Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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?Yet, the national socialist right wing, blame Only the poor for "not paying taxes".What is the actual effective tax rate of firms?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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
Actually I favor eliminating the corporate income tax. It generates a small and declining portion of government revenue, and if there were no tax, neither would there be any corporate tax deductions, credits, exclusions, or other tax goodies. A large number of corporate tax accountants and attorneys would become unemployed, which is a good thing. The entire tax shelter industry would virtually shut down.
California legalized pot. Only national social, right wing States have a problem with the goodness of Marijuana.all i hear from the right wing, is "lip service".funny how the past 8 years a left wing administration carried them all out isn't it?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.
we will see cost reductions to government.
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.
that's all the left wing has as well
when you grow up you might realize that
several red states have legal medical marijuana it's only a matter of time before pot is legal in all states
Sorry but they got to pay taxes.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
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.
What is the actual effective tax rate of firms?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.
Maybe, they are just capital slackers. Don't firms get to write off, labor costs; unlike Labor.
California legalized pot. Only national social, right wing States have a problem with the goodness of Marijuana.all i hear from the right wing, is "lip service".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.
that's all the left wing has as well
when you grow up you might realize that
several red states have legal medical marijuana it's only a matter of time before pot is legal in all states
Why do you believe that having more kids smoking and eating marijuana is a grand idea?
you merely need to watch videos on YouTube, regarding raw cannabis.California legalized pot. Only national social, right wing States have a problem with the goodness of Marijuana.all i hear from the right wing, is "lip service".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.
that's all the left wing has as well
when you grow up you might realize that
several red states have legal medical marijuana it's only a matter of time before pot is legal in all states
Why do you believe that having more kids smoking and eating marijuana is a grand idea?
the Persons best able to hire entire departments to help them with rational choice theory or fill out corporate welfare forms in triplicate? why is there a personal income tax.What is the actual effective tax rate of firms?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.
Maybe, they are just capital slackers. Don't firms get to write off, labor costs; unlike Labor.
Taxes are paid on the net income. Just as you get deductions and are taxed on your net income. But, why should corporations pay taxes in the first place? Who actually pays those taxes.
But, why should corporations pay taxes in the first place? Who actually pays those taxes.
How national socialist of you.But, why should corporations pay taxes in the first place? Who actually pays those taxes.
It's like asking who pays for the cost of the new Ford car you buy. Liberals are actually so stupid they have no idea they pay the metal cost and the tax cost built into the price they pay for the Ford.
What do we expect when liberalism is legal in America. They look at East /West Germany and say lets be like East Germany. Democracy cant survive when liberals are allowed to vote.
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!
Actually I favor eliminating the corporate income tax. It generates a small and declining portion of government revenue, and if there were no tax, neither would there be any corporate tax deductions, credits, exclusions, or other tax goodies. A large number of corporate tax accountants and attorneys would become unemployed, which is a good thing. The entire tax shelter industry would virtually shut down.
yes, with the corporate tax gone business would be free to concentrate on business rather than lobbying, dodging taxes, and moving all around the globe. It would add 1% to GDP per year.
However, debating against taxation in general is absurd.
.
How about, limited public policies. Only the cognitively dissonant want to lower taxes while allegedly waging global wars on multiple fronts.However, debating against taxation in general is absurd.
.
dear, its conservative/libertarian shorthand for limited taxes. Conservatives and libertarians are not anarchists. Do you understand?
How about, limited public policies. Only the cognitively dissonant want to lower taxes while allegedly waging global wars on multiple fronts.However, debating against taxation in general is absurd.
.
dear, its conservative/libertarian shorthand for limited taxes. Conservatives and libertarians are not anarchists. Do you understand?
How about, limited public policies. Only the cognitively dissonant want to lower taxes while allegedly waging global wars on multiple fronts.However, debating against taxation in general is absurd.
.
dear, its conservative/libertarian shorthand for limited taxes. Conservatives and libertarians are not anarchists. Do you understand?
We should have very few public policies on the federal level. All public policy should be decided at the state and local levelHow about, limited public policies. Only the cognitively dissonant want to lower taxes while allegedly waging global wars on multiple fronts.However, debating against taxation in general is absurd.
.
dear, its conservative/libertarian shorthand for limited taxes. Conservatives and libertarians are not anarchists. Do you understand?
You know, I wonder if the other great civilizations had regressives like this in their midst. You know...like at the height of Athenian Greece, or the Roman Empire...if people were like..."you know, let's set ourselves back several centuries...all this progress we have made over a couple hundred years should be ignored...we should have learned no lessons nor changed at all." I wonder if they seemed so absurd then as they do now.How about, limited public policies. Only the cognitively dissonant want to lower taxes while allegedly waging global wars on multiple fronts.However, debating against taxation in general is absurd.
.
dear, its conservative/libertarian shorthand for limited taxes. Conservatives and libertarians are not anarchists. Do you understand?How about, limited public policies. Only the cognitively dissonant want to lower taxes while allegedly waging global wars on multiple fronts.However, debating against taxation in general is absurd.
.
dear, its conservative/libertarian shorthand for limited taxes. Conservatives and libertarians are not anarchists. Do you understand?We should have very few public policies on the federal level. All public policy should be decided at the state and local levelHow about, limited public policies. Only the cognitively dissonant want to lower taxes while allegedly waging global wars on multiple fronts.However, debating against taxation in general is absurd.
.
dear, its conservative/libertarian shorthand for limited taxes. Conservatives and libertarians are not anarchists. Do you understand?
Did you read the sentence immediate preceding the quote that you pulled? I'll have to quote myself here since you selectively read, "Now you can certain debate about the levels of such taxation and say that they are excessive...which is nuanced and where there is no clear "right" or "wrong." "However, debating against taxation in general is absurd.
.
dear, its conservative/libertarian shorthand for limited taxes. Conservatives and libertarians are not anarchists. Do you understand?
You know, I wonder if the other great civilizations had regressives like this in their midst. You know...like at the height of Athenian Greece, or the Roman Empire...if people were like..."you know, let's set ourselves back several centuries...all this progress we have made over a couple hundred years should be ignored...we should have learned no lessons nor changed at all." I wonder if they seemed so absurd then as they do now.How about, limited public policies. Only the cognitively dissonant want to lower taxes while allegedly waging global wars on multiple fronts.However, debating against taxation in general is absurd.
.
dear, its conservative/libertarian shorthand for limited taxes. Conservatives and libertarians are not anarchists. Do you understand?How about, limited public policies. Only the cognitively dissonant want to lower taxes while allegedly waging global wars on multiple fronts.However, debating against taxation in general is absurd.
.
dear, its conservative/libertarian shorthand for limited taxes. Conservatives and libertarians are not anarchists. Do you understand?We should have very few public policies on the federal level. All public policy should be decided at the state and local levelHow about, limited public policies. Only the cognitively dissonant want to lower taxes while allegedly waging global wars on multiple fronts.However, debating against taxation in general is absurd.
.
dear, its conservative/libertarian shorthand for limited taxes. Conservatives and libertarians are not anarchists. Do you understand?
