Donald John Trump

Or not. It really depends on the details, doesn't it? Then there's the fact that in some cases you can get tax credits instead of deductions in the US which complicates and changes the picture quite a bit more.

Sounds like some detailed examples are required to prove either assertion.

 

The fact is large American companies have been moving to other countries for many years (like Ireland = 12.5%) . This proves the problem is real. It's not like they have been doing that out of spite.

 

Yep, 76 large corporations have moved their headquarters overseas in since 1983...Leaving some 19,076 remaining in the US.

 

American companies, especially the large ones, really haven't "moved" to other countries at least in large numbers. The have established subsidiaries in other countries. Not quite the same thing.

???? what is 12.5%?

No it most certainly does not. There are good reasons to move operations from one place to another. Taxes are one certainly but not by any means the only or even the dominant one. It also ignores the fact that at times, and recent times at that, US companies have also moved some of their out of country operations back to the US.

In most cases probably not but I know of at least one business that moved operations out of one state due to "spite" and wouldn't be surprised if it has happened on an international scale.

 

How many of those 76 were the result of buy outs by foreign companies? How many large corporations have moved the other way? You may be giving wm's arguments more weight than they deserve.

 

IIRC, most were just that, tax inversions. No sense in denying it. However, the number of companies that have undergone tax inversion represent such a small fraction of large American corporations, that it lends wm.'s argument no weight at all.

If wm. wanted to make his argument, he is barking up the wrong tree. There are far bigger problems that would help wm.'s argument, but I doubt he knows what they are. He just chooses what he thinks is the easiest, but not best, target, and latches on to it.

Edit: Why go overseas when we in the US have...Delaware!
How Delaware Thrives as a Corporate Tax Haven

 

Yes, most of what you post is nonsense, but I am not complaining, as it makes my job much easier.

Hmm...So, now 15%/19% are the effective corporate tax rates in Poland.

So, I wil ask you this question...If 15%/19% is the effective tax rate in Poland, then what is the statutory tax rate for small and large corporations in Poland - before all of the deductions?

I ask this so that we can accurately compare to the statutory US corporate tax rate of 39.1%.

 

Anyway, the economy is the least of Trump's problems now.
Report says Trump asked Comey to end Flynn probe; White House pushes back
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html
Comey's Revenge: Leaks Memo To NYT Saying Trump Asked Him To End Flynn Investigation | Zero Hedge
Comey memo says Trump asked him to end Flynn investigation - The Boston Globe

I was wondering why Trump threatened Comey with "James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!”

 

The speech he gave to those Coastguard graduates was just cringeworthy. Fancy using the day meant to recognise their achievements to bang on yet again about the media etc. When is he ever going to get over himself? He must have been mollycoodled beyond belief by his parents. He has a serious case of sloping shoulders. It's getting beyond embarrassing.

 

Trump has never been one to pass up a chance to swipe at the media or pat himself on the back, no matter what the occasion.

Remember that CIA speech, the day after his inauguration...

 

A small fraction, well:

an estimate by Reed College economist Kim Clausing that inversions and other income-shifting techniques reduced Treasury revenues by as much as $111 billion in 2012

It's so unimportant problem that Obama introduced a special legislation in 2016, trying to stop it.
Of course tax inversion is an old news, now they use earnings stripping and other tax optimization tricks.

Of course only the largest companies can afford all the tricks (Apple, Microsoft), they need an army of the best there are lawyers and consultants to do them properly, and then defend themselves in courts when the IRS or the EU gets angry.
The Federal Register is 100,000 pages of regulations, the US tax code is 75,000 pages. Only the wealthiest can afford to expertise needed to take advantage of all the opportunities hiding in those almost 200,000 pages.
The small stuff is shafted, as usual.
It has been know for a long time, that regulations, complexity, taxes favor the largest companies - they can afford to optimize their taxes, they can afford to comply with the mass of regulations easily, but their smaller competitors can't.

I'll explain, the corporate tax is a federal tax, you can't hide from federal taxes - even in Delaware.

Firstly you making the common mistake that expenses and other benefits are deducted from the corporate tax, when if fact they are deducted from taxable income. The tax rate is always the same. Taxable income is gross income minus deductions and exemptions.
Secondly, in Poland the effective tax is the statutory tax rate, because it's a single tax. In the US corporations pay federal corporate tax plus state corporate taxes, the later varies so there is a need for the effective tax.

Additionally in the US corporations can reduce the rate of the corporate tax by using so called tax credits, these include foreign tax credit, alternative fuels (the greedy and shitty corn ethanol industry) and others. This actually gives you a better effective tax - too bad it's all thanks to crony politics, pork-barrel legislation, and lobbing.
Not need to add only the wealthiest benefit from them, those who could afford lobbing and crony politics.

Of course in the US the effective tax rate is quite low, only the price for it isn't low at all.

 

Actually, it was Republican President George W. Bush, and the Republican led House and Senate of the 109th Congress that passed the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, which sought to outlaw this tax inversion scheme, by adding Section 7874 to the Internal Revenue Code. However, Section 7874 had some loopholes in it , which certain companies exploited to their benefit.

As I said, you are barking up the wrong tree...
Here is a hint:

Except very few companies have moved overseas...Even when it was "easy." Clearly, there is more at stake, or else a great many more companies would have left.

The only thing certain is death and taxes.

Actually, you are making the mistake...For all intents and purposes, to the IRS, your gross income is your taxable income.
Now, gross income, minus deductions and exemptions, is called adjusted gross income.

Actually, the effective tax rate is what is paid after all deductions and exemptions. The effective tax rate for Poland is 14.5% for small companies and 17.5% for larger ones. Admittedly, this data is about 5-6 years out of date.

Where is the high cost? He asked knowingly...

 

An enquiry of the more Constitutionally informed Murcans to be found around here:

Can anyone direct me to a really solid article or other explanation of how exactly presidential impeachment works?
Completely uninterested in partisan bullshit; more the mechanics of the process and where the bar of OK/not OK is set, as I understand its quite specific.
Trump sets people screaming (in support and condemnation), but I quite like trying to understand what the processes are beneath the outrage. I can find some, but a local view on the quality of an explanation would be nice.

Cheers, ~A

 

This seams to be a decent article:
The Process and History of Presidential Impeachment

 

Another good one from findlaw.com
Presidential Impeachment: The Legal Standard and Procedure - FindLaw

 

Google "US presidents" to see the picture scroll at the top.

 

Apparently TRUMP has strayed into impeachment territory...

 

The latest playground game at my grandkids' school is Trump Tig. One person chases and taps another. When caught the victim has to say 'We are going to build a wall'. They then stand still until released by another whereupon they say 'Mexico is going to pay for the wall'. This is all done mimicking Trump's voice and mannerisms.
It is really quite astounding the global impact that this presidency has had when children in Scotland lampoon him in the playground.

 

Thanks for the impeachment links, chaps.
So 'Misdemeanour' is left as an interestingly vague yet powerful word on this score, while the actual chances of getting the leader out rest on a very political process.

I sometimes think the writers of your Constitution were rather clever buggers...

 

I wouldn't put it quite that way. More like he's homesteaded there from the beginning...

"Misdemeanor" in US parlance is a criminal violation not serious enough to be a felony. See:
misdemeanor
So not all that vague some of the other provisions on the other hand ...