Americans are already united...against corporate greed — it's Joe Biden who should join the cause

[basquebromance]

Joe Biden is a corporate whore. Americans are united against that!

Americans are united against corporate greed — Biden should join the cause

Biden entertaining the thoughts of fabulously wealthy chief executives, which only delays the passing of relief that tens of millions of Americans need right now, is egregious and unacceptable.

thehill.com

 

[Winston]

Joe Biden is a corporate whore. Americans are united against that!

Americans are united against corporate greed — Biden should join the cause

Biden entertaining the thoughts of fabulously wealthy chief executives, which only delays the passing of relief that tens of millions of Americans need right now, is egregious and unacceptable.

thehill.com

Trump was the ultimate corporate whore. His corporate tax cuts was a fiasco that benefited the wealthy, provided comical illusionary short term bonuses for some workers, and actually incentivized companies to increase investment abroad. The real problem with the US economy, the real reason wages are stagnant and GDP growth is anemic, is rent-seeking. And the corporate tax cut only made matters worse.

 

[TNHarley]

First post and already a deflection

 

[Uncensored2008]

Joe Biden is a corporate whore. Americans are united against that!

Americans are united against corporate greed — Biden should join the cause

Biden entertaining the thoughts of fabulously wealthy chief executives, which only delays the passing of relief that tens of millions of Americans need right now, is egregious and unacceptable.

thehill.com

Greediest corporation on earth is Apple, followed closely by Disney.

I don't see much opposition to them

 

[Uncensored2008]

Joe Biden is a corporate whore. Americans are united against that!

Americans are united against corporate greed — Biden should join the cause

Biden entertaining the thoughts of fabulously wealthy chief executives, which only delays the passing of relief that tens of millions of Americans need right now, is egregious and unacceptable.

thehill.com

Trump was the ultimate corporate whore. His corporate tax cuts was a fiasco that benefited the wealthy, provided comical illusionary short term bonuses for some workers, and actually incentivized companies to increase investment abroad. The real problem with the US economy, the real reason wages are stagnant and GDP growth is anemic, is rent-seeking. And the corporate tax cut only made matters worse.

If that were even close to true, he would be president. But the Oligarchs of Apple, Nike, Amazon, Target, et al. were against him.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

and actually incentivized companies to increase investment abroad.

Liar.

 

[basquebromance]

dear liberals: conservatives are not your enemy, Biden is!

 

[Winston]

and actually incentivized companies to increase investment abroad.

Liar.

You think? Let's talk about those employee bonuses. The corporate tax cut was announced and what happened? Why companies as diverse as Walmart and American Airlines passed out bonuses to employees. But here is the thing, the bonuses were handed out before the corporate tax cut went into effect. It was a cynical play, the companies got to write the bonuses off at the old higher corporate tax rate. Now, well they aren't handing out bonuses. And it makes perfect sense. If Walmart hands out a thousand dollar bonus under the old corporate tax rate, well they only have to pay $650 of it. The other $350 comes from a reduction in tax liability. But if they do it today, well they have to pay $790 of it, they only save $210 in tax liability. I mean you do understand the law of supply and demand don't you? The "cost" of a thousand dollar employee bonus goes UP when corporate tax rates are cut. So yeah, you get less of them.

Nope, two big results from the Trump tax cut--increased stock buybacks. And I know we have been down this road before, but the one thing you cannot argue is that stock buybacks stimulate the economy. They do nothing of the kind, it is rent seeking, plain and simple. And rent seeking results in ineffective resource allocation and a contraction of the economy. I want to say that is Econ 101, but it is not. It is slightly more advanced. Maybe you might want to look into William Lazonick, who predicted exactly what happened before the corporate tax cut was even initiated. But he is just one on many economists who actually understand rent-seeking and how it has completely distorted our current economy.

The other result was the exact opposite of what was claimed. Foreign investment increased. It did not decrease. I mean fool me once, shame on you. Fool me over and over again, shame on me. Corporations have fooled us time and time again claiming they would return foreign profits if they just got a tax break. It has never, ever, happened.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

and actually incentivized companies to increase investment abroad.

Liar.

You think? Let's talk about those employee bonuses. The corporate tax cut was announced and what happened? Why companies as diverse as Walmart and American Airlines passed out bonuses to employees. But here is the thing, the bonuses were handed out before the corporate tax cut went into effect. It was a cynical play, the companies got to write the bonuses off at the old higher corporate tax rate. Now, well they aren't handing out bonuses. And it makes perfect sense. If Walmart hands out a thousand dollar bonus under the old corporate tax rate, well they only have to pay $650 of it. The other $350 comes from a reduction in tax liability. But if they do it today, well they have to pay $790 of it, they only save $210 in tax liability. I mean you do understand the law of supply and demand don't you? The "cost" of a thousand dollar employee bonus goes UP when corporate tax rates are cut. So yeah, you get less of them.

Nope, two big results from the Trump tax cut--increased stock buybacks. And I know we have been down this road before, but the one thing you cannot argue is that stock buybacks stimulate the economy. They do nothing of the kind, it is rent seeking, plain and simple. And rent seeking results in ineffective resource allocation and a contraction of the economy. I want to say that is Econ 101, but it is not. It is slightly more advanced. Maybe you might want to look into William Lazonick, who predicted exactly what happened before the corporate tax cut was even initiated. But he is just one on many economists who actually understand rent-seeking and how it has completely distorted our current economy.

The other result was the exact opposite of what was claimed. Foreign investment increased. It did not decrease. I mean fool me once, shame on you. Fool me over and over again, shame on me. Corporations have fooled us time and time again claiming they would return foreign profits if they just got a tax break. It has never, ever, happened.

You think? Let's talk about those employee bonuses.

Hey, why don't you change the subject instead of discussing your lie?

one thing you cannot argue is that stock buybacks stimulate the economy.

When my stocks go up, it stimulates my economy!
As far as everyone else....research "the wealth effect".

They do nothing of the kind, it is rent seeking, plain and simple.

Liar.

Understanding Rent Seeking
The concept of rent seeking was established in 1967 by Gordon Tullock and later popularized by Anne Krueger in 1974. It evolved from the studies of Adam Smith, who is often regarded as the father of economics, and is based on an economic definition of “rent,” defined as economic wealth obtained through shrewd or potentially manipulative use of resources.


Smith's studies suggested that entities earn income from wages, profit, and rent. To create profit usually requires the risk of capital with the goal of gaining a return. Earning wages comes from employment. However, of the three income sources, rent is the easiest to obtain and can require little risk.


Economic rent is the income earned from the utilization of resource ownership. Entities that own resources can lend them to earn interest rents, lease them to earn rental income, or they may utilize their resources in other income-producing ways.


In general, the term economic rent has evolved to mean receiving a payment that exceeds the costs involved in the associated resource. Entities, therefore, will take rent seeking steps to obtain economic rent that requires no reciprocal contribution of production. Oftentimes, this can mean using a particular status to gain economic rent from the government through social service grants.

Rent Seeking Definition (investopedia.com)

Corporations doing stock buybacks are not using their resources to "earn interest rents, lease them to earn rental income, or they may utilize their resources in other income-producing ways"

They've decided to return those resources to the owners, by buying back shares.

The other result was the exact opposite of what was claimed. Foreign investment increased. It did not decrease.

Who claimed it would decrease foreign investment? Link?

Stick to your claim, prove "it incentivized companies to increase investment abroad".

Maybe you might want to look into William Lazonick, who predicted exactly what happened before the corporate tax cut was even initiated. But he is just one on many economists who actually understand rent-seeking and how it has completely distorted our current economy.

I looked at a couple of his articles, he didn't mention rent-seeking.

 

[Winston]

and actually incentivized companies to increase investment abroad.

Liar.

You think? Let's talk about those employee bonuses. The corporate tax cut was announced and what happened? Why companies as diverse as Walmart and American Airlines passed out bonuses to employees. But here is the thing, the bonuses were handed out before the corporate tax cut went into effect. It was a cynical play, the companies got to write the bonuses off at the old higher corporate tax rate. Now, well they aren't handing out bonuses. And it makes perfect sense. If Walmart hands out a thousand dollar bonus under the old corporate tax rate, well they only have to pay $650 of it. The other $350 comes from a reduction in tax liability. But if they do it today, well they have to pay $790 of it, they only save $210 in tax liability. I mean you do understand the law of supply and demand don't you? The "cost" of a thousand dollar employee bonus goes UP when corporate tax rates are cut. So yeah, you get less of them.

Nope, two big results from the Trump tax cut--increased stock buybacks. And I know we have been down this road before, but the one thing you cannot argue is that stock buybacks stimulate the economy. They do nothing of the kind, it is rent seeking, plain and simple. And rent seeking results in ineffective resource allocation and a contraction of the economy. I want to say that is Econ 101, but it is not. It is slightly more advanced. Maybe you might want to look into William Lazonick, who predicted exactly what happened before the corporate tax cut was even initiated. But he is just one on many economists who actually understand rent-seeking and how it has completely distorted our current economy.

The other result was the exact opposite of what was claimed. Foreign investment increased. It did not decrease. I mean fool me once, shame on you. Fool me over and over again, shame on me. Corporations have fooled us time and time again claiming they would return foreign profits if they just got a tax break. It has never, ever, happened.

You think? Let's talk about those employee bonuses.

Hey, why don't you change the subject instead of discussing your lie?

one thing you cannot argue is that stock buybacks stimulate the economy.

When my stocks go up, it stimulates my economy!
As far as everyone else....research "the wealth effect".

They do nothing of the kind, it is rent seeking, plain and simple.

Liar.

Understanding Rent Seeking
The concept of rent seeking was established in 1967 by Gordon Tullock and later popularized by Anne Krueger in 1974. It evolved from the studies of Adam Smith, who is often regarded as the father of economics, and is based on an economic definition of “rent,” defined as economic wealth obtained through shrewd or potentially manipulative use of resources.


Smith's studies suggested that entities earn income from wages, profit, and rent. To create profit usually requires the risk of capital with the goal of gaining a return. Earning wages comes from employment. However, of the three income sources, rent is the easiest to obtain and can require little risk.


Economic rent is the income earned from the utilization of resource ownership. Entities that own resources can lend them to earn interest rents, lease them to earn rental income, or they may utilize their resources in other income-producing ways.


In general, the term economic rent has evolved to mean receiving a payment that exceeds the costs involved in the associated resource. Entities, therefore, will take rent seeking steps to obtain economic rent that requires no reciprocal contribution of production. Oftentimes, this can mean using a particular status to gain economic rent from the government through social service grants.

Rent Seeking Definition (investopedia.com)

Corporations doing stock buybacks are not using their resources to "earn interest rents, lease them to earn rental income, or they may utilize their resources in other income-producing ways"

They've decided to return those resources to the owners, by buying back shares.

The other result was the exact opposite of what was claimed. Foreign investment increased. It did not decrease.

Who claimed it would decrease foreign investment? Link?

Stick to your claim, prove "it incentivized companies to increase investment abroad".

Maybe you might want to look into William Lazonick, who predicted exactly what happened before the corporate tax cut was even initiated. But he is just one on many economists who actually understand rent-seeking and how it has completely distorted our current economy.

I looked at a couple of his articles, he didn't mention rent-seeking.

Well I don't think you looked very hard concerning Lazonick. Here is one that specifically addresses stock buybacks.

The Economist Who Put Stock Buybacks in Washingtonâs Crosshairs

William Lazonick’s long-standing skepticism toward the shareholder-value model has become a central element of the economic platforms of several Democratic Presidential candidates.

www.newyorker.com

But let's talk about those buybacks. You can try and spin them however you like but they serve one purpose and one purpose only, to inflate the price of a company's stock. It was why stock buybacks were illegal for decades. Now the simple definition of rent seeking is this. Instead of making more pie, you get more of the pie that is already there. Hello stock buybacks. Instead of taking a company's funds and making capital investments, you know, to make more pie, they are used to buy up company stock, driving up the price and increasing executive compensation giving the executives what, why more damn pie. Did they make anything? No. Did they create anything? No.

A stock buyback is, in effect, a company openly admitting to stockholders that they have no profitable capital investments to make so here, take some of your money back.

Now, to the perverse incentives within the TCJA that incentivize companies to invest overseas,

While cutting corporate tax rates, the 2017 tax law also overhauled the tax rules for U.S. companies’ overseas profits. In fact, one of the claimed selling points of the TCJA was that the legislation would allow U.S. firms to access profits that had been “trapped” overseas by the old international tax system, enabling them to invest more in the United States. In reality, these profits were never really trapped overseas, and past experience had demonstrated that extending special low tax rates to past overseas profits would not boost jobs or investment in the United States.

Worse, as the TCJA was being rushed through Congress, critics warned that some of the key international tax provisions would actually create new incentives for U.S. companies to invest overseas instead of in the United States. The law replaced the old international tax system (which was undoubtedly highly flawed) with a new regime that generally exempts the overseas profits of American firms from U.S. tax, thereby favoring them relative to domestic profits. The law also includes two provisions that are intended to prevent U.S. companies from artificially reporting their profits overseas to avoid U.S. tax and encourage them to locate intangible assets (such as patents or copyrights) in the United States. But under these two provisions—known as GILTI and FDII, respectively—firms can reduce their tax liability by locating more tangible assets (factories, equipment) overseas relative to the United States. For this reason, a group of leading tax scholars warned that the design of the GILTI regime “pushes U.S. firms in the direction of locating real assets (and accompanying jobs) overseas rather than domestically.” The CBO echoed this concern, noting that the two key international tax provisions of the TCJA “may increase corporations’ incentive to locate tangible assets abroad.

