(03-12-2011 09:54 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Not at all. I would like to see corporations be good citizens and partner with government. Let's cut govenment spending, lets cut waste and fraud (like the cowboy poetry festival) and raise the tax rate back to Clinton era levels so we are prospering. More than tax breaks companies really need consumers with deep pockets. The american consumer still drives the world economy.

As for taking taxes back to Clinton era levels, let's compare corporate tax rates at 10-year intervals, looking at simple unweighted avearges for other developed countries:

1989 (end of Reagan)

US (excluding state/local taxes) 31.6%
OECD average (excluding state/provincial/local taxes) 38.1%
USA (including state/local taxes) 38.7%
OECD (including state provincial/local taxes) 42.7%
USA v OECD (without/with state/local taxes) 6.5% lower/4.0% lower

1999 (end of Clinton)

US (excluding state/local taxes) 32.6%
OECD average (excluding state/provincial/local taxes) 32.1%
USA (including state/local taxes) 39.4%
OECD (including state provincial/local taxes) 34.8%
USA v OECD (without/with state/local taxes) 0.5% higher/4.6% higher

2009 (end of Shrub)

US (excluding state/local taxes) 32.8%
OECD average (excluding state/provincial/local taxes) 24.3%
USA (including state/local taxes) 39.1%
OECD (including state provincial/local taxes) 26.3%
USA v OECD (without/with state/local taxes) 8.5% higher/12.8% higher

See any trends there?

I know the left-wing sound byte is that corporations don't pay those full rates. That's because those corporations take advantage of our corporate welfare tax breaks, then when those run out they move operations overseas rather than pay the full freight.

The answer is to do what the deficit commission recommended--reduce tax rates to world standards, or lower, concurrently with broadening the tax base by eliminating many tax breaks. That raises the same revenues while reducing the incentive to leave, and those revenues increase when corporations decide to leave more operations here.

That's what Reagan did, by the way. He and Bill Bradley didn't get increased revenues because they lowered tax rates; they got increased revenues because they broadened the base. That's the truth that the right wing needs to learn.

(03-12-2011 07:24 AM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  

(03-12-2011 04:28 AM)RobertN Wrote:  The unfortunate thing is that many of the people taking these jobs(many have a degree and/or training in another higher paying field) will never get out of these jobs once they are in.

Only if they have no drive to better themselves. The Peter Principle is always in effect, no matter the job.

(03-12-2011 04:46 AM)RobertN Wrote:  Well, we could go your route and let only corporations...oops sorry, I mean free markets set the wages. I am sure they will be very generous in when it comes to pay.

If they set it too high, they lose money. If they set it too low, they won't be able to hire anyone because their competitors will pay more. You will be paid what you're worth. We surely can't have that.

First part. Many are in their situation for a reason. Their jobs were outsourced. Try telling them that they have no drive(or why not just call them freeloaders like the other a-hole cons). Of course, it doesn't help that once they are in that position corporations won't hire them because they did take the job to feed and shelter themselves("hey, if they were decent at their previous job, they wouldn't need to be in such a position" attitude).

As for the second part, I am sure the market will set the price for what someone should be paid for their work. I guarantee you that wages would universally drop in just about every sector of the economy. Do you really want to see this country go down the road of only poor and rich? Wait, you are a conservative. Of course you do. All hail the "job creators". Well my friend, if nobody makes money to buy things, how is the company going to survive? See the goods made here under cheap wages to the higher paid Chinese?

(03-12-2011 10:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-12-2011 09:54 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Not at all. I would like to see corporations be good citizens and partner with government. Let's cut govenment spending, lets cut waste and fraud (like the cowboy poetry festival) and raise the tax rate back to Clinton era levels so we are prospering. More than tax breaks companies really need consumers with deep pockets. The american consumer still drives the world economy.

As for taking taxes back to Clinton era levels, let's compare corporate tax rates at 10-year intervals, looking at simple unweighted avearges for other developed countries:

1989 (end of Reagan)

US (excluding state/local taxes) 31.6%
OECD average (excluding state/provincial/local taxes) 38.1%
USA (including state/local taxes) 38.7%
OECD (including state provincial/local taxes) 42.7%
USA v OECD (without/with state/local taxes) 6.5% lower/4.0% lower

1999 (end of Clinton)

US (excluding state/local taxes) 32.6%
OECD average (excluding state/provincial/local taxes) 32.1%
USA (including state/local taxes) 39.4%
OECD (including state provincial/local taxes) 34.8%
USA v OECD (without/with state/local taxes) 0.5% higher/4.6% higher

2009 (end of Shrub)

US (excluding state/local taxes) 32.8%
OECD average (excluding state/provincial/local taxes) 24.3%
USA (including state/local taxes) 39.1%
OECD (including state provincial/local taxes) 26.3%
USA v OECD (without/with state/local taxes) 8.5% higher/12.8% higher

See any trends there?

I know the left-wing sound byte is that corporations don't pay those full rates. That's because those corporations take advantage of our corporate welfare tax breaks, then when those run out they move operations overseas rather than pay the full freight.

The answer is to do what the deficit commission recommended--reduce tax rates to world standards, or lower, concurrently with broadening the tax base by eliminating many tax breaks. That raises the same revenues while reducing the incentive to leave, and those revenues increase when corporations decide to leave more operations here.

That's what Reagan did, by the way. He and Bill Bradley didn't get increased revenues because they lowered tax rates; they got increased revenues because they broadened the base. That's the truth that the right wing needs to learn.

Those are the exact numbers I was looking for some time ago in a different thread when a couple people told me they were meaningless since we can't move businesses to 10 years ago.

(03-12-2011 03:34 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Those are the exact numbers I was looking for some time ago in a different thread when a couple people told me they were meaningless since we can't move businesses to 10 years ago.

The lesson that you are supposed to derive from those numbers is that the world around us has changed tremendously over the last 10 or 20 years, and that is a big reason why comparisons with 10 years ago are misleading. I get a sneaking suspicion that's not the lesson you derived.

If by going back to the Clinton era you mean going back to corporate tax rates that are not 12% higher than the average for the developed world, then I agree.

(03-12-2011 09:54 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  raise the tax rate back to Clinton era levels so we are prospering.

You seem to confuse cause and effect.

Quote: More than tax breaks companies really need consumers with deep pockets. The american consumer still drives the world economy.

So if we tax people more, they'll have more to spend for goods and services?

Hmm, I think I've found the flaw in your plan

(03-12-2011 03:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-12-2011 03:34 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Those are the exact numbers I was looking for some time ago in a different thread when a couple people told me they were meaningless since we can't move businesses to 10 years ago.

The lesson that you are supposed to derive from those numbers is that the world around us has changed tremendously over the last 10 or 20 years, and that is a big reason why comparisons with 10 years ago are misleading. I get a sneaking suspicion that's not the lesson you derived.

If by going back to the Clinton era you mean going back to corporate tax rates that are not 12% higher than the average for the developed world, then I agree.

Wait, what? You throw out numbers that show that our corporate taxes were less than the OECD average, and that they're now higher. Assuming of course that the numbers are accurate and meaningful. The only trend I see there is that our taxes are higher compared to the OECD than they were 20 years ago. Correct?

And then you say that comparisons with 10 years ago are misleading. So why are you comparing them?

(03-11-2011 02:44 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-11-2011 10:16 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-11-2011 09:52 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I don't really see this proving anything. It is the current economic problems that are making these people want these jobs...not the desire to have them.

I thought that was exactly the point. Economic need will drive people, even US citizens, to take jobs, even jobs that are dirty and hard.

That's been one argument supporting lax immigration, "There are jobs that US citizens just won't do."

That's not true.

OK..It is not true that in a piss poor economy with high unemployment that people will not take sh!tty jobs. Who takes the sh!tty jobs in good economy with low unemployment?

Like many problems, you (we) don't address them when you can.

In times of high employment and wage pressures, why should food prices, or the price of unskilled labor be any exception? The problem is, when times are hard, they're still here and you (we) won't send them home.

In a "guest worker" program, you add more when times are good and cut them when times are harder.

(03-15-2011 07:26 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-12-2011 03:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-12-2011 03:34 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Those are the exact numbers I was looking for some time ago in a different thread when a couple people told me they were meaningless since we can't move businesses to 10 years ago.

The lesson that you are supposed to derive from those numbers is that the world around us has changed tremendously over the last 10 or 20 years, and that is a big reason why comparisons with 10 years ago are misleading. I get a sneaking suspicion that's not the lesson you derived.

If by going back to the Clinton era you mean going back to corporate tax rates that are not 12% higher than the average for the developed world, then I agree.

Wait, what? You throw out numbers that show that our corporate taxes were less than the OECD average, and that they're now higher. Assuming of course that the numbers are accurate and meaningful. The only trend I see there is that our taxes are higher compared to the OECD than they were 20 years ago. Correct?

And then you say that comparisons with 10 years ago are misleading. So why are you comparing them?

Tautological argument. SURELY you get this and are merely being cheeky??

Comparing OUR rates today to OUR rates of 20yrs ago is immaterial.

Comparing our "attractiveness" as measures by relative tax rates vs our competition 20 yrs ago vs our attractiveness today IS material

As measured by tax burden, we are less attractive vs our peers today than in the past.

(03-15-2011 09:21 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-11-2011 02:44 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-11-2011 10:16 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-11-2011 09:52 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I don't really see this proving anything. It is the current economic problems that are making these people want these jobs...not the desire to have them.

I thought that was exactly the point. Economic need will drive people, even US citizens, to take jobs, even jobs that are dirty and hard.

That's been one argument supporting lax immigration, "There are jobs that US citizens just won't do."

That's not true.

OK..It is not true that in a piss poor economy with high unemployment that people will not take sh!tty jobs. Who takes the sh!tty jobs in good economy with low unemployment?

Like many problems, you (we) don't address them when you can.

In times of high employment and wage pressures, why should food prices, or the price of unskilled labor be any exception? The problem is, when times are hard, they're still here and you (we) won't send them home.

In a "guest worker" program, you add more when times are good and cut them when times are harder.

(03-15-2011 07:26 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-12-2011 03:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-12-2011 03:34 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Those are the exact numbers I was looking for some time ago in a different thread when a couple people told me they were meaningless since we can't move businesses to 10 years ago.

The lesson that you are supposed to derive from those numbers is that the world around us has changed tremendously over the last 10 or 20 years, and that is a big reason why comparisons with 10 years ago are misleading. I get a sneaking suspicion that's not the lesson you derived.

If by going back to the Clinton era you mean going back to corporate tax rates that are not 12% higher than the average for the developed world, then I agree.

Wait, what? You throw out numbers that show that our corporate taxes were less than the OECD average, and that they're now higher. Assuming of course that the numbers are accurate and meaningful. The only trend I see there is that our taxes are higher compared to the OECD than they were 20 years ago. Correct?

And then you say that comparisons with 10 years ago are misleading. So why are you comparing them?

Tautological argument. SURELY you get this and are merely being cheeky??

Comparing OUR rates today to OUR rates of 20yrs ago is immaterial.

Comparing our "attractiveness" as measures by relative tax rates vs our competition 20 yrs ago vs our attractiveness today IS material

As measured by tax burden, we are less attractive vs our peers today than in the past.

Well, that's exactly what I was saying in the other thread and was told that that was immaterial. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough, but I really didn't think I needed to explain it. I was simply talked down to as if I didn't know what I was talking about.

(03-15-2011 11:09 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Well, that's exactly what I was saying in the other thread and was told that that was immaterial. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough, but I really didn't think I needed to explain it. I was simply talked down to as if I didn't know what I was talking about.

I'm not sure what other thread you mean, but the other recent thread on this subject if where I got the numbers from. I posted them over there, then copied the post over here.

And Hambone correctly states the point I was making, both here and there. Comparing our rates today to OUR rates 10 or 20 or however many years ago is immaterial. Comparing our rates today to other countries today is material because that is the decision people actually face. And comparing the DIFFERENCE between our rates and other countries' rates today, versus what that difference was 10 or 20 years ago is particularly relevant because it explains why it would be unreasonable to expect that going back to Clinton-era rates today could produce the same results as it did then.

As for the question about validity of the numbers, you can prove them up for yourself fairly easily by Googling the OECD website, downloading the Excel files with various tax rate comparisons, and doing the math (Excel will even do it for you).

Well in essence your numbers answer my question that I raised in the other thread. Do you really think I'm dumb enough to simply compare OUR rates to what they were 10 or 20 years ago? If our rates are now higher than, e.g. the OECD average, one might say businesses would move elsewhere, if other conditions make it appropriate. But if our tax rates were a similar amount higher 10 or 20 years ago, then you'd have the question of, why move now, if not before? There could be other reasons, certainly. Otherwise, the question (and the comparison) stands, and is very much material (and not meaningless), as you've stated.

(03-15-2011 11:49 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Well in essence your numbers answer my question that I raised in the other thread. Do you really think I'm dumb enough to simply compare OUR rates to what they were 10 or 20 years ago? If our rates are now higher than, e.g. the OECD average, one might say businesses would move elsewhere, if other conditions make it appropriate. But if our tax rates were a similar amount higher 10 or 20 years ago, then you'd have the question of, why move now, if not before? There could be other reasons, certainly. Otherwise, the question (and the comparison) stands, and is very much material (and not meaningless), as you've stated.

Well, on most threads there are several posters, and yes, there are some on here who are dumb enough to believe that you simply compare our rates now to our rates then.

The numbers show a pretty clear trend, and obviously we were not a similar amount higher 10 or 20 years ago.