Why again do left wingers believe taxing corporations more is helpful to the middle class?

[Mac1958]

Corporate tax rates can't be the only part of the overall picture. They don't stand by themselves in this equation.
.

They're not Mac, they're actually the smallest part of the picture but they're also the easiest to fix (get rid of them). The (vastly) larger issues are the insanely excessive costs of the existing regulatory regime and a debt driven monetary system that puts complete control of where money flows and where it doesn't into the hands of private banks (for further clarification see the "Crash of '08" and how bankers shoveled money into the housing sector creating a speculation bubble and unsustainable debt levels that eventually burst).

Some of this stuff drives me a little nuts. These arguments are so shallow and partisan-based that I don't even know if they're serious.

Try being a bit more specific... I'm not arguing anything from a partisan basis since I don't believe any party is actually interested in addressing any of the structural issues within our economy, they're only interested in keeping the current ponzi scheme going for as long as possible because the power brokers in the political parties are the ones that benefit from it.

Yes, indeed, we're awash in (often redundant) regulations right now, and that has to be a part of this process. However, volume of regulations (more or fewer) is less important than efficiency and effectiveness. We can't go too far in de-regulation either, as that was a big part of the problem with derivatives. And still is.
.

What do you think is driving money into derivatives? Might it have something to do with the fact that it's more profitable to speculate on future price action than to invest in productive enterprise? and might that be because our current regulatory regime, tax policy and monetary system tend to penalize production and reward consumption and speculation?

I'm not arguing for de-regulation just for the sake of de-regulation; this can be done solely on the basis of cost-benefit where each and every regulation on the books is examined to determine whether the benefits outweigh the negative economic consequences and if they don't eliminate it. We don't do that today, we book regulations and then constantly add more regulations in an attempt to "fix" all the negative consequences of previous regulation; just look at this "health care law" imbroglio if you want a current example, more regulation (Obamacare) --> unintended negative consequences --> more regulation to "fix" those (Trumpcare or whatever the **** they end up calling it) --> unintended negative consequences..... welcome to the hamster wheel.

Believe me, I'm neck-deep in regulations as an advisor, but they're uneven.

CMOs and their evil twin CDOs were largely unregulated, and even Greenspan himself strongly argued against them - even though he admits that, with his extensive background in mathematics, he didn't understand them! And they're being sold to investors, hedge funds, charities, states and municipalities globally?

You're making my point for me; the lack of regulation wasn't the problem since the "regulators" didn't even understand what was going on, heck nobody in the regulatory state was sounding any alarm bells prior to the crash, quite the opposite, everybody (including the Top Banker at the Fed at the time) was assuring the public that all was rosey. The only people sounding alarm bells were independent analysts and a handful of Wall Street execs (Schiff comes to mind) and they were largely laughed at when they predicted the crash.

The root of the problem is that the risk-reward for speculation is a better bet than the risk-reward for investing in actually building things and providing services that benefit consumers and until you fix that all the regulation in the universe isn't going to do any good (actually it just makes things worse), especially given that our system is rife with moral hazard where losses on speculation are socialized and profits are privatized while any "penalties" imposed for regulatory malfeasance directly benefit regulatory agencies (they get to keep any "penalty money" while the poor customers and investors of whatever entity was "penalized" get to foot the bill for 'em).

That is financial malfeasance of pretty much the worst sort. That's why regulations that are both efficient and effective are so badly needed.
.

We had regulations and that didn't do any good, those responsible for writing regulations don't understand the interaction of the variables that the regulations they write are altering and those enforcing the regulations either don't know what the hell is really going on or look the other way because it's in their own best interests to do so, remember Madoff? Regulators were warned specifically about what he was doing TEN YEARS before they actually did anything about it, regulators were warned about the impending crash of '08 three years before it happened and didn't raise a peep, so what good would more regulations have done?

No, CMO's, CDO's and all other derivatives would just have to go through a strong initial vetting process before making it to market. Most of them, especially the CDO's, should never have existed in the first place. When people simplistically scream about the market being a casino, they can point to derivatives, and they're right.

And, given the fact that global investors were trusting the paid-off "ratings" agencies when they invested millions, that is another massive situation that should never have happened. If regulated properly, ratings agencies would have to abide by strong foundational standards requirements across the board.

And let's not forget, the SEC and FINRA were badly, comically understaffed, and we know how that happens.
.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Do you have something to post that shows that lower taxes equal more jobs? All lower taxes do is increase profits, no effect at all on jobs

increased profits means more liquidity in the economy
more liquidity in the economy means more and faster movement of money
more movement of money means more demand for products and services
more demand for products and services means more jobs

Point of order; IMHO liquidity isn't a problem, our monetary system produces liquidity on demand (and no I'm not saying that a debt driven monetary system is a good idea but it is what it is) and the demand side isn't the problem either since our domestic demand exceeds our domestic output capacity in most sectors.

You make a good point with respect to monetary velocity but IMHO the best way to increase that is to increase productivity since that is what puts more discretionary income into the pockets of consumers while at the same time increasing domestic output. The other problem we have is that Wall Street has morphed from a vehicle to raise capital for productive enterprise into essentially a giant casino where the participants bet on future price action instead of raising capital to build factories and that casino is eating the seed corn of the productive economy.

Productivity defined as what?

Our productivity has increased due to technological advances that enable more material products to be produced all while lessening the amount of manpower and skill needed to produce them

 

[Skull Pilot]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Do you have something to post that shows that lower taxes equal more jobs? All lower taxes do is increase profits, no effect at all on jobs

increased profits means more liquidity in the economy
more liquidity in the economy means more and faster movement of money
more movement of money means more demand for products and services
more demand for products and services means more jobs

It's a zero sum game. If you don't get the tax revenue from the corporations you have to get it somewhere else.

You don't seem to realize that every dollar a corporation makes eventually gets taxed because every dollar a corp makes eventually ends up as income to someone.

S corps are the perfect example. S corps pay no corporate tax because all the profit is reported directly on the individual share holders' personal income tax via the K1

Publicly traded corps aren't really any different it just takes longer for the profit to end up in the hands of individuals where it will then be taxed

 

[NightFox]

They're not Mac, they're actually the smallest part of the picture but they're also the easiest to fix (get rid of them). The (vastly) larger issues are the insanely excessive costs of the existing regulatory regime and a debt driven monetary system that puts complete control of where money flows and where it doesn't into the hands of private banks (for further clarification see the "Crash of '08" and how bankers shoveled money into the housing sector creating a speculation bubble and unsustainable debt levels that eventually burst).

Some of this stuff drives me a little nuts. These arguments are so shallow and partisan-based that I don't even know if they're serious.

Try being a bit more specific... I'm not arguing anything from a partisan basis since I don't believe any party is actually interested in addressing any of the structural issues within our economy, they're only interested in keeping the current ponzi scheme going for as long as possible because the power brokers in the political parties are the ones that benefit from it.

Yes, indeed, we're awash in (often redundant) regulations right now, and that has to be a part of this process. However, volume of regulations (more or fewer) is less important than efficiency and effectiveness. We can't go too far in de-regulation either, as that was a big part of the problem with derivatives. And still is.
.

What do you think is driving money into derivatives? Might it have something to do with the fact that it's more profitable to speculate on future price action than to invest in productive enterprise? and might that be because our current regulatory regime, tax policy and monetary system tend to penalize production and reward consumption and speculation?

I'm not arguing for de-regulation just for the sake of de-regulation; this can be done solely on the basis of cost-benefit where each and every regulation on the books is examined to determine whether the benefits outweigh the negative economic consequences and if they don't eliminate it. We don't do that today, we book regulations and then constantly add more regulations in an attempt to "fix" all the negative consequences of previous regulation; just look at this "health care law" imbroglio if you want a current example, more regulation (Obamacare) --> unintended negative consequences --> more regulation to "fix" those (Trumpcare or whatever the **** they end up calling it) --> unintended negative consequences..... welcome to the hamster wheel.

Believe me, I'm neck-deep in regulations as an advisor, but they're uneven.

CMOs and their evil twin CDOs were largely unregulated, and even Greenspan himself strongly argued against them - even though he admits that, with his extensive background in mathematics, he didn't understand them! And they're being sold to investors, hedge funds, charities, states and municipalities globally?

You're making my point for me; the lack of regulation wasn't the problem since the "regulators" didn't even understand what was going on, heck nobody in the regulatory state was sounding any alarm bells prior to the crash, quite the opposite, everybody (including the Top Banker at the Fed at the time) was assuring the public that all was rosey. The only people sounding alarm bells were independent analysts and a handful of Wall Street execs (Schiff comes to mind) and they were largely laughed at when they predicted the crash.

The root of the problem is that the risk-reward for speculation is a better bet than the risk-reward for investing in actually building things and providing services that benefit consumers and until you fix that all the regulation in the universe isn't going to do any good (actually it just makes things worse), especially given that our system is rife with moral hazard where losses on speculation are socialized and profits are privatized while any "penalties" imposed for regulatory malfeasance directly benefit regulatory agencies (they get to keep any "penalty money" while the poor customers and investors of whatever entity was "penalized" get to foot the bill for 'em).

That is financial malfeasance of pretty much the worst sort. That's why regulations that are both efficient and effective are so badly needed.
.

We had regulations and that didn't do any good, those responsible for writing regulations don't understand the interaction of the variables that the regulations they write are altering and those enforcing the regulations either don't know what the hell is really going on or look the other way because it's in their own best interests to do so, remember Madoff? Regulators were warned specifically about what he was doing TEN YEARS before they actually did anything about it, regulators were warned about the impending crash of '08 three years before it happened and didn't raise a peep, so what good would more regulations have done?

No, CMO's, CDO's and all other derivatives would just have to go through a strong initial vetting process before making it to market.

How would you go about "vetting" them that is different than how they've been "vetted" in the past?

Most of them, especially the CDO's, should never have existed in the first place.

Are you proposing to outlaw an entire class of financial instruments? seems to me that's like saying you want to outlaw slot machines because they're a "bad bet"? Or are you saying that if full and honest disclosure was in place CDO's wouldn't have existed because nobody would have been stupid enough to put their money into them in the first place?

And, given the fact that global investors were trusting the paid-off "ratings" agencies when they invested millions, that is another massive situation that should never have happened. If regulated properly, ratings agencies would have to abide by strong foundational standards requirements across the board.

What's the difference between a "ratings" agency and a regulatory agency? Aren't they both in the pockets of the very same people and weren't the "ratings" agencies "regulated" all along, how'd that work out?

And let's not forget, the SEC and FINRA were badly, comically understaffed, and we know how that happens.
.

How much staff do you need to know that immediate action should be taken when Harry Markopolos walks into your office and hands you a detailed map of how a giant ponzi scheme is taking place on Wall Street or to recognize that completely opaque risk chains like CDS require full and honest disclosure? Sounds like you're advocating throwing more tax payer money at the very agencies that had a large hand in creating the problems in the first place, IMHO more lawyers aren't a solution to any problem, in fact history demonstrates they only make things worse.

 

[Theowl32]

Fair share fair share fair share fair share fair share fair share fair share fair share fair share fair share fair share fair share fair share fair share fair share fair share fair share fair share fair share fair share fair share fair share fair share fair share fair

Lol at liberals

 

[NightFox]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Do you have something to post that shows that lower taxes equal more jobs? All lower taxes do is increase profits, no effect at all on jobs

increased profits means more liquidity in the economy
more liquidity in the economy means more and faster movement of money
more movement of money means more demand for products and services
more demand for products and services means more jobs

Point of order; IMHO liquidity isn't a problem, our monetary system produces liquidity on demand (and no I'm not saying that a debt driven monetary system is a good idea but it is what it is) and the demand side isn't the problem either since our domestic demand exceeds our domestic output capacity in most sectors.

You make a good point with respect to monetary velocity but IMHO the best way to increase that is to increase productivity since that is what puts more discretionary income into the pockets of consumers while at the same time increasing domestic output. The other problem we have is that Wall Street has morphed from a vehicle to raise capital for productive enterprise into essentially a giant casino where the participants bet on future price action instead of raising capital to build factories and that casino is eating the seed corn of the productive economy.

Productivity defined as what?

More output @ less material and/or effort.

Our productivity has increased due to technological advances that enable more material products to be produced all while lessening the amount of manpower and skill needed to produce them

It's not increasing enough to keep up with inflation, that's why real wages are stagnant and why a disproportionate amount money is flowing into speculation rather than production. Thanks to an idiotic (one might even go so far as to say suicidal) economic policy regime we're not investing enough in boosting productivity because (in part) the risk-reward equation is more attractive to gamble on Wall Street and buy political influence in Washington.

 

[Mac1958]

Some of this stuff drives me a little nuts. These arguments are so shallow and partisan-based that I don't even know if they're serious.

Try being a bit more specific... I'm not arguing anything from a partisan basis since I don't believe any party is actually interested in addressing any of the structural issues within our economy, they're only interested in keeping the current ponzi scheme going for as long as possible because the power brokers in the political parties are the ones that benefit from it.

Yes, indeed, we're awash in (often redundant) regulations right now, and that has to be a part of this process. However, volume of regulations (more or fewer) is less important than efficiency and effectiveness. We can't go too far in de-regulation either, as that was a big part of the problem with derivatives. And still is.
.

What do you think is driving money into derivatives? Might it have something to do with the fact that it's more profitable to speculate on future price action than to invest in productive enterprise? and might that be because our current regulatory regime, tax policy and monetary system tend to penalize production and reward consumption and speculation?

I'm not arguing for de-regulation just for the sake of de-regulation; this can be done solely on the basis of cost-benefit where each and every regulation on the books is examined to determine whether the benefits outweigh the negative economic consequences and if they don't eliminate it. We don't do that today, we book regulations and then constantly add more regulations in an attempt to "fix" all the negative consequences of previous regulation; just look at this "health care law" imbroglio if you want a current example, more regulation (Obamacare) --> unintended negative consequences --> more regulation to "fix" those (Trumpcare or whatever the **** they end up calling it) --> unintended negative consequences..... welcome to the hamster wheel.

Believe me, I'm neck-deep in regulations as an advisor, but they're uneven.

CMOs and their evil twin CDOs were largely unregulated, and even Greenspan himself strongly argued against them - even though he admits that, with his extensive background in mathematics, he didn't understand them! And they're being sold to investors, hedge funds, charities, states and municipalities globally?

You're making my point for me; the lack of regulation wasn't the problem since the "regulators" didn't even understand what was going on, heck nobody in the regulatory state was sounding any alarm bells prior to the crash, quite the opposite, everybody (including the Top Banker at the Fed at the time) was assuring the public that all was rosey. The only people sounding alarm bells were independent analysts and a handful of Wall Street execs (Schiff comes to mind) and they were largely laughed at when they predicted the crash.

The root of the problem is that the risk-reward for speculation is a better bet than the risk-reward for investing in actually building things and providing services that benefit consumers and until you fix that all the regulation in the universe isn't going to do any good (actually it just makes things worse), especially given that our system is rife with moral hazard where losses on speculation are socialized and profits are privatized while any "penalties" imposed for regulatory malfeasance directly benefit regulatory agencies (they get to keep any "penalty money" while the poor customers and investors of whatever entity was "penalized" get to foot the bill for 'em).

That is financial malfeasance of pretty much the worst sort. That's why regulations that are both efficient and effective are so badly needed.
.

We had regulations and that didn't do any good, those responsible for writing regulations don't understand the interaction of the variables that the regulations they write are altering and those enforcing the regulations either don't know what the hell is really going on or look the other way because it's in their own best interests to do so, remember Madoff? Regulators were warned specifically about what he was doing TEN YEARS before they actually did anything about it, regulators were warned about the impending crash of '08 three years before it happened and didn't raise a peep, so what good would more regulations have done?

No, CMO's, CDO's and all other derivatives would just have to go through a strong initial vetting process before making it to market.

How would you go about "vetting" them that is different than how they've been "vetted" in the past?

Most of them, especially the CDO's, should never have existed in the first place.

Are you proposing to outlaw an entire class of financial instruments? seems to me that's like saying you want to outlaw slot machines because they're a "bad bet"? Or are you saying that if full and honest disclosure was in place CDO's wouldn't have existed because nobody would have been stupid enough to put their money into them in the first place?

And, given the fact that global investors were trusting the paid-off "ratings" agencies when they invested millions, that is another massive situation that should never have happened. If regulated properly, ratings agencies would have to abide by strong foundational standards requirements across the board.

What's the difference between a "ratings" agency and a regulatory agency? Aren't they both in the pockets of the very same people and weren't the "ratings" agencies "regulated" all along, how'd that work out?

And let's not forget, the SEC and FINRA were badly, comically understaffed, and we know how that happens.
.

How much staff do you need to know that immediate action should be taken when Harry Markopolos walks into your office and hands you a detailed map of how a giant ponzi scheme is taking place on Wall Street or to recognize that completely opaque risk chains like CDS require full and honest disclosure? Sounds like you're advocating throwing more tax payer money at the very agencies that had a large hand in creating the problems in the first place, IMHO more lawyers aren't a solution to any problem, in fact history demonstrates they only make things worse.

There was virtually no vetting (yeah, not real fond of that term, but it's early) of derivatives of CDOs. The banks just made them and ran with 'em. Actually, and I didn't know this until a few months ago, one of my brothers (a CFO type) both purchased and created CMO's for the bank he worked for, before the shit hit the fan. He saw that once they got big/complicated enough, there was virtually no way to properly price them, and there were no controls, and he dropped them completely.

A "ratings" agency is just a business. Standard & Poors knows that, if you don't like the rating they give your security, you'll tell them to **** off and go down the street to Moody's. So what is their motivation?

Look, we'll have to disagree. I can tell you this: I can do a better job for my clients when there is proper equilibrium of regulation. Much of what I do is based on trust, trust that the securities I buy for clients are what they claim to be. Right now, that trust is not terribly strong and therefore I can't always do what I want to do. We can do research & due diligence on an investment from now to forever, but we can't always get the big picture, and it has bitten us on the ass a couple of times. Further, when I get a new client and they show me what their former advisor has done, there are MANY times I have to take a deep breath and shake my head. I've seen some pretty nasty stuff.

I'm not an expert on the inner workings of the regulators. But we have to find a way to improve what they do.
.

 

[Billo_Really]

It worked marvelously. That's why libs called the 80s "the decade of greed."

I believe it was more commonly referred to as the "Me Generation".

 

[NightFox]

There was virtually no vetting (yeah, not real fond of that term, but it's early) of derivatives of CDOs. The banks just made them and ran with 'em. Actually, and I didn't know this until a few months ago, one of my brothers (a CFO type) both purchased and created CMO's for the bank he worked for, before the shit hit the fan. He saw that once they got big/complicated enough, there was virtually no way to properly price them, and there were no controls, and he dropped them completely.

I don't disagree with any of that but that doesn't answer the question as to how you would go about "vetting" them that is different than what's been done in the past.

A "ratings" agency is just a business. Standard & Poors knows that, if you don't like the rating they give your security, you'll tell them to **** off and go down the street to Moody's. So what is their motivation?

Their motivation is the same as the motivation of the regulatory agencies in question; namely pleasing the folks that provide their sustenance and it's the same folks for 'em both (and it ain't us common folk).

Look, we'll have to disagree. I can tell you this: I can do a better job for my clients when there is proper equilibrium of regulation.

What does "proper equilibrium of regulation" mean?

I'm not an expert on the inner workings of the regulators. But we have to find a way to improve what they do.
.

IMHO you can improve what they do by reducing the volume of regulation via eliminating any and all regulations where the negative consequences outweigh the benefits and reducing the power of the state to the point where it doesn't make any sense for the "regulatees" to buy influence, as it stands now the pay off for simply buying political influence and buying your way into the regulatory creation/enforcement process is FAR greater than just doing the right thing for your customers in the first place.

At the end of the day it's up to each and every one of us common folk to do our due diligence and look after our own interests, that's why your clients hire experts like you instead of just relying on what government "regulators" and politicians tell them.

 

[Winston]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Do you have something to post that shows that lower taxes equal more jobs? All lower taxes do is increase profits, no effect at all on jobs

increased profits means more liquidity in the economy
more liquidity in the economy means more and faster movement of money
more movement of money means more demand for products and services
more demand for products and services means more jobs

Point of order; IMHO liquidity isn't a problem, our monetary system produces liquidity on demand (and no I'm not saying that a debt driven monetary system is a good idea but it is what it is) and the demand side isn't the problem either since our domestic demand exceeds our domestic output capacity in most sectors.

You make a good point with respect to monetary velocity but IMHO the best way to increase that is to increase productivity since that is what puts more discretionary income into the pockets of consumers while at the same time increasing domestic output. The other problem we have is that Wall Street has morphed from a vehicle to raise capital for productive enterprise into essentially a giant casino where the participants bet on future price action instead of raising capital to build factories and that casino is eating the seed corn of the productive economy.

Productivity defined as what?

More output @ less material and/or effort.

Our productivity has increased due to technological advances that enable more material products to be produced all while lessening the amount of manpower and skill needed to produce them

It's not increasing enough to keep up with inflation, that's why real wages are stagnant and why a disproportionate amount money is flowing into speculation rather than production. Thanks to an idiotic (one might even go so far as to say suicidal) economic policy regime we're not investing enough in boosting productivity because (in part) the risk-reward equation is more attractive to gamble on Wall Street and buy political influence in Washington.

Here, you are absolutely correct.

Thanks to an idiotic (one might even go so far as to say suicidal) economic policy regime we're not investing enough in boosting productivity because (in part) the risk-reward equation is more attractive to gamble on Wall Street and buy political influence in Washington

The problem is you refuse to see the solution, increasing the marginal corporate tax rate.

Since the WACC is inversely related to the marginal tax rate, a lower marginal tax rate actually DISCOURAGES the very type of investment that you are advocating, investment to boost productivity. Lower marginal tax rates encourage corporations to SEEK RENTS instead of seeking capital investments. Further decreases in the corporate tax rate will only add gas to the fire you are complaining about.

 

[NightFox]

The problem is you refuse to see the solution, increasing the marginal corporate tax rate.

Since the WACC is inversely related to the marginal tax rate, a lower marginal tax rate actually DISCOURAGES the very type of investment that you are advocating, investment to boost productivity. Lower marginal tax rates encourage corporations to SEEK RENTS instead of seeking capital investments. Further decreases in the corporate tax rate will only add gas to the fire you are complaining about.

I disagree, IMHO eliminating taxation on production doesn't encourage rent seeking quite the opposite for a few reasons:

1. Corporate income taxes encourage influence buying since owning the politicians and bureaucrats that write the tax code is a very cost effective way to lock out potential competitors while protecting your own interests.

2. Corporate income taxes encourage speculation rather than investment since by taxing production while at the same time infusing the system with moral hazard the rewards and time horizons from speculating become far more attractive than the rewards from investing in actually building things/providing services that consumers want and need.

3. Corporate income taxes are in the end taxes on productive investment since as I've already explained they are part of the equation that determines capital flows; corporations must compete for capital based on the returns they can offer that capital and the current tax regime completely distorts the playing field.

4. Corporate income taxes waste an enormous amount of resources and effort in the form of the lawyers and accountants they require just to shuffle all the paper around pursuant to compliance and filings.

Taxing naked speculation and consumption is fine, taxing production leads us to exactly where we are today, with stagnant/falling real wages, increasing income inequality, low/no economic growth and a giant casino where our financial sector used to be; been there, done that, not working and more of the same isn't the answer.

 

[Mac1958]

There was virtually no vetting (yeah, not real fond of that term, but it's early) of derivatives of CDOs. The banks just made them and ran with 'em. Actually, and I didn't know this until a few months ago, one of my brothers (a CFO type) both purchased and created CMO's for the bank he worked for, before the shit hit the fan. He saw that once they got big/complicated enough, there was virtually no way to properly price them, and there were no controls, and he dropped them completely.

I don't disagree with any of that but that doesn't answer the question as to how you would go about "vetting" them that is different than what's been done in the past.

A "ratings" agency is just a business. Standard & Poors knows that, if you don't like the rating they give your security, you'll tell them to **** off and go down the street to Moody's. So what is their motivation?

Their motivation is the same as the motivation of the regulatory agencies in question; namely pleasing the folks that provide their sustenance and it's the same folks for 'em both (and it ain't us common folk).

Look, we'll have to disagree. I can tell you this: I can do a better job for my clients when there is proper equilibrium of regulation.

What does "proper equilibrium of regulation" mean?

I'm not an expert on the inner workings of the regulators. But we have to find a way to improve what they do.
.

IMHO you can improve what they do by reducing the volume of regulation via eliminating any and all regulations where the negative consequences outweigh the benefits and reducing the power of the state to the point where it doesn't make any sense for the "regulatees" to buy influence, as it stands now the pay off for simply buying political influence and buying your way into the regulatory creation/enforcement process is FAR greater than just doing the right thing for your customers in the first place.

At the end of the day it's up to each and every one of us common folk to do our due diligence and look after our own interests, that's why your clients hire experts like you instead of just relying on what government "regulators" and politicians tell them.

Regarding "proper equilibrium of regulation", that essentially is the same as any other issue in which government involvement is being discussed, such as regulations or taxes: A point at which something is efficiently and effectively regulated without placing too much of a net drag on that which is being regulated.

Now, the variable here is obviously, "what is too much"? My guess is that your line is quite a bit lower than mine, but that's what elections are for, I reckon. What concerns me here is that the Republicans are going to do what partisans do: Just as the Democrats have confused more regulation with better regulation, the Republicans confuse less regulation with better regulation. There is middle ground there, and I can tell you first hand, partisan politicians sure as hell don't know where it is.
.

 

[jc456]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Any economist will tell you it doesn't, but Democrats use their anti-American tax the rich rhetoric simply to gin up donations.
What's funny is wealthy Hollywood liberals buy it, gobble it up and ask for seconds.

You can't tax the poor, so who is left, Homer?

The Middle-class.

Oh....you must think this is Mexico

Speaking of Mexico, when are they going to pay for the wall?

after it goes up.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Here's my take. If you make corporation have an easy ride, it makes it harder for small businesses to get a foothold into the market, meaning there is a smaller amount of businesses, less creativity, more control over the people. The politicians are happy because the large corporations will pay them lots of money.

If you have small businesses doing well because their burden is less, then more people are sharing in the wealth, more money is moving, and the Middle Classes are doing much better, rather than having a monopoly. However in the US and other countries small businesses are struggling to keep up with large corporations which pay less for things because they can use their power AND they don't have to pay much, if any, tax.

It hurts the people.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Do you have something to post that shows that lower taxes equal more jobs? All lower taxes do is increase profits, no effect at all on jobs

increased profits means more liquidity in the economy
more liquidity in the economy means more and faster movement of money
more movement of money means more demand for products and services
more demand for products and services means more jobs

Point of order; IMHO liquidity isn't a problem, our monetary system produces liquidity on demand (and no I'm not saying that a debt driven monetary system is a good idea but it is what it is) and the demand side isn't the problem either since our domestic demand exceeds our domestic output capacity in most sectors.

You make a good point with respect to monetary velocity but IMHO the best way to increase that is to increase productivity since that is what puts more discretionary income into the pockets of consumers while at the same time increasing domestic output. The other problem we have is that Wall Street has morphed from a vehicle to raise capital for productive enterprise into essentially a giant casino where the participants bet on future price action instead of raising capital to build factories and that casino is eating the seed corn of the productive economy.

Productivity defined as what?

More output @ less material and/or effort.

Our productivity has increased due to technological advances that enable more material products to be produced all while lessening the amount of manpower and skill needed to produce them

It's not increasing enough to keep up with inflation, that's why real wages are stagnant and why a disproportionate amount money is flowing into speculation rather than production. Thanks to an idiotic (one might even go so far as to say suicidal) economic policy regime we're not investing enough in boosting productivity because (in part) the risk-reward equation is more attractive to gamble on Wall Street and buy political influence in Washington.

Here, you are absolutely correct.

Thanks to an idiotic (one might even go so far as to say suicidal) economic policy regime we're not investing enough in boosting productivity because (in part) the risk-reward equation is more attractive to gamble on Wall Street and buy political influence in Washington

The problem is you refuse to see the solution, increasing the marginal corporate tax rate.

Since the WACC is inversely related to the marginal tax rate, a lower marginal tax rate actually DISCOURAGES the very type of investment that you are advocating, investment to boost productivity. Lower marginal tax rates encourage corporations to SEEK RENTS instead of seeking capital investments. Further decreases in the corporate tax rate will only add gas to the fire you are complaining about.

and is it the government's responsibility to coerce companies to behave differently?

No it's not.

 

[NightFox]

There was virtually no vetting (yeah, not real fond of that term, but it's early) of derivatives of CDOs. The banks just made them and ran with 'em. Actually, and I didn't know this until a few months ago, one of my brothers (a CFO type) both purchased and created CMO's for the bank he worked for, before the shit hit the fan. He saw that once they got big/complicated enough, there was virtually no way to properly price them, and there were no controls, and he dropped them completely.

I don't disagree with any of that but that doesn't answer the question as to how you would go about "vetting" them that is different than what's been done in the past.

A "ratings" agency is just a business. Standard & Poors knows that, if you don't like the rating they give your security, you'll tell them to **** off and go down the street to Moody's. So what is their motivation?

Their motivation is the same as the motivation of the regulatory agencies in question; namely pleasing the folks that provide their sustenance and it's the same folks for 'em both (and it ain't us common folk).

Look, we'll have to disagree. I can tell you this: I can do a better job for my clients when there is proper equilibrium of regulation.

What does "proper equilibrium of regulation" mean?

I'm not an expert on the inner workings of the regulators. But we have to find a way to improve what they do.
.

IMHO you can improve what they do by reducing the volume of regulation via eliminating any and all regulations where the negative consequences outweigh the benefits and reducing the power of the state to the point where it doesn't make any sense for the "regulatees" to buy influence, as it stands now the pay off for simply buying political influence and buying your way into the regulatory creation/enforcement process is FAR greater than just doing the right thing for your customers in the first place.

At the end of the day it's up to each and every one of us common folk to do our due diligence and look after our own interests, that's why your clients hire experts like you instead of just relying on what government "regulators" and politicians tell them.

Regarding "proper equilibrium of regulation", that essentially is the same as any other issue in which government involvement is being discussed, such as regulations or taxes: A point at which something is efficiently and effectively regulated without placing too much of a net drag on that which is being regulated.

Okay, I'll buy that which leads to the logical question of : How come we don't have that already? and what makes anybody think we can ever get there by doing the same things that haven't worked in the past? Because by my reckoning throwing ever increasing amounts other peoples money and new ever more complex rules at the problem doesn't seem to have worked, in fact it could be reasonably argued that it's made the problems dramatically worse.

Now, the variable here is obviously, "what is too much"? My guess is that your line is quite a bit lower than mine,
.

Dunno, my line is the minimum that is required to create a level and impartial playing field for all market participants while at the same time minimizing fraud, what's yours?

 

[Theowl32]

Liberals are supposedly against slavery. Right?

Let's make sure we give every big mean corporation every incentive to build manufacturing plants in countries whose labor practices, don't fall under purview of American labor laws.

Ohhhh, companies like Nike who set up shop in Vietnam. Oh, I am sure the labor practices are "carefully" monitored by our labor department.

Meanwhile, the left cry and cockledoodledo about slavery in this country that ended 160 years ago.

Would it, or has it in any way dawned on any pathetic double talking elitist left wing marxist hypocrite that the world still relies on questionable labor practices?

That giving companies/corporations incentives to manufacture here protects workers? Many of those workers are the middle class. Without jobs, they are worthless. Except maybe when they become poor and then completely reliant on government.

The point is taxing American companies gives them incentives to leave and they do. The notion that ONLY republicans are about big business is the left being the sheep that they are.

You can tell the sheep when all they do is parrot the clichés. Fair share. Right when any of you blobs bring that up in any discussion, I say **** you robot.

The funny thing too is the left believing the democrat marxists when they claim they will close down loopholes for the rich. THEY ARE RICH! Morons!

 

[jc456]

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.
.

Probably not, they also don't appear to know that corporations just pass the cost of taxes along in the form of higher prices, lower wages for employees and lower returns to investors.

Look, this is really simple. A corporation is not taxed on shit until that corporation pulls the money out of the business. If they want to build a factory, they build it with pretax money. If they want to pass out raises, they pass them out with pretax money. If they want to cut prices to stimulate demand, the lost profits come from pretax money. Anything that a company spends money on that the company does best, you know, what it is in the business to do, comes from pretax money.

Now, after tax money is the money companies use to pay their shareholders, or most of the time, buy back their damn stock. Basically, the company is saying, hey--we don't have any profitable investments to make right now in our business, and we think all you stockholders are too damn stupid to know what to do with any dividends, so we are going to purchase up some stock to burn in a bonfire at the back of headquarters. And that's what they are doing. Now I don't know about what the stockholders would do with it, honestly, I don't give a shit. But I do know this, even the government. Yes, the damn government, can put that money to use, perhaps rebuilding infrastructure, in a far more productive manner than building bonfires with stock certificates.

Uh-huh and where does the money come from to pay corporate taxes? The corporate money forest? risk/reward determines capital flows and the reward portion of the equation is also known as profit potential, if you dent profit potential you stunt capital formation in the sector in question thus in order to compete for capital companies will reduce wages and increase prices to maintain competitive returns, of course they're still forced to generate less returns (lower profit potential) because they have to shovel what would otherwise be productive resources to the tax man so investor returns are less than they would otherwise be.

TANSTAFL

"There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen." -- Frédéric Bastiat

About that risk/reward thing, why is it you only focus on the reward side? Does not a change in the marginal tax rate also effect the risk side? And I am sorry if that whole gas tax example and price elastic markets were beyond your comprehension. It just seems relatively easy to understand that in a highly price elastic market a corporation is going to have to accept lower margins instead of passing on a higher tax rate to consumers.

and do you have precedence to make that statement?

 

[jc456]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Do you have something to post that shows that lower taxes equal more jobs? All lower taxes do is increase profits, no effect at all on jobs

Higher profits means more jobs, dumbass.

Sent from my SM-G930U using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Hardly. Corporations are constantly trying to decrease their labor costs for the sake of higher profits.

evidence please!

 

[brummelben]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Do you have something to post that shows that lower taxes equal more jobs? All lower taxes do is increase profits, no effect at all on jobs

Higher profits means more jobs, dumbass.

Sent from my SM-G930U using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Hardly. Corporations are constantly trying to decrease their labor costs for the sake of higher profits.

evidence please!

Why would higher profits mean more jobs? The only thing that creates jobs is demand for a product. Without demand higher profits only mean more income