Tax Cuts Steal Democracy

[ScienceRocks]

Trickle down is a ******* joke! Giving tax breaks to the big corporations that outsource, bring in cheap labor and pretty much cheat the system to pay very little as is isn't going to make more jobs.

All while we have less revunue to pay for infrastructure, science and education that benefit the poor and middle class that make up 90% of this country...

It didn't work under Bush! The bastards still outsourced and brought in cheaper labor....Think.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

ou understand the difference between correlation and causation, right?

I do, but you don't. Because you do nothing but make that argument with regard to tax cuts. You try to credit economic growth to tax rate cuts, but there's no proof to that. So you make a correlation is causation argument, and try to assume that starting position of yours is valid (it's not). So let's start with your insistence that cutting taxes leads to growth. How are you even reaching that conclusion when there is no direct economic link between growth and the tax rate you can make? So your position starts out flawed. You can't un-flaw something that is flawed at its core; such is the case with pretty much everything you believe.

"Mutually exclusive" is a statistical term describing two or more events that cannot occur simultaneously. Revenues and profits cannot occur simultaneously?

You can increase profits without increasing revenues. You can also increase revenues without increasing profits.

The equation is:

Profit = Tax Rate x (Revenues - Expenses)

If you lower the Tax Rate, you are increasing your profit, but you are not increasing your revenues. Which means your business stagnates and does not grow, even though you see more profit. You confuse profit with growth. Revenues go with growth, not profits. This is always the fundamental flaw in every single Conservative argument. They simply do not understand the distinction, either willfully or ignorantly. I've stopped trying to guess if you're liars or just really, really stupid. I think it's a bit of both.

You can increase profits without increasing revenues. You can also increase revenues without increasing profits.

I know.

And they aren't mutually exclusive.

Profit = Tax Rate x (Revenues - Expenses)

Ummmm.....that's the equation for taxes paid.

If you lower the Tax Rate, you are increasing your profit, but you are not increasing your revenues.

And a profitable company with more profits can invest more. To increase revenues.
Has an incentive to invest more. To increase revenues.
85% of profits are after tax profits versus 65%, under the current tax regime.

New businesses seeing the possibility of 85% are more likely to be formed.
It's an incentive.
People react to incentives. Every time.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Trickle down is a ******* joke! Giving tax breaks to the big corporations that outsource, bring in cheap labor and pretty much cheat the system to pay very little as is isn't going to make more jobs.

All while we have less revunue to pay for infrastructure, science and education that benefit the poor and middle class that make up 90% of this country...

It didn't work under Bush! The bastards still outsourced and brought in cheaper labor....Think.

Giving tax breaks to the big corporations that outsource, bring in cheap labor and pretty much cheat the system to pay very little as is isn't going to make more jobs.

If you give them a tax break here, they'll be less likely to outsource over there.....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I already showed you that Obama had larger deficits as a percentage of GDP.
Forget already?

Well, that's because we were in a recession and in a recession, GDP contracts. So of course you're going to see larger deficits-as-a-percentage-of-GDP if your GDP is declining. Because, math.

Transfer payments are $1 trillion a year higher than before the crisis.

So again, here's an example of you being vague and general so you can wiggle around the parameters later. Transfer payments of what? What are you talking about? You're not a very detail-oriented person. You're quite sloppy, actually. That's reflective of a poor work ethic.

What's a "revenue-neutral middle class tax cut"?

Where the amount of revenue generated by increased spending offsets the drop in revenue from the tax cut. For the middle class, it is almost always revenue-neutral. Unfortunately, it's also almost always growth-neutral too. It's something that makes people "feel good", but ultimately has little impact on the economy.

Transfer payments of what? What are you talking about?

You don't know what a government transfer payment is?

You're kinda clueless.

Where the amount of revenue generated by increased spending offsets the drop in revenue from the tax cut. For the middle class, it is almost always revenue-neutral.

Proof?

Unfortunately, it's also almost always growth-neutral too.

You're contradicting yourself.
To be revenue neutral, you have to boost growth with your tax cut.
No growth, no new revenue, just a drop in revenue.

DURR.

 

[The Derp]

Damn you're stupid.What investor owns more than 50% of the shares of a bank?Give me a list.

Are you stupid or is this an act? What about the phrase "majority shareholders" do you not understand? Shareholders. Plural. So let's say that 10 people each own 7% of the bank. Those ten people would then control the board. And it's the board that makes the decisions to take the company in whatever direction they want. So all you do, it seems, is speak in vague generalities then act deliberately obtuse. All in service of your ego. Get over yourself. The minority shareholders (i.e. casual investors who own small amounts of stock) are almost always outnumbered by the Board at least 51%. That's how the Board maintains control. So even if all the minority shareholders hated the way the Board was running the company, they can't do anything about it because in most corporate board rooms in America, the Board of Directors owns at least a combined 51% of the shares.

The Fed Discount Window doesn't buy debt. TARP didn't buy debt.
You're truly clueless.

TARP was literally called the "Troubled Asset Relief Program". Its primary function was to purchase troubled assets from the Wall Street banks, removing those toxic assets from the books and unfreezing the credit markets. So they removed the toxic assets from the books, but the credit markets remained frozen. So what did the banks do with the money they got for the toxic assets that the government took off their books for them? They paid to themselves, or they took it and went right back to gambling in the secondary markets. The one thing they were supposed to do (lend to consumers) they didn't. $700B worth of loans were not handed out by Wall Street. It was a flawed plan because it relied on the faith (there's that word again) that the banks would resume lending to consumers to grow the economy and create jobs. They didn't. Time to stop relying on "faith" as a strategy.

I know! Pension funds, small investors, retirees living off their bond interest...**** 'em!Typical liberal.

Hilarious to think that retirees entire retirement funding comes from GM stock. Who ever heard of such nonsense? Most retirees don't even have a 401k. Most American workers don't have 401k's. So who the **** are you talking about? Rich people. And **** them.

Yup. Most of the other major depository institutions replaced their CEOs

Ah, GOALPOST MOVE ALERT! you see what the Russian did here? He shifted the goalposts ever so slightly to "depository institutions". That's new to the conversation. It wasn't just "depository institutions" who got bailout money. And which institutions were those? Same guy who ran Chase runs it today. Same guy who ran Wells Fargo did so up until 2016. The guy who ran Bank of America was there until 2010, and he was replaced by the guy who ran Merrill Lynch (another bailout firm bought by Bank of America) who still runs BOA and it's Merrill Lynch today. Sooooo, not sure what the **** you're talking about. Which CEO's are you referring to?

What assets? Who buys them?

Just as they did in the secondary mortgage markets pre-collapse, they buy and sell from each other. It's really just a big circle jerk.

Exactly!!! Why not add a money losing bank to the Post Office?

Who says the Post Office has to "make money"? They already pick up the slack for FedEx and UPS, why not pick up the slack for Wall Street?

 

[The Derp]

[If you give them a tax break here, they'll be less likely to outsource over there.....

They're not outsourcing because of the tax rate, they're outsourcing because the cost of labor. They pay a Chinese worker for one day what an American worker would get paid in one hour.

Tax rates have nothing to do with it, and anyone who says they do is either a liar or an ignoramus.

 

[The Derp]

You don't know what a government transfer payment is?

DO YOU? Doesn't seem like it. You had a chance to explain yourself and instead you decided to act petulantly. So go **** yourself, in that case.

You're contradicting yourself.To be revenue neutral, you have to boost growth with your tax cut.No growth, no new revenue, just a drop in revenue.

You do know what "neutral" means, right?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Damn you're stupid.What investor owns more than 50% of the shares of a bank?Give me a list.

Are you stupid or is this an act? What about the phrase "majority shareholders" do you not understand? Shareholders. Plural. So let's say that 10 people each own 7% of the bank. Those ten people would then control the board. And it's the board that makes the decisions to take the company in whatever direction they want. So all you do, it seems, is speak in vague generalities then act deliberately obtuse. All in service of your ego. Get over yourself. The minority shareholders (i.e. casual investors who own small amounts of stock) are almost always outnumbered by the Board at least 51%. That's how the Board maintains control. So even if all the minority shareholders hated the way the Board was running the company, they can't do anything about it because in most corporate board rooms in America, the Board of Directors owns at least a combined 51% of the shares.

The Fed Discount Window doesn't buy debt. TARP didn't buy debt.
You're truly clueless.

TARP was literally called the "Troubled Asset Relief Program". Its primary function was to purchase troubled assets from the Wall Street banks, removing those toxic assets from the books and unfreezing the credit markets. So they removed the toxic assets from the books, but the credit markets remained frozen. So what did the banks do with the money they got for the toxic assets that the government took off their books for them? They paid to themselves, or they took it and went right back to gambling in the secondary markets. The one thing they were supposed to do (lend to consumers) they didn't. $700B worth of loans were not handed out by Wall Street. It was a flawed plan because it relied on the faith (there's that word again) that the banks would resume lending to consumers to grow the economy and create jobs. They didn't. Time to stop relying on "faith" as a strategy.

I know! Pension funds, small investors, retirees living off their bond interest...**** 'em!Typical liberal.

Hilarious to think that retirees entire retirement funding comes from GM stock. Who ever heard of such nonsense? Most retirees don't even have a 401k. Most American workers don't have 401k's. So who the **** are you talking about? Rich people. And **** them.

Yup. Most of the other major depository institutions replaced their CEOs

Ah, GOALPOST MOVE ALERT! you see what the Russian did here? He shifted the goalposts ever so slightly to "depository institutions". That's new to the conversation. It wasn't just "depository institutions" who got bailout money. And which institutions were those? Same guy who ran Chase runs it today. Same guy who ran Wells Fargo did so up until 2016. The guy who ran Bank of America was there until 2010, and he was replaced by the guy who ran Merrill Lynch (another bailout firm bought by Bank of America) who still runs BOA and it's Merrill Lynch today. Sooooo, not sure what the **** you're talking about. Which CEO's are you referring to?

What assets? Who buys them?

Just as they did in the secondary mortgage markets pre-collapse, they buy and sell from each other. It's really just a big circle jerk.

Exactly!!! Why not add a money losing bank to the Post Office?

Who says the Post Office has to "make money"? They already pick up the slack for FedEx and UPS, why not pick up the slack for Wall Street?

So let's say that 10 people each own 7% of the bank. Those ten people would then control the board.

Nice goal post move.

Now show me a list of banks where the combined ownership of the board is over 50%.

Unless you're stupid?

in most corporate board rooms in America, the Board of Directors owns at least a combined 51% of the shares.

Bullshit.

TARP was literally called the "Troubled Asset Relief Program".

And they literally changed it's mandate, before they bought a thing.

Hilarious to think that retirees entire retirement funding comes from GM stock.

Hilarious to think anyone made that claim.
What I did say was that screwing the bondholders ended up screwing pension funds and retirees who held the bonds.

He shifted the goalposts ever so slightly to "depository institutions".

When I said most major banks, those are the banks I was talking about.
I guess you can add the handful of investment banks if you feel that will help your position.

Same guy who ran Chase runs it today.

Yup, he's so good, he's one of the few who survived to this day.

Same guy who ran Wells Fargo did so up until 2016.

They had much lower losses during the crisis.
The government even allowed them to buy Wachovia.

Just as they did in the secondary mortgage markets pre-collapse, they buy and sell from each other.

You're worried about big banks lying about stuff they sell to other big banks? LOL!

Who says the Post Office has to "make money"?

Exactly! Add banking functions, a bunch of new employees and new duties, without adding profit.
What an awesome idea!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[If you give them a tax break here, they'll be less likely to outsource over there.....

They're not outsourcing because of the tax rate, they're outsourcing because the cost of labor. They pay a Chinese worker for one day what an American worker would get paid in one hour.

Tax rates have nothing to do with it, and anyone who says they do is either a liar or an ignoramus.

They're not outsourcing because of the tax rate, they're outsourcing because the cost of labor.

I heard a bunch of whining about corporate inversions.
Did any of that involve tax rates?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You don't know what a government transfer payment is?

DO YOU? Doesn't seem like it. You had a chance to explain yourself and instead you decided to act petulantly. So go **** yourself, in that case.

You're contradicting yourself.To be revenue neutral, you have to boost growth with your tax cut.No growth, no new revenue, just a drop in revenue.

You do know what "neutral" means, right?

You do know what "neutral" means, right?

It means your claim was ridiculous. And wrong.

 

[The Derp]

I heard a bunch of whining about corporate inversions.
Did any of that involve tax rates?

A corporate inversion is not outsourcing. Those are two different things. Of course, you know this but are just playing dumb on the message board because you're too insecure to admit you're talking out of your ass.

So go **** yourself.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I heard a bunch of whining about corporate inversions.
Did any of that involve tax rates?

A corporate inversion is not outsourcing. Those are two different things. Of course, you know this but are just playing dumb on the message board because you're too insecure to admit you're talking out of your ass.

So go **** yourself.

inversions are bad for our country and caused by our high tax rates. Obviously corporate taxes should be lowered or eliminated to help jobs GDP etc. Liberals would rather punish corporations than help them provide jobs

 

[The Derp]

Nice goal post move.

So if you're just going to go around accusing others of that which you do yourself, we can end this conversation right now because you're nothing more than a troll. I didn't move the goalposts at all. I have maintained from the beginning that in most cases the majority shareholders are also the board of directors. And the Board of Directors are named thusly because they control the majority of shares and thus, can direct the company's policies in pursuit of profits. Have you ever worked in a corporation before? Do you even know what I'm talking about.

Now show me a list of banks where the combined ownership of the board is over 50%. Unless you're stupid?

Are you ******* stupid? Why do you think it's called a "Board of Directors"?????????? How do you think you end up opn the Board of Directors? Such a stupid question. I mean, asking me to explain corporate board structures at this point in the conversation is just trolling. You've given up trying to make a coherent argument. Instead, we get militant ignorance. Useless.

And they literally changed it's mandate, before they bought a thing.

Wait, wait, wait...back up. So TARP was to relieve toxic assets from the books of the banks, right? Those toxic assets aren't on their books anymore, are they? So where did the toxic assets go, then?

Hilarious to think anyone made that claim.

YOU DID. You made that claim. You are the one making such an argument, not me. I quoted you word-for-word. If you don't like the fact that words mean things, don't use words. Stop being such a snowflake.

What I did say was that screwing the bondholders ended up screwing pension funds and retirees who held the bonds.

No it didn't. In fact, that was one of the things you turds were screaming about when they got bailed out...how the union got its protections (including its pension obligations) advanced ahead of the bondholders. And by "bondholders" we aren't talking Joe Schmo investor, we are talking folks on Wall Street like Jamie Dimon and others. You frauds like to do that; pretend that the average Joe Schmo is some kind of investosaur. They're not. In fact, the majority of American workers don't even have a 401k. So we aren't talking the 99% here, we're talking the 1% that you are trying to misrepresent as reflective of your typical middle-class worker.

When I said most major banks, those are the banks I was talking about.
I guess you can add the handful of investment banks if you feel that will help your position.

Well, I'm not a ******* mind reader...so that's why you have to be specific and clear in what you're talking about. I know you don't really like to sweat the details, and have a poor work ethic, which is why your posts suck so much. Put in the effort and we can avoid this type of garbage. I know you won't because...you're lazy. But you can at least try, can't you? And furthermore, you claimed that they fired their CEO's. A quick Google search reveals they did not. So who were these people who were fired? Because you spend the next answers walking your claim back. All four heads of the four "depository institutions" (LOL) maintained their roles throughout the collapse and bailout with only the BOA head leaving in 2010, to be replaced by the head of the investment bank they bought. So....no change.

Yup, he's so good, he's one of the few who survived to this day.

And the ones who didn't? Wasn't Wells Fargo, wasn't BOA, wasn't JPMorgan Chase, so which CEO was canned? Pandit was CEO of Citigroup, but he didn't step down until 2012, 4 years after the collapse and bailout. So what the **** were you talking about????

ou're worried about big banks lying about stuff they sell to other big banks? LOL!

You think they're using their own money to make these bets? LOL! That's adorable.

Exactly! Add banking functions, a bunch of new employees and new duties, without adding profit.What an awesome idea!!!

It is a good idea because the Post Office being not-for-profit means that they can just charge the prime interest rate and nothing more. So it's good for consumers, not good for Wall Street. But **** Wall Street. They're terrified of the prospect of a USPS Bank because that bank would undercut the for-profit Wall Street banks everywhere...from free checking, free ATM fees, ease of access and use, and being free of a profit motive means you don't need to screw over account holders in order to gin up profits...like Wells Fargo tried to do when they were signing people up for accounts they didn't want, committing fraud in the process.

 

[The Derp]

inversions are bad for our country and caused by our high tax rates. Obviously corporate taxes should be lowered or eliminated to help jobs GDP etc. Liberals would rather punish corporations rather then help them provide jobs

The corporate tax rate in Ireland is 12%. The average effective tax rates for US corporations is 12.4%. So it doesn't seem like there's much a difference there. So these companies are inverting for other reasons. Those reasons are, surprise! selfish and done by the Boards in order to increase their own personal wealth by reducing the company's tax liability by 0.4%. And what has this inversion done? Has it created jobs? No. Has it expanded businesses? No. Has it resulted in increased consumer demand? No. So why do it? Simple; so the majority shareholders can increase their profits. That's the only reason why.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

inversions are bad for our country and caused by our high tax rates. Obviously corporate taxes should be lowered or eliminated to help jobs GDP etc. Liberals would rather punish corporations rather then help them provide jobs

The corporate tax rate in Ireland is 12%. The average effective tax rates for US corporations is 12.4%. So it doesn't seem like there's much a difference there. .

so why does entire world try to get Ireland to raise it rates so all the worlds corporation's wont move there by the 1000's??? Isn't thinking fun??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

inversions are bad for our country and caused by our high tax rates. Obviously corporate taxes should be lowered or eliminated to help jobs GDP etc. Liberals would rather punish corporations rather then help them provide jobs

The corporate tax rate in Ireland is 12%. The average effective tax rates for US corporations is 12.4%. So it doesn't seem like there's much a difference there. So these companies are inverting for other reasons. Those reasons are, surprise! selfish and done by the Boards in order to increase their own personal wealth by reducing the company's tax liability by 0.4%. And what has this inversion done? Has it created jobs? No. Has it expanded businesses? No. Has it resulted in increased consumer demand? No. So why do it? Simple; so the majority shareholders can increase their profits. That's the only reason why.

So then you'd better call Ireland and tell them that if they want to help their economy they need to find a new tax policy that will drive thousands of corporations out rather than attract them in!!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Those reasons are, surprise! selfish and done by the Boards in order to increase their own personal wealth by reducing the company's tax liability by 0.4%.

if you have evidence of this I will pay you $10,000. Bet???

 

[The Derp]

[so why does entire world try to get Ireland to raise it rates so all the worlds corporation's wont move there by the 1000's??? Isn't thinking fun??

They're not moving there by the 1000s. Ireland has had this 12% tax rate since 2006. In that time, only 130,000 jobs have been created in Ireland. What took Ireland 11 years, Obama did in two weeks just this past January. Businesses aren't relocating production or distribution there. They're not relocating marketing, research & development, or operations. They're not relocating Human Resources or Public Relations. So what are they relocating? Nothing. Just their DBA's location. You are trying to make it sound like Apple closed its corporate offices in Cupertino and moved them all to Dublin. That's not what happened at all. It's either you not understanding what a corporate inversion is, or you do know what it is but are lying about it anyway because...because...you're paid in rubles and Russian hooker pee, I'm guessing.

 

[The Derp]

So then you'd better call Ireland and tell them that if they want to help their economy they need to find a new tax policy that will drive thousands of corporations out rather than attract them in!!!

Ireland's unemployment rate is higher than most western democracies, including ours. We have a 4.5% unemployment rate at a 35% corporate tax rate. Ireland has a 6.4% unemployment rate at a 12% corporate tax rate they've had for 11 years!

FAIL.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

They're terrified of the prospect of a USPS Bank because that bank would undercut the for-profit Wall Street banks everywhere...from free checking, free ATM fees, ease of access and use, and being free of a profit motive means you don't need to screw over account holders in order to gin up profits...like Wells Fargo tried to do when they were signing people up for accounts they didn't want, committing fraud in the process.

so does the libcommie want govt to compete in every industry to undercut the greedy for profit industries????