Bill Clinton Calls for Corporate Tax Cut

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#1
Bill Clinton calls for corporate tax cut

By MIKE ALLEN | 7/3/11 2:03 PM EDT Updated: 7/5/11 6:44 AM EDT

ASPEN, Colo. — President Bill Clinton says the nation’s corporate tax rate is “uncompetitive” and called for a lower rate as part of a “mega-deal” to raise the debt ceiling.

“When I was president, we raised the corporate income-tax rates on corporations that made over $10 million [a year],” the former president told the Aspen Ideas Festival on Saturday evening.

“It made sense when I did it. It doesn’t make sense anymore — we’ve got an uncompetitive rate. We tax at 35 percent of income, although we only take about 23 percent. So we should cut the rate to 25 percent, or whatever’s competitive, and eliminate a lot of the deductions so that we still get a fair amount, and there’s not so much variance in what the corporations pay. But how can they do that by Aug. 2?”

Clinton also said Grover Norquist, who as president of Americans for Tax Reform is the GOP’s unofficial enforcer of no-new-taxes pledges, has a “chilling” hold on the nation’s lawmaking.

The former president said it has seemed like Republicans need any revenue concessions to be “approved in advance by Grover Norquist.”

“You’re laughing,” he told the crowd of 800. “But he was quoted in the paper the other day saying he gave Republican senators permission … on getting rid of the ethanol subsidies. I thought, ‘My God, what has this country come to when one person has to give you permission to do what’s best for the country.’ It was chilling.”

Asked by moderator Ron Brownstein what President Obama’s posture should be on a debt deal if Republicans hold to their view that no new taxes can be included, Clinton replied: “Well, look, there are some spending cuts [Republicans] agree on, … and apparently they run it by a fair number of people in the Democratic caucuses …

“He could take those, and an extension of the debt ceiling for six or eight months. But if they’re really going to reach a mega-deal, you cannot reach a mega-deal without doing something like what the Bowles-Simpson committee recommended. … I don’t see how you can do this by Aug. 2. …

“I don’t think you can agree to some mega-deal on [the Republicans’] terms. … If they get closer, I believe they will agree on a more modest package of cuts. And the Republicans, if I were in their position, I’d say, ‘OK, this only counts for six months’ or eight months, or whatever. ‘But we don’t want to let the American people’s credit go under, let our credit get downgraded, let interest rates get up and slow down the recovery.’”

But Clinton said Democrats should not give in if Republicans “insist on the mega-settlement, with no new revenues from any source.” He said that in that case, he hopes “they’ll make a mini-deal.”

At another point, Clinton said about corporations: “When I was young, we were taught in law school that corporations were creatures of the state and had responsibilities to all their stakeholders — their shareholders, their employees, their customers and the communities of which they were a part. Now, it’s only shareholders. I think that’s a pretty bad idea.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58275.html#ixzz1RJJXWSvv
Grover Norquist was on Colbert last week:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/390707/june-27-2011/grover-norquist
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#2
Corporations don't pay taxes, they collect taxes from consumers and forward the revenue to the governments
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#3
At another point, Clinton said about corporations: “When I was young, we were taught in law school that corporations were creatures of the state and had responsibilities to all their stakeholders — their shareholders, their employees, their customers and the communities of which they were a part. Now, it’s only shareholders. I think that’s a pretty bad idea.”
It's not true that corporations only have responsibilities to their shareholders. They have plenty of responsibilities to their employees and business partners (they have to fulfill their contractual obligations), to their customers (to deliver goods and services as promised), and even to everyone else (to not violate their rights to life, liberty and property).

What Clinton actually means by "responsibility", however, is control and power. He means that the shareholders (the owners of the corporation) shouldn't be the ones in control of the corporation. Instead, it should be politicians like him, representing the workers and "the community".

But in a free society, the government's only power should be to enforce people's rights, and the contractual obligations the corporations and their owners freely assumed. Beyond that, all the power over a corporation should belong to its owners, not politicians.
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#4
The problem is the corporations haven't been responsible to the shareholders.

How are corporate officers getting bonuses when the shareholders are losing money?

And I don't want to hear any of this nonsense like "brain drain"

When the shareholders start making noise and try to vote in new board members who will appoint new officers, the current ones cry to the media and government about "corporate raiders"
 

Ballbuster1

In The Danger Zone...
Wackbag Staff
Aug 26, 2002
103,121
16,695
839
Your house, behind the couch
#5
and eliminate a lot of the deductions so that we still get a fair amount, and there’s not so much variance in what the corporations pay.
This is one thing I'll agree with him on. There's way too many loopholes created
in our tax codes. Many for corporations that got there from lobbying by special
interest groups.The reality is that our whole tax structure needs an overhaul.

The rates could probably lowered for everyone and everything if more basic rates
with little or no deductions were established. The current tax system is bull shit.
 

The Godfather

Spark it up for The Godfather and say!!!!!
May 9, 2007
11,256
10
163
#6
There will never be tax reform.


Tax reform for republicans equals: making the bottom 45% actually pay taxes, lowering taxes on the top 50%, and simplifying the tax code so you don't need a tax attorney to do your quarterlies.

Tax reform for democracts equals: growing the bottom 45% that doesn't pay income taxes to include middle class families, not just the poor. Making the top 25% pay significantly more in income taxes, and eliminating deductions in the tax codes for certain industries. (central economic planning - ie: we need more green jobs, so they can deduct until their heart's content)

it's not going to happen. It will turn into an ideological clusterfuck, as it should.

EDIT: If there ever is 'tax reform' it will consist of such trivial changes, that the only purpose it will serve, is to prove congress ISN'T irrelevant and can actually do something.
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#7
What's funny is that its always the Democrats who put in the loop holes & deductions for their wealthy and connected corporate partners. Then the Democrats complain about it. Just last week Little Barry was crying about deductions for private jets, but then it turns out he was in favor of the deduction when it was enacted.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#8
The problem is the corporations haven't been responsible to the shareholders.

How are corporate officers getting bonuses when the shareholders are losing money?

And I don't want to hear any of this nonsense like "brain drain"

When the shareholders start making noise and try to vote in new board members who will appoint new officers, the current ones cry to the media and government about "corporate raiders"
Why does the GOP always seem to cockblock legislation to allow shareholders to decide executive pay? It seems like a no-brain drain.
 

The Godfather

Spark it up for The Godfather and say!!!!!
May 9, 2007
11,256
10
163
#9
Why does the GOP always seem to cockblock legislation to allow shareholders to decide executive pay? It seems like a no-brain drain.
it would be a dummy move, the largest shareholders are the executives themselves

1 share = 1 vote


PARTYCOCK WANTS TO KNOW WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE!!

THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE!!!

Why can't shareholders just storm into corporate buildings and stage destructive sit-in protests demanding to determine executive pay? It seems like a no-brainer
*fixed for irony
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#10
it would be a dummy move, the largest shareholders are the executives themselves

1 share = 1 vote
Then what's the problem? At least it'll attempt to give it a level of "transparency" to the people that actually own the company.


PARTYCOCK WANTS TO KNOW WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE!!

THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE!!!


*fixed for irony
I thought you stopped hitting the bong?
 

The Godfather

Spark it up for The Godfather and say!!!!!
May 9, 2007
11,256
10
163
#11
Then what's the problem? At least it'll attempt to give it a level of "transparency" to the people that actually own the company.
Even the largest shareholders, board member and CEOs excluded, wouldn't dare risk ''talent'' (yes, it takes skill to be a greedy evil capitalist) resigning over forced benifit caps. The stock price would take a major sell-off with such news.

Remember, executives and board members don't have $10,000 weekly paychecks. They make base pay (maybe $1,500 a week), and get year-end bonuses that reach into the millions. You would have to have such complex rules, and caps, and whatnot... if shareholders actually tried to implement something like this (they would never want to) it would end up looking Gestapo-esque and you would have a significant reshuffling of executive positions fairly quickly... resulting in shareholders loosing money on the stock market.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#12
Why does the GOP always seem to cockblock legislation to allow shareholders to decide executive pay? It seems like a no-brain drain.
A corporation is a complex, public contract between shareholders and executives. You're suggesting there should be a law limiting what that contract should contain, and that it should always say that shareholders get to vote on what executives make.

The government's only role here is to enforce contracts, not decide what contracts may or may not contain. I don't want to own shares in a corporation run by popular vote. Fuck that, I want to own shares in a corporation where I know ahead of time who's in charge, what his track record is, etc. Not depend on the other shareholders, whom I never heard of, to decide what happens to my investment.

And you don't have the right to stop me from doing that, by forcing every corporation to function the way you want them to. The only right you have is to only buy shares in corporations that work the way you like them to work. If you want to invest in a corporation Obama approves of, you should've asked him to start his own corporation, not run for the fucking Presidency. By now, you could be a happy investor, voting every week for what your CEO should make.

No one's stopping you from doing that, you just don't get to force me to put my money too in a business run that way.