Jump to content


Corporate Taxes


Out of the Past
 Share

Recommended Posts


I'm not moved. The Federal government doles out roughly $90-100 billion dollars annually in direct and indirect subsidies to businesses and private-sector corporations and that's not even counting special tax breaks or trade restrictions applied to benefit certain industries. Profitable businesses are getting fat off of the tax payer and unprofitable ones are being propped up artificially instead of letting the free-market dictate their survival. Do away with the "corporate welfare" then we'll talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I agree the government should not try to influence corporate behavior with special interest corporate tax breaks and subsidies (i.e. wind and solar energy tax breaks) even with all these special interest tax breaks our corporations pay 39% in incoem taxes. That's way too much and puts us at a competitive disadvantage in a global market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't talk about cutting taxes without cutting spending. Cut ALL subsidies (they like to call them "investments") to businesses and then we can see about lowering their taxes. But you can't just say "let's cut their taxes" while still giving them all this money on the other hand.

 

I'm not arguing that higher taxes are good, only that the money we give to big business is much more of the problem than the money we take away. I agree, the common folk always bear the burden of higher taxes. But whether or not taxes are higher, it's the spending that is the problem, and what drives up taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not moved. The Federal government doles out roughly $90-100 billion dollars annually in direct and indirect subsidies to businesses and private-sector corporations and that's not even counting special tax breaks or trade restrictions applied to benefit certain industries. Profitable businesses are getting fat off of the tax payer and unprofitable ones are being propped up artificially instead of letting the free-market dictate their survival. Do away with the "corporate welfare" then we'll talk.

/thread

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that we need to subsidize many businesses, except to help the developing ones (green energy in particular).

If a developing business (or any business for that matter) is viable than it won't need government subsidies. If it isn't viable then those subsidies are a waste of money purely for show.

 

The failures of the ethanol subsidies are an indication enough that government investment in energy does not work.

Corn ethanol subsidies are about nothing more than getting in good with the Iowa caucus goers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About those pesky "corporate taxes"...

 

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/...al-report-says/

 

PNC Could Save Billions in Taxes on National City Deal, Report Says

October 30, 2008, 7:02 am

 

PNC Financial Services Group could save billions of dollars in federal taxes from its purchase last week of National City, The Wall Street Journal reported, citing tax experts.

 

The report follows an earlier article by The New York Times?s Eric Dash, which noted that PNC could save as much as $6 billion because of a recent change to the tax code.

 

The tax benefit would stem from a ruling in September by the Internal Revenue Service, which lifted the limit on the amount of a purchasing bank?s taxable income that a target bank?s losses can offset. That allows the buyer of a bank to get immediate tax benefits instead of having to do so over several years.

 

Robert Willens, an independent corporate tax analyst based in New York, estimated the tax savings to PNC could reach as high as $5.1 billion, according to The Journal.

 

The newspaper quoted PNC?s Chief Financial Officer Richard Johnson as saying that $5.1 billion figure was too high.

 

On Friday, PNC agreed to acquire Ohio-based National City in a government-supported $5.6 billion and created the No.5 U.S. bank by deposits.

 

And here's a quote in Richard Mellon Scaife's personal rag about it:

"It's conceivable PNC would not have to pay federal income taxes -- none -- for the next six years," said Robert Willens, a corporate tax analyst in New York.

So yeah, I'm not moved at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't talk about cutting taxes without cutting spending. Cut ALL subsidies (they like to call them "investments") to businesses and then we can see about lowering their taxes. But you can't just say "let's cut their taxes" while still giving them all this money on the other hand.

 

I'm not arguing that higher taxes are good, only that the money we give to big business is much more of the problem than the money we take away. I agree, the common folk always bear the burden of higher taxes. But whether or not taxes are higher, it's the spending that is the problem, and what drives up taxes.

I agree completely.

I agree for the most part however I think high taxes and wasteful spending are two different problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About those pesky "corporate taxes"...

 

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/...al-report-says/

 

PNC Could Save Billions in Taxes on National City Deal, Report Says

October 30, 2008, 7:02 am

 

PNC Financial Services Group could save billions of dollars in federal taxes from its purchase last week of National City, The Wall Street Journal reported, citing tax experts.

 

The report follows an earlier article by The New York Times's Eric Dash, which noted that PNC could save as much as $6 billion because of a recent change to the tax code.

 

The tax benefit would stem from a ruling in September by the Internal Revenue Service, which lifted the limit on the amount of a purchasing bank's taxable income that a target bank's losses can offset. That allows the buyer of a bank to get immediate tax benefits instead of having to do so over several years.

 

Robert Willens, an independent corporate tax analyst based in New York, estimated the tax savings to PNC could reach as high as $5.1 billion, according to The Journal.

 

The newspaper quoted PNC's Chief Financial Officer Richard Johnson as saying that $5.1 billion figure was too high.

 

On Friday, PNC agreed to acquire Ohio-based National City in a government-supported $5.6 billion and created the No.5 U.S. bank by deposits.

 

And here's a quote in Richard Mellon Scaife's personal rag about it:

"It's conceivable PNC would not have to pay federal income taxes -- none -- for the next six years," said Robert Willens, a corporate tax analyst in New York.

So yeah, I'm not moved at all.

 

So the acquirer can use the taxable losses they just purchased from the acquiree to offset it's taxable income.

 

That seems fair to me.

 

What is the problem here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About those pesky "corporate taxes"...

 

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/...al-report-says/

 

PNC Could Save Billions in Taxes on National City Deal, Report Says

October 30, 2008, 7:02 am

 

PNC Financial Services Group could save billions of dollars in federal taxes from its purchase last week of National City, The Wall Street Journal reported, citing tax experts.

 

The report follows an earlier article by The New York Times's Eric Dash, which noted that PNC could save as much as $6 billion because of a recent change to the tax code.

 

The tax benefit would stem from a ruling in September by the Internal Revenue Service, which lifted the limit on the amount of a purchasing bank's taxable income that a target bank's losses can offset. That allows the buyer of a bank to get immediate tax benefits instead of having to do so over several years.

 

Robert Willens, an independent corporate tax analyst based in New York, estimated the tax savings to PNC could reach as high as $5.1 billion, according to The Journal.

 

The newspaper quoted PNC's Chief Financial Officer Richard Johnson as saying that $5.1 billion figure was too high.

 

On Friday, PNC agreed to acquire Ohio-based National City in a government-supported $5.6 billion and created the No.5 U.S. bank by deposits.

 

And here's a quote in Richard Mellon Scaife's personal rag about it:

"It's conceivable PNC would not have to pay federal income taxes -- none -- for the next six years," said Robert Willens, a corporate tax analyst in New York.

So yeah, I'm not moved at all.

 

So the acquirer can use the taxable losses they just purchased from the acquiree to offset it's taxable income.

 

That seems fair to me.

 

What is the problem here?

The bitching and moaning about high corporate taxes. That's what the problem is here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't talk about cutting taxes without cutting spending. Cut ALL subsidies (they like to call them "investments") to businesses and then we can see about lowering their taxes. But you can't just say "let's cut their taxes" while still giving them all this money on the other hand.

 

I'm not arguing that higher taxes are good, only that the money we give to big business is much more of the problem than the money we take away. I agree, the common folk always bear the burden of higher taxes. But whether or not taxes are higher, it's the spending that is the problem, and what drives up taxes.

I agree completely.

I agree for the most part however I think high taxes and wasteful spending are two different problems.

They aren't. They are two sides of the same problem, which is balancing the budget.

 

Again, I see what's bad about higher taxes to the common folks, BUT you cannot (responsibly) argue that government should be cutting its revenues while continuing record deficit spending. Do you even understand where the money that we already don't have and the money you want to stop collecting in taxes will come from? It will be combination of more foreign debt and more inflation.

 

Cutting taxes without cutting spending will just increase foreign debt and inflation, and even if it doesn't dramatically outweigh what little benefit there is to cutting the corporate taxes, I feel at least that the difference between the alternatives is negligible at best.

 

The candidate arguing for lowering taxes without any clearly stated and significant spending cuts is doing nothing but paying lip-service fiscal conservatism. Seriously, in what world is it considered responsible to reduce revenues when you are already more than half a trillion dollars in the red each year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could I get some insight?

 

 

I hear the candidates discussing corporate taxes and whether or not they are driving companies away from the US and overseas. In my opinion companies are probably more enticed to move overseas because of drastically cheaper labor. Is it both?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could I get some insight?

 

 

I hear the candidates discussing corporate taxes and whether or not they are driving companies away from the US and overseas. In my opinion companies are probably more enticed to move overseas because of drastically cheaper labor. Is it both?

 

Outsourcing was a big issue in '04 with Kerry calling corporations that outsourced "Benedict Arnold corporations" but I don't think it's a big issue this time.

 

You outsource to take advantage of lower expenses, of which taxes is one of them, but it's not the one that offers the most savings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could I get some insight?

 

 

I hear the candidates discussing corporate taxes and whether or not they are driving companies away from the US and overseas. In my opinion companies are probably more enticed to move overseas because of drastically cheaper labor. Is it both?

I don't think you can count anything out. And while I think there's something to be said about why the cost of labor gets so much higher over here, there's gonna be a problem when every politician says their gonna protect the "people" from those "greedy corporations" by overregulation and by passing laws dictating the wages and benefits an employer must offer. People seem to not understand that those entities have free will too, that they aren't obligated, can't and should be obligated to stay here, and that we need to make sure they want to stay here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...