The Corporate Tax Fairness Act.

I think it's a good thing and I wish we'd all sign it (second link is a petition). I know there is much up for debate here, but this is some of the most basic common sense stuff there is in a time of need, please at least consider it.

_________________

"Under the legislation proposed by Sanders and Schakowsky, corporations would pay U.S. taxes on their offshore profits as they are earned. "

What? What kind of idea is this?

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

If they're based here what is the problem?

_________________

Put corporations from the lowest worldwide tax rate to one of the highest worldwide, making this country one of the more costly, and least business-friendly places? Sure. What could go wrong?

_________________
I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.

The attitude should be if you are a corporation and want to sell to the American market then that is the price, so pay it or fuck off and get lost. You are falling for corporate and right wing scare tactics! A smart corporation will do business in a market if they can make a profit REGUARDLESS of tax rate!

_________________
Hugh Millen = CBJ minus the cool beard

Cuz things are working out so well with things as they are?

Austerity, it's failing everywhere they've tried it! Ironically, though there is a saying using socialism in the same statement which is proving to be much less true.

_________________

It's one thing to close loopholes, it's another thing to double tax on income not earned here in the US.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

we have a high tax rate for corporations but the fact that they have off shore banking kinda negates all of it. All it means is some companies are paying the high tax rate and others are not paying anything at all. This is not fair and NOT Capitalism for one business to get a huge advantage like this.
Close all loopholes, reduce corporate tax rates to 33%, Then close loop holes for income tax, then increase it slightly.

Ummm... maybe they won't be based here any longer?

They haven't had any problems moving jobs overseas and you want to give them a reason/incentive for moving the whole corp?

_________________
That's weak sauce!

Well, big corporations are evil, so if they move out, problem solved, right? Besides, our government checks will go much further if the goods we buy are made in some third world country.

_________________
I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.

Really surprised and disappointed to hear such programming out of you. This is the scare tactics that the corporations and crony capitalists want you to believe despite very little evidence supporting it! Businesses have moved out of the US more with lower taxes, because corporations will do anything they can to maximize profit in spite of economic conditions, period. Lower taxes have not helped, and a lot of you guys are all for closing loopholes as long as nobody specifies what loopholes to close, then when someone talks real action, garbage nonsense rhetoric like you and the other supply side devotees are parroting, and not a thing gets done other than the further raping of our economy, plain and simple.

_________________

You answered the question yourself.

They will do whatever they can to maximize profits, including moving the whole corp out of the country.

_________________
That's weak sauce!

That wasn't programming, but sarcasm. An economy runs well when the supply and demand are optimized, with prices optimized to inflation/deflation levels. It's a matter of achieving balance there, not balance with the amount of money that a corporation can count as profit. Profits will balance out in a healthy, growing economy.

Businesses moving out of the country with lower taxes isn't indicative of moving out because of lower taxes. You are right that businesses will do anything they can to maximize profit, no matter the economic conditions. But why is the issue the amount of profit they make? Focusing on profits rather than true economic indicators is simply jealousy. They make "too much" (according to an arbitrary value) and so they should be punished accordingly?

We don't do that to any other aspect of life. We don't say, "hey kids, we want you to be successful, but not too successful. We want you to get B's in school. A's are a little excessive, and just showing off." We don't say "I want to take you out on a great date for steak or lobster. But not that good of a date that you can have steak and lobster."

We should be promoting success in this country, not promoting just enough success as is deemed "good enough".

_________________
I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.

Worth a second read, folks.

_________________
President of the Perfect Parents Society - est. 2013

Well it's too damn close for my comfort. I can't deny some businesses may move, but the idea that it would be en masse is ludicrous. Much like the myth of tax migration, there are other factors and precious little to support this yet we hear about it a lot. Far too often we let rhetoric like this, with almost no evidence behind it become economic "fact" because we hear it so much, and this prompts inaction or bad economic decisions.

We need to do something and something specific, and I have seen far too much in the way of "let's close loopholes" with no specifics and even the CBO refuses to back the claims of these evil geniuses like Paul Ryan. I can't for the life of me see why this guy is so popular, everything he proposes is based on voodoo math, that experts continually point out doesn't add up. Plus they propagate the myth that Social Security is bankrupting us and driving the deficit. I suppose that's the one bit of reasoning I can come up with that anyone supports the guy, that people believe mantras over evidence based information.

_________________

I'm pretty sure monopolies are not allowed in this country, legally. And that is exactly preventing someone or a corporation from being too successful. There is such a thing as "too successful." When one person or business is hoarding to the detriment of those around them, there is a problem. Tax the ludicrously high earners. Don't cap them, just tax the piss out of them.

I can't picture to many business leaving the US even with higher taxes, the nation with the highest GDP in the entire planet.

Id like to see these fortune 500 companies have similar success in any other nation.

I am pretty sure I am not the only one that gets tired of this worn out mantra that liberals only support taxes on corporations and the rich out of jealousy for someone else's success! That we want to punish them for their success. That we think success is bad, and that profits are bad. When in reality nothing can be further from the truth, what we hate is excessive profit at the expense of those working for said company, or at the expense of the average tax payer. Which is the status quo of America right now with all time lows in workers wages, all time highs in corporate profits (and CEO pay), and billions of tax dollars flowing from the government into corporate coffers in the form bailouts, subsidies and tax loopholes.

Why don't we actually make corporations pay taxes? You talk about balance, but we have none right now. Way to many corporations don't pay any taxes at all, with many of them actually receiving money from the government, all while making massive profits. That is a system you and conservatives seem to always defending, one that is completely broken with no real economic benefit other then to perpetuate massive profit for profits sake. All while doing nothing for the average American. These massive untaxed profits with there corresponding stock growth aren't creating jobs. I am sure liberals would be just fine with the current system if it actually created a situation where jobless rates were close to zero, where poverty that is so rampant throughout our cities was a thing of the past, and 47% of Americans made a living wage that allowed them to pay Federal Income tax instead of paying nothing at all.

You wanna know how you get balance? It is with a strong middle class that has buying power. That is something almost nobody is arguing for. Upward mobility, long spoken about by conservatives, is a myth in this country and has been for a long time because of the environment that has been created. All we hear about is the poor rich, or the poor companies, and about how someone might try to make them pay taxes. When we do hear about the middle class it is when they are being laid off, or because their pay and benefits are getting cut to help create greater profits for the corporation or to fund tax cuts for corporations and the rich. Which is then received with a hearty yawn from those trying to protect the rich and corporations from taxes because they just saw their stock prices go up.

So here is an idea, with the idea that the Oil Companies and corporations like GE actually start paying taxes, we then turn around and lower our corporate tax rate. We can do it once those massive profits are actually getting taxed. Then all of a sudden our corporate tax rates won't suck for those companies that don't or can't hide their profits. Or is that to socialistic for you?

I am all for cutting government money to corporations, for cutting loopholes, and ensuring corporations end up paying a globally competitive tax. I just disagree with clamping down on them and artificially precluding massive profits in an attempt to raise money to support more high spending. It's an issue of carrot and stick. Business doesn't like stick. If they see their profits suddenly cut into, one of two things will happen. Either they're already operating at a scenario with minimal margins and they will be forced to move or close up shop, or they'll have the necessary margins to remain flexible. But if they have the necessary margins, don't think they'll just take it as simply their turn to pay their fair share. The difference will come from somewhere, and unless they're completely altruistic and unselfish (which they'd be already operating under that first scenario) that money will come from somewhere. And you can bet that "somewhere" will be the consumer, as much as they can make it so.

When we say "corporations" we think these huge mega-companies like WalMart and Apple. They're a fraction of actual business both in the U.S. and worldwide. Do we create policy to squeeze the spare change out of them and spare the lower-tiered businesses who don't have those ridiculous margins? Do we force all business to operate equally by un-leveling the playing field? Kind of an "affirmative action for business" strategy?

We already see these mega-corporations cutting corners for profit like outsourcing their work to child labor in third world countries. Is the way to get more money from them really to take more money from them, in the hopes they'll lower the CEO's salary by a few million instead of laying off those middle class schlubs?

Not sure how anyone got "the poor rich, or the poor companies" from what I wrote. I am simply pointing out the fact that business is regulated normally by supply and demand, not creating an arbitrary ceiling on what is "excessive profit" and what is deemed "acceptable profit." Pointing out they'll cut bait and bail if the business environment becomes more profitable elsewhere, or trim the fat to increase profits accordingly, isn't championing corporations. It's not about trying to protect them because they somehow need it, but rather pointing out their answer to this strategy will be "that money's gonna come from somewhere, suckers!"

_________________
I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.

I paid more taxes this year than GE, Verizon, and Boeing combined. The system is broken. Eat the rich.