• 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!

U.S. Corporate Tax Rate Is 2nd Highest in Industrialized World

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The Tax Foundation has released U.S. Lags While Competitors Accelerate Corporate Income Tax Reform:

New data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) shows that the U.S. corporate tax rate has fallen even further out of step with the rest of the industrialized world as countries such as Canada, the Czech Republic, Korea, and Sweden have cut their corporate rates in 2009, lowering the average statutory corporate tax rate of all OECD nations to 26.5%.

With a combined federal and state corporate tax rate of 39.1%, the U.S. continues to impose the second-highest overall corporate rate among industrialized countries. Only Japan's 39.5% combined rate is higher.

TaxProf Blog: U.S. Corporate Tax Rate Is 2nd Highest in Industrialized World

6a00d8341c4eab53ef0120a52eeef2970c-800wi


6a00d8341c4eab53ef0120a4d7dd11970b-500wi


Looks pretty surprising.
 
Another one of, "are you surprised?", pieces of info. The greatest part, Krewe Obama is going to make it even higher.
 
Actually, I am a bit surprised. Puts paid to a lot of popular myths, though.

"Lassez-faire," indeed.
 
To be honest, I'd be more impressed with figures about what is actually paid rather than tax rates.
There are a fair number of loopholes as anyone who has had a small business knows.

The numbers for rates don't seem quite as meaningful as the actual practical effects of the tax codes.

A lower rate w/ fewer ways around paying could result in a more oppressive taxation than a more flexible system with higher rates.
 
To be honest, I'd be more impressed with figures about what is actually paid rather than tax rates.
There are a fair number of loopholes as anyone who has had a small business knows.

The numbers for rates don't seem quite as meaningful as the actual practical effects of the tax codes.

A lower rate w/ fewer ways around paying could result in a more oppressive taxation than a more flexible system with higher rates.

This is of course true, but I don't know of anything indicating that these loopholes are any more prevalent here than anywhere else.
 
This is of course true, but I don't know of anything indicating that these loopholes are any more prevalent here than anywhere else.
There's not really enough info available here to draw any conclusions, imho.
 

While it's true that the corporate tax rate that's on the books is higher in the United States than most other countries, the United States also has an immensely complex system of deductions. When these are factored in, the effective tax rate that corporations pay is actually below the OECD average.

With that said, I think we should move toward a system where we eliminate corporate taxes entirely. They're very regressive, and they impose double taxation on investors. And as we reduce corporate taxes, we should increase capital gains taxes to make up the difference.
 
While it's true that the corporate tax rate that's on the books is higher in the United States than most other countries, the United States also has an immensely complex system of deductions. When these are factored in, the effective tax rate that corporations pay is actually below the OECD average.

With that said, I think we should move toward a system where we eliminate corporate taxes entirely. They're very regressive, and they impose double taxation on investors. And as we reduce corporate taxes, we should increase capital gains taxes to make up the difference.

Ya'll boy health bill gonna change all that. Gonna put an end to all those bastards out there makin' money.

BTW, let's see a link supporting what you just said, because Canada has more loopholes than the US does. Hell, the Canadians can write off friggin property taxes! 'Magine that.

With that said, I think we should move toward a system where we eliminate corporate taxes entirely. They're very regressive, and they impose double taxation on investors. And as we reduce corporate taxes, we should increase capital gains taxes to make up the difference.

Tried and failed, my friend; tried and failed. Pull out gun, **** hammer, shoot own foot.
 
Last edited:
Ya'll boy health bill gonna change all that. Gonna put an end to all those bastards out there makin' money.

BTW, let's see a link supporting what you just said, because Canada has more loopholes than the US does. Hell, the Canadians can write off friggin property taxes! 'Magine that.

Well, the CBO studied this issue in 2005. Here is the report they came up with:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6902/11-28-CorporateTax.pdf

I think the chart on Page 13 is especially interesting. When you look at taxes on corporate income as a percentage of GDP (which would take into account the various loopholes and deductions that vary from one country to another), the United States actually has one of the LOWEST corporate taxes. Only Germany and Iceland had lower rates as of 2005.

apdst said:
Tried and failed, my friend; tried and failed. Pull out gun, **** hammer, shoot own foot.

Reducing/eliminating corporate taxes would make it far easier for both businesses and consumers to operate, and it would eliminate one of the most regressive taxes we have. The tax cut could be revenue-neutral by raising capital gains taxes to the normal income tax rate. However, it's a long term solution; I realize we need to generate all the revenue we can right now.
 
Well, the CBO studied this issue in 2005. Here is the report they came up with:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6902/11-28-CorporateTax.pdf

I think the chart on Page 13 is especially interesting. When you look at taxes on corporate income as a percentage of GDP (which would take into account the various loopholes and deductions that vary from one country to another), the United States actually has one of the LOWEST corporate taxes. Only Germany and Iceland had lower rates as of 2005.



Reducing/eliminating corporate taxes would make it far easier for both businesses and consumers to operate, and it would eliminate one of the most regressive taxes we have. The tax cut could be revenue-neutral by raising capital gains taxes to the normal income tax rate. However, it's a long term solution; I realize we need to generate all the revenue we can right now.

So, in a word, "no", you can't prove what you're saying? Is that what we're to gather? Of course it is.

You don't even know what capital gains really are, do you?
 
Well, the CBO studied this issue in 2005. Here is the report they came up with:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6902/11-28-CorporateTax.pdf

I think the chart on Page 13 is especially interesting. When you look at taxes on corporate income as a percentage of GDP (which would take into account the various loopholes and deductions that vary from one country to another), the United States actually has one of the LOWEST corporate taxes. Only Germany and Iceland had lower rates as of 2005.

I don't see anything in that report that really talks about effective corporate tax rates though. There are some charts about effective rates as they apply to things like machinery or depreciation, but not in general. It could very well be that I just don't understand it, but even if that's the case, we finished near the top in those as well.
 
So, in a word, "no", you can't prove what you're saying? Is that what we're to gather? Of course it is.

What are you talking about? I provided you with a link to the CBO report and even directed you to the proper page. :confused:

apdst said:
You don't even know what capital gains really are, do you?

Capital gains are income from the sale of investments, and are currently taxed at a lower rate than normal income. If we eliminate corporate taxes, as we should, then there would be no need for them to be taxed less than any other income.
 
What are you talking about? I provided you with a link to the CBO report and even directed you to the proper page. :confused:


You posted a graph that isn't supported by any real data. Sorry, but I'm not impressed.

I still wanna see how the United States has more loopholes than other countries.
 
Tax rates may be high, but the loopholes provided actually make for a lower tax output from corporations than people think. Kandahar is right about the 2005 report on what corporations paid in taxes in 2005. Many paid next to none:

Do corporations pay too little in taxes? - Atlanta Business Chronicle:

Nothing in that article supports the conclusions you claim should be drawn from the 2005 report. Further, that article explains why your conclusions are faulty.

64% of companies paid no taxes at all because they had no corporate income. For the majority of those companies, the taxes were paid at the individual rate by the individual owners.

Of those that actually paid taxes, many were lumped in with those that paid little, despite the fact that that's not a fair reflection of reality.

But the GAO report is misleading and unfair to U.S. businesses, according to Tad D. Ransopher, assistant professor in the School of Accountancy at Georgia State University's J. Mack Robinson College of Business. For example, take a company with $100 million in gross income, says Ransopher. Figure the company has $80 million in legitimate deductions, including wages paid and cost of goods sold. That leaves $20 million in taxable income. If the company pays tax on 30 percent of that income, that's a $6 million tax bill, or 6 percent of its total income.

This particular trope has been discussed on numerous other threads if you would like more information.
 
Corporate tax rates should be zero.

Capital gains taxes should be zero.

Estate taxes should be zero.

But only if you want to see economic growth.
 
It should be noted that the table only assesses one aspect of taxation. For example, many of the countries cited in the table also have a Value Added Tax (VAT). The U.S. does not. The total tax burden (income, corporate, and consumption) is probably better for international comparisons.

Companies do not pay VAT in most countries.
 
Loopholes or are they incentives to spur some sort of activity? Generally increasing productivity?

Personally, I'm glad for each and every chance a business gets to save money, cause if they can't, they pass that on to their customers.

Why do people like to pay more for things??
 
To be honest, I'd be more impressed with figures about what is actually paid rather than tax rates.
There are a fair number of loopholes as anyone who has had a small business knows.

The numbers for rates don't seem quite as meaningful as the actual practical effects of the tax codes.

A lower rate w/ fewer ways around paying could result in a more oppressive taxation than a more flexible system with higher rates.

True. I look at and analyze financial statements for a living. I rarely see cash tax payments approaching 39%. Sometimes I do see cash tax payments higher than 39%, but in nearly all cases it's lower. In many cases it's WAY lower. Plus, comparing tax rates across countries is comparing apples to aardvarks because every country will have different rules regarding what constitutes "taxable income". In other words, the table is good as a bird cage liner but that's about it.
 
Companies do not pay VAT in most countries.

Correct.

My point is that one can't really have a strong understanding of a country's tax situation, much less its impact on overall competitiveness, without examining the total tax burden. High taxes on one sector does not necessarily mean the country is a "high tax" state nor does it mean that its firms are competitively disadvantaged. Higher taxes on one or more sectors may be the result of the absence of taxation/low taxes on another.
 
Correct.

My point is that one can't really have a strong understanding of a country's tax situation, much less its impact on overall competitiveness, without examining the total tax burden. High taxes on one sector does not necessarily mean the country is a "high tax" state nor does it mean that its firms are competitively disadvantaged. Higher taxes on one or more sectors may be the result of the absence of taxation/low taxes on another.

Yep. Plus it is not only taxes. For example, in the US many companies are "burden" by healthcare costs. European companies are not. In some US states and areas I believe there is also VAT. VAT is also considerably different from nation to nation. I believe in the UK there is no VAT on books, where as in Denmark there is an across the board 25%. There are many many factors to be put into place to get an accurate picture of a "tax burden" or "cost" for the company or person.
 
Back
Top Bottom