Businesses turn to tax fight, some stung by Romney bets

Comments (27)
McBob08 wrote:

Reuters, why are you talking about “mending fences”? Obama got a mandate; reject the failed policies that the big businesses want, and raise their taxes. They’re paying less tax now than they have at any time in American history. Time for them to start paying their fair share for everything that made their businesses successful; the people and the government. It’s time to raise taxes on high-income entities across the board. Enough of this nonsense of big business not paying any taxes at all — that’s ridiculous. Corporations over 250 employees should be paying over 90% of the nation’s taxes, with the rich pay almost all of the rest of it.

Those companies want to ride on the backs of the hard-working people of the nation and get a free ride. Enough of the Takers gasping for subsidies and tax breaks. Time to tell them that they’re not going to take any more money out of the pockets of the Middle Class!

And time to take serious action to end poverty entirely in America. Enough screwing around, already! If any American is suffering, then ALL Americans are suffering!

Nov 13, 2012 4:45am EST  --  Report as abuse
hotmess wrote:

Do you really think that if you just “raise taxes” on big business, they’re just going to say “Who do I write the check to”? No, big business has a responsibility to its shareholders to make a profit and pay dividends to its owners. Raise their taxes, and they have three choices. Close their doors, move to a country with a friendlier tax code, or raise the prices of the products they sell. Corporations don’t pay taxes. The consumer who buys their product does. It’s a cost of doing business just like the electric bill or insurance or labor. Better idea. Why don’t we just have government take over all corporations with over 250 employees? They could use the profits from operating the corporations to fund operation of the government, and none of us would have to pay taxes. Since the government wouldn’t have to pay taxes to itself, it could also lower the prices on everything it makes..

Nov 13, 2012 5:49am EST  --  Report as abuse
McBob08 wrote:

@hotmess: Perfect. Let them close shop and move away to another country. The opens an opportunity for Small Business to take their place. In fact, all of the big corps desperately need to be broken up into small-business size to bring real competition back to the market. This who nonsense of owing profits to stockholders is abusive the the nation. Taxes should be the first and foremost priority; customer service second. Stockholder returns should be a distant 3rd. Companies have gotten away with abusing the relationships between businesses and the government, as well as the relationships between businesses and employees.

They should be listening to their employees long before they listen to what stockholders want.

Nov 13, 2012 6:28am EST  --  Report as abuse
el-verda wrote:

Obama is seeking revenue.
No doubt a “a short-sighted solution.”
Long term, base enlarging needs to be part of the fix.

______ CLOSE THE LOOP- HOLES ____________







The money invested abroad is not taxed until it is repatriated.

Therefore, it will never be brought back.

We need to allow it to be invested domestically.. tax free

Nov 13, 2012 6:34am EST  --  Report as abuse
SeniorMoment wrote:

President Obama and Congress would both be well advised to remember that the primary purpose of taxes is to raise money to support the government–not to achieve any econommic or social goals. The tax code should be entirely replaced and radically simplified for business so that the profit identified by the Accounting Standards Board is the same profit on which taxes are levied. That would eliminate 95% of the U. S. Tax Code.

Nov 13, 2012 6:54am EST  --  Report as abuse
fromthecenter wrote:

I’m all for eliminating the loopholes and putting a flat corporate tax rate that is competitive with the rest of the world. The problem is most corporations don’t want this because they pay less using these same loopholes. The reason why these big corporations are hiring in other countries is because they can not only pollute the other countries environments but can fully exploit their workers at a wage that we could never compete with. Not sure what the answer is to that, other then to provide them tax relief for creating jobs here and do everything we can to help small business to flourish.

Nov 13, 2012 8:13am EST  --  Report as abuse
M.C.McBride wrote:

All income above $225,000 a year should be taxed at the exact same rate. Enact higher tariffs against all low-wage countries to pay for deficit cutting and debt repayments. Reduce military and foreign special interest spending. Use the anti-terror and anti-crime laws to shutdown foreign tax shelters. Many other widely supported options are available to less corrupt governments.

Nov 13, 2012 9:26am EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

Obama’s plan to tax the rich is a farce:

The centerpiece of President Obama’s plan is to raise taxes on the rich (households making $250.000 or more). The only problem with this “solution” is that it is dishonest. President Obama likes to give the impression that his plan to tax the rich can significantly reduce the deficit, a claim which is false and which Obama knows is false.

Everybody knows that the rich have a lot of money, so it may appear reasonable to non-economists that taking some this wealth can fill the hole in the budget. What the public doesn’t know, and what President Obama will not tell them, is that there are just too few rich people in America for this plan to work.

According to the CBO, over the next 10 years the Obama budget will produce a deficit of $10.900 billion, or 5.3% of GDP on average. (cbo(dot)gov/publication/22061)

According to the left’s own calculations, Obama’s plan to raise taxes on the rich will generate $700 billion in additional revenue over the next decade, or just a pathetic 0.3% of GDP. (cbpp(dot)org/files/1-31-07tax.pdf)

In other words, the plan to raise taxes on the rich will only cover one out of fifteen dollars of deficit spending. Where is President Obama going to get the other fourteen out of fifteen?

To the $10.9 trillion in deficits we need to add the unfunded liabilities of Medicare and Social Security. According to the Trustees of these programs, the unfounded liabilities are a staggering $52 trillion. (cga(dot)ct(dot)gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0197.htm)

Again, any honest economist who knows the facts can tell you that a measly $70 billion in revenue per year from the rich will not come close to cover America’s fiscal hole of at least $63000 billion dollars.

Nov 13, 2012 9:55am EST  --  Report as abuse
JamesChirico wrote:

S-Corp owners do better with Obamacare’s 35% health care tax credit than paying a higher rate under Romney limiting deductions to $25,000. All of them I know pay more in income tax, property taxes alone than the $25,000 threshhold. One reason for operating as a S-Corp. is paying lower than the corporate rate. I really don’t understand how a column brushes over the choice between the president’s and Romney tax plans. Those over a million will be hurt not having the same % in deductions as smaller business owners under this tax increase. Most small businesses will have more not less due to the 35% health care credit.

Nov 13, 2012 10:28am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:


You just copied and pasted all that from Politisite, pretending it is your own ideas, and thinking it would make you look smart. Big fail. Now you are revealed for the parroting fraud you are.

Don’t bother denying it, jaham. It is right here ->

Nov 13, 2012 11:04am EST  --  Report as abuse
JamesChirico wrote:

el verda: Some thought as to how we tax holdings in foreign shell corps. The IRS makes people report their foreign bank account amounts, it could do the same for foreign corporate share holdings. Tax the increase in these corporations balance sheet amounts with the ratio of stock owned in it. Those tax shelters suddenly disappear. No longer are shell corps able to make trades tax free, holders of the stock in them tax free until they sell their shares. Cap reitrement accounts at 10 million, any more made by them treated as taxable income. Romney does not get over 100 million invested tax free. There are many ways to close loopholes and stop these shelters. Having people buy T-bills making foreign income tax free should not be one of them (what happens with the GOP repatriation plan).

Nov 13, 2012 11:12am EST  --  Report as abuse
totherepublic wrote:

The list of businesses at the meeting needs to be released to the public-NOW! The transcript needs to be relesed ASAP!

Nov 13, 2012 11:51am EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

Abulafiah: Not only did jaham plagiarize his post from another source, but he continues to copy and paste the same post on different comment threads. This is the 4th time he’s used that same post:
It’s sad how so many on the right make such little use of their minds.

And it’s not even a good argument. I was wondering why jaham was unable to come back and debate me on the issue on another thread. I didn’t realize that he was using someone else’s thoughts to begin with.

I find it interesting, and disturbing, how little people on the right rely on legitimate means of using the democratic process to exert its influence on the American people and the direction of our country. They seem to rely on anything other than the most important way of increasing power and influence in a democracy: taking your argument to the people and letting them decide if your argument is the best for the country.

Instead, it’s about tampering with the election process, e.g., passing photo id laws, minimizing access to voting by reducing or ending early voting, or having inadequate numbers of voting machines in mostly Democratic districts; quid pro quo deals with business executives that only benefit the executives in exchange for political campaign support; personal smear campaigns; Congressional obstruction strategies; gerrymandering; abuse of the legislative process, like making unprecedented use of the filibuster; and propaganda campaigns backed by billions of dollars pumping lie after lie into the electorate to fool us into supporting policies that are against our best interests. It’s all very undemocratic and poses a real threat to the legitimacy of our Republic.

And now, behind the scenes, powerful business lobbies will go to work pressuring people in Congress and the Obama Administration into getting policies that are advantageous to increasing their personal wealth and power, rather than simply doing what is best for the American people. We, the people, don’t have lobbyists. Our elected officials are supposed to be our lobbyists, but too often they’re not.

The American people scored a victory on election day, but it by no means should be interpreted as a sign that we can let down our guard. All the problems that threaten our nation’s democratic principles are still firmly in place. I would argue that the most important development to come out of last Tuesday’s election was the possible opportunity for Obama to nominate Supreme Court Justices who won’t kowtow to the business community. That could be the single biggest development in returning our government back to its rightful owners, we the people.

Nov 13, 2012 12:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mikemm wrote:


You’re busted. If you don’t have any original thoughts of your own, then don’t post.

The election is over. Your side lost. It’s time for all the trolls to get a life. Or better yet, keep posting your drivel and piss off enough more real people so that the Democrats can gain enough seats in the house in 2014 to take control or render the GOP even more irrelevant then they already are.

Nov 13, 2012 12:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DeuceDeuce wrote:

@flashrooster – brilliant post. I only wish our elected officials can see this light.

Nov 13, 2012 12:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse

The sooner corporate tax breaks are eliminated, the more quickly free enterprise — especially small and medium sized business — will again be free, no longer having to wonder which big outfit got the best break that puts the rest at a business disadvantage.

Nov 13, 2012 12:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Ralphooo wrote:

“An election is really a reset button and the American people have spoken. They have chosen their leaders. The business community will respond to that,” Timmons said.

Good for Mr. Timmons — and please understand that many of us who voted for Mr. Obama nevertheless have strong disagreements with him on a variety of key issues.

In politics, pragmatism is wisdom.

Nov 13, 2012 12:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TrueWatchman wrote:

WRT, “avoiding the fiscal cliff, a volatile mix of tax increases and spending cuts that, in the absence of a deal in Congress to avert it, could tip the United States into recession.”

There is no history of this ever happening. There is no fiscal cliff. The Reuters writers are hell bent on spreading the nonsense, and it goes unchecked.

This is more like a fiscal curb. Because Congress has plenty of time AFTER January 1 2013 to offset the gradual affects of these measures.

But I understand, its good for ratings to create the “end of the world” effect.

Nov 13, 2012 12:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
robb1 wrote:

Rise C-Corp federal 15% tax threshold from $ 50K to $250K. Will help small business hire more.

Make offshore outsourcing less attractive to counter the above.

Nov 13, 2012 12:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
smallbedbug wrote:

Mcbob08: what the hell are you talking about? So remove big business? That will wipe out the private sector, except your small business. Which is 15% of the economy. So how is the government class going to survive?
How is the US going to survive?

Nov 13, 2012 1:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Adam_S wrote:

Tax S-corps at the normal corporate rate. I’m so sick of that crap. If you own a business, incorporate the honest way, and pay your taxes. If that’s an issue, don’t start your own business. If you can’t make money and pay what you should pay in taxes, don’t start the business.

Nov 13, 2012 2:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
brotherkenny4 wrote:

I hope they all leave the country. They can go live in europe. Greedy criminals.

People living on the bottom are not worried about cliffs, they are already as low as you can go. No, they worry more about the weight of the fatties on top. The people who spent big on Mitt Romney should just get out, leave now.

Nov 13, 2012 2:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sylvan wrote:

Bad bet by Big Oil.

Nov 14, 2012 7:23am EST  --  Report as abuse
gacha wrote:

The articled is self-explanatory. But that picture. Romney had this way of tilting his head in a kind of attempt at empathy. If you ask me, that is what lost him the presidency. That fake sympathy look. So ironic it could be symbolic of the American system of “social classes,” or would it be better to say “system of economic categories.” Let’s hear it for the top 2%.

Nov 14, 2012 10:10am EST  --  Report as abuse

There were pro rep. businesses that coerced their employees to vote Romney otherwise they would loose their jobs, one thing the employers forgot was a ballot is a secret process and also they under estimated the resolve of the common working folks to fair and equitable govt.
Prime example Papa Johns pizza was one of them, so remember every slice you eat and they make money, part of it goes to the rep. lobbyist.
This is democracy in action you have money, you win votes, question is the M.income earners and the poor class do not have money to contribute to a lobbyist, so are there any decent americans willing to take up their plight? I think Hollywood did just that and hence we have Obama.
Moral of the story to big business owners, you still need a M. Class society to buy your products without them you are a big zero.

Nov 14, 2012 2:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:


“Reuters, why are you talking about “mending fences”? Obama got a mandate; reject the failed policies that the big businesses want, and raise their taxes. They’re paying less tax now than they have at any time in American history.”

We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. What are you talking about? It is 39% federally (second highest in the world) and 0-12% from the states. Japan has the highest country rate at 40.69%, but they have no states to tack on an extra 12%. You are confusing corporate taxes, with personal taxes.

Nov 14, 2012 8:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:


What makes you think that Democrats don’t get the majority of their election funds from corporations and the top 1%? Why would they gamble on buying off one candidate, when they can buy them both and assure victory? Expect more of the same until we get term limits and publicly funded elections.

Nov 14, 2012 8:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.