Trump's Border Wall Funding in Trouble

By Jeralyn, Section Trump Administration
Posted on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 11:59:20 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Donald Trump was wrong when he promised America that Mexico would pay for his border wall. Then he said the U.S. would pay for it. He submitted a budget to Congress. Republicans say they probably will leave it out of the final 2017 budget. They said it's better taken up as a supplemental stand-alone bill due to the opposition to it.

Senator Roy Blunt said cash for the wall would be left out of a spending bill that must pass by 28 April to avert a partial government shutdown.

His remarks came on Tuesday after Mr Trump requested a supplemental funding bill to include money for the wall along with military programmes.

[More...]

Trump initially said the wall would cost $1.2 billion. BBC says it then went to $12 billion, while other sources say $16 billion, but the cost is more like $21 billion.

The coup de grace: Once again, Trump didn't know his as* from his elbow about the border before running his mouth. There's no way the wall will be on the U.S. side of the border. Why? We'd have to cede the Rio Grande river to Mexico.

“The border is complicated, as far as building a physical wall,” [Trump Interior Secretary Ryan] Zinke told E&E News’ Corbin Hiar. “The Rio Grande, what side of the river are you going to put the wall? We’re not going to put it on our side and cede the river to Mexico. And we’re probably not going to put it in the middle of the river....His comments are the first from a Trump administration official to suggest that the U.S. should build the wall on Mexican territory.”

So now not only would Mexico have to pay for the wall it would have to be on their side of the border? Not going to happen. Today, tomorrow or ever.

What happens to all those contract bids he put out for new border patrol uniforms and hotel stays for new recruits? If there's no money to hire the new agents, why buy the uniforms? Trump has extended the contract bids on the wall until April 4. (Did not enough reputable countries apply? I don't know the answer.)

Trump has already scaled down the size of his Yuuge wall. He started at 1,200 miles. His latest funding request is $999 million for 65 miles. And Congress won't pass that in the upcoming budget bill.

Another reason it should go down:

In addition to wall construction, the budgetary documents would also increase spending on detention facilities and legal support when it comes to the wall construction process.

As I wrote here:

If you have a few hours, check out the solicitation for bids for Homeland Security, including for the Coast Guard (down to thousands of new embroidery and medal insignias for their uniforms -what's wrong with the old ones, or is this for new hires? Plus 4,500 24 karat gold belt buckles, see the Xcel spreadsheet attached to the bid proposal -- a second spread sheet is here), stockpiles of 9 mm amunition for ICE, permanent parking spaces in LA for 60 passenger vans for ICE that have to be within .6 miles of the LA federal building and accessible 24/7, software called "Smarty Streets" that has something to do with checking addresses for immigrant students, and lots more fun stuff.

I want to know which funding request contains the cost for parking spaces for 60 ICE vans within .6 miles of the Los Angeles Federal Courthouse, accessible 24/7. That one needs to go. As do the 4,500 24k gold belt buckles.

Another Donald Trump FAIL.

< Wednesday Open Thread | U.S. to Pay $1 Million for Border Agents' Role in Violent Death of Undocumented Man >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Trump's Border Wall Funding in Trouble | 88 comments (88 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

It's the internet (5.00 / 4) (#71)
by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 01, 2017 at 11:15:51 AM EST

Did not mean to imply you can't argue with me, did mean to imply I had immersed myself in the fight for Obamacare and I remain immersed in how it succeeds and how it fails. My son was denied by Tricare a surgery that he needed in order to avoid becoming paralyzed from mid-chest down. We were in Colorado then, and the state of Colorado had a wait list for children facing life and death struggles because insurers were even denying treatments for children with cancers. That was 2004.

Did your child die because it was denied medical treatment for profit?
The wait list was so long my son would have waited a year. My uncle was a Shriner and he got a Shrine Hospital to agree to pay for the surgery. Nobody would touch Josh until they knew they would be paid. The whole system had reached redline. Thanks to my Uncle who is now dead, my son lives and walks.

If I had been on Colorado medicaid though...they had already paid for 3 other children to have the surgery. But Tricare refused my child for bigger profits. They also denied one of my best friends Humira for her rheumatoid arthritis while her husband was in combat and she had 3 children to care for. When they had my family in the pressure cooker too, my husband was in the Sunni triangle in Iraq, his son was being denied a surgery that was pretty life or death. Josh would become paralyzed first, but the scoliosis was so aggressive it probably would have killed him also.

I have lived the patient's bill of rights and the mandated required services covered. Originally Tricare was left off the patient's bill of rights and immediately the different Tricare insurers began denying military families service to generate larger profits and Congress had to amend Obamacare to cover military insurers too. There is no honor among thieves or in market based death.

If it is a stand alone bill (none / 0) (#1)
by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 12:31:10 PM EST

It is red meat for the MAGA base. Burying it in a budget clouds the distillation of "Build that Wall!" They are in so much trouble with healthcare and income inequality, race-baiting is all they have to run on with the mythical WWC voting block.

quick (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 12:50:30 PM EST

name three things T*ump ran on

muslim ban

repealing Obamacare

Border Wall

raise your hand if you dont think the latter will be strike three.

interesting thing happened yesterday. at walmart. im renovating, ok. sometimes thats the only place to go.
anyway
i ran into a friend who i worked with when i did meals on wheels. he still does. i mentioned how disturbed i was thinking of the panic and fear in all the old folks i used to deliver to during the news coverage of the threats to meals on wheels. he basically said "you want to be angry, try explaining it to them"
but then the whole thing devolved into a "whatthefu@kisupwithTrump" conversation that ended up involving others in line, cashiers and passers by.
i was surprised how angry people were.


He's in trouble (none / 0) (#4)
by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 12:55:09 PM EST

I think we in the first stages of that Howard Stern predicted mental breakdown. The first rally he has that turns out to be half full of angry people, his narcissism has nothing to feed on anymore. Either your crowd gets smaller and smaller or you start desperately handing out tickets like what happened with the inauguration.


Also, tax reform and infrastructure (none / 0) (#18)
by Green26 on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 02:20:31 PM EST

Wall isn't going to happen, and shouldn't. Loved the Rio Grande thing. Had notread that before.

Assume he will eventually get something on the immigration exec order. The second exec order was way better than the first. Doesn't seem like any of it is actually necessary.

Assume something will eventually get done on ObamaCare, but hoping that it gets done with some Dems supporting whatever is done. Dems probably will have to offset the hardcore conservatives in Repub party. Mid-term elections may force the issue.

Tax reform could be comprehensive tax reform or some pieces, like corp. tax. Not sure what he can get done. The US corporate tax is at or near the highest in the world. Too high. One of the things that pushes US companies or parts of their business and their cash offshore.

Infrastructure would get some Dem support. I like the idea, if there is money to do it.

Again, Trump and his cabinet are doing a lot of stuff more quietly, as listed in the recent WaPost article. Huge changes.

I continue to believe that Trump is the worst American in the world, other than maybe the mass murderers. The despicable person/American I have ever heard of.


High corporate taxes. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Chuck0 on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 03:37:33 PM EST

I hear this mantra all the time. Corporations don't want to pay taxes. They do inversions and move money and what have out of the country. Yet, these same corporations want to take advantage of the protections of the largest military in the world. They want to use the transportation infrastructure of the interstate highway system. I an sure there are plenty of other legal protections afforded corporations that may or may not be available to them in other countries. The US military on more than one occasion has staged rescues of employees of private corporations in foreign lands on more than one occasion. Why shouldn't corporations play for this privilege. Do you think Joe Citizen should bear the burden? The right wants to bellow about "American Greatness" yet none of them want to pay for it.


See linked article for some lists of corp. (none / 0) (#22)
by Green26 on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 03:49:42 PM EST

tax rates. US at 38.9%. Ireland at 12.5%. Ireland is a popular place for US companies to set up operations, or "move" to. Worldwide average is 22.5%. Worldwide Weighted Average is 29.5%. Many of the smaller "tax havens" don't have a corp tax.

"Conclusion

The corporate income tax rate is one of many aspects of what makes a country's tax code and economy attractive for investment. However, as the rest of the world's economies mature and their tax rates on corporate income continue to decline, the United States risks losing its competitive edge due to its exceptionally high corporate income tax rate."

Article.


What about the effective rate? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by MKS on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 04:02:07 PM EST

What do they actually pay?

With write-offs, I wonder what the true rate is.

Just like pre-Reagan the top marginal rate on personal income taxes was 70%, (and pre JFK 90%); but there were so many more deductions available, no one paid the 70%.


It's around 27.1% ... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by Yman on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 08:58:03 PM EST

... which is slightly lower than the OECD average of 27.7%.


Have you factored in state corp tax rates (none / 0) (#41)
by Green26 on Thu Mar 30, 2017 at 01:51:47 AM EST

Europe doesn't have "state" corporate taxes, to my knowledge.


It's a CBO report (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Yman on Thu Mar 30, 2017 at 08:33:21 AM EST

Those aren't my calculations. Read it and answer your own question.


I should've known (5.00 / 2) (#43)
by Yman on Thu Mar 30, 2017 at 09:22:49 AM EST

The statement of fact followed by the frequently used "as far as I know" qualifier is a sure sign that the statement is nothing more than a guess. Page 2 of the CBO Report indicates that most tax measures include both national and subnational corporate income taxes, including (in the OECD countries) the US, Canada, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Luxembourg, Portugal and Switzerland.


Thx. (none / 0) (#44)
by Green26 on Thu Mar 30, 2017 at 10:22:08 AM EST

Why is it so hard for you to just answer a legitimate question, like you just did? It's simple. Someone asks a question. If you know the answer, you answer it.

Also in the report is this, which was in the same para as your above info:

"In the United States, these taxes [i.e. taxes other than state income taxes] are imposed by the states and localities, and they include property taxes, franchise taxes, and retail sales taxes that apply to capital goods. These taxes are much more difficult to measure and are generally not included in comparative tax rate measures...."

So, in this study, state corporate income taxes induced, but multiple important taxes not included.

Here's a link to a recent article listing 8 of such taxes:

Link.


Because the "question" ... (5.00 / 3) (#45)
by Yman on Thu Mar 30, 2017 at 10:55:22 AM EST

... isn't sincere. The link I provided clearly states that subnational corporate income taxes were included, just as it clearly stated that other OECD countries (including European countries) levy such taxes. You're just trying to form an argument that the US corporate tax is too high to fit your preconceived notions. You started with the marginal rate, which is meaningless given that it didn't represent what corporations actually pay. So you moved on to local corporate taxes, an issue addressed in the report. Now you're down to "other important taxes". despite the fact that you have no idea how those taxes compare in the other OECD countries.

But if you think you can find a better comparison of effective corporate tax rates, go right ahead.


It was a sincere question (none / 0) (#48)
by Green26 on Thu Mar 30, 2017 at 11:45:54 AM EST

I hadn't read the link. Assumed you may have since you cited it.

Truly don't understand where you are coming from some of the time. How could you possibly determine that it wasn't a sincere question.

I know the US corporate tax rate is too high. I work with corporations, tax lawyers, accounting people, from staff level to CFO level, etc. everyday. I know what they think. I know the high US rate sometimes causes the companies, especially the big companies, to do. It pushes companies offshore and keeps profit and cash offshore.

If I run across better articles, I will link them. In any event, it's clear that the study you cited understates the effective rate for US corporations, due to not including multiple other taxes that can be significant. For example, companies with a lot of equipment or a lot of property (think utilities) pay huge amounts of equipment tax and property tax.


If someone provides a link (5.00 / 2) (#59)
by Yman on Thu Mar 30, 2017 at 01:01:18 PM EST

... try reading it before asking "questions" and making false claims about things which are not "to your knowledge", but are just completely fabricated.

You "know" no such thing about the corporate tax rate ... It's just your opinion. Frankly, I also couldn't care less about your usual fallback "evidence" - stories about what friends, relatives or co-workers think. Even IF the stories were true ... that's all they are.

As far a the Tax Foundation, you should read Krugman's analysis of their claims. Or just ask some of my friends and co-workers. They run the gamut from CPAs to Tax policy analysts to CFOs of Fortune 500 companies. They're the BIGLIEST in their fields! They went to Wharton and have written books, won Nobel Prizes, evoke playing Division I ball (championship teams!) and they're all former SEALS (not desk clerks!)!

That should about cover it.


: The CBO study is wrong and flawed (1.50 / 2) (#66)
by Green26 on Sat Apr 01, 2017 at 12:23:20 AM EST

Has been widely criticzied. Doesn't include all taxes. Leaves out big taxes. Not relevant to the discussion.
Krugman is into politics more than economics and numbers. He is often wrong as a result. Not a credible source much of the time.
Your friends are all desk clerks.

Article quetioning US calculation of effective (none / 0) (#52)
by Green26 on Thu Mar 30, 2017 at 11:59:59 AM EST

tax rate. Lots of articles poking holes in the US effective rate methodology.

"Key Points

The marginal effective tax rate (METR) on corporate investment (i.e., the tax impact on capital investment as a portion of the cost of capital) is 35.3 percent in the U.S.--higher than in any other developed country.

The U.S. has maintained the highest METR in the OECD since 2007, when Canada's multiyear program of corporate tax reform brought its METR below the G-7 average.

Nonetheless, the White House and Treasury Department continue to assert that the U.S. has a lower METR than Canada by failing to properly account for sales and property taxes.

The U.S. METR varies by industry, from 26.7 percent for transportation to 39.3 percent for communications."

"The U.S. Model Inaccurately Depicts U.S. Property Tax Rate Parameters"

"The U.S. Model Excludes Effective Sales Tax Rates on Capital Goods"

Really not an article (none / 0) (#46)
by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 30, 2017 at 11:02:19 AM EST

She's a business coach. All those taxes don't ALL apply to every business. My desk clerk married a small business owner. You aren't going to pay taxes as a sole proprietor, and a partnership, and an LLC :)

The taxes you pay for your employees? It's the FICA match 6.2% of the employee wages, for social security and medicare...those entitlements.


Heh, how is your Desk Clerk? (none / 0) (#62)
by MKS on Fri Mar 31, 2017 at 03:18:54 PM EST

What does the Desk Clerk think of Trump? Still a fan of Mattis? Can we trust Mattis to stop Trump from pushing the button?


: It sounds like Mattis is having (none / 0) (#64)
by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 31, 2017 at 03:56:38 PM EST

Deputy squirmishes, but winning. Armando retweeted an interview with a guy who had been an aide to Mattis once. And it seemed very balanced and on track with what the desk clerk was hearing. And the guy was still in DC, and he predicted that the Trump WH was going to attempt to place their deputies in with Mattis and Mattis would fight it. And their choices aren't even competent in the position. That seems true. I wonder who was attempting to stack Mattis'deck. I at first suspected that counter-intelligence freak Flynn. He would want regular reports on Mattis' comings and goings. I don't know if Bannon would know what to do with intel on Mattis :)
The wrong guy in DC might be nicknamed Mad Dog. The desk clerk says General McMasters is not tactful when things get serious or he's pissed. I can't imagine that you try to get Ezra Cohen out, but they make you keep him, and then he does this midnight Nunes thing...oh boy. I wish I was a fly. I wonder how he handled that? Was he all cool and then got home and threw his brief case across the room? I don't know that he can scream at Trump's family and have that be okay. He can't yell at Trump.
Not hearing anything on Syria, zip, nada

FTR, this is a real chucklehead link (none / 0) (#47)
by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 30, 2017 at 11:19:27 AM EST

To throw out there when compared to a CBO report...jusssss sayin chucklehead


CBO reports are notorious (1.00 / 1) (#49)
by Green26 on Thu Mar 30, 2017 at 11:51:36 AM EST

for not being accurate. Look at the earlier ones on ObamaCare. Totally off the mark.


No it wasn't (5.00 / 2) (#50)
by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 30, 2017 at 11:55:20 AM EST

The states that refused the medicaid expansion changed the financial outcomes and the fact that the panel that would oversee price and rate hikes never had anyone sitting on it because the Republicans blocked that. But the CBO for Obamacare was remarkably well done and close. We will always need analysis of plans. Doesn't your sniper son teach you any of that?


No, the Obama estimates (1.00 / 1) (#53)
by Green26 on Thu Mar 30, 2017 at 12:05:16 PM EST

on ObamaCare were grossly incorrect in some areas.
Way off on people who would get insurance on exchanges. Off on exchanges being successful. Off on estimating premiums. Off on number of younger and healthier people signing up. Off on number of big insurers continuing in the market.

Contrary to what you just said, their estimates were actually low on Medicaid users.

You are just making up stuff.


: No they weren't (none / 0) (#54)
by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 30, 2017 at 12:07:44 PM EST

You are just making stuff up

: And putting up "articles" (none / 0) (#56)
by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 30, 2017 at 12:10:10 PM EST

That are really just someone advertising their business coaching :)

You probably shouldn't even try to argue (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 30, 2017 at 11:59:53 AM EST

Obamacare with the desk clerk with a chronically ill child. She'll eat your lunch. You were warned.


I call you, and raise you one. (none / 0) (#55)
by Green26 on Thu Mar 30, 2017 at 12:07:55 PM EST

My chron. ill child eventually died.


: That has what to do with Obamacare? (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 30, 2017 at 12:10:48 PM EST

I've noticed that you tend ... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 30, 2017 at 08:14:21 PM EST

Green26: "CBO reports are notorious for not being accurate. Look at the earlier ones on ObamaCare. Totally off the mark."

... to label official government reports as unreliable, whenever they contain something which you don't want to hear. Suffice to say that it's difficult to play the part of soothsayer, given that a wide array of factors can skew the variables one way or another. But by and large, the folks at the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office do a remarkably good job of data analysis data and offering projections based upon it.

Aloha.


Don't recall ever saying another govt report (1.00 / 1) (#67)
by Green26 on Sat Apr 01, 2017 at 12:30:50 AM EST

was wrong on TL. You are dishonest.

However, CBO reports are often wrong and criticized.

"Don't Trust the CBO's Numbers"

Attacking the CBO with CATO (5.00 / 2) (#69)
by Yman on Sat Apr 01, 2017 at 07:26:01 AM EST

Heh - that's funny.

The CBO didn't include some taxes because they wanted an apples-for-apples comparison. They clearly stated their reasons, which were based on logic and reason, as opposed to desperately trying to cling to a conservative argument to defend one's ideological position.

BTW - Before you attack someone as "dishonest", you should be certain of your facts, as opposed to basing it on what "you recall". Not really any better than your other favorite - "as far as I know" - which we've already established was entirely false.


No, several important taxes (1.00 / 1) (#70)
by Green26 on Sat Apr 01, 2017 at 10:15:07 AM EST

were left out because the CBO felt that it was hard to get them, not for apples to apples reasons.

I stand by memory as to those posters who make up things, and are thus dishonest.

Sorry, it is just true that the US corp tax rate is too high and forces some companies to take corrective action and move business and profits offshore, where they are not taxed. The high rate makes many other places in the world a more attractive place for certain kinds of business.


Sorry, it is not "true" (none / 0) (#73)
by Yman on Sat Apr 01, 2017 at 12:36:59 PM EST

It's just another conservative' opinion - dime a dozen. I'll take an expert, non-partisan analysis over amateur, conservative, opinion every day of the week.

But adding adjectives ("important") makes you claims no more credible than when you base them on what you "remember" or what you falsely think is true, but which could be easily proven false by reading the information provided to you (i.e. no local corporate taxes in Europe), or by starting with patently flawed arguments (I.e. pointing to the marginal rate rather than the effective rate.


It's a business view not a conservative (1.00 / 1) (#76)
by Green26 on Sat Apr 01, 2017 at 04:43:58 PM EST

view. You don't have to listen. Doesn't bother me. However, I don't think you have a clue about business or corporate taxes. You are too partisan to have a clear view.

I have considerable knowledge in the corporate tax area. Have been involved in that general area for about 40 years. Some of my friends and clients are current or former CFO's of big public companies, like MSFT. I know some of the impacts of the US corporate tax structure. You can hide your head in the sand all you want, but it won't change reality.

Have you looked at the polls regarding tax reform? Very high in favor of it. Assume Trump and the Repubs can get some momentum for at least some tax "reform".


YOU are too partisan to have a clear view (none / 0) (#79)
by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 02, 2017 at 03:00:50 PM EST

Nope, you are partisan, I am independent (none / 0) (#82)
by Green26 on Sun Apr 02, 2017 at 11:14:42 PM EST

: My desk clerk is a registered Independent (none / 0) (#84)
by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 12:22:31 AM EST

You Sir are NO Independent

And misconstrued on tax reform (none / 0) (#80)
by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 02, 2017 at 05:19:15 PM EST

Recent polling shows Americans do not want tax cuts for Corporations or the wealthy. Sadly they are misinformed or willfully ignorant if they believe tax reform would bring them some relief, it will not. "Tax reform" at this point will only benefit the rich. The only tax reform that could help them is an increased taxation on Corporations and the wealthy.


73% say US tax system should be (none / 0) (#81)
by Green26 on Sun Apr 02, 2017 at 11:13:35 PM EST

reformed this year. One poll.


But the same percentage say (none / 0) (#83)
by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 12:21:22 AM EST

Corporate tax rates and taxation of the rich SHOULD NOT BE LOWERED!!!!!


82% like ice cream (none / 0) (#85)
by Yman on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 07:49:23 AM EST

Supporting "tax reform" is ely different than supporting corporate tax cu cuts or tax cuts for the wealthy. He// ... I'm in favor of "tax reform" ... let's

But nice Fox News poll. Very popular source for "independents".


22% support corporate tax cuts (none / 0) (#86)
by Yman on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 08:21:45 AM EST

18% support tax cuts for upper income Americans.

Nonetheless, there's relatively little support for the corporate rate cuts at the core of Republicans' campaign to overhaul the tax code. Only 39 percent of Trump voters believe corporate taxes should be cut, compared with 22 percent of the general public

More quotes from the linked article (none / 0) (#87)
by Green26 on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 09:51:13 AM EST

"Just over nine in 10 Trump voters think lowering corporate taxes would be very or somewhat effective at bringing jobs back to the United States, the central theme of Trump's campaign. A little over six in 10 in the general public feel that way."

"If he does do some kind of corporate tax cut, his voters wouldn't be that [upset]" since they think it would generate growth, said John Benson, a member of the Harvard research team that worked on the poll. But the push to cut business rates would come from outside the Trump constituency, he said."

"During the campaign, Trump proposed a plan that would lower corporate taxes to 15 percent from the current 35 percent. House Republicans have proposed a 20 percent rate."

I don't favor such a large cut in the corporate tax rate, but it would depend on what, if anything, was done with deductions. Even a cut to 25 or 30% would be helpful. Something has to be changed to get rid of the incentives for big corporations to keep so much of their profits and revenues offshore (and to get some of that cash taxed in the US at a reasonable and fair rate).

There's a difference between tax reform (i.e. a bigger package of tax law changes) than just cutting one tax, like corporate tax. A bundled package might have a better change of passage, judging by the polls, unless too much is bundled.

After the ObamaCare vote and with the Repubs fighting, I don't know if Trump can do as much tax reform as he was planning to do.


That's nice (none / 0) (#88)
by Yman on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 10:27:19 AM EST

But the issue was whether the public supports corporate tax cuts and/or tax cuts for the wealthy, not whether you do or whether Trump voters think it would have a good result.

Only a very small percent percentage of the public supports these cuts.


No, the main issue of the discussion was (none / 0) (#89)
by Green26 on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 10:47:51 AM EST

the high corporate tax rate and some of the negative impacts that it has. Also, the high support for tax reform, including the high number of people who believe tax cuts will create more jobs.

Your issues were something else. Tax cuts for the wealthy had nothing to do with the discussion, until some poll numbers were brought up belatedly.

Should we make a friendly wager on whether Trump gets the corporate tax rate decreased?


Actually, the subject was ... (none / 0) (#90)
by Yman on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 11:11:22 AM EST

... your strawman argument about generic support for "tax reform" in an effort to prop up your opinion about corporate tax rates. Now that we've clearly established the strawman nature of that claim, as well as the fact that there is very little support for lowering corporate taxes, we're all set.

Not sure why you want to wager about Trump's chances, since I never said they wouldn't get lowered. If you can't get them lowered with a Republican House and Senate, that's pretty pathetic. But I'll wager you he doesn't get them lowered to 15%, if that makes you feel better.


I suggested a friendly wager (none / 0) (#91)
by Green26 on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 03:02:54 PM EST

only because I think there is a decent chance the corp rate will go down, and wondered if you wanted to take the other side. Never said you thought the rate would be changed.

As you know, Congress will decide on tax reform and tax rates. While polls may influence Congress, the polls won't decide what Congress does or how Congressional compromises occur.


Looking forward to this Congress telling (none / 0) (#92)
by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 04:38:10 PM EST

The constituents to get bent. I'm tired of struggling to be the voice of common sense. I'm tired of Democrats preventing the oppositional defiant vote running us all off a cliff. Let all those people fully embrace their voting against their interests. Do it, get'er done. After all that gerrymandering, if you guys blow this in place....whew, the sheer stupidity will be astonishing. But do it. I'm tired of threats, just do it!


No, I'm good (none / 0) (#93)
by Yman on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 06:03:07 PM EST

Unless you want to bet that he won't get corporate tax rates reduced. With a Republican Congress and Senate, tax cuts should be low-hanging fruit - along with increased military spending and infrastructure spending. Of course, in the process they will ignore CBO estimates while pretending the tax cuts will magically pay for themselves (or mostly pay for themselves) through unrealistic economic growth ... SOP.


: I'm not sure that Trump always cares (none / 0) (#94)
by Green26 on Mon Apr 03, 2017 at 06:23:46 PM EST

about watching out for deficits or reducing deficits. He sometimes seems to just want to do certain things. I have a hard time figuring out what he wants and cares for at times, as he's so vague, dishonest, and flip-flopping.
I read recently in a column or opinion piece that he didn't know or care what was in TrumpCare (or RyanCare), he just wanted to win that battle and get rid of ObamaCare. Don't know if the column/opinion's point was true or not.
I can't figure out the guy. Have disliked him since I first ran across him in 1980 or so (indirectly in business).

And this CBO report admitted (none / 0) (#68)
by Green26 on Sat Apr 01, 2017 at 12:32:44 AM EST

that it didn't include important large taxes on cr orporations. It was flawed.


there is no local or regional CIT (none / 0) (#74)
by linea on Sat Apr 01, 2017 at 04:10:23 PM EST

in france:

The 2017 Act progressively reduces the CIT rate from 33.33% to 28% by 2020.

in germany:

Corporation tax is levied at a uniform rate of 15% and is then subject to a surcharge of 5.5% (solidarity levy).

in estonia:

All undistributed corporate profits are tax exempt. Distributed profits are generally subject to the 20% CIT at 20/80 of the net amount of profit distribution. However, the new government coalition has announced its plan to lower the CIT rate from 20% to 14% for companies who pay dividends on a regular basis, but only in cases where dividends are paid to legal persons.

in norway:

CIT is, in general, assessed at a rate of 24%. Certain companies within the financial sector are assessed at a CIT rate of 25%.

He said "Europe" (none / 0) (#75)
by Yman on Sat Apr 01, 2017 at 04:23:11 PM EST

Those four countries do not comprise Europe.


: that's right!! (none / 0) (#78)
by linea on Sat Apr 01, 2017 at 10:32:24 PM EST

Those four countries do not comprise Europe
europe isnt a country! and there are more than the four counties in europe. clever boy!

Don't know but have heard (none / 0) (#25)
by Green26 on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 04:23:35 PM EST

high 20's for corporate effective tax rate, and around 20% for big corporations. It's a bit hard to figure out because big companies are able to shift operations and income offshore. There is a huge amount cash of US corporations sitting offshore and not taxed in the US. Maybe a couple trillion offshore as of several years ago.

The high US corporate tax rate is a big reason that a large chunk of this cash stays offshore.


And exactly how many (5.00 / 3) (#27)
by Chuck0 on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 05:15:44 PM EST

Ship captains have been rescued by the Irish SEALs? You completely ignored the gist of my comments. The tax, IMO, is irrelevant. You get what you pay for. You want lower corporate taxes, slash the defense budget 50%. Close all the embassies around the world.


I didn't address your comment (none / 0) (#28)
by Green26 on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 05:29:14 PM EST

because it didn't seem relevant to the discussion, or worth addressing. Tax rates, profitability, and returns to shareholders are very important to corporations, especially larger and profitable corporations. Board members and senior executives owe fiduciary duties. The US tax laws help drive US companies offshore or some of their operations offshore.

If you want to see this change, then the corporate tax rate needs to be changed, along with other changes.


It's relevant.... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by kdog on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 05:55:27 PM EST

Maybe there's room for art of the deal here...corporate tax rate of 2% but corporations have to pave the roads their trucks drive on. Protect their own copyrights, trademarks, patents, etc. Can only sell their products to govt. at cost plus 2%. Provide lifetime pension and health benefits to employees. Clean up their own environmental messes.

I think I dig it.


It's a little disconcerting (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by jondee on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 06:53:17 PM EST

that folks who champion the unpatriotic idea that corporations have no duties but fiduciary duties to their shareholders should be so conflicted over the possibility that some adults and children might receive free medical care.


: Ha! (none / 0) (#37)
by MKS on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 09:21:45 PM EST

Then they are welcome to go elsewhere. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by Chuck0 on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 09:51:48 PM EST

: They have gone elsewhere (none / 0) (#40)
by Green26 on Thu Mar 30, 2017 at 01:44:46 AM EST

That's why some have gone abroad, and 2 trillion of cash is sitting outside of the US untaxed. And a handful or so of huge corporations, like GE, have not paid US corp tax for several years.

Hear hear! (none / 0) (#31)
by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 06:47:45 PM EST

The marginal rate is meaningless ... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by Yman on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 08:55:57 PM EST

... since it doesn't take into account all the deductions and write-offs those corporations have available. What matters is the effective rate - how much corporations actually pay. The top statutory tax rate of 35% in the U.S. is higher than that of 30 other OECD countries, but the average effective tax rate -- the actual rate paid after deductions and credits -- is slightly lower than our competitors.


Tax reform (none / 0) (#19)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 03:07:10 PM EST

without releasing his tax returns is questionable.

Schumer has told Trump that basically they are willing to work on health care but he has to basically be willing to enact Hillary's plan to fix Obamacare and he has to crop this repeal nonsense.

Trump's infrastructure plan is basically a plan where the government pays to build the roads and his cronies get to collect the tolls. Maybe Republicans will support it but it's unlikely Dems will.

The biggest looming thing is the debt ceiling. The freedumb caucus basically wants to blow up the country again.


Assuming exactly what (none / 0) (#30)
by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 06:43:14 PM EST

Will be done on Obamacare that Democrats will agree to do to the good people of the United States?


And, Mexico will pay for it! (none / 0) (#14)
by KeysDan on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 02:12:28 PM EST

Budget cuts of $18 billion--Medical research (NIH), infrastructure and community grants--the US budget.


And hat tip maryb2004 on Twitter (none / 0) (#2)
by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 12:50:29 PM EST

Who knew borders could be so complicated?

What will they tell the uneducated?

The Wall is a joke (none / 0) (#5)
by MKS on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 01:19:51 PM EST

Approximately half of the people here illegally overstay their Visas. And actual illegal immigration has been close to zero for years.

But the Wall is not about real things but proving to his base that the Cheeto hates brown people.

: The uneducated MAGA want a wall (none / 0) (#6)
by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 01:34:25 PM EST

They cannot conceptualize flying Mexicans :)

: Mexicans can't have planes and airports (none / 0) (#7)
by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 01:36:14 PM EST

And dentistry...why would they be stealing our jobs if they have that?

: Best described... (none / 0) (#13)
by kdog on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 02:05:30 PM EST

as a Great Wall of Feelings. Bad feelings.

: There are days (none / 0) (#16)
by KeysDan on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 02:15:39 PM EST

when I think the US electorate was conned. If we enrolled in Trump U., we would at least have gotten a diploma, or "diploma."

i was reading something (none / 0) (#8)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 01:37:53 PM EST

the other day that a few months ago i would have laughed at that the wall is not to keep people out.

It's decorative? (none / 0) (#9)
by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 01:46:34 PM EST

Our HOA requires it?


that or (none / 0) (#10)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 01:52:22 PM EST

"In an effort to stem the tide of refugees attempting to leave East Berlin, the communist government of East Germany begins building the Berlin Wall to divide East and West Berlin. Construction of the wall caused a short-term crisis in U.S.-Soviet bloc relations, and the wall itself came to symbolize the Cold War."


There's a Brietbart story in there (none / 0) (#11)
by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 01:56:02 PM EST

Trump's at 35%, the next President is going to be Julian Castro and he has plans for white people :)


"white genocide" (none / 0) (#17)
by jondee on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 02:19:49 PM EST

is a big issue with the not-so-Breitbart crowd.

They're like the nativists in Gangs of New York.

How's about if we make the issue what it means to be a good person and a good citizen, rather than obsessing about our tribe being under seige by their tribe?

What an earth-shattering concept.


: Seems to be difficult for a lot of us (none / 0) (#39)
by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 10:04:16 PM EST

To embrace, humanity first. There is a white panic out there that some won't even admit to. I still don't know what to make of that.

or (none / 0) (#12)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 01:59:57 PM EST

"In an effort to stem the tide of refugees attempting to leave the former United States, the Great America Front begins building the Southern Wall to divide North and South America. Construction of the wall caused a short-term crisis in Russia bloc relations, and the wall itself came to symbolize the period of the cold War."

go on. tell me im being hyperbolic.


: I think with some creative writing (none / 0) (#15)
by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 02:13:22 PM EST

And some bots...we have a new website getting a whole lot of paranoid traffic.
I can't tell Captain. I live someplace that wants to be walled in and prevent the next door neighbor from developing differing opinions.

Seriously (none / 0) (#20)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 03:15:15 PM EST

there have been people walking through snow etc. to get to Canada. I'm not sure what happened after that but they were afraid that Trump was going to have them "disappeared".

As far as trying to escape to Mexico well, if you've got the means to get a passport that's relatively easy. However those that don't have the means and attempt to get into Mexico by climbing over a wall I'm guessing they are going to be shot.


It continues (none / 0) (#23)
by Towanda on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 04:00:39 PM EST

up here, near the other border. More than a thousand refugees to freedom from the U.S. now.

We call it the new Underground Railroad.


Thanks for letting me know (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 05:13:41 PM EST

that. It's not exactly making the news here in GA.


The the Georgia media (none / 0) (#32)
by Towanda on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 06:48:08 PM EST

and you are missing out on some heartbreaking stories -- if also heartwarming, about tiny Canadian border towns again welcoming fugitives from the U.S.


: We are hearing (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 29, 2017 at 07:03:48 PM EST

about the families being torn apart here in GA though. The stories you are talking about should be on the national news though.