ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 2 of 7
< 12 3456 > Last »
Patteeu Memorial Political Forum>Manchin rejects Biden's corporate tax hike
petegz28 12:24 PM 04-05-2021
Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., said Monday that he does not support President Biden's proposed tax increases on corporations as part of a nearly $2.3 trillion spending proposal, potentially dealing a fatal blow to a key revenue raiser included in the infrastructure initiative.

Biden's plan would raise the corporate tax rate to 28% from 21% and increase the global minimum tax on U.S. companies to 21% from about 13%. The White House said the tax increases would pay for the proposed investments in the nation's roads and bridges, transit systems, schools and hospitals over the course of 15 years.

But Manchin — a moderate Democrat who has become one of the most powerful members of the 50-50 Senate — said that 28% is too high and could hurt American competitiveness. He suggested the package could be paid for by boosting the corporate rate to 25% and closing tax loopholes used by wealthy Americans to dodge taxes.

Republicans have widely rejected the sweeping economic package, meaning that Democrats will almost certainly have to pass the measure via budget reconciliation, the obscure Senate rule the party used last month to approve Biden's $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan without a single GOP vote. With narrow majorities in the House and Senate, Democrats will need to secure the support of almost every member in their party to muscle through the package.

"If I don't vote to get on it, then it's not going anywhere, so we're going to have some leverage here," Manchin said. "It's more than just me. There's six or seven other Democrats who feel very strongly about this. We have to be competitive, and we’re not going to throw caution to the wind.”

The White House has said it welcomes feedback from lawmakers on how best to address infrastructure, which is broadly viewed as a bipartisan issue in Washington.

"The president felt it was responsible to propose a way to pay for his proposals," White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Monday when asked about Manchin's comments. "That's exactly what he did. He knows some members think it's too big, some think it's too small...We fully expect that from Sen. Manchin and other members. We expect the question of how to pay for the package, if we should pay for the package, to be part of the disussion. We're open to hearing ideas."

https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/newthrea...newthread&f=30
[Reply]
Hydrae 01:31 PM 04-05-2021
Originally Posted by Donger:
Yes, it's $0.184 on gasoline and $0.244 on diesel. Generates $35 billion/year. We built the entire IHS for $500 billion.
How long ago was that? I looked it up and $1 in 1956 is the equivalent of $9.72 today (LINK). So that would cost ~$5 Trillion today and only be the IHS. :-)
[Reply]
HonestChieffan 01:34 PM 04-05-2021
Manchin will fold.
[Reply]
eDave 01:35 PM 04-05-2021
Originally Posted by HonestChieffan:
Manchin will fold.
After he is asked to come up with another solution that doesn't include taxing the shit out of the poor. 28% is a tad high, I will admit. 25% is more reasonable and still falls above the global average by a couple of points.
[Reply]
vailpass 01:37 PM 04-05-2021
Originally Posted by philfree:
My experiences aside I'm sure we could use some sort of infrastructure bill but what the Dems are doing is a bunch of bullshit. They just want to get a huge pile of cash to spend. Once they have it they'll reapportion it and spend it willy nilly. After that they'll tax the shit out of everyone and everything. You're kinda peeps.
When asked about the items in the bill that aren’t related to infrastructure, Bernie Sanders said those were for human infrastructure. Instead of honestly addressing the question he made up a new term to justify a $2 trillion spend. This is what we’re working with.
[Reply]
Donger 01:41 PM 04-05-2021
Originally Posted by Hydrae:
How long ago was that? I looked it up and $1 in 1956 is the equivalent of $9.72 today (LINK). So that would cost ~$5 Trillion today and only be the IHS. :-)
That's adjusted for inflation, but I was going from memory. I'll look it up.

Even if your number is correct, that about a $1 billion, not $5 trillion.
[Reply]
philfree 02:02 PM 04-05-2021
Originally Posted by vailpass:
When asked about the items in the bill that aren’t related to infrastructure, Bernie Sanders said those were for human infrastructure. Instead of honestly addressing the question he made up a new term to justify a $2 trillion spend. This is what we’re working with.
Yeah I saw that. It's despicable.
[Reply]
IowaHawkeyeChief 02:39 PM 04-05-2021
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
It would if tax loopholes were closed.

What's really ridiculous is the belief that lowering taxes increases revenue.
:-) If tax loopholes(deductions) are closed, will this change any behavior which would be harmful to the economy and create a smaller base?

Did tax revenue go up or down after Trump's tax cut?
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 02:46 PM 04-05-2021
Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief:
:-) If tax loopholes(deductions) are closed, will this change any behavior which would be harmful to the economy and create a smaller base?

Did tax revenue go up or down after Trump's tax cut?
Adolph is stupid to say loopholes need to be closed, they all but closed decades ago. Only ones left are charities.
[Reply]
AdolfOliverBush 02:47 PM 04-05-2021
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
Adolph is stupid to say loopholes need to be closed, they all but closed decades ago. Only ones left are charities.
Absolute horseshit.
[Reply]
AdolfOliverBush 02:48 PM 04-05-2021
Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief:
:-) If tax loopholes(deductions) are closed, will this change any behavior which would be harmful to the economy and create a smaller base?

Did tax revenue go up or down after Trump's tax cut?
So if you want more money in the bank, lower your income? :-)
[Reply]
HonestChieffan 02:49 PM 04-05-2021
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
It would if tax loopholes were closed.

What's really ridiculous is the belief that lowering taxes increases revenue.
what loopholes do you want eliminated
[Reply]
philfree 02:53 PM 04-05-2021
Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief:
:-) If tax loopholes(deductions) are closed, will this change any behavior which would be harmful to the economy and create a smaller base?

Did tax revenue go up or down after Trump's tax cut?
They went up but I bet you knew that which is why you asked these commies that question. I approve.
[Reply]
AdolfOliverBush 02:53 PM 04-05-2021
Originally Posted by HonestChieffan:
what loopholes do you want eliminated
All of them.

Some people may have a different definition of "loophole", but here's one link of many on the subject:

https://www.investopedia.com/news/ho...ng-income-tax/
[Reply]
AdolfOliverBush 02:55 PM 04-05-2021
Originally Posted by philfree:
They went up but I bet you knew that which is why you asked these commies that question. I approve.
Again, this is one link of many. If you don't like the source, there are plenty of others:

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxv...ay-itself-2018
[Reply]
petegz28 02:56 PM 04-05-2021
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
It would if tax loopholes were closed.

What's really ridiculous is the belief that lowering taxes increases revenue.
Tax revenue has never been a problem. Revenues continue to rise after tax cuts.

What's this ridiculous belief that the Fed Gov somehow spends money better than the people who make it?
[Reply]
Page 2 of 7
< 12 3456 > Last »
Up