[Plantagenet]

I wonder why the news media keeps saying the blame for the shutdown belongs to both parties when the blame clearly lies 100% with the Ds.

The Ds have invoked cloture, i.e. they are filibustering the budget vote. Since 60 votes are needed to end a filibuster in the Senate the Ds have shut down the government even though they are in the minority simply by filibustering the budget bill.

Cheers!

[Plantagenet]

The Ds have caved.

The senate just voted to end the D filibuster, with many Ds flip flipping to vote against their own party and end the filibuster. The potential 2020 D presidential candidates (Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Corey Booker, etc. all voted to extend the filibuster and continue the government shut down, but they were abandoned by many of their own fellow Ds who for once put the good of the country ahead of the D party.


Of course the budget extension is only for three weeks. Then the Ds will probably shut down the government again.

Cheers!

[Cog]

Schumer realized that he couldn't spin this shutdown as anything other than supporting illegals over Americans. Rather than have a revolt in his own party, he bent the knee. What leverage does he have now to force a DACA deal? None.

This is the time for the R's to load up any proposed DACA legislation with everything we want. And end to chain migration, Visa lottery, and funding for the wall. I would also throw in 50 state reciprocity conceal carry just for fun. Let's find out how much the Dems really want the DACA bill passed.

I'm not running things but if I were I were Trump I would let the DACA protections expire in March and deport every single one of them. Since DACA is nothing more than Obama refusing to enforce immigration law through executive order.

[vtsnowedin]

I'm not running things but if I were Trump I would let the DACA protections expire in March and deport every single one of them.

Including the ones serving in the military or in Nursing school or working at the nursing home you might end up in?
Your a hard man there Cog.

[Cog]

Yes VT words have meaning. They are here illegally. If they had desired to pursue a pathway to citizenship, they should have done so. There are a lot of people who have jumped through the legal hoops to become American citizens. They deserve not to be spit upon by granting these people a special form of dispensation.

[vtsnowedin]

Yes VT words have meaning. They are here illegally. If they had desired to pursue a pathway to citizenship, they should have done so. There are a lot of people who have jumped through the legal hoops to become American citizens. They deserve not to be spit upon by granting these people a special form of dispensation.

Well will just have to nickname you Draco.
I expect the bill they will hammer out over the next few weeks or months will end up with a merit based path to citizenship for all the dreamers that can be an asset to American society. Military service to citizenship is a deal as old as the Roman legions and I expect it and other paths that require similar effort or risk taking to also make the cut.
I need four of them to pay SS tax on 33K a year each to keep my checks coming.

[tita]

I wonder why the news media keeps saying the blame for the shutdown belongs to both parties when the blame clearly lies 100% with the Ds.

This is quite a short view... Yes, factually the shutdown was voted by the D's.

But D's and R's knew that they had to reach a bipartisan agreement about the future of DACA, because R's need the support of at least some D's to pass the budget vote... Probably in the form of a replacement of DACA, proposed by several R's. Several promises have been made by the White House about it. So, the question is hanging... And has been like this since September.

This is maybe more the inability of the government to reach a consensus over some important questions that is the real responsible. And the US are probably going to suffer a lot more in the future if the government can't work properly.

They have three weeks to cut a deal now... But if they can't, and if another shutdown happen on february the 8th, who will be responsible?

[vtsnowedin]

But D's and R's knew that they had to reach a bipartisan agreement about the future of DACA, because R's need the support of at least some D's to pass the budget vote...

The DACA fix should be a stand alone bill and not tied to the budget. The only reason to tie them together is to force Republicans to accept what would otherwise be a no vote for them on some provisions of the DACA fix.
They should work on it in public with the amendment votes recorded so we can see who was in favor of what provision.

[Outcast_Searcher]

I expect the bill they will hammer out over the next few weeks or months will end up with a merit based path to citizenship for all the dreamers that can be an asset to American society. Military service to citizenship is a deal as old as the Roman legions and I expect it and other paths that require similar effort or risk taking to also make the cut.
I need four of them to pay SS tax on 33K a year each to keep my checks coming.

Sounds reasonable. Actually, almost ANYTHING as a compromise that requires a meaningful amount of effort / good behavior to become a citizen would be a great start.

What I'd like to see is some kind of a deal which lets the ones who are behaving in, IF some kind of regulations/laws with TEETH get passed to truly prevent much future illegal immigration.

I still like the idea of a strictly enforced E-Verify type of system where all employers have to check out employees on some government maintained database to ensure they're citizens. Draconian penalties for cheating, especially any systematic cheating would need to be part of the deal, to prevent scofflaws from ignoring the law. And some random checks to verify compliance, with press releases on the guilty being punished when employers cheat wouldn't hurt either.

Now, ironically, the reason that won't happen and hasn't happened, IMO, is that despite complaining about illegals taking American jobs, the GOP actually doesn't WANT to prevent them from taking jobs -- as they want to help their buddies in business.

If the system weren't so corrupt generally, we could probably accomplish a lot with a little common sense and compromise.

[vtsnowedin]

The employers that actually need immigrant labor instead of just pushing down wages for citizen labor should be able to get green cards for all their staff expeditiously. Perhaps a reporting system for people that quit to prevent rapid turn over etc.

[Outcast_Searcher]

The employers that actually need immigrant labor instead of just pushing down wages for citizen labor should be able to get green cards for all their staff expeditiously. Perhaps a reporting system for people that quit to prevent rapid turn over etc.

Absolutely. I forgot to mention that concept, with the idea of the migrant produce pickers as an example. That kind of thing can and should be included as part of the solution.

I was just making the point that thus far, BOTH SIDES have failed miserably to seriously tackle the real world solution of addressing jobs at the employer level, which would erect a virtual economic fence and prevent much of the problem of loss of American jobs. Of course, both sides blame the other, and happily accept re-election.

[ralfy]

The best side effect from this, IMO, would be if we got a decent stock market dip. Reminding people that the market doesn't only go up pretty much every week would be good.

Of course, doomers would call it doom, but i think a nice 5% to 15% wake-up correction would be good for the markets longer term, and likely help incent the Beltway clown car to work together and compromise FOR A CHANGE and come to some agreement.

The whole debt ceiling is absurd grandstanding anyway. The problem is the endless authorization of over-spending vs. taxation to buy votes. If they truly want a budget surplus over time, it's the spending and taxing levels, NOT some arbitrary "debt ceiling" that matters.

Once you connect the first and third paragraphs of your message, then you will realize that the second paragraph is irrelevant, as the whole system is based essentially on over-spending driven by increasing debt.

[vtsnowedin]

Once you connect the first and third paragraphs of your message, then you will realize that the second paragraph is irrelevant, as the whole system is based essentially on over-spending driven by increasing debt.

Note that the article linked to is nine years old.

[Plantagenet]

BOTH SIDES have failed miserably to seriously tackle the real world solution of addressing jobs at the employer level, which would erect a virtual economic fence and prevent much of the problem of loss of American jobs. Of course, both sides blame the other, and happily accept re-election.

US companies have been moving their factories overseas because they can make more money that way.

The R tax cuts just passed by Congress and signed into law by Trump are a big step towards stopping the loss of US jobs, because they bring US taxation levels down to a level similar to other countries, and reduce much of the financial incentive companies have had in the past to offshore US jobs

In fact Trump is in Davos right now telling foreign companies to close their factories in their home countries and move their jobs to the US, because now they can make more money if they are based in the US.

Cheers!

[Outcast_Searcher]

BOTH SIDES have failed miserably to seriously tackle the real world solution of addressing jobs at the employer level, which would erect a virtual economic fence and prevent much of the problem of loss of American jobs. Of course, both sides blame the other, and happily accept re-election.

US companies have been moving their factories overseas because they can make more money that way.

The R tax cuts just passed by Congress and signed into law by Trump are a big step towards stopping the loss of US jobs, because they bring US taxation levels down to a level similar to other countries, and reduce much of the financial incentive companies have had in the past to offshore US jobs

In fact Trump is in Davos right now telling foreign companies to close their factories in their home countries and move their jobs to the US, because now they can make more money if they are based in the US.

Cheers!

Nice theory, but in practice the effective income tax rates of US corporations are MUCH lower than the top rate.

Google "effective US corporate tax rate" to find a whole series of articles from 2017 that confirm this.

So it might have some marginal effect, but expecting a large effect doesn't hold for lack of evidence.

An example (If you don't like this source, plenty of other sources have similar numbers):

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-t ... -countries

The average corporate tax rate on profits from new investments made in the U.S. is 24 percent; the average corporate rate on profits from new investments made by companies in other “Group of Seven” (G-7) industrialized, democratic countries, weighted by the size of their economies, is 21 percent. This measure of tax rates is useful when considering how corporate taxes affect companies’ decisions about where to make new investments.

The share of worldwide profits that U.S. multinational corporations pay in U.S. and foreign income taxes is about 28 percent; the average for companies headquartered in other G-7 countries, weighted by the size of their economies, is 29 percent. This measure of tax rates that a multinational might face on its income from all countries is useful for considering how corporate taxes might affect where multinationals choose to reside for tax purposes.

(Blue text mine, for emphasis on the relative rates).

[Plantagenet]

The average corporate tax rate on profits from new investments made in the U.S. is 24 percent; the average corporate rate on profits from new investments made by companies in other “Group of Seven” (G-7) industrialized, democratic countries, weighted by the size of their economies, is 21 percent.

Watch out for what may be bogus statistics. Its well known that many of the largest US corporations pay zero or near zero effective taxes while others that can't afford armies of tax lawyers pay the full load. The "average" tax rate you are describing is an average of companies paying almost nothing and companies who pay much higher rates, i.e. it doesn't accurately describe what many US companies actually pay in taxes

It really makes more sense to have a simpler tax code with lower rates for all companies so US companies can focus on the best way to operate their businesses rather then focussing on gaming the US system by making business decisions solely for the purpose of reducing their tax bill.

Cheers!

[Outcast_Searcher]

The average corporate tax rate on profits from new investments made in the U.S. is 24 percent; the average corporate rate on profits from new investments made by companies in other “Group of Seven” (G-7) industrialized, democratic countries, weighted by the size of their economies, is 21 percent.

Watch out for what may be bogus statistics. Its well known that many of the largest US corporations pay zero or near zero effective taxes while others that can't afford armies of tax lawyers pay the full load. The "average" tax rate you are describing is an average of companies paying almost nothing and companies who pay much higher rates, i.e. it doesn't accurately describe what many US companies actually pay in taxes

It really makes more sense to have a simpler tax code with lower rates for all companies so US companies can focus on the best way to operate their businesses rather then focussing on gaming the US system by making business decisions solely for the purpose of reducing their tax bill.
Cheers!

But we don't have a simpler tax code, thanks to both sides of the aisle.

Meanwhile in the real world, average is a great indication of the typical tax rate paid by most of the corporations (due to the way averages are calculated). I never said NO US companies pay a high rate. Nor did I say this will have no impact.

I am saying, don't point to a 14% reduction in the highest marginal rate and make the knee-jerk assumption that this means a huge automatic shift away from corporate off-shoring.

Can you cite anything specific or relevant about the statistics being "bogus"?

[vtsnowedin]

Not being a corporate tax payer I have not searched out the actual text of the bill they passed and have a few questions. We know that many corporations were not paying the full 35% old rate due to a maze of deductions and exceptions written into the code over the years. Some corporations actually paid zero some years while making record profits and paying out high dividends. The question is did they get rid of all or some of those provisions to make the new lower rate uniform and fair or did most of them survive?
Next there is the full expencing of equipment investments. Under the traditional rules if you bought say a bulldozer for your construction company for say $500,000 you would depreciate it evenly over its useful life say ten years at $50,000 each year. Now they can write off the whole $500,000 the first year which is fine for that year but will it not give them anything to balance against payments etc. in coming years. Over the life of the equipment it should be a wash as far as taxes go.
I would have allowed them to write off any portion they had paid for but don't know how they worded the rule , (purchase price vs. this years payments made). A big corporation would say they paid cash even though they floated bonds or other debt to cover something that same year.
The old joke among the small dairy farmers here was that they had to see their tax preparer early in February each year to find out what they had to buy to avoid paying any taxes that year.
Just wondering if anyone has researched it and has some info.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Not being a corporate tax payer I have not searched out the actual text of the bill they passed and have a few questions.

...

The question is did they get rid of all or some of those provisions to make the new lower rate uniform and fair or did most of them survive?

Just wondering if anyone has researched it and has some info.

Great question. (Some of your other points are specifically addressed in the list of the changes in the article).

I'm neither an accountant nor a tax expert.

I did a little Google searching, and this is the best I came up with. Given the source is Reuters and the language is clear, it seems like a decent article from my strictly layman's (smattering of accounting and economic education, both formal and informal) perspective.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1ED27K

It appears to me that they did a LITTLE of this re repealing the corporate AMT and limiting total interest deductions to 30%, regardless of other deductions.

However, unless I'm missing it (and I well could be) the vast, complex web of rules and breaks that makes corporate income tax forms for large corporations fill virtual semi-trailers with data still stands.

(The territorial system will supposedly fight various offshore tax dodges, but I'll believe that when I see it, given all the games tax lawyers historically have played.)

[dohboi]

No more NOAA data on CO2 and other gasses thanks to Trump's shutdown.