Corporate taxes suffocate growth.

[Markle]

The globe is awash in excess savings looking for decent investment returns.

so???????The issue is whether to eliminate corporate taxes. Do you understand?

No one has said to eliminate corporate taxes. FAKE NEWS!

 

[anotherlife]

Yes, corporations are tax collectors. But eliminating the tax on them will have no consequence on trade or wages, .

of course thats stupid we just saw Burger King and many others try to move out for tax reason!! Ireland cuts taxes to 11% and half the world's major corps moved there in whole or in part. Now do you understand??

But it is only false economy. It doesn't make a difference if a nominal corporate head office is in your country or not. The Cayman Islands have minimum 20 international corporate head offices at each of their postal addresses. Operations will go elsewhere, they always go where labor is exchanged the cheapest.

The meaning of corporate tax reduction is explained in one of the above posts, where it is derived how it encourages taking profits instead of investing.

Like I said, corporate tax reduction is good for moving around portfolio cash, and bad for labor / investment. In America, where the currency is the same dollar as the Cayman Islands accounts, the large institutional investors have it in their interest to cut corporate taxes, for the above reason.

In Ireland, it is just a game, the next administration may change the tax rate up, then within the same day, those corporate headquarters will leave and set up shop elsewhere.

. This has been proven by history many times, most recently by the bush tax cuts.

dear, Bush did not eliminate corporate taxes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What planet are you on??????

That's not what I wrote. My point about the effects of the bush tax cuts stands.

 

[anotherlife]

The effective US corporate tax rate is currently 12.6% Are you promoting a tax increase?

If you read you know that Republicans want to eliminate tax altogether to create a huge economic miracle here.

Republicans don't want to eliminate tax altogether. They just want to offload all tax obligations onto you.

 

[danielpalos]

The effective US corporate tax rate is currently 12.6% Are you promoting a tax increase?

If you read you know that Republicans want to eliminate tax altogether to create a huge economic miracle here.

Republicans want more profit for the rich and corporations, which does nothing for the economy.

For instance, in 1970, 17% of net profit went to investors. Today it's 70%+, which is a 'huge economic miracle.'

Ireland reduced the corporate rate to 11% and half the world's major corporations moved there in whole or in part. It created a huge economic miracle there for obviousl reasons.

only for a little while:

In March 2008, Ireland had the highest level of household debt relative to disposable income in the developed world at 190%, causing a further slow down in private consumption, and thus also being one of the reasons for the long lasting recession.[27] The hard economic climate was reported in April 2010, even to have led to a resumed emigration.[28]

After a year with stagnant economic activity in 2010, Irish real GDP rose by 2.2% in 2011 and 0.2% in 2012, which was mainly driven by strong improvements in the export sector – while private consumption remained subdued.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland

By contrast, FDR's social programs propelled us to first world status.

No, by contrast...FDR's social programs extended the Great Depression by SEVEN YEARS!

It wasn't the social programs, but fiscal policy.

 

[danielpalos]

why not just end the income tax by abolishing our useless wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror?

and how do you make up the rest of the revenue because those annual expenditures are less than the total income tax collected

i don't think so. however, i haven't actually looked into it, except for the war on drugs.

You have to remember, our alleged "wars" on crime, drugs, and terror, are right wing, national socialist programs that are cost centers, not revenue centers.

According to a 2008 study published by Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron, the annual savings on enforcement and incarceration costs from the legalization of drugs would amount to roughly $41.3 billion, with $25.7 billion being saved among the states and over $15.6 billion accrued for the federal government. Miron further estimated at least $46.7 billion in tax revenue based on rates comparable to those on tobacco and alcohol ($8.7 billion from marijuana, $32.6 billion from cocaine and heroin, remainder from other drugs).--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs#Costs_to_taxpayers

we will see cost reductions to government.

funny how the past 8 years a left wing administration carried them all out isn't it?

And I have always been in favor of legalizing all drugs and ending the war on drugs so you're mistaken (again) if you think I support it.

all i hear from the right wing, is "lip service".

that's all the left wing has as well

when you grow up you might realize that

California legalized pot. Only national social, right wing States have a problem with the goodness of Marijuana.

 

[Skull Pilot]

and how do you make up the rest of the revenue because those annual expenditures are less than the total income tax collected

i don't think so. however, i haven't actually looked into it, except for the war on drugs.

You have to remember, our alleged "wars" on crime, drugs, and terror, are right wing, national socialist programs that are cost centers, not revenue centers.

According to a 2008 study published by Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron, the annual savings on enforcement and incarceration costs from the legalization of drugs would amount to roughly $41.3 billion, with $25.7 billion being saved among the states and over $15.6 billion accrued for the federal government. Miron further estimated at least $46.7 billion in tax revenue based on rates comparable to those on tobacco and alcohol ($8.7 billion from marijuana, $32.6 billion from cocaine and heroin, remainder from other drugs).--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs#Costs_to_taxpayers

we will see cost reductions to government.

funny how the past 8 years a left wing administration carried them all out isn't it?

And I have always been in favor of legalizing all drugs and ending the war on drugs so you're mistaken (again) if you think I support it.

all i hear from the right wing, is "lip service".

that's all the left wing has as well

when you grow up you might realize that

California legalized pot. Only national social, right wing States have a problem with the goodness of Marijuana.

several red states have legal medical marijuana it's only a matter of time before pot is legal in all states

 

[OnePercenter]

The effective US corporate tax rate is currently 12.6% Are you promoting a tax increase?

If you read you know that Republicans want to eliminate tax altogether to create a huge economic miracle here.

Republicans want more profit for the rich and corporations, which does nothing for the economy.

For instance, in 1970, 17% of net profit went to investors. Today it's 70%+, which is a 'huge economic miracle.'

Ireland reduced the corporate rate to 11% and half the world's major corporations moved there in whole or in part. It created a huge economic miracle there for obviousl reasons.

No. Ireland's corporate tax is 12.5% AND/OR 25% depending of the kind of business and investments the business holds.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Ireland's corporate tax is 12.5% AND/OR 25% depending of the kind of business and investments the business holds.

yes they dropped the tax and most of the world's major corporations moved there in whole or in part. Imagine the huge economic boom Trump would cause if he could eliminate the tax altogether!!!!

"We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute."

-- Thomas Paine

Jesus told the chief priests, “I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.”

 

[Markle]

The effective US corporate tax rate is currently 12.6% Are you promoting a tax increase?

If you read you know that Republicans want to eliminate tax altogether to create a huge economic miracle here.

Republicans don't want to eliminate tax altogether. They just want to offload all tax obligations onto you.

 

[Markle]

Yes, corporations are tax collectors. But eliminating the tax on them will have no consequence on trade or wages, .

of course thats stupid we just saw Burger King and many others try to move out for tax reason!! Ireland cuts taxes to 11% and half the world's major corps moved there in whole or in part. Now do you understand??

But it is only false economy. It doesn't make a difference if a nominal corporate head office is in your country or not. The Cayman Islands have minimum 20 international corporate head offices at each of their postal addresses. Operations will go elsewhere, they always go where labor is exchanged the cheapest.

The meaning of corporate tax reduction is explained in one of the above posts, where it is derived how it encourages taking profits instead of investing.

Like I said, corporate tax reduction is good for moving around portfolio cash, and bad for labor / investment. In America, where the currency is the same dollar as the Cayman Islands accounts, the large institutional investors have it in their interest to cut corporate taxes, for the above reason.

In Ireland, it is just a game, the next administration may change the tax rate up, then within the same day, those corporate headquarters will leave and set up shop elsewhere.

. This has been proven by history many times, most recently by the bush tax cuts.

dear, Bush did not eliminate corporate taxes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What planet are you on??????

That's not what I wrote. My point about the effects of the bush tax cuts stands.

Please explain specifically how a corporate tax reduction is BAD FOR LABOR AND INVESTMENT.

 

[sealybobo]

The historical and current belief is that taxes in America are low, compared to the world in general. America is the model of free markets, low regulation, and economic freedom. Right? This is simply not the case. The United States has high taxes in general and higher corporate taxes in particular.

The only nations who have a higher corporate tax rate than America are Suriname, Pakistan, Togo, Benin, Republic of Congo, Cameroon, Chad, Libya, and Vietnam. No information was available for The Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, North Korea, Montenegro, Serbia, or Sudan. I cannot imagine why.

.....

Corporate taxes reduce the profits of business owners. This is true because net income is reduced by the tax rate. For example, Firm X, with a $100 investment, earning a 7% return has an income — before taxes — of $7. With a 10% corporate tax rate, net income — after taxes — is $6.30. Firm X now has earned a 6.3% return. In contrast, a corporate tax rate of 40% reduces net income after taxes by $2.80 to $4.20, or a 4.2% after-tax return. This rise in taxes, on the margin, reduces the profit-seeking incentive to take business risks. Why risk starting a biotech company when inflation-protected T-bill's will give you the same return?

After theory and logic tell us what is true, empiricism can confirm our result.

Thankfully, Professors Young Lee (Hanyang University) and Rodger Gordon (UC — San Diego) have done the work for us. In a 2005 journal article they concluded,

This paper finds that the corporate tax rate is significantly negatively correlated with economic growth in a cross-section data set of 70 countries during 1970–1997, controlling for many other determinants/covariates of economic growth.

More specifically, they continue, "The estimates suggest that cutting the corporate tax rate by 10 percentage points can increase the annual growth rate by around 1.1%."[3]

Using these figures, Andrew Chamberlain of the Tax Foundation opines,

by cutting the U.S.'s combined federal and average state corporate tax rate from roughly 40 percent to 30 percent we could boost U.S. economic growth by around 1.1 percent per year — enough to double our nation's wealth every 63 years.[4]

Even better, a cut from the actual corporate tax rate of 35% to a rate of 10% would double our nation's wealth every 30 years.

...

These are examples of what can be seen. As Frédéric Bastiat reminds us, however, it is imperative to also account for what cannot be seen. What would the wealth of our nation be today if the corporate tax rate had always been 10% or less? What creature comforts would have been innovated? What new technologies brought to market? What diseases cured?

Due to a history of high corporate taxes these answers are not known, and we are worse off because of it.

Corporate Taxes Suffocate Growth

Sorry but they got to pay taxes.

Me paying taxes suffocates my growth too.

Hey, great idea. If citizens don't pay taxes we will buy more stuff. That will help their growth.

 

[anotherlife]

Yes, corporations are tax collectors. But eliminating the tax on them will have no consequence on trade or wages, .

of course thats stupid we just saw Burger King and many others try to move out for tax reason!! Ireland cuts taxes to 11% and half the world's major corps moved there in whole or in part. Now do you understand??

But it is only false economy. It doesn't make a difference if a nominal corporate head office is in your country or not. The Cayman Islands have minimum 20 international corporate head offices at each of their postal addresses. Operations will go elsewhere, they always go where labor is exchanged the cheapest.

The meaning of corporate tax reduction is explained in one of the above posts, where it is derived how it encourages taking profits instead of investing.

Like I said, corporate tax reduction is good for moving around portfolio cash, and bad for labor / investment. In America, where the currency is the same dollar as the Cayman Islands accounts, the large institutional investors have it in their interest to cut corporate taxes, for the above reason.

In Ireland, it is just a game, the next administration may change the tax rate up, then within the same day, those corporate headquarters will leave and set up shop elsewhere.

. This has been proven by history many times, most recently by the bush tax cuts.

dear, Bush did not eliminate corporate taxes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What planet are you on??????

That's not what I wrote. My point about the effects of the bush tax cuts stands.

Please explain specifically how a corporate tax reduction is BAD FOR LABOR AND INVESTMENT.

Luckily, Winston has explained this here to everyone in post #25 of this thread, so I don't have to. Read his post. In short, the less money is left in businesses, the less labor they hire. And taking profits is not investing. Like I said, Reaganian woodoo economics again. But let me blow your cover. You want lower corporate taxes because you live on some retirement portfolio instead of work. This corporate tax reduction nonsense is popular in America because the number of retirees there is higher than working people.

Hmmm, okay, let me give you a more civilized reply. The example of "investing" under reduced corporate tax went like this in post #25. Your corporation has $100 and can make a reasonable $7 profit. The tax is 40 %. So you can pocket $60 now instead of rolling dices for $7 in the future. Now if the tax goes down to 10 %, you pocket $90. The corporation loses the $100 with 50 pt% higher likelihood under the reduced tax. So labor and operations are toast.

 

[anotherlife]

The effective US corporate tax rate is currently 12.6% Are you promoting a tax increase?

If you read you know that Republicans want to eliminate tax altogether to create a huge economic miracle here.

Republicans don't want to eliminate tax altogether. They just want to offload all tax obligations onto you.

I dunno, have you tried botox?

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, corporations are tax collectors. But eliminating the tax on them will have no consequence on trade or wages, .

of course thats stupid we just saw Burger King and many others try to move out for tax reason!! Ireland cuts taxes to 11% and half the world's major corps moved there in whole or in part. Now do you understand??

But it is only false economy. It doesn't make a difference if a nominal corporate head office is in your country or not. The Cayman Islands have minimum 20 international corporate head offices at each of their postal addresses. Operations will go elsewhere, they always go where labor is exchanged the cheapest.

The meaning of corporate tax reduction is explained in one of the above posts, where it is derived how it encourages taking profits instead of investing.

Like I said, corporate tax reduction is good for moving around portfolio cash, and bad for labor / investment. In America, where the currency is the same dollar as the Cayman Islands accounts, the large institutional investors have it in their interest to cut corporate taxes, for the above reason.

In Ireland, it is just a game, the next administration may change the tax rate up, then within the same day, those corporate headquarters will leave and set up shop elsewhere.

. This has been proven by history many times, most recently by the bush tax cuts.

dear, Bush did not eliminate corporate taxes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What planet are you on??????

That's not what I wrote. My point about the effects of the bush tax cuts stands.

Please explain specifically how a corporate tax reduction is BAD FOR LABOR AND INVESTMENT.

labor and investment are not the Only things affected by low tax receipts.

 

[danielpalos]

The historical and current belief is that taxes in America are low, compared to the world in general. America is the model of free markets, low regulation, and economic freedom. Right? This is simply not the case. The United States has high taxes in general and higher corporate taxes in particular.

The only nations who have a higher corporate tax rate than America are Suriname, Pakistan, Togo, Benin, Republic of Congo, Cameroon, Chad, Libya, and Vietnam. No information was available for The Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, North Korea, Montenegro, Serbia, or Sudan. I cannot imagine why.

.....

Corporate taxes reduce the profits of business owners. This is true because net income is reduced by the tax rate. For example, Firm X, with a $100 investment, earning a 7% return has an income — before taxes — of $7. With a 10% corporate tax rate, net income — after taxes — is $6.30. Firm X now has earned a 6.3% return. In contrast, a corporate tax rate of 40% reduces net income after taxes by $2.80 to $4.20, or a 4.2% after-tax return. This rise in taxes, on the margin, reduces the profit-seeking incentive to take business risks. Why risk starting a biotech company when inflation-protected T-bill's will give you the same return?

After theory and logic tell us what is true, empiricism can confirm our result.

Thankfully, Professors Young Lee (Hanyang University) and Rodger Gordon (UC — San Diego) have done the work for us. In a 2005 journal article they concluded,

This paper finds that the corporate tax rate is significantly negatively correlated with economic growth in a cross-section data set of 70 countries during 1970–1997, controlling for many other determinants/covariates of economic growth.

More specifically, they continue, "The estimates suggest that cutting the corporate tax rate by 10 percentage points can increase the annual growth rate by around 1.1%."[3]

Using these figures, Andrew Chamberlain of the Tax Foundation opines,

by cutting the U.S.'s combined federal and average state corporate tax rate from roughly 40 percent to 30 percent we could boost U.S. economic growth by around 1.1 percent per year — enough to double our nation's wealth every 63 years.[4]

Even better, a cut from the actual corporate tax rate of 35% to a rate of 10% would double our nation's wealth every 30 years.

...

These are examples of what can be seen. As Frédéric Bastiat reminds us, however, it is imperative to also account for what cannot be seen. What would the wealth of our nation be today if the corporate tax rate had always been 10% or less? What creature comforts would have been innovated? What new technologies brought to market? What diseases cured?

Due to a history of high corporate taxes these answers are not known, and we are worse off because of it.

Corporate Taxes Suffocate Growth

Sorry but they got to pay taxes.

Me paying taxes suffocates my growth too.

Hey, great idea. If citizens don't pay taxes we will buy more stuff. That will help their growth.

Firms can hire entire departments to help with rational choice theory, fill out complicated tax forms, or corporate welfare forms, as the case may be.

Why not end the personal income tax, (in deference to our Tax Avoider in Chief), and only tax incomes of artificial persons such as corporations.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, corporations are tax collectors. But eliminating the tax on them will have no consequence on trade or wages, .

of course thats stupid we just saw Burger King and many others try to move out for tax reason!! Ireland cuts taxes to 11% and half the world's major corps moved there in whole or in part. Now do you understand??

But it is only false economy. It doesn't make a difference if a nominal corporate head office is in your country or not. The Cayman Islands have minimum 20 international corporate head offices at each of their postal addresses. Operations will go elsewhere, they always go where labor is exchanged the cheapest.

The meaning of corporate tax reduction is explained in one of the above posts, where it is derived how it encourages taking profits instead of investing.

Like I said, corporate tax reduction is good for moving around portfolio cash, and bad for labor / investment. In America, where the currency is the same dollar as the Cayman Islands accounts, the large institutional investors have it in their interest to cut corporate taxes, for the above reason.

In Ireland, it is just a game, the next administration may change the tax rate up, then within the same day, those corporate headquarters will leave and set up shop elsewhere.

. This has been proven by history many times, most recently by the bush tax cuts.

dear, Bush did not eliminate corporate taxes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What planet are you on??????

That's not what I wrote. My point about the effects of the bush tax cuts stands.

Please explain specifically how a corporate tax reduction is BAD FOR LABOR AND INVESTMENT.

Luckily, Winston has explained this here to everyone in post #25 of this thread, so I don't have to. Read his post. In short, the less money is left in businesses, the less labor they hire. And taking profits is not investing. Like I said, Reaganian woodoo economics again. But let me blow your cover. You want lower corporate taxes because you live on some retirement portfolio instead of work. This corporate tax reduction nonsense is popular in America because the number of retirees there is higher than working people.

Hmmm, okay, let me give you a more civilized reply. The example of "investing" under reduced corporate tax went like this in post #25. Your corporation has $100 and can make a reasonable $7 profit. The tax is 40 %. So you can pocket $60 now instead of rolling dices for $7 in the future. Now if the tax goes down to 10 %, you pocket $90. The corporation loses the $100 with 50 pt% higher likelihood under the reduced tax. So labor and operations are toast.

What is the actual effective tax rate of firms?

Maybe, they are just capital slackers. Don't firms get to write off, labor costs; unlike Labor.

 

[anotherlife]

Yes, corporations are tax collectors. But eliminating the tax on them will have no consequence on trade or wages, .

of course thats stupid we just saw Burger King and many others try to move out for tax reason!! Ireland cuts taxes to 11% and half the world's major corps moved there in whole or in part. Now do you understand??

But it is only false economy. It doesn't make a difference if a nominal corporate head office is in your country or not. The Cayman Islands have minimum 20 international corporate head offices at each of their postal addresses. Operations will go elsewhere, they always go where labor is exchanged the cheapest.

The meaning of corporate tax reduction is explained in one of the above posts, where it is derived how it encourages taking profits instead of investing.

Like I said, corporate tax reduction is good for moving around portfolio cash, and bad for labor / investment. In America, where the currency is the same dollar as the Cayman Islands accounts, the large institutional investors have it in their interest to cut corporate taxes, for the above reason.

In Ireland, it is just a game, the next administration may change the tax rate up, then within the same day, those corporate headquarters will leave and set up shop elsewhere.

. This has been proven by history many times, most recently by the bush tax cuts.

dear, Bush did not eliminate corporate taxes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What planet are you on??????

That's not what I wrote. My point about the effects of the bush tax cuts stands.

Please explain specifically how a corporate tax reduction is BAD FOR LABOR AND INVESTMENT.

Luckily, Winston has explained this here to everyone in post #25 of this thread, so I don't have to. Read his post. In short, the less money is left in businesses, the less labor they hire. And taking profits is not investing. Like I said, Reaganian woodoo economics again. But let me blow your cover. You want lower corporate taxes because you live on some retirement portfolio instead of work. This corporate tax reduction nonsense is popular in America because the number of retirees there is higher than working people.

Hmmm, okay, let me give you a more civilized reply. The example of "investing" under reduced corporate tax went like this in post #25. Your corporation has $100 and can make a reasonable $7 profit. The tax is 40 %. So you can pocket $60 now instead of rolling dices for $7 in the future. Now if the tax goes down to 10 %, you pocket $90. The corporation loses the $100 with 50 pt% higher likelihood under the reduced tax. So labor and operations are toast.

What is the actual effective tax rate of firms?

Maybe, they are just capital slackers. Don't firms get to write off, labor costs; unlike Labor.

Hmmm this is interesting. I don't know the answer, I am only a maths student with a summer internship in investment banking. But I think the actual effective tax rate of firms is negative.

 

[danielpalos]

of course thats stupid we just saw Burger King and many others try to move out for tax reason!! Ireland cuts taxes to 11% and half the world's major corps moved there in whole or in part. Now do you understand??

But it is only false economy. It doesn't make a difference if a nominal corporate head office is in your country or not. The Cayman Islands have minimum 20 international corporate head offices at each of their postal addresses. Operations will go elsewhere, they always go where labor is exchanged the cheapest.

The meaning of corporate tax reduction is explained in one of the above posts, where it is derived how it encourages taking profits instead of investing.

Like I said, corporate tax reduction is good for moving around portfolio cash, and bad for labor / investment. In America, where the currency is the same dollar as the Cayman Islands accounts, the large institutional investors have it in their interest to cut corporate taxes, for the above reason.

In Ireland, it is just a game, the next administration may change the tax rate up, then within the same day, those corporate headquarters will leave and set up shop elsewhere.

dear, Bush did not eliminate corporate taxes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What planet are you on??????

That's not what I wrote. My point about the effects of the bush tax cuts stands.

Please explain specifically how a corporate tax reduction is BAD FOR LABOR AND INVESTMENT.

Luckily, Winston has explained this here to everyone in post #25 of this thread, so I don't have to. Read his post. In short, the less money is left in businesses, the less labor they hire. And taking profits is not investing. Like I said, Reaganian woodoo economics again. But let me blow your cover. You want lower corporate taxes because you live on some retirement portfolio instead of work. This corporate tax reduction nonsense is popular in America because the number of retirees there is higher than working people.

Hmmm, okay, let me give you a more civilized reply. The example of "investing" under reduced corporate tax went like this in post #25. Your corporation has $100 and can make a reasonable $7 profit. The tax is 40 %. So you can pocket $60 now instead of rolling dices for $7 in the future. Now if the tax goes down to 10 %, you pocket $90. The corporation loses the $100 with 50 pt% higher likelihood under the reduced tax. So labor and operations are toast.

What is the actual effective tax rate of firms?

Maybe, they are just capital slackers. Don't firms get to write off, labor costs; unlike Labor.

Hmmm this is interesting. I don't know the answer, I am only a maths student with a summer internship in investment banking. But I think the actual effective tax rate of firms is negative.

Yet, the national socialist right wing, blame Only the poor for "not paying taxes".

 

[anotherlife]

But it is only false economy. It doesn't make a difference if a nominal corporate head office is in your country or not. The Cayman Islands have minimum 20 international corporate head offices at each of their postal addresses. Operations will go elsewhere, they always go where labor is exchanged the cheapest.

The meaning of corporate tax reduction is explained in one of the above posts, where it is derived how it encourages taking profits instead of investing.

Like I said, corporate tax reduction is good for moving around portfolio cash, and bad for labor / investment. In America, where the currency is the same dollar as the Cayman Islands accounts, the large institutional investors have it in their interest to cut corporate taxes, for the above reason.

In Ireland, it is just a game, the next administration may change the tax rate up, then within the same day, those corporate headquarters will leave and set up shop elsewhere.


That's not what I wrote. My point about the effects of the bush tax cuts stands.

