So, under Obama's plan, it's okay to pollute as long as you fork over the long green. Do campaign contributions count?
And here I thought the goal of anti-pollution programs was to REDUCE pollution. No siree, it's just another grand fund-raising scheme.

I was one of 3000 people in the audience in Portland, Me this past month to see Senator Obama.

First let me say that at the age of 59 I have attended MANY political events in Maine. Ed Muskie, George Mitchell, and my mother volunteered on Margaret Chase Smith campaigns to name a few. 3000 people paying $23.00 to be in a sports center on a hot Tuesday at 5:00 is unheard of. I'm an Obama supporter and have contributed $50.00 in each money cycle. (Unheard of for me!)

I went because I did not need to see if he was the real thing.....I already know that. I went because I wanted to see the crowd, and I was impressed with the diversity, and this is the State of Maine I'm talking about....young, old, white, black, brown, asian, and families with children. He spoke to all of us with a vision.

It was so empowering to be in that arena and hear him speak about what we need to do to take our Country back.

Now, I'm reading MSM stuff that says Obama has written off New Hampshire, who are these people that write this stuff? As we exited the arena, there were tables to sign up and volunteer to go to New Hampshire, for me, I didn't have to stop at the long lines,......they already have my name and contact info.

I'm not a Hillery hater, I just want us to turn the page and Obama is the person that can lead us there.

Once again this will be regressive.

Therefore, of course, there will be a gov't subsidy for those making $60,000 or less.

Give the auto industry tax credits???? Isn't that corporate welfare?

Whatever any industry pays, for anything, is passed on to the consumer. Polluters would simply add the extra cost of running their polluting industry on to what they charge for their product. Meanwhile, the human population of the planet continues to grow. The real pollution problem is just too many humans for the Earth to handle. If we don't find a way to reduce the human population of this planet, nature will.

In terms of bi-partisanship, if you look at Obama's history, you will see that he has a long record of bringing Republicans and Independents over to the progressive position. He can communicate our values in such a way that he wins people over to our side.

Obama never compromises on his core principles; he does not obfuscate or triangulate. He speaks clearly and honestly, and you can count on him to follow through on what he promises.

People like that. Lots of people, even people who do not identify as Democrats.

Peace.

The industries will make technological adjustments to overcome the costs. The savings will come in less pollution and less overall costs in the long term.

Give the auto industry tax credits???? Isn't that corporate welfare?

Posted by: Terry | October 8, 2007 1:42 PM

Pay no attention to Terry, he's one of the 29% deadender's who still believe that Iraq had WMD's and he also thinks every policy the Dems offer is wrong if it doesn't involve giving more tax cuts to the rich Republican guys.

Terry-

Aren't you going to tell us all that air pollution isn't really a bad thing?

You Obamaites are.....

Oh what's he point?

In economic theory, pollution is considered a negative externality because it has a negative effect on one or more parties not directly involved in a transaction. For instance, a power plant or motor vehicle emitting carbon dioxide would be a source of a negative externality. A negative externality represents part of the social cost of production that is not incorporated into the private cost of producers. As a result, firms would consider it cheaper to pollute than to find other means of production, because not all the costs of production have been "internalized."

To address this problem, Pigou proposed a tax on the good — in this case fossil fuel energy — whose production was the source of the negative externality (carbon dioxide) so as to accurately reflect the cost of the good's production to society, thereby internalizing the costs associated with the good's production. A tax on a negative externality is termed a Pigouvian tax.

The carbon tax is an indirect tax — a tax on a transaction — as opposed to a direct tax, which taxes income. As a result, some American conservatives have supported the carbon tax because it taxes at a fixed rate, independent of income, which would dovetail with their support of a flat tax.

Prices of carbon (fossil) fuels are expected to continue increasing as more countries industrialize and available fuel supplies are depleted. In addition to creating incentives for energy conservation, a carbon tax would put renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and geothermal on a more competitive footing stimulating their growth. Former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker suggested (February 6, 2007) that "it would be wiser to impose a tax on oil, for example, than to wait for the market to drive up oil prices." [1]

A carbon tax is a tax on energy sources which emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is an example of a pollution tax, which some economists favor because they tax a "bad" rather than a "good" (such as income). Because a carbon tax addresses a negative externality, it is classed as a Pigovian tax, named after Arthur Pigou, who first proposed targeted taxation as a corrective to externalities.

http://www.carbontax.org/

Pure Obama, whose solution to everything is to hike taxes. Given Obama's proven record of not paying taxes, perhaps he sees no harm in tax hikes.

Plus these Obama-style pick-a-number-out-of-a-hat "goals" that bear no relation to reality. He actually thinks he can mandate scientific progress with the same ease with which he avoided paying his parking tickets for 17 years.

You people know nothing about economics, this is the most effective way to reduce the amount of emissions.

There is a set number of permits for year, and that number of permit gradually decreases over time, companies can buy and trade the permits if they do not use them, so the price of the permit is determined by the market. It has been very effective in Europe and other countries that are really trying to reduce pollution

Isn't this similar to the Kyoto Treaty?

I think it is a good idea. It is better than the Republican answer: Give oil companies tax breaks.

America, we stand at the edge of a deep, dark abyss and only Obama can lead us forward!

!MAMAGOB!

In theory, this makes sense to me. When businesses are forced to pay for polluting, they'll do what they always so, find a way to cut costs. If business thinks they can save money by cleaning up and not polluting, they'll do it. But I'd like to see a test case to see if it will really work.

Once again this will be regressive.

Posted by: Terry | October 8, 2007 1:42 PM

Terry, did you just learn that word "regressive" last week?

"That word... you keep using it, but I do not think it means what you think it means"

All corporate taxation is not regressive Terry... you need to go back to the textbooks. Sales tax is regressive in theory, but taxation of corporate profit is not in any way, shape, or form.

Nice try though.

US auto companies for years yammer about not being able to meet stringent demands for mpg's & emmissions, there's no market for these cars, the technology isn't there, blah, blah, blah.

So why do Japanese & European automakers consitently build these cars the US "can't" build & make money off them?

Math Whiz,

How are those flash cards coming along?

Anon,

Never did say it pollution was good. Tell me, what would a President Boy Wonder do to reduce the pollution coming from China/India?

Regressive tax that will hit the poor the hardest and corporate welfare for the auto industry.

Once again this will be regressive.

Posted by: Terry | October 8, 2007 1:42 PM

The only thing regressive about corporate profit tax today is that companies with greater profit are paying a lower tax rate.

This is thanks to double-accounting, complicated shelters (i.e. how Enron managed to report $3.6 billion in profits to shareholders during the same 5-year period they reported only $76 million in profit to the IRS.. the amazing dissappearing profit!), and the lavish awarding of stock options to corporate executives.

The large corporations with armies of accountants and obvious conflict-of-interest relationships with their third party auditing firms can squeeze their tax rate to something much less than that paid by medium and small businesses.

I guess in THAT respect you're right, Terry. Corporate taxes have become mightly regressive lately.

Never did say it pollution was good. Tell me, what would a President Boy Wonder do to reduce the pollution coming from China/India?

Posted by: Terry | October 8, 2007 4:06 PM

Ummm... maybe lead by example? Be in a much stronger position to politically pressure those nations to promote environmentally friendly policies? It's kinda difficult to ask others to mind the water in the pool while your pissing in it from off the tallest diving board, Terry.

"Tell me, what would a President Boy Wonder do to reduce the pollution coming from China/India?"

Last time I checked Obama was running for the President of the United States, not President of the World.

We can control our own actions. Let's do what we can to make things better, and set a good example, rather than just saying "Oh, well, China and India are poluting, so keep pumping those emissions into the atmosphere, industry!".

Here we go again! The banning of freon wasn't enough (to save our ozone layer they said) and cost us consumers billions in converting to less efficient refrigerants.... but not for China or India ... oh no! just us evil americans. Well, the ozone is doing just fine despite China's economic boom, including the expanded use of freon. Now it is carbon credits ... with china and India exempt of course. When are you going to ever catch on to this shill game from these liberal charletons?

Posted by Terry October 8, 2007 4:06 PM

GOoPer Water Boy,

You need to put down the kool-aide and start stumping for your favorite Repiglican Prez candidate because things aren't looking good for that sorry lot.

Why don't you donate some of the cash you bagged from Prez Chimpy's tax cuts for the angry old rich Republican guys?

John E,

If you don't have anything to say, don't say anything. Everybody here will be grateful.

Nothing new about Obama's idea, as several bloggers here have already pointed out. And of course there's nothing new about Obama having nothing new to say.

It's not a bad idea, this Kyoto thing. It's not a solution though, but a first step.

Mr Fluff would have more credibility here if he weren't a wholly owned subsidiary of big energy and big agribusiness. He can't be taken seriously about the environment or energy unless and until he does a 180 about corn based ethanol. Yeah, when pigs can fly.

DavidK,

Leading by example seems to have worked so well on things like Human Rights,...

Are you talking about all those profits EnRon made during the Clinton years? When Ken Lay was donating money to Clinton and Gore?

I guess you still don't understand who actually pays the corporate taxes.

Whatever mom and dad paid for your education, please tell them a refund is in order.

Maybe a story will help - sorry no pictures.

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/03/barstool-tax-policy.html

Math Whiz,

I already have donated twice as much to the democrats as I did last time - Want to guess the answer?

Well, the ozone is doing just fine despite China's economic boom, including the expanded use of freon. Now it is carbon credits ... with china and India exempt of course. When are you going to ever catch on to this shill game from these liberal charletons?

Posted by: K W Smith | October 8, 2007 4:49 PM

K W, great countries lead by example. Do you seriously think the ozone is doing fine???

The Earth is finite.

Declining supplies of good agricultural land, soil, and biodiversity are matters of great concern. So are the growing demands on fisheries, forests, and limited supplies of fresh water.

• The life-support systems of the Earth are close to their limits and are in danger of being damaged beyond repair.

• Toxification of the planet (including air and water pollution and over-exposure to UV radiation) is a threat to human health and to ecosystems and agriculture.

• Global warming has the potential to change the world’s climates and further destabilize the Earth’s life-support systems.

• Human population growth is a major factor in the deterioration of local, regional and global ecosystems.

• Overconsumption is also a major factor in that deterioration.

• People in both developed and less-developed nations must change their behavior and cooperate to solve these problems.

This overwhelming consensus of knowledgeable scientists is not the ideology of a radical environmental group, and it should catalyze our working toward solutions. Our own decisions and our public policies should be based on scientific consensus, not on talk radio commentary or spurious viewpoints touted as mainstream scientific thought.

What we really need is a carbon tax on all the hot air coming out of Washington DC. If Carbon dioxide is such a pollutant, then liberals can do their duty, and stop breathing ... permanently.

Posted by: Terry | October 8, 2007 6:20 PM

aka Terry,
blah blah blah it's all about me blah blah blah screw the kids, I want more tax cuts blah blah blah blah where's my viagra? blah blah blah blah I don't care about my country blah blah blah pull yourself up by the bootstrapes blah blah blah rich Republicans need more more more $$$ cash $$$ blah blah blah I need new material blah blah blah I quit being funny when I voted for Bush...the first time blah blah blah it's all about me me me me blah blah blah

What we really need is a carbon tax on all the hot air coming out of Washington DC. If Carbon dioxide is such a pollutant, then liberals can do their duty, and stop breathing ... permanently.

Posted by: K W Smith | October 8, 2007 6:53 PM

Funny as a set of crutches.

Are we going to tax the cows for all the methane they produce?

incandescent light bulbs ??? Wait for everyone compaining about the disposal and the mercury hazard.

http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/index.htm#flourescent

Math Whiz,

Most intellgent thing you have ever written.

Posted by: sincerely anonymous | October 8, 2007 6:15 PM

You call your constant hatred of Obama "saying something new"?

You continue to overrate your OPINION.

Hello SWAMP.

I object to KW Smith's post at 6:53 as WAY over the top. You guys have deleted much less offensive stuff than that. Thanks.

Pop before the war
Lunch before the score
Steady as she goes
Following my nose
I'm a bull mongrel
That's me

George Bush
Whatcha gonna do
I'm from detroit
Blow the reveille
Deatho knocko
That's me little ol'me
Glamorous me

George can't read
Blah blah blah
I' can't see
Blah blah blah
Tuna on white
Guns all night
Blah blah blah

Cat taboo girl
Raped by an ape
Cat taboo girl
Jam the sucker in
You dig the mongrels
Guardian of the state
Says you gotta go
Bombin' low

President rambo
Merrily you go
Monkey butcher knows
A cab to find a bank
A bank to find a loan
'cause you can't be alone
You dig the mongrels

Violent peace
Blah blah blah
Buy it right now
Blah blah blah
We are the world
We are so huge
Blah blah blah
Terry can't read
Blah blah blah
I' can't see
Blah blah blah
Tuna on white
Guns all night
Blah blah blah

George from Texas
Everything huge
Petrified food
Pizza killers
From napalm to nice guy
Nifty fifty
Hit 'em where they live

The most spoiled brat
On god's green earth

Bush before the war

TERRY GET OFF MY LAWN! Blah blah blah

Leading by example seems to have worked so well on things like Human Rights,...

Posted by: Terry | October 8, 2007 6:20 PM

Oh, I see Terry, so just like polluting the air, we should throw human rights to the wayside because someone else out there is doing it..

You practice a "race to the bottom" brand of morality.

you must be one'a them "compassionate" conservatives.

Maybe a story will help - sorry no pictures.

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/03/barstool-tax-policy.html

Posted by: Terry | October 8, 2007 6:20 PM

That's a real cute story there, Terry. Now it all makes sense. I understand your brand of Economics. Absent of reality, and learned through dumbed-down, poorly analogous fictional stories instead of reasoned observation of impirical evidence.

It's explanatory that the best way you've got to support your misapplied economic theory is entirely fictional.

(and the funniest thing about your little link...that story is an analogy... a poor one... of how tax breaks go overwhelmingly to the rich and how they get lambasted for it in the public forum.... It has absolutely nothing to do with corporate taxation or regressive theory. Maybe you should read it again before using it in a discussion. Do you misapply everything you learn? It's like you've got Economic dyslexia.)

DavidK,

Are you talking about all those profits EnRon made during the Clinton years? When Ken Lay was donating money to Clinton and Gore?

Posted by: Terry | October 8, 2007 6:20 PM

I suppose if I were an political hack ideologue like you that would bother me. But it doesn't, because I could give a rats arse that Clinton was president during Enron. Doesn't somehow make Enron's accounting defendable.

Terry, in my eyes corporate tax evasion and accounting fraud is wrong even when it's done under a Democratic president. I know it's hard for you to understand, but to some of us, wrong is wrong. Not wrong is wrong under your party, but when my party does it, it's all gravy baby because I'm party before country!

What we really need is a carbon tax on all the hot air coming out of Washington DC. If Carbon dioxide is such a pollutant, then liberals can do their duty, and stop breathing ... permanently.

Posted by: K W Smith | October 8, 2007 6:53 PM

KW Smith blah, blah, blah.

John E,

I always thought that you have the mind of an 8 year old child and way too much time on your hands... but posting "blah, blah, blah" dozens of times copying-and-pasting song lyrics... boy, you sure proved me wrong!

Barack Hussein Obama I haven't [posted aabout him because I don't think he has a chance of winning and he has a bag of problems with his close relationship to Tony Rezko.
But, I couldn't resist this one I always wondered when the liberal Dems was going to tax the air we breathe now we know Obama would tax poluters. He has been around Dickie Durbin too long he'd tax anything. Jerry White, Springfield, IL

Science is not a matter of consensus. It is or it isn't. Scientific "consensus" brought us such things is the earth is flat.
Check out the "science" of a coming ice age as predicted in the 70s, and made the cover of Time magazine. CFCs attacking ozone has never been proved in a lab, despite the high tech labs, but still treated as "real". It no more real than cold fusion, and yet we have spent hundreds of billions ... even more than the Iraq war. But even if were real, China and India continue to produce and use freon, without protest ... and production and use is rapicly growing. How on earth can you leave half of the world's population out of your equations? You talk science, but what I see is religion, and as such, you will not be dissuaded from your temple and faith.

You talk science, but what I see is religion, and as such, you will not be dissuaded from your temple and faith.

Posted by: Logic | October 9, 2007 12:23 PM

So what's your point Logic? Are you saying we should stop spending money on science and research? The government spends a helluva lot more on the science of weaponry than it does on anything else... should they stop that scientific pursuit? Or is science an ideological smorgasbord for you? Pick what you personally want and trash what you don't.

Even if Freon turns out to not be dangerous, I don't see your point. Scientist, by design, don't claim to know anything to be absolute. And it doesn't claim to bat 1000%. That's the difference between science and religion. Religion dictates to you and says "it MUST be true because the Book says it is". Science says "here's my findings and my opinion on the matter. Please continue to look into this and improve on it or prove it wrong." Science invites the skeptical to prove it wrong. Religion condemns the skeptical and banishes them to hell. Big difference.

Proponents who are now calling Nuclear Power clean are “cherry-picking the data” by conspicuously omitting any mention of plutonium as one of the waste products, produced in quantity, by nuclear power plant reactors. Prior to 1940, plutonium occurred naturally only in trace amounts in the immediate vicinity of naturally decaying uranium. Within 20 years of Nuclear Power Proliferation, plutonium existed in quantities of hundreds of tons on the planet.

According to the "Handbook of Chemistry and Physics", a massive compendium of much of the known data for the elements and chemical compounds, "The maximum permissible body burden, or the amount that can be maintained indefinitely in an adult without producing significant body injury, is 0.06 micrograms (.0000021 oz). Plutonium (Pu), therefore, is one of the most dangerous poisons known." Also worth noting is that the half-life of Pu (time for half the mass to disintegrate) is 24,360 years.

And all this refers only to chemical and radiological toxicity. This does not include the significant fact that Plutonium can also be made to reach a critical mass as demonstrated by the Nagasaki bomb which was Plutonium based (Hiroshima was a Uranium based bomb).

No containment method, including burying in mountains, even if we assume no breech, such as earthquakes or other explosions, can be expected to last for more than a few centuries before leeching out into the environment.

“Contrary to the claims of its proponents, nuclear power is not only tremendously expensive, but also very dirty and highly dangerous — producing thousands of tons of long-lived radioactive waste each year, for which there exists no permanent storage facility”. ~ Physicians for Social Responsibility (http://www.psr.org)

Nuclear Power is most assuredly not a clean energy alternative.

Sorry ... mea culpa
The above comment was FOR Logic .. I was rushed.
Just to add something on this whole man-made global warming thing. I challenge you all to take a look at the little ice age that occured, starting around 1300, and ending about 1830. Can any of you find a reason why it started ... and what caused it to end? I have found no scientific causation put forth, only a few theories. If we can't explain this, then how can we definitely attribute the current climate fluctuations to a specific cause? The earth will never have a constant temperature or climate, It will always be in a state of change. There is just as much chance the average temperature will be 1/10 of a degree cooler in 20 to 30 years as it is warmer. In 1816 much of the world experienced the year of no summer, when it snowed in North East USA in July. This was due to a volcanic eruption. Go read about it, and be awed by the power of nature, and then tell me man has 1/1000 of that ability. Don't delude yourselves. And remember this, despite that massive polluting event, the world and it's climates quickly recovered.

To David:
You need help. Science IS concise. Opinion is NOT science. Here is my opinion, now prove me wrong? That, David, is religion. I believe there is a God. How are you going to prove me wrong, David? Acoording to you, God is a scientific fact, because you obviously cannot prove me wrong.

DavidK,

Two posts and nothing of substance.

Regarding corporate income tax rates, ours is among the highest in the western world and unlike most countries, even Europe, has not been changed since 1994.

Corporate Taxes are paid by the consumers - therefore this is regressive.

As far as you EnRon example, you are using them as the typical Corporate entity. They are (were) not.

"but when my party does it, it's all gravy baby because I'm party before country!" Pretty much tells me where you stand.

because you obviously cannot prove me wrong.

Posted by: K W Smith | October 9, 2007 4:00 PM

That, in a nutshell, says it all. You've already decided you cannot be proven wrong.

Scientists don't do that.

See the difference?

"but when my party does it, it's all gravy baby because I'm party before country!" Pretty much tells me where you stand.

Posted by: Terry | October 9, 2007 6:28 PM

That's funny (not nearly as funny as your link, but funny), because I seem to remember you being the one trying to disarm me with "but, but... Clinton!"... find my partisan hackery, Terry. I'm using knowledge to debate a topic, you're just tiredly relying on the misuse of the term "regressive" and relying on ad hominem argument.

Regarding corporate income tax rates, ours is among the highest in the western world

Posted by: Terry | October 9, 2007 6:28 PM

As is par for the course with you, Terry, your argument sounds nice... that is until reality comes into play.

While the corporate tax RATE in the US is high, the problem is that, due to dubious accounting policies allowed and numerous loopholes (see my posts above), US Corporations don't PAY theit taxes. So while your citation of our outrageous 39% top corporate tax rate is nice and all, please find me a company that is paying 39% of income reported to shareholders in federal taxes. When you look at tax RECEIPTS (i.e. reality) from corporate taxation as a percentage of GDP (what the CBO... not some hack thinktank... uses as the most telling indicator of corporate taxation policy), US Corporations pay extremely LOW tax rates compared to other nations. In fact, on the CBO's list of 30 OECD countries it compares the US to, our corporations PAY the 3rd lowest amount(1.8%of GDP), despite the high "rate" charged.

Let me put it this way... If the government were to tax me at a "rate" of 50% on income, that sounds high, right? But if the government were to then turn around and.... through write-offs, double-book accounting, and loopholes... allow me to claim no income and avoid paying any taxes, well then in REALITY (again... I know it's hard for you to deal with), I'm not paying a very high tax rate, am I?

The proof is in the pudding, Terry. Corporations in the US actually PAY very little in taxes by any measure... it doesn't matter what rate we start at, the ACTUAL AMOUNT PAID is what truly matters... and by any standard; comparative to other countries, historically within this country (Corporate taxes used to account for 30+% of federal revenue in the 50's, it's been a steady decline to around 5% today), etc.; our orporations pay less than their share of taxes today.

Sorry to burst your little misleading hand-picked stat bubble with reality there.

Anonymous:
It's all moot anyway. Corporations do not pay taxes. The cost of doing business(production, manufacturing and TAXES) is incorporated into the cost of the end product and passed along to the consumer ... US ... WE pay those taxes.

Anonymous:
It's all moot anyway. Corporations do not pay taxes. The cost of doing business(production, manufacturing and TAXES) is incorporated into the cost of the end product and passed along to the consumer ... US ... WE pay those taxes.

Posted by: K W Smith | October 10, 2007 12:35 PM

KW.... By that logic, I don't pay my income tax, corporations do. If I didn't have to give my income tax to the Government, I'd give it to Corporations as a consumer. In that way, Corporations pay all our individual taxes, right?

The "corporations don't pay taxes because it's an expense" argument is no different and no less ridiculous.

Just because money moves from institution to individuals, back to institutions, back to individuals, and so on in perpetuity doesn't mean that individuals pay individual taxes AS WELL as Corporate taxes. Your argument is demagoguery, not economic reality.

Corporations DO pay taxes, and they SHOULD. They benefit from taxes. The fruits of taxes are baked into their products.

Again. Corporations that make income and don't pay taxes on some level are essentially taking from the Federal coffers and laundering it for Private gain. The consumer of a product and the owner of that corporation should incur the cost of the value-added benefit that our taxes put into that good and the resultant profit made available.

And Terry.

Corporate taxes are not regressive. When you learn the difference between "Consumer" and "Citizen", you'll get it. As you're an entry-level Fortune 500 corporate drone (I've been there before, so I'm not trying to trash you, just speaking from a position of understanding), I know you've been brainwashed to think there's no difference between the two and haven't had the time to figure it out for yourself yet, but there is a difference.

It'll also help if you think about taxes. Think about how their paid on Profit, not Gross Revenue. Think about the consuming habits and lifestyles of the poor vs. the wealthy. Take a look at Profit Margins on staple and discount products vs. those of luxury goods and services (for example: try looking into profit margins on a bag of flour vs. an I-Pod).

Actually. I would love to put it into a fictional story format for you (as you say, "sorry, no pictures")... one that is much more based in reality than your ridiculously incomplete and poorly reasoned bar analogy link.... as I know fictionaly stories help you understand these things. Just ask and I'd be glad to show you, but I do believe if you just stop to think about it, instead of just absentmindedly repeating some ideological mantra that you probably heard or read from someone else, you'll get it.

David, quit posting nonsense. You have a complete disconnect with logic or reality.

David, quit posting nonsense. You have a complete disconnect with logic or reality.

Posted by: K W Smith | October 10, 2007 7:00 PM

KW... I quit posting nonsense when I stopped replying to anything John D posts. Above is all logic and reality. Just because you can't follow it or particularly like it doesn't make it nonsense.

DavidK - Show me some of this knowledge - haven't seen any yet. No FACTS, just pounding on the keyboard.

"I'm using knowledge to debate a topic, you're just tiredly relying on the misuse of the term "regressive" and relying on ad hominem argument."

Anon,

That Top Corprate Tax rate is didfferent from the average tax rate that a corporation will pay. The corporate tax rate of 35% is paid however on the incremental income that a corporation will generate - that is, the next dollar the company earns. Thus the higher this rate, the lless likely that a company will take on new project.

DavidK,

Entry level - I think not. The last thing I need from you are accounting/finance/economic lessons.

Your kidding me that income taxes are paid on profits and not revenues - thank God you came along and straightened that out.

The bar analogy is for individual income tax payments.

One more time - since corporations sell goods that all Americans use and a poor family will spend more of their income on good, this makes corporate taxes regressive. Yes the rich will spend on high-edn goods, but don't tell me the "poor" don't have I-pods - ride the CTA lately?

BTW, which company were you a financial analyst at? I want to make sure I don't buy the stock.

It's all Bush's fault! He hates the American people! Cheney is spending all our tax dollars on shotgun shells. we would be much better off if Kerry had won the election!

Terry. You can start using your brain any time now.

Are investment banks charitable organizations now? How about Law firms? Accountants?

Just because a lower percentage of the wealthy man's income is being spent on consumer goods doesn't mean it's not contributing to corporate profit.

Tell me what percentage of the rich man's income is not being put back into the corporate sector.
I'll bet you'd be hard-pressed to find a penny. AND, the goods (and SERVICES) the rich man consumes have a much, much greater profit margin. Why don't you take a stroll down to the marketing department at that Fortune 500 company you work at and ask them what the sweet-spot demographic they're aiming at is. I don't even know who your employer is, but I'll guarantee you the response you get will NOT be the working poor. You know why? Because there's much more money to be made catering to the middle class, upper middle class, and wealthy!

IN FACT, I would submit to you that the lower half of our incomer earners actually spend a much LOWER percentage of their income to corporations than the upper half.

Why? Well, lets think about it.

Where do the lower half live? Why, they live in rental apartments, overwhelmingly owned by individuals who, if they have incorporated, have done so as an S-Corp and are reporting any income from the rental property on their PERSONAL tax return. And that accounts for roughly 25% of the working poor tenant's income!

The Rich guy buys his $700,000 NEW house from Kimball Hill (corporate profit) and finances it at GMAC (corporate profit).

How about their car? Does the lower half just run down to the dealership to buy their new car, Terry? No. They buy it (with CASH) private-party from their aunt or the guy down the block, and pay a flat use tax fee. NO CORPORATE PROFIT. Let's assume that expense accounts for 10% of the working poor man's income. And this is the poor man's family's only car!

The rich guy goes down to the dealership and buys an Escalade (biggest profit margin by vehicle GM's got) AND he finances it. All kinds've corporate profit there! And the wife & kids need their own cars too, Terry!

Many working poor buy their furniture, home decorations, and clothing from the Salvation Army... Just look at the number of locations in Chicago... SOMEONE's shopping there, Terry. charitable organization. No corporate profit.

Rich guy? Ethan Allen & Pottery Barn. Corporate Profit.

When it's tax season, the working poor guy does his own taxes. Rich guy calls Deloitte & Touche (corporate profit!).

When they get in trouble with the law, working poor guy gets a public defender, rich guy hires a pricey law firm (corporate profit!).

Shall I go on? I can. I've lived with and rented to these very people (Humbolt Park and Avondale). I just identified a sizeable portion of the average working poor man's income (roughly 35%...and I think that's conservative) that does NOT contribute to corporate profit. And that isn't some ideological fallacy. It's how the poor ACTUALLY LIVE. Please, show me even 5% of the rich guy's income that is not somehow contributing to corporate profit.

So we've established that a LOWER percentage of the poor man's income is spent to Corporations AND the goods and services the poor man DOES buy have a much lower profit margin.

Sorry Terry. You can have your own ideology, but you can't have your own facts.

Corporate taxes are NOT regressive. Period.

but don't tell me the "poor" don't have I-pods - ride the CTA lately?

Posted by: Terry | October 10, 2007 11:15 PM

And Terry... the poor don't have IPods. You really need to get out of your bubble there every once in a while.

Drive around the West side for a while and tell me if you see an Apple store over there.

David K,

While the upper income people are plugging money into their 401K's and their into other brokerage accounts (probably over 10% of their income), the poor and middle class are buying goods from WalMart, Exxon Mobil, GE, Chevron, Elctric Utilities, Natural Gas Utilities, Phone Companies, cable Bills, McDonalds, Target, Kroger,etc...

Read "The Millionaire Next Door" sometime, you might be enlighted on where the millionaires shop and what they drive and where they live.

Nice try on counting the nmortgage AND the house and also the car AND the financing. I'll assume you were being intellectually honest and counting the principle of the pymt toward the commodity and the interest toward the financing company.

I believe that the corpoarte tax rate applied against these Companies net income is 35%.

It is generally 100% of their income that goes to pay these bills unlike the rich. Therefore, regressive.

Other than landlord, just what company benefits from your brillinace?

David K,

While the upper income people are plugging money into their 401K's and their into other brokerage accounts (probably over 10% of their income), the poor and middle class are buying goods from WalMart, Exxon Mobil, GE, Chevron, Elctric Utilities, Natural Gas Utilities, Phone Companies, cable Bills, McDonalds, Target, Kroger,etc...

Nice try on counting the nmortgage AND the house and also the car AND the financing. I'll assume you were being intellectually honest and counting the principle of the pymt toward the commodity and the interest toward the financing company.

I believe that the corpoarte tax rate applied against these Companies net income is 35%.

It is generally 100% of their income that goes to pay these bills unlike the rich. Therefore, regressive.

Read "The Millionaire Next Door" sometime, you might be enlighted on where the millionaires shop and what they drive and where they live.

Other than landlord, just what company benefits from your brillinace?

Nice try on counting the nmortgage AND the house and also the car AND the financing. I'll assume you were being intellectually honest and counting the principle of the pymt toward the commodity and the interest toward the financing company.

Posted by: Terry | October 11, 2007 7:19 PM

Terry.... where is your 401k? Merrill Lynch? Fidelity? Hmmm? Well then THERE'S A COMPANY PROFITING FROM THAT 10% OF YOUR INCOME, DUMBARSE!

If you put your money into a CD at a bank (earning lets say 5%), yes, it's invested, but that bank is turning that money around, lending it at Prime + 50bps and PRIFITING from it. In that way, ALL of the rich man's income is ending up in corporations hands to profit from. 100% of it!

When you give $100 to Fidelity and they earn 2% on it through fees and such, that's no different than the poor guy spending $100 at McDonalds and them earning 2% from it. It's contributing to corporate profit! Just because you can get your money back someday doesn't mean a corporation's not profiting from it. In fact, it means that that corporation can CONTINUE profiting from it. Because they keep charging fees on it in perpetuity until you draw it out. McD's only makes profit once on their $100.

And I included the mortgage AND the house because I SHOULD. They are two different products! The house is a Kimball hill product that it PROFITS from, and the Mortgage is a separate product that GMAC profits from. Geezus, I'd think a financial analyst would be capable of understanding these things.

You seem to have a blind spot for all corporations that don't produce consumer goods or fast food. Our economy is now a SERVICES economy. maybe the Rich guy only spends 20% of his income on consumer goods (whereas the poor guy spends 40%), but the other 80% is spent on SERVICES that corporations profit from!

In fact, the most profitable industry on the planet is FINANCIAL SERVICES.

The biggest difference between the poor guy and the rich guy is that, because he rents from an individual or S-Corp, buys his car private-party, and does much of his shopping at sole proprietorships instead of massive corporations (poor guy fixes his car at a local shop owned by the mechanic, rich guy takes his to the dealership or Firestone.. Poor guy buys his groceries from the corner polish deli, rich guy - Whole Foods, etc. etc., etc.), much, much more of the poor guy's spent income is ending up on someone's PERSONAL tax return (i.e. NOT SUBJECT TO CORPORATE PROFIT TAX).

And what IS spent to corporations is spent on products with Paper-thin profit margins.

You'll get it eventually. Corporate taxes are NOT regressive.

Read "The Millionaire Next Door" sometime, you might be enlighted on where the millionaires shop and what they drive and where they live.

Posted by: Terry | October 11, 2007 7:19 PM

I've read it. Good book. Doesn't influence the subject debate one bit.

Terry.. Let me put it this way:

You said:

"While the upper income people are plugging money into their 401K's and their into other brokerage accounts (probably over 10% of their income), the poor and middle class are buying goods from WalMart, Exxon Mobil, GE, Chevron, Elctric Utilities, Natural Gas Utilities, Phone Companies, cable Bills, McDonalds, Target, Kroger,etc..."

That Brokerage account your talking about. The "brokerage" is a financial institution, let's say it's Fidelity. And fidelity is making a profit that is based on a percentage of your investment (typically).

If we increase corporate profit tax, Fidelity has to pay it, just like McDonalds, right? If that happens, as you say, Fidelity has to pass the cost of that profit tax on to their customer (some of it... some will be eaten by the Fidelity/McDonalds shareholders as well.. but that's an argument for another day)..

Meaning the rich guy's investments are not any more immune to corporate profit tax than the poor guy's cheeseburger!

In that way, it doesn't matter that the rich guy is giving his money to Fidelity as an investment and the poor guy is spending his at McDonalds.

And because the poor guy gives much LESS of his income to Corporations for them to profit from (see above) AND when he does, he contributes to paper-thin profit margins, corporate income tax is actually PROGRESSIVE.

(it's probably actually more of a bell curve, with those from the top 10% household income bracket to about the 50% range contributing the highest rate, but with the poorest still paying the lowest).

davidk,

The name calling. tsk, tsk, tsk. I think I'm dealing with John E.

First- the 401K/Investment.

"When you give $100 to Fidelity and they earn 2% on it through fees and such, that's no different than the poor guy spending $100 at McDonalds and them earning 2% from it." Yes it is different. When I give Fidelity $100, I'll assume $98 is going into by brokerage account and $2 is getting booked as Fidelity revenue. When I give McDonalds $100, McDs books $100 as revenue. See the difference.

Let's say that the rich guy drops $10K into his investment pot and the investmnet company takes 2% - rather large but it makes the point. The investment company takes $200 as their revenue. Say they make a 20% pretax return or their EBIT is $40. Corporate tax at 35% is $14. From that rich guy's $10,000 investment into his portfolio, the gov't reaps $14.

"And I included the mortgage AND the house because I SHOULD. They are two different products!" Yes they are two different products, as long as you did not double count the principle. Example - if you buy a $300K house and financing will cost you $900K over the life of the loan you should keep those seperate and not count $1.2MM expenditure to the bank. Just checking your intellectually honestly.

"You seem to have a blind spot for all corporations that don't produce consumer goods or fast food" From me:"Exxon Mobil, GE, Chevron, Elctric Utilities, Natural Gas Utilities, Phone Companies, cable Bills" Which consumer goods do these companies produce other than light bulbs and gas.

Finally, the light is coming on:"(it's probably actually more of a bell curve, with those from the top 10% household income bracket to about the 50% range contributing the highest rate, but with the poorest still paying the lowest)." The peak is probably at the 20th percentile (low end), not the middle, but you will eventtually get there.

Keep trying, you are already way ahead of 90% of the folks in here.

Terry.. You are correct that only the 2% is booked as revenue by Fidelity (which earns a 10% profit margin on that revenue)... so, I guess you've proven that the other $98 is immune to corporate income tax, right? Not quite.... Unless the company the $98 is buying stock in sells a product with pricing that is infinitely elastic (unless they've got a monopoly on water, that's not gonna be the case), then the other $98 IS subject to corporate income tax. How? Well, if the company cannot pass all of the cost of taxes on to their customer (and they can't), well then the owners (i.e. that other $98) have to cover the difference. So, if McDonalds is able to pass $5 out of $10 of a tax increase on to its customers through increased pricing, then the other $5 is payed for by reduced returns on your $98 of McDonalds stock!

So, once again, the Rich guy's income is essentially entirely subject to corporate income tax. You still haven't been able to identify a penny that's not. I've identified a sizeable portion of the poor guy's income that's absolutely, inarguably NOT contributing to corporate profit tax. And we've both agreed that the rich guy tends to consume products and services with much, much higher profit margins.

So, how again, do you arrive at the ridiculous conclusion that corporate profit tax is regressive? Only faith can make you believe that (or willful ignorance), cause it sure aint logic and reasoning.

And that bottom 20% that you believe is bearing the burden of the corporate tax rate? That is a household of two with annual income of about $18,000. That's a single mom and child typically. Most (as in, literally over 50%) of that income is going towards rent (probably not subject to corporate income tax), public transportation (not subject to corporate income tax), the salvation army (not subject to corporate income tax), private-party purchases (not going to corpoate icnome tax), local sole proprietorships (this person can't drive to Target and there sure as heck aint one on HER street), utilities (that's where she gets dinged, but it doesn't come close to the rich guy's high-end electronics, cars, food, etc.) and the rest is going to bags of rice, flour, watered down ketchup, and pasta at Aldi... all of which has a razor-thin profit margin. And she definately doesn't have a 401k to experience diminished returns caused by corporate profit tax.

That person is NOT bearing the burden of corporate profit tax. You're on the wrong end of the bell-curve...

the person paying the highest percentage of personal income towards corporate income tax is around 10% at the top income levels. That's a family of 4 with household income around $120,000. Typically in this family dad's contributing 5% of his income toward his 401k (which is still subject to corporate income tax), and the other 95% is spent on expensive new housing, debt service, luxury cars, fine furniture, Ipods for the kids, airfare, hotels, and private colleges. THAT guy's carrying the corporate profit tax load.

Just THINK about it for once, Terry. Don't just repeat what others tell you to think.

By the way.. Terry... can you find me a good third-party take on this subject? My google search is bringing up very little... The best I could find is an article by the "Progressive States Network" (I know... real impartial, right?) bemoaning the decline of corporate income tax as a progressive balance to the regressive effect of sales and property taxes.

I'm hoping these folk have done their research and are advocating something that wouldn't hurt their cause, but you never know with think tanks.

Here it is (second title on this page)... and I'm NOT saying this is somehow making my case.

http://www.progressivestates.org/content/531/raising-revenue-through-fair-taxes

Can you come up with anything from a reputable source that we can look at? I'd like to see a study on the matter with good, hard numbers.

Oh.. and by the way. Sorry for the namecalling (you "tsk, tsk'd" me). It was just a kneejerk response to your ad homenim attacks. I do enjoy this debate. It's the best I've had on the Swamp.

Maybe I should find an economics blog to frequent.

Oh.. and to answer your questions as to my employment... I've worked for Motorola, Union Bank of California, Stepan (large, medium, small public companies), as well as Donlen Corporation (a wonderful private company), and now I'm at a private bank in the far NW Chicago suburbs.... I've settled down a bit and much prefer the medium-sized private companies. Much for the same reason that your "tell me what fortune 500 company you work for so I can not buy the stock" statement was so hilarious... at my current employer, I actually CAN make a difference and influence the organization's success. I couldn't stand the big Public Co. environment because of the nameless, microchip-embedded-doorcard-wearing drone, faceless "Wizard of Oz-ish" management aspect of it.

And I'm not a financial analyst. I'm a career Credit Analyst (that's corporate credit, not personal).

Not to divert from what I wanted this post to convey... can you post a link on this regressive/progressive debate from a reputable source?

I think you are mistaken on the $98.

The $98 is the amount that the rich guy puts into his investment account. That money is then invested into a stock of a company. That $98 dollars is not taxable income to the company - it is cash on the balance sheet of the corporation - not revenue. That cash may acquire an asset that will generate future taxable income, but the $98 is not table income to either the rich guy or the corporation. The $98 has been taxed prior to putting into the rich guy investment account at the personal level or he will defer the personal income tax if it is a 401K.

Trust me David, my education and professional experience has taught me to think thru economic problems, I'm not repeating what others tell me to think since I can't find a link to any study. This what 25 plus years in the professional world has taught me.

The $98 is the amount that the rich guy puts into his investment account. That money is then invested into a stock of a company. That $98 dollars is not taxable income to the company - it is cash on the balance sheet of the corporation - not revenue. That cash may acquire an asset that will generate future taxable income, but the $98 is not table income to either the rich guy or the corporation. The $98 has been taxed prior to putting into the rich guy investment account at the personal level or he will defer the personal income tax if it is a 401K.

Posted by: Terry | October 14, 2007 8:25 PM

Again, if McDonalds is able to pass along $5 out of $10 in increased tax expense to its customers, then SOMEONE is paying that other $5. Who? You, if you own $98 of McDonalds' stock!

Terry... the $98 IS taxed. Your right, the $98 is not taxable income to the company.... it IS the company. When the company's profit tax goes up, the guy who holds $98 of the company's stock pays for it! What's the difference to you if I take $1 out of your pocket or $1 out of your paycheck? There is no difference... you're $1 poorer. and I'm $1 richer. just as, when your McDonalds stock earns a lower return, it's because the government is holding the gains. In that manner, the $98 is subject to profit tax...

Trust me David, my education and professional experience has taught me to think thru economic problems

Posted by: Terry | October 14, 2007 8:25 PM

it's one thing to have the requisite education and experience... it's another thing to use it. I think there's two problems here:

1) you are opposed to taxes.. especially the corporate type. There's nothing wrong with that, but as is human nature, you tend to attach to arguments that fit your predetermined opinion, whether correct or not. You tend to let those arguments through that help your case with much less scrutiny than those that are counter to what you'd like.

2) You have no idea how the bottom 40% of income earners in this country live. You think they are all buying IPods and spending every penny of their income at Walmart. You couldn't be more wrong. Because of where they live and where they shop these people, as a group, give a lower percentage of their income to corporations than any other socioeconomic group in this country.

You say the poor spend a disproportionate amount of their income at Walmart?? well then why is it that Walmart doesn't put their stores where the poor live!? Why is it that they have one store.... ONE... to serve Chicago proper's millions of poor? Why is it that Walmart decided to put 50 or so stores in collar suburbs around Chicago? Could it be because Walmart actually sells to the middle and upper middle class SUV driving millions of the suburbs and NOT the poor?

Ask a Walmart employee which locations are the most profitable.. you'll hear names like Schaumburg, Naperville, St. Charles... Hmmm.... yup. That's the bottom 20% amongst us living there.

Sorry for the time lag - life got in the way :)

I understand your point on the investment not being worth as much since the value of the investment is based on after tax income/cash flow. That's a valid point. My arguement is, yes that investment cannot grow as much because it is after tax dollars; however, the initial investment was valued at an "after-tax dollar", so it is somewhat of a wash.

As far as the Wal-Mart being located in posh suburbs, that is true. Go read how hard Wal-Mart has tried to get into the city of Chicago into the poorer neighborhoods. Read about the opening of the Evergreen Park store a couple of years ago. Also, look how much sales tax the city of Chicago has losts.

Am I opposed to taxes? No, but I think they along with gov't spending should be minimal. Gov't should only do what it does better than the individual - and that is very few things.

Am I opposed to taxes? No, but I think they along with gov't spending should be minimal. Gov't should only do what it does better than the individual - and that is very few things.

Posted by: Terry | October 17, 2007 8:28 PM

There's something we definately agree on... My take on it, however, is that the things the government does better than the individual are BIG, and expensive. AND Corporations benefit from the social structure Government provides even moreso than individuals (individuals would still exist without Government, Corporations wouldn't). As such, it is immoral for us not to make our Corporations pay their fair share of taxes as the price of admission into the ridiculously profitable society that Government's structure makes possible.

And I think your citation of Evergreen Park as an example of Walmart going where the poor live is a perfect highlight of "Problem 2" I cited above. I think people in the position you and I are in tend to think of Schaumburg as where the Middle lives and Evergreen Park as the Poor. The reality is that Schaumburg is where the top 5%-15% of income earners live. Evergreen Park, while not Naperville by any stretch of the imagination, does have an average household income of $53,500, which puts the average Evergreen Park house in the TOP 42% of income eaners.

And guys like you and me and our peers see that as where the "poor" live. It makes one realize that the bottom half of our society is literally invisible to the average college educated white-collar worker. We have no reason whatsoever to ever go into the neighborhoods they live in and often don't even know or acknowledge their very existence.

Walmart's most recent battle for a Chicago store I believe was over a lot located where I90 crosses Ashland. That location caters to Yuppies, not the poor. I'll believe Walmart is catering to the poor when they're fighting the city over a lot at Division and Central Park (Don't hold your breath).

DAvidK,

My Evergreen Park illustration was not to indictae that Evergreen Park was poor, but that WalMart tried to enter Chicago's south side where jobs are needed, but the libs hate WalMArt so much that they gave up all the tax revenue that it would have brought in.

Also, remember what WalMart started at was in the rural America - not rich suburbs.

DAvidK,

but the libs hate WalMArt so much that they gave up all the tax revenue that it would have brought in.

Posted by: Terry | October 20, 2007 12:56 PM

Yes, and we'd all be living in utopia right now if the government only made MORE decisions based solely on tax revenue.

Terry... the libs don't "hate" Walmart itself. They hate its policies, mainly 1) it's refusal to let employees organize, and 2) it's policy of insuring as few employees as possible, thus externalizing that cost on the taxpayer (and our discussion comes full circle)

"The liberals" would welcome Walmart into chicago with open armes if organized labor in the city were behind it. But it's not.

Also, remember what WalMart started at was in the rural America - not rich suburbs.

Posted by: Terry | October 20, 2007 12:56 PM

And Microsoft started in a geek's garage... what's your point?

Recently I have read an article about auction system, that at some places to breath fresh air also an auction is conducted. Its really stunning to know that it is becoming more difficult to even utilize the natural resources. Hope new ideas like these would help reduce the risk of unhealthy breathing.