• 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!

GOP Leaders Don’t Expect White House Tax-Plan Details

The Dems will be cast the votes putting the tax plan over the top, which means they hold almost all of the trump cards.

Donald Dork will sign anything put in front of him, claiming whatever the legislation may be was in fact his idea.

If it's a bad idea, the economy will tank as the markets crash.

The run up in the markets and the moves made by businesses to increase American Employment are based on the perceptions of Trumps plans for the economy.

Torpedo the plans and torpedo the economy and the markets.
 
The GOP House and Senate will come up with the plan, not the WH, and Trump can either sign it or send it back.

Liberal Tax and spend policies have failed miserably in States like California and Illinois and NY.
Chasing off their Middle Class and Bussinesses and driving up their debt to epic and unsustainable proportions

Lets hope the GOP Congress sticks to Supply side principles that will incentivize new investment in our Nations economy.

Liberal tax and spend policies have been the policies of the two major political parties for decades.

BOTH parties are actively working against Trump. They do so even when he is joining them in their tax and spend antics.
 
oecd2013graph.jpg

When discussing the plight of the widening income gap, Liberals are prone to interject that the poor pay taxes totaling 20% of their income while the tables like the one you show related to Income taxes indicate they receive subsidies.

Do you have a table that shows ALL of the taxes paid by corporations doing business in the US?

Also, your table shows the bars to be a percent of GDP. RU Kidding me?

Businesses don't post profits as a percent of GDP. They post actual, real money.

A percent of GDP? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot! That chart is meaningless.
 
Trumpco tried secret negotiations for Trumpcare and came up with a massive pile of dog**** they tried to cram down our throats before we could see it. This is what you want.

As was the case with Obamacare, the latest "massive pile of dog****" dealing with heathcre payments was the creation of the Congress, not the White House.
 
Do you have a table that shows ALL of the taxes paid by corporations doing business in the US?

Corporate tax receipts time series data can be found here.

Also, your table shows the bars to be a percent of GDP. RU Kidding me?

Nope.

Businesses don't post profits as a percent of GDP.

Never claimed that they post profits as a percent of GDP.

that chart is meaningless.

That chart shows how much OECD nations pay in tax revenue as a percentage of their total economies... on a relative basis. You know... because i did state:
The U.S. is a relatively low tax nation.

:yawn:
 
Trump doesn't give details. He has a plan, but you'll never know what it is. On top of that, whatever plan he gives you is unlikely to be by his own volition.

His budget director Mulvaney is putting together the budget.
 
Corporate tax receipts time series data can be found here.



Nope.



Never claimed that they post profits as a percent of GDP.



That chart shows how much OECD nations pay in tax revenue as a percentage of their total economies... on a relative basis. You know... because i did state:

:yawn:

Does your chart include payroll taxes as well as state & local taxes. Does your chart include corporations paying for their employees HC, which is paid for by the government in other nations. Just want to make sure we are talking apples to apples not a cheap parlor game of semantics.
 
Actually, it has a great deal to do with it.

Not with where tax rates should be set or the tax burden in individuals.


If GDP increases 10% next year, revenues will increase... likely in the neighborhood of 10%.

Its not so tit for tat but the point being do the necessary revenues to run the government rise that 10%. It GDP rises 10% then lets cut the amount of GDP the government is taking and leave that in the economy.

We have already established that taxation in the U.S. is relatively low. Normative statements lacking a coherent argument simply won't cut it.

No we haven't. Your graph doesn't even apply to tax rates. But why is the goal to have high tax rates?

Quote where i stated this?

Well what is the purpose of your comparing how much of a countries GDP it takes in the form of taxes and proclaiming we are low?

No you weren't. I responded to this statement:

I said "I'm" and the discussion is tax policy and what is being considered now I don't think I have ever seen a tax policy or rate that is set vis-a-vis GDP. You replied with a GDP chart.

No mention of individual tax rates. Furthermore, are you really sure you want to attempt to move the goalposts with the individual tax rate argument? :lol:

Well when we speak of tax policy of what are we speaking? Should the goal of reforming tax policy be how can the federal government take a higher percentage of GDP?
 
Corporate tax receipts time series data can be found here.



Nope.



Never claimed that they post profits as a percent of GDP.



That chart shows how much OECD nations pay in tax revenue as a percentage of their total economies... on a relative basis. You know... because i did state:

:yawn:

Sorry, my request was poorly stated.

I meant to ask if you have a table that shows the cumultive rate of tax paid by corporations on the profits they earn in each country.

My mistake.

The content of your post in regard to taxes paid by corporations in various countries is useless for any consideration having to do with where a company would locate to retain its profits.
 
The only rate that counts is the actual amount of tax paid divided by the income in full, not adjusted.
 
Sorry, my request was poorly stated.

I meant to ask if you have a table that shows the cumultive rate of tax paid by corporations on the profits they earn in each country.

My mistake.

The content of your post in regard to taxes paid by corporations in various countries is useless for any consideration having to do with where a company would locate to retain its profits.


The US has a much higher corporate tax rate compared to the world while at the same time having the highest after-tax profit percentage. Relative to GDP, corporate after-tax profits have been rising since 1960, while employee compensation has been dropping, as a percentage of GDP, since about 1976. The complaint that corporate tax rates are too high is not a legitimate claim considering these facts. Lowering the individual tax rates across all incomes does not benefit those with the least as they pay next to nothing because they don't have enough income to pay anything, anyway. Such a policy only benefits, significantly, those with the highest incomes.
 
The U.S. is a relatively low tax nation. I simply do not agree with your partisan nonsense.

I don't really care how other countries tax. I just know the government confiscates ~35% from me in taxes and I believe that's too much as a member of the middle class.
 
You expect a good plan out of the buffoon in the Whitehouse?

Has he shown any precedence for a plan -- let alone a good plan?

it will be a tremendous, amazing tax cut. it will cause all of the good jobs and will be absolutely, completely revenue neutral, i can tell you that.
 
I don't really care how other countries tax.

But you do claim to be worried about the deficit. It should be noted that "other countries" have deficits upwards of half that in the U.S. on a long term basis.

I just know the government confiscates ~35% from me in taxes and I believe that's too much as a member of the middle class.

You pay taxes for being a citizen of this country. If you want to complain about your tax rates, why labor and capital are taxed on two entirely different schedules.

But back to your original statement... no, Trump and Republicans do not have a coherent plan to simultaneously address deficits and economic growth by way of lowering taxes (which will apply primarily on those who pay federal taxes on LTCG). Perhaps you can answer why it was perfectly acceptable for Republican politicians to push for (and get) policies that lowered taxes, increased spending, and exploded deficits even during periods of high economic growth.

IMO, you can't and you wont.
 
But you do claim to be worried about the deficit. It should be noted that "other countries" have deficits upwards of half that in the U.S. on a long term basis.



You pay taxes for being a citizen of this country. If you want to complain about your tax rates, why labor and capital are taxed on two entirely different schedules.

But back to your original statement... no, Trump and Republicans do not have a coherent plan to simultaneously address deficits and economic growth by way of lowering taxes (which will apply primarily on those who pay federal taxes on LTCG). Perhaps you can answer why it was perfectly acceptable for Republican politicians to push for (and get) policies that lowered taxes, increased spending, and exploded deficits even during periods of high economic growth.

IMO, you can't and you wont.

I do care about the deficit, I believe in spending much less and cutting taxes. Shrinking the federal government and having their main budgets being for infrastructure and defense.

It's not acceptable for Republicans to lower taxes, increase spending, and further blow deficits. They need to lower taxes and spending. That said though, I'd rather have a deficit from low taxation over high spending (especially special interest spending in the case of the Stimulus Bill).

Maybe you can explain why pre-president Obama said “The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents — number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child.
That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.” but then him and his party left the term with nearly $20 trillion in debt?
 
Last edited:
Not with where tax rates should be set or the tax burden in individuals.

Normative rebuttals carry no traction. You don't have an argument for lowering taxes other than what you feel in the deepest valley of your heart.

Its not so tit for tat but the point being do the necessary revenues to run the government rise that 10%.

If you're familiar with the data and how to employ analysis, you'll find this is has increasingly become the case.

fredgraph.png


It GDP rises 10% then lets cut the amount of GDP the government is taking and leave that in the economy.

How do you know GDP is going to rise by 10% in enough advance in order to make the necessary cuts? What about deficits? What about Economic growth?

No we haven't. Your graph doesn't even apply to tax rates.

It was never meant to address tax rates. Even tax rates are relative. Regardless, you haven't developed an argument. How are taxes too high? Hell, what taxes are you even talking about? You're going to have to be more specific to make a coherent case... let alone something with validity.

But why is the goal to have high tax rates?

Can you respond one time without attacking strawmen? Not one time did i say high tax rates are the goal.

Well what is the purpose of your comparing how much of a countries GDP it takes in the form of taxes and proclaiming we are low?

Because another poster made an emotional statement regarding taxation policy in the U.S. (Quite possibly because he is unaware of the data).

I said "I'm" and the discussion is tax policy and what is being considered now I don't think I have ever seen a tax policy or rate that is set vis-a-vis GDP. You replied with a GDP chart.

You chimed in on my response to another poster, and then tried to hijack the trajectory of my statements. The fact of the matter is, given how low taxes are as a percentage of GDP, you cannot lower them without carving a deeper hole in the budget.

Well when we speak of tax policy of what are we speaking? Should the goal of reforming tax policy be how can the federal government take a higher percentage of GDP?

It isn't a black and white argument. It is often necessary to raise revenues in order to reduce deficits during periods of stronger economic growth. Besides, what is the rationale behind lowering taxes in an economy with 4.3% unemployment and the longest single streak of monthly job creation in the country's economic history? If you can address these two key factors, there might be something of worth in your next response.
 
I meant to ask if you have a table that shows the cumultive rate of tax paid by corporations on the profits they earn in each country.

This is extremely difficult to reproduce quality results because what constitutes profit in one country doesn't equate to what constitutes profit in another (and the subsets of costs and revenues, accounting standards, etc...). I can show the effective rate of corporate taxation as a function of time:

The content of your post in regard to taxes paid by corporations in various countries is useless for any consideration having to do with where a company would locate to retain its profits.

What is this arbitrary fixation with red herrings? One guy thinks he can deflect to individual rates, the other guy thinks he pays too much. Now you want to begin to make an argument on the basis of corporate tax burden? :lol:

Ok... make your case.
 
I do care about the deficit, I believe in spending much less and cutting taxes. Shrinking the federal government and having their main budgets being for infrastructure and defense.

Ok.

It's not acceptable for Republicans to lower taxes, increase spending, and further blow deficits. They need to lower taxes and spending.

And that there is the problem... because no matter how much lip service is paid to shrinking government and lowering taxes, Republicans never follow through. And we know why. Reducing current expenditures while simultaneously reducing future inflows do not match in terms of current cash flows, i.e. cutting spending reduces economic growth.

That said though, I'd rather have a deficit from low taxation over high spending (especially special interest spending in the case of the Stimulus Bill).

Based on anything other than gut feelings?

This might be tough to accept, but there isn't a one size fits all fiscal policy for the United States economy.

Maybe you can explain why pre-president Obama said “The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents — number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child.
That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.” but then him and his party left the term with nearly $20 trillion in debt?

Sure.

Bush pushed deficits during periods of sustained economic growth, after years of budget surpluses, sold on the basis of promoting long term economic growth and stability. Given the mechanics behind both tax and spending policy, the ensuing Great Recession and financial crisis resulted in an explosion in deficits and unprecedented fiscal and monetary policy responses.

Or in plain speak... President Bush was firing our fiscal ammunition in the air, and when he gave the gun to Obama, Republicans demanded frugality with bullets while he was aiming at the target. I think you refer to that as hypocrisy. I refer to it as partisan poison.
 
I don't really care how other countries tax. I just know the government confiscates ~35% from me in taxes and I believe that's too much as a member of the middle class.


Does your 35% include sales, local and state taxes? Gasoline taxes, etc.? If you are paying 35% of your income in federal income tax, then you need to get a better tax accountant or you make so much money, it doesn't matter.
 
The US has a much higher corporate tax rate compared to the world while at the same time having the highest after-tax profit percentage. Relative to GDP, corporate after-tax profits have been rising since 1960, while employee compensation has been dropping, as a percentage of GDP, since about 1976. The complaint that corporate tax rates are too high is not a legitimate claim considering these facts. Lowering the individual tax rates across all incomes does not benefit those with the least as they pay next to nothing because they don't have enough income to pay anything, anyway. Such a policy only benefits, significantly, those with the highest incomes.

I don't know on what you base your opinion regarding the high corporate tax rates being unimportant. The State of New York is offering tax breaks to companies to either relocate or to stay.

I have had clients relocate their businesses to alternative states to take advantage of lower taxes. Illinois is hemoraging jobs as their companies flee the punitive tax structure to gain a better deal elsewhere.

What is the world is the foundation for your illogical statement?

The flow of companies, manufacturing and jobs from the US to other countries is well documented.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/econ...mpanies-leaving-illinois-turning-into-a-flood
 
This is extremely difficult to reproduce quality results because what constitutes profit in one country doesn't equate to what constitutes profit in another (and the subsets of costs and revenues, accounting standards, etc...). I can show the effective rate of corporate taxation as a function of time:



What is this arbitrary fixation with red herrings? One guy thinks he can deflect to individual rates, the other guy thinks he pays too much. Now you want to begin to make an argument on the basis of corporate tax burden? :lol:

Ok... make your case.

I am only interested in the factors that impact the decisions of companies to locate inside of particular countries/states/cities.

If the taxation is best in one location, all other factors being equal, the businesses and their jobs will locate elsewhere.

You seem to be trying to make the case that the USA already has tax codes that are the most attractive to businesses and yet they have been moving out.

So, what you are saying seems to run contrary to evidence. I'm wondering if there is any logical reason why the businesses want to leave. You are saying there is no reason to leave so they must be leaving because... Why?
 
Normative rebuttals carry no traction. You don't have an argument for lowering taxes other than what you feel in the deepest valley of your heart.

Snarky comments refute nothing nor make you looked informed on the matter. You've been given arguments try something of substance now.



If you're familiar with the data........

Yes I am now try answering my question

Its not so tit for tat but the point being do the necessary revenues to run the government rise that 10% just because GDP rose 10%?


How do you know GDP is going to rise by 10% in enough advance in order to make the necessary cuts? What about deficits? What about Economic growth?

Which has nothing to do with my questiion.



It was never meant to address tax rates.

Well how can you discuss how high we tax the citizens if we don't talk tax rates?

Even tax rates are relative. Regardless, you haven't developed an argument. How are taxes too high?

I have not stated if they are too high or too low with even explain to high or to low for what?

Hell, what taxes are you even talking about? You're going to have to be more specific to make a coherent case... let alone something with validity.

Same ones you are, federal taxes.

Can you respond one time without attacking strawmen? Not one time did i say high tax rates are the goal.

It's all about tax RATES and resulting tax REVENUES. You are trying to make an argument it seems that the federal government has some claim to a certain percentage of GDP, you haven't said what that is yet but that seems to be your argument. Well if you do not believe the federal government is taking enough of GDP how do you propose to rectify that?

Because another poster made an emotional statement regarding taxation policy in the U.S. (Quite possibly because he is unaware of the data).

Whether a country places high taxes on the citizens is not measured by what percent of GDP the government takes of it. It is measure by what percent of their income they pay to the government.

The fact of the matter is, given how low taxes are as a percentage of GDP, you cannot lower them without carving a deeper hole in the budget.

Sure you can, Gingrich and Kasich did it in 1996 and Bush43 and the Republican congress did it in 2001 and both brought in record revenue increases. Gingrich and Kasich were actually able to produce budget surpluses Bush and the Republican congress got the deficit down to a paltry $161B but then the Democrats took back the congress and in two years the deficit shot to $1,400B


It isn't a black and white argument. It is often necessary to raise revenues in order to reduce deficits during periods of stronger economic growth. Besides, what is the rationale behind lowering taxes in an economy with 4.3% unemployment and the longest single streak of monthly job creation in the country's economic history? If you can address these two key factors, there might be something of worth in your next response.

You seem to assume higher tax rates means higher tax revenues. Bill Clinton learned that lesson that is not necessarily true and almost cost him reelection.

Tell me what rate we should set capital gains taxes if revenue is your goal.

source_historical_cg_0.png



Its not so tit for tat but the point being do the necessary revenues to run the government rise that 10%.
 
Bush pushed deficits during periods of sustained economic growth, after years of budget surpluses, sold on the basis of promoting long term economic growth and stability. Given the mechanics behind both tax and spending policy, the ensuing Great Recession and financial crisis resulted in an explosion in deficits and unprecedented fiscal and monetary policy responses.

What are you talking about? The surpluses were going away whether Bush or Gore won the election. The economy began it's slowdown in Q3 2000 after a LONG period of growth that had been sent into overdrive by the Republican policies after they took the Congress. It went into recession within weeks of Bush taking office. He and the Republicans did the right thing and cut tax rates, did not promise a huge spending increase to stimulate the economy and held back on new regulations and then GOT OUT OF THE WAY. The economy recovered we entered another LONG period of growth. Their mistake was first they tried a stimulus with the $600 prebate on taxes and second the tax cuts were to phase in over 5 years when there should have been an immediate or at least only a two year phase in. As it were they accelerated the phase in in 2003 and in 2004 the economy began a strong recovery and the deficit topped out at $400B and then rapidly fell to that measly $161B.

Then the Democrats took back the congress and budget and fiscal policy and made a disaster out of em.

Or in plain speak... President Bush was firing our fiscal ammunition in the air, and when he gave the gun to Obama, Republicans demanded frugality with bullets while he was aiming at the target. I think you refer to that as hypocrisy. I refer to it as partisan poison.

In 2008 under Democrat budgets spending increased 9% and then in 2009 18%, are you saying they were more frugal?
 
Back
Top Bottom