The Conservative Party in Britain recently said that they want to lower the taxation rate for high earners as they are the job creators. Familiar right? However they also said that they werent prepared to do it while we have such a large deficit, as it wouldnt be fair to the middle and lower classes. Everybody has to chip in.
If I had to identify my personal political leanings, Id say Im slightly left of centre, so Im not a fan of the Conservatives, but its hard to argue with that.
McConnell is a piece of work. Southern politician idiot. He want's Obama out because of one thing. Race. McConnell longs for the days of Jim Crow and other backwards way of thinking. I'm a southern boy by birth and spent my early years down there. I saw of lot of his ilk running around. He is stuck in 1955 and doesn't want to face reality of the modern day.
He needs to get voted out in 2012 if his term is due. Total POS!
Obsolutely the most dispicable liar I've ever seen. If the American people are that stupid and filled with that much hatred for President Obama that they will stand by and allow the Republican party to destroy the country for no other reason than to discredit Obama I only have one thing to say.
FUCK ALL YOU HATE FILLED BASTARDS LET THE NATION FALL . I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING ALL OF YOU GET EXACTLY WHAT YOU DESERVE.
Another straight answer from the republicans. Social Security is def neutral and that's the truth. Medicaid and Medicare does need help with the fraud that goes on in the billing and the paying dept. Just paying out bills without checking and validating the bill so they need help. Bush tax cuts ADD to the deficit every year hundred of billions. So let them exspire
Last week Chris Wallace asked old oatmeal brains here whether he liked that the parties were going to sit together for the SOTU speech. He wouldn't answer the question. 10 minutes later Wallace asked Dick Durban the same question and Durban said "I like it!" And Durban actually answered ALL of Wallace's other questions.
If McConnell weren't so old, I would suggest he just go ahead and donate all his organs tomorrow so that useful human beings could carry on with their lives. He is useless.
Whatever time is spent listening to this guy "answer" questions is exactly the amount of time you are wasting. When I see McConnell is appearing on MTP or This Week or Fox Sunday, I tune in to one of the shows he is NOT on. I will not waste my time with this guy ducking, avoiding, every single solitary question that is put to him.
Its funny how long this piece of shit gets to talk even though he's reiterating the same crap in every answer. Compare this video to a hypothetical Fox News interview with the politics mirrored, some Rep Democratic would be yelled at for killing "small" businesses. Much respect for NBC on this one, at least they've moved on from the adolescent state.
Mitch doesn't seem to remember a time before Obama was elected. He also doesn't seem to realize how much money was needed before that point to get this kind of deficit, war is not only shitty in every aspect but it costs a lot of money. Let's just say he has a selective memory. Personally, I am disgusted to know that Mitch 'represents' me. He has been the errand boy of special interest groups and lobbyists for a unsettling amount of time.
The richest top two percent crashed our economy and manipulated this high unemployment. Why should we extend their tax cuts? Look, we should survey how much money they have sitting idle or invested elsewhere then we print as much money to nullify or offset their influence. If they don't like it, fine; we don't care because we have to provide jobs for people to feed their families.
This country is such a disaster and these bozo's were just voted for, WHY? I still can't wrap my mind around the type of person that would vote for these clowns. 8 years of these repubs and people still don't get it. Do you hear that sounds. It's the whooosh of the toilet as America goes under.
Hey McConnell, get up off your knees before you address the American people. The stretch marks around your special interest filthy Republican mouth are discusting.
The CBO reported that Federal Tax revenues increased after the Bush tax cuts. Both nominally, and as a percent of GDP. IRS reported that the rich paid a higher share of Federal taxes after the Bush cuts. Asking for them to be "paid for", is stupidity of the highest order, when they increased revenues.
Did he say, "...what most Americans think is in the middle of a a recession"? Then I guess it is safe to say wih his reasoning is that most Americans think we are in the middle of a time of peace with the Taliban. I live in Kentucky, McConnel's home state. He also believes that Kentucky is inside the city limits of Louisville. Anyone not inside Louisville is not in Kentucky.
Did he say, "...what most Americans think is in the middle of a a recession"? Then I guess it is safe to say wih his reasoning is that most Americans think we are in the middle of a time of peace with the Taliban. I live in Kentucky, McConnel's home state. He also believes that Kentucky is inside the city limits of Louisville. Anyone not inside Louisville is not in Kentucky.
then why did the republicans say they would filibuster the small jobs bill that would allow small businesses to borrow money to buy more stock and hire more workers? and what did he mean "pay it back"
Uummmm. No it's not paid for! That's why they had a sunset on the Bush tax cuts because they wanted to make sure they were paid for if they were to be extended. The only way to save this economy is to stop shipping jobs overseas and the CEOs and company owners are just gonna have to pay the American worker the high wages. These companies are selling out America. We are headed for a massive depression if it doesn't change soon.
@Rayvyn007 The P/E ratio of the S&P 500 is close to 20 - 1. This means $20 invested earns $1 in profit. ( dividend). Do arithmetic, the return on investment is 5%. This is on 500, large, important corporations, on avg. 5% "interest" when owning large corporations does NOT leave enough to pay higher wages, nor does the US corp tax rate of 35%,, when the avg of 29 OECD nations is only 24%, nor to pay for regulatory burdens, nor environmental costs. Lower their costs, if you want them to stay here.
PRIVATE SECTOR- Job Creation percent per year Bush Jr. (R) 0.01% Eisenhower (R) 0.50% Bush Sr. (R) 0.40% Ford (R) 0.86% Nixon (R) 2.16% Reagan (R) 2.46% Truman (D): 2.95% Kennedy (D) 2.03% Johnson (D) 3.88% Carter (D) 3.45% Clinton (D) 2.86% Democrats averaged 2.03 annual job growth, compared to the same 1.07 for Republicans -- about twice as high as the GOP. Politifact(dot)com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/25/
“We can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens. Projections for the surplus in my budget are cautious and conservative.”
- President George W. Bush, 3/27/01
“[O]ur budget will run a deficit that will be small and short-term.”
@DeepElem90 Bush`s tax cuts bill in 2001 was to be phased in slowly, over 6 years, in 2003, they were sped up in a 2nd tax cut legislation. In the next 3 years, revenue increased over 21% in income taxes, more on Cap Gains, with GDP rising about 10%. Revenue increased twice as fast as GDP, with cuts.
@luvcheney1: Time for some MORE Revisionist History:
GDP growth under the Shrub and his Republican buddies was just 1.4% on an annualized basis. Bush's eight-year tenure in office was marked by the lowest U.S. GDP growth of any presidency since 1945.
Way to go (R)'s - You destroyed the economy from 2001 - 2009 and now you want to finish it off with gridlock.
@DeepElem90 Obama today, 9/3/10, announced at News Conference that to stimulate more jobs, he would seek the following Bush policies, because they CREATE jobs, and are Good for the economy, Good for workers, Good for business people. 1) Keep Bush Tax Cuts on 5 of 6 tax brackets 2) Completely eliminate Capital Gains tax on Key investments, plant, machinery 3) Accelerate $55 Billion tax cut on Big businesses, and small 4) Cut payroll tax for small business ( 500 employees, or less). On TV 7:30 am
@DeepElem90 The loss of revenue was due to two recessions, one when Bush was coming in and another when he left. Recessions greatly cut revenue and Bush's 2007 and 2008 budget was projected to balance the budget by 2012. Unfortunately Obama and Bush (in the last 3 months of his presidency) spent like crazy so deficits are over a trillion and projections show no balanced budget for at least 20 years at the current track. Charts tell all.
@Willredd94: I analyzed "Revenue as a percent of GDP" during the time period the Bush tax cuts were in place. Even backing out the the recession years, the Bush tax cuts decreased "Revenue as a percent of GDP.....Only 17.3%"
Historically, Revenue as a % of GDP is 18%. During the 1990's it averaged 18.5%. SEE [Whitehouse(dot)gov/omb/budget/Historicals] Table 1.3
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
McConnel did answer the question. 3 or 4 times in fact. Democrats can't understand the answers because it's not the answer they want to hear. The answer is...."This is current tax policy". It's not borrowed money but rather stolen. Stolen by the government from the citizens of this country.
@Scipio2021 Actual dollars collected by Treasury increased over 21%, 2003, 2004, 2005, after the implementation of Bush`s cuts. The GDP grew about 11% in that period, so revenue outstripped GDP by 10%, with CUTS. Right now, folks are moving profit, income into 2010, so it wont appear in 2011 when taxes go up. So, These are the "Good Old Days"! Enjoy.
@luvcheney1 If the Bush tax cuts truly added more revenue then McConnel would have easily been able to mention that, instead of dodge the question over and over again. (thus proving he's not conservative or cares at all about the national debt)
@Scipio2021 Libs/ Dems jump straight to deficits. Deficits are complex, revenue AND spending. But then a recession tilts the economy into deficit too. Look up when the Nasdaq peaked, $5050, March 2000. It was down to $2400 by Jan 1 2001, Bush wasnt in office yet, Clinton was. Dot Com millionaires were paying taxes, after the Bubble burst, we had recession, low taxes. Thats why deficits came, before Bush`s cuts took effect. In 2003, they did, and revenue jumped up double the rate of GDP.
@DeepElem90 Weve seen over many decades, that deficits dont matter, if they are a reasonable, manageable amount. Just as an individual can manage a proper amount too. The timing of the deficit is also important. If some deficit is run when recession comes, it will automatically begin to subside, as recession retreats. That is the context of Cheney`s remark, a little to subtle for a dolt, such as yourself. Housing Bubble caused the crisis, not deficits. Fed doubled money supply `95- 05.
@luvcheney1: Dow Jones: Clinton begins Jan. 19, 1993 – Dow 3,255.99 Clinton’s last day Dow closed at 10,587.39 Bush’s First day 10,587.39 Bush’s last day 8,281.22 Obama begins Jan. 20, 2009 – Dow 8,281.22 Close as of Monday, August 30, 2010 10,009.73 Hey luvcheney, SEE A TREND HERE. Moreover, Stock market returns are 5% higher when the White House is run by a Democrat vs. a Republican. The study analyzed a 72-year period. dailykos(dot)com/story/2009/12/4/810892
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@DeepElem90 Yes, I see a trend that when the business cycle has finished a recession, like when Clinton came in, and a recession was coming just as he left, that looks good. However, our economy has been expanding and contracting for as long as data has been collected. Clinton cut the Capital Gains Tax from 28% to 20%. CBO said that would bring in $8 bill over 3 years, it raised $84 bill! Clinton reformed Welfare. Clinton expanded free trade. Clinton is no pinko, More Republican than McCain.
@luvcheney1: You stated, "Clinton cut the Capital Gains Tax from 28% to 20%. CBO said that would bring in $8 bill over 3 years, it raised $84 bill!"
AWESOME.....If CBO and Clinton brought in $84 Billion and handed Bush and the Republicans a $237 Billion SURPLUS. AND as the (R)'s state, the Bush tax cuts paid for themselves....Where's the surplus?
After all you had a majority in both Houses for 6 of the 8 years.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@DeepElem90 "Bush $237 bill surplus"? $237 bill surplus was fiscal year end Oct 30, 2000. Clintons last budget ended on Oct 30, 2001, at $127 bill surplus, cut in half by falling revenue to govt because of coming recession. Nasdaq topped at $5400 March 2000, fell to $2400 by Jan 1, 2001, 3 weeks before Bush came to Office. Recessions are bad for deficits, dont you listen to Obama? Actually, if you count Clinton spending SS surplus, the 2001 surplus of $127 bill, was really deficit of 33 bill.
Now that i got that out of the way. Would like to say, with great pleasure I see McConell and R's for last 30 days blowin bullshit for answers to 'HOW DOES TAX CUT 4 RICH PAY FOR ITSELF'? Then of course many of us go hmmm, how did it ever pay for itself? IT DIDNT...not with Raygun, papa/babyBushies. These 3 presidents have racked up more deficits than all other 41 PRESIDENTS! hello!
Dubbers racked up more than JFK/LBj/IKE/Truman and Nixon who worst of the afore mentioned.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@MrClaydough In 2001, the top 1% paid 33% of the income tax burden, in 2007 they paid 39%. In 2001 the top 25% paid 82.5%, in 2007 they paid 86%. This from an IRS dot gov website. Want an url? Bush tax cuts got rich paying an even higher share of our taxes. That IS WHAT YOU LIKE, isnt it? Raise the rates, they will pay less. How stupid can you be to want the rich paying less of the burden?
@luvdicklesscheney1 Thats pure garbage and lies. I will educate you later. gees...you'd think these righties could pull one correct fact from their asshole. heh heh
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@MrClaydough Google "SOI Tax Stats - Individual Statistical Tables by Tax Rate and Income Percentile". First item up is an IRS. gov website. Go click. Then at the IRS page, scroll all the way to the bottom. The second to last place you see, table 7, click to that chart. Scroll again all the way down to very last chart. There you will see year by year percent of total income taxes paid by percentile. Rich paid higher % from 2001 to 2007, last year shown. IRS says what I pull out my ass is true.
@luvdicklesscheney google SOI Tax Stats Goober. I'm aware and 'king of my kind' when it comes to scrolling!
I would rather google 'marginal tax rates' and get 'Facts from 1900 to 2010 in 3 seconds!! and wikipedia has matching numbers to prove 'ME RIGHT-YOU WRONG'.
Clinton 39.6 % $250-280,000.00
Dub's/moron 35% on $311-330,000.00
And from there W erased, as PapaBush and Reagan B4 him, any Surplus, and gave us deficits in Budget, GDP etc. WANNA BET ME? heh heh Are you threatening me?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@MrClaydough Your numbers are the actual tax percents. I agree, that is a fact. My numbers I gave you are the actual percent of total income tax paid in the Nation, (Not individual percent tax rate), by income group ( compiled by the IRS). The total tax burden paid by the rich increased, because the tax rate cut caused greater tax compliance, and higher economic activities. Lower marginal tax rates yielded greater revenue in top brackets. You prefer only to focus on rates, not revenue. Silly.
@MrClaydough JFK cut taxes, remember? Dollars collected by Treasury increased 21% after Bush`s cuts, while GDP rose 11%. Revenue outstripped GDP, with CUTS. Bill Clinton cut Capital Gains tax from 28% to 20%. CBO estimated revenue after 3 years would be only $8 billion total from Cap Gain, but reality was $84 billion. Govt is unable to see cutting taxes raises dollars collected.
Why doesn't he ask who's gonna pay for the stealfromus package & the socialized health care system that just got forced down our throats against our will??
Oh I forgot, they don't QUESTION the messiah. They think THAT would be "racist". LMAO!! Fucking moron hypocrites!
... Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) (Pub.L. 111-148 - OMB [Office of Management and Budget] says the HealthCare Law “Will SAVE” on 'Medicare 2 - 2.2 T$ in the next 10 years' … CBO, [Congressional Budget Office] and JCT [Joint Committee on Taxation] says '138 billion$ OVERALL savings- in the next 10 years'; 1.2 T$ in the second ten years - Total 3.2 to 3.4 T$ SAVINGS - in 20 years. *_*
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@blevr1234 How did you get 8 "thumbs up" in just 4 minutes after posting your comments?? LMAO!!
You fucking libtards are all about lying, cheating, stealing & propaganda aren't you? You must not have much faith in your ignorant comments if you feel the need to falsely give yourself thumbs up! Pathetic!
@fagboymd Then pull your thumb out of your ass. It looks funny when your head is up there moron. WTF do you know about the economy? Go back to hate site and 'watch me eat my own weinie channel', ya slime bag hater MF. heh heh
Now look fagboy. We're going to be getting into numbers...real numbers, facts and information. And we dont need no 'Fagaphonie fullabalogney ride my pony' racist banana smoker little pricks like you. Besides you'll just get a headache and have to cancel your date. heh heh
Doesn't matter if MITCH McCoNNELL is a dickhead and needs to learn some math, the GOP will take back the HOUSE and SENATE come november and obama could be done as PRESIDENT come 2012 as well. So GOP will take away social security and health care and bring unemployment even higher thanks to the american people. And the GOP leads in every poll on cnn and msnbc. So how does that helps?
@harlem0987 I see a lot of Republicans vote Democrat because after 8 years of Bush, who wants another economic crisis. If the Republicans are going to take away Social Security and Healthcare, I don't think they're taking back anything. Republicans (and some Democrats) are brought to us by Big Old, Health Insurance Companies, and Big Corporations. So if anyone wants a Congressmen or Senator who is for the Big Corporations and not for the people. Good luck with that.
@DeepElem90: you called it right in everything you said!! Watching you fact check and correct that idiot luvcheney1 is like watching MSNBC fact check and correct FOX news! I love it! Keep it up!!
@luvcheney1,first of all the user name you chose lends a hint to what kind of IDIOT you are, but your comments confirm it! You better be part of that top 1-2% otherwise you are what is wrong with the country right now; working class people(in your case IDIOTS) voting against their own best interest! You fall for republican lies and hypocracy and help vote them in and drag the rest of us down the shitter with you. THANKS!!!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@derekgharris I made my user name luvcheney, so there would be no confusion from the beginning as to the fact I am conservative. Consider it transparency, full disclosure. I worked for about 35 years for others, and it was always for a rich individual, or corporations. Do you, or your friends get paychecks from homeless men, folks on welfare?
He's only there to advance his talking points. You could ask him what the price of rice in China is, and he would still go back to his prepared speech.
Personally, I miss Mitch and the "B-b-b-big B-b-b-bank B-b-b-bailout B-b-b-bill" catch phrase during the Wall Street reform fight.
Republicans always run to Frank Lundtz for their focus group-tested talking points. Frank usually crafts them to be no more than three or four words long, and contain lots of alliteration for catchiness. So, he worked his usual magic this time with the "big bank bailout bill" line but didn't realize the guy who'd be parroting it would have a rubber face.
This should the number one "MOST Discussed" video! The So called "Ground Zero Mosque" is a tactic the republicans are using to get away from what the real problem in America, JOBS. They watch and do nothing as Americans suffer!
Typical Republicon logic. Why doesn`t he bitch about the costs of the ongoing and never ending wars started and created by Bush? Why doesn`t he just admit he would pay for the tax cuts by cutting social security and medicare that most teabaggers love and count on!! The republicons want to bankrupt this country and get rid of social security and medicare to keep people desperate and willing to work at any job for third world wages. THATS THE REPUBLICON BOTTOM LINE!!!! WAKE UP TEABAGGERS!!!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@airplane2112 Republicans just see that SS has to come into mathematical balance. The govt itself publishes annually the "unfunded liability" which is the amount of money that would be needed to be invested OUTSIDE of govt, at interest, to enable the system to continue for 70 more years. So, tax hikes, and/ or benefit cuts. Thats it! Thats true.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@DeepElem90 Bush Senate was 50 - 50, changed slightly, but was close. Bush House was only about 10- 11 seats. You observe Obama struggle with 60- 40 Senate. In House, he had 79 seat majority. They couldnt write it permanently, it was compromise. It also was phased in, took till 2006. You are mistaken.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Respond to this video...In the Senate, 12 Democrats voted for the cuts. In the House, 28 Democrats voted for it. Obamas health Care got 1 Republican in the house, and none in the Senate. Tax Cuts were bi partisan.
The Democrats are urging that we continue the tax cuts for all small businesses except the biggest 2% of them.
Why do the taxes have to go back where they were for the wealthiest 2% of small businesses? Because the American People don't have $2 TRILLION to give to them right now! They're going to have to wait.
There seems to be a pattern here. Why are Republicans always obsessed with the wealthiest 2% or the wealthiest 1% or the wealthiest 3/10ths of 1% and to hell with the rest of us???
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@ReliableInsider You think letting someone KEEP his own money is giving it to him! That means you believe he has no right to his money, unless you permit it!
@luvcheney1 I see you're still @ it! Trolling videos with your lies and BS. You're downright hilarious!
I have a strange feeling that you're not one of the people that McConnell is trying to defend. I really don't know what's in it for people like you. Please explain.
Btw, if you lie and say you're in that top 2%, my next question will be:
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@whiteliberal1 I injured my back, had a major spine operation. I dont pay much tax, we have our own little business, low income. Some people, like me, look at things from an economic viewpoint, what serves the country best. Not what I CAN GET. When the Govt helps you, they took that from another.
@luvcheney1 All of sudden- ALL republicans own a small business.
Now please explain, w/o the blanket comments: How can raising your taxes (remember, "you don't pay much taxes and you have a low income") and cutting the taxes for a person who makes over $500 grand a yr., help you? RICH PEOPLE DO NOT SPEND MONEY IN WAL-MART, ETC.!
What the "middle class" "CAN GET" they put it back into the Economy! Do the rich live by the same idea of, "what THEY CAN GET"? You act as if it's an entitlement.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@whiteliberal1 We have a 6 year old, and we run a small childcare in our home, enabling us to stay with, raise our daughter. We have supported ourselves 6 years this way. I wanted to be with my daughter, is that all right with you? Or, should I throw her in childcare like everyone else does? For material gain? When I did work for salary, for over 30 years, half the time was for a rich man, and half for a national corporation. Never got a job with a poor, homeless person. You work for a poor man?
@luvcheney1 Ok, get to the part where you earn more than $250K a year!
I asked you a simple question that you seem to want to dance around, so I'll ask you again:
What would be the advantages for keeping the Bush Tax Cuts? What would be the disadvantage of receiving a tax cut if you make less than $250K?
I could care less if you worked for "Linda's Lemonade Stand" or Pepsi Cola. Why are you sooooo in love with cheney?! With your current life, your YT name should be, luvMLK!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@whiteliberal1 Businesses that employ large amounts of people were formed with large amounts of capital. Jobs are a good thing. Lots of jobs is better, and they are not created without lots of capital. Thats why taxing the rich is a bad thing. Govt will just spend it, and capital wont be formed.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@luvcheney1 As for those who earn less than $250K, Bush cut all the brackets already. More may be good. Tax revenue increased by 21% after Bush`s tax cuts were accelerated in 2003. (2 years) OECD nations have increased the % of GDP paid in tax by corporations by cutting corp tax rates avg form 32% to 24%. Our % of GDP paid by Corps has fallen, due to high taxes, and corps leaving. Cutting taxes, getting them to pay here is a good idea.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@DeepElem90 Re read my statement, the subject was percent taxes paid by corps. Corps are not paying taxes as much, because of tax advantages to earn profit outside the US, high rates here. You then use corp profits as a subject instead. I dont mind changing the subject, but its not the same. They were losing money, fired millions, closed plants, consolidated, and now are profitable again. Thats good, as it should be, and so what? They survived, adjusted. Still S&P 500 stocks are 5% profit
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@DeepElem90 It is also true that the OECD nations ( 29) collect a far higher percent of GDP from corporations than the US govt does. Thats because their ang tax rate is 24%, not 39%.
Forbes magazine published what the top U.S. corporations paid in taxes in 2009.
- General Electric, which “generated $10.3 billion in pretax income.....ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.”
- Exxon Mobil, which last year reported a record $45.2 billion profit, paid no taxes to Uncle Sam.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@DeepElem90 In 1999, avg corp tax rate 29 OECD nations 32%, it declined until now its 24%. US avg rate 39% (state +Fed). During this period, our Corps are paying less of a percent of GDP, while the OECD nations are getting more percent of GDP. US corps choosing to earn profit outside US jurisdiction. Dopes think high rates make high revenue for govt. They drive US corps away. Why would anyone want to pay 39% tax, when you can pay 24%? It is insane to lose 15% of profit, by working in the US
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@DeepElem90 With tax rates being 39% in the US, corporations figure out that it is better, cheaper to NOT earn profit in the US. So, they pay taxes to foreign govts, where the rates are cheaper. This results in the truth you are whining about, that US corps dont pay taxes here! Why would they? Pump oil out of the US, lose 39%, pump it out in the North Sea, lose 24%. Obviously, sane people choose elsewhere. Thats natural and understandable. You state 25% of US corps pay no tax, then 75% do.
@luvcheney1: You stated, "With tax rates being 39% in the US."
WRONG AGAIN: You are confusing "effective" tax rates with the top "statutory" rate................It is a common error.
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 is not high, compared to other developed countries.
[Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Oct. 27, 2008]
@luvcheney1: You stated AGAIN, "tax rates being 39% in the US."
WRONG AGAIN. You are confusing "EFFECTIVE" tax rates with top "STATUTORY" tax rates.....It is a common error.
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 is not high, compared to other developed countries.
[Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Oct. 27, 2008]
@luvcheney1: You stated, "tax rates being 39% in the US."
WRONG AGAIN: You are confusing "EFFECTIVE" tax rates with "STATUTORY" tax rates........A common error.
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 is not high, compared to other developed countries.
[Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Oct. 27, 2008]
@DeepElem90 Since the "Statutory" tax rate is very high in the US, corporations make choices to not pay ( such as moving profit overseas), so then the "effective" rate is low. OECD nations increase the % of corp tax paid, by cutting tax rates. That encourages US corps to pay to them, not to the US Fed govt.
@DeepElem90 If a corporation makes profit in the US, it owes a corp tax here. If it goes outside the US, the amount paid a foreign govt is turned into a tax credit here, against the difference. So, if its 35% here, and 25% there, it gets a credit for the 25%, against the 35%. So, they pay 10% here. That 10% lowers the average for the entire corp world. Thats why the "effective" rate is low. I can show you that 85% of tax "credits" to largest corps are because they are in foreign countries.
@luvcheney1: You stated, "So, if its 35%..........a credit for the 25%, against........10%.......that's why the "effective" rate is low.
CORRECT. Which only adds to the confusion of your statement 4 days when you posted, "Most corporations pay over 1/3rd in taxes."
SOOOO. Here we are back 4 days ago to your original post and the starting point discussing your assertion that most U.S. corporations pay 1/3 in TAXES.
I still stand by my assertion.....WRONG. NOT 1/3 in taxes.
@DeepElem90 If a corp pays 25% to a foreign nation, and 10% to the US govt too, that happens to be 35%, about 1/3. That is the actual case, for most corps. See for yourself. Google " WalMart Yahoo"
@luvcheney1: You stated, "If a corp pays 25% to a foreign nation, and 10% to the US govt too, that happens to be 35%."
WRONG AGAIN: a credit is given for foreign income taxes thus allowing a corporation to subtract the foreign income tax from the U.S. tax.
In fact, in 2008, the Government Accountability Office found that “two out of every three United States corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005.”
@DeepElem90 If a corp pays 25% abroad, brings the money back, it now owes another 10%, which would be 35%. If you read "your" GAO report ( did you?) you would know that "transfer pricing" is how corps dont pay taxes in the US. The foreign subsidiary overcharges the US subsidiary on transfers of product. This raises profit abroad ( where taxes are less) and lowers them in the US ( where taxes are high). Corps arent stupid. Corps behave this way, because OUR rates are higher than overseas. Fix it!
@DeepElem90 You lament the situation of low effective rates, but thats a consequence of high taxes. Corps pay taxes elsewhere, little here. Obama said he wants to stop foreign tax credit. He thinks he can force corps to pay. They wont. Headquarters, factories, will accelerate moves overseas, with their jobs, US Govt will lose even more revenue dollars. The corps will import the goods into the US. Zero tax to US Gov. The "fix" is match our rates to the rest of the OECD, let them stay, pay here.
@DeepElem90 I f I set up a subsidiary, so I dont have to pay the statutory rate here, pay another nation their 25% ( instead of our 35% plus the state corp tax too) and then leave the cash outside the US, what is the effective US tax rate? ZERO. If I bring the cash back, I pay the extra 10%, and the 10% is the effective tax rate in the US.
@DeepElem90 Cayman Islands are a banking country. You state yourself there isnt a physical presence of the corps there. The US subsidiary goes and drills for oil in the north sea, pays UK 28% ( instead of 39% here), then parks the profits in the Cayman islands. Why? Because, if they bring the profit BACK to the US, they will get zapped another 11%! So, leave it out! Use it to expand operations outside the US! The only sane thing to do.
@DeepElem90 First, tell me the percent of tax paid by Exxon, WalMart, United Health, all the largest in their industries. In 1999, OCED nations had avg corp tax of 32%. They are now 24%. They have had the percent of GDP paid by corps increase to be 3.4% of GDP. The US corp rate has been 35%, and the US pays only 1.8%. We both want higher % of GDP paid by corporations. High rates do the opposite.
@luvcheney1: You stated, "We both want higher % of GDP paid by corporations."
AGREED, But I disagree high rates do the opposite. OR low rates (as we have now) for that matter.
You provide a tax break / incentive to companies that invest in innovation in the U.S. Such as providing incentives for companies investing in non-carbon based technologies.
@DeepElem90 Unless you tell me at least 2 of those corporations ACTUAL tax burden, of industry leaders, I am done with this talk. If you cant find or compute, I will help. In the future, you can figure out any corp you want. On IRS site, "SOI Tax Stats - Table 2: Returns of active corporations", I look at biggest 2800 firms, over $2.5 bill assets each, and tax on taxable income is 25%. If you add back the foreign taxes they paid, it is 33.6%. This issue is due to US corps overseas to save cash
@luvcheney1: When analyzing a corporations tax obligations to the U.S. one MUST account for the way corporations are escaping those obligations. As I previously stated, one address in the Cayman Islands houses 18,857 corporations.
- For tax purposes, a company's U.S. operations will lose millions while its international businesses net millions in profit.
- This practice creates negative tax rates.
You stated, "Unless you tell me." Really luvcheney.
@DeepElem90 Which is it with you? You cant figure out what percent of profit is taxes for WalMart, Exxon, United Health? Or, the facts dont meet your world view?
@DeepElem90 This wisdom from a guy who thought labor, materials, business expenses affect "statutory" rates. Tax on profit, not revenue. I told you it was from US corps making money in low tax countries. But, your Forbes article tells why. "its the tax benefits of overseas operations that is the biggest reason multinationals end up with lower tax rates". ( pay tax to low tax nations) " Those low tax nations are anywhere but the US". They earn the money where our rates dont apply. Legal, smart.
@luvcheney1: As you state, "U.S. Corporations paid 1.8% of GDP."
This comes during a time with the LOWEST corporate tax rates due to new tax breaks, and aggressive tax sheltering that have pushed corporate income tax receipts down to historically low levels.
In the 1950's and 60's when corporate tax rates were 50% the tax U.S. corporations were generating was a much higher % of GDP. In fact a 2.5% higher.
You state, "We both want higher % of GDP paid by corporations."
@DeepElem90 Oops, sent too soon. After googling "WalMart Yahoo" click on the top from yahoo finance. You will see corp info, . Look down left side of page, go to the bottom. There you see "financials". Click on income statement. In operating income or loss heading, see 7,139.000 income tax, and 14.927,000 net income from continuing operations. Add 3 zeros, those numbers are billions.
Tax and net equal Tax about 1/3rd, or, double tax is close to after tax. Pick any nasty corp you like, learn
@luvcheney1: Cont'd: In 2004, the most recent year for which data is available, U.S. multinational corporations paid about $16 billion of U.S. tax on approximately $700 billion of "FOREIGN ACTIVE EARNINGS," an effective U.S. tax rate of about 2.3%.
@DeepElem90 "Operating expenses" are legitimate corp deductions. You think being able to deduct the cost of steel is a tax break at an auto plant? Labor? The actual tax paid by corporations is published. It is few, and far between any corp has less than 30%. I know, I have looked at many. What is actually happening is this. WalMart pays 35%, and Exxon pays zero, because it can operate outside the US. Effective tax rate if about 17%,. You need to see what corps actually pay, its easy.
