C’mon man it’s Friday… Couldn’t this have waited til after the weekend?
3 Likes
The best stories always come out on Fridays…at least the past eight months or so.
However, the corporate tax cut in the U.K. had the supposedly paradoxical effect of increasing corporate tax receipts. So if you want more corporate green, this may be the way to go. If your goal is revenue, this HAS worked in a developed G7 tax environment.
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/ca3e5bd2-2a7e-11e7-9ec8-168383da43b7
1 Like
Hitting a paywall on the FT article. You have another link or the year this cut happened?
Apologies about the paywall, the UK numbers from the treasury are below:
1 Like
Not precisely when the rate dropped to current low and I am on my phone, so it is a little harder to research, but the current cuts started around 2011/12:
Respectfully I don’t see how you disagree. Millions of people tune in because it is a sport at the highest level. Millions aren’t tuning in to watch division 3 or small town high school football. Lots of people love to watch football but football played at the highest level by the best people in the world at it is why we are talking about a multi billion dollar business.
Their is a reason why the D3 or D2 title game doesn’t have massive viewership. People like watching sports but people most like watching sports played at the highest level by elite athletes better than anyone else they can see playing
1 Like
Rich lives matter! Those poor people need skin in the game.
Just did 5 minutes of research
NFL stadium capacity 1.5 MM
Texas high school 4.2 MM
wowser wife’s home town has 7500 seat stadium in town of 5500 and last year’s championships drew 250,000 to 12 games including 52,000 to 6A game
1 Like
I put small town for a reason. Yes in some places high school football is huge just like d1 football is. No comparison for amount of revenue brought in by a big Texas high school and the Cowboys though.
Some of those games are televised and probably get decent ratings. I say that as a former high school football coach for ten years. No doubt the sport is popular and beloved.
God I love it when you talk history.
Trump is just proposing normalizing our corporate rates with the rest of the world. We shouldn’t have the highest rates in the 35 nation OECD. We don’t have a taxing problem, it’s a spending problem.
Less than 1% of Federal taxes come from estate tax. The only people who really want to save it are lawyers and insurance salesmen who built businesses around helping people avoid estate taxes.
The U.S. is the only developed nation that taxes its citizens and corporations on their foreign earnings. There shouldn’t be a repatriation holiday, they should stop taxing foreign earnings altogether, like every other G20 nation. Our archaic rules actually hurt tax receipts and competitiveness. They have accelerated outsourcing. But we’re in good company with countries like North Korea, Libya and Eritrea. “LAND OF THE FREE!”
Keep whining about the rich though, while calling Trump a populist (irony). He’s wrong on many, many things. Not taxes.
“The only major nation that taxes its citizens (and green card holders) regardless of where they live is the United States. So long as you hold a U.S. passport or green card, the Internal Revenue Service wants it’s cut of your profits and capital gains.
Some lists of countries that tax citizens and legal residents on their worldwide income include Libya, North Korea, Eritrea and the Philippines. The tax systems of these countries are not well developed and data is limited.”
Is that really a logical reason for getting rid of it?
I’ve got no problem with NFL players making lots of money because it’s very much an owner controlled league, the average NFL career is 3.3 years and the median salary is about 770k. That’s still a lot of money but they’re putting their brains and future health on the line all the time.
It’s sad that the majority of NFL players are needy several years after they retire: https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/leighsteinberg/2015/02/09/5-reasons-why-80-of-retired-nfl-players-go-broke/&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/
So even with a way higher than average salary, they still can’t hold onto the money. I’d say they should make more but the statistics for going broke are similar for NBA players and they do make way more on average than NFL players.
Do you genuinely have faith that the current administration/Congress will appropriately cut spending to balance out this tax decrease?
Also the anti 1%'ers. In this case, iirc, it shakes out to the .03%'ers.
Nope, not in the least. But at the same time it’s a stupid tax IMHO and there’s no reason to save it.
2 Likes
It’s only a stupid tax until you scale to a point where the tricks don’t add up to enough. One of the main talking points for keeping it is that in theory it hits at 5mil+/10mil+ but with all the loopholes you don’t really have to worry about it until 25mil+/50mil+.
Can’t remember who, but I remember seeing recently someone on here talking about something akin to “political bandwidth” in the sense that the public/govt is only really going to focus heavily on so many things at once. To me, there’s a pretty silly number of things that would take priority over making sure the .01% doesn’t have to pay extra taxes when they die
1 Like
It’s one reason. There’s an entire team of people at the IRS devoted to interpreting, collecting, enforcing and adjuticating the estate tax, for less than 1% of revenue. Not an efficient use of people and resources.
Rather discriminatory to take the estates of some citizens and not others.
Another is that passing assets to your heirs is not a taxable event… that’s not the time that capital gains are realized. They paid taxes on income, then invested the capital. In every other scenario the investments appreciate and you pay tax when you realize the gain (sell the investment). Unless you count Roth IRA which is taxed as you deposit. But the wealthiest 1% aren’t getting there $6,500 at a time. Someone dying is not realizing income.
From a common sense standpoint we know that estate tax is silly. Clever rich people find a way to avoid it with loopholes and investment vehicles.
Most importantly: you can only do 2 things with money: save or invest. We know through research that 2nd and 3rd generation rich kids will squander their families’ fortunes (spend them). So the government need only wait and they will get to tax that money again anyway when it re-enters circulation. The rich heir will pay those capital gains when they liquidate the asset in order to spend. Then the feds will make income tax when the heir buys goods from a company. Estate tax is a waste of time, they will have 90% of that money in 50 years.
"Indeed, wealthy families across continents lose some 70% of their wealth by the second generation, and a stunning 90% by the third, according to the Williams Group wealth consultancy.
Meanwhile, statistics from WealthCounsel, a US-based collaborative organisation for attorneys and wealth planning revealed that 65% of family fortune is lost by the second generation and 90% is gone by the third."
2 Likes
Sounds like we need to increase estate tax so that it’s carrying its own weight and not freeloading.
1 Like
The only thing that would make either party truly “cut” spending (not cut the rate of growth like baseline budgeting) would be a loss of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. I’m not sure what would make that happen, likely world war 3 or complete global financial collapse
What I could see happening is a true spending freeze. Re-allocate the money to meet big priorities and try to cut waste and fraud. In theory if you froze spending today and let GDP grow for 5 years or so our spending could shrink from 37.5% of GDP to something less maybe 25%? That difference should chip away at the deficit without too much “we’re setting the poor on fire!” Hyperbole.