Essay About Corporate Tax Speech And Tax Rates
Essay, Pages 1 (3093 words)
Latest Update: August 7, 2021
Corporate Tax SpeechCorporate Tax SpeechCorporate Tax SpeechThe corporate tax is the most poorly understood of all the major methods by which the government collects money. Economists concluded long ago that it is the least efficient and least defensible of taxes. High corporate tax can cause significant distortions in economic behavior.  Along with high corporate taxes come the multiple loopholes associated with it, including companies writing off most of their income to avoid tax rates of up to forty-percent. Tax reform has long been an issue in the U.S. Compared to the European Union; the U.S. has steadily held a rate over ten percent higher than that of our European counterpart, putting the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage (KPMG 2013). John F. Kennedy once said, “The tax system siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort–thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate.” (Tax Foundation). This can be applied to not only the American tax system; but corporate tax internationally. With a lower corporate tax, countries will become more competitive with one another in every international industry, which will lead to lower prices for all consumers. Competition will only enhance working wages, which will lead to an increase in the standard of living. These increases will lead to entrepreneurship, investment, and overall high productivity for all nations.        An important study done after the crash of the stock market in 2008, conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, revealed that the corporate tax is the most harmful tax in correlation to long-term economic growth. The report found that corporate income taxes appear to have a particularly negative impact on GDP per capita. Lowering the corporate tax rates they determined, could lead to productivity gains in firms that are dynamic and profitable. In countries throughout Europe high corporate tax rates also hinder the growth of businesses. For example, look at the economies of Italy, France, and Germany. These are three of the largest economies that make up Europe. They are also part of the reason for Europe’s recent economic stumble. These countries all have one thing in common; corporate tax rates over the thirty-percentile rate, notably higher than the European average of 25%. Germany’s corporate tax has been on a steady decline since 2006, when it peaked at forty-percent (Capitalism.com). This helped the country see a stimulation in its economy from then forward, but now Germany’s GDP is again slipping. The small decrease in corporate tax rates in 2006 could be duplicated now. This would make Germany’s rates more competitive with the rest of Europe.
The economy of France has stalled since the start of this decade. Contrary to Germany, France corporate tax rate has been just as stagnant as its economy, holding steady at thirty-three percent over the last decade. France currently has the fifth largest economy in the world (TradingEconomics.com). With leading nations setting the bar for corporate tax ceiling and seeing a stagnation in their economies, it is time for these countries to lower their rates and become more competitive. This will give their economy a chance to thrive again.Cutting the corporate tax rate will lead to higher wages and higher standards of living. Economists have established that the burden of corporate tax most heavily falls on the laborers (Britannica.com). In a study conducted by the Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation a sample of over 55,000 companies in nine European countries was taken. According to their model a one percent increase in average corporate tax rate decreases annual gross wages by 0.9 percent. This means the government collects more from the company at the expense of the company’s workers, something that most workers are completely unaware of when voting on the issue of corporate tax. The same ratio can be used for decreasing rates. For every one percent decrease in corporate tax leads to a 0.9% increase in wages (TaxFoundation.org). In theory this would mean that if the U.S. were to lower their corporate tax rate by ten percent, the general labor force could see a wage increase of eight to nine percent meaning the average American would make close to four thousand dollars a year more than they do now. This truly shows the power of corporate tax over laborers. In order for these corporations to cover these high taxes imposed upon them, they must cut back in all areas including labor.
\r
The Economic Strike of 2010
The fact that governments continue to reduce corporate tax is not only causing the jobs loss as a result of reduced wages, but also is forcing an economic collapse in Europe as a whole because most people feel the burden of taxes have fallen on the rest of the world. Germany has set a similar figure to France for 2012, with the EU doing what it takes to reduce the number of workers, resulting in the German economy only slightly behind the U.S.-led economy in the amount of workers, but only half half as many as France. It would be a no-brainer that the American corporate rate of 34.8 percent is the lowest it is going to be from within the nation as a whole, at 17.6 percent of working levels in the U.S. A reduction in the corporate tax rate, combined with a rise in the economy’s overall unemployment rate, would also lead to the weakening in wage growth among working class middle-class people that America has achieved so far. In fact, it shows that, as part of a long-term plan for the United States to address its major fiscal shortcomings, the United Nations has adopted a new “policy in the United States,” setting the corporate tax rate to 11 percent.
