Skip to main content

This will be a brief teaser for labor day... Why, is the middle class (labor) suffering so much today.....

US Corporations get around the US's high tax rate of 35% by stashing money offshore.  The average corporation pays 12.6% according to the GAO in 2010....  This means that half of America's corporations pay higher, and half of America's corporations pay lower...  HALF OF AMERICA'S CORPORATIONS PAY LOWER THAN 12.6%?  REALLY?

During America's boom times, when the middle class was almost guaranteed a job for life with a pension plan and a gold watch, corporate taxes were set as high as 52.8 percent. Later rates were lowered to 48 percent and then 46 percent.  It was only after 1986 when they were lowered to 35% that the middle class problem begin to emerge....

Across history there is a direct relationship between higher taxes and higher wages... When tax rates are high, wage rates are high. When tax rates are low, wage rates are low.  (As an additional benefit, the higher the taxes, the higher the employment level goes as well.) In fact there is such public good in charging the wealthy higher taxes with no downside, that is is literally amazing we aren't doing it. Everyone benefits out the gazoo!)

The way America's corporations get around this 35% rate is by stashing cash abroad.  There is $2 trillion of America's money kept overseas, and not brought home to keep it from being taxed... You pay taxes. I pay taxes, yet corporations think they shouldn't... How fair is that?

Keep in mind.  This is by their own volition. They are not forced to keep that money offshore. They could bring it back anytime they wished.  They choose not to do so... And that money is what funds campaigns for cutting taxes.  That money is what buys both Democrat and Republican allegiance to no-tax pledges.  I would bet that some of that foreign money is in your Senator's or Congressperson's campaign PAC funds right now..

$2 trillion at 35% is $700 billion that should have already been in our treasury... That is money we borrowed unnecessarily to cover our expenses which if a proper administration had been in the executive branch, would have already been there from corporations...  The balance, $1.3 trillion would have then been available here and could have been invested in our nation in the form of jobs...

There was some discussion, primarily from Michelle Bachmann, as to give a blanket amnesty on these taxes to get this money back,  But that is like saying you won't prosecute a bank robber if he comes back and spends his money in your home town...  What bank will he rob next?  And what about all those people who had their money stolen from them?  Michelle and her Republican cohorts seem not to care.

So why are corporations really renouncing their “citizenship?” Simple answer, is they are doing this so they can pocket hoards of “deferred” offshore profits without ever paying the taxes they owe on these profits....

"Because of this loophole, corporations have been taking steps to make it look as if their profits are made outside of the U.S., and have piled up about $2 trillion in cash that they are keeping out of the country. "

Dave Johnson explains. "Here is how the deferral scam works. An American company sets up a non-U.S. “subsidiary” in a tax haven. That non-U.S. company gets or produces goods, services, patents, whatever, at a low price. (This often involves shifting paper (and copyrights, patents) around to make it look like profits are not made in the U.S., but in too many cases this means the U.S. company actually moves U.S. jobs, factories, production, call centers and other assets out of the country.) The subsidiary sells to the U.S. company at a high price. Most or all of the profit is therefore made by the non-U.S. subsidiary, so the profits are considered to be non-U.S. and taxes on those profits are “deferred.” This still counts as profits for the U.S. owner of that subsidiary, but the U.S. company does not have to pay taxes (they are “deferred”) until they “bring the profit home.”"

These corporations see that if they renounce their citizenship before the U.S. fixes this loophole, they can just keep the money....
But does this money REALLY stay offshore??? As you would certainly expect, of course not.... The non-U.S. subsidiary company “loans” money to the U.S. parent. So all of the non-U.S. cash actually is available to the U.S. parent. But wait, there’s more. The U.S. parent pays interest to the subsidiary, which is deducted from taxes and reduces the U.S. tax bill even more. ..

If complicated, it isn't.  I hire you as my buddy in crime.  I give you all my money... I say, look, I'm broke, I can't pay any taxes!  You lend me my money back to me... I spend it tax free and the money I do make, I write off as interest I give back to you... So I keep everything I make here ... No taxes...

Ways to fight this... very important on this Labor Day...

A.  Hold Democrats accountable.  Don't let them (Your own representatives) get away with helping corporations rob the American workers, who do pay all their taxes and who are the ones subsidizing these corporations' money-making schemes.

B.  Support proposals by President Obama to use executive action to stop “income stripping” and to keep “inverted” companies from getting government contracts

C.  Support the Stop Corporate Inversions Act of 2014 in the Congress... Obviously obstructed by Republicans.

D. Support a proposal to tax companies based on their percentage of sales that occur in the U.S.,.

.

One must wonder, why is this even in the tax code?  The reason is so U.S. companies can use “offshore” profits to invest in growth. This is a win-win because we want U.S. companies to do well, and because the U.S. is supposed to benefit when profits are brought home and taxes are paid....

A very simple way to fight abuse of deferral is to charge a fee of, say, 7 percent a year on all deferred profits. The full amount of taxes is to still be paid when profits are finally brought home, but we collect an additional 7 percent a year until they are....
So enjoy your Labor Day.  We've got some real work to begin tomorrow.....

Originally posted to kavips on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 10:27 AM PDT.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

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

  •  Kos is right (5+ / 0-)

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    Corporations aren't people. Tax the people who own the corporations instead.

    •  Corporate Tax On Small Business Radicalizes People (5+ / 0-)

      This is a lot of what drives the Tea Party - small business owners that have few loopholes and watch more than half of their profits taken as various taxes.

      Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

      by bernardpliers on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 12:56:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But do they pay that rate? (7+ / 0-)

        Or are most small businesses pass-through entities set up as subchaper-S corps and not a full-fledged C corp?

        To my knowledge and in my experience, the former is true, so the tax rate on C corps is irrelevant to them - or should be, if they actually knew anything about how they were taxed.

        The problem is that most of them farm their taxes out to their accountants to handle, so they assume they're paying the 35% C corp rate.  Some of them even assume they're paying the C corp rate and then paying their PIT as well - not understanding how pass through entities work and that they're an S corp.

        Thus leading us back to what really breeds the Tea Party: ignorance/lack of knowledge.

        There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy.

        by Darth Stateworker on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 03:16:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I Think You're Right (3+ / 0-)

          I'm still figuring this out with my CPA. But  last quarter I had an estimated income of $5,500 and payments (federal and payroll) of $2332.

          Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

          by bernardpliers on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 04:20:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Seems a bit off. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ozsea1, basket

            On $5500 in income, there is no way you're paying a 35% corporate tax rate.

            Without knowing much else, I'd suspect (and take a wild guess in the dark) the majority of what you are paying on that bill would be the payroll taxes.

            There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy.

            by Darth Stateworker on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 08:06:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  $1490 Federal And $840 Payroll (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Darth Stateworker, basket

              I'm supposed to catch up with my CPA this month.

              It's only recently that I've gotten my income to sustainable levels where I can quit running around in a panic applying for jobs.  And I have streamlined my operations in a number of important ways. Now I have more time to focus on things like taxes.

              Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

              by bernardpliers on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 08:38:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Still seems way off. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ozsea1, basket, MPociask

                C corp tax brackets are as follows:

                $0 - $50k - 15%
                $50k - $75k -  25%
                $75k - $100k - 35%
                $100k - $335k - 39%
                $335k - $10M - 34% (Yes, it goes down here)
                $10M - $15M - 35%
                $15M - $18.3M - 38%
                $18.3M - Any - 35% (Yes, it goes back down again)*

                *Sidebar: Clearly, if tax rates dip and then go back up and then dip again, corporate tax rates are not all that progressive.  IMO, the tax rates should be perfectly progressive from bottom to top, and the rates at the lower end need to come down, with brackets of maybe 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, and finally 39% for the highest earners.  That is, however, a subject for a diary all its own.

                Your rate seems to be just about 27%.  With $5500 in income in a quarter, and you paying estimated taxes at a rate above the second lowest bracket, it sounds like your accountant is doing your estimated taxes based on your tax bracket from the end of the year last year.

                That is the correct way to do it, but if you end up making no more than $5500 each quarter, and hence $22k for the year, you shouldn't be higher than that $15% bracket at the end of the year and thus entitled to a refund.

                All of this is based solely on the info you've given so far, so I could be way off base if you've left anything major out.  Essentially, I'm spitballing based on what you've said so far.

                There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy.

                by Darth Stateworker on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 09:02:09 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  This Report Was Interesting (0+ / 0-)

                  Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

                  by bernardpliers on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 09:33:04 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I skimmed it very quickly. (4+ / 0-)

                    But it confirms what I've anecdotally seen in my time reviewing taxes:

                    Those choosing to file as an S-Corp get screwed far more than traditional C-corps in most cases.  Just as is shown with the C-corp brackets above where the taxes increase and then dip, and the absolute highest marginal rate is right where you'd expect a moderately successful small business to be income-wise if they're a C corp.  Additionally, S-Corps for legitimate small businesses that are moderately successful do tend to pay more than they should as well.  I think that's illustrated pretty well by the chart on page 2 of the study:  the C-corp effective tax rate is nearly half the effective tax rate of the S-corps - even though the C-corps are clearly making far more based on the number of corps in each group  versus total income for each group.

                    I believe this is by design:  screw the small business owners as much as possible in order to rile them up and get them thinking big business has it even worse, when the reality is big business doesn't usually pay jack shit.  Doing this creates a veritable army who believe big business is getting screwed, because they are getting screwed.  And if they're getting screwed, how can a guy making a shitload more than them not be getting screwed?

                    Discussing C-corps versus S-corps does bring up a question though - are you an S-Corp?  I don't believe I ever even bothered to ask.  I didn't ask because it largely doesn't change your individual circumstances  (based on the info so far) with a potential $22k/year income: Even as an S-Corp with $5500 in income per quarter, that still means $22k in income for a year, so using PIT tax brackets for the pass-through to your personal income taxes, 27% is higher than I'd expect - unless you also have other income or had much higher income last year and your estimated taxes are being based off that prior year income.

                    Estimated taxes can be a killer.  If you had a stellar year in one year, and then the following year completely blows, it can mean big up-front estimated payments in order to comply with the law and avoid potential end of year penalties if your income suddenly spikes in a quarter.  The law could be much better written to simplify estimated payments and ease their burden in such a situation.

                    There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy.

                    by Darth Stateworker on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 10:13:47 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It's An S-Corp (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Darth Stateworker

                      And the previous year I took retirement distributions with all those penalties so that was a taxation bloodbath of a different sort.  

                      Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

                      by bernardpliers on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 11:27:05 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  That spike in income (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        bernardpliers, ozsea1

                        from taking retirement distributions would seem to explain the high estimated tax payments.

                        The estimated tax rule is basically this:

                        You have to prepay (via estimated tax payments or withholding tax) at least 90% of the tax due for the current year or 100% of the tax due from the prior year if you will owe more than $1000 at the end of the year.

                        If your income will be substantially less this year than last year (and it sounds like it will be if last year was due to taking retirement funds out early on a one time basis), and your income for the remainder of the year will be easily predictable, you might be able to lower the amount you pay in for estimated taxes safely.

                        If your income isn't quite predictable, then it may be best to make sure you've paid in what was paid last year via your quarterly payments, otherwise, an unexpected increase in income could end up triggering an estimated tax penalty if you can't afford to subsequently increase the estimated tax payment on the subsequent quarterly payment.

                        I would assume your accountant is looking at all that, but it doesn't hurt to double check.  If you're income is pretty steady, at it looks like you're only going to pull down half or whatnot of what you pulled in last year, it might be OK to adjust remaining quarterly payments downward.

                        With rules like this, it's no wonder people dislike the IRS, yanno?  It's practically impossible to follow along with everything for the average person.  However, the real culprit is Congress for writing the tax code the way they have.  The IRS is just the messenger, the scapegoat if you will.  Congress writes all the idiotic and/or complex statutes and the IRS takes the blame.  It's brilliant from the perspective of political cover.

                        There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy.

                        by Darth Stateworker on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 12:18:47 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  If you are an S Corp (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        bernardpliers

                        You aren't paying the corporate income tax.   The items of income and deduction are passed out to the shareholders proportionately, and each shareholder reports that income on their individual return.   Thus, your income and withholding should be at your individual income tax rate, and you are likely paying self-employment tax.   There are some benefits to using the S Corp form for self-employment tax planning purposes, if you can take more out of the S Corp as dividends as opposed to wages.

