Fair taxation.

[Boss]

is simple lack of faith in free market capitalist principles we know will work.

Exactly !!!
Faith has no place in science ( ah well, maybe you were just talking figuratively). Confidence on principles, yes. Then again a poll asking "if you had a 0% tax rate what would you invest in and how much would you invest in a year in the USA" should be easy enough to create ( and ridiculously cheap).
In the end I kind of like your idea, but given the current context I don't think there is enough information to determine the outcome.

======================================================
Edit
======================================================
I could agree to such policy if : Every penny that the government loses in tax revenue is cutted from the military budget: No poll needed in that case.

Here's the thing, investments don't do anything for the economy in the present. I want spending to happen, and more spending will happen with 0% tax rates than any other tax rates, guaranteed. I don't need to see a poll to know this would be a huge,,, monumental economic windfall. That would be the outcome because principles of capitalism work always.

I am opposed to military budget cuts for the sake of offset. First of all, you're not going to need any offset, the revenue lost in corporate taxation would be realized through income taxation increases which would naturally happen as a result of more jobs and expanded economic prosperity. I don't have any problem with an audit of military spending to cut out waste and obsolete programs, I think that needs to happen regardless of tax policies. But when the liberal leftist meme of offsetting tax revenue cuts with military cuts comes up, this means closing military bases and we don't need to be doing any of that. Close a military base and you kill a town. Jobs are lost across the board in the private sector as a result.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Gov' policy could do that 'good investment' you speak of, but we all know the GOP isn't going to allow it, and without Gov't directing it, via laws, change is slow with the 'free market'.

Arrgg. While I can agree partly with you , I'm not sure of what to make of this last paragraph.
Sure , the government can invest in these areas, but governments in general tend to be great resource squanderers.

It actually saddens me a bit that this investments aren't happening right now. Where are the likes of intrepid inventors and entreperneurs like Tessla and Edisson ?
... ah , you'll have to excuse me I'm going to go into depression mode for a while.

 

[Judicial review]

is simple lack of faith in free market capitalist principles we know will work.

Exactly !!!
Faith has no place in science ( ah well, maybe you were just talking figuratively). Confidence on principles, yes. Then again a poll asking "if you had a 0% tax rate what would you invest in and how much would you invest in a year in the USA" should be easy enough to create ( and ridiculously cheap).
In the end I kind of like your idea, but given the current context I don't think there is enough information to determine the outcome.

======================================================
Edit
======================================================
I could agree to such policy if : Every penny that the government loses in tax revenue is cutted from the military budget: No poll needed in that case.

Here's the thing, investments don't do anything for the economy in the present. I want spending to happen, and more spending will happen with 0% tax rates than any other tax rates, guaranteed. I don't need to see a poll to know this would be a huge,,, monumental economic windfall. That would be the outcome because principles of capitalism work always.

I am opposed to military budget cuts for the sake of offset. First of all, you're not going to need any offset, the revenue lost in corporate taxation would be realized through income taxation increases which would naturally happen as a result of more jobs and expanded economic prosperity. I don't have any problem with an audit of military spending to cut out waste and obsolete programs, I think that needs to happen regardless of tax policies. But when the liberal leftist meme of offsetting tax revenue cuts with military cuts comes up, this means closing military bases and we don't need to be doing any of that. Close a military base and you kill a town. Jobs are lost across the board in the private sector as a result.

I agree that our military budget needs to be audited and there's billions probably tens of billions in waste. I also believe we need to allow our military members who severed more than 2 terms in Iraq to be allowed to retire, and promote the best of the best that are wanting a career in the armed forces. By doing this the army is already cut thin on the amount of troops we have, and this will allow hundreds of thousands to retire with benefits and pay. Imagine having a VA that went through a full reform and was functioning properly, but where we stopped this waste and kept funding the same, but just allocated it to the troops benefits to cover what they were promised! That would be huge.

I'd then be in favor of a draft. Just big enough to replace what we have lost and what would be adequet for the years to come in case we do get into a ground and air war with ISIS, which I think is enevitible, and offer them the same benefits. Pick the 18-21 year olds. That generation needs discipline any ways.

 

[Dad2three]

Stop demagoguing the thread with mindless propaganda and false statistics, goofball.

No one asked you if you like the plan, we already know what you want to do.

Got it Bubba, you'll live in the usual right wing world of delusion, myths and fairy tales, lol'

 

[Dad2three]

is simple lack of faith in free market capitalist principles we know will work.

Exactly !!!
Faith has no place in science ( ah well, maybe you were just talking figuratively). Confidence on principles, yes. Then again a poll asking "if you had a 0% tax rate what would you invest in and how much would you invest in a year in the USA" should be easy enough to create ( and ridiculously cheap).
In the end I kind of like your idea, but given the current context I don't think there is enough information to determine the outcome.

======================================================
Edit
======================================================
I could agree to such policy if : Every penny that the government loses in tax revenue is cutted from the military budget: No poll needed in that case.

Here's the thing, investments don't do anything for the economy in the present. I want spending to happen, and more spending will happen with 0% tax rates than any other tax rates, guaranteed. I don't need to see a poll to know this would be a huge,,, monumental economic windfall. That would be the outcome because principles of capitalism work always.

I am opposed to military budget cuts for the sake of offset. First of all, you're not going to need any offset, the revenue lost in corporate taxation would be realized through income taxation increases which would naturally happen as a result of more jobs and expanded economic prosperity. I don't have any problem with an audit of military spending to cut out waste and obsolete programs, I think that needs to happen regardless of tax policies. But when the liberal leftist meme of offsetting tax revenue cuts with military cuts comes up, this means closing military bases and we don't need to be doing any of that. Close a military base and you kill a town. Jobs are lost across the board in the private sector as a result.

"and more spending will happen with 0% tax rates than any other tax rates, guaranteed."


Sure there would be. The 'job creators' need ANOTHER home or car right, NOT that they'll give it to their money managers to ship to emerging markets? lol


Trickle down economics and lower taxes on the wealthy are synonymous with 'Banana Republic' which is exactly where we're headed with right wing republican policies. Banana Republics are also run by the 1% elite, not democracies. Given the opportunity that's exactly how the right wing would like it here in the USA and they'll do anything to get to that point - lie, cheat and steal. What baffles me is just how many of the American working class believe the republican rhetoric that they represent them when it couldn't be further from the truth. What a travesty!

 

[Boss]

You're a travesty.

 

[Dad2three]

You're a travesty.

And you 'believe in' myths and fairy tales that NEVER work as promised

ONE policy EVER conservatives have been on the correct side of history in the US ? lol

 

[Boss]

You're a travesty.

And you 'believe in' myths and fairy tales that NEVER work as promised

ONE policy EVER conservatives have been on the correct side of history in the US ? lol

Failure is something liberal policies do, then liberals run out there and find ways to blame the failure on conservatives. The fact that you can find fault with all things conservative might be impressive at your liberal retard school but it doesn't do that much for me.

 

[Dad2three]

You're a travesty.

And you 'believe in' myths and fairy tales that NEVER work as promised

ONE policy EVER conservatives have been on the correct side of history in the US ? lol

Failure is something liberal policies do, then liberals run out there and find ways to blame the failure on conservatives. The fact that you can find fault with all things conservative might be impressive at your liberal retard school but it doesn't do that much for me.

So NO, YOU can't find even ONE policy conservatives were on the correct side of US history either. Thanks

 

[CultureCitizen]

The fact that you can find fault with all things conservative might be impressive at your liberal retard school but it doesn't do that much for me.

Ok guys , let's try to keep the thread polite. I have really enjoyed this thread so far.

I've found many articles supporting the 0 tax corporate rate. In theory it sounds good.
In practice there are not many countries who have gone this way.
List of countries by tax rates - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Estonia is one of such contries. The gdp grew from 5,000 USD to 18,000 USD in 8 years. Quite impressive , but I can't really tell what percent of this grow is related to the tax policy.

estonia gdp per capita - Wolfram Alpha

Boss, I understand the mechanics of your proposal, but I would still prefer to have some links to support your viewpoint ( hence my link on Estonia ).
---------------------------------------
Edit
----------------------------------------
Looking at the chart it would seem such policy would create a period of growth followed by a perido of stabilization ... unemployment decreased and has gone upward since 2008
Economy of Estonia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Estonia has around 600,000 employees, yet the country has a shortage of skilled labor, and since skill shortages are experienced everywhere in Europe, the government has increased working visa quota for non-EEA citizens"
... skilled labour shortage and increasing unemployment? What the hell?

 

[Dad2three]

 

[Dad2three]

The fact that you can find fault with all things conservative might be impressive at your liberal retard school but it doesn't do that much for me.

Ok guys , let's try to keep the thread polite. I have really enjoyed this thread so far.

I've found many articles supporting the 0 tax corporate rate. In theory it sounds good.
In practice there are not many countries who have gone this way.
List of countries by tax rates - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Estonia is one of such contries. The gdp grew from 5,000 USD to 18,000 USD in 8 years. Quite impressive , but I can't really tell what percent of this grow is related to the tax policy.

estonia gdp per capita - Wolfram Alpha

Boss, I understand the mechanics of your proposal, but I would still prefer to have some links to support your viewpoint ( hence my link on Estonia ).

CHILE: THE LABORATORY TEST

Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals.

The Chicago School of Economics got that chance for 16 years in Chile, under near-laboratory conditions. Between 1973 and 1989, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws. And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy.

The results were exactly what liberals predicted.
Chile the laboratory test

 

[Dad2three]

The fact that you can find fault with all things conservative might be impressive at your liberal retard school but it doesn't do that much for me.

Ok guys , let's try to keep the thread polite. I have really enjoyed this thread so far.

I've found many articles supporting the 0 tax corporate rate. In theory it sounds good.
In practice there are not many countries who have gone this way.
List of countries by tax rates - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Estonia is one of such contries. The gdp grew from 5,000 USD to 18,000 USD in 8 years. Quite impressive , but I can't really tell what percent of this grow is related to the tax policy.

estonia gdp per capita - Wolfram Alpha

Boss, I understand the mechanics of your proposal, but I would still prefer to have some links to support your viewpoint ( hence my link on Estonia ).

What Fortune 500 Firms Pay (or Don’t Pay) in the USA And What they Pay Abroad — 2008 to 2012


Some Key Findings:

• As a group, the 288 corporations examined paid an effective federal income tax rate of just 19.4 percent over the five-year period — far less than the statutory 35 percent tax rate.

• Twenty-six of the corporations, including Boeing, General Electric, Priceline.com and Verizon, paid no federal income tax at all over the five year period. A third of the corporations (93) paid an effective tax rate of less than ten percent over that period.

The Sorry State of Corporate Taxes Citizens for Tax Justice



Key Facts

• Corporate share of federal tax revenue has dropped by two-thirds in 60 years — from 32% in 1952 to 10% in 2013.
• General Electric, Boeing, Verizon and 23 other profitable Fortune 500 firms paid no federal income taxes from 2008 to 2012.
• 288 big and profitable Fortune 500 corporations paid an average effective federal tax rate of just 19.4% from 2008 to 2012.
• Profitable corporations paid U.S. income taxes amounting to just 12.6% of worldwide income in 2010.
• U.S. corporations dodge $90 billion a year in income taxes by shifting profits to subsidiaries — often no more than post office boxes — in tax havens.
• U.S. corporations officially hold $2.1 trillion in profits offshore — much of it in tax havens — that have not yet been taxed here.
  
  Americans for Tax Fairness Fact Sheet Corporate Tax Rates
  
  
  

GAO: US corporations pay average effective tax rate of 12.6%

 

[Dad2three]

 

[CultureCitizen]

Dad2three,
I have the Casino theorey : That the ultra rich would rather keep their proffits in instruments and jumping around the globe in stocks or investing in developing countries.
The bottom line is that the three of us would like to achieve the same: an increase in the investments which creates more jobs and create economic growth . We do seem to have quite different points of view on how to achieve this goal.

I think the government should spend more on infrastructure and public colleges, and less in the military sector ( If anything I would double DARPA's budget, because it has an impressive collection of advances).
Boss thinks a zero corporate rate would speed up investment ( the Estonian model seems to confirm this in the short term ) .
What's your take in this?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Fair taxes?
Well lets start by removing negative tax liabilities. Except for special circumstances, no one should receive more back from the IRS than they paid in. Period.
It is called tax welfare, the R in IRS does not stand for Redistribution.
Second. Businesses should have zero tax liability on income from products and services that are made within the borders of the U.S. Business Income tax should only be on income derived from products/services made overseas. Talk about an incentive to produce products in America!
Third - lower taxes on the middle class.
I have no issue on raising taxes on the wealthiest in America, say income over $500k.

 

[Dad2three]

Dad2three,
I have the Casino theorey : That the ultra rich would rather keep their proffits in instruments and jumping around the globe in stocks or investing in developing countries.
The bottom line is that the three of us would like to achieve the same: an increase in the investments which creates more jobs and create economic growth . We do seem to have quite different points of view on how to achieve this goal.

I think the government should spend more on infrastructure and public colleges, and less in the military sector ( If anything I would double DARPA's budget, because it has an impressive collection of advances).
Boss thinks a zero corporate rate would speed up investment ( the Estonian model seems to confirm this in the short term ) .
What's your take in this?

I agree mostly with you. Boss is a moron who can't accept the FACT that no Corp is hurting for capital, to either expand or create more jobs. They look at the total cost, and they move offshore mainly for lower wages or to shield profits from that horrible 12% effective Corp tax rate, 3rd lowest in the developed world, only higher than Mexico and Chile (barely). Cutting Corp taxes to zero will do NOTHING for job creation, just like cutting 'job creators' taxes in the US did nothing under Reagan OR Dubya to create jobs

ALL right wingers like Boss has is myths and fairy tales to fall back on because conservative economic theory has NEVER worked as promised!

 

[Dad2three]

Fair taxes?
Well lets start by removing negative tax liabilities. Except for special circumstances, no one should receive more back from the IRS than they paid in. Period.
It is called tax welfare, the R in IRS does not stand for Redistribution.
Second. Businesses should have zero tax liability on income from products and services that are made within the borders of the U.S. Business Income tax should only be on income derived from products/services made overseas. Talk about an incentive to produce products in America!
Third - lower taxes on the middle class.
I have no issue on raising taxes on the wealthiest in America, say income over $500k.

Bottom 50% of US received 11% of ALL US income, that is an AVERAGE of less than $15,000 PER FAMILY. Top 1% (50 TIMES more families) received 18% of
income If the bottom 50% kept the same SHARE of the pie they had in 1980, the families would have nearly $5,000 MORE per family (plus SS taxes Reagan increased to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich)

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation


Poor Americans Pay Double The State, Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent

Poor Americans Pay Double The State Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent




Reagan strongly supported the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which sends checks to Americans who work but earn less than around $46,000 a year, depending on family size. Recipients of the credit are among those who don’t pay income tax, but Reagan never regarded that as a problem. His administration estimated that the 1986 reform of the tax code would remove 6 million working poor from the tax rolls. Reagan called the reform a “sweeping victory for fairness” and “perhaps the biggest antipoverty program in our history.”

Ronald Reagan and the 47 Percent - Businessweek

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Fair taxes?
Well lets start by removing negative tax liabilities. Except for special circumstances, no one should receive more back from the IRS than they paid in. Period.
It is called tax welfare, the R in IRS does not stand for Redistribution.
Second. Businesses should have zero tax liability on income from products and services that are made within the borders of the U.S. Business Income tax should only be on income derived from products/services made overseas. Talk about an incentive to produce products in America!
Third - lower taxes on the middle class.
I have no issue on raising taxes on the wealthiest in America, say income over $500k.

Bottom 50% of US received 11% of ALL US income, that is an AVERAGE of less than $15,000 PER FAMILY. Top 1% (50 TIMES more families) received 18% of
income If the bottom 50% kept the same SHARE of the pie they had in 1980, the families would have nearly $5,000 MORE per family (plus SS taxes Reagan increased to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich)

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation


Poor Americans Pay Double The State, Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent

Poor Americans Pay Double The State Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent




Reagan strongly supported the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which sends checks to Americans who work but earn less than around $46,000 a year, depending on family size. Recipients of the credit are among those who don’t pay income tax, but Reagan never regarded that as a problem. His administration estimated that the 1986 reform of the tax code would remove 6 million working poor from the tax rolls. Reagan called the reform a “sweeping victory for fairness” and “perhaps the biggest antipoverty program in our history.”

Ronald Reagan and the 47 Percent - Businessweek

Fair taxes?
Well lets start by removing negative tax liabilities. Except for special circumstances, no one should receive more back from the IRS than they paid in. Period.
It is called tax welfare, the R in IRS does not stand for Redistribution.
Second. Businesses should have zero tax liability on income from products and services that are made within the borders of the U.S. Business Income tax should only be on income derived from products/services made overseas. Talk about an incentive to produce products in America!
Third - lower taxes on the middle class.
I have no issue on raising taxes on the wealthiest in America, say income over $500k.

Bottom 50% of US received 11% of ALL US income, that is an AVERAGE of less than $15,000 PER FAMILY. Top 1% (50 TIMES more families) received 18% of
income If the bottom 50% kept the same SHARE of the pie they had in 1980, the families would have nearly $5,000 MORE per family (plus SS taxes Reagan increased to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich)

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation


Poor Americans Pay Double The State, Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent

Poor Americans Pay Double The State Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent




Reagan strongly supported the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which sends checks to Americans who work but earn less than around $46,000 a year, depending on family size. Recipients of the credit are among those who don’t pay income tax, but Reagan never regarded that as a problem. His administration estimated that the 1986 reform of the tax code would remove 6 million working poor from the tax rolls. Reagan called the reform a “sweeping victory for fairness” and “perhaps the biggest antipoverty program in our history.”

Ronald Reagan and the 47 Percent - Businessweek

I have zero problem with lower wage earners paying no federal tax, I have a problem with them getting more back then they paid in.
Right now the problem is the tax rate for the middle class.
When you get old enough to earn a pretty good salary, this is what happens.
When you realize you could buy 3 or 4 new cars a year with what you pay in taxes - you will sing a different tune.

 

[Dad2three]

Fair taxes?
Well lets start by removing negative tax liabilities. Except for special circumstances, no one should receive more back from the IRS than they paid in. Period.
It is called tax welfare, the R in IRS does not stand for Redistribution.
Second. Businesses should have zero tax liability on income from products and services that are made within the borders of the U.S. Business Income tax should only be on income derived from products/services made overseas. Talk about an incentive to produce products in America!
Third - lower taxes on the middle class.
I have no issue on raising taxes on the wealthiest in America, say income over $500k.

Bottom 50% of US received 11% of ALL US income, that is an AVERAGE of less than $15,000 PER FAMILY. Top 1% (50 TIMES more families) received 18% of
income If the bottom 50% kept the same SHARE of the pie they had in 1980, the families would have nearly $5,000 MORE per family (plus SS taxes Reagan increased to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich)

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation


Poor Americans Pay Double The State, Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent

Poor Americans Pay Double The State Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent




Reagan strongly supported the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which sends checks to Americans who work but earn less than around $46,000 a year, depending on family size. Recipients of the credit are among those who don’t pay income tax, but Reagan never regarded that as a problem. His administration estimated that the 1986 reform of the tax code would remove 6 million working poor from the tax rolls. Reagan called the reform a “sweeping victory for fairness” and “perhaps the biggest antipoverty program in our history.”

Ronald Reagan and the 47 Percent - Businessweek

Fair taxes?
Well lets start by removing negative tax liabilities. Except for special circumstances, no one should receive more back from the IRS than they paid in. Period.
It is called tax welfare, the R in IRS does not stand for Redistribution.
Second. Businesses should have zero tax liability on income from products and services that are made within the borders of the U.S. Business Income tax should only be on income derived from products/services made overseas. Talk about an incentive to produce products in America!
Third - lower taxes on the middle class.
I have no issue on raising taxes on the wealthiest in America, say income over $500k.

Bottom 50% of US received 11% of ALL US income, that is an AVERAGE of less than $15,000 PER FAMILY. Top 1% (50 TIMES more families) received 18% of
income If the bottom 50% kept the same SHARE of the pie they had in 1980, the families would have nearly $5,000 MORE per family (plus SS taxes Reagan increased to hide the costs of tax cuts for the rich)

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation


Poor Americans Pay Double The State, Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent

Poor Americans Pay Double The State Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent




Reagan strongly supported the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which sends checks to Americans who work but earn less than around $46,000 a year, depending on family size. Recipients of the credit are among those who don’t pay income tax, but Reagan never regarded that as a problem. His administration estimated that the 1986 reform of the tax code would remove 6 million working poor from the tax rolls. Reagan called the reform a “sweeping victory for fairness” and “perhaps the biggest antipoverty program in our history.”

Ronald Reagan and the 47 Percent - Businessweek

I have zero problem with lower wage earners paying no federal tax, I have a problem with them getting more back then they paid in.
Right now the problem is the tax rate for the middle class.
When you get old enough to earn a pretty good salary, this is what happens.
When you realize you could buy 3 or 4 new cars a year with what you pay in taxes - you will sing a different tune.

Been there, done that. I'm 54 years old

Why have the middle classes taxes went up? Oh right Reagan increased SS taxes to "save SS" (not hide the REAL costs of tax cuts to the rich, lol)

You probably don't support a living wage, nor most social safety nets NOW you want to get rid of one of the programs that helps the bottom half of US?