Oh...really? I thought that US Corporations where woefully overtaxed compared to other nations.
Here's a nice breakdown of the table if you are interested.
And to think I actually believed some of the lies about corporate taxes. I was even willing to give the captains of industry the benefit of the doubt. Fool me once...
36 comments:
Oh...really? I thought that US Corporations where woefully overtaxed compared to other nations.
You mean you advocated for lowering the corporate tax rate without actually knowing how it stacked up?
Fool me once...
Fool yourself a million times...
Since you linked the chart Mark, maybe you can explain, because I don't follow, maybe I'm missing something. Why is it meaningful to measure tax burden as a % of GDP? Why not compare tax rates between nations? GDP includes government spending, so if the government borrows more money and spends it without raising taxes, then the relative % of tax collections will appear to go down using that graph, even though increased government spending has nothing directly to do with tax burden when it is borrowed. Moreover, is there some kind of rule that says total tax collections as related to GDP is meaningful? Why? This doesn't make too much sense. I'm sure you've looked into it though, right Mark?
Rather than do your question game, I'd like to see you comment on the figures, Haplo9. Enough with the game playing.
a. I'm asking the questions in all seriousness, actually. I don't understand what those charts are supposed to be telling me, and how you can conclude much of anything from them, much less whether taxes are high or low. As Mark probably knows, if you look at corporate tax rates, you'll find that the US is one of the highest in the world. Since that is the rate that individual businesses pay, isn't that kind of more interesting when you want to compare how much different countries burden their businesses?
b. I'm 99% certain that Mark doesn't have a clue as to the answers to my questions, nor does he care. They just seemed to fit his preconceived narrative, and so he ran with it. Thus the snark. It's a pretty common thing he does, actually - he sees something that fits his bias, and then presents it as "ah ha!" without bothering to look closely at it. Now, I could most certainly be wrong. But this is Mark. The smart money bets that he doesn't know what he's talking about. :)
His whole first post was a comment on the figures. Here's my comment on the figures - when you compare anything to our GDP, it's going to look small because our GDP is so much higher than Luxembourgs.
It's funny how most of you react when asked a couple simple question that are absolutely relevant to the subject at hand.
...he sees something that fits his bias, and then presents it as "ah ha!" without bothering to look closely at it.
Sure enough, go to the link for the detail data behind this chart and what do you find - that the U.S. is amongst the highest taxers of wealth & property, and is fairly middle of the road on income - individual or corporate. Where the U.S. falls right to the bottom is on consumption taxes (particularly due to no VAT).
In short, the U.S. tax regime is much more progressive than all the nations it is being compared to. And this is presented as a flaw in the U.S. system - by a liberal/progressive website! Fucking brilliant.
I hereby amend my first comment...
Make a fool of yourself a million times.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/blogs/125490398.html
Wait just a cotton pickin' minute!
I didn't mean to shut down THIS part of the government!
"The smart money bets that he doesn't know what he's talking about."
Another example of the rich (i.e. 'smart money' - i.e. 'fatcats') getting richer at the expense of working class teachers/tennis coaches.
Only the wealthy have the opportunity to bet Marxy is wrong.
Ah, the childish baiting...a timeless classic. Thus far, the only person that has commented directly on the figures presented has been Last in Line. Do you think it's possible to
a) Read the three page breakdown of the charts
and
b) Comment on it
and
c) Refrain from the usual Mark games.
I'd be happy to engage in any discussion about the numbers after that.
M the only game being played is you pretending to have actually read/understood the data you linked to.
You didn't, I did, and now you look foolish. And you want to blame that on me? You are right, that is a pretty tiresome tactic.
You don't ever have to discuss the numbers. Because you would have to have some grasp of numeracy and you pretty clearly don't. Which isn't so terrible, your yippee little dog posse doesn't either.
Oh, I understand it, juris. I'm pretty much done playing these sorts of games with you and Hap. I'm waiting to see if you any of you (other than last) are going to critically think about the data sheet I linked. If you are, then I will be happy to have a discussion with you. You can begin by offering a critical and unbiased assessment of the four page CTJ document. If not, well...sorry. I'm not your monkey. The choice is yours: have a substantive discussion on the information I provided or continue to personally insult me.
What game M? Think critically? I gave you a critical analysis of the available data on the link - it shows the U.S. system of taxation is more progressive. CTJ (and presumably you) argues just the opposite - that we aren't enough like other nations, which have more regressive taxation. Why don't you explain why you prefer more regressive taxation? You can pout and posture and pretend all you want, but it is clear as glass who is doing the thinking and who is not.
Nor is it my fault that you make a fool of yourself. You saw a chart which you believed said something bad about the U.S. vis-a-vis a set of other countries, and you did not examine the underlying data to see if that conclusion was warranted. On top of that it was you that not that long ago argued for lowering the U.S. corporate tax rate. It is incredibly childish and dishonest to blame your faults on anyone but yourself.
You might just as well ignore me if you can't do any better. Why I continue to believe you capable of better is a real mystery.
Why don't we have a discussion about your belief that social security has plenty of money and its trust fund us not chock full of iou's, and compare that to obamas threat to not send out social security checks because there is no money.
I think I might understand why M is a little off the last couple of days...
http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/125459928.html
I take back that statement about how MN isn't as screwed over as CA.
Alright, juris, let's see if we can have a substantive discussion. If we degenerate into personal attacks, I'm done.
I think that an examination of the statutory tax rate is a highly flawed way of gauging how high or low taxes are in this country. The best way to measure how high taxes truly are is to look at what the government actually takes in (revenue divided by GDP). You can't ignore the effective tax rate which I think is what you are doing...please correct me if I am wrong. This jibes with past information I have provided which illustrated how little some corporations pay in taxes. As Bruce Bartlett recently said in a New York Times article.
"The broadest measure of the tax rate is total federal revenues divided by the gross domestic product."
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/
I found that article by way of this one:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/the_real_problem_with_taxes.html
Useful information in both links. I don't agree with everything in the latter one but there are some good points.
I think that an examination of the statutory tax rate is a highly flawed way of gauging how high or low taxes are in this country.
Fair enough, that would be a one-dimensional analysis. However, you failed to give it any consideration here despite having previously said you favored lowering that rate.
The best way to measure how high taxes truly are is to look at what the government actually takes in (revenue divided by GDP).
Depends on the tax doesn't it? Should SS/Medicare be measured that way? Not to mention, that that coarse of a measure does not look at how any specific tax burden is distributed across payers. On the corporate front, GE gets away with paying no taxes due to special tax breaks that smaller corporations do not get. I don't imagine you find that just, despite you possibly supporting some of the targeted tax breaks.
As for VAT, etc. - any tax on consumption (favored by some conservative economists) is the most regressive form of taxation. From what I read, CTJ completely misses that. If you are okay with that, fine - it won't be the first time you broke with liberal orthodoxy. But you should be clear that you are (as when you critique teachers unions).
Now, contrast all of what you just said with what you posted to start this discussion. Then go to the last chart (in the link); all of the U.S. taxes as a share of total are pretty consistent (ranking-wise) except corporate income - which swings wildly over the 44 years covered. Does that tell you anything?
>The best way to measure how high taxes truly are is to look at what the government actually takes in (revenue divided by GDP).
Leaving aside your usual attempt at ducking and weaving, I still don't get this. Why is that the best way to measure it? Why would you use a measure (GDP) that includes government spending when trying to assess total tax burden?
I still maintain that Marks definition of Thinking Critically usually involves a person coming to the same conclusion as Mark has on ths issue.
Someone making the claim that corporate taxes are actually pretty low doesn't change the fact that, in this global economy, businesses are having no problem incorporating their headquarters in places like Singapore to stay one step ahead of the kids from the short bus at the IRS. When you advocate raising taxes to increase revenue, you assume that all other behaviors will stay the same. They won't.
you failed to give it any consideration here despite having previously said you favored lowering that rate.
Sure. That was before the information came out about companies effectively not paying any taxes at all. Now we have this information from CTJ, Bartlett, and AT. The AT link is very good summation of the problems. The tax code is so screwed up that it prohibits a stead stream of revenue.
I don't mind breaking with liberal orthodoxy on taxation. As I always say, we need to think out of the box on this stuff because we have very unique problems right now. The good thing about consumption taxes is that they don't distort savings. I've always been a big fan of them, in particular, user fees for sports stadiums. Why tax everyone when you can get the people that really use it to pay?
Does that tell you anything?
I guess I'm not certain as to what you are driving at here. Are you saying that our corporate tax system is fucked up? If that's the case, I would agree with you. Pardon me if I am missing something...I didn't get a lot of sleep last night.
businesses are having no problem incorporating their headquarters in places like Singapore
Well, if their effective tax rate is near zero, I don't see how much lower you can go to entice them to stay. The truth is that they will go no matter what our government does because they want to maximize profit. This is why jobs are being sent overseas.
Hap, I'm quite tired of the gotcha games. I know that you are hoping that your repeated questions will result in a response that you can latch on to and then "prove" that I don't know what I am talking about. It's not going to happen. If you want to engage in a discussion that is similar to the one I am now having with juris and last, no problem. I'd very happy to discuss why revenue to GDP...debt to GDP...effective tax rates...are relevant. We would begin this discussion by you stating your thoughts on statutory tax rates, effective tax rates, and why you think measuring revenue as percentage of GDP is not the best or broadest.
Sure. That was before the information came out about companies effectively not paying any taxes at all.
That is called going off half-cocked. I'm somewhat surprised that you didn't know that some corporations don't pay taxes because of special bennies dropped into the tax code by Congresscritters from both parties.
Are you saying that our corporate tax system is fucked up?
Yep. Notice how wildly the percentages swing - that isn't due to radical changes in business economics. It is because every jackass Congressman has a grand plan for corporations, and the worst are those who think they are smart enough to beat a good corporate tax guy.
Now, aside from this just being screwed up in general, what is a secondary consequence of constant fiddling with the tax code? Could it be "uncertainty" of how an investment will pan out - when there is a damn good chance that the tax treatment of that investment will change before the investment is paid back? You've asked how govt contributes to uncertainty - this is one way. Republicans are bad enough in this regard, but the Dems in general are worse.
That is called going off half-cocked.
Well, that's your opinion but I think this data is still very relevant. Bartlett himself used it in his analysis. It's important to take note of how little revenue their actually is as a percentage of overall GDP. That is a big problem right now.
It is because every jackass Congressman has a grand plan for corporations, and the worst are those who think they are smart enough to beat a good corporate tax guy.
That's certainly true. But what do you do when corporations misbehave as they do so often? It seems like an endless cycle. Congress does have to enforce laws, right?
It's only a problem for people who want to spend more money than they have or who made obligations to people they can't keep.
You really want to think out of the box? What if the treasury coined a one trillion dollar coin, and Geithner hand carried it over to the Federal Reserve HQ.
We are instantly one trillion below the debt ceiling.
Heard (read) this discussed today on an economically literate blog.
Bartlett himself used it in his analysis.
Not the point I was talking about (which was you suggesting lowering the rate when you didn't understand who is and isn't paying). Besides which, is this supposed to impress me? I already told you what at least one big shortcoming of it is - it doesn't tell you anything about how the tax burden is distributed.
But what do you do when corporations misbehave as they do so often?
That has what to do with how they are taxed? Seriously, it has nothing to do with how much tax revenue we want to raise via corporate income. Are you really saying that paying taxes is supposed to be some kind of punishment?
Don't build in goodies to the tax code, keep it simple and straightforward. That simplifies compliance and collection and minimizes market/investment distortions. Of course idiot Congressman can't leverage that for their benefit, or the benefit of those who can afford to own a Congressman.
Congress does have to enforce laws, right?
You're kidding here, right? Someone who teaches civics is suggesting that the Legislative Branch is supposed to enforce the law?
JI, I started writing about executive branch vs legislative branch, about three hours ago... but just deleted it.
Why bother.
>Hap, I'm quite tired of the gotcha games. I know that you are hoping that your repeated questions will result in a response that you can latch on to and then "prove" that I don't know what I am talking about.
The only plausible translation I can come up from this is "I don't like it when you ask skeptical questions." Otherwise, why are you whining? You put forth an assertion. You gave some evidence in support of that assertion. I asked you some skeptical but otherwise quite legitimate questions about your evidence. You commenced complaining. If you're mad that I snark at you, well, sorry, but you have a long history of pulling claims directly out of your ass, so you'll get respect when you earn it, and not before.
Anyway, as it was obvious that you had no interest in answering such skeptical questions, (that you should have answered, as you are the one making claims here) I went looking, and the answer appears to be.. it's complicated.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/33/7/42031354.pdf
There are a number of measures out there for measuring tax burden, and none of them are without problems. The most obvious problem with your preferred measure of tax burden is that you need to know the proportion of corporate earnings that make up GDP, otherwise your tax revenue/GDP answers can be misleading when comparing between entities. (See the example in the doc.) As I said though, the other measures have their own problems. I think it's pretty fair to say that you've (well, your link has) got a lot more work to do before this becomes something close to "a-ha" you want it to be - you need to account for the limitations of your preferred measuring stick, which I don't see your link doing.
You're kidding here, right? Someone who teaches civics is suggesting that the Legislative Branch is supposed to enforce the law
Sadly, I knew it was only a matter of time before we got back into the gotcha-word smithing-find something small and pounce on it-anaphylactic shock dealio. I'm well aware that Congress doesn't technically "enforce" the law. I don't think that you or I would ignore a Congressional subpoena nor would we so blithely dismiss the investigations Congress carries out out a regular basis of the private sector. In the strictest of ways, that doesn't mean enforcing, I'll grant you, but I was hoping you would seek the broader meaning of what I was saying. Let's not descend word Nazism.
And of course M responds only to the least substantial part of my reply. And I was hardly in a state of "anaphylactic shock dealio", but now - perhaps I should be rather just somewhat bemused at how sloppy your thinking is (and that your writing merely reflects that).
I gotcha-word-smithing, right here.
I apologize, Juris. The other stuff required more time to address and I had a meeting this morning.
Don't build in goodies to the tax code, keep it simple and straightforward.
I agree completely. But this is what I am talking about when it comes to corporate misbehavior. They will work any angle they can to get out of paying taxes even though paying them benefits their company in the long run. This is exactly where the problem of lobbying comes into play and how out of control it has gotten. How do we change that?
Of course idiot Congressman can't leverage that for their benefit, or the benefit of those who can afford to own a Congressman.
Also agree. I'm not sure this is true for everyone. I have to admit that I hold a small amount of hope that some of the Tea Partiers morph into an anti-corporate caucus. They seem like the type that aren't so easily bought off and could actually govern in some ways that we all want the government to work. Of course, by ignoring corporate shenanigans (as some do) that gives leave to a robber baron agenda so it's a fine line.
How do we change that?
On the Democrat (liberal/progressive) side - stop trying to engineer targeted behavior. Just use the corporate (or individual) income tax to raise revenue to fund the govt.
On the Republican side - same thing.
For all those good moderate centrists in between the party 'extremes' - point out every time they try to grant a favor to someone who paid good money to own a Congresscritter (and vote against the SOB even if you otherwise love him/her).
You want to know why it won't happen? Because I could easily list 10 exemptions/credits/other-goodies in the tax code that you would say "oh, but that's a really good idea". (And I don't care which side of the fucking fence you are on.) Of course I'm just an anti-all-govt, ideological extremist, corporate cock-sucker - so by all means, discount or flat out ignore what I actually have to say.
Just use the corporate (or individual) income tax to raise revenue to fund the govt.
I agree. Now, how do we stop the corporations from manipulating people in government to do their bidding? A mass strike on buying...well...everything?
Now, how do we stop the corporations from manipulating people in government to do their bidding?
Don't vote for anyone that wants to use the tax code for anything but raising revenue. You can figure out who to vote for without corporations (or someone else) telling you, right?
The bigger problem is that too many people, left and right, believe that tax incentives should be used (for their favorite cause). That is the real battle, not your dreaded corporate influence.
"You can figure out who to vote for without corporations... "
Dude. According to his own words, Mark doesn't know what to have for supper without a corporation telling him what to have. Now you want him to cast a well-thought-out vote?
"Now, how do we stop the corporations from manipulating people in government to do their bidding?"
Hmmmmm...
Make it unprofitable for the business to buy a congressman?
That was easy.
Correction:
Make it unprofitable for a business to ATTEMPT to buy a congressman.
Simply not offering enough of a bribe should still be crazy painful. Business ending painful.
or give the govt less power and influence, then it will be less of a magnet for money and corruption. Can't ever totally eliminate it though. Meh.
Post a Comment