Mr. Donald Trump and/or Mrs. Hillary Clinton should distinguish between corporate and personal taxes

Get it out! Tell us what you think SHOULD happen (or not) in the world of politics!

What do you think should happen to taxes?

You may select up to 2 options

View results

Posts: 26
Joined: Sun May 29, 2016 11:16 am

Mr. Donald Trump and/or Mrs. Hillary Clinton should distinguish between corporate and personal taxes

Post by CataCluj » Mon Oct 10, 2016 10:54 pm

I am not an authority on politics/economics, nor have I seen/read/heard all that was said on the subject, so what I have to say may have been said before; however this is what I think:

I do agree with Mr. Trump that reducing corporate taxes (coupled with new import taxes) might help keep business in the US and might even bring some back; BUT I think personal taxes for the rich should increase progressively AND any "tricks/loopholes" should be eliminated as much as possible.
I think the rich nowadays are too greedy and any "trickle-down" they may do is too little. After all, "they" did everything they could, including displacing entire industries for short term bonuses, salaries, benefits, pretending it's "shareholder value".
One has to wonder: where they so short-sighted and stupid, or just greedy and selfish?
I think any personal taxes, including estate, should grow much higher as the amounts involved reach into many millions and billions.
Maybe lower business taxes may motivate the rich to leave the money in the corporations for growth or even profit sharing.

If the rich don't like it and say they'll leave the country; let them go: Tax the money going out of the country to them, from the companies that stay in the country because corporate taxes are low :-)

I also didn't hear Mrs. Clinton saying that while personal taxes for the rich should go up, there may be a case for lowering business taxes.

What am I missing; why do these people feel that it should be all up or down?

Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 10:22 am

Re: Mr. Donald Trump and/or Mrs. Hillary Clinton should distinguish between corporate and personal taxes

Post by FAQbala » Tue Oct 11, 2016 2:20 pm

The U.S. taxes worldwide income regardless of residency on its citizens. So if you are living in Hong Kong, for example, you pay Hong Kong tax. If they tax you less than the U.S. than you would have paid, you need to pay the U.S. the difference.

If you want to completely avoid paying the US tax completely, you have to kind of one way or another renounce your US citizenship. That has some implications, obviously, including not being automatically able to enter the US. Maybe not profound enough because permanent residency would allow you to stay and work in the U.S..

But then you would need to meet certain residency requirement which itself automatically subject you to some tax requirement at least for the days of the years you are inside the country.

All these may push the riches to pay themselves via a less personal method such as dividend, stock options and etc.

But then none of those can be easily hidden from companies' balance sheet. Actually usually none can exist without a profitable business (unless you are Amazon, even Amazon is profitable now, isn't it?).

Route back to the original argument: the rise in the riches' personal tax is not enough to drive them out of the country. After all this is the only country with the such amount of middle class with purchasing power. Where else in the world would you have 2 Starbucks, 1 Wal-Mart, 1 whole food and 3 restaurants all in walking distance and full of people?

Post Reply