Would ending corporate tax breaks make dent in deficit?

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator

Would ending corporate tax
breaks make dent in deficit?​



US_NEWS_TAXOVERHAUL_2_ABA.wide_photo.prod_affiliate.91.jpg

Robert McIntyre of Citizens for Tax Justice. | Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press/MCT



McClatchy Newspapers
By Tony Pugh |
Tuesday, May 31, 2011


WASHINGTON — As a liberal tax-code activist, Robert McIntyre shocked Washington in 1984 when he revealed that General Electric was one of 17 companies that paid no U.S. corporate taxes for three straight years.

The finding by McIntyre's organization, Citizens for Tax Justice, sparked national outrage that helped pave the way for The Tax Reform Act of 1986. That landmark legislation eliminated tax loopholes to broaden the tax base while also lowering the corporate tax rate.

It also increased corporate tax revenue flowing into the Treasury by 34 percent.

As the Obama administration readies a proposal to overhaul the nation's corporate tax structure once again, some of the same tax-code giveaways that prompted the 1986 overhaul have reappeared. GE's low U.S. corporate tax burden is still ruffling populist feathers, lobbyists and legislators have padded the tax code with hundreds of new loopholes and McIntyre is again agitating for change.

This time around, he's joined by dozens of national and state organizations that want corporations to pay down a larger share of this year's $1.5 trillion federal deficit. They're urging Congress and the Obama administration to make it happen.

To simplify the tax system, President Barack Obama wants to close a host of corporate tax breaks and use the extra revenue that would generate to offset a reduction in the corporate tax rate. America's top corporate tax rate of 35 percent is one of the highest in the world, but most companies pay a much lower effective tax rate because the system is riddled with tax breaks.

"Get rid of the loopholes. Level the playing field. And use the savings to lower the corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years — without adding to our deficit. It can be done," Obama said to applause during his State of the Union address.

But Obama's approach wouldn't take the revenue gained by ending loopholes to pay down the deficit, as the liberals propose; he'd use it all as a tradeoff for the lower corporate tax rate.

Obama's stand is rooted in political reality: Any plan to end corporate tax breaks and steer the revenues to the Treasury would be considered a tax increase by business and Republicans — and would be dead on arrival in the GOP-led House of Representatives. So instead, Obama backs a budget-neutral plan that would make the tax code more efficient and promote U.S. economic competitiveness — and that makes it hard for Republicans to reject his proposal outright.

His approach meets the terms of a tax pledge signed by more than 230 GOP House members and 41 Republican senators. In signing the pledge, sponsored by Americans for Tax Reform, a conservative lobby, lawmakers agree to fight any efforts to cut or eliminate tax breaks unless they're matched by identical cuts in the tax rate — which is exactly what the Obama plan calls for.

But McIntyre and his fellow liberal tax activists don't like it. They question why savings from a reduction in corporate tax subsidies should go right back to businesses in the form of a tax cut. Shouldn't some, even most, of the billions in new revenue go toward reducing the deficit, they ask? After all, that would provide some relief to ordinary citizens who otherwise will bear most of the deficit-reduction burden through cuts in government services.


Business lobbyists see things differently.

Caroline Harris, chief tax counsel for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the federal deficit is due to overspending, not under-taxing (although that's highly debatable, as statistics show the overall federal tax burden is well below historic norms.)

"If you have a spending problem, you need to fix it with spending cuts," Harris said. "If Congress can't show fiscal austerity and make spending cuts, then taxing or putting the weight of deficit reduction on the backs of businesses that create jobs is not a good idea."

Republicans in Congress agree. However, an April Gallup poll found that 2 out of 3 Americans think corporations pay too little in taxes, while only 1 in 5 said businesses pay their fair share.

In a letter to Congress, McIntyre's group and a host of labor and liberal allies say that lawmakers, in their zeal to cut the federal budget, have ignored corporate tax subsidies, which deny the Treasury revenues and thus increase budget deficits the same as direct program spending. Why, they ask, aren't those breaks on the table in all the deficit-reduction talks?

The 10 largest corporate tax breaks will cost the federal government more than $351 billion from 2010 to 2014, according to the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation.

"It makes no sense for Congress to debate cuts in public services that working families rely on while ignoring the public spending that benefits corporations and is hidden in the tax code," the letter reads. "We strongly believe most, if not all, of the revenue saved from eliminating corporate tax subsidies should go towards deficit reduction and towards creating the healthy, educated workforce and sound infrastructure that will make our nation more competitive."

The sentiment has struck a note with liberal lawmakers such as Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who says it's time for revenue-raising tax overhauls.

"It's an opportunity to put into place some fair tax policies that, in fact, produce revenue from the richest people in this country and the richest corporations that should be paying," Boxer said.

But getting any kind of tax-code clean-up through Congress is never easy, and in the polarized politics of Obama's Washington, it's harder than ever. Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon and former Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire sponsored the Bipartisan Tax Fairness and Simplification Act of 2010. It would have coupled a corporate tax cut with the rollback of tax breaks for individuals and corporations.

The measure died in committee.

Until more details of President Obama's tax plan are released, it's unclear how much support it could receive from Republicans and the corporate sector.

What is clear is that there's little chance of passing legislation aimed at increasing corporate tax revenue, said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D.

"It's very hard to be revenue-neutral and reduce the (tax) rate, so going even further than that is a hard thing to do," Conrad said. "Hard in terms of the substance. Hard in terms of the politics. Hard to do."

Even McIntyre concedes that the fight will probably take several years. For inspiration, he remembers the years of work it took to pass the 1986 tax overhaul under President Ronald Reagan, a Democratic House and a Republican Senate.

"It was kind of a miracle, and the stars had to be aligned. But we can do it again," McIntyre said."








http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/31/115033/would-ending-corporate-tax-breaks.html
 
It also increased corporate tax revenue flowing into the Treasury by 34 percent.

And the deficit still kept going up. Nothing will stop the tide as long as we keep outspending earnings. It's simple math.
 
And the deficit still kept going up. Nothing will stop the tide as long as we keep outspending earnings. It's simple math.


Corporate tax breaks are spending so you're for ending them, correct?
You would instantly cut spending and add revenue in one stroke.
 
Corporate tax breaks are spending so you're for ending them, correct?
You would instantly cut spending and add revenue in one stroke.

I disagree. A lack of taxation is not spending. Taxation is an affirmative activity. Spending less is just that.
 
I disagree. A lack of taxation is not spending. Taxation is an affirmative activity. Spending less is just that.


The issue is not spending -- the issue is revenue.

Raising taxes raises revenue; and cutting expenditures raises revenue by not expending the revenue which is being collected. Of course, you can completely eliminate taxation and, therefore, eliminate all spending -- if demise of the system is the desired result.

Otherwise, subjectively we must determine what are desired expenditures and who will be taxed to pay for them. Both, affirmative measures to manage revenue.

QueEx
 
I disagree. A lack of taxation is not spending. Taxation is an affirmative activity. Spending less is just that.

I'm not a fan of semantics because they're generally used to lie and dissemble and that's what you just did. Not taxing revenue costs so it is by definition spending. It was the Bush tax cuts that ran up the deficit in the first place and then waging two wars without paying for them exasergated the situation.
 
The issue is not spending -- the issue is revenue.

Raising taxes raises revenue; and cutting expenditures raises revenue by not expending the revenue which is being collected. Of course, you can completely eliminate taxation and, therefore, eliminate all spending -- if demise of the system is the desired result.

Otherwise, subjectively we must determine what are desired expenditures and who will be taxed to pay for them. Both, affirmative measures to manage revenue.

QueEx

Agreed. Republicans have decided they don't want to spend money on teachers or firefighters or police but they do want to make sure businesses get their tax cuts.
 
If a company turns a profit because it gets tax breaks is it really a profit. If it is not a profit how can that company help anyone. It cannot hire, it cannot spend, it only exist because the govt gave it tax breaks. Thats the situation with most Fortune 500 companies they don't compete they live off govt subsidies and maybe a few dedicated customers.
 
If a company turns a profit because it gets tax breaks is it really a profit. If it is not a profit how can that company help anyone. It cannot hire, it cannot spend, it only exist because the govt gave it tax breaks. Thats the situation with most Fortune 500 companies they don't compete they live off govt subsidies and maybe a few dedicated customers.
 
If a company turns a profit because it gets tax breaks is it really a profit. If it is not a profit how can that company help anyone. It cannot hire, it cannot spend, it only exist because the govt gave it tax breaks. Thats the situation with most Fortune 500 companies they don't compete they live off govt subsidies and maybe a few dedicated customers.

In that case, that company should die. But that's not the case of the big oil companies like Exxon and BP, who get breaks on the federal and state level while making historic profits.
 
Govt must learn to be accountable, it must live within its means. Each year they spend more than they recieve, it show a blatant disregard for those who desire a fiscally responsible govt. Its irresponsible on their behalf & then they attempt to blame citizens for their incompetence.

:smh:
 
And the deficit still kept going up. Nothing will stop the tide as long as we keep outspending earnings. It's simple math.

Tea Party economics training 101. They say cut spending for the last 3 years but they have no idea what to cut without sacrificing themselves.
 
Govt must learn to be accountable, it must live within its means. Each year they spend more than they recieve, it show a blatant disregard for those who desire a fiscally responsible govt. Its irresponsible on their behalf & then they attempt to blame citizens for their incompetence.

:smh:

Funny thing, "they" as you say, spend more -- but I haven't seen yet where them (the citizens) reject the things bought, send back the things provided, not drive on the things paved, etc., etc., HENCE, they may not be too wrong to "blame citizens for their incompetence" -- the citizens asked for it!

If you say, the citizens know not what the ask; then can't the same be said of you

:confused:
 
Last edited:
Funny thing, "they" as you say, spend more -- but I haven't seen yet where them (the citizens) reject the things bought, send back the things provided, not drive on the things paved, etc., etc., HENCE, they may not be too wrong to "blame citizens for their incompetence" -- the citizens asked for it!

If you say, the citizens no not what the ask; then can't the same be said of you :confused:

The citizens didn't run up the debt, the govt did! The question is, and will continue to be.......Why do you (the govt), spend more money than you have?

1) I thought the "left" was anti-war but I guess Pres. Obama can justify troops in Iraq & Afghanistan, with escalations in Libya & Pakistan, a lot better than Bush. I thought the "left" was opposed to Cheney's foreign policy, but the actions of the admin speak otherwise. Whether you blame Bush or Obama, we cannot go to War without a Declaration from Congress. I was consistent when Bush did it in Iraq & still outraged with whats goin on in Libya & Pakistan

2) Are you tellin me the citizens approve of the TSA?

3) Are you tellin me the citizens approve of the War on Drugs?

4) Are you tellin me the citizens approve of NAFTA, CAFTA & WTO?

5) Non-citizens should not get any benefits that could go to helping citizens. We don't need a "new" law, just enforce whats already in the books, right?

All of this significantly contributes to the national debt. When the politicians stray away from the Constitution, all this BS happens and everything gets f*cked up.
 
The citizens didn't run up the debt, the govt did!

Bullshit!

Citizens in those districts that benefitted from defense spending and employment driven by defense spending, asked for more. Lots gotdamn more. And, drove-up the debt.

Citizens in districts with Space technology have demanded, wanted, urged, fought for and otherwise cried for, more. Lots gotdamn more.

In districts with ____(you fill in the blank)________ have demanded, wanted, urged, fought for and otherwise cried, for, more. Lots gotdamn more -- and drive up the debt.


Personally, I think elected officials are elected to do wants in the best interest of the country. But it is obvious that you believe elected officials should do what YOU (presummably a citizen) wants. And so it was -- elected officials did what their constituent citizens wanted. More, Lots gotdamn more. And, drove up the gotdamn debt.



The question is, and will continue to be.......Why do you (the govt), spend more money than you have?

Because YOU, the citizen, demand it. The only difference is, you want what you want and you classify what others want as, waste :lol:


1) I thought the "left" was anti-war but I guess Pres . . .

What? - your arguments above weren't strong enough? LOL - that you had to, in your attempt at subtlety, change the subject ???

C'mon Lamar; stop with your holier than thou Paulian bullshit. This is not about the left. The gotdamn right has more pet spending projects than one can keep up with. You're poiting at the left to complain only because your right is equally as guilty.

QueEx
 
1) I thought the "left" was anti-war but I guess Pres. Obama can justify troops in Iraq & Afghanistan, with escalations in Libya & Pakistan, a lot better than Bush. I thought the "left" was opposed to Cheney's foreign policy, but the actions of the admin speak otherwise. Whether you blame Bush or Obama, we cannot go to War without a Declaration from Congress. I was consistent when Bush did it in Iraq & still outraged with whats goin on in Libya & Pakistan

The Left has been tearing at Obama with the same intensity as they did Bush. You might need to check out some "Left" media: the MSNBC night line up, The Nation magazine, and Mother Jones. They've been very hard on Obama on this issue.

2) Are you tellin me the citizens approve of the TSA?

3) Are you tellin me the citizens approve of the War on Drugs?

4) Are you tellin me the citizens approve of NAFTA, CAFTA & WTO?

I'm telling you citizens either approve of all of the above or don't care.
They feel the TSA "keeps them safe" so they're willing to be scanned and patdown even if it's really meaningless, it makes them feel safe and that's what counts.
People absolutely approve of the "War on Drugs". See how much pushback Paul gets for suggesting legalization of drugs.
People don't care about trade deals because most people don't see how it affects them directly. As long as they think it's dumb schmucks in the South and Midwest losing their manufacturing jobs, most don't care as long as they get their cheap Chinese/Mexican made crap at Target.
 
Govt must learn to be accountable, it must live within its means. Each year they spend more than they recieve, it show a blatant disregard for those who desire a fiscally responsible govt. Its irresponsible on their behalf & then they attempt to blame citizens for their incompetence.

:smh:

The government is accountable. They are called elections. Free market capitalism must be accountable. The only institution that can check free market capitalism is the government, The government is the people. If the people want to abdicate their responsibility and concede their power to money and greed than that is not the government's fault. The Constitution permits the people to form almost any form of government they choose, but it takes participation.

The fiscally responsibility argument is a fucking joke. Want to solve the debt issue? Go back to the Clinton tax policy and cut defense spending in half. Their, problem solved!
 
The citizens didn't run up the debt, the govt did! The question is, and will continue to be.......Why do you (the govt), spend more money than you have?

1) I thought the "left" was anti-war but I guess Pres. Obama can justify troops in Iraq & Afghanistan, with escalations in Libya & Pakistan, a lot better than Bush. I thought the "left" was opposed to Cheney's foreign policy, but the actions of the admin speak otherwise. Whether you blame Bush or Obama, we cannot go to War without a Declaration from Congress. I was consistent when Bush did it in Iraq & still outraged with whats goin on in Libya & Pakistan

2) Are you tellin me the citizens approve of the TSA?

3) Are you tellin me the citizens approve of the War on Drugs?

4) Are you tellin me the citizens approve of NAFTA, CAFTA & WTO?

5) Non-citizens should not get any benefits that could go to helping citizens. We don't need a "new" law, just enforce whats already in the books, right?

All of this significantly contributes to the national debt. When the politicians stray away from the Constitution, all this BS happens and everything gets f*cked up.

The citizens didn't run up the debt, the govt did!

The hell they did! Tax revenue from the wealthy have decline regularly since the Regan administration as military spending has gone up. The difference had to made up somewhere? The people wanted that.

1) I thought the "left" was anti-war but I guess Pres. Obama can justify troops in Iraq & Afghanistan, with escalations in Libya & Pakistan, a lot better than Bush. I thought the "left" was opposed to Cheney's foreign policy, but the actions of the admin speak otherwise. Whether you blame Bush or Obama, we cannot go to War without a Declaration from Congress. I was consistent when Bush did it in Iraq & still outraged with whats goin on in Libya & Pakistan

So that must tell you that President Obama is not the "left". I'm sure if you do your fact checking you will find very few if any "left" congress members that vote for continuing resolutions for the wars. However, the "right" is in lock step!


2) Are you tellin me the citizens approve of the TSA?

Bush was elected over Kerry. The TSA was in effect then. What, the people only pay attention when a so called "left" President is in office?

3) Are you tellin me the citizens approve of the War on Drugs?

It's been going on since the Nixon, has anyone voted in an anti war President?

4) Are you tellin me the citizens approve of NAFTA, CAFTA & WTO?

Last November the 'people' voted in a slue of pro free marketeers.

5) Non-citizens should not get any benefits that could go to helping citizens. We don't need a "new" law, just enforce whats already in the books, right?


The "people" would rather spend money to put up walls on the borders, rather than enforce laws that penalize corporations from hiring those that under cut American's wages.

When the people are more focused on candidates that have the "people's" interests instead of who is fucking who or who is a socialist, then the people will get the change they say they want.
 
Judging from the responses, We still haven't grasped the concept that govt should operate within its means. I mean, thats how my household functions and many others. I'll respond to the comments when I have some time, gotta get to work.

It all boils down to what you think the "role of govt" should be. Do you want Communism, where you give your earning to the govt or Do you desire Freedom? You do realize we are abandoning the concepts of Freedom, right?

FREEDOM IS POPULAR
 
Judging from the responses, We still haven't grasped the concept that govt should operate within its means. I mean, thats how my household functions and many others. I'll respond to the comments when I have some time, gotta get to work.

It all boils down to what you think the "role of govt" should be. Do you want Communism, where you give your earning to the govt or Do you desire Freedom? You do realize we are abandoning the concepts of Freedom, right?

FREEDOM IS POPULAR


The idea of freedom is popular but actual freedom comes with responsibility and people have shown they aren't big fans of being responsible. That's why they keep voting for the bills and politicians that will give them everything but ask nothing of them.
 
Judging from the responses, We still haven't grasped the concept that govt should operate within its means. I mean, thats how my household functions and many others. I'll respond to the comments when I have some time, gotta get to work.

It all boils down to what you think the "role of govt" should be. Do you want Communism, where you give your earning to the govt or Do you desire Freedom? You do realize we are abandoning the concepts of Freedom, right?

FREEDOM IS POPULAR

Let me try one more time:

Are you getting paid to post?
 
Freedom for whom? Cause I see a separate freedom for certain folks. Some of that bullshit catch phrases always cracks me up. Things like I am a Constitutionalist until we want to amend the 14th amendment....activist judges until they overturn roe v. wade.

But I said on the main board. Please start explaining your catch phrases. What does the freedom mean? The problem with the household analogy is that your household is controlled by you. Not by another family for four to 8 years. Bush came in and decided to cut taxes while ramping up defense spending and social programs. What happens? - deficit. Clinton promoted and grew the house's budget. Put in place a plan. Bush fucked it up. Took 8 years but he left the economy in shambles. Your house in foreclosure or upside down.
 
And yes..please show me how corporate tax breaks can help the economy. Now tax breaks for companies who hire american citizens....well Im for that.
 
The idea of freedom is popular but actual freedom comes with responsibility and people have shown they aren't big fans of being responsible. That's why they keep voting for the bills and politicians that will give them everything but ask nothing of them.

Well said!
 
And spending has shot up more than revenues have fallen.


Yes it has. Two wars in the last 10 years, unpaid for Bush Medicare part D, Bush tax cuts and Obama extending them. Pentagon spending rising faster than anything and after all this, the rich got richer and everyone else got poorer.
 
Yes it has. Two wars in the last 10 years, unpaid for Bush Medicare part D, Bush tax cuts and Obama extending them. Pentagon spending rising faster than anything and after all this, the rich got richer and everyone else got poorer.

Agreed. And this could only have happened with a more powerful government. N'est Pas ?
 
The idea of freedom is popular but actual freedom comes with responsibility and people have shown they aren't big fans of being responsible. That's why they keep voting for the bills and politicians that will give them everything but ask nothing of them.

Is this an admission the country is moving in the opposite direction of freedom?

I've been consistent with these issues. Whether it's Scott Walker using the "strong arm" of the govt to take bargaining rights from unions, Reps & Dems bailing out banks, or Pres Obama mandating health coverage, I'm an advocate of less govt! They just have a gift for complicating matters with their unintended consequences
 
Is this an admission the country is moving in the opposite direction of freedom?

I've been consistent with these issues. Whether it's Scott Walker using the "strong arm" of the govt to take bargaining rights from unions, Reps & Dems bailing out banks, or Pres Obama mandating health coverage, I'm an advocate of less govt! They just have a gift for complicating matters with their unintended consequences

Again...

Let me try one more time:

Are you getting paid to post?
 
Back
Top