• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama seeks 28 percent corp. tax rate

apdst said:
I'm in the trucking business and I qualify for all the same deductions that JB Hunt does. They're deductions run into the millions and mone run into the tens of thousands; therein lies the only difference.

Obviously, a florist isn't going to deduct the purchase of diesel fuel, unless the company owns a diesel fueled vehicle. But, they don't disqualify for a fuel deduction, just because they're not in the transportation business.

Continue to explain how I'm wrong, because you have a long, long way to go.
Click to expand...

you got caught with your pants down, exposing your foolishness
here was the post to which you responded:

Thunder said:
its amazing to see someone say such stupid things. just blows the mind.

how in God's name, could ALL corporations have the same deductions?????????

its like saying ALL people have the same deductions.

where does this **** come from?
Click to expand...
and here is your reply:
Explain to us how all corporations don't. Thaaaaaaaaaaaaaanks!
Click to expand...


fortunately, by now you have figured ALL corporations do NOT enjoy the same deductions



still waiting on your source showing us the average percentage profit of all American businesses


keep running from that because that answer will again embarrass you
 
justabubba said:
you got caught with your pants down, exposing your foolishness
here was the post to which you responded:


and here is your reply:



fortunately, by now you have figured ALL corporations do NOT enjoy the same deductions



still waiting on your source showing us the average percentage profit of all American businesses


keep running from that because that answer will again embarrass you
Click to expand...

You're the one that claimed I'm wrong. Hows-about-you-post-it and prove me wrong.
 
apdst said:
You're the one that claimed I'm wrong. Hows-about-you-post-it and prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

Why do you insist on people proving a negative. You made the claim, it is up to you to support it.
 
Kushinator said:
Why do you insist on people proving a negative. You made the claim, it is up to you to support it.
Click to expand...

What negative do you speak of? It shouldn't be hard to prove how one corporation can be disqualified from taking certain deductions. If, in fact, it were true.

Me thinks you're just as confused as your fellow Libbos.
 
apdst said:
What negative do you speak of? It shouldn't be hard to prove how one corporation can be disqualified from taking certain deductions. If, in fact, it were true.

Me thinks you're just as confused as your fellow Libbos.
Click to expand...

You asked someone to show the negation of the statement, "corporations do not all have the same deductions".
 
Kushinator said:
You asked someone to show the negation of the statement, "corporations do not all have the same deductions".
Click to expand...

"have" the same deductions? No. "qualify" for the same deductions? Yes.

Care to point out where different companies can't qualify for certain deductions?

All companies, no matter what, can deduct the cost of doing business. Please, point out how I'm wrong.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
"have" the same deductions? No. "qualify" for the same deductions? Yes.

Care to point out where different companies can't qualify for certain deductions?

All companies, no matter what, can deduct the cost of doing business. Please, point out how I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

I can prove my statement, and the sentiment being expressed by the group of posters you are attempting to negate.

For companies with assets less than $500,000, total income tax before tax credits for said corporations was $1.622 billion, and after tax credits total income tax for said corporations was $1.582 billion, a reduction of 2.4% total tax liability.

For companies with assets in excess of $2.5 billion, total income tax before tax credits for said corporations was $327 billion, and after tax credits total income tax for said corporations was $232 billion, a reduction of 29% total tax liability.

Source:

Now fess up and admit your error.
 
Kushinator said:
I can prove my statement, and the sentiment being expressed by the group of posters you are attempting to negate.

For companies with assets less than $500,000, total income tax before tax credits for said corporations was $1.622 billion, and after tax credits total income tax for said corporations was $1.582 billion, a reduction of 2.4% total tax liability.

For companies with assets in excess of $2.5 billion, total income tax before tax credits for said corporations was $327 billion, and after tax credits total income tax for said corporations was $232 billion, a reduction of 29% total tax liability.

Source:

Now fess up and admit your error.
Click to expand...

Tell me you're not seriously posting this as a retort. Please?

Umm...hint...we're talking about tax, "deductions", not tax, "credits". You do know the difference. Yes?
 
So, the idiocy of apdst aside (the C in LLC stands for "company", btw), at least both parties embrace the rhetoric of closing loopholes and simplifying taxes. If this move will prevent some corporations from getting away with untold millions, and at the same time, ease some burdens on the ones that actually operate honestly, I'm for it. The point is not, contrary to what conservative hacks think, to tax as much as possible. It's to pay for the things we need. Society is in no way served by a few members making runaway fortunes with no legal oversight, especially when they get that way by bending and breaking the rules.
 
Paschendale said:
So, the idiocy of apdst aside (the C in LLC stands for "company", btw), at least both parties embrace the rhetoric of closing loopholes and simplifying taxes. If this move will prevent some corporations from getting away with untold millions, and at the same time, ease some burdens on the ones that actually operate honestly, I'm for it. The point is not, contrary to what conservative hacks think, to tax as much as possible. It's to pay for the things we need. Society is in no way served by a few members making runaway fortunes with no legal oversight, especially when they get that way by bending and breaking the rules.
Click to expand...

Annnnnd....what is a, "company"?

A corporations, perhaps? A company is incorporated, isn't it?
 
apdst said:
Tell me you're not seriously posting this as a retort. Please?

Umm...hint...we're talking about tax, "deductions", not tax, "credits". You do know the difference. Yes?
Click to expand...

It never ceases does it? Credits reduce taxation burdens far more than deductions, which simply shift brackets. Given that corporate tax brackets are phased out above $335k, credits are the means in which corporations can greatly reduce their total tax burden.

I take it you will never admit your errors, so you may now have the last word.
 
The question I have is this,

In a moderately sized business, would the losses that could be written off be less than the rate savings gained? If not, it is pretty simple to see that this is another lie from Obama the deciever.


j-mac
 
Kushinator said:
It never ceases does it? Credits reduce taxation burdens far more than deductions, which simply shift brackets. Given that corporate tax brackets are phased out above $335k, credits are the means in which corporations can greatly reduce their total tax burden.

I take it you will never admit your errors, so you may now have the last word.
Click to expand...

Credits only go into effect when a company spends money. So yes, they reduce the actual tax bill, but they don't reduce the amount of money that has to come out of a company's bank account.

Money out, is money out.

Do you possibly understand what the, "bottom line", is? I'm thinking...uh...no!
 
apdst said:
Credits only go into effect when a company spends money. So yes, they reduce the actual tax bill, but they don't reduce the amount of money that has to come out of a company's bank account.

Money out, is money out.

Do you possibly understand what the, "bottom line", is? I'm thinking...uh...no!
Click to expand...

The money goes out, but a credit means that you get it back. Rocket science it ain't.
 
I wonder how OWS will respond.
 
AdamT said:
The money goes out, but a credit means that you get it back. Rocket science it ain't.
Click to expand...

Well, not neccessarily. It's like new hire credits that Obama has proposed. He expects a business to spend $30,000+ so as to qualify for a $3,000 tax credit.

So, no, it doesn't mean that you get it back.
 
BTW, the drop from 35 to 28 only affects the top corporate tax rate. Small businesses already get screwed by the corporate tax rate. If a corporation only earns 100,000- 335,000 in taxable income their rate is 39% for income over $100,000 + $22,250.
 
apdst said:
Well, not neccessarily. It's like new hire credits that Obama has proposed. He expects a business to spend $30,000+ so as to qualify for a $3,000 tax credit.

So, no, it doesn't mean that you get it back.
Click to expand...

You have a point there. Obviously you wouldn't take advantage of that credit if you didn't think that the new hires would net you at least $27k + $3,000 + $1.
 
To be honest, I really don't see why we have a corporate tax rate.

Corporations don't pay taxes. They're charged a fee by the government which they pass on to consumers through the price tag. All corporate taxes do is raise prices, make us less competitive abroad, and decrease demand. They hurt the consumer, they hurt the worker, and they hurt the business. I would much rather the corporate tax rate be dropped altogether and have revenue made up through some other, more visible, form of taxes.
 
NAKED N00B said:
To be honest, I really don't see why we have a corporate tax rate.

Corporations don't pay taxes. They're charged a fee by the government which they pass on to consumers through the price tag. All corporate taxes do is raise prices, make us less competitive abroad, and decrease demand. They hurt the consumer, they hurt the worker, and they hurt the business. I would much rather the corporate tax rate be dropped altogether and have revenue made up through some other, more visible, form of taxes.
Click to expand...

Do explain.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Do explain.
Click to expand...

Let's say that a company has $1 million in taxable revenue. A 35% tax rate would have them paying $350,000. That's just another cost to them. That's a cost the same way that their employees' wages are a cost. The same way that materials are a cost. The same way that transportation of goods is a cost. It's all put into what they're going to have to pay. If they sell 1 million units a year, that's an extra 35 cents per unit that they will have to raise the price. If the corporate tax rate was 28%, the cost would be $280,000 and only 28 cents per unit. 10% = 100,000 = 10 cents per unit.

Pretty simple. The lower the costs incurred through corporate taxes, the more freedom corporations have to lower their prices to make them more competitive. That's less money consumers are spending. This has two main benefits.

First, it allows us to compete with other countries with lower corporate tax rates because it brings down our prices compared to theirs. Let's keep going with the example I've given. Ireland has a pretty low corporate tax rate. I think it's around 15%. So if other costs of production are equal, the corporate tax for the Irish corporation adds only 15 cents per unit while the US corporation incurs an extra 35 cents per unit. There are obviously going to be other costs. The cost to ship from Ireland would be much more. There are differences in wages and currency conversion, etc. But for this example we'll ignore that. Just with the corporate tax rate, Ireland beats us by 20 cents per unit, making their products that more attractive. If we lowered it, even to 20-25%, that's enough to compete more effectively with other countries.

Secondly, it creates more demand for the product. Simple supply and demand going on here. If we make the cost for a corporation less and the price drops a similar amount, then demand will rise. It encourages the corporation to produce more. They hire more people. They make more money. They can invest more. There's a huge economic benefit.

With the corporate tax rate, you're really just seeing the costs passed on to consumers through higher prices. If we lower the corporate tax rate we become more competitive and boost production with higher demand for cheaper products.
 
AdamT said:
You have a point there. Obviously you wouldn't take advantage of that credit if you didn't think that the new hires would net you at least $27k + $3,000 + $1.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't hire anyone--tax credit, or no tax credit--if that person wasn't going to net me alot more than what it costs to make their payroll.

Ya see, in business, the objective is to make a profit, not just break even. I realize that notion is alien to most Libbos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom