51 ms·

i'll just address one part of your argument: do you know which of those items are taxed and which are not, and under which circumstances they are taxed? consult

i'll just address one part of your argument: do you know which of those items are taxed and which are not, and under which circumstances they are taxed? consulting an accounting text might help here (hint: some for sure, but all of them potentially can be tax free). livingston's corporate tax argument is actually pretty sound. he says raising corporate taxes (1) won't disincentive corporate job creation because corporations have long had a negligible impact on job growth, and (2) won't drive corporations overseas because they've long been majority overseas companies already and the percentage has held fairly steady over time. since corporations are people (and in some cases, more than people), let's tax them at the same rates as people. they won't be going anywhere and maybe we can build some infrastructure with the money raised and actually employ some real people while we're at it.

MR4D 9y ago
I don't need to consult an accounting text because I run a company and have to deal with it in real life. If you want obscure tax information that a fortune 100 company deals with then you'd have to go past an accounting text and into tax law anyway. For instance, companies like mine have to deal with dumb depreciation laws, which distort my buying decisions occasionally so that I don't have to depreciate equipment over some number of years. Let me just buy it and expense it - don't force me to write it off on a timeline that the govt. prefers. For instance, computers in the 1990's frequently were updated by companies every 24 months. Now it's probably twice that. Did the tax law change with it? No. And that's a distortion because it forces companies to either do something different than they otherwise would, or report something different than actions would suggest. To address #2 in particular, CNN disagrees: http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/07/news/economy/tax-advantage-inversion/ http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/07/news/economy/tax-advantage-i... Livingston can say all he wants, it doesn't mean he's right. I'll side with the hard facts instead of his argument, because his argument is not sound, and the facts are against him. If you don't believe me or CNN, then go talk with business owners - you'll find a wide range of opinions, but the majority will disagree with Livingston.

MR4D 9y ago

I don't need to consult an accounting text because I run a company and have to deal with it in real life. If you want obscure tax information that a fortune 100 company deals with then you'd have to go past an accounting text and into tax law anyway. For instance, companies like mine have to deal with dumb depreciation laws, which distort my buying decisions occasionally so that I don't have to depreciate equipment over some number of years. Let me just buy it and expense it - don't force me to write it off on a timeline that the govt. prefers. For instance, computers in the 1990's frequently were updated by companies every 24 months. Now it's probably twice that. Did the tax law change with it? No. And that's a distortion because it forces companies to either do something different than they otherwise would, or report something different than actions would suggest. To address #2 in particular, CNN disagrees: http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/07/news/economy/tax-advantage-inversion/ http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/07/news/economy/tax-advantage-i... Livingston can say all he wants, it doesn't mean he's right. I'll side with the hard facts instead of his argument, because his argument is not sound, and the facts are against him. If you don't believe me or CNN, then go talk with business owners - you'll find a wide range of opinions, but the majority will disagree with Livingston.