Mac-7
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 2019
- 66,585
- 48,417
- 3,565
voter fraud and stolen elections should matter to you too.
but all trump haters care about is winning any way necessary
There Goes the Economy
- Thread starter RoshawnMarkwees
- Start date
but all trump haters care about is winning any way necessary
It's called the YOYO THEORY. Either the statist left constituency is trapped in the humiliation booth where they are humiliated till their senseless in the berserk, or it's vice versa as it's then the constitutional right constituencies turn in the ole humiliation booth for the ole rub a dub dub treatment the lefty constituency just is comimg out of. If prez Trump drops jumpin Joe for the count in the 'Battle Of The Ballets' then the left constituency turns about-face & heads directly back into the humiliation booth for a double rub a dub dub treatment to the glee & smiling snickering faces of the constitutional right constituency! Back & forth the two constituencies go on the ole yoyo adventure. Of course the profe$$ional politician$ never worry about the ole humiliation booth because they are above all that as they have the constituency footing their bill with taxes that they levy upon the two constituencies. Such is the life between the piker enlisted constituency & the Big Shot Officer politician class!!!
RealDave
Gold Member
- Sep 28, 2016
- 26,521
- 3,565
- 290
In case you are too fucking stupid to notice, we have been in a recession. Trump will likely leave office with neghative job grown & record debt=.
Mac1958
Diamond Member
He's spent like a 16-year old girl with Daddy's Gold Card.
Which, given his familial history, is wildly appropriate.
Winston
Platinum Member
I literally work in management consulting and tax avoidance or at least tax minimalization is one of the primary goals of all my clients. Bet Winston never heard of an ESOP.Please stop. Organization and people always want to pay higher taxes. Always. Why take accelerated depreciation and why pay accountants for tax advice when you can just pay pay pay and pay?rump
You’re still looking at more debt. Higher tax rates means fewer hires. “Trumpster”...I would have voted for Tulsi Gabbard, something I said multiple times here. You’re just a liar who needs a college degree. Enjoy the return of corporate inversions... combined with higher tax rates on the top end so that we can slow down this insane Trumpian deficit spending.So dishonest. They said this because there would not be a logjam and more government spending would occur with the US taking on even more debt. Short term gain for long term pain. I would recommend a college degree for you.Let's see.
Should I believe Goldman Sachs and other financial institutions, or some nasty, miserable, ignorant Trumpster on an internet message board?
Hmm. This is a tough call!
Goldman Sachs Thinks the Economy Will Recover Faster With Biden in Office
Investment bank Goldman Sachs says a Democratic sweep could work wonders for our sluggish economy. Find out how Biden's plans could help the country's finances.www.fool.com
I recommend nothing for you. You're just a Trumpster.
Higher tax rates do not mean fewer hires. Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
Unbelievable. Do you really honestly believe that? How can any rational person believe that.
Higher taxes do not mean fewer hires..... are you stupid?
See it's comments like this, that allow me to understand how people like AOC can get elected into office, while spouting stupid crap like she's going to 'spend' a tax deduction, on education and health care.
Say you are a business owner, and you run a store. A McDonald's store costs roughly $2 Million dollars to build. You earn roughly $500 Thousand a year from your store. (that's high, but let's pretend.).
Now that doesn't include you taking out a salary for yourself. So let's say you live on $100,000 a year.
That means you have $400 thousand in profit, beyond what you yourself live on.
You decide you want to open another store. How long will it take for you to save up enough to open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
5 Years.
Now let's add in that 35% corporate income tax rate. Your income after taxes is $325, minus the $100K you live on is $225. How many years before you can open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
9 years.
Did taxes reduce your ability to hire people? Yes, stupid, it did. You are an idiot, if you think employers having fewer dollars, can't possible translate into fewer jobs created.
Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
I don't need to go to college, because I learned enough math in elementary school to know that one million reduced by 20% is $800 thousand, and you can't hire 10 people at one hundred grand, with $800 thousand. Or that one million minus 40% is $600 thousand, and you can't hire 8 people at one hundred grand with $600 thousand.
Let me ask you directly.... if your income was reduced by 20%.... would you be able to buy as much products and services after having your income reduced by 20%, as you do today?
If you admit your own purchases of products and services would be reduced.... please explain which person in this entire country would not reduce their purchases of products and services by having their income reduced?
Wow, posted all that just to show you are an IDIOT. Businesses don't hire people, McDonald's franchisees don't build additional restaurants, with profits. They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes. Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes. Hell, even Trump knows how to do that.
When the corporate tax cut was passed notice how all those companies handed out bonuses to employees. But they did it under the OLD TAX RATE. They hurried up and got them done before the new year and the new lower rate started. Why would they do that if those bonuses came from profits? I mean this might seem counterintuitive but even a basic level managerial accounting course would demonstrate my position.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
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? Idiot.
B: You *STILL NEED* $2 Million dollars.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
I don't know how to explain that any clearer. You are just wrong.
The way you invest in new buildings, new equipment, new employees, is with post-tax profits.
Again, I can get the Walmart investor relations publication, and show you exactly where it says they spent PROFIT.... Post-Tax Profit, on building new stores, and renovating existing stores.
If you could avoid all taxes, by just opening new stores, Walmart would spend every freaking dollar on new stores and renovating stores every single year, and never pay a dollar in taxes ever.
In fact all companies would do that. Every single company would spend every dollar they 'earned' on investing and expanding, and not a single company would ever pay a penny in corporate tax ever.
Because I don't know what you think companies spend their profits on. That is the primary use of profits, is to grow and expand and invest into the company. If you are telling me, that they can do that, with pre-tax dollars.... then virtually no company should ever pay corporate income taxes.
How damn stupid. This is not about what organizations and people want. This is about influencing behavior. You want corporations to invest in their people, in expanding the frontier curve, in MAKING MORE PIE, you tax the shit out of them. If you want them to seek rents, cash out their investments, and buy more of their stock, you cut those taxes. I mean it is a sign of economic inefficiency and misallocation of resources when corporations hold TRILLONS of dollars in cash. I mean we have tried this whole low taxes bullshit. It has not turned out so well, anemic economic growth, negative income growth, and piles and piles of cash along with unprecedented rent seeking. The proof of my position is in the reality of our modern economy.
That is the dumbest nonsense I have read in some time. I don't even know where to start, with a mound of stupid stacked that high.
LMAO, yeah, I know about Employee Stock Ownership Plans. You can't be much of a consultant if you believe hiring people comes from profits and not earnings. And you can't know much about tax minimization if you don't understand that capital investments from earnings reduce a company's tax liability. But hey, if you want to play, what is WACC? And how about IRR? And tell me, how does the IRR react to the marginal tax rate? If the marginal tax rate increases, does then IRR for an acceptable investment increase or decrease? And what about risk premium? If the marginal tax rate increases does the risk premium for a potential capital investment go up, or does it go down?
Turtlesoup
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2020
- 15,903
- 16,733
- 2,288
He's handsome.
Winston
Platinum Member
Hold on so if you tax at 100% you believe that would expand the economy?rump
You’re still looking at more debt. Higher tax rates means fewer hires. “Trumpster”...I would have voted for Tulsi Gabbard, something I said multiple times here. You’re just a liar who needs a college degree. Enjoy the return of corporate inversions... combined with higher tax rates on the top end so that we can slow down this insane Trumpian deficit spending.So dishonest. They said this because there would not be a logjam and more government spending would occur with the US taking on even more debt. Short term gain for long term pain. I would recommend a college degree for you.Let's see.
Should I believe Goldman Sachs and other financial institutions, or some nasty, miserable, ignorant Trumpster on an internet message board?
Hmm. This is a tough call!
Goldman Sachs Thinks the Economy Will Recover Faster With Biden in Office
Investment bank Goldman Sachs says a Democratic sweep could work wonders for our sluggish economy. Find out how Biden's plans could help the country's finances.
I recommend nothing for you. You're just a Trumpster.
Higher tax rates do not mean fewer hires. Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
Unbelievable. Do you really honestly believe that? How can any rational person believe that.
Higher taxes do not mean fewer hires..... are you stupid?
See it's comments like this, that allow me to understand how people like AOC can get elected into office, while spouting stupid crap like she's going to 'spend' a tax deduction, on education and health care.
Say you are a business owner, and you run a store. A McDonald's store costs roughly $2 Million dollars to build. You earn roughly $500 Thousand a year from your store. (that's high, but let's pretend.).
Now that doesn't include you taking out a salary for yourself. So let's say you live on $100,000 a year.
That means you have $400 thousand in profit, beyond what you yourself live on.
You decide you want to open another store. How long will it take for you to save up enough to open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
5 Years.
Now let's add in that 35% corporate income tax rate. Your income after taxes is $325, minus the $100K you live on is $225. How many years before you can open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
9 years.
Did taxes reduce your ability to hire people? Yes, stupid, it did. You are an idiot, if you think employers having fewer dollars, can't possible translate into fewer jobs created.
Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
I don't need to go to college, because I learned enough math in elementary school to know that one million reduced by 20% is $800 thousand, and you can't hire 10 people at one hundred grand, with $800 thousand. Or that one million minus 40% is $600 thousand, and you can't hire 8 people at one hundred grand with $600 thousand.
Let me ask you directly.... if your income was reduced by 20%.... would you be able to buy as much products and services after having your income reduced by 20%, as you do today?
If you admit your own purchases of products and services would be reduced.... please explain which person in this entire country would not reduce their purchases of products and services by having their income reduced?
Wow, posted all that just to show you are an IDIOT. Businesses don't hire people, McDonald's franchisees don't build additional restaurants, with profits. They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes. Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes. Hell, even Trump knows how to do that.
When the corporate tax cut was passed notice how all those companies handed out bonuses to employees. But they did it under the OLD TAX RATE. They hurried up and got them done before the new year and the new lower rate started. Why would they do that if those bonuses came from profits? I mean this might seem counterintuitive but even a basic level managerial accounting course would demonstrate my position.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
What are you smoking? I know a man who did exactly that. He saved money from working at one restaurant, specifically to open his own.
Then he opened a second store a few years later, by saving money from running his own store.
They did EXACTLY what I described.
They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes.
You are crazy. You are telling me, that you can earn money, and build stores, and never pay taxes? Are you crazy?
Then why, when I look up Walmarts Investor relation page, do they use post-tax money, to invest in new stores?
Think about what you are saying. You are saying that Walmart could making hundreds of billions in profit, and as long as they spend all the money on building new stores, they would never pay a penny in taxes?
The way you build new stores, and hire new employees, and expand or renovate exist stores is with profits. The more profits you lose in taxes, the less you can build new stores, expand exist stores, and hire more people.
Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes.
0.o Really?
Are Franchise Costs Deductible?
Buying a franchise offers an aspiring business person a way to hit the ground running. By running a business under an established brand name, you benefit from all the work that others have put in to build up that brand in the eyes of your potential customers. The tax code allows you to deduct...
An upfront fee paid to acquire a franchise for a particular area is treated for tax purposes as a startup cost, regardless of whether you buy a brand-new franchise from the franchisor or an existing franchise from someone else. The tax code classifies initial franchise fees as "Section 197 intangibles," after the section of tax law that applies to them. You cannot immediately deduct the full cost of a Section 197 intangible as a business expense. Instead, you must put the intangible on your books as an asset, the same as you would a building or equipment you purchased to start the business. You then amortize the intangible over 15 years, gradually expensing the cost. In other words, you''ll be able to deduct the expense, but not all at once.Even if you could deduct the entire cost of buying a franchise..........
A: Tax deductions reduce your taxable income. $2 Million dollars in a tax deductions reduces your taxes by your tax rate on the deduction. 21% of $2 Million is what? $420 Thousands. You saved $420 thousand, by spending $2 Million?
B: You *STILL NEED* $2 Million dollars.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
I don't know how to explain that any clearer. You are just wrong.
The way you invest in new buildings, new equipment, new employees, is with post-tax profits.
Again, I can get the Walmart investor relations publication, and show you exactly where it says they spent PROFIT.... Post-Tax Profit, on building new stores, and renovating existing stores.
If you could avoid all taxes, by just opening new stores, Walmart would spend every freaking dollar on new stores and renovating stores every single year, and never pay a dollar in taxes ever.
In fact all companies would do that. Every single company would spend every dollar they 'earned' on investing and expanding, and not a single company would ever pay a penny in corporate tax ever.
Because I don't know what you think companies spend their profits on. That is the primary use of profits, is to grow and expand and invest into the company. If you are telling me, that they can do that, with pre-tax dollars.... then virtually no company should ever pay corporate income taxes.
Well first you need to get out that Walmart bit about using post tax revenue to build new facilities. I mean you are so full of shit. Walmart is not building shit, they have cut back on new locations and focused on the omni-channel online experience. And those investments are made with pre-tax dollars.
And sorry, but your friend, if he did save money to build his restaurant, is a dumbass. Yes, I can understand, saving money from your job to start your own business. But every single dime you spend on that new business is a tax deduction. The way it works is simple. You open your first location, honestly, it should be with borrowed money. Once you plow all the "profits" of that new restaurant in to paying off the loan, you use the now paid for restaurant as collateral on a loan for your next location. Here is an accounting reality, the weighted average cost of capital is inversely related to the marginal tax rate. Now I am quite sure that just sailed right over your head. Don't sweat it. But you have to understand, low corporate tax rates encourages businesses to take money OUT OF THE FREAKING BUSINESS. High corporate tax rates encourages them to PUT MONEY BACK IN TO THE BUSINESS. I mean can you possibly explain to me why we have not had double digit GDP growth since the corporate tax rate was axed? I mean DU HUH.
LOL But you are just wrong!
And those investments are made with pre-tax dollars.
Really? You want me to get the investor relations page?
And sorry, but your friend, if he did save money to build his restaurant, is a dumbass.
Um... no? During the great depression when all the businesses were closing down, and filing bankruptcy, there was one store that continuously expanded during the entire 1930s. White Castle. You know why? No debt. They run off of saved profits.
So when the economy tanked, their income declined, but it never went below their ability to pay debts... because they had no debts.
During the 1990s, when Apple Computer was crashing hard in the market, they never went bankrupt, or were forced to sell off to investors... why? Because they run debt-free. Apple computer has consistently operated on saved profits since it was created.
No Debt: 11 Big U.S. Companies Borrow Nothing
Rising corporate debt is another worry for investors. Those looking for a solution might want to check out the companies resisting the urge to borrow and have no debt.www.investors.com
While it is true that many foolish people borrow their way into business.... there are many large companies that operate with zero debt.
My friend who runs the restaurant, is not dumbass, because while many stores have closed up and gone bankrupt during this down turn, he's operating just fine. And of course he is.... because he has no debt. Yes, his income has declined, but no one is going to call the loans on his store, because he has no loans. No one is going to force him into bankruptcy, because he has no debts.
But you have to understand, low corporate tax rates encourages businesses to take money OUT OF THE FREAKING BUSINESS. High corporate tax rates encourages them to PUT MONEY BACK IN TO THE BUSINESS.
WHAT? LOL
That is stupid.
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.
Don't be stupid. It is called the Laffer curve. The reverse would be a zero percent tax rate would make the government rich. Neither is appropriate because it is A FREAKIN CURVE.
the other mike
Diamond Member
Not mine.
A black guy rode up there one day....it's just my mom the photographer in me ( rip)
Last edited:
Weighted Avg Cost of Capital. What about risk premium? LOL Paid for your risk. You're talking archaic finance school stuff. People look at at EBITDA multiples so taxes are irrelevant there and profits and earnings? What are you talking about? Higher taxes, lower EPS.I literally work in management consulting and tax avoidance or at least tax minimalization is one of the primary goals of all my clients. Bet Winston never heard of an ESOP.Please stop. Organization and people always want to pay higher taxes. Always. Why take accelerated depreciation and why pay accountants for tax advice when you can just pay pay pay and pay?rump
You’re still looking at more debt. Higher tax rates means fewer hires. “Trumpster”...I would have voted for Tulsi Gabbard, something I said multiple times here. You’re just a liar who needs a college degree. Enjoy the return of corporate inversions... combined with higher tax rates on the top end so that we can slow down this insane Trumpian deficit spending.So dishonest. They said this because there would not be a logjam and more government spending would occur with the US taking on even more debt. Short term gain for long term pain. I would recommend a college degree for you.Let's see.
Should I believe Goldman Sachs and other financial institutions, or some nasty, miserable, ignorant Trumpster on an internet message board?
Hmm. This is a tough call!
Goldman Sachs Thinks the Economy Will Recover Faster With Biden in Office
Investment bank Goldman Sachs says a Democratic sweep could work wonders for our sluggish economy. Find out how Biden's plans could help the country's finances.
I recommend nothing for you. You're just a Trumpster.
Higher tax rates do not mean fewer hires. Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
Unbelievable. Do you really honestly believe that? How can any rational person believe that.
Higher taxes do not mean fewer hires..... are you stupid?
See it's comments like this, that allow me to understand how people like AOC can get elected into office, while spouting stupid crap like she's going to 'spend' a tax deduction, on education and health care.
Say you are a business owner, and you run a store. A McDonald's store costs roughly $2 Million dollars to build. You earn roughly $500 Thousand a year from your store. (that's high, but let's pretend.).
Now that doesn't include you taking out a salary for yourself. So let's say you live on $100,000 a year.
That means you have $400 thousand in profit, beyond what you yourself live on.
You decide you want to open another store. How long will it take for you to save up enough to open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
5 Years.
Now let's add in that 35% corporate income tax rate. Your income after taxes is $325, minus the $100K you live on is $225. How many years before you can open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
9 years.
Did taxes reduce your ability to hire people? Yes, stupid, it did. You are an idiot, if you think employers having fewer dollars, can't possible translate into fewer jobs created.
Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
I don't need to go to college, because I learned enough math in elementary school to know that one million reduced by 20% is $800 thousand, and you can't hire 10 people at one hundred grand, with $800 thousand. Or that one million minus 40% is $600 thousand, and you can't hire 8 people at one hundred grand with $600 thousand.
Let me ask you directly.... if your income was reduced by 20%.... would you be able to buy as much products and services after having your income reduced by 20%, as you do today?
If you admit your own purchases of products and services would be reduced.... please explain which person in this entire country would not reduce their purchases of products and services by having their income reduced?
Wow, posted all that just to show you are an IDIOT. Businesses don't hire people, McDonald's franchisees don't build additional restaurants, with profits. They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes. Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes. Hell, even Trump knows how to do that.
When the corporate tax cut was passed notice how all those companies handed out bonuses to employees. But they did it under the OLD TAX RATE. They hurried up and got them done before the new year and the new lower rate started. Why would they do that if those bonuses came from profits? I mean this might seem counterintuitive but even a basic level managerial accounting course would demonstrate my position.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
What are you smoking? I know a man who did exactly that. He saved money from working at one restaurant, specifically to open his own.
Then he opened a second store a few years later, by saving money from running his own store.
They did EXACTLY what I described.
They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes.
You are crazy. You are telling me, that you can earn money, and build stores, and never pay taxes? Are you crazy?
Then why, when I look up Walmarts Investor relation page, do they use post-tax money, to invest in new stores?
Think about what you are saying. You are saying that Walmart could making hundreds of billions in profit, and as long as they spend all the money on building new stores, they would never pay a penny in taxes?
The way you build new stores, and hire new employees, and expand or renovate exist stores is with profits. The more profits you lose in taxes, the less you can build new stores, expand exist stores, and hire more people.
Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes.
0.o Really?
Are Franchise Costs Deductible?
Buying a franchise offers an aspiring business person a way to hit the ground running. By running a business under an established brand name, you benefit from all the work that others have put in to build up that brand in the eyes of your potential customers. The tax code allows you to deduct...
An upfront fee paid to acquire a franchise for a particular area is treated for tax purposes as a startup cost, regardless of whether you buy a brand-new franchise from the franchisor or an existing franchise from someone else. The tax code classifies initial franchise fees as "Section 197 intangibles," after the section of tax law that applies to them. You cannot immediately deduct the full cost of a Section 197 intangible as a business expense. Instead, you must put the intangible on your books as an asset, the same as you would a building or equipment you purchased to start the business. You then amortize the intangible over 15 years, gradually expensing the cost. In other words, you''ll be able to deduct the expense, but not all at once.Even if you could deduct the entire cost of buying a franchise..........
A: Tax deductions reduce your taxable income. $2 Million dollars in a tax deductions reduces your taxes by your tax rate on the deduction. 21% of $2 Million is what? $420 Thousands. You saved $420 thousand, by spending $2 Million? Idiot.
B: You *STILL NEED* $2 Million dollars.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
I don't know how to explain that any clearer. You are just wrong.
The way you invest in new buildings, new equipment, new employees, is with post-tax profits.
Again, I can get the Walmart investor relations publication, and show you exactly where it says they spent PROFIT.... Post-Tax Profit, on building new stores, and renovating existing stores.
If you could avoid all taxes, by just opening new stores, Walmart would spend every freaking dollar on new stores and renovating stores every single year, and never pay a dollar in taxes ever.
In fact all companies would do that. Every single company would spend every dollar they 'earned' on investing and expanding, and not a single company would ever pay a penny in corporate tax ever.
Because I don't know what you think companies spend their profits on. That is the primary use of profits, is to grow and expand and invest into the company. If you are telling me, that they can do that, with pre-tax dollars.... then virtually no company should ever pay corporate income taxes.
How damn stupid. This is not about what organizations and people want. This is about influencing behavior. You want corporations to invest in their people, in expanding the frontier curve, in MAKING MORE PIE, you tax the shit out of them. If you want them to seek rents, cash out their investments, and buy more of their stock, you cut those taxes. I mean it is a sign of economic inefficiency and misallocation of resources when corporations hold TRILLONS of dollars in cash. I mean we have tried this whole low taxes bullshit. It has not turned out so well, anemic economic growth, negative income growth, and piles and piles of cash along with unprecedented rent seeking. The proof of my position is in the reality of our modern economy.
That is the dumbest nonsense I have read in some time. I don't even know where to start, with a mound of stupid stacked that high.
LMAO, yeah, I know about Employee Stock Ownership Plans. You can't be much of a consultant if you believe hiring people comes from profits and not earnings. And you can't know much about tax minimization if you don't understand that capital investments from earnings reduce a company's tax liability. But hey, if you want to play, what is WACC? And how about IRR? And tell me, how does the IRR react to the marginal tax rate? If the marginal tax rate increases, does then IRR for an acceptable investment increase or decrease? And what about risk premium? If the marginal tax rate increases does the risk premium for a potential capital investment go up, or does it go down?
I asked you again, is 100% tax rate good or bad?
the other mike
Diamond Member
I am laughing at you. Higher tax rate is worse for IRR.Hold on so if you tax at 100% you believe that would expand the economy?rump
You’re still looking at more debt. Higher tax rates means fewer hires. “Trumpster”...I would have voted for Tulsi Gabbard, something I said multiple times here. You’re just a liar who needs a college degree. Enjoy the return of corporate inversions... combined with higher tax rates on the top end so that we can slow down this insane Trumpian deficit spending.So dishonest. They said this because there would not be a logjam and more government spending would occur with the US taking on even more debt. Short term gain for long term pain. I would recommend a college degree for you.Let's see.
Should I believe Goldman Sachs and other financial institutions, or some nasty, miserable, ignorant Trumpster on an internet message board?
Hmm. This is a tough call!
Goldman Sachs Thinks the Economy Will Recover Faster With Biden in Office
Investment bank Goldman Sachs says a Democratic sweep could work wonders for our sluggish economy. Find out how Biden's plans could help the country's finances.
I recommend nothing for you. You're just a Trumpster.
Higher tax rates do not mean fewer hires. Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
Unbelievable. Do you really honestly believe that? How can any rational person believe that.
Higher taxes do not mean fewer hires..... are you stupid?
See it's comments like this, that allow me to understand how people like AOC can get elected into office, while spouting stupid crap like she's going to 'spend' a tax deduction, on education and health care.
Say you are a business owner, and you run a store. A McDonald's store costs roughly $2 Million dollars to build. You earn roughly $500 Thousand a year from your store. (that's high, but let's pretend.).
Now that doesn't include you taking out a salary for yourself. So let's say you live on $100,000 a year.
That means you have $400 thousand in profit, beyond what you yourself live on.
You decide you want to open another store. How long will it take for you to save up enough to open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
5 Years.
Now let's add in that 35% corporate income tax rate. Your income after taxes is $325, minus the $100K you live on is $225. How many years before you can open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
9 years.
Did taxes reduce your ability to hire people? Yes, stupid, it did. You are an idiot, if you think employers having fewer dollars, can't possible translate into fewer jobs created.
Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
I don't need to go to college, because I learned enough math in elementary school to know that one million reduced by 20% is $800 thousand, and you can't hire 10 people at one hundred grand, with $800 thousand. Or that one million minus 40% is $600 thousand, and you can't hire 8 people at one hundred grand with $600 thousand.
Let me ask you directly.... if your income was reduced by 20%.... would you be able to buy as much products and services after having your income reduced by 20%, as you do today?
If you admit your own purchases of products and services would be reduced.... please explain which person in this entire country would not reduce their purchases of products and services by having their income reduced?
Wow, posted all that just to show you are an IDIOT. Businesses don't hire people, McDonald's franchisees don't build additional restaurants, with profits. They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes. Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes. Hell, even Trump knows how to do that.
When the corporate tax cut was passed notice how all those companies handed out bonuses to employees. But they did it under the OLD TAX RATE. They hurried up and got them done before the new year and the new lower rate started. Why would they do that if those bonuses came from profits? I mean this might seem counterintuitive but even a basic level managerial accounting course would demonstrate my position.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
What are you smoking? I know a man who did exactly that. He saved money from working at one restaurant, specifically to open his own.
Then he opened a second store a few years later, by saving money from running his own store.
They did EXACTLY what I described.
They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes.
You are crazy. You are telling me, that you can earn money, and build stores, and never pay taxes? Are you crazy?
Then why, when I look up Walmarts Investor relation page, do they use post-tax money, to invest in new stores?
