Economics 101

[P@triot]

If you are a con tool, they should not. To rational people, we simply need to change the laws to be sure they do pay. Or we simply shut them down here, and allow them to move to Canada. Others companies can easily take up the slack. And they may be more capable of paying their fair share of taxes. Simple enough thought process: If they want to do business here, and sell in this country, they need to pay their fair share. If not, there is always Canada, or Mexico, or Bangladesh, or, or or or. Get the cons to pay your fair share.

More "brilliant" economic policies from libtards who can't hold a job and who mooch off of government. So not only do corporations avoid paying taxes because of idiot libtard policies, but now they want to "simply shut them down" so we don't have all of those jobs as well. Rshermr continues to take stupid to unprecedented levels. But I guess that's what happens when you grow up in a 3rd world country. The education in those nations is less than stellar. And it really shows with Rshermr here.

 

[P@triot]

Liberals just can't grasp reality over ideology or basic economics. There are hundreds of billions of dollars overseas propping up other nations while it could be doing wonders for the U.S. economy.

We're in competition for businesses. The nation that offers the best deals (lowest taxes, least labor laws, minimal regulations) wins those businesses - and the subsequent jobs and tax revenues that come with it.

Here is a basic math text for our friends on the left. Despite reaching the highest valuation in history and being flush with $178 billion in cash, Apple took out a loan recently. Why? Because paying the loan back with interest was actually more cost effective than bringing their own $178 billion back into the U.S. and paying taxes on it. So you know how much the government brought in on taxes from it? $0.00. Liberal stupidity at its finest:

40% of $0.00 = $0.00

10% of $178,000,000,000 = $17,800,000,000

That's right - the federal government could have had $17 billion in tax revenue and the U.S. economy could have over a hundred billion floating around. Instead, liberalism delivered $0.00 (as it always does).

So, that's great that we have a janitor posting drivel about Apple, mostly untrue.

"APPLE IS A BAD APPLE WHEN IT COMES TO PAYING ITS TAXES

• 
  
  
  • Apple uses foreign tax havens to claim that just 30 percent of its profits are from the United States. It’s quite likely that much of Apple’s profits were actually earned in the United States but have been artificially shifted to foreign tax havens to avoid U.S. corporate income taxes.
  • “Apple does most of its research in the United States. Most of its key employees are in the United States. Fifty-four percent of its long-lived assets, 69 percent of its retail stores, and 39 percent of its sales are in the United States.”
  • “In Apple’s case, can there be any doubt that most of its value is created inside the United States? If we assume, conservatively, that 50 percent of profits should be U.S. sourced, then Apple’s federal taxes would have been $2.4 billion more in 2011.”
  • “Given the pivotal importance to Apple’s success of product design and other functions performed in the United States, one could reasonably expect U.S. profits to be 70 percent of the worldwide total. In this case, payments to the U.S. government would have been $4.8 billion more in 2011.”

• 
  

Bad Apple

Rshermr has actually achieved the epitome of stupidity here. He claims what I said about Apple was "untrue" and then posts some bullet points which proves everything I said was 100% true.

This dumb-fuck has the reading comprehension of a 3-year old. Now wonder he's ashamed to admit that he's an illegal alien mooching off of America.

 

[P@triot]

Florida-based Burger King acquired and merged with Tim Horton’s, under the umbrella company Restaurant Brands International. Now based in Canada, it could avoid $117 million in U.S. taxes by never having to pay corporate income tax on foreign profits it holds offshore.

Why should Burger King have to pay US taxes on foreign profits?

Liberals just can't grasp reality over ideology or basic economics. There are hundreds of billions of dollars overseas propping up other nations while it could be doing wonders for the U.S. economy.

We're in competition for businesses. The nation that offers the best deals (lowest taxes, least labor laws, minimal regulations) wins those businesses - and the subsequent jobs and tax revenues that come with it.

Here is a basic math text for our friends on the left. Despite reaching the highest valuation in history and being flush with $178 billion in cash, Apple took out a loan recently. Why? Because paying the loan back with interest was actually more cost effective than bringing their own $178 billion back into the U.S. and paying taxes on it. So you know how much the government brought in on taxes from it? $0.00. Liberal stupidity at its finest:

40% of $0.00 = $0.00

10% of $178,000,000,000 = $17,800,000,000

That's right - the federal government could have had $17 billion in tax revenue and the U.S. economy could have over a hundred billion floating around. Instead, liberalism delivered $0.00 (as it always does).

So, that's great that we have a janitor posting drivel about Apple, mostly untrue.

Don't you ever get tired of looking like an ignorant buffoon? Everything I said was 100% accurate.

Apple just took out a $6.5 billion loan even though it's sitting on $178 billion in cash

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And don't forget about VW.... they also produce high end cars. ( sarcasm intended)
Had you actually read the article - you would have seen that the first two manufacturers mentioned were BMW and Mercedes. That's where their sales are coming from. Detroit didn't lose business to Germany no matter how hard liberals try that false narrative. They lost business to Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Mitsubishi, etc

I am not claiming that they lost their business to Germany , but rather that the German car makers were able to transform their business in such a way that they could have successfull companies, increase their car production and have unionized workers. Regardless, Volkswagen is also mentioned in the same sentence; I fail to see the point you are trying to make.

"Yet Germany’s big three car companies—BMW, Daimler DDAIY +% (Mercedes-Benz ), and Volkswagen—are very profitable."

Because two of those three are extremely hight end automakers. Take a look at this page. When some of your automobiles go for over $3 million each - you can certainly afford to splurge on your assembly line workers.

Also - you fail to take into consideration that the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Give us Germany's tax rate and maybe we could pay assembly line workers more. But unfortunately, you lefties want the government to eat up every dollar and control every penny.

Sorry, me boy. Us companies pay low tax rates. See below, and you will see that German companies pay higher rates than those of the US companies. And it will help you to try to understand the types of taxes and what companies pay.

It has the highest PUBLISHED tax rate. But really, no one cares. Because no one pays the published rate, unless they just like giving money away. What they pay, me poor ignorant con troll, is the effective tax rate, and that is not the highest in the world by any means.


"Large, profitable U.S. corporations paid an average effective federal tax rate of 12.6% in 2010, the Government Accountability Office said Monday.
The federal corporate tax rate stands at 35%, and jumps to 39.2% when state rates are taken into account. But thanks to things like tax credits, exemptions and offshore tax havens, the actual tax burden of American companies is much lower.
Even when foreign, state and local taxes were taken into account, the companies paid only 16.9% of their worldwide income in taxes in 2010."
GAO: U.S. corporations pay average effective tax rate of 12.6%

Relative to those lucky German auto makers, truth is, they pay a higher total ta rate than US car companies do. Next.

While Diamler is very profitable, it is not as profitable as Toyota and VW. And just a bit more so than GM and Ford.

Which are the 10 most profitable car companies of the world and why?Which are the 10 most profitable car companies of the world and why? - Quora
Here are the top 10 according to Forbes 2013 Global 2000 list:

1) Volkswagen Group- Volkswagen Group
2) Toyota Motor- Japan
3) Daimler- Germany
4) Ford Motor- U.S.
5) BMW Group- Germany
6) General Motors- U.S.
7) Nissan Motor- Japan
8) Honda Motor- Japan
9) Hyundai Motor- South Korea
10) SAIC Motor- China
Which are the 10 most profitable car companies of the world and why? - Quora

Florida-based Burger King acquired and merged with Tim Horton’s, under the umbrella company Restaurant Brands International. Now based in Canada, it could avoid $117 million in U.S. taxes by never having to pay corporate income tax on foreign profits it holds offshore.

Why should Burger King have to pay US taxes on foreign profits?

If you are a con tool, they should not. To rational people, we simply need to change the laws to be sure they do pay. Or we simply shut them down here, and allow them to move to Canada. Others companies can easily take up the slack. And they may be more capable of paying their fair share of taxes. Simple enough thought process: If they want to do business here, and sell in this country, they need to pay their fair share. If not, there is always Canada, or Mexico, or Bangladesh, or, or or or. Get the cons to pay your fair share.

To rational people, we simply need to change the laws to be sure they do pay.

Why should they pay US taxes on foreign profits? Do you have a rational reason?

If they want to do business here, and sell in this country, they need to pay their fair share.

They already pay US taxes on US profits.

 

[P@triot]

To rational people, we simply need to change the laws to be sure they do pay.

Why should they pay US taxes on foreign profits? Do you have a rational reason?

Yes - his "rational" reason is that he and his fellow libtards are exceptionally greedy. How do you expect him to mooch off of society like the parasite that he is and still live a lavish lifestyle unless he's allowed to tax everyone at a 98% rate or more?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not so. That is actually my first post and the reason I think Milton is wrong on so many issues:

Economics 101
"Milton completely disregarded the cyclic nature of the economy: I have never seen a lecture in which he mentions it. He treats macro as microeconomy mulptiplied by N. "

I have only come in full circle to the starting point.

Come "full circle"? You haven't even started. You've yet to grasp that business is a consumer which shops for the best deal. That's Economics 100. For 3rd graders. The thing is you know it too - you're just not willing to admit it.

Business is a consumer, true, but eventually it all goes into households ( or government which is not in this simplified diagram). Yes there is B2B trade but eventually you reach a point in which a business has to produce something for household : spare parts for airplanes, oil, fuel, chemicals, packing material it is all to produce goods which will eventually reach households.

"Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer... But in the mercantile system the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce."
Adam Smith

... so much for supply side economics... not even Adam Smith seemed to support that folly

If you examine the presidency of the great conservative hero, ronald reagan, you see that he did indeed voice great support for supply side economics, or Reaganomics as his followers named it. And nut case economists followed suit. And universities and colleges taught courses in the subject. Problem is, it did not work. At all. And the citizenry of this country lost patience and interest in the economic THEORY of supply side economics. Suddenly, economists that supported the theory found themselves alone on small islands. Classes in supply side economics, in most cases, went away. Now, you have to go to Liberty University or some similar far right wing college to find any courses on the subject.
Things came to an end for most people during the Reagan administration when the following occurred:
1. Reducing taxes did not result in increases in tax revenue.
2. The idea of trickle down did not occur.
3. A MAJOR recession occurred after the great tax decrease, bringing unemployment to 10.8%. The second highest rate in the past 100 years.
4. Reagan was forced to raise taxes, and more importantly, spend stimulatively more than all presidents before him COMBINED.
5. Spending and the increase in the size of the federal government, both denounced policies by Regan before he was elected, were used after the Reagan Recession to end it.
6. Everyone , in general, learned that stimulus worked and supply side policies did not.

At the end of the Reagan experiment, Supply Side economists left the theory in droves, with a few hard core economists left to preach to conservative believers. Only conservatives today try to push the theory.

3. A MAJOR recession occurred after the great tax decrease, bringing unemployment to 10.8%.

You think the Reagan tax cut caused the recession that started in July 1981? DERP!
No. And I did not say it did. Really, you should try to ask before you make insinuations.DERP!

A MAJOR recession occurred after the great tax decrease, bringing unemployment to 10.8%.

You think the Reagan tax cut caused the recession that started in July 1981? DERP!

No. And I did not say it did. Really, you should try to ask before you make insinuations.DERP!

You did.

For instance, did anyone notice that the great reagan tax cut of 1981 led to the Reagan Recession of late 1982?

Ronald Reagan, the hero or Republicans

 

[Rshermr]

And don't forget about VW.... they also produce high end cars. ( sarcasm intended)
Had you actually read the article - you would have seen that the first two manufacturers mentioned were BMW and Mercedes. That's where their sales are coming from. Detroit didn't lose business to Germany no matter how hard liberals try that false narrative. They lost business to Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Mitsubishi, etc

I am not claiming that they lost their business to Germany , but rather that the German car makers were able to transform their business in such a way that they could have successfull companies, increase their car production and have unionized workers. Regardless, Volkswagen is also mentioned in the same sentence; I fail to see the point you are trying to make.

"Yet Germany’s big three car companies—BMW, Daimler DDAIY +% (Mercedes-Benz ), and Volkswagen—are very profitable."

Because two of those three are extremely hight end automakers. Take a look at this page. When some of your automobiles go for over $3 million each - you can certainly afford to splurge on your assembly line workers.

Also - you fail to take into consideration that the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Give us Germany's tax rate and maybe we could pay assembly line workers more. But unfortunately, you lefties want the government to eat up every dollar and control every penny.

Sorry, me boy. Us companies pay low tax rates. See below, and you will see that German companies pay higher rates than those of the US companies. And it will help you to try to understand the types of taxes and what companies pay.

It has the highest PUBLISHED tax rate. But really, no one cares. Because no one pays the published rate, unless they just like giving money away. What they pay, me poor ignorant con troll, is the effective tax rate, and that is not the highest in the world by any means.


"Large, profitable U.S. corporations paid an average effective federal tax rate of 12.6% in 2010, the Government Accountability Office said Monday.
The federal corporate tax rate stands at 35%, and jumps to 39.2% when state rates are taken into account. But thanks to things like tax credits, exemptions and offshore tax havens, the actual tax burden of American companies is much lower.
Even when foreign, state and local taxes were taken into account, the companies paid only 16.9% of their worldwide income in taxes in 2010."
GAO: U.S. corporations pay average effective tax rate of 12.6%

Relative to those lucky German auto makers, truth is, they pay a higher total ta rate than US car companies do. Next.

While Diamler is very profitable, it is not as profitable as Toyota and VW. And just a bit more so than GM and Ford.

Which are the 10 most profitable car companies of the world and why?Which are the 10 most profitable car companies of the world and why? - Quora
Here are the top 10 according to Forbes 2013 Global 2000 list:

1) Volkswagen Group- Volkswagen Group
2) Toyota Motor- Japan
3) Daimler- Germany
4) Ford Motor- U.S.
5) BMW Group- Germany
6) General Motors- U.S.
7) Nissan Motor- Japan
8) Honda Motor- Japan
9) Hyundai Motor- South Korea
10) SAIC Motor- China
Which are the 10 most profitable car companies of the world and why? - Quora

Florida-based Burger King acquired and merged with Tim Horton’s, under the umbrella company Restaurant Brands International. Now based in Canada, it could avoid $117 million in U.S. taxes by never having to pay corporate income tax on foreign profits it holds offshore.

Why should Burger King have to pay US taxes on foreign profits?

If you are a con tool, they should not. To rational people, we simply need to change the laws to be sure they do pay. Or we simply shut them down here, and allow them to move to Canada. Others companies can easily take up the slack. And they may be more capable of paying their fair share of taxes. Simple enough thought process: If they want to do business here, and sell in this country, they need to pay their fair share. If not, there is always Canada, or Mexico, or Bangladesh, or, or or or. Get the cons to pay your fair share.

To rational people, we simply need to change the laws to be sure they do pay.

Why should they pay US taxes on foreign profits? Do you have a rational reason?

If they want to do business here, and sell in this country, they need to pay their fair share.

They already pay US taxes on US profits.
Some, but not what they should pay. Not the percentage I pay, and others pay. Thing is, cons like you will believe, say, and do whatever the bat shit crazy con web sites, fox, and the talking points tell you to. The rest of us do not like to be told what to believe, say and do. Progressives and liberals actually demand that they think for themselves. So, you are doing a great job of carrying the con flag. How it will work out, we shall see. Perhaps, like you, we will all be owned completely by the conservative. bosses for whom you carry water.

 

[Rshermr]

Come "full circle"? You haven't even started. You've yet to grasp that business is a consumer which shops for the best deal. That's Economics 100. For 3rd graders. The thing is you know it too - you're just not willing to admit it.

Business is a consumer, true, but eventually it all goes into households ( or government which is not in this simplified diagram). Yes there is B2B trade but eventually you reach a point in which a business has to produce something for household : spare parts for airplanes, oil, fuel, chemicals, packing material it is all to produce goods which will eventually reach households.

"Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer... But in the mercantile system the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce."
Adam Smith

... so much for supply side economics... not even Adam Smith seemed to support that folly

If you examine the presidency of the great conservative hero, ronald reagan, you see that he did indeed voice great support for supply side economics, or Reaganomics as his followers named it. And nut case economists followed suit. And universities and colleges taught courses in the subject. Problem is, it did not work. At all. And the citizenry of this country lost patience and interest in the economic THEORY of supply side economics. Suddenly, economists that supported the theory found themselves alone on small islands. Classes in supply side economics, in most cases, went away. Now, you have to go to Liberty University or some similar far right wing college to find any courses on the subject.
Things came to an end for most people during the Reagan administration when the following occurred:
1. Reducing taxes did not result in increases in tax revenue.
2. The idea of trickle down did not occur.
3. A MAJOR recession occurred after the great tax decrease, bringing unemployment to 10.8%. The second highest rate in the past 100 years.
4. Reagan was forced to raise taxes, and more importantly, spend stimulatively more than all presidents before him COMBINED.
5. Spending and the increase in the size of the federal government, both denounced policies by Regan before he was elected, were used after the Reagan Recession to end it.
6. Everyone , in general, learned that stimulus worked and supply side policies did not.

At the end of the Reagan experiment, Supply Side economists left the theory in droves, with a few hard core economists left to preach to conservative believers. Only conservatives today try to push the theory.

3. A MAJOR recession occurred after the great tax decrease, bringing unemployment to 10.8%.

You think the Reagan tax cut caused the recession that started in July 1981? DERP!
No. And I did not say it did. Really, you should try to ask before you make insinuations.DERP!

A MAJOR recession occurred after the great tax decrease, bringing unemployment to 10.8%.

You think the Reagan tax cut caused the recession that started in July 1981? DERP!

No. And I did not say it did. Really, you should try to ask before you make insinuations.DERP!

You did.
I actually think you are not stupid enough to believe that I did. I do, however, think you are dishonest enough to say that I did.
So, for the hell of it, I said that the tax decrease happened before the Reagan Recession. I did not say what caused it, at all.
Maybe a remedial course in english is in order for you.

For instance, did anyone notice that the great reagan tax cut of 1981 led to the Reagan Recession of late 1982?
You see, me boy, led to does not mean caused. Led to means that things that politicians did in response to the lack of revenue caused by the tax cut caused the congress to cut programs and jobs. Cutting jobs in a less than great economy causes more job losses.
But then, you are a con tool. You do not believe what reagans own people are telling anyone who will listen.

Ronald Reagan, the hero or Republicans

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And don't forget about VW.... they also produce high end cars. ( sarcasm intended)
Had you actually read the article - you would have seen that the first two manufacturers mentioned were BMW and Mercedes. That's where their sales are coming from. Detroit didn't lose business to Germany no matter how hard liberals try that false narrative. They lost business to Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Mitsubishi, etc

I am not claiming that they lost their business to Germany , but rather that the German car makers were able to transform their business in such a way that they could have successfull companies, increase their car production and have unionized workers. Regardless, Volkswagen is also mentioned in the same sentence; I fail to see the point you are trying to make.

"Yet Germany’s big three car companies—BMW, Daimler DDAIY +% (Mercedes-Benz ), and Volkswagen—are very profitable."

Because two of those three are extremely hight end automakers. Take a look at this page. When some of your automobiles go for over $3 million each - you can certainly afford to splurge on your assembly line workers.

Also - you fail to take into consideration that the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Give us Germany's tax rate and maybe we could pay assembly line workers more. But unfortunately, you lefties want the government to eat up every dollar and control every penny.

Sorry, me boy. Us companies pay low tax rates. See below, and you will see that German companies pay higher rates than those of the US companies. And it will help you to try to understand the types of taxes and what companies pay.

It has the highest PUBLISHED tax rate. But really, no one cares. Because no one pays the published rate, unless they just like giving money away. What they pay, me poor ignorant con troll, is the effective tax rate, and that is not the highest in the world by any means.


"Large, profitable U.S. corporations paid an average effective federal tax rate of 12.6% in 2010, the Government Accountability Office said Monday.
The federal corporate tax rate stands at 35%, and jumps to 39.2% when state rates are taken into account. But thanks to things like tax credits, exemptions and offshore tax havens, the actual tax burden of American companies is much lower.
Even when foreign, state and local taxes were taken into account, the companies paid only 16.9% of their worldwide income in taxes in 2010."
GAO: U.S. corporations pay average effective tax rate of 12.6%

Relative to those lucky German auto makers, truth is, they pay a higher total ta rate than US car companies do. Next.

While Diamler is very profitable, it is not as profitable as Toyota and VW. And just a bit more so than GM and Ford.

Which are the 10 most profitable car companies of the world and why?Which are the 10 most profitable car companies of the world and why? - Quora
Here are the top 10 according to Forbes 2013 Global 2000 list:

1) Volkswagen Group- Volkswagen Group
2) Toyota Motor- Japan
3) Daimler- Germany
4) Ford Motor- U.S.
5) BMW Group- Germany
6) General Motors- U.S.
7) Nissan Motor- Japan
8) Honda Motor- Japan
9) Hyundai Motor- South Korea
10) SAIC Motor- China
Which are the 10 most profitable car companies of the world and why? - Quora

Florida-based Burger King acquired and merged with Tim Horton’s, under the umbrella company Restaurant Brands International. Now based in Canada, it could avoid $117 million in U.S. taxes by never having to pay corporate income tax on foreign profits it holds offshore.

Why should Burger King have to pay US taxes on foreign profits?

If you are a con tool, they should not. To rational people, we simply need to change the laws to be sure they do pay. Or we simply shut them down here, and allow them to move to Canada. Others companies can easily take up the slack. And they may be more capable of paying their fair share of taxes. Simple enough thought process: If they want to do business here, and sell in this country, they need to pay their fair share. If not, there is always Canada, or Mexico, or Bangladesh, or, or or or. Get the cons to pay your fair share.

To rational people, we simply need to change the laws to be sure they do pay.

Why should they pay US taxes on foreign profits? Do you have a rational reason?

If they want to do business here, and sell in this country, they need to pay their fair share.

They already pay US taxes on US profits.
Some, but not what they should pay. Not the percentage I pay, and others pay. Thing is, cons like you will believe, say, and do whatever the bat shit crazy con web sites, fox, and the talking points tell you to. The rest of us do not like to be told what to believe, say and do. Progressives and liberals actually demand that they think for themselves. So, you are doing a great job of carrying the con flag. How it will work out, we shall see. Perhaps, like you, we will all be owned completely by the conservative. bosses for whom you carry water.

Some, but not what they should pay.

US companies pay US taxes on US profits.

Not the percentage I pay, and others pay.

No kidding. They pay a higher percentage than you do.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Business is a consumer, true, but eventually it all goes into households ( or government which is not in this simplified diagram). Yes there is B2B trade but eventually you reach a point in which a business has to produce something for household : spare parts for airplanes, oil, fuel, chemicals, packing material it is all to produce goods which will eventually reach households.

"Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer... But in the mercantile system the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce."
Adam Smith

... so much for supply side economics... not even Adam Smith seemed to support that folly

If you examine the presidency of the great conservative hero, ronald reagan, you see that he did indeed voice great support for supply side economics, or Reaganomics as his followers named it. And nut case economists followed suit. And universities and colleges taught courses in the subject. Problem is, it did not work. At all. And the citizenry of this country lost patience and interest in the economic THEORY of supply side economics. Suddenly, economists that supported the theory found themselves alone on small islands. Classes in supply side economics, in most cases, went away. Now, you have to go to Liberty University or some similar far right wing college to find any courses on the subject.
Things came to an end for most people during the Reagan administration when the following occurred:
1. Reducing taxes did not result in increases in tax revenue.
2. The idea of trickle down did not occur.
3. A MAJOR recession occurred after the great tax decrease, bringing unemployment to 10.8%. The second highest rate in the past 100 years.
4. Reagan was forced to raise taxes, and more importantly, spend stimulatively more than all presidents before him COMBINED.
5. Spending and the increase in the size of the federal government, both denounced policies by Regan before he was elected, were used after the Reagan Recession to end it.
6. Everyone , in general, learned that stimulus worked and supply side policies did not.

At the end of the Reagan experiment, Supply Side economists left the theory in droves, with a few hard core economists left to preach to conservative believers. Only conservatives today try to push the theory.

3. A MAJOR recession occurred after the great tax decrease, bringing unemployment to 10.8%.

You think the Reagan tax cut caused the recession that started in July 1981? DERP!
No. And I did not say it did. Really, you should try to ask before you make insinuations.DERP!

A MAJOR recession occurred after the great tax decrease, bringing unemployment to 10.8%.

You think the Reagan tax cut caused the recession that started in July 1981? DERP!

No. And I did not say it did. Really, you should try to ask before you make insinuations.DERP!

You did.
I actually think you are not stupid enough to believe that I did. I do, however, think you are dishonest enough to say that I did.
So, for the hell of it, I said that the tax decrease happened before the Reagan Recession. I did not say what caused it, at all.
Maybe a remedial course in english is in order for you.

For instance, did anyone notice that the great reagan tax cut of 1981 led to the Reagan Recession of late 1982?
You see, me boy, led to does not mean caused. Led to means that things that politicians did in response to the lack of revenue caused by the tax cut caused the congress to cut programs and jobs. Cutting jobs in a less than great economy causes more job losses.
But then, you are a con tool. You do not believe what reagans own people are telling anyone who will listen.

Ronald Reagan, the hero or Republicans

You see, me boy, led to does not mean caused.

led to > synonyms

caused

1
brought on

0
led on v. & phr. v.

-1
flowed into phr. v. & v.

-1
provoked to do idi. & exp

5 Led To Synonyms and Led To Antonyms in Led To Thesaurus

I found great synonyms for "led to" on the new Thesaurus.com!

The thesaurus says you're full of shit.

Led to means that things that politicians did in response to the lack of revenue caused by the tax cut caused the congress to cut programs and jobs.

Cool.
Which programs did Congress cut, how many jobs did Congress cut, to cause the recession that started in July 1981?

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

I guess responding to the lack of revenue from a tax cut that passed in August 1981 caused them to travel back in time?

Following enactment in August 1981, the first 5% of the 25% total cuts took place beginning in October. An additional 10% began in July 1982, followed by a third decrease of 10% beginning in July 1983

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LOL!

 

[Rshermr]

And don't forget about VW.... they also produce high end cars. ( sarcasm intended)
Had you actually read the article - you would have seen that the first two manufacturers mentioned were BMW and Mercedes. That's where their sales are coming from. Detroit didn't lose business to Germany no matter how hard liberals try that false narrative. They lost business to Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Mitsubishi, etc

I am not claiming that they lost their business to Germany , but rather that the German car makers were able to transform their business in such a way that they could have successfull companies, increase their car production and have unionized workers. Regardless, Volkswagen is also mentioned in the same sentence; I fail to see the point you are trying to make.

"Yet Germany’s big three car companies—BMW, Daimler DDAIY +% (Mercedes-Benz ), and Volkswagen—are very profitable."

Because two of those three are extremely hight end automakers. Take a look at this page. When some of your automobiles go for over $3 million each - you can certainly afford to splurge on your assembly line workers.

Also - you fail to take into consideration that the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Give us Germany's tax rate and maybe we could pay assembly line workers more. But unfortunately, you lefties want the government to eat up every dollar and control every penny.

Sorry, me boy. Us companies pay low tax rates. See below, and you will see that German companies pay higher rates than those of the US companies. And it will help you to try to understand the types of taxes and what companies pay.

It has the highest PUBLISHED tax rate. But really, no one cares. Because no one pays the published rate, unless they just like giving money away. What they pay, me poor ignorant con troll, is the effective tax rate, and that is not the highest in the world by any means.


"Large, profitable U.S. corporations paid an average effective federal tax rate of 12.6% in 2010, the Government Accountability Office said Monday.
The federal corporate tax rate stands at 35%, and jumps to 39.2% when state rates are taken into account. But thanks to things like tax credits, exemptions and offshore tax havens, the actual tax burden of American companies is much lower.
Even when foreign, state and local taxes were taken into account, the companies paid only 16.9% of their worldwide income in taxes in 2010."
GAO: U.S. corporations pay average effective tax rate of 12.6%

Relative to those lucky German auto makers, truth is, they pay a higher total ta rate than US car companies do. Next.

While Diamler is very profitable, it is not as profitable as Toyota and VW. And just a bit more so than GM and Ford.

Which are the 10 most profitable car companies of the world and why?Which are the 10 most profitable car companies of the world and why? - Quora
Here are the top 10 according to Forbes 2013 Global 2000 list:

1) Volkswagen Group- Volkswagen Group
2) Toyota Motor- Japan
3) Daimler- Germany
4) Ford Motor- U.S.
5) BMW Group- Germany
6) General Motors- U.S.
7) Nissan Motor- Japan
8) Honda Motor- Japan
9) Hyundai Motor- South Korea
10) SAIC Motor- China
Which are the 10 most profitable car companies of the world and why? - Quora

Florida-based Burger King acquired and merged with Tim Horton’s, under the umbrella company Restaurant Brands International. Now based in Canada, it could avoid $117 million in U.S. taxes by never having to pay corporate income tax on foreign profits it holds offshore.

Why should Burger King have to pay US taxes on foreign profits?

If you are a con tool, they should not. To rational people, we simply need to change the laws to be sure they do pay. Or we simply shut them down here, and allow them to move to Canada. Others companies can easily take up the slack. And they may be more capable of paying their fair share of taxes. Simple enough thought process: If they want to do business here, and sell in this country, they need to pay their fair share. If not, there is always Canada, or Mexico, or Bangladesh, or, or or or. Get the cons to pay your fair share.

To rational people, we simply need to change the laws to be sure they do pay.

Why should they pay US taxes on foreign profits? Do you have a rational reason?

If they want to do business here, and sell in this country, they need to pay their fair share.

They already pay US taxes on US profits.
Some, but not what they should pay. Not the percentage I pay, and others pay. Thing is, cons like you will believe, say, and do whatever the bat shit crazy con web sites, fox, and the talking points tell you to. The rest of us do not like to be told what to believe, say and do. Progressives and liberals actually demand that they think for themselves. So, you are doing a great job of carrying the con flag. How it will work out, we shall see. Perhaps, like you, we will all be owned completely by the conservative. bosses for whom you carry water.

Some, but not what they should pay.

US companies pay US taxes on US profits.
Typical con troll response from a con troll. What a surprise.
US companies profits include profits made overseas.

Not the percentage I pay, and others pay.
No kidding. They pay a higher percentage than you do.[/QUOTE]
Typical con troll response from a con troll. What a surprise.
Many pay zero taxes. I never do.
The average for corporations in the US is 12%. I never pay that small a percentage.
So, no, me ignorant con troll. I pay more.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Florida-based Burger King acquired and merged with Tim Horton’s, under the umbrella company Restaurant Brands International. Now based in Canada, it could avoid $117 million in U.S. taxes by never having to pay corporate income tax on foreign profits it holds offshore.

Why should Burger King have to pay US taxes on foreign profits?

If you are a con tool, they should not. To rational people, we simply need to change the laws to be sure they do pay. Or we simply shut them down here, and allow them to move to Canada. Others companies can easily take up the slack. And they may be more capable of paying their fair share of taxes. Simple enough thought process: If they want to do business here, and sell in this country, they need to pay their fair share. If not, there is always Canada, or Mexico, or Bangladesh, or, or or or. Get the cons to pay your fair share.

To rational people, we simply need to change the laws to be sure they do pay.

Why should they pay US taxes on foreign profits? Do you have a rational reason?

If they want to do business here, and sell in this country, they need to pay their fair share.



Some, but not what they should pay. Not the percentage I pay, and others pay. Thing is, cons like you will believe, say, and do whatever the bat shit crazy con web sites, fox, and the talking points tell you to. The rest of us do not like to be told what to believe, say and do. Progressives and liberals actually demand that they think for themselves. So, you are doing a great job of carrying the con flag. How it will work out, we shall see. Perhaps, like you, we will all be owned completely by the conservative. bosses for whom you carry water.

Some, but not what they should pay.

US companies pay US taxes on US profits.
A con tool response. How surprising, coming from a con tool.
So, did you think that the money made by transfers and operations moved overseas are not US profits?

Not the percentage I pay, and others pay.

No kidding. They pay a higher percentage than you do.

A con tool response. How surprising, coming from a con tool.
They pay a lower percentage than I. A number paid None. The average for corporations was around 12%.

They pay a lower percentage than I.

What percentage do you pay?

The average for corporations was around 12%.

Sounds like liberal math. IE wrong.

 

[Rshermr]

Why should they pay US taxes on foreign profits? Do you have a rational reason?.[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE
Yes - his "rational" reason is that he and his fellow libtards are exceptionally greedy. Comical post by the janitor who has never done anything in his life. Funny. How do you expect him to mooch off of society like the parasite that he is and still live a lavish lifestyle unless he's allowed to tax everyone at a 98% rate or more? And to prove he is a stupid con troll, he makes a personal attack which is totally untrue and completely stupid. Got it. Jesus, you must be in pain from that much stupid. But thanks for making it clear that you are a clown.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

This should be a mandatory class for every liberal in America. There is not one thing here in the video that could even be remotely disputed. Not one.

Milton Friedman Part I: Economics 101

Which has led to how many Stock Markets crashes?
Too many.

actually crashes:
1) have mostly been caused by govt interference in economy

2) were easily avoided simply by not selling during the crash

Government intervention? More like the Federal Reserve trying to fine tune an economy they don't understand.

Avoid a crash by not selling into it? Just exactly how would that be accomplished? The markets crash when the collective perception of value shifts.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Why should I listen to these asses who helped crash our asses in 2008.............Yeah allowing the too big to fail to self regulate was such a great idea.......

As great as this.........I like to hit my head with a hammer because it feels so good when I stop.

Who are you going to blame on the next crash?

 

[Rshermr]

If you are a con tool, they should not. To rational people, we simply need to change the laws to be sure they do pay. Or we simply shut them down here, and allow them to move to Canada. Others companies can easily take up the slack. And they may be more capable of paying their fair share of taxes. Simple enough thought process: If they want to do business here, and sell in this country, they need to pay their fair share. If not, there is always Canada, or Mexico, or Bangladesh, or, or or or. Get the cons to pay your fair share.

To rational people, we simply need to change the laws to be sure they do pay.

Why should they pay US taxes on foreign profits? Do you have a rational reason?

If they want to do business here, and sell in this country, they need to pay their fair share.



Some, but not what they should pay. Not the percentage I pay, and others pay. Thing is, cons like you will believe, say, and do whatever the bat shit crazy con web sites, fox, and the talking points tell you to. The rest of us do not like to be told what to believe, say and do. Progressives and liberals actually demand that they think for themselves. So, you are doing a great job of carrying the con flag. How it will work out, we shall see. Perhaps, like you, we will all be owned completely by the conservative. bosses for whom you carry water.

Some, but not what they should pay.

US companies pay US taxes on US profits.
A con tool response. How surprising, coming from a con tool.
So, did you think that the money made by transfers and operations moved overseas are not US profits?

Not the percentage I pay, and others pay.

No kidding. They pay a higher percentage than you do.

A con tool response. How surprising, coming from a con tool.
They pay a lower percentage than I. A number paid None. The average for corporations was around 12%.

They pay a lower percentage than I.

What percentage do you pay?
Really, me boy, you did not really think I would tell you with no conditions. I would if you want to publish your taxes. Because as a con tool, I could not believe what you sy. Cons lie typically. OK? You publish, then I publish.

The average for corporations was around 12%.

Sounds like liberal math. IE wrong
A con tool response. How surprising, coming from a con tool.
But I did forget to include the word profitable.
What rate did you think profitable us companies paid, me boy?
Oh, and I know that you are just a con, and cons are often ignorant, but producing a tax rate is not Math, me boy. Just trying to help educate you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

To rational people, we simply need to change the laws to be sure they do pay.

Why should they pay US taxes on foreign profits? Do you have a rational reason?

If they want to do business here, and sell in this country, they need to pay their fair share.



Some, but not what they should pay. Not the percentage I pay, and others pay. Thing is, cons like you will believe, say, and do whatever the bat shit crazy con web sites, fox, and the talking points tell you to. The rest of us do not like to be told what to believe, say and do. Progressives and liberals actually demand that they think for themselves. So, you are doing a great job of carrying the con flag. How it will work out, we shall see. Perhaps, like you, we will all be owned completely by the conservative. bosses for whom you carry water.

Some, but not what they should pay.

US companies pay US taxes on US profits.
A con tool response. How surprising, coming from a con tool.
So, did you think that the money made by transfers and operations moved overseas are not US profits?

Not the percentage I pay, and others pay.

No kidding. They pay a higher percentage than you do.

A con tool response. How surprising, coming from a con tool.
They pay a lower percentage than I. A number paid None. The average for corporations was around 12%.

They pay a lower percentage than I.

What percentage do you pay?
Really, me boy, you did not really think I would tell you with no conditions. I would if you want to publish your taxes. Because as a con tool, I could not believe what you sy. Cons lie typically. OK? You publish, then I publish.

The average for corporations was around 12%.

Sounds like liberal math. IE wrong
A con tool response. How surprising, coming from a con tool.
But I did forget to include the word profitable.
What rate did you think profitable us companies paid, me boy?
Oh, and I know that you are just a con, and cons are often ignorant, but producing a tax rate is not Math, me boy. Just trying to help educate you.

Profitable corporations paid U.S. income taxes amounting to just 12.6% of worldwide income in 2010.

Fact Sheet: Corporate Tax Rates

I know you're a moron, but consider this scenario.
You make a $1,000,000 profit in the U.K. and a $1,000,000 profit in the US.
You pay your 35% tax in the US and your 20% tax in the U.K.
Now a liberal moron, that'd be you, says "You made $2,000,000 in profit, but only paid $350,000 in US taxes, that's a 17.5% effective US tax on your worldwide income"
You'd say that because you're a liberal moron, but then I repeat myself.
The corporation paid an effective US tax on US profits of 35%.

They'd be stupid, like you, if they brought home that U.K. profit and paid an additional
US tax on it of $150,000 (the difference between 35% and 20%, because you're a moron),
but even if they did, their effective US tax rate on worldwide income would only be 25%.

That would be like you, living in California, near the Arizona border, working half the year in each state.
Arizona taxes you at a peak rate of 3.36% on $50,000, California, a peak rate of 8% on $50,000.

If California said, "If you bring any of that Arizona income here, we'll tax you another 4.64% on it".
That'd be Rshermr level stupidity to bring that money home just to give Jerry Brown more money to
build choo-choos with. You'd leave it in Arizona and now you've only paid an effective California tax rate of ~4%
on your worldwide income.

Feel better now? If any of that math was too tough for you, my 7th grader will be home this afternoon.
They'll be happy to explain further.

 

[Rshermr]

To rational people, we simply need to change the laws to be sure they do pay.

Why should they pay US taxes on foreign profits? Do you have a rational reason?

If they want to do business here, and sell in this country, they need to pay their fair share.



Some, but not what they should pay. Not the percentage I pay, and others pay. Thing is, cons like you will believe, say, and do whatever the bat shit crazy con web sites, fox, and the talking points tell you to. The rest of us do not like to be told what to believe, say and do. Progressives and liberals actually demand that they think for themselves. So, you are doing a great job of carrying the con flag. How it will work out, we shall see. Perhaps, like you, we will all be owned completely by the conservative. bosses for whom you carry water.

Some, but not what they should pay.

US companies pay US taxes on US profits.
A con tool response. How surprising, coming from a con tool.
So, did you think that the money made by transfers and operations moved overseas are not US profits?

Not the percentage I pay, and others pay.

No kidding. They pay a higher percentage than you do.

A con tool response. How surprising, coming from a con tool.
They pay a lower percentage than I. A number paid None. The average for corporations was around 12%.

They pay a lower percentage than I.

What percentage do you pay?
Really, me boy, you did not really think I would tell you with no conditions. I would if you want to publish your taxes. Because as a con tool, I could not believe what you sy. Cons lie typically. OK? You publish, then I publish.

The average for corporations was around 12%.

Sounds like liberal math. IE wrong
A con tool response. How surprising, coming from a con tool.
But I did forget to include the word profitable.
What rate did you think profitable us companies paid, me boy?
Oh, and I know that you are just a con, and cons are often ignorant, but producing a tax rate is not Math, me boy. Just trying to help educate you.

Profitable corporations paid U.S. income taxes amounting to just 12.6% of worldwide income in 2010.

