Isn't it really true that the reason why receipts are higher today is that way the most recent tax cuts have been structureed and implemented corporations are better off timing their transactions to accelerate revenue recognition which results in TEMPORARY larger receipts today -but which will result in overall MUCH lower rates (and lower receipts) over the long term? Fiscal chicanery like this merely increases and delays the whopping deficit that we will leave to our children and grandchildren. The trumpeting of what amounts to a scam on future generations is altogether cynical and shameful . . . .

Ahhhh.just in time for mid-term elections..
we've finally got ..fuzzy numbers..

I thought we had put to rest the dinosaur of trickle down!!!!

It's so nice that we have George W. Bush,and his minions around to tell us that the economy is good, when a politician(George W. Bush) has to constantly remind us that his policies are working,that means they're not working.

I have no doubt whatsoever, that come the end of this November,gas prices will shoot back up.

Big oil companys are huge $$$ donors to the GOP,they don't want to see a good thing come to an end.I'm also sure we will hear from neo-con republicans on here telling us how this can't be true,and sticking up for the big oil companys.

As usual Karl Rove,and his Republican lapdogs are trying to take the focus off of the GOP's complete,and utter failure in Iraq,and the phony intelligence that they produced to get us into that mess in the first place.

Don't be distracted Dems,this election is about Iraq.......Period.

If Corporate and Individuals were taxed at a 100% tax rate, how much in tax dollars do you think the Government would collect? More or less total dollars than say if the tax rate was at 15%?

Who would you rather have making decisions on how to spend the money you earn, you or the Federal Government?

If you don't think the governent gives enough handouts to those who don't work, feel free to give away your tax savings to charity. Choice is great.

Terror plots foiled, low unemployment, strong GDP growth, falling gas prices...wow, things are looking good for at least the next couple of months. Perfect timing.

A booming economy, corporate profits at all-time high (remember all those "big oil" profits some of you whines about).

To the economically challenged, why can't you follow this?

Ah, so corporate America is paying more, eh? Maybe because they're making more, eh?

Maybe part of it is because the minimum wage hasn't increased in a decade. That amounts to a gigantic, and I mean GIGANTIC, government subsidy for businesses. What, I can run a business with no increase in labor start-up costs for a decade? What a country!

John E,Your post is filled with left wing fantasy spin. No proof,no substance,no evidence,just the usual,I hate this country garbage.
I know it's a hard thing to do,being a dem, but try to enjoy this wonderful country we live in!
Paulo

Once again we are flush in Bush taxcut dollars. How long is Social Security good till now, 2100?

Nice post Jay.

I think you'll find that the R's aren't to worried about future generations. Just like the veterans fighting in Iraq, like them while they're doing the fighting, excess baggage when they return.

Yes I’m in complete agreement with you John E, and I hope the voters out there see through this scam. You would think by now they would try a different approach than just keep repeating the same old lie about how good the economy is, when the only thing the economy has been good for is corporate profits.

Tax cuta DO INCREASE tax revenue. It happened in the 1980s and it's happening again in the 2000s. The single best way to increase tax revenues is to have an expanding economy.

Just look at Illinois. The Corrupt Boy Governor raised taxes on businesses so that many are leaving the state and Illiois is worse off financially today than it was four years ago.

Because of tax law changes over the last several years by the Bush administration...I invite each of you to do the research on why these numbers appear the way they do. I have, and you will see that actually in a time frame of 2003 to 2006 we
are actually 46 billion behind on tax revenue. I will not even try to begin to explain on here, nor will I try to tell you what website to look on...choose your own. Just type in corporate tax receipts 2006 to google and see for yourselves.

Even better, take a look at Michigan's economy. The state represents a rough approximation of ideal liberal economic policy. It is heavily unionized, taxed, and regulated in a failed attempt to close its eyes to the dynamic forces of the market and globalization all around it.

The way to thrive in a globalized environment is to create a low-tax economy without the rigidities that come with heavy unionization and regulation. For those who disagree, Michigan beckons.

Paulo,
"No proof,no substance,no evidence". That is a perfect description of your post.

OK RCK,
Pick any poor southern state w/ low taxes and high poverty and high unemployment. Is that your idea of a low-tax economic Utopia? Why didn't you choose CA or NY as an ideal liberal economic policy examples? You picked an outliar to make a weak point against taxation, unionization and regulation.

Bill F., no increase in labor start-up costs in a decade?? Labor start-up costs increase one way or another every year. Furthermore, while the national minimum wage has not increased, many states have increased minimum wage. Health care also increases as have other costs.

Corporate profits are up because the economy is strong, plain and simple. The economy is strong for everyone, not just the rich and not just the corporations.

Sorry to bring facts into the equation for you on the Left.

Terry...I guess it's because the economically challanged know that anything can be spun to look good...like "staying the course" is a real plan or that we're actually winning the war on terror.

Jethro, The rate of growth of Michigans' per capita gross state product is 49th in the nation; lowly Mississippi is 44th. Unemployment is 7.1%, while the nat'l avg. is 4%. If you want to live in denial, that's your business, but I'll stick with history and facts to base my arguments on. Move to Michigan, you'll love it!

Ah Jethro, most Southern states have low unemployment rates. Unemployment rates in California and New York are usually some of the highest in the nation. Low taxes do not breed poverty or high unemployment. If anything, low taxes breeds lower unemployment. But you point out a great example of where liberalism goes wrong: in your mind, redistributing wealth is a good thing through high taxes. That idea proved to be a colossal failure, as proven by the Clinton and Democrats finally agreeing to welfare reform in mid 1990s.

And Jethro, you chose two states in which high taxes have proven over and over again to hurt those states. New York City's taxes were so high, it was driving business, conventions, etc. out of the city. While still not good, New York, under Guiliani, cut hotel taxes and convention taxes to spur more convention business, for example. In fact the high cost of conventions in Chicago is one reason Chicago continues to lose convention after convention. California kicked out its governor largely because of taxes and the deteriorating business climate there.

So, thanks, Jethro for opening the door in showing the errors of the Left thinking. Oh, and Janet, your post is just another example that you folks can't think for yourselves -- period.

JD,
Glad to see you think the longest peace time expansion of the American economy was a failure. Your logic is baffling.

RCK,
My point is MI failure is not due to taxation, regulation and unionization as you submit. It has more to do w/ the failure of the state to modernize and diversify their economy. I would not move there because the software industry is lacking.

Jethro, they do have a problem diversifying their economy (not the only state with this problem, I might add), but I know you know that the auto industry suffers in Michigan due to taxation, unionization & regulation. What incentives would any company in any industry have to move to Michigan? Likewise for CA.

One last note, there is a loser in this scenario of taxation, unionization and regulation and you can bet it is not the "evil" corporation. They'll move.

bill r,

Your argument is flawed but your skills at presenting it are even worse. I did just what you recommended - "Just type in corporate tax receipts 2006". Here are the first three entries:

Article | Budget Deficit Falls $59 Billion in New Forecast; Corporate Tax Receipts Credited.
Byline: Brian DeBose, THE WASHINGTON TIMES An increase in corporate-tax receipts of about 42 percent, the result of soaring profits, is the primary reason the federal

The Tax Foundation - Corporate Tax Receipts Projected to Set Record
July 10, 2006. Corporate Tax Receipts Projected to Set Record. by Jonathan Williams ... corporate receipts would exceed $330 billion in fiscal 2006,

Surge in Corporate Income Tax Collections Offers Opportunity for Tax Reform
... 2006, corporate income tax receipts are up nearly 30 percent over receipts ... however, the trend of federal corporate tax receipts is steadily upward

etc, etc, etc

Regarding your research, let me guess. Somewhere, someone made a rosy scenario about the economy from 2003 - 2006 that says we would have collected more revenue at the old higher rates. Of course, they forgot the lower profits brought about by choking off the economic recovery with the old higher rates, so the scenario is a little off. Then you also need to recognize that with lower tax rates, there is less incentive to manage a business so that it is eligible for more loopholes, deductions, etc.

The bottom line is that "The recent surge in corporate income tax collections has substantially increased corporate tax collections as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from 1.2 percent of GDP in FY 2003 to 1.6 percent in FY 2004 and, most recently, 2.3 percent in 2005. By this measure, corporate tax collections in 2005 were higher than in any year since 1980" (This if from the third entry listed above if you want to look it up)

RRD

RRd..thank you for kind words...and if you had actually read the entire site instead of the byline you would see that actually the tax reciepts for the period 2003-2006 should have been 377 billion. If you like I would cut and paste the lines but I have more faith in you than you do in a stupid liberal.

A ballpark estimate of the unexplained shortfall for 2006 is $47 billion. In other words, given changes in tax laws and corporate profits over the last decade, corporate tax receipts for fiscal 2006 should be about $377 billion, instead of the $330 billion now being predicted by the CBO.

Ok so I don't have faith in you either!!!!

So companies are paying more taxes because they make more money. You got something against companies making money? Not me. I like people making money to live in my jurisdiction. Then they pay taxes. You say companies are making too much money because the minimum wage is so low. BS. If the minimum wage is raised marginal workers will lose their jobs to factories in Mexico or China.

Bill R.
I haven't read the links, but you contradict yourself in your posts. The line you cut and paste says "given changes in tax laws....tax receitpts should be X"

You claim it's BECAUSE of the change in laws revenues are not what they were predicted to be in your original post.

The prediction/shortfall is guaged on the tax changes in place, not the tax changes "constricting" revenue.

Also, I believe your "shortfall" number goes all the way back to 1997.

Has anyone here ever heard of the "jobs bank" negotiated into the last UAW-GM/Delphi contracts? If a UAW worker gets laid off at a certain Delphi or GM plant they STILL draw a check and show up to a "jobs bank" plant from 9-5 and read or do some other non-work activity. The union contract demanded it. Now that Delphi is in bankruptcy it's trying to get the jobs bank (which they never should've agreed to in the first place) thrown out. If they do many auto industry observers believe it'll be the first of many ridiculous regulations to fall. That's the only hope Michigan has right now. And if you don't think that's overregulation due to unionization wake up and get a clue.

Janet, read the post more carefully. What John D is saying is that we had the longest post-WWII economic expansion BECAUSE Clinton held taxes in check and didn't expand the welfare state.

Joel, you say "If the minimum wage is raised marginal workers will lose their jobs to factories in Mexico or China."

So, in other words, you're saying some of these corporations are only still here because the minimum wage hasn't been raised in ten years? And now they hold that over their states and communities like an unspoken threat: "Let us keep paying people ungodly wages or we'll pull up stakes and go somewhere else where we can pay people ungodly wages. Nice!

Would any of you hire a teen to work around your house for $5.15 per hour? Some kid spends 4 hours mowing your lawn and pulling weeds in 95 degree weather you only gonna pay him $20.60? Didn't think so. But somehow it's OK for corporate America to do it every year for ten years--guess that's one way to get more efficiency out of your workers--thank you Congress! Oh, and you congressional folks--have fun with your own cost of living increases.

Do any of you at least agree there is something shameful about that?

Bill F, all things being equal, if Company ABC sold the same product as Company XYZ, but company XYZ sold the product for less, which company would you buy the product from?

The consumer drives the market, so if you truly believe that American factory workers are worth more than foreign factory workers, then it goes without saying that you should be happy to pay the higher prices. In effect, what you are saying, is that Americans and foreigners can make an equal product, but because we Americans have grown accustomed to a more sophisticated & advanced lifesyle, the American product should cost more. I presume you would have a hard time convincing the average consumer to pay more for the same product they could get for less across the street. Even if you could convince Americans to pay more, you could not convince foreign countries to do the same. Eventually, the American company would lose market share to the foreign company.

The truth is, America has become a highly educated and service oriented society, so the less Americans educate themselves to compete in the present and future, the higher their odds to be left on the outside looking in become.

Bill,
I give the credit for the expanding economy in the '90s primarily to President George H.W. Bush. His continuation of Reaganomics damaged the economy and then he went back on his campaign promise of "no new taxes". This pulled us out of recession and paved the way for a booming economy.

P.S. Corporate Welfare is an expansion of the welfare state.

I love to see these $9.00 an hour ditto-heads exhalting corporate America when they can't afford healthcare for their kids, have no savings, no education, and vote Republican. Nice name tag.