Should we make the corporate tax rate 0%?

[sealybobo]

That would be great! It would be an increase! Right now the government GIVES them money.

And why? Because greedy parasites like you support massive, unconstitutional government.

All of our problems will be solved when we return to constitutional government. But that's never going to happen because the greedy, lazy, Dumbocrat parasites prefer government handouts over work.

We worked our asses off in the 90's when there were lots of jobs. No such thing as jobs Americans won't do. Just jobs we won't do for slave wages and unsafe working conditions.

And there are a lot of people looking for work. Are you suggesting they don't want to work? I know people who aren't getting call backs from companies because they've been unemployed for over 6 months. Those people want to work if their unemployment dried up. But you guys sent all the good jobs overseas and now they are coming back but at $10 a hr.

All of our problems will be solved when we take $ out of our politics. The system is so clearly corrupt and the rich have taken over our politicians. Look at Citizens United. Wake up. Stop fighting with other middle class Americans. The slave master is your real problem. You are one of us. Stop letting wedge issues like god, gays and guns twist your common sense. The rich own this country. Are you a Ron Paul fan? Then you know I'm right. Bankers own the Federal Reserve. Private bankers. Unions are not the problem. Labor is not the problem. We just cost too much and the rich in this country want to pay us less or have us allow them to ship jobs to mexico and then ship the shit back here and then you don't even want to tax the corporations? Wake up America!!!

 

[KevinWestern]

Again

Who pays? You are going to cut spending over time. Who makes up for the lost revenue from corporations?

We hear this all the time. Cut taxes and we will make up for it by eliminating some undefined "gubmint waste"

If corporations are as efficient as you claim. Paying taxes should not be a burden

Again, it’d be a gradual decrease but (to answer your question) no one pays. The revenue is gone and instead of the government having $500 to work with, they now only get $400.

Unfortunately (like many things), the government is very quick to expand and very slow to contract. Also it doesn’t contract by simply telling it to contract (because no one wants to give up their programs, etc); I believe that you must FORCE it to contract by cutting off a portion of its lifeblood – taxes.

Also, I’m certainly not arguing to END TAXATION. The Federal Government obviously has a few important functions that it most certainly needs to perform. We just need to ask the question – where are we going to get the most benefit? Would you rather a tax rate be 0% and we attract new companies, new jobs, lower prices on food, etc, or do you trust that the government is going to take that 25% and turn it into something of equal value. I’m extremely skeptical of the latter scenario (ie unnecessary war, no child left behind, bailouts, obamacare).

Corporations are MUCH more efficient when it comes to spending money, trust me.


.

 

[racewright]

No corporate taxes.

Good luck with selling that to the voting public.

Yea and because like most on this site . The public is to stupid and think corporations will just go ahead and pay without diverting the tax costs to the public, like any other business expense.
I have come to realize that most on this site only know how to grade English and grammar.

And have know ideas as to how a business works. Well when I care about grammar I have one of my college educated secretaries handle it because this does not count.

 

[KevinWestern]

I'm 100% in favor of a simplified tax code. But the idea that 0% corporate taxes will create jobs is just not correct.

In business - you don't expand your business unless the demand for your product or service expands. The idea that corporations are going to expand just because they've got some extra money in their pocket is crazy.

But I can understand why corporations want to try to sell this line of crap.

You're talking about growing a business, but what about attracting new businesses?

If you could setup shop anywhere in the world, would it be logical to choose country A that will tax your revenue at a 25% rate or country B that will tax you at a 0% rate? What country would your investors want you to setup shop in?

The world is global, and thanks to the internet and second world countries that are rapidly building up their infrastructures there are MANY options these companies can choose from.

I'd pick the country with the 0% rate, btw.

and pay U.S. union wages? I'm thinking you could save more on labor costs elsewhere that you would save on taxes here.

Again, there's definitely many factors to consider, and obviously some of the manufacturing industries might still choose another country regardless of tax rates. However, there are many, many other sorts of companies that aren't as worried about the cost of labor and would very much so take the tax rate into consideration.

And another point - what the hell is the government doing with that additional 25% that absolutely is essential to all of our lives?

I mean, yes we need roads and a military but realistically when the Government takes 25% of a corporation's revenue and spends it on a $600,000,000 website (that doesn't work), and then another $90,000,000 to fix it (yes, real numbers) I get the feeling something is seriously fucking awry here.

Tell the corporation to keep their 25% and pass off the savings to customers in the form of lower service fees, lower food prices, more jobs, etc.

THAT sort of stuff directly benefits me.

 

[Mac1958]

Again

Who pays? You are going to cut spending over time. Who makes up for the lost revenue from corporations?

We hear this all the time. Cut taxes and we will make up for it by eliminating some undefined "gubmint waste"

If corporations are as efficient as you claim. Paying taxes should not be a burden

What the hell, I'm gonna go ahead and answer this, because I can't stand to see it just hanging there.

This isn't about cutting costs or government waste.

Lowering corporate taxes, combined with the resulting MASSIVE repatriation of capital and the resulting FLOOD of foreign capital (which would have been taxed in those countries), would significantly increase the velocity of money within both corporations and the economy in general. The corporations would be far more likely to put the money to use - they would have to, because their shareholders would appropriately demand it when the flood of NEW capital hits.

In other words, the dam would burst. Right now it probably will not. GDP estimates for 2014 are decreasing as we speak, across the board, and for damn good reason.

Then, the resulting and massive increase in capital spending would trigger the regular chain reaction of stuff - higher demand and competition for employees (and as some of know, higher demand and limited supply will cause wage increases), higher payrolls, more income taxes being collected, more sales taxes being collected, on and on.

Obama knows this, which is why he is talking about lowering corporate tax rates. He can do it only so much, of course, because he doesn't want to piss off his base, which is clearly and badly under-informed about even the most fundamental business economics.

I'm gonna try to avoid this thread for a while - I may not be able to - but my freakin' head is about to explode.

.

 

[rightwinger]

Again

Who pays? You are going to cut spending over time. Who makes up for the lost revenue from corporations?

We hear this all the time. Cut taxes and we will make up for it by eliminating some undefined "gubmint waste"

If corporations are as efficient as you claim. Paying taxes should not be a burden

What the hell, I'm gonna go ahead and answer this, because I can't stand to see it just hanging there.

This isn't about cutting costs or government waste.

Lowering corporate taxes, combined with the resulting MASSIVE repatriation of capital and the resulting FLOOD of foreign capital (which would have been taxed in those countries), would significantly increase the velocity of money within both corporations and the economy in general. The corporations would be far more likely to put the money to use - they would have to, because their shareholders would appropriately demand it when the flood of NEW capital hits.

In other words, the dam would burst. Right now it probably will not. GDP estimates for 2014 are decreasing as we speak, across the board, and for damn good reason.

Then, the resulting and massive increase in capital spending would trigger the regular chain reaction of stuff - higher demand and competition for employees (and as some of know, higher demand and limited supply will cause wage increases), higher payrolls, more income taxes being collected, more sales taxes being collected, on and on.

Obama knows this, which is why he is talking about lowering corporate tax rates. He can do it only so much, of course, because he doesn't want to piss off his base, which is clearly and badly under-informed about even the most fundamental business economics.

I'm gonna try to avoid this thread for a while - I may not be able to - but my freakin' head is about to explode.

.

Oh the wonders of Supply Side Economics

If only we would cut taxes on the "job creators"...there would be an influx of new capital, more jobs, higher wages.....Wait for it....wait for it

A RISING economic tide lifting all boats

 

[nodoginnafight]

The corporations would be far more likely to put the money to use - they would have to, because their shareholders would appropriately demand it when the flood of NEW capital hits.

Of course the shareholders would demand it. Shareholders ALWAYS favor expanding the company to meet a nonexistent demand rather than dividends.

 

[Erand7899]

Again

Who pays? You are going to cut spending over time. Who makes up for the lost revenue from corporations?

We hear this all the time. Cut taxes and we will make up for it by eliminating some undefined "gubmint waste"

If corporations are as efficient as you claim. Paying taxes should not be a burden

What the hell, I'm gonna go ahead and answer this, because I can't stand to see it just hanging there.

This isn't about cutting costs or government waste.

Lowering corporate taxes, combined with the resulting MASSIVE repatriation of capital and the resulting FLOOD of foreign capital (which would have been taxed in those countries), would significantly increase the velocity of money within both corporations and the economy in general. The corporations would be far more likely to put the money to use - they would have to, because their shareholders would appropriately demand it when the flood of NEW capital hits.

In other words, the dam would burst. Right now it probably will not. GDP estimates for 2014 are decreasing as we speak, across the board, and for damn good reason.

Then, the resulting and massive increase in capital spending would trigger the regular chain reaction of stuff - higher demand and competition for employees (and as some of know, higher demand and limited supply will cause wage increases), higher payrolls, more income taxes being collected, more sales taxes being collected, on and on.

Obama knows this, which is why he is talking about lowering corporate tax rates. He can do it only so much, of course, because he doesn't want to piss off his base, which is clearly and badly under-informed about even the most fundamental business economics.

I'm gonna try to avoid this thread for a while - I may not be able to - but my freakin' head is about to explode.

.

I totally agree that a zero corporate tax rate would be extremely helpful to bringing jobs back to America, but I believe that we also have to rein in the regulatoy agencies and bring common sense back to regulating industry. We have sufficient right to work states to ensure reasonable wage rates, and the union shop states would be quick to move to right to work when they see that they are being left out of the resulting job boom.

 

[Bombur]

The corp tax is an inefficient tax IMO. I would much rather see use move to a more progressive income tax combined with a VAT.

We do need better cost controls with out entitlement programs and military spending is out of control because Congress considers it to be vital pork for their state. Whether we address spending or not we still need to fix the tax code.

 

[rightwinger]

Again

Who pays? You are going to cut spending over time. Who makes up for the lost revenue from corporations?

We hear this all the time. Cut taxes and we will make up for it by eliminating some undefined "gubmint waste"

If corporations are as efficient as you claim. Paying taxes should not be a burden

What the hell, I'm gonna go ahead and answer this, because I can't stand to see it just hanging there.

This isn't about cutting costs or government waste.

Lowering corporate taxes, combined with the resulting MASSIVE repatriation of capital and the resulting FLOOD of foreign capital (which would have been taxed in those countries), would significantly increase the velocity of money within both corporations and the economy in general. The corporations would be far more likely to put the money to use - they would have to, because their shareholders would appropriately demand it when the flood of NEW capital hits.

In other words, the dam would burst. Right now it probably will not. GDP estimates for 2014 are decreasing as we speak, across the board, and for damn good reason.

Then, the resulting and massive increase in capital spending would trigger the regular chain reaction of stuff - higher demand and competition for employees (and as some of know, higher demand and limited supply will cause wage increases), higher payrolls, more income taxes being collected, more sales taxes being collected, on and on.

Obama knows this, which is why he is talking about lowering corporate tax rates. He can do it only so much, of course, because he doesn't want to piss off his base, which is clearly and badly under-informed about even the most fundamental business economics.

I'm gonna try to avoid this thread for a while - I may not be able to - but my freakin' head is about to explode.

.

I totally agree that a zero corporate tax rate would be extremely helpful to bringing jobs back to America, but I believe that we also have to rein in the regulatoy agencies and bring common sense back to regulating industry. We have sufficient right to work states to ensure reasonable wage rates, and the union shop states would be quick to move to right to work when they see that they are being left out of the resulting job boom.

There you have it.....The Home Run of Republican policy

0% Tax Rates
No Government Regulation
Low paid workers with no benefits

What more could you ask for?

 

[KevinWestern]

Again

Who pays? You are going to cut spending over time. Who makes up for the lost revenue from corporations?

We hear this all the time. Cut taxes and we will make up for it by eliminating some undefined "gubmint waste"

If corporations are as efficient as you claim. Paying taxes should not be a burden

What the hell, I'm gonna go ahead and answer this, because I can't stand to see it just hanging there.

This isn't about cutting costs or government waste.

Lowering corporate taxes, combined with the resulting MASSIVE repatriation of capital and the resulting FLOOD of foreign capital (which would have been taxed in those countries), would significantly increase the velocity of money within both corporations and the economy in general. The corporations would be far more likely to put the money to use - they would have to, because their shareholders would appropriately demand it when the flood of NEW capital hits.

In other words, the dam would burst. Right now it probably will not. GDP estimates for 2014 are decreasing as we speak, across the board, and for damn good reason.

Then, the resulting and massive increase in capital spending would trigger the regular chain reaction of stuff - higher demand and competition for employees (and as some of know, higher demand and limited supply will cause wage increases), higher payrolls, more income taxes being collected, more sales taxes being collected, on and on.

Obama knows this, which is why he is talking about lowering corporate tax rates. He can do it only so much, of course, because he doesn't want to piss off his base, which is clearly and badly under-informed about even the most fundamental business economics.

I'm gonna try to avoid this thread for a while - I may not be able to - but my freakin' head is about to explode.

.

Oh the wonders of Supply Side Economics

If only we would cut taxes on the "job creators"...there would be an influx of new capital, more jobs, higher wages.....Wait for it....wait for it

A RISING economic tide lifting all boats

Hey man, again I'm not claiming that corporations are perfect. They're not. But they are a hell of a lot more efficient than our Government and MUST provide the public with goods they want and need or otherwise will go out of business. The Government doesn't operate under those same standards, and has a tendency to waste, waste, waste.

Why do you think the government is going to be better at spending the money? Again, a $600,000,000 website that doesn't work? How is that benefiting you or I? A $4,000,000,000,000 war with a country that never attacked us? How is that benefiting you or I? Too much waste.

I'm sorry, I'd much rather the companies keep their 25% and spend it on something WORTHWHILE.

 

[KevinWestern]

What the hell, I'm gonna go ahead and answer this, because I can't stand to see it just hanging there.

This isn't about cutting costs or government waste.

Lowering corporate taxes, combined with the resulting MASSIVE repatriation of capital and the resulting FLOOD of foreign capital (which would have been taxed in those countries), would significantly increase the velocity of money within both corporations and the economy in general. The corporations would be far more likely to put the money to use - they would have to, because their shareholders would appropriately demand it when the flood of NEW capital hits.

In other words, the dam would burst. Right now it probably will not. GDP estimates for 2014 are decreasing as we speak, across the board, and for damn good reason.

Then, the resulting and massive increase in capital spending would trigger the regular chain reaction of stuff - higher demand and competition for employees (and as some of know, higher demand and limited supply will cause wage increases), higher payrolls, more income taxes being collected, more sales taxes being collected, on and on.

Obama knows this, which is why he is talking about lowering corporate tax rates. He can do it only so much, of course, because he doesn't want to piss off his base, which is clearly and badly under-informed about even the most fundamental business economics.

I'm gonna try to avoid this thread for a while - I may not be able to - but my freakin' head is about to explode.

.

I totally agree that a zero corporate tax rate would be extremely helpful to bringing jobs back to America, but I believe that we also have to rein in the regulatoy agencies and bring common sense back to regulating industry. We have sufficient right to work states to ensure reasonable wage rates, and the union shop states would be quick to move to right to work when they see that they are being left out of the resulting job boom.

There you have it.....The Home Run of Republican policy

0% Tax Rates
No Government Regulation
Low paid workers with no benefits

What more could you ask for?

Hey man, you're simplifying things.

No one's arguing for NO taxes. I think most people realize that there are essential roles the government needs to play and are ok with things like a simple, low income tax. Also, obviously a government needs to have cash to enforce laws and sensible regulation.

 

[KevinWestern]

The corporations would be far more likely to put the money to use - they would have to, because their shareholders would appropriately demand it when the flood of NEW capital hits.

Of course the shareholders would demand it. Shareholders ALWAYS favor expanding the company to meet a nonexistent demand rather than dividends.

How about if Company A now has X more cash thanks (b/c a lower tax rate) and now have the ability to make their product cost 10% less. This lower price obviously makes the product more attractive, and now 400 people want to buy it instead of 100. Get it?

Demand is not static. You can CREATE it.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The corporations would be far more likely to put the money to use - they would have to, because their shareholders would appropriately demand it when the flood of NEW capital hits.

Of course the shareholders would demand it. Shareholders ALWAYS favor expanding the company to meet a nonexistent demand rather than dividends.

How about if Company A now has X more cash thanks (b/c a lower tax rate) and now have the ability to make their product cost 10% less. This lower price obviously makes the product more attractive, and now 400 people want to buy it instead of 100. Get it?

Demand is not static. You can CREATE it.

I've understood the theory since the 1980s.
It just doesn't work.

Your theory relies on no one choosing to just pocket the cash - when the vast majority of times - they just pocket the cash.

The corporations' quandary - "should I take this $2 billion and pocket it or should I put it into the company with a 50% chance of losing it or a 50% of doubling it?"

 

[Erand7899]

What the hell, I'm gonna go ahead and answer this, because I can't stand to see it just hanging there.

This isn't about cutting costs or government waste.

Lowering corporate taxes, combined with the resulting MASSIVE repatriation of capital and the resulting FLOOD of foreign capital (which would have been taxed in those countries), would significantly increase the velocity of money within both corporations and the economy in general. The corporations would be far more likely to put the money to use - they would have to, because their shareholders would appropriately demand it when the flood of NEW capital hits.

In other words, the dam would burst. Right now it probably will not. GDP estimates for 2014 are decreasing as we speak, across the board, and for damn good reason.

Then, the resulting and massive increase in capital spending would trigger the regular chain reaction of stuff - higher demand and competition for employees (and as some of know, higher demand and limited supply will cause wage increases), higher payrolls, more income taxes being collected, more sales taxes being collected, on and on.

Obama knows this, which is why he is talking about lowering corporate tax rates. He can do it only so much, of course, because he doesn't want to piss off his base, which is clearly and badly under-informed about even the most fundamental business economics.

I'm gonna try to avoid this thread for a while - I may not be able to - but my freakin' head is about to explode.

.

I totally agree that a zero corporate tax rate would be extremely helpful to bringing jobs back to America, but I believe that we also have to rein in the regulatoy agencies and bring common sense back to regulating industry. We have sufficient right to work states to ensure reasonable wage rates, and the union shop states would be quick to move to right to work when they see that they are being left out of the resulting job boom.

There you have it.....The Home Run of Republican policy

0% Tax Rates
No Government Regulation
Low paid workers with no benefits

What more could you ask for?

What you have is a partisan hack putting up strawmen to attempt to refute logic. I do not argue that any tax beyond corporate taxes should be zero. I do not argue that there should be no government regulations. I argue that regulations should be reasonable. Nor, do I argue that workers should be low paid and sans benefits. Those are all strawmen generated by you as a substitute for any intelligent counter argument.

Union shop states force workers into unions, whether they want to be in unions or not. Is that your idea of liberalism?

Taxes as a means of punishment for success. Is that your idea of liberalism.

Tens of thousands of pages of regulations that cost business billions of dollars and hurt jobs. Is that your idea of liberalism?

 

[KevinWestern]

I've understood the theory since the 1980s.
It just doesn't work.

Your theory relies on no one choosing to just pocket the cash - when the vast majority of times - they just pocket the cash.

The corporations' quandary - "should I take this $2 billion and pocket it or should I put it into the company with a 50% chance of losing it or a 50% of doubling it?"

Nodog- Disagree. Shareholders are generally concerned with things like "long term health" of the company, new opportunities for the company, new markets, new innovations – ie stuff that will provide a return on investment. They invest because they see potential value in the company.

Think of it this way; if every beer company now had a 0% tax rate, and you saw Company A pull all that extra money out and pocket it and Company B reinvest into new machines, new trucks, etc… which one would you like to support as an investor?

Yea, they can pull out all the money now, make a quick buck, but the the guy who reinvests will make MUCH, MUCH more over the course of 10 years.

You seem to forget that companies are COMPETING not only for customers but also investors. I totally disagree with your opinion.

 

[rightwinger]

I totally agree that a zero corporate tax rate would be extremely helpful to bringing jobs back to America, but I believe that we also have to rein in the regulatoy agencies and bring common sense back to regulating industry. We have sufficient right to work states to ensure reasonable wage rates, and the union shop states would be quick to move to right to work when they see that they are being left out of the resulting job boom.

There you have it.....The Home Run of Republican policy

0% Tax Rates
No Government Regulation
Low paid workers with no benefits

What more could you ask for?

What you have is a partisan hack putting up strawmen to attempt to refute logic. I do not argue that any tax beyond corporate taxes should be zero. I do not argue that there should be no government regulations. I argue that regulations should be reasonable. Nor, do I argue that workers should be low paid and sans benefits. Those are all strawmen generated by you as a substitute for any intelligent counter argument.

Union shop states force workers into unions, whether they want to be in unions or not. Is that your idea of liberalism?

Taxes as a means of punishment for success. Is that your idea of liberalism.

Tens of thousands of pages of regulations that cost business billions of dollars and hurt jobs. Is that your idea of liberalism?

Yea.....we know how much you care about the workers
and those "pesky" regulations are just a liberals way of pissing you off. Nobody ever has chemical spills anyway

 

[nodoginnafight]

Think of it this way; if every beer company now had a 0% tax rate, and you saw Company A pull all that extra money out and pocket it and Company B reinvest into new machines, new trucks, etc… which one would you like to support as an investor?

The one that sent me the biggest check.

And if you think more than 4% or 5% of investors think differently, I believe you are fooling yourself.

 

[KevinWestern]

Think of it this way; if every beer company now had a 0% tax rate, and you saw Company A pull all that extra money out and pocket it and Company B reinvest into new machines, new trucks, etc… which one would you like to support as an investor?

The one that sent me the biggest check.

And if you think more than 4% or 5% of investors think differently, I believe you are fooling yourself.

Then you'd pick company B because that will return you the most profit. It's the one that's setting itself up to thrive over the next 2, 3 years! You can triple your money vs getting some cheap quick check right now.

You think shareholders are out to bankrupt their company? You think shareholders are out to make their companies less competitive? You think shareholders want their companies to fail in 2 years? I mean, come on man.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Think of it this way; if every beer company now had a 0% tax rate, and you saw Company A pull all that extra money out and pocket it and Company B reinvest into new machines, new trucks, etc… which one would you like to support as an investor?

The one that sent me the biggest check.

And if you think more than 4% or 5% of investors think differently, I believe you are fooling yourself.

Then you'd pick company B because that will return you the most profit. It's the one that's setting itself up to thrive over the next 2, 3 years! You can triple your money vs getting some cheap quick check right now.

You think shareholders are out to bankrupt their company? You think shareholders are out to make their companies less competitive? You think shareholders want their companies to fail in 2 years? I mean, come on man.

You are making some enormous jumps. You say that without this extra income that these companies are going to fail in two or three years?

If company B is on the verge of going out of business, why would you invest in them in the first place?