Plan to Cut Corporate Tax Rate to 15%

[Missouri_Mike]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/us/politics/trump-corporate-tax-rate-15-percent.html?_r=0

This plan sounds great!

With all the money saved by corporations, think of how many new jobs they will create!!! Plus the price of EVERYTHING will go down!!!

This is a WIN for the AMERICAN PEOPLE!!

Any thoughts?

Corporate tax windfalls are not what drive job creation. Demand is what drives job creation. Cutting the corporate tax rate in an environment where we need to reduce our deficit and address the national debt is about the worst idea imaginable. Corporate profits have consistently hit record highs each quarter for the last five to six years, so it's not as if corporations are in need of tax relief. Also, tax rates are not what drive price. A combination of supply and demand is what drives price. Corporate tax rates are fine where the are. Over 12 million private sector jobs were created during the Obama era under those tax rates.

If you want a tax policy that will stimulate the economy and create more jobs, cut taxes for the bottom personal income brackets and offset that by raising taxes on the higher income brackets. This is a no brainer, though it seems to escape the republican electorate. Tax cuts for the lower income brackets would provide a boost to aggregate demand, which would lead businesses to hire more employees to meet that demand.

When the lower tax bracket people pay nothing in taxes how do you reduce that any further?

 

[miketx]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/us/politics/trump-corporate-tax-rate-15-percent.html?_r=0

This plan sounds great!

With all the money saved by corporations, think of how many new jobs they will create!!! Plus the price of EVERYTHING will go down!!!

This is a WIN for the AMERICAN PEOPLE!!

Any thoughts?

If you live in a white trash country, which voted overwhelmingly for Trump and you find your life better because the rich are getting richer and Trump's promises are connecting to you, than yes, its a win. But you know and I know, talk is not only cheap, it doesn't pay bills or put food on the table....but as long as red necks are happy, hey, more power!!!

In a few more months, reality will sink in and idiots will wake up.....no infastructure bill is coming, no mega jobs from China, no wage increases, Trump is gonna make you idiots life a living hell in a few more months, you'll see

Trickle down has never ever ever ever ever ever worked.

As I have always said, only one thing trickles down: URINE.

Only if you pee in your pants, right?

I think the tax cut is a wonderful idea. One thing, that some cannot for the life of them to grasp is that whatever these companies do with THEIR money, it is THEIR money do with as they see fit!

Exactly, shit for brains, but don't come before the American stupid and make like this tax cut is some how gonna benefit everybody...its their money and they'll do what the fuck they always have done, loop that money into big bonues for their CEO's and invest over seas.

Right. You're a board member right?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/us/politics/trump-corporate-tax-rate-15-percent.html?_r=0

This plan sounds great!

With all the money saved by corporations, think of how many new jobs they will create!!! Plus the price of EVERYTHING will go down!!!

This is a WIN for the AMERICAN PEOPLE!!

Any thoughts?

If you live in a white trash country, which voted overwhelmingly for Trump and you find your life better because the rich are getting richer and Trump's promises are connecting to you, than yes, its a win. But you know and I know, talk is not only cheap, it doesn't pay bills or put food on the table....but as long as red necks are happy, hey, more power!!!

In a few more months, reality will sink in and idiots will wake up.....no infastructure bill is coming, no mega jobs from China, no wage increases, Trump is gonna make you idiots life a living hell in a few more months, you'll see

Trickle down has never ever ever ever ever ever worked.

As I have always said, only one thing trickles down: URINE.

Only if you pee in your pants, right?

I think the tax cut is a wonderful idea. One thing, that some cannot for the life of them to grasp is that whatever these companies do with THEIR money, it is THEIR money do with as they see fit!

Exactly, shit for brains, but don't come before the American stupid and make like this tax cut is some how gonna benefit everybody...its their money and they'll do what the fuck they always have done, loop that money into big bonues for their CEO's and invest over seas.

Umm, so? You then get taxes from their income.

 

[tigerred59]

the Billionaire Cartel takes care of their own while pissant RW's pay their way, suck their dicks, and LIKE IT.


THEN BITCH ABOUT THE DEFICIT TAX CUTS CREATED,

Actually the deficit was created by spending money we don't have.....not by cutting taxes. This is why the deficit climbed by over 300% once Democrats took over congress in 2007.

you wouldnt know actually if it bit you in the ass either ..

Trumps tax cuts would add $7 billion to the deficit.

now wipe off your chin and thank him ...

Only in a total vacuum, dumbass.
Besides.....Obama added $10 trillion to the debt. What's $7 billion in comparison?

Well.....

It's .0007% of Obama's total debt.

Debt only grew to that degree under Obama because he inherited a $1.4 trillion deficit. If you're being handed a government that is structured to bleed $1.4 trillion per year, of course debt is going to increase in the following years. All you can do is work to reduce the deficit each year, which is precisely what we saw under Obama with the deficit being slashed by nearly $1 trillion. That is the fastest rate of deficit reduction since WWII but, yes, of course debt increased during that time.

It also grew because the Bush administrion didn't include the wars in his final debt analysis, which by the way at the time, was costing tax payers 1.6 million dollars a DAY!!!

 

[miketx]

the Billionaire Cartel takes care of their own while pissant RW's pay their way, suck their dicks, and LIKE IT.


THEN BITCH ABOUT THE DEFICIT TAX CUTS CREATED,

Actually the deficit was created by spending money we don't have.....not by cutting taxes. This is why the deficit climbed by over 300% once Democrats took over congress in 2007.

you wouldnt know actually if it bit you in the ass either ..

Trumps tax cuts would add $7 billion to the deficit.

now wipe off your chin and thank him ...

Only in a total vacuum, dumbass.
Besides.....Obama added $10 trillion to the debt. What's $7 billion in comparison?

Well.....

It's .0007% of Obama's total debt.

Debt only grew to that degree under Obama because he inherited a $1.4 trillion deficit. If you're being handed a government that is structured to bleed $1.4 trillion per year, of course debt is going to increase in the following years. All you can do is work to reduce the deficit each year, which is precisely what we saw under Obama with the deficit being slashed by nearly $1 trillion. That is the fastest rate of deficit reduction since WWII but, yes, of course debt increased during that time.

It also grew because the Bush administrion didn't include the wars in his final debt analysis, which by the way at the time, was costing tax payers 1.6 million dollars a DAY!!!

Proof? No?

 

[tigerred59]

Actually the deficit was created by spending money we don't have.....not by cutting taxes. This is why the deficit climbed by over 300% once Democrats took over congress in 2007.

you wouldnt know actually if it bit you in the ass either ..

Trumps tax cuts would add $7 billion to the deficit.

now wipe off your chin and thank him ...

Only in a total vacuum, dumbass.
Besides.....Obama added $10 trillion to the debt. What's $7 billion in comparison?

Well.....

It's .0007% of Obama's total debt.

Debt only grew to that degree under Obama because he inherited a $1.4 trillion deficit. If you're being handed a government that is structured to bleed $1.4 trillion per year, of course debt is going to increase in the following years. All you can do is work to reduce the deficit each year, which is precisely what we saw under Obama with the deficit being slashed by nearly $1 trillion. That is the fastest rate of deficit reduction since WWII but, yes, of course debt increased during that time.

It also grew because the Bush administrion didn't include the wars in his final debt analysis, which by the way at the time, was costing tax payers 1.6 million dollars a DAY!!!

Proof? No?

Dude, I'm not a search engine, do the search yourself, like I did!!

 

[charwin95]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/us/politics/trump-corporate-tax-rate-15-percent.html?_r=0

This plan sounds great!

With all the money saved by corporations, think of how many new jobs they will create!!! Plus the price of EVERYTHING will go down!!!

This is a WIN for the AMERICAN PEOPLE!!

Any thoughts?

If you live in a white trash country, which voted overwhelmingly for Trump and you find your life better because the rich are getting richer and Trump's promises are connecting to you, than yes, its a win. But you know and I know, talk is not only cheap, it doesn't pay bills or put food on the table....but as long as red necks are happy, hey, more power!!!

In a few more months, reality will sink in and idiots will wake up.....no infastructure bill is coming, no mega jobs from China, no wage increases, Trump is gonna make you idiots life a living hell in a few more months, you'll see

Trickle down has never ever ever ever ever ever worked.

you are totally full of shit. But I get it, your wonderful glorious hildebeast lost and you just cannot get over it. Suck it up, snowflake, Trump won and the country is much better off because of it.

Dude stay with the topic. What is Hillary has to do with Trump fantasy tax reforms?
Trump has not shown a diddly squat to Americans.

We are in the brink of war if you want to get off the course.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

you wouldnt know actually if it bit you in the ass either ..

Trumps tax cuts would add $7 billion to the deficit.

now wipe off your chin and thank him ...

Only in a total vacuum, dumbass.
Besides.....Obama added $10 trillion to the debt. What's $7 billion in comparison?

Well.....

It's .0007% of Obama's total debt.

Debt only grew to that degree under Obama because he inherited a $1.4 trillion deficit. If you're being handed a government that is structured to bleed $1.4 trillion per year, of course debt is going to increase in the following years. All you can do is work to reduce the deficit each year, which is precisely what we saw under Obama with the deficit being slashed by nearly $1 trillion. That is the fastest rate of deficit reduction since WWII but, yes, of course debt increased during that time.

It also grew because the Bush administrion didn't include the wars in his final debt analysis, which by the way at the time, was costing tax payers 1.6 million dollars a DAY!!!

Proof? No?

Dude, I'm not a search engine, do the search yourself, like I did!!

Why don't you share it then?

 

[miketx]

She has nothing, like all lying libs.

 

[miketx]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/us/politics/trump-corporate-tax-rate-15-percent.html?_r=0

This plan sounds great!

With all the money saved by corporations, think of how many new jobs they will create!!! Plus the price of EVERYTHING will go down!!!

This is a WIN for the AMERICAN PEOPLE!!

Any thoughts?

If you live in a white trash country, which voted overwhelmingly for Trump and you find your life better because the rich are getting richer and Trump's promises are connecting to you, than yes, its a win. But you know and I know, talk is not only cheap, it doesn't pay bills or put food on the table....but as long as red necks are happy, hey, more power!!!

In a few more months, reality will sink in and idiots will wake up.....no infastructure bill is coming, no mega jobs from China, no wage increases, Trump is gonna make you idiots life a living hell in a few more months, you'll see

Trickle down has never ever ever ever ever ever worked.

you are totally full of shit. But I get it, your wonderful glorious hildebeast lost and you just cannot get over it. Suck it up, snowflake, Trump won and the country is much better off because of it.

Dude stay with the topic. What is Hillary has to do with Trump fantasy tax reforms?
Trump has not shown a diddly squat to Americans.

We are in the brink of war if you want to get off the course.

Maybe if the little fat boy would stop threatening to vaporize us, we wouldn't be.

 

[Rambunctious]

Maybe if the little fat boy would stop threatening to vaporize us, we wouldn't be.

Every American should find a way to send that little piglet in NK a picture of Saddam being handcuffed by an American Army Capt.

 

[toomuchtime_]

There was no demand for personal computers because hardly anyone knew abou them and major companies like IBM and Polaroid who could have produced them didn't because they understood there was no demand for them. Companies like Apple and Microsoft were producing hardware and software for a small market for tech enthusiasts until financing from venture capitalists eager to invest the money they had made from the deregulation of financial institutions and the break up of stagnant corporations allowed these start ups to produce products that finally did gain the notice of both businesses and individuals. Because of this new source of financing these start ups were able to create products that then created their own demand and that is what fueled the economy of the 1990's. Without the bustling economy Reagan created with tax cuts and deregulation, the financing simply wouldn't have been there to launch these new companies.

You have an uncanny ability of missing the point, even though I clearly spelled it out for you. What do personal computers do? They allow us to store, share, process, and consume data. That said, people have been storing, sharing, processing, and consuming data well before the personal computer. And there has always been a demand for more efficient means of storing, sharing, processing, and consuming data. The personal computer met that demand.

Just as there was demand for more efficient means of transportation before the automobile came along, there was also demand for more efficient means of data processing before the PC came along. This is the point, and it is also the fallacy in your line of reasoning.

Whether or not Reagan ever cut taxes is of no consequence to the birth of the personal computer. The personal computer would have came about regardless because it was a tool that met the demand of more efficient means of data processing. One more time: the demand for efficient means of processing predates the birth of the personal computer.

You are talking nonsense. If demand for personal computers was as obvious as you claim, why did major corporations that were already producing computers not begin to make personal computers until after these small start ups financed by investors loaded with money from the Reagan tax cuts and deregulation made them popular? According to you, the CEO's of all the major electronics corporations were too stupid to see the demand for personal computers you claim was so obvious.

The Reagan tax cuts did contribute to more debt, but along with his deregulation they also revitalized the American economy after nearly twenty years of stagnation, and they freed up enormous amounts of investment capital that had been locked away in older, inefficient companies and allowed that capital to be invested in innovative ideas like personal computers which the banks and big corporations had no interest in. No amount of middle class tax cuts intended to increase demand can finance innovative ideas that the major corporations and banks had turned away from, only tax cuts that increase the amount of investment capital to the investor class can.

It isn't "my claim" that we are always in search of more efficient means of data processing. There is always a demand for more efficient means of data processing. This is why companies invest in R&D to come up with new products and innovation to meet that demand. The personal computer was one step in a long line of incremental steps of improving efficiency in data processing. I can't believe that this even needs to be explained to you. What, do you think this is some new concept that I just invented in this thread? Do you honestly believe that I just invented this idea that the economy is always looking for more efficient means of doing things?

And other major corporations took longer to get personal computers to market because doing so isn't easy. It takes quite a bit of time, R&D, testing, retooling, etc, to come up with new innovations that improve data processing. It takes even more time getting those new innovations to market. But, again, corporations invest in this because there is always a demand for more efficient means of data processing. And this is the case regardless of fiscal policy.

Regarding the rest of your comment, there weren't "twenty years of stagnation" prior to the Reagan tax cuts. During the 20 years leading up to the Reagan tax cuts, GDP growth averaged 3.7% per year. The Reagan years - after the tax cut - saw an average GDP growth of 3.5% year. These figures are per the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

At this point I can only reiterate that nothing you are saying correlates with reality. The PC would have came out regardless of tax cuts. A cure for cancer will one day be discovered regardless of tax cuts. The next leap in data processing will come about completely independent of tax cuts. Taxes exist to fund the government, and we're currently operating on a budget deficit. Therefore, we need to increase tax revenues (and control spending, of course). Tax cuts obviously reduce tax revenues so doing so in an environment where we're trying to get control over our budget deficit would be a terrible policy idea - particularly given the fact that the corporate world is already sitting on $2 trillion in cash that it could use to invest today if it chose to do so, and also that corporate profits are breaking records each quarter. The corporate world doesn't need a tax cut at the moment, and the government certainly cannot afford one. If you're looking to stimulate economic growth through fiscal policy, then you should advocate tax cuts for the lower personal income brackets, and those should be offset by increases on the top tier income brackets. Doing so would boost aggregate demand, create jobs, and grow GDP.

You're just not stating facts. All of the major electronic companies had rejected personal computers because they saw no market for them despite having much of the basic research into the hardware and software that was later used by small start ups to create the personal computers. The large corporations developed prototype personal computers as early as the 1950's but never pursued them because they saw no market, that means no demand for them. The drive to produce more efficient mainframes had been going on for years and never led the major corporations to develop personal computers for the market until a couple of college dropouts managed to persuade some venture capitalists to take a chance of their invention. The whole history of the digital revolution is the story of how tiny start ups financed by venture capitalist who were willing to take high risks in the hope of high returns created hardware and software that created the demand for personal computers while the major corporations looked on without interest until these tiny start ups created the demand for personal computers, and none of the major corporations or banks stepped in sooner because none of them saw any demand for personal computers. You're little slight of hand trick trying to say the drive for more efficient data processing led to personal computers is nonsense; it led only to better mainframes. All the money that financed the digital revolution came from the Reagan tax cuts and deregulation.

Alas. I can lead a republican to water, but I can't make it think.

Actually you can't lead anyone anywhere since you clearly don't know where you're going or even where you've been.

 

[NightFox]

Well, with corporate tax rates going down, they will have less incentive to invest in tax deductible R&D and expansion, so it will make sense if business expansion and job growth slows.

Umm.. decisions regarding investment are based on risk/reward not solely whether or not it's deductible, a lower effective rate generally speaking means higher returns (reward) and thus (in many cases) makes investment more likely.

In other words... if I invest X amount today for Y amount of returns tomorrow, with lower effective rates Y has a lower tax exposure and thus a higher reward over the lifetime of the investment.

If I only get to deduct X once (or depreciate it over a schedule) but have to pay a higher effective rate on Y over the lifetime of the investment then the reward (possibly) isn't going to be as attractive versus the risk.

It really depends on the details of the nature of the investment and the current financial position of the company in question but IMHO more than likely it would stimulate CapEx in the aggregate.

but IMHO more than likely it would stimulate CapEx in the aggregate.

Those capital expenditures may actually cost jobs if spent on automation technologies.

That's certainly possible, however automation itself creates jobs since somebody has to design, engineer, build, sell and maintain the machines, so while automation *may* result in a net loss of jobs it's not certain and often the result is higher paying (and more stable) jobs. The other consideration is that automation most often leads to higher productivity which increases economic output thus making the economic pie bigger for everybody.

 

[toomuchtime_]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/us/politics/trump-corporate-tax-rate-15-percent.html?_r=0

This plan sounds great!

With all the money saved by corporations, think of how many new jobs they will create!!! Plus the price of EVERYTHING will go down!!!

This is a WIN for the AMERICAN PEOPLE!!

Any thoughts?

Corporate tax windfalls are not what drive job creation. Demand is what drives job creation. Cutting the corporate tax rate in an environment where we need to reduce our deficit and address the national debt is about the worst idea imaginable. Corporate profits have consistently hit record highs each quarter for the last five to six years, so it's not as if corporations are in need of tax relief. Also, tax rates are not what drive price. A combination of supply and demand is what drives price. Corporate tax rates are fine where the are. Over 12 million private sector jobs were created during the Obama era under those tax rates.

If you want a tax policy that will stimulate the economy and create more jobs, cut taxes for the bottom personal income brackets and offset that by raising taxes on the higher income brackets. This is a no brainer, though it seems to escape the republican electorate. Tax cuts for the lower income brackets would provide a boost to aggregate demand, which would lead businesses to hire more employees to meet that demand.

What was the demand for small computers before venture capitalists using new money from Reagan's deregulation and tax cuts provided capital for companies like Apple, Microsoft, etc.? There was none, but the "windfall's from Reagan policies allowed investors to take risks on new investments that eventually drove the prosperity of the 1990's. No amount of middle class tax cuts intended to increase demand could have done this.

If we are to become a nation of consumers, which is your argument, than wages have to be the topic. Today's economy is stagnated because of conservative politicians refuse to address the wage gap and no amount of trickle down from the rich is gonna move this economy any faster than it has for the last decade. I love how every seem to go back to the Reagan economy....Raegan left office with the biggest 'deficit in our nations history, because of tax policies.....

We are a nation of consumers but the question is, what are we consuming, American made goods or foreign made goods? Trickle down is not an economic concept but political propaganda. Tax the rich and raise wages sounds all very Robin Hood, but increased demand without sufficient capital investment produces inflation, not economic growth as it did in the 1970's. High wages and insufficient capital investment to modernize our industrial base after WWII is what led to the demise of the American steel industry and much of the rest of our manufacturing sector and to the stagflation of the 1970's. Reagan's tax cuts and deregulation put more money into the hands of the investor class and they used this new wealth to finance revitalize the stagnant economy of the 1970's and to finance the digital revolution which the large corporations and banks had ignored and well as the start of the biotech industry.

Debt is only a problem if it is not well managed. In most cases if the debt is not increasing faster than the private sector GDP, it is not a problem, but there are other factors that have to be considered. The debt we have acquired under Bush43 and Obama was acquired at very low interest rates and as interest rates rise, the cost of refinancing it will be a problem, but the debt acquired by Reagan was acquired at high interest rates so as it has been refinanced at lower interest rates, it has become progressively less of a problem.

 

[NightFox]

IMHO Depends on what those corporations spend the extra money on and what sectors we're talking about.

Just some random observations based on this 15% outline of a plan to create a plan...

Average effective tax rate for large corporations right now is around 19% so we're looking at a roughly 4% boost to the bottom line, many of our largest corporations are already sitting on mountains of cash which means that it's not likely they're going to go on an expansion spending spree with a 4% bump, what's more likely to happen with those corporations is an increased pace of stock buybacks and higher dividends, which is good for investors but isn't likely to translate into a massive labor market expansion.

For foreign companies it does provide an attractive incentive to locate within the U.S. which is a good potential job creator as well as pulling in new investment to the U.S..

For SMB's it'll be a mixed bag depending on where they are now with taxes, it'll be great for the retail sector since it gets hit hardest by income taxes so I'd imagine we'd see some positive job creation there but less so for sectors with a lighter income tax burden.

All in all (if this ever becomes law, which is a BIG if) I'd expect this will be a positive for job creation and have a significant upside for investors as well as allowing certain sectors some cushion in terms of pricing, however IMHO it still doesn't go far enough (Corporate rates should be ZERO in my estimation).

How deceptive of you.

The top rate is over 38%

LOL, Do You need help with understanding the word EFFECTIVE or sumptin' ?

What will be the effective tax rate when the legal rate is lowered to 15%?

We don't have enough details (yet) to say exactly BUT the intention is clear to eliminate deductions and loopholes namely; narrow the spread between the statutory corporate rate and the effective corporate rate. Ideally the spread would be ZERO but that cannot be determined without reviewing the actual language in the legislation, all we know at this point is that if this were to become law (BIG if) that the average effective rate wouldn't be higher than 15%.

First off, corporations do not pay the full 35% rate...by the time they take all the allowed benefits of deductions, their rate hovers around 15-14%. Imagine what the purposed 15% will do....the vacuum on our economy will be devastating and once again, the little guy will pick up the bill.

Perhaps you should spend more time reading what was actually written instead of responding to what you *think* was written, nobody stated or even implied that corporations pay the statutory federal corporate rate, in fact I explicitly stated that the clear intention of lower rates and eliminating deductions and loopholes was to narrow the spread between the statutory rate and the effective rate, do you understand what that means? and the average effective federal corporate income tax rate right now is around 19% (as I've already pointed out in this thread) with the average effective federal income tax rate for the SP500 coming in around 28%, and that is JUST FEDERAL CORPORATE INCOME TAXES, these businesses pay a slew of other taxes at the local, state, federal and international levels some having aggregate tax rates as high as 79.2% (see General Electric 2015).

So before you start crowing about how "the little guy will pick up the bill" you ought to spend some time perusing some 10K fillings so you can understand the extent that shareholders (many of whom are "the little guy") are ALREADY being unjustly looted by government and that it's high time the business that provide all the goodies that make your standard of living possible AND provide that paycheck to wage earners AND provide the retirement nest eggs many people do or will rely on need a tax break if they're to remain competitive and provide investor returns that are worthwhile.

 

[NightFox]

Can anyone provide a real life example of a big company actually paying the top biz rate ?

Aggregate tax rates? (including local, state, federal and international)

General Electric total corporate tax rate 2015: 79.2%

If you're talking just federal corporate income taxes and nothing else I suspect it would be difficult to find any company paying the statutory maximum.

General Electric paid zero for years as long as their CEO was working for Obama.

ROFLMAO, Why doesn't surprise me that you don't the difference between 79.2% and ZERO, or is that you don't understand that federal corporate income taxes are not the only taxes that corporations have to pay?

You must be one of Senator Speaks with Forked Tongue-D MA pals, huh? You and her pissed because you couldn't confiscate the remaining 20.8 cents on the dollar that GE shareholders managed to eke out after government got done raping & pillaging them?

And again you assume I don't know that......you sniveling little shit....

LOL, more ad hominem, you got anything else in your arsenal, like something approximating an actual argument based on reason and evidence?

We are talking about federal coprorate taxes after all, aren’t we???

I was, however you've made it clear that you don't know what you're talking about on any subject that's been brought up in this thread nor does it appear that you possess anything approximating an ability to read with comprehension or respond in a coherent fashion, perhaps your expertise lies elsewhere, logical fallacies perhaps? .

 

[mudwhistle]

How deceptive of you.

The top rate is over 38%

LOL, Do You need help with understanding the word EFFECTIVE or sumptin' ?

What will be the effective tax rate when the legal rate is lowered to 15%?

We don't have enough details (yet) to say exactly BUT the intention is clear to eliminate deductions and loopholes namely; narrow the spread between the statutory corporate rate and the effective corporate rate. Ideally the spread would be ZERO but that cannot be determined without reviewing the actual language in the legislation, all we know at this point is that if this were to become law (BIG if) that the average effective rate wouldn't be higher than 15%.

First off, corporations do not pay the full 35% rate...by the time they take all the allowed benefits of deductions, their rate hovers around 15-14%. Imagine what the purposed 15% will do....the vacuum on our economy will be devastating and once again, the little guy will pick up the bill.

Perhaps you should spend more time reading what was actually written instead of responding to what you *think* was written, nobody stated or even implied that corporations pay the statutory federal corporate rate, in fact I explicitly stated that the clear intention of lower rates and eliminating deductions and loopholes was to narrow the spread between the statutory rate and the effective rate, do you understand what that means? and the average effective federal corporate income tax rate right now is around 19% (as I've already pointed out in this thread) with the average effective federal income tax rate for the SP500 coming in around 28%, and that is JUST FEDERAL CORPORATE INCOME TAXES, these businesses pay a slew of other taxes at the local, state, federal and international levels some having aggregate tax rates as high as 79.2% (see General Electric 2015).

So before you start crowing about how "the little guy will pick up the bill" you ought to spend some time perusing some 10K fillings so you can understand the extent that shareholders (many of whom are "the little guy") are ALREADY being unjustly looted by government and that it's high time the business that provide all the goodies that make your standard of living possible AND provide that paycheck to wage earners AND provide the retirement nest eggs many people do or will rely on need a tax break if they're to remain competitive and provide investor returns that are worthwhile.

Well, jerking off to economic books is a favorite pasttime to you I guess. Yah know, reading about the differences between statuary rates and effective rates really pumps my nads.
Actually I've seen your kind of tactics for too many years to put up with it any more.
You leftist assholes pulled the same shit with Obamacare, the Iran deal, and everything else that you got away with.
We don't give a flying fuck what you have to say anymore.

This is the the way people are now.
If you start talking about Trump by minimizing everything he does, people are going to shut you off.
We're tired of you cocksuckers and we don't care what you have to say regardless if there's a grain of truth to it. You have lost us for good.
We know you're lying.
End of story.

 

[mudwhistle]

Can anyone provide a real life example of a big company actually paying the top biz rate ?

Aggregate tax rates? (including local, state, federal and international)

General Electric total corporate tax rate 2015: 79.2%

If you're talking just federal corporate income taxes and nothing else I suspect it would be difficult to find any company paying the statutory maximum.

