Steve Bannon recently met with mega Republican political contributor Bernie Marcus
and heard him complain "for hours about the lack of return on his
investment," reported Politico.com,
A decade before becoming Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, whose
family has helped bankroll Republican issues and candidates, wrote in Roll Call, “I have decided to stop
taking offense at the suggestion that we are buying influence. Now I simply
concede the point. They are right. We do expect something in return."
Koch brothers ally Doug Deason told OpenSecrets.org in September that
"he and other big-donor Texans are fed up and have stopped hosting
high-dollar fundraisers until Republicans make good on the money."
The major make good return these and other billionaire
contributors want most of all appears to be tax cuts.
"The powerful political network overseen by conservative
billionaire Charles Koch is launching a multimillion-dollar campaign to
drive Trump's tax plan through Congress," USA Today reported earlier
this year. In early October the news organization said the Koch network, "already
has spent more than $10 million this year on its campaign to pass the tax plan"
and is "sending activists door-to-door in key states and having donors
dial Republicans on the Capitol Hill, pressuring them to speed a tax plan
through Congress this year."
So, are these and many other billionaires spending big because tax
cuts will be good for America, or because tax cuts will be especially good for them?
Buying influence is common to American politics. Buying direct government
benefits is something most conservatives have strenuously opposed.
The biggest benefit in the pending Republican tax plan, $1.5
trillion, comes from the proposed corporate tax rate reduction from 35% to 20%.
(Trump wants 15%.)
There is near universal agreement that the current corporate tax
rate is too high, anti-competitive, and should be reduced. However, the rate at which U.S. taxes become
internationally competitive is different from the rate at which
major corporations receive an excessive windfall.
Experts suggest a corporate tax rate of 24% to 25% would make U.S.
rates competitive. The average rate for the 35-nation Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), of which
the U.S. is a member, is 24.7%. China's rate is 25%.
So, pushing for 20% or lower rates does open the door to arguments
the big contributors are trying to buy a huge benefit.
Additional
proposals to eliminate the inheritance tax,
eliminate the alternative minimum tax, provide a 25% pass-through rate
for partnerships
and sole proprietorships, and lower the top personal income tax rate –
all beneficial to the wealthy – only make the arguments stronger.
Meanwhile, average taxpayers will be asked to help pay the tab. Republican tax writers are looking at changes to
401(k) plans, eliminating mortgage interest and state and local tax deductions, eliminating
personal exemptions and raising the low-end tax rate from 10% to 12% (somewhat
offset by doubling the standard deduction). There is also a provision that the
national debt may be increased up to $1.5 trillion, an indirect but real cost
to average taxpayers.
"Wall Street is expecting to see a tax reform package by the
end of the year," reported CNBC.
Big contributors are demanding it.
24 comments:
You speak of 'return on investment' as if it's a bad thing. And you purposefully paint it as that.
When we buy an expensive truck or car, we expect a return on investment. One of lasting quality and safety.
When we tithe at church, most of us expect a return of some sort on that investment. It could be as simple as others watching us drop the envelope or as complicated as thinking it will please God. Both are returns on that investment.
When we donate a hundred bucks to a mayoral candidate and place a sign in the yard, we expect something in return. We expect our investment to result in somebody we like and think like being in office and acting in a manner pleasing to us. Return on a meager investment.
Everything we do is tied to a hope of return on that investment. Whether it's taking a morning dump or putting a kid through six years of college or marrying a woman who's good in the kitchen and bedroom or providing free cars to college football players. Name some action that is not tied to return on investment.
To the moron at 10:23. The article isn’t about return on investment it’s about the ultra rich buying politicians and through them US policy.
Bill, when you campaigned for office (state legislature or Congress) and solicited and accepted donations to your campaign; or after you were in the legislature and accepted contributions - did you do so expecting to give to those contributors anything other than good, honest government? Do you think those contributors expected anything more from you other than good honest government?
10:59, Nothing is stopping poor people from buying politicians. They are for sale to anyone. But you do have to pay the price. Don't complain because you cannot afford a politician. Not everyone buys a Cadillac. If you cannot afford one do not complain about people who can afford them.
10:59 - can you tell me when politicians have not been the exclusive property of the highest bidder. I have no memory of an honest politician - I can not name a single one! It is as if when anyone choses to go into that profession, just like a drug pusher, they sell their soul to Satan himself.
Please don't misunderstand my belief. I also believe that we created this a long time ago and it has grown beyond our ability to correct or control.
Name one honest politician for me. PLEASE!
11:32 - Donald J. Trump!
11:32 - Whoop! Funniest thing I have read today! I would pay cover charge to hear more of that. Have you ever considered doing a Friday night gig at Hal and Mal's. You would knock'em out of the park with that edgy sarcasm.
Give us more!
This guy is clueless. Businesses don't get a massive windfall no matter the tax rate. As long as you have competition in the market place the tax rate could be zero - your competition is trying to produce a better product as lower cost, to steal your best employees, and drive you out of business. If you have zero tax rate, so do they.
Yep we got Phil at discount, I keep telling them we need to leave Tater on the shelf. He's going to crash and burn against the Hair.
A little closer to home....what is the cost for a spot on the board of the IHL? Seems that is the most coveted political appointment in the state.
Some of the appointments in the last 25 years certainly prove the board of the IHL is nothing but political patronage.
Tax cuts for the rich is the ONLY issue for republican sponsors. The middle class voters who allow it are rubes.
The higher taxes on the working and middle class does not even include the much higher healthcare premiums they will be paying after January 1. Most Trump voters will be thousands a year poorer than they were under Bush and Obama.
How dare people expect to keep money they earned.
You people better leave this stuff alone and pay attention to your own state. The Mississippi Development Authority announced yesterday that YET ANOTHER BIOFUEL COMPANY – this one’s named Velocys -- is coming for your tax dollars. You people in Mississippi are suckers, suckers, suckers!
The tax cuts will be cool if you currently don't itemize deductions and you have employer sponsored health insurance.
Crawford is nailing it. Random chance, but he is finally hitting the target. Pay attention to the Medicaid contracts and watch which legislators are crying foul the loudest. And read their campaign finance reports. And then go to the next topic, and the next. There is a pattern if one pays attention.
the top 20% of income earners pay 95% of federal income taxes. The problems we have are not income related. The problems we have at the local, state and federal levels are spending.
We got more done with less money the further back in time you go.
There continues to be ignorance about taxes, especially the difference between personal taxes and business/corporate taxes.
You, as a married couple or an individual pay on your earned income. Corporations pay on profits after deducting expenses. You as an individual don't really deduct expenses except for mortgage interest and charitable deductions unless you are wealthy enough to set up trust funds and have a few other tax shelter crumbs. Individual taxes are also about assets and savings.
You all ignore that the tax rate for business and the actual rate paid are different. You don't understand that in other countries , there is less or no difference between the actual rate and the rate paid because there aren't so many tax credits and deductions as in this country. That is why we get to pretty much the same actual rate in Crawford's above example.
Real tax reform is not just about tax rates. It's about what is or isn't taxed and what is actually paid and by whom.
One of you mentioned the top 20% paying the bulk of taxes while ignoring the actual percentage differences and ignoring what percentage the top 2% actually pay compared to their percentage of the national wealth.
Your tax deductions, like credit card interest, have been disappearing while the wealthy have more deductions and shelters.
An example that should be more familiar to those of you who think this is about partisan politics is Foundations...both the Clinton and the Trump Foundations and every other Foundation are all about tax avoidance. And, while Foundations can do good , the truth is there are so many ways to use them badly and to send our national wealth out of the country, not to mention a way to give relatives money, they need reform.
And, then there's the debt and deficit , which was once a GOP issue .
This tax " reform" package will add to both in trillions.
And, by the way, the other thing you've been duped about is why we lost jobs to other countries. It's not the tax rate. It's low wages. That an American company received praise for trying to raise the minimum wage from 41 cents to 61 cents in a foreign country should be telling. It's also not having to pay social security or health insurance and avoiding labor laws. But, the consequence is that our technology and patent advantages have been given away because the CEO's arrogantly believed there were no people smart enough to steal those things or learn to manage a business as well as they can in other countries. Oh, don't forget, these " too big to fail companies" bought up a lot of companies to sell them to foreign countries as well.
But, you weren't watching the dirty details were you?
10:23- so you practice transactional religiosity with God?
@4:38......"what is the cost for a spot on the board of the IHL? Seems that is the most coveted political appointment in the state. Some of the appointments in the last 25 years certainly prove the board of the IHL is nothing but political patronage."
Ahhh. Someone IS paying attention. MDE and IHL protect one another....both of them, and other education-related "boards" receive an ocean of money with no oversight. Organized crime (racketeering? electronic mail fraud? conspiracy to defraud?) is at it's best in Mississippi's educational system.
NO, politicians are there for social change, they would not use serving the public and helping the downtrodden to enrich themselves, family, friends or foundation or help our adversaries to our business, secrets, trade secrets, nuclear materials or anything like that. Next somebody will say that a President and Secretary of State made hundreds of millions (some say billions) selling the goods they had at hand. They also may say they got by with it but you Mr Small Citizen better toe the line......
10:23- so you practice transactional religiosity with God? October 29, 2017 at 11:01 AM
Yes. And so do you.
10:21, you are so right about jobs moving to other countries. It really pisses me off that we have to pay hundreds of dollars for products made by foreign workers who make only 30 to 60 cents an hour. These companies think American workers are worth paying a living wage to make these products, but yet they want Americans to purchase these same products.
"To the moron at 10:23. The article isn’t about return on investment it’s about the ultra rich buying politicians and through them US policy. October 28, 2017 at 10:59 AM"
Actually, Mental-Midget, only a moron would be unable to see that the whole point of the article is 'return on investment'.
Here; Let me help you: If John Q. Public, a man of considerable means and wealth, contributes a large sum of money to Theopolis and Porky, both politicians, in hopes of influencing public policy.....then when Theo and Porky craft policy pleasing to John Q., John has realized a return on his investment. Please tell us you see how that works.
Post a Comment