The Clinton Victory Thread

[purplerat]

I couldn't care less about moralizing over why people take certain tax breaks. If it's a legal deduction then that's about all I care about. Given how many people outright cheat on their taxes and find a moral excuse for doing so I'm not about to judge somebody who takes a legal deduction.

The tax code in the US is screwed up and should be fixed but it won't because nobody wants their deduction taken away. You can blame the big corporations all you want but when the average US citizen looks at European or Canadian tax rates on individual income they aren't going to go for that if it means they pay far more than they currently do.

This is the problem, you don't distinguish between what is legal because of legitimate concerns and what is legal because politicians are bought. It means you have no problem with some of the biggest corporations paying zero taxes.

I didn't say I have "no problem" with it. I do think the tax code should be changed. But until it is I'm not going to demonize those who don't pay more taxes than they have to.

And the whole "biggest corporations" thing is largely a red herring. The bulk of the tax reform needs to take place in the middle but most aren't willing to tell people in the middle that they have to pay more so it's a non-starter. If you think otherwise can you point me to any large scale model where the average person is paying less in personal income tax than in the US but social services are much better because big corporations are paying so much more?

I said you have that problem, and I still do. If you're worried about people cheating, then allowing big corporations and the richest people avenues to pay less or none, is a fantastic source for anyone to rationalize cheating. I do agree the tax code is insane, it should probably be scrapped and go with a wealth tax.

I don't believe for one second that somebody who cheats on their taxes would be dissuaded from doing so if "big corporations" paid more in taxes. The reality is that the big corps already pay way more in taxes than most people so it's a bullshit excuse to begin with. If people can get away with it they will regardless of what excuses are most convenient.

[crank]

This is the problem, you don't distinguish between what is legal because of legitimate concerns and what is legal because politicians are bought. It means you have no problem with some of the biggest corporations paying zero taxes.

I didn't say I have "no problem" with it. I do think the tax code should be changed. But until it is I'm not going to demonize those who don't pay more taxes than they have to.

And the whole "biggest corporations" thing is largely a red herring. The bulk of the tax reform needs to take place in the middle but most aren't willing to tell people in the middle that they have to pay more so it's a non-starter. If you think otherwise can you point me to any large scale model where the average person is paying less in personal income tax than in the US but social services are much better because big corporations are paying so much more?

I said you have that problem, and I still do. If you're worried about people cheating, then allowing big corporations and the richest people avenues to pay less or none, is a fantastic source for anyone to rationalize cheating. I do agree the tax code is insane, it should probably be scrapped and go with a wealth tax.

I don't believe for one second that somebody who cheats on their taxes would be dissuaded from doing so if "big corporations" paid more in taxes. The reality is that the big corps already pay way more in taxes than most people so it's a bullshit excuse to begin with. If people can get away with it they will regardless of what excuses are most convenient.

Wow, you mean big corporations earning billions of dollars pay more taxes than most people? Stop the presses! FFS, what is your point? You're not thinking clearly if you believe that constantly hearing about the big corporations that pay zero taxes isn't going to push some people over the edge into evading taxes.

This is the breakdown of where tax receipts come from, as can be seen, the share paid by corporations has declined signficantly since the 50's, from The Sorry State of Corporate Taxes.


It goes on to say, highlights mine:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Back to Contents

Profitable corporations are supposed to pay a 35 percent federal income tax rate on their U.S. profits. But many corporations pay far less, or nothing at all, because of the many tax loopholes and special breaks they enjoy. This report documents just how successful many Fortune 500 corporations have been at using these loopholes and special breaks over the past five years.

The report looks at the profits and U.S. federal income taxes of the 288 Fortune 500 companies that have been consistently profitable in each of the five years between 2008 and 2012, excluding companies that experienced even one unprofitable year during this period. Most of these companies were included in our November 2011 report, Corporate Taxpayers and Corporate Tax Dodgers, which looked at the years 2008 through 2010. Our new report is broader, in that it includes companies, such as Facebook, that have entered the Fortune 500 since 2011, and narrower, in that it excludes some companies that were profitable during 2008 to 2010 but lost money in 2011 or 2012.

Some Key Findings:

• As a group, the 288 corporations examined paid an effective federal income tax rate of just 19.4 percent over the five-year period — far less than the statutory 35 percent tax rate.

• Twenty-six of the corporations, including Boeing, General Electric, Priceline.com and Verizon, paid no federal income tax at all over the five year period. A third of the corporations (93) paid an effective tax rate of less than ten percent over that period.

• Of those corporations in our sample with significant offshore profits, two thirds paid higher corporate tax rates to foreign governments where they operate than they paid in the U.S. on their U.S. profits.

These findings refute the prevailing view inside the Washington, D.C. Beltway that America’s corporate income tax is more burdensome than the corporate income taxes levied by other countries, and that this purported (but false) excess burden somehow makes the U.S. “uncompetitive.”

Indivduals' breakdown of tax rates, from here:


Can you show me how you get the idea " that the big corps already pay way more in taxes than most people "? By what metric do you get this idea?

[laklak]

The 35% only kicks in at over 18 million in profit, which excludes all small and most medium sized corporations. In a progressive tax system you can't draw any meaningful conclusions from the effective tax rate. This is true for both corporations and individuals. Most individuals don't understand the tax regulations, hell, professional accountants don't understand them. There are over 70,000 pages of IRS rules and regulations, NO ONE can understand it all. Just trying to figure out the basis for a property when you sell it is ridiculously complex, particularly with the ever changing accounting regulations.

Basically they need to scrap the current system and start from scratch, but we'd probably end up with something even worse if the ACA is any guide.

[crank]

The 35% only kicks in at over 18 million in profit, which excludes all small and most medium sized corporations. In a progressive tax system you can't draw any meaningful conclusions from the effective tax rate. This is true for both corporations and individuals. Most individuals don't understand the tax regulations, hell, professional accountants don't understand them. There are over 70,000 pages of IRS rules and regulations, NO ONE can understand it all. Just trying to figure out the basis for a property when you sell it is ridiculously complex, particularly with the ever changing accounting regulations.

Basically they need to scrap the current system and start from scratch, but we'd probably end up with something even worse if the ACA is any guide.

They need to use an approach that has worked well for some things, I can't think of any off hand, but you get the best people you can, trying hard to eliminate anyone with an ideological chip on their shoulder, and let them go and figure out what could work best, They need to pay real close attention to incentives, arranging them to minimize needs for oversight. Something like a flat rate with a guaranteed minimum income, meaning a credit of some kind. Anyway, I'm not going to solve our tax problems in a forum post, it'll take me a whole thread and maybe 2 or even 3 days.

I'm confused about what you mean by the effective tax rate not being a useful measure. It tells you the percentage of income someone actually pays in their tax, much easier to understand and more relevant than the marginal tax rates that are the numbers you usually hear.

[OlivierK]

This is the breakdown of where tax receipts come from, as can be seen, the share paid by corporations has declined signficantly since the 50's, from The Sorry State of Corporate Taxes.

That is an interesting chart, however I read it a bit differently to you.

It's often put forward that if transnational corporations can shift their profits offshore, then a possible way to combat that is to shift the focus of taxation from profit to some proxy for business size such as a turnover tax. Payroll taxes are another such proxy, and the total tax take from corporate taxes+payroll taxes has been very steady, with the mix moving from the easier to avoid tax on profits to the harder to avoid tax on payrolls.

The second chart in your last post also treats payroll tax as a tax on individuals. I think that's a stretch, which relies on the ludicrous notion that if companies were relieved of their payroll tax obligations, they'd simply give that money to the employees as extra salary. As if.

[Boyle]

It's well known that companies pass on their savings to consumers and workers, thus reducing their profit margin.

[crank]

This is the breakdown of where tax receipts come from, as can be seen, the share paid by corporations has declined signficantly since the 50's, from The Sorry State of Corporate Taxes.

That is an interesting chart, however I read it a bit differently to you.

It's often put forward that if transnational corporations can shift their profits offshore, then a possible way to combat that is to shift the focus of taxation from profit to some proxy for business size such as a turnover tax. Payroll taxes are another such proxy, and the total tax take from corporate taxes+payroll taxes has been very steady, with the mix moving from the easier to avoid tax on profits to the harder to avoid tax on payrolls.

The second chart in your last post also treats payroll tax as a tax on individuals. I think that's a stretch, which relies on the ludicrous notion that if companies were relieved of their payroll tax obligations, they'd simply give that money to the employees as extra salary. As if.

Can you clarify this? I'm not really clear on what you think my read on it is? And I can't understand at all what the third paragraph is getting at. I posted the charts to show that corporations were not paying way more than most people as PurpleRat said, or he said something to that effect. I didn't look very closely at the payroll tax, it is something that is split in half, the employee pays half, the employer pays half. I assume the chart on sources has both contributions, the individual chart has half. It's somewhat beside the point anyway as we're discussing income tax. I've already said I don't believe in corporations having an income tax, corporations don't exist, they're fictitious entities, the owners should be taxed on any monies they receive in the distributions of earnings etc, their dividends, and taxed as ordinary income. That seems to me to be a better way to go. There would need to be some way for the owners' principle country of residence to be determined so the taxes can be sure to get paid but paid once. I have't thought enough about this aspect, but it's an important one, some equitable, reasonable method could be devised.

[OlivierK]

Can you clarify this? I'm not really clear on what you think my read on it is?

Well, I was just going by what you wrote: "as can be seen, the share paid by corporations has declined signficantly since the 50's". Here in Australia, payroll taxes are paid by corporations, so that conclusion would not be one I'd draw.

I didn't know that payroll taxes are paid 50/50 in the US. How does that work? If you're nominally on $50k a year, payroll tax means that even before income tax you're already on less than that? That's interesting. If so, I'll bear that in mind in discussions about international wage/minimum wage comparisons.

As far as taxing only owners in their country of residence, I expect even more of the ultra-rich would simply up and move to Monaco. It's jolly nice around this time of year, and income-tax-free.

[crank]

Can you clarify this? I'm not really clear on what you think my read on it is?

Well, I was just going by what you wrote: "as can be seen, the share paid by corporations has declined signficantly since the 50's". Here in Australia, payroll taxes are paid by corporations, so that conclusion would not be one I'd draw.

I didn't know that payroll taxes are paid 50/50 in the US. How does that work? If you're nominally on $50k a year, payroll tax means that even before income tax you're already on less than that? That's interesting. If so, I'll bear that in mind in discussions about international wage/minimum wage comparisons.

As far as taxing only owners in their country of residence, I expect even more of the ultra-rich would simply up and move to Monaco. It's jolly nice around this time of year, and income-tax-free.

Here in the US, whatever is withheld on your paycheck, the employer is paying the same. If self-employed, you pay the full amount, like 15% I think. Since it's split evenly for most, it doesn't make that much of a difference in the comparison.

The Monaco thing is a problem, and why I mentioned something internationally had to be done. We blockaded Cuba for 50 years out of truculent spite. Embargoes to any country and such entities as whatever Monaco is, could go a long way to fixing the problem. As could requirements to keep earnings in the country of origin. Or just tax all income in the country where earned, no shifting of balances between divisions and subsidiaries and all the other games played. This isn't that hard to do, they just have to stop all the BS games, or hang all the accountants and lawyers.

[OlivierK]

Thanks. Here, only income tax is withheld from your pay. If you're on $70k, then your employer is paying payroll tax on that, but that's entirely their concern; you get $70k less your income tax. Superannuation (like your IRAs) is compulsory and co-funded, which adds a layer of complexity, but payroll tax is invisible to employees (mostly - I worked for an investment bank that paid a higher base salary but stuck the employee with payroll tax to encourage the use of taxable fringe benefits as the total tax burden was lower for them, being set at the highest income tax rate without payroll tax).

[Teague]

Published on May 23, 2016

All of a sudden, Hillary Clinton is behind. The latest polls show Donald Trump has overtaken her nationally. This appears to be a trend, not a snapshot. Cenk Uygur, host of The Young Turks, breaks it down. Tell us what you think in the comment section below.

"Polls have swung dramatically in Donald Trump's favor in a matter of weeks. Two new polls released over the weekend showed Hillary Clinton and Trump within the margin of error of each other. The reality TV star and former secretary of state are now within 0.2 percentage points of each other in the RealClearPolitics polling average.

Whether that makes you ecstatic or enraged, calm down. Here's what these first few general-election polls do and don't tell you.

Let's Count Grains Of Salt

The No. 1 rule to remember about polls: They're a snapshot of how people feel right now. They do not predict how Election Day will look. And there are dozens of ways that snapshot can be distorted at any given point in the campaign.”*

http://www.npr.org/2016/05/23/479141203/why-you-should-take-a-deep-breath-before-reading-the-latest-trump-clinton-polls

[Teague]

The excuses are pathetic.

[Teague]

White votes Trump 53% - Clinton 33% - WTF??

Trump has gained 11 points since March in favourability and in some polls, he's ahead of her by 2 points whilst in others she's ahead by 3 but both a statistical tie with some democratic men leaving her to go over to Trump.

This is all weird though because...they're white, it's May and may is weird for polling, she's more experienced, excuses, excuses, excuses...oh, and it's Sanders fault LOL.

I said he would start gaining. I said he was at his lowest and Clinton should be kicking his ass and now he's gained 11 points, Clinton's gone up by 4 I think and in the meantime, Sanders beats Trump by 15.

How is it America is fielding the two worst candidates in history? This battle should be Trump v Sanders - it's a story writing itself here except Clinton somehow paid someone to get a shot at the role and now she's going to make the movie shit - she's like George Lucas doing the new Star Wars films - she's fucking it all up. Of Aliens: Colonial Marines in the words of Angry Joe Show "They fucked it up!"

Golf clap, America, Golf clap.....

[Teague]

The Shameful Way Feds Protected Convicted Pedophile Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein

Jeffrey Epstein’s case was recently back in the spotlight after reports that former President Bill Clinton took at least 26 trips aboard his private jet, the ‘Lolita Express,’ even leaving behind his secret service agents on several occasions, according to flight records obtained by Fox News.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/the-shameful-way-feds-protected-convicted-pedophile-billionaire-jeffrey-epstein/

[laklak]

I'll bet Billy's willy was slicker than snot on a doorknob after those flights.

[purplerat]

White votes Trump 53% - Clinton 33% - WTF??

Trump has gained 11 points since March in favourability and in some polls, he's ahead of her by 2 points whilst in others she's ahead by 3 but both a statistical tie with some democratic men leaving her to go over to Trump.

This is all weird though because...they're white, it's May and may is weird for polling, she's more experienced, excuses, excuses, excuses...oh, and it's Sanders fault LOL.

I said he would start gaining. I said he was at his lowest and Clinton should be kicking his ass and now he's gained 11 points, Clinton's gone up by 4 I think and in the meantime, Sanders beats Trump by 15.

How is it America is fielding the two worst candidates in history? This battle should be Trump v Sanders - it's a story writing itself here except Clinton somehow paid someone to get a shot at the role and now she's going to make the movie shit - she's like George Lucas doing the new Star Wars films - she's fucking it all up. Of Aliens: Colonial Marines in the words of Angry Joe Show "They fucked it up!"

Golf clap, America, Golf clap.....

You continue to ignore the reality which is that Trump is the presumptive nominee of the GOP while Clinton is still in a tough fight for the nomination. The GOP base is coalescing around Trump, even those who were very much against him just a few weeks ago, while those supporting Sanders are in the death throes of fighting against Clinton.

It's incredibly obvious what is going on and it's exactly what happened in the past two elections. Even in 2008 when almost nobody believed a Republican could win following Bush McCain was actually leading Obama at roughly the same stage in the nomination process; i.e. McCain was the presumptive nominee and Obama was trying to finish off Clinton.

FFS, you're acting like such bumps in election polling are some new and unheard of thing.

[GT2211]

According to benchmark politics HRC has led 15/18 GE polls this week. Narratives

Another interesting situation going down in Washington. Bernie won the caucus by 50 points. HRC was declared the winner of the primary tonight with a comfortable lead atm.

The turnout for the primary has been significantly higher but they don't award delegates based on the primary, only the lower turnout caucus.

Makes you wonder what the other caucuses may have looked like after seeing such a huge swing.

[purplerat]

Can you show me how you get the idea " that the big corps already pay way more in taxes than most people "? By what metric do you get this idea?

I sort of misspoke when I said "big corps". What I meant was the wealthy in general, including big corporations, private holdings and wealthy individuals. i.e. those who generally get lumped in to the "1%"/wealthy/"big money"/etc.

The chart you put up shows that to be true. The bulk of the tax that the "rest of us" pay is personal income tax which according to the chart you put up is less than 50%. But even that is income tax for everybody which includes a lot of income tax from the wealthy so in reality the income tax from the rest of us is even lower.

The fact is that from about the middle down Americans pay little in taxes compared most other western nations. When we progressives start talking about needing to raise taxes we are talking about raising those people's taxes too, and by a lot, with of course the promise of getting more out of them. The problem is that once you fess up to that fact it becomes politically toxic in the US.

[crank]

Can you show me how you get the idea " that the big corps already pay way more in taxes than most people "? By what metric do you get this idea?

I sort of misspoke when I said "big corps". What I meant was the wealthy in general, including big corporations, private holdings and wealthy individuals. i.e. those who generally get lumped in to the "1%"/wealthy/"big money"/etc.

The chart you put up shows that to be true. The bulk of the tax that the "rest of us" pay is personal income tax which according to the chart you put up is less than 50%. But even that is income tax for everybody which includes a lot of income tax from the wealthy so in reality the income tax from the rest of us is even lower.

The fact is that from about the middle down Americans pay little in taxes compared most other western nations. When we progressives start talking about needing to raise taxes we are talking about raising those people's taxes too, and by a lot, with of course the promise of getting more out of them. The problem is that once you fess up to that fact it becomes politically toxic in the US.

You realize this is something completely different? I'm too lazy and don't have the time to assess your assertions, but I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have to raise taxes a lot on the low-middle to low income folk, depends on too many things, but there isn't that much there, for one thing.

A quick googling, from taxfoundation.org, Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2013 numbers:

octo-2016-05-25 01_33_56-Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data _ Tax Foundation.png (66.45 KiB) Viewed 1382 times

Bottom 50% have all of <12% of AGI. And this is 'adjusted gross income', for those 50%, it's a fairly straightforward number, for the upper echelons of income, you'd need to be a good CPA to come close to understanding where their numbers come from. It should be remembered there is evidence of quite substantial hiding of income a la the Panama revelations and shell companies etc. Bernie's plan of a very small fee on program trading on the exchanges raises a hell of a lot of money. Much could be done with some imagination divorced from ideologies and gross self-serving BS.

[Teague]

White votes Trump 53% - Clinton 33% - WTF??

Trump has gained 11 points since March in favourability and in some polls, he's ahead of her by 2 points whilst in others she's ahead by 3 but both a statistical tie with some democratic men leaving her to go over to Trump.

This is all weird though because...they're white, it's May and may is weird for polling, she's more experienced, excuses, excuses, excuses...oh, and it's Sanders fault LOL.

I said he would start gaining. I said he was at his lowest and Clinton should be kicking his ass and now he's gained 11 points, Clinton's gone up by 4 I think and in the meantime, Sanders beats Trump by 15.

How is it America is fielding the two worst candidates in history? This battle should be Trump v Sanders - it's a story writing itself here except Clinton somehow paid someone to get a shot at the role and now she's going to make the movie shit - she's like George Lucas doing the new Star Wars films - she's fucking it all up. Of Aliens: Colonial Marines in the words of Angry Joe Show "They fucked it up!"

Golf clap, America, Golf clap.....

You continue to ignore the reality which is that Trump is the presumptive nominee of the GOP while Clinton is still in a tough fight for the nomination. The GOP base is coalescing around Trump, even those who were very much against him just a few weeks ago, while those supporting Sanders are in the death throes of fighting against Clinton.

It's incredibly obvious what is going on and it's exactly what happened in the past two elections. Even in 2008 when almost nobody believed a Republican could win following Bush McCain was actually leading Obama at roughly the same stage in the nomination process; i.e. McCain was the presumptive nominee and Obama was trying to finish off Clinton.

FFS, you're acting like such bumps in election polling are some new and unheard of thing.

You didn't watch the video, did you - Cenk already pointed that out and how that was all nonsense but carry on. Ignore Trump at our peril, thanks!

Oh and btw, McCain wasn't a racist, sexist bigoted pig or a buffoon like Trump is. You're argument falls on its arse because Trump has basically shat on everyone except white males (where he does better than Clinton) and is the least favourable candidate in HISTORY. Yet you fucking ignore all of that, don't you!