Skip to main content

That’s right. Yesterday we learned about this from slinkerwink’s great diary that explained the sad details of Obama’s Jobs Council headed by General Electric Executive Jeffrey Immelt and its recommendations. There are a lot of misconceptions about how this one supposedly “isn’t as bad as we think." WRONG.

On Corporate Tax Reform

The panel calls for lowering corporate tax rates to "internationally competitive levels" while broadening the corporate tax base by eliminating deductions and loopholes.

But the report notes disagreement among council members over whether to shift to a "territorial" system that exempts most or all foreign income from corporate taxes when it is repatriated.

There was of course the response to slinkerwink’s diary from the “it’s not so bad” camp downplaying all of this. They used theoretical examples of how closing some of these loopholes (which in effect taxes corporate income with the effective corporate tax rates that in turn do indeed make rates quite low in comparison to other countries) in the tax code will theoretically raise taxes on corporations instead of cutting them even if you cut their nominal rate. I admit it wasn’t a bad intellectual exercise, in theory.

Here’s the problem, it has nothing to do with reality. Reality is important and involves real peoples' lives and well being. These RW "job creator" fallacies have nothing to do with real data and it wastes valuable time excusing failed policies.

We know it’s a failed policy, because this has already been studied in the real world by the Joint Committee on Taxation who deals with these issues all day every day. Here’s a helpful synopsis of precisely why it’s a failure from the Tax Policy Center referencing this report.

It has been an article of faith among most congressional Republicans and many Democrats that the corporate tax rate should be cut from today’s top level of 35 percent to 25 percent—or even less. And backers of the idea breezily suggest this could be paid for by scaling back some corporate tax breaks. But a new report released today by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation concludes it can’t be done.

The non-partisan JCT found that even if Congress scrubbed every single corporate preference from the code (a political fantasy if ever there was one) it could not get the corporate rate below 28 percent without adding to the budget deficit, raising taxes on individuals, or cutting spending.

The JCT study, which was requested and released by House Ways & Means Committee Democrats, comes just days after the panel’s chairman, Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI), proposed a 25 percent rate as part of a major corporate reform. Camp did not say how he’d pay for his proposed changes.

So no, this is bad policy and closing those loopholes will not really mean anything if you lower the rate except higher taxes on individuals and more austerity. Of course it doesn’t have to be that way, but our president and most Democrats are stuck believing in the fallacy of dangerous deficits so the political pressure created by this national accounting fiction religion will make this a reality.

This whole debate is based on the fantasy that cutting corporate taxes will create jobs instead of demand. The president’s support for these fantasies just keep coming up to the forefront because he hires people like Jeffrey Immelt with even more dangerous fantasies on this front. Here’s former Labor Secretary, SS/Medicare trustee, and now Professor at Berkley Robert Reich explaining why this debate is totally off base and delusional when it came up in 2010 regarding corporate tax write offs with the same incentives.

Why Obama Is Proposing Whopping Corporate Tax Cuts -- and Why He's Wrong

The reason businesses aren't investing in new plant and equipment has nothing to do with the cost of capital. It's because they don't need the additional capacity. There isn't enough demand for their goods and services to justify it. Consumers aren't buying because they're trying to come out from under a huge debt load, including mortgage debt; they have to start saving because their nest eggs are worth substantially less; and they've lost or are worried about losing jobs and pay.

In any event, small businesses don't have enough profits against which to use these tax credits and deductions, and large corporations are sitting on over a trillion dollars of profits and don't need them.

Republicans and corporate lobbyists have been demanding tax cuts on corporate investments for one reason: Big corporations are investing in automated equipment, robotics, numerically-controlled machine tools, and software. These investments are designed to boost profits by permanently replacing workers and cutting payrolls. The tax breaks Obama is proposing would make such investments all the more profitable.

In sum, Obama's proposed corporate tax cuts (1) won't generate more jobs because they don't put any cash in worker's pockets (as would, for example, exempting the first $20,000 of income from the payroll tax and making up the difference by applying the payroll tax to incomes over $250,000); (2) will subsidize companies to cut even more jobs; and (3) will cost $130 billion -- money that could better be spent helping states and locales avoid laying off thousands of teachers, fire fighters, and police.

Though these are technically specific tax write offs instead of lowering the nominal rate while ridding loopholes for corporations(which won't be beneficial as I have shown), the overall tax incentive is the same as lowering the nominal rate. Robert Reich explains rather well why all of these tax rate incentives towards corporations are off base. As Robert Reich says we need demand instead.

Corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars and you don’t see them hiring a lot of new people do you? That’s the reality. It’s very telling that Robert Reich doesn’t work for Obama and Jeffrey Immelt does even though Robert Reich was on the transition list. It’s past time this administration invested in acknowledging reality for once.

Regulation

In addition, the report called for a series of reforms to further streamline government rules and reduce the regulatory burden on businesses, which it said would enhance U.S. competitiveness.

Don't get me started on burdensome regulations nonsense. If there ever was a RW frame about why there is a lack of jobs, it's that. In order to enhance U.S competitiveness you would have to have an overhaul of the legal framework of trade law involving chapter 11 provisions in NAFTA, corporate patents, and the WTO for starters.

It has nothing to do with competition or over-regulation that is burdensome. That is RW nonsense spouted by a Democratic administration which we hear way too much on way too many issues whether it's on voucher education or the importance of Chicago School economics.

We have some of the most productive workers in the world. We just don't write laws or regulations that protect them or the industries they helped create for the entire globalized world anymore. Why some kossacks are defending that I'll never know. And yes, you could point out some regulations are redundant, but so are the savings when it comes to the big picture of regulation versus deregulation.

And if you want to defend domestic drilling, take it to the Gulf and see how enthusiastic that idea is. It turns out its not very safe after all, unlike what the president said right before the BP disaster. That was a painful to listen to because he sounded just like John McCain and Sarah Palin and yet we have to hear this again? Who did we vote for in 2008?

