Serving the Elite is the statue quo, GOP votes $287 billion tax cuts for business.

The vote:
Republicans
224 yes 2 no
Democrats
34 yes 158 no

You see the corporate money in politics getting what it paid for. This is the GOP solution for the economy is just more trickle down type lunacy. Consumers grow the economy, not tax breaks for the wealthy. But its not about growing the economy its about lining there contributors pockets with our money. Oh and there is no offset to this corporate welfare.

link
H.R.4718

Why won't they work on something important like immigration reform....

Washington (CNN) -- House Republicans, who fervently pound the podium against the deficit, didn't blink Friday at passing a whopping $287 billion business tax cut measure with no effort to pay for or offset that amount.

GOP lawmakers argued the bill helps the economy, but budget-watching organizations outside Congress proclaimed it an irresponsible move.

The 258-160 vote marked one of the largest unpaid-for measures passed by the House in years, but was also the latest sign that tax cuts are at the center of the Republican universe and the ballyhooed deficit fight is not on the same level as a priority.

CNN

30 years of tax cuts for the rich doesn't work, other than making the rich richer. A wage hike would spur the economy if that was there goal, but it isn't there goal.

a reply to: LDragonFire

Eechh! Between the tax cuts and the offshore tax shelters it's no wonder we are circling the drain.

While I'm usually very hard on the democrats this seems totally irresponsible to me. I hope it never gets signed by Obama. This would be a good time (the first I've seen) for him to actually veto this corporate crony bill with that pen he's always talking about.

My understanding is that this only allows businesses to take their depreciation allowance sooner, it doesn't give them more of an allowance.

Isn't that what the Democrats have been asking for, pumping money into the economy?

originally posted by: charles1952
My understanding is that this only allows businesses to take their depreciation allowance sooner, it doesn't give them more of an allowance.

Isn't that what the Democrats have been asking for, pumping money into the economy?

Just ran it by the CFO, CPA wife, thats exactly what she says depreciation. Nobody getting rich of of this. Designed to stimulate the economy. It allows the company to take additional depreciation sooner to buy more equipment for example. Nope, sky not falling here.

it's a stimulus not a gift.

now it will go to the Senate where we will see a massive rewrite, or a flat ignore.

could be a set up because of election year.

might be another Hobby Lobby choke in the Senate.

Oh and there is no offset to this corporate welfare.

Yeah lets talk about CORPORATE WELFARE !!!!

Since that is what rob from the rich and give to the poor is all about.

Rob from the rich and 'give' to the poor so they can go out and buy more stuff.

ALL social programs ARE CORPORATE WELFARE.

Unfortunately while it seems the US tax rate on corporations is high what they actually seem to be paying is another matter. Most of the little people cannot afford fancy tax accountants and the other schemes used by corp America to lower our tax bills. Doesn't seem right to me.

U.S. companies face the highest official corporate tax rate in the world. But there's a big difference between the rates set out by law and the cash that's actually collected.

Large, profitable U.S. corporations paid an average effective federal tax rate of 12.6% in 2010, the Government Accountability Office said Monday.
GAO: U.S. corporations pay average effective tax rate of 12.6%

I didn't look for newer data but doubt they are paying anything more. Still waiting for that big trickle down from the Reagan years but what's trickling doesn't seem like prosperity.

ETA - if anyone is interested. Sorry if this offends conservatives but this is plain wrong.

• One hundred and eleven of the 288 companies (39 percent of them) paid zero or less in federal income taxes in at least one year from 2008 to 2012.

• The sectors with the lowest effective corporate tax rates over the five-year period were utilities (2.9 percent), industrial machinery (4.3 percent), telecommunications (9.8 percent), oil, gas and pipelines (14.4 percent), transportation (16.4 percent), aerospace and defense (16.7 percent) and financial (18.8 percent).

• The tax breaks claimed by these companies are highly concentrated in the hands of a few very large corporations. Just 25 companies claimed $174 billion in tax breaks over the five years between 2008 and 2012. That’s almost half the $364 billion in tax subsidies claimed by all of the 288 companies in our sample.

• Five companies — Wells Fargo, AT&T, IBM, General Electric, and Verizon — enjoyed over $77 billion in tax breaks during this five-year period.

The Sorry State of Corporate Taxes

a reply to: Bassago

Dear Bassago,

One good thing about looking at the statutory tax rate is that it is printed and clearly understood, not susceptible to spin.

Once we get past that, it becomes extraordinarily difficult to make a clear statement. Consider your source article on the GAO report.

The GAO's calculation for effective corporate tax rates is lower than a number of previous estimates. That's in part because the office excluded unprofitable firms, which pay little or no taxes, from its analysis.

Including those firms' losses would reduce the total net income from which the average tax rate is calculated, and would not "accurately represent the tax rate on the profitable corporations that actually pay the tax," the GAO said.

They are telling you that one of the reasons their percentage is so low is that they didn't look at all of the firms, just some of them. I wonder what the other reasons were.

U.S. corporate tax collection totaled 2.6% of GDP in 2011, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. That was the eleventh lowest in a ranking of 27 wealthy nations.

The amount of money collected has little to do with the tax rate. I'm sure you remember the Laffer curve which shows that after you get to a certain rate, total tax revenue starts falling. Economists could make a very good case that our tax revenue is low because we're charging too much.

I also notice that the article makes no mention of other countries. How can anyone claim that the US rate is low, when other countries', calculated on the same basis, aren't reported.

If you want a serious, and moderately lengthy report on marginal effective tax rates, consider this:
barcode.com...

It provides a comparison with Canada and OECD countries. It also gives numbers entirely different from GAO, and the reasons why they do.

This is not as clear cut an issue as you, or anyone else, might think.

With respect,
Charles1952

It is easy for anyone to see this and have it appear to mean almost anything you wish, for political finger pointing and blame, and this is easy to see that it is being done here within the MSM and here in the forums as well. First the OP declares that consumers grow the economy. and that "trickle down" is lunacy.

With no jobs, how can consumers buy products? With food stamps and welfare checks? Trickle down economics is not just a republican thing, nor is it lunacy to utilize.

(This does NOT mean I would defend big corporations loopholes so they don't have to pay taxes). Show me how taxing the dog crap out of everyone creates tons of consumers who can go out and grow the economy.

The current administration has ALREADY raised taxes and spent more trillions than everyone since combined, and all demographics have SUFFERED, become more poverty stricken, laid off more employees, went bankrupt, bankers offing themselves, companies moving factory operations overseas, more people on food stamps and welfare than ever before, minorities becoming even more impoverished than ever before in spite of the promises Barry made to them, the list of downgrades goes on, and on, and on, because of regulations and taxes and more taxes, and more anti business rules than ever seen before in America. (Plus the subsequent downgrade to America's credit rating).

But lets just call it a partisan thing and point our finger at a tax cut for those greedy corporations. Okay, then, Let us also look at the absolute propaganda ploy of the media and the left to call ANY tax cut, something that has to be paid for, or reimbursed, which would then render it no tax cut at all, but a temporary bonus. That is not what a true cut is. How about the LUNACY of spending trillions and trillions of dollars, and then watching the economy totally IMPLODE rather than recover, like right now? How can that happen? By absolute corruption saturation.

A tax cut is something that removes a cost of business so that it can better become profitable, invest in upgrading itself rather than scaling back, and laying off 20,000 employees, or going bankrupt.
A tax cut that is "paid for" is a fancy way of saying we don't allow any tax cuts, because we will never stop spending the money that this tax gave us. Rescinding taxes is never allowed willingly by liberals, or by fake republicans who usurp the public trust declaring themselves better equipped than the tax payers to decide what to spend their money on, and even revoking non partisan voter approved tax removals by any means necessary. Like Gary Locke did with the auto licensing taxes in Washington State which was approved by democrats and republicans in a landslide.

Call it a gambling addiction, because that is what it really is. Every time that taxes are raised, it removes the power of the consumer to GROW THE ECONOMY. Every time a tax is removed, it stops a politician from diverting some of it to make his hacienda payment on his resort in Spain.

The government currently has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, that it's taxing decisions are the definition of LUNACY since they have failed hand over fist style failure. And because of these failures, the credit rating of America has descended into the depths of la-la land.

Instead of using the highest and most proliferous taxing schemes to actually help people and provide good services, they have been diverted in secret, then discovered, like that energy company that took a few billion from Barry and immediately filed bankruptcy and laughed all the way to the bank in Tahiti. and in others, Been diverted to "Administrate" the program the money was collected for, with nothing left for the end users.

Promised to people and services, but given to friends in the billions of dollars. The only lunacy now is to expect a new tax to be used for it's stated purpose.

And all the while, our current leaders calling for more tax money and refusing tax cuts due to them cutting off personal income and ways to exploit the public to entrench themselves further and permanently, so when they get booted from office, they have a continual chain of resources, contacts, business partners, and income streams. Politicians are taking the people and pawning them in the government pawn shop, and these "collateral" pay themselves out of pawn? No, they just sit in the government pawn shop and must instead pay the interest when it comes due. But to pay it, they must agree to NEW taxes, since the other tax money is being spent on Nancy Pelosi's private stock of premium BOOZE, instead of paying for those Iraq war vets suffering from depleted uranium that the executives say were never used.

Consumers are consuming because of government entitlements now, rather than corporations hiring people and expanding, and paying good wages. And this doesn't grow the economy, it DOOMS it. Especially when Obama just takes the money and gives it to friends and pals to make a 4 billion dollar web site that doesn't even work. (Maybe this is Obama's version of trickle down economics? You are right, it is indeed lunacy).

a reply to: neo96
Hello neo! I think that just maybe we might be singing in harmony. This is essentially another tax cut for business.
But, you mentioned:
"Rob from the rich and 'give' to the poor so they can go out and buy more stuff."
Are you saying that the Repubs are giving freebies to the 47%?
That doesn't sound right.

From the article: "The idea first became law under President George W. Bush in 2002, who said it was meant to be temporary. The tax benefit has been extended repeatedly until the end of last year. At that time, it expired along with a slew of other temporary tax provisions called "tax extenders" because they have gone through this process so often"

It was in effect from 2002 until the end of last year. I don't see how this will help with jobs. And what makes us think business will owners will not choose to hoard the benefits of this cut like the rest of Wall Street?

a reply to: MarlinGrace

According to conservatives every tax cut is a 'stimulus'. This particular tax cut, if allowed to expire, would reduce the deficit by $287 billion. When we're sitting at a deficit of just over half a trillion currently, it makes sense to lower that deficit further.

The nation can't cut its way to prosperity, there needs to be some additional revenue involved.

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: MarlinGrace

According to conservatives every tax cut is a 'stimulus'. This particular tax cut, if allowed to expire, would reduce the deficit by $287 billion. When we're sitting at a deficit of just over half a trillion currently, it makes sense to lower that deficit further.

The nation can't cut its way to prosperity, there needs to be some additional revenue involved.

This tax break expired last year, so if it passes it will raise the deficit by $287 billion dollars. Tax breaks doesn't create jobs, at least I see no evidence of this. Tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations does hurt the middle class, or since Nixon and his tax cuts for the wealthy has been the trend.

The GOP catering to there base, but lets see what the senate does, lets see who they will cater too. I think Obama would sign it into law.

The only way anybody can "depreciate" is after the money gets spent.

If the money doesn't get spent, it contributes to the falling economy.

The $287 billion number might be a misnomer.

Was that number cited in the bill?

Or was it from a CBO report?

a reply to: LDragonFire

This doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

They're trying to entice "the rich", as you like to call them, to spend money.

That's how you stimulate an economy, but I'm sure taxing companies into oblivion will work eventually.

originally posted by: terriblyvexed
a reply to: LDragonFire

This doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

They're trying to entice "the rich", as you like to call them, to spend money.

That's how you stimulate an economy, but I'm sure taxing companies into oblivion will work eventually.

The move by Republicans to back $287 billion in tax cuts comes at a time when they are loudly questioning much smaller spending bills: the president's request for $3.7 billion to respond to children crossing the border, $11 billion to keep highway projects afloat for less than a year and the roughly $35 billion Senate measure to revamp the veteran's health care system. Combined, those measures are still less than a fifth of the tax cut bill.

cnn

My only issue is that these tax cuts don't end up creating jobs...or can you provide evidence that it does?

a reply to: LDragonFire

Didn't you read his post? Obviously, 'rich' people just hire people because they have so much money. We can't take money from rich people because then they won't have money to hire more people for no reason.