Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Part of the tax reform is reducing corporate taxes to 20%.
Many of you truly economic illiterates don't understand the gigantic economic benefit of this one single change.
A new report finds that around the world the extremely wealthy have accumulated at least $21 trillion in secretive offshore accounts. Super Rich Hide $21 Trillion Offshore, Study Says
So if the USA by lowering corporate taxes is able to repatriate just 10% or $2 trillion back to the USA what would be
the effect?
Let's assume of the $2 trillion it breaks down this way:
$1 trillion is re-invested in the stock market, bank accounts US treasuries you name it.
Leaves $1 trillion.
Let's assume then $500 billion is used to hire people for 10 years at $50,000 per year.
Well as most of the economic illiterates don't know, an employer pays an equal % for SS/Medicare 6.2%
So let's add to the $50,000 another $3,000 and round up to $60,000 for benefits,SS/Medicare,etc.
That means of the $500 billion divided by 10 years $50 billion a year or divided by $60,000 or total of 800,000 jobs.
That $50 billion in payroll means in Federal taxes: 12.4% SS/Medicare/income taxes: $18.7 billion to Federal govt.
Now the multiplier effect comes in to play:http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf
"Every $1 million spent is multiplied by 1.18 or $50 billion spent by employees: $60 billion back into the GDP.
Now this is JUST from hiring 800,000 people for 10 years.
Net gains therefore to the Federal government:
$187 billion in tax revenue alone in 10 years.
GDP increasing over $600 billion in 10 years.
AND this is just from 1/4th left of the $2 trillion repatriated.
Now if you economic illiterates want some further validation for what this means from the other 3/4ths of
the $2 trillion repatriated please ask as it gets EVEN better i.e. the multiplier EFFECT!!!
Prove me wrong .... PLEASE!!!
While I agree that reducing the corporate tax is a huge benefit, a 20% corporate tax is still too much. It needs to be 0%.Part of the tax reform is reducing corporate taxes to 20%.
Many of you truly economic illiterates don't understand the gigantic economic benefit of this one single change.
A new report finds that around the world the extremely wealthy have accumulated at least $21 trillion in secretive offshore accounts. Super Rich Hide $21 Trillion Offshore, Study Says
So if the USA by lowering corporate taxes is able to repatriate just 10% or $2 trillion back to the USA what would be
the effect?
Let's assume of the $2 trillion it breaks down this way:
$1 trillion is re-invested in the stock market, bank accounts US treasuries you name it.
Leaves $1 trillion.
Let's assume then $500 billion is used to hire people for 10 years at $50,000 per year.
Well as most of the economic illiterates don't know, an employer pays an equal % for SS/Medicare 6.2%
So let's add to the $50,000 another $3,000 and round up to $60,000 for benefits,SS/Medicare,etc.
That means of the $500 billion divided by 10 years $50 billion a year or divided by $60,000 or total of 800,000 jobs.
That $50 billion in payroll means in Federal taxes: 12.4% SS/Medicare/income taxes: $18.7 billion to Federal govt.
Now the multiplier effect comes in to play:http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf
"Every $1 million spent is multiplied by 1.18 or $50 billion spent by employees: $60 billion back into the GDP.
Now this is JUST from hiring 800,000 people for 10 years.
Net gains therefore to the Federal government:
$187 billion in tax revenue alone in 10 years.
GDP increasing over $600 billion in 10 years.
AND this is just from 1/4th left of the $2 trillion repatriated.
Now if you economic illiterates want some further validation for what this means from the other 3/4ths of
the $2 trillion repatriated please ask as it gets EVEN better i.e. the multiplier EFFECT!!!
Prove me wrong .... PLEASE!!!
[/QUOTE]
While I agree that reducing the corporate tax is a huge benefit, a 20% corporate tax is still too much. It needs to be 0%.
The day a corporation has the right to vote in elections is the day it its income should be taxed.
Furthermore, progressively taxing income, which is a communist objective, ignores human nature, just like all communists are childishly naive about how human nature makes Utopia, or anything even close to it, impossible. Progressive taxation comes with a built-in diminishing return on productivity. The harder you work, the less you get to keep.
A method that better accommodates human nature is taxing the use of money (sales tax), rather than taxing the acquisition thereof (income tax).
I don't understand why this is not universally agreed. Why is it so hard for people to understand how money works? You can be sitting on an island of money, but it does you no good until you use it.
Under a sales-tax scheme, nobody evades or avoids. There are no Tax Expenditures (I'm looking right at you, g5000). Nobody gets to reduce their effective tax rate through loopholes and special interest deductions.
Commie: "Oh, but that's not fair to poor people who are taxed on bare necessities."
In Texas, we have a sales tax at 8.25%, but certain foods and other necessities are tax-free. There goes your "think of the poor" bullshit argument against it.
It also encourages savings. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't spend your money.
But, I digress...
Fuck Corporate Taxes.
Spending is a drain on the economy. Every dollar you spend on government is a dollar not in the economy.
Liberals are always complaining about paying for tax cuts. This is the best solution.
Why would a company or any person in their right mind double pay for something with their own money?
See the far left only wants to cuts military spending, they have no other areas they want to cut!
Then what do you want to cut? Because SS, Medicare/Medicaid, and Defense spending make up about 90% of the total budget.
It's called "reasonable assumption for analysis". It's what intelligent people do.Prove me wrong .... PLEASE!!!
How is that possible when all you've provided is assumptions based on hypotheticals?
We don't even know what the final GOP tax "reform" legislation will look like, let alone what the provisions (if any) for corporate profit repatriation will be, then you're citing an article talking about wealthy individuals and them repatriating overseas money, which is a whole new can of worms that hasn't even been opened in the tax reform debate (yet).
Actually, that's not true. Businessmen make that decision every day. They divert profit (which they could have taken and bought a new snowmobile) into investment - back into their own company every day.The myth that people are not going to try and make more money because the government might take a higher percent of it is just stupid.
No businessperson has ever said "no thanks, that's all the profit I want to make this year".
Wrong!
So then what do you want to cut? List some examples. Because Conservatives have said they would cut Medicare and Medicaid to pay for tax cuts for the rich.
Actually, that's not true. Businessmen make that decision every day. They divert profit (which they could have taken and bought a new snowmobile) into investment - back into their own company every day.
Nice try .... take two unrelated facts and attempt to create an ad hominem argument.We need to lower corporate taxes. They are too high. 20% seems like a good number.
Okay, but where are you going to make up that money from?
It seems to me that if you cut corporate taxes and then raise taxes on working folks by removing their state tax deduction, that's just screwing the middle class to help the rich.
we've seen that done twice, and it never works.
I LOVE IT!!!We need to lower corporate taxes. They are too high. 20% seems like a good number.
Effective rate is around 18% avg. with all the write offs.
With this this give away it will be around 10% - too damn low.
Give away to WHO????
As of June 30, 2017, 401(k) plans held an estimated $5.1 trillion in assets and represented 19 percent of the $26.6 trillion in US retirement assets, which includes employer-sponsored retirement plans (both defined benefit (DB) and defined contribution (DC) plans with private- and public-sector employers), individual ...Jun 30, 2017
ICI - 401(k) Plan Research: FAQs
You dummies! You keep this stupid ass "rich" envy crap and all the while YOUR own 401ks/ retirement assets are growing...THANKS to those EvIL corporations!
Would you idiots for once and for all remember we are in the 21st century not the 20th or 19th with those "evil robber barons" that you still think exist!
Are you aware of these statistics? Of course not! You idiots don't substantiate. Don't take just a few minutes to research.... you just blab and type!
Do some research for once!!
As of the end of 2016, there were a record 10.8 million millionaires
So JUST ONE indicator: 1980... 4,414 taxpayers reported $1 million in gross income;
At the end of 2016... 10,800,000... What kind of ratio is that?
Population USA 1980 226.5 million and the ratio of millionaires to population: 1 millionaire for every 51,314 Americans
1980 Fast Facts - History - U.S. Census Bureau
Population USA 2016 326.9 million and the ratio of millionaires to population 1 Millionaire for every 30 Americans!
