Republican tax cut will not trickle down

[The Derp]

A combination of a lot of things...including stock in corporations

Which is what I said. FFS.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Millions of small business owners in the US, liberals parade out this one chucklehead to show corporations will pocket any reduction in taxes. DURR.

You believe anonymous people who say, without evidence, they're "small business owners", yet you refuse to accept what a business owner who isn't hiding behind the anonymity of the internet is actually telling you.

That's simply because you're a troll.

you refuse to accept what a business owner who isn't hiding behind the anonymity of the internet is actually telling you.

I refuse to accept that what a single, liberal CEO says about corporate behavior in the US will apply across millions of small, medium and large businesses.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We should tax every corporation out of business.....that wouldn't cause prices to rise......

Well, since they only pay taxes on income, it's hard to see how an income tax will result in a company going out of business. You only pay income tax on profit. A company that makes a profit isn't going out of business, is it? In order for your shit argument to make sense, the tax rate would have to be greater than 100% and no one's proposed that.

So you argue as a sophist, by design, because you're a piece of shit.

There is a way around that. Buy a small company in another country. On paper, change your corporate headquarters to that company. Now, loan the US branch enough money from the over seas company so that the US branch pays no income tax since it is not making a profit. Take the real profits at the over seas company and put it into Cayman Islands accounts.

Trickle down only means that the name of the Cayman Island account is called Trickle down.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If we raise the corporate rate to 90% would we see any reduction in the number of corporations?

Again, a company is still making a profit if it pays an income tax, regardless of the rate (so long as it's below 100%). Why would a company go away if they're still making a profit? When has that ever happened in the history of business? You don't do much thinking, instead you just parrot what others tell you because you're too fucking lazy to think for yourself. There is no way an income tax will result in a company going out of business so long as that rate is below 100%. That's math, pal.

Make the tax 95%. 98%.No change in behavior, right?Still profitable.

Exactly, still profitable. Why? Because they're paying taxes on income, not revenues.

And no one has proposed a corporate income tax rate that high, like, ever. So I want to know why you have to go to a hyperbolic extreme? What's the reasoning behind that? Does your shit argument not pack as much a punch if you say the rate goes from 35% to 40%?

you refuse to accept what a business owner who isn't hiding behind the anonymity of the internet is actually telling you.

I'm gonna give you this "Once-in-a-lifetime" opportunity to invest in my brand new business.
I know we're going to be profitable.....but the tax rate on the profit is going to be 95%.

How much would you like to invest?

And no one has proposed a corporate income tax rate that high, like, ever.

Why not? We'll raise trillions in tax revenues, eh comrade?

 

[The Derp]

Jobs are already outsourced at the current prevailing wage (and have been for decades).
Yup.

So then to prevent outsourcing of jobs, US workers must...what? Accept lower wages. How low? As low as their Chinese counterparts accept. So then a business won't go chase lower labor costs. But what does lowering American wages to that of Chinese wages do to the standard of living?

So according to your shit argument, we're already at the point where we need to reduce wages and the standard of living
Nope.

YES! Because you said that a wage hike will result in an outsourcing. Well, outsourcing already happens at prevailing wages, which means in order to prevent outsourcing, wages must be lowered so that labor is competitive with third world labor. That's your argument, dude!

So you can sit there and pretend it isn't, but we both know it is. You say raising wages will drive out jobs, you admit jobs are being driven out now at prevailing wages...so that means in order for jobs to not be driven out, workers must accept wages that are competitive with third world workers. That's your conclusion.

I know you're clueless, but do you really think productivity doesn't matter when you're discussing wages?

Not in this case, when wages in the Third World are but a fraction of the wages here. If wages in other countries were closer to ours, then you might have a point. But they're not even close. The standard of living in China is half the standard of living here. Purchasing power in the US is 95% above what it is in China. You just don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and it shows.

iar.I said, " if you mandate a large wage hike for low skilled-low productivity workers, more of their work will be offshored"

But we've already had mandated wages for decades and outsourcing occurred at those wages. So you're arguing against wage mandates, period, which means you think American workers should take a pay cut to be competitive with those in China.

 

[The Derp]

I'm gonna give you this "Once-in-a-lifetime" opportunity to invest in my brand new business.
I know we're going to be profitable.....but the tax rate on the profit is going to be 95%.
How much would you like to invest?

As much as I can because I'm still making profits. Literally no businessperson has ever said, "no thanks, I don't want to make money because I have to pay an income tax"

Why not? We'll raise trillions in tax revenues, eh comrade?

Maybe we should try it and see what happens. Our economy seemed to do fine when the top tax rate on individuals was 90%.

 

[The Derp]

There is a way around that. Buy a small company in another country. On paper, change your corporate headquarters to that company. Now, loan the US branch enough money from the over seas company so that the US branch pays no income tax since it is not making a profit. Take the real profits at the over seas company and put it into Cayman Islands accounts.

My point is that if you're paying income tax, then you're profitable. That was the only point I was making.

 

[BluesLegend]

I'm gonna give you this "Once-in-a-lifetime" opportunity to invest in my brand new business.
I know we're going to be profitable.....but the tax rate on the profit is going to be 95%.
How much would you like to invest?

As much as I can because I'm still making profits. Literally no businessperson has ever said, "no thanks, I don't want to make money because I have to pay an income tax"

Why not? We'll raise trillions in tax revenues, eh comrade?

Maybe we should try it and see what happens. Our economy seemed to do fine when the top tax rate on individuals was 90%.

Sure when black and white TV's were cutting edge. There are simply too many wealthy people now, they wield too much power, your fantasy about a 90% tax bracket will never happen.

 

[The Derp]

Sure when black and white TV's were cutting edge. There are simply too many wealthy people now, they wield too much power, your fantasy about a 90% tax bracket will never happen.

So, you're not opposed to the idea, you're just skeptical it could get passed in the current political environment? Well, setting whether or not it could actually be implemented aside, what difference does TV technology make when talking tax brackets? Don't understand your point. Please clarify.

 

[BluesLegend]

Sure when black and white TV's were cutting edge. There are simply too many wealthy people now, they wield too much power, your fantasy about a 90% tax bracket will never happen.

So, you're not opposed to the idea, you're just skeptical it could get passed in the current political environment? Well, setting whether or not it could actually be implemented aside, what difference does TV technology make when talking tax brackets? Don't understand your point. Please clarify.

Its not an idea its a fantasy and yes I'm opposed to your fantasy. Also, I doubt we'll see gladiators fighting to the death in the arena again either.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Jobs are already outsourced at the current prevailing wage (and have been for decades).
Yup.

So then to prevent outsourcing of jobs, US workers must...what? Accept lower wages. How low? As low as their Chinese counterparts accept. So then a business won't go chase lower labor costs. But what does lowering American wages to that of Chinese wages do to the standard of living?

So according to your shit argument, we're already at the point where we need to reduce wages and the standard of living
Nope.

YES! Because you said that a wage hike will result in an outsourcing. Well, outsourcing already happens at prevailing wages, which means in order to prevent outsourcing, wages must be lowered so that labor is competitive with third world labor. That's your argument, dude!

So you can sit there and pretend it isn't, but we both know it is. You say raising wages will drive out jobs, you admit jobs are being driven out now at prevailing wages...so that means in order for jobs to not be driven out, workers must accept wages that are competitive with third world workers. That's your conclusion.

I know you're clueless, but do you really think productivity doesn't matter when you're discussing wages?

Not in this case, when wages in the Third World are but a fraction of the wages here. If wages in other countries were closer to ours, then you might have a point. But they're not even close. The standard of living in China is half the standard of living here. Purchasing power in the US is 95% above what it is in China. You just don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and it shows.

iar.I said, " if you mandate a large wage hike for low skilled-low productivity workers, more of their work will be offshored"

But we've already had mandated wages for decades and outsourcing occurred at those wages. So you're arguing against wage mandates, period, which means you think American workers should take a pay cut to be competitive with those in China.

So then to prevent outsourcing of jobs, US workers must...what?

Make the US a more friendly environment for business.

YES! Because you said that a wage hike will result in an outsourcing.

A mandated wage hike will result in more outsourcing.

you admit jobs are being driven out now at prevailing wages...

Pile enough taxes and regulations on businesses, some will leave.

so that means in order for jobs to not be driven out, workers must accept wages that are competitive with third world workers.

Why haven't all our jobs already been outsourced to Burkina Faso?

But we've already had mandated wages for decades and outsourcing occurred at those wages.

Mandate $15.....see what happens.

 

[PredFan]

Any benefit they get from $15 an hour minimum will be very short lived. In less than a years time they will be no better off than they were before.

Why should I believe you. More people spending more money creates demand.

Why? Because it's simple economics.

Labor spending their higher wages is simpler economics.

Yes, it's simple because it's only a part of how economics works and ignores the very important rest of the story. Labor's higher wages increases the cost to make products, which increases the price of goods thus negating the increase in the wages. that's the whole story and is still simple economics.

Even if those products were made in low wage countries, right?

Jesus! Yes AND no. Those products that come from other countries wouldn't cost more as long as the shipping, transport and sales didn't overly involve high wage Americans to get them to the customer. Then of course you have American businesses that couldn't compete with foreign companies and then there would be less jobs and less people employed and then STILL the minimum wage earners would be right back where they started.

Why is this so hard for you?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Republican tax cuts won't trickle down, CEO writes in scathing op-ed

It's not a surprise to Todd Carmichael, co-founder and CEO of La Colombe Coffee Roasters in Philadelphia.

"I can tell you what no other CEO wants to tell you," Carmichael writes in an op-ed in The Philadelphia Inquirer: "A half-trillion dollars of corporate tax giveaways proposed by the GOP aren't going to do a thing for the middle class, or create a single job. Because what every CEO knows but won't tell you is this: A tax break for their company simply means a fatter bottom line. Not jobs. Not investment." CEOs have "a powerful fiduciary duty to return all profits to shareholders — not to the employees, or the suppliers, or the community and certainly not to the unemployed or left behind," he explained. "Profit goes to shareholders (and the CEO) and not to the employees."


Just like when we cut taxes before. Cut taxes on the wealthy........and they just keep it

Of course it won't trickle down. That is a proven lie.

 

[busybee01]

The Republican tax cuts won't trickle down, CEO writes in scathing op-ed

It's not a surprise to Todd Carmichael, co-founder and CEO of La Colombe Coffee Roasters in Philadelphia.

"I can tell you what no other CEO wants to tell you," Carmichael writes in an op-ed in The Philadelphia Inquirer: "A half-trillion dollars of corporate tax giveaways proposed by the GOP aren't going to do a thing for the middle class, or create a single job. Because what every CEO knows but won't tell you is this: A tax break for their company simply means a fatter bottom line. Not jobs. Not investment." CEOs have "a powerful fiduciary duty to return all profits to shareholders — not to the employees, or the suppliers, or the community and certainly not to the unemployed or left behind," he explained. "Profit goes to shareholders (and the CEO) and not to the employees."


Just like when we cut taxes before. Cut taxes on the wealthy........and they just keep it

And the shareholders are...wait for it...the middle class 401k's and pension funds. lmao

The overwhelming majority of the benefits will go to the rich.

 

[deanrd]

The Republican tax cuts won't trickle down, CEO writes in scathing op-ed

It's not a surprise to Todd Carmichael, co-founder and CEO of La Colombe Coffee Roasters in Philadelphia.

"I can tell you what no other CEO wants to tell you," Carmichael writes in an op-ed in The Philadelphia Inquirer: "A half-trillion dollars of corporate tax giveaways proposed by the GOP aren't going to do a thing for the middle class, or create a single job. Because what every CEO knows but won't tell you is this: A tax break for their company simply means a fatter bottom line. Not jobs. Not investment." CEOs have "a powerful fiduciary duty to return all profits to shareholders — not to the employees, or the suppliers, or the community and certainly not to the unemployed or left behind," he explained. "Profit goes to shareholders (and the CEO) and not to the employees."


Just like when we cut taxes before. Cut taxes on the wealthy........and they just keep it

Republican tax cut will not trickle down

Republicans already know that. It's only something they say to an ignorant base that believes "science is a faith". If you phrase it correctly, the GOP base will believe anything. And no one knows better how to trick the GOP base than the GOP leadership.

Pedophiles are us!

Tax us and call it a tax break!

We love Vlad!

 

[BluesLegend]

The Republican tax cuts won't trickle down, CEO writes in scathing op-ed

It's not a surprise to Todd Carmichael, co-founder and CEO of La Colombe Coffee Roasters in Philadelphia.

"I can tell you what no other CEO wants to tell you," Carmichael writes in an op-ed in The Philadelphia Inquirer: "A half-trillion dollars of corporate tax giveaways proposed by the GOP aren't going to do a thing for the middle class, or create a single job. Because what every CEO knows but won't tell you is this: A tax break for their company simply means a fatter bottom line. Not jobs. Not investment." CEOs have "a powerful fiduciary duty to return all profits to shareholders — not to the employees, or the suppliers, or the community and certainly not to the unemployed or left behind," he explained. "Profit goes to shareholders (and the CEO) and not to the employees."


Just like when we cut taxes before. Cut taxes on the wealthy........and they just keep it

And the shareholders are...wait for it...the middle class 401k's and pension funds. lmao

The overwhelming majority of the benefits will go to the rich.

Present your math and data, so we can mock it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm gonna give you this "Once-in-a-lifetime" opportunity to invest in my brand new business.
I know we're going to be profitable.....but the tax rate on the profit is going to be 95%.
How much would you like to invest?

As much as I can because I'm still making profits. Literally no businessperson has ever said, "no thanks, I don't want to make money because I have to pay an income tax"

Why not? We'll raise trillions in tax revenues, eh comrade?

Maybe we should try it and see what happens. Our economy seemed to do fine when the top tax rate on individuals was 90%.

As much as I can because I'm still making profits.

I see I overestimated when I thought you had a room temperature IQ.

 

[OKTexas]

Are you really so stupid that you don't know accountants project tax liabilities years out..

You're just making shit up as you go.

Read and learn child.

The Difference Between Income Tax Expense & Income Tax Payable

This is just a drop in the bucket of tax accounting.


.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

“The reason CHIP’s having trouble is because we don’t have money anymore.”

GOP Senator says it’s hard to fund $14 billion children’s health care program — then advocates for $1 trillion tax cut



Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) | Medicaid.gov

Here’s a radical thought. How about parents fund their children’s healthcare

 

[Boss]

The Republican tax cuts won't trickle down, CEO writes in scathing op-ed

It's not a surprise to Todd Carmichael, co-founder and CEO of La Colombe Coffee Roasters in Philadelphia.

"I can tell you what no other CEO wants to tell you," Carmichael writes in an op-ed in The Philadelphia Inquirer: "A half-trillion dollars of corporate tax giveaways proposed by the GOP aren't going to do a thing for the middle class, or create a single job. Because what every CEO knows but won't tell you is this: A tax break for their company simply means a fatter bottom line. Not jobs. Not investment." CEOs have "a powerful fiduciary duty to return all profits to shareholders — not to the employees, or the suppliers, or the community and certainly not to the unemployed or left behind," he explained. "Profit goes to shareholders (and the CEO) and not to the employees."


Just like when we cut taxes before. Cut taxes on the wealthy........and they just keep it

Okay, so let's take your argument as valid... let's say it turns out exactly as you say and profits are returned to shareholders. What will the shareholders do with that money?

There are only three possibilities. 1) Spend it. 2) Invest it. 3) Consume it. There is no other possibility... agreed?

Now, if they spend it, then it goes back directly into the economy. If they invest it, then it also goes back into the economy through loans made by banks who hold the invested capital. This leaves consumption.... SO... they could eat the money or throw it in the fireplace, thereby "consuming" it..... BUT, if they do this, it lessens the amount of currency available in the market which increases the value of currency remaining.

The term "trickle down" is quite simply a description of how ALL free market economic systems work.