well, one party certainly seems to spend a lot of time doing so, and it's the one that's trumpeting "CEO presidents". Yes, yes, Laffer Curve. However, most evidence indicates America is not at the point of optimum revenue, and that's because tax rates are too low.
Those corporations are being taxed in which the country they are in. If you worked at home 100% of the time, would you rather a 0% state income tax in Texas or be taxed at a New York rate? The same applies to corporations. Would you rather a record 35% rate in the US or 12.5% in Ireland? What youre suggesting is taxing 35% US corp. rate AND the 12.5% Ireland corp. rate for a 47.5%. That is not going to happen. Nor will they move their profits to the US. They will simply move their corporate headquarters to Ireland and continue business in the US. What the liberals want to do is remove many of the 'loopholes' and deductions against corporations. Yes, I agree that any profits in the US should be taxed. Until the US competes with the rest of the industrialized nations for tax rates, major corporations will get more drastic to avoid these taxes. In the end, its the smaller corporations who get hurt. But who cares, lets punish those greedy corporations.
What, specifically, have you read? Most of the details haven't even been worked out yet. As a general rule, economists on both the left & the right believe that lowering rates and broadening the base is a good thing. All it does is take power away from those that benefit from the loopholes or behavior-specific policies. The right is b****ing that the revenue increases are real while the spending cuts are fake; the left is b****ing that the spending cuts are real while the revenue increases are fake. All you're seeing is everything repeating their talking points about the other party from the last 20 years. The reality is that if this deal passes, it will be both painful and beneficial - no one is going to be happy with it. And that's the only way to address all the pieces of the puzzle (SS, Medicare, Defense, and Taxes).
Except that, as we are now seeing, locating in a country that doesn't actually collect much in taxes means that your country might just collapse, which will cause major damage to your company.
If the loopholes in the US allow corporations to pay 0% and get bailouts from the govt. Then they will choose the US all the time. If businesses went strictly on the tax rate then the US wouldn't be the business center that is. Ireland would be much more of a business center, but it isn't, compared to the US.
Are you finally starting to see the big picture? Most corporations are not mega billion dollar corporations who do massive amounts of overseas work. Prematurely closing 'loopholes' and removing deductions to punish these mega corporations only hurt the smaller corporations. These are the same corporations who are paying the full 35% and our government leaders are threatening to gain further revenue from them. And you still wonder why they won't hire? Corporations are in existent to make a profit, not to provide for the better good of mankind. They do this by careful planning and efficiency, not excessive spending, blind risk taking and wasteful spending. They want to know the rules of the game but our current administration is too busy painting them as greedy villains. If our government leaders actually had to run a for-profit business, then they might understand how important it is to know what to expect in the coming years.
True. I think there needs to be a distinction in people's minds when it comes to corporations that not all of them are these multinational corps that are publicly traded entities making the news for lax tax issues like GE. Most corporations are in fact local businesses that employ between 10 and 100 employees. These are the true job generators in this country and threatening them with additional taxation is quite the double edged sword. I think the tax code should be rewritten to take away tax deductions that the local corps can not take advantage of. Not familiar enough with the tax code but i'm quite sure they exist-like helicopters/jets/limos being eligible for a write off. I think there should also be caps on what value car (unless it's an 18wheeler/heavy equipment) can be depreciated-I know of a biz owner that buys himself a 125k BMW and depreciates them ~35k a year for the write off and then buys a new one three years later; this is the type of economic behavior we should not subsidize. Both parties need to distinguish in the voter's eyes who the 'bad guys' are exactly. The ACE hardware down the street pays federal taxes, GE does not (per recent reports).
I think the real reason why they won't hire has more to do with the fact that the consumers aren't spending. The consumers need stimulating more than the corporations need tax breaks. If people are spending and consuming, the corporations will hire. Meanwhile every one is sacrificing and hurting, and that should be shared.
And? That doesn't help America. I'm interested in continuing to help America. America wants to help America, which is why we tax you no matter where you make your $$. Giving corporations another incentive to make more $$ outside of the country doesn't help us as much. We like to keep our jobs here. Do you prefer jobs to stay here or go overseas? Do you prefer us to get the bulk of tax $$ or another country? Of course that doesn't impact the companies that don't do global stuff. But for the big boys with the capabilities to move acticity elsewhere, not taxing on foreign income is a big win. BIG!!
I read it in the opening post. The plan would simplify the tax code by reducing the number of tax brackets from six to three, lowering the top rate from 35 percent to somewhere between 23 percent and 29 percent. That could provide a windfall for wealthy taxpayers because the 35 percent tax bracket currently applies to taxable income above $379,150. To help pay for lower rates, the plan would reduce popular tax breaks for mortgage interest, health insurance, charitable giving and retirement savings. Other tax breaks would be spared, including the $1,000-per-child tax credit and the earned income tax credit, which helps the working poor stay out of poverty. The alternative minimum tax, which was enacted in 1969 to make sure that high-income families pay at least some income tax, would be repealed. The tax was never indexed for inflation, so Congress routinely patches it each year — at an annual cost of about $70 billion — to prevent it from hitting more than 20 million middle-income families. I read that as the middle class getting screwed and the wealthy coming up roses yet again. How else would you describe it? The President has had great things to say about this plan. Yes, the myriad details have yet to be seen, but to hell with letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire... this is a much better deal for the wealthy. The "tax breaks" being proposed for trimming are tax breaks used by millions of middle class Americans. The AMT change mentioned is nothing. It gets changed every year, anyway. Sorry that it took a while to respond, Major. I've been very busy. I'm sure this isn't the only thing I've needed to respond to and haven't.