Last year Republican Rep. Paul Ryan presented a budget plan that was, according to one analysis, full of “dubious assertions, questionable assumptions and fishy figures.” But Ryan’s brand of budget austerity makes the media swoon–hence we saw coverage (FAIR Media Advisory, 4/12/11) of Ryan’s “piercing blue eyes” that dubbed him “a PowerPoint fanatic with an almost unsettling fluency in the fine print of massive budget documents.”
Ryan’s budget was never going to be adopted, but its release was widely covered across the corporate media. He was given credit for presenting a plan to reduce government deficits, even though his plan didn’t really do much of that.
At the same time, the Congressional Progressive Caucus released its People’s Budget, which raised taxes on the wealthy, slashed military spending, enacted a public option in healthcare and a Wall Street speculation tax–and unlike Ryan’s plan, actually balanced the budget. It got almost no media attention. The most prominent story may have been the attack by Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank (4/13/11), who mocked the “starry-eyed” progressives for, among other things, being poorly dressed and coming up with a name for their plan that “conveyed an unhelpful association with ‘the people’s republic’ and other socialist undertakings.”
A year later, we’re seeing the very same thing. Paul Ryan has a new budget proposal that looks similar to his last budget. As economist Dean Baker put it:
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan did a great public service when he released his budget last week. By throwing a piece of total garbage on the table and pretending it is a real budget plan, he allowed us to see who in Washington is serious about the budget and who just says things that will push their agenda.
The corporate media have rushed to cover the garbage. And yesterday the Progressive Caucus released its “Budget for All” plan. And the media reaction so far? According to my search of the Nexis news database, it’s exactly one article, by Bay Area News Group reporter Josh Richman (3/26/12).
It’s a good one, though–in that it presents the debate in a way that is almost unheard of in the rest of the press: “Two vastly different visions of how the government should spend its money were introduced in Congress this past week.”
Richman writes that “most of the national buzz” went to the Ryan plan–then goes on to describe the Progressive Caucus budget clearly:
It not only would end the Bush-era tax cuts, but also create new tax brackets for millionaires and billionaires in keeping with the “Buffett rule.” Named after multibillionaire Warren Buffett–who’s pushing the agenda–the rule posits that the nation’s richest shouldn’t pay a lower percentage of income in taxes than less-affluent Americans. It ends what critics call “corporate welfare” for fossil-fuel industries, includes public funding of election campaigns and provides more aid to homeowners facing foreclosure.
Richman adds:
Representatives of Ryan’s budget committee didn’t return emails or a phone call seeking comment on Honda’s budget plan.
The piece closes with this quote from Rep. Mike Honda, who is on the Progressive Caucus’ budget task-force: “If people knew what the choices were, I think they’d say, ‘Jesus, the progressive caucus budget looks pretty good.’ ”
Sadly, most people never will–because the media won’t report the choice in the first place.
Well the progressive plan ,or the socialist manifesto as I like to call it…. is never going to see the light of day.Even when there was a super majority of libs it had no chance.Stupid in stupid out.actually believes that taxing those who already pay 87% of all taxes at a higher level will accomplish something.It actually believes in a single payer healthcare system.It wants to cut military spending to the bone and beyond as China speeds up its military buildup.And its attacks anyone who has money to invest.As we head for what looks like a super majority of Rs, I think Paul Ryans plan has a much better chance of passing.It is a smart plan that lets America be America.No need to remake anything.Read the article “Its been a bad,terrible,horrible month for the left by Steven Hayward.Pretty good estimation of how Obama has fared.WE TOLD YOU this is about were we would be at this point with all this liberal/progressive claptrap.We will do better
Kieth O just got fired……Im laughing my ass off.Maybe he and Rosie O can do a show together.
Mucho thanks to michael e — his fact-challenged (lying) post does much more than I could do in discrediting the Ryan “die quickly” republican propaganda plan…uh, “budget”.
michael does a great job in exposing the type of authoritarian, know-nothing “thinking” that allows him to reject a plan that would work! Even establishment republicans like those I queried recently from the Peterson group and the Concord Coalition agreed that the People’s Budget WOULD work…
Chetdude
I did not miss you calling ME authoritarian!Me who wants less government control in all aspects of our lives ,being called this by YOU- who wants to expand government size and scope in ALL areas of our lives.Classic progressive slight of hand.But have you not seen we all have seen this trick before?It does not work anymore round these parts partner.
.President Obama could not sell his budget to his own side,even when it had a super majority.And the peoples plan(man does that sound like it sprung up in Russia)is even further to the left.I suppose a super majority of progressives or socialists might get it passed.Look the fact is- is the Senate will probably fall to the Rs this time around.If Mitt takes the presidency from the hapless Obama ,you may get to debate Ryans plan in real time.Hopefully the right will let the public in on that debate.No midnight arm twisting of politicians behind the backs of voters(who would have it shoved down their throats if Pelosi had her way) as in the healthcare fiasco.
But man am I interested in what members of the Peterson group or the Concord Coalition are ready to rubber stamp the peoples budget.Please give the identities of these men.Im very interested in speaking to them to understand their point of view.
Like most Repukes, Michael e is long on perjorative rhetoric and short on facts. Here is what the Ryan Budget will do:
Ryan’s budget cuts would cost jobs
Posted March 21, 2012 at 11:53 am by Ethan Pollack
• Ethan Pollack
All budget proposals should be evaluated first and foremost by how they address the most important problems facing the nation. Today that problem is joblessness. Unemployment is still elevated at 8.3 percent, the highest in a generation, while the average duration of unemployment is still at peak levels (about 40 weeks). Poverty rates for young children (under the age of 6) are at their highest recorded levels, while the number of households in extreme poverty (earning incomes of less than $2 per day) has doubled since the mid-1990s. Although the economy has added 735,000 jobs in the last three months, even at this rate it would still take five years before the labor market fully recovered. In short, any policy that fails to address job creation—or at least fails to extend the economic provisions that we’ve already put in place—should be rejected.
Paul Ryan’s latest budget doesn’t just fail to address job creation, it aggressively slows job growth. Against a current policy baseline, the budget cuts discretionary programs by about $120 billion over the next two years and mandatory programs by $284 billion, sucking demand out of the economy when it most needs it and leading to job loss. Using a standard macroeconomic model that is consistent with that used by private- and public-sector forecasters, the shock to aggregate demand from near-term spending cuts would result in roughly 1.3 million jobs lost in 2013 and 2.8 million jobs lost in 2014, or 4.1 million jobs through 2014.*
Of course, this leaves out taxes. Ryan’s proposal involves cutting taxes on corporations, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, maintaining the Bush tax cuts and preferential rates on capital gains and dividends, and consolidating the rate structure into two brackets, 10 percent and 25 percent. He says he’ll pay for these tax cuts (excluding the Bush tax cuts, which are already currently in effect) by eliminating tax expenditures, so it won’t result in revenue loss.
Now, temporary tax cuts can create jobs because they pump more money into the economy and boost consumer and business spending. The payroll tax holiday is one such example. But the fact that Ryan’s tax proposal won’t change net revenue levels in the near-term means that its economic effects will be minimal – and it will certainly not materially offset the job declines stemming from spending cuts. Worse, the composition of Ryan’s tax-shift means that it will likely result in a small job loss because it shifts the tax burden from high-earners to middle-class households. Low-income households will also face higher taxes because Ryan would allow certain tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, and the American Opportunity Tax Credit to fall from their current levels. Redistributing money away from people who spend more of each marginal dollar of disposable income (low- and moderate-income households) to those with much higher savings rates (high-income households) is broadly recognized as leading to a decline in aggregate demand.
Note: This post was revised as of 3 p.m. ET March 21 to include mandatory cuts and to measure against a CBO current policy baseline rather than President Obama’s Budget. The revised version also corrects a spreadsheet error.
*2-year figure in job-years
Ryan’s plan is topsy-turvy from what’s needed to help the average American, and everyone knows it, including himself. So why pitch it? Keeps the base in shape by giving it something to howl about and keeps the center of discussion close to where the oligarchy needs it to be and away from anything that would help the country at large.
On a separate note, I have a theory about obnoxious right wingers: they got pushed around on the schoolyard, so now that they’re adults and can get away with it, they’re compensating by being abrasive blowhards. Also explains why they lack empathy for others.
Larry your whole premise is nonsense, idiocy,and insanity rolled into one.Let me be plain.This government spent more money than all the presidents en total from Washington to Bush in 18 months and did not create one job.The government does not create jobs at all.Have we not proven that for all time? Ryans bill would cut this stupid idea, and return job creation to the private sector.By cutting their burdens.I see it as you had your say. and spent all of Gods money and failed completely.Not one job CREATED.No you look at the ball moving the other way and you scream like a scolded cat.
And Dean…..I would bet that that is exactly what you DO believe.Maybe someday you will Know enough to believe things coming from….. a more thoughtful perspective.
“This government spent more money than all the presidents en total from Washington to Bush in 18 months.”
False. President Obama’s 3 FY budgets are about equal to the last 4 FY budgets under President G.W. Bush, if the “emergency” war appropriations aren’t included. If they’re included, then during Obama’s first three years Congress spent about 10% more than Bush’s last three years; $11 trillion to $10 trillion.
Might want to get your facts straight.
Thaks for that, P. Ness. But you’re talking to the wall of walls, you know. There’s walls, there’s huge, impenetrable walls, and then there’s michael e. Our wall.
Budget????Did you say budget?????Oh you mean that ittie bittie bit of money that projects spending and funding for the coming year(s).No no no there is so much ,soooooooo much more as you well know.Im not talking about the little hill….Im talking about the mountains spent,and printed,and borrowed and lets face it….dramatically under reported.Stimulus….. son of stim….son of a son of stim ,call it what you will. More money than all the presidents added up en total from the beginning till Bush in just 18 months..My prayer has always been that Obama never learn what number comes after a trillion.Oh and by the way …….Bushes involvement in Tarp and the rest of it was horrible as well.Spending into oblivion tra la la la la.
oh and by the way it is Bushes eight years equals Obamas three as far as I have read it.
Poor Michael e, Like most right-wing GOPers, he lacks the capacity to think clearly. And ironically, like all right-wingers: Suffers selective amnesia (elephant has good memory) as it relates to the hellish consequences of a George Bush II presidency. Two UNFUNDED wars, (one that was just made up for the apparent fun of it) the absurd tax cut to the wealthy (when no rich guys even asked for one), not to mention ignoring the four dire warnings of impending attack he IGNORED, he more or less ‘invited 911 to happen’, which brought about the creation of the largest expansion of government in 50 years (Homeland Security) and the several egregious usurpations of the constitution. The Medicare prescription drug plan minus a ‘common sense provision’ to allow the government authority to negotiate discounts for a gigantic program. You are aware it was John Mc Cain’s would be ‘key economic advisor’ that duped Democrats and Clinton to repeal Glass/Steagall which less than ten years later wrought financial calamity to the world banking system. Then the great party of fiscal conservatism screams like banchees when the Democrats attempt to fill the potholes of the Wall Street plunder boys to stanch the bleeding from that hideous cancer. If this is what passes for smart fiscal policy with you and your brethren I wouldn’t trust you addlepates to count back change of a dollar for the purchase of a pack of gum. Now go back to masturbating over FOX RUSE and RUSH.
The 8 Bush budgets combined = approx. $20 trillion….
The three Obama budgets = $11 trillion.
Dan I believe that every president(maybe not Woodrow Wilson)has felt to his very core that America is the solution to many of the world problems.I believe Obama feels it is the cause.He is running on the idea that the American ideal has failed and needs to be remade.Now that is fine for many jobs.But not for the Presidency.Now you speak of Bush.Bush who stepped in the old pile every time he moved away from conservatism.Bush who was no conservative.I could go on all day about mistakes Bush made.And it would stick.Not the nonsense you are shoveling.But real mistakes.Not your delusions.Yeah he caused 911.Caused the sub prime failure.Went to war for a hoot.Oh and is a war criminal to boot right?Look I had no problem with you hurling this crap when he was in office.It was water off a ducks back.He pounded sand up your asses with a wooden mallet and went fishing.But now what a waste of time to still be bleating this shit.Bush has got to live with his failures.That is fair as can be.But don’t give Obama a pass as you agree to that.Obama has been a monumental disaster in almost every sense.He has not turned over a winning card to date.Now he will have to answer and pay the price for that.You say you would not trust we tea party types to make change.Well well well….yet you would trust a man who spends as fast as he can print and borrow and steal the money for his whimseys.He is a gambler who has never won.Yet you creatons follow him like lemmings off a cliff.Take a look at how much of YOUR money he has invested in Green companies and what your return has been.Hundreds of millions without anything but failure.That is your guru revealed.But as always you have an answer……Lets go rob more from those crazy tea party types stupid enough to of done a lot of things right ,and realized the American dream.The only way to make money in America right?
P.Ness read the figures you just printed.Even your math shows a huge increase in Obamas budgets.
so, to review:
the ryan budget….helps the 1%, brings the pain to everyone else, shreds the safety net, ends social security, increases the defense budget and doesn’t decrease the deficit.
the people’s budget taxes the 1%, brings help to the middle class and the poor, shores up the safety net, saves social security, decreases the defense budget and cuts the deficit.
why be surprised when the corporate press covers the one that aligns with their interests and ignores the one that doesn’t?
also want to note this comment from charles pierce that’s germane to the fair post:
“Paul Ryan’s career as a ‘budget guru’ is as much a miracle of media smoke-and-mirrors as was Newt Gingrich’s long career as a ‘Man Of Ideas,’ both of them pure products of a culture of media timidity that is unable to confront the fact that one of our two major political parties has gone barking mad. “
Woodward and B…..Your judgement of how these two sides of the coin would work in action is bizarre.Can’t see much to agree with you on.Doubt Mr ryan would agree with anything you wrote.And those who penned the peoples budget would laugh(yet be thankful for)how you totally missed their thinly veiled goals.Just heard some good news for your side though.Corporate taxes in this country are now 39.2 %.The highest in the world.Especially since Japan has cut her taxes down to 36.4.On the other hand…how are you going to convince those paying the highest taxes on earth that they are not paying their fair share?I know i know same answer to every question TAX THE RICH TAX THE RICH BRAH … POLLY WANTS A CRACKER!!
according to a february wall street journal study of congressional budget office numbers, u.s. corporations paid an effective rate of 12.1% in fiscal year 2011, the lowest in at least 40 years, despite corporate profits rebounding to their pre-Great Recession heights. The U.S. both taxes its corporations less and raises less in revenue from corporate taxes than its foreign competitors.
Politico’s Ben White also pointed out that Japan has a value added tax, so it isn’t actually true that the U.S. now has the highest corporate tax rate. As billionaire investor Warren Buffett has said, “it is a myth” that U.S. corporate taxes are high. “
http://business.time.com/2012/02/06/the-corporate-tax-rate-is-at-its-lowest-in-decades-is-big-business-paying-its-fair-share/
Thanks, W-B. I noticed that the President hammered Ryan’s budget the other day in a speech, and Ryan didn’t dispute a single thing the President said about his bad budget. The Nincompoop reverted to form and, acting like a boy who’s just gotten scolded for kicking a couple of girls, said the mean old Pres was trying to divide America. I think Ryan really believes in the Libertarian utopian fantasy. He knows that all working and middle-class folks will suffer under his plan, but they must take the bad mendicine, because once the even richer super-rich start doin’ their job-creatin’ magik (with their new massive tax breaks, paid for by the afore-mentioned working slobs), the libertarian paradise will reveal itself to us all: no government, no regulations, no nothing to get in a man’s way as he strives to compete and succeed in post-democratic America.
So: Heap the scorn and ridicule and contempt on the Nincompoop until he just starts crying, and can’t stop, and so has to be taken to a rubber room, where the little freak can bounce around and off the walls to his heart’s content.
Yeah Tim Ryan did answer that back yesterday.At length.It was once long sigh saying”there you go again”.He was amazed at the total aplomb and lets face it lies that this president trys to shovel.You still believe Obama because lets face it you somehow found the stupid down deep, to actually vote for the guy.He should of been a teacher at some school somewhere teaching activist law to be used to change the way government works.Something he is qualified for.
Woodward I always love when the figure comes out from the powers that be about something like the corporate tax rate and you try to argue every point(with them) proving that in some ways we still may be number two .How about you pay my tax bill and try to convince yourself that people like me really don’t pay their fair share .It would turn your hair white.
the discussion is corporate tax rates not individual tax rates.
and in 2011 the actual corporate tax rate based on payments to the governnment was 12.1 %…a number far lower than most other industrialized countries.
“We are here from the government and we are here to help”Reagan said they are the most frightening words one could imagine.Had to throw that in.What a great wise man he was.
Woodward i suppose I must ask ,what do you mean by the “actual”tax rate….. As opposed to the” actual “Japanese tax rate?Are you talking about the breaks any corporation who is a friend of Obamas might hope to get?Or are you talking about entirely legal ,deferred situations that the government has created to spur investment and growth?Beyond that you can not tell me you are standing up to inform the house and Senate that corporate tax rates are 12%.When you add the incidental corp tax rates(that which addresses every action , product, and cost absorbed by said corporation)you would see the actual amount of taxed association in running that corporation is far far higher than 39%.We could play that game all day long.Bottom line is that the bottom line tax rate is numero uno in the world.Cut it however you will.You will never hear Obama say corporate tax rates are 12%!
How did you like Obamas speech yesterday saying if “we”(the right) get our way ,all the horrific things that would befall our civilization?It was such a mass of falsehoods,distortions and lies that really one finds it hard to address it.It would take years.It may go down as one of thee most astounding speeches ever.I have listened to it a few times and still cant believe this was written for him and put on the prompter.It is so stupid it MUST be off the cuff.Is this what we are to expect from this race?Look he should stand or fall on his record…. period.He really needs to stop sounding like a fruitcake.You would think trying to threaten the supreme court, and stand over them in imperious authority- on their ability to dictate constitutional law would be enough for any dunce.Oh almost forgot….and what the fuck is social Darwinism?
Demagoguery….Desperation.Beneath the office of the presidency.This man is really worse every day.
“Woodward i suppose I must ask ,what do you mean by the “actual”tax rate…”
**sigh** what companies actually pay, of course…and the actual tax rate [the average of what every corporation paid] in 2011 was 12%. some pay more, some pay less…
here’s data from a study covering 2008-2010:
The average effective tax rate, what the companies really paid after government subsidies and tax breaks were taken into account, was only 18.5%, less than half the statutory rate. Fully a quarter of the 280 companies paid under 10%.
DuPont and Monsanto both produce chemicals. But over the 2008-10 period, Monsanto paid 22 percent of its profits in U.S. corporate income taxes, while DuPont actually paid a negative tax rate of –3.4 percent.
Department store chain Macy’s paid a three-year rate of 12.1 percent, while competing chain Nordstrom’s paid 37.1 percent.
In computer technology, Hewlett-Packard paid 3.7 of its three-year U.S. profits in federal income taxes, while Texas Instruments paid 33.5 percent.
FedEx paid 0.9 percent over three years, while its competitor United Parcel Service paid 24.1 percent.
Financial services received the largest share of all federal tax subsidies over the last three years. More than half the tax subsidies for companies in the study went to four industries: financial services, utilities, telecommunications, and oil, gas & pipelines.
—————
if i was standing up “to inform the house and Senate what rate corporations paid” in 2011 i would say that “the effective corporate tax rate was 12% according to numbers from the congressional budget office.”
the 35% is, of course, the stated rate…but few pay it.
@TimN
yes, ryan believes in ayn rand’s fantasy
in 2005 he told a group honoring rand in washington dc “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand.”Â
and erza klein agrees with you about paul ryan’s substance free response to obama’s speech….
All in all, Ryan’s response is an energetic argument on behalf of his policies. But it’s not really an argument over where his budget does and doesn’t spend money. The closest he gets to actually arguing with the president’s numbers is saying that his cuts won’t be split evenly across categories — they will be apportioned in some yet-to-be-determined fashion. And that’s true, but we can’t refrain from discussing the potential impact of a budget until after it’s been implemented.
So in today’s Wonkbook, when I wrote, “Ryan didn’t contest any of it. He didn’t say his budget doesn’t focus its cuts on programs for the poor, or non-defense discretionary spending. His statement, which you can read in full here, lamented Obama’s “empty promises” and efforts to “divide Americans.” But it didn’t argue that the president got Ryan’s numbers wrong. And that’s because he didn’t: The numbers are there for everyone to see. The same goes for Obama’s budget, which Republicans have often blasted for raising taxes on the rich and doing too little on the deficit,” I was wrong.
Ryan did contest the president’s speech. But the rest of that paragraph is basically right. The two parties have clear and contrasting fiscal visions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/ryans-full-response-to-obama/2012/04/04/gIQAW2BIvS_blog.html
You keep saying” really” paid as if that money never leaves the companies bank account.Let me explain how this works for you in simplistic terms.You have to pay 50 thou in taxes to the government.The government also offers you plan B.You can take that money and invest it into a plan of their choosing.For their benefit.And hell they might even allow you some coin flowing back on the flip side.That is a government loop hole.Now you can say that the corporation got of paying that 50 thou….and that would be a lie.
The guy behind face book will have a salary this year of one dollar.He lives off the investments that the government has agreed is to their benefit.Now the real flip side of that is when he moves face book ownership he will pay 28 million in taxes.And then when he croaks 50% off the top of whats left.Warren Buffets secretary may pay a higher percentage of her weekly wage…..But Id wager there will be no flip side like the one I just envisioned for her.
And what do you mean the STATED rate is 35%(actually 39.3%) but everyone ignores that?I got the feeling you never met my IRS agent.His name is Rocko.He will break your knees and your wifes for one price. Ignoring the IRS….Yeah tell me another fairy tale.
P.s Do you think the average Democrat believes this fuzzy math you are slinging?I sometimes wonder if they even believe that the top 10% pay almost all the Federal taxes while 50% pay nothing.We are taxed coming and going,living and dying.And all the left can say to those paying the most is we want more.I heard Obama in his speech the other day say every American should have safety and security.Translation is bigger government and less freedom.The constitution does not promise government provided redistribution so every person has safety and security.Look to Cuba.The liberal mecca.No freedom ……but true equality.EVERYONE IS POOR!!!!This is truly Obamas dream land.
“You keep saying ‘ really’ paid as if that money never leaves the companies bank account.”
no, that money was paid to the government…what would make you possibly think i think otherwise?
“And what do you mean the STATED rate is 35%(actually 39.3%) but everyone ignores that?”
i didn’t write that, i wrote “the 35% is, of course, the stated rate…but few pay it.”
the federal tax rate, called the “nominal” rate is 35% . the 39.2% figure comes from adding on the average state tax….however few companies pay that rate, or anything close.
from us news
Big companies enjoy a huge buffet of credits, shelters, deductions, and other preferences that reduce their real rate to an average of 13 percent. Many profitable companies pay no federal income tax at all. Regardless of our nominal rate, our real corporate tax rate is among the lowest.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/04/04/the-truth-about-corporate-tax-rates
and look at these rates from my previous comment:
Monsanto paid 22%
DuPont paid a negative tax rate of –3.4 percent.
Macy’s paid 12.1%
Hewlett-Packard paid 3.7%
Texas Instruments paid 33.5%
FedEx paid 0.9%
United Parcel Service paid 24.1%
this isn’t ” fuzzy math” it’s reality
plus, you keep going back to the rate you’re paying…we’re not talking individual rates, but corporate rates.
W and B the credits deductions ,shelters and such are earned under the laws set down BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR the government.That is what you dont get.As I said if the government allows your to send your money here or there for what they consider the greater good as opposed to giving it to them- the corps are still doing what they are told.You seem to see that as robbery.Yet you dont accept that corporations pay a tax on everything they do, putting the taxed rate of everything they deal with- at closer to 60%!You see anything that does not move from a personal check into government coffers as “not being taxed”.Look if my tax bill this year is 100k but the government says I can invest that into one of their bridges they are building that does not mean my tax bill is zero percent.You seem to think that is exactly what it means.This is the liberal lie that makes anyone who actually owns a company have blood shooting out of their eyes.Buffet is being torn to pieces for selling this load of crap.Of course he understands its crap.He is in collusion trying to sell it to the least educated and most simple minded of people.As ……..he fights the iRS tooth and nail NOT to pay taxes he feels are unfair to him.Gimme a break.To actually say the words that WE have the lowest corporate taxes in the world is a lie and an abomination.This time you wont get away with it.Why in the hell do you think We in this country are having such troubles competing?Are you seeing it all as laziness.Grafting from the top.Again Pa lease
of course i understand that the 14% actual rate is a result of tax breaks written into the tax code by congress. whatever makes you think i wouldn’t know that…
“if the government allows your to send your money here or there for what they consider the greater good as opposed to giving it to them.”
can you give me an example of this happening…
“Look if my tax bill this year is 100k but the government says I can invest that into one of their bridges they are building that does not mean my tax bill is zero percent.You seem to think that is exactly what it means.”
a. that wouldn’t happen
b. no, i wouldn’t think your tax rate was zero. you’re still transferring money to the government for a government infrastructure project. how is that not a tax?
ps
an updated report from citizens for tax justice and the institute on taxation and economic policy found 26 large corporations paid less than a zero percent tax rate between 2008 and 2010, and that a broader group of fortune 500 companies paid roughly half the statutory [nominal] 35 percent corporate tax rate.
ge, boeing, verizon, duke energy and more than 20 other companies owed no net federal income taxes for that period.
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/220649-report-26-top-corporations-paid-subzero-tax-rate
“To actually say the words that WE have the lowest corporate taxes in the world is a lie and an abomination.This time you wont get away with it.Why in the hell do you think We in this country are having such troubles competing? Are you seeing it all as laziness.Grafting from the top.Again Pa lease.”
i never said we have the lowest corporate taxes in the world…all i’ve said is that the 35% nominal rate isn’t paid by large numbers of us companies and the articles i’ve posted links to back that up.
i’ve also never suggested we aren’t competitive because we’re lazy or because are taxes are low….i’ve never discussed competitiveness at all.
the number one reason our manufacturing base has downsized is because of labor costs. u.s. companies would rather pay less to have stuff made in china, and u.s. retailers would rather pay less to buy stuff made in china to resell.
another thing that hurts u.s. competitiveness….our companies pay for some to all of their employees health care. no company in europe or asia has to do that.