It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Corporate America and Congress

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Despite their crying and holding part of the economy hostage Corporate America gets off so easy with taxes. We all know that the deductions checklist for a corporation is a lot longer than the single, married, small business checklists. They can practically write off everything.

I suppose it can be argued that the bigger the corporation the more salaries and benefits they have to pay, fair enough I suppose unless they are exporting jobs and paying slave wages with no benefits.

A comparison between single tax payer and corporate tax.
Single payer:
Greater than an income of 8,500 = 10% in tax
Less than 34,500 = 15%
Less than 174,400 = 28%
Greater than 379,150 = 35%

Corporate tax.
Less than 50,000 = 15%
Less than 100,000 = 25%
Less than 335,000 = 39%
Less than 10,000,000 = 34%
Less than 15,000,000 = 35%
Less than 18,333,333 = 38%
Greater than 18,333,333 = 35% (why are we going backwards?)

This is all without deductions. Note that Obama wants to create a new bracket to tax corporations that profit over 50 million at a 40% rate. That is only 2% higher than corporations that make between 15 million and 18.3 million.
This is in addition to Obama wanting to keep the tax breaks in place for middle and lower class (Congress says no, let it lapse) and raising taxes again just 2% on individuals who earn more than 250K.

Doesn't this seem reasonable? Why can't it pass? Why is the republican congress crying so hard about Obama wanting to raise taxes?

A better question is why are we letting our Congress be corporate lapdogs? Why are we just swallowing that our poor top corporations are being taxed unfairly and it's okay to keep your money and jobs out of America.

Is this the only economic problem our country is facing? No, I would love to see social programs not be so needed. I would love to see the laid off get their jobs back, I would love to see more americans empowered to get decent jobs, but the jobs have to be there.




posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
I am not going to disagree with you although I do. I want to try to refocus the debate though because all of this talk on taxes is a diversion, in my opinion.

The idea that lowering taxes increases the output and size of the economy I don't think anyone can argue with. The money gets used in the market, whether by a rich CEO or by the corporation itself.

The idea that increasing taxes is equitable and fair I disagree with because how can anyone have a conversation about raising taxes without discussing the purpose of the taxes... but we do it all the time.

What do you want the additional federal revenue to be spent on?

Do you want it used to invade Syria or Iran? Planting seeds of internal-conflict in stable nations? Researching the speed of locusts on treadmills? Feeding billionaires at luxurious private parties?

Why does the federal government need the money at all? In the economic theory we are using taxes are a form of a money-sink [electronics-term]. It is a means of removing the money from circulation to prevent run-away monetary inflation.

That may seem incorrect to state in relation to taxes but we've spent $16,500,000,000,000 more than we've taken in so clearly the level of corporate or private taxation is not important under current economic theory. That number is ridiculous but is becoming normal. Do you know what I could do 0.000000606% (or $1,000,000) of that?

Whether you raise it or lower it appears to have no impact on the actual spending/output of the government. So - back to my point - the talk of taxes seems meaningless when there is a much bigger problem that needs to be addressed.

Why are taxes collected at all if its not connected to federal services and spending?

I think if people had an itemized list of what their taxes were used for and understand that right now their money is being taxed or taken arbitrarily then there would be a revolution.

The fact is that you, as what might be called a liberal, are being told that corporations need to give more, the poor need to give less, and that this represents an inequality causing suffering. A conservative is being told that the corporations create jobs and produce goods and services so the less their taxes the more they can employee and produce and that the inequality won't exist once that happens.

The truth is - its an interesting side show that divides and conquers and whether they go up or down is inconsequential to what will happen in the Federal government. It only helps support the illusion and stave off the revolution.

The other point I would answer before whether taxes go up or down is why do we as supposedly compassionate people support slave-wage labor overseas? Why do we buy iPads, Nike shoes, and millions of other products produced by people earning less than $0.80 a day and that often commit suicide to escape their fate? Why do we support that at the expense of our own productivity, self-sufficiency, and benefit?

The compassionate conservatives and bleeding heart liberals seem to all be hypocrites on this subject with little understanding of what happens once the check has cleared in to the "US Treasury".
edit on 8/31/2011 by ararisq because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ararisq
 




The idea that increasing taxes is equitable and fair I disagree with because how can anyone have a conversation about raising taxes without discussing the purpose of the taxes... but we do it all the time.


I agree with discussing taxes, it's our money we should be included in the discussion of how it's spent.



What do you want the additional federal revenue to be spent on?


I would like it to spent on real education for our kids. I'd like to see a lot of it go to paying our debt.




Why does the federal government need the money at all?


I have no issue with taxes, so you're probably asking the wrong person. I don't mind it going toward education, infrastructure, even space programs and research grants and of course defense.



The fact is that you, as what might be called a liberal, are being told that corporations need to give more, the poor need to give less, and that this represents an inequality causing suffering.


I'm not being told, it is what I think. The evidence that it's truth is pretty obvious.



The other point I would answer before whether taxes go up or down is why do we as supposedly compassionate people support slave-wage labor overseas? Why do we buy iPads, Nike shoes, and millions of other products produced by people earning less than $0.80 a day and that often commit suicide to escape their fate? Why do we support that at the expense of our own productivity, self-sufficiency, and benefit?


You are 100% correct and this is where we the people are to blame. We allow this by being so indifferent, that is not to say on an individual basis we don't care about suffering in the world, but we do not pay attention. I suppose that is part of the reasoning behind my posting this in the 1st place. It's my opinion that we are not looking where we need to, and I am just as guilty as anyone else. I find myself dragged into topics that push my buttons.

Thanks for you respectful reply



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   
The Congress and President should be held accountable first for their reckless spending before taxes are even discussed. Anyone care to take a stab at the $60 billion or so wasted in the first two wars, not the waste in the Libya war.
How much money has the U.S. wasted in grants to these Solar and Green companies that are going under? Were did the money actually go? I'll start with oversight and accountability of every tax dollar first before discussing giving them another dime.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   
It seems to me that one of the primary purposes of U.S. taxation is to prop up the value of the U.S. dollar. Since taxes are paid in dollars, those required to pay U.S. taxes must hold dollars to do so. So, it would seem to me that taxes can be raised, at least in part, as a counter-balance to our monopoly money printing press policies. Years ago I could have done the math to explain this, but I am well past my prime.
edit on 31-8-2011 by notquitesure because: typo



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by mugger
 


I'm not talking about the individual giving more, I'm talking about corporations paying more and being held accountable for their practices of the last who knows how many years.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   
So a man earns a check and is taxed, then he spends the money at the store and is taxed, and then he invests some of it and makes a profit, and is taxed.

Then a corporation is paid by that man and they are taxed, and then they pay their employees and are taxed, and then they buy raw materials and are taxed...

And you're complaining about how much who is paying on what?

How about: Won't we the people, who are being taxed to death already, have to shoulder any and all corporate taxes on top of our own ridiculous taxes because they will just pass it on to the consumer?



Why are we complaining that a corporation pays less than us when we pay their taxes too?



In and out, it goes. When it stops, no one knows.

-- Next time you want to point a finger, depending on who it is, follow the strings or chains, both lead to the same master.
edit on 2011/8/31 by sbctinfantry because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
I would be more interested in seeing plans to adjust the tax code to incentivize domestic job creation than in willy nilly raising taxes on corporations. The latter would put more money in the hands of our esteemed federal government and leave us depending on their wisdom and good graces to supply us with employment opportunities.

I'm not opposed to altering policy to twist the arm of business. It's a language they understand. I just don't think government should try to take the place of business. History has told us that this is a role for which they are not well-suited.



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join