• 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

apdst said:
I wouldn't hire anyone--tax credit, or no tax credit--if that person wasn't going to net me alot more than what it costs to make their payroll.

Ya see, in business, the objective is to make a profit, not just break even. I realize that notion is alien to most Libbos.
Click to expand...

You have hit upon something here that destroys, crushes and then flushes the conservative right wing position that we need to cut taxes on companies and that money kept in the corporate coffers will result in more hiring.

Thank you for that.

Companies will only hire if the new employee brings in more money than it costs them.

Thank you for exposing the fraud of tax breaks for business in the hopes they will hire anyone.
 
apdst said:
I know what I said and I clarified what I meant. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure it out.
Click to expand...

Why did you ask the following then

apdst said:
When did I say, "have"?
Click to expand...

It doesn't take a garbage man to figure out you actually didn't remember that you said "have".

Or do you not know what "when" means?
 
apdst said:
I wouldn't hire anyone--tax credit, or no tax credit--if that person wasn't going to net me alot more than what it costs to make their payroll.

Ya see, in business, the objective is to make a profit, not just break even. I realize that notion is alien to most Libbos.
Click to expand...

Right, if your cost is $30,000 and you bring in $30,001, then you've made $1 in profit. That's called arithmetic. I realize the concept is foreign to most wingnuts.
 
haymarket said:
You have hit upon something here that destroys, crushes and then flushes the conservative right wing position that we need to cut taxes on companies and that money kept in the corporate coffers will result in more hiring.

Thank you for that.

Companies will only hire if the new employee brings in more money than it costs them.

Thank you for exposing the fraud of tax breaks for business in the hopes they will hire anyone.
Click to expand...

I've never advocated cutting taxes. If anything, they should be left alone. One thing is certain, though; raising taxes isn't going to encourage expansion and therefore hiring.

Libbo insist that cutting taxes on the working class will boost the economy, because that means more money they have to spend. Corporations are cousmers, too and it's assinine to insist that the opposite is true for them.

Now, which is it going to be?
 
AdamT said:
Right, if your cost is $30,000 and you bring in $30,001, then you've made $1 in profit. That's called arithmetic. I realize the concept is foreign to most wingnuts.
Click to expand...

Ummm...$1 isn't an acceptable profit, when you do the risk management.

And Libbos claim to be smarter than the rest of us? :lamo
 
Tucker Case said:
Why did you ask the following then



It doesn't take a garbage man to figure out you actually didn't remember that you said "have".

Or do you not know what "when" means?
Click to expand...

Do you know what, "clarify", means? I already clarified what I meant. Figure it out and then let it go.
 
apdst said:
I've never advocated cutting taxes. If anything, they should be left alone. One thing is certain, though; raising taxes isn't going to encourage expansion and therefore hiring.
Click to expand...

The right in America has been advocating cutting taxes on corporations for a long time now. The false premise they operate under is the notion that if they have more money at their disposal they will hire more workers in expansion and growth. Apdst wisely pointed out that there is but one main motivation for hiring more workers and that is that each worker brings more in than they cost.

Thank you apdst for helping to expose this right wing conservative talking a point as a fraud.

this article shows how Herman Cain and Rick Perry - both failed right wing conservative candidates for the GOP nomination advocated such nonsense.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/20...18-20111118_1_flat-tax-payroll-taxes-tax-plan

Two Republican presidential candidates, Herman Cain and Rick Perry, have proposed tax reform proposals to stimulate the economy and spur job growth. Both proposals share many desirable attributes, such as simplifying the complex tax code, lowering the corporate tax rate to become globally competitive again, eliminating the death tax and capital gains tax to increase capital mobility, eliminating taxes on repatriated foreign earnings of U.S. multinational companies so they make investments at home, and maintaining revenue neutrality so the tax cuts will not add to the federal budget deficits.
Click to expand...

