The never-ending POTUS Election thread....

[Sheik]

Sheik talked about producing more products in the States, my question is with all the factories that would pop up how would that effect and the different carbon tax laws?

I'm pretty sure it's not a nationwide tax at the moment.

Build those factories in non liberal states and let those other states starve.

 

[Hoofbite]

I'll tell you why we see huge trade deficits. It's because our own government makes it impossible to compete globally with all the taxation and regulations these companies have to deal with. Not to mention if minimum wages go up to $15/hour.

But that's not a trade issue. It's a government overreach issue, and it's domestic. I don't see the need to villify the global markets because they don't hinder their companies from competing.... unless you're trying to drum up support among your electorate.

To some extent this is true, but even absent taxes and regulations corporations will still opt for the closest thing to slave labor that they can find. Not like the effective tax rate is anywhere near the statutory rate in the first place.

 

[Hoofbite]

The problem for me is not so much that there's a huge deficit, it's that it's more attractive for us to bring in most everything we consume. We could put a lot of people to work in this country if our taxes were competitive. Trump is explaining it in it's most simple form. "China bad.", when he saying that, I don't see it as they are bad because they make shit cheaper. They're bad because our tax code is pure shit for business.

It would be a whole other story if we were just consuming way more shit from other countries because we're some bad muthafukas and we can afford it. We're having to do it because businesses are driven away from this country and we still need TVs, cars, and farming equipment.

At some point our tax code has to represent faith in our people. Faith that lower taxes will create more tax payers. As it is, we can't compete globally. This country needs to be run like business, I'll take my chances with a businessman. We've seen what lawyers can do(no offense, Pep).

As it is, there's no end in sight to this disaster we have going on with the political class taking turns fucking us.

Here's three steps that would drastically change the course of this country over the next 15 years:

1. Tax reform. Make our countrie's tax laws conducive to bringing back factory jobs. People will work if there's work to be done.

2. Welfare reform. It should not be as attractive to stay home and pop out kids as it is to earn a living. Welfare should be a program that gets you back on your feet, not one that keeps you on the couch.

3. Stop telling our youth that they all need to go to college to be successful. We're graduating too many kids from universities with mountains of debt. There was a time when kids weren't told that their only option besides college is McDonalds.

I'm voting for Trump like a mfer. Not because he's a small government conservative. I'm doing it because I'm tired of seeing politicians blow it. I'm curious to see if he'll actually curtail the "waste, fraud and abuse", you know, paying $25k for a hammer, shit like that.

What exactly would be a competitive corporate tax rate?

 

[Sheik]

What exactly would be a competitive corporate tax rate?

You want a percentage number? Idk that.

I guess it would be somewhere in the range of high enough to be reasonable, and low enough to make moving an operation overseas and killing American jobs less attractive?

I'm of the idea that you don't need to demonize success. Big business can work for everyone. I like the idea of creating more tax payers, not creating higher taxes.

Basically businesses have decided that shipping jobs overseas outweighs paying taxes and employing Americans. You can continue to reduce the job force and keep taxes the same, but it's not working all that well at the moment.

 

[Bluenoser]

Could they pass a law that if your an American company you have to produce a certain percentage of product within the US?

 

[dbair1967]

What exactly would be a competitive corporate tax rate?

According to this, we are nearly double the global average for corporate income tax. Even worse, its been fixed at this ridiculously high rate for a decade. The numbers you see are the rate per yr beginning in 2006

Corporate tax rates table | KPMG | GLOBAL

Afghanistan 0 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 + Show
Albania 20 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 15 15 + Show
Algeria 25 19 23 + Show
Angola 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 30 + Show
Argentina 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 + Show
Armenia 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 + Show
Aruba 35 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 + Show
Australia 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 + Show
Austria 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 + Show
Bahamas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Show
Bahrain 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Show
Bangladesh 30 30 30 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 + Show
Barbados 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 + Show
Belarus 24 24 24 24 24 24 18 18 18 18 + Show
Belgium 33.99 33.99 33.99 33.99 33.99 33.99 33.99 33.99 33.99 33.99 + Show
Bermuda 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Show
Bolivia 25 25 25 25 25 25 + Show
Bonaire, Saint Eustatius and Saba 0 0 0 0 + Show
Bosnia and Herzegovina 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 + Show
Botswana 25 25 25 25 25 22 22 22 22 22 + Show
Brazil 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 + Show
Bulgaria 15 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 + Show
Cambodia 20 20 20 20 20 + Show
Cameroon 33 + Show
Canada 36.1 36.1 33.5 33 31 28 26 26 26.5 26.5 + Show
Cayman Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Show
Chile 17 17 17 17 17 20 18.5 20 20 22.5 + Show
China 33 33 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 + Show
Colombia 35 34 33 33 33 33 33 25 25 25 + Show
Costa Rica 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 + Show
Croatia 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 + Show
Curacao 34.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 25 + Show
Cyprus 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 12.5 12.5 12.5 + Show
Czech Republic 24 24 21 20 19 19 19 19 19 19 + Show
Denmark 28 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 24.5 23.5 + Show
Dominican Republic 30 25 25 25 25 29 29 29 28 27 + Show
Ecuador 25 25 25 25 25 24 23 22 22 22 + Show
Egypt 20 20 20 20 20 20 25 25 25 22.5 + Show
El Salvador 30 30 30 30 + Show
Estonia 23 22 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 20 + Show
Fiji 31 31 31 29 28 28 28 20 20 20 + Show
Finland 26 26 26 26 26 26 24.5 24.5 20 20 + Show
France 33.33 33.33 33.33 33.33 33.33 33.33 33.33 33.33 33.33 33.33 + Show
Georgia 15 15 15 + Show
Germany 38.34 38.36 29.51 29.44 29.41 29.37 29.48 29.55 29.58 29.65 + Show
Ghana 25 25 25 + Show
Gibraltar 35 35 33 27 22 10 10 10 10 10 + Show
Greece 29 25 25 25 24 20 20 26 26 29 + Show
Guatemala 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 28 25 + Show
Guernsey 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Show
Honduras 30 30 30 30 25 35 35 35 30 30 + Show
Hong Kong SAR 17.5 17.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 + Show
Hungary 16 16 16 16 19 19 19 19 19 19 + Show
Iceland 18 18 15 15 18 20 20 20 20 20 + Show
India 33.66 33.99 33.99 33.99 33.99 32.44 32.45 33.99 33.99 34.61 + Show
Indonesia 30 30 30 28 25 25 25 25 25 + Show
Iraq 15 15 35 + Show
Ireland 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 + Show
Isle of Man 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Show
Israel 31 29 27 26 25 24 25 25 26.5 26.5 + Show
Italy 37.25 37.25 31.4 31.4 31.4 31.4 31.4 31.4 31.4 31.4 + Show
Jamaica 33.33 33.33 33.33 33.33 33.33 33.33 33.33 25 25 25 + Show
Japan 40.69 40.69 40.69 40.69 40.69 40.69 38.01 38.01 35.64 33.06 + Show
Jersey 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Show
Jordan 25 25 25 25 14 14 14 14 14 20 + Show
Kazakhstan 30 30 30 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 + Show
Kenya 30 30 30 30 + Show
Korea, Republic of 27.5 27.5 27.5 24.2 24.2 22 24.2 24.2 24.2 24.2 + Show
Kuwait 55 55 55 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 + Show
Latvia 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 + Show
Lebanon 15 15 15 + Show
Libya 40 40 40 40 20 20 20 20 20 + Show
Liechtenstein 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 + Show
Lithuania 15 15 15 20 15 15 15 15 15 15 + Show
Luxembourg 29.63 29.63 29.63 28.59 28.59 28.8 28.8 29.22 29.22 29.22 + Show
Macau 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 + Show
Macedonia 15 12 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 + Show
Malawi 30 30 30 30 + Show
Malaysia 28 27 26 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 + Show
Malta 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 + Show
Mauritius 25 22.5 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 + Show
Mexico 29 28 28 28 30 30 30 30 30 30 + Show
Moldova 12 + Show
Montenegro 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 + Show
Morocco 30 30 30 + Show
Mozambique 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 + Show
Namibia 34 34 33 33 33 + Show
Netherlands 29.6 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25 25 25 25 25 + Show
New Zealand 33 33 30 30 30 28 28 28 28 28 + Show
Nigeria 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 + Show
Norway 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 27 27 + Show
Oman 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 + Show
Pakistan 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 34 33 + Show
Panama 30 30 30 30 27.5 25 25 25 25 25 + Show
Papua New Guinea 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 + Show
Paraguay 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 + Show
Peru 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 28 + Show
Philippines 35 35 35 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 + Show
Poland 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 + Show
Portugal 27.5 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 23 21 + Show
Qatar 35 35 35 35 10 10 10 10 10 10 + Show
Romania 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 + Show
Russia 24 24 24 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 + Show
Samoa 29 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 + Show
Saudi Arabia 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 + Show
Serbia 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 15 15 15 + Show
Sierra Leone 30 30 + Show
Singapore 20 20 18 18 17 17 17 17 17 17 + Show
Sint Maarten (Dutch part) 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.5 + Show
Slovakia 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 23 22 22 + Show
Slovenia 25 23 22 21 20 20 18 17 17 17 + Show
South Africa 36.89 36.89 34.55 34.55 34.55 34.55 34.55 28 28 28 + Sho
Spain 35 32.5 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 28 + Show
Sri Lanka 32.5 35 35 35 35 28 28 28 28 28 + Show
St Maarten 24.5 + Show
Sudan 35 30 15 15 15 35 35 35 35 35 + Show
Suriname 36 34.5 + Show
Sweden 28 28 28 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 22 22 22 + Show
Switzerland 21.3 20.63 19.2 18.96 18.75 18.31 18.06 18.01 17.92 17.92
Syria 35 28 28 28 28 28 28 22 22 22 + Show
Taiwan 25 25 25 25 17 17 17 17 17 17 + Show
Tanzania 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 + Show
Thailand 30 30 30 30 30 30 23 20 20 20 + Show
Trinidad and Tobago 25 25 25 25 + Show
Tunisia 35 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 25 25 + Show
Turkey 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 + Show
Uganda 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 + Show
Ukraine 25 25 25 25 25 25 21 19 18 18 + Show
United Arab Emirates 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 + Show
United Kingdom 30 30 30 28 28 26 24 23 21 20 + Show
United States 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 + Show
Uruguay 30 30 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 + Show
Vanuatu 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Show
Venezuela 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 + Show
Vietnam 28 28 28 25 25 25 25 25 22 22 + Show
Yemen 35 35 35 35 35 20 20 20 20 20 + Show
Zambia 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 + Show
Zimbabwe 30.9 30.9 30.9 30.9 25.75 25.75 25.75 25.75 25.75 25.75 + Show

Africa average 30.82 30.56 28.65 28.75 28.38 28.55 29.02 28.29 27.85 27.92
Americas average 29.97 29.27 28.84 28.82 28.28 29.28 28.67 28.35 27.96 27.35
Asia average 28.99 28.46 27.99 25.73 23.96 23.1 22.89 22.05 21.91 22.59
Europe average 23.7 22.99 21.95 21.64 21.46 20.81 20.42 20.6 19.68 20.12
Oceania average 30.6 30.2 29.6 29.2 29 28.6 28.6 27 27 27
North America average 38.05 38.05 36.75 36.5 35.5 34 33 33 33.25 33.25
Latin America average 29.07 28.3 27.96 27.96 27.52 28.83 28.3 27.96 27.52 26.85
EU average 24.83 23.97 23.17 23.11 22.93 22.7 22.51 22.75 21.34 22.25
OECD average 27.67 27 25.99 25.64 25.7 25.4 25.15 25.32 24.11 24.86
Global average 27.5 26.95 26.1 25.38 24.69 24.5 24.4 23.71 23.64 23.87

 

[peplaw06]

To some extent this is true, but even absent taxes and regulations corporations will still opt for the closest thing to slave labor that they can find. Not like the effective tax rate is anywhere near the statutory rate in the first place.

I don't think that's necessarily true. Having your labor force overseas has its own costs to it.

 

[peplaw06]

The Candidates' Public Disservice on Trade
Major party candidates doing their best to get Americans to oppose free trade, despite its role in increasing prosperity.

A. Barton Hinkle; Mar. 23, 2016 12:00 pm

Almost three-fifths of Americans recognize that international trade offers the country an opportunity to expand the economy; only 34 percent see it as a threat. Unfortunately, the leading presidential contenders are doing their best to change that.

Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have been spouting a stream of nonsense remarkable even by campaign-season standards. Sanders, for instance, blames the decline of Detroit and Flint, Mich., on "Hillary Clinton's free-trade policies." But as Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune points out, GM shut down its Flint plant six years before NAFTA took effect. Other factors—such as automation—have done most of the damage to auto-industry employment.

Anyway, the decline of U.S. manufacturing is wildly overstated. Manufacturing in the U.S. now produces six times the value in real terms of what it did half a century ago. In fact, as former deputy U.S. trade representative Miriam Sapiro noted recently in The New York Times, "excluding oil, the United States actually has a trade surplus in manufactured goods (you read that right) with the 20 countries with which it has trade agreements (although that does not include China)...The Department of Commerce estimates that every increase of $1 billion in exports sustains nearly 6,000 jobs."

But didn't the U.S. lose millions of jobs in the years after NAFTA? Of course. The U.S. would have lost millions of jobs anyway, because the labor market is in a state of constant churn. In the second quarter of last year, for instance, the economy enjoyed a net job increase of 800,000 positions. But that obscures the broader picture, which shows that while 7.5 million jobs were added, 6.7 million jobs were lost.

Overall, Sapiro notes, in the seven years after NAFTA passed "nearly 17 million jobs were added in this country and unemployment fell to 4.0 percent." Figures like that help explain why 93 percent of the nation's leading economists agree that trade pacts benefit the U.S.—and the other 7 percent just aren't sure.

But isn't the U.S., as Trump says, getting "crushed" by other countries because of the trade deficit? Nope. As a Cato Institute paper some years ago explained, the notion is based on an outdated fallacy: "The mercantilist approach to trade that dominated thinking in the 17th and 18th centuries stressed the need for nations to accumulate gold. By exporting more than they imported, nations could hoard the excess money... generated by the trade surplus... The more metallic money a state possessed, the more able it would be to wage war if necessary."

That might be swell for kings who want to expand empires, but it isn't so great for the public. The goal of economic activity is not production, but consumption: to improve your standard of living. A country that exported everything it produced would have a giant trade surplus, but its people would starve to death. The U.S. trade deficit reflects the fact that Americans are rich enough not only to provide for themselves but also to buy products they want from other countries.

And other states. If workers actually gained when trade between nations is restricted, then they would gain even more if trade between states and cities were restricted. Imagine how much employment in Detroit would rise if the residents could not buy anything made outside of Michigan, or Detroit itself. But nobody measures the trade deficits among U.S. states, because it bears no relation to how well people actually live.

If free trade is bad, then the ideal situation is no trade at all—with each person growing his own food, making his own clothes, and so on. That would lead to full employment. But it would make everyone vastly worse off. Why? Milton Friedman explained why in a single sentence: "The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit."

Granted, if Smith buys widgets from Jones, that's not so good for Jones' competitor Brown. This brings up a moral issue. If Smith and Jones agree to trade with each other, what right does Brown have to stop them?

And what right does a fourth party—say, the federal government—have to step in on Brown's behalf, prohibiting Smith from trading with Jones? None whatsoever.

Questions like that get muddied by discussions about "international trade," because the truth is that nations do not trade with one another. People and companies do.

Yet in a recent interview, Trump griped that "our companies are moving into Mexico more than almost any other place right now. We are losing our industry. We're losing our business to Mexico."

"Our"? Unless Trump owns one of those companies, then it isn't his. It belongs to the proprietor or the stockholders—not to politicians, or to the country as a whole. Which is why companies have every right to exchange goods and services across political boundaries, or even move across them—despite what the candidates say.

This column originally appeared at the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

 

[Hoofbite]

According to this, we are nearly double the global average for corporate income tax. Even worse, its been fixed at this ridiculously high rate for a decade. The numbers you see are the rate per yr beginning in 2006

Corporate tax rates table | KPMG | GLOBAL

Afghanistan 0 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 + Show
Albania 20 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 15 15 + Show
Algeria 25 19 23 + Show
Angola 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 30 + Show
Argentina 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 + Show
Armenia 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 + Show
Aruba 35 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 + Show
Australia 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 + Show
Austria 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 + Show
Bahamas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Show
Bahrain 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Show
Bangladesh 30 30 30 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 + Show
Barbados 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 + Show
Belarus 24 24 24 24 24 24 18 18 18 18 + Show
Belgium 33.99 33.99 33.99 33.99 33.99 33.99 33.99 33.99 33.99 33.99 + Show
Bermuda 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Show
Bolivia 25 25 25 25 25 25 + Show
Bonaire, Saint Eustatius and Saba 0 0 0 0 + Show
Bosnia and Herzegovina 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 + Show
Botswana 25 25 25 25 25 22 22 22 22 22 + Show
Brazil 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 + Show
Bulgaria 15 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 + Show
Cambodia 20 20 20 20 20 + Show
Cameroon 33 + Show
Canada 36.1 36.1 33.5 33 31 28 26 26 26.5 26.5 + Show
Cayman Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Show
Chile 17 17 17 17 17 20 18.5 20 20 22.5 + Show
China 33 33 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 + Show
Colombia 35 34 33 33 33 33 33 25 25 25 + Show
Costa Rica 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 + Show
Croatia 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 + Show
Curacao 34.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 25 + Show
Cyprus 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 12.5 12.5 12.5 + Show
Czech Republic 24 24 21 20 19 19 19 19 19 19 + Show
Denmark 28 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 24.5 23.5 + Show
Dominican Republic 30 25 25 25 25 29 29 29 28 27 + Show
Ecuador 25 25 25 25 25 24 23 22 22 22 + Show
Egypt 20 20 20 20 20 20 25 25 25 22.5 + Show
El Salvador 30 30 30 30 + Show
Estonia 23 22 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 20 + Show
Fiji 31 31 31 29 28 28 28 20 20 20 + Show
Finland 26 26 26 26 26 26 24.5 24.5 20 20 + Show
France 33.33 33.33 33.33 33.33 33.33 33.33 33.33 33.33 33.33 33.33 + Show
Georgia 15 15 15 + Show
Germany 38.34 38.36 29.51 29.44 29.41 29.37 29.48 29.55 29.58 29.65 + Show
Ghana 25 25 25 + Show
Gibraltar 35 35 33 27 22 10 10 10 10 10 + Show
Greece 29 25 25 25 24 20 20 26 26 29 + Show
Guatemala 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 28 25 + Show
Guernsey 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Show
Honduras 30 30 30 30 25 35 35 35 30 30 + Show
Hong Kong SAR 17.5 17.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 + Show
Hungary 16 16 16 16 19 19 19 19 19 19 + Show
Iceland 18 18 15 15 18 20 20 20 20 20 + Show
India 33.66 33.99 33.99 33.99 33.99 32.44 32.45 33.99 33.99 34.61 + Show
Indonesia 30 30 30 28 25 25 25 25 25 + Show
Iraq 15 15 35 + Show
Ireland 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 + Show
Isle of Man 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Show
Israel 31 29 27 26 25 24 25 25 26.5 26.5 + Show
Italy 37.25 37.25 31.4 31.4 31.4 31.4 31.4 31.4 31.4 31.4 + Show
Jamaica 33.33 33.33 33.33 33.33 33.33 33.33 33.33 25 25 25 + Show
Japan 40.69 40.69 40.69 40.69 40.69 40.69 38.01 38.01 35.64 33.06 + Show
Jersey 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Show
Jordan 25 25 25 25 14 14 14 14 14 20 + Show
Kazakhstan 30 30 30 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 + Show
Kenya 30 30 30 30 + Show
Korea, Republic of 27.5 27.5 27.5 24.2 24.2 22 24.2 24.2 24.2 24.2 + Show
Kuwait 55 55 55 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 + Show
Latvia 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 + Show
Lebanon 15 15 15 + Show
Libya 40 40 40 40 20 20 20 20 20 + Show
Liechtenstein 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 + Show
Lithuania 15 15 15 20 15 15 15 15 15 15 + Show
Luxembourg 29.63 29.63 29.63 28.59 28.59 28.8 28.8 29.22 29.22 29.22 + Show
Macau 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 + Show
Macedonia 15 12 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 + Show
Malawi 30 30 30 30 + Show
Malaysia 28 27 26 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 + Show
Malta 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 + Show
Mauritius 25 22.5 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 + Show
Mexico 29 28 28 28 30 30 30 30 30 30 + Show
Moldova 12 + Show
Montenegro 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 + Show
Morocco 30 30 30 + Show
Mozambique 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 + Show
Namibia 34 34 33 33 33 + Show
Netherlands 29.6 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25 25 25 25 25 + Show
New Zealand 33 33 30 30 30 28 28 28 28 28 + Show
Nigeria 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 + Show
Norway 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 27 27 + Show
Oman 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 + Show
Pakistan 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 34 33 + Show
Panama 30 30 30 30 27.5 25 25 25 25 25 + Show
Papua New Guinea 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 + Show
Paraguay 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 + Show
Peru 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 28 + Show
Philippines 35 35 35 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 + Show
Poland 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 + Show
Portugal 27.5 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 23 21 + Show
Qatar 35 35 35 35 10 10 10 10 10 10 + Show
Romania 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 + Show
Russia 24 24 24 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 + Show
Samoa 29 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 + Show
Saudi Arabia 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 + Show
Serbia 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 15 15 15 + Show
Sierra Leone 30 30 + Show
Singapore 20 20 18 18 17 17 17 17 17 17 + Show
Sint Maarten (Dutch part) 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.5 + Show
Slovakia 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 23 22 22 + Show
Slovenia 25 23 22 21 20 20 18 17 17 17 + Show
South Africa 36.89 36.89 34.55 34.55 34.55 34.55 34.55 28 28 28 + Sho
Spain 35 32.5 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 28 + Show
Sri Lanka 32.5 35 35 35 35 28 28 28 28 28 + Show
St Maarten 24.5 + Show
Sudan 35 30 15 15 15 35 35 35 35 35 + Show
Suriname 36 34.5 + Show
Sweden 28 28 28 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3 22 22 22 + Show
Switzerland 21.3 20.63 19.2 18.96 18.75 18.31 18.06 18.01 17.92 17.92
Syria 35 28 28 28 28 28 28 22 22 22 + Show
Taiwan 25 25 25 25 17 17 17 17 17 17 + Show
Tanzania 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 + Show
Thailand 30 30 30 30 30 30 23 20 20 20 + Show
Trinidad and Tobago 25 25 25 25 + Show
Tunisia 35 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 25 25 + Show
Turkey 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 + Show
Uganda 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 + Show
Ukraine 25 25 25 25 25 25 21 19 18 18 + Show
United Arab Emirates 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 + Show
United Kingdom 30 30 30 28 28 26 24 23 21 20 + Show
United States 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 + Show
Uruguay 30 30 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 + Show
Vanuatu 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + Show
Venezuela 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 + Show
Vietnam 28 28 28 25 25 25 25 25 22 22 + Show
Yemen 35 35 35 35 35 20 20 20 20 20 + Show
Zambia 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 + Show
Zimbabwe 30.9 30.9 30.9 30.9 25.75 25.75 25.75 25.75 25.75 25.75 + Show

Africa average 30.82 30.56 28.65 28.75 28.38 28.55 29.02 28.29 27.85 27.92
Americas average 29.97 29.27 28.84 28.82 28.28 29.28 28.67 28.35 27.96 27.35
Asia average 28.99 28.46 27.99 25.73 23.96 23.1 22.89 22.05 21.91 22.59
Europe average 23.7 22.99 21.95 21.64 21.46 20.81 20.42 20.6 19.68 20.12
Oceania average 30.6 30.2 29.6 29.2 29 28.6 28.6 27 27 27
North America average 38.05 38.05 36.75 36.5 35.5 34 33 33 33.25 33.25
Latin America average 29.07 28.3 27.96 27.96 27.52 28.83 28.3 27.96 27.52 26.85
EU average 24.83 23.97 23.17 23.11 22.93 22.7 22.51 22.75 21.34 22.25
OECD average 27.67 27 25.99 25.64 25.7 25.4 25.15 25.32 24.11 24.86
Global average 27.5 26.95 26.1 25.38 24.69 24.5 24.4 23.71 23.64 23.87

You do realize the effective tax rate that corporations pay is nowhere near the statutory rate, right?

Take Pfizer, for example. Their effective tax rate since 2004 would be 21.4%.

$50B in revenue annually over that span.

How low does it need to go? 21.4% is nowhere near the 40% statutory rate. In fact, they've only paid more than 30% like 1 time.

 

[Hoofbite]

You want a percentage number? Idk that.

I guess it would be somewhere in the range of high enough to be reasonable, and low enough to make moving an operation overseas and killing American jobs less attractive?

I'm of the idea that you don't need to demonize success. Big business can work for everyone. I like the idea of creating more tax payers, not creating higher taxes.

Basically businesses have decided that shipping jobs overseas outweighs paying taxes and employing Americans. You can continue to reduce the job force and keep taxes the same, but it's not working all that well at the moment.

There isn't a tax rate that would work well. There will always be some 3rd world country that doesn't have a minimum wage above $1. Furthermore, who's to say another country doesn't drop their tax rate in response to the US lowering its tax rate? These 3rd world counties have far more to lose than the U.S. does.

 

[Hoofbite]

Could they pass a law that if your an American company you have to produce a certain percentage of product within the US?

Probably not.

But I was wondering if the could make products made the U.S.A tax deductible up to a certain point.

You get consumer mores interested in purchasing a tax deductible product than the cheaper Chinese product and all of a sudden demand for home grown shit increases.

 

[dbair1967]

You do realize the effective tax rate that corporations pay is nowhere near the statutory rate, right?

Take Pfizer, for example. Their effective tax rate since 2004 would be 21.4%.

$50B in revenue annually over that span.

How low does it need to go? 21.4% is nowhere near the 40% statutory rate. In fact, they've only paid more than 30% like 1 time.

Most business owners and money gurus talk all the time about how high our corporate tax rates are compared to other countries, that table seems to confirm that.

The example you used would be about the same for anywhere would it not?

And since you mentioned Pfizer, didn't they decide to relocate their corporate HQ to Ireland a few months ago? Why do you think they did that?

 

[dbair1967]

A Tax-Cutting Move That Pfizer Can Hardly Resist


By JEFF SOMMER NOV. 14, 2015

An unsuccessful bid to merge with AstraZeneca would have moved Pfizer’s tax home to Britain. The company may try again with Dublin-based Allergan. Credit Richard Drew/Associated Press

Give Pfizer, the giant drug maker, points for boldness and persistence: The company has bravely put “tax inversions” back in the headlines.

Pfizer, which already holds roughly $140 billion overseas and is quite skillful at minimizing its taxes, is considering a deal that could move its legal tax headquarters from New York to Dublin, where it could save bundles more.

This has drawn plenty of criticism, naturally. Last week, Americans for Tax Fairness, an advocacy organization affiliated with labor unions, issued a report accusing Pfizer of a pattern of global “tax dodging.” Meanwhile, presidential candidates and members of Congress have repeatedly condemned inversions and the Treasury Department said it was studying ways to further tighten rules that discourage them.

Only last year Pfizer tried a tax inversion, an unsuccessful merger with AstraZeneca that would have shifted Pfizer’s tax home to Britain. That failed attempt led to the introduction of legislation that went nowhere in Congress, but there was heavy political fallout. President Obama called inversions an “unpatriotic tax loophole” that needed to be closed, if only a divided Congress could agree on a way to close it. More than a year later, however, Congress remains divided, and that loophole is still open.

The core problem is that, from a purely financial viewpoint, tax inversions make sense for companies like Pfizer. While rarely, if ever, paid in full, the 35 percent statutory corporate tax rate in the United States is higher than in other countries. Most important, the United States taxes the worldwide income of its domestic companies, while many major countries do not. Even though there are ways around that requirement, it is tempting for American companies to move their tax homes elsewhere.

Edward Kleinbard, former chief of staff of the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, says the American tax code should be revamped so that inversions are no longer sensible. But that change won’t happen overnight. “I’m hoping that Congress imposes a two-year timeout on tax inversions,” he said. “If Congress doesn’t act, tax inversions will be very appealing for many American corporations.”

They still appeal to Pfizer. Last month, the company revealed that it was engaged in merger talks with Allergan, a smaller pharmaceutical company that operates in New Jersey but has already shifted its own tax domicile to Ireland through a tax-inversion merger.
Continue reading the main story

Pfizer says it is seeking new drugs and synergies in a possible merger and not just tax shelters. But when Ian C. Read, Pfizer’s chief executive, was asked in a conference call on Oct. 27 why he was willing to set off another political furor with an attempt at an inversion, he discussed the tax issues. “The shareholders of Pfizer expect us to maximize the return, and the employees of Pfizer want to have a robust, successful company in the future,” he said. “To be successful in the future, we need to have a competitive tax rate.”

Mr. Read is an accountant, and Pfizer represents a textbook case of complex global accounting. What is fascinating about the company’s accounting achievements — if you can conceive of accounting as fascinating — is that Pfizer has been deftly exploiting tax anomalies for years, yet it is evidently convinced that it can do even better with a foreign tax address.

As a matter of fact, Pfizer’s adroit tax accounting is featured in a textbook — “Financial Accounting: An Introduction to Concepts, Methods and Uses,” now in its 14th edition. Roman L. Weil, professor emeritus at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, is one of the book’s authors. He said he had chosen Pfizer because its work was both elaborate and “unexceptionable.”

“It illustrates a phenomenon common to large, multinational U.S. corporations,” he said. Much of their revenue is earned and taxed abroad — and companies have considerable leeway in allocating that revenue and costs to cut taxes. When multinationals based in the United States want to “bring those after-tax dollars home, they will have to pay further taxes to the U.S., maybe 25 percent of every dollar. It’s not surprising that companies like Pfizer and G.E. want to keep those dollars abroad so they don’t have to pay those taxes.”

This isn’t an easy subject. Pfizer says its “effective tax rate” for 2015 is about 25 percent, not 35 percent. But if you’re not an accountant, that phrase, “effective tax rate,” may not mean what you think it does. It’s not what the company actually pays. Rather, it is what the company would ultimately be obligated to pay, after factoring in credits for payments to other governments and other issues and assuming it repatriates a certain amount of foreign earnings. When, if ever, Pfizer would pay enough to reach 25 percent is far from clear.

Pfizer’s accounts show that it has sheltered $74 billion by holding it overseas and declaring that the money will remain abroad “indefinitely.” While the United States government taxes companies on their worldwide income, it doesn’t collect the tax on earnings that remain abroad. (Pfizer might be able to use its overseas cash in a merger with a foreign-domiciled company, like Allergan. That could enable Pfizer to declare itself an Irish corporation, easing its tax problems.)

On top of that $74 billion, Pfizer keeps an additional, unspecified amount abroad that it says it does intend to repatriate, so it makes a “provision for taxes on income” for that sum. A note in its 2014 financial statement also says it has accrued a total of $21 billion in “deferred tax liabilities” over many years. That implies that it’s holding a big chunk of cash overseas that it expects to bring home one day. How much, exactly? Based on information in Pfizer’s financial statements, I calculated that this second stash also amounts to more than $70 billion. I sent Pfizer my calculations.

“Although I can’t provide you with an exact dollar amount, your assumption about grossing up the $21 billion is correct,” Joan Campion, a Pfizer spokeswoman, said in an email. In other words, Pfizer keeps $74 billion abroad “indefinitely” and a further $70 billion or so that it says it will bring to the United States as needed. “We already repatriate funds in the normal course of business to help meet our domestic cash requirements,” Ms. Campion said.

By moving its tax headquarters to Ireland, Pfizer could radically simplify its tax planning. Although tax inversions are hardly ideal for the American tax base, Professor Weil said, a wave of them might actually be better for the economy than the situation we have now. Under the current alignment, he said, American multinational corporations like Pfizer might invest more money in the United States, not less, if they had their tax domiciles abroad. They might be more inclined to do so, he said, because they could book earnings abroad and bring the money back to America “without incurring that additional United States tax.”

Mr. Kleinbard, a professor of law and business at the University of Southern California, said the morality of tax inversions was not an issue that C.E.O.s should even be expected to address. “There is a moral imperative here, but it falls on the shoulders of Congress, not on corporations,” he said.

C.E.O.s can be expected to act in their corporations’ self-interest under the economic model in place now, he said. “If the results are plainly inconsistent with the national interest, Congress has to fix things,” he said. “We shouldn’t expect the corporate community to hold itself to values higher than the marketplace.”

 

[Hoofbite]

Most business owners and money gurus talk all the time about how high our corporate tax rates are compared to other countries, that table seems to confirm that.

The example you used would be about the same for anywhere would it not?

Not necessarily. Other counties would have to have the exact same tax structure from top to bottom. Same deductions, same loopholes, same everything. They don't even have the same rate so I don't know why anyone would expect everything else to be the same.

The statutory rate can be high but if corporations aren't paying that amount then the statutory rate doesn't mean anything. Go look at Pfizer's financial statements. You'll see it for yourself.

And since you mentioned Pfizer, didn't they decide to relocate their corporate HQ to Ireland a few months ago? Why do you think they did that?

They did it because no amount of profits will ever be enough. Isn't that obvious? They damn sure aren't losing money. Since 2004, their net income is 22% of the total revenues.

 

[Midswat]

Yes, Hillary Has Lost Her Momentum

Bernie Sanders' win streak makes NY critical for Clinton

By Michael Sainato • 04/06/16 2:00pm

Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign is showing major signs of unraveling. Her best performances are far behind her, and Wisconsin voters yesterday gave Sen. Bernie Sanders his sixth victory in the last seven contests. With each Sanders victory, Ms. Clinton’s aura of inevitability fades away.

Despite the Democratic National Committee and its chair, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, doing everything in their power to ease Ms. Clinton’s path to the nomination, Mr. Sanders is surging in support and gaining in momentum. And Ms. Clinton, who surely thought by this time she’d be well past the point of pivoting her focus to Donald Trump, can no longer hide her frustration over having to actually campaign in the dogfight the race for the Democratic nomination has become.

Mr. Sanders’ easy victory in Wisconsin yesterday—56 percent to 43 percent—makes the New York primary in two week’s time a must-win for Ms. Clinton. Even before his Wisconsin triumph, Mr. Sanders put his opponent on notice that the pressure is on in New York, the state Ms. Clinton represented in the U.S. Senate from 2000 to 2008 and where she and former President Bill Clinton make their home. New York is far from a home game for Ms. Clinton: Mr. Sanders was born and raised in Brooklyn, has the accent to prove it and once taught at Binghamton University.

“If we win New York state, between you and me, I don’t want to get Hillary Clinton any more nervous than she already is,” Mr. Sanders said at a campaign rally in Wisconsin on Monday. “She’s already under a lot of pressure, so don’t tell her this. If we win here, we win in New York State, we’re on our way to the White House.”

The Clinton campaign has been quick to point out that Mr. Sanders is simply too far behind. And while the format of the Wisconsin primary (votes are awarded proportionally) helped soften the blow and prevented Mr. Sanders from making a major dent in Ms. Clinton’s pledged-delegate lead (she’s still roughly 200 to the good), a Sanders success in New York would fuel intense speculation that Ms. Clinton has lost momentum for good.

Mr. Sanders framed his victory speech yesterday around the concept of momentum, seemingly mocking the Clinton-as-inevitable narrative that once dominated. “Momentum is starting this campaign eleven months ago and the media determining that we were a fringe candidacy,” Mr. Sanders told an enthusiastic crowd in Wyoming, where Democratic caucuses will be held on Saturday.

He reiterated his popularity among young voters and refusal to play Super PAC politics, highlighting that his campaign has received more than six million individual contributions, with an average donation of $27. “To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg: This is a campaign of the people by the people and for the people,” Mr. Sanders declared to significant cheers, and transitioned to a not-so-subtle dig at Ms. Clinton: “We have decided that we do not represent the billionaire class; we do not represent Wall Street or the drug companies or the fossil fuel industry—and we do not want their money.”

Mr. Sanders’ support among young voters is a growing frustration for Ms. Clinton. In a recent interview on Meet the Press, the former first lady addressed an incident a few days earlier in which she was confronted by a Greenpeace activist about donations she receives from the fossil fuel industry. Ms. Clinton told host Chuck Todd: “I feel sorry sometimes for the young people who believe this; they don’t do their own research.”

But research shows Ms. Clinton and her political operation have benefitted significantly from fossil fuel industry largesse in the form of donations to the Clinton Foundation and her Super PACs. Ms. Clinton’s frustration was in full view as she lashed out against the Greenpeace activist, and in the subsequent interview about it, because she simply can’t escape criticism over the millions of dollars she has received from powerful corporate interests. The Greenpeace activist is not affiliated with the Sanders campaign; rather, she was asking Ms. Clinton about the donations because the Clinton campaign has not signed Greenpeace’s pledge to reject all fossil fuel contributions—while Mr. Sanders has.

The spat with the Greenpeace activist was not the first time Ms. Clinton has applied condescension in criticizing young people for their enthusiastic support of Mr. Sanders. But her interview with Chuck Todd was illuminating because it exposed Ms. Clinton’s growing exasperation over the problems her campaign is now facing. What’s notable about Mr. Sanders’ recent string of wins is that it has been marked by overwhelming margins of victory, which have served to revitalize his campaign at a time when Ms. Clinton expected to have the nomination on lockdown. Many of the states Mr. Sanders has won recently he did so by overcoming a deficit in the polls. And Mr. Sanders has turned the tables on Ms. Clinton in Nevada, where the former Secretary of State won the first round of caucusing in February. Earlier this month, at the Democratic Party’s state convention, delegates for Clark County defected to Mr. Sanders. Clark County includes Las Vegas, and Ms. Clinton won it initially with the help of Sen. Harry Reid, who called in favors to have casinos send employees over to the caucuses for Ms. Clinton.

Like Ms. Clinton, Mr. Trump, the Republican front-runner, suffered a painful loss in Wisconsin yesterday. In anticipation of a bruising general election campaign against Mr. Trump, Ms. Clinton has been tending to a schedule of lavish fundraisers and courting wealthy donors; her operation has even begun an ad campaign against him. But here Ms. Clinton’s campaign is jumping the gun big-time, as Wisconsin proved. Ms. Clinton continues to take actions as though she has already won the Democratic nomination, and relying on the argument that the Sanders campaign is too far in the hole to rebound. Ms. Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, wrote an essay in Medium, published on Monday, that smacked of desperation, attempted to paint the Sanders campaign as hopeless and argued the former first lady has “built a nearly insurmountable lead among both delegates and actual voters.” Following several additional exaggerations, Mr. Mook concluded that Ms. Clinton is the “only candidate tough enough to beat” Mr. Trump—despite nearly every general election poll showing Mr. Sanders outperforms her in this respect. Mr. Mook’s hyperbolic misrepresentation of facts takes bias to an unprecedented level, and, more than anything else, displays how desperate the Clinton campaign is for the Democratic primaries to be over.

Contributing to Ms. Clinton’s frustrations is the controversy surrounding her use of a private e-mail server during her tenure as Secretary of State, which has resurfaced as a major obstacle to her candidacy. “The Clinton campaign has attempted to make the public believe that she is not guilty of anything because the information on her very unprotected server was not ‘marked as classified’ or ‘classified at the time,’” wrote Ronald Sievert in USA Today. Mr. Sievert explained, however, that the information contained on the secret server never had the chance to be reviewed and classified by a security officer—which, in accordance with the law, should be sufficient, he argues, to warrant prosecution. Sievert notes, of course, that prosecution is unlikely. “Part of the reason is that the political appointees who make the final decisions will at least unconsciously be searching for ways to evaluate the case in a way that would evade an obvious debacle for the Democratic Party,” he wrote. “Unfortunately, it is likely that, at this very moment, many good lawyers at DOJ may be using all sorts of sophistry and rationalization to try to avoid applying the plain language of the law to Hillary Clinton.”

Regardless of what the e-mail server controversy end-game is, the entire affair is a perfect illustration of Ms. Clinton’s poor leadership and judgment. The longer Ms. Clinton’s shortcomings are exposed to the general public, the more her support diminishes and Mr. Sanders’ grows. It shouldn’t be seen as an isolated incident that in Wisconsin exit polls, Democrats overwhelmingly (82 percent to 16 percent) said that Mr. Sanders was more trustworthy than Ms. Clinton. Just as they did in 2008, voters are realizing in greater numbers that Ms. Clinton, as a 2008 Obama campaign ad charged, will “say anything and change nothing.”

 

[dbair1967]

Hope they indict that hag

 

[ZeroClub]

I get the sense that the momentum that Cruz has coming out of Wisconsin is likely to get stalled New York, given that New York looks like it'll be tough sledding for Cruz. I'd guess that primary can't happen fast enough for Cruz, so that he can move on to other friendlier territory.

 

[Hoofbite]

So about the conversation we had a while back regarding the GOP potentially shitting on Trump and handing someone else the nomination.

Colorado?

 

[dbair1967]

So about the conversation we had a while back regarding the GOP potentially shitting on Trump and handing someone else the nomination.

Colorado?

Yeah this is fucking crooked as shit. Should be some major revolt over this stuff.

 

[Dodger12]

Yeah this is fucking crooked as shit. Should be some major revolt over this stuff.

The Republican establishment are pretty much ensuring that they won't win the election. And I don't even think they give a shit because they'll still maintain their power structure.

Say what you want about Trump, but he's exposed the "process" and the political parties for they are. Corrupt. He'll run as an independent if he doesn't get the nomination which will guarantee a victory for the Democrat nominee.