Bush Wants To Cut Corporate Tax Rates

[red states rule]

This should help expand the US economy even more. More jobs, increased wages, and more economic growth

Of course, Dems are pissing their pants


Bush May Try to Cut Corporate Tax Rates
President Cites Need To Compete Globally

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 9, 2007; Page A01

President Bush said yesterday that he is considering a fresh plan to cut tax rates for U.S. corporations to make them more competitive around the world, an initiative that could further inflame a battle with the Democratic Congress over spending and taxes and help define the remainder of his tenure.

Advisers presented Bush with a series of ideas to restructure corporate taxes, possibly eliminating narrowly targeted breaks to pay for a broader, across-the-board rate cut. In an interview with a small group of journalists afterward, Bush said he was "inclined" to send a corporate tax package to Congress, although he expressed uncertainty about its political viability.

The president's comments came as he tried to calm volatile stock and mortgage markets and reassure the country that the economy is fundamentally strong. Despite mounting concern over the downturn in the housing market, he dismissed proposals advanced by prominent Democrats to grant government-chartered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac more freedom to buy mortgages and mortgage-backed securities. And he ruled out any taxpayer bailout of lenders threatened by the subprime home-loan crisis.

In a 48-minute conversation on an array of economic issues, Bush also warned China not to start a trade war, blamed Congress for not doing more to shore up infrastructure such as the bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis last week, and pushed back against Democratic presidential candidates who are promising to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The focus on economic issues on Bush's last day in Washington before leaving town today for most of the rest of the month reflected a White House strategy to confront Democrats on tax and spending issues. With most of his second-term domestic legislative agenda in tatters and his strategy in Iraq under bipartisan fire, Bush appears eager to return to familiar issues that animated the beginning of his presidency and might rally disaffected Republicans behind him again.

Appearing before cameras at the Treasury Department alongside his economic team, the president vowed to veto spending bills that exceed his targets, and he accused Democrats of plotting the largest tax increase in history to fund an additional $205 billion in discretionary spending over five years.

"Put another way, it's about $1,300 in higher spending every second of every minute of every hour of every day of every year for the next five years," he said. "Now, somebody is going to have to pay for it. And that, of course, will be the hardworking American people. . . . I will use the veto to keep your taxes low and to keep federal spending under control."

Democrats quickly returned fire, noting that Bush inherited a surplus that turned into a deficit and that he never vetoed a spending bill during the six years that Republicans controlled Capitol Hill, even as the budget grew by 50 percent.

"After six years of reckless spending in Washington, President Bush is the last person who should brag about fiscal responsibility," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). She accused the president of misrepresenting Democratic spending plans, which she said come in lower than his and have received some Republican support. And she said Bush wants "to spend $2,800 each second . . . to keep our troops in the middle of a civil war in Iraq."

Bush did not mention his potential plan to cut corporate tax rates during his televised statement, but he discussed it in response to questions during the later session with reporters. The idea would again put him at odds with Democrats at a time when they are talking about letting his first-term tax cuts expire for the wealthiest Americans. Rather than just defending his past program, Bush seems interested in pushing the tax issue further to the fore.

Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. briefed Bush yesterday morning on various possibilities for overhauling a corporate tax structure that he considers disadvantageous for U.S. business. A paper Paulson released last month said the corporate tax rate could be reduced from 35 percent to 27 percent by scrapping the research-and-development tax credit, a deduction for domestic production, breaks for interest on state and local bonds, and other special tax breaks.

The administration said the U.S. corporate tax rate, once modest compared with international competitors, is now second only to Japan's among 30 member states in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Moreover, officials said, Germany, France, Japan, Britain and China have signaled that they will or may cut their rates.

"Our tax structure makes us less competitive, and if we want to be a competitive nation, we've got to analyze a lot of things, including taxes, dependence on oil or good education policy," Bush said. "And so we will work through possible suggestions for Congress."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/08/AR2007080802468.html?hpid=topnews

[PostmodernProphet]

I would eliminate all corporate taxes to be replaced by a proportionate increase of personal income taxes on dividends......

I would also be in favor of eliminating the deductibility of all perks paid to employees, lobbying, corporate political contributions, and corporate charitable contributions.......

[red states rule]

I would eliminate all corporate taxes to be replaced by a proportionate increase of personal income taxes on dividends......

I would also be in favor of eliminating the deductibility of all perks paid to employees, lobbying, corporate political contributions, and corporate charitable contributions.......

So raise taxes on the people who invest, take risk, and even retired folks?

I am sure raising the cost of doing business will help with the unemployment rate, and economic expansion

[red states rule]

At Presidential Press Conference, Reporters Push Bush to Agree to Raise Taxes
By Brent Baker | August 10, 2007 - 01:44 ET
At President Bush's Thursday morning press conference, an Associated Press reporter pressed Bush about raising the gas tax to pay for bridge repairs, an ABC News correspondent described Bush's refusal to hike taxes, while paying for the Iraq war, as in conflict with doing “justice” for “government needs” for bridges and housing and, afterward, CBS's Katie Couric rued how Bush “seemed to dismiss the notion of raising the federal gas tax.” CBS reporter Jim Axelrod observed that Bush sees his “strong record as a tax cutter” as part of his legacy and “so even with something as pressing the imagery of the bridges and the infrastructure needs, he can’t be seen as calling for a tax increase, even to address that.”

In the first question at the 10:30am EDT session, the AP's Terry Hunt cited how House “Transportation Committee members are recommending an increase in federal gasoline taxes to pay for repairs. Would you be willing to go along with an increase in gasoline taxes of five cents a gallon or more?” Later, Ann Compton of ABC News reminded Bush it's “been clear you don't want to raise taxes. Can you do justice to the kind of programs the government needs for bridges, for housing, and also continue to spend as much as you do on the war in Iraq?” As for news reports that Bush wishes to cut corporate taxes, Mark Smith of Associated Press radio turned sarcastic: “Do you believe America's corporations are not making enough money these days?”

The MRC's Rich Noyes checked the White House transcript against the video for these questions, at the August 9 press conference, which conveyed liberal talking points:


# Terry Hunt, Associated Press: "Mr. President, former Chairman of the House Transportation Committee, Republican Don Young, says there are about 500 bridges around the country like the one that collapsed in Minneapolis last week. And Young and other Transportation Committee members are recommending an increase in federal gasoline taxes to pay for repairs. Would you be willing to go along with an increase in gasoline taxes of five cents a gallon or more?"

# Jim Axelrod, CBS News: "Mr. President, I was talking with a journalist about an hour ago in Baghdad who says to be a cynic in Iraq is to be naive at this point, that there is discernable progress, undeniable progress on the battlefield, but there is just as discernable and undeniable lack of progress on political reconciliation. Given the premise of the surge is to give the Iraqi government breathing space to gets its business done, given that they're not getting their business done, are the American people entitled to hear from you more than, 'I've told Prime Minister Maliki he's got to do better?'"

# Peter Baker, Washington Post: "Thank you, sir. A two-part question. The New Yorker reports that the Red Cross has found the interrogation program in the CIA detention facilities used interrogation techniques that were tantamount to torture. I'm wondering if you have read that report and what your reaction to it is? And the second part of the question is, more than a year ago you said that you wanted to close the detention facility at Guantanamo, and a year later nothing has actually happened in that regard. Your Vice President, Attorney General and Homeland Security Secretary are reported to be resisting such a move. I wonder if you could tell us who's really in charge on this issue, are you doing anything about it, do you expect Guantanamo to be open or closed when you leave office?"

# Mark Smith, Associated Press Radio: "Mr. President, are you considering a plan to cut corporate taxes? Do you believe America's corporations are not making enough money these days?"

# Ann Compton, ABC News: "You've been clear about saying that you will veto overspending by Congress when they come back next month to do appropriations bills. You've also been clear you don't want to raise taxes. Can you do justice to the kind of programs the government needs for bridges, for housing, and also continue to spend as much as you do on the war in Iraq?"

# David Greene, National Public Radio: "Mr. President, I wanted to ask you about accountability. You're a big believer in it, you've talked about it with regard to the public schools. But given the performance of Iraqi leaders, given your decision to commute the sentence of Lewis Libby, you've also stood by the Attorney General recently -- there have been a lot of questions about your commitment to accountability. And I'm wondering if you could give the American people some clear examples of how you've held people accountable during your presidency?....If I could follow -- sorry. Given the decision to commute the sentence of Libby and given the performance of Iraqi leaders, is it fair for people to ask questions about your commitment to accountability?"

The MRC's Justin McCarthy took down this post-press conference exchange between CBS News anchor Katie Couric and White House correspondent Jim Axelrod:


COURIC: Let’s go to Jim Axelrod who is in the White House briefing room. Jim I’m surprised the President wasn’t really pushed more on infrastructure questions, and he seemed to dismiss the notion of raising the federal gas tax to pay for some, what, quarter of the American bridges that are in desperate need of repair. Do you think the pressure will continue on him to do something about setting his spending priorities, or, or, setting different priorities when it comes to federal spending?

AXELROD: I don’t think there’s any question about that. Congress will continue to push for it. But the President was very clear, sort of underscoring a philosophical underpinning of his, which is that you don’t need to raise taxes, you just need to be more careful about how you are spending money, especially when it comes to those infrastructure, transportation related expenditures. He was saying, “look, a lot of money gets appropriated for transportation in this country. It’s up to Congress if they want to spend it different, for instance, in pursuit of infrastructure needs. It’s up to Congress to spend it more efficiently and better.” But he was clear that he doesn’t, he doesn’t support any sort of gas tax related tax increase.

COURIC: And, and Jim, his comments were really pointed in terms of really accusing committee members of, of, of financing and funding pet projects first and foremost, and than really caring about the nation’s infrastructure as a whole as a secondary issue.

AXELROD: I think as the President gets further and further along in his presidency and begins to think more of legacies issues, one of the things that is most closely associated with the President, obviously is the strong record as a tax cutter. He is tied to this in terms of history, and so even with something as pressing the imagery of the bridges and the infrastructure needs, he can’t be seen as calling for a tax increase, even to address that. So it becomes a question of how you’re going to justify getting the money spent there, but not doing so by calling for a tax increase.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2007/08/10/presidential-press-conference-reporters-push-bush-agree-raise-taxes


The liberal media continue to push the Dems agenda of tax and spend

[red states rule]

I would eliminate all corporate taxes to be replaced by a proportionate increase of personal income taxes on dividends......

I would also be in favor of eliminating the deductibility of all perks paid to employees, lobbying, corporate political contributions, and corporate charitable contributions.......

Seems the NY Times is upset over Pres Bush not raising taxes

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/10/washington/10bush.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1186741503-x5QS/xT3HJ5LMFEas90iBA

[PostmodernProphet]

So raise taxes on the people who invest, take risk, and even retired folks?


stop and think, red, they are already paying the same tax through the corporation....the ones who benefit are the small investors.....those who don't hold enough shares to warrant a position on the board of directors....those who can't bleed the profits of the corporation to themselves in the form of perks to board members and golden parachutes......

[PostmodernProphet]

Seems the NY Times is upset over Pres Bush not raising taxes


??.....so what does that have to do with my post?

[red states rule]

stop and think, red, they are already paying the same tax through the corporation....the ones who benefit are the small investors.....those who don't hold enough shares to warrant a position on the board of directors....those who can't bleed the profits of the corporation to themselves in the form of perks to board members and golden parachutes......

Someone always pays the taxes for the corproations. Companies never pay the taxes placed on them - their customers do

The more taxes you repeal on business the better it will be for everyone

[red states rule]

??.....so what does that have to do with my post?

Pointing out whatever the NY Times wants is usually bad for America

[Black Lance]

I don't know about this proposal. Reducing the corporate tax would stimulate growth, but it would also reduce tax incomes at a time when we are already going massively into deficit.

