Trump Effects

[Butch]

20 minutes ago, swansont said:

Repeating this is not a substitute for a substantive argument.

As well as the wages you pay (which are tax-deductible). You have more incentive to raise wages if there is a tax in place.

 

What about that substantive argument, a tax deduction does not return the entire cost, so where is the incentive?

22 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

And your sales tax proposal wouldn't be?

Yes, but at least people would see how much they are actually paying towards government waste!

25 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

The corporations you don't think should pay taxes aren't.

Agreed!

17 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I get it. I would have to figure tax into everything I buy.

But what's the difference? The government gets the same amount of tax revenue whether they get it from individuals or businesses, and it is a lot simpler to get it from the much smaller number of businesses.

Similarly, I don't know why we would give a tax break to businesses to stimulate the economy. If you want to stimulate the economy, give that $1.6 trillion to the tax payers. They will spend most of it, which will cause businesses to have to hire more people and pay higher wages. Trickle Up Economics!

Because it would repatriate business, creating increased revenue and jobs!

[swansont]

4 minutes ago, Butch said:

What about that substantive argument, a tax deduction does not return the entire cost, so where is the incentive?!

Raising pay by $1000 costs $650 if you have a 35% tax rate.

this is one reason companies are paying out bonuses now. They can save $350 per thousand. If they wait until next year, they only get $200 in savings.

this is in the context of needing to pay people in order to retain them as employees. 

 

[Butch]

12 hours ago, swansont said:

Raising pay by $1000 costs $650 if you have a 35% tax rate.

this is one reason companies are paying out bonuses now. They can save $350 per thousand. If they wait until next year, they only get $200 in savings.

 

If they are going to give raises and/or bonuses it is best they do it now, and that is because taxes are being cut.

12 hours ago, swansont said:

this is in the context of needing to pay people in order to retain them as employees. 

Sounds like free enterprise capitalism.

[swansont]

1 minute ago, Butch said:

If they are going to give raises and/or bonuses it is best they do it now, and that is because taxes are being cut.

Sounds like free enterprise capitalism.

Right. So what's the context of your BS argument? Money doesn't magically appear in an employee's pocket. It is paid to them. It's not their money until that happens. the point you pick in the monetary cycle to say "the money belongs to X" is arbitrary.

[waitforufo]

22 hours ago, iNow said:

A better question is who pays FOR these cuts that they neither needed nor requested. A few facts are helpful here to understand context. 

The headline corporate tax rate was 35%. With loopholes and accounting gimmicks, actual corporate taxes paid was closer to a 20% rate. 

Corporations were only asking for a cut to their headline tax rate from 35% to 29%, but we gave them an even bigger cut and made the headline rate 21%. We did so without closing any of the existing loopholes. In fact, most analyses show that the number of loopholes has actually increased with this bill. 

That means corporate taxes have a new effective rate closer to 10%. 

Now, the core argument is that corporations will suddenly go gangbusters and hire a bunch of people and give all employees a huge raise now that they have all this extra cash available. However, corporations are already sitting on record cash reserves, they’re overloaded with cash yet wages continue to stay flat and hiring remains muted.

This suggests a lack of cash isn’t the problem, and further tax cuts are unlikely to help. What’s likely to happen is this extra money will be used for stock buybacks to inflate their stock prices, coupled with bonuses to executives.

We also know that other countries will retaliate by adjusting their own corporate taxes and the benfit were hoping for here I the US will be diminished. It will become a race to the bottom, amd all of us individuals and workers here in the US and around the globe will unnecessarily suffer and lose opportunities.

If the goal was to help us workers and to assist the middle class, a better approach would’ve been to give the huge rate cut directly to us, not to the corporations with our fingers crossed... just hoping/wishing/praying that they’ll use it to pay workers more. The only reason they would is due to kindness and good natures, but those are uncommon in the cutthroat world of business where quarterly profit takes priority above all else. There are simply no provisions in the bill mandating that corporations use this money to increase wages or jobs so (while a tiny fraction might) most wont. 

Corprations asked for 29%. They got 21%. Why not just cut out the middle man and give that extra 8% directly to us? It’s because we’re being sold a lie, that’s why  

This was a giant giveaway to rich friends and donors, and next they’ll claim a desperate need to “fix the deficit and debt”...the same deficit they just completely exploded with the tax bill... by cutting our Medicare, Medicaid, social security, and investment in schools, roads, and related infrastructure that all of us at all income levels depend so heavily upon.

So, as I stated at the beginning of this post... A much better question than “who pays corporate taxes” is instead who pays FOR these cuts that corporations neither needed nor requested? The answer is you and me, brother. Sad. 

iNow, I have no doubt that you would like to see a prosperous economy which provides a path for all Americans to reach comfortable prosperity.  Your problem is that you can only see a government directed path. To achieve comfortable prosperity we need to grow the economy create jobs, and compete and win in world markets.  Sure capitalism is a free for all with winners and losers, but if the majority win, aren't things better for the nation? 

Here is what I have seen from the government path to economic growth.  Targeted tax cuts.   The problem with targeted tax cuts is that no one is placed in the bulls-eye of these tax cuts.  Also, so much government regulation that the cost to actually profit from investing is impossible.   Heaven forbid that that one more molecule of C02 be produced or that a hole be drilled or dug in the ground.  Somehow you are blind to the losers on the government path.  My guess is that since you believe you have good intentions those losers don't count.

Do you ever think of the people you are holding back?  Do you care? 

I know I point this out to you frequently, but reread your quoted text above and do an envy check.  

[Raider5678]

2 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

iNow, I have no doubt that you would like to see a prosperous economy which provides a path for all Americans to reach comfortable prosperity.  Your problem is that you can only see a government directed path. To achieve comfortable prosperity we need to grow the economy create jobs, and compete and win in world markets.  Sure capitalism is a free for all with winners and losers, but if the majority win, aren't things better for the nation? 

3

But the majority, in this case, is only 0.5%.

I disagree when they try to sell me that 99.5% is the minority and that the majority will benefit 

 

[dimreepr]

13 hours ago, Butch said:

a tax deduction does not return the entire cost, so where is the incentive?

 

Way to miss the entire point of tax. Where is the incentive for a business to build something that benefits other business'?

11 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Your problem is that you can only see a government directed path. To achieve comfortable prosperity we need to grow the economy create jobs, and compete and win in world markets.  Sure capitalism is a free for all with winners and losers, but if the majority win, aren't things better for the nation? 

2

Your problem is you think America can do this alone, separate from the rest of humanity and without leadership or the tax implications. Capitalism includes taxes because shit has to happen, the problem is the failure to understand, whoever you vote for you'll always get the government. 

[Butch]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Right. So what's the context of your BS argument? Money doesn't magically appear in an employee's pocket. It is paid to them. It's not their money until that happens. the point you pick in the monetary cycle to say "the money belongs to X" is arbitrary.

I am in favor of fec, next year however if there is not a tax cut business will not have that incentive. The only real incentive is paying to keep good people.

I don't see your point about my "BS argument" cutting taxes on business will benefit everybody in this country, it will also encourage workers to strike out on their own. 

33 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Way to miss the entire point of tax. Where is the incentive for a business to build something that benefits other business'?

Your problem is you think America can do this alone, separate from the rest of humanity and without leadership or the tax implications. Capitalism includes taxes because shit has to happen, the problem is the failure to understand, whoever you vote for you'll always get the government. 

America is a world leader.

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Butch said:

America is a world leader.

 

Maybe Today, but if it doesn't tax and invest for tomorrow, nope...

[Phi for All]

43 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Your problem is you think America can do this alone, separate from the rest of humanity and without leadership or the tax implications. Capitalism includes taxes because shit has to happen, the problem is the failure to understand, whoever you vote for you'll always get the government. 

Many Americans choose to forget that the paths they've chosen to fulfill their dreams were well-paved before they got there. They pretend they pulled themselves up by the bootstraps with nobody's help, while driving on roads in established towns and cities and learning in schools and libraries paid for by a social culture with high ideals. Most of the greatest things about this society are group efforts, but when they want to deny aid to those they consider unworthy, these folks start talking about laziness and bootstraps.

It's weird, because these folks aren't basically selfish, but I think they all have a "hunker-down" mentality when it comes to the government (duck your head and try not to be noticed). They take pride in not going on the dole, and resent those who seek help from social programs. I understand why, but I think it's an incredibly obtuse way to think about a whole country. Just because you drew a good card in the "Where will you grow up?" lottery, why vilify those who didn't? This mentality makes it easy to believe the billionaire leader who tells you giving aid to people in need creates dependency.  

[Butch]

There 

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Many Americans choose to forget that the paths they've chosen to fulfill their dreams were well-paved before they got there. They pretend they pulled themselves up by the bootstraps with nobody's help, while driving on roads in established towns and cities and learning in schools and libraries paid for by a social culture with high ideals. Most of the greatest things about this society are group efforts, but when they want to deny aid to those they consider unworthy, these folks start talking about laziness and bootstraps.

It's weird, because these folks aren't basically selfish, but I think they all have a "hunker-down" mentality when it comes to the government. They take pride in not going on the dole, and resent those who seek help from social programs. I understand why, but I think it's an incredibly obtuse way to think about a whole country. Just because you drew a good card in the "Where will you grow up?" lottery, why vilify those who didn't? This mentality makes it easy to believe the billionaire leader who tells you giving aid to people in need creates dependency.  

The problem with the "dole" is the government does a poor, but expensive job of administering it. It was much better accomplished when neighbor helped neighbor... Since the creation of the "Great society" it has gotten to the point of neighbor doesn't even know neighbor.

[Phi for All]

28 minutes ago, Butch said:

The problem with the "dole" is the government does a poor, but expensive job of administering it. It was much better accomplished when neighbor helped neighbor... Since the creation of the "Great society" it has gotten to the point of neighbor doesn't even know neighbor.

Take it one... step... further, and realize that the "poor, but expensive job of administering it" has largely been engineered by the Republicans to make it look bad so they can reduce/remove it. It's like stepping on someone's throat and then pointing out how the lazy bastard won't even try to get up. You can't accurately judge the value of a program when those who don't believe in it are in charge of it. 

They've done the same with every program that could help the vast majority, especially health, education, and welfare. Make them look bad so they can opt out of doing their part to pay for them.

I have an idea! Why don't we actually try to make healthcare, education, and welfare effective by removing all the hobbles the GOP have placed on them, and see if that doesn't make things better? It works in reality all the time. You come up with a great idea, get smart people to make it happen, and work hard to make it the best it can be.

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, Butch said:

 

America is a world leader.

You can't "lead" if you are going in the wrong direction.

 

1 hour ago, waitforufo said:

iNow, I have no doubt that you would like to see a prosperous economy which provides a path for all Americans to reach comfortable prosperity.  Your problem is that you can only see a government directed path. To achieve comfortable prosperity we need to grow the economy create jobs, and compete and win in world markets.  Sure capitalism is a free for all with winners and losers, but if the majority win, aren't things better for the nation? 

Here is what I have seen from the government path to economic growth.  Targeted tax cuts.   The problem with targeted tax cuts is that no one is placed in the bulls-eye of these tax cuts.  Also, so much government regulation that the cost to actually profit from investing is impossible.   Heaven forbid that that one more molecule of C02 be produced or that a hole be drilled or dug in the ground.  Somehow you are blind to the losers on the government path.  My guess is that since you believe you have good intentions those losers don't count.

" Your problem is that you can only see a government directed path."
Historically, that's the one that actually worked.

"To achieve comfortable prosperity we need to grow the economy create jobs,"

Great idea- guess what sort of government actually does it better- as a matter of historical record.

 

"Sure capitalism is a free for all with winners and losers, but if the majority win, aren't things better for the nation? "

That's a mighty big "if".

Since, in fact, only a small fraction "win" under capitalism it isn't "better for the nation"

 

[StringJunky]

39 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

You can't "lead" if you are going in the wrong direction.

 

" Your problem is that you can only see a government directed path."
Historically, that's the one that actually worked.

"To achieve comfortable prosperity we need to grow the economy create jobs,"

Great idea- guess what sort of government actually does it better- as a matter of historical record.

 

"Sure capitalism is a free for all with winners and losers, but if the majority win, aren't things better for the nation? "

That's a mighty big "if".

Since, in fact, only a small fraction "win" under capitalism it isn't "better for the nation"

 

If the available pot is finite then capitalism can only give more to fewer. There can be no equality in those areas where it applies.

[rangerx]

2 hours ago, Butch said:

America is a world leader.

Maybe to other Americans, but not to the rest of the world. America has isolated itself, oblivious to the fact Trump followers are little more than propaganda parrots, at any cost.

[Raider5678]

20 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Maybe to other Americans, but not to the rest of the world. America has isolated itself, oblivious to the fact Trump followers are little more than propaganda parrots, at any cost.

Actually, to everyone in the known world.

No matter how much you yourself might refuse to accept it, America is definitely a leader in military and economic terms. Maybe not the #1 leader, but then again no country is number 1. 

[rangerx]

10 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Actually, to everyone in the known world.

No matter how much you yourself might refuse to accept it, America is definitely a leader in military and economic terms. Maybe not the #1 leader, but then again no country is number 1. 

Armies don't make Trump's lies true. The American economy favors the rich and penalizes the poor. America is among the worst for healthcare, education and self slaughter from improper gun handling. Americans are prisoners in their own home. There's not enough locks or guns to protect yourselves from yourselves.

America is no leader. Certainly not mine.

 

 

[Raider5678]

20 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Armies don't make Trump's lies true. The American economy favors the rich and penalizes the poor. America is among the worst for healthcare, education and self slaughter from improper gun handling. Americans are prisoners in their own home. There's not enough locks or guns to protect yourselves from yourselves.

America is no leader. Certainly not mine.

1

Okay? That's not what I said.

America is a world leader because they're powerful.

I didn't say they're good, I said they're a world leader.

 

Additionally, while our poor do struggle, they're definitely a lot better off compared to the majority of the world. 

 

I've been to countries like Brazil, and they have a lot more poor people then you can possibly believe. I saw children running around in dumps(literal, actual, garbage dumps.) barefoot trying to find food. They don't stay in the cities because the police drive them away, another thing that is common over there but isn't really talked about much.

And their wealth gap? 6 men have more money then the lower 50% of all of Brazil. 

America is definitely not the number 1 country, again. However, it's still well above most of the world.

 

 

Edited December 28, 2017 by Raider5678

[Phi for All]

45 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

No matter how much you yourself might refuse to accept it, America is definitely a leader in military and economic terms. Maybe not the #1 leader, but then again no country is number 1. 

So we lead by intimidation and extortion? We've done much better.

21 minutes ago, rangerx said:

America is no leader. Certainly not mine.

And this is a definite negative effect. We've historically cultivated a competent, heroic image of world leadership, but now much of the world sees the guiding, helpful American hands retreating into our own pockets, removing the support we used to give freely as an example of modern democracy.

[Raider5678]

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

So we lead by intimidation and extortion? We've done much better.

 

I'm sure you'd agree America is powerful.

Economically, we have the largest GDP.

Militarily, we have the most advanced military. And in my opinion, probably one of the best due to how much we spend on it. 

Politically, throughout the world, America definitely has influence. A lot of it.

 

We're a world leader because we have more say in global matter's then most countries.

But we're not the only world leader either.

 

 

 

[rangerx]

6 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I'm sure you'd agree America is powerful.

Economically, we have the largest GDP.

Militarily, we have the most advanced military. And in my opinion, probably one of the best due to how much we spend on it. 

Politically, throughout the world, America definitely has influence. A lot of it.

 

We're a world leader because we have more say in global matter's then most countries.

But we're not the only world leader either.

 

 

 

Nobody disputes America's military might. It's current leadership that leaves little to be desired.

Globally, America is diminished in it's trustworthiness. No amount of rhetoric will change that any time soon, other than for the worse.

[Ten oz]

31 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I've been to countries like Brazil, and they have a lot more poor people then you can possibly believe. I saw children running around in dumps(literal, actual, garbage dumps.) barefoot trying to find food. They don't stay in the cities because the police drive them away, another thing that is common over there but isn't really talked about much.

And their wealth gap? 6 men have more money then the lower 50% of all of Brazil. 

America is definitely not the number 1 country, again. However, it's still well above most of the world.

Quality of life is tough to measure because a lot of it is relative but the U.S. isn't  in the top 10 nations for quality of life:

 https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/07/these-countries-have-the-highest-quality-of-life

 

More easily measured is life expectancy which is important as I think most of us would prefer a long life over a shorter one. Again the U.S. isn't in the top 10:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/world-health-statistics-2014/en/

 

Then there is the way people feel about their lives. Among the happiest nations surveyed the U.S. is again not in the top 10:

 https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/top-10/2016-worlds-happiest-countries/

 

If people in the U.S. aren't any happier, don't have a better quality of life, and aren't living any longer than those in places like Canada than what is the perk of a world leadership title? Yes, our military is mighty and Finland's isn't but what appreciable benefit is that providing the average person?

[iNow]

6 hours ago, waitforufo said:

iNow, I have no doubt that you would like to see a prosperous economy which provides a path for all Americans to reach comfortable prosperity. 

Indeed, and I also have no doubt that you would like to see the same. We’ve always agreed there, and sometimes we just prioritize different paths to get there. We’re allies and partners in achieving the objective, though. Our deliverables are the same. 

6 hours ago, waitforufo said:

Your problem is that you can only see a government directed path.

Oh, come on. What a bunch of horseshit.

I’ve clarified repeatedly and consistently my view that we’re a hybrid economy, forever a mix of public and private investments which ultimately drives an optimum outcome. Part of realizing that optimization includes hard work, self sacrifice, and struggle, but another part includes ensuring the system isn’t rigged, that rules are written fairly and enforced equally, and that those who work hard can climb the income ladder even if not born into wealth; that the system must be structured in such a way that winning the lottery of birth isn’t the only way to achieve great things... that we invest in our kids, our schools, our libraries, our health, and our roads, police, and fire departments. Security IMO is about more than aircraft carriers, rifles, and cyber protections.

Like you, I’ve built myself up from almost nothing. Like you, I take pride in what I do and produce, where I am in my career, and like you I take care of my family and those in need around me like every decent human should.

I see government as only one part of the path though, and ask that you please respect me enough to stop suggesting otherwise. You’re smart enough and informed enough to challenge my positions without so blatantly misrepresenting them. 

6 hours ago, waitforufo said:

Somehow you are blind to the losers on the government path. 

Once more, little more than a colossal load of horseshit. 

6 hours ago, waitforufo said:

reread your quoted text above and do an envy check.  

I think it best to share a quote from Breaking Bad where the character Walter White in a scene comes pretty close to expressing how I’d like to reply to your comment here. It reflects well my thoughts: 

Who are you talking to right now? Who is it you think you see? Do you know how much I make a year? I mean, even if I told you, you wouldn't believe it. Do you know what would happen if I suddenly decided to stop going into work? A business big enough that it could be listed on the NASDAQ goes belly up. Disappears! It ceases to exist without me. No, you clearly don't know who you're talking to, so let me clue you in. I am not in danger, Skyler. I am the danger. A guy opens his door and gets shot and you think that of me? No. I am the one who knocks!

Edited December 28, 2017 by iNow

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

We're a world leader because we have more say in global matter's then most countries.

Trump is removing our "say" in the Paris Accord.

Trump removed our "say" in the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

His foreign policies diminish our presence on the world stage. We became a world power by creating an international system of policies that set and drove the pace of life on the whole planet. You don't keep something like that by suddenly pulling in your borders and flipping the bird to the rest of the world. If we paid more than our fair share in strategic partnerships, it was to guarantee nobody doubted who was leading the pack, who was the country to emulate. Trump is ruining all of that, giving away our power and clout, and treating international cooperation like a zero-sum game that hasn't benefited us greatly over the last several decades. 

Trumps policy in general seems true to his horrible landlord personality. He wants America to exploit, lest we be exploited. He wants the US to be the villain, since villains make more money. He prefers to pursue interests rather than allies, and we lose the power of one of the greatest defining human characteristics, our cooperative nature. 

[swansont]

7 hours ago, Butch said:

I am in favor of fec, next year however if there is not a tax cut business will not have that incentive. The only real incentive is paying to keep good people.

I don't see your point about my "BS argument" cutting taxes on business will benefit everybody in this country, it will also encourage workers to strike out on their own. 

Oh please do pay attention. We were discussing your claim that consumers pay corporate taxes. Money mocves in a cycle. Putting that on the consumer is arbitrary.

 

Just now, swansont said:

Oh please do pay attention. We were discussing your claim that consumers pay corporate taxes. Money mocves in a cycle. Putting that on the consumer is arbitrary and meaningless.