Skip to main content

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."  

-- Thomas Jefferson

 

The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.

-- Franklin D. Roosevelt

 

My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.

-- Grover Norquist

 

29 Companies Had More Cash Than The U.S. Treasury As Of July 13

By Marie Diamond on Jul 18, 2011 at 10:40 am

 

 

The numbers effectively rebut Republican claims that the government has plenty of money to keep funding essential services while paying down its debt. It also belies GOP claims that companies are in need of lower corporate taxes. American corporations have a record amount of cash — they are just refusing to invest domestically while lobbying for tax breaks.

 

Several Republican candidates have called for drastically lowering the corporate tax rate, while congressional Republicans are refusing to concede in debt ceiling negotiations that corporate tax loopholes should be closed to give the government more much-needed revenue.

 

The Treasury’s cash balances will go back up once more revenue comes in, but on Aug. 3, the government’s savings account will be nearly empty and President Obama would be relying on daily tax revenue to pay the nation’s bills. But there won’t be enough — in fact, there would be a $134 billion shortfall in August alone. The small amount of money available to the Treasury will leave the government facing impossible choices about what to cut.

http://thinkprogress.org/econo...-cash-than-treasury/

 

My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.

-- Grover Norquist

 

Solve the problem:

TAX THE RICH!

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I don't know why he bothered to have the panels in the first place.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/27269.html


President Obama's two bipartisan "blue ribbon" panels—the Economic Recovery Advisory Board, chaired by Paul Volcker, and the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibil­ity and Reform, chaired by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson—made strong cases for cutting the corporate tax rate and reforming the entire corporate tax system. The Economic Recovery Advisory Board, for example, found that:

The combination of a high statutory rate and numerous deductions and exclusions results in an inefficient tax system that dis­torts corporate behavior in multiple ways. The high statutory corporate tax rate reduces the return to investments and therefore discourages saving and reduces aggregate investment.

The so-called Bowles-Simpson report simply concluded that "America's tax code is broke and must be reformed." Moreover, the corporate income tax "hurts America's ability to compete. On the one hand, statutory rates in the U.S. are significantly higher than the aver­age for industrialized countries (even as revenue collection is low), and our method of taxing foreign source income is outside the norm... The

Ten Benefits of Cutting the U.S. Corporate Tax Rate

1. Cutting the corporate tax rate will promote higher long-term economic growth.

2. Cutting the corporate tax rate will improve U.S. competitiveness.

3. Cutting the corporate tax rate will lead to higher wages and living standards.

4. Cutting the corporate tax rate will boost entrepreneurship, investment, and productivity.

5. Cutting the corporate rate lowers the tax burden on low-income taxpayers and seniors.

6. Cutting the corporate rate will lower the overall dividend tax rate and taxes on capital.

7. Cutting the corporate tax rate can attract foreign direct investment (FDI).

8. Cutting the corporate rate would lead to lower corporate debt and reduce the incentives for income shifting.

9. Cutting the corporate tax rate can reduce compliance costs.

10. Cutting the federal corporate rate can help the states compete globally.

A review of Bank of America's balance sheet as of 31 Dec 2010 shows about two-thirds of their cash/cash equivalents are treasury bonds/notes.  Translated, that means they do NOT have cash, but treasury paper redeemable for cash.

 

I suspect most of the other corporations are the same.  Unlike Scrooge McDuck, the don't hoard currency, but something that will pay interest.

 

Your sources really ought to study accounting before making really uninformed statements.

Originally Posted by interventor1212:

A review of Bank of America's balance sheet as of 31 Dec 2010 shows about two-thirds of their cash/cash equivalents are treasury bonds/notes.  Translated, that means they do NOT have cash, but treasury paper redeemable for cash.

 

I suspect most of the other corporations are the same.  Unlike Scrooge McDuck, the don't hoard currency, but something that will pay interest.

 

Your sources really ought to study accounting before making really uninformed statements.


 

A t-bill is as good as cash, as of today.  Basically a demand deposit that pays interest.  Guaranteed.  If that explicit guarantee is gone, the shakeup in the worldwide banking process will alter every facet of the economy.

Propie states tax the rich and shows statements with cash and cash equivalents.  So, what!  I and others have shown that the income for everyone with income over $250,000 and 100 percent of corporate profits can't equal the deficit for one year.

 

The left either can't understand simple math, or is intent on destroying the system.  Which is it!

 

Originally Posted by interventor1212:

Propie states tax the rich and shows statements with cash and cash equivalents.  So, what!  I and others have shown that the income for everyone with income over $250,000 and 100 percent of corporate profits can't equal the deficit for one year.

 

The left either can't understand simple math, or is intent on destroying the system.  Which is it!

 

 

You shouldn't limit your conception of reality to only two equally unacceptable conclusions.

I don't.

Expand the box.

 

Tax Fraud

Debunking the claim that higher income-tax rates reduce GDP.

By Eliot SpitzerPosted Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2010, at 3:39 PM ET

 

The American debate over taxes is ferocious and highly partisan. Some, mostly Republicans, reflexively oppose all taxes. Others, mostly Democrats, decry the lack of progressivity and fairness in the tax system and favor higher tax rates for the wealthy.

 

Leaders of a century ago invoked justice in remarkable language that is unimaginable today. President Woodrow Wilson called paying taxes "a glorious privilege." Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. observed that "taxes are what we pay for civilized society."

 

But President Ronald Reagan transformed our conversation about government and turned taxes into the enemy of progress. It is commonly thought that President George H.W. Bush's violation of his "read my lips" pledge cost him re-election and President Bill Clinton's 1993 tax increases cost him control of Congress.

 

Central to the intellectual debate about marginal tax rates has been the question of whether higher rates discourage people from working. President Reagan is famously reported to have observed that, as an actor, once he hit the top marginal rate—then 91 percent—he stopped making movies for the rest of the year. The result of sky-high marginal rates, this anecdote was supposed to prove, was declining productivity and economic growth.

 

Is this true? Let's look at a graph of the nominal top marginal tax rate in any given year and GDP growth in that year.

 

 

That said, it's obvious that there is no correlation between higher marginal tax rates and slowing economic activity. During the period 1951-63, when marginal rates were at their peak—91 percent or 92 percent—the American economy boomed, growing at an average annual rate of 3.71 percent. The fact that the marginal rates were what would today be viewed as essentially confiscatory did not cause economic cataclysm—just the opposite. And during the past seven years, during which we reduced the top marginal rate to 35 percent, average growth was a more meager 1.71 percent.

http://www.slate.com/id/2245781/

 

Here is some math to understand. Granted, it's not all that simple. But rarely does the lowest denominator tell the whole story. It's like reading the Table of Contents and expecting it to tell you everything else contained in the book. Well, my friend, it usually doesn't work out that way.


The top marginal income tax rate should be about 65%...

by Mike Kimel

 

To maximize real economic growth in the United States, the top marginal income tax rate should be about 65%, give or take about ten percent. Preposterous, right? Well, it turns out that’s what the data tells us, or would, if we had the ears to listen.

 

 

This post will be a bit more complicated than my usual “let’s graph some data” approach, but not by much, and I think the added complexity will be worth it. So here’s what I’m going to do – I’m going to use a statistical tool called “regression analysis” to find the relationship between the growth in real GDP and the top marginal tax rate. If you’re familiar with regressions you can skip ahead a few paragraphs. . . .

 

Read the rest:

http://www.angrybearblog.com/2...-rate-should-be.html

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×