Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I am a "common man" and thanks to Trump I will have now have more money to spend on my family instead of giving it to the filthy government so yes I think Trump is "for the common man".
uh-huh. it's only temporary & those making $75K will be hit when the piper comes calling. oh ya.... guess what's next? medicare & social security. gotta pay for them thar tax 'cuts' somehow. & mama's getting old.... how will the nursing home get paid for her? nope.... medicaid ain't gonna do it no' mo.
I am a "common man" and thanks to Trump I will have now have more money to spend on my family instead of giving it to the filthy government so yes I think Trump is "for the common man".
uh-huh. it's only temporary & those making $75K or less will be hit when the piper comes calling. oh ya.... guess what's next? medicare & social security. gotta pay for them thar tax 'cuts' somehow. & mama's getting old.... how will the nursing home get paid for her? nope.... medicaid ain't gonna do it no' mo.
What any american who works hard to scrape by is figuring out is NEITHER party supports working people. It has always been this way always will be. In my 82 years of life it is so easy to see. America..land for the rich by the rich of the rich. Again neither party cares. People will figure it out. I have educated my kids well on this.....you would be proud.
You sound like you are envious.
You think it is OK for the filthy government to steal from people making more money than you and give it to you?
Because that is what it sounds like you trying to rationalize.
In a Democracy like we have the bad thing is that the mob can use the government to steal from you and that is despicable.
In my 70 years of life I have never had a rich person steal from me but I sure as hell have had the filthy ass welfare queens elect politicians who used the government to steal from me so they can get their free stuff.
---------------------------------- you sound jealous and envious Playtime .
I am a "common man" and thanks to Trump I will have now have more money to spend on my family instead of giving it to the filthy government so yes I think Trump is "for the common man".
uh-huh. it's only temporary & those making $75K will be hit when the piper comes calling. oh ya.... guess what's next? medicare & social security. gotta pay for them thar tax 'cuts' somehow. & mama's getting old.... how will the nursing home get paid for her? nope.... medicaid ain't gonna do it no' mo.
it's only temporary & those making $75K will be hit when the piper comes calling.
In January, the Dems should introduce a bill to make middle class tax cuts deeper and permanent.
Stick it to those nasty Republicans.
We all know the Dems are all about letting people keep more of their own money.
AMIRIGHT?
I am a "common man" and thanks to Trump I will have now have more money to spend on my family instead of giving it to the filthy government so yes I think Trump is "for the common man".
uh-huh. it's only temporary & those making $75K or less will be hit when the piper comes calling. oh ya.... guess what's next? medicare & social security. gotta pay for them thar tax 'cuts' somehow. & mama's getting old.... how will the nursing home get paid for her? nope.... medicaid ain't gonna do it no' mo.
What a surprise, Medicaid doesn't cover nursing homes now...why is that you may ask....because very few nursing homes accept Medicaid. Medicaid may help, but not even close to all.
Sounds reasonable. He's been shitting gold since the day of the election.
When have one-percenters ever not "kicked ass," as you put it? One-percenters' fortunes don't rise and fall with the POTUS and party holding Congress; what changes is how much and how much faster one-percenter fortunes rise.You don't think he knows the 1 percenters kicked ass under Obama? You really don't think he will mention it, and I think you re right.
Why would they thrive during Obama's administration, at least in America they didn't. Although they did it by sending money overseas. They should be investing here. Now they will.
Overall, the provisions in the Jobs and Tax Act are not at all likely to inspire firms to repatriate into U.S. banks the cash they hold overseas.Why would they thrive during Obama's administration, at least in America they didn't. Although they did it by sending money overseas. They should be investing here. Now they will.
Companies make money in the U.S. and overseas. Would you rather that firms not conduct business in markets other than the U.S?Why would they thrive during Obama's administration, at least in America they didn't. Although they did it by sending money overseas. They should be investing here. Now they will.
Companies don't send money overseas. They earn it there to begin with and then either hold it there as cash, or, occasionally, they upgrade their revenue producing operations, though the former is largely what they do.Why would they thrive during Obama's administration, at least in America they didn't. Although they did it by sending money overseas. They should be investing here. Now they will.
I happily accord respect to, though not concurrence with, your normative conclusion in that regard.Why would they thrive during Obama's administration, at least in America they didn't. Although they did it by sending money overseas. They should be investing here. Now they will.
I'm not really giving a shit about his hair. Is that what makes your life complete? His hair?Sounds reasonable. He's been shitting gold since the day of the election.
<pfffft> & the tribble he sports as a hairpiece makes him a shithead.
I'm not really giving a shit about his hair. Is that what makes your life complete? His hair?Sounds reasonable. He's been shitting gold since the day of the election.
<pfffft> & the tribble he sports as a hairpiece makes him a shithead.
You made a hair joke and still think you're the intelligent one in this conversation? You have a fart joke or maybe a little Johnny joke to follow up with or something?I'm not really giving a shit about his hair. Is that what makes your life complete? His hair?Sounds reasonable. He's been shitting gold since the day of the election.
<pfffft> & the tribble he sports as a hairpiece makes him a shithead.
is that what you took away from my reply? lol.... trump loves the poorly educated & you sure take that job seriously.
I am a "common man" and thanks to Trump I will have now have more money to spend on my family instead of giving it to the filthy government so yes I think Trump is "for the common man".
uh-huh. it's only temporary & those making $75K will be hit when the piper comes calling. oh ya.... guess what's next? medicare & social security. gotta pay for them thar tax 'cuts' somehow. & mama's getting old.... how will the nursing home get paid for her? nope.... medicaid ain't gonna do it no' mo.
it's only temporary & those making $75K will be hit when the piper comes calling.
In January, the Dems should introduce a bill to make middle class tax cuts deeper and permanent.
Stick it to those nasty Republicans.
We all know the Dems are all about letting people keep more of their own money.
AMIRIGHT?
not one (D) voted for the bill & the majority are wealthy themselves. why would that be?
What any american who works hard to scrape by is figuring out is NEITHER party supports working people. It has always been this way always will be. In my 82 years of life it is so easy to see. America..land for the rich by the rich of the rich. Again neither party cares. People will figure it out. I have educated my kids well on this.....you would be proud.
You sound like you are envious.
You think it is OK for the filthy government to steal from people making more money than you and give it to you?
Because that is what it sounds like you trying to rationalize.
In a Democracy like we have the bad thing is that the mob can use the government to steal from you and that is despicable.
In my 70 years of life I have never had a rich person steal from me but I sure as hell have had the filthy ass welfare queens elect politicians who used the government to steal from me so they can get their free stuff.
ever hear of vera coking? she was an old woman.... who trump tried to use the government...... to STEAL her home thru eminent domain. to STEAL her home, so he can bulldoze it & pave her land into a casino parking lot.
so.... you were saying what now? trump is scum.
Elderly Woman Battles Casinos Over Her Home
February 25, 1996|JOHN CURRAN | ASSOCIATED PRESS
ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. — Even with giant casino hotels dwarfing her crumbling three-story home, Vera Coking refused to sell.
An unlikely player in a real-life game of Monopoly, the feisty widow turned down $1 million at least once for her 30-by-60-foot lot, and now says she wants $3 million.
She may never get it.
Coking watched from the outside as Donald J. Trump's newest casino project, a 22-story addition to neighboring Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino, opened Feb. 16, next door to the home where she has lived for 35 years.
Trump lost out on a bid to have the lot seized in an eminent domain proceeding. So he built around her.
Coking is surrounded on three sides by the casino hotels.
Coking, whose wood-framed house is an eyesore with peeling white paint and a collapsed railing on the second-floor deck, lives on Social Security. Her health is failing, and she is in the process of fighting a condemnation action by the city.
"If they give me the right price, I would sell," said Coking, who appears to be in her 70s.
Her lawyer, Glenn A. Zeitz, continues to push Trump to buy her out. In recent talks, Zeitz said Trump's lawyers indicated that they would not pay more than $1 million. He said the house and lot are worth at least $2 million.
Trump's employees have two words for the 5-foot-5 woman living at 127 Columbia Place. They call her "Trump's ulcer."
"This is not an innocent little darling we're dealing with here," Trump said recently. "This is a tough, cunning, crafty person who has purposely allowed that property to go to hell, right at the foot of the entrance to Atlantic City, so she can get a higher price."
Trump said he doesn't want the property badly enough to pay Coking's price. Odds are that Caesars Atlantic City Hotel Casino, which is across the street in the other direction, won't buy it either.
Coking blames Trump for her predicament.
"He never sat down with me. All he did was destroy my house and destroy my health. He should be ashamed of himself," said Coking, who walks with a cane and speaks with a trace of a European accent.
She has sued Trump over damage to the house during the 1993 demolition of a steel skeleton left hovering just above her house after Penthouse publisher Bob Guccione's casino project on the site went bust.
She also claimed that Trump Plaza workers dumped snow on her sidewalk, causing her to slip and injure her hip.
Trump said he has offered to paint the house and fix it up, but Coking told him no dice.
Elderly Woman Battles Casinos Over Her Home
yaaaaaa.............. lol - go ahead & spin that.
I am a "common man" and thanks to Trump I will have now have more money to spend on my family instead of giving it to the filthy government so yes I think Trump is "for the common man".
uh-huh. it's only temporary & those making $75K will be hit when the piper comes calling. oh ya.... guess what's next? medicare & social security. gotta pay for them thar tax 'cuts' somehow. & mama's getting old.... how will the nursing home get paid for her? nope.... medicaid ain't gonna do it no' mo.
it's only temporary & those making $75K will be hit when the piper comes calling.
In January, the Dems should introduce a bill to make middle class tax cuts deeper and permanent.
Stick it to those nasty Republicans.
We all know the Dems are all about letting people keep more of their own money.
AMIRIGHT?
not one (D) voted for the bill & the majority are wealthy themselves. why would that be?
When have one-percenters ever not "kicked ass," as you put it? One-percenters' fortunes don't rise and fall with the POTUS and party holding Congress; what changes is how much and how much faster one-percenter fortunes rise.You don't think he knows the 1 percenters kicked ass under Obama? You really don't think he will mention it, and I think you re right.Why would they thrive during Obama's administration, at least in America they didn't. Although they did it by sending money overseas. They should be investing here. Now they will.
Why do you and others who have but the most cursory understanding of finance, business management, financial accounting and tax law, and business law insist on remarking on such things, most especially matters that span all five of those disciplines, thereby calling for more than a novel understanding of any single one or several few?
Overall, the provisions in the Jobs and Tax Act are not at all likely to inspire firms to repatriate into U.S. banks the cash they hold overseas.Why would they thrive during Obama's administration, at least in America they didn't. Although they did it by sending money overseas. They should be investing here. Now they will.
- Why tax repatriation won’t jolt the U.S. dollar
- Tax Cuts on Repatriation Earnings as Economic Stimulus: An Economic Analysis
Companies make money in the U.S. and overseas. Would you rather that firms not conduct business in markets other than the U.S?Why would they thrive during Obama's administration, at least in America they didn't. Although they did it by sending money overseas. They should be investing here. Now they will.
Firms that have a common/universal brand, say Apple, are organized as an assortment of individual subsidiary operating companies of a parent holding company. For instance, the Apple that sells products in the U.S. is a distinct operating entity from the Apple that sells them, say, in Europe. Because the U.S. tax code levies corporation taxes at the operating entity level and geography, businesses like "Apple Europe" can earn money in Europe and hold it there, and so long as the money doesn't make its way into "Apple USA's" coffers, the U.S. government cannot tax it because the money is not owned by a U.S. taxpayer or by a foreign taxpayer that earned the money in the U.S.
Were the U.S. to levy taxes at the consolidated level, there'd be no incentive for firms to hold their money in specifically foreign banks, other than when/if those banks offering better interest rates or some other set of benefits (inherent to the bank in question) that a U.S. bank would/does not.
Companies don't send money overseas. They earn it there to begin with and then either hold it there as cash, or, occasionally, they upgrade their revenue producing operations, though the former is largely what they do.Why would they thrive during Obama's administration, at least in America they didn't. Although they did it by sending money overseas. They should be investing here. Now they will.
Were it so that firms holding huge cash stores overseas primarily, in choosing whether to invest overseas or invest in the U.S., put the money toward overseas long term capital investment undertakings, the whole notion of passing legislation to catalyze their repatriating the money would be for naught. No company is going to abandon billion-dollar facilities in one place merely to realize a one-time "reprieve" on a transfer of cash and cash equivalents.
I happily accord respect to, though not concurrence with, your normative conclusion in that regard.Why would they thrive during Obama's administration, at least in America they didn't. Although they did it by sending money overseas. They should be investing here. Now they will.
My normative position is that firms should invest -- be it capital or financial investing -- in whatever opportunities their sound analysis indicates will, given business risk constraints owners expect their firm's managers to mitigate, maximize profits. Sometimes that means investing in the U.S. and other times it does not at all mean that. There is no one nation wherein a multinational firm can always invest and also maximize profit.
When have one-percenters ever not "kicked ass," as you put it? One-percenters' fortunes don't rise and fall with the POTUS and party holding Congress; what changes is how much and how much faster one-percenter fortunes rise.You don't think he knows the 1 percenters kicked ass under Obama? You really don't think he will mention it, and I think you re right.Why would they thrive during Obama's administration, at least in America they didn't. Although they did it by sending money overseas. They should be investing here. Now they will.
Why do you and others who have but the most cursory understanding of finance, business management, financial accounting and tax law, and business law insist on remarking on such things, most especially matters that span all five of those disciplines, thereby calling for more than a novel understanding of any single one or several few?
Overall, the provisions in the Jobs and Tax Act are not at all likely to inspire firms to repatriate into U.S. banks the cash they hold overseas.Why would they thrive during Obama's administration, at least in America they didn't. Although they did it by sending money overseas. They should be investing here. Now they will.
- Why tax repatriation won’t jolt the U.S. dollar
- Tax Cuts on Repatriation Earnings as Economic Stimulus: An Economic Analysis
Companies make money in the U.S. and overseas. Would you rather that firms not conduct business in markets other than the U.S?Why would they thrive during Obama's administration, at least in America they didn't. Although they did it by sending money overseas. They should be investing here. Now they will.
Firms that have a common/universal brand, say Apple, are organized as an assortment of individual subsidiary operating companies of a parent holding company. For instance, the Apple that sells products in the U.S. is a distinct operating entity from the Apple that sells them, say, in Europe. Because the U.S. tax code levies corporation taxes at the operating entity level and geography, businesses like "Apple Europe" can earn money in Europe and hold it there, and so long as the money doesn't make its way into "Apple USA's" coffers, the U.S. government cannot tax it because the money is not owned by a U.S. taxpayer or by a foreign taxpayer that earned the money in the U.S.
Were the U.S. to levy taxes at the consolidated level, there'd be no incentive for firms to hold their money in specifically foreign banks, other than when/if those banks offering better interest rates or some other set of benefits (inherent to the bank in question) that a U.S. bank would/does not.
Companies don't send money overseas. They earn it there to begin with and then either hold it there as cash, or, occasionally, they upgrade their revenue producing operations, though the former is largely what they do.Why would they thrive during Obama's administration, at least in America they didn't. Although they did it by sending money overseas. They should be investing here. Now they will.
Were it so that firms holding huge cash stores overseas primarily, in choosing whether to invest overseas or invest in the U.S., put the money toward overseas long term capital investment undertakings, the whole notion of passing legislation to catalyze their repatriating the money would be for naught. No company is going to abandon billion-dollar facilities in one place merely to realize a one-time "reprieve" on a transfer of cash and cash equivalents.
I happily accord respect to, though not concurrence with, your normative conclusion in that regard.Why would they thrive during Obama's administration, at least in America they didn't. Although they did it by sending money overseas. They should be investing here. Now they will.
My normative position is that firms should invest -- be it capital or financial investing -- in whatever opportunities their sound analysis indicates will, given business risk constraints owners expect their firm's managers to mitigate, maximize profits. Sometimes that means investing in the U.S. and other times it does not at all mean that. There is no one nation wherein a multinational firm can always invest and also maximize profit.
You do realize that something is better than nothing? Even one quarter of heavyweights investing again will jolt the economy and create jobs. Remember poor men do not hire people.
I do not accept that "something is better than nothing." I do not because that line of reasoning is fallacious; it's called either the "four terms fallacy" or "equivocation," depending on the structure of the argument/assertion in which it's presented.You do realize that something is better than nothing?
Be that as it may, it is counterfactual to presume that 1/4th of the "heavyweights" will "invest again" such that their doing so produces a materially measurable increase in U.S.-located jobs. It is all the more so in light of numerous CEOs asserting that creating jobs is not what they will do with JTCA savings. (See: CEOs admit they won't create jobs with their tax cut money)Even one quarter of heavyweights investing again will jolt the economy and create jobs. Remember poor men do not hire people.
