A Look at the Senate Democrats' JOBS & INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN FOR AMERICA’S WORKERS

[busybee01]

How does 35% to 28% not cut taxes? How does 35% to 25% not cut taxes? Turn your brain on for a second

From your link.......

In the long-term, the plan is revenue-neutral – savings from closing some corporate tax loopholes will benefit corporations in the form of lower tax rates and increased tax subsidies.

Your point being?

A tax cut that didn't actually cut taxes.

How so? Would manufacturing companies not see a tax cut from 38% to 25%? I believe they would

Remember a similar analysis scored Trumps tax plan at adding trillion to the deficit. Doesn’t a revenue neutral plan sound a little better to you?

The Senate’s Official Scorekeeper Says the Republican Tax Plan Would Add $1 Trillion to the Deficit

How so?

From your own link.....again

In the long-term, the plan is revenue-neutral – savings from closing some corporate tax loopholes

It is not revenue neutral. Paul Ryan said he could get the rate down to 25% based on the tax loopholes that they had agreed to. It got down to 21% by taking money from individuals.

 

[Flopper]

Obama want's to cut corporate taxes.

"Excellent"

He's the best!

"We paid $1 billion last year. How much will we pay after his tax cut?"

$1 billion.

"DERP!"

Had the republicans voted on a plan based on his proposal there would have been a 10% reduction, right? 38% to 28%

Why is this so hard for you to swallow?

The Federal corporate rate was 35%, not 38%.

Your own link said closing the "loopholes" would have made it revenue neutral.

That means corporations, on average, would not see a reduction in taxes.
Why would Republicans be excited about that? Why would you?

Corporations who were avoiding taxes by going over seas would pay more. That’s hardly the majority of corporations. Why wouldn’t you support them paying more and funding a cut for local businesses?

Well, that's what Trump says. However, the provisions in law when applied tell a different story.

The law takes currently untaxed profits of US companies being stored abroad and taxes them at a new ultra-low rates if brought back to the US: 8 percent for profits invested in real estate, such as Trump properties and other hard assets abroad, and 15.5 percent for profits in cash and stock and other liquid assets.

But it’s an incredibly bad idea. The repatriation provision in the law significantly reduces tax revenues from these corporate giants and effectively rewards companies that kept profits abroad. That doesn’t raise money — and what’s more, it costs money in the long term by telling companies that storing profits overseas will be rewarded in the future.

No matter how well meaning a tax reform bill may be, the lobbying efforts of giant corporations will put more money in their pockets.

How can the repatriation provision reduce revenues when multi national corporations aren't paying taxes to the US on profits made overseas now? That makes zero sense. If you weren't paying the Feds anything but by lowering your tax rate I induce you to bring profits back into the US where you ARE paying taxes on that money...it's obvious that will increase revenues.

Contrary to what has been reported in the media, large corporation will bring profits back to use without a large tax incentive,(15% or 8%). By reducing rates to 21% a lot of profits will come back. Will there be enough move back to the US to make up the loss in revenue (between 21% and 15% or 8%). Maybe, maybe not. Most decisions to move profits back to US will depend on the profitability there vs hear. It's not just a tax decision.

Congress did something very similar in 2004, offering companies a one-time "repatriation holiday" where they could bring back earnings and face a tax of only 5.25 percent, about a seventh of the normal 35 percent rate. The hope was that this money would then be invested in job-creating business activities in the US. But that’s not what happened: The top companies repatriating earnings actually shed jobs over the next few years, and the funds were mostly funneled to shareholders in the form of higher dividends and more stock buybacks. That helps wealthy stock owners, but not the overall economy.
The tax bill is a giant permission slip for shipping profits overseas

 

[Slade3200]

Look it up, I’m not your teacher.
Tax inversion - Wikipedia

Obama want's to cut corporate taxes.

"Excellent"

He's the best!

"We paid $1 billion last year. How much will we pay after his tax cut?"

$1 billion.

"DERP!"

Had the republicans voted on a plan based on his proposal there would have been a 10% reduction, right? 38% to 28%

Why is this so hard for you to swallow?

The Federal corporate rate was 35%, not 38%.

Your own link said closing the "loopholes" would have made it revenue neutral.

That means corporations, on average, would not see a reduction in taxes.
Why would Republicans be excited about that? Why would you?

Corporations who were avoiding taxes by going over seas would pay more. That’s hardly the majority of corporations. Why wouldn’t you support them paying more and funding a cut for local businesses?

Corporations who were avoiding taxes by going over seas would pay more.

Of course, anything to make our corporations less competitive!

Why wouldn’t you support them paying more

We're the only major economy that tries to tax world wide income. Why?

Are you implying that inversion and avoiding taxes is a good thing because it stirs competition?! Please tell me I’m misreading your statement.

What do you mean when you say we are the only major economy taxing worldwide income?

 

[Slade3200]

He didn’t pass, he proposed tax reform to take the corporate rate from 38 to 28 and down to 25 for manufacturers. The republicans wouldn’t even consider it. They were in full obstruction mode. You don’t remember this?

I keep hearing this refrain from you liberals...that it was the GOP that kept Barry from doing all these "wonderful" things, Slade...yet when you look at the majorities that Obama had to work with in the House and Senate before the 2010 midterms how was that even possible? The truth is...Obama couldn't get moderate Democrats to give him the votes needed to pass things. The GOP was basically sitting on their hands out in the hall! It wasn't Republican obstruction that did in the Obama agenda...it was the American voter who saw what you progressives were trying to do with the power they'd given you...had second thoughts about that...and voted out more Democrats in one election than had ever happened in the modern political era!

Ever heard of Obamacare? That was the focus. Don’t pretend like the GOP was supportive of the president. Don’t pretend like they didn’t obstruct with every opportunity they could get. I personally didn’t support everything Obama did. I’m a small government guy but I’m calling it like it was. We are talking about tax plans right now. Just be honest and admit that obama proposed tax cuts and he got shit down by the GOP. It’s what happened

So what you're saying is that the ACA was the ONLY thing that Barry could concentrate on for the better part of two years? How pathetic is that? Why didn't he pass comprehensive immigration reform as he promised? Why didn't he redo the tax code?

Once again...the GOP didn't have the ABILITY to "shut down" what the Democrats were doing and that's obvious if you look at the passage of the ACA despite not getting any GOP support! So if Obama and the progressive wing of the Democratic Party could pass ObamaCare without Republican help...then why couldn't they pass tax reform?

There was a lot legislation in Obama's first two year other the ACA. Tax cuts, bailout of automotive industry, Consumer Protection, economic stimulus to lessen impact of the recession, Children Health Insurance Programs, and of course the ACA. After 2010, major democratic legislation dried up with republican control of congress.

So why didn't they tackle tax reform or immigration reform? Obama promised to address both early in his Presidency. Instead he ignored them.

Priorities man, Incase you didn’t get the memo we were fresh of one of the worst recessions in our nations history. First few years went into righting the ship and healthcare.

 

[Oldstyle]

I keep hearing this refrain from you liberals...that it was the GOP that kept Barry from doing all these "wonderful" things, Slade...yet when you look at the majorities that Obama had to work with in the House and Senate before the 2010 midterms how was that even possible? The truth is...Obama couldn't get moderate Democrats to give him the votes needed to pass things. The GOP was basically sitting on their hands out in the hall! It wasn't Republican obstruction that did in the Obama agenda...it was the American voter who saw what you progressives were trying to do with the power they'd given you...had second thoughts about that...and voted out more Democrats in one election than had ever happened in the modern political era!

Ever heard of Obamacare? That was the focus. Don’t pretend like the GOP was supportive of the president. Don’t pretend like they didn’t obstruct with every opportunity they could get. I personally didn’t support everything Obama did. I’m a small government guy but I’m calling it like it was. We are talking about tax plans right now. Just be honest and admit that obama proposed tax cuts and he got shit down by the GOP. It’s what happened

So what you're saying is that the ACA was the ONLY thing that Barry could concentrate on for the better part of two years? How pathetic is that? Why didn't he pass comprehensive immigration reform as he promised? Why didn't he redo the tax code?

Once again...the GOP didn't have the ABILITY to "shut down" what the Democrats were doing and that's obvious if you look at the passage of the ACA despite not getting any GOP support! So if Obama and the progressive wing of the Democratic Party could pass ObamaCare without Republican help...then why couldn't they pass tax reform?

There was a lot legislation in Obama's first two year other the ACA. Tax cuts, bailout of automotive industry, Consumer Protection, economic stimulus to lessen impact of the recession, Children Health Insurance Programs, and of course the ACA. After 2010, major democratic legislation dried up with republican control of congress.

So why didn't they tackle tax reform or immigration reform? Obama promised to address both early in his Presidency. Instead he ignored them.

Priorities man, Incase you didn’t get the memo we were fresh of one of the worst recessions in our nations history. First few years went into righting the ship and healthcare.

Priorities? Interesting concept, Slade! If you were truly concerned with "righting the ship" from one of the worst recessions in the nation's history...then why would you spend the bulk of your time passing a healthcare bill that caused so much uncertainty that it hampered economic recovery? Especially a healthcare bill that you deliberately designed to fail?

 

[BluesLegend]

Dem's have proven they LIE out their big fat filthy lying mouths so there's no reason to believe one damn word they say. Hence Dem's can go to hell.

 

[BluesLegend]

Ever heard of Obamacare? That was the focus. Don’t pretend like the GOP was supportive of the president. Don’t pretend like they didn’t obstruct with every opportunity they could get. I personally didn’t support everything Obama did. I’m a small government guy but I’m calling it like it was. We are talking about tax plans right now. Just be honest and admit that obama proposed tax cuts and he got shit down by the GOP. It’s what happened

So what you're saying is that the ACA was the ONLY thing that Barry could concentrate on for the better part of two years? How pathetic is that? Why didn't he pass comprehensive immigration reform as he promised? Why didn't he redo the tax code?

Once again...the GOP didn't have the ABILITY to "shut down" what the Democrats were doing and that's obvious if you look at the passage of the ACA despite not getting any GOP support! So if Obama and the progressive wing of the Democratic Party could pass ObamaCare without Republican help...then why couldn't they pass tax reform?

There was a lot legislation in Obama's first two year other the ACA. Tax cuts, bailout of automotive industry, Consumer Protection, economic stimulus to lessen impact of the recession, Children Health Insurance Programs, and of course the ACA. After 2010, major democratic legislation dried up with republican control of congress.

So why didn't they tackle tax reform or immigration reform? Obama promised to address both early in his Presidency. Instead he ignored them.

Priorities man, Incase you didn’t get the memo we were fresh of one of the worst recessions in our nations history. First few years went into righting the ship and healthcare.

Priorities? Interesting concept, Slade! If you were truly concerned with "righting the ship" from one of the worst recessions in the nation's history...then why would you spend the bulk of your time passing a healthcare bill that caused so much uncertainty that it hampered economic recovery? Especially a healthcare bill that you deliberately designed to fail?

Because they had a small window to cram that down our throats and don't give two shits about jobs and the economy. And the thousands of jobs killing regulations how do Dem's explain that? They can't.

 

[Oldstyle]

Had the republicans voted on a plan based on his proposal there would have been a 10% reduction, right? 38% to 28%

Why is this so hard for you to swallow?

The Federal corporate rate was 35%, not 38%.

Your own link said closing the "loopholes" would have made it revenue neutral.

That means corporations, on average, would not see a reduction in taxes.
Why would Republicans be excited about that? Why would you?

Corporations who were avoiding taxes by going over seas would pay more. That’s hardly the majority of corporations. Why wouldn’t you support them paying more and funding a cut for local businesses?

Well, that's what Trump says. However, the provisions in law when applied tell a different story.

The law takes currently untaxed profits of US companies being stored abroad and taxes them at a new ultra-low rates if brought back to the US: 8 percent for profits invested in real estate, such as Trump properties and other hard assets abroad, and 15.5 percent for profits in cash and stock and other liquid assets.

But it’s an incredibly bad idea. The repatriation provision in the law significantly reduces tax revenues from these corporate giants and effectively rewards companies that kept profits abroad. That doesn’t raise money — and what’s more, it costs money in the long term by telling companies that storing profits overseas will be rewarded in the future.

No matter how well meaning a tax reform bill may be, the lobbying efforts of giant corporations will put more money in their pockets.

How can the repatriation provision reduce revenues when multi national corporations aren't paying taxes to the US on profits made overseas now? That makes zero sense. If you weren't paying the Feds anything but by lowering your tax rate I induce you to bring profits back into the US where you ARE paying taxes on that money...it's obvious that will increase revenues.

Contrary to what has been reported in the media, large corporation will bring profits back to use without a large tax incentive,(15% or 8%). By reducing rates to 21% a lot of profits will come back. Will there be enough move back to the US to make up the loss in revenue (between 21% and 15% or 8%). Maybe, maybe not. Most decisions to move profits back to US will depend on the profitability there vs hear. It's not just a tax decision.

Congress did something very similar in 2004, offering companies a one-time "repatriation holiday" where they could bring back earnings and face a tax of only 5.25 percent, about a seventh of the normal 35 percent rate. The hope was that this money would then be invested in job-creating business activities in the US. But that’s not what happened: The top companies repatriating earnings actually shed jobs over the next few years, and the funds were mostly funneled to shareholders in the form of higher dividends and more stock buybacks. That helps wealthy stock owners, but not the overall economy.
The tax bill is a giant permission slip for shipping profits overseas

What the 2004 repatriation holiday showed quite clearly, Flopper is that even if you give corporations the ability to bring money into the US at a lower tax rate they will not invest said money to create new jobs if conditions don't warrant it. The bulk of repatriated monies brought into the country were by large "mature" corporations with little room to grow. The management of many of those companies were planning to downsize obsolete jobs before the repatriation holiday and the ability to bring in cash at a lower taxed rate did not change those plans.

I'm still baffled by your claim that there will be a loss of revenue granting tax relief to monies held overseas. How can you lose something that you're not getting in the first place?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Had the republicans voted on a plan based on his proposal there would have been a 10% reduction, right? 38% to 28%

Why is this so hard for you to swallow?

The Federal corporate rate was 35%, not 38%.

Your own link said closing the "loopholes" would have made it revenue neutral.

That means corporations, on average, would not see a reduction in taxes.
Why would Republicans be excited about that? Why would you?

Corporations who were avoiding taxes by going over seas would pay more. That’s hardly the majority of corporations. Why wouldn’t you support them paying more and funding a cut for local businesses?

Well, that's what Trump says. However, the provisions in law when applied tell a different story.

The law takes currently untaxed profits of US companies being stored abroad and taxes them at a new ultra-low rates if brought back to the US: 8 percent for profits invested in real estate, such as Trump properties and other hard assets abroad, and 15.5 percent for profits in cash and stock and other liquid assets.

But it’s an incredibly bad idea. The repatriation provision in the law significantly reduces tax revenues from these corporate giants and effectively rewards companies that kept profits abroad. That doesn’t raise money — and what’s more, it costs money in the long term by telling companies that storing profits overseas will be rewarded in the future.

No matter how well meaning a tax reform bill may be, the lobbying efforts of giant corporations will put more money in their pockets.

How can the repatriation provision reduce revenues when multi national corporations aren't paying taxes to the US on profits made overseas now? That makes zero sense. If you weren't paying the Feds anything but by lowering your tax rate I induce you to bring profits back into the US where you ARE paying taxes on that money...it's obvious that will increase revenues.

Contrary to what has been reported in the media, large corporation will bring profits back to use without a large tax incentive,(15% or 8%). By reducing rates to 21% a lot of profits will come back. Will there be enough move back to the US to make up the loss in revenue (between 21% and 15% or 8%). Maybe, maybe not. Most decisions to move profits back to US will depend on the profitability there vs hear. It's not just a tax decision.

Congress did something very similar in 2004, offering companies a one-time "repatriation holiday" where they could bring back earnings and face a tax of only 5.25 percent, about a seventh of the normal 35 percent rate. The hope was that this money would then be invested in job-creating business activities in the US. But that’s not what happened: The top companies repatriating earnings actually shed jobs over the next few years, and the funds were mostly funneled to shareholders in the form of higher dividends and more stock buybacks. That helps wealthy stock owners, but not the overall economy.
The tax bill is a giant permission slip for shipping profits overseas

The top companies repatriating earnings actually shed jobs over the next few years, and the funds were mostly funneled to shareholders in the form of higher dividends and more stock buybacks. That helps wealthy stock owners, but not the overall economy.

Dividend and stock buyback money doesn't enter the overall economy?

Where does it go?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

From your link.......

In the long-term, the plan is revenue-neutral – savings from closing some corporate tax loopholes will benefit corporations in the form of lower tax rates and increased tax subsidies.

Your point being?

A tax cut that didn't actually cut taxes.

How so? Would manufacturing companies not see a tax cut from 38% to 25%? I believe they would

Remember a similar analysis scored Trumps tax plan at adding trillion to the deficit. Doesn’t a revenue neutral plan sound a little better to you?

The Senate’s Official Scorekeeper Says the Republican Tax Plan Would Add $1 Trillion to the Deficit

How so?

From your own link.....again

In the long-term, the plan is revenue-neutral – savings from closing some corporate tax loopholes

It is not revenue neutral. Paul Ryan said he could get the rate down to 25% based on the tax loopholes that they had agreed to. It got down to 21% by taking money from individuals.

It is not revenue neutral. Paul Ryan said......

We're talking about Obama's "tax cut".

It got down to 21% by taking money from individuals.

How does the corporate tax cut take money from individuals?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Obama want's to cut corporate taxes.

"Excellent"

He's the best!

"We paid $1 billion last year. How much will we pay after his tax cut?"

$1 billion.

"DERP!"

Had the republicans voted on a plan based on his proposal there would have been a 10% reduction, right? 38% to 28%

Why is this so hard for you to swallow?

The Federal corporate rate was 35%, not 38%.

Your own link said closing the "loopholes" would have made it revenue neutral.

That means corporations, on average, would not see a reduction in taxes.
Why would Republicans be excited about that? Why would you?

Corporations who were avoiding taxes by going over seas would pay more. That’s hardly the majority of corporations. Why wouldn’t you support them paying more and funding a cut for local businesses?

Corporations who were avoiding taxes by going over seas would pay more.

Of course, anything to make our corporations less competitive!

Why wouldn’t you support them paying more

We're the only major economy that tries to tax world wide income. Why?

Are you implying that inversion and avoiding taxes is a good thing because it stirs competition?! Please tell me I’m misreading your statement.

What do you mean when you say we are the only major economy taxing worldwide income?

Are you implying that inversion and avoiding taxes is a good thing because it stirs competition?!

Are you implying that taxing our corporations on world wide income makes them more competitive compared to foreign corporations that aren't taxed on worldwide income at 35%?

What do you mean when you say we are the only major economy taxing worldwide income?

If a Japanese company has a US division, Japan does not tax their US profits.
If a US company has a Japanese division, the US does tax their Japanese profit....if they bring it home.

 

[Slade3200]

Ever heard of Obamacare? That was the focus. Don’t pretend like the GOP was supportive of the president. Don’t pretend like they didn’t obstruct with every opportunity they could get. I personally didn’t support everything Obama did. I’m a small government guy but I’m calling it like it was. We are talking about tax plans right now. Just be honest and admit that obama proposed tax cuts and he got shit down by the GOP. It’s what happened

So what you're saying is that the ACA was the ONLY thing that Barry could concentrate on for the better part of two years? How pathetic is that? Why didn't he pass comprehensive immigration reform as he promised? Why didn't he redo the tax code?

Once again...the GOP didn't have the ABILITY to "shut down" what the Democrats were doing and that's obvious if you look at the passage of the ACA despite not getting any GOP support! So if Obama and the progressive wing of the Democratic Party could pass ObamaCare without Republican help...then why couldn't they pass tax reform?

There was a lot legislation in Obama's first two year other the ACA. Tax cuts, bailout of automotive industry, Consumer Protection, economic stimulus to lessen impact of the recession, Children Health Insurance Programs, and of course the ACA. After 2010, major democratic legislation dried up with republican control of congress.

So why didn't they tackle tax reform or immigration reform? Obama promised to address both early in his Presidency. Instead he ignored them.

Priorities man, Incase you didn’t get the memo we were fresh of one of the worst recessions in our nations history. First few years went into righting the ship and healthcare.

Priorities? Interesting concept, Slade! If you were truly concerned with "righting the ship" from one of the worst recessions in the nation's history...then why would you spend the bulk of your time passing a healthcare bill that caused so much uncertainty that it hampered economic recovery? Especially a healthcare bill that you deliberately designed to fail?

Well healthcare wasn’t their immediate focus, you can go back at learn the history yourself but there was a series of actions taken to pull this country out of the recession and put us on a recovery pathway that has now lead to historical lows in unemployement and recording breaking stock market.

 

[Slade3200]

Had the republicans voted on a plan based on his proposal there would have been a 10% reduction, right? 38% to 28%

Why is this so hard for you to swallow?

The Federal corporate rate was 35%, not 38%.

Your own link said closing the "loopholes" would have made it revenue neutral.

That means corporations, on average, would not see a reduction in taxes.
Why would Republicans be excited about that? Why would you?

Corporations who were avoiding taxes by going over seas would pay more. That’s hardly the majority of corporations. Why wouldn’t you support them paying more and funding a cut for local businesses?

Corporations who were avoiding taxes by going over seas would pay more.

Of course, anything to make our corporations less competitive!

Why wouldn’t you support them paying more

We're the only major economy that tries to tax world wide income. Why?

Are you implying that inversion and avoiding taxes is a good thing because it stirs competition?! Please tell me I’m misreading your statement.

What do you mean when you say we are the only major economy taxing worldwide income?

Are you implying that inversion and avoiding taxes is a good thing because it stirs competition?!

Are you implying that taxing our corporations on world wide income makes them more competitive compared to foreign corporations that aren't taxed on worldwide income at 35%?

What do you mean when you say we are the only major economy taxing worldwide income?

If a Japanese company has a US division, Japan does not tax their US profits.
If a US company has a Japanese division, the US does tax their Japanese profit....if they bring it home.

You answered my first question with a question. Answer mine and I’ll answer yours.

As for your second point, You are talking about repatriation tax... remember when Obama proposed a 14% repatriation tax holiday with his proposal to reduce the corporate tax rate to 28%. Why don’t you think that got any traction?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Federal corporate rate was 35%, not 38%.

Your own link said closing the "loopholes" would have made it revenue neutral.

That means corporations, on average, would not see a reduction in taxes.
Why would Republicans be excited about that? Why would you?

Corporations who were avoiding taxes by going over seas would pay more. That’s hardly the majority of corporations. Why wouldn’t you support them paying more and funding a cut for local businesses?

Corporations who were avoiding taxes by going over seas would pay more.

Of course, anything to make our corporations less competitive!

Why wouldn’t you support them paying more

We're the only major economy that tries to tax world wide income. Why?

Are you implying that inversion and avoiding taxes is a good thing because it stirs competition?! Please tell me I’m misreading your statement.

What do you mean when you say we are the only major economy taxing worldwide income?

Are you implying that inversion and avoiding taxes is a good thing because it stirs competition?!

Are you implying that taxing our corporations on world wide income makes them more competitive compared to foreign corporations that aren't taxed on worldwide income at 35%?

What do you mean when you say we are the only major economy taxing worldwide income?

If a Japanese company has a US division, Japan does not tax their US profits.
If a US company has a Japanese division, the US does tax their Japanese profit....if they bring it home.

You answered my first question with a question. Answer mine and I’ll answer yours.

As for your second point, You are talking about repatriation tax... remember when Obama proposed a 14% repatriation tax holiday with his proposal to reduce the corporate tax rate to 28%. Why don’t you think that got any traction?

Yes, lower taxes make our corporations more competitive.
Taxing world-wide income makes them less competitive.

As for your second point, You are talking about repatriation tax.

We're the only large economy that has a repatriation tax, because we're the only one taxing
our corporations on world wide income.

If a Japanese division in the US makes money, they can bring it back to Japan without owing
any Japanese taxes.

 

[Flopper]

The Federal corporate rate was 35%, not 38%.

Your own link said closing the "loopholes" would have made it revenue neutral.

That means corporations, on average, would not see a reduction in taxes.
Why would Republicans be excited about that? Why would you?

Corporations who were avoiding taxes by going over seas would pay more. That’s hardly the majority of corporations. Why wouldn’t you support them paying more and funding a cut for local businesses?

Well, that's what Trump says. However, the provisions in law when applied tell a different story.

The law takes currently untaxed profits of US companies being stored abroad and taxes them at a new ultra-low rates if brought back to the US: 8 percent for profits invested in real estate, such as Trump properties and other hard assets abroad, and 15.5 percent for profits in cash and stock and other liquid assets.

But it’s an incredibly bad idea. The repatriation provision in the law significantly reduces tax revenues from these corporate giants and effectively rewards companies that kept profits abroad. That doesn’t raise money — and what’s more, it costs money in the long term by telling companies that storing profits overseas will be rewarded in the future.

No matter how well meaning a tax reform bill may be, the lobbying efforts of giant corporations will put more money in their pockets.

How can the repatriation provision reduce revenues when multi national corporations aren't paying taxes to the US on profits made overseas now? That makes zero sense. If you weren't paying the Feds anything but by lowering your tax rate I induce you to bring profits back into the US where you ARE paying taxes on that money...it's obvious that will increase revenues.

Contrary to what has been reported in the media, large corporation will bring profits back to use without a large tax incentive,(15% or 8%). By reducing rates to 21% a lot of profits will come back. Will there be enough move back to the US to make up the loss in revenue (between 21% and 15% or 8%). Maybe, maybe not. Most decisions to move profits back to US will depend on the profitability there vs hear. It's not just a tax decision.

Congress did something very similar in 2004, offering companies a one-time "repatriation holiday" where they could bring back earnings and face a tax of only 5.25 percent, about a seventh of the normal 35 percent rate. The hope was that this money would then be invested in job-creating business activities in the US. But that’s not what happened: The top companies repatriating earnings actually shed jobs over the next few years, and the funds were mostly funneled to shareholders in the form of higher dividends and more stock buybacks. That helps wealthy stock owners, but not the overall economy.
The tax bill is a giant permission slip for shipping profits overseas

What the 2004 repatriation holiday showed quite clearly, Flopper is that even if you give corporations the ability to bring money into the US at a lower tax rate they will not invest said money to create new jobs if conditions don't warrant it. The bulk of repatriated monies brought into the country were by large "mature" corporations with little room to grow. The management of many of those companies were planning to downsize obsolete jobs before the repatriation holiday and the ability to bring in cash at a lower taxed rate did not change those plans.

I'm still baffled by your claim that there will be a loss of revenue granting tax relief to monies held overseas. How can you lose something that you're not getting in the first place?

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. Without the repatriation clause, corporation will bring money back at the 21% rate. By adding the incentive of a rate as low 8%, corporations will not bring the money at 21% but 8% and that is tax revenue loss for those corporations that would have brought the money back at 21%.

Read the reparation clause from the law, "As a transition to the new regime, deemed repatriation of previously untaxed “old earnings.” A 15.5% rate applies to earnings attributable to liquid assets and an 8% rate applies to earnings attributable to illiquid assets" There is nothing in the law saying how these funds can be used. Although we hope they will find their way into business expansions that will lead to substantial job growth, it seems quite likely that a lot of those funds will end up in stock buy backs, dividends to stockholders, and investments in non-labor intensive business expansions.
https://home.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/us/pdf/2017/12/tnf-new-tax-law-dec22-2017.pdf

 

[bendog]

The Federal corporate rate was 35%, not 38%.

Your own link said closing the "loopholes" would have made it revenue neutral.

That means corporations, on average, would not see a reduction in taxes.
Why would Republicans be excited about that? Why would you?

Corporations who were avoiding taxes by going over seas would pay more. That’s hardly the majority of corporations. Why wouldn’t you support them paying more and funding a cut for local businesses?

Corporations who were avoiding taxes by going over seas would pay more.

Of course, anything to make our corporations less competitive!

Why wouldn’t you support them paying more

We're the only major economy that tries to tax world wide income. Why?

Are you implying that inversion and avoiding taxes is a good thing because it stirs competition?! Please tell me I’m misreading your statement.

What do you mean when you say we are the only major economy taxing worldwide income?

Are you implying that inversion and avoiding taxes is a good thing because it stirs competition?!

Are you implying that taxing our corporations on world wide income makes them more competitive compared to foreign corporations that aren't taxed on worldwide income at 35%?

What do you mean when you say we are the only major economy taxing worldwide income?

If a Japanese company has a US division, Japan does not tax their US profits.
If a US company has a Japanese division, the US does tax their Japanese profit....if they bring it home.

You answered my first question with a question. Answer mine and I’ll answer yours.

As for your second point, You are talking about repatriation tax... remember when Obama proposed a 14% repatriation tax holiday with his proposal to reduce the corporate tax rate to 28%. Why don’t you think that got any traction?

As the OP might imply, there was common ground on corp taxes. McConnell wasn't going to pass anything though. And the dems central issue, and they are more right that wrong, is that the repatriation money should have gone to infrastructure all along, but McConnell passed the individual tax cuts too, that went specifically to red states and gop donor groups.

The dem plan is a plan to more or less move away from McConnell's. I find the Turtle to be a loathsome fellow. The best case for him is that he really believes that having a republican in place instead of a dem is an end worth the means. And that is not what Profiles in Courage or Reagan were about.

But despite that, Trump was a dem before he was a republican. He's from NY, a blue state, that is big on infrastructure. I don't really see those interests in line with say Montana or Idaho or Kansas, which are the places the gop gets it's congress persons and electoral votes.

 

[bendog]

Corporations who were avoiding taxes by going over seas would pay more. That’s hardly the majority of corporations. Why wouldn’t you support them paying more and funding a cut for local businesses?

Well, that's what Trump says. However, the provisions in law when applied tell a different story.

The law takes currently untaxed profits of US companies being stored abroad and taxes them at a new ultra-low rates if brought back to the US: 8 percent for profits invested in real estate, such as Trump properties and other hard assets abroad, and 15.5 percent for profits in cash and stock and other liquid assets.

But it’s an incredibly bad idea. The repatriation provision in the law significantly reduces tax revenues from these corporate giants and effectively rewards companies that kept profits abroad. That doesn’t raise money — and what’s more, it costs money in the long term by telling companies that storing profits overseas will be rewarded in the future.

No matter how well meaning a tax reform bill may be, the lobbying efforts of giant corporations will put more money in their pockets.

How can the repatriation provision reduce revenues when multi national corporations aren't paying taxes to the US on profits made overseas now? That makes zero sense. If you weren't paying the Feds anything but by lowering your tax rate I induce you to bring profits back into the US where you ARE paying taxes on that money...it's obvious that will increase revenues.

Contrary to what has been reported in the media, large corporation will bring profits back to use without a large tax incentive,(15% or 8%). By reducing rates to 21% a lot of profits will come back. Will there be enough move back to the US to make up the loss in revenue (between 21% and 15% or 8%). Maybe, maybe not. Most decisions to move profits back to US will depend on the profitability there vs hear. It's not just a tax decision.

Congress did something very similar in 2004, offering companies a one-time "repatriation holiday" where they could bring back earnings and face a tax of only 5.25 percent, about a seventh of the normal 35 percent rate. The hope was that this money would then be invested in job-creating business activities in the US. But that’s not what happened: The top companies repatriating earnings actually shed jobs over the next few years, and the funds were mostly funneled to shareholders in the form of higher dividends and more stock buybacks. That helps wealthy stock owners, but not the overall economy.
The tax bill is a giant permission slip for shipping profits overseas

What the 2004 repatriation holiday showed quite clearly, Flopper is that even if you give corporations the ability to bring money into the US at a lower tax rate they will not invest said money to create new jobs if conditions don't warrant it. The bulk of repatriated monies brought into the country were by large "mature" corporations with little room to grow. The management of many of those companies were planning to downsize obsolete jobs before the repatriation holiday and the ability to bring in cash at a lower taxed rate did not change those plans.

I'm still baffled by your claim that there will be a loss of revenue granting tax relief to monies held overseas. How can you lose something that you're not getting in the first place?

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. Without the repatriation clause, corporation will bring money back at the 21% rate. By adding the incentive of a rate as low 8%, corporations will not bring the money at 21% but 8% and that is tax revenue loss for those corporations that would have brought the money back at 21%.

Read the reparation clause from the law, "As a transition to the new regime, deemed repatriation of previously untaxed “old earnings.” A 15.5% rate applies to earnings attributable to liquid assets and an 8% rate applies to earnings attributable to illiquid assets" There is nothing in the law saying how these funds can be used. Although we hope they will find their way into business expansions that will lead to substantial job growth, it seems quite likely that a lot of those funds will end up in stock buy backs, dividends to stockholders, and investments in non-labor intensive business expansions.
https://home.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/us/pdf/2017/12/tnf-new-tax-law-dec22-2017.pdf

But without the repatriation clause, what's the incentive to bring the revenue back at all?

 

[Slade3200]

Corporations who were avoiding taxes by going over seas would pay more. That’s hardly the majority of corporations. Why wouldn’t you support them paying more and funding a cut for local businesses?

Corporations who were avoiding taxes by going over seas would pay more.

Of course, anything to make our corporations less competitive!

Why wouldn’t you support them paying more

We're the only major economy that tries to tax world wide income. Why?

Are you implying that inversion and avoiding taxes is a good thing because it stirs competition?! Please tell me I’m misreading your statement.

What do you mean when you say we are the only major economy taxing worldwide income?

Are you implying that inversion and avoiding taxes is a good thing because it stirs competition?!

Are you implying that taxing our corporations on world wide income makes them more competitive compared to foreign corporations that aren't taxed on worldwide income at 35%?

What do you mean when you say we are the only major economy taxing worldwide income?

If a Japanese company has a US division, Japan does not tax their US profits.
If a US company has a Japanese division, the US does tax their Japanese profit....if they bring it home.

You answered my first question with a question. Answer mine and I’ll answer yours.

As for your second point, You are talking about repatriation tax... remember when Obama proposed a 14% repatriation tax holiday with his proposal to reduce the corporate tax rate to 28%. Why don’t you think that got any traction?

Yes, lower taxes make our corporations more competitive.
Taxing world-wide income makes them less competitive.

As for your second point, You are talking about repatriation tax.

We're the only large economy that has a repatriation tax, because we're the only one taxing
our corporations on world wide income.

If a Japanese division in the US makes money, they can bring it back to Japan without owing
any Japanese taxes.

My second point was about Obama’s 14% repatriation

 

[HenryBHough]

So it's OK to spend American taxpayer's money to fuck around with Israel's election but not OK for Russia to screw with Hillary's "mind"?

 

[JBond]

A few days ago, Senator Chuck Schumer and other leading Senate Democrats held a press conference to present their infrastructure and tax reform plan. The full title of the bill is SENATE DEMOCRATS' JOBS & INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN FOR AMERICA’S WORKERS: RETURNING THE REPUBLICAN TAX GIVEAWAYS FOR THE WEALTHY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

The Dem plan is actually pretty good. It is only a tax-hike measure compared to the new tax rates under the Trump tax cuts. Compared to the tax rates that existed until last year, it calls for huge tax cuts, even for corporations, in spite of the bill's unfortunately partisan subtitle. If Hillary had proposed this plan during the election, Bernie supporters and other Dems would have skewered her for wanting to "give away hundreds of billions of dollars to the rich." Consider:

* The Dem plan would set the corporate income tax rate at 25%. This is 4 percentage points higher than the Trump rate of 21%, but it's 10 percentage points lower than what the rate was last year and for decades before that. When Mitt Romney proposed cutting the corporate tax rate to 25% in 2012, Dems attacked the idea as a "tax cut for the rich."

* The Dem plan would leave intact all of the Trump tax cuts for personal income taxes, with the sole exception of the top marginal rate, which would go back to the previous rate of 39.6%, which would still be lower than it was for most of Reagan's presidency. Moreover, the Dem plan would maintain the Trump threshold of $600K for the top bracket.

* As mentioned, the Dem plan would keep *all* of the massive Trump tax cuts for the middle-income brackets. It would also maintain the Trump tax-cut provisions of capping SALT deductions at $10K and of capping mortgage-interest deductions.

* The Dem plan would return the death tax (the estate tax) to 2017 levels, which were an improvement over the rates for most of the previous four decades, and it would also return to the previous GOP-backed threshold of $5.49 million for exemption from the tax (vs. $11 million under the Trump tax cuts).

* The Dem plan would bring back the AMT, a very bad, baffling move. But, the AMT only affected people who made over 120K (single)/160K (married), and it did not really bite anyone until they started making over $300K, and even then the bite was not draconian.

* The Dem plan would leave intact Trump's special repatriation rate of 13.5% for American corporate money parked overseas.

* The Dem plan would close the carried-interest loophole, something that should have been done with the Trump tax cuts.

* The Dem plan would use the assumed savings vs. the Trump tax cuts to fund $1 trillion in infrastructure spending, and even most conservative think tanks agree that infrastructure spending usually largely pays for itself and sometimes gives us a large net gain. Trump has called for at least $1.6 trillion in infrastructure spending.

The Dem plan is not bad at all, but it is not as good as the Trump tax-cut bill and the Trump infrastructure-spending proposal. The Dem plan is a non-starter as long as the GOP controls the Senate, but it is really a pretty good plan.

Full text of the bill:
https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Senate Democrats' Jobs and Infrastructure Plan.pdf

Executive summary of the bill:
https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Senate Democrats' Jobs and Infrastructure Plan One Pager.pdf

And the chance of this plan making it into law is about as likely as the NRA proposing a repeal of the 2nd amendment. This is clearly campaign propaganda for the midterms.

I am praying tax increases is their main plank for the midterms.