What you economic illiterates don't comprehend!

[JoeB131]

Safety, people flying in planes need air traffic control people well trained with decent paying jobs. wonder if the safety records have gone up or down? & would better planes flying less hours equate to better safety.

Actually, the airlines did become a lot more dangerous in the 80's, not only because of the strike but because of deregulation. Flying is generally a miserable experience now.

 

[KissMy]

Safety, people flying in planes need air traffic control people well trained with decent paying jobs. wonder if the safety records have gone up or down? & would better planes flying less hours equate to better safety.

Actually, the airlines did become a lot more dangerous in the 80's, not only because of the strike but because of deregulation. Flying is generally a miserable experience now.

Technology has made everything safer. However no-longer does any US air carrier rank in the top 30 global airlines. We use to dominate the top 10 airlines.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Part of the tax reform is reducing corporate taxes to 20%.
Many of you truly economic illiterates don't understand the gigantic economic benefit of this one single change.
A new report finds that around the world the extremely wealthy have accumulated at least $21 trillion in secretive offshore accounts. Super Rich Hide $21 Trillion Offshore, Study Says

So if the USA by lowering corporate taxes is able to repatriate just 10% or $2 trillion back to the USA what would be
the effect?
Let's assume of the $2 trillion it breaks down this way:
$1 trillion is re-invested in the stock market, bank accounts US treasuries you name it.
Leaves $1 trillion.
Let's assume then $500 billion is used to hire people for 10 years at $50,000 per year.
Well as most of the economic illiterates don't know, an employer pays an equal % for SS/Medicare 6.2%
So let's add to the $50,000 another $3,000 and round up to $60,000 for benefits,SS/Medicare,etc.
That means of the $500 billion divided by 10 years $50 billion a year or divided by $60,000 or total of 800,000 jobs.
That $50 billion in payroll means in Federal taxes: 12.4% SS/Medicare/income taxes: $18.7 billion to Federal govt.
Now the multiplier effect comes in to play:http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf
"Every $1 million spent is multiplied by 1.18 or $50 billion spent by employees: $60 billion back into the GDP.
Now this is JUST from hiring 800,000 people for 10 years.
Net gains therefore to the Federal government:

$187 billion in tax revenue alone in 10 years.
GDP increasing over $600 billion in 10 years.

AND this is just from 1/4th left of the $2 trillion repatriated.

Now if you economic illiterates want some further validation for what this means from the other 3/4ths of
the $2 trillion repatriated please ask as it gets EVEN better i.e. the multiplier EFFECT!!!

Prove me wrong .... PLEASE!!!

You can't prove a guy with his mind made up wrong.
"Economic illiterates "tells you how accepting our economics PhD is
The last time we repatriated (10 years ago?) companies bought back stock.
See the CEO video? How many will creste jobs?
No hands went up??
I Hope Marc Levinson (max was 1973, everything since confirms we can't get over 3% CONTINUALLY ) is wrong

The last time we repatriated (10 years ago?) companies bought back stock.

Oh no!!! That's awful, just terrible!!!

Why is that awful?

Who said it was awful?
Not for me, will add to my millions.
That's why I always vote republican.
And even for the C grabber

Good old American way, I've got mine, screw the uneducated

Who said it was awful?

A bunch of whiney libs.

 

[otto105]

Part of the tax reform is reducing corporate taxes to 20%.
Many of you truly economic illiterates don't understand the gigantic economic benefit of this one single change.
A new report finds that around the world the extremely wealthy have accumulated at least $21 trillion in secretive offshore accounts. Super Rich Hide $21 Trillion Offshore, Study Says

So if the USA by lowering corporate taxes is able to repatriate just 10% or $2 trillion back to the USA what would be
the effect?
Let's assume of the $2 trillion it breaks down this way:
$1 trillion is re-invested in the stock market, bank accounts US treasuries you name it.
Leaves $1 trillion.
Let's assume then $500 billion is used to hire people for 10 years at $50,000 per year.
Well as most of the economic illiterates don't know, an employer pays an equal % for SS/Medicare 6.2%
So let's add to the $50,000 another $3,000 and round up to $60,000 for benefits,SS/Medicare,etc.
That means of the $500 billion divided by 10 years $50 billion a year or divided by $60,000 or total of 800,000 jobs.
That $50 billion in payroll means in Federal taxes: 12.4% SS/Medicare/income taxes: $18.7 billion to Federal govt.
Now the multiplier effect comes in to play:http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf
"Every $1 million spent is multiplied by 1.18 or $50 billion spent by employees: $60 billion back into the GDP.
Now this is JUST from hiring 800,000 people for 10 years.
Net gains therefore to the Federal government:

$187 billion in tax revenue alone in 10 years.
GDP increasing over $600 billion in 10 years.

AND this is just from 1/4th left of the $2 trillion repatriated.

Now if you economic illiterates want some further validation for what this means from the other 3/4ths of
the $2 trillion repatriated please ask as it gets EVEN better i.e. the multiplier EFFECT!!!

Prove me wrong .... PLEASE!!!

You can't prove a guy with his mind made up wrong.
"Economic illiterates "tells you how accepting our economics PhD is
The last time we repatriated (10 years ago?) companies bought back stock.
See the CEO video? How many will creste jobs?
No hands went up??
I Hope Marc Levinson (max was 1973, everything since confirms we can't get over 3% CONTINUALLY ) is wrong

The last time we repatriated (10 years ago?) companies bought back stock.

Oh no!!! That's awful, just terrible!!!

Why is that awful?

Who said it was awful?
Not for me, will add to my millions.
That's why I always vote republican.
And even for the C grabber

Good old American way, I've got mine, screw the uneducated

Who said it was awful?

A bunch of whiney libs.

 

[otto105]

Part of the tax reform is reducing corporate taxes to 20%.
Many of you truly economic illiterates don't understand the gigantic economic benefit of this one single change.
A new report finds that around the world the extremely wealthy have accumulated at least $21 trillion in secretive offshore accounts. Super Rich Hide $21 Trillion Offshore, Study Says

So if the USA by lowering corporate taxes is able to repatriate just 10% or $2 trillion back to the USA what would be
the effect?
Let's assume of the $2 trillion it breaks down this way:
$1 trillion is re-invested in the stock market, bank accounts US treasuries you name it.
Leaves $1 trillion.
Let's assume then $500 billion is used to hire people for 10 years at $50,000 per year.
Well as most of the economic illiterates don't know, an employer pays an equal % for SS/Medicare 6.2%
So let's add to the $50,000 another $3,000 and round up to $60,000 for benefits,SS/Medicare,etc.
That means of the $500 billion divided by 10 years $50 billion a year or divided by $60,000 or total of 800,000 jobs.
That $50 billion in payroll means in Federal taxes: 12.4% SS/Medicare/income taxes: $18.7 billion to Federal govt.
Now the multiplier effect comes in to play:http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf
"Every $1 million spent is multiplied by 1.18 or $50 billion spent by employees: $60 billion back into the GDP.
Now this is JUST from hiring 800,000 people for 10 years.
Net gains therefore to the Federal government:

$187 billion in tax revenue alone in 10 years.
GDP increasing over $600 billion in 10 years.

AND this is just from 1/4th left of the $2 trillion repatriated.

Now if you economic illiterates want some further validation for what this means from the other 3/4ths of
the $2 trillion repatriated please ask as it gets EVEN better i.e. the multiplier EFFECT!!!

Prove me wrong .... PLEASE!!!

You can't prove a guy with his mind made up wrong.
"Economic illiterates "tells you how accepting our economics PhD is
The last time we repatriated (10 years ago?) companies bought back stock.
See the CEO video? How many will creste jobs?
No hands went up??
I Hope Marc Levinson (max was 1973, everything since confirms we can't get over 3% CONTINUALLY ) is wrong

The last time we repatriated (10 years ago?) companies bought back stock.

Oh no!!! That's awful, just terrible!!!

Why is that awful?

Who said it was awful?
Not for me, will add to my millions.
That's why I always vote republican.
And even for the C grabber

Good old American way, I've got mine, screw the uneducated

Who said it was awful?

A bunch of whiney libs.

First corporate stock buy back programs don't help the middle class and buying back company stock can inflate a company’s share price and boost its earnings per share (usually short term) both  metrics that often guide to lucrative executive bonuses.

As Reuters noted recently, “Stock buybacks enrich the bosses even when business sags".

 

[sartre play]

The one thing left out in all this numbers battle is the human factor, the son climbing up the money ladder is paying into S.S. at this point his dad is doing ok on his own. has S.S + some savings .Mom & dad are divorced but mom was a stay at home mom for years so her S.S is not enough now. other agency's are picking up part of the tab
. So the son is free to set him self up for his future. he has an advantage right now even though he cant collect for 40 years. S.S is helping him now. No parent is having to live under a bridge and he is not having to foot the bill for there care.

 

[Spare_change]

No, as a matter of fact, they didn't.

1) It was AGAINST THE LAW

2) It was not an issue of "putting safety at risk" -- they were striking for more money, and for less hours --- they wanted to get a full salary for 32 hrs/week that was earned 40 hrs/week.

Neither of these impacted safety -

Because- wait for it- a 40 hour week wasn't safe when you are directing hundreds of aircraft with vintage 1981 equipment. That's what they were striking against.

But Old Ronnie Ray-gun, he was all keen to bust them unions.

Of course, there is no basis for your comment .... I was still in the Air Force at that time, and had 30-40 ATCs working for me at any given time (they were part of the communications squadrons)

Generally, the equipment was state-of-the-art, except for RAPCON area units, which were in the process of being upgraded in the late 70s and 80s .... as for this nonsense about it being too "hard", the great majority of ATCs were not overtaxed - in fact, had plenty of time to handle aircraft. There were exceptions at some of the bigger airports, but those were handled by rotating crews (typically, disguised as 4 hours controlling and 4 hours "training" (better defined as watching TV and fucking off). Most ATC locations were significantly overstaffed.

Reagan enforced the law - plain and simple. The union stepped out of line, in the false belief that they held the hammer.

We can discuss unions, in general, if you wish. I'll be happy to explain how they have outlived their usefulness by 40 years, and are no longer needed. In fact, they are a detriment to their members and their industries.

 

[Spare_change]

Part of the tax reform is reducing corporate taxes to 20%.
Many of you truly economic illiterates don't understand the gigantic economic benefit of this one single change.
A new report finds that around the world the extremely wealthy have accumulated at least $21 trillion in secretive offshore accounts. Super Rich Hide $21 Trillion Offshore, Study Says

So if the USA by lowering corporate taxes is able to repatriate just 10% or $2 trillion back to the USA what would be
the effect?
Let's assume of the $2 trillion it breaks down this way:
$1 trillion is re-invested in the stock market, bank accounts US treasuries you name it.
Leaves $1 trillion.
Let's assume then $500 billion is used to hire people for 10 years at $50,000 per year.
Well as most of the economic illiterates don't know, an employer pays an equal % for SS/Medicare 6.2%
So let's add to the $50,000 another $3,000 and round up to $60,000 for benefits,SS/Medicare,etc.
That means of the $500 billion divided by 10 years $50 billion a year or divided by $60,000 or total of 800,000 jobs.
That $50 billion in payroll means in Federal taxes: 12.4% SS/Medicare/income taxes: $18.7 billion to Federal govt.
Now the multiplier effect comes in to play:http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf
"Every $1 million spent is multiplied by 1.18 or $50 billion spent by employees: $60 billion back into the GDP.
Now this is JUST from hiring 800,000 people for 10 years.
Net gains therefore to the Federal government:

$187 billion in tax revenue alone in 10 years.
GDP increasing over $600 billion in 10 years.

AND this is just from 1/4th left of the $2 trillion repatriated.

Now if you economic illiterates want some further validation for what this means from the other 3/4ths of
the $2 trillion repatriated please ask as it gets EVEN better i.e. the multiplier EFFECT!!!

Prove me wrong .... PLEASE!!!

You can't prove a guy with his mind made up wrong.
"Economic illiterates "tells you how accepting our economics PhD is
The last time we repatriated (10 years ago?) companies bought back stock.
See the CEO video? How many will creste jobs?
No hands went up??
I Hope Marc Levinson (max was 1973, everything since confirms we can't get over 3% CONTINUALLY ) is wrong

The last time we repatriated (10 years ago?) companies bought back stock.

Oh no!!! That's awful, just terrible!!!

Why is that awful?

Who said it was awful?
Not for me, will add to my millions.
That's why I always vote republican.
And even for the C grabber

Good old American way, I've got mine, screw the uneducated

Who said it was awful?

A bunch of whiney libs.

First corporate stock buy back programs don't help the middle class and buying back company stock can inflate a company’s share price and boost its earnings per share (usually short term) both metrics that often guide to lucrative executive bonuses.

As Reuters noted recently, “Stock buybacks enrich the bosses even when business sags".

I'm interested in your proclamations.

Just how does a company retaining debt help the middle class? Stock purchase buy-backs return equity to the company, thus increasing its baseline value. If the middle class owns some of that stock (and they do), then their per-share value increases. If a person owns 1% of a company's stock, for example, and half of all outstanding stock is purchased, the intrinsic value of the 1% is doubled. BUT - and here's the key - the value of the company has NOT increased. It still has the same baseline value (just split between fewer shares).

Further, having participated in numerous buy-back programs, the idea of coupling buy-backs to executive bonuses is ludicrous. The executives did not increase the value of the company. If you know of a company who has rewarded executives for buy-back programs, sell your stock. It has a Board of Directors that are blithering idiots. The primary reason for stock buy-backs is to remove the dilution of stock value caused by Employee Stock Ownership Programs. A company with 1,000 outstanding shares is MUCH more attractive than a company with 10,000,000 shares.

The reason you see stock price increases is because, by increasing its Profits-to-Earning ratio and Return-on Assets and Return on Equity ratios, it is more substantial financially. It becomes a much more attractive target for investment. In addition, it makes the company more attractive for future loans for expansion, etc., thus creating lower interest rates, which in turn, makes stock rise.

As for your Reuters' quote - of course. Executives typically are rewarded with stock and stock options. Anything that increases stock value enhances their portfolio.

Your statement was a gross overstatement, and in some cases, a gross error.