• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama seeks 28 percent corp. tax rate

It doesn't matter what they put in place for a tax % on corporations. It really doesn't. Corporations and their lobbyists are going to influence everything and find (and in many cases create) new loopholes, exploit old ones, make deductions ect ect ect. Set it at 98% who gives a crap. I will care about the corporate tax rates when corporations are actually expected to pay it.

This is purely political. Obama is putting a number out there to make people feel good. And a ton of poeple are going to buy into it and think it makes a difference. But set it at 28% or 35% or 42%. These large corporations are going to be paying less than 10%. This move changes nothing other than it will get Obama a few more votes. And in the end, like every politician, its not about what is best for America. It is not about improving our country. Its only about making people think you did something so you can harvest their vote and stay in office.
 
apdst said:
No, it's not.

This isn't going to do anything, except force corporations to pay more taxes. Small businesses will take an ass whipping with this plan.
Click to expand...
There aren't enough details to determine that. Your accusations are just more fear mongering by conservatives.

Those details were left out on purpose to let Congress work some of them out. This just points a direction, which specific mountain pass or valley gets traveled will be something decided in the future. No doubt business will gets it's say in those discussions as well. Obama is not now and never has been out to ax small business. If anything he's been trying to help them.
 
apdst said:
And, it's up to you to use the details of the plan to prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

YOU are the one who insisted the plan will result in a tax INCREASE for small business
you were challenged to show why such a bold statement could be made, recognizing the tax rates for those businesses were being reduced
and now you want me to prove what you were unable to prove - is wrong
next you will expect me to divide by zero
you whiffed - as usual
 
Corps should have no tax at all because the reality is they just figure in taxes as part of the cost to produce their goods or service and tack it onto the price we pay for it so in reality a corp tax just taxes the consumer.
 
MoSurveyor said:
There aren't enough details to determine that. Your accusations are just more fear mongering by conservatives.

Those details were left out on purpose to let Congress work some of them out. This just points a direction, which specific mountain pass or valley gets traveled will be something decided in the future. No doubt business will gets it's say in those discussions as well. Obama is not now and never has been out to ax small business. If anything he's been trying to help them.
Click to expand...

Well, you're right about one thing: we don't know **** about the details. Why is that?

Anyone that thinks that this won't equate to small businesses paying more in income taxes is out of their minds.

If you reduce deductions, you raise taxes on corporations, no matter the size of the corporation.
 
justabubba said:
YOU are the one who insisted the plan will result in a tax INCREASE for small business
you were challenged to show why such a bold statement could be made, recognizing the tax rates for those businesses were being reduced
and now you want me to prove what you were unable to prove - is wrong
next you will expect me to divide by zero
you whiffed - as usual
Click to expand...

Ok, it's like this:

A business makes $100,000. It makes the average 20% profit. You take away from their 80% of deductions. Hince, you've raised their taxes and cut into their profit margin. It ain't rocket science.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Corps should have no tax at all because the reality is they just figure in taxes as part of the cost to produce their goods or service and tack it onto the price we pay for it so in reality a corp tax just taxes the consumer.
Click to expand...

That all depends on what kind of business it is.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Corps should have no tax at all because the reality is they just figure in taxes as part of the cost to produce their goods or service and tack it onto the price we pay for it so in reality a corp tax just taxes the consumer.
Click to expand...

That works unless you are competing internationally. When your costs go up and your competitions doesn't there's no passing the costs on.
 
apdst said:
Well, you're right about one thing: we don't know **** about the details. Why is that?
I posted my opinion on what the article's said about that.

Anyone that thinks that this won't equate to small businesses paying more in income taxes is out of their minds.
More fear mongering. Without details we have no clue exactly who it will affect or how.

If you reduce deductions, you raise taxes on corporations, no matter the size of the corporation.
Click to expand...
That's patently false if you're also changing the tax rate, which is what's happening here.
 
MoSurveyor said:
That's patently false if you're also changing the tax rate, which is what's happening here.
Click to expand...

It isn't necessarily false. We have no idea right now.
 
A few quotes from the article:

Chances of accomplishing such change in the tax system are slim in a year dominated mostly with presidential and congressional elections. But for Obama, the proposal is part of a larger tax plan that is central to his re-election strategy.
Click to expand...

While Obama has been promoting various aspects of his economic agenda in personal appearances and speeches, the decision to leave the corporate tax plan to the Treasury Department to unveil signaled its lower priority.

What's more, the administration's framework leaves much for Congress to decide — a deliberate move by the administration to encourage negotiations but which also doesn't subject the plan to detailed scrutiny.
Click to expand...

Obama's plan is not as ambitious as a House Republican proposal that would lower the corporate rate to 25 percent.
Click to expand...


It's all about getting re-elected...nothing more.

Obama throws this out there...knowing nothing will get done...but getting people to think he WANTS to do something. And it's not even as good as what the Republicans propose.


But, hey...the sheeple will lap it up and eagerly line up to vote for him.
 
Last edited:
Mycroft said:
It's all about getting re-elected...nothing more.

Obama throws this out there...knowing nothing will get done...but getting people to think he WANTS to do something.
Click to expand...
I'm sure he does want to do something, and he's left room for others to have their input, but with Republican's Job #1 being the White House instead of the People I'm sure nothing will get done.

Mycroft said:
And it's not even as good as what the Republicans propose.
Click to expand...
More propaganda. Without more information we can't know which is better.
 
MoSurveyor said:
I'm sure he does want to do something, and he's left room for others to have their input, but with Republican's Job #1 being the White House instead of the People I'm sure nothing will get done.

More propaganda. Without more information we can't know which is better.
Click to expand...

When I see the Democrats in Congress proposing and fighting for this kind of legislation, then I might believe he wants to do something. Until then it's all political campaign rhetoric...meaningless to anyone who is not a sheeple.
 
Mycroft said:
When I see the Democrats in Congress proposing and fighting for this kind of legislation, then I might believe he wants to do something. Until then it's all political campaign rhetoric...meaningless to anyone who is not a sheeple.
Click to expand...
It's sad how narrow-minded conservatives can be, unable to believe others can have balanced goals. But given the level of negotiation and cooperation of the Republicans this last year I shouldn't be surprised.
 
MoSurveyor said:
It's sad how narrow-minded conservatives can be, unable to believe others can have balanced goals. But given the level of negotiation and cooperation of the Republicans this last year I shouldn't be surprised.
Click to expand...

Another definition of being narrow minded is in blaming the other side for everything. I noted in my first post that I agree with taking tax law in this direction but it's a valid position to say that if Congress does nothing to further this, it's nothing more than hot air.
 
1Perry said:
Another definition of being narrow minded is in blaming the other side for everything. I noted in my first post that I agree with taking tax law in this direction but it's a valid position to say that if Congress does nothing to further this, it's nothing more than hot air.
Click to expand...
I agree - I just play tit for tat. If someone posts that the Dems are playing one-sided then I see nothing wrong in pointing out the one-sidedness of Republican politics, too. :shrug:


Ed:
If he had stated it instead of turning his post into an anti-Dem ad that would have been different but catch-words like "sheeple" point to the real intent of the post.
Notice I didn't use "Corporate Lap Dogs" anywhere - until now, of course. ;)
 
Last edited:
This is one step in the right direction. I would have lowered it to 34.9% with no loopholes.
 
MoSurveyor said:
I agree - I just play tit for tat. If someone posts that the Dems are playing one-sided then I see nothing wrong in pointing out the one-sidedness of Republican politics, too. :shrug:
Click to expand...

A complete waste of time. Besides, the arguement was not that the "Dems" were playing one sided. The arguement was that Obama will never take this any further than a speech.
 
MoSurveyor said:
It's sad how narrow-minded conservatives can be, unable to believe others can have balanced goals. But given the level of negotiation and cooperation of the Republicans this last year I shouldn't be surprised.
Click to expand...

The only difference between the Democrats and Republicans in Congress is that the Republicans have been...and will be...actually proposing and introducing legislation. The Democrats only talk...don't act.

This thread is a case in point. Obama talks, but nothing happens. The Republicans talk, and introduce legislation.

Of course, such legislation is blocked, stalled or outright ignored by the Democrats but nobody holds them to account for their actions.


So it goes.
 
MoSurveyor said:
I agree - I just play tit for tat. If someone posts that the Dems are playing one-sided then I see nothing wrong in pointing out the one-sidedness of Republican politics, too. :shrug:


Ed:
If he had stated it instead of turning his post into an anti-Dem ad that would have been different but catch-words like "sheeple" point to the real intent of the post.
Notice I didn't use "Corporate Lap Dogs" anywhere - until now, of course. ;)
Click to expand...

Yes. Since you can't defend against the notion that this whole issue is simply a campaign tactic used by Obama, you resort to playing "tit for tat" and blame the Republicans.

Good job, dude.
 
Mycroft said:
The only difference between the Democrats and Republicans in Congress is that the Republicans have been...and will be...actually proposing and introducing legislation. The Democrats only talk...don't act.

This thread is a case in point. Obama talks, but nothing happens. The Republicans talk, and introduce legislation.

Of course, such legislation is blocked, stalled or outright ignored by the Democrats but nobody holds them to account for their actions.


So it goes.
Click to expand...
Last time I checked the President could not introduce legislation, only Congressmen could do that. Has the Constitution changed???

Mycroft said:
Yes. Since you can't defend against the notion that this whole issue is simply a campaign tactic used by Obama, you resort to playing "tit for tat" and blame the Republicans.
Click to expand...
It's not my fault or the Dems that the Republicans claimed in no uncertain terms that there #1 Job was making Obama a one-term president. That was six months ago and their actions since have been obstruct, obstruct, obstruct. The Republicans did that to themselves, no one pushed them into it.


1Perry said:
A complete waste of time. Besides, the arguement was not that the "Dems" were playing one sided. The arguement was that Obama will never take this any further than a speech.
Click to expand...
When it comes to making or changing law the president can't do much else except recommend. I would have thought that was obvious?
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
1. Last time I checked the President could not introduce legislation, only Congressmen could do that. Has the Constitution changed???




2. It's not my fault or the Dems that the Republicans claimed in no uncertain terms that there #1 Job was making Obama a one-term president. That was six months ago and their actions since have been obstruct, obstruct, obstruct. The Republicans did that to themselves, no one pushed them into it.
Click to expand...

1. Do you really expect Congressional Democrats to introduce legislation along the lines Obama set? I don't...and neither does the article that this thread is based upon.

2. LOL!! More of the "blame Republicans"...none of the "holding Obama accountable for his actions".

Come on, dude. Justify Obama...if you can, eh? Is this all political campaign rhetoric...as I contend? Or does he REALLY want to cut taxes? Blaming the Republicans is idiotic and meaningless.
 
Mycroft said:
1. Do you really expect Congressional Democrats to introduce legislation along the lines Obama set? I don't...and neither does the article that this thread is based upon.
Click to expand...
I don't expect anything out of anybody in Congress - on either side of the aisle. If it weren't for the obvious downside to letting the payroll tax lapse they wouldn't have gotten anything done this year.

Mycroft said:
Or does he REALLY want to cut taxes?
Click to expand...
From the article:
Under the framework proposed by the administration, the rate cuts, closed loopholes and the minimum tax on overseas earning would result in no increase to the deficit.
Click to expand...
I interpret that to mean no tax cuts, so I don't know where you got that idea?

What I see is a partial streamlining of the system (closing loopholes) and a shift to use taxes as an incentive for investment in the US - including keeping jobs in the US or moving them back here.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom