The US corporate tax rate of 35% is not low relative to other nations, and that is just federal collection. Ireland is 12%, even the UK is lower at 30%.Gokul43201 said:.. The US, with its relatively low tax rates, ...
mheslep said:The US corporate tax rate of 35% is not low relative to other nations, and that is just federal collection. Ireland is 12%, even the UK is lower at 30%.
True. To my knowledge, there are only a handful of countries (Canada and Japan, among them, I think) that have higher corp. tax rates.mheslep said:The US corporate tax rate of 35% is not low relative to other nations, and that is just federal collection. Ireland is 12%, even the UK is lower at 30%.
Have you noticed that due to targeted tax credits, most US companies pay NO taxes? It's been in the news a bit lately, though if you only watch FOX you might have missed it.mheslep said:The US corporate tax rate of 35% is not low relative to other nations, and that is just federal collection. Ireland is 12%, even the UK is lower at 30%.
I heard something on the radio last week (on NPR, presumably), but never followed up.turbo-1 said:Have you noticed that due to targeted tax credits, most US companies pay NO taxes? It's been in the news a bit lately, though if you only watch FOX you might have missed it.
Thing is, with the complex array or credits, subsidies, and other government aid, it's hard to "calculate" an effective corporate tax rate. I would think, however, such a number should be easily extractable from IRS data (probably even from that same GAO study).(AP) Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress.
...
The GAO study did not investigate why corporations weren't paying federal income taxes or corporate taxes and it did not identify any corporations by name. It said companies may escape paying such taxes due to operating losses or because of tax credits.
...
More than 38,000 foreign corporations had no tax liability in 2005 and 1.2 million U.S. companies paid no income tax, the GAO said. Combined, the companies had $2.5 trillion in sales. About 25 percent of the U.S. corporations not paying corporate taxes were considered large corporations, meaning they had at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in receipts.
WheelsRCool said:Not in the United States. There have been plenty of attempts though.
WheelsRCool said:No one can know for sure, but I think it would have come out by now if he was.
russ_watters said:I thinik by "us" he meant people in the United States. And it is a fact that there has been much less in the past 7 years than in the previous 7 years. In particular, zero attacks by al qaeda.
Here's a list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents
Another list, only to 2003:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm
List of thwarted attacks:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335500,00.html
So really there are only two possibilities here: either we've been spectacularly lucky or the ant-terror policy (ie, the DHS) has been very succesful.
Please cite one.Mental Gridlock said:I know what he means by "us" as in people in the United States, he claimed there were no terrorist attacks against people in the US since 9/11 and that is completely false because there have been plenty.
yesYour lists are showing international terrorism all over the world. As far as terrorist attacks within the US borders, were there really less of them in the last seven years than the seven years that preceded?
No such 'terr. proof utopia' claim has been made here, that is a strawman. The question is one of relative improvement.What I'm getting at is the claim that was made about Bush somehow turning the US into some terrorism proof utopia since 9/11, which there is no real indication that this happened.
'93 World Trade center attack under Clinton?So then in the seven years BEFORE 9/11, there were a total of zero AQ attacks on US soil as well. So then either you were really lucky, or Clinton's anti terrorism strategy worked. Which is it?
mheslep said:Please cite one.
Yes they count, but that was immediately after after 9/11 (30-60 days) before any policy changes were put in place.WarPhalange said:Anthrax attacks don't count? Domestic terrorism = terrorism.
What are you thinking? In '93 alone there was also the Pansi attack at the front gate of the CIA. Look at the links posted above. There were dozen of attacks on US civilians throughout the world and domestically all during the 90's, including one or more famous attacks nearly every year. By any measure attacks on US citizens have declined in this decade.WarPhalange said:Clinton: 1
Bush: 2
mheslep said:Please cite one.
yes
No such 'terr. proof utopia' claim has been made here, that is a strawman. The question is one of relative improvement.
'93 World Trade center attack under Clinton?
mheslep said:What are you thinking? In '93 alone there was also the Pansi attack at the front gate of the CIA. Look at the links posted above. There were dozen of attacks on US civilians throughout the world and domestically all during the 90's, including one or more famous attacks nearly every year. By any measure attacks on US citizens have declined in this decade.
...a more intelligent candidate... - I guess so.mathwonk said:this seems likely to insure that a more intelligent candidate will at last be chosen next time.