Indeed, and related to that is the fact individual's tax burden has gone up to compensate for corporations going down.

I don't understand. If the corporate tax rate is a percentage of profits, how can a higher tax rate as a percentage of corporate profits be lower than somewhere else ? I understand what you are saying is that because of lobbying some companies have deductions that effectively lower their profits and thus have a lower effective tax rate, then I understand.

That doesn't change the fact that US corporate taxes are higher than many of our competitors, and the regulatory burden is often much higher than other countries- and often regulations that make no sense.

Yes the priorities often are ridiculous- subsidies to large multinationals that are exporting, in one famous example Coca Cola got advertising subsidies as if they need the help. Farmers paid to dump food or not grow crops. In the Midwest one often sees small towns concerned about declining education results, so they build multi-million dollar schools - as if a more fancy building itself will raise education standards, while up to a half of storefronts are empty and houses falling apart and some just need to be bulldozed. I could go on and on.

I agree there are many aspects to the tax codes that give benefits to one industry over another in terms of what is deductible or taxable. But in general US corporate taxes are higher than many of our competitors, and when combined with the regulatory burden, these are some of the actors pushing companies to move production or investment elsewhere.

I think this is yet another case of him opening his big mouth and sticking both feet in it. Then of course the Dems run with it putting their own spin on it.

I would say that wages being higher in the US than elsewhere is a bigger reason for production moving. I don't think any corporate tax rate would change that.

Yes, that is what I am saying. I should have said "But its corporate tax take..." in the second sentence. And because those deductions are often arbitrary and merely the result of lobbying $$$ rather than logic, the result is a very uneven playing field between differing companies.

In terms of the percentage of GDP that ends up as corporate taxes, the US is in the middle of the pack of OECD countries.

Or you see schools with incredible sports facilities but crap other buildings/facilities/programs etc.

You need to look closely at KC, the Missouri side used to lag well behind the Kansas side. Not any more.

Kansas City Area Employment – May 2016 : Mountain–Plains Information Office : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

"“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”

Not sure it needs much spin to be troubled by those remarks.

Wages are just one factor.

A lot depends on the industry, and on productivity. To give an example- I was working in a business where an analysis was necessary to determine whether to open an operation in Mexico. The average wages in the US for the same work were up to 5 times the wage in Mexico, but in that sector American workers were more productive, so when factoring that in the American wage costs was only 3 times that in Mexico.

But then was factored in the lower tax rate Mexico offered, and the state government bending over backwards to help, the investment made sense. Permits that could take years in the states could be received in 6 months- and part of the reason was it was non-adversarial. Regulators would come to the office and help in drafting the permit proposals, top state officials would continually visit to ask what they could do to help.

Some industries like textiles the wage factor could be more important, but lower wages not always the main factor.

Also, in Mexico if someone had the equivalent of a high school diploma there was little worry of their basic math skills- in the states someone with a high school diploma only we would usually require they take a math test.

How did I know you would say that?

Do you think my comment is inaccurate and if so why?

Putting aside Mr Trump's big mouth for a moment.

Am I the only one who was expecting President Obama to be highly targeted by nut jobs who didn't like the idea of a black man in the white house?

I would suspect that in any comparison of different regions there are many factors that would need to be considered in addition to government policies. For example, if Texas under Republican governor does well at a time oil prices were high, that doesn't mean the Republican governor takes the credit.

The overall economic trends both the Republicans and the Democrats have some responsibility for , as for last 20 to 30 years their have been Presidents and Congresses of both parties. Bush ran up a $8 trillion dollar debt on the Federal level, and Obama doubled it. While one side or the other may be more responsible, the overall establishment in both parties seem to be unable craft and implement solutions to the current situation.

I get so fed up with that bullshit argument..a Republican mantra. The corporate tax rate..and the effective tax rate (%of taxes actually paid) are vastly different numbers.

Citizens for Tax Justice’s survey of 288 corporations, which included most of the Fortune 500 corporations that were profitable each year from 2008 through 2012, found that they paid an average effective federal tax rate of just 19.4% over that period.
Of 125 corporations in that study that had significant foreign profits, 82 (two-thirds) paid a higher effective rate to foreign governments than they paid to the U.S.

Corporate share of federal tax revenue has dropped by two-thirds in 60 years — from 32% in 1952 to 10% in 2013.
General Electric, Boeing, Verizon and 23 other profitable Fortune 500 firms paid no federal income taxes from 2008 to 2012.
288 big and profitable Fortune 500 corporations paid an average effective federal tax rate of just 19.4% from 2008 to 2012.
Profitable corporations paid U.S. income taxes amounting to just 12.6% of worldwide income in 2010.
U.S. corporations dodge $90 billion a year in income taxes by shifting profits to subsidiaries — often no more than post office boxes — in tax havens.
U.S. corporations officially hold $2.1 trillion in profits offshore — much of it in tax havens — that have not yet been taxed here.

General Electric, Boeing, Priceline.com, Verizon and 22 other profitable Fortune 500 firms paid no federal income taxes from 2008 through 2012, according to Citizens for Tax Justice.
111 profitable Fortune 500 firms paid zero federal taxes in at least one of those five years.
General Electric, one of the most notorious corporate tax dodgers, got $3.1 billion in refunds on $27.5 billion in profits from 2008 to 2012. The company paid less in federal income taxes in five years than a single American family pays in one year.

It's accepted that he's been the most targeted president in our history. It's difficult to get information about and something that hasn't been publically discussed since the 2008 election.