[f_salmon]

Then you should start rebuilding the political system which defines DC. Corporations literally ARE the government, nowadays. (It was given the name "lobbying", but is nothing other than corruption that's apparently accepted by the voter/citizen.)

[davidw]

> Corporations literally ARE the government

Literally? I didn't know that.

It actually seems like this NSA stuff has been harmful to a number of large American internet companies, so I guess they haven't done a very good job of running things in their own interests.

[zipdog]

Harmful to a few internet companies, but beneficial to other US companies. The leaks have identified that the NSA conducts industrial espionage to the benefit of US companies.

That said, I disagree with the grandparent's point that Corporation literally are the government. Instead, the need for large media budgets for re-election campaigns drives the political process, which makes corporations and politicians cosy.

[alexeisadeski3]

What are these "other, larger US companies"? Apple and Google are two of the largest US companies by market cap.

[zipdog]

Good point. I was thinking in terms of workforce, influence and global reach, but Goog and Apple have that too. (Made edit to original)

[declan]

Not in terms of workforce. Google has 47K employees: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=GOOG+Profile

A large percentage of those are overseas, and the remainder are concentrated in Mountain View (yes, I'm aware of satellite offices in SF, NYC, Boston, etc.) Call it 15K HQ employees, which should be enough to make an impact. Right?

Except that their own senator, California's Dianne Feinstein, remains arguably the most vocal NSA surveillance enthusiast on Capitol Hill. She'll get reelected with or without the help of those 15K voters -- in a state with a population of 40 million. (In reality the number is even lower because not all employees are U.S. citizens eligible to vote.)

And those 15K concentrated employees are negligible compared to companies like AT&T, which has 243,000 employees which tend to be inside the U.S. and spread more evenly through congressional districts: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=T+Profile

Of course AT&T has long had a cozy relationship with the NSA very different from left coast companies: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589012-38/

BTW, compare to WalMart's 2.2 million employees: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=WMT+Profile

[alexeisadeski3]

Evidently, IBM has the second largest workforce amongst US corps.

[pizza234]

There are many arguments supporting the fact that some countries [more than others] are close enough to a corporatocracy.

"Literally" is certainly a stretch, but at least indirectly, corporations spanning many sectors are very heavily influencing the government - for example finance, energy, food, military.

Just to make a very immediate example, bankers who had a central role in the 2000s financial crisis, are now executives or advisors of the government.

Process-wise, the HSBC case showed who's in charge between governments and large banks.

[alexeisadeski3]

Corporations literally ARE the government?

That's why the US has the highest corporate tax rate in the OECD?

[rosser]

Please stop citing that disingenuous, misinformative fact.

The US has the highest statutory tax rates on corporate investment in the OECD. The effective tax rates on corporate income are vastly lower than that, and often actually zero — especially for those large and powerful enough to have sway over the government.

[alexeisadeski3]

Ummm... no.

The GAO study you're citing is infamously incorrect.

1. Corporations (and humans) can carry losses forward: if they lose money in 2008 but make money in 2009, they get to even out the two years. This is only fair. Thus they can appear to pay zero tax in a year in which they made money.

2. The "effective rate" counts the aforementioned foreign retained profits as being taxed at zero. Which they're not.

3. An independent analysis found that effective corporate tax rates are "in the mid to upper 20's", and that corporations which operate solely in the US pay 35% corporate income tax:

http://taxprof.typepad.com/files/140tn0197.pdf

TL;DR The US really, really, really does have the highest corporate tax rates in the OECD.

[afterburner]

Does that even matter when everyone hides their profits in Ireland?

[alexeisadeski3]

1. Only profit earned outside of US borders may be deferred in such a manner.

2. That profit isn't "hidden". It's in plain sight. It's not even a loophole. The money is still taxable - but only once it is repatriated.

[afterburner]

You do realize companies make sure to game it such that they declare no profits in the US, right? And don't even care that much about repatriating it at all? And do so only when there are "tax amnesty holidays" where money can be repatriated "for free" during a short timespan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement

[alexeisadeski3]

1. All corporations in all nations game the tax system as much as possible.

2. The US corporations still pay more tax than do corporations in other nations.

3. US corporations with no foreign income tend to pay ~35% after deductions (per "independent" study cited above).

[afterburner]

So basically what you're telling me is it's very hard to properly compare the final effective tax rates on corporations in two different countries. The study above doesn't compare to other countries. So you don't actually know if it's really worse in the US.

[pizza234]

Having such tax rate, conversely, is not a sufficient argument to prove the opposite.

Control of the government by corporations is a complex phenomenon, and taxation is only one part of many.

Lobbyists take quite commonly part in the administration, and once they do, they certainly don't start to act against their own interest.

[mal-2]

The upside to this is that, by choosing to only support corporations that share one's values, you can still have a positive effect. Voting with your dollar has long been known to be more effective than voting with your ballot.