What a 15% corporate federal tax rate would mean...at the minimum $55 billion additional Taxes!

[Dragonlady]

There is no evidence whatsoever that tax cuts increase revenues. In fact the opposite is true. That's why Reagan increased taxes in the years following his famous rewrite of the tax code.

The only reason revenues appeared to increase after Reagan's tax cuts is that he went on a military spending spree which created a massive deficit. It was the tax revenues created by that deficit spending which goosed revenues. The same can be said for W's tax cuts.

Both Reagan and W were handed a balanced budget with no deficits when they came to power, both cut taxes and both created the largest deficits in American history (to that point). If tax cuts increased revenues, how did these deficits happen?

Right wingers believe all of this shit about cutting taxes that just isn't true. Tax cuts don't pay for themselves, they don't increase jobs and they don't increase revenues.

The myth that Reagan created massive numbers of jobs is just that - a myth. Carter created more jobs than Reagan, as did Clinton and Obama. W's economy lost more jobs than it created.

YOU WANT EVIDENCE?????
Below are the RECEIPTS and NOT AFTER the tax cuts went into effect... REVENUE Increased for 4 straight years!!!
Plus people like you NEVER NEVER consider that the PAYROLL taxes that employers pay are TAXES!!!!
SO idiots like you don't seem to comprehend that when employers HIRE more people, MORE payroll taxes are PAID by the employer!
DO YOU understand?? Employers match dollar for dollar what the employee payroll tax is i.e. 6.2% of payroll. So when employers are able to hire MORE people
because they don't have to pay as much as 35% of their nets in taxes they are actually hiring more people ....hence paying more TAXES!!!

View attachment 147647

Idiots like you fail to realize that it wasn't the tax cuts that lead to the hiring and the increased tax revenues IT WAS THE INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT SPENDING which fuelled both job creation and revenues.

GOVOERNMENT SPENDING INCREASES JOBS AND REVENUE, not tax cuts.

Explain something then.
Assume there was a Federal tax of 100% on everything,i.e. income, profits, dividends, interest...everything. What would happen?

So what you're saying is that you have no intelligent or thoughtful response so you're going to be an idiot.

You've got nothing. Your surrender is accepted.

You've given up because YOU insist that the evil wealthy people want tax cuts!
OK so let's make EVERYONE pay 100% income tax!
See dragonlady... your ignorance of economics is similar to this joke...
Dragon lady who looked like a "hooker" was approached by a man who said "hmmm... would you go to bed with me for $20 dollars"
Dragon lady hurumphed and greatly offended responds "what kind of woman to you think I am?"
The man: We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling over the price."
But in case you don't get the joke on you... You bitch and moan about tax cuts... OK so let's raise the tax rate to say 100%!
I'm just asking you for your considerable expertise in taxation of those filthy reach people why not 100%???

There is no evidence whatsoever that tax cuts increase revenues. In fact the opposite is true. That's why Reagan increased taxes in the years following his famous rewrite of the tax code.

The only reason revenues appeared to increase after Reagan's tax cuts is that he went on a military spending spree which created a massive deficit. It was the tax revenues created by that deficit spending which goosed revenues. The same can be said for W's tax cuts.

Both Reagan and W were handed a balanced budget with no deficits when they came to power, both cut taxes and both created the largest deficits in American history (to that point). If tax cuts increased revenues, how did these deficits happen?

Right wingers believe all of this shit about cutting taxes that just isn't true. Tax cuts don't pay for themselves, they don't increase jobs and they don't increase revenues.

The myth that Reagan created massive numbers of jobs is just that - a myth. Carter created more jobs than Reagan, as did Clinton and Obama. W's economy lost more jobs than it created.

YOU WANT EVIDENCE?????
Below are the RECEIPTS and NOT AFTER the tax cuts went into effect... REVENUE Increased for 4 straight years!!!
Plus people like you NEVER NEVER consider that the PAYROLL taxes that employers pay are TAXES!!!!
SO idiots like you don't seem to comprehend that when employers HIRE more people, MORE payroll taxes are PAID by the employer!
DO YOU understand?? Employers match dollar for dollar what the employee payroll tax is i.e. 6.2% of payroll. So when employers are able to hire MORE people
because they don't have to pay as much as 35% of their nets in taxes they are actually hiring more people ....hence paying more TAXES!!!

View attachment 147647

Idiots like you fail to realize that it wasn't the tax cuts that lead to the hiring and the increased tax revenues IT WAS THE INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT SPENDING which fuelled both job creation and revenues.

GOVOERNMENT SPENDING INCREASES JOBS AND REVENUE, not tax cuts.

Explain something then.
Assume there was a Federal tax of 100% on everything,i.e. income, profits, dividends, interest...everything. What would happen?

So what you're saying is that you have no intelligent or thoughtful response so you're going to be an idiot.

You've got nothing. Your surrender is accepted.

You've given up because YOU insist that the evil wealthy people want tax cuts!
OK so let's make EVERYONE pay 100% income tax!
See dragonlady... your ignorance of economics is similar to this joke...
Dragon lady who looked like a "hooker" was approached by a man who said "hmmm... would you go to bed with me for $20 dollars"
Dragon lady hurumphed and greatly offended responds "what kind of woman to you think I am?"
The man: We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling over the price."
But in case you don't get the joke on you... You bitch and moan about tax cuts... OK so let's raise the tax rate to say 100%!
I'm just asking you for your considerable expertise in taxation of those filthy reach people why not 100%???

When someone even suggests a question so utterly stupid, there is no point in continuing the discussion. To then contend that my refusal to answer is because I don't understand basic economics shows that you aren't even interested in having a rational discussion around tax cuts.

You might want to take a look at what has happened to the buying power of working class and middle class Americans since 1980. Next look at the wealth distribution in America since 1980. Next, the performance of the stock market since 1980. Also look at the deficit and the National Debt since 1980. Last but certainly not least, look at job creation since 1980.

Why 1980? Because Reagan changed the tax code with his tax cuts. Cutting taxes was supposed to stimulate the economy and the effects we're supposed to "trickle down" to create more jobs and more wealth for working and middle class people.

Not only did this not happen, the reverse happened. The rich got rich, the poor got poorer, unemployment rose and wages stagnated. Worse, both Reagan and Bush suffered catastrophic stock market crashes.

Through the 50's, 60's and 70's the balancing act that is taxation levels saw workers earning power and savings rise, and poor people working their way out of poverty, while entrepreneurs reaped the financial rewards for their innovation and risk taking.

Reagan's tax code changed that balance, tipping it in favour of the wealthy who now paid less. Even though Clinton and Obama increased some taxes and slowed the trickle up of American wealth, Reagan's tax code has remained intact and continues to transfer wealth to the top. The working poor, which held 5% of the national wealth in 1980, has none. They're living on wage subsidies known as Earned Income Credits and Food Stamps. The middle class is maxing out their credit cards and seeing their savings erode. And the rich keep getting richer.

So answer your own fucking question and quit screwing around like a jerk off.

 

[healthmyths]

YOU WANT EVIDENCE?????
Below are the RECEIPTS and NOT AFTER the tax cuts went into effect... REVENUE Increased for 4 straight years!!!
Plus people like you NEVER NEVER consider that the PAYROLL taxes that employers pay are TAXES!!!!
SO idiots like you don't seem to comprehend that when employers HIRE more people, MORE payroll taxes are PAID by the employer!
DO YOU understand?? Employers match dollar for dollar what the employee payroll tax is i.e. 6.2% of payroll. So when employers are able to hire MORE people
because they don't have to pay as much as 35% of their nets in taxes they are actually hiring more people ....hence paying more TAXES!!!

View attachment 147647

Idiots like you fail to realize that it wasn't the tax cuts that lead to the hiring and the increased tax revenues IT WAS THE INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT SPENDING which fuelled both job creation and revenues.

GOVOERNMENT SPENDING INCREASES JOBS AND REVENUE, not tax cuts.

Explain something then.
Assume there was a Federal tax of 100% on everything,i.e. income, profits, dividends, interest...everything. What would happen?

So what you're saying is that you have no intelligent or thoughtful response so you're going to be an idiot.

You've got nothing. Your surrender is accepted.

You've given up because YOU insist that the evil wealthy people want tax cuts!
OK so let's make EVERYONE pay 100% income tax!
See dragonlady... your ignorance of economics is similar to this joke...
Dragon lady who looked like a "hooker" was approached by a man who said "hmmm... would you go to bed with me for $20 dollars"
Dragon lady hurumphed and greatly offended responds "what kind of woman to you think I am?"
The man: We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling over the price."
But in case you don't get the joke on you... You bitch and moan about tax cuts... OK so let's raise the tax rate to say 100%!
I'm just asking you for your considerable expertise in taxation of those filthy reach people why not 100%???

YOU WANT EVIDENCE?????
Below are the RECEIPTS and NOT AFTER the tax cuts went into effect... REVENUE Increased for 4 straight years!!!
Plus people like you NEVER NEVER consider that the PAYROLL taxes that employers pay are TAXES!!!!
SO idiots like you don't seem to comprehend that when employers HIRE more people, MORE payroll taxes are PAID by the employer!
DO YOU understand?? Employers match dollar for dollar what the employee payroll tax is i.e. 6.2% of payroll. So when employers are able to hire MORE people
because they don't have to pay as much as 35% of their nets in taxes they are actually hiring more people ....hence paying more TAXES!!!

View attachment 147647

Idiots like you fail to realize that it wasn't the tax cuts that lead to the hiring and the increased tax revenues IT WAS THE INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT SPENDING which fuelled both job creation and revenues.

GOVOERNMENT SPENDING INCREASES JOBS AND REVENUE, not tax cuts.

Explain something then.
Assume there was a Federal tax of 100% on everything,i.e. income, profits, dividends, interest...everything. What would happen?

So what you're saying is that you have no intelligent or thoughtful response so you're going to be an idiot.

You've got nothing. Your surrender is accepted.

You've given up because YOU insist that the evil wealthy people want tax cuts!
OK so let's make EVERYONE pay 100% income tax!
See dragonlady... your ignorance of economics is similar to this joke...
Dragon lady who looked like a "hooker" was approached by a man who said "hmmm... would you go to bed with me for $20 dollars"
Dragon lady hurumphed and greatly offended responds "what kind of woman to you think I am?"
The man: We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling over the price."
But in case you don't get the joke on you... You bitch and moan about tax cuts... OK so let's raise the tax rate to say 100%!
I'm just asking you for your considerable expertise in taxation of those filthy reach people why not 100%???

When someone even suggests a question so utterly stupid, there is no point in continuing the discussion. To then contend that my refusal to answer is because I don't understand basic economics shows that you aren't even interested in having a rational discussion around tax cuts.

You might want to take a look at what has happened to the buying power of working class and middle class Americans since 1980. Next look at the wealth distribution in America since 1980. Next, the performance of the stock market since 1980. Also look at the deficit and the National Debt since 1980. Last but certainly not least, look at job creation since 1980.

Why 1980? Because Reagan changed the tax code with his tax cuts. Cutting taxes was supposed to stimulate the economy and the effects we're supposed to "trickle down" to create more jobs and more wealth for working and middle class people.

Not only did this not happen, the reverse happened. The rich got rich, the poor got poorer, unemployment rose and wages stagnated. Worse, both Reagan and Bush suffered catastrophic stock market crashes.

Through the 50's, 60's and 70's the balancing act that is taxation levels saw workers earning power and savings rise, and poor people working their way out of poverty, while entrepreneurs reaped the financial rewards for their innovation and risk taking.

Reagan's tax code changed that balance, tipping it in favour of the wealthy who now paid less. Even though Clinton and Obama increased some taxes and slowed the trickle up of American wealth, Reagan's tax code has remained intact and continues to transfer wealth to the top. The working poor, which held 5% of the national wealth in 1980, has none. They're living on wage subsidies known as Earned Income Credits and Food Stamps. The middle class is maxing out their credit cards and seeing their savings erode. And the rich keep getting richer.

So answer your own fucking question and quit screwing around like a jerk off.

NOT ONE LINK to your personal opinions! NOT ONE!
WHO are YOU to make such personal uninformed comments!
I'd respect your comments more if you did a little more RESEARCH then pontificating.

Let's just take ONE of your gross exaggerations!
"Next look at the wealth distribution in America since 1980. "
How many millionaires in 1980...At the start of the decade, according to the IRS, 4,414 taxpayers reported that they had earned more than $1 million annually in adjusted gross income.
NUMBER OF U.S. MILLIONAIRES SOARS
By 1990, even as the recession began, the number had climbed to 63,642.
A record number of Americans are now millionaires, new study shows
As of the end of 2016, there were a record 10.8 million millionaires
So JUST ONE indicator: 1980... 4,414 taxpayers reported $1 million in gross income;
At the end of 2016... 10,800,000... What kind of ratio is that?
Population USA 1980 226.5 million and the ratio of millionaires to population: 1 millionaire for every 51,314 Americans
1980 Fast Facts - History - U.S. Census Bureau
Population USA 2016 326.9 million and the ratio of millionaires to population 1 Millionaire for every 30 Americans!
U.S. Population (2017) - Worldometers

So explain to me YOUR idiot remark about WEALTH distribution since 1980???
1980 1 millionaire for every 51,314 Americans!
2016 1 millionaire for every 30 Americans!

AGAIN I substantiate with FACTS and the LINKS! Where are YOURS???

 

[healthmyths]

The average effective tax rate for corporations is about 12.5%. So if you're keeping all the deductions and loopholes, as this plan does, how are you increasing revenues by lowering the tax rate? Magic trickle-down? Come on. We've been through this already.

Who says the "average effective tax rate for corporations is about 12.5%"? Where did you get that piece of information?
Because HERE are the FACTS!

DO YOU SEE anywhere "12.5%"???????
https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_Sept_2012.pdf

 

[healthmyths]

I'm still waiting for the two "Dees"..DragonLady and Derp to answer my last two retorts to their FACTLESS and unsubstantiated statements.
Just to refresh.. DragonLady contends one should "Next look at the wealth distribution in America since 1980. " ...and we DID and found in the
Population USA 1980 226.5 million and the ratio of millionaires to population: 1 millionaire for every 51,314 Americans
1980 Fast Facts - History - U.S. Census Bureau
Population USA 2016 326.9 million and the ratio of millionaires to population 1 Millionaire for every 30 Americans!
U.S. Population (2017) - Worldometers
So if she was pushing that mindless, MSM driven MEME about how the division between wealthy and non-wealthy is greater... remind her..
1 millionaire out of 51,314 people in 1980 VS today 1 millionaire out of every 30 Americans...today!

AND then DERP lied about effect corporate tax rate about 12.5%"
And I provided substantiation that was a lie from this source https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_Sept_2012.pdf

So I guess by their silence the two "Dees" have nothing to refute? I'm waiting for refutation and the LINKS!

 

[The Derp]

<Outdated Conservative Chart from 2004>

So, first of all...you're using a chart that shows effective rates from 2004. It's 2017 and since 2004, the rates have changed. So maybe next time use more current, up-to-date information.

So to help you (because I'm such a nice guy), here is a link from July 1st, 2013 where the GAO said that "U.S. corporations pay average effective tax rate of 12.6%".

In a report commissioned by Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Tom Coburn (R.-Okla.), the GAO looked at taxes paid by profitable U.S. corporations with at least $10 million in assets. Even when foreign, state and local taxes were taken into account, the companies paid only 16.9% of their worldwide income in taxes in 2010.​

Who says the "average effective tax rate for corporations is about 12.5%"? Where did you get that piece of information?

From the GAO in 2013, not from some chart you vomited up from 2004.

For tax year 2010, profitable Schedule M-3 filers actually paid U.S. federal income taxes amounting to 12.6 percent of the worldwide income that they reported in their financial statements (for those entities included in their tax returns). This tax rate is slightly lower than the 13.1 percent rate based on the current federal tax expenses that they reported in those financial statements; it is significantly lower than the 21 percent effective rate based on actual taxes and taxable income, which itself is well below the top statutory rate of 35 percent.19 The relatively low federal effective tax rate cannot be explained by income taxes paid to other countries. Even when foreign, state, and local corporate income taxes are included in the numerator, for tax year 2010, profitable Schedule M-3 filers actually paid income taxes amounting to 16.9 percent of their reported worldwide income.​

 

[healthmyths]

AND even the ignorant Carl Levin and Tom Coburn (R!!!) FAILED like THIS idiot who wrote for the Huffington Post:
What this shows is how dramatically corporate tax contributions have shrunk in the past several decades, and how our personal taxes have risen to fill the gap.
Payroll taxes now make up 35 percent of all federal government tax receipts, up from 11 percent in 1950.
Corporate income taxes, meanwhile, now make up less than 10 percent of federal revenue, down from about 26 percent in 1950.

"To ‘splain those numbers a little more clearly: We who are on the payrolls of companies now bear way more of a tax burden than those companies bore decades ago. Those companies, meanwhile, bear less of a burden than we ever did."

The 1 Chart That Reveals Just How Grossly Unfair The U.S. Tax System Has Become | HuffPost

DO YOU IDIOTS like Carl Levin and Tom Coburn (R!!!) Mark Gongloff who wrote the article REALIZE something???

This idiot and others totally TOTALLY IGNORE a basic fact that YOU ignore!
FACT is this statement:"We who are on the payrolls of companies now bear way more of a tax burden than those companies bore decades ago"
YOU DUMMIES!!!! I'm going to shout now!!!
EMPLOYERS PAY EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT IN PAYROLL TAXES THAT THE EMPLOYEE DOES!
50% OF ALL PAYROLL TAXES ARE PAID BY THE EMPLOYER!
In other words add the effective tax rate of 16% to the 6.2% in payroll taxes the corporate Federal tax rate is over 22%!

SO THIS CRAP ABOUT CORPORATE TAXES?

The more profits that the small businesses (which pay nearly 75% of the corporate income taxes) source:
In calculating receipts from corporate income taxes, the IRS calculates that, as of 2009, corporations with $250 million or less in assets pay 75.4 percent of the total corporate tax revenue. With gross collections of approximately $225,482,000 from all corporations, that amounts to roughly $170,013,000 in corporate income tax revenue from smaller companies.How Much Tax Revenue Do Small Businesses Generate?
the more payroll taxes they pay as they higher more people. So that dumb ass attitude about corporate taxes comes again from lack of knowledge of the reality of
tax revenue sources and stupidity about how businesses operate.

YOU dummies that are SO against corporate income taxes being lowered... ANSWER ONE simple question!
WHY do you think the top 50 U.S. companies that can afford full time accounting staffs like Apple, etc. have determined they better serve their mandate i.e. to generate
profits have over $1.4 trillion in cash offshore? Top 50 U.S. companies hold $1.4 trillion in cash offshore

TAXES you dummies! TAXES!
So you idiots that are against lowering the onerous corporate taxes that have FORCED companies like these top 50 to have cash offshore... do you understand
that if these top 50 companies brought back $1 trillion what the hell do you think they would do with this money?
Well for one thing they would be able to afford to hire more people! And guess what you dummies? THAT means HIGHER tax revenue!
I know this is too simple for most people but you anti-tax lowering idiots it is for YOU!
MORE employees means MORE employer payroll taxes paid into the government DUMMIES!

 

[The Derp]

AND even the ignorant Carl Levin and Tom Coburn (R!!!) FAILED like THIS

So what you're trying to do is conflate the average effective tax rate, as determined by the GAO, with the taxation burden of the wealthy and corporations, and you're doing a sloppy job of it.

You shy away from the information from Coburn and Levin that shows corporations pay an average effective rate of 12.6%, instead shifting the goalposts to the overall burden. But you failed to actually disprove the Senate's GAO report showing the average effective rate for profitable companies was just 12.6%. So let's deal with that first before we move on to payroll taxes and such (which are factored into the average effective rate outlined in the GAO report).

As for corporations stashing money abroad, they've been doing that for a while now. Bush the Dumber and his Conservatives in Congress passed a Tax Repatriation Holiday in 2004, which was intended to have corporations re-patriate their income at a lower rate. So that's what they did...and the result was net job loss for the top firms that took advantage of the program with no discernible help to the economy at all. Remember, it happened in 2004 which was still a shitty growth year for Bush (as well as the start of the private-label subprime bubble).

ASo you idiots that are against lowering the onerous corporate taxes that have FORCED companies like these top 50 to have cash offshore... do you understand

Do you understand we already lowered that rate once in 2004 as a Repatriation Tax Holiday? Many businesses took advantage of it and the result was net job loss, and no discernible help to the economy...not to mention a loss in revenue. Do you think that never happened? Do you not think Bush did what you're proposing already, to no positive effect? Or are you so married to your dogma that you just won't accept it?

hat if these top 50 companies brought back $1 trillion what the hell do you think they would do with this money?

Buy back their own stock (which was illegal prior to Reagan), pay it up to executives as bonuses and compensation. Definitely not hire more people. A corporation is only going to hire someone if there is demand for the product or service they produce. No business hires a worker just because they got a tax break. Never has happened before and never will happen.