Taxes, taxes, taxes and LESS TAXES... wait, what?!?!?

[jamil]

Infrastructure. It's country that has population less than Kokomo. It doesn't have it own money, military. What it does have is really loose tax laws concerning businesses. There are actually more businesses than people in Lichtenstein.... which ones can extrapolate that those businesses don't actually exist within it's borders, but simply keep an address there. So that corporate rate, is more "we'll give you free money if you let us have mailbox" than an actual physical entity that would need to be overseen by local business laws. It's a sweetheart deal.

BTW, I didn't know any of the above, I had to look it up. Well, I did know how small it was, and given the tax figures you quoted, it seemed obvious that infrastructure was why.

What are all the reasons why businesses leave the US? Regulations. Taxes.

What's the solution for that? More regulations? Higher Taxes?

Your reason for taxing companies at a high rate seems to be tied to your belief in wealth redistribution. Where is that wealth, taken from taxes, being redistributed?

 

[Kutnupe14]

What are all the reasons why businesses leave the US? Regulations. Taxes.

What's the solution for that? More regulations? Higher Taxes?

Your reason for taxing companies at a high rate seems to be tied to your belief in wealth redistribution. Where is that wealth, taken from taxes, being redistributed?

Wat? Let me guess, you recall that being said too? I have NEVER said companies should be taxed at a high rate, and I have NEVER said I believed in wealth redistribution. If fact, the only taxes I have EVER supported are either consumption or flat taxes. Why do you continue to make %$#@ up? Because I'm past the point of believing you having a bad memory. No you just make stuff up, for whatever reason. I don't know why, but it's clear to me, that you're purposefully doing this.

 

[1775usmarine]

I do believe that higher corporate taxes drive businesses overseas. I believe if we were to lower it to get businesses to come back then yes we would see more jobs as they would have to hire American workers and if we cut the rate 20% then these businesses would basically break even with the cost of labor vs moving out.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Trickle down economics you mean? Typically that does not help the economy. Why would it? If you owned a huge business, and the govt gave you a substantial tax cut, what would you do with that extra money? What is your incentive to pass that money along to your regular workers? They aren't going to leave if you don't throw them a bone. Now your shareholders and executives, you gotta take care of them.

"Trickle down" was the idea that cutting top tax rates meant the wealthy would spend more money, which would create more jobs. Remember the yacht luxury tax fiasco? The rich decided to keep their old yachts instead of buying new ones, in order to avoid the tax, and thousand of workers lost their yacht building jobs. Rich people have options... politicians often forget that when trying to "milk" them.

Cutting corporate tax rates means corps will be more likely to come or stay in the US rather than chasing lowered costs (taxes and labor) elsewhere. It also means that companies can expand more and faster... bigger companies means more jobs for us peons.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Wat? Let me guess, you recall that being said too? I have NEVER said companies should be taxed at a high rate, and I have NEVER said I believed in wealth redistribution. If fact, the only taxes I have EVER supported are either consumption or flat taxes. Why do you continue to make %$#@ up? Because I'm past the point of believing you having a bad memory. No you just make stuff up, for whatever reason. I don't know why, but it's clear to me, that you're purposefully doing this.

Here's the most recent quote:

And if it doesn't help the economy, does it then become conservative lies?

Plainly read it states that Republicans are lying that cutting corporate tax rates, currently among the highest in the world, to a middle of the pack level, will help the economy.

So, do you support or oppose cutting the corporate tax rate? Should it stay the same or go up, instead?

Tell us, because you seem to refute your own implications just a dozen posts ago.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Here's the most recent quote:



Plainly read it states that Republicans are lying that cutting corporate tax rates, currently among the highest in the world, to a middle of the pack level, will help the economy.

So, do you support or oppose cutting the corporate tax rate? Should it stay the same or go up, instead?

Tell us, because you seem to refute your own implications just a dozen posts ago.

Nonsense... not deserving of a response.

 

[Alpo]

I haven't looked at the corporate tax rules yet. But does a foreign corporation say, like Siemens or Royal Dutch Shell or HSBC Holding pay a now-reduced tax rate on their US earnings? Doesn't this transfer US "wealth" overseas? Doesn't this increase our balance of payments issues?

Just asking.

 

[jamil]

Wat? Let me guess, you recall that being said too? I have NEVER said companies should be taxed at a high rate, and I have NEVER said I believed in wealth redistribution. If fact, the only taxes I have EVER supported are either consumption or flat taxes. Why do you continue to make %$#@ up? Because I'm past the point of believing you having a bad memory. No you just make stuff up, for whatever reason. I don't know why, but it's clear to me, that you're purposefully doing this.

Well, you say that. Then you say stuff like this:

Ok, you gotta fill me in on the logic of tax plan that gives permanent tax breaks to companies, increases the debt by $1 trillion, with a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to upper class. And if benchmarks aren't met, it will actually raise taxes on the public. How is that a good start?

How would permanent tax breaks to companies massively transfer wealth from the middle class to upper class? Conversely, how does the current tax rates transfer wealth from the upper class to the middle class now? If you're going to use zero-sum language like that, first, it undermines the economic principles which would make one favor consumption or flat taxes, second, the logic goes both ways.

If you think that permanently reducing taxes on businesses causes a wealth redistribution from the middle to the upper class, it follows that taxing businesses at the current rates has a redistributive effect of transferring wealth from the upper class to the lower class. I think it deserves more explanation than you've given to effectively argue that my statement wasn't accurate.

 

[jamil]

I haven't looked at the corporate tax rules yet. But does a foreign corporation say, like Siemens or Royal Dutch Shell or HSBC Holding pay a now-reduced tax rate on their US earnings? Doesn't this transfer US "wealth" overseas? Doesn't this increase our balance of payments issues?

Just asking.

I'm a free trade sort of guy so I don't really have a problem with this as long as those countries don't put extra taxes on our company's income made over there. But I imagine a lot of the nationalist folks would want foreign companies to be taxed at higher rates. Which of course would mean those countries would tax our companies more.

 

[jamil]

Nonsense... not deserving of a response.

That's one way to avoid it. It's a fair critique. Those are fair questions. If you support flat tax, should you want corporate taxes to be reduced, or stay the same? I'll add another. Is that really consistent with your wealth redistribution statements?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well, you say that. Then you say stuff like this:

NONE of what I said indicates a belief in high taxes for companies, nor the redistribution of wealth. Perhaps you aren't up to speed on the tax plan (as it was at the time), but the the tax breaks for the companies are permanent, the tax breaks for the individual are potentially temporary. If the individual tax breaks are allowed to expire, then obviously taxes on those individuals will go up (at a higher rate than before on middle class in comparison to the upper class), while the tax breaks on the companies remain the same. It that does happen, that would be a "massive transfer of wealth."
Senate plan would make individual tax breaks temporary while corporate cuts would be permanent - Chicago Tribune

 

[Kutnupe14]

That's one way to avoid it. It's a fair critique. Those are fair questions. If you support flat tax, should you want corporate taxes to be reduced, or stay the same? I'll add another. Is that really consistent with your wealth redistribution statements?

Not when having a discussion where it is obvious that most haven't versed themselves in what the tax bill actually proposes. It's a waste of time.

 

[jamil]

NONE of what I said indicates a belief in high taxes for companies, nor the redistribution of wealth. Perhaps you aren't up to speed on the tax plan (as it was at the time), but the the tax breaks for the companies are permanent, the tax breaks for the individual are potentially temporary. If the individual tax breaks are allowed to expire, then obviously taxes on those individuals will go up (at a higher rate than before on middle class in comparison to the upper class), while the tax breaks on the companies remain the same. It that does happen, that would be a "massive transfer of wealth."
Senate plan would make individual tax breaks temporary while corporate cuts would be permanent - Chicago Tribune

You're the one who brought up wealth redistribution. You use that kind of language, and how else should I take it? Especially when your explanation is a non-sequitur. In the senate plan, the tax on *individuals* is temporary. That includes tax breaks on high personal income. Tax on businesses is a different thing altogether. The claim of wealth redistribution does not follow.

