Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19
Thanks Tree47Thanks

Thread: How's that tax cut working out for you?

  1. #11
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    37,830
    Thanks
    35644

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by publius3 View Post
    Nothing was intended. The taxed earned the income. It was their property. This income belongs to them. By taxing less, you're simply leaving the decision with the taxed on how to spend that income.

    If the taxed want to reinvest in their business, that's their decision, if they want to buy stock back or pay dividends, that's their decision. Not only is there nothing wrong with dividends and stock buybacks, they're unequivocally beneficially.

    The reason is very simple, just like its important for businesses to be able to invest money in the company, its equally important to let companies to DIVEST money so that money can be used for more highly valued purposes.

    It's also important for the government to collect adequate taxes to fund their operations -- so long as they only collect them from the working class.

  2. #12
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    34,285
    Thanks
    27061

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by Blueneck View Post
    Now all the laid off workers who might wind up being eligible for Medicaid and Food Stamps will be told they're "takers" and not "makers" and become part of the opiate crisis.

    There's no stability for American workers anymore. You can't plan your life around a company but it'll rip the rug out from under you at the worst possible time.

    Giving them tax cuts has never worked, why on earth people keep falling for this just fascinates me.
    I think we're supposed to believe there was some flaw in our sacrifice to the god of the totally free market.
    Thanks from Blueneck and BigBob

  3. #13
    Shut up and vote Addiction Solitaire Champion, Double Deuce Champion, Queen Jewels Champion, Ray Ray Shuffle Champion, Twins Champion, Blow Up: Arcade Champion, Bunch - Time Trial Champion, Znax Champion, Zoo Keeper Champion, Sobics School Champion, Swap a Smiley Champion, Makos Champion, Dino Drop Champion, Flower Frenzy Champion, Some Puzzle Champion, Funny Bubbles Champion, CubeZ Champion, Dinky Smash Champion, Fun Fun Animals Champion, Fruit Fabriek Champion, Raft Wars Champion, Rainbow Monkey RunDown Champion, Raft Wars Champion, Crime Puzzle Champion Blueneck's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    49,197
    Thanks
    27058

    From
    Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by publius3 View Post
    Nothing was intended. The taxed earned the income. It was their property. This income belongs to them. By taxing less, you're simply leaving the decision with the taxed on how to spend that income.

    If the taxed want to reinvest in their business, that's their decision, if they want to buy stock back or pay dividends, that's their decision. Not only is there nothing wrong with dividends and stock buybacks, they're unequivocally beneficially.

    The reason is very simple, just like its important for businesses to be able to invest money in the company, its equally important to let companies to DIVEST money so that money can be used for more highly valued purposes.



    The core economic case for tax cuts is that they reduce the obstacles to creative and productive activities.



    Now reconcile.
    Easy. I never said they shouldn't pay income taxes on their profits.

    The rest of it, while true, isn't what we are sold when the legislation to decrease taxes for the already wealthy are proposed. We are told with certainty that this will trickle down (for lack of a better term) to workers in the form of raises and bonuses and it will increase hiring.

    That never happens. And in the most recent tax cuts, we didn't need to stimulate the economy. Not to mention the fact we are already in debt up to our eyeballs.

  4. #14
    Member
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    3,962
    Thanks
    1118

    From
    TN
    Quote Originally Posted by Blueneck View Post
    Easy. I never said they shouldn't pay income taxes on their profits.
    Would you rather make $100 and pay 20% income tax and spend $80 on goods not subject to sales tax, or would you rather earn $100 and spend money on goods taxed at 20%. Simplistic, but do you think if the income tax were doubled on your material suppliers that wouldn't filter through to the end price of the inputs you were buying? At the end of the day, all of the taxes that a business pays really do come from 'gross sales' ie its customers, there's no way around that.

    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    I think we're supposed to believe there was some flaw in our sacrifice to the god of the totally free market.
    Oh, but there is. Modern society illustrates very well the marvel of markets and of course global markets even in Blueneck's handbasket example. The best example is the supermarket or Amazon, or Blueneck's baskets. It is so common today that its taken for granted. Sad a bit, I suppose. I wonder how many have Feel the Bern stickers on their Prius while shopping down at Whole Foods bemoaning greed and market imperfections.
    Last edited by publius3; 28th May 2018 at 09:51 AM.

  5. #15
    Shut up and vote Addiction Solitaire Champion, Double Deuce Champion, Queen Jewels Champion, Ray Ray Shuffle Champion, Twins Champion, Blow Up: Arcade Champion, Bunch - Time Trial Champion, Znax Champion, Zoo Keeper Champion, Sobics School Champion, Swap a Smiley Champion, Makos Champion, Dino Drop Champion, Flower Frenzy Champion, Some Puzzle Champion, Funny Bubbles Champion, CubeZ Champion, Dinky Smash Champion, Fun Fun Animals Champion, Fruit Fabriek Champion, Raft Wars Champion, Rainbow Monkey RunDown Champion, Raft Wars Champion, Crime Puzzle Champion Blueneck's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    49,197
    Thanks
    27058

    From
    Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by publius3 View Post
    Would you rather make $100 and pay 20% income tax and spend $80 on goods not subject to sales tax, or would you rather earn $100 and spend money on goods taxed at 20%. Simplistic, but do you think if the income tax were doubled on your material suppliers that wouldn't filter through to the end price of the inputs you were buying? At the end of the day, all of the taxes that a business pays really do come from 'gross sales' ie its customers, there's no way around that.
    How does the US tax Chinese citizens? My preferences are just about tariffs and the idea that applying them to raw materials as opposed to finished products is wise. I don't think it is. What kind of US jobs are you trying to create by making raw materials more expensive?


    Oh, but there is. Modern society illustrates very well the marvel of markets and of course global markets even in Blueneck's handbasket example. The best example is the supermarket or Amazon, or Blueneck's baskets. It is so common today that its taken for granted. Sad a bit, I suppose. I wonder how many have Feel the Bern stickers on their Prius while shopping down at Whole Foods bemoaning greed and market imperfections.
    Where it gets weird for me is that we use our "influence" to try to create stability in countries so shoe magnates can set up manufacturing in the most unregulated, cheapest labor countries in Africa and use foreign aid as bribes to keep some countries as poor as possible for the benefit of multi-national corporations.

    International swampism. Hard to figure out, probably impossible to control. And I have no doubt the Trump family is knee deep in this kind of thing, seeing as they've benefited from their influence already.

    Sometimes it just looks like the wealthy of the world trade money back and forth for entertainment. Look at all those companies giving Cohen money just because he was the president's lawyer. "Here's a million bucks can we be friends?" Shady. Capitalism isn't what it used to be.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  6. #16
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    62,618
    Thanks
    31319

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by publius3 View Post
    Nothing was intended.
    The justification was one thing. What was predicted by the other side was another thing. The latter occurred as predicted. It is not unreasonable to assume the former justification was a smokescreen.

    Quote Originally Posted by publius3 View Post
    The taxed earned the income. It was their property. This income belongs to them. By taxing less, you're simply leaving the decision with the taxed on how to spend that income.
    That is pure ideology, which is not even entirely accurate since money once taxed is not their money anymore. All you are doing here is explaining why there should be no taxes at all, which does nothing to explain what is going on as a result of the tax cuts.

    AND it has nothing to do with policy, or the justification for policy. We were given a justification as to how this would benefit the economy for everyone - specifically, that it would be reinvested and create jobs. We see now why that justification is invalid - it does not work, because there is no way to enforce such promises or projections that do not come to pass.
    Thanks from BigBob, Blueneck, Devil505 and 2 others

  7. #17
    Shut up and vote Addiction Solitaire Champion, Double Deuce Champion, Queen Jewels Champion, Ray Ray Shuffle Champion, Twins Champion, Blow Up: Arcade Champion, Bunch - Time Trial Champion, Znax Champion, Zoo Keeper Champion, Sobics School Champion, Swap a Smiley Champion, Makos Champion, Dino Drop Champion, Flower Frenzy Champion, Some Puzzle Champion, Funny Bubbles Champion, CubeZ Champion, Dinky Smash Champion, Fun Fun Animals Champion, Fruit Fabriek Champion, Raft Wars Champion, Rainbow Monkey RunDown Champion, Raft Wars Champion, Crime Puzzle Champion Blueneck's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    49,197
    Thanks
    27058

    From
    Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    The justification was one thing. What was predicted by the other side was another thing. The latter occurred as predicted. It is not unreasonable to assume the former justification was a smokescreen.


    That is pure ideology, which is not even entirely accurate since money once taxed is not their money anymore. All you are doing here is explaining why there should be no taxes at all, which does nothing to explain what is going on as a result of the tax cuts.

    AND it has nothing to do with policy, or the justification for policy. We were given a justification as to how this would benefit the economy for everyone - specifically, that it would be reinvested and create jobs. We see now why that justification is invalid - it does not work, because there is no way to enforce such promises or projections that do not come to pass.
    And tariffs are a tax, too. Only they are levied on one particular segment of the economy and not others. So we put tariffs on steel but not Ivanka Trump's plastic purses made in China. Automakers are forced to cut payroll to help make up the cost while other businesses who outsource are off the hook.

    And companies like Harley Davidson, already struggling, get taxes lowered on their profits, but since their profits are cut due to tariffs, they'd be paying less taxes anyway. Taxes on steel and aluminum also make the defense industry less profitable and now the price we the taxpayers are stuck with will go up, also increasing the debt.

    Maybe we should consider making taxes reflect paying the debt and not to punish or reward companies based on what Donald Trump, successful only in negotiating 5 bankruptcies, decides on a whim.

    He's also smushing up this thing with N. Korea into the trade deal, and by allowing himself to be bribed and saying "thanks for the half billion" to China by removing sanctions on ZTE.

    Picking winners and losers based on what ONE man wants right now. That is just fucking stupid.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey and BigLeRoy

  8. #18
    Member
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    3,962
    Thanks
    1118

    From
    TN
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    which is not even entirely accurate since money once taxed is not their money anymore. All you are doing here is explaining why there should be no taxes at all, which does nothing to explain what is going on as a result of the tax cuts.
    Its a case for the minimization of taxation, for sure. If you don't tax it the funds remain where they were originally earned. The 'no-longer taxed' funds will be utilized but there is no intent behind allowing people to make that allocative decision on their own. Indeed, when we say 'to let the market handle it' this is not a simplistic thing at all. To recommend the market is, in fact, to recommend letting millions of creative people, each with different perspectives and different bits of knowledge, each voluntarily contribute his own ideas and efforts toward dealing with the problem. It is to recommend not a single solution but, instead, a decentralized process that calls forth myriad competing experiments and, then, discovers those solutions that work best under the circumstances.

    Wealth must be created and recreated, continually {depreciation}. Wealth doesn't just exist; in fact it requires effort, saving, risk-taking, and creativity all directed by prices. And Blueneck intuitively understands this when Blueneck objects to the tariffs on the material inputs to the baskets crafted, ie that the more expensive inputs will reduce the amount of profit earned and it matters not really what form the tax is, tax production/tax consumption, the end result is that it reduces the benefit of the effort, saving, risk taking and creativity.
    Last edited by publius3; 28th May 2018 at 03:19 PM.

  9. #19
    Member
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    3,962
    Thanks
    1118

    From
    TN
    Quote Originally Posted by Blueneck View Post
    And tariffs are a tax, too.
    Very true and they will unequivocally act like a tax, no doubt.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blueneck View Post
    Only they are levied on one particular segment of the economy and not others.
    Directly, yes, but indirectly its virtually everybody, ie steel users and aluminum users are all taxed to some degree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blueneck View Post
    So we put tariffs on steel but not Ivanka Trump's plastic purses made in China.
    Well, Trump can't order the Commerce Department to write a report pursuant to section 262 saying that plastic purses impact national security, can he? He doesn't possess independent authority and Trump's steel tariffs are no different than measures taken by Reagan and Bush. The point about steel is that the Chinese were subsidizing their industry, so in a free market the US steel makers are more competitively positioned to supply steel -- HERE. I don't support retaliatory tariffs for the tax revenue, I support them as leverage to get the other side to simply abide by the trade agreements they have already agreed to abide by.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blueneck View Post
    Automakers are forced to cut payroll to help make up the cost while other businesses who outsource are off the hook.
    And automakers feel the brunt of unfair trade practices as well. And Trump is addressing some of those issues, right now as a matter of fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blueneck View Post
    Picking winners and losers based on what ONE man wants right now. That is just fucking stupid.
    But that's what is being imposed on American workers when foreign governments don't comply with trade agreements.

    But let's not conflate what are ultimately two topics: 1. how to enforce free trade agreements and 2. whether taxes should be low because if we're discussing the former and we mention retaliatory tariffs enacted for purposes of inducing compliance with trade treaties, sure the tax still taxes while in effect, but that is not its intent, its intent is to induce the other side to comply with the trade agreement and then for the tariff to be repealed.
    Last edited by publius3; 28th May 2018 at 03:40 PM.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 64
    Last Post: 12th August 2017, 08:28 PM
  2. Men Not Working
    By PGreen in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 20th February 2015, 03:19 AM
  3. It's just not working...
    By Raoul_Duke in forum Economics
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 23rd June 2013, 11:27 AM
  4. How's THAT Working Out For Ya?
    By vikingbeast in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 27th May 2013, 06:49 AM
  5. Working without pay?
    By Decarow in forum Legal Issues
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 7th January 2013, 05:04 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed