Good idea to post about the issues! That's really what we should be talking about.

is wildly distorting the true picture by using lots of inflammatory and emotional language.

Is this talking about non-repatriated foreign earnings?

The US is the only country that taxes companies on earnings earned overseas. They do not have to pay the tax until they bring the cash back to the US.

If you want to talk about issues let's talk about issues but let's make sure the facts we discuss are accurate and representative in the first place.

to what is "wildly distorted".


"Our tax system is wildly unfair — rigged to benefit the very rich." Do you agree?

"Major corporations that earn billions in profits stash their money in tax havens and pay nothing in federal income taxes," Isn't this true?

"billionaire hedge fund managers pay a lower effective tax rate than nurses or teachers." Again, true.

"In order to reverse the massive transfer of wealth and income from the middle class to the very rich that we have seen in recent years, we need real tax reform which makes the wealthy and profitable corporations begin to pay their fair share of taxes." Hard to argue that the wealthy should pay their fair share of taxes.

"It is fiscally irresponsible that the U.S. Treasury loses about $100 billion a year because corporations and the rich stash their profits in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and other tax havens." I don't know this is a fact but I don't doubt it. Do you?

"We need a tax system which is fair and progressive. Children should not go hungry in this country while profitable corporations and the wealthy avoid their tax responsibilities." Again, right on the money.

"Our tax system is wildly unfair — rigged to benefit the very rich"

How is it rigged to benefit the very rich? There are lots of provisions that kick in the wealthier you get such as: estate tax exemption, Pease limits, ACA investment tax, and PEP limits. Name me one provision where the rich benefit from that the poor cannot make use of. Even for long-term capital gains, there's an ceiling below which you don't pay any taxes.

"Major corporations that earn billions in profits stash their money in tax havens and pay nothing in federal income taxes." Depends. Do they have any US-sourced income? Are most of their income coming from overseas? Do they have large carryforward losses? I highly doubt that any public company doesn't pay its tax bills as legally required.

"billionaire hedge fund managers pay a lower effective tax rate than nurses or teachers." This is true, but that's because of lower long-term capital gains tax rate. The rich by definition have the capital to invest.

"In order to reverse the massive transfer of wealth and income from the middle class to the very rich that we have seen in recent years, we need real tax reform which makes the wealthy and profitable corporations begin to pay their fair share of taxes." It's a very weak and meaningless statement. What does "fair share" mean? I would much prefer if they could link it to historical share of taxes paid by the wealthy and profitable corporations and see where it is today. Something more rigorous to support the argument.

"It is fiscally irresponsible that the U.S. Treasury loses about $100 billion a year because corporations and the rich stash their profits in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and other tax havens." I doubt so. Firstly there's no reason for corporations to "stash" their profits in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda when they could stash it in places like the UK (with much better corporate governance and rule of law). Secondly this statement is written to sound like they are doing something wrong or illegal. As I mentioned before, US corporations don't have to pay taxes until they bring back their foreign sourced earnings. It's like saying "The US Treasury is losing $..b a year because people don't pay taxes on unrealized capital gains". Why duh! That's the way the law was written. You only pay taxes on realized capital gains. Why would anyone do so otherwise.

"We need a tax system which is fair and progressive. Children should not go hungry in this country while profitable corporations and the wealthy avoid their tax responsibilities." What exactly does "avoid their tax responsibilities" mean? Does it mean that these corporations and wealthy are illegally not paying the taxes they are supposed to pay? Or does it mean they are paying all the taxes they are paying but we should make them pay more taxes. It's written in a very ambiguous way meant to provoke outrage.

Your response demonstrates ignorance on tax inequality of corporations, who, by the way LEGALLY move headquarters offshore in order to avoid paying takes. The only thing I could remotely see as truthful in your statements is how much of this is legal. That is why we need reform.

BTW, special breaks in the tax code are the reason that there are thousands of lobbyists in the halls of Congress, hundreds of lobbyists around each state legislature and tens of thousands of tax lawyers all over the country. So, what's in your reading library?

But, don't take my word for what can easily be tallied about corporate welfare. Just go here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-quigley/ten-examples-of-welfare-for-the-rich-and-corporations_b_4589188.html

But, if you want a quick list, HERE:

Your response demonstrates ignorance on tax inequality of corporations -> what does this even mean?

who, by the way LEGALLY move headquarters offshore in order to avoid paying takes -> yeah so what? A US company can choose it's state of incorporation. A foreign company can domicile itself in the US if it chooses. A US company can move offshore to reduce its taxes. So what's the point.

Regarding your top 10 list, most of them relate to tax subsidies or deductions. That's as good as saying "The US loses $xxxb because of people taking standard or itemized deductions!!!" Tell me, do you take every single personal deduction you are entitled to? Do you take the personal exemption?

… which I think you can understand, means that corporations can actually end up paying NO income taxes, based on the way we've allowed these laws to relax over the years. And, BTW, that is a direct response of corporate lobbying funded by corporations who wish to continue this unfair tax scheme.

Nice of you to admit that you're alright with that as a HRC supporter. Now, we know something more about you. You are unabashed with favor to the corporate state that is ruining the working class, the working poor, the fast diminishing middle class and those who would act in a progressive manner to reverse this wrong.

Here's another question you can add to the other for which I've not received an answer - How much did General Electric pay in income taxes?

Proportionally, the income tax bracket is wrong, or don't you agree? You don't think we need to extend this cap?


This, plus the LEGAL way corporations have been allowed to move headquarters offshore in order to evade paying taxes is okay with you, right?

Right… That's a definition of someone who will never support the working class and therefore the American Dream of working all your life never to achieve a livable wage. So, you represent the supporter of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 choice of POTUS?

Do you think the current strata of income tax is fair to all Americans?

Right...

is that a lot of these points are meaningless in the absence of a debate on policy substance.

#7 is pure cow manure. The government made a profit on TARP and especially on Fannie and Freddie.

The points are with meaning. The arguments about whether they are pure cow manure is a rather non-definitive way of addressing one of the points you feel is meaningless. If they didn't have meaning, then what makes them cow manure? Do you have something to say about any of these points substantively?

Remember - we're supposed to talk about issues here. I'm still waiting. You step up to address the issues by understanding what these points are about. Do you?

On edit: A quiz…. How much money was the American tax payer levied with to bail out Wall Street in 2008?

specifically on #7

The billions above do not even count the government bailout of Wall Street, while all parties have done their utmost to tell the public that they did not need it, that they paid it back, or that it was a great investment. The Atlantic Monthly estimates that $7.6 trillion was made available by the Federal Reserve to banks, financial firms and investors. The Cato Institute estimates (using government figures) the final costs at $32 to $68 billion, not including the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which alone cost more than $180 billion.

I was all set to welcome you on your first day at DU, hill2016. You are obviously busy posting a lot on your first day, but….

Maybe you're reading …

You ask a lot of questions instead of putting forth an argument.

Children should not go hungry while the corporations you worship make sickening profits.

There was an era once (and it operated only a generation ago), when it made sense to allow the hedge fund types to experience a lower share of tax payments.

But now that the Middle Class and those on Main Street have to bail out the hedge fund people and Wall Street, they should have to pay the same amount that the teachers, social workers and fire fighters pay.

The hedge fund and financial folks are no longer taking risks, as even when they destroy the economy, they still are bailed out. We watched just several years ago as trillions of dollars went into the Black Hole of bailing out the hedge fund types.

1) Those corporations don't bring the money back here, so they don't pay taxes here

2) Most of those corporations have reincorporated foreign counties so they don't HAVE to pay U.S. taxes.

Thanks for the thread, rhett o rick.

...but then, I have Hillary Clinton, who showed her support for progressive taxation by voting against the Bush tax cuts, way back in 2001.

What do you think Hillary Clinton's position on the TPP? And, what is YOUR opinion on trade agreements since NAFTA for American wages and safety for clean air and water?

I welcome efforts to close the huge global income inequality between the rich countries (1%) and the poor countries (99%). Do you?

Come now… I asked the person above this post who said they would support (as a 1 per center, no less) tax reform…. never answered the question but you did… with another question.

Will you get to the point of describing income equality? You can start in America and compare or contrast rich country versus poor country.

What you're doing now is not answering another person's question which they did not answer.

I welcome income equality and fair taxation in the United States. Do you?

the top 1% earns $30k and the bottom earn <$1k a year.

If we help the bottom 50% of the world, that's impacting billions of people.
If we help the bottom 50% of the United States, that's only about 150 million people.

The greater good is to help billions of people.

Do you want to be part of the greater good?

your post. Your candidate supports fracking and has used the strong arm of our government to help other governments to force fracking on their peoples. While citizens around the world are protesting the destruction caused by fracking, H. Clinton and Chevron are "fracking" full speed ahead.

Fracking is an issue where H. Clinton sides with the 1% over the 99%.

in America to that of the rest of the world. Is that what you mean?

I want to reduce the inequality between the 0.01% and the 99.9% all around the world.

Since H. Clinton is a member in great standing with the 1% I doubt she wants to stop the growing disparity between her wealthy backers and us in the 99%. If she says she want to help the poor, she means with the resources from the middle class NOT HER WEALTHY FRIENDS.

Sanders supports the 99% and not the billionaires.

that to truly help the most people we should reduce the inequality between the top 10% and the bottom 90% of the world.

In fact by reducing inequality between the top 10% and the bottom 90% of the world, we could help billions of people attain their dreams.

Will you work towards reducing inequality between the top 10% and the bottom 90% of the world?

When a histogram of this top income is THAT skewed at the very top, then what logic are you using to arrive or "believe" you can "help" working class people?

Maybe you can start by listing the mean, median and mode of the yearly income between the the top 0.1% and 10%? THAT's what you want to compare to, except there is such a variance THERE, what is it you are comparing to?

If you simply use the average, it buffers a variance to that of the bottom 90%. Why would you not question the nonsense of what this represents in America? What skewed statistic.. Maybe you don't because your basis of understanding is the result of an ideology where group play is only represented by tax bailouts, not the result of tax bailouts.

You can't figure how things are made and who is the labor in the making, perhaps. You have no idea what sustains local government budgets that balances that of the state when those same incomes provide the majority of tax base for local schools and public works. Do you even understand what constitutes a livable wage? Without that, there can be no quality of life. Without that income-related tax base and fair taxation at the other end, we end up privatizing sports arenas and toll roads and bridges and marginalize schools by that same privatization. You don't seem to know this for some reason. You couldn't possibly, given that kind of vacuous explanation.

Why don't you after that, list the incomes of skilled and unskilled workers who produce the vast majority of the gross domestic product? Then tell me how that group of people have a tinker's chance in hell to be included in narrowing the gap between them and those in the top group, unless you think the American worker can get by on this because the other slave labor is "attaining their dreams".

Those are nice words you use to explain absolutely nothing.

you misunderstand me. I believe the greater good can be achieved by closing the gap between the top 10% and bottom 10% of the world, as we can help billions of people out of poverty.

In many places of the world, schools and public works are non-existent. If we can close the gap between the top 10% and bottom 10% of the world, we can bring schools and public works (including fresh water) to many parts of the world. This will be a dream that is achievable for billions of people if we close the gap between the top 10% and bottom 10% of the world.

In fact, I understand you pretty, new poster and HRC supporter.. You shoveled in a nebulous fashion some pretty predictable words explaining the ideology of leveling the world's working class, a la the working class of this country. Were I to swallow this, I'd have to say HRC's respect of America's working class is pretty thin. It's a globalist word salad to make excuses for further eroding the working class of this country. That's what you are all about, new poster.

If you indeed stand as a representative of what supporters of HRC are all about, which I'm not sure is correct, you've certainly painted an ideology for this country that tells us the pathway to leveling the labor class leaves all those in that strata pretty well fucked.

Greater good, my ass...

That's all I needed to hear.

See ya.

to be clear, you don't believe in helping the poor of the world? You don't believe in reducing global income inequality?

May I know why?

is a member of the 1% and as far as I've seen, has no interest in fixing the wealth inequality.

I'm glad you believe in reducing global inequality.

What are some good ways to do so and what kind of policies can rich countries adopt to help poorer countries?

Employment?
Schools?
Public works (infrastructure bank)?
Foreign aid?

all around the world.

the greatest good can be achieved when we lift billions of people out of poverty.

For that we need not just the top 1% but the top 10% globally to pay their share.

I'm waiting for your answer.

Thank you.

She pretends to care for us peons but I think the best she will be able to give us is "cake".

...voice with their power and money. If just baffles me to no end how people can have a good conscience promote the rich who continually prey upon the weak.