The Economic Strike of 2010
In order to reverse the trend towards a fall of economic growth. Given the lack of a sustained economy in Europe, and due to increased unemployment, France would probably benefit from reducing wages in order to address the unemployment rate. It is also possible that this will also lead to a recovery of France’s public finances. In its first five years the country’s gross domestic product grew at an annual rate of 5.6%, and that growth should actually fall in the coming years. This is likely to be driven down by the need to “save money” in order to address certain public debt, including debt owed to the IMF. The French government may have to borrow a little less to recover the deficits that it incurred in 2009 and 2010. If this were carried out the country could even start to rebuild the economy during the next five years. The public finances in France are heavily subsidized by France’s national bank, an idea that has gained currency in recent years in spite of the euro’s weakness. The unemployment rate for people who don’t work was 6.4 percent in 2012, but this is due primarily to the French failing to pay the banks on time of late and having to take
s to pay taxes. In February 2013 the French general election, in which the political parties, and the country’s government, won on proportional representation, decided to hold elections. During the time that the French had elections in place the national party got 39.6 percent of the vote, while the National Front got 29 percent(±4%). However, this was down from 38 percent in 2006 and 20 percent in 1998.(1>1>The French political system is based on a system of voting. Under French law, the winner is the elected head of a party. As is happening with many other countries in Western Europe, the choice to select the head of a political party is the choice of the voters. A popular vote is, therefore, an actual vote on which the general electoral vote is held. However, a lack of a popular vote can also affect how a specific member of the party will become the head of the party. In France, for example, a government that does not have a clear goal must choose the head of that government; it is possible that a party that does have a goal might, for example, choose the head of the Conservative Party. A party that will choose the head of the government is called a Social Democrat; a party that will choose vice-presidents is called an Evangelical (also known as a Catholic).The French government may have its own system that is dependent on elections, but this system is not widely regarded. It seems clear that this system will need a radical change of attitude, as many other countries do.(2>2>With regard to France itself, the situation looks much worse. The French government is faced with the question of its own course. It has been given a number of measures that should make it much easier to reform. First, the government will have first to implement the country’s constitutional reforms, which the European Commission is developing right now. The second, and somewhat more urgent, step is the creation of a national fund that does not involve any government at all. Most current law says that France is obliged to pay the nation for national services; these include public transport, education, health, housing, etc. The French government, though, says that the cost to the public can hardly be less than 500 percent. A government that spends much less will end up with more public services.(3>3>In order for this to be possible, countries must begin to consider whether they need to cut spending on public services. These include cutting the development budgets of the states; this comes partly from an anti-monopoly movement; partly from a government that seems to have some strong opposition. Another issue of concern is the amount of surplus public assets, which a government often has to spend, in order to sustain the economic outlook of its citizens. In other words, this is a complex issue, where governments need to start paying their own bills, or on top of others, to cover national budget deficits. However, the fact that government will still need to cut spending on such tasks might mean that governments will not have to reduce the amount of surplus debt that has been incurred.In the meantime, even if a government is elected it is unlikely that they will get away with doing something very well. For example, France as a nation has taken a difficult step in this direction, for example by abolishing the national debt and starting all over again. This seems like far-fetched as it also seems to be a way the government can raise the government’s profile by putting in place stronger regulations to keep the government operating above the cost of
a new social institution, the Social Security. That is, a basic social service is based on a universal basic diet. That means the government can provide a national income for every 100,000 people, which will cover the public expenditures, provided that the country doesn’t make any major overpricing mistakes. In addition, the Social Security is set up to protect the family and the elderly with their assets, so any surplus would have to be used to pay up the Social Security budget, or even for private-sector investments. However, this would only affect government programs (health care, pensions) where a national income might not be part of the overall budget.(4>4>Finally, there is the issue of how well the budget will actually be. In order to raise the budget, countries have to take into account the current budgetary situation and set the budget in such a way that it reflects the level of budgetary efficiency of their states, a good deal more than has yet yet been achieved. To some degree, countries needn’t do this (although that may change the law) but their actual spending will need to take into account the changes under their own constitution since it could be that, too, a change in the existing law could cause problems.
[Page 4 of 11]
Appendix: F.2.5, Public Law #35, Public Security for Retirement
As noted before, the Constitution of a given country may or may not be amended on a regular basis. For example, one of the fundamental rights of a country (such as voting rights or equal access to public education) may not be challenged when the constitution is amended unless a constitution amendment is first filed for publication and a second suit is launched. F.2.6, and F.2.7, provide a legal basis for such amendments in order to give states flexibility in the process of reclassifying a national security act.
This issue is particularly important to those who see, or have reason to believe, that the United States has been “watered down” by the last war and that the federal government is too weak to respond to that situation.
On the other hand, a country’s ability to make the necessary changes to its own national military programs is well-established. For example, if the U.S. military is deployed overseas, as in Vietnam and Iraq, there will likely be a need for the government to make changes to that system. However, there may not be any need for such alterations, and the United States military needs to make necessary changes to its military programs to ensure that its military expenditures are not negatively affected when the nation reclassifies its program. Some estimates that this approach could potentially achieve about $60 to $80 billion annually, or two to three times larger than how the United States spends its budget through fiscal 1997.
Additionally, many of the provisions in the Constitution allow for the return of public and private debt and for the government to fund certain programs through direct borrowing. While the Constitution is limited to the direct borrowing of debts, this could be applied in ways that would be less restrictive: it provides for direct and indirect public financing during times when a national security act is not being implemented. For example, while it is true that the Constitution allows the US public treasury to borrow directly as a share of GDP, it does not allow for the ability of the state or local government to obtain direct financing, which would generally create a problem.
An analogous situation can also arise for the U.S. military: if the Constitution has been extended to entitlements for the military, for example, military veterans and for other military personnel who cannot provide for themselves or their families, then this would be a significant fiscal impediment to implementing those programs. For some purposes Congress will still have one or several options to pursue to keep the military going. In this case, the Constitution may be extended to the military’s discretionary spending after a military is “submitted for publication” to the public by a military contracting agency under Section 201(a)(3).
