To keep the businesses that here, here, before they go the way of the others who have left. Counterpoint is - if you want to tax corporations to pay for entitlements, how do you do that if the companies leave?
Let's keep in mind what it means to "leave". Just means locating their headquarters overseas. The vast majority of multinational companies don't pay any U.S. corporate tax. U.S. domestic companies aren't going to go overseas with the current corporate tax rate. And lowering the tax rate won't bring companies like Apple back as they already pay 0 in taxes being HQ's in ireland. In other words, all this does is if companies here a tax break - companies that are already making historic profits and NOT spending it on jobs or raising employee salary
I'm not really sure what would be worse Republicans: the blowback against them for actually passing a tax plan that overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy at the expense of a wide variety of deductions that primarily benefit the middle class or the blowback for not passing a tax plan at all and having failed at accomplishing anything related to their two biggest agenda items (healthcare and tax reform).
Why did apple go to Ireland? Its not about bringing some back...its about to keeping some here. There are companies who have left recently. I think my company re-domiciled as late as 2014.
Well in the past four years, manufacturing production within the US has increased yet manufacturing jobs in that same time decreased. Jobs leaving or disappearing has more to do with that fact which is automation. The job creators in this country are holding on to a all time high in allocated wealth. If they aren't creating more jobs now, they never will create more jobs. Again, what's the end game of wanting retain corporations within the US? Jobs rland GDP growth right? So, if there is no precedent of lower corporate tax rates having a positive effect on job and GDP growth, than why bother? Why bother making the wealthiest humans in mankind history more wealthy? Isn't like half our grade school public education absolute trash? Why decrease tax revenue to fix these issues just so the wealthy can pocket more? Oh ya, lobbyists.
My favorite is that teachers will no longer be able to deduct supplies they buy for their classrooms due to their school districts having too little money. So now, a teacher making nearly minimum wage (or worse, per hour spent grading, lesson-planning, etc.) will just eat the expense of materials if they care about their students. LOL. Closing that loophole really sticks it to the rich.
Because half of a billion is better than 0. If they leave, you can't tax them at all. If they stay, you can squeeze out of them what you can. Its a balancing act. I want to point out I haven't agreed or disagreed with this tax plan, but just pointing out that there is some merit to lowering corporate taxes. Heck, even Burger King is now located outside of the US (Canada) and saved millions in taxes for doing it.
Half a century of case study suggests there is no merit behind it. If I was a wealthy titan of industry I too would try to dupe normal citizens into the notion that I need more wealth to create jobs for you so lower my tax rates.
I'm not discussing job creation. For like the 3rd time. I'm only discussing taxes, the effect that has on some companies heading offshore, and the fact that the US then doesn't get that tax revenue. That's it. And there are plenty of cases of US companies heading offshore in order to minimize their taxes. Some of which were discussed in this thread.
Dear lord, then what is the point of lowering the corporate tax rate? Is it a fiscal responsibility move then? Is it to decrease our deficit? Ya the CBO rated this plan as as increasing our deficit by 1.8 trillion dollars over the course of the next decade. So why lower the corporate tax rate again? What is it going to accomplish?
It is an attempt to keep companies from leaving the US. This doesn't mean that they're picking up their employees too (since you'll bring up job creation again). It seems like, just an attempt to be able to keep companies in the US, so you can tax them. If they headquarter elsewhere, you're not going to get as much tax out of them. So, you can say get half of something, or get 0 of something. So, it is possible, that the deficit goes up with these tax breaks (especially if you don't stop spending), but it is also possible that that is the best case scenario, in the long run. What I mean by that is...what if, slowly companies continue to leave. That also creates a deficit, right? So how long do you let it bleed before you try to do something to stop it? Do you just keep raising taxes until the well is dry? Then it is too late. Again, I didn't say it was right. There are much smarter people than I who do that for a living. I'm just giving some opinions on the corporate structures and the thoughts that go on in the meetings when discussing tax strategies. It is a legitimate strategy for companies to re-domicile outside of the US, to lower their tax burden. And then do that to stay competitive with their peers.
You do know our effective corporate tax rate is on par with the average corporate tax rate of developed nation's right? Ignore the nominal amount. Pay attention to the effective amount. The US would have to compete with literal tax havens which even the most die hard conservative would not even consider.
Should we have 0% for federal tax like we used to do? It looks like most conservatives are happy with that option.
My opinion is that the Republicans in Congress are afraid of what will happen to them in the primaries if they don't pass something. If they don't pass this huge budget busting money grab for the wealthiest Americans, they fear for their primary. If they do, they damn well better fear for the results of the general election. This tax bill is one of the most blatant attempts to screw the middle class and line the pockets of the 1% that I've ever seen, and I've been around for a while. The bill screws the middle class, teachers, among others, that are trying to stay in the middle class, members of the middle class trying to purchase homes, the retiring baby boomers, children, and so much more. The list is shockingly long. The tax bill? Shockingly, brutally bad. That's going to sink in to the middle class. It is already.
I don't think you have to equal those amounts to be competitive (I've said this before). But if you do literally nothing (except raise taxes), then that's bad too. I would think there is some middle ground. But people don't want middle ground. Everyone wants everything. They want lower taxes, and to get free healthcare, and to have someone else pay for it. A lot of European countries tax both individuals and corporations higher than the US. But no one in here is arguing that individuals should also have higher taxes (except for rich individuals, of course). I think in Germany if you're making more than about 52K Euro (60K USD) the rate is 42%. If someone tried that in the US, they'd have death threats. So you either have it all (and tax everyone to get it), or you have some and save some. But you can't have it all, and expect someone else to pay for it, then get mad when those people don't like it. America is kind of stuck trying to please everyone, but it can't.
I want to increase the effective tax rate for a group of humans who are holding on to the most wealth in mankind history. I want more money in the pockets of every day consumers so they can increase demand of products and services which will actually allow corporations to expand and create jobs. I want to see the increased tax revenue along with a slashed military budget pay for education and infrastructure.
You can raise their taxes and they would still be insanely more wealthy than me. And who is complaining about being duped? Please cite whatever it is you are talking about there. Thanks.
Sigh. Did anyone say anything about reducing the wealth of the top 1 percent to that of an average middle class individual? Wtf are you talking about? Why would a group of humans that are currently sitting on the most wealth in mankind history need a tax break? Why? Please tell me. This country needs tax revenue. Why increase the deficit just so a group of humans sitting on the most wealth ever in mankind history sit on even more wealth?
As a husband of the teacher I’ll say it wasn’t a ton of money (200 bucks) but it’s a small consolation for the hundreds of dollars we shell out every year on supplies and just overall stuff that makes her a decent teacher. And that’s in a higher end school district. We know teachers that teach in DISD that literally have to buy their own paper some times. If Democrats don’t make this a “meals on wheels” type of shock message they are just bad at politics.
