"Recovery Summer"

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

IF THERE ARE FACTUAL NUMBERS, WHY THE DEBATE?

I'm not sure...if anyone wishes to present a rational case that McCain could have seen a dramatically smaller 2009 deficit I'd love to see it.

You'd think Scott could google something up?

YA SURE, WITH WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE MID EAST, THE NEED FOR NEW SOPHISTCATED WEAPONS TO FIGHT TERRORISM AND CHINA BUILDING UP IT'S MILITARY AND BUIDING CARRIERS WE SHOULD CUT BACK ON MILITARY SPENDING ?

I think if anything the last two wars have demonstrated that sophisticated technology has it's limits...and the billions that go into programs that never even see the battlefield is astounding.

Maintaining military superiority can still be a priority, but the idea of a strong military has almost been seen as an entitlement by Congress and a free pass to spend without fear of repercussion.

OUR PUSHING INTO ASIA MAY BE THE FIRST YOU'VE SEEN IN YOUR LIFTIME, BUT COMPANIES STARTED MOVING FROM STATE TO STATE THEN OUT OF THE COUNTRY 35 YEARS AGO BECAUSE OF GOVT. REGULATION AND TAXES.

Government regulation has certainly pushed a lot of industries out of the US, but much of this is due to environmental and other negative impacts on the voters. Industry has shown time and time again that when left alone it will pollute, exploit and take unnecessary risks all in the name of shareholder value.

This doesn't mean that business is evil, but a balance is probably in the best interest of everyone.

The US is a desirable place to do business with a history of innovation, free thinking and strong legal protection of intellectual property. We can justify higher corporate taxes, although I'd note that many multi-nationals seem to have found a way to evade a lot of their own tax burden. The effective tax rate doesn't seem to be nearly the second largest often cited.

Perhaps more importantly, lower taxes aren't always going to be a deciding factor in a global economy. Many companies want to develop products locally to suit specific tastes. With an increasing cost of energy and transportation production will be kept local as well.

I work with manufacturing companies and see many US businesses moving production back to the states as the low cost options of the past few decades are now proving to be more expensive in the end.

WHERE CAN I FIND THESE FACTS AND FIGURES.

Look at any Fortune 500 annual report and where their revenue growth is. If it wasn't for emerging nations pushing tens of millions into their own Middle Class the US economy would be a shambles right now.

YA MEAN LIKE HOW SILICONE VALLEY COMPANIES WERE LOOKING FOR SHORT TERM SHARE HOLDER VALUE WHEN THEY CREATED HIGH TECH?

I'm not sure I understand your point.

The net of all this is that competing in a global economy is going to look different than what made us so strong the previous century.

Complaining about taxes and regulation isn't going to help us when nations like Germany and China are using their governments to position their private industries on a better footing through education and incentives.

You do realize those socialists in Germany with all their high taxes and oppressive regulation export more than the USA even though their GDP is 4 times smaller?

-spence

[scottw]

[QUOTE=spence;869518]You'd think Scott could google something up?

OR, I could post a lot of unsubstantiated nonsense...like you

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm not sure...if anyone wishes to present a rational case that McCain could have seen a dramatically smaller 2009 deficit I'd love to see it.

You'd think Scott could google something up?

Many rational cases can be CONJECTURED. What is EVIDENT is the current deficit.

I think if anything the last two wars have demonstrated that sophisticated technology has it's limits...and the billions that go into programs that never even see the battlefield is astounding.

Maintaining military superiority can still be a priority, but the idea of a strong military has almost been seen as an entitlement by Congress and a free pass to spend without fear of repercussion.

A strong military is not only an entitlement of the Federal Government, it is one of the few responsibilities granted by the Constitution, as opposed to the many unconstitutional responsibilities it has usurped from the states and the people and which are the major, if not sole, reason for the massive national debt.

Government regulation has certainly pushed a lot of industries out of the US, but much of this is due to environmental and other negative impacts on the voters. Industry has shown time and time again that when left alone it will pollute, exploit and take unnecessary risks all in the name of shareholder value.

This is a matter that, constitutionally should be left to the States to criminalize and prosecute.

This doesn't mean that business is evil, but a balance is probably in the best interest of everyone.

The US is a desirable place to do business with a history of innovation, free thinking and strong legal protection of intellectual property.

The protection of the individual right to his property was a main reason for the revolution and the Constitution

We can justify higher corporate taxes, although I'd note that many multi-nationals seem to have found a way to evade a lot of their own tax burden. The effective tax rate doesn't seem to be nearly the second largest often cited.

Unequal and confiscatory style taxes without the consent of the taxed is a consfiscation of property and an abrogation of the property rights intended and garanteed by the Constitution. This can be applied to groups, corporations, or individual citizens. Which is why it is so pathetic, unprincipled, and uncostitutional to tax "the rich" at a higher rate than others under the guise of being "fair." To say they should pay a higher rate because they can afford it is to deny equal protection of the law, and if it is by fiat, without their consent, it is absolute confiscation of property.

Complaining about taxes and regulation isn't going to help us when nations like Germany and China are using their governments to position their private industries on a better footing through education and incentives.

You do realize those socialists in Germany with all their high taxes and oppressive regulation export more than the USA even though their GDP is 4 times smaller?

-spence

Taxes and regualtion nor complaining about them won't "help" us. Only maintaing or reviving our freedom to strive and to gain from profit motives and motives to acquire and keep property will help all in a world market place

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Many rational cases can be CONJECTURED. What is EVIDENT is the current deficit.

Without an understanding of why we have the current deficits we do how can you judge who's better suited to set future policy? The argument isn't that the current deficits are a good thing.

A strong military is not only an entitlement of the Federal Government, it is one of the few responsibilities granted by the Constitution, as opposed to the many unconstitutional responsibilities it has usurped from the states and the people and which are the major, if not sole, reason for the massive national debt.

I never said we shouldn't have a strong military, rather that that entitlement has been distorted.

This is a matter that, constitutionally should be left to the States to criminalize and prosecute.

I'm not sure that's really practical, for instance with environmental issues especially you have waterways and air that's shared across the entire country. Should Alabama eliminate clean air standards to attract coal fired power companies then let their methyl mercury blow over to Georgia?

Unequal and confiscatory style taxes without the consent of the taxed is a consfiscation of property and an abrogation of the property rights intended and garanteed by the Constitution. This can be applied to groups, corporations, or individual citizens. Which is why it is so pathetic, unprincipled, and uncostitutional to tax "the rich" at a higher rate than others under the guise of being "fair." To say they should pay a higher rate because they can afford it is to deny equal protection of the law, and if it is by fiat, without their consent, it is absolute confiscation of property.

The context here isn't about progressive taxation but rather the impact corporate tax rates have on where companies do business.

Taxes and regualtion nor complaining about them won't "help" us. Only maintaing or reviving our freedom to strive and to gain from profit motives and motives to acquire and keep property will help all in a world market place

Rather than regulation and taxation I see unpredictability as a bigger disincentive to investment right now. Companies who weathered the recession are sitting on piles of cash because they don't want to risk a lack of short-term credit disrupting operations like it did in 2008. Would a government free private sector provide a more predictable environment? Now that would certainly be conjecture...

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Without an understanding of why we have the current deficits we do how can you judge who's better suited to set future policy? The argument isn't that the current deficits are a good thing.


I didn't judge who's better suited to set future policy. It is irrelevant to judge what policy McCain would have set. The policies that are actually being set are reality. To compare them with conjectural policies that might have been set by the unelected candidate is a common trick to deflect from the matter at hand. As for an understanding of why we have massive current deficits and a massive national debt, as I said, the major, if not sole reason, is the Federal Government's usurpation of power and therefore responsibility to do things not delegated to it but reserved to the States and the people.

I never said we shouldn't have a strong military, rather that that entitlement has been distorted.

What has been distorted is the power of the Central Government and its unconstitutional intrusion into areas of governing and regulation not granted to it.

I'm not sure that's really practical, for instance with environmental issues especially you have waterways and air that's shared across the entire country. Should Alabama eliminate clean air standards to attract coal fired power companies then let their methyl mercury blow over to Georgia?

Your assuming that Alabama and it's citizens believe that methyl mercury is suitable to breath in Alabama--that noone in Alabama will sue the polluters nor that Alabaman legislators, lawyers, enraged and poisoned citizens would not care enough about their own health to demand that companies not pollute Alabama air.

The context here isn't about progressive taxation but rather the impact corporate tax rates have on where companies do business.

The context was "We can justify higher corporate taxes . . ." To do what? To pay for government programs that the Federal Government is not constitutionally allowed to create? Which is the same reason for "progressively" higher tax rates of individuals--all under the ruse that these taxes will only affect corporations and the rich, but won't affect the poor and middle class. Ha-ha. Of course it will in higher prices, lost jobs, lost businesses, lost investment, lost freedom, further departure from constitutional government, etc., etc.

Rather than regulation and taxation I see unpredictability as a bigger disincentive to investment right now. Companies who weathered the recession are sitting on piles of cash because they don't want to risk a lack of short-term credit disrupting operations like it did in 2008. Would a government free private sector provide a more predictable environment? Now that would certainly be conjecture...

-spence

Neither I, nor anyone I know, are anarchists. The Constitution is not an anarchistic manifesto. It mandates that we govern ourselves--individually, locally, by State, and by the Central Government in limited select functions granted to it by consent of the governed--all with the intent that the individual will be protected from the tyranny of the majority. What is most unpredictable and uncertain, is an over-arching Central Government that constantly expands its power over States, localities, and individuals in unrelenting various ways that were not granted to it. And there is great uncertainty in those sitting on loads of cash as to what direction or new tax or tax rate that has no principalled or constitutional reason, that this Central Government will create.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Without an understanding of why we have the current deficits we do how can you judge who's better suited to set future policy? The argument isn't that the current deficits are a good thing.

The "argument"...or original statement by you was

Originally Posted by spence
1) According to the CBO the Stimulus has had a large beneficial impact and by the reckoning of many may have averted a much bigger economic meltdown. People will debate this forever.
...............
and has morphed into..................
Originally Posted by spence

That McCain would have had a massive (i.e. 1T++) 2009 budget deficit is neither speculation or conjecture. Look at the numbers.

one has nothing to do with the other and the second is irrelevent while the first is completely ridiculous....."reckoning of many"?..."may have averted"??..."large beneficial impact"???????....talk about speculation and conjecture

I never said we shouldn't have a strong military, rather that that entitlement has been distorted. by spence


ENTITLEMENT???....there's plenty of "distorted entitlement" to talk about without lumping the military in

by spence
I'm not sure that's really practical, for instance with environmental issues especially you have waterways and air that's shared across the entire country. Should Alabama eliminate clean air standards to attract coal fired power companies then let their methyl mercury blow over to Georgia?


by spence
The context here isn't about progressive taxation but rather the impact corporate tax rates have on where companies do business.

the "context" is higher taxes...see next

Rather than regulation and taxation I see unpredictability as a bigger disincentive to investment right now. Would a government free private sector provide a more predictable environment? Now that would certainly be conjecture...

-spence

the "unpredictability" and disincentive to invest right now is over the uncertainty regarding future regulation and taxation and government policy and unsustainable debt

[scottw]

Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per JobThe stimulus is now causing the economy to shed jobs.
12:07 PM, Jul 3, 2011

By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON

When the Obama administration releases a report on the Friday before a long weekend, it’s clearly not trying to draw attention to the report’s contents. Sure enough, the “Seventh Quarterly Report” on the economic impact of the “stimulus,” released on Friday, July 1, provides further evidence that President Obama’s economic “stimulus” did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy, and a whole lot to stimulate the debt.


The report was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation), the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.

In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,” and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead.

Furthermore, the council reports that, as of two quarters ago, the “stimulus” had added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs — or 288,000 more than it has now. In other words, over the past six months, the economy would have added or saved more jobs without the “stimulus” than it has with it. In comparison to how things would otherwise have been, the “stimulus” has been working in reverse over the past six months, causing the economy to shed jobs.

Again, this is the verdict of Obama’s own Council of Economic Advisors, which is about as much of a home-field ruling as anyone could ever ask for. In truth, it’s quite possible that by borrowing an amount greater than the regular defense budget or the annual cost of Medicare, and then spending it mostly on Democratic constituencies rather than in a manner genuinely designed to stimulate the economy, Obama’s “stimulus” has actually undermined the economy’s recovery — while leaving us (thus far) $666 billion deeper in debt.

The actual employment numbers from the administration’s own Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the unemployment rate was 7.3 percent when the “stimulus” was being debated. It has since risen to 9.1 percent. Meanwhile, the national debt at the end of 2008, when Obama was poised to take office, was $9.986 trillion (see Table S-9). It’s now $14.467 trillion — and counting.

All sides agree on these incriminating numbers — and now they also appear to agree on this important point: The economy would now be generating job growth at a faster rate if the Democrats hadn’t passed the “stimulus.”

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

When the Obama administration releases a report on the Friday before a long weekend, it’s clearly not trying to draw attention to the report’s contents. Sure enough, the “Seventh Quarterly Report” on the economic impact of the “stimulus,” released on Friday, July 1, provides further evidence that President Obama’s economic “stimulus” did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy, and a whole lot to stimulate the debt.

I wonder if your author even bothered to read the actual report. You certainly didn't...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...rra_report.pdf

The analysis indicates that the Recovery Act has played a significant role in the turnaround of the economy that has occurred over the past two years. Real GDP reached its low point in the second quarter of 2009 and has been growing solidly since then, in large part because of the tax cuts and spending increases included in the Act. Employment, after falling dramatically, began to grow again on a sustained basis through 2010. As of the first quarter of 2011, the report estimates that the Recovery Act raised employment by 2.4 to 3.6 million jobs relative to what it otherwise would have been.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I wonder if your author even bothered to read the actual report. You certainly didn't...

he clearly did... "and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation)"

Quote:
The analysis indicates that the Recovery Act has played a significant role in the turnaround of the economy that has occurred over the past two years. Real GDP reached its low point in the second quarter of 2009 and has been growing solidly since then, in large part because of the tax cuts and spending increases included in the Act. Employment, after falling dramatically, began to grow again on a sustained basis through 2010. As of the first quarter of 2011, the report estimates that the Recovery Act raised employment by 2.4 to 3.6 million jobs relative to what it otherwise would have been.
-spence

I'm sure that he laughed at this part....comedy written by drunks?

who are you/they trying to kid Spence? "employment growing on a sustained basis"....HUH????
GDP growing "solidly"???..."played a significant role in the turn around"????...."raised employment"????

this is so sad and pathetic.....

[scottw]

[QUOTE=spence;869785]I wonder if your author even bothered to read the actual report. You certainly didn't...
SEVENTH QUARTERLY REPORT
JULY 1, 2011

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...rra_report.pdf


Quote:
The analysis indicates that the Recovery Act has played a significant role in the turnaround of the economy that has occurred over the past two years.???? Real GDP reached its low point in the second quarter of 2009 and has been growing solidly since then???????, in large part because of the tax cuts and spending increases included in the Act. Employment, after falling dramatically, began to grow again on a sustained basis through 2010?????. As of the first quarter of 2011, the report estimates that the Recovery Act raised employment(JUNE 2011 UNEMPLOYMENT DATA*
(U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS) OFFICIAL UNEMPLOYMENT: 9.2% ??????????) by 2.4 to 3.6 million jobs relative to what it otherwise would have been.

-spence

.................................................. ........................

let's compare the report...that ultimately was not worth reading... to reality

By Samuel R. Staley
The U.S. Department of Commerce released its economic growth estimates for the second quarter of 2011 and they are, well, dismal. And depressing. The economy grew just 1.3 percent from April to June of this year, well below the 2.5 percent necessary to chip away at unemployment. What’s worse, estimates of growth for the first quarter were revised downward to just 0.4 percent.

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis press release:

The increase in real GDP in the second quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from exports, nonresidential fixed investment, private inventory investment, and federal government spending that were partly offset by a negative contribution from state and local government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased.

The acceleration in real GDP in the second quarter primarily reflected a deceleration in imports, an upturn in federal government spending, and an acceleration in nonresidential fixed investment that were partly offset by a sharp deceleration in personal consumption expenditures.

The deceleration of personal consumer spending is particularly troubling for the Obama administration, since the entire stimulus package assumed that consumer spending was the key to reviving the economy. Goosing consumers would lead to long-term growth.

Moreover, a look at GDP growth since Obama took office surely has the president and his advisers worried:

2009 2nd Qtr: -0.7%
2009 3rd Qtr: 1.7%
2009 4th Qtr 3.8%
2010 1st Qtr: 3.9%
2010 2nd Qtr: 3.8%
2010 3rd Qtr: 2.5%
2010 4th Qtr: 2.3%
2011 1st Qtr: 0.4%
2011 2nd Qtr: 1.3%
first quarter 2011 were revised downward and if you follow along at all you know that the 2nd quarter will likely follow suit

Most of the growth in 2009 was independent of the government spending stimulus (and likely reflected the benefits of monetary policy and tax cuts). The economy began to sputter out around the time federal spending peaked. The emperor has no clothes.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

We can justify higher corporate taxes, although I'd note that many multi-nationals seem to have found a way to evade a lot of their own tax burden. The effective tax rate doesn't seem to be nearly the second largest often cited.

Perhaps more importantly, lower taxes aren't always going to be a deciding factor in a global economy. -spence

Oh, no Bubba...say it ain't so!!!

Bill Clinton calls for corporate tax cut
ASPEN, Colo. — President Bill Clinton says the nation’s corporate tax rate is “uncompetitive” and called for a lower rate as part of a “mega-deal” to raise the debt ceiling.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

Oh, no Bubba...say it ain't so!!!

Bill Clinton calls for corporate tax cut
ASPEN, Colo. — President Bill Clinton says the nation’s corporate tax rate is “uncompetitive” and called for a lower rate as part of a “mega-deal” to raise the debt ceiling.

You missed an important part of Clinton's speech...

We tax at 35 percent of income, although we only take about 23 percent. So we should cut the rate to 25 percent, or whatever’s competitive, and eliminate a lot of the deductions so that we still get a fair amount, and there’s not so much variance in what the corporations pay.

Lower the top rate, remove deductions and let the companies still pay about the same in taxes...pretty much what Reagan did in '86. It sure sounds good for the Norquist disciples and might help negotiate a settlement in the debt ceiling game of chicken that Congress is playing.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

You missed an important part of Clinton's speech...



Lower the top rate, remove deductions and let the companies still pay about the same in taxes...pretty much what Reagan did in '86. It sure sounds good for the Norquist disciples and might help negotiate a settlement in the debt ceiling game of chicken that Congress is playing.

-spence

no...THE important part is Bill Clinton says the nation’s corporate tax rate is “uncompetitive” and called for a lower rate

and it completely refutes your statements and the idea, your statement "we can justify higher corporate tax rates" that higher taxes on corporations is valid a way to increase revenue, particularly right now

..........................

“When I was president, we raised the corporate income-tax rates on corporations that made over $10 million [a year],” the former president told the Aspen Ideas Festival on Saturday evening.

“It made sense when I did it. It doesn’t make sense anymore — we’ve got an uncompetitive rate."

not ambiguous



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1RDwXxqrJ

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

no...THE important part is Bill Clinton says the nation’s corporate tax rate is “uncompetitive” and called for a lower rate

and it completely refutes your statements and the idea, your statement "we can justify higher corporate tax rates" that higher taxes on corporations is valid a way to increase revenue, particularly right now

I've never said we can justify having the highest taxes, but that we can justify having higher taxes as the US is a desirable place to do business for many industries. Certainly taxes are a factor (one factor of many) in where companies operate, but right now the effective corporate rate in the US is just over 25%, putting us lower than many industrialized nations including Canada, India, China, Brazil, Japan, Italy and Germany.

Source: http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/paying-taxe...taxes_2009.pdf

Clinton is throwing the GOP a bone in an attempt to be a deal maker and at the same time take away a key Republican talking point. Lowering the Tax rate from 35% to 25% while removing deductions will produce nearly the same tax revenue according to the GAO.

If it will even out how taxes are collected it's probably a good thing to do. These stories of corporations paying little or 1/2 the statutory rate is silly.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I've never said we can justify having the highest taxes, but that we can justify having higher taxes as the US is a desirable place to do business for many industries. Certainly taxes are a factor (one factor of many) in where companies operate, but right now the effective corporate rate in the US is just over 25%, putting us lower than many industrialized nations including Canada, India, China, Brazil, Japan, Italy and Germany.

Source: http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/paying-taxe...taxes_2009.pdf

Clinton is throwing the GOP a bone in an attempt to be a deal maker and at the same time take away a key Republican talking point. Lowering the Tax rate from 35% to 25% while removing deductions will produce nearly the same tax revenue according to the GAO.

If it will even out how taxes are collected it's probably a good thing to do. These stories of corporations paying little or 1/2 the statutory rate is silly.

-spence

The source that you linked is lengthy with not a lot of reference to U.S. stats. Admittedly, I read speadily, missing a lot, but found some interesting bits.:

"Where taxes are high and commensurate gains seem low, many businesses simply choose to stay informal. A recent study found that higher tax rates are associated with less private investment, fewer formal businesses per capita and lower rates of business entry. The analysis suggests for example, that a 10% increase in the effective corporate tax rate reduces the investment-to-GDP ratio by 2 percentage points."

"36 economies made it easier to pay taxes in 2007/2008. As in previous years, the most popular reform feature was reducing the profit tax rate which happened in no fewer than 21 economies."

Eastern Europe and Central Asia had most reforms in 2007/2008--nine reformed; four reduced profit tax to 10%, one from 20% to 15% and abolished the social tax, Czech Republic reduced it to 21%.

Five OECD high-income economies reduced Corporate income tax rates. Canada is gradually reducing the corp. income tax to 15% by 2012 and will abolish the 1.12% surtax and introduce accelerated depreciation for buildings. Canada already had reduced, in 2007/2008 its corp. tax rate to 19.5%. Also reducing the corp. tax rate were Denmark 28% to 25%, and Germany 25% to 15%.

"Countries can increase revenue by lowering rates and persuading more businesses to comply with more favorable rules."

The top 5 reform features in this study were:
1--REDUCED profit tax (71%)
2--Simplified process of paying taxes (22%)
3. Revised tax code (19%)
4. ELIMINATED taxes (17%)
5. Reduced labour taxes or contributions (14%)

In the United States "taxes on profit as a share of profits before total taxes rank in the 72nd percentile (23.5%) and thus quite high by global standards. Other taxes as a share of profits before tax also are quite high in the United States primarily due to property taxes."

"In 2008, the combined U.S. Federal and average State/local corporate income tax rate is 39.3%, 50% higher than the 26.2% average for the other 29 OECD countries." This is slightly offset by the DPAD . . . reducing the effective federal corp. tax rate on qualified income to 32.9%.

Beyond the comparisons, for me, it begs the question "What's it for?" Granted that taxes are necessary to run necessary and Constitutionally granted power. But if higher taxes simply are dumped into programs that are bloated, less effective than needed and are not even Constitutionally blessed, thus distancing us even further from our foundation toward uncharted, undefined whims to garner votes, are they good?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Beyond the comparisons, for me, it begs the question "What's it for?" Granted that taxes are necessary to run necessary and Constitutionally granted power. But if higher taxes simply are dumped into programs that are bloated, less effective than needed and are not even Constitutionally blessed, thus distancing us even further from our foundation toward uncharted, undefined whims to garner votes, are they good?

I just linked to the doc I saw the stats referenced from...I didn't read the entire thing.

It's perfectly fair to ask how tax revenue is being used. I think we'd all agree that if Congress was more careful with our money they'd need less of it.

But the point of it all is that the US doesn't seem to be that out of line when it comes to corporate taxes when compared to our peers.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I've never said we can justify having the highest taxes,
I don't think anyone claimed that you did
but that we can justify having higher taxes as the US is a desirable place to do business for many industries. this is absurd, there are plenty of states that "justified higher taxes" thinking they were desirable places to do business and they are watching as businesses and people leave in droves right now

Certainly taxes are a factor (one factor of many) in where companies operate, QUOTE=spence

QUOTE=spence Perhaps more importantly, lower taxes aren't always going to be a deciding factor in a global economy. Many companies want to develop products locally to suit specific tastes. With an increasing cost of energy and transportation production will be kept local as well. are they a factor or aren't they?

but right now the effective corporate rate in the US is just over 25%, putting us lower than many industrialized nations including Canada, India, China, Brazil, Japan, Italy and Germany.

Clinton when did Clinton become president again? is throwing the GOP a bone in an attempt to be a deal maker and at the same time take away a key Republican talking point. Lowering the Tax rate from 35% to 25% while removing deductions will produce nearly the same tax revenue according to the GAO. no need to bother then

If it will even out how taxes are collected it's probably a good thing to do. you just said it will produce the same revenueThese stories of corporations paying little or 1/2 the statutory rate is silly. -spence

......................

[scottw]

hey Spence...Sowell posted a great article about you today...you should read it....

Politics vs. Reality
The facts are there, but they mean nothing if they are ignored.

It is hard to understand politics if you are hung up on reality. Politicians leave reality to others. What matters in politics is what you can get the voters to believe, whether it bears any resemblance to reality or not.

Not only among politicians, but also among much of the media, and even among some of the public, the quest is not for truth about reality but for talking points that fit a vision or advance an agenda. Some seem to see it as a personal contest about who is best at fencing with words.


Politics vs. Reality - Thomas Sowell - National Review Online