What an amazing year ! new tax law primes US for growth

ohdeve the obvious dual · Dec 20, 2017

I feel a little queasy about the individual mandate until I remember that health care is not a commercial product, it's a fundamental human right and the more people pay into a system, the cheaper it will be for all.

But then I think derr, I live in America, where the individual is ALWAYS more important than the whole.

And then I usually start drinking and praying for a quick, cheap death.

ohdeve the obvious dual · Dec 20, 2017

Fuck it, @K. Can I just sign up to be a slave? Think I'd get free housing? I'm fine with beatings.

K. · Dec 20, 2017

ohdeve said: ↑

I feel a little queasy about the individual mandate
Click to expand...

Sure you do. Because Americans want less choice in what happens with their money. Tax me and buy whatever the government has decided? I'll grumble, but I'm used to it. But let me keep my money and invest it, with a mandate to choose one of many different private companies to provide the same necessary service? No sir, I won't stand for that! That's communism!

K. · Dec 20, 2017

ohdeve said: ↑

Fuck it, @K. Can I just sign up to be a slave? Think I'd get free housing? I'm fine with beatings.
Click to expand...

You think you're joking, but how do you think your iphone was made? And yes, their housing is free, but it isn't very nice. At all.

So let's change that. It's worth it.

M. Bison · Dec 20, 2017

Kilometres O'Brien said: ↑

Paladin said: ↑

Obamacare individual mandate gone! Corporate taxes reduced!

2 more boxes on my wishlist checked!

Click to expand...

Do you think that allowing corporations to horde more profits, rather than encouraging them to reinvest those profits into expanding the economy, is a good thing? And how is it a good thing?
Click to expand...

Competitive tax laws are not the same as "hoarding more profits."

Neither is taxing companies the same as "encouraging them to reinvest those profits into expanding the economy."

However, higher corporate taxes do correlate to more companies leaving the US in search for lower corporate taxes.

K. · Dec 20, 2017

M. Bison said: ↑

However, higher corporate taxes do correlate to more companies leaving the US in search for lower corporate taxes.
Click to expand...

No, they don't. Corporate tax has been at a historical low for several decades in the US, and those are the same decades that saw unemployment rising and jobs moving abroad.

ohdeve the obvious dual · Dec 20, 2017

K. said: ↑

You think you're joking, but how do you think your iphone was made? And yes, their housing is free, but it isn't very nice. At all.

So let's change that. It's worth it.
Click to expand...

I do know how smart phones are made. I'm ashamed I use one, but obviously not too ashamed to stop.

I agree with you, I'd love to change the system. But time and time again, the one country that could effect real change doesn't, and never will. Because to most, life isn't about bettering humanity, no matter how many Star Trek DVDs you own. It's about I got mine, bitch, and fuck you.

K. · Dec 20, 2017

ohdeve said: ↑

K. said: ↑

You think you're joking, but how do you think your iphone was made? And yes, their housing is free, but it isn't very nice. At all.

So let's change that. It's worth it.
Click to expand...

I do know how smart phones are made. I'm ashamed I use one, but obviously not too ashamed to stop.

I agree with you, I'd love to change the system. But time and time again, the one country that could effect real change doesn't, and never will. Because to most, life isn't about bettering humanity, no matter how many Star Trek DVDs you own. It's about I got mine, bitch, and fuck you.
Click to expand...

That's too pessimistic. That country did eventually get rid of slavery. It brought the same, albeit limited, rights to all adults. It built public schools, created the world's most ambitious digital infrastructure, which pulled 90% of its populace out of generations of ignorance; and even before that, it introduced social security, and has now eventually even got round to universal healthcare.

And that's just China; the US isn't doing so bad either, in the long view.

Fisherman's Worf · Dec 20, 2017

The GOP’s Tax Bill Kicks Puerto Rico When It’s Down

As the U.S. island struggles to climb out of a $70 billion debt crisis and recover from the devastation of Hurricane Maria, House Republicans voted Wednesday to impose a 12.5 percent tax on intellectual property income made by U.S. companies operating on the island and a minimum 10 percent tax on their profits in Puerto Rico. The Senate passed the bill earlier in the day.

That means that businesses with operations in Puerto Rico will pay higher taxes than their counterparts on the U.S. mainland, which puts industries and jobs on the island at risk.
Click to expand...

ohdeve the obvious dual · Dec 20, 2017

Well remember, Puerto Rico only has itself to blame for its woes. Like it says in the Gospel, "May Only the Strong Survive."

Besides, they have free paper towels, what else do they want?

M. Bison · Dec 20, 2017

K. said: ↑

M. Bison said: ↑

However, higher corporate taxes do correlate to more companies leaving the US in search for lower corporate taxes.
Click to expand...

No, they don't. Corporate tax has been at a historical low for several decades in the US, and those are the same decades that saw unemployment rising and jobs moving abroad.
Click to expand...

Read my post again, K.

I said that U.S. companies tend to shop countries for the lowest rates. WTF does that have to do with historic lows?

That'd be like if I said people generally buy more Toyota Camry's because they're cheaper than Maserati, and you said "that's not true, Maserati prices are at a historic low."

14thDoctor · Dec 20, 2017

I, for one, look forward to everyone that supports this abomination of a bill getting executed when the revolution comes. No mercy for class traitors.

Professor Sexbot · Dec 20, 2017

Lanzman said: ↑

Contrast that with the recent tech company Instagram. Founded in 2010, Instagram only had 13 employees, but they had over 30 million users when they were acquired by Facebook for over one billion dollars!
Click to expand...

Those 30 million users aren't customers. They're the product. They are a captive audience that Instagram and other similar companies sell to advertising companies.

TLDR: Demand doesn't drive greater job creation than competitive tax laws.
Click to expand...

False.

M. Bison · Dec 20, 2017

14thDoctor said: ↑

I, for one, look forward to everyone that supports this abomination of a bill getting executed when the revolution comes. No mercy for class traitors.
Click to expand...

Tuckerfan · Dec 20, 2017

Paladin said: ↑

I expect it to result in more investment in manufacturing plants in the U.S., and less off-shoring. I don't think it will change economic growth much, but it should ultimately be good for American workers as it will increase the available number of jobs.
Click to expand...

About that.

Trump promised ‘America First’ would keep jobs here. But the tax plan might push them overseas.

On the Friday before Thanksgiving, Kenny Johnson left the Nelson Global Products plant in Clinton, Tenn., for the last time. Having devoted nearly 13 years to making tractor-trailer exhaust pipes, Johnson, 41, spent some of his final weeks at the plant watching Mexican workers train to take his job.

“They brought three or four groups at different times,” he said. “To learn the jobs that are going to Mexico.”

This was the kind of economic dislocation that President Trump vowed to prevent with his “America First” policies. Over the past year, he threatened to impose a new tax on companies eyeing offshore locales and repeatedly proclaimed the imminent return of millions of lost American jobs from overseas.

But presidential jawboning has been no match for the market. To cut costs in a competitive global environment, Nelson Global executives in May announced the closure of the Clinton facility and a sister plant in Minnesota.

Clinton’s 149 jobs and equipment were distributed among company facilities in North Carolina and Monterrey, Mexico, workers said, even as the president trumpeted his agenda of economic nationalism in Washington.

“He hollered that he was going to put a stop to that,” Johnson said. “And he obviously did not.”

Trump, in fact, might actually make things worse.

What happened to the workers in Clinton, tax experts say, will probably happen to more Americans if the Republican tax overhaul becomes law. The legislation fails to eliminate long-standing incentives for companies to move overseas and, in some cases, may even increase them, they say.

[Despite Trump’s ire, Ireland expects to avoid any pain from U.S. tax overhaul]

“This bill is potentially more dangerous than our current system,” said Stephen Shay, a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School and former Treasury Department international tax expert in the Obama administration. “It creates a real incentive to shift real activity offshore.”

As a candidate, Trump vowed to stop companies from moving offshore by imposing a 35 percent border tax on those that sought to ship products home from their new foreign plants.

“A Trump administration will stop the jobs from leaving America,” he told a cheering crowd in Hershey, Pa., the weekend before Election Day. “The theft of American prosperity will end.”

As president, he appeared to score a quick victory by persuading Carrier to reverse a planned relocation of 1,100 Indiana jobs to Mexico, though the company proceeded months later with hundreds of layoffs.

Trump has rejected what he called “the offshoring model” and said a simple “pro-American” tax code would be essential to reversing the job drain.

“The biggest winners will be everyday working families as jobs start pouring into our country,” he said in September.

This year, companies such as Wells Fargo, Microsemi and Caterpillar have announced plans to shift work overseas from U.S. sites, according to a Labor Department office that determines worker eligibility for retraining aid. Along with relocating assembly lines, other companies, such as Apple and Microsoft, have avoided U.S. taxes by formally assigning the intellectual properties behind innovative products — and the profit that comes from them — to foreign jurisdictions.

The United States loses about $100 billion annually in forgone tax payments to corporate profit shifting, said Kimberly Clausing, an economics professor at Reed College who specializes in the taxation of multinational firms.

The final version of the tax bill would reduce the U.S. corporate tax rate from 35 percent, one of the world’s highest, to 21 percent. That change, a response to long-standing pleas from the business community, is designed to encourage more investment in the United States, which in turn would create more jobs and lift wages.

Yet as Congress nears a final vote on the almost-500-page legislation, some workers have soured on the plan.

“Knowing President Trump, it’ll probably benefit companies and the higher-up people more than everyday workers like us,” said Johnson, who earned $16 an hour as a materials handler.

Under current law, the 35 percent corporate tax is due on profit earned overseas only when it is returned stateside. The legislation, however, would permit the estimated $2.6 trillion that corporations have stockpiled outside the country to return to the United States subject to a rate expected to be around 15 percent.

In the future, corporations would be required to pay about a 10 percent minimum tax on overseas income above a certain level. The provision is billed as a way to discourage the movement of jobs and profit overseas. But the fine print of the new global minimum tax would make the problem worse, several tax specialists said.

“The overall effects of this are going to be unambiguously bad for the workers that it’s ostensibly designed to help,” Clausing said.

There are three reasons, according to nonpartisan tax experts. First, a corporation would pay that global minimum tax only on profit above a “routine” rate of return on the tangible assets — such as factories — it has overseas. So the more equipment a corporation has in other countries, the more tax-free income it can earn. The legislation thus offers corporations “a perverse incentive” to shift assembly lines abroad, said Steve Rosenthal of the Tax Policy Center.

Second, the bill sets the “routine” return at 10 percent — far more generous than would typically be the case. Such allowances are normally fixed a couple of percentage points above risk-free Treasury yields, which are currently around 2.4 percent.

As a result, a U.S. corporation that builds a $100 million plant in another country and makes a foreign profit of $20 million would pay roughly $1 million in tax versus $4 million on the same profit if earned in the United States, said Rosenthal, who has been a tax lawyer for 25 years and drafted tax legislation as a staffer for the Joint Committee on Taxation.

Finally, the minimum levy would be calculated on a global average rather than for individual countries where a corporation operates. So a U.S. multinational could lower its tax bill by shifting profit from U.S. locations to tax havens such as the Cayman Islands.

It’s unclear how taxes affected Nelson Global’s restructuring decision. Company officials did not respond to telephone and email requests for comment. As a rule, factors such as relative wage rates, proximity to customers and availability of workers shape corporate location decisions.

To really slam the door on offshoring, the minimum tax should be calculated on a country-by-country basis, and the rate should be set closer to the 21 percent U.S. rate, Rebecca Kysar, a professor at Brooklyn Law School who specializes in international tax law, and other analysts say.

Companies also are likely to continue to locate valuable intellectual property overseas to pay a lower rate than what they would face in the United States, likely to be around 20 percent, analysts said.

“The plan does not meaningfully reduce the incentives for companies to move their operations and shift their income overseas,” Kysar said. “You could say it will make things worse.”

Apple is perhaps the most prominent among many corporations that have legally avoided billions of dollars in U.S. taxes through paper maneuvers that assign lucrative intellectual properties behind products such as software to low-tax foreign jurisdictions.

By establishing foreign subsidiaries that legally had no tax residence — and in at least one case had no physical presence and no employees — the company escaped massive tax bills, according to a 2013 Senate investigation.

Such gamesmanship leads to financial results that defy common sense. In 2008, the most recent year available, U.S. companies’ foreign units booked nearly $77 billion in profit in Ireland, one of Europe’s smallest countries, and just $22 billion in Germany, the most populated, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

The tax code’s role in encouraging U.S. companies to move jobs or profit to other countries has been a perennial source of political debate, especially among liberals. In 2004, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) decried “Benedict Arnold” corporations for shirking their tax bills by slipping abroad.

Eight years later, Barack Obama called Mitt Romney the “outsourcer in chief” for presiding over job movements as a private-equity executive at Bain Capital.

In 2008, the $938 billion in profit reported by foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies was more than triple the 2000 figure, while the number of workers employed by those units increased over the same period by just 21 percent.

Still, it’s difficult to get a precise estimate of the number of jobs that have moved offshore since globalization kicked into high gear with China’s entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001. The Economic Policy Institute, a labor-union-backed think tank, says 3.2 million jobs were lost or displaced because of Chinese competition; Michael Hicks, an economics professor at Ball State University, says trade has cost the U.S. 750,000 workers.

Over the past seven years, almost 1 million new factory jobs have been created in the United States. But total manufacturing employment remains at 12.5 million, almost exactly what it was in 1941, shortly after Nelson Global Products first opened its doors.

In May, Steve Scgalski, the company’s chief executive, announced the plant closures in Tennessee and Minnesota, billing them as essential “to ensure cost effectiveness and the continued growth of the company.”

Workers in Clinton like Robert Powell, 56, a forklift operator, struggled to understand the rationale. The plant was “doing pretty good,” he said. “Keeping up with orders, best safety record around.”

When vans began bringing small groups of Mexican workers to the factory this summer, Powell was among those who taught them how to operate the factory equipment. Hampered by the language barrier, he resorted to hand signals.

In October, a Labor Department official in Washington ruled that the Nelson Global workers were eligible for retraining and health insurance through a federal program designed to help workers hurt by trade.

With just a high school degree, Powell worries that his age and relative lack of education will hurt his prospects. But he hopes to use the retraining aid to earn a truck driver’s license.

Powell clocked out from his $11.50-an-hour job for the last time Dec. 1, just a few hours before the Senate approved a $1.5 trillion tax cut on a nearly straight-party-line vote. The Republican measure is heavily tilted toward corporations and the well-to-do, analysts say, despite the president’s initial promise of delivering relief for the middle class.

Powell lives in Morgan County, where Trump last year trounced Hillary Clinton 5,441 to 1,054. “He’s really wanting to do good stuff for us,” he said of the president. “He’s pretty popular around this area.”

Asked whether he expects to benefit from the tax cut, Powell paused. “It’s hard to say,” he finally said. “I was hoping I would.”
Click to expand...

(bolding mine)

TLDR version: The bill offers tax breaks for companies that build factories overseas, and increases for companies that build plants in the US.

Lanzman · Dec 20, 2017

ohdeve said: ↑

I feel a little queasy about the individual mandate until I remember that health care is not a commercial product, it's a fundamental human right and the more people pay into a system, the cheaper it will be for all.
Click to expand...

Dear God, do we really have to get in to this again? Health care is a commercial service, not a "fundamental human right." Human rights impose no obligation on anyone else beyond observing them. Health care requires the labor of others and is therefore subject to the laws of economics. Or are you saying that health care providers should work for free?

Wait, I know . . . you want to tax "the rich" to cover the costs of "free" health care, which would then operate as a government monopoly. Good plan, nothing could possibly go wrong.

Dinner · Dec 20, 2017

Does anyone remember when that dumb ass Tuttle pretended to care about the US National debt?

https://wordforge.net/index.php?thr...hey-seem-deficit-edition.100783/#post-2521129

https://wordforge.net/index.php?threads/were-gonna-hit-16-trillion-any-day-now.95381/#post-2372909

https://wordforge.net/index.php?threads/us-loses-aaa-rating.88867/page-4#post-2196505

https://wordforge.net/index.php?thr...e-the-situation-in-greece.78382/#post-1945125

garamet · Dec 20, 2017

^ @Lanzman, we'll keep getting into it until you're able to get over the "government monopoly" canard.

M. Bison · Dec 20, 2017

Dinner said: ↑

Does anyone remember when that dumb ass Tuttle pretended to care about the US National debt?
Click to expand...

Dinner said: ↑

Did you wipe the shit from your mouth? Inquiring minds want to know?
Click to expand...

Dinner said: ↑

Could you please kill youself for being so stupid? Thank you.
Click to expand...

Dinner said: ↑

So Tuttle is a dumb piece of shit no one likes
Click to expand...

Dinner said: ↑

Tuttle is perhaps the dumbest poster here.
Click to expand...

Did he fuck your girl and make you watch? This is your entire contribution to this thread -- crying like a fucking faggot.

Dinner · Dec 20, 2017

When people are saying stupid things they deserve to get called out on it.

Lanzman · Dec 20, 2017

garamet said: ↑

^ @Lanzman, we'll keep getting into it until you're able to get over the "government monopoly" canard.
Click to expand...

Yeah yeah, I know, liberals are never happy unless the government is in charge of everything. That works out so well, historically . . .

Paladin · Dec 20, 2017

K. said: ↑

Paladin said: ↑

K. said: ↑

Paladin said: ↑

You're a businessowner. You've got more money in your pocket because your taxes are lower. What do you do?
Click to expand...

Depends. I have just learned that I will make more money in the US if I invest less there.
Click to expand...

To date you haven't invested anything more than you did before the tax rates went down.
Click to expand...

False. I have invested less, and that made the tax rate go down.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about how you will make decisions after the tax cut. But in this sense you're right: because employers are investing less here in the U.S., high tax rates--which discourage investment--need to come down.

Yes, and if you are right that the tax rate is the decisive factor, then I always will as long as the US collects any taxes at all, because some other places collect none.
Click to expand...

Again, competition among tax regimes isn't going to drive rates to 0, no more than competition between gasoline retailers will drive gas down to free. It will drive them as low as they can go.

or I might invest in actual growth models in the US, even though the new tax scheme disincentivise that, if my business model is strong enough;
Click to expand...

How do lower taxes on business profit discincentivize investment?
Click to expand...

Because in the current tax bill, they are a reward for destroying jobs.
Click to expand...

How?

Here's the situation you have created:

Business owner: "I used to have $1000 invested here, but business is cheaper in China. I will take $500 there and eliminate half of the jobs I had in the US. I still hope to get $100 for my $500 in the US though, where I previously got $200 for $1000."
Government: "Our unemployment is rising! We need to lower taxes. You will now receive $120 for your $500."
Business owner: "Thank you! Now I have an extra $20, where should I invest them? Well, China still offers much lower labour costs and lower taxes, I'll take them there. In fact, I'll move another $250 from the US to China. My remaining $250 in the US should still earn me $60, that is, as long as I keep them in the US; I will of course eventually move the whole of my investments to China. But for now, I'll just eliminate another half of my workforce in the US. "
Government: "Unemployment has risen again! Quick, we must lower the tax even further! You will now get $80 for your investment."
Business owner: "Wow, thank you so much! You must truly love your country. If I take another $125 out of the US, will you lower taxes again?"
Government: "Of course, that's the only way we can get the economy working again!"
Business owner: "Then that's what I'll do, I guess."
Click to expand...

That's not real. If you believe it works this way, then you'd have to believe the cure for manufacturing moving overseas is to raise taxes.

There are only two ways to break that cycle: Create conditions for production that are as bad or even worse than they are in China; or compete in ways other than through reduced taxes and reduced workers' rights, for instance, through better infrastructure, better education, and a more productive workforce. All of which requires more state investment.
Click to expand...

Taxes are already higher than many other places, and has that brought more jobs back?

All the more reason for taxes to be lower.
Click to expand...

So you are in favour of slave labour?
Click to expand...

How is creating more job opportunities for people making them slaves?
Click to expand...

It isn't. But you want to compete with slave labour at 0% taxation.
Click to expand...

On that basis, we should outlaw all economic competition as, it is claimed, it's only going to result in a "race to the bottom." That's just not real. In fact, the opposite occurs: competition makes people get innovative and creative and efficient, because they stand to lose if someone does it better.

Besides, I spent the last week in a Chinese factory, and saw no slaves.

You will not win that competition downwards until you have copied slave labour at 0% taxation. At which point we're no longer talking about job opportunities at all.
Click to expand...

The race to the bottom is a fantasy. An equilibrium position is reached.

There aren't many opportunities for working class people here because the jobs aren't being created here. Part of the reason is that it's too expensive to do so. You're arguing against making it cheaper, which means you're arguing against more opportunities not fewer. And workers benefit from more opportunities.
Click to expand...

What is your explanation for why this has never happened in the recorded history of modern capitalism?
Click to expand...

Never happened?!? So, all those empty factories in the midwest are just a figment of our imagination? That huge American middle class that capitalism created is just a fiction?

If tax rates don't matter, make 'em 100%.
Click to expand...

Tax rates do matter. That's why this bill is horrendous. Nobody has suggested 100%; but you are suggesting competing with 0%.
Click to expand...

I believe the new rate is 20%, hardly 0%.
Click to expand...

But 20% is higher than 0%, and according to your model, the jobs will go where the tax rate is lower.
Click to expand...

You grossly exaggerate my position. I said that business will tend to go where it can realize the most net profit, and that taxes can play a big role in that.

That's 0%, which is the case in several parts of the world. The only reason why all employers do not move there is because your model is wrong: Employers need other things as well as good tax rates. Those things are provided by open societies and stable, well-funded governments. These require sufficient taxation.
Click to expand...

Again, you exaggerate my position. I never said low taxes was the only thing, or that other things couldn't be important, too.

Volpone · Dec 20, 2017

Professor Sexbot said: ↑

Why? Simply because they can? No. They won't do that if there isn't a demand for it. The money that corporations save on taxes will primarily go towards increasing shareholder value.

Again, no. There's no incentive for them to invest in expanding the business simply because they can.
Click to expand...

BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE!
https://www.dailywire.com/news/2492...&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=dwbrand

garamet · Dec 20, 2017

Lanzman said: ↑

garamet said: ↑

^ @Lanzman, we'll keep getting into it until you're able to get over the "government monopoly" canard.
Click to expand...

Yeah yeah, I know, liberals are never happy unless the government is in charge of everything. That works out so well, historically . . .
Click to expand...

Not what I'm saying. If I asked you to list the countries where the government appoints medical professionals, you'd have to start with Donnie Smallhands' buddy Vladi and then...?

You still don't understand the concept of universal healthcare after all this time. And you're one of the more intelligent people here.

Volpone said: ↑

Professor Sexbot said: ↑

Why? Simply because they can? No. They won't do that if there isn't a demand for it. The money that corporations save on taxes will primarily go towards increasing shareholder value.

Again, no. There's no incentive for them to invest in expanding the business simply because they can.
Click to expand...

BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE!
https://www.dailywire.com/news/2492...&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=dwbrand
Click to expand...

Bribery. Funny that the Market closed down today.

It'll be fun to look back at this thread a year from now...

Lanzman · Dec 20, 2017

I understand "universal healthcare" just fine, G. Problem is, folks like you usually define that as "government run monopoly" and that just ain't the way I operate. You want universal health care, the way to do it is allow providers to sell insurance nationally rather than by individual state, have the government mandate that no-one gets to say "we don't take your insurance" or "preexisting condition," and ideally it should be run as a non-profit enterprise. But a National Healthcare System? No thanks.

Dinner · Dec 20, 2017

Volpone said: ↑

Professor Sexbot said: ↑

Why? Simply because they can? No. They won't do that if there isn't a demand for it. The money that corporations save on taxes will primarily go towards increasing shareholder value.

Again, no. There's no incentive for them to invest in expanding the business simply because they can.
Click to expand...

BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE!
https://www.dailywire.com/news/2492...&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=dwbrand
Click to expand...

At least with Wells Fargo they have been stating for years that they are moving to $15 as a minimum wage so it seems clownish and dishonest to say tax giveaways had anything to do with it.

garamet · Dec 20, 2017

Lanzman said: ↑

I understand "universal healthcare" just fine, G. Problem is, folks like youme usually define that as "government run monopoly."
Click to expand...

FTFY. And that's where you habitually go wrong.

Tell you what: Give us a list of countries where universal health care is a government-run monopoly. Take your time.

Dinner · Dec 21, 2017

Paladin said: ↑

Obamacare individual mandate gone! Corporate taxes reduced!

2 more boxes on my wishlist checked!

Click to expand...

I am sure the 16 million people who will now lose their health insurance and everyone who will see higher rates completely agree with you.

Zombie · Dec 21, 2017

Kilometres O'Brien said: ↑

We'll have to agree to disagree on the ACA individual mandate, but do you honestly believe reducing corporate tax rates is a good thing? Trickle-down economics has proven to be an abysmal failure over the last several decades. Take Kansas for example--the legislature/executive of Kansas was considering shutting down vast portions of its education system to make up for its abysmal economy in the wake of trickle-down economics. The Kansas Supreme Court actually had to order the government to keep the schools open.

Do you think that allowing corporations to horde more profits, rather than encouraging them to reinvest those profits into expanding the economy, is a good thing? And how is it a good thing?

Click to expand...

No company paid a 90% tax rate.

None.

Because there was never a 90% corporate tax rate in America. The highest corporate tax rate in America was 52.8 percent, in 1968 and 1969. The current rate of 35% came in 1993.

There was a 90% tax rate on people however the people who would be in a position to pay the 90% tax rate never did. Because you paid 90% only on tiny portion of your income. Most people had all sorts of tax shelters to hide, not invest, their money.

And the corporate tax rate is now in line with most other countries around the world. It's only America that was so high that American companies would leave the country and become foreign companies. Hopefully now we can get some companies to start coming back too America. Which means more jobs and more tax paid to America.

Order2Chaos · Dec 21, 2017

Eh, the nominal rate was quite high. The effective rate, as I understand it, was on the low end.

Log in or Sign up

What an amazing year ! new tax law primes US for growth

ohdeve the obvious dual FUCK YO GRAPES!

ohdeve the obvious dual FUCK YO GRAPES!

K. Sober

K. Sober

M. Bison Philosophize w/a Hammer

K. Sober

ohdeve the obvious dual FUCK YO GRAPES!

K. Sober

Fisherman's Worf I am the Seaman, I am the Walrus, Qu-Qu-Qapla'!

ohdeve the obvious dual FUCK YO GRAPES!

M. Bison Philosophize w/a Hammer

14thDoctor Oi

Professor Sexbot ERROR: 404

M. Bison Philosophize w/a Hammer

Tuckerfan BMF

Lanzman Vast, Cool and Unsympathetic Formerly Important

Dinner 2012 & 2014 Master Prognosticator

garamet "The whole world is watching."

M. Bison Philosophize w/a Hammer

Dinner 2012 & 2014 Master Prognosticator

Lanzman Vast, Cool and Unsympathetic Formerly Important

Paladin Overjoyed Man of Liberty

Volpone Zombie Hunter

garamet "The whole world is watching."

Lanzman Vast, Cool and Unsympathetic Formerly Important

Dinner 2012 & 2014 Master Prognosticator

garamet "The whole world is watching."

Dinner 2012 & 2014 Master Prognosticator

Zombie dead and loving it

Order2Chaos Ultimate... Immortal Administrator

Log in or Sign up

What an amazing year ! new tax law primes US for growth

ohdeve the obvious dual FUCK YO GRAPES!

ohdeve the obvious dual FUCK YO GRAPES!

K. Sober

K. Sober

M. Bison Philosophize w/a Hammer

K. Sober

ohdeve the obvious dual FUCK YO GRAPES!

K. Sober

Fisherman's Worf I am the Seaman, I am the Walrus, Qu-Qu-Qapla'!

ohdeve the obvious dual FUCK YO GRAPES!

M. Bison Philosophize w/a Hammer

14thDoctor Oi

Professor Sexbot ERROR: 404

M. Bison Philosophize w/a Hammer

Tuckerfan BMF

Lanzman Vast, Cool and Unsympathetic Formerly Important

Dinner 2012 & 2014 Master Prognosticator

garamet "The whole world is watching."

M. Bison Philosophize w/a Hammer

Dinner 2012 & 2014 Master Prognosticator

Lanzman Vast, Cool and Unsympathetic Formerly Important

Paladin Overjoyed Man of Liberty

Volpone Zombie Hunter

garamet "The whole world is watching."

Lanzman Vast, Cool and Unsympathetic Formerly Important

Dinner 2012 & 2014 Master Prognosticator

garamet "The whole world is watching."

Dinner 2012 & 2014 Master Prognosticator

Zombie dead and loving it

Order2Chaos Ultimate... Immortal Administrator

Useful Searches