The ‘Obama is regulating the economy to death’ claim

Trapped as they are by their own rhetoric, the Republicans are down to just two basic prescriptions for improving job growth: Cut taxes and reduce “job-killing” regulation.

We’ve dealt with the tax question repeatedly, demonstrating both that the current tax burden is lower than it has been in 60 years and that neither tax cuts nor tax hikes have the economic impact that the GOP alleges.

But what about this second claim, the notion that the federal government is strangling the U.S. economy with regulation, and that the Obama administration is rapidly making things worse?

Well, let’s start with the basics. The World Bank ranks the United States fifth in the world, out of 183 nations ranked, in the ease of doing business. The only four nations ahead of us in the ranking are Singapore, Hong Kong, New Zealand and Great Britain.

OK. but isn’t Obama in the process of destroying all that? By the time he’s finished wrecking the American economy with all of his liberal rules, won’t we rank down near, say, Kenya, at 98th in terms of the ease of doing business?

House Speaker John Boehner would surely have you think so.

“At this moment, the Executive Branch has 219 new rules in the works that will cost our economy at least $100 million,” he said earlier this month. “That means under the current Washington agenda, our economy is poised to take a hit from the government of at least $100 million — 219 times.”

Fact-checkers at the Washington Post pointed out how badly Boehner was distorting reality with that claim. For example, many of the regulations in question were deemed significant because of the benefits involved, not because of the cost.

Finally, there’s this, from ABC News:

During Obama’s first two years in office, 555 new “significant” regulations, or ones that have a cost or benefit of at least $100 million in a year, have been enacted, according to the Office of Management and Budget. Over the eight years that former president George W. Bush was in office about 2,380 regulations were enacted, an average of 595 every two years.

In other words, Obama has reduced the number of significant new federal regulations by 6.6 percent compared to the average under his predecessor.

– Jay Bookman

232 comments Add your comment

stands for decibels

September 21st, 2011
3:51 pm

“219 new rules in the works that will cost our economy at least $100 million”

I bet he has a list of 20 Communists working for the State Department as well.

stands for decibels

September 21st, 2011
3:53 pm

Ok, I looked it up. It was 205 imaginary Commies in Tail Gunner Joe’s list.

stands for decibels

September 21st, 2011
3:54 pm

Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973

September 21st, 2011
3:54 pm

Read that WaPo piece a while back. It doesn’t matter if you hang the truth behind F-16’s and fly them all around the country, people who are opposed to Obama will believe whatever comes from GOP leaders before they believe the truth. Any attempt to parlay the truth will be interpreted as liberal spin.

Just watch this thread for proof…

July

September 21st, 2011
3:56 pm

well, if he was working instead of playing golf he could have got more regulations passed.

Adam

September 21st, 2011
3:58 pm

BlahBlahBlah

September 21st, 2011
4:02 pm

Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign slogan, as written by Jay Bookman:

“Vote for me again because Bush was worse!”

scintillating

ByteMe

September 21st, 2011
4:04 pm

Just more class warfare from the class that’s waging war on the rest of us.

Speaking of which, here’s a good takedown of the whole idiotic “class warfare” meme: http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/elizabeth-warren-on-class-warfare-there-is-nobody-who-got-rich-on-his-own-video.php?ref=fpb

cosby smith

September 21st, 2011
4:04 pm

You rely on ABC…well that says a lot…new regs are coming out of every agency under Obama from the NLRB regarding Boeing, to the transportation department attempting to require farm equipment operators have a commercil drivers license. G.W or Obama, I do not care, but the federal government continues to pump out regulations that is strangling the economy. The EPA will not let the pipeline be built from Canada to the gulf coast, no new drilling – sorry Jay – we are still dependent on petrolium for energy, the push to shut down Gibson guitar, the push to make everyone a union member…yep in two years we will be with Kenya. suck up the Obama “changy” thing and no one will be working..librals will always believe there is something for nothing and all. And I guess we should tax the rich..but not the 51% that do not pay taxes..ahh the annoited one has all the correct answere including a half billion to Solonar for nothing or bailing out GM for the unions while investors come away with nothing including a lot of workers retirement plans. Ywp the wonderful annoited one..always devended by thow uninformed or not wanting to believe he could be what he is..a community organizer.

Tommy Maddox

September 21st, 2011
4:04 pm

Well, it’s good to know that Obama’s imposition of less regulations has had such an uplifting affect upon the economy.

Adam

September 21st, 2011
4:05 pm

BlahBlahBlah:

Repeal the 20th Century. Vote GOP

Republicans: Keeping millions out of work to put one man out of a job

Where are the jobs from the tax cuts for the rich?

And an old favorite: Vote Republican. It’s easier than thinking

With the Republicans doing such a great job of displaying who they are, Obama doesn’t NEED to draw attention to it much. It is on full display for all to say.

Bosch

September 21st, 2011
4:06 pm

If Elizabeth Warren is elected to the Senate, she may, may I say, just replace Olympia Snowe as the Senate Goddess.

arnold

September 21st, 2011
4:06 pm

Jay, for your explanations to mean anything, they have to be in sound bites. Republicans don’t seem to want to think anything through.

md

September 21st, 2011
4:06 pm

Being lazy, but are the regs in the upcoming hc bill included in any of those numbers?

Adam

September 21st, 2011
4:06 pm

ByteMe: Yeah Warren totally ripped them apart on that. They probably hate her more than Obama and Pelosi COMBINED, and that’s saying something.

“GOP: Don’t touch our money or the economy gets it!”

Stonethrower

September 21st, 2011
4:06 pm

Can’t wait until we elect the Repulicans to take this country back. Gas will go down, jobs will be plentiful and the stock market will recover. Dems don’t have the spine to stand up to the GOP therefore they don’t deserve to control either legislative nor the executive branch.

ByteMe

September 21st, 2011
4:08 pm

Adam, Scott Brown was up 15 over anyone else until she got into the race and he’s down 2 the very next day… he and his Wall Street buddies ($10M campaign war chest from them so far) can hear them knocking…

ByteMe

September 21st, 2011
4:09 pm

Stonethrower, there’s an old saying that goes something like this: in any battle between the shameless and the spineless, the shameless will always win. Doesn’t say much for either party, though.

BlahBlahBlah

September 21st, 2011
4:10 pm

Good stuff Adam. Congratulations. Your guy is the least worst person for the job. Scintillating.

ByteMe

September 21st, 2011
4:10 pm

Blahblahblah has a new word on his calendar today. :lol:

ByteMe

September 21st, 2011
4:11 pm

md, some of the regs are in place, some are being written, some are being commented on. There’s a long road to 2014. So, yes, some of the regs are in place, so they would have been counted… IF they cost business more than $100 million.

BlahBlahBlah

September 21st, 2011
4:12 pm

Busted. Now I have to read ahead to tomorrow.

Adam

September 21st, 2011
4:12 pm

Stonethrower: Where are the jobs bills the House GOP promised if they won in 2010?

ByteMe

September 21st, 2011
4:12 pm

Blahblablah: Double :lol: :lol:

ByteMe

September 21st, 2011
4:13 pm

Adam: don’t you know that the Ryan budget plan that would have cut the size of the Federal government — and laid off a whole mess of people — was just that, a JOBS plan? Ok, they didn’t quite get that we wanted jobs to be created….

Adam

September 21st, 2011
4:14 pm

BlahBlahBlah: Produce a better candidate and I will consider him or her. Until then, you’re blowing hot air by trying to make it seem like he’s the lesser of evils.

Adam

September 21st, 2011
4:14 pm

ByteMe: Ok, they didn’t quite get that we wanted jobs to be created….

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Butch Cassidy

September 21st, 2011
4:14 pm

Being as I’m not a card carying member of either party, I think I can safely say that the Republicans are going to have to come up with something better than Point 1. Obama is horrible and Point 2. We need to lower taxes. It’s been done to death, and people who actually care about the next election are going to demand much more from a candidate than just they’re ability to rant about how bad the incumbent is.

pogo

September 21st, 2011
4:16 pm

Obama’s devil is in the details and you know it Jay. It is not quantity, it is the “quality” as the saying goes. His activist EPA is going well beyond what that organizations charter is. When it waded into the global warming fiasco it crossed over into politics and politics is not what is supposed to be it’s primary function.

JohnnyReb

September 21st, 2011
4:17 pm

Not surprisingly, and I think I can speak for other conservatives, we don’t agree with Jay that debate here has proven his theory on taxes. That aside, if regulations from the Obama administration have been good, how do you explain the endless drumming from small and large business that the Barry administration is out of touch? In my opinion, the EPA is a loose cannon squandering millions and hampering the economy by trying to enact rules at a time when the economy is not strong enough to withstand.

Adam

September 21st, 2011
4:17 pm

Butch: That’s a much better rebuttal to BlahBlahBlah, thank you.

TaxPayer

September 21st, 2011
4:17 pm

Them regulations is gonna cost us a whole 100 million dollars. What’s that come to, about a 1/5 Solyndra or an insignificant speck of a fraction of an AIG.

Adam

September 21st, 2011
4:19 pm

TaxPayer: I am beginning to think the GOP is not only anti-science, but anti-math.

pogo

September 21st, 2011
4:20 pm

And REM is for the history books. At least they had the good since to go out with dignity. Kind of sad though.

Butch Cassidy

September 21st, 2011
4:20 pm

Taxpayer – “Them regulations is gonna cost us a whole 100 million dollars. What’s that come to, about a 1/5 Solyndra or an insignificant speck of a fraction of an AIG.”

It’s only a high number if people don’t like something. If it’s promised as sugar coated, chocolate covered yumminess, then you can spend billions and people literally trip all over themselves to get a taste.

ByteMe

September 21st, 2011
4:21 pm

we don’t agree with Jay that debate here has proven his theory on taxes

So you don’t agree with the data, huh? Why do you make it so easy to identify you as a Republican?

ByteMe

September 21st, 2011
4:22 pm

It’s only a high number if people don’t like something.

In the previous administration, it was never a high number until the spending actually started. Before that, it was a threat to be fired if you told anyone about the high number.

BlahBlahBlah

September 21st, 2011
4:23 pm

He is the lesser of evils. He ran on two things: 1. Bush is bad and 2. war is bad. Had the economy tanked a year earlier Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney would have been on the November 2008 ballot.

TaxPayer

September 21st, 2011
4:24 pm

I’m willing to pay top dollar for sugar-coated, chocolate-covered yumminess. Didn’t they sell them batter-dipped and deep-fried at the Iowa state fair.

JohnnyReb

September 21st, 2011
4:24 pm

ByteMe – it is a well established fact on this thread that I am an old, white, bigoted, racist, chauvinist, terrorist, republican conservative. I am actually a card carrying Republican. When you belong to the RNC, they send you a card. It and 5 bucks will get you a coffee at Starbucks.

Butch Cassidy

September 21st, 2011
4:25 pm

BlahBlahBlah – “Had the economy tanked a year earlier Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney would have been on the November 2008 ballot.”

Ummmm… the economy did tank a year earlier. It merely accelerated through 2008.

Jefferson

September 21st, 2011
4:25 pm

The GOP only has fear as a tactic as their policies wreck the place last time they held power. Why did they lose power after all?

ByteMe

September 21st, 2011
4:25 pm

Johnny: are you allowed to tell jokes about the RNC? I have one for you if you want.

jm

September 21st, 2011
4:26 pm

“current tax burden is lower than it has been in 60 years”

not relevant when the world has lowered its tax rates making the US super expensive tax wise, and there’s 3 billion more educated hard working people available to hire

JohnnyReb

September 21st, 2011
4:26 pm

ByteMe – absolutely, let it fly. I like jokes. Plus, incorrect PC does not bother me.

Adam

September 21st, 2011
4:27 pm

BlahBlahBlah: He ran on more than that. And every promise I wanted him to keep, he kept. I call that a win. More could be done, sure, but I am better off personally than I was when Bush was in office. But that’s not a voting decision. I will base my decision on who the available options are. And Obama isn’t SUPERBAD like you guys think, but Perry or Bachmann certainly would be.

Butch Cassidy

September 21st, 2011
4:28 pm

TaxPayer – “Didn’t they sell them batter-dipped and deep-fried at the Iowa state fair.”

Probably so, it’s the same product sold when you hear things like ” The economy is fundmentally sound” or “They will welcome us as liberators” and ” The oil revenues will pay for it” Or my personal favorite “Mission Accomplished”. Yep, sounds good to me, can I get mine with extra flavor?

jm

September 21st, 2011
4:28 pm

ByteMe

September 21st, 2011
4:28 pm

Johnny, you know that Reince Priebus is really just “RNC PR BS” plus a bunch of vowels?

Don’t tell that one around the campfire, though.

Adam

September 21st, 2011
4:28 pm

jm: not relevant when the world has lowered its tax rates making the US super expensive tax wise,

Uh, cite please. I disagree that makes it irrelevant anyway, but I still want proof the entire WORLD lowered tax rates.

jm

September 21st, 2011
4:29 pm

Um, SC Boeing plant anyone?

Steve - USA

September 21st, 2011
4:29 pm

Jay — how many articles are you going to do today? Don’t work so hard, take your wife out to dinner tonight. :)

ByteMe

September 21st, 2011
4:30 pm

jm, you’ll be interested in this then:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/international.cfm

U.S. taxes are low relative to those in other developed countries. In 2006 U.S. taxes at all levels of government claimed 28 percent of GDP, compared with an average of 36 percent of GDP for the 30 member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Of course, if you want to compare us to, say, Somalia, yes, our taxes are higher. Thank GOD!

jm

September 21st, 2011
4:30 pm

Jay, number of Regs is irrelevant and you know it. Its their impact and enforcement that matters.

One single reg / law that Trotsky/LWM would love would destroy our economy in an instant: he just wants to appropriate all the wealth of the US into government hands.

jm

September 21st, 2011
4:31 pm

ByteMe – we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world (ex Japan temporarily)

JohnnyReb

September 21st, 2011
4:31 pm

ByteMe – RNC PR BS, that’s a good one!

jm

September 21st, 2011
4:32 pm

u guys will never get it, i’m done trying

Economic morons are ruining this country. Obama and libs, so happy together.

ByteMe

September 21st, 2011
4:32 pm

Its their impact and enforcement that matters.

Now if only the SEC had stuck in 2005 to the rule that investment banks couldn’t leverage beyond 12:1… Oh, wait, that’s regulation!

BlahBlahBlah

September 21st, 2011
4:32 pm

Q4 2007 GDP was anemic, but things didn’t really tank until Q2/Q3 of 2008. By then Hillary was gone. Had things started to tailspin a few months earlier (before Super Tuesday) Obama is a distant memory. Obama’s ZERO experience with the economy and jobs vs. Hillary (and therefore Bill’s) late 1990’s economic record? No contest. Hillary stomps him. Ditto Romney v. McCain.

Least Worst Option 2012! I think I can fit that on a bumper sticker.

ByteMe

September 21st, 2011
4:33 pm

jm: again, you really need to look at facts instead of memes…

Topping out at 35 percent, America’s official corporate income tax rate trails that of only Japan, at 39.5 percent, which has said it plans to lower its rate. It is nearly triple Ireland’s and 10 percentage points higher than in Denmark, Austria or China. To help companies here stay competitive, many executives say, Congress should lower it.

But by taking advantage of myriad breaks and loopholes that other countries generally do not offer, United States corporations pay only slightly more on average than their counterparts in other industrial countries.

That from here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/business/economy/03rates.html and there’s charts too!

Jefferson

September 21st, 2011
4:34 pm

Just how did it get to where it was in 2008?

Adam

September 21st, 2011
4:35 pm

jm: u guys will never get it, i’m done trying

If you call that trying it’s no wonder you’re not among the super rich right now. What a lack of effort.

Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973

September 21st, 2011
4:36 pm

Jay, number of Regs is irrelevant and you know it. Its their impact and enforcement that matters.

Oh my freaking god!!!!!

The number of regs is irrelevant???? Even after post after post of the total number of regs that Obama’s pushing??? C’mon man!!!

ByteMe

September 21st, 2011
4:36 pm

Blahblahblah, you need to get your facts straight: the recession began in Dec 2007. Wasn’t just “anemic”. Look it up.

Steve - USA

September 21st, 2011
4:36 pm

Elizabeth Warren what a nut job. “they had to use public roads to get to their factory”. LMAO

ByteMe

September 21st, 2011
4:37 pm

So, Steve, they used private roads?? Speaking of projection….

Adam

September 21st, 2011
4:38 pm

Steve – USA Elizabeth Warren what a nut job. “they had to use public roads to get to their factory”. LMAO

Joke’s on you, sir. BTW, you’re using a publicly subsidized industry right now to read this.

Jay

September 21st, 2011
4:38 pm

“Jay, number of Regs is irrelevant and you know it. Its their impact and enforcement that matters.”

Gee, Boehner sure thought it was relevent. Or does it only become irrelevent once that particular data point turns against you?

BlahBlahBlah

September 21st, 2011
4:39 pm

Q4 2007 GDP was slightly negative. Technically, the start of a recession, for sure. But the wheels didn’t fall off until after Obama had things sewn up. Back this all up 6 to 9 months? Hillary stomps him.

Butch Cassidy

September 21st, 2011
4:41 pm

jm – “Jay, number of Regs is irrelevant and you know it. Its their impact and enforcement that matters.”

Then what’s the panic over the parts of Obamacare that don’t take effect until 2014?

ByteMe

September 21st, 2011
4:41 pm

BlahBlah: you want to keep moving the goalposts to prove your point, huh?

