Quote:I'm at work, so I can't get into this right now as much as I'd like... but have you done any research on what the effective tax rate is for some of these large multi nationals?
The average tax rate in the United States from 2006-2014 is 40% (factoring in the Corporate tax at the Federal and State Level as an average)
In Canada it was 36% in 2006 today it's down to 26%
Australia has remained flat at 30%
Denmark in 2006 was at 28% today their at 24.5%
France with a nearly completely socialized system (heavy tax burdens) are only at 33.33% hasn't changed since 2006
Germany was at 38% in 2006 they've dropped it down to 29.58%
India has fluctuated between 33-36% their currently back down to 33%
Italy was at 37.25% in 2006 down to 31.4% today
Japan had a higher rate than the US in 2006 at 40.69% they've come down to 35%
Mexico to the south of us is at 30%
Netherlands where at 29% in 2006 they're down to 25%
United Kingdom in 2006 30% today they're down to 21% (Gosh if only they had roads and police!)
China in 2006 33% today 25%
Russia 24% in 2006 down today to 20%
Like I said we're almost double many nations...........but nope tax more, impose tariffs that's the solution........
edit:
http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/services/t...table.aspx
Effective tax rate is what a corporation pays after they utilize all deductions, credits, and other loopholes within the tax code. For instance, Burger King who just made news this week was paying an effective tax rate of 26%. So let's not freak out that corporations are over-burdened with CIT. Most of the large ones simply are not.
In other words, the tax rate may be 35%, but the corporation is actually paying much less off their profits based on the code allowing for credits to these larger corporations.
But as you mentioned in another post, it's a corporation's driving factor to make as much for shareholders as possible. The system has been created to benefit them because they in effect have bought the politicians that make the tax code. It's a messed up system.
Quote: It's not about the poor little corporations needing a break, it's about the reality that if I own a widget company and I can pay less taxes and make the product cheaper over sea's I'd be a fool to not do it. Telling me I'll have to pay tariffs on top of higher taxes and pay higher wages isn't going to convince the widget company to keep their jobs state side.
You think companies stay in America for our roads, infrastructure and private property protection? The rest of the world has that as well, we're not in competition with Zimbabwe, America is competing with Europe, and a developed Asia (with just as much if not more consumerism to sell to).
If consumers create the wealth where do you think consumers get the wealth to drive the economy? I'm all for small business but the reality is we have to keep large employers state side or you'll have a high non-participation work force continuously. With the level of welfare we plan on dishing out over the next few decades you're going to need a higher work force participation rate or the money just isn't there.
I know it's quick and easy to lynch the evil corporations, I hate Wal-Mart as much as the next guy, but in the system that we've created they're necessary. And the notion they won't leave for lower tax responsibilities and lower production cost because we have paved roads and police is ridiculous.
I absolutely believe that American corporations and other multinations set up sites in the USA because of our infrastructure. I think it would be disingenious not to. What's more, all these benefits are paid for by the citizens. The multinationals are trying to reap the rewards while not paying, or at least trying to pay as little as possible, into the country via taxes.
Nobody is begrudging a corporation for following it's intrinsic, natural, and rational actions. A corporation is built to maximize share-holder wealth. It's the first thing you learn in any accounting program you take. Increase assets, decrease liabilities, increase sharholder wealth. It's within the basic accounting principle all accountants use.
But with that said, we live in the United States of America. And this country was created by, for, and with the direction of the people. And no matter what some polticians and the Supreme Court may think, Corporations are not people--they are business entities created to make wealth and decrease personal liability.
If we had actual middle class and working class politicians in government that focused on what was best in the long term for actual Americans and not business interests, things would be different. It's really up to the politicians to safeguard against corporations from becoming Monopolistic or even Oligopolistic in order to protect the entire society. As of now, it's not happening.
I don't hate corporations, but I do not side with them either. I side with the class I am in. I'm a middle class citizen that works hard and pays my taxes. I strongly believe and evidence is out to support my belief that the interests of my class is not being served.
Now if I was a wealthy son of a corporate CEO, I might side with them... But I'm not.
So you prescribe to class warfare that's great!
What about the little guy, you know those middle class business owners you say your supporting? You think a corporate income tax of 40% isn't hurting them?
Quote:So you prescribe to class warfare that's great!
What about the little guy, you know those middle class business owners you say your supporting? You think a corporate income tax of 40% isn't hurting them?
What's actually hurting them is the same thing that hurts normal everyday working people. The ability of international level corporations to shirk their national duty.
You fix the problem by plugging the holes and making everyone swim in the same pool, not by drilling more holes in the pool and berating everyone that can't find anywhere to swim.
Quote:What's actually hurting them is the same thing that hurts normal everyday working people. The ability of international level corporations to shirk their national duty.
You fix the problem by plugging the holes and making everyone swim in the same pool, not by drilling more holes in the pool and berating everyone that can't find anywhere to swim.
I'm fine with "plugging the holes" but what this article is referencing is shifting the tax burden off of corporations (because even the very liberal New York Times media recognizes our tax rate is chasing away business) to the consumer with additional taxes.
Quote:I'm fine with "plugging the holes" but what this article is referencing is shifting the tax burden off of corporations (because even the very liberal New York Times media recognizes our tax rate is chasing away business) to the consumer with additional taxes.
Which is the wrong approach.
Quote:I'm fine with "plugging the holes" but what this article is referencing is shifting the tax burden off of corporations (because even the very liberal New York Times media recognizes our tax rate is chasing away business) to the consumer with additional taxes.
That wasn't a New York Times editorial, it was from a contributor. The New York Times, like the Washington Post, has contributing writers from many different political persuasions.
Quote:That wasn't a New York Times editorial, it was from a contributor. The New York Times, like the Washington Post, has contributing writers from many different political persuasions.
Well than I stand corrected, I'm just pointing out the article addresses a problem, I just disagree with where they'd shift the burden. We have a real problem with the Corporate Income Tax being almost double other developed nations, but shifting the burden to the consumer directly isn't a solution I'd endorse.
Quote:Well than I stand corrected, I'm just pointing out the article addresses a problem, I just disagree with where they'd shift the burden. We have a real problem with the Corporate Income Tax being almost double other developed nations, but shifting the burden to the consumer directly isn't a solution I'd endorse.
The tax rate isn't the problem. The nation's trade policy is the problem. Get rid of free trade, raise import tariffs to make it more expensive to produce abroad and you'll see a job boom in the US the like of which hasn't been seen since the middle of last century.
Quote:The tax rate isn't the problem. The nation's trade policy is the problem. Get rid of free trade, raise import tariffs to make it more expensive to produce abroad and you'll see a job boom in the US the like of which hasn't been seen since the middle of last century.
.gif "Laughing")
You're nuts man, you can't have the 2nd highest tax rate in the WORLD, git rid of free trade and raise import tarriffs and really thing business is going to stay state side. This isn't the middle of the century, there's just as much capital for companies to chase in Europe and Asia as there is in America. We're not the only dog and pony show in town anymore. Companies that did stay here would reduce labor as much as possible to cover the new cost, you'd have a massive wave of automated workers ( self check out lanes, drone delivery's, robot manufacturing) but the last thing a company is going to do is take on new payroll when their taxes and tarriffs go up.
Quote: You're nuts man, you can't have the 2nd highest tax rate in the WORLD, git rid of free trade and raise import tarriffs and really thing business is going to stay state side. This isn't the middle of the century, there's just as much capital for companies to chase in Europe and Asia as there is in America. We're not the only dog and pony show in town anymore. Companies that did stay here would reduce labor as much as possible to cover the new cost, you'd have a massive wave of automated workers ( self check out lanes, drone delivery's, robot manufacturing) but the last thing a company is going to do is take on new payroll when their taxes and tarriffs go up.
What you're basically saying is you think that if the profit isn't high enough here then the corporations will just leave and allow someone else to have the profits, which is absurd.
You're living in a land of make-believe. Corporations chase every last dollar.
Even China is fine by them, tons of companies are trying to somehow get into China's economy even though profit there is almost impossible thanks to the fact that their government basically runs all of their industry too.
You can choose to believe that what I'm saying is wrong, but it's simply not. There's plenty of production capacity in the US, the problem is the government allowed for all of it to be undercut by cheap labor in Mexico and China. Get rid of that and industry won't say
"well I'd rather not make the billions of dollars I could make in America because I'd have to pay higher taxes than I ideologically believe I should have to pay"
they'll take the money and the marketshare and complain about it after the fact.
Quote:What you're basically saying is you think that if the profit isn't high enough here then the corporations will just leave and allow someone else to have the profits, which is absurd.
You're living in a land of make-believe. Corporations chase every last dollar.
Even China is fine by them, tons of companies are trying to somehow get into China's economy even though profit there is almost impossible thanks to the fact that their government basically runs all of their industry too.
You can choose to believe that what I'm saying is wrong, but it's simply not. There's plenty of production capacity in the US, the problem is the government allowed for all of it to be undercut by cheap labor in Mexico and China. Get rid of that and industry won't say "well I'd rather not make the billions of dollars I could make in America because I'd have to pay higher taxes than I ideologically believe I should have to pay"
they'll take the money and the marketshare and complain about it after the fact.
no what I'm telling you is if a company is forced to pay the 2nd highest tax rate in the WORLD, combined with higher wages and higher import tariffs all things your advocating they'll say there's other markets to do business.
The ones that do stay here (Retail, Automakers, Restaurants, Manufacturing) they'll look to REDUCE payroll liabilities it would have the opposite outcome you're suggesting.
Explain to me how ending free trade, raising import tariffs and leaving the corporate tax rate the 2nd highest in the world would encourage companies to stay in the United States and then ADD jobs to the market!?
Quote:no what I'm telling you is if a company is forced to pay the 2nd highest tax rate in the WORLD, combined with higher wages and higher import tariffs all things your advocating they'll say there's other markets to do business.
The ones that do stay here (Retail, Automakers, Restaurants, Manufacturing) they'll look to REDUCE payroll liabilities it would have the opposite outcome you're suggesting.
Explain to me how ending free trade, raising import tariffs and leaving the corporate tax rate the 2nd highest in the world would encourage companies to stay in the United States and then ADD jobs to the market!?
Because those corporations need to do their production in the USA. They'll have to hire people to work in production facilities and that in turn will bring back the lifeblood to areas of the nation where it's been drained. Support industries can spring back up around the jobs created by those production facilities, and the marginal propensity to consume will increase as the distribution of income becomes more evened out through society resulting in a virtuous cycle of spending and production as wages are spent on product that is produced in the USA and the economic multiplier effect contributes to that, as each dollar spent in domestic production has a much larger national economic impact than money spent on imported goods.
I don't expect you to understand all of this as it's clear from the past that your understanding of economics is limited, but you can take my word for it, you want jobs, you want national security? You simply structure trade law such that corporate interests are aligned with national interests.
Quote:Because those corporations need to do their production in the USA. They'll have to hire people to work in production facilities and that in turn will bring back the lifeblood to areas of the nation where it's been drained. Support industries can spring back up around the jobs created by those production facilities, and the marginal propensity to consume will increase as the distribution of income becomes more evened out through society resulting in a virtuous cycle of spending and production as wages are spent on product that is produced in the USA and the economic multiplier effect contributes to that, as each dollar spent in domestic production has a much larger national economic impact than money spent on imported goods.
I don't expect you to understand all of this as it's clear from the past that your understanding of economics is limited, but you can take my word for it, you want jobs, you want national security? You simply structure trade law such that corporate interests are aligned with national interests.
I'll ignore the little sly remark and continue the conversation.
you assume with higher operating cost companies would be forced to hire more employee's thus prime the economy. That's an outdated concept, with the technological advances higher operating cost are offset with lower labor cost. You don't need physical labor to work the manufacturing plants anymore, it's being done by robots. You don't need physical labor to manage the support store fronts it'll be done by the self check out lanes.
you've displayed the inability to accept the concept companies only exist for profit, they won't simply take less profit because you've decided it's enough for them. They will continue to offset their liabilities the easiest way possible, reduce labor.
Quote:I'll ignore the little sly remark and continue the conversation.
you assume with higher operating cost companies would be forced to hire more employee's thus prime the economy. That's an outdated concept, with the technological advances higher operating cost are offset with lower labor cost. You don't need physical labor to work the manufacturing plants anymore, it's being done by robots. You don't need physical labor to manage the support store fronts it'll be done by the self check out lanes.
you've displayed the inability to accept the concept companies only exist for profit, they won't simply take less profit because you've decided it's enough for them. They will continue to offset their liabilities the easiest way possible, reduce labor.
Who do you think builds the robots? Services them?
Besides, if robots are doing all of the work the production facilities would already be in the USA so that shipping costs and market lead times could be minimized.
I know manufacturing doesn't require the level of staffing it once did, but that doesn't actually change anything. You're arguing ideology in response to economics.
You want the USA to be successful? Forget everything you think you know and accept that it requires the nation to act in the interests of the lower and middle classes rather than worrying about the interests of businesses. Businesses will find their way into the market no matter how onerous you might think the conditions on their existence are.
Quote:The tax rate isn't the problem. The nation's trade policy is the problem. Get rid of free trade, raise import tariffs to make it more expensive to produce abroad and you'll see a job boom in the US the like of which hasn't been seen since the middle of last century.
I'd like to have lower corporate taxes but I'd by far 1000000x like this more.
Quote:Who do you think builds the robots? Services them?
Besides, if robots are doing all of the work the production facilities would already be in the USA so that shipping costs and market lead times could be minimized.
I know manufacturing doesn't require the level of staffing it once did, but that doesn't actually change anything. You're arguing ideology in response to economics.
You want the USA to be successful? Forget everything you think you know and accept that it requires the nation to act in the interests of the lower and middle classes rather than worrying about the interests of businesses. Businesses will find their way into the market no matter how onerous you might think the conditions on their existence are.
I'm not advocating acting in the interest of business, I'm pointing out the flaws in the logic that you can have the 2nd highest tax rates in the world, combined with the highest labor cost, end free trade and impose higher tariffs without losing production. It's a fantasy you talk about wanting success that's a recipe to make the United States irrelevant on the global market within a generation. What business is left you'd see a contraction in employment, they'd higher less people to do more work.
Homie, you're on the verge of advocating nationalizing the private sector. No.
Quote:I'm not advocating acting in the interest of business, I'm pointing out the flaws in the logic that you can have the 2nd highest tax rates in the world, combined with the highest labor cost, end free trade and impose higher tariffs without losing production. It's a fantasy you talk about wanting success that's a recipe to make the United States irrelevant on the global market within a generation. What business is left you'd see a contraction in employment, they'd higher less people to do more work.
You're not pointing out flaws, you're pointing out beliefs. I already explained the economics of it, if you're going to reply to that with "it's all robots" then I already pointed out the flaw in that consideration. I already explained that the tax rate doesn't matter and neither does the labor cost, every business in the US would have to deal with the same conditions, so it would be a fair market and it would be more beneficial to the poor and middle class of the USA instead of sending all of our money to communist party officials in China.