Taxes are just another cost of doing business. They use roads,water property that could have other uses. They do owe something to the community that they are in. If they paid no taxes communities would chase them away.
Do you just make this stuff up? In 2006, corporations paid 354 billion dollars in income tax - more than double what they paid in 2003.
The increase in corporate income tax collections is responsible for more than 3/4 of the gains in overall tax revenue since 2003.
Source: Congressional Budget Office.
As for job creation, it seems almost brazen to make that claim when the jobless rate is near historic lows. 8.2 million new jobs have been created in the U.S. since 2003. Most of those jobs were created by corporations.
But in exchange for prices that are 30% higher, you have 30% more income to spend, because the hidden and visible costs of income tax are removed. The point of iniatives like the FairTax is to be revenue-neutral, not raise prices willy-nilly.
smiling bandit:
This is darn near the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.
As long as they’re busy screwing each other, I’m not worried. I conceded that I had a temporary fit of madness when I wrote that particular line.
However, if they actually had the kind of power often ascribed to them, they’d have gotten rid of corproate taxes long ago. Politicians generally blow with the winds of public favor: if they think they can get enough money or favors to cover any loss of public confidence they may have on an issue, they’ll do it, but not otherwise.
The thing about corporate welfare is that one man’s welfare is another man’s social policy. Many of the subsidies and tax breaks that corporations get were put in place by people trying to modify behaviour - tax breaks for making certain products, or for making ‘green’ factories or making ethanol, or for locating a factory or office in a district it otherwise wouldn’t choose, or whatever.
Often, it’s not the corporations that ask for this stuff. It’s the public. And just as often it comes from the left as from the right. People complain about pollution, a politician creates a tax break for installing scrubbers on smokestacks. Companies take advantage of the tax break, and then two years later the sample people who lobbied for the tax break complain about corporate welfare.
Of course, there’s plenty of the other kind as well, where agents of various industries directly lobby the government for subsidies and tax breaks. Big Agri-Business plays this game extremely well.
Have you no shame. The jobs are being created by small businesses. That has been stated over and over. Everyday there is a new story of a corporation letting a few thousand workers go.
I contend this admin does worse job of reporting unemployment than all the previous ones. They all are guilty of fudging the numbers. These guys care less about the truth tham any others in my life.
Ant repubs notice the home value and foreclosure problem. Is the huge bankruptcy rate ,which was made more difficult caused any resonance. There are dangerous problems in the economy which of course do not threaten the well to do . They are having a free ride.
Cite, please. Considering that Wal-Mart alone is responsible for about 5% of the jobs created since 2003, it should be a pretty good cite.
And I take it you recant your claim that corporations don’t pay taxes?
And since you are using ‘small business’ as the opposite of ‘corporation’, I assume you mean sole proprietorships and partnerships?
Or do you even have the foggiest notion of what you’re talking about?
Do you know what else has been stated over and over? That Elvis is still alive, there’s a Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot roams the mountains, and little green men visit earth. How often a wrong assertion is stated is irrelevant.
Right. Because factory closings and layoffs make the news. When a company expands and hires 50 new people here, 30 there, 20 over there, it doesn’t. This is yet another reason why anecdotal evidence is really not something you should be staking your reputation on.
Do you have a cite showing that the way in which unemployment is reported now is substantially different than it was under Clinton?
Wo cares about mass layoffs? Do you think it makes people feel better to be laid off one by one? Does anyboyd bother to consider that small business simply have fewer people to layoff in the first place? :rolleyes:
Read the question that was being answered.
I did read it and it still makes no sense. It’s a mad focus on the big stories. But so what? People usually get hired in small groups or singly and tend to get fired in groups, as this division or that group gets into trouble. But that really makes no diference to the economy as a whole. It can be a big impact on a small town, but why, exactly, should the federal government care?
The question was (paraphrase) “are employment statistics being reported differently by this versus the previous administration”. The answer was “yes”. The layoffs statistic is an example. Nobody asked if you cared.
If you want to be picky, the question was whether or not we should lower the corporate tax rate.
The mass layoffs number is not included in the official unemployment statistics, because the employees laid off are already counted. Unemployment statistics are based on international standards so that different countries can be compared.
Tracking and reporting mass layoffs was just a way to solidify the blue-collar vote. As a statistical indicator, it’s not a very good one. A company can fail and have mass layoffs in a period of high employment and job growth, and you can have sluggish periods in which there is no growth but no mass layoffs because the effects are felt diffusely through the economy. They don’t mean anything, other than as an emotional device.
The real question (apologies to the OP for this hijack) that is being asked, that anyone should care about, is the rate of unemployment statistic reported differently in this administration versus previous administration? The answer to that is “no.” Economists do not like playing around with their statistics. GDP, interest rates, inflation, unemployment, the key economic indicators, etc., are all reported the same with minimal differences, if any. No one cares about the mass layoff statistic. Economically speaking, it is of little value, except in small towns. It’s only news if it happens to a corporation because it gives investors something to consider. For the general health of the economy, a lay off statistic is meaningless in the face of the unemployment statistic.
Sam: you asked for a cite that showed the reporting to be different for this administration vs the previous one. I’ve provided such a cite.
Now you’re waving this away as not being an important statistic. Nice.
Having said that, mazinger_z is right, this is a hijack, so I’ll desist.
No, that’s a fair point. By the wording of my question, you did in fact show it to be in error.
I’m guilty of giving the stock answer to people who claim that the official unemployment numbers are rigged politically. But that wasn’t what I asked and what you responded to.
Well, geez, you don’t have to be so nice about it. Thanks. 