Has there been an administration as anti-business as this one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I heard on the news recently that due to various loopholes, the tax rate on corporations in the US is the LOWEST it has been in decades. So, no, this administration is not anti-business.

The real test is what is the corporate tax rate compared to our trading partners? Comparing ourselves to ourselves is a useless exercise. CEOs make decisions on a global basis. I believe our corporate tax rate is the highest of our trading partners - so if you want to open a new facility where do you do it?

[Anonymous]

There are, to some people, more important priorities than "business".

I make over $100k a year. I am a single mom, two kids. And I am PROUD to live in a country where I pay a shitload of taxes. I pay it and I still think I live like a King.

What's wrong with you? Can't afford to pay your taxes? Or don't give a crap about the hungry living in America? As long as you get to spend your hard earned cash on a yacht, screw everybody else?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are, to some people, more important priorities than "business".

I make over $100k a year. I am a single mom, two kids. And I am PROUD to live in a country where I pay a shitload of taxes. I pay it and I still think I live like a King.

What's wrong with you? Can't afford to pay your taxes? Or don't give a crap about the hungry living in America? As long as you get to spend your hard earned cash on a yacht, screw everybody else?

Now, that's hilarious! At $100,000 with two dependent kids, YOU'RE not paying a shitload of taxes. Another question, do you alone fund your health insurance and retirement out of that $100,000 or is it subsidized by your employer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are you kidding me? Have you seen what he wants to do if he could?? Raise taxes on the wealthy even though they are the ones creating job, raise taxes on corporations, the other people creating jobs. Let's..if you are a union you don't have to be taxed on your benefits but the rest of can be--who is going to pay for this. It is no wonder no one want to hire. Why would you? Oh yes let's just spend more money on gov jobs..many of which are not needed.sorry but we really don't need a lot of the gov people..and then have other people pay for them. It's awful and I am wondering why people are suprised. He really wants. He does.

Don't you remember how the Republicans drilled it into our heads that small businessmen are the ones who create the jobs?

[Anonymous]

An excellent book:

Perfectly Legal: the Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich - and Cheat Everybody Else.

It's by David Cay Johnston, a NYTimes reporter. He's a Republican, but disgusted at shenanigans with the personal and corporate income axes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard on the news recently that due to various loopholes, the tax rate on corporations in the US is the LOWEST it has been in decades. So, no, this administration is not anti-business.

The real test is what is the corporate tax rate compared to our trading partners? Comparing ourselves to ourselves is a useless exercise. CEOs make decisions on a global basis. I believe our corporate tax rate is the highest of our trading partners - so if you want to open a new facility where do you do it?

Corporate taxes are high, but the LOOPHOLES make the US one of the least taxed countries to work in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard on the news recently that due to various loopholes, the tax rate on corporations in the US is the LOWEST it has been in decades. So, no, this administration is not anti-business.

The real test is what is the corporate tax rate compared to our trading partners? Comparing ourselves to ourselves is a useless exercise. CEOs make decisions on a global basis. I believe our corporate tax rate is the highest of our trading partners - so if you want to open a new facility where do you do it?

The CBO says you're wrong. US statutory rate, at 39%, is third among OECD countries, after Japan and Germany. But the important measure is the "effective" rate, which is the tax rate corporations actually pay after deductions and credits for things like depreciation and borrowing to finance investment, both of which are really generous in the US. The US effective rate is close to average overall among OECD countries, on the high side for equity-financed investments and on the low side for debt-financed investments.

See the summary on page 21 here: http://www.CBO.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6902/11-28-CorporateTax.PDF.

[Anonymous]

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CompanyFocus/why-CEOs-cannot-stand-obama.aspx?page=1

Good article.

[Anonymous]

I did graduate school in economics at one of the top schools in the country. We were taught that there's almost no empirical evidence to support trickle-down economics, only in the extreme top tax-rate countries, like some of the Scandinavian countries, can you find some evidence. Not in the US, it goes without saying.

[Anonymous]

I'm a business lawyer and, from my perspective, the Obama administration is remarkably pro-business. I believe they are afraid to do anything that would lead to accusations that they are stalling recovery from the recession. The meme that Obama is anti-business just doesn't hold water.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We cut taxes in 2001-3 and had the worst job creation record since Hoover.

Now they sit on huge piles of cash and still don't create jobs, acting like uncertainty is something new.

They can continue to make profits -- so why do they need to hire people?

They want to increase earnings. That's why. And your comment about uncertainty doesn't even make sense. Uncertainty is nothing new, but these are times of far greater uncertainty. Everyone, you included, knows that. Everybody and their brother is cutting back what they spend, trying to be more careful about their financial stability, not getting in over their heads any more than they already are. Why would a business be any different, especially when their market is often the very consumers who are cutting back?

1992:
Would NAFTA get ratified?
What would happen with the ex-Warsaw Pact and USSR countries? German re-unification? Maastricht?
Japan was reeling from its real estate bubble.
Clean Air Act, ADA, and FMLA were all passed (I remember the right-wing machine saying these would destroy jobs)
In 1993, we passed the Clinton tax increase, the first tax increase in a generation.

If we had a Republican administration in power between 2001 and 2008 that cut taxes and regulations, why weren't jobs created?

Sorry GOP, Bush doesn't get to be a liberal just because his record sucked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are you kidding me? Have you seen what he wants to do if he could?? Raise taxes on the wealthy even though they are the ones creating job, raise taxes on corporations, the other people creating jobs. Let's..if you are a union you don't have to be taxed on your benefits but the rest of can be--who is going to pay for this. It is no wonder no one want to hire. Why would you? Oh yes let's just spend more money on gov jobs..many of which are not needed.sorry but we really don't need a lot of the gov people..and then have other people pay for them. It's awful and I am wondering why people are suprised. He really wants. He does.

Hey, why weren't the wealthy creating jobs between 2001 and 2008? I mean, Bush cut taxes, cut regulation ... what happened? Do we just need to cut taxes more? Offer free massages or blowjobs?

If the wealthy had been out there creating jobs at a pace faster than under Hoover's presidency, McCain would've cruised to election and we'd have had even more tax cuts.

[Anonymous]

There also a thing with corporations creating jobs: they don't mention WHERE those jobs are created. In this global economy, when all these "small businesses" have international presence, if a job is created it is most likely in China or Brazil.

[Anonymous]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/39321858

[Anonymous]

Corporations hardly pay taxes.

If the Bush tax cut expires, how much more in taxes would a couple earning $250,000 make? Everyone is discussing this but I cannot find the answer. TIA.