• 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!

U.S. Companies Now Stashing $2 Trillion Overseas

ReverendHellh0und said:
That is "Effective" it was accounted for. ;)
Click to expand...

Your list doesn't support your argument about how high our tax rates are on MNC's. The best nations were tax havens like the Cayman Islands, with no real industry to speak of and crappy economies. the next few were nations like Malaysia, which also have economies americans would revolt over if we had that here. The nations comparable to ours (ie developed western economies) had effective rates on MNC's that were, at most, only a few % points lower than ours.

Obviously, those few % points have little to do with it and our economy is doing better than theirs, so maybe they should raise their rates.
 
Last edited:
California used to have one of the best economies in the states....what happened?

Why are companies moving out of that state and into friendlier tax states?

Do you suppose that our tax policies as a nation are doing the same basic thing?

Think on it......
 
imagep said:
Someone has to pay taxes. If we eliminated corporate taxes, we would have to increase individual income taxes, and the net effect on the economy would be just the same.
Click to expand...

Anyone awake on any single day of Economics 101 knows that is not true.
 
gdgyva said:
California used to have one of the best economies in the states....what happened?

Why are companies moving out of that state and into friendlier tax states?

Do you suppose that our tax policies as a nation are doing the same basic thing?

Think on it......
Click to expand...

lack of water
 
sangha said:
We also have the world's strongest economy
Click to expand...

Hmm, perhaps. I think last weeks election results was based on what was perceived as a weak economy. I am not a financial guru, so I can't really tell you yes or no. I can google and find things, but for this election whether we have the worlds strongest economy or not, it is the perception of the voters that count.

Is 40% too much, I do not know. But when looking at the norms it does seem high. that is the end of my expertise.
 
Perotista said:
Hmm, perhaps. I think last weeks election results was based on what was perceived as a weak economy. I am not a financial guru, so I can't really tell you yes or no. I can google and find things, but for this election whether we have the worlds strongest economy or not, it is the perception of the voters that count.

Is 40% too much, I do not know. But when looking at the norms it does seem high. that is the end of my expertise.
Click to expand...

The effective rate is about 24% and the other developed nations come in at around 20%-23% so ours are not out of line. Of course, if you want us to have an economy like the Bahamas or Bermuda, we could lower ours to theirs.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Very little, then, went to hiring and reinvestment.
Click to expand...

Once again, you so obviously don't understand what an investment is. The money isn't just sitting there in Smaug's cave. :lamo
 
sangha said:
We also have the world's strongest economy
Click to expand...

Depends on what one means by "strongest". I would rather have an economy growing at 7% than 2%
 
sangha said:
The effective rate is about 24% and the other developed nations come in at around 20%-23% so ours are not out of line. Of course, if you want us to have an economy like the Bahamas or Bermuda, we could lower ours to theirs.
Click to expand...

I'll take your word for it. But I find it hard to understand why we can't have a set rate and tax at that rate. I know that means eliminating deductions and loop holes, but wouldn't it be better just to tax corporations at 24% on a post card return than to go through all the hoops to get a 40% rate down to 24%.
 
Declan said:
Depends on what one means by "strongest". I would rather have an economy growing at 7% than 2%
Click to expand...

Sure, but I'd also rather live the average standard of living in the US with 2% growth, than to live the Chinese standard of living with 7% growth.

2% of our median wage is far more than 7% of China's median wage.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
The tax rate they actually pay "isnt a good indicator of caputring what Corporations pay in corporate taxes"? :confused: :doh
Click to expand...

Um, no. And if you do, I have a couple of questions for you:

1) What type of Corporate Tax System does the United States currently have?

2) How much income do you believe the average Corporation makes?

When you understand the answer to both, you'll understand how misleading the effective tax rate is.
 
Kushinator said:
What metric do you suggest one use to capture what corporations pay in corporate taxes?
Click to expand...

There is no adequate metric for capturing what corporations pay in Corporate Taxes. The Effective Corporate Tax Rate is merely the total tax liability of all Corporations divided by the total taxable income of all corporations lumped in together. The problem with this equation is that it lumps in all corporations, regardless of income, and assume all corporations have the same marginal tax bracket. They don't.

The only true way to determine what Corporations pay is to calculate the effective tax rate according to their income, just like we do with individuals.
 
imagep said:
Someone has to pay taxes. If we eliminated corporate taxes, we would have to increase individual income taxes, and the net effect on the economy would be just the same.
Click to expand...

Really ?

More tax payers, not higher taxes on a shrinking number of people who can pay them.

Incentivize corporate investment into the economy and you CREATE more tax payers.

Increase taxes on those who you feel SHOULD pay higher taxes and you get the last 6 years of economic stagnation and part time jobs.
 
Perotista said:
I'll take your word for it. But I find it hard to understand why we can't have a set rate and tax at that rate. I know that means eliminating deductions and loop holes, but wouldn't it be better just to tax corporations at 24% on a post card return than to go through all the hoops to get a 40% rate down to 24%.
Click to expand...

This is a common misunderstanding. The complexity of the tax code has nothing to do with figuring out your tax rate. Once you've figured out your taxable income, all you have to do is look up your rate in a table, and multiple. Any fourth grader should be able to do that. The complexity comes when figuring taxable income.

And sure, it can get complicated figuring out what deductions one is entitled to, but there's no getting around that because "deduction" is just another word for "expense". If nothing was deductible, then we would be taxing businesses on their revenue which makes no sense because it's possible to have billions in revenue yet have no profit.

However, if the complexity flummoxes any business, there's a simple solution - they can not take the deductibles and pay more taxes than they're required to.
 
Last edited:
Fenton said:
Really ?

More tax payers, not higher taxes on a shrinking number of people who can pay them.

Incentivize corporate investment into the economy and you CREATE more tax payers.

Increase taxes on those who you feel SHOULD pay higher taxes and you get the last 6 years of economic stagnation and part time jobs.
Click to expand...

The only thing that incentivizes corporate investment is an increase in demand. Eliminating corporate taxation would do little to increase demand, but lowering taxes on individuals who have the highest propensity to spend would significantly increase demand.
 
WallStreetVixen said:
Um, no. And if you do, I have a couple of questions for you:

1) What type of Corporate Tax System does the United States currently have?

2) How much income do you believe the average Corporation makes?

When you understand the answer to both, you'll understand how misleading the effective tax rate is.
Click to expand...

How about you just explain yourself instead of playing Socrates?
 
sangha said:
This is a common misunderstanding. The complexity of the tax code has nothing to do with figuring out your tax rate. Once you've figured out your taxable income, all you have to do is look up your rate in a table, and multiple. Any fourth grader should be able to do that. The complexity comes when figuring taxable income.

And sure, it can get complicated figuring out what deductions one is entitled to, but there's no getting around that because "deduction" is just another word for "expense". If nothing was deductible, then we would be taxing businesses on their revenue which makes no sense because it's possible to have billions in revenue yet have no profit.

However, if the complexity flummoxes any business, there's a simple solution - they can not take the deductibles and pay more taxes than they're required to.
Click to expand...

Guess that is why I go to H&R Block. I agree, taxing total revenue without deducting expenses would be asinine. So the 40% corporate tax rate is applied only to profit. It is figuring out exactly what is an expense that is where all those CPA's and financial guru's come in.
 
WallStreetVixen said:
Um, no. And if you do,
Click to expand...
:lamo

I have a couple of questions for you:

1) What type of Corporate Tax System does the United States currently have?
Click to expand...
A corporate tax system...


2) How much income do you believe the average Corporation makes?
Click to expand...
This is subjective question..

When you understand the answer to both, you'll understand how misleading the effective tax rate is.
Click to expand...
How does one hold a subjective question to analyze what you are claiming to be 100% fact?
 
sangha said:
How about you just explain yourself instead of playing Socrates?
Click to expand...

Or you could have just answered the question on your own, but if your dying to know:

It is generally true, most corporations pay around a 17% tax rate; however, it is wrong to assume that many of them should be paying a 35% tax rate, considering that: 1) The US Corporate Tax Rate is progressive, just like other income taxes in the US and 2) very few corporations actually make enough income to pay a 35% corporate tax. There are more than 6,263 thousand registered domestic Corporations in the United States. The the highest marginal tax bracket is 35% on anything above $18,833 thousand. Very few corporations make over $18.833 million dollars, let alone $15 million, which would be a 38% tax, plus a $5,150,000 tax on top of that.

If anything, majority of corporations (which would be 1120 and 1120S) make less than $100,000, which would put them anywhere from a 15 - 34 percent tax bracket.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
:lamo


A corporate tax system...
Click to expand...


What kind of corporate tax system?


This is subjective question..
Click to expand...

No, it's an objective question.


How does one hold a subjective question to analyze what you are claiming to be 100% fact?
Click to expand...

A subjective would would be if I asked you, "do you think corporations are make more than $20 million dollars a year?" I didn't ask you that. I only asked you how much you thought corporations were making. That makes the question objective, not subjective.

And the question was merely designed in a way to get you to think. Perhaps it was too much for you.
 
imagep said:
The only thing that incentivizes corporate investment is an increase in demand. Eliminating corporate taxation would do little to increase demand, but lowering taxes on individuals who have the highest propensity to spend would significantly increase demand.
Click to expand...


LOL !

Yea sure, bring in the Helicopter money ! " Stimulus " to increase " aggregate demand " .....

Talking points from the left doesn't equal reality fortunately.

When business and corporations started inventing in Texas because of its low tax atmosphere that increased employment and revenues.

But you want to lower taxes on those with a propensity to spend ( what half of those people who don't pay income taxes ? ) while taxing corporations which in turn pass those taxes onto those people with a " propensity to spend ?

Sounds like a Jonathan Gruber plan to fool idiots.

" Hey America, we'll lower your taxes, but we're gonna tax the hell out of those greedy corporations "....

( Corporations are standing behind the Politicians laughing their asses off...)
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Look at the effective corporate tax rate.
Click to expand...

Look how much is spend on social programs and the promotion of socialist ideals in the US (including the oppression of religion unless it is islam currently). As long as that is even one penny, then it is enough to justify avoiding taxes that are used to weaken and enslave our people.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Let me know when the next red scare comes where you can lock people up based on political beliefs. Im sure you will be jumping for joy! So much for that "liberty and freedom"
Click to expand...

Oh hell no, I wouldn't be happy. We would still have to feed and take care of them then and still get nothing but trouble back from our efforts.

Actions, not believes. You can have whatever belief you want, but act against me based upon it and I will dub thee "enemy".

A socialist using freedom and liberty, that is funny. A socialist they only get as far as Free in freedom and think it means they are owned something they haven't earned. They think liberty means making everyone else a slave to their philosophy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom