Trump Is Said to Seek Cutting Corporate Tax Rate to 15 Percent

Pick and choose, pick and choose. You, unsurprisingly, sound just like your leader:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ey-made-him-look-good/?utm_term=.7153c17263e4

 

You can't pass money to yourself and take it out of the US to avoid personal taxes

 

You benefitted too. That's why you should pay the same tax rate you demand others should pay

 

The Conservative mantra...

Republicans used to refer to it as trickle down economics.

At some point in the past, Apple had $1 Billion in offshore accounts. Apple did not spend that $1 Billion on expanding its business to create more good jobs for Americans. It kept investing in offshore enterprises. Now Apple has $2.5 Billion in offshore accounts.

 

Where did you find that in the proposed new tax laws?

 

Really? Can you show where this is stated in trump's new tax proposals.

 

Who said anything about passing money to one's self? That money is given.

 

"Mnuchin said that the administration would pay for the lower rates by closing tax loopholes, levying a one-time tax on overseas profits repatriated in the United States, spurring economic growth and creating jobs."

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/...an-to-cut-taxes-for-corporations-individuals/

 

Is it on the first or second page? Oh that's right. There is no second page.

 

I've been sort of half-paying attention to your discussion on this topic, so I may not be fully up to speed. But I have two initial responses to your argument:

• I pay exactly the same amount of tax on my first $150,000 as jcarl does. Your entire discussion has tried to ignore the concept of "marginal rates".
• As I've detailed in my own posts, I see no problem with the people who benefit most from the system paying a larger share of their income to support that system. That is both practical and just.

For example, imagine a person who runs a courier company. His vans use public roadways to make money. He is clearly benefiting more from those roads than I am: he is doing everything I do on the roads (driving to work and the store), plus making money off of them. It makes perfect sense that he should pay more in taxes to support the system that built the roadway and allows his company to operate.

Further,it is both easier and more moral to tax a person's millionth dollar than it is to tax their first. There is no question you NEED that first dollar, and there is also no question that you don't NEED that millionth dollar. You may WANT it, and you should have the right to earn it; but you don't NEED it.

So given the following choice:

• Tax all dollars equally;
• Tax everyone's first dollar the same, and everyone's millionth dollar the same, but be willing to take more from the millionth dollar than the first dollar;

#2 is a clear and easy choice. It produces the most tax revenue for the least amount of pain, and doesn't lead to indefensible outcomes like a poor person being evicted (because they couldn't afford both their rent and their tax bill) so that a wealthy person can go out to dinner more often.

If you think the tax rate on your millionth dollar is too high, then don't earn it. That is your choice. Oddly, nobody ever seems to make that choice. Which suggests that the marginal rate on that dollar is not, in fact, too high.

 

Given?

 

People are allowed to make money.
Just because it hurts them less to take a higher percentage gives you no moral claim on what they earned.

 

Indeed they are.

Nonsense. I laid out the moral and practical claim in the post you quoted.

It's not hard. Which is more moral:

• Taxing the wealthy at a somewhat higher rate on their millionth dollar;
• Forcing the poor to choose between taxes and rent so the wealthy can keep more of their money

Even a kindergartener knows which one is more moral. Do you?

 

Who pays the corporate tax, the owners or the customer?

 

So did democrats until they found a new meme that they could use politically so now they act stupid about economics for the useful idiots while still pushing for tax breaks in their own districts.

If your company were in the highest taxed country for corporations wouldn't you move offshore? Instead of lowering the rate to attract that money back idiot democrats want to punish them for being smarter than democrats.

 

There is some disagreement in the literature, but on balance the answer seems to be: the shareholders, mostly. With a secondary effect on the company's workers. But it's not really passed on to customers, because the market, not the company, determines the price of a company's goods. Outside of monopolies, most companies do not have strong price-setting power.

 

Correct, the market determines the price of goods. The corporate tax is passed on to the customer. Corporate tax cuts help everyone. Competition.

 

Your first two sentences contradict each other.

As I said, the literature says shareholders and labor bear the brunt of the tax. Customers, not so much.

 

And as a percentage to income, the so called middle class working poor pay more. Not the same! If a person of wealth pays 35% and a poor person pays 15%, how is that the same? As a percentage of wealth, the rich person should pay close to 80 and 90% in order for each to pay close to the same. And that wouldn't even be close. Instead, the person of wealth paying 35% ends up paying virtually nothing, or at minimum 15%, (same as working poor), at the end of the tax year because of loopholes. If the working poor were to pay that kind of tax rate as the percentage of the rich, they would never pay anything at all.

So, when you talk about "others paying the same tax rate you demand others should pay" that which I described would be a little closer to the same, while being very far from the same.

 

History proves you are full of crap
two of the largest and longest peace time economic growth for this country happened after Tax cuts

 

Don't pretend that you and "the system" brought me into the world, provided me with the talent I was born with and determined whether or not I became a success in life, but most of all don't put words in my mouth.

Since the dawn of Man the talent, creativity, intelligence, wits, self-motivation, hard work and sometimes pure dumb luck of individuals are what have determined the success of those individuals, not the "system" that happened to exist at the time. Great societies and nations don't get built on their own - they get built by great individuals, and the societies that lose track of that deserve the mediocrity that awaits them.

 

https://www.quora.com/Dont-consumers-ultimately-pay-corporate-taxes

 

What loopholes can a guy earning $450k of w-2 income taking advantage of that reduces his tax rate to 15%. Please be very specific and show calculations that helped you arive at this conclusion

 

Things get built by people OPERATING WITHIN THEY SYSTEM AT HAND.

Let's say Bill Gates was born in Zimbabwe. Would he be the world-changing billionaire he is today? Almost certainly not. Zimbabwe is run by a dictator who has invested very little in the country's economic infrastructure. There are few paved roads, and the communication grid is pathetic. The country's OFFICIAL unemployment rate is about 60%. Unofficial estimates reach as high as 95%.

Put Bill Gates or Albert Einstein in such a place, and it almost doesn't matter how gifted they are: they will almost certainly fail to make an impact on the world.

Individual traits matter, but WHICH traits, and how well they are utilized, is heavily influenced by the system a person is working in.

Unless what you do is something you could have done deep in the woods, alone, with only the tools you could make yourself, you owe part of your success to the system.

 

Quora? Really?