There Goes the Economy

[Winston]

rump

Congratulations, Mr. President-elect.

I'm confident you won't be the hyper-Keynesian you are replacing, and that you'll bring sanity to our fiscal policies.

Among other things.

Everyone knows you're a partisan fraud.

Give it up, what you know about, markets, economics, etc would fit in a thimble

Creepy Joe is as clueless as you are and will rely on people as clueless as you

Now hit the funny and Jack off....lil ole Mac

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

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.

.. combined with higher tax rates on the top end so that we can slow down this insane Trumpian deficit spending.

I recommend nothing for you. You're just a Trumpster.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Yes, damn skippy, I want you to post quotes and links from Walmart about them using after tax profits to pay for new stores. I know you are full of shit. And Ireland, well you might want to take a look at them, not really kicking ass. And as far as I am concerned, Apple can eat shit. They spent two billion dollars on a facility less than ten miles from where I am at right now. It is their Northern Hemisphere facility. Order something on I-tunes, it runs through that facility. But guess where the revenue goes, TO IRELAND. How does that make sense. They depend on the small town of Maiden to provide them fire protection, hell they put a new fire department right beside the facility. They employee a handful of people, and suck enough power out of this area to power a small town. Yet they pay income taxes in Ireland. That is FUBARED. The only thing that illustrates is the dysfunctional corporate tax system we have. So I am not impressed with the whole Ireland bullshit.

Here is what you have not provided a rebuttal for. The weighted average cost of capital is inversely related to the marginal tax rate. Yes, low corporate tax rates encourage businesses to take money OUT of the business. High corporate tax rates encourage businesses to reinvest their profits and avoid the income tax liability. When you purchase a stock of a company, you want them to increase the Return on Capital by expanding their business. You dumbasses seem content with them buying back their own stock, which simply means they have no acceptable capital investment options. They are giving the money back, saying, sorry, we don't see any investment opportunities so here is your money back. I want the economy to expand, I want the frontier curve to go outward. Of course, I doubt you even know what the damn frontier curve is. And I want rent seeking, taking more of the pie that is already there, to be replaced by MAKING MORE DAMN PIE. We now have an economy based on rent seeking. No damn wonder personal income has languished and GDP growth is anemic. Time to reverse that trend. But make no mistake about it, Biden is not going to do it, Trump did nothing but accelerate the rent seeking. But every economist worth two shits knows exactly what I am talking about. But the one thing that I am damn sure about, you have no clue as to what I am talking about, no clue as to what Macroeconomics is all about. And from what I have seen, no clue as to basic Microeconomics as well. Peace out.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

rump

Congratulations, Mr. President-elect.

I'm confident you won't be the hyper-Keynesian you are replacing, and that you'll bring sanity to our fiscal policies.

Among other things.

Everyone knows you're a partisan fraud.

Give it up, what you know about, markets, economics, etc would fit in a thimble

Creepy Joe is as clueless as you are and will rely on people as clueless as you

Now hit the funny and Jack off....lil ole Mac

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

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.

.. combined with higher tax rates on the top end so that we can slow down this insane Trumpian deficit spending.

I recommend nothing for you. You're just a Trumpster.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Yes, damn skippy, I want you to post quotes and links from Walmart about them using after tax profits to pay for new stores. I know you are full of shit. And Ireland, well you might want to take a look at them, not really kicking ass. And as far as I am concerned, Apple can eat shit. They spent two billion dollars on a facility less than ten miles from where I am at right now. It is their Northern Hemisphere facility. Order something on I-tunes, it runs through that facility. But guess where the revenue goes, TO IRELAND. How does that make sense. They depend on the small town of Maiden to provide them fire protection, hell they put a new fire department right beside the facility. They employee a handful of people, and suck enough power out of this area to power a small town. Yet they pay income taxes in Ireland. That is FUBARED. The only thing that illustrates is the dysfunctional corporate tax system we have. So I am not impressed with the whole Ireland bullshit.

Here is what you have not provided a rebuttal for. The weighted average cost of capital is inversely related to the marginal tax rate. Yes, low corporate tax rates encourage businesses to take money OUT of the business. High corporate tax rates encourage businesses to reinvest their profits and avoid the income tax liability. When you purchase a stock of a company, you want them to increase the Return on Capital by expanding their business. You dumbasses seem content with them buying back their own stock, which simply means they have no acceptable capital investment options. They are giving the money back, saying, sorry, we don't see any investment opportunities so here is your money back. I want the economy to expand, I want the frontier curve to go outward. Of course, I doubt you even know what the damn frontier curve is. And I want rent seeking, taking more of the pie that is already there, to be replaced by MAKING MORE DAMN PIE. We now have an economy based on rent seeking. No damn wonder personal income has languished and GDP growth is anemic. Time to reverse that trend. But make no mistake about it, Biden is not going to do it, Trump did nothing but accelerate the rent seeking. But every economist worth two shits knows exactly what I am talking about. But the one thing that I am damn sure about, you have no clue as to what I am talking about, no clue as to what Macroeconomics is all about. And from what I have seen, no clue as to basic Microeconomics as well. Peace out.

Hold on so if you tax at 100% you believe that would expand the economy?

 

[gipper]

Biden doesn’t owe the big banks. They OWN him.

How so?

Lol. You really are funny today.

No politician in the Imperial Capital on the Potomac stays in power for 50 years like sleepy Joe has, and not be OWNED by the big banks.

Hell...Ears was only there a few years and proved by his actions during the Great Recession they totally owned him.

Oh. So he’s owned by the big banks because you said so.

This theory looks a little flimsy.

Hint...I’ll bet you a million dollars Joe nominates a lover of Wall Street treasury Secretary, just as his predecessors did.

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.

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....

View attachment 413404

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.

You need to do some research into the Fed. You clearly don’t understand who runs it.

 

[BWK]

Congratulations, Mr. President-elect.

I'm confident you won't be the hyper-Keynesian you are replacing, and that you'll bring sanity to our fiscal policies.

Among other things.

LOL! Really? Where do you think he's going to get the money to pay for all the climate change policies he wants to put in place?
How is he going to pay for Medicare-for-All, and Social Security, which already has $200 Trillion in unfunded liabilities?
How is going to pay for banning oil and coal?
How is he going to pay for free college?

You people are ridiculous. We can't pay for the programs we have right now... you want to double government spending, and then think you are going to bring fiscal responsibility?

In Normal World, we wait and see what is actually proposed, in terms of spending, spending priorities and taxation. We don't make ignorant assumptions based on insufficient knowledge.

My top priority has been achieved - the imminent removal of the dangerous buffoon responsible for the stain we have placed on our history.

Then we'll look at the overall proposals and form our judgements accordingly.

But you're free to go drama queen if you'd like. I don't care.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

You got me. Much of the Dossier was confirmed to be accurate by the way.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

We're in Capitalism 2.0 now, and we don't know for sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing. But we can't keep this hyper-Keynesian version of Capitalism going forever. The question is what to do about it.

I think you are right. This is a new stage of state capitalism: It certainly isn’t a Democratic Party or Republican Party thing. It’s universal.

“Modern Monetary Theory” is now being taken up — more or less willingly — by Central Banks, the IMF and crony (or regular bankrupted) capitalists everywhere. State capitalist / “socialist” China is really just more open about things — because less encumbered by important phylogenetic remnants of American capitalism’s evolution.

The issues of taxation and debt are being slowly re-framed in brand new ways. Differences between states, problems of multi-state capitalist financial empire, class conflicts, the fight for individual human rights, the struggle for a decent social democratic culture for humanity ... these all remain unresolved.

 

[Andylusion]

rump

Congratulations, Mr. President-elect.

I'm confident you won't be the hyper-Keynesian you are replacing, and that you'll bring sanity to our fiscal policies.

Among other things.

Everyone knows you're a partisan fraud.

Give it up, what you know about, markets, economics, etc would fit in a thimble

Creepy Joe is as clueless as you are and will rely on people as clueless as you

Now hit the funny and Jack off....lil ole Mac

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

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.

.. combined with higher tax rates on the top end so that we can slow down this insane Trumpian deficit spending.

I recommend nothing for you. You're just a Trumpster.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Yes, damn skippy, I want you to post quotes and links from Walmart about them using after tax profits to pay for new stores. I know you are full of shit. And Ireland, well you might want to take a look at them, not really kicking ass. And as far as I am concerned, Apple can eat shit. They spent two billion dollars on a facility less than ten miles from where I am at right now. It is their Northern Hemisphere facility. Order something on I-tunes, it runs through that facility. But guess where the revenue goes, TO IRELAND. How does that make sense. They depend on the small town of Maiden to provide them fire protection, hell they put a new fire department right beside the facility. They employee a handful of people, and suck enough power out of this area to power a small town. Yet they pay income taxes in Ireland. That is FUBARED. The only thing that illustrates is the dysfunctional corporate tax system we have. So I am not impressed with the whole Ireland bullshit.

Here is what you have not provided a rebuttal for. The weighted average cost of capital is inversely related to the marginal tax rate. Yes, low corporate tax rates encourage businesses to take money OUT of the business. High corporate tax rates encourage businesses to reinvest their profits and avoid the income tax liability. When you purchase a stock of a company, you want them to increase the Return on Capital by expanding their business. You dumbasses seem content with them buying back their own stock, which simply means they have no acceptable capital investment options. They are giving the money back, saying, sorry, we don't see any investment opportunities so here is your money back. I want the economy to expand, I want the frontier curve to go outward. Of course, I doubt you even know what the damn frontier curve is. And I want rent seeking, taking more of the pie that is already there, to be replaced by MAKING MORE DAMN PIE. We now have an economy based on rent seeking. No damn wonder personal income has languished and GDP growth is anemic. Time to reverse that trend. But make no mistake about it, Biden is not going to do it, Trump did nothing but accelerate the rent seeking. But every economist worth two shits knows exactly what I am talking about. But the one thing that I am damn sure about, you have no clue as to what I am talking about, no clue as to what Macroeconomics is all about. And from what I have seen, no clue as to basic Microeconomics as well. Peace out.

Order something on I-tunes, it runs through that facility. But guess where the revenue goes, TO IRELAND. How does that make sense. Yet they pay income taxes in Ireland. That is FUBARED.

Really simple.... if you take the profits here, then you lose 35%. If you take the profits there, you only lose 12%. That's how it makes sense.

I don't know why this is so hard. If you lived in an apartment, and the apartment across the street resulted in you paying 10% less in taxes on your income... you would move.

Moving to Ireland, for Apple, is the equivalent of you moving across the street.

If you charge too much in taxes, people are going to change how they behave to fit those incentives.

When France enacted a wealth tax, people left the country by the thousands.

Wealth tax is forcing 12,000 millionaires PER YEAR out of France

Edouard Philippe defended President Emmanuel Macrons' new tax break for the wealthiest, saying it is needed stem the increasing flow of the richest leaving France.

www.dailymail.co.uk

This is normal all over the world. Why do you think that directly after the 'head tax' in Seattle, that Amazon started looking for where to open an HQ2 location?

This is normal! What is so hard about this concept?

We now have an economy based on rent seeking. No damn wonder personal income has languished and GDP growth is anemic. Time to reverse that trend.

If you think that increasing taxes is going to result in high economic growth, and increased personal incomes, and companies bringing more money back to US, instead of investing over seas... you are crazy.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

rump

Congratulations, Mr. President-elect.

I'm confident you won't be the hyper-Keynesian you are replacing, and that you'll bring sanity to our fiscal policies.

Among other things.

Everyone knows you're a partisan fraud.

Give it up, what you know about, markets, economics, etc would fit in a thimble

Creepy Joe is as clueless as you are and will rely on people as clueless as you

Now hit the funny and Jack off....lil ole Mac

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

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.

.. combined with higher tax rates on the top end so that we can slow down this insane Trumpian deficit spending.

I recommend nothing for you. You're just a Trumpster.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Yes, damn skippy, I want you to post quotes and links from Walmart about them using after tax profits to pay for new stores. I know you are full of shit. And Ireland, well you might want to take a look at them, not really kicking ass. And as far as I am concerned, Apple can eat shit. They spent two billion dollars on a facility less than ten miles from where I am at right now. It is their Northern Hemisphere facility. Order something on I-tunes, it runs through that facility. But guess where the revenue goes, TO IRELAND. How does that make sense. They depend on the small town of Maiden to provide them fire protection, hell they put a new fire department right beside the facility. They employee a handful of people, and suck enough power out of this area to power a small town. Yet they pay income taxes in Ireland. That is FUBARED. The only thing that illustrates is the dysfunctional corporate tax system we have. So I am not impressed with the whole Ireland bullshit.

Here is what you have not provided a rebuttal for. The weighted average cost of capital is inversely related to the marginal tax rate. Yes, low corporate tax rates encourage businesses to take money OUT of the business. High corporate tax rates encourage businesses to reinvest their profits and avoid the income tax liability. When you purchase a stock of a company, you want them to increase the Return on Capital by expanding their business. You dumbasses seem content with them buying back their own stock, which simply means they have no acceptable capital investment options. They are giving the money back, saying, sorry, we don't see any investment opportunities so here is your money back. I want the economy to expand, I want the frontier curve to go outward. Of course, I doubt you even know what the damn frontier curve is. And I want rent seeking, taking more of the pie that is already there, to be replaced by MAKING MORE DAMN PIE. We now have an economy based on rent seeking. No damn wonder personal income has languished and GDP growth is anemic. Time to reverse that trend. But make no mistake about it, Biden is not going to do it, Trump did nothing but accelerate the rent seeking. But every economist worth two shits knows exactly what I am talking about. But the one thing that I am damn sure about, you have no clue as to what I am talking about, no clue as to what Macroeconomics is all about. And from what I have seen, no clue as to basic Microeconomics as well. Peace out.

Order something on I-tunes, it runs through that facility. But guess where the revenue goes, TO IRELAND. How does that make sense. Yet they pay income taxes in Ireland. That is FUBARED.

Really simple.... if you take the profits here, then you lose 35%. If you take the profits there, you only lose 12%. That's how it makes sense.

I don't know why this is so hard. If you lived in an apartment, and the apartment across the street resulted in you paying 10% less in taxes on your income... you would move.

Moving to Ireland, for Apple, is the equivalent of you moving across the street.

If you charge too much in taxes, people are going to change how they behave to fit those incentives.

When France enacted a wealth tax, people left the country by the thousands.

Wealth tax is forcing 12,000 millionaires PER YEAR out of France

Edouard Philippe defended President Emmanuel Macrons' new tax break for the wealthiest, saying it is needed stem the increasing flow of the richest leaving France.

www.dailymail.co.uk

This is normal all over the world. Why do you think that directly after the 'head tax' in Seattle, that Amazon started looking for where to open an HQ2 location?

This is normal! What is so hard about this concept?

We now have an economy based on rent seeking. No damn wonder personal income has languished and GDP growth is anemic. Time to reverse that trend.

If you think that increasing taxes is going to result in high economic growth, and increased personal incomes, and companies bringing more money back to US, instead of investing over seas... you are crazy.

He is just trolling. Like I asked him, if you tax at 100%, would we be better off? That’s his theory.

 

[Andylusion]

Meanwhile, back in the real world, no one can know what's going to happen with the economy.

There are far too many variables, far too many unknowns, far too many potential black swans, far too many potential unexpected positives.

Making assumptions based on abject ignorance is certainly a person's right, but that's all it is. Noise. Partisan mental masturbation.

We are in modern economic times. Policies which help automatically stabilize our economy should be preferred to help reduce normal market chaos.

Well, the first things we need to look at are the deficit and whether we want the Fed to remain as important to the economy as the consumer.

We're in Capitalism 2.0 now, and we don't know for sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing. But we can't keep this hyper-Keynesian version of Capitalism going forever. The question is what to do about it.

See I don't even understand what "kaynesian capitalism" is supposed to mean.

Kaynesianism is government spending money.
Government spending money, is by definition, not capitalism.

Capitalism is NOT having government blow endless amounts of money.

Kaynesianism and Capitalism, are mutually exclusive.

Government interference in the market, is not capitalism.

 

[Andylusion]

Meanwhile, back in the real world, no one can know what's going to happen with the economy.

There are far too many variables, far too many unknowns, far too many potential black swans, far too many potential unexpected positives.

Making assumptions based on abject ignorance is certainly a person's right, but that's all it is. Noise. Partisan mental masturbation.

We are in modern economic times. Policies which help automatically stabilize our economy should be preferred to help reduce normal market chaos.

Well, the first things we need to look at are the deficit and whether we want the Fed to remain as important to the economy as the consumer.

We're in Capitalism 2.0 now, and we don't know for sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing. But we can't keep this hyper-Keynesian version of Capitalism going forever. The question is what to do about it.

We subscribe to Capitalism. Let's abolish our alleged and expensive public policies known as wars on crime, drugs, and terror. Big Government is Bad, isn't that Right, right wingers. Otherwise, we need the market based metrics provided by Capitalism regarding the capital worth of those public policies as discretionary spending.

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice of life and property that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment due to a war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. Therefore, we demand ruthless confiscation of all war profits.

You cannot have real Capitalism with models like this. It all started with Reagan. Until we acknowledge the truth, and the vultures continue controlling the 99%, Capitalism will remain dead.
View attachment 412757

Of course we can. The poorest full time workers in this country, are far far far better off today, than they were in the 2010s, 2000s, 1990s, and 1980s.

You are crazy to think otherwise.

And seriously, during the 2008 crash, the wealthy in this country lost $10 Trillion.

America Lost $10.2 Trillion In 2008

www.businessinsider.com

Now, do tell.... the disparity went down during 2008. It did. That's a fact. The wealthy lost trillions.

You tell me..... were the poor better off? Were the middle class better off?

During the 2020 crash, Jeff Bezos lost $5.6 Billion dollars. Who was better off because of that?

Name for me one person that is better off, when the rich lose billions?

No one. Not one person is better off when the rich are poorer. Not one. You can't point to a single person that when a rich guy loses billions, wakes up to find his car magically turned into a Lexus, or his apartment magically has another bedroom, or his job gives him a 20% raise.

Not one person the entire face of the Earth, is better off.

So if you are honest enough to admit that, then why does disparity in incomes, matter? It doesn't. It makes zero difference.

 

[Andylusion]

And will diminish in time. Beware of air.

Nah baby. Market is blowing up for Biden. Make it rain!

You are part of the ignorance that created this dilemma.
Energy drives the economy. Every ebb and flow has been driven by energy going back to the robust 50’s and 60’s through the hardships from the post-Arab-oil-embargo through the boon of the 80’s and 90’s and then through the hard times generated by an accelerated global economy and its squeeze-down on supply.
W’s removal of the offshore moratorium dropped prices dramatically, then enter Obama. He reinstated the moratorium and the subsequent energy costs drove the economy into the ditch until fracking (which Obama opposed but couldn’t prevent) came along. Trump exacerbated that supply line by removing regulations and we became robust to the level of the 50’s and 60’s again.
Now that communists have won and forced this forfeiture of our Cold War victory, energy will go back up and we will suffer again.

Energy is not what drives an entire economy. Hong Kong is entirely dependent on energy imports. Japan is mostly dependent on energy imports. Singapore, Tiawan, South Korea, Israel, dozens of countries have first world economies, while having no energy supplies.

Meanwhile, the Soviet Union, and Russia today, have tons of energy all over the place, and are poor.

Venezuela has the most known oil reserves in the world, and they are now in ruins. And no, it's not because of sanctions, unless you don't know how sanctions work.

 

[Andylusion]

Biden doesn’t owe the big banks. They OWN him.

How so?

Lol. You really are funny today.

No politician in the Imperial Capital on the Potomac stays in power for 50 years like sleepy Joe has, and not be OWNED by the big banks.

Hell...Ears was only there a few years and proved by his actions during the Great Recession they totally owned him.

Oh. So he’s owned by the big banks because you said so.

This theory looks a little flimsy.

Hint...I’ll bet you a million dollars Joe nominates a lover of Wall Street treasury Secretary, just as his predecessors did.

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.

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....

View attachment 413404

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.

You need to do some research into the Fed. You clearly don’t understand who runs it.

I have. You have not. Read a book dude.

The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone. The Federal Reserve was created in 1913 by the Federal Reserve Act to serve as the nation's central bank. The Board of Governors in Washington, D.C., is an agency of the federal government and reports to and is directly accountable to the Congress.​

Who owns the Federal Reserve?

The Federal Reserve Board of Governors in Washington DC.

www.federalreserve.gov

​

Before telling others to do research, make sure you know something, or anything at all, about the topic. Come back when you know something.

 

[Mac-7]

Congratulations, Mr. President-elect.

Oh?

when did trump concede?

 

[Mac-7]

Energy is not what drives an entire economy. Hong Kong is entirely dependent on energy imports. Japan is mostly dependent on energy imports. Singapore, Tiawan, South Korea, Israel, dozens of countries have first world economies, while having no energy supplies.

every economy has to produce something to pay for what it consumes

hong kong does not produce energy but it damn sure needs energy to stay alive

and we produce energy to pay for what hong kong is selling

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

And will diminish in time. Beware of air.

Nah baby. Market is blowing up for Biden. Make it rain!

You are part of the ignorance that created this dilemma.
Energy drives the economy. Every ebb and flow has been driven by energy going back to the robust 50’s and 60’s through the hardships from the post-Arab-oil-embargo through the boon of the 80’s and 90’s and then through the hard times generated by an accelerated global economy and its squeeze-down on supply.
W’s removal of the offshore moratorium dropped prices dramatically, then enter Obama. He reinstated the moratorium and the subsequent energy costs drove the economy into the ditch until fracking (which Obama opposed but couldn’t prevent) came along. Trump exacerbated that supply line by removing regulations and we became robust to the level of the 50’s and 60’s again.
Now that communists have won and forced this forfeiture of our Cold War victory, energy will go back up and we will suffer again.

Energy is not what drives an entire economy. Hong Kong is entirely dependent on energy imports. Japan is mostly dependent on energy imports. Singapore, Tiawan, South Korea, Israel, dozens of countries have first world economies, while having no energy supplies.

Meanwhile, the Soviet Union, and Russia today, have tons of energy all over the place, and are poor.

Venezuela has the most known oil reserves in the world, and they are now in ruins. And no, it's not because of sanctions, unless you don't know how sanctions work.

Energy per growth. Venezuela has the energy part but no capitalism. Hong Kong and Japan are very small geographies so the dynamic is very different. However, if you take energy away from any of them and you will still have failure.

 

[pknopp]

rump

Congratulations, Mr. President-elect.

I'm confident you won't be the hyper-Keynesian you are replacing, and that you'll bring sanity to our fiscal policies.

Among other things.

Everyone knows you're a partisan fraud.

Give it up, what you know about, markets, economics, etc would fit in a thimble

Creepy Joe is as clueless as you are and will rely on people as clueless as you

Now hit the funny and Jack off....lil ole Mac

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

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.

.. combined with higher tax rates on the top end so that we can slow down this insane Trumpian deficit spending.

I recommend nothing for you. You're just a Trumpster.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Yes, damn skippy, I want you to post quotes and links from Walmart about them using after tax profits to pay for new stores. I know you are full of shit. And Ireland, well you might want to take a look at them, not really kicking ass. And as far as I am concerned, Apple can eat shit. They spent two billion dollars on a facility less than ten miles from where I am at right now. It is their Northern Hemisphere facility. Order something on I-tunes, it runs through that facility. But guess where the revenue goes, TO IRELAND. How does that make sense. They depend on the small town of Maiden to provide them fire protection, hell they put a new fire department right beside the facility. They employee a handful of people, and suck enough power out of this area to power a small town. Yet they pay income taxes in Ireland. That is FUBARED. The only thing that illustrates is the dysfunctional corporate tax system we have. So I am not impressed with the whole Ireland bullshit.

Here is what you have not provided a rebuttal for. The weighted average cost of capital is inversely related to the marginal tax rate. Yes, low corporate tax rates encourage businesses to take money OUT of the business. High corporate tax rates encourage businesses to reinvest their profits and avoid the income tax liability. When you purchase a stock of a company, you want them to increase the Return on Capital by expanding their business. You dumbasses seem content with them buying back their own stock, which simply means they have no acceptable capital investment options. They are giving the money back, saying, sorry, we don't see any investment opportunities so here is your money back. I want the economy to expand, I want the frontier curve to go outward. Of course, I doubt you even know what the damn frontier curve is. And I want rent seeking, taking more of the pie that is already there, to be replaced by MAKING MORE DAMN PIE. We now have an economy based on rent seeking. No damn wonder personal income has languished and GDP growth is anemic. Time to reverse that trend. But make no mistake about it, Biden is not going to do it, Trump did nothing but accelerate the rent seeking. But every economist worth two shits knows exactly what I am talking about. But the one thing that I am damn sure about, you have no clue as to what I am talking about, no clue as to what Macroeconomics is all about. And from what I have seen, no clue as to basic Microeconomics as well. Peace out.

Order something on I-tunes, it runs through that facility. But guess where the revenue goes, TO IRELAND. How does that make sense. Yet they pay income taxes in Ireland. That is FUBARED.

Really simple.... if you take the profits here, then you lose 35%. If you take the profits there, you only lose 12%. That's how it makes sense.

I don't know why this is so hard. If you lived in an apartment, and the apartment across the street resulted in you paying 10% less in taxes on your income... you would move.

Moving to Ireland, for Apple, is the equivalent of you moving across the street.

If you charge too much in taxes, people are going to change how they behave to fit those incentives.

When France enacted a wealth tax, people left the country by the thousands.

Wealth tax is forcing 12,000 millionaires PER YEAR out of France

Edouard Philippe defended President Emmanuel Macrons' new tax break for the wealthiest, saying it is needed stem the increasing flow of the richest leaving France.

www.dailymail.co.uk

This is normal all over the world. Why do you think that directly after the 'head tax' in Seattle, that Amazon started looking for where to open an HQ2 location?

This is normal! What is so hard about this concept?

We now have an economy based on rent seeking. No damn wonder personal income has languished and GDP growth is anemic. Time to reverse that trend.

If you think that increasing taxes is going to result in high economic growth, and increased personal incomes, and companies bringing more money back to US, instead of investing over seas... you are crazy.

Here is the problem. Apple creates a product. China copies that product. Apple wants the U.S. to protect it's property. Screw that. Get Ireland to protect it.

 

[Mac1958]

We're in Capitalism 2.0 now, and we don't know for sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing. But we can't keep this hyper-Keynesian version of Capitalism going forever. The question is what to do about it.

I think you are right. This is a new stage of state capitalism: It certainly isn’t a Democratic Party or Republican Party thing. It’s universal.

“Modern Monetary Theory” is now being taken up — more or less willingly — by Central Banks, the IMF and crony (or regular bankrupted) capitalists everywhere. State capitalist / “socialist” China is really just more open about things — because less encumbered by important phylogenetic remnants of American capitalism’s evolution.

The issues of taxation and debt are being slowly re-framed in brand new ways. Differences between states, problems of multi-state capitalist financial empire, class conflicts, the fight for individual human rights, the struggle for a decent social democratic culture for humanity ... these all remain unresolved.

I've been screaming this since late 2019, after watching the NY Fed grease the system with $1.5T. I also did a huge, fundamental change in the way I invest for clients in March, based on what I see as Capitalism 2.0. I looked back at the role the Fed has played since 2009 and it seemed pretty clear.

The problem was that I didn't see anyone else seeing the same thing, which had me wondering. Finally in April or June of 2020, the CIO of Guggenheim came out and made news (in the thread below, Post 79) when he pointed it out, and holy SHIT was I relieved.

I sent around an email to my clients pointing it out, too

American Capitalism has Officially Changed

In short, we now have a Federal Reserve that is an ongoing, active, aggressive, and very influential participant in our economic system. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-fed-is-going-to-buy-etfs-what-does-it-mean-2020-03-23 While some of the lessons from the Meltdown remain unlearned, ONE...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Mac1958]

Congratulations, Mr. President-elect.

Oh?
when did trump concede?

He hasn't. And it doesn't matter.

 

[Mac-7]

He hasn't. And it doesn't matter.

It matters

 

[pknopp]

He hasn't. And it doesn't matter.

It matters

It really doesn't. It matters I guess to the Republicans as it's going to be very embarrassing to them if he doesn't but whatever.

 

[Mac1958]

He hasn't. And it doesn't matter.

It matters

It really doesn't. It matters I guess to the Republicans as it's going to be very embarrassing to them if he doesn't but whatever.

It matters to them. Let it. There's a lot of work to do now.