General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSen. Bernie Sanders says White House could end corporate tax breaks by executive order
Sen. Bernie Sanders says White House could end corporate tax breaks by executive order. WSJ:
"He called on the administration to curb six specific tax breaks through executive action that could raise $100 billion over 10 years ... Three of the breaks were created through administrative actions or regulation, which means President Barack Obama could use executive powers to void them. The other three could be closed through regulatory powers delegated to the Treasury Department, Mr. Sanders said."
More
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/03/01/sanders-to-obama-dont-wait-for-congress-on-tax-overhauls/?mod=WSJBlog
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Autumn
(45,084 posts)kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)
madokie
(51,076 posts)The filthy rich need to be paying their fair share and if they were we wouldn't be in the dire strait we're in today. They'll have to be made to do it thats for sure. Not an honest bone in the body of the whole lot of 'em.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)will do little (if anything) to have the wealthy pay their fair share ... these are corporate taxes, not taxes on individuals.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)If we tax corporate income at 100%, it will not significantly change the income of wealthy ... nor, will it close the rich/poor income gap(absent a direct revenue transfer).
Oh, never mind.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Pointing out that raising corporate taxes will not affect the tax rate of the wealthy (which is what the person I was responding to indicated), is not arguing against raising the corporate taxes.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... may be lost on you.
Technically you were correct that closing the loopholes wouldn't raise the tax rates of the wealthy but you were incorrect in regard to the previous poster's position that this would help make the "filthy rich" pay "their fair share". He/she said nothing about their personal taxrates, yet that's what you chose to address. Fact is, the "filthy rich" would see their corporate profits dip, so yes, the they would pay closer to their fair share.
More importantly, your post seems (to me at least) to be constructed to discredit the idea of closing these loopholds. If your intent was not to make a case against raising corporate taxes, then what was your intent?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)you're trying ...desperately ... to have me say what you want me to have said.
Did I say, desperately? No I didn't and there is no "nuance." And No ...raising corporate tax rates have little to no effect on individual tax rates.
I could say the Earth is round and it would seem to you I was engaging in some nefarious plan to discredit something or another ... IOW, you are just looking for a reason to argue ... even if you have to make something up - as you have here.
What was my intent? ... To dispel the mistaken notion that closing these loopholds{sic} would have the wealthy pay their fair share.
I support closing the corporate loopholes, if for no other reasons, it would make some of the largest corporations PAY taxes, in the first place. AND, I support closing the loop-holes that allow the wealthy to NOT pay their fair share.
Now, there's some nuance for you.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)And they'll raise prices to make up the cost of the additional taxes.
I'm all for raising individual income tax rates for the wealthy, but I see no huge gain in raising corporate income tax.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Raising prices doesn't ameliorate tax burden, as taxes are paid on after-expense revenue.
But you know what raising corporate taxes WILL do (and the only real way to do that is via closing loop-holes) ... incentivize corporations to invest revenue in themselves, e.g., hire employees, give pay raises to current employees, purchase the capital equipment that is the revenue of other companies that will need/want to reduce their tax burden.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)However, raising prices still helps maintain profits at or near the pre-increase levels.
If unit cost, including overhead, is .20, and the price is $1.00, a 35% tax on .80 yields a .28 tax, which in turn leaves .52 in after-tax profit.
Raise the tax to 40%, keep the price at $1.00, and you're left with .48 in after-tax profit. Raise the price to $1.07, and you're back at .52 in after-tax profit.
If you think businesses won't raise prices in order to maintain their profits, we'll just agree to disagree.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)If so, then it seems like a good thing. 
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)It depends on how that additional revenue is spent ... a direct revenue transfer to the working poor or an increase in the social safety, would be a good thing; the purchase of another fighter jet or subsidies to fund more for-profit charter schools, would be a not so good thing.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)
Quackers
(2,256 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)adjust your finger position on your keyboard? 
Quackers
(2,256 posts)That's what I get for thinking she's playing the counting game on my iPad.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Who wants to play the counting game, when you can engage in political discourse!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But why should a President be worried about congressional reaction with two years remaining in his/her term and opposition control of both chambers of congress?
But, I found this interesting ...
I wonder what that reply will be and whether Sanders will share it with the American people?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but prefers a legislative (i.e., longer term) fix ... that's probably why he put the loophole closing in his budget.
Problem is, if he closes the loopholes via Executive Order, (the now-republican controlled) Congress gets to decide how the additional money is spent.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)we are two years away from even getting the chance to start working on it.
Where a pen stroke now would begin the job.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the Executive Order route gives the republican controlled Congress control over how the money is spent.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)even if you have to change direction later. Then to just stand still.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the loop-holes are closed in President Obama's budget.
And, I think it's better to stand still, than to head off in a direction that'll prevent you from getting where you what to end up.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)nothing wrong with honest disagreement.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)... in favor of a long-term legislated solution doesn't make any sense. He should close them and make the Republicans legislate them back if they want to take the heat for that.
As for how they spend the money, that's really lame, especially when the President has veto power. The Congress could certainly close them without legislating how the money would be used.
It's hard to come to grips with any rationale he might be using other than he doesn't want to offend the beneficiaries of these loopholes.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)He's playing twelve dimensional chess you know. And he is not a king. And as a lame duck he is going to release his inner Marxist. Yada yada
B Calm
(28,762 posts)duck!
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Many reasons doing this would be a really bad idea. I am pretty sure just about every duer can figure them out. Also, looks like he is talking about drips in a bucket.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)So if Obama agrees with Sanders and issues an executive order that closes corporate loop holes, would you still call it foolish and a really bad idea?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I would also cheer the move. It isn't a black and white issue. When an R becomes President during a down economy, starts talking about the benefits of these "tax breaks" for job creation, and unilaterally does them, will you cheer? I know you won't, but you would be supporting the process.
Once again, this would be a major move for mere drops in a bucket.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)Imagine if Obama had ended these loopholes via EO 6 years ago. Can you give us an idea of what the value of those drops in the bucket could have been?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Mere drops in the bucket. About the same as when a republican president puts them back in place. If I remember correctly the feds bring in 2+ trillion annually.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But I doubt it will happen ... President Obama doesn't make foolishly short-sighted moves.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)a headline, I'd be so much more impressed. Seems that so many "progressive" groups are now in favor of limitless EO's & signing statements when they used to be so opposed to this kind of unitary action. EO's are temporary, and last only as long as the person who signs them.
