Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-21-2008, 08:54 AM #1
Craigers
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
 has been a member for 10 years
25 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than top-ranked Japan.

WASHINGTON, Mar 18, 2008 - A new study from the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan tax research group in Washington, shows that most American states tax job providers at a higher rate than any other country in the developed world.

"This is startling news for America's businesses and workers," said Tax Foundation president Scott Hodge, the study's author. "Tax competition for jobs and investment is fierce, and the U.S. continues to fall further and further behind. Our states should be the world's leaders in many things, but high taxation should not be one of them. The high federal corporate tax rate is literally crushing states' competitive abilities. That means fewer jobs for American workers."

Counting the federal rate alone, the U.S. has the world's highest corporate tax rate, but including average sub-national rates (federal plus state in the U.S.), Japan edges out the U.S. for the highest-tax location (see table).

This new study breaks the tax down state-by-state, adding each state's corporate tax rate to the federal corporate tax rate. The results show that 24 states impose, when combined with the federal rate, a higher business tax rate than in any other nation. In fact:

* 24 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than top-ranked Japan.
* 32 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than third-ranked Germany.
* 46 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than fourth-ranked Canada.
* All 50 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than fifth-ranked France.

"If federal lawmakers are serious about making the U.S. corporate tax system more competitive globally, they will have to partner with state officials to lower the nation's overall corporate tax burden," Hodge added. "Likewise, state officials should have a vested interest in cutting the federal corporate tax rate because there is only so much they can do to improve their own competitiveness. After all, even corporations in the three states that do not impose a major state-level corporate tax—Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming—still shoulder a higher corporate tax rate than France, and 25 other major countries, because of the 35 percent federal corporate rate."

Link with Table
__________________
Feedback
Craigers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 03-21-2008, 11:02 AM #2
Murph1329
 
 
Murph1329's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Hoover, AL
The sad thing is if Hillary or Obama win the election they'll jack corporate taxes up even more.

The is why I hate stupid liberals that think putting higher taxes on "the man" is a good thing
__________________
'98 STO
10/14'' Dye Stainless | AKALMP tornado valve
Evolution bolt | Evolution Roller Sear
ANS Jackhammer | Rex Kit
STO RAM | Air America Black Ice | Shocktech LPC
pic
Forum defeat is admitted when one resorts to grammatical insults -me
We all live with a mark of sin, no man's is greater than another's in his own mind. -me

Last edited by Murph1329 : 03-21-2008 at 12:05 PM.
Murph1329 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2008, 12:02 PM #3
Craigers
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
 has been a member for 10 years
And people wonder why we have an outsourcing problem...
__________________
Feedback
Craigers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2008, 12:06 PM #4
Murph1329
 
 
Murph1329's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Hoover, AL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craigers View Post
And people wonder why we have an outsourcing problem...
Do you even know how outsourcing works?
I work for CGI and we specialize in outsourcing IT for companies and i work in ALABAMA
__________________
'98 STO
10/14'' Dye Stainless | AKALMP tornado valve
Evolution bolt | Evolution Roller Sear
ANS Jackhammer | Rex Kit
STO RAM | Air America Black Ice | Shocktech LPC
pic
Forum defeat is admitted when one resorts to grammatical insults -me
We all live with a mark of sin, no man's is greater than another's in his own mind. -me

Last edited by Murph1329 : 03-21-2008 at 12:10 PM.
Murph1329 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2008, 01:09 PM #5
Craigers
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
 has been a member for 10 years
I was referring to companies that are fleeing to other countries to avoid our tax code.
__________________
Feedback
Craigers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2008, 09:15 AM #6
Mag Master 21
Residential Dyno Queen
 
Mag Master 21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Florham Park, NJ
 has been a member for 10 years
there's a reason why companies are parking all of their income in Ireland.
__________________
"You and I have the courage to say to our enemies there is a price we will not pay, there is a point beyond they must not advance.. You and I have a rendezvous with destiny, we'll preserve for our children, this the last best hope of man on earth or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness."
- Ronald Reagan
Mag Master 21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2008, 10:35 AM #7
Kellster
Pretentious Hipster
 
Kellster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Praha, Česká
McCain has pledged to cut federal corporate taxes from 35% to 25%, vote for him in November.
__________________
Alabama Football
Kentucky Basketball
Kellster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2008, 08:39 AM #8
Furious Ge0rge (Banned)
 
Furious Ge0rge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: flag@whitehouse.gov
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellster View Post
McCain has pledged to cut federal corporate taxes from 35% to 25%, vote for him in November.
Wait, you're the guy who is preaching in every other thread that people are 'jokes' and that you're intelligent, but you want people to base their entire vote off of corporate taxes? Even though he's an 80 year old guy having 'senior moments' in his first big media appearance since he got the nomination, and doesn't understand **** about economics, etc.?

Hypocrisy at it's finest!
Furious Ge0rge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2008, 03:36 PM #9
Kellster
Pretentious Hipster
 
Kellster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Praha, Česká
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious Ge0rge View Post
Wait, you're the guy who is preaching in every other thread that people are 'jokes' and that you're intelligent, but you want people to base their entire vote off of corporate taxes? Even though he's an 80 year old guy having 'senior moments' in his first big media appearance since he got the nomination, and doesn't understand **** about economics, etc.?

Hypocrisy at it's finest!
I'd wager that he knows more about economics than you do.

Furthermore, I didn't say "Base your entire vote off of corporate taxes!" I said that McCain has pledged to cut corporate taxes and that you should vote for him in November. Its entirely relevant to the thread, unlike your post.
__________________
Alabama Football
Kentucky Basketball
Kellster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2008, 04:15 PM #10
Adema3412
Give me fiction
 
Adema3412's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellster View Post
I'd wager that he knows more about economics than you do.
I'd honestly wager that I know more about economics than the he does.

And while I have no problem with presidents looking to their advisors for specific policy advice, I don't even think this man has a grasp of economics that goes very far beyond introductory macro or micro courses and that's not something I am willing to accept in a presidential candidate.

And actually he only pledged to cut corporate taxes to 28.5%.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...ed_on_economy/
__________________
I can't believe how strange it is to be anything at all
It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized
discipline. But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion
on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.
--Murray Rothbard
Adema3412 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2008, 04:24 PM #11
Kellster
Pretentious Hipster
 
Kellster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Praha, Česká
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adema3412 View Post
I'd honestly wager that I know more about economics than the he does.

And while I have no problem with presidents looking to their advisors for specific policy advice, I don't even think this man has a grasp of economics that goes very far beyond introductory macro or micro courses and that's not something I am willing to accept in a presidential candidate.

And actually he only pledged to cut corporate taxes to 28.5%.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...ed_on_economy/
Actually, he has pledged to cut it from 35% to 25%, you would have known this if you had only looked at his website.

And he may not 'know much' about the economy, but he will keep taxes low, favor little regulation, cut the corporate rate, and he has already proven that he will reduce spending: he's asked for $0 in earmarks. That doesn't sound too bad. While he may not be ideal, he is a better option than either Democrat.
__________________
Alabama Football
Kentucky Basketball
Kellster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2008, 04:37 PM #12
Adema3412
Give me fiction
 
Adema3412's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
 has been a member for 10 years
I really don't disagree with his policies, but I am bugged with his complete lack of economic knowledge, seems like he will be easily pushed around an manipulated by his advisors.
__________________
I can't believe how strange it is to be anything at all
It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized
discipline. But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion
on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.
--Murray Rothbard
Adema3412 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2008, 04:40 PM #13
Kellster
Pretentious Hipster
 
Kellster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Praha, Česká
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adema3412 View Post
I really don't disagree with his policies, but I am bugged with his complete lack of economic knowledge, seems like he will be easily pushed around an manipulated by his advisors.
I don't think McCain is the type that will be pushed around by anyone. He certainly hasn't been by the GOP. He's a very competent leader, and will appoint a good economic advisory board.
__________________
Alabama Football
Kentucky Basketball
Kellster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2008, 04:44 PM #14
Adema3412
Give me fiction
 
Adema3412's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
 has been a member for 10 years
When you don't know **** about economics and your adviser tells you to do something, you have no other choice than to go with it.

That's my point.

My problems with McCain though are not economic, I just don't want another inept president in this sense.
__________________
I can't believe how strange it is to be anything at all
It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized
discipline. But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion
on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.
--Murray Rothbard
Adema3412 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2008, 08:36 PM #15
Kellster
Pretentious Hipster
 
Kellster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Praha, Česká
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adema3412 View Post
When you don't know **** about economics and your adviser tells you to do something, you have no other choice than to go with it.

That's my point.

My problems with McCain though are not economic, I just don't want another inept president in this sense.
Do you think Clinton or Obama know any more about economics than McCain? He just admits it. How many times in history have we had a president that is an expert at economic theory? Not many. Take what you can get, his fiscal record is actually pretty good.
__________________
Alabama Football
Kentucky Basketball
Kellster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2008, 08:45 PM #16
Adema3412
Give me fiction
 
Adema3412's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellster View Post
Do you think Clinton or Obama know any more about economics than McCain? He just admits it. How many times in history have we had a president that is an expert at economic theory? Not many. Take what you can get, his fiscal record is actually pretty good.
Obama at least had the foresight to call for a council about the housing crisis over a year ago. And yes, as a graduate from Harvard I feel confident that he has more knowledge of economics than McCain, is he an economist, no.

We really need to get one of those in office.

As far as Clinton, I couldn't care less.
__________________
I can't believe how strange it is to be anything at all
It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized
discipline. But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion
on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.
--Murray Rothbard
Adema3412 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2008, 09:00 PM #17
Furious Ge0rge (Banned)
 
Furious Ge0rge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: flag@whitehouse.gov
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellster View Post
I'd wager that he knows more about economics than you do.
I'll bet you my entire life savings he does.

...but I'm not the one running for the most powerful office in the entire world...

Oh right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellster View Post
Furthermore, I didn't say "Base your entire vote off of corporate taxes!" I said that McCain has pledged to cut corporate taxes and that you should vote for him in November. Its entirely relevant to the thread, unlike your post.
So you want me to vote for McCain because you say so? Nothing to support a reason for why I should vote for him, just 'He wants to cut corporate taxes, and you should vote for him'. I see. Carry on with your bull****.

(Wasn't that you talking about the rampant sensationalism on this forum? More iron-knee from Kellster!)

Last edited by Furious Ge0rge : 03-25-2008 at 09:03 PM.
Furious Ge0rge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2008, 09:21 PM #18
Kellster
Pretentious Hipster
 
Kellster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Praha, Česká
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adema3412 View Post
Obama at least had the foresight to call for a council about the housing crisis over a year ago. And yes, as a graduate from Harvard I feel confident that he has more knowledge of economics than McCain, is he an economist, no.

We really need to get one of those in office.

As far as Clinton, I couldn't care less.
Plenty of idiots have degrees from Harvard, what's your point? Whether or not he has "more knowledge" than McCain about economics is irrelvant, what matters is if his economic policies are smart, and I don't think so. Obama favors a protectionist stance on trade as well as greater regulation, I'll take McCain's package anyday.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious Ge0rge View Post
So you want me to vote for McCain because you say so?


I never said vote for McCain because I said so, I merely stated that he will greatly reduce corporate taxes in a thread about excessive corporate taxes with an added plug for his candidacy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious Ge0rge
Nothing to support a reason for why I should vote for him, just 'He wants to cut corporate taxes, and you should vote for him'. I see. Carry on with your bull****.
The thread is about excessive corporate taxes, McCain is the only candidate that has pledged to cut corporate taxes by 10%, I gave a reason. If you are pissed about high tax rates, as the OP appears to be, then you should strongly consider voting GOP. There are plenty of other threads filled with my reasons for a McCain presidency but this is not a McCain thread, its a corporate tax rate thread. Why would I detail reasons, other than those that concern the topic of the thread, to vote for McCain in a thread that's not about his candidacy? That does not make sense, but then again, thinking rational reasoning has never been your strong point, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious Ge0rge
(Wasn't that you talking about the rampant sensationalism on this forum? More iron-knee from Kellster!)
There was nothing 'sensationalist' about my post, I'd suggest that you look up the definition of that term. And while you're at it, look up 'moron.'
__________________
Alabama Football
Kentucky Basketball
Kellster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2008, 09:41 PM #19
Furious Ge0rge (Banned)
 
Furious Ge0rge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: flag@whitehouse.gov
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellster View Post


I never said vote for McCain because I said so, I merely stated that he will greatly reduce corporate taxes in a thread about excessive corporate taxes with an added plug for his candidacy.
A plug without any backing of facts. You said to vote for McCain. On what merit? Just vote for him to vote for him? It's funny you're trying to defend your flawed logic with even more flawed logic. Nice backtrack though. Keep going.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellster View Post
The thread is about excessive corporate taxes, McCain is the only candidate that has pledged to cut corporate taxes by 10%, I gave a reason. If you are pissed about high tax rates, as the OP appears to be, then you should strongly consider voting GOP. There are plenty of other threads filled with my reasons for a McCain presidency but this is not a McCain thread, its a corporate tax rate thread. Why would I detail reasons, other than those that concern the topic of the thread, to vote for McCain in a thread that's not about his candidacy? That does not make sense, but then again, thinking rational reasoning has never been your strong point, right?
It's kind of convenient for you to stick in a plug to vote for a guy you support, with no reasoning, and a short snippet stating he supports cutting corporate taxes. Stop trying to pin this on me. If you're going to support to OP, back him up with some logic or an article, not with a shameless plug for a guy you basically give a reach-around to in every thread, and if someone disagrees or questions you and your support, they're a joke or illogical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellster View Post
There was nothing 'sensationalist' about my post, I'd suggest that you look up the definition of that term. And while you're at it, look up 'moron.'
Not about your post, just your rampant support and distaste for anyone who doesn't support McCain, as pointed out in other threads.
Furious Ge0rge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2008, 09:51 PM #20
Adema3412
Give me fiction
 
Adema3412's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
 has been a member for 10 years
Here's an actual article with some explanation

Quote:
Congress finally passed a stimulus package after stripping out most elements that would stimulate long-term economic growth. However, the plan includes an accelerated depreciation provision that will be beneficial if it is later made permanent. A new corporate tax survey by KPMG makes clear that this is only the first of many needed business tax reforms in the United States.

KPMG found that the United States has the fourth highest corporate income tax rate in the 30-nation Organiza-tion for Economic Co-operation and Development.[1] The combined U.S. federal and average state rate of 40 percent is almost 9 percentage points higher than the average OECD top corporate rate of 31.4 percent.[2] Only Belgium, Italy, and Japan have higher rates than that of the United States.

This is a dramatic reversal of the U.S. tax situation. After cutting the federal corporate rate from 46 percent to 34 percent in 1986, policymakers fell asleep at the switch, perhaps assuming that the U.S. had claimed a low-tax advantage permanently. But most industrial countries followed the U.S. lead and cut tax rates in the late 1980s. Another round of tax rate cuts began in the late 1990s, with the average OECD corporate rate falling from 37.6 percent in 1996 to just 31.4 percent by 2002 (see Figure 1). The average corporate rate in the European Union is now 32.5 percent, down from 38.2 percent in 1996.

Figure 1

We sometimes dismiss European countries as uncompetitive welfare states and ignore the fact that many have improved their business climates. In fact, a recent study by the Economist Intelligence Unit placed the United States second, behind the Netherlands, for the "best place in the world to conduct business."[3] And a study by GrowthPlus, a European think tank, compared 10 major countries to determine which had the best environment for entrepreneurial growth companies.[4] Again, the United States finished second, this time behind Britain.

In the last few years, the corporate tax rate was cut in Denmark, France, Ireland, Germany, Poland, and Portugal, as well as many countries outside of Europe (see Figure 2). Even socialistic Sweden has a top corporate tax rate of just 28 percent. It is certainly true that overall European taxes, when measured as a share of gross domestic product, are much higher than U.S. taxes. However, Europe has shifted about one-third of its overall tax burden to less distortionary consumption taxes.[5]

Figure 2

What the Europeans and others are realizing is that countries shoot themselves in the foot by imposing high tax rates on mobile capital income. Data from the International Monetary Fund data show that annual global portfolio investment rose six-fold during the past decade.[6] United Nations data show that global direct investment also rose six-fold during this period.[7] The United States attracts a big share of these flows because of its large economy, stable currency, and strong growth. But investment flows are increasingly sensitive to taxes, so it makes less and less sense to have a high corporate rate. After all, last year's recession, the Enron collapse, and the high-tech bust show that the U.S. business sector is not as invincible as it seemed in the late 1990s.

A high statutory rate is not the only aspect of U.S. business taxation that needs reform. Aside from making the new depreciation rules permanent, the U.S. should switch to a "territorial" tax system from the current complex and uncompetitive system that taxes U.S. firms on their worldwide income. Glenn Hubbard, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, has noted that "from an income tax perspective, the United States has become one of the least attractive industrial countries in which to locate the headquarters of a multinational corporation."[8] As a consequence, there has been a "marked increase" in the number of U.S. firms reincorporating abroad, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.[9] Shouldn't the United States be trying to attract businesses, rather than drive them away?

The critics will say that big corporations and their shareholders should pay their "fair share" of taxes, and that the government needs to crack down on tax-avoiders such as Enron. Such views ignore big picture realities. First, the huge rise in global capital flows means that the corporate tax burden probably falls more on immobile workers and less on the mobile capital income that it is ostensibly intended for. Second, the high corporate tax rate is the reason why Enron and other firms go to such wasteful lengths to avoid taxes. If the United States were to cut its corporate rate to, say, 20 percent, not only would real capital investment increase, but firms would financially restructure in order to shift more of their global tax base into this country.

As the world economy changes, so must U.S. tax policy. Pressures to attract mobile capital through international "tax competition" will continue to increase. These trends dictate that the U.S. reform its tax system by moving away from a high-rate income tax to a low-rate consumption-based tax.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0204.html
__________________
I can't believe how strange it is to be anything at all
It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized
discipline. But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion
on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.
--Murray Rothbard
Adema3412 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2008, 09:52 PM #21
Truthiness
 
 
Truthiness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
When I read about how much control, say, the pharmaceutical industry has WITHIN the FDA in regards to regulating which foods are harmful and which are not, it just makes me ****ing hate corporations.

For example I just read in the magazine "Nutrition Action", almost all plastic products, and cans used for canned foods, have some amount of BPA in them, a chemical a bit similiar to estrogen, can cause prostate and breast cancer.

However, 100% of the studies done by industried producing products with BPA found that there was no danger.

I don't even know why those bastards are allowed to do studies on their own products. There are no checks and balances.
Truthiness is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump