william the wie
Gold Member
- Nov 18, 2009
- 16,667
- 2,402
- 280
How many trillions in revenue will it produce immediately and how much of an increase on an annual basis.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How many trillions in revenue will it produce immediately and how much of an increase on an annual basis.
True for employment which is why it is not the backbone of tax revenue.The backbone of private sector employment is small business, not GE, IBM, or Ford Motors.....
That is the crux of the problem though - those massive companies do not pay a real tax rate when all of their possible competition is saddled with those rates. That needs to change.How many trillions in revenue will it produce immediately and how much of an increase on an annual basis.
See all the 'private rulings' based on the tax code; the 'official' tax rates are a hoax as far as big companies go. GE for instance makes large profits of several billion dollars from their tax filings, effectively paying a negative tax rate, and many are already paying zero taxes now, despite all the wailing to the contrary. Some, like utilities and pipeline companies, are, or were until recently, allowed to collect Federal taxes from customers, but not have to give the revenue to the Feds after running it through master partnership set ups, as another example. Like Leona Helmsley once said, 'taxes are for the little people'. The real life tax rates in the U.S. are already comparable and even less than most countries.
So, no, it won't increase revenue, and certainly not anywhere near the 'trillions' number.
If you have never heard of 'private letter rulings', they are those special corporate and company bennies and the like that get buried in nearly every Bill passed by the Federal Legislatures, bought by lobbyists and usually only apply to specific industries and even just for individual companies that nobody else gets to use to reduce their taxes. The tax code looks 'all huge and complex n stuff', but for most people it isn't, as they aren't in the least affected by most of the arcana in it, they don't qualify for most of it. 'Private letter rulings' are for use strictly between the corporations concerned, and the general public is completely unaware of their existence at all.
The numbers of these 'private letter rulings' is vast, and decades of them exist:
Tax Information for Federal, State, and Local Governments
And, they're protected by secrecy laws re tax returns, so no one can ever find out what is in them.
Information for Governmental Liaisons
I agree but McConnel has the bill ready for Trump's desk as soon as the new congress is seated.That is the crux of the problem though - those massive companies do not pay a real tax rate when all of their possible competition is saddled with those rates. That needs to change.How many trillions in revenue will it produce immediately and how much of an increase on an annual basis.
See all the 'private rulings' based on the tax code; the 'official' tax rates are a hoax as far as big companies go. GE for instance makes large profits of several billion dollars from their tax filings, effectively paying a negative tax rate, and many are already paying zero taxes now, despite all the wailing to the contrary. Some, like utilities and pipeline companies, are, or were until recently, allowed to collect Federal taxes from customers, but not have to give the revenue to the Feds after running it through master partnership set ups, as another example. Like Leona Helmsley once said, 'taxes are for the little people'. The real life tax rates in the U.S. are already comparable and even less than most countries.
So, no, it won't increase revenue, and certainly not anywhere near the 'trillions' number.
If you have never heard of 'private letter rulings', they are those special corporate and company bennies and the like that get buried in nearly every Bill passed by the Federal Legislatures, bought by lobbyists and usually only apply to specific industries and even just for individual companies that nobody else gets to use to reduce their taxes. The tax code looks 'all huge and complex n stuff', but for most people it isn't, as they aren't in the least affected by most of the arcana in it, they don't qualify for most of it. 'Private letter rulings' are for use strictly between the corporations concerned, and the general public is completely unaware of their existence at all.
The numbers of these 'private letter rulings' is vast, and decades of them exist:
Tax Information for Federal, State, and Local Governments
And, they're protected by secrecy laws re tax returns, so no one can ever find out what is in them.
Information for Governmental Liaisons
Trump, being the big business man that he is and utilizing asinine tax breaks that should not exist but not eliminating them in his proposed tax plan, will not address this IMHO so changes that he makes will not do squat. I hope I am wrong in this though. In all honesty, the revenue from proposed tax changes does not really matter to me. The real change that needs to happen is in removing the crony capitalism that we currently experience and returning it to something closer to an actual free market.
A tax bill that reduces the overall rate.I agree but McConnel has the bill ready for Trump's desk as soon as the new congress is seated.That is the crux of the problem though - those massive companies do not pay a real tax rate when all of their possible competition is saddled with those rates. That needs to change.How many trillions in revenue will it produce immediately and how much of an increase on an annual basis.
See all the 'private rulings' based on the tax code; the 'official' tax rates are a hoax as far as big companies go. GE for instance makes large profits of several billion dollars from their tax filings, effectively paying a negative tax rate, and many are already paying zero taxes now, despite all the wailing to the contrary. Some, like utilities and pipeline companies, are, or were until recently, allowed to collect Federal taxes from customers, but not have to give the revenue to the Feds after running it through master partnership set ups, as another example. Like Leona Helmsley once said, 'taxes are for the little people'. The real life tax rates in the U.S. are already comparable and even less than most countries.
So, no, it won't increase revenue, and certainly not anywhere near the 'trillions' number.
If you have never heard of 'private letter rulings', they are those special corporate and company bennies and the like that get buried in nearly every Bill passed by the Federal Legislatures, bought by lobbyists and usually only apply to specific industries and even just for individual companies that nobody else gets to use to reduce their taxes. The tax code looks 'all huge and complex n stuff', but for most people it isn't, as they aren't in the least affected by most of the arcana in it, they don't qualify for most of it. 'Private letter rulings' are for use strictly between the corporations concerned, and the general public is completely unaware of their existence at all.
The numbers of these 'private letter rulings' is vast, and decades of them exist:
Tax Information for Federal, State, and Local Governments
And, they're protected by secrecy laws re tax returns, so no one can ever find out what is in them.
Information for Governmental Liaisons
Trump, being the big business man that he is and utilizing asinine tax breaks that should not exist but not eliminating them in his proposed tax plan, will not address this IMHO so changes that he makes will not do squat. I hope I am wrong in this though. In all honesty, the revenue from proposed tax changes does not really matter to me. The real change that needs to happen is in removing the crony capitalism that we currently experience and returning it to something closer to an actual free market.
That is the crux of the problem though - those massive companies do not pay a real tax rate when all of their possible competition is saddled with those rates. That needs to change.
Trump, being the big business man that he is and utilizing asinine tax breaks that should not exist but not eliminating them in his proposed tax plan, will not address this IMHO so changes that he makes will not do squat.
I hope I am wrong in this though. In all honesty, the revenue from proposed tax changes does not really matter to me. The real change that needs to happen is in removing the crony capitalism that we currently experience and returning it to something closer to an actual free market.
It is wrong to charge taxes on profits made overseas. Of course we should be allowing them to deduct taxes on those earnings. They are not allowed to do so with items sold here.That is the crux of the problem though - those massive companies do not pay a real tax rate when all of their possible competition is saddled with those rates. That needs to change.
Yes, and tax bennies and subsidies for their competition to move their productiivity overseas is a number one priority. Most people don't realize those off-shoring companies are being subsidized; the 'maquilas' in Mexico and Central America, for instance, had their power, sewer, and other infrastructure built via U.S. programs like USAID. It wouldn't have been remotely viable for most of these companies to relocate their plants there if it weren't tied to taxpayers making them viable locations. As for countries like China, tax breaks and the various breaks given for overseas earnings are also ridiculous, and one reason tax rates go up here is because companies are being subsidized to move, reducing our own tax base and wages, and screwing the country on both ends, but these companies still want the ports and highways and all the rest of the goodies here but don't want to contribute to the tax bases necessary to keep that stuff functional.
Why should we be allowing companies to deduct other countries' taxes from what they report here? That is stupid from the get go; we aren't obligated to subsidize some foreign country's tax base at the expense of our own.
We have seen a portion of his returns and it was enough to know that he utilized a real estate break that should not exist.Trump, being the big business man that he is and utilizing asinine tax breaks that should not exist but not eliminating them in his proposed tax plan, will not address this IMHO so changes that he makes will not do squat.
Haven't seen his returns so don't know what he did, the mainstream media has less than zero credibility with me so I believe nothing they report any more, but amortizing losses over time doesn't seem outrageous to me, though like most tax laws I don't doubt at all that can be abused and warped.
Sure there is a quick fix - flat rate taxation. Even consumption tax would be a 'quick' fix though I prefer a flat tax plan. It could be fixed in a year no matter how long the corrupt system has been in work. It has not been 200 years though - direct taxation is barely a century old.I hope I am wrong in this though. In all honesty, the revenue from proposed tax changes does not really matter to me. The real change that needs to happen is in removing the crony capitalism that we currently experience and returning it to something closer to an actual free market.
It took 200 years of assorted corruption and cronyism to get the tax codes and regulatory dysfunction where it is today, so there isn't a quick fix, especially when the general public doesn't really care outside of a few minutes of whining at election time, citizenship is a verb, a government has to be watched all the time when the people are responsible for how well it functions, but most people overwhelmingly neglect it, then turn around and complain about the hired help.
In essence, he did not amortize actual losses but rather amortized GAINS that he was allowed to claim as losses. That particular piece of the tax code is not only insane but it is exactly flipped for average people - had someone been in a similar situation with their house rather than his casino they would actually OWE taxes.
He had a casino that went bankrupt and claimed a loss of just under a billion on it. IF he had invested a billion to build the property then such a deduction makes sense - he would have lost that money. That is not how these project work however - the vast majority of that initial cost to build the business would have been in loans. Loans that would have been forgiven as part of a bankruptcy. IOW, his business interests did not actually lose that money, the banks did. He claimed it though and that is totally legal.In essence, he did not amortize actual losses but rather amortized GAINS that he was allowed to claim as losses. That particular piece of the tax code is not only insane but it is exactly flipped for average people - had someone been in a similar situation with their house rather than his casino they would actually OWE taxes.
Please explain.