David Fridley

President
2 years ago
David Fridley
President
In the Problem it says: ...yet we collect less corporate tax revenue as a share of gross domestic product than many of our trading partners.

This seems like a very powerful statement, but is it true? I have not heard this before, and I do not see any supporting detail. Also, I do not see the supporting graph of this like the on that shows the corporate tax rate. But I think this would be a compelling reason for more people engaged.
See more
David Fridley
President
Could we consider other problems like economic stability when redesigning the corporate tax structure? In business, in deciding salaries, there is a term: "you get what you incent". Can we consider other problems related to the national economy and design in the ability to incent what we want to have happen. Here are some examples:

As a nation, when people get laid off, it costs us money in terms of social programs to support them and hopefully getting them back into work force. Could we provide incentives that reward companies for not laying off people. For example, that 15% minimum could get a 10% discount (to 13.5%) for business that have not laid anyone off in the last 10 (or so) years.

As a nation, we are have a problem with the growth in the cost of healthcare relative to the growth in people's salaries, and this is especially hard at the low income level. As a nation, we end up footing the bill for these people through social programs and through higher costs because of providers distribution uncollected depts. onto what they bill everyone else. What if we created a Healthcare Adjustment Tax for Corporations that was directly related to the cost of healthcare v. the average wage. So, if the average cost of healthcare was more than 10% the average wage (for example), then the Healthcare Adjustment Tax would kick in. But if the average cost of healthcare was less than 10% of the average wage (again 10% is an example that might not be the right number), then there would not be a Healthcare Adjustment Tax. And the Healthcare Adjustment tax could be a 10% (for example) increase to 16.5%. The expected result of this would be more pressure to increase wages at the lower end, as well as more pressure and hopefully innovation, in controlling the growth of healthcare costs.

I'm not saying these are the perfect proposals, and the experts may have more info and better ideas on this, but can we build it in.

Right now I would say that our tax system is incenting corporations to leave the country and to recognize as much as they can out of the country. But as we correct that incentive, should we also consider high level incentives to motivate more economic stability. The choice of a 15% tax rate, seems completely arbitrary but if we put some thought into how the tax rate is decided and used it to incent outcomes that would benefit us all, wouldn't that be better?



See more
David Fridley
President
Even if people could get a tax credit of $100 and they knew about it, and it was easy to get, it's won't make a difference. Elected federal representatives need to raise so much money that they focus their time on those who can go much much higher.

We need a bigger, more innovative solutions:

What if we required the candidates to only raise money from their constituents
What if we put in term limits (like 1 or 2). After representatives have reached the limit, they don't have to worry about raising money any more, and then they wouldn't need to focus their time listening to big donors.
What if we put in limits on when representatives could collect contributions to XX months before the election.
What if we made a rule where candidates couldn't spend money trying to get elected - everything had to be volunteer or through free social media.

I'm not saying any of these are good ideas, but I'm saying we should engage the innovative juices of America in finding solutions that will make much more difference. $100 is too small to make a difference, lets think outside the box.




See more
David Fridley
President
Why did you choose to lower the corporate income tax rate to 15% instead of 20% like the UK. Should we be lower than our trading partners? Should there be some system of adjusting this rate based on moves that other countries make? If the argument is that we are losing tax revenue because it's cheaper to recognize the profit in another country then wouldn't then might the effected countries react if we lowered our rate and the revenue shifted out of there country? Also it seems like the US as a safe place to invest could charge some premium. If the tax rate were the same would you choose to invest in the US or Venezuela?

One thing that I see is that governments tend to compromise on a number without thoughtful calculations on why it should be that number and not some other number, and they don't build in the mechanisms for the number to change when the reasons change.
See more

David hasn't commented yet.

2 years ago
David Fridley
President
Why did you choose to lower the corporate income tax rate to 15% instead of 20% like the UK. Should we be lower than our trading partners? Should there be some system of adjusting this rate based on moves that other countries make? If the argument is that we are losing tax revenue because it's cheaper to recognize the profit in another country then wouldn't then might the effected countries react if we lowered our rate and the revenue shifted out of there country? Also it seems like the US as a safe place to invest could charge some premium. If the tax rate were the same would you choose to invest in the US or Venezuela?

One thing that I see is that governments tend to compromise on a number without thoughtful calculations on why it should be that number and not some other number, and they don't build in the mechanisms for the number to change when the reasons change.
See more

David hasn't commented yet.

2 years ago
David Fridley
President
In the Problem it says: ...yet we collect less corporate tax revenue as a share of gross domestic product than many of our trading partners.

This seems like a very powerful statement, but is it true? I have not heard this before, and I do not see any supporting detail. Also, I do not see the supporting graph of this like the on that shows the corporate tax rate. But I think this would be a compelling reason for more people engaged.
See more
David Fridley
President
Could we consider other problems like economic stability when redesigning the corporate tax structure? In business, in deciding salaries, there is a term: "you get what you incent". Can we consider other problems related to the national economy and design in the ability to incent what we want to have happen. Here are some examples:

As a nation, when people get laid off, it costs us money in terms of social programs to support them and hopefully getting them back into work force. Could we provide incentives that reward companies for not laying off people. For example, that 15% minimum could get a 10% discount (to 13.5%) for business that have not laid anyone off in the last 10 (or so) years.

As a nation, we are have a problem with the growth in the cost of healthcare relative to the growth in people's salaries, and this is especially hard at the low income level. As a nation, we end up footing the bill for these people through social programs and through higher costs because of providers distribution uncollected depts. onto what they bill everyone else. What if we created a Healthcare Adjustment Tax for Corporations that was directly related to the cost of healthcare v. the average wage. So, if the average cost of healthcare was more than 10% the average wage (for example), then the Healthcare Adjustment Tax would kick in. But if the average cost of healthcare was less than 10% of the average wage (again 10% is an example that might not be the right number), then there would not be a Healthcare Adjustment Tax. And the Healthcare Adjustment tax could be a 10% (for example) increase to 16.5%. The expected result of this would be more pressure to increase wages at the lower end, as well as more pressure and hopefully innovation, in controlling the growth of healthcare costs.

I'm not saying these are the perfect proposals, and the experts may have more info and better ideas on this, but can we build it in.

Right now I would say that our tax system is incenting corporations to leave the country and to recognize as much as they can out of the country. But as we correct that incentive, should we also consider high level incentives to motivate more economic stability. The choice of a 15% tax rate, seems completely arbitrary but if we put some thought into how the tax rate is decided and used it to incent outcomes that would benefit us all, wouldn't that be better?



See more
David Fridley
President
Even if people could get a tax credit of $100 and they knew about it, and it was easy to get, it's won't make a difference. Elected federal representatives need to raise so much money that they focus their time on those who can go much much higher.

We need a bigger, more innovative solutions:

What if we required the candidates to only raise money from their constituents
What if we put in term limits (like 1 or 2). After representatives have reached the limit, they don't have to worry about raising money any more, and then they wouldn't need to focus their time listening to big donors.
What if we put in limits on when representatives could collect contributions to XX months before the election.
What if we made a rule where candidates couldn't spend money trying to get elected - everything had to be volunteer or through free social media.

I'm not saying any of these are good ideas, but I'm saying we should engage the innovative juices of America in finding solutions that will make much more difference. $100 is too small to make a difference, lets think outside the box.




See more

David hasn't suggested anything yet.

David hasn't shared any story yet.