Sadly what we seem to have in common with the Eurozone is that we are both politically destroying ourselves. We have way more options than any country in the Eurozone too, because we have control of our own currency yet we still choose to stay in an economic coma. An economic coma we won’t wake up from unless this administration gets serious and stops reading us discredited neoliberal bedtime stories by our bedside. It’s time for this administration and this Congress as well as everyone who supports them to wake up and demand they wake the job market up.

Demand more stimulus. Demand more spending and to get away from this flawed Republican framed tax cut debate. Demand real solutions. Defend real solutions. Demand spending. Defend deficit spending towards full employment. Demand real knowledge of our federal budget and our monetary system. That’s worth defending. Not this.


   
   
   
   
   

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Their excuses (21+ / 0-)

    are getting flimsier by the day.

     The Democratic Party is offcially a center-right Party.

    I didn't abandon the fight, I abandoned the Party that abandoned the fight...

    by Jazzenterprises on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 07:54:41 AM PST

  •  Ok point by point (13+ / 0-)

    1) We should lower corporate tax rates to put them more in line with the rest of the world. But we should also remove the deductions that don't exist in the rest of the world. In other word reduce the number of US Corps that pay zero taxes every year which is excess of 50%.

    2) The territorial discussion is an old one and will always come up. What matters - will it happen not that it is a discussion point.

    3) I agree tax cuts don't generate jobs demand does. However tax cuts do keep business from off shoring or incorporating in tax havens to avoid US taxes. It also takes away the argument that we left because of taxes.

    Republicans 2012 . . . Keeping millions out of work to put one man out of a job.

    by jsfox on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 07:57:16 AM PST

    •  So Do Tariffs. nt (8+ / 0-)

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:03:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  US: 2nd Lowest Corporate Taxes In Developed World (12+ / 0-)

      It's a fallacy that the US corporations pay high amounts in taxes.

      http://thinkprogress.org/...
      Among developed countries:

      As a share of GDP, the U.S. had the second lowest tax rate, behind only Iceland

      Existence is no more than the precarious attainment of relevance in an intensely mobile flux of past, present, and future.~~~ Susan Sontag

      by frandor55 on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:10:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  frandor - two separate points (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        doroma, Cedwyn, erush1345, Deep Texan, Sylv

        It may be that the link has the data, but the fact that the share of GDP is second is related to, but not the same as, the corporate tax burden.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:15:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  This is based on EFFECTIVE tax rate (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cedwyn, erush1345, Deep Texan, gramofsam1, Sylv

        Baseline rates and effective rates are not interchangeable - especially in the current state.

        The point of an overhaul is to eliminate the gap between the topline rate and effective rate.

        Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

        by zonk on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:21:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, the point is to reduct the effective rate (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          justmy2

          yet more. It is an old con.

          That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

          by enhydra lutris on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:23:24 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The point according to whom? (0+ / 0-)

            You're right though -- it is an old con, just not the one you think...  The same con was used to oppose the '86 reform effort.

            Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

            by zonk on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:33:55 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It is an old con on the populace. You have no (0+ / 0-)

              idea how huge a number of middle class people, expecting lower taxes after the '86 act, were outraged to see their taxes actually increase. Though they did share in the rate reduction windfall granted to the wealthy, their taxable income was generally redefined upward enough to more than offset the change in the rates. The act was not what it was advertised to be by a long shot.

              Meanwhile, once the dust settled, many of the handouts were put back in. In many cases the entire underlying framework was left in the code to ease and facilitate the reinstatement of the temporarily removed provisions. Since Johnson, the U.S. system of taxation has consistently been modified to shift the burden of taxation away from speculators and rent seekers to wage earners and sole proprietors, and away from the rich to the middle class and even low income persons.

              That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

              by enhydra lutris on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 01:01:41 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  But that's not what happened (0+ / 0-)

                Photobucket

                Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

                by zonk on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 01:17:32 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  As I explained elsewhere, effective rates do (0+ / 0-)

                  not tell the whole story, not even very much of it, in fact. You didn't notice the bit about income being redefined upward for certain groups, did you?

                  And, if you add in FICA, then even that table takes a solid rap to the cabeza.

                  That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

                  by enhydra lutris on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 01:49:46 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Well, at this point -- I'm going to have to ask (0+ / 0-)

                    that you show your math.

                    In a single system that attempts to define across several hundred million people -- I'll certainly grant that you can make anecdotal cases... but unless you're practicing some new age form of libertarianism where taxes are usage based, any system is going to have those.

                    At the end of the day - I take the effective rates as gospel because there is no other broad method available for examining the consequences of policy, particularly tax policy.

                    Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

                    by zonk on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 03:09:23 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It isn't so much math as simply law and history. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      chipmo

                      I will, however, tell you some math at some point, but some other things you need to know.

                      1. There is not now and never has been a "household return", a "household tax rate" and a "household filing status".  The decision to switch reporting on income and taxation to a household basis was a politically motivated act intended to distort and conceal various things about reality, not all of which were taxation related. It does also distort taxation information.  

                      2. Effective rate is calculated as Taxes paid divided by Taxable Income. That's why I used examples that had the specific denominators I used, to make the computation of the percentage obvious, not for any other reason, and the size of the incomes and preferences involved in the examples was irrelevant to the concepts involved in the examples.

                      3.  Effective rate is calculated as Taxes paid divided by Taxable Income. Thus, if by changing the law a person's taxable income per dollar gross income is manipulated, their effective rate will change without any change in the marginal rate structure or their income and expenses. It is a fact that Raygun's "reform" did exactly that. You can read the law. You can also read some of the exculpatory articles written after the fact wherein the press and some practitioners tried to explain to folks in the middle class why their taxes went up even though the great prevaricator communicator had promised them a tax cut and the press had told them that it was done and was coming.

                      3a. Quick example to help you with your research, should you be remotely interested in facts.  Certain employee expenses previously deducted from gross in arriving at AGI were no longer deductible under section 62 but were shifted to itemized deductions deducted from AGI in arriving at taxable.  Because of the way that itemized deductions are calculated, a lot of taxpayers who had such expenses were no longer able to deduct them, or were only able to deduct part of them Thus their taxable incomes went up even though their income and expenses did not change. Expecting a refund from the widely touted lower marginal rates, they found themselves paying more due to their increased taxable income. State sales tax deduction was also eliminated.

                      4. Just as effective rates tell very little of the story because they do not disclose information about the composition of taxable income, the use quintiles confuses the issue. A lack of change in effective rates for a quintile, or a given amount of change in an effective rate for a given quintile tells but limited information without a definition of the quintiles themselves.  For example a person with a taxable income of 82,000 was in the top quintile in 2000, but only the fourth quintile in 2001. Thus, information about effective rates on quintiles tells you nothing about effective rates on taxable incomes, let alone real or disposable incomes.

                      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

                      by enhydra lutris on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 09:19:46 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

      •  Second lowest? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sylv

        NYTimes

        The United States may soon wind up with a distinction that makes business leaders cringe — the highest corporate tax rate in the world.
        Topping out at 35 percent, America’s official corporate income tax rate trails that of only Japan, at 39.5 percent, which has said it plans to lower its rate. It is nearly triple Ireland’s and 10 percentage points higher than in Denmark, Austria or China. To help companies here stay competitive, many executives say, Congress should lower it.

        Republicans 2012 . . . Keeping millions out of work to put one man out of a job.

        by jsfox on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 12:10:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  1) is debunked in the diary (12+ / 0-)

      Just get rid of the loopholes which makes our effective rate quite low and make corporations pay something.

      2) It's the wrong discussion.

      3) Countries like Germany have export led growth and work sharing= nothing to do with their corporate tax rate as far as successes, really. Plus it's a legal construct. By that logic, since GE pays no taxes, Jeffrey Immelt wouldn't investing in China. GE has a lot of tax haven as well. And since our effective rate is so low, I'm surprised the Cayman islands even exists as a tax haven, except it does largely with US companies.

      So no.

      Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

      by priceman on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:13:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No - 1) is NOT debunked (8+ / 0-)

        The paper you cited says that cutting the corporate rate from 35% could only go as low as 28% to be paired with loophole eliminations and produce a revenue-neutral action.

        It's only debunked if you want to strawman everyone disagreeing into agreeing with Dave Camp's stated 25%

        If 28% is the floor - then 28% is the floor.... This means there's a range of topline cuts paired with loophole elimination offsets in that range between the current rate of 35% and the absolute floor of 28%.

        It's just good policy -- agnostic policy, not ideological policy, I'll readily admit -- but just good policy to have effective rates more closely aligned with topline rates.

        It makes budgeting easier.  It helps the smaller businesses, while eliminating the free rides for the top of the ladder.

        Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

        by zonk on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:33:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Links? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          joe shikspack

          "If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, & a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time." ~ H.S. Truman
          TheStarsHollowGazette.com

          by TheMomCat on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:37:51 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The diarist provided it: (9+ / 0-)

            The Tax Policy Center Analysis:

            The non-partisan JCT found that even if Congress scrubbed every single corporate preference from the code (a political fantasy if ever there was one) it could not get the corporate rate below 28 percent without adding to the budget deficit, raising taxes on individuals, or cutting spending.

            The current rate is 35%.

            Hence - a clean wipe of the code (and that's not a fantasy strictly on political grounds, certain deductions are very good ideas) could be paired with a 7% cut and still not cut revenue.

            What it would mean is Uncle Sam still gets the same amount of cash -- but rather than Mom & Pop Ace Mechanic in South Bend, Indiana paying $35 while GE pays $0 --- Mom&Pop pays $28, while GE also pays $28 (scaled to income, of course).

            The diarist is being intellectually dishonest -- assuming that anyone making this case is automatically agreeing with Dave Camp that the basis cut should be to 25%.

            No.  One. Besides. Dave. Camp. Is. Saying. That.

            Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

            by zonk on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:46:33 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Camp's House committee proposed it (5+ / 0-)

              and the House GOP backed it. Now, Obama's jobs council, while not giving a  number, have  endorsed a policy of corporate tax cuts. I can pretty much picture how this will end.

              "If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, & a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time." ~ H.S. Truman
              TheStarsHollowGazette.com

              by TheMomCat on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:19:22 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  No - Camp proposed it (0+ / 0-)

                I'm not aware of any piece of legislation sitting in committee names it.  

                Some quick googling seems to trace that number always back to Camp (and folks with an agenda who strawman everyone into being Camp).

                Read up on the 1986 tax reform -- that was the individual code, not the corporate code -- but the principles are the same.

                Liberals hated that one, too, at the time... They got strangely silent when the wash came back and despite the fact that the topline rate for the top bracket was cut, while the bottom rate was raised -- the effective rates for the bottom 4/5 actually dropped (and actually dropped most for the bottom quintile), while the effective rates rose from only the top quintile -- and rose most for the top 1% within that quintile.

                That just how taxation works -- it's the effective rates that matter, not the headline number.

                Anyone citing headline numbers to make a case is usually being willfully obtuse.

                Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

                by zonk on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:27:23 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes, he did (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  chipmo, aliasalias, priceman

                  and it is now out there as the accepted meme of the House. Unfortunately. That said, the proposals from this council, this is their third report, will not create any jobs. The proposals reads like it came out of the Heritage Foundation which is why Boehner has come out to endorse it, too.

                  And please, don't tell me that Obama has not endorsed it because he has publicly praised it and already started to implement some of their previous proposals

                  His administration has taken action on 33 of the council’s 35 recommendations for executive action, he said, and completed 16 of them.

