Democrats should make the argument anyway. Those 43 are a minority of Democrats, and could stand to be shamed by the resonance of this issue to ordinary voters. Despite how the Repubs always try to frame an issue as "bi-partisan" if even one Dem agrees with them, you don't need unanimity on any party stand for it to be a valid party position. As services increasingly get cut so that soccer moms and dads start noticing, the issue of who pays should zoom right up there, and we need to claim it.

Ligit Question:
In the survey, who are they considering to be corporations that pay too little?

Yup. Make the case anyway. It is now weakened, and the Party might appear divided, but the Party has to stand up and proclaim what's right. Let the whores who sold out the Party on these votes reconcile that in their individual races. Preferably against a primary opponent and without Party funds.

Make the Party's stance on these topics clear and known. Make it part of the platform. And make it known that these Reps voted against the position of the Party (after all, that's what happened). the reason these votes had 100% participation from the Republicans is not because they all believe in this crap, it's because there are consequences for them if they don't. These fucking sell-outs wander back and forth across the aisle with impunity. Fuck them. If they wander off into the cold, they should shiver. We're moving on. they can either scramble back in line or try and find comfort from the enemy.

Bigdog, Most Corparations Don't pay ANY TAXES. But you being a republican won't not know that.

Sorry I didn't notice the spelling mistake before I posted the above post.

Welcome to fascism.

And if anyone wants the truth about who pays corporate taxes, pick up a copy of "Take the Rich Off Welfare." It's all about corporate welfare.

Hey Steve, how is that poll weighted in terms of income levels? It's one thing if the middle and poorer classes are legitimately saying taxes on the rich and corporations are too high, it's a completely different kettle of fish (or tomatoes or baked beans, umm, baked beans) if a number of rich people are admitting that they don't pay enough in taxes.

If this is a random poll don't worry about it.

Soto:

"Of course, Democrats cannot now make that argument...."

You know what would be great, Steve? It would be great if you ever got it through your thick head that the ONLY people keeping a close eye on what the members of the powerless minority party are doing are you and the other purists here. There isn't one average voter in America who will think about the Dems who voted for this or any other Republican bill if the Dems repeatedly make the case that the Republicans have destroyed this country's fiscal standing. Not one.

Politicians don't make arguments. They lie their asses off, and the only releveant question as the Republicans pile up political crime after political crime is whether the Dems' lies are going to be appealing, and they are. Pocketbooks are getting squeezed, Steve, and that's when the tide will turn. Not because you make some quasi-intellectual freaking argument about how 40+ Dems failed to remain pure and chaste.

If you really want to talk about politics, talk about politics. Your left-wing anti-Democratic evangelism is making me puke.

Chris, excellent point.

Being a typical Gallup Poll, it was weighted to reflect census/demographic factors contained in the last census. But this poll as we noted earlier in the week used a sample that had a GOP bias of about 3 percentage points.

Interesting, huh? A poll with more Republicans than Democrats shows respondents think the wealthy and corporations don't pay their fair share.

By these polls, looks a system where the first $20,000 is not taxable, and income thereafter would be progrssively taxed, would be a popular way to do it. Make it a progressive system with a 50% cap. I could handle that.

Then Yo Mama take your puke elsewhere. Don't spread your drivel here.

You fail to see that whenever one of these Dems talks next year about the deficit, consumer rights, reforms, or tax fairness as a club against the GOP and Tom DeLay, it will be the editorial page of their local paper that will run the editorial pointing out how hypocritical the Democratic incumbent is.

But I wouldn't expect you to see that, given that you spend a lot of time cleaning the spew off your face instead of demanding better Democrats.

Goose1,

It was not a smart-ass question it was ligit, and I'm not a republican, I consider my self a fiscal libertarian...don't really care about social programs as much as I should.

What do you consider a corporation? You cannot lump all corporations together and say they don't pay taxes. Their ar tens of thousands of small corporations, that employ maybe 5-50 people. They are most definantly taxed and taxed bigtime. I don't doubt that alot of the giant conglomerates do not pay enough in taxes, but it is very dangerous to lump all corporations/businesses together and say they do not pay taxes.

I encourage you to talk to a person that may own a smaller corporation and see what he pays to the government.

I think that the Reps and Senators that at least had the decency in the very least should run on their opposition to the Bankruptcy Bill and repealing the estate tax and why it was detrimental to.

79% of House Democrats voting voted against the repeal of the estate tax.

Vote details

63% of House Democrats voting voted against the Bankruptcy Bill.

Vote Details

58% of Senate Democrats voting voted against the Bankruptcy Bill.

Vote details

While it's terrible we don't have the kind of unity we need, and the Republicans know unity better than our politicians, it's something that reminds me why I still am in this party--for the people who vote for "my" interests and more importantly in the interests of most Americans.

Bigdog, he's talking about the Fortune 500. You are quite right that lots of small and medium businesses do pay takes. Truth is, the GOP doesn't care about small business, they only care about big business.

Some significant chunk of the Fortune 500 do not pay taxes. In fact, a lot of them get more in direct aid from the government then they pay out!

chris65303, there are a lot of wealthy people talking out against the Bush tax cuts. People like Bill Gates, Sr., Steve Forbes, etc. There's a group called United for a Fair Economy which has a project called Responsible Wealth which is "a national network of businesspeople, investors and affluent Americans who are concerned about deepening economic inequality and are working for widespread prosperity. Our three primary areas of work are tax fairness, corporate responsibility and living wages."

Daniel,

I understand what your saying, but how do you segregate the two of them? By # of employees, investors, amount of money made? This will just be another loophole that some crafty ass accountant will drive through.

That is why I believe we need a Flat Tax with NO LOOPHOLES. Your thoughts please!

Bigdog, first off no one has been proposing a flat tax for businesses as far as I know. While I understand the allure of the flat tax there are a couple of significant issues with it. First off, while people usually kick around a number like 20-22%, the real number would be much more like 25-27%. Secondly, if you look at tax rates that people are actually paying, for everyone but the wealthiest, this would be a significant tax increase. For the wealthy it would be one more tax cut. Simplifying the tax code, eliminating games that people can play, etc. is all good. But the goals should be fairness and a progressive system, not a shell game to pass more burden from the ultra-rich to everyone else.

As to businesses, it's not that anyone segregates between the different types of business in terms of any legal definitions. It's that large corporations lobby to get laws changed to their benefit, and government listens. It's that large corporations ask for tax breaks, and they get them. For most small businesses, the best thing the government could do is nationalize health care! And shift more of the tax burden back onto the wealthy.

daniel,

yes yes yes, this is really what I'm trying to say (with the exception of the healthcare). When we are calling for tax increases on the big corps., it is the smaller businesses that will really get hurt because their is NO legal difference between the two.

This is the #1 problem I have with most "liberals", they quickly say we have to tax businesses, but they don't realize the negative effect this will have on the little businesses, this country depends on. We have to get people to differentiate between the two, and more support for the cause will be gained.

However, Keep the nationalized health care out of it all together...that leaves a terrible taste in my mouth.

About the flat tax, other than Forbes I have heard very little on it. I think that this should be the number 1 cause for most americans, because it shuts those huge loopholes and forced the "extremely wealthy" to pay, along with all businesses.

Thanks for the great conversation.

bigdog:

You make good points.

I would have no intention of hitting medium to small businesses any harder than they've been hit now, and I have been advocating here that the Democrats recalibrate their policies to separate the multi-nationals and megacorporations from how we treat Main Street. Dems should be favoring Main Street over Wall Street. That's why I am so disappointed in the New Democrat and Blue Dog Coalition types because I was looking for something from them that helps Democrats with Main Street, and all we seem to get are sellout votes on estate taxes and bankruptcy.

What tax idea along these lines do you have in mind?

so bigdog, the question remains, why don't we push for a tax difference between the two? The government is smart enough to realize income difference between individuals, why don't we recognize gross revenue differences between corporations and tax them accordingly. (of course I'm taking you at your word that there is no tax bracket difference between the two, which seems odd).

The flat-tax-would-stop-loopholes issue is a red herring. The progressive tax bracket is not what allows wealthy individuals to hide their taxes, its, well, all of the loopholes and exemptions that are causing the problem. The same progressive tax should be applies to corporations, without the loopholes to hide money.

I personally like the idea of a 15,000-20,000 dollar exemption, a progressive bracket, with a cap of 45-50% for the wealthiest individuals, and a tax bracket range that goes way beyond the 319,000 dollar bracket. If the low end of the bracket starts with the poorest individuals making 8,000 dollars a year, why doesn't it end with the wealthiest individuals making 1 million plus per year?

I have to say AMEN brother to what Daniel had to say about nationalized helathcare. If the NeoCons really cared about small business they would get some sort of healthcare relief out there today.

THE biggest tax on a small corporation (0-5 employees using bigdog's numbers) is the cost of healthcare. A small corporation can be formed as an S-Corp or LLC to avoid corporate taxes altogether (with the S-Corp allowing them to pay less into Social Security), with the owners simply paying personal taxes on the pass through income. But no matter what they do, they can't escape paying healthcare insurance premiums, and expenses, if only for themselves, without exposing themselves to potential bankruptcy (at least in the past) from a major illness.

And the cost of healthcare is enough to keep many potential small business owners working for someone else. Ever try getting a policy on your own after suffering an illness or having hte misfortune to be over 40? This NeoCon "support small business" bullshit is just that, bullshit.

As bigdog might say;

If you can't afford to get sick don't get sick!

bigdog, what about taxes on small businesses such as Dick Cheney and George Bush? You can qualify as a small business owner and not employ a single person, such as Dick Cheney who counts as a small business because he set himself up as a business for the puposes of receiving speaking fees. Yes, there are many, many small businesses but that does not mean that all small businesses should not be taxed because we depend on them.

For clarity's sake, let's make certain we all understand sole proprietorships, partnerships, LLC's, and S-Corps do not pay ANY corporate income taxes. And these entities are the most common for small businesses.

If all those small businesses just stopped using alcohol and tobacco products and learned how to budget, budget, budget they'd be able to make ends meet. Most of them cause their own problems.

I have one question; How many small businesses fail because they choose to fail?

My only question is, Really how many small companies fail because they choose to fail?

Whoever the anonymous poster was that said that above at 1:34 PM I want to thank you, that was precious and spot on! bravo.

Plus let's not forget this part but, "Feel free to call me synical[sic], but I still believe that if you work hard, you can have a damn nice life in this country.(guess that thought was soooo april 14th, 2005 and is only applicable to poor people)

But my only question (about people who make those types of comments) is how many people are this stupid because they choose to be stupid?

LOL!!!! You guys are KILLING ME!!!!

I find it very funny that big dog comes here, and claims to agree with almost everything we say, and then turns around and contradicts himself and argues vehemently with us using language and points even Toby and Muck would find absurd.

Simply amazing displays of naivety and ignorance!!

Legit question: Is the sky blue because it chooses to be blue??

LOL!!!!!!

As this articlepoints out, tax unfairness (U.S. taxpayer exploitation)is much bigger than most of us realize. Basically, people earning between $30K and $500k are subsidizing the top one-one hundredth of one percent of U.S. citizens. Where Republicans corporate welfare ends, corporation cheatingbegins. While we focus on estate tax (chump change in a tellers drawer), massive treasury looting (the Federal Reserve vault) is draining the life out of the country.
I know the trolls on this site are a part of the one-one hundredth of one percent of U.S. citizens. If they aren't, what drives them to support causes that exploit their interest?

The "kool aid" drinkers are as complicit as the rouge republicans and cheating corporations.

If you want tax fairness, you count all income as income and subject to income tax on a single graduated schedule. It doesn't matter if you earned it breaking rocks, clipping coupons, speaking, painting houses, putting up with obnoxious parents until they died, writing novels, or what. Income is income. Tax it all the same.

"...voted to repeal the estate tax and blow a $1 trillion hole in the Treasury during the next decade" -- Steve Soto

Is that number true? Most papers reported it would be $300 billion over 10 years.

But my only question (about people who make those types of comments) is how many people are this stupid because they choose to be stupid?

Posted by emal at April 15, 2005 02:15 PM

Emal, this is the same person who posted earlier that people are poor because they choose to be poor. He just switched the subject line.

Cal:

When you take the revenue loss and add to it the interest costs from that new debt, the cost is estimated to be $970 billion for the period of 2012-2021.

Thanks Steve! I should know better than to trust the newspapers over LeftCoaster.

Steve,

It is a good question you pose on the taxing companies at a different rate...how to go about it though, I don't know.

I suppose the best way would be through the amount of income earned, but the amount of legislation needed in order to close tax shelters would be very difficult to pass. I don't think it impossible, but it would be a fight, because neither side of the aisle actually give a damn about main street.

I think a flat tax on every corporation after X amount of dollars would probably be an easier way to go, because it would eliminat 10,999 pages of the tax code.

The problem I see though steve, is that their are no politicians even lookingat this problem and proposing a solution. We really need a massive change in both houses of the legislature, in order to get some people with a vision in power.

Thanks for the interesting questions...it will give me something to ponder.

Chris,

Its a good point you make. But the problem is as I stated earlier. When businesses are taxed, they are all taxed...so the huge corporations that can afford the 50 CPA's, know exactly how and where to hide their money...the smaller business don't have that advantage.

Something needs to change, but nobody in congress really cares.

I don't get it. I thought I pointed it out in simple enough terms, but I guess not.

Bigdog, SMALL CORPORATIONS (0-5 employees) ARE NOT TAXED unless they are formed by total idiots.

And secondly, it does not take 50 CPA's to hide income. One can do the job just fine for a SMALL CORPORATION. And a SMALL CORPORATION does offer its own ways of hiding income, too.

And lastly, about the only reason for a small business owner to form a corporation is to hide what would be personal, self-employed income from taxes. The old thing about being incorporated protecting you from liability is pretty weak in today's world.

They are so taxed, they are taxed at a huge rate. My Father in law owns a manufacturing company with 7 employees. It is listed as an LLC. He told me that they payed over $75,000 in federal taxation alone.

So I feel you are misleading people by saying they don't pay taxes becasue I know from a first hand experience that they pay massive taxes.

I also feel that you are wrong about protecting yourself from liability...I'd say that is a pretty big reason to form a (form of) corporation. But I agree the, ability to hide income is definantly easier.

I know the trolls on this site are a part of the one-one hundredth of one percent of U.S. citizens. If they aren't, what drives them to support causes that exploit their interest?

LOL. Don't you get it? Because they think that one day the rich folks will let them be rich, too. And they can keep thinking that way, but they won't. The aristocracy hates "new money" people.

They are so taxed, they are taxed at a huge rate. My Father in law owns a manufacturing company with 7 employees. It is listed as an LLC. He told me that they payed over $75,000 in federal taxation alone.

Let's break that down, shall we?

Let's see, 6.2% of total wages paid for SSRI. Assume 7 employees at maybe $40K each, and you get $280K/year *.062 = $17K right off the top; the SSRI taxes might be much higher if the skilled people are paid well, or if the salary of the CEO is a lot higher.

Then the question is how much does the LLC make, and how much does he keep in it? See, your pops set up shop as an LLC for liability purposes, but that makes the company a separate entity, so it's taxed separately, unless your pops chose to treat it as a passthrough entity.

If the former, then there's a lot of money staying in that corporation every year. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that he pays $60K in federal corporate income tax. In that case, the corp is not acting as a passthrough, and it's got profits of almost $200,000 / year after all of its operating expenses (which *include* your father's salary). See here for calc source. If the corp is a passthrough, then if your father is the only shareholder (possible in some states), then $60K of personal income tax suggests taxable personal income of around $220K from profits alone (See here). If the profits are split among multiple shareholders, the actual profits could be much greater to reach that level of taxation.

So, either the LLC is being taxed separately because of a specific and *optional* business decision (tough nuts), or your dad is counting his (and the other s/h's) personal taxes as the LLC's taxes (not a fair comparison).

And thats not a tax? Also, don't forget about other operations similar to my father-in-law's, that have a lot more employees, with as many as 500. These corporations are larger than the other companies I was talking about, but they tend to be regional corporations that do not make the millions that people in this blog want to say all companies make. These are the corporations that I speak of that are unfairly taxed. Open up your yellow pages sometime and take a look.
I understand your argument about the multi-nationals, but it does not hold water when talking about the small to medium size companies that I fight for.