should obama have said what he said today

[Sava]

Even the GOP candidates know the tax cut discussion is a loser.

We should have a contest/game show: are you smarter than a Republican presidential primary candidate?

Spoiler:

you are dumb

[Sava]

Then you would have no idea on what even a 100 level class would be about. Further demonstrating your stupidity

The only thing worse than your understanding of tax policy is your attempted insults

[PLATO]

If the shoe fits.

You should start a thread on supply side economics so I can laugh at you in the appropriate thread

It has nothing to do with supply side economics moron, but keep guessing instead of researching. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally.

Wow...

[PLATO]

The only thing worse than your understanding of tax policy is your attempted insults

Thanks! I think my insults are pretty top notch too.

[ZEE]

:Popcorn:

[Sava]

It has nothing to do with supply side economics moron, but keep guessing instead of researching. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally.

Wow...

So in an era (now) where companies are sitting on tens of trillions of cash... Explain how a cut in taxes helps

[PLATO]

Even the GOP candidates know the tax cut discussion is a loser.

We should have a contest/game show: are you smarter than a Republican presidential primary candidate?

Spoiler:

you are dumb

If you would do the research moron, you would find bipartisan support for corporate tax reform. It is not just a republican position.

You really are pretty stupid, aren't you?

[Sava]

If you would do the research moron, you would find bipartisan support for corporate tax reform. It is not just a republican position.

You really are pretty stupid, aren't you?

A lot of Democrats are no better than a Republican.

Why do you think "bipartisan" support helps your case?

[PLATO]

So in an era (now) where companies are sitting on tens of trillions of cash... Explain how a cut in taxes helps

Sure several reasons. Thanks for finally asking,

There are two basic reasons. It is obviously more complicated, but these two will start:

1.) Companies are expanding overseas, or relocating overseas to reduce the tax burden. Regardless of how much cash a company has, it will seek to maximize its after tax income. Income earned in foreign countries is not taxed here until it is brought back here.
2.)Because of current tax rates, companies with large amounts of off shore cash are leaving it off shore to avoid paying tax here. There are literally hundreds of billions of dollars waiting off shore...being invested off shore. All because the tax rate here is to high.

These two things are based on the fact that the U.S. corporate tax rate is significantly higher than any other industrialized country. It is a serious disincentive to investing in the U.S. or even being HQed in the U.S.

Now...about personal tax policy(just since that is what you keep comparing things to...even if you don't realize it). The income gap in the country is higher than it has been since the 1920s. Clearly taxes on the wealthiest segment need to be significantly raised.

Hope this helps.

[PLATO]

A lot of Democrats are no better than a Republican.

Why do you think "bipartisan" support helps your case?

I merely bring it up due to you thinking that all tax cuts immediately imply republicans. In this case, that is incorrect.

[Sava]

I merely bring it up due to you thinking that all tax cuts immediately imply republicans. In this case, that is incorrect.

So you brought up something to address a point i didn't make

That's not a waste of everyone's time

[PLATO]

So you brought up something to address a point i didn't make

That's not a waste of everyone's time

Post 63 seemed to say that...or was that part just your attempt to bring guns into it for no reason?

[Sava]

Sure several reasons. Thanks for finally asking,

There are two basic reasons. It is obviously more complicated, but these two will start:

1.) Companies are expanding overseas, or relocating overseas to reduce the tax burden. Regardless of how much cash a company has, it will seek to maximize its after tax income. Income earned in foreign countries is not taxed here until it is brought back here.
2.)Because of current tax rates, companies with large amounts of off shore cash are leaving it off shore to avoid paying tax here. There are literally hundreds of billions of dollars waiting off shore...being invested off shore. All because the tax rate here is to high.

These two things are based on the fact that the U.S. corporate tax rate is significantly higher than any other industrialized country. It is a serious disincentive to investing in the U.S. or even being HQed in the U.S.

Now...about personal tax policy(just since that is what you keep comparing things to...even if you don't realize it). The income gap in the country is higher than it has been since the 1920s. Clearly taxes on the wealthiest segment need to be significantly raised.

Hope this helps.

Companies expand overseas because they want a larger market share. Taxes, unless punitive, are largely irrelevant and are rarely, if ever, a factor in such things.

Source: someone close to me is the top strategic person at a multi billion dollar company. They know more than you.

As for your other point, companies dodge taxes. Enforcement is needed. They aren't going to decide to pay some taxes rather than zero taxes just because the rate is lowered.

I find it funny that you think (seemingly) a lower rate would increase compliance

[Sava]

Post 63 seemed to say that...or was that part just your attempt to bring guns into it for no reason?

Are you so retarded that you cannot follow this discussion?

[PLATO]

Companies expand overseas because they want a larger market share. Taxes, unless punitive, are largely irrelevant and are rarely, if ever, a factor in such things.

That is not correct Sava. Taxes in the U.S. are a major issue and are punitive

Source: someone close to me is the top strategic person at a multi billion dollar company. They know more than you.

No they don't. As a matter of a fact, I had lunch in New York last month with three of the most prominent economists in the country and they all clearly disagree with your "source".

Maybe your "source" can explain why there is even legislative activity to prevent companies from relocating overseas.

Perhaps, you should talk more with your "source" to make sure you understood them right. If you did, then they are clearly in a small minority of senior business people, economist, and legislators who do not see this as a significant problem