If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
I don't think that we should be the highest corporate tax in the modernized world either. It's hard to lower that and not seem like it's just a sympathy for the top 1%, when in fact it's those corporations and small businesses that pay the top rate that will be able to give their middle class employees a raise, and lift more people into the middle class by expanding and or hiring more workers.
I've never got a job from a poor person.
If the law allowed you to deduct based upon some sort of pay relative to peers (tough to enforce/track/etc.. I know..) I'd be in agreement. I'm not as positive as you are corporations would invest in R&D or employees with the new cash.
and yes, I know.. I've often said I'm for reducing the complexities of taxes and reducing deductions, so.. I'm being inconsistent here. I got it.
Grammar... The difference between feeling your nuts and feeling you're nuts.
It would help if he could cancel the first deal. But he cant.
That's an excuse, the deal hasn't changed since the election, he said he could get a better deal. Go get a better deal, don't list reasons why he can't. He's the alleged deal maker, get a better deal.
I don't think that you can say raises would be given. I think you can say that it can make the difference between borderline businesses surviving or going belly-up. I also believe it encourages potential entrepreneurs to make the leap. And for publicly held companies, it will increase dividends. All good things, imo.
"The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is sometimes hard to verify their authenticity." -Abraham Lincoln
I don't think that you can say raises would be given. I think you can say that it can make the difference between borderline businesses surviving or going belly-up. I also believe it encourages potential entrepreneurs to make the leap. And for publicly held companies, it will increase dividends. All good things, imo.
I would agree with the borderline business surviving. It's a good point.
I'd also like to see small business inheritance restructured to keep that aspect of our economy alive instead of promoting the corporate model.
Grammar... The difference between feeling your nuts and feeling you're nuts.
You can lower the corporate tax rate all you want, it won't make a lick of difference in hiring practices if your burgeoning industries are not labor intensive. The trickle down theory has an inherent assumption that companies have plans to hire people but they are just hindered by the tax rate.
At heart it's a debate over whether you want more money or just more in comparison to others. If you want to grow the pie and make more available for all, you invest in education and infrastructure. If you want to have more in proportion to the overall, you focus on cutting taxes and paying out dividends.
For the people who are actually going to make the decision (hint: not us), it's a question of whether they believe their great-grandchildren will be building factories and hiring people, or not.
That's an excuse, the deal hasn't changed since the election, he said he could get a better deal. Go get a better deal, don't list reasons why he can't. He's the alleged deal maker, get a better deal.
I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that Trump overstated his position as a candidate.
It is simply not as easy as tearing up the old deal and starting over. I think you would agree to that. If you wouldn't agree that it's not that easy, well, then you are no more intellectually honest as candidate Trump.
You can lower the corporate tax rate all you want, it won't make a lick of difference in hiring practices if your burgeoning industries are not labor intensive. The trickle down theory has an inherent assumption that companies have plans to hire people but they are just hindered by the tax rate.
If you're goal is to increase jobs in the US.... I'd suggest a more effective approach would be deductions based upon x% of your corp's workforce (including subs) that work in the US.
Grammar... The difference between feeling your nuts and feeling you're nuts.
The Iran deal was a much better deal than the alleged deal maker Trump could make.
Trump would never have made a deal with the Iran that guaranteed them a nuclear weapon or gave them $ 150 Billion to use on terrorism. He also would not have airlifted $ 1.7 Billion in foreign currency as a payoff to the Mullahs.
EDIT: I gotta start reading the whole thread before posting. Sorry.
Last edited by Da Geezer; October 25, 2017, 11:23 AM.
He should get to work, get something done, he promised. As a MAGA pressure him to make a better deal. Using a second Chicago or a Doc Brown Delorean is not an option.
He should get to work, get something done, he promised. As a MAGA pressure him to make a better deal. Using a second Chicago or a Doc Brown Delorean is not an option.
You don't have the basic facts straight, so you won't be able to do that. You know what actually might? The EU. Oddly enough. The interesting thing about the tax debate in the US is that, outside it, globally, we are in the midst of the biggest change to tax rules since the creation of the double-tax treaty in the 1920s. The tax debate in the US is almost entirely ignorant of quite a few of the actual, real factors shaping the policy options.
Which was is the change in tax structure going in the EU hack? Are they raising taxes and raising regulation? Any particular reason that a study came out today showing EU business optimism the highest in at least 20 years?
He's the deal maker, if you and Geezer are that worried about Iran getting a nuke and this deal guarantees a nuke, you got to get to work. Bluster has its place, but it doesn't get a deal done. The things you list as bad were part of the negotiations to get them to slow down. The presence of a deal doesn't guarantee they get a nuclear bomb at all, they have been on that path for a long time.
If they are worried about an American invasion, no deal will ever stop them. That's what MAD is all about.
Tweet
Comment