Corporations don't seem to equate Bush and Obama after all

[podfish]

from Paul Krugman's column:

So here’s how it is: They’re as mad as hell, and they’re not going to take this anymore. Am I talking about the Tea Partiers? No, I’m talking about the corporations.
....
These are extraordinary numbers given the normal tendency of corporate money to flow to the party in power. Corporate America, however, really, truly hates the current administration. Wall Street, for example, is in “a state of bitter, seething, hysterical fury” toward the president, writes John Heilemann (https://nymag.com/news/politics/66188/) of New York magazine. What’s going on?
One answer is taxes — not so much on corporations themselves as on the people who run them. The Obama administration plans to raise tax rates on upper brackets back to Clinton-era levels. Furthermore, health reform will in part be paid for with surtaxes on high-income individuals. All this will amount to a significant financial hit to C.E.O.’s, investment bankers and other masters of the universe.


=====================================

Op-Ed Columnist - Obama Versus the Corporations - NYTimes.com (https://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/opinion/24krugman.html)

sure he's not reforming our capitalist/corporate economic system to a huge degree, but it's being moved.

[Debunker]

Because the NY Times says so? Oh please. Hundreds of billions in bailouts from Obama and most of the Fortune 500 pay NO tax at all.

PLEASE, watch what they do, NOT what they say.



from Paul Krugman's column:

So here’s how it is: They’re as mad as hell, and they’re not going to take this anymore. Am I talking about the Tea Partiers? No, I’m talking about the corporations.
....
These are extraordinary numbers given the normal tendency of corporate money to flow to the party in power. Corporate America, however, really, truly hates the current administration. Wall Street, for example, is in “a state of bitter, seething, hysterical fury” toward the president, writes John Heilemann (https://nymag.com/news/politics/66188/) of New York magazine. What’s going on?
One answer is taxes — not so much on corporations themselves as on the people who run them. The Obama administration plans to raise tax rates on upper brackets back to Clinton-era levels. Furthermore, health reform will in part be paid for with surtaxes on high-income individuals. All this will amount to a significant financial hit to C.E.O.’s, investment bankers and other masters of the universe.


=====================================

Op-Ed Columnist - Obama Versus the Corporations - NYTimes.com (https://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/opinion/24krugman.html)

sure he's not reforming our capitalist/corporate economic system to a huge degree, but it's being moved.

[podfish]

I missed when the NYTimes was bought by the Onion.. damn. Should have realized they've got nothing meaningful to say. And Pulitzer prizes are swapped between buddies in the same self-congratulatory club without regard to merit. Forgot that too...
If the changes discussed in that article seem irrelevant to you, I think you're setting a pretty narrow bar for what has meaning to the economy, to people's lives and for that matter to history. If the bar for meaningful historical change is going to be the Bolshevik revolution, then I guess we're still living in Eisenhower's world. I have a far higher respect for small shifts. In a world with billions of people, many striving toward preserving the status quo, changes are glacial. But to use a trite analogy that's how we got Yosemite, too. I hope no-one takes the words of those interviewed and quoted as gospel - of course they're all self-interested and have agendas and blinders of their own. Information comes to you like that. There's actually parts of the article Krugman linked to that point out the reasons exactly why Obama's not at all likely to introduce dramatic tax system overhauls.
Also, the whole idea that the corporations pay "NO tax at all" sounds to me to be hyperbole. I don't find it remotely impossible, but it's so frequently said without attribution that someday I'd love to see it backed up. Even if it's by shills at the NY Times.


Because the NY Times says so? Oh please. Hundreds of billions in bailouts from Obama and most of the Fortune 500 pay NO tax at all.

PLEASE, watch what they do, NOT what they say.

[podfish]

by the way, I did notice the other thread about corporations paying no corporate income tax. That doesn't address my question.
The Republicans made a similar claim, that "48% of poor people pay no tax at all", and they used this as part of their argument that the well off bear an unfair extra burden. This of course ignores the regressive nature of most taxes that DO fall on the poor - the "no taxes" really was "no federal income taxes". So their making the point that way to me shows their fundamental dishonesty when discussing these issues.
To avoid that same trap, I'd like some better information about what the real tax burden is on corporations. The other thread just mentions "corporate income taxes", so any associated numbers are useless in a broader argument. I could care less how they are taxed, as long as they contribute to society. I doubt they're contributing enough, but I'd like to see real numbers rather than stop with inflammatory headlines.