• 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!

Senate Tax Cuts Explained in One Sentence.

washunut said:
Do you move your corporate headquarters and where you are incorporated because of labor costs in factories which don't change due to this transaction. If it takes you more than a second to acknowledge what everyone knows, including secretary Lew who tried to halt inversions you simply don't understand corporate finance.
Click to expand...

Did I say U.S. corporations kill their U.S. business and start over by incorporating abroad? No, I did not.

I insinuated they incorporate overseas due to high labor cost. Don't get it twisted. Doesn't mean they pull up stakes completely in the U.S. Just means they don't expand here as much, if at all, and instead open new factories/office space abroad.

Major U.S. corporations don't abandon the U.S. market completely unless they've been run out of the U.S. due to some significant legal problem OR their U.S. market dries up and they find new life abroad. Consider Hollywood Video now doing quite well in Australia or Woolworth which left the U.S. decades ago but is doing quite well in Europe today.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
Did I say U.S. corporations kill their U.S. business and start over by incorporating abroad? No, I did not.

I insinuated they incorporate overseas due to high labor cost. Don't get it twisted. Doesn't mean they pull up stakes completely in the U.S. Just means they don't expand here as much, if at all, and instead open new factories/office space abroad.

Major U.S. corporations don't abandon the U.S. market completely unless they've been run out of the U.S. due to some significant legal problem OR their U.S. market dries up and they find new life abroad. Consider Hollywood Video now doing quite well in Australia or Woolworth which left the U.S. decades ago but is doing quite well in Europe today.
Click to expand...

No problem you simply don't understand what corporate tax inversions do. Most people don't. Has nothing to do with closing down business here or anywhere.

This is a good example though why it is so easy for politicians and TV talking heads to sway the uneducated.
 
jonny5 said:
Not really funny at all. Class warfare is using class as a wedge to win. Congress 'giving to the rich' is not to beat or punish the poor. But arguing the rich shouldnt get tax cuts because theyre rich obviously is.
Click to expand...
The rich pay lawyers and lobbyists to represent their interests and convince Congress to tilt the scale in their favor. The lawyers and lobbyists get paid dearly to shill for the rich. Why do you feel a need to shill for them for free?

I really don't have to spell out how giving tax-cuts to the rich and raising taxes on everyone earning less than $75K a year punishes the poor.

jonny5 said:
Oh, so weve move the chain from 'poor' to 30,000. And made a lot of assumptions to get the result you want. Someone making 30k today will be making more than 30k in 2021 due to similar effects, so the chart is meaningless.
Click to expand...

DO3rOiSV4AAwEx7.jpg
 
Why are the cuts for the rich permanent and those for the "middle class" temporary?
 
Why is there much discussion about effects of all this? No mystery here. The GOP would be delighted if this tax plan makes both the economy and life better for everyone. They are more or less the party of the wealthier among us, and as such they try to make life easier for, well, the wealthier among us. They indeed believe that “a rising tide lifts all boats.” But some also believe that the poor are unworthy, or should only be helped by private charities, or similar theories that argue against government action to assist the less fortunate/lazy/whatever, whom will be negatively affected by less revenue the tax cut will bring. If the tax cut “unleashes the energy and power of the private sector,” the job creators, marvelous! But not to get all Marxist here, but groups or classes tend to adopt economic beliefs that benefit of heir group or class, and support their decision with convenient ideologies. The other side, the demand siders, believe the economy moves when more dough reaches the middle and lower folks. They tend to get support from, big surprise here, those below.
 
washunut said:
No problem you simply don't understand what corporate tax inversions do. Most people don't. Has nothing to do with closing down business here or anywhere.

This is a good example though why it is so easy for politicians and TV talking heads to sway the uneducated.
Click to expand...

From here it looks like you all are talking about two different things - actual businesses which do (re)locate based on labor and environmental costs etc. versus the stuff corporations do on paper to reduce their U.S. corporate income tax burdens, but that don't affect many if any actual jobs or business activity that isn't moving 0s and 1s around in computers somewhere.

FWIW, the kinds of things you're describing are why I in principle do support lowering our corporate tax rates. Bottom line is the multi-national behemoths just won't ever pay it, because there are too many legal ways to get around it and politicians aren't going to really force the issue for the practical reason that those guys wield a lot of power, and it would make the U.S. uncompetitive, both on paper and in reality. I'm not sure if the current bills lower rates and kill some of the loopholes or not because I'm not a foreign tax expert and don't have time to figure out the details. I hope that's the case and we can get back to a corporate tax regime where the complicated tax avoidance strategies all the big boys use are no longer necessary. What I expect is the bill lowers rates and leaves in place those loopholes, but I could be wrong...
 
Objective Voice said:
In that context, I'm referring to the working-poor to whom I referred to previously.
Click to expand...

To which I responded, they dont pay income tax, so the GOP cant very well "take from the poor to provide more means of wealth accumulation for the rich". In fact, in these bills, even less people will be paying tax. As usual, 1% of people will shoulder the greatest share, though they receive the least direct benefit.
 
MTAtech said:
The rich pay lawyers and lobbyists to represent their interests and convince Congress to tilt the scale in their favor. The lawyers and lobbyists get paid dearly to shill for the rich. Why do you feel a need to shill for them for free?

I really don't have to spell out how giving tax-cuts to the rich and raising taxes on everyone earning less than $75K a year punishes the poor.
Click to expand...

I shill for everyone, for free, because I believe in equality under the law. The rich are just entitled to keep their earnings as the poor and everyone else. And you do have to spell it out, because no on is getting a tax increase. Explain to me how someone paying 15% on 30k today, who will be paying 12% on 30k tomorrow, and 12% on 30k in 10 years, is a tax increase.

Your chart is wrong because it ASSUMES the healthcare mandate is repealed which will lead to people voluntarily not buying health insurance leading to higher insurance premiums. Thats a BIG assumption, which ignores other big assumptions, like the economic and wage growth due to a fairer simpler tax code. Its just as much guessing as is the TAG you dont like which shows a major increase in incomes.

Capture.JPG
 
jonny5 said:
I shill for everyone, for free, because I believe in equality under the law. The rich are just entitled to keep their earnings as the poor and everyone else. And you do have to spell it out, because no on is getting a tax increase. Explain to me how someone paying 15% on 30k today, who will be paying 12% on 30k tomorrow, and 12% on 30k in 10 years, is a tax increase.

Your chart is wrong because it ASSUMES the healthcare mandate is repealed which will lead to people voluntarily not buying health insurance leading to higher insurance premiums. Thats a BIG assumption, which ignores other big assumptions, like the economic and wage growth due to a fairer simpler tax code. Its just as much guessing as is the TAG you dont like which shows a major increase in incomes.

View attachment 67225077
Click to expand...

You are responding to my post on the Senate tax plan with a chart on the House tax plan. Also, since you gave no citation, we have no idea what is the version of that chart. There were revisions.
 
jonny5 said:
They arent. If they use reconciliation, theyre all temporary.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's true. The accounting gimmickry is the bill magically turns revenue POSITIVE in year 10 by repealing all the individual tax provisions after year 8. It's my understanding that allows the corporate tax provisions to all be "permanent" changes - i.e. require an act of Congress to change.

Could be wrong but I think that's the whole point of the gimmickry on the individual side. The presumption, I guess, is whoever is in charge won't let individuals suffer a roughly $180 billion per year tax increase between 2025 and 2026 which is what the law does as written.
 
washunut said:
No problem you simply don't understand what corporate tax inversions do. Most people don't. Has nothing to do with closing down business here or anywhere.

This is a good example though why it is so easy for politicians and TV talking heads to sway the uneducated.
Click to expand...

JasperL said:
From here it looks like you all are talking about two different things - actual businesses which do (re)locate based on labor and environmental costs etc. versus the stuff corporations do on paper to reduce their U.S. corporate income tax burdens, but that don't affect many if any actual jobs or business activity that isn't moving 0s and 1s around in computers somewhere.

FWIW, the kinds of things you're describing are why I in principle do support lowering our corporate tax rates. Bottom line is the multi-national behemoths just won't ever pay it, because there are too many legal ways to get around it and politicians aren't going to really force the issue for the practical reason that those guys wield a lot of power, and it would make the U.S. uncompetitive, both on paper and in reality. I'm not sure if the current bills lower rates and kill some of the loopholes or not because I'm not a foreign tax expert and don't have time to figure out the details. I hope that's the case and we can get back to a corporate tax regime where the complicated tax avoidance strategies all the big boys use are no longer necessary. What I expect is the bill lowers rates and leaves in place those loopholes, but I could be wrong...
Click to expand...

Thanks to you both. I really hadn't given the tax inversion aspect much thought before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom