• 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!

Sen. Sanders v. Sen. Cruz Debate on Tax Reform

fmw said:
They don't have to move the company. They simply stash money overseas to avoid paying more taxes than they have already paid. Having said that, some have moved physically to other countries because of US corporate tax rates. Tyco and Fruit of the Loom are a couple of examples.
Click to expand...

"Since 1982, more than 50 American companies have reincorporated in low-tax countries."

So, 1.1 companies per year relocate outside the US. And many of them do it by selling out to a company that is already outside the US, like Tyco did. And most of them AREN'T doing it because of taxes.

And by all accounts (or, 2 minutes of Googling) Fruit of the Loom's headquarters are still in Kentucky. They moved their operations to other countries. And it was to save on labor, not taxes.
 
Moderate Right said:
The overseas labor costs and factories that are expensive makes the whole thing about a 50/50 proposition these days, some more some less, depending on the situation. A reduction in the corporate tax rate may be enough to tip the scales in certain circumstances. This doesn't even address the fact that lowering the corporate tax rate will give some employers the added cash to open more outlets than they currently have, driving economic growth.
Click to expand...

If people don't have more money to spend today, than they did yesterday, there will still be no reason for an employer to open more outlets because there won't be any increased demand.
 
Critter7r said:
If people don't have more money to spend today, than they did yesterday, there will still be no reason for an employer to open more outlets because there won't be any increased demand.
Click to expand...

That sounds fine. But it isn't correct.
 
gfm7175 said:
Okay. But under that reasoning, then no one should ever be in favor of entitlement programs (or any other form of massive government spending) which add trillions to our national debt.
Click to expand...

Lets be sensible here, our national debt is already too high, why do we want to add to it unnecessarily?
 
Congress has already indicated that the "tax reform" program being discussed will add 1.5-2 trillion to our debt over 10 years. Conservatives love to complain about debt until they are in power, and then it doesn't seem to matter.
 
Critter7r said:
If people don't have more money to spend today, than they did yesterday, there will still be no reason for an employer to open more outlets because there won't be any increased demand.
Click to expand...

That's just a load of liberal crap. You guys argue that income inequality gets worse and worse and yet the economy keeps growing and growing. It keeps growing because more jobs are created by the rich getting richer, giving those who weren't working before more money to spend than they had before they were working. It is the MMT'rs who argue that we should strive for zero unemployment because that grows the economy by having more people working, even when employees who were already working aren't making any more money. If you are so serious about this income inequality stuff then let the rich hang themselves by becoming so rich that their employees have no more money to spend, and then we will enter recession. According to you, we are already there.
 
Moderate Right said:
That's just a load of liberal crap. You guys argue that income inequality gets worse and worse and yet the economy keeps growing and growing. It keeps growing because more jobs are created by the rich getting richer, giving those who weren't working before more money to spend than they had before they were working. It is the MMT'rs who argue that we should strive for zero unemployment because that grows the economy by having more people working, even when employees who were already working aren't making any more money. If you are so serious about this income inequality stuff then let the rich hang themselves by becoming so rich that their employees have no more money to spend, and then we will enter recession. According to you, we are already there.
Click to expand...

And, pivot. I didn't mention anything about income inequality. Or MMT. Or being in recession. Or even unemployment. However, if the economy just keeps growing and growing, and the rich are already getting richer, why do we need corporate tax reductions?



Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 
Critter7r said:
And, pivot. I didn't mention anything about income inequality. Or MMT. Or being in recession. Or even unemployment. However, if the economy just keeps growing and growing, and the rich are already getting richer, why do we need corporate tax reductions?



Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

How can the rich possibly get richer if the poor don't have any more money to spend?
 
Floridafan said:
Lets be sensible here, our national debt is already too high, why do we want to add to it unnecessarily?
Click to expand...

I agree, it's WAY too high, and it has been for a very long time, and both parties are equally to blame for it.
 
gfm7175 said:
I agree, it's WAY too high, and it has been for a very long time, and both parties are equally to blame for it.
Click to expand...

Again, why add to it with more debt in the form of tax reduction? I really cant understand why a tax reduction would even be discussed at a time of huge deficits. If anything we need both a tax increase and spending reductions.
 
Floridafan said:
Again, why add to it with more debt in the form of tax reduction? I really cant understand why a tax reduction would even be discussed at a time of huge deficits. If anything we need both a tax increase and spending reductions.
Click to expand...

Wherein you are right is that the better way to reduce the debt is to cut spending. ;)

And for that the time of growth catching on globally is good albeit a little late.
 
Floridafan said:
Again, why add to it with more debt in the form of tax reduction? I really cant understand why a tax reduction would even be discussed at a time of huge deficits. If anything we need both a tax increase and spending reductions.
Click to expand...

I can go along with the general idea, but I believe that it is too late at this point to legitimately reverse $20T of debt... no matter what level of taxation or spending levels...
 
Critter7r said:
They keep collecting the same amount from the poor, and spend less than they collect.
Click to expand...

So, they collect the same amount but spend less and less and less? Since income inequality is worse now that ever, then the rich must be spending zero by now. But, who cares how much the rich spend? There are no laws that the rich have to spend any certain amount. According to you, the rich are only getting richer because they spend less.
 
I no longer believe any politician that says they are going to put more money into Middle Class hands. The poor, maybe.
 
I still lol at Cruz's "death tax" revisionism and his attempt to misportray Bernie as thinking there are only 80 farmers in the U.S. when he actually meant there are only 80 farmers relevant to the issue he and Cruz were currently discussing.
 
joG said:
'just nudging you to check.
Click to expand...
On what? That a middle class without increased income won't result in increased demand in the economy?

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 
Putting more money in the hands of the middle class and poor is the best way to spur economic growth.
Click to expand...

American said:
Let me know the last time that happened, and please don't mention anyone in the last 50 years.
Click to expand...

In the last 50 years? Most likely not, we would have to go back to probably Eisenhower or Kennedy up until about 1970. US household today is earning about 20% more than in 1970, after adjusting for inflation, which is ridiculously small relative to the growth of the economy and even smaller compared to the income growth seen at the top of the spectrum.

If notice the tax rate under Eisenhower and Kennedy you would see that the top tax rate was at 90%, which is when our middle class was at its peak. JFK did try to create a tax cut in 1963 however it was denied by Congress...I guess back then Congress was more for the working middle class people of this country.
 
LunaRose said:
In the last 50 years? Most likely not, we would have to go back to probably Eisenhower or Kennedy up until about 1970. US household today is earning about 20% more than in 1970, after adjusting for inflation, which is ridiculously small relative to the growth of the economy and even smaller compared to the income growth seen at the top of the spectrum.

If notice the tax rate under Eisenhower and Kennedy you would see that the top tax rate was at 90%, which is when our middle class was at its peak. JFK did try to create a tax cut in 1963 however it was denied by Congress...I guess back then Congress was more for the working middle class people of this country.
Click to expand...

It's not that simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom