One more reason why the Tax Proposal is a GOP scam.....

[Winston]

the only place this bill is gonna create a job is in China! we're borrowing money from China to give a tax cut to the wealthiest Americans!

/——/ You don’t have to pay for tax cuts. Letting people keep more of their own money costs nothing. You Socialist tool.

Then why the hell bother to get up in the morning and go to work. Because not going to work costs you nothing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The tax on business profit is 35%.
So explain in your own words how WalMart pays 19% and Exxon pays 2%.

Todd, you are definitely not ready for prime time tax courses. Everything I posted is fact. There are tax dodges that you have never heard of. There are offshore accounts. There are loss carry forwards (which trump enjoys, when he is not erasing the losses all together with bankruptcy filings). There used to be a loophole that if you bought a breeding bull, for say, half a million dollars, all the stud fees were tax free. John Lennon owned one. Google, "Corporate tax on percent of profits". You will find hundreds of posts ion the subject.

Everything I posted is fact.

Facts that you can't explain.

There are offshore accounts.

True. Thanks to our highest in the 1st world corporate rates, it makes sense for corporations to hold cash in a nation with a lower rate. If they earn, and keep, profits in a nation with a 20% rate, for example, it lowers their average rate.

There are loss carry forwards

So you're complaining that a snapshot in a single year may appear lower than the statutory rate because they had losses in a prior year? Well, duh, corporations and individuals sometimes have losses. Aren't they allowed to write off those losses in a future, profitable year?
Sounds like your complaint comes from ignorance.

Google, "Corporate tax on percent of profits". You will find hundreds of posts ion the subject

Thanks.
Usually the posts involve people ignorant of the difference between the statutory tax rate and the effective rate.

Todd, it took me 5 years to earn my ChFC designation,after earning my Bachelor of Business Administration and I don't educate fools for free. Get back to me when you have earned yours. In the meantime, just pick any one of my 10 above referenced companies, and pull up their tax data on the internet. It is available on line for the benefit of all their shareholders. If you can not read a financial statement, there are remedial courses available.

pick any one of my 10 above referenced companies, and pull up their tax data on the internet.

If their earnings were $1,000,000 and they should have owed $350,000, but they had depreciation of $300,000 and so only owed $245,000....should I worry that they only paid 24.5%?

Would you complain about their lower effective rate in that case?

I will quote you the exact financial figures as quoted in my post above for GE which was:

"Pre-tax earnings: $20.1 Billion Tax Provision: $5.7 Billion (29%) Actual Taxes Paid to U.S. federal government: $1.0 Billion (5%) GE paid $1.0 billion to the U.S. federal government in 2011 and deferred paying an additional $1.5 billion. It paid $4.7 billion to foreign governments."
(AP)

So, when the GOP and the Orange Buffoon cry crocodile tears that American corporations are in the highest brackets in the world, at 35%, we can easily see that it is a bunch of hogwash to convince the American public that they do not have jobs tightening lug nuts on Fords anymore because of this onerous burden. But when we look at the dollars they actually paid, compared to their pre tax earned dollars, we see that none of the major corporations are paying more than 19% of their pretax earnings, and most are not even paying double digits. During my working years, I wish that I had had it that good.

Pre-tax earnings: $20.1 Billion Tax Provision: $5.7 Billion (29%) Actual Taxes Paid to U.S. federal government: $1.0 Billion (5%) GE paid $1.0 billion to the U.S. federal government in 2011 and deferred paying an additional $1.5 billion. It paid $4.7 billion to foreign governments."

Well, if they paid $4.7 billion to foreign governments, they had foreign earnings.
Why would they also pay US taxes on those foreign earnings?
Deferred payment of $1.5 billion is taxes owed on earnings held overseas....payable if they ever bring it home.
So which of those is an unfair loophole? Why?

During my working years, I wish that I had had it that good.

If you ever worked overseas, you would have.
You'd have received credit for those foreign taxes paid.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Employee salaries are a business expense. Say the corporation has a dollar in profit. If they want, they can spend that dollar on creating a new job. If not, well they can pay the tax on that dollar and keep the rest. The tax rate is thirty five percent. That means they can spend a dollar on a new job or keep sixty five cents. Now the tax rate is lowered. They can spend the dollar on a new job or they can keep eighty cents. The "opportunity cost" of creating a job instead of booking a profit INCREASES as the tax rate declines. Now, you want to tell me why corporations will create more jobs when the cost of doing so increases as the tax rate declines.

I mean this is some simple ass shit. Like the decline of our manufacturing base. Everyone wants to blame outsourcing, shifting jobs overseas. But it is not the "cause", it is just a symptom. The declining tax rate is the cause. In the early1950's the "effective corporate tax rate" was north of fifty percent. That means if a company saved a dollar by shifting production abroad they could only keep a little less than fifty cents. Now the EFFECTIVE corporate tax rate is closer to twenty percent. They save that dollar now they get to keep damn near eighty cents. Hell some companies, like say, GE, with an effective tax rate of less than three percent over the last decade, get to keep damn near the WHOLE DOLLAR. Now, it's one thing to close down a factory, layoff workers, implement a transpacific shipping arrangement, lose community and employee allegiance, and adopt a far flung supply chain to manage, if you only get to keep fifty cents on the dollar. It is quite another if you get to keep it all.

I mean I don't know where you people live, and I don't know where you work, but if you are looking it is damn easy to see the ramifications of this declining effective corporate tax rate. No companies invest in their people anymore, they attempt to steal them from somewhere else or they bitch and moan and look to the GOVERNMENT to fund their employees training, at say a community college. Sneak in to the backroom of your local Walmart. Check out the mops. Yeah, the damn mops. They are filled with grease, nasty as hell, because they can't even invest in a new mop-head. It's freakin comical. Companies look to cut corners at every turn, packaging sucks ass. The trucking fleets are comprised of dinosaurs that spew out toxic gases, break down constantly, and require an entire staff of mechanics to keep them going. Farmers don't own combines anymore, they RENT THEM.

In a nutshell, when corporate taxes are high companies are forced to look and plan for the long term. When they are low, they are encouraged to "cash out", to seek short term gains at the expense of long term growth. They are discouraged from investing in everything from people to mop-heads, and instead encouraged to take the money and run. Look the fawk around. It is precisely what is happening, precisely what has been happening, and cutting corporate tax rates further will only add gasoline to the fire that is already burning down this nation. Only a sheer fool would believe otherwise.

Except, when a company pays a lower tax rate, that also means that leaves more of their own money to invest in themselves. Not every company simply walks in one day at the start with billions of dollars that they can simply afford to risk and spend on themselves. Risk means finding investors that will share in the idea of your product, but not every small company starting out is able to find that. You have to remember that the main driving force of a vibrant economy is in the creation and risk that begins with small business, with the ability of that business to be able to compete. That means as that business grows and takes on more “risk”, with more of their own money at their disposal, they can be able to afford to turn around and invest in themselves.

1) expansion to build another facility. Maybe now they can OWN another distribution center by having one built off that extra money they have at their disposal. Perhaps instead of paying a rental fee to store their product, they are now able to have one built that they now own.

2) As a company retains more of their own revenue, they can now afford to look into ways they can be more competitive. Now we are talking about advancements in technology, like robotics, that can help grow and increase their business’s efficiency in ways they could not previously afford to meet up with that higher demand while producing at a level that helps them to become more competitive. Robotics and higher technology means restructuring that shell of a facility to accommodate with the changes. Plans and newer construction, comes with the ability to afford the cost associated with attaining these higher more advanced pieces of equipment. Now obviously higher technology means you need to pay a higher wage, because your basic electrician is not going to have the necessary skill level in robotics that’s associated with troubleshooting and maintaining that particular piece of equipment, should the system go down. Higher skill levels and higher wages can also mean higher incentives, in drawing those kinds of employees to work in your plant as opposed to working at another facility.

3) Education. Maybe with more of your own money to spend you can invest in internships and reinbursement programs on help retain that higher skill level. Aircraft engineers is just one example comes to mind here, the testing of newer technology that comes out of the “research and development”.

4) That brings “research and development”, which is another cost that can benefit a business into becoming more competitive and efficient as it grows. This can be applied in several different ways depending on the scale and the kind of market you happen to be competing in.


This is just a very brief overview of how a smaller company can grow and build with more of their own money to be able to invest in themselves. You see there are several factors that come with allowing a small business to first be able to initially establish themselves in a market, then take on greater risk to invest in themselves to meet up with the demand as their business grows, while lower federal taxes will afford them the added ability to keep more of their own money to be able to expand and afford ways to be more cost efficient.

All that effort and yet a total waste of time. Every single "investment" you mentioned is done with BEFORE TAX DOLLARS. The key phrase, "as a company retains more of their revenue". You are speaking of retained earnings.

Employee salaries are a business expense. Say the corporation has a dollar in profit. If they want, they can spend that dollar on creating a new job. If not, well they can pay the tax on that dollar and keep the rest. The tax rate is thirty five percent. That means they can spend a dollar on a new job or keep sixty five cents. Now the tax rate is lowered. They can spend the dollar on a new job or they can keep eighty cents. The "opportunity cost" of creating a job instead of booking a profit INCREASES as the tax rate declines. Now, you want to tell me why corporations will create more jobs when the cost of doing so increases as the tax rate declines.

I mean this is some simple ass shit. Like the decline of our manufacturing base. Everyone wants to blame outsourcing, shifting jobs overseas. But it is not the "cause", it is just a symptom. The declining tax rate is the cause. In the early1950's the "effective corporate tax rate" was north of fifty percent. That means if a company saved a dollar by shifting production abroad they could only keep a little less than fifty cents. Now the EFFECTIVE corporate tax rate is closer to twenty percent. They save that dollar now they get to keep damn near eighty cents. Hell some companies, like say, GE, with an effective tax rate of less than three percent over the last decade, get to keep damn near the WHOLE DOLLAR. Now, it's one thing to close down a factory, layoff workers, implement a transpacific shipping arrangement, lose community and employee allegiance, and adopt a far flung supply chain to manage, if you only get to keep fifty cents on the dollar. It is quite another if you get to keep it all.

I mean I don't know where you people live, and I don't know where you work, but if you are looking it is damn easy to see the ramifications of this declining effective corporate tax rate. No companies invest in their people anymore, they attempt to steal them from somewhere else or they bitch and moan and look to the GOVERNMENT to fund their employees training, at say a community college. Sneak in to the backroom of your local Walmart. Check out the mops. Yeah, the damn mops. They are filled with grease, nasty as hell, because they can't even invest in a new mop-head. It's freakin comical. Companies look to cut corners at every turn, packaging sucks ass. The trucking fleets are comprised of dinosaurs that spew out toxic gases, break down constantly, and require an entire staff of mechanics to keep them going. Farmers don't own combines anymore, they RENT THEM.

In a nutshell, when corporate taxes are high companies are forced to look and plan for the long term. When they are low, they are encouraged to "cash out", to seek short term gains at the expense of long term growth. They are discouraged from investing in everything from people to mop-heads, and instead encouraged to take the money and run. Look the fawk around. It is precisely what is happening, precisely what has been happening, and cutting corporate tax rates further will only add gasoline to the fire that is already burning down this nation. Only a sheer fool would believe otherwise.

Pure unmitigated nonsense completely devoid of reality and business acumen.

Amazing.

Did you even read my post?

In case you never realized, that formula you just spouted out specifically deals with how a business is expected to compensate for its many investments and investors who have choaen to invest in the business. This investment can be achieved through corporate stocks or bonds.

This has nothing to do with my previous post of small business making a business decision, that comes with having more of their OWN money though lower taxes, to make their own investment through (1) improvements in efficiency (2) giving business to those who sell them the more advanced equipment that aids in making the business more efficient (3) choosing to buy a storage facility instead of renting (4) gaining opportunities to require more skilled workers as a result of maintaining and repairing a more automated efficient system ... etc.

AGAIN, as I’ve said before, the vast majority of the private sector is made up of small business and those who wish to establish their own business with (a best) a small business Bank loan - not corporate stocks and bonds. It’s that simple, it’s not complicated.

You have NOT come close to proving how a raise in corporate taxes helps to create more jobs, I’d suggest you give up now while you can.

He thinks people won't make an investment with a higher cost of capital because their expected return is higher.....LOL!

Look, anyone that has any exposure to capital budgeting, business planning, or a simple Monte Carlo stimulation of potential capital investments intuitively understands precisely what I am talking about. When the cost of capital is low, that is when the marginal tax rate is high, businesses can justify investments with higher potential risk and greater anticipated returns. But when the cost of capital is high, when the marginal tax rate is low, they can only justify the most conservative investments with lower potential returns. That is why companies are holding cash, conducting stock buybacks, or passing off their earnings to their stockholders in the form of dividends. There are no acceptable investment opportunities that meet the required IRR necessary to justify a capital investment. By lowering the corporate tax rate the Trump plan will only exacerbate that problem.

When the cost of capital is low, that is when the marginal tax rate is high, businesses can justify investments with higher potential risk and greater anticipated returns.

A lower tax rate gives a greater anticipated return.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Todd, you are definitely not ready for prime time tax courses. Everything I posted is fact. There are tax dodges that you have never heard of. There are offshore accounts. There are loss carry forwards (which trump enjoys, when he is not erasing the losses all together with bankruptcy filings). There used to be a loophole that if you bought a breeding bull, for say, half a million dollars, all the stud fees were tax free. John Lennon owned one. Google, "Corporate tax on percent of profits". You will find hundreds of posts ion the subject.

Everything I posted is fact.

Facts that you can't explain.

There are offshore accounts.

True. Thanks to our highest in the 1st world corporate rates, it makes sense for corporations to hold cash in a nation with a lower rate. If they earn, and keep, profits in a nation with a 20% rate, for example, it lowers their average rate.

There are loss carry forwards

So you're complaining that a snapshot in a single year may appear lower than the statutory rate because they had losses in a prior year? Well, duh, corporations and individuals sometimes have losses. Aren't they allowed to write off those losses in a future, profitable year?
Sounds like your complaint comes from ignorance.

Google, "Corporate tax on percent of profits". You will find hundreds of posts ion the subject

Thanks.
Usually the posts involve people ignorant of the difference between the statutory tax rate and the effective rate.

Todd, it took me 5 years to earn my ChFC designation,after earning my Bachelor of Business Administration and I don't educate fools for free. Get back to me when you have earned yours. In the meantime, just pick any one of my 10 above referenced companies, and pull up their tax data on the internet. It is available on line for the benefit of all their shareholders. If you can not read a financial statement, there are remedial courses available.

pick any one of my 10 above referenced companies, and pull up their tax data on the internet.

If their earnings were $1,000,000 and they should have owed $350,000, but they had depreciation of $300,000 and so only owed $245,000....should I worry that they only paid 24.5%?

Would you complain about their lower effective rate in that case?

I will quote you the exact financial figures as quoted in my post above for GE which was:

"Pre-tax earnings: $20.1 Billion Tax Provision: $5.7 Billion (29%) Actual Taxes Paid to U.S. federal government: $1.0 Billion (5%) GE paid $1.0 billion to the U.S. federal government in 2011 and deferred paying an additional $1.5 billion. It paid $4.7 billion to foreign governments."
(AP)

So, when the GOP and the Orange Buffoon cry crocodile tears that American corporations are in the highest brackets in the world, at 35%, we can easily see that it is a bunch of hogwash to convince the American public that they do not have jobs tightening lug nuts on Fords anymore because of this onerous burden. But when we look at the dollars they actually paid, compared to their pre tax earned dollars, we see that none of the major corporations are paying more than 19% of their pretax earnings, and most are not even paying double digits. During my working years, I wish that I had had it that good.

Pre-tax earnings: $20.1 Billion Tax Provision: $5.7 Billion (29%) Actual Taxes Paid to U.S. federal government: $1.0 Billion (5%) GE paid $1.0 billion to the U.S. federal government in 2011 and deferred paying an additional $1.5 billion. It paid $4.7 billion to foreign governments."

Well, if they paid $4.7 billion to foreign governments, they had foreign earnings.
Why would they also pay US taxes on those foreign earnings?
Deferred payment of $1.5 billion is taxes owed on earnings held overseas....payable if they ever bring it home.
So which of those is an unfair loophole? Why?

During my working years, I wish that I had had it that good.

If you ever worked overseas, you would have.
You'd have received credit for those foreign taxes paid.

You seem to have abandoned the whole point that I was making about corporations needing to have their tax brackets lowered from 35% to 20% because 35% is too high compared to other nations, when, in fact, few, if any corporations are paying anywhere near that tax bracket.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Except, when a company pays a lower tax rate, that also means that leaves more of their own money to invest in themselves. Not every company simply walks in one day at the start with billions of dollars that they can simply afford to risk and spend on themselves. Risk means finding investors that will share in the idea of your product, but not every small company starting out is able to find that. You have to remember that the main driving force of a vibrant economy is in the creation and risk that begins with small business, with the ability of that business to be able to compete. That means as that business grows and takes on more “risk”, with more of their own money at their disposal, they can be able to afford to turn around and invest in themselves.

1) expansion to build another facility. Maybe now they can OWN another distribution center by having one built off that extra money they have at their disposal. Perhaps instead of paying a rental fee to store their product, they are now able to have one built that they now own.

2) As a company retains more of their own revenue, they can now afford to look into ways they can be more competitive. Now we are talking about advancements in technology, like robotics, that can help grow and increase their business’s efficiency in ways they could not previously afford to meet up with that higher demand while producing at a level that helps them to become more competitive. Robotics and higher technology means restructuring that shell of a facility to accommodate with the changes. Plans and newer construction, comes with the ability to afford the cost associated with attaining these higher more advanced pieces of equipment. Now obviously higher technology means you need to pay a higher wage, because your basic electrician is not going to have the necessary skill level in robotics that’s associated with troubleshooting and maintaining that particular piece of equipment, should the system go down. Higher skill levels and higher wages can also mean higher incentives, in drawing those kinds of employees to work in your plant as opposed to working at another facility.

3) Education. Maybe with more of your own money to spend you can invest in internships and reinbursement programs on help retain that higher skill level. Aircraft engineers is just one example comes to mind here, the testing of newer technology that comes out of the “research and development”.

4) That brings “research and development”, which is another cost that can benefit a business into becoming more competitive and efficient as it grows. This can be applied in several different ways depending on the scale and the kind of market you happen to be competing in.


This is just a very brief overview of how a smaller company can grow and build with more of their own money to be able to invest in themselves. You see there are several factors that come with allowing a small business to first be able to initially establish themselves in a market, then take on greater risk to invest in themselves to meet up with the demand as their business grows, while lower federal taxes will afford them the added ability to keep more of their own money to be able to expand and afford ways to be more cost efficient.

All that effort and yet a total waste of time. Every single "investment" you mentioned is done with BEFORE TAX DOLLARS. The key phrase, "as a company retains more of their revenue". You are speaking of retained earnings.

Pure unmitigated nonsense completely devoid of reality and business acumen.

Amazing.

Did you even read my post?

In case you never realized, that formula you just spouted out specifically deals with how a business is expected to compensate for its many investments and investors who have choaen to invest in the business. This investment can be achieved through corporate stocks or bonds.

This has nothing to do with my previous post of small business making a business decision, that comes with having more of their OWN money though lower taxes, to make their own investment through (1) improvements in efficiency (2) giving business to those who sell them the more advanced equipment that aids in making the business more efficient (3) choosing to buy a storage facility instead of renting (4) gaining opportunities to require more skilled workers as a result of maintaining and repairing a more automated efficient system ... etc.

AGAIN, as I’ve said before, the vast majority of the private sector is made up of small business and those who wish to establish their own business with (a best) a small business Bank loan - not corporate stocks and bonds. It’s that simple, it’s not complicated.

You have NOT come close to proving how a raise in corporate taxes helps to create more jobs, I’d suggest you give up now while you can.

He thinks people won't make an investment with a higher cost of capital because their expected return is higher.....LOL!

Look, anyone that has any exposure to capital budgeting, business planning, or a simple Monte Carlo stimulation of potential capital investments intuitively understands precisely what I am talking about. When the cost of capital is low, that is when the marginal tax rate is high, businesses can justify investments with higher potential risk and greater anticipated returns. But when the cost of capital is high, when the marginal tax rate is low, they can only justify the most conservative investments with lower potential returns. That is why companies are holding cash, conducting stock buybacks, or passing off their earnings to their stockholders in the form of dividends. There are no acceptable investment opportunities that meet the required IRR necessary to justify a capital investment. By lowering the corporate tax rate the Trump plan will only exacerbate that problem.

When the cost of capital is low, that is when the marginal tax rate is high, businesses can justify investments with higher potential risk and greater anticipated returns.

A lower tax rate gives a greater anticipated return.

Only if you don't understand tax planning, and the impact it has on corporate expenditures.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Everything I posted is fact.

Facts that you can't explain.

There are offshore accounts.

True. Thanks to our highest in the 1st world corporate rates, it makes sense for corporations to hold cash in a nation with a lower rate. If they earn, and keep, profits in a nation with a 20% rate, for example, it lowers their average rate.

There are loss carry forwards

So you're complaining that a snapshot in a single year may appear lower than the statutory rate because they had losses in a prior year? Well, duh, corporations and individuals sometimes have losses. Aren't they allowed to write off those losses in a future, profitable year?
Sounds like your complaint comes from ignorance.

Google, "Corporate tax on percent of profits". You will find hundreds of posts ion the subject

Thanks.
Usually the posts involve people ignorant of the difference between the statutory tax rate and the effective rate.

Todd, it took me 5 years to earn my ChFC designation,after earning my Bachelor of Business Administration and I don't educate fools for free. Get back to me when you have earned yours. In the meantime, just pick any one of my 10 above referenced companies, and pull up their tax data on the internet. It is available on line for the benefit of all their shareholders. If you can not read a financial statement, there are remedial courses available.

pick any one of my 10 above referenced companies, and pull up their tax data on the internet.

If their earnings were $1,000,000 and they should have owed $350,000, but they had depreciation of $300,000 and so only owed $245,000....should I worry that they only paid 24.5%?

Would you complain about their lower effective rate in that case?

I will quote you the exact financial figures as quoted in my post above for GE which was:

"Pre-tax earnings: $20.1 Billion Tax Provision: $5.7 Billion (29%) Actual Taxes Paid to U.S. federal government: $1.0 Billion (5%) GE paid $1.0 billion to the U.S. federal government in 2011 and deferred paying an additional $1.5 billion. It paid $4.7 billion to foreign governments."
(AP)

So, when the GOP and the Orange Buffoon cry crocodile tears that American corporations are in the highest brackets in the world, at 35%, we can easily see that it is a bunch of hogwash to convince the American public that they do not have jobs tightening lug nuts on Fords anymore because of this onerous burden. But when we look at the dollars they actually paid, compared to their pre tax earned dollars, we see that none of the major corporations are paying more than 19% of their pretax earnings, and most are not even paying double digits. During my working years, I wish that I had had it that good.

Pre-tax earnings: $20.1 Billion Tax Provision: $5.7 Billion (29%) Actual Taxes Paid to U.S. federal government: $1.0 Billion (5%) GE paid $1.0 billion to the U.S. federal government in 2011 and deferred paying an additional $1.5 billion. It paid $4.7 billion to foreign governments."

Well, if they paid $4.7 billion to foreign governments, they had foreign earnings.
Why would they also pay US taxes on those foreign earnings?
Deferred payment of $1.5 billion is taxes owed on earnings held overseas....payable if they ever bring it home.
So which of those is an unfair loophole? Why?

During my working years, I wish that I had had it that good.

If you ever worked overseas, you would have.
You'd have received credit for those foreign taxes paid.

You seem to have abandoned the whole point that I was making about corporations needing to have their tax brackets lowered from 35% to 20% because 35% is too high compared to other nations, when, in fact, few, if any corporations are paying anywhere near that tax bracket.

few, if any corporations are paying anywhere near that tax bracket.

A US based company with pre-tax earnings of $1,000,000,000 will pay $350,000,000.
If depreciation reduces their pre-tax earnings to $500,000,000 they'll pay $175,000,000.

What rate did they pay in each case?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All that effort and yet a total waste of time. Every single "investment" you mentioned is done with BEFORE TAX DOLLARS. The key phrase, "as a company retains more of their revenue". You are speaking of retained earnings.

Did you even read my post?

In case you never realized, that formula you just spouted out specifically deals with how a business is expected to compensate for its many investments and investors who have choaen to invest in the business. This investment can be achieved through corporate stocks or bonds.

This has nothing to do with my previous post of small business making a business decision, that comes with having more of their OWN money though lower taxes, to make their own investment through (1) improvements in efficiency (2) giving business to those who sell them the more advanced equipment that aids in making the business more efficient (3) choosing to buy a storage facility instead of renting (4) gaining opportunities to require more skilled workers as a result of maintaining and repairing a more automated efficient system ... etc.

AGAIN, as I’ve said before, the vast majority of the private sector is made up of small business and those who wish to establish their own business with (a best) a small business Bank loan - not corporate stocks and bonds. It’s that simple, it’s not complicated.

You have NOT come close to proving how a raise in corporate taxes helps to create more jobs, I’d suggest you give up now while you can.

He thinks people won't make an investment with a higher cost of capital because their expected return is higher.....LOL!

Look, anyone that has any exposure to capital budgeting, business planning, or a simple Monte Carlo stimulation of potential capital investments intuitively understands precisely what I am talking about. When the cost of capital is low, that is when the marginal tax rate is high, businesses can justify investments with higher potential risk and greater anticipated returns. But when the cost of capital is high, when the marginal tax rate is low, they can only justify the most conservative investments with lower potential returns. That is why companies are holding cash, conducting stock buybacks, or passing off their earnings to their stockholders in the form of dividends. There are no acceptable investment opportunities that meet the required IRR necessary to justify a capital investment. By lowering the corporate tax rate the Trump plan will only exacerbate that problem.

When the cost of capital is low, that is when the marginal tax rate is high, businesses can justify investments with higher potential risk and greater anticipated returns.

A lower tax rate gives a greater anticipated return.

Only if you don't understand tax planning, and the impact it has on corporate expenditures.

Only if you don't understand tax planning,

Enlighten me.
2 potential investments, each with an anticipated annual return of $1,000,000 pretax.
One has an anticipated after tax return of $800,000, the other anticipated after tax return of $650,000.
Which investment do you prefer? Why?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Did you even read my post?

In case you never realized, that formula you just spouted out specifically deals with how a business is expected to compensate for its many investments and investors who have choaen to invest in the business. This investment can be achieved through corporate stocks or bonds.

This has nothing to do with my previous post of small business making a business decision, that comes with having more of their OWN money though lower taxes, to make their own investment through (1) improvements in efficiency (2) giving business to those who sell them the more advanced equipment that aids in making the business more efficient (3) choosing to buy a storage facility instead of renting (4) gaining opportunities to require more skilled workers as a result of maintaining and repairing a more automated efficient system ... etc.

AGAIN, as I’ve said before, the vast majority of the private sector is made up of small business and those who wish to establish their own business with (a best) a small business Bank loan - not corporate stocks and bonds. It’s that simple, it’s not complicated.

You have NOT come close to proving how a raise in corporate taxes helps to create more jobs, I’d suggest you give up now while you can.

He thinks people won't make an investment with a higher cost of capital because their expected return is higher.....LOL!

Look, anyone that has any exposure to capital budgeting, business planning, or a simple Monte Carlo stimulation of potential capital investments intuitively understands precisely what I am talking about. When the cost of capital is low, that is when the marginal tax rate is high, businesses can justify investments with higher potential risk and greater anticipated returns. But when the cost of capital is high, when the marginal tax rate is low, they can only justify the most conservative investments with lower potential returns. That is why companies are holding cash, conducting stock buybacks, or passing off their earnings to their stockholders in the form of dividends. There are no acceptable investment opportunities that meet the required IRR necessary to justify a capital investment. By lowering the corporate tax rate the Trump plan will only exacerbate that problem.

When the cost of capital is low, that is when the marginal tax rate is high, businesses can justify investments with higher potential risk and greater anticipated returns.

A lower tax rate gives a greater anticipated return.

Only if you don't understand tax planning, and the impact it has on corporate expenditures.

Only if you don't understand tax planning,

Enlighten me.
2 potential investments, each with an anticipated annual return of $1,000,000 pretax.
One has an anticipated after tax return of $800,000, the other anticipated after tax return of $650,000.
Which investment do you prefer? Why?

Winston has explained this too you much better than i can. I see no need into trying to improve on his post. Perhaps you can explain to me why the GOP promised a tax cut that would not increase the deficit, or affect Medicare, yet this tax cut would increase the deficit by $1 1/2 trillion, force massive decreases in Medicare, and will expire (only for individuals, not corporations) in a few years, and how this is a GOOD thing. Not to mention that by repealing deductions for property taxes, which would be a major blow to the middle class, would put you into a position where you are paying tax on money that you already paid out as tax, and couldn't even keep?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He thinks people won't make an investment with a higher cost of capital because their expected return is higher.....LOL!

Look, anyone that has any exposure to capital budgeting, business planning, or a simple Monte Carlo stimulation of potential capital investments intuitively understands precisely what I am talking about. When the cost of capital is low, that is when the marginal tax rate is high, businesses can justify investments with higher potential risk and greater anticipated returns. But when the cost of capital is high, when the marginal tax rate is low, they can only justify the most conservative investments with lower potential returns. That is why companies are holding cash, conducting stock buybacks, or passing off their earnings to their stockholders in the form of dividends. There are no acceptable investment opportunities that meet the required IRR necessary to justify a capital investment. By lowering the corporate tax rate the Trump plan will only exacerbate that problem.

When the cost of capital is low, that is when the marginal tax rate is high, businesses can justify investments with higher potential risk and greater anticipated returns.

A lower tax rate gives a greater anticipated return.

Only if you don't understand tax planning, and the impact it has on corporate expenditures.

Only if you don't understand tax planning,

Enlighten me.
2 potential investments, each with an anticipated annual return of $1,000,000 pretax.
One has an anticipated after tax return of $800,000, the other anticipated after tax return of $650,000.
Which investment do you prefer? Why?

Winston has explained this too you much better than i can. I see no need into trying to improve on his post. Perhaps you can explain to me why the GOP promised a tax cut that would not increase the deficit, or affect Medicare, yet this tax cut would increase the deficit by $1 1/2 trillion, force massive decreases in Medicare, and will expire (only for individuals, not corporations) in a few years, and how this is a GOOD thing. Not to mention that by repealing deductions for property taxes, which would be a major blow to the middle class, would put you into a position where you are paying tax on money that you already paid out as tax, and couldn't even keep?

Winston has explained this too you much better than i can.

Yes, his explanation was amusing. Basically, more businesses will be formed if you can never take any profits out of the business. Businesses prefer higher taxes, lower after tax profit, because they have higher write-offs.
Hilarious!

 

[Vandalshandle]

Look, anyone that has any exposure to capital budgeting, business planning, or a simple Monte Carlo stimulation of potential capital investments intuitively understands precisely what I am talking about. When the cost of capital is low, that is when the marginal tax rate is high, businesses can justify investments with higher potential risk and greater anticipated returns. But when the cost of capital is high, when the marginal tax rate is low, they can only justify the most conservative investments with lower potential returns. That is why companies are holding cash, conducting stock buybacks, or passing off their earnings to their stockholders in the form of dividends. There are no acceptable investment opportunities that meet the required IRR necessary to justify a capital investment. By lowering the corporate tax rate the Trump plan will only exacerbate that problem.

When the cost of capital is low, that is when the marginal tax rate is high, businesses can justify investments with higher potential risk and greater anticipated returns.

A lower tax rate gives a greater anticipated return.

Only if you don't understand tax planning, and the impact it has on corporate expenditures.

Only if you don't understand tax planning,

Enlighten me.
2 potential investments, each with an anticipated annual return of $1,000,000 pretax.
One has an anticipated after tax return of $800,000, the other anticipated after tax return of $650,000.
Which investment do you prefer? Why?

Winston has explained this too you much better than i can. I see no need into trying to improve on his post. Perhaps you can explain to me why the GOP promised a tax cut that would not increase the deficit, or affect Medicare, yet this tax cut would increase the deficit by $1 1/2 trillion, force massive decreases in Medicare, and will expire (only for individuals, not corporations) in a few years, and how this is a GOOD thing. Not to mention that by repealing deductions for property taxes, which would be a major blow to the middle class, would put you into a position where you are paying tax on money that you already paid out as tax, and couldn't even keep?

Winston has explained this too you much better than i can.

Yes, his explanation was amusing. Basically, more businesses will be formed if you can never take any profits out of the business. Businesses prefer higher taxes, lower after tax profit, because they have higher write-offs.
Hilarious!

You think that is hilarious? Then this will leave you laughing your ass off, and begging the GOP for more lubricant:

Opinion | Everybody Hates the Trump Tax Plan

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When the cost of capital is low, that is when the marginal tax rate is high, businesses can justify investments with higher potential risk and greater anticipated returns.

A lower tax rate gives a greater anticipated return.

Only if you don't understand tax planning, and the impact it has on corporate expenditures.

Only if you don't understand tax planning,

Enlighten me.
2 potential investments, each with an anticipated annual return of $1,000,000 pretax.
One has an anticipated after tax return of $800,000, the other anticipated after tax return of $650,000.
Which investment do you prefer? Why?

Winston has explained this too you much better than i can. I see no need into trying to improve on his post. Perhaps you can explain to me why the GOP promised a tax cut that would not increase the deficit, or affect Medicare, yet this tax cut would increase the deficit by $1 1/2 trillion, force massive decreases in Medicare, and will expire (only for individuals, not corporations) in a few years, and how this is a GOOD thing. Not to mention that by repealing deductions for property taxes, which would be a major blow to the middle class, would put you into a position where you are paying tax on money that you already paid out as tax, and couldn't even keep?

Winston has explained this too you much better than i can.

Yes, his explanation was amusing. Basically, more businesses will be formed if you can never take any profits out of the business. Businesses prefer higher taxes, lower after tax profit, because they have higher write-offs.
Hilarious!

You think that is hilarious? Then this will leave you laughing your ass off, and begging the GOP for more lubricant:

Opinion | Everybody Hates the Trump Tax Plan

Yes, I think the idea that a higher tax rate increases business formation or growth is fucking hilarious!!!

 

[Cellblock2429]

the only place this bill is gonna create a job is in China! we're borrowing money from China to give a tax cut to the wealthiest Americans!

/——/ You don’t have to pay for tax cuts. Letting people keep more of their own money costs nothing. You Socialist tool.

Then why the hell bother to get up in the morning and go to work. Because not going to work costs you nothing.

/——/ What an idiotic leap of logic. I work hard to earn a living and pay my own way. Tax cuts help me do that more efficiently and allows me more discretionary income to save, invest and buy stuff. You imbecile.

 

[Cellblock2429]

The tax on business profit is 35%.
So explain in your own words how WalMart pays 19% and Exxon pays 2%.

Todd, you are definitely not ready for prime time tax courses. Everything I posted is fact. There are tax dodges that you have never heard of. There are offshore accounts. There are loss carry forwards (which trump enjoys, when he is not erasing the losses all together with bankruptcy filings). There used to be a loophole that if you bought a breeding bull, for say, half a million dollars, all the stud fees were tax free. John Lennon owned one. Google, "Corporate tax on percent of profits". You will find hundreds of posts ion the subject.

Everything I posted is fact.

Facts that you can't explain.

There are offshore accounts.

True. Thanks to our highest in the 1st world corporate rates, it makes sense for corporations to hold cash in a nation with a lower rate. If they earn, and keep, profits in a nation with a 20% rate, for example, it lowers their average rate.

There are loss carry forwards

So you're complaining that a snapshot in a single year may appear lower than the statutory rate because they had losses in a prior year? Well, duh, corporations and individuals sometimes have losses. Aren't they allowed to write off those losses in a future, profitable year?
Sounds like your complaint comes from ignorance.

Google, "Corporate tax on percent of profits". You will find hundreds of posts ion the subject

Thanks.
Usually the posts involve people ignorant of the difference between the statutory tax rate and the effective rate.

Todd, it took me 5 years to earn my ChFC designation,after earning my Bachelor of Business Administration and I don't educate fools for free. Get back to me when you have earned yours. In the meantime, just pick any one of my 10 above referenced companies, and pull up their tax data on the internet. It is available on line for the benefit of all their shareholders. If you can not read a financial statement, there are remedial courses available.

pick any one of my 10 above referenced companies, and pull up their tax data on the internet.

If their earnings were $1,000,000 and they should have owed $350,000, but they had depreciation of $300,000 and so only owed $245,000....should I worry that they only paid 24.5%?

Would you complain about their lower effective rate in that case?

I will quote you the exact financial figures as quoted in my post above for GE which was:

"Pre-tax earnings: $20.1 Billion Tax Provision: $5.7 Billion (29%) Actual Taxes Paid to U.S. federal government: $1.0 Billion (5%) GE paid $1.0 billion to the U.S. federal government in 2011 and deferred paying an additional $1.5 billion. It paid $4.7 billion to foreign governments."
(AP)

So, when the GOP and the Orange Buffoon cry crocodile tears that American corporations are in the highest brackets in the world, at 35%, we can easily see that it is a bunch of hogwash to convince the American public that they do not have jobs tightening lug nuts on Fords anymore because of this onerous burden. But when we look at the dollars they actually paid, compared to their pre tax earned dollars, we see that none of the major corporations are paying more than 19% of their pretax earnings, and most are not even paying double digits. During my working years, I wish that I had had it that good.

/——/ If Hildabeast had won be assured nothing would ever change in the tax code except the addition of more taxes, fees and regulations.

 

[Flash]

[QUO

Opinion | Everybody Hates the Trump Tax Plan

That is a lie.

I don't hate that plan because I will save money in income tax if it is passed. Several thousand a year

I would much rather spend the money that I earned rather than give it to some stupid bureaucrat, wholes boss is a corrupt politician, elected by special interest groups to be given to welfare queens and illegals, wouldn't you?

Of course if you stupid Moon Bats really believe that it is better to give your money to the government rather than spend it yourself then there is a simple remedy. All you have to do when the bill is passed is to figure out how much less taxes you will have to pay. Just send the difference into the government. Problem solved. It is not a mandatory program. You have the option of giving the money back. Just write the government a check. They will take the money. Put your money where your mouth is and just shut the fuck up.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

If lowering taxes makes it cheaper for the corporation to stay where they are, as opposed to going to another State or nation that would be more expensive, what reason would that company have to leave? Do you have a clear answer for that Nat?

Come on, tell us what job is created by raising Federal taxes?

Employee salaries are a business expense. Say the corporation has a dollar in profit. If they want, they can spend that dollar on creating a new job. If not, well they can pay the tax on that dollar and keep the rest. The tax rate is thirty five percent. That means they can spend a dollar on a new job or keep sixty five cents. Now the tax rate is lowered. They can spend the dollar on a new job or they can keep eighty cents. The "opportunity cost" of creating a job instead of booking a profit INCREASES as the tax rate declines. Now, you want to tell me why corporations will create more jobs when the cost of doing so increases as the tax rate declines.

I mean this is some simple ass shit. Like the decline of our manufacturing base. Everyone wants to blame outsourcing, shifting jobs overseas. But it is not the "cause", it is just a symptom. The declining tax rate is the cause. In the early1950's the "effective corporate tax rate" was north of fifty percent. That means if a company saved a dollar by shifting production abroad they could only keep a little less than fifty cents. Now the EFFECTIVE corporate tax rate is closer to twenty percent. They save that dollar now they get to keep damn near eighty cents. Hell some companies, like say, GE, with an effective tax rate of less than three percent over the last decade, get to keep damn near the WHOLE DOLLAR. Now, it's one thing to close down a factory, layoff workers, implement a transpacific shipping arrangement, lose community and employee allegiance, and adopt a far flung supply chain to manage, if you only get to keep fifty cents on the dollar. It is quite another if you get to keep it all.

I mean I don't know where you people live, and I don't know where you work, but if you are looking it is damn easy to see the ramifications of this declining effective corporate tax rate. No companies invest in their people anymore, they attempt to steal them from somewhere else or they bitch and moan and look to the GOVERNMENT to fund their employees training, at say a community college. Sneak in to the backroom of your local Walmart. Check out the mops. Yeah, the damn mops. They are filled with grease, nasty as hell, because they can't even invest in a new mop-head. It's freakin comical. Companies look to cut corners at every turn, packaging sucks ass. The trucking fleets are comprised of dinosaurs that spew out toxic gases, break down constantly, and require an entire staff of mechanics to keep them going. Farmers don't own combines anymore, they RENT THEM.

In a nutshell, when corporate taxes are high companies are forced to look and plan for the long term. When they are low, they are encouraged to "cash out", to seek short term gains at the expense of long term growth. They are discouraged from investing in everything from people to mop-heads, and instead encouraged to take the money and run. Look the fawk around. It is precisely what is happening, precisely what has been happening, and cutting corporate tax rates further will only add gasoline to the fire that is already burning down this nation. Only a sheer fool would believe otherwise.

Except, when a company pays a lower tax rate, that also means that leaves more of their own money to invest in themselves. Not every company simply walks in one day at the start with billions of dollars that they can simply afford to risk and spend on themselves. Risk means finding investors that will share in the idea of your product, but not every small company starting out is able to find that. You have to remember that the main driving force of a vibrant economy is in the creation and risk that begins with small business, with the ability of that business to be able to compete. That means as that business grows and takes on more “risk”, with more of their own money at their disposal, they can be able to afford to turn around and invest in themselves.

1) expansion to build another facility. Maybe now they can OWN another distribution center by having one built off that extra money they have at their disposal. Perhaps instead of paying a rental fee to store their product, they are now able to have one built that they now own.

2) As a company retains more of their own revenue, they can now afford to look into ways they can be more competitive. Now we are talking about advancements in technology, like robotics, that can help grow and increase their business’s efficiency in ways they could not previously afford to meet up with that higher demand while producing at a level that helps them to become more competitive. Robotics and higher technology means restructuring that shell of a facility to accommodate with the changes. Plans and newer construction, comes with the ability to afford the cost associated with attaining these higher more advanced pieces of equipment. Now obviously higher technology means you need to pay a higher wage, because your basic electrician is not going to have the necessary skill level in robotics that’s associated with troubleshooting and maintaining that particular piece of equipment, should the system go down. Higher skill levels and higher wages can also mean higher incentives, in drawing those kinds of employees to work in your plant as opposed to working at another facility.

3) Education. Maybe with more of your own money to spend you can invest in internships and reinbursement programs on help retain that higher skill level. Aircraft engineers is just one example comes to mind here, the testing of newer technology that comes out of the “research and development”.

4) That brings “research and development”, which is another cost that can benefit a business into becoming more competitive and efficient as it grows. This can be applied in several different ways depending on the scale and the kind of market you happen to be competing in.


This is just a very brief overview of how a smaller company can grow and build with more of their own money to be able to invest in themselves. You see there are several factors that come with allowing a small business to first be able to initially establish themselves in a market, then take on greater risk to invest in themselves to meet up with the demand as their business grows, while lower federal taxes will afford them the added ability to keep more of their own money to be able to expand and afford ways to be more cost efficient.

All that effort and yet a total waste of time. Every single "investment" you mentioned is done with BEFORE TAX DOLLARS. The key phrase, "as a company retains more of their revenue". You are speaking of retained earnings.

If lowering taxes makes it cheaper for the corporation to stay where they are, as opposed to going to another State or nation that would be more expensive, what reason would that company have to leave? Do you have a clear answer for that Nat?

Come on, tell us what job is created by raising Federal taxes?

Employee salaries are a business expense. Say the corporation has a dollar in profit. If they want, they can spend that dollar on creating a new job. If not, well they can pay the tax on that dollar and keep the rest. The tax rate is thirty five percent. That means they can spend a dollar on a new job or keep sixty five cents. Now the tax rate is lowered. They can spend the dollar on a new job or they can keep eighty cents. The "opportunity cost" of creating a job instead of booking a profit INCREASES as the tax rate declines. Now, you want to tell me why corporations will create more jobs when the cost of doing so increases as the tax rate declines.

I mean this is some simple ass shit. Like the decline of our manufacturing base. Everyone wants to blame outsourcing, shifting jobs overseas. But it is not the "cause", it is just a symptom. The declining tax rate is the cause. In the early1950's the "effective corporate tax rate" was north of fifty percent. That means if a company saved a dollar by shifting production abroad they could only keep a little less than fifty cents. Now the EFFECTIVE corporate tax rate is closer to twenty percent. They save that dollar now they get to keep damn near eighty cents. Hell some companies, like say, GE, with an effective tax rate of less than three percent over the last decade, get to keep damn near the WHOLE DOLLAR. Now, it's one thing to close down a factory, layoff workers, implement a transpacific shipping arrangement, lose community and employee allegiance, and adopt a far flung supply chain to manage, if you only get to keep fifty cents on the dollar. It is quite another if you get to keep it all.

I mean I don't know where you people live, and I don't know where you work, but if you are looking it is damn easy to see the ramifications of this declining effective corporate tax rate. No companies invest in their people anymore, they attempt to steal them from somewhere else or they bitch and moan and look to the GOVERNMENT to fund their employees training, at say a community college. Sneak in to the backroom of your local Walmart. Check out the mops. Yeah, the damn mops. They are filled with grease, nasty as hell, because they can't even invest in a new mop-head. It's freakin comical. Companies look to cut corners at every turn, packaging sucks ass. The trucking fleets are comprised of dinosaurs that spew out toxic gases, break down constantly, and require an entire staff of mechanics to keep them going. Farmers don't own combines anymore, they RENT THEM.

In a nutshell, when corporate taxes are high companies are forced to look and plan for the long term. When they are low, they are encouraged to "cash out", to seek short term gains at the expense of long term growth. They are discouraged from investing in everything from people to mop-heads, and instead encouraged to take the money and run. Look the fawk around. It is precisely what is happening, precisely what has been happening, and cutting corporate tax rates further will only add gasoline to the fire that is already burning down this nation. Only a sheer fool would believe otherwise.

Pure unmitigated nonsense completely devoid of reality and business acumen.

Amazing.

Did you even read my post?

In case you never realized, that formula you just spouted out specifically deals with how a business is expected to compensate for its many investments and investors who have choaen to invest in the business. This investment can be achieved through corporate stocks or bonds.

This has nothing to do with my previous post of small business making a business decision, that comes with having more of their OWN money though lower taxes, to make their own investment through (1) improvements in efficiency (2) giving business to those who sell them the more advanced equipment that aids in making the business more efficient (3) choosing to buy a storage facility instead of renting (4) gaining opportunities to require more skilled workers as a result of maintaining and repairing a more automated efficient system ... etc.

AGAIN, as I’ve said before, the vast majority of the private sector is made up of small business and those who wish to establish their own business with (a best) a small business Bank loan - not corporate stocks and bonds. It’s that simple, it’s not complicated.

You have NOT come close to proving how a raise in corporate taxes helps to create more jobs, I’d suggest you give up now while you can.

Yes, I read your post. It was a bunch of hot air. Every single example of spending you gave would come from PRETAX income. I mean let's take one example. Robotics. You claim a company could invest in robotics if they had more after tax income due to a tax cut. But an investment in robotics would come from PRETAX profits. The tax rate would not have any bearing on the amount of PRETAX profit available to invest in the company. Yet that corporate tax rate would be a factor in the COST of those robotics. Let's say a company wants to invest one million dollars of their profits in robotics. If the tax rate is twenty percent the cost of those robotics would be $800,000 in foregone profits. But if the tax rate was forty percent the cost would only be $600,000 in foregone profits.

The fact is that every single year millions of small business owners face a decision. Do they take profits and pay taxes or do they make a CAPITAL investment in their company. The higher the tax the more likely that small business owner will make that capital investment. Cutting taxes on small business owners does not encourage them to invest in their business, it encourages them to take cash out of their business. A low tax rate does not encourage them to invest in employee raises or the creation of new jobs, it encourages them to take a trip to Europe or buy a new sports car.

It’s obvious that you don’t know a thing about small business to believe that an intelligent small business owner doesn’t know enough to separate business equity from personal pleasure income, if that individual knows anything about sound business practices.

Your “equation” was a breakdown of a corporations’ obligations to business’ investors. You would know that if you bothered to use some common sense research before using that equation in regards to small business reinvestment of their own capital.

Seriously take the time to educate yourself in the realm of small business before you make another claim, that business owners will just tap into their own business account for a vacation or a new car. Seriously you’re an idiot if you believe that.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Only if you don't understand tax planning, and the impact it has on corporate expenditures.

Only if you don't understand tax planning,

Enlighten me.
2 potential investments, each with an anticipated annual return of $1,000,000 pretax.
One has an anticipated after tax return of $800,000, the other anticipated after tax return of $650,000.
Which investment do you prefer? Why?

Winston has explained this too you much better than i can. I see no need into trying to improve on his post. Perhaps you can explain to me why the GOP promised a tax cut that would not increase the deficit, or affect Medicare, yet this tax cut would increase the deficit by $1 1/2 trillion, force massive decreases in Medicare, and will expire (only for individuals, not corporations) in a few years, and how this is a GOOD thing. Not to mention that by repealing deductions for property taxes, which would be a major blow to the middle class, would put you into a position where you are paying tax on money that you already paid out as tax, and couldn't even keep?

Winston has explained this too you much better than i can.

Yes, his explanation was amusing. Basically, more businesses will be formed if you can never take any profits out of the business. Businesses prefer higher taxes, lower after tax profit, because they have higher write-offs.
Hilarious!

You think that is hilarious? Then this will leave you laughing your ass off, and begging the GOP for more lubricant:

Opinion | Everybody Hates the Trump Tax Plan

Yes, I think the idea that a higher tax rate increases business formation or growth is fucking hilarious!!!

It’s such a good idea, the left can’t understand or explain why other nations aren’t likewise looking to instead increase their corporate tax rate just like the United States. If such an increase in the corporate tax rate is obviously such a HUGE benefactor in aiding business growth within their own country in a global economy.

Interesting how all these little facts get in the way of the progressives’ knowledge of how a nation is able to create such a strong robust business environment for their country.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only if you don't understand tax planning,

Enlighten me.
2 potential investments, each with an anticipated annual return of $1,000,000 pretax.
One has an anticipated after tax return of $800,000, the other anticipated after tax return of $650,000.
Which investment do you prefer? Why?

Winston has explained this too you much better than i can. I see no need into trying to improve on his post. Perhaps you can explain to me why the GOP promised a tax cut that would not increase the deficit, or affect Medicare, yet this tax cut would increase the deficit by $1 1/2 trillion, force massive decreases in Medicare, and will expire (only for individuals, not corporations) in a few years, and how this is a GOOD thing. Not to mention that by repealing deductions for property taxes, which would be a major blow to the middle class, would put you into a position where you are paying tax on money that you already paid out as tax, and couldn't even keep?

Winston has explained this too you much better than i can.

Yes, his explanation was amusing. Basically, more businesses will be formed if you can never take any profits out of the business. Businesses prefer higher taxes, lower after tax profit, because they have higher write-offs.
Hilarious!

You think that is hilarious? Then this will leave you laughing your ass off, and begging the GOP for more lubricant:

Opinion | Everybody Hates the Trump Tax Plan

Yes, I think the idea that a higher tax rate increases business formation or growth is fucking hilarious!!!

It’s such a good idea, the left can’t understand or explain why other nations aren’t likewise looking to instead increase their corporate tax rate just like the United States. If such an increase in the corporate tax rate is obviously such a HUGE benefactor in aiding business growth within their own country in a global economy.

Interesting how all these little facts get in the way of the progressives’ knowledge of how a nation is able to create such a strong robust business environment for their country.

The EU whined about Ireland reducing their corporate tax rate, because no company likes to pay low taxes.

 

[Winston]

Did you even read my post?

In case you never realized, that formula you just spouted out specifically deals with how a business is expected to compensate for its many investments and investors who have choaen to invest in the business. This investment can be achieved through corporate stocks or bonds.

This has nothing to do with my previous post of small business making a business decision, that comes with having more of their OWN money though lower taxes, to make their own investment through (1) improvements in efficiency (2) giving business to those who sell them the more advanced equipment that aids in making the business more efficient (3) choosing to buy a storage facility instead of renting (4) gaining opportunities to require more skilled workers as a result of maintaining and repairing a more automated efficient system ... etc.

AGAIN, as I’ve said before, the vast majority of the private sector is made up of small business and those who wish to establish their own business with (a best) a small business Bank loan - not corporate stocks and bonds. It’s that simple, it’s not complicated.

You have NOT come close to proving how a raise in corporate taxes helps to create more jobs, I’d suggest you give up now while you can.

He thinks people won't make an investment with a higher cost of capital because their expected return is higher.....LOL!

Look, anyone that has any exposure to capital budgeting, business planning, or a simple Monte Carlo stimulation of potential capital investments intuitively understands precisely what I am talking about. When the cost of capital is low, that is when the marginal tax rate is high, businesses can justify investments with higher potential risk and greater anticipated returns. But when the cost of capital is high, when the marginal tax rate is low, they can only justify the most conservative investments with lower potential returns. That is why companies are holding cash, conducting stock buybacks, or passing off their earnings to their stockholders in the form of dividends. There are no acceptable investment opportunities that meet the required IRR necessary to justify a capital investment. By lowering the corporate tax rate the Trump plan will only exacerbate that problem.

When the cost of capital is low, that is when the marginal tax rate is high, businesses can justify investments with higher potential risk and greater anticipated returns.

A lower tax rate gives a greater anticipated return.

Only if you don't understand tax planning, and the impact it has on corporate expenditures.

Only if you don't understand tax planning,

Enlighten me.
2 potential investments, each with an anticipated annual return of $1,000,000 pretax.
One has an anticipated after tax return of $800,000, the other anticipated after tax return of $650,000.
Which investment do you prefer? Why?

Did you even read my post?

In case you never realized, that formula you just spouted out specifically deals with how a business is expected to compensate for its many investments and investors who have choaen to invest in the business. This investment can be achieved through corporate stocks or bonds.

This has nothing to do with my previous post of small business making a business decision, that comes with having more of their OWN money though lower taxes, to make their own investment through (1) improvements in efficiency (2) giving business to those who sell them the more advanced equipment that aids in making the business more efficient (3) choosing to buy a storage facility instead of renting (4) gaining opportunities to require more skilled workers as a result of maintaining and repairing a more automated efficient system ... etc.

AGAIN, as I’ve said before, the vast majority of the private sector is made up of small business and those who wish to establish their own business with (a best) a small business Bank loan - not corporate stocks and bonds. It’s that simple, it’s not complicated.

You have NOT come close to proving how a raise in corporate taxes helps to create more jobs, I’d suggest you give up now while you can.

He thinks people won't make an investment with a higher cost of capital because their expected return is higher.....LOL!

Look, anyone that has any exposure to capital budgeting, business planning, or a simple Monte Carlo stimulation of potential capital investments intuitively understands precisely what I am talking about. When the cost of capital is low, that is when the marginal tax rate is high, businesses can justify investments with higher potential risk and greater anticipated returns. But when the cost of capital is high, when the marginal tax rate is low, they can only justify the most conservative investments with lower potential returns. That is why companies are holding cash, conducting stock buybacks, or passing off their earnings to their stockholders in the form of dividends. There are no acceptable investment opportunities that meet the required IRR necessary to justify a capital investment. By lowering the corporate tax rate the Trump plan will only exacerbate that problem.

When the cost of capital is low, that is when the marginal tax rate is high, businesses can justify investments with higher potential risk and greater anticipated returns.

A lower tax rate gives a greater anticipated return.

Only if you don't understand tax planning, and the impact it has on corporate expenditures.

Only if you don't understand tax planning,

Enlighten me.
2 potential investments, each with an anticipated annual return of $1,000,000 pretax.
One has an anticipated after tax return of $800,000, the other anticipated after tax return of $650,000.
Which investment do you prefer? Why?

Let's assume the cost of each investment is also one million dollars. In case one, the marginal tax rate is 35%. In the second case the marginal tax rate is 20%. Case one--the million dollar investment costs $650,000 after calculating the $350,000 in tax savings. The POTENTIAL yield is $650,000 in aftertax revenue for a return of one hundred percent. Case two--the million dollar investment costs $800,000 after calculating the $200,000 in tax savings The potential yield is $800,000 in aftertax revenue for a return of one hundred percent.

So, would you rather risk $650,000 for a return of one hundred percent or risk $800,000 for a return of one hundred percent? In both cases the potential return is one hundred percent. The obvious choice here is Case one, where the potential return is the same but the money at risk is significantly lower.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He thinks people won't make an investment with a higher cost of capital because their expected return is higher.....LOL!

Look, anyone that has any exposure to capital budgeting, business planning, or a simple Monte Carlo stimulation of potential capital investments intuitively understands precisely what I am talking about. When the cost of capital is low, that is when the marginal tax rate is high, businesses can justify investments with higher potential risk and greater anticipated returns. But when the cost of capital is high, when the marginal tax rate is low, they can only justify the most conservative investments with lower potential returns. That is why companies are holding cash, conducting stock buybacks, or passing off their earnings to their stockholders in the form of dividends. There are no acceptable investment opportunities that meet the required IRR necessary to justify a capital investment. By lowering the corporate tax rate the Trump plan will only exacerbate that problem.

When the cost of capital is low, that is when the marginal tax rate is high, businesses can justify investments with higher potential risk and greater anticipated returns.

A lower tax rate gives a greater anticipated return.

Only if you don't understand tax planning, and the impact it has on corporate expenditures.

Only if you don't understand tax planning,

Enlighten me.
2 potential investments, each with an anticipated annual return of $1,000,000 pretax.
One has an anticipated after tax return of $800,000, the other anticipated after tax return of $650,000.
Which investment do you prefer? Why?

He thinks people won't make an investment with a higher cost of capital because their expected return is higher.....LOL!

Look, anyone that has any exposure to capital budgeting, business planning, or a simple Monte Carlo stimulation of potential capital investments intuitively understands precisely what I am talking about. When the cost of capital is low, that is when the marginal tax rate is high, businesses can justify investments with higher potential risk and greater anticipated returns. But when the cost of capital is high, when the marginal tax rate is low, they can only justify the most conservative investments with lower potential returns. That is why companies are holding cash, conducting stock buybacks, or passing off their earnings to their stockholders in the form of dividends. There are no acceptable investment opportunities that meet the required IRR necessary to justify a capital investment. By lowering the corporate tax rate the Trump plan will only exacerbate that problem.

When the cost of capital is low, that is when the marginal tax rate is high, businesses can justify investments with higher potential risk and greater anticipated returns.

A lower tax rate gives a greater anticipated return.

Only if you don't understand tax planning, and the impact it has on corporate expenditures.

Only if you don't understand tax planning,

Enlighten me.
2 potential investments, each with an anticipated annual return of $1,000,000 pretax.
One has an anticipated after tax return of $800,000, the other anticipated after tax return of $650,000.
Which investment do you prefer? Why?

Let's assume the cost of each investment is also one million dollars. In case one, the marginal tax rate is 35%. In the second case the marginal tax rate is 20%. Case one--the million dollar investment costs $650,000 after calculating the $350,000 in tax savings. The POTENTIAL yield is $650,000 in aftertax revenue for a return of one hundred percent. Case two--the million dollar investment costs $800,000 after calculating the $200,000 in tax savings The potential yield is $800,000 in aftertax revenue for a return of one hundred percent.

So, would you rather risk $650,000 for a return of one hundred percent or risk $800,000 for a return of one hundred percent? In both cases the potential return is one hundred percent. The obvious choice here is Case one, where the potential return is the same but the money at risk is significantly lower.

So, would you rather risk $650,000 for a return of one hundred percent or risk $800,000 for a return of one hundred percent? In both cases the potential return is one hundred percent.

If both companies implode, the loss in each case is one million.

Case one--the million dollar investment costs $650,000 after calculating the $350,000 in tax savings. The POTENTIAL yield is $650,000 in aftertax revenue for a return of one hundred percent. Case two--the million dollar investment costs $800,000 after calculating the $200,000 in tax savings The potential yield is $800,000 in aftertax revenue for a return of one hundred percent.

Well, if we assume the first year profit is $1 million and the taxes paid the first year are zero, because we're deducting the total investment the first year, the results are equivalent.

Now in the second year, with no more write-offs, one company is going to yield an after tax profit of $800,000 while the other yields an after tax profit of $650,000.

I know which one I'm investing in!!!

What about you?

 

[Winston]

Employee salaries are a business expense. Say the corporation has a dollar in profit. If they want, they can spend that dollar on creating a new job. If not, well they can pay the tax on that dollar and keep the rest. The tax rate is thirty five percent. That means they can spend a dollar on a new job or keep sixty five cents. Now the tax rate is lowered. They can spend the dollar on a new job or they can keep eighty cents. The "opportunity cost" of creating a job instead of booking a profit INCREASES as the tax rate declines. Now, you want to tell me why corporations will create more jobs when the cost of doing so increases as the tax rate declines.

I mean this is some simple ass shit. Like the decline of our manufacturing base. Everyone wants to blame outsourcing, shifting jobs overseas. But it is not the "cause", it is just a symptom. The declining tax rate is the cause. In the early1950's the "effective corporate tax rate" was north of fifty percent. That means if a company saved a dollar by shifting production abroad they could only keep a little less than fifty cents. Now the EFFECTIVE corporate tax rate is closer to twenty percent. They save that dollar now they get to keep damn near eighty cents. Hell some companies, like say, GE, with an effective tax rate of less than three percent over the last decade, get to keep damn near the WHOLE DOLLAR. Now, it's one thing to close down a factory, layoff workers, implement a transpacific shipping arrangement, lose community and employee allegiance, and adopt a far flung supply chain to manage, if you only get to keep fifty cents on the dollar. It is quite another if you get to keep it all.

I mean I don't know where you people live, and I don't know where you work, but if you are looking it is damn easy to see the ramifications of this declining effective corporate tax rate. No companies invest in their people anymore, they attempt to steal them from somewhere else or they bitch and moan and look to the GOVERNMENT to fund their employees training, at say a community college. Sneak in to the backroom of your local Walmart. Check out the mops. Yeah, the damn mops. They are filled with grease, nasty as hell, because they can't even invest in a new mop-head. It's freakin comical. Companies look to cut corners at every turn, packaging sucks ass. The trucking fleets are comprised of dinosaurs that spew out toxic gases, break down constantly, and require an entire staff of mechanics to keep them going. Farmers don't own combines anymore, they RENT THEM.

In a nutshell, when corporate taxes are high companies are forced to look and plan for the long term. When they are low, they are encouraged to "cash out", to seek short term gains at the expense of long term growth. They are discouraged from investing in everything from people to mop-heads, and instead encouraged to take the money and run. Look the fawk around. It is precisely what is happening, precisely what has been happening, and cutting corporate tax rates further will only add gasoline to the fire that is already burning down this nation. Only a sheer fool would believe otherwise.

Except, when a company pays a lower tax rate, that also means that leaves more of their own money to invest in themselves. Not every company simply walks in one day at the start with billions of dollars that they can simply afford to risk and spend on themselves. Risk means finding investors that will share in the idea of your product, but not every small company starting out is able to find that. You have to remember that the main driving force of a vibrant economy is in the creation and risk that begins with small business, with the ability of that business to be able to compete. That means as that business grows and takes on more “risk”, with more of their own money at their disposal, they can be able to afford to turn around and invest in themselves.

1) expansion to build another facility. Maybe now they can OWN another distribution center by having one built off that extra money they have at their disposal. Perhaps instead of paying a rental fee to store their product, they are now able to have one built that they now own.

2) As a company retains more of their own revenue, they can now afford to look into ways they can be more competitive. Now we are talking about advancements in technology, like robotics, that can help grow and increase their business’s efficiency in ways they could not previously afford to meet up with that higher demand while producing at a level that helps them to become more competitive. Robotics and higher technology means restructuring that shell of a facility to accommodate with the changes. Plans and newer construction, comes with the ability to afford the cost associated with attaining these higher more advanced pieces of equipment. Now obviously higher technology means you need to pay a higher wage, because your basic electrician is not going to have the necessary skill level in robotics that’s associated with troubleshooting and maintaining that particular piece of equipment, should the system go down. Higher skill levels and higher wages can also mean higher incentives, in drawing those kinds of employees to work in your plant as opposed to working at another facility.

3) Education. Maybe with more of your own money to spend you can invest in internships and reinbursement programs on help retain that higher skill level. Aircraft engineers is just one example comes to mind here, the testing of newer technology that comes out of the “research and development”.

4) That brings “research and development”, which is another cost that can benefit a business into becoming more competitive and efficient as it grows. This can be applied in several different ways depending on the scale and the kind of market you happen to be competing in.


This is just a very brief overview of how a smaller company can grow and build with more of their own money to be able to invest in themselves. You see there are several factors that come with allowing a small business to first be able to initially establish themselves in a market, then take on greater risk to invest in themselves to meet up with the demand as their business grows, while lower federal taxes will afford them the added ability to keep more of their own money to be able to expand and afford ways to be more cost efficient.

All that effort and yet a total waste of time. Every single "investment" you mentioned is done with BEFORE TAX DOLLARS. The key phrase, "as a company retains more of their revenue". You are speaking of retained earnings.

Employee salaries are a business expense. Say the corporation has a dollar in profit. If they want, they can spend that dollar on creating a new job. If not, well they can pay the tax on that dollar and keep the rest. The tax rate is thirty five percent. That means they can spend a dollar on a new job or keep sixty five cents. Now the tax rate is lowered. They can spend the dollar on a new job or they can keep eighty cents. The "opportunity cost" of creating a job instead of booking a profit INCREASES as the tax rate declines. Now, you want to tell me why corporations will create more jobs when the cost of doing so increases as the tax rate declines.

I mean this is some simple ass shit. Like the decline of our manufacturing base. Everyone wants to blame outsourcing, shifting jobs overseas. But it is not the "cause", it is just a symptom. The declining tax rate is the cause. In the early1950's the "effective corporate tax rate" was north of fifty percent. That means if a company saved a dollar by shifting production abroad they could only keep a little less than fifty cents. Now the EFFECTIVE corporate tax rate is closer to twenty percent. They save that dollar now they get to keep damn near eighty cents. Hell some companies, like say, GE, with an effective tax rate of less than three percent over the last decade, get to keep damn near the WHOLE DOLLAR. Now, it's one thing to close down a factory, layoff workers, implement a transpacific shipping arrangement, lose community and employee allegiance, and adopt a far flung supply chain to manage, if you only get to keep fifty cents on the dollar. It is quite another if you get to keep it all.

I mean I don't know where you people live, and I don't know where you work, but if you are looking it is damn easy to see the ramifications of this declining effective corporate tax rate. No companies invest in their people anymore, they attempt to steal them from somewhere else or they bitch and moan and look to the GOVERNMENT to fund their employees training, at say a community college. Sneak in to the backroom of your local Walmart. Check out the mops. Yeah, the damn mops. They are filled with grease, nasty as hell, because they can't even invest in a new mop-head. It's freakin comical. Companies look to cut corners at every turn, packaging sucks ass. The trucking fleets are comprised of dinosaurs that spew out toxic gases, break down constantly, and require an entire staff of mechanics to keep them going. Farmers don't own combines anymore, they RENT THEM.

In a nutshell, when corporate taxes are high companies are forced to look and plan for the long term. When they are low, they are encouraged to "cash out", to seek short term gains at the expense of long term growth. They are discouraged from investing in everything from people to mop-heads, and instead encouraged to take the money and run. Look the fawk around. It is precisely what is happening, precisely what has been happening, and cutting corporate tax rates further will only add gasoline to the fire that is already burning down this nation. Only a sheer fool would believe otherwise.

Pure unmitigated nonsense completely devoid of reality and business acumen.

Amazing.

Did you even read my post?

In case you never realized, that formula you just spouted out specifically deals with how a business is expected to compensate for its many investments and investors who have choaen to invest in the business. This investment can be achieved through corporate stocks or bonds.

This has nothing to do with my previous post of small business making a business decision, that comes with having more of their OWN money though lower taxes, to make their own investment through (1) improvements in efficiency (2) giving business to those who sell them the more advanced equipment that aids in making the business more efficient (3) choosing to buy a storage facility instead of renting (4) gaining opportunities to require more skilled workers as a result of maintaining and repairing a more automated efficient system ... etc.

AGAIN, as I’ve said before, the vast majority of the private sector is made up of small business and those who wish to establish their own business with (a best) a small business Bank loan - not corporate stocks and bonds. It’s that simple, it’s not complicated.

You have NOT come close to proving how a raise in corporate taxes helps to create more jobs, I’d suggest you give up now while you can.

Yes, I read your post. It was a bunch of hot air. Every single example of spending you gave would come from PRETAX income. I mean let's take one example. Robotics. You claim a company could invest in robotics if they had more after tax income due to a tax cut. But an investment in robotics would come from PRETAX profits. The tax rate would not have any bearing on the amount of PRETAX profit available to invest in the company. Yet that corporate tax rate would be a factor in the COST of those robotics. Let's say a company wants to invest one million dollars of their profits in robotics. If the tax rate is twenty percent the cost of those robotics would be $800,000 in foregone profits. But if the tax rate was forty percent the cost would only be $600,000 in foregone profits.

The fact is that every single year millions of small business owners face a decision. Do they take profits and pay taxes or do they make a CAPITAL investment in their company. The higher the tax the more likely that small business owner will make that capital investment. Cutting taxes on small business owners does not encourage them to invest in their business, it encourages them to take cash out of their business. A low tax rate does not encourage them to invest in employee raises or the creation of new jobs, it encourages them to take a trip to Europe or buy a new sports car.

It’s obvious that you don’t know a thing about small business to believe that an intelligent small business owner doesn’t know enough to separate business equity from personal pleasure income, if that individual knows anything about sound business practices.

Your “equation” was a breakdown of a corporations’ obligations to business’ investors. You would know that if you bothered to use some common sense research before using that equation in regards to small business reinvestment of their own capital.

Seriously take the time to educate yourself in the realm of small business before you make another claim, that business owners will just tap into their own business account for a vacation or a new car. Seriously you’re an idiot if you believe that.

If tap into their business account, you mean take out profit, well I got to ask. Would they be more likely to take out profit to buy that sports car if they had to pay twenty cents on the dollar in taxes instead of thirty five cents on the dollar? Lower taxes does not encourage small business owners or corporations to invest in their operations, it does the exact opposite, it encourages them to TAKE MONEY OUT of their operation.

There is a time to cut corporate taxes. When companies are investing over aggressively, stingily paying little dividends, and hold little to no cash, well it might be appropriate to lower their tax burden. But when companies are flush with cash, spending large amounts of their earnings on stock buybacks, paying fat dividends, and investing little or anything back in to their businesses and instead seeking economic rents, it is not time to cut corporate taxes.