Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 77
Thanks Tree42Thanks

Thread: Republican Tax Reform - The Answer to ... What?

  1. #41
    Shiny Purple Member namvet69's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,917
    Thanks
    3933

    From
    Englewood, Fl
    Quote Originally Posted by NightSwimmer View Post
    I'd expect this from any Republican. It didn't start with Trump.
    I hear ya.

  2. #42
    Council Member Djinn's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    43,415
    Thanks
    28012

    From
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWahoo View Post
    Since I have repeated stated that I am a fiscal conservative (again, not a social conservative), if feel obligated to respond. Initially, let me say that you make some excellent points and understand your reasonable perspective regarding them.

    Let's start with the market indices. Most assuredly you are correct that they have been consistently increasing since 2010, but the rate increase in this single year is much higher. But let me suggest, that while related, they are not an economic indicator but rather a business indicator. Remember, they were recovering at the same time unemployment was increasing. Such is because, the market indices are based on profits, current and anticipated. Due to the economic circumstances at the time, companies were downsizing to maintain profits. The maintenance of those profits impacted the indices, but caused increased unemployment. Additionally, companies were holding on to their cash and not investing it, that increased their equity position impacting the markets as well. Since profits drive the market, lower corporate taxes increase such profits along with a more business friendly regulatory environment. Less restrictive regulations and a more competitive tax rate in the world market will or should provide the incentives to make domestic operations much more attractive. However, I warn that if the rates are not make competitive to the world market and the regulatory environment made friendlier, than the rate of increase will slow if not end and domestic operations will not increase. Carrier is tired of waiting and already changing its mind, apparently.

    While it cannot be argued that whomever sits in the Oval Office has no impact on inflation, I think many would agree that the Federal Reserve and its interest rates have more impact on potential inflation concerns.

    It is agreed that unemployment rates via their accepted computational mechanics have remained steady with no real visible improvement. Unfortunately, I think that hides the importance of providing incentives for job creation. The government definitely has the responsibility to provide an environment and the incentives needed to promote job creation, but beyond direct government employment, only the private sector can create that job.

    Regarding the value of the dollar, admittedly I cannot respond because I do not perceive myself versed on that issue.

    Finally, let me say, while I may support the economic agenda of the President, I must admit that I don't like him as a person. I genuinely wished he would just shut up, stop tweeting and do the job I had anticipated that he would do.
    Nice post ... but how do Trump's tax cuts encourage companies to grow, rather than simply reward stockholders? Like I said, during the tax amnesty, the top 15 companies brought in $150 billion - and divided the vast majority of it among their stockholders - while firing workers to save even MORE money.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  3. #43
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    1,815
    Thanks
    875

    From
    Maryland USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Djinn View Post
    Nice post ... but how do Trump's tax cuts encourage companies to grow, rather than simply reward stockholders? Like I said, during the tax amnesty, the top 15 companies brought in $150 billion - and divided the vast majority of it among their stockholders - while firing workers to save even MORE money.
    My concern is that the anal need of some to attack the big bad corporations blinds them to the perhaps the unintended consequences. The most significant sector for job creation is not the top 15 companies but rather small businesses. Many of those companies are C corporations most likely privately held or traded OTC and, again most likely, their owners are not part of the evil 1%ers. The tax initiatives impact them as well and they do not have the same resources to respond as do major corporations, the perceived targets. Additionally, an excessive regulatory environment prohibits their ability to expand and perhaps even to start up. I have been told by many small businesspersons that if they were starting today, they couldn't do it. When my partners and I first started, an investment tax credit was available. It allowed us to accumulate the required capital and reduced the need for debt. Today, such a credit would be received like a fart in church.

    Many are hell bent on imposing the inheritance tax, or death tax as some label it, again, under the perception that they are attacking the perceived 1%ers. Personally, I don't perceive any business with an equity position of $5M to be a major corporation with owners making millions a year. Just because it may have valuable assets, it does not mean that those assets are producing the perceived incomes by some. Again, most companies with such equities do not have the resources to respond as do the stockholders of the major corporations. The perceived effort to attack the major corporations has the unintended consequence of perhaps closing a small business with valued assets in order to respond to the need to pay an inheritance tax. Again the real job producers, not the major corporations.

    Additionally, many call for the continuance of the AMT with the rather naive perception that it will impact the 1%ers. As a small businessperson and a middle class American, based on personal experience, it is not the 1%ers that are impacted by it. Believe me, the 1%ers know how to disguise or protect their incomes before it even hits their personal returns. The AMT applies to ordinary income, capital gains and dividends are subject to a varying treatment with less impact. Those sources of income are where the 1%ers reside. While the AMT has been amended several times it was initiated back in 1969 and most assuredly times have changed. At the minimum, the mechanics of the AMT must be revisited to reduce the impact on many middle income Americans, the primary sector harmed.

    I guess what I am suggesting, just don't blindly implement tax and regulatory initiatives in the emotional zeal to attack the 1%ers. Understand the potential impact on small businesses and middle class Americans that are been captured in that attack. Finally, let me state that my comments related to those factors that may negatively impact small businesses and their ability to be created or expanded and to protect many middle class Americans from being harmed while not intended. Regarding actions such as removing deductions for state taxes, mortgage interest, the business expense of teachers and others on personal returns, I vigorously oppose them for I find them to be harmful acts on middle class Americans as well.
    Last edited by TheWahoo; 10th November 2017 at 07:41 AM.

  4. #44
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    21,748
    Thanks
    12025

    Quote Originally Posted by Djinn View Post
    That's not a secret - but usually, these efforts are cloaked in some noble-sounding effort. I'm looking for the conservative angle on this - I want to know WHY we need to rock the boat to drastically when all economic indicators are positive.
    There is no cloaking anymore. They know their constituents are so fully brainwashed that they don't even have to hide it anymore. Their disdain for everybody not rich is so clear. I can't believe the dumb right wingers are still not seeing it. They don't give a shit about them or the American worker, they sell them a load of shit then bend them over

  5. #45
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    42,417
    Thanks
    25032

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Sampson Simpson View Post
    There is no cloaking anymore. They know their constituents are so fully brainwashed that they don't even have to hide it anymore. Their disdain for everybody not rich is so clear. I can't believe the dumb right wingers are still not seeing it. They don't give a shit about them or the American worker, they sell them a load of shit then bend them over
    You have to realize bosses, managers, owners and such are pushing this. Mine sent out a memo indicating we will be expanding greatly if this passes, layoffs if it doesnt. So people see that and think they have to support it. Scares them if they think their job is on the line.

  6. #46
    Council Member Djinn's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    43,415
    Thanks
    28012

    From
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWahoo View Post
    My concern is that the anal need of some to attack the big bad corporations blinds them to the perhaps the unintended consequences. The most significant sector for job creation is not the top 15 companies but rather small businesses. ...
    So why not scale the corporate tax rate such that SMALL businesses pay lower taxes, without changing the rate for larger companies?
    Thanks from TheWahoo

  7. #47
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    21,748
    Thanks
    12025

    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    You have to realize bosses, managers, owners and such are pushing this. Mine sent out a memo indicating we will be expanding greatly if this passes, layoffs if it doesnt. So people see that and think they have to support it. Scares them if they think their job is on the line.
    Yeah, owners who want more money trying to convince their employees of the lie. Just like every other time they have tax breaks and don't expand

  8. #48
    Master political analyst Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    10,813
    Thanks
    5048

    From
    The formerly great golden state
    Quote Originally Posted by Djinn View Post
    So why not scale the corporate tax rate such that SMALL businesses pay lower taxes, without changing the rate for larger companies?
    Because those small companies can't afford lobbyists to wine and dine the congresspeople who pass those tax laws.

  9. #49
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    1,815
    Thanks
    875

    From
    Maryland USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Djinn View Post
    So why not scale the corporate tax rate such that SMALL businesses pay lower taxes, without changing the rate for larger companies?
    I would not oppose such an approach, unfortunately, I don't think the current dialogue includes such perhaps reasonable thinking. Even the tax rates on larger companies ( again unfortunately, requiring a consensus agreement on defining large companies) could include an investment factor if such investment is made domestically. If the concept is that a more competitive rate in the world market promotes domestic investment than those receiving such rate must actually do so.

    I think we can agree that reasonable people can find reasonable solutions. Currently, I just don't think that our political landscape is being controlled by reasonable people on either side of the spectrum.
    Thanks from Djinn

  10. #50
    Member Claudius the God's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,112
    Thanks
    1420

    From
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by Djinn View Post
    Come on, come on... the partisan answers are obvious. But I'm genuinely interested in the conservative perspective on this.

    When all economic indicators suggest that the economy is doing well (and improving), what is the purpose of rocking the boat?
    The question is a wonderful question that goes right to the heart of the two parties economic platforms. Neither one fully embraces what could be done at the macro level but they are separated by some very critical political values. The left sees fiscal spending as a potential stimulus tool and taxation as a means of heating up or cooling down an economy. The left uses tax rates to follow policy goals that are 180 degrees outside of what the right's goals are. Both grease the rich, both grease corporations but only one gives the poor and the middle class a bone now and then, that is the left. The right gives the meat to the rich, corporations and to those who they believe exemplify the type of behavior they deem honorable. The right sees the deficit as a political tool when out of power. The left sees it in much the same way but not to the degree of the right wing. The left does not create a massive media campaign and grassroots movement around deficits. The right does every time. So, in this particular case, the right wants to grease the rich and corporations without any regard for anything else. They don't care about the deficit, don't really care about using fiscal policy to stimulate jobs or invest in public infrastructure. They sell it saying the opposite.

    The left got just as bamboozled by Milton Friedman as did the right. The left did not put his ideas into their ideology like the right did.
    Thanks from Djinn

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Republican tax reform
    By Supposn in forum Economics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 6th November 2017, 08:14 AM
  2. Tax reform should be based in fact, not Republican myth
    By Cicero in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 20th March 2012, 05:59 AM
  3. KFC's answer to health care reform
    By Agent Zero in forum Healthcare
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 5th April 2010, 06:29 AM
  4. Do you favor or oppose the Republican Plan for Healthcare Reform
    By johnlocke in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 17th August 2009, 10:19 AM
  5. Replies: 25
    Last Post: 18th July 2008, 06:51 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed