USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0
- Thread starter FreshFish
- Start date
- Status
St. Clown
Ideas Posted are Likely Not My Own
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
We're still near historically low workforce participation rates. Of those 288k new jobs, many of them are not full-time employment and a number of previously full-time employess had their hours cut.
It's a mixed bag report.Unemployment down to 6.1%. 288K jobs created.
Knucks', lets hear some spin, baby!
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
We're still near historically low workforce participation rates. Of those 288k new jobs, many of them are not full-time employment and a number of previously full-time employess had their hours cut.
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0
For the bazillionth time, the largest generation that's in the workforce right now is approaching retirement age. The largest generation, Millenials, haven't all hit the workforce yet. Therefore the total workforce will shrink as the oldies hit 67 (or 62 if they prefer) and take Social Security. A more relevant fact is that employment has hit an all time high.
For the bazillionth time, the largest generation that's in the workforce right now is approaching retirement age. The largest generation, Millenials, haven't all hit the workforce yet. Therefore the total workforce will shrink as the oldies hit 67 (or 62 if they prefer) and take Social Security. A more relevant fact is that employment has hit an all time high.
St. Clown
Ideas Posted are Likely Not My Own
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0
Think about the jobs populated by teens. If U is down on the whole, participation rate is up, and teen U% is still at 21% (near historical highs since the end of the Great Depression), those low-wage, menial jobs are being taken by adults. I wouldn't hang my hat on those numbers.
Anyone born after 1997 is not counted in the workforce participation rates unless they've actively sought employment. Those over the age of 65 - a goodly sum of those Boomers - are also not counted in those figures unless they're actively searching or already employed. U% for teens is at 21%.
Think about the jobs populated by teens. If U is down on the whole, participation rate is up, and teen U% is still at 21% (near historical highs since the end of the Great Depression), those low-wage, menial jobs are being taken by adults. I wouldn't hang my hat on those numbers.
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0
The Department of Labor released a report on Tuesday that included unemployment rates among large metro areas. At the top (or bottom, I guess) was the epicenter of laissez-faire thinking itself, the Twin Cities, at 4%. Further proof that liberals are bad for business.
The Department of Labor released a report on Tuesday that included unemployment rates among large metro areas. At the top (or bottom, I guess) was the epicenter of laissez-faire thinking itself, the Twin Cities, at 4%. Further proof that liberals are bad for business.
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0
Is that the rate that includes those who have given up, or just the ones that are still looking?
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0
The list of dimensions on which the cities is number one in the nation is very long. Rather than an adversarial relationship, this is due to a combination of a tight partnership of business, government and citizen. I don't know if it would work everywhere...we have a very high quality of citizen from top to bottom.
The list of dimensions on which the cities is number one in the nation is very long. Rather than an adversarial relationship, this is due to a combination of a tight partnership of business, government and citizen. I don't know if it would work everywhere...we have a very high quality of citizen from top to bottom.
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0
It must be the rate that doesn't include the people who aren't looking. My point though has less to do with the actual number than with the fact that it's the lowest of the large metros.
It must be the rate that doesn't include the people who aren't looking. My point though has less to do with the actual number than with the fact that it's the lowest of the large metros.
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0
I see that US corporate income tax rates are in the news again.
An ideal solution, to me, would be to abolish corporate income taxes completely and instead pass through the income tax consequences entirely to the corporation's shareholders. In practice that will never fly. Too much stock is owned in tax-deferred retirement plans, for one thing.....
As it stands now, corporations do NOT "pay" any income taxes at all, they merely act as tax collectors on behalf of the government. The true burden of the corporate income tax instead is spread across various "stakeholders": not just shareholders, but also bond holders, executives, rank-and-file employees, suppliers, and customers. All of them are affected in one way or the other.
There are two different, extremely simple, reforms, either of which could be implemented, to solve the "inversion" problem that is dominating the news:
-- give corporations a tax deduction for corporate income taxes paid to overseas governments, or
-- change the corporate tax rate ONLY for earnings generated from overseas operations to a number like 5%, say.
(for those who don't know it, the US tax code currently imposes a 35% tax rate on overseas earnings BUT ONLY if those earnings are brought back into the US, while ignoring any taxes that may already have been paid on those earnings to foreign governments. As a result, either (a) US corporations are being purchased by overseas companies for tax savings, or (b) US corporations are purchasing overseas companies and then relocating their headquarters to the new foreign jurisdiction. Ireland and Canada are big beneficiaries of the latter).
Everyone across the political spectrum agrees that US corporate tax rates are too high. Right now, there is a vast, unfair, complicated, confusing maze of various credits and allowances, each of which are industry-specific, that depend upon how adept their lobbyists are, and where the corporate headquarters are relative to various political power brokers (for example, in the past few years, Nevada-based companies have received special tax preferences compared to other states, since Harry Reid (D-NV) has been majority leader. So-called "green" companies also have received lots of tax preferences since 2009 as well).
I see that US corporate income tax rates are in the news again.
An ideal solution, to me, would be to abolish corporate income taxes completely and instead pass through the income tax consequences entirely to the corporation's shareholders. In practice that will never fly. Too much stock is owned in tax-deferred retirement plans, for one thing.....
As it stands now, corporations do NOT "pay" any income taxes at all, they merely act as tax collectors on behalf of the government. The true burden of the corporate income tax instead is spread across various "stakeholders": not just shareholders, but also bond holders, executives, rank-and-file employees, suppliers, and customers. All of them are affected in one way or the other.
There are two different, extremely simple, reforms, either of which could be implemented, to solve the "inversion" problem that is dominating the news:
-- give corporations a tax deduction for corporate income taxes paid to overseas governments, or
-- change the corporate tax rate ONLY for earnings generated from overseas operations to a number like 5%, say.
(for those who don't know it, the US tax code currently imposes a 35% tax rate on overseas earnings BUT ONLY if those earnings are brought back into the US, while ignoring any taxes that may already have been paid on those earnings to foreign governments. As a result, either (a) US corporations are being purchased by overseas companies for tax savings, or (b) US corporations are purchasing overseas companies and then relocating their headquarters to the new foreign jurisdiction. Ireland and Canada are big beneficiaries of the latter).
Everyone across the political spectrum agrees that US corporate tax rates are too high. Right now, there is a vast, unfair, complicated, confusing maze of various credits and allowances, each of which are industry-specific, that depend upon how adept their lobbyists are, and where the corporate headquarters are relative to various political power brokers (for example, in the past few years, Nevada-based companies have received special tax preferences compared to other states, since Harry Reid (D-NV) has been majority leader. So-called "green" companies also have received lots of tax preferences since 2009 as well).
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0
Wrong. Comparative real tax liability for American corporations is quite low for western democracies, and low by American historical standards. The theoretical rate that is always quoted in those RNC "we have the highest rates in the world" rants (35%) is irrelevant to how much they actually pay (12%).
Now go back to The Tax Foundation and find another talking point. I hear "red tape is crushing our entrepreneurial spirit" is the soup de jour.
Wrong. Comparative real tax liability for American corporations is quite low for western democracies, and low by American historical standards. The theoretical rate that is always quoted in those RNC "we have the highest rates in the world" rants (35%) is irrelevant to how much they actually pay (12%).
Now go back to The Tax Foundation and find another talking point. I hear "red tape is crushing our entrepreneurial spirit" is the soup de jour.
So, use GAAP and charge them 12-15% of the bottom line.
Won't someone think of the tax attourneys?!
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0
Hmm...did we just say the same thing in different words?...
Yup, you really were not paying attention at all, PARTICULARLY because I was primarily talking ONLY about how overseas earnings were taxed, not the overall tax rate on US corporate earnings.
There are trillions of dollars of corporate earnings generated by overseas subsidiaries that US corporations would like to bring back into the US, that they don't, partly because of the "double taxation" consideration and partly because those earnings are taxed only upon repatration. 35% of $0 is a lot, lot, lot less than 5% of $1,000,000,000,000.
So, Kepler, I realize that attention to detail is not your strong suit. Even so, which is better for the US: $0, or $50,000,000,000?
Hmm...did we just say the same thing in different words?...
Yup, you really were not paying attention at all, PARTICULARLY because I was primarily talking ONLY about how overseas earnings were taxed, not the overall tax rate on US corporate earnings.
There are trillions of dollars of corporate earnings generated by overseas subsidiaries that US corporations would like to bring back into the US, that they don't, partly because of the "double taxation" consideration and partly because those earnings are taxed only upon repatration. 35% of $0 is a lot, lot, lot less than 5% of $1,000,000,000,000.
So, Kepler, I realize that attention to detail is not your strong suit. Even so, which is better for the US: $0, or $50,000,000,000?
Last edited:
unofan
Well-known member
Your second point regarding double taxation is false. The U.S. allows individuals and businesses alike to claim credits for taxes paid to other countries. IRS form 1118 for corporations.
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0
"We'll always have Guernsey."
"We'll always have Guernsey."
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0
US Companies are sitting on billions of dollars that are already here and they have no interest in investing it in anything other than moving jobs overseas.
Try again.
Oh, and make sure you finally read up on Kansas so you finally understand that your and Brownback's economic policies don't work.
US Companies are sitting on billions of dollars that are already here and they have no interest in investing it in anything other than moving jobs overseas.
Try again.
Oh, and make sure you finally read up on Kansas so you finally understand that your and Brownback's economic policies don't work.
unofan
Well-known member
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0
Bringing this over from the other thread to try to save it...
The actual Laffer Curve
<img src="http://i.investopedia.com/inv/dictionary/terms/laffercurve.gif"></img>
What you seem to believe the Laffer Curve is:
<img src="http://img.fark.net/images/cache/850/8/8H/fark_8HqBFo4q5AbPgsViAe8zX-vzQOc.gif?t=JC7tGu6oV7Qw3B1XPqm_3w&f=1405915200"></img>
An op-ed in your favorite paper, the WSJ, from Nobel Laureate in Economics Peter Diamond
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303425504577353843997820160
"According to our analysis of current tax rates and their elasticity, the revenue-maximizing top federal marginal income tax rate would be in or near the range of 50%-70% (taking into account that individuals face additional taxes from Medicare and state and local taxes). Thus we conclude that raising the top tax rate is very likely to result in revenue increases at least until we reach the 50% rate that held during the first Reagan administration, and possibly until the 70% rate of the 1970s. To reduce tax avoidance opportunities, tax rates on capital gains and dividends should increase along with the basic rate."
Bringing this over from the other thread to try to save it...
The actual Laffer Curve
<img src="http://i.investopedia.com/inv/dictionary/terms/laffercurve.gif"></img>
What you seem to believe the Laffer Curve is:
<img src="http://img.fark.net/images/cache/850/8/8H/fark_8HqBFo4q5AbPgsViAe8zX-vzQOc.gif?t=JC7tGu6oV7Qw3B1XPqm_3w&f=1405915200"></img>
An op-ed in your favorite paper, the WSJ, from Nobel Laureate in Economics Peter Diamond
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303425504577353843997820160
"According to our analysis of current tax rates and their elasticity, the revenue-maximizing top federal marginal income tax rate would be in or near the range of 50%-70% (taking into account that individuals face additional taxes from Medicare and state and local taxes). Thus we conclude that raising the top tax rate is very likely to result in revenue increases at least until we reach the 50% rate that held during the first Reagan administration, and possibly until the 70% rate of the 1970s. To reduce tax avoidance opportunities, tax rates on capital gains and dividends should increase along with the basic rate."
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0
Of course why is this wrong on its face? (edit: not the curve, but the 50-70% dealie) It assumes that the gov't can spend money faster than those who aren't the government. Something we generally believe to be false. The gov't gets money every time it passes through a tax system. The proportion of money held by gov't may be higher, but the total that goes through their hands will be lower because it takes them time to spend it. The money goes through the private sector faster and the gov't collects its nickel or whatever, but the frequency it goes through the private sector means they get more of those shiny nickels.
edit: The gov't only gets money when money is moved by the private sector. To assume that a lower end person moves the money faster through transfer payments (as often happens in welfare gov't situations) assumes the gov't can efficiently off-load their take-in the first place
Of course why is this wrong on its face? (edit: not the curve, but the 50-70% dealie) It assumes that the gov't can spend money faster than those who aren't the government. Something we generally believe to be false. The gov't gets money every time it passes through a tax system. The proportion of money held by gov't may be higher, but the total that goes through their hands will be lower because it takes them time to spend it. The money goes through the private sector faster and the gov't collects its nickel or whatever, but the frequency it goes through the private sector means they get more of those shiny nickels.
edit: The gov't only gets money when money is moved by the private sector. To assume that a lower end person moves the money faster through transfer payments (as often happens in welfare gov't situations) assumes the gov't can efficiently off-load their take-in the first place
Last edited:
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0
And yet some, including the one I work for, are rethinking Asia. Two massive projects have essentially been shtcanned because of rising costs over there. We've adjusted our strategy to try and reduce costs by putting manufacturing near the end user. If China wants to buy our products, we're more likely to put a plant in China. If the US demands a product, we'll put it in the US. Obviously there are some exceptions to the rule when it comes to federal laws about technology and foreign countries. Some of it is required to be produced within the US.
And yet some, including the one I work for, are rethinking Asia. Two massive projects have essentially been shtcanned because of rising costs over there. We've adjusted our strategy to try and reduce costs by putting manufacturing near the end user. If China wants to buy our products, we're more likely to put a plant in China. If the US demands a product, we'll put it in the US. Obviously there are some exceptions to the rule when it comes to federal laws about technology and foreign countries. Some of it is required to be produced within the US.
- Status