Adam

September 21st, 2011
4:44 pm

Homeward bound. See you all later.

TaxPayer

September 21st, 2011
4:46 pm

The application of Republican’s faith-based math has given new meaning to Imaginary numbers. Science will have to be re-discovered as a result of the new-found idioms.

ByteMe

September 21st, 2011
4:48 pm

TaxPayer

September 21st, 2011
4:49 pm

Republicans actually do believe that airplanes experience turbulence in flight as a result of passengers buckling their seat belts.

jarvis

September 21st, 2011
4:50 pm

What has he reduced? Adding less isn’t the same as reducing.
Math isn’t your strong point I take it.

Jay

September 21st, 2011
4:51 pm

“not relevant when the world has lowered its tax rates making the US super expensive tax wise, and there’s 3 billion more educated hard working people available to hire

jm, you can’t continue to post nonsense like that and claim to be knowledgeable about economics. By no measure is the US now “superexpensive tax wise.”

ByteMe

September 21st, 2011
4:52 pm

Taxpayer, isn’t that a “blonde” joke?

jasper

September 21st, 2011
4:53 pm

Ok, maybe its not totaly the regs, maybe its the combination of a stupefying health care mandate, regs, lack of good new ideas, and inability to lead. You libs like the French, well Cater’s got dibs on malaise. We need to pick something out for Barry, how about L’idiote. Regs or not his defeat next year is a fait accompli.

Mr. Snarky

September 21st, 2011
4:54 pm

Jay, unfortunately numbers and facts cannot penetrate the mythology of the right.

Aquagirl

September 21st, 2011
4:54 pm

Homeward bound. See you all later.

Be careful on those nutcase imaginary public roads.

Peter

September 21st, 2011
4:56 pm

Please what do Republican’s know about running the economy…..How is Texas, and Georgia doing…….all Republican run !

Go to the shore in Texas see the lovely view, step in the water if you dare….. Pollution is what you have there, and Republican’s would have that every where !

jm

September 21st, 2011
4:59 pm

josef

September 21st, 2011
5:01 pm

I’m all for recycling…just didn’t know it applied to blog topics and comments, too…oh, well, soon enough somebody will say something and we can get on with the personal invectives… :-)

jm

September 21st, 2011
5:02 pm

Jay 4:38 – well, I’d say number of regs isn’t wholly irrelevant. it does matter, so I retract my previous comment partially.

However, what happens with the regs is equally or more important. Fewer is better. Especially if applied literally. if interpretation is possible, then lighter is more better (i don’t give an – about the incorrect english there, the point is lost on you guys one way or the other)

Jay

September 21st, 2011
5:02 pm

“What has he reduced? Adding less isn’t the same as reducing. Math isn’t your strong point I take it.”

Jarvis, read again what I wrote: “Obama has reduced the number of significant new federal regulations.”

Which is true. The problem here doesn’t seem to be math, but careful reading.

jm

September 21st, 2011
5:04 pm

Jay 4:51 – you guys always look at the effective tax rate. Which is only partly relevant.

The marginal tax rate is what influences behavior. Our tax code is so screwed up. One can see it solely in the differential between the marginal rate and the effective rate…..

Government has been allocating resources in economy through the tax code, and that needs to stop. Period.

jm

September 21st, 2011
5:05 pm

josef

September 21st, 2011
5:07 pm

jasper

We libs like the French…uh, and where do you get that one? Some good wine, a few good dishes, some great literature, some nice paintings, a lot of bad poetry, a decent cinema…but a government, economy, foreign policy, and common courtesy…nyanh…and they p*ss on the street, don’t wash, and take their dogs into restaurants…(except the South of France, but they’re not really French anyway…!)

jm

September 21st, 2011
5:08 pm

“Obama has reduced the number of significant new federal regulations”

I’m looking forward to the turkey who actually reduces the number, and the threat / risk of them.

Jay

September 21st, 2011
5:08 pm

“Government has been allocating resources in economy through the tax code, and that needs to stop. Period.”

Great jm. So you now agree that it’s stupid to tax capital gains at a lower rate than earned income? Because that is certainly “allocating resources in economy through the tax code.”

Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973

September 21st, 2011
5:09 pm

The problem here doesn’t seem to be math, but careful reading.

Do you actually expect those who ideologically oppose you to even read what you post? You’re not that naive are you, Jay? :)

jm

September 21st, 2011
5:09 pm

“So you now agree that it’s stupid to tax capital gains at a lower rate than earned income?”

