mdk

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Unless of course absolutely everything we are being told is a lie, and this is some sort of false-flag activity by some deep-state organization. ^.- Of course I am open to any links that can be provided. Most of what you are saying seems to be highly misconstrued though.

@Sanctus Spooki

During a presser at a LV hospital, Trump hinted that they've got the motive worked out and 'you'll be hearing about that soon.' I have no idea what that means -- but some images seemed to show a note in the guy's hotel room, and the wife/gf/whoever is state-side and talking to authorities, so I think it's a credible statement.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

It just might take the police more than three days to properly sort everything out.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

<Snipped quote by mdk>
While I find this document quite informative, it lacks a handful of specifics that would make it possible for someone to calculate the final effect on the revenue, and doesn't have concrete revenue predictions that qualify as legally guaranteed counterweights. I guess we'll just have to wait until the Congressional Budget Office crunches all of the numbers based on the bill itself.

Also, subsidies are not mentioned in that document. How unfortunate.

@catchamber

I mean, that's not a thing. "Legally guaranteed counterweight" is a made-up concept. But yeah, we'll have to wait until we see the actual bill. As a statement of concept, I feel pretty comfortable with what Trump's suggesting.

Subsidies are probably gonna need a case-by-case assessment.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

If that's what Trump is suggesting, can you show me how his proposal balances out a $7.8 trillion tax cut over 10 years? I'm not asking for logical arguments about expectations of increased investment or job growth. I want to see a legally guaranteed counterweight to that cut.

@catchamber

assets.donaldjtrump.com/trump-tax-ref…

The Trump Tax Plan Is Revenue Neutral
The Trump tax cuts are fully paid for by:
1. Reducing or eliminating most deductions and loopholes available to the very rich.
2. A one-time deemed repatriation of corporate cash held overseas at a significantly discounted
10% tax rate, followed by an end to the deferral of taxes on corporate income earned abroad.
3. Reducing or eliminating corporate loopholes that cater to special interests, as well as
deductions made unnecessary or redundant by the new lower tax rate on corporations and
business income. We will also phase in a reasonable cap on the deductibility of business
interest expenses

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

<Snipped quote by mdk>
It's not misleading, if you look at it as a measure of where the tax burdens have shifted over the decades. I'm arguing that corporations are being taxed a very small amount, and getting boatloads of subsidies on top of that. Now, I'm not advocating that the US necessarily needs to raise their corporate tax rates, because there are ways to grow tax revenues without changing rates. Either way, it seems reasonable to say that if the tax rate is going to be lowered, all of the deductions and subsidies need to be cut out to balance the books.

From the article you linked: "However, it's not quite that simple. Those rates above are the statutory rates — the rates set by law. And that is not the rate that many companies in the U.S. end up paying. Deductions and credits help push down businesses' total tax liability, meaning that many companies end up paying far less than the statutory rate. Here is the average effective tax rate for U.S. corporations."

That average effective tax rate is 18.6%, which makes it the 4th highest in the world.

@catchamber

Well, I mean, it is misleading, because we're talking about corporate tax rates and you're talking about an entirely different thing.

Deductions and credits (for the most part) need to go away and the overall rate needs to come down. This is precisely what Trump is suggesting.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

technically you've just argued that setting a corporate tax rate of zero would leave 93% of the federal revenue completely in-tact.

@mdk

Coming back to this, humor me @catchamber

dailycaller.com/2014/11/14/billions-o…

So I haven't run the numbers but apparently collecting zero in corporate tax might even work out to a net positive.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Hider

@catchamber

npr.org/2017/08/07/541797699/fact-che…

I don't know where.... oh I see it. Okay. so your graph is looking at tax as percent of total federal revenue, and not actual tax rate. That's a misleading graph, and technically you've just argued that setting a corporate tax rate of zero would leave 93% of the federal revenue completely in-tact.

The actual corporate tax rate in the US is the highest in the world (35%).

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

your tolerance with regards to the open invitation for corporations to waltz in and suck on the government's mammaries. As a visual aid, picture the left breast with "Subsidies" tattooed on it, and the right breast with "Corporate Tax Cuts" tattooed on it.

@catchamber

That's totally backwards. The government does not produce a dime. I mean.... okay technically they produce the actual physical dimes, yes, I'm aware. Every dollar the Feds have is one they've taken from you, or from the market. So in the tit-sucking analogy, you have to picture the government as a toddler sitting in a pile of its own shit, reaching for your boobs and screaming "GIVE ME MOAR."

That's not a number. Also, if they get sizable tax cuts, wouldn't you agree that it'd be fair for them to also stop getting so many subsidies?

Sure. I'd also agree that with the simplification of the tax code, a whoooooole lot of deductions, exemptions, and other allowances should be removed. The whole process should get significantly more intuitive, open, honest, etc. Up until now it's been "The tax rate is X, and you'll pay Y, based on how much Z you give to A, B, or C, and if you D your money you can also subtract E and F."

How about just 20% period and call it a day. Because for all you know, a flat 20% could be a tax increase for a lot of companies.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Alright, let's go through each of those.

@catchamber

I'm not gonna do the point-by-point thing. The point is this -- businesses have one, and only one, decision-making process -- where can I make the most money? That is the only reason anybody invests in any country. When we see big companies building here, that represents a growing consensus that America will be the best place to make money.

Business-friendly national policies are the only thing a free market can do to lure investors.... okay that's overstating. Friendly policy is the carrot, tariffs are the stick. Trump is wielding both. Investment is up and unemployment is down and the stock market has literally never been better.

PS -- the national debt was only $10.6t when Obama took office, and it shot up to $19.9t by the time Trump took office. If you're serious about reducing national debt, then you must acknowledge a drastic change was necessary.

How much did they gain from the corporate tax cuts again?

Tons, I hope. The more they benefit, the more other companies will follow suit.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

<Snipped quote by mdk>
How certain can we be that the $7.8 trillion will be injected into the US economy? What incentives do the tax cut's beneficiaries have to invest their newfound savings into the US, as opposed to other countries?

@catchamber

All those things I listed? I'm not...... what? Fine. Apple is coming back, Ford is coming back, Volvo is coming over, Toyota is bringing Mazda, Haribo is coming over, etc. etc. etc.