Cavuto purported to "correct" Obama with corporate tax falsehood
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Fox News' Neil Cavuto stated that President Obama "misstate[d]" the facts on the U.S. corporate tax rate structure, and purporting to "correct" him, claimed that the U.S. corporate tax rate is "at a high 35 percent ... the highest in the industrialized world. That is un-debatable and unequivocal." In fact, while the U.S. statutory corporate tax rate is 35 percent, according to the Government Accountability Office, "Statutory tax rates do not provide a complete measure of the burden that a tax system imposes on business income." Additionally, World Bank and GAO data indicate that the U.S. effective corporate tax rate is lower than 35 percent and lower than several developed economies.
On the February 23 edition of Fox News' Your World, host Neil Cavuto asserted of President Obama's remarks at the fiscal responsibility summit: "But there were a couple of things I did want to correct -- who am I to correct the president of the United States on -- but when he referred to the fact that looking at our corporate tax rate structure and that there isn't room for rates to grow, because they are low, was a bit of a misstatement here." Cavuto then claimed, "Our corporate tax rates in this country, at a high 35 percent, are the highest in the industrialized world. That is un-debatable and unequivocal. We have the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world, so I don't know where the president got that particular piece of information." But Cavuto's assertion that the United States indisputably has the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world is false. While the United States has a statutory corporate tax rate of 35 percent, according to an August 2008 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), "Statutory tax rates do not provide a complete measure of the burden that a tax system imposes on business income because many other aspects of the system, such as exemptions, deferrals, tax credits, and other forms of incentives, also determine the amount of tax a business ultimately pays on its income." Indeed, World Bank and GAO data indicate that the U.S. effective corporate tax rate is lower than 35 percent and lower than several developed economies.
Cavuto's claim echoes assertions made in a January 30 Wall Street Journal editorial and in a January 29 Wall Street Journal op-ed by talk show host Rush Limbaugh.
In its August 2008 report, GAO estimated that "[t]he average U.S. effective tax rate on the domestic income of large corporations with positive domestic income in 2004 was an estimated 25.2 percent." Further, in its Paying Taxes 2009 publication, based on its 2009 Doing Business report, the World Bank-International Finance Corporation estimated that the United States has a lower effective rate of current corporate tax than several developed economies, including Germany and Italy. Moreover, in June 2007, the Treasury Department concluded that "[i]f special provisions were eliminated, the top corporate tax rate could be lowered to 27 percent or more than 40 percent expensing could be provided to all businesses for new the cost of tangible investments, and the tax system would produce the same level of revenue."
During the summit's question-and-answer session, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) said to Obama, "[P]eople thought it was relatively easy to dramatically reduce the rates that make us internationally competitive. The problems, of course, was the different views they have in how you handle the individual raise." Obama responded in part: "On the corporate side, I at least have always maintained that if we try to think in the same ways that we thought about it in 1986, and if you closed loopholes, you could actually lower rates." Obama added: "And that's an area where there should be the potential for some bipartisan agreement, because I think, on the books, the rates in the United States are high. In practice, depending on who it is that you can -- what kind of accountant you can hire, they're not so high. And that's an area where we can work on."
From the summit's question-and-answer session:
RANGEL: First let me thank you for bringing us together. The Secretary of Treasury provided a lot of leadership -- (inaudible) -- certainly recognize what (inaudible) -- that we do something. (Inaudible) -- thought of the tax structure, people thought it was relatively easy to dramatically reduce the rates that make us internationally competitive. The problems, of course, was the different views they have in how you handle the individual raise.
I don't think there's any committee in the House that would be more anxious to bring forth a product, whether it's in health care, tax reform or Social Security, to bring forth something in a bipartisan way. And I think this is a dramatic first step to see where we're going. As I said, I don't want to seem to be corny, but it would appear as though that if America recognized the crisis, that they're not looking for a Democratic or Republican solution. And in order for us to be politically successful, they're going have to believe that it was done in a bipartisan way.
So I think this initiative is a strong first step. I only hope at the end of the day we can come out, maybe not in total agreement, but certainly in a bipartisan way.
OBAMA: Just a quick thought on taxes, Charlie. My instinct is, is that you're absolutely right that the individual tax rate is always the hardest thing. There's some philosophical differences between the parties on this and I understand that.
On the corporate side, I at least have always maintained that if we try to think in the same ways that we thought about it in 1986, and if you closed loopholes, you could actually lower rates.
RANGEL: No question about it.
OBAMA: And that's an area where there should be the potential for some bipartisan agreement, because I think, on the books, the rates in the United States are high. In practice, depending on who it is that you can -- what kind of accountant you can hire, they're not so high. And that's an area where we can work on. Simplification, same thing. I don't think there's anybody out here who thinks that we are making it customer-friendly for the taxpayer. And that's an area where we can make some great progress.
RANGEL: Well, if you're looking for a fight and a partisan fight, any loophole you close is a tax increase. We have to get over that and make certain that the vast majority of businesses recognize it's in their best interest to do the right thing as relates to those who've taken unfair advantage of the government.
OBAMA: Well, you were here in '86 -- it's been done before. We might be able to get it done this time.
RANGEL: Well, under your leadership, I'm looking forward to it.
From the February 23 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
CAVUTO: All right, a most unusual summit going on at the White House, actually the Old Executive Office Building right now. A pow-wow, if you will, of prominent Republican and Democratic leaders, some business leaders to boot, all saying that they have to longer-term address entitlement programs and the like. But after a while, it did have the feel of an AA meeting. I've been an alcoholic, and just admitting all your bygones.
But there were a couple of things I did want to correct -- who am I to correct the president of the United States on -- but when he referred to the fact that looking at our corporate tax rate structure and that there isn't room for rates to grow, because they are low, was a bit of a misstatement here. Our corporate tax rates in this country, at a high 35 percent, are the highest in the industrialized world. That is un-debatable and unequivocal. We have the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world, so I don't know where the president got that particular piece of information.
But he is being commended by Republicans and Democratic leaders alike for a longer term, trying to address the issues that are going to be the thorny ones. At the same time, he's trying to sort of get this economy going, longer-term addressing some of the deficits that this very stimulus package is producing.

















Saying "That's a fact" after something doesn't MAKE it a fact. Saying "It's not debatable" only make you look more stupid when it IS in fact proven not only debateable, but WRONG in the first place. These people are paid to be incompetent.
Wow. This one is easier than most. Cavuto said the tax rate was "at a high 35 percent" He never said all corporations paid that, and he never said there were not ways to lower it. What he said was 100 percent accurate and 100 percent true. MMFA even states that he is correct. The looney left has really lost it on this one.
He said the U.S. corporate tax rate is the highest in the industrialized world, when in fact it's lower than several developed economies.
Not at the 35 percent rate it is not.
He said our corporate tax rates in this country are the highest in the industrialized world, which is not true.
Then list the countries and the rates that are higher or shut up. Thats right, you cant list any higher ones.
Wow. You sure do lob softballs don't you?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200902030003
Try this.
And next time, before you ask a snarky question that you intend to be rhetorical, you might want to make sure that it hasn't already been answered on the very site you're posting on.
Wow. This one is easier than most. (Pointy)
I think Pointy is assigning degree of difficulty ratings to his failures.
Col.
Good to see that you are still a legend in your own mind. When you have something to add, please come back.
Thanks for the invitation. I hope this doesn't hurt your feelings, but I don't need your permission to laugh at you.You volunteer to put on the clown suit.
You dont need permission, what you need is intellect.
Whhyyyy yyooooouuu.....
And once again you are incorrect. The chart in the link you provided does not even show the statutory tax rate of the Unisted States correctly. The simple point is the law as written....has a top rate of 35 percent. That means Cavuto was and is 100 percent correct in what he said. Why is this so hard to understand?? If your point is that some, or even many do not pay that rate then fine, but no matter how hard you try, you can not get around the actual written rate of 35 %.
"no matter how hard you try, you can not get around the actual written rate of 35 %".
Cavuto said that corporate tax rates in this country are the highest in the industrialized world and that his claim is un-debatable and unequivocal. He is wrong.
Either show how the chart is incorrect or admit that you have no point!!!! You asked for proof it was provided and all you have come back with is: it's incorrect. Prove it or STFU!
What part of this don't you understand(this from the summary of the article): In fact, while the U.S. statutory corporate tax rate is 35 percent, according to the Government Accountability Office, "Statutory tax rates do not provide a complete measure of the burden that a tax system imposes on business income." Additionally, World Bank and GAO data indicate that the U.S. effective corporate tax rate is lower than 35 percent and lower than several developed economies.
Germany and Italy to name just two.
Shut up? That's not necessary. Did you forget to kick your dog on your way out of your mom's attic today?
And what are the rates for those countries, and how are they caculated? It is humerous because the MMFA article did not tell you that, so of course you have no idea what the answer is. They listed those two so you blindly accept that with no proof at all.
I was accepting the World Bank's estimations that the US has a lower effective rate of current corporate tax than several developed nations. If you see this as some slavish devotion to a left-leaning entity, so be it.
And once again, Cavuto was talking about the Statuatory rate. So to sum up, you refuse to acknowledge what Cavuto actually said, you refuse to acknowledge what the law actually is, and you take at face value what MMFA tells you. Have another glass of koolaid.
"And once again, Cavuto was talking about the Statuatory rate."
He said that corporate tax rates in this country are the highest in the industrialized world.
what part of stauuatory rates,,,,,,,,rates written into the law........rates imposed on corporations by law......do you not understand
And what part of 'effective corporate tax rate' don't you understand? And, since were having this debate, it’s un-debatably and unequivocally clear that Cavuto was wrong to claim that his talking point is un-debatable and unequivocal.
He was not wrong. Look up the tax law. it is that easy
Was Obama - whom Cavuto pretends to "correct" - talking about the Statuatory rate?
Cavuto from the clip said that the US had the highest tax rates of the industrialized world. Where did he say the other things your bringing up?
Even if he was talking about the Statuatory rates Cavuto is still wrong as VC pointed out becuase it is debateable and refutable! This from the article :"...While the United States has a statutory corporate tax rate of 35 percent, according to an August 2008 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), "Statutory tax rates do not provide a complete measure of the burden that a tax system imposes on business income because many other aspects of the system, such as exemptions, deferrals, tax credits, and other forms of incentives, also determine the amount of tax a business ultimately pays on its income." You have a clear case of "ditto headedness." Facts do not compute, so ignore the facts and turn on Rushbo.
Look up the tax law. It is that easy!! Just because the law provides ways to lower the tax burden, the fact remains that the law sets the top rate at 35%, and that is in fact the highest.
Should you be taking this up with the World Bank?
If it's that easy show me the link , but you seem to be moving goal post. first you say that Cavuto was talking about Statuatory rates but Cavuto didn't actually say that(at least you haven't provided the proof) but even accepting he has said that I showed you where in the article it said :"...Statutory tax rates do not provide a complete measure of the burden that a tax system imposes on business income because many other aspects of the system, such as exemptions, deferrals, tax credits, and other forms of incentives, also determine the amount of tax a business ultimately pays on its income." Your reply was to again repeat this Statuatory tax rate of 35% as the highest in the world as being "undebatable" and "irrefutable" when it's been shown to be the exact opposite, it has been debated and refuted. Now you want to look up a tax law as proof that it's the highest!?!?! Are you crazy!?!?!? You either prove your point are admit your wrong...just saying it's so does not prove anything!
I really cannot believe that you are this dumb.
The most sever penalty you can get for murder is the death penalty. That is the statutory law. As you know, not all those who commit murder get the death penalty due to a variety of other factors. It does not change the statutory law. The highest corporate rate is 35% That is what he said. That is what the law says. Other factors or deductions may bring an individual corporations taxes down to a lower level, but it does not change the statutory rate of 35%, the highest rate around. As far as a link to prove the 35 percent, got to irs.gov. and knock yourself out. You are wrong, and making a total fool of yourself.
Cavuto tried to "correct" Obama, who was talking about effective tax rates, by deceptively cherry picking a single statutory rate. He failed. But that’s just my opinion -I’m not dumb enough to declare this issue un-debatable and unequivocal.
Bingo! But Cavuto and Rush say it's so and so POV says it sooo and it's all of sudden it's un-deabateable and unequivocal. The World Bank disagrees. You named two nations with higher rates. And what is his point about the highest rate? I guess it has something to do with stiffling business? But how can it be stifling business when up to 2/3rds of US corporations paid no taxes between 98-2005?
What good is pointing out the statutory rate if most businesses don't pay anywhere near that? Wouldn't the common sense approach be to point out the effective rate - the rate corporations actually pay?
If you're gonna confine cavuto to the truth, you're not leavin' him much of an act to work with.
Most companies in US avoid federal income taxes
WASHINGTON - Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080812/ap_on_bi_ge/corporations_income_tax
Based on IRS records, a recent GAO report indicates that many corporations claimed to owe $0 in U.S. taxes from 1998 - 2005: roughly 28%-53% of large foreign-controlled and 23%-38% of large U.S.-controlled corporations. [The GAO considers a "large" corporation one with at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in gross receipts.]
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08957.pdf
As corporate taxes shrink, who pays?
By David R. Francis
Outside in the parking lot, demonstrators held signs saying the federal income tax is unconstitutional. Inside, in a former furniture store turned software firm, President Bush's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform was holding a public hearing, this one on corporate taxes.