According to you, those rich people will remain that way, so why cant the investments that do supply jobs be celebrated? Debbie Downer.When have one-percenters ever not "kicked ass," as you put it? One-percenters' fortunes don't rise and fall with the POTUS and party holding Congress; what changes is how much and how much faster one-percenter fortunes rise.You don't think he knows the 1 percenters kicked ass under Obama? You really don't think he will mention it, and I think you re right.Why would they thrive during Obama's administration, at least in America they didn't. Although they did it by sending money overseas. They should be investing here. Now they will.
Why do you and others who have but the most cursory understanding of finance, business management, financial accounting and tax law, and business law insist on remarking on such things, most especially matters that span all five of those disciplines, thereby calling for more than a novel understanding of any single one or several few?
Overall, the provisions in the Jobs and Tax Act are not at all likely to inspire firms to repatriate into U.S. banks the cash they hold overseas.Why would they thrive during Obama's administration, at least in America they didn't. Although they did it by sending money overseas. They should be investing here. Now they will.
- Why tax repatriation won’t jolt the U.S. dollar
- Tax Cuts on Repatriation Earnings as Economic Stimulus: An Economic Analysis
Companies make money in the U.S. and overseas. Would you rather that firms not conduct business in markets other than the U.S?Why would they thrive during Obama's administration, at least in America they didn't. Although they did it by sending money overseas. They should be investing here. Now they will.
Firms that have a common/universal brand, say Apple, are organized as an assortment of individual subsidiary operating companies of a parent holding company. For instance, the Apple that sells products in the U.S. is a distinct operating entity from the Apple that sells them, say, in Europe. Because the U.S. tax code levies corporation taxes at the operating entity level and geography, businesses like "Apple Europe" can earn money in Europe and hold it there, and so long as the money doesn't make its way into "Apple USA's" coffers, the U.S. government cannot tax it because the money is not owned by a U.S. taxpayer or by a foreign taxpayer that earned the money in the U.S.
Were the U.S. to levy taxes at the consolidated level, there'd be no incentive for firms to hold their money in specifically foreign banks, other than when/if those banks offering better interest rates or some other set of benefits (inherent to the bank in question) that a U.S. bank would/does not.
Companies don't send money overseas. They earn it there to begin with and then either hold it there as cash, or, occasionally, they upgrade their revenue producing operations, though the former is largely what they do.Why would they thrive during Obama's administration, at least in America they didn't. Although they did it by sending money overseas. They should be investing here. Now they will.
Were it so that firms holding huge cash stores overseas primarily, in choosing whether to invest overseas or invest in the U.S., put the money toward overseas long term capital investment undertakings, the whole notion of passing legislation to catalyze their repatriating the money would be for naught. No company is going to abandon billion-dollar facilities in one place merely to realize a one-time "reprieve" on a transfer of cash and cash equivalents.
I happily accord respect to, though not concurrence with, your normative conclusion in that regard.Why would they thrive during Obama's administration, at least in America they didn't. Although they did it by sending money overseas. They should be investing here. Now they will.
My normative position is that firms should invest -- be it capital or financial investing -- in whatever opportunities their sound analysis indicates will, given business risk constraints owners expect their firm's managers to mitigate, maximize profits. Sometimes that means investing in the U.S. and other times it does not at all mean that. There is no one nation wherein a multinational firm can always invest and also maximize profit.
You do realize that something is better than nothing? Even one quarter of heavyweights investing again will jolt the economy and create jobs. Remember poor men do not hire people.
Wow! Two blatantly fallacious lines of reasoning in one very short post.
I do not accept that "something is better than nothing." I do not because that line of reasoning is fallacious; it's called either the "four terms fallacy" or "equivocation," depending on the structure of the argument/assertion in which it's presented.You do realize that something is better than nothing?
Be that as it may, it is counterfactual to presume that 1/4th of the "heavyweights" will "invest again" such that their doing so produces a materially measurable increase in U.S.-located jobs. It is all the more so in light of numerous CEOs asserting that creating jobs is not what they will do with JTCA savings. (See: CEOs admit they won't create jobs with their tax cut money)Even one quarter of heavyweights investing again will jolt the economy and create jobs. Remember poor men do not hire people.
When have one-percenters ever not "kicked ass," as you put it? One-percenters' fortunes don't rise and fall with the POTUS and party holding Congress; what changes is how much and how much faster one-percenter fortunes rise.You don't think he knows the 1 percenters kicked ass under Obama? You really don't think he will mention it, and I think you re right.Why would they thrive during Obama's administration, at least in America they didn't. Although they did it by sending money overseas. They should be investing here. Now they will.
Why do you and others who have but the most cursory understanding of finance, business management, financial accounting and tax law, and business law insist on remarking on such things, most especially matters that span all five of those disciplines, thereby calling for more than a novel understanding of any single one or several few?
Overall, the provisions in the Jobs and Tax Act are not at all likely to inspire firms to repatriate into U.S. banks the cash they hold overseas.Why would they thrive during Obama's administration, at least in America they didn't. Although they did it by sending money overseas. They should be investing here. Now they will.
- Why tax repatriation won’t jolt the U.S. dollar
- Tax Cuts on Repatriation Earnings as Economic Stimulus: An Economic Analysis
Companies make money in the U.S. and overseas. Would you rather that firms not conduct business in markets other than the U.S?Why would they thrive during Obama's administration, at least in America they didn't. Although they did it by sending money overseas. They should be investing here. Now they will.
Firms that have a common/universal brand, say Apple, are organized as an assortment of individual subsidiary operating companies of a parent holding company. For instance, the Apple that sells products in the U.S. is a distinct operating entity from the Apple that sells them, say, in Europe. Because the U.S. tax code levies corporation taxes at the operating entity level and geography, businesses like "Apple Europe" can earn money in Europe and hold it there, and so long as the money doesn't make its way into "Apple USA's" coffers, the U.S. government cannot tax it because the money is not owned by a U.S. taxpayer or by a foreign taxpayer that earned the money in the U.S.
Were the U.S. to levy taxes at the consolidated level, there'd be no incentive for firms to hold their money in specifically foreign banks, other than when/if those banks offering better interest rates or some other set of benefits (inherent to the bank in question) that a U.S. bank would/does not.
Companies don't send money overseas. They earn it there to begin with and then either hold it there as cash, or, occasionally, they upgrade their revenue producing operations, though the former is largely what they do.Why would they thrive during Obama's administration, at least in America they didn't. Although they did it by sending money overseas. They should be investing here. Now they will.
Were it so that firms holding huge cash stores overseas primarily, in choosing whether to invest overseas or invest in the U.S., put the money toward overseas long term capital investment undertakings, the whole notion of passing legislation to catalyze their repatriating the money would be for naught. No company is going to abandon billion-dollar facilities in one place merely to realize a one-time "reprieve" on a transfer of cash and cash equivalents.
I happily accord respect to, though not concurrence with, your normative conclusion in that regard.Why would they thrive during Obama's administration, at least in America they didn't. Although they did it by sending money overseas. They should be investing here. Now they will.
My normative position is that firms should invest -- be it capital or financial investing -- in whatever opportunities their sound analysis indicates will, given business risk constraints owners expect their firm's managers to mitigate, maximize profits. Sometimes that means investing in the U.S. and other times it does not at all mean that. There is no one nation wherein a multinational firm can always invest and also maximize profit.
You do realize that something is better than nothing? Even one quarter of heavyweights investing again will jolt the economy and create jobs. Remember poor men do not hire people.
Wow! Two blatantly fallacious lines of reasoning in one very short post.
I do not accept that "something is better than nothing." I do not because that line of reasoning is fallacious; it's called either the "four terms fallacy" or "equivocation," depending on the structure of the argument/assertion in which it's presented.You do realize that something is better than nothing?
Be that as it may, it is counterfactual to presume that 1/4th of the "heavyweights" will "invest again" such that their doing so produces a materially measurable increase in U.S.-located jobs. It is all the more so in light of numerous CEOs asserting that creating jobs is not what they will do with JTCA savings. (See: CEOs admit they won't create jobs with their tax cut money)Even one quarter of heavyweights investing again will jolt the economy and create jobs. Remember poor men do not hire people.
According to you, those rich people will remain that way, so why cant the investments that do supply jobs be celebrated? Debbie Downer.
You must not be a Democrat or progressive then.When have one-percenters ever not "kicked ass," as you put it? One-percenters' fortunes don't rise and fall with the POTUS and party holding Congress; what changes is how much and how much faster one-percenter fortunes rise.You don't think he knows the 1 percenters kicked ass under Obama? You really don't think he will mention it, and I think you re right.Why would they thrive during Obama's administration, at least in America they didn't. Although they did it by sending money overseas. They should be investing here. Now they will.
