Tax Cuts Steal Democracy

[The Derp]

i just explained to you that it can make it cheaper for an American company to expand here.

You're skipping a step between the tax rate and expansion. A very important step; demand. Without sufficient demand, no business will expand. So what you've failed to do is articulate how a low corporate tax rate increases consumer demand, which increases revenues, which justifies expansion.

It's like the underpants gnomes, but dumber:

Step 1: Cut taxes
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Expansion

It's that Step 2 that Conservatives never seem to figure out or account for.

 

[The Derp]

oh I see, the govt collects the Medicare payroll tax but its not really a Medicare payroll tax because Medicare does not really collect taxes????

Medicare is not the entity collecting those taxes. The IRS is. Medicare's function is to administrate reimbursements. Tell Putin to re-enroll you in an American Civics class, because you know less than nothing, if that's even possible.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Medicare payroll tax is 2.9%. It applies only to earned income, which is wages you are paid by an employer, plus tips. You're responsible for1.45% of the tax, and it's deducted automatically from your paycheck. Your employer pays the other 1.45%.

I'm also very glad you pointed this out because it gets to the core of what I am saying; that government-run health insurance is cheaper and better. The average worker spends close to $5,000 a year as their share of employer-provided plans. The average wage in this country is $53K. The Medicare Tax is 1.45% which comes to a whopping $768 a year. So which is less, $5,000 a year or $800 a year? Take your time. Don't rush.

so are you saying that the true cost is $800 and if monopoly commie govt ran health care it would cost $800??? As you think about it please keep in mind that Medicare spends $10,000 per head per year, not $800.

1000 miles over your head right????

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Medicare is not the entity collecting those taxes. The IRS is. .

so??????? there was no discussion about what entity collected the tax. You created a strawman in desperation where you didn't know there was a Medicare tax. Feel embarrassed???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

what you've failed to do is articulate how a low corporate tax rate increases consumer demand, which increases revenues, which justifies expansion.

simple, mankind farmed by hand for 10,000 years; when someone finally invented or supplied an affordable plow the demand was automatic. Affordable supply creates demand. Low taxes make supply more affordable and demand more automatic. Welcome to your first lesson on Economics.

Communism is tough sledding isn't it??? You've gotta ask yourself how you wound up on the side of those who slowly starved 120 million human souls to death. Were you severely abused as a child?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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 fuck yourself.

A corporate inversion is not outsourcing.

A corporate inversion is a reaction to tax rates.
That's weird, corporations react to high rates.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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 fucking 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 fucking 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 fuck 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 fuck 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.

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.

Prove it you fucking liar.

Just as a show of good faith, I'll accept a list of major bank directors who own as much as 1% of their stock.

Of course you won't post one. Because you're fucking wrong. Oh so wrong, you idiot.

How do you think you end up opn the Board of Directors?

It's not by owning the majority (more than 50%, twat) of the stock of your bank.

So TARP was to relieve toxic assets from the books of the banks, right?

Yup. WAS. Then they changed it to buy preferred shares, not toxic debt.
If you were out of college, or had a clue, you'd probably know that.

Those toxic assets aren't on their books anymore, are they?

Some are, some aren't, but none were bought by the US government thru TARP. Moron.
Or by the Fed. Idiot.

So where did the toxic assets go, then?

Where did they go?

 

[Never3ndr]

I clearly explained how they don't redistribute wealth to the top.

You didn't "clearly explain" it, instead you ignored the math and facts in favor of emotion and theory. Which is fine. Bill Maher nailed it this past weekend when he said Trump voters aren't interested in facts because they don't think with their brains. They think with their guts and emotions. It's hard for them to reconcile the fact that their instincts aren't correct, so they lash out with "alternative facts" in order to placate their own fragile egos.

Yeesh, what a bunch of snowflakes.

I didn't vote for Trump, but, consistent with your "all Trump voters are idiots that only go with their feelings"...apparently you have because you still haven't addressed my counter point, which is that wealth naturally flows from the bottom to the top in America and taxes counter act that notion through redistribution. I even used a concrete example by pointing at our welfare systems.

At this point, I'm not sure if you are an idiot or a troll. Either or, this will be my last reply. You seemingly are a waste of effort.

 

[The Derp]

wealth naturally flows from the bottom to the top in America and taxes counter act that notion through redistribution.

The facts say you're backwards. Wealth was supposed to flow from the top-down, but that was a false promise. Wealth certainly does not "naturally" flow from the bottom-up, and hasn't for at least 37 years. That's why there's an income gap similar to that from the 1920's today. Cutting taxes further only exacerbates that gap, as we've seen since trickle-down started.

 

[The Derp]

A corporate inversion is a reaction to tax rates.
That's weird, corporations react to high rates.

So it's not outsourcing, then. OK, glad we're on the same page on that.

Corporate inversion only makes the wealthy wealthier. It creates no jobs. Creates no consumer growth. All it does is funnel more money to the Board of Directors who stash it in overseas socialist countries.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A corporate inversion is a reaction to tax rates.
That's weird, corporations react to high rates.

So it's not outsourcing, then. OK, glad we're on the same page on that.

Corporate inversion only makes the wealthy wealthier. It creates no jobs. Creates no consumer growth. All it does is funnel more money to the Board of Directors who stash it in overseas socialist countries.

What it does is it permanently removes the possibility of those overseas earnings moving to the US to be taxed and spent here.

 

[The Derp]

What it does is it permanently removes the possibility of those overseas earnings moving to the US to be taxed and spent here.

Why would they be spent here? More of the supply-side nonsense for ya! Simply giving a business money doesn't mean that business will automatically use that money to expand. Why would they if their revenues stagnate or decline? You are working from the assumption that business expands just because. But they don't and never have. Business only expands if there is requisite demand for their product. And that is determined by revenue growth, not profit growth. You can increase your profits without increasing your revenue. That's done by cutting expenses like labor and benefits.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Prove it you fucking liar.

What do you think a Board of Directors is? Who do you think sits on the Board? Why do they sit on the board? Here's a very basic guide to corporate structures and who makes up a Board of Directors.

Some are, some aren't, but none were bought by the US government thru TARP. Moron.

Yes, they certainly were, which is why "some aren't", as you said (actually incorrect, not one of the banks that received a bailout has any of those toxic assets on their books). So according to you, they just vanished magically.

Where did they go?

Onto the books of the Fed and the Treasury.

What do you think a Board of Directors is?

People elected by the shareholders, not guys who own most of the stock.....you silly twit.

Here's some educational material for you.
Feel free to ignore it and remain ignorant.

THE COCA-COLA COMPANY - DEF 14A

Some are, some aren't, but none were bought by the US government thru TARP. Moron.

Yes, they certainly were

If only you had proof. Do you have proof? LOL!

So according to you, they just vanished magically.

I could explain what happened, but based on your almost complete ignorance of finance, it's too early.

Onto the books of the Fed and the Treasury.

Proof. Show some.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What it does is it permanently removes the possibility of those overseas earnings moving to the US to be taxed and spent here.

Why would they be spent here? More of the supply-side nonsense for ya! Simply giving a business money doesn't mean that business will automatically use that money to expand. Why would they if their revenues stagnate or decline? You are working from the assumption that business expands just because. But they don't and never have. Business only expands if there is requisite demand for their product. And that is determined by revenue growth, not profit growth. You can increase your profits without increasing your revenue. That's done by cutting expenses like labor and benefits.

Why would they be spent here?

When a company repatriates funds here, what do you think happens to those funds?

 

[The Derp]

People elected by the shareholders, not guys who own most of the stock.

So which shareholders? Not all of them. Just those who combined to form the majority. So they are the ones who pick and choose Board Members and they pick and choose each other.

If only you had proof. Do you have proof? LOL!

I do...here's an article from CNN Money. Here's a passage from that article word-for-word:

"To help prop up AIG (AIG, Fortune 500), for example, the Federal Reserve spent $31.5 billion buying the troubled insurance giant's assets only to funnel them into two separate holding companies, dubbed Maiden Lane II and Maiden Lane III."

Onto the books of the Fed and the Treasury. Proof. Show some.

See above.

 

[The Derp]

When a company repatriates funds here, what do you think happens to those funds?

They use it to buyback stock, or they give it to senior executives in the form of deferred compensation. Why would they use it to expand if revenues are stagnant or declining? That would indicate there is not enough demand to justify expansion. How does cutting their corporate profit tax rate translate to increased consumer demand. Magic?

"If you build it, they will come" works in movies, but not real life.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

People elected by the shareholders, not guys who own most of the stock.

So which shareholders? Not all of them. Just those who combined to form the majority. So they are the ones who pick and choose Board Members and they pick and choose each other.

If only you had proof. Do you have proof? LOL!

I do...here's an article from CNN Money. Here's a passage from that article word-for-word:

"To help prop up AIG (AIG, Fortune 500), for example, the Federal Reserve spent $31.5 billion buying the troubled insurance giant's assets only to funnel them into two separate holding companies, dubbed Maiden Lane II and Maiden Lane III."

Onto the books of the Fed and the Treasury. Proof. Show some.

See above.

So which shareholders?

The ones that vote.......durr.

So they are the ones who pick and choose Board Members and they pick and choose each other.

It wouldn't be surprising that Board Members vote their tiny holdings for each other.
Any luck finding all the bank board members that owned as much as 1% of their shares?
Or have you given up that silly claim?

the Federal Reserve spent $31.5 billion buying the troubled insurance giant's assets

Thanks. You don't think the Fed was involved with TARP, do you?
And you said TARP bought toxic assets from banks.
You don't think AIG is a bank, do you?

Any word on the hundreds of billions of toxic assets held by the banks?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When a company repatriates funds here, what do you think happens to those funds?

They use it to buyback stock, or they give it to senior executives in the form of deferred compensation. Why would they use it to expand if revenues are stagnant or declining? That would indicate there is not enough demand to justify expansion. How does cutting their corporate profit tax rate translate to increased consumer demand. Magic?

"If you build it, they will come" works in movies, but not real life.

They use it to buyback stock,

OMG! That's awful! What do the stock sellers do with the money?

or they give it to senior executives in the form of deferred compensation

Deferred compensation happens in the future. We're talking about cash now!!!

How does cutting their corporate profit tax rate translate to increased consumer demand.

Where does their higher profit end up?

"If you build it, they will come" works in movies, but not real life.

Leaving the money overseas doesn't even work in the movies.

 

[The Derp]

The ones that vote.......durr.

And of those, what typically happens? Those with the most shares band together to control the company, install who they want to install on the executive team, and direct the company to act in a certain way. That's the whole point.

It wouldn't be surprising that Board Members vote their tiny holdings for each other.

This is exactly what I've been saying that you've been disagreeing with me over. Now you are trying to assume my position as your own while foisting your position on me. Pathetic.

Thanks. You don't think the Fed was involved with TARP, do you?
And you said TARP bought toxic assets from banks. You don't think AIG is a bank, do you?

TARP did relieve toxic assets from the banks. From the House Oversight Committee, April 8th 2009:

“This diagnosis of the financial crisis is driving the Administration’s aggressive interagency effort to revive credit markets and strengthen the balance sheets of financial institutions through capital injections and the removal of toxic assets,”

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

There is no point in arguing economic science and how it should translate into policy with a leftist. They are not capable of capitalism, that's why they're subhuman leftist filth.