Democrats know corporate tax reform will juice the economy. That's why they once supported it

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here is how it SHOULD be done:

Nunes Introduces Bill to Reform Business Taxes

Supported by twenty-six cosponsors, the American Business Competitiveness Act (ABC Act) would drastically simplify the business tax code by eliminating the income tax on businesses and replacing it with a cash flow tax. The bill implements four main provisions:

• Allowing for 100 percent, same-year expensing for business investments.
  
  
• Setting a maximum business tax rate of 25 percent.
  
  
• Eliminating all loopholes and special deals on business taxes.
  
  
• Switching to a territorial international system.

“These simple rules will revolutionize the system for taxing businesses,” Rep. Nunes said. “The expensing provision and the low rates will create a huge incentive for businesses to invest money to expand their operations. Meanwhile, by treating all businesses the same regardless of their size or how they’re organized, we’ll create a level playing field for startups and small businesses to compete with bigger firms.

NO tax expenditures means NO allowing for expensing.

Ummmm....Allowing for 100 percent, same-year expensing for business investments.

It's funny that you don't understand your link.

Ah, I see what you mean.

I am against all tax expenditures, except for the EITC.

I don't expect to see any politician propose banning them all. Rand Paul might.

Nunes does have expensing in his plan. So that is not a NO tax expenditure plan, but it is the best one out there.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

I am against all tax expenditures, except for the EITC.

Deducting a business equipment purchase is not a tax expenditure.
Just as deducting employee salaries is not a tax expenditure.

The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 defines tax expenditures as “revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability.” These provisions are meant to support favored activities or assist favored groups of taxpayers. Thus, tax expenditures are alternatives to direct spending programs or regulations to accomplish the same goals. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) each year publish lists of tax expenditures and estimates of their associated revenue losses. The Treasury Department prepares the estimates for OMB.

The key word in the definition of tax expenditures is “special.” OMB and JCT do not count all exemptions and deductions as tax expenditures. For example, the agencies do not count as tax expenditures deductions the tax law permits to measure income accurately, such as employers’ deductions for employee compensation or interest expenses. Similarly, OMB and JCT do not count personal and dependent exemptions as tax expenditures on the theory that adjusting for family size is appropriate in measuring a taxpayer’s ability to pay.

What are tax expenditures and how are they structured?

 

[g5000]

Here is how it SHOULD be done:

Nunes Introduces Bill to Reform Business Taxes

Supported by twenty-six cosponsors, the American Business Competitiveness Act (ABC Act) would drastically simplify the business tax code by eliminating the income tax on businesses and replacing it with a cash flow tax. The bill implements four main provisions:

• Allowing for 100 percent, same-year expensing for business investments.
  
  
• Setting a maximum business tax rate of 25 percent.
  
  
• Eliminating all loopholes and special deals on business taxes.
  
  
• Switching to a territorial international system.

“These simple rules will revolutionize the system for taxing businesses,” Rep. Nunes said. “The expensing provision and the low rates will create a huge incentive for businesses to invest money to expand their operations. Meanwhile, by treating all businesses the same regardless of their size or how they’re organized, we’ll create a level playing field for startups and small businesses to compete with bigger firms.

NO tax expenditures means NO allowing for expensing.

Ummmm....Allowing for 100 percent, same-year expensing for business investments.

It's funny that you don't understand your link.

Ah, I see what you mean.

I am against all tax expenditures, except for the EITC.

I don't expect to see any politician propose banning them all. Rand Paul might.

Nunes does have expensing in his plan. So that is not a NO tax expenditure plan, but it is the best one out there.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

I am against all tax expenditures, except for the EITC.

Deducting a business equipment purchase is not a tax expenditure.
Just as deducting employee salaries is not a tax expenditure.

The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 defines tax expenditures as “revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability.” These provisions are meant to support favored activities or assist favored groups of taxpayers. Thus, tax expenditures are alternatives to direct spending programs or regulations to accomplish the same goals. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) each year publish lists of tax expenditures and estimates of their associated revenue losses. The Treasury Department prepares the estimates for OMB.

The key word in the definition of tax expenditures is “special.” OMB and JCT do not count all exemptions and deductions as tax expenditures. For example, the agencies do not count as tax expenditures deductions the tax law permits to measure income accurately, such as employers’ deductions for employee compensation or interest expenses. Similarly, OMB and JCT do not count personal and dependent exemptions as tax expenditures on the theory that adjusting for family size is appropriate in measuring a taxpayer’s ability to pay.

What are tax expenditures and how are they structured?

"Interest expenses" =/= "business investments"

Why buying a corporate jet pays for itself

 

[bendog]

Here is how it SHOULD be done:

Nunes Introduces Bill to Reform Business Taxes

Supported by twenty-six cosponsors, the American Business Competitiveness Act (ABC Act) would drastically simplify the business tax code by eliminating the income tax on businesses and replacing it with a cash flow tax. The bill implements four main provisions:

• Allowing for 100 percent, same-year expensing for business investments.
  
  
• Setting a maximum business tax rate of 25 percent.
  
  
• Eliminating all loopholes and special deals on business taxes.
  
  
• Switching to a territorial international system.

“These simple rules will revolutionize the system for taxing businesses,” Rep. Nunes said. “The expensing provision and the low rates will create a huge incentive for businesses to invest money to expand their operations. Meanwhile, by treating all businesses the same regardless of their size or how they’re organized, we’ll create a level playing field for startups and small businesses to compete with bigger firms.

NO tax expenditures means NO allowing for expensing.

Ummmm....Allowing for 100 percent, same-year expensing for business investments.

It's funny that you don't understand your link.

Ah, I see what you mean.

I am against all tax expenditures, except for the EITC.

I don't expect to see any politician propose banning them all. Rand Paul might.

Nunes does have expensing in his plan. So that is not a NO tax expenditure plan, but it is the best one out there.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

I am against all tax expenditures, except for the EITC.

Deducting a business equipment purchase is not a tax expenditure.
Just as deducting employee salaries is not a tax expenditure.

The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 defines tax expenditures as “revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability.” These provisions are meant to support favored activities or assist favored groups of taxpayers. Thus, tax expenditures are alternatives to direct spending programs or regulations to accomplish the same goals. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) each year publish lists of tax expenditures and estimates of their associated revenue losses. The Treasury Department prepares the estimates for OMB.

The key word in the definition of tax expenditures is “special.” OMB and JCT do not count all exemptions and deductions as tax expenditures. For example, the agencies do not count as tax expenditures deductions the tax law permits to measure income accurately, such as employers’ deductions for employee compensation or interest expenses. Similarly, OMB and JCT do not count personal and dependent exemptions as tax expenditures on the theory that adjusting for family size is appropriate in measuring a taxpayer’s ability to pay.

What are tax expenditures and how are they structured?

It's good that you're looking. Here is an example.

http://www.jct.gov/x-66-08.pdf

 

[g5000]

Here is how it SHOULD be done:

Nunes Introduces Bill to Reform Business Taxes

Supported by twenty-six cosponsors, the American Business Competitiveness Act (ABC Act) would drastically simplify the business tax code by eliminating the income tax on businesses and replacing it with a cash flow tax. The bill implements four main provisions:

• Allowing for 100 percent, same-year expensing for business investments.
  
  
• Setting a maximum business tax rate of 25 percent.
  
  
• Eliminating all loopholes and special deals on business taxes.
  
  
• Switching to a territorial international system.

“These simple rules will revolutionize the system for taxing businesses,” Rep. Nunes said. “The expensing provision and the low rates will create a huge incentive for businesses to invest money to expand their operations. Meanwhile, by treating all businesses the same regardless of their size or how they’re organized, we’ll create a level playing field for startups and small businesses to compete with bigger firms.

NO tax expenditures means NO allowing for expensing.

Ummmm....Allowing for 100 percent, same-year expensing for business investments.

It's funny that you don't understand your link.

Ah, I see what you mean.

I am against all tax expenditures, except for the EITC.

I don't expect to see any politician propose banning them all. Rand Paul might.

Nunes does have expensing in his plan. So that is not a NO tax expenditure plan, but it is the best one out there.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

I am against all tax expenditures, except for the EITC.

Deducting a business equipment purchase is not a tax expenditure.
Just as deducting employee salaries is not a tax expenditure.

The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 defines tax expenditures as “revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability.” These provisions are meant to support favored activities or assist favored groups of taxpayers. Thus, tax expenditures are alternatives to direct spending programs or regulations to accomplish the same goals. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) each year publish lists of tax expenditures and estimates of their associated revenue losses. The Treasury Department prepares the estimates for OMB.

The key word in the definition of tax expenditures is “special.” OMB and JCT do not count all exemptions and deductions as tax expenditures. For example, the agencies do not count as tax expenditures deductions the tax law permits to measure income accurately, such as employers’ deductions for employee compensation or interest expenses. Similarly, OMB and JCT do not count personal and dependent exemptions as tax expenditures on the theory that adjusting for family size is appropriate in measuring a taxpayer’s ability to pay.

What are tax expenditures and how are they structured?

It's good that you're looking. Here is an example.

http://www.jct.gov/x-66-08.pdf

I am very much against the tax exemption for employer sponsored health insurance.

But that's probably an exemption Nunes is keeping alive under the guise of "business expenses".

And that exemption is most certainly a tax expenditure.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here is how it SHOULD be done:

Nunes Introduces Bill to Reform Business Taxes

Supported by twenty-six cosponsors, the American Business Competitiveness Act (ABC Act) would drastically simplify the business tax code by eliminating the income tax on businesses and replacing it with a cash flow tax. The bill implements four main provisions:

• Allowing for 100 percent, same-year expensing for business investments.
  
  
• Setting a maximum business tax rate of 25 percent.
  
  
• Eliminating all loopholes and special deals on business taxes.
  
  
• Switching to a territorial international system.

“These simple rules will revolutionize the system for taxing businesses,” Rep. Nunes said. “The expensing provision and the low rates will create a huge incentive for businesses to invest money to expand their operations. Meanwhile, by treating all businesses the same regardless of their size or how they’re organized, we’ll create a level playing field for startups and small businesses to compete with bigger firms.

NO tax expenditures means NO allowing for expensing.

Ummmm....Allowing for 100 percent, same-year expensing for business investments.

It's funny that you don't understand your link.

Ah, I see what you mean.

I am against all tax expenditures, except for the EITC.

I don't expect to see any politician propose banning them all. Rand Paul might.

Nunes does have expensing in his plan. So that is not a NO tax expenditure plan, but it is the best one out there.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

I am against all tax expenditures, except for the EITC.

Deducting a business equipment purchase is not a tax expenditure.
Just as deducting employee salaries is not a tax expenditure.

The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 defines tax expenditures as “revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability.” These provisions are meant to support favored activities or assist favored groups of taxpayers. Thus, tax expenditures are alternatives to direct spending programs or regulations to accomplish the same goals. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) each year publish lists of tax expenditures and estimates of their associated revenue losses. The Treasury Department prepares the estimates for OMB.

The key word in the definition of tax expenditures is “special.” OMB and JCT do not count all exemptions and deductions as tax expenditures. For example, the agencies do not count as tax expenditures deductions the tax law permits to measure income accurately, such as employers’ deductions for employee compensation or interest expenses. Similarly, OMB and JCT do not count personal and dependent exemptions as tax expenditures on the theory that adjusting for family size is appropriate in measuring a taxpayer’s ability to pay.

What are tax expenditures and how are they structured?

"Interest expenses" =/= "business investments"

Why buying a corporate jet pays for itself

"Interest expenses" =/= "business investments"

A company builds a new factory, finances it with debt.
Why isn't that a business investment?

 

[g5000]

Here is how it SHOULD be done:

Nunes Introduces Bill to Reform Business Taxes

Supported by twenty-six cosponsors, the American Business Competitiveness Act (ABC Act) would drastically simplify the business tax code by eliminating the income tax on businesses and replacing it with a cash flow tax. The bill implements four main provisions:

• Allowing for 100 percent, same-year expensing for business investments.
  
  
• Setting a maximum business tax rate of 25 percent.
  
  
• Eliminating all loopholes and special deals on business taxes.
  
  
• Switching to a territorial international system.

“These simple rules will revolutionize the system for taxing businesses,” Rep. Nunes said. “The expensing provision and the low rates will create a huge incentive for businesses to invest money to expand their operations. Meanwhile, by treating all businesses the same regardless of their size or how they’re organized, we’ll create a level playing field for startups and small businesses to compete with bigger firms.

NO tax expenditures means NO allowing for expensing.

Ummmm....Allowing for 100 percent, same-year expensing for business investments.

It's funny that you don't understand your link.

Ah, I see what you mean.

I am against all tax expenditures, except for the EITC.

I don't expect to see any politician propose banning them all. Rand Paul might.

Nunes does have expensing in his plan. So that is not a NO tax expenditure plan, but it is the best one out there.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

I am against all tax expenditures, except for the EITC.

Deducting a business equipment purchase is not a tax expenditure.
Just as deducting employee salaries is not a tax expenditure.

The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 defines tax expenditures as “revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability.” These provisions are meant to support favored activities or assist favored groups of taxpayers. Thus, tax expenditures are alternatives to direct spending programs or regulations to accomplish the same goals. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) each year publish lists of tax expenditures and estimates of their associated revenue losses. The Treasury Department prepares the estimates for OMB.

The key word in the definition of tax expenditures is “special.” OMB and JCT do not count all exemptions and deductions as tax expenditures. For example, the agencies do not count as tax expenditures deductions the tax law permits to measure income accurately, such as employers’ deductions for employee compensation or interest expenses. Similarly, OMB and JCT do not count personal and dependent exemptions as tax expenditures on the theory that adjusting for family size is appropriate in measuring a taxpayer’s ability to pay.

What are tax expenditures and how are they structured?

"Interest expenses" =/= "business investments"

Why buying a corporate jet pays for itself

"Interest expenses" =/= "business investments"

A company builds a new factory, finances it with debt.
Why isn't that a business investment?

It is a business investment!

Only the interest on the debt is not a tax expenditure, not the debt itself.

As I said above, I bet the exemption for employer sponsored health insurance is under that "business investment" umbrella, and that is most definitely a tax expenditure.

Look, we are at least on the same page with respect to corporate tax reform. I don't want to create a schism over things that are down in the weeds.

I suggest we wait and see that actual legislation and then have a further discussion about just how much the special interests are screwing over the individual taxpayer.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here is how it SHOULD be done:

Nunes Introduces Bill to Reform Business Taxes

Supported by twenty-six cosponsors, the American Business Competitiveness Act (ABC Act) would drastically simplify the business tax code by eliminating the income tax on businesses and replacing it with a cash flow tax. The bill implements four main provisions:

• Allowing for 100 percent, same-year expensing for business investments.
  
  
• Setting a maximum business tax rate of 25 percent.
  
  
• Eliminating all loopholes and special deals on business taxes.
  
  
• Switching to a territorial international system.

“These simple rules will revolutionize the system for taxing businesses,” Rep. Nunes said. “The expensing provision and the low rates will create a huge incentive for businesses to invest money to expand their operations. Meanwhile, by treating all businesses the same regardless of their size or how they’re organized, we’ll create a level playing field for startups and small businesses to compete with bigger firms.

NO tax expenditures means NO allowing for expensing.

Ummmm....Allowing for 100 percent, same-year expensing for business investments.

It's funny that you don't understand your link.

Ah, I see what you mean.

I am against all tax expenditures, except for the EITC.

I don't expect to see any politician propose banning them all. Rand Paul might.

Nunes does have expensing in his plan. So that is not a NO tax expenditure plan, but it is the best one out there.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

I am against all tax expenditures, except for the EITC.

Deducting a business equipment purchase is not a tax expenditure.
Just as deducting employee salaries is not a tax expenditure.

The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 defines tax expenditures as “revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability.” These provisions are meant to support favored activities or assist favored groups of taxpayers. Thus, tax expenditures are alternatives to direct spending programs or regulations to accomplish the same goals. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) each year publish lists of tax expenditures and estimates of their associated revenue losses. The Treasury Department prepares the estimates for OMB.

The key word in the definition of tax expenditures is “special.” OMB and JCT do not count all exemptions and deductions as tax expenditures. For example, the agencies do not count as tax expenditures deductions the tax law permits to measure income accurately, such as employers’ deductions for employee compensation or interest expenses. Similarly, OMB and JCT do not count personal and dependent exemptions as tax expenditures on the theory that adjusting for family size is appropriate in measuring a taxpayer’s ability to pay.

What are tax expenditures and how are they structured?

"Interest expenses" =/= "business investments"

Why buying a corporate jet pays for itself

Thanks for the link.
Tim sounds like an idiot.

Lots of American companies have private jets, and the government gives them a pretty good reason to buy one: They can pay for themselves in just a few years.

Useful tools do that. So what?

“As a result, businesses holding these assets are able to recapture the entire cost of acquiring the asset long before it’s ceased to produce value,” Dean Sonderegger, an executive at Bloomberg BNA who builds software that allows companies to track these write-offs. “Take private jets, for example, which have an IRS-specified useful life of five years, allowing firms to write off 70% of their cost within the first three years.”

Nunes want them to write off 100% the first year. Why is that bad again?

The term of art here is depreciation, and it serves a useful purpose. You shouldn’t have to pay taxes on your necessary business expenses,

Wait, sounds like they're disagreeing with you.

but it doesn’t make sense to let companies deduct the entire cost of something they buy in the first year if it will last for years.

Why not? All the extra earnings they'll get from that equipment in the years to come is...wait for it...taxable!!!

So has this game of accounting make-believe helped the economy? Not noticeably.

Has it hurt the economy?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

NO tax expenditures means NO allowing for expensing.

Ummmm....Allowing for 100 percent, same-year expensing for business investments.

It's funny that you don't understand your link.

Ah, I see what you mean.

I am against all tax expenditures, except for the EITC.

I don't expect to see any politician propose banning them all. Rand Paul might.

Nunes does have expensing in his plan. So that is not a NO tax expenditure plan, but it is the best one out there.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

I am against all tax expenditures, except for the EITC.

Deducting a business equipment purchase is not a tax expenditure.
Just as deducting employee salaries is not a tax expenditure.

The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 defines tax expenditures as “revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability.” These provisions are meant to support favored activities or assist favored groups of taxpayers. Thus, tax expenditures are alternatives to direct spending programs or regulations to accomplish the same goals. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) each year publish lists of tax expenditures and estimates of their associated revenue losses. The Treasury Department prepares the estimates for OMB.

The key word in the definition of tax expenditures is “special.” OMB and JCT do not count all exemptions and deductions as tax expenditures. For example, the agencies do not count as tax expenditures deductions the tax law permits to measure income accurately, such as employers’ deductions for employee compensation or interest expenses. Similarly, OMB and JCT do not count personal and dependent exemptions as tax expenditures on the theory that adjusting for family size is appropriate in measuring a taxpayer’s ability to pay.

What are tax expenditures and how are they structured?

"Interest expenses" =/= "business investments"

Why buying a corporate jet pays for itself

"Interest expenses" =/= "business investments"

A company builds a new factory, finances it with debt.
Why isn't that a business investment?

It is a business investment!

Only the interest on the debt is not a tax expenditure, not the debt itself.

As I said above, I bet the exemption for employer sponsored health insurance is under that "business investment" umbrella, and that is most definitely a tax expenditure.

Look, we are at least on the same page with respect to corporate tax reform. I don't want to create a schism over things that are down in the weeds.

I suggest we wait and see that actual legislation and then have a further discussion about just how much the special interests are screwing over the individual taxpayer.

Only the interest on the debt is not a tax expenditure, not the debt itself.

I agree, interest is not a tax expenditure.

I bet the exemption for employer sponsored health insurance is under that "business investment" umbrella, and that is most definitely a tax expenditure.

Sure, because government wants to encourage employers to provide insurance. And doesn't allow individuals to write off their private purchase of insurance.

Look, we are at least on the same page with respect to corporate tax reform.

Only now that you finally understand the definition of tax expenditure.
And only if you favor immediate, 100% expensing.

 

[otto105]

BINGO! This guy understand what shamless weasels Democrats are:

Democrats know corporate tax reform will juice the economy. That's why they once supported it

Democrats are freaking out about the Republicans’ tax cut bill, and for good reason. While the Democrats and their friends in the media will say the cuts in corporate taxes are a giveaway to big business, this is a transparently disingenuous critique. We know that because Democrats, when in charge, proposed their own massive cuts to the corporate tax rate, which gives away the game.

Why would Democrats want simplification and rate reduction in corporate taxes when they are in charge, but oppose it when Republicans are in charge? Because they know it will work.

President Barack Obama in 2012 rightly lamented that, “our current corporate tax system is outdated, unfair, and inefficient.” He cursed that the U.S. has “one of the highest tax rates in the world,” and said the tax code facing corporations is “unnecessarily complicated and forces America’s small businesses to spend countless hours and dollars filing their taxes.”

Obama proposed to cut the corporate tax rate and simplify the code not as a thank-you to corporate America, but because he knew it would juice the economy. And if we had to guess, that is exactly why Democrats oppose a rate cut and simplification today....​

Can you explain how this would happen? Because I don't think that you can, since evidence for this claim does exist.

 

[bripat9643]

BINGO! This guy understand what shamless weasels Democrats are:

Democrats know corporate tax reform will juice the economy. That's why they once supported it

Democrats are freaking out about the Republicans’ tax cut bill, and for good reason. While the Democrats and their friends in the media will say the cuts in corporate taxes are a giveaway to big business, this is a transparently disingenuous critique. We know that because Democrats, when in charge, proposed their own massive cuts to the corporate tax rate, which gives away the game.

Why would Democrats want simplification and rate reduction in corporate taxes when they are in charge, but oppose it when Republicans are in charge? Because they know it will work.

President Barack Obama in 2012 rightly lamented that, “our current corporate tax system is outdated, unfair, and inefficient.” He cursed that the U.S. has “one of the highest tax rates in the world,” and said the tax code facing corporations is “unnecessarily complicated and forces America’s small businesses to spend countless hours and dollars filing their taxes.”

Obama proposed to cut the corporate tax rate and simplify the code not as a thank-you to corporate America, but because he knew it would juice the economy. And if we had to guess, that is exactly why Democrats oppose a rate cut and simplification today....​

Can you explain how this would happen? Because I don't think that you can, since evidence for this claim does exist.

Can I explain how what would happen?

 

[Winston]

Here is how it SHOULD be done:

Nunes Introduces Bill to Reform Business Taxes

Supported by twenty-six cosponsors, the American Business Competitiveness Act (ABC Act) would drastically simplify the business tax code by eliminating the income tax on businesses and replacing it with a cash flow tax. The bill implements four main provisions:

• Allowing for 100 percent, same-year expensing for business investments.
  
  
• Setting a maximum business tax rate of 25 percent.
  
  
• Eliminating all loopholes and special deals on business taxes.
  
  
• Switching to a territorial international system.

“These simple rules will revolutionize the system for taxing businesses,” Rep. Nunes said. “The expensing provision and the low rates will create a huge incentive for businesses to invest money to expand their operations. Meanwhile, by treating all businesses the same regardless of their size or how they’re organized, we’ll create a level playing field for startups and small businesses to compete with bigger firms.

NO tax expenditures means NO allowing for expensing.

Ummmm....Allowing for 100 percent, same-year expensing for business investments.

It's funny that you don't understand your link.

Ah, I see what you mean.

I am against all tax expenditures, except for the EITC.

I don't expect to see any politician propose banning them all. Rand Paul might.

Nunes does have expensing in his plan. So that is not a NO tax expenditure plan, but it is the best one out there.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

I am against all tax expenditures, except for the EITC.

Deducting a business equipment purchase is not a tax expenditure.
Just as deducting employee salaries is not a tax expenditure.

The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 defines tax expenditures as “revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability.” These provisions are meant to support favored activities or assist favored groups of taxpayers. Thus, tax expenditures are alternatives to direct spending programs or regulations to accomplish the same goals. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) each year publish lists of tax expenditures and estimates of their associated revenue losses. The Treasury Department prepares the estimates for OMB.

The key word in the definition of tax expenditures is “special.” OMB and JCT do not count all exemptions and deductions as tax expenditures. For example, the agencies do not count as tax expenditures deductions the tax law permits to measure income accurately, such as employers’ deductions for employee compensation or interest expenses. Similarly, OMB and JCT do not count personal and dependent exemptions as tax expenditures on the theory that adjusting for family size is appropriate in measuring a taxpayer’s ability to pay.

What are tax expenditures and how are they structured?

"Interest expenses" =/= "business investments"

Why buying a corporate jet pays for itself

"Interest expenses" =/= "business investments"

A company builds a new factory, finances it with debt.
Why isn't that a business investment?

The current corporate tax code encourages corporations to finance themselves with debt rather than with equity. Specifically, under the current tax code, corporate dividends are not deductible in computing corporate taxable income, but interest payments are. This disparity creates a sizable wedge in the effective tax rates applied to returns from investments financed with equity versus debt. Profits generated by an equity-financed investment will be taxed at the 35 percent corporate rate, leaving 65 percent of the profits for dividend payments to shareholders. In contrast, profits from the same investment funded by debt will only be taxed to the extent they exceed the associated interest payments. Once the deductibility of interest is combined with accelerated depreciation, the cost of investments financed by debt capital declines even further. In fact, on average, debt-financed investments are subsidized (i.e., their effective marginal tax rate is negative), as income generated by such investments is more than offset by deductions for interest and accelerated depreciation. For example, the effective corporate marginal tax rate on new equity-financed investment in equipment is 27 percent in the United States. At the same time, the effective marginal tax rate on the same investment made with debt financing is negative 39 percent. Accounting for both corporate and individual income taxes,the rates are 36 percent for equity-financed investment and close to zero percent for debt-financed investment.

This tax preference for debt financing has important macroeconomic consequences. First and foremost, outsized reliance on debt financing can increase the risk of financial distress and thus raise the likelihood of bankruptcy. Unlike equity financing, which can flexibly absorb losses, debt requires fixed payments of interest and principal and allows creditors to force a firm into bankruptcy. A solvent firm with limited liquidity that is struggling to make its debt payments may experience losses of customers, suppliers, and employees. It may engage in destructive asset “fire sales” and forgo economically profitable investments. In an attempt to avoid bankruptcy, levered firms faced with financial distress may resort to high-risk investments. In the broader context, a large bias towards debt financing in the tax code may lead to greater aggregate leverage, making the broader economy less resilient and more susceptible to severe downturns.

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-c...-Business-Tax-Reform-An-Update-04-04-2016.pdf

The Obama corporate tax proposal included a "hair-cut" for interest deductions. In fact, it was this decrease in interest deductions that was a primary means of funding the corporate income tax cut. Back to the source document.

A tax system that is more neutral towards debt and equity will reduce incentives to overleverage and produce more stable corporate finances, making the economy more resilient in times of stress. In addition, limiting interest deductibility would finance lower tax rates and do more to encourage investment in the United States than many other ways to pay for rate reductions.

Obviously, a primary reason Republicans refused to back this portion of the Obama corporate tax proposal was to protect the interest of the financial industry at the detriment of the economy as a whole and the people in general.

 

[Winston]

Ah, I see what you mean.

I am against all tax expenditures, except for the EITC.

I don't expect to see any politician propose banning them all. Rand Paul might.

Nunes does have expensing in his plan. So that is not a NO tax expenditure plan, but it is the best one out there.

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

I am against all tax expenditures, except for the EITC.

Deducting a business equipment purchase is not a tax expenditure.
Just as deducting employee salaries is not a tax expenditure.

The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 defines tax expenditures as “revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability.” These provisions are meant to support favored activities or assist favored groups of taxpayers. Thus, tax expenditures are alternatives to direct spending programs or regulations to accomplish the same goals. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) each year publish lists of tax expenditures and estimates of their associated revenue losses. The Treasury Department prepares the estimates for OMB.

The key word in the definition of tax expenditures is “special.” OMB and JCT do not count all exemptions and deductions as tax expenditures. For example, the agencies do not count as tax expenditures deductions the tax law permits to measure income accurately, such as employers’ deductions for employee compensation or interest expenses. Similarly, OMB and JCT do not count personal and dependent exemptions as tax expenditures on the theory that adjusting for family size is appropriate in measuring a taxpayer’s ability to pay.

What are tax expenditures and how are they structured?

"Interest expenses" =/= "business investments"

Why buying a corporate jet pays for itself

"Interest expenses" =/= "business investments"

A company builds a new factory, finances it with debt.
Why isn't that a business investment?

It is a business investment!

Only the interest on the debt is not a tax expenditure, not the debt itself.

As I said above, I bet the exemption for employer sponsored health insurance is under that "business investment" umbrella, and that is most definitely a tax expenditure.

Look, we are at least on the same page with respect to corporate tax reform. I don't want to create a schism over things that are down in the weeds.

I suggest we wait and see that actual legislation and then have a further discussion about just how much the special interests are screwing over the individual taxpayer.

Only the interest on the debt is not a tax expenditure, not the debt itself.

I agree, interest is not a tax expenditure.

I bet the exemption for employer sponsored health insurance is under that "business investment" umbrella, and that is most definitely a tax expenditure.

Sure, because government wants to encourage employers to provide insurance. And doesn't allow individuals to write off their private purchase of insurance.

Look, we are at least on the same page with respect to corporate tax reform.

Only now that you finally understand the definition of tax expenditure.
And only if you favor immediate, 100% expensing.

Sure, because government wants to encourage employers to provide insurance. And doesn't allow individuals to write off their private purchase of insurance.

Please explain how that is good public policy. Why should businesses get to deduct the cost of providing health insurance while individuals cannot? Who does that benefit? I am of the belief that tying health insurance to employment is dysfunctional, results in ineffective resource allocation, distorts both the health insurance market and the labor market, results in "job-lock",and severely disadvantages the self-employed and small business owners.

 

[EverCurious]

All my wealthy buddies are pissed at Republican's for "selling them out" heh Some of them are looking at a 45-46% tax rate because of this bubble tax thing (on the first $200k over $1 million - according to Ledger on OAN, who was ripping the plan a new one last night.)

We're actually gonna skate, for the most part, we lose a bit on mortgage deductions, but we still get our business expenses write off so it'll work out about the same or just a bit more; not having to have a lawyer do our taxes anymore will save us thousands though so we may actually end up paying less here If they ditch the ACA mandate I'll be thrilled because I can pull more capital gains without getting bit in the ass by that bullshit. Fingers crossed for a new pull target of "less than 1M."

 

[Winston]

All my wealthy buddies are pissed at Republican's for "selling them out" heh Some of them are looking at a 45-46% tax rate because of this bubble tax thing (on the first $200k over $1 million - according to Ledger on OAN, who was ripping the plan a new one last night.)

We're actually gonna skate, for the most part, we lose a bit on mortgage deductions, but we still get our business expenses write off so it'll work out about the same or just a bit more; not having to have a lawyer do our taxes anymore will save us thousands though so we may actually end up paying less here If they ditch the ACA mandate I'll be thrilled because I can pull more capital gains without getting bit in the ass by that bullshit. Fingers crossed for a new pull target of "less than 1M."

If they ditch the ACA mandate I'll be thrilled because I can pull more capital gains without getting bit in the ass by that bullshit.

Fuck you asshole. Thanks for confirming what the whole opposition to Obamacare is about. It is not about rising premiums, it is not about small business owners, it is not about a dysfunctional health insurance marketplace. It is about less than FOUR DAMN CENTS on the dollar. You can't pay a puny FOUR DAMN CENTS in capital gains tax on UNEARNED INCOME so that thousands, no MILLIONS of people can have health insurance. FOUR CENTS ON THE DOLLAR "sticks you in the ass". If anyone wants to know what is wrong with this country they need to look no further than assholes like you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I am against all tax expenditures, except for the EITC.

Deducting a business equipment purchase is not a tax expenditure.
Just as deducting employee salaries is not a tax expenditure.

The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 defines tax expenditures as “revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability.” These provisions are meant to support favored activities or assist favored groups of taxpayers. Thus, tax expenditures are alternatives to direct spending programs or regulations to accomplish the same goals. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) each year publish lists of tax expenditures and estimates of their associated revenue losses. The Treasury Department prepares the estimates for OMB.

The key word in the definition of tax expenditures is “special.” OMB and JCT do not count all exemptions and deductions as tax expenditures. For example, the agencies do not count as tax expenditures deductions the tax law permits to measure income accurately, such as employers’ deductions for employee compensation or interest expenses. Similarly, OMB and JCT do not count personal and dependent exemptions as tax expenditures on the theory that adjusting for family size is appropriate in measuring a taxpayer’s ability to pay.

What are tax expenditures and how are they structured?

"Interest expenses" =/= "business investments"

Why buying a corporate jet pays for itself

"Interest expenses" =/= "business investments"

A company builds a new factory, finances it with debt.
Why isn't that a business investment?

It is a business investment!

Only the interest on the debt is not a tax expenditure, not the debt itself.

As I said above, I bet the exemption for employer sponsored health insurance is under that "business investment" umbrella, and that is most definitely a tax expenditure.

Look, we are at least on the same page with respect to corporate tax reform. I don't want to create a schism over things that are down in the weeds.

I suggest we wait and see that actual legislation and then have a further discussion about just how much the special interests are screwing over the individual taxpayer.

Only the interest on the debt is not a tax expenditure, not the debt itself.

I agree, interest is not a tax expenditure.

I bet the exemption for employer sponsored health insurance is under that "business investment" umbrella, and that is most definitely a tax expenditure.

Sure, because government wants to encourage employers to provide insurance. And doesn't allow individuals to write off their private purchase of insurance.

Look, we are at least on the same page with respect to corporate tax reform.

Only now that you finally understand the definition of tax expenditure.
And only if you favor immediate, 100% expensing.

Sure, because government wants to encourage employers to provide insurance. And doesn't allow individuals to write off their private purchase of insurance.

Please explain how that is good public policy. Why should businesses get to deduct the cost of providing health insurance while individuals cannot? Who does that benefit? I am of the belief that tying health insurance to employment is dysfunctional, results in ineffective resource allocation, distorts both the health insurance market and the labor market, results in "job-lock",and severely disadvantages the self-employed and small business owners.

Please explain how that is good public policy. Why should businesses get to deduct the cost of providing health insurance while individuals cannot?

Who said it was good public policy? Where?
I was explaining why it fit the definition of tax expenditure.

I am of the belief that tying health insurance to employment is dysfunctional,

The story of how it came to be is interesting.

 

[EverCurious]

All my wealthy buddies are pissed at Republican's for "selling them out" heh Some of them are looking at a 45-46% tax rate because of this bubble tax thing (on the first $200k over $1 million - according to Ledger on OAN, who was ripping the plan a new one last night.)

We're actually gonna skate, for the most part, we lose a bit on mortgage deductions, but we still get our business expenses write off so it'll work out about the same or just a bit more; not having to have a lawyer do our taxes anymore will save us thousands though so we may actually end up paying less here If they ditch the ACA mandate I'll be thrilled because I can pull more capital gains without getting bit in the ass by that bullshit. Fingers crossed for a new pull target of "less than 1M."

If they ditch the ACA mandate I'll be thrilled because I can pull more capital gains without getting bit in the ass by that bullshit.

Fuck you asshole. Thanks for confirming what the whole opposition to Obamacare is about. It is not about rising premiums, it is not about small business owners, it is not about a dysfunctional health insurance marketplace. It is about less than FOUR DAMN CENTS on the dollar. You can't pay a puny FOUR DAMN CENTS in capital gains tax on UNEARNED INCOME so that thousands, no MILLIONS of people can have health insurance. FOUR CENTS ON THE DOLLAR "sticks you in the ass". If anyone wants to know what is wrong with this country they need to look no further than assholes like you.

Wow nice off the hinges rant.

You are correct, I don't want to pay for you and a bunch of other idiots to play into the insurance scam bullshit. I also want EMTALA repealed so that hospitals don't pass the buck for illegals and idiots abusing the ER onto working Americans. You want insurance, pay for it your damn self. I'm already carrying medical bills for my family of 5, plus a good portion of 63 employee's ACA. What the fuck are you contributing? Go ahead an shove your four pennies up your ass son.

No fucking allowance for you bitches because you're pissing it away. Throw another tantrum, that'll convince me that you're not going to piss it away like a kid in a candy store who later expects me to pay for all the cavities as well.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All my wealthy buddies are pissed at Republican's for "selling them out" heh Some of them are looking at a 45-46% tax rate because of this bubble tax thing (on the first $200k over $1 million - according to Ledger on OAN, who was ripping the plan a new one last night.)

We're actually gonna skate, for the most part, we lose a bit on mortgage deductions, but we still get our business expenses write off so it'll work out about the same or just a bit more; not having to have a lawyer do our taxes anymore will save us thousands though so we may actually end up paying less here If they ditch the ACA mandate I'll be thrilled because I can pull more capital gains without getting bit in the ass by that bullshit. Fingers crossed for a new pull target of "less than 1M."

If they ditch the ACA mandate I'll be thrilled because I can pull more capital gains without getting bit in the ass by that bullshit.

Fuck you asshole. Thanks for confirming what the whole opposition to Obamacare is about. It is not about rising premiums, it is not about small business owners, it is not about a dysfunctional health insurance marketplace. It is about less than FOUR DAMN CENTS on the dollar. You can't pay a puny FOUR DAMN CENTS in capital gains tax on UNEARNED INCOME so that thousands, no MILLIONS of people can have health insurance. FOUR CENTS ON THE DOLLAR "sticks you in the ass". If anyone wants to know what is wrong with this country they need to look no further than assholes like you.

You can't pay a puny FOUR DAMN CENTS in capital gains tax on UNEARNED INCOME so that thousands, no MILLIONS of people can have health insurance.

How much do you feel this surcharge raises every year?

 

[Winston]

All my wealthy buddies are pissed at Republican's for "selling them out" heh Some of them are looking at a 45-46% tax rate because of this bubble tax thing (on the first $200k over $1 million - according to Ledger on OAN, who was ripping the plan a new one last night.)

We're actually gonna skate, for the most part, we lose a bit on mortgage deductions, but we still get our business expenses write off so it'll work out about the same or just a bit more; not having to have a lawyer do our taxes anymore will save us thousands though so we may actually end up paying less here If they ditch the ACA mandate I'll be thrilled because I can pull more capital gains without getting bit in the ass by that bullshit. Fingers crossed for a new pull target of "less than 1M."

If they ditch the ACA mandate I'll be thrilled because I can pull more capital gains without getting bit in the ass by that bullshit.

Fuck you asshole. Thanks for confirming what the whole opposition to Obamacare is about. It is not about rising premiums, it is not about small business owners, it is not about a dysfunctional health insurance marketplace. It is about less than FOUR DAMN CENTS on the dollar. You can't pay a puny FOUR DAMN CENTS in capital gains tax on UNEARNED INCOME so that thousands, no MILLIONS of people can have health insurance. FOUR CENTS ON THE DOLLAR "sticks you in the ass". If anyone wants to know what is wrong with this country they need to look no further than assholes like you.

Wow nice off the hinges rant.

You are correct, I don't want to pay for you and a bunch of other idiots to play into the insurance scam bullshit. I also want EMTALA repealed so that hospitals don't pass the buck for illegals and idiots abusing the ER onto working Americans. You want insurance, pay for it your damn self. I'm already carrying medical bills for my family of 5, plus a good portion of 63 employee's ACA. What the fuck are you contributing? Go ahead an shove your four pennies up your ass son.

No fucking allowance for you bitches because you're pissing it away. Throw another tantrum, that'll convince me that you're not going to piss it away like a kid in a candy store who later expects me to pay for all the cavities as well.

Cry me a damn river. Family of five, HA HA. Try family of eight hoss. I've done my part to keep Social Security solvent. Have one in medical school, one in graduate school, and two undergraduates. You think I can do that collecting your damn pennies? No, I have tens of millions of dollars under management and I pay almost forty cents on the dollar on the fees I generate MAKING THE &%@)@ MONEY while you dipshits can't fork out a damn quarter on the dollar off the income I create for you while you sit on your fat ass.

That's my damn problem. It is called UNEARNED INCOME, by definition, YOU DIDN'T EARN IT. So while my son busts his ass making coal fired power plants more productive he pays a higher tax rate than you do sitting on your ass collecting capital gains. How does that make sense? Hell, even Ronald Reagan believed that all income should be taxed the same. And if anything, UNEARNED INCOME should be taxed MORE. You complain about people not working and yet our tax system actually ENCOURAGES PEOPLE not to work. My doctor clients pay a higher tax rate on the income their hard work and years of study generate than they do on the capital gains I provide to them. How the samhell does that make sense?

Here is the deal. When the owners of the shovel pay a lower tax on the shovels they rent out to the ditch diggers that actually dig the holes, eventually, everyone will want to own a shovel and nobody will be digging the ditches.

 

[Winston]

All my wealthy buddies are pissed at Republican's for "selling them out" heh Some of them are looking at a 45-46% tax rate because of this bubble tax thing (on the first $200k over $1 million - according to Ledger on OAN, who was ripping the plan a new one last night.)

We're actually gonna skate, for the most part, we lose a bit on mortgage deductions, but we still get our business expenses write off so it'll work out about the same or just a bit more; not having to have a lawyer do our taxes anymore will save us thousands though so we may actually end up paying less here If they ditch the ACA mandate I'll be thrilled because I can pull more capital gains without getting bit in the ass by that bullshit. Fingers crossed for a new pull target of "less than 1M."

If they ditch the ACA mandate I'll be thrilled because I can pull more capital gains without getting bit in the ass by that bullshit.

Fuck you asshole. Thanks for confirming what the whole opposition to Obamacare is about. It is not about rising premiums, it is not about small business owners, it is not about a dysfunctional health insurance marketplace. It is about less than FOUR DAMN CENTS on the dollar. You can't pay a puny FOUR DAMN CENTS in capital gains tax on UNEARNED INCOME so that thousands, no MILLIONS of people can have health insurance. FOUR CENTS ON THE DOLLAR "sticks you in the ass". If anyone wants to know what is wrong with this country they need to look no further than assholes like you.

You can't pay a puny FOUR DAMN CENTS in capital gains tax on UNEARNED INCOME so that thousands, no MILLIONS of people can have health insurance.

How much do you feel this surcharge raises every year?

Close to sixty-five billion dollars a year.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All my wealthy buddies are pissed at Republican's for "selling them out" heh Some of them are looking at a 45-46% tax rate because of this bubble tax thing (on the first $200k over $1 million - according to Ledger on OAN, who was ripping the plan a new one last night.)

We're actually gonna skate, for the most part, we lose a bit on mortgage deductions, but we still get our business expenses write off so it'll work out about the same or just a bit more; not having to have a lawyer do our taxes anymore will save us thousands though so we may actually end up paying less here If they ditch the ACA mandate I'll be thrilled because I can pull more capital gains without getting bit in the ass by that bullshit. Fingers crossed for a new pull target of "less than 1M."

If they ditch the ACA mandate I'll be thrilled because I can pull more capital gains without getting bit in the ass by that bullshit.

Fuck you asshole. Thanks for confirming what the whole opposition to Obamacare is about. It is not about rising premiums, it is not about small business owners, it is not about a dysfunctional health insurance marketplace. It is about less than FOUR DAMN CENTS on the dollar. You can't pay a puny FOUR DAMN CENTS in capital gains tax on UNEARNED INCOME so that thousands, no MILLIONS of people can have health insurance. FOUR CENTS ON THE DOLLAR "sticks you in the ass". If anyone wants to know what is wrong with this country they need to look no further than assholes like you.

You can't pay a puny FOUR DAMN CENTS in capital gains tax on UNEARNED INCOME so that thousands, no MILLIONS of people can have health insurance.

How much do you feel this surcharge raises every year?

Close to sixty-five billion dollars a year.

Wow! I think your math is off.

Where did you find that number?