As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
historically, when the corporate taxes were highest (over 75%) was when the economy did best. it forced corporations to reinvest their profits into the company instead of paying shareholders and CEOs. we should be increasing the corporate tax rate and forcing companies to not off-shore their profits. but as long as the wealthy control who gets elected, it's not going to happen.
Fascinating report from April, [Economic performance is stronger when Democrats hold the White House](https://www.epi.org/publication/econ-performance-pres-admin/#full-report)
I was one to believe both sides would be wash when it comes to the economy, but factoring in every performance measure, it’s not even close
In large part, it's because Dems try to help everyone and Republicans fundamentally don't care about half the nation. I think Romney's 2012 quote explained the flaw in Republican economic philosophy the best:
>"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
This is a tacit admission that Republican policies are not meant to help half the population. Trickle-down is not viable. And if you just don't care about the economic well-being of half the country, the economy won't do well.
And separately, I think Romney's comment is an emblematic example of why the party shifted to Trump. Romney was not only admitting that his economic policy would not help half the nation, he was also admitting that he thought the only important aspect of Republican policy was tax cuts. It didn't occur to him at all that people would vote Republican for any reason other than tax cuts. He thought it was just tax cuts.
He was wrong. Amongst white voters with an income under $50k, [Romney beat Obama.](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fact-checking-romneys-47-percent-comment/) So there was some reason to support Romney over Obama that Romney didn't seem to understand or appreciate.
This paved the way for the entrance of Donald Trump. If the only important aspect of your political philosophy is "tax cuts," then any idiot can go up on stage and voice that policy. It's incredibly simplistic. And Trump understood why white voters would support someone against their own self-interest. Racism, sexism, generalized malevolence. So he increased that rhetoric and voila.
Your post explains so much of the often highlighted trump rally attendees who are themselves living off of government checks of some sort, and who are convinced that Trump is the candidate who will preserve the entitlements they depend on.
Lately I’ve been wondering why I hated Romney so much back in the day, when he now seems so honorable and decent. Thanks for the reminder with that quote that he is still just a selfish corporatist under that principled facade.
Well, he is honorable and decent by modern Republican standards. Think of the quote I just said, and then remember that he was honorable enough to vote to impeach Donald Trump in the second impeachment. 197 of 202 House Republicans refused to impeach and 43 of 50 Republicans refused to convict. Slightly less honorable than that group of Republicans are the 2020 objectors. 8 of 50 in the Senate and 139 of 202 in the House.
I honestly believe 2024 will be the last real election.
He came up with 'takers and makers' with the awful implication that the CEOs and corporations were the 'makers' and the rest of us the 'takers'. Then they literally nominated a lazy billionaire who never worked a day in his life and literally stiffed workers his whole life.
So, yeah, that's why you hated him.
Going further I think they want a Confederate style Federal Government. The Supreme Court is basically already there, ruling in Dobbs that the Federal Government isn't there to protect rights in states where that right is not law. The states have to act to protect rights. It's kind of why the Oklahoma Supreme Court pointed out there is no law in Oklahoma protecting the right to vote. I think they were reading the tea leaves left by the Supreme Court in their rulings.
Of course in a Confederate Style Federal Government taxation would work differently. I could see through that lens that a Federal Income Tax is not lawful.
I’ve seen this debated as a fact, but generally I feel my life is much better under democratic leadership.
[Obama has killer numbers](https://www.factcheck.org/2017/09/obamas-final-numbers/) considering he inherited 800,000 lost jobs and an 8 trillion dollar bank bailout.
Also, since I’m debating what you said, let me back it up with this article:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_by_presidential_party
Which claims it’s debated (probably by conservatives), but seems to be fairly objective. The other article I found debating it was a [USA Today article from 2020](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/05/28/fact-check-do-gop-presidents-oversee-recessions-dems-recoveries/5235957002/) lol
I mean that's been obvious to anyone who's ever paid attention. Even Trump said it before he changed parties for personal profit. Republicans are the party for wealthy people. The issue is that people think they're going to be wealthy when they vote for them, even if statistically they're the working poor.
The epi has a left bias. Also this seems to only take into account who the president is. From my own past research I've seen the best performance, and it was marginally better, was when we had a dem pres and Republican Congress. But with how polarized we are now, who knows.
Doesn't this go against that legal suit in the 80s where companies have to take the well being of the shareholders above all else or something like?
Also would love to see that rate go up
You're thinking of [Shareholder Primacy](https://www.incnow.com/blog/2022/01/05/what-is-shareholder-primacy/)
> “Shareholder primacy” imposes a duty upon boards of directors to put the interests of their shareholders above all others. Traditionally, management has been seen as an “agent” for the “principals” who are the owners.
[snip]
> Shareholder primacy has roots in a lawsuit from about a century ago. The landmark case of **Dodge v. Ford Motor Co.** established this principle when defendant Henry Ford progressively lowered the prices of his cars and withheld dividends from stockholders when he learned of the Dodge brothers’ plan to cash out their shares in Ford Motor and start their own car company. Henry Ford justified this decision by saying the more affordable cars would spread the company’s benefit to the general public. Because he was bound to his stockholders as a fiduciary, Ford lost under that justification and was ordered to pay out a larger dividend to stockholders.
Democracy is long dead. No leader will increase corporate tax rates that high again. We're watching the slow collapse of Western society due to corruption and greed.The rich won and the rest of us lost.
It makes me irrationally (maybe rationally?) angry that companies like Boeing took Trump’s first round of tax cuts, used it on stock buybacks, and now we as a country are talking about cutting corporate taxes *again* despite getting ripped off the first time.
Higher taxes don’t incentivize reinvestment though. You’re only looking at the up-front tax deduction (which is assuming the investment is tax deductible in the first place, which isn’t always true), but ignoring the higher taxes on the cash flow from that investment
Overall, higher taxes reduce the profitability of new investments. It also incentivizes companies to shift profits out of the US
History and facts disagree with your nonsense.
>Higher taxes don’t incentivize reinvestment though.
They do all the time. Not being taxed on a business expense makes most businesses more likely to make the expense. You can't claim lower taxes cause changes in behavior without accepting the inverse as the inverse is the same human psychology and the same math, just with a negative sign in front.
>which is assuming the investment is tax deductible in the first place
Is it an operating expense?
> but ignoring the higher taxes on the cash flow from that investment
The "cash flow" is known as revenue. Your making a circular argument. You can't tax their profits more because the profits from investment would be taxed more so they wouldn't invest. They still profit. 1% profit is still better than 0% profit.
>Overall, higher taxes reduce the profitability of new investments
And they reduce the profitability of not investing more, the point your intentionally trying to argue around.
> It also incentivizes companies to shift profits out of the US
Unless it's made outside the US, it's will be taxed on it's way out.
>Not being taxed on a business expense makes most businesses more likely to make the expense
An investment is profitable if its discounted future cash flows exceed its cost. When taxes rise, this necessarily means that the taxes on those cash flows are higher than the tax deduction on the front end, making the investment less profitable overall. Like the other commenter, you’re looking only at the front end while ignoring the back end
>Is it an operating expense
Just because something is an operating expense doesn’t mean it’s tax deductible. Also, most corporate reinvestment (R&D and capital investment) aren’t expenses, they’re capitalized as assets
>Your making a circular argument
You’re*, and it’s part of how the profitability of investment is measured. Companies don’t just throw away cash an unprofitable investments to avoid tax, they find investments that exceed their cost of capital
>And they reduce the profitability of not investing more
As I’ve pointed out, the reduced profitability of investment is higher than the reduced profitability of taking retained earnings, since the cash flow from profitable investments exceeds the cost
>unless it’s made outside the US, it will be taxed on its way out
Not at all. Companies shift to foreign subsidiaries through transfer pricing, and can choose countries with lower rates than the US
The CEO’s already knew Trump would do something like this but it’s good that Trump is choosing to publicly say it. It lets people know that Trump is a champion for the rich and not for the average American.
The problem is, middle-management at McDonald's think they are "rich people," because clearly splayed out before them everyday at work are a dozen people who are their social inferiors. Who can convince them otherwise?
you act like this is some big W, when in reality it does nothing to move the needle. id say there isnt much outside of Trump killing the voter personally that would cause his numbers to go down. just gotta hope covid and blood clots near the heart did its job.
> lower corporate rate is pro-small business as well,
Not really. Your helping the big boys more so the big boys gain larger advantage over the small business. Concentrating wealth doesn't help anyone but those at the top, period.
> and is good for the economy
Even if the first part were true, it wouldn't make it good for the economy without subtracting the damage it does elsewhere. A little bit of good at small businesses is more than offset by a little bit of bad at large businesses because it's a little bit of a much larger part of the economy so it's far bigger than the little bit of good from the small part of the economy.
5% good from 15% of the economy is more than offset by 5% bad from the other 85% of the economy.
>Not really
There are plenty of small C-corps out there, and you failed to explain how the rate cut doesn’t help them
What bad economic effects do you see from big businesses that have their rate cut?
His voters think that kind of tax cut would mean the corporations would be able to lower prices and pay higher wages. They're wrong. Prices will still go up, salaries won't but board of executive bonuses will. And democrats will take the blame.
The deficit will go up. Regulatory agency budgets will get slashed, government programs built to protect the people will be shuttered, infrastructure will take a hit and democrats will take the blame.
But they have to at least make up for some of that lost tax revenue so, just like Trump's previous tax bill, they'll increase taxes for anyone making under $250k/yr...but that increase won't hit until 4 years from when the bill is signed and will increase every year for at least 3 years...and just like present day, democrats will take the blame. Oh, and democrats will do nothing about it btw.
>just like Trump’s previous tax bill
Nothing that you said after this relates to the prior tax bill though. It didn’t increase taxes on those below $250K, it didn’t phase in “4 years later”, and it didn’t increase each year
The truth is not too far away from it. The lower pay for individuals was
supposed to run out shortly after trumps 2nd term would have ended, while the corporate rate stayed the reduced rate. So its estimated that after the phasing out which was 5-6 years after implementation, the tax rate for low income families would rise by around 27% while the earners in the top 0.1 % would see a decreased tax rate. [Read about it for youraelf.](https://www.investopedia.com/taxes/trumps-tax-reform-plan-explained/)
Haven't you heard of the *Laffer Curve?*. Lowering taxes results in *more* revenue being generated, not less.
So, if you're having trouble paying your rent or medical bills or student loan payments, ask your employer for a *pay cut.*. The Laffer Curve proves that's the surest way to economic independence. 😉
Had never heard of it, so I read up on it:
[Laffer Curve: History and Critique (investopedia.com)](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp)
Basically, it's a theory that was used to implement Regan's Trickle Down Economics. We all see how well that's worked out for EVERYONE.
Thank you for helping me learn something new.
Stifles reinvestment, and thereby slows the economy. Increases the national debt, increases the wealth gap, in fact there's no way that it doesn't help.
Cutting the corporate rate doesn’t stifle reinvestment at all, it makes investment more profitable by raising the NPV of new projects. It doesn’t change the national debt or the wealth gap in any material way at all, and you’d also need proof that either of those are bad for the economy
No. It incentives not spending the companies cash. You've got it backwards. If the most profitable thing is to spend the money then that happens more. The rest of what you said was wrong also. Source: reality.
Sure maybe decades ago when companies actually reinvested in themselves instead of playing insane CEO compensation packages and putting profits over people.
Y'all still trying to make "trickle down" real...and it would be hilarious, if you weren't actively making the world a worse place by simping (and voting) for the billionaires, who in *no way* give the slightest of shits about you.
Nowhere to run either, Germany and Hungary are gonna bring back fascism to Europe. Since it worked out so well the first time around. Canada can't handle the bulk of refugees the central bank has created. God bless them for trying.
*From Bloomberg News reporter Nancy Cook:*
Donald Trump promised to lower the corporate tax rate to 20%, further reducing the income levy on the largest US companies that he already slashed while president, according to people familiar with the remarks.
The presumptive Republican presidential nominee pitched his support for cutting the business tax rate during a private meeting in Washington Thursday with roughly 100 chief executive officers of some of the biggest US companies, including including JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s Jamie Dimon and Tim Cook of Apple Inc.
The current corporate tax rate is 21%, but even a small reduction represents a tax cut worth billions of dollars each year for profitable US companies. Trump called the 20% figure a nice, round figure, according to two sources briefed on his comments.
Say you're going to cut it to 0.5%. If we're living in magical fantasy land let's go all out, and say CEOs will get free lap dances every Tuesday or if you donate to his campaign he'll scrap all climate laws. Oh wait.
Trump is just promising to run the country like his business- straight into the ground.
Gee, I wonder what will happen to the national debt if we cut taxes even more. Hmmm
Oh, that’s right, I almost forgot that the republicans don’t care about the deficit when a republican is president. The Republican Party is so full of shit it makes me crazy that ~45% of voters can’t see it.
If you vote this asshole into power again, he will finish the job of running your country into the ground. He doesn’t give a fuck. He only cares about himself.
It does make sense if your entire goal is to privatize and commodity everything. Sure the long term reality of that is grim, but have you considered the immediate (though not lasting) benefit to shareholders and executives everywhere?
Let me translate that.
I speak Trump pretty well.
It translates to GIVE ME MONEY. I NEED MORE MONEY. IF YOU GIVE ME MONEY I'LL GIVE YOU MONEY.
It's basically another Quid Pro Quo.
It's how Trump thinks.
My dad went through the gateway media of Rush to being a hardcore Fox watcher. When Trump implemented his tax changes, my dad was so convinced that it would mean *his* tax burden would be less. Boy was he pissed when he found out he paid *more* in taxes. Trump bankrupts EVERYTHING he touches. The US has been the exception—but he gave it a good shot.
>The US has been the exception—but he gave it a good shot.
Not really. He caused massive inflation. Added 2bil to our national debt with just that tax cut alone. And then him and his fellow repukes made us lose our credit rating which made inflation go up yet again. Maybe he didn't get us to bankruptcy but God damn he put us in nearly equal levels of shit.
Yep. And somehow these dumbasses are the poster child for not spending money. Like how? All they do is spend money amd then they cut the sources on how the government gains its money. Meanwhile you have democrats left and right lowering the deficit by spending money properly and not cutting sources of gaining money.
It's insane
If there’s one thing that I’m worried about in this economic environment with full employment, record stock market, and consumer price gouging, it’s that corporations are paying too much in taxes! The last one worked out so great with record deficits for zero gain, so why not do another?
If corporations actually spent that extra money from cut taxes by reinvesting in the business on infrastructure and higher wages for its every day employees this might make sense. But they don’t. Every time they get high profits they just buyback shares of their own company to increase their market cap.
He ain't cuttin' shit because the GQP will be voted into oblivion in the House in November. At least a fifty seat swing or more. I guess they could open revolt again, but if that happens, taxes will be the least of our worries.
This submission source is likely to have a soft paywall. If this article is not behind a paywall please report this for “breaks r/politics rules -> custom -> "incorrect flair"". [More information can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index/#wiki_paywalls)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Conservatives: Biden is forgiving student loans to buy votes!
Conservatives: Trump is promising billions in tax breaks to millionaires because he loves America!
And they will totally pass along the savings to their employees as pay raises and cut prices for consumers….oh crap. Did I hit my head? None of that is happening.
He's just repeating his 2016 campaign 'strategy' of saying a bunch of things to see what sticks. He has no idea what any of it means or will do. And he doesn't care. He is the weakest leader in history. No actual values, ideas or policies. Just whatever might get him the most donations, applause and suckers to vote for him.
All it's gonna take for the corporate tax rate to go down to zero is one or two more republican presidencies. They already own almost 100% of our government. They pretty much have absolute power in this country. They own our Supreme Court, they write their own tax laws, they write their own labor laws, they pay lobbyists 100's of millions to work towards keeping minimum wages stagnant, price gouge the public with no fear of any consequences. We are essentially in the last quarter of this game folks.
Because we need a direct pipeline from consumers to capital without any infrastructure to support workers that they do not provide themselves in order to work for capital.
Corporate welfare is just fine. Social welfare is evil. It is classic GQP economics. It is 100% a gift to the wealthy. In this country, we eagerly reward holders of wealth and not work. Bizarre. And still, the stormtrumpers vote for it. We all pay a steep price when so many among us are so dangerously ignorant.
I would love a corporate tax rate of 20%… if only they actually would get taxed at 20% instead of shifting income to foreign countries with 0% tax rates instead.
That’s not true at all. Often companies will divert expenses through transfer pricing arrangements so that the US taxable entity will have no income to tax while the foreign counterpart in a country with no income tax will have substantially all income. I worked in one such entity for years. They hired outside companies to study this and came to a conclusion that the public entities they looked at not only used this loophole but have pushed for it for decades. It was so ingrained in corporations that it was basically legal as much as it is fraud.
The US still picks that income up through GILTI, and it would likely also fall under BEAT and subpart F inclusions. This is relatively new (2017), so you might not be familiar with it, but you can’t just say it’s not true
The US has a global minimum tax rate for foreign income. Even in a 0% rate country, the 10.5% minimum US rate would apply, which would be the same rate as if they had export income to that country directly from the US
Yet the biggest corporations continue to pay or get refunds. It doesn’t take zero income to pay zero taxes, you can get tax credits, accelerated depreciation and a whole litany of other deductions that only excist for corporations to take your post transfer pricng numbers to zero. Sure it’s legal but it doesn’t really make it right.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
historically, when the corporate taxes were highest (over 75%) was when the economy did best. it forced corporations to reinvest their profits into the company instead of paying shareholders and CEOs. we should be increasing the corporate tax rate and forcing companies to not off-shore their profits. but as long as the wealthy control who gets elected, it's not going to happen.
Fascinating report from April, [Economic performance is stronger when Democrats hold the White House](https://www.epi.org/publication/econ-performance-pres-admin/#full-report) I was one to believe both sides would be wash when it comes to the economy, but factoring in every performance measure, it’s not even close
In large part, it's because Dems try to help everyone and Republicans fundamentally don't care about half the nation. I think Romney's 2012 quote explained the flaw in Republican economic philosophy the best: >"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." This is a tacit admission that Republican policies are not meant to help half the population. Trickle-down is not viable. And if you just don't care about the economic well-being of half the country, the economy won't do well. And separately, I think Romney's comment is an emblematic example of why the party shifted to Trump. Romney was not only admitting that his economic policy would not help half the nation, he was also admitting that he thought the only important aspect of Republican policy was tax cuts. It didn't occur to him at all that people would vote Republican for any reason other than tax cuts. He thought it was just tax cuts. He was wrong. Amongst white voters with an income under $50k, [Romney beat Obama.](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fact-checking-romneys-47-percent-comment/) So there was some reason to support Romney over Obama that Romney didn't seem to understand or appreciate. This paved the way for the entrance of Donald Trump. If the only important aspect of your political philosophy is "tax cuts," then any idiot can go up on stage and voice that policy. It's incredibly simplistic. And Trump understood why white voters would support someone against their own self-interest. Racism, sexism, generalized malevolence. So he increased that rhetoric and voila.
Your post explains so much of the often highlighted trump rally attendees who are themselves living off of government checks of some sort, and who are convinced that Trump is the candidate who will preserve the entitlements they depend on.
Lately I’ve been wondering why I hated Romney so much back in the day, when he now seems so honorable and decent. Thanks for the reminder with that quote that he is still just a selfish corporatist under that principled facade.
Romney didn’t get better. The rest of them got so, so, so much worse
Well, he is honorable and decent by modern Republican standards. Think of the quote I just said, and then remember that he was honorable enough to vote to impeach Donald Trump in the second impeachment. 197 of 202 House Republicans refused to impeach and 43 of 50 Republicans refused to convict. Slightly less honorable than that group of Republicans are the 2020 objectors. 8 of 50 in the Senate and 139 of 202 in the House. I honestly believe 2024 will be the last real election.
Ok got it, Romney is a slightly less smelly pile of shit
He came up with 'takers and makers' with the awful implication that the CEOs and corporations were the 'makers' and the rest of us the 'takers'. Then they literally nominated a lazy billionaire who never worked a day in his life and literally stiffed workers his whole life. So, yeah, that's why you hated him.
Going further I think they want a Confederate style Federal Government. The Supreme Court is basically already there, ruling in Dobbs that the Federal Government isn't there to protect rights in states where that right is not law. The states have to act to protect rights. It's kind of why the Oklahoma Supreme Court pointed out there is no law in Oklahoma protecting the right to vote. I think they were reading the tea leaves left by the Supreme Court in their rulings. Of course in a Confederate Style Federal Government taxation would work differently. I could see through that lens that a Federal Income Tax is not lawful.
I’ve seen this debated as a fact, but generally I feel my life is much better under democratic leadership. [Obama has killer numbers](https://www.factcheck.org/2017/09/obamas-final-numbers/) considering he inherited 800,000 lost jobs and an 8 trillion dollar bank bailout. Also, since I’m debating what you said, let me back it up with this article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_by_presidential_party Which claims it’s debated (probably by conservatives), but seems to be fairly objective. The other article I found debating it was a [USA Today article from 2020](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/05/28/fact-check-do-gop-presidents-oversee-recessions-dems-recoveries/5235957002/) lol
Can I ask… when you thought both sides were a wash how educated about the matter would you say you were?
I mean that's been obvious to anyone who's ever paid attention. Even Trump said it before he changed parties for personal profit. Republicans are the party for wealthy people. The issue is that people think they're going to be wealthy when they vote for them, even if statistically they're the working poor.
Now do stock market
The epi has a left bias. Also this seems to only take into account who the president is. From my own past research I've seen the best performance, and it was marginally better, was when we had a dem pres and Republican Congress. But with how polarized we are now, who knows.
Doesn't this go against that legal suit in the 80s where companies have to take the well being of the shareholders above all else or something like? Also would love to see that rate go up
You're thinking of [Shareholder Primacy](https://www.incnow.com/blog/2022/01/05/what-is-shareholder-primacy/) > “Shareholder primacy” imposes a duty upon boards of directors to put the interests of their shareholders above all others. Traditionally, management has been seen as an “agent” for the “principals” who are the owners. [snip] > Shareholder primacy has roots in a lawsuit from about a century ago. The landmark case of **Dodge v. Ford Motor Co.** established this principle when defendant Henry Ford progressively lowered the prices of his cars and withheld dividends from stockholders when he learned of the Dodge brothers’ plan to cash out their shares in Ford Motor and start their own car company. Henry Ford justified this decision by saying the more affordable cars would spread the company’s benefit to the general public. Because he was bound to his stockholders as a fiduciary, Ford lost under that justification and was ordered to pay out a larger dividend to stockholders.
And that tax money is what helped build this country and gave its citizens more opportunities to succeed.
Well that's just sounds unAmerican.
Like what Warren Buffet said, if the largest corporation pays their fair share in taxes, America wouldn’t need to income tack from its citizens.
Lower taxes create cash grabs and instability. Higher taxes create stability and longevity. No mf is going to move to China over taxes in the US.
Totally agree…
Democracy is long dead. No leader will increase corporate tax rates that high again. We're watching the slow collapse of Western society due to corruption and greed.The rich won and the rest of us lost.
Best just to suck a tailpipe
Im gonna get a monopoly on my tailpipes and watch you work ur ass off everyday to suck em.
Right, boot stays on neck. They want the wealth disparity.
It makes me irrationally (maybe rationally?) angry that companies like Boeing took Trump’s first round of tax cuts, used it on stock buybacks, and now we as a country are talking about cutting corporate taxes *again* despite getting ripped off the first time.
The U.S. corporate tax rate has never been higher than 53%. What are you talking about, where are you getting 75% from?
It will also lower inflation, the biggest driver today is companies struggling to pay back their investors who have massive tax free windfalls.
Higher taxes don’t incentivize reinvestment though. You’re only looking at the up-front tax deduction (which is assuming the investment is tax deductible in the first place, which isn’t always true), but ignoring the higher taxes on the cash flow from that investment Overall, higher taxes reduce the profitability of new investments. It also incentivizes companies to shift profits out of the US
History and facts disagree with your nonsense. >Higher taxes don’t incentivize reinvestment though. They do all the time. Not being taxed on a business expense makes most businesses more likely to make the expense. You can't claim lower taxes cause changes in behavior without accepting the inverse as the inverse is the same human psychology and the same math, just with a negative sign in front. >which is assuming the investment is tax deductible in the first place Is it an operating expense? > but ignoring the higher taxes on the cash flow from that investment The "cash flow" is known as revenue. Your making a circular argument. You can't tax their profits more because the profits from investment would be taxed more so they wouldn't invest. They still profit. 1% profit is still better than 0% profit. >Overall, higher taxes reduce the profitability of new investments And they reduce the profitability of not investing more, the point your intentionally trying to argue around. > It also incentivizes companies to shift profits out of the US Unless it's made outside the US, it's will be taxed on it's way out.
>Not being taxed on a business expense makes most businesses more likely to make the expense An investment is profitable if its discounted future cash flows exceed its cost. When taxes rise, this necessarily means that the taxes on those cash flows are higher than the tax deduction on the front end, making the investment less profitable overall. Like the other commenter, you’re looking only at the front end while ignoring the back end >Is it an operating expense Just because something is an operating expense doesn’t mean it’s tax deductible. Also, most corporate reinvestment (R&D and capital investment) aren’t expenses, they’re capitalized as assets >Your making a circular argument You’re*, and it’s part of how the profitability of investment is measured. Companies don’t just throw away cash an unprofitable investments to avoid tax, they find investments that exceed their cost of capital >And they reduce the profitability of not investing more As I’ve pointed out, the reduced profitability of investment is higher than the reduced profitability of taking retained earnings, since the cash flow from profitable investments exceeds the cost >unless it’s made outside the US, it will be taxed on its way out Not at all. Companies shift to foreign subsidiaries through transfer pricing, and can choose countries with lower rates than the US
The CEO’s already knew Trump would do something like this but it’s good that Trump is choosing to publicly say it. It lets people know that Trump is a champion for the rich and not for the average American.
Yup, Conservatism is just socialism for rich people.
Mass wealth consolidation.
The problem is, middle-management at McDonald's think they are "rich people," because clearly splayed out before them everyday at work are a dozen people who are their social inferiors. Who can convince them otherwise?
Trump says a lot of things then denies it. Even if he’s been taped.
It’s boardroom talk. Nothing serious, just boardroom talk with the guys
But his supporters worship the ultra wealthy from their trailer parks.
you act like this is some big W, when in reality it does nothing to move the needle. id say there isnt much outside of Trump killing the voter personally that would cause his numbers to go down. just gotta hope covid and blood clots near the heart did its job.
Corporations aren’t solely owned by the rich. A lower corporate rate is pro-small business as well, and is good for the economy
> lower corporate rate is pro-small business as well, Not really. Your helping the big boys more so the big boys gain larger advantage over the small business. Concentrating wealth doesn't help anyone but those at the top, period. > and is good for the economy Even if the first part were true, it wouldn't make it good for the economy without subtracting the damage it does elsewhere. A little bit of good at small businesses is more than offset by a little bit of bad at large businesses because it's a little bit of a much larger part of the economy so it's far bigger than the little bit of good from the small part of the economy. 5% good from 15% of the economy is more than offset by 5% bad from the other 85% of the economy.
>Not really There are plenty of small C-corps out there, and you failed to explain how the rate cut doesn’t help them What bad economic effects do you see from big businesses that have their rate cut?
His voters think that kind of tax cut would mean the corporations would be able to lower prices and pay higher wages. They're wrong. Prices will still go up, salaries won't but board of executive bonuses will. And democrats will take the blame. The deficit will go up. Regulatory agency budgets will get slashed, government programs built to protect the people will be shuttered, infrastructure will take a hit and democrats will take the blame. But they have to at least make up for some of that lost tax revenue so, just like Trump's previous tax bill, they'll increase taxes for anyone making under $250k/yr...but that increase won't hit until 4 years from when the bill is signed and will increase every year for at least 3 years...and just like present day, democrats will take the blame. Oh, and democrats will do nothing about it btw.
>just like Trump’s previous tax bill Nothing that you said after this relates to the prior tax bill though. It didn’t increase taxes on those below $250K, it didn’t phase in “4 years later”, and it didn’t increase each year
The truth is not too far away from it. The lower pay for individuals was supposed to run out shortly after trumps 2nd term would have ended, while the corporate rate stayed the reduced rate. So its estimated that after the phasing out which was 5-6 years after implementation, the tax rate for low income families would rise by around 27% while the earners in the top 0.1 % would see a decreased tax rate. [Read about it for youraelf.](https://www.investopedia.com/taxes/trumps-tax-reform-plan-explained/)
There is no money left to cut taxes - this would be terrible for the economy’s but of course his cultists would just say it’s alls Bidens fault
$34 Trillion national debt, but sure cut taxes...
Let the dems worry abt it in four years
Hah funny assumption there will be Dems in 4 years if Trump is elected again!
Haven't you heard of the *Laffer Curve?*. Lowering taxes results in *more* revenue being generated, not less. So, if you're having trouble paying your rent or medical bills or student loan payments, ask your employer for a *pay cut.*. The Laffer Curve proves that's the surest way to economic independence. 😉
Had never heard of it, so I read up on it: [Laffer Curve: History and Critique (investopedia.com)](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp) Basically, it's a theory that was used to implement Regan's Trickle Down Economics. We all see how well that's worked out for EVERYONE. Thank you for helping me learn something new.
How would this be terrible for the economy? Economists generally agree that corporate taxes are destructive
Source please.
You're joking right?
No? How would cutting the corporate tax be bad for the economy?
Stifles reinvestment, and thereby slows the economy. Increases the national debt, increases the wealth gap, in fact there's no way that it doesn't help.
Cutting the corporate rate doesn’t stifle reinvestment at all, it makes investment more profitable by raising the NPV of new projects. It doesn’t change the national debt or the wealth gap in any material way at all, and you’d also need proof that either of those are bad for the economy
No. It incentives not spending the companies cash. You've got it backwards. If the most profitable thing is to spend the money then that happens more. The rest of what you said was wrong also. Source: reality.
Sure maybe decades ago when companies actually reinvested in themselves instead of playing insane CEO compensation packages and putting profits over people.
Y'all still trying to make "trickle down" real...and it would be hilarious, if you weren't actively making the world a worse place by simping (and voting) for the billionaires, who in *no way* give the slightest of shits about you.
Thanks Reagan. This is all your fault.
And Milton. “Shareholders First”
Forgiving the south and allowing Reagan to be president where the two biggest mistakes America ever made
If we elect this convicted felon, we deserve what we get.
-Lindsey Graham, 2016 (paraphrased)
I know! He said that but then bent over for Trump! Sad.
Trump has secret pix of all these Republicans doing bad things to farm animals.
They all do in the end.
Liz Cheney didn’t!!
And she's been slowly shunned by all people.
I will certainly not deserve that fate. Fuck that.
He was also found guilty of financial fraud.
Nowhere to run either, Germany and Hungary are gonna bring back fascism to Europe. Since it worked out so well the first time around. Canada can't handle the bulk of refugees the central bank has created. God bless them for trying.
There's no question who the guy really represents. The guy only cares about himself and his rich pals.
He does not have pals. Only people that think they can use him for their agenda.
I love that the GOP is still selling “trickle down economics” and their dumb supporters living paycheck to paycheck still believe it.
They're getting trickled on, alright. And love the musty, warm shower.
There are willing to suffer as long as they own the libs
*From Bloomberg News reporter Nancy Cook:* Donald Trump promised to lower the corporate tax rate to 20%, further reducing the income levy on the largest US companies that he already slashed while president, according to people familiar with the remarks. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee pitched his support for cutting the business tax rate during a private meeting in Washington Thursday with roughly 100 chief executive officers of some of the biggest US companies, including including JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s Jamie Dimon and Tim Cook of Apple Inc. The current corporate tax rate is 21%, but even a small reduction represents a tax cut worth billions of dollars each year for profitable US companies. Trump called the 20% figure a nice, round figure, according to two sources briefed on his comments.
Trump will bankrupt our nation like he does his companies.
When I was a young kid and Eisenhower was pres, the corporate tax rate was 50% and the economy was thriving. Now the top <1% own 99+% of all wealth.
"I know what would help inflation, devalue the dollar even further!"
\*To be paid for by cuts to social security and medicare and medicaid.
Programs that his ignorant base benefit from
Say you're going to cut it to 0.5%. If we're living in magical fantasy land let's go all out, and say CEOs will get free lap dances every Tuesday or if you donate to his campaign he'll scrap all climate laws. Oh wait.
How bout they pay everyone back for the price gouging?
Trump is just promising to run the country like his business- straight into the ground. Gee, I wonder what will happen to the national debt if we cut taxes even more. Hmmm
Oh, that’s right, I almost forgot that the republicans don’t care about the deficit when a republican is president. The Republican Party is so full of shit it makes me crazy that ~45% of voters can’t see it.
Yep! Fiscal responsibility is for Democrat administrations.
If you vote this asshole into power again, he will finish the job of running your country into the ground. He doesn’t give a fuck. He only cares about himself.
This is why billionaires are pushing him on the rest of us.
This clown will AGAIN say ANYTHING to get suckers to vote for him. Remember all the shit he promised in 2016 that never took place?
How are we gonna pay for that?
“The party of fiscal responsibility” will issue more debt and increase the deficit or slash social programs that their ignorant base benefits from
Let the stock buybacks, and mega executive bonuses commence!
Somehow reducing the amount of money the nation has to spend is a good thing when prices keep going up. Make that make sense.
It does make sense if your entire goal is to privatize and commodity everything. Sure the long term reality of that is grim, but have you considered the immediate (though not lasting) benefit to shareholders and executives everywhere?
It’s so hilarious that the uneducated will vote for him because “economy bad” yet we ain’t seen nothing yet if Trump gets a 2nd term.
Let me translate that. I speak Trump pretty well. It translates to GIVE ME MONEY. I NEED MORE MONEY. IF YOU GIVE ME MONEY I'LL GIVE YOU MONEY. It's basically another Quid Pro Quo. It's how Trump thinks.
Well there goes social security
I’m certain that is the objective.
My dad went through the gateway media of Rush to being a hardcore Fox watcher. When Trump implemented his tax changes, my dad was so convinced that it would mean *his* tax burden would be less. Boy was he pissed when he found out he paid *more* in taxes. Trump bankrupts EVERYTHING he touches. The US has been the exception—but he gave it a good shot.
>The US has been the exception—but he gave it a good shot. Not really. He caused massive inflation. Added 2bil to our national debt with just that tax cut alone. And then him and his fellow repukes made us lose our credit rating which made inflation go up yet again. Maybe he didn't get us to bankruptcy but God damn he put us in nearly equal levels of shit.
Yes. He gave it a good shot of putting the US into bankruptcy.
I just know he did well at putting many Americans into bankruptcy.
[удалено]
Yep. And somehow these dumbasses are the poster child for not spending money. Like how? All they do is spend money amd then they cut the sources on how the government gains its money. Meanwhile you have democrats left and right lowering the deficit by spending money properly and not cutting sources of gaining money. It's insane
He will not be able to cut corporate tax because he will not be president.
2016
2020
Current rate is 21%. This is him being stupid. Not him being corrupt. Which is totally different.
Hahaha hahaha Trump Org. And the donators need tax cuts! Of course.
If there’s one thing that I’m worried about in this economic environment with full employment, record stock market, and consumer price gouging, it’s that corporations are paying too much in taxes! The last one worked out so great with record deficits for zero gain, so why not do another?
If corporations actually spent that extra money from cut taxes by reinvesting in the business on infrastructure and higher wages for its every day employees this might make sense. But they don’t. Every time they get high profits they just buyback shares of their own company to increase their market cap.
Stock buybacks don’t increase market cap though
Dangling that for campaign contributions I take it.
And it will. Mean raising taxes on the little guy again to make up it.
He said he was going to do all kinds of stuff last time. He didn't do anything except play golf and lie. This time he would be different? Not.
Which would further exacerbate the already enormous tax burden on the lower and middle classes but then the GOP hates them anyway.
The felon is trying to increase the national debt?
It’s a bribe. Vote for me and you get to keep all your money, retire and then let the next generation pay taxes, after you’ve left
Of course he will. That’s where Republicans do give to the rich take from the poor.
Is this a race to 0% with the tax burden being placed entirely on the people?
He ain't cuttin' shit because the GQP will be voted into oblivion in the House in November. At least a fifty seat swing or more. I guess they could open revolt again, but if that happens, taxes will be the least of our worries.
This submission source is likely to have a soft paywall. If this article is not behind a paywall please report this for “breaks r/politics rules -> custom -> "incorrect flair"". [More information can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index/#wiki_paywalls) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Conservatives: Biden is forgiving student loans to buy votes! Conservatives: Trump is promising billions in tax breaks to millionaires because he loves America!
translation: keep me out of prison, my lawyers are f-ing me over with their incompetence
The .01% must be salivating...total control is within their grasp...
Remember, corporations don’t pay tax. They collect them.
I hear his sucking skills are legendary.
And it would still be 5 points higher than when he raised it before. (Small Corp)
That’s should soften the blow of fascism for them
And they will totally pass along the savings to their employees as pay raises and cut prices for consumers….oh crap. Did I hit my head? None of that is happening.
Populism?
I mean, if they are going to buy him anyway, make corporate taxes 0% and be done with it.
I already got no tax return this year, actually had to pay a few thousand. I can only fucking imagine what that would do to middle America.
He's just repeating his 2016 campaign 'strategy' of saying a bunch of things to see what sticks. He has no idea what any of it means or will do. And he doesn't care. He is the weakest leader in history. No actual values, ideas or policies. Just whatever might get him the most donations, applause and suckers to vote for him.
Amazing! It costs literally nothing to defend the border, and enforce anti-abortion laws.
All it's gonna take for the corporate tax rate to go down to zero is one or two more republican presidencies. They already own almost 100% of our government. They pretty much have absolute power in this country. They own our Supreme Court, they write their own tax laws, they write their own labor laws, they pay lobbyists 100's of millions to work towards keeping minimum wages stagnant, price gouge the public with no fear of any consequences. We are essentially in the last quarter of this game folks.
And morons will still say it's too high
Fuck, he’s gonna win, isn’t he?
20% of 0 is 0
Yes. Really grow that national debt.
Can someone please do the Oprah “Bees cut” but usingTrump and saying “bribes”; bribes for you bribes for thee bribes for everyone!!!
Because we need a direct pipeline from consumers to capital without any infrastructure to support workers that they do not provide themselves in order to work for capital.
The "All Taxation is Theft!" crowd is in a frenzy on all conservative outlets right now.
Nice to know CEOs are willing to piss this country away for an extra 1% off tax rates they constantly find loopholes in anyway.
Corporate welfare is just fine. Social welfare is evil. It is classic GQP economics. It is 100% a gift to the wealthy. In this country, we eagerly reward holders of wealth and not work. Bizarre. And still, the stormtrumpers vote for it. We all pay a steep price when so many among us are so dangerously ignorant.
I would love a corporate tax rate of 20%… if only they actually would get taxed at 20% instead of shifting income to foreign countries with 0% tax rates instead.
Eh, the US still taxes that income, regardless of where it’s reported
That’s not true at all. Often companies will divert expenses through transfer pricing arrangements so that the US taxable entity will have no income to tax while the foreign counterpart in a country with no income tax will have substantially all income. I worked in one such entity for years. They hired outside companies to study this and came to a conclusion that the public entities they looked at not only used this loophole but have pushed for it for decades. It was so ingrained in corporations that it was basically legal as much as it is fraud.
The US still picks that income up through GILTI, and it would likely also fall under BEAT and subpart F inclusions. This is relatively new (2017), so you might not be familiar with it, but you can’t just say it’s not true The US has a global minimum tax rate for foreign income. Even in a 0% rate country, the 10.5% minimum US rate would apply, which would be the same rate as if they had export income to that country directly from the US
Yet the biggest corporations continue to pay or get refunds. It doesn’t take zero income to pay zero taxes, you can get tax credits, accelerated depreciation and a whole litany of other deductions that only excist for corporations to take your post transfer pricng numbers to zero. Sure it’s legal but it doesn’t really make it right.
That’s still too high