Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

McCain wants low corporate taxes, regulated CEO pay

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • McCain wants low corporate taxes, regulated CEO pay

    By Jeff Mason

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican White House candidate John McCain will promise on Tuesday to lower corporate tax rates if he wins the U.S. presidency and ease the tax burden on middle-class workers to help revive the faltering economy.

    The Arizona senator, who has wrapped up his party's presidential nomination, also would propose a simpler, alternative tax system and insist that chief executives' pay and severance packages have shareholder approval.

    "No matter which of us wins in November, there will be change in Washington. The question is what kind of change?" McCain will tell a conference for small businesses, referring to his Democratic opponent, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.

    "Will we enact the single largest tax increase since the Second World War as my opponent proposes, or will we keep taxes low for families and employers?" he will say, according to excerpts released before his speech.

    McCain will pledge to act quickly to lower corporate taxes from "the second highest in the world to one on par with our trading partners to keep businesses and jobs in this country."

    He will propose a law to allow companies to expense new equipment and technology in their first year.

    He supports keeping capital gains taxes low, doubling a tax exemption for children, and phasing out the "alternative minimum tax" which he said would save some 25 million middle-class families up to $2,000 in a year.

    On Monday Obama drew a sharp contrast with McCain, his opponent in the November election, accusing him of wanting to widen President George W. Bush's tax cuts and plunge the United States deeper into debt.

    He charged that McCain's support for extending Bush's tax cuts would allow $2 trillion in corporate tax breaks.

    U.S. taxes were too complicated overhaul, McCain will say in his speech, in which he will argue for an alternative system.

    "As president, I will propose an alternative tax system. When this reform is enacted, all who wish to file under the current system could still do so," he will say.

    "Everyone else could choose a vastly less complicated system with two tax rates and a generous standard deduction."

    McCain criticizes Obama for wanting to increase dividend and capital gains taxes and aiming to raise the minimum wage and link it to an index.

    But he also takes aim at top corporate executives with big salaries and excessive severance packages.

    "Americans are right to be offended when the extravagant salaries and severance deals of CEOs ... bear no relation to the success of the company or the wishes of shareholders," he will say, adding that some of those chief executives helped bring on the country's housing crisis and market troubles.

    "If I am elected president, I intend to see that wrongdoing of this kind is called to account by federal prosecutors. And under my reforms, all aspects of a CEO's pay, including any severance arrangements, must be approved by shareholders," he will say.

    (Editing by Chris Wilson)

  • #2
    LMFAO This Clown wants to give more tax breaks to big corporations. He's another Bush in the back pocket of the big corps.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by BettorsChat
      LMFAO This Clown wants to give more tax breaks to big corporations. He's another Bush in the back pocket of the big corps.
      As someone who has always voted Republican but would not rule out voting for a different party,I don't think you have to worry about McCain.No way he beats Obama no matter who he picks as VP.Huckabee might give McCain a chance if he picked him but I don't think thats going to happen.

      Comment


      • #4
        It never ceases to amaze me at the liberal ignorance of Democrat backers. At least it gives me something to laugh about each day.

        Comment


        • #5
          Yes lets go after all big corporations - then they can cut jobs, great for the economy! Good idea Dems.

          BTW, many small businesses will be taxed as "the richest", lets kill the american dream for all those wishing to start a business, and heaven forbid make "obscene profits" and create more jobs.
          NBA is a joke

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by flarendep1
            lets kill the american dream.
            Kill the dream? Can't kill something that's already dead.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by BearDown
              Kill the dream? Can't kill something that's already dead.


              Dude, then why are people risking their lives to come here?
              NBA is a joke

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by flarendep1
                Dude, then why are people risking their lives to come here?

                Dont worry. If BO is elected, he will take care of people on their own land. They wont have to come here.

                Sen. Barack Obama, perhaps giving America a preview of priorities he would pursue if elected president, is rejoicing over the Senate committee passage of a plan that could end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars in an attempt to reduce poverty in other nations.

                The bill, called the Global Poverty Act, is the type of legislation, "We can – and must – make … a priority," said Obama, a co-sponsor.

                It would demand that the president develop "and implement" a policy to "cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief" and other programs.

                When word about what appears to be a massive new spending program started getting out, the reaction was immediate.

                "It's not our job to cut global poverty," said one commenter on a Yahoo news forum. "These people need to learn how to fish themselves. If we keep throwing them fish, the fish will rot."

                Many Americans were alerted to the legislation by a report from Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media. He published a critique asserting that while the Global Poverty Act sounds nice, the adoption could "result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States" and would make levels "of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations."

                He said the legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years he said would amount to $845 billion "over and above what the U.S. already spends."

                The plan passed the House in 2007 "because most members didn't realize what was in it," Kincaid reported. "Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require."

                A statement from Obama's office this week noted the support offered by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

                "With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces," Obama said. "It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America's standing in the world, this important bill will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in the developing world.

                "Our commitment to the global economy must extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere," he continued.

                The bill institutes the United Nations Millennium Summit goals as the benchmarks for U.S. spending.

                "It is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day," a statement issued by supporters, including Obama, said.

                Specifically, it would "declare" that the official U.S. policy is to eliminate global poverty, that the president is "required" to "develop and implement" a strategy to reach that goal and requires that the U.S. efforts be "specific and measurable."

                Kincaid said that after cutting through all of the honorable-sounding goals in the plan, the bottom line is that the legislation would mandate the 0.7 percent of the U.S. GNP as "official development assistance."

                "In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that (U.N.) declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention of Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention of the Rights of the Child," he said.

                Those U.N. protocols would make U.S. law on issues ranging from the 2nd Amendment to energy usage and parental rights all subservient to United Nations whims.

                Kincaid also reported Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the "Millennium Project," confirms a U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP would add about $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already donates overseas.

                And the only way to raise that funding, Sachs confirms, "is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels," Kincaid writes.

                On the forum run by Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, one writer reported estimates of taxes from 35 cents to $1 dollar a gallon on gasoline would be needed.

                "This is disgusting, sickening and angers me to the depths of my soul," the forum author wrote. "Obama wants us to support the world. I wonder how they intend to eliminate poverty. Most of the money always winds up in some dictator hands and in the U.N. coffers."

                WND calls to Obama's office, as well as the offices of others who supported the plan, were not successful in obtaining a comment.

                Another forum participant said, "Yes, and we should also eliminate sickness of any kind and get rid of poverty as well. Then, too, we should make certain that everyone in the world has equal assets, equal money, a college education, etc… After that, or maybe while we are solving all of the world's little problems, we can take care of the polar bears, eliminate the internal combustion engine, and, and, and… Oh dear, if only we would just go ahead and do all the things the dreamers want us to do. Let's stop using oil and burning coal while we're at it. Then we can make it illegal to be overweight and then we can. ..."

                One forum contributor said since the legislation doesn't specifically demand "taxes," but instead leaves the mandatory "implementation" up to the president, "maybe the tooth fairy will leave [this new money] under the president's pillow."

                Kincaid reported several more budget-minded senators have put a hold on the legislation "in order to prevent it from being rushed to the floor for a full Senate vote."

                The legislation requires the president to do whatever is required to fulfill a strategy that would result in "the elimination of extreme global poverty and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide … who live on less than $1 per day."

                It further requires the president not only to accomplish that goal but, "not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this act," to submit a report on "the contributions provided by the United States" toward poverty reduction.
                He who wears diaper knows his shit - Confucius

                Comment


                • #9
                  Thats scary!!!
                  NBA is a joke

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Today

                    Did anyone see McCain with Matt Lauer this morning on the Today show? I did not exactly instill a lot of confidence in me. Anyone else have thoughts?
                    Three Jack's Record http://www.bettorschat.com/forums/sh...10#post1323910

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Three Jack
                      Did anyone see McCain with Matt Lauer this morning on the Today show? I did not exactly instill a lot of confidence in me. Anyone else have thoughts?
                      No. I didnt see it. I'm sure it will be on every ABC,NBC,CNN,CBS affiliate
                      He who wears diaper knows his shit - Confucius

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by flarendep1
                        Yes lets go after all big corporations - then they can cut jobs, great for the economy! Good idea Dems.

                        BTW, many small businesses will be taxed as "the richest", lets kill the american dream for all those wishing to start a business, and heaven forbid make "obscene profits" and create more jobs.

                        WHERE THE HELL HAVE YOUVE BEEN THE 1.5 YEARS??? THEY'VE CUT JOBS, DRIVEN PRICES THROUGH THE ROOF, OUTSOURCED AND RELOCATED OVERSEAS

                        MAN COULD YOU PLEASE GO ASK STEVIE WONDER CAN YOU BORROW HIS GLASSES BECAUSE THEY WOULD DEFINITELY HELP YOU SEE BETTER THAN THE BLINDERS YOURE WEARING NOW.
                        Last edited by musclemann; 06-11-2008, 06:43 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by flarendep1
                          Yes lets go after all big corporations - then they can cut jobs, great for the economy! Good idea Dems.

                          BTW, many small businesses will be taxed as "the richest", lets kill the american dream for all those wishing to start a business, and heaven forbid make "obscene profits" and create more jobs.
                          OK LETS NOT TAX THE RICHEST KEEP GIVING THEM LARGE LOOPHOLES SO THEY CAN CONTINUE NOT TO PAY TAXES AND KEEP HITTING THE MIDDLE CLASS WHO IS TRYING TO PAY THEIR MORTGAGE, SEND THEIR 2.5 KIDS TO COLLEGE AND SAVE MONEY FOR THEIR RETIREMENT.

                          THOSE SMALL BUSINESSES YOUR TALKING ABOUT WILL NOT GET A CHANCE TO START ANYWAY WITH THE LAST 3 YEARS OF BUSH ECONOMIC POLICIES IN PLAY ANYWAY.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by flarendep1
                            Dude, then why are people risking their lives to come here?
                            About the only ones risking their lives now a days are the ones who are getting in illegal. It's not the old Soviet block out there anymore where people might of had a reason to escape their Country. It's the people from Mexico and South America that come to America now to get a better job, a better education, and use our welfare system among other things.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by musclemann
                              OK LETS NOT TAX THE RICHEST KEEP GIVING THEM LARGE LOOPHOLES SO THEY CAN CONTINUE NOT TO PAY TAXES AND KEEP HITTING THE MIDDLE CLASS WHO IS TRYING TO PAY THEIR MORTGAGE, SEND THEIR 2.5 KIDS TO COLLEGE AND SAVE MONEY FOR THEIR RETIREMENT.

                              THOSE SMALL BUSINESSES YOUR TALKING ABOUT WILL NOT GET A CHANCE TO START ANYWAY WITH THE LAST 3 YEARS OF BUSH ECONOMIC POLICIES IN PLAY ANYWAY.


                              MM,

                              Your saying they can continue to pay NO taxes?? Your dumber than I thought if you think taxing corporations will make you better off.

                              Guess who pays when the cost of operations rise and tax is a cost of operation, WE ALL WILL PAY HIGHER PRICES BECAUSE THEY WILL PASS IT ON TO THE CONSUMER OR THE SHAREHOLDER!!! Please stop the talking points and read:


                              From: The Tax Foundation:

                              Furthermore, the average effective tax rate on the major integrated oil and gas industry is estimated to equal 38.3 percent. This exceeds the estimated average effective tax rate of 32.3 percent for the market as a whole.

                              The magnitude of these tax payments made by US corporations raises the question of tax incidence. In other words, who bears the burden of taxes on the domestic oil industry? Every dollar a corporation spends, whether on taxes or anything else, eventually comes out of the pockets of individuals, specifically three groups of individuals: the corporation’s shareholders, in the form of decreased capital gains and dividends; its workers, in the form of lower wages; or its customers, in the form of higher prices.

                              Figure 1. Average Corporate Income Taxes of ConocoPhillips, Chevron and Exxon Mobil per Share Exceed 69 Percent of Net Earnings per Share


                              Source: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Tax Foundation.

                              If corporate income taxes are passed on to the shareholders, we estimate the corporate income tax per share of Conoco Phillips stock was $7.11 in 2005. If that amount is averaged together with the tax per share of Chevron stock of $5.18 and $3.80 tax per share of Exxon Mobil stock, the combined tax per share for an investor holding these three companies averaged $4.58 for 2005.

                              If the corporate income tax burden is entirely borne by their employees, the tax ranges from $198,179 per Chevron employee, to $276,732 per employee at ConocoPhillips in 2005. It is important to note that these calculations are exclusively based on corporate income taxes paid and neglect the vast assortment of additional taxes previously noted.

                              Conversely, if the corporate income taxes are passed on to American consumers, we all share in the burden by paying higher prices on products—most notably a higher price of gasoline at the pump. The debate over who ends up paying the bulk of corporate taxes is far from conclusive, but the undisputed and most significant fact is that corporations do not pay taxes; people do.


                              MORE TAXES ARE NEVER THE ANSWER PEOPLE!!
                              NBA is a joke

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X