U.S. has the 2nd highest corporate tax rate on this planet.

[350 long rod]

"Low rates of Taxation on corporate profits that came forth under Reagan make it possible for foreigners to fleece and then liquidate our companies. Of course those factors are ignored in favor of spin calling it "wealth redistribution" or some other such nonsense.
Wow. What planet are you from? BTW, the U.S. has the 2nd highest corporate tax rate on this planet." By Brian C

Heres a little info on the true payments of large company's


Of the 275 Fortune 500 companies that made a profit each year from 2001 to 2003 and for which adequate information to draw conclusions is publicly available, only a small proportion paid federal income taxes anywhere near that statutory 35 percent tax rate. The vast majority paid considerably less.
In fact, in 2002 and 2003, the average effective tax rate for all of these 275 companies was less than half the statutory 35 percent rate. Over the 2001-2003 period, effective tax rates ranged from a low of -59.6 percent for Pepco Holdings to a high of 34.5 percent for CVS.
Over the three-year period, the average effective rate for all 275 companies dropped by a fifth, from 21.4 percent in 2001 to 17.2 percent in 2002-2003.



And from Center on budget and policy
The U.S. corporate tax burden is smaller than average for developed countries.Corporations in 19 of the member states of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development paid 16.1 percent of their profits in taxes between 2000 and 2005, on average, while corporations in the United States paid 13.4 percent.
Nevertheless, some have argued that U.S. corporate tax rates unduly burden U.S. companies by pointing to the country’s top statutory tax rate, which is 35 percent. For example, a recent Wall Street Journal editorial calling for corporate tax cuts noted that this is the second highest top statutory tax rate among developed countries. While true, this gives the false impression that the corporate tax burden is greater here than in other developed countries. Because the U.S. tax code offers so many deductions, credits, and other mechanisms by which corporations can reduce their taxes, the actual percentage of profits that U.S. corporations pay in taxes — or what analysts refer to as their effective tax rate — is not high, compared to other developed countries.
Because the average U.S. corporate tax burden is low, many economists believe a revenue-neutral corporate tax reform that reduces statutory corporate tax rates, while broadening the tax base by eliminating costly tax breaks, could improve economic efficiency and likely benefit the U.S. economy.


Facts not propaganda.

[roofeditor]

An additional benefit might be other countries might be inclined to invest here and locate their companies here. That equals more jobs and more jobs equals more people off welfare and more actually paying taxes. Sort of a 2 for!

There will be others that think just the opposite, that higher taxes make business better some how?

[checkthisout]

Originally Posted by 350 long rod

"Low rates of Taxation on corporate profits that came forth under Reagan make it possible for foreigners to fleece and then liquidate our companies. Of course those factors are ignored in favor of spin calling it "wealth redistribution" or some other such nonsense.
Wow. What planet are you from? BTW, the U.S. has the 2nd highest corporate tax rate on this planet." By Brian C

Heres a little info on the true payments of large company's


Of the 275 Fortune 500 companies that made a profit each year from 2001 to 2003 and for which adequate information to draw conclusions is publicly available, only a small proportion paid federal income taxes anywhere near that statutory 35 percent tax rate. The vast majority paid considerably less.
In fact, in 2002 and 2003, the average effective tax rate for all of these 275 companies was less than half the statutory 35 percent rate. Over the 2001-2003 period, effective tax rates ranged from a low of -59.6 percent for Pepco Holdings to a high of 34.5 percent for CVS.
Over the three-year period, the average effective rate for all 275 companies dropped by a fifth, from 21.4 percent in 2001 to 17.2 percent in 2002-2003.



And from Center on budget and policy
The U.S. corporate tax burden is smaller than average for developed countries.Corporations in 19 of the member states of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development paid 16.1 percent of their profits in taxes between 2000 and 2005, on average, while corporations in the United States paid 13.4 percent.
Nevertheless, some have argued that U.S. corporate tax rates unduly burden U.S. companies by pointing to the country’s top statutory tax rate, which is 35 percent. For example, a recent Wall Street Journal editorial calling for corporate tax cuts noted that this is the second highest top statutory tax rate among developed countries. While true, this gives the false impression that the corporate tax burden is greater here than in other developed countries. Because the U.S. tax code offers so many deductions, credits, and other mechanisms by which corporations can reduce their taxes, the actual percentage of profits that U.S. corporations pay in taxes — or what analysts refer to as their effective tax rate — is not high, compared to other developed countries.
Because the average U.S. corporate tax burden is low, many economists believe a revenue-neutral corporate tax reform that reduces statutory corporate tax rates, while broadening the tax base by eliminating costly tax breaks, could improve economic efficiency and likely benefit the U.S. economy.


Facts not propaganda.

Thanks for the reply and thanks for reinforcing my statement. The first part of the post was my response to someone else in a different thread.

They key is to tax things society does not need (Hedge Funds, Investment Banks etc) at a high rate and tax things we DO need (farming, machine tools, etc) at a low rate if at all.

[drcampbell]

Where did that come from? The Cato Institute?
Even if it's true, it's misleading. First, what difference does the "statutory" rate make if nobody actually pays it? Second, tax structures are different in different countries. For example, the US has not enacted a VAT but much of the rest of the world has.

[444-4D]

I would be in favor of "zero" corporate tax.

[drcampbell]

Originally Posted by roofeditor

An additional benefit might be other countries might be inclined to invest here and locate their companies here. That equals more jobs and more jobs equals more people off welfare and more actually paying taxes. Sort of a 2 for!

There will be others that think just the opposite, that higher taxes make business better some how?

An excise tax on fossil fuel would also encourage local production by increasing the cost of transportation. (not to mention their primary purpose of reducing petroleum imports and the resultant transfer of money out of the country)

[Greenie]

We can tax our way back into prosperity?
The mindset in America is "where's mine?" Coveting other people's wealth or possessions, envy over someone else's achievement and an inflated opinion of self worth has remade America. Politicians capitalize on these base emotions because they can have a parasitical drain on achievement, sweat, and enterprise as long as they can gin up public sentiment over "big business" not paying their fair share. Ironically, big government taxes at every level; material, production, transportation, labor and sales but is rarely criticized for the devastation government inflicts on enterprise.
I have an elderly Aunt who bristles with hatred over corporate America - big oil, pharmacueticals, whatever the targeted sector happens to be, she also feels they ought to be taxed back into the stone age.
And then there's organized labor that can always be counted on to fan the flames of covetness.
Long story short, too few voters understand enough about life to make good decisions.

[checkthisout]

Originally Posted by Greenie

We can tax our way back into prosperity?
The mindset in America is "where's mine?" Coveting other people's wealth or possessions, envy over someone else's achievement and an inflated opinion of self worth has remade America..

If by coveting you mean Bankers stealing from the economy then yes I would agree. Giving our precious tax revenue to the lying, cheating, thieving international Bankers will go down in History as the move that drive the final nail into the coffin of the United States.

Originally Posted by Greenie

Long story short, too few voters understand enough about life to make good decisions.

LOL. The last 35 years are proof of that.

Notice the assult never stops. The loss and destruction of Social Security is next.

Notice how even though you pay taxes to get it, that it's being called an "Entitlement Program" the spin has already begun.

[73LSTROKER]

Which nation has the highest corporate tax rate on this planet?

STROKER

[Greenie]

No, by coveting I was thinking more of a society that despises and distrusts any successful business to the extent that they support taking wealth from that business.
Let's not forget that the financial crisis originated from lenders being forced to approve mortgages to minorities and people that could not afford the payments by Fanny & Freddy. Greed ensued as people started to flip houses or assume that the house they couldn't afford would continue to appreciate forever.
But, as you point out its a lot easier to blame greedy bankers than for us to look in any mirror to see that society itself covets the property and wealth of others.

[350 long rod]

Originally Posted by Greenie

No, by coveting I was thinking more of a society that despises and distrusts any successful business to the extent that they support taking wealth from that business.
Let's not forget that the financial crisis originated from lenders being forced to approve mortgages to minorities and people that could not afford the payments by Fanny & Freddy. Greed ensued as people started to flip houses or assume that the house they couldn't afford would continue to appreciate forever.
But, as you point out its a lot easier to blame greedy bankers than for us to look in any mirror to see that society itself covets the property and wealth of others.

Could you please post a link to the law that states that lenders had to lend money to people that could not afford those loans.

[350 long rod]

Originally Posted by drcampbell

Where did that come from? The Cato Institute?
Even if it's true, it's misleading. First, what difference does the "statutory" rate make if nobody actually pays it? Second, tax structures are different in different countries. For example, the US has not enacted a VAT but much of the rest of the world has.

That is what I was getting at, every one on the conservative right always states how we have the highest tax rate when what is really paid is much less.

Does every one realize that taxes are only paid on profit that is after all expenses and other deduction are taken. Large corporations while supplying jobs also have a large impact on the cost of government.They use a large amount of our public infrastructure,fire,police,the schools that educate there employees, roads to move there goods around, the health care system by not providing health insurance,and social security by Not providing pensions like used to be done but now has been demonized,and now we have attitudes like this " How dare some one who works for a company for 30 plus years helping them make millions of dollars should expect to have a retirement paid for. They should be happy to just have had a job that barely paid enough to survive in this economy."

We can all thank the last 30 years of republican economics for this.
Hows that 401k doing now?Is the company that manages the plan dropping there fee or are they still taking a good chunk of your money after they just lost you thousands of dollars?

[AK_Gandy]

Originally Posted by Greenie

Let's not forget that the financial crisis originated from lenders being forced to approve mortgages to minorities and people that could not afford the payments by Fanny & Freddy. Greed ensued as people started to flip houses or assume that the house they couldn't afford would continue to appreciate forever.

That's only "part" of the reason for the problems we have.

Read this article.

Why Your Bank Is Broke - TIME

(2nd page)..."Regulators have long had a lower capital requirement on loans that are not backed by deposits. But in 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) removed rules that capped leverage at 15 to 1 for investment-banking firms like Goldman Sachs. That allowed the firms to vastly expand their lending activities without raising a single new dollar of capital. One big backer of the rule change was reportedly former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who was then Goldman's CEO. By that time, the regulatory separation between investment banks and traditional banks had long since been removed, so traditional banks such as Citigroup and Bank of America shifted more and more of their lending operations to their investment-banking divisions, and leverage took off. By the end of 2007, many banks were lending $30 for every dollar they had in the vault. "Changing the net-capital rule was an unfortunate misjudgment by the SEC," says former SEC official Lee Pickard. "It's one of the leading contributors to the current financial crisis."

But, as you point out its a lot easier to blame greedy bankers than for us to look in any mirror to see that society itself covets the property and wealth of others.

ps. Rumor has it that the stock market is going gangbusters these days.

[Greenie]

Originally Posted by 350 long rod

Could you please post a link to the law that states that lenders had to lend money to people that could not afford those loans.

No. Haven't you been following the news concerning minority mortgages? The Federal government wanted to see that home ownership was extended to minorities and low income people. Thousands of illegal aliens have subprime mortgages - how does an illegal alien qualify for a mortgage one might ask...
Here are a few stories outlining the minority/low income home mortgage deals.
Hidden Clinton “Success Story”: Fannie Mae subprime loans for minorities
Fannie Mae Faces Scrutiny over Minority Lending Practices
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - New York Times

Look at the dates of the linked articles - it's a time capsule look backwards.
No, there's no law but there was a concerted drive to force banks to make the loans that are now plaguing us - by Barney Frank, Clinton, and even the Bushes.

[Greenie]

Originally Posted by AK_Gandy

T


ps. Rumor has it that the stock market is going gangbusters these days.

Still struggling with reading comprehension I see.