Page 8
Fortiani» (P b sm ier CAREERS Special
May 14, 2014
New Prices
Effective
May 1,2010
Martin
Cleaning
Service
Carpet & Upholstery
Cleaning
Residential &
Commercial Services
Minimum Service CHG
$45.00
A sm all distance/travel charge
m ay be applied
CARPET CLEANING
2 Cleaning Areas or
more $30.00 Each Area
Pre-Spray Traffic Areas
(Includes: 1 small Hallway)
1 Cleaning Area (only)
$40.00
Includes Pre-Spray Traffic Area
(Hallway Extra)
Stairs (12-16 stairs - With
O ther Services): $25.00
Area/Orientai Rugs:
$25.00Minimum
Area/Orientai Rugs (Wool):
$40.00Minimum
Heavily Soiled Area:
Additional $10.00 each area
(Requinng Extensive Pre-Spraying)
UPHOLSTERY
CLEANING
Sofa: $69.00
Loveseat: $49.00
Sectional: $109-$139
Chair or Recliner:
$25 - $49
Throw Pillows (With
Other Services): $5.00
ADDITIONAL
SERVICES
• Area & Oriental Rug
Cleaning
• Auto/Boat/RV Cleaning
• Deodorizing & Pet
Odor Treatment
«T v
• Spot & Stain
Removal Service
• Scotchguard Protection
• Minor Water Damage
Services
SEE CURRENT FLYER
FOR ADDITIONAL
PRICES & SERVICES
Call for Appointment
(503) 281-3949
When Corporations Get Too Big to Tax
Lowering their
tax bills won’t
stop at zero
B ob L ord
W o u ld n ’t it be
n ice if the g o v ern
m en t p aid you on
T ax D ay? I ’m not
referring to getting a
tax refund because
you overpaid the federal g o v ern
m ent o r a safety-net benefit labeled
as a tax refund under the “E arned
Incom e T ax C red it” rules.
I m ean an actual paym ent from
the U .S. T reasury.
D one laughing? G reat. T his re
ally co u ld happen, but w ith co rp o
by
rate-tax bills, not your personal 1040.
Y es, w e m ay very w ell see the day
w hen Uncle Sam spends m ore m oney
pandering to big com panies than it
receives from taxing them .
In the past half-century, co rp o
rate tax dollars have plunged as a
p ercentage o f the econom y and as
a share o f total federal revenue. The
effectiv e co rp o rate tax rate is less
than h a lf o f w hat it w as ju s t a few
decades ago and now hovers at 12.6
percent, roughly one-third o f the
official 35 percent rate.
C alls to slash the corporate tax
rate, o r even scrap this tax alto
gether, span the political spectrum .
Proponents ju stify this on the basis
o f “tax c o m p e titio n ,” the b attle
am ong nations to attract giant co r
porations o r d iscourage th eir d e
parture.
T he term “tax co m p etitio n ” is a
euphem ism fo r a race to the bottom
am ong nations in both the d ev el
oped and developing w orld. Each
co u n try slashes its co rporate in
com e tax rate in an attem pt to lure
m ultinational corporations to base
their operations there, o r at least
d is s u a d e c o r p o r a tio n s a lre a d y
based there from relocating.
outright pays corporations to set
up shop? W hy are zero-corporate-
tax proponents certain that the m axi
m um bribe a country w ould o ffer to
a m ultinational corporation is a zero
tax rate?
Say, fo r exam ple, after o u r g o v
ernm ent reduced its co rp o rate tax
rate to zero, C an ad a sought to lure
a M innesota-based o u tfit across the
border. C ould the C anadian g o v
ern m en t up the ante by offerin g that
corporation a share o f the incom e
taxes paid by C anadians em ployed
By engaging in “tax
competition, ” state governments
have decimated their tax bases.
I
The idea behind reducing or elim i
nating the U .S. corporate incom e
tax, then, is sim ply a tactic to w in the
race to the bottom . R educe the co r
porate incom e tax rate in the U nited
States, o r drop this tax altogether,
and the exodus o f m ultinational
corporations from A m erica w ill stop
and even flip. If w e shrink the co rp o
rate incom e tax rate to zero, the logic
goes, no country can outbid us.
O r can they?
If A m erica is w illing to reduce its
corporate incom e tax rate to zero,
w hy c a n ’t an o th er country m ove to
a negative corporate tax rate that
ders. T hey and th eir political subdi
visions have agreed to property-tax
exem ptions, jo b -train in g subsidies,
low -rate m unicipal bond financing,
and ded icated infrastructure spend
ing.
T h ey ev en have agreed to pay to
corporations a portion o f the in
com e tax revenue they receive from
em ployees o f those corporations.
A ccording to the organization G ood
Jobs First, o u r states collectively
fork o v er about $700 m illion each
y ear in state incom e tax revenue to
corporate A m erica.
T he prem ise b ehind proposals to
pare o r kill the co rp o rate incom e tax
is preposterous. O th er countries can
m ove to a negative tax rate ju s t as
quickly as w e can m ove to zero.
A nd w hen o th er countries m ove
to a negative tax rate for co rp o ra
tions, w ho w ill stop U ncle Sam from
follow ing them ?
T here is an alternative: tax d ip lo
m acy. A new treaty co u ld stop m u l
tinationals from pitting governm ents
against one an o th er in a never-end
ing h ollow ing-out o f the global tax
base.
O therw ise, w e m ay ju s t find o u r
selves taking the tax dollars w e pay
as individuals, w hich should be used
to build schools, roads, and bridges,
and handing them o v er to co rp o ra
tions on T ax D ay instead.
by it after its relo catio n ? O r could
the C anadian governm ent sim ply
o ffer the co rp o ratio n a direct sub
sidy for relocating?
T he race to the bottom that states
have run for years m akes the answ er
to th o se q u estio n s a reso u n d in g
yes. By engaging in “tax co m p eti
tio n ,” state governm ents have d eci
m ated their tax bases.
N ot only have A rizona, Indiana,
N orth C arolina, and oth er states
slashed tax rates fo r corporations,
th e y ’ve engaged in m assive g iv e
Bob Lord is a veteran tax lawyer
aw ays in a futile attem pt to lure from Phoenix, A riz. and an Institute
b usinesses to cross dom estic bor- for Policy Studies associate fellow.