ASPEN, Colo. — President Bill Clinton says the nation’s corporate tax rate is “uncompetitive” and called for a lower rate as part of a “mega-deal” to raise the debt ceiling.
“When I was president, we raised the corporate income-tax rates on corporations that made over $10 million [a year],” the former president told the Aspen Ideas Festival on Saturday evening. “It made sense when I did it. It doesn’t make sense anymore — we’ve got an uncompetitive rate. We tax at 35 percent of income, although we only take about 23 percent. So we should cut the rate to 25 percent, or whatever’s competitive, and eliminate a lot of the deductions so that we still get a fair amount, and there’s not so much variance in what the corporations pay. But how can they do that by Aug. 2?”
Clinton also said Grover Norquist, who as president of Americans for Tax Reform is the GOP’s unofficial enforcer of no-new-taxes pledges, has a “chilling” hold on the nation’s lawmaking.
The former president said it has seemed like Republicans need any revenue concessions to be “approved in advance by Grover Norquist.”
“You’re laughing,” he told the crowd of 800. “But he was quoted in the paper the other day saying he gave Republican senators permission … on getting rid of the ethanol subsidies. I thought, ‘My God, what has this country come to when one person has to give you permission to do what’s best for the country.’ It was chilling.”
Betcha didn’t see that coming.
#53, noname grasping at straws… saying that existing debt owed by the United States remains valid is a different matter from an executive department being able to issue new debt without the approval of the Congress. Or to make things more clear: inability to pay your debts does not invalidate those debts.
#59–Fusion==everyone wants what they want. Rather a fake issue to frame the discussion as either cut ALL loopholes, or keep them all?
This is illustrated nicely with the home interest deduction. The social policy of encouraging home ownership. ((Sidetrack to Fanny Debacle is very related but too extended.)) Well–why is home ownership such a tax valued thing over and above renting? EVERYONE needs a roof over their heads. Homeowners of course “want” to keep it, regardless of the rationale. But the interesting “compromise” I heard was give everyone a one home deduction up to one million. Over one million or your 9-10 home do not qualify. I like that “balance” of competing interests.
I’m sure other similar balances can be found between the all or nothing dumbthink that goes on in these discussions.
The time is upon us where none of us will be able to keep all our wants. Rank order prioritize your wants and match that to revenue. It will happen with or without our consent.
>> # 42 chuck said, on July 5th, 2011 at 3:48 pm
>> Why should corporations or businesses pay ANY tax at all?
Corporations use the commons at much greater rates than individuals. For the sole purpose of making money.
No only should corporations pay taxes, they should pay them at a higher rate than individuals.
>> # 59 Mr. Fusion said,
>> What Clinton, and most other forget is that these “loopholes” serve a national, social policy.
What Clinton knows is that most of those loopholes were created as payback for campaign donations.
That’s why we need 100% financing of elections. It would cost us a few billion and save us a trillion.
>> derspankster
>>>>“Betcha didn’t see that coming.”
>> Yeah, I did
Me, as well.
This is a HUGE blindspot for conservatives.
They are so busy calling Clinton and Obama “socialists” and “communists” that they miss the fact that both are highly pro-corporate.
Virtually all our Dem elected leaders are.
#63, Corporations use the commons at much greater rates than individuals. For the sole purpose of making money.
We’ve heard this before but we’ve never seen any examples.
Do you have any?
#64, most of those loopholes were created as payback for campaign donations.
Agreed.
That’s why we need to remove the incentive. Remove the money.
>> LibertyLover said, on July 6th, 2011 at 6:22 am
>>>> #63, Corporations use the commons at much greater rates than individuals. For the sole purpose of making money.
>> We’ve heard this before but we’ve never seen any examples.
>> Do you have any?
Who uses the FAA more: you or UPS?
Who uses the FDA more: you or Tyson foods?
Who uses the FCC more: you or Newscorp?
Who wears-down the roads more: you or Atlas Van Lines?
Who uses federal lands more: you or the oil and mining companies?
It’s like that for nearly every industry. They take HEAVILY from the commons but don’t want to pay a dime back. That’s for suckers like you and me.
Alan Greenspan, former Fed Chairman, said Clinton “Was the best President the Republicans ever had !!!” – so true !!! But Obama is trying his best to beat Clinton at being a Democrat in name only and a Crpto-Fascist Republican IN FACT !!! (See Obama’s willingness to cave on Medicare and Social Security !!! That should put him in the SAME CROSS-HAIRS AS RYAN AND HIS “PLAN” !!!)
#60 That goes to show you how hypocrites they are.
#69 Your life seems pretty miserable. I don’t envy you at all.
#69 I agree with your own self opinion that you are miserable. I would also add that you’re a buffoon.
#67,
Who uses the FAA more: you or UPS?
They PAY to use it. Fuel taxes, airport fees, etc. It isn’t a free service.
Who uses the FDA more: you or Tyson foods?
We do.
Who uses the FCC more: you or Newscorp?
They had to pay the money to lease the frequency. They aren’t doing it for free.
Who wears-down the roads more: you or Atlas Van Lines?
Again, fuel taxes. And franchise fees for every truck they own.
Who uses federal lands more: you or the oil and mining companies?
And they pay heavily for it. Do you know what the fees are to actually put in a well are? They’re outrageous. I know because I work in this industry.
Now . . . if you want to get technical, those costs are passed on us, the consumers.
How is raising the taxes going to make that any better?
They will just raise their prices more.
You still haven’t convinced us.
I have something really interesting, okay more of a historical curiosity, relating to the ORIGINAL tea party. I had always assumed they were angry at HIGHER taxes on tea. Turns out the reverse is true. The King was dramatically lowering taxes on tea, so why did the ostensible consumers of the product get so angry?
Turns out that high taxes on goods created a lot of tax evasion. Most of the tea coming in at the higher rates was snuck past the ports, or bought back from Brit tax authorities if impounded. Merchants would still charge it out to customers as if they’d paid the higher taxes. It guaranteed them big profit margins, and kept tea a luxury item.
The King decided to flood the US market with tea AND tax that flow at a lower rate. It was specifically designed to devalue the illicit holdings that already gotten past the taxman. US traders, unhappy that the new price structure disadvantaged them, staged a tax revolt: for higher taxes!
At the end of the production chain things didn’t go smoothly either. The extra flow cost money, and the King didn’t have enough silver to ramp up purchases in China because higher demand raised the price. Instead it was decided to let them smoke opium. While the Brits eventually lost the colonies they ended up gaining Hong Kong.
That’s still a net loss… heavy lies the crown.
The words are mine, but the info comes from R.T. Naylor’s “Crass Struggle”
#67, GregAllen, you aren’t even comparing apples to apples, so your analysis is disingenuous at best.
An organization of 10,000 people of course uses more of a resource than does an individual in absolute terms. How much does a coordinated organization of 10,000 use of a resource compared to 10,000 individuals? That is the more appropriate comparison; and I would be willing to wager that the organization is much more efficient in its usages than is the aggregate of individuals.
Beyond that point, some of your examples are clumsy anyway. What do you mean by “Who uses the FDA more: you or Tyson foods?” The FDA governs over Tyson foods, the consumers are more like “users,” and as such, they receive most of the direct benefit.
#59, Fusion, if you think it is the government’s job to play social engineer by picking winners and losers of subsidies for your prefered activities, then there are much better (and direct) ways it can be accomplished, rather than creating an incredibly complex tax code. Taxes should be designed so that they are consistent and compliance is simple and unburdonsome. If you want to dole out subsidies for your favored behaviors afterwards, then do it as a separate activity.
LibertyLover,
I gather that you don’t agree with the principal that that those who use more, should pay more.
Especially, if they are using services for profit.
In most or all cases, the fees you listed don’t come even close to paying for the services those corporations use. And it’s not just the direct services, there are also fire, police, courts, trade missions, treaty negotiations, … even the military. And, very importantly, the cost of educating future workers in our public schools. In all those cases, corporations use the government more than you do.
And, yet, you think all this should be free to them.
I couldn’t disagree more. They use the services more, they should pay more.
I’m curious. What is the fee for putting in a well compared to the value of _our_ oil they take out of that well? Since it is our land, I think we deserve a 60/40 split. What is the ratio, in reality? I honestly don’t know.
Sea Lawyer,
I agree it is apples vs oranges… but the corporation have MUCH LARGER oranges.
I drive a Mazda Miata which does some wear-and-tear on the roads with it’s 2,000 lbs. A semi-truck’s 80,000 lbs does MUCH MORE wear and tear, demanding much more road repair and even a differently designed road.
Yet, according to LibertyLover, I should have to pay income taxes for those roads and Atlas Van Lines should not!
That’s a topsy, turvey mixed-up way to view government services, IMHO.
#71
“Who uses the FAA more: you or UPS?
Who uses the FDA more: you or Tyson foods?
Who uses the FCC more: you or Newscorp?
Who wears-down the roads more: you or Atlas Van Lines?
Who uses federal lands more: you or the oil and mining companies?”
I think what you’re saying is that the dual mission to regulate AND promote industries is in conflict. If I wanted to be clever I’d say the regulatory actions are elements in the process of creating products, and that producer\consumer use of regulatory agencies would balance only to the extent that products were produced and not sold. It’s obvious that you’re saying that producers are more able to influence the process to their advantage, despite consumers being more numerous.
Chris,
I’m being more simple than that.
In America, corporations are legal “persons.” They use the commons like crazy, so they should pay.
Take Rush Limbaugh and Clear Channel. That empire would not even exist without the FCC. Limbaugh would be a guy on a CB radio. Instead they make seven billion dollars a year.
Yet, some here believe that _I_ should pay to maintain the FCC and Clear Channel should not! That’s CRAZY!
I say Clear Channel should be a HIGHER percentage of their income than me because they use government services more than I do.
That’s my point.
Honestly, you guys, I can hardly believe we are debating this totally obvious point. It shows how far the country has drifted towards extreme corporatism. We pay, they profit, I guess.
#75, I gather that you don’t agree with the principal that that those who use more, should pay more.
Nope. Didn’t say that at all. In fact, I believe in just the opposite.
That is called proportionment and is a tenet of the U.S. Constitution.
BUT, I do not agree that just because someone manages to make more than somebody else, using the same resource, they should pay more.
In most or all cases, the fees you listed don’t come even close to paying for the services those corporations use[...]
Do you have figures to back up that claim or is this a feeling you have?
#76, Yet, according to LibertyLover, I should have to pay income taxes for those roads and Atlas Van Lines should not!
You really need to learn to comprehend what you read (I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you actually read it). I said they were paying taxes on gas, franchise fees, tax stamps, etc. 80,000 lbs. of vehicle uses way more gas than 2,000 lbs of vehicle. THUS, they are paying more.
If you are going to lie about me, at least have the common decency to lie about something that isn’t refuted just five posts up.
#78, I say Clear Channel should be a HIGHER percentage of their income than me because they use government services more than I do.
That’s a great idea. We’ll charge those who made higher test scores more money to keep the school open. They obviously got more out of it!
Greg,
I think you are suffering from a Gross Conceptual Error.
You are trying to equate profits to actual use.
You can’t compare those two things.
What if two trucks, equal in all respects except one, were using the same road the same amount of time. The one thing different between them is the mpg they get. One gets 50 mpg, the other 5.
Should the one making getting the best mileage be responsible for paying more?