Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Corporate Tax Cuts

Awed
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2011 8:29:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Could I have some input on this student congress bill? Pros? Cons?

A Bill to Reduce Corporate Tax Cuts to Lower U.S. Treasury Deficit

BE IT ENACTED BY THE STUDENT CONGRESS HERE ASSEMBLED THAT:

SECTION 1. All unnecessary or unfair corporate tax cuts will be eliminated.

SECTION 2. Existing tax breaks will be streamlined as necessary.

SECTION 3. The Department of Commerce will oversee the enforcement of this bill as well as determine what qualifies as a necessary.

The Department of Commerce will define what a corporation needs to qualify as a manufacturer; this definition will last for 5 years before it must be renewed to fit with the changing economy.
-The LIFO accounting policy will no longer be in use.
-Special-Interest loopholes will no longer be legal.
-Companies that have eco-friendly practices must prove that their practices are only positively affecting the environment as well as the ecosystem before receiving any tax credit.
-All corporate expenses will be characterized as expenses; this includes but is not limited to infrastructure and fees to access to foreign resources.

SECTION 4. This bill will go into effect in April of 2011 and a goal will be made to reduce corporate tax cuts to 15% by April of 2016.

SECTION 5. All laws in conflict with this legislation are hereby declared null and void.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2011 8:45:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is for your school?
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Awed
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2011 8:55:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/31/2011 8:45:45 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
This is for your school?

Sort of. I try to help out with my debate team from high school as much as possible.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2011 9:08:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If the gov just taxed everyone 50% and didn't spend it, it would be like drawing a /2 on all of your bills. Totally pointless. You have to look at what they're actually using the money on to see who it impacts.

For example, if the government goes and buys a ton of steel with the money, that's steel that could have been used for cars and stuff. So car manufacturers actually lose out because the price of steel gets bid up.

It doesn't matter where the money comes from so long as its taken homogeneously with respect to capital structures. Tax breaks for the businesses? Lower prices for the poor. Tax breaks for the poor? Higher revenues for the businesses.

People b*tch and piss and moan and cry about supply side economics. Well... the framework of the OP is supply side taxation. Please look at the demand side too.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2011 2:55:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/31/2011 9:08:33 PM, Sieben wrote:
If the gov just taxed everyone 50% and didn't spend it, it would be like drawing a /2 on all of your bills. Totally pointless. You have to look at what they're actually using the money on to see who it impacts.

For example, if the government goes and buys a ton of steel with the money, that's steel that could have been used for cars and stuff. So car manufacturers actually lose out because the price of steel gets bid up.

It doesn't matter where the money comes from so long as its taken homogeneously with respect to capital structures. Tax breaks for the businesses? Lower prices for the poor. Tax breaks for the poor? Higher revenues for the businesses.

People b*tch and piss and moan and cry about supply side economics. Well... the framework of the OP is supply side taxation. Please look at the demand side too.

You're not considering the effects of distribution. The tax-code can either move money into millionaire banks accounts or middle-class consumers. The net effect is the same right away, but if shifting money around motivates increased investment, then the subsequent innovation and job creation does actually make for additional growth, rather than just a broken window fallacy.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2011 3:05:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/1/2011 2:55:29 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 1/31/2011 9:08:33 PM, Sieben wrote:
If the gov just taxed everyone 50% and didn't spend it, it would be like drawing a /2 on all of your bills. Totally pointless. You have to look at what they're actually using the money on to see who it impacts.

For example, if the government goes and buys a ton of steel with the money, that's steel that could have been used for cars and stuff. So car manufacturers actually lose out because the price of steel gets bid up.

It doesn't matter where the money comes from so long as its taken homogeneously with respect to capital structures. Tax breaks for the businesses? Lower prices for the poor. Tax breaks for the poor? Higher revenues for the businesses.

People b*tch and piss and moan and cry about supply side economics. Well... the framework of the OP is supply side taxation. Please look at the demand side too.

You're not considering the effects of distribution.
That's exactly what I'm asking people to consider. WHERE the money is spent.

The tax-code can either move money into millionaire banks accounts or middle-class consumers. The net effect is the same right away, but if shifting money around motivates increased investment, then the subsequent innovation and job creation does actually make for additional growth, rather than just a broken window fallacy.

1) Lol@GDP metric
2) Its not clear how it would increase investment. Even if the classes have different propensities to invest/consume, investment/consumption itself generates investment predicated on future consumption, and consumption predicated on future investment.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 1:09:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
"All unnecessary or unfair corporate tax cuts will be eliminated."

i think every person on earth would agree with that statement. the problem comes in defining what makes a tax cut "unnecessary" or "unfair". work on that in more detail or you haven't really said anything.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
djsherin
Posts: 343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 2:11:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/7/2011 1:09:41 AM, belle wrote:
"All unnecessary or unfair corporate tax cuts will be eliminated."

i think every person on earth would agree with that statement. the problem comes in defining what makes a tax cut "unnecessary" or "unfair". work on that in more detail or you haven't really said anything.

None of them ;)