Trump to cut corporate tax rate to 15%

apparently its not just tax cuts for the rich.
by the way... tax cuts for the rich seem to hit the working class in California and other places with high costs of living.

When you have a mortgage, a few cars, the extreme cost of obamacare and taxes and 4 kids...it takes about 250 grand a year to have a upper middle class life style here without college tuition.

I am not kidding. families making less than 150 k... pretty much leave after a while because that is not enough to raise a family in a good school district in san diego without extreme penny watching.


tax-cuts-for-rich.gif
 
as far as the economics argument... its very hard to say what the net result of lowering taxes will be.

but if I were to argue in favor of the cut...
1. there should be more investment into businesses here in because the potential return will be much higher
2. this action should prevent and even undue inversions. keeping jobs and cash here
3. it may result in overall much higher tax reveneues as the money from overseas come in... and it could result in higher revenues after that.
4. it may or may not change the behavior of those who already have the billions.

I understand there are counter arguments... but I am always in favor of cutting until we see the cuts fail.

I would have done it differently...
I wish that I could be so hopeful, but I cannot. Did they change their behavior when all that taxpayer money bailed them out in 2008? No, they lined their pockets with the free money. No way does a tax cut offset the slave labor they enjoy by offshore workers. Any money put towards reinvestment will be in building their overseas operations. The only way tax revenue will increase is when more Americans are working at good jobs. That ain't happening with this tax cut.
 
At the end of the day if its 20% cheaper to do business in america because of tax cuts and deregulation don't you think some manufacturing would come back?

if not... what would the number be for significant jobs to return?

I wish that I could be so hopeful, but I cannot. Did they change their behavior when all that taxpayer money bailed them out in 2008? No, they lined their pockets with the free money. No way does a tax cut offset the slave labor they enjoy by offshore workers. Any money put towards reinvestment will be in building their overseas operations. The only way tax revenue will increase is when more Americans are working at good jobs. That ain't happening with this tax cut.
 
At the end of the day if its 20% cheaper to do business in america because of tax cuts and deregulation don't you think some manufacturing would come back?

if not... what would the number be for significant jobs to return?
Just because the tax rate is cut 20 percent doesn't mean the cost of doing business overall falls by that same percentage. It's the cost of labor which prevents the American worker from being competitive with overseas operations. Tax reductions hardly dent that offset in labor cost.
 
One. How the fuck do you know what I pay in taxes? Lets get to the point fuck stick. No, they do not reinvest to any great degree. They increase their own personal wealth and they do it on the back of the taxpayers. You, financial and business wizard that you are, can't see the obvious scam so let me clue your dumb ass how things work. Corporations don't pay taxes, none, zero, nada. Never have. Never will. Taxes are overhead and overhead is built into the price for goods and services. The customer pays all the taxes, all the time. Now this tax break might influence demand if they lowered the cost of the price accordingly. They won't, so this free money will have zero influence on demamd. Demand doesn't increase, why hire anyone? Idiots like yourself expext people to believe they'll hire people cause they're nice fucking guys who really care about America. I mean after all, they wear that little flag on their lapel and that's good enough for retards like you. They, like you, only practice capitalism when in comes to taking profits. When it comes to risk, investment and loses they like to spread that around just like the good little socialists they really are. And all of this gets facilitated by our criminal congress. People too fucking stupid to see this scam should not be allowed to vote. That would be you.

The fact that you suddenly resorted to character assassination and an incredible amount of profanity suggests I struck a nerve so hard, there had to be a lot of truth in it. A normal person who pays taxes would've just laughed at what I said.

You've gave me a lot of enjoyment with that post. This is how I imagined you as you were writing it. :)

 
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/20/us-c...a-half-trillion-dollars-in-cash-overseas.html

US companies are hoarding $2.5 trillion in cash overseas

Jeff Cox | @JeffCoxCNBCcom
Tuesday, 20 Sep 2016 | 9:47 AM ETCNBC.com



The overseas cash stash for U.S. companies continues to swell, with only scant hope of it being brought back home as Washington continues to debate repatriation.

American companies are holding $2.5 trillion abroad, an increase of nearly 20 percent over the past two years, according to the latest calculations from forecaster Capital Economics. The total is equivalent to nearly 14 percent of total U.S. gross domestic product.

Yeah, they do that when you raise taxes and have Obama as president.

You do realize that one of the things Trump is trying to do is get that money back into the country so it can be spent here instead of there, right?
 
At the end of the day if its 20% cheaper to do business in america because of tax cuts and deregulation don't you think some manufacturing would come back?

if not... what would the number be for significant jobs to return?
Think Robots and AI, even white collar jobs are going bye bye, Nothing can stop it...Robo Motgages and Robo Financial Advisors to name a few.
 
At the end of the day if its 20% cheaper to do business in america because of tax cuts and deregulation don't you think some manufacturing would come back?

if not... what would the number be for significant jobs to return?


Im with you on this one, to make the claim that the only way to drive growth is from demand doesnt make much sense for me.

How much demand was there for youtube, or facebook, or snap chat before it was created? Answer is 0.

People had to create a business, and create a market in order to create jobs in those instances.

Obviously the chances that places like that will make it is much higher the lower the taxes are, and the lower the taxes are, the more money that ends up going to them. So innovation often creates demand not the other way around IMO, and it creates jobs as well.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jem
When you simply say "the more money people have the more demand there will be" It ignores the fact that most of the time excess demand at the bottom simply leads to inflation, which ends up not being real growth.

Nothing new is produced because someone who made 10$ an hour gets upped to making 15. Now their house, their car, and food all costs more money so they are still in the exact same spot financially.

Bottom line, there is an overabundance of people only capable of working shit labor for shit wages, and they will always get paid shit wages so long as there is an infinite supply of them. This problem is only getting further exacerbated by automation, and immigration, but nothing will change by putting more money in the hands of the people at the bottom, the minimum cost of living will simply increase.

Higher tax rate simply means more money goes to the government and it just ends up being more money in the hand of the least competent.

The way to build an economy is through the middle class, and the way the middle class grows isnt by raising the minimum wage, or stealing more money from the people at the top, its by creating new businesses and industry, and quality jobs.

If we are to accept that the solution to the worlds problems is simply making the rich pay more tax why dont we just raise it to 80% and then we can all stand around campires and sing kumbaya while we are all rich, that model fails every single time, just like Venezuela.

So if we know for a fact that raising tax to 80% would be bad for the economy shouldnt the inverse statement that lowering the taxes is good for growth also hold true?

This tax gift to the billionaire will not create jobs. Demand for goods/services and price create jobs.Tax cuts create neither. Will the price for products be lowered? No. Will some great new product that everyone just must have suddenly appear? No. Creating jobs is simple and I'm surprised Trump hasn't been able to sell it considering his background. He's wasting time on healtcare insurance reforms which does nothing to address the actaul problem of healthcare cost, and this tax scam. Infrastructure rebuild is the path to fixing the real economy and creating jobs. Of course the hyperventilating right asks how do we pay for it? With a tax, thats how. Oh no, perish the thought. No dumb fucks, a tax is the obvious solution. Everyone who actually works for a living knows how the construction game is played, and so does Trump. You pay to play. The sell is easy. Hey boys, we're going to skim a couple percent out of your check to pay for this rebuild. In turn you get solid work for years to come. Every guy who punches a clock says, when do we start? Demand for necessary products ensue, work from the big boys trickles all through the job market and the economy booms. Or we can just keep feeding the financial rapists who push paper, manipulate markets, stuff their pockets and create nothing.
 

[URL='https://theintercept.com/2017/01/05/corporations-prepare-to-gorge-on-tax-cuts-trump-claims-will-create-jobs/']Corporations Prepare to Gorge on Tax Cuts Trump Claims Will Create Jobs

[/url]



THE OFFICIAL LINE from U.S.-based multinational corporations is that if they get a huge tax break, they’ll bring home the trillions of dollars in profits they’ve stashed overseas and use it to hire tons of Americans. (Nearly 3 million, says the U.S. Chamber of Commerce!)

But now that Donald Trump’s election means it might really happen, corporate executives are telling Wall Street analysts what they’ll actually use that money for: enriching their shareholders and buying other companies.

The Intercept’s examination of dozens of earnings calls and investor conference talks since Trump won the presidential election finds that many executives are telling analysts at large banks that they are eager to take the money to increase dividends and stock buybacks as well as snap up competitors. They demonstrate considerably less if any enthusiasm for going on a domestic hiring spree.

Many U.S. multinationals, especially in the technology and pharmaceutical industries, have long resisted bringing their overseas profits back to America — because if they did they’d have to pay taxes on them at the current corporate rate of 35 percent. Their accumulated untaxed foreign profits have now grown to a spectacular $2.5 trillion, an amount equal to about 70 percent of the federal government’s annual budget and 14 percent of the entire U.S. economy.

While running for president, Trump proudly proclaimed that he’d give those corporations a special 10 percent tax rate on that money — not, you understand, for an unpopular reason like making rich people richer, but because it would help regular Americans.

“The wealthy are going to create tremendous jobs. They’re going to expand their companies,” Trump asserted during the first presidential debate. “They’re going to bring $2.5 trillion back from overseas, … to be put to use on the inner cities and lots of other things, and it would be beautiful.” During the third debate he promised that “We’re going to start hiring people, we’re going to bring the $2.5 trillion that’s offshore back into the country. We are going to start the engine rolling again.”

What would companies do with all that money? Doug Holtz-Eakin, a prominent economist who advises multinationals, explained in 2013 that they’d “Invest, expand payrolls and create jobs. … A temporary tax holiday on foreign earnings could add up to $440 billion to the U.S. gross domestic product and create up to 3.5 million jobs.”

Cisco, the California-based IT giant, has $58 billion overseas and has long been one of the most outspoken corporate proponents of a tax holiday. Its previous CEO John Chambers claimed in 2010 that profit repatriation “could be used for creating jobs, investing in research, building plants, purchasing equipment, and other uses.”

But on a November 16 earnings call, Cisco’s CFO Kelly Kramer told securities analyst what the company would actually do with all that money. First it would make changes to its debt structure, and then “we would have a blend of actions we can certainly take with our dividend as well as our share buyback, as well as leading flexibility for us to be able to do M&A and strategic investments.”

Similarly, Hewlett Packard has $47 billion in foreign profits and is a member of the organization Lift America, which claims lightly-taxed profit repatriation will be fantastic for “job creation.” When asked in an earnings call whether HP would use a Trump repatriation tax cut “for a dividend, or to raise the buyback,” the company’s CFO answered “yes” and then extolled the company’s “aggressive” policy on share repurchases.

In an earnings call immediately after the election, Hubertus Muehlhaeuser, the CEO of the $2 billion Florida food service company Manitowoc, explained that “of course, we would like to use [it] for industry consolidation purposes” — i.e., buying other companies.

The next week Agilent, a $15 billion healthcare technology company holding $5 billion overseas, conducted its quarterly earnings call. Asked about a Trump tax holiday, Agilent CEO Mike McMullen explained they’d use the money “for U.S.-based M&A” — that is, mergers and acquisitions — and “situations where we’ve been using debt, such as our share repurchases.”

Experts made it clear they expect the same to happen at other companies. In a discussion at a New York conference hosted by Goldman Sachs about the “optimism” generated in the business world by Trump’s election, Mike Selfridge of First Republic Bank explained that the “almost $2.5 trillion of cash for corporations that have cash overseas, if that were to come back about 60 percent of that would go in the coffers of companies located within our urban coastal markets. … That would perhaps be positive for things like M&A, maybe some dividends or stock buybacks.” He did not mention anything about jobs with the possible exception of “wealth management opportunities.”

On several earnings calls, companies including Hewlett-Packard made nods to using some repatriated profits for “organic growth” or “making investments in the U.S.” Some executives, like Tech Data CEO Bob Dutkowsky, said he believed a tax holiday “would probably create jobs” in general. And the CEO of United Technologies, after describing the possibilities for mergers and dividends, did note that the company might “invest in jobs here in the U.S.” But what was missing from all of the post-election calls and conferences we examined was any sign that any executive feels their own corporation has a specific, pressing need to expand employment in the U.S. and can only do with their overseas money.

That shouldn’t be surprising. If multinationals saw strong job-creating investment opportunities, they could simply borrow money domestically, using their foreign funds as collateral. That’s essentially what Apple has recently done — although it was to pay out dividends to shareholders, not make investments.

But if corporations won’t ramp up hiring, would a Trump tax holiday at least goose the stock market? Possibly, but that does little for most Americans, since stock ownership is so highly concentrated at the top. The most probable outcome from profit repatriation is that the yawning chasm between the richest Americans and everyone else will just get wider.

Indeed, that’s exactly what happened the last time the U.S. had a corporate tax holiday in 2004, cutting the rate on repatriated profits to 5 percent. Companies lobbying for the so-called “Homeland Investment Act” claimed it would help them hire Americans and invest in research and development. Instead they used the money for stock buybacks and increased executive compensation, while the prime beneficiaries actually cut their U.S. payroll. (According to Bill Clinton, George W. Bush was “so mad that he signed the 5.75 percent repatriation bill [and] none of it was reinvested.”)
 
Back
Top