They'll expand when there is demand for their good/service. Otherwise stock buybacks, dividends, or sitting on the cash makes more sense.
Complexity helps the wealthy. They can afford the accountants and the means to take advantage of the massive amount of deductions. This is why people like Donald Trump pay no to little taxes while the 40 hour employee making 40k-80k a year and living in a rental house gets hammered in taxes. In the mean time, you're worried about an estate tax that only effects .02% of the population. Even if this provision was removed, Democrats would still hate this plan.
I worry about fairness and the economy as a whole. And I especially think we shouldn't repeat failed tax policies. Of course I do not like a plan that is not fair and is repeating failed policies. True, complexity require either very good understanding of all the rules yourself, or ability to hire good CPA and good tax planners. Simple tax returns do not need that and the "simplification" here are all focused toward simple tax returns, not complex returns. In fact, I think it got more complex for busn with additional rules.
I never said it would create jobs. I said the attempt is to stay competitive on a global market. What is the benefit of a company staying here with a high tax rate, if they can do the same elsewhere with a much lower tax rate? The whole point is that you can tax wealth out of the country. That's why you have so many US companies that are domiciled outside of the US. The corporate tax rate is the reason many companies have entities all over the globe. They have complex tax structures in order to push their revenue to other countries. Those countries will gladly take 20% instead of 39+%. That's how they're competing for company's businesses (similar to a city giving a tax break on property tax or whatever for Amazon). I love when people think that companies are profitable, so they should just give the money away. If a company gave away all of their profits, there would be no R&D, no improvements to the company. No one goes into business to break even. Profits are how companies grow. They need to reinvest in themselves in order to create jobs. You can't create a job if you don't have the money to do so. If you had a company and you were breaking even, would you go higher more employees? Perhaps you could break even again, but you could also lose.
I was only speaking from a business standpoint, not a country stand point. Businesses will attempt to go wherever they can make the most money, that's what they're built to do.
So corporations right now hold the highest amount of wealth ever in human history, but a lower corporate rate will magically create jobs. One, show me the precident of this ever occurring in American history Two, in order to 'compete' with foreign corporate tax rates, the US would have to match the LOWEST corporate tax rate or why else bother? It's akin to companies stating that in order for jobs to stay here we must lower the minimum wage. Well, unless we lower the minimum wage to Chinese labor standards, which would be absurd, there would be no point as a lowered minimum wage would still not compete with the lowest common denominator, thus US companies would still find it cheaper to outsource labor to China and India. In order for their to be a tangible effect on corporate tax rates being lowered, it would need to be lowered to one of the lowest common denominator nations that are used as tax havens. Ya, how's that going to effect our deficit? It's a stupid idea and it's never worked. Last time we tried this, we entered the worst recession since the great depression. Corporations find a way to pocket the savings or reinvest it into the stock market which just makes other corporate executives wealthy. Hey, if you are into Yacht manufactering, you might see a boom in your industry from this tax plan so that's a positive. If you want actual growth, increase the pockets of the middle class. They are the ones that generate demand for products and services. Corporations expand their production and services based on demand, not their tax savings.
Exactly. Why don't people understand that corporations expand production and services based in demand of said products or services. You want corporations to expand so they create jobs? Increase demand. You increase demand by giving the consumer class more expendable income.
I just don't understand why a group of people who are holding on to the most wealth in human history need more tax breaks than average American citizen.
The estate tax isn't an income tax, but forget that. That money wasn't necessarily taxed before because of unrealized gains. Due to stepped up basis being received, there may never be income tax on that money. If you invest in real estate, you can fully depreciate it in your lifetime, saving taxes, then leave it to your children with new stepped up basis and sell it tax free. The estate tax exemption is $5.5M, which for a married couple is nearly $11M. That is a large amount of wealth you can leave behind 100% estate tax free.
But removing the personal exemptions, but then creating another tax credit to make up for removing the personal exemption. They really simplified the tax code... The actually complicated parts of the tax code are all left in place. The only good thing about the design is that it would make it harder to cheat on your tax return by decreasing itemized deductions. Of course I say get rid of them all together, lets just not pretend it is a tax cut for the middle class.
Why are people here crying about the rich having to pay more taxes? 2/3 of lost income from SALT deductions came from households making $200,000 or more. Not going to shed a tear.
I agree with corporate tax cuts to remain competitive, but don’t agree with the “spirit” of the proposal. Cut corporate taxes but make up the difference.
Important piece of news haven't seen here yet- The CBO scored the tax plan today. 1.7 trillion added to the deficit. What that means is the bill as it stands cannot get passed with only Republican votes under reconciliation. They'd have to alter the plan to decrease the deficit projections to pass a bill with their majority. So the current bill as it stands would seem to be DOA, but I'm sure they will make those changes to get the score below the 1.5 trillion mark. Fiscal conservatives eh... ahahah.
Because the NET benefit is less taxes for the wealthy. If you haven’t noticed, this plan is about as establishment and “globalist” as they come.
When the wealthiest group of humans ever in human history are receiving larger tax breaks than you and then turn around and complain about not being able to create jobs, maybe you were being dupped by them?
Literally in my response to you, I said that I didn't say it would create jobs. And you came back to job creation. And no, you wouldn't have to match the lowest common denominator to be competitive. IE, you ever buy something for more than somewhere else? There's a reason. There are other things. Ease of transportation, where your competitors are, proximity to vendors and customers. You're stretching what I'm saying. I never even said it would work. I'm just giving you some input on the other side. I work for an international company that has entities and I work closely with our tax team (I do international reporting) and this is something we discuss.
I don't necessarily disagree here. Especially for lower and middle class earners getting an increase in taxes. But, I'm also not going to pretend to know all the in and outs. Maybe we could create a clutchfans poll to see, based on the current tax proposal, if your taxes would go up, remain the same, or go down. Mine would go down slightly, as is, but I don't itemize and have a lot of the stuff that others have.
If the point of lower the corporate tax rate is to create jobs and there is no precedent of lower corporate tax rates creating jobs, then why do it?
