corporate tax cut?

grymster2007

New member
Rangel Tax Plan

Our pal Chuck Rangel plans to propose a corporate tax cut, but:

Upper-income families, however, would pay for that repeal with a 4% surtax on incomes above $150,000 for a single earner or incomes above $200,000 for a married couple. That surtax would grow to 4.6% for incomes above $500,000.

Now that’s a fine way to discourage people from making good in this society! I get damn tired of these hypocritical, low-life, vote-buying bastards thinking it OK to ROB the very people that make this country work the way it was designed to.

How about instead of a progressive income tax, we have a progressive vote value? The higher your income, the more your vote is worth. After all, the people paying the most should have the most say in how their taxes get spent.

If not that, then how about a flat dollar amount tax, not based on percentage of income, but a dollar amount levied on every member of society?

This BS about punishing successful people needs to STOP!:barf:
 
You are right, but corporate taxes are even worse.

Corporations don't pay taxes; they are added to the price you pay for those goods and services. You never see just how much of the cost of what you buy is taxes: income taxes, real estate taxes, workers comp, SS, etc, etc, etc. Also add to the cost of that same product taxes included in the costs of all the raw materials and tools and supplies used to produce that product.

This is why politicians and brainless liberals think taxing business is so wonderful - the common citizen doesn't realize just how badly he is being robbed.
 
Corporation do not pay taxes, only people do. Corporate income taxes are stupid and should be abolished as soon as possible. Alas, the average american's knowledge of economics is so weak that this simple truth simply isn't understood.

As for the wealthy paying a higher income tax rate, I don't have a big problem with that. The fact is that the wealthier you are the more you have benifited from govt in the first place. For instance, a college graduate engineer has benifited quite a bit from the money the govt puts into education, more than the HS graduate who benifits more than the HS dropout etc. Still, the real benifits goes to the guy who owns the company that employs hundreds of engineers and makes a ton of money off of all that education that was subsidised by the govt in the first place. That's just one example, but the same argument can be made about all sorts of govt indirect benifits that people often overlook.
 
Corporation do not pay taxes, only people do. Corporate income taxes are stupid and should be abolished as soon as possible. Alas, the average american's knowledge of economics is so weak that this simple truth simply isn't understood.

This whole statement above is absolutely correct. All corporate taxes do is give foreign corporations an unfair advantage in markets which our companies participate.

But this part I have to disagree with.
The fact is that the wealthier you are the more you have benifited from govt in the first place. For instance, a college graduate engineer has benifited quite a bit from the money the govt puts into education, more than the HS graduate who benifits more than the HS dropout etc.

You make it sound as though the only way someone accomplishes anything is because of government provisions. Sorry but that’s ludicrous.

Usually the wealthier someone is, the more they’ve benefited from hard work. Public education is available to everyone equally. Problem is, many parents and students treat it as subsidized daycare more than anything else. Those who benefit from it are the ones who actually made the effort to learn something and put what they learned to use. What about those who are home schooled or go to private schools? How do they benefit from the government trough?
 
Last edited:
More details:

Press Release

Memo: McCrery on "Mother of All Tax Hikes"
October 25, 2007

By Ways and Means Republican Press Office

MEMO

RE: “Mother of All Tax Hikes” Bill

TO: Republican Members, Republican Staff

FROM: Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Jim McCrery







My Friends,



At a bipartisan Ways and Means caucus last night, Chairman Rangel outlined his long-awaited “Mother of All Tax Hikes” legislation. The basics of the package are simple: This is the largest individual income tax increase in history.

The bill will add a 4% surtax on Americans earning more than $150,000 a year ($200,000 for couples). That is on top of the scheduled expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. So, under Democrats’ plan, over the next few years, the individual income top tax rate in the United States will rise from 35% to 44%. By way of comparison, the other 29 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries – basically other developed nations - have an average top marginal tax rate of 35.7%. In fact, only five OECD countries would have higher top marginal tax rates in 2011 than the United States if the Democrats’ bill is enacted.

This crushingly high tax rate will affect approximately 10 million taxpayers directly - including those who report business income, like small business owners and farmers - but the damage will ripple throughout our economy. Because small businesses and family farms often pay their income taxes as individuals, this is a massive tax hike on the engine that drives job growth in this country.

In addition, the surtax is on adjusted gross income, not taxable income. This sounds like a technical issue, but it means that Rangel’s bill will erode the value of a series of tax deductions – including for mortgage interest, charitable giving, medical expenses, state and local taxes, and the standard deduction. And, because the surtax kicks in at $150,000 for individuals and $200,000 for couples, the bill creates a monster of a marriage penalty.

Chairman Rangel will claim that these tax increases go to provide tax cuts to 90 million Americans, but he is selling pure snake-oil. Many if not most of those taxpayers are getting a purely imaginary “tax cut.” Some of them are the roughly 20 million people that Republicans shielded with the Alternative Minimum Tax patch. Millions more are people who have benefited from the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and only get “tax cuts” if you assume that the 10% bracket, marriage penalty, and $1,000 per child tax credit will expire. Others, like single people who will now be eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit, are getting a tax refund from the government even though they don’t actually pay income taxes.

It will take time to analyze this bill and sort through the data, but we know from the start that the 90 million figure is pure hokum. In fact, before you know it more taxpayers may wind up paying higher taxes – and fewer paying less - under Rangel’s plan than they did last year.

Which brings us to the larger fallacy of the Democrats’ “paygo” system. There is no need to “pay for” protecting taxpayers from a massive AMT tax hike. The government never meant for the AMT to affect middle-class Americans, and we have a responsibility to make sure it doesn’t. By arguing that preventing this tax increase requires us to raise taxes elsewhere, Democrats are trying to lock Congress into a system where we are guaranteed to raise taxes by $3.5 trillion over ten years.

That’s right. $3.5 trillion. The baseline that the Democrats are using for “paygo” includes revenue from an “un-patched” AMT and from the tax increases that occur when the 2001 and 2003 tax laws expire after 2010. Together they total $3.5 trillion over ten years. If we play by the Democrats “paygo” rules, that is the size of the tax increase we are imposing on the American people. That will hurt our nation’s competitiveness and cost us American jobs. The Rangel bill is the first step down a road none of us want to follow, and I urge you to oppose it strongly.
 
You make it sound as though the only way someone accomplishes anything is because of government provisions.

Absolutely not. Just saying that govt largess does indirectly benifit the wealthy more than the poor. That they are smart and energetic enough to benifit from this does not negate the fact that they did indeed benifit.

I wish more of our tax base came from the progressive income tax and less came from payroll and corporate taxes. After the fact taxes on individual income keeps government accountants from jerking around with the economy, something that is impossible to do well anyway. Corporate taxes and payroll taxes put too much government interference into the economy and should both be abolished.
 
Just saying that govt largess does indirectly benifit the wealthy more than the poor.
I still don't see how this is accurate. If anything, the opposite is true. Take public works and public education out of the equation. It doesn't matter that the poor and uneducated may CHOOSE to not take advantage of these items, but they're available to everyone equally.

As far benefiting from the government, explain how the wealthier among us benefit more than the poor when it comes to government programs like student and business grants, preferences in government contracts, after school programs, free lunch programs, S-CHIP, earned income credits, lower tax rates, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

If you're wealthy, you're generally hit harder by things such as higher tax rates, death taxes, capital gains taxes, dismal return on the 'social security investment', etc. It's irrelevant that the wealthy have higher disposable income or any other popular way to demonize them. And it's true the poor don't get hit with some of the above because of their income level. But that's exactly my point; these taxes are reserved for just the 'rich folk'. When it comes to government benefit, the wealthy have very little to show for their 'contribution'. Sorry, but I just don't see it.
 
Upper-income families, however, would pay for that repeal with a 4% surtax on incomes above $150,000 for a single earner or incomes above $200,000 for a married couple. That surtax would grow to 4.6% for incomes above $500,000.
Now that’s a fine way to discourage people from making good in this society!
I know, right? If somebody offered me a job paying $200K a year tomorrow, I'd tell them to go screw themselves...why would I want to pay those extra taxes? :rolleyes:
 
Yikes. I don't even know where to start on this topic, or even some of the responses.

First of all, let's correct this idea of the wealthy and taxes. Even with the best investments, tax lawyers, and governmental contracts, the people who America views as "fat cats" pay most of the taxes in real wealth as you know it.

In fact, on a pie chart, the upper 1% of that population pays almost all of the taxes.

And then, you have the issue of investment.

If a poor(er) guy gets a dollar, he uses it to buy food, heating fuel, pay down debt, house payments, etc.

The wealthy, by definition, are already wealthy. Money (or more properly 'wealth') in their scheme of things is both a liquid device or a target for taxes. They can, however, use it for investment.

By that I mean they use the money to buy something that generates a steady income stream, or they loan it out to people who wish to finance a future revenue stream.

And by 'stream' I mean new factories, refurbished factories or R/D. These are the very things that actually generate wealth for us common guys.

Yes, you see yachts (which are built by workers in ship yards), you see expensive cars (built on assembly lines) you see ever-flowing bottles of wine (produced by growers) and expansive homes (built by men in the trades).

In my area of Wisconsin, the builders would love to have a couple of fat-cats start building expansive homes with expensive personal appointments.

I bought a knife today, an expensive Emerson CQC-8. I'm not wealthy, the guy who will buy it works in the trades.

The knife was purchased from a wealthy man, who owns a factory. I have no idea how many cutlers, polishers, warehousemen, material handlers and truckers handled this knife and earned a living.

The factory, however, does not make a profit unless a buyer is generated. I find the buyers and provide services which repair and maintain this knife.

The new owner works for builders and remodelers. He used another Emerson knife to open 90 bags of cement a few weeks ago. Not only did he generate wealth to me and Emerson factory, but he earned a wage from a wealthy man and provided goods and services for another client.

This new Emerson will be used in processing game which will feed his extended family by stocking their larder.

In this one scenario I figure that over 75 individual people have benefited by wealth and services from these two knives.

Is there one of us here who would criticize Ernest Emerson for his enhanced position of wealth?
 
Good post, Tourist. While I do believe in progressive taxes, I'm not in the "tax the rich as much as possible, they can afford it" camp. I realize that the wealthy do indeed create jobs and opportunities, as well as generally keep the economy moving.

There is one tiny problem with your assessment, though. What happens when one of these captains of industry realizes that it's cheaper to open his widget factory in China, or Mexico, than to open it here? Or to run his tech support call center out of India, because it's cheaper than Ohio? It is true that money/wealth is generally "conserved" (that when somebody buys a yacht that money doesn't disappear...somebody has to build, broker, maintain, and staff that yacht) but it does not necessarily need to be conserved within our borders.

In fact, on a pie chart, the upper 1% of that population pays almost all of the taxes.

True, but that upper 1% of the population also owns/controls almost all of the wealth, as well (or is that the upper 5%?). So obviously those taxes aren't exactly putting them in the poor house. Which goes back to my previous post: who here would rather make $25K a year and get to keep all of it than make $200K a year and only keep 70%? Show of hands.
 
An interesting array of views. I find it quite troubling how many have socialist leanings and believe that there should be a redistribution of wealth. He earns more...so he should pay a greater percentage of his income.

I disagree. While I cannot completely escape a somewhat socialistic view myself (I think there should be a base below which no one pays income taxes) I believe that the percentage should be the same for those who pay.

That is an unrealistic view...I do like the idea of a system that taxes individuals at a flat rate (again with a floor) on dollars spent.

Honestly our system is broken...or government is growing too fast and is generally a very wastfull entity.

True, but that upper 1% of the population also owns/controls almost all of the wealth, as well (or is that the upper 5%?). So obviously those taxes aren't exactly putting them in the poor house. Which goes back to my previous post: who here would rather make $25K a year and get to keep all of it than make $200K a year and only keep 70%? Show of hands.

Maybe I am missing the point...I think my question is why penalize the individual who has excelled and is making 200K a year by making him pay a higher tax rate....At the same percentage he is still paying more in taxes than the individual who makes 25K....

I came from a very blue collar background....and I am doing well. When I finish grad school I will be doing even better. We are (to a great extent) who we choose to be.
 
Maybe I am missing the point...I think my question is why penalize the individual who has excelled and is making 200K a year by making him pay a higher tax rate....At the same percentage he is still paying more in taxes than the individual who makes 25K....

This is true, and also a good question. I've heard arguments (put better than I can) that the wealthy actually benefit more from government spending that the poor...everything from roads to aircraft carriers. Hence it makes sense that they would pay more towards those things.

This, of course, breaks down once you factor in entitlement programs like welfare...which is much more direct wealth redistribution. I've heard arguments (less compelling than the former, though) that the wealthy do benefit indirectly from that as well...but I can definitely see the other side, that it should not be involuntary.

Personally I don't feel particularly strongly either way; I don't mind actual progressive tax rates (and I'll gladly pay them, because I figure if I'm in a higher tax bracket it means I'm doing just fine.)...but I also wouldn't mind the idea of a flat tax on either income or consumption, provided we allowed a generous initial exemption (so yeah, still progressive) and it payed the bills.
 
Personally I don't feel particularly strongly either way; I don't mind actual progressive tax rates (and I'll gladly pay them, because I figure if I'm in a higher tax bracket it means I'm doing just fine.)...but I also wouldn't mind the idea of a flat tax on either income or consumption, provided we allowed a generous initial exemption (so yeah, still progressive) and it payed the bills.

Actually, that is really pretty close to how I feel...Great post.

I am just opposed strongly to programs that are really just designed to re-distribute wealth.
 
I believe in a flat tax. Granted, I will pay more than a college student, and Bill Gates will pay more than I.

However, consider this. First, none of us are criminals. Overall, we will pay less tax than being jacked into a higher level and scratching for every deduction.

Also, if you are a citizen of these United States, you do benefit from the roads, the Armed Forces, rescue services and myriad of other faceless people whom you depend upon.

You should pay something.

As for out-sourcing, once again let me use myself as a lab rat.

I provide a sevice, and you pay through the nose for it. I am the highest paid knife sharpener I know. And I just raised some prices on premium polishing to 15 dollars per inch.

"Chico, you money grubbing fat-cat, you ought to be shot--with cheap bullets!"

Well, consider this. Yes, you can drag your knife through a can opener, or drag it on a sidewalk. But it won't work like mine.

But to obtain and keep your business, I must provide a unique and superior service and exceed all expectations. I must trounce the competition. I must invest in continuing R/D. I must absorb state and local taxes, inflation, tool costs, aging equipment, my own health care, fuel costs and advertising.

If you refuse to pay and continue to seek cheaper forms of service or I find I cannot maintain your continued patronage at a profitable level, then I either go out of business (which doesn't enhance either one of us) or find a cheaper way to provide goods and services.

Personally, I'm an "American" kind of guy. I think buying Harleys, providing American built knives and sharpening devices and using American workers (myself, my wife, our financial consultants) ulimately secures business. It certainly doesn't detract.

My concern would be if "Habib" was a pretty good sharpener, you also thought so and snubbed my livelihood.
 
Apparently, getting one's education in a coal mine doesn't qualify one to write very well. :D I'd say get more of those government benifits (sic) and improve your chance to make some real money. Then you'll see how great the progressive income tax is! (sarcasm)
 
What happens when one of these captains of industry realizes that it's cheaper to open his widget factory in China, or Mexico, than to open it here? Or to run his tech support call center out of India
There is less incentive to do so if the corporate taxes are gone. As I said above, all corporate taxes do is give foreign corporations an unfair advantage in markets which our companies participate. There is no 'corporate tax free' exception for exports. The cost of goods and services produced in this country are priced including the cost of the taxes compared to countries that don't have corporate taxes. That said, the government is at least partially responsible for all the off-shoring because of the tax policy.
 
Even the sales tax people try and make it progressive by exempting things like food or medical care or kids clothing. It's not about whether we are going to have a progressive tax, rather how progressive.

The biggest problem is that people don't realise how small the portion of govt spending that goes to direct social programs actually is. It's tiny! You could take away all the welfare and food stamp programs and it wouldn't affect the tax rates needed to balance the budget to any noticeable extent.

However, poor people make a good target. Never mind the guy who gets over $100,000 in farm subsidies worry about the guy who get's $300 worth of food stamps he doesnt deserve.

As for my own education, all paid for by uncle sam. I was smart enough to take advantage of lots of programs over the years, and now I'm 46 years old and retired. At least I'm honest enough to know that I didn't do it all by myself, lots of people fought wars, paid taxes, built roads, fought fires, enforced laws etc etc in order for me to be where I am today.
 
Back
Top