That juxtaposition in Tampa, Fla., last week was apt. Although judges routinely knock down claims that income taxes are unconstitutional, corporate taxes are shrinking. The push is on to make them disappear completely.
There may be some economic reasons to do that. But would the nation's tax system remain as progressive?
Mr. Bush's tax cuts reduced rates for individuals. Corporations have done even better over time. Federal revenue from corporate taxes has fallen from 6.4 percent of gross domestic product, the nation's output of goods and services, in 1951 to a mere 1.5 percent to 2 percent of GDP in the last few years
.http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0314/p17s02-cogn.htmlPointy's suddenly disappeared! Thanks for the post, i've been looking for those facts but couldn't remember where I heard or read them. I found this article on commondreams website tittled: Obama is right to take on the very rich...they're paying far less of their incomes in taxes than the average American." Here is the link:http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/02/24-9
Ok, If it's so undebatable and unequivocal let the corporations go where they think they'll get a better deal.
I think on Planet Wingnut, "fact" just means something that they really want to believe.
The very wise and thoughtful Dennis Prager just informed me a few days ago of this--
"Life without God is meaningless- that's a fact!"
I swear to the FSM, he said that.
what do you expect from a guy who was the first to fire the shot that the housing crisis was caused by minorities
Some might say that the reverse of Prager's statement is true.
"Life with God is meaningless- that's a fact!"
They would be haters and bigots.
Maybe they're just taking separate vacations this year...
When you live in the conservative bubble and echo chamber then these things are considered fact and unequivacable.
The highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world is such a key talking point for the right wing free marketers that you cannot expect them to budge on this one.
But kudos to Obama for setting this straight and sticking to his guns on this one.
While Cavuto was "techinically" correct, he was utterly disingenous by comparing apples to oranges. Obama was CLEARLY referencing the EFFECTIVE tax rates, while Neil mis-led by implying that Obama meant NOTIONAL rates. The fact that matters in the boardroom, to shareholders, and to employees is what the ACTUAL taxes paid are, not what the statutory rate is. I assume an ordinary person would be happier being in the 35% tax bracket but actually pay only 20% versus being in the 30% bracket and actually paying 30%. This sort of thing is achieved by millions of individual taxpayers every year by taken various deductions and tax credits. This point cannot be lost on either NC or his rabid defenders on this board.
I think it's fairly clear by Obama's comments that he's not talking about lowering the statutory rate.
I think it's completely clear that you're wrong.
Obama:
"On the corporate side, I at least have always maintained that if we try to think in the same ways that we thought about it in 1986, and if you closed loopholes, you could actually lower rates."
He's clearly saying that if you closed the tax loopholes, therefore having businesses pay to or close to the statutory rate, that the tax revenue increase could be large enough that the statutory rate could be decreased.
I think he's talking about the effective rate lowering.
It's a safe bet that cavuto doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
POV,
I've read the whole thread. You are making correct statements, but they are completely irrelevant. (You're not an engineer by any chance are you?)
Our companies are NOT paying 35%, therefore they're not being taxed more that every other country in the world. Your statement is correct on paper. Everyone else's is correct IN REALITY. (You know, that place where thhe rest of us keep our stuff?)
And to drive home the utter pointlessness of your point: What good would it do to lower a tax rate (35%) that no one is paying anyway? What, you don't think that even is it was lowered that the corresponding tax credits wouldn't be doen away as well? (No corprate welfare, after all!) They'd end up paying teh same AMOUNT OF MONEY. And if the corporate taxes WERE lowered even more, who do YOU think would pick up the tab? The like of thee and me, my friend. Are our base salaries would NOT go up because the corporate tax rate drops. That's a delusion. (After all they only pay tax on the money left over AFTER we get paid - and don;t think they'd want to keep as much of that as possible: THAT'S WHAT DRIVING THE TAX DEBATE IN THE FIRST PLACE!) So our salaries would stay the same, but OUR TAXES would go up. Great idea Poindexter, thanks a ton.
And puh-lease don't talk to me about how the Republicans are going to cut spending, becuase in you've had the presidency for 20 of the last 28 years, and NOT ONE of those guys cut spending or had a balanced budget. NOT. ONE. ANd if they DID, incomes would only drop further. We;ve had enough of doing it your way, and we're tired of hearing your lot ecplain your failures with misinofrmation and the tired, old "the problme was we weren't conservative enough." The rest of us want to go back to responsible, sustainable practices. If you can't get your head around that, sit back and watch for a few years and cast your vote accordingly in 2012.