Fact Sheet: Corporate Tax Rates

I know you're a moron, but consider this scenario.
You make a $1,000,000 profit in the U.K. and a $1,000,000 profit in the US.
You pay your 35% tax in the US and your 20% tax in the U.K.
Now a liberal moron, that'd be you, says "You made $2,000,000 in profit, but only paid $350,000 in US taxes, that's a 17.5% effective US tax on your worldwide income"
You'd say that because you're a liberal moron, but then I repeat myself.
The corporation paid an effective US tax on US profits of 35%.
Why, me boy, would you pay 35% on profits when the average profitable company pays 12.6% on worldwide profits, and under 20% on us profits. They must be the morons, like you, eh. According to the source you site above (same web page):

• "Citizens for Tax Justice’s survey of 288 corporations, which included most of the Fortune 500 corporations that were profitable each year from 2008 through 2012, found that they paid an average effective federal tax rate of just 19.4% over that period.
• Of 125 corporations in that study that had significant foreign profits, 82 (two-thirds) paid a higher effective rate to foreign governments than they paid to the U.S."

They'd be stupid, like you, if they brought home that U.K. profit and paid an additional
US tax on it of $150,000 (the difference between 35% and 20%, because you're a moron),
Depends, me poor ignorant con troll, where you report your profits. It becomes an accounting issue. You pay accountants to handle that. No company is stupid enough (like you) to pay taxes in two jurisdictions. And no company is stupid enough (like you) to pay the statutory rate of 35% when they can and do in fact pay less. Much less.
but even if they did, their effective US tax rate on worldwide income would only be 25%.
Or less. Often much less.

That would be like you, living in California, near the Arizona border, working half the year in each state.
Arizona taxes you at a peak rate of 3.36% on $50,000, California, a peak rate of 8% on $50,000.

If California said, "If you bring any of that Arizona income here, we'll tax you another 4.64% on it".

Actually, that was really irrelevant. Kind of like you. Oh, and obviously ignorant. Like you.

Since you are a con troll, of course you would lie like a rug about the tax amnesty, or holiday, program. Really, me boy, you are easy to predict. And for the good of our country it would be Todster stupid to impliment it again.
That'd be Rshermr level stupidity to bring that money home just to give Jerry Brown more money to
build choo-choos with. You'd leave it in Arizona and now you've only paid an effective California tax rate of ~4%
on your worldwide income. Depends, me boy, on the laws. And laws are subject to change.

Feel better now? If any of that math was too tough for you, my 7th grader will be home this afternoon.
They'll be happy to explain further.
Wow. A baseless insult. Just like you were a con troll. Oh, forgot, you are indeed a con troll.
But as a con troll, you are simply making up scenarios and tax law on the fly. Issue is, and was, where should taxes be paid. That transfers are made and that they may be legal, or not, is a legal issue. What you are suggesting, however, is that businesses in this country are stupid like you, and therefor will pay 35% when in fact they almost NEVER do. And when in fact they generally pay lower taxes in the US than most advanced nations. They should be paying taxes in whatever country they do business in. Which for US companies, is the US. Typical con look at things. Because, of course, those very companies pay big time to get politicians to change the laws to allow them to stiff the US. As a con troll, as long as the corporation pays less, it is good. The issue is, most people do not agree with you. You are, me boy, WRONG. And as a con troll, you are pushing the con talking points. Always.
Thats pretty cool, though, isn't it. As a con troll, you just post con talking points and use con justification. You do not even have to read the articles you use as sources.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Some, but not what they should pay.

US companies pay US taxes on US profits.
A con tool response. How surprising, coming from a con tool.
So, did you think that the money made by transfers and operations moved overseas are not US profits?

Not the percentage I pay, and others pay.

No kidding. They pay a higher percentage than you do.

A con tool response. How surprising, coming from a con tool.
They pay a lower percentage than I. A number paid None. The average for corporations was around 12%.

They pay a lower percentage than I.

What percentage do you pay?
Really, me boy, you did not really think I would tell you with no conditions. I would if you want to publish your taxes. Because as a con tool, I could not believe what you sy. Cons lie typically. OK? You publish, then I publish.

The average for corporations was around 12%.

Sounds like liberal math. IE wrong
A con tool response. How surprising, coming from a con tool.
But I did forget to include the word profitable.
What rate did you think profitable us companies paid, me boy?
Oh, and I know that you are just a con, and cons are often ignorant, but producing a tax rate is not Math, me boy. Just trying to help educate you.

Profitable corporations paid U.S. income taxes amounting to just 12.6% of worldwide income in 2010.

Fact Sheet: Corporate Tax Rates

I know you're a moron, but consider this scenario.
You make a $1,000,000 profit in the U.K. and a $1,000,000 profit in the US.
You pay your 35% tax in the US and your 20% tax in the U.K.
Now a liberal moron, that'd be you, says "You made $2,000,000 in profit, but only paid $350,000 in US taxes, that's a 17.5% effective US tax on your worldwide income"
You'd say that because you're a liberal moron, but then I repeat myself.
The corporation paid an effective US tax on US profits of 35%.
Why, me boy, would you pay 35% on profits when the average profitable company pays 12.6% on worldwide profits, and under 20% on us profits. They must be the morons, like you, eh. According to the source you site above (same web page):

• "Citizens for Tax Justice’s survey of 288 corporations, which included most of the Fortune 500 corporations that were profitable each year from 2008 through 2012, found that they paid an average effective federal tax rate of just 19.4% over that period.
• Of 125 corporations in that study that had significant foreign profits, 82 (two-thirds) paid a higher effective rate to foreign governments than they paid to the U.S."

They'd be stupid, like you, if they brought home that U.K. profit and paid an additional
US tax on it of $150,000 (the difference between 35% and 20%, because you're a moron),
Depends, me poor ignorant con troll, where you report your profits. It becomes an accounting issue. You pay accountants to handle that. No company is stupid enough (like you) to pay taxes in two jurisdictions. And no company is stupid enough (like you) to pay the stated rate of 35% when they can and do in fact pay less. Dipshit.
but even if they did, their effective US tax rate on worldwide income would only be 25%.

That would be like you, living in California, near the Arizona border, working half the year in each state.
Arizona taxes you at a peak rate of 3.36% on $50,000, California, a peak rate of 8% on $50,000.

If California said, "If you bring any of that Arizona income here, we'll tax you another 4.64% on it".
Ah, tax amnesty. Pure bullshit, me boy:
Tax Holiday for Overseas Corporate Profits Would Increase Deficits, Fail to Boost the Economy, and Ultimately Shift More Investment and Jobs Overseas
| Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Since you are a con troll, of course you would lie like a rug about the tax amnesty, or holiday, program. Really, me boy, you are easy to predict. And for the good of our country it would be Todster stupid to impliment it again.
That'd be Rshermr level stupidity to bring that money home just to give Jerry Brown more money to
build choo-choos with. You'd leave it in Arizona and now you've only paid an effective California tax rate of ~4%
on your worldwide income. Depends, me boy, on the laws. And laws are subject to change.

