• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Seriously, what's wrong with reducing the corporate tax rate to 15% (or less)?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Government can artificially provide demand, but government also has friction - wealth lost in the transfer. When government takes money out of the economy to insert it into the economy, some of that wealth must be consumed by government. Someone has to do all that paperwork, and all that paperwork is lost productivity.

Productivity is not an issue atm- it's higher than it's ever been. Demand is the issue, so putting money into the hands of people who'll spend it is good for demand, while channeling it into the hands of those who'll just squirrel it away is entirely counterproductive.

While being productive is good, it's really secondary in a macro sense. Keynes offered that burying banknotes in bottles in old coal mines would offer as much economic stimulus as mining gold, and was correct in saying so.
 
Productivity is not an issue atm- it's higher than it's ever been. Demand is the issue, so putting money into the hands of people who'll spend it is good for demand, while channeling it into the hands of those who'll just squirrel it away is entirely counterproductive.

While being productive is good, it's really secondary in a macro sense. Keynes offered that burying banknotes in bottles in old coal mines would offer as much economic stimulus as mining gold, and was correct in saying so.

You get it. Everyone should get that hording your money in banks isn't going to "trickle down" and won't help our market economy, only money spent will and the only ones providing that in our nation are the middle class.

In MY nation we have austerity, it's said to be a horrible thing but at least we never got anywhere near your GDP spending, neither did Greece, when you go blanco, it' won't be a recession, it will be far worse than that.

You can do what the Soviets did and drive inflation until a loaf of bread costs what you can carry in a wheelbarrow worth of cash or you can so what others have done and accept that you need to cut spending as well as increase taxes and get rid of deductions.

Sticking your head in the ground and saying that the poor should pay more isn't really going to fix this.
 
Productivity is not an issue atm- it's higher than it's ever been. Demand is the issue, so putting money into the hands of people who'll spend it is good for demand, while channeling it into the hands of those who'll just squirrel it away is entirely counterproductive.

While being productive is good, it's really secondary in a macro sense. Keynes offered that burying banknotes in bottles in old coal mines would offer as much economic stimulus as mining gold, and was correct in saying so.
Let's break it down. To put that money into the hands of those who will spend it, government must first take it out of the pockets of those who "squirrel it away" - i.e. the producers, those who produce and/or retail what the consumers consume. As soon as the consumers spend it, the producers have it again. Now government must take it away again. If government takes away as much as it gives, there's no point in the producers being producers; why toil for no return? So even the most draconian government must take a least a bit less from the producers than it gives the consumers to spend, else there will soon be no producers. With me so far? To state it a different way, no matter how fast you can make money circulate, some of it has to stick to the hands of the producers each cycle in order to have producers. If not, the producers will simply become consumers and put out their hands too.

Government produces nothing, so to produce that differential and continue putting money into the hands of those who will spend it, government must either take from its savings or borrow. I think even a hardcore Keynesian will agree that our government has no savings as we owe more than our GDP, and that's not even including our financial obligations like entitlements and pensions which are not considered debt. So our government can only borrow. Those who are not broke want some return on their loan, so government must always pay back more than it borrows. So now government must fund its obligations (already more than it takes in even in good times, and even more in bad), PLUS the extra it can't take from the producers to keep them producing, PLUS the interest to service its debt. Agreed?

Now the producers have to be making a profit or they will just move to saner pastures, so the longer this goes on, the more they have to squirrel away. Again, you not only can't take more, you can't even take the same as a percentage, otherwise there's no point in the producers producing. By giving the producers a secure revenue stream that requires them to take no risks, you've ensured that they will take no risks, for since you have to always leave them with a bit more than they had to begin, they have no need to invest to meet this artificial demand. So the producers must have their original nut, plus the profit from the artificial demand. Ergo you're actually making your problem worse. You HAVE to make your problem worse; if you leave the producers with less than they had, there's no legitimate reason for them to remain in business, at least in this nation, for any length of time.

And that's a best case scenario; in actuality it's much, much worse. The vast majority of our consumer goods are imported. So of every dollar of artificial demand, a significant portion leaves our economy to be squirreled away in another country. So now the government must borrow that portion of its normal obligations that it can't fund in good times, PLUS that extra portion of its normal obligations that it can't fund because of reduced tax revenue, PLUS the extra it can't take from the producers to keep them producing, PLUS the interest to service its debt, PLUS the portion of artificial demand that is taken away from our economy as wages, materials and profits. The faster government borrows and spends, the faster the last three of these grow. And we still haven't considered things like the cost for government to do these things, or that portion of stimulus we send directly out of the country or that our consumers send directly out of the country.

The Keynesian model is the man who buys watermelons for fifty cents and sells them three for a dollar, and all he can think to do is buy a bigger truck.
 
Let's break it down. To put that money into the hands of those who will spend it, government must first take it out of the pockets of those who "squirrel it away" - i.e. the producers, those who produce and/or retail what the consumers consume. As soon as the consumers spend it, the producers have it again. Now government must take it away again. If government takes away as much as it gives, there's no point in the producers being producers; why toil for no return? So even the most draconian government must take a least a bit less from the producers than it gives the consumers to spend, else there will soon be no producers. With me so far? To state it a different way, no matter how fast you can make money circulate, some of it has to stick to the hands of the producers each cycle in order to have producers. If not, the producers will simply become consumers and put out their hands too.

Government produces nothing, so to produce that differential and continue putting money into the hands of those who will spend it, government must either take from its savings or borrow. I think even a hardcore Keynesian will agree that our government has no savings as we owe more than our GDP, and that's not even including our financial obligations like entitlements and pensions which are not considered debt. So our government can only borrow. Those who are not broke want some return on their loan, so government must always pay back more than it borrows. So now government must fund its obligations (already more than it takes in even in good times, and even more in bad), PLUS the extra it can't take from the producers to keep them producing, PLUS the interest to service its debt. Agreed?

Now the producers have to be making a profit or they will just move to saner pastures, so the longer this goes on, the more they have to squirrel away. Again, you not only can't take more, you can't even take the same as a percentage, otherwise there's no point in the producers producing. By giving the producers a secure revenue stream that requires them to take no risks, you've ensured that they will take no risks, for since you have to always leave them with a bit more than they had to begin, they have no need to invest to meet this artificial demand. So the producers must have their original nut, plus the profit from the artificial demand. Ergo you're actually making your problem worse. You HAVE to make your problem worse; if you leave the producers with less than they had, there's no legitimate reason for them to remain in business, at least in this nation, for any length of time.

And that's a best case scenario; in actuality it's much, much worse. The vast majority of our consumer goods are imported. So of every dollar of artificial demand, a significant portion leaves our economy to be squirreled away in another country. So now the government must borrow that portion of its normal obligations that it can't fund in good times, PLUS that extra portion of its normal obligations that it can't fund because of reduced tax revenue, PLUS the extra it can't take from the producers to keep them producing, PLUS the interest to service its debt, PLUS the portion of artificial demand that is taken away from our economy as wages, materials and profits. The faster government borrows and spends, the faster the last three of these grow. And we still haven't considered things like the cost for government to do these things, or that portion of stimulus we send directly out of the country or that our consumers send directly out of the country.

The Keynesian model is the man who buys watermelons for fifty cents and sells them three for a dollar, and all he can think to do is buy a bigger truck.

So your remedy is basically to disregard ALL of reality and play pretend? Because that is what you are proposing, to replace all of reality with pretend and say that if pretend is -5 then +5 will fix pretend.

The real problem isn't the growth of government, it's the growth of government agencies and most of all the defense.

Cut it in half and it would be twice as big as it needs to be. Raise taxes for the wealthiest with 16% and whoopdefuckingdoo, there you have what you can either not do and wait until you get to the point of Greece (not really, you have nothing anyone needs and if your economy fails, we don't care much about it).
 
So your remedy is basically to disregard ALL of reality and play pretend? Because that is what you are proposing, to replace all of reality with pretend and say that if pretend is -5 then +5 will fix pretend.

The real problem isn't the growth of government, it's the growth of government agencies and most of all the defense.

Cut it in half and it would be twice as big as it needs to be. Raise taxes for the wealthiest with 16% and whoopdefuckingdoo, there you have what you can either not do and wait until you get to the point of Greece (not really, you have nothing anyone needs and if your economy fails, we don't care much about it).
My remedy is first off, to stop making things worse. When you find yourself in a hole you don't argue about whether you should dig a little more slowly or a little more quickly, you stop digging and take some time to figure out how you got into the hole and how you can get out. There are no easy answers; much of our problem has been looking for easy answers. We can't cut our government in half in any meaningful time frame; our government is simply far too big a part of our economy. We'd be in depression. And we can't raise taxes and/or increase government to get out. The bigger the cart, the fewer people left to pull the cart. The steps I would take (off the top of my head) are:
1. Crack down on illegal immigration. We have a surfeit of labor when we need labor to be more highly valued. I'd establish a path to citizenship AFTER I closed down the border, but it would be what citizens pay PLUS back taxes and penalties PLUS penalties for coming here illegally, only for productive people without criminal records, require speaking and reading/writing legible English, and with a healthy multi-year probationary period. I won't cut off my nose to spite my face by kicking out otherwise law-abiding illegals and importing less Americanized if more law-abiding replacements, but American citizenship is precious and should be valued accordingly.

2. Take a hard look at where we need legal immigration increased (such as specific fields of PHDs) versus where business would like to cut costs and then temporarily increase those visas while simultaneously using tax cuts and retargeting spending to incentivize the private sector and public universities to provide more of these fields. Lower general legal immigration quotas, and revise the process. I don't want to know that your cousin is already here or that you're from a critically under-represented country or ethnic group, show me what you bring to the party that I need. And if all you can bring to the table is diversity, sorry. You may want to reapply when I'm not broke and hurting. The one exception might be Asians; we can use some more Asians. And Jamaicans. And hot chicks in general. You want rich guys to start spending money, bring in some hot chicks.

3. Start phasing in real reciprocal trade agreements with other nations. If your nation has a 25% import tariff, inspection fee, or duty on our imported goods, we now have the same 25% import tariff, inspection fee, or duty on goods imported from your nation. To hell with free trade, that's a race to the bottom; I want duty-free trade with only those nations with equivalent or better labor rates and standards of living.

4. I'd increase foreign aid, but make it only in kind. We'll give Egypt a billion dollars worth of Fords or Maytags or Century Wreckers; we won't give them a billion dollars borrowed so that they can cut their best deal elsewhere. Want to build a domestic automobile industry? Fine, but I'm not funding my competitor. And that aid will be dependent on how each nation behaves; if you continually undercut us in the UN or in other ways, you obviously don't need our help. That way we get a nice boost to our manufacturing economy and also a recurring parts sales stream.

5. I'd start a dialog with business leaders about what they need, what they want, to manufacture in this country. Then I'd present a list of things I want and do some horse trading. I'll give you tax breaks, but I'll tie them directly to payroll increases. (Head count, not total outlay. $100 million in CEO-level bonuses is NOT equal to 2,000 $50K jobs.) You want this regulation eased, maybe I want 10% cleaner exhaust or 10% better energy efficiency. (Note: This already happens, but the payoff is in campaign donations and jobs for otherwise unemployable relatives and mistresses.)

6. I'd draft a simple plan dropping corporate taxes over ten years to zero while raising short term (say, a year or less) capital gains to be taxed as wage income. Make your money however you want and legally can, everyone gets treated the same. The only corporate taxes I'd have in the end would be on excess payroll on the executive level (I'd have to study the issue to determine how to craft proper guidelines) and on money sent out of the country. Build it here and sell it tax free; import your gidgets and I want Uncle Sam's cut of that money. Stock options tied to company performance I'd tax as wage income; stock options not tied to company performance, so that however the stock price fares the recipient enjoys a nice profit at no risk or investment, I'd tax as wage income plus a 10% penalty, just like early 401K withdrawals. Long term capital gains I'd tax as maybe 3/4 of wage income, after indexing for inflation.

7. I'd put a virtual freeze on government hiring. When someone leaves, he doesn't get replaced, and if necessary we would transfer to fill essential positions.

8. I'd immediately cut every department 5% over two years, with the understanding that the next five years after that we would cut 1% a year. Find the fat, guys, we all have it.

