Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Our self driving cars will zip around locally. When going any further it will head to the ramps to drive onto the train where it can complete the bulk of the trip with a bit of comfort. Freight will work pretty much the same way.This is the only place Amtrak makes sense. As far as thinking rail is going to displace vehicles to any significant extent... Well, hopefully recreational drugs are legal in your state (not in mine!).
Hardened power lines and new piping certainly isn't. But, when it comes to bridges the gauntlet has been thrown. We should be able to match these.
C'mon, even Kristi Noem realizes that Amtrak travel to Hawaii makes a ton of sense. That's why she's against infrastructure spending..... not enough spent on rail travel to Hawaii.
Along with sticks of dynamite. Newark is awful. As is LaGuardia. As is about 1/2 of LAX. And DCA - can't wait until the train to Dulles is finished.
I'll say it - we should have a 0% corporate tax rate.
You may have a point. But what's the alternative to bring that tax money in to fund government? Is 0% done anywhere in the world?
No, and there's details regarding goods for internal use, exports, imports, etc. that would have to be worked. These corporate taxes are essentially a hidden tax on consumers, so the tax money would be made up with a consumption tax or an increase in income taxes. All of which should be offset by the cost decreases in goods and services.
But it doesn’t address how to fund us improvements. Like roads, airports, bridges, etc. we need more money not less.
Increased job activity, increased velocity of money means increased tax receipts if income/consumption taxes are increased a bit to compensate for the loss of corporate taxes.
I agree it should be zero. In 2015 when the corp rate was 35%, we collected around 280 billion from corps. It's enough to fund the government for a few weeks.
This is the exact opposite of what I would want.Sand said:
The most popular variation of a "consumption tax" around here is the FairTax. The FairTax only, in theory taxes end users of products and services and not intermediate steps such as a "value added" tax might. At least in theory there is little tax to pass on, but again the FairTax people believe that all taxes are passed on to consumers which means that you don't pay income taxes either, your employer's (which could be you) customers do (or their customers' customers' ... customers).Wouldn't the companies just pass their "consumption tax" on to the customer?
For the FairTax, at least in theory it is "retail" only. And only for new items. So raw materials are not taxes, only the finished retail goods (or services).
Thanks....are "parts" to make the larger product "retail" or "raw material"?
Right at least in concept it just changes our current "consumption tax" model to spread across products more evenly as opposed to skewing the tax to punish "American Made" (via the income). My problem with the FairTax isn't the concept, but the dishonesty (whether it is actual lies or just ignorance) in selling the ideas. That and the hostile way those lies are defended. Especially since the movement was taken over a few years ago (though to be fair it has been a while since I revisited so maybe they have cleaned up their act).
I don't see the point in charging companies a consumption or sales tax. They would indeed just pass that on, just like they pass on their corporate taxes.Wouldn't the companies just pass their "consumption tax" on to the customer?
I guess you'll have to unpack this. I don't see the downside. We become instantly a manufacturing powerhouse, a place to locate corporate headquarters with all those salaries, etc.
Which, it needs to be said, is a bogus assumption. Much like the idea that corporations pass on their tax directly to customers too. The world doesn't have fixed supply/demand curves for goods and services such that price doesn't matter.
Right...trickle down doesn't work...we know this...it all ends up in the hands of the consumer. However, as I pointed out before, the current choice is to take the tax revenues from the corps and the tax revenues from the consumers OR tax revenues from consumers only. Let's be honest...we all know that if we removed the corp tax rate, the price of goods isn't going down, so why not take the corp tax revenue?
Even if that's true (and I'd believe public pressure would result in a step change like this being reflected in price drops), the increase in employment, velocity of money, etc. would be worth it.
What historical evidence do you have to base this vote of confidence? Either for the price drops or increase of employment....
I understand what you are saying in that a 10% increase in cost (whether taxes or something else) has nothing to do with whether or not the price of the finished goods can simply get increased by 10% (or more) to cover that increase. Maximizing revenue and minimizing costs are closer to being independent variables or functions than dependent or even interdependent. (But not completely independent such a paying for higher costing but higher quality components.)Which, it needs to be said, is a bogus assumption. Much like the idea that corporations pass on their tax directly to customers too. The world doesn't have fixed supply/demand curves for goods and services such that price doesn't matter.
We certainly have evidence of increased corporate activity in places like Ireland due to the relatively low corporate tax rates. As far as price drops, I don't have any there. I don't know of a precedent for eliminating a category of taxes like that.
This is undoubtedly true, and one of the advantages of eliminating corporate taxes is eliminating the compliance costs. Those are substantial.
You're certainly not alone. And if there was ever an expense that came even close to paying for itself, it's infrastructure.
It's the difference between exploiting a flaw in the system and trying to fix the flaw. I would prefer that the United States be a good actor in the world that helps to fix international problems rather than a greedy actor attempting to exploit international problems.
Yeah, I meant here in this country. Every piece of evidence I can point to (including the tax breaks as recent as 2018) is that those activities are not nearly as beneficial as companies will claim when they happen and benefit is rarely ever passed on to consumers.
Historical evidence is that the majority of the benefits go to employees, not consumers, so you're right there.
except ... the Fed Govt doesn't have any money to spend, they're 25-30 Trillion in debt
There are plenty that want to talk about it...just not in DC and certainly not when their "side" is in control...rinse, repeat. I mean we are adding billions to our deficits/debt yearly from the 2018 tax cuts and could be trillions if we don't reach 3-4% GDP (which we won't...so it will). It's not fascinating at all. It's pathetic. That said, this proposal is paid for in the plan (if they stick to the plan of course). That's a baby step up from "hey, they'll pay for themselves!!"
yes and no
spending is spending - and its hard to justify spending Trillions when you're already 25 TRILLION in debt
Don't disagree....just not sure where the $5T number came from....by the way, glad you're back to caring about spending now, even if it's only when the other "side" is doing it...I got you at least half the timespending is spending - and its hard to justify spending Trillions when you're already 25 TRILLION in debt
its like a guy bringing in $35,000 who is already $2,000,000 in debt spending an extra $200,000 and nobody saying much about the sanity of it
I ad hope Trump would bring something to the table on spending - he couldn't, and while he didn't spend more per year than Obama he certainly didn't stop and this Biden train ... good gawd ahmightyDon't disagree....just not sure where the $5T number came from....by the way, glad you're back to caring about spending now, even if it's only when the other "side" is doing it...I got you at least half the time
