Corporations may get permanent Tax cuts

[Sbee]

So where are all the mentions of how wages and jobs leap when taxes go up or are set at levels higher than other countries? You do realize that the economy is a multi-variable system correct? And corporate taxes haven't been cut much since St. Ronnie and what little they have been cut, they haven't been cut to levels that would make the US competitive on a relative basis with other countries.

The economy is a multi-variable system, just like the decisions that go into where a company decides to be headquartered. It's more than just the marginal tax rate and the effective tax rate. If you listen to GOP congressmen that is the only factor in a company's decision, not infrastructure, political stability, energy costs, education level of the labor force, access to health care. etc.

This tax bill is just a wealth transfer to the wealthiest of Americans, just like the attempt as the Obamacare repeal was. They're trying to rush this legislation through before the CBO gets a chance to score it. In a normal process, the Senate would wait for analysis before taking a vote, tax cuts signed by George W Bush and Ronald Regan were debated for months before a vote, along with deficit reduction packages signed by Clinton and G HW Bush.

This is what fiscal conservatism has become, it's not about responsibility, just transferring wealth to the richest households and corporations.

 

[Spartanmack]

The economy is a multi-variable system, just like the decisions that go into where a company decides to be headquartered. It's more than just the marginal tax rate and the effective tax rate. If you listen to GOP congressmen that is the only factor in a company's decision, not infrastructure, political stability, energy costs, education level of the labor force, access to health care. etc.

This tax bill is just a wealth transfer to the wealthiest of Americans, just like the attempt as the Obamacare repeal was. They're trying to rush this legislation through before the CBO gets a chance to score it. In a normal process, the Senate would wait for analysis before taking a vote, tax cuts signed by George W Bush and Ronald Regan were debated for months before a vote, along with deficit reduction packages signed by Clinton and G HW Bush.

This is what fiscal conservatism has become, it's not about responsibility, just transferring wealth to the richest households and corporations.

I don't think it's quite as dynamic as the economy and when mergers where companies establish a new domiciles are called "tax inversions" it's not too difficult to determine the primary motivation. by the way, companies aren't moving to Europe for it's political stability (were you serious about that?) or energy costs (Nat gas is 2x more expensive in Europe). that is just nonsense.

I like how a bill that allows all Americans to keep more of their own money is called a wealth transfer. you guys can be so creative in your spin.

 

[Sbee]

I don't think it's quite as dynamic as the economy and when mergers where companies establish a new domiciles are called "tax inversions" it's not too difficult to determine the primary motivation. by the way, companies aren't moving to Europe for it's political stability (were you serious about that?) or energy costs (Nat gas is 2x more expensive in Europe). that is just nonsense.

I like how a bill that allows all Americans to keep more of their own money is called a wealth transfer. you guys can be so creative in your spin.

Natural gas costs can keep companies in the US, it is a factor in their decisions along with political stability and the other factors I mentioned, along with not having to subsidize insurance premiums, labor laws. All of these things are weighed against each other, it's not just a cut and dry decision about taxes only. If that were the case, companies would move every time a country offers a lower rate.

A tax plan that heavily favors the wealthy and corporations is a wealth transfer to them, when fully implemented this plan will raise taxes on American households making less than 75k, be neutral from 75 to 100, and be a tax cut for those making over 100k. I'm not sure how you can call that anything else, also, this blows up the deficit (which the tea party said was unsustainable before this bill).

You can't be naive enough not to see that they are trying to rush this through without debate and analysis. You know this is the case but it doesn't benefit your argument. Even though Dems aren't going to vote for this they should wait for the CBO and any other bodies to weigh in on this before making it law. The motivation is obvious and it's a departure of what the Republicans had done in the past.

 

[tomdalton22]

Natural gas costs can keep companies in the US, it is a factor in their decisions along with political stability and the other factors I mentioned, along with not having to subsidize insurance premiums, labor laws. All of these things are weighed against each other, it's not just a cut and dry decision about taxes only. If that were the case, companies would move every time a country offers a lower rate.

A tax plan that heavily favors the wealthy and corporations is a wealth transfer to them, when fully implemented this plan will raise taxes on American households making less than 75k, be neutral from 75 to 100, and be a tax cut for those making over 100k. I'm not sure how you can call that anything else, also, this blows up the deficit (which the tea party said was unsustainable before this bill).

You can't be naive enough not to see that they are trying to rush this through without debate and analysis. You know this is the case but it doesn't benefit your argument. Even though Dems aren't going to vote for this they should wait for the CBO and any other bodies to weigh in on this before making it law. The motivation is obvious and it's a departure of what the Republicans had done in the past.

aren't the "increases" due to eliminating tax credits and subsidies for insurance?

 

[Spartanmack]

Natural gas costs can keep companies in the US, it is a factor in their decisions along with political stability and the other factors I mentioned, along with not having to subsidize insurance premiums, labor laws. All of these things are weighed against each other, it's not just a cut and dry decision about taxes only. If that were the case, companies would move every time a country offers a lower rate.

Political stability of the US vs. Western Europe is virtually irrelevant - nobody is staying here because we're slightly more stable than Ireland, UK, etc. And energy costs are irrelevant to many companies. And for those companies for which they matter, when the relative tax rate dominates the energy cost savings and value of political stability, it's pretty clear, even cut and dry as to why companies engage in these mergers - again, that's why they're called "tax inversions." And it's not clear that companies would move every time a country offered a lower rate - moving is expensive. I'm not, nor did I ever say taxes are the only thing companies consider but the evidence is clear, the rate difference is enough to get companies to relocate. That's indisputable.

A tax plan that heavily favors the wealthy and corporations is a wealth transfer to them, when fully implemented this plan will raise taxes on American households making less than 75k, be neutral from 75 to 100, and be a tax cut for those making over 100k. I'm not sure how you can call that anything else, also, this blows up the deficit (which the tea party said was unsustainable before this bill).

This is not true - families making under $25k would be "taxed" an extra $72/year under the House plan, but save $100 under the Senate plan. Everyone else pays less. I put quotes around "taxed" because they're not paying more, they're just getting $72 less in subsidies through tax credits. Under our current system and both the Senate and House bills, people making $25k or less don't pay taxes, they get subsidies. And the slightly less generous aspect of the House bill can go away in reconciliation. It's also not clear that this blows up the deficit but our problem is spending, not taxes - we need to get this done and move on to spending cuts.

http://www.businessinsider.com/senate-tax-plan-affects-family-take-home-pay-2017-11

You can't be naive enough not to see that they are trying to rush this through without debate and analysis. You know this is the case but it doesn't benefit your argument. Even though Dems aren't going to vote for this they should wait for the CBO and any other bodies to weigh in on this before making it law. The motivation is obvious and it's a departure of what the Republicans had done in the past.

There's been plenty of analysis - if there wasn't, how could you be misled by your favorite news outlets (as you so often are) about the affect of the tax cuts?

 

[Sbee]

Political stability of the US vs. Western Europe is virtually irrelevant - nobody is staying here because we're slightly more stable than Ireland, UK, etc. And energy costs are irrelevant to many companies. And for those companies for which they matter, when the relative tax rate dominates the energy cost savings and value of political stability, it's pretty clear, even cut and dry as to why companies engage in these mergers - again, that's why they're called "tax inversions." And it's not clear that companies would move every time a country offered a lower rate - moving is expensive. I'm not, nor did I ever say taxes are the only thing companies consider but the evidence is clear, the rate difference is enough to get companies to relocate. That's indisputable.



This is not true - families making under $25k would be "taxed" an extra $72/year under the House plan, but save $100 under the Senate plan. Everyone else pays less. I put quotes around "taxed" because they're not paying more, they're just getting $72 less in subsidies through tax credits. Under our current system and both the Senate and House bills, people making $25k or less don't pay taxes, they get subsidies. And the slightly less generous aspect of the House bill can go away in reconciliation. It's also not clear that this blows up the deficit but our problem is spending, not taxes - we need to get this done and move on to spending cuts.

http://www.businessinsider.com/senate-tax-plan-affects-family-take-home-pay-2017-11



There's been plenty of analysis - if there wasn't, how could you be misled by your favorite news outlets (as you so often are) about the affect of the tax cuts?

The CBO is a biased news outlet? The House plan would supposedly increase budget deficits by 1.7 Trillion in a decade, I don't see media bias in that.

If spending is the problem, where will the cuts come from to pay for this? 75% of Federal spending is on Social Security, Medicare, and Defense (which is going to continue to go up). Maybe they can cut the budget for the EPA and National endowment for the arts, that can make up 1.7 trillion, right?

The thing that people on the right don't accept is that tax breaks are spending, it has the same net effect on revenue. The Obama stimulus package was about 1/3 tax cuts but those were figured into the cost of the bill. They changed the schedule on how businesses could depreciate assets to encourage spending in a recession, but at that time they were considered to be a cost, not a cut.

This is simply a large gift to the wealthy and corporations, which is the #1 goal of those that claim to be fiscal conservatives. Some may try to make the argument that this is good for everyone, but trying to say that this isn't a plan to put more money in the hands of those that are already wealthy is way off base.

 

[Spartanmack]

The CBO is a biased news outlet? The House plan would supposedly increase budget deficits by 1.7 Trillion in a decade, I don't see media bias in that.

If spending is the problem, where will the cuts come from to pay for this? 75% of Federal spending is on Social Security, Medicare, and Defense (which is going to continue to go up). Maybe they can cut the budget for the EPA and National endowment for the arts, that can make up 1.7 trillion, right?

The thing that people on the right don't accept is that tax breaks are spending, it has the same net effect on revenue. The Obama stimulus package was about 1/3 tax cuts but those were figured into the cost of the bill. They changed the schedule on how businesses could depreciate assets to encourage spending in a recession, but at that time they were considered to be a cost, not a cut.

This is simply a large gift to the wealthy and corporations, which is the #1 goal of those that claim to be fiscal conservatives. Some may try to make the argument that this is good for everyone, but trying to say that this isn't a plan to put more money in the hands of those that are already wealthy is way off base.

yes, the CBO is biased but wait a second, I thought you said there hasn't been time to analyze the bill? How can you be sure about the $1.7T?

And it's not just people on the right - anyone who knows what taxes and spending are knows that tax breaks aren't spending. It's not the same net effect on revenue - one reduces revenue, the other has no effect on revenue. The effect on the deficit may be similar, but the effect on revenue is clearly not and to say so is shows a lack of understanding of simple accounting.

As for where the cuts come from, I'm open to examining all government spending, including defense but particularly entitlements. Entitlements are unsustainable and they bankrupt us if they're not cut. It's that simple.

First, letting people keep more of their own money isn't a gift. Only a leftist would accept that nonsense as logic. But even if we accept that, it's not a large gift to the wealthy. the wealthy will still shoulder the overwhelming bulk of the tax burden. As you can see in the piece I posted, just about everyone benefits and people making less benefit more. If your household income is $75k/yr your effective tax rate decreases by 2.28%, if your household income is $175k/yr your effective tax rate decreases by just 1.29%. So you're either being lied to and refusing to check the numbers yourself or you're lying yourself because you can't accept that the plan would benefit anyone other than the rich. As for corporations, again, it's their money so it's not a gift and I couldn't possibly care less what you think about that tax break because I think the corporate tax rate should be 0.

 

[sggatecl]

yes, the CBO is biased but wait a second, I thought you said there hasn't been time to analyze the bill? How can you be sure about the $1.7T?

He might be referring to illegible notes hand written in the margins in the 11th hour. I'm willing to bet those last second changes don't correct a 1+ trillion dollar deficit.

 

[biggunsbob]

yes, the CBO is biased but wait a second, I thought you said there hasn't been time to analyze the bill? How can you be sure about the $1.7T?

And it's not just people on the right - anyone who knows what taxes and spending are knows that tax breaks aren't spending. It's not the same net effect on revenue - one reduces revenue, the other has no effect on revenue. The effect on the deficit may be similar, but the effect on revenue is clearly not and to say so is shows a lack of understanding of simple accounting.

As for where the cuts come from, I'm open to examining all government spending, including defense but particularly entitlements. Entitlements are unsustainable and they bankrupt us if they're not cut. It's that simple.

First, letting people keep more of their own money isn't a gift. Only a leftist would accept that nonsense as logic. But even if we accept that, it's not a large gift to the wealthy. the wealthy will still shoulder the overwhelming bulk of the tax burden. As you can see in the piece I posted, just about everyone benefits and people making less benefit more. If your household income is $75k/yr your effective tax rate decreases by 2.28%, if your household income is $175k/yr your effective tax rate decreases by just 1.29%. So you're either being lied to and refusing to check the numbers yourself or you're lying yourself because you can't accept that the plan would benefit anyone other than the rich. As for corporations, again, it's their money so it's not a gift and I couldn't possibly care less what you think about that tax break because I think the corporate tax rate should be 0.

Start with entitlements first and not defense. Lol ...We all know that is where Orange Jesus will start . We waste more money on defense then most all other countries spend on defense probably . Typical response coming from you , Gop Voodoo economics set to ruin this country again under the police state of the Trump.
Same old tax crap that didn't work last time and won't work this time. When will the Gop stop Gerrymandering and let the people really decide who they want ? This Tax plan will do nothing to help the middle class and anyone who thinks has just watch to much state Tv.

Really all republicans politicians have lost their way sadly.

https://youtu.be/04P4zPzspuI

 

[Sbee]

yes, the CBO is biased but wait a second, I thought you said there hasn't been time to analyze the bill? How can you be sure about the $1.7T?

And it's not just people on the right - anyone who knows what taxes and spending are knows that tax breaks aren't spending. It's not the same net effect on revenue - one reduces revenue, the other has no effect on revenue. The effect on the deficit may be similar, but the effect on revenue is clearly not and to say so is shows a lack of understanding of simple accounting.

As for where the cuts come from, I'm open to examining all government spending, including defense but particularly entitlements. Entitlements are unsustainable and they bankrupt us if they're not cut. It's that simple.

First, letting people keep more of their own money isn't a gift. Only a leftist would accept that nonsense as logic. But even if we accept that, it's not a large gift to the wealthy. the wealthy will still shoulder the overwhelming bulk of the tax burden. As you can see in the piece I posted, just about everyone benefits and people making less benefit more. If your household income is $75k/yr your effective tax rate decreases by 2.28%, if your household income is $175k/yr your effective tax rate decreases by just 1.29%. So you're either being lied to and refusing to check the numbers yourself or you're lying yourself because you can't accept that the plan would benefit anyone other than the rich. As for corporations, again, it's their money so it's not a gift and I couldn't possibly care less what you think about that tax break because I think the corporate tax rate should be 0.

I guess it's convenient to criticize the CBO when their findings don't help your cause. The 1.7 Trillion number is for the House bill that was voted on in early November, they have had time to score that. The new way of doing things is to vote first, hopefully within 24 hours of getting the bill from committee and then get the analysis after it's already passed.

That's really good that you're open to examining defense spending and entitlements, but that's not what this bill is about. They want to cut taxes first, then maybe talk about cuts to entitlements when it's politically convenient. Of course the tax breaks for most Americans expire while the corporate ones are permanent, but at least they get you to 2025 when Trump would potentially be ending his second term.

here are the projections from congresses joint committed on taxation, before and after they expire

10k to 20k, 38% get a cut in 2019, in 2027, 3% get a cut, 23% would pay more

20k to 30k, 45% get a cut in 2019, 2027 5% get a cut, 22% pay more

30k to 40k, 61% get a cut in 2019, 2027 9% get a tax cut, 21% pay more

40k to 50k, 72% get a cut in 2019, 2027 12% get a cut, 21% pay more

50k to 75k, 81% get a cut in 2019, in 2027 14% get a cut, 27% pay more

75k to 100k, 84% get a cut in 2019, in 2027 22% get a cut, 20% pay more (it starts to tip here)

100k to 200k, 84% get a cut in 2019, 2027 32% get a cut, 30% pay more

200k to 500k, 85% get a cut in 2019, in 2027 43% get a tax cut, 40% pay more

500k to 1m, 91% get a cut in 2019, 58% get a cut in 2027, 37% pay more

1m+ 80% get a tax cut in 2019, in 2027 61% get a tax cut, 39% pay more

with no corresponding spending cuts, this will certainly blow a hole in the deficit but it accomplishes the mission of making things easier on corporations.

If you get your 0% tax rate for corporations, where does the lost revenue come from?

 

[turok]

If you get your 0% tax rate for corporations, where does the lost revenue come from?

Privatizing by selling off everything govmint owned/operated, except for the active military and the offices/benefits/pensions of elected federal representatives, courts, and SCOTUS. Elimination of all federally funded programs.

Just browse the Heritage Foundation's website for more details.

What do I win?

 

[Spartanmack]

If you get your 0% tax rate for corporations, where does the lost revenue come from?

Less than 10% of the Treasury's revenue comes from the corporate tax. the difference is more than made up from spending cuts and increased economic activity generated from a more efficient allocation of capital when taxes no longer impact decisions about how capital is invested or distributed.

 

[Spartanmack]

Privatizing by selling off everything govmint owned/operated, except for the active military and the offices/benefits/pensions of elected federal representatives, courts, and SCOTUS. Elimination of all federally funded programs.

Just browse the Heritage Foundation's website for more details.

What do I win?

the dunce cap. again.

 

[turok]

the dunce cap. again.

Duncecap huh?

One of the reasons that I put you on ignore long ago, ya just can't avoid resorting to personal insults.

Beats wearing a lampshade, like you do to try livening up a typically dull and boring holiday party comprised of your ilk.

 

[Michchamp]

Reading reports from the congressional committee on taxation that the bill the senate passed was so hastily written, it actually includes a $300 BB tax INCREASE on corporations, and has to go back to committee now and be re-written. it can't pass as is.

the GOP "race to the bottom" that pushed out the Mitt Romneys in favor of Trumps, Bannons, Roy Moores, etc. has resulted in Republican leadership to dumb to read and write.

 

[Michchamp]

Reading reports from the congressional committee on taxation that the bill the senate passed was so hastily written, it actually includes a $300 BB tax INCREASE on corporations, and has to go back to committee now and be re-written. it can't pass as is.

the GOP "race to the bottom" that pushed out the Mitt Romneys in favor of Trumps, Bannons, Roy Moores, etc. has resulted in Republican leadership to dumb to read and write.

it can't pass as is, because it would fuck the wrong people over

 

[tomdalton22]

Reading reports from the congressional committee on taxation that the bill the senate passed was so hastily written, it actually includes a $300 BB tax INCREASE on corporations, and has to go back to committee now and be re-written. it can't pass as is.

the GOP "race to the bottom" that pushed out the Mitt Romneys in favor of Trumps, Bannons, Roy Moores, etc. has resulted in Republican leadership to dumb to read and write.

that's funny

 

[turok]

Reading reports from the congressional committee on taxation that the bill the senate passed was so hastily written, it actually includes a $300 BB tax INCREASE on corporations, and has to go back to committee now and be re-written. it can't pass as is.

the GOP "race to the bottom" that pushed out the Mitt Romneys in favor of Trumps, Bannons, Roy Moores, etc. has resulted in Republican leadership to dumb to read and write.

If they aren't getting their legislation served up by ALEC, then obviously there are gonna be problems, since all that they did was obstruct and filibuster a record number of times during Obama's two terms in office.

 

[turok]

it can't pass as is, because it would fuck the wrong people over

https://slate.com/business/2017/12/...take-in-their-tax-bill.html?wpisrc=burger_bar


Xtianmas is only 19 days away, and the end of the year 3 1/2 weeks....Drumpfkopf badly needs to have his first legislative victory party before then, else having accomplished nothing other than a slew of executive orders and an undeserved SCOTUS pick in '17. Hopefully the Congressional frenzy to pass while encountering obstacles continues to increase. This just casts more doubt and shade their way.

 

[Spartanmack]

Duncecap huh?

One of the reasons that I put you on ignore long ago, ya just can't avoid resorting to personal insults.

Beats wearing a lampshade, like you do to try livening up a typically dull and boring holiday party comprised of your ilk.

So it's ok to demean people, so long as you're generalizing about everyone who disagrees with you?

The Christmas parties I attend are comprised of people of all stripes - I don't live in a sheltered bubble nor do I exclude people just because I disagree with them. I don't even put people on ignore, despite the ad hominem personal attacks even those masked as stereotypes.