Cog wrote: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.
Cog wrote: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.
Plantagenet wrote: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.
tita wrote: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...
vtsnowedin wrote: 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.
vtsnowedin wrote: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 wrote: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.
Note that the article linked to is nine years old.ralfy wrote: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.
Outcast_Searcher wrote: 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.
Plantagenet wrote:Outcast_Searcher wrote: 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!
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.
Outcast_Searcher wrote: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.
Plantagenet wrote:Outcast_Searcher wrote: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!
vtsnowedin wrote: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.
Return to North America Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests