Trump announces 35% tax on companies leaving US

[Underhill]

- Eliminate corporate income taxes.
The shareholders pay tax on dividends received.
- Eliminate the portion of regulation which isn't cost effective.
- Streamline the ridiculous bureaucracies whose gauntlet we must run to get anything done.
Ever try to develop real estate? The years of wrangling & bribes necessary.....disgusting & costly.
(By "bribe", I refer to legal but still wrong extortion, eg, buying fashionable art, making donations.)

A common problem talking to lefties about economics is that they believe
that anything which benefits business comes at a high cost to society.
That's a dysfunctional lens thru which to view potential change & solutions..
There is opportunity for improvement, & the business perspective is essential.

You thinking cutting corporate taxes to zero has little cost to society?

But even if we do all of that, it isn't enough to offset wages that are 1/10th (or less) what ours are.

 

[Revoltingest]

You thinking cutting corporate taxes to zero has little cost to society?

Yes.
Double taxation has a damping effect on doing business here.
Moreover, dividends should be taxed as ordinary income,
which would offset the revenue loss.

But even if we do all of that, it isn't enough to offset wages that are 1/10th (or less) what ours are.

How do you know?
But I don't intend to eliminate domestic companies doing business overseas..
....just make things better.

 

[Underhill]

Yes.
Double taxation has a damping effect on doing business here.
Moreover, dividends should be taxed as ordinary income,
which would offset the revenue loss.

No doubt it has an effect, most cost of doing business do. But I have yet to see a study that backs up your claims that the benefits would outweigh the cost to the country. It would certainly benefit the companies, but this notion that our number one job is maximizing profits for companies seems a bit much in light of the amount of cash these companies have plundered from our economy.

How do you know?
But I don't intend to eliminate domestic companies doing business overseas..
....just make things better.

Who wants to eliminate them doing business? I have no idea what the Donalds plans are in detail (I doubt he does) but the ideal would be for the manufacturing in this country to match the sales here. This is done in other parts of the world. Our company had to build a facility in India because they require that a percentage of all production be domestic if you sell there. This seems like a reasonable approach.

As for how I know, I am a business major working at a job that deals directly with costing production. I have a pretty good idea what I am talking about.

 

[Revoltingest]

No doubt it has an effect, most cost of doing business do. But I have yet to see a study that backs up your claims that the benefits would outweigh the cost to the country.

I doubt that you will.
Economics isn't easily amenable to testing theories.
So I look at incentives posed by government policies, & see what behavior they encourage.

It would certainly benefit the companies, but this notion that our number one job is maximizing profits seems a bit much in light of the amount of cash these companies have plundered from our economy.

Here's the problem...
If one sees business only as plunderers, one's 'solution' will be punishment & prevention.

Who wants to eliminate them doing business?

The commies & socialists.
But we needn't consider their irrelevant wishes in this thread.

I have no idea what the Donalds plans are in detail (I doubt he does) but the ideal would be for the manufacturing in this country to match the sales here. This is done in other parts of the world. Our company had to build a facility in India because they require that a percentage of all production be domestic if you sell there. This seems like a reasonable approach.

I don't know what Donald plans.
Perhaps even he doesn't.
His tweetings might be naught but stream of consciousness musings.

As for how I know, I am a business major working at a job that deals directly with costing production. I have a pretty good idea what I am talking about.

As you progress in your field, a larger picture will emerge.
(That sounds condescending, but it's unavoidable.)
I know many companies which have been on the fence about overseas business.
Some send it there....some are only considering it....others send it there, & then
move it back here. So changes which encourage keeping it here will have that effect.
(It's about more than cheap wages.)

 

[Underhill]

I doubt that you will.
Economics isn't easily amenable to testing theories.
So I look at incentives posed by government policies, & see what behavior they encourage.

Here's the problem...
If one sees business only as plunderers, one's 'solution' will be punishment & prevention.

I don't see them as only plunderers. I see the whole picture. They are job creators and users and plunderers. It is in their nature to create wealth through whatever means they can. It isn't evil or nefarious, it is the nature of doing business. I have no doubt that anyone who ignores the realities of these traits, on either side, will have a skewed view.

The commies & socialists.
But we needn't consider their irrelevant wishes in this thread.

I don't know what Donald plans.
Perhaps even he doesn't.
His tweetings might be naught but stream of consciousness musings.

As you progress in your field, a larger picture will emerge.
(That sounds condescending, but it's unavoidable.)
I know many companies which have been on the fence about overseas business.
Some send it there....some are only considering it....others send it there, & then
move it back here. So changes which encourage keeping it here will have that effect.
(It's about more than cheap wages.)

I realize that. I never said it was. But it is generally the single biggest factor. This is why you don't see companies in mass moving production to Sweden or the UK (where corporate taxes are lower than our own by double digits).

I do agree that your comments are condescending. I also think they are wrong. I am not some college kid just learning the ways of the world.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't see them as only plunderers. I see the whole picture. They are job creators and users and plunderers. It is in their nature to create wealth through whatever means they can. It isn't evil or nefarious, it is the nature of doing business. I have no doubt that anyone who ignores the realities of these traits, on either side, will have a skewed view.



I realize that. I never said it was. But it is generally the single biggest factor. This is why you don't see companies in mass moving production to Sweden or the UK (where corporate taxes are lower than our own by double digits).

I do agree that your comments are condescending. I also think they are wrong. I am not some college kid just learning the ways of the world.

You will learn, my young padawan.
(That would sound so much better if Mr T had posted it.)

 

[columbus]

You will learn, my young padawan.

You haven't.
You're older than dirt and you still believe in "trickle down" economics. Despite the huge lesson of the Republican Recession of 2008, you still believe that cutting taxes will improve things for the majority of Usonian people.
Tom

 

[Acim]

Unlevel playing field on taxes and regulations in the world market means some businesses get to supply American demand with greater profit margin. This obviously benefits certain corporations, while not helping the American working class. As long as existing American regulations are being skirted, I'd go with such a tax, while doing everything humanly possible to undercut those same American regulations, starting with the zealous ones.

 

[Revoltingest]

You haven't.
You're older than dirt and you still believe in "trickle down" economics. Despite the huge lesson of the Republican Recession of 2008, you still believe that cutting taxes will improve things for the majority of Usonian people.
Tom

You don't understand what caused the recession. The very fact that you think it was "Republican"
shows you're unaware of the many decades of bi-partisan policies which created the instability
which was triggered by 9/11. I've held forth on this, but so few read those TLTR posts.
Some thoughts & corrections.....
- I didn't advocate cutting tax revenue....just a particular tax.
- We can collect the same level of revenue, but with more productive incentives.
- I've never supported "trickle down" economics.
- I'd even prefer tariffs (to keep jobs here) over punitive taxation (which doesn't address reasons for the desire to move).

You've made too many erroneous assumptions, but that's typical of you east coast,
mansion dwelling, yacht owning, privileged, straight, kale eating, tailored suit wearing,
ultra-rich, Harvard educated, Prius driving, liberal, white Democratic Party elites.

 

[columbus]

You don't understand what caused the recession. The very fact that you think it was "Republican" shows you're unaware of the many decades of bi-partisan policies which created the instability which was triggered by 9/11.

Yes I do understand what caused the recession. Tax cuts and deregulation, from the Republicans during the Bush Administration.
The fact that you blame it on bin Laden is proof that you don't understand why it happened.

You remind me of the dufouses that believe illegal immigration went up under the Obama administration. It didn't, the facts are available, but y'all are too partisan to see them.
Bush et al cut taxes on the super rich. They responded to this influx of cash by going overseas to cheaper labor markets and importing goods they could sell more cheaply and profitably to the Usonian's whose income was being squeezed by the lack of job security and resultant depression on wages.
So WalMart could benefit both from depressed wages and imports from cheap labor countries.
Then the Republicans imported a ton of cheap Mexican workers. They kept consumption up and further depressed wages for the working class.
And...
And...

We wound up with the worst recession since the 30s.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes I do understand what caused the recession. Tax cuts and deregulation, from the Republicans during the Bush Administration.
The fact that you blame it on bin Laden is proof that you don't understand why it happened.

I've offered evidence & a cogent argument for why it was caused by both Democratic
& Republican public policies in decades preceding the trigger, ie, 9/11.
You've never offered any detailed criticism of those posts.
Yet you make the counter claim, presenting me with nothing.

You remind me of the dufouses that believe illegal immigration went up under the Obama administration.

You're committing a fallacy by trying to link me with a discredited claim
simply because I remind you of someone else.
Note that I don't bring up the fact that you remind me of Michael Moore.

Dang it!
Now it's out there.

It didn't, the facts are available, but y'all are too partisan to see them.

This is an empty claim, given that (unlike you) I see the fault
in both parties, while you offer only Republican culpability.

Bush et al cut taxes on the super rich. They responded to this influx of cash by going overseas to cheaper labor markets and importing goods they could sell more cheaply and profitably to the Usonian's whose income was being squeezed by the lack of job security and resultant depression on wages.
So WalMart could benefit both from depressed wages and imports from cheap labor countries.
Then the Republicans imported a ton of cheap Mexican workers. They kept consumption up and further depressed wages for the working class.
And...
And...

We wound up with the worst recession since the 30s.
Tom

Please explain how cutting taxes on the "super rich" led to mortgage lenders (eg, Countrywide) failing?
How did this lead to economic stagnation?
How did this cause home mortgage default?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't like it.
Create a climate wherein businesses want to be here.
Then no threats of punishment are necessary.

Yes, cut down on corporate tax, property tax, regulation, make hiring/firing easier- reduce health costs ..

Then If it's still not economically viable for a company to compete in this climate, better let them move production to Mexico than see them go bust altogether.

The practical upshot is the working poor paying more for products, so lazy union workers can get paid 6 figures for doing work blind chimps could be trained to do.


This is the only time I've ever stuck up for Obama, - if he had threatened private companies like this, conservatives would have a fit!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes I do understand what caused the recession. Tax cuts and deregulation, from the Republicans during the Bush Administration.
The fact that you blame it on bin Laden is proof that you don't understand why it happened.

You remind me of the dufouses that believe illegal immigration went up under the Obama administration. It didn't, the facts are available, but y'all are too partisan to see them.
Bush et al cut taxes on the super rich. They responded to this influx of cash by going overseas to cheaper labor markets and importing goods they could sell more cheaply and profitably to the Usonian's whose income was being squeezed by the lack of job security and resultant depression on wages.
So WalMart could benefit both from depressed wages and imports from cheap labor countries.
Then the Republicans imported a ton of cheap Mexican workers. They kept consumption up and further depressed wages for the working class.

When it became apparent in 2008...that the Democrats were not only going to win the white house, but put in a particularly leftist candidate, AND control the house and senate...

Lenders stopped lending, employers stopped hiring, investors stopped investing, consumers stopped consuming,

Was this fear of the past, or fear of the future?

There is a reason they call the markets the 'futures'... the two days after Obama was elected were the greatest stock market loss in history.

All because conservative policies that had fueled unprecedented growth for a generation since Reagan- coincidentally and suddenly stopped working at this exact time?!

 

[Revoltingest]

When it became apparent in 2008...that the Democrats were not only going to win the white house, but put in a particularly leftist candidate, AND control the house and senate...

Lenders stopped lending, employers stopped hiring, investors stopped investing, consumers stopped consuming,

Was this fear of the past, or fear of the future?

There is a reason they call the markets the 'futures'... the two days after Obama was elected were the greatest stock market loss in history.

All because conservative policies that had fueled unprecedented growth for a generation since Reagan- coincidentally and suddenly stopped working at this exact time?!

It actually began before 2008, & before Obama was even a candidate.
Money began drying up on 9.2.2001. I saw it because I had many more commercial tenants & properties then. Tenants & their venture capital financiers were all were worried about the economic future, & so they began cutting back. This led to real estate values falling, defaults, & greater lender conservatism. The fed even required commercial & residential lenders to refuse loan renewals (required every few years), & even to foreclose upon borrowers. This happened under both Bush & Obama, so I don't believe in partisan blame.