Huge Companies Are Already Bleeding The Middle Class Dry, Why Do We Want To Give Them Tax Cuts?

[skews13]

Forty years ago, 109 firms earned half of the profits of U.S. public companies. Today it's just 30.

It could be argued that the greatest American pillaging is the transfer of taxpayer funds into the bloated military, or a greed-driven private health care system that deprives human beings of essential medical care. But the conversion of American technologies into low-taxed plutocratic profit may be the most flagrant attack on the middle class.

It can also be argued that the products of the technological companies have enriched and energized our lives in numerous ways, and that the high-tech job market has never been better. But the rest of us pay dearly for all the technological benefits, much more than just the hundreds of dollars for phones and phone service. We have lost middle-class jobs and middle-class wealth. We have lost our share of the national productivity that is the direct result of 70 years of taxpayer input into the technologies that have enriched fewer and fewer people.

Corporate Tax Cuts: Are They Kidding?

Donald Trump and the Republicans want a lower corporate tax rate. But many of the largest U.S. companies have paid ZERO federal income taxes in recent years, and overall the corporate world pays anywhere from 13 to 19 percent, about half the 35 percent statutory rate that they so often complain about.

In 2016, fifteen of the largest corporations in America, with combined revenue well over a trillion dollars, paid less than 6 percent in U.S. federal income taxes.

Meanwhile, profits have been growing at the fastest rate in six years, with a double-digit increase in the most recent quarter.


Huge Companies Are Already Bleeding the Middle Class Dry—So Why Do We Want to Give Them Tax Cuts?

 

[Darkwind]

Actually, none of this can be argued with a straight face.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Forty years ago, 109 firms earned half of the profits of U.S. public companies. Today it's just 30.

It could be argued that the greatest American pillaging is the transfer of taxpayer funds into the bloated military, or a greed-driven private health care system that deprives human beings of essential medical care. But the conversion of American technologies into low-taxed plutocratic profit may be the most flagrant attack on the middle class.

It can also be argued that the products of the technological companies have enriched and energized our lives in numerous ways, and that the high-tech job market has never been better. But the rest of us pay dearly for all the technological benefits, much more than just the hundreds of dollars for phones and phone service. We have lost middle-class jobs and middle-class wealth. We have lost our share of the national productivity that is the direct result of 70 years of taxpayer input into the technologies that have enriched fewer and fewer people.

Corporate Tax Cuts: Are They Kidding?

Donald Trump and the Republicans want a lower corporate tax rate. But many of the largest U.S. companies have paid ZERO federal income taxes in recent years, and overall the corporate world pays anywhere from 13 to 19 percent, about half the 35 percent statutory rate that they so often complain about.

In 2016, fifteen of the largest corporations in America, with combined revenue well over a trillion dollars, paid less than 6 percent in U.S. federal income taxes.

Meanwhile, profits have been growing at the fastest rate in six years, with a double-digit increase in the most recent quarter.


Huge Companies Are Already Bleeding the Middle Class Dry—So Why Do We Want to Give Them Tax Cuts?

Why Do We Want To Give Them Tax Cuts?

To remain competitive.

We have lost middle-class jobs and middle-class wealth.

If we tax them more, will corporations create more jobs? Increase wages?

But many of the largest U.S. companies have paid ZERO federal income taxes in recent years

It's true, companies only pay taxes in years they make a profit.

and overall the corporate world pays anywhere from 13 to 19 percent,

When you average in their lower rates overseas, their total rate will be lower than 35%.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Would you like a paycheck so you can feed your family? Then welcome companies and capitalism, because they hire workers and give them money. Welcome them, instead of trying to punish them.
They also pay the majority of taxes in this country even with tax incentives to lure them here, sooo stop being stupid, and welcome growth.

 

[Winston]

We have lost middle-class jobs and middle-class wealth.

If we tax them more, will corporations create more jobs? Increase wages?

.

Why yes, yes they will.

What nobody seems to realize is that wage expenses, capital investments, training of workers, and most other expenses involved in expanding a business comes from PRE TAX DOLLARS. A company doesn't pay taxes on "profits" that are reinvested back in to the business, rather it is to hand out raises to employees or to build a new production facility. Tax cuts do not encourage companies to put money back in to their businesses, it encourages them to TAKE MONEY OUT.

In today's LOW TAX ENVIRONMENT, well they tend to sometimes pass out dividends to shareholders, sometimes put the money in the cash pile, but most of the time, BUY BACK THEIR DAMN STOCK, a practice that was against the law not too long ago. Mostly because executive compensation is based on stock performance and the board of directors is nothing but a token group of the executives best buds.

But it gets worse. If a company decides to make a capital investment with borrowed funds their cost of capital is INVERSELY related to the marginal tax rate. The cost of failure is LOWER when tax rates are high. The Internal Rate of Return required to justify a given capital investment INCREASES as the tax rate declines. In today's low tax environment companies are reluctant to make capital investments on anything but low risk, low return objectives. The cost of failure is TOO HIGH due to a low marginal tax rate.

Maybe you have to be as old as me, and as aware as me, to remember when companies used to invest in their employees. When they used to make aggressive capital investments attempting to make more pie instead of trying to take more of the pie that is already there, which is called rent-seeking. It is that rent seeking that has resulted in the consolidation of profits to a few large companies that was alluded to in the OP.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We have lost middle-class jobs and middle-class wealth.

If we tax them more, will corporations create more jobs? Increase wages?

.

Why yes, yes they will.

What nobody seems to realize is that wage expenses, capital investments, training of workers, and most other expenses involved in expanding a business comes from PRE TAX DOLLARS. A company doesn't pay taxes on "profits" that are reinvested back in to the business, rather it is to hand out raises to employees or to build a new production facility. Tax cuts do not encourage companies to put money back in to their businesses, it encourages them to TAKE MONEY OUT.

In today's LOW TAX ENVIRONMENT, well they tend to sometimes pass out dividends to shareholders, sometimes put the money in the cash pile, but most of the time, BUY BACK THEIR DAMN STOCK, a practice that was against the law not too long ago. Mostly because executive compensation is based on stock performance and the board of directors is nothing but a token group of the executives best buds.

But it gets worse. If a company decides to make a capital investment with borrowed funds their cost of capital is INVERSELY related to the marginal tax rate. The cost of failure is LOWER when tax rates are high. The Internal Rate of Return required to justify a given capital investment INCREASES as the tax rate declines. In today's low tax environment companies are reluctant to make capital investments on anything but low risk, low return objectives. The cost of failure is TOO HIGH due to a low marginal tax rate.

Maybe you have to be as old as me, and as aware as me, to remember when companies used to invest in their employees. It is that rent seeking that has resulted in the consolidation of profits to a few large companies that was alluded to in the OP.

What nobody seems to realize is that wage expenses, capital investments, training of workers, and most other expenses involved in expanding a business comes from PRE TAX DOLLARS.

I realize that. Liberals who have a weak understanding of business (most of them) are the ones who don't.

Tax cuts do not encourage companies to put money back in to their businesses, it encourages them to TAKE MONEY OUT.

Tax hikes don't encourage people to start or expand their business.
People start a business to eventually TAKE MONEY OUT.

In today's LOW TAX ENVIRONMENT, well they tend to sometimes pass out dividends to shareholders, sometimes put the money in the cash pile, but most of the time, BUY BACK THEIR DAMN STOCK,

Why would they buy back their own stock instead of paying higher dividends which are then double taxed?
Oh, wait, I may have discovered why.

a practice that was against the law not too long ago.

Link?

The Internal Rate of Return required to justify a given capital investment INCREASES as the tax rate declines. In today's low tax environment companies are reluctant to make capital investments on anything but low risk, low return objectives. The cost of failure is TOO HIGH due to a low marginal tax rate.

OMG! That is an almost perfect example of liberal ignorance of business.
Let's raise the corporate tax rate to 100%....because then the cost of failure is zero, businesses will invest trillions. Moron!

And since when is our highest in the world corporate tax rate a "low tax environment"?

Maybe you have to be as old as me, and as aware as me, to remember when companies used to invest in their employees.

Maybe you can help me with the math....If a company earns a profit of $2.5 million and pays a corporate tax of 40%, they have an after tax profit of $1.5 million. If you raise the rate to 50%, they'd have an after tax profit of $1.25 million. Why does the prospect of a lower profit encourage the company to create more jobs and pay higher wages?

When they used to make aggressive capital investments attempting to make more pie instead of trying to take more of the pie that is already there, which is called rent-seeking.

Wrong. Rent seeking is when you donate $20 million to the Clinton Foundation so that Hillary rewards your corporation and punishes your competitors.

 

[Bassman007]

Forty years ago, 109 firms earned half of the profits of U.S. public companies. Today it's just 30.

It could be argued that the greatest American pillaging is the transfer of taxpayer funds into the bloated military, or a greed-driven private health care system that deprives human beings of essential medical care. But the conversion of American technologies into low-taxed plutocratic profit may be the most flagrant attack on the middle class.

It can also be argued that the products of the technological companies have enriched and energized our lives in numerous ways, and that the high-tech job market has never been better. But the rest of us pay dearly for all the technological benefits, much more than just the hundreds of dollars for phones and phone service. We have lost middle-class jobs and middle-class wealth. We have lost our share of the national productivity that is the direct result of 70 years of taxpayer input into the technologies that have enriched fewer and fewer people.

Corporate Tax Cuts: Are They Kidding?

Donald Trump and the Republicans want a lower corporate tax rate. But many of the largest U.S. companies have paid ZERO federal income taxes in recent years, and overall the corporate world pays anywhere from 13 to 19 percent, about half the 35 percent statutory rate that they so often complain about.

In 2016, fifteen of the largest corporations in America, with combined revenue well over a trillion dollars, paid less than 6 percent in U.S. federal income taxes.

Meanwhile, profits have been growing at the fastest rate in six years, with a double-digit increase in the most recent quarter.


Huge Companies Are Already Bleeding the Middle Class Dry—So Why Do We Want to Give Them Tax Cuts?

People on welfare will never understand

 

[Little-Acorn]

(the usual I-hate-corporations-and-want-to-steal-their-stuff talking points)

The leftists are going completely off the rails now. Can these people ever stop screaming for government (whose job is to make sure justice is rendered) should break the law and take everything they can from corporations, regardless of the actual effects of such a policy.

Will these people ever stop screaming for "revenge" against people and groups that have done them far more good than harm? How far does the "But... but... but they made a profit while doing it!!!" excuse go nowadays?

 

[OKTexas]

Forty years ago, 109 firms earned half of the profits of U.S. public companies. Today it's just 30.

It could be argued that the greatest American pillaging is the transfer of taxpayer funds into the bloated military, or a greed-driven private health care system that deprives human beings of essential medical care. But the conversion of American technologies into low-taxed plutocratic profit may be the most flagrant attack on the middle class.

It can also be argued that the products of the technological companies have enriched and energized our lives in numerous ways, and that the high-tech job market has never been better. But the rest of us pay dearly for all the technological benefits, much more than just the hundreds of dollars for phones and phone service. We have lost middle-class jobs and middle-class wealth. We have lost our share of the national productivity that is the direct result of 70 years of taxpayer input into the technologies that have enriched fewer and fewer people.

Corporate Tax Cuts: Are They Kidding?

Donald Trump and the Republicans want a lower corporate tax rate. But many of the largest U.S. companies have paid ZERO federal income taxes in recent years, and overall the corporate world pays anywhere from 13 to 19 percent, about half the 35 percent statutory rate that they so often complain about.

In 2016, fifteen of the largest corporations in America, with combined revenue well over a trillion dollars, paid less than 6 percent in U.S. federal income taxes.

Meanwhile, profits have been growing at the fastest rate in six years, with a double-digit increase in the most recent quarter.


Huge Companies Are Already Bleeding the Middle Class Dry—So Why Do We Want to Give Them Tax Cuts?

Why would anyone pay hundreds of dollars for a cell phone? My phone works as well as anyones and it was way less than a hundred dollars. Only idiots buy into apples hype. Now we have companies like Facebook and Google censoring speech, and you lefties aren't saying a damned word. Capitalism is a simple concept, if you don't like a company, take your dollars elsewhere.