Why do you and others who have but the most cursory understanding of finance, business management, financial accounting and tax law, and business law insist on remarking on such things, most especially matters that span all five of those disciplines, thereby calling for more than a novel understanding of any single one or several few?
Overall, the provisions in the Jobs and Tax Act are not at all likely to inspire firms to repatriate into U.S. banks the cash they hold overseas.Why would they thrive during Obama's administration, at least in America they didn't. Although they did it by sending money overseas. They should be investing here. Now they will.
- Why tax repatriation won’t jolt the U.S. dollar
- Tax Cuts on Repatriation Earnings as Economic Stimulus: An Economic Analysis
Companies make money in the U.S. and overseas. Would you rather that firms not conduct business in markets other than the U.S?Why would they thrive during Obama's administration, at least in America they didn't. Although they did it by sending money overseas. They should be investing here. Now they will.
Firms that have a common/universal brand, say Apple, are organized as an assortment of individual subsidiary operating companies of a parent holding company. For instance, the Apple that sells products in the U.S. is a distinct operating entity from the Apple that sells them, say, in Europe. Because the U.S. tax code levies corporation taxes at the operating entity level and geography, businesses like "Apple Europe" can earn money in Europe and hold it there, and so long as the money doesn't make its way into "Apple USA's" coffers, the U.S. government cannot tax it because the money is not owned by a U.S. taxpayer or by a foreign taxpayer that earned the money in the U.S.
Were the U.S. to levy taxes at the consolidated level, there'd be no incentive for firms to hold their money in specifically foreign banks, other than when/if those banks offering better interest rates or some other set of benefits (inherent to the bank in question) that a U.S. bank would/does not.
Companies don't send money overseas. They earn it there to begin with and then either hold it there as cash, or, occasionally, they upgrade their revenue producing operations, though the former is largely what they do.Why would they thrive during Obama's administration, at least in America they didn't. Although they did it by sending money overseas. They should be investing here. Now they will.
Were it so that firms holding huge cash stores overseas primarily, in choosing whether to invest overseas or invest in the U.S., put the money toward overseas long term capital investment undertakings, the whole notion of passing legislation to catalyze their repatriating the money would be for naught. No company is going to abandon billion-dollar facilities in one place merely to realize a one-time "reprieve" on a transfer of cash and cash equivalents.
I happily accord respect to, though not concurrence with, your normative conclusion in that regard.Why would they thrive during Obama's administration, at least in America they didn't. Although they did it by sending money overseas. They should be investing here. Now they will.
My normative position is that firms should invest -- be it capital or financial investing -- in whatever opportunities their sound analysis indicates will, given business risk constraints owners expect their firm's managers to mitigate, maximize profits. Sometimes that means investing in the U.S. and other times it does not at all mean that. There is no one nation wherein a multinational firm can always invest and also maximize profit.
You do realize that something is better than nothing? Even one quarter of heavyweights investing again will jolt the economy and create jobs. Remember poor men do not hire people.
Wow! Two blatantly fallacious lines of reasoning in one very short post.
I do not accept that "something is better than nothing." I do not because that line of reasoning is fallacious; it's called either the "four terms fallacy" or "equivocation," depending on the structure of the argument/assertion in which it's presented.You do realize that something is better than nothing?
Be that as it may, it is counterfactual to presume that 1/4th of the "heavyweights" will "invest again" such that their doing so produces a materially measurable increase in U.S.-located jobs. It is all the more so in light of numerous CEOs asserting that creating jobs is not what they will do with JTCA savings. (See: CEOs admit they won't create jobs with their tax cut money)Even one quarter of heavyweights investing again will jolt the economy and create jobs. Remember poor men do not hire people.According to you, those rich people will remain that way, so why cant the investments that do supply jobs be celebrated? Debbie Downer.
They cannot right now be celebrated, or at least I won't right now celebrate, because I don't "count chickens before they hatch" and because I don't assume "hens" are "fertile" at any point in time until I've observed that they've "laid an egg."
When have one-percenters ever not "kicked ass," as you put it? One-percenters' fortunes don't rise and fall with the POTUS and party holding Congress; what changes is how much and how much faster one-percenter fortunes rise.You don't think he knows the 1 percenters kicked ass under Obama? You really don't think he will mention it, and I think you re right.Why would they thrive during Obama's administration, at least in America they didn't. Although they did it by sending money overseas. They should be investing here. Now they will.
Why do you and others who have but the most cursory understanding of finance, business management, financial accounting and tax law, and business law insist on remarking on such things, most especially matters that span all five of those disciplines, thereby calling for more than a novel understanding of any single one or several few?
Overall, the provisions in the Jobs and Tax Act are not at all likely to inspire firms to repatriate into U.S. banks the cash they hold overseas.Why would they thrive during Obama's administration, at least in America they didn't. Although they did it by sending money overseas. They should be investing here. Now they will.
- Why tax repatriation won’t jolt the U.S. dollar
- Tax Cuts on Repatriation Earnings as Economic Stimulus: An Economic Analysis
Companies make money in the U.S. and overseas. Would you rather that firms not conduct business in markets other than the U.S?Why would they thrive during Obama's administration, at least in America they didn't. Although they did it by sending money overseas. They should be investing here. Now they will.
Firms that have a common/universal brand, say Apple, are organized as an assortment of individual subsidiary operating companies of a parent holding company. For instance, the Apple that sells products in the U.S. is a distinct operating entity from the Apple that sells them, say, in Europe. Because the U.S. tax code levies corporation taxes at the operating entity level and geography, businesses like "Apple Europe" can earn money in Europe and hold it there, and so long as the money doesn't make its way into "Apple USA's" coffers, the U.S. government cannot tax it because the money is not owned by a U.S. taxpayer or by a foreign taxpayer that earned the money in the U.S.
Were the U.S. to levy taxes at the consolidated level, there'd be no incentive for firms to hold their money in specifically foreign banks, other than when/if those banks offering better interest rates or some other set of benefits (inherent to the bank in question) that a U.S. bank would/does not.
Companies don't send money overseas. They earn it there to begin with and then either hold it there as cash, or, occasionally, they upgrade their revenue producing operations, though the former is largely what they do.Why would they thrive during Obama's administration, at least in America they didn't. Although they did it by sending money overseas. They should be investing here. Now they will.
Were it so that firms holding huge cash stores overseas primarily, in choosing whether to invest overseas or invest in the U.S., put the money toward overseas long term capital investment undertakings, the whole notion of passing legislation to catalyze their repatriating the money would be for naught. No company is going to abandon billion-dollar facilities in one place merely to realize a one-time "reprieve" on a transfer of cash and cash equivalents.
I happily accord respect to, though not concurrence with, your normative conclusion in that regard.Why would they thrive during Obama's administration, at least in America they didn't. Although they did it by sending money overseas. They should be investing here. Now they will.
My normative position is that firms should invest -- be it capital or financial investing -- in whatever opportunities their sound analysis indicates will, given business risk constraints owners expect their firm's managers to mitigate, maximize profits. Sometimes that means investing in the U.S. and other times it does not at all mean that. There is no one nation wherein a multinational firm can always invest and also maximize profit.
You do realize that something is better than nothing? Even one quarter of heavyweights investing again will jolt the economy and create jobs. Remember poor men do not hire people.
Wow! Two blatantly fallacious lines of reasoning in one very short post.
I do not accept that "something is better than nothing." I do not because that line of reasoning is fallacious; it's called either the "four terms fallacy" or "equivocation," depending on the structure of the argument/assertion in which it's presented.You do realize that something is better than nothing?
Be that as it may, it is counterfactual to presume that 1/4th of the "heavyweights" will "invest again" such that their doing so produces a materially measurable increase in U.S.-located jobs. It is all the more so in light of numerous CEOs asserting that creating jobs is not what they will do with JTCA savings. (See: CEOs admit they won't create jobs with their tax cut money)Even one quarter of heavyweights investing again will jolt the economy and create jobs. Remember poor men do not hire people.According to you, those rich people will remain that way, so why cant the investments that do supply jobs be celebrated? Debbie Downer.
They cannot right now be celebrated, or at least I won't right now celebrate, because I don't "count chickens before they hatch" and because I don't assume "hens" are "fertile" at any point in time until I've observed that they've "laid an egg."
Were you thinking I am?You must not be a Democrat or progressive then.
