Guaranteed to Increase the Debt: Jeb's and The Donald's Tax Plans

mmi · Oct 6, 2015

jonny5 said:
Prove it.

OK. According to the CBO itself, and not the Tax Foundation's representation of what the agency says, the top quintile had 69% of federal income tax liabilities in 2007. (See the second table on this page.) The TF graph has that figure at around at around 86%.

jonny5 said:
Had spending remained average, the net effect would have been a surplus.

What do you mean by "average"?

jonny5 said:
why did Obama cut taxes EVEN more when he took office in 2009?

To avoid a worldwide depression.

jonny5 said:
If you want further proof, look at the CBOs analysis in hindsight, which proves that spending is the real problem.

Could you expand on that?

During 2001-2002, federal spending increased by 12.4%, while revenues fell by 10.5%, changing a $236 billion surplus into a $158 billion dollar deficit, a difference of $394 billion. The TF graph has the "problem," whatever the hell they're arguing — I have no idea, dropping from about 50% to about 15%. Doesn't seem to make much sense.

In 2003, revenues fell by another 3.8%, while spending increased by 6.9%, adding another $219 billion to the deficit to bring it to $378 billion. You may recall the overseas adventure we began in Mar 2003, and that spending on national security expanded significantly in 2002 in response to the 9/11 attacks. Was that librul big gubmint?

In 2004, revenues began to recover, growing by 5.5%, while spending went up by 6.2%. Sounds like pretty much a wash.

2005-07 saw an explosion of revenues, up 36.6%. As mentioned, this was the housing bubble. Spending grew by 19% during that period, and the deficit fell to $161 billion.

So it doesn't look to me like we spent a lot of money under Bush41 on social programs that drove the debt up sharply. Instead, I'd say we ran big deficits in his first term because of tragic failures in national defense and foreign policy in years when we were forgoing large amounts of revenue to fund another irresponsible SSE folly.

Absentglare said:
add up the percentages for the quintiles and see that the total is far over 100%.

Nah, if you look at the y-axis, you can see that the graph (accurately) shows a negative percentage for the bottom two quintiles. Then you need to ignore the red "Top One Percent" line cuz it's part of the top quintile. Those figures seem to add up to 100%. The problem I have, as I said, is with that line for the top quintile, which seems to be shoved up incorrectly.

Absentglare said:
You need to look at total taxes paid

I'd say it's fair to look at FIT alone, as long as you keep in mind that, as you say, payroll taxes are much more regressive.

jonny5 said:
No need for insults.

What, are ya tryin' t' ruin the party? Insults are the DP way of conducting business.

jonny5 said:
According to the CBO, revenue only dropped by 1 trillion in 8 years than otherwise would have.

Can you offer a link to CBO saying that?

TF says the number is $1.7 trillion, while noting that Consumers for Tax Justice calculates it at $2.5 trillion. They do mention one trillion, describing it as "pretty extreme."

How Much Did the Bush Tax Cuts Cost in Forgone Revenue?

MTAtech · Oct 6, 2015

This post, on another forum, adds to the case: City-Data Forum - View Single Post - Let's raise Capital Gains to 50% for all gains above $250,000

jonny5 · Oct 7, 2015

Absentglare said:
What a wonderful way to ignore anything that questions your narrative!!

I'll just post a bunch of misleading crap, and if anyone describes it accurately, i'll just dismiss anything they say as insulting!!

Regardless if you want to have a civil debate, Im up for it. If you are going to be hostile, then Ill ignore you.

jonny5 · Oct 7, 2015

MTAtech said:
This post, on another forum, adds to the case: City-Data Forum - View Single Post - Let's raise Capital Gains to 50% for all gains above $250,000

Still wrong though. Tax cuts stimulate economic activity. Even democrats use it as a tool. Half of Obamas/congress stimulus was tax cuts. Economic growth creates a larger tax base which means more taxes. Which is part of the reason the economy grew out of the slight recession in 2001.

GDP-Real-Chained

2001 3.3 1.0
2002 3.3 1.8
2003 4.9 2.8
2004 6.6 3.8
2005 6.7 3.3

Its pretty simple logic that if you put 100bn a year back into people hands, they will use it to make more wealth. It happened under Clinton, Kennedy, Johnson.

The Penguin · Oct 7, 2015

jonny5 said:
Total taxes and share of taxes have both gone up.

Top 1% paid

201 billion in 2001
366 billion in 2011

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data | Tax Foundation

I realize youre going to change the metric to get the result you want, so let me also add that their income tax paid ratio to income tax earned has ALSO gone up.

Again, you're being deliberately obtuse. Of course they "pay more" because the dollar's value is more today than it was back in 1980 and 2001. However, as an overall percentage of their individual income, they are paying less. That's because the tax rate has dropped from 70% in 1980 to 39.6% today. So just by function of the tax rate, they are paying less taxes on their income. Also, they increased from $201B in 2001 to $366B in 2011, which is an 82% increase. However, over the same period, 100% of the income gains went to the top 1%.

The Penguin · Oct 7, 2015

jonny5 said:
And 4 years showed even great increases

What are you talking about? The fourth year of Bush's term revenue was below what it was in 2000.

According to the CBO, revenue only dropped by 1 trillion in 8 years than otherwise would have.

ONLY? Tax cuts were supposed to increase revenue...that's what you said. Now you're saying the exact opposite.

How does 1 trillion pay off 5 trillion in debt in 2001

Obviously you know that paying off the debt was to be done over 9 years, not in just one year. Again with being obtuse. Is that on purpose or what?

The Penguin · Oct 7, 2015

jonny5 said:
Still wrong though. Tax cuts stimulate economic activity.

Not when they're for the rich they don't. In fact, Moody's says that the wealthy did not spend more during the Bush Tax Cuts. Tax cuts are the worst economic stimulant there is.

Even democrats use it as a tool. Half of Obamas/congress stimulus was tax cuts.

Becuase that's what it took to get it passed. And aren't you all the ones who say Obama's recovery has been weak? Why do you think that is? Because more than half the Stimulus were tax cuts. Tax cuts were the lowest economic multiplier of all the things included in the Stimulus. Shame that they made up more than half of it. The best? Direct purchasing by the government.

Economic growth creates a larger tax base which means more taxes.

But tax cuts do not create economic growth. At least, not economic growth to offset their costs.

Which is part of the reason the economy grew out of the slight recession in 2001.

So the fact that Bush handed out $250 checks to everyone, even those not working, in 2001 didn't have anything to do with it?

GDP-Real-Chained

2001 3.3 1.0
2002 3.3 1.8
2003 4.9 2.8
2004 6.6 3.8
2005 6.7 3.3

2004 was the start of the Mortgage Bubble.

The Penguin · Oct 7, 2015

jonny5 said:
Its pretty simple logic that if you put 100bn a year back into people hands, they will use it to make more wealth. It happened under Clinton, Kennedy, Johnson.

Clinton didn't cut income taxes, he raised them. He cut the Capital Gains Tax in 1997, but that ended up causing a recession.

Also, we had a huge tax cut in 2001 and the result? Middle-class debt burdens rose. Why? Because when the government cuts taxes it increases a worker's take-home pay. So why should an employer raise your wage when the government artificially does so by cutting your taxes? Tax cuts are wage theft. Funny how since the start of the Bush Tax Cuts in 2001, incomes for all but the wealthy have declined. Shouldn't the opposite have happened? Real incomes did not grow during Bush, they shrank. But but but jonny5 says that they will make more wealth. What he didn't say was that it makes more wealth for the already wealthy. It creates debt for everyone else.

Tax cuts and low interest rates are the reason wages don't increase. Both are artificial increases in take-home or credit for middle class. What's messed up about the whole thing is that corporations stash their $2.1T in banks rather than give their employees raises with it. Then those banks turn that savings and loan it out to those same workers at high interest rates. And the corporations benefit from the interest on their savings that the bank is using to lend. So the bank makes money, the corporation makes money, and the workers? They get debt.

Oh also, Kennedy and Johnson massively increased spending. Medicare, for instance, started in 1964. Social Security was expanded that decade too. The Great Society started in the 1960's and ran through the 1970's, until it started working too well...that's why Conservatives undermined it in the 80's. They undermined it by cutting taxes which resulted in massive deficits that were then used to justify cuts to social programs. Those operational cuts weakened the programs' effectiveness so Conservatives could then say the programs didn't work.

Conservatives are the worst.

jonny5 · Oct 7, 2015

The Penguin said:
Again, you're being deliberately obtuse. Of course they "pay more" because the dollar's value is more today than it was back in 1980 and 2001. However, as an overall percentage of their individual income, they are paying less. That's because the tax rate has dropped from 70% in 1980 to 39.6% today. So just by function of the tax rate, they are paying less taxes on their income. Also, they increased from $201B in 2001 to $366B in 2011, which is an 82% increase. However, over the same period, 100% of the income gains went to the top 1%.

Sounds like youre the one being obstuse, cherry picking the one state that backs you up. We dont pay for things, including taxes, based on what you can afford. The claim you made was "The burden goes up but how much they pay goes down."

Ive showed you three differnt stats where that isnt the case, literally and relatively. They pay more taxes, a higher share of taxes, and a higher share of taxes relative to their share of earned income, than ever before. The reason is because when Republicans cut taxes for the rich, they cut them for everyone else too. And because the lower brackets barely pay any taxes as is.

jonny5 · Oct 7, 2015

The Penguin said:
What are you talking about? The fourth year of Bush's term revenue was below what it was in 2000.

ONLY? Tax cuts were supposed to increase revenue...that's what you said. Now you're saying the exact opposite.

Obviously you know that paying off the debt was to be done over 9 years, not in just one year. Again with being obtuse. Is that on purpose or what?

Are you being hostile on purpose? I dont see a need to keep debating with if this attitude is going to continue.

The Penguin · Oct 7, 2015

jonny5 said:
Sounds like youre the one being obstuse, cherry picking the one state that backs you up.

Explain how I am cherry picking anything. I am giving you complete, unbiased facts. I used your own numbers to make the determination that the wealthy paid 82% more in gross taxes between 2001 and 2011, yet saw 100% of the income growth. So they pay less. Their tax rate also was cut from 70% in 1980 to 35% during Bush, then raised slightly up to 39.6% on income above $400K in 2013. So they are still paying far, far less than they did back in 1980.

I'm convinced you don't know what the term "cherry picking" means.

We dont pay for things, including taxes, based on what you can afford.

Actually, yes. We do. That's the point of our Progressive Tax System and why it worked so well for almost 100 years. But as soon as you do things like cut rates, eliminate brackets, you see an increase in wealth for the top, and a decrease for everyone else. So while it's great that you got a $1000 tax cut thanks to Bush, your out of pocket costs for health care, education and other things surpassed that because those tax cuts reduced revenue, which reduced spending, which results in the middle class paying more out of pocket. Why do you think tuition costs have risen so dramatically just in the last 15 years? Because of cuts to education that happened because tax revenue was cut. So the difference had to be made up. You celebrate the Bush Tax Cuts as some sort of philosophical accomplishment, but all they did was increase the debt burden of everyone except the top 1%, who saw all income and economic gains over the last 15 years.

These are undeniable facts.

The claim you made was "The burden goes up but how much they pay goes down."

And that is completely accurate. Instead of paying 70% on their income they now pay 39.6%. So that is less, right? 70% is greater than 39.6% is it not?

Ive showed you three differnt stats where that isnt the case, literally and relatively.

No, you actually haven't. All you've been speaking is in terms of the burden, not in terms of anything else. I already agreed with you that the burden for the wealthy increased because you cut taxes. What you refuse to admit is that while the burden may have increased, the individual amount they pay has decreased. That's because the tax rate was cut in half.

They pay more taxes, a higher share of taxes, and a higher share of taxes relative to their share of earned income

Right, because you cut taxes. That's the result of cutting taxes, man. Their share increases because you've narrowed the tax base. That, however, doesn't mean they are paying more in taxes out of their income. Their effective tax rate has decreased over the last 35 years. That's because their rates have been cut in half. So while their burden has increased, the amount they pay has decreased.

Do you know math at all? It seems like you're being deliberately obtuse. You don't want to admit that the wealthy pay less in taxes than they did 35 years ago. You are trying to misrepresent that by saying their share of the overall base has increased, and that is true. But that doesn't mean that, as a percentage of their income, the amount they pay in taxes has increased. That has actually decreased because the tax rate was cut in half.

Unless you have brain damage, there is no way to avoid admitting that.

The reason is because when Republicans cut taxes for the rich, they cut them for everyone else too.

LOL! The average tax cut for the middle class under Republican plans has resulted in increase in debt for the middle class, not wealth. That is what we saw during the Bush years. Your claim is that tax cuts increase consumption. That is not the case at all. Particularly among the wealthy. I don't know why you insist on fighting this battle again. We just did this 15 years ago and it didn't work. Bush's Tax Cuts didn't grow the economy, they depressed revenues, created massive budget deficits from surpluses, and resulted in all income gains going to the top 1%.

And because the lower brackets barely pay any taxes as is.

So you cut taxes, which results in the tax base narrowing, which then results in the burden on the wealthy increasing, which you then complain about on message boards.

So explain to me how your entire fiscal agenda isn't just masturbation?

JasperL · Oct 7, 2015

jonny5 said:
That easy disproved. Revenue INCREASED during Bushs term.

2001 1,991,082
2002 1,853,136
2003 1,782,314
2004 1,880,114
2005 2,153,611
2006 2,406,869
2007 2,567,985
2008 2,523,991

Thus even with the tax cuts, the deficit would have decreased. Blame spending, which is primarily on social programs that Bush tried to reform.

Sheesh, the easiest way to blow a hole in your credibility is to use nominal figures and ignore inflation, so nice job ignoring inflation....

Year_Current$_______2009$
2000 2,025.2 2,540.7
2001 1,991.1 2,432.9
2002 1,853.1 2,227.3
2003 1,782.3 2,083.4
2004 1,880.1 2,141.6
2005 2,153.6 2,371.0
2006 2,406.9 2,561.6
2007 2,568.0 2,662.8
2008 2,524.0 2,528.8
2009 2,105.0 2,105.0

The first column is total receipts, and that includes payroll and all other taxes. The second column is inflation adjusted and presented in constant 2009 dollars. So even at the top of the biggest real estate and debt bubble in generations, revenue BARELY recovered to pre-tax cut levels, ignoring population growth and the normal economic growth that occurs in every administration in every year, regardless of changes in tax rates.

Here's the figures for individual income tax, inflation adjusted:

2000__1,260,145
2001__1,214,979
2002__1,031,664
2003___927,760
2004___921,470
2005__1,020,832
2006__1,111,013
2007__1,206,420
2008__1,147,928
2009____915,308

So individual income taxes never did recover to pre-tax cut levels, even at the top of the bubble. And when the bubble burst, so did receipts...

The Penguin · Oct 7, 2015

jonny5 said:
Are you being hostile on purpose? I dont see a need to keep debating with if this attitude is going to continue.

If you perceive hostility, that is your own insecurity. Having your beliefs challenged isn't hostility. What's hostile is being defensive about it. Your numbers proved that the Tax Cuts depressed revenue and the only thing that grew revenue was a mortgage bubble that you blame on Clinton. So you cannot credit Bush with the economic gains from the housing bubble without also giving him the blame for it. Otherwise, you're just being a hack.

Mach · Oct 7, 2015

Riveroaks said:
My favorite sample of one on this is Willard Mitt Romney -- recent annual income $20 million. Tax 14%.Q.E.D.

Unless you are specifically talking about increasing capital gains, then your sentiment is absurd. Everyone enjoys capital gains if they make long term investments, like nearly anyone getting any pension or retirement... I pay an obscene amount in taxes, and my income is lower than $20M. When you add up state, local, payroll, ss/mc, federal tax, franchise tax, etc., it's significantly higher than the top bracket, which is almost 40%. If you want to raise my 40%+ tax, because Mitt is a shareholder and gets long term cap gains, that's not cool.

Absentglare · Oct 7, 2015

jonny5 said:
Regardless if you want to have a civil debate, Im up for it. If you are going to be hostile, then Ill ignore you.

I already did devastate your nonsense graphs, in the long post you elected to ignore.

Absentglare · Oct 7, 2015

jonny5 said:
Are you being hostile on purpose? I dont see a need to keep debating with if this attitude is going to continue.

Dude you should really grow some thicker skin if you're going to post a bunch of inaccurate and misleading stuff...

mbig · Oct 7, 2015

JasperL said:
Sheesh, the easiest way to blow a hole in your credibility is to use nominal figures and ignore inflation, so nice job ignoring inflation....
Year_Current$_______2009$
2000 2,025.2 2,540.7
2001 1,991.1 2,432.9
2002 1,853.1 2,227.3
2003 1,782.3 2,083.4
2004 1,880.1 2,141.6
2005 2,153.6 2,371.0
2006 2,406.9 2,561.6
2007 2,568.0 2,662.8
2008 2,524.0 2,528.8
2009 2,105.0 2,105.0
The first column is total receipts, and that includes payroll and all other taxes. The second column is inflation adjusted and presented in constant 2009 dollars. So even at the top of the biggest real estate and debt bubble in generations, revenue BARELY recovered to pre-tax cut levels, ignoring population growth and the normal economic growth that occurs in every administration in every year, regardless of changes in tax rates.

Here's the figures for individual income tax, inflation adjusted:
2000__1,260,145
2001__1,214,979
2002__1,031,664
2003___927,760
2004___921,470
2005__1,020,832
2006__1,111,013
2007__1,206,420
2008__1,147,928
2009____915,308
So individual income taxes never did recover to pre-tax cut levels, even at the top of the bubble. And when the bubble burst, so did receipts...

Every Conservative in Every economic debate doesn't include Fiscal 2009 (Started Oct 1 2008) figures as part of the Bush Depression.
Thanks for adding them to yours.
Obama wasn't sworn in til 1/20/2009 and any policies, of course...

We see this especially in Jobs/Unemployment, where near 3 million Jobs were lost in the first 5 months of 2009.
This colors the whole 'recovery' debate.

Gimmesometruth · Oct 7, 2015

The Penguin said:
Because when the government cuts taxes it increases a worker's take-home pay................. Tax cuts are wage theft.

Wait....whut?

Absentglare · Oct 7, 2015

Gimmesometruth said:
Wait....whut?

FIT tax cuts predominantly serve people who pay lots of FIT which is highly progressive.

That's lost government revenue. That means budgets are strained, for example, in health care and education. When those services are cut, everybody pays more. When everybody pays more, that has the biggest % impact on disposable income for the poor and middle class.

Tax cuts often have the quizzical indirect effect of reducing disposable income for the average American. Generally, this is because of the huge loss of revenue from the very wealthy.

This is exactly why tax credits are a better idea than tax cuts- tax cuts tend to help the people who need the least help at the expense of those who need the most help.

cpwill · Oct 7, 2015

jpn said:
When Chris Wallace of Fox "News" asked Jeb! about his tax plan that will slash taxes for the already rich, Jeb just shrugged his shoulders:

Ha! Yeah, nothing you can do when you slash the top tax rate from 39.6% to 28%!. That's just the way it is :shrug: Jeb and all his rich buddies will just get a ****-load richer and the nation will get screwed again. What can you do? :shrug:

Meanwhile, over at The Donald's clown act, here's what he proposes:

Cut the top marginal rate from 39.6 percent to 25 percent
Eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax
Eliminate the estate tax
Cut the corporate tax rate to 15 percent

But he claims that he'll pay more tax under this proposal mostly because of undisclosed, undefined loopholes that he's going to close. :lamo

Funny how all these Republicans are extremely exact on what and where they will cut taxes and by how much, but when it comes to paying for these huge revenue-losing changes, they get all mysterious and vague.

David_N said:
"itll trickle down eventually!"

Chomsky said:
Always the same crap from these guys: unpaid tax cuts for corps & their rich buddies!

"Whisky, Tango, Foxtrot"!

Given that

The simple fact is 1 percent of people pay 40 percent of all the taxes. And so, of course, tax cuts for everybody is going to generate more for people that are paying a lot more. I mean that’s just the way it is.

Is accurate,

I am really enjoying that someone points out math to you people, and ya'lls instinct is to make fun of it.

Gimmesometruth · Oct 7, 2015

Absentglare said:
FIT tax cuts predominantly serve people who pay lots of FIT which is highly progressive.

That's lost government revenue. That means budgets are strained, for example, in health care and education. When those services are cut, everybody pays more. When everybody pays more, that has the biggest % impact on disposable income for the poor and middle class.

Tax cuts often have the quizzical indirect effect of reducing disposable income for the average American. Generally, this is because of the huge loss of revenue from the very wealthy.

This is exactly why tax credits are a better idea than tax cuts- tax cuts tend to help the people who need the least help at the expense of those who need the most help.

That is not his argument (weird that you want to try to play him....but so be it)....and...."health care" is generally paid by FICA for low income groups, and "education" is mostly paid via local property taxation, which is generally paid either in rent or real property ownership, not FIT.

What I was again showing was the contradiction of tax cuts causing "wage" increases and simultaneously causing "wage theft". He is confusing/conflating lack of wage growth with taxation, just as he has pronounced that tax cuts cause recessions. It is as if his ideas are the evil twin of Laffer.

cpwill · Oct 7, 2015

Gimmesometruth said:
The Penguin said:

Tax cuts are wage theft.

Click to expand...

Wait....whut?

That was my reaction as well. I think when you and I are on the same page on a tax issue....

...probably the third poster is way out in left or right field. Like, not even in the bleachers, but rather in the parking lot, but still thinking that they're playing in the game.

Absentglare said:
FIT tax cuts predominantly serve people who pay lots of FIT which is highly progressive.

That's lost government revenue. That means budgets are strained, for example, in health care and education. When those services are cut, everybody pays more. When everybody pays more, that has the biggest % impact on disposable income for the poor and middle class.

This is false for at least two reasons:

1. We don't have a balanced budget requirement meaning that reduced revenues does not mean reduced spending, but rather increased debt issuance and
2. We don't have a set revenue requirement, meaning that if we fail to get X out of FIT, we have to increase FICA or Gasoline taxes to make up the difference.

Cutting tax rates can (which is not the same as will) create or enlarge deficits. I would argue that in the short term they tend to net cost and in the long run they tend to net benefit. But that is not the same as "costing everybody".

David_N · Oct 7, 2015

cpwill said:
Given that

Is accurate,

I am really enjoying that someone points out math to you people, and ya'lls instinct is to make fun of it.

I hope you realize that a minority own most of the wealth and taxable income, it's only fair they are taxed. I don't believe we have a wealth tax either. The actual effective corporate tax rate is different then what you think, trickle down voodoo is a failure, the massive and growing wealth/income inequality proves that, who do you think recovers the best after economic crisis? The top. Jeb bush is stupid, anyone who pushes trickle down voodoo while knowing it will increase the debt so a few rich people can pay less taxes.. Ugh. Our tax rates are moderate compared to other countries, some of which have more opportunities for business. I do want to remove the corporate tax rate Though, it is a reason that companies seek out cheap labor. I'm sure you agree on that point.

Gimmesometruth · Oct 7, 2015

cpwill said:
I would argue that in the short term they (tax cuts) tend to net cost and in the long run they tend to net benefit.

Well, you have corrected whatever track of mine you thought you were on, you have shown with this comment to be on the Laffer track. They benefit the wealthy while harming the 99%.

cpwill · Oct 7, 2015

David_N said:
I hope you realize that a minority own most of the wealth and taxable income, it's only fair they are taxed.

You don't own income. You earn income. You own wealth. And yes, a minority own most the wealth. Which is exactly what you would expect in any economy that had wealth differentiation. :shrug: and that's fine, because wealth isn't zero-sum. The fact that Johnny has a nice house doesn't mean that Steve can't have one. We live wealthier, easier lives now than at any other point in human history. I'd say that's doing all right.

However, yes, I think progressive taxation can be made to be somewhat fair. I've pointed out my preferences to you on the matter before. It wouldn't be as "fair" as a plain flat tax, but I'm willing to sacrifice some fairness for some mercy.

That being said, (and, I am not a fan of his) Jeb(!)'s point was mathematically correct. He was right.

And ya'll made fun of it.

I don't believe we have a wealth tax either. The actual effective corporate tax rate is different then what you think, trickle down voodoo is a failure, the massive and growing wealth/income inequality proves that, who do you think recovers the best after economic crisis? The top. Jeb bush is stupid, anyone who pushes trickle down voodoo while knowing it will increase the debt so a few rich people can pay less taxes.. Ugh. Our tax rates are moderate compared to other countries

Actually we have the most progressive tax structure in the OECD.

It's not that we don't tax our wealthy. It's that we don't tax our middle class.

I do want to remove the corporate tax rate Though, it is a reason that companies seek out cheap labor. I'm sure you agree on that point.

I think that businesses all seek to decrease costs, but that labor is not the direct cost - it is labor v output. So, for example, an American who can use the technology to produce $500,000 worth of widgets for an annual salary of $50,000 is actually much cheaper than an Indonesian who only costs $8,000 a year, but who can only produce $20,000 worth of widgets. One is costing you 10 cents on the dollar per widget, the other is costing you 40. The corporate tax rate is not an incentive to hire one pool of labor or another except to the extent that that labor is geo-coordinated.

Which is a tangled up way of saying that getting rid of the corporate tax code makes American workers relatively cheaper to hire, increasing their competitiveness against other workforces.

IF we do that, then I think we need to fold capital gains into the FIT rates. That strikes me as a wiser policy all around.

Guaranteed to Increase the Debt: Jeb's and The Donald's Tax Plans

mmi

MTAtech

jonny5

jonny5

The Penguin

The Penguin

The Penguin

The Penguin

jonny5

jonny5

The Penguin

JasperL

The Penguin

Mach

Absentglare

Absentglare

mbig

onomatopoeic

Gimmesometruth

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Absentglare

cpwill

Gimmesometruth

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

cpwill

David_N

Gimmesometruth

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

cpwill