The New York Federal Reserve Chairman is the boss of the Fed. The Federal Reserve is just a name. It could be called Lou's printing press and sandwich shop. It is a privately owned banking scheme. The people who own it and are involved run a country down to bankruptcy as the politcians are in cahoots with the people who own and print the currency. Or give orders to print the currency to the American printing presses. The owners pay for the price of each bill produced and make the interest on every one given out and loaned. Loaned up to 9 times with a 10% reduction in the worth of the bill each time. More bills are then printed to offset the loss and loans are constantly needed to keep the printing going. It tells you it is a debt instrument on the bill. It is negative money. The United states can eliminate some debts if it takes over the printing of the bills and makes it part of the government away from the private bankers. Loans may be able to be given out with ridiculously low interest rates and costs this way. For the people will own it. And not the private people who own much of the world. You keep talking about things that are not right and not fair to you. Well this would help it out.
There Goes the Economy
- Thread starter RoshawnMarkwees
- Start date
JustAGuy1
Diamond Member
- Aug 18, 2019
- 17,280
- 15,121
- 2,290
You're not as smart as you think you are kid. We're talking about the Gov here, not personal debt. You have to be better than that.
Winston
Platinum Member
rump
Wow, posted all that just to show you are an IDIOT. Businesses don't hire people, McDonald's franchisees don't build additional restaurants, with profits. They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes. Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes. Hell, even Trump knows how to do that.
When the corporate tax cut was passed notice how all those companies handed out bonuses to employees. But they did it under the OLD TAX RATE. They hurried up and got them done before the new year and the new lower rate started. Why would they do that if those bonuses came from profits? I mean this might seem counterintuitive but even a basic level managerial accounting course would demonstrate my position.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
You’re still looking at more debt. Higher tax rates means fewer hires. “Trumpster”...I would have voted for Tulsi Gabbard, something I said multiple times here. You’re just a liar who needs a college degree. Enjoy the return of corporate inversions... combined with higher tax rates on the top end so that we can slow down this insane Trumpian deficit spending.So dishonest. They said this because there would not be a logjam and more government spending would occur with the US taking on even more debt. Short term gain for long term pain. I would recommend a college degree for you.Let's see.
Should I believe Goldman Sachs and other financial institutions, or some nasty, miserable, ignorant Trumpster on an internet message board?
Hmm. This is a tough call!
Goldman Sachs Thinks the Economy Will Recover Faster With Biden in Office
Investment bank Goldman Sachs says a Democratic sweep could work wonders for our sluggish economy. Find out how Biden's plans could help the country's finances.www.fool.com
I recommend nothing for you. You're just a Trumpster.
Higher tax rates do not mean fewer hires. Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
Unbelievable. Do you really honestly believe that? How can any rational person believe that.
Higher taxes do not mean fewer hires..... are you stupid?
See it's comments like this, that allow me to understand how people like AOC can get elected into office, while spouting stupid crap like she's going to 'spend' a tax deduction, on education and health care.
Say you are a business owner, and you run a store. A McDonald's store costs roughly $2 Million dollars to build. You earn roughly $500 Thousand a year from your store. (that's high, but let's pretend.).
Now that doesn't include you taking out a salary for yourself. So let's say you live on $100,000 a year.
That means you have $400 thousand in profit, beyond what you yourself live on.
You decide you want to open another store. How long will it take for you to save up enough to open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
5 Years.
Now let's add in that 35% corporate income tax rate. Your income after taxes is $325, minus the $100K you live on is $225. How many years before you can open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
9 years.
Did taxes reduce your ability to hire people? Yes, stupid, it did. You are an idiot, if you think employers having fewer dollars, can't possible translate into fewer jobs created.
Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
I don't need to go to college, because I learned enough math in elementary school to know that one million reduced by 20% is $800 thousand, and you can't hire 10 people at one hundred grand, with $800 thousand. Or that one million minus 40% is $600 thousand, and you can't hire 8 people at one hundred grand with $600 thousand.
Let me ask you directly.... if your income was reduced by 20%.... would you be able to buy as much products and services after having your income reduced by 20%, as you do today?
If you admit your own purchases of products and services would be reduced.... please explain which person in this entire country would not reduce their purchases of products and services by having their income reduced?
Wow, posted all that just to show you are an IDIOT. Businesses don't hire people, McDonald's franchisees don't build additional restaurants, with profits. They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes. Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes. Hell, even Trump knows how to do that.
When the corporate tax cut was passed notice how all those companies handed out bonuses to employees. But they did it under the OLD TAX RATE. They hurried up and got them done before the new year and the new lower rate started. Why would they do that if those bonuses came from profits? I mean this might seem counterintuitive but even a basic level managerial accounting course would demonstrate my position.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
Trumps spending only added to the deficit and enriched his rich buddies. Obama spent to recover the economy. Big difference.
Telling us, tells us nothing without proof. So no, you haven't told us.
Winston
Platinum Member
Trump called it another Democrat hoax like the Russian hoax, and lied to the American people by downplaying the virus that it was just one person coming out of China, it would be gone by Easter, and told Woodward it was five times worse than the flu early on. No matter how much you spin it, Trump lied.He called it a hoax, he said it would be gone by Easter, and he told Bob Woodward it was five times worse than the flu during a time when he said it was under control. He tried to promote a medication that was not approved by the medical community, and that we should try bleach.20,000 plus lies, lied about covid while killing a quarter million Americans, obstruction of justice, various campaign finance crimes, stealing millions of dollars from vets and charities where the money was supposed to go to children with cancer, violated the Hatch Act and the Logan Act, and collusion with foreign governments.
I don't see that Trump has done anything to "stain our history".
What specific thing has Trump done that was bad?
Where Joe Biden stands on the biggest 2020 issues
Our policy team breaks down all of the presidential candidate’s proposals on the biggest issues driving the 2020 race.www.politico.com
Which of the extremely bad political views listed, would you claim is not accurate?
We don't make ignorant assumptions based on insufficient knowledge?
He's made statements on those. I can read those statements. Are you saying he was just lying when he made position statements on all those, and thus we have insufficient knowledge?
Wouldn't that make Biden the dangerous buffoon that will stain our history, if he's been lying this entire time about all his positions?
Name one single lie about Covid? Name one single person anywhere that was killed by Trump?
Obstruction of justice? Can you even say that after voting for Biden, who had a prosecutor of an evil energy company, fired, because his son was paid millions specifically to gain influence with the Vice-President of the US?
Various campaign finance crimes? Are you talking about the Clinton foundation?
and collusion with foreign governments? The claims you have zero evidence of whatsoever? Or are you talking about Biden and China?
Sounds to me like you are just so angry that Trump called your toddler left-wingers out for the endless lies they have pushed for decades... that now you just have to make up accusations against him.
But you guys have been making up accusations against everyone on the right. You have lied constantly for 10 years now.
Campaign finance crimes that Cohen went to prison for that Trump orchestrated. Trump did not report that money on a financial disclosure which is a federal crime. There were no campaign finance crimes through the Clinton foundation.
Trump was impeached for collusion with Ukraine.
The accusations turned out to be true. So no, there are no lies.
Huh? The entire steele report was faked. We found that out early on. There was no evidence of collusion whatsoever.
And the Hoax claim, was discredited back in February. Are you honest enough to look up his statements? Of course not. All of you are evil people.
AP FACT CHECK: Biden distorts Trump's words on virus 'hoax'
Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden is presenting a distorted account of President Donald Trump's words on the coronavirus, wrongly suggesting Trump branded the virus a hoax.apnews.com
“Now the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus,” he said. “You know that, right? Coronavirus. They’re politicizing it.” He meandered briefly to the subject of the messy Democratic primary in Iowa, then the Russia investigation before returning to the pandemic. “They tried the impeachment hoax. ... And this is their new hoax.”Asked at a news conference the next day to clarify his remarks, Trump made clear he was not referring to the coronavirus itself as a hoax.“No, no, no.” he said. ”‘Hoax’ referring to the action that they take to try and pin this on somebody, because we’ve done such a good job. The hoax is on them, not -- I’m not talking about what’s happening here. I’m talking what they’re doing. That’s the hoax.”
And not only have you spread lies non-stop about Trump's statements, but he was absolutely dead on right about everything.
You did politicize the virus, and you have stood on the graves of those who died, to push your political agenda. Trump only pointed out the disgust trash that you are, and that's why you hate him.
Everything he said, you have proven true with this very thread.
As far as Christopher Steele and his report, the FBI confirmed most of it was true. It was not faked, and you cannot provide evidence of that. You are a liar.
235,000 dead people dead is not politicizing anything there hot shot. It's stating a matter of fact. 9 million infected Americans is a matter of fact that needs no politicizing.
Trump again drew a misleading comparison between the coronavirus and the seasonal flu, telling his supporters that "35,000 on average each year die from the flu, that's a lot of people The SOB is a liar. Look how many have died now.
Why is it that Republicans are constantly spouting about the Steele dossier without admitting to the fact that it was initially funded by Republicans.
Steele Dossier was funded first by Trump's GOP opponents then by Democrats—which we knew all along
On Tuesday, the Washington Post “broke” the story that sources connected to Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic Party had taken over funding for Christopher Steele’s Trump–Russia compilation after Trump’s Republican opponents were knocked out...
www.dailykos.com
Andylusion
Platinum Member
rump
You’re still looking at more debt. Higher tax rates means fewer hires. “Trumpster”...I would have voted for Tulsi Gabbard, something I said multiple times here. You’re just a liar who needs a college degree. Enjoy the return of corporate inversions... combined with higher tax rates on the top end so that we can slow down this insane Trumpian deficit spending.So dishonest. They said this because there would not be a logjam and more government spending would occur with the US taking on even more debt. Short term gain for long term pain. I would recommend a college degree for you.Let's see.
Should I believe Goldman Sachs and other financial institutions, or some nasty, miserable, ignorant Trumpster on an internet message board?
Hmm. This is a tough call!
Goldman Sachs Thinks the Economy Will Recover Faster With Biden in Office
Investment bank Goldman Sachs says a Democratic sweep could work wonders for our sluggish economy. Find out how Biden's plans could help the country's finances.
I recommend nothing for you. You're just a Trumpster.
Higher tax rates do not mean fewer hires. Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
Unbelievable. Do you really honestly believe that? How can any rational person believe that.
Higher taxes do not mean fewer hires..... are you stupid?
See it's comments like this, that allow me to understand how people like AOC can get elected into office, while spouting stupid crap like she's going to 'spend' a tax deduction, on education and health care.
Say you are a business owner, and you run a store. A McDonald's store costs roughly $2 Million dollars to build. You earn roughly $500 Thousand a year from your store. (that's high, but let's pretend.).
Now that doesn't include you taking out a salary for yourself. So let's say you live on $100,000 a year.
That means you have $400 thousand in profit, beyond what you yourself live on.
You decide you want to open another store. How long will it take for you to save up enough to open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
5 Years.
Now let's add in that 35% corporate income tax rate. Your income after taxes is $325, minus the $100K you live on is $225. How many years before you can open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
9 years.
Did taxes reduce your ability to hire people? Yes, stupid, it did. You are an idiot, if you think employers having fewer dollars, can't possible translate into fewer jobs created.
Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
I don't need to go to college, because I learned enough math in elementary school to know that one million reduced by 20% is $800 thousand, and you can't hire 10 people at one hundred grand, with $800 thousand. Or that one million minus 40% is $600 thousand, and you can't hire 8 people at one hundred grand with $600 thousand.
Let me ask you directly.... if your income was reduced by 20%.... would you be able to buy as much products and services after having your income reduced by 20%, as you do today?
If you admit your own purchases of products and services would be reduced.... please explain which person in this entire country would not reduce their purchases of products and services by having their income reduced?
Wow, posted all that just to show you are an IDIOT. Businesses don't hire people, McDonald's franchisees don't build additional restaurants, with profits. They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes. Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes. Hell, even Trump knows how to do that.
When the corporate tax cut was passed notice how all those companies handed out bonuses to employees. But they did it under the OLD TAX RATE. They hurried up and got them done before the new year and the new lower rate started. Why would they do that if those bonuses came from profits? I mean this might seem counterintuitive but even a basic level managerial accounting course would demonstrate my position.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
What are you smoking? I know a man who did exactly that. He saved money from working at one restaurant, specifically to open his own.
Then he opened a second store a few years later, by saving money from running his own store.
They did EXACTLY what I described.
They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes.
You are crazy. You are telling me, that you can earn money, and build stores, and never pay taxes? Are you crazy?
Then why, when I look up Walmarts Investor relation page, do they use post-tax money, to invest in new stores?
Think about what you are saying. You are saying that Walmart could making hundreds of billions in profit, and as long as they spend all the money on building new stores, they would never pay a penny in taxes?
The way you build new stores, and hire new employees, and expand or renovate exist stores is with profits. The more profits you lose in taxes, the less you can build new stores, expand exist stores, and hire more people.
Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes.
0.o Really?
Are Franchise Costs Deductible?
Buying a franchise offers an aspiring business person a way to hit the ground running. By running a business under an established brand name, you benefit from all the work that others have put in to build up that brand in the eyes of your potential customers. The tax code allows you to deduct...
smallbusiness.chron.com
An upfront fee paid to acquire a franchise for a particular area is treated for tax purposes as a startup cost, regardless of whether you buy a brand-new franchise from the franchisor or an existing franchise from someone else. The tax code classifies initial franchise fees as "Section 197 intangibles," after the section of tax law that applies to them. You cannot immediately deduct the full cost of a Section 197 intangible as a business expense. Instead, you must put the intangible on your books as an asset, the same as you would a building or equipment you purchased to start the business. You then amortize the intangible over 15 years, gradually expensing the cost. In other words, you''ll be able to deduct the expense, but not all at once.
Even if you could deduct the entire cost of buying a franchise..........A: Tax deductions reduce your taxable income. $2 Million dollars in a tax deductions reduces your taxes by your tax rate on the deduction. 21% of $2 Million is what? $420 Thousands. You saved $420 thousand, by spending $2 Million?
B: You *STILL NEED* $2 Million dollars.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
I don't know how to explain that any clearer. You are just wrong.
The way you invest in new buildings, new equipment, new employees, is with post-tax profits.
Again, I can get the Walmart investor relations publication, and show you exactly where it says they spent PROFIT.... Post-Tax Profit, on building new stores, and renovating existing stores.
If you could avoid all taxes, by just opening new stores, Walmart would spend every freaking dollar on new stores and renovating stores every single year, and never pay a dollar in taxes ever.
In fact all companies would do that. Every single company would spend every dollar they 'earned' on investing and expanding, and not a single company would ever pay a penny in corporate tax ever.
Because I don't know what you think companies spend their profits on. That is the primary use of profits, is to grow and expand and invest into the company. If you are telling me, that they can do that, with pre-tax dollars.... then virtually no company should ever pay corporate income taxes.
Please stop. Organization and people always want to pay higher taxes. Always. Why take accelerated depreciation and why pay accountants for tax advice when you can just pay pay pay and pay?rump
You’re still looking at more debt. Higher tax rates means fewer hires. “Trumpster”...I would have voted for Tulsi Gabbard, something I said multiple times here. You’re just a liar who needs a college degree. Enjoy the return of corporate inversions... combined with higher tax rates on the top end so that we can slow down this insane Trumpian deficit spending.So dishonest. They said this because there would not be a logjam and more government spending would occur with the US taking on even more debt. Short term gain for long term pain. I would recommend a college degree for you.Let's see.
Should I believe Goldman Sachs and other financial institutions, or some nasty, miserable, ignorant Trumpster on an internet message board?
Hmm. This is a tough call!
Goldman Sachs Thinks the Economy Will Recover Faster With Biden in Office
Investment bank Goldman Sachs says a Democratic sweep could work wonders for our sluggish economy. Find out how Biden's plans could help the country's finances.
I recommend nothing for you. You're just a Trumpster.
Higher tax rates do not mean fewer hires. Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
Unbelievable. Do you really honestly believe that? How can any rational person believe that.
Higher taxes do not mean fewer hires..... are you stupid?
See it's comments like this, that allow me to understand how people like AOC can get elected into office, while spouting stupid crap like she's going to 'spend' a tax deduction, on education and health care.
Say you are a business owner, and you run a store. A McDonald's store costs roughly $2 Million dollars to build. You earn roughly $500 Thousand a year from your store. (that's high, but let's pretend.).
Now that doesn't include you taking out a salary for yourself. So let's say you live on $100,000 a year.
That means you have $400 thousand in profit, beyond what you yourself live on.
You decide you want to open another store. How long will it take for you to save up enough to open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
5 Years.
Now let's add in that 35% corporate income tax rate. Your income after taxes is $325, minus the $100K you live on is $225. How many years before you can open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
9 years.
Did taxes reduce your ability to hire people? Yes, stupid, it did. You are an idiot, if you think employers having fewer dollars, can't possible translate into fewer jobs created.
Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
I don't need to go to college, because I learned enough math in elementary school to know that one million reduced by 20% is $800 thousand, and you can't hire 10 people at one hundred grand, with $800 thousand. Or that one million minus 40% is $600 thousand, and you can't hire 8 people at one hundred grand with $600 thousand.
Let me ask you directly.... if your income was reduced by 20%.... would you be able to buy as much products and services after having your income reduced by 20%, as you do today?
If you admit your own purchases of products and services would be reduced.... please explain which person in this entire country would not reduce their purchases of products and services by having their income reduced?
Wow, posted all that just to show you are an IDIOT. Businesses don't hire people, McDonald's franchisees don't build additional restaurants, with profits. They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes. Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes. Hell, even Trump knows how to do that.
When the corporate tax cut was passed notice how all those companies handed out bonuses to employees. But they did it under the OLD TAX RATE. They hurried up and got them done before the new year and the new lower rate started. Why would they do that if those bonuses came from profits? I mean this might seem counterintuitive but even a basic level managerial accounting course would demonstrate my position.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
What are you smoking? I know a man who did exactly that. He saved money from working at one restaurant, specifically to open his own.
Then he opened a second store a few years later, by saving money from running his own store.
They did EXACTLY what I described.
They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes.
You are crazy. You are telling me, that you can earn money, and build stores, and never pay taxes? Are you crazy?
Then why, when I look up Walmarts Investor relation page, do they use post-tax money, to invest in new stores?
Think about what you are saying. You are saying that Walmart could making hundreds of billions in profit, and as long as they spend all the money on building new stores, they would never pay a penny in taxes?
The way you build new stores, and hire new employees, and expand or renovate exist stores is with profits. The more profits you lose in taxes, the less you can build new stores, expand exist stores, and hire more people.
Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes.
0.o Really?
Are Franchise Costs Deductible?
Buying a franchise offers an aspiring business person a way to hit the ground running. By running a business under an established brand name, you benefit from all the work that others have put in to build up that brand in the eyes of your potential customers. The tax code allows you to deduct...
An upfront fee paid to acquire a franchise for a particular area is treated for tax purposes as a startup cost, regardless of whether you buy a brand-new franchise from the franchisor or an existing franchise from someone else. The tax code classifies initial franchise fees as "Section 197 intangibles," after the section of tax law that applies to them. You cannot immediately deduct the full cost of a Section 197 intangible as a business expense. Instead, you must put the intangible on your books as an asset, the same as you would a building or equipment you purchased to start the business. You then amortize the intangible over 15 years, gradually expensing the cost. In other words, you''ll be able to deduct the expense, but not all at once.Even if you could deduct the entire cost of buying a franchise..........
A: Tax deductions reduce your taxable income. $2 Million dollars in a tax deductions reduces your taxes by your tax rate on the deduction. 21% of $2 Million is what? $420 Thousands. You saved $420 thousand, by spending $2 Million? Idiot.
B: You *STILL NEED* $2 Million dollars.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
I don't know how to explain that any clearer. You are just wrong.
The way you invest in new buildings, new equipment, new employees, is with post-tax profits.
Again, I can get the Walmart investor relations publication, and show you exactly where it says they spent PROFIT.... Post-Tax Profit, on building new stores, and renovating existing stores.
If you could avoid all taxes, by just opening new stores, Walmart would spend every freaking dollar on new stores and renovating stores every single year, and never pay a dollar in taxes ever.
In fact all companies would do that. Every single company would spend every dollar they 'earned' on investing and expanding, and not a single company would ever pay a penny in corporate tax ever.
Because I don't know what you think companies spend their profits on. That is the primary use of profits, is to grow and expand and invest into the company. If you are telling me, that they can do that, with pre-tax dollars.... then virtually no company should ever pay corporate income taxes.
Winston
Platinum Member
rump
You’re still looking at more debt. Higher tax rates means fewer hires. “Trumpster”...I would have voted for Tulsi Gabbard, something I said multiple times here. You’re just a liar who needs a college degree. Enjoy the return of corporate inversions... combined with higher tax rates on the top end so that we can slow down this insane Trumpian deficit spending.So dishonest. They said this because there would not be a logjam and more government spending would occur with the US taking on even more debt. Short term gain for long term pain. I would recommend a college degree for you.Let's see.
Should I believe Goldman Sachs and other financial institutions, or some nasty, miserable, ignorant Trumpster on an internet message board?
Hmm. This is a tough call!
Goldman Sachs Thinks the Economy Will Recover Faster With Biden in Office
Investment bank Goldman Sachs says a Democratic sweep could work wonders for our sluggish economy. Find out how Biden's plans could help the country's finances.
I recommend nothing for you. You're just a Trumpster.
Higher tax rates do not mean fewer hires. Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
Unbelievable. Do you really honestly believe that? How can any rational person believe that.
Higher taxes do not mean fewer hires..... are you stupid?
See it's comments like this, that allow me to understand how people like AOC can get elected into office, while spouting stupid crap like she's going to 'spend' a tax deduction, on education and health care.
Say you are a business owner, and you run a store. A McDonald's store costs roughly $2 Million dollars to build. You earn roughly $500 Thousand a year from your store. (that's high, but let's pretend.).
Now that doesn't include you taking out a salary for yourself. So let's say you live on $100,000 a year.
That means you have $400 thousand in profit, beyond what you yourself live on.
You decide you want to open another store. How long will it take for you to save up enough to open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
5 Years.
Now let's add in that 35% corporate income tax rate. Your income after taxes is $325, minus the $100K you live on is $225. How many years before you can open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
9 years.
Did taxes reduce your ability to hire people? Yes, stupid, it did. You are an idiot, if you think employers having fewer dollars, can't possible translate into fewer jobs created.
Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
I don't need to go to college, because I learned enough math in elementary school to know that one million reduced by 20% is $800 thousand, and you can't hire 10 people at one hundred grand, with $800 thousand. Or that one million minus 40% is $600 thousand, and you can't hire 8 people at one hundred grand with $600 thousand.
Let me ask you directly.... if your income was reduced by 20%.... would you be able to buy as much products and services after having your income reduced by 20%, as you do today?
If you admit your own purchases of products and services would be reduced.... please explain which person in this entire country would not reduce their purchases of products and services by having their income reduced?
Wow, posted all that just to show you are an IDIOT. Businesses don't hire people, McDonald's franchisees don't build additional restaurants, with profits. They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes. Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes. Hell, even Trump knows how to do that.
When the corporate tax cut was passed notice how all those companies handed out bonuses to employees. But they did it under the OLD TAX RATE. They hurried up and got them done before the new year and the new lower rate started. Why would they do that if those bonuses came from profits? I mean this might seem counterintuitive but even a basic level managerial accounting course would demonstrate my position.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
What are you smoking? I know a man who did exactly that. He saved money from working at one restaurant, specifically to open his own.
Then he opened a second store a few years later, by saving money from running his own store.
They did EXACTLY what I described.
They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes.
You are crazy. You are telling me, that you can earn money, and build stores, and never pay taxes? Are you crazy?
Then why, when I look up Walmarts Investor relation page, do they use post-tax money, to invest in new stores?
Think about what you are saying. You are saying that Walmart could making hundreds of billions in profit, and as long as they spend all the money on building new stores, they would never pay a penny in taxes?
The way you build new stores, and hire new employees, and expand or renovate exist stores is with profits. The more profits you lose in taxes, the less you can build new stores, expand exist stores, and hire more people.
Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes.
0.o Really?
Are Franchise Costs Deductible?
Buying a franchise offers an aspiring business person a way to hit the ground running. By running a business under an established brand name, you benefit from all the work that others have put in to build up that brand in the eyes of your potential customers. The tax code allows you to deduct...
An upfront fee paid to acquire a franchise for a particular area is treated for tax purposes as a startup cost, regardless of whether you buy a brand-new franchise from the franchisor or an existing franchise from someone else. The tax code classifies initial franchise fees as "Section 197 intangibles," after the section of tax law that applies to them. You cannot immediately deduct the full cost of a Section 197 intangible as a business expense. Instead, you must put the intangible on your books as an asset, the same as you would a building or equipment you purchased to start the business. You then amortize the intangible over 15 years, gradually expensing the cost. In other words, you''ll be able to deduct the expense, but not all at once.Even if you could deduct the entire cost of buying a franchise..........
A: Tax deductions reduce your taxable income. $2 Million dollars in a tax deductions reduces your taxes by your tax rate on the deduction. 21% of $2 Million is what? $420 Thousands. You saved $420 thousand, by spending $2 Million?
B: You *STILL NEED* $2 Million dollars.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
I don't know how to explain that any clearer. You are just wrong.
The way you invest in new buildings, new equipment, new employees, is with post-tax profits.
Again, I can get the Walmart investor relations publication, and show you exactly where it says they spent PROFIT.... Post-Tax Profit, on building new stores, and renovating existing stores.
If you could avoid all taxes, by just opening new stores, Walmart would spend every freaking dollar on new stores and renovating stores every single year, and never pay a dollar in taxes ever.
In fact all companies would do that. Every single company would spend every dollar they 'earned' on investing and expanding, and not a single company would ever pay a penny in corporate tax ever.
Because I don't know what you think companies spend their profits on. That is the primary use of profits, is to grow and expand and invest into the company. If you are telling me, that they can do that, with pre-tax dollars.... then virtually no company should ever pay corporate income taxes.
Well first you need to get out that Walmart bit about using post tax revenue to build new facilities. I mean you are so full of shit. Walmart is not building shit, they have cut back on new locations and focused on the omni-channel online experience. And those investments are made with pre-tax dollars.
And sorry, but your friend, if he did save money to build his restaurant, is a dumbass. Yes, I can understand, saving money from your job to start your own business. But every single dime you spend on that new business is a tax deduction. The way it works is simple. You open your first location, honestly, it should be with borrowed money. Once you plow all the "profits" of that new restaurant in to paying off the loan, you use the now paid for restaurant as collateral on a loan for your next location. Here is an accounting reality, the weighted average cost of capital is inversely related to the marginal tax rate. Now I am quite sure that just sailed right over your head. Don't sweat it. But you have to understand, low corporate tax rates encourages businesses to take money OUT OF THE FREAKING BUSINESS. High corporate tax rates encourages them to PUT MONEY BACK IN TO THE BUSINESS. I mean can you possibly explain to me why we have not had double digit GDP growth since the corporate tax rate was axed? I mean DU HUH.
Winston
Platinum Member
Please stop. Organization and people always want to pay higher taxes. Always. Why take accelerated depreciation and why pay accountants for tax advice when you can just pay pay pay and pay?rump
You’re still looking at more debt. Higher tax rates means fewer hires. “Trumpster”...I would have voted for Tulsi Gabbard, something I said multiple times here. You’re just a liar who needs a college degree. Enjoy the return of corporate inversions... combined with higher tax rates on the top end so that we can slow down this insane Trumpian deficit spending.So dishonest. They said this because there would not be a logjam and more government spending would occur with the US taking on even more debt. Short term gain for long term pain. I would recommend a college degree for you.Let's see.
Should I believe Goldman Sachs and other financial institutions, or some nasty, miserable, ignorant Trumpster on an internet message board?
Hmm. This is a tough call!
Goldman Sachs Thinks the Economy Will Recover Faster With Biden in Office
Investment bank Goldman Sachs says a Democratic sweep could work wonders for our sluggish economy. Find out how Biden's plans could help the country's finances.
I recommend nothing for you. You're just a Trumpster.
Higher tax rates do not mean fewer hires. Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
Unbelievable. Do you really honestly believe that? How can any rational person believe that.
Higher taxes do not mean fewer hires..... are you stupid?
See it's comments like this, that allow me to understand how people like AOC can get elected into office, while spouting stupid crap like she's going to 'spend' a tax deduction, on education and health care.
Say you are a business owner, and you run a store. A McDonald's store costs roughly $2 Million dollars to build. You earn roughly $500 Thousand a year from your store. (that's high, but let's pretend.).
Now that doesn't include you taking out a salary for yourself. So let's say you live on $100,000 a year.
That means you have $400 thousand in profit, beyond what you yourself live on.
You decide you want to open another store. How long will it take for you to save up enough to open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
5 Years.
Now let's add in that 35% corporate income tax rate. Your income after taxes is $325, minus the $100K you live on is $225. How many years before you can open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
9 years.
Did taxes reduce your ability to hire people? Yes, stupid, it did. You are an idiot, if you think employers having fewer dollars, can't possible translate into fewer jobs created.
Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
I don't need to go to college, because I learned enough math in elementary school to know that one million reduced by 20% is $800 thousand, and you can't hire 10 people at one hundred grand, with $800 thousand. Or that one million minus 40% is $600 thousand, and you can't hire 8 people at one hundred grand with $600 thousand.
Let me ask you directly.... if your income was reduced by 20%.... would you be able to buy as much products and services after having your income reduced by 20%, as you do today?
If you admit your own purchases of products and services would be reduced.... please explain which person in this entire country would not reduce their purchases of products and services by having their income reduced?
Wow, posted all that just to show you are an IDIOT. Businesses don't hire people, McDonald's franchisees don't build additional restaurants, with profits. They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes. Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes. Hell, even Trump knows how to do that.
When the corporate tax cut was passed notice how all those companies handed out bonuses to employees. But they did it under the OLD TAX RATE. They hurried up and got them done before the new year and the new lower rate started. Why would they do that if those bonuses came from profits? I mean this might seem counterintuitive but even a basic level managerial accounting course would demonstrate my position.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
What are you smoking? I know a man who did exactly that. He saved money from working at one restaurant, specifically to open his own.
Then he opened a second store a few years later, by saving money from running his own store.
They did EXACTLY what I described.
They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes.
You are crazy. You are telling me, that you can earn money, and build stores, and never pay taxes? Are you crazy?
Then why, when I look up Walmarts Investor relation page, do they use post-tax money, to invest in new stores?
Think about what you are saying. You are saying that Walmart could making hundreds of billions in profit, and as long as they spend all the money on building new stores, they would never pay a penny in taxes?
The way you build new stores, and hire new employees, and expand or renovate exist stores is with profits. The more profits you lose in taxes, the less you can build new stores, expand exist stores, and hire more people.
Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes.
0.o Really?
Are Franchise Costs Deductible?
Buying a franchise offers an aspiring business person a way to hit the ground running. By running a business under an established brand name, you benefit from all the work that others have put in to build up that brand in the eyes of your potential customers. The tax code allows you to deduct...
An upfront fee paid to acquire a franchise for a particular area is treated for tax purposes as a startup cost, regardless of whether you buy a brand-new franchise from the franchisor or an existing franchise from someone else. The tax code classifies initial franchise fees as "Section 197 intangibles," after the section of tax law that applies to them. You cannot immediately deduct the full cost of a Section 197 intangible as a business expense. Instead, you must put the intangible on your books as an asset, the same as you would a building or equipment you purchased to start the business. You then amortize the intangible over 15 years, gradually expensing the cost. In other words, you''ll be able to deduct the expense, but not all at once.Even if you could deduct the entire cost of buying a franchise..........
A: Tax deductions reduce your taxable income. $2 Million dollars in a tax deductions reduces your taxes by your tax rate on the deduction. 21% of $2 Million is what? $420 Thousands. You saved $420 thousand, by spending $2 Million? Idiot.
B: You *STILL NEED* $2 Million dollars.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
I don't know how to explain that any clearer. You are just wrong.
The way you invest in new buildings, new equipment, new employees, is with post-tax profits.
Again, I can get the Walmart investor relations publication, and show you exactly where it says they spent PROFIT.... Post-Tax Profit, on building new stores, and renovating existing stores.
If you could avoid all taxes, by just opening new stores, Walmart would spend every freaking dollar on new stores and renovating stores every single year, and never pay a dollar in taxes ever.
In fact all companies would do that. Every single company would spend every dollar they 'earned' on investing and expanding, and not a single company would ever pay a penny in corporate tax ever.
Because I don't know what you think companies spend their profits on. That is the primary use of profits, is to grow and expand and invest into the company. If you are telling me, that they can do that, with pre-tax dollars.... then virtually no company should ever pay corporate income taxes.
How damn stupid. This is not about what organizations and people want. This is about influencing behavior. You want corporations to invest in their people, in expanding the frontier curve, in MAKING MORE PIE, you tax the shit out of them. If you want them to seek rents, cash out their investments, and buy more of their stock, you cut those taxes. I mean it is a sign of economic inefficiency and misallocation of resources when corporations hold TRILLONS of dollars in cash. I mean we have tried this whole low taxes bullshit. It has not turned out so well, anemic economic growth, negative income growth, and piles and piles of cash along with unprecedented rent seeking. The proof of my position is in the reality of our modern economy.
Andylusion
Platinum Member
rump
You’re still looking at more debt. Higher tax rates means fewer hires. “Trumpster”...I would have voted for Tulsi Gabbard, something I said multiple times here. You’re just a liar who needs a college degree. Enjoy the return of corporate inversions... combined with higher tax rates on the top end so that we can slow down this insane Trumpian deficit spending.So dishonest. They said this because there would not be a logjam and more government spending would occur with the US taking on even more debt. Short term gain for long term pain. I would recommend a college degree for you.Let's see.
Should I believe Goldman Sachs and other financial institutions, or some nasty, miserable, ignorant Trumpster on an internet message board?
Hmm. This is a tough call!
Goldman Sachs Thinks the Economy Will Recover Faster With Biden in Office
Investment bank Goldman Sachs says a Democratic sweep could work wonders for our sluggish economy. Find out how Biden's plans could help the country's finances.
I recommend nothing for you. You're just a Trumpster.
Higher tax rates do not mean fewer hires. Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
Unbelievable. Do you really honestly believe that? How can any rational person believe that.
Higher taxes do not mean fewer hires..... are you stupid?
See it's comments like this, that allow me to understand how people like AOC can get elected into office, while spouting stupid crap like she's going to 'spend' a tax deduction, on education and health care.
Say you are a business owner, and you run a store. A McDonald's store costs roughly $2 Million dollars to build. You earn roughly $500 Thousand a year from your store. (that's high, but let's pretend.).
Now that doesn't include you taking out a salary for yourself. So let's say you live on $100,000 a year.
That means you have $400 thousand in profit, beyond what you yourself live on.
You decide you want to open another store. How long will it take for you to save up enough to open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
5 Years.
Now let's add in that 35% corporate income tax rate. Your income after taxes is $325, minus the $100K you live on is $225. How many years before you can open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
9 years.
Did taxes reduce your ability to hire people? Yes, stupid, it did. You are an idiot, if you think employers having fewer dollars, can't possible translate into fewer jobs created.
Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
I don't need to go to college, because I learned enough math in elementary school to know that one million reduced by 20% is $800 thousand, and you can't hire 10 people at one hundred grand, with $800 thousand. Or that one million minus 40% is $600 thousand, and you can't hire 8 people at one hundred grand with $600 thousand.
Let me ask you directly.... if your income was reduced by 20%.... would you be able to buy as much products and services after having your income reduced by 20%, as you do today?
If you admit your own purchases of products and services would be reduced.... please explain which person in this entire country would not reduce their purchases of products and services by having their income reduced?
Wow, posted all that just to show you are an IDIOT. Businesses don't hire people, McDonald's franchisees don't build additional restaurants, with profits. They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes. Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes. Hell, even Trump knows how to do that.
When the corporate tax cut was passed notice how all those companies handed out bonuses to employees. But they did it under the OLD TAX RATE. They hurried up and got them done before the new year and the new lower rate started. Why would they do that if those bonuses came from profits? I mean this might seem counterintuitive but even a basic level managerial accounting course would demonstrate my position.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
What are you smoking? I know a man who did exactly that. He saved money from working at one restaurant, specifically to open his own.
Then he opened a second store a few years later, by saving money from running his own store.
They did EXACTLY what I described.
They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes.
You are crazy. You are telling me, that you can earn money, and build stores, and never pay taxes? Are you crazy?
Then why, when I look up Walmarts Investor relation page, do they use post-tax money, to invest in new stores?
Think about what you are saying. You are saying that Walmart could making hundreds of billions in profit, and as long as they spend all the money on building new stores, they would never pay a penny in taxes?
The way you build new stores, and hire new employees, and expand or renovate exist stores is with profits. The more profits you lose in taxes, the less you can build new stores, expand exist stores, and hire more people.
Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes.
0.o Really?
Are Franchise Costs Deductible?
Buying a franchise offers an aspiring business person a way to hit the ground running. By running a business under an established brand name, you benefit from all the work that others have put in to build up that brand in the eyes of your potential customers. The tax code allows you to deduct...
An upfront fee paid to acquire a franchise for a particular area is treated for tax purposes as a startup cost, regardless of whether you buy a brand-new franchise from the franchisor or an existing franchise from someone else. The tax code classifies initial franchise fees as "Section 197 intangibles," after the section of tax law that applies to them. You cannot immediately deduct the full cost of a Section 197 intangible as a business expense. Instead, you must put the intangible on your books as an asset, the same as you would a building or equipment you purchased to start the business. You then amortize the intangible over 15 years, gradually expensing the cost. In other words, you''ll be able to deduct the expense, but not all at once.Even if you could deduct the entire cost of buying a franchise..........
A: Tax deductions reduce your taxable income. $2 Million dollars in a tax deductions reduces your taxes by your tax rate on the deduction. 21% of $2 Million is what? $420 Thousands. You saved $420 thousand, by spending $2 Million?
B: You *STILL NEED* $2 Million dollars.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
I don't know how to explain that any clearer. You are just wrong.
The way you invest in new buildings, new equipment, new employees, is with post-tax profits.
Again, I can get the Walmart investor relations publication, and show you exactly where it says they spent PROFIT.... Post-Tax Profit, on building new stores, and renovating existing stores.
If you could avoid all taxes, by just opening new stores, Walmart would spend every freaking dollar on new stores and renovating stores every single year, and never pay a dollar in taxes ever.
In fact all companies would do that. Every single company would spend every dollar they 'earned' on investing and expanding, and not a single company would ever pay a penny in corporate tax ever.
Because I don't know what you think companies spend their profits on. That is the primary use of profits, is to grow and expand and invest into the company. If you are telling me, that they can do that, with pre-tax dollars.... then virtually no company should ever pay corporate income taxes.
Well first you need to get out that Walmart bit about using post tax revenue to build new facilities. I mean you are so full of shit. Walmart is not building shit, they have cut back on new locations and focused on the omni-channel online experience. And those investments are made with pre-tax dollars.
And sorry, but your friend, if he did save money to build his restaurant, is a dumbass. Yes, I can understand, saving money from your job to start your own business. But every single dime you spend on that new business is a tax deduction. The way it works is simple. You open your first location, honestly, it should be with borrowed money. Once you plow all the "profits" of that new restaurant in to paying off the loan, you use the now paid for restaurant as collateral on a loan for your next location. Here is an accounting reality, the weighted average cost of capital is inversely related to the marginal tax rate. Now I am quite sure that just sailed right over your head. Don't sweat it. But you have to understand, low corporate tax rates encourages businesses to take money OUT OF THE FREAKING BUSINESS. High corporate tax rates encourages them to PUT MONEY BACK IN TO THE BUSINESS. I mean can you possibly explain to me why we have not had double digit GDP growth since the corporate tax rate was axed? I mean DU HUH.
LOL But you are just wrong!
And those investments are made with pre-tax dollars.
Really? You want me to get the investor relations page?
And sorry, but your friend, if he did save money to build his restaurant, is a dumbass.
Um... no? During the great depression when all the businesses were closing down, and filing bankruptcy, there was one store that continuously expanded during the entire 1930s. White Castle. You know why? No debt. They run off of saved profits.
So when the economy tanked, their income declined, but it never went below their ability to pay debts... because they had no debts.
During the 1990s, when Apple Computer was crashing hard in the market, they never went bankrupt, or were forced to sell off to investors... why? Because they run debt-free. Apple computer has consistently operated on saved profits since it was created.
No Debt: 11 Big U.S. Companies Borrow Nothing
Rising corporate debt is another worry for investors. Those looking for a solution might want to check out the companies resisting the urge to borrow and have no debt.
www.investors.com
While it is true that many foolish people borrow their way into business.... there are many large companies that operate with zero debt.
My friend who runs the restaurant, is not dumbass, because while many stores have closed up and gone bankrupt during this down turn, he's operating just fine. And of course he is.... because he has no debt. Yes, his income has declined, but no one is going to call the loans on his store, because he has no loans. No one is going to force him into bankruptcy, because he has no debts.
But you have to understand, low corporate tax rates encourages businesses to take money OUT OF THE FREAKING BUSINESS. High corporate tax rates encourages them to PUT MONEY BACK IN TO THE BUSINESS.
WHAT? LOL
That is stupid.
So let's review.
Ireland has the lowest corporate tax rate in the EU.
France has the highest tax rate in the EU
Ireland has 6 million people, and 32K sq.miles.
France has 66 Million people, and 247K sq.miles.
Ireland number one in all of Europe for investment.
France doesn't even get on the top 10 list.
How is this possible? By your logic, all those businesses in Ireland should be dumping money out of their companies, instead of investing in Ireland!
You said low tax rates causes companies to take money out of the business!
No, you are an idiot now. I don't even know how you could say that, given Apple openly admitted the reason they invested $300 Million, and created 7,000 jobs in Ireland, was specifically because of the low corporate income tax.
According to you, their low corporate tax, should have cause Apple to not invest in businesses in Ireland.... right?
Are you stupid?
I get it, you’re trolling. Understood. Carry on.Please stop. Organization and people always want to pay higher taxes. Always. Why take accelerated depreciation and why pay accountants for tax advice when you can just pay pay pay and pay?rump
You’re still looking at more debt. Higher tax rates means fewer hires. “Trumpster”...I would have voted for Tulsi Gabbard, something I said multiple times here. You’re just a liar who needs a college degree. Enjoy the return of corporate inversions... combined with higher tax rates on the top end so that we can slow down this insane Trumpian deficit spending.So dishonest. They said this because there would not be a logjam and more government spending would occur with the US taking on even more debt. Short term gain for long term pain. I would recommend a college degree for you.Let's see.
Should I believe Goldman Sachs and other financial institutions, or some nasty, miserable, ignorant Trumpster on an internet message board?
Hmm. This is a tough call!
Goldman Sachs Thinks the Economy Will Recover Faster With Biden in Office
Investment bank Goldman Sachs says a Democratic sweep could work wonders for our sluggish economy. Find out how Biden's plans could help the country's finances.
I recommend nothing for you. You're just a Trumpster.
Higher tax rates do not mean fewer hires. Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
Unbelievable. Do you really honestly believe that? How can any rational person believe that.
Higher taxes do not mean fewer hires..... are you stupid?
See it's comments like this, that allow me to understand how people like AOC can get elected into office, while spouting stupid crap like she's going to 'spend' a tax deduction, on education and health care.
Say you are a business owner, and you run a store. A McDonald's store costs roughly $2 Million dollars to build. You earn roughly $500 Thousand a year from your store. (that's high, but let's pretend.).
Now that doesn't include you taking out a salary for yourself. So let's say you live on $100,000 a year.
That means you have $400 thousand in profit, beyond what you yourself live on.
You decide you want to open another store. How long will it take for you to save up enough to open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
5 Years.
Now let's add in that 35% corporate income tax rate. Your income after taxes is $325, minus the $100K you live on is $225. How many years before you can open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
9 years.
Did taxes reduce your ability to hire people? Yes, stupid, it did. You are an idiot, if you think employers having fewer dollars, can't possible translate into fewer jobs created.
Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
I don't need to go to college, because I learned enough math in elementary school to know that one million reduced by 20% is $800 thousand, and you can't hire 10 people at one hundred grand, with $800 thousand. Or that one million minus 40% is $600 thousand, and you can't hire 8 people at one hundred grand with $600 thousand.
Let me ask you directly.... if your income was reduced by 20%.... would you be able to buy as much products and services after having your income reduced by 20%, as you do today?
If you admit your own purchases of products and services would be reduced.... please explain which person in this entire country would not reduce their purchases of products and services by having their income reduced?
Wow, posted all that just to show you are an IDIOT. Businesses don't hire people, McDonald's franchisees don't build additional restaurants, with profits. They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes. Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes. Hell, even Trump knows how to do that.
When the corporate tax cut was passed notice how all those companies handed out bonuses to employees. But they did it under the OLD TAX RATE. They hurried up and got them done before the new year and the new lower rate started. Why would they do that if those bonuses came from profits? I mean this might seem counterintuitive but even a basic level managerial accounting course would demonstrate my position.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
What are you smoking? I know a man who did exactly that. He saved money from working at one restaurant, specifically to open his own.
Then he opened a second store a few years later, by saving money from running his own store.
They did EXACTLY what I described.
They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes.
You are crazy. You are telling me, that you can earn money, and build stores, and never pay taxes? Are you crazy?
Then why, when I look up Walmarts Investor relation page, do they use post-tax money, to invest in new stores?
Think about what you are saying. You are saying that Walmart could making hundreds of billions in profit, and as long as they spend all the money on building new stores, they would never pay a penny in taxes?
The way you build new stores, and hire new employees, and expand or renovate exist stores is with profits. The more profits you lose in taxes, the less you can build new stores, expand exist stores, and hire more people.
Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes.
0.o Really?
Are Franchise Costs Deductible?
Buying a franchise offers an aspiring business person a way to hit the ground running. By running a business under an established brand name, you benefit from all the work that others have put in to build up that brand in the eyes of your potential customers. The tax code allows you to deduct...
An upfront fee paid to acquire a franchise for a particular area is treated for tax purposes as a startup cost, regardless of whether you buy a brand-new franchise from the franchisor or an existing franchise from someone else. The tax code classifies initial franchise fees as "Section 197 intangibles," after the section of tax law that applies to them. You cannot immediately deduct the full cost of a Section 197 intangible as a business expense. Instead, you must put the intangible on your books as an asset, the same as you would a building or equipment you purchased to start the business. You then amortize the intangible over 15 years, gradually expensing the cost. In other words, you''ll be able to deduct the expense, but not all at once.Even if you could deduct the entire cost of buying a franchise..........
A: Tax deductions reduce your taxable income. $2 Million dollars in a tax deductions reduces your taxes by your tax rate on the deduction. 21% of $2 Million is what? $420 Thousands. You saved $420 thousand, by spending $2 Million? Idiot.
B: You *STILL NEED* $2 Million dollars.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
I don't know how to explain that any clearer. You are just wrong.
The way you invest in new buildings, new equipment, new employees, is with post-tax profits.
Again, I can get the Walmart investor relations publication, and show you exactly where it says they spent PROFIT.... Post-Tax Profit, on building new stores, and renovating existing stores.
If you could avoid all taxes, by just opening new stores, Walmart would spend every freaking dollar on new stores and renovating stores every single year, and never pay a dollar in taxes ever.
In fact all companies would do that. Every single company would spend every dollar they 'earned' on investing and expanding, and not a single company would ever pay a penny in corporate tax ever.
Because I don't know what you think companies spend their profits on. That is the primary use of profits, is to grow and expand and invest into the company. If you are telling me, that they can do that, with pre-tax dollars.... then virtually no company should ever pay corporate income taxes.
How damn stupid. This is not about what organizations and people want. This is about influencing behavior. You want corporations to invest in their people, in expanding the frontier curve, in MAKING MORE PIE, you tax the shit out of them. If you want them to seek rents, cash out their investments, and buy more of their stock, you cut those taxes. I mean it is a sign of economic inefficiency and misallocation of resources when corporations hold TRILLONS of dollars in cash. I mean we have tried this whole low taxes bullshit. It has not turned out so well, anemic economic growth, negative income growth, and piles and piles of cash along with unprecedented rent seeking. The proof of my position is in the reality of our modern economy.
Andylusion
Platinum Member
It is a privately owned banking scheme. The people who own it and are involved run a country down to bankruptcy as the politcians are in cahoots with the people who own and print the currency.
I have a local bank I use. Not once in all the years I've been alive, has the Federal Government, required that the owner of that bank, report to Congress yearly, on their operations.
It's not a private bank. Private banks do not have to report to congress every year.
Private banks also do not have the person in charge, be appointed by a politicians.
The United states can eliminate some debts if it takes over the printing of the bills and makes it part of the government away from the private bankers.
Really???
Then why didn't Venezuela do that? Oh right....
No, the government can not eliminate debt, by taking over printing of money.
What it can do by printing money, is destroy the entire country.
This is why many HQ in Ireland, especially drug companies.rump
You’re still looking at more debt. Higher tax rates means fewer hires. “Trumpster”...I would have voted for Tulsi Gabbard, something I said multiple times here. You’re just a liar who needs a college degree. Enjoy the return of corporate inversions... combined with higher tax rates on the top end so that we can slow down this insane Trumpian deficit spending.So dishonest. They said this because there would not be a logjam and more government spending would occur with the US taking on even more debt. Short term gain for long term pain. I would recommend a college degree for you.Let's see.
Should I believe Goldman Sachs and other financial institutions, or some nasty, miserable, ignorant Trumpster on an internet message board?
Hmm. This is a tough call!
Goldman Sachs Thinks the Economy Will Recover Faster With Biden in Office
Investment bank Goldman Sachs says a Democratic sweep could work wonders for our sluggish economy. Find out how Biden's plans could help the country's finances.
I recommend nothing for you. You're just a Trumpster.
Higher tax rates do not mean fewer hires. Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
Unbelievable. Do you really honestly believe that? How can any rational person believe that.
Higher taxes do not mean fewer hires..... are you stupid?
See it's comments like this, that allow me to understand how people like AOC can get elected into office, while spouting stupid crap like she's going to 'spend' a tax deduction, on education and health care.
Say you are a business owner, and you run a store. A McDonald's store costs roughly $2 Million dollars to build. You earn roughly $500 Thousand a year from your store. (that's high, but let's pretend.).
Now that doesn't include you taking out a salary for yourself. So let's say you live on $100,000 a year.
That means you have $400 thousand in profit, beyond what you yourself live on.
You decide you want to open another store. How long will it take for you to save up enough to open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
5 Years.
Now let's add in that 35% corporate income tax rate. Your income after taxes is $325, minus the $100K you live on is $225. How many years before you can open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
9 years.
Did taxes reduce your ability to hire people? Yes, stupid, it did. You are an idiot, if you think employers having fewer dollars, can't possible translate into fewer jobs created.
Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
I don't need to go to college, because I learned enough math in elementary school to know that one million reduced by 20% is $800 thousand, and you can't hire 10 people at one hundred grand, with $800 thousand. Or that one million minus 40% is $600 thousand, and you can't hire 8 people at one hundred grand with $600 thousand.
Let me ask you directly.... if your income was reduced by 20%.... would you be able to buy as much products and services after having your income reduced by 20%, as you do today?
If you admit your own purchases of products and services would be reduced.... please explain which person in this entire country would not reduce their purchases of products and services by having their income reduced?
Wow, posted all that just to show you are an IDIOT. Businesses don't hire people, McDonald's franchisees don't build additional restaurants, with profits. They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes. Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes. Hell, even Trump knows how to do that.
When the corporate tax cut was passed notice how all those companies handed out bonuses to employees. But they did it under the OLD TAX RATE. They hurried up and got them done before the new year and the new lower rate started. Why would they do that if those bonuses came from profits? I mean this might seem counterintuitive but even a basic level managerial accounting course would demonstrate my position.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
What are you smoking? I know a man who did exactly that. He saved money from working at one restaurant, specifically to open his own.
Then he opened a second store a few years later, by saving money from running his own store.
They did EXACTLY what I described.
They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes.
You are crazy. You are telling me, that you can earn money, and build stores, and never pay taxes? Are you crazy?
Then why, when I look up Walmarts Investor relation page, do they use post-tax money, to invest in new stores?
Think about what you are saying. You are saying that Walmart could making hundreds of billions in profit, and as long as they spend all the money on building new stores, they would never pay a penny in taxes?
The way you build new stores, and hire new employees, and expand or renovate exist stores is with profits. The more profits you lose in taxes, the less you can build new stores, expand exist stores, and hire more people.
Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes.
0.o Really?
Are Franchise Costs Deductible?
Buying a franchise offers an aspiring business person a way to hit the ground running. By running a business under an established brand name, you benefit from all the work that others have put in to build up that brand in the eyes of your potential customers. The tax code allows you to deduct...
An upfront fee paid to acquire a franchise for a particular area is treated for tax purposes as a startup cost, regardless of whether you buy a brand-new franchise from the franchisor or an existing franchise from someone else. The tax code classifies initial franchise fees as "Section 197 intangibles," after the section of tax law that applies to them. You cannot immediately deduct the full cost of a Section 197 intangible as a business expense. Instead, you must put the intangible on your books as an asset, the same as you would a building or equipment you purchased to start the business. You then amortize the intangible over 15 years, gradually expensing the cost. In other words, you''ll be able to deduct the expense, but not all at once.Even if you could deduct the entire cost of buying a franchise..........
A: Tax deductions reduce your taxable income. $2 Million dollars in a tax deductions reduces your taxes by your tax rate on the deduction. 21% of $2 Million is what? $420 Thousands. You saved $420 thousand, by spending $2 Million?
B: You *STILL NEED* $2 Million dollars.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
I don't know how to explain that any clearer. You are just wrong.
The way you invest in new buildings, new equipment, new employees, is with post-tax profits.
Again, I can get the Walmart investor relations publication, and show you exactly where it says they spent PROFIT.... Post-Tax Profit, on building new stores, and renovating existing stores.
If you could avoid all taxes, by just opening new stores, Walmart would spend every freaking dollar on new stores and renovating stores every single year, and never pay a dollar in taxes ever.
In fact all companies would do that. Every single company would spend every dollar they 'earned' on investing and expanding, and not a single company would ever pay a penny in corporate tax ever.
Because I don't know what you think companies spend their profits on. That is the primary use of profits, is to grow and expand and invest into the company. If you are telling me, that they can do that, with pre-tax dollars.... then virtually no company should ever pay corporate income taxes.
Well first you need to get out that Walmart bit about using post tax revenue to build new facilities. I mean you are so full of shit. Walmart is not building shit, they have cut back on new locations and focused on the omni-channel online experience. And those investments are made with pre-tax dollars.
And sorry, but your friend, if he did save money to build his restaurant, is a dumbass. Yes, I can understand, saving money from your job to start your own business. But every single dime you spend on that new business is a tax deduction. The way it works is simple. You open your first location, honestly, it should be with borrowed money. Once you plow all the "profits" of that new restaurant in to paying off the loan, you use the now paid for restaurant as collateral on a loan for your next location. Here is an accounting reality, the weighted average cost of capital is inversely related to the marginal tax rate. Now I am quite sure that just sailed right over your head. Don't sweat it. But you have to understand, low corporate tax rates encourages businesses to take money OUT OF THE FREAKING BUSINESS. High corporate tax rates encourages them to PUT MONEY BACK IN TO THE BUSINESS. I mean can you possibly explain to me why we have not had double digit GDP growth since the corporate tax rate was axed? I mean DU HUH.
LOL But you are just wrong!
And those investments are made with pre-tax dollars.
Really? You want me to get the investor relations page?
And sorry, but your friend, if he did save money to build his restaurant, is a dumbass.
Um... no? During the great depression when all the businesses were closing down, and filing bankruptcy, there was one store that continuously expanded during the entire 1930s. White Castle. You know why? No debt. They run off of saved profits.
So when the economy tanked, their income declined, but it never went below their ability to pay debts... because they had no debts.
During the 1990s, when Apple Computer was crashing hard in the market, they never went bankrupt, or were forced to sell off to investors... why? Because they run debt-free. Apple computer has consistently operated on saved profits since it was created.
No Debt: 11 Big U.S. Companies Borrow Nothing
Rising corporate debt is another worry for investors. Those looking for a solution might want to check out the companies resisting the urge to borrow and have no debt.
While it is true that many foolish people borrow their way into business.... there are many large companies that operate with zero debt.
My friend who runs the restaurant, is not dumbass, because while many stores have closed up and gone bankrupt during this down turn, he's operating just fine. And of course he is.... because he has no debt. Yes, his income has declined, but no one is going to call the loans on his store, because he has no loans. No one is going to force him into bankruptcy, because he has no debts.
But you have to understand, low corporate tax rates encourages businesses to take money OUT OF THE FREAKING BUSINESS. High corporate tax rates encourages them to PUT MONEY BACK IN TO THE BUSINESS.
WHAT? LOL
That is stupid.
View attachment 413396
View attachment 413398
So let's review.
Ireland has the lowest corporate tax rate in the EU.
France has the highest tax rate in the EU
Ireland has 6 million people, and 32K sq.miles.
France has 66 Million people, and 247K sq.miles.
Ireland number one in all of Europe for investment.
France doesn't even get on the top 10 list.
How is this possible? By your logic, all those businesses in Ireland should be dumping money out of their companies, instead of investing in Ireland!
You said low tax rates causes companies to take money out of the business!
No, you are an idiot now. I don't even know how you could say that, given Apple openly admitted the reason they invested $300 Million, and created 7,000 jobs in Ireland, was specifically because of the low corporate income tax.
According to you, their low corporate tax, should have cause Apple to not invest in businesses in Ireland.... right?
Are you stupid?
Andylusion
Platinum Member
Please stop. Organization and people always want to pay higher taxes. Always. Why take accelerated depreciation and why pay accountants for tax advice when you can just pay pay pay and pay?rump
You’re still looking at more debt. Higher tax rates means fewer hires. “Trumpster”...I would have voted for Tulsi Gabbard, something I said multiple times here. You’re just a liar who needs a college degree. Enjoy the return of corporate inversions... combined with higher tax rates on the top end so that we can slow down this insane Trumpian deficit spending.So dishonest. They said this because there would not be a logjam and more government spending would occur with the US taking on even more debt. Short term gain for long term pain. I would recommend a college degree for you.Let's see.
Should I believe Goldman Sachs and other financial institutions, or some nasty, miserable, ignorant Trumpster on an internet message board?
Hmm. This is a tough call!
Goldman Sachs Thinks the Economy Will Recover Faster With Biden in Office
Investment bank Goldman Sachs says a Democratic sweep could work wonders for our sluggish economy. Find out how Biden's plans could help the country's finances.
I recommend nothing for you. You're just a Trumpster.
Higher tax rates do not mean fewer hires. Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
Unbelievable. Do you really honestly believe that? How can any rational person believe that.
Higher taxes do not mean fewer hires..... are you stupid?
See it's comments like this, that allow me to understand how people like AOC can get elected into office, while spouting stupid crap like she's going to 'spend' a tax deduction, on education and health care.
Say you are a business owner, and you run a store. A McDonald's store costs roughly $2 Million dollars to build. You earn roughly $500 Thousand a year from your store. (that's high, but let's pretend.).
Now that doesn't include you taking out a salary for yourself. So let's say you live on $100,000 a year.
That means you have $400 thousand in profit, beyond what you yourself live on.
You decide you want to open another store. How long will it take for you to save up enough to open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
5 Years.
Now let's add in that 35% corporate income tax rate. Your income after taxes is $325, minus the $100K you live on is $225. How many years before you can open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
9 years.
Did taxes reduce your ability to hire people? Yes, stupid, it did. You are an idiot, if you think employers having fewer dollars, can't possible translate into fewer jobs created.
Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
I don't need to go to college, because I learned enough math in elementary school to know that one million reduced by 20% is $800 thousand, and you can't hire 10 people at one hundred grand, with $800 thousand. Or that one million minus 40% is $600 thousand, and you can't hire 8 people at one hundred grand with $600 thousand.
Let me ask you directly.... if your income was reduced by 20%.... would you be able to buy as much products and services after having your income reduced by 20%, as you do today?
If you admit your own purchases of products and services would be reduced.... please explain which person in this entire country would not reduce their purchases of products and services by having their income reduced?
Wow, posted all that just to show you are an IDIOT. Businesses don't hire people, McDonald's franchisees don't build additional restaurants, with profits. They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes. Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes. Hell, even Trump knows how to do that.
When the corporate tax cut was passed notice how all those companies handed out bonuses to employees. But they did it under the OLD TAX RATE. They hurried up and got them done before the new year and the new lower rate started. Why would they do that if those bonuses came from profits? I mean this might seem counterintuitive but even a basic level managerial accounting course would demonstrate my position.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
What are you smoking? I know a man who did exactly that. He saved money from working at one restaurant, specifically to open his own.
Then he opened a second store a few years later, by saving money from running his own store.
They did EXACTLY what I described.
They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes.
You are crazy. You are telling me, that you can earn money, and build stores, and never pay taxes? Are you crazy?
Then why, when I look up Walmarts Investor relation page, do they use post-tax money, to invest in new stores?
Think about what you are saying. You are saying that Walmart could making hundreds of billions in profit, and as long as they spend all the money on building new stores, they would never pay a penny in taxes?
The way you build new stores, and hire new employees, and expand or renovate exist stores is with profits. The more profits you lose in taxes, the less you can build new stores, expand exist stores, and hire more people.
Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes.
0.o Really?
Are Franchise Costs Deductible?
Buying a franchise offers an aspiring business person a way to hit the ground running. By running a business under an established brand name, you benefit from all the work that others have put in to build up that brand in the eyes of your potential customers. The tax code allows you to deduct...
An upfront fee paid to acquire a franchise for a particular area is treated for tax purposes as a startup cost, regardless of whether you buy a brand-new franchise from the franchisor or an existing franchise from someone else. The tax code classifies initial franchise fees as "Section 197 intangibles," after the section of tax law that applies to them. You cannot immediately deduct the full cost of a Section 197 intangible as a business expense. Instead, you must put the intangible on your books as an asset, the same as you would a building or equipment you purchased to start the business. You then amortize the intangible over 15 years, gradually expensing the cost. In other words, you''ll be able to deduct the expense, but not all at once.Even if you could deduct the entire cost of buying a franchise..........
A: Tax deductions reduce your taxable income. $2 Million dollars in a tax deductions reduces your taxes by your tax rate on the deduction. 21% of $2 Million is what? $420 Thousands. You saved $420 thousand, by spending $2 Million? Idiot.
B: You *STILL NEED* $2 Million dollars.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
I don't know how to explain that any clearer. You are just wrong.
The way you invest in new buildings, new equipment, new employees, is with post-tax profits.
Again, I can get the Walmart investor relations publication, and show you exactly where it says they spent PROFIT.... Post-Tax Profit, on building new stores, and renovating existing stores.
If you could avoid all taxes, by just opening new stores, Walmart would spend every freaking dollar on new stores and renovating stores every single year, and never pay a dollar in taxes ever.
In fact all companies would do that. Every single company would spend every dollar they 'earned' on investing and expanding, and not a single company would ever pay a penny in corporate tax ever.
Because I don't know what you think companies spend their profits on. That is the primary use of profits, is to grow and expand and invest into the company. If you are telling me, that they can do that, with pre-tax dollars.... then virtually no company should ever pay corporate income taxes.
How damn stupid. This is not about what organizations and people want. This is about influencing behavior. You want corporations to invest in their people, in expanding the frontier curve, in MAKING MORE PIE, you tax the shit out of them. If you want them to seek rents, cash out their investments, and buy more of their stock, you cut those taxes. I mean it is a sign of economic inefficiency and misallocation of resources when corporations hold TRILLONS of dollars in cash. I mean we have tried this whole low taxes bullshit. It has not turned out so well, anemic economic growth, negative income growth, and piles and piles of cash along with unprecedented rent seeking. The proof of my position is in the reality of our modern economy.
That is the dumbest nonsense I have read in some time. I don't even know where to start, with a mound of stupid stacked that high.
I literally work in management consulting and tax avoidance or at least tax minimalization is one of the primary goals of all my clients. Bet Winston never heard of an ESOP.Please stop. Organization and people always want to pay higher taxes. Always. Why take accelerated depreciation and why pay accountants for tax advice when you can just pay pay pay and pay?rump
You’re still looking at more debt. Higher tax rates means fewer hires. “Trumpster”...I would have voted for Tulsi Gabbard, something I said multiple times here. You’re just a liar who needs a college degree. Enjoy the return of corporate inversions... combined with higher tax rates on the top end so that we can slow down this insane Trumpian deficit spending.So dishonest. They said this because there would not be a logjam and more government spending would occur with the US taking on even more debt. Short term gain for long term pain. I would recommend a college degree for you.Let's see.
Should I believe Goldman Sachs and other financial institutions, or some nasty, miserable, ignorant Trumpster on an internet message board?
Hmm. This is a tough call!
Goldman Sachs Thinks the Economy Will Recover Faster With Biden in Office
Investment bank Goldman Sachs says a Democratic sweep could work wonders for our sluggish economy. Find out how Biden's plans could help the country's finances.
I recommend nothing for you. You're just a Trumpster.
Higher tax rates do not mean fewer hires. Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
Unbelievable. Do you really honestly believe that? How can any rational person believe that.
Higher taxes do not mean fewer hires..... are you stupid?
See it's comments like this, that allow me to understand how people like AOC can get elected into office, while spouting stupid crap like she's going to 'spend' a tax deduction, on education and health care.
Say you are a business owner, and you run a store. A McDonald's store costs roughly $2 Million dollars to build. You earn roughly $500 Thousand a year from your store. (that's high, but let's pretend.).
Now that doesn't include you taking out a salary for yourself. So let's say you live on $100,000 a year.
That means you have $400 thousand in profit, beyond what you yourself live on.
You decide you want to open another store. How long will it take for you to save up enough to open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
5 Years.
Now let's add in that 35% corporate income tax rate. Your income after taxes is $325, minus the $100K you live on is $225. How many years before you can open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
9 years.
Did taxes reduce your ability to hire people? Yes, stupid, it did. You are an idiot, if you think employers having fewer dollars, can't possible translate into fewer jobs created.
Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
I don't need to go to college, because I learned enough math in elementary school to know that one million reduced by 20% is $800 thousand, and you can't hire 10 people at one hundred grand, with $800 thousand. Or that one million minus 40% is $600 thousand, and you can't hire 8 people at one hundred grand with $600 thousand.
Let me ask you directly.... if your income was reduced by 20%.... would you be able to buy as much products and services after having your income reduced by 20%, as you do today?
If you admit your own purchases of products and services would be reduced.... please explain which person in this entire country would not reduce their purchases of products and services by having their income reduced?
Wow, posted all that just to show you are an IDIOT. Businesses don't hire people, McDonald's franchisees don't build additional restaurants, with profits. They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes. Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes. Hell, even Trump knows how to do that.
When the corporate tax cut was passed notice how all those companies handed out bonuses to employees. But they did it under the OLD TAX RATE. They hurried up and got them done before the new year and the new lower rate started. Why would they do that if those bonuses came from profits? I mean this might seem counterintuitive but even a basic level managerial accounting course would demonstrate my position.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
What are you smoking? I know a man who did exactly that. He saved money from working at one restaurant, specifically to open his own.
Then he opened a second store a few years later, by saving money from running his own store.
They did EXACTLY what I described.
They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes.
You are crazy. You are telling me, that you can earn money, and build stores, and never pay taxes? Are you crazy?
Then why, when I look up Walmarts Investor relation page, do they use post-tax money, to invest in new stores?
Think about what you are saying. You are saying that Walmart could making hundreds of billions in profit, and as long as they spend all the money on building new stores, they would never pay a penny in taxes?
The way you build new stores, and hire new employees, and expand or renovate exist stores is with profits. The more profits you lose in taxes, the less you can build new stores, expand exist stores, and hire more people.
Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes.
0.o Really?
Are Franchise Costs Deductible?
Buying a franchise offers an aspiring business person a way to hit the ground running. By running a business under an established brand name, you benefit from all the work that others have put in to build up that brand in the eyes of your potential customers. The tax code allows you to deduct...
An upfront fee paid to acquire a franchise for a particular area is treated for tax purposes as a startup cost, regardless of whether you buy a brand-new franchise from the franchisor or an existing franchise from someone else. The tax code classifies initial franchise fees as "Section 197 intangibles," after the section of tax law that applies to them. You cannot immediately deduct the full cost of a Section 197 intangible as a business expense. Instead, you must put the intangible on your books as an asset, the same as you would a building or equipment you purchased to start the business. You then amortize the intangible over 15 years, gradually expensing the cost. In other words, you''ll be able to deduct the expense, but not all at once.Even if you could deduct the entire cost of buying a franchise..........
A: Tax deductions reduce your taxable income. $2 Million dollars in a tax deductions reduces your taxes by your tax rate on the deduction. 21% of $2 Million is what? $420 Thousands. You saved $420 thousand, by spending $2 Million? Idiot.
B: You *STILL NEED* $2 Million dollars.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
I don't know how to explain that any clearer. You are just wrong.
The way you invest in new buildings, new equipment, new employees, is with post-tax profits.
Again, I can get the Walmart investor relations publication, and show you exactly where it says they spent PROFIT.... Post-Tax Profit, on building new stores, and renovating existing stores.
If you could avoid all taxes, by just opening new stores, Walmart would spend every freaking dollar on new stores and renovating stores every single year, and never pay a dollar in taxes ever.
In fact all companies would do that. Every single company would spend every dollar they 'earned' on investing and expanding, and not a single company would ever pay a penny in corporate tax ever.
Because I don't know what you think companies spend their profits on. That is the primary use of profits, is to grow and expand and invest into the company. If you are telling me, that they can do that, with pre-tax dollars.... then virtually no company should ever pay corporate income taxes.
How damn stupid. This is not about what organizations and people want. This is about influencing behavior. You want corporations to invest in their people, in expanding the frontier curve, in MAKING MORE PIE, you tax the shit out of them. If you want them to seek rents, cash out their investments, and buy more of their stock, you cut those taxes. I mean it is a sign of economic inefficiency and misallocation of resources when corporations hold TRILLONS of dollars in cash. I mean we have tried this whole low taxes bullshit. It has not turned out so well, anemic economic growth, negative income growth, and piles and piles of cash along with unprecedented rent seeking. The proof of my position is in the reality of our modern economy.
That is the dumbest nonsense I have read in some time. I don't even know where to start, with a mound of stupid stacked that high.
Andylusion
Platinum Member
This is why many HQ in Ireland, especially drug companies.rump
You’re still looking at more debt. Higher tax rates means fewer hires. “Trumpster”...I would have voted for Tulsi Gabbard, something I said multiple times here. You’re just a liar who needs a college degree. Enjoy the return of corporate inversions... combined with higher tax rates on the top end so that we can slow down this insane Trumpian deficit spending.So dishonest. They said this because there would not be a logjam and more government spending would occur with the US taking on even more debt. Short term gain for long term pain. I would recommend a college degree for you.Let's see.
Should I believe Goldman Sachs and other financial institutions, or some nasty, miserable, ignorant Trumpster on an internet message board?
Hmm. This is a tough call!
Goldman Sachs Thinks the Economy Will Recover Faster With Biden in Office
Investment bank Goldman Sachs says a Democratic sweep could work wonders for our sluggish economy. Find out how Biden's plans could help the country's finances.
I recommend nothing for you. You're just a Trumpster.
Higher tax rates do not mean fewer hires. Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
Unbelievable. Do you really honestly believe that? How can any rational person believe that.
Higher taxes do not mean fewer hires..... are you stupid?
See it's comments like this, that allow me to understand how people like AOC can get elected into office, while spouting stupid crap like she's going to 'spend' a tax deduction, on education and health care.
Say you are a business owner, and you run a store. A McDonald's store costs roughly $2 Million dollars to build. You earn roughly $500 Thousand a year from your store. (that's high, but let's pretend.).
Now that doesn't include you taking out a salary for yourself. So let's say you live on $100,000 a year.
That means you have $400 thousand in profit, beyond what you yourself live on.
You decide you want to open another store. How long will it take for you to save up enough to open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
5 Years.
Now let's add in that 35% corporate income tax rate. Your income after taxes is $325, minus the $100K you live on is $225. How many years before you can open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
9 years.
Did taxes reduce your ability to hire people? Yes, stupid, it did. You are an idiot, if you think employers having fewer dollars, can't possible translate into fewer jobs created.
Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
I don't need to go to college, because I learned enough math in elementary school to know that one million reduced by 20% is $800 thousand, and you can't hire 10 people at one hundred grand, with $800 thousand. Or that one million minus 40% is $600 thousand, and you can't hire 8 people at one hundred grand with $600 thousand.
Let me ask you directly.... if your income was reduced by 20%.... would you be able to buy as much products and services after having your income reduced by 20%, as you do today?
If you admit your own purchases of products and services would be reduced.... please explain which person in this entire country would not reduce their purchases of products and services by having their income reduced?
Wow, posted all that just to show you are an IDIOT. Businesses don't hire people, McDonald's franchisees don't build additional restaurants, with profits. They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes. Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes. Hell, even Trump knows how to do that.
When the corporate tax cut was passed notice how all those companies handed out bonuses to employees. But they did it under the OLD TAX RATE. They hurried up and got them done before the new year and the new lower rate started. Why would they do that if those bonuses came from profits? I mean this might seem counterintuitive but even a basic level managerial accounting course would demonstrate my position.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
What are you smoking? I know a man who did exactly that. He saved money from working at one restaurant, specifically to open his own.
Then he opened a second store a few years later, by saving money from running his own store.
They did EXACTLY what I described.
They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes.
You are crazy. You are telling me, that you can earn money, and build stores, and never pay taxes? Are you crazy?
Then why, when I look up Walmarts Investor relation page, do they use post-tax money, to invest in new stores?
Think about what you are saying. You are saying that Walmart could making hundreds of billions in profit, and as long as they spend all the money on building new stores, they would never pay a penny in taxes?
The way you build new stores, and hire new employees, and expand or renovate exist stores is with profits. The more profits you lose in taxes, the less you can build new stores, expand exist stores, and hire more people.
Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes.
0.o Really?
Are Franchise Costs Deductible?
Buying a franchise offers an aspiring business person a way to hit the ground running. By running a business under an established brand name, you benefit from all the work that others have put in to build up that brand in the eyes of your potential customers. The tax code allows you to deduct...
An upfront fee paid to acquire a franchise for a particular area is treated for tax purposes as a startup cost, regardless of whether you buy a brand-new franchise from the franchisor or an existing franchise from someone else. The tax code classifies initial franchise fees as "Section 197 intangibles," after the section of tax law that applies to them. You cannot immediately deduct the full cost of a Section 197 intangible as a business expense. Instead, you must put the intangible on your books as an asset, the same as you would a building or equipment you purchased to start the business. You then amortize the intangible over 15 years, gradually expensing the cost. In other words, you''ll be able to deduct the expense, but not all at once.Even if you could deduct the entire cost of buying a franchise..........
A: Tax deductions reduce your taxable income. $2 Million dollars in a tax deductions reduces your taxes by your tax rate on the deduction. 21% of $2 Million is what? $420 Thousands. You saved $420 thousand, by spending $2 Million?
B: You *STILL NEED* $2 Million dollars.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
I don't know how to explain that any clearer. You are just wrong.
The way you invest in new buildings, new equipment, new employees, is with post-tax profits.
Again, I can get the Walmart investor relations publication, and show you exactly where it says they spent PROFIT.... Post-Tax Profit, on building new stores, and renovating existing stores.
If you could avoid all taxes, by just opening new stores, Walmart would spend every freaking dollar on new stores and renovating stores every single year, and never pay a dollar in taxes ever.
In fact all companies would do that. Every single company would spend every dollar they 'earned' on investing and expanding, and not a single company would ever pay a penny in corporate tax ever.
Because I don't know what you think companies spend their profits on. That is the primary use of profits, is to grow and expand and invest into the company. If you are telling me, that they can do that, with pre-tax dollars.... then virtually no company should ever pay corporate income taxes.
Well first you need to get out that Walmart bit about using post tax revenue to build new facilities. I mean you are so full of shit. Walmart is not building shit, they have cut back on new locations and focused on the omni-channel online experience. And those investments are made with pre-tax dollars.
And sorry, but your friend, if he did save money to build his restaurant, is a dumbass. Yes, I can understand, saving money from your job to start your own business. But every single dime you spend on that new business is a tax deduction. The way it works is simple. You open your first location, honestly, it should be with borrowed money. Once you plow all the "profits" of that new restaurant in to paying off the loan, you use the now paid for restaurant as collateral on a loan for your next location. Here is an accounting reality, the weighted average cost of capital is inversely related to the marginal tax rate. Now I am quite sure that just sailed right over your head. Don't sweat it. But you have to understand, low corporate tax rates encourages businesses to take money OUT OF THE FREAKING BUSINESS. High corporate tax rates encourages them to PUT MONEY BACK IN TO THE BUSINESS. I mean can you possibly explain to me why we have not had double digit GDP growth since the corporate tax rate was axed? I mean DU HUH.
LOL But you are just wrong!
And those investments are made with pre-tax dollars.
Really? You want me to get the investor relations page?
And sorry, but your friend, if he did save money to build his restaurant, is a dumbass.
Um... no? During the great depression when all the businesses were closing down, and filing bankruptcy, there was one store that continuously expanded during the entire 1930s. White Castle. You know why? No debt. They run off of saved profits.
So when the economy tanked, their income declined, but it never went below their ability to pay debts... because they had no debts.
During the 1990s, when Apple Computer was crashing hard in the market, they never went bankrupt, or were forced to sell off to investors... why? Because they run debt-free. Apple computer has consistently operated on saved profits since it was created.
No Debt: 11 Big U.S. Companies Borrow Nothing
Rising corporate debt is another worry for investors. Those looking for a solution might want to check out the companies resisting the urge to borrow and have no debt.
While it is true that many foolish people borrow their way into business.... there are many large companies that operate with zero debt.
My friend who runs the restaurant, is not dumbass, because while many stores have closed up and gone bankrupt during this down turn, he's operating just fine. And of course he is.... because he has no debt. Yes, his income has declined, but no one is going to call the loans on his store, because he has no loans. No one is going to force him into bankruptcy, because he has no debts.
But you have to understand, low corporate tax rates encourages businesses to take money OUT OF THE FREAKING BUSINESS. High corporate tax rates encourages them to PUT MONEY BACK IN TO THE BUSINESS.
WHAT? LOL
That is stupid.
View attachment 413396
View attachment 413398
So let's review.
Ireland has the lowest corporate tax rate in the EU.
France has the highest tax rate in the EU
Ireland has 6 million people, and 32K sq.miles.
France has 66 Million people, and 247K sq.miles.
Ireland number one in all of Europe for investment.
France doesn't even get on the top 10 list.
How is this possible? By your logic, all those businesses in Ireland should be dumping money out of their companies, instead of investing in Ireland!
You said low tax rates causes companies to take money out of the business!
No, you are an idiot now. I don't even know how you could say that, given Apple openly admitted the reason they invested $300 Million, and created 7,000 jobs in Ireland, was specifically because of the low corporate income tax.
According to you, their low corporate tax, should have cause Apple to not invest in businesses in Ireland.... right?
Are you stupid?
Yeah, no kidding. They are all investing millions in other countries, because taxes are lower. That's how the world works.
If you found out that you could reduce your total income tax, by 10%, by simply moving across the street.... would you do it? Yes. Of course I would.
If I make $30,000 a year, and moving will cost me $2,000... moving will pay for itself in lower taxes, in under 12 months.
Well... for a major company, moving to another country, is like me moving across the street. And with a difference of 35% taxes to 12% taxes, on billions of dollars.... yeah, it makes sense to invest several hundred million in another country, and create thousands on thousands of jobs there.
100% this is why Amazon doesn’t pay a high tax. Build outs, tax credits, depreciation. Solar is in business due to tax credits. Winston is just trolling.This is why many HQ in Ireland, especially drug companies.rump
You’re still looking at more debt. Higher tax rates means fewer hires. “Trumpster”...I would have voted for Tulsi Gabbard, something I said multiple times here. You’re just a liar who needs a college degree. Enjoy the return of corporate inversions... combined with higher tax rates on the top end so that we can slow down this insane Trumpian deficit spending.So dishonest. They said this because there would not be a logjam and more government spending would occur with the US taking on even more debt. Short term gain for long term pain. I would recommend a college degree for you.Let's see.
Should I believe Goldman Sachs and other financial institutions, or some nasty, miserable, ignorant Trumpster on an internet message board?
Hmm. This is a tough call!
Goldman Sachs Thinks the Economy Will Recover Faster With Biden in Office
Investment bank Goldman Sachs says a Democratic sweep could work wonders for our sluggish economy. Find out how Biden's plans could help the country's finances.
I recommend nothing for you. You're just a Trumpster.
Higher tax rates do not mean fewer hires. Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
Unbelievable. Do you really honestly believe that? How can any rational person believe that.
Higher taxes do not mean fewer hires..... are you stupid?
See it's comments like this, that allow me to understand how people like AOC can get elected into office, while spouting stupid crap like she's going to 'spend' a tax deduction, on education and health care.
Say you are a business owner, and you run a store. A McDonald's store costs roughly $2 Million dollars to build. You earn roughly $500 Thousand a year from your store. (that's high, but let's pretend.).
Now that doesn't include you taking out a salary for yourself. So let's say you live on $100,000 a year.
That means you have $400 thousand in profit, beyond what you yourself live on.
You decide you want to open another store. How long will it take for you to save up enough to open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
5 Years.
Now let's add in that 35% corporate income tax rate. Your income after taxes is $325, minus the $100K you live on is $225. How many years before you can open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
9 years.
Did taxes reduce your ability to hire people? Yes, stupid, it did. You are an idiot, if you think employers having fewer dollars, can't possible translate into fewer jobs created.
Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
I don't need to go to college, because I learned enough math in elementary school to know that one million reduced by 20% is $800 thousand, and you can't hire 10 people at one hundred grand, with $800 thousand. Or that one million minus 40% is $600 thousand, and you can't hire 8 people at one hundred grand with $600 thousand.
Let me ask you directly.... if your income was reduced by 20%.... would you be able to buy as much products and services after having your income reduced by 20%, as you do today?
If you admit your own purchases of products and services would be reduced.... please explain which person in this entire country would not reduce their purchases of products and services by having their income reduced?
Wow, posted all that just to show you are an IDIOT. Businesses don't hire people, McDonald's franchisees don't build additional restaurants, with profits. They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes. Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes. Hell, even Trump knows how to do that.
When the corporate tax cut was passed notice how all those companies handed out bonuses to employees. But they did it under the OLD TAX RATE. They hurried up and got them done before the new year and the new lower rate started. Why would they do that if those bonuses came from profits? I mean this might seem counterintuitive but even a basic level managerial accounting course would demonstrate my position.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
What are you smoking? I know a man who did exactly that. He saved money from working at one restaurant, specifically to open his own.
Then he opened a second store a few years later, by saving money from running his own store.
They did EXACTLY what I described.
They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes.
You are crazy. You are telling me, that you can earn money, and build stores, and never pay taxes? Are you crazy?
Then why, when I look up Walmarts Investor relation page, do they use post-tax money, to invest in new stores?
Think about what you are saying. You are saying that Walmart could making hundreds of billions in profit, and as long as they spend all the money on building new stores, they would never pay a penny in taxes?
The way you build new stores, and hire new employees, and expand or renovate exist stores is with profits. The more profits you lose in taxes, the less you can build new stores, expand exist stores, and hire more people.
Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes.
0.o Really?
Are Franchise Costs Deductible?
Buying a franchise offers an aspiring business person a way to hit the ground running. By running a business under an established brand name, you benefit from all the work that others have put in to build up that brand in the eyes of your potential customers. The tax code allows you to deduct...
An upfront fee paid to acquire a franchise for a particular area is treated for tax purposes as a startup cost, regardless of whether you buy a brand-new franchise from the franchisor or an existing franchise from someone else. The tax code classifies initial franchise fees as "Section 197 intangibles," after the section of tax law that applies to them. You cannot immediately deduct the full cost of a Section 197 intangible as a business expense. Instead, you must put the intangible on your books as an asset, the same as you would a building or equipment you purchased to start the business. You then amortize the intangible over 15 years, gradually expensing the cost. In other words, you''ll be able to deduct the expense, but not all at once.Even if you could deduct the entire cost of buying a franchise..........
A: Tax deductions reduce your taxable income. $2 Million dollars in a tax deductions reduces your taxes by your tax rate on the deduction. 21% of $2 Million is what? $420 Thousands. You saved $420 thousand, by spending $2 Million?
B: You *STILL NEED* $2 Million dollars.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
I don't know how to explain that any clearer. You are just wrong.
The way you invest in new buildings, new equipment, new employees, is with post-tax profits.
Again, I can get the Walmart investor relations publication, and show you exactly where it says they spent PROFIT.... Post-Tax Profit, on building new stores, and renovating existing stores.
If you could avoid all taxes, by just opening new stores, Walmart would spend every freaking dollar on new stores and renovating stores every single year, and never pay a dollar in taxes ever.
In fact all companies would do that. Every single company would spend every dollar they 'earned' on investing and expanding, and not a single company would ever pay a penny in corporate tax ever.
Because I don't know what you think companies spend their profits on. That is the primary use of profits, is to grow and expand and invest into the company. If you are telling me, that they can do that, with pre-tax dollars.... then virtually no company should ever pay corporate income taxes.
Well first you need to get out that Walmart bit about using post tax revenue to build new facilities. I mean you are so full of shit. Walmart is not building shit, they have cut back on new locations and focused on the omni-channel online experience. And those investments are made with pre-tax dollars.
And sorry, but your friend, if he did save money to build his restaurant, is a dumbass. Yes, I can understand, saving money from your job to start your own business. But every single dime you spend on that new business is a tax deduction. The way it works is simple. You open your first location, honestly, it should be with borrowed money. Once you plow all the "profits" of that new restaurant in to paying off the loan, you use the now paid for restaurant as collateral on a loan for your next location. Here is an accounting reality, the weighted average cost of capital is inversely related to the marginal tax rate. Now I am quite sure that just sailed right over your head. Don't sweat it. But you have to understand, low corporate tax rates encourages businesses to take money OUT OF THE FREAKING BUSINESS. High corporate tax rates encourages them to PUT MONEY BACK IN TO THE BUSINESS. I mean can you possibly explain to me why we have not had double digit GDP growth since the corporate tax rate was axed? I mean DU HUH.
LOL But you are just wrong!
And those investments are made with pre-tax dollars.
Really? You want me to get the investor relations page?
And sorry, but your friend, if he did save money to build his restaurant, is a dumbass.
Um... no? During the great depression when all the businesses were closing down, and filing bankruptcy, there was one store that continuously expanded during the entire 1930s. White Castle. You know why? No debt. They run off of saved profits.
So when the economy tanked, their income declined, but it never went below their ability to pay debts... because they had no debts.
During the 1990s, when Apple Computer was crashing hard in the market, they never went bankrupt, or were forced to sell off to investors... why? Because they run debt-free. Apple computer has consistently operated on saved profits since it was created.
No Debt: 11 Big U.S. Companies Borrow Nothing
Rising corporate debt is another worry for investors. Those looking for a solution might want to check out the companies resisting the urge to borrow and have no debt.
While it is true that many foolish people borrow their way into business.... there are many large companies that operate with zero debt.
My friend who runs the restaurant, is not dumbass, because while many stores have closed up and gone bankrupt during this down turn, he's operating just fine. And of course he is.... because he has no debt. Yes, his income has declined, but no one is going to call the loans on his store, because he has no loans. No one is going to force him into bankruptcy, because he has no debts.
But you have to understand, low corporate tax rates encourages businesses to take money OUT OF THE FREAKING BUSINESS. High corporate tax rates encourages them to PUT MONEY BACK IN TO THE BUSINESS.
WHAT? LOL
That is stupid.
View attachment 413396
View attachment 413398
So let's review.
Ireland has the lowest corporate tax rate in the EU.
France has the highest tax rate in the EU
Ireland has 6 million people, and 32K sq.miles.
France has 66 Million people, and 247K sq.miles.
Ireland number one in all of Europe for investment.
France doesn't even get on the top 10 list.
How is this possible? By your logic, all those businesses in Ireland should be dumping money out of their companies, instead of investing in Ireland!
You said low tax rates causes companies to take money out of the business!
No, you are an idiot now. I don't even know how you could say that, given Apple openly admitted the reason they invested $300 Million, and created 7,000 jobs in Ireland, was specifically because of the low corporate income tax.
According to you, their low corporate tax, should have cause Apple to not invest in businesses in Ireland.... right?
Are you stupid?
Yeah, no kidding. They are all investing millions in other countries, because taxes are lower. That's how the world works.
If you found out that you could reduce your total income tax, by 10%, by simply moving across the street.... would you do it? Yes. Of course I would.
If I make $30,000 a year, and moving will cost me $2,000... moving will pay for itself in lower taxes, in under 12 months.
Well... for a major company, moving to another country, is like me moving across the street. And with a difference of 35% taxes to 12% taxes, on billions of dollars.... yeah, it makes sense to invest several hundred million in another country, and create thousands on thousands of jobs there.
Similar threads