Feel better now? If any of that math was too tough for you, my 7th grader will be home this afternoon.
They'll be happy to explain further.
Wow. A baseless insult. Just like you were a con troll. Oh, forgot, you are indeed a con troll.
But as a con troll, you are simply making up scenarios and tax law on the fly. Issue is, and was, where should taxes be paid. That transfers are made and that they may be legal, or not, is a legal issue. What you are suggesting, however, is that businesses in this country are stupid like you, and therefor will pay 35% when in fact they almost NEVER do. And when in fact they generally pay lower taxes in the US than most advanced nations, they should be paying taxes in whatever country they do business in. Typical con look at things. Because, of course, those very companies pay big time to get politicians to change the laws to allow them to stiff the US. As a con troll, as long as the corporation pays less, it is good. The issue is, most people do not agree with you. You are, me boy, WRONG. Legal, probably. And as a con troll, you are pushing the con talking points. Always.
Thats pretty cool, though, isn't it. As a con troll, you just post con talking points and use con justification. You do not even have to read the articles you use as sources.

Depends, me poor ignorant con troll, where you report your profits.

You earn profits in the U.K., you report profits (and pay taxes) in the U.K.

Wow. A baseless insult.

Your idiocy is well known.

No company is stupid enough (like you) to pay taxes in two jurisdictions.

Every multi-national corporation pays taxes in multiple jurisdictions, you idiot.

And no company is stupid enough (like you) to pay the stated rate of 35% when they can and do in fact pay less.

Of course not, they keep their overseas earnings....overseas.

you are simply making up scenarios and tax law on the fly

Those are the corporate rates in the US and U.K.

And when in fact they generally pay lower taxes in the US than most advanced nations,

False.

they should be paying taxes in whatever country they do business in.

They do. And in all those other countries, the rate is lower than in the US.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Some, but not what they should pay.

US companies pay US taxes on US profits.
A con tool response. How surprising, coming from a con tool.
So, did you think that the money made by transfers and operations moved overseas are not US profits?

Not the percentage I pay, and others pay.

No kidding. They pay a higher percentage than you do.

A con tool response. How surprising, coming from a con tool.
They pay a lower percentage than I. A number paid None. The average for corporations was around 12%.

They pay a lower percentage than I.

What percentage do you pay?
Really, me boy, you did not really think I would tell you with no conditions. I would if you want to publish your taxes. Because as a con tool, I could not believe what you sy. Cons lie typically. OK? You publish, then I publish.

The average for corporations was around 12%.

Sounds like liberal math. IE wrong
A con tool response. How surprising, coming from a con tool.
But I did forget to include the word profitable.
What rate did you think profitable us companies paid, me boy?
Oh, and I know that you are just a con, and cons are often ignorant, but producing a tax rate is not Math, me boy. Just trying to help educate you.

Profitable corporations paid U.S. income taxes amounting to just 12.6% of worldwide income in 2010.

Fact Sheet: Corporate Tax Rates

I know you're a moron, but consider this scenario.
You make a $1,000,000 profit in the U.K. and a $1,000,000 profit in the US.
You pay your 35% tax in the US and your 20% tax in the U.K.
Now a liberal moron, that'd be you, says "You made $2,000,000 in profit, but only paid $350,000 in US taxes, that's a 17.5% effective US tax on your worldwide income"
You'd say that because you're a liberal moron, but then I repeat myself.
The corporation paid an effective US tax on US profits of 35%.
Why, me boy, would you pay 35% on profits when the average profitable company pays 12.6% on worldwide profits, and under 20% on us profits. They must be the morons, like you, eh. According to the source you site above (same web page):

• "Citizens for Tax Justice’s survey of 288 corporations, which included most of the Fortune 500 corporations that were profitable each year from 2008 through 2012, found that they paid an average effective federal tax rate of just 19.4% over that period.
• Of 125 corporations in that study that had significant foreign profits, 82 (two-thirds) paid a higher effective rate to foreign governments than they paid to the U.S."

They'd be stupid, like you, if they brought home that U.K. profit and paid an additional
US tax on it of $150,000 (the difference between 35% and 20%, because you're a moron),
Depends, me poor ignorant con troll, where you report your profits. It becomes an accounting issue. You pay accountants to handle that. No company is stupid enough (like you) to pay taxes in two jurisdictions. And no company is stupid enough (like you) to pay the statutory rate of 35% when they can and do in fact pay less. Much less.
but even if they did, their effective US tax rate on worldwide income would only be 25%.
Or less. Often much less.

That would be like you, living in California, near the Arizona border, working half the year in each state.
Arizona taxes you at a peak rate of 3.36% on $50,000, California, a peak rate of 8% on $50,000.

If California said, "If you bring any of that Arizona income here, we'll tax you another 4.64% on it".

Actually, that was really irrelevant. Kind of like you. Oh, and obviously ignorant. Like you.

Since you are a con troll, of course you would lie like a rug about the tax amnesty, or holiday, program. Really, me boy, you are easy to predict. And for the good of our country it would be Todster stupid to impliment it again.
That'd be Rshermr level stupidity to bring that money home just to give Jerry Brown more money to
build choo-choos with. You'd leave it in Arizona and now you've only paid an effective California tax rate of ~4%
on your worldwide income. Depends, me boy, on the laws. And laws are subject to change.

Feel better now? If any of that math was too tough for you, my 7th grader will be home this afternoon.
They'll be happy to explain further.
Wow. A baseless insult. Just like you were a con troll. Oh, forgot, you are indeed a con troll.
But as a con troll, you are simply making up scenarios and tax law on the fly. Issue is, and was, where should taxes be paid. That transfers are made and that they may be legal, or not, is a legal issue. What you are suggesting, however, is that businesses in this country are stupid like you, and therefor will pay 35% when in fact they almost NEVER do. And when in fact they generally pay lower taxes in the US than most advanced nations. They should be paying taxes in whatever country they do business in. Which for US companies, is the US. Typical con look at things. Because, of course, those very companies pay big time to get politicians to change the laws to allow them to stiff the US. As a con troll, as long as the corporation pays less, it is good. The issue is, most people do not agree with you. You are, me boy, WRONG. And as a con troll, you are pushing the con talking points. Always.
Thats pretty cool, though, isn't it. As a con troll, you just post con talking points and use con justification. You do not even have to read the articles you use as sources.

Love your lying link.

• Gas and electric utility companies enjoyed the lowest effective federal tax rate over the five years, paying a tax rate of only 2.9 percent. This industry’s taxes declined steadily over the five years, from 12.8 percent in 2008 to –1.8 percent in 2012. These results were largely driven by the ability of these companies to claim accelerated depreciation tax breaks on their capital investments. Only one of the 27 utilities in our sample paid more than half the 35 percent statutory tax rate during the 2008-12 period.

Ummmm....you can't say they paid a lower rate on their profits because they could depreciate....because profits are after depreciation is subtracted. Durr.