How GOP House and Senate Tax Proposals Differ

November 13, 2017

  • November 13, 2017 at 10:23 am
    PolarBeaRepeal says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 6

    The opening paragraph appears to imply the conflict between the two Chamber’s will scuttle the tax reform. Or, at least it seems to focus on that by putting it up front. Exemplary wording; “…complicating Republican efforts to fulfill their goal…”.

    While the differences seem to be reconcilable, the amount of time it will take to do so could, indeed, jeopardize the reform bill for 2017, which ends in only 7 weeks. The reason, in my opinion, is the ‘lack of courage’ in the Senate to make significant, bold changes to stimulate the US economy and help US citizens and businesses recover from the lackadaisical economic policies of the last 8 (mediocre at best) years.

    Finally, it is clear to me, upon reflecting on the nature of the differences, one by one, with only a fe exceptions, that it is easier for lobbyists to influence a smaller body of politicians in the Senate to make less harmful changes to not penalize their interests than it is to influence a larger body of politicians in The House. Review the differences, one by one, to see where various lobbyists have stuck their noses and pushed campaign cash toward certain politicians.

    • November 13, 2017 at 10:45 am
      Rosenblatt says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 6
      Thumb down 0

      Regardless of who is driving the text of the legislation (which I agree is certainly impacted by lobbyists), shouldn’t we expect the Republicans to at least attempts some sort of bipartisan buy-in on the plan?

      I am not suggesting the Democrats would actually be willing to have those discuss, just that I think the Republicans need to attempt to have those conversations.

      Although I haven’t done the math and am relying on those who have years of experience projecting the cost of tax changes, I find it difficult to believe that the current plan will meet the “out-year” requirement under the Byrd Rule.

      • November 13, 2017 at 10:46 am
        Rosenblatt says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 3

        *attempts –> attempt
        *those discuss –> those discussions

      • November 13, 2017 at 12:13 pm
        PolarBeaRepeal says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 8

        NO.

        The GOP should shut out the TAX & SPEND Dems who shut them out of FINAL meetings on the ACA bill. Recall what Obama said in a similar situation about taking input from Republicans; i.e. “We won!”

        • November 13, 2017 at 4:39 pm
          Agent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 4

          Polar, what a great idea. We know how Progressive Democrats shut out Republicans on the ACA. Why should they get a voice on tax reform since they basically want to tax even more so they can spend more?

        • November 15, 2017 at 2:27 pm
          Agent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 3

          Polar, so I was listening to my XM on the way to lunch today. Your favorite female politician and mine almost stroked out again and all she could say to the Tax Overhaul was “Kill the Bill, Kill the Bill, Kill the Bill in a chant with her small group of equally misguided Progressive Socialist Democrats. The woman cannot even form a sentence now or propose anything at all except more of the same.

          • November 16, 2017 at 7:44 am
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 5

            Dems elect politicians like Negative Nancy, who can effectively raise money for their campaigns. If elected, they eventually tax money away from those who worked hard to get it, to pay it over to those who do not.

            The good news is that the Progressive Dems in their few remaining seats of power are growing older and will not be replaced by younger Progressives. Dems have to moderate toward the center to remain relevant in US politics.

            Old timer Progressives: Pelosi, Clinton, Biden, Feinstein, Kerry, Gore, Schumer, Ginsberg, Breyer, …

      • November 13, 2017 at 12:16 pm
        PolarBeaRepeal says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 6
        Thumb down 7

        If you haven’t done the math (calculation), your belief is based on your bias and preference for HIGHER TAXES and meager GDP growth.

        Me; I prefer lower taxes, more jobs for those who want them and want to get ahead, more take-home income, and greater prosperity for those who contribute to society more than those who do not contribute.

        • November 13, 2017 at 1:18 pm
          Rosenblatt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 4
          Thumb down 0

          “Great” reply buddy. Instead of responding to the Byrd Rule and reconciliation-related voting rules, you attack what you THINK I believe.

          I do not want higher taxes, less jobs, more handouts (e.g. unemployment) nor do I want lackluster GDP growth.

          Would you like to talk about the points I made, or do you want to continue your straw-man arguments about what you think I want without actually asking/learning/knowing my position on those topics??

          • November 13, 2017 at 1:27 pm
            The Night of the Living ACA Death Spiral says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 5

            Nope. Do the math, then ask again after you post the results. Thanks in advance.

          • November 13, 2017 at 1:36 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 0

            Q: Would you like to talk about the points I made?
            A: Nope

            “Great” reply again buddy! (that’s sarcasm)
            Thanks for your honesty, though! (not sarcastic)

          • November 13, 2017 at 2:33 pm
            Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 4

            Rosenblatt, you are a known Progressive who has not spoken out about the Progressive tax code the past 8 years when that very code retarded growth in our economy. Where were you criticizing the Obama Administration for not stimulating the economy in the right way. That Stimulus he passed did absolutely nothing except driving up the debt which was monstrous by the way.

          • November 13, 2017 at 3:51 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 3

            We’re talking about the tax plans that are in the works right now, Agent. Do you have anything relevant to say on the current topic or do you just want to live in the past?

          • November 13, 2017 at 6:12 pm
            The Night of the Living ACA Death Spiral says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 5

            @Rosenblatt; are you saying your record of support for Progressive taxation ISN’T influencing your push for Dems to be involved in the tax reform?

            It’s clear Agent struck a raw nerve with his observation of your history for support of Progressives.

            I just want you to go on the record about your motive for involving DEMS WHO ONLY CAN TAX & SPEND in legislation intended to LOWER TAXES & (eventually) SPENDING. Please explain how opposing philosophies can do anything but delay ANY needed changes.

          • November 14, 2017 at 8:50 am
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 1

            “I just want you to go on the record about your motive for involving DEMS WHO….”

            Seriously? I’ve already posted this twice in this thread. But, okay, I’ll post it for you again.

            I find it difficult to believe that the current plan will meet the “out-year” requirement under the Byrd Rule. As such, the Republicans will not be able to approve the legislation only with a simple majority. This means they’ll need to get non-Republicans to vote for the plan too.

          • November 16, 2017 at 7:46 am
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            A ‘Byrd Rule’ won’t save the DEMS from changes to the bill that appease enough Republicans.

  • November 13, 2017 at 4:05 pm
    Ron says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 8
    Thumb down 1

    Tax reform is not that difficult if it is to motivate certain behavior.

    1. You want companies to grow? Provide a tax credit for investment into the company.
    2. You want companies to hire? Provide a tax credit for increasing the workforce.
    3. You want companies to increase wages? Provide a tax credit when wages are increased more than COLA or inflation, whichever is higher.
    4. You want people to spend more? Reduce the income tax on those who will put the additional money into the economy. i.e. Not the top who are already saving.
    5. Want to protect family businesses and farms from the estate tax? Offer a deferral on the grounds the family maintains the business/farm running without reductions in employees. Each year they maintain the business/farm this way, they get a credit in the event they do sell. Upon the sale, they will owe the original tax bill, less any credits earned each year. Even provide additional credits for expanding the business/farm and hiring more employees.

    Feel free to add your own.

    What does not work is just handing money to people/corporations who have no incentive to spend that money.

    • November 13, 2017 at 4:50 pm
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 7

      Ron, answer the following question. Why do you think corporations have been moving money offshore for many, many years? I don’t think it was for the wonderful tax rates under the Progressive Tax Code. If we had a competitive tax code, these same companies would have invested in the US and expanded operations in this country creating more jobs and investments. We would have realized much more taxable income because we would have had millions more good jobs and the economy advanced. The Obama economy never saw 3% GDP and usually hovered in the 1.5-2% GDP. What do you have against better tax policy? What are you afraid of?

      • November 15, 2017 at 8:13 am
        Ron says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 4
        Thumb down 1

        “Why do you think corporations have been moving money offshore for many, many years?” Because the tax rate off shore is lower. However, that is only profits, not operations. How about this. A one time amnesty to re-patriot money, tax free? A couple conditions: It must have been off shore for at least 12 months and must be used to expand operations and hire more people and/or increase wages for all employees more than COLA or inflation, whichever is higher.

        The reason companies move operations is lower cost of operations; labor, materials, regulations. While the tax rate may be higher for the very few corporations with incompetent tax attorneys and accounts, the effective tax rate is competitive.

        Why else would we already be seeing huge growth in the GDP and economy overall?

        “What do you have against better tax policy?” Nothing

        “What are you afraid of?” Increasing the debt just to give money we don’t have to people/corporations who do not need it.

        • November 15, 2017 at 10:52 am
          Agent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 5

          Ron, spoken like a true NY Progressive, one of the highest taxed states in the union. Your hero that you voted for twice never once advocated lowering tax rates in his eight years in office. He did advocate for more taxation and the huge increase in regulations that have been very costly for American business.

          Funny, you said “why else are we seeing huge increase in GDP”? Hello, The change has been enormous in the past year since our great President started trimming the stifling regulations. We actually have foreign countries making commitments to building plants and operations in the US creating American jobs. One big reason is the promise of tax reform and a better regulatory environment in this country. Better and more fair trade is another issue. Our President was busy on his Asian trip negotiating great trade deals with the countries he visited. He was simply living up to his pledge to MAGA. You should applaud his efforts, but I know you won’t because you are part of the Resistance. Sorry Ron, but Progressive Socialism is a failed economic theory.

          • November 15, 2017 at 11:01 am
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            “Your hero that you voted for twice never once advocated lowering tax rates in his eight years in office.” Funny, I do not recall my deceased father ever running for public office. If you are referring to President Obama (not my hero), he actually did.
            http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-corporate/obama-urges-corporate-tax-cut-closing-loopholes-idUSTRE81K25N20120222

            Do you have any source indicating he actually advocated for higher taxes?

            So, we agree that, regardless of the reason, the economy is on the right track without tax reform. Yet, you and your party want to increase the deficit by an additional $1.5 trillion with no proven way to pay for the tax cut.

            I applaud President Trump for his negotiating skills while abroad. Let’s see what the final results are before making any judgments either way.

            I would have been in favor of Mike Pence as the President and Donald Trump being responsible only for negotiating deals on the US’s behalf.

          • November 16, 2017 at 6:41 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Oh this is rich, Obama didn’t put in place higher taxes or advocate for them? He increased the marginal rates, in addition to provided further tax rates for folks in other ways that made the actual rate above 39.6% for many, and, as it turns out, that 1.5 trillion deficit you talk about that has no proven way to pay for the tax cut, would amount to similar deficits were Obama to do it and is largely due to the corporate tax cut you say republicans are pushing with no way to pay for it. Was that now Obama’s attempt at a tax cut in addition to his wreckless spending? Or is it now a sign of strength simply due to the ideal in your head of being “bi partisan”? I’ve actually used the link you just used, and others. Congratulations on finally using itself, when it met your means of pointing out false equivalency again, and, contradicting yourself again, in order to have talking points. Obama was not for lower taxes and democrats while having a majority did not pass a lower rate. I guess they were ineffectual or didn’t really want it. But you know, that’s republicans and all. It’s not like you called out the democrats for keeping the corporate tax rate high at any point during their majority, now that it is a talking point of what conservatives want, well, you’ll just keep saying the tax cuts aren’t funded so they can’t lower the corporate rates, and then you will defend Obama for trying the same and say republicans blocked him. That’s a cycle that is destructive in logic and process in the name of false equivalency.

            “I applaud President Trump for his negotiating skills while abroad. Let’s see what the final results are before making any judgments either way.”

            Nope, you don’t, you’re basically clapping for yourself so you don’t appear biased, I know you well. I won’t agree to this, because you did not hold the same standard for Obama.

            “I would have been in favor of Mike Pence as the President and Donald Trump being responsible only for negotiating deals on the US’s behalf.”

            Pence would have supported similar unfunded tax reduction plans. You don’t even know what unfunded means by the way. 40% of the GDP is spent by the governments, local and federal. You can’t just pretend that doesn’t affect the middle class and their incomes and ability to provide for themselves through direct pay from a service, which would make the cost of said services lower removing a tier (the government’s distribution) and would benefit everyone.

          • November 17, 2017 at 8:05 am
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 1

            Another nonsensical rant based on insults and condescension.

            My position against President Trump stems far less from his policies than his character, or lack thereof. He is not presidential and is an embarrassment on the world stage. He is not who I want to be the face of our great nation. (For the record, I did not want Hillary Clinton to serve that role either). Fact is that he is a thin-skinned, pathological liar who has zero capacity to take personal responsibility. Just because you do not like the news being reported, does not always make it fake.

            How many times does it need to be proven that he has either deceived or flat out lied before you start holding him accountable?

    • November 13, 2017 at 6:15 pm
      bob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 1

      Tax reform is not that difficult if it is to motivate certain behavior.
      “1. You want companies to grow? Provide a tax credit for investment into the company.”

      This is part of the 1st year of the Senate plan. However, a company often has to save for a decade before making a major investment. The money doesn’t pop up out of nowhere. Ergo, you need lower corporate tax rates.

      “2. You want companies to hire? Provide a tax credit for increasing the workforce.”

      Same problem as above. Often they are working off of small profit margins, and need every extra couple thousand to take off and hire another person who can excel their growth. This mandates a lower long term tax, not a sudden credit for hiring. The concept here is maximizing the remaining capital.

      “3. You want companies to increase wages? Provide a tax credit when wages are increased more than COLA or inflation, whichever is higher.”

      This might work.

      “4. You want people to spend more? Reduce the income tax on those who will put the additional money into the economy. i.e. Not the top who are already saving.”

      The bottom half that spend more are already at a zero tax rate or lower. Giving them more money from someone else at that point does not provide additional economic growth, though it may force some of the savings of the wealthy back into the market place, it is then spent on a new tv rather than a new investment. One can have serious returns for each time it happens. One is a constant.

      “5. Want to protect family businesses and farms from the estate tax? Offer a deferral on the grounds the family maintains the business/farm running without reductions in employees. Each year they maintain the business/farm this way, they get a credit in the event they do sell. Upon the sale, they will owe the original tax bill, less any credits earned each year. Even provide additional credits for expanding the business/farm and hiring more employees.”

      Wrong. First off this isn’t the only issue with the estate tax. If you amass a fortune by the time you die, you cannot use it. So let’s say you are 55 and already have $50 million. Do you want to earn another $50 million over the next 20 years? This is part of why the state tax is bad. The only reason someone then amasses money at a certain point is to pass it on to their kids. The estate tax will always harm capital growth, you don’t make it harm less people, you get rid of it entirely and go for income taxes. I will not budge on this. You know I’m right. Tax the millionaire more through their life, not at death. We can recoup the amount of lost revenues (though we don’t need to) through income tax.

      “Feel free to add your own. ”

      Unless you’re conservative or Bob. Then ignore everything they say.

      “What does not work is just handing money to people/corporations who have no incentive to spend that money.”

      Ergo why lowering the corporate tax rate in Canada from 40% to 15% worked. You’re wrong. Keeping the money in the hands of corporations is precisely what works.

      • November 15, 2017 at 8:35 am
        Ron says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 0

        Bob,

        since you replied in a civil manner, I will continue the debate.

        1. There is plenty of capital available for investment. Most companies finance expansion using debt, not equity, that is, if there is demand. It is far more economical. if you need me to explain why, I would be happy to discuss opportunity cost.

        2. If you see the same problem as above, use my rebuttal from above.

        3. Done

        4. This is assuming you decrease the income tax on any individuals. Either reduce it only for the spenders or nobody. Just use the first 2 points to increase money in people’s pockets.

        5. I brought this solution up only because it is the key argument I have heard to eliminate the estate tax. Inheritance is new income for the heirs, therefore it is not double taxation.
        “The only reason someone then amasses money at a certain point is to pass it on to their kids.” Not true. There are plenty of people that do not just pass their wealth to their families because they want their kids to make their own way, not rely on money from the parents.
        “The estate tax will always harm capital growth, you don’t make it harm less people, you get rid of it entirely and go for income taxes.” This makes absolutely no sense. Following your logic, all taxes harm capital growth. However, we have to fund the government somehow.
        “Tax the millionaire more through their life, not at death.” Interesting that you now want to increase taxes on the wealthy, for which I am against. I believe that he/she earned it and paid enough in taxes already. Tax the ones who are just waiting for their payday.

        We are not Canada.

    • November 13, 2017 at 6:17 pm
      The Night of the Living ACA Death Spiral says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 2

      I’ll pick these items off, one at a time, at my leisure…

      1. Investors don’t want their money going into a company and never coming back to them, so your suggestion won’t attract much capital and will stall GDP growth. There’s a term for this situation, but my memory of it is fuzzy at the moment, so consult with the nearest economist in your neighborhood.

      • November 13, 2017 at 6:19 pm
        bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 2

        This too, I missed this in my reply.

        • November 15, 2017 at 2:34 pm
          Agent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 0

          Bob, speaking of taxes, how is that Income Tax in Seattle working out for you?

          • November 16, 2017 at 1:13 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            I don’t pay it, but probably badly for those there.

      • November 14, 2017 at 12:19 pm
        Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 5

        Night, only a Progressive would think that raising taxes is a plus for the economy. Our favorite Democratic female politician, Pelosi-Galore said that the unemployed actually stimulated the economy. She seemed to forget that people having good jobs would actually stimulate the economy. They think just the opposite of the way we do.

        • November 15, 2017 at 10:54 am
          Ron says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 1

          Do you know the difference between increasing taxes on someone or some entity and not decreasing them?

          • November 16, 2017 at 7:54 am
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 2

            If the will of the MAJORITY is to decrease taxes, any objection to that plan of the MAJORITY is an ‘increase’ over the EXPECTED LOWER tax levels.

            Conservatives KNOW US Federal tax rates will be lower in the future. The only uncertainties are when, and by how much.

            But, if word parsing give you solace, carry on!

          • November 16, 2017 at 8:01 am
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 0

            The will of the majority is also to have someone other Trump as the POTUS.

            I have advocated for lower taxes that will actually benefit the economy. Why would it be so bad for corporations to actually earn their lower taxes by investing in their businesses, hiring more people and increasing wages?

            Conservatives like to pick and choose when we should care about the debt and deficits. It seems to be only when there is a Democrat in the Oval Office. Coincidence?

      • November 15, 2017 at 10:53 am
        Ron says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 0

        “Investors don’t want their money going into a company and never coming back to them, so your suggestion won’t attract much capital and will stall GDP growth.” Considering corporate investment, profits and the stock market all have reached historic highs during President Obama’s 2nd term and have continued at even higher rates during the 1st 10 months of President Trump’s administration, without any changes to the tax code, how would providing a tax credit for growth have any influence?

        • November 15, 2017 at 1:52 pm
          Captain Planet says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 0

          How would it, Ron? The GOP lobbyists asked for it and won’t continue to contribute to campaigns without it, that’s how. DUH! And besides, Hannity is for it. So, there’s that.

          • November 16, 2017 at 7:59 am
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 3

            If I were a GOP lobbyist and didn’t see recent past promises fulfilled, I’d withdraw support for the Republicans who were elected. Wouldn’t other party’s lobbyists do the same? What happened to the donations to the Clinton Crime Family Foundation almost immediately after Hillary lost, 232-306?

        • November 16, 2017 at 7:57 am
          PolarBeaRepeal says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          By expansion into global markets and new product markets. Your assumption of market demand saturation is narrow minded and lacks forward thinking.

          Further, the ‘all-time highs’ surpassed previous ‘all-time highs’. And no one has proven there is a ‘ceiling’ on stock prices.

  • November 15, 2017 at 8:38 am
    Ron says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 1

    For those who disagree with me that lowering corporate taxes, in and of itself, will not motivate companies to increase their investment into their companies,

    http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-gop-tax-plan-gary-cohn-bill-2017-11

    • November 16, 2017 at 8:17 am
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 1

      The article states that Cohn (Economic Advisor) expected more hands raised than were raised when he asked the CEOs who would increase their investments in their company.

      There is a serious flaw in your logic if you think this means no new investment will occur. If that is your contention, you qualify as a troll. There were some hands raised, but Cohn preferred to be rewarded by everyone raising their hands. I wouldn’t expect any such result. Here’s why:

      1. The co. CEOs run different cos. in different industries, with different levels of market demand saturation. Not all are willing to expand operations.

      2. The competitive levels in various industries with abundant or inadequate levels of supply means there are various levels of marginal profit to be earned by expansion. Some industries have reached a point where expansion would reduce profit per unit sold, and well know not to expand. Others can expand and increase total profits.

      3. Some industries realize they cannot expand due to a lack of sufficiently trained workers. This is a situation that has been addressed by the H1B visa revisions proposed by Trump, to encourage the proper method of recruiting sufficiently trained workers from overseas to fill vacant jobs in the US that require special skills.

      There are other reasons that NOT ALL hands were raised. The key point that should be stressed is that the projected levels of GDP expansion may not be realized, but that shouldn’t prevent SOME level of GDP expansion. IF you want to argue for a stagnant GDP, simply to resist the GOP’s plans for tax reform that BENEFITS THE MIDDLE CLASS as well as BUSINESSES, SMALL AND LARGE, you’re just trolling.

      • November 16, 2017 at 8:32 am
        Ron says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 5
        Thumb down 0

        Did you even watch the video? It was an embarrassment to Gary Cohn and this tax reform proposal. Of the 25-30 CEOs in view, only 3 raised their hands. If it was all but 3 I would agree with you.

        “While there was a smattering of raised hands in the auditorium, it was clearly not as many as Cohn would have liked.”

        1. Agreed. So why give them all a tax break?

        2. Agreed. So why give them all a tax break?

        3. Agreed. So why give them all a tax break?

        I have no problem reducing taxes on those that will use the money to benefit the country and its people, especially workers. If they are just going to pocket the money and move it off-shore, then those people/companies can maintain their current effective tax rate.

        • November 16, 2017 at 10:48 am
          PolarBeaRepeal says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 3

          You cn’t give SOME people and corps a tax break because that violates the equal protection clause.

          Further, their stockholders WANT a tax break on the profits their investments in cos. earn.

          You’re trying really hard to troll for attention today, as if Conservatives wouldn’t be able to respond to your empty points.

          • November 16, 2017 at 11:24 am
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 0

            Actually, we already do. Are you unfamiliar with how tax deductions and credits work? I would be happy to explain them to you, if necessary.

            Of course the stockholders want the tax break because the corporations will pass the extra money to them instead of the company and its employees. That is the problem. From a tax policy perspective, stockholders should be the last of the stakeholders to be addressed.

        • November 16, 2017 at 11:16 am
          PolarBeaRepeal says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 3

          No, I didn’t watch the vid; the text was sufficient, and I prefer to not go down rabbit holes on off-topic issues.

          The repatriation of money doesn’t need to occur for 100% of the capital that is currently off-shore. You are again cherry picking details that are irrelevant to the big picture of tax reform.

          • November 16, 2017 at 11:27 am
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 6
            Thumb down 0

            If you do not watch the video, you are missing out on how very few of the CEOs did not raise their hands. Your post indicates you believe only a few DID NOT raise their hands. Either the text did not paint a very good picture of what occurred or your reading comprehension skills need some work. I’ll let you decide.

            Finally, it is not a rabbit hole because it is the crux of the entire tax reform debate.

          • November 17, 2017 at 10:26 am
            Captain Planet says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Yogi says, “No, I didn’t watch the vid; the text was sufficient, and I prefer to not go down rabbit holes on off-topic issues.”

            But, on the issue of driverless dystopia, Yogi said:

            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            LIKE OR DISLIKE:
            Thumb up 1Thumb down 5
            Who can guarantee immortality? Dems think they can do so by implementing and keeping ACA. But I haven’t seen or read about anyone older than 122. Most people who reach 100 usually are gone before 110.

            Years ago, the chemicals in a human body were valued at $.98, but that was probably before taxes. Now, inflation has pushed that up quite a bit.

            Those who highly value human life can slow down, and not ‘DUI’. Out of their cars, they can quit smoking and step outside to exercise more than they do, if at all. But, do they?

            How many babies are aborted each year? Do those people drive autonomous cars for the safety aspect, and their high valuation of human life?

            Hypocrisy much?



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features