Here's a link to an article from today's Wall Street Journal reporting that the corporate tax rate is the lowest that it's been in 40 years--about half of what it was when the U.S. economy was enjoying some of it's most vibrant growth years.

Tax Break Pushes Corporate Taxes to Just 12.1% of Profits, Lowest Level in 40 Years - WSJ.com

So the corporations seem to be doing fine. The wealthiest Americans are paying the lowest tax rates in decades. And we all know that going on 60% of all Americans are paying no income tax at all!

The standard mantra against raising the taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations is that "taxing the job creators will be bad for the economy". But like the 30-second ad on MSNBC asks--tax rates are at their lowest, so where are the jobs?

I'll make two observations...

• Keeping revenues paid to the government at the lowest rate in decades is as much a reason for our annual deficits and the growth of our national debt as spending.

• And, it looks to me like the lobbyists hired to protect the interests of the rich and the corporations are being quite effective.

What about us???

How refreshing. More real, fundamental facts.

How can the tea party and other Republican fiscal conservatives ignore this?

Or is it as McConnell and Gingrich have said. That they would rather see the President (and his proposals to remedy this) "fail".

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Here's a link to an article from today's Wall Street Journal reporting that the corporate tax rate is the lowest that it's been in 40 years--about half of what it was when the U.S. economy was enjoying some of it's most vibrant growth years.

Tax Break Pushes Corporate Taxes to Just 12.1% of Profits, Lowest Level in 40 Years - WSJ.com

So the corporations seem to be doing fine. The wealthiest Americans are paying the lowest tax rates in decades. And we all know that going on 60% of all Americans are paying no income tax at all!

The standard mantra against raising the taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations is that "taxing the job creators will be bad for the economy". But like the 30-second ad on MSNBC asks--tax rates are at their lowest, so where are the jobs?

I'll make two observations...

• Keeping revenues paid to the government at the lowest rate in decades is as much a reason for our annual deficits and the growth of our national debt as spending.

• And, it looks to me like the lobbyists hired to protect the interests of the rich and the corporations are being quite effective.

What about us???

Thank you for this.....

Well said!

VK, you have to be a subscriber to read the article. I'm not as wealthy as you, I can't afford the subscription. lol

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

VK, you have to be a subscriber to read the article. I'm not as wealthy as you, I can't afford the subscription. lol

Sorry, BK. I didn't realize that WSJ articles required a subscription.

The bottom line of the article is...

• Corporate tax receipts as a share of profits are at their lowest level in at least 40 years.

• Total corporate federal taxes paid fell to 12.1% of profits in 2011 according to the Congressional Budget Office.

• Corporate tax receipts are at the lowest level since 1972, less than half the 25.6% companies paid on average from 1987 to 2008.

• As the result, the CBO raised its projection for the government's 2012 budget deficit from $973 billion to close to $1.2 trillion, in part because of low corporate tax receipts.

But the GOP continues to say that the U.S. has some of the highest business tax rates among all the developed counties and needs even further cuts to business taxes. They don't point out that after the myriad of tax breaks available to U.S. companies as the result of the efforts of a variety of lobbyists, companies don't actually pay anywhere close to the published corporate income tax rate. And this at the same time that the House of Representatives, currently controlled by that same political party, has made no move whatsoever to cut government spending and actually begin to move towards a balanced federal budget.

thanks VK.....just wondering where are the naysayers...oh yea still on the Georgia thing.

Originally Posted by waynet

thanks VK.....just wondering where are the naysayers...oh yea still on the Georgia thing.

According to Alternet there are 37 giant corporations paying $0 taxes and according to the Huffington Post 46% of American tax payers also pay $0 in taxes. Both of these organizations are definitely liberal leaning. I won't try to give you an analysis of this because you probably would accept it right or wrong because it wouldn't fit into... ah, let's just say you wouldn't believe me!

So as to the "what about us" question. What makes you think that most of us, right or left on this forum don't fall into that "what about us" category? We're not the big corporations; most if not all of us are not the rich who can take advantage of loop holes that can result in $0 taxes and we're not the poor that live on government entitlement handouts and don't have to contribute a nickel to support those entitlement hand outs like we do.

So it sounds to me like most or all of us are in the same boat... and that's why you're not seeing most of us so-called naysayers.

It's a travesty that small business owners, the backbone of the nation and jobs, are lumped together WITH the largest corporations whenever there is talk about "the rich" "not paying their fair share". Never do democrats make a distinction between guys like Buffet and the small businessman, owner/operator.

Originally Posted by ilovetv

It's a travesty that small business owners, the backbone of the nation and jobs, are lumped together WITH the largest corporations whenever there is talk about "the rich" "not paying their fair share". Never do democrats make a distinction between guys like Buffet and the small businessman, owner/operator.

My guess is that if an analysis of taxes paid by small business owners were separated out from the larger corporations in the country, it would make the argument for broad-based tax reform even more compelling.

A few things included in what "broad based tax reform" means to me is...

• Eliminate all the special deductions and federal programs that permit many, many large companies to escape paying any federal taxes whatsoever.

