Corporate Income tax rate should be dropped to 0% to reflect reality.

Quote from Brass:

I only know the direction that needs to be taken, not the speed at which it should do so. And neither do you. So please let's not pretend. And as for your over-the-top numbers, you just want to precipitate the very economic Armageddon that you're "predicting." Talk about moral hazard, eh?

ohboy. Here we go. Your favorite pastime. The R&R study said at 90% debt to GDP, growth declined by 2%, per year. After 120%, it was 3-5%, per year. You read that, right? So we're at 100%. By those metrics, and judging by our shitty jobs performance, we're about right on track with the other losers. In order to grow our way out of this, which is essentially what we argued all last fucking night and you conceded (and now you're arguing it again), the US would have to grow something like 4%, per year, for the next 4 years, just to break-even on the debt. Mind you, at that point, we're gonna be well over the "danger zone" mark of 120%, where growth is effectively slowed by 3-5% GDP, per year, according to Jagoff and Reinfart. What that means, is that if we're tracking on par with the other turds circling the drain, that shithead Obama will have to peg in real GDP growth rates, of 7 PERCENT, for the next 4 YEARS, just to overcome the headwind from the massive debt, AND, get us to breakeven. That's before we hit 140% debt to gdp. And yes, I pulled 140% out of my ass. But if you think we're gonna get anywhere near that without shitting the bed, you're sadly mistaken. Grow? You come at me with fucking grow our way out? This is retarded. There's NO WAY out. Look at it another way. deficit and QE = 18% of GDP. That's 18% we're IN THE HOLE BY. So we need to "Grow", 4%, per year, for the next 4 years, in real terms, just to avoid reaching 140% debt-to-gdp. At that rate, we'll probably level out at around 125% dtgdp.
4 percent real growth. Do you have any idea how many fucking jobs that is?
 
Quote from Martinghoul:

Just a rhetorical question, since I don't see any point in arguing about this stuff... Along the lines of what Hugh Hendry has been arguing for, could the Hail Mary be simply the reversal of the marvellous Chinese miracle? So what if China is, in fact, overleveraged and experiences a sharp contraction? What if Japan finally follows suit? I would say 400k numbers are easy in such a case... Just a thought.

China's implosion is our gain? Very nice. Why don't we just nuke them and get it over with.
 
Quote from achilles28:

...In order to grow our way out of this, which is essentially what we argued all last fucking night and you conceded (and now you're arguing it again)...
:confused:
 
Quote from achilles28:
China's implosion is our gain? Very nice. Why don't we just nuke them and get it over with.
Don't know about nuking, but why couldn't China's implosion be US's gain? There's a certain symmetry to it, innit? China's miracle led to the overall loss of competitiveness and productive capacity in the US (and the West in general). Wouldn't it be natural to assume that the US benefits when/if China sneezes? Again, not that I am saying it has to/will happen.
 
and how much of the budget goes toward the so-called social safety net ie leeches? and how much goes toward defense related costs? ie giveaways to military contractor golfing buddies ? Does anyone really know the numbers?
 
Quote from Max E. Pad:

The foreign banking of corporate profits means not just nil for the US treasury, but for the states that levy corporate taxes. Corporations (nor individuals, imo) should not be subjected to confiscatory tax regimes, but should not get a free ride either. 35% is silly and drives the money offshore. 0% does not reflect the fact that corporations receive services from the government, such as defense of sea lanes, trade routes, etc. Someone find a solution where the corporations pay a reasonable but modest tax which incentivizes the repatriation of profits (and hopefully a distribution of a portion profits to shareholders will result). Apple's sitting on 100 billion should be a wake-up call to Washington. This should not be an ideological issue. This is an issue of pragmatism and common sense pubic policy. Many liberals are for tax reform
which includes lower corporate taxes (after all, we are the limousine liberals)
and the elimination of loopholes and corporate welfare. Now go ahead Max E and co., ignore the content of my post and just bleat away about my being a liberal godless commie who wants to pervert the youth of America and gamma ray death the universe. How can you guys type so much with all that drool on your keyboard anyway?

I find that It is humorous, when we see liberals trying to raise corporate income taxes, after we see companies like AAPL paying 10% income tax. Its almost as if they believe we are somehow going to figure out a way to grab a bigger share of Apple’s profits by raising their taxes.

Based on the global economy with countries competing against, each other we are in a race to 0% corporate income tax, companies are just going from one country/state to another until they achieve the lowest rate. The days of big government liberals being able to take an ever larger share of corporations profits are long gone.

We need to completely reform the tax code in order to reflect the reality of a global economy, otherwise we are going to be left in the dust.

If we continue to demand 35% we are goners, there is a mass exodus going on amongst American business right now, and if we don’t fix the tax code, we are screwed.
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

and how much of the budget goes toward the so-called social safety net ie leeches? and how much goes toward defense related costs? ie giveaways to military contractor golfing buddies ? Does anyone really know the numbers?

Only one of those is listed in the Constitution as a responsibility of the federal government. Not that I don't agree with you that there is massive waste in the Defense budget and I would be the first to fault republicans for protecting it.

Only one candidate wanted to cut both, Ron Paul. Too bad he isn't starting a third party. I would support a party based on tight budgets, sound money, low taxes, merchantilist trade policies, no foreign entanglements and libertarian social policies.
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Only one of those is listed in the Constitution as a responsibility of the federal government. Not that I don't agree with you that there is massive waste in the Defense budget and I would be the first to fault republicans for protecting it.

Only one candidate wanted to cut both, Ron Paul. Too bad he isn't starting a third party. I would support a party based on tight budgets, sound money, low taxes, merchantilist trade policies, no foreign entanglements and libertarian social policies.
And, it would insure four more years of Obama.
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:


Only one candidate wanted to cut both, Ron Paul. Too bad he isn't starting a third party. I would support a party based on tight budgets, sound money, low taxes, merchantilist trade policies, no foreign entanglements and libertarian social policies.

Translation:

Lean Govt
Hard money
Excise taxes only
No foreign entanglements..can't say it better
If you are butt fucking your guy friend in your home in Georgia, you can't have the state intrude.
 
Back
Top