John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> wrote in news:spGdncykwvfNNvH9nZ2dnUU7-UHNnZ2d@giganews.com:> > On 2021/04/06 11:24 a.m., Don Y wrote: >> On 4/6/2021 10:09 AM, amdx wrote: >>> No one has mentioned that the corporation adds the taxes into >>> it's price so >>> when you buy your Clorox. >> >> Exactly. As property taxes are paid by *renters* (not property >> ow > ners). >> And, the property owners usually benefit more from the services >> that th > ose >> taxes provide (as their *building* is not likely to get up and >> move to a different town/state) >> >> Duties on Chinese imports come out of US customers' pockets. It >> r > arely >> moves business onto US companies' ledgers -- cuz they often raise >> their > >> prices to follow the new "effective" price of their now penalized >> competitors. >> >> And, of course, they run the risk of market losses in other >> places as t > heir >> product is now so much more "expensive"! >> >>> you are the one paying the corporate tax. If corporate taxes >>> were reduced to >>> zero. there would be some huge profits made until competition >>> se > ttled >>> thing >>> down to normal operations. >>> >>> I had a customer that had a business with employees, He paid the >>> 6.2% > >>> FICA tax share for the employees. >>> >>> When he retired his argument was that he should get a larger SS >>> check because he paid in over $1M in SS taxes. (his plus his >>> employees 6.2%. > ) >> >> I make a similar argument to clients when they cringe at my >> hourly rate > . >> They look at it as "salary" and compare it to what they "pay" >> *their* employees. >> >> "OK, and what about your share of their FICA? And, unemployment >> i > nsurance >> to cover for 'loss of business' layoffs?" >> >> "And, what about the ~10 paid holidays that you likely give >> them? > And >> another 10+ days (for new hires) of paid vacation? Any >> 'personal > days'?" >> >> "What's your contribution to their health insurance? And 401k?� > � Company >> christmas party? Bonuses?" >> >> "What about their share of the rent, liability insurance, >> utilities?" >> >> Suddenly, the ~125K they're paying their employee (salary) looks >> like $250k! And, their employees are "guaranteed" some work, >> tomorrow. > >> >>> I could never convince him that if he and his competition didn't >>> have > >>> to pay >>> that 6.2%, that everyone's prices would have come down and he >>> wo > uld have >>> never seen that money. So it was a moot point. >> >> The same can be argued for "universal income". Give everyone a >> ba > se pay >> and prices will rise to consume it. <shrug> >> >> People see/hear what they want to see/hear. >> >> I had a friend who was a staunch advocate for nationalized health >> care. > >> He lived in an affluent area, had "all the best" doctors, etc. >> I > simply >> offered: >> >> "Of course, then ANYONE willing to drive to this area should be >> able to avail themselves of these (your!) best doctors! >> Right? A > nd, there >> would be no DISincentive for those (your!) doctors to provide >> their services to these folks; even if it came at the cost of >> making it harde > r >> (less convenient) for YOU to get an appointment to see them!" >> >> "No, they should use the doctors in THEIR areas!" >> >> "Why? Why wouldn't I want to have access to The Best? After > all, >> my taxes are paying for healthcare regardless of where I >> *consume* it!" > >> > > You don't live in a country with Universal Health Care so don't > know what you are talking about. Here in Canada people do not go > bankrupt due to medical bills, and have a longer lifespan than you > do south of our border. > > It isn't perfect here, but what is? My ex-wife had no costs > associated with the birth of our children back in the 80s. I had > open heart surgery last May at no cost to me, other than my > regular taxes. > > Yes, our feds screwed up the Covid vaccination rollout somewhat, > but our death toll is less than 5% of yours (23K). More deaths > than it should have been even so... > > John > >A lot of Canada's 'infection' came because of spillover from stupid America. So you guys did pretty good despite how stupid your neighbors were.
OT Tax Rant
Started by ●April 6, 2021
Reply by ●April 8, 20212021-04-08
Reply by ●April 8, 20212021-04-08
On 07/04/2021 19:31, Spehro Pefhany wrote:> On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 17:10:47 +0200, David Brown > <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > >> On 07/04/2021 05:02, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>> On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 00:30:32 +0200, David Brown >>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> >>>> >>>> Norway has approximately the same rate of corporate tax as the USA. >>>> However, in Norway corporate tax makes up 12.5% of the GDP (I'm getting >>>> figures from Wikipedia here), while in the USA it makes up 1.8%. Does >>>> that mean companies in Norway are ten times as successful? Or that 90% >>>> of companies in the USA cheat or dodge their taxes? >>> >>> Norway has enormous North Sea oil revenue. >> >> Really? I'm glad you are here to tell me that. >> >>> >>> It's hard for a government-owned oil company to dodge taxes. Or maybe >>> easy. >>> >> >> Very few people or companies dodge taxes in Norway. Even the richest >> people do a lot less of the "creative accountancy" than in most countries. >> >> The reason is that on the whole, people understand the benefit of it and >> trust the government as being on the side of the people and the country. > > The Norway Sovereign Wealth fund is the largest in the world, at > $1 > trillion, $200,000 USD equivalent per citizen. ESG investments. >Yes, that is where most of the "oil money" goes in Norway. Very little of it goes into the general melting pot of "state income". The normal running of the country - the schools, the health service, police, roads, army, and everything else - is paid for by normal taxes on income, expenditure, company profits, petrol, and the rest. We pay high taxes, but get good returns on them - and we don't need to pay (or only pay very small amounts) for schools, health services, university, child care, etc. The same goes for all the countries in Scandinavia, which all have a very similar high standard of living and high level of satisfaction in the way their country works. Norway is only different in having its "retirement fund".> Wealth is generally better than debt in the long run. although > defaulting on debt obligations sure might have attractions for some. >
Reply by ●April 8, 20212021-04-08
On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 11:15:28 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:> On Thursday, April 8, 2021 at 6:34:36 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 9:42:02 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote: > > > On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 10:37:13 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 7:14:50 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote: > > > > > On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 7:45:09 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 11:31:26 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote: > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 5:26:28 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 11:38:39 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > https://theweek.com/articles/975735/janet-yellens-proposal-revolutionize-corporate-taxation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My counter-offer to Yellin is zero corporate tax rates. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Germany has probably the highest tax rate to be found anywhere, and their business is booming. I like how they classify a business with over $1B sales annual as cottage industry. It's called mittelstand and comprises a big part of their economic output. The core feature is they actually make "stuff." There's something to be said for making stuff. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittelstand > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.expatica.com/de/finance/taxes/corporate-tax-in-germany-108106/ > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_to_GDP_ratio > > > > > > > > > > > > > > France is the actual leader at 46.2%, with Sweden close behind at 44%. Germany is a 37.5%. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The US is at 27.1%, but lots of stuff that gets paid out of tax revenue in Germany - like universal health care - gets paid for out of non-tax extractions in the US. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The main advantage of making "stuff" is that even the dumbest commentator can understand it. > > > > > > > > > > > > That would include the likes of Angela Merkel who used that description in so many words when asked to what does she attribute Germany's economic success. > > > > > > > > > She is a successful politician, but she mostly delivers her political rhetoric in German. What's you actual example of her actually saying that? > > > > > > > > She told that to that worthless Brit, Blair: > > > > > > > > "Tony Blair, the former prime minister of Britain, once asked German Chancellor Angela Merkel why her country’s economy was so resilient. Her response was at once playful, a bit chiding and very matter-of-fact: “Mr. Blair, we still make things.” > > > > > > > > Don't ask me for links, jackass. This will be the last one you get. > > > > > Since it reveals it to be a very old quote delivered to one of Britain's more worthless politicians, it rather confirms my opinion of the intellectual content of the message. One can understand how you can resent being shown up. > > > > You think her opinion has changed in the meantime? Not likely, the record only validates it.. It doesn't take any great genius to understand if you make a product that sells and is in demand, the economy will take care of itself. > It seems to take more genius than you can command to understand that while making stuff is a necessary part of an economy, it isn't the only aspect of the economy that needs attention.Who said it was, idiot! And regardless of additional inputs to the mix, the bottom line is to produce products.