Yes, always have….

jm

September 21st, 2011
5:10 pm

“So you now agree that it’s stupid to tax capital gains at a lower rate than earned income?”

(Assuming one also eliminates the corporate tax so there’s no double taxation that occurs)

carlosgvv

September 21st, 2011
5:10 pm

The ultimate goal of Big Business is an America where the Govt. does not regulate them at all. Since they own the Republican Party, it’s understandable that Republicans will constantly complain about regulations and will lie to the people about how much business is regulated and how it’s all Obama’s fault. As for taxes, the rich will strive in any and every way they can to pay as little as possible and put as much of the tax burden as possible on the backs of middle-class and poor Americans. If Obama or any other Democrats challenge them on these issues, they will yell “class warfare”. In other words, lies, lies and more lies. It’s the Republican way.

buck@gon

September 21st, 2011
5:14 pm

Jay,

“in the ease of doing business.” ???

LOL! REALLY!!?? the WORLD BANK!!!???

I mistook my first assumption, which was that you might have something substantial to offer to debunk Republicans for pointing out Obama’s wasting of the American dream. Why not ask AMERICANS what they think of the ease of doing business today vs. four years ago.

Too bad the world bank doesn’t elect Obama. I’m sure they would, given that we are making extraordinary efforts to give away money to enemies, radical Islamofascists, anti-Israel tyrants, including money for energy exploration that we ourselves just won’t do anymore.

On point, the question is not how many new bureaucratic rules a president has put in place–that’s not a fair question. The issue is, how much do those rules harm the economy. There, you have no case for debunking anything Boehner says, and most Americans agree with me on that.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/19/2415353/as-economy-sputters-obamas-approval.html
http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-rich-taxed-less-secretaries-070642868.html

It’s too bad, Jay, that you are still on the supportive side of Obama, just when most of his supporters are heading for the hills and most of his buddies in Congress are pretending they never knew who he was.

You think you debunked Boehner with a study by the world bank? That’s just terribly funny, pathetic and irrelevant. Well, someone was the last maker of a buggy whip for a time too. Maybe you’ll learn the unique perspective of what that felt like.

jm

September 21st, 2011
5:15 pm

““So you now agree that it’s stupid to tax capital gains at a lower rate than earned income?””

Here’s the thing that can really blow one’s mind. Capital and labor, over the long run, are the same thing, especially in a human capital intensive economy.

ByteMe

September 21st, 2011
5:17 pm

Short buck@gon: data? we don’t need no steeeenkin’ data!

Poor Boy from Alabama

September 21st, 2011
5:18 pm

JB,

Two quick data points on corporate taxes and regulations.

Here’s what the nonpartisan Tax Foundation says about corporate taxes:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/27597.html

The statutory rate of the U.S. corporate income tax is currently 35%, the second highest in the world. As with the individual tax code, the law provides for a large number of credits, exemptions and deductions, which makes the effective tax rate paid by companies lower than the statutory rate. Even with all the tax provisions benefitting U.S. companies, though, they still paid an effective tax rate between 1994 and 2008 of 26%. But that’s just the beginning of the story.

In 2008, a particularly low year for corporate income and tax revenues, total reported income for all firms was $978 billion. The largest firms (those with assets over $2.5 billion) earned 75% of all taxable corporate income. The total of federal corporate income taxes paid for all firms was $229 billion, with large firms paying 68% of that total. Of the 2,582 largest firms, one quarter were unprofitable and thus paid no income tax, leaving just 1,937 firms responsible for 68% of corporate revenues.

“Not only do the largest U.S. firms pay the vast majority of corporate income taxes, firms with significant international operations end up with even higher effective rates because of taxes paid to foreign governments on profits earned abroad,” said McBride.

The overall tax rate on the worldwide income of U.S. corporations, including foreign taxes paid on foreign income, is between 32.1% and 33%, close to the statutory rate of 35%. Even this rate, however, doesn’t account for business taxes at the state and local level, which add about 4%, for a total effective corporate tax rate of about 37% on U.S. companies.

As for the cost of regulation, the Small Business Administration estimates the total cost of regulations to the US economy was $1.75 trillion in 2008. That works out to $15,586 per household.

They provide additional information of the costs of regulations on a per employee basis. The numbers are $10,585 per employee for small businesses.

Use this link to learn more:

http://archive.sba.gov/advo/research/rs371tot.pdf

Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)

September 21st, 2011
5:19 pm

This should be called the Burger King blog for Jay’s Whoppers.