• filter:
  • 1162163164165 166
  • Page
  • Text Only
  • Search this Topic »
rated:
formattc said:   So let me get this straight, we're supposed to take on all of the economic detriment of a neighboring country just because they're massively corrupt and can't keep their shit together? Keep in mind, they're very rich with natural resources and there's no reason for them to be a poor nation.
 

  
I thought you were channeling a Canadian there for a minute.

rated:
ganda said:   formattc said:   So let me get this straight, we're supposed to take on all of the economic detriment of a neighboring country just because they're massively corrupt and can't keep their shit together? Keep in mind, they're very rich with natural resources and there's no reason for them to be a poor nation.
 

  
I thought you were channeling a Canadian there for a minute.
Oooh.. that was a good one.

rated:
Bieber?

rated:
ganda said:   
formattc said:   So let me get this straight, we're supposed to take on all of the economic detriment of a neighboring country just because they're massively corrupt and can't keep their shit together? Keep in mind, they're very rich with natural resources and there's no reason for them to be a poor nation.
  
I thought you were channeling a Canadian there for a minute.

  Yeah, 'cause Americans are lining up at the Northern border to invade Canada......
Man, wuck finter!  
 

rated:
I just love how some people think we should just tax the shit out of corporations and then expect them not to move. Then, when they do move, the same people say "we need more jobs"!

Walcoom, my friends, walcoom to Fantasy Island.....

rated:
ganda said:   I don't want my taxes funding this.
  If I had a nickel of my taxes back for every time I've said that...

rated:
formattc said:   I just love how some people think we should just tax the shit out of corporations and then expect them not to move. Then, when they do move, the same people say "we need more jobs"!

Walcoom, my friends, walcoom to Fantasy Island.....

The US taxes corporations at lower effective rates than most developed nations, but you won't hear that from the crowd that wrongly says we have the highest rates, who cite only the rates and not the allowed deductions.

 

rated:
KPMG's  website has an excellent comparison of corporate tax rate tables for the period between 2006 and 2014: here 

Those who invest in the stock of US companies obviously have  good reason to applaud inversions.  Lower taxes means the corporations can use that  money for growth to generate greater future profits and to pay shareholder dividends.  Those dividends will still of course be taxed on the personal returns of the shareholders,

The downside to the inversions is that the government will continue to spend even if they lose tax revenue from the corporate inversions and thus the government will tax the crap out of the rest of us to make up their shortfall.,

The smarter alternative would be to reduce the corporate tax rate to a competitive level to encourage companies to stay headquartered in the US.  Under that scenario the government could continue to tax both the corporation and the shareholders dividends as they do now -- the government would just need to rake off a little less  at the corporate level.  The alternative is that the government could consider reducing spending but that is unlikely to happen.

 

rated:
In 2008, the Government Accountability Office ("GAO") estimated that the effective tax rate on corporations was 25.2%. In 2013, the GAO estimated that the effective tax rate on corporations was 12.6. I believe the difference is primarily due to a change in methodology and not a 50% reduction in actual effective tax rates. In both 2008 and 2013, the GAO used worldwide income in the denominator. I believe in 2008 the GAO counted both US and foreign taxes in the numerator and in 2013 the GAO only considered US taxes paid. Since US companies receive a credit for foreign taxes paid, this gives the appearance of a lower tax rate in the US. If a US company pays 50% of its taxes to a foreign government and 50% to the US government, the 2013 calculation would yield an effective tax rate of about 1/2 of the 2008 calculation.

Unless I missed something, neither calculation tells you what the effective tax rate is on US income. What I would like to see is the effective tax rate companies pay on the US income and the effective tax rate on foreign income. If the foreign rate is lower, there would be an incentive to move out of the US, even if the effective tax rate on worldwide income is relatively modest.

 

  • Quick Reply:  Have something quick to contribute? Just reply below and you're done! hide Quick Reply
     
    Click here for full-featured reply.
  • 1162163164165 166
  • Page


Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014