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

[g5000]

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?

The little elf inside the magic box earns four cents an hour.

 

[SavannahMann]

In a lot of cases, it's because the companies in question are using available tax credit programs. IF they put in high efficiency lights instead of incandescent they get a tax credit. If they push ride sharing or public transportation for the employees, another tax credit. If they put in solar panels, or some other green energy thing, another tax credit.

All of these were pushed not by Repubicans, but by Democrats to combat global warming. If the company allows employees to work from home, and save the fuel of the trip, then another tax credit. Electric car charging station? You guessed it, more tax credits.

Google even runs shuttle busses from the city to their facility. They aren't alone and I'm sure they get a big tax break because of this program to minimize the number of cars on the road.

Smoking cessation program? Guess what? Yep. Tax credits because smoking kills. Company exercise and health programs? Lower insurance costs, and tax credits to fight obesity and increase healthy habits.

All of these programs were started to address a problem. Global warming green energy and conservation. Yet, the nation would not pay to put these in so the alternative was a tax credit for them.

Now, it's not fair. These programs that these companies did not push for, are in place, and they are saving money on taxes, and it's just not fair. Recycle bins to reduce rubbish? Another tax credit. Oh, they get to advertise about how they love the environment, and people, and talk about a park that they paid to have refurbished with trees and all that sort of thing.

Volkswagen before they were the devils for having computer programs to trick emissions testing, were heroes of the Green movement because of a huge solar farm they built next to their car plant in Tennessee. Acres of solar panels, and low LED lighting for the parking areas, and they were just so environmentally aware.

So what loopholes are you going to close? Are you going to decide if the company is bigger than X the don't get any of those credits? Well say goodbye to those great statistics about solar panels and wind farms and all that shit.

 

[g5000]

In a lot of cases, it's because the companies in question are using available tax credit programs. IF they put in high efficiency lights instead of incandescent they get a tax credit. If they push ride sharing or public transportation for the employees, another tax credit. If they put in solar panels, or some other green energy thing, another tax credit.

All of these were pushed not by Repubicans, but by Democrats to combat global warming.

Republicans put tax breaks in the tax code way, way more than Democrats. It's how they hide increased spending and borrowing.

 

[g5000]

Solar panels, huh? Give me a fucking break!

Why buying a corporate jet pays for itself

What’s the tail of this particular dog cost American taxpayers? Perhaps $35 billion annually, according to one Congressional Research Service estimate. That’s money that could go toward lowering corporate tax rates by 2%, or reducing the annual deficit 7%

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Sorry, the boxes are in different states. Now, answer my question.

Which one would you rather put your dollars into?

 

[g5000]

Just one single tax break for big corporations causes a 2 percent higher tax rate on ALL corporations.

That's theft, boys and girls. A $35 billion theft.

Wealth redistribution UP the chain!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Solar panels, huh? Give me a fucking break!

Why buying a corporate jet pays for itself

What’s the tail of this particular dog cost American taxpayers? Perhaps $35 billion annually, according to one Congressional Research Service estimate. That’s money that could go toward lowering corporate tax rates by 2%, or reducing the annual deficit 7%

“As a result, businesses holding these assets are able to recapture the entire cost of acquiring the asset long before it’s ceased to produce value,” Dean Sonderegger, an executive at Bloomberg BNA who builds software that allows companies to track these write-offs. “Take private jets, for example, which have an IRS-specified useful life of five years, allowing firms to write off 70% of their cost within the first three years.”

Why do you feel this is a problem?
Personally, I'm in favor of immediate, 100% expensing.

 

[g5000]

Solar panels, huh? Give me a fucking break!

Why buying a corporate jet pays for itself

What’s the tail of this particular dog cost American taxpayers? Perhaps $35 billion annually, according to one Congressional Research Service estimate. That’s money that could go toward lowering corporate tax rates by 2%, or reducing the annual deficit 7%

“As a result, businesses holding these assets are able to recapture the entire cost of acquiring the asset long before it’s ceased to produce value,” Dean Sonderegger, an executive at Bloomberg BNA who builds software that allows companies to track these write-offs. “Take private jets, for example, which have an IRS-specified useful life of five years, allowing firms to write off 70% of their cost within the first three years.”

Why do you feel this is a problem?
Personally, I'm in favor of immediate, 100% expensing.

I am opposed because it is paid for by charging EVERY corporation in America a higher tax rate.

Therefore, it is theft. It is pure, unadulterated wealth redistribution.

Without it, every corporation in America could pay a lower tax rate.

This is Conservatism 101.

 

[sartre play]

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?

Now Trumps new head of the FCC is changing the rules that have been mandated by congress to prevent a single broadcaster from control of more than 39% of what American house holds view. plus killing Net Neutrality, that will end up in more cost for internet users, big multi nationals are hording there money, & not investing in America, so why give them more cuts????

 

[g5000]

If your mom and pop store doesn't buy a corporate jet, you are punished with higher taxes.

How the FUCK is this defended with a straight face by honest conservatives or libertarians?

 

[Reasonable]

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?

Conservatives can't help themselves. It's part of their DNA to advocate for rich people to get money they don't need at the expense of the middle class and poor.
Why these assholes on this forum WHO ARENT RICH, advocate to give more money to rich people to which they will only invest and not help anyone but themselves, shows what tools they are..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If your mom and pop store doesn't buy a corporate jet, you are punished with higher taxes.

How the FUCK is this defended with a straight face by honest conservatives or libertarians?

You don't have to buy a corporate jet to deduct your business expenses.

 

[Reasonable]

Repubs are in charge, nothing is changing.

Yup. The swamp is getting so large it's about to explode raining alligator parts thru the air.

 

[g5000]

If your mom and pop store doesn't buy a corporate jet, you are punished with higher taxes.

How the FUCK is this defended with a straight face by honest conservatives or libertarians?

You don't have to buy a corporate jet to deduct your business expenses.

But your corporate tax rate is 2 percent higher because of the corporate jet deduction alone.

That's theft.

I'm just pointing out the bullshit about solar panels was just that: bullshit. These government gifts are a big Republican thing.

Just ask Congressman Nunes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Solar panels, huh? Give me a fucking break!

Why buying a corporate jet pays for itself

What’s the tail of this particular dog cost American taxpayers? Perhaps $35 billion annually, according to one Congressional Research Service estimate. That’s money that could go toward lowering corporate tax rates by 2%, or reducing the annual deficit 7%

“As a result, businesses holding these assets are able to recapture the entire cost of acquiring the asset long before it’s ceased to produce value,” Dean Sonderegger, an executive at Bloomberg BNA who builds software that allows companies to track these write-offs. “Take private jets, for example, which have an IRS-specified useful life of five years, allowing firms to write off 70% of their cost within the first three years.”

Why do you feel this is a problem?
Personally, I'm in favor of immediate, 100% expensing.

I am opposed because it is paid for by charging EVERY corporation in America a higher tax rate.

Therefore, it is theft. It is pure, unadulterated wealth redistribution.

Without it, every corporation in America could pay a lower tax rate.

This is Conservatism 101.

I am opposed because it is paid for by charging EVERY corporation in America a higher tax rate.

I'm opposed to deducting employee expenses, because it is paid for by charging EVERY corporation in America a higher tax rate.

Wait.......what?

Without it, every corporation in America could pay a lower tax rate.

If we disallow deduction of COGS, imagine how low we could make the corporate rate....

 

[g5000]

Nunes: "If people wanted to drop the corporate rate from 35 to say 33, 32, maybe 30, we could probably do it. But if you go back to several years that we looked at doing just that, the goal was to get to 25 percent, and by the time every lobbyist, every special interest group in town, representing every major corporation in this country, the tax rate was automatically all the way back above 30 by the time you put everybody's special loophole in."

 

[g5000]

Take away the government gifts, and we can lower the corporate tax rate to 25 percent.

Anyone who defends government gifts is defending higher tax rates. Period.

They are defending theft. Period.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If your mom and pop store doesn't buy a corporate jet, you are punished with higher taxes.

How the FUCK is this defended with a straight face by honest conservatives or libertarians?

You don't have to buy a corporate jet to deduct your business expenses.

But your corporate tax rate is 2 percent higher because of the corporate jet deduction alone.

That's theft.

I'm just pointing out the bullshit about solar panels was just that: bullshit. These government gifts are a big Republican thing.

Just ask Congressman Nunes.

Yes, solar panels are bullshit, corporate jets are probably bullshit, capital equipment not so much.

 

[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?

Conservatives can't help themselves. It's part of their DNA to advocate for rich people to get money they don't need at the expense of the middle class and poor.
Why these assholes on this forum WHO ARENT RICH, advocate to give more money to rich people to which they will only invest and not help anyone but themselves, shows what tools they are..

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

 

[2aguy]

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?

Tax cuts don't do anything to hurt the middle class....they help the middle class by allowing jobs to be created.

Why do you want to give more money to the same politicians who created 20 trillion dollars in debt? Do you think they will use the next 20 trillion more responsibly?