SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Steve Lokness who wrote (9556)7/19/2004 5:55:33 PM
From: CalculatedRisk  Respond to of 116555
 
On the subject of taxes, I read this blog today (George Mundstock is a Law Professor, specializing in taxation, at UofMinn.)

discourse.net

'No Corporation Left Behind

Hi, I’m George Mundstock. Michael was kind enough to let me guest blog while he travels. Always wanted to try running a blog, but was afraid of the start-up and commitment (and, OK, that I would throw a blog and nobody would come). This is a great opportunity for me. Thanks Michael! Hope that you all find my stuff at least somewhat interesting.

As a tax type, it seems mandatory that my first entry be on taxes. Unfortunately for America, there is a huge corporate tax bill working its way through Congress, which is likely to pass after the elections and, therefore, makes a perfect first topic. The House passed the American Jobs Creation Act with $130 billion (over 10 years) in new corporate tax breaks (and some offsetting corporate tax increases, but only one big one, which will be discussed in a minute). The Senate has its Jumpstart our Business Strength (JOBS) Act with about the same total new benefits (although it, unlike the House bill, also includes the energy stuff that will be discussed tomorrow), but a few more revenue offsets, so as to have a lower net cost.

Quo Vadis? Well, its a long story: Since the 1960s, the US has had a tax incentive for exports, first called DISC (Domestic International Sales Corporations), then FISC (Foreign International Sales Corporations), and now ETI (Exempt Territorial Income). Most of the current tax benefits go to few companies (Boeing, GE, Intel, Microsoft, Honeywell, Caterpillar, Motorola, and Cisco). Surprise, all 3 versions of the incentive have been ruled to violate GATT by interfering with free trade, most recently in January of 2002. Since then, Europe has waited patiently for Congress to repeal ETI. (The Bush Administration did not push very hard for a fix.) Finally, in January, various European countries began imposing WTO-approved sanctions: tariffs on various imported US goods, which tariffs increase the longer that the US is in non-compliance, until the tariffs reach a total of $4 billion a year. So, now, Congress must Act. But, there is a problem: Chair Thomas of the House Ways & Means Committee views this as a “competitiveness” issue: US corporations must pay as little tax on foreign operations as some hypothetical tax outlaw foreign corporation (that doesn’t really exist). In other words, GE needs new breaks for its foreign operations to replace its lost export incentive — that this makes it more desirable for US businesses to export jobs be damned. But, wait, says the Senate, what about Boeing and Caterpillar? We also need tax breaks for US manufacturing to replace the lost break for US manufacturers who export. And the House, which never met a tax cut that it didn’t like, agrees. So, now, we have 2 bills that, rather than pick up $50 billion in much needed federal revenues by repealing an illegal subsidy, instead provide expensive new rules that benefit companies’ offshore operations, while also rewarding anything that some accountant thinks is US manufacturing. Aarrgh! Why isn’t your business as valuable to America as manufacturing?'



To: Steve Lokness who wrote (9556)7/20/2004 11:26:36 AM
From: GraceZ  Respond to of 116555
 
You are supporting a system of welfare every bit as much as the most liberal - only at the other extreme!

I'm a Democrat who voted for Clinton, Gore, Sarbannes and McClusky so you are right, I have supported the current system of socialism.

To suggest that corporate welfare is not a problem is to completely ignore reality.

First off, define what you mean by "corporate welfare"? Secondly, in the past three years I've spoken out many times against farm supports, price supports as well as any other kind of government interference in the free market. In the post you replied to I simply point out that corporate taxes are incorporated into prices that you pay for everything. The cost falls on you and me.

To suggest that this is okay while corporate heads reap huge rewards in options is ridiculous.

Where did I suggest this?

This is what I said:

The 8 trillion or so in SS liabilities aren't owed to corporations.

They aren't. You asked for some sort of reference to support the 8 trillion figure, I gave it. It's not a bill that can be paid so obviously they will have to change the retirement age or attempt to raise the employment taxes which is what they want to do. Both options are politically infeasible so I can't see a way out of the dilemma, especially since the urge here is to try to put the blame on how Congress has dealt with corporations. As hard as it is to accept, some of the most disastrous government actions are initiated with the very best of intentions.

You read in what you want to rant against. Why not actually read what I write and debate what I actually write. You and David switched the subject to corporate simply because there is no way you can refute what I wrote about the debacle that is SS/Medicare. People are very attached to their socialism, once it gets entrenched it is almost impossible to extricate the country until it reaches it's logical conclusion which is for the government to collapse under the load. What people wind up focusing on is getting as much as they can for their particular group from the government, the consequences be damned.

I agree that government should be smaller, government intrudes in far too many aspects of all our lives. Never have I suggested that deficit spending is acceptable, but neither are budget surpluses because they always lead to increases in spending down the line. The one thing the fear of debt should do is put a constraint on new spending. The largest growth in spending is coming from portions of the budget which are not discretionary, they have automatic budget increases built into them. This isn't in debate, both parties agree on this.

We haven't had a real budget surplus where the national debt wasn't higher YOY any year since 1961. The debt accumulation slowed down during Clinton's term primarily because we had an economic boom (which turned out to be rather hollow), Congress shot down every large spending bill he proposed and he bowed to the political pressure to downsize social programs. My friends who spend their working days trying to expand social spending were feeling pretty betrayed at the end of his term. All that said, the national debt was still higher when he left office than when he went in. If you doubt that you need to actually look at the figures which are public.

BTW debt service in nominal terms and percentage terms was higher in Clinton's last year than it was last year. Debt service has been shrinking as the debt has increased. This is, of course, totally due to the record low interest rates which no one expects to continue.