in revenues earned overseas just means those corporations need to reinvest that money in overseas operations - government greed on that one doesn't help anyone here.

And that doesn't mean some corporations aren't getting unbelievable tax breaks... they are and it is ridiculous.

The tax code needs to be fixed. But it should be initially revenue neutral and should lean toward corporate competitiveness.

Reid's notion that he will only fix the tax code if there is significant new spending towards his programs is ridiculous. And Republicans keeping in their favorite tax breaks is beyond baffling.

Wizardspride wrote:http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/25/raising-the-medicare-age-revisited/?_r=1&


Raising The Medicare Age, Revisited

Agreed, Increasing the deductible for Medicare would be much more effective.

Agreed, doesn't make any sense. It does make sense to raise the age for SS and federal retirement. Those would be major difference makers. They should also means test both of those programs as well.

dckingsfan wrote:And that doesn't mean some corporations aren't getting unbelievable tax breaks... they are and it is ridiculous.

The tax code needs to be fixed. But it should be initially revenue neutral and should lean toward corporate competitiveness.

Reid's notion that he will only fix the tax code if there is significant new spending towards his programs is ridiculous. And Republicans keeping in their favorite tax breaks is beyond baffling.

agree that it needs to be fixed but what is the argument for revenue neutrality?

Corp revenues are at historic lows relative to GDP. Many, myself included, believe
this is a significant contributing factor to income and wealth inequality. Many, myself included
believe increasing wealth/income inequalty are major long term threats to our country
and contributing factors to dysfunctional, special interest driven govt.

Stagnant incomes are a major contributing factor to low growth.
Slow growth is hurting our country more than debt. We've been overly
focused on the wrong problem since 2010. Ironically, the debt-hawks
keep talking about their motivations being on behalf of our kids and
grandkids. College grads are suffering big time due to slow growth
and low wages and this is likely to have significant long term consequences over
their lifetimes.

I think most would agree that we had a better economy when corps were
paying a larger percentage of total revenues than they currently are.

I reject out of hand the idea that it is impossible to tax corporations
based on the business, especially sales, that are realized in this country
or that corps would take their business elsewhere if we tried to. Any
corps that did would quickly be replaced by ones that do want the business.

dobrojim wrote:

dckingsfan wrote:And that doesn't mean some corporations aren't getting unbelievable tax breaks... they are and it is ridiculous.

The tax code needs to be fixed. But it should be initially revenue neutral and should lean toward corporate competitiveness.

Reid's notion that he will only fix the tax code if there is significant new spending towards his programs is ridiculous. And Republicans keeping in their favorite tax breaks is beyond baffling.

agree that it needs to be fixed but what is the argument for revenue neutrality?

All of the static models (which is what Reid wants to use) don't take into affect the real dynamic results from lowering tax rates and how they increase tax revenues.

Second, we don't want to raise additional revenues to grow the government. If Reid came in and said that those revenues would go toward reducing the debt, fine. But he is using the loopholes as an excuse to grow revenues and grow the government.

dobrojim wrote:

dckingsfan wrote:And that doesn't mean some corporations aren't getting unbelievable tax breaks... they are and it is ridiculous.

The tax code needs to be fixed. But it should be initially revenue neutral and should lean toward corporate competitiveness.

Reid's notion that he will only fix the tax code if there is significant new spending towards his programs is ridiculous. And Republicans keeping in their favorite tax breaks is beyond baffling.

Corp revenues are at historic lows relative to GDP. Many, myself included, believe
this is a significant contributing factor to income and wealth inequality. Many, myself included
believe increasing wealth/income inequalty are major long term threats to our country
and contributing factors to dysfunctional, special interest driven govt.

First, corporate revenues are not at historic lows - that was incorrectly reported and now changed. It is difficult to argue that Corporate tax rates have an affect on wealth inequality compared to individual tax rates other than through picking the industries that will succeed. Many believe that we should do away with corporate taxes, cap deductions for individuals and put capital gains at the same rates as ordinary income. And those tax breaks to corporations are the biggest drivers of special interest groups. Removing those breaks would even the playing field for all - but alas remove the ability of government to pick winners and losers.

dobrojim wrote:

dckingsfan wrote:And that doesn't mean some corporations aren't getting unbelievable tax breaks... they are and it is ridiculous.

The tax code needs to be fixed. But it should be initially revenue neutral and should lean toward corporate competitiveness.

Reid's notion that he will only fix the tax code if there is significant new spending towards his programs is ridiculous. And Republicans keeping in their favorite tax breaks is beyond baffling.

Stagnant incomes are a major contributing factor to low growth.
Slow growth is hurting our country more than debt. We've been overly
focused on the wrong problem since 2010. Ironically, the debt-hawks
keep talking about their motivations being on behalf of our kids and
grandkids. College grads are suffering big time due to slow growth
and low wages and this is likely to have significant long term consequences over
their lifetimes.

I think you will find that lowering corporate taxes will increase corporate revenues and increase incomes across the board. And those same corporate taxes do not spur growth which then leads to less hiring.

dobrojim wrote:

dckingsfan wrote:And that doesn't mean some corporations aren't getting unbelievable tax breaks... they are and it is ridiculous.

The tax code needs to be fixed. But it should be initially revenue neutral and should lean toward corporate competitiveness.

Reid's notion that he will only fix the tax code if there is significant new spending towards his programs is ridiculous. And Republicans keeping in their favorite tax breaks is beyond baffling.

I think most would agree that we had a better economy when corps were
paying a larger percentage of total revenues than they currently are.

Our biggest growth in our country was when there were no corporate taxes... I would refer you to Milton Friedman and many of his youtube lectures - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja9gEW2r4jU

dobrojim wrote:

dckingsfan wrote:And that doesn't mean some corporations aren't getting unbelievable tax breaks... they are and it is ridiculous.

The tax code needs to be fixed. But it should be initially revenue neutral and should lean toward corporate competitiveness.

Reid's notion that he will only fix the tax code if there is significant new spending towards his programs is ridiculous. And Republicans keeping in their favorite tax breaks is beyond baffling.

I reject out of hand the idea that it is impossible to tax corporations
based on the business, especially sales, that are realized in this country
or that corps would take their business elsewhere if we tried to. Any
corps that did would quickly be replaced by ones that do want the business.

The argument shouldn't be that the corporations will leave, it should be that you will reduce growth and wages. This is because the $$s go to the government and not to the corporation which then reduces the wages to the employees, dividends to the stock holders and costs for their products. And taxing gross sales vs. profits would be disastrous - that is a simple accounting drill that will further increase the difference paid by various corporations based on how well they lobby.

And again, if you want to get to the root of the problem, limit individual deductions to a gross amount and tax dividends at the same rate as income.

And you will do away with all the special interests that you hate at the same time.

Remember, those taxes on corporations either come from higher prices for their goods, lowered dividends or lower wages to the employees or a combination of the three.

dckingsfan wrote:

dobrojim wrote:

dckingsfan wrote:And that doesn't mean some corporations aren't getting unbelievable tax breaks... they are and it is ridiculous.

The tax code needs to be fixed. But it should be initially revenue neutral and should lean toward corporate competitiveness.

Reid's notion that he will only fix the tax code if there is significant new spending towards his programs is ridiculous. And Republicans keeping in their favorite tax breaks is beyond baffling.

Stagnant incomes are a major contributing factor to low growth.
Slow growth is hurting our country more than debt. We've been overly
focused on the wrong problem since 2010. Ironically, the debt-hawks
keep talking about their motivations being on behalf of our kids and
grandkids. College grads are suffering big time due to slow growth
and low wages and this is likely to have significant long term consequences over
their lifetimes.

I think you will find that lowering corporate taxes will increase corporate revenues and increase incomes across the board. And those same corporate taxes do not spur growth which then leads to less hiring.

pardon me if that sounds a bit too much like trickled on, I mean trickle down.

dobrojim wrote:

dckingsfan wrote:

dobrojim wrote:
Stagnant incomes are a major contributing factor to low growth.
Slow growth is hurting our country more than debt. We've been overly
focused on the wrong problem since 2010. Ironically, the debt-hawks
keep talking about their motivations being on behalf of our kids and
grandkids. College grads are suffering big time due to slow growth
and low wages and this is likely to have significant long term consequences over
their lifetimes.

I think you will find that lowering corporate taxes will increase corporate revenues and increase incomes across the board. And those same corporate taxes do not spur growth which then leads to less hiring.

pardon me if that sounds a bit too much like trickled on, I mean trickle down.

Sad... I guess it does come across that way. But the dollars from corporate taxes still come from lower wages, higher costs for products and services or lower dividends. And you are pretty clear you don't want those either, right?

I submit that you don't want the rich to "get away" with paying an unfair share of their income. The best way to do that is to simply limit all deductions and tax dividends the same way as we do income.

I submit that you want wages to grow - the best way to inhibit wage growth is to increase corporate taxes.

My explanation might not be perfect - but if you think about it for a few minutes, you may agree.

dckingsfan wrote:First, corporate revenues are not at historic lows - that was incorrectly reported and now changed. It is difficult to argue that Corporate tax rates have an affect on wealth inequality compared to individual tax rates other than through picking the industries that will succeed. Many believe that we should do away with corporate taxes, cap deductions for individuals and put capital gains at the same rates as ordinary income. And those tax breaks to corporations are the biggest drivers of special interest groups. Removing those breaks would even the playing field for all - but alas remove the ability of government to pick winners and losers.

a couple things -


I believe I may have misstated the facts on corp revenues. Or maybe not.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/?_r=0

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.

Nevertheless, one routinely hears variations of the Moore argument from conservative commentators. By contrast, one almost never hears that total revenues are at their lowest level in two or three generations as a share of G.D.P. or that corporate tax revenues as a share of G.D.P. are the lowest among all major countries. One hears only that the statutory corporate tax rate in the United States is high compared with other countries, which is true but not necessarily relevant.

I reject the idea that if we just make corporations more profitable (by lowering their taxes)
they will hire more people or increase their wages. It is my firm belief that corps or any other
type of business hire people to meet the expected demand for the products and/or services
that those prospective employees will supply. Period. They will increase wages when they
have to in order to retain workers who can make them more/most profitable.

Corps or other businesses do not hire or increase wages simply because their expenses
(tax burdens) have become lower. Corporations have been making huge profits in recent
years but hiring and wage growth have not been commensurate with those profits.

some interesting thoughts on corporate behavior here

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0119-04.htm

To pave the way for such a change, we must challenge the myth that making profits and protecting the public interest are mutually exclusive goals. The same was once said about profits and product quality, before Japanese manufacturers taught us otherwise. If we force companies to respect the public interest while they make money, business people will figure out how to do both.

The specific change I suggest is simple: add 26 words to corporate law and thus create what I call the �Code for Corporate Citizenship.� In Maine, this would mean amending section 716 to add the following clause. Directors and officers would still have a duty to make money for shareholders,

... but not at the expense of the environment, human rights, the public safety, the communities in which the corporation operates or the dignity of its employees.

Many would say such a code could never be enacted. But they�re mistaken. I take heart from a 2000 Business Week/Harris Poll that asked Americans which of the following two propositions they support more strongly:

Corporations should have only one purpose--to make the most profit for their shareholders--and pursuit of that goal will be best for America in the long run.

--or--

Corporations should have more than one purpose. They also owe something to their workers and the communities in which they operate, and they should sometimes sacrifice some profit for the sake of making things better for their workers and communities.

An overwhelming 95 percent of Americans chose the second proposition. Clearly, this finding tells us that our fate is not sealed. When 95 percent of the public supports a proposition, enacting that proposition into law should not be impossible.

question: What are American companies complaining about? Senator Carl Levin, a one-man wrecking crew of American job creation, declared that the GAO study proved that "America's large, profitable corporations are now paying a lower tax rate than our teachers and firefighters."

Except it appears that the GAO researchers were off by a statistical mile. Andrew Lyon, an international tax expert at PricewaterhouseCoopers, writes in the academic journal Tax Notes this month that GAO didn't count all corporate taxes paid.

Another blunder was that the research examined only one year of data, 2010. Mr. Lyon finds that this produced "unrepresentative results" because 2010 "follows the severe 2007-2009 recession." In 2010 corporate taxes fell to their lowest level in many years due to write-offs from prior year losses.

Mr. Lyon used GAO's model but extended the analysis over a more representative period of years, 2004-2010. He also counted all taxes paid world-wide, including foreign, state and local taxes. His conclusion: "The effective tax rate based on worldwide current tax payments for all U.S. corporations exceeded 35 percent for the 2004-2010 period."

His findings are in line with many other studies. The Tax Foundation found in 2011 that the effective tax rate on new corporate investment in the U.S. is 29.8% versus 22.4% among America's rivals.

It is true that some companies pay a lower effective rate, and some industries are taxed less than others. We've written about Whirlpool WHR +1.35% and other companies that have taken advantage of green-energy subsidies to pay a lower rate in some years.

But these exceptions to the general high-tax American rule aren't the result of corporate scheming. They are the consequence of deliberate tax favors promoted by the likes of Carl Levin and his Washington mates. Mr. Levin wants it both ways: Take political credit and campaign cash for passing tax favors, but then demagogue companies for exploiting those favors. One goal of tax reform is to reduce this political mediation in the cause of fairness and economic growth, but Mr. Levin doesn't want to give up his power.

The Tax Foundation reports that since 1997 31 of 34 leading economies have cut their corporate tax rates to attract jobs and capital. They must know something that Congress doesn't, because the U.S. is one of the three laggards. The other two are Chile and Norway. Every year that the U.S. fails to reform its tax code, America becomes less competitive and more jobs are put at risk.

You won't read all of this so I will just highlight the finding:

His findings are in line with many other studies. The Tax Foundation found in 2011 that the effective tax rate on new corporate investment in the U.S. is 29.8% versus 22.4% among America's rivals.

If you look at just 2010 - they could be correct - but when adjusted for a reasonable time frame, that just isn't correct - they are feeding you a bunch of malarkey. US Corporate Tax rates and effective tax rates aren't low and definitely aren't low compared to those rates in competing nations.