The part where the corporate tax rate goes from an effective 18.9 to 20% is a tax cut to you?
The Final Bill: Trump Tax Reform
- Thread starter tsuke
- Start date
The part where the corporate tax rate goes from an effective 18.9 to 20% is a tax cut to you?
The implied powers clause in Article I, Section 8 addresses the how not the what. For example, Clauses 12 and 13 say raising an Army and providing/maintaining a Navy. It clearly delegates Congress with the authority to do so. When I say the how, in that case, it gives Congress the ability to institute a draft as a means by to raise, provide, and maintain. Too often, certain ideologies take the mindset behind such clauses and use it to create things for which there is no delegated authority.
If you get a cut, are you going to voluntarily send that amount back since you believe the government needs more money?
cawacko
Well-known member
So all corporate deductions are eliminated?
You're literally pulling that 20% marginal effective tax rate figure out of your ass.
The statutory corporate tax rate is 39%, and is being reduced to 21%, the average effective corporate tax rate is 29% and that is an estimate and that itself varies from industry to industry, now the effective marginal tax rate is 18.6% but your assertion that the effective marginal tax rate is going to increase under the bill is an overt lie based on nothing, if the statutory tax rate is reduced so too will the average and marginal effective tax rates.
The statutory tax rate is the rate levied on the next dollar of taxable profit. While this measure leaves a lot of information out, such as deductions and credits that reduce liability, it can have an impact on some business’s decisions by itself. One important decision it has an impact on is the location of profits. If the next dollar of profits is taxed at the statutory rate, companies have an incentive to locate their profits in countries with lower statutory tax rates. All else equal, high statutory tax rates tend to drive profit shifting.
The average effective tax rate is basically the amount of tax a corporation in a country pays divided by its income. As an all-in measure of tax burden, it considers the statutory tax rate, deductions, and any credits that reduce a corporation’s tax liability. Companies may look at the average effective tax rate when deciding which country to locate a new investment. All else equal, a company would rather put an investment in a country with a lower average effective tax rate because that investment will provide higher returns net of tax over its life.
The marginal effective tax rate is the tax corporations pay on a marginal investment, or an investment that makes just enough (in present value terms) to satisfy an investor, net of tax. This tax rate is mainly a function of the statutory tax rate and deductions corporations can tax on new investments, such as depreciation allowances. The marginal tax rate determines how much a company is willing to invest in a given country. The lower the marginal tax rate on new investment, the lower the pre-tax returns on those investments need to be to satisfy investors on an after-tax basis. As such, companies are more likely to pursue more investment projects when the marginal rate is lower.
The United States’ corporate tax ranks relatively high on all three measures. The U.S. has the highest statutory rate (39.1 percent), the third highest average effective tax rate (29 percent), and the fourth highest marginal effective tax rate (18.6 percent).
The CBO methodology isn’t perfect. Its methodology leaves out individual-level taxes on investment, which have an impact on investment behavior. In addition, its average effective tax rate measure for the United States and other countries is not perfectly comparable due to some data limitations. However, these findings are roughly comparable to the findings of other studies that have attempted to compare countries’ corporate tax systems with alternative methodologies.
https://taxfoundation.org/cbo-report-compares-us-corporate-tax-g20/
Your assertion that the statutory tax rate will be reduced from 39 to 21% yet the marginal effective tax rate will jump to 20% just proves that you have no idea what you're talking about, you are laughably stupid.
No, he's laughably FOS.
Those implied powers are not for anything they see fit, they are only for that which is necessary and proper for the implementation those powers which are explicitly delegated, for everything else see Amendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Who are these super rich exactly? Corporate shareholders? Oh once again tax cuts do not decrease tax revenue you ignorant fuck.
I agree, but even the men who wrote the Constitution interpreted it rather broadly when they used the necessary and proper clause to create a national bank under Washington. Certainly it was not really necessary since the government had been putting its money in private banks without a problem.
Opinion polls do not trump the facts presented in the OP, opinions are by definition not facts.
No the greatest trick that the powers that be have pulled is making people believe that our money belongs to the state and tax cuts are some gift rather than less theft. How exactly does stealing less from someone else force me to pay for it? Oh that's right all money belongs to the state by divine right. Tax cuts do not reduce tax revenue and they never have, what does happen is more than a century of exponential growth of government spending.
True, but those powers delegated to the United States have been interpreted very broadly expanding its powers significantly. That makes the 10th Amendment somewhat limited in its effectiveness since there is little that is "not delegated to the United States" today.
Or, that letting people retain more of their own money is somehow taking it away from lower income. Taking higher taxes from the wealthy and keeping the estate tax gives Congress more money to spend; yet, the public gives that same Congress a very low approval score and poor marks in how they choose to spend our money based on past performance.
And this proves my point, and precisely what is wrong with the leftist mindset, tax cuts are not some government gift they are less theft. The government does not by divine right own the wealth of the nation to dole out to the plebian masses as they see fit.
That they interpreted it that way doesn't make that interpretation correct.
Then you wouldn't be arguing against tax cuts as tax cuts do not reduce tax revenue, you would be arguing against the more than a century of exponential increased government spending.
Really? Show me the quotes where the Founders supported making the children of dead working farmers and small business owners go into debt in order to keep their farm/businesses or to sell said farm in order to pay off the death tax? Did you not watch the debate when Cruz annihilated Sanders on this exact topic?
Real Life Effects of the Death Tax
The United States Senate Committee on Finance released a report focusing on the ineffectiveness of the death tax, specifically stating that ‘the wealthy and well connected use elaborate trusts and secretive shell companies to dodge the tax.’ Many times, wealthy individuals hire lawyers and accountants to find loopholes to avoid paying this tax.
Family businesses that lack these resources to manage their estates are the ones held accountable to pay this tax rather than the wealthy. Eliminating this tax will help prevent financial hardships imposed by this inflated tax on individuals.
According to the Tax Foundation, repeal of the death tax will result in an estimated 2.3 percentincrease in capital invested in the U.S. economy, ultimately boosting productivity 0.7 percentresulting in increased labor force participation by the equivalent of 159,000 full-time jobs. Tax reform proposals eliminating the death tax anticipate over a 10-year time span $28 billion total revenue increase for small businesses.
The death tax is double taxation. The descendant paid taxes on this income over the course of his or her lifetime, and death should not be a valid excuse to tax the same money again.
More than 99 percent of U.S. employer firms are small businesses, many of them family-owned. The death tax establishes a burden that prevents families from being able to keep their businesses running from one generation to the next, and should be put to an end.
Even businesses that do not end up owing the death tax have to spend their limited time and resources to plan to ensure their businesses can endure from one generation to the next.
The idea of looking at a single year for the estate tax does not adequately portray the impact of the tax since it is only on deceased individuals. Between 1995-2016 a total of 102,000 closely held businesses (sole proprietorships, partnerships, S-Corps, and closely held C-Corps) and 36,000 farms paid the estate tax.
On the farm side, according to USDA Agriculture Census, there were 3.2 million farmers in 2012, with a total US population of 314 million, making farmers equal to just over one percent of the population. However, 13 percent of estates subject to the estate tax included farms. The average age of farmers is also increasing, one third of all farmers are over age 65, and 62 percent are over age 55. As our farming generation grows older the number of farmers paying the estate tax will continue to dramatically rise.
https://www.tedcruz.org/press-relea...ealing-death-tax-benefits-rich-couldnt-truth/
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
now if the idiots on the left would just stop pretending it can happen any other way.....
by reducing taxes.....