Trump’s Corporate Tax Cut Is Not Trickling Down

Business investment is slowing, despite lofty promises, and worker bonuses were a mirage.

www.americanprogress.org

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

and actually incentivized companies to increase investment abroad.

Liar.

You think? Let's talk about those employee bonuses. The corporate tax cut was announced and what happened? Why companies as diverse as Walmart and American Airlines passed out bonuses to employees. But here is the thing, the bonuses were handed out before the corporate tax cut went into effect. It was a cynical play, the companies got to write the bonuses off at the old higher corporate tax rate. Now, well they aren't handing out bonuses. And it makes perfect sense. If Walmart hands out a thousand dollar bonus under the old corporate tax rate, well they only have to pay $650 of it. The other $350 comes from a reduction in tax liability. But if they do it today, well they have to pay $790 of it, they only save $210 in tax liability. I mean you do understand the law of supply and demand don't you? The "cost" of a thousand dollar employee bonus goes UP when corporate tax rates are cut. So yeah, you get less of them.

Nope, two big results from the Trump tax cut--increased stock buybacks. And I know we have been down this road before, but the one thing you cannot argue is that stock buybacks stimulate the economy. They do nothing of the kind, it is rent seeking, plain and simple. And rent seeking results in ineffective resource allocation and a contraction of the economy. I want to say that is Econ 101, but it is not. It is slightly more advanced. Maybe you might want to look into William Lazonick, who predicted exactly what happened before the corporate tax cut was even initiated. But he is just one on many economists who actually understand rent-seeking and how it has completely distorted our current economy.

The other result was the exact opposite of what was claimed. Foreign investment increased. It did not decrease. I mean fool me once, shame on you. Fool me over and over again, shame on me. Corporations have fooled us time and time again claiming they would return foreign profits if they just got a tax break. It has never, ever, happened.

You think? Let's talk about those employee bonuses.

Hey, why don't you change the subject instead of discussing your lie?

one thing you cannot argue is that stock buybacks stimulate the economy.

When my stocks go up, it stimulates my economy!
As far as everyone else....research "the wealth effect".

They do nothing of the kind, it is rent seeking, plain and simple.

Liar.

Understanding Rent Seeking
The concept of rent seeking was established in 1967 by Gordon Tullock and later popularized by Anne Krueger in 1974. It evolved from the studies of Adam Smith, who is often regarded as the father of economics, and is based on an economic definition of “rent,” defined as economic wealth obtained through shrewd or potentially manipulative use of resources.


Smith's studies suggested that entities earn income from wages, profit, and rent. To create profit usually requires the risk of capital with the goal of gaining a return. Earning wages comes from employment. However, of the three income sources, rent is the easiest to obtain and can require little risk.


Economic rent is the income earned from the utilization of resource ownership. Entities that own resources can lend them to earn interest rents, lease them to earn rental income, or they may utilize their resources in other income-producing ways.


In general, the term economic rent has evolved to mean receiving a payment that exceeds the costs involved in the associated resource. Entities, therefore, will take rent seeking steps to obtain economic rent that requires no reciprocal contribution of production. Oftentimes, this can mean using a particular status to gain economic rent from the government through social service grants.

Rent Seeking Definition (investopedia.com)

Corporations doing stock buybacks are not using their resources to "earn interest rents, lease them to earn rental income, or they may utilize their resources in other income-producing ways"

They've decided to return those resources to the owners, by buying back shares.

The other result was the exact opposite of what was claimed. Foreign investment increased. It did not decrease.

Who claimed it would decrease foreign investment? Link?

Stick to your claim, prove "it incentivized companies to increase investment abroad".

Maybe you might want to look into William Lazonick, who predicted exactly what happened before the corporate tax cut was even initiated. But he is just one on many economists who actually understand rent-seeking and how it has completely distorted our current economy.

I looked at a couple of his articles, he didn't mention rent-seeking.

Well I don't think you looked very hard concerning Lazonick. Here is one that specifically addresses stock buybacks.

The Economist Who Put Stock Buybacks in Washingtonâs Crosshairs

William Lazonick’s long-standing skepticism toward the shareholder-value model has become a central element of the economic platforms of several Democratic Presidential candidates.

www.newyorker.com

But let's talk about those buybacks. You can try and spin them however you like but they serve one purpose and one purpose only, to inflate the price of a company's stock. It was why stock buybacks were illegal for decades. Now the simple definition of rent seeking is this. Instead of making more pie, you get more of the pie that is already there. Hello stock buybacks. Instead of taking a company's funds and making capital investments, you know, to make more pie, they are used to buy up company stock, driving up the price and increasing executive compensation giving the executives what, why more damn pie. Did they make anything? No. Did they create anything? No.

A stock buyback is, in effect, a company openly admitting to stockholders that they have no profitable capital investments to make so here, take some of your money back.

Now, to the perverse incentives within the TCJA that incentivize companies to invest overseas,

While cutting corporate tax rates, the 2017 tax law also overhauled the tax rules for U.S. companies’ overseas profits. In fact, one of the claimed selling points of the TCJA was that the legislation would allow U.S. firms to access profits that had been “trapped” overseas by the old international tax system, enabling them to invest more in the United States. In reality, these profits were never really trapped overseas, and past experience had demonstrated that extending special low tax rates to past overseas profits would not boost jobs or investment in the United States.

Worse, as the TCJA was being rushed through Congress, critics warned that some of the key international tax provisions would actually create new incentives for U.S. companies to invest overseas instead of in the United States. The law replaced the old international tax system (which was undoubtedly highly flawed) with a new regime that generally exempts the overseas profits of American firms from U.S. tax, thereby favoring them relative to domestic profits. The law also includes two provisions that are intended to prevent U.S. companies from artificially reporting their profits overseas to avoid U.S. tax and encourage them to locate intangible assets (such as patents or copyrights) in the United States. But under these two provisions—known as GILTI and FDII, respectively—firms can reduce their tax liability by locating more tangible assets (factories, equipment) overseas relative to the United States. For this reason, a group of leading tax scholars warned that the design of the GILTI regime “pushes U.S. firms in the direction of locating real assets (and accompanying jobs) overseas rather than domestically.” The CBO echoed this concern, noting that the two key international tax provisions of the TCJA “may increase corporations’ incentive to locate tangible assets abroad.

Trump’s Corporate Tax Cut Is Not Trickling Down

Business investment is slowing, despite lofty promises, and worker bonuses were a mirage.

www.americanprogress.org

Here is one that specifically addresses stock buybacks.

He doesn't like them. So what? Also, he didn't call them rent-seeking.

But let's talk about those buybacks. You can try and spin them however you like but they serve one purpose and one purpose only, to inflate the price of a company's stock.

Yeah, that's awful! Higher stock prices......bastards!!

Now the simple definition of rent seeking is this. Instead of making more pie, you get more of the pie that is already there.

Ummmm...the corporations are returning some of the pie they earned to their owners.

Hello stock buybacks.

Hello clueless.

Instead of taking a company's funds and making capital investments, you know, to make more pie,

You should start your own corporation, make all the pie you like.
Or buy up shares in a corporation and vote to end buybacks and dividends.
Or you could ignorantly whine some more.......

A stock buyback is, in effect, a company openly admitting to stockholders that they have no profitable capital investments to make so here, take some of your money back.

Which is better than wastefully making stupid investments, just to spend the money.

The law replaced the old international tax system (which was undoubtedly highly flawed)

No kidding. Which other countries taxed their corporations world-wide earnings?

Thanks for the non-partisan link.

 

[Papageorgio]

Joe Biden is a corporate whore. Americans are united against that!

Americans are united against corporate greed — Biden should join the cause

Biden entertaining the thoughts of fabulously wealthy chief executives, which only delays the passing of relief that tens of millions of Americans need right now, is egregious and unacceptable.

thehill.com

Trump was the ultimate corporate whore. His corporate tax cuts was a fiasco that benefited the wealthy, provided comical illusionary short term bonuses for some workers, and actually incentivized companies to increase investment abroad. The real problem with the US economy, the real reason wages are stagnant and GDP growth is anemic, is rent-seeking. And the corporate tax cut only made matters worse.

Obama had a chance to take it to the bankers and he didn’t do a damn thing. These two parties are nothing but whores, how any can support either party is beyond me.

 

[MarcATL]

Republicans are the party of corporate greed.

 

[Papageorgio]

Republicans are the party of corporate greed.

After 2009 we all know that it isn’t just Republicans that are the party of corporate greed, Dems looked the other way.