What you economic illiterates don't comprehend!

[rightwinger]

Idiot liberals need to pull their heads out of their ass, corporations have a choice they can simply move to other countries with lower corporate tax rates you stupid morons HELLO.

Of course they can
We would have to slash taxes far below 20 percent to stop them

 

[MordechaiGoodbud]

Part of the tax reform is reducing corporate taxes to 20%.
Many of you truly economic illiterates don't understand the gigantic economic benefit of this one single change.
A new report finds that around the world the extremely wealthy have accumulated at least $21 trillion in secretive offshore accounts. Super Rich Hide $21 Trillion Offshore, Study Says

So if the USA by lowering corporate taxes is able to repatriate just 10% or $2 trillion back to the USA what would be
the effect?
Let's assume of the $2 trillion it breaks down this way:
$1 trillion is re-invested in the stock market, bank accounts US treasuries you name it.
Leaves $1 trillion.
Let's assume then $500 billion is used to hire people for 10 years at $50,000 per year.
Well as most of the economic illiterates don't know, an employer pays an equal % for SS/Medicare 6.2%
So let's add to the $50,000 another $3,000 and round up to $60,000 for benefits,SS/Medicare,etc.
That means of the $500 billion divided by 10 years $50 billion a year or divided by $60,000 or total of 800,000 jobs.
That $50 billion in payroll means in Federal taxes: 12.4% SS/Medicare/income taxes: $18.7 billion to Federal govt.
Now the multiplier effect comes in to play:http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf
"Every $1 million spent is multiplied by 1.18 or $50 billion spent by employees: $60 billion back into the GDP.
Now this is JUST from hiring 800,000 people for 10 years.
Net gains therefore to the Federal government:

$187 billion in tax revenue alone in 10 years.
GDP increasing over $600 billion in 10 years.

AND this is just from 1/4th left of the $2 trillion repatriated.

Now if you economic illiterates want some further validation for what this means from the other 3/4ths of
the $2 trillion repatriated please ask as it gets EVEN better i.e. the multiplier EFFECT!!!

Prove me wrong .... PLEASE!!!

Most corporations in the U.S. already pay far lower than a 20% rate with existing loopholes.

 

[Dragonlady]

We need to lower corporate taxes. They are too high. 20% seems like a good number.

Effective rate is around 18% avg. with all the write offs.

With this this give away it will be around 10% - too damn low.

Give away to WHO????

As of June 30, 2017, 401(k) plans held an estimated $5.1 trillion in assets and represented 19 percent of the $26.6 trillion in US retirement assets, which includes employer-sponsored retirement plans (both defined benefit (DB) and defined contribution (DC) plans with private- and public-sector employers), individual ...Jun 30, 2017
ICI - 401(k) Plan Research: FAQs


You dummies! You keep this stupid ass "rich" envy crap and all the while YOUR own 401ks/ retirement assets are growing...THANKS to those EvIL corporations!
Would you idiots for once and for all remember we are in the 21st century not the 20th or 19th with those "evil robber barons" that you still think exist!
Are you aware of these statistics? Of course not! You idiots don't substantiate. Don't take just a few minutes to research.... you just blab and type!
Do some research for once!!

As of the end of 2016, there were a record 10.8 million millionaires
So JUST ONE indicator: 1980... 4,414 taxpayers reported $1 million in gross income;
At the end of 2016... 10,800,000... What kind of ratio is that?
Population USA 1980 226.5 million and the ratio of millionaires to population: 1 millionaire for every 51,314 Americans
1980 Fast Facts - History - U.S. Census Bureau
Population USA 2016 326.9 million and the ratio of millionaires to population 1 Millionaire for every 30 Americans!
U.S. Population (2017, 2018) - Worldometers

So explain to me YOUR idiot remark about WEALTH distribution since 1980???
1980 1 millionaire for every 51,314 Americans!
2016 1 millionaire for every 30 Americans!

Wanting corporations to pay their fair share of the costs of running the country isn’t “rich envy”. It’s fiscal responsibility. As is asking corporations to pay workers a living wage.

Government should not be subsidizing wages for profitable corporations via earned income credits. Nor should they be paying building or relocation expenses for corporations.

Municipalities and states are competing for jobs by offering tax breaks to corporations. The companies get huge tax breaks which state and local taxpayers are forced to make up. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is hardly sound fiscal strategy.

 

[BluesLegend]

Idiot liberals need to pull their heads out of their ass, corporations have a choice they can simply move to other countries with lower corporate tax rates you stupid morons HELLO.

Of course they can
We would have to slash taxes far below 20 percent to stop them

Well DUH!!

 

[Kondor3]

Idiot liberals need to pull their heads out of their ass, corporations have a choice they can simply move to other countries with lower corporate tax rates you stupid morons HELLO.

No problem... those that do, we bar from doing business on US soil... brutal... appropriate...

 

[NightFox]

Idiot liberals need to pull their heads out of their ass, corporations have a choice they can simply move to other countries with lower corporate tax rates you stupid morons HELLO.

No problem... those that do, we bar from doing business on US soil... brutal... appropriate...

So you want to reduce domestic production and trade to "punish" them for doing what EVERYBODY in the world does by avoiding paying any more taxes than you have to? Why not just pass a law that mandates an annual shrinkage in real GDP while we're at it.

Talk about cutting your own throat to spite your head....

 

[Mr.Blonde]

With this this give away it will be around 10% - too damn low.

Allowing people to keep what is theirs isn't a give away.

Wanting corporations to pay their fair share of the costs of running the country isn’t “rich envy”. It’s fiscal responsibility. As is asking corporations to pay workers a living wage.

If you reduce spending then there is less of a share to pay.

Government should not be subsidizing wages for profitable corporations via earned income credits. Nor should they be paying building or relocation expenses for corporations.

I agree we are subsidizing corporations too much.

Part of how we do this is by cutting spending. If someone knows that they can get food stamps for example they will take a job that won't pay all the bills. If someone knows they can't run to the government to make up every expense then the corporations will be forced to pay higher wages because no one will take the low paying jobs

 

[Dragonlady]

With this this give away it will be around 10% - too damn low.

Allowing people to keep what is theirs isn't a give away.

Wanting corporations to pay their fair share of the costs of running the country isn’t “rich envy”. It’s fiscal responsibility. As is asking corporations to pay workers a living wage.

If you reduce spending then there is less of a share to pay.

Government should not be subsidizing wages for profitable corporations via earned income credits. Nor should they be paying building or relocation expenses for corporations.

I agree we are subsidizing corporations too much.

Part of how we do this is by cutting spending. If someone knows that they can get food stamps for example they will take a job that won't pay all the bills. If someone knows they can't run to the government to make up every expense then the corporations will be forced to pay higher wages because no one will take the low paying jobs

Let’s cut military spending first. The cost of military hardware and equipment is far too high. Let’s negotiate better deals. Close a few bases. Save some money.

 

[Kosh]

We need to lower corporate taxes. They are too high. 20% seems like a good number.

Effective rate is around 18% avg. with all the write offs.

With this this give away it will be around 10% - too damn low.

Once again the far left shows they know nothing of the subject, just far left religious dogma!

 

[Kosh]

With this this give away it will be around 10% - too damn low.

Allowing people to keep what is theirs isn't a give away.

Wanting corporations to pay their fair share of the costs of running the country isn’t “rich envy”. It’s fiscal responsibility. As is asking corporations to pay workers a living wage.

If you reduce spending then there is less of a share to pay.

Government should not be subsidizing wages for profitable corporations via earned income credits. Nor should they be paying building or relocation expenses for corporations.

I agree we are subsidizing corporations too much.

Part of how we do this is by cutting spending. If someone knows that they can get food stamps for example they will take a job that won't pay all the bills. If someone knows they can't run to the government to make up every expense then the corporations will be forced to pay higher wages because no one will take the low paying jobs

Let’s cut military spending first. The cost of military hardware and equipment is far too high. Let’s negotiate better deals. Close a few bases. Save some money.

See the far left only wants to cuts military spending, they have no other areas they want to cut!

Then again most of the jobs that help build hardware for the military are union jobs..

So why does the far left hate unions?

 

[NightFox]

With this this give away it will be around 10% - too damn low.

Allowing people to keep what is theirs isn't a give away.

Wanting corporations to pay their fair share of the costs of running the country isn’t “rich envy”. It’s fiscal responsibility. As is asking corporations to pay workers a living wage.

If you reduce spending then there is less of a share to pay.

Government should not be subsidizing wages for profitable corporations via earned income credits. Nor should they be paying building or relocation expenses for corporations.

I agree we are subsidizing corporations too much.

Part of how we do this is by cutting spending. If someone knows that they can get food stamps for example they will take a job that won't pay all the bills. If someone knows they can't run to the government to make up every expense then the corporations will be forced to pay higher wages because no one will take the low paying jobs

Let’s cut military spending first. The cost of military hardware and equipment is far too high. Let’s negotiate better deals. Close a few bases. Save some money.

Who's going to do the "negotiating"? the ex-Pentagon employees that are working for defense contractors or their pals that are still working at the Pentagon? As far as base closures, good luck convincing Congress Critters to acquiesce to closing bases in their districts or states, overseas MAYBE you got a shot but it's a slim one.

The only way to cut military spending is to cut the top line and that won't happen as long as the military's mission is to be the COP for the whole planet, reduce the scope of the mission and there might be a chance for reducing the top line (e.g. the "peace dividend" after the Cold War ended).

 

[NYcarbineer]

We need to lower corporate taxes. They are too high. 20% seems like a good number.

If any corporations actually paid the set rate you might have a point.

 

[The Derp]

We already had a repatriation tax holiday in 2004...it didn't deliver on any of the promises made of it. In fact, for the top firms that exercised it, they lost jobs.

 

[The Derp]

Allowing people to keep what is theirs isn't a give away.

You're not keeping more money, you're having to pay more in order to make up for the gap in revenue that comes from the tax cut. So they cut income taxes, but raise user fees and other taxes to pay for it. You don't come out ahead.

If you reduce spending then there is less of a share to pay.

Why are you so fixated on spending? It's your stupid tax cuts that don't deliver on any of the promises made of them.

Part of how we do this is by cutting spending. If someone knows that they can get food stamps for example they will take a job that won't pay all the bills. If someone knows they can't run to the government to make up every expense then the corporations will be forced to pay higher wages because no one will take the low paying jobs

Or, how about instead of having to go get food stamps, corporations paid their workers wages high enough that they don't qualify for benefits. Why isn't that an option? How come you want workers to take a hit or suffer?

 

[BluesLegend]

Idiot liberals need to pull their heads out of their ass, corporations have a choice they can simply move to other countries with lower corporate tax rates you stupid morons HELLO.

No problem... those that do, we bar from doing business on US soil... brutal... appropriate...

Didn't I just tell you people to pull your heads out of your ass? You see this attitude ^^^ that's what Dem's have been doing, telling any corporation that does not submit to Dem's vampire fangs in the neck that if they dare leave the US there will be retribution. Their good riddance attitude to losing corporations to other countries is pure stupidity.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Companies that put their profits into reinvestment don't get taxed on those profits because they're no longer profits.

 

[The Derp]

See the far left only wants to cuts military spending, they have no other areas they want to cut!

Then what do you want to cut? Because SS, Medicare/Medicaid, and Defense spending make up about 90% of the total budget.

 

[PredFan]

Part of the tax reform is reducing corporate taxes to 20%.
Many of you truly economic illiterates don't understand the gigantic economic benefit of this one single change.
A new report finds that around the world the extremely wealthy have accumulated at least $21 trillion in secretive offshore accounts. Super Rich Hide $21 Trillion Offshore, Study Says

So if the USA by lowering corporate taxes is able to repatriate just 10% or $2 trillion back to the USA what would be
the effect?
Let's assume of the $2 trillion it breaks down this way:
$1 trillion is re-invested in the stock market, bank accounts US treasuries you name it.
Leaves $1 trillion.
Let's assume then $500 billion is used to hire people for 10 years at $50,000 per year.
Well as most of the economic illiterates don't know, an employer pays an equal % for SS/Medicare 6.2%
So let's add to the $50,000 another $3,000 and round up to $60,000 for benefits,SS/Medicare,etc.
That means of the $500 billion divided by 10 years $50 billion a year or divided by $60,000 or total of 800,000 jobs.
That $50 billion in payroll means in Federal taxes: 12.4% SS/Medicare/income taxes: $18.7 billion to Federal govt.
Now the multiplier effect comes in to play:http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf
"Every $1 million spent is multiplied by 1.18 or $50 billion spent by employees: $60 billion back into the GDP.
Now this is JUST from hiring 800,000 people for 10 years.
Net gains therefore to the Federal government:

$187 billion in tax revenue alone in 10 years.
GDP increasing over $600 billion in 10 years.

AND this is just from 1/4th left of the $2 trillion repatriated.

Now if you economic illiterates want some further validation for what this means from the other 3/4ths of
the $2 trillion repatriated please ask as it gets EVEN better i.e. the multiplier EFFECT!!!

Prove me wrong .... PLEASE!!!

The lower corporate taxes is the ONLY good thing about it.

 

[BluesLegend]

Idiot liberals need to pull their heads out of their ass, corporations have a choice they can simply move to other countries with lower corporate tax rates you stupid morons HELLO.

No problem... those that do, we bar from doing business on US soil... brutal... appropriate...

So you want to reduce domestic production and trade to "punish" them for doing what EVERYBODY in the world does by avoiding paying any more taxes than you have to? Why not just pass a law that mandates an annual shrinkage in real GDP while we're at it.

Talk about cutting your own throat to spite your head....

Liberals can't help themselves, they have taxed businesses right into bankruptcy, they routinely kill the goose that laid the golden egg, their greed has no bounds. Lets take a look at General Electric, once the most mighty corporation on the planet in terms of annual revenue. They had a large manufacturing complex in an upstate NY city dating back to Thomas Edison and employed 70,000 people. So what did Dem's do? Yes the city sank its vampire fangs into General Electric and began raping them.

General Electric warned these Dem morons but did they listen? No. General Electric finally had enough, moved most of the manufacturing to other states, employees dropped from 70,000 to 2,500, they demolished most of the buildings on their property, then sued the city to get millions of dollars back in property taxes and won. The city damn near went bankrupt and cranked property taxes up on home owners to stay afloat, incredibly hitting a state constitutional limit on how high property taxes can go in NY which was the first time this has ever happened in the state. So now its a ghost town of low rent thugs and crumbling infrastructure, courtesy of moron Dem's.

 

[Mr.Blonde]

You're not keeping more money, you're having to pay more in order to make up for the gap in revenue that comes from the tax cut. So they cut income taxes, but raise user fees and other taxes to pay for it. You don't come out ahead.

Why are you so fixated on spending? It's your stupid tax cuts that don't deliver on any of the promises made of them.

Spending is a drain on the economy. Every dollar you spend on government is a dollar not in the economy.

Liberals are always complaining about paying for tax cuts. This is the best solution.

paid their workers wages high enough that they don't qualify for benefits. Why isn't that an option? How come you want workers to take a hit or suffer?

Why would a company or any person in their right mind double pay for something with their own money?