# Lower Taxes , employment Boon or Bust ?



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Everyone seems excited about lower taxes creating more jobs. 

But that seems backwards to me, it would seem to me that lower taxes would leave less incentive to create deductables .

How can a lower taxes create more jobs?


----------



## geo in mi (Nov 14, 2008)

AmericanStand said:


> Everyone seems excited about lower taxes creating more jobs.
> 
> But that seems backwards to me, it would seem to me that lower taxes would leave less incentive to create deductables .
> 
> How can a lower taxes create more jobs?



Rich people will be able to hire more nannies....

geo


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Jobs are created by demand for goods or services. Part of the theory is that if you put $1000 in a consumers pocket they’ll spend it creating that demand thus creating more jobs. It could happen but people could also use that income to pay down debt or it could simply disappear due to increased inflation. 

The more implausible part of the current rationale, and the one you seem to address, is that if a company has more money through lessened taxation it will invest that money in expanding its business or paying its employees more thus also creating more expendable income and demand. It could also happen, and past experience supports this, that owners, boards, executives and shareholders will benefit and nothing much will change in day to day operations. The money can also be used to upgrade and modernize facilities, usually involving increased automation, and actually decrease the number of actual jobs. 

Time will tell what effects, positive or negative, the current tax cuts will have.


----------



## alleyyooper (Apr 22, 2005)

Well they lowered the bussiness taxes here in Michigan when Synder or tricky rick was elected with a bunch of his cronies.

It was supposed to create jobs, raise wages and create a boom in Michigan. Part of the way they (GOP) made up for the loss of revenue is by taxing retired peoples pensions the first ever in Michigan. My tax is $37.00 per month, so in turn I have $37.00 less to spend.

I myself do not know of one person who got a pay raise because of the bussiness owner getting a tax break. 
I do not know of one person who was hired because a company got a tax break and could afford another employee or more.
I do not know of one Michigan company that expanded because they got a tax break either. If they expanded it was due to the call for more product.

*In the real world the only thing that creates jobs is sales of product.* If there is a high demand the company hires more people to keep up with the demand for the product or in some cases the company has the employees work over time. When the employees work over time that puts extra jingle in their pocket and so they spend it on a product. Many times the product isn't American made so there is no benifit.

So in the real world the companies get a tax break and depending on the size of the company the funds are distrubted amoung rhe higher ups with in the comapny and if it is a single bussiness owner they pocket it for them selves and buy a Beemer or some other high dollar idem from a foreign country.

So when the politicians have no checks and balances to worry about the people who make less than 100,000 a year get the shaft. By election time you will forget that shaft that got ya and vote the clown back in office again. Thats is how politicians can stay in office 30 to 50 years. Term limits do what the voters refuse to do many times.
*You know the revenue loss has to be made up some place.

*
 Al


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

The current tax overhaul puts more cash in the consumers pockets, thus stimulating economic growth. Growth creates jobs, which in turn puts more cash in more people's pockets which stimulates even more growth etc etc. it's a win win.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The current tax overhaul puts more cash in the consumers pockets, thus stimulating economic growth. Growth creates jobs, which in turn puts more cash in more people's pockets which stimulates even more growth etc etc. it's a win win.


In theory.

In reality.

“The Brownback plan aimed to boost the Kansas economy, but instead led to sluggish growth, lower than expected revenues, and brutal cuts to government programs. The Brownback tax cuts, one of the cleanest experiments for measuring the effects of tax cuts on economic growth in the U.S., were eventually reversed by a Republican-controlled legislature as a failure.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.br...2017/07/11/the-kansas-tax-cut-experiment/amp/

Time will tell if cutting taxes during a time of long term economic growth with historically low unemployment rates and already high corporate profitability will spur more job growth. Or who will fill those jobs if they appear.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Money is like water and will follow the path of least resistance. With an international economy, large companies will move HQ and factories to take advantage of tax rates. There is a reason Haliburton has it's HQ offshore.

There has been much hand-wringing, from Canada to Australia, about the latest corporate tax rates in the U.S. All those countries are worried about business leaving their shores.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Jolly said:


> Money is like water and will follow the path of least resistance. With an international economy, large companies will move HQ and factories to take advantage of tax rates. There is a reason Haliburton has it's HQ offshore.
> 
> There has been much hand-wringing, from Canada to Australia, about the latest corporate tax rates in the U.S. All those countries are worried about business leaving their shores.


All that means is that those countries fear the loss of the tax revenue those corporate headquarterings entail. Because a company changes where it’s corporate mail will be delivered means little about where it’s goods will be manufactured.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> In theory.
> 
> In reality.
> 
> ...


In reality.... The Kansas tax cuts were entirely different than today's tax reform. They only cut taxes on businesses which does not have the same affect as Trumps tax reform of cutting tax rates primarily of the working class consumers. This makes it a "trickle UP" boost to the economy.... The very thing democrats usually like.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Jolly said:


> Money is like water and will follow the path of least resistance. With an international economy, large companies will move HQ and factories to take advantage of tax rates. There is a reason Haliburton has it's HQ offshore.
> 
> There has been much hand-wringing, from Canada to Australia, about the latest corporate tax rates in the U.S. All those countries are worried about business leaving their shores.


Yes especially now since they are required to pay tax on that offshore money now instead of if/when they bring it back. Its automatic repatriate tax whether it sees American soil or not now. This will hit just the central banks to the tune of about 25-50 billion in April that in past years were never taxed. 

Thats why other countries are worried. You may see factories that are now in those countries coming back to life here in the US.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> In reality.... The Kansas tax cuts were entirely different than today's tax reform. They only cut taxes on businesses which does not have the same affect as Trumps tax reform of cutting tax rates primarily of the working class consumers. This makes it a "trickle UP" boost to the economy.... The very thing democrats usually like.


No, they also cut income taxes on individuals. 

“The plan collapses the state’s current three-bracket system to two brackets starting in 2013. It cuts the highest income tax rates to 4.9 percent from 6.45 percent and 6.25 percent. It also reduces the lowest tax rate to 3 percent from 3.5 percent.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.br...2017/07/11/the-kansas-tax-cut-experiment/amp/

They also cut the pass through rate to zero which led to many restructuring how they collected their income to take advantage of this. The principles behind both plans are the same. Lower taxes spur growth. I’ll believe it when I see it. Hopefully the plan just passed will make me a believer.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

mreynolds said:


> Yes especially now since they are required to pay tax on that offshore money now instead of if/when they bring it back. Its automatic repatriate tax whether it sees American soil or not now. This will hit just the central banks to the tune of about 25-50 billion in April that in past years were never taxed.
> 
> Thats why other countries are worried. You may see factories that are now in those countries coming back to life here in the US.


Why? Investments in those foreign countries in plants and inventories will still be taxed at less than if the profits were made here.

“Gavin Ekins, research economist at the Tax Foundation, says if a company for instance had a tangible asset of $10 million, perhaps a plant in a foreign country, the company could earn a reasonable rate of 10 percent, or $1 million before the profits are taxed at the parent company's rate. "Let's assume they're making 20 percent. This provision would say if you're making $2 million, that would mean $1 million is above normal or above a routine return. You're going to have to include half that into your parent company's taxable base," he said.

A company could decide to avoid paying taxes on its above normal, "super" foreign profits if it were instead to invest in a new foreign plant or other tangible asset, which would result in greater tangible depreciable assets. That would provide a bigger base of assets against which profits would be taxed, possibly making the tax hit smaller.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cn...anies-to-invest-in-foreign-manufacturing.html


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> Why? Investments in those foreign countries in plants and inventories will still be taxed at less than if the profits were made here.
> 
> “Gavin Ekins, research economist at the Tax Foundation, says if a company for instance had a tangible asset of $10 million, perhaps a plant in a foreign country, the company could earn a reasonable rate of 10 percent, or $1 million before the profits are taxed at the parent company's rate. "Let's assume they're making 20 percent. This provision would say if you're making $2 million, that would mean $1 million is above normal or above a routine return. You're going to have to include half that into your parent company's taxable base," he said.
> 
> ...



We are talking apples and oranges to a CPA. You are talking about depreciable assets. I am talking profits. What good is a depreciation write off if you pay taxes on all the profits made overseas now. From your own article:


_But it's unclear how much of that activity there will be since the *U.S. will be a much more attractive place to operate businesses* with the new lower tax rate and other initiatives like less regulation._

Last year they were able to make and keep money in other countries tax free. Only if or when they brought it back to the states did they pay tax on it.Now its taxed no matter where it sits on Jan. 1. 

Let me put it this way. They pay tax for the country it sits in. Say UK. They will now pay tax here also. And then they will get a itty bitty deduction for depreciation. Do the math. 

My God man that article was so slanted I had to turn sideways to read it.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Over the long haul, reducing the tax burden will help the economy. But when the ninnies cut taxes without making corresponding cuts in spending, they do just as much harm as good. The state of Kansas learned this the hard way recently.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

mreynolds said:


> We are talking apples and oranges to a CPA. You are talking about depreciable assets. I am talking profits. What good is a depreciation write off if you pay taxes on all the profits made overseas now. From your own article:
> 
> 
> _But it's unclear how much of that activity there will be since the *U.S. will be a much more attractive place to operate businesses* with the new lower tax rate and other initiatives like less regulation._
> ...


We’re talking about where future investments in jobs will occur, not profits. The incentive is still to invest that money overseas since the tax rate will still be lower on those investments as compared to here.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

alleyyooper said:


> I myself do not know of one person who got a pay raise because of the bussiness owner getting a tax break.
> I do not know of one person who was hired because a company got a tax break and could afford another employee or more.


Michigan cut regulations and grew thousands of jobs, cutting unemployment. Business reacted by massive expansion of investments in Michigan. Agriculture grew from 78 billion to over 100 billion. Michigan's growth has been so fast, many skilled trades jobs remain open. To attract people to these jobs, many thousands are being trained to fill these jobs. If going from grilling burgers to installing breaker boxes isn't a raise, I don't know what is.
Pensions in Michigan only above a certain level. If someone is pulling in a $100,000 pension, I think they can pay 4 cents on the dollar while the poor pay 6 cents on the dollar sales tax. A large pension shouldn't shield you from contributing to the infrastructure you enjoy. But I understand it is your ox and it did get gored.
You acknowledge an increased demand for product. What caused that increase if not more people with more money to spend? 
You mentioned Michigan's cut in taxes. Get ready for another cut. It has been speculated that Trump's latest tax reform will cut federal taxes. This will show up as an increase in taxable income in Michigan. Gov. Snyder has already stated that rather than grow government to use up this windfall, the increase revenue will be refunded to the taxpayers.
http://www.michigan.gov/snyder/0,4668,7-277-57577_60279-285511--,00.html


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

I used Haliburton as an example. Haliburton has two headquarters, one in Houston and one in Dubai. Now, what is Haliburton had never moved many of its HQ functions to Dubai? 

Let's say we are only talking about six or seven hundred jobs, but many of those will be *very* good-paying jobs, and the majority will be pretty decent. 

What's six or seven hundred jobs like that worth in economic impact? If we consider a broad swath of companies, it could be many, many more. What's six or seven thousand jobs like that worth in economic impact? What's sixty or seventy thousand jobs like that worth in economic impact? Or more jobs?

How many times does a dollar turn over in the economy?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Jolly said:


> I used Haliburton as an example. Haliburton has two headquarters, one in Houston and one in Dubai. Now, what is Haliburton had never moved many of its HQ functions to Dubai?
> 
> Let's say we are only talking about six or seven hundred jobs, but many of those will be *very* good-paying jobs, and the majority will be pretty decent.
> 
> ...


Why would those jobs move back? Halliburton, for example, offers support for oil companies around the globe, including the Middle East. It’s likely that any jobs centered out of Dubai now will remain there. It’s a long way from Houston to Riyadh. Just because the corporate mail is delivered to an address doesn’t mean that’s where business is conducted or executives are located. 

60% of Fortune 500 companies are incorporated in Delaware. 

“More than half of U.S. publicly-traded companies and fully 64 percent of the Fortune 500 were among that number, according to the state’s Division of Corporations. In 2012, more than 90 percent of IPOs were from Delaware legal entities, including Facebook and Yelp. That same year, the tiny 1209 North Orange Street in Wilmington was the legal home to 285,000 businesses.”
https://technical.ly/delaware/2014/09/23/why-delaware-incorporation/

There must be a whole lot of jobs in Delaware.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> We’re talking about where future investments in jobs will occur, not profits. The incentive is still to invest that money overseas since the tax rate will still be lower on those investments as compared to here.


Your own article says otherwise. Even though they convinced you its not that way. 

_*"But the tax law changes, on balance, are so much more beneficial to U.S.-based business operations"*_

We've been over this already. They havent been paying a repatriate money unless it is brought back over into an American account. Now they will pay that no matter where it is. 

_*"U.S. companies have piled up about $2 trillion in cash overseas to avoid bringing it home to be taxed at the 35 percent U.S. tax rate, but with tax law changes coming, the new rate will be 21 percent in the U.S. and foreign profits will be taxed at an even lower rate, based on tangible depreciable assets."*_

What the writer means here is that it will be taxed at a lower rate than IF it is brought here into an American account. What he doesnt say is under the current laws its not taxed *at all *(until it is brought back). This means a net gain in corporate taxes on income from abroad. 

*"if a company for instance had a tangible asset of $10 million, perhaps a plant in a foreign country, the company could earn a reasonable rate of 10 percent, or $1 million before the profits are taxed at the parent company's rate. "Let's assume they're making 20 percent. This provision would say if you're making $2 million, that would mean $1 million is above normal or above a routine return. You're going to have to include half that into your parent company's taxable base," he said."*

What this means is they dont want to double tax a company abroad. Remember that tax in the UK? They will be allowed to pay that first and then be taxed on the remainder of the profits. 

_"The new tax law also applies taxes to intangible assets held overseas, in an effort to encourage U.S. companies to bring things like licenses and copyrights home."

"If we had put this rule into place and not changed the overall corporate tax rate, I would expect some real movement of U.S. industries out of the U.S. and into other areas of the world," Ekins said.

"This is putting the U.S. in the middle of the OECD as far as tax rates. I think because of that I don't think there's going to be that outflow. A lot of companies are going to find there's no better place to go," he said.
_
Did we read the same article? 

_*
*_


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

mreynolds said:


> Your own article says otherwise. Even though they convinced you its not that way.
> 
> _*"But the tax law changes, on balance, are so much more beneficial to U.S.-based business operations"*_
> 
> ...


Yes, we did. And I’ll wait and see the actual consequences. It may well bring investment back but, since the profit will have to be taxed when it comes back prior to being invested here but some of that same profit will be taxed at a lesser rate if reinvested overseas it makes sense to me that some businesses will reinvest that portion of the profit overseas in order to lessen their overall taxes. I’m sure there are armies of accountants who’ve had some portion of their holiday plans disrupted trying to figure out how to pay the least tax possible.

The bottom line is that there is no incentive for any of that overseas profit to be invested here. Once taxed it can just as easily be paid out in bonuses and dividends as reinvested in growth and jobs. And based on how our last experiment with repatriating overseas profits went I’ll not be too optimistic that corporate behavior will change.

“The theory was that, by allowing these companies to bring their profits home, money would come "off the sidelines" and be invested again in the US. In practice, companies mostly used the cash to pay dividends and buy back shares, distributing the money out to their shareholders instead of investing it.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.bu...ate-holiday-repatriation-rate-economy-2017-10


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Jolly said:


> How many times does a dollar turn over in the economy?


Getting money to roll over is critical to effecting prosperity.
When businesses shelter money abroad, that troubles me. I think this latest tax reform has penalties to curb a bit of that. It remains to be seen what effect that will have. But there is another pile of dough leaving the economy. Taxed and untaxed earning of legal and illegal aliens sending billions by Money Gram and Western Union and USPS money orders sent home. As we craft merit based immigration laws, perhaps giving the nod to those that keep their money in the US would help stimulate our economy.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> Yes, we did. And I’ll wait and see the actual consequences. It may well bring investment back but, since the profit will have to be taxed when it comes back prior to being invested here but some of that same profit will be taxed at a lesser rate if reinvested overseas it makes sense to me that some businesses will reinvest that portion of the profit overseas in order to lessen their overall taxes. I’m sure there are armies of accountants who’ve had some portion of their holiday plans disrupted trying to figure out how to pay the least tax possible.
> 
> The bottom line is that there is no incentive for any of that overseas profit to be invested here. Once taxed it can just as easily be paid out in bonuses and dividends as reinvested in growth and jobs. And based on how our last experiment with repatriating overseas profits went I’ll not be too optimistic that corporate behavior will change.
> 
> ...


Yes but thats the kicker. It will hurt Wall St. the most. The investment bankers dont create anything but wealth. There is not much to depreciate aside from a few buildings. They own the notes on everyone else's buildings. 

I liked that article. It was pretty straightforward and to the point. Written by a likely economist or otherwise professional in the know. But lets look at the difference in a W2 employee and an investor. To the investor that suddenly receives a surplus in shares he will usually find a way to minimize his tax burden as well. Usually by investing it elsewhere. No, that doesnt mean that he will invest it here in the states. It doesnt mean it will invest it abroad either. But if you had a surlpus and there was a new better business climate here in the states where would you put it? 

Of course this doesnt take into account the tax deferred accounts like 401Ks or IRAs. These will not show any added boon to the economy until they start taking it out. But it will increase that consumer sentiment and make them happier about the future. Might even get them to spend a little bit of that money they have been holding since 2008.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

haypoint said:


> Getting money to roll over is critical to effecting prosperity.
> When businesses shelter money abroad, that troubles me. I think this latest tax reform has penalties to curb a bit of that. It remains to be seen what effect that will have. But there is another pile of dough leaving the economy. Taxed and untaxed earning of legal and illegal aliens sending billions by Money Gram and Western Union and USPS money orders sent home. As we craft merit based immigration laws, perhaps giving the nod to those that keep their money in the US would help stimulate our economy.


I like that too but I dont think it would do much about illegals sending money home.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

mreynolds said:


> Yes but thats the kicker. It will hurt Wall St. the most. The investment bankers dont create anything but wealth. There is not much to depreciate aside from a few buildings. They own the notes on everyone else's buildings.
> 
> I liked that article. It was pretty straightforward and to the point. Written by a likely economist or otherwise professional in the know. But lets look at the difference in a W2 employee and an investor. To the investor that suddenly receives a surplus in shares he will usually find a way to minimize his tax burden as well. Usually by investing it elsewhere. No, that doesnt mean that he will invest it here in the states. It doesnt mean it will invest it abroad either. But if you had a surlpus and there was a new better business climate here in the states where would you put it?
> 
> Of course this doesnt take into account the tax deferred accounts like 401Ks or IRAs. These will not show any added boon to the economy until they start taking it out. But it will increase that consumer sentiment and make them happier about the future. Might even get them to spend a little bit of that money they have been holding since 2008.


Where would I put it? That would depend on where it would make me the best return. And unless there is a need for more of the goods and services I provide it wouldn’t be in my business.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> Why would those jobs move back? Halliburton, for example, offers support for oil companies around the globe, including the Middle East. It’s likely that any jobs centered out of Dubai now will remain there. It’s a long way from Houston to Riyadh. Just because the corporate mail is delivered to an address doesn’t mean that’s where business is conducted or executives are located.
> 
> 60% of Fortune 500 companies are incorporated in Delaware.
> 
> ...


Let me answer your question with a question...After being headquartered in the U.S. for years, why did Haliburton feel the need to move much of its HQ?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Jolly said:


> Let me answer your question with a question...After being headquartered in the U.S. for years, why did Haliburton feel the need to move much of its HQ?


First you have to show me how much of Halliburton’s headquarters and top level personnel were moved and based out of Dubai and how much of that move was simply done for accounting reasons. 

Coca Cola is incorporated in Delaware. It’s headquarters operations are in Atlanta. If Georgia suddenly changed its corporate taxes to equal Delaware’s and Coke suddenly decided to change where it’s incorporated it would have a minimal effect on the location of any jobs. I suspect the same is true of Halliburton in Dubai or Apple in Ireland.

ETA
Here’s a list of Halliburton’s top officers. You’ll note that 12 of the 14 listed are based out of the US and one of those listed as being based out of Dubai is in charge of their operations in that part of the world and not likely to do his job from Houston. 

http://www.halliburton.com/en-US/about-us/corporate-governance/corporate-officers.page

Now, tell me again about jobs returning because of incorporation moving.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

There's one possibility that I am worried about. Automation!

Companies can use the extra cash to purchase robotics, AI, and other production tools, meaning employment may not grow as much as projected.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

When you lower marginal tax rates on business, investment opportunities for that business that previously had a marginal ROI, become more likely to a higher ROI. Which means it is more likely to be worth the investment risk. Most businesses will not invest a large amount of capital in something with a questionable after tax return. If the tax rate is lower, it changes the dynamics of such a decision. 

It is similar to lowering the capital gains tax rates on individuals. If you lower the rate, a lot of investments that were held showing a gain are liquidated that wouldn't have otherwise been. Because, their after tax returns are greater than they were beforehand.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> First you have to show me how much of Halliburton’s headquarters and top level personnel were moved and based out of Dubai and how much of that move was simply done for accounting reasons.
> 
> Coca Cola is incorporated in Delaware. It’s headquarters operations are in Atlanta. If Georgia suddenly changed its corporate taxes to equal Delaware’s and Coke suddenly decided to change where it’s incorporated it would have a minimal effect on the location of any jobs. I suspect the same is true of Halliburton in Dubai or Apple in Ireland.
> 
> ...


The CEO and the President of the Eastern Hemisphere are in Dubai, per your link. I'm not sure currently, but when corporate HQ was moved to Dubai, there were 16,000 Haliburton employees in the Eastern Hemisphere. 

If you just get the CEO and a few hundred office staff back in the country, it's better than what we have now.

Secondly, as far as Federal taxes go, what is the difference in Coke being in Delaware or Atlanta?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Jolly said:


> The CEO and the President of the Eastern Hemisphere are in Dubai, per your link. I'm not sure currently, but when corporate HQ was moved to Dubai, there were 16,000 Haliburton employees in the Eastern Hemisphere.
> 
> If you just get the CEO and a few hundred office staff back in the country, it's better than what we have now.
> 
> ...


Second question first. There is none. But it is difference in state tax rates and where incorporation occurs as compared to where physical presence is analagous to our discussion. Incorporation has little to do with corporate presence or jobs.

Which leads to your first point. You haven’t shown that Halliburton has any incentive to move any of those jobs back. One of the jobs will likely never be US based because it is responsible for overseeing operations in that part of the world. And since those 16,000 employees are most likely involved with on the ground duties in that part of the world it’s unlikely they would come back either. As to the CEO. 

“Sanchez said he believed Halliburton's move to Dubai was not tax related. Instead he viewed it as a strategic play.”

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSN1126658420070312


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

I don't think you have proved your point that businesses will not move jobs back to America, not even in the specific instance of Haliburton. IMO, historically, businesses will move to areas where they are less taxed.

Now, while the point about taxes being different in different states is true, it has nothing to do with the Federal tax bill we are discussing. Secondly, if one feels that lower taxes in a certain state cause businesses to incorporate and move there, why doesn't that same principle apply to the world stage when discussing the lowering of corporate rates in the U.S.?


----------



## Back2Basix (Dec 24, 2015)

I'm very happy with the proposed cuts. My wife who's an MSA/CPA estimates it will save us roughly $7800 in taxes next year. We pay an exorbitant amount in taxes every year, last year north of $45k in Fed, State, and FICA (not including 6% sales tax and property taxes)

I'm all for paying more when the time comes but it has to be across the board. When almost 50% of individuals pay NOTHING with many getting back thousands and thousands due to "welfare credits", creating a negative effective tax rate, it's ridiculous.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> In theory.
> 
> In reality.
> 
> ...


Low unemployment?!?! You mean low number of people not working looking for jobs, right? I would suggest reading how they devise that rate.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Jolly said:


> I don't think you have proved your point that businesses will not move jobs back to America, not even in the specific instance of Haliburton. IMO, historically, businesses will move to areas where they are less taxed.
> 
> Now, while the point about taxes being different in different states is true, it has nothing to do with the Federal tax bill we are discussing. Secondly, if one feels that lower taxes in a certain state cause businesses to incorporate and move there, why doesn't that same principle apply to the world stage when discussing the lowering of corporate rates in the U.S.?


I’ve never claimed businesses won’t move jobs back. I’ve just seen no proof they will. You brought up Halliburton as an example, not me. 

Of course it applies if you understand analogies and their use. The point is that the location of incorporation can have little or nothing to do with where the jobs associated with that company occur. If it did there would be thousands of Coke employees working out of a headquarters in Dover rather than Atlanta.

I don’t know how this tax bill will affect jobs. I have my doubts that it will cause many changes at all given that we have already had years of job growth leading to historically low unemployment rates and high corporate profits with what many would say are onerous tax conditions. Where exactly are all these new job seekers supposed to appear from to fill all the new positions that you presume will appear?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Low unemployment?!?! You mean low number of people not working looking for jobs, right? I would suggest reading how they devise that rate.


I have. But why shouldn’t I believe our president?

“President Donald Trump didn’t miss the chance to tweet about this sign of continued optimism from investors. “Stock Market hits an ALL-TIME high!,” Trump tweeted. “Unemployment lowest in 16 years. Business and manufacturing enthusiasm at highest level in decades.””

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.time.../05/donald-trump-twitter-stock-market-economy


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> I have. But why shouldn’t I believe our president?
> 
> “President Donald Trump didn’t miss the chance to tweet about this sign of continued optimism from investors. “Stock Market hits an ALL-TIME high!,” Trump tweeted. “Unemployment lowest in 16 years. Business and manufacturing enthusiasm at highest level in decades.””
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/amp.time.../05/donald-trump-twitter-stock-market-economy


People are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. Actively looking for work may consist of any of the following activities:


Contacting:
An employer directly or having a job interview
A public or private employment agency
Friends or relatives
A school or university employment center


Straight from BLS. So all the slugs that ain’t looking for work that are unemployed are not counted. Some of which are receiving welfare benefits which differ from unemployment. That’s why the number is skewed and a crock.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I find it hard To believe that the changes Put in place since President Trump has become the president have made that much change in our economy already.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> I find it hard To believe that the changes Put in place since President Trump has become the president have made that much change in our economy already.


It's amazing what results can come of proper policies!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> People are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. Actively looking for work may consist of any of the following activities:
> 
> 
> Contacting:
> ...


Thanks for sharing. But just because you don’t like how the number is calculated doesn’t make it an invalid number. Our president points to it as good news. Why can’t you?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It's amazing what results can come of proper policies!


It is. Thanks Obama. And thanks Trump for not yet messing things up.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> Thanks for sharing. But just because you don’t like how the number is calculated doesn’t make it an invalid number. Our president points to it as good news. Why can’t you?


That might be admitting that Trump is doing the right things.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Stock market is a lot of consumer sentiment. If Pittsburgh or Buffalo win the super bowl it will go up likely because it always has when a "blue collar" team wins. When they Packers and Steelers went it went up before the game because it was going to be blue collar no matter who won. In reality there are no blue collar teams. The steel workers don't play the meat packers anymore. 

We can give credit for the stock market to fickle irrational people. Maybe Trump fits in that category so he can take some credit.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

I didn't read all the msg so I'm sorry if I'm rehashing things but. . .

The big deal in the tax cut is the business tax rate cuts. If I told you there are two businesses who want to hire you to work for them. The job and benefits etc are exactly the same in each business but if you go to work for business A you will bring home 10% more in your paycheck than if you you work for business B. Which business would you go to work for?

Now if a business has the ability to operate in country A or country B and country B allows them to keep 10% more of their profits than country A which country do you think that business is going to choose to operate in?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> I didn't read all the msg so I'm sorry if I'm rehashing things but. . .
> 
> The big deal in the tax cut is the business tax rate cuts. If I told you there are two businesses who want to hire you to work for them. The job and benefits etc are exactly the same in each business but if you go to work for business A you will bring home 10% more in your paycheck than if you you work for business B. Which business would you go to work for?
> 
> ...


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

About the economy...

Much of the economy is driven through consumer and business perception. I don't think there is any doubt that business and much of the public, view Trump as much more business friendly than Obama.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Jolly said:


> About the economy...
> 
> Much of the economy is driven through consumer and business perception. I don't think there is any doubt that business and much of the public, view Trump as much more business friendly than Obama.


For many perception is reality. I hope the growth started under the last administration continues and I’ll be happy to give our current president the same credit as our last if it does.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> Thanks for sharing. But just because you don’t like how the number is calculated doesn’t make it an invalid number. Our president points to it as good news. Why can’t you?


It’s not wether or not I like how it’s calculated, it’s not a legit number. Sure people who want to work are finding jobs but what about those who do not and still get assistance? That’s why it’s a crock. I don’t care who says it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> It’s not wether or not I like how it’s calculated, it’s not a legit number. Sure people who want to work are finding jobs but what about those who do not and still get assistance? That’s why it’s a crock. I don’t care who says it.


They are not part of the unemployed number if they don't want a job. Just like someone who is retired is not.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> It’s not wether or not I like how it’s calculated, it’s not a legit number. Sure people who want to work are finding jobs but what about those who do not and still get assistance? That’s why it’s a crock. I don’t care who says it.


What about them? If you’d like to have some metric to measure them and compare that number over time feel free to develop and publish it. I’d be interested in seeing it, though I’m curious what exactly you’d include as “welfare”.

The unemployment rate measures what it measures and is very valid in comparing those measurements over time. That’s exactly what it’s designed to do and the rates are at historical lows.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It's amazing what results can come of proper policies!


Lol I totally agree but I still find it hard to believe that measurements done weeks or months ago reflect the results of policies enacted in the last few hours.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

painterswife said:


> They are not part of the unemployed number if they don't want a job. *Just like someone who is retired is not.*


Thank you, I was very, very confused by that.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> What about them? If you’d like to have some metric to measure them and compare that number over time feel free to develop and publish it. I’d be interested in seeing it, though I’m curious what exactly you’d include as “welfare”.
> 
> The unemployment rate measures what it measures and is very valid in comparing those measurements over time. That’s exactly what it’s designed to do and the rates are at historical lows.


People kicking our babies every 4 to 5 years to keep their aid coming so they don’t have to work should be included. They are more than likely able bodied but too lazy to do it and have a kid with anyone so they don’t have to work. That’s aid they get and don’t contribute but are not counted against the unemployment rate. That makes perfect sense!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> People kicking our babies every 4 to 5 years to keep their aid coming so they don’t have to work should be included. They are more than likely able bodied but too lazy to do it and have a kid with anyone so they don’t have to work. That’s aid they get and don’t contribute but are not counted against the unemployment rate. That makes perfect sense!


Provide actual numbers and we can talk about how they might affect the unemployment rate. Then we could go back and apply the same metrics to past data and compare apples to apples. But nothing you’ve said makes the current unemployment rates an invalid measure of how the economy is doing and how it improved under Obama and continues to under Trump. 

Here’s news that should make you smile.

https://www.cbpp.org/blog/snap-caseloads-and-spending-still-falling

I am curious why you dont seem to think the economy is improving.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> Provide actual numbers and we can talk about how they might affect the unemployment rate. Then we could go back and apply the same metrics to past data and compare apples to apples. But nothing you’ve said makes the current unemployment rates an invalid measure of how the economy is doing and how it improved under Obama and continues to under Trump.
> 
> Here’s news that should make you smile.
> 
> ...


Where did I say the economy isn’t improving? I didn’t! I simply stated that the unemployment calculation is a crock. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Where did I say the economy isn’t improving? I didn’t! I simply stated that the unemployment calculation is a crock. Nothing more, nothing less.


You indicated that today’s low unemployment rates are a poor indicator of an improving economy. It is why I put the qualifier I did in my statement. It allowed room that I may have misinterpreted your meaning.

You’ve said a lot of things about the calculations without providing a shred of proof to back up any of your assertions. Or to show there’s a more accurate way to calculate and compare such rates. You haven’t even said what you’d include as welfare.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> You indicated that today’s low unemployment rates are a poor indicator of an improving economy. It is why I put the qualifier I did in my statement. It allowed room that I may have misinterpreted your meaning.
> 
> You’ve said a lot of things about the calculations without providing a shred of proof to back up any of your assertions. Or to show there’s a more accurate way to calculate and compare such rates. You haven’t even said what you’d include as welfare.


Didn’t say the unemployment rate indicated anything about the economy. I said the number is a crock. Once more in case you didn’t read it the first three times, the calculation for unemployment is a crock. It does not include those who choose not to work, not saying stay at home moms, retired or disabled, I’m saying lazy POSs that live off the government. No where in any of my statements did I mention the economy or indicate anything of the economy.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Didn’t say the unemployment rate indicated anything about the economy. I said the number is a crock. Once more in case you didn’t read it the first three times, the calculation for unemployment is a crock. It does not include those who choose not to work, not saying stay at home moms, retired or disabled, I’m saying lazy POSs that live off the government. No where in any of my statements did I mention the economy or indicate anything of the economy.


Fine. I apologize for saying you seemed to do so and admitting before that my question was based on what I thought you seemed to indicate. Is that a clearer statement for you?

Now, maybe you can actually show with actual numbers, not just rants and raves about those you disapprove of, how the unemployment number would be different if your as yet undisclosed calculation were used. Would the unemployment rate be 1% higher? 5% higher? 10% higher? Just curious.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> Fine. I apologize for saying you seemed to do so and admitting before that my question was based on what I thought you seemed to indicate. Is that a clearer statement for you?
> 
> Now, maybe you can actually show with actual numbers, not just rants and raves about those you disapprove of, how the unemployment number would be different if your as yet undisclosed calculation were used. Would the unemployment rate be 1% higher? 5% higher? 10% higher? Just curious.


Ok, stay at home moms, retirees, military, students, and THOSE WHO ARE NOT WANTING TO WORK are not included. Stay at home moms, retirees and military understandable not being included. Those who are able bodied and choose not to work but still receive benefits for housing or anything else should be included in the number. That’s what I am trying to say. I don’t care what it adds to it but it’s higher than what is being reported. That’s my point, not sure what you are not grasping. Able bodied individuals who are not working or looking for work and recieve benefits should be included in the unemployment number. *Able bodied individuals who are not working or looking for work and recieve benefits should be included in the unemployment number.
*
That’s three more times, do you understand what I am saying now?


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

It is the lest well kept secret to anyone who follows such matters:

http://freedomslighthouse.net/2012/...ou-theyd-get-it-under-8-they-did-video-10512/


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Ok, stay at home moms, retirees, military, students, and THOSE WHO ARE NOT WANTING TO WORK are not included. Stay at home moms, retirees and military understandable not being included. Those who are able bodied and choose not to work but still receive benefits for housing or anything else should be included in the number. That’s what I am trying to say. I don’t care what it adds to it but it’s higher than what is being reported. That’s my point, not sure what you are not grasping. Able bodied individuals who are not working or looking for work and recieve benefits should be included in the unemployment number. *Able bodied individuals who are not working or looking for work and recieve benefits should be included in the unemployment number.
> *
> That’s three more times, do you understand what I am saying now?


I’ve understood it every time you’ve said it. Yelling doesnt generally help conversation move forward. I’ve asked you a rather simple question. You claim it makes it higher but you’ve offered no proof it does or how much higher. If it raises the rate 1/10 of a percent you’d seem to be wasting a lot of energy on something rather insignificant. If it raised it 10% we could perhaps have an interesting discussion. 

But none of that’s really pertinent to the point I made long ago about the current unemployment rate being historically low and reflecting an ever improving jobs picture. One started by our last president and continued by the current one.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea38.htm

89% is because they do not want a job right now! That’s my point, they need to be included in the number. That’s 85 million people who just “don’t want a job right now” they should be in there.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cn...n-american-workers-not-in-us-labor-force.html


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> I’ve understood it every time you’ve said it. Yelling doesnt generally help conversation move forward. I’ve asked you a rather simple question. You claim it makes it higher but you’ve offered no proof it does or how much higher. If it raises the rate 1/10 of a percent you’d seem to be wasting a lot of energy on something rather insignificant. If it raised it 10% we could perhaps have an interesting discussion.
> 
> But none of that’s really pertinent to the point I made long ago about the current unemployment rate being historically low and reflecting an ever improving jobs picture. One started by our last president and continued by the current one.


Doesn’t change the fact that the labor force is shrinking, not just because of retirees. What proof do you need, it’s basic math, more unemployed in count over labor force equals higher percentage. What are you failing to understand?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea38.htm
> 
> 89% is because they do not want a job right now! That’s my point, they need to be included in the number. That’s 85 million people who just “don’t want a job right now” they should be in there.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cn...n-american-workers-not-in-us-labor-force.html


So my daughter should be counted? She’s a stay at home mom. She’s included in your 85 million but what would including her tell us? 

And from your link.

“The structural issue is what North calls the "silver tsunami of retirees" or those 10,000 baby boomers a day leaving the workforce and heading for retirement. “

Should they be counted and what would that tell us.

The poster you’re trying to help singles out a specific group. Care to provide those numbers?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Doesn’t change the fact that the labor force is shrinking, not just because of retirees. What proof do you need, it’s basic math, more unemployed in count over labor force equals higher percentage. What are you failing to understand?


Where you’ve shown me some concrete information about the number of people not working but living off of government assistance. I’ll understand it when you provide such information.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Read the catagories. Would she just not want to work or fall into family responsibilities?

Here’s an interesting link showing that retirees are not the issue.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...etirees-are-not-the-labor-exodus-problem/amp/

Again, bogus number.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> Where you’ve shown me some concrete information about the number of people not working but living off of government assistance. I’ll understand it when you provide such information.


https://mobile.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/us/03foodstamps.html?referer=https://www.google.com/

The numbers are a little old but they weren’t included before and I’ll bet with fewer in the labor force that number has increased.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Any more proof that it’s not a valid number the way it’s calculated? Theres 3-5 other ways it’s been calculated and none of them are the same, so the government picks the lowest one to make it look like the world is all unicorns and rainbows.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> https://mobile.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/us/03foodstamps.html?referer=https://www.google.com/
> 
> The numbers are a little old but they weren’t included before and I’ll bet with fewer in the labor force that number has increased.


You can bet all you want but people like this wouldn’t be included in your number. 

“I’ve been out looking for work every day — there’s absolutely nothing,” he said.”

From your link.

I’m not sure why you’d assume the number of people subsisting only on food stamps would be higher now when companies can’t find enough workers than 8 years ago when the economy was hemorrhaging jobs but everyone’s entitled to their beliefs.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> You can bet all you want but people like this wouldn’t be included in your number.
> 
> “I’ve been out looking for work every day — there’s absolutely nothing,” he said.”
> 
> ...


It’s called a skills gap. And yes we are entitled to our beliefs.


----------



## LAFarm (Mar 8, 2015)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Ok, stay at home moms, retirees, military, students, and THOSE WHO ARE NOT WANTING TO WORK are not included. Stay at home moms, retirees and military understandable not being included. Those who are able bodied and choose not to work but still receive benefits for housing or anything else should be included in the number. That’s what I am trying to say. I don’t care what it adds to it but it’s higher than what is being reported. That’s my point, not sure what you are not grasping. Able bodied individuals who are not working or looking for work and recieve benefits should be included in the unemployment number. *Able bodied individuals who are not working or looking for work and recieve benefits should be included in the unemployment number.
> *
> That’s three more times, do you understand what I am saying now?


Did you by chance happen to see someone who didn't fit a predisposed definition of being deserving, purchasing some groceries with a SNAP card at the local WalMart?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

A better number to look at is the number of jobs added.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

watcher said:


> A better number to look at is the number of jobs added.


178000 added and 446000 left the labor force in one month. So 260k ish less people working and the unemployment rate still dropped? Don’t inhale the smoke meant to be blown where the sun don’t shine.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Interesting statistic...

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/05/black-unemployment-rate-falls-to-record-low.html


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Jolly said:


> Let me answer your question with a question...After being headquartered in the U.S. for years, why did Haliburton feel the need to move much of its HQ?


They also moved the intellectual property, to Singapore, so revenue from that IP is not taxable in the US.

There is so much ignorance of business and taxing in this thread. Some get it. Others just seem to resent the fact they are not personally getting a windfall.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> They also moved the intellectual property, to Singapore, so revenue from that IP is not taxable in the US.
> 
> There is so much ignorance of business and taxing in this thread. Some get it. Others just seem to resent the fact they are not personally getting a windfall.


And you answered a question not asked which doesn’t address the point trying to be made about the tie between jobs and corporate location.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> And you answered a question not asked which doesn’t address the point trying to be made about the tie between jobs and corporate location.


Not to rehash old ground too much, but for those offices Haliburton has in Dubai and those offices Haliburton has in Singapore (which used to be in the U.S.), which country gets tax money from the employee's tax payments?

And for those employees, where is the vast amount of their paychecks spent?

And how many times does a dollar or dirham turn over in those local economies?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> And you answered a question not asked which doesn’t address the point trying to be made about the tie between jobs and corporate location.


There is no tie to jobs, only to what is taxable in the US.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Jolly said:


> Not to rehash old ground too much, but for those offices Haliburton has in Dubai and those offices Haliburton has in Singapore (which used to be in the U.S.), which country gets tax money from the employee's tax payments?
> 
> And for those employees, where is the vast amount of their paychecks spent?
> 
> And how many times does a dollar or dirham turn over in those local economies?


Gee skippy. I have no idea. But to not further rehash things what do any of those questions have to do with jobs returning to the US and why Halliburton opened a headquarters in Dubai?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

It is commonly known that the United States has the highest statutory corporate income tax rate in the industrialized world. However, less is known about how the United States measures up against the rest of the world. By expanding the sample of tax jurisdictions from the 35 OECD member states to 202 countries and tax jurisdictions around the world, we find the United States corporate tax rate of 38.91 percent is the fourth highest rate in the world. The United States statutory corporate income tax rate is 15.92 percentage points higher than the worldwide average, and 9.5 percentage points higher than the worldwide average weighted by gross domestic product (GDP). The worldwide corporate tax rate has declined significantly since 1980 from an average of 38 percent to 22.96 percent. Today, most countries have corporate tax rates below 30 percent.

https://taxfoundation.org/corporate-income-tax-rates-around-the-world-2017/


*Key Findings*

The United States has the fourth highest statutory corporate income tax rate in the world, levying a 38.91 percent tax on corporate earnings. The only jurisdictions with a higher statutory rate are the United Arab Emirates, Comoros, and Puerto Rico.
The worldwide average statutory corporate income tax rate, measured across 202 tax jurisdictions, is 22.96 percent. When weighted by GDP, the average statutory rate is 29.41 percent.
Europe has the lowest regional average rate, at 18.35 percent (25.58 percent when weighted by GDP). Conversely, Africa and South America tie for the highest regional average statutory rate, at 28.73 percent (28.2 percent weighted by GDP for Africa, 32.98 percent weighted by GDP for South America).
In general, large industrialized nations tend to have higher statutory corporate income tax rates than developing countries.
The worldwide average statutory corporate tax rate has consistently decreased since 1980, with the largest decline occurring in the early 2000s.
The average statutory corporate tax rate has declined in every region since 1980.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> There is no tie to jobs, only to what is taxable in the US.


Exactly. But the point trying to be made earlier was that the changes in corporate tax rates would cause companies like Halliburton to move their corporate headquarters and jobs back to the US.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> Gee skippy. I have no idea. But to not further rehash things what do any of those questions have to do with jobs returning to the US and why Halliburton opened a headquarters in Dubai?


Jobs will return if companies have money in the US, (not in other countries) to invest in production in the US. They will not bring that money to the US is the US has such a high corporate tax.

In addition, money brought back to the US has a better chance of being spent in the US, on things other than production, than money sitting in other countries. Money spent here is turnover of money here. Turnover of money here creates jobs here.

It ain't hard to understand.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> It is commonly known that the United States has the highest statutory corporate income tax rate in the industrialized world. However, less is known about how the United States measures up against the rest of the world. By expanding the sample of tax jurisdictions from the 35 OECD member states to 202 countries and tax jurisdictions around the world, we find the United States corporate tax rate of 38.91 percent is the fourth highest rate in the world. The United States statutory corporate income tax rate is 15.92 percentage points higher than the worldwide average, and 9.5 percentage points higher than the worldwide average weighted by gross domestic product (GDP). The worldwide corporate tax rate has declined significantly since 1980 from an average of 38 percent to 22.96 percent. Today, most countries have corporate tax rates below 30 percent.
> 
> https://taxfoundation.org/corporate-income-tax-rates-around-the-world-2017/
> 
> ...


It’s probably more honest to discuss what corporations actually pay in different regions.

“The tax framework that the Trump Administration and congressional Republican leaders announced on September 27 would dramatically lower the top corporate tax rate, from 35 percent to 20 percent. President Trump has argued that the U.S. rate is among the world’s highest and makes U.S. companies “uncompetitive.” These comparisons are misleading. Rather than focusing on the top statutory rate, they should focus on what companies _actuallypay._ And they should focus on large, high-income countries, which companies likely view as similar to the United States as potential places to locate and invest in for non-tax reasons. After accounting for tax breaks and loopholes, U.S. corporate rates are well below the 35 percent top statutory rate and are in line with corporate rates in similar countries. The Treasury Office of Tax Analysis estimates:[1]


*The average corporate tax rate on profits from new investments made in the U.S. is 24 percent; the average corporate rate on profits from new investments made by companies in other “Group of Seven” (G-7) industrialized, democratic countries, weighted by the size of their economies, is 21 percent*_._ This measure of tax rates is useful when considering how corporate taxes affect companies’ decisions about where to make new investments.
*The share of worldwide profits that U.S. multinational corporations pay in U.S. and foreign income taxes is about 28 percent; the average for companies headquartered in other G-7 countries, weighted by the size of their economies, is 29 percent*_._ This measure of tax rates that a multinational might face on its income from all countries is useful for considering how corporate taxes might affect where multinationals choose to reside for tax purposes. (See chart.)”
https://www.cbpp.org/research/feder...x-rates-are-in-line-with-comparable-countries


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> Exactly. But the point trying to be made earlier was that the changes in corporate tax rates would cause companies like Halliburton to move their corporate headquarters and jobs back to the US.


Corporate headquarters are located where they are located because that is what qualifies them as residents in that tax jurisdiction. Jeez, it is very simple to understand.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> Jobs will return if companies have money in the US, (not in other countries) to invest in production in the US. They will not bring that money to the US is the US has such a high corporate tax.
> 
> In addition, money brought back to the US has a better chance of being spent in the US, on things other than production, than money sitting in other countries. Money spent here is turnover of money here. Turnover of money here creates jobs here.
> 
> It ain't hard to understand.


It really isn’t that hard to understand. Where a company is headquartered and receives its mail has little or no effect on how many jobs they’ll have in that location. I’ll ask again, how many jobs are in that Coke corporate headquarters in Delaware?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

You simply do not want to understand. The statutory rate is the starting point. You work your way DOWN from there based on the tax code to arrive at your effective tax rate.

Common sense tells you a higher statutory rate, leads to a higher effective rate, and a more complicated system (to be gamed) to lower your effective rate.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> Corporate headquarters are located where they are located because that is what qualifies them as residents in that tax jurisdiction. Jeez, it is very simple to understand.


Yes, it is easy to understand. There’s no correlation between that location and jobs. See my question above.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> It really isn’t that hard to understand. Where a company is headquartered and receives its mail has little or no effect on how many jobs they’ll have in that location. I’ll ask again, how many jobs are in that Coke corporate headquarters in Delaware?


Being in Delaware has no bearing on jobs...

Companies are incorporate in Delaware because...

The *Delaware* Court of Chancery focuses solely on business law and uses judges instead of juries. For corporations, there is no state corporate income tax for *companies* that are formed in *Delaware* but *do* not transact business there (but there is a franchise tax). ... There is no personal income tax for non-residents.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> Yes, it is easy to understand. There’s no correlation between that location and jobs. See my question above.


Yes there is, because that is where you are likely to keep your corporate earnings, spent of unspent. Spent creates jobs in some form.

I give up on you. Like I said, you are either incapable of understanding, or refuse to give up on your misplaced opinion.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> Being in Delaware has no bearing on jobs...
> 
> Companies are incorporate in Delaware because...
> 
> The *Delaware* Court of Chancery focuses solely on business law and uses judges instead of juries. For corporations, there is no state corporate income tax for *companies* that are formed in *Delaware* but *do* not transact business there (but there is a franchise tax). ... There is no personal income tax for non-residents.


You may be starting to understand my point. The argument was made earlier, it was the one I was countering, that the new tax plan would cause all those companies incorporated overseas to return that incorporation back to the US along with all the jobs those corporate mailboxes provide. You’ve just proven my point that one thing has little or nothing to do with the other. Thanks.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> Yes there is, because that is where you are likely to keep your corporate earnings, spent of unspent. Spent creates jobs in some form.
> 
> I give up on you. Like I said, you are either incapable of understanding, or refuse to give up on your misplaced opinion.


Are all those Coke corporate earnings kept in Delaware or are they distributed and invested around the country and the world? Delaware must be a hotbed of manufacturing and business.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> You may be starting to understand my point. The argument was made earlier, it was the one I was countering, that the new tax plan would cause all those companies incorporated overseas to return that incorporation back to the US along with all the jobs those corporate mailboxes provide. You’ve just proven my point that one thing has little or nothing to do with the other. Thanks.


So we are clear. You are wrong, and I do not agree with you.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

HDRider said:


> Corporate headquarters are located where they are located because that is what qualifies them as residents in that tax jurisdiction. Jeez, it is very simple to understand.


Yes, it is easy to understand.
All the poking fun of Ross Perot standing between 2 candidates pushing for NAFTA, proves that even the obvious is spurned by the ignorant.
With the stroke of a pen, we could impose such harsh penalties on American corporate traitors that it would cease tomorrow.
But greed is a mightier opponent than most people realize.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> So we are clear. You are wrong, and I do not agree with you.


Exactly what am I wrong about when I say that where a company is incorporated has little bearing on where it has jobs? Apple is incorporated in Ireland. It has 1000 or so jobs on its corporate campus there and some 24,000 in its headquarters in Cupertino, California. Shouldn’t it be the opposite if the location of incorporation were vital to job location? I guess we’ll just have to see how many of those corporate jobs in Ireland rush back to California.

Or maybe you can answer my question about all those Coke jobs at their headquarters in Delaware. I’m sure someone in Atlanta can give you the answer.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> Are all those Coke corporate earnings kept in Delaware or are they distributed and invested around the country and the world? Delaware must be a hotbed of manufacturing and business.


True, but that is just one step in the process.
The main complaint is that up until now, we've done NOTHING.
If you wanted to solve the problem 100%, it would require repeal of the 16th amendment and high tariffs on imports.
No need to tell me the reasons for opposing that, I've heard those weak arguments for years.
The one thing I *haven't* heard is, why not try it and see how well it would work?
I know the answer to that as well.
It is in the last line of post #93.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> True, but that is just one step in the process.
> The main complaint is that up until now, we've done NOTHING.
> If you wanted to solve the problem 100%, it would require repeal of the 16th amendment and high tariffs on imports.
> No need to tell me the reasons for opposing that, I've heard those weak arguments for years.
> ...


I’m not all that interested in arguing about your agenda. If you wish to comment on or disprove my point I’ll continue.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> Gee skippy. I have no idea. But to not further rehash things what do any of those questions have to do with jobs returning to the US and why Halliburton opened a headquarters in Dubai?


Well, sugar, it has to do with the basic premise of this thread. Why do we want company headquarters to be located in the U.S.? Can we agree that it is because those provide jobs, they tend to provide many highly paid jobs and the money that is generated from those jobs tends to turn over in the local economies several times?

Can we also agree that it is better to have those individuals working at those companies to be paying income tax in the U.S.? Can we further agree that it is better for companies to pay tax in the U.S., rather than pay tax in foreign countries?

So, why do companies locate headquarters where they do? Given we are speaking about larger companies like Haliburton in my example, I submit that human capital in the developed world is fungible for most HQ purposes in a large corporation, so that means that the company must have an incentive to locate their HQ in a particular place or they must have a disincentive in their current location to move.

Can we agree that lower taxes are an incentive to move and higher taxes are a disincentive to stay? After all, a corporation exists to make money, at its most basic level.

Therefore, if the current tax bill lowers the U.S. corporate rate to a level competitive with, or lower than, many of the nations of the world where such HQ's would be located, does it not stand to reason that the new tax policy will move those jobs back to within the U.S., creating wealth we did not have before?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> Exactly what am I wrong about when I say that where a company is incorporated has little bearing on where it has jobs? Apple is incorporated in Ireland. It has 1000 or so jobs on its corporate campus there and some 24,000 in its headquarters in Cupertino, California. Shouldn’t it be the opposite if the location of incorporation were vital to job location? I guess we’ll just have to see how many of those corporate jobs in Ireland rush back to California.
> 
> Or maybe you can answer my question about all those Coke jobs at their headquarters in Delaware. I’m sure someone in Atlanta can give you the answer.



I'm not disagreeing with your premise but the only _*headquarters*_ Coke has in Delaware in a file box in a lawyers office. They provide an address for that and multiple companies for a nominal fee. That doesnt mean that Haliburton will move its *headquarters* back to America.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> Yes, it is easy to understand. There’s no correlation between that location and jobs. See my question above.


What is the difference in federal corporate tax between Delaware and Georgia?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801.

_The *Corporation Trust Center*, *1209 North Orange Street*, is a single-story building located in the Brandywine neighborhood of Wilmington, Delaware, USA, operated by CT Corporation. This is CT Corporation's location in the state of Delaware for providing "registered agent services."[1] In 2012 it was the registered agent address of no fewer than 285,000 separate businesses._


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Jolly said:


> What is the difference in federal corporate tax between Delaware and Georgia?


According to the Wiki I read there were an estimated 9 billion in taxes over the last ten years not levied to corporations with the Delaware loophole.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> According to the Wiki I read there were an estimated 9 billion in taxes over the last ten years not levied to corporations with the Delaware loophole.


That is correct. Happens in Nevada, too, the other big tax loophole state. It particularly applies to Chapter S corporations and LLC's.

Federal corporate tax, however, remains the same.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

State tax rates:










If the graph does not show up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_States


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Jolly said:


> Well, sugar, it has to do with the basic premise of this thread. Why do we want company headquarters to be located in the U.S.? Can we agree that it is because those provide jobs, they tend to provide many highly paid jobs and the money that is generated from those jobs tends to turn over in the local economies several times?
> 
> Can we also agree that it is better to have those individuals working at those companies to be paying income tax in the U.S.? Can we further agree that it is better for companies to pay tax in the U.S., rather than pay tax in foreign countries?
> 
> ...


We can agree on a lot of things but one of them isn’t that where one files their incorporation papers has any real bearing on where one locates their corporate headquarters and the jobs that go with that headquarters. So, no, it does not stand to reason that because a company chooses to incorporate in the US that any jobs will associate with that incorporation any more than it stands to reason that because a company incorporates in Delaware they’ll have jobs in Delaware.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

mreynolds said:


> I'm not disagreeing with your premise but the only _*headquarters*_ Coke has in Delaware in a file box in a lawyers office. They provide an address for that and multiple companies for a nominal fee. That doesnt mean that Haliburton will move its *headquarters* back to America.


Which is exactly my point.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Jolly said:


> What is the difference in federal corporate tax between Delaware and Georgia?


None.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Jolly said:


> That is correct. Happens in Nevada, too, the other big tax loophole state. It particularly applies to Chapter S corporations and LLC's.
> 
> Federal corporate tax, however, remains the same.


Agreed. We are talking state tax not federal when we talk about which state it has the articles of incorporation in. But the same premise applies to actual headquarters in other countries. There are jobs associated with those headquarters from the people they employ and the taxes of that particular country.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> We can agree on a lot of things but one of them isn’t that where one files their incorporation papers has any real bearing on where one locates their corporate headquarters and the jobs that go with that headquarters. So, no, it does not stand to reason that because a company chooses to incorporate in the US that any jobs will associate with that incorporation any more than it stands to reason that because a company incorporates in Delaware they’ll have jobs in Delaware.


But even then, the Federal corporate tax remains. Does not that help provide services for the American people?




mreynolds said:


> Agreed. We are talking state tax not federal when we talk about which state it has the articles of incorporation in. But the same premise applies to actual headquarters in other countries. There are jobs associated with those headquarters from the people they employ and the taxes of that particular country.


Somewhat.

Around 80% of the companies incorporated in Delaware are foreign. At least under the old tax law. Delaware makes money off of the franchise fees.

What I don't know, is if any of those companies are liable for U.S. Corporate tax...So, U.S. companies would be paying Federal Corporate tax, helping put money in the U.S Treasury, but I'm unsure about foreign companies and incoming corporate tax revenue.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

mreynolds said:


> Agreed. We are talking state tax not federal when we talk about which state it has the articles of incorporation in. But the same premise applies to actual headquarters in other countries. There are jobs associated with those headquarters from the people they employ and the taxes of that particular country.


Why assume that? If the company is going to operate at all in that country there will be jobs associated with it but to assume that “headquarters” functions in this day and age require anything more than a mail forwarder or an email account is misguided. Just as Coke can incorporate in Delaware and run all its functions from Atlanta there’s no reason a company can not incorporate in country A and run all its headquarters functions from country B.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Jolly said:


> But even then, the Federal corporate tax remains. Does not that help provide services for the American people?
> 
> Secondly,because I do not
> 
> ...


It doesn’t matter if they’re liable for US corporate tax or not. That’s not what they’re trying to avoid. They are trying to avoid the tax liability they might incur if they incorporated in a higher tax state. Just as companies incorporated overseas to avoid higher taxes here. But that still doesn’t mean any jobs were associated with or will move because of the location of that incorporation.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> It doesn’t matter if they’re liable for US corporate tax or not. That’s not what they’re trying to avoid. They are trying to avoid the tax liability they might incur if they incorporated in a higher tax state. Just as companies incorporated overseas to avoid higher taxes here. But that still doesn’t mean any jobs were associated with or will move because of the location of that incorporation.


May want to revisit the post somewhat, as I was trying to couple two together at the time...


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Jolly said:


> May want to revisit the post somewhat, as I was trying to couple two together at the time...


Not sure what you’re trying to couple but under the new plan those federal tax revenues will be generated no matter where the company is incorporated.

Here’s an explanation of how Apple has avoided taxes on foreign income.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...rd/2013/05/28/how-does-apple-avoid-taxes/amp/

Now here’s why the current changes will bring in more US tax revenue but won’t affect jobs.

“Apple has an Irish holding company with no operations or employees at the top of its foreign operations. This company also serves as a group finance company. Apple Inc., the U.S. parent of the whole group, pays U.S. tax on the investment earnings of this company. Otherwise, the holding company pays no tax to any government, and has not paid tax for five years. It claims tax residence nowhere.”

Hard to move jobs that don’t exist.

To be clear, I don’t think this new tax plan is a bad thing. I just don’t think it will mean the automatic influx of jobs from overseas predicted.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> Why assume that? If the company is going to operate at all in that country there will be jobs associated with it but to assume that “headquarters” functions in this day and age require anything more than a mail forwarder or an email account is misguided. Just as Coke can incorporate in Delaware and run all its functions from Atlanta there’s no reason a company can not incorporate in country A and run all its headquarters functions from country B.


Ok, I think I see the problem here. I could be wrong but I am considering a headquarters a place that people park their car and go clock in and pay taxes in April. You, I think, are thinking it is the place of the articles of incorporation. To me Coke headquarters is in Atlanta not Delaware and Haliburton has one in Houston and one in Dubai. I have no idea which law office has Haliburton's articles of incorporation.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Jolly said:


> I'm unsure about foreign companies and incoming corporate tax revenue.


I would assume if they are incorporated in Delaware but have no holdings anywhere in the US they would still be considered a US company operating overseas. Therefore they would have to pay taxes here. I'm no lawyer though so not sure.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

mreynolds said:


> Ok, I think I see the problem here. I could be wrong but I am considering a headquarters a place that people park their car and go clock in and pay taxes in April. You, I think, are thinking it is the place of the articles of incorporation. To me Coke headquarters is in Atlanta not Delaware and Haliburton has one in Houston and one in Dubai. I have no idea which law office has Haliburton's articles of incorporation.


Exactly. The assumption from some is that because the new tax bill might incentivize some companies to change where they are incorporated for tax reasons that that change will be associated with jobs coming back. I say it just ain’t so.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Amway wanted to sell the products they make near Grand Rapids, MI to China. China barred the importation of these products into China, as a part of our lopsided free trade agreement.
However, he was able to build a factory in China, employ Chinese and market Amway products in China.
But, this "branch" required the hiring of 500 people near Grand Rapids to administer the Chinese operation. Employing Chinese to produce Chinese products, not exported to the US, provided 500 people with an income subject to federal taxes.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> Amway wanted to sell the products they make near Grand Rapids, MI to China. China barred the importation of these products into China, as a part of our lopsided free trade agreement.
> However, he was able to build a factory in China, employ Chinese and market Amway products in China.
> But, this "branch" required the hiring of 500 people near Grand Rapids to administer the Chinese operation. Employing Chinese to produce Chinese products, not exported to the US, provided 500 people with an income subject to federal taxes.


It didn’t require that administrative facility to be built anywhere. The business owner chose to build it thousands of miles from his Chinese business. Which, again, proves my point, where a business is technically “located” can have little effect on where those headquarters jobs are. They could have been located in Michigan, China or anywhere in between.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

When a Japanese company locates in the US, their headquarters is often in Japan. Many companies have headquarters in the US instead of some Third World country. That is because they value the safety and security that is available here. No advantage to sheltering your money or exploiting cheap administrative personnel if the organized criminals take it.
Most companies are owned by share holders. When those people are in the US, they get taxed on their capital gains.
The US has the world's highest corporate taxes, so every opportunity to park their money off shore, without risk of drama, will be explored.
Managing a workforce abroad is sometimes problematic and shipping products causes delays and expense.
Lower corporate taxes, by itself, won't increase jobs. But more profits in the hands of stockholders increases spending. Bigger paychecks due to lower taxes, increases consumer spending. These increases create increased demand for products. Businesses expand.
Ford did this by paying five times the going wage while employing state of the art labor saving machines. But the corporate tax structure was far different in 1912.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> I’m not all that interested in arguing about your agenda. If you wish to comment on or disprove my point I’ll continue.


LOL
I don't know what to say about that.
Sounds like a one way street to me and I don't stay very long on those.
I was discussing ways to keep Americans employed in America, but if there's only one way to do it, I'm not aware of that.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> It really isn’t that hard to understand. Where a company is headquartered and receives its mail has little or no effect on how many jobs they’ll have in that location. I’ll ask again, how many jobs are in that Coke corporate headquarters in Delaware?


No but it has a big effect on how much money the stock holders get because the company profits are taxed at a lower rate. How much effort would you go through to increase your bring home pay by 15%? There are a lot of medium sized national companies which have their "home office" is a state where they do very little business because that state has the lowest taxes. IIRC OK is one of those states.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Yes, it is easy to understand. There’s no correlation between that location and jobs. See my question above.


There is in a way. You do have to have some people working at your HQ.

A bigger issue is the fact by having their HQ in the US the tax money is paid to the US. If you think about it 20% of something is a lot more than 0%.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

More of that trickle down. Utilities are cutting electric rates.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/articl...st-announce-customer-rate-cuts-due-tax-reform


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Darren said:


> More of that trickle down. Utilities are cutting electric rates.
> 
> https://www.cnsnews.com/news/articl...st-announce-customer-rate-cuts-due-tax-reform


More MAGA


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Darren said:


> More of that trickle down. Utilities are cutting electric rates.
> 
> https://www.cnsnews.com/news/articl...st-announce-customer-rate-cuts-due-tax-reform


And I'm sure somebody will say that the wheels were put in motion by the previous administration...


----------

