DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Primaries V

In my opinion the whole economy is driven by the middle class. If we are going to prop anyone up that's who it should be. Now my humanity doesn't let me think that it is okay to let people starve, go without medical treatment or be discriminated against for race, religion, politics, sexuality or pretty much any other reason. I believe in basic human decency first.

The next time you hear someone complain about how the poor get “all this free stuff,” show them this.

A small number of incredibly wealthy Americans are ridiculing Bernie Sanders’ base for wanting “free stuff” when the costliest programs are, by far, corporate welfare and entitlements for the top 1 percent. Fox News has been working hard to tear down Sanders’ proposals to provide Medicare for all, institute tuition-free public college, boost infrastructure spending, and expand Social Security.

“That’s not fiscally possible unless the federal government starts seizing private assets,” said Bill O’Reilly.

But O’Reilly is wrong. The money for Sanders’ platform can easily come from eliminating the costliest entitlement programs for the top 1 percent and multinational corporations. Here’s a breakdown of the most superfluous giveaways to the rich and how much they cost the rest of us:
1. Tax Breaks for obscene CEO bonuses ($7 billion/year)

Currently, the biggest corporations are exploiting a 20-year-old loophole that allows them to write off inflated compensation packages for CEOs, billing stock options, and performance-based bonuses to taxpayers. In 2010, the Economic Policy Institute found out that the biggest corporations cost Americans $7 billion by writing off inflated executive pay. Between 2007 and 2010, this loophole accounted for more than $30 billion in corporate welfare. According to The Guardian, fast food industry CEOs cost taxpayers $64 million through this loophole.

That $7 billion could singlehandedly fund the annual budget for the National Science Foundation — which, as I recently reported for US Uncut, funds 11,000 scientific research projects each year and has funded 26 Nobel laureates in the last 5 years.
2. Tax cuts for luxury corporate jets ($300 million/year)

Currently, corporations can claim a huge tax deduction every year by writing off purchases of corporate jets, lavish cars, and chauffeurs as “security” for their top executives. A Bloomberg analysis from 2011 showed that these tax breaks for some of the wealthiest Americans cost the rest of us $300 million each year. While that may not sound like much, that’s approximately 50 percent of the annual budget for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the brainchild of Elizabeth Warren that protects Americans from the financial sector’s most predatory schemes.
3. Big oil subsidies ($37.5 billion/year)

According to Oil Change International (OCI), the U.S. government spends anywhere between $10 billion and $52 billion per year on corporate welfare for the fossil fuel industry — one of the wealthiest industries in the world. OCI estimated that total combined subsidies to big oil approached $37.5 billion in 2014, which includes $21 billion on production and exploration subsidies.

These subsidies alone cost more than what we currently spend on providing rental assistance for low-income families. In 2013, the department of Housing and Urban Development allocated a total of $34.3 billion toward tenant-based rental assistance ($19 billion), project-based rental assistance ($8.7 billion), and general public housing programs ($6.6 billion). These programs helped 4.5 million families — half of whom are elderly — keep a roof over their head.
4. Pharmaceutical subsidies ($270 billion/year)

As US Uncut has previously reported, the pharmaceutical industry costs taxpayers roughly $270 billion a year when accounting for the cost we pay for life-saving drugs whose patents have been bought up by Big Pharma. This is over $1,914 per household in corporate welfare. This is partly due to the Medicare Part D bill that George W. Bush signed into law in 2003, which prevents Medicare from negotiating drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. But the biggest drug companies also make a pretty penny (a combined $711 billion in profits between 2003 and 2012) by buying patents for drugs that were largely developed with taxpayer-funded research, then jacking up the price by absurd amounts after cornering the market.
bigpharmatable

Combined profits of top pharma companies. Data courtesy of healthcareforamericanow.org.

This $270 billion annual subsidy could be virtually eliminated by passing Bernie Sanders’ bill to establish a government fund that buys up drug patents as soon as they become available for purchase. Then, the government would sell drugs at-cost to save money for those who need them. The money saved could pay for the annual $270 billion in insurance costs from Obamacare that would help more Americans get access to healthcare.
5. Capital gains tax breaks ($51 billion/year)

When anyone makes money from selling off investments, the IRS classifies that as capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate (20 percent as of 2012) than real, actual work (35 percent). Pew Research found that 53 percent of Americans own no stock at all, and out of the 47 percent who do, the richest 5 percent own two-thirds of that stock. And only 10 percent of Americans have pensions, so stock market gains or losses don’t affect the incomes of most retirees. The Century Foundation found that the total amount of lost revenue by taxing capital gains at a lower rate than wages cost $256 billion between fiscal years 2012 and 2016, or $51 billion a year over the last 5 years. According to the Tax Policy Center, if investment income was taxed at the same rate as wages, 75 percent of that new revenue would come from the richest 0.3 percent of Americans; 92 percent of that revenue would come from those making $200,000 or more per year. The chart below shows what percentage of income each tax bracket makes from capital gains — not surprisingly, the wealthiest Americans get most of the benefit from capital gains.
capgains

Chart courtesy of The Century Foundation.

If we taxed wealth like work, the extra $51 billion per year in savings could fund two-thirds of the annual budget for food stamps.
6. Corporate tax subsidies from state and local governments ($80.4 billion/year)

In 2012, the New York Times did an analysis of every existing tax break in each of the 50 states and learned that 1,874 programs cost taxpayers $80.4 billion every year for corporate welfare in their state. Compare that cost with the cost of providing tuition-free public college to every student, which The Atlantic estimated would be a mere $62.6 billion. As the chart below shows, this is actually way cheaper than what we currently spend on federal student aid.
collegecosts

Current cost of existing federal college aid. (courtesy of The Atlantic)
7. Handouts to Big Ag ($18 billion/year)

Crop insurance — a program originally intended to help farmers recover from the dust bowls of the 1930s — has become a slush fund for wealthy corporate farmers who have become experts at manipulating the system for their own means. As Bloomberg reported, the median income of commercial farm households (in which farming makes up more than 50 percent of a household’s income) was $84,649 in 2011 — 70 percent more than the average American household. Farmers have learned to exploit the program by growing crops on land they know will be unproductive, then making money from insurance claims rather than crops. In 2011, 26 farmers each got an annual subsidy of $1 million, including one tomato farmer in Florida who got a $1.9 million subsidy.

This $18 billion in corporate welfare is more than NASA’s annual budget, which has hovered around the $17 billion mark since 2009.
8. Welfare for Wall Street ($83 billion/year)

The biggest banks have grown even bigger than they were just before the 2008 financial meltdown. And due to their size, these banks are perceived as “too big to fail,” as their demise would spell doom for the US financial sector as a whole. So as these big banks grow bigger, the Federal Reserve allows them to borrow at lower interest rates than other big banks — essentially subsidizing the continued growth of the big banks. In 2013, Bloomberg estimated the ten biggest TBTF banks suck up $83 billion per year in corporate welfare.

If we were to force the big banks to borrow at the same interest rates as every other bank at a rate of $83 billion per year, that would be enough to double the current federal budgets for highway spending ($48.6 billion), Head Start ($10.1 billion), the Environmental Protection Agency ($7.89 billion), nutrition assistance for women, infants, and children ($6.2 billion), the National Parks Service ($3 billion), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ($2.39 billion), with $5 billion left over.
9. Export-Import bank subsidies ($112 billion)

This week, the House of Representatives voted to revive the Export-Import (Ex-Im) bank, which has been maligned as a slush fund for large, multinational corporations. In its most recent year, the Ex-Im bank had a $112 billion portfolio, of which $90 billion went to multinationals. If that wasn’t bad enough, a huge portion of that money went to just 10 wealthy corporations.

eximbenefits

According to the New York Times, the federal government spends roughly $105 billion on public K-12 schools. If we allow the Ex-Im bank to fade away, the money formerly set aside for corporate subsidies could instead double that investment in public education.
10. Federal contracts for the top 200 biggest companies ($880 billion/year)