>As a line, it was an adequate put-down for Merkel to use on Blair. Angela Merkel is distinctly more intelligent than Blair and can work with rather >more complex ideas about how an economy works. Germany's dualapprenticeship system seems to train a lot more people than other countries >can manage.It's much, much more than just running people through training programs. Like I said, idiots like you who think it's just a matter of methodology are unapproachably stupid.> > > > https://www.kornferry.com/insights/articles/75-germany-revs-its-export-engine > > > > > > > > dw.com contains a video report on it too. You look it up. > > > Why bother? > > > > > > Anyone who thinks Germany is just a matter of methodology is missing the point- too dumb to give consideration to. > > > I don't think I was suggesting that. One has to wonder what particular "methodology" you might have had in mind; Germany does take engineering seriously, which helps a lot, but it also takes equality of opportunity pretty seriously. The kind of people who took more vacuous kinds of ideology seriously got thinned out a lot between 1930 and 1945. > > > > I'm talking about this fool mindset, not going to happen: > > > > https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/president-obama-wants-america-to-be-like-germany-what-does-that-really-mean/273318/ > The fool mindset here seems to be US exceptionalism. If some other country is doing better by paying more attention to - say - vocational training, there are no end of US experts who will tell you it couldn't possibly work in the US, and you shouldn't waste time by even trying.Political jackasses have a particularly hard time separating cause and effect. Their government is in shambles yet they assume they know how to run the country.> > What they actually mean is that the government would need to raise taxes to pay for the extra effort, and the fat cats who would have to pay the taxes won't let it happen. > The fat cats would make money in the long term, but other people would make even more, eroding the power of the fat cats, who are happy to have progressively more power within a progressively less powerful country.> > -- > Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●April 8, 20212021-04-08
On 08/04/2021 13:29, Robert Latest wrote:> David Brown wrote: > >> Very few people or companies dodge taxes in Norway. Even the richest >> people do a lot less of the "creative accountancy" than in most countries. >> >> The reason is that on the whole, people understand the benefit of it and >> trust the government as being on the side of the people and the country. > > I don't recall where I heard it, but the upshot was that a survey found that > people in high-tax countries are happier to pay their taxes than people > in low-tax countries. The reason was that the satisfaction at seeing the > things your money is spent on outweighs the pain of having to pay for them. > > I don't know if it's true, but it sure is plausible. >I don't know if it is true in all cases, but it is true here in Scandinavia. The key requirements, I think, are that it is collected fairly (we are confident that almost everyone pays the taxes their are due, and corruption and tax evasion is very low), and that they are spent fairly. A lot of countries make the mistake of having "means testing" for subsidies and support. You get health care paid for by the state if you are poor enough, you get child support benefits if you have a low enough income, and so on. This sounds sensible - people only get the money if they really need it, while those that can pay themselves, do so. It is even good Marxism (real Marxism, as Karl Marx recommended, rather than later corruptions of the concept) - from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. However, it has two /massive/ flaws. One is that there is a lot of stigma involved in getting the subsidies. People who get them feel they are failures in society and reliant on charity. This is demoralising and derogatory, and leads some people to prefer to suffer in silence than to ask for "government handouts". On the other hand, for the richer slice of the population, it leads them to ask what /they/ get in return for their taxes. Why should they pay school fees for their own children, /and/ pay towards schools for kids whose parents are too lazy or stupid to get a decent job? Why should they pay taxes that go towards child support that rewards poor people for bringing more poor children into the world? Here in Norway, /everyone/ gets child support benefits - regardless of their income. /Everyone/ gets paid maternity leave, paid holidays. /Everyone/ gets free health care of top quality, and high quality free schools. Millioneeres are treated at the same hospitals as minimum level pensioners, and their kids go to the same schools as kids whose parents are out of work. Our society is not perfect, and not entirely classless - but it is closer than pretty much anywhere else in the world. As an example of the right attitude to taxation, the Swedish author Astrid Lindgren was asked her opinion on the high levels of income tax in Sweden. Her income is huge, being such a massively successful children's author. So her tax rate is also huge. She said she was quite happy with a tax rate of 95-98% - the rest was more than she needed anyway. However, she felt it was a bit extreme one year when it was slightly over 100% rate, but not enough to bother about.
Reply by ●April 8, 20212021-04-08
On 4/8/2021 4:29 AM, Robert Latest wrote:> I don't recall where I heard it, but the upshot was that a survey found that > people in high-tax countries are happier to pay their taxes than people > in low-tax countries. The reason was that the satisfaction at seeing the > things your money is spent on outweighs the pain of having to pay for them. > > I don't know if it's true, but it sure is plausible.I suspect most folks who grumble about taxes are really complaining about tax abuses and the issues that taxes fund that they, personally, may not support (OK, so let's get rid of those things; then, we'll ask everyone ELSE what things THEY don't support and get rid of those, as well -- even if that happens to include some of the things that YOU supported. Oops! Cake; Edith?). Personally, I like the fact that I don't have to test my own drinking water to be sure it's safe. And, that I don't have to bury my excrement in the back yard (and hope it doesn't leech into my water supply). Or, verify the foods that are sold don't have contaminants, are fresh, etc. I like knowing that I can call on the police if needed. And, the fire department will show up -- without me having to negotiate a contract with them WHILE the house is burning. And, the courts if I feel someone has wronged me. And, that I don't have to personally "take up arms" to patrol the Canadian border, Mexican border, or my own neighborhood! That I don't have to pave the roadways -- even if only the roads that *I* use. Or, install and maintain signals and warnings to ensure they are used "well". It's one less thing to worry about when I there's "someone/something" to ensure the items that are sold are what they claim to be. And, that I don't have to personally vet every vendor with whom I interact. I don't have to treat *everything* as "trade secret" lest my competitors freely use my ideas. Nor, worry that any publication I make will be freely copied and distributed, without my benefit/permission. And, that I don't have to become personally involved in EVERY piece of legislation -- town, city, county, state, federal, international treaty, etc. I expect to pay for these services. Even if I don't use them explicitly. While it is likely possible to implement them more efficiently, I don't have the time -- nor energy -- to get involved in preparing such a solution (esp as EVERYONE would then have a say as to whether that is the "correct" solution). So, I expect inefficiency. I expect my time to cost my employer/client more than he pays me -- because *he* bears the "inefficiency cost" of supporting my efforts (Gee, I pay you $10 but you cost me $30! How incredibly inefficient you must be at providing that service!) We have some towns/communities, here, that have made special efforts to keep their taxes low (e.g., no schools in town!). It works OK, initially. Then, their residents start to realize that there are advantages to having some of those amenities. "Gee, wouldn't it be nice to have a communal swimming pool, tennis courts, maybe a public golf course -- THAT WE CAN SHARE? And, someplace that the grandkids can use when they come see me? *I* surely don't want to have to pay for and maintain MY OWN swimming pool or tennis court for the few times they come..." It's not uncommon for neighborhoods to have "Homeowners' Associations" and use fees to pay for communal facilities. So, you spend a few hundred dollars MONTHLY for the *privilege* of being able to use the tennis courts, or the pool, or the meeting house, or... EVEN IF YOU NEVER MAKE USE OF THEM. In addition to your taxes! How is that any different?
Reply by ●April 8, 20212021-04-08
On 08/04/21 12:29, Robert Latest wrote:> David Brown wrote: > >> Very few people or companies dodge taxes in Norway. Even the richest >> people do a lot less of the "creative accountancy" than in most countries. >> >> The reason is that on the whole, people understand the benefit of it and >> trust the government as being on the side of the people and the country. > > I don't recall where I heard it, but the upshot was that a survey found that > people in high-tax countries are happier to pay their taxes than people > in low-tax countries. The reason was that the satisfaction at seeing the > things your money is spent on outweighs the pain of having to pay for them. > > I don't know if it's true, but it sure is plausible.By and large people will put up with almost anything, provided: 1) they understand the *reasons*, /and/ 2) it is *fair* to all That observation was, IIRC, made by Winston Churchill early in WW2. The converse appears to be true. People are pissed off when either: 1) some people unfairly avoid the restrictions/penalties, or 2) it appears arbitrary
Reply by ●April 8, 20212021-04-08
On 4/8/2021 7:44 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:> By and large people will put up with almost anything, > provided: > 1) they understand the *reasons*, /and/ > 2) it is *fair* to all > > That observation was, IIRC, made by Winston Churchill > early in WW2. > > The converse appears to be true. People are pissed off > when either: > 1) some people unfairly avoid the restrictions/penalties, or > 2) it appears arbitraryBut much of this depends on education. If people fail to understand why X is actually beneficial to them (despite appearing outwardly not to be the case), then they will resent it as an "imposition". I *want* the folks that I interact with at the grocery store (stocking shelves, checkout, customer service) to be as healthy as I am, despite not having the resources to pay for the care I get, the foods I eat, etc. I *want* folks not to be so destitute as to live on the street, under a bridge or out of their car. "When you got nuttin', you got nuttin' to lose!" So, you'll engage in actions that might put me at risk, etc. [Drive without insurance; flee an accident scene lest this become apparent; not attend to personal health issues; etc. Would you want someone providing direct/indirect care to/for you to be operating at anything other than "full potential"?] I'm not keen on handing out cash (but, that's considerably easier than actually trying to DEAL with a problem). So, I give *time* to address these issues (500 - 1500 hrs per year; every year for the past 20). It also lets me see the problem "up close" and decide if my time is being effectively put to use. [And, as nothing compels me to do this -- other than my own moral compass -- if I think it can be better used elsewhere, I can do so in a heartbeat!] Others wold rather sit in the comfort of their homes and gripe about how inefficiently these problems are being addressed; "What a waste of MY tax dollars!"
Reply by ●April 8, 20212021-04-08
On Thursday, April 8, 2021 at 11:42:51 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote:> On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 11:15:28 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote: > > On Thursday, April 8, 2021 at 6:34:36 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote: > > > On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 9:42:02 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 10:37:13 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote: > > > > > On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 7:14:50 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 7:45:09 PM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote: > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 11:31:26 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 5:26:28 AM UTC+10, Fred Bloggs wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 11:38:39 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > https://theweek.com/articles/975735/janet-yellens-proposal-revolutionize-corporate-taxation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My counter-offer to Yellin is zero corporate tax rates. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Germany has probably the highest tax rate to be found anywhere, and their business is booming. I like how they classify a business with over $1B sales annual as cottage industry. It's called mittelstand and comprises a big part of their economic output. The core feature is they actually make "stuff." There's something to be said for making stuff. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittelstand > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.expatica.com/de/finance/taxes/corporate-tax-in-germany-108106/ > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_to_GDP_ratio > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > France is the actual leader at 46.2%, with Sweden close behind at 44%. Germany is a 37.5%. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The US is at 27.1%, but lots of stuff that gets paid out of tax revenue in Germany - like universal health care - gets paid for out of non-tax extractions in the US. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The main advantage of making "stuff" is that even the dumbest commentator can understand it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That would include the likes of Angela Merkel who used that description in so many words when asked to what does she attribute Germany's economic success. > > > > > > > > > > > She is a successful politician, but she mostly delivers her political rhetoric in German. What's you actual example of her actually saying that? > > > > > > > > > > She told that to that worthless Brit, Blair: > > > > > > > > > > "Tony Blair, the former prime minister of Britain, once asked German Chancellor Angela Merkel why her country’s economy was so resilient. Her response was at once playful, a bit chiding and very matter-of-fact: “Mr. Blair, we still make things.” > > > > > > > > > > Don't ask me for links, jackass. This will be the last one you get. > > > > > > > Since it reveals it to be a very old quote delivered to one of Britain's more worthless politicians, it rather confirms my opinion of the intellectual content of the message. One can understand how you can resent being shown up. > > > > > > You think her opinion has changed in the meantime? Not likely, the record only validates it.. It doesn't take any great genius to understand if you make a product that sells and is in demand, the economy will take care of itself. > > It seems to take more genius than you can command to understand that while making stuff is a necessary part of an economy, it isn't the only aspect of the economy that needs attention. > > Who said it was, idiot!You. "The core feature is they actually make "stuff." There's something to be said for making stuff.>And regardless of additional inputs to the mix, the bottom line is to produce products.Not necessarily. Providing services can be equally important.> >As a line, it was an adequate put-down for Merkel to use on Blair. Angela Merkel is distinctly more intelligent than Blair and can work with rather more complex ideas about how an economy works. Germany's dual apprenticeship system seems to train a lot more people than other countries can manage. > > It's much, much more than just running people through training programs. Like I said, idiots like you who think it's just a matter of methodology are unapproachably stupid.Running people through training programs is a useful part of the process. Training them to do something useful is another.> > > > > https://www.kornferry.com/insights/articles/75-germany-revs-its-export-engine > > > > > > > > > > dw.com contains a video report on it too. You look it up. > > > > > > > > Why bother? > > > > > > > > Anyone who thinks Germany is just a matter of methodology is missing the point- too dumb to give consideration to. > > > > > > > > I don't think I was suggesting that. One has to wonder what particular "methodology" you might have had in mind; Germany does take engineering seriously, which helps a lot, but it also takes equality of opportunity pretty seriously. The kind of people who took more vacuous kinds of ideology seriously got thinned out a lot between 1930 and 1945. > > > > > > I'm talking about this fool mindset, not going to happen: > > > > > > https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/president-obama-wants-america-to-be-like-germany-what-does-that-really-mean/273318/ > > > > The fool mindset here seems to be US exceptionalism. If some other country is doing better by paying more attention to - say - vocational training, there are no end of US experts who will tell you it couldn't possibly work in the US, and you shouldn't waste time by even trying. > > Political jackasses have a particularly hard time separating cause and effect. Their government is in shambles yet they assume they know how to run the country.Which government did you have in mind? Trump's administration was a shambles, Obama's rather less so. Obama was stuck with cleaning up after the Dubbya shambles, but did an adequate job.> > What they actually mean is that the government would need to raise taxes to pay for the extra effort, and the fat cats who would have to pay the taxes won't let it happen. > > The fat cats would make money in the long term, but other people would make even more, eroding the power of the fat cats, who are happy to have progressively more power within a progressively less powerful country.-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●April 8, 20212021-04-08
On Thursday, April 8, 2021 at 11:22:06 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote: My information comes from interviews with business leaders in Germany, and not the likes of a hot air bag like you.> > -- > Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●April 8, 20212021-04-08
On Tue, 06 Apr 2021 08:38:28 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:> >https://theweek.com/articles/975735/janet-yellens-proposal-revolutionize-corporate-taxation > >My counter-offer to Yellin is zero corporate tax rates.https://www.nam.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/TaxStudyOnePager.pdf If 28% corporate tax rate is worse than 21, what is the best rate? I suggest zero.
