Obama: Raise Taxes, Penalize Business

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Craig234
Would any of you corporatist fanbois care to explain why, if the US corporations have the highest tax burden in the world, your predictions that the higher taxes would have led to the US corporations being less productive, less profitable, than other nations' corporations with lower tax burdens, that all the corporations would flee the US, have yet to occur, with the opposite in fact happening on the former?

Of course, you fail to say anything about the 'unintended consequences' of giving those corporations carte blanche, caving in to any demands.

What the embedded poster fails to note in his call for smaller government is the extent to which the corporatists have made government into a feeding trough.

I guess I'll respond since you quoted me. First off, I wouldnt say Im a corporatist fanboi, but I *DO* understand the value they bring to the country. And for the record, I never said they have the highest taxes in the world, or anything about being less productive or profitable etc...so I dont really know how to respond to that. I guess it was aimed somewhere else.

As far as your comment on corporatist's making the government into a feeding frenzy...well unfortunately you are right. But small government and successful corporations are mutually exclusive. Or should be anyway. The reason it is the way it is is because of the public. WE are the ones who continue to elect those who feed the frenzy. US. If people would actually pay the fuck attention to their own congressional leaders in their district, for whom they are supposed to represent, and simply not re-elect those who are so generous with our tax dollars, it would send a clear message to any future politicians: quit wasting our money or we WILL fire you. But America is far too complacent. Ive said it before I'll say it again. Money doesnt elect politicians. WE do.
 

Blain

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
23,643
3
81

Originally posted by: piasabird
What we need is a windfall profit tax on people who write books. If they make 10 million off of a book that is too much money for one person.
Tax them at an even higher rate. Why is it only the ultra rich people propose these stupid taxes?
Very true.
They didn't invest millions of dollars to gain even more millions in profits.
We don't need all that fancy book learnin' anyway. :confused:

 

yuppiejr

Golden Member
Jul 31, 2002
1,317
0
0
Here's a mind blowing idea for you socialists out there, rather than advocating higher taxes... why not CUT SPENDING and eliminate the need to collect more taxes in the first place. As for this class struggle "rich beneifting off of the poor's backs" - if there were not rich employers in the marketplace to provide jobs for said "poor" they'd be in far WORSE shape. If someone fails to invest in their own skills and wants the security of working for someone else at the fair market price for their labor it seems pretty fair to me. If the only skill I bring to the world is operating a shovel why should I be paid the same as a brain surgeon? Newsflash - communism fails miserably every time for a reason. Who needs to take an economics class here...
 

wetech

Senior member
Jul 16, 2002
871
6
81
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Socio
Originally posted by: Carbo
Penalize Big Oil

Obama says he would impose oil windfall profits tax


From what I understand a "windfall profits' are profits that you made that where you made no investment in. So how is he going to tax oil companies on the huge profits derived from what those companies invested in?

Answer; he can't!

This statement appears to be nothing more than a meaningless but makes me look real good con mans tactic.

From a couple online dictionaries:

windfall profit - profit that occurs unexpectedly as a consequence of some event not controlled by those who profit from it

and especially apt:

An unexpected profit from a business or other source. The term connotes gaining huge profits without working for them ? for example, when oil companies profit from a temporary scarcity of oil.

They're quite taxable.


If the complaint is that the excess profits aren't deserved because the companies "didn't work for them", why does the government deserve the money instead? It's not like the gov't did a damn thing to earn the money either.


Here in Japan there's currently a butter shortage, which is selling for $9 per stick (50% more then a gallon of gas). I'm going to petition the Japanese gov't to go after all the windfall profits of the evil Hokkaido Butter Barons.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Vic
No, it doesn't. The US tax rate does not have the highest in the world (edit: actually, I looked this up, and it appears that Iowa with its state tax does in fact have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, oh boy). While poor struggling Japan has the highest corporate rate for any single nation. ...
Quick note - Iowa's tax is not as high as it might seem since Iowa allows the deduction of federal taxes. This lowers the effective rate several points.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Carbo
So far, this empty suit has been specific on two things: he is going to increase the Capital Gains tax, and now he wants to impose a windfall profits tax. Do you see a pattern here?

Yes I do. He is going to make those that have reaped the biggest benefits over the Bush admin's reign to pay back some of it to lessen the load for the other 99% of us.

SOCIALISM for the win. How about we drop the capitalist system and just all become communists. We see how well it's working for China right???
 

Jakeisbest

Senior member
Feb 1, 2008
377
0
0
Posted by: Craig234
Would any of you corporatist fanbois care to explain why, if the US corporations have the highest tax burden in the world, your predictions that the higher taxes would have led to the US corporations being less productive, less profitable, than other nations' corporations with lower tax burdens, that all the corporations would flee the US, have yet to occur, with the opposite in fact happening on the former?

Of course, you fail to say anything about the 'unintended consequences' of giving those corporations carte blanche, caving in to any demands.

What the embedded poster fails to note in his call for smaller government is the extent to which the corporatists have made government into a feeding trough.

Please enlighten us on the devastating 'unintended consequences', if any thing there would be MUCH LESS corporate involvement in the government. Corporations would have nothing to complain about if 1/3rd of their income was not being taken away.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: Jakeisbest
Posted by: Craig234
Would any of you corporatist fanbois care to explain why, if the US corporations have the highest tax burden in the world, your predictions that the higher taxes would have led to the US corporations being less productive, less profitable, than other nations' corporations with lower tax burdens, that all the corporations would flee the US, have yet to occur, with the opposite in fact happening on the former?

Of course, you fail to say anything about the 'unintended consequences' of giving those corporations carte blanche, caving in to any demands.

What the embedded poster fails to note in his call for smaller government is the extent to which the corporatists have made government into a feeding trough.

Please enlighten us on the devastating 'unintended consequences', if any thing there would be MUCH LESS corporate involvement in the government. Corporations would have nothing to complain about if 1/3rd of their income was not being taken away.

Not true. It has little to do with their actual tax rate and everything to do with favorable legislation. Even if the corporate tax was zero, there would still be a great advantage for defense contractors to push for war. The problem is that the government has anything to give away. The less the government has to dish out in the form of welfare, be it to the poor or the wealthy, the less reason there is to control it.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Jakeisbest
Posted by: Craig234
Would any of you corporatist fanbois care to explain why, if the US corporations have the highest tax burden in the world, your predictions that the higher taxes would have led to the US corporations being less productive, less profitable, than other nations' corporations with lower tax burdens, that all the corporations would flee the US, have yet to occur, with the opposite in fact happening on the former?

Of course, you fail to say anything about the 'unintended consequences' of giving those corporations carte blanche, caving in to any demands.

What the embedded poster fails to note in his call for smaller government is the extent to which the corporatists have made government into a feeding trough.

Please enlighten us on the devastating 'unintended consequences', if any thing there would be MUCH LESS corporate involvement in the government. Corporations would have nothing to complain about if 1/3rd of their income was not being taken away.

The issue is about concentrated power and wealth. The government can be a force for the people protecting their interests from concentrated power, or it can be a force for concentrated power protecting it from the people. If there's a weak government, the private concentrated power can become very oppressive, as it is in so many countries, and the government tends to quickly become its tool, as in 'banana republics', or as ours largely was during the 1880's-1890's before the Progressive Era.

It takes a book to answer your question, so I'll just give you one example of the unintended consequences of excessive corporate carte blanch with the government.

It would likely lead to the castration of the public power to pass regulatory laws protecting itself from any range of corporate harm. Specifically, if you look at the various free trade agreements, you find in them the creation of a secret panel appointed by corporations, who any business can go to about any law, and say that the law cost them money. If the secret business panel, who can't be overruled, decides the law was not justified in ITS opinion - forget the democratic process that led to the government passing it - then the government is liable to the business for all the lost profits estimated. *Governments are signing these rights away*. And that's ALREADY happening.

I write this out - the question is, do you care at all? Or are you buried in the ideology that the corporations will remain benevolent, that absolute power will make them smell nice?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
OK so alot of people dont like concentrated wealth. What then is the proposal for 1. limiting a corporation's size and profit; and 2. An individual's net worth; and finally 3. how do you intend to distribute this siphoning off of money to the bottom? It's nice to whine about it, but realistically WTF can anyone do about it? Do we start by legislating profits can only rise to a certain dollar amount? What if, in the case of oil, those huge profits are derived not by excessive markup, but by volume? Or do you do it by percent? Or both?

I understand the whining about profits. But whining and offering no alternatives is like the proverbial raving lunatic walking in circles talking to himself.
 

Carbo

Diamond Member
Aug 6, 2000
5,248
7
81
Originally posted by: yuppiejr
Here's a mind blowing idea for you socialists out there, rather than advocating higher taxes... why not CUT SPENDING and eliminate the need to collect more taxes in the first place. As for this class struggle "rich beneifting off of the poor's backs" - if there were not rich employers in the marketplace to provide jobs for said "poor" they'd be in far WORSE shape. If someone fails to invest in their own skills and wants the security of working for someone else at the fair market price for their labor it seems pretty fair to me. If the only skill I bring to the world is operating a shovel why should I be paid the same as a brain surgeon? Newsflash - communism fails miserably every time for a reason. Who needs to take an economics class here...
Nothing else need be said.

