Taxes

A running mantra of John McCain's campaign is that we should cut corporate tax rates so as to spur job growth. If only we lessened the weighty government burden on corporations like Exxon-Mobil, the thinking goes, then we'd see a miraculous turnaround in our nation's economic health. Well, it turns out that in order to do so, the federal government will have to find a number less than zero for the majority of corporations in America. Why? Because due to loopholes and write-offs in the tax code, they aren't currently paying any income taxes at all. Via the AP:

Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress.

The study by the Government Accountability Office, expected to be released Tuesday, said about 68 percent of foreign companies doing business in the U.S. avoided corporate taxes over the same period.

So before you go crying in your Budweiser about the raw deal the corporate world is getting in these United States, you might consider what, exactly, they've been getting away with all this time. And for further viewing on just how it is that such a large percentage of companies skirt paying taxes by filing as individuals, check out the award-winning film The Corporation.

Bud Gregg--an insurance agent in Mandeville, Louisiana--has something to share:



All I can say is: Chickens of America, if taxes are eating away at your livelihood, please make your vote count this year.

[Thanks to: The Left Coaster.]

B. Brandon Barker can also be found here.

It's a term that is often tossed about in political debates: "The Richest 1% of America." You often hear those words coming out of a Democrat's mouth when describing who George W. Bush's tax cuts have benefited over the past few years. Well, now comes word from the Wall Street Journal that those Democrats might just be right. It seems that the richest 1% have been doing disproportionately well under GWB:

In a new sign of increasing inequality in the U.S., the richest 1% of Americans in 2006 garnered the highest share of the nation's adjusted gross income for two decades, and possibly the highest since 1929, according to Internal Revenue Service data.

Meanwhile, the average tax rate of the wealthiest 1% fell to its lowest level in at least 18 years. The group's share of the tax burden has risen, though not as quickly as its share of income.

In other words, if you're in the bottom 99% of the country, you've been getting a raw deal. Further rubbing salt in the economic wound is the finding that the richest 1% now account for 22% of our national adjusted gross income. You might be asking yourself, when does the trickle down part actually start.

Owing property taxes is a way of life for homeowners. Sometimes we even get a little behind. Sometimes we default. Sometimes our accountants and trustees eff-up paying our bills for our multiple foundation/trust held properties across these great United States. Stuff happens....

When you're poor, it can be hard to pay the bills. When you're rich, it's hard to keep track of all the bills that need paying. It's a lesson Cindy McCain learned the hard way when NEWSWEEK raised questions about an overdue property-tax bill on a La Jolla, Calif., property owned by a trust that she oversees. Mrs. McCain is a beer heiress with an estimated $100 million fortune and, along with her husband, she owns at least seven properties, including condos in California and Arizona. [...]

Shortly after NEWSWEEK inquired about the matter, the McCain aide e-mailed a receipt dated Friday, June 27, confirming payment by the trust to San Diego County in the amount of $6,744.42. County officials say the trust still owes an additional $1,742 for this year, an amount that is overdue and will go into default July 1. Told of the outstanding $1,742, the aide said: "The trust has paid all bills shown owing as of today and will pay all other bills due."

Now, the thing I don't get is that the overdue tax bill was for 4 years worth of property taxes. The Newsweek article I linked to doesn't indicate whether these are partial tax bills due or what. I can only hope so....I suppose it could be a net difference in the old tax rate vs. a new rate that the accountants had not taken into consideration or had not been made aware of. I would be truly incensed if the McCain's annual property tax bill for beachfront in La Jolla, CA was $1500 less than our modest townhome in south Jersey.

Larry Kudlow on Oil

But here's an eye opener. Recent polling data from Gallup show the percentage of voters blaming oil companies for skyrocketing gasoline prices has dropped from 34 percent to 20 percent over the past year. At the same time, support for more drilling in U.S. coastal and wilderness areas has increased to 57 percent from 41 percent.
...
Obama continues to lambaste oil companies while congressional Democrats push for cap-and-trade. They're missing the point, big time. The public wants more energy and more fuel to cut high prices and spur economic growth. But the costly cap-and-trade plan would produce less fuel and less growth. It would only raise gas pump prices while mounting a Gosplan-type taxing, spending, and regulating program that would be the moral equivalent of Hillarycare on nationalized medicine.
Sen. McCain has an opening here. Yet he, like Obama, would have voted for cap-and-trade, which went down to defeat in last week's Senate vote. And while Mr. McCain favors some off-shore production and has been strong on nuclear development, he is against drilling in ANWR Alaska.

Hold that thought.... there does appear to be some movement on that issue, at least according to Lindsey Graham on Sunday:

On ABC's "This Week -with George Stephanopoulos," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C), a McCain friend and supporter, said the Arizona Republican would be open to talking about looking for oil and gas "in our own backyard."

"John McCain would allow offshore explorations, if the states consent," Graham said Sunday.

Graham's statement echoed the position McCain took in response to a survey conducted by the League of Conservation Voters last year. The League questioned all the 2008 presidential candidates about whether they supported maintaining current moratoriums on new offshore oil and natural gas drilling.

As convoluted as that statement is, it's still more coherent than most liberal Democrats on the subject of high fuel prices. The link is just one sample but sadly typical and refers finally to the attempt by the Democrats to pass a windfall profits tax on oil companies. Oil prices are bad, therefore we should tax the profits of the oil companies, which will make us all feel better, because everyone will get shafted equally... Huh? How about actually doing something that will affect the price of oil. I could almost see it if the windfall profits were to be distributed as rebates at the pump, but no, not exactly, they were planning to keep the money.

The bottom line is that the first presidential candidate to convince the public that he has a serious credible plan to reduce oil prices will go into the general election with a serious tailwind. John McCain, by simply not having to align with the environmental lobby, is at a structural advantage, but he needs to seize the opportunity

President Bush stepped out onto the South Lawn of the White House yesterday to announce that tax rebate checks, authorized by the economic stimulus package passed by Congress earlier this year, will be going out to taxpayers by Monday, two full weeks earlier than expected. Mr. Bush said that the checks would help Americans struggling with higher food and fuel prices to make ends meet. "The money is going to help Americans offset the high prices we're seeing at the gas pump, the grocery store, and also give our economy a boost to help us pull out of this economic slowdown," he said.

Democrats in Congress seized on the president's mention of higher food and fuel prices to push for a second stimulus package, and to score political points on the Administration's handling of higher gas prices. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said, "It's galling to think that taxpayers' stimulus checks will be lining the pockets of OPEC." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) agreed, saying, "[Americans] need this rebate to cope with the rising cost of gas and groceries." In reality, however, both the president and Democrats are wrong. People generally don't use government rebate checks for new spending, choosing instead to pay down debt or increase savings.

Tax: the "ugliest word in the English language." So argues today's amusing, though vacuous op-ed in the New York Times, which counsels Democrats to abandon the word "tax" in favor of some less despicable nomenclature, such as "dues." Amusingly, the author believes - in typical liberal fashion - that while the public foolishly oppose taxes, they would readily accept the idea that they owe dues for all the wonderful work done on their behalf by government.

While the op-ed provides commendable commentary on the just and patriotic activity of public cooperation for social benefit, the assumption is that a rejection of high taxes must result in a breakdown of public institutions. As with a broad swath of issues, the debate is not an all-or-nothing proposition, but rather an argument of practical implementation (i.e., private vs. public) and prioritization (Americans cannot, and will not, fund every congressional pet project).

On this theme, Sen. John McCain has just released a statement which provides the "broadest look yet at his economic policies." Rejecting the premise that America needs more taxes - or, dues - McCain revealed a broad, multi-layered plan "calling for tax cuts, a freeze of discretionary spending for a year, higher premiums for better-off Medicare recipients and elimination of federal gas taxes this summer to reinvigorate the sagging economy." The legacy of George Bush - in the form of his tax cuts - is likely to be ground zero for the looming debate on economics.

Republicans in the House attempted to stop what they called, "the largest tax increase in American history," by forcing a vote on the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which Democrats had voted to allow to expire in 2011 when they passed a budget resolution earlier this year. Republicans utilized a parliamentary maneuver to bring the Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2007 to the floor. The act, authored by Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI), would have made the Bush tax cuts permanent. Five Democrats joined Republicans in voting for the measure. No Republicans voted against.

Although the bill was defeated 220-196, Republicans believe that they scored a public relations victory by forcing majority Democrats to essentially vote in favor of tax increases in an election year. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) wasted no time in lamenting the Democrats' action.

"Today's vote gave House Democrats a clear choice between siding with Speaker Pelosi by allowing the largest tax increase in history or siding with their overtaxed constituents, who are tired of Washington confiscating their hard-earned money and wasting it. In the end, they stood firmly with Speaker Pelosi...

Every taxpayer will be hit with this largest tax hike in American history. [...] At a time when families and businesses are already struggling with rising gas prices and high costs of living, it is inconceivable that the Democratic Majority has seized even more of their paychecks in order to bankroll more wasteful Washington spending.

The Pew Research Center published a study of the United States population that forecasts the changing nature of the makeup of the nation's citizenry based upon current trends. Among the study's most consequential findings is its prediction that by 2020, 12 years from now, the percentage of foreign-born Americans will eclipse the record set in the late-1800s. At that time, large influxes of Irish, Italian, and other immigrants from Western Europe swelled the foreign-born percentage of the population to 15%.

But by early in this century, if current immigration trends continue, the foreign born percentage of the population will surpass that mark. The increase in this century is being fueled in large part by illegal immigration and consists mostly of Hispanic immigrants. Those trends are reflected in the study's other conclusions about the make up of the U.S. workforce.

Add it to the list. First we saw record turnout in Iowa, then in New Hampshire, and again Nevada and South Carolina. While increased voter participation has largely been whipped up by Democrats eager see one of their own back in the White House, a new record for Florida seems assured in part due to the make or break nature of the Republican contest.

As the Miami Herald reported yesterday, over 1 million people have already voted in the Sunshine State. I was one of them, taking advantage of our early-voting option. This past Sunday, my local public library branch, normally closed, was packed with voters. Why can't we make this procedure law in the rest of the country? It encourages participation, especially from those who work long hours on Tuesdays. Here, you've been able to vote for over a week. It's damned civilized. and means you're not as likely to find a daunting line snaking around the block when you show up to pull your levers.

While it's not surprising that Floridians are making their voices heard in the all-important GOP race, it also struck me as interesting that almost half the number of those who voted were Democrats. True, we have property-tax initiative on the ballot, but our presidential vote doesn't mean squat (unless Hillary Clinton goes back on her word) since the DNC decided to punish Florida for pushing its primary date up.