                        •  Sole Proprietorship No Problem? (0+ / 0-)

                          Thanks for being so generous with your time.

                          Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

                          by bernardpliers on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 08:16:23 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Not to step in (0+ / 0-)

                            If you're an S corp and the sole shareholder, all of the income passes through to you.  I think that's the question you were asking Elaine.

                            In my opinion, the real benefit of being an S corp as a sole proprietor as opposed to simply doing a DBA is that the S corp shields you from personal liability to a large degree, much the same way a C corp, LLC or LLP would.

                            For tax purposes - either way, S corp or simple DBA sole proprietorship, you're paying taxes on your income at the PIT rate via your PIT returns.

                            There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy.

                            by Darth Stateworker on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 11:14:37 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm Single (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Darth Stateworker

                            I'm nowhere near the >$36 K bracket and 25% rate, because my taxable income should be much less (I have a house) and my distributions should total about $28 K.  I've been able to whittle back my expenses because I paid off a 20% balloon mortgage early this year.  Probably my income should be down slightly, and hopefully I'll be out the retirement withdrawal penalty box.

                            Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

                            by bernardpliers on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 02:31:36 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If I recally correctly (0+ / 0-)

                            the "retirement withdrawal penalty box" as you so succinctly put it, ends when you are 59 1/2.

                            Don't quote me on that, as I've been out of the business for a few years.

                            There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy.

                            by Darth Stateworker on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 03:44:45 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

        •  Of the approximately 31.6 million ... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Darth Stateworker, MPociask

          businesses in the US, about 1.8 million are C corps, 4 million are S corps, 3.1 million are partnerships (of which, 1.9 million are LLCs), and 22.6 million are sole proprietorships.

          IRS - Number of returns by type of business from 1980 through 2008 (spreadsheet format)

          Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters. -- President Grover Cleveland, 1888

          by edg on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 10:25:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm aware of that. (0+ / 0-)

            My question was rhetorical.

            I appreciate your input though.

            There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy.

            by Darth Stateworker on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 11:08:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah, I gathered that. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Darth Stateworker

              But it never hurts to add statistics when available. Most people don't realize just how few C-corps there are and just how much they abuse the tax system.

              Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters. -- President Grover Cleveland, 1888

              by edg on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 12:16:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I could tell stories (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                edg

                that would make even the most vehement Tea Party corporate defenders start screaming for higher corporate taxes on C corps.  The shit I've seen some of those assholes get away way is simply astounding.

                For once, I'd like to be able to vote for the better of two goods instead of the lesser of two evils.

                by Darth Stateworker on Wed Sep 03, 2014 at 03:07:35 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Until the Supreme Court says otherwise, (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chi, keyscritter, dagnome, Josiah Bartlett

      ....corporations have all the 'free speech' (okay, more like bought & paid for speech) rights actual citizens have. And apparently they are also entitled to 'sincerely held religious beliefs'.

      So, until that changes, at the very freakin' least, they can pay taxes like actual citizens.

    •  Kos is wrong. (7+ / 0-)

      Tax both.  Period.

      Robert Reich is usually right on, but he missed the mark on this.  Simply taxing the profit of shareholders still provides for a way for tax-free/tax deferred wealth accumulation in that the shareholders wealth builds until they extract it some or all of that wealth from the corporation.  Additionally, the idea suggested taxes all of that the same via a stock transfer tax, and has no component whatsoever for progressive taxation.  In other words, if you're a guy pulling down $50k a year through buying and selling investments and collecting dividends, you're essentially paying the same tax rate as a hedge fund manager pulling down $1B by buying and selling and collecting dividends.

      Additionally in this scenario, if a corporation decides to sit on large cash reserves instead of distributing dividends, for example, the shareholders wealth goes up, but they aren't paying any more in taxes.  For wealthy shareholders, this isn't an issue - they only need enough immediately liquid assets to pay their bills.  The rest of their wealth can accumulate without being liquid, and thus, can remain as the value of their stock holdings.

      If we want to change the system for the better, we eliminate corporate loopholes, get it so that the corporate tax rates are competitive on an effective tax rate basis to other major business locales (essentially: be in line with other first world nations on corporate tax rates actually paid to them), tax all personal income using the same rates - and not taxing labor higher than capital, and finally, implement the stock transfer tax as suggested by Reich.

      Do all this, and there is no such thing as a budget deficit anymore.

      There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy.

      by Darth Stateworker on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 03:39:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm A One Man Business Paying 35% (5+ / 0-)

    35% corporate taxes, plus payroll taxes, and 4% state income tax.  Federal income tax isn't much because after I pay the corporate tax there is almost no income left!  Oh, and I give %*&^%! Amazon about $1,000 a month in fees.

    Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

    by bernardpliers on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 12:44:08 PM PDT

  •  Incentives for domestic investment went bye bye (7+ / 0-)

    in the 1986 Tax Reform Act.

    That investment left for Asia and took its jobs with it.

    .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

    by Roger Fox on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 12:52:30 PM PDT

  •  The Real Tax Problem (7+ / 0-)

    Earnings from capital are taxed less than earnings on labor.  Thus, the marginal dollar is attracted to capital investment rather than wages.  There is a marginal (that is every dollar every day) penalty of, on average, about 3 percentage points on earnings from labor.  Thus, each and every dollar is incentivized to avoid paying for labor.

  •  I would suggest (9+ / 0-)

    that the problem for working people is that we are a chaotic, disorganized, atomized mess, buffeted by those who have power and wealth and organization into our own undoing.  This emerges in tax and every other social policy.  We don't know what we stand for, we don't even know how to stand for ourselves in most cases.  As the words of "Solidarity Forever" put it:

    What force on earth is weaker than the feeble strenght of one
    But the union makes us strong.
    But we've been convinced that the ideology of rugged individualism serves us so very well, and that those we would be in solidarity with are our true enemies.  Kind of a self-perpetuating cycle of weakness and defeat.

    “A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.” —Aldous Huxley

    by ActivistGuy on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 02:26:37 PM PDT

  •  See also Robert Reich (4+ / 0-)

    in the lively and excellent 2013 film Inequality for All - available on Netflix. He explains the importance of higher tax rates for the rich to maintain a strong middle class, as well as public investments in education.

    Reich distills the story through the lens of widening income inequality—currently at historic highs—and explores what effects this increasing gap has not only on the U.S. economy but also American democracy itself. At the heart of the film is a simple proposition: What is a good society and what role does the widening income gap play in the deterioration of the nation's economic health? http://en.wikipedia.org/...
  •  Transfer tax on stock (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    keyscritter, Josiah Bartlett

    Per wikipedia:

    The United States had a tax on sales or transfers of stock from 1914 to 1966. This was instituted in The Revenue Act of 1914 (Act of Oct. 22, 1914 (ch. 331, 38 Stat. 745)), in the amount of 0.2% (20 basis points, bips). This was doubled to 0.4% (40 bips) in 1932, in the context of the Great Depression, then eliminated in 1966.
    A transfer tax on stock transactions is needed more now than ever.  In addition to raising needed funds, it would inhibit the current "rigging" of the stock markets by fast computerized trading systems.  Let's take back the stock market from the gamers.

     

    An illusion can never be destroyed directly... SK.

    by Thomas Twinnings on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 03:57:40 PM PDT

  •  Interesting, thanks. (0+ / 0-)

    However, the 12.6% figure is income taxes paid, based on a formula like
                        TOTAL TAXES PAID/TOTAL NET INCOME
    so it doesn't support your statement that HALF OF AMERICA'S CORPORATIONS PAY LOWER THAN 12.6%.  Also, don't forget that only profitable companies are subject to the corporate income tax; so there will be relatively fewer companies contributing to the tax and more paying little or no tax, but that's the nature of an income rather than a real estate or other fixed asset tax.

    The Kleinbard study cited by Johnson refers to the 2013 GAO report which shows effective corporate tax rates as below:
     photo corporate_tax_rates.png

    According to this chart, profitable companies in the 2010 tax year paid federal, state, and local US income taxes, combined with foreign tax expenses at a rate 16% while the book tax would have been 21%.

