Six Corporate Tax Myths In One Letter to Editor

How MANY mistruths can you count in a letter in today’s San Jose Mercury News?

Lower corporate taxes would boost economy

When the government wants to raise taxes, the counter argument is always that people and corporations will work harder if they can keep their earnings. It is either that, or pass the costs to the consumers. Either way, high taxes are a no-win situation for everybody. Now that we have the highest taxes of any industrialized nation, corporations are “voting with their feet” and using legal tax-inversion strategies to stay competitive. The administration that pushed for high taxes is crying foul and saying this is not patriotic. Now they don’t like the consequences of their greedy tax policies. Drop the corporate tax rate to 15 percent and watch the economy soar.

  1. Myth: People will work harder if they can keep their earnings. Actually, wouldn’t people work harder to make up for the money that goes to taxes?
  2. Myth: Corporations pass the “cost” of taxes onto consumers. Actually corporations can’t pass taxes to consumers. (And taxes are not a “cost.”) Summary: taxes are on profits and prices are already as high as the company can charge. If corporations could just increase prices to cover taxes then the profits would go up, which raises the taxes, so they wold have to increase prices again, which would increase profits, which raises taxes, so they have to increase prices again, etc.
  3. Myth: Taxes are no-win. Actually they pay for the reads, schools, courts, police, military and the rest of the things that enable corporations to prosper.
  4. Myth: We have the highest taxes. Actually we don’t. Corporations are shifting profits out of the country to avoid ever paying taxes. The solution is to make them pay their taxes, not lower tax rates to let them get away with this.
  5. Myth: The administration raised taxes on corporations. Actually the administration didn’t raise corporate taxes. Corporate taxes have been lowered from 46% to 35% since the 80’s.
  6. Myth: If the corporate tax rate was lowered to 15% the economy would soar. Actually there is no relationship between lower tax rates and higher economic growth. In fact, there is a correlation between lower rates and lower growth, possibly because lower taxes cause government to cut back on the things that help the economy prosper, like education, investing in infrastructure, basic research, etc.

The letter-writer probably actually believes the stuff he wrote. Many people do. This shows the effect of decades of corporate/conservative propaganda on the public. Unfortunately these beliefs are leading to policies that are killing our economy and our democracy.

What Are We All Supposed To Be Afraid Of This Week?

Is it still ISIS? It’s not Syria anymore … right … it’s the other side now.

Previous weeks’ scare stories: Children coming from Central America? Ebola? Black mobs playing “knockout game”? Remember the smallpox scare? Remember the fear during the “runup” to the Iraq war?

Remember that fear causes people to be more conservative.

For some perspective (before we start bombing someone) on things to be afraid of, tobacco kills more than 480,000 Americans each year. And you don’t have to be the one smoking to be hurt or killed by the smoke.

Eric Cantor Goes To His Reward

Eric Cantor was a congressman from Virginia and was House majority leader. He was known for being particularly friendly to Wall Street and the giant, multinational corporations.

In the June Republican primary, his Virginia constituents got fed up with this and booted him, choosing to nominate Cantor’s challenger, David Brat, instead. Conservative Erik Erikson explained at FOX, that Cantor’s Virginia constituents did this because, “K Street, the den of Washington lobbyists, became his chief constituency.”

Cantor didn’t bother to finish his current term supposedly representing his Virginia constituents. He resigned from office effective August 18.

Just two weeks later Cantor has gone to his reward. Cantor will receive a huge, fat, lucrative, awe-inspiring, 1-percent-making, mansion-jet-and-yacht-buying, zillion-figure paycheck from his Wall Street/corporate constituents. He will become board member, vice chairman and managing director of investment bank Moelis & Co. (It typically takes longer than two weeks to negotiate a senior position like this one, if you know what I mean.)

Cantor earned this senior investment banking position with his vast experience in investment banking, if you know what I mean. (Cantor has a law degree, and a Masters in real estate, and worked in real estate development for his father before entering the clearly more lucrative field of representing certain constituencies, if you know what I mean.)

“Eric has proven himself to be a pro-business advocate and one who will enhance our boardroom discussions with CEOs and senior management as we help them navigate their most important strategic decisions,” Moelis CEO Ken Moelis said in a statement.

Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more, if you know what I mean.

Take The Gold Or Take The Lead

Our system has become corrupted and everyone knows what I mean. Everyone understands that government officials who “play ball” can get a huge paycheck after leaving government if they help certain big businesses while serving in government. The Nation explains, in When a Congressman Becomes a Lobbyist, He Gets a 1,452 Percent Raise (On Average), Secret deals, bribery and “buying” members of Congress are commonplace in today’s government. (See also: Tauzin, Billy.) (And: Public Interest Groups Call For Corruption Investigation Into Prescription Drug Law.)

Neil Barofsky was Special United States Treasury Department Inspector General overseeing the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). In the preface to his book Bailout: An Inside Account of How Washington Abandoned Main Street While Rescuing Wall Street, Barofsky explained that people in government are given two choices, “the gold or the lead.” From the NY Times review, (emphasis added, for emphasis)

Mr. Barofsky, wearing an unseasonal wool suit at odds with a “Washington-appropriate wardrobe,” is poised to let the hostess seat them at a front table of her choosing, but Mr. Allison insists on a private table in the rear. Then he gets down to business.

“Have you thought at all about what you’ll be doing next?” Mr. Allison asks Mr. Barofsky, soon adding, “Out there in the market, there are consequences for some of the things that you’re saying and the way that you’re saying them.”

“Allison was essentially threatening me with lifelong unemployment,” Mr. Barofsky concludes, and alternatively suggesting a plum government appointment some day if Mr. Barofsky would simply “change your tone.”

When Mr. Barofsky tells his deputy of the exchange, the deputy says, “It was the gold or the lead,” resorting to the lingo of their joint experience prosecuting Latin American drug kingpins in New York: Cooperate and share the riches, or don’t and get plugged.

There are “consequences” if you don’t play ball. But if you do play ball, there are rewards. And everyone knows it.

Cantor represented Wall Street instead of Virginia in the Congress. His Virginia constituents didn’t like it, and booted him. Cantor has gone to his reward: a big pot of Wall Street gold. And everyone knows it.

Solution? Make it a law: No person employed by the government in any capacity may receive compensation in any form that is significantly greater than the compensation they received for their public service, for a period of five years.

—–

This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture. I am a Fellow with CAF. Sign up here for the CAF daily summary and/or for the Progress Breakfast.

Where Is Hillary In This Crucial Midterm Election?

We have an election where Democrats are in trouble and could lose the Senate, and we have a “pre-candidate” with the supposedly highest polling numbers for any pre-candidate in history.

I smell a disconnect. Why isn’t the highly popular Hillary Clinton going from state to state campaigning for Senate Democrats, tirelessly doing everything she can to help Democrats keep the Senate?

I feel like Hillary is sitting on sidelines while we are fighting in the streets. As far as I can tell she is not even asking her extensive list of followers to do something, never mind showing up herself.

It better not be something like this. NY Times: Loss for Democrats in Midterm Elections Could Be Boon for Clinton.

Think of the damage Republicans will do for two years.

Those Political Geniuses In Washington

NY Times: Obama Weighing Delay in Action on Immigration,

President Obama is considering a delay of his most controversial proposals to revamp immigration laws through executive action until after the midterm elections in November, mindful of the electoral peril for Democratic Senate candidates, according to allies of the administration who have knowledge of White House deliberations.

Well there goes any hope of energizing “the base” to come out and vote in November. No wonder people don’t bother to vote anymore.

Why are they doing this?

“Such a move by the president, some senior officials worry, could set off a pitched fight with Republicans and dash hopes for Democratic Senate candidates running in Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina and potentially in Iowa.”

Right, because this will persuade all those right-wing anti-immigration voters to vote for Democrats.

This tells all the pro-Democrat voters in those states not to bother to vote.

If Obama does this he is going back on his promise in June to do something “by the end of summer” to help the millions of people trapped by Republican obstruction.

From the NY Times story: “Representative Luis V. Gutiérrez, Democrat of Illinois, who has at times been critical of the administration’s approach, said that delay “comes at a tremendous cost in terms of families split up and children placed in foster care.”

Doing the right thing is always the right thing politically.

Why Fight For Unions? So We Can Fight An Economy Rigged Against Us

The other day I wrote about how FedEx has been pretending that their employees are not employees, which gets around labor standards for things like overtime, family leave and the rest.

This misclassification game is just one way that big companies have been rigging the rules to give themselves an edge, getting around what We the People set down for our democracy.

The result, of course, is even more people paid even less with even worse working conditions. And the bad players get an advantage that drives out the good ones.

Like misclassification, this game-rigging, cheating, edge-seeking, rule-bypassing stuff is everywhere you look. (Rigged trade deals, corporate tax “deferral” and inversions, corporate campaign donations, too-big-to-fail banks, Congressional obstruction, etc. and etc…) This rigging of the game in favor of the ultra-wealthy gets worse and worse.

Continue reading

p5rn7vb

Nicole Sandler Radio or Not Show

I was on Nicole Sandler’s Radio or Not show Monday. (You might know Nicole as the person who took over Randi Rhodes’ radio show when Randi wasn’t able to be there.)

Click here and then slide it to 1:38:12. It was a really good segment. We were talking about my recent post on Mitch McConnell’s threat to shut down the government if Obama won’t sign legislation to dismantle the government. Of course, you can also listen to the whole show.

Nicole does a 2 hour show, Mon-Fri, live from 10-noon ET. She is on youtube and 3 audio streams live… Plus a 24/7 tunein channel that carries the show live, and runs the most recent 5 shows back to back. Each morning’s show repeats at 3Pm ET.

The tunein url is http://tunein.com/radio/The-Nicole-Sandler-Show-247-Stream-s229127/, but it’s also accessible from the tunein app or directly from radioornot.com. The podcast is also on itunes (click here), Stitcher or any other podcasting service.

Nicole’s show is always free, but listener supported.

Now It’s Burger King Renouncing US Citizenship – Let’s Eat Somewhere Else

Burger King is the latest company announcing plans to renounce its U.S. citizenship in order to dodge taxes. It plans to buy Tim Hortons and then pretend Tim Hortons bought them so they can claim to be Canadian. (Tim Hortons renounced its own U.S. citizenship in 2009 and moved their headquarters from Ohio to Canada.)

The announcement is prompting calls like this petition you can sign by the Campaign for America’s Future that calls on Burger King’s CEO to keep the restaurant chain American or “I will dine elsewhere.”

Burger King Didn’t Build That By Themselves

Why is Burger King prosperous? Why do people feel safe eating food served at Burger King? Why do people recognize a Burger King when they see one? Why does something called “Burger King” with outlets across the country (and the world) even exist?

  • Consumers believe Burger King’s beef and other offerings are safe to eat because they know our taxpayer-funded government inspectors and regulations make sure of it.
  • Taxpayer-funded government courts and agencies make sure that other fast-food outlets can’t call themselves “Burger King” to trick people into eating there instead.
  • Taxpayer-funded agencies and courts also make sure that other restaurants can’t call their burger a “Whopper.”
  • Burger King’s customers use taxpayer-funded roads when they drive to a local Burger King outlet.
  • Burger King’s workers and managers were educated in taxpayer-funded schools.
  • The money Burger King collects is created and regulated by the taxpayer-funded government, and it is deposited in banks that are regulated by the government to be safe and trustworthy. (And protected by taxpayer-provided police.)
  • Burger King’s ultra-low-wage employees are paid so little that they receive food stamps, Medicaid, earned income tax credits and other taxpayer-funded government safety-net services.
  • The government enables Burger King to be something called a corporation at all. Corporations are entirely government-created entities with special rights, privileges and protections that are granted by the government.

Continue reading

Austerity Has Made Europe’s Depression Longer Than in ’30s

Europe’s economic depression has now lasted longer than the Great Depression of the 1930s. Meanwhile, America’s “Great Recession” also drags on thanks to cutbacks in government spending since the stimulus.

Europe’s leaders somehow were convinced that austerity – “deficit reduction” through cutbacks in government – would somehow lead them out of their economic doldrums. They believed that taking money out of the economy would help the economy. The result has been terrible. The Washington Post’s Wonkblog calls Europe’s austerity-lengthened depression “one of the biggest catastrophes in economic history.”

To top it off, Europe’s governments are learning that cutting back on spending not only worsens the economic picture, causing terrible unemployment, poverty and human misery, but the worsened economic picture means less revenue coming in, thereby increasing deficits instead of lowering deficits. In other words, austerity cutbacks to fight deficits have instead made deficits worse and hurt people.

Continue reading

A Simple Plan To Balance Trade And Bring Back All Those Jobs

We have an enormous, humongous and ongoing trade deficit. This means we buy more from other countries than they buy from us and we do this every year.

Trade is supposed to be balanced. Instead we have been running continuing trade deficits since the late 1970s. A trade deficit drains our economy and forces consumers, businesses and government to borrow, just to keep going. This means that jobs, factories, entire industries and literal boatloads of money have been leaving the country – it really adds up because we do this every single year. We have to do something about this.

The “Buffett Plan”

In May’s post, Balancing Trade – Remember The “Buffett Plan” I described the 2003 “Buffett Plan” proposed by Warren Buffett, who was very concerned about the damage done to our economy and unemployment caused by our ongoing trade deficit.

The government could issue “Import Certificates (ICs) to all U.S. exporters in an amount equal to the dollar value of their exports.” The number of import certificates determines the level of trade imbalance or balance that we allow.

A few years later Congress tried to address the problem with legislation designed to balance exports and imports.

Senators Russ Feingold and Byron Dorgan proposed the The Balanced Trade Restoration Act of 2006, similar to Buffett’s plan. The bill warned, “The surging trade deficits could soon create a balance of payments crisis for the United States, which could wreak havoc with the economy of the United States.” The bill didn’t go anywhere.

And then (from the same post) someone else brought up the Buffett Plan:

In a 2011 article, “What Would Buffett Do? — A Plan to Balance Trade, Create Jobs and Restore American Manufacturing,” Bill Parks goes into detail on a similar plan, and suggests a mix of private and public sale of the import certificates. He also suggests that the government could adjust the ratio of exports to imports as needed.

A New Stab At This Simple Plan

At the site Economy In Crisis, Kenneth N. Davis, Jr., Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Commerce writes about the Balanced Trade Restoration Act of 2014. Davis notes that “imports have been the single most damaging blow to our domestic industrial base that we rely on for national security and income as well as for a strong economy and good jobs.”

In the Balanced Trade Restoration Act, Davis has put together a proposal that, while inspired by the original Buffett plan, offers an updated and more specific legislative plan for making it work. Davis writes,

My group, Balanced Trade Associates, believes we have a bold, realistic plan to deal with the import problem. It could eliminate our 700+ billion dollar annual trade deficits within 3 years. Our law would also require 3 years of modest 10% annual reductions in our imports that now run at 2.1 trillion dollars. The answer is our proposed new legislation: “The Balanced Trade Restoration Act.”

With it, the U.S. would restore our practice of maintaining modest annual trade surpluses with the rest of the world. Unlike most competitor nations, we abandoned that sound policy to emphasize globalization in the late 1960’s.

The text of the Balanced Trade Restoration Act of 2014 is included in his post at Economy in Crisis, but put simply, import certificates are issued based on exports, you need a certificate to import:

  • The government would create “a Balanced Trade Import Certificate Program.”
  • The program would issue “import certificates” that act as a license to import “a good with an appraised value that is equal to or less than the face value of the certificate.”
  • Goods cannot be shipped into the country without a certificate issued equal to their import value.
  • The certificates would be issued based on exports. The Commissioner of the program would determine how many such certificates to issue, starting at the current level of imports and tapering down by 10 percent a year for three years.
  • After three years we enter a “Continuous Maintenance of Balanced Trade Period” where certificates are issued equal to the amount we export.
  • Bob’s your uncle; trade is balanced.

It might sound like a lot of paperwork, but actually it’s just an IT/computer problem – setting up a data center with a database of exports, the resulting certificates and issuing certificates for incoming shipments by importers.

Does This Proposal Violate Trade Agreements?

While trade agreements contain measures against import restrictions they also call for balanced trade. This is not an import restriction, it is a balancing measure. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) allows import restrictions in situations of balance-of-payments. Trade not only should be balanced, it must eventually be balanced because the damage done by unbalanced trade to the economies of countries and ultimately to the world’s economy.

A Cap-And-Trade System To Incentivize Exports?

Davis’ plan calls for issuing certificates to “qualified” importers on a fair basis to prevent giants like Walmart from cornering the market. From the proposal: “Certificates shall be issued by the United States Customs and Border Protection to any qualified importer, as determined by the Commissioner. Certificates are non-transferable. The Commissioner shall determine the fee for Certificates such that all costs of administering the Program are paid by the fees.”

My own thinking is that a regulated (to prevent cornering the market) cap-and-trade (transferable certificate) system that allows exporters to sell those certificates to importers for a market price would still be beneficial. Because we import more than we export the certificates would have an added value, creating an incentive to export. It would also subsidize those exports. Corporations respond to incentives and this would create an incentive to export, which would create jobs. Once trade is balanced, those incentives are reduced, so it is self-correcting.

But either way, this can be worked out as the system is set up. Hopefully experts would provide testimony and a consensus decision would be made based on the best way to proceed to help our economy and fight the enormous, humongous trade deficits.

And So, In Conclusion

I end this post as I ended the May post. The Buffett Plan was just one idea for balancing trade. But balance we must. As Buffett warns, these huge trade deficits cannot be sustained. They are draining our economy. There has to be a reckoning. We have not faced that reckoning yet, but it is inescapable. It has to happen. We have to tackle this as a country, with a national plan.

Petition

While we’re talking about balancing trade, the Coalition for a Prosperous America has petition to Congress: Congress should direct the President to pursue Balanced Trade now as the principal trade policy objective.

We, the undersigned individuals and organizations, request that Congress adopt balanced trade as the primary national trade goal by adding the following language to future trade-related bills:

“The principal national objective for trade in goods, services and agriculture is to achieve an overall balance of payments over a reasonable period of time, eliminate persistent trade deficits and reverse the accumulation of foreign debt.”

Click through to add you name, please.

—–

This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture. I am a Fellow with CAF. Sign up here for the CAF daily summary and/or for the Progress Breakfast.