@DeepElem90 A tax deduction would be labor, material, Office space rent or mortgage, factory space costs, etc. Those are costs. Tax credit is the issue. I went to IRS gov site, "SOI Tax Stats - Table 4: Returns of Active Corporations". In 2007, the largest corporations, those over $2.5 billion, had $92.7 Bill tax credits, of which $79.2 bill is foreign tax credit. 85% of credits is because of income outside US. If profit comes back, corps pay US rate, credited by what they paid overseas.
@luvcheney1: You stated, "A tax deduction would be labor, material, Office space rent or mortgage, factory space costs, etc."
CORRECT. AND all those deductions affect the "EFFECTIVE" tax rate.
That is exactly what I was posting yesterday when discussing effective tax rates vs. statutory tax rates. Those deductions are just one category affecting "effective" tax rates.
Corporations in the U.S. pay an avg. of just 13.4% - EFFECTIVE tax rate.
@luvcheney1: Corporations in 19 of the member states of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development paid 16.1% of their profits in taxes between 2000 and 2005, on average, while corporations in the United States paid just 13.4%.
The above tax rates reflect "EFFECTIVE" tax rates.
@luvcheney1: NOW....Let's go back to 4 days ago when you stated, "Most corporations pay over 1/3rd in taxes."
NO luvcheney, corporations do NOT pay over 1/3rd in taxes. Have there been enough facts cited? Enough information regarding "effective" tax rates vs. "statutory" tax rates?
@DeepElem90 You DONT mention WHY these things happen. In your same Forbe`s article, they explain that GE`s US operations post a loss, while their overseas operations post profits. Your Forbes article states, "It only makes sense that multinationals put costs in high tax countries and profits in low tax countries". The US is a high tax country, so why would they choose to pay taxes here? US high tax rate sends corps to pay taxes elsewhere. US can get more revenue, jobs, capital by lowering tax.
@luvcheney1: When referring to the Forbes article and the GAO report You stated, "You DONT mention WHY these things happen."
I cited those two sources as a rebuttal to your assertion 1 week ago stating, "Most corporations pay over 1/3rd in taxes."
In context of my rebuttal I don't need to explain overseas operations, profits and losses................................................. I only need to demonstrate that most U.S. corporations do NOT pay 1/3 in taxes...............
@DeepElem90 Watch the "slide show" that is part of Forbes article you sent, you get 25 large US corps, most ARE paying around 1/3. Do you watch your own reference? Of those that do NOT, they have previous losses. I.E. banks that lost 10 billion last year, can use 2 bill this year, next yr, next to write down the losses. This is legal, moral. Last class of exceptions is like GE. They profit out of the US, in low rate countries. That tax on profit is owed foreign govt, not US govt. I told you!
@DeepElem90 2nd post. GE makes a lot of profit, overseas, it will pay 24% inc tax to a govt in EU. If it puts profit left in Caymans, EU revenue is untaxable income, profit untaxable too. Then here, people say they dont pay taxes! Sure they do! Just not here! Look at a financial statement. I have site from IRS, showing 2800 lg $2.5bill corps( together), its like a huge P&L statement. Want it, pick it apart with my help? I took 3 hrs to get it 95% down. I know you cant alone, but you can learn.
@DeepElem90 Glad you corrected, makes a difference. Avg tax paid by US Corps with over $2.5 billion in assets is 33.5%. IRS website. Google " SOI Tax Stats - Table 2 - Returns of Active Corporations". This is what the financial statement of a corporation looks like. It is simpler than it looks. Hint. Total income tax after credits plus foreign tax credit ( tax paid to EU) divided by income subject to tax= 33.5%. This is AVG of ALL the LARGEST US corps! Thats 1/3 ! IRS. They KNOW LAW. You DONT.
This guy had some sound logic. Reporter attacking on questions with already assumed answers...
Rcwatson83 1 week ago
The Conservative Party in Britain recently said that they want to lower the taxation rate for high earners as they are the job creators. Familiar right? However they also said that they werent prepared to do it while we have such a large deficit, as it wouldnt be fair to the middle and lower classes. Everybody has to chip in.
If I had to identify my personal political leanings, Id say Im slightly left of centre, so Im not a fan of the Conservatives, but its hard to argue with that.
pentaveratevideo 4 months ago
McConnell is a piece of work. Southern politician idiot. He want's Obama out because of one thing. Race. McConnell longs for the days of Jim Crow and other backwards way of thinking. I'm a southern boy by birth and spent my early years down there. I saw of lot of his ilk running around. He is stuck in 1955 and doesn't want to face reality of the modern day.
He needs to get voted out in 2012 if his term is due. Total POS!
calkelpdiver 4 months ago
This is so frustrating to watch. McConnell is grotesque.
Hegerridadorno 6 months ago
that retard is a fucking cocksucker. S
StyngRay1 6 months ago
Obsolutely the most dispicable liar I've ever seen. If the American people are that stupid and filled with that much hatred for President Obama that they will stand by and allow the Republican party to destroy the country for no other reason than to discredit Obama I only have one thing to say.
FUCK ALL YOU HATE FILLED BASTARDS LET THE NATION FALL . I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING ALL OF YOU GET EXACTLY WHAT YOU DESERVE.
CHC4669 7 months ago
Another straight answer from the republicans. Social Security is def neutral and that's the truth. Medicaid and Medicare does need help with the fraud that goes on in the billing and the paying dept. Just paying out bills without checking and validating the bill so they need help. Bush tax cuts ADD to the deficit every year hundred of billions. So let them exspire
nydad1 9 months ago
Last week Chris Wallace asked old oatmeal brains here whether he liked that the parties were going to sit together for the SOTU speech. He wouldn't answer the question. 10 minutes later Wallace asked Dick Durban the same question and Durban said "I like it!" And Durban actually answered ALL of Wallace's other questions.
If McConnell weren't so old, I would suggest he just go ahead and donate all his organs tomorrow so that useful human beings could carry on with their lives. He is useless.
plynth2 1 year ago
Whatever time is spent listening to this guy "answer" questions is exactly the amount of time you are wasting. When I see McConnell is appearing on MTP or This Week or Fox Sunday, I tune in to one of the shows he is NOT on. I will not waste my time with this guy ducking, avoiding, every single solitary question that is put to him.
plynth2 1 year ago
Its funny how long this piece of shit gets to talk even though he's reiterating the same crap in every answer. Compare this video to a hypothetical Fox News interview with the politics mirrored, some Rep Democratic would be yelled at for killing "small" businesses. Much respect for NBC on this one, at least they've moved on from the adolescent state.
theloniousunra 1 year ago
Mitch is one evil motherfucker.
HugeJohn51 1 year ago
Mitch doesn't seem to remember a time before Obama was elected. He also doesn't seem to realize how much money was needed before that point to get this kind of deficit, war is not only shitty in every aspect but it costs a lot of money. Let's just say he has a selective memory. Personally, I am disgusted to know that Mitch 'represents' me. He has been the errand boy of special interest groups and lobbyists for a unsettling amount of time.
MrAgrippa91313 1 year ago
The richest top two percent crashed our economy and manipulated this high unemployment. Why should we extend their tax cuts? Look, we should survey how much money they have sitting idle or invested elsewhere then we print as much money to nullify or offset their influence. If they don't like it, fine; we don't care because we have to provide jobs for people to feed their families.
beancube2010 1 year ago
just tax the poor
tacomaman2600 1 year ago
This country is such a disaster and these bozo's were just voted for, WHY? I still can't wrap my mind around the type of person that would vote for these clowns. 8 years of these repubs and people still don't get it. Do you hear that sounds. It's the whooosh of the toilet as America goes under.
DurskMan 1 year ago
Hey McConnell, get up off your knees before you address the American people. The stretch marks around your special interest filthy Republican mouth are discusting.
You filthy Republican SHILL.
DeepElem90 1 year ago 6
@DeepElem90 McConnel is disgraceful.
Jason4235 1 year ago
The CBO reported that Federal Tax revenues increased after the Bush tax cuts. Both nominally, and as a percent of GDP. IRS reported that the rich paid a higher share of Federal taxes after the Bush cuts. Asking for them to be "paid for", is stupidity of the highest order, when they increased revenues.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
Wow, this man is a fraud. Shame on anyone who votes this awful man into office.
rrsrichard 1 year ago
@rrsrichard
America just voted for these morons...we are stuck with them...
bigman9099 1 year ago
@bigman9099 I know, but they will bury themselves, watch. Liars always get caught and they will. Cheers.
rrsrichard 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
... I have renamed the GOP Pledge to America to "Plague On America." God help us all if the Republicans gain control of the House and Senate
cuz4concern 1 year ago
PEOPLE: We are fucked.
shingwoo101 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Did he say, "...what most Americans think is in the middle of a a recession"? Then I guess it is safe to say wih his reasoning is that most Americans think we are in the middle of a time of peace with the Taliban. I live in Kentucky, McConnel's home state. He also believes that Kentucky is inside the city limits of Louisville. Anyone not inside Louisville is not in Kentucky.
ejwa12 1 year ago
Did he say, "...what most Americans think is in the middle of a a recession"? Then I guess it is safe to say wih his reasoning is that most Americans think we are in the middle of a time of peace with the Taliban. I live in Kentucky, McConnel's home state. He also believes that Kentucky is inside the city limits of Louisville. Anyone not inside Louisville is not in Kentucky.
ejwa12 1 year ago
talking points. cmon Kentucky kick out this slimy bastard.
manucalrad 1 year ago
then why did the republicans say they would filibuster the small jobs bill that would allow small businesses to borrow money to buy more stock and hire more workers? and what did he mean "pay it back"
cheshirepixie 1 year ago
Uummmm. No it's not paid for! That's why they had a sunset on the Bush tax cuts because they wanted to make sure they were paid for if they were to be extended. The only way to save this economy is to stop shipping jobs overseas and the CEOs and company owners are just gonna have to pay the American worker the high wages. These companies are selling out America. We are headed for a massive depression if it doesn't change soon.
Rayvyn007 1 year ago
@Rayvyn007 The P/E ratio of the S&P 500 is close to 20 - 1. This means $20 invested earns $1 in profit. ( dividend). Do arithmetic, the return on investment is 5%. This is on 500, large, important corporations, on avg. 5% "interest" when owning large corporations does NOT leave enough to pay higher wages, nor does the US corp tax rate of 35%,, when the avg of 29 OECD nations is only 24%, nor to pay for regulatory burdens, nor environmental costs. Lower their costs, if you want them to stay here.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
DeepElem90 1 year ago
“We can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens. Projections for the surplus in my budget are cautious and conservative.”
- President George W. Bush, 3/27/01
“[O]ur budget will run a deficit that will be small and short-term.”
