(12-28-2017 06:10 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-28-2017 04:40 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  It’s not hostile. Warren Buffett mentioned the other night that the US corporate tax code didn’t render his companies internationally uncompetitive... but we’ll see how this experiment plays out.

You do realize that Buffett is not the be all end all of corporate business right? I mean the guy is basically an investor, not a producer.

Why did, for example, Burger King do an inversion to get out of the US and into Canada?

(12-28-2017 05:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-28-2017 04:40 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-28-2017 12:18 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-28-2017 11:03 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Not cherry picking data points at all. The CBO data report goes back 50 years...hence 1967.
The point being... corporate income taxes are a smaller piece of the pie than they once were and payroll taxes are a larger slice... and that divide is about to get even larger.
There are reasons middle class earners are losing.

If the middle class tax rate now is the same as it was 50 years ago... What does the tax rate have to do with the middle class losing? and how does the middle class benefit from a tax policy hostile to corporations (their employers) in a world where corporations and up and move to a different country.

It’s not hostile. Warren Buffett mentioned the other night that the US corporate tax code didn’t render his companies internationally uncompetitive... but we’ll see how this experiment plays out.

Was
Two things.

One, the reason US companies can be competitive in the global market is moving profits overseas to lower tax jurisdictions, and not repatriating the profits. Wouldn’t we rather they not have to do that? Wouldn’t it be better if they could keep profits at home—and with them investment and jobs?

Two, reference your point earlier that corporate taxes have come down as a percent of GDP, and payroll taxes are up. Note that corporate taxes are lower, and payroll taxes are higher, in other developed countries with which we are competing for investment and economic activity. And notice further that those other countries have more equal dispersions of income and wealth than we do. How do you account for that?

And a little lagniappe. Buffett prefers high corporate taxes, and particularly high estate taxes, because they make his base businesses more profitable. If Buffett says something is good for America, he means it is good for Warren Buffett.

(12-28-2017 12:09 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-28-2017 11:42 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-28-2017 10:56 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-28-2017 10:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-27-2017 01:32 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  What percent of GDP were corporate income tax revenues in 1967?
What percent of GDP were corporate income tax revenues in 2016?
What percent of GDP were payroll tax revenues in 1967?
What percent of GDP were payroll tax revenues in 2016?

Let's see, rounding to nearest tenth of a percent, I calculate you answers to be, respectively:
4.2%
1.7%
4.0%
6.2%

Looks like a trend. But you are cherry-picking to omit misleadingly some significant dat points. For example, for 1977, the numbers are corporate 2.6% and payroll 5.1%. So the bulk of the trend occurred in the first decade of the 40-year period you cited, all before Reagan, for example.

Also, you need to compare not just years, but also other countries. How did our numbers compare to those for, say, other OECD members (developed countries) during those years? After all, I can move my factory from Pittsburgh to Poland, but I can't move it from Pittsburgh to 1967. So taxes as a percent of GDP is a dependent variable, including tax rates, income definition, and decisions where to locate taxable activities, among other factors. I think you will find that in most of them, income taxes are a lower percent of GDP and payroll taxes are a higher percent of GDP, than here. Those relationships clearly exist when comparing those revenues to total government revenues instead of GDP. And the point of this is how much of the decline in corporate tax revenues is attributable to companies' moving operations overseas in those 40 years?

You need to look more closely at the drivers, rather than simply cherry-0picking data points.

So, if I understand this correctly (and since Mensa refuses to answer my question):

It appears that the corporate tax as a part of the GDP is down, likely due to the fact that corporations can take the business to a different taxing jurisdiction, whereas the poor american worker can not.

This would be similar to cities that tax at high rate, and see their tax base flee for the suburbs and rural areas to avoid the steep taxes. Only this scenario for corporations occur at a global level versus a city/state level for the american worker.

Still waiting for Mensa to man up, though.

bump

I'll answer for him.....he shouldn't mind at this point....

(12-28-2017 12:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-28-2017 11:03 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Not cherry picking data points at all. The CBO data report goes back 50 years...hence 1967.
The point being... corporate income taxes are a smaller piece of the pie than they once were and payroll taxes are a larger slice... and that divide is about to get even larger.
There are reasons middle class earners are losing.

By excluding, for example, 1977, yes, you cherry picked data. Before you start blaming everything on the Reagan and subsequent tax cuts, you need to explain what happened between 1967 and 1977.

And it's no secret why this trend is happening. High US corporate tax rates are driving corporations to move profitable operations overseas. That means lower corporate tax revenues here and lower middle class wages here.

And as I noted, the trends you cite are more pronounced in Europe, where, interestingly enough, wealth and income dispersion are less unequal. How do you explain that?

(12-29-2017 01:10 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-28-2017 05:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-28-2017 04:40 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-28-2017 12:18 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(12-28-2017 11:03 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Not cherry picking data points at all. The CBO data report goes back 50 years...hence 1967.
The point being... corporate income taxes are a smaller piece of the pie than they once were and payroll taxes are a larger slice... and that divide is about to get even larger.
There are reasons middle class earners are losing.

If the middle class tax rate now is the same as it was 50 years ago... What does the tax rate have to do with the middle class losing? and how does the middle class benefit from a tax policy hostile to corporations (their employers) in a world where corporations and up and move to a different country.

It’s not hostile. Warren Buffett mentioned the other night that the US corporate tax code didn’t render his companies internationally uncompetitive... but we’ll see how this experiment plays out.

Was
Two things.

One, the reason US companies can be competitive in the global market is moving profits overseas to lower tax jurisdictions, and not repatriating the profits. Wouldn’t we rather they not have to do that? Wouldn’t it be better if they could keep profits at home—and with them investment and jobs?

Two, reference your point earlier that corporate taxes have come down as a percent of GDP, and payroll taxes are up. Note that corporate taxes are lower, and payroll taxes are higher, in other developed countries with which we are competing for investment and economic activity. And notice further that those other countries have more equal dispersions of income and wealth than we do. How do you account for that?

And a little lagniappe. Buffett prefers high corporate taxes, and particularly high estate taxes, because they make his base businesses more profitable. If Buffett says something is good for America, he means it is good for Warren Buffett.

XACLY! moving money once you have it of zero significance....you simply move it....

the residual impact of whether it creates or takes jobs away is what the fuckkkkkkk matters.....

what the fock is wrong with these dipshites......

I'm hardly the brightest bulb in the pack.......

it's amazing the dum-dum land we've developed/inherited.......

(12-29-2017 11:07 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-28-2017 12:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-28-2017 11:03 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Not cherry picking data points at all. The CBO data report goes back 50 years...hence 1967.
The point being... corporate income taxes are a smaller piece of the pie than they once were and payroll taxes are a larger slice... and that divide is about to get even larger.
There are reasons middle class earners are losing.

By excluding, for example, 1977, yes, you cherry picked data. Before you start blaming everything on the Reagan and subsequent tax cuts, you need to explain what happened between 1967 and 1977.
And it's no secret why this trend is happening. High US corporate tax rates are driving corporations to move profitable operations overseas. That means lower corporate tax revenues here and lower middle class wages here.
And as I noted, the trends you cite are more pronounced in Europe, where, interestingly enough, wealth and income dispersion are less unequal. How do you explain that?

significantly higer union membership for workers combined with significantly higher rates of taxation on both capital gains and significantly higher percentages of income taxation on lower levels of income.

(12-29-2017 10:42 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-28-2017 12:09 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-28-2017 11:42 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-28-2017 10:56 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-28-2017 10:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Let's see, rounding to nearest tenth of a percent, I calculate you answers to be, respectively:
4.2%
1.7%
4.0%
6.2%

Looks like a trend. But you are cherry-picking to omit misleadingly some significant dat points. For example, for 1977, the numbers are corporate 2.6% and payroll 5.1%. So the bulk of the trend occurred in the first decade of the 40-year period you cited, all before Reagan, for example.

Also, you need to compare not just years, but also other countries. How did our numbers compare to those for, say, other OECD members (developed countries) during those years? After all, I can move my factory from Pittsburgh to Poland, but I can't move it from Pittsburgh to 1967. So taxes as a percent of GDP is a dependent variable, including tax rates, income definition, and decisions where to locate taxable activities, among other factors. I think you will find that in most of them, income taxes are a lower percent of GDP and payroll taxes are a higher percent of GDP, than here. Those relationships clearly exist when comparing those revenues to total government revenues instead of GDP. And the point of this is how much of the decline in corporate tax revenues is attributable to companies' moving operations overseas in those 40 years?

You need to look more closely at the drivers, rather than simply cherry-0picking data points.

So, if I understand this correctly (and since Mensa refuses to answer my question):

It appears that the corporate tax as a part of the GDP is down, likely due to the fact that corporations can take the business to a different taxing jurisdiction, whereas the poor american worker can not.

This would be similar to cities that tax at high rate, and see their tax base flee for the suburbs and rural areas to avoid the steep taxes. Only this scenario for corporations occur at a global level versus a city/state level for the american worker.

Still waiting for Mensa to man up, though.

bump

I'll answer for him.....he shouldn't mind at this point....

#TruthBump

(12-29-2017 11:59 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 10:42 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-28-2017 12:09 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-28-2017 11:42 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-28-2017 10:56 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  So, if I understand this correctly (and since Mensa refuses to answer my question):

It appears that the corporate tax as a part of the GDP is down, likely due to the fact that corporations can take the business to a different taxing jurisdiction, whereas the poor american worker can not.

This would be similar to cities that tax at high rate, and see their tax base flee for the suburbs and rural areas to avoid the steep taxes. Only this scenario for corporations occur at a global level versus a city/state level for the american worker.

Still waiting for Mensa to man up, though.

bump

I'll answer for him.....he shouldn't mind at this point....

#TruthBump

dodge!

(12-29-2017 12:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Again, Europe generally taxes corporations less and payroll more. And they have more equal dispersions of income and wealth than we do. Maybe it’s not what you tax as much as how taxpayers react to those taxes.

(12-29-2017 01:43 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 12:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Again, Europe generally taxes corporations less and payroll more. And they have more equal dispersions of income and wealth than we do. Maybe it’s not what you tax as much as how taxpayers react to those taxes.

Again, give me a realistic competitor.
I’d love to see us model the Germans, but not a chance it would happen.
Capital gains at roughly 30%
combined effective corporate income tax around 30-33%
45% top bracket at roughly 300k single filers

(12-29-2017 01:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 01:43 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 12:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Again, Europe generally taxes corporations less and payroll more. And they have more equal dispersions of income and wealth than we do. Maybe it’s not what you tax as much as how taxpayers react to those taxes.

Again, give me a realistic competitor.
I’d love to see us model the Germans, but not a chance it would happen.
Capital gains at roughly 30%
combined effective corporate income tax around 30-33%
45% top bracket at roughly 300k single filers

Germany didn’t tax capital gains at all until 3-4 years ago. They built their economic machine in that era. Since imposing a capital gains tax, their economy has not done as well.

And comparing cap gains tax rates in a vacuum is misleading because most European countries define taxable gains more narrowly than we do. Also most of them provide relief from double taxation of dividends.

Germans are already worried that their corporate tax rate is going to get exposed by our tax cut. They are already well above world average.

(12-29-2017 12:22 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 11:59 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 10:42 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-28-2017 12:09 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-28-2017 11:42 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  bump

I'll answer for him.....he shouldn't mind at this point....

#TruthBump

dodge!

there's only one of me and I'll pick and choose my posts.

(12-29-2017 01:53 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 01:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 01:43 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 12:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Again, Europe generally taxes corporations less and payroll more. And they have more equal dispersions of income and wealth than we do. Maybe it’s not what you tax as much as how taxpayers react to those taxes.

Again, give me a realistic competitor.
I’d love to see us model the Germans, but not a chance it would happen.
Capital gains at roughly 30%
combined effective corporate income tax around 30-33%
45% top bracket at roughly 300k single filers

Germany didn’t tax capital gains at all until 3-4 years ago. They built their economic machine in that era. Since imposing a capital gains tax, their economy has not done as well.

And comparing cap gains tax rates in a vacuum is misleading because most European countries define taxable gains more narrowly than we do. Also most of them provide relief from double taxation of dividends.

Germans are already worried that their corporate tax rate is going to get exposed by our tax cut. They are already well above world average.

who else in the EU is a realistic competitor?

(12-27-2017 12:05 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  It shows what a bunch of bunk of horse manure the Republicans force on us. The last few times that the corporate get the tax cuts and tax holidays? They give the CEOs and execs a huge pay raises and buy out the stocks on their companies to inflate their prices. At the same time, they fired or laid off 100,000 of employees. The American people are not idiots, and they see the tax cuts is a reward for these big business to lay more people off, and outsource their businesses to other countries.

(12-29-2017 02:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 01:53 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 01:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 01:43 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 12:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Again, Europe generally taxes corporations less and payroll more. And they have more equal dispersions of income and wealth than we do. Maybe it’s not what you tax as much as how taxpayers react to those taxes.

Again, give me a realistic competitor.
I’d love to see us model the Germans, but not a chance it would happen.
Capital gains at roughly 30%
combined effective corporate income tax around 30-33%
45% top bracket at roughly 300k single filers

Germany didn’t tax capital gains at all until 3-4 years ago. They built their economic machine in that era. Since imposing a capital gains tax, their economy has not done as well.

And comparing cap gains tax rates in a vacuum is misleading because most European countries define taxable gains more narrowly than we do. Also most of them provide relief from double taxation of dividends.

Germans are already worried that their corporate tax rate is going to get exposed by our tax cut. They are already well above world average.

who else in the EU is a realistic competitor?

What difference does that make? Why do we need a specific competitor in order to do what is best for us?

If we are going to have the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, then everybody else is a competitor. Now that is gone, I expect all sorts of previously unforeseen opportunities will turn up.

(12-29-2017 01:57 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 12:22 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 11:59 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-29-2017 10:42 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-28-2017 12:09 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  I'll answer for him.....he shouldn't mind at this point....

#TruthBump

dodge!

there's only one of me and I'll pick and choose my posts.

and you will continue to get called out. If you dont like it, dont barge in on a thread that asked a question that makes you butthurt, and instead of answering the question you ask questions of your own, then get your ass handed to you.