What do they do with the tax cuts

mnbasketball

Member
Mar 4, 2011
474
37
16
Now it's said that corp's and individual business owners have something 2.3 trillion sitting on the side doing nothing. Now if they needed more employees wouldn't you think they would have hired them? They make it sound like tax cuts means that MORE people will be hired because now they have more money.

But isn't the truth more like as a business, whom has plenty of excess money, get's to keep more money they will first and foremost spend to retain. So now we have given these corp money to use, which we are being told will some how mean more jobs, but being a person who have dealt with a fortune 500 company I can tell you they didn't hire people they didn't have a need for and they didn't hire people to make others work easier for them.

But what they do is use extra money to entice people to stay or to replace people who aren't getting what done they think they should by hiring someone from another company and firing the other guy.


So tax cuts will do three things as I see it, #1 being increase pay at the top positions, #2 entice people to work for you #3 increase profits to the bottom line.

But as far as hiring for the sake of having another body, I don't see it happening without increased production need of a product. JMH OBSEVATION.
 
Now it's said that corp's and individual business owners have something 2.3 trillion sitting on the side doing nothing. Now if they needed more employees wouldn't you think they would have hired them? They make it sound like tax cuts means that MORE people will be hired because now they have more money.

But isn't the truth more like as a business, whom has plenty of excess money, get's to keep more money they will first and foremost spend to retain. So now we have given these corp money to use, which we are being told will some how mean more jobs, but being a person who have dealt with a fortune 500 company I can tell you they didn't hire people they didn't have a need for and they didn't hire people to make others work easier for them.

But what they do is use extra money to entice people to stay or to replace people who aren't getting what done they think they should by hiring someone from another company and firing the other guy.


So tax cuts will do three things as I see it, #1 being increase pay at the top positions, #2 entice people to work for you #3 increase profits to the bottom line.

But as far as hiring for the sake of having another body, I don't see it happening without increased production need of a product. JMH OBSEVATION.

The company I work for spends $4B annually on R&D. I think it is safe to say that some of these tax cuts for businesses will be used in a similar fashion. Adddional R&D $ could lead to new jobs. Time will tell.
 
Last edited:
They do whatever they want with it. It's their money, not yours. Not the G's.

Less confiscation isn't a "tax cut" by the way, it's just less theft. Fucknut.
 
The company I work for spends $4B annually on R&D. I think it is safe to say that some of thee tax cuts for businesses will be used in a similar fashion. Additional R&D $ could lead to new jobs. Time will tell. (we have had 10 years, of business/personal tax cuts and it hasn't done it).


If they have 2.3 trillion on the side you don't think they are spending as much on R&D no as they need to. Budgets are completed based on what your needs are and are reduced/axed if you don't have the money. I don't hear anybody saying that they are short of money. It's a bribe maybe to get a company to move from one state to another, but it has little to do with job growth. One state gains, another loses, but it doesn't help our ecconomy much.
 
They do whatever they want with it. It's their money, not yours. Not the G's.

Less confiscation isn't a "tax cut" by the way, it's just less theft. Fucknut.

Sir kindly suck my private part and swallow hard, you piece of garbage.

But taking money from people is OK with you as long as it isn't you or your fiends, you whiny little pussy.
 
They do whatever they want with it. It's their money, not yours. Not the G's.

Less confiscation isn't a "tax cut" by the way, it's just less theft. Fucknut.

Sir kindly suck my private part and swallow hard, you piece of garbage.

But taking money from people is OK with you as long as it isn't you or your fiends, you whiny little pussy.
All federal taxation is theft, smegma pimple. No matter who the G is stealing from.

And try the quote button, stupid fuck. Perchance to make a feeble attempt to stop looking like a 11 year old on his mom's computer.
 
Now it's said that corp's and individual business owners have something 2.3 trillion sitting on the side doing nothing. Now if they needed more employees wouldn't you think they would have hired them? They make it sound like tax cuts means that MORE people will be hired because now they have more money.

But isn't the truth more like as a business, whom has plenty of excess money, get's to keep more money they will first and foremost spend to retain. So now we have given these corp money to use, which we are being told will some how mean more jobs, but being a person who have dealt with a fortune 500 company I can tell you they didn't hire people they didn't have a need for and they didn't hire people to make others work easier for them.

But what they do is use extra money to entice people to stay or to replace people who aren't getting what done they think they should by hiring someone from another company and firing the other guy.


So tax cuts will do three things as I see it, #1 being increase pay at the top positions, #2 entice people to work for you #3 increase profits to the bottom line.

But as far as hiring for the sake of having another body, I don't see it happening without increased production need of a product. JMH OBSEVATION.

You really have no idea how this whole business things works, do you?

A successful company doesn't just myopically go forward with what it's doing, oblivious to what's happening in the world around it. Those companies that are holding onto a stockpile of cash instead of hiring people and expanding are doing it because they find the current economic situation and government administration too unstable and unreliable to feel safe in making those expenditures and commitments. If, on the other hand, the administration embraced policies - like tax cuts - that indicated that the company would be more likely to be able to honor such commitments in the future, they'd be more willing to make them.
 
Now it's said that corp's and individual business owners have something 2.3 trillion sitting on the side doing nothing. Now if they needed more employees wouldn't you think they would have hired them? They make it sound like tax cuts means that MORE people will be hired because now they have more money.

But isn't the truth more like as a business, whom has plenty of excess money, get's to keep more money they will first and foremost spend to retain. So now we have given these corp money to use, which we are being told will some how mean more jobs, but being a person who have dealt with a fortune 500 company I can tell you they didn't hire people they didn't have a need for and they didn't hire people to make others work easier for them.

But what they do is use extra money to entice people to stay or to replace people who aren't getting what done they think they should by hiring someone from another company and firing the other guy.


So tax cuts will do three things as I see it, #1 being increase pay at the top positions, #2 entice people to work for you #3 increase profits to the bottom line.

But as far as hiring for the sake of having another body, I don't see it happening without increased production need of a product. JMH OBSEVATION.

You act like the government GAVE the corporations taxpayers money or the governments
money which is taxpayer money.....This is the corporations money to begin with.The government has decided to let them have more of "THEIR" money....

They do not have an obligation to spend it the way the LIBS want them to spend it.If the economy isn't right for them to expand their business and hire more people they will not and should not...:doubt:
 
This imbecile saw the crash of 2008, where alot of companies went out of business (the ones not bailed out) and he wonders why the survivors are hoarding capital?

When they were passing out brains he thought they said trains and said, "Gimme a slow one."
 
Now it's said that corp's and individual business owners have something 2.3 trillion sitting on the side doing nothing. Now if they needed more employees wouldn't you think they would have hired them? They make it sound like tax cuts means that MORE people will be hired because now they have more money.

But isn't the truth more like as a business, whom has plenty of excess money, get's to keep more money they will first and foremost spend to retain. So now we have given these corp money to use, which we are being told will some how mean more jobs, but being a person who have dealt with a fortune 500 company I can tell you they didn't hire people they didn't have a need for and they didn't hire people to make others work easier for them.

But what they do is use extra money to entice people to stay or to replace people who aren't getting what done they think they should by hiring someone from another company and firing the other guy.


So tax cuts will do three things as I see it, #1 being increase pay at the top positions, #2 entice people to work for you #3 increase profits to the bottom line.

But as far as hiring for the sake of having another body, I don't see it happening without increased production need of a product. JMH OBSEVATION.

You act like the government GAVE the corporations taxpayers money or the governments
money which is taxpayer money.....This is the corporations money to begin with.The government has decided to let them have more of "THEIR" money....

They do not have an obligation to spend it the way the LIBS want them to spend it.If the economy isn't right for them to expand their business and hire more people they will not and should not...:doubt:

That's one way to look at it.

I'd prefer to look at it this way: We the people have decided that the government won't continue to take more of our money.
 
Now it's said that corp's and individual business owners have something 2.3 trillion sitting on the side doing nothing. Now if they needed more employees wouldn't you think they would have hired them? They make it sound like tax cuts means that MORE people will be hired because now they have more money.

But isn't the truth more like as a business, whom has plenty of excess money, get's to keep more money they will first and foremost spend to retain. So now we have given these corp money to use, which we are being told will some how mean more jobs, but being a person who have dealt with a fortune 500 company I can tell you they didn't hire people they didn't have a need for and they didn't hire people to make others work easier for them.

But what they do is use extra money to entice people to stay or to replace people who aren't getting what done they think they should by hiring someone from another company and firing the other guy.


So tax cuts will do three things as I see it, #1 being increase pay at the top positions, #2 entice people to work for you #3 increase profits to the bottom line.

But as far as hiring for the sake of having another body, I don't see it happening without increased production need of a product. JMH OBSEVATION.

You really have no idea how this whole business things works, do you?

A successful company doesn't just myopically go forward with what it's doing, oblivious to what's happening in the world around it. Those companies that are holding onto a stockpile of cash instead of hiring people and expanding are doing it because they find the current economic situation and government administration too unstable and unreliable to feel safe in making those expenditures and commitments. If, on the other hand, the administration embraced policies - like tax cuts - that indicated that the company would be more likely to be able to honor such commitments in the future, they'd be more willing to make them.

Gee whiz, I guess that sounds really good, do you think that I could get a deal in Vegas where I see the dealers second card before I have to bet on the black jack table, or can I wait till then ball stops on the roulette table.

If they wanted to invest and thought there was a market for their product they would do it. Investing has little to do with being a good guy, and all to do with making money.

Someone needs to pay for the running of govt, so why does it have to be the guys in the middle who get less out of it that are the first to have their money taken away from them.
 
Now it's said that corp's and individual business owners have something 2.3 trillion sitting on the side doing nothing. Now if they needed more employees wouldn't you think they would have hired them? They make it sound like tax cuts means that MORE people will be hired because now they have more money.

But isn't the truth more like as a business, whom has plenty of excess money, get's to keep more money they will first and foremost spend to retain. So now we have given these corp money to use, which we are being told will some how mean more jobs, but being a person who have dealt with a fortune 500 company I can tell you they didn't hire people they didn't have a need for and they didn't hire people to make others work easier for them.

But what they do is use extra money to entice people to stay or to replace people who aren't getting what done they think they should by hiring someone from another company and firing the other guy.


So tax cuts will do three things as I see it, #1 being increase pay at the top positions, #2 entice people to work for you #3 increase profits to the bottom line.

But as far as hiring for the sake of having another body, I don't see it happening without increased production need of a product. JMH OBSEVATION.

#1,2,and #3 are negated by a POTUS that those willing to invest know will VETO what the NEW Congress want to do...

*UNCERTAINY* Add this word to your repitroire. It will serve you well.

/THREAD.
 
Now it's said that corp's and individual business owners have something 2.3 trillion sitting on the side doing nothing. Now if they needed more employees wouldn't you think they would have hired them? They make it sound like tax cuts means that MORE people will be hired because now they have more money.

But isn't the truth more like as a business, whom has plenty of excess money, get's to keep more money they will first and foremost spend to retain. So now we have given these corp money to use, which we are being told will some how mean more jobs, but being a person who have dealt with a fortune 500 company I can tell you they didn't hire people they didn't have a need for and they didn't hire people to make others work easier for them.

But what they do is use extra money to entice people to stay or to replace people who aren't getting what done they think they should by hiring someone from another company and firing the other guy.


So tax cuts will do three things as I see it, #1 being increase pay at the top positions, #2 entice people to work for you #3 increase profits to the bottom line.

But as far as hiring for the sake of having another body, I don't see it happening without increased production need of a product. JMH OBSEVATION.

You really have no idea how this whole business things works, do you?

A successful company doesn't just myopically go forward with what it's doing, oblivious to what's happening in the world around it. Those companies that are holding onto a stockpile of cash instead of hiring people and expanding are doing it because they find the current economic situation and government administration too unstable and unreliable to feel safe in making those expenditures and commitments. If, on the other hand, the administration embraced policies - like tax cuts - that indicated that the company would be more likely to be able to honor such commitments in the future, they'd be more willing to make them.

Gee whiz, I guess that sounds really good, do you think that I could get a deal in Vegas where I see the dealers second card before I have to bet on the black jack table, or can I wait till then ball stops on the roulette table.

If they wanted to invest and thought there was a market for their product they would do it. Investing has little to do with being a good guy, and all to do with making money.

Someone needs to pay for the running of govt, so why does it have to be the guys in the middle who get less out of it that are the first to have their money taken away from them.

I was right. You really DON'T understand how business works, if you think running one is the same as gambling in Vegas.

No one ever said investing had anything to do with being a "good guy". It DOES, however, have to do with looking at ALL of the relevant circumstances - including the current economic situation and the business-related policies of the government - before making a decision. You don't expand your business when you don't think you're going to be able to sustain that expansion for the long-term.

I have news for you, Spanky: businesses don't really pay taxes. They pass them on to the consumer in their prices. Which means the "guys in the middle" are going to pay for it, anyway. The problem arises when the taxes the business has to pass on get so high that the consumers become unwilling to pay the resulting high prices, which eats into the business's profit margin. Business owners see that coming down the pike - or even possibly coming down the pike - and they start battening down the financial hatches, ie. stockpiling money rather than spending it on expansion.

See my thread in "Economy" titled "They're ALL Greedy SOBs".
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top