Please explain specifically how a corporate tax reduction is BAD FOR LABOR AND INVESTMENT.

Luckily, Winston has explained this here to everyone in post #25 of this thread, so I don't have to. Read his post. In short, the less money is left in businesses, the less labor they hire. And taking profits is not investing. Like I said, Reaganian woodoo economics again. But let me blow your cover. You want lower corporate taxes because you live on some retirement portfolio instead of work. This corporate tax reduction nonsense is popular in America because the number of retirees there is higher than working people.

Hmmm, okay, let me give you a more civilized reply. The example of "investing" under reduced corporate tax went like this in post #25. Your corporation has $100 and can make a reasonable $7 profit. The tax is 40 %. So you can pocket $60 now instead of rolling dices for $7 in the future. Now if the tax goes down to 10 %, you pocket $90. The corporation loses the $100 with 50 pt% higher likelihood under the reduced tax. So labor and operations are toast.

What is the actual effective tax rate of firms?

Maybe, they are just capital slackers. Don't firms get to write off, labor costs; unlike Labor.

Hmmm this is interesting. I don't know the answer, I am only a maths student with a summer internship in investment banking. But I think the actual effective tax rate of firms is negative.

Yet, the national socialist right wing, blame Only the poor for "not paying taxes".

Mind control, I think. Still not as bad as in Europe with the socialist. I am speculating here, that the more people become rednecks and ghetto goons, the more they depend on government money, and the institutions that control the government allocate funds to them in a way that ensures conflict, which is in the interest of generating the types of votes necessary per business cycle. For example, it would be interesting to follow the money as per deregulation-regulation cycle, or as per corruption cycle, or as per immigration cycle. To start, I could pick the obvious gas prices at the pump, which follow two patterns, an election cycle driven pattern during republican administration, and a flat volume based pattern during democrat administrations. Looks like speculation strategies must switch around in cycles, which determine voter engineering and election management. Apart from gas prices, we could work out the speculation cycles of the credit industry too, will come out similar, I bet.

 

[danielpalos]

Please explain specifically how a corporate tax reduction is BAD FOR LABOR AND INVESTMENT.

Luckily, Winston has explained this here to everyone in post #25 of this thread, so I don't have to. Read his post. In short, the less money is left in businesses, the less labor they hire. And taking profits is not investing. Like I said, Reaganian woodoo economics again. But let me blow your cover. You want lower corporate taxes because you live on some retirement portfolio instead of work. This corporate tax reduction nonsense is popular in America because the number of retirees there is higher than working people.

Hmmm, okay, let me give you a more civilized reply. The example of "investing" under reduced corporate tax went like this in post #25. Your corporation has $100 and can make a reasonable $7 profit. The tax is 40 %. So you can pocket $60 now instead of rolling dices for $7 in the future. Now if the tax goes down to 10 %, you pocket $90. The corporation loses the $100 with 50 pt% higher likelihood under the reduced tax. So labor and operations are toast.

What is the actual effective tax rate of firms?

Maybe, they are just capital slackers. Don't firms get to write off, labor costs; unlike Labor.

Hmmm this is interesting. I don't know the answer, I am only a maths student with a summer internship in investment banking. But I think the actual effective tax rate of firms is negative.

Yet, the national socialist right wing, blame Only the poor for "not paying taxes".

Mind control, I think. Still not as bad as in Europe with the socialist. I am speculating here, that the more people become rednecks and ghetto goons, the more they depend on government money, and the institutions that control the government allocate funds to them in a way that ensures conflict, which is in the interest of generating the types of votes necessary per business cycle. For example, it would be interesting to follow the money as per deregulation-regulation cycle, or as per corruption cycle, or as per immigration cycle. To start, I could pick the obvious gas prices at the pump, which follow two patterns, an election cycle driven pattern during republican administration, and a flat volume based pattern during democrat administrations. Looks like speculation strategies must switch around in cycles, which determine voter engineering and election management. Apart from gas prices, we could work out the speculation cycles of the credit industry too, will come out similar, I bet.

Would a previous republican administration have gotten elected; if they had been honest about price inflation for fuel that happens, whenever there is conflict in the Middle East?