The biggest 200 corporations have an excessively unfair advantage over their competitors due to their influence in Washington. According to the Sunlight Foundation, the top 200 companies spent a combined $5.8 billion on lobbying Congress between 2007 and 2012. And in those same years, those companies received $4.4 trillion in federal contracts. That $4.4 trillion is $100 billion more than what the U.S. government spent on providing a basic income to the nation’s 50 million Social Security recipients. This chart shows how much the top ten corporations spent on lobbying and how much they got in return:

topten

The combined cost of these 10 corporate welfare programs is $1.539 trillion per year. The three main programs needy families depend upon — Temporary Assistance for Needy Families ($17.3 billion), food stamps ($74 billion), and the Earned Income Tax Credit ($67.2 billion) — cost just $158.5 billion in total. This means we spend ten times as much on corporate welfare and handouts to the top 1 percent than we do on welfare for working families struggling to make ends meet.

http://usuncut.com/class-war/10-corporate-welfare-programs-that-will-make-your-blood-boil/


This is what I get from the whole argument about free stuff.

Its OK to give free stuff to corporations but not to help people who need help.... Don't you see people your being sold out and giving a free ride to businesses that don't care if you eat...

Trump worries me, because he can go along, sounding not only rational, but Presidential, and logical ...... and then go off on a tangent that makes me wonder what the heck I was thinking ever even imagining that he could be rational.

He has to be bi-polar, or something. One second sane and coherent ... the next ... *boom*

Why can I see Trump sitting down with Putin ... and Putin says something perfectly innocent ..... and Trump takes offense, and yells "Where's thst briefcase with those damn nuclear codes....?"

Ugh Hillary or Trump. It's like asking if I want to be decapitated or run through the gut with a 3' sword. Neither option is any good.

Wow. You really ARE out there.

This raises an interesting question, when our President is visiting Russia, what do we do with the briefcase with the Nuke codes? If the Prez decided we need to launch, wouldn't a Rooskie just hit him with a shovel or something?

Secret Service, FBI Investigating Letter With White Powder Sent to Donald Trump's Son

The handwritten note said: "If your father does not drop out of the race, the next envelope won't be a fake." It was signed "X."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/suspicious-letter-white-powder-donald-trumps-son/story?id=37738571

Its probably wise to get home before you hit the nuke button. You don't want to be there when the bomb hits.

Anonymous Distributes Donald Trump’s Personal Info

The hactivist group Anonymous has begun to carry out its threat against Donald Trump, distributing an extensive amount of personal information about the Republican presidential front-runner online.

The group posted to Pastebin, a site that Sony’s hackers used for distributing information stolen from the film studio, to publish extensive details about Trump — including what purports to be his home address, social security number, birth certificate and phone numbers.

http://recode.net/2016/03/18/anonymous-distributes-donald-trumps-personal-info/

I agree.

Trump is a perfect example of a highly successful narcissist. Personally? I'm really sick of seeing him in the news every freakin' day, and he's often the first story. He plays the press like a fiddle. (Well done, Donald.)

I honestly haven't fact checked any of the stuff that BTTB posted, Assuming it's accurate, why is he OUT THERE?

You also pay taxes for there to be a library for kids to go read, potentially a local zoo you may or may not use, a sports stadium for your team to play in, taxes for kids to attend public school, regardless if you have kids or not, etc.

Seems we're okay for taxes on certain ideas, but not on others.

Simple it doesn't align with what he believes? That's something I think we are all missing here we think we know but do we?

Its a bitter pill to swallow to realize you have been played, and we have.

We fight and bicker about guns and rights and oh about any nearly meaningless thing you can think of while both democrats and republicans sneak thru the back door and steal yes steal our money.

The term divide and concur describes what has and is happening to us the sooner these thief's are ALL gone the better off we will be. As is we choose via our vote to elect what we believe is the lesser of 2 evils if that doesn't signal to something being wrong then what does?

If an honest person goes to Washington they will soon either join in the fun they are having at our expense or they will be marginalized and totally ineffective as legislator. Then pile on top of that, that big business via their advertising dollars controls the media and the marginalization of the American citizen is complete honesty becomes a foreign word.. And we suffer.

Take the time to bring all the elements together and it will hit you we have been scammed people know it but the power is so complete we don't stand a chance.

We don't need some overthrow of the government or a change to the constitution we need honesty in our government and right now we are getting anything but.

And for our part we all argue about some drivel thing that in the big picture is well meaningless...

Fix the big problem demand campaign reform demand and end to special interest demand that our political establishment do the work of the people and not the work of corporations then we have maybe half a chance of getting these people to do their damned jobs. Or better yet with the advent of campaign finance reform they will self deport...

Here this should make everyone happy lest all throw a party for the winners..

I want to tell you about something that encapsulates so much of what is wrong with our economy, our government, and our corrupt political system. Then I'm going to ask for your help to stop it.

Pfizer is a giant pharmaceutical company based in New York City that has a history of overcharging Americans for prescription drugs. It's in the process of trying to merge with another company located in Ireland.

If the merger is successful, Pfizer would technically become a foreign company, meaning it could dodge around $35 BILLION in corporate taxes here in America.

Enough is enough. Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies cannot be allowed to evade taxes and rip off American patients who already pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs.

What Pfizer is trying to do is known as a "corporate inversion." In this case, Pfizer, an American company, is merging with a company based abroad. The result of the merger is a company with an address in another country – even though the majority of shareholders are still based in America.

Pfizer apparently doesn't want to pay the $35 billion in taxes it would owe in America. I don't think that's right.

No matter what, you can bet that Pfizer would continue to overcharge Americans for prescription drugs, too. Since 2014, the pharmaceutical company has hiked the prices of seven of its top selling drugs by an average of 39 percent.

Pfizer (the WINNERS) also charges 12 times as much in the U.S. (the LOSERS) under Medicare for these drugs as it charges in Ireland, where it’s claiming a new address for tax purposes.

All of this is the result of years of weakened tax laws, an abdication of responsibility by American companies to their country, and a corrupt political system that allows it to happen.

This is the kind of activity we are signing up for while we argue about guns, drugs, pro-life, pro choice the diversion created to control the money and us.

Now this is substantive truth!

Because he's counting on the elimination of the wasteful spending as dollar for dollar revenue. I'm not going through each one of those items, but take capital gains for example. It says the lower rate on capital gains vs. income cost the government 256 billion, and then he goes on to use that 256 billion to pay for the food stamp program. The problem is that once the tax benefit is no longer available, people will find other places for their money, and there will be much less than 256 billion. Bernie's entire plan for funding his promises is based on getting a dollar for dollar return and not taking into account the other factors when the subsidies and tax benefits are eliminated.

I am in no way saying we shouldn't eliminate some of this corporate welfare, but to count amount of the cuts as equal revenue to fund other programs is faulty analytics.

Interesting facts presented with an incorrect conclusion.

Pfizer and others spend billions to develop new medicines and to pay for it they must charge a price that includes profit for their next research project. They charge more in the West because we can afford what India and others cannot.

Remember how everyone howled a few years back when that CEO for a drug company said the expensive drug they developed was for Western populations, not India? India cannot afford it.

Another conclusion you have reached is these unAmerican companies need to be stopped from corporate inversions and basically forced to stay in America.

Well, when you have some of the highest corporate taxes on the planet, who is disloyal to whom? Make America great for business and they would stay. Otherwise they move to a more hospitable country. Stop making America the enemy of business and their would be an explosion of jobs right here.

Continue to cripple business and you can start developing your own treatments and cures.

I think you miss the big picture here by a wide margin. Much of the research into new treatments is funded by us thru our tax dollars then sold to the pharm companies who in turn overcharge us for our trouble.

I wouldn't stop any drug company that wants to leave what I would do however is I would exclude them from buying patents to drugs developed thru tax payer dollars. And of course I would tax them for anything they sell here.

This stuff this corporate welfare thing isn't all that tuff to deal with. You sell it here you pay taxes here, just like we all do.

The thing people miss is this and Hillary has said this several times we have the import export bank those dollars go mostly to Boeing and supposedly help them compete in the world market which is total bull. Boeing has but 1 competitor in the world market and that is Air Bus, and no way that any European company can make anything cheaper then we can make it here, the idea is absurd. Add to that the fact that Boeing has been around for nearly a century and has the know how and engineers to build the best product in the world, and they need help to compete no folks this is straight up and down corporate welfare at its best.

Hillary has also said that we make up only 5% of the world so businesses need to be on the world market, that is total bunk as well we also have the largest economy in the world there isn't one foreign company in the world that doesn't want in to our market, and as the worlds largest economy we hold the hammer its time we started using it to the advantage of the American worker and the corporations that have stood strong and American.

This stuff isn't rocket science folks these guys shouldn't be allowed to take and not give back it really is that simple. Stop being suckers I would say.

No you are wrong here, no one is counting dollars to dollars at all. They are saying this is what we provide in corporate welfare, and this is what we spend on these other programs that help the people and just to show we spend trillions every year in corporate welfare which is 10x what we spend for programs that help our people.

Companies aren't victims and neither are investors what they are is benefactors of our corporate welfare system to the tune of trillions a year.

Hillary points out that the 750 billion used to bail out big banks has all been paid back to the last dollar. Their failure however cost the American economy and people 22 trillion, and many Americans went under as a result of losing their jobs. Did they pay us back, you decide....

You know what's missing from all these discussions?

War spending! One estimate I saw said we spent 1.1 Trillion on just Iraq.

What I just did read and its true because I read it on the internet (hahaha) is the estimated cost of the war and up until 2020 will be in the 6 trillion range.

In fairness and in truth Obama was nailed to the cross for the deficit in reality with the cost of the Iraq war and Afghanistan and with the huge tax cuts Bush gave to big business and campaign contributors we had no means to pay for the war and it has dragged us down every since.

My point blaming Obama was like blaming a dog for being a dog. Hell he hadn't been in office but for a few days before he was blamed. I don't expect you'll ever hear a version like I just laid out but fairness and politics don't mix thats for sure.

Interesting, I would like to read the facts on what you say, do you have a link to this info?

What portion of research is funded thru our tax dollars?

So you are against the current system where they sell it here, they pay taxes here and if they sell it to India they pay taxes to India while they still have to pay taxes here if they bring that profit home?

Bernie absolutely uses a dollar to dollar evaluation as evidence to pay for his programs. I agree with much of the rest of your post.

Here is a link you will have to read through it yourself but there are literately thousands of grants available for all sorts of research so for me to lay out a list would be nearly impossible if you go to this web site you can see for yourself, in fact if your a mind to you can get a grant yourself...hahaha

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf05306/

At the risk of repeating myself many of the drugs and treatments that we enjoy in fact the majority are funded thru grants made up of our tax dollars. Then of course sense we funded the research we own the technology and yes we sell it off to private industry who in turn sell it to consumers (us).

How do you think we have computers today, and battery powered tools and lithium ion batteries? You think industry developed those technologies without tax payer dollars?

j\c Question to all the liberals; Why are the CRAZY Bernie supporters being sent to Trump rally,s to disrupt and discourage his supporters? Call me crazy but I thought he was in a primary battle with Hillary. I would really like the liberals explain it to me and others.

First, don't believe everything you hear in the media and from Trump. I know that's a tough concept but try it. Bernie Sanders supporters aren't being "sent", there may be some mixed with others who do not want to see Trump elected mostly dure to the things he says and does at his rallies.

So if you want to know why they are showing up, take off your blinders and take a real look at Trump.

I would actually have a 2 teared system. One that doesn't tax returning money for American made products sold overseas and one for products made overseas and sold here and overseas.

The problem we have now was that big business made up trade deals that allowed them to ship our jobs overseas and then turn around and sell those products here the caviot at the time these deals were made was that they would bring those profits back and help prop up our tax base, but when it came time to cough up the cash they said wait thats a bad deal lets do another deal.

The part thats missing is this. It's good business to move overseas and increase the bottom line, but of course the American worker takes it in the ass for those huge profits. Then on the other hand they want to be able to bring those profits home so their investors can enjoy those huge profits so it becomes a lose lose for us and a win win for them. good business is good business right. Well unless we are up to (which we aren't) giving them their cake and letting them eat it to, at the American workers expense then let them suck eggs.

If I were in charge I would offer them a deal and it would go like this. Don't pay any taxes bring your money home from now on going forward I would tax there products like we do cigarettes.

Now here comes the consumer gets the shaft no I just priced them out of our market, and I'm allowing those companies that have stayed and continue to manufacture here a huge competitive advantage. A win win for loyal American manufacturers and a win for the American worker, imagine that the every day guy getting a break.

Cruz sternly rebuked by GOP

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/ted-cruz-senate-rebuke-planned-parenthood-214183

Ted Cruz can’t even get a protest vote in the Senate anymore.
On Monday night, Cruz’s colleagues ignored his attempt to disrupt Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s efforts to fund the government without attacking Planned Parenthood. In an unusual rebuke, even fellow Republicans denied him a “sufficient second” that would have allowed him a roll call vote.
Story Continued Below

Then, his Republican colleagues loudly bellowed “no” when Cruz sought a voice vote, a second repudiation that showed how little support Cruz has: Just one other GOP senator — Utah’s Mike Lee — joined with Cruz as he was overruled by McConnell and his deputies.
It was the second time that Cruz had been denied a procedural courtesy that’s routinely granted to senators in both parties. The first came after he called McConnell a liar this summer.
Cruz was incredulous on Monday, calling it an “unprecedented procedural trick."
“What does denying a second mean? Denying a recorded vote. Why is that important?” Cruz said. “When you are breaking the commitment you’ve made to the men and women who elected you, the most painful thing in the world is accountability.”
Indeed, denying Cruz a vote prevents the Texas senator from dredging up the roll call in the future and using it to attack his colleagues.
150928_mcconnell_coryn_brasso_ap_1160.jpg
Senate easily advances bill to avoid shutdown
By SEUNG MIN KIM
Cruz said he would again try to force a vote on Tuesday when the Senate votes to pass a spending bill that does not defund Planned Parenthood. In an unusual request meant to draw attention to his ongoing battle with Republican leadership, the Texas senator implored voters to tune in and see where their senators stand on Tuesday when he again requests a "sufficient second."
“One of the ways you avoid accountability is you somehow are somewhere else doing something really, really important instead of actually showing up to the battle,” Cruz said, accusing Republicans of joining with Democrats to “roll over any parliamentary trick you might use.”
Cruz’s speech was filled with familiar accusations that Republican leaders were capitulating, even as he praised Democrats for being more resolute than the GOP. But Cruz also personally lambasted McConnell and his deputies for denying a roll call vote that would have failed anyway, arguing that results are rigged in the Senate and that conservatives have no influence anymore.
“There are no mystical powers that allow you to roll over that. But in the House we still got 30, 40, 50 strong conservatives,” Cruz said.
In reality, it’s not Senate procedure that stymied Cruz on Monday night. Republicans have grown tired of Cruz pushing proposals that he knows McConnell and other Republicans will never back, like defunding Planned Parenthood in a spending bill, then criticizing McConnell for not taking up the plan even as he uses the fight to bolster his presidential campaign as Washington's consummate outsider.
Cruz's internal criticism of his leadership is what animates his presidential campaign, but his colleagues appear to be no longer listening. Cruz was allowed only to speak for an hour on Monday night under Senate rules, and no one was itching to grant him an exception.
“The Democrats are objecting to my speaking further. And both the Democrats and Republican leadership are objecting to the American people speaking further. I yield the floor,” Cruz said quietly.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/ted-cruz-senate-rebuke-planned-parenthood-214183#ixzz43Mt5Xj6B
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

and trump is still crying about megyn kelly, for whatever reason.

First off, I was and still am a CARSON supporter and haven't committed myself as of yet
Second, take off your blinders a take a good hard look at Hillary
Third, I respectfully disagree because it seems Sanders is more worried about Trump losing than him winning against Hillary. Now, I know you are a very intelligent poster because I enjoy reading and learning from them but,something is real fishy about a candidate from a diffent party doing this while he is supposedly trying to win his own election

When someone believes that we have the highest corporate taxes in the world ask them what the effective tax rate is, meaning what do they actually pay then the stammering begins. The truth is we have a 10% effective tax rate for businesses which is only 25% less then what is claimed by those who say our tax rate is too too high for businesses.

What you see here is the bottom line and the bottom line is corporations pay 10% and we the workers pay much much more for the money we earn but yeah lets cut what they pay, we can easy make up the difference.


Key Facts

Corporate share of federal tax revenue has dropped by two-thirds in 60 years — from 32% in 1952 to 10% in 2013.
General Electric, Boeing, Verizon and 23 other profitable Fortune 500 firms paid no federal income taxes from 2008 to 2012.
288 big and profitable Fortune 500 corporations paid an average effective federal tax rate of just 19.4% from 2008 to 2012.
Profitable corporations paid U.S. income taxes amounting to just 12.6% of worldwide income in 2010.
U.S. corporations dodge $90 billion a year in income taxes by shifting profits to subsidiaries — often no more than post office boxes — in tax havens.
U.S. corporations officially hold $2.1 trillion in profits offshore — much of it in tax havens — that have not yet been taxed here.

—————————-
Overview

Corporations are paying a smaller share of federal tax revenue than they did in the 1950s, dropping from one-third then to only one-tenth of the total today. Yet, an army of lobbyists is pushing hard to convince Congress to cut the corporate income tax rate by nearly one-third — from the current 35% to 25%. This issue is at the epicenter of the coming battle over tax reform.

Conservatives have defined the debate in a highly misleading manner. They focus on the top statutory rate — the rate specified by law — instead of the effective tax rate — what is actually paid. Because U.S. statutory rates are somewhat higher than other OECD countries, corporations claim that this makes them less competitive, and that it stunts job growth. But their argument is unpersuasive when the debate focuses on effective corporate tax rates.

The debate has been further skewed by calls for “revenue neutral” corporate tax reform, in which any revenue raised by closing tax loopholes is used to reduce rates. Corporations haven’t contributed a dime towards deficit reduction in recent budget deals. And they want to continue this special treatment while American families shoulder the entire burden. Meanwhile, the country is starved for resources needed to foster economic growth and job creation — from infrastructure to research to improved schools.
U.S. effective corporate tax rates are not a burden

The top statutory tax rate of 35% in the U.S. is somewhat higher than that of 30 other OECD countries, but the average effective tax rate — the actual rate paid after deductions and credits — is slightly lower than our competitors, according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

Several studies have found that U.S. corporations pay a similar or a lower effective tax rate — the rate actually paid — than corporations in other countries. For example:

Our average effective tax rate is 27.1% compared with 27.7% for the other 30 OECD countries, according to CRS.
Profitable corporations paid U.S. income taxes amounting to just 12.6% of worldwide income in 2010, according to the Government Accountability Office.
Citizens for Tax Justice’s survey of 288 corporations, which included most of the Fortune 500 corporations that were profitable each year from 2008 through 2012, found that they paid an average effective federal tax rate of just 19.4% over that period.
Of 125 corporations in that study that had significant foreign profits, 82 (two-thirds) paid a higher effective rate to foreign governments than they paid to the U.S.

Some corporations pay nothing in taxes

General Electric, Boeing, Priceline.com, Verizon and 22 other profitable Fortune 500 firms paid no federal income taxes from 2008 through 2012, according to Citizens for Tax Justice.
111 profitable Fortune 500 firms paid zero federal taxes in at least one of those five years.
General Electric, one of the most notorious corporate tax dodgers, got $3.1 billion in refunds on $27.5 billion in profits from 2008 to 2012. The company paid less in federal income taxes in five years than a single American family pays in one year.

Lower tax rates do not boost growth and jobs

Conservatives claim reducing the corporate tax rate will substantially grow the economy. But a cut in the statutory rate from 35% to 25% would increase economic output by less than two-tenths of one percent, according to CRS. Economic growth over the past 60 years has actually been stronger when corporate tax rates were higher, according to the Economic Policy Institute. U.S. corporate tax rates also are not hurting profits – before-tax and after-tax corporate profits as a percentage of national income are at post–World War II highs.

There is no relationship between cutting corporate tax rates and job growth, according to a recent study by the Center for Effective Government. Twenty-two of the 30 profitable Fortune 500 companies that paid the highest tax rates (30% or more) from 2008 to 2010 created almost 200,000 jobs between 2008 and 2012. The 30 profitable corporations that paid little or no taxes over the three years collectively shed 51,289 jobs between 2008 and 2012.
A corporate tax rate cut will blow a hole in the budget

Those who want to cut the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 25% ignore that it will cost $1.3 trillion over 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. They say that rate cuts will be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes, but this will be extremely difficult given the power of the corporate tax lobby. Even if it was possible, there would be no new revenue for investments or deficit reduction. America can’t afford that.
Americans don’t want to cut corporate taxes

Recent polling shows that the public feels strongly that corporations need to step up and contribute their fair share. For instance:

By 79% to 17%, voters want to “close tax loopholes to ensure that American corporations pay as much on foreign profits as they do on profits made in the United States.”
By 82% to 9%, voters believe that “reform[ing] the tax system by closing corporate loopholes and limiting deductions for the wealthy” should be used to “reduce the budget deficit and make new investments” rather than to “reduce tax rates on corporations and the wealthy.”

http://www.americansfortaxfairness.org/tax-fairness-briefing-booklet/fact-sheet-corporate-tax-rates/

Oh and at the bottom of this piece are a list of articles from a host of media outlets, you may want to read up so you know how misleading that corporate tax rates are when listening to guys like Ted Cruz. That may be the rate called for by law but that sure as hell isn't what they pay.


Just another case of people believing stuff that isn't true.. (40)

Surprised I haven't picked up on this until now.

The really funny part is 40 keeps reading them....

Sorry 40 but well you are you know.....

I saw it as well but found it so amusing that I didn't want to point it out. I'm the stupid one though.

Your not weak minded Bus you just believe things that aren't true and I do to sometimes it fits what we want to believe but its not the truth.

And hey stop sobbing we disagreed about something the world moves on.

I'm sobbing about nothing - in fact, I'm still celebrating from the annihilation of Bernie. It made me have renewed hope that America is still smart enough not become socialist.

Hopefully a candidate somewhere in the middle comes along at some point that can take some ideas from each side and come up with a solid plan to incorporate some of Bernie's ideas with a less invasive tax plan. Basically a Libertarian.

I quoted it a long time ago in the PF forum. I still don't think he gets it.

Nice to know you quoted ME I'm flattered....

Your sure sharp with the replies here.

I don't like Hillary. And I'm pretty sure Bernie is done. He is still fighting but he has a VERY long road ahead and each election (even when he wins a state) she still gets delegates. So yes, I support Bernie, but I'm losing faith in his chances of being nominated. I would love for him to put the screws to Hillary and run as an independent, but that would probably mean a Trump victory and I don't like that at all.

If the Republicans had a better candidate I might vote republican again, but since the Tea Party hijacked the GOP I think they've gone completely nuts!

In a Trump vs. Hillary scenario, I'd vote NOT TRUMP reluctantly.

As far as even remotely thinking Bernie is behind people protesting Trump just because many carry his signs, that is just a left wing protest.

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump or Hillary were really behind those signs as it makes ZERO sense to me that Bernie would ask people to do it. He has nothing to gain and opens himself up for damage. Now the winner in this issue is Trump. If you follow the money, you will see that Trump supporters are more engaged (donating) since these so called "violent protesters" showed up. They are not helping Bernie or Hillary win democratic votes, they are just firing up the GOP base for Trump.

Now it's fixed.
You're welcome.