                  "If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, & a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time." ~ H.S. Truman
                  TheStarsHollowGazette.com

                  by TheMomCat on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:39:42 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Well, you're sort of jumping around here... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    gramofsam1

                    The entirety of my points are around the tax overhaul proposal.

                    I'd certainly be willing to discuss some of the others (some which I would also support - in terms of big vs. small, many regulations are actually a distinct competitive advantage for a large company vs. a small one... in fact, contrary to what's probably CW - it's not all that unusual for large companies to lobby FOR increased regulations in certain instances) -- but I'm not going to willy-nilly substitute one specific discussion for another ad hoc.

                    Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

                    by zonk on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:01:13 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

        •  Agreed that IF 28% is what (4+ / 0-)

          is actually proposed,this is (mostly) a non-issue. (& possibly favorable to smaller businesses)
          But will that 28% be the beginning and the end of the negotiation? Rhetorical question,I realize that none of us knows the answer.
          The larger point,though, that this framing of policy simply gives credence to various discredited and flatout wrong memes is 100% true. & that is for some 'a bridge too far' and for others a 'strategic choice'. What this choice shouldn't be for any thinking Democrat,is blankly rubberstamped.

          "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

          by tardis10 on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:58:46 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  For something like an overhaul to work (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tardis10, gramofsam1, Sylv

            I think it's probably be an '86 style revenue neutral approach - especially with a GOP controlled House.

            Beyond that though, this is where the details really do matter...

            For example - are depreciation schedules counted as a loophole or not?   In some case - companies most certainly DO use them as loopholes (it's a big deal in M&A activity, for example).

            Yet- I don't think we'd want to eliminate them entirely... doing so would almost certainly whack the ever loving hell out of say -- technology spending, purchase of fleet vehicles, equipment, etc.  My company certainly takes them into account for when new PCs, monitors, et al are purchased.

            These are just areas where it's critical to talk in specifics and the details DO very much matter.

            Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

            by zonk on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:21:13 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Our tax rates have been steadily been (0+ / 0-)

      plummeting since the Eisenhower days. We should therefore enjoy hellacious boom times. Our tax rates are already way low.

      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

      by enhydra lutris on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:21:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  not true...do you really believe corporate (0+ / 0-)

      decisions are made purely on the basis of the top line rate?

      We all know this isn't true, making the assertion that reform is necessary to get more business false.

      Not to mention these corporations are only impacting their own long term health by undermining the number one market by holding back taxes that help them get better workers and infrastructure to develop, produce, and deliver their goods.

      We have to stop buying into the Chamber of Commerce frame and enabling a race to the bottom.

      Germany seems to be doing just fine without doing that.

      "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

      by justmy2 on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:39:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Nice explanation of the corporate tax (14+ / 0-)

    issue. I think it's laughable that people actually believe that any changes in the corporate tax code proposed by this group is going to benefit the 99%. We are waging a class war and losing badly. If you can't figure that out then I'm not sure what to say.

    As for the regulation issue, the United States is the fourth best country to do business in according to the World Bank. Which should immediately lead one to wonder what the hell Imelt and other overpaid business blowhards in America are complaining about. The list is below. Nice diary T&R

    http://www.doingbusiness.org/...

  •  Corporate tax cuts, drill baby drill, (9+ / 0-)

    and cutting regulations.

    Did the Heritage Foundation have a hand in writing this, too? I'm not at all shocked that John Boehner would like this.

    However, I'm not in the least surprised at a report that came from a "jobs" council headed by Jeff Imelt.

    "If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, & a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time." ~ H.S. Truman
    TheStarsHollowGazette.com

    by TheMomCat on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:14:12 AM PST

  •  i don't think it's accurate (10+ / 0-)

    to call them obama's proposals, because he hasn't signed off on them. it's his commission, and he chose immelt, and many of the proposals are indefensible, and some of course will defend the indefensible because to them personality trumps policy, but even given all that these are not obama's proposals. maybe not yet, maybe not at all, but in arguing against them i think we need to be framing it as trying to convince obama to reject what's wrong with these proposals rather than as their being obama's proposals. in other words: these are the facts, immelt is proving he was the mistake we all said he would be, so please let's reject this and move on to a real jobs proposal.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:23:18 AM PST

    •  Well whom you choose does reflect on you (8+ / 0-)

      I think it's too late when you don't hire people who can think clearly about this.

      in other words: these are the facts, immelt is proving he was the mistake we all said he would be, so please let's reject this and move on to a real jobs proposal.

      I don't think the man is listening to you or I(but eh is probably listening to Immelt so that is why I farmed it this way), but I respect your opinion. I just never thought I would hear the job creator BS from a Democratic administration.

      Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

      by priceman on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:34:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  don't forget (7+ / 0-)

        he didn't go all in with his catfood commission. there, too, the commission itself was a mistake, but he didn't ultimately buy into its conclusions. but there, too, allowing a commission appointed by a democratic president to frame an issue in traditional right wing terms was terrible for the overton window. but let's be very clear about what is wrong here, and it's just not the case at this point that these are obama's proposals. let's encourage him to reject them.

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:39:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Simpson Bowles Was A Mistake...An So Was... (7+ / 0-)

          ...the falsely labeled Jobs Council. I would take Obama's efforts more seriously if he would stop appointing these "doomed from the start" commissions and counclis.

          Existence is no more than the precarious attainment of relevance in an intensely mobile flux of past, present, and future.~~~ Susan Sontag

          by frandor55 on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:59:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Obama has already endorsed (6+ / 0-)

          many of the council's proposals, this is the 3rd report.

          Jobs Council Pleases Obama and GOP

          His administration has taken action on 33 of the council’s 35 recommendations for executive action, he said, and completed 16 of them.

          "If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, & a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time." ~ H.S. Truman
          TheStarsHollowGazette.com

          by TheMomCat on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:11:57 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  it's hard to tell what that means (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sylv
            For example, he’s expanding SelectUSA, an initiative to attract more foreign investment in the U.S., that was recommended by the council in an earlier report. He will propose increasing the budget for this initiative by $12 million next year, which will enable it to work with states and localities on 300 cases of foreign investment a year.

            The White House also addressed a recommendation to speed permitting of infrastructure project by expediting reviews of 14 projects. The president also said he would establish a permitting project manager at the Office of Management and Budget to establish best practices across federal agencies.

            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

            by Laurence Lewis on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 11:00:39 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  imagine the issues that might get traction... (7+ / 0-)

          if we weren't constantly fighting to merely preserve our current state of being against a rising tide of malignant proposals churned out by an allegedly "progressive" administration.

          i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

          by joe shikspack on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:14:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  he bought into their conclusions....it was called (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          aliasalias

          the Grand Bargain...

          just because it was named differently doesn't change the fact that he fought hard to adapt their policy prescriptions...if it weren't for tea party craziness we would be living with the repercussions...

          "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

          by justmy2 on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:43:21 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  keep in mind (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sylv

            that a year ago we all feared social security cuts. they didn't happen. maybe he never considered them, and maybe the considerable push-back including from members of congress stopped them, but they didn't happen.

            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

            by Laurence Lewis on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 11:03:36 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I have zero doubt that they would have (0+ / 0-)

              happened if it were not for the freshman insane asylum.

              "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

              by justmy2 on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 11:53:23 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  a lot of congressional dems (0+ / 0-)

                publicly opposed the idea. a group of house dems sent a letter to the white house, and harry reid publicly stated that it was a non-starter. we don't know for certain whether it ever really was under serious consideration, and some hardcore obama supporters took its not being proposed as proof that it never was under consideration, but i found it interesting that so many elected dems felt the need to speak out against it.

                The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                by Laurence Lewis on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 11:58:44 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Pelosi and Clyburn stated publically they (0+ / 0-)

                  would accept it, and everyone on the house supercommittee appointees made public statements in favor...

                  yes, it is unknowable, but I think the circumstantial evidence unless you assume that would have been the moment of the mutiny....that has never happened in Democratic history....

                  "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

                  by justmy2 on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 05:34:37 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  it would have been (0+ / 0-)

                    because for a lotof dems that would have been the end of their careers.

                    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                    by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 08:07:26 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  pelosi (0+ / 0-)

                    said cuts were the line in the sand.

                    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                    by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 08:08:21 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I don't recall that... (0+ / 0-)
                         Pelosi punted when asked whether a move from the Consumer Price Index to a “chained CPI,” which is thought to gauge inflation at a slower rate, is, in fact, a Social Security benefit cut.

                          “There’s concern in my caucus about what would happen with the CPI. Some think it is a benefit cut, others do not,” she said, calling the prospect of moving to a method that could reduce annual cost-of-living adjustments “hypothetical at the present time.”

                      "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

                      by justmy2 on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 08:21:48 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  she may have hedged on chained cpi (0+ / 0-)

                        although she certainly didn't indicate support. but...

                        http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...

                        After a contentious White House meeting with President Obama and other Congressional leaders, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) returned to the Capitol and drew an important red line: Members of her caucus won’t vote for a grand bargain to raise the debt limit and reduce future deficits if the final deal includes cuts to Medicare and Social Security benefits — and that means it probably won’t pass.

                        “You [asked], ‘could the changes compromise the vote?’” Pelosi said at a Thursday afternoon briefing near the House chamber. “I said yes.”

                        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                        by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 09:01:16 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

            •  they didn't happen in spite of Obama's efforts (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Laurence Lewis, chipmo

              ...he , Obama, put SS cuts in the negotiation over raising the debt limit, and his appointment of people to his Cat Food Commissions that  had organizations fighting against SS is just more evidence.
              Don't forget that in his first interview 'President-elect' Obama talked about what he saw as a need for SS 'reform'.

              without the ants the rainforest dies

              by aliasalias on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 12:49:26 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  This was an expected result (9+ / 0-)

      an exercise in wasting time and, probably money.

      Let's just hope the president does reject it but I wouldn't hold my breath on talking about real jobs proposals.

      "If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, & a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time." ~ H.S. Truman
      TheStarsHollowGazette.com

      by TheMomCat on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:35:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doroma, Sylv

      Just like Simpson Bowles. That was his commission as well and he rejected their budget proposal. I guess the diarist forgot about that.

    •  then he is a lousy commission staffer... (0+ / 0-)

      neither is good..

      "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

      by justmy2 on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:41:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  OK -- 28% is doable as a revenue neutral number? (9+ / 0-)

    Dave Camp may say 25% -- but I don't think I've heard anyone on the D side agree on that number.

    In fact - 28% is the number I've heard (and actually - the number in plenty of other places -- Germany, for example).

    Lowering the corporate rate to 28% -- but eliminating deductions to keep it budget neutral -- would effectively mean a cut for smaller business (filing as corporate entities rather than S Corp/LLCs, of course), while it would mean a tax HIKE for the GE's of the world.... I.e,. rather than GE contributing 0 to the same revenue, you get the same revenue pile but some of it is now GE's money.

    Why is this a bad thing?

    As I diaried yesterday -- enough of this topline nonsense... The Effective Rate is all that matters.

    Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

    by zonk on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:25:40 AM PST

    •  ... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doroma, Deep Texan, TooFolkGR

      It's a bad thing because the word "lower" is being used in the same sentence with taxes.  For some reason that has become a bugaboo for "Progressives".

      If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. -- A.E.

      by lcj98 on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:36:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  perhaps there are other things that matter... (6+ / 0-)

      besides the stated effective rate.

      for example, you bring up germany's corp tax rate, but it would be silly to directly compare those rates without considering the value of benefits that germany demands that employers provide (health, retirement, vacations, work week length, etc.) and adjusting the rate accordingly.  one might also consider the environmental standards and other regulatory burdens that german corporations are held to, and their value.  

      of course we might also want to compare the value of various forms of corporate welfare, too.  casual reading over the years suggests to me that the germans demand far more of their corporations than the us does, and the us shifts these burdens onto citizens far more than germany does.

      it would be interesting (and lead to a fairer argument, imo) to get a fuller picture of taxation policies that we are comparing.  if corporate tax rates are lower in country x, what does it do to make up the difference, i.e. where is the tax burden shifted?

      i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

      by joe shikspack on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:08:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Germany Averages 35 Paid Vacation Days/Year (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joe shikspack, chipmo

        USA about 13.
        That is a gigantic quality of life issue.

        Existence is no more than the precarious attainment of relevance in an intensely mobile flux of past, present, and future.~~~ Susan Sontag

        by frandor55 on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:26:08 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not for purposes of taxation they don't (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gramofsam1

        I'm talking specifically about tax policy here -- and in that discussion, the effective tax rate is the true bottom line.

        In the confines of this discussion -- the tax burden isn't shifted outside of the corporate world at all... It's shifted within the corporate world - and in effect, the shift is that the GEs of world no longer pay zero, while the smaller companies see their burden cut.

        A revenue neutral tax overhaul simply reconfigures where the revenue comes from within its confines.

        Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

        by zonk on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:30:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  that works for an internal comparison... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          chipmo

          yes american corp x and corp y will theoretically (assuming that all loopholes are got rid of) pay the same tax.  however, for comparison against the tax rates of other countries, your method does not work and you were making an apples and oranges comparison of the us rate to other rates to justify lowering us rates.

          i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

          by joe shikspack on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:41:30 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  We don't control either (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gramofsam1, Sylv

            the topline rates nor the effective rates in other countries.

            But that said - the reason is does work is this...

            The gap between basic and effective rates hits smaller companies - who can't afford or due to their business couldn't realistically - move to say, Germany (let's assume for a moment that Germany's topline rate and effective rate are more closely aligned than in the US... I believe they are - but too lazy to look up the cites).

            I'm not trying to "justify" lowering the topline rate because some other country has a lower topline rate....  I'm just pointing out that most countries DO have a lower topline right -- this is a simple fact -- but the US has a much lower effective rate.

            What this means is that larger multinationals can reap the competitive advantage of basing operations (or even basing different divisions) whereever it makes the most sense, while the smaller companies are at a competitive disadvantage with a small business in the same segment.

            Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

            by zonk on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:56:13 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Perhaps, though I prefer higher (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joe shikspack, aliasalias

      especially of the ecological effect of corporation like GE have as well as the years they didn't contribute. BUT

      That's a leap of faith(or agnostic statement) on your part IMO. I guess you could say I am too zonked to fully debate this with you right now but I don't agree and I think you are way overplaying the effectiveness as I've said.

      I also don't think this is the right debate to be had or that it will be that effective when wer'e talking about the jobs we need to create to keep track with the population. Even at December's rate it will be 2019 supposedly until enough of them are created and tax cuts are not gonig to do it. Arguing about 28% or .2% changes in effective tax rates is rather trivial even for the bottom quintile. The unemployment/underemployment problems involves a shrinking tax base and you would have to have a real nice agnostic belief that this is the right debate to spur enough demand.

      But I see you are passionate about unproven as of yet tax policy. Later.

      Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

      by priceman on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:21:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I would consider the regulatory proposals (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gramofsam1

        separately (and again, I'd want to see details... in fact -- many large companies don't mind regulations in many circumstances -- they create a competitive advantage for a company that can afford, say, a whole army of compliance officers).

        But as for unproven - I would say it's no unproven at all... 1986, being the most recent example, but virtually every major tax overhaul effort has done the same thing -- rebalanced the same revenue pie more evenly.

        Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

        by zonk on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:33:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  No, 28% is not revenue neutral, because the (5+ / 0-)

      deductions and credits, if any are ever cut in the first place, will all be restored within a year or two. We have seen this movie before.

      Take your next 6 paychecks and give them to the CEO of a local fortune 2000 company and watch the jobs boom begin if you really believe in Reaganomics.

      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

      by enhydra lutris on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:28:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The tax code is not a static thing (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gramofsam1

        As I diaried yesterday - this is a feature, not a bug.

        The code is intended to be transient and tax reform should not be viewed as one and done deal.  It hasn't been such since its inception.

        A properly functioning tax code is just like trimming your hedges -- you don't do it once then never again, you occasionally overhaul it, natural, intended, and healthy growth occurs -- eventually, it gets unwieldy so you trim it again.

        I'd highly suggest reading this piece---

        If you think of tax reform in terms of process rather than permanence, then it doesn't seem nearly so disappointing. For liberals, especially, it can be an eye-opening shift in perspective. Tax reform is a way to extend the life of a tax regime and ensure its vitality. And in the future, this country will need a very vital tax system.

        In 1986 broadening the base and lowering rates helped breathe new life into a struggling tax regime. It helped restore public faith in a revenue system beset by special interests and cluttered with perks and preferences. It also ensured that the system would continue to raise adequate revenue. Piecemeal erosion of the tax base raised questions about the system's long-run viability.

        For liberals, the reinvigoration of the tax base was crucial. Not only did it protect the existing flow of revenue, but it made future tax increases more effective. Economist Joseph Pechman underscored that point in 1989 when lawmakers were struggling to close a widening budget deficit. Given the new, broader base that emerged from the 1986 reform, Pechman predicted that even modest rate increases would produce considerable revenue. His prediction was borne out by the rate increases of the 1990s.

        Sure - 'loopholes' will reappear - but loopholes don't always start as loopholes, they often start as a legitimate deductions and policy outgrowths...  Want clean energy?  Provide tax incentives for adopting green technology today - when adopting such technology might not be cost effective without those tax breaks.

        Tomorrow though, when the technology matures?  They become a loophole.

        The process is not intended to ever be done.

        Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

        by zonk on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:41:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'd highly suggest that you don't make a lot (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          priceman, joe shikspack, chipmo

          of assumptions, nor rely too heavily on thework of taxanalysts for information and analysis.  The mythology about the 1986 Act, for example, is profound.  Study, for several years, the code and regs as they were before the act, as well as the acts provisions and the code and regs as after the act.

          That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

          by enhydra lutris on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 12:49:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  In fact, I work in the field... (0+ / 0-)

            The mythology stops at the effective rate tables -- and those rate tables don't show the myths you think they do.

            Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

            by zonk on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 01:15:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I worked in the field for over 30 years, (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              priceman, TheMomCat, joe shikspack, chipmo

              including the period of enactment. The "effective rates" aren't, they are better than looking to marginal rates but they are still just a tiny part of the story.

              Taxes of 8000/Taxable Income 100000 gives an effective rate of 8% - for anybody and everybody, at all times.

              Back when we had the section 1202 deduction, that could be a deductionless wage earner making just a drop over 100,000 and paying 8,000 in taxes, or an investor with capital gains of 200,000 + muni bond interest of 75,000 and tax free dividends of12,000 plus a like sized drib (equal to standard deduction and exemption) also paying 8,000.

              The effevctive rate tells you that these tow pay the same rate of tax, and they do, on "taxable income as defined", but not on "gross receipts net of business expenses".

              That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

              by enhydra lutris on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 01:45:22 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The scenario you've laid out (0+ / 0-)

                is a top quintile scenario (especially factoring back 25 years)... which the table elsewhere most certainly does normalize - because both have a household income factored into the broad averages.

                Again - I'm not saying there aren't scenarios of inequality within those brackets.

                But that's a separate discussion in the context of broader tax policy where the end goal is distributing tax revenue in a progressive way, while maintaining a revenue base desired for a progressive government that presumably wants a multitude of programs funded.

                If we're talking about "unfairness" in higher income groups - that's a separate discussion than the broader context of rebalancing revenue in relation to income across the complete spectrum.

                Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

                by zonk on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 03:17:52 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Works at all levels, I just picked big round (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  priceman, TheMomCat, joe shikspack, chipmo

                  numbers. The use of quintiles is also deceptive, and the shift to reporting statistics based on "household income" was intentionally deceptive, and also introduced a lot of uncertainty into the date.

                  That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

                  by enhydra lutris on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 04:25:53 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No, you picked a big round number (0+ / 0-)

                    because it's those big round numbers that generally require application of different income type treatments.

                    Sure - not everyone in the bottom 80% is living solely on 'earned income', especially seniors - but the point is that the scenarios you refer aren't going to apply to the neighborhood waitress, mechanic, teacher, etc.

                    Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

                    by zonk on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 05:12:21 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You misssed the point entiely, and are way (4+ / 0-)

                      off base that the size of the numbers mattered. The 1202 deduction applied at all levels to thoe earning cap gains, sorry.

                      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

                      by enhydra lutris on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 05:15:02 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  What's the percent of filers who report capital (0+ / 0-)

                        gains?

                        7%  Maybe 8%?

                        Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

                        by zonk on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:13:14 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  And for a bonus question - (0+ / 0-)

                        What's the percent of files in the bottom 80% who report capital gains...

                        I'm pretty sure my proportion above is correct (in fact, I'd lay odds that it's high) - but I do know that 80% of reported capital gains occur within the top 5% of filers.

                        Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

                        by zonk on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:28:27 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Again, you are missing the point entirely. (0+ / 0-)

                          The point was an example of how two persons with radically different incomes could have the identical taxable income, and thereby the identical "effective rate" because one received numerous tax preferences.
                          The example was set in years with a section 1202 deduction, no longer in existence, but the new reginme that replaced it will have a somewhat similar result as to the effect on effective rates.

                          Back when there was a 1202 deduction, a great many in the lower brackets reported capital gains. No low earning people, but high earning people who structured their incomes to consist largely of capital gains net income, muni bond interest, and the like. When you look solely at effective rates, you do not and cannot see that just like you do not see disposable net income.

                          That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

                          by enhydra lutris on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 08:50:09 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Radically different incomes - but all within (0+ / 0-)

                            the top quintile.

                            Give me a scenario -- and a broad one, not anecdotal -- that applies outside of that top quintile.

                            I'm just amused, given the perspective/company you tend to be keeping/coming from -- that you're essentially making the standard GOP argument...

                            The outlier scenarios occur in the upper income strata - if you want to have arguments about how upper income brackets don't make you "rich"... well -- you should have that argument with other folks in this thread besides me, starting with the diarist you're apparently a fan of.

                            Or to put it another way --

                            Back when there was a 1202 deduction, a great many in the lower brackets reported capital gains.

                            Care to show your data?  I'll be you a subscription that it's less than 5% of total filers in the bottom 4/5s of income.  In fact - lay me odds and I might go as a low 1%.

                            Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

                            by zonk on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 11:37:24 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                            You say:

                            Radically different incomes - but all within the top quintile.

                            and
                            The outlier scenarios occur in the upper income strata

                            Which are completely different statements, which is part of the point I'm trying to get across to you.

                            The "top quintile" is the top 1/5th of "taxable incomes", while the upper income strata is about "real incomes".  

                            The two, as I've shown, needn't be remotely identical. You seem to deny that capital gains and tax free muni bond interest existed or that they exist today? You seem to deny that wealthy persons used these tax preferences to report "taxable income" that was in the lower brackets. Meanwhile, any junior high school kid can go read all the boatloads of literature describing all the defer and convert schemes that were marketed to help those upper echelon people wind up reporting negligible income and all the information on exactly how big a premuim it was worth to buy munis.

                            that you're essentially making the standard GOP argument...
                            I'm not the one pushing Reaganomics and the whole neo-liberal thing about cutting taxes on the upper income levels being good, you are.

                            In the Eisenhower days we had much higher tax rates and a healthy economy, you don't dare deny that so yuou ignore it. The tax rates were very progressive, and also included a "maximum tax on earned income" to help insure that the burden fell more heavily upon the speculator and rent-seeker class.  