Given that, while Congress may not have such broad power over the military, there are certainly some legal precedents that make it difficult for the government to borrow to meet its needs. For example, Congress may have the authority to make certain payments under the Social Security Act if the government has specified in an order under section 401(3) of title 37(i) (other than section 403A of title 10) that this obligation shall be subject to public financing, such as the Department of Defense. In addition, the Department of Defense may also ask the court to provide specified amounts within a specific period of time to help it make the same requests. Such a process could include requests for public assistance such as food and money in excess of what the government may require to pay into the
public system. Such a process may also require the Department of Congress to make its own payments, which the court might not allow.
What are some of these other “legal challenges and potential remedies”?
As I noted previously, there are two reasons that a federal court may not allow an appeal, either by Congress or the Supreme Court. One is that the Supreme Court has historically held that judicial review cannot determine the law or lawmaking process, and that any law or lawmaking process must follow the “process.”
The other is that “when there is a case under dispute that a court could be unable to order that the government use the public funds to pay out the public debt to the U.S., it can bring this claim in federal court in the form of a public aid claim, or as a means of demonstrating a challenge to the tax law and its terms, or any other legal claim before a federal court to the public fund,” as my colleague, David Gergen of the Washington DC-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities put it. Such claims, if tried before an independent federal review authority as required by the Constitution, would require a significant amount of “work by the Government under that system by the Department of Corrections” to be covered by federal oversight. In addition, other legal challenges can also involve the courts, especially if the Government is relying on Congress’ authority to approve the public bond financing. In addition, due process may not always be enforced: The courts of appeal may not order other remedies in favor of the Government in order to resolve claims arising out of or arising out of a public bond funding program or government agency. In any event, an appeal from a particular public aid claim under such an agreement may not proceed to be the basis for a case for noncompliance. This has been the position held by some of the Court’s earlier rulings in public service or in government procurement cases because, “The public interest in public services is no greater and better served by an independent government system than for an agency receiving $500 billion in public aid from Congress to provide services that are provided to or included in a contract with the public that has been the subject of Congress’s power to make or not to receive such funding.” Such a system, and the courts of appeal that follow with such claims, would presumably require at least some “work by the Government under that system by the Department of Corrections.”
What could be the effect of such an arrangement?
One way in which the courts disagree with me is if the Treasury Department’s fiscal year 2015 general financial auditing report (the annual report required by the Constitution) is actually less burdensome than the Treasury’s own fiscal year 2017 budget, in which the Treasury’s budget deficit is roughly equal to the Department’s overall budget. The Treasury has a fiscal year 2017 budget of almost $1 trillion, but the Treasury’s deficit is only $900 billion. In addition, the total costs for the Treasury’s overall domestic operations are $700 billion each, plus some other costs that impact the actual financial condition of the federal government (like interest, royalties, taxes, and other interest expense).
In contrast, the Treasury’s Treasury Department’s budget surplus is nearly $1 trillion, so, on average, the budget deficit for the current fiscal year—or, indeed, even for the next fiscal year (which will be the fifth anniversary of the fiscal year that begins on or after April 1, 2017—is more than $2 trillion. This fiscal year’s deficit will be the largest since 1990, when it was the largest ever—from a budgetary standpoint, this is more than $24 trillion, which explains why the Treasury’s budget for the same period is even smaller—of about $13 trillion—even though the average budget deficit for that same fiscal year was about 1.5% percent. In other words, in this case, the average deficits in 2014 were at least 1.0% of the deficits in this budget cycle. The Treasuryࡐs budget deficit will exceed the deficit in 2013 for the same fiscal year(s) on average but is less than the budget balance in 2012. In other words, if you add in all those costs, then your budget deficit in this year would have to be 3% of the budget deficit (or about 2% of the shortfall—that is, not just one-quarter, but nearly 3 percentage points).
This would put much of a fiscal strain on the $2 trillion in reserves the federal government has as its interest expense ($11.5 Billion in FY15) and expenses around the world as well ($7 Million in FY20 or later, the Treasury’s fiscal year of $7.5 trillion dollars in debt–debt/duncan–expense ratio.) To put that in perspective, in that fiscal year, only $4.2 trillion of the $5.9 trillion in reserves was taken up by the Treasury. There is no estimate for the $1.45 trillion in federal funds under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit. This is more likely to come from a combination of noncontrolling interest expense, increased borrowing, reduced revenues from deficits, increased outlays, and more. So the cost of not having any additional debt to pay for debt is far more substantial than the costs of not having the necessary funds.
One could argue that the fiscal burden is much higher in this Fiscal Year’s Budget than for any other time since the American People’s Constitution. The fiscal burden was first set at a fixed ratio of 1 in 100,000,000,000 per day in the Declaration of Independence and is well over 1 million,000,000 per day today. The fiscal burden now falls even further (to 1 trillion). It is almost $3 trillion lower that it was in the late nineteen-seventies. One can conclude that the deficit now stands at about 2% of
