Obama moves on corporate-tax reform

posted at 11:00 am on February 22, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Corporate tax reform has long been an opportunity for a win-win bipartisan effort in Washington. Everyone agrees that the corporate code needs significant changes, if not a complete overhaul; it’s too complicated, too costly, and rewards the larger companies that can afford to analyze it for every possible benefit.  Both parties have made corporate tax reform part of their plartforms, Democrats arguing that we need to close loopholes, Republicans that we need simplification and lower rates.

The White House decided to go first on corporate tax reform:

The Obama administration Wednesday will unveil a framework for reforming the corporate tax code that would lower the top rate from 35 percent to 28 percent but generate more total revenue by eliminating “dozens of tax loopholes and subsidies” and creating a minimum rate on foreign earnings.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner will formally unveil the tax reform blueprint at 11:30 a.m.

The “global minimum tax” makes an appearance, along with a laughable pledge to pay for the rate reduction by — wait for it — “greater fiscal responsibility”:

The tax reform framework “eliminates dozens of different tax expenditures and fundamentally reforms the business tax base to reduce distortions that hurt productivity and growth. … It reinvests these savings to lower the corporate tax rate to 28 percent, putting the United States in line with major competitor countries and encouraging greater investment,” according to an administration official.

The official added that the framework “would refocus the manufacturing deduction and use the savings to reduce the effective rate on manufacturing to no more than 25 percent, while encouraging greater research and development and the production of clean energy.”

The framework would establish “a new minimum tax on foreign earnings, to encourage domestic investment.” The proposal will be “fully paid for … to greater fiscal responsibility than our current business tax system by either eliminating or making permanent and fully paying for temporary tax provisions now in the tax code.”

“Greater fiscal responsibility”? Isn’t this the same White House that produced four trillion-dollar-plus budget deficits?  Yeah, that will work out well.

James Pethokoukis takes a long look at the proposal, and declares that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner should resign for putting his name to it:

The current U.S. economic recovery is arguably the worst in modern American history. Incomes are flat, housing is moribund and the past three years have seen the longest stretch of high unemployment in this country since the Great Depression. Yet President Barack Obama—with the backing of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner—has the temerity to propose a corporate tax reform plan that would actually raise the tax burden on American business (and de facto on workers, too) without lowering rates to an internationally competitive level. This is a terrible, terrible plan:

1. The Obama-Geithner plan would lower the statutory corporate tax rate to 28 percent from 35 percent, currently the second-highest among advanced economies. But that would still leave the combined U.S. corporate tax rate — state and federal — at 32.2 percent, far above the OECD combined average of 25 percent.  The U.S. combined rate would be a bit below slow-growing Japan and France but above the U.K. and Germany. That’s not nearly good enough. Canada just lowered its corporate tax rate, for instance, to 15 percent. So instead of having the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, the U.S. would probably be fourth behind Japan, France and Belgium.

2. The Obama-Geithner plan would establish, according to the New York Times, a minimum tax on multinational corporations’ foreign earnings to discourage “accounting games to shift profits abroad” or actual relocation of production overseas.

So instead of a carrot, Corporate America gets the stick. Instead of lowering the U.S. rate to a competitive level, Obama would raise the penalty on keeping profits overseas. Indeed, the United States is a huge outlier in that it taxes the foreign profits of multinational companies. Here is Obama’s own Jobs Council:

While most other developed nations have adopted territorial systems that exempt most or all foreign income from taxes when they are repatriated, the U.S. subjects all worldwide earnings to the corporate income tax when they are brought home to the U.S. This approach actually encourages U.S. companies to keep their earnings abroad rather than investing them here at home. Adopting a territorial tax system would bring us in line with our trading partners and would eliminate the so-called “lock-out” effect in the current worldwide system of taxation that discourages repatriation and investment of the foreign earnings of American companies in the U.S.

Obama’s debt commission made a similar recommendation.

James has plenty more to say, especially on the lack of understanding on the part of Obama and his team about basic economics.  Who pays corporate taxes? Consumers and employees do.

However, from a political perspective, this may be even worse than its economics.  For the second straight year, Obama has launched a major proposal while deliberately disregarding his own advisory panel’s recommendations.  That turned into political disaster last year, when Obama’s budget ignored his own appointed deficit panel.  His budget got voted down unanimously in a Senate controlled by his own party, making him look extreme and out of touch on budgetary issues.

Now his new corporate tax proposal ignores the recommendations from the panel Obama created to much fanfare last year as part of his focus on job creation and economic growth.  The obvious conclusion is that Obama has prioritized punitive tax changes on American business in order to fund his spending expansion over economic growth.  Republicans need to emphasize that Obama’s job council turned out to be nothing more than a smoke screen, just the same as Simpson-Bowles, and that this corporate tax “reform” is anything but.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Did you say the same thing when he Downgraded the rule of law and dictated that private insurance companies provide free services?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 11:52 AM

no insurance company is forced to provide free services.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Oh really, then how are those services to be paid for?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 12:00 PM

“fully paid for … to greater fiscal responsibility

Question for the SecTreas:

“Mr. Secretary, what dollar value does the WH assign to “greater fiscal responsibility”, and in which table in the budget should it reside and as a follow up, is this sorta like a ‘goodwill’ item used in accounting?”

BobMbx on February 22, 2012 at 12:01 PM

in other words, they should change it to a “conservative” wet dream, pretend that they had to make difficult compromises, and hope that nobody notices.

i, for one, would totally believe it and i’d definitely change my vote to whichever nutjob the gop nominates.

sesquipedalian

Yeah, something like that. Isn’t that what O tries to do all the time? In the debt ceiling debacle last summer he never wrote down any of his supposed entitlement cuts, but he was compromising. Yes he was!!

You believe in a man that has no experience for the job he is in and we are all paying for that. Keep voting for your own destruction, retard. We don’t care what you believe.

JAM on February 22, 2012 at 12:01 PM

liberal4life on February 22, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Truly, you jest? How would we employ the US Citizenry? You must work for the Government and think money grows on trees. If these greedy, greedy companies leave, we will be worse than Mexico, no worse than any country in existence today as we will have 300 million people with no jobs to feed or clothe them. There would be no tax revenue coming into Government for you to have a paycheck or for the poverty checks to go out to the poor.

Liberal for life = mental disorder for life.

uhangtight on February 22, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Is she illustrating just how mind numbingly illogical you leftists truly are?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 11:58 AM

no, it’s illustrating how mind-numbingly stupid the sockpuppet is.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 12:04 PM

All those wild internet predictions of how bad an 0bama regime would be have been proven woefully understated.

jukin3 on February 22, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Liberal for life = mental disorder for life.

uhangtight on February 22, 2012 at 12:03 PM

The mentally disabled called and they are PI$$ED at you for associating them with liberalism.

CycloneCDB on February 22, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Who pays corporate taxes? Consumers and employees do.

No they don’t, the genius economist here says that corporations eat taxes to remain profitable.

He has the same handle as a famous character in a book about high taxes, so it must be so.

cozmo on February 22, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Oh really, then how are those services to be paid for?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 12:00 PM

people pay for their own insurance…?

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 12:06 PM

So apparently, there must be a new President-Czar.
You know, the one that doesn’t need no stiiinnkin’ Congress. He’ll do what he stiiinnkin’ pleases.

Oh wait, never mind.

askwhatif on February 22, 2012 at 12:08 PM

I think it’s more importnat to keep him from getting another 4 years. At least we can stop Iran from using the nukes…nothing seems to be able to stop Baracky’s nuking of the economy…

CycloneCDB on February 22, 2012 at 11:26 AM

I am not as optimistic about stopping Iran from using a nuke. But, yes, Obama with another 4 years will ensure 60% of people paying no taxes (or as I like to call it, not paying for the government goodies that only they benefit from), the “rich” getting screwed, and the economy being flushed down the toilet..

milcus on February 22, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Is she illustrating just how mind numbingly illogical you leftists truly are?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 11:58 AM

no, it’s illustrating how mind-numbingly stupid the sockpuppet is.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 12:04 PM

So you object to what is more or less an accurate portrayal of the Leftist-Socialist mindset?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 12:11 PM

The House should take his bill, change all the numbers to 15%.

Fleuries on February 22, 2012 at 11:50 AM

I like this idea. Make sure whenever they talk about it, it’s referred to as “the pResident’s tax reform bill.” as in .. “we passed the pResident’s tax reform bill, why won’t he sign it?”

Lost in Jersey on February 22, 2012 at 12:12 PM

In the debt ceiling debacle last summer he never wrote down any of his supposed entitlement cuts, but he was compromising.

JAM on February 22, 2012 at 12:01 PM

i’m not sure what you mean by “never wrote it down,” since it’s been widely reported, but the gop walked away from obama’s offer of $4 trillion in deficit reduction, with $2.8 trillion of it coming from tax cuts. that’s a significant compromise that upset many on the left.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 12:12 PM

So let me get this straight;
They plan to rewrite the tax code, to remove loop-holes, so they can put new loop-holes in of their own making, then they will sell those loop-holes to the highest DNC donators.

Got it.

askwhatif on February 22, 2012 at 12:12 PM

i’m not sure what you mean by “never wrote it down,” since it’s been widely reported, but the gop walked away from obama’s offer of $4 trillion in deficit reduction, with $2.8 trillion of it coming from tax cuts. that’s a significant compromise that upset many on the left.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Are you talking about that compromise Republicans agreed to and Obama panicked when they did and demanding even more taxes in order to get Republicans to back out of the deal?

NotCoach on February 22, 2012 at 12:14 PM

So you object to what is more or less an accurate portrayal of the Leftist-Socialist mindset?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 12:11 PM

it’s an accurate portrayal of how “conservatives” think a liberal thinks.

sockpuppet fail.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Oh really, then how are those services to be paid for?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 12:00 PM

people pay for their own insurance…?

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 12:06 PM

In other words – the people who object to being forced to pay for those services?

Why doesn’t that application of feral power by the Downgrade Administration bother you?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 12:14 PM

But, yes, Obama with another 4 years will ensure 60% of people paying no taxes (or as I like to call it, not paying for the government goodies that only they benefit from), the “rich” getting screwed, and the economy being flushed down the toilet..

milcus on February 22, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Yeah – no stopping this guy if he gets a second blank check.

CycloneCDB on February 22, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Are you talking about that compromise Republicans agreed to and Obama panicked when they did and demanding even more taxes in order to get Republicans to back out of the deal?

NotCoach on February 22, 2012 at 12:14 PM

that’s the ridiculous excuse the gop used to explain why they refused to compromise. never substantiated by any evidence.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 12:16 PM

So you object to what is more or less an accurate portrayal of the Leftist-Socialist mindset?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 12:11 PM

it’s an accurate portrayal of how “conservatives” think a liberal thinks.

sockpuppet fail.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Okay, how do Leftists think?

Or do you consider that to be a trick question?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 12:16 PM

In other words – the people who object to being forced to pay for those services?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 12:14 PM

what, sweetie?

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 12:17 PM

people pay for their own insurance…?

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Except for the ones who will receive subsidies….paid for by somebody else.

BobMbx on February 22, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Okay, how do Leftists think?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 12:16 PM

you could ask stupider questions, i suppose, but it’s quite difficult to imagine.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 12:18 PM

what about the fact that he actually proposes to lower the corporate tax rate by 7%?

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 11:43 AM

And you actually believe him?

lol

Del Dolemonte on February 22, 2012 at 12:21 PM

I disagree with this. We need to tax these greedy companies to oblivion.
If they don’t like it they can pack their bags and get the hell out

liberal4life on February 22, 2012 at 11:03 AM

I believe any sane person would have added the following:

///////////////s infinity!

freedomfirst on February 22, 2012 at 12:21 PM

And you actually believe him?

Del Dolemonte on February 22, 2012 at 12:21 PM

jesus christ, pops, he just proposed it, committing himself to the idea publicly.

btw, it’s actually a good idea, no? it’s following the debt commission’s recommendation of lowering the corporate tax rate, no? so morrissey’s wrong to write that the “new corporate tax proposal ignores the recommendations from the panel obama created to much fanfare last year,” right?

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 12:26 PM

… We need to tax these greedy companies to oblivion…

liberal4life on February 22, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Someone once said: “Greed, for lack of a better word, is good.”
You should look it up and try to understand that monologue. As if…

freedomfirst on February 22, 2012 at 12:26 PM

Someone once said: “Greed, for lack of a better word, is good.”

freedomfirst on February 22, 2012 at 12:26 PM

it was the baby jesus, where’s my prize?

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 12:30 PM

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 12:26 PM

Yes, with the whammy of a global minimum attached. It is a political move to try and claim he is offering a compromise to Republicans, but never actually being serious about it. We’ve seen this tune before, most notably the debt ceiling debate. And sticking your head in the sand about how his MO does not make crap smell good.

NotCoach on February 22, 2012 at 12:34 PM

And you actually believe him?

Del Dolemonte on February 22, 2012 at 12:21 PM

jesus christ, pops, he just proposed it, committing himself to the idea publicly.

btw, it’s actually a good idea, no? it’s following the debt commission’s recommendation of lowering the corporate tax rate, no? so morrissey’s wrong to write that the “new corporate tax proposal ignores the recommendations from the panel obama created to much fanfare last year,” right?

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 12:26 PM

Thanks for not answering my question.

Del Dolemonte on February 22, 2012 at 12:36 PM

btw, it’s actually a good idea, no? it’s following the debt commission’s recommendation of lowering the corporate tax rate, no? so morrissey’s wrong to write that the “new corporate tax proposal ignores the recommendations from the panel obama created to much fanfare last year,” right?

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 12:26 PM

Dense is strong with this one.

Did you miss the part about the commission’s recommendation concerning re-patriated profits?

Read the post again, no need to go off-site. Ed clearly explains where Oboobi ignores their recommendations.

So he cuts 7% off and also closes loopholes, big deal. That was just the low-hanging bait that you fell for, and you ignore the switch at your peril.

AH_C on February 22, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Why doesn’t that application of feral power by the Downgrade Administration bother you?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 12:14 PM

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 12:17 PM

I can’t help but notice that you avoided this other question – can we all infer that you don’t care about the Downgrading of the rule of law as long as it’s by your dear leader?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 12:42 PM

can we all infer that you don’t care about the Downgrading of the rule of law as long as it’s by your dear leader?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 12:42 PM

no.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 12:44 PM

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 12:30 PM

You beclown yourself.

freedomfirst on February 22, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Yes, with the whammy of a global minimum attached. It is a political move to try and claim he is offering a compromise to Republicans, but never actually being serious about it. We’ve seen this tune before, most notably the debt ceiling debate.

NotCoach on February 22, 2012 at 12:34 PM

call his bluff, then.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Lets say a company decided to relocate most of its operations to Canada to take advantage of a 15% corporate tax. Is the Global Minimum tax still able to be enforced? Or is any company that does business in the US held to the same rule? Canada should send Obama a text message with just this – “LMAO”

Companies will flee this country in mass if this BS takes effect. Watching the news this morning….whats to stop a company like Intel (which does an enormous amount of business outside the US) from packing up and leaving for good??? Theyll survive off of the rest of the world.

How many taxes can you collect from 0 dollars of revenue? IDIOTS.

UBuffaloBulls on February 22, 2012 at 12:47 PM

That’s not nearly good enough. Canada just lowered its corporate tax rate, for instance, to 15 percent…

Canada doing better than US
This IS the twilight Zone

God help america, hell North America if hat man gets a 2nd mandate….

Gauthijm on February 22, 2012 at 12:48 PM

can we all infer that you don’t care about the Downgrading of the rule of law as long as it’s by your dear leader?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 12:42 PM

no.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Just to be clear on this:

The President’s Downgrading of the rule of law is of absolutely NO concern of yours?

Any type of power grab by El Presidente Downgrade is A-okay with you?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 12:52 PM

call his bluff, then.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 12:47 PM

He’s the president and says we shouldn’t call his bluffs.

Believe me, if I had the authority to call his bluffs I would. The debt ceiling would still be at $14 trillion if I had my way. It would do the country good to see we get along just fine without all the government spending. And that is the last thing the left wants to happen.

NotCoach on February 22, 2012 at 12:52 PM

can we all infer that you don’t care about the Downgrading of the rule of law as long as it’s by your dear leader?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 12:42 PM

no.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Do you automatically believe everything O’bama tells you?

Del Dolemonte on February 22, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Read the post again, no need to go off-site. Ed clearly explains where Oboobi ignores their recommendations.

AH_C on February 22, 2012 at 12:37 PM

the debt ceiling commission mad a number of recommendations. obama followed one, ignored another. ed could as well have said that “obama follows the recommendations of his panel he created to much fanfare.”

ed, of course, never mentions that the reduction of the corporate tax rate and doing away with loopholes is exactly what the commission recommended, because it would complicate the narrative he’s presenting to you. he’d then also have to mention that cutting the corporate rate is something “conservatives” normally support (hence the carefully calibrated knee-jerk headline, “obama moves on corporate-tax reform), and not just leave it for jamie the greek to say that, well, it’s good but not good enough.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 12:57 PM

This goes hand-in-glove with Carney’s surreal statement that Republicans are responsible for killing the Keystone XL pipeline and therefore high gas prices. Huh?

It was Obama who killed the deal which would have provided not only jobs but further energy security.

They have to operate on the assumption the American Public is stooopid.

Marcus Traianus on February 22, 2012 at 12:57 PM

The President’s Downgrading of the rule of law is of absolutely NO concern of yours?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 12:52 PM

which part of “no” do you not understand, sweetheart?

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Do you automatically believe everything O’bama tells you?

Del Dolemonte on February 22, 2012 at 12:54 PM

sometimes.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM

The President’s Downgrading of the rule of law is of absolutely NO concern of yours?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 12:52 PM

which part of “no” do you not understand, sweetheart?

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 12:58 PM

And any type of power grab by El Presidente Downgrade is A-okay with you?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 1:02 PM

And any type of power grab by El Presidente Downgrade is A-okay with you?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 1:02 PM

power grabs that i consider as such do bother me; power grabs you’re imagining don’t excite me much.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Do you automatically believe everything O’bama tells you?

Del Dolemonte on February 22, 2012 at 12:54 PM

sometimes.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM

What has he said that you haven’t believed?

Del Dolemonte on February 22, 2012 at 1:05 PM

You own a lemonade stands…

… One day Obowma and Timothy Geithner come by and say, “Hey, if you want to take the day off, we’ll run this for you!”

What do you do…?

/

Seven Percent Solution on February 22, 2012 at 1:06 PM

and these wall street fools continue to fund his re-election; another few years and they’ll be asking for another bailout

burserker on February 22, 2012 at 1:06 PM

What has he said that you haven’t believed?

Del Dolemonte on February 22, 2012 at 1:05 PM

that he’s against gay marriage, for one.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 1:09 PM

OT: And now we have $6 a gallon gas.

totherightofthem on February 22, 2012 at 1:09 PM

And any type of power grab by El Presidente Downgrade is A-okay with you?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 1:02 PM

power grabs that i consider as such do bother me; power grabs you’re imagining don’t excite me much.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Are you saying that we’re all imagining this power grab by El Presidente Downgrade?

That he really didn’t dictate that private companies provide free services, that he really didn’t over step the bounds of his office.

Is that what you want us all to believe?

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 1:11 PM

that he’s against gay marriage, for one.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 1:09 PM

That is just confirmation of what just about all conservatives suspected. We know he gets a pass from the left on being opposed to gay marriage because we know, you know he really isn’t opposed to it.

NotCoach on February 22, 2012 at 1:12 PM

The real issue today is whether employers — any employers — should be forced by the federal government to supply contraception for free. Under what authority does the federal government have that power, and for what purpose?

Ed Morrissey

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/21/no-birth-control-isnt-an-election-issue/

Ed Morrissey must be imagining this as well.

Chip on February 22, 2012 at 1:13 PM

LOL Sesquie is always good for a laugh. Thanks dude.

angryed on February 22, 2012 at 1:15 PM

On another newspaper I am reading they are proposing a 44% tax on dividends.

Obama is a loser, I don’t know how he managed to buy a 1 million dollar house, or who sat with him when he signed his book deal.

Stocks that pay dividends are the Stablest choice according to the kind of theories you hear about get rich quick schemes in the stock market. You get a tiny dividend, it adds up, you don’t turn over the stock for a get rich quick, it is stable, sustainable. Boring too.

The elderly hold on to these stocks, get the dividend, keep the stock, nobody sells anything, the stock is worth more to sell it than the amount you get in the dividend.

I don’t think Obama knows what a dividend is. I don’t know how he passed the LSAT, I don’t know how he got into Harvard Law, I don’t know how he managed at the Law Review, he cannot LEARN.

What is wrong with these people?

Fleuries on February 22, 2012 at 1:19 PM

I disagree with this. We need to tax these greedy companies to oblivion.
If they don’t like it they can pack their bags and get the hell out

liberal4life on February 22, 2012 at 11:03 AM

And then what? I mean seriously, Then what? Businesses taxed into oblivion, a complete collapse of corporations; no Chrysler, no MicroSoft, no Wal-Mart, no Safeway, no Caterpillar Tractor, no Intel, no Apple Computer, no General Electric.

Please tell us what new Utopia you see from this scenario.

Bulletchaser on February 22, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Are you talking about that compromise Republicans agreed to and Obama panicked when they did and demanding even more taxes in order to get Republicans to back out of the deal?

NotCoach on February 22, 2012 at 12:14 PM

That’s what actually happened. Emperor Zero is the one who kept moving the goalposts because he could not stand for a real compromise or anything that appeared like a GOP win.

As for this NONSENSE, Zero has no authority regarding tax matters. That policy and activity is up to congress, not him.

AND Sesquinumbnuts:

The Obama-Geithner plan would lower the statutory corporate tax rate to 28 percent from 35 percent, currently the second-highest among advanced economies. But that would still leave the combined U.S. corporate tax rate — state and federal — at 32.2 percent, far above the OECD combined average of 25 percent.

This change is what you’re touting? You are seriously without a clue. The net effect of what dungforbrains is doing is to drive even more business out of the country than he has already.

But you’re probably ok with that or deny it will happen/ has happened.

Luckily, his nonsense gets stopped even by members of his own party. It seem that even the dems have awoken to the nightmare they have unleashed. We can only hope they have sufficient enlightened self interest to leak enough information about him to put an end to his dictatorial regime, before he damages the nation further.

dogsoldier on February 22, 2012 at 1:19 PM

what about the fact that he actually proposes to lower the corporate tax rate by 7%?

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 11:43 AM

You don’t lower tax rates by raising tax rates and penalties elsewhere.

I’ll lower your rent by 50 bucks but you have to pay for utilities, which are currently free. What a deal since utilities cost $60!

Vince on February 22, 2012 at 1:21 PM

I don’t think Obama knows what a dividend is. I don’t know how he passed the LSAT, I don’t know how he got into Harvard Law, I don’t know how he managed at the Law Review, he cannot LEARN.

What is wrong with these people?

Fleuries on February 22, 2012 at 1:19 PM

He is our first affirmative action president. That should answer all of your questions.

Affirmative action makes people stupid because it only requires a hereditary trait that no one has any control over to succeed. He never had to actually work hard at anything to get ahead. This probably goes a long way in explaining his hatred of those who succeed in life. He doesn’t understand how true success comes about, so he assumes all successful people have been given their success.

NotCoach on February 22, 2012 at 1:24 PM

That is just confirmation of what just about all conservatives suspected. We know he gets a pass from the left on being opposed to gay marriage because we know, you know he really isn’t opposed to it.

NotCoach on February 22, 2012 at 1:12 PM

yes, we all know he’s not opposed to it. it’s a charade but i couldn’t care less – his actions speak louder than his words.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 1:27 PM

jesus christ, pops, he just proposed it, committing himself to the idea publicly.

btw, it’s actually a good idea, no? it’s following the debt commission’s recommendation of lowering the corporate tax rate, no? so morrissey’s wrong to write that the “new corporate tax proposal ignores the recommendations from the panel obama created to much fanfare last year,” right?

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 12:26 PM

This one of the more hilarious posts by this nutjob. Perhaps you should run through the numbers again.

1/ The actual reduction is less than 3 % from the current rate when state corporate taxes are taken into account ? How is this better ?

2/ It has NOTHING to do with the debt commissions recommendations which Obama now conveniently remembers after IGNORING it all last Summer during the debt ceiling debate.

3/ You think it’s a good idea to tax consumers more through this plan ? Didn’t Obama just agree to a payroll tax extension ? Have you considered that the rise in gasoline prices effectively wipes out ANY benefit the tax may have given ? Are you aware that President Oreo is trying to may it all look good , while screwing everyone ?

it’s an accurate portrayal of how “conservatives” think a liberal thinks.

sockpuppet fail.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 12:14 PM

You’ve made the point for us. Liberals don’t think. I’d like to believe that there’s something worthwhile between your ears, but all I can think of is a word I can’t use here.

Let’s hope that Corporations notice this “sleight” of hand for what it is and halt campaign donations to Obama. This surely doesn’t help them or anyone else.

DevilsPrinciple on February 22, 2012 at 1:30 PM

yes, we all know he’s not opposed to it. it’s a charade but i couldn’t care less – his actions speak louder than his words.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 1:27 PM

So you admit that he plays politics in order to trick people into believing he is really compromising on an issue. Thank you for seeing our point.

NotCoach on February 22, 2012 at 1:31 PM

What has he said that you haven’t believed?

Del Dolemonte on February 22, 2012 at 1:05 PM

that he’s against gay marriage, for one.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Didn’t he only say that to Get Elected?

From 2008:

In 2008, presidential candidate Obama said: “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian … it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”

This statement never actually says he is against gay marriage. Can you find another quote where he actually says he is? I couldn’t.

Del Dolemonte on February 22, 2012 at 1:32 PM

The argument needs to be made that corporate taxes are paid by consumers and employees of corporations. Consumers and employees of individually-owned businesses do not pay corporate taxes. That’s reason enough to oppose a cut to the corporate tax rate. The corporation receives tons of unfair advantages over the individually-owned business in exchange for paying a corporate tax. Allowing it to receive those benefits at a reduced tax rate is an effective subsidy of all corporations at the expense of individually-owned businesses.

JohnJ on February 22, 2012 at 1:32 PM

yes, we all know he’s not opposed to it. it’s a charade but i couldn’t care less – his actions speak louder than his words.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Exactly, as in all things, Liberals not only condone lying to the populace, they applaud it. I love that liberals think they are the good guys, but willingly admit that they must lie, cheat and steal to get elected.

You must be proud.

Monkeytoe on February 22, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Romney just released some bold tax reforms that I do not see HA posting about:

Economists and political and business leaders today made the following statements on Mitt Romney’s bold pro-growth economic plan:

Glenn Hubbard, Dean of the Columbia University School of Business: “Once again, Mitt Romney has demonstrated he understands the need to promote economic growth, jobs, and wages. Cutting business taxes and marginal tax rates across the board is a key step. Coupled with his spending plan to rein in both the federal government’s claim on GDP and debt, this tax plan is bold and pro-growth. These plans stand in stark contrast to President Obama’s increase in the size of government and his plans to raise taxes on business owners.”

Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI), Chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means: “In the race for president, conservatives have a credible and comprehensive set of policies to back. Gov. Romney’s plan will accomplish the key conservative objectives of cutting tax rates to promote economic growth and job creation, while keeping us on a path to a balanced budget. Other candidates talk about the problems, but their numbers just don’t add up. The simple fact is Governor Romney is the only candidate who has put forward the bold plans necessary to both get Americans back to work through comprehensive tax reform while cutting spending in Washington to reduce our debt and deficits.”

Andy Puzder, CEO of CKE Restaurants, Inc.: “Having spent my life in business, I know that America needs a president who understands the relationship between taxes and job creation. Mitt Romney’s economic reform proposals show that he has thought deeply about the problems we’re facing and is willing to make tough decisions to fix them. His plan is a conservative dream come true. Actually, it’s an American dream come true. It will put the country on a path to lower tax rates and job creation without ballooning the deficit. Indeed, it will move us toward a balanced budget.”

Thomas Stemberg, Managing General Partner at Highland Consumer Fund and Founder of Staples, Inc.: “I worked closely with Mitt in founding Staples and I saw the kind of cloth he’s cut from. The excellence of his economic and tax reform plan does not surprise me in the least. Mitt understands better than almost anyone the harmful impact of our convoluted tax system on job creation. And he’s found a way to lower marginal rates without adding to the extraordinary deficits Barack Obama has saddled the country with. Indeed, Mitt is putting us on the path to a balanced budget even as he overhauls the tax code.”

Gary Wolfram, William E. Simon Professor in Economics and Public Policy at Hillsdale College: “Economics may be the dismal science, but Mitt Romney’s economic reform plan gives even economists reason to be cheerful. At last, we have a presidential candidate who is serious about cutting marginal rates while also facing up to the need to balance the budget. If this plan is put into action, the effects on economic growth and job creation are likely to be substantial.”

Al Hubbard, Former Director of the National Economic Council: “Mitt Romney’s bold plan will immediately restart America’s economic engine, grow our economy, and put people back to work. It is a comprehensive, pro-growth, fiscally responsible plan that will make the United States economically competitive by lowering tax rates and reforming the tax code. More so than any other candidate, Mitt Romney offers a plan that is realistic, responsible, and America’s best opportunity to get our economy back on track.”
http://mittromney.com/news/press/2012/02/economist-and-business-leaders-agree-romneys-pro-growth-plan-bold

g2825m on February 22, 2012 at 1:35 PM

i’m not sure what you mean by “never wrote it down,” since it’s been widely reported, but the gop walked away from obama’s offer of $4 trillion in deficit reduction, with $2.8 trillion of it coming from tax cuts. that’s a significant compromise that upset many on the left.
sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Nonsense. Obama had no such thing. Just like his budgets are farces

Chuck Schick on February 22, 2012 at 1:35 PM

i’m not sure what you mean by “never wrote it down,” since it’s been widely reported, but the gop walked away from obama’s offer of $4 trillion in deficit reduction, with $2.8 trillion of it coming from tax cuts. that’s a significant compromise that upset many on the left.

sesquipedalian

Really? Widely reported that he offered what specifically? They never said, b/c he never put anything on paper. Go ahead and look for the specific cuts to entitlements he said he would commit to. You won’t find them. You are a dupe & a shill and you don’t even know it. How pathetic.

JAM on February 22, 2012 at 1:35 PM

I disagree with this. We need to tax these greedy companies to oblivion.
If they don’t like it they can pack their bags and get the hell out

liberal4life on February 22, 2012 at 11:03 AM

I’m with the liberals. We should kill anyone or anything that makes money. That way, we’ll all be rich.

It’s economics 101. If we just let the gov’t run everything, we would live in utopia.

Monkeytoe on February 22, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Consumers and employees of individually-owned businesses do not pay corporate taxes.

Yeah they do actually. Every time they purchase a product or a service they are paying the taxes of the entity they procure it from.

Companies do not pay taxes. They merely collect taxes from their consumers and forward that money to the government.

dogsoldier on February 22, 2012 at 1:38 PM

I disagree with this. We need to tax these greedy companies to oblivion.
If they don’t like it they can pack their bags and get the hell out
liberal4life on February 22, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Great strategy. And you wonder why we think you people are children

Chuck Schick on February 22, 2012 at 1:38 PM

If anything, the value of the government-provided benefits to corporations far exceeds the rate at which they are taxed. The cost of this effective subsidy is paid by individually-owned businesses, who then pass that cost on to their employees and consumers.

JohnJ on February 22, 2012 at 1:38 PM

In the late 90′s my school was connected to the internet. I was teaching a class in Government and Economics. In searching for more relevent current information on communism I found the Communist Party USA web site. They obviously were new to the web and what should or should not be on a web site. One of those postings was their political planks which clearly outlined their plan for bring down America.

Front and center amoung them was the plan to use the anit-pollution laws, which are now called Green Laws on their web site, to force the large corporation to clean up their pollution. The next step was to bankrupt them by forcing them to clean up any effects of their pollution. The plan was then to replace the large corporations with smaller local centers of manufacturing.

I certainly did not think they had a chance of making anything even close to that happening, and said as much to my students, pointing out that it lookd more like they were looking at the old soviet way of state production, where local factories and farms had to meet quotas.

Here we are today with a socialist president that was mentored by top communist and radical socialist. As a canidate, Obama’s political platform was almost identical to the Communist Party USA platform.The “natipollution laws, AKA green laws have changed. Now we have Cap and trade, which will not only do the job of the anit pollution ear, but will redistrubute our nations wealth to third world countries. A double win for the communist, which Obama clearly approves of.

“Green laws” define the agenda of the CPUSA. “Green laws” define the political agenda of Obama who by his own actions is clearly working to “change” our “Constitutional Repubic” to a “democracy” that is more friendly to a central government controlled socialist society. Obama is always going to move in their direction.

That the communist would succeed in their goals is no longer something that I would laugh at. They managed to get one of theirs, trained and mentored by the best communist and most racical socialist, into the office of the president. Their 1949 assesment that the only way to get around the American people was through a nationalized healthcare program is a reality. Their destruction of American corporations and manufacturing is a reality in progress. Our only hope is to stop them before they have the time to finish what they have started.

I no longer teach Ecomomics or Government. For that I am greatful. When I taught the courses the Constution was the law of the land, at least as far as what was visable. I have no idea how I would teach the courses now without feeling I was lying to my students in the face of reality today, or living with forced compliance to mandates on what and how I taught.

Franklyn on February 22, 2012 at 1:39 PM

sesquipedalian

Are you lobotomy4lifes mom or dad? I see a genetic thing!

KOOLAID2 on February 22, 2012 at 1:39 PM

that’s the ridiculous excuse the gop used to explain why they refused to compromise. never substantiated by any evidence.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 12:16 PM

Except, of course, all of the media and Obama’s statements. Except for that. You really live in a fantasy world where you make up your own facts, don’t you.

Why are liberals always dishonest? Doesn’t it ever make you wonder – that you have to constantly lie? Doesn’t it make you think that your ideas must be wrong if you can’t ever be honest?

Monkeytoe on February 22, 2012 at 1:39 PM

I’m with the liberals. We should kill anyone or anything that makes money. That way, we’ll all be rich.

It’s economics 101. If we just let the gov’t run everything, we would live in utopia.

Monkeytoe

No, we should kill them, then feed them to the poor! That way they get a meal and food stamps from President training wheels!!

JAM on February 22, 2012 at 1:40 PM

yes, we all know he’s not opposed to it. it’s a charade but i couldn’t care less – his actions speak louder than his words.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 1:27 PM

So, Obama fails because he has NOT proposed a Federal law legalizing gay marriage ? AKA no action. Essentially, you’re saying that no one including Obama himself knows when he’s putting on a charade?

Check.

Got it.

DevilsPrinciple on February 22, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Yeah they do actually. Every time they purchase a product or a service they are paying the taxes of the entity they procure it from.

So let’s abolish all income taxes and business taxes.

JohnJ on February 22, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Great strategy. And you wonder why we think you people are children

Chuck Schick on February 22, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Any chance he was just being sarcastic?

dogsoldier on February 22, 2012 at 1:41 PM

no insurance company is forced to provide free services.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 11:58 AM

So you admit Obama is lying with his contraception “compromise” and that the Catholic entities will be paying for it?

Oh yeah, you are perfectly ok with Obama lying. It makes you wet when a lib lies. That, after all, is the lib credo. All lies all the time.

Monkeytoe on February 22, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Please ignore the mis-spellings. New meds and writing do not always go well together.

Franklyn on February 22, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Perhaps you should run through the numbers again.

1/ The actual reduction is less than 3 % from the current rate when state corporate taxes are taken into account ? How is this better ?

the current federal corporate tax rate is 35%. obama’s proposing to reduce it to 28%, with further breaks for manufacturing companies. he has no control over state corporate tax rates.

2/ It has NOTHING to do with the debt commissions recommendations which Obama now conveniently remembers after IGNORING it all last Summer during the debt ceiling debate.

it was morrissey who brought up the debt commission, which recommended the corporate tax cut. tell him that it’s irrelevant.

3/ You think it’s a good idea to tax consumers more through this plan ? Didn’t Obama just agree to a payroll tax extension ? Have you considered that the rise in gasoline prices effectively wipes out ANY benefit the tax may have given ? Are you aware that President Oreo is trying to may it all look good , while screwing everyone ?

DevilsPrinciple on February 22, 2012 at 1:30 PM

#3 seems to consist of three different questions, shouldn’t they be numbered accordingly?

you are free to disagree with the plan, but you can’t characterize it as ignoring the debt commission’s recommendations, as it clearly follows a major one and ignores a lesser.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 1:42 PM

So you admit Obama is lying with his contraception “compromise” and that the Catholic entities will be paying for it?

Monkeytoe on February 22, 2012 at 1:42 PM

insurance companies have to include contraception coverage in plans that people pay for themselves. why are you wasting my time?

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 1:44 PM

So, Obama fails because he has NOT proposed a Federal law legalizing gay marriage ? AKA no action.

DevilsPrinciple on February 22, 2012 at 1:40 PM

where were you, imbecile, when dadt was done away with and obama announced that his doj defend doma?

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 1:45 PM

So let’s abolish all income taxes and business taxes.

JohnJ on February 22, 2012 at 1:40 PM

And return to the state of things before 1912? I have considered this at length. While the notion appeals, at first, one realizes it cannot and should not be done. Still, much of our government is waste and unnecessary use of resources.

dogsoldier on February 22, 2012 at 1:45 PM

…it won’t defend doma, obviously.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 1:46 PM

“Green laws” define the agenda of the CPUSA. “Green laws” define the political agenda of Obama who by his own actions is clearly working to “change” our “Constitutional Repubic” to a “democracy” that is more friendly to a central government controlled socialist society. Obama is always going to move in their direction.

Franklyn on February 22, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Spot on.The last vestiges of our Constituional Republic are morphing into a “democracy”, unfortunately. Worse, most don’t understand the MAJOR difference between the two forms.

Think Greece.

DevilsPrinciple on February 22, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Let’s not leave out “PayGo”.

djaymick on February 22, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Here is Romney’s plan that CONSERVATIVE Economists are praising:

http://mittromney.com/news/press/2012/02/restore-americas-promise-more-jobs-less-debt-smaller-government

g2825m on February 22, 2012 at 1:49 PM

What would happen if we jacked the corporate rate to 100%? People wouldn’t stop producing goods and services. They would just abandon the government-subsidized corporate form.

(Granted, if the rate were suddenly jacked to 100%, the economic impact would be devastating. I’m not suggesting that we actually do that. I’m merely illustrating the point that the corporate form is not necessary for the production of goods and services. A cut in the corporate rate would only encourage the production of goods and services via corporation. What we need to do is encourage the production of goods and services via individually-owned businesses.)

JohnJ on February 22, 2012 at 1:49 PM

yes, we all know he’s not opposed to it. it’s a charade but i couldn’t care less – his actions speak louder than his words.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Exactly, as in all things, Liberals not only condone lying to the populace, they applaud it. I love that liberals think they are the good guys, but willingly admit that they must lie, cheat and steal to get elected.

You must be proud.

Monkeytoe on February 22, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Most Leftists like sesqui are about as intelligent as George Costanza, who once said “A Lie isn’t a Lie, if you believe it.”

It’s not surprising that MSNBC found, in their 2008 election exit polls, that O’bama set a new record with 70% of the high school dropout vote.

That result was so damning that MSDNC later scrubbed their 2008 exit polls completely.

Del Dolemonte on February 22, 2012 at 1:50 PM

I wonder if libs like Buffett, Speilburg, Springsteen, Pelosi, Clinton, and the Kennedys would support a wealth tax that takes/confiscates/taxes all of your net worth, no matter what form it takes or where it’s located, at a 50% – 75% rate? Springsteen, for example, who is said to be worht $200,000,000, would still be left with $100,000,000 at a 50% wealth tax rate. Isn’t that right and fair under the libs logic? No need to only tax income or profits!

uncalheels on February 22, 2012 at 1:52 PM

insurance companies have to include contraception coverage in plans that people pay for themselves. why are you wasting my time?

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Really…

The so called “compromise” mandates insurance companies provide contraceptives free of charge to individuals covered under their policies. Individuals are not paying for contraceptives out of their own pockets when the insurance is provided by an employer.

I think you must suffer from selective hearing.

NotCoach on February 22, 2012 at 1:53 PM

And return to the state of things before 1912?

dogsoldier on February 22, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Well, an actual plan wouldn’t have to be quite as radical as my comment. But certainly a reduced reliance on the federal income tax would be welcome. Obama’s plan to cut the corporate tax rate while raising the income tax will only encourage greater investment in the corporate structure, along with all the government-provided benefits that go along with it according to current corporate law. That’s the opposite of the direction we need to go.

JohnJ on February 22, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Here is Romney’s plan that CONSERVATIVE Economists are praising:

http://mittromney.com/news/press/2012/02/restore-americas-promise-more-jobs-less-debt-smaller-government

g2825m on February 22, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Good to know CONSERVATIVE Economists are praising a plan that Romney himself describes as making the 1% pay more and protect the 99%. Silly me, I thought conservatives were asking for a flat tax.

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on February 22, 2012 at 1:58 PM

The so called “compromise” mandates insurance companies provide contraceptives free of charge to individuals covered under their policies.

NotCoach on February 22, 2012 at 1:53 PM

again, it’s not free of charge, sweetie, it’s included in the plan individuals pay for.

sesquipedalian on February 22, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3