GOP Tax Bill screws small business to favor large corporations

[TitanTiger 20,479]

 

Quote

...This bill, despite the glossy, small business-friendly language being used to sell it, would actually do more to widen the tax advantage gap between large businesses and small ones than our present -- and already tilted tax code -- does. This bill does just that, thanks to the change from a worldwide tax system, which requires US companies to pay Uncle Sam taxes on all their profits, regardless of where the income is earned, to something called a territorial one, under which companies don't owe taxes to their own governments on income they make offshore.

This change, if enacted, would encourage wealthy businesses to learn how to go offshore to gain a more favorable tax rate than is available within our borders -- giving them a significant financial and competitive advantage over our neighborhood mom and pops trying to stay afloat onshore.

 

Main Street small businesses aren't among the lucky beneficiaries of a territorial tax system. Right now, companies must pay taxes if they repatriate earnings made outside the United States. But by shifting the tax code from a worldwide system to a territorial one, they would no longer have to pay any tax on repatriated foreign earnings; the US tax is simply eliminated on foreign income. 

 

Businesses would be allowed to shift profits offshore to avoid American tax rates. Essentially that means we would be creating a tremendous incentive to reassign or push profits offshore; businesses with the financial wherewithal and accounting savvy to take advantage of it could create perfectly legal tax shelters...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/14/opinions/gop-tax-plan-territorial-small-business-zimmerman-opinion/index.html

 

The writer is an accountant who has actually read the bill.  This is the kind of crap that ticks me off.  You try to ram a bill through before people can read it fully (anyone remember the ACA?) so people can't figure out the tricks you're trying to pull.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

55% of Americans disapprove of this bill.  How is this a representative democracy?  I'm not saying majority rule makes sense all time, but the favorable rating for the bill is in the 30s (rest are undecided).  Would be amazing if Congress listened for a change.

[autigeremt 6,608]

You can thank both parties for the way they do business in DC. We can't compete v/s the big money.

[TitanTiger 20,479]

1 hour ago, autigeremt said:

You can thank both parties for the way they do business in DC. We can't compete v/s the big money.

But in this case it isn't both parties.  It's one party that is struggling mightily to ram this bill through before Christmas and it's a party-line vote.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

2 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

55% of Americans disapprove of this bill.  How is this a representative democracy?  I'm not saying majority rule makes sense all time, but the favorable rating for the bill is in the 30s (rest are undecided).  Would be amazing if Congress listened for a change.

I doubt 55% have read it. How could they since the final bill hasn't been released yet.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 minute ago, Proud Tiger said:

I doubt 55% have read it. How could they since the final bill hasn't been released yet.

More than 55% of the Senate hadn't read the bill when they passed their version.  How do I know?  Because they didn't get a final copy of the bill until 20 minutes before they were scheduled to vote.

[TitanTiger 20,479]

2 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

I doubt 55% have read it. How could they since the final bill hasn't been released yet.

This is a disingenuous counter argument.  The final bill isn't released because they are still wrangling behind the scenes over certain particulars.  But the bill(s) as they exist in present form, are out there for the reading and that is what people are commenting on.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

6 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

But in this case it isn't both parties.  It's one party that is struggling mightily to ram this bill through before Christmas and it's a party-line vote.

Lot of truth here.  Obama-care was party line as well, but it also took nearly two years to get through the congressional process, simply because it was a monumental piece of legislation.  Hell, the vote was even delayed into a new year so that a new Republican senator could be seated and cast his vote after a special election (Scott Brown in MA).  Wonder if Jones will get the same courtesy?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

5 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

More than 55% of the Senate hadn't read the bill when they passed their version.  How do I know?  Because they didn't get a final copy of the bill until 20 minutes before they were scheduled to vote.

But the Senate bill isn't the same as the one coming out of conference now.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

4 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Lot of truth here.  Obama-care was party line as well, but it also took nearly two years to get through the congressional process, simply because it was a monumental piece of legislation.  Hell, the vote was even delayed into a new year so that a new Republican senator could be seated and cast his vote after a special election (Scott Brown in MA).  Wonder if Jones will get the same courtesy?

I thought it was the opposite. Warren had defeated Brown and the Dems wanted to wait until she was seated. Now Schumer wants to wait until Jones is seated in January.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 minute ago, Proud Tiger said:

But the Senate bill isn't the same as the one coming out of conference now.

Well aware of that, but you missed my point.  You don't get to hold the citizen to a higher standard than the actual people on Capitol Hill doing the voting.  Basically, it's not fair to say "well I bet 55% of people haven't read the bill" when the same (or worse) could be said for those elected to actually cast votes on legislation.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Just now, Proud Tiger said:

I thought it was the opposite. Warren had defeated Brown and the Dems wanted to wait until she was seated. Now Schumer wants to wait until Jones is seated in January.

Nope.  Brown beat Coakley in a special election in 2010 for Kennedy's seat.  Republican caucus asked that a vote on O-care not happen until after Brown was seated, which Harry Reid obliged to.  So now the ask of Schumer is for the same courtesy on this tax bill.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

10 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

This is a disingenuous counter argument.  The final bill isn't released because they are still wrangling behind the scenes over certain particulars.  But the bill(s) as they exist in present form, are out there for the reading and that is what people are commenting on.

So if 55% of the people who haven't read the final bill disapprove of another bill so what.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

3 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

I thought it was the opposite. Warren had defeated Brown and the Dems wanted to wait until she was seated. Now Schumer wants to wait until Jones is seated in January.

Backup here.  In fact, Trump himself called it "smart" of Obama to ask that the vote be delayed.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/364921-trump-in-2010-obama-very-smart-to-seat-scott-brown-before-final

[TitanTiger 20,479]

1 minute ago, Proud Tiger said:

So if 55% of the people who haven't read the final bill disapprove of another bill so what.

You're still dodging the issue.  The bills are out there.  People have read them as they exist right now.  They know what is at stake and what's being debated and wrestled over.  It is perfectly reasonable to be opposed to a bill based on what you know of it right now, even if you haven't read the entire thing.  

Did you read front to back, the final version over every bill that you have expressed opposition to over the years?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

2 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Nope.  Brown beat Coakley in a special election in 2010 for Kennedy's seat.  Republican caucus asked that a vote on O-care not happen until after Brown was seated, which Harry Reid obliged to.  So now the ask of Schumer is for the same courtesy on this tax bill.

I can't argue the point but I just heard yesterday someone on TV commenting that Schumer was now being a hypocrit because of the Dems previous stance. But I will go with what you say.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

You're still dodging the issue.  The bills are out there.  People have read them as they exist right now.  They know what is at stake and what's being debated and wrestled over.  It is perfectly reasonable to be opposed to a bill based on what you know of it right now, even if you haven't read the entire thing.  

Did you read front to back, the final version over every bill that you have expressed opposition to over the years?

Have it your way Burger King but I doubt 55% of the poeple have ever read any major bill.

[homersapien 11,371]

48 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

You're still dodging the issue.  The bills are out there.  People have read them as they exist right now.  They know what is at stake and what's being debated and wrestled over.  It is perfectly reasonable to be opposed to a bill based on what you know of it right now, even if you haven't read the entire thing.  

Did you read front to back, the final version over every bill that you have expressed opposition to over the years?

Apparently, PT feels the bill should be passed before we get to consider it.  (Not sure how our "representatives" are supposed to discern the people's positions on it.)

[homersapien 11,371]

25 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Have it your way Burger King but I doubt 55% of the poeple have ever read any major bill.

Thus, Titan's point. 

[homersapien 11,371]

27 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

I can't argue the point but I just heard yesterday someone on TV commenting that Schumer was now being a hypocrit because of the Dems previous stance. But I will go with what you say.

Fox, no doubt.

[TitanTiger 20,479]

31 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Have it your way Burger King but I doubt 55% of the poeple have ever read any major bill.

You didn't answer the question:  Have you read all of the bills front to back that you decided to publicly oppose?  I'm going to assume the answer to that is 'no.'

So if you have not read every bill, in final form, in its entirety, before speaking out against it and perhaps calling your Congressional representatives to make your position on it known, why are you trying to dismiss the opinions of people who oppose this tax bill over the same thing?

[Strychnine 1,802]

9 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Apparently, PT feels the bill should be passed before we get to consider it.  (Not sure how our "representatives" are supposed to discern the poeple's positions on it.)

 

An irrelevant and cumbersome formality that has been dispensed with.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

6 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

You didn't answer the question:  Have you read all of the bills front to back that you decided to publicly oppose?  I'm going to assume the answer to that is 'no.'

So if you have not read every bill, in final form, in its entirety, before speaking out against it and perhaps calling your Congressional representatives to make your position on it known, why are you trying to dismiss the opinions of people who oppose this tax bill over the same thing?

I dismiss them for the same reason that I HAVEN'T expressed an opinion on the tax bill. Is that so hard for you to digest without going on and on and on. I say one more time......you can't have an intelligent position one way or another on a bill you haven't read. That INCLUDES me. Got it?

[TitanTiger 20,479]

Just now, Proud Tiger said:

I dismiss them for the same reason that I HAVEN'T expressed an opinion on the tax bill. Is that so hard for you to digest without going on and on and on..........

I'm "going on and on" because you continue to avoid the question and the implications of the answer.

We weren't discussing your opinion on the tax bill.  We are simply discussing your reasoning for dismissing the opinions of those who oppose it.  You cast their opinions aside as uninformed and thus unworthy of serious consideration because "55% of them hadn't read the final bill" because it hasn't been released yet.  Yet you yourself have expressed opposition to many bills over the years and admittedly didn't always do so only after reading the entire final bill.  So why, if you do the same thing, are you using such a standard to disregard someone else's opinions?

This isn't hard.  Quit dodging.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Anything anyone says that you don't agree with is dodging. I'm thru trying to have an intelligent discussion on this. I should know better than to try. Your ego is so overwhelming you always have to be right. So be it. Run along and be right