What happens when you have a lower corporate tax rate?

[Syriusly]

Ireland’s Economists Left Speechless by 26% Growth Figure

Businesses flood your Nation. Their corporate tax rate is effectively half of ours and their growth is unheard of.

On the opposite end of the spectrum you have Socialism like Brazil or Venezuela where the economy has been destroyed by the politicians despite being high in natural resources.

Ireland's unemployment rate 8.4%

They have attracted corporate shells.

 

[Montrovant]

Ireland’s Economists Left Speechless by 26% Growth Figure

Businesses flood your Nation. Their corporate tax rate is effectively half of ours and their growth is unheard of.

On the opposite end of the spectrum you have Socialism like Brazil or Venezuela where the economy has been destroyed by the politicians despite being high in natural resources.

Ireland's unemployment rate 8.4%

They have attracted corporate shells.

Their unemployment has been falling since at least around 2012 from what I've seen, when it was at about 15%.

Which isn't to say that's based on their corporate tax rates.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Ireland’s Economists Left Speechless by 26% Growth Figure

Businesses flood your Nation. Their corporate tax rate is effectively half of ours and their growth is unheard of.

On the opposite end of the spectrum you have Socialism like Brazil or Venezuela where the economy has been destroyed by the politicians despite being high in natural resources.

Ireland's unemployment rate 8.4%

They have attracted corporate shells.

Their unemployment rate has been cut in half in the same time frame that they had the influx of new business

 

[healthmyths]

Bet you are scared to do your own Google search. Afraid of what you'll find

There is no need. You made the claim. I challenged you to prove it. So prove it. Because the shear ignorance of what makes up CEO pay will prove you so wrong!

 

[Skull Pilot]

Ireland’s Economists Left Speechless by 26% Growth Figure

Businesses flood your Nation. Their corporate tax rate is effectively half of ours and their growth is unheard of.

On the opposite end of the spectrum you have Socialism like Brazil or Venezuela where the economy has been destroyed by the politicians despite being high in natural resources.

Ireland has a 21% VAT tax. Do we?

The VAT puts brakes on the economy and yet they still outpaced us

 

[Montrovant]

Ireland’s Economists Left Speechless by 26% Growth Figure

Businesses flood your Nation. Their corporate tax rate is effectively half of ours and their growth is unheard of.

On the opposite end of the spectrum you have Socialism like Brazil or Venezuela where the economy has been destroyed by the politicians despite being high in natural resources.

Ireland's unemployment rate 8.4%

They have attracted corporate shells.

Their unemployment rate has been cut in half in the same time frame that they had the influx of new business

What is that time frame? From what I've seen Ireland's unemployment rate peaked (in recent years) at the end of 2011 and has been declining since, getting down near to half of that 2011 rate but perhaps not quite there yet. Ireland Unemployment Rate Ireland Unemployment Rate | 1983-2016 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast

 

[Dragonlady]

In Ontario, the Harper government gave tax breaks to GM and Chrysler to keep jobs in Ontario. Two years later, GM and Chrysler moved the jobs to Mexico and Canada got nothing for it's tax dollars. The tax break cost Canadians billions.

 

[Dragonlady]

Ireland’s Economists Left Speechless by 26% Growth Figure

Businesses flood your Nation. Their corporate tax rate is effectively half of ours and their growth is unheard of.

On the opposite end of the spectrum you have Socialism like Brazil or Venezuela where the economy has been destroyed by the politicians despite being high in natural resources.

Ireland has a 21% VAT tax. Do we?

The VAT puts brakes on the economy and yet they still outpaced us

They're outpacing you because they have a highly educated, English speaking workforce, single payer health insurance, and modern up to date infrastructure. Unlike the US, Ireland has invested heavily in its infrastructure, and its people. And yet they have things that American workers don't, like mandated maternity/family leave, mandated vacations, and access to low cost higher education.

 

[Moonglow]

Ireland’s Economists Left Speechless by 26% Growth Figure

Businesses flood your Nation. Their corporate tax rate is effectively half of ours and their growth is unheard of.

On the opposite end of the spectrum you have Socialism like Brazil or Venezuela where the economy has been destroyed by the politicians despite being high in natural resources.

That average tax rate after deductions in the USA is 15%..

 

[NYcarbineer]

In Ontario, the Harper government gave tax breaks to GM and Chrysler to keep jobs in Ontario. Two years later, GM and Chrysler moved the jobs to Mexico and Canada got nothing for it's tax dollars. The tax break cost Canadians billions.

Mexican autoworkers make $26 a DAY.

You more manufacturing here? Pay that.

I have to say, if not for the fact I don't believe a word Trump says, I would agree at least in part with his tariff ideas.

 

[Timmy]

Taxes are for the poor working stiff! The great and powerful companies should pay nothing !!!!

 

[initforme]

You can be rest assured the mighty wealthy will come out smelling like a rose. That is wrong. Time for class to enter the race.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Ireland’s Economists Left Speechless by 26% Growth Figure

Businesses flood your Nation. Their corporate tax rate is effectively half of ours and their growth is unheard of.

On the opposite end of the spectrum you have Socialism like Brazil or Venezuela where the economy has been destroyed by the politicians despite being high in natural resources.

Ireland has a 21% VAT tax. Do we?

The VAT puts brakes on the economy and yet they still outpaced us

They're outpacing you because they have a highly educated, English speaking workforce, single payer health insurance, and modern up to date infrastructure. Unlike the US, Ireland has invested heavily in its infrastructure, and its people. And yet they have things that American workers don't, like mandated maternity/family leave, mandated vacations, and access to low cost higher education.

you don't seem to realize all those things make everything more expensive thereby slowing down a consumer based economy

And I really don't think Ireland's infrastructure can be called better than the US infrastructure. It's hard to compare a tiny country like Ireland to one the size of the US in that regard

 

[Skull Pilot]

Taxes are for the poor working stiff! The great and powerful companies should pay nothing !!!!

Every dollar of profit a corporation earns will be taxed because eventually every dollar that a corporation earns ends up as income to someone. Why do you want to tax it twice?

No corp. keeps all the profit it makes under a mattress

 

[candycorn]

Please feel free to re-read what I posted 30 minutes ago:

Attract business; just do it smartly to where your State’s citizens come out ahead.

Listen candy, you do know I love your brain it's like mine.

Your just on the opposite of the spectrum.


Why can't you comprehend all states were not created equal? And have the same mineral and fossil fuels?

Sure candy I admit back in the 1700s till before the industrial revolution the red states were rich ..got slave labor to farm, but that all changed when slavery was abolished and people up north realized what they had.

So the south became poor and the north prospered..

Now in 2016 the south realized that we are in global economy..

The only way to compete is keep taxes low, get rid of unions and attract over sea jobs..

And the south will continue to evolve toward a third world nation. The schools I went to in Texas were built in 1950. Some in the district I went to were built in 1937…. No plans on replacing them….

Maybe the population of the towns have decreased?
Give me specific examples as I live in DFW area and there are new schools opening frequently.
But here are some FACTS about new schools in Texas. Little contrary to your unsubstantiated statement!
School Construction Costs - District Map - Texas Transparency
The map shows the Texas public school districts that opened new campuses between 2007 and 2013 divided into five ranges of cost per square foot. You can click on each district to find out how many new campuses were built, how much was spent on the construction and other related data.
(Isn't the Internet wonderful?... took me less then 5 minutes to find this information...where is yours??)
View attachment 84745

My information that my school was built in 1950?

SO??? You then take ONE school built in 1950 and then make the statement " The schools I went to in Texas were built in 1950. Some in the district I went to were built in 1937…. No plans on replacing them…."?
By the way what school district did you go to and maybe if you look at this web site you can see your school???
View attachment 84748

View attachment 84749 View attachment 84754 View attachment 84755

Really not sure what you’re asking from me here.

Do you think kids should be going to schools nearing 100 years old by the time they are scheduled to be replaced? This is the case at Galena Park Middle School in Texas where they “cut spending to the bone” when the same District spent money on a new sports stadium (equipped with a press box????)?

 

[healthmyths]

Listen candy, you do know I love your brain it's like mine.

Your just on the opposite of the spectrum.


Why can't you comprehend all states were not created equal? And have the same mineral and fossil fuels?

Sure candy I admit back in the 1700s till before the industrial revolution the red states were rich ..got slave labor to farm, but that all changed when slavery was abolished and people up north realized what they had.

So the south became poor and the north prospered..

Now in 2016 the south realized that we are in global economy..

The only way to compete is keep taxes low, get rid of unions and attract over sea jobs..

And the south will continue to evolve toward a third world nation. The schools I went to in Texas were built in 1950. Some in the district I went to were built in 1937…. No plans on replacing them….

Maybe the population of the towns have decreased?
Give me specific examples as I live in DFW area and there are new schools opening frequently.
But here are some FACTS about new schools in Texas. Little contrary to your unsubstantiated statement!
School Construction Costs - District Map - Texas Transparency
The map shows the Texas public school districts that opened new campuses between 2007 and 2013 divided into five ranges of cost per square foot. You can click on each district to find out how many new campuses were built, how much was spent on the construction and other related data.
(Isn't the Internet wonderful?... took me less then 5 minutes to find this information...where is yours??)
View attachment 84745

My information that my school was built in 1950?

SO??? You then take ONE school built in 1950 and then make the statement " The schools I went to in Texas were built in 1950. Some in the district I went to were built in 1937…. No plans on replacing them…."?
By the way what school district did you go to and maybe if you look at this web site you can see your school???
View attachment 84748

View attachment 84749 View attachment 84754 View attachment 84755

Really not sure what you’re asking from me here.

Do you think kids should be going to schools nearing 100 years old by the time they are scheduled to be replaced? This is the case at Galena Park Middle School in Texas where they “cut spending to the bone” when the same District spent money on a new sports stadium (equipped with a press box????)?

Once again...people like you take the EXCEPTION and make it the rule.

You people don't seem to understand that when idiots read your comments they say "OH ALL SCHOOLS are 100 years old
and falling apart." And that's because like you they jump to conclusions based on your OWN subjective experience. Remember the world doesn't revolve around you! What you experienced is the exception. NOT happening all the time all over Texas!

Go to this web site and see how much NEW construction was going on in Texas.
But here are some FACTS about new schools in Texas. Little contrary to your unsubstantiated statement!
School Construction Costs - District Map - Texas Transparency
The map shows the Texas public school districts that opened new campuses between 2007 and 2013 divided into five ranges of cost per square foot. You can click on each district to find out how many new campuses were built, how much was spent on the construction and other related data.

 

[Dragonlady]

Taxes are for the poor working stiff! The great and powerful companies should pay nothing !!!!

Every dollar of profit a corporation earns will be taxed because eventually every dollar that a corporation earns ends up as income to someone. Why do you want to tax it twice?

No corp. keeps all the profit it makes under a mattress

Because it should be taxed as corporation profit, and as income to the shareholder. Why do you want to give one or the other a free ride? Corporations use massive amounts of infrastructure and government services. Individuals also use infrastructure and services, although most as to a lesser extent. Both owe a share of income to the state to cover their share of the costs for the infrastructure and services they use.

This notion that corporations provide jobs so they shouldn't pay taxes, is ridiculous. I spent the last 15 years of my career doing big time development work, for big box retailers, shopping malls, and corporate clients. Just building a big box store requires hundreds of thousands of dollars of infrastructure changes. Such construction requires roadway widenings to allow high volume access to and from the parking lot, daylighting triangles for more efficient traffic flow, and cost sharing agreements for neighbouring properties.

The infrastructure costs for any business, are enormous. There are good and valid reasons why it takes years from the time a business buys a piece of vacant land and turns it into a store or factory. If the business is one which uses massive amounts of water, there may be issues with the water pipes running to and from the business. Who pays for that? What is required to upgrade it? What will the ongoing costs be? Will there additional traffic problems created by the construction? Will traffic relief, in the form of daylighting triangles, additional turning lanes, or similar changes to the surrounding roadways be needed?

Does the business need a railway spur line? Will lots of large trucks be going into or out of the property. Are turning areas sufficient? All of the corporation's infrastructure requirements are going to have to be met and paid for. If the corporation has negotiated a sweetheart deal with the municipality, the taxpayers may have to eat those costs in order to get the jobs promised. If the jobs provided pay so little that the employees need food stamps, Medicaid and earned income credits, the town really gets no benefit whatsoever, nor does the federal government. City taxes won't recoup all of the infrastructure costs, they just cover city operating expenses for the property.

Yes the store is going to make hundreds of thousands of dollars, and good for them, but they need to pay taxes on that money. The roads around the mall are going to need repairs and replacements more frequently. New stop lights will be needed. All of these things cost big bucks. Repairs to pubic roadways come out of the overall city budget. Normally developers pay big bucks to the city for the roadways, sewer and water lines and hookups, drainage (which may include storm drains, culverts, and grading) for the land, to ensure the flow of water to the storm drains. None of this stuff is cheap.

If you are going to give some corporations tax breaks for providing jobs, how good do the jobs have to be to qualify? If they are putting in a shopping mall, should corporations be getting tax breaks to provide low wage retail jobs? What's the cut-off point for the wages. Corporations are now getting municipalities into bidding wars for their jobs. Who's going to give us the best deal? Cities who participate in these fools games, soon find that they never recover the incentives given, and in a few years, when the benefits expire, the corporation will look for another city to fleece and move on.

In regards to wages, my neighbourhood in Toronto fought and won the battle to keep from having what had been the Toronto Film Studios, turned into a shopping mall, on the grounds that the shopping mall would be replacing high income film production jobs, with low wage retail jobs. When the City of Toronto (which owned the land), closed the Toronto Film Studio, it was because the facility was outdated and was to be replaced. They promised the neighbourhood that the lands would continue to be used for film production and would not be sold, or leased out for low wage McJobs. And then the City proposed leasing the land to a shopping mall company.

Many of my neighbours worked in the movie business, so getting more studio space was more work for them, added to which the roadways surrounding the property weren't built for the level of traffic the mall would receive. The properties across the street from the proposed mall on the north side, which would be one of the access roadways, were residential homes, which would now been choked with traffic and fumes. The entire neighbourhood fought the mall on economic grounds - that the jobs coming in weren't acceptable to the neighbourhood. The economics was the basis for the argument, but the entire residential character of the neighbourhood would have been adversely affected by the traffic. The roadway itself was already high traffic during rush hours, and the traffic to the neighbourhood had increased dramatically with the construction of a mall on property to the south of the proposed mall, and a grocery store on the property next door to it. Since houses in this area sell for upwards of $500,000. this impact of living across the road from the mall would have destroyed their property values.

People matter. Corporations are not people, regardless of what the Citizen's United ruling said. Unless and until the US puts its people first, ALL of its people, not just the rich white ones, you're going to have problems.

Biker/Sailor, I hear you on the tariffs, and a while back I would have even agreed with you, but then I saw a very reasonable argument against protectionist tariffs based around the notion that the global movement of goods and capital has been the catalyst for the first world economic growth which occurred during the last half of the 20th Century. That tariffs would set all of that progress back, and that with the internet and the speed at which capital can now move, the tariffs would no longer work. I now need more information.

 

[bendog]

Taxes are for the poor working stiff! The great and powerful companies should pay nothing !!!!

Every dollar of profit a corporation earns will be taxed because eventually every dollar that a corporation earns ends up as income to someone. Why do you want to tax it twice?

No corp. keeps all the profit it makes under a mattress

Because it should be taxed as corporation profit, and as income to the shareholder. Why do you want to give one or the other a free ride? Corporations use massive amounts of infrastructure and government services. Individuals also use infrastructure and services, although most as to a lesser extent. Both owe a share of income to the state to cover their share of the costs for the infrastructure and services they use.

This notion that corporations provide jobs so they shouldn't pay taxes, is ridiculous. I spent the last 15 years of my career doing big time development work, for big box retailers, shopping malls, and corporate clients. Just building a big box store requires hundreds of thousands of dollars of infrastructure changes. Such construction requires roadway widenings to allow high volume access to and from the parking lot, daylighting triangles for more efficient traffic flow, and cost sharing agreements for neighbouring properties.

The infrastructure costs for any business, are enormous. There are good and valid reasons why it takes years from the time a business buys a piece of vacant land and turns it into a store or factory. If the business is one which uses massive amounts of water, there may be issues with the water pipes running to and from the business. Who pays for that? What is required to upgrade it? What will the ongoing costs be? Will there additional traffic problems created by the construction? Will traffic relief, in the form of daylighting triangles, additional turning lanes, or similar changes to the surrounding roadways be needed?

Does the business need a railway spur line? Will lots of large trucks be going into or out of the property. Are turning areas sufficient? All of the corporation's infrastructure requirements are going to have to be met and paid for. If the corporation has negotiated a sweetheart deal with the municipality, the taxpayers may have to eat those costs in order to get the jobs promised. If the jobs provided pay so little that the employees need food stamps, Medicaid and earned income credits, the town really gets no benefit whatsoever, nor does the federal government. City taxes won't recoup all of the infrastructure costs, they just cover city operating expenses for the property.

Yes the store is going to make hundreds of thousands of dollars, and good for them, but they need to pay taxes on that money. The roads around the mall are going to need repairs and replacements more frequently. New stop lights will be needed. All of these things cost big bucks. Repairs to pubic roadways come out of the overall city budget. Normally developers pay big bucks to the city for the roadways, sewer and water lines and hookups, drainage (which may include storm drains, culverts, and grading) for the land, to ensure the flow of water to the storm drains. None of this stuff is cheap.

If you are going to give some corporations tax breaks for providing jobs, how good do the jobs have to be to qualify? If they are putting in a shopping mall, should corporations be getting tax breaks to provide low wage retail jobs? What's the cut-off point for the wages. Corporations are now getting municipalities into bidding wars for their jobs. Who's going to give us the best deal? Cities who participate in these fools games, soon find that they never recover the incentives given, and in a few years, when the benefits expire, the corporation will look for another city to fleece and move on.

In regards to wages, my neighbourhood in Toronto fought and won the battle to keep from having what had been the Toronto Film Studios, turned into a shopping mall, on the grounds that the shopping mall would be replacing high income film production jobs, with low wage retail jobs. When the City of Toronto (which owned the land), closed the Toronto Film Studio, it was because the facility was outdated and was to be replaced. They promised the neighbourhood that the lands would continue to be used for film production and would not be sold, or leased out for low wage McJobs. And then the City proposed leasing the land to a shopping mall company.

Many of my neighbours worked in the movie business, so getting more studio space was more work for them, added to which the roadways surrounding the property weren't built for the level of traffic the mall would receive. The properties across the street from the proposed mall on the north side, which would be one of the access roadways, were residential homes, which would now been choked with traffic and fumes. The entire neighbourhood fought the mall on economic grounds - that the jobs coming in weren't acceptable to the neighbourhood. The economics was the basis for the argument, but the entire residential character of the neighbourhood would have been adversely affected by the traffic. The roadway itself was already high traffic during rush hours, and the traffic to the neighbourhood had increased dramatically with the construction of a mall on property to the south of the proposed mall, and a grocery store on the property next door to it. Since houses in this area sell for upwards of $500,000. this impact of living across the road from the mall would have destroyed their property values.

People matter. Corporations are not people, regardless of what the Citizen's United ruling said. Unless and until the US puts its people first, ALL of its people, not just the rich white ones, you're going to have problems.

Biker/Sailor, I hear you on the tariffs, and a while back I would have even agreed with you, but then I saw a very reasonable argument against protectionist tariffs based around the notion that the global movement of goods and capital has been the catalyst for the first world economic growth which occurred during the last half of the 20th Century. That tariffs would set all of that progress back, and that with the internet and the speed at which capital can now move, the tariffs would no longer work. I now need more information.

What would the argument be against removing all corporate taxes, but making it revenue neutral by raising shareholder/passive taxes? (Trump's most recent tax proposal does the opposite btw).

The argument in favor would be that corporate taxes affect consumer prices, because ultimately all corporate taxes are paid by customers. And the holy grail in market economics is to reduce all non-market effects on supply and demand.

 

[healthmyths]

Taxes are for the poor working stiff! The great and powerful companies should pay nothing !!!!

Every dollar of profit a corporation earns will be taxed because eventually every dollar that a corporation earns ends up as income to someone. Why do you want to tax it twice?

No corp. keeps all the profit it makes under a mattress

Because it should be taxed as corporation profit, and as income to the shareholder. Why do you want to give one or the other a free ride? Corporations use massive amounts of infrastructure and government services. Individuals also use infrastructure and services, although most as to a lesser extent. Both owe a share of income to the state to cover their share of the costs for the infrastructure and services they use.

This notion that corporations provide jobs so they shouldn't pay taxes, is ridiculous. I spent the last 15 years of my career doing big time development work, for big box retailers, shopping malls, and corporate clients. Just building a big box store requires hundreds of thousands of dollars of infrastructure changes. Such construction requires roadway widenings to allow high volume access to and from the parking lot, daylighting triangles for more efficient traffic flow, and cost sharing agreements for neighbouring properties.

The infrastructure costs for any business, are enormous. There are good and valid reasons why it takes years from the time a business buys a piece of vacant land and turns it into a store or factory. If the business is one which uses massive amounts of water, there may be issues with the water pipes running to and from the business. Who pays for that? What is required to upgrade it? What will the ongoing costs be? Will there additional traffic problems created by the construction? Will traffic relief, in the form of daylighting triangles, additional turning lanes, or similar changes to the surrounding roadways be needed?

Does the business need a railway spur line? Will lots of large trucks be going into or out of the property. Are turning areas sufficient? All of the corporation's infrastructure requirements are going to have to be met and paid for. If the corporation has negotiated a sweetheart deal with the municipality, the taxpayers may have to eat those costs in order to get the jobs promised. If the jobs provided pay so little that the employees need food stamps, Medicaid and earned income credits, the town really gets no benefit whatsoever, nor does the federal government. City taxes won't recoup all of the infrastructure costs, they just cover city operating expenses for the property.

Yes the store is going to make hundreds of thousands of dollars, and good for them, but they need to pay taxes on that money. The roads around the mall are going to need repairs and replacements more frequently. New stop lights will be needed. All of these things cost big bucks. Repairs to pubic roadways come out of the overall city budget. Normally developers pay big bucks to the city for the roadways, sewer and water lines and hookups, drainage (which may include storm drains, culverts, and grading) for the land, to ensure the flow of water to the storm drains. None of this stuff is cheap.

If you are going to give some corporations tax breaks for providing jobs, how good do the jobs have to be to qualify? If they are putting in a shopping mall, should corporations be getting tax breaks to provide low wage retail jobs? What's the cut-off point for the wages. Corporations are now getting municipalities into bidding wars for their jobs. Who's going to give us the best deal? Cities who participate in these fools games, soon find that they never recover the incentives given, and in a few years, when the benefits expire, the corporation will look for another city to fleece and move on.

In regards to wages, my neighbourhood in Toronto fought and won the battle to keep from having what had been the Toronto Film Studios, turned into a shopping mall, on the grounds that the shopping mall would be replacing high income film production jobs, with low wage retail jobs. When the City of Toronto (which owned the land), closed the Toronto Film Studio, it was because the facility was outdated and was to be replaced. They promised the neighbourhood that the lands would continue to be used for film production and would not be sold, or leased out for low wage McJobs. And then the City proposed leasing the land to a shopping mall company.

Many of my neighbours worked in the movie business, so getting more studio space was more work for them, added to which the roadways surrounding the property weren't built for the level of traffic the mall would receive. The properties across the street from the proposed mall on the north side, which would be one of the access roadways, were residential homes, which would now been choked with traffic and fumes. The entire neighbourhood fought the mall on economic grounds - that the jobs coming in weren't acceptable to the neighbourhood. The economics was the basis for the argument, but the entire residential character of the neighbourhood would have been adversely affected by the traffic. The roadway itself was already high traffic during rush hours, and the traffic to the neighbourhood had increased dramatically with the construction of a mall on property to the south of the proposed mall, and a grocery store on the property next door to it. Since houses in this area sell for upwards of $500,000. this impact of living across the road from the mall would have destroyed their property values.

People matter. Corporations are not people, regardless of what the Citizen's United ruling said. Unless and until the US puts its people first, ALL of its people, not just the rich white ones, you're going to have problems.

Biker/Sailor, I hear you on the tariffs, and a while back I would have even agreed with you, but then I saw a very reasonable argument against protectionist tariffs based around the notion that the global movement of goods and capital has been the catalyst for the first world economic growth which occurred during the last half of the 20th Century. That tariffs would set all of that progress back, and that with the internet and the speed at which capital can now move, the tariffs would no longer work. I now need more information.

ONE major bust to your post. YOU ARE USING CANADA as your example. We are talking about the USA.
And this is in response to Corporate taxes which if you read closer this article..,
Canada's Lower Corporate Tax Rate Raises More Tax Revenue
Canada is apparently becoming an attractive place to do business. This week Burger King announced plans to move its headquarters to Canada, via a merger with Tim Hortons. Other U.S. companies that have recently moved or announced plans to move to Canada include Bausch and Lomb, Allergan, and Auxilium. A Bloomberg analysis indicates Tim Hortons was once a U.S. company, until it inverted to Canada in 2009.

Part of the attraction is the substantial tax reforms that occurred over the last 15 years in Canada. First among these is the dramatic reduction in the corporate tax rate, from 43 percent in 2000 to 26 percent today. The U.S. currently has a corporate tax rate of 39 percent, but lawmakers are reluctant to do what Canada did, i.e. lower the tax rate, for fear of losing tax revenue.
The natural question is: How much tax revenue did Canada lose?
Answer: None.
Canada's Lower Corporate Tax Rate Raises More Tax Revenue

So please don't pass your criticism about lower corporate taxes without checking where your 3 fingers are pointing BACK!


But Your last sentence: " I now need more information." Sums up your gross error in USING YOUR personal, subjective and one off opinion. People like you using YOUR personal experience as an indictment for the WHOLE is the major problem in our country today.
The one point I agree with you is your statement" I now need more information."!

Granted, there are some exceptions to the rule which IS WHAT you are describing!
But for the vast majority of occurrences that have a positive effect, YOU make it sound LIKE ALL of these occurrences were bad for
the economy as a whole! There is NO question your personal experiences show ALL the negative effects which was the purpose
of your post.
One of my major issues with your post is your condescending attitude about the majority of people that need those as you disdainfully called "Mcjobs". What do you propose your film neighbors IN CANADA do for them? Oh of course this AGAIN is Canada!

Live in the USA and make your criticisms about the USA. Not as a foreigner.

 

[Timmy]

Taxes are for the poor working stiff! The great and powerful companies should pay nothing !!!!

Every dollar of profit a corporation earns will be taxed because eventually every dollar that a corporation earns ends up as income to someone. Why do you want to tax it twice?

No corp. keeps all the profit it makes under a mattress

And every dollar earned by workers is also taxed multiple times . What's your point ?

Why should the company be exempt from taxation while the working stiff gets the tax burden ?