Ray Jay wrote:Wouldn't it just have been easier to lower the corporate tax rate to match that of Ireland? Instead of treating corporations like they are the enemy, how about working with them so they are not motivated to leave your country? That's what your government does.

That is called a "race to the bottom". What happens when Ireland or someone else decides to reduce further? And further? etc etc? They recently announced that the rate will be halved to 6.25% for companies that are "innovators" and employ highly skilled people in Ireland - so Microsoft and Amazon then.

Eventually corporate taxes would bottom out, and so will returns. Ireland's tax returns have recovered to pre-crash levels, but the corporation tax take is still much lower - down on the 2002 level, let alone 2007.

Why does Ireland have such low rates? Partly to compete with the UK (as another English-speaking EU nation), and partly because they were desperate after the 2008 crash. I don't think it is a sustainable policy.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Wouldn't it just have been easier to lower the corporate tax rate to match that of Ireland? Instead of treating corporations like they are the enemy, how about working with them so they are not motivated to leave your country? That's what your government does.

That is called a "race to the bottom". What happens when Ireland or someone else decides to reduce further? And further? etc etc? They recently announced that the rate will be halved to 6.25% for companies that are "innovators" and employ highly skilled people in Ireland - so Microsoft and Amazon then.

Eventually corporate taxes would bottom out, and so will returns. Ireland's tax returns have recovered to pre-crash levels, but the corporation tax take is still much lower - down on the 2002 level, let alone 2007.

Why does Ireland have such low rates? Partly to compete with the UK (as another English-speaking EU nation), and partly because they were desperate after the 2008 crash. I don't think it is a sustainable policy.

The U.S. could certainly match the UK ... you are at 20% whereas in the US we hit 40%+ when you add certain state taxes. However as a % of GDP you raise just as much money. I'm not trying to race to the bottom. I'm just trying to get somewhere in the middle. Perhaps as the only person on these pages who has worked with businesses in over 10 countries, I can tell you that in many respects (banking, insurance) it is easier to operate in the US. However, tax policy and state regulations make the US tougher (although the European including UK labor regulations are very challenging). In any case, if the US were in the middle as it relates to corporate taxes the vast majority of companies would stay because of the relative ease of doing business here.

Here's an interesting study on UK corporate tax https://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/ ... b-2011.pdf

• In 2010 the UK had the 7th lowest corporation tax rate in the G20, and the lowest in the G7.
• For over 25 years the UK’s corporation tax rate has been well below the G7 average.
• Despite this, as a proportion of GDP, UK corporation tax revenue has generally been above the
G7 average. Revenue peaked in 2007/08 at around £46 billion, before falling back to less than
£36 billion in 2009/10.

ray

Perhaps as the only person on these pages who has worked with businesses in over 10 countries, I can tell you that in many respects (banking, insurance) it is easier to operate in the US

.
I haven't worked with 10. But enough.
I think a lot of this has to do with the way Americans tend to do business. There is a particularly positive approach, and a willingness to accept a deal as long as the terms appear favorable. Its okay if both sides benefit from the deal.
In many respects its far easier to get a deal done, because there is not the over abundance of caution that one sometimes finds when dealing with other nationalities. Or the need to be certain that a deal is won.
As a national characteristic it is perhaps exceptional.
The relationship to government is also different. There is a desire to manipulate the system and its such a complicated monstrosity because its always being gamed to advantage.Those complex regulations you complain about are generally the result of corporate lobbying and influence.

rickyp wrote:ray

Perhaps as the only person on these pages who has worked with businesses in over 10 countries, I can tell you that in many respects (banking, insurance) it is easier to operate in the US

.
I haven't worked with 10. But enough.
I think a lot of this has to do with the way Americans tend to do business. There is a particularly positive approach, and a willingness to accept a deal as long as the terms appear favorable. Its okay if both sides benefit from the deal.
In many respects its far easier to get a deal done, because there is not the over abundance of caution that one sometimes finds when dealing with other nationalities. Or the need to be certain that a deal is won.
As a national characteristic it is perhaps exceptional.
The relationship to government is also different. There is a desire to manipulate the system and its such a complicated monstrosity because its always being gamed to advantage.Those complex regulations you complain about are generally the result of corporate lobbying and influence.

If Ricky were running for Pres., the headline would be "Ricky Believes in American Exceptionalism. I've certainly noticed the American positivism vis-à-vis England, Ireland, Mexico, Germany, France, and India. I've recently been doing business with China and I've noticed the same positivism.

rayjay

"Ricky Believes in American Exceptionalism

In this particular characteristic, my personal experience, is the evidence I need to agree.
I'm not big on belief without evidence.

The other larger aspects of a belief in "American Exceptionalism" seem to survive among many on the American right despite the experiences of Viet Nam, Iraq and more.

Ray Jay wrote:The U.S. could certainly match the UK ... you are at 20% whereas in the US we hit 40%+ when you add certain state taxes. However as a % of GDP you raise just as much money. I'm not trying to race to the bottom. I'm just trying to get somewhere in the middle.

I'd say that we should forget average rates and percentages of GDP. Rather, look at the standard deviation on the rates both corporations and individuals pay in the US. While I have no links to share, I know it's huge: just look at my own tax rates I've posted in earlier parts of this thread. There's no rational basis for those rates changing so much and big differences like that are a sign of injustice. There are some large corps that pay almost nothing, while there are others that pay the full 40%. Likewise with individuals. To me, this debate about American fundamentals: If we have a society of the people, by the people and for the people, and the notion of liberty and equality for all, then everyone's got to pay their fair share. We can debate what "fair" means, but I think everyone can agree that Buffett shouldn't be paying the lowest tax rate in his office.

Geo:

There's no rational basis for those rates changing so much and big differences like that are a sign of injustice.

Yes, but justice means different things to different people. It is also a sign of political meddling and complexity.

Geo:

everyone can agree that Buffett shouldn't be paying the lowest tax rate in his office

What is your source and under what definition is this true?

Ray Jay wrote:
Geo:

everyone can agree that Buffett shouldn't be paying the lowest tax rate in his office

What is your source and under what definition is this true?

Nor should he be paying the highest... He should pay the same percentage, which is a whole lot more money than anyone else in his office.

bbauska wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:
Geo:

everyone can agree that Buffett shouldn't be paying the lowest tax rate in his office

What is your source and under what definition is this true?

Nor should he be paying the highest... He should pay the same percentage, which is a whole lot more money than anyone else in his office.

I beg to differ.

If the cleaner is on minimum wage, and then has to pay tax on that, they will be on a very low disposable income after food, housing, transport and utilities.

Yeah, even if you had a flat rate you would want to exempt from taxation income until it reaches a certain minimum level to get by on. But I believe that Brad's edifice of exactly equal treatment no matter what the differential consequences may be is impervious to all rhetorical assault...

Actually, I can consider all options.

How about this... 15% for everyone with the exemption for the first 35,000 given to all people?

bbauska

How about this... 15% for everyone with the exemption for the first 35,000 given to all people

?
So the actual tax rate for someone making $35,000 is 0%
For someone making $70,0000 is 7.5%
For someone making $150,000 is 11.5%
For someone making $1,000,000 is 14.47&

If you're willing to embrace this variability, perhaps you'd consider progressive steps in taxation increasing as people earn more money?
After all its the same principle. The less one makes, the proportion that goes to taxes effects the amount that can be applied against necessities.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

How about this... 15% for everyone with the exemption for the first 35,000 given to all people

?
So the actual tax rate for someone making $35,000 is 0%
For someone making $70,0000 is 7.5%
For someone making $150,000 is 11.5%
For someone making $1,000,000 is 14.47&

If you're willing to embrace this variability, perhaps you'd consider progressive steps in taxation increasing as people earn more money?
After all its the same principle. The less one makes, the proportion that goes to taxes effects the amount that can be applied against necessities.

No, EVERYONE has a $35,000 exemption and pays 15% above that. Please subtract the exemption first and then show me what the percentage paid would be. I think you will find it will be the same.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

How about this... 15% for everyone with the exemption for the first 35,000 given to all people

?
So the actual tax rate for someone making $35,000 is 0%
For someone making $70,0000 is 7.5%
For someone making $150,000 is 11.5%
For someone making $1,000,000 is 14.47&

If you're willing to embrace this variability, perhaps you'd consider progressive steps in taxation increasing as people earn more money?
After all its the same principle. The less one makes, the proportion that goes to taxes effects the amount that can be applied against necessities.

BTW, I think you mean affects, not effects. A simple mistake, I am sure.

Ray Jay wrote:Geo:

There's no rational basis for those rates changing so much and big differences like that are a sign of injustice.

Yes, but justice means different things to different people. It is also a sign of political meddling and complexity.

Geo:

everyone can agree that Buffett shouldn't be paying the lowest tax rate in his office

What is your source and under what definition is this true?

It was news some years ago and we discussed it quite a bit. Here is a link from that time.

Http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html It is dated, because it uses the old rates, but i expect it's still true because of the large difference between capital gains and earnings.