But anyway, the bold part is exactly what I meant when I said it was a good start. There are two things I want to happen during reconciliation. I want the middle class tax breaks to be permanent like in the house plan. And I want the Obamacare individual mandates repealed, like in the senate plan. Then, I think it'll be a pretty good tax bill, probably the best we'll get in this climate.

 

[Alpo]

I'm a free trade sort of guy so I don't really have a problem with this as long as those countries don't put extra taxes on our company's income made over there. But I imagine a lot of the nationalist folks would want foreign companies to be taxed at higher rates. Which of course would mean those countries would tax our companies more.

Sounds like George Soros. Free trade and globalization.

I'm against it. It will result in International Imperialism and the non-elites paying for it.

At its base level, the USA is a primo franchise for any corporation. There ought to be a significant franchise fee for those who sell here without reinvesting in the people and infrastructure of the country.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Sounds like George Soros. Free trade and globalization.

I'm against it. It will result in International Imperialism and the non-elites paying for it.

At its base level, the USA is a primo franchise for any corporation. There ought to be a significant franchise fee for those who sell here without reinvesting in the people and infrastructure of the country.

So, in the days when all Toyotas were made in Japan, selling them here contributed nothing????

No sales tax paid on the purchase? No Toyota dealerships with sales and service employees? No trucks or trains with drivers and engineers moving their products and no paying their freight fees and taxes? Just off the top of my head...

 

[PistolBob]

Let me know when property taxes on a primary residence has been outlawed. That's nothing but pure out and out theft.

 

[Alpo]

So, in the days when all Toyotas were made in Japan, selling them here contributed nothing????

No sales tax paid on the purchase? No Toyota dealerships with sales and service employees? No trucks or trains with drivers and engineers moving their products and no paying their freight fees and taxes? Just off the top of my head...

Depends on where the steel came from. At that time, some of the steel came from the USA. And the construction of dealerships. And sales labor. And maintenance labor. Certainly, I understand your point, but a US manufacturer would have contributed much more US content.

Take any currently globalized firm...Apple for instance. Lots of non-US content. Profits kept overseas, but R&D performed in USA. So US costs are tax deducted, but the revenue derived from that deduction are "hidden" overseas.

Foreign corporations have an even greater potential for sheltering income and transferring US wealth offshore.

 

[2A_Tom]

.

 

[caverjamie]

I haven't read much about this bill - why would the senate bill have permanent cuts for corporations, but have the individual tax cut expire? Maybe they have a reason for drafting it that way, but to me it just sounds like they are trying to mislead us.

Another worry, how will we run the government without this tax money? Our government can operate on less taxes, I'm sure of it. But I think it's like a drug addiction...we're taking the drugs away from the addict and call it good without planning for the withdrawal symptoms. That money was going somewhere - who's going to have the guts to make the necessary cuts to government programs, or restructure those programs? Probably no one...

 

[Kutnupe14]

I haven't read much about this bill - why would the senate bill have permanent cuts for corporations, but have the individual tax cut expire? Maybe they have a reason for drafting it that way, but to me it just sounds like they are trying to mislead us.

Another worry, how will we run the government without this tax money? Our government can operate on less taxes, I'm sure of it. But I think it's like a drug addiction...we're taking the drugs away from the addict and call it good without planning for the withdrawal symptoms. That money was going somewhere - who's going to have the guts to make the necessary cuts to government programs, or restructure those programs? Probably no one...

Because they need a safety valve in case it appears that the debt added to the deficit will exceed $1.5T. If it's projected to go above that, then taxpayers in the $50-$75K category are going to see their cuts evaporate. The great thing, is that it kicks in 2027, via the Byrd Rule, which will offset placing blame should those tax cuts expire. The drafters of this bill are still trying to convince us that the reason the corporate cuts are permanent, is the tired belief in trickle down economics. American businesses are making a killing, and have been for a very long time. The fact that business executives since 1982 have seen their wealth increase so dramatically, comparatively to the average American worker, highlights the fact that trickle down economics, doesn't benefit the workers of those companies. It's essentially a windfall for those businesses to pay themselves more.