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.
corporate taxes were cut from 35% to 21% across the board.
Perhaps they should have came up with something like a standard cut from 35 to 30% for all, then a series of requirements for employers to get from 30 to 21%.
For example offering a 401k with a 4% match might get them down from 30% to 27%, 7% match down to 25%, and then depending on the quality of health insurance/other benefits offered to employees, an opportunity to go from 25% to 21%.
Seems like it would have been a good way to solve multiple issues in one solution that seems palatable for most.
I'd also tie maintenance of NATIVE American FTE headcounts to it, lack of HB1 Visa use to it, but added to your requirements list.
I'd also likely make the minimum say 25% with a tighter RATE scale down of your ideas based on annual benefits mentioned, not 21%, with the other 4% obtainable by your 5 YEAR average on these metrics, as a CREDIT against the next years taxes.
Maybe headcount requirements PLUS 401k gets them 28% at 4%, 27% at 7%, and Health Care with employer portion premiums at least equal to US median takes them to 25%.
5 yr maint of FTE and 4% match gets them a 1% credit, 7% a 2% credit, and another 2% credit for 5 year employer health insurance premium portion at/above US median. That 4% applies to all 5 years paid. At that point, new 5 year term begins.
Make it a corporation performance review to EARN the full benefit.
Last edited by BobNJ1960; 03-31-2018 at 03:41 PM..
corporate taxes were cut from 35% to 21% across the board.
Perhaps they should have came up with something like a standard cut from 35 to 30% for all, then a series of requirements for employers to get from 30 to 21%.
For example offering a 401k with a 4% match might get them down from 30% to 27%, 7% match down to 25%, and then depending on the quality of health insurance/other benefits offered to employees, an opportunity to go from 25% to 21%.
Seems like it would have been a good way to solve multiple issues in one solution that seems palatable for most.
Unique idea, but what you're describing could be accomplished by unions. We know what happened to unions in America though.
I'd rather see stipulations that say tax savings must be spent on hiring employees or building factories in the USA. I would also add that no tax savings can be used for stock buybacks and/or dividends.
That would never happen though either.
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.
