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

I'm still wondering why the tax cuts for corporations are going to be permanent, and the tax cuts for average citizens will expire in 10 years?

Shouldn't it be the other way around? Tell the corporations they can have their tax cuts for 10 years, but they will expire if they don't reinvest the money as well as move jobs back to the USA?

Would make more sense, and would cause the corporations to actually work towards moving jobs back here.
 
The top one % gets 25 % of of the tax cuts and the other top 3 % get 25% of the tax cuts.
So the top 4% get 50% of the tax cuts and the Liar in Chief has the audacity to call it a “ middle class tax cut” and that he won’t benefit personally from it.

The top one % gets 25 % of of the tax cuts

Considering they pay 40% of the taxes, how much of the cut should they get?
 
I'm still wondering why the tax cuts for corporations are going to be permanent, and the tax cuts for average citizens will expire in 10 years?

Shouldn't it be the other way around? Tell the corporations they can have their tax cuts for 10 years, but they will expire if they don't reinvest the money as well as move jobs back to the USA?

Would make more sense, and would cause the corporations to actually work towards moving jobs back here.

I'm still wondering why the tax cuts for corporations are going to be permanent, and the tax cuts for average citizens will expire in 10 years?

Because Democrats will be happy, in 10 years, to help make the middle class tax cuts permanent.
Because the Dems are the party of letting people keep more of their own money, eh comrade?
 
So you are bitching about something that doesnt even matter, then?


Answer the fucking question posed on the O/P, moron......or go back to bed.
So, you agree you are bitching about absolutely nothing, according to YOUR OP?
I have a lot to bitch about. I live in a blue state and I won’t be able to deduct my state and local taxes. The idiot in Chief is “ punishing” states that didn’t vote for him. Just another example of why this thin skinned whiny little bitch is unfit to be president.
Of course, that's not true ...

High tax states expect the other states to carry the burden for them. You get a $1K deduction (or whatever) from your income - I make the same, and I get only a $75 deduction. Why should I pay more of the federal tax load simply because your state is fiscally irresponsible?
 
I'm still wondering why the tax cuts for corporations are going to be permanent, and the tax cuts for average citizens will expire in 10 years?

Shouldn't it be the other way around? Tell the corporations they can have their tax cuts for 10 years, but they will expire if they don't reinvest the money as well as move jobs back to the USA?

Would make more sense, and would cause the corporations to actually work towards moving jobs back here.
That is false .... but, hey, tell the story any way you like.

1) Corporations think in terms of decades, not years like individuals do ... if you tell a corporation that they can have a tax break for 10 years IF they perform the way the government tells them, they're going to tell you the government to stick where the sun don't shine. I can't think of a single executive that would willingly accept a deal where there is a guillotine ten years out. The risk is too high.

2) If a corporation accepted the 10 year sunset clause, and invested locally, it would not begin to see a positive return on its investment in 3 - 5 years (in most cases). Conversely, knowing that the sunset is about to happen, they would be forced to liquidate beginning in year 7 (to avoid a fire sale), and move the investment off-shore. The off-shore organizations, conversely, would know they have the national corporations in a box, and would demand maximum compensation.

3) The 10 year sunset clause effectively negates the purpose of the tax cut.

4) "... would cause the corporations to actually work towards moving jobs back here ..." Corporations have no motivation to move jobs back here. Their only job is to make money for their investors. They must be enticed by being offered a better business deal than they have now.
 
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?

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?

Your scenario would not even pass an Accounting 101 test. Look at it again and see if you can tell me the problem.

The problem is your feeling that a $650,000 annual profit is better than an $800,000 annual profit.

By all means, feel free to tell me the problem.

The problem is you completely ignore both risk and time. Like the million dollar investment. You claim they write it all off in the same year they get the income. It is like the million dollars just magically appeared. And the profit, you act like that profit is a given, not only this year, but every year. It's is completely naive and indicates you have no real understanding of the dynamics of business financial planning. The company has to either take the million dollars from profits or borrow it. If they borrow it, then the cost of capital is even lower in both situations. In fact, that is one of the situations when a corporate tax rate cut is called for, when companies are practicing excessive borrowing for high risk investments. But that is not what is happening now. The real ignorance in your position is the idea that the reason companies are sitting on piles of cash is not that they they don't have any suitable profitable investment opportunities, it is because they don't have suitable investment opportunities with ENOUGH profit. Again, if a company can invest a dollar and get back more than a dollar, THEY DO IT, and they worry about the tax consequences afterwards. In your world, well people don't cash in winning lottery tickets because the taxes are too high. It's a damn fantasy world and has no basis in the real world.
 
