Businesses don’t want to support the US
An email from the Center for American Progress:
Yesterday, both CQ and National Journal reported on the "tax battle" evidently looming between big business and President Obama, over his administration’s proposal to begin taxing the profits that companies earn overseas. The business lobby is casting the proposal as a business-killing apocalypse. "Just imagine a world 10 years from now where there are no U.S. multinationals because they’ve all been bought up by foreign competitors," said tax lobbyist Kenneth Kies. "Everything else pales in comparison," said National Foreign Trade Council President William Reinsch, whose group is partnering with the Business Roundtable, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the National Association of Manufacturers to preserve the deferral rule. The business lobby’s rhetoric has been similar to that used by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who warned that "companies are going to leave" because of Obama’s "stupid, dumb-ass" tax proposals. But their fearmongering ignores the fact that U.S. corporate tax revenue as a share of the economy is below the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) average. The U.S. raises less revenue from corporations than do countries like the United Kingdom and Ireland, even with a technically higher rate. As the Wonk Room has noted, loopholes and shelters contribute to a skewed idea of what the U.S. corporate tax system really looks like, but suffice to say, it’s not the crippling system that businesses make it out to be.
Businesses for too long have evaded paying their share of the taxes that run our government. Besides money being earned overseas, we have things like businesses transferring their headquarters to tax havens—a legal nicety that cuts their taxes, but one that’s denied to individual filers.
“Yeah, get those evil business!!! While your at it get those rich excutives! Down with the successful. Anybody lucky enough to be successful according to Obama should pay their fair share.”
I hear this battle cry and wonder what type of logic informs it? Obama will be the largest tax increaser of all times at the rate he is increasing taxes. It seems some what oppresive to me. Regardless of who pays what share at corporate or individual rates aren’t taxes a bad thing in general because they take away from individuals the freedom of choice?
Freedom Thinker
4 May 2009 at 9:43 am
Obama in fact cut taxes. So I don’t quite understand what you’re thinking about. And if you somehow believe that businesses give much consideration to the public good, you’re not very observant. Businesses exist to make a profit, and are legally required (if they are corporations) to maximize that profit in any way that they can. Thus businesses regularly attempt to illegally dump toxic waste into our waterways, fight any regulations that would help consumer or employee safety, and in general act like sociopaths, which they more or less are (according to DMS IV).
And what’s wrong with having citizens pay their fare share of the costs of our government?
LeisureGuy
4 May 2009 at 9:51 am
No, Obama cut taxes AND Obama raised taxes. What is the net effect? Are tax receipts projected to go UP or DOWN? Obama himself in his budget projects tax receipts to go up. How is INCREASING tax receipts a tax cut?
Define fair share is fair the same thing as equal? Or is fair based on one class paying a higher share? What do you think would be fair? Should one class of people pay more then another is that FAIR? Maybe the blacks, jews, gays, religious, unreligous, educated, uneducated, poor, middle class, or successful. Who should pay more? Obama raised taxes on one of those groups in the list? What is it called when one man oppresses another based on their class? Bigotry. You call bigotry fair?!?! Excuse me but I am a man of morals and conscience. I should pay just as much in taxes as the next person. It should be fair and it should be equal.
Freedom Thinker
6 May 2009 at 9:10 am
My goodness. Calm down a bit. We can discuss this calmly.
Yes, there is a kind of equality in demanding the same dollar amount or the same percentage of income from everyone in taxes. It’s the same kind of equality that Anatole France commented on:
Indeed, Adam Smith (father of Capitalism) recognized that the wealthy are better able to support the government than the very poor. He wrote:
Put simply, those who can better afford to pay to support the government pay more than those who are less able. This is a simple principle of equity and fairness and should be obvious to all.
You suggestion that some subgroups (African Americans, Jews, gays, etc.) should pay less (or more) in taxes shows a lack of thought. If you think about it carefully, you’ll note that the categories you suggested don’t tell us anything about their ability to pay and afford taxes. The progressive income tax (which had a marginal tax rate of 50% in the highest category under Ronald Reagan) is based upon ability to pay, which makes sense. Unfortunately, the categories you suggest don’t make sense. Think a little harder before you write.
LeisureGuy
6 May 2009 at 9:47 am
You argue well for oppression. So, you think the successful should be oppressed based on their ability to be oppressed. Like slavers use to say of black slaves being made for the fields or the poor because of their inability or lack of intelligence which keeps them from rising above their current class. The successful are better able to endure oppression therefore they are who we should oppress. Interesting argument, very Marxist, and still very immoral in my opinion but each to their own.
Your quote is indeed right but I don’t think Adam Smith was a proponent of a progressive income tax as you try to say. (Since your big on Adam Smith what do you think he has to say about government involvement of society and the role of government has in society, economics, etc?) I acknowledge the importance and need for taxation as Adam Smith did and I don’t think we should set up a system where those that can’t pay taxes should be oppressed either with debtor’s prisons and all that nonsense like at the time Adam Smith lived.
Rent of land is much like a capital gains tax and consumable commodities is not income. Further, Mr. Smith said that…
Again, nothing about taxes on income and even further something more then a proportion of their revenue a consumption tax perhaps???
“As little as possible” being the key point here. As you point out 50% is not a marginal amount. I don’t think anybody would think of 50% as being as little as possible in fact 50% is half. I don’t know who thinks half is a little amount. If I say I’m only going to take a sip of your drink and then I drink half did I take a sip? Nope.
I do not agree with you that oppression “simply put” should be based on “those who can better afford to pay to support the government”. I think oppression is wrong. The wealthy have less to protect then the poor because the wealthy have means to avoid and escape from things such as hurricane’s, war, and disease. The poor are in greater need of protection as they lack the means for protection.
Don’t get me wrong, I like paying for government roads, military, police, and for protection with contracts and the such. I don’t like paying for social “security”, medicare, child tax credits, public schools, and other such nonsense. What about paying for tax based on use which is something Adam Smith advocated as well. That is novel…paying for what you need or use. Not taxes based on ability but taxes based on use and need, that is not oppression but freedom of choice. I may be young and I might not think much before I write or talk but I’ve been around and done alot in my 20+ years to know the truth. Oppression regalrdless of the type is still oppression whether based on ability to endure it or any other form.
Freedom Thinker
6 May 2009 at 12:17 pm
“Oppression” is an odd word to use to refer to laws passed through the usual legislative procedures, by representatives elected by the citizenry. It looks very much as if you call “oppression” the laws you don’t like, whereas laws that you do like are not oppression. I don’t think that’s an accurate use of the terms.
Just to clarify: I think you might misunderstand how the income tax works: the marginal rate applies only to income at or above a certain level. The 50% figure (under Reagan) was only for the very top slice of income, and it certainly didn’t mean that anyone paid 50% of their total income, or even 50% of their adjusted gross income.
I hold that the representatives we elect can indeed direct money for the public good. Most people agree with me. And remember: those measures that you don’t like are the product of American democracy at work. Temper your words before DHS descends on you and locks you up. (See this post.
From what you right, I’d guess that you have never lived under true oppression. The United States is not a model for an oppressed society, though you may find that hard to believe. It’s actually quite a good country, with mechanisms to allow its citizens to express their will—even if what they express displeases you.
LeisureGuy
6 May 2009 at 12:33 pm
Oppression is a very accurate use for what is going on and what you are saying. Oppression is oppression regardless of whether it is supported by the majority or not. Just like oppression is oppression even if it is on the backs of those that can endure.
That is a saying my parents taught me when I’d try to say that my friends were allowed to do something and I didn’t think it was fair I wasn’t. Just because the majority says do something doesn’t make it right to do. It’s called “tyranny of the majority” to use the words of our founding fathers and just because you think it is ok to oppress somebody because of their ability and now because the majority says it’s ok doesn’t make it any more moral.
Take for example the U.S. revolution. The majority of England didn’t agree with the English colony’s. I suppose you disagree with what Washington and Adams and Jefferson did then because they were against the majority. Well, each to their own. Personally, I admire those men and their mentality.
As for the understanding of taxes. I’m an accountant and Chief Financial Officer for a regional health center and I know what a progressive tax rate is and how it works. In addition to your progressive rate you have your medicare and social security rate (also don’t forget your employer matching rate) that is an additional 14% (of course this has an upper limit for now) that the average employee isn’t even aware of there are also AMT taxes and much more. Then on top of that add capital gains on any investments (a double taxation) local and state consumption and property taxes and the number really begins adding up. Keep in mind only 25% of taxes collected are income taxes. There are the inbedded taxes in the goods you purchase do to corporate tax rates. Most states have luxury taxes when you eat our or buy nice things. And the amount we pay in taxes grows and grows. By the way your the one that used the 50% rate….
So, even if it’s not 50% lets say its like only 40% that is still not a little or even 30% is a third a little??? Nope. After taking my 6 deducations I still paid over 20%. is a 1/5 a little? Nope.
I hear you on that DHS thing. They think my ilk are nut job terrorists because we own guns, disagree with the government, and support the constitution. But I doubt the military would support them if they started coming after my ilk because after all vets are the most at risk for being terrorists after all so I feel pretty secure. If a bunch of pot head hippie liberals want to come get me and string me up more power to them.
I disagree that I have never lived under oppression. I haven’t lived under Nazi oppression or Islamic oppression or outright communist oppression your right their. However, when a young guy like myself trying to raise 4 little kids has to write a check to the government on April 15th after they’d already withheld thousands I am economically oppressed. What benefit did I get from the 10s of thousands I paid in taxes? Bailout Wall Street, bailout Chrysler, pay for a joke of a public school for my kids (whom I educate at home in my free time anyways), pay for somebodies health care (while we shell out 4 grand for my wifes latest c-section) yeah that’s fair, pay for somebodies food stamps, pay for some illegal immigrants drivers license, donate some money internationally to support abortion, bailout those that paid to much for their homes while I live in a 1,200 sq ft house for 6 because I live debt free, subsidize car purchases even though I saved for a year to by my latest car, get a little use of roads and some military protection from terrorists (until we get attacked again). The government limits my freedom of choice. For me it is to a point of being oppressive. And when I see Obama’s tax increases I know more oppression is on the way.
It’s great that you have the freedom to comment about oppressing people because that is blatently what your saying. Just don’t be shy about it. Don’t try to hide behind the majority or peoples ability or the fact it’s economic oppression and not religious oppression/or racial oppression. After all Obama and his plans have a 60%+ approval rate the majority can’t be wrong, right?
“Get those rich successful people. Raise the taxes on the top % of wage earners. Down with the successful.” Don’t be shy!
Freedom Thinker
6 May 2009 at 2:28 pm
Thanks for commenting.
LeisureGuy
6 May 2009 at 2:35 pm