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.
If I were a stooge:
When challenged to think and actually come up with a solution, I too will opt to pay money to avoid the opportunity.
Ha, ha.
Extra Credit: makesnosense: define “self important shit” in a way that includes me but excludes you. GO!!!!!!!!!!!
I miss this guy. Let’s change Amendment 22 and allow for non-consecutive terms.
>> LotsaLuck said, on July 5th, 2011 at 11:45 am
>> Well, at least until bobbo, Greg Allen, and the lot start talking about how it’s all the fault of Bush or Cantor or Gingrich or some other ‘puke’.
Once again, you confuse us liberals with yourself. We don’t defend our leaders, lock-step, like the conservatives do.
Bill Clinton was a great president and he left the country in pretty darn great-shape, only to have it wrecked by conservatives.
That being said, he made several big mistakes, mostly in favor of corporations. Signing Bush Sr’s repeal of Glass–Steagall was a huge one but also NAFTA and the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
However, on this specific issue, I don’t exactly disagree with him…. THEORETICALLY.
If (very big _IF__) all deductions and tax-give aways were ended, corporate rates could be reduced. It would be much more fair, as well. I think JFK supported the same idea.
As it is currently, too many corporations are a fiscal anchor around the taxpayers necks.
bobbo, said,
>> This mania against taxes is truly corrosive. Make good men falter.
It’s anarchy.
The Tea Party, followed to their rhetorical conclusion is Somalia.
>> # 2 McCullough said, on July 5th, 2011 at 11:35 am
>>>> “close the damn loopholes”
>> Yep, sounds good, I’m all for it. Good luck with that.
The only way I would support this is END THE LOOPHOLES FIRST.
Then, when the budget is balanced and the national dept is paid, lower the rate.
Greg Allen–very true. Sad part is I don’t think those advocating the “spending cuts only” recognize the gravity well of their positions.
Maybe we give them too much credit. Ryan “says” he is saving MediCare. Does he really think that===that which is so much not the case right on the face of it? What Ryan is in fact advocating is the END OF MEDICARE. Is he willing to state that as a simple fact? What evidence/facts would he want to see to establish whether or not that is the case regardless of what he “thinks” he is doing.
What kind of society do we actually want?
Grandma back to eating cat flood/flying silver carp while millionaires continue to get tax subsidies for their leer jets. Really? REALLY!!!!!!!!
I might be on a jag here: makesnosenseatall: just by way of example, let me define “self important shit” in a way that includes YOU but excludes me: “anyone posting they have the/a solution but they aren’t going to post it because society is a bunch of losers who don’t deserve his insight and magic.”
Like the ape in the zoo—projecting all he’s got.
Ha, ha. I do crack myself up.
The pundit class that played around the edges of the GOP dogma, such as David Brooks and some others, is starting to catch on that these guys are nuts.
Read the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=2"David Brooks NYT column. Finally, they are catching on to the reality of the tea party, and the GOP in general.
Dammit!
The link
how are we to run a country on a discounted tax base?
Let’s just cut the loopholes and discontinue the tax breaks, because as you know, those tax breaks are just “big government”. (the mantra cry of the republican party)
Ya know a flat tax rate would eliminate all those pesky tax lawyer middle men.. we could just tell them there is a giant space goat coming to eat earth… ship them all out on a big “ark” to another planet.. 😀
Just to fuel the argument a bit:
Why should corporations or businesses pay ANY tax at all?
Businesses provide services/products that people want and are willing to pay for. To provide these services, the businesses employ people. Their employees all pay income tax and social security taxes. Consumers of the services and products pay sales taxes on the products.
Why shouldn’t the business be allowed to keep the money that is left over?
Chuck…to pay for the agencies that regulate commerce. As any thinking person is aware (which exclude teabaggers by definition), a free market thrives best with rules that prevent abuses, cheaters, collusion, stacked playing fields, etc. Businesses should pay for that, because they all benefit from it.
chuck–I’m heartened to see you are not acting like a self important shit. Offering ideas and solutions==just as any caring thinking person will.
Tax Theory.
Getting revenue from those/the activities that cause the expense. Olo pretty much nailed that one–in theory.
but your quesiton remains as we all know that “in the end” its the people/consumers that pay all taxes. How to best distribute this load?
And that simply calls for the 1-4-10 year budget plans showing revenue and expenses. Whatever the people agree to is as valid as any other generally agreed to plan. What we have now is an aberration. People agreeing only to plans of continued deficit: won’t work. Without some long range thinking, the short term imposition of avoidable suffering cannot be avoided.
Sad really.
fuck
him
“Betcha didn’t see that coming.”
Yeah, I did
Everyone had a lot more sex when Clinton was president. And that’s all that really matters.
10R to 14D 3rd and long the D’s are in a saftey formation… who’s gonna win?
Oh… Your still a bunch of brainwashed idiots thinking those sides matter.
#19, True.
But there is one more big reward from it —
It looks like compromise.
The Reps will brag about the lowering of the marginal tax rate.
The Dems will brag about the removal of the credits.
It’s a win-win for the two major parties without actually getting anything accomplished.
Status quo to produce some more status quo.
Lots of corporations pay taxes as S corps that get taxed as part of the regular income tax. So most of the ‘wealthy’ is businesses, and the small share of corporate income tax is because they are hiding in the personal income tax.
I think all the nubes above who want to “Starve the beast” should live/work in those so called lower taxed and more competitive countries.
It seems to most those types of ass-wipes want to bankrupt this country.
I guess Reagan will soon be know for initiating both the Soviet bankruptcy and USA bankruptcy.
Can you imagine what those brown-nosers would be saying if the like of Warren Buffett and Bill Gates argued against raising their taxes!
It’s the same nubes that hate our constitution, like the 14th amendment:
1.) State and federal ciizenship for all persons regardless of race both born or naturalized in the United States was reaffirmed.
2.) No state would be allowed to abridge the “privileges and immunities” of citizens.
3.) No person was allowed to be deprived of life, liberty,or property without “due process of law.”
4.) No person could be denied “equal protection of the laws.”
Then there is 14th amendment Section. 4. “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”
Remember, this is the guy that signed all those trade treaties that put us out of work. You may want to consider that when listening to him.
I actually long for the years of Clinton. Well, Clinton after 1994.
#3, #7 FTW
Isn’t it interesting how everyone is saying that we should listen to everything Clinton is saying, and it makes sense? If you would do that to ALL political pundits, they wouldn’t all sound so crazy. It’s a lot easier to cherry pick and pounce on their “insanity”.
#53, It seems to most those types of ass-wipes want to bankrupt this country.
You are correct. It seems that way because of all the rhetoric from the borrowing/debt/deficit addicts.
But I can assure you, that is not what will happen.
Once the government realizes it isn’t going to be able to keep borrowing whenever it wants to, it will start living within its means.
When Obama was a Senator, even he thought it was a good thing. Now that he is President, his tune is changing.
Stop listening to the rhetoric and actually think for a moment. The credit card company is refusing to raise the limit on a maxed out credit card. This is a good thing.
Ha ha ha.
Sorry, but this “lefty” WANTS those “loopholes”. Sure, many can and should be eliminated, such as those with lower taxes on buggy whips, kerosene lanterns, and whalebone corsets. I guess you could include deductions for Corporate jets and limos.
What Clinton, and most other forget is that these “loopholes” serve a national, social policy. We want companies to invest in new machinery, so we give them favorable conditions to do so. We want companies to invest in green technologies, so we give them favorable conditions to do so. We want corporations to invest in Research and Development, so we give them favorable conditions to do so. We want companies to supply health insurance to their employees, so we encourage them to do so.
If we remove these tax incentives, we, as a nation, start to lose control over our direction. We can be a leader or become a follower. I just wish the Tea Baggers would get out of the way ’cause they’re just holding up the parade.
#59, So you don’t agree with Clinton and you agree with Grover Norquist.
Woah. I’ve obviously stepped into a a parallel universe?
#53, noname grasping at straws… saying that existing debt owed by the United States remains valid is a different matter from an executive department being able to issue new debt without the approval of the Congress. Or to make things more clear: inability to pay your debts does not invalidate those debts.
#59–Fusion==everyone wants what they want. Rather a fake issue to frame the discussion as either cut ALL loopholes, or keep them all?
This is illustrated nicely with the home interest deduction. The social policy of encouraging home ownership. ((Sidetrack to Fanny Debacle is very related but too extended.)) Well–why is home ownership such a tax valued thing over and above renting? EVERYONE needs a roof over their heads. Homeowners of course “want” to keep it, regardless of the rationale. But the interesting “compromise” I heard was give everyone a one home deduction up to one million. Over one million or your 9-10 home do not qualify. I like that “balance” of competing interests.
I’m sure other similar balances can be found between the all or nothing dumbthink that goes on in these discussions.
The time is upon us where none of us will be able to keep all our wants. Rank order prioritize your wants and match that to revenue. It will happen with or without our consent.
>> # 42 chuck said, on July 5th, 2011 at 3:48 pm
>> Why should corporations or businesses pay ANY tax at all?
Corporations use the commons at much greater rates than individuals. For the sole purpose of making money.
No only should corporations pay taxes, they should pay them at a higher rate than individuals.
>> # 59 Mr. Fusion said,
>> What Clinton, and most other forget is that these “loopholes” serve a national, social policy.
What Clinton knows is that most of those loopholes were created as payback for campaign donations.
That’s why we need 100% financing of elections. It would cost us a few billion and save us a trillion.