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.

If you really have to ask the difference between a business account and a personal one, with the understanding as to WHY the need for a small business owner to separate the two, then you don’t know a thing about small business.

When the hell have I ever asked about the difference between a business account and a personal account? As a successful business owner for more than twenty five years I believe I know the damn difference. And in my business mixing the two gets you a quick trip to jail. My question is rather simple, would a company, or an individual business owner, be more likely to take money out of their business if they had to pay twenty cents on the dollar in taxes as opposed to thirty-five cents a dollar in taxes?

Yeah right. I’m sure that explains why you made your initial statement by saying a small business owner will just take all that extra money and blow it on a new sports car. It’s so obvious.

If you must respond with making such a ridiculous statement regarding small business owners, having more of their own money to simply blow on themselves. Then you need to backtrack for me so I can explain to you the idiocy behind even thinking to make such a remark, with how and why an intelligent business owner does not mix personal and business accounts, it explains all I need to know about your knowledge of small business.

Progressives can’t even comprehend why, if it’s such a great benefit to businesses owners to have the government establish such a high (increasing) corporate tax rate (35 ... maybe even 40%), that other nations are not likewise seeing such a valuable asset and likewise increasing THEIR Corporate Tax rate to match ours ... or higher than ours. Obviously the choice of many nations to instead lower their nations’ corporate tax rate, is a mistake for those companies who wish to grow and benefit from creating more jobs. Right?

Move on there buddy.

Look here dumbshit. The numbers clearly support my position. That is why I posted the formula for the Weighted Average Cost of Capital. Not my problem that it is over your head. But more importantly, history backs my position as well. Back when the Bush Jr. passed his tax cuts I worked out of an office where all the sales people were self-employed and getting 1099's. Almost all of them were making over six figures. At the time, one of the most frequent questions to financial advisers was, "Will my tax cut pay for a new sports car". And I saw it, as new Jaqs and Mercedes starting showing up in the parking lot for the Friday morning meeting. Hell, it is common sense. Are you more likely to reinvest in your business if you can only keep sixty cents out of every dollar you take out or if you can keep eighty cents of every dollar you take out? Tax cuts DO NOT ENCOURAGE people to reinvest in their business, it encourages them to TAKE MONEY OUT.

But maybe more succinctly, look at the historical GDP growth rate. Back when corporate taxes were around the fifty percent mark we consistently saw double digit growth in GDP. The reason, that high marginal tax rate encouraged businesses to invest in themselves and discouraged them from "taking profits". But as soon as we cut that corporate tax rate you can see an almost immediate drop in GDP growth. In fact, we have not seen a quarter with double digit annualized growth rate since JIMMY CARTER.
 
I'm still wondering why the tax cuts for corporations are going to be permanent, and the tax cuts for average citizens will expire in 10 years?

Shouldn't it be the other way around? Tell the corporations they can have their tax cuts for 10 years, but they will expire if they don't reinvest the money as well as move jobs back to the USA?

Would make more sense, and would cause the corporations to actually work towards moving jobs back here.
That is false .... but, hey, tell the story any way you like.

1) Corporations think in terms of decades, not years like individuals do ... if you tell a corporation that they can have a tax break for 10 years IF they perform the way the government tells them, they're going to tell you the government to stick where the sun don't shine. I can't think of a single executive that would willingly accept a deal where there is a guillotine ten years out. The risk is too high.

2) If a corporation accepted the 10 year sunset clause, and invested locally, it would not begin to see a positive return on its investment in 3 - 5 years (in most cases). Conversely, knowing that the sunset is about to happen, they would be forced to liquidate beginning in year 7 (to avoid a fire sale), and move the investment off-shore. The off-shore organizations, conversely, would know they have the national corporations in a box, and would demand maximum compensation.

3) The 10 year sunset clause effectively negates the purpose of the tax cut.

4) "... would cause the corporations to actually work towards moving jobs back here ..." Corporations have no motivation to move jobs back here. Their only job is to make money for their investors. They must be enticed by being offered a better business deal than they have now.

Right, that is why companies never accept those short term tax breaks for relocating.
 
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?

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?

Your scenario would not even pass an Accounting 101 test. Look at it again and see if you can tell me the problem.

The problem is your feeling that a $650,000 annual profit is better than an $800,000 annual profit.

By all means, feel free to tell me the problem.

The problem is you completely ignore both risk and time. Like the million dollar investment. You claim they write it all off in the same year they get the income. It is like the million dollars just magically appeared. And the profit, you act like that profit is a given, not only this year, but every year. It's is completely naive and indicates you have no real understanding of the dynamics of business financial planning. The company has to either take the million dollars from profits or borrow it. If they borrow it, then the cost of capital is even lower in both situations. In fact, that is one of the situations when a corporate tax rate cut is called for, when companies are practicing excessive borrowing for high risk investments. But that is not what is happening now. The real ignorance in your position is the idea that the reason companies are sitting on piles of cash is not that they they don't have any suitable profitable investment opportunities, it is because they don't have suitable investment opportunities with ENOUGH profit. Again, if a company can invest a dollar and get back more than a dollar, THEY DO IT, and they worry about the tax consequences afterwards. In your world, well people don't cash in winning lottery tickets because the taxes are too high. It's a damn fantasy world and has no basis in the real world.

The problem is you completely ignore both risk and time.

Personally, I'd take a bigger risk for $800,000 a year than for $650,000 a year.

Like the million dollar investment. You claim they write it all off in the same year they get the income.


For the sake of your simple example, it works.
If you want to break it up in a different way, lay it out.

It is like the million dollars just magically appeared. And the profit, you act like that profit is a given, not only this year, but every year.

Again, simple example.

It's is completely naive and indicates you have no real understanding of the dynamics of business financial planning.


Naïve? No real understanding? Coming from the guy who thinks $650,000 is better than $800,000 that's fucking hilarious!

If they borrow it, then the cost of capital is even lower in both situations.

Yup.

In fact, that is one of the situations when a corporate tax rate cut is called for, when companies are practicing excessive borrowing for high risk investments.


After 8 years of Obama's regulatory idiocy, I'm surprised corps didn't invest even less than they did.

The real ignorance in your position is the idea that the reason companies are sitting on piles of cash is not that they they don't have any suitable profitable investment opportunities,

8 years of Obama and the prospect of 8 years of your old sot.....I'd hoard cash too.

it is because they don't have suitable investment opportunities with ENOUGH profit.

Well, $800K is more than $650K, but I digress.
 
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.

If you really have to ask the difference between a business account and a personal one, with the understanding as to WHY the need for a small business owner to separate the two, then you don’t know a thing about small business.

When the hell have I ever asked about the difference between a business account and a personal account? As a successful business owner for more than twenty five years I believe I know the damn difference. And in my business mixing the two gets you a quick trip to jail. My question is rather simple, would a company, or an individual business owner, be more likely to take money out of their business if they had to pay twenty cents on the dollar in taxes as opposed to thirty-five cents a dollar in taxes?

Yeah right. I’m sure that explains why you made your initial statement by saying a small business owner will just take all that extra money and blow it on a new sports car. It’s so obvious.

If you must respond with making such a ridiculous statement regarding small business owners, having more of their own money to simply blow on themselves. Then you need to backtrack for me so I can explain to you the idiocy behind even thinking to make such a remark, with how and why an intelligent business owner does not mix personal and business accounts, it explains all I need to know about your knowledge of small business.

Progressives can’t even comprehend why, if it’s such a great benefit to businesses owners to have the government establish such a high (increasing) corporate tax rate (35 ... maybe even 40%), that other nations are not likewise seeing such a valuable asset and likewise increasing THEIR Corporate Tax rate to match ours ... or higher than ours. Obviously the choice of many nations to instead lower their nations’ corporate tax rate, is a mistake for those companies who wish to grow and benefit from creating more jobs. Right?

Move on there buddy.

Look here dumbshit. The numbers clearly support my position. That is why I posted the formula for the Weighted Average Cost of Capital. Not my problem that it is over your head. But more importantly, history backs my position as well. Back when the Bush Jr. passed his tax cuts I worked out of an office where all the sales people were self-employed and getting 1099's. Almost all of them were making over six figures. At the time, one of the most frequent questions to financial advisers was, "Will my tax cut pay for a new sports car". And I saw it, as new Jaqs and Mercedes starting showing up in the parking lot for the Friday morning meeting. Hell, it is common sense. Are you more likely to reinvest in your business if you can only keep sixty cents out of every dollar you take out or if you can keep eighty cents of every dollar you take out? Tax cuts DO NOT ENCOURAGE people to reinvest in their business, it encourages them to TAKE MONEY OUT.

But maybe more succinctly, look at the historical GDP growth rate. Back when corporate taxes were around the fifty percent mark we consistently saw double digit growth in GDP. The reason, that high marginal tax rate encouraged businesses to invest in themselves and discouraged them from "taking profits". But as soon as we cut that corporate tax rate you can see an almost immediate drop in GDP growth. In fact, we have not seen a quarter with double digit annualized growth rate since JIMMY CARTER.

Tax cuts DO NOT ENCOURAGE people to reinvest in their business, it encourages them to TAKE MONEY OUT.


Yeah, no one starts a new business if they see the prospect of taking more money out. DERP!
 
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?

Your scenario would not even pass an Accounting 101 test. Look at it again and see if you can tell me the problem.

The problem is your feeling that a $650,000 annual profit is better than an $800,000 annual profit.

By all means, feel free to tell me the problem.

The problem is you completely ignore both risk and time. Like the million dollar investment. You claim they write it all off in the same year they get the income. It is like the million dollars just magically appeared. And the profit, you act like that profit is a given, not only this year, but every year. It's is completely naive and indicates you have no real understanding of the dynamics of business financial planning. The company has to either take the million dollars from profits or borrow it. If they borrow it, then the cost of capital is even lower in both situations. In fact, that is one of the situations when a corporate tax rate cut is called for, when companies are practicing excessive borrowing for high risk investments. But that is not what is happening now. The real ignorance in your position is the idea that the reason companies are sitting on piles of cash is not that they they don't have any suitable profitable investment opportunities, it is because they don't have suitable investment opportunities with ENOUGH profit. Again, if a company can invest a dollar and get back more than a dollar, THEY DO IT, and they worry about the tax consequences afterwards. In your world, well people don't cash in winning lottery tickets because the taxes are too high. It's a damn fantasy world and has no basis in the real world.

The problem is you completely ignore both risk and time.

Personally, I'd take a bigger risk for $800,000 a year than for $650,000 a year.

Like the million dollar investment. You claim they write it all off in the same year they get the income.


For the sake of your simple example, it works.
If you want to break it up in a different way, lay it out.

It is like the million dollars just magically appeared. And the profit, you act like that profit is a given, not only this year, but every year.

Again, simple example.

It's is completely naive and indicates you have no real understanding of the dynamics of business financial planning.


Naïve? No real understanding? Coming from the guy who thinks $650,000 is better than $800,000 that's fucking hilarious!

If they borrow it, then the cost of capital is even lower in both situations.

Yup.

In fact, that is one of the situations when a corporate tax rate cut is called for, when companies are practicing excessive borrowing for high risk investments.


After 8 years of Obama's regulatory idiocy, I'm surprised corps didn't invest even less than they did.

The real ignorance in your position is the idea that the reason companies are sitting on piles of cash is not that they they don't have any suitable profitable investment opportunities,

8 years of Obama and the prospect of 8 years of your old sot.....I'd hoard cash too.

it is because they don't have suitable investment opportunities with ENOUGH profit.

Well, $800K is more than $650K, but I digress.

Look, bookmark this thread. If the tax cuts pass don't expect much in the form of GDP growth. As Krugman has pointed out, damn near all the growth will have to come from foreign investment, and I doubt much of that will happen. What most certainly will not happen is domestic companies expanding anything. Like the numbers dictate, and I have been screaming, is that those companies will be encouraged to take money out of their business and discouraged from investing in their business. Currently, three percent yearly growth rate is considered pretty good. Trump claims he can get that above four. I confidently predict we won't even see two, if not a downright decline in GDP growth. I have posted this link before, and I am pretty sure you either didn't bother to read it, or don't have the intelligence to understand it.

How Tax Rates Affect Investment and Consumption - A Look at the Data

conservatives and libertarians have a very, very flawed theory of the world. At the very least it does not conform at all with historical US data. At all. Which of course has serious consequences; because that theory is somewhat dominant in the political sphere, and has been since the late 60s. The end result – slower economic growth for all of us since the late 60s. That has real consequences for real people – 310 million of us. That should have repercussions for the consciences of economists who peddle this garbage, though apparently it doesn’t.
 
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?

Your scenario would not even pass an Accounting 101 test. Look at it again and see if you can tell me the problem.

The problem is your feeling that a $650,000 annual profit is better than an $800,000 annual profit.

By all means, feel free to tell me the problem.

The problem is you completely ignore both risk and time. Like the million dollar investment. You claim they write it all off in the same year they get the income. It is like the million dollars just magically appeared. And the profit, you act like that profit is a given, not only this year, but every year. It's is completely naive and indicates you have no real understanding of the dynamics of business financial planning. The company has to either take the million dollars from profits or borrow it. If they borrow it, then the cost of capital is even lower in both situations. In fact, that is one of the situations when a corporate tax rate cut is called for, when companies are practicing excessive borrowing for high risk investments. But that is not what is happening now. The real ignorance in your position is the idea that the reason companies are sitting on piles of cash is not that they they don't have any suitable profitable investment opportunities, it is because they don't have suitable investment opportunities with ENOUGH profit. Again, if a company can invest a dollar and get back more than a dollar, THEY DO IT, and they worry about the tax consequences afterwards. In your world, well people don't cash in winning lottery tickets because the taxes are too high. It's a damn fantasy world and has no basis in the real world.

The problem is you completely ignore both risk and time.

Personally, I'd take a bigger risk for $800,000 a year than for $650,000 a year.

Like the million dollar investment. You claim they write it all off in the same year they get the income.


For the sake of your simple example, it works.
If you want to break it up in a different way, lay it out.

It is like the million dollars just magically appeared. And the profit, you act like that profit is a given, not only this year, but every year.

Again, simple example.

It's is completely naive and indicates you have no real understanding of the dynamics of business financial planning.


Naïve? No real understanding? Coming from the guy who thinks $650,000 is better than $800,000 that's fucking hilarious!

If they borrow it, then the cost of capital is even lower in both situations.

Yup.

In fact, that is one of the situations when a corporate tax rate cut is called for, when companies are practicing excessive borrowing for high risk investments.


After 8 years of Obama's regulatory idiocy, I'm surprised corps didn't invest even less than they did.

The real ignorance in your position is the idea that the reason companies are sitting on piles of cash is not that they they don't have any suitable profitable investment opportunities,

8 years of Obama and the prospect of 8 years of your old sot.....I'd hoard cash too.

it is because they don't have suitable investment opportunities with ENOUGH profit.

Well, $800K is more than $650K, but I digress.

Look, bookmark this thread. If the tax cuts pass don't expect much in the form of GDP growth. As Krugman has pointed out, damn near all the growth will have to come from foreign investment, and I doubt much of that will happen. What most certainly will not happen is domestic companies expanding anything. Like the numbers dictate, and I have been screaming, is that those companies will be encouraged to take money out of their business and discouraged from investing in their business. Currently, three percent yearly growth rate is considered pretty good. Trump claims he can get that above four. I confidently predict we won't even see two, if not a downright decline in GDP growth. I have posted this link before, and I am pretty sure you either didn't bother to read it, or don't have the intelligence to understand it.

How Tax Rates Affect Investment and Consumption - A Look at the Data

conservatives and libertarians have a very, very flawed theory of the world. At the very least it does not conform at all with historical US data. At all. Which of course has serious consequences; because that theory is somewhat dominant in the political sphere, and has been since the late 60s. The end result – slower economic growth for all of us since the late 60s. That has real consequences for real people – 310 million of us. That should have repercussions for the consciences of economists who peddle this garbage, though apparently it doesn’t.

As Krugman has pointed out,

Krugman? LOL!
Has the stock market recovered yet from Trump's victory?

Oh, and about that economic growth: Foreign investors would be earning profits and taking them home. So much — probably most — of any growth we would get from cutting corporate taxes would accrue to the benefit of foreigners, not Americans.

And all we would get is employment and the tax revenues from their profits.

and I am pretty sure you either didn't bother to read it, or don't have the intelligence to understand it.

Before I understand your link, get me to understand the superiority of $650,000 over $800,000.
 
Your scenario would not even pass an Accounting 101 test. Look at it again and see if you can tell me the problem.

The problem is your feeling that a $650,000 annual profit is better than an $800,000 annual profit.

By all means, feel free to tell me the problem.

