if all the tax tricks and loopholes are left in place. Why do the right wingers fail to mention that even thou the U.S.A. has a high corporate tax rate, after all the slick loopholes corporations are paying the lowest corporate tax rate in the last 60 years. They just wont say a word about this and instead keep saying companies will come back here if we lower the tax rate
Why would any company come back here, when they arent paying taxes now and can pay people a few bucks a day to make their crap?
I cant believe how many people in the country cant see this or are just brain washed by the right wingers
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
if all the tax tricks and loopholes are left in place. Why do the right wingers fail to mention that even thou the U.S.A. has a high corporate tax rate, after all the slick loopholes corporations are paying the lowest corporate tax rate in the last 60 years. They just wont say a word about this and instead keep saying companies will come back here if we lower the tax rate
Why would any company come back here, when they arent paying taxes now and can pay people a few bucks a day to make their crap?
I cant believe how many people in the country cant see this or are just brain washed by the right wingers
Lowering the corporate tax rate could lead to the creation of more
retail jobs, better pay and lower prices across the industry, according
to a report released Wednesday.
Lowering the corporate tax rate could lead to the creation of more
retail jobs, better pay and lower prices across the industry, according
to a report released Wednesday.
According to the nonpartisan congressional Joint Committee on Taxation,
there are no specific tax credits or deductions for moving plants and
jobs overseas. While the tax code provides a deduction for all business
expenses, including plant-closing costs, severance pay and worker
retraining, the simple fact is that businesses don't make relocation
decisions on the basis of a tax deduction. ....
By contrast, under the current U.S. system, after an American company
pays that local tax, it finds the Internal Revenue Service waiting with
a big tax bill when the company tries to bring foreign earnings back to
the U.S. Why? Because America's tax law requires the payment of an
additional tax—generally the difference between the U.S. rate and the
tax rate in the foreign market.
According to the nonpartisan congressional Joint Committee on Taxation,
there are no specific tax credits or deductions for moving plants and
jobs overseas. While the tax code provides a deduction for all business
expenses, including plant-closing costs, severance pay and worker
retraining, the simple fact is that businesses don't make relocation
decisions on the basis of a tax deduction. ....
By contrast, under the current U.S. system, after an American company
pays that local tax, it finds the Internal Revenue Service waiting with
a big tax bill when the company tries to bring foreign earnings back to
the U.S. Why? Because America's tax law requires the payment of an
additional tax—generally the difference between the U.S. rate and the
tax rate in the foreign market.
what about the thousands of small businesses who provide somewhere in the vicinity of 65% of all jobs.
There is a big difference between the Big Corps and small biz.
I agree that Big biz has done little to help this country lately with the stem of offshoring over the last 20 years but dont confuse them with the little guys who would trully benefit from a lower rate.
And my feeling is most small biz would reinvest in their biz and people. I know I would
0
CD
what about the thousands of small businesses who provide somewhere in the vicinity of 65% of all jobs.
There is a big difference between the Big Corps and small biz.
I agree that Big biz has done little to help this country lately with the stem of offshoring over the last 20 years but dont confuse them with the little guys who would trully benefit from a lower rate.
And my feeling is most small biz would reinvest in their biz and people. I know I would
According to the nonpartisan congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, there are no specific tax credits or deductions for moving plants and jobs overseas. While the tax code provides a deduction for all business expenses, including plant-closing costs, severance pay and worker retraining, the simple fact is that businesses don't make relocation decisions on the basis of a tax deduction. ....
By contrast, under the current U.S. system, after an American company pays that local tax, it finds the Internal Revenue Service waiting with a big tax bill when the company tries to bring foreign earnings back to the U.S. Why? Because America's tax law requires the payment of an additional tax—generally the difference between the U.S. rate and the tax rate in the foreign market.
Yes, there is no specific deduction for closing a plant and moving it overseas.
No, there is a deduction for the cost of doing business (expenses) which includes closing a plant and reopening another, even on foreign soil (as long as the principle place of business remains the US...likely Delaware).
The way the tax deduction/credit works (it acts as a deduction if there are minimal corporate profits, a credit if the profits exceed the gross after basic operating expenses) is the company be able to claim the cost of closure, including any severance packages, moving people, moving products, shipping, creation of new plant, etc. The incentive is the reduction in importation costs of raw materials (presuming the location allows for that) and obviously, the minimal costs of labor.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
According to the nonpartisan congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, there are no specific tax credits or deductions for moving plants and jobs overseas. While the tax code provides a deduction for all business expenses, including plant-closing costs, severance pay and worker retraining, the simple fact is that businesses don't make relocation decisions on the basis of a tax deduction. ....
By contrast, under the current U.S. system, after an American company pays that local tax, it finds the Internal Revenue Service waiting with a big tax bill when the company tries to bring foreign earnings back to the U.S. Why? Because America's tax law requires the payment of an additional tax—generally the difference between the U.S. rate and the tax rate in the foreign market.
Yes, there is no specific deduction for closing a plant and moving it overseas.
No, there is a deduction for the cost of doing business (expenses) which includes closing a plant and reopening another, even on foreign soil (as long as the principle place of business remains the US...likely Delaware).
The way the tax deduction/credit works (it acts as a deduction if there are minimal corporate profits, a credit if the profits exceed the gross after basic operating expenses) is the company be able to claim the cost of closure, including any severance packages, moving people, moving products, shipping, creation of new plant, etc. The incentive is the reduction in importation costs of raw materials (presuming the location allows for that) and obviously, the minimal costs of labor.
Corporations do not hire people because they have more money in their bank accounts or pay less taxes.
Demand drives hiring..how does lowering corporate taxes stimulate demand?
There are more factors than "demand" driving hiring. R&D, upgrades, expansion drive hiring as well.
Asserting that "lowering the corporate tax rate does nothing" is kind of ridiculous. At a minimum, lowering the rate would drive more economic activity.
For example:
According to the Journal, General Electric keeps only $30.7 billion of its $85.5 billion in cash reserves in the U.S.; Microsoft has $8.6 billion in the states, and a whopping $58 billion overseas; Whirlpool keeps 85 percent of its cash offshore; and Johnson & Johnson has socked all of its $24.5 billion in other countries.
A lack of funds in America has forced companies to borrow money to do business in the U.S., such as paying dividends, buying back shares, repaying debts, and contributing to worker pensions. Government regulators are reportedly concerned that companies are more debt-laden than their strong balance sheets would suggest, while companies claim that a lower rate would allow them to invest more in the U.S. and create more jobs.
Corporations do not hire people because they have more money in their bank accounts or pay less taxes.
Demand drives hiring..how does lowering corporate taxes stimulate demand?
There are more factors than "demand" driving hiring. R&D, upgrades, expansion drive hiring as well.
Asserting that "lowering the corporate tax rate does nothing" is kind of ridiculous. At a minimum, lowering the rate would drive more economic activity.
For example:
According to the Journal, General Electric keeps only $30.7 billion of its $85.5 billion in cash reserves in the U.S.; Microsoft has $8.6 billion in the states, and a whopping $58 billion overseas; Whirlpool keeps 85 percent of its cash offshore; and Johnson & Johnson has socked all of its $24.5 billion in other countries.
A lack of funds in America has forced companies to borrow money to do business in the U.S., such as paying dividends, buying back shares, repaying debts, and contributing to worker pensions. Government regulators are reportedly concerned that companies are more debt-laden than their strong balance sheets would suggest, while companies claim that a lower rate would allow them to invest more in the U.S. and create more jobs.
Corporations have been borrowing because RATES are low..lower than what they think they can earn having it outside in other investments.
When you try and act so above others yet make inept comments like this it makes you look even more silly.
Corporations have been issuing debt because they know the credit market is awesome for them right now..
How much MORE R&D is a company going to do if they have excess money in the bank? Now how much of that MORE R&D will they spend relative to TOTAL labor costs?
Companies that spend on R&D do so not because of more money in the bank but because R&D is the future of their pipeline for products..often times R&D is the last thing to be cut because without it companies are giving up competitive advantage..so say if GE decides to not invest in R&D for their turbine unit because of the flimsy rational you give, well some other company who IS investing in R&D now has a potential advantage for their product.
As you said..this isn't complex stuff, the problem is you completely missed it again multiple times.
0
This isnt complex and you missed it again.
Corporations have been borrowing because RATES are low..lower than what they think they can earn having it outside in other investments.
When you try and act so above others yet make inept comments like this it makes you look even more silly.
Corporations have been issuing debt because they know the credit market is awesome for them right now..
How much MORE R&D is a company going to do if they have excess money in the bank? Now how much of that MORE R&D will they spend relative to TOTAL labor costs?
Companies that spend on R&D do so not because of more money in the bank but because R&D is the future of their pipeline for products..often times R&D is the last thing to be cut because without it companies are giving up competitive advantage..so say if GE decides to not invest in R&D for their turbine unit because of the flimsy rational you give, well some other company who IS investing in R&D now has a potential advantage for their product.
As you said..this isn't complex stuff, the problem is you completely missed it again multiple times.
There are more factors than "demand" driving hiring. R&D, upgrades, expansion drive hiring as well.
you posted- According to the Journal, General Electric keeps only $30.7 billion of its $85.5 billion in cash reserves in the U.S.; Microsoft has $8.6 billion in the states, and a whopping $58 billion overseas;
Whirlpool keeps 85 percent of its cash offshore; and Johnson &
Johnson has socked all of its $24.5 billion in other countries.
A lack of funds in America has forced companies to
borrow money to do business in the U.S., such as paying dividends,
buying back shares, repaying debts, and contributing to worker pensions.
Government regulators are reportedly concerned that companies are more
debt-laden than their strong balance sheets would suggest, while
companies claim that a lower rate would allow them to invest more in the
U.S. and create more jobs.
Now did you post this stuff or did someone else?
Are you saying you didnt post this or that you dont mean it or that you dont understand what you posted?
Gotta love the "I didnt say that" routine when you get worked over.
Offshore money has nothing to do with hiring. If Microsoft had higher demand for their services than the labor they have to service it, they would hire it irregardless of offshore cash.
Companies are tapping the credit market because they can lock in LONG term debt at astounding low rates..forget this garbage about government regulation and offshore taxation..if they needed the money and had no better avenue to obtain the money they would tap it.
Sometimes people rely on the media too much and dont evaluate things themselves.
0
you said-
There are more factors than "demand" driving hiring. R&D, upgrades, expansion drive hiring as well.
you posted- According to the Journal, General Electric keeps only $30.7 billion of its $85.5 billion in cash reserves in the U.S.; Microsoft has $8.6 billion in the states, and a whopping $58 billion overseas;
Whirlpool keeps 85 percent of its cash offshore; and Johnson &
Johnson has socked all of its $24.5 billion in other countries.
A lack of funds in America has forced companies to
borrow money to do business in the U.S., such as paying dividends,
buying back shares, repaying debts, and contributing to worker pensions.
Government regulators are reportedly concerned that companies are more
debt-laden than their strong balance sheets would suggest, while
companies claim that a lower rate would allow them to invest more in the
U.S. and create more jobs.
Now did you post this stuff or did someone else?
Are you saying you didnt post this or that you dont mean it or that you dont understand what you posted?
Gotta love the "I didnt say that" routine when you get worked over.
Offshore money has nothing to do with hiring. If Microsoft had higher demand for their services than the labor they have to service it, they would hire it irregardless of offshore cash.
Companies are tapping the credit market because they can lock in LONG term debt at astounding low rates..forget this garbage about government regulation and offshore taxation..if they needed the money and had no better avenue to obtain the money they would tap it.
Sometimes people rely on the media too much and dont evaluate things themselves.
Gotta love the "I didnt say that" routine when you get worked over.
Yes, because my assertion that R&D can drive hiring was "worked over" by your response of:
Companies that spend on R&D do so not because of more money in the bank but because R&D is the future of their pipeline for products..often times R&D is the last thing to be cut because without it companies are giving up competitive advantage..so say if GE decides to not invest in R&D for their turbine unit because of the flimsy rational you give, well some other company who IS investing in R&D now has a potential advantage for their product
Note: I never said a single word about cutting R&D, I never said companies do R&D because they have money in the bank.
So if you want to continue to believe you addressed what I said, knock yourself out.
0
Gotta love the "I didnt say that" routine when you get worked over.
Yes, because my assertion that R&D can drive hiring was "worked over" by your response of:
Companies that spend on R&D do so not because of more money in the bank but because R&D is the future of their pipeline for products..often times R&D is the last thing to be cut because without it companies are giving up competitive advantage..so say if GE decides to not invest in R&D for their turbine unit because of the flimsy rational you give, well some other company who IS investing in R&D now has a potential advantage for their product
Note: I never said a single word about cutting R&D, I never said companies do R&D because they have money in the bank.
So if you want to continue to believe you addressed what I said, knock yourself out.
Offshore money has nothing to do with hiring. If Microsoft had higher demand for their services than the labor they have to service it, they would hire it irregardless of offshore cash.
Um, nobody, anywhere at all, said Microsoft would necessarily hire more people due to cash being in the US or in a foreign country.
Again, you didn't address a single word that was said.
0
Offshore money has nothing to do with hiring. If Microsoft had higher demand for their services than the labor they have to service it, they would hire it irregardless of offshore cash.
Um, nobody, anywhere at all, said Microsoft would necessarily hire more people due to cash being in the US or in a foreign country.
Again, you didn't address a single word that was said.
Da Road, give it up, you got bitchhhhhh slapped once again on this forum, but its to tough for you to accept that you really arent the sharpest crayon in the box
It is funny watching you try to twist your way out of jams that your mouth buries you in
0
Da Road, give it up, you got bitchhhhhh slapped once again on this forum, but its to tough for you to accept that you really arent the sharpest crayon in the box
It is funny watching you try to twist your way out of jams that your mouth buries you in
Da Road, give it up, you got bitchhhhhh slapped once again on this forum, but its to tough for you to accept that you really arent the sharpest crayon in the box
It is funny watching you try to twist your way out of jams that your mouth buries you in
0
Quote Originally Posted by cd329:
Da Road, give it up, you got bitchhhhhh slapped once again on this forum, but its to tough for you to accept that you really arent the sharpest crayon in the box
It is funny watching you try to twist your way out of jams that your mouth buries you in
Offshore money has nothing to do with hiring. If Microsoft had higher demand for their services than the labor they have to service it, they would hire it irregardless of offshore cash.
Um, nobody, anywhere at all, said Microsoft would necessarily hire more people due to cash being in the US or in a foreign country.
Again, you didn't address a single word that was said.
Deflect..deflect, deflect. Asserting that "lowering the corporate tax rate does nothing" is kind of
ridiculous. At a minimum, lowering the rate would drive more economic
activity.
How can you conclude that lowering corp tax rates drives economic activity?
Please tell me from your words, I am not interested in yet another cut and paste from the internet.
Using your own words how do you say that lowering corporate tax rates drives economic activity?
Interesting how someone quotes fluff you post yet you act as if I am speaking a foreign language.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
Offshore money has nothing to do with hiring. If Microsoft had higher demand for their services than the labor they have to service it, they would hire it irregardless of offshore cash.
Um, nobody, anywhere at all, said Microsoft would necessarily hire more people due to cash being in the US or in a foreign country.
Again, you didn't address a single word that was said.
Deflect..deflect, deflect. Asserting that "lowering the corporate tax rate does nothing" is kind of
ridiculous. At a minimum, lowering the rate would drive more economic
activity.
How can you conclude that lowering corp tax rates drives economic activity?
Please tell me from your words, I am not interested in yet another cut and paste from the internet.
Using your own words how do you say that lowering corporate tax rates drives economic activity?
Interesting how someone quotes fluff you post yet you act as if I am speaking a foreign language.
How can you conclude that lowering corp tax rates drives economic activity?
This isn't a serious question.
Every time in the history of the United States marginal, all income, or capital gains taxes were lowered, GDP went up and so did federal revenues.
But don't worry, the corporate tax rate would be an exception to that!!!!
People respond to incentives.
That's your answer.
And here is an example: Corporate tax revenues coming in to Ottawa were up slightly last
year, even as the Conservative government was in the midst of an
aggressive plan to lower the corporate tax rate.
The federal
government raised $31.7-billion from corporate taxes in the fiscal year
that ended March 31, up from $30-billion in 2010-11.
How can you conclude that lowering corp tax rates drives economic activity?
This isn't a serious question.
Every time in the history of the United States marginal, all income, or capital gains taxes were lowered, GDP went up and so did federal revenues.
But don't worry, the corporate tax rate would be an exception to that!!!!
People respond to incentives.
That's your answer.
And here is an example: Corporate tax revenues coming in to Ottawa were up slightly last
year, even as the Conservative government was in the midst of an
aggressive plan to lower the corporate tax rate.
The federal
government raised $31.7-billion from corporate taxes in the fiscal year
that ended March 31, up from $30-billion in 2010-11.
Deflect..deflect, deflect. Asserting that "lowering the corporate tax rate does nothing" is kind of
ridiculous. At a minimum, lowering the rate would drive more economic
activity.
How can you conclude that lowering corp tax rates drives economic activity?
Please tell me from your words, I am not interested in yet another cut and paste from the internet.
Using your own words how do you say that lowering corporate tax rates drives economic activity?
Interesting how someone quotes fluff you post yet you act as if I am speaking a foreign language.
Yes, because pointing out that you didn't address anything I said is "deflect"
Really, it is.
Anyway: taxation of capital also influences decisions on the part of companies. Corporation tax, in particular, has an effect on the choice of location and the volume of investments as well considerations regarding the location of potential profits. This can lead to pronounced capital outflows from individual countries.
I guess I have "explain in my own words" how investment leads to more economic activity.
Or something.
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
Deflect..deflect, deflect. Asserting that "lowering the corporate tax rate does nothing" is kind of
ridiculous. At a minimum, lowering the rate would drive more economic
activity.
How can you conclude that lowering corp tax rates drives economic activity?
Please tell me from your words, I am not interested in yet another cut and paste from the internet.
Using your own words how do you say that lowering corporate tax rates drives economic activity?
Interesting how someone quotes fluff you post yet you act as if I am speaking a foreign language.
Yes, because pointing out that you didn't address anything I said is "deflect"
Really, it is.
Anyway: taxation of capital also influences decisions on the part of companies. Corporation tax, in particular, has an effect on the choice of location and the volume of investments as well considerations regarding the location of potential profits. This can lead to pronounced capital outflows from individual countries.
I guess I have "explain in my own words" how investment leads to more economic activity.
Da Road, give it up, you got bitchhhhhh slapped once again on this forum, but its to tough for you to accept that you really arent the sharpest crayon in the box
It is funny watching you try to twist your way out of jams that your mouth buries you in
Please list a single sentence I posted that is factually incorrect. Please list a single point WSC responded to of mine.
Thanks.
PS:
In a series of OECD working papers,[14] summarized by Arnold et al.,[15]
OECD affiliated economists have determined a ranking of the most
harmful taxes for economic growth. They find that corporate taxes are
the most harmful, followed by personal income taxes, consumption taxes,
and, finally, property taxes, particularly property taxes levied on
households rather than corporations. They look at twenty-one OECD
countries from 1971 to 2004 and control for various factors including
measures of physical and human capital accumulation, population growth,
and time and country specific effects. They also control for the overall
tax burden in each country as a share of GDP. This allows them to
isolate the effect of different types of taxes based on the share of tax
revenue that comes from each tax on a revenue- and spending-neutral
basis.[16]
They find that a 1 percent shift of tax revenues from income taxes
(both personal and corporate) to consumption and property taxes would
increase GDP per capita by between 0.25 percent and 1 percent in the
long run. They also find progressivity of personal income taxes reduces
economic growth.[17] The authors find further support for their results by looking at industry[18] and firm level[19]
measures of investment and productivity growth. They find corporate
taxes, both in terms of the statutory tax rate and depreciation
allowances, reduce investment and productivity growth.
Da Road, give it up, you got bitchhhhhh slapped once again on this forum, but its to tough for you to accept that you really arent the sharpest crayon in the box
It is funny watching you try to twist your way out of jams that your mouth buries you in
Please list a single sentence I posted that is factually incorrect. Please list a single point WSC responded to of mine.
Thanks.
PS:
In a series of OECD working papers,[14] summarized by Arnold et al.,[15]
OECD affiliated economists have determined a ranking of the most
harmful taxes for economic growth. They find that corporate taxes are
the most harmful, followed by personal income taxes, consumption taxes,
and, finally, property taxes, particularly property taxes levied on
households rather than corporations. They look at twenty-one OECD
countries from 1971 to 2004 and control for various factors including
measures of physical and human capital accumulation, population growth,
and time and country specific effects. They also control for the overall
tax burden in each country as a share of GDP. This allows them to
isolate the effect of different types of taxes based on the share of tax
revenue that comes from each tax on a revenue- and spending-neutral
basis.[16]
They find that a 1 percent shift of tax revenues from income taxes
(both personal and corporate) to consumption and property taxes would
increase GDP per capita by between 0.25 percent and 1 percent in the
long run. They also find progressivity of personal income taxes reduces
economic growth.[17] The authors find further support for their results by looking at industry[18] and firm level[19]
measures of investment and productivity growth. They find corporate
taxes, both in terms of the statutory tax rate and depreciation
allowances, reduce investment and productivity growth.
Note: you won't "take the time" to ever explain or defend these absurd assertions that I'm wrong, but you will post emoticons.
Want to guess why that is?
the answer is simple. look at everyone of your posts and try to give an unbiased consideration of your responses. You will find that there is simply no point in engaging in a discussion with you. It is not worth the frustration.
Bowl and I have had many many disagreements and sometimes it has gotten to "name calling stages" but at least I feel like he and I can have a discussion.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
Note: you won't "take the time" to ever explain or defend these absurd assertions that I'm wrong, but you will post emoticons.
Want to guess why that is?
the answer is simple. look at everyone of your posts and try to give an unbiased consideration of your responses. You will find that there is simply no point in engaging in a discussion with you. It is not worth the frustration.
Bowl and I have had many many disagreements and sometimes it has gotten to "name calling stages" but at least I feel like he and I can have a discussion.
Claim: "Lowering the corporate tax rate does nothing"
News:
LISBON—The Portuguese government is seeking to cut its corporate tax
rate for new businesses to one of the lowest in Europe as part of a plan
to attract investment and revitalize ailing industries, the minister of
economy said.
The government is in talks with the European Commission's competition
agency in Brussels to get approval to cut the tax on corporate income
for new investors to 10% from the current 25%, the minister, Alvaro
Santos Pereira, said in an interview
So I guess the minster of the economy is an idiot?
0
Claim: "Lowering the corporate tax rate does nothing"
News:
LISBON—The Portuguese government is seeking to cut its corporate tax
rate for new businesses to one of the lowest in Europe as part of a plan
to attract investment and revitalize ailing industries, the minister of
economy said.
The government is in talks with the European Commission's competition
agency in Brussels to get approval to cut the tax on corporate income
for new investors to 10% from the current 25%, the minister, Alvaro
Santos Pereira, said in an interview
the answer is simple. look at everyone of your posts and try to give an unbiased consideration of your responses. You will find that there is simply no point in engaging in a discussion with you. It is not worth the frustration.
Bowl and I have had many many disagreements and sometimes it has gotten to "name calling stages" but at least I feel like he and I can have a discussion.
Please list a single sentence I posted that is factually incorrect. Thanks.
0
Quote Originally Posted by mattbrot:
the answer is simple. look at everyone of your posts and try to give an unbiased consideration of your responses. You will find that there is simply no point in engaging in a discussion with you. It is not worth the frustration.
Bowl and I have had many many disagreements and sometimes it has gotten to "name calling stages" but at least I feel like he and I can have a discussion.
Please list a single sentence I posted that is factually incorrect. Thanks.
Deflect..deflect, deflect. Asserting that "lowering the corporate tax rate does nothing" is kind of
ridiculous. At a minimum, lowering the rate would drive more economic
activity.
How can you conclude that lowering corp tax rates drives economic activity?
Please tell me from your words, I am not interested in yet another cut and paste from the internet.
Using your own words how do you say that lowering corporate tax rates drives economic activity?
See, I don't use 'my own words' like you (such as: that is garbage!) because I rely on actual facts.
Such as:
A report published by the OECD in November 2010 concluded that
corporate taxes “are most harmful type of tax for economic growth.” In
2008, China lowered its corporate tax rate to 25 percent from 33
percent. The following year, foreign investment in China increased by 30
percent, and the economy grew by 10 percent.
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
Deflect..deflect, deflect. Asserting that "lowering the corporate tax rate does nothing" is kind of
ridiculous. At a minimum, lowering the rate would drive more economic
activity.
How can you conclude that lowering corp tax rates drives economic activity?
Please tell me from your words, I am not interested in yet another cut and paste from the internet.
Using your own words how do you say that lowering corporate tax rates drives economic activity?
See, I don't use 'my own words' like you (such as: that is garbage!) because I rely on actual facts.
Such as:
A report published by the OECD in November 2010 concluded that
corporate taxes “are most harmful type of tax for economic growth.” In
2008, China lowered its corporate tax rate to 25 percent from 33
percent. The following year, foreign investment in China increased by 30
percent, and the economy grew by 10 percent.
Please list a single sentence I posted that is factually incorrect. Thanks.
factually correct or incorrect is not exactly the point (although it contributes). It is more like the constant deflecting, copying and pasting, somehow pinpointing everything on Obama, inability to remotely consider other views, and grasping for any angle (regardless of how obscure or off topic it may be) to try to hang on to a point.
Maybe not characteristic of 100% of your posts but pretty damn close.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
Please list a single sentence I posted that is factually incorrect. Thanks.
factually correct or incorrect is not exactly the point (although it contributes). It is more like the constant deflecting, copying and pasting, somehow pinpointing everything on Obama, inability to remotely consider other views, and grasping for any angle (regardless of how obscure or off topic it may be) to try to hang on to a point.
Maybe not characteristic of 100% of your posts but pretty damn close.
STOCKHOLM--The Swedish government Thursday said the corporate tax rate
will be lowered to 22% from 26.3% in its 2013 budget proposal.
"This is to improve the conditions for new jobs and investments in
Sweden. The significant lowering of corporate tax is expected to
strengthen the investor climate and growth in Sweden," the government
said.
STOCKHOLM--The Swedish government Thursday said the corporate tax rate
will be lowered to 22% from 26.3% in its 2013 budget proposal.
"This is to improve the conditions for new jobs and investments in
Sweden. The significant lowering of corporate tax is expected to
strengthen the investor climate and growth in Sweden," the government
said.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
