iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Dan Smith

GET UPDATES FROM Dan Smith
 

In the Public Interest: What Do Jon Stewart, Elizabeth Warren, and Barack Obama Have in Common?

Posted: 01/27/2012 9:59 am

It's been a big week for calling out corporate tax dodgers.

In his State of the Union speech, President Obama called for an economy where "everyone plays by the same set of rules" and where companies can't avoid taxes by shifting profits overseas. He acknowledged what we've been saying for a long time which is that special interests have long played by a different set of rules than the rest of us -- ones they've helped create, I might add.

That same night, Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren went on The Daily Show and called out 30 corporations that a recent U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG) and Citizens for Tax Justice study found paid more to lobby Congress than they did in federal income taxes between 2008 and 2010. When Warren told this to Jon Stewart on The Daily Show, it made the usually unflappable comedian's jaw drop.

The special treatment that special interests have won over the years is on full display when it comes to our tax code. While small businesses and ordinary taxpayers pay taxes on the income they earn, companies like GE and Wells Fargo have so deftly manipulated the tax code that they paid no taxes on billions of dollars in profits between 2008 and 2010. In fact, they actually got tax rebates from Uncle Sam on tax day. While it may sound criminal, it's all perfectly legal.

Most taxpayers can't employ hordes of tax lawyers to manipulate the tax system or hire an army of lobbyists to craft the tax code in their favor. Warren put it best during her Daily Show interview: "Washington now works for those who can hire an army of lobbyists and an army of lawyers."

The "Dirty Thirty" companies identified by U.S. PIRG and CTJ all told spent nearly half a billion dollars lobbying Congress on tax policy and other issues over the three year period of the study. "They hire those people to make [the tax code] onerous so they can worm their way through," as Stewart rightly asserted.

Some of the most egregious tax loopholes allow large corporations to stash profits in offshore tax havens to avoid paying federal taxes. Many of the offshore subsidiaries are nothing more than PO boxes. In fact, a single five-story building in the Cayman Islands houses over 18,000 corporations under one roof. At least 22 of the companies among the Dirty Thirty have subsidiaries in offshore tax havens like the Caymans. Tax havens cost America $100 billion a year in lost revenue and it's ordinary taxpayers that end up footing the bill in the form of higher taxes, fewer services, or more debt.

The short term solution is simple: close the loopholes. But to stop corporations from just finding new loopholes, we need to turn back the tidal wave of corporate money that is swamping our elections. As a result of the Supreme Court's ill-fated decision in the Citizens United case, companies can fill the campaign coffers of electoral candidates directly from their treasuries. For this reason, the lobbying done by these tax dodging corporations should be seen as a cautionary tale. It's only the tip of the iceberg unless we can reverse the tide of corporate money.

 

Follow Dan Smith on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TransitPIRG

 
 
  • Comments
  • 20
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Haditup2here
8 Years of Insanity and now you're mad?
06:50 PM on 01/29/2012
How about doing away with the marriage penalty and basing taxes on the cost of living by setting a tax rate on all income below that threshold? Furthermore, if something was to be done about companies dodging paying taxes, an effective strategy would be to apply a rate (35%) on all revenue generated in the U.S. for multinational companies, 25% for national companies, and 15% for small businesses with all Wall Street firms either falling into multinational or national corporation but not small businesses. . . and absolutely NO deductions for business expenses. This way there would be a great disadvantage to companies setting up store front offices as tax shelters. Furthermore, if tips for those in small wages jobs are to be taxed, then all sources of income should be taxed. Therefore, stock options paid to CEOs should be taxed upon withdrawal in addition to dividends or accrued interest at the rate of ordinary income.Tax schedule rates for individuals, married, and Head of Household with no deductions.
70% for >100 mil
60% for 10mil-100 mil
50% for 1mil -10mil
40% for 250,000-1 mil
30% for 100,000-250,000
20% for 50,000-100,000
10% for 25,000-50,000
0%
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
psnyder325
Yep, I'm a Socialist. Deal.
12:22 PM on 01/29/2012
The simple solution is to impose an minimum tax on the wealthy, banks and corporations of at least 30%. Stop any offshore sheltering of money, and fine corporations that offshore jobs. Then tax the churches. I don't like supporting religion with my tax money, and shouldn't. Everyone should pay a fair share. This includes the religions who get a free ride.
11:05 AM on 01/29/2012
Simple - just state that there will absolutely be no loophole to avoid the taxes - nothing!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DailyAlice
Christian, liberal, mean as a snake
01:54 PM on 01/29/2012
This is simple? It takes a law degree to *find* the loopholes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
leedan
Sometimes you just have to shake your head at the
08:58 PM on 01/28/2012
The federal individual income tax has had many more brackets and much higher rates in the past than it does today. In 1958, for example, there were 24 brackets (versus 6 today) and the top rate was 91 percent (versus 35 percent today). The impact of more brackets and higher rates on taxpayers and revenues depends on how much taxable income falls in each of the tax rate brackets. We find that only a small fraction of returns was subject to rates above today’s top rate of 35 percent in any year since 1958, but a significant fraction of tax was paid at these higher rates in many years. For example, prior to 1982 (when the top rate was reduced to 50 percent), taxable income in brackets above today’s top 35 percent rate was taxed at an average effective rate of 49 percent. We estimate that increasing the effective tax rate on taxable income in the 35 percent bracket to 49 percent would have raised $78 billion of additional income tax revenue in 2007.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PotomacOracle
The Solution:debt free credit clearing systems
12:13 PM on 01/28/2012
You wrote, "Tax havens cost America $100 billion a year in lost revenue and it's ordinary taxpayers that end up footing the bill in the form of higher taxes, fewer services, or more debt."

You are woefully mistaken. You don't understand modern money mechanics. America is a sovereign, fiat currency issuer. We cannot go broke in the currency of issue. Nor is government spending revenue constrained. Individual and corporate taxes therefore, pay for nothing. They're tools used to manage aggregate demand not raise revenue.

Moreover, all the government does when it spends fiat currency, is mark up spreadsheets at the Fed. In an interview with Scott Pelley, Bernanke responded to the question, "Is it tax money that the Fed is spending? No, Bernanke said, it's not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed, much like you have with a commercial bank. So, to lend to a bank, we simply use the COMPUTER to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed."

So please, spend an hour or two reading Warren Mosler's "The Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy." You can dow load a free PDF at www.moslereconomics.com

You'll learn why deficits don't matter until we reach full employment and we can best attain that goal by reducing taxes and deficit spending until unemployment goes down to say 4 or 5 percent.
11:09 AM on 01/29/2012
Over the last 10 years the top 1% had their income go up by a staggering 256% - the rest of the population hasn't even kept up with inflation - a Country can not survive by the top 1% alone - we are turning into a kind of dictatorship run by big money for big money - a banana republic!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
psnyder325
Yep, I'm a Socialist. Deal.
12:25 PM on 01/29/2012
Interesting. What accounts for inflation when a government spends flat currency. And how does this impact the global markets? No snark, real interest on your take.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PotomacOracle
The Solution:debt free credit clearing systems
09:05 PM on 01/29/2012
It is when government spends too much fiat currency at full employment that ushers in inflation where too much money is chasing to few goods. Government then uses tax and interest rate policy to shrink the amount of currency in circulation. Google currency inflation and commodity inflation.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
frank1946
Tell the Truth
08:52 AM on 01/28/2012
Trade Barriers create VERY Poor Nation States......................Sorry, Smith, let Freedom Ring !

Get a real Job ?

You must only pay the Tax that the Law says you should, nothing more !
- Judge Learned Hand
Javalation
Laughing in a Daydream
11:43 AM on 01/28/2012
You mean, let the rich rake it in and the rest of us pay for that freedom ringing.
05:58 AM on 01/28/2012
What do all three have in common, they are part of the 1%, they own stock and pay only what they have to in taxes, they all comdemn the people who do the same thing they do. They all think they are part of the elete that is better then the rest of the country and the rules do not apply to them. They all talk down to the people and believe they know better then anyone else. They all believe people should not have freedom because they are not smart like them and need to be told what to say and do. There are many more things they have in common that you seem to have missed so I list a few to help you.
photo
somebody9191
At long last, have you left no sense of decency?
07:07 AM on 01/28/2012
The difference being they are calling for a change to the system to level the playing field, while the Romneys of this country are attempting to keep the status quo.
11:19 PM on 01/28/2012
"They all believe people should not have freedom because they are not smart like them and need to be told what to say and do"

Have you ever bothered to pay attention to what Warren and Stewart actually say and do?
You wasted a whole lot of words. All you needed to type was: "I don't think for myself"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
psnyder325
Yep, I'm a Socialist. Deal.
12:26 PM on 01/29/2012
Republicans can't. Don't make fun of the intellectually challenged. It isn't nice.
05:02 PM on 01/27/2012
It all starts with getting money out of politics.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bldr1bob
05:59 PM on 01/27/2012
And Lizzy will vote for that If she's elected.........
06:58 PM on 01/27/2012
No doubt. She's exactly what we need. Now if we can get about 100 more of her in there.