ASPEN, Colo. — President Bill Clinton says the nation’s corporate tax rate is “uncompetitive” and called for a lower rate as part of a “mega-deal” to raise the debt ceiling.
“When I was president, we raised the corporate income-tax rates on corporations that made over $10 million [a year],” the former president told the Aspen Ideas Festival on Saturday evening. “It made sense when I did it. It doesn’t make sense anymore — we’ve got an uncompetitive rate. We tax at 35 percent of income, although we only take about 23 percent. So we should cut the rate to 25 percent, or whatever’s competitive, and eliminate a lot of the deductions so that we still get a fair amount, and there’s not so much variance in what the corporations pay. But how can they do that by Aug. 2?”
Clinton also said Grover Norquist, who as president of Americans for Tax Reform is the GOP’s unofficial enforcer of no-new-taxes pledges, has a “chilling” hold on the nation’s lawmaking.
The former president said it has seemed like Republicans need any revenue concessions to be “approved in advance by Grover Norquist.”
“You’re laughing,” he told the crowd of 800. “But he was quoted in the paper the other day saying he gave Republican senators permission … on getting rid of the ethanol subsidies. I thought, ‘My God, what has this country come to when one person has to give you permission to do what’s best for the country.’ It was chilling.”
Betcha didn’t see that coming.
#63, Corporations use the commons at much greater rates than individuals. For the sole purpose of making money.
We’ve heard this before but we’ve never seen any examples.
Do you have any?
#64, most of those loopholes were created as payback for campaign donations.
Agreed.
That’s why we need to remove the incentive. Remove the money.
>> LibertyLover said, on July 6th, 2011 at 6:22 am
>>>> #63, Corporations use the commons at much greater rates than individuals. For the sole purpose of making money.
>> We’ve heard this before but we’ve never seen any examples.
>> Do you have any?
Who uses the FAA more: you or UPS?
Who uses the FDA more: you or Tyson foods?
Who uses the FCC more: you or Newscorp?
Who wears-down the roads more: you or Atlas Van Lines?
Who uses federal lands more: you or the oil and mining companies?
It’s like that for nearly every industry. They take HEAVILY from the commons but don’t want to pay a dime back. That’s for suckers like you and me.
Alan Greenspan, former Fed Chairman, said Clinton “Was the best President the Republicans ever had !!!” – so true !!! But Obama is trying his best to beat Clinton at being a Democrat in name only and a Crpto-Fascist Republican IN FACT !!! (See Obama’s willingness to cave on Medicare and Social Security !!! That should put him in the SAME CROSS-HAIRS AS RYAN AND HIS “PLAN” !!!)
#69 I agree with your own self opinion that you are miserable. I would also add that you’re a buffoon.
#67,
Who uses the FAA more: you or UPS?
They PAY to use it. Fuel taxes, airport fees, etc. It isn’t a free service.
Who uses the FDA more: you or Tyson foods?
We do.
Who uses the FCC more: you or Newscorp?
They had to pay the money to lease the frequency. They aren’t doing it for free.
Who wears-down the roads more: you or Atlas Van Lines?
Again, fuel taxes. And franchise fees for every truck they own.
Who uses federal lands more: you or the oil and mining companies?
And they pay heavily for it. Do you know what the fees are to actually put in a well are? They’re outrageous. I know because I work in this industry.
Now . . . if you want to get technical, those costs are passed on us, the consumers.
How is raising the taxes going to make that any better?
They will just raise their prices more.
You still haven’t convinced us.
I have something really interesting, okay more of a historical curiosity, relating to the ORIGINAL tea party. I had always assumed they were angry at HIGHER taxes on tea. Turns out the reverse is true. The King was dramatically lowering taxes on tea, so why did the ostensible consumers of the product get so angry?
Turns out that high taxes on goods created a lot of tax evasion. Most of the tea coming in at the higher rates was snuck past the ports, or bought back from Brit tax authorities if impounded. Merchants would still charge it out to customers as if they’d paid the higher taxes. It guaranteed them big profit margins, and kept tea a luxury item.
The King decided to flood the US market with tea AND tax that flow at a lower rate. It was specifically designed to devalue the illicit holdings that already gotten past the taxman. US traders, unhappy that the new price structure disadvantaged them, staged a tax revolt: for higher taxes!
At the end of the production chain things didn’t go smoothly either. The extra flow cost money, and the King didn’t have enough silver to ramp up purchases in China because higher demand raised the price. Instead it was decided to let them smoke opium. While the Brits eventually lost the colonies they ended up gaining Hong Kong.
That’s still a net loss… heavy lies the crown.
The words are mine, but the info comes from R.T. Naylor’s “Crass Struggle”
#67, GregAllen, you aren’t even comparing apples to apples, so your analysis is disingenuous at best.
An organization of 10,000 people of course uses more of a resource than does an individual in absolute terms. How much does a coordinated organization of 10,000 use of a resource compared to 10,000 individuals? That is the more appropriate comparison; and I would be willing to wager that the organization is much more efficient in its usages than is the aggregate of individuals.
Beyond that point, some of your examples are clumsy anyway. What do you mean by “Who uses the FDA more: you or Tyson foods?” The FDA governs over Tyson foods, the consumers are more like “users,” and as such, they receive most of the direct benefit.
#59, Fusion, if you think it is the government’s job to play social engineer by picking winners and losers of subsidies for your prefered activities, then there are much better (and direct) ways it can be accomplished, rather than creating an incredibly complex tax code. Taxes should be designed so that they are consistent and compliance is simple and unburdonsome. If you want to dole out subsidies for your favored behaviors afterwards, then do it as a separate activity.
LibertyLover,
I gather that you don’t agree with the principal that that those who use more, should pay more.
Especially, if they are using services for profit.
In most or all cases, the fees you listed don’t come even close to paying for the services those corporations use. And it’s not just the direct services, there are also fire, police, courts, trade missions, treaty negotiations, … even the military. And, very importantly, the cost of educating future workers in our public schools. In all those cases, corporations use the government more than you do.
And, yet, you think all this should be free to them.
I couldn’t disagree more. They use the services more, they should pay more.
I’m curious. What is the fee for putting in a well compared to the value of _our_ oil they take out of that well? Since it is our land, I think we deserve a 60/40 split. What is the ratio, in reality? I honestly don’t know.
Sea Lawyer,
I agree it is apples vs oranges… but the corporation have MUCH LARGER oranges.
I drive a Mazda Miata which does some wear-and-tear on the roads with it’s 2,000 lbs. A semi-truck’s 80,000 lbs does MUCH MORE wear and tear, demanding much more road repair and even a differently designed road.
Yet, according to LibertyLover, I should have to pay income taxes for those roads and Atlas Van Lines should not!
That’s a topsy, turvey mixed-up way to view government services, IMHO.
#71
“Who uses the FAA more: you or UPS?
Who uses the FDA more: you or Tyson foods?
Who uses the FCC more: you or Newscorp?
Who wears-down the roads more: you or Atlas Van Lines?
Who uses federal lands more: you or the oil and mining companies?”
I think what you’re saying is that the dual mission to regulate AND promote industries is in conflict. If I wanted to be clever I’d say the regulatory actions are elements in the process of creating products, and that producer\consumer use of regulatory agencies would balance only to the extent that products were produced and not sold. It’s obvious that you’re saying that producers are more able to influence the process to their advantage, despite consumers being more numerous.
Chris,
I’m being more simple than that.
In America, corporations are legal “persons.” They use the commons like crazy, so they should pay.
Take Rush Limbaugh and Clear Channel. That empire would not even exist without the FCC. Limbaugh would be a guy on a CB radio. Instead they make seven billion dollars a year.
Yet, some here believe that _I_ should pay to maintain the FCC and Clear Channel should not! That’s CRAZY!
I say Clear Channel should be a HIGHER percentage of their income than me because they use government services more than I do.
That’s my point.
Honestly, you guys, I can hardly believe we are debating this totally obvious point. It shows how far the country has drifted towards extreme corporatism. We pay, they profit, I guess.
#75, I gather that you don’t agree with the principal that that those who use more, should pay more.
Nope. Didn’t say that at all. In fact, I believe in just the opposite.
That is called proportionment and is a tenet of the U.S. Constitution.
BUT, I do not agree that just because someone manages to make more than somebody else, using the same resource, they should pay more.
In most or all cases, the fees you listed don’t come even close to paying for the services those corporations use[…]
Do you have figures to back up that claim or is this a feeling you have?
#76, Yet, according to LibertyLover, I should have to pay income taxes for those roads and Atlas Van Lines should not!
You really need to learn to comprehend what you read (I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you actually read it). I said they were paying taxes on gas, franchise fees, tax stamps, etc. 80,000 lbs. of vehicle uses way more gas than 2,000 lbs of vehicle. THUS, they are paying more.
If you are going to lie about me, at least have the common decency to lie about something that isn’t refuted just five posts up.
#78, I say Clear Channel should be a HIGHER percentage of their income than me because they use government services more than I do.
That’s a great idea. We’ll charge those who made higher test scores more money to keep the school open. They obviously got more out of it!
Greg,
I think you are suffering from a Gross Conceptual Error.
You are trying to equate profits to actual use.
You can’t compare those two things.
What if two trucks, equal in all respects except one, were using the same road the same amount of time. The one thing different between them is the mpg they get. One gets 50 mpg, the other 5.
Should the one making getting the best mileage be responsible for paying more?
#78 I think simple use of regulatory bodies is basically balanced between producers and consumers; it differs only to the extent that products are produced but not sold. Consumers pay these costs through higher priced products, while producers are paying much less because of easier taxing standards.
It’s known as the tragedy of the commons, or the free-rider problem. Here is a list of some of our biggest free riders:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2011/03/ten_giant_us_companies_avoidin.html
It’s an issue of contributions not use.
Greg is right, hell even Ben Franklin charged business owners in Philadelphia more for police than regular homeowners since they benefited from the service more.
#81, Some of the examples don’t tell the whole story, I don’t think.
They say these companies got refunds. A refund from the IRS doesn’t mean you didn’t pay taxes. It means you “over-paid” taxes after taking into account deductions (yes, I know that is what this thread is about)..
The only two examples where he actually stated they didn’t pay any taxes were Exxon Mobil and Citigroup.
Two were held up as an example of paying too little, Carnival Cruise Lines and Goldman Sachs.
Three received bailouts. Whom do we blame for that?
One only showed GROSS SALES without profits.
And a few of them didn’t make that much year to year so he aggregated up to 5 years to make it sound worse than it was.
What I am curious about is what each of those companies actually paid in taxes those years. A $19M refund on $10B in profits is a pretty small refund.
I think this article is more about shock value using large numbers than actually presenting a solution. So let’s put all of this in perspective.
The profits presented, for a single year, come to $52.4B.
That is 3.1% of the total Deficit, for this one year.
Shock value only. Take their entire profit and we are still 1.648 Trillion Dollars short of paying our bills this year.
Now that’s a shocking number.
#82, smartalix, your appeal to tradition aside, you really have to take each case individually to make any determination. As in your example, yes a business likely has more to lose from crime, or a building fire, than an individual, so it is reasonable to charge more to pay for the function.
In the case of product quality regulators, it is far less clear. The overwhelming benefit from quality regulation is the reduction of the information asymmetry problem. For consumers, it is very expensive to gather information about which products are of higher quality than others in a world with no standards; and the costs are potentially very high if you choose a poor quality one. Regulation reduces these costs, which is a benefit to consumers. Now by reducing this information asymmetry you have taken away a potential market advantage of those companies who are able to establish a reputation for high quality, but you have also helped them by reducing the “lemon” effect that occurs when consumers, who don’t know the actual quality, underestimate and are unwilling to pay the higher prices of the better products; reducing the high-quality producer’s ability to sell in the market. So yes, there are benefits for both sides in this case, but it is very unclear who gains the most; so you can’t immediately apply the same standard as before; especially when you consider that producers are also consumers. It is probably easiest in this instance to call it a wash and tax both sides equally.
#85–Sea Lawyer==you conclude your tax benefit analysis with: “So yes, there are benefits for both sides in this case, but it is very unclear who gains the most; so you can’t immediately apply the same standard as before; especially when you consider that producers are also consumers. It is probably easiest in this instance to call it a wash and tax both sides equally.” //// So in the metric of “product quality regulators” you think taxation should be based on benefits received and if this analysis reveals nothing discernible to treat both entities the same? There are so many other factors. Ability to spread the impact of such taxes? The ability to secure and repay loans based on being an ongoing entity? The several other factors you name yourself. How about the fact that I don’t eat chickens at all? How much should I be taxed for that product quality regulation?
There is no “science” to be applied to these social constructs. No real right vs wrong. Its more just pragmatically what will work, what is acceptable, and stumble our way forward.
I have to wonder if we have in fact lost track of the issue. What “business” gets taxed like a human being? In what way does that question even get off the ground?
bobbo, “What “business” gets taxed like a human being?”
Most “businesses” in this country are proprietorships or some form of partnership. So the “business” isn’t being taxed at all, the human who owns it is. That is why corporations are “people” – so they can pay their own taxes.
“Betcha didn’t see that coming”
Hmmm?
Clinton always sounded like Ronald Reagan on the stump.
And he meant what he said about as often as Obama means what Obama says.
So, he slipped back into “Candidate Clinton” mode.
Senility, I suppose.
But it’s just words out of the mouth of a politician, utterly devoid of real-world implications.
#60, LL
No. Grover Norquist is against raising any taxes. I never said that and obviously your comprehension problem raised its ugly head again.
I specifically stated that there are some “loopholes” that should be re-evaluated. I also pointed out that these “loopholes” are to set the government’s social agenda. If the government does not see the need to encourage oil drilling on federal lands then there is no reason to continue to offer incentives. Norquist would have all these corporate welfare programs remain.
#89, Grover Norquist is also against closing the loopholes and removing deductions. He considers those tax increases.
You’re probably closer to him than you realize, whether it is for the same reasons or not.
I’ll be out for the next couple of weeks.
Y’all have fun!