BTW, yuppiejir, is that quote in your sig for real?? :shocked:

 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
OK so alot of people dont like concentrated wealth. What then is the proposal for 1. limiting a corporation's size and profit; and 2. An individual's net worth; and finally 3. how do you intend to distribute this siphoning off of money to the bottom? It's nice to whine about it, but realistically WTF can anyone do about it? Do we start by legislating profits can only rise to a certain dollar amount? What if, in the case of oil, those huge profits are derived not by excessive markup, but by volume? Or do you do it by percent? Or both?

I understand the whining about profits. But whining and offering no alternatives is like the proverbial raving lunatic walking in circles talking to himself.

1. limiting a corporation's size and profit;

'Fair share' tax rate (vague term, but the basic principle is to let the economists recommend a rate with some optimization, and not let the corporate political dominance set it low).

Close some key loopholes (see David Cay Johnston's books for an idea which).

Anti-trust laws.

Remove their legal status as 'persons'.

That's about it - they can make a fortune after that.

2. An individual's net worth

Tax capital gains at least as income

Significant Estate Tax for the wealthy

Review how income is taxed by the next year, but capital gains can grow with deferred taxation for decades, and see if there are any sensible changes. There may not be.

3. how do you intend to distribute this siphoning off of money to the bottom?

Invest in *opportunity creating* programs, e.g. education, healthcare, job assistance, and pay off the debt not to burden the taxpayers with the interest.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Carbo
Originally posted by: yuppiejr
Here's a mind blowing idea for you socialists out there, rather than advocating higher taxes... why not CUT SPENDING and eliminate the need to collect more taxes in the first place. As for this class struggle "rich beneifting off of the poor's backs" - if there were not rich employers in the marketplace to provide jobs for said "poor" they'd be in far WORSE shape. If someone fails to invest in their own skills and wants the security of working for someone else at the fair market price for their labor it seems pretty fair to me. If the only skill I bring to the world is operating a shovel why should I be paid the same as a brain surgeon? Newsflash - communism fails miserably every time for a reason. Who needs to take an economics class here...
Nothing else need be said.

BTW, yuppiejir, is that quote in your sig for real?? :shocked:

Oh, something else need be said.

Liberals are all for cutting spending, in the right places. They believe in other spending. I'm pretty sure they could cut the current spending and still pay for their programs.

As for your rich man fanboi comment, typically of such views, you have a cartoonishly simple portrayal of the issue.

Oh nos, there's no such thing as abusive situations needing to be reigned in; if you do one thing against such abuses, the rich will all destroy the economy for everyone.

It's the typical uninformed pablum blaming the poor. It was liberal programs that took this country out of the misery it was in with 'laissez-faire' and created a strong middle class.

Your logic is like answering a complaint that the police have started openly requiring bribes to do anything with "Without police, you would have trouble!" Gee, thanks for the tip.

Liberals are in favor of a healthy economy and a healthy, large private sector. And they get tired of answering the cartoons from the right about their views.

Why don't you get specific about some things and we'll compare it to actual liberal views? Your very conflating 'liberal Americans', 'socialism', and 'communism' exposes you.

Liberals generall have had excellent economic performance. Care to guess which party in the last ten presidents has the best numbers for the stock market, growth, unemployment?
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
142
106
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Jakeisbest
Please enlighten us on the devastating 'unintended consequences', if any thing there would be MUCH LESS corporate involvement in the government. Corporations would have nothing to complain about if 1/3rd of their income was not being taken away.

The issue is about concentrated power and wealth. The government can be a force for the people protecting their interests from concentrated power, or it can be a force for concentrated power protecting it from the people. If there's a weak government, the private concentrated power can become very oppressive, as it is in so many countries, and the government tends to quickly become its tool, as in 'banana republics', or as ours largely was during the 1880's-1890's before the Progressive Era.

It takes a book to answer your question, so I'll just give you one example of the unintended consequences of excessive corporate carte blanch with the government.

It would likely lead to the castration of the public power to pass regulatory laws protecting itself from any range of corporate harm. Specifically, if you look at the various free trade agreements, you find in them the creation of a secret panel appointed by corporations, who any business can go to about any law, and say that the law cost them money. If the secret business panel, who can't be overruled, decides the law was not justified in ITS opinion - forget the democratic process that led to the government passing it - then the government is liable to the business for all the lost profits estimated. *Governments are signing these rights away*. And that's ALREADY happening.

I write this out - the question is, do you care at all? Or are you buried in the ideology that the corporations will remain benevolent, that absolute power will make them smell nice?
Craig, your example sounds very similar to the WTO... is that what you had in mind? Curious.

 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
142
106
Originally posted by: blackangst1
OK so alot of people dont like concentrated wealth. What then is the proposal for 1. limiting a corporation's size and profit; and 2. An individual's net worth; and finally 3. how do you intend to distribute this siphoning off of money to the bottom? It's nice to whine about it, but realistically WTF can anyone do about it? Do we start by legislating profits can only rise to a certain dollar amount? What if, in the case of oil, those huge profits are derived not by excessive markup, but by volume? Or do you do it by percent? Or both?

I understand the whining about profits. But whining and offering no alternatives is like the proverbial raving lunatic walking in circles talking to himself.
Not a big fan of the whole "wealth redistribution" mentality, to me it's all just whining. You can bet that many who are "whining" about it would be slightly annoyed if THEY were getting taxed more than their neighbor when they worked just as hard to build their wealth. It's usually the people who are jealous that whine about it.

 

yuppiejr

Golden Member
Jul 31, 2002
1,317
0
0
Originally posted by: Carbo
Originally posted by: yuppiejr
Here's a mind blowing idea for you socialists out there, rather than advocating higher taxes... why not CUT SPENDING and eliminate the need to collect more taxes in the first place. As for this class struggle "rich beneifting off of the poor's backs" - if there were not rich employers in the marketplace to provide jobs for said "poor" they'd be in far WORSE shape. If someone fails to invest in their own skills and wants the security of working for someone else at the fair market price for their labor it seems pretty fair to me. If the only skill I bring to the world is operating a shovel why should I be paid the same as a brain surgeon? Newsflash - communism fails miserably every time for a reason. Who needs to take an economics class here...
Nothing else need be said.

BTW, yuppiejir, is that quote in your sig for real?? :shocked:

Sadly, yes.
 

Pacfanweb

Lifer
Jan 2, 2000
13,149
57
91
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Carbo
So far, this empty suit has been specific on two things: he is going to increase the Capital Gains tax, and now he wants to impose a windfall profits tax. Do you see a pattern here?

Yes I do. He is going to make those that have reaped the biggest benefits over the Bush admin's reign to pay back some of it to lessen the load for the other 99% of us.
So he's going to lower everyone else's tax? You realize those people you're talking about already paid most of the taxes anyway, right?
 

Pacfanweb

Lifer
Jan 2, 2000
13,149
57
91
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Well let's see. Increase taxes to pay off debts *or* continue bleeding money out like a sieve. The first choice removes some of the debt burdens on our children and the latter increases it. I am not a fan of higher taxes, but I do understand that spending and debt control is sorely needed.
Debt control, yes. Increased taxes, no. Tax revenue likely will not increase if taxes are raised.

Yet tax revenue HAS increased every time there has been a tax cut.

We already know how to collect the money, we just need to throw out every single congressman and senator and get some folks up there who know how to manage money instead of career politicians who are only interested in winning their next election.
 

Pacfanweb

Lifer
Jan 2, 2000
13,149
57
91
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Why oh why can we not just cut government spending??????

SLASH AND BURN!!!

Why not do both? That's how we ended up with a surplus in the late 90s.
Gov't spending has NEVER been cut.
 

Blain

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
23,643
3
81

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Why oh why can we not just cut government spending??????

SLASH AND BURN!!!

Why not do both? That's how we ended up with a surplus in the late 90s.[/quote]

There was no surplus in the 90s. Check the treasury to see if the national debt went down ANY year from Bush 1 to the Clinton reign through Bush 2.
I'll take ANY year of lower national debt.

You won't be able to find one because there is so much spending on "off budget" item.

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
[ ... ]
Yet tax revenue HAS increased every time there has been a tax cut.
False. It's true tax revenues often increase after tax cuts thanks to inflation and an almost constantly growing U.S. economy. Of course revenues also increase after tax increases, and after taxes are left largely unchanged. After the GWB tax cuts, however, we saw three years of lower federal tax revenues before they finally recovered and passed the previous high. Don't believe the tax cut propaganda.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
[ ... ]
Yet tax revenue HAS increased every time there has been a tax cut.
False. It's true tax revenues often increase after tax cuts thanks to inflation and an almost constantly growing U.S. economy. Of course revenues also increase after tax increases, and after taxes are left largely unchanged. After the GWB tax cuts, however, we saw three years of lower federal tax revenues before they finally recovered and passed the previous high. Don't believe the tax cut propaganda.

Studies show that under 20% is returned on tax cuts, as I recall. Not over 100%.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Craig, your example sounds very similar to the WTO... is that what you had in mind? Curious.

No, I'm not sure why it does that. I'm thinking of the free tade agreements, e.g., CAFTA.

Not a big fan of the whole "wealth redistribution" mentality, to me it's all just whining. You can bet that many who are "whining" about it would be slightly annoyed if THEY were getting taxed more than their neighbor when they worked just as hard to build their wealth. It's usually the people who are jealous that whine about it.

I think many have this view and it's extremely harmful.

Jealousy should have nothing to do with it. It's about creating opportunity.

I think it's simply that one, not enough people have any education on the issue of the harms of excessive concentrations of wealth, and two, it's one of those folksy commonsense myths.

The ironic thing is, it splits the many in the middle class from the many who are poor, who have a lot more in common interests from the few who are ultra wealthy.

Instead, you see the many in the middle talking as if they are in one group with the ultra wealthy, siding against the poor. It's preventing better policies that would help them a lot.

The French revo9lutionists might have chopped off the heads of the Rich, but liberals are l*strengthening* capitalism by their policies, creating opportunity.

The 'American Dream', the normal desire for our nation, is for succeeding generations to do better. When the excessive concentration of wealth limits opportunity...

I can ask you to read books all day, but in recommending probably 20 books in dozens of posts in the last year, I've yet to hear one person one read book. Waste of time I guess.
 

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: yuppiejr
Originally posted by: piasabird
The USA has the highest corporate tax rate in the World!

The Ultra Rich can afford to wait out the tax or buy big ticket items overseas.

What we need is a windfall profit tax on people who write books. If they make 10 million off of a book that is too much money for one person. Obama made lots of money writing books, so did Hilary Clinton and other people on the Left and Right and In-Between. Tax them at an even higher rate. Why is it only the ultra rich people propose these stupid taxes?

You know the people that will be hurt the worst are people who live in an area where the cost of living is high and they have to make a lot of money to pay for their House. Rich people pay poor people. This kind of stupid action will just hurt the bottom line and more businesses will move overseas.

The USA has the highest corporate tax rate in the World!

Clinton tried a windfall profit tax and had to cancel it. Higher taxes just makes slaves of hard working people to feed an ever-growing over-bloated Federal Government. The higher the taxes the worse off the poor are.

Very true, what the short sighted "tax the evil corporation" dorks seem to forget is that the ultimate payer of corporate taxes are the consumers and end users of their goods. Higher taxes on business simply get passed on via higher prices to consumers, period. Windfall taxes on oil companies will simply mean higher prices at the pump, effectively a regressive tax on the poor and middle class who are less able to afford it than the wealthy. Higher taxation of high end luxury goods (yachts, for example) simply leads to fewer being sold which has a negative impact on the working class folks who build boats, bus tables at dockside restaurants, etc.

The so called champions of the working and middle class continue doing more harm than good with their short sighted attacks on business. What we need is a smaller, less expensive federal government (cut spending) and lower taxes for businesses and individuals. You do not create prosperity by removing people's incentive to succeed through punishing taxation...
I agree with this (bolded), and what people don't understand is that the oil companies are not hurt at all by this, for it's a direct transfer of wealth from the people to the government via the tax. For example, say the profit tax is 10% and the oil company makes $100. The government gets $10. In order to stay at a profit level of $100, the oil company will now raise prices at the pump to get to the $112 profit threshold. 10% of that is $11.20, $112 minus $11.20 = $100.80 pure profit. The higher price difference is therefore transferred directly from the people to the government. The oil company is still going to make its $100 profit! ;)

That's not 100% true, because if they determine that they will sell less gasoline at $112 than at $100, then they will likely choose not to increase it to $112.

Adding/raising the tax merely changes the maximum profit equations. Companies will (should) always strive for maximum profits, the tax will change the calculations that determine where your profits are maximized.

Certainly some of the cost(s) involved will be passed on to the consumer, but it is not nearly as simple as you make it out to be. Also please realize that Oil is an exceptionally bad example as it is a very inelastic good (people "need" it, thus people would buy roughly the same amounts at 100 or 112). Most other goods are much more elastic, making my point even stronger for those goods.