Seriously, what's wrong with reducing the corporate tax rate to 15% (or less)?

[cybrsage]

As I offered, the functionality of tax law is immaterial to the structure. Any corporation that spends all their money, like unions, for whatever purpose, ends up being taxed the same as unions. Citizens United means they can spend it all supporting Republicans, if the BoD says so.

What you offered was an oxymoron, a non sequiter, an empty right wing talking point, a meaningless bit of posturing.

No surprises in that.

You are pretending that a group who has to pay taxes is the same as a group who does not have to pay taxes.

Stop using the tired old "but they can get creative about it" line. We BOTH know that unions are exempt from taxes but corps are not.

Why are you pretending the two are the same, when it is obviously not true? Unions do NOT have to spend all their money to be tax exempt...they are automatically tax exempt via the law.

 

[Jhhnn]

You are pretending that a group who has to pay taxes is the same as a group who does not have to pay taxes.

Stop using the tired old "but they can get creative about it" line. We BOTH know that unions are exempt from taxes but corps are not.

Why are you pretending the two are the same, when it is obviously not true? Unions do NOT have to spend all their money to be tax exempt...they are automatically tax exempt via the law.

You missed the part where Unions have to spend all their money to be tax exempt in the first place... otherwise their tax exempt status would be withdrawn.

And the part where giant multinationals often pay no corporate taxes at all, sometimes accruing tax credits for future use-

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/09/460519/major-corporations-no-taxes-four-year/

They even paid no corporate taxes while paying dividends, too...

Functionally, it's not the same as unions, it's even better.

They're being horribly oppressed, obviously.

 

[cybrsage]

You missed the part where Unions have to spend all their money to be tax exempt in the first place... otherwise their tax exempt status would be withdrawn.

They do not.

501(c)(5) - Labor, Agricultural and Horticultural Organizations

If you are a member of an organization that wants to obtain recognition of exemption from federal income tax as a labor, agricultural, or horticultural organization, you should submit an application on Form 1024. You must indicate in your application for exemption and accompanying statements that no part of the organization's net earnings will inure to the benefit of any member. In addition, you should follow the procedure for obtaining recognition of exempt status described in chapter 1. Submit any additional information that may be required, as described in this section.
Tax treatment of donations. Contributions to labor, agricultural, and horticultural organizations are not deductible as charitable contributions on the donor's federal income tax return. However, such payments may be deductible as business expenses if they are ordinary and necessary in the conduct of the taxpayer's trade or business. For more information about certain limits affecting the deductibility of these business expenses, see Deduction not allowed for dues used for political or legislative activities , under 501(c)(6) - Business Leagues, etc.

Labor Organizations

A labor organization is an association of workers who have combined to protect and promote the interests of the members by bargaining collectively with their employers to secure better working conditions.
To show that your organization has the purpose of a labor organization, you should include in the articles of organization or accompanying statements (submitted with your exemption application) information establishing that the organization is organized to better the conditions of workers, improve the grade of their products, and develop a higher degree of efficiency in their respective occupations. In addition, no net earnings of the organization can inure to the benefit of any member.
Composition of membership. While a labor organization generally is composed of employees or representatives of the employees (in the form of collective bargaining agents) and similar employee groups, evidence that an organization's membership consists mainly of workers does not in itself indicate an exempt purpose. You must show in your application that your organization has the purposes described in the preceding paragraph. These purposes can be accomplished by a single labor organization acting alone or by several organizations acting together through a separate organization.

Benefits to members. The payment by a labor organization of death, sick, accident, and similar benefits to its individual members with funds contributed by its members, if made under a plan to better the conditions of the members, does not preclude exemption as a labor organization. However, an organization does not qualify for exemption as a labor organization if it has no authority to represent members in job-related matters, even if it provides weekly income to its members in the event of a lawful strike by the members' union, in return for an annual payment by the member.

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p557/ch04.html#en_US_2011_publink1000200303

Nothing says they cannot spend less money than they bring in. If you believe it does, please post this information and include the link where you obtained it, for it is not in this location, nor in the application to be a tax exempt union.

 

[piasabird]

How can the USA actually control international corporations? They often just move operations overseas and invest in other countries if they are threatened. They are not really USA companies. Even Ford has factories in other countries.

 

[soundforbjt]

Almost a third of corps pay no U.S. taxes now, how much less should they pay? I'd be ok with 15% if all loopholes were closed and all corps actually paid 15%, no exceptions.

 

[nehalem256]

Almost a third of corps pay no U.S. taxes now, how much less should they pay? I'd be ok with 15% if all loopholes were closed and all corps actually paid 15%, no exceptions.

What percentage of corporations make no profit to tax?

 

[soundforbjt]

What percentage of corporations make no profit to tax?

The 1/3 I was referring to make most of the profits made by corps.

 

[Jhhnn]

They do not.


http://www.irs.gov/publications/p557/ch04.html#en_US_2011_publink1000200303

Nothing says they cannot spend less money than they bring in. If you believe it does, please post this information and include the link where you obtained it, for it is not in this location, nor in the application to be a tax exempt union.

I apologize for having pointed out the obvious, and for allowing myself to be trapped in another of your logical fallacies, onus probandi,
From Wikipedia-

from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

You assert that Unions don't pay taxes without any proof that there are no circumstances where they would necessarily do so, circumstances where they acted like corporations.

Which your link points out as the difference between a union and a corporation, anyway, if you'd actually read it-

You must indicate in your application for exemption and accompanying statements that no part of the organization's net earnings will inure to the benefit of any member.

 

[LunarRay]

Corporate tax provided about 9% of Revenue collected or about 1.3% of 2010 GDP which is down from the 1950s of about 6% GDP...

I'd venture to say that Payroll tax provides the greatest Revenue inflow today. Kinda means that the fewer jobs the lower that component is... but still the greatest provider.

Instead of lowering the Corporate tax rate how about raising it.. to say 50% (C corporations) and providing credits for specific actions that can lower it to 10%?

Seems to be what Obama might endorse...

Of course, then they'd have to change the decision tree regarding cash flow considerations... [borrow versus stock] [payback scenarios] and like that... You know Corporate folks hate to complicate the decision making process...

 

[cybrsage]

I apologize for having pointed out the obvious, and for allowing myself to be trapped in another of your logical fallacies, onus probandi,

Which your link points out as the difference between a union and a corporation, anyway, if you'd actually read it-

Do you even know what inure means? It does not support your statement.

You are correct, you are trying to shift the need to prove YOUR statement onto me for some reason. So lets try again, this time you need to actually support your statement. This is your statement:

"You missed the part where Unions have to spend all their money to be tax exempt in the first place... otherwise their tax exempt status would be withdrawn. - Jhhnn"

You need to support it or admit you are wrong. YOU made this statement, back it up with some support. It should not be hard to do one of the two.

 

[Jhhnn]

Do you even know what inure means? It does not support your statement.

You are correct, you are trying to shift the need to prove YOUR statement onto me for some reason. So lets try again, this time you need to actually support your statement. This is your statement:

"You missed the part where Unions have to spend all their money to be tax exempt in the first place... otherwise their tax exempt status would be withdrawn. - Jhhnn"

You need to support it or admit you are wrong. YOU made this statement, back it up with some support. It should not be hard to do one of the two.

Inure- To result; to take effect; to be of use, benefit, or advantage to an individual.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/inure

Your original statement-

Corps should be taxed at the union tax rate.

I offered that many are, provided reasons for saying so and linkage, as well. I also offered that if unions acted like corps, inured members with cash disbursements, they'd lose their tax exempt status.

 

[cybrsage]

Inure- To result; to take effect; to be of use, benefit, or advantage to an individual.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/inure

Your original statement-

Good for you, you used a dictionary. Now please show how that supports your statement (hint - it does not), which you STILL refuse to support. I will repost it again so you cannot "forget" what it is you have so far refused to support:

"You missed the part where Unions have to spend all their money to be tax exempt in the first place... otherwise their tax exempt status would be withdrawn. - Jhhnn"

 

[werepossum]

False premises inevitably lead to false conclusions. No matter how many times that particularly premise is discredited, you'll trot it out again as if it were true, as an article of Faith. You might as well say that the earth is flat, base elaborate arguments on that statement.

Government produces the structure where commerce takes place, and it also produces the modern means of of commerce, money. It also produces goods and services that private industry finds unattractive but that all of see as necessary.

Remove that single false premise & your arguments fall away as gibberish.

Your whole concept of "producers" seeking "returns" on "investment" creates the runaway train effect of today, where more & more gets skimmed off the top in an attempt to preserve return rates. It's totally dependent on growth exceeding skim and on some equitable distribution of such growth, which simply isn't happening, and hasn't been for 30 years. The disparity in gains between labor & capital has become enormous, and grows continuously. 7% return on investment over 30 years yields 8X the original number of dollars, and 8X the return at the same rate, but wages have lagged far, far behind that, with workers lucky to be receiving 3X the number of dollars they did 30 years ago for the same work.

I find it amusing that you have adopted Government as your God, yet you don't have the balls to move to a nation such as China or North Korea where Government is as all-powerful as you wish. Since you do not have the courage of your convictions, I can only assume that your entire concept of Government as God is driven only by your typical proggie envy and greed, justified by a mishmash of hazy concepts which all boil down to "Government is Good" and "People with more than I are Bad".

Corporate tax provided about 9% of Revenue collected or about 1.3% of 2010 GDP which is down from the 1950s of about 6% GDP...

I'd venture to say that Payroll tax provides the greatest Revenue inflow today. Kinda means that the fewer jobs the lower that component is... but still the greatest provider.

Instead of lowering the Corporate tax rate how about raising it.. to say 50% (C corporations) and providing credits for specific actions that can lower it to 10%?

Seems to be what Obama might endorse...

Of course, then they'd have to change the decision tree regarding cash flow considerations... [borrow versus stock] [payback scenarios] and like that... You know Corporate folks hate to complicate the decision making process...

What could possibly go wrong with that? The only possible flaw would be if the people making up Government were somehow not way smarter, wiser, more ethical, and more imaginative than people in the private sector, and we all know that can't possibly be true. Government is Great; therefore the people who make up government are obviously much, much greater than those not in government. It's an article of faith.

 

[nehalem256]

Instead of lowering the Corporate tax rate how about raising it.. to say 50% (C corporations) and providing credits for specific actions that can lower it to 10%?

Seems to be what Obama might endorse...

So we impose a high tax on corporations. But then we allow them to lower it through the use of lawyers, accountants, and lobbyists :hmm:

Well that does indeed seem like something Obama would support. I dont know why any reasonable person would want that.

 

[LunarRay]

So we impose a high tax on corporations. But then we allow them to lower it through the use of lawyers, accountants, and lobbyists :hmm:

Well that does indeed seem like something Obama would support. I dont know why any reasonable person would want that.

Huh?

I mean... like totally Huh?

I said:

"Instead of lowering the Corporate tax rate how about raising it.. to say 50% (C corporations) and providing credits for specific actions that can lower it to 10%?"

If you understood that to mean that the professions hired by the Corporation would find 'loopholes' called 'Credits' then I failed in my attempt to communicate.... or...

What I meant was something like... Government provides C corps a 30% tax credit if they hire a person or train a person or some such... If their cost to do this is say 50,000$ then they'd get a tax credit of 15,000$ and that the total credits allowed in one year could not reduce income tax below 10%... and the unusable portion would be carried forward and used when then can..

 

[Jhhnn]

I find it amusing that you have adopted Government as your God, yet you don't have the balls to move to a nation such as China or North Korea where Government is as all-powerful as you wish. Since you do not have the courage of your convictions, I can only assume that your entire concept of Government as God is driven only by your typical proggie envy and greed, justified by a mishmash of hazy concepts which all boil down to "Government is Good" and "People with more than I are Bad".


What could possibly go wrong with that? The only possible flaw would be if the people making up Government were somehow not way smarter, wiser, more ethical, and more imaginative than people in the private sector, and we all know that can't possibly be true. Government is Great; therefore the people who make up government are obviously much, much greater than those not in government. It's an article of faith.

When you're reduced to false attribution & strawmen, you have no meaningful argument, only denial.

Government & business complement each other- neither can do well w/o the other. It's been that way since ancient times, when govt provided the safety of marketplaces for commerce to occur, assessed fees or taxes as part of the bargain. When done right, Govt prevents ripoffs & blatantly unfair dealings, and provides the infrastructure of modern markets as well. As commerce has become more complex, govt has needed to respond to that to maintain honest markets for the benefit of the citizenry.

Govt isn't always successful in executing the mandate of the people to do so, the mandate of egalitarian democracy as expressed in the Constitution. Egalitarian Democracy is, in truth, a very leftist concept that flew in the face of inherited wealth & power at the time, and still does today.

Our govt isn't something imposed upon us, at all, no matter how badly Libertopian twits want to see it that way. Collectively, we have the power to change it at the polls, but we probably won't simply because of the vast number of Americans who idolize the wealthy, worship at the altar of greed, maintain the illusion that they'll be rich too if they let the rich do whatever they want. Quite the contrary.

At various times in the past, it became necessary for our govt to step up to curb the excesses of capitalism. The trustbusters of the Progressive era & the New Deal are obvious examples, and the Civil War really was, too. Slavery was a form of Capitalism, where capital was invested in human bondage. Slaves had cash value, just like machinery.

Today is another such time, although not enough of us seem to realize it. Democrats muffed a historic opportunity, much to the detriment of the vast majority of Americans. What we need is a new New Deal, but what we're getting is a piecemeal attempt to paper over the problems inherent in growing inequality, and fierce organized resistance from wealth holders expressed as Repub policy. Apparently, we'll stumble forward until some even greater economic catastrophe engulfs us, at which point the denial of middle class people will be broken, just as it was in the early 1930's.

 

[werepossum]

So we impose a high tax on corporations. But then we allow them to lower it through the use of lawyers, accountants, and lobbyists :hmm:

Well that does indeed seem like something Obama would support. I dont know why any reasonable person would want that.

Well, obviously because Government is so totally awesome, rad and gnarly that the money spent on lawyers, accountants, and lobbyists would be so much productive than actually spending that money on productive things because of the superiority of Government direction, which is, like, totally tubular.

If you start from the twin premises that those at the top merely won life's lottery and remain there only by holding everyone else down, and that everyone in Government is magically wise, smart and selfless, then it makes sense that some random bureaucrat with a lifetime job and absolutely no vested interest in whether or not the company thrives or even survives is obviously such a better judge of what the company should do than the people actually running the company - who don't forget are only there because of luck and evil. The true beauty of these assumptions is simple. First, it allows one to feel as though he is the absolute human pinnacle of human evolution, since anyone more successful is so only by nefarious deeds. (This also allows one to abolish the need for G-d, since no higher being can be recognized.) Second, it establishes the morality of taking whatever the more successful have earned, since no matter what they did, it's an article of faith that it was blind luck and/or active evil. Third, it establishes Government as a pure tool to redress the evil of anyone having more than you.

 

[werepossum]

When you're reduced to false attribution & strawmen, you have no meaningful argument, only denial.

Government & business complement each other- neither can do well w/o the other. It's been that way since ancient times, when govt provided the safety of marketplaces for commerce to occur, assessed fees or taxes as part of the bargain. When done right, Govt prevents ripoffs & blatantly unfair dealings, and provides the infrastructure of modern markets as well. As commerce has become more complex, govt has needed to respond to that to maintain honest markets for the benefit of the citizenry.

Govt isn't always successful in executing the mandate of the people to do so, the mandate of egalitarian democracy as expressed in the Constitution. Egalitarian Democracy is, in truth, a very leftist concept that flew in the face of inherited wealth & power at the time, and still does today.

Our govt isn't something imposed upon us, at all, no matter how badly Libertopian twits want to see it that way. Collectively, we have the power to change it at the polls, but we probably won't simply because of the vast number of Americans who idolize the wealthy, worship at the altar of greed, maintain the illusion that they'll be rich too if they let the rich do whatever they want. Quite the contrary.

At various times in the past, it became necessary for our govt to step up to curb the excesses of capitalism. The trustbusters of the Progressive era & the New Deal are obvious examples, and the Civil War really was, too. Slavery was a form of Capitalism, where capital was invested in human bondage. Slaves had cash value, just like machinery.

Today is another such time, although not enough of us seem to realize it. Democrats muffed a historic opportunity, much to the detriment of the vast majority of Americans. What we need is a new New Deal, but what we're getting is a piecemeal attempt to paper over the problems inherent in growing inequality, and fierce organized resistance from wealth holders expressed as Repub policy. Apparently, we'll stumble forward until some even greater economic catastrophe engulfs us, at which point the denial of middle class people will be broken, just as it was in the early 1930's.

I actually agree with parts of that, although I'll point out that slavery is an institution that cannot exist without some sort of government. Otherwise, getting away means freedom.

However, what you proggies can never understand is that non-proggies don't oppose destroying the rich because we "idolize the wealthy, worship at the altar of greed, maintain the illusion that they'll be rich too if they let the rich do whatever they want." We have two excellent reasons for not wanting to seize and redistribute the rich's wealth. First is simple morality: "You shall not steal." "You shall not covet . . . anything that is your neighbor's . . . You shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's." Proggies cannot understand that money isn't evil, it's the love of money that is evil. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." Your lust for what others have earned is nothing more than love of money, and this lust hardens your heart to all but wealth.

If prohibitions from G-d weren't enough - and as proggies generally reject any being higher than themselves, it won't be - non-progressives also understand enlightened self-interest. More often than not, the wealthy are the ones bringing us new products, new services, new experiences. That's how they become and remain wealthy. Of course, as non-progressives we still expect to have to earn these things, but they are available at all simply because some visionary (or more likely, several) had the idea and the drive, and then put at risk his own assets and those of like-minded entrepreneurs to make these things practical. Government can make a better environment for these things to happen, and can certainly facilitate their production and distribution, but government cannot make them happen.

Even Red China, as government-centric a nation as ever existed, finally recognized this fact. After half a century of government selecting direction and selecting the best minds to achieve this direction, Red China was a miserable failure, its people mostly eking out bare subsistence. Two reasons - first, innovation is not a quality that can be predicted or selected. Second, if the result of standing out is to be hammered flat rather than to be richly rewarded, no one will stand out. Only when Red China embraced capitalism - when people began to become rich not for their ideological purity, but rather for their innovation, business savvy, hard work and vision - did Red China begin to climb out of abject poverty.

 

[cybrsage]

Still waiting for Jhhnn to either post his proof or admit he has none:


"You missed the part where Unions have to spend all their money to be tax exempt in the first place... otherwise their tax exempt status would be withdrawn. - Jhhnn"

 

[LunarRay]

Still waiting for Jhhnn to either post his proof or admit he has none:


"You missed the part where Unions have to spend all their money to be tax exempt in the first place... otherwise their tax exempt status would be withdrawn. - Jhhnn"

I think ASC 958 [FASB] covers what must be presented in Non Profit entity financials... One such category is Restricted Net Assets... funds set aside for striking members... The cash 'set aside' for this eventuality is deposited in some vehicle for that day... or month. () They don't have to spend all their money to remain a non profit in other words.

IF their unrestricted net assets exceed some level one begins to wonder why the dues (income) are not reduced and nifty stuff like that. I even think there is a rule promulgated by OLMS in the Dept of Labor dealing with holding cash or near cash beyond some level... But that don't mean they have to spend every penny to remain a 503.c.5 or what ever they are...

Some other Non Profits may have some rule that I'm not aware of but I don't think so... Especially like those gifts that have a leash attached... can't spend that at all until the leash comes off...

It's been awhile but I think I'm right...

 

[Jhhnn]

I never offered that we should seize & redistribute wealth, merely tax higher incomes at higher rates as an issue of economic self defense for working people. Although the mechanism is poorly understood, extreme concentration of wealth & income creates extreme instability in any economic system, apparently through the mechanism of substitution of excessive credit for wages. It's what happened in 1929, and again at the end of the housing bubble. When wealthy interests are allowed to do that, the effects are disastrous & long lasting. As their holdings increase, the ability to make a profit increases inversely, simply because the ability of the general population to support such profit taking has been diminished. So they take greater risks in the extension of credit, create elaborate mechanisms to conceal that risk, until it falls down simply because of the inability to pay.

It's not like the post WW2 period, when taxes were much higher for enormous incomes, wasn't a period of strong innovation & growth, at all. The notion that innovators will not innovate in the face of high taxes is completely unsupported. The notion that such is the source of most corporate profit in this country is also erroneous. Although the financial sector comprises 10% of GDP, it comprises 40% of corporate profits, and what they "innovate" hasn't been shown to be of real societal benefit, at all.

The notion that I want something for myself is erroneous. As I've said several times, I've done well, and with a little more luck will continue to do so. OTOH, as a member of the middle class, I see the explosive inequality in this country as tearing us apart, as depriving many younger people of the very opportunities that I had. Wealthy people are disinclined to invest in productive endeavors when they can make handsome returns from purely financial transactions which often amount to little more than asset stripping & transfering funds from institutional investors like pensions, 401K's & endowments into the pockets of hedge funds & private equity firms. It is, in all too many ways, a form of looting and of class warfare. "Growth" is meaningless to working people when they don't get a share of it, which is increasingly the case. "Growth" is less than meaningless when the labor participation rate is forced down even when so-called "growth" is occurring.

In the face of increasing concentration of ownership, of increased offshoring, of increased automation we face some stark choices. If we can't reverse those trends, and I suspect that will be extremely difficult, we need to accept the need for greater redistribution of income if we're to continue to have a broad middle class at all, a society where opportunity is also broad as well. We can't possibly thrive as a nation when having a job is a necessity and yet a matter of luck & privilege regulated by scarcity at the same time.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think ASC 958 [FASB] covers what must be presented in Non Profit entity financials... One such category is Restricted Net Assets... funds set aside for striking members... The cash 'set aside' for this eventuality is deposited in some vehicle for that day... or month. () They don't have to spend all their money to remain a non profit in other words.

IF their unrestricted net assets exceed some level one begins to wonder why the dues (income) are not reduced and nifty stuff like that. I even think there is a rule promulgated by OLMS in the Dept of Labor dealing with holding cash or near cash beyond some level... But that don't mean they have to spend every penny to remain a 503.c.5 or what ever they are...

Some other Non Profits may have some rule that I'm not aware of but I don't think so... Especially like those gifts that have a leash attached... can't spend that at all until the leash comes off...

It's been awhile but I think I'm right...

Yet once that ceiling is reached, expenditures must match income to maintain the non profit status. In practice, Unions never get there, basically existing hand to mouth with small buffers. They spend what they get, particularly over any time frame longer than a few months or years. Which was what I said in the first place.

 

[nehalem256]

"Growth" is meaningless to working people when they don't get a share of it, which is increasingly the case. "Growth" is less than meaningless when the labor participation rate is forced down even when so-called "growth" is occurring.

Do you want to rethink your statement about the labor participation rate being forced down?

 

[Matt1970]

I never offered that we should seize & redistribute wealth, merely tax higher incomes at higher rates as an issue of economic self defense for working people.

That's the exact same thing unless the Government just keeps the added revenue like they always have.

As their holdings increase, the ability to make a profit increases inversely, simply because the ability of the general population to support such profit taking has been diminished. So they take greater risks in the extension of credit, create elaborate mechanisms to conceal that risk, until it falls down simply because of the inability to pay.

You are now claiming that the rich need to have the money taken away from them because as they aquire wealth they aquire too many assets (holdings) making it harder for them to make more money. That is absolutely obsurd. If that were true, they would take even more risks as you have now cut their profits.

It's not like the post WW2 period, when taxes were much higher for enormous incomes, wasn't a period of strong innovation & growth, at all. The notion that innovators will not innovate in the face of high taxes is completely unsupported. The notion that such is the source of most corporate profit in this country is also erroneous. Although the financial sector comprises 10% of GDP, it comprises 40% of corporate profits, and what they "innovate" hasn't been shown to be of real societal benefit, at all.

The problem was GDP was stagnant till those rates were cut. Since then we have almost doubled GDP every decade.

I will take the rollercoasters, because the stability you refer to equates to equal suffering for all. BYW, we typically a couple recessions per decade and that has been the trend for almost the last 200 years.

 

[Jhhnn]

Do you want to rethink your statement about the labor participation rate being forced down?

No-

http://blog.thomsonreuters.com/inde...abor-force-participation-rate-at-27-year-low/