Mitt Romney in Detroit today perpetuated the fraud that apdst wisely knows not to be true

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57384743-503544/mitt-romney-lays-out-economic-vision/

and Rick Santorum also pushes the fraud

http://www.dailyiowan.com/2012/02/23/Opinions/27143.html

I am very glad that apdst can see through this fraud and knows such tax cuts to corporations will not spur hiring and jobs.
 
Last edited:
To be truthful of Obama is sincere on this then I support it 100%. We should end the tax loopholes and lower the tax rate. Certain companies that get away with paying no taxes should not be able to legally get away with that.
 
apdst said:
Do you know what, "clarify", means? I already clarified what I meant. Figure it out and then let it go.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do know what clarify means, and obviously you don't. I'll put it in the same category as "Qualify" since you clearly don't have any grasp on that word's meaning either.

See, you didn't clarify what you meant, you instead avoided admitting that you ****ed up while you were pretending to know what you are talking about. Clarifying occurs when you weren't clear. In this case, your statement was very clear, and also very wrong.
 
25 Companies with the Largest Total Tax Subsidies: 2008-10

Company - ($-millions) - Tax breaks
********************************
Wells Fargo $ 17,960
AT&T 14,491
Verizon Communications 12,332
General Electric 8,398
International Business Machines 8,265
Exxon Mobil 4,096
Boeing 3,585
PNC Financial Services Group 3,354
Goldman Sachs Group 3,178
Procter & Gamble 3,158
Merck 2,860
PG&E Corp. 2,726
Hewlett-Packard 2,677
American Electric Power 2,610
Devon Energy 2,563
Wal-Mart Stores 2,511
Coca-Cola 2,461
American Express 2,427
NextEra Energy 2,380
Chesapeake Energy 2,303
Exelon 2,224
Duke Energy 2,132
Comcast 2,125
Union Pacific 2,012
United Technologies 1,986
Total these 25 companies $ 114,815
Other 255 companies 107,885
*************************************
All companies $ 222,701

http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/CorporateTaxDodgersReport.pdf
Click to expand...
Despite the fact that these 25 corporations recorded profits for which they paid no tax (2008-10), they actually received an additional $114.8 billion from the federal government in tax refunds.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Ummm...$1 isn't an acceptable profit, when you do the risk management.

And Libbos claim to be smarter than the rest of us? :lamo
Click to expand...

Yeah, obviously it was just a hypothetical. Sadly, for some, one must truly connect ALL the dots. :lol:
 
jgarden47 said:
Despite the fact that these 25 corporations recorded profits for which they paid no tax (2008-10), they actually received an additional $114.8 billion from the federal government in tax refunds.
Click to expand...

There's no way that a corporation can report a profit and pay no taxes. Stop believing the propaganda.

These companies probably paid quarterly taxes, which are shown as deductions on their 1040C. More than likely, the reason they received refunds, is because they overpaid their quarterly payments.

I've made quarterly payments for 2010 and 2011 and received a refund for both.

All that aside, all those companies paid millions, if not billions in payroll taxes, SS and medicare. So, the notion that they paid nothing is rediculous.
 
NAKED N00B said:
Let's say that a company has $1 million in taxable revenue. A 35% tax rate would have them paying $350,000. That's just another cost to them. That's a cost the same way that their employees' wages are a cost. The same way that materials are a cost. The same way that transportation of goods is a cost. It's all put into what they're going to have to pay. If they sell 1 million units a year, that's an extra 35 cents per unit that they will have to raise the price. If the corporate tax rate was 28%, the cost would be $280,000 and only 28 cents per unit. 10% = 100,000 = 10 cents per unit.

Pretty simple. The lower the costs incurred through corporate taxes, the more freedom corporations have to lower their prices to make them more competitive. That's less money consumers are spending. This has two main benefits.

First, it allows us to compete with other countries with lower corporate tax rates because it brings down our prices compared to theirs. Let's keep going with the example I've given. Ireland has a pretty low corporate tax rate. I think it's around 15%. So if other costs of production are equal, the corporate tax for the Irish corporation adds only 15 cents per unit while the US corporation incurs an extra 35 cents per unit. There are obviously going to be other costs. The cost to ship from Ireland would be much more. There are differences in wages and currency conversion, etc. But for this example we'll ignore that. Just with the corporate tax rate, Ireland beats us by 20 cents per unit, making their products that more attractive. If we lowered it, even to 20-25%, that's enough to compete more effectively with other countries.

Secondly, it creates more demand for the product. Simple supply and demand going on here. If we make the cost for a corporation less and the price drops a similar amount, then demand will rise. It encourages the corporation to produce more. They hire more people. They make more money. They can invest more. There's a huge economic benefit.

With the corporate tax rate, you're really just seeing the costs passed on to consumers through higher prices. If we lower the corporate tax rate we become more competitive and boost production with higher demand for cheaper products.
Click to expand...

Interesting.

Wiat, doesn't the Irish economy suck right now?
 
NAKED N00B said:
Let's say that a company has $1 million in taxable revenue. A 35% tax rate would have them paying $350,000. That's just another cost to them. That's a cost the same way that their employees' wages are a cost. The same way that materials are a cost. The same way that transportation of goods is a cost. It's all put into what they're going to have to pay. If they sell 1 million units a year, that's an extra 35 cents per unit that they will have to raise the price. If the corporate tax rate was 28%, the cost would be $280,000 and only 28 cents per unit. 10% = 100,000 = 10 cents per unit.

Pretty simple. The lower the costs incurred through corporate taxes, the more freedom corporations have to lower their prices to make them more competitive. That's less money consumers are spending. This has two main benefits.

First, it allows us to compete with other countries with lower corporate tax rates because it brings down our prices compared to theirs. Let's keep going with the example I've given. Ireland has a pretty low corporate tax rate. I think it's around 15%. So if other costs of production are equal, the corporate tax for the Irish corporation adds only 15 cents per unit while the US corporation incurs an extra 35 cents per unit. There are obviously going to be other costs. The cost to ship from Ireland would be much more. There are differences in wages and currency conversion, etc. But for this example we'll ignore that. Just with the corporate tax rate, Ireland beats us by 20 cents per unit, making their products that more attractive. If we lowered it, even to 20-25%, that's enough to compete more effectively with other countries.

Secondly, it creates more demand for the product. Simple supply and demand going on here. If we make the cost for a corporation less and the price drops a similar amount, then demand will rise. It encourages the corporation to produce more. They hire more people. They make more money. They can invest more. There's a huge economic benefit.

With the corporate tax rate, you're really just seeing the costs passed on to consumers through higher prices. If we lower the corporate tax rate we become more competitive and boost production with higher demand for cheaper products.
Click to expand...

No, it's not a, "cost", because the taxes aren't deductable. The income taxes aren't, that is; some taxes are deductable.
 
digsbe said:
To be truthful of Obama is sincere on this then I support it 100%. We should end the tax loopholes and lower the tax rate. Certain companies that get away with paying no taxes should not be able to legally get away with that.
Click to expand...

Which, "loopholes", are you talking about?
 
Erod said:
Obama's beloved General Motors pays no taxes and gets a big fat bailout, while Ford takes no bailout money, actually makes a profit, and has to pay taxes on it.
Click to expand...

Actually Ford along with BMW, Toyota Took Secret Government Money
during the financial collapese and before the auto bailout talks. :

In the depths of the financial collapse, the U.S. Federal Reserve pumped $3.3 trillion into keeping credit moving through the economy. It eventually lent $57.9 billion to the auto industry — including $26.8 billion to Ford, Toyota and BMW.
<SNIP>
According to the data, from October 2008 through June 2009 the fed bought $45.1 billion in commercial paper from the credit arms of four automakers - Ford, BMW, Chrysler and Toyota - along with GMAC (the former General Motors credit arm). Of those, Ford sold the most, with $15.9 billion.
Click to expand...

Ford, BMW, Toyota Took Secret Government Money
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Interesting.

Wiat, doesn't the Irish economy suck right now?
Click to expand...

Yeah it does. After several years of decline they'll be lucky to see any growth this year and their unemployment is over 14%. They had a economy and real estate bubble similar to Bush's that they're still reeling from.
 
Hikertrash said:
Yeah it does. After several years of decline they'll be lucky to see any growth this year and their unemployment is over 14%. They had a economy and real estate bubble similar to Bush's that they're still reeling from.
Click to expand...

OMG!!! It's Bush's real estate bubble? :lamo
 
AdamT said:
The money goes out, but a credit means that you get it back. Rocket science it ain't.
Click to expand...


When a credit is placed in the tax code, it is done for two reasons, 1. political expediency so that the politican can claim a tax break, and 2. To control the business into doing what you want them to without actually taking them over like the facist wanna be you really are.

dispicable really.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
When a credit is placed in the tax code, it is done for two reasons, 1. political expediency so that the politican can claim a tax break, and 2. To control the business into doing what you want them to without actually taking them over like the facist wanna be you really are.

dispicable really.


j-mac
Click to expand...

So the literally thousands of tax breaks that Republicans have lobbied for -- and have literally vowed not to eliminate are despicable on an epic scale? I agree.
 
AdamT said:
So the literally thousands of tax breaks that Republicans have lobbied for -- and have literally vowed not to eliminate are despicable on an epic scale? I agree.
Click to expand...

Well good. It's a start. But I'd have to see more from you aside of the tongue in cheek snarky small response designed to mock in order to believe a word you say.


j-mac
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Interesting.

Wiat, doesn't the Irish economy suck right now?
Click to expand...
Yeah, but it's more a product of them being in the Eurozone and their financial bubble bursting a couple years back.

apdst said:
No, it's not a, "cost", because the taxes aren't deductable. The income taxes aren't, that is; some taxes are deductable.
Click to expand...
So in order for something to be a cost, it must be tax deductible?

You've just confirmed you live in a mental institution because no one living on their own and budgeting their lives could possibly believe such a stupid thing.

Corporate taxes are something corporations have to pay. It eats into their bottom line. If profits are to be maintained, they must increase revenue. That means rising prices. It's painfully simple, and I think you'd agree with me if you weren't conditioned to oppose everything uttered by a liberal.
 
NAKED N00B said:
Corporate taxes are something corporations have to pay. It eats into their bottom line. If profits are to be maintained, they must increase revenue. That means rising prices. It's painfully simple, and I think you'd agree with me if you weren't conditioned to oppose everything uttered by a liberal.
Click to expand...

I take issue slightly with the bolded portion here. If you really believe that business doesn't pass along increases in taxation to the consumer to protect their bottom line for the shareholders they must answer to, then you are fooling yourself.

So, my contention is that increases in rates toward corporations, whether they are derived out of class envy, or governmental greed and control, ultimately hurt the people.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
I take issue slightly with the bolded portion here. If you really believe that business doesn't pass along increases in taxation to the consumer to protect their bottom line for the shareholders they must answer to, then you are fooling yourself.

So, my contention is that increases in rates toward corporations, whether they are derived out of class envy, or governmental greed and control, ultimately hurt the people.

j-mac
Click to expand...

NAKED N00B said:
Yeah, but it's more a product of them being in the Eurozone and their financial bubble bursting a couple years back.


So in order for something to be a cost, it must be tax deductible?

You've just confirmed you live in a mental institution because no one living on their own and budgeting their lives could possibly believe such a stupid thing.

Corporate taxes are something corporations have to pay. It eats into their bottom line. If profits are to be maintained, they must increase revenue. That means rising prices. It's painfully simple, and I think you'd agree with me if you weren't conditioned to oppose everything uttered by a liberal.
Click to expand...
I believe he already adressed that point
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom