How many of you think Hillary Clinton will become the next US President???

If you think that lowering corporate tax rates will do anything to the economy you are sadly mistaken. The only thing that will happen is the company will post a higher profit which will then lead to an even bigger bonus for the CEOs. It's happened time and time again.

 

Really? How so?

How does it compare to the rest of the planet?

 

Not for the post of mine you quoted.

I didnt know Obama said that too.

 

That isnt what I said.

Do you disagree that it would be an 'incentive to stay'?

 

No I don't. Doesn't matter how low your taxes are if nobody is buying what you are selling.

 

When you claim the tax rate is 40% when comparing it to the rest of the world, it's misleading to omit the effective rate is closer to a third of that.
I sure you can easily do your own research.

 

Agreed.

Makes you wonder why the administration, and Lester Holt at the beginning of the debate, keep talking about how good the economy is.

 

I included a link in the same post that supported what I said.

Your post says something different. If you have something that shows comparative effective rates for the world then please show it.

 

I think more people have jobs than after the housing crash and everyone's house was taken from them.
At least in my area, housing is the biggest issue for people. I live in a 2 bedroom apartment that costs $2,000 a month. It's not like I can move to another apartment because that is the average cost around here. With an expense like that, what makes you think I'm going to go buy a new car or buy a shiny new TV?

 

Do you actually live in DC? If so, I can believe you have more-serious-than-average housing issues there.

 

Northern VA. Like 15 miles outside the city

 

In Belgium we had a case of a wealthy pharma CEO, he made some good points, but so did others.

Imo, the rich should get taxed more, BUT... investing into new businesses that generate new jobs should be a way for them to reduce those taxes.

Sort of a give/take relationship that has to be kept in balance.

The rich often also forget, the more financially strong your middle class is, the more likely they are to buy more of your products, which in return also boosts profits.

 

Indeed. Your link simply cites the 'statutory' rate. That's the same as claiming you pay the top rate on your personal income tax without any deductions or credits. That obviously is not the case. As I said, the effective rate is a third of that. Don't you recall not long ago that GE effectively paid no corporate taxes?

 

Corporate taxes are different from personal taxes. Personal taxes - the more one makes the more loopholes that become available. The vast majority of those loopholes are just deferrals. It is a never ending cycle, as long as one is able to keep playing the deferral game, they will not pay any taxes till the day it stops and then the estate ponies up or keeps it going depending how the estate is setup. But, there is a day of reckoning. It's all a matter of time.


EDIT: Only two absolutes in life, death and taxes.

 

The problem with that logic is republicans always say that rich people are investors and that they are the job creators. So it is very much relevant that wealthy person like him pays no taxes. Corporations only pay taxes on profit, if they reinvest into the business they pay no taxes on that money. This is what I mean when I say we don't have a tax problem, if people want to grow businesses or invest, taxes are not standing in their way in the slightest.

 

Profit is profit, does not matter what one does with it. It is still taxed. That is why there is a line item on the P&L Profit Before Taxes and another line item Profit After Taxes. Reinvesting the profit after taxes back into the business is common sense. It is what allows the business to grow. If the profits only go back to accommodate salaries & wages, operations will suffer for not being able to adjust to changes in the supply & demand chain. Businesses are there to make profits. Otherwise they are considered non-profit and need to brake even; no taxes paid at all. Ideally non-profits would be operations that would reduce government social service expenditures. The issue is that executive compensation packages have gotten out of touch with reality. That is why the tax code is adjusting and making what is considered excessive benefits as taxable compensation.

 

My only mistake was attempting to converse with someone who can only muster a weak attempt of paragraph that consists of you telling yourself stories.

You've still yet to backup a single thing you said in reply to my posts, for all your accusations backtracking and fact/opinions nonsense.

Then again, you're more interested in protecting yourself from reality, which im guessing is why you want me on your block list. After all, your a coward, one doesnt want anything that goes against your deluded little narrative within eye view.

For all the replies to my posts, you've yet to actually say anything.

Cash in that reality check and youll be all the more wealthier for it.

Edit: Oh, and i dont hate america. America hates america.

 

Bill Maher never fails to cream Trump so badly you cant help but facepalm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEsP4_1ImUI

Trump sued Maher for $5,000,000 in 2013 for saying that he cant prove he wasnt the spawn of his mother having sex with an orangutan. Apparently Trump was intent on producing his birth certificate to prove it .

 

I doubt the intent of the OP is to limit the discussion here only to 'will Hillary or Trump win', but to cover the general election, the pros/cons of the candidates and other related aspects. Do you think other threads should be started to discuss election related issues that do not involve the 'will Hillary/Trump win' question?