Tax Cuts Steal Democracy

[EdwardBaiamonte]

They used a lot of money to create a $17 trillion economy and will need a lot more to grow it to a $20 or $30 trillion economy.

Why would you expand your business if your revenues aren't growing?

you supply new inventions that expand your business and make revenues grow. That is how we got from stone age to here. It is called supply side economics. now even you know what supply side economics is.

 

[The Derp]

Cash is fungible. Buybacks and dividends also create jobs and boost consumer spending.

No they don't. This is trickle-down theory poking its turtle head out again. Supply side, voodoo economics by just another form of phrasing. The guiding philosophy -and let's be clear, it's a philosophy- is that the windfall from profits will trickle-down by way of boosting consumer spending. Even though that has never been the case, ever. And certainly was not the case in 2004. Bush's 2004 growth was due 100% to the housing bubble. Corporate repatriation did nothing to help the economy. Instead, it hurt it by killing jobs.

Yup, despite bringing back cash they did those things. Not because they brought back cash.

No, it was because they brought the cash back. That's what the Senate Committee and the Joint Committee said.

 

[The Derp]

Unless they brought back cash and then burned it, there were beneficial effects.

No, there were no beneficial effects...as evidenced by the fact that you can't seem to articulate them beyond your own personal theory of trickle-down. A theory that is just as cotton-brained now as it was back in 1980.

Owners and shareholders benefitted and when they spent this cash, the economy benefitted. Thanks.

Who says they spent the cash? During the Bush Tax Cuts, the wealthy increased their savings, not their spending. And again, you are just espousing more of the same trickle-down snake oil we've been fed the last 37 years. No, the wealthy do not consume more the more money they get. It doesn't happen. Trickle-down is not real.

The repatriation holiday “did not reduce domestic investment, employment, or [research and development],”

So, you're arguing that it was beneficial because it didn't reduce those things? Ummm...talk about setting a low bar...so that's a benefit? That it didn't make things worse???? The promise was that it would increase those things. That was the promise made in 2004, and it's the promise you and your fellow Russians are making on this board right now.

TLOL! Such a stupid claim.

Not my claim, the claim of the Senate Committee and the Joint Committee.

 

[The Derp]

you supply new inventions that expand your business and make revenues grow.

"If you build it, they will come"...except they don't and that only works in the movies...specifically with regard to ghostly ballplayers.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No, the wealthy do not consume more the more money they get. It doesn't happen. Trickle-down is not real.

1) if the wealthy put it in a bank the bank multiplies it by 10 and loans it out for cars homes, boats, new businesses etc

2) if trickle down did not work we would not have 100 smart phone super computer toys in America at $140/month

you supply new inventions that expand your business and make revenues grow.

"If you build it, they will come"...except they don't and that only works in the movies...specifically with regard to ghostly ballplayers.

yes , 99% were farmers, when someone finally invented or supplied the affordable plow everyone demanded it and 3% were farmers. Do you understand??

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No it didn't. Companies with more cash cut fewer jobs, not more.

It's not cash, it's profits. They are increasing their profits, but they're not doing so by increasing their revenues. Companies slash workforce in order to achieve higher profit margins all the time. Once again, the equation is:

Profit (P) = Tax Rate (t) x (Revenues (r) - Expenses (e))

P can increase without also increasing r. Usually, it's done by reducing e. And the biggest share of e is always payroll. So if your r is flat or in decline, but you need to increase your P to satisfy the Board, you cut e. It doesn't matter how much "cash" the company has on hand. If r isn't increasing, then the business isn't growing. But to satisfy P, companies reduce e.

Baloney. Anything the companies do with repatriated cash eventually hits consumer demand.

No it doesn't. In fact, repatriation encourages more foreign offshoring of profits, as the Joint Committee determined in 2014.

You said a rich person benefits from cash held by IBM overseas.
Explain how I benefit from the cash IBM holds in any other country.

You're not a rich person, why are you pretending to be one? IBM holding cash in another company benefits a wealthy shareholder because the P is higher because the t is lower. But that does nothing to increase r, which is the goal.

No it didn't. The Treasury got money they would not have otherwise received.

According to the Joint Committee, it did. Check out page 2 of this letter the Joint Committee sent to Hatch in 2014.

It's not cash, it's profits.

The cash they bring back is cash.

Profit (P) = Tax Rate (t) x (Revenues (r) - Expenses (e))

For **** sake, that is NOT the formula for after-tax profit.
You should stop. I'm embarrassed for you.

In fact, repatriation encourages more foreign offshoring of profits

Bullshit. High domestic rates do that.

IBM holding cash in another company benefits a wealthy shareholder because the P is higher because the t is lower.

IBM can't touch that cash to pay me. How do I benefit?

According to the Joint Committee, it did

If they think that, they're dumber than you. Hardly possible, I know.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Cash is fungible. Buybacks and dividends also create jobs and boost consumer spending.

No they don't. This is trickle-down theory poking its turtle head out again. Supply side, voodoo economics by just another form of phrasing. The guiding philosophy -and let's be clear, it's a philosophy- is that the windfall from profits will trickle-down by way of boosting consumer spending. Even though that has never been the case, ever. And certainly was not the case in 2004. Bush's 2004 growth was due 100% to the housing bubble. Corporate repatriation did nothing to help the economy. Instead, it hurt it by killing jobs.

Yup, despite bringing back cash they did those things. Not because they brought back cash.

No, it was because they brought the cash back. That's what the Senate Committee and the Joint Committee said.

No they don't.

Yes they do.

This is trickle-down theory poking its turtle head out again

I use my stock proceeds to buy a new car. Is that trickle down?
I use my dividend to pay for my vacation. Is that trickle down?

No, it was because they brought the cash back.

Why do they need overseas cash to do layoffs?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Unless they brought back cash and then burned it, there were beneficial effects.

No, there were no beneficial effects...as evidenced by the fact that you can't seem to articulate them beyond your own personal theory of trickle-down. A theory that is just as cotton-brained now as it was back in 1980.

Owners and shareholders benefitted and when they spent this cash, the economy benefitted. Thanks.

Who says they spent the cash? During the Bush Tax Cuts, the wealthy increased their savings, not their spending. And again, you are just espousing more of the same trickle-down snake oil we've been fed the last 37 years. No, the wealthy do not consume more the more money they get. It doesn't happen. Trickle-down is not real.

The repatriation holiday “did not reduce domestic investment, employment, or [research and development],”

So, you're arguing that it was beneficial because it didn't reduce those things? Ummm...talk about setting a low bar...so that's a benefit? That it didn't make things worse???? The promise was that it would increase those things. That was the promise made in 2004, and it's the promise you and your fellow Russians are making on this board right now.

TLOL! Such a stupid claim.

Not my claim, the claim of the Senate Committee and the Joint Committee.

No, there were no beneficial effects...

DURR.

Who says they spent the cash?

Rich people took their proceeds and dividends and saved them? Link?
Are higher savings good or bad in liberal world?

So, you're arguing that it was beneficial because it didn't reduce those things?

They weren't harmful because they didn't reduce those things.

and it's the promise you and your fellow Russians are making on this board right now.

You're going to be sorry when we cost your Dems 10 Senate seats next year, eh comrade?

Not my claim, the claim of the Senate Committee and the Joint Committee.

A stupid claim, no matter who made it.

Let me show you.......

"Todd, if you bring back your overseas corporate earnings, we're going to tax it at 35%"

"Senator, I will never let you tax those overseas earnings. Ever, ever, ever.
You'll get ZERO revenues from that cash"

"Todd, if you bring back $1 billion, we'll only tax it at 10%."

"Okay, here's $100 million"

An idiot, that's you, would say, "That tax cut cost the US Treasury $250 million! We were counting on $350 million in tax revenues but only received $100 million. Rich bastards!!!"

People who understand math and incentives will point to the $100 million and tell you that's $100 million more than you were ever going to receive at the 35% tax level.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

you supply new inventions that expand your business and make revenues grow.

"If you build it, they will come"...except they don't and that only works in the movies...specifically with regard to ghostly ballplayers.

you mean 100 million Americans have smart phone super computers in their pockets that were supplied or trickled down to them only in the movies???

 

[The Derp]

you mean 100 million Americans have smart phone super computers in their pockets that were supplied or trickled down to them only in the movies???

Did all 100,000,000 get those things all at once? No.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

you mean 100 million Americans have smart phone super computers in their pockets that were supplied or trickled down to them only in the movies???

Did all 100,000,000 get those things all at once? No.

So what? Nobody said they got them all at once???The issue is whether supply side miracles happen right under your nose or only in the movies. Now do you understand?

 

[The Derp]

So what? Nobody said they got them all at once???The issue is whether supply side miracles happen right under your nose or only in the movies. Now do you understand?

If there is no demand, then why oversupply? You can't will demand into being by giving rich people more money. Trickle down doesn't work. We've suffered through this crap for 37 years. Time to give it a rest.

Supply-side does not lead to economic growth. It may lead to profit growth, but profit growth and economic growth are not the same thing.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So what? Nobody said they got them all at once???The issue is whether supply side miracles happen right under your nose or only in the movies. Now do you understand?

If there is no demand, then why oversupply? You can't will demand into being by giving rich people more money. Trickle down doesn't work. We've suffered through this crap for 37 years. Time to give it a rest.

Supply-side does not lead to economic growth. It may lead to profit growth, but profit growth and economic growth are not the same thing.

I've explain to you five times now what supply side economics is. Supply creates demand. When you supply an affordable new invention the demand is automatic and economy grows. 1+1 = 2

Once again we got from the Stone Age to here because Republicans supplied new inventions not because libCommies printed money and dropped it out of helicopters to create artificial demand.

 

[Wyatt earp]

you supply new inventions that expand your business and make revenues grow.

"If you build it, they will come"...except they don't and that only works in the movies...specifically with regard to ghostly ballplayers.

You ever hear of the billing dollars plus sales industry?

A good salesman can sell ice to a Eskimo..


Or how about the computer, what you think consumers sat around and thought we need personal computers and inventors made one?



.

 

[The Derp]

I've explain to you five times now what supply side economics is. Supply creates demand. When you supply an affordable new invention the demand is automatic and economy grows. 1+1 = 2

And each time you've explained it, you've failed to articulate how it generates increase revenues and demand. Supply does not create demand, supply fulfills demand. With wages stagnant and revenues flatlining, there is no conceivable reason for a business to expand.

"If you build it, they will come" is magical thinking. That's why it's reserved for movies like Field of Dreams. Magical thinking is not a valid economic policy.

You can supply all the new inventions you want, if wages are not increasing that means there's no consumer demand, hence no one is buying this great new thing you innovated.

 

[The Derp]

You ever hear of the billing dollars plus sales industry?

Retailers typically sell back inventory. You think everything at WalMart gets sold? Ridiculous.

A good salesman can sell ice to a Eskimo..

No.

Or how about the computer, what you think consumers sat around and thought we need personal computers and inventors made one?.

Computers already existed prior to PC's. The demand was already there.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So what? Nobody said they got them all at once???The issue is whether supply side miracles happen right under your nose or only in the movies. Now do you understand?

If there is no demand, then why oversupply? You can't will demand into being by giving rich people more money. Trickle down doesn't work. We've suffered through this crap for 37 years. Time to give it a rest.

Supply-side does not lead to economic growth. It may lead to profit growth, but profit growth and economic growth are not the same thing.

Supply-side does not lead to economic growth.

Prove your claim.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You ever hear of the billing dollars plus sales industry?

Retailers typically sell back inventory. You think everything at WalMart gets sold? Ridiculous.

A good salesman can sell ice to a Eskimo..

No.

Or how about the computer, what you think consumers sat around and thought we need personal computers and inventors made one?.

Computers already existed prior to PC's. The demand was already there.

Their was no demand, sales created the demand



God damn people throw out perfectly good cell phones every year to buy new ones they heard about on television



.

 

[The Derp]

Prove your claim.

Actually, it's incumbent on you to prove they do.

Supply fulfills demand, not the other way around.

Basically, your ideology boils down to "if you built it, they will come". If "they" don't have any money to spend because "they" have not seen wages grow, then "they" will not come.

You're proposing a solution for which there is no problem. You're completely missing the mark. It's not the suppliers who need money, it's consumers. From that consumption will naturally evolve innovation and demand. But you gotta start off with demand. Right now, demand is stagnant, as we saw in last quarter's GDP growth rate of 0.7%.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You ever hear of the billing dollars plus sales industry?

Retailers typically sell back inventory. You think everything at WalMart gets sold? Ridiculous.

A good salesman can sell ice to a Eskimo..

No.

Or how about the computer, what you think consumers sat around and thought we need personal computers and inventors made one?.

Computers already existed prior to PC's. The demand was already there.

.