[JohnDoe]

Someone always pays the taxes for the corproations. Companies never pay the taxes placed on them - their customers do

The more taxes you repeal on business the better it will be for everyoneBut those buying the products that these corporations have to sell along with the stock owners when they sell and make a profit, SHOULD be the ones reponsible for paying the tax NOT THOSE who have nothing to do with the corporation or its products?

to me, it is ok that it is covered by incorporating the corporate tax in to the wholesale price of their product, and that the customer that buys the corp product, helps pay the gvt tax....

it certainly should not be me, someone who has nothing to do with the corporation, paying their share of federal income tax! ;)

[Mr. P]

But those buying the products that these corporations have to sell along with the stock owners when they sell and make a profit, SHOULD be the ones reponsible for paying the tax NOT THOSE who have nothing to do with the corporation or its products?

to me, it is ok that it is covered by incorporating the corporate tax in to the wholesale price of their product, and that the customer that buys the corp product, helps pay the gvt tax....

it certainly should not be me, someone who has nothing to do with the corporation, paying their share of federal income tax! ;)

ALL cost of business are incorporated into the retail price, period.
We pay these costs even at Mom an Pop stores.

[PostmodernProphet]

Pointing out whatever the NY Times wants is usually bad for America


then why quote MY post?.....

[PostmodernProphet]

The more taxes you repeal on business the better it will be for everyone


then why are you arguing with me?.....I proposed we eliminate them.....

[Black Lance]

ALL cost of business are incorporated into the retail price, period.
We pay these costs even at Mom an Pop stores.

Taxes on corporations are partially paid by consumers, but they are also paid in part out of corporate profits. Businesses will pass on as much of the tax burden as they can to consumers by raising prices, but these higher prices will result in lower sales revenues, so corporations usually end up having to pay some of the tax out of their accounting profits. How much of the tax gets passed on to consumers, and how much the companies pay, varies with the industry, and the qualities of individual companies.

Personally, I don't like the idea of lowering corporate taxes right now. The government is already massively in debt due to the Iraq war, and much of that deficit is being bought up by foreign speculators, with the result that all the interest lpaid on this debt is leaving our economy. Lowering corporate taxes might boost GDP growth, as most taxes do, but we would have to make up the lost revenue somehow, and since corporations are already posting record profits the effect of adding to their bottom lines might not be all that great.

[Mr. P]

Taxes on corporations are partially paid by consumers, but they are also paid in part out of corporate profits. Businesses will pass on as much of the tax burden as they can to consumers by raising prices, but these higher prices will result in lower sales revenues, so corporations usually end up having to pay some of the tax out of their accounting profits. How much of the tax gets passed on to consumers, and how much the companies pay, varies with the industry, and the qualities of individual companies.

Personally, I don't like the idea of lowering corporate taxes right now. The government is already massively in debt due to the Iraq war, and much of that deficit is being bought up by foreign speculators, with the result that all the interest lpaid on this debt is leaving our economy. Lowering corporate taxes might boost GDP growth, as most taxes do, but we would have to make up the lost revenue somehow, and since corporations are already posting record profits the effect of adding to their bottom lines might not be all that great.

You keep believing corps pay some tax. 100% of their profit is due to sales, purchases by the public. So the reality is that it is the buyer that pays the tax NOT the corp. If you still think a corp pays tax, I'd ask this, if a corp has no sales do they still pay tax? No.

[Black Lance]

You keep believing corps pay some tax. 100% of their profit is due to sales, purchases by the public. So the reality is that it is the buyer that pays the tax NOT the corp. If you still think a corp pays tax, I'd ask this, if a corp has no sales do they still pay tax? No.

That logic is like saying that all taxes on wages are paid by employers, because employers provide wages for workers. Yes, corporations make their profit through sales, but the companies pay the taxes, in part, out of income that would otherwise be theirs to dispose of.

[red states rule]

I don't know about this proposal. Reducing the corporate tax would stimulate growth, but it would also reduce tax incomes at a time when we are already going massively into deficit.

The deficit has fallen for the last four years in a row. Revenues are at record levels and still climbing

[red states rule]

But those buying the products that these corporations have to sell along with the stock owners when they sell and make a profit, SHOULD be the ones reponsible for paying the tax NOT THOSE who have nothing to do with the corporation or its products?

to me, it is ok that it is covered by incorporating the corporate tax in to the wholesale price of their product, and that the customer that buys the corp product, helps pay the gvt tax....

it certainly should not be me, someone who has nothing to do with the corporation, paying their share of federal income tax! ;)

The problem is, libs keep increasing what they consider everyones "fair share"

I am waiting for the left to say there will be a 100% tax rate and we will all be put on an allowance by the government

[Mr. P]

That logic is like saying that all taxes on wages are paid by employers, because employers provide wages for workers. Yes, corporations make their profit through sales, but the companies pay the taxes, in part, out of income that would otherwise be theirs to dispose of.

Ok..Let me put it this way...yes, technically they pay tax, realistically the tax they pay is COLLECTED from their customers in the retail price. So who is really paying?

[red states rule]

Ok..Let me put it this way...yes, technically they pay tax, realistically the tax they pay is COLLECTED from their customers in the retail price. So who is really paying?

We are

[Black Lance]

The deficit has fallen for the last four years in a row. Revenues are at record levels and still climbing

Yes, but given the massive deficits incurred by the current administration to fight the war in Iraq, I would rather not see the deficit raised, again, just to lower taxes for companies that are already making record profits.

[Black Lance]

Ok..Let me put it this way...yes, technically they pay tax, realistically the tax they pay is COLLECTED from their customers in the retail price. So who is really paying?

Yes, but in order to collect the tax from the consumer they have to raise the price of their good or service, which almost always results in lower sales. As such, companies can rarely pass on the whole cost of a new tax to the consumer.

In practice, companies tend to make the decision about how much of the tax burden to recover in the retail price based on sales projetions: if they think sales won't be seriously affected, they'll raise prices to recover the tax expense, whereas if they think an increase in price will have a significant impact on sales, they'll tend to pay more of the tax themselves. This is because raising the retail price requires expenses that simply paying the tax avoids: menu costs, increased market research to reduce uncertainty, personnel hours required to complete any re-organization of the firm rendered neccessary by lower predicted sales, so on.

[red states rule]

Yes, but given the massive deficits incurred by the current administration to fight the war in Iraq, I would rather not see the deficit raised, again, just to lower taxes for companies that are already making record profits.

Nut again, companies are ot paying the taxes - we are. It is a tax cut for us

[JohnDoe]

Nut again, companies are ot paying the taxes - we are. It is a tax cut for us
Good morning RSR,

NO it isn't a tax cut for ALL OF US.

It is a tax cut ONLY for the people that buy what the corporation is selling.

And with all of this over budget spending, this would also mean that we would have to borrow the money from China to fund the tax cut.

And we are in SUCH DEEP DO DO with borrowing all of this money from China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They are now threatening to DUMP all of the USA treasuries that they own if we continue to rag them on all of the lead paint in toys and rotten tires that split and fall apart, and poison in dog and cat food and poison in toothpaste
recalls that we have issued!

THIS WILL PLUMMET the value of the USA Dollar!

we are in a world of poop because of all of the BORROW AND SPENDING that this administration has persued....

China controls us and the value of the USA dollar now and if they dump their treasuries, the estimate is that the DOLLAR could drop as much as 27% in its value!!!

[Black Lance]

Nut again, companies are ot paying the taxes - we are. It is a tax cut for us

I am disputing that claim, see the post above yours.

[manu1959]

Yes, but given the massive deficits incurred by the current administration to fight the war in Iraq, I would rather not see the deficit raised, again, just to lower taxes for companies that are already making record profits.

why is making money a bad thing?

why is having stock in a company a bad thing? don't the investors deserve a return?

why do assume profits are not spent creating more jobs? profits are used to expand companies and create more jobs...

profits are disburssed to the investors.....investors are taxed at 33%....the gov't gets it cut and so do all the slackers....

[Sitarro]

why is making money a bad thing?

why is having stock in a company a bad thing? don't the investors deserve a return?

why do assume profits are not spent creating more jobs? profits are used to expand companies and create more jobs...

profits are disburssed to the investors.....investors are taxed at 33%....the gov't gets it cut and so do all the slackers....

That is the crux of it all..... they don't understand who a corporation is. They have been led to believe that corporations are nothing but a bunch of evil, rich, white men enslaving the poor to do their work for them. They don't get the concept of investors or the fact that investors are you and me and our parents.

[JohnDoe]

why is making money a bad thing?

why is having stock in a company a bad thing? don't the investors deserve a return?

why do assume profits are not spent creating more jobs? profits are used to expand companies and create more jobs...

profits are disburssed to the investors.....investors are taxed at 33%....the gov't gets it cut and so do all the slackers....
What? Investors are not taxed until they sell their investment, and then, IF they made a capital gains from this investment when they sell it, they are taxed at ONLY 15% NOT 33%?????

[JohnDoe]

the WORKERS, are making the investors their profits.... without workers, there is no corporation or business to invest in for the most part....

increased profits should be SHARED with the workers that made it happen, instead....the CEO's are taking much of this excess profits and increasing disproportionately their portions of this profit money grab, leaving the workers with less and escentially ripping the stockholder off too by paying themselves much more than they deserve as a single individual.... imo...

anyway, corps are trying to put in new rules about this, to govern themselves, before Congress gets in to the middle of it.....from what i have read on it!

[Black Lance]

why is making money a bad thing?

why is having stock in a company a bad thing? don't the investors deserve a return?

why do assume profits are not spent creating more jobs? profits are used to expand companies and create more jobs...

profits are disburssed to the investors.....investors are taxed at 33%....the gov't gets it cut and so do all the slackers....

Making money isn't a bad thing, but it's questionable wisdom to deficit spend in order to prime a sector of the economy that is already performing exceptionally well.

[Mr. P]

What? Investors are not taxed until they sell their investment, and then, IF they made a capital gains from this investment when they sell it, they are taxed at ONLY 15% NOT 33%?????

The rate depends on the individual tax bracket and whether the gain is short term or long term.

Tax bracket......Short-term rate.........Long-term rate
10%...................10%......................5%
15%...................15%......................5%
25%...................25%......................5%
28%...................28%......................15%
33%...................33%......................15%
35%...................35%......................15%

Short term is 12 months or less.

[JohnDoe]

The rate depends on the individual tax bracket and whether the gain is short term or long term.

Tax bracket......Short-term rate.........Long-term rate
10%...................10%......................5%
15%...................15%......................5%
25%...................25%......................5%
28%...................28%......................15%
33%...................33%......................15%
35%...................35%......................15%

Short term is 12 months or less.
yes, I was not thinking about short term rates and the 5% rate for those that earn alot less....

though those that earn alot less are involved with the stock market in the 401k's and in general, stock moves are not taxed untill they take their money out of their 401k's money markets or stocks or whatever...after retirement age.... right?

[Mr. P]

yes, I was not thinking about short term rates and the 5% rate for those that earn alot less....

though those that earn alot less are involved with the stock market in the 401k's and in general, stock moves are not taxed untill they take their money out of their 401k's money markets or stocks or whatever...after retirement age.... right?

Right, but in a 401k 0r IRA tax is assessed on income at the time of withdrawal only (the withdrawal is considered income not cap gains).
IRA and 401k withdrawals are treated as income since they are tax free contributions to start with. The gains are not taxed separate. If you have a ROTH IRA tax is pre-payed at deposit and no additional tax is due regardless of the gain.

[PostmodernProphet]

Investors are not taxed until they sell their investment

??...uh, JD....corporations distribute profits by means of dividends.....dividends are taxable income.....capital gains come into the picture if you sell your stock for a higher amount than you paid for it.......

[JohnDoe]

??...uh, JD....corporations distribute profits by means of dividends.....dividends are taxable income.....capital gains come into the picture if you sell your stock for a higher amount than you paid for it.......Dividends...gees I forgot about those...you are right!

But, dividends are also only taxed at the 15%, not taxed at your income bracket's rate....at least not anymore, I think this was also part of the Bush Tax cuts?

And, since I have made a couple of mistakes already tonight, you might want to check me on that! But I am pretty sure I am right...though dividends might also have 2 rates as with long term capital gains like 15% and 5%??? :D lol

[PostmodernProphet]

actually, dividends are reported on the same schedule as interest income, and are added into your taxable income before tax calculation.....thus, they will be taxed at whatever your tax rate is.......

[red states rule]

Good morning RSR,

NO it isn't a tax cut for ALL OF US.

It is a tax cut ONLY for the people that buy what the corporation is selling.

And with all of this over budget spending, this would also mean that we would have to borrow the money from China to fund the tax cut.

And we are in SUCH DEEP DO DO with borrowing all of this money from China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They are now threatening to DUMP all of the USA treasuries that they own if we continue to rag them on all of the lead paint in toys and rotten tires that split and fall apart, and poison in dog and cat food and poison in toothpaste
recalls that we have issued!

THIS WILL PLUMMET the value of the USA Dollar!

we are in a world of poop because of all of the BORROW AND SPENDING that this administration has persued....

China controls us and the value of the USA dollar now and if they dump their treasuries, the estimate is that the DOLLAR could drop as much as 27% in its value!!!

It is a tax cut for the customers of the company, the exployees of the company, the suppliers of the company, the trucking companies who deliver the good to and for the company

It has a ripple effect throughout the economy. Tax cuts do benefit everyone not just the person or company gettting them

[red states rule]

What? Investors are not taxed until they sell their investment, and then, IF they made a capital gains from this investment when they sell it, they are taxed at ONLY 15% NOT 33%?????

If you raise the tax, you are going to hinder investment and risk taking. I will never understand why liberals want to PUNISH achievement

[JohnDoe]

If you raise the tax, you are going to hinder investment and risk taking. I will never understand why liberals want to PUNISH achievementWhy should owners of corporations pay LESS in taxes than someone who has worked very hard for their money? Why do you NOT want to reward everyone that is improving their lives by working hard, and give them the same advantage and tax break that you think owners of corporations who sit back and do nothing, should get?

I have no problems with giving tax breaks, they just should NOT be so heavily weighted towards the wealthiest and more for the working man who busts his butt to improve and better his life. The upper middle class is getting whacked bigtime on taxes.

[Mr. P]

Why should owners of corporations pay LESS in taxes than someone who has worked very hard for their money? Why do you NOT want to reward everyone that is improving their lives by working hard, and give them the same advantage and tax break that you think owners of corporations who sit back and do nothing, should get?

I have no problems with giving tax breaks, they just should NOT be so heavily weighted towards the wealthiest and more for the working man who busts his butt to improve and better his life. The upper middle class is getting whacked bigtime on taxes.

But the upper middle class are considered rich by most left wingers, so whack the shit out of em! How can you complain about that?

Now how to fix it. There's only one way, the 'fair tax'.

[JohnDoe]

But the upper middle class are considered rich by most left wingers, so whack the shit out of em! How can you complain about that?

Now how to fix it. There's only one way, the 'fair tax'.


Most left wingers consider $250k and higher as well to do, you are right....

I consider upper middle class to about a half million....and could be persueded to think the upper middle goes to a million, in this day and age.... :)

[red states rule]

Why should owners of corporations pay LESS in taxes than someone who has worked very hard for their money? Why do you NOT want to reward everyone that is improving their lives by working hard, and give them the same advantage and tax break that you think owners of corporations who sit back and do nothing, should get?

I have no problems with giving tax breaks, they just should NOT be so heavily weighted towards the wealthiest and more for the working man who busts his butt to improve and better his life. The upper middle class is getting whacked bigtime on taxes.

The owners of the corporations finance the lifestyles of their employees. provide income to their investors and stock holders, and fuel the economy with their companies

Again, the top 1% of the eage earners pay 37% of all Federal Income Taxes - there is the unfairness

The middle class WILL get whacked if the Dems get their way - they voted to repeal all the Bush tax cuts

[actsnoblemartin]

Someone Please explain the difference between corporate taxes and corporate welfare

and why cutting corporate taxes is a good thing.

thanks


Thank You
This should help expand the US economy even more. More jobs, increased wages, and more economic growth

Of course, Dems are pissing their pants


Bush May Try to Cut Corporate Tax Rates
President Cites Need To Compete Globally

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 9, 2007; Page A01

President Bush said yesterday that he is considering a fresh plan to cut tax rates for U.S. corporations to make them more competitive around the world, an initiative that could further inflame a battle with the Democratic Congress over spending and taxes and help define the remainder of his tenure.

Advisers presented Bush with a series of ideas to restructure corporate taxes, possibly eliminating narrowly targeted breaks to pay for a broader, across-the-board rate cut. In an interview with a small group of journalists afterward, Bush said he was "inclined" to send a corporate tax package to Congress, although he expressed uncertainty about its political viability.

The president's comments came as he tried to calm volatile stock and mortgage markets and reassure the country that the economy is fundamentally strong. Despite mounting concern over the downturn in the housing market, he dismissed proposals advanced by prominent Democrats to grant government-chartered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac more freedom to buy mortgages and mortgage-backed securities. And he ruled out any taxpayer bailout of lenders threatened by the subprime home-loan crisis.

In a 48-minute conversation on an array of economic issues, Bush also warned China not to start a trade war, blamed Congress for not doing more to shore up infrastructure such as the bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis last week, and pushed back against Democratic presidential candidates who are promising to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The focus on economic issues on Bush's last day in Washington before leaving town today for most of the rest of the month reflected a White House strategy to confront Democrats on tax and spending issues. With most of his second-term domestic legislative agenda in tatters and his strategy in Iraq under bipartisan fire, Bush appears eager to return to familiar issues that animated the beginning of his presidency and might rally disaffected Republicans behind him again.

Appearing before cameras at the Treasury Department alongside his economic team, the president vowed to veto spending bills that exceed his targets, and he accused Democrats of plotting the largest tax increase in history to fund an additional $205 billion in discretionary spending over five years.

"Put another way, it's about $1,300 in higher spending every second of every minute of every hour of every day of every year for the next five years," he said. "Now, somebody is going to have to pay for it. And that, of course, will be the hardworking American people. . . . I will use the veto to keep your taxes low and to keep federal spending under control."

Democrats quickly returned fire, noting that Bush inherited a surplus that turned into a deficit and that he never vetoed a spending bill during the six years that Republicans controlled Capitol Hill, even as the budget grew by 50 percent.

"After six years of reckless spending in Washington, President Bush is the last person who should brag about fiscal responsibility," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). She accused the president of misrepresenting Democratic spending plans, which she said come in lower than his and have received some Republican support. And she said Bush wants "to spend $2,800 each second . . . to keep our troops in the middle of a civil war in Iraq."

Bush did not mention his potential plan to cut corporate tax rates during his televised statement, but he discussed it in response to questions during the later session with reporters. The idea would again put him at odds with Democrats at a time when they are talking about letting his first-term tax cuts expire for the wealthiest Americans. Rather than just defending his past program, Bush seems interested in pushing the tax issue further to the fore.

Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. briefed Bush yesterday morning on various possibilities for overhauling a corporate tax structure that he considers disadvantageous for U.S. business. A paper Paulson released last month said the corporate tax rate could be reduced from 35 percent to 27 percent by scrapping the research-and-development tax credit, a deduction for domestic production, breaks for interest on state and local bonds, and other special tax breaks.

The administration said the U.S. corporate tax rate, once modest compared with international competitors, is now second only to Japan's among 30 member states in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Moreover, officials said, Germany, France, Japan, Britain and China have signaled that they will or may cut their rates.

"Our tax structure makes us less competitive, and if we want to be a competitive nation, we've got to analyze a lot of things, including taxes, dependence on oil or good education policy," Bush said. "And so we will work through possible suggestions for Congress."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/08/AR2007080802468.html?hpid=topnews

[red states rule]

When ou cut taxes you reduce the cost of doing business. Companies NEVER pay those taxes - their customers do

When you lower those taxes, you make it cheaper to do business. The prices can come down, the company is more competitive, they can hire workers and expand the business