- President George W. Bush, 1/7/03
DeepElem90 1 year ago 10
@DeepElem90 Bush`s tax cuts bill in 2001 was to be phased in slowly, over 6 years, in 2003, they were sped up in a 2nd tax cut legislation. In the next 3 years, revenue increased over 21% in income taxes, more on Cap Gains, with GDP rising about 10%. Revenue increased twice as fast as GDP, with cuts.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1: Time for some MORE Revisionist History:
GDP growth under the Shrub and his Republican buddies was just 1.4% on an annualized basis. Bush's eight-year tenure in office was marked by the lowest U.S. GDP growth of any presidency since 1945.
Way to go (R)'s - You destroyed the economy from 2001 - 2009 and now you want to finish it off with gridlock.
DeepElem90 1 year ago
@DeepElem90 Obama today, 9/3/10, announced at News Conference that to stimulate more jobs, he would seek the following Bush policies, because they CREATE jobs, and are Good for the economy, Good for workers, Good for business people. 1) Keep Bush Tax Cuts on 5 of 6 tax brackets 2) Completely eliminate Capital Gains tax on Key investments, plant, machinery 3) Accelerate $55 Billion tax cut on Big businesses, and small 4) Cut payroll tax for small business ( 500 employees, or less). On TV 7:30 am
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@DeepElem90 The loss of revenue was due to two recessions, one when Bush was coming in and another when he left. Recessions greatly cut revenue and Bush's 2007 and 2008 budget was projected to balance the budget by 2012. Unfortunately Obama and Bush (in the last 3 months of his presidency) spent like crazy so deficits are over a trillion and projections show no balanced budget for at least 20 years at the current track. Charts tell all.
Willredd94 1 year ago
@Willredd94: I analyzed "Revenue as a percent of GDP" during the time period the Bush tax cuts were in place. Even backing out the the recession years, the Bush tax cuts decreased "Revenue as a percent of GDP.....Only 17.3%"
Historically, Revenue as a % of GDP is 18%. During the 1990's it averaged 18.5%. SEE [Whitehouse(dot)gov/omb/budget/Historicals] Table 1.3
The Bush tax cuts were a failure.
DeepElem90 1 year ago
@Willredd94: I stated, "The Bush tax cuts were a failure."
I stand corrected. They were a failure for 99% of Americans. The top 1% did great on the Bush tax cuts.
DeepElem90 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
McConnel did answer the question. 3 or 4 times in fact. Democrats can't understand the answers because it's not the answer they want to hear. The answer is...."This is current tax policy". It's not borrowed money but rather stolen. Stolen by the government from the citizens of this country.
MrEmesis 1 year ago
So McConnel's screaming about the national debt these past 18 months was was bullshit and he didn't mean it.
McConnel is for an increase on the national debt and he's too much of a coward to admit it.
Voting the Republican party out of existence would be the biggest victory America will have since world war 2
Scipio2021 1 year ago 11
@Scipio2021 Actual dollars collected by Treasury increased over 21%, 2003, 2004, 2005, after the implementation of Bush`s cuts. The GDP grew about 11% in that period, so revenue outstripped GDP by 10%, with CUTS. Right now, folks are moving profit, income into 2010, so it wont appear in 2011 when taxes go up. So, These are the "Good Old Days"! Enjoy.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1 If the Bush tax cuts truly added more revenue then McConnel would have easily been able to mention that, instead of dodge the question over and over again. (thus proving he's not conservative or cares at all about the national debt)
Scipio2021 1 year ago
@Scipio2021 Libs/ Dems jump straight to deficits. Deficits are complex, revenue AND spending. But then a recession tilts the economy into deficit too. Look up when the Nasdaq peaked, $5050, March 2000. It was down to $2400 by Jan 1 2001, Bush wasnt in office yet, Clinton was. Dot Com millionaires were paying taxes, after the Bubble burst, we had recession, low taxes. Thats why deficits came, before Bush`s cuts took effect. In 2003, they did, and revenue jumped up double the rate of GDP.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1: You stated, "Deficits are complex."
ACTUALLY: Deficits Don't Matter, " [Dick Cheney]
You stated, "A recession tilts an economy into recession."
Are your referring to the "Second Republican Depression" the failed policies Republicans handed off to their successor?
Bush and the (R)'s presided over the worst eight-year economic performance in the modern American presidency.
The historical record shows the economy and the stock market do better under Democratic presidents
DeepElem90 1 year ago
@DeepElem90 Weve seen over many decades, that deficits dont matter, if they are a reasonable, manageable amount. Just as an individual can manage a proper amount too. The timing of the deficit is also important. If some deficit is run when recession comes, it will automatically begin to subside, as recession retreats. That is the context of Cheney`s remark, a little to subtle for a dolt, such as yourself. Housing Bubble caused the crisis, not deficits. Fed doubled money supply `95- 05.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
DeepElem90 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@DeepElem90 Yes, I see a trend that when the business cycle has finished a recession, like when Clinton came in, and a recession was coming just as he left, that looks good. However, our economy has been expanding and contracting for as long as data has been collected. Clinton cut the Capital Gains Tax from 28% to 20%. CBO said that would bring in $8 bill over 3 years, it raised $84 bill! Clinton reformed Welfare. Clinton expanded free trade. Clinton is no pinko, More Republican than McCain.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1: You stated, "Clinton cut the Capital Gains Tax from 28% to 20%. CBO said that would bring in $8 bill over 3 years, it raised $84 bill!"
AWESOME.....If CBO and Clinton brought in $84 Billion and handed Bush and the Republicans a $237 Billion SURPLUS. AND as the (R)'s state, the Bush tax cuts paid for themselves....Where's the surplus?
After all you had a majority in both Houses for 6 of the 8 years.
DeepElem90 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@DeepElem90 "Bush $237 bill surplus"? $237 bill surplus was fiscal year end Oct 30, 2000. Clintons last budget ended on Oct 30, 2001, at $127 bill surplus, cut in half by falling revenue to govt because of coming recession. Nasdaq topped at $5400 March 2000, fell to $2400 by Jan 1, 2001, 3 weeks before Bush came to Office. Recessions are bad for deficits, dont you listen to Obama? Actually, if you count Clinton spending SS surplus, the 2001 surplus of $127 bill, was really deficit of 33 bill.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@DeepElem90 : hm.. just when did DOW become an indicator of our economic well-being?
tooltalk 1 year ago
@tooltalk Since its invention.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@tooltalk: You stated, "just when did DOW become an indicator of our economic well-being?"
ANS.) May 26, 1896.
DeepElem90 1 year ago
@DeepElem90 Must have struck a nerve, again. You cant even bear to see my post stay up! What a pussy!
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1: You stated, "Must have struck a nerve." HUH? Not sure what you are referring too?
Hey luvcheney, As you know by now; 1.) Post it; 2.) Cite it; and 3.) We will go from there.
DeepElem90 1 year ago
@DeepElem90 : you moron. America back in 1896 was still largely agrarian / manufacturing society.
tooltalk 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tooltalk: You asked, "When did the Dow become an economic indicator."
It has always been an economic indicator since it's creation in 1896.
You state, "you moron. America back in 1896 was still largely agrarian / manufacturing society."
IRRELEVANT.
Keep asking questions, you'll learn.
DeepElem90 1 year ago
@tooltalk: You asked, when did the Dow become an economic indicator.
I answered you correctly. AND you state, "America back in 1896 was still largely agrarian / manufacturing society."
IRRELEVANT.
Keep asking questions, you'll learn.
DeepElem90 1 year ago
Now that i got that out of the way. Would like to say, with great pleasure I see McConell and R's for last 30 days blowin bullshit for answers to 'HOW DOES TAX CUT 4 RICH PAY FOR ITSELF'? Then of course many of us go hmmm, how did it ever pay for itself? IT DIDNT...not with Raygun, papa/babyBushies. These 3 presidents have racked up more deficits than all other 41 PRESIDENTS! hello!
Dubbers racked up more than JFK/LBj/IKE/Truman and Nixon who worst of the afore mentioned.
MrClaydough 1 year ago 16
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@MrClaydough In 2001, the top 1% paid 33% of the income tax burden, in 2007 they paid 39%. In 2001 the top 25% paid 82.5%, in 2007 they paid 86%. This from an IRS dot gov website. Want an url? Bush tax cuts got rich paying an even higher share of our taxes. That IS WHAT YOU LIKE, isnt it? Raise the rates, they will pay less. How stupid can you be to want the rich paying less of the burden?
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvdicklesscheney1 Thats pure garbage and lies. I will educate you later. gees...you'd think these righties could pull one correct fact from their asshole. heh heh
MrClaydough 1 year ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@MrClaydough Google "SOI Tax Stats - Individual Statistical Tables by Tax Rate and Income Percentile". First item up is an IRS. gov website. Go click. Then at the IRS page, scroll all the way to the bottom. The second to last place you see, table 7, click to that chart. Scroll again all the way down to very last chart. There you will see year by year percent of total income taxes paid by percentile. Rich paid higher % from 2001 to 2007, last year shown. IRS says what I pull out my ass is true.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvdicklesscheney google SOI Tax Stats Goober. I'm aware and 'king of my kind' when it comes to scrolling!
I would rather google 'marginal tax rates' and get 'Facts from 1900 to 2010 in 3 seconds!! and wikipedia has matching numbers to prove 'ME RIGHT-YOU WRONG'.
Clinton 39.6 % $250-280,000.00
Dub's/moron 35% on $311-330,000.00
And from there W erased, as PapaBush and Reagan B4 him, any Surplus, and gave us deficits in Budget, GDP etc. WANNA BET ME? heh heh Are you threatening me?
MrClaydough 1 year ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@MrClaydough Your numbers are the actual tax percents. I agree, that is a fact. My numbers I gave you are the actual percent of total income tax paid in the Nation, (Not individual percent tax rate), by income group ( compiled by the IRS). The total tax burden paid by the rich increased, because the tax rate cut caused greater tax compliance, and higher economic activities. Lower marginal tax rates yielded greater revenue in top brackets. You prefer only to focus on rates, not revenue. Silly.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@MrClaydough JFK cut taxes, remember? Dollars collected by Treasury increased 21% after Bush`s cuts, while GDP rose 11%. Revenue outstripped GDP, with CUTS. Bill Clinton cut Capital Gains tax from 28% to 20%. CBO estimated revenue after 3 years would be only $8 billion total from Cap Gain, but reality was $84 billion. Govt is unable to see cutting taxes raises dollars collected.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
Why doesn't he ask who's gonna pay for the stealfromus package & the socialized health care system that just got forced down our throats against our will??
Oh I forgot, they don't QUESTION the messiah. They think THAT would be "racist". LMAO!! Fucking moron hypocrites!
flyboymd82 1 year ago
lyboymd82 -'socialized health care '-
-
Health reform’s three major goals—insurance reform, affordable coverage, and slower cost growth.
cont
blevr1234 1 year ago 16
blevr1234 1 year ago 19
blevr1234
-
SOUNDS VERY CAPITALISTIC = insurance reform, affordable coverage, and slower cost growth - AND SAVING 3.4 Trillions $ SAVINGS - in 20 years !
hackit12 1 year ago 16
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@hackit12 Largest Health Insurance corp ( UNH) in the US made less than 5% profit last year! They make $25 profit on a $500 policy. OMG!
luvcheney1 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@blevr1234 How did you get 8 "thumbs up" in just 4 minutes after posting your comments?? LMAO!!
You fucking libtards are all about lying, cheating, stealing & propaganda aren't you? You must not have much faith in your ignorant comments if you feel the need to falsely give yourself thumbs up! Pathetic!
flyboymd82 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@flyboymd82
-
YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE ?
-
Health reform’s three major goals—insurance reform, affordable coverage, and slower cost growth.
-
OR FU__ YOUR SELF OUT OF COVERAGE ??????
-
For 10 cents a post ??????
NOBS4321 1 year ago 33
@flyboymd82: Why not just rebut the assertion and cite your source?
DeepElem90 1 year ago 11
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@DeepElem90 LOL! Why bother, he'll just hide my comment with thumbs down & now he's up to 11 thumbs up? Amazing. Sad yet amazing!!
flyboymd82 1 year ago
@fagboymd Then pull your thumb out of your ass. It looks funny when your head is up there moron. WTF do you know about the economy? Go back to hate site and 'watch me eat my own weinie channel', ya slime bag hater MF. heh heh
Now look fagboy. We're going to be getting into numbers...real numbers, facts and information. And we dont need no 'Fagaphonie fullabalogney ride my pony' racist banana smoker little pricks like you. Besides you'll just get a headache and have to cancel your date. heh heh
MrClaydough 1 year ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@MrClaydough Isn't it pathetic that this "MrClaydough" douchebag is 64 years old & talks like this?
Look out kids, this is what a life of liberalism & drugs does to you! Don't be a pathetic old, lonely piece of shit like this loser! LOL!
flyboymd82 1 year ago
Doesn't matter if MITCH McCoNNELL is a dickhead and needs to learn some math, the GOP will take back the HOUSE and SENATE come november and obama could be done as PRESIDENT come 2012 as well. So GOP will take away social security and health care and bring unemployment even higher thanks to the american people. And the GOP leads in every poll on cnn and msnbc. So how does that helps?
harlem0987 1 year ago
@harlem0987 I see a lot of Republicans vote Democrat because after 8 years of Bush, who wants another economic crisis. If the Republicans are going to take away Social Security and Healthcare, I don't think they're taking back anything. Republicans (and some Democrats) are brought to us by Big Old, Health Insurance Companies, and Big Corporations. So if anyone wants a Congressmen or Senator who is for the Big Corporations and not for the people. Good luck with that.
Hazmat347 1 year ago
Hazmat347 –‘a lot of Republicans vote Democrat’-
-
WTF world do you live in ! REPUB. Been voting –‘cloture and filibuster at historic levels’- since 2007 – when the Democrats took back ?Congress !
-
EVEN VOTING AGAINST THINGS THEY PROPOSED AND SUPPORTED 3 YEARS AGO ! Like the Mc Nasty [Mc Cain] flip-flops [CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND IMMIGRATION] !
Cont
hackit12 1 year ago 8
Hazmat347 –‘take away Social Security and Healthcare’-
-
S.S. and Medicare are not a [welfare program] they are –‘necessary-‘ contributory programs, that has worked very well for 50+ years – against
–‘cancelled retirements,’-
- ‘Wall St. theft of 401 K’s, etc – every 5-7 ‘- years. !
Against Corporate [OLIGARCHY] fraud !
hackit12 1 year ago 8
@DeepElem90: you called it right in everything you said!! Watching you fact check and correct that idiot luvcheney1 is like watching MSNBC fact check and correct FOX news! I love it! Keep it up!!
derekgharris 1 year ago 13
@luvcheney1,first of all the user name you chose lends a hint to what kind of IDIOT you are, but your comments confirm it! You better be part of that top 1-2% otherwise you are what is wrong with the country right now; working class people(in your case IDIOTS) voting against their own best interest! You fall for republican lies and hypocracy and help vote them in and drag the rest of us down the shitter with you. THANKS!!!
derekgharris 1 year ago 12
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@derekgharris I made my user name luvcheney, so there would be no confusion from the beginning as to the fact I am conservative. Consider it transparency, full disclosure. I worked for about 35 years for others, and it was always for a rich individual, or corporations. Do you, or your friends get paychecks from homeless men, folks on welfare?
luvcheney1 1 year ago
He's only there to advance his talking points. You could ask him what the price of rice in China is, and he would still go back to his prepared speech.
jursamaj 1 year ago 2
Bush and the Republicans - December 2008 on the eve of Bush signing Republican T.A.R.P.
"We have abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.”
BEAUTIFUL LOGIC Republicans.........Just beautiful.
DeepElem90 1 year ago 4
"B-b-b-b-b-but all my millionaire and billionaire buddies are hurting and need their tax cuts to survive." ~Mitch McConnell.
Fuck you, Mitch.
heyzil 1 year ago
@heyzil
Personally, I miss Mitch and the "B-b-b-big B-b-b-bank B-b-b-bailout B-b-b-bill" catch phrase during the Wall Street reform fight.
Republicans always run to Frank Lundtz for their focus group-tested talking points. Frank usually crafts them to be no more than three or four words long, and contain lots of alliteration for catchiness. So, he worked his usual magic this time with the "big bank bailout bill" line but didn't realize the guy who'd be parroting it would have a rubber face.
TrollBuster9090 1 year ago 4
This should the number one "MOST Discussed" video! The So called "Ground Zero Mosque" is a tactic the republicans are using to get away from what the real problem in America, JOBS. They watch and do nothing as Americans suffer!
wtfoof 1 year ago 5
Typical Republicon logic. Why doesn`t he bitch about the costs of the ongoing and never ending wars started and created by Bush? Why doesn`t he just admit he would pay for the tax cuts by cutting social security and medicare that most teabaggers love and count on!! The republicons want to bankrupt this country and get rid of social security and medicare to keep people desperate and willing to work at any job for third world wages. THATS THE REPUBLICON BOTTOM LINE!!!! WAKE UP TEABAGGERS!!!
airplane2112 1 year ago 9
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@airplane2112 Republicans just see that SS has to come into mathematical balance. The govt itself publishes annually the "unfunded liability" which is the amount of money that would be needed to be invested OUTSIDE of govt, at interest, to enable the system to continue for 70 more years. So, tax hikes, and/ or benefit cuts. Thats it! Thats true.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
McConnell is such a hypocrite and ABSOLUTELY SHAMELESS
krlostv 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
AGAIN ...
luvcheney1 -'Only Republicans have the balls to fix Social Security'--
-
And what does this have to do with Reagan being the greatest Tax and Spend
Pres. EVER ?
hackit12 1 year ago 22
Mitch, at .17 You stated, "This is existing tax policy."
Yes it is .........and it is exactly as you (R)'s wrote the tax law with a majority in both Houses and and (R) in the Executive.
If you wanted it permanent why didn't you write it to be permanent? You had a majority.
See CBO rules.
Mitch, get up off your knees before you address the American People. The stretch marks around your filthy Repug mouth are embarrassing.
DeepElem90 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@DeepElem90 Bush Senate was 50 - 50, changed slightly, but was close. Bush House was only about 10- 11 seats. You observe Obama struggle with 60- 40 Senate. In House, he had 79 seat majority. They couldnt write it permanently, it was compromise. It also was phased in, took till 2006. You are mistaken.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1: You stated, "They couldnt write it permanently."
YES luvcheney.....You are correct....AND do you know why?
It was passed under reconciliation which under Congressional RULES; REQUIRES it to be paid for.
The tax cuts which we speak of were NOT paid for. They were done on borrowed money much like two wars and Medicare part D.
REPUBLICANS = SPEND & SPEND
Why do you (R)'s just want to kick the can onto the next generation?????
DeepElem90 1 year ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Respond to this video...In the Senate, 12 Democrats voted for the cuts. In the House, 28 Democrats voted for it. Obamas health Care got 1 Republican in the house, and none in the Senate. Tax Cuts were bi partisan.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
The Democrats are urging that we continue the tax cuts for all small businesses except the biggest 2% of them.
Why do the taxes have to go back where they were for the wealthiest 2% of small businesses? Because the American People don't have $2 TRILLION to give to them right now! They're going to have to wait.
There seems to be a pattern here. Why are Republicans always obsessed with the wealthiest 2% or the wealthiest 1% or the wealthiest 3/10ths of 1% and to hell with the rest of us???
ReliableInsider 1 year ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ReliableInsider You think letting someone KEEP his own money is giving it to him! That means you believe he has no right to his money, unless you permit it!
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1 I see you're still @ it! Trolling videos with your lies and BS. You're downright hilarious!
I have a strange feeling that you're not one of the people that McConnell is trying to defend. I really don't know what's in it for people like you. Please explain.
Btw, if you lie and say you're in that top 2%, my next question will be:
Why in the hell are you posting on YT all day?!
whiteliberal1 1 year ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@whiteliberal1 I injured my back, had a major spine operation. I dont pay much tax, we have our own little business, low income. Some people, like me, look at things from an economic viewpoint, what serves the country best. Not what I CAN GET. When the Govt helps you, they took that from another.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1 All of sudden- ALL republicans own a small business.
Now please explain, w/o the blanket comments: How can raising your taxes (remember, "you don't pay much taxes and you have a low income") and cutting the taxes for a person who makes over $500 grand a yr., help you? RICH PEOPLE DO NOT SPEND MONEY IN WAL-MART, ETC.!
What the "middle class" "CAN GET" they put it back into the Economy! Do the rich live by the same idea of, "what THEY CAN GET"? You act as if it's an entitlement.
whiteliberal1 1 year ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@whiteliberal1 We have a 6 year old, and we run a small childcare in our home, enabling us to stay with, raise our daughter. We have supported ourselves 6 years this way. I wanted to be with my daughter, is that all right with you? Or, should I throw her in childcare like everyone else does? For material gain? When I did work for salary, for over 30 years, half the time was for a rich man, and half for a national corporation. Never got a job with a poor, homeless person. You work for a poor man?
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1 Ok, get to the part where you earn more than $250K a year!
I asked you a simple question that you seem to want to dance around, so I'll ask you again:
What would be the advantages for keeping the Bush Tax Cuts? What would be the disadvantage of receiving a tax cut if you make less than $250K?
I could care less if you worked for "Linda's Lemonade Stand" or Pepsi Cola. Why are you sooooo in love with cheney?! With your current life, your YT name should be, luvMLK!
whiteliberal1 1 year ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@whiteliberal1 Businesses that employ large amounts of people were formed with large amounts of capital. Jobs are a good thing. Lots of jobs is better, and they are not created without lots of capital. Thats why taxing the rich is a bad thing. Govt will just spend it, and capital wont be formed.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@luvcheney1 As for those who earn less than $250K, Bush cut all the brackets already. More may be good. Tax revenue increased by 21% after Bush`s tax cuts were accelerated in 2003. (2 years) OECD nations have increased the % of GDP paid in tax by corporations by cutting corp tax rates avg form 32% to 24%. Our % of GDP paid by Corps has fallen, due to high taxes, and corps leaving. Cutting taxes, getting them to pay here is a good idea.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1: You stated, "Our % of GDP paid by Corps has fallen, due to high taxes, and corps leaving."
WRONG AGAIN: From the first quarter of this year, corporate profits have shot up between 20% to over a 100% (Financial Times August 10, 2010, p. 7).
In fact, corporate profits have risen higher than they were before the onset of the Bush/Cheney Great Recession in 2008.
Corporations are creating jobs.......In India & China.
DeepElem90 1 year ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@DeepElem90 Re read my statement, the subject was percent taxes paid by corps. Corps are not paying taxes as much, because of tax advantages to earn profit outside the US, high rates here. You then use corp profits as a subject instead. I dont mind changing the subject, but its not the same. They were losing money, fired millions, closed plants, consolidated, and now are profitable again. Thats good, as it should be, and so what? They survived, adjusted. Still S&P 500 stocks are 5% profit
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1: You stated, "Corps are not paying taxes as much, because of tax advantages to earn profit outside the US."
CORRECT.
1.) Corporations don't pay taxes - Customers and shareholders pay taxes.
2.) Treasury Dept. estimated that American multinationals paid $16 billion in taxes on $700 billion in foreign income — an effective rate of 2.3%.
luvcheney - A 2.3% tax rate isn't too shabby.
DeepElem90 1 year ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@DeepElem90 It is also true that the OECD nations ( 29) collect a far higher percent of GDP from corporations than the US govt does. Thats because their ang tax rate is 24%, not 39%.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1: I understand the disconnect you are having with this subject. You believe corporations are actually paying 39%.
Hey luvcheney - U.S. corporations do NOT pay 39% in taxes. In fact, with loopholes and tax shelters many economists believe the rate is less than 10%.
DeepElem90 1 year ago 5
@luvcheney1:
Forbes magazine published what the top U.S. corporations paid in taxes in 2009.
- General Electric, which “generated $10.3 billion in pretax income.....ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.”
- Exxon Mobil, which last year reported a record $45.2 billion profit, paid no taxes to Uncle Sam.
[Forbes April 1, 2010]
DeepElem90 1 year ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@DeepElem90 In 1999, avg corp tax rate 29 OECD nations 32%, it declined until now its 24%. US avg rate 39% (state +Fed). During this period, our Corps are paying less of a percent of GDP, while the OECD nations are getting more percent of GDP. US corps choosing to earn profit outside US jurisdiction. Dopes think high rates make high revenue for govt. They drive US corps away. Why would anyone want to pay 39% tax, when you can pay 24%? It is insane to lose 15% of profit, by working in the US
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1: You stated, "Dopes think high rates make high revenue for govt.'
No luvcheney, Dopes think U.S. Corporations are paying 39%. Are you still unable to grasp the concept??????
28% of large foreign corporations, those with more than $250 million in assets, doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes.
25% of the largest U.S. companies paid no federal income taxes despite $1.1 trillion in gross sales. [reuters(dot)com]
DeepElem90 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@DeepElem90 With tax rates being 39% in the US, corporations figure out that it is better, cheaper to NOT earn profit in the US. So, they pay taxes to foreign govts, where the rates are cheaper. This results in the truth you are whining about, that US corps dont pay taxes here! Why would they? Pump oil out of the US, lose 39%, pump it out in the North Sea, lose 24%. Obviously, sane people choose elsewhere. Thats natural and understandable. You state 25% of US corps pay no tax, then 75% do.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@luvcheney1: You stated, "With tax rates being 39% in the US."
WRONG AGAIN: You are confusing "effective" tax rates with the top "statutory" rate................It is a common error.
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 is not high, compared to other developed countries.
[Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Oct. 27, 2008]
DeepElem90 1 year ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@luvcheney1: You stated AGAIN, "tax rates being 39% in the US."
WRONG AGAIN. You are confusing "EFFECTIVE" tax rates with top "STATUTORY" tax rates.....It is a common error.
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 is not high, compared to other developed countries.
[Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Oct. 27, 2008]
DeepElem90 1 year ago 4
@luvcheney1: You stated, "tax rates being 39% in the US."
WRONG AGAIN: You are confusing "EFFECTIVE" tax rates with "STATUTORY" tax rates........A common error.
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 is not high, compared to other developed countries.
[Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Oct. 27, 2008]
DeepElem90 1 year ago
@DeepElem90 Since the "Statutory" tax rate is very high in the US, corporations make choices to not pay ( such as moving profit overseas), so then the "effective" rate is low. OECD nations increase the % of corp tax paid, by cutting tax rates. That encourages US corps to pay to them, not to the US Fed govt.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1: You stated, "corporations make choices to not pay ( such as moving profit overseas), so then the "effective" rate is low."
AAAHHHHH, Come again.
Hey luvcheney, the EFFECTIVE rate is NOT a dependent variable on corporations moving "profit overseas." What are you talking about????
The EFFECTIVE rate is dependent on credits & deductions already written into the tax code.
DeepElem90 1 year ago
@DeepElem90 If a corporation makes profit in the US, it owes a corp tax here. If it goes outside the US, the amount paid a foreign govt is turned into a tax credit here, against the difference. So, if its 35% here, and 25% there, it gets a credit for the 25%, against the 35%. So, they pay 10% here. That 10% lowers the average for the entire corp world. Thats why the "effective" rate is low. I can show you that 85% of tax "credits" to largest corps are because they are in foreign countries.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1: You stated, "So, if its 35%..........a credit for the 25%, against........10%.......that's why the "effective" rate is low.
CORRECT. Which only adds to the confusion of your statement 4 days when you posted, "Most corporations pay over 1/3rd in taxes."
SOOOO. Here we are back 4 days ago to your original post and the starting point discussing your assertion that most U.S. corporations pay 1/3 in TAXES.
I still stand by my assertion.....WRONG. NOT 1/3 in taxes.
DeepElem90 1 year ago
@DeepElem90 If a corp pays 25% to a foreign nation, and 10% to the US govt too, that happens to be 35%, about 1/3. That is the actual case, for most corps. See for yourself. Google " WalMart Yahoo"
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1: You stated, "If a corp pays 25% to a foreign nation, and 10% to the US govt too, that happens to be 35%."
WRONG AGAIN: a credit is given for foreign income taxes thus allowing a corporation to subtract the foreign income tax from the U.S. tax.
In fact, in 2008, the Government Accountability Office found that “two out of every three United States corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005.”
DeepElem90 1 year ago
@DeepElem90 If a corp pays 25% abroad, brings the money back, it now owes another 10%, which would be 35%. If you read "your" GAO report ( did you?) you would know that "transfer pricing" is how corps dont pay taxes in the US. The foreign subsidiary overcharges the US subsidiary on transfers of product. This raises profit abroad ( where taxes are less) and lowers them in the US ( where taxes are high). Corps arent stupid. Corps behave this way, because OUR rates are higher than overseas. Fix it!
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1: You started, "Fix it!"
Thank you for your support.......I am working to - as you say - "fix it." (see all my posts).
Corporations pay NO tax or LITTLE tax in the U.S., when the majority of their operations are here.
The difficult part of "fixing it" is the Republican congress and Blue Dog Democrats that get down on their knees and lick up the GRAVY TRAIN.
Why don't you help....This isn't an (R) vs. (D) issue but an American issue.
DeepElem90 1 year ago
@DeepElem90 You lament the situation of low effective rates, but thats a consequence of high taxes. Corps pay taxes elsewhere, little here. Obama said he wants to stop foreign tax credit. He thinks he can force corps to pay. They wont. Headquarters, factories, will accelerate moves overseas, with their jobs, US Govt will lose even more revenue dollars. The corps will import the goods into the US. Zero tax to US Gov. The "fix" is match our rates to the rest of the OECD, let them stay, pay here.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1: You stated, "You lament the low effective rates, but that's a consequence of high taxes."
WRONG AGAIN: The "Effective" tax rate is is not DEPENDENT on the "Statutory" tax rate.
NOW....Back to your post stating, "U.S. corporations paid above 1/3rd of their profits in taxes."
Still Wrong.
DeepElem90 1 year ago
@DeepElem90 I f I set up a subsidiary, so I dont have to pay the statutory rate here, pay another nation their 25% ( instead of our 35% plus the state corp tax too) and then leave the cash outside the US, what is the effective US tax rate? ZERO. If I bring the cash back, I pay the extra 10%, and the 10% is the effective tax rate in the US.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1: You stated, "I f I set up a subsidiary, I dont have to pay the statutory rate here."
YES....YES...and YES......CORRECT...You are getting it.
DeepElem90 1 year ago
@luvcheney1:L You stated, "Corps pay taxes elsewhere, little here."
WRONG. Corporations pay little taxes elsewhere as well as here. AND by HERE I mean the U.S. of A.
A January 2009 GAO report found that of the 100 largest U.S. corporations, 83 have subsidiaries in tax havens.
In the Cayman Islands, one address alone houses 18,857 corporations, very few of which have a physical presence in the islands.
Brought to you by Congressional members who spend a lot of time on their knees.
DeepElem90 1 year ago
@DeepElem90 Cayman Islands are a banking country. You state yourself there isnt a physical presence of the corps there. The US subsidiary goes and drills for oil in the north sea, pays UK 28% ( instead of 39% here), then parks the profits in the Cayman islands. Why? Because, if they bring the profit BACK to the US, they will get zapped another 11%! So, leave it out! Use it to expand operations outside the US! The only sane thing to do.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1: You stated, "You state yourself there isnt a physical presence of the corps there."
CORRECT AGAIN....You see...This isn't that hard.
DeepElem90 1 year ago
@luvcheney1:
NOW - Back to your WRONG post 4 days ago stating, "U.S. Corporations pay over 1/3rd in U.S. taxes."
As you now understand that statement is FALSE.
Can we move FORWARD?????
DeepElem90 1 year ago
@DeepElem90 First, tell me the percent of tax paid by Exxon, WalMart, United Health, all the largest in their industries. In 1999, OCED nations had avg corp tax of 32%. They are now 24%. They have had the percent of GDP paid by corps increase to be 3.4% of GDP. The US corp rate has been 35%, and the US pays only 1.8%. We both want higher % of GDP paid by corporations. High rates do the opposite.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@luvcheney1: You stated, "We both want higher % of GDP paid by corporations."
AGREED, But I disagree high rates do the opposite. OR low rates (as we have now) for that matter.
You provide a tax break / incentive to companies that invest in innovation in the U.S. Such as providing incentives for companies investing in non-carbon based technologies.
DeepElem90 1 year ago
@DeepElem90 Unless you tell me at least 2 of those corporations ACTUAL tax burden, of industry leaders, I am done with this talk. If you cant find or compute, I will help. In the future, you can figure out any corp you want. On IRS site, "SOI Tax Stats - Table 2: Returns of active corporations", I look at biggest 2800 firms, over $2.5 bill assets each, and tax on taxable income is 25%. If you add back the foreign taxes they paid, it is 33.6%. This issue is due to US corps overseas to save cash
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1: When analyzing a corporations tax obligations to the U.S. one MUST account for the way corporations are escaping those obligations. As I previously stated, one address in the Cayman Islands houses 18,857 corporations.
- For tax purposes, a company's U.S. operations will lose millions while its international businesses net millions in profit.
- This practice creates negative tax rates.
You stated, "Unless you tell me." Really luvcheney.
DeepElem90 1 year ago
@DeepElem90 Zero facts regarding taxes paid.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1: WRONG - I gave plenty of FACTS regarding taxes paid and CITED those facts.
Examples of sources and cites:
1 day ago [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Oct. 27, 2008]
2 days ago [reuters(dot)com]
2 days ago gpoaccess . gov / usbudget Historical Tables Section 7.
5 days ago [climateprogress(dot)org/2010/¬04/06/exxon-mobil]
5 days ago [David Stockman, Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan]
DeepElem90 1 year ago
@DeepElem90 Which is it with you? You cant figure out what percent of profit is taxes for WalMart, Exxon, United Health? Or, the facts dont meet your world view?
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1: Nearly two-thirds of U.S. companies and 68% of foreign corporations do not pay federal income taxes. [Government Accountability Office]
What The Top U.S. Companies Pay In Taxes [Forbes, April 1, 2010]
What's the matter luvcheney - You still smarting after Friday's lesson on "effective" rates vs. "statutory" rates?
DeepElem90 1 year ago
@DeepElem90 This wisdom from a guy who thought labor, materials, business expenses affect "statutory" rates. Tax on profit, not revenue. I told you it was from US corps making money in low tax countries. But, your Forbes article tells why. "its the tax benefits of overseas operations that is the biggest reason multinationals end up with lower tax rates". ( pay tax to low tax nations) " Those low tax nations are anywhere but the US". They earn the money where our rates dont apply. Legal, smart.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1: As you state, "U.S. Corporations paid 1.8% of GDP."
This comes during a time with the LOWEST corporate tax rates due to new tax breaks, and aggressive tax sheltering that have pushed corporate income tax receipts down to historically low levels.
In the 1950's and 60's when corporate tax rates were 50% the tax U.S. corporations were generating was a much higher % of GDP. In fact a 2.5% higher.
You state, "We both want higher % of GDP paid by corporations."
AGREED.
DeepElem90 1 year ago
@DeepElem90 Oops, sent too soon. After googling "WalMart Yahoo" click on the top from yahoo finance. You will see corp info, . Look down left side of page, go to the bottom. There you see "financials". Click on income statement. In operating income or loss heading, see 7,139.000 income tax, and 14.927,000 net income from continuing operations. Add 3 zeros, those numbers are billions.
Tax and net equal Tax about 1/3rd, or, double tax is close to after tax. Pick any nasty corp you like, learn
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1: Cont'd: In 2004, the most recent year for which data is available, U.S. multinational corporations paid about $16 billion of U.S. tax on approximately $700 billion of "FOREIGN ACTIVE EARNINGS," an effective U.S. tax rate of about 2.3%.
ONLY 2.3%. That's it.
DeepElem90 1 year ago
@luvcheney1: I didn't think was too difficult but let me try another approach to help explain.
- The Corporation of luvcheney has a statutory tax rate of 28%
BUT
- luvcheney gets to deduct children, charitable contributions, operating expenses, home ownership, etc...
THUS...When accounting for the "luvcheney corporations" credits and deductions, the "luvcheney corporation" only pays 13.6% in taxes.
The luvcheney corporation has an "EFFECTIVE" tax rate of 13.6%
DeepElem90 1 year ago
@DeepElem90 "Operating expenses" are legitimate corp deductions. You think being able to deduct the cost of steel is a tax break at an auto plant? Labor? The actual tax paid by corporations is published. It is few, and far between any corp has less than 30%. I know, I have looked at many. What is actually happening is this. WalMart pays 35%, and Exxon pays zero, because it can operate outside the US. Effective tax rate if about 17%,. You need to see what corps actually pay, its easy.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1: You stated, "It is few, and far between any corp has less than 30%."
I don't understand your above assertion. Can you clarify?
DeepElem90 1 year ago
@DeepElem90 A tax deduction would be labor, material, Office space rent or mortgage, factory space costs, etc. Those are costs. Tax credit is the issue. I went to IRS gov site, "SOI Tax Stats - Table 4: Returns of Active Corporations". In 2007, the largest corporations, those over $2.5 billion, had $92.7 Bill tax credits, of which $79.2 bill is foreign tax credit. 85% of credits is because of income outside US. If profit comes back, corps pay US rate, credited by what they paid overseas.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@luvcheney1: You stated, "A tax deduction would be labor, material, Office space rent or mortgage, factory space costs, etc."
CORRECT. AND all those deductions affect the "EFFECTIVE" tax rate.
That is exactly what I was posting yesterday when discussing effective tax rates vs. statutory tax rates. Those deductions are just one category affecting "effective" tax rates.
Corporations in the U.S. pay an avg. of just 13.4% - EFFECTIVE tax rate.
DeepElem90 1 year ago
@luvcheney1: You stated "tax deduction would be labor, material, Office space rent or mortgage, factory space costs, etc."
CORRECT,......and thank you for supporting my argument by pointing out items which affect the "Effective" tax rate.
DeepElem90 1 year ago
@luvcheney1: Corporations in 19 of the member states of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development paid 16.1% of their profits in taxes between 2000 and 2005, on average, while corporations in the United States paid just 13.4%.
The above tax rates reflect "EFFECTIVE" tax rates.
DeepElem90 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@luvcheney1: NOW....Let's go back to 4 days ago when you stated, "Most corporations pay over 1/3rd in taxes."
NO luvcheney, corporations do NOT pay over 1/3rd in taxes. Have there been enough facts cited? Enough information regarding "effective" tax rates vs. "statutory" tax rates?
DeepElem90 1 year ago
@DeepElem90 You DONT mention WHY these things happen. In your same Forbe`s article, they explain that GE`s US operations post a loss, while their overseas operations post profits. Your Forbes article states, "It only makes sense that multinationals put costs in high tax countries and profits in low tax countries". The US is a high tax country, so why would they choose to pay taxes here? US high tax rate sends corps to pay taxes elsewhere. US can get more revenue, jobs, capital by lowering tax.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1: When referring to the Forbes article and the GAO report You stated, "You DONT mention WHY these things happen."
I cited those two sources as a rebuttal to your assertion 1 week ago stating, "Most corporations pay over 1/3rd in taxes."
In context of my rebuttal I don't need to explain overseas operations, profits and losses................................................. I only need to demonstrate that most U.S. corporations do NOT pay 1/3 in taxes...............
DeepElem90 1 year ago
@DeepElem90 Watch the "slide show" that is part of Forbes article you sent, you get 25 large US corps, most ARE paying around 1/3. Do you watch your own reference? Of those that do NOT, they have previous losses. I.E. banks that lost 10 billion last year, can use 2 bill this year, next yr, next to write down the losses. This is legal, moral. Last class of exceptions is like GE. They profit out of the US, in low rate countries. That tax on profit is owed foreign govt, not US govt. I told you!
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1: You stated, "25 large US corps, most ARE paying around 1/3."
AND you stated, "MOST U.S. corporations pay over 1/3 third in federal taxes.
WRONG Again:
In fact, 82 of the BIGGEST U.S. Corporations Paid No Taxes during the Bush Years. [Citizens for Tax Justice, SEPTEMBER 22, 2004]
AND......See my previous to posts. "2/3rds of U.S. corporations do NOT pay federal income tax.
DeepElem90 1 year ago
@DeepElem90 2nd post. GE makes a lot of profit, overseas, it will pay 24% inc tax to a govt in EU. If it puts profit left in Caymans, EU revenue is untaxable income, profit untaxable too. Then here, people say they dont pay taxes! Sure they do! Just not here! Look at a financial statement. I have site from IRS, showing 2800 lg $2.5bill corps( together), its like a huge P&L statement. Want it, pick it apart with my help? I took 3 hrs to get it 95% down. I know you cant alone, but you can learn.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1: You stated, "Most Corporations pay over 1/3rd in in taxes."
You are still WRONG.
DeepElem90 1 year ago
@DeepElem90 Glad you corrected, makes a difference. Avg tax paid by US Corps with over $2.5 billion in assets is 33.5%. IRS website. Google " SOI Tax Stats - Table 2 - Returns of Active Corporations". This is what the financial statement of a corporation looks like. It is simpler than it looks. Hint. Total income tax after credits plus foreign tax credit ( tax paid to EU) divided by income subject to tax= 33.5%. This is AVG of ALL the LARGEST US corps! Thats 1/3 ! IRS. They KNOW LAW. You DONT.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@luvcheney1: You stated, "Avg tax paid by US Corps with over $2.5 billion in assets."
We are not talking about companies with assets over (X %) but ALL U.S. Companies........
Hey luvcheney...WRONG AGAIN.....
Two-thirds of U.S. companies and 68% of foreign corporations do not pay federal income taxes. [Government Accountability Office]
DeepElem90 1 year ago
@luvcheney1: You stated, "Avg tax paid by US Corps with over $2.5 billion in assets."
Wrong basis for our discussion. AGAIN: Two out of every three United States corporations paid no federal income taxes.
You stated, "They KNOW LAW. You DONT IRRELEVANT: 2/3rds of ALL U.S. Corporations do NOT pay federal taxes.
WRONG AGAIN luvcheney.
DeepElem90 1 year ago
@luvcheney1: You stated, "Avg tax paid by US Corps with over $2.5 billion in assets."
IRRELEVANT
AGAIN luvcheney, 2/3rds of U.S. corporations do NOT pay federal income tax.
Not interested in in Corporations with over $2.5 Billion for this debate..................Only FACTS. AND you are WRONG again.
DeepElem90 1 year ago