Trump doesn't care about the national debt that he said he would pay down in 8 years

Wrong link?

 

Corporations never pay taxes, they collect taxes.

 

https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296

 

Are you posting to just get your post count up with this ^ pointless post? Citizens never pay tax, they collect taxes

 

Just because YOU missed the point, does not make it pointless.

Every tax levied on a corporation gets embedded into the cost of their products and passed along to someone else.

 

Dur, I did not miss the point, hence for my statement. The local street shoe shiner increases prices if he has to pay higher taxes. Your statement was pointless as was mine

 

Your statement was pointless because you attacked the poster, and not the post.

Mine was pointless because it should be obvious, yet to the person I was replying to, apparently not.

Ultimately, your shoe shiner is not going to pay the increased tax, you are. Same as the corporation.

 

This post intentionally left blank.

 

Trump is a pathetic old man that only cares about himself

basically the Trump admin is now admitting the huge tax cuts for the Corps are gonna run up the debt

 

not entirely true

 

give more power to congress scrape the senate and convert the Presidency into a more ceremonial role....power to the people....??

 

That was the type of democracy they had in the middle east until the west started to interfere - sort of a down up rule instead of a top down rule

 

None of the clowns in Washington care about the debt. That's why we need a balanced budget amendment.

 

are you that dense?
what part of the more you tax businesses the more the consumer pays at the register do you not understand?

 

cost of labor increased wages have gone up

 

Neither party or any president since Reagan has cared about the national debt. Sure we had 8 years of Bill Clinton where the deficits decreased, but that was caused more by an external threat of a viable third party rising. Better to get with the program as we saw with a Democratic President and a Republican congress bringing the deficits down to almost even with our outlays. Then that external threat disappeared and viola, huge deficits and a rising national debt beginning again with G.W Bush, more and faster rising under Obama and now Trump.

As for Trump, he is the direct results of choices, decisions and actions taken by both major parties back in 2016. Trump need not have happen, could have been easily avoided. But when both parties offer up candidates that approximately 60% of America don't want to become their next president, one or the other will win regardless of what America as a whole thinks. Trump had a 36% favorable rating, Hillary a 38% favorable rating on election day. Those two hold the record for the lowest ever favorable ratings for any major party presidential candidates going back to FDR. Goldwater in 1964 held the record prior to Trump and Clinton at 43%, G.H.W. Bush was the next lowest at 46% in 1992. No other major party candidate has had a favorable rating of 51% or less on election day other than those four I just mention. 2016 just happened to match the two least wanted candidates against each other. So we have whom we have.

 

Actually, until changes were made last year, among major industrialized Nations, the Corporate tax rate was too high.

The biggest problem is the size of the taxpayer base. Only when more people earn enough income to contribute to the Federal Income tax, will there be meaningful decreases in deficits and debt.

As it is, Globalist policies offshored jobs and led to a decrease in the middle class.

Reversing that will take time, as the Globalists have been working for years to enrich other Nations at the expense of the American worker.

 

You're comparing globally competitive corporate rates to Chinese economic policy. That is ridiculous. You can link as many opinion pieces as you want, but I manage a 15 billion dollar automotive suppliers books. They are simply wrong.

Question, do you understand depreciation schedules? Why do you think corps try to expense as much as possible?

 

Sure, but no company can undercut common tax burden either. You're making a case for less products available for affordable prices. Why and what do you feel is the trade-off? By the way, I agree with taxing consumption, but I want it clear to consumers.

 

You mean the rise of the international corporation since very few corporations are American owned only.

 

If costs of anything else but taxes goes up this is not automatically passed on to consumers. Rising costs can be an opportunity for savvy businesspersons to grab market share if they can make the deficit up other places.

Can you be a little more clear as to the trade off you're talking of? and where am I in favor of taxing consumption?

 

There has not been enough time. You're still in the same budget year. The cost of investment dollars dropped. You'll see this drop as companies begin to see the launch of products from this reduced investment. I feel like the arguments against reducing corp rates aren't based on the knowledge of how corps work. Taxes aren't actually in the prices, but ancillary costs due to lack of working capital increase costs and reduce innovation.

 

Excuses, excuses. We all know that the savings from the tax cuts will NEVER show up in consumers' and workers' wallets (the supposed wage gains are just matching inflation), but rather in the pocketbook of CEOs, managers and stock holders. That's by design, and the little guy has been snowed again to vote for a tax cut hurting them in the long run.

Second, where is the innovation you are talking about? I am not seeing it, rather I see lots of stock buybacks to increase share value. Extractive instead of productive capitalism, that's exactly what those tax cuts will generate, as some CEOs had tried to tell Trump beforehand, if he had listened.

 

All businesses will lose some business if they raise prices. It is seldom, if ever, a totally direct relationship but my point is that costs to the manufacturer, like taxes, are NOT a factor in the determination. They set a floor for supply in actual fact but that is about it.

 

And I thought Obama was going to reduce the deficit by 50% in his first term? NEVER HAPPENED!

Just sayin...