- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 4/1/21 at 10:46 am to BigJim
quote:
Remember how Trump reformed the tax system and a lot of companies that were sheltering their money overseas repatriated?
Now imagine the opposite.
Say what? The Democrats are not going to re-introduce permanent deferral of taxation on foreign earnings.
Posted on 4/1/21 at 11:11 am to Bham Bammer
quote:US companies build factories in China for the cheap labor, not Chinese tax benefits
Joe is going to raise taxes, eliminate exemptions and incentives for businesses, and then all the progressives will cry about evil capitalists when the businesses Trump brought back to the US leave and take their widget-making business back to China.
This post was edited on 4/1/21 at 11:52 am
Posted on 4/1/21 at 11:55 am to Pecker
quote:
US companies build factories in China for the the cheap labor, not Chinese tax benefits
Right. Tax isn't the primary reason manufacturing moves abroad. Now, tax was driving some companies to look at inversions but that's less attractive under new provisions that are likely not going anywhere.
There are reasons to oppose corporate tax hikes--namely the passing of the tax incidence to consumers and labor, but these other talking points --like the repatriation angle mentioned above-- are complete bunk.
This post was edited on 4/1/21 at 12:05 pm
Posted on 4/1/21 at 12:05 pm to bird35
quote:I think Kimberly Clark is already anticipating this.
They want to raise the corporate tax rate. Every penny of increased taxes the corporations have to pay you will pay in increased taxes.
If they raise the corporate taxes on Kraft 10% then the price of every Kraft item goes up 10%.
Announced yesterday "plans to increase net selling prices across a majority of its North America consumer products business. The increases will be implemented almost entirely through changes in list prices. The percentage increases are in the mid-to-high single digits. Nearly all of the increases will be effective in late June and impact the company's baby and child care, adult care and Scott bathroom tissue businesses."
They are claiming this is to offset the inflation of commodities prices, and it could be, but could also be a hedge against an increased corporate tax rate.
Posted on 4/1/21 at 12:09 pm to Dawgfanman
quote:
He mentioned his income decreasing, not his expenses going up.
Pretty sure he meant his take home would be decreasing because of higher taxes not that his actual income was going down
Posted on 4/1/21 at 12:11 pm to Dawgfanman
quote:
This tells me your income taxes aren’t likely to go up
I make over 100k a year but I also have normal bills, a 70k dollar boat, among other things.
I could afford it but it would cut into my lifestyle I enjoy
Posted on 4/1/21 at 12:17 pm to loumiz
quote:
They’ve actually passed two bills using reconciliation already. The used reconciliation to pass the Paycheck Protection Program extension.
EDIT: I was wrong about this.
According to the Wiki page, they can use it three times, BUT....
quote:
Congress can thus pass a maximum of three reconciliation bills per year, though in practice it has often passed a single reconciliation bill affecting both spending and revenue
Reconciliation
Maybe I "misremembered" what I've read and they've already used it 3 times? But I do remember the article saying they were appealing to the Parliamentarian to try and pass this massive f*cking fraudulent payoff through reconciliation.
This post was edited on 4/1/21 at 12:21 pm
Posted on 4/1/21 at 12:21 pm to Jorts R Us
quote:
There are reasons to oppose corporate tax hikes--namely the passing of the tax incidence to consumers and labor, but these other talking points --like the repatriation angle mentioned above-- are complete bunk.
I was being a little glib (especially since the details are not out yet). That said, if we aren't worried about moving money out the US why are they proposing measures designed to prevent offshoring of profits? In, I remind you, an infrastructure bill.
Posted on 4/1/21 at 12:27 pm to Dawgfanman
quote:
This tells me your income taxes aren’t likely to go up
This tells me you don't understand who pays the taxes for a business.
Posted on 4/1/21 at 12:28 pm to MMauler
quote:Three times, one each for spending, revenue, and federal debt limit.
According to the Wiki page, they can use it three times
Typically though there isn't a spending bill without increased revenue to support it, so you pass one bill that contains both and you have effectively used both the spending reconciliation and the revenue reconciliation at one time.
ETA...I think this is what Schumer is trying to get around. Either that or saying that one bill is retroactive to FY2020 and the next is current, for FY2021.
This post was edited on 4/1/21 at 12:30 pm
Posted on 4/1/21 at 12:55 pm to BigJim
quote:
That said, if we aren't worried about moving money out the US why are they proposing measures designed to prevent offshoring of profits?
First, no one is claiming that offshoring of profits isn't a concern.
Second, those measures already exist. The TCJA made repatriation of foreign earnings without US taxation possible which made it all the more necessary to have measures to safeguard against base erosion and profit shifting to low tax jurisdictions. That's why the TCJA introduced GILTI and BEAT. The proposal is to actually beef up GILTI to make it more punitive. I would argue that GILTI is already more punitive than originally intended and impacts industries it was never intended to impact because it interacts poorly with our existing foreign tax credit regime, but that's a separate discussion.
Third, my comment was in respect to your comment on repatriation. As I mentioned above, the rules have changed. US taxation of foreign earnings, the historical deterrent of repatriation, is no longer dependent on bringing the money home. That's not changing under this proposal. Your concern about repatriation is unfounded.
quote:
In, I remind you, an infrastructure bill.
It's included in the infrastructure bill because they are proposing offsetting some of the costs of the bill with the corporate tax hikes. Whether we agree or disagree, this administration has chosen to very publicly link the two.
This post was edited on 4/1/21 at 1:13 pm
Posted on 4/1/21 at 1:00 pm to Pecker
quote:
US companies build factories in China for the cheap labor, not Chinese tax benefits
I didn't suggest otherwise.
Trump giving incentives for them to come back plus the trade war with China brought many of those factories back to the US. They will be heading back to China very soon now that Beijing Joe is in charge.
Posted on 4/1/21 at 1:03 pm to deltaland
quote:
Explain to me the new tax increases
Posted on 4/1/21 at 1:39 pm to Jorts R Us
quote:
First, no one is claiming that offshoring of profits isn't a concern...That's not changing under this proposal. Your concern about repatriation is unfounded.
My goodness, I already admitted I was being glib.
quote:
It's included in the infrastructure bill because they are proposing offsetting some of the costs of the bill with the corporate tax hikes. Whether we agree or disagree, this administration has chosen to very publicly link the two.
Uhm, it is exactly whether we agree or disagree to use this method. They made not effort to link the two at all. Generally there is sense that yes, people or entities will pay higher taxes but they will reap some benefits. This is historically the case with infrastructure bills and fuel taxes. I don't believe (but I could be wrong) that an infrastructure bill has ever been funded by a corporate tax hike. That should give people pause.
They have completely severed this connection. It is now:
Biden Admin "you want infrastructure and I will tax BIG CORPORATIONS to pay for it!"
Populace: "Yay! Stick it to 'em and get me my roads!"
Posted on 4/1/21 at 1:50 pm to BigJim
quote:
My goodness, I already admitted I was being glib.
Sure. Just keeping it clear that repatriation and profit shifting are distinct. I addressed one, your response referenced the other.
quote:
Uhm, it is exactly whether we agree or disagree to use this method. They made not effort to link the two at all.
My point was that they've decided to sell this bill as paid for by corporations and so that is why there are corporate income tax provisions included within it. Not saying I agree but the administration's attempt to link is certainly no secret.
This post was edited on 4/1/21 at 1:52 pm
Posted on 4/1/21 at 2:05 pm to deltaland
quote:
really don’t need a tax increase.
on income over 400k.
you can rest easy now.
Posted on 4/1/21 at 2:07 pm to bird35
quote:
They want to raise the corporate tax rate. Every penny of increased taxes the corporations have to pay you will pay in increased taxes.
If they raise the corporate taxes on Kraft 10% then the price of every Kraft item goes up 10%.
Not only that, but it also means less profit for Kraft, so their employees can expect less in raises and bonuses.
Posted on 4/1/21 at 2:10 pm to bird35
quote:
If they raise the corporate taxes on Kraft 10% then the price of every Kraft item goes up 10%.
That's not 100 percent accurate.
Let's say Kraft Cheese sells for $2, and total costs are $1.80 before income tax. Taxable profit is 20 cents. They are currently paying 21% tax, so call it 4 cents per pack of cheese.
Corporate taxes go to 31% from 21%. Now, it's 6 cents per pack of cheese for taxes.
To make up for this, Kraft increases their cheese price by... 2 cents. Which is a 1% increase.
Posted on 4/1/21 at 2:11 pm to CelticDog
quote:
on income over 400k.
So Biden is only rolling back Trump's tax cuts for those who make over $400K? I was not aware of that
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News