9. I'd begin pulling out of every foreign base except South Korea, the only ally currently at war and at risk of being invaded, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Iraq I would put on a training-only, payment basis, where the host nation pays our actual cost if they want us there. I'd offer the same deal to other places, but the vast majority of our bases are neither needed nor wanted except for the revenue we spend maintaining it. Otherwise, if you want us to have a base in case Russia or Red China invades, you can maintain it to our standards and we'll execute a reciprocal agreement - if we're obligated for fight for you, you're obligated to maintain a proportionally sized and equipped force and you're obligate to fight for us. I'd take a portion of the money saved and use it to defend our own border, and I'd take another portion and fund a large fleet of fast heavy haulers so that we can deliver and maintain a fighting force where it's needed, when it's needed. Without the need to maintain so many bases, we could easily cut our overall forces and still increase our combat and combat support troops.

10. I'd start requiring all government grants, purchases, and tax breaks to be for American-made products or American-owned service companies. If the UN wants to make a major stink, I'm fine with getting the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US. About the only thing we have left is that we're the world's most profitable market and I'm tired of giving other nations better terms to come take a piece of it. A leaner group of nations made up of like-minded democratic republics - the UK, the EU, Japan, South Korea - would serve us better anyway, without such atrocities as Yemen or Saudi Arabia chairing the Commission on Human Rights.

11. I'd start phasing out that portion of the EITC beyond what the taxpayer actually paid. No wealth transfers.

12. I'd start removing the cap on payroll taxes. Yes, it sucks that Social Security won''t be there for you if you don't need it. Our previous politicians (which YOU helped elect by action or inaction) spent that money, now it's just another entitlement and just another tax. I want to eventually transition it to an individual account in approved investments similar to that Congress enjoys, but just at the moment we can't afford it.

13. After the first year of actually spending less than the year before, I'd come back to the people and ask to sunset the Bush tax cuts on everyone. We've all dug a hole, and we all need to help pull ourselves out of it. It's going to be a tough few years as we transition back to less consumption and more production, but in the end we'll own our own nation again.

EDIT: Forgot to add: 14. Ask Congress for a clean bill legalizing pot and a clean bill legalizing gay marriage. If nothing else that should keep them too busy to commit much Congressiony mischief. And if I get them, I can move all those LEOs chasing pot dealers to preventing the BATFE from arming the cartels and all the gay weddings and honeymoons will be a nice boost to the economy.

Mind you, that's all off the top of my head.
 
Last edited:
My remedy is first off, to stop making things worse. When you find yourself in a hole you don't argue about whether you should dig a little more slowly or a little more quickly, you stop digging and take some time to figure out how you got into the hole and how you can get out. There are no easy answers; much of our problem has been looking for easy answers. We can't cut our government in half in any meaningful time frame; our government is simply far too big a part of our economy. We'd be in depression. And we can't raise taxes and/or increase government to get out. The bigger the cart, the fewer people left to pull the cart. The steps I would take (off the top of my head) are:
1. Crack down on illegal immigration. We have a surfeit of labor when we need labor to be more highly valued. I'd establish a path to citizenship AFTER I closed down the border, but it would be what citizens pay PLUS back taxes and penalties PLUS penalties for coming here illegally, only for productive people without criminal records, require speaking and reading/writing legible English, and with a healthy multi-year probationary period. I won't cut off my nose to spite my face by kicking out otherwise law-abiding illegals and importing less Americanized if more law-abiding replacements, but American citizenship is precious and should be valued accordingly.

2. Take a hard look at where we need legal immigration increased (such as specific fields of PHDs) versus where business would like to cut costs and then temporarily increase those visas while simultaneously using tax cuts and retargeting spending to incentivize the private sector and public universities to provide more of these fields. Lower general legal immigration quotas, and revise the process. I don't want to know that your cousin is already here or that you're from a critically under-represented country or ethnic group, show me what you bring to the party that I need. And if all you can bring to the table is diversity, sorry. You may want to reapply when I'm not broke and hurting. The one exception might be Asians; we can use some more Asians. And Jamaicans. And hot chicks in general. You want rich guys to start spending money, bring in some hot chicks.

3. Start phasing in real reciprocal trade agreements with other nations. If your nation has a 25% import tariff, inspection fee, or duty on our imported goods, we now have the same 25% import tariff, inspection fee, or duty on goods imported from your nation. To hell with free trade, that's a race to the bottom; I want duty-free trade with only those nations with equivalent or better labor rates and standards of living.

4. I'd increase foreign aid, but make it only in kind. We'll give Egypt a billion dollars worth of Fords or Maytags or Century Wreckers; we won't give them a billion dollars borrowed so that they can cut their best deal elsewhere. Want to build a domestic automobile industry? Fine, but I'm not funding my competitor. And that aid will be dependent on how each nation behaves; if you continually undercut us in the UN or in other ways, you obviously don't need our help. That way we get a nice boost to our manufacturing economy and also a recurring parts sales stream.

5. I'd start a dialog with business leaders about what they need, what they want, to manufacture in this country. Then I'd present a list of things I want and do some horse trading. I'll give you tax breaks, but I'll tie them directly to payroll increases. (Head count, not total outlay. $100 million in CEO-level bonuses is NOT equal to 2,000 $50K jobs.) You want this regulation eased, maybe I want 10% cleaner exhaust or 10% better energy efficiency. (Note: This already happens, but the payoff is in campaign donations and jobs for otherwise unemployable relatives and mistresses.)

6. I'd draft a simple plan dropping corporate taxes over ten years to zero while raising short term (say, a year or less) capital gains to be taxed as wage income. Make your money however you want and legally can, everyone gets treated the same. The only corporate taxes I'd have in the end would be on excess payroll on the executive level (I'd have to study the issue to determine how to craft proper guidelines) and on money sent out of the country. Build it here and sell it tax free; import your gidgets and I want Uncle Sam's cut of that money. Stock options tied to company performance I'd tax as wage income; stock options not tied to company performance, so that however the stock price fares the recipient enjoys a nice profit at no risk or investment, I'd tax as wage income plus a 10% penalty, just like early 401K withdrawals. Long term capital gains I'd tax as maybe 3/4 of wage income, after indexing for inflation.

7. I'd put a virtual freeze on government hiring. When someone leaves, he doesn't get replaced, and if necessary we would transfer to fill essential positions.

8. I'd immediately cut every department 5% over two years, with the understanding that the next five years after that we would cut 1% a year. Find the fat, guys, we all have it.

9. I'd begin pulling out of every foreign base except South Korea, the only ally currently at war and at risk of being invaded, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Iraq I would put on a training-only, payment basis, where the host nation pays our actual cost if they want us there. I'd offer the same deal to other places, but the vast majority of our bases are neither needed nor wanted except for the revenue we spend maintaining it. Otherwise, if you want us to have a base in case Russia or Red China invades, you can maintain it to our standards and we'll execute a reciprocal agreement - if we're obligated for fight for you, you're obligated to maintain a proportionally sized and equipped force and you're obligate to fight for us. I'd take a portion of the money saved and use it to defend our own border, and I'd take another portion and fund a large fleet of fast heavy haulers so that we can deliver and maintain a fighting force where it's needed, when it's needed. Without the need to maintain so many bases, we could easily cut our overall forces and still increase our combat and combat support troops.

10. I'd start requiring all government grants, purchases, and tax breaks to be for American-made products or American-owned service companies. If the UN wants to make a major stink, I'm fine with getting the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US. About the only thing we have left is that we're the world's most profitable market and I'm tired of giving other nations better terms to come take a piece of it. A leaner group of nations made up of like-minded democratic republics - the UK, the EU, Japan, South Korea - would serve us better anyway, without such atrocities as Yemen or Saudi Arabia chairing the Commission on Human Rights.

11. I'd start phasing out that portion of the EITC beyond what the taxpayer actually paid. No wealth transfers.

12. I'd start removing the cap on payroll taxes. Yes, it sucks that Social Security won''t be there for you if you don't need it. Our previous politicians (which YOU helped elect by action or inaction) spent that money, now it's just another entitlement and just another tax. I want to eventually transition it to an individual account in approved investments similar to that Congress enjoys, but just at the moment we can't afford it.

13. After the first year of actually spending less than the year before, I'd come back to the people and ask to sunset the Bush tax cuts on everyone. We've all dug a hole, and we all need to help pull ourselves out of it. It's going to be a tough few years as we transition back to less consumption and more production, but in the end we'll own our own nation again.

Mind you, that's all off the top of my head.

Yeah, being a tad tipsy and reading all of that isn't going to work, but i won't disrespect you and respond half arsed either, i'll bookmark this response and respond to it when i have more time and can actually read and comprehend those things you fancy folk call words.

It'll take a day or so but ... all in all, i know you won't like my response Mein Herr.
 
Yeah, being a tad tipsy and reading all of that isn't going to work, but i won't disrespect you and respond half arsed either, i'll bookmark this response and respond to it when i have more time and can actually read and comprehend those things you fancy folk call words.

It'll take a day or so but ... all in all, i know you won't like my response Mein Herr.
😀 I'll be waiting.
 
😀 I'll be waiting.

So will i... wait.. no i'll be writing is what i will do...

I could go on the attack and just kill your arguments with three words per point but since i have said i expect something out of you i should lend something from a sober brain in a reply.

God i need to go to sleep.
 
Government produces nothing

False premises inevitably lead to false conclusions. No matter how many times that particularly premise is discredited, you'll trot it out again as if it were true, as an article of Faith. You might as well say that the earth is flat, base elaborate arguments on that statement.

Government produces the structure where commerce takes place, and it also produces the modern means of of commerce, money. It also produces goods and services that private industry finds unattractive but that all of see as necessary.

Remove that single false premise & your arguments fall away as gibberish.

Your whole concept of "producers" seeking "returns" on "investment" creates the runaway train effect of today, where more & more gets skimmed off the top in an attempt to preserve return rates. It's totally dependent on growth exceeding skim and on some equitable distribution of such growth, which simply isn't happening, and hasn't been for 30 years. The disparity in gains between labor & capital has become enormous, and grows continuously. 7% return on investment over 30 years yields 8X the original number of dollars, and 8X the return at the same rate, but wages have lagged far, far behind that, with workers lucky to be receiving 3X the number of dollars they did 30 years ago for the same work.
 
False premises inevitably lead to false conclusions. No matter how many times that particularly premise is discredited, you'll trot it out again as if it were true, as an article of Faith. You might as well say that the earth is flat, base elaborate arguments on that statement.

Government produces the structure where commerce takes place, and it also produces the modern means of of commerce, money. It also produces goods and services that private industry finds unattractive but that all of see as necessary.

Remove that single false premise & your arguments fall away as gibberish.

Your whole concept of "producers" seeking "returns" on "investment" creates the runaway train effect of today, where more & more gets skimmed off the top in an attempt to preserve return rates. It's totally dependent on growth exceeding skim and on some equitable distribution of such growth, which simply isn't happening, and hasn't been for 30 years. The disparity in gains between labor & capital has become enormous, and grows continuously. 7% return on investment over 30 years yields 8X the original number of dollars, and 8X the return at the same rate, but wages have lagged far, far behind that, with workers lucky to be receiving 3X the number of dollars they did 30 years ago for the same work.

Your analysis is far too simple, since I calculated the for Jack-in-the-box if you took every penny in corporate profit and redistributed it to the workers everyone would get a raise of ~1.05/hr.
 
I was litening on the radio to the money talk guy and how he is looking at different reports than just hiring and unemployment. He was predicting based on reports that SS admin will add 400,000 people to the disability rolls in April. This is more people than are being hired. It also adds more to our debt. So think about this every time has some stupid idea of raising the retirement age. It just increases the number of people on disability.
 
Lets see, if it is investor returns (ie corporate profits) that causes people to not be paid enough. Then I think eliminating corporate profits should result in more that $1/hr wage bump dont you?

I think you're building another strawman, your fave.
 
That could just push more corporate movement to other countries with more favorable taxation policies toward corporate tax. There are all kinds of affects of taxation. Who pays for this tax when you increase tax on business? You do. Every time you purchase somethng you will have to pay more and more tax! How can you win? If you want to increase money flow into the USA you lower corporate tax, not raise it. Time to take logic and study supply and demand.

The other problem is adding more and more legislation and things like socialist health care designed to increase control of people by a strong federal government. We will just be one big communist hell-hole then. Is Tyrany what you desire?

Welcome to surfdom????
 
Last edited:
That could just push more corporate movement to other countries with more favorable taxation policies toward corporate tax. There are all kinds of affects of taxation. Who pays for this tax when you increase tax on business? You do. Every time you purchase somethng you will have to pay more and more tax! How can you win? If you want to increase money flow into the USA you lower corporate tax, not raise it. Time to take logic and study supply and demand.

The other problem is adding more and more legislation and things like socialist health care designed to increase control of people by a strong federal government. We will just be one big communist hell-hole then. Is Tyrany what you desire?

Welcome to surfdom????

Remarkable string of half baked attributions, with the crowning glory at the end, the one wrt healthcare. Socialized healthcare is actually a competitive advantage for countries who have it, because business doesn't pay for it directly, as in this country.

Surfdom? As in riding a wave, or what?
 
Since SCOTUS ruled corporations are people, they should pay at same rates as people, including on foreign income.

The SCOTUS ruled that corporations have the same right to free speech as unions and other groups who claim to represent "The people" and thus consider themselves privy to the same rights as "The people" they lobby for when it comes to politics.
 
The SCOTUS ruled that corporations have the same right to free speech as unions and other groups who claim to represent "The people" and thus consider themselves privy to the same rights as "The people" they lobby for when it comes to politics.

More false partisan crap.

The issue isn't corporations versus unions. They can have the same rights to 'speech'.

The issue is allowing legal constructions with a lot of money and artifical agendas - including corporations and unions - to dominate elections instead real people.
 
I still say corps should pay the same rate that unions have to pay.

Essentially, they do. When a business has no after expense profit, they pay no federal taxes. Unions never show a profit.

The difference is in how execs are compensated. Union officials pay full rate on earned income, while business execs' compensation is often structured in such a way that they don't.

Top business execs' compensation is also much, much larger than that of union officials.
 
Close, but still 100% wrong. Unions are tax exempt. They can do whatever they want with the money (such as fund a single political party) without having to worry about ever paying taxes.

IMO, unions should be treated like churches wrt retaining their tax free status.
 
You get it. Everyone should get that hording your money in banks isn't going to "trickle down" and won't help our market economy, only money spent will and the only ones providing that in our nation are the middle class.

In MY nation we have austerity, it's said to be a horrible thing but at least we never got anywhere near your GDP spending, neither did Greece, when you go blanco, it' won't be a recession, it will be far worse than that.

You can do what the Soviets did and drive inflation until a loaf of bread costs what you can carry in a wheelbarrow worth of cash or you can so what others have done and accept that you need to cut spending as well as increase taxes and get rid of deductions.

Sticking your head in the ground and saying that the poor should pay more isn't really going to fix this.

So the fact that the nations that hit the austerity measures hard are entering a double dip recession is not an issue to you?

You can reduce expansions of spending until the recession is over and let the revenue catch up with the spending with a much less pronounced economic slowdown.
 
Close, but still 100% wrong. Unions are tax exempt. They can do whatever they want with the money (such as fund a single political party) without having to worry about ever paying taxes.

IMO, unions should be treated like churches wrt retaining their tax free status.

As I offered, the functionality of tax law is immaterial to the structure. Any corporation that spends all their money, like unions, for whatever purpose, ends up being taxed the same as unions. Citizens United means they can spend it all supporting Republicans, if the BoD says so.

What you offered was an oxymoron, a non sequiter, an empty right wing talking point, a meaningless bit of posturing.

No surprises in that.
 
@OP

'What's wrong' with it? Nothing.

There's nothing wrong with reducing the top marginal rate on income to 10%, or increasing it to 75% either.

What you want to do here is some research and math. You'll want at least a passing understanding of psychology, economics and accounting.

Then you can begin to make conclusions about what would happen overall by changing tax rates that may strongly alter micro-economic behaviour.

Once you've done that, go ahead and post here, since you will now have something worth saying.

Don't be surprised if your conclusion based on numbers is the opposite of what you want it to be. Even that doesn't mean your conclusion is right or wrong.

Right now you simply look like an immature ideologue, and you want the same simple answer to apply in every situation.

Don't you think if there were easy, obvious, objectively correct answers to major economic problems, that we would be using those answers by now?
 
Back
Top