RP Daily Trivia Challenge - ptooey - Sep 24, 2017 - 11:00am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - tomcool - Sep 24, 2017 - 10:13am
 
Trump - oldviolin - Sep 24, 2017 - 10:13am
 
True Confessions - oldviolin - Sep 24, 2017 - 10:12am
 
What Did You See Today? - Coaxial - Sep 24, 2017 - 10:05am
 
Name My Band - oldviolin - Sep 24, 2017 - 9:40am
 
Little known information...maybe even facts - oldviolin - Sep 24, 2017 - 9:38am
 
Counting with Pictures - ScottN - Sep 24, 2017 - 9:28am
 
All Dogs Go To Heaven - Dog Pix - oldviolin - Sep 24, 2017 - 9:12am
 
What are you listening to now? - Steely_D - Sep 24, 2017 - 8:52am
 
Celebrity Face Recognition - Antigone - Sep 24, 2017 - 8:31am
 
Suggestions Please... - SeriousLee - Sep 24, 2017 - 8:22am
 
Fun Birthday Ideas - miamizsun - Sep 24, 2017 - 8:16am
 
RP3 Beta Player - gpsfreak - Sep 24, 2017 - 8:07am
 
SHOES SHOES SHOES - SeriousLee - Sep 24, 2017 - 8:05am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Sep 24, 2017 - 7:54am
 
Crazy conspiracy theories - Red_Dragon - Sep 24, 2017 - 7:10am
 
Canada - SeriousLee - Sep 24, 2017 - 6:37am
 
The Obituary Page - n4ku - Sep 24, 2017 - 5:10am
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - Lazy8 - Sep 24, 2017 - 4:45am
 
What The Hell Buddy? - SeriousLee - Sep 24, 2017 - 4:05am
 
Things You Thought Today - SeriousLee - Sep 24, 2017 - 3:40am
 
What Did You Do Today? - ScottFromWyoming - Sep 23, 2017 - 9:09pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - ScottFromWyoming - Sep 23, 2017 - 9:08pm
 
Movie rental suggestions & reviews - Netflix or Blockbuster - Antigone - Sep 23, 2017 - 8:10pm
 
Accessing song ratings - wetdog - Sep 23, 2017 - 6:11pm
 
Tales from the RAFT - Antigone - Sep 23, 2017 - 4:42pm
 
Radio Paradise Comments - Jonathon - Sep 23, 2017 - 3:27pm
 
Graphic designers, ho! - GeneP59 - Sep 23, 2017 - 2:36pm
 
THE Question of Our Time - Proclivities - Sep 23, 2017 - 9:46am
 
Spambags on RP - ScottFromWyoming - Sep 23, 2017 - 8:25am
 
Geeky Jokes - kctomato - Sep 23, 2017 - 8:25am
 
What makes you smile? - Coaxial - Sep 23, 2017 - 7:04am
 
Poetry Forum - SeriousLee - Sep 23, 2017 - 6:04am
 
Russia - sirdroseph - Sep 23, 2017 - 5:09am
 
BACK TO THE 80's - R_P - Sep 22, 2017 - 10:59pm
 
Tell the Truth! - Red_Dragon - Sep 22, 2017 - 7:50pm
 
RPeep News You Should Know - SeriousLee - Sep 22, 2017 - 4:22pm
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - R_P - Sep 22, 2017 - 2:22pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Sep 22, 2017 - 1:40pm
 
Dear Retail Fashion Industry - Proclivities - Sep 22, 2017 - 1:18pm
 
Those Crazy Condiments - aflanigan - Sep 22, 2017 - 12:50pm
 
Health Care - Steely_D - Sep 22, 2017 - 12:13pm
 
Sweet horrible irony. - sirdroseph - Sep 22, 2017 - 11:31am
 
Things that make you go Hmmmm..... - Coaxial - Sep 22, 2017 - 10:24am
 
Museum Of Bad Album Covers - Proclivities - Sep 22, 2017 - 10:19am
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - Proclivities - Sep 22, 2017 - 10:07am
 
Derplahoma Questions and Points of Interest - Red_Dragon - Sep 22, 2017 - 9:29am
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - R_P - Sep 22, 2017 - 8:03am
 
First World Problems - ScottFromWyoming - Sep 22, 2017 - 7:29am
 
I ain't got my taco! - Red_Dragon - Sep 22, 2017 - 7:18am
 
What are you doing RIGHT NOW? - kurtster - Sep 22, 2017 - 6:56am
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - Proclivities - Sep 22, 2017 - 6:19am
 
HALF A WORLD - oldviolin - Sep 21, 2017 - 11:28pm
 
Australian Listeners - oldviolin - Sep 21, 2017 - 9:49pm
 
Make Jrzy Laugh - JrzyTmata - Sep 21, 2017 - 8:16pm
 
Saudi Arabia - R_P - Sep 21, 2017 - 2:17pm
 
Republican Party - miamizsun - Sep 21, 2017 - 4:44am
 
Sunrise, Sunset - Rod - Sep 21, 2017 - 12:21am
 
• • • P H O T O C H A T • • • - ScottFromWyoming - Sep 20, 2017 - 11:00pm
 
Beer - kcar - Sep 20, 2017 - 10:34pm
 
Photos you have taken of yourself - Coaxial - Sep 20, 2017 - 5:45pm
 
The House I Want (Today) - BlueHeronDruid - Sep 20, 2017 - 5:40pm
 
What Makes You Laugh? - Antigone - Sep 20, 2017 - 4:35pm
 
I'm Thankful For.. - buddy - Sep 20, 2017 - 2:32pm
 
• • • Poopoo • • • - SeriousLee - Sep 20, 2017 - 2:20pm
 
Australia has Disappeared - ScottFromWyoming - Sep 20, 2017 - 9:38am
 
What Are You Going To Do Today? - sunybuny - Sep 20, 2017 - 7:03am
 
Anti-War - Red_Dragon - Sep 20, 2017 - 6:33am
 
The strange tale of KFAT - oldviolin - Sep 19, 2017 - 9:59pm
 
Scam the Scammer - Red_Dragon - Sep 19, 2017 - 3:21pm
 
Just Time Lapse - trekhead - Sep 19, 2017 - 12:40pm
 
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests - meower - Sep 19, 2017 - 11:12am
 
September 19th is International Talk Like A Pirate Day - PoundPuppy - Sep 19, 2017 - 8:27am
 
Using the cache on an Android Phone - jarro - Sep 19, 2017 - 8:24am
 
Index » Regional/Local » USA/Canada » Taxes, Taxes, Taxes (and Taxes) Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 67, 68, 69  Next
Post to this Topic
westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC desert


Posted: Sep 13, 2017 - 12:13pm

I do not agree with tying taxes to specific public programs unless user fees are being charged.

(In passing good post islander.)

Folks, it would make good sense to reduce corporate income taxes but really you need to shift more of the tax burden to consumption.   To consumers.

For the record, the USA is the ONLY rich OECD country that does not make use of value-added sales taxes.  And once again, Americans pay the lowest excise taxes on fossil fuels among the rich OECD countries despite the known impacts on health and morbidity of automobiles and associated pollution.

What is wrong with Americans?   People outside the USA love your experts and scientists but Americans make a point of deliberately ignoring them.   Why the self-loathing anti-science, anti-data populism?  
meower

meower Avatar

Location: i believe, i believe, it's silly, but I believe
Gender: Female
Zodiac: Gemini


Posted: Sep 13, 2017 - 8:26am

I'm sure that lots of people have feelings about this. Last year, Philadelphia introduced a controversial tax on sugary beverages (soda mainly) in the city of Philadelphia. A similar bill was struck down in Manhattan the year before.  Because of the tax, 2,000 new Pre-Kindergarten/Head start  slots were created.

This morning, 2,000 children who would not have had access to quality Pre-K in Philadelphia started school. This is easily two full HS graduating classes.

If you're going to drink soda, please buy it in Philadelphia


sirdroseph
Endeavor to Perservere
sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: May 11, 2017 - 4:17am

Exempting themselves from the effects of their own Healthcare Billshit is the ultimate Treason. Taxation, without Representation, baby.













Amen to that, I remember saying the same thing in 2009 when they were pimping the present piece of crap health care legislation which I am sure you did too, right? ;-) Seriously though, we will never get true health care reform until they walk our walk and quit legislating from a bubble of privilege.


islander
Thalassophile
islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Scorpio
Chinese Yr: Cock


Posted: May 10, 2017 - 10:09pm

 Isabeau wrote:


{#Yes}  Before Tinkle-down, rates on the wealthiest were 90 - 80 %. In order to avoid taxes, they had to invest. Not volunteer, but had to.
that pushed growth, innovation and wages parallel with productivity. The current 'volunteer' bit isn't working; blind eyes to offshore tax havens do not fix an increasing deficit caused by borrowing to make WAR. There is never any money for benefitting The People, yet the Political Aristocracy has deemed taxes are to support them, not the peasants.

Exempting themselves from the effects of their own Healthcare Billshit is the ultimate Treason. Taxation, without Representation, baby.
 
Whoa there.  Yes the top marginal rate has been as high as 90%, but that was only on really high levels of income. There were also more deductions allowed at the time, and anyone with that kind of income (a million dollars went a lot further back then) would never have paid tax on it. This is a perfect example of L8s premise that if you set the rates too high, then people will avoid it by whatever means necessary. Also, my point of it's a lot more complicated than just the rate - exemptions, deductions and opportunities for shelters and other stuff makes the rate somewhat arbitrary. 

I'm a pretty good pay your taxes kind of guy and I'm getting a bit uncomfortable with an effective rate just over 20%. If the marginal rates pushed my effective rate much higher, I'd probably start spending some time on other tax minimization options.

We're mixing a lot of grievances here, but voluntary re-investment is never about volunteering to give away money. Business is always about making something or doing something, and it almost always has the goal of making money. I've just kicked off a new venture that will be a lot of fun and is aligned with my interests, but if there weren't profit in it I wouldn't be doing it. 
Isabeau
peep
Isabeau Avatar

Location: sou' tex
Gender: Female
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Monkey


Posted: May 10, 2017 - 4:33pm

 islander wrote:


We are in strong agreement here.

On taxes, I'm just saying it's all a lot more complicated that rates. I do think the rates are relevant in that you need to have some method to collect revenue, but  beyond that I think saying that raising or lowering rates as a method to increase (or decrease depending on which side of the argument you are on) is a just one of many factors. 

It's sort of like saying "eating Twinkies will make you feel better". Well yes, sort of, breifly. but if you eat too many you'll be sick, if you never touch one, you'll miss part of the meaning in the movie Zombieland. And if you say "Reducing Twinkie consumption is the key to good health", you are probably right, but are missing a lot more pieces to the puzzle.  -Islander, master of the bad/confusing analogy. 


 

{#Yes}  Before Tinkle-down, rates on the wealthiest were 90 - 80 %. In order to avoid taxes, they had to invest. Not volunteer, but had to.
that pushed growth, innovation and wages parallel with productivity. The current 'volunteer' bit isn't working; blind eyes to offshore tax havens do not fix an increasing deficit caused by borrowing to make WAR. There is never any money for benefitting The People, yet the Political Aristocracy has deemed taxes are to support them, not the peasants.

Exempting themselves from the effects of their own Healthcare Billshit is the ultimate Treason. Taxation, without Representation, baby.

islander
Thalassophile
islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Scorpio
Chinese Yr: Cock


Posted: May 10, 2017 - 2:53pm

 Lazy8 wrote:

And I'm still not sure what you're responding to, but it isn't just about improving the economy. High rates of taxation drive companies to do unproductive things, so reducing rates would be beneficial even it it had no impact on revenue or growth—tho I can't see how increased efficiency would result in anything but growth.

A parallel objective of my argument is this: we need to quit fooling ourselves that by cranking up tax rates we can solve our problems with deficits. We need to reduce spending or we're never going to make progress.
 

We are in strong agreement here.

On taxes, I'm just saying it's all a lot more complicated that rates. I do think the rates are relevant in that you need to have some method to collect revenue, but  beyond that I think saying that raising or lowering rates as a method to increase (or decrease depending on which side of the argument you are on) is a just one of many factors. 

It's sort of like saying "eating Twinkies will make you feel better". Well yes, sort of, breifly. but if you eat too many you'll be sick, if you never touch one, you'll miss part of the meaning in the movie Zombieland. And if you say "Reducing Twinkie consumption is the key to good health", you are probably right, but are missing a lot more pieces to the puzzle.  -Islander, master of the bad/confusing analogy. 

black321
See For Yourself
black321 Avatar

Location: A sunset in the desert
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Capricorn
Chinese Yr: Horse


Posted: May 10, 2017 - 2:32pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
A parallel objective of my argument is this: we need to quit fooling ourselves that by cranking up tax rates we can solve our problems with deficits. We need to reduce spending or we're never going to make progress.
 
That's the truth. 
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: May 10, 2017 - 2:03pm

 islander wrote:
I do buy the rest of your argument in general. But I still think you are looking only at a couple of minor knobs on the big mixing board of the economy.  There are so many more things in the tax policy beyond the rate which make a difference in the resulting revenue. And often I'd argue that much of it is poorly understood by even the smartest, and barely (at best) understood by the ones making the policy.

Still the best system we've got.

And I'm still not sure what you're responding to, but it isn't just about improving the economy. High rates of taxation drive companies to do unproductive things, so reducing rates would be beneficial even it it had no impact on revenue or growth—tho I can't see how increased efficiency would result in anything but growth.

A parallel objective of my argument is this: we need to quit fooling ourselves that by cranking up tax rates we can solve our problems with deficits. We need to reduce spending or we're never going to make progress.

 


islander
Thalassophile
islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Scorpio
Chinese Yr: Cock


Posted: May 10, 2017 - 12:24pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
 islander wrote:
This is a lot like the argument further down that says lower the tax rates and you'll stimulate growth and get more revenue.

The whole situation is a lot more complex that Rates up = Revenue down (and vice versa).

Note that I'm not saying you are wrong, just that it's a whole lot more complicated. If rates really have in inverse relation to revenue, then why have rates at all? Or we could make them negative and be infinitely rich!  We could just print money... oh wait.

I'm a good capitalist too. I just filed my 720 and am having to do a monthly B&O calculation as a new corporate entity. I don't like paying any taxes, but I do see the necessity. I think it's one of those pendulums that is destined to swing for as long as we look at it. Hopefully we can keep it within a narrow bound that is reasonable enough to not cause other problems, but still fulfill the base needs - this will be our next debate.

The argument "that says lower the tax rates and you'll stimulate growth and get more revenue" isn't one I made.

I think it's true, but not a direct result. When you reduce the penalty for reporting income people will report more of it, even is they're making the same income. If they don't have to resort to absurd mechanisms to shield that income from taxes the economy will become more efficient, but that doesn't scale with the reduction in rates. i.e., if you cut rates in half you won't double incomes, but revenue (historically) will remain the same.

There is probably some threshold below which the revenue extracted (by the aggregate of the various forms of taxation) starts dropping, but we're a long ways from that. There are many countries with zero capital gains rates. They aren't suffering for tax revenue.

 

There is a distinction here, but it feels pretty minor to me -
 
Lazy8 wrote:
The real lesson here is that corporate tax rates aren't very good predictors of corporate tax revenues. A healthy economy brings in more revenue even if rates fall. 


I do buy the rest of your argument in general. But I still think you are looking only at a couple of minor knobs on the big mixing board of the economy.  There are so many more things in the tax policy beyond the rate which make a difference in the resulting revenue. And often I'd argue that much of it is poorly understood by even the smartest, and barely (at best) understood by the ones making the policy.

Still the best system we've got. 

Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: May 10, 2017 - 11:44am

 islander wrote:
This is a lot like the argument further down that says lower the tax rates and you'll stimulate growth and get more revenue.

The whole situation is a lot more complex that Rates up = Revenue down (and vice versa).

Note that I'm not saying you are wrong, just that it's a whole lot more complicated. If rates really have in inverse relation to revenue, then why have rates at all? Or we could make them negative and be infinitely rich!  We could just print money... oh wait.

I'm a good capitalist too. I just filed my 720 and am having to do a monthly B&O calculation as a new corporate entity. I don't like paying any taxes, but I do see the necessity. I think it's one of those pendulums that is destined to swing for as long as we look at it. Hopefully we can keep it within a narrow bound that is reasonable enough to not cause other problems, but still fulfill the base needs - this will be our next debate.

The argument "that says lower the tax rates and you'll stimulate growth and get more revenue" isn't one I made.

I think it's true, but not a direct result. When you reduce the penalty for reporting income people will report more of it, even is they're making the same income. If they don't have to resort to absurd mechanisms to shield that income from taxes the economy will become more efficient, but that doesn't scale with the reduction in rates. i.e., if you cut rates in half you won't double incomes, but revenue (historically) will remain the same.

There is probably some threshold below which the revenue extracted (by the aggregate of the various forms of taxation) starts dropping, but we're a long ways from that. There are many countries with zero capital gains rates. They aren't suffering for tax revenue.
islander
Thalassophile
islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Scorpio
Chinese Yr: Cock


Posted: May 10, 2017 - 11:27am

 Lazy8 wrote:
 black321 wrote:
Right, so cut corporate taxes and raise capital gains taxes to encourage reinvestment/capex and discourage share repos.

Um, no.

Cut tax rates. Which, as the data shows, is not the same as cutting taxes.

We've already tried the experiment you're proposing on capital gains tax rates:

rates vs. revenue

Raising capital gains rates does not raise capital gains revenue—in fact, it seems (if anything) to do the opposite.

But if the intent isn't revenue, but behavior modification...that modification comes at the expense of revenue. So you need to justify leaving money on the table—you need to prove that the good effects of your policy outweigh the drop in revenue.

 
This is a lot like the argument further down that says lower the tax rates and you'll stimulate growth and get more revenue.

The whole situation is a lot more complex that Rates up = Revenue down (and vice versa).

Note that I'm not saying you are wrong, just that it's a whole lot more complicated. If rates really have in inverse relation to revenue, then why have rates at all? Or we could make them negative and be infinitely rich!  We could just print money... oh wait.

I'm a good capitalist too. I just filed my 720 and am having to do a monthly B&O calculation as a new corporate entity. I don't like paying any taxes, but I do see the necessity. I think it's one of those pendulums that is destined to swing for as long as we look at it. Hopefully we can keep it within a narrow bound that is reasonable enough to not cause other problems, but still fulfill the base needs - this will be our next debate.
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: May 10, 2017 - 9:28am

 black321 wrote:
That graph only tells part of the story and it ignores too many variables that might influence tax revenue besides the actual cap gain rate including equity returns, economic growth, not to mention the timing of the rates changes and its influence on investor behaviour....  Just looking at the two dips in revenue in the 70s and early 90s...both periods of recession where the market was lower, which i doubt were driven by increased cap gain rates.  Though, i will cede its not hard to convince that a low tax rate might stimulate buybacks, stock prices and lead to higher revenue...in the short-term.  Ultimately, fundamentals come home to roost.  
But yes, my primary motive is to change long-term behaviour...get corps to reinvest more in business, and stop distributing cash to their equity holders with buybacks to stimulate share prices over the next couple of quarters.  Seems that is a much better way to create a healthy economy (tax revenue) in the long-term. 

That other things are at play is indisputable, but that only drives home the main point: raising capital gains rates won't (by itself) raise revenue—and thus cutting the capital gains tax rate is not a capital gains tax cut.

Agreed that corporate behavior is influenced by both the corporate tax rate and the capital gains tax rate. There is a good case to be made that the proper corporate tax rate is zero; otherwise dividend income is taxed twice: once when the company earns it, again when it is dispersed to the owners. But that is far too subtle a point for the usual argument and I suspect we're stuck with it for now. Still makes sense to drive it down from the absurd levels it's at now.
black321
See For Yourself
black321 Avatar

Location: A sunset in the desert
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Capricorn
Chinese Yr: Horse


Posted: May 10, 2017 - 7:39am

 Lazy8 wrote:
 black321 wrote:
Right, so cut corporate taxes and raise capital gains taxes to encourage reinvestment/capex and discourage share repos.

Um, no.

Cut tax rates. Which, as the data shows, is not the same as cutting taxes.

We've already tried the experiment you're proposing on capital gains tax rates:

rates vs. revenue

Raising capital gains rates does not raise capital gains revenue—in fact, it seems (if anything) to do the opposite.

But if the intent isn't revenue, but behavior modification...that modification comes at the expense of revenue. So you need to justify leaving money on the table—you need to prove that the good effects of your policy outweigh the drop in revenue.

 
That graph only tells part of the story and it ignores too many variables that might influence tax revenue besides the actual cap gain rate including equity returns, economic growth, not to mention the timing of the rates changes and its influence on investor behaviour....  Just looking at the two dips in revenue in the 70s and early 90s...both periods of recession where the market was lower, which i doubt were driven by increased cap gain rates.  Though, i will cede its not hard to convince that a low tax rate might stimulate buybacks, stock prices and lead to higher revenue...in the short-term.  Ultimately, fundamentals come home to roost.  
But yes, my primary motive is to change long-term behaviour...get corps to reinvest more in business, and stop distributing cash to their equity holders with buybacks to stimulate share prices over the next couple of quarters.  Seems that is a much better way to create a healthy economy (tax revenue) in the long-term. 
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: May 9, 2017 - 3:12pm

 black321 wrote:
Right, so cut corporate taxes and raise capital gains taxes to encourage reinvestment/capex and discourage share repos.

Um, no.

Cut tax rates. Which, as the data shows, is not the same as cutting taxes.

We've already tried the experiment you're proposing on capital gains tax rates:

rates vs. revenue

Raising capital gains rates does not raise capital gains revenue—in fact, it seems (if anything) to do the opposite.

But if the intent isn't revenue, but behavior modification...that modification comes at the expense of revenue. So you need to justify leaving money on the table—you need to prove that the good effects of your policy outweigh the drop in revenue.


black321
See For Yourself
black321 Avatar

Location: A sunset in the desert
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Capricorn
Chinese Yr: Horse


Posted: May 9, 2017 - 12:48pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
I want you to look at the following and think about it....
 
Right, so cut corporate taxes and raise capital gains taxes to encourage reinvestment/capex and discourage share repos.
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: May 9, 2017 - 10:49am

I want you to look at the following and think about it in the context of the coming debate on tax reform.

These are the historical corporate tax rates in the US and Canada:

rstes

This is historic revenues from these taxes as a fraction of GDP:

revenue

What does this tell us? To start with, most European countries have a much lower corporate tax rate the the US; the European average is 18.88%, but hey that's Europe and apples to apples and all, so let's stick with a country very similar to our own.

The real lesson here is that corporate tax rates aren't very good predictors of corporate tax revenues. A healthy economy brings in more revenue even if rates fall.

I can already hear the sound of knees smacking the bottoms of desks. Trickle-down! Cutting taxes for the wealthy! The middle class! Capitalist pig!

I will freely cop to being a capitalist, but remember the part up at the top of this where I asked you to look at this and think about it? You didn't, did you? You instinctively fell back on the eat-the-rich instincts; this can''t be true, there's something missing from the graphs, it's all a lie. I remember the last time tax rates vs. revenue came up here regarding personal income tax rates—highly respected economists were quoted micro-parsing similar charts trying to explain away the very obvious. The googling has already no doubt started.

I'm sure Paul Krugman has a lot to say about this, which proves only that an economist's reputation rests almost entirely on how well his conclusions match your political ideology, not on how well they match the real world.

But you're dying to hear my explanation, right*? How can tax rates fall and revenues rise? Am I claiming that cutting taxes stimulates growth?

Not directly. Companies exist to deliver revenue to their owners. Taxes are an expense to be minimized. When rates are high you find ways to make your taxable revenue smaller while still delivering value to your owners—stock buyback schemes, for instance; sheltering revenue in offshore accounts; shifting revenue to untaxable forms; buying things of value and holding on to them to boost the stock price; etc. In short, you do things that only make business sense because they reduce your tax burden, things that otherwise do not make sense, do not grow the company, do not benefit your customers or owners or employees. Cut tax rates (not taxes—taxes only go down if the companies pay less; the rates, as seen above, do not determine that) and companies will report more income. Not necessarily because they made more, but because they can afford to report it. That will (indirectly) lead to more productive companies.

But people like Paul Krugman and the political demagogues he favors tell you you should oppose any reduction in corporate tax rates, and  because the people who will be proposing it are The Enemy. Because an explanation of why you shouldn't (like the above) has a lot of words, and a slogan that can be chanted at a rally doesn't. Because the people who will be championing the rate reduction can't explain it any better, or don't think you'll sit still to listen to that explanation. But it is absolutely the right thing to do.

*Sure you are! Or you could read the article I took the graphs from. I promise it's less snarky than my post. I mean you won't, but you could.
islander
Thalassophile
islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Scorpio
Chinese Yr: Cock


Posted: Apr 5, 2017 - 5:06pm

 BlueHeronDruid wrote:

Hiring?

Also, I should probably get around to filing that extension. Damned K-1.

 
Eventually, soon hopefully. I think Lily has dibs though. Stay tuned, I doubt she'll like the commute.
lily34
i need a bogle for my glotch.
lily34 Avatar

Location: GTFO
Gender: Female
Zodiac: Cancer
Chinese Yr: Monkey


Posted: Apr 5, 2017 - 12:58pm

 BlueHeronDruid wrote:

Hiring?

Also, I should probably get around to filing that extension. Damned K-1.

 
SOOOOO many K-1s are late this year (again). it's a big hurry up and wait.
BlueHeronDruid

BlueHeronDruid Avatar



Posted: Apr 5, 2017 - 12:54pm

 islander wrote:
 I'm not fond of what appears to be going on with our elected officials (even more so than normal), but I still have enough confidence in our overall system that I'm funding a new business.

 
Hiring?

Also, I should probably get around to filing that extension. Damned K-1.
islander
Thalassophile
islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Scorpio
Chinese Yr: Cock


Posted: Apr 5, 2017 - 10:47am

 islander wrote:
We are doing our final tune and paperwork quest. But it looks like we will owe less than $100, and be right at 20% effective rate. The good result was about 70% planning and 30% luck this year.  We're moving a lot of things around right now for this years activities, but without any good idea what's going to happen on tax policy it's a big gamble right now. Hopefully we will get some policy nailed down soon and will be able to adjust on the back end before Christmas.

 
Early estimates were close, but off. We are getting about $300 back - more than I wanted, but okay'ish' (I'd much rather be paying them back on my interest free loan). Final effective rate is 18.25% - much better than expected.

Is it a deal?  I'm not sure. I feel pretty good about the overall package of goods and services I bought from our .gov.  Korea hasn't bombed us (yet), the water is drinkable, the air is fine. I'm not fond of what appears to be going on with our elected officials (even more so than normal), but I still have enough confidence in our overall system that I'm funding a new business.  7/10, C+, would buy again, but hope they don't put Kevin Costner in the sequel. 

Still waiting to see what happens with tax policy (and health care, and Korea...).  Still eating healthy and working out for the long haul.
Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 67, 68, 69  Next