The problem is you completely ignore both risk and time. Like the million dollar investment. You claim they write it all off in the same year they get the income. It is like the million dollars just magically appeared. And the profit, you act like that profit is a given, not only this year, but every year. It's is completely naive and indicates you have no real understanding of the dynamics of business financial planning. The company has to either take the million dollars from profits or borrow it. If they borrow it, then the cost of capital is even lower in both situations. In fact, that is one of the situations when a corporate tax rate cut is called for, when companies are practicing excessive borrowing for high risk investments. But that is not what is happening now. The real ignorance in your position is the idea that the reason companies are sitting on piles of cash is not that they they don't have any suitable profitable investment opportunities, it is because they don't have suitable investment opportunities with ENOUGH profit. Again, if a company can invest a dollar and get back more than a dollar, THEY DO IT, and they worry about the tax consequences afterwards. In your world, well people don't cash in winning lottery tickets because the taxes are too high. It's a damn fantasy world and has no basis in the real world.

The problem is you completely ignore both risk and time.

Personally, I'd take a bigger risk for $800,000 a year than for $650,000 a year.

Like the million dollar investment. You claim they write it all off in the same year they get the income.


For the sake of your simple example, it works.
If you want to break it up in a different way, lay it out.

It is like the million dollars just magically appeared. And the profit, you act like that profit is a given, not only this year, but every year.

Again, simple example.

It's is completely naive and indicates you have no real understanding of the dynamics of business financial planning.


Naïve? No real understanding? Coming from the guy who thinks $650,000 is better than $800,000 that's fucking hilarious!

If they borrow it, then the cost of capital is even lower in both situations.

Yup.

In fact, that is one of the situations when a corporate tax rate cut is called for, when companies are practicing excessive borrowing for high risk investments.


After 8 years of Obama's regulatory idiocy, I'm surprised corps didn't invest even less than they did.

The real ignorance in your position is the idea that the reason companies are sitting on piles of cash is not that they they don't have any suitable profitable investment opportunities,

8 years of Obama and the prospect of 8 years of your old sot.....I'd hoard cash too.

it is because they don't have suitable investment opportunities with ENOUGH profit.

Well, $800K is more than $650K, but I digress.

Look, bookmark this thread. If the tax cuts pass don't expect much in the form of GDP growth. As Krugman has pointed out, damn near all the growth will have to come from foreign investment, and I doubt much of that will happen. What most certainly will not happen is domestic companies expanding anything. Like the numbers dictate, and I have been screaming, is that those companies will be encouraged to take money out of their business and discouraged from investing in their business. Currently, three percent yearly growth rate is considered pretty good. Trump claims he can get that above four. I confidently predict we won't even see two, if not a downright decline in GDP growth. I have posted this link before, and I am pretty sure you either didn't bother to read it, or don't have the intelligence to understand it.

How Tax Rates Affect Investment and Consumption - A Look at the Data

conservatives and libertarians have a very, very flawed theory of the world. At the very least it does not conform at all with historical US data. At all. Which of course has serious consequences; because that theory is somewhat dominant in the political sphere, and has been since the late 60s. The end result – slower economic growth for all of us since the late 60s. That has real consequences for real people – 310 million of us. That should have repercussions for the consciences of economists who peddle this garbage, though apparently it doesn’t.

As Krugman has pointed out,

Krugman? LOL!
Has the stock market recovered yet from Trump's victory?

Oh, and about that economic growth: Foreign investors would be earning profits and taking them home. So much — probably most — of any growth we would get from cutting corporate taxes would accrue to the benefit of foreigners, not Americans.

And all we would get is employment and the tax revenues from their profits.

and I am pretty sure you either didn't bother to read it, or don't have the intelligence to understand it.

Before I understand your link, get me to understand the superiority of $650,000 over $800,000.

I have attempted to explain to you how the choice is not between $650,000 or $800,000. You completely ignore risk. You completely ignore time. But most of all, you act as if there is no risk and no lag in time. At it's simplest, both options provide a one hundred percent return but the $650,000 option provides less risk. Damn near every company will choose the least risky option provided the same percentage return. Why do you buy stocks and not options. Options would provide a much higher return. Instead of making ten, twenty, or thirty percent you could make two hundred, three hundred, hell a thousand percent. The truth of the matter is that as the marginal tax rate decreases risk increases and the IRR of acceptable investments declines. That is why companies invest only in low yielding surefire options and refuse to go out on a limb and take high risk high potential return options. It is why buyouts and buybacks are the norm, not new patents and bigger factories. It is why companies seek rents, not expanded markets. The proof is all there. But you continue to believe in some fantasy land.
 
The problem is your feeling that a $650,000 annual profit is better than an $800,000 annual profit.

By all means, feel free to tell me the problem.

The problem is you completely ignore both risk and time. Like the million dollar investment. You claim they write it all off in the same year they get the income. It is like the million dollars just magically appeared. And the profit, you act like that profit is a given, not only this year, but every year. It's is completely naive and indicates you have no real understanding of the dynamics of business financial planning. The company has to either take the million dollars from profits or borrow it. If they borrow it, then the cost of capital is even lower in both situations. In fact, that is one of the situations when a corporate tax rate cut is called for, when companies are practicing excessive borrowing for high risk investments. But that is not what is happening now. The real ignorance in your position is the idea that the reason companies are sitting on piles of cash is not that they they don't have any suitable profitable investment opportunities, it is because they don't have suitable investment opportunities with ENOUGH profit. Again, if a company can invest a dollar and get back more than a dollar, THEY DO IT, and they worry about the tax consequences afterwards. In your world, well people don't cash in winning lottery tickets because the taxes are too high. It's a damn fantasy world and has no basis in the real world.

The problem is you completely ignore both risk and time.

Personally, I'd take a bigger risk for $800,000 a year than for $650,000 a year.

Like the million dollar investment. You claim they write it all off in the same year they get the income.


For the sake of your simple example, it works.
If you want to break it up in a different way, lay it out.

It is like the million dollars just magically appeared. And the profit, you act like that profit is a given, not only this year, but every year.

Again, simple example.

It's is completely naive and indicates you have no real understanding of the dynamics of business financial planning.


Naïve? No real understanding? Coming from the guy who thinks $650,000 is better than $800,000 that's fucking hilarious!

If they borrow it, then the cost of capital is even lower in both situations.

Yup.

In fact, that is one of the situations when a corporate tax rate cut is called for, when companies are practicing excessive borrowing for high risk investments.


After 8 years of Obama's regulatory idiocy, I'm surprised corps didn't invest even less than they did.

The real ignorance in your position is the idea that the reason companies are sitting on piles of cash is not that they they don't have any suitable profitable investment opportunities,

8 years of Obama and the prospect of 8 years of your old sot.....I'd hoard cash too.

it is because they don't have suitable investment opportunities with ENOUGH profit.

Well, $800K is more than $650K, but I digress.

Look, bookmark this thread. If the tax cuts pass don't expect much in the form of GDP growth. As Krugman has pointed out, damn near all the growth will have to come from foreign investment, and I doubt much of that will happen. What most certainly will not happen is domestic companies expanding anything. Like the numbers dictate, and I have been screaming, is that those companies will be encouraged to take money out of their business and discouraged from investing in their business. Currently, three percent yearly growth rate is considered pretty good. Trump claims he can get that above four. I confidently predict we won't even see two, if not a downright decline in GDP growth. I have posted this link before, and I am pretty sure you either didn't bother to read it, or don't have the intelligence to understand it.

How Tax Rates Affect Investment and Consumption - A Look at the Data

conservatives and libertarians have a very, very flawed theory of the world. At the very least it does not conform at all with historical US data. At all. Which of course has serious consequences; because that theory is somewhat dominant in the political sphere, and has been since the late 60s. The end result – slower economic growth for all of us since the late 60s. That has real consequences for real people – 310 million of us. That should have repercussions for the consciences of economists who peddle this garbage, though apparently it doesn’t.

As Krugman has pointed out,

Krugman? LOL!
Has the stock market recovered yet from Trump's victory?

Oh, and about that economic growth: Foreign investors would be earning profits and taking them home. So much — probably most — of any growth we would get from cutting corporate taxes would accrue to the benefit of foreigners, not Americans.

And all we would get is employment and the tax revenues from their profits.

and I am pretty sure you either didn't bother to read it, or don't have the intelligence to understand it.

Before I understand your link, get me to understand the superiority of $650,000 over $800,000.

I have attempted to explain to you how the choice is not between $650,000 or $800,000. You completely ignore risk. You completely ignore time. But most of all, you act as if there is no risk and no lag in time. At it's simplest, both options provide a one hundred percent return but the $650,000 option provides less risk. Damn near every company will choose the least risky option provided the same percentage return. Why do you buy stocks and not options. Options would provide a much higher return. Instead of making ten, twenty, or thirty percent you could make two hundred, three hundred, hell a thousand percent. The truth of the matter is that as the marginal tax rate decreases risk increases and the IRR of acceptable investments declines. That is why companies invest only in low yielding surefire options and refuse to go out on a limb and take high risk high potential return options. It is why buyouts and buybacks are the norm, not new patents and bigger factories. It is why companies seek rents, not expanded markets. The proof is all there. But you continue to believe in some fantasy land.

At it's simplest, both options provide a one hundred percent return but the $650,000 option provides less risk.

Less risk, less reward.

Why do you buy stocks and not options.


If I could choose between a stock that returns 80% and a stock that returns 65%, I know which one I'd choose.
Which one would you choose?
 
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.

If you really have to ask the difference between a business account and a personal one, with the understanding as to WHY the need for a small business owner to separate the two, then you don’t know a thing about small business.

When the hell have I ever asked about the difference between a business account and a personal account? As a successful business owner for more than twenty five years I believe I know the damn difference. And in my business mixing the two gets you a quick trip to jail. My question is rather simple, would a company, or an individual business owner, be more likely to take money out of their business if they had to pay twenty cents on the dollar in taxes as opposed to thirty-five cents a dollar in taxes?

Yeah right. I’m sure that explains why you made your initial statement by saying a small business owner will just take all that extra money and blow it on a new sports car. It’s so obvious.

If you must respond with making such a ridiculous statement regarding small business owners, having more of their own money to simply blow on themselves. Then you need to backtrack for me so I can explain to you the idiocy behind even thinking to make such a remark, with how and why an intelligent business owner does not mix personal and business accounts, it explains all I need to know about your knowledge of small business.

Progressives can’t even comprehend why, if it’s such a great benefit to businesses owners to have the government establish such a high (increasing) corporate tax rate (35 ... maybe even 40%), that other nations are not likewise seeing such a valuable asset and likewise increasing THEIR Corporate Tax rate to match ours ... or higher than ours. Obviously the choice of many nations to instead lower their nations’ corporate tax rate, is a mistake for those companies who wish to grow and benefit from creating more jobs. Right?

Move on there buddy.

Look here dumbshit. The numbers clearly support my position. That is why I posted the formula for the Weighted Average Cost of Capital. Not my problem that it is over your head. But more importantly, history backs my position as well. Back when the Bush Jr. passed his tax cuts I worked out of an office where all the sales people were self-employed and getting 1099's. Almost all of them were making over six figures. At the time, one of the most frequent questions to financial advisers was, "Will my tax cut pay for a new sports car". And I saw it, as new Jaqs and Mercedes starting showing up in the parking lot for the Friday morning meeting. Hell, it is common sense. Are you more likely to reinvest in your business if you can only keep sixty cents out of every dollar you take out or if you can keep eighty cents of every dollar you take out? Tax cuts DO NOT ENCOURAGE people to reinvest in their business, it encourages them to TAKE MONEY OUT.

But maybe more succinctly, look at the historical GDP growth rate. Back when corporate taxes were around the fifty percent mark we consistently saw double digit growth in GDP. The reason, that high marginal tax rate encouraged businesses to invest in themselves and discouraged them from "taking profits". But as soon as we cut that corporate tax rate you can see an almost immediate drop in GDP growth. In fact, we have not seen a quarter with double digit annualized growth rate since JIMMY CARTER.

Tax cuts encourage business owners to take money out, to blow that money on a personal gratification like a brand new car? Those are your responses to lowering the corporate tax rate for businesses, a private sector economy made up of a majority of small business owners. Perhaps you are attempting to share from your own [apparent] personal business decisions you have made? I very seriously doubt you will find anyresponsible small business owner, with a basic knowledge on how to run a business, mixing business and personal accounts for their own pleasures. That’s one sure way to run your business to the ground.

Also, that “equation” you keep spouting (as I have already effectively explained for any simpleton to understand) is to show a business’ ability to produce the equity needed to meet their financial obligations to corporate investors, those who invest stocks and bonds into their “corporation”, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with owner’s decision to reinvest a part of a business’ own profits to make improvements to their company You are a complete dumbass to think that “equation” applies at all to those who make the decision to venture out and start their own small business, and later decide to reinvest some of that business equity into their own company to make their business more profitable and efficient..
 
If the Republicans succeed in taxing tuition waivers, only the wealthiest students will be able to pursue a graduate education. Totally wrong. Every American who studies hard must have access, regardless of their income.
 
DPblHPsXcAASDtP.jpg
 

Forum List

Back
Top