                            In the Kennedy-Johnson era, marginal tax rates were cut across the board, but Subpart F and other shelter destroying regimes were implemented, forcing the rich to report way more of their income than they had been reporting by closing enormous loopholes.

                            Under your hero Raygun, however, though marginal rates were cut across the board, the bill saved revenues by eliminating tax deductions of the middle class and then by also boosting the regressive FICA tax.

                            You may not like it, but them is the facts and you can look it all up. Instead, you'd rather hang your hat on some highly distortive and deceptive propaganda about year to year comparisons of average (not even weighted average) effective rates relating to an unreported fabrication called "household taxable income" (upon which the true effective rate is zero, because such a construct is nowhere taxed, by quintile, ignoring the fact that boundaries of those quintiles change yearly and that the computation of taxable income has changed with great regularity too, especially under the demi-god Raygun.  

                            That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

                            by enhydra lutris on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 12:42:36 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ahhh -- I see... (0+ / 0-)

                            You missed the table heading "comprehensive" household income -- thinking my table --- or technically, the UI/Brookings TPC's table -- wasn't flattening income types across all sources, then calculating the effective tax rate against that... rather than some IRS reported subset.

                            My bad - my jpeg did clip the table a bit.

                            Here's a link to it

                            Perhaps this clears things up for you.

                            Full Disclosure: I am an unpaid shill for every paranoid delusion that lurks under your bed - but more than willing to cash any checks sent my way

                            by zonk on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 02:11:53 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

  •  Jobs Plan - give tax breaks to corporations (4+ / 0-)

    so the .01% make more money abling them to hire more servants and buy more yachts and $50K handbags.  Why this is even being called a jobs plan is beyond me.   But it is an election year.

    "Obama pledged to "push as hard as possible" on their recommendations but also sought to temper expectations. "Obviously this year is an election year, and so getting Congress focused on some of these issues may be difficult," he cautioned his Council on Jobs and Competitiveness."

    What if normal citizens only had to focus on their jobs every other year?   That would be a jobs program there, we'd need more workers to make up for the lack of focus half the time.

  •  Another day, another diary (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Southside, Deep Texan, LaEscapee, lcj98

    from the anti Obama crowd and the usual suspects. Priceman doesnt say anything about SOPA, the big issue for today, probably because Obama is against it, nor does he say comment about the state's department decision to not go forward with the XL pipeline. No, those things are minor issues. You guys just take the day to rehash an issue from yesterday about a recommendation, not from Obama himself, but someone on his job council, and Obama has neither supported or endorsed the recommendation.

    You guys say both sides are the problem, which I agree, but I've never seen a diary from priceman, jazzenterprises, pot, gooderservice, joannelson, overclocking, Laescape, etc criticizing the other side,only Dems and not Dems as a whole, just Obama. Just one day I'd like to see you write a diary criticizing Repubs, even Cenkcriticizes the Repubs on his show.

    When Obama does something good though, like with the recess appointments, you guys are absolutely nowhere to be found.

  •  Thanks for writing this excellent diary (8+ / 0-)

    Priceman; while slinkerwink's diary addressed the issue that cutting corporate taxes does not lead to increased employment it was essential that this was discussed in more detail. We have ample evidence that beggar thy neighbour taxation policy (whereby lowering corporate tax rates to compete against your neighbours) does nothing but increase profits dispersed as bonuses and dividends. Economic growth which will lead to rising employment is primarily wage-led in large countries in the advanced capitalist world through increases in effective demand domestically (unless the specific industry is export dependent); that means that policy addressing unemployment must be geared towards increasing incomes for the majority which is the opposite policy to that demanded under all austerity programmes. The way to deal with unemployment in these circumstances is increasing incomes (through living wages, guaranteed incomes, ensuring benefits cover needs) and/or direct government jobs creation.

    Additionally, the insistence on a tax holiday for profits earned overseas means that money will again be reinvested overseas due to cheaper costs of production there. This will lead to two interlinked problems: 1) given that this profit is not being invested in the advanced capitalist world but in places where there are low wages (due to lack of trade union protection due to gov't interference), they are hoping that irrespective of lack of effective demand in the advanced capitalist world that they can sell enough to ensure some realisation of profits. This also means that unemployment and underemployment is not being addressed in the advanced capitalist world (we are seeing rising unemployment in the UK following these policies) which then feeds back into rising deficits as there is less revenue and rising benefits that need to be paid (the numbers of people on benefit rise even though the amount paid to each person is falling);  2) the loss of revenue due to lower corporate taxation means higher deficits which are then being used to justify the austerity measures being introduced. What we are seeing is the deliberate destruction of incomes in the advanced capitalist world, the maintenance of poverty in the third world and rising income and wealth inequality on the world level. Diary tipped, shared and rec'd.

    "Hegel noticed somewhere that all great world history facts and people so to speak twice occur. He forgot to add: the one time as tragedy, the other time as farce" Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte .

    by NY brit expat on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:56:56 AM PST

  •  I would support the corporate rate cut (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaEscapee, lcj98, gramofsam1, zonk

    The current code is loaded against small business and in favor of the big guys. It's that simple.

    Lowering it to 28% and cutting all loopholes, if that really makes it revenue neutral, would be much fairer than what we currently have in place. As long as it's revenue neutral, or a net gain in tax revenues.

    Ask any small businessman...

    Which, by the way, is why I'm thrilled that President Obama
    has elevated the SBA Administrator to a cabinet level position.

  •  Terrific diary.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    priceman

    thanks for the info....

    "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

    by justmy2 on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:34:49 AM PST

  •  Good job! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    priceman

    The bourgeoisie had better watch out for me, all throughout this so called nation. We don't want your filthy money, we don't need your innocent bloodshed, we just want to end your world. ~H.R.

    by chipmo on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 11:34:09 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site