U.S. Population (2017, 2018) - Worldometers
So explain to me YOUR idiot remark about WEALTH distribution since 1980???
1980 1 millionaire for every 51,314 Americans!
2016 1 millionaire for every 30 Americans!
Wanting corporations to pay their fair share of the costs of running the country isn’t “rich envy”. It’s fiscal responsibility. As is asking corporations to pay workers a living wage.
Government should not be subsidizing wages for profitable corporations via earned income credits. Nor should they be paying building or relocation expenses for corporations.
Municipalities and states are competing for jobs by offering tax breaks to corporations. The companies get huge tax breaks which state and local taxpayers are forced to make up. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is hardly sound fiscal strategy.
Ignorance abounds.With this this give away it will be around 10% - too damn low.
Allowing people to keep what is theirs isn't a give away.
Wanting corporations to pay their fair share of the costs of running the country isn’t “rich envy”. It’s fiscal responsibility. As is asking corporations to pay workers a living wage.
If you reduce spending then there is less of a share to pay.
Government should not be subsidizing wages for profitable corporations via earned income credits. Nor should they be paying building or relocation expenses for corporations.
I agree we are subsidizing corporations too much.
Part of how we do this is by cutting spending. If someone knows that they can get food stamps for example they will take a job that won't pay all the bills. If someone knows they can't run to the government to make up every expense then the corporations will be forced to pay higher wages because no one will take the low paying jobs
Let’s cut military spending first. The cost of military hardware and equipment is far too high. Let’s negotiate better deals. Close a few bases. Save some money.
Post your proof of your 90% number!
You far left drones have shown you do not understand how the government spending works, especially when you cite SS and Medicare.
Many programs can be cut and ended. End payments to companies that can survive without government assistance.
That example has been used for many years and the far left response has been that Conservatives want to kill big bird.However Big Bird is now on HBO..
Of course, they conveniently ignore the 40%-50% who pay NOTHING. How can NOTHING be your fair share?
Now, there's a piece of perverted logic .... amazing.Actually, that's not true. Businessmen make that decision every day. They divert profit (which they could have taken and bought a new snowmobile) into investment - back into their own company every day.
And why do they do that? Because they don't get taxed on investing the money back into the company. Ergo, higher corporate income taxes encourage business investment to avoid those taxes on profits. So thanks for proving to everyone the exact purpose and justification for high corporate taxes.
But that's not the same thing as a businessperson closing their business before the end of the year because they made too much profit.
Ooh! Ooh! Ask me! Ask me!Post your proof of your 90% number!
Look, I'll concede that it's not 90%. But that still leaves the question of what would you cut unanswered. I expect you to lazily and sloppily just say an arbitrary amount because it's obvious you have no specific ideas because you're as lazy person.
You far left drones have shown you do not understand how the government spending works, especially when you cite SS and Medicare.
In relation to what? How so? What do you mean? Try using a different Russian-to-English internet translator.
Many programs can be cut and ended. End payments to companies that can survive without government assistance.
So you can't even name one program. That's because you're just posturing on this issue. You obviously are just a third-rate propagandist. You should be able to rattle off a list of what you'd cut if you've given it as much thought as you claim. But you can't do that because you are inadequate and insecure in the facts. So all we get is posturing. You have about as much depth as my cat's litter box.
That example has been used for many years and the far left response has been that Conservatives want to kill big bird.However Big Bird is now on HBO..
Yeah, and you know why? Sesame Street had to be sold to HBO because you cut its funding. Now, unless you have HBO or Amazon Prime, you can't have your kid watch it. Now, you may hate Sesame Street personally because they don't represent the troglodyte mouth-breathing, child-molesting Conservatives...so you think it's a good thing moving a public service show to a pay TV entity. But most people see the public good in what Sesame Street does. Don't worry...once you Conservatives are flushed from power, the funding will return and Sesame Street will be available to everyone, not just those whose parents can afford HBO or Amazon Prime.