General Electric paid zero for years as long as their CEO was working for Obama.

ROFLMAO, Why doesn't surprise me that you don't the difference between 79.2% and ZERO, or is that you don't understand that federal corporate income taxes are not the only taxes that corporations have to pay?

You must be one of Senator Speaks with Forked Tongue-D MA pals, huh? You and her pissed because you couldn't confiscate the remaining 20.8 cents on the dollar that GE shareholders managed to eke out after government got done raping & pillaging them?

And again you assume I don't know that......you sniveling little shit....

LOL, more ad hominem, you got anything else in your arsenal, like something approximating an actual argument based on reason and evidence?

We are talking about federal coprorate taxes after all, aren’t we???

I was, however you've made it clear that you don't know what you're talking about on any subject that's been brought up in this thread nor does it appear that you possess anything approximating an ability to read with comprehension or respond in a coherent fashion, perhaps your expertise lies elsewhere, logical fallacies perhaps? .

Blah blah blah blah blah.........

 

[JoeNormal]

Well, with corporate tax rates going down, they will have less incentive to invest in tax deductible R&D and expansion, so it will make sense if business expansion and job growth slows.

Umm.. decisions regarding investment are based on risk/reward not solely whether or not it's deductible, a lower effective rate generally speaking means higher returns (reward) and thus (in many cases) makes investment more likely.

In other words... if I invest X amount today for Y amount of returns tomorrow, with lower effective rates Y has a lower tax exposure and thus a higher reward over the lifetime of the investment.

If I only get to deduct X once (or depreciate it over a schedule) but have to pay a higher effective rate on Y over the lifetime of the investment then the reward (possibly) isn't going to be as attractive versus the risk.

It really depends on the details of the nature of the investment and the current financial position of the company in question but IMHO more than likely it would stimulate CapEx in the aggregate.

but IMHO more than likely it would stimulate CapEx in the aggregate.

Those capital expenditures may actually cost jobs if spent on automation technologies.

That's certainly possible, however automation itself creates jobs since somebody has to design, engineer, build, sell and maintain the machines, so while automation *may* result in a net loss of jobs it's not certain and often the result is higher paying (and more stable) jobs. The other consideration is that automation most often leads to higher productivity which increases economic output thus making the economic pie bigger for everybody.

Those of us who've made a career out of increasing efficiency via technological means are disgusted that upper management have sucked up the fruits of that efficiency for themselves.

 

[NightFox]

Well, with corporate tax rates going down, they will have less incentive to invest in tax deductible R&D and expansion, so it will make sense if business expansion and job growth slows.

Umm.. decisions regarding investment are based on risk/reward not solely whether or not it's deductible, a lower effective rate generally speaking means higher returns (reward) and thus (in many cases) makes investment more likely.

In other words... if I invest X amount today for Y amount of returns tomorrow, with lower effective rates Y has a lower tax exposure and thus a higher reward over the lifetime of the investment.

If I only get to deduct X once (or depreciate it over a schedule) but have to pay a higher effective rate on Y over the lifetime of the investment then the reward (possibly) isn't going to be as attractive versus the risk.

It really depends on the details of the nature of the investment and the current financial position of the company in question but IMHO more than likely it would stimulate CapEx in the aggregate.

but IMHO more than likely it would stimulate CapEx in the aggregate.

Those capital expenditures may actually cost jobs if spent on automation technologies.

That's certainly possible, however automation itself creates jobs since somebody has to design, engineer, build, sell and maintain the machines, so while automation *may* result in a net loss of jobs it's not certain and often the result is higher paying (and more stable) jobs. The other consideration is that automation most often leads to higher productivity which increases economic output thus making the economic pie bigger for everybody.

Those of us who've made a career out of increasing efficiency via technological means are disgusted that upper management have sucked up the fruits of that efficiency for themselves.

Is that your way of saying that you think your employer under-compensates you for your labor?