Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Irrelevant to the discussion.
Irrelevant to the discussion.
LOL! Wealth distribution is ALWAYS relevant to discusion of the equity of tax collection schemes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty
There are two AMTs, of course: one for business, and one for individuals.
There is one AMT. It applies to both individuals and to businesses. Of course if three-year average gross receipts for the latter are less than $7.5 million, they get a hall pass and go on their merry way.
Yes I know we all pay taxes. Still, so many say that the rich are getting a benefit out of this. Benefits are something that you got without putting anything out there. Plenty of people get benefits that put no money in. Where does this money come from? Last I heard it did not grow on trees. The poor are subsidized by the rich. It is the rich that pays way more in taxes than any other segment of the population. Tax system is not even close to being equitable.
Give the rich back their money and they will invest it in things that make money, those things that make money will be things that produce jobs, the only source of real job growth comes from the pile of money that the rich have to invest. Take that pile away and they have less to place in investments, less money to use to build more business opportunities. This is what Ronald Reagan was talking about, trickle down.
No the rich do not create jobs. I don't see why Republicans don't get that. It hasn't happened before when the rich got tax breaks (except for the Reagan era). What creates jobs is demand for a product or service. Without demand no business will increase production or create any jobs.
When the rich get tax cuts they put more money in the bank or into investments, but as we have seen a robust stock market does not have a direct relationship to job opportunities for the average American (Trump voters, etc.). When rich corporations get a tax cut they either invest in stock, buy back their stock, or they buy the competition.
If you want to create jobs you have to give money to those who need to spend it, not those who don't. The poor and middle class will create demand for products and services, that is how the economy can expand with more jobs. Unfortunately there are many people without the skills needed to take the jobs that are already being offered and this will continue to be true until the government funds job retraining. Private industry is doing some of that now in desperation for skilled workers, but it is not nearly enough.
If they can get 20% c corp AND require repatriation of off shore $ the market is going to go INSANE. I mean 30k is in reach within months of it's passage. As equities are just a projection of future earnings. Which should sure up all these unfunded pensions we have across the country. US will be THE PLACE to do business in the world. There will be a massive labor shortage which should push wages higher. Tax receipts will increase helping the debt. Beware of anti-american globalists trying to sell this as somehow anti-middle class, these people have no clue how to help the middle class.
The market will not go insane. Congress can't "require" repatriation. You've got to understand what this proposal will encourage: by ending worldwide taxation on corporate income, Congress & Trump are encouraging multinational corporations to treat themselves as "global citizens" and not US businesses. Companies will have greater incentives to expand their overseas operations, especially in countries that offer tax incentives--because the US will no longer be taxing the income of the entire corporate entity. A repatriation tax will be a drop in the bucket to multinationals who are no longer subject to US taxes worldwide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatsright19
Effective tax rates matter. It's typical of dishonest, ignorant people to always talk on and on about the u.s having the highest tax rates in the world!!!! 39%!!!!!! U.s corporations don't pay anywhere near 39%. That's merely a marginal tax rate. They usually pay around 18 to 20 percent overall.
Effective tax rates do matter. Do you know why the corporate effective tax rate is usually right around 20%? It's because of the AMT that Trump & Republicans want to repeal. AMT at 20% encourages companies to target that figure as their tax rate. They adjust depreciation schedules (among other accounting records) to ensure that they fall very near the AMT. Capital intensive corporations will probably stop paying federal taxes if there is no AMT.
The market will not go insane. Congress can't "require" repatriation. You've got to understand what this proposal will encourage: by ending worldwide taxation on corporate income, Congress & Trump are encouraging multinational corporations to treat themselves as "global citizens" and not US businesses. Companies will have greater incentives to expand their overseas operations, especially in countries that offer tax incentives--because the US will no longer be taxing the income of the entire corporate entity. A repatriation tax will be a drop in the bucket to multinationals who are no longer subject to US taxes worldwide.
Effective tax rates do matter. Do you know why the corporate effective tax rate is usually right around 20%? It's because of the AMT that Trump & Republicans want to repeal. AMT at 20% encourages companies to target that figure as their tax rate. They adjust depreciation schedules (among other accounting records) to ensure that they fall very near the AMT. Capital intensive corporations will probably stop paying federal taxes if there is no AMT.
No, I guess I didn't know that. I work/worked for some of the largest corporations in the world with heavy fixed asset profiles in manufacturing. I guess we missed out on the financial statement fraud and tax evasion of "adjusting the tax and book assets depreciation" to ensure it falls into a certain range.
I just thought the effective tax rates were so low because of the super intelligent and overall beautiful and wonderfully great people of the tax department. ��
No, I guess I didn't know that. I work/worked for some of the largest corporations in the world with heavy fixed asset profiles in manufacturing. I guess we missed out on the financial statement fraud and tax evasion of "adjusting the tax and book assets depreciation" to ensure it falls into a certain range.
I just thought the effective tax rates were so low because of the super intelligent and overall beautiful and wonderfully great people of the tax department. ��
It's not fraud or tax evasion when Congress gives you choices about how to treat depreciation for tax purposes. The tax department is surely full of intelligent, sophisticated, and hard-working people. Their job is not merely compliance, but also tax strategy.
It's not fraud or tax evasion when Congress gives you choices about how to treat depreciation for tax purposes. The tax department is surely full of intelligent, sophisticated, and hard-working people. Their job is not merely compliance, but also tax strategy.
And congress gives those choices not for some nefarious giveway but to encourage firms to make investments in their buildings and equipment. That makes the world go 'round.
Upping the bottom bracket seems an odd choice. Also be curious what income the middle 25% would hit might raise some people taxes while lowering others.
Eliminating the AMT may not work out politically.
Curious how the standard deduction vs itemized works out. I know in NC they did this on state income tax and it was a 50/50 split of raising peoples taxes or lowering them.
They only thing I noticed was they are claiming the cuts would pay for themselves. Based on history that's highly unlikely. The only times when a tax cut has paid for it self historically involved tax rates well over 50%.
Given how he thought fixing our health care system was going to be simple, I haven't spent any time thinking about his tax reform. You can bet, based on his history, that he isn't actually thinking about the middle class at all.
When it comes to our executive branch, I'd say the only simple thing is the orange man in the oval office.
And congress gives those choices not for some nefarious giveway but to encourage firms to make investments in their buildings and equipment. That makes the world go 'round.
And Congress subjected those choices to a limit: AMT. If that limit goes away, then there are going to be a whole host of new tax strategies that sophisticated (especially capital-intensive) corporations will employ for their own maximum benefit. I don't think the elimination of AMT is well considered by this Congress.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
More fiction
