Sol Rosenberg

Tax “Reform”

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, nacradriver said:

You got me wrong.. and I am not getting a chubby for chubby... and if you knew me.. conservative would not be a good description..  far from it..   But if it makes you happy putting a label on people that challenge you with a different perspective ... ahhh so be it.

If you would have read some of my post way back when during the Financial Meltdown and the GM bail out I had noted that we should allow GM, Ford, and the others to repatriate their off shore money and lower the tax on it as long as the invest domestically; or in the case of GM use it to keep them afloat.  Things may have rocked and rolled a little more for the Obama team if they had any sort of business sense...

In the case of Apple they have spent years making money hand-over-fist while doing everything in its power to avoid taxes....  With the new law there is no caveat to invest, but at least now we're collecting the revenue...How is this a bad thing?

 

 

I'm not saying it's a bad thing in and of itself. In fact, a corp tax rate of 20% seems reasonable. And they could have done that in a tax neutral way. There's no reason why a retailer gets nailed at 35% while a multinational can shelter.

BUT - this tax bill goes nominally to 20% yet somehow through give aways back to the lobbyists ends up costing the taxpayers $1.5T over 10 years even AFTER THE ONE TIME BUMP.

 

THAT'S how it can be a bad thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raz'r said:

well, yes, but the net of it is a $1.5T tax break over 10 years. Why do people forget that part?

Nobody forgets that part.  But, it doesn't exist anymore.  There is no guarantee that it would exist in the future.  It's foregone revenue based on comparing the two tax codes.

Doesn't 350 billion and 20K employees sound like an investment to you?  That 350 billion is going to be spent on something that will bring in revenue.  Part of it seems to be another campus.  That's going to be a lot of materials and construction work and workers paying taxes. The 20K direct employees will be paying income and FICA taxes.  All of them will be paying local taxes too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

I'm not saying it's a bad thing in and of itself. In fact, a corp tax rate of 20% seems reasonable. And they could have done that in a tax neutral way. There's no reason why a retailer gets nailed at 35% while a multinational can shelter.

BUT - this tax bill goes nominally to 20% yet somehow through give aways back to the lobbyists ends up costing the taxpayers $1.5T over 10 years even AFTER THE ONE TIME BUMP.

 

THAT'S how it can be a bad thing.

Under the prior tax code, which you presumably think was better, we added $9 trillion in 8 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Nobody forgets that part.  But, it doesn't exist anymore.  There is no guarantee that it would exist in the future.  It's foregone revenue based on comparing the two tax codes.

Doesn't 350 billion and 20K employees sound like an investment to you?  That 350 billion is going to be spent on something that will bring in revenue.  Part of it seems to be another campus.  That's going to be a lot of materials and construction work and workers paying taxes. The 20K direct employees will be paying income and FICA taxes.  All of them will be paying local taxes too.

I know this concept is hard for you, as Eva Dent, but Apple isn't your mom's small business. The amount of cash on hand, more than is needed for working capital and rainy days is irrelevant to investment decisions. Yet, it's very relevant to capital disbursement decisions. Want to see the real impact of the cash being available in the US?  Watch for dividend changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Dog said:

which you presumably think was better

Imagine!  Did you skip the part where I said I agreed reform was necessary and that 20% is in the right ballpark?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

I know this concept is hard for you, as Eva Dent, but Apple isn't your mom's small business. The amount of cash on hand, more than is needed for working capital and rainy days is irrelevant to investment decisions. Yet, it's very relevant to capital disbursement decisions. Want to see the real impact of the cash being available in the US?  Watch for dividend changes.

Hey, that'll help a lot of folks who need more to cover those unfunded pension liabilities.

Like, you know, government employees.  Of course there are  a lot of other pension plans with folks like Fidelity that will get a boost too.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Hey, that'll help a lot of folks who need more to cover those unfunded pension liabilities.

Like, you know, government employees.  Of course there are  a lot of other pension plans with folks like Fidelity that will get a boost too.

 

$1.5T

 

There will be taxes eventually. But likely will have to pay back $3.0T +

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Monday, Treasury said that the United States will need to borrow $441 billion in privately held debt this quarter, the largest sum since 2010, when the economy was emerging from the worst downturn since the Great Depression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, VhmSays said:

On Monday, Treasury said that the United States will need to borrow $441 billion in privately held debt this quarter, the largest sum since 2010, when the economy was emerging from the worst downturn since the Great Depression.

And ?   What are you telling us ?

gdp. 2010 was 14 trillion , in 2017 it was 19 trillion

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, slug zitski said:

And ?   What are you telling us ?

gdp. 2010 was 14 trillion , in 2017 it was 19 trillion

 

Fiscal responsibility?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Congressional Budget Office says that federal revenues in January added up to $362 billion. That's an increase of $18 billion— or 5.2% — from the year before. As a result, the government ran a surplus of $51 billion that month, which is equal to the previous January".

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/revenues-climb-5-2-in-first-month-of-gop-tax-cuts/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a lateral POV, a healthy tax revenue is not a one way street. 

In most western democracies, the government is one of the largest customers for private enterprise. A large amount of private businesses provide services and product to gov.  Any fed or local gov entity cutting back on spending because of reduced tax revenue can have a nasty ripple effect through the private sector. 

I have a fair bit to do with local, state and fed government, and it is well known that when the private sector is booming, gov will be madly saving tax revenue (not dropping tax rates) . When the private sector runs out of steam and the economy stutters, gov don’t increase tax rates, they instead start spending, releasing these reserve funds in new construction projects, upgrading brownfield facilities and increasing services from the private sector. As soon as signs are evident of a private sector recovery, gov switches back to hoarding revenue, and the cycle goes on.

A well run gov can hence act as a very effective smoothing influence on the economy. 

Implementing populist tax breaks when the economy is recovering nicely is exactly the opposite of sensible governance of the nations economy. I’ve seen it several times in various countries in my working career, it’s never ended well. Not once. Pity the next generation.

 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

aka counter cyclical economic policy which the republicans effectively oppose. they are pro-cyclical exacerbating the highs and the lows.

Anti-Keynes 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Appropriate for dummies who have been known to call Keynes a criminal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Appropriate for dummies who have been known to call Keynes a criminal.

Pretty much the approach that lead to the Great Depression

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Pretty much the approach that lead to the Great Depression

Except the Republicans of 110 years ago didn’t simultaneously create mega deficits.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure - get a pay cut so just use the credit card more.

The right wingers have always been the smart ones with money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Sure - get a pay cut so just use the credit card more.

The right wingers have always been the smart ones with money.

But revenues will go up...just long enough for cherry pickers to use that little bit of data without ever answering the question "for how long?"  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

But revenues will go up...just long enough for cherry pickers to use that little bit of data without ever answering the question "for how long?"  

As long as it still exceeds spending we need to look at the growth in interest payments.  Refinancing at a higher rate is going to hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

As long as it still exceeds spending we need to look at the growth in interest payments.  Refinancing at a higher rate is going to hurt.

Meh. Republicans are in charge now. Debt doesn’t matter, remember?  Only democrat deficits matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

As long as it still exceeds spending we need to look at the growth in interest payments.  Refinancing at a higher rate is going to hurt.

Tax cuts in a healthy economy will do that. $1.50 a week should help though. Just ask Paul Ryan. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

As long as it still exceeds spending we need to look at the growth in interest payments.  Refinancing at a higher rate is going to hurt.

Is it time to look at spending?  Or, are we just going to be satisfied with the new tax plan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Is it time to look at spending?  Or, are we just going to be satisfied with the new tax plan?

They looked at spending already and decided it’s a great idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Sean said:

They looked at spending already and decided it’s a great idea. 

Yep.  For several decades, now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump promised to deliver better pay to workers. This chart says differently.

Analysts say that corporations will use just 13 percent of their tax savings on worker pay. For manufacturing, that number’s even worse.

Quote

On Thursday, Morgan Stanley analysts said they expect companies in general to pass just 13.2 percent of tax cut savings directly to workers, while 42.9 percent will go to share buybacks and dividends, which largely benefit shareholders and executives who hold large amounts of their companies’s shares. In manufacturing, the split is even more drastic: Analysts think 46.7 percent of tax savings will go to buybacks and dividends, while just 8.9 percent will go to worker pay. (New York Times tax and economics reporter Jim Tankersley flagged the split on Twitter.)

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/10/16998770/trump-jobs-manufacturing-wages-buybacks-dividends?utm_campaign=crowdfire&utm_content=crowdfire&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter#618143282-tw#1518290895003

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm shocked...SHOCKED.

 

If all those looser employees had been smart enough to build big investment portfolios they'd benefit from the dividend increases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

I'm shocked...SHOCKED.

 

If all those looser employees had been smart enough to build big investment portfolios they'd benefit from the dividend increases.

You got it, the poor are just too lazy to start their own hedge funds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now