Corporate Tax Cut BS Exposed
New TYT Network channels: www.youtube.com www.youtube.com New TYT Facebook Page(!): www.facebook.com Follow us on Twitter: twitter.com www.theyoungturks.com DISCOUNTS: www.theyoungturks.com FREE Movies(!): www.netflix.com Note: The above two links are for TYT sponsors. Read Ana’s blog and subscribe at: www.examiner.com TYT Network (new WTF?! channel): www.youtube.com Check Out TYT Interviews www.youtube.com Despite a decade of Bush tax cut windfalls for the wealthy pushing income inequality to levels not seen since 1929, Republicans are calling for another $700 billion, 10-year payday for the richest Americans. So it should come as no surprise that as corporate profits reached an all-time record in the third quarter, leading voices in the Republican Party want their tax bill slashed, too. As the New York Times reported Tuesday, happy days are indeed here again for corporate America “American businesses earned profits at an annual rate of $1.659 trillion in the third quarter, according to a Commerce Department report released Tuesday. That is the highest figure recorded since the government began keeping track over 60 years ago, at least in nominal or noninflation-adjusted terms.” Those numbers should be taken with a grain of salt. Having slashed costs and reaped the benefits of big productivity gains at this early stage of the recovery, US firms are sitting on a mountain of cash. But even expressed as a percentage of American gross domestic product, corporate profits are …
Heya i am for the first time here. I found this board and I in finding It really helpful & ...
Very beneficial/helpful information..for what its worth you have my 0k anchored in my loud yes. 
Its like you read my mind! You appear to understand a lot about this, such as you wrote the e-book ...
Nice post. I used to be checking constantly this weblog and I'm inspired! Very useful info specifically the ultimate section ...
Wow, wonderful weblog layout! How lengthy have you ever been blogging for? you made running a blog glance easy. The ...
Comment by luvcheney1 on 9 December 2010:
@xXshinzoXx Your statement was the rich are not investing to grow the economy. Remember?? Since corp tax rates are too high, environmental, regulatory, permitting, etc is high, why WOULD you expect them to invest?? They send capital OUT of the country, invest in other things. Change that, by changing the policies that make the US non competitive. Money, capital goes into what works, not what doesnt. Make costs low enough for profit, corps will come. Capital wont seek profit, dummy?
Comment by xXshinzoXx on 9 December 2010:
I won’t give two flying fucks about outsourcing if we didn’t have a 9%+ unemployment rate, but that isn’t even the fucking issue.
Less manufacturing (the jobs that are being outsourced, you fuckwad) means less jobs, less jobs means less money is spent due to the amount of unemployed, and that ends up as a vicious downward cycle where more and more people get unemployed as our economic habitat gets fucked.
THINK, you fucking idiot, before you get your ass scrutinized in a public forum.
Comment by dokholliday000 on 9 December 2010:
The fed and USURY is the problem! If “we” kicked out the fed and loaned money to other countries then we could make due off the interest that the central bankers are charging us right now. This would eliminate the interest money we pay to the fed and also give us the money for the loans we give to poorer nations. Spreading democracy would be better dome by lending instead of forcing nations into our way of living. The MONEY VULTURES are the problem!
Comment by regtracker on 9 December 2010:
@xXshinzoXx soo true, why would corporations or the rich invest in anything made in america lol!!! because nothing is made in america anymore ROFL!!!! america produces nothing, it invests in other countries because it is more profitable lol!!! your jobs have been out-soursed lol!!!!
Comment by LibertyDownUnder on 9 December 2010:
@crocfme, there are a few exceptions. If you look at people like Joe Hockey, he has some great plans for more responsible Government.
He wanted to cut $50b out of the last budget.
Comment by crocfme on 9 December 2010:
@LibertyDownUnder LOL. You got that right; If the US Govt. banned chickens tomorrow, you wouldn’t find an egg in Australia within a week! Our politicians may not have the sinister agenda the American ones seem to, but their lack of vision and inability to come up with ANYTHING original makes them a national embarrasment…
Comment by luvcheney1 on 9 December 2010:
@xXshinzoXx Everyone has heard about outsourcing. Capital moves, where conditions are best. Is that really hard to get? As for my historical references, YOU were giving someone a hard time, because he wouldnt prove tax cuts provide jobs. We have a real life experiment, of cutting from 91% to 35%, we have more jobs, and revenue was stable, as percent of GDP. Proof, dummy.
Comment by xXshinzoXx on 9 December 2010:
The rich said that less tax = more jobs, and that’s just simply not the case.
Why would we have such a high percentage of unemployment? Because the rich ain’t spending money to grow the economy, the rich is using the money for speculation, the rich is investing in OTHER developing countries, at our expense.
You need to fucking read up on our economic situation, instead of pulling numbers from the 1950s out of your ass; i.e. HERP DERP, 1957 TAX, DUUUUUUUURP, same as 2007 DEERP.
Comment by xXshinzoXx on 9 December 2010:
I don’t hate the rich, It’s natural for them to want as much money as possible, and I wouldn’t have a problem with that either, IF the country wasn’t suffering because of it.
Nobody would tax the rich corporations if the economy was fine, but it isn’t, and at this point I really think you’re just fucking batshit crazy. We didn’t PUSH them out of anything, they were the ones that abandoned the Americans by spending their money elsewhere.
By the way, I didn’t lose my job
Comment by dffykvn on 9 December 2010:
@luvcheney1 They serve no purpose other than to play financial games.
Comment by luvcheney1 on 9 December 2010:
@xXshinzoXx To Obama, these facts are not about what makes sense. They are about what the masses think. Obama, Libs, Progressives, all hate the rich, and corporations. This is about votes, and political power, not raising the standard of living. Obama takes their money, because his voters are all like you. Stupid. You feel sooo goood, taxing corps, and the rich, and then they protect their money, getting it OUT! You cry, Waaaa, Waaaa, they took my job! STFU! YOU, and the morons, PUSHED them OUT!
Comment by xXshinzoXx on 9 December 2010:
The point is the rich ain’t spending it in America.
Why the FUCK would Obama take their money otherwise? You’re a fucking idiot
Comment by luvcheney1 on 9 December 2010:
@xXshinzoXx I guess the Poor wont go buy Chinese products at WalMart? Kias? Aveo`s? The point is that if Obama takes money for the rich, the rich cant spend it. Thats a negative. So, if you give it to the poor, they will spend it, but that is balanced out by what the rich DONT spend. Obama stated the richest 2% would pay $700 bill in 10 yrs, or $70 bill a year. IF the rich saved 12%, ( which sometimes is 3%) thats $8.4 bill, which is .004 of revenue. Nothing. BTW, savings fund debts, eh genius?
Comment by luvcheney1 on 9 December 2010:
@dffykvn Profit of the biggest US health ins corp, United Health, is 5%, you dumbass lying sack.
Comment by luvcheney1 on 9 December 2010:
@xXshinzoXx I was not talking about REVENUE, I was talking about Tax Revenue. Expressing taxes as a percent of GDP, is the way to remove inflation from the equation. I stated tax revenue, was talking about taxes, tax revenue! The second time, I said revenue, believing you were following the conversation.
Comment by xXshinzoXx on 10 December 2010:
I honestly think you lack common sense at this point. Say the top 1.5% makes 250,000 USD a year. What would they spend 88, let alone 97% of their money on?
The rich clearly shown that they are not responsible/patriotic enough to spend money where it’s meant to be in creating jobs, that’s why the economic disparity continues.
Comment by luvcheney1 on 10 December 2010:
@666norton420 The top 10% are now paying 70% of all taxes. If you tax consumption, there could be a credit for low income people. It is important that ALL pay taxes. The poor guy will buy a $1500 Oldsmobile 1995, the rich a $100,000 Mercedes, so the rich will still pay more. The way it is now, top 50% pay 97% of taxes, so bottom 50% pays 3%! This mass of freeloaders votes for more spending, they dont pay for. If you let failures run things, what do you expect? Failure.
Comment by xXshinzoXx on 10 December 2010:
And how much were the top percentile making during the 1950s, compared to the top percentile at 2007, asshat? I mean, how fucking stupid are you?
The revenue staying the same implies that by the year 2007, there is a unhealthy distribution of wealth, such that if the top percentile was making 100USD (91 taxed) in the 1950s, then they would be making 260 USD nowadays, 2.6times as much as in the 50s, not to mention inflation.
Comment by luvcheney1 on 10 December 2010:
@xXshinzoXx United Health Care, the largest in the nation, makes 5% profit. So, a $500 makes $25 profits. Your statement that a dollar spent expands the economy is true, but you want govt to tax the rich, and then spend. The rich spend between 88%, and 97% of their income. Want references to these facts, dummy?
Comment by luvcheney1 on 10 December 2010:
@xXshinzoXx Evidence. In the 1950`s, the top personal tax rate was 91%, top corp rate 51%. During Bush Admin, the top personal tax rate was 35%, top corp 35%. Jobs were created between the 1950`s, and 2007. It is of note as well, that the Federal tax revenue, as % of GDP, was 17.3% during 1951-1960, and 17.4% from 2001-2007. Revenue stayed the same at 35% as 91%, and jobs created. I can reference Federal Statistics, if you are unaware of reality.
Comment by luvcheney1 on 10 December 2010:
@scrantme Financial markets all over the world are moving capital to different locations, where the return is better. Corp to corp, or country to country, and greed assures this. If profit in the US became higher, because of a tax cut, rest assured, the world would realign capital, to exploit and benefit from this extra profit. When extra capital moves in, supplies increase, and increased supplies FORCE prices lower. They wouldnt WANT this, but it is unstoppable. 8% profit for Exxon is fair.
Comment by luvcheney1 on 10 December 2010:
@scrantme Demand for oil increases during holidays, and if you could graph the supply and demand curves, you would not have made this comment. Exxon Mobil earned 8%, after tax in 2009, and the wholesale price of unleaded gas is about $2, so profit after refining of gas ( truck it to Quickie Mart, and Quickie Mart costs is additional) is just 16 cents, while Govt puts over 60 cents on gas, at the pump, in Ca.
Comment by scrantme on 10 December 2010:
@luvcheney1 also as previously states there is no reason to believe that a company will in turn use any tax breaks in order to lower prices. If customers will pay $X for a good or service, then it would be naive to sustain the belief that the price would ever fall below that price as it would possibly diminish profit margins. I don’t mean to imply that you are ill-informed however I think your view on the subject is rather miopic and pretentious. But that could just be me.
Comment by scrantme on 10 December 2010:
@luvcheney1 that would be so if you considered the originating concept of supply and demand to be relevant. What you haven’t considered is the perception maintained by the public. An example would be the once again profitablr airline industry who has continued to nickle and dime its clients at every opportunity in the US. Another would be the ever-windfall-profit-producing oil industry whose prices are monitored and regulated so as to coincide higher prices with peak driving times i.e. holidays.
Comment by luvcheney1 on 10 December 2010:
@CharlesHorman My example was of a 20% tax rate abroad, and 40% here, on $100 million profit. Abroad, the corp nets $80, and here nets $60. If a corp goes abroad, to get the $80, and someone here goes into business, content with the $60, you are going to see the foreign corp give up profits from the extra $20 to keep market share. The US corp does not have the same cushion of the extra 20%. It is a playing field that is NOT level. The AVG 24% abroad, and the avg 39% here (avg 15% disadvantage)