(08-30-2015 04:56 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 04:44 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 04:41 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 02:22 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Flat tax. No deductions of any sort especially PAC money.

Trump says he is against it. Of course he could change his mind at the drop of a hat if it gets him applause.

Flat tax is regressive in nature. A consumption tax specifically HR25.. is not. The more you make...the more you spend...the more you pay. Pretty simple.

Don't think he supports that one either, but who knows?

He is against the Flat tax because he said it is regressive. I guess his "team" is not up to date on this proposal?

It depends on how much you make, where you work, and how you go about your business. The U.S. can have ridiculously high taxes based on your combo of those factors.

(08-30-2015 04:48 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 04:37 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 10:43 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Last time I checked, we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

Deductions and exclusions drop the real corporate tax rate to a level below most other industrialized nations.

That's false.

Quote:The most recent estimate comes from the World Bank and International Finance Commission, which put the United States’ effective rate for 2014 at 27.9 percent. That’s second-highest behind New Zealand among OECD countries and 15th-highest among the 189 countries measured.
In 2011, the Tax Foundation published a survey of 13 prior estimates of the United States’ effective tax rate from 2005 to 2011. All 13 studies pegged the U.S.’s rate as above average, but none had the U.S. rate first overall.
Another 2011 study by the Congressional Research Service put the U.S. effective rate at 27.1 percent, slightly lower than the OECD average of 27.7 percent.

That hardly qualifies as

Quote: most other industrialized nations

Link

When people, generally from the left, trot out the rhetoric about "deductions and exclusions drop the real corporate tax rate to a level below most other industrialized nations," I see that as an admission that they don't know what they're talking about.

First, as you note and support quite adequately, no, that's not correct on the corporate side. We do have far more deductions and exclusions on the individual side that any other country, as far as I know. But not so much on the corporate side. In fact, a number of other countries have things like faster depreciation that give corporations more tax breaks than we do. Another thing to consider is that the timing of studies is critical here. During roughly the decade 1995-2005, foreign corporate tax rates took a major nose dive, while ours stayed at or near the top. You can see this very easily in the corporate tax rate tables at the OECD Tax Database (I'm on an iPad and it's difficult to post the link, but Google those words and it will take you straight there). A study with the time frame 2005-2011 should be reasonably representative of the situation today, but anything earlier than 2005 is pretty much apples to oranges.

Second, I always want to ask, " What exclusions and deductions?" I haven't found anyone who posted the rhetoric actually knew what the "exclusions and deductions" actually are. So I will tell you. The vast majority of the difference between the statutory rate and the effective rate for US multinationals comes from moving operations offshore to Be taxed at lower tax rates overseas. I have not seen a peer-reviewed study on this, so I can't link to one, but you can see quite easily for yourself by going to the SEC EDGAR database, picking whatever company you want, downloading their latest 10-K, and finding the data in the tax footnote (required) to their financial statements. Hmm, guess what I just figured out, there is going to be a peer-reviewed article on this subject soon, and I'm going to write it. Here's what happens, I'm looking at a new plant, I can build it here and pay 39% tax on the profits, or build it in, say, Sweden, and pay 22% tax on the profits. Care to guess where that plant, and the jobs that go with it, will be headed? And that brings us to the second group of exclusions and deductions. Someone with access to his/her senator/congressman (purchased at a reasonable price, I'm sure) says, look, I'm going to have to move operations overseas to compete, and that's going to cost jobs in your district, but you can make me whole staying here, if you can push this tax exemption or deduction through. It keeps the election kitty full for the congress critter, so it happens. This is a very focused deduction generally, although a few like the research and development credit (talk to faculty members about what would happen to research bucks if that went away) are more widespread. Because of the narrow focus, these typically don't amount to as many bucks as the savings from lower tax rates overseas.

Obviously, if our statutory corporate rates were competitive with the rest of the world, these things would not happen. But our rates aren't, so this is how American companies remain competitive.

(08-30-2015 05:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 04:48 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 04:37 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 10:43 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Last time I checked, we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

Deductions and exclusions drop the real corporate tax rate to a level below most other industrialized nations.

That's false.

Quote:The most recent estimate comes from the World Bank and International Finance Commission, which put the United States’ effective rate for 2014 at 27.9 percent. That’s second-highest behind New Zealand among OECD countries and 15th-highest among the 189 countries measured.
In 2011, the Tax Foundation published a survey of 13 prior estimates of the United States’ effective tax rate from 2005 to 2011. All 13 studies pegged the U.S.’s rate as above average, but none had the U.S. rate first overall.
Another 2011 study by the Congressional Research Service put the U.S. effective rate at 27.1 percent, slightly lower than the OECD average of 27.7 percent.

That hardly qualifies as

Quote: most other industrialized nations

Link

When people, generally from the left, trot out the rhetoric about "deductions and exclusions drop the real corporate tax rate to a level below most other industrialized nations," I have a couple of counter arguments.

First, as you note and support quite adequately, no, that's not correct on the corporate side. We do have far more deductions and exclusions on the individual side that any other country, as far as I know. But not so much on the corporate side. In fact, a number of other countries have things like faster depreciation that give corporations more tax breaks than we do. Another thing to consider is that the timing of studies is critical here. During roughly the decade 1995-2005, foreign corporate tax rates took a major nose dive, while ours stayed at or near the top. You can see this very easily in the corporate tax rate tables at the OECD Tax Database (I'm on an iPad and it's difficult to post the link, but Google those words and it will take you straight there). A study with the time frame 2005-2011 should be reasonably representative of the situation today, but anything earlier than 2005 is pretty much apples to oranges.

Second, I always want to ask, " What exclusions and deductions?" I haven't found anyone who posted the rhetoric actually knew what the "exclusions and deductions" actually are. So I will tell you. The vast majority of the difference between the statutory rate and the effective rate for US multinationals comes from moving operations offshore to Be taxed at lower tax rates overseas. I have not seen a peer-reviewed study on this, so I can't link to one, but you can see quite easily for yourself by going to the SEC EDGAR database, picking whatever company you want, downloading their latest 10-K, and finding the data in the tax footnote (required) to their financial statements. Hmm, guess what I just figured out, there is going to be a peer-reviewed article on this subject soon, and I'm going to write it. Here's what happens, I'm looking at a new plant, I can build it here and pay 39% tax on the profits, or build it in, say, Sweden, and pay 22% tax on the profits. Care to guess where that plant, and the jobs that go with it, will be headed? And that brings us to the second group of exclusions and deductions. Someone with access to his/her senator/congressman (purchased at a reasonable price, I'm sure) says, look, I'm going to have to move operations overseas to compete, and that's going to cost jobs in your district, but you can make me whole staying here, if you can push this tax exemption or deduction through. It keeps the election kitty full for the congress critter, so it happens. This is a very focused deduction generally, although a few like the research and development credit (talk to faculty members about what would happen to research bucks if that went away) are more widespread. Because of the narrow focus, these typically don't amount to as many bucks as the savings from lower tax rates overseas.

Obviously, if our statutory corporate rates were competitive with the rest of the world, these things would not happen. But our rates aren't, so this is how American companies remain competitive.

Are you capable of writing in phrases or highlighted points?

Reading's hard.

(08-30-2015 06:34 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 05:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 04:48 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 04:37 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 10:43 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Last time I checked, we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

Deductions and exclusions drop the real corporate tax rate to a level below most other industrialized nations.

That's false.

Quote:The most recent estimate comes from the World Bank and International Finance Commission, which put the United States’ effective rate for 2014 at 27.9 percent. That’s second-highest behind New Zealand among OECD countries and 15th-highest among the 189 countries measured.
In 2011, the Tax Foundation published a survey of 13 prior estimates of the United States’ effective tax rate from 2005 to 2011. All 13 studies pegged the U.S.’s rate as above average, but none had the U.S. rate first overall.
Another 2011 study by the Congressional Research Service put the U.S. effective rate at 27.1 percent, slightly lower than the OECD average of 27.7 percent.

That hardly qualifies as

Quote: most other industrialized nations

Link

When people, generally from the left, trot out the rhetoric about "deductions and exclusions drop the real corporate tax rate to a level below most other industrialized nations," I have a couple of counter arguments.
First, as you note and support quite adequately, no, that's not correct on the corporate side. We do have far more deductions and exclusions on the individual side that any other country, as far as I know. But not so much on the corporate side. In fact, a number of other countries have things like faster depreciation that give corporations more tax breaks than we do. Another thing to consider is that the timing of studies is critical here. During roughly the decade 1995-2005, foreign corporate tax rates took a major nose dive, while ours stayed at or near the top. You can see this very easily in the corporate tax rate tables at the OECD Tax Database (I'm on an iPad and it's difficult to post the link, but Google those words and it will take you straight there). A study with the time frame 2005-2011 should be reasonably representative of the situation today, but anything earlier than 2005 is pretty much apples to oranges.
Second, I always want to ask, " What exclusions and deductions?" I haven't found anyone who posted the rhetoric actually knew what the "exclusions and deductions" actually are. So I will tell you. The vast majority of the difference between the statutory rate and the effective rate for US multinationals comes from moving operations offshore to Be taxed at lower tax rates overseas. I have not seen a peer-reviewed study on this, so I can't link to one, but you can see quite easily for yourself by going to the SEC EDGAR database, picking whatever company you want, downloading their latest 10-K, and finding the data in the tax footnote (required) to their financial statements. Hmm, guess what I just figured out, there is going to be a peer-reviewed article on this subject soon, and I'm going to write it. Here's what happens, I'm looking at a new plant, I can build it here and pay 39% tax on the profits, or build it in, say, Sweden, and pay 22% tax on the profits. Care to guess where that plant, and the jobs that go with it, will be headed? And that brings us to the second group of exclusions and deductions. Someone with access to his/her senator/congressman (purchased at a reasonable price, I'm sure) says, look, I'm going to have to move operations overseas to compete, and that's going to cost jobs in your district, but you can make me whole staying here, if you can push this tax exemption or deduction through. It keeps the election kitty full for the congress critter, so it happens. This is a very focused deduction generally, although a few like the research and development credit (talk to faculty members about what would happen to research bucks if that went away) are more widespread. Because of the narrow focus, these typically don't amount to as many bucks as the savings from lower tax rates overseas.
Obviously, if our statutory corporate rates were competitive with the rest of the world, these things would not happen. But our rates aren't, so this is how American companies remain competitive.

Are you capable of writing in phrases or highlighted points?

Yes, when appropriate.

I take your response to mean that you don't want to admit that I'm right, but you can't offer any substantive opposition.

I do that and have my critics too.

I'm curious if Trump has released any of his tax statements recently. I'd like to see how much tax he paid on his income. It seems like he's been pretty demanding of Obama and other high profile people to be forthcoming with information, so I think his tax statements are fair game. I'd be surprised if he's paying what he's supposed to be paying.

(08-30-2015 07:28 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I'm curious if Trump has released any of his tax statements recently. I'd like to see how much tax he paid on his income. It seems like he's been pretty demanding of Obama and other high profile people to be forthcoming with information, so I think his tax statements are fair game. I'd be surprised if he's paying what he's supposed to be paying.

I'd be astonished if he's paying anything other than what he's supposed to be paying. People with that high visibility can't afford to take stupid chances.

I'm sure he is taking advantage of a number of perfectly legal tax reduction strategies. Real estate is probably full of more ways to reduce taxes than almost any other endeavour, with the possible exception of research and development.

He may not be paying as much as you think he should be paying, but I'm fairly certain he's paying every cent that the law says he is supposed to pay--and not one cent more.

(08-30-2015 07:28 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I'm curious if Trump has released any of his tax statements recently. I'd like to see how much tax he paid on his income. It seems like he's been pretty demanding of Obama and other high profile people to be forthcoming with information, so I think his tax statements are fair game. I'd be surprised if he's paying what he's supposed to be paying.

And this assumption is based on what, exactly?

(08-30-2015 09:14 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...tion-worl/
By different metrics we are either mid pack or low on the scale.

There are a number of different perspectives from which to address this issue.

First, in terms of total overall tax bite out of the economy, the USA ranks pretty far down the list. Let’s go to my favorite source, the OECD tax database (http://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/tax-database.htm). You actually have to follow the link to their published report, Revenue Statistics 2014, to see that the USA total tax bite was 24.4% of GDP, compared to 33.7% for the average of 34 OECD countries. The USA was lower than all but two OECD countries, Chile and Mexico. So from that perspective, the USA is a low tax country.

But that’s not the only way to look at it. What Trump is referring to is the marginal tax rate that investors look at when deciding where to put their money. From that standpoint, we have the highest corporate tax rate (Table II.1) in the developed world and the 16th highest individual tax rate (Table I.7). Additionally, because we double tax corporate profits distributed as income, we have the 3rd highest overall rate on dividends paid to investors (Table II.4), 52.2% versus the OECD average of 41.1%. OECD individual tax rate structures are substantially less “progressive” than the USA tax structure; the top individual rate in the USA is 4.1 times the lowest rate, whereas for OECD as a whole the average is 3.0 times (these include average state taxes).

What this says is that the USA attempts to obtain substantially more of its tax revenues from corporations and the “rich” than do other developed countries. We can move beyond the statutory rate structure to look at what is actually paid by the “rich” in the USA, based on the OECD Revenue Statistics. Looking at it from a Gini standpoint the USA has a concentration ratio of taxes among the “rich” of 1.28, compared to 0.96 for the OECD average, and the USA rate is higher than any other OECD country. Looking alternatively at the highest income decile, in the USA they pay 45.1% of taxes and have 33.5% of income, a ratio of 1.35, which again is higher than the OECD average of 1.11 and is individually higher than any other OECD country. Either way, one would conclude that the share being paid by the “rich” is substantially higher in the USA than in OECD as a whole; one could reasonably conclude that the “fair share” that the “rich” should pay is less, not more, than they are currently paying in the USA.

On the corporate side most, if not all, USA corporations pay an effective tax rate that is substantially lower than the statutory rate. Their audited financial statements are required to include a reconciliation from the statutory rate to their effective rate. You can see these for any publicly-traded company by going to the SEC EDGAR database, picking whatever corporation you want to look at, opening their latest 10-K, and going to the tax footnote in their financial statements. You will find that for the vast majority of USA companies, the biggest single reduction comes from the savings realized by having activity taxed overseas rather than in the USA. The second biggest reduction is probably the research and development credit. To make a long story short, they are moving jobs overseas to save on taxes.

So we have these other developed countries that take a larger total tax bite out of the economy than the USA does, but they manage to do it in a way that is more friendly to investment and job creation. How do they do that? Simple, consumption taxes. The OECD average is somewhere over 20% of total revenues from consumption taxes. In some countries it is 40%. Of course, consumption taxes are regressive, but we have already seen that those countries have more regressive tax systems than we do.

So here’s a question. Why is it that the country with the most “progressive” tax structure has the most unequal dispersion of income and wealth? Could it be that “progressive” taxes are a bad way to achieve a more equal dispersion of income and wealth?

(08-30-2015 07:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 06:34 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 05:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 04:48 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 04:37 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Deductions and exclusions drop the real corporate tax rate to a level below most other industrialized nations.

That's false.

Quote:The most recent estimate comes from the World Bank and International Finance Commission, which put the United States’ effective rate for 2014 at 27.9 percent. That’s second-highest behind New Zealand among OECD countries and 15th-highest among the 189 countries measured.
In 2011, the Tax Foundation published a survey of 13 prior estimates of the United States’ effective tax rate from 2005 to 2011. All 13 studies pegged the U.S.’s rate as above average, but none had the U.S. rate first overall.
Another 2011 study by the Congressional Research Service put the U.S. effective rate at 27.1 percent, slightly lower than the OECD average of 27.7 percent.

That hardly qualifies as

Quote: most other industrialized nations

Link

When people, generally from the left, trot out the rhetoric about "deductions and exclusions drop the real corporate tax rate to a level below most other industrialized nations," I have a couple of counter arguments.
First, as you note and support quite adequately, no, that's not correct on the corporate side. We do have far more deductions and exclusions on the individual side that any other country, as far as I know. But not so much on the corporate side. In fact, a number of other countries have things like faster depreciation that give corporations more tax breaks than we do. Another thing to consider is that the timing of studies is critical here. During roughly the decade 1995-2005, foreign corporate tax rates took a major nose dive, while ours stayed at or near the top. You can see this very easily in the corporate tax rate tables at the OECD Tax Database (I'm on an iPad and it's difficult to post the link, but Google those words and it will take you straight there). A study with the time frame 2005-2011 should be reasonably representative of the situation today, but anything earlier than 2005 is pretty much apples to oranges.
Second, I always want to ask, " What exclusions and deductions?" I haven't found anyone who posted the rhetoric actually knew what the "exclusions and deductions" actually are. So I will tell you. The vast majority of the difference between the statutory rate and the effective rate for US multinationals comes from moving operations offshore to Be taxed at lower tax rates overseas. I have not seen a peer-reviewed study on this, so I can't link to one, but you can see quite easily for yourself by going to the SEC EDGAR database, picking whatever company you want, downloading their latest 10-K, and finding the data in the tax footnote (required) to their financial statements. Hmm, guess what I just figured out, there is going to be a peer-reviewed article on this subject soon, and I'm going to write it. Here's what happens, I'm looking at a new plant, I can build it here and pay 39% tax on the profits, or build it in, say, Sweden, and pay 22% tax on the profits. Care to guess where that plant, and the jobs that go with it, will be headed? And that brings us to the second group of exclusions and deductions. Someone with access to his/her senator/congressman (purchased at a reasonable price, I'm sure) says, look, I'm going to have to move operations overseas to compete, and that's going to cost jobs in your district, but you can make me whole staying here, if you can push this tax exemption or deduction through. It keeps the election kitty full for the congress critter, so it happens. This is a very focused deduction generally, although a few like the research and development credit (talk to faculty members about what would happen to research bucks if that went away) are more widespread. Because of the narrow focus, these typically don't amount to as many bucks as the savings from lower tax rates overseas.
Obviously, if our statutory corporate rates were competitive with the rest of the world, these things would not happen. But our rates aren't, so this is how American companies remain competitive.

Are you capable of writing in phrases or highlighted points?

Yes, when appropriate.

I take your response to mean that you don't want to admit that I'm right, but you can't offer any substantive opposition.

I'm reading this thread on my phone. Ain't nobody got time for dat!

(08-30-2015 08:31 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  I'm reading this thread on my phone. Ain't nobody got time for dat!

Go to twitter then.

Any MOFO that thinks we don't pay enough taxes should on their volition write a check to the US Treasury for the part the feel they the government is not getting from them. Stay the fck out of my pocket.

(08-30-2015 08:31 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  I'm reading this thread on my phone. Ain't nobody got time for dat!

Unfortunately, some issues are complex enough to require explanation instead of sound bytes. You probably didn't like my other long response either.

(08-30-2015 09:14 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...tion-worl/
By different metrics we are either mid pack or low on the scale.

Or at or near the top of the scale, depending on the metric.

(08-30-2015 04:37 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 10:43 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Last time I checked, we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

Deductions and exclusions drop the real corporate tax rate to a level below most other industrialized nations.

This is evidently a debatable issue. HR25 would end this debate. After all....only individuals actually pay the taxes anyway.

(08-30-2015 04:37 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 10:43 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Last time I checked, we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

Deductions and exclusions drop the real corporate tax rate to a level below most other industrialized nations.

Then why play that game and just lower the rate in the first place?

Nothing has been said about state taxes. (If it has and I missed it, my apologies.) Or all of the various mandatory fees (which are just taxes in other clothes). These include: franchise, property and unemployment and disability insurance fees, and sales taxes on business equipment. Some of these may be used as deductions and credits to federal taxes (the loopholes) but at the end of the day, they add to the real taxes paid. I'm not a tax accountant, but when you add all of these in, corporations in the US may very well be the highest taxed on any metric.

(08-31-2015 07:55 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Nothing has been said about state taxes. (If it has and I missed it, my apologies.) Or all of the various mandatory fees (which are just taxes in other clothes). These include: franchise, property and unemployment and disability insurance fees, and sales taxes on business equipment. Some of these may be used as deductions and credits to federal taxes (the loopholes) but at the end of the day, they add to the real taxes paid. I'm not a tax accountant, but when you add all of these in, corporations in the US may very well be the highest taxed on any metric.

Those taxes exist elsewhere and would be included in any comprehensive comparison between nations.