• Maybe reduce the corporate income tax rates, but assure that all corporations pay that rate in income taxes. (This might be a good place to install a business flat tax or a VAT tax.)

• Reduce the tax rates for small business owners (if they're not already incorporated) to the same rate schedule as larger companies. Such rates would likely be lower than the personal income tax rates they pay now.

• Tax U.S. corporations on profits they make outside the U.S. Some companies might leave the U.S. altogether, but most would find it more economical, given the new taxes on foreign earnings, to invest and create jobs here in the U.S.

• Assure that all employed Americans pay some amount of income tax. To have a tax code with so many loopholes, programs and minimums that permit over half the people emplopyed in the U.S. from paying any taxes whatsoefer is ridiculous!

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

How refreshing. More real, fundamental facts.

How can the tea party and other Republican fiscal conservatives ignore this?

Or is it as McConnell and Gingrich have said. That they would rather see the President (and his proposals to remedy this) "fail".

They can ignore it easily because you can't see the light of day if you have your head up you ass!

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

My guess is that if an analysis of taxes paid by small business owners were separated out from the larger corporations in the country, it would make the argument for broad-based tax reform even more compelling.

A few things included in what "broad based tax reform" means to me is...

• Eliminate all the special deductions and federal programs that permit many, many large companies to escape paying any federal taxes whatsoever.

• Maybe reduce the corporate income tax rates, but assure that all corporations pay that rate in income taxes. (This might be a good place to install a business flat tax or a VAT tax.)

• Reduce the tax rates for small business owners (if they're not already incorporated) to the same rate schedule as larger companies. Such rates would likely be lower than the personal income tax rates they pay now.

• Tax U.S. corporations on profits they make outside the U.S. Some companies might leave the U.S. altogether, but most would find it more economical, given the new taxes on foreign earnings, to invest and create jobs here in the U.S.

• Assure that all employed Americans pay some amount of income tax. To have a tax code with so many loopholes, programs and minimums that permit over half the people emplopyed in the U.S. from paying any taxes whatsoefer is ridiculous!

Darn that pesky little pledge that more than half of Congress, and more than a few Senators, signed vowing to the American People that they would not raise taxes, or cut deductions without reciprocal tax cuts to offset them dollar for dollar. Imagine!!; Congressmen keeping their word; darn them all.

Why don't the Democrat Congressmen just come out and say, "I'm trying to raise your taxes, but the Republicans won't let me"; instead we hear about "tax reform", and compromise. "Compromise" meaning, Republicans allow taxes to be raised.

It did wonders for the first President Bush to break his pledge, didn't it?

All the Republican candidates for President have signed this pledge. Wait; only John Huntsman didn't. I wonder why he was never able to gain any traction?

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Darn that pesky little pledge that more than half of Congress, and more than a few Senators, signed vowing to the American People that they would not raise taxes, or cut deductions without reciprocal tax cuts to offset them dollar for dollar. Imagine!!; Congressmen keeping their word; darn them all.

Why don't the Democrat Congressmen just come out and say, "I'm trying to raise your taxes, but the Republicans won't let me"; instead we hear about "tax reform", and compromise. "Compromise" meaning, Republicans allow taxes to be raised.

It did wonders for the first President Bush to break his pledge, didn't it?

All the Republican candidates for President have signed this pledge. Wait; only John Huntsman didn't. I wonder why he was never able to gain any traction?

Richie, the ultimate solution to our fiscal problem will require massive cuts to federal spending, including big changes to the entitlement programs we all think we're entitled to, as well as pretty signifiant increases in tax revenues. The arithmetic simply doesn't work any other way. I'll again suggest that you actually do the arithmetic and see for yourself. The only real question at the end of the road is who is going to pay the increased taxes?

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Richie, the ultimate solution to our fiscal problem will require massive cuts to federal spending, including big changes to the entitlement programs we all think we're entitled to, as well as pretty signifiant increases in tax revenues. The arithmetic simply doesn't work any other way. I'll again suggest that you actually do the arithmetic and see for yourself. The only real question at the end of the road is who is going to pay the increased taxes?

There are tons of spending cuts that can be made, and more than a couple of "more trouble than they're worth" government agencies that can be eliminated, with their budgets, before we need to talk about "tax reform", or "revenue enhancements" or whatever you want to call tax increases, at this moment.

I would demand these spending cuts and agency elimination if I were in Congress before I would even entertain any discussion of tax increases; although I wouldn't be persuaded with talk. Real definite definable permanent cuts and "top down" elimination of government agencies and departments.

Then, you may talk to me about tax increases. (but don't get your hopes up)

Richie: Would you care to offer some of the areas in which you'd cut?

I mean, we all have our pet projects that we like - and our "hit list" of stuff we'd like to get rid of. But unless you hit the BIG guys (Defense, Social Security, Medicare) as well as the little guys (Foreign Aid, Amtrak, etc), you're just not going to get enough blood out of the stone.

Personally, I think cuts to the Big Guys are more palatable if *everyone* is getting cut. *Shared* sacrifice is something that should be able to pass more easily than a bill which would provide so much noise along the lines of "How come (fill in the blank) is getting a free pass?"