There. Is. Anoth. Er.

Maybe a spending stimulus isnt the way to go. Look at the results from tax cuts on automobiles in China. A 25% increase in sales in February.http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aDCOM2mACDYY&refer=homeOn another note, Jamie Dupree has listed the earmark breakdown.http://wsbradio.com/blogs/jamie_dupree/2009/03/more-house-earmarks.htmlParticularly disconcerting is Ron Paul’s inexplicably high level of earmarks. As Neal Boortz noted on his radio show this morning, this is likely an attempt to “bring home the bacon” to his constituents while appealing to his libertarian base by voting against the bill.

Automobile ownership in China is a lot less than the overly saturated US market. The wealth of our working class is already stressed to breaking point. Trade deficit needs to be priority #1.Plus, how can a tax help someone buy a car if they don’t have a job?

Upgrayyed, nobody here gives a shit about Ron Paul. He’s a typical paleo-Republican. Take your intra-party squabbling over to Pajamas Media, m’kay?

Sorry Matt. I was just of the mindset that all politics are local, the location being Earth. My mistake.

My prediction: Republicans use any attempt at further stimulus legislation as an attempt to grandstand as they offer their big idea: do nothing. Any bet-takers?Upgrayyed:1. Halving (as in HALF, looks to much like HAVING) retail taxes on automobiles is not the same type of “tax cut” your Republican friends are proposing. I’ve never bought a car, but I’m pretty sure there is no federal sales tax on car purchases, as is the case in China, which would leave cuts up to the states. The Chinese manufacturers are also making smaller, less expensive cars, while Detroit is still living in the 90′s.2. Earmarks are nothing new for Ron Paul–he had $400 million worth in 2007.

Kyle,By and large I think your prediction is correct, given the significant amount of Republicans who take the earmarks from bills they voted against. Pure political survivalists.On the tax cut note, I agree that the tax cuts on cars isnt specifically relevant, rather the principle is. I think it clearly shows how the tax cuts reduced the cost of the vehicles that resulted in a correlative increase in the amount of cars sold. Similarly, if we were to engage in cutting corporate taxes, that would reduce product costs associated with tax compliance that is ultimately passed onto the consumer.

I believe the White House has said that they would also consider a 2nd stimulus bill if possible. Hopefully by that time, if needed, Al Franken will be seated and Teddy will be okay. I think some people don’t realized that the stimulus package needed 60 votes and without Ted or Al, there was no way they would have passed the bill without some Republican support. Sen. Sherrod Brown almost didn’t make it to vote. So Obama was kind of in a tough situation: either you make the bill larger and risk not getting it passed when something needed to be done quickly, or you make concessions to get support for its passing, and make more adjustments or add another bill if necessary.

Earmarks don’t bother me so much. A representative doesn’t get elected by refusing to bring federal dollars to his/her district. It’s all part of the set up and any complaining is just posturing for the tv.I’m with Bob on the numbers, but I’ll also add my prediction that Republicans, after showing their asses the last time, will be left out of the process. If they are included at all, it will be the moderates that call the shots and the cry-baby fit-pitching “No” voters, still crying and complaining, will be a bit more marginalized.

Half of the Earmark (49.8%) spending in the Omnibus bill is from Republicans. Last I checked they did not hold 49.8% of the seats in either the House or Senate last year.The top ten list of Congressperson Earmark spending has 6 Republicans and 4 Democrats.The Republican hypocracy on earmarks is stunningly brazen. They think we are stupid.Upgrayedd -If we lower the rate in the top bracket to 0% and lower the capital gains rate to 0% will that be enough?Or will we have to use a negative rate so that you can destroy the middle class and poor more quickly.Your trickle down bullshit has worn out its welcome. It doesn’t work. We don’t want to hear about it.

Upgrayedd: You’re right, maybe we should learn from the principle of the car tax cut. This is what I would call a consumer-side tax-cut; the corporation reaps the benefit of a cheaper product, which is higher sales. Tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy? We tried that for the last 8 years. Guess what? The shit doesn’t work.

SillyRatfacedGitI think we should raise the tax brackets for the highest income earners to 100%. Then they can pay their fair share. Then, maybe they wont be so brazen to try to live the American Dream.Trickle up economics is the only way to go. We can all get jobs from poor people.

Similarly, if we were to engage in cutting corporate taxes, that would reduce product costs associated with tax compliance that is ultimately passed onto the consumer.

If there was any validity to this, I’d think that those poor companies who are forced to raise prices would make that obvious to the consumer. Like publishing the tax they paid on the label of the product.

18% of the Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price of this yummy can of beans was paid in taxes to federal, state, and local authorities at where this product was produced.

If the number was significant, and consumers became aware, then there would be much more support for lowering those tax rates.But you know what? It’s not significant. That’s why we hear vague statements with lots of hand waving, but no facts to back up those claims.

“Upgrayedd: You’re right, maybe we should learn from the principle of the car tax cut. This is what I would call a consumer-side tax-cut; the corporation reaps the benefit of a cheaper product, which is higher sales. Tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy? We tried that for the last 8 years. Guess what? The shit doesn’t work.”So the people that could now afford those cars didnt benefit? Wealth isnt a zero-sum game you know.

Alan4sFrom my understanding, the US has a corporate tax rate around 40%. How could that not be a significant cost that is passed onto consumers.Then compare to a country like Ireland who was in the dumps with very high corporate tax rates and experienced a dramatic revitalization upon slashing those rates.

>>So the people that could now afford those cars didnt benefit? Wealth isnt a zero-sum game you know.I didn’t say they don’t reap the benefit. You argued that this tax cut is evidence that we should cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy, because the benefit would trickle down. But the “car tax” example demonstrates “trickle up,” if anything. Like I said, if tax cuts for the wealthy are so damn good for the economy, then why are we in the economic shitter after 8 years of said policy?

“I didn’t say they don’t reap the benefit. You argued that this tax cut is evidence that we should cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy, because the benefit would trickle down. But the “car tax” example demonstrates “trickle up,” if anything. Like I said, if tax cuts for the wealthy are so damn good for the economy, then why are we in the economic shitter after 8 years of said policy?”I dont think I ever used the words “trickle down”. The car tax cut was mutually beneficial for both the individual and the corporation, I dont think trickling has anything do with it.I think I know what you are saying though. You are saying the consumer, at the point of sale, gets the tax cut benefit and as a result the corporation benefits, where as with corporate tax cuts the corporation benefits from the tax cut in that they dont have added costs.In the end, if those costs arent passed on to the consumer, dont they benefit as well?

From my understanding, the US has a corporate tax rate around 40%. How could that not be a significant cost that is passed onto consumers.

So tell me, how much of the actual cost to manufacture my can of beans goes toward taxes? I bet it’s not 40%. In fact, I bet it’s less than 10%.A much more significant return would be by substantially lowering BeanCo Inc.’s health care costs.

As far the tax cuts for the wealthy, I didnt really comment on that either. Nevertheless, you do realize there are more aspects to the economy than just tax cuts right? I.E. the War, the housing bubble, Katrina, etc. If you can illustrate how tax cuts for the wealthy (actually tax cuts for everyone who paid taxes) hurt the economy, I am willing to reconsider my opinion.

Upgrayedd, you never said trickle-down, but that’s exactly what you’re talking about (“Similarly, if we were to engage in cutting corporate taxes, that would reduce product costs associated with tax compliance that is ultimately passed onto the consumer”). If you want car taxes cut, talk to your state legislator about cutting sales taxes for vehicle purchases–or argue for lowering taxes for middle-class so people can afford to buy more (instead of wanting to help just the wealthy). But really, why don’t you stop playing semantics and answer the following question.If tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy are so good for the economy, why did the last 8 years of Bush tax cuts land us in the shitter?

Alan,if you were a running a corporation and all else was equal between two countries you had decided to conduct your business in except the corporate tax rate, which would you choose? The one with the higher corporate tax rate or the one with the lower corporate tax rate?Since you agree that taxes are passed down to the consumer anyway, what is the sense in penalizing businesses for choosing to conduct their business in this country?It worked for Ireland, it can work for us.

“If tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy are so good for the economy, why did the last 8 years of Bush tax cuts land us in the shitter”I responded to that already. You may have been typing and did not see it.

From my understanding, the US has a corporate tax rate around 40%. How could that not be a significant cost that is passed onto consumers.

Because, in the U.S., businesses are allowed to deduct 100% of their expenses from their gross revenue to get their taxable profit. 100%. All expenses! Even Corporate fleets of limosines and helicopters and aircraft for radically overpayed executives.They get to deduct their interest payments on all debt. Remember when individuals could do that? I can. It’s been a long time. Reagan took that away from us.If that corporate tax rate is so onerous, then why does Fortune Magazine say that more than half of all Fortune 100 have payed no federal tax for the last six years. Microsoft has payed zero federal tax for its entire existence. I have no idea how Bill does this. They have no expenses other than workforce.Corporations stole our government and rigged it so that they don’t have to pay for any of it.

Since you agree that taxes are passed down to the consumer anyway, what is the sense in penalizing businesses for choosing to conduct their business in this country?

Penalizing? Taxes are not a penalty. They are a cost of participating in this country of ours.You are dancing around my question. How much of the corporate tax really does get passed on to consumers. The premise of your argument is that reducing corporate taxes will benefit consumers so much that we will all be able to afford many more cans of beans than we could before. I dispute that assertion.I contend that reducing the corporate tax rate will have such a small effect on the cost of producing goods that either a) the consumer will not notice; or b) the corporations will pocket the difference as incremental profit.So, instead of comparisons to Ireland, or wherever, give me some figures. Tell me how much of the cost of producing a specific product is due to corporate taxes, and how that compares with the cost of raw materials, labor, marketing, etc., etc. for the same product.

“If that corporate tax rate is so onerous, then why does Fortune Magazine say that more than half of all Fortune 100 have payed no federal tax for the last six years. Microsoft has payed zero federal tax for its entire existence. I have no idea how Bill does this. They have no expenses other than workforce.Corporations stole our government and rigged it so that they don’t have to pay for any of it.”Technically, no corporation pays taxes. Only individuals pay taxes. Corporations are merely a vessel of collecting these taxes and handing them over to the government.

if you were a running a corporation and all else was equal between two countries you had decided to conduct your business in except the corporate tax rate, which would you choose? The one with the higher corporate tax rate or the one with the lower corporate tax rate?

Your point is made but your question is bogus in multiple ways. The situation is far more complex than such an easy single tax rate comparison.Firstly, most countries limit what companies can deduct as expenses. You don’t get to deduct everything as you can in the U.S.Secondly, if you are going to set up a company that hires lots of people, you would be insane to do so in the U.S. since everywhere else health care is a government concern and is the reason corporations usually pay more in actual dollar amount taxes even though the rates are lower.Keep ignoring the single most important reason jobs a being shipped overseas. Until you address this problem, the U.S. is doomed and I don’t really care what other things you do.Keep talking about issues that don’t matter. It won’t distract me.

“You are dancing around my question. How much of the corporate tax really does get passed on to consumers. The premise of your argument is that reducing corporate taxes will benefit consumers so much that we will all be able to afford many more cans of beans than we could before. I dispute that assertion.I contend that reducing the corporate tax rate will have such a small effect on the cost of producing goods that either a) the consumer will not notice; or b) the corporations will pocket the difference as incremental profit.”I am sure the amount that gets passed to the consumer varies to the degree of taxation. You beleive its insignificant, I beleive it has the potential to be significant. If you are demanding that I provide facts and figures, then you should provide facts and figures supporting your argument. Otherwise we are engaging in a battle of subjective opinion. I dont care to try to answer that question because that answer likely requires an amount of research comparable to a PHD thesis. Instead, I resign myself to following the logic of my argument supported by a few general examples. You can hold that against me if you wish, there is probably some merit to that, but I think it is appropriate to the scope of this blog. Plus I have already spent way to much time here and need to get back to the things I was supposed to be doing.

“Your point is made but your question is bogus in multiple ways. The situation is far more complex than such an easy single tax rate comparison.”Obviously situations are more complex than that. The point was make everything constant except for one variable. That helps to illustrate the effect of that single variable that may not be otherwise obvious when considering a variety of variables at the same time.

“Keep ignoring the single most important reason jobs a being shipped overseas. Until you address this problem, the U.S. is doomed and I don’t really care what other things you do.”Dont you think lowering corporate tax rates would help in this area? If it makes it more cost effective to do business in this country, then wouldnt that help keep jobs here?

Anyway, I have to go. I might try to come back here tonight if I can if you would like to continue this debate further.On that note, thank you. You have all made good points that I will have to consider further.

If you are demanding that I provide facts and figures, then you should provide facts and figures supporting your argument.

I demand that yoy provide those figures, since it’s exactly those figure that will support your argument, which I was responding to.As stated by others here, anecdotal evidence suggests that your asseertion is wrong. The corporate taxe rates were lowered during President Bush’s administration and consumer products did not get cheaper and our economy did not grow. That’s all the evidence I need to show me that lowering those reates even more will not help us now. The onus is on you to prove otherwise.

…boy I wish there was an edit feature here. My typing stinks particularly awfully today.

“The truth is that while the 35% corporate income tax rate is high indeed, the creativity and global reach of U.S. corporations make them among the most lightly levied.

Between 2000 and 2005, U.S. corporate taxes amounted to 2.2% of the GDP. The average for the 30 mostly rich member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development was 3.4%.”

Kyle,”If tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy are so good for the economy, why did the last 8 years of Bush tax cuts land us in the shitter?”Tax cuts for corporations isn’t what caused this decession (when you can’t decide if it’s a recession or depression). CDS’s, mortgage bubbles, greed, ripoff’s in lending practices, banks’ debt to asset ratios being way, way, way too high, and gambling with other people’s money is what got us in this mess. Blaming tax cuts is as silly as the Republicans still claiming that some floating train to Las Vegas, carrying silly little field mice owned by Nancy Pelosi (who doesn’t need the train because she owns, ahem, uses military aircraft)is part of the stimulus package. Or something like that.What got us into trouble is the same thing that ALWAYS gets us into trouble: Investment bubbles. You know, they’re kind of like Bottl-o-bubbles only they smell much worse? And not as pretty?When a market, any market, is falsely valued upward to a scale bordering on ridiculous, when that market starts to be devalued, it often overshoots (undershoots) the actual value, dragging any and every market that is remotely concerned down with it.That’s what happened…that, and consumer confidence dropped like that near-extinct wolf I shot in Alaska from the Helicopter last year. God! That was fun.Anyway, tax cuts don’t cause depressions. Lack of consumer confidence, vastly reduced consumer spending, and explosive inflation could cause a depression, but tax-cuts? Nope.

Crap. Lost the link to that quote.High Corporate Tax Rate Is Misleading

ppp, that one sentence is heavy on the snark. I didn’t really say that tax cuts caused depressions. I just said they don’t help. And they don’t. Tax cuts are a means for Republicans to create a budget deficit, which they can then try to use to ax government programs. Simple enough.I hate when a troll comes along, makes a stupid point, and then when you try to illustrate how stupid their point is, your words get taken entirely out of context. That particular troll is a TAX CUT ZOMBIE who thinks they are the cure-all (to depressions, even). My main point was this: a reduction in the national sales tax on cars in China has exactly zero relevancy to tax cuts for corporations in the United States. Nada.

“Between 2000 and 2005, U.S. corporate taxes amounted to 2.2% of the GDP.”In 2008, healthcare spending was around 17% of the GDP.So why the fuck are we even talking about corporate tax rate? And why do the Republicans treat healthcare like its unrelated to the economy?

Kyle,Your last comment hits home with me. I am, for a long time now, a universal healthcare proponent. It’s a national security issue with me. I am convinced that no stimulus package can have a lasting impact so long as we are shooting ourselves in the foot with healthcare.

Silly-You said:”Secondly, if you are going to set up a company that hires lots of people, you would be insane to do so in the U.S. since everywhere else health care is a government concern and is the reason corporations usually pay more in actual dollar amount taxes even though the rates are lower.Keep ignoring the single most important reason jobs a being shipped overseas. Until you address this problem, the U.S. is doomed and I don’t really care what other things you do.I remember from another post that you made, I believe that you lost your job to it being shipped overseas….I’m sorry. But, I just want you to reflect on one thing (ok two lol) based on what you just correctly stated above. OK? What do you think the effect will be on the number of jobs if the cap & trade is put into effect on US business? None? More? Less? And who do you think will actually bear the brunt of the cost of the cap and trade? The Business or the Consumer?I have my opinion, I’m curious about yours.

George -I have given very little thought to cap and trade at this point in time and so I don’t have a position yet. I’ve been ignoring that issue but I suspect that I won’t be able to do that much longer. Ask me again in a week or two. I know that you must lurk here. You don’t comment often, but when you do they are worth reading.I am in favor of cap and trade as a concept. I don’t see how we can avoid doing something since I think the case for AGW has been made. The science is pretty solid. I’d like to know what Paul Krugman thinks of cap and trade’s impact on the U.S. economy.

Silly-I will ask you again, as you suggest. If “lurking” is reading posts without commenting, then guilty as charged. “Lurking” sounds kinda sinister, I’m just usually quiet unless I want to discuss a certain point of particular interest.