'Sarah Palin is nuts' - Palin denied meeting with Margaret Thatcher

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

I'll have to disagree with you on businesses having an incentive to operate in the US based on tax incentives. The US has the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world. Now Japan just lowered or plans on lowering their corporate rate by 4.5% so that would mean the US would have the highest corporate tax rate.

This is a typical canard.

The median effective tax rate is around 25%, with many paying much much less. So the burden is nowhere near the oft-quoted top marginal rate.

Better comparison is tax revenues as percent of GDP. The US is near the bottom of the pack there.



Edit:

Here are the data from the Treasury. If you go to page 24 you'll find that the effective rate across the economy is 17%. I apologize for overshooting it.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

That's not what was said. But don't let the facts get in the way of your happy narrative.

Thanks for the useful participation. Here's a gold star.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Thanks for the useful participation. Here's a gold star.

Thanks.

It still doesn't change the fact that you're mixing up words in the English language. The words Obama used and the one I bolded that you used were not the same.

Different words = different meanings. English is your friend.

[Yasa]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Thanks for the useful participation. Here's a gold star.

What does this post prove? That you can be equally as pointless? Although Flames PHD wasn't wrong.

I've never understood posts like that.

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

This is a typical canard.

The median effective tax rate is around 25%, with many paying much much less. So the burden is nowhere near the oft-quoted top marginal rate.

Better comparison is tax revenues as percent of GDP. The US is near the bottom of the pack there.

Edit:

Here are the data from the Treasury. If you go to page 24 you'll find that the effective rate across the economy is 17%. I apologize for overshooting it.

You do realize I'm talking about corporate tax right? Not corporate and individual taxes. On the individual tax level I don't dispute that the rate is lower. When you start looking at the effective rate such as what you mentioned on "page 24" it's accounting for taxes on the individual level which includes utilizing retirement vehicles etc. You will arrive at similar results when comparing tax revenue to GDP because this is accounting for both corporate and personal tax rate.

On the same Treasury report you refer to if you look on page 35 the statutory corporate tax rate is 39% which is the 2nd highest (only 1% below Japans). This is the CORPORATE tax rate. Are there mechanisms to adjust what amount of income is taxed? yes, such as depreciation, paying salaries, etc. However, the statutory rate is 39%.

Now the US has developed some useful corporate structures, (such as flowthru corporations) however, this type of corporation doesn't work in all circumstances.

If I'm a corporation looking at setting up business one factor I'm looking at is the corporate tax rate not the marginal tax rate because the corporate rate is what I would be paying and is going to impact the profits to my shareholders. Not to be cold but I really don't care what tax rate rate individuals are being taxed at.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Yasa

What does this post prove? That you can be equally as pointless? Although Flames PHD wasn't wrong.

I've never understood posts like that.

You get a gold star, too.

[Matata]

Originally Posted by Yasa

What does this post prove? That you can be equally as pointless? Although Flames PHD wasn't wrong.

I've never understood posts like that.

Arguing is hard, and pulling an 'internet cool guy' is a very easy way to back out of an argument and save face.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

You do realize I'm talking about corporate tax right? Not corporate and individual taxes...

On the same Treasury report you refer to if you look on page 35 the statutory corporate tax rate is 39% which is the 2nd highest (only 1% below Japans). This is the CORPORATE tax rate. Are there mechanisms to adjust what amount of income is taxed? yes, such as depreciation, paying salaries, etc. However, the statutory rate is 39%.

Now the US has developed some useful corporate structures, (such as flowthru corporations) however, this type of corporation doesn't work in all circumstances.

If I'm a corporation looking at setting up business one factor I'm looking at is the corporate tax rate not the marginal tax rate because the corporate rate is what I would be paying and is going to impact the profits to my shareholders. Not to be cold but I really don't care what tax rate rate individuals are being taxed at.

Yes, I understand your comment regarding the corporate tax very well.

What I'm saying is that the statutory rate is basically irrelevant because very few corporations pay the statutory rate. The effective rate is what matters. If you believe the effective rate is too high, then that is another matter.

Here is another set of data from the cbo showing that the effective corporate tax rate is low 20s and is at or below the median level of the G7 over a 20 year span up to 2002. Rates have only gone down since.

If you're going to start a business, then you would be interested in what net taxes you would pay when all is said and done. Not the statutory rate.

==

I still think the comparison of tax revenues to GDP is the best comparator across nations (see table on page 13 of above link). In this comparison it's quite clear that corporations in the US are far from overtaxed.

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Yes, I understand your comment regarding the corporate tax very well.

What I'm saying is that the statutory rate is basically irrelevant because very few corporations pay the statutory rate. The effective rate is what matters. If you believe the effective rate is too high, then that is another matter.

Here is another set of data from the cbo showing that the effective corporate tax rate is low 20s and is at or below the median level of the G7 over a 20 year span up to 2002. Rates have only gone down since.

If you're going to start a business, then you would be interested in what net taxes you would pay when all is said and done. Not the statutory rate.

==

I still think the comparison of tax revenues to GDP is the best comparator across nations (see table on page 13 of above link). In this comparison it's quite clear that corporations in the US are far from overtaxed.

I'm going to disagree with you. When I'm talking corporate tax I'm talking pure corporate tax. The statutory rate does matter very much. I don't want to get too technical on taxes, however, I'll throw out an example.

A company makes 17,000,000 of net income for accounting purposes during the years 2011 & 2012. Some components that make up the companys net income for both years are:

book depreciation of $2,500,000
Meals & entertainment of $100,000

The value of the assets being depreciated is $5,000,000. Lets say that the company won't be buying additional assets or selling these assets and that after 2 years the assets will be fully depreciated.

There is a reconciliation process that must be done to arrive at taxable income because the treatment of the two above mentioned deductions are treated differently for tax than for accounting purposes (there are a lot of variations of different temporary & permanent differences but I'm trying to keep the illustration simple). For the illustration lets say the tax depreciation expense is $3,500,000 for 2011 and $1,500,000 for 2012. Therefore, for tax purposes there is a $1,000,000 temporary difference in 2011 and the company will receive an additional $1,000,000 deduction in that year but that will reverse in 2012.

If there were no tax book differences and you applied the tax rate of 39% you would arrive at taxes in each year of $6,630,000

To arrive at the taxable income you have a reconciliation like this:

2011

Book Income: $17,000,000

Tax depr diff: (1,000,000)
Meals & Ent. 100,000

Tax Income $16,100,000

Tax Rate 39%

Taxes $6,279,000

The effective rate in this case is (6,279,000/17,000,000) 36.9%

2012

Book Income: $17,000,000


Tax depr diff: 1,000,000
Meals & Ent. 100,000


Tax Income $18,100,000


Tax Rate 39%


Taxes $7,059,000

The effective rate is (7,059,000/17,000,000) 41.5%

When tax is ultimately calculated it still comes back to the statutory rate. If you doubt me take a look at the US corporate tax form and US corporate tax instructions. Schedule J on the corporate tax form (pg 3) is where the corporate tax is calculated. To actually do the calculation you would need the tax rate schedule which can be found in the instructions on page 18.

I have no clue as to how you can say the statutory rate is irrelevant when this is the rate that is used to calculate every corporations income tax.

[Cowperson]

You're both right . . . .

USA corporate tax rates are actually very high relative to other countries but legal ways to evade paying such rates - loopholes/deductions - are also much more readily available than in other countries.

Ergo, the average USA corporation typically pays a fairly low amount of taxes relative to corporations positioned in other jurisdictions.

Cowperson

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

I have no clue as to how you can say the statutory rate is irrelevant when this is the rate that is used to calculate every corporations income tax.

If you go through some SEC filings or read conference call transcripts from the large corporations, you'll note that they will often brief their investors on the effective tax rate they paid for the quarter. They note this because that's the metric that is relevant to their business, and it is what the investors care about.

[tjinaz]

Why the press sent literally armies of people to pour though the emails from when she was governor of Alaska looking for a scandal. She holds no political office and will likely not run in 2012, so why the hate? She gets as much if not more scrutiny as the sitting president. Why is that? How is this news? Its like the media has turned paparazzi and Palin is now Brittany Spears.

If the reporters are truly trying to expose politicians hypocrisy and lies there is plenty to go round in DC, they don't need to go all the way to Alaska. How about simply fact checking the President's latest speech?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/to...a-antagonists/


http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/06/11/welch.palin.email/index.html?hpt=op

My favorite part

Three weeks ago, the journalism navel-gazing community was abuzz over an academic study of more than 700 news articles and 20 network news segments from 2009 that addressed a single controversial claim of the health care reform debate.
Was it President Obama's oft-repeated whopper that he was nobly pushing the reform rock up the hill despite the concentrated efforts of health care"special interests?" Was it his oft-repeated promise that "If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan," something that is getting even less true by the minute? Was it the way Obama and the Democrats brazenly gamed and misrepresented the Congressional Budget Office's price-tag scoring of the bill?
No. The cause for Obamacare-coverage reconsideration was not the truth-stretching claims made by a president seeking to radically reshape an important aspect of American life, but rather the Facebook commentary of ... Sarah Palin. "In more than 60 percent of the cases," the authors found, "it's obvious that newspapers abstained from calling [Palin's] death panels claim false." Horrors.

The press didn't spend its time investigating possible falsehoods and misleading statements about the plan. They dedicated their time to Palin's Death Panel claims, unreal... pass on the real news in favor of a claim from a past small state governor and failed VP candidate.

The funny part is if they simply stop making her news.... she ceases to become news.

[MarchHare]

The funny part is if they simply stop making her news.... she ceases to become news.

I didn't realize the lamestream [sic] media was forcing Palin to publish a ghost-written autobiography, appear on her own reality show, be a frequent guest commentator on Fox News, embark on a national bus tour, and distribute a documentary about her life and political career.

She's trying to stay in the news because it's good for her pocketbook and keeps her in the public conscious if she ever decides to run for office again. The media is all-too-happy to oblige her because it's good for their ratings.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I didn't realize the lamestream [sic] media was forcing Palin to publish a ghost-written autobiography, appear on her own reality show, be a frequent guest commentator on Fox News, embark on a national bus tour, and distribute a documentary about her life and political career.

She's trying to stay in the news because it's good for her pocketbook and keeps her in the public conscious if she ever decides to run for office again. The media is all-too-happy to oblige her because it's good for their ratings.

Everybody is "trying to stay in the news" so she's pretty garden-variety that way.

She manages to be successful at it because the general public demands that their news sources feed her to them.

Why?

Good question I suppose the answer is actually very simple and time-tested - we all love puppy dogs, babies and train wrecks . . . . . and every editor knew that in the 1920's, just as they know that today.

Some things never change.

Cowperson

[Calgaryborn]

Sarah Palin made a big difference in the mid-terms and I'm willing to bet every single republican candidate would covet her endorsment above any other in 2013.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

This is a typical canard.

The median effective tax rate is around 25%, with many paying much much less. So the burden is nowhere near the oft-quoted top marginal rate.

Better comparison is tax revenues as percent of GDP. The US is near the bottom of the pack there.



Edit:

Here are the data from the Treasury. If you go to page 24 you'll find that the effective rate across the economy is 17%. I apologize for overshooting it.

I don't have much of a problem with low personal taxes, provided that they are applied fairly. As in billionaires should be paying more than the 15-17% we so often here. 25-30% is a better number.

Either way, the tax structure is screwed up, IMO. Too many loopholes for starters.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Azure

I don't have much of a problem with low personal taxes, provided that they are applied fairly. As in billionaires should be paying more than the 15-17% we so often here. 25-30% is a better number.

Either way, the tax structure is screwed up, IMO. Too many loopholes for starters.

Hold on a sec, are you saying that billionaires should pay a higher percentage of tax? If so, why?

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Hold on a sec, are you saying that billionaires should pay a higher percentage of tax? If so, why?

Simply put, they can afford to. They would still be left with hundreds of millions of dollars. I'm sure they could make do.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Hold on a sec, are you saying that billionaires should pay a higher percentage of tax? If so, why?

Isn't that exactly how the progressive income tax programs used by most (all?) developed nations are supposed to work? Ignoring tax loopholes and shelters taken advantage of by the rich, citizens are supposed to pay a higher percentage of tax as their income increases.

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

Federal income tax in Canada is structured like this:

15% on the first $41,544 of taxable income, +

22% on the next $41,544 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $41,544 and $83,088), +

26% on the next $45,712 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $83,088 and $128,800), +

29% of taxable income over $128,800.

Also note that the first $10,382 you earn is not taxed, so the 15% marginal rate applies to the portion of your income from $10,383 to $41,544.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html

[Knut]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Isn't that exactly how the progressive income tax programs used by most (all?) developed nations are supposed to work? Ignoring tax loopholes and shelters taken advantage of by the rich, citizens are supposed to pay a higher percentage of tax as their income increases.

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

Federal income tax in Canada is structured like this:



Also note that the first $10,382 you earn is not taxed, so the 15% marginal rate applies to the portion of your income from $10,383 to $41,544.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html

You have to limit the progressive taxation at some point though. You start to lose the incentive of making more money at a certain percentage of taxation.

I understand the need for progressive taxation, however, I also feel that at some point a plateau should be reached.