    Play chess for the Kossacks on Chess.com. Join the site, then the group at http://www.chess.com/groups/view/kossacks.

    by rhutcheson on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 04:01:25 PM PDT

  •  Yes but... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chi, ozsea1

    The Democrats are the Lesser Evil, hence, nothing will be done to force corporations to pay their fair share.

    Besides, the Omnipotent R's control the House, leaving the Democrats with no levers of power or influence whatsoever.

    And I'm certain the issue of corporations not paying their fair share (along with the Predator Elite in general) is a relatively new thing, else the Democrats would have addressed it when they controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency just a few short years ago.

    In other words, the material policies - including lower taxes for corporations / Predator Elite - will continue.  Unabated.

    To be sure, the Lesser Evil will issue forth Righteous & Thundering Rhetoric The Working Class Can Starve On - which is their job - but the material policies benefiting the 1% shall continue without surcease, delivering Results The Predators Can Bank On.

    And the electorate will continue to Clap for their Team, be it Brand D or Brand R.

    The 1% are Purists: They only support Candidates that Deliver Results They Can Bank On. Don't they know they should compromise? /sarcasm

    by Johnathan Ivan on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 04:27:52 PM PDT

    •  The Democrats passed FATCA in 2010. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chi, ozsea1

      The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act went into effect July 1. It effectively ends the availability of offshore tax havens for US persons. At least 80 foreign governments around the world have signed the treaty that obligates them to report income paid to Americans in their jurisdiction. The signatories include Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, and other locations that formerly kept the identities of American account holders secret.

      There's information about it available on the IRS website and the US Treasury website.

      It was when the new law became effective 2 months ago that we began to hear about new creative schemes for corporations to stash money abroad.

      There actually is more difference between Ds & Rs than you might realize. Your commercial media filters the information it wants you to have, or not have. You have to look for certain information on your own. I write about topics like this in my diaries.

      •  Money quote: (0+ / 0-)
        It was when the new law became effective 2 months ago that we began to hear about new creative schemes for corporations to stash money abroad.
        None could have foreseen the Predator Elite's attorneys using loopholes.

        Well.. except the attorneys who were involved in drafting the reform legislation.  I'm betting they understood quite well how to craft legislation which still allows for "creative schemes".

        To imagine that "Reform" legislation - written by legions of attorneys - somehow allows "creative schemes" to remain (unintentionally) is extremely optimistic thinking.

        Of course, I could be wrong.

        Perhaps the Democrats - who push through anti-worker "Free" Trade deals, appoint banksters to High Office and put Monsanto in at the FDA really did their best to go after Corporations / Predators hiding their $$ overseas.

        Perhaps.  It's certainly possible.

        But not likely.

        The 1% are Purists: They only support Candidates that Deliver Results They Can Bank On. Don't they know they should compromise? /sarcasm

        by Johnathan Ivan on Tue Sep 02, 2014 at 07:22:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I have the same concerns you do so this isn't a (0+ / 0-)

          pissing contest for me. It's about how to get problems solved for the future. I haven't given up on working through the Democratic Party. If others give up on that, they need a realistic and effective alternative. I'm all ears.

          About FATCA, it addresses an illegal activity, tax evasion.
          Like most legislation, it's reactive, meant to solve an existing problem. Congress has been ridiculed for proposing solutions without a problem.

          FATCA's opponents might have debated against it by warning about tax evaders skirting around it somehow. It didn't come up because what the corporations are doing is legal and it was rare in 2010. Legislation is passed as a remedy for offenses that occurred in the past and to discourage repeat occurrences, not to prevent unknown or non-existent problems. There's be no end to that.

          Corporate tax reform hasn't been ignored either. Various proposals from Democrats went nowhere because the only reform the Republicans favor is cutting the rate to zero.

          I'm not ignoring loopholes in tax law and how they seem to be created purposely for the advantage of the upper class. I don't think that applies here.

          I've written about all of this a couple of times recently with video clips of Senators in debate on the floor. Even though I brought interesting bits that the commercial media didn't report, there was very little interest.

Click here for the mobile view of the site