Why do we need tax cuts?

[1bad65]

Cutting GE's statutory tax rate from 35% to 25% (when their effective tax rate is already zero) isn't going to do all that much to change the business plan that they already have.

GE is the exception.

You keep using that same talking point, not realizing what a weak argument it makes because of that.

[BrometheusBob.]

Mvthr****er just update the scores on the pick'em thread. Lol

Idk why I'm being such a bum lately

[1bad65]

Everyone expecting this massive boon in jobs and economic growth, as with almost every other time, will be greatly disappointed

Its actually worked the other times.

After both Reagan's Income Tax cuts and Bill Clinton's Capital Gains tax cuts, GDP and workers' wages both rose.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Cutting GE's statutory tax rate from 35% to 25% (when their effective tax rate is already zero) isn't going to do all that much to change the business plan that they already have.

Everyone expecting this massive boon in jobs and economic growth, as with almost every other time, will be greatly disappointed

I tend to agree somewhat.

That's why I'm in favor of tying the corporate tax rate to the amount of jobs in the US.

Have 100% in America, 3% tax
90% pay 9%
50% 18%

Etc...

Our labor laws, while excellent for the worker, is easily negated by companies that use cheap 3rd world labor. We need to make American labor more competitive again, and a real incentive could be lowered corporate taxes in exchange for American labor.

[RespekonMyName]

Its actually worked the other times.

After both Reagan's Income Tax cuts and Bill Clinton's Capital Gains tax cuts, GDP and workers' wages both rose.

Reagan cut taxes and then had to raise them again!

[Scipio2009]

GE is the exception.

You keep using that same talking point, not realizing what a weak argument it makes because of that.

Point to a company in the S&P 500 that would be affected by a change in the statutory tax rate and lead to some imaginary production boom.

Do you honestly think that GE is the only company that wouldn't care?

[Scipio2009]

I tend to agree somewhat.

That's why I'm in favor of tying the corporate tax rate to the amount of jobs in the US.

Have 100% in America, 3% tax
90% pay 9%
50% 18%

Etc...

Our labor laws, while excellent for the worker, is easily negated by companies that use cheap 3rd world labor. We need to make American labor more competitive again, and a real incentive could be lowered corporate taxes in exchange for American labor.

Only issue with that is that you end up artificially inflating the price of products for the US consumer.

Let the 3rd world battle over making 5 cent widgets; the US laborer, in a similar vein to the German laborer should be focused on more value-added products. Engines, trains, electric batteries, and a whole other host of products.

That's part of why I viewed the TPP as being a great move, regardless of all of the grumblings; it lowered the trade barriers for goods/services within NAFTA even further, lowered the barriers across Asia, and put US products on far more even playing field with the Asian continent.

When given the chance to compete on an even field, the US wins basically all of the battles that matter.

[1bad65]

Reagan cut taxes and then had to raise them again!

Only slightly.

He was by far a net tax cutter.

Do you know why he raised taxes?

[1bad65]

Point to a company in the S&P 500 that would be affected by a change in the statutory tax rate and lead to some imaginary production boom.

Since I didn't make that specific claim, and you're again trying to bog the discourse down into minutiae, not gonna happen.

This is an annoying habit of yours. Can you please knock that off? It's annoying, and irrelevant.

Do you honestly think that GE is the only company that wouldn't care?

Strawman, as I said nothing of the sort.

I said GE was the exception in terms of companies paying an effective zero tax rate.

Do you have data showing any other companies paying the same effective zero tax rate as GE?

I've not heard of any....

[1bad65]

That's part of why I viewed the TPP as being a great move, regardless of all of the grumblings; it lowered the trade barriers for goods/services within NAFTA even further, lowered the barriers across Asia, and put US products on far more even playing field with the Asian continent.

Lmao!!

NAFTA was a disaster for American workers and you want a trade deal that goes even further???

TPP was such a raw deal that Hillary had to flip-flop to try and snooker voters into believing she opposed it.

When even Hillary Clinton can't defend it and try to sell it, you know it's a jacked up deal.