.

 

[Winston]

We have lost middle-class jobs and middle-class wealth.

If we tax them more, will corporations create more jobs? Increase wages?

.

Why yes, yes they will.

What nobody seems to realize is that wage expenses, capital investments, training of workers, and most other expenses involved in expanding a business comes from PRE TAX DOLLARS. A company doesn't pay taxes on "profits" that are reinvested back in to the business, rather it is to hand out raises to employees or to build a new production facility. Tax cuts do not encourage companies to put money back in to their businesses, it encourages them to TAKE MONEY OUT.

In today's LOW TAX ENVIRONMENT, well they tend to sometimes pass out dividends to shareholders, sometimes put the money in the cash pile, but most of the time, BUY BACK THEIR DAMN STOCK, a practice that was against the law not too long ago. Mostly because executive compensation is based on stock performance and the board of directors is nothing but a token group of the executives best buds.

But it gets worse. If a company decides to make a capital investment with borrowed funds their cost of capital is INVERSELY related to the marginal tax rate. The cost of failure is LOWER when tax rates are high. The Internal Rate of Return required to justify a given capital investment INCREASES as the tax rate declines. In today's low tax environment companies are reluctant to make capital investments on anything but low risk, low return objectives. The cost of failure is TOO HIGH due to a low marginal tax rate.

Maybe you have to be as old as me, and as aware as me, to remember when companies used to invest in their employees. It is that rent seeking that has resulted in the consolidation of profits to a few large companies that was alluded to in the OP.

What nobody seems to realize is that wage expenses, capital investments, training of workers, and most other expenses involved in expanding a business comes from PRE TAX DOLLARS.

I realize that. Liberals who have a weak understanding of business (most of them) are the ones who don't.

Tax cuts do not encourage companies to put money back in to their businesses, it encourages them to TAKE MONEY OUT.

Tax hikes don't encourage people to start or expand their business.
People start a business to eventually TAKE MONEY OUT.

In today's LOW TAX ENVIRONMENT, well they tend to sometimes pass out dividends to shareholders, sometimes put the money in the cash pile, but most of the time, BUY BACK THEIR DAMN STOCK,

Why would they buy back their own stock instead of paying higher dividends which are then double taxed?
Oh, wait, I may have discovered why.

a practice that was against the law not too long ago.

Link?

The Internal Rate of Return required to justify a given capital investment INCREASES as the tax rate declines. In today's low tax environment companies are reluctant to make capital investments on anything but low risk, low return objectives. The cost of failure is TOO HIGH due to a low marginal tax rate.

OMG! That is an almost perfect example of liberal ignorance of business.
Let's raise the corporate tax rate to 100%....because then the cost of failure is zero, businesses will invest trillions. Moron!

And since when is our highest in the world corporate tax rate a "low tax environment"?

Maybe you have to be as old as me, and as aware as me, to remember when companies used to invest in their employees.

Maybe you can help me with the math....If a company earns a profit of $2.5 million and pays a corporate tax of 40%, they have an after tax profit of $1.5 million. If you raise the rate to 50%, they'd have an after tax profit of $1.25 million. Why does the prospect of a lower profit encourage the company to create more jobs and pay higher wages?

When they used to make aggressive capital investments attempting to make more pie instead of trying to take more of the pie that is already there, which is called rent-seeking.

Wrong. Rent seeking is when you donate $20 million to the Clinton Foundation so that Hillary rewards your corporation and punishes your competitors.

LMAO. I have an MBA and have ran my own business for more than two decades. Honestly, I have forgotten more about business than you will ever know. It is a fact, money invested back in the business is not taxed. It comes right off on my schedule C. As to the profit scenario, if I can make a buck ten off a buck investment I go for it. Nobody has ever thrown away a winning lottery ticket because of the high taxes. And, as Warren Buffet has said, he knows of no businessman that runs away from a profitable investment because of the tax rate. It's stupid to believe otherwise.

Now, I know you have to understanding of the WACC or an IRR. But look it up. The WACC is inversely related to the tax rate. You also know nothing about the Laffer curve and probably nothing about geometry. The Laffer curve is a FREAKIN CURVE. Yes, at very high rates taxes are prohibitive to business. But with an effective marginal tax rate of somewhere south of twenty percent we are nowhere near the turn in that curve.

And here is the thing. Business worry more about the money they might LOSE more than the money they might make. Since loses are deducted from taxable income the higher the marginal tax rate the less effect loses have on income. Look around hoss. Business are so damn scared of losing money they are running away from potentially profitable investments and instead are doing things like buying back stock and looking for ways to vertically integrate, consolidate, or cut production costs. Like I said, not making more pie, but taking more of the pie that is already there. If nothing else, hell, they just pile up the cash. I will let you in on a little secret, when companies are piling up the cash the damn last thing you need to do is cut their tax rate.

The Ugly Truth Behind Stock Buybacks

There, stock buybacks were illegal. Making them legal was just one of Reagan's many screwups in which we are still paying the consequences today.

Yes, political donations are one of the most visible means of rent seeking. And you know what encourages rent seeking--LOW EFFECTIVE TAX RATES. Oh, and a particularly ignorant SCOTUS decision. But rent seeking encompasses other behavior as well, like the consolidation mentioned in the OP. There is no better way to investigate this effect than a simple visit to the grocery store where competition has declined, margins have increased, wages have remained stagnant, and the workers and the customers are paying the price.

The Rent-Seeking Is Too Damn High

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We have lost middle-class jobs and middle-class wealth.

If we tax them more, will corporations create more jobs? Increase wages?

.

Why yes, yes they will.

What nobody seems to realize is that wage expenses, capital investments, training of workers, and most other expenses involved in expanding a business comes from PRE TAX DOLLARS. A company doesn't pay taxes on "profits" that are reinvested back in to the business, rather it is to hand out raises to employees or to build a new production facility. Tax cuts do not encourage companies to put money back in to their businesses, it encourages them to TAKE MONEY OUT.

In today's LOW TAX ENVIRONMENT, well they tend to sometimes pass out dividends to shareholders, sometimes put the money in the cash pile, but most of the time, BUY BACK THEIR DAMN STOCK, a practice that was against the law not too long ago. Mostly because executive compensation is based on stock performance and the board of directors is nothing but a token group of the executives best buds.

But it gets worse. If a company decides to make a capital investment with borrowed funds their cost of capital is INVERSELY related to the marginal tax rate. The cost of failure is LOWER when tax rates are high. The Internal Rate of Return required to justify a given capital investment INCREASES as the tax rate declines. In today's low tax environment companies are reluctant to make capital investments on anything but low risk, low return objectives. The cost of failure is TOO HIGH due to a low marginal tax rate.

Maybe you have to be as old as me, and as aware as me, to remember when companies used to invest in their employees. It is that rent seeking that has resulted in the consolidation of profits to a few large companies that was alluded to in the OP.

What nobody seems to realize is that wage expenses, capital investments, training of workers, and most other expenses involved in expanding a business comes from PRE TAX DOLLARS.

I realize that. Liberals who have a weak understanding of business (most of them) are the ones who don't.

Tax cuts do not encourage companies to put money back in to their businesses, it encourages them to TAKE MONEY OUT.

Tax hikes don't encourage people to start or expand their business.
People start a business to eventually TAKE MONEY OUT.

In today's LOW TAX ENVIRONMENT, well they tend to sometimes pass out dividends to shareholders, sometimes put the money in the cash pile, but most of the time, BUY BACK THEIR DAMN STOCK,

Why would they buy back their own stock instead of paying higher dividends which are then double taxed?
Oh, wait, I may have discovered why.

a practice that was against the law not too long ago.

Link?

The Internal Rate of Return required to justify a given capital investment INCREASES as the tax rate declines. In today's low tax environment companies are reluctant to make capital investments on anything but low risk, low return objectives. The cost of failure is TOO HIGH due to a low marginal tax rate.

OMG! That is an almost perfect example of liberal ignorance of business.
Let's raise the corporate tax rate to 100%....because then the cost of failure is zero, businesses will invest trillions. Moron!

And since when is our highest in the world corporate tax rate a "low tax environment"?

Maybe you have to be as old as me, and as aware as me, to remember when companies used to invest in their employees.

Maybe you can help me with the math....If a company earns a profit of $2.5 million and pays a corporate tax of 40%, they have an after tax profit of $1.5 million. If you raise the rate to 50%, they'd have an after tax profit of $1.25 million. Why does the prospect of a lower profit encourage the company to create more jobs and pay higher wages?

When they used to make aggressive capital investments attempting to make more pie instead of trying to take more of the pie that is already there, which is called rent-seeking.

Wrong. Rent seeking is when you donate $20 million to the Clinton Foundation so that Hillary rewards your corporation and punishes your competitors.

LMAO. I have an MBA and have ran my own business for more than two decades. Honestly, I have forgotten more about business than you will ever know. It is a fact, money invested back in the business is not taxed. It comes right off on my schedule C. As to the profit scenario, if I can make a buck ten off a buck investment I go for it. Nobody has ever thrown away a winning lottery ticket because of the high taxes. And, as Warren Buffet has said, he knows of no businessman that runs away from a profitable investment because of the tax rate. It's stupid to believe otherwise.

Now, I know you have to understanding of the WACC or an IRR. But look it up. The WACC is inversely related to the tax rate. You also know nothing about the Laffer curve and probably nothing about geometry. The Laffer curve is a FREAKIN CURVE. Yes, at very high rates taxes are prohibitive to business. But with an effective marginal tax rate of somewhere south of twenty percent we are nowhere near the turn in that curve.

And here is the thing. Business worry more about the money they might LOSE more than the money they might make. Since loses are deducted from taxable income the higher the marginal tax rate the less effect loses have on income. Look around hoss. Business are so damn scared of losing money they are running away from potentially profitable investments and instead are doing things like buying back stock and looking for ways to vertically integrate, consolidate, or cut production costs. Like I said, not making more pie, but taking more of the pie that is already there. If nothing else, hell, they just pile up the cash. I will let you in on a little secret, when companies are piling up the cash the damn last thing you need to do is cut their tax rate.

The Ugly Truth Behind Stock Buybacks

There, stock buybacks were illegal. Making them legal was just one of Reagan's many screwups in which we are still paying the consequences today.

Yes, political donations are one of the most visible means of rent seeking. And you know what encourages rent seeking--LOW EFFECTIVE TAX RATES. Oh, and a particularly ignorant SCOTUS decision. But rent seeking encompasses other behavior as well, like the consolidation mentioned in the OP. There is no better way to investigate this effect than a simple visit to the grocery store where competition has declined, margins have increased, wages have remained stagnant, and the workers and the customers are paying the price.

The Rent-Seeking Is Too Damn High

Honestly, I have forgotten more about business than you will ever know.

That would explain the idiocy you posted so far. Too bad you weren't posting before you forgot.

It is a fact, money invested back in the business is not taxed.

Absolutely. So fucking what?

As to the profit scenario, if I can make a buck ten off a buck investment I go for it.

Do you go for the buck ten more eagerly or less eagerly than you'd go after 80 cents? Why?

Since loses are deducted from taxable income the higher the marginal tax rate the less effect loses have on income.

The higher the rate, the less valuable the profit.

Business are so damn scared of losing money they are running away from potentially profitable investments

Lower after tax profits make investment less likely, not more likely.

I will let you in on a little secret, when companies are piling up the cash the damn last thing you need to do is cut their tax rate.

When corporations would rather hold their cash, than invest it, you need to do something.

And you know what encourages rent seeking--LOW EFFECTIVE TAX RATES.

A low, flat rate makes rent-seeking less useful.

 

[Winston]

We have lost middle-class jobs and middle-class wealth.

If we tax them more, will corporations create more jobs? Increase wages?

.

Why yes, yes they will.

What nobody seems to realize is that wage expenses, capital investments, training of workers, and most other expenses involved in expanding a business comes from PRE TAX DOLLARS. A company doesn't pay taxes on "profits" that are reinvested back in to the business, rather it is to hand out raises to employees or to build a new production facility. Tax cuts do not encourage companies to put money back in to their businesses, it encourages them to TAKE MONEY OUT.

In today's LOW TAX ENVIRONMENT, well they tend to sometimes pass out dividends to shareholders, sometimes put the money in the cash pile, but most of the time, BUY BACK THEIR DAMN STOCK, a practice that was against the law not too long ago. Mostly because executive compensation is based on stock performance and the board of directors is nothing but a token group of the executives best buds.

But it gets worse. If a company decides to make a capital investment with borrowed funds their cost of capital is INVERSELY related to the marginal tax rate. The cost of failure is LOWER when tax rates are high. The Internal Rate of Return required to justify a given capital investment INCREASES as the tax rate declines. In today's low tax environment companies are reluctant to make capital investments on anything but low risk, low return objectives. The cost of failure is TOO HIGH due to a low marginal tax rate.

Maybe you have to be as old as me, and as aware as me, to remember when companies used to invest in their employees. It is that rent seeking that has resulted in the consolidation of profits to a few large companies that was alluded to in the OP.

What nobody seems to realize is that wage expenses, capital investments, training of workers, and most other expenses involved in expanding a business comes from PRE TAX DOLLARS.

I realize that. Liberals who have a weak understanding of business (most of them) are the ones who don't.

Tax cuts do not encourage companies to put money back in to their businesses, it encourages them to TAKE MONEY OUT.

Tax hikes don't encourage people to start or expand their business.
People start a business to eventually TAKE MONEY OUT.

In today's LOW TAX ENVIRONMENT, well they tend to sometimes pass out dividends to shareholders, sometimes put the money in the cash pile, but most of the time, BUY BACK THEIR DAMN STOCK,

Why would they buy back their own stock instead of paying higher dividends which are then double taxed?
Oh, wait, I may have discovered why.

a practice that was against the law not too long ago.

Link?

The Internal Rate of Return required to justify a given capital investment INCREASES as the tax rate declines. In today's low tax environment companies are reluctant to make capital investments on anything but low risk, low return objectives. The cost of failure is TOO HIGH due to a low marginal tax rate.

OMG! That is an almost perfect example of liberal ignorance of business.
Let's raise the corporate tax rate to 100%....because then the cost of failure is zero, businesses will invest trillions. Moron!

And since when is our highest in the world corporate tax rate a "low tax environment"?

Maybe you have to be as old as me, and as aware as me, to remember when companies used to invest in their employees.

Maybe you can help me with the math....If a company earns a profit of $2.5 million and pays a corporate tax of 40%, they have an after tax profit of $1.5 million. If you raise the rate to 50%, they'd have an after tax profit of $1.25 million. Why does the prospect of a lower profit encourage the company to create more jobs and pay higher wages?

When they used to make aggressive capital investments attempting to make more pie instead of trying to take more of the pie that is already there, which is called rent-seeking.

Wrong. Rent seeking is when you donate $20 million to the Clinton Foundation so that Hillary rewards your corporation and punishes your competitors.

LMAO. I have an MBA and have ran my own business for more than two decades. Honestly, I have forgotten more about business than you will ever know. It is a fact, money invested back in the business is not taxed. It comes right off on my schedule C. As to the profit scenario, if I can make a buck ten off a buck investment I go for it. Nobody has ever thrown away a winning lottery ticket because of the high taxes. And, as Warren Buffet has said, he knows of no businessman that runs away from a profitable investment because of the tax rate. It's stupid to believe otherwise.

Now, I know you have to understanding of the WACC or an IRR. But look it up. The WACC is inversely related to the tax rate. You also know nothing about the Laffer curve and probably nothing about geometry. The Laffer curve is a FREAKIN CURVE. Yes, at very high rates taxes are prohibitive to business. But with an effective marginal tax rate of somewhere south of twenty percent we are nowhere near the turn in that curve.

And here is the thing. Business worry more about the money they might LOSE more than the money they might make. Since loses are deducted from taxable income the higher the marginal tax rate the less effect loses have on income. Look around hoss. Business are so damn scared of losing money they are running away from potentially profitable investments and instead are doing things like buying back stock and looking for ways to vertically integrate, consolidate, or cut production costs. Like I said, not making more pie, but taking more of the pie that is already there. If nothing else, hell, they just pile up the cash. I will let you in on a little secret, when companies are piling up the cash the damn last thing you need to do is cut their tax rate.

The Ugly Truth Behind Stock Buybacks

There, stock buybacks were illegal. Making them legal was just one of Reagan's many screwups in which we are still paying the consequences today.

Yes, political donations are one of the most visible means of rent seeking. And you know what encourages rent seeking--LOW EFFECTIVE TAX RATES. Oh, and a particularly ignorant SCOTUS decision. But rent seeking encompasses other behavior as well, like the consolidation mentioned in the OP. There is no better way to investigate this effect than a simple visit to the grocery store where competition has declined, margins have increased, wages have remained stagnant, and the workers and the customers are paying the price.

The Rent-Seeking Is Too Damn High

Honestly, I have forgotten more about business than you will ever know.

That would explain the idiocy you posted so far. Too bad you weren't posting before you forgot.

It is a fact, money invested back in the business is not taxed.

Absolutely. So fucking what?

As to the profit scenario, if I can make a buck ten off a buck investment I go for it.

Do you go for the buck ten more eagerly or less eagerly than you'd go after 80 cents? Why?

Since loses are deducted from taxable income the higher the marginal tax rate the less effect loses have on income.

The higher the rate, the less valuable the profit.

Business are so damn scared of losing money they are running away from potentially profitable investments

Lower after tax profits make investment less likely, not more likely.

I will let you in on a little secret, when companies are piling up the cash the damn last thing you need to do is cut their tax rate.

When corporations would rather hold their cash, than invest it, you need to do something.

And you know what encourages rent seeking--LOW EFFECTIVE TAX RATES.

A low, flat rate makes rent-seeking less useful.

Let's say you find a magic box. When you stick in a dollar, at first, it spits out two dollars. After several dollars go in, it spits out a dollar seventy five. Then after several more dollars, it spits out a dollar sixty-five. As you continue to feed it dollars it spits out "diminishing returns" on that dollar. Tell me, when do you decide not to stick in any more dollars?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We have lost middle-class jobs and middle-class wealth.

If we tax them more, will corporations create more jobs? Increase wages?

.

Why yes, yes they will.

What nobody seems to realize is that wage expenses, capital investments, training of workers, and most other expenses involved in expanding a business comes from PRE TAX DOLLARS. A company doesn't pay taxes on "profits" that are reinvested back in to the business, rather it is to hand out raises to employees or to build a new production facility. Tax cuts do not encourage companies to put money back in to their businesses, it encourages them to TAKE MONEY OUT.

In today's LOW TAX ENVIRONMENT, well they tend to sometimes pass out dividends to shareholders, sometimes put the money in the cash pile, but most of the time, BUY BACK THEIR DAMN STOCK, a practice that was against the law not too long ago. Mostly because executive compensation is based on stock performance and the board of directors is nothing but a token group of the executives best buds.

But it gets worse. If a company decides to make a capital investment with borrowed funds their cost of capital is INVERSELY related to the marginal tax rate. The cost of failure is LOWER when tax rates are high. The Internal Rate of Return required to justify a given capital investment INCREASES as the tax rate declines. In today's low tax environment companies are reluctant to make capital investments on anything but low risk, low return objectives. The cost of failure is TOO HIGH due to a low marginal tax rate.

Maybe you have to be as old as me, and as aware as me, to remember when companies used to invest in their employees. It is that rent seeking that has resulted in the consolidation of profits to a few large companies that was alluded to in the OP.

What nobody seems to realize is that wage expenses, capital investments, training of workers, and most other expenses involved in expanding a business comes from PRE TAX DOLLARS.

I realize that. Liberals who have a weak understanding of business (most of them) are the ones who don't.

Tax cuts do not encourage companies to put money back in to their businesses, it encourages them to TAKE MONEY OUT.

Tax hikes don't encourage people to start or expand their business.
People start a business to eventually TAKE MONEY OUT.

In today's LOW TAX ENVIRONMENT, well they tend to sometimes pass out dividends to shareholders, sometimes put the money in the cash pile, but most of the time, BUY BACK THEIR DAMN STOCK,

Why would they buy back their own stock instead of paying higher dividends which are then double taxed?
Oh, wait, I may have discovered why.

a practice that was against the law not too long ago.

Link?

The Internal Rate of Return required to justify a given capital investment INCREASES as the tax rate declines. In today's low tax environment companies are reluctant to make capital investments on anything but low risk, low return objectives. The cost of failure is TOO HIGH due to a low marginal tax rate.

OMG! That is an almost perfect example of liberal ignorance of business.
Let's raise the corporate tax rate to 100%....because then the cost of failure is zero, businesses will invest trillions. Moron!

And since when is our highest in the world corporate tax rate a "low tax environment"?

Maybe you have to be as old as me, and as aware as me, to remember when companies used to invest in their employees.

Maybe you can help me with the math....If a company earns a profit of $2.5 million and pays a corporate tax of 40%, they have an after tax profit of $1.5 million. If you raise the rate to 50%, they'd have an after tax profit of $1.25 million. Why does the prospect of a lower profit encourage the company to create more jobs and pay higher wages?

When they used to make aggressive capital investments attempting to make more pie instead of trying to take more of the pie that is already there, which is called rent-seeking.

Wrong. Rent seeking is when you donate $20 million to the Clinton Foundation so that Hillary rewards your corporation and punishes your competitors.

LMAO. I have an MBA and have ran my own business for more than two decades. Honestly, I have forgotten more about business than you will ever know. It is a fact, money invested back in the business is not taxed. It comes right off on my schedule C. As to the profit scenario, if I can make a buck ten off a buck investment I go for it. Nobody has ever thrown away a winning lottery ticket because of the high taxes. And, as Warren Buffet has said, he knows of no businessman that runs away from a profitable investment because of the tax rate. It's stupid to believe otherwise.

Now, I know you have to understanding of the WACC or an IRR. But look it up. The WACC is inversely related to the tax rate. You also know nothing about the Laffer curve and probably nothing about geometry. The Laffer curve is a FREAKIN CURVE. Yes, at very high rates taxes are prohibitive to business. But with an effective marginal tax rate of somewhere south of twenty percent we are nowhere near the turn in that curve.

And here is the thing. Business worry more about the money they might LOSE more than the money they might make. Since loses are deducted from taxable income the higher the marginal tax rate the less effect loses have on income. Look around hoss. Business are so damn scared of losing money they are running away from potentially profitable investments and instead are doing things like buying back stock and looking for ways to vertically integrate, consolidate, or cut production costs. Like I said, not making more pie, but taking more of the pie that is already there. If nothing else, hell, they just pile up the cash. I will let you in on a little secret, when companies are piling up the cash the damn last thing you need to do is cut their tax rate.

The Ugly Truth Behind Stock Buybacks

There, stock buybacks were illegal. Making them legal was just one of Reagan's many screwups in which we are still paying the consequences today.

Yes, political donations are one of the most visible means of rent seeking. And you know what encourages rent seeking--LOW EFFECTIVE TAX RATES. Oh, and a particularly ignorant SCOTUS decision. But rent seeking encompasses other behavior as well, like the consolidation mentioned in the OP. There is no better way to investigate this effect than a simple visit to the grocery store where competition has declined, margins have increased, wages have remained stagnant, and the workers and the customers are paying the price.

The Rent-Seeking Is Too Damn High

Honestly, I have forgotten more about business than you will ever know.

That would explain the idiocy you posted so far. Too bad you weren't posting before you forgot.

It is a fact, money invested back in the business is not taxed.

Absolutely. So fucking what?

As to the profit scenario, if I can make a buck ten off a buck investment I go for it.

Do you go for the buck ten more eagerly or less eagerly than you'd go after 80 cents? Why?

Since loses are deducted from taxable income the higher the marginal tax rate the less effect loses have on income.

The higher the rate, the less valuable the profit.

Business are so damn scared of losing money they are running away from potentially profitable investments

Lower after tax profits make investment less likely, not more likely.

I will let you in on a little secret, when companies are piling up the cash the damn last thing you need to do is cut their tax rate.

When corporations would rather hold their cash, than invest it, you need to do something.

And you know what encourages rent seeking--LOW EFFECTIVE TAX RATES.

A low, flat rate makes rent-seeking less useful.

Let's say you find a magic box. When you stick in a dollar, at first, it spits out two dollars. After several dollars go in, it spits out a dollar seventy five. Then after several more dollars, it spits out a dollar sixty-five. As you continue to feed it dollars it spits out "diminishing returns" on that dollar. Tell me, when do you decide not to stick in any more dollars?

Let's say you find 2 magic boxes.
When you stick in a dollar in the first one, it spits out two dollars.
When you stick in a dollar in the second one, it spits out a dollar fifty.

Which one would you rather put your dollars into?

 

[g5000]

Forty years ago, 109 firms earned half of the profits of U.S. public companies. Today it's just 30.

It could be argued that the greatest American pillaging is the transfer of taxpayer funds into the bloated military, or a greed-driven private health care system that deprives human beings of essential medical care. But the conversion of American technologies into low-taxed plutocratic profit may be the most flagrant attack on the middle class.

It can also be argued that the products of the technological companies have enriched and energized our lives in numerous ways, and that the high-tech job market has never been better. But the rest of us pay dearly for all the technological benefits, much more than just the hundreds of dollars for phones and phone service. We have lost middle-class jobs and middle-class wealth. We have lost our share of the national productivity that is the direct result of 70 years of taxpayer input into the technologies that have enriched fewer and fewer people.

Corporate Tax Cuts: Are They Kidding?

Donald Trump and the Republicans want a lower corporate tax rate. But many of the largest U.S. companies have paid ZERO federal income taxes in recent years, and overall the corporate world pays anywhere from 13 to 19 percent, about half the 35 percent statutory rate that they so often complain about.

In 2016, fifteen of the largest corporations in America, with combined revenue well over a trillion dollars, paid less than 6 percent in U.S. federal income taxes.

Meanwhile, profits have been growing at the fastest rate in six years, with a double-digit increase in the most recent quarter.


Huge Companies Are Already Bleeding the Middle Class Dry—So Why Do We Want to Give Them Tax Cuts?

Just out of curiosity, what are the 30 companies?

 

[Brain357]

Repubs are in charge, nothing is changing.

 

[g5000]

I want you to watch the video at the top of this link: No tax reform without border adjustment tax, Rep. Nunes says

Pay special attention to the last 30 seconds. Watch every second of the video, but especially pay attention to what Congressman Nunes says in the last 30 seconds.

And then watch the video again, knowing the context of what Nunes says in the last 30 seconds.

Nunes is right. Absolutely right.

 

[g5000]

I bet a significant chunk of the top 30 most profitable companies are financial firms. The ones who raped every American.

 

[g5000]

Well, here's the top 10: These Are The Fortune 500's 10 Most Profitable Companies

1. Apple, 2016 Profits: $45.7 billion
2. J.P. Morgan Chase, 2016 Profits: $24.7 billion
3. Berkshire Hathaway, 2016 Profits: $24.1 billion
4. Wells Fargo, 2016 Profits: $21.9 billion
5. Alphabet, 2016 Profits: $19.5 billion
6. Bank of America, 2016 Profits: $17.9 billion
7. Microsoft, 2016 Profits: $16.8 billion
8. Johnson & Johnson, 2016 Profits: $16.5 billion
9. Citigroup, 2016 Profits: $14.9 billion
10. Altria Group, 2016 Profits: $14.2 billion

 

[Winston]

Why yes, yes they will.

What nobody seems to realize is that wage expenses, capital investments, training of workers, and most other expenses involved in expanding a business comes from PRE TAX DOLLARS. A company doesn't pay taxes on "profits" that are reinvested back in to the business, rather it is to hand out raises to employees or to build a new production facility. Tax cuts do not encourage companies to put money back in to their businesses, it encourages them to TAKE MONEY OUT.

In today's LOW TAX ENVIRONMENT, well they tend to sometimes pass out dividends to shareholders, sometimes put the money in the cash pile, but most of the time, BUY BACK THEIR DAMN STOCK, a practice that was against the law not too long ago. Mostly because executive compensation is based on stock performance and the board of directors is nothing but a token group of the executives best buds.

But it gets worse. If a company decides to make a capital investment with borrowed funds their cost of capital is INVERSELY related to the marginal tax rate. The cost of failure is LOWER when tax rates are high. The Internal Rate of Return required to justify a given capital investment INCREASES as the tax rate declines. In today's low tax environment companies are reluctant to make capital investments on anything but low risk, low return objectives. The cost of failure is TOO HIGH due to a low marginal tax rate.

Maybe you have to be as old as me, and as aware as me, to remember when companies used to invest in their employees. It is that rent seeking that has resulted in the consolidation of profits to a few large companies that was alluded to in the OP.

What nobody seems to realize is that wage expenses, capital investments, training of workers, and most other expenses involved in expanding a business comes from PRE TAX DOLLARS.

I realize that. Liberals who have a weak understanding of business (most of them) are the ones who don't.

Tax cuts do not encourage companies to put money back in to their businesses, it encourages them to TAKE MONEY OUT.

Tax hikes don't encourage people to start or expand their business.
People start a business to eventually TAKE MONEY OUT.

In today's LOW TAX ENVIRONMENT, well they tend to sometimes pass out dividends to shareholders, sometimes put the money in the cash pile, but most of the time, BUY BACK THEIR DAMN STOCK,

Why would they buy back their own stock instead of paying higher dividends which are then double taxed?
Oh, wait, I may have discovered why.

a practice that was against the law not too long ago.

Link?

The Internal Rate of Return required to justify a given capital investment INCREASES as the tax rate declines. In today's low tax environment companies are reluctant to make capital investments on anything but low risk, low return objectives. The cost of failure is TOO HIGH due to a low marginal tax rate.

OMG! That is an almost perfect example of liberal ignorance of business.
Let's raise the corporate tax rate to 100%....because then the cost of failure is zero, businesses will invest trillions. Moron!

And since when is our highest in the world corporate tax rate a "low tax environment"?

Maybe you have to be as old as me, and as aware as me, to remember when companies used to invest in their employees.

Maybe you can help me with the math....If a company earns a profit of $2.5 million and pays a corporate tax of 40%, they have an after tax profit of $1.5 million. If you raise the rate to 50%, they'd have an after tax profit of $1.25 million. Why does the prospect of a lower profit encourage the company to create more jobs and pay higher wages?

When they used to make aggressive capital investments attempting to make more pie instead of trying to take more of the pie that is already there, which is called rent-seeking.

Wrong. Rent seeking is when you donate $20 million to the Clinton Foundation so that Hillary rewards your corporation and punishes your competitors.

LMAO. I have an MBA and have ran my own business for more than two decades. Honestly, I have forgotten more about business than you will ever know. It is a fact, money invested back in the business is not taxed. It comes right off on my schedule C. As to the profit scenario, if I can make a buck ten off a buck investment I go for it. Nobody has ever thrown away a winning lottery ticket because of the high taxes. And, as Warren Buffet has said, he knows of no businessman that runs away from a profitable investment because of the tax rate. It's stupid to believe otherwise.

Now, I know you have to understanding of the WACC or an IRR. But look it up. The WACC is inversely related to the tax rate. You also know nothing about the Laffer curve and probably nothing about geometry. The Laffer curve is a FREAKIN CURVE. Yes, at very high rates taxes are prohibitive to business. But with an effective marginal tax rate of somewhere south of twenty percent we are nowhere near the turn in that curve.

And here is the thing. Business worry more about the money they might LOSE more than the money they might make. Since loses are deducted from taxable income the higher the marginal tax rate the less effect loses have on income. Look around hoss. Business are so damn scared of losing money they are running away from potentially profitable investments and instead are doing things like buying back stock and looking for ways to vertically integrate, consolidate, or cut production costs. Like I said, not making more pie, but taking more of the pie that is already there. If nothing else, hell, they just pile up the cash. I will let you in on a little secret, when companies are piling up the cash the damn last thing you need to do is cut their tax rate.

The Ugly Truth Behind Stock Buybacks

There, stock buybacks were illegal. Making them legal was just one of Reagan's many screwups in which we are still paying the consequences today.

Yes, political donations are one of the most visible means of rent seeking. And you know what encourages rent seeking--LOW EFFECTIVE TAX RATES. Oh, and a particularly ignorant SCOTUS decision. But rent seeking encompasses other behavior as well, like the consolidation mentioned in the OP. There is no better way to investigate this effect than a simple visit to the grocery store where competition has declined, margins have increased, wages have remained stagnant, and the workers and the customers are paying the price.

The Rent-Seeking Is Too Damn High

Honestly, I have forgotten more about business than you will ever know.

That would explain the idiocy you posted so far. Too bad you weren't posting before you forgot.

It is a fact, money invested back in the business is not taxed.

Absolutely. So fucking what?

As to the profit scenario, if I can make a buck ten off a buck investment I go for it.

Do you go for the buck ten more eagerly or less eagerly than you'd go after 80 cents? Why?

Since loses are deducted from taxable income the higher the marginal tax rate the less effect loses have on income.

The higher the rate, the less valuable the profit.

Business are so damn scared of losing money they are running away from potentially profitable investments

Lower after tax profits make investment less likely, not more likely.

I will let you in on a little secret, when companies are piling up the cash the damn last thing you need to do is cut their tax rate.

When corporations would rather hold their cash, than invest it, you need to do something.

And you know what encourages rent seeking--LOW EFFECTIVE TAX RATES.

A low, flat rate makes rent-seeking less useful.

Let's say you find a magic box. When you stick in a dollar, at first, it spits out two dollars. After several dollars go in, it spits out a dollar seventy five. Then after several more dollars, it spits out a dollar sixty-five. As you continue to feed it dollars it spits out "diminishing returns" on that dollar. Tell me, when do you decide not to stick in any more dollars?

Let's say you find 2 magic boxes.
When you stick in a dollar in the first one, it spits out two dollars.
When you stick in a dollar in the second one, it spits out a dollar fifty.

Which one would you rather put your dollars into?

I stick a dollar in the first one, take the extra dollar I get and put it in the second one, and feed the original dollar right back in the first, and I do it over and over again. Now, answer my question. When do you stop sticking dollars in the magic box.

 

[g5000]

Forty years ago, 109 firms earned half of the profits of U.S. public companies. Today it's just 30.

It could be argued that the greatest American pillaging is the transfer of taxpayer funds into the bloated military, or a greed-driven private health care system that deprives human beings of essential medical care. But the conversion of American technologies into low-taxed plutocratic profit may be the most flagrant attack on the middle class.

It can also be argued that the products of the technological companies have enriched and energized our lives in numerous ways, and that the high-tech job market has never been better. But the rest of us pay dearly for all the technological benefits, much more than just the hundreds of dollars for phones and phone service. We have lost middle-class jobs and middle-class wealth. We have lost our share of the national productivity that is the direct result of 70 years of taxpayer input into the technologies that have enriched fewer and fewer people.

Corporate Tax Cuts: Are They Kidding?

Donald Trump and the Republicans want a lower corporate tax rate. But many of the largest U.S. companies have paid ZERO federal income taxes in recent years, and overall the corporate world pays anywhere from 13 to 19 percent, about half the 35 percent statutory rate that they so often complain about.

In 2016, fifteen of the largest corporations in America, with combined revenue well over a trillion dollars, paid less than 6 percent in U.S. federal income taxes.

Meanwhile, profits have been growing at the fastest rate in six years, with a double-digit increase in the most recent quarter.


Huge Companies Are Already Bleeding the Middle Class Dry—So Why Do We Want to Give Them Tax Cuts?

I would like to give every corporation in America a tax cut by removing all the tax breaks given to special interests who pay the biggest bribes to our politicians.

Now THAT would truly make America great again.