Think about what you are saying. You are saying that Walmart could making hundreds of billions in profit, and as long as they spend all the money on building new stores, they would never pay a penny in taxes?
The way you build new stores, and hire new employees, and expand or renovate exist stores is with profits. The more profits you lose in taxes, the less you can build new stores, expand exist stores, and hire more people.
Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes.
0.o Really?
Are Franchise Costs Deductible?
Buying a franchise offers an aspiring business person a way to hit the ground running. By running a business under an established brand name, you benefit from all the work that others have put in to build up that brand in the eyes of your potential customers. The tax code allows you to deduct...
An upfront fee paid to acquire a franchise for a particular area is treated for tax purposes as a startup cost, regardless of whether you buy a brand-new franchise from the franchisor or an existing franchise from someone else. The tax code classifies initial franchise fees as "Section 197 intangibles," after the section of tax law that applies to them. You cannot immediately deduct the full cost of a Section 197 intangible as a business expense. Instead, you must put the intangible on your books as an asset, the same as you would a building or equipment you purchased to start the business. You then amortize the intangible over 15 years, gradually expensing the cost. In other words, you''ll be able to deduct the expense, but not all at once.Even if you could deduct the entire cost of buying a franchise..........
A: Tax deductions reduce your taxable income. $2 Million dollars in a tax deductions reduces your taxes by your tax rate on the deduction. 21% of $2 Million is what? $420 Thousands. You saved $420 thousand, by spending $2 Million?
B: You *STILL NEED* $2 Million dollars.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
I don't know how to explain that any clearer. You are just wrong.
The way you invest in new buildings, new equipment, new employees, is with post-tax profits.
Again, I can get the Walmart investor relations publication, and show you exactly where it says they spent PROFIT.... Post-Tax Profit, on building new stores, and renovating existing stores.
If you could avoid all taxes, by just opening new stores, Walmart would spend every freaking dollar on new stores and renovating stores every single year, and never pay a dollar in taxes ever.
In fact all companies would do that. Every single company would spend every dollar they 'earned' on investing and expanding, and not a single company would ever pay a penny in corporate tax ever.
Because I don't know what you think companies spend their profits on. That is the primary use of profits, is to grow and expand and invest into the company. If you are telling me, that they can do that, with pre-tax dollars.... then virtually no company should ever pay corporate income taxes.
Well first you need to get out that Walmart bit about using post tax revenue to build new facilities. I mean you are so full of shit. Walmart is not building shit, they have cut back on new locations and focused on the omni-channel online experience. And those investments are made with pre-tax dollars.
And sorry, but your friend, if he did save money to build his restaurant, is a dumbass. Yes, I can understand, saving money from your job to start your own business. But every single dime you spend on that new business is a tax deduction. The way it works is simple. You open your first location, honestly, it should be with borrowed money. Once you plow all the "profits" of that new restaurant in to paying off the loan, you use the now paid for restaurant as collateral on a loan for your next location. Here is an accounting reality, the weighted average cost of capital is inversely related to the marginal tax rate. Now I am quite sure that just sailed right over your head. Don't sweat it. But you have to understand, low corporate tax rates encourages businesses to take money OUT OF THE FREAKING BUSINESS. High corporate tax rates encourages them to PUT MONEY BACK IN TO THE BUSINESS. I mean can you possibly explain to me why we have not had double digit GDP growth since the corporate tax rate was axed? I mean DU HUH.
LOL But you are just wrong!
And those investments are made with pre-tax dollars.
Really? You want me to get the investor relations page?
And sorry, but your friend, if he did save money to build his restaurant, is a dumbass.
Um... no? During the great depression when all the businesses were closing down, and filing bankruptcy, there was one store that continuously expanded during the entire 1930s. White Castle. You know why? No debt. They run off of saved profits.
So when the economy tanked, their income declined, but it never went below their ability to pay debts... because they had no debts.
During the 1990s, when Apple Computer was crashing hard in the market, they never went bankrupt, or were forced to sell off to investors... why? Because they run debt-free. Apple computer has consistently operated on saved profits since it was created.
No Debt: 11 Big U.S. Companies Borrow Nothing
Rising corporate debt is another worry for investors. Those looking for a solution might want to check out the companies resisting the urge to borrow and have no debt.
While it is true that many foolish people borrow their way into business.... there are many large companies that operate with zero debt.
My friend who runs the restaurant, is not dumbass, because while many stores have closed up and gone bankrupt during this down turn, he's operating just fine. And of course he is.... because he has no debt. Yes, his income has declined, but no one is going to call the loans on his store, because he has no loans. No one is going to force him into bankruptcy, because he has no debts.
But you have to understand, low corporate tax rates encourages businesses to take money OUT OF THE FREAKING BUSINESS. High corporate tax rates encourages them to PUT MONEY BACK IN TO THE BUSINESS.
WHAT? LOL
That is stupid.
View attachment 413396
View attachment 413398
So let's review.
Ireland has the lowest corporate tax rate in the EU.
France has the highest tax rate in the EU
Ireland has 6 million people, and 32K sq.miles.
France has 66 Million people, and 247K sq.miles.
Ireland number one in all of Europe for investment.
France doesn't even get on the top 10 list.
How is this possible? By your logic, all those businesses in Ireland should be dumping money out of their companies, instead of investing in Ireland!
You said low tax rates causes companies to take money out of the business!
No, you are an idiot now. I don't even know how you could say that, given Apple openly admitted the reason they invested $300 Million, and created 7,000 jobs in Ireland, was specifically because of the low corporate income tax.
According to you, their low corporate tax, should have cause Apple to not invest in businesses in Ireland.... right?
Are you stupid?
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.
Don't be stupid. It is called the Laffer curve. The reverse would be a zero percent tax rate would make the government rich. Neither is appropriate because it is A FREAKIN CURVE.
Winston
Platinum Member
Weighted Avg Cost of Capital. What about risk premium? LOL Paid for your risk. You're talking archaic finance school stuff. People look at at EBITDA multiples so taxes are irrelevant there and profits and earnings? What are you talking about? Higher taxes, lower EPS.I literally work in management consulting and tax avoidance or at least tax minimalization is one of the primary goals of all my clients. Bet Winston never heard of an ESOP.Please stop. Organization and people always want to pay higher taxes. Always. Why take accelerated depreciation and why pay accountants for tax advice when you can just pay pay pay and pay?rump
You’re still looking at more debt. Higher tax rates means fewer hires. “Trumpster”...I would have voted for Tulsi Gabbard, something I said multiple times here. You’re just a liar who needs a college degree. Enjoy the return of corporate inversions... combined with higher tax rates on the top end so that we can slow down this insane Trumpian deficit spending.So dishonest. They said this because there would not be a logjam and more government spending would occur with the US taking on even more debt. Short term gain for long term pain. I would recommend a college degree for you.Let's see.
Should I believe Goldman Sachs and other financial institutions, or some nasty, miserable, ignorant Trumpster on an internet message board?
Hmm. This is a tough call!
Goldman Sachs Thinks the Economy Will Recover Faster With Biden in Office
Investment bank Goldman Sachs says a Democratic sweep could work wonders for our sluggish economy. Find out how Biden's plans could help the country's finances.
I recommend nothing for you. You're just a Trumpster.
Higher tax rates do not mean fewer hires. Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
Unbelievable. Do you really honestly believe that? How can any rational person believe that.
Higher taxes do not mean fewer hires..... are you stupid?
See it's comments like this, that allow me to understand how people like AOC can get elected into office, while spouting stupid crap like she's going to 'spend' a tax deduction, on education and health care.
Say you are a business owner, and you run a store. A McDonald's store costs roughly $2 Million dollars to build. You earn roughly $500 Thousand a year from your store. (that's high, but let's pretend.).
Now that doesn't include you taking out a salary for yourself. So let's say you live on $100,000 a year.
That means you have $400 thousand in profit, beyond what you yourself live on.
You decide you want to open another store. How long will it take for you to save up enough to open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
5 Years.
Now let's add in that 35% corporate income tax rate. Your income after taxes is $325, minus the $100K you live on is $225. How many years before you can open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
9 years.
Did taxes reduce your ability to hire people? Yes, stupid, it did. You are an idiot, if you think employers having fewer dollars, can't possible translate into fewer jobs created.
Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
I don't need to go to college, because I learned enough math in elementary school to know that one million reduced by 20% is $800 thousand, and you can't hire 10 people at one hundred grand, with $800 thousand. Or that one million minus 40% is $600 thousand, and you can't hire 8 people at one hundred grand with $600 thousand.
Let me ask you directly.... if your income was reduced by 20%.... would you be able to buy as much products and services after having your income reduced by 20%, as you do today?
If you admit your own purchases of products and services would be reduced.... please explain which person in this entire country would not reduce their purchases of products and services by having their income reduced?
Wow, posted all that just to show you are an IDIOT. Businesses don't hire people, McDonald's franchisees don't build additional restaurants, with profits. They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes. Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes. Hell, even Trump knows how to do that.
When the corporate tax cut was passed notice how all those companies handed out bonuses to employees. But they did it under the OLD TAX RATE. They hurried up and got them done before the new year and the new lower rate started. Why would they do that if those bonuses came from profits? I mean this might seem counterintuitive but even a basic level managerial accounting course would demonstrate my position.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
What are you smoking? I know a man who did exactly that. He saved money from working at one restaurant, specifically to open his own.
Then he opened a second store a few years later, by saving money from running his own store.
They did EXACTLY what I described.
They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes.
You are crazy. You are telling me, that you can earn money, and build stores, and never pay taxes? Are you crazy?
Then why, when I look up Walmarts Investor relation page, do they use post-tax money, to invest in new stores?
Think about what you are saying. You are saying that Walmart could making hundreds of billions in profit, and as long as they spend all the money on building new stores, they would never pay a penny in taxes?
The way you build new stores, and hire new employees, and expand or renovate exist stores is with profits. The more profits you lose in taxes, the less you can build new stores, expand exist stores, and hire more people.
Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes.
0.o Really?
Are Franchise Costs Deductible?
Buying a franchise offers an aspiring business person a way to hit the ground running. By running a business under an established brand name, you benefit from all the work that others have put in to build up that brand in the eyes of your potential customers. The tax code allows you to deduct...
An upfront fee paid to acquire a franchise for a particular area is treated for tax purposes as a startup cost, regardless of whether you buy a brand-new franchise from the franchisor or an existing franchise from someone else. The tax code classifies initial franchise fees as "Section 197 intangibles," after the section of tax law that applies to them. You cannot immediately deduct the full cost of a Section 197 intangible as a business expense. Instead, you must put the intangible on your books as an asset, the same as you would a building or equipment you purchased to start the business. You then amortize the intangible over 15 years, gradually expensing the cost. In other words, you''ll be able to deduct the expense, but not all at once.Even if you could deduct the entire cost of buying a franchise..........
A: Tax deductions reduce your taxable income. $2 Million dollars in a tax deductions reduces your taxes by your tax rate on the deduction. 21% of $2 Million is what? $420 Thousands. You saved $420 thousand, by spending $2 Million? Idiot.
B: You *STILL NEED* $2 Million dollars.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
I don't know how to explain that any clearer. You are just wrong.
The way you invest in new buildings, new equipment, new employees, is with post-tax profits.
Again, I can get the Walmart investor relations publication, and show you exactly where it says they spent PROFIT.... Post-Tax Profit, on building new stores, and renovating existing stores.
If you could avoid all taxes, by just opening new stores, Walmart would spend every freaking dollar on new stores and renovating stores every single year, and never pay a dollar in taxes ever.
In fact all companies would do that. Every single company would spend every dollar they 'earned' on investing and expanding, and not a single company would ever pay a penny in corporate tax ever.
Because I don't know what you think companies spend their profits on. That is the primary use of profits, is to grow and expand and invest into the company. If you are telling me, that they can do that, with pre-tax dollars.... then virtually no company should ever pay corporate income taxes.
How damn stupid. This is not about what organizations and people want. This is about influencing behavior. You want corporations to invest in their people, in expanding the frontier curve, in MAKING MORE PIE, you tax the shit out of them. If you want them to seek rents, cash out their investments, and buy more of their stock, you cut those taxes. I mean it is a sign of economic inefficiency and misallocation of resources when corporations hold TRILLONS of dollars in cash. I mean we have tried this whole low taxes bullshit. It has not turned out so well, anemic economic growth, negative income growth, and piles and piles of cash along with unprecedented rent seeking. The proof of my position is in the reality of our modern economy.
That is the dumbest nonsense I have read in some time. I don't even know where to start, with a mound of stupid stacked that high.
LMAO, yeah, I know about Employee Stock Ownership Plans. You can't be much of a consultant if you believe hiring people comes from profits and not earnings. And you can't know much about tax minimization if you don't understand that capital investments from earnings reduce a company's tax liability. But hey, if you want to play, what is WACC? And how about IRR? And tell me, how does the IRR react to the marginal tax rate? If the marginal tax rate increases, does then IRR for an acceptable investment increase or decrease? And what about risk premium? If the marginal tax rate increases does the risk premium for a potential capital investment go up, or does it go down?
I asked you again, is 100% tax rate good or bad?
That is a stupid question. Of course a 100% tax is bad. But do you believe a 0% tax would eliminate the federal deficit? What part about curve do you not understand? But hey, let's go with that zero percent tax. What would the IRR for an acceptable investment be to the firm? What would be the risk premium if the marginal tax rate was zero?
I will try this again, it really is simple if not counter-intuitive. And the current environment demonstrates it rather clearly. When the corporate tax rates are low firms are incentivized to take money out of the business. That Internal Rate of Return of acceptable investments increases and the risk premium becomes higher. Firms are unwilling to take risks, seek out only investments with little risk and of course, the returns are smaller. The current environment spells that out because of anemic GDP growth, piles of cash sitting in corporate coffers, and the excessive amount of rent-seeking that is going on. It is really quite simple, when corporate tax rates are low company's lose more money when they make the wrong investment. If nothing else, the tax rate subsidizes losses. That decreases the risk premium. In our current environment companies find it more acceptable to attempt to gain more of the pie that is already there instead of make more pie. That contracts the frontier curve, it does not expand it.
When corporate tax rates where higher companies were more willing to take on risk. They invested to make more pie, and GDP growth reflected that reality. Furthermore, they were more willing to invest in their people, not just higher wages and more labor, but training, benefits. The contraction in the benefits offered employees, the lack of training, companies now seek to hire employees already trained, steal them from the competition, rather than train the employees themselves, it all stems from a lower corporate tax rate. And the lack of income growth for the last forty years is directly related to a lower corporate tax rate.
Winston
Platinum Member
I am laughing at you. Higher tax rate is worse for IRR.Hold on so if you tax at 100% you believe that would expand the economy?rump
You’re still looking at more debt. Higher tax rates means fewer hires. “Trumpster”...I would have voted for Tulsi Gabbard, something I said multiple times here. You’re just a liar who needs a college degree. Enjoy the return of corporate inversions... combined with higher tax rates on the top end so that we can slow down this insane Trumpian deficit spending.So dishonest. They said this because there would not be a logjam and more government spending would occur with the US taking on even more debt. Short term gain for long term pain. I would recommend a college degree for you.Let's see.
Should I believe Goldman Sachs and other financial institutions, or some nasty, miserable, ignorant Trumpster on an internet message board?
Hmm. This is a tough call!
Goldman Sachs Thinks the Economy Will Recover Faster With Biden in Office
Investment bank Goldman Sachs says a Democratic sweep could work wonders for our sluggish economy. Find out how Biden's plans could help the country's finances.
I recommend nothing for you. You're just a Trumpster.
Higher tax rates do not mean fewer hires. Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
Unbelievable. Do you really honestly believe that? How can any rational person believe that.
Higher taxes do not mean fewer hires..... are you stupid?
See it's comments like this, that allow me to understand how people like AOC can get elected into office, while spouting stupid crap like she's going to 'spend' a tax deduction, on education and health care.
Say you are a business owner, and you run a store. A McDonald's store costs roughly $2 Million dollars to build. You earn roughly $500 Thousand a year from your store. (that's high, but let's pretend.).
Now that doesn't include you taking out a salary for yourself. So let's say you live on $100,000 a year.
That means you have $400 thousand in profit, beyond what you yourself live on.
You decide you want to open another store. How long will it take for you to save up enough to open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
5 Years.
Now let's add in that 35% corporate income tax rate. Your income after taxes is $325, minus the $100K you live on is $225. How many years before you can open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
9 years.
Did taxes reduce your ability to hire people? Yes, stupid, it did. You are an idiot, if you think employers having fewer dollars, can't possible translate into fewer jobs created.
Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
I don't need to go to college, because I learned enough math in elementary school to know that one million reduced by 20% is $800 thousand, and you can't hire 10 people at one hundred grand, with $800 thousand. Or that one million minus 40% is $600 thousand, and you can't hire 8 people at one hundred grand with $600 thousand.
Let me ask you directly.... if your income was reduced by 20%.... would you be able to buy as much products and services after having your income reduced by 20%, as you do today?
If you admit your own purchases of products and services would be reduced.... please explain which person in this entire country would not reduce their purchases of products and services by having their income reduced?
Wow, posted all that just to show you are an IDIOT. Businesses don't hire people, McDonald's franchisees don't build additional restaurants, with profits. They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes. Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes. Hell, even Trump knows how to do that.
When the corporate tax cut was passed notice how all those companies handed out bonuses to employees. But they did it under the OLD TAX RATE. They hurried up and got them done before the new year and the new lower rate started. Why would they do that if those bonuses came from profits? I mean this might seem counterintuitive but even a basic level managerial accounting course would demonstrate my position.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
What are you smoking? I know a man who did exactly that. He saved money from working at one restaurant, specifically to open his own.
Then he opened a second store a few years later, by saving money from running his own store.
They did EXACTLY what I described.
They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes.
You are crazy. You are telling me, that you can earn money, and build stores, and never pay taxes? Are you crazy?
Then why, when I look up Walmarts Investor relation page, do they use post-tax money, to invest in new stores?
Think about what you are saying. You are saying that Walmart could making hundreds of billions in profit, and as long as they spend all the money on building new stores, they would never pay a penny in taxes?
The way you build new stores, and hire new employees, and expand or renovate exist stores is with profits. The more profits you lose in taxes, the less you can build new stores, expand exist stores, and hire more people.
Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes.
0.o Really?
Are Franchise Costs Deductible?
Buying a franchise offers an aspiring business person a way to hit the ground running. By running a business under an established brand name, you benefit from all the work that others have put in to build up that brand in the eyes of your potential customers. The tax code allows you to deduct...
An upfront fee paid to acquire a franchise for a particular area is treated for tax purposes as a startup cost, regardless of whether you buy a brand-new franchise from the franchisor or an existing franchise from someone else. The tax code classifies initial franchise fees as "Section 197 intangibles," after the section of tax law that applies to them. You cannot immediately deduct the full cost of a Section 197 intangible as a business expense. Instead, you must put the intangible on your books as an asset, the same as you would a building or equipment you purchased to start the business. You then amortize the intangible over 15 years, gradually expensing the cost. In other words, you''ll be able to deduct the expense, but not all at once.Even if you could deduct the entire cost of buying a franchise..........
A: Tax deductions reduce your taxable income. $2 Million dollars in a tax deductions reduces your taxes by your tax rate on the deduction. 21% of $2 Million is what? $420 Thousands. You saved $420 thousand, by spending $2 Million?
B: You *STILL NEED* $2 Million dollars.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
I don't know how to explain that any clearer. You are just wrong.
The way you invest in new buildings, new equipment, new employees, is with post-tax profits.
Again, I can get the Walmart investor relations publication, and show you exactly where it says they spent PROFIT.... Post-Tax Profit, on building new stores, and renovating existing stores.
If you could avoid all taxes, by just opening new stores, Walmart would spend every freaking dollar on new stores and renovating stores every single year, and never pay a dollar in taxes ever.
In fact all companies would do that. Every single company would spend every dollar they 'earned' on investing and expanding, and not a single company would ever pay a penny in corporate tax ever.
Because I don't know what you think companies spend their profits on. That is the primary use of profits, is to grow and expand and invest into the company. If you are telling me, that they can do that, with pre-tax dollars.... then virtually no company should ever pay corporate income taxes.
Well first you need to get out that Walmart bit about using post tax revenue to build new facilities. I mean you are so full of shit. Walmart is not building shit, they have cut back on new locations and focused on the omni-channel online experience. And those investments are made with pre-tax dollars.
And sorry, but your friend, if he did save money to build his restaurant, is a dumbass. Yes, I can understand, saving money from your job to start your own business. But every single dime you spend on that new business is a tax deduction. The way it works is simple. You open your first location, honestly, it should be with borrowed money. Once you plow all the "profits" of that new restaurant in to paying off the loan, you use the now paid for restaurant as collateral on a loan for your next location. Here is an accounting reality, the weighted average cost of capital is inversely related to the marginal tax rate. Now I am quite sure that just sailed right over your head. Don't sweat it. But you have to understand, low corporate tax rates encourages businesses to take money OUT OF THE FREAKING BUSINESS. High corporate tax rates encourages them to PUT MONEY BACK IN TO THE BUSINESS. I mean can you possibly explain to me why we have not had double digit GDP growth since the corporate tax rate was axed? I mean DU HUH.
LOL But you are just wrong!
And those investments are made with pre-tax dollars.
Really? You want me to get the investor relations page?
And sorry, but your friend, if he did save money to build his restaurant, is a dumbass.
Um... no? During the great depression when all the businesses were closing down, and filing bankruptcy, there was one store that continuously expanded during the entire 1930s. White Castle. You know why? No debt. They run off of saved profits.
So when the economy tanked, their income declined, but it never went below their ability to pay debts... because they had no debts.
During the 1990s, when Apple Computer was crashing hard in the market, they never went bankrupt, or were forced to sell off to investors... why? Because they run debt-free. Apple computer has consistently operated on saved profits since it was created.
No Debt: 11 Big U.S. Companies Borrow Nothing
Rising corporate debt is another worry for investors. Those looking for a solution might want to check out the companies resisting the urge to borrow and have no debt.
While it is true that many foolish people borrow their way into business.... there are many large companies that operate with zero debt.
My friend who runs the restaurant, is not dumbass, because while many stores have closed up and gone bankrupt during this down turn, he's operating just fine. And of course he is.... because he has no debt. Yes, his income has declined, but no one is going to call the loans on his store, because he has no loans. No one is going to force him into bankruptcy, because he has no debts.
But you have to understand, low corporate tax rates encourages businesses to take money OUT OF THE FREAKING BUSINESS. High corporate tax rates encourages them to PUT MONEY BACK IN TO THE BUSINESS.
WHAT? LOL
That is stupid.
View attachment 413396
View attachment 413398
So let's review.
Ireland has the lowest corporate tax rate in the EU.
France has the highest tax rate in the EU
Ireland has 6 million people, and 32K sq.miles.
France has 66 Million people, and 247K sq.miles.
Ireland number one in all of Europe for investment.
France doesn't even get on the top 10 list.
How is this possible? By your logic, all those businesses in Ireland should be dumping money out of their companies, instead of investing in Ireland!
You said low tax rates causes companies to take money out of the business!
No, you are an idiot now. I don't even know how you could say that, given Apple openly admitted the reason they invested $300 Million, and created 7,000 jobs in Ireland, was specifically because of the low corporate income tax.
According to you, their low corporate tax, should have cause Apple to not invest in businesses in Ireland.... right?
Are you stupid?
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.
Don't be stupid. It is called the Laffer curve. The reverse would be a zero percent tax rate would make the government rich. Neither is appropriate because it is A FREAKIN CURVE.
Not when risk is factored in. Which is the point. I mean this is not intro Accounting, but once you get into the upper level accounting classes you start understanding that the Internal Rate of Return required for an acceptable capital investment turns on risk. Since you know what the Weighted Average Cost of Capital is, are you willing to admit, that the WACC is inversely related to the marginal tax rate. Because that is basic. And if the marginal tax rate increases, the WACC declines and the IRR also declines.
Firms take risks frequently. That’s my entire field of leveraged finance. What are you talking about?Weighted Avg Cost of Capital. What about risk premium? LOL Paid for your risk. You're talking archaic finance school stuff. People look at at EBITDA multiples so taxes are irrelevant there and profits and earnings? What are you talking about? Higher taxes, lower EPS.I literally work in management consulting and tax avoidance or at least tax minimalization is one of the primary goals of all my clients. Bet Winston never heard of an ESOP.Please stop. Organization and people always want to pay higher taxes. Always. Why take accelerated depreciation and why pay accountants for tax advice when you can just pay pay pay and pay?rump
You’re still looking at more debt. Higher tax rates means fewer hires. “Trumpster”...I would have voted for Tulsi Gabbard, something I said multiple times here. You’re just a liar who needs a college degree. Enjoy the return of corporate inversions... combined with higher tax rates on the top end so that we can slow down this insane Trumpian deficit spending.So dishonest. They said this because there would not be a logjam and more government spending would occur with the US taking on even more debt. Short term gain for long term pain. I would recommend a college degree for you.Let's see.
Should I believe Goldman Sachs and other financial institutions, or some nasty, miserable, ignorant Trumpster on an internet message board?
Hmm. This is a tough call!
Goldman Sachs Thinks the Economy Will Recover Faster With Biden in Office
Investment bank Goldman Sachs says a Democratic sweep could work wonders for our sluggish economy. Find out how Biden's plans could help the country's finances.
I recommend nothing for you. You're just a Trumpster.
Higher tax rates do not mean fewer hires. Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
Unbelievable. Do you really honestly believe that? How can any rational person believe that.
Higher taxes do not mean fewer hires..... are you stupid?
See it's comments like this, that allow me to understand how people like AOC can get elected into office, while spouting stupid crap like she's going to 'spend' a tax deduction, on education and health care.
Say you are a business owner, and you run a store. A McDonald's store costs roughly $2 Million dollars to build. You earn roughly $500 Thousand a year from your store. (that's high, but let's pretend.).
Now that doesn't include you taking out a salary for yourself. So let's say you live on $100,000 a year.
That means you have $400 thousand in profit, beyond what you yourself live on.
You decide you want to open another store. How long will it take for you to save up enough to open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
5 Years.
Now let's add in that 35% corporate income tax rate. Your income after taxes is $325, minus the $100K you live on is $225. How many years before you can open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
9 years.
Did taxes reduce your ability to hire people? Yes, stupid, it did. You are an idiot, if you think employers having fewer dollars, can't possible translate into fewer jobs created.
Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
I don't need to go to college, because I learned enough math in elementary school to know that one million reduced by 20% is $800 thousand, and you can't hire 10 people at one hundred grand, with $800 thousand. Or that one million minus 40% is $600 thousand, and you can't hire 8 people at one hundred grand with $600 thousand.
Let me ask you directly.... if your income was reduced by 20%.... would you be able to buy as much products and services after having your income reduced by 20%, as you do today?
If you admit your own purchases of products and services would be reduced.... please explain which person in this entire country would not reduce their purchases of products and services by having their income reduced?
Wow, posted all that just to show you are an IDIOT. Businesses don't hire people, McDonald's franchisees don't build additional restaurants, with profits. They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes. Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes. Hell, even Trump knows how to do that.
When the corporate tax cut was passed notice how all those companies handed out bonuses to employees. But they did it under the OLD TAX RATE. They hurried up and got them done before the new year and the new lower rate started. Why would they do that if those bonuses came from profits? I mean this might seem counterintuitive but even a basic level managerial accounting course would demonstrate my position.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
What are you smoking? I know a man who did exactly that. He saved money from working at one restaurant, specifically to open his own.
Then he opened a second store a few years later, by saving money from running his own store.
They did EXACTLY what I described.
They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes.
You are crazy. You are telling me, that you can earn money, and build stores, and never pay taxes? Are you crazy?
Then why, when I look up Walmarts Investor relation page, do they use post-tax money, to invest in new stores?
Think about what you are saying. You are saying that Walmart could making hundreds of billions in profit, and as long as they spend all the money on building new stores, they would never pay a penny in taxes?
The way you build new stores, and hire new employees, and expand or renovate exist stores is with profits. The more profits you lose in taxes, the less you can build new stores, expand exist stores, and hire more people.
Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes.
0.o Really?
Are Franchise Costs Deductible?
Buying a franchise offers an aspiring business person a way to hit the ground running. By running a business under an established brand name, you benefit from all the work that others have put in to build up that brand in the eyes of your potential customers. The tax code allows you to deduct...
An upfront fee paid to acquire a franchise for a particular area is treated for tax purposes as a startup cost, regardless of whether you buy a brand-new franchise from the franchisor or an existing franchise from someone else. The tax code classifies initial franchise fees as "Section 197 intangibles," after the section of tax law that applies to them. You cannot immediately deduct the full cost of a Section 197 intangible as a business expense. Instead, you must put the intangible on your books as an asset, the same as you would a building or equipment you purchased to start the business. You then amortize the intangible over 15 years, gradually expensing the cost. In other words, you''ll be able to deduct the expense, but not all at once.Even if you could deduct the entire cost of buying a franchise..........
A: Tax deductions reduce your taxable income. $2 Million dollars in a tax deductions reduces your taxes by your tax rate on the deduction. 21% of $2 Million is what? $420 Thousands. You saved $420 thousand, by spending $2 Million? Idiot.
B: You *STILL NEED* $2 Million dollars.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
I don't know how to explain that any clearer. You are just wrong.
The way you invest in new buildings, new equipment, new employees, is with post-tax profits.
Again, I can get the Walmart investor relations publication, and show you exactly where it says they spent PROFIT.... Post-Tax Profit, on building new stores, and renovating existing stores.
If you could avoid all taxes, by just opening new stores, Walmart would spend every freaking dollar on new stores and renovating stores every single year, and never pay a dollar in taxes ever.
In fact all companies would do that. Every single company would spend every dollar they 'earned' on investing and expanding, and not a single company would ever pay a penny in corporate tax ever.
Because I don't know what you think companies spend their profits on. That is the primary use of profits, is to grow and expand and invest into the company. If you are telling me, that they can do that, with pre-tax dollars.... then virtually no company should ever pay corporate income taxes.
How damn stupid. This is not about what organizations and people want. This is about influencing behavior. You want corporations to invest in their people, in expanding the frontier curve, in MAKING MORE PIE, you tax the shit out of them. If you want them to seek rents, cash out their investments, and buy more of their stock, you cut those taxes. I mean it is a sign of economic inefficiency and misallocation of resources when corporations hold TRILLONS of dollars in cash. I mean we have tried this whole low taxes bullshit. It has not turned out so well, anemic economic growth, negative income growth, and piles and piles of cash along with unprecedented rent seeking. The proof of my position is in the reality of our modern economy.
That is the dumbest nonsense I have read in some time. I don't even know where to start, with a mound of stupid stacked that high.
LMAO, yeah, I know about Employee Stock Ownership Plans. You can't be much of a consultant if you believe hiring people comes from profits and not earnings. And you can't know much about tax minimization if you don't understand that capital investments from earnings reduce a company's tax liability. But hey, if you want to play, what is WACC? And how about IRR? And tell me, how does the IRR react to the marginal tax rate? If the marginal tax rate increases, does then IRR for an acceptable investment increase or decrease? And what about risk premium? If the marginal tax rate increases does the risk premium for a potential capital investment go up, or does it go down?
I asked you again, is 100% tax rate good or bad?
That is a stupid question. Of course a 100% tax is bad. But do you believe a 0% tax would eliminate the federal deficit? What part about curve do you not understand? But hey, let's go with that zero percent tax. What would the IRR for an acceptable investment be to the firm? What would be the risk premium if the marginal tax rate was zero?
I will try this again, it really is simple if not counter-intuitive. And the current environment demonstrates it rather clearly. When the corporate tax rates are low firms are incentivized to take money out of the business. That Internal Rate of Return of acceptable investments increases and the risk premium becomes higher. Firms are unwilling to take risks, seek out only investments with little risk and of course, the returns are smaller. The current environment spells that out because of anemic GDP growth, piles of cash sitting in corporate coffers, and the excessive amount of rent-seeking that is going on. It is really quite simple, when corporate tax rates are low company's lose more money when they make the wrong investment. If nothing else, the tax rate subsidizes losses. That decreases the risk premium. In our current environment companies find it more acceptable to attempt to gain more of the pie that is already there instead of make more pie. That contracts the frontier curve, it does not expand it.
When corporate tax rates where higher companies were more willing to take on risk. They invested to make more pie, and GDP growth reflected that reality. Furthermore, they were more willing to invest in their people, not just higher wages and more labor, but training, benefits. The contraction in the benefits offered employees, the lack of training, companies now seek to hire employees already trained, steal them from the competition, rather than train the employees themselves, it all stems from a lower corporate tax rate. And the lack of income growth for the last forty years is directly related to a lower corporate tax rate.
RoshawnMarkwees
Assimilationist
- Thread starter
- #255
Gov waste more than cancels tax revenue.Weighted Avg Cost of Capital. What about risk premium? LOL Paid for your risk. You're talking archaic finance school stuff. People look at at EBITDA multiples so taxes are irrelevant there and profits and earnings? What are you talking about? Higher taxes, lower EPS.I literally work in management consulting and tax avoidance or at least tax minimalization is one of the primary goals of all my clients. Bet Winston never heard of an ESOP.Please stop. Organization and people always want to pay higher taxes. Always. Why take accelerated depreciation and why pay accountants for tax advice when you can just pay pay pay and pay?rump
You’re still looking at more debt. Higher tax rates means fewer hires. “Trumpster”...I would have voted for Tulsi Gabbard, something I said multiple times here. You’re just a liar who needs a college degree. Enjoy the return of corporate inversions... combined with higher tax rates on the top end so that we can slow down this insane Trumpian deficit spending.So dishonest. They said this because there would not be a logjam and more government spending would occur with the US taking on even more debt. Short term gain for long term pain. I would recommend a college degree for you.Let's see.
Should I believe Goldman Sachs and other financial institutions, or some nasty, miserable, ignorant Trumpster on an internet message board?
Hmm. This is a tough call!
Goldman Sachs Thinks the Economy Will Recover Faster With Biden in Office
Investment bank Goldman Sachs says a Democratic sweep could work wonders for our sluggish economy. Find out how Biden's plans could help the country's finances.
I recommend nothing for you. You're just a Trumpster.
Higher tax rates do not mean fewer hires. Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
Unbelievable. Do you really honestly believe that? How can any rational person believe that.
Higher taxes do not mean fewer hires..... are you stupid?
See it's comments like this, that allow me to understand how people like AOC can get elected into office, while spouting stupid crap like she's going to 'spend' a tax deduction, on education and health care.
Say you are a business owner, and you run a store. A McDonald's store costs roughly $2 Million dollars to build. You earn roughly $500 Thousand a year from your store. (that's high, but let's pretend.).
Now that doesn't include you taking out a salary for yourself. So let's say you live on $100,000 a year.
That means you have $400 thousand in profit, beyond what you yourself live on.
You decide you want to open another store. How long will it take for you to save up enough to open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
5 Years.
Now let's add in that 35% corporate income tax rate. Your income after taxes is $325, minus the $100K you live on is $225. How many years before you can open another store, and hire 20 people to run it?
9 years.
Did taxes reduce your ability to hire people? Yes, stupid, it did. You are an idiot, if you think employers having fewer dollars, can't possible translate into fewer jobs created.
Let's say a company has a profit of one million dollars. They could hire ten employees for a hundred grand each. The tax rate is twenty percent. How much does it cost them to hire those employees? If the tax rate is forty percent, how much does it cost them? Go college boy, tell me the answer.
I don't need to go to college, because I learned enough math in elementary school to know that one million reduced by 20% is $800 thousand, and you can't hire 10 people at one hundred grand, with $800 thousand. Or that one million minus 40% is $600 thousand, and you can't hire 8 people at one hundred grand with $600 thousand.
Let me ask you directly.... if your income was reduced by 20%.... would you be able to buy as much products and services after having your income reduced by 20%, as you do today?
If you admit your own purchases of products and services would be reduced.... please explain which person in this entire country would not reduce their purchases of products and services by having their income reduced?
Wow, posted all that just to show you are an IDIOT. Businesses don't hire people, McDonald's franchisees don't build additional restaurants, with profits. They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes. Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes. Hell, even Trump knows how to do that.
When the corporate tax cut was passed notice how all those companies handed out bonuses to employees. But they did it under the OLD TAX RATE. They hurried up and got them done before the new year and the new lower rate started. Why would they do that if those bonuses came from profits? I mean this might seem counterintuitive but even a basic level managerial accounting course would demonstrate my position.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
What are you smoking? I know a man who did exactly that. He saved money from working at one restaurant, specifically to open his own.
Then he opened a second store a few years later, by saving money from running his own store.
They did EXACTLY what I described.
They build them with earnings, and they make those investments BEFORE they pay taxes.
You are crazy. You are telling me, that you can earn money, and build stores, and never pay taxes? Are you crazy?
Then why, when I look up Walmarts Investor relation page, do they use post-tax money, to invest in new stores?
Think about what you are saying. You are saying that Walmart could making hundreds of billions in profit, and as long as they spend all the money on building new stores, they would never pay a penny in taxes?
The way you build new stores, and hire new employees, and expand or renovate exist stores is with profits. The more profits you lose in taxes, the less you can build new stores, expand exist stores, and hire more people.
Even if the McDonald's operator saves his "profits" for a couple of years to buy another location, he writes the entire amount of his purchase off his taxes.
0.o Really?
Are Franchise Costs Deductible?
Buying a franchise offers an aspiring business person a way to hit the ground running. By running a business under an established brand name, you benefit from all the work that others have put in to build up that brand in the eyes of your potential customers. The tax code allows you to deduct...
An upfront fee paid to acquire a franchise for a particular area is treated for tax purposes as a startup cost, regardless of whether you buy a brand-new franchise from the franchisor or an existing franchise from someone else. The tax code classifies initial franchise fees as "Section 197 intangibles," after the section of tax law that applies to them. You cannot immediately deduct the full cost of a Section 197 intangible as a business expense. Instead, you must put the intangible on your books as an asset, the same as you would a building or equipment you purchased to start the business. You then amortize the intangible over 15 years, gradually expensing the cost. In other words, you''ll be able to deduct the expense, but not all at once.Even if you could deduct the entire cost of buying a franchise..........
A: Tax deductions reduce your taxable income. $2 Million dollars in a tax deductions reduces your taxes by your tax rate on the deduction. 21% of $2 Million is what? $420 Thousands. You saved $420 thousand, by spending $2 Million? Idiot.
B: You *STILL NEED* $2 Million dollars.
So your question about reduced income is irrelevant. The earnings in both cases were the same. The only difference was, with a higher tax rate, you reduce your income LESS by making those hires, than you would at the lower tax rate.
I don't know how to explain that any clearer. You are just wrong.
The way you invest in new buildings, new equipment, new employees, is with post-tax profits.
Again, I can get the Walmart investor relations publication, and show you exactly where it says they spent PROFIT.... Post-Tax Profit, on building new stores, and renovating existing stores.
If you could avoid all taxes, by just opening new stores, Walmart would spend every freaking dollar on new stores and renovating stores every single year, and never pay a dollar in taxes ever.
In fact all companies would do that. Every single company would spend every dollar they 'earned' on investing and expanding, and not a single company would ever pay a penny in corporate tax ever.
Because I don't know what you think companies spend their profits on. That is the primary use of profits, is to grow and expand and invest into the company. If you are telling me, that they can do that, with pre-tax dollars.... then virtually no company should ever pay corporate income taxes.
How damn stupid. This is not about what organizations and people want. This is about influencing behavior. You want corporations to invest in their people, in expanding the frontier curve, in MAKING MORE PIE, you tax the shit out of them. If you want them to seek rents, cash out their investments, and buy more of their stock, you cut those taxes. I mean it is a sign of economic inefficiency and misallocation of resources when corporations hold TRILLONS of dollars in cash. I mean we have tried this whole low taxes bullshit. It has not turned out so well, anemic economic growth, negative income growth, and piles and piles of cash along with unprecedented rent seeking. The proof of my position is in the reality of our modern economy.
That is the dumbest nonsense I have read in some time. I don't even know where to start, with a mound of stupid stacked that high.
LMAO, yeah, I know about Employee Stock Ownership Plans. You can't be much of a consultant if you believe hiring people comes from profits and not earnings. And you can't know much about tax minimization if you don't understand that capital investments from earnings reduce a company's tax liability. But hey, if you want to play, what is WACC? And how about IRR? And tell me, how does the IRR react to the marginal tax rate? If the marginal tax rate increases, does then IRR for an acceptable investment increase or decrease? And what about risk premium? If the marginal tax rate increases does the risk premium for a potential capital investment go up, or does it go down?
I asked you again, is 100% tax rate good or bad?
That is a stupid question. Of course a 100% tax is bad. But do you believe a 0% tax would eliminate the federal deficit? What part about curve do you not understand? But hey, let's go with that zero percent tax. What would the IRR for an acceptable investment be to the firm? What would be the risk premium if the marginal tax rate was zero?
I will try this again, it really is simple if not counter-intuitive. And the current environment demonstrates it rather clearly. When the corporate tax rates are low firms are incentivized to take money out of the business. That Internal Rate of Return of acceptable investments increases and the risk premium becomes higher. Firms are unwilling to take risks, seek out only investments with little risk and of course, the returns are smaller. The current environment spells that out because of anemic GDP growth, piles of cash sitting in corporate coffers, and the excessive amount of rent-seeking that is going on. It is really quite simple, when corporate tax rates are low company's lose more money when they make the wrong investment. If nothing else, the tax rate subsidizes losses. That decreases the risk premium. In our current environment companies find it more acceptable to attempt to gain more of the pie that is already there instead of make more pie. That contracts the frontier curve, it does not expand it.
When corporate tax rates where higher companies were more willing to take on risk. They invested to make more pie, and GDP growth reflected that reality. Furthermore, they were more willing to invest in their people, not just higher wages and more labor, but training, benefits. The contraction in the benefits offered employees, the lack of training, companies now seek to hire employees already trained, steal them from the competition, rather than train the employees themselves, it all stems from a lower corporate tax rate. And the lack of income growth for the last forty years is directly related to a lower corporate tax rate.
Turtlesoup
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2020
- 15,903
- 16,733
- 2,288
It's a good picture---it says something.Not mine.
A black guy rode up there one day....it's just my mom the photographer in me ( rip)
View attachment 413842
View attachment 413841
Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
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.
Depends on how many more trillions are thrown at Americans. Right now many businesses have shutdown and will not come back. The transportation industry is a train wreck, Amtrak, Greyhound and all major airlines have cutback and are barely hanging on. The bus, air, and boat charter, is virtually dead. Cruise ships have been grounded and may not comeback, ever, the tour industry is all but dead. Restaurants large chains to mom and pops are all near bankruptcy, unemployment has ran out in most states, stadiums, sports arenas, theaters, concert venues are all shutdown, unless the vaccine is expedited, America won’t be back until summer, with a lot of businesses gone. If that is a good economy? Then you might have a point but the effects of this virus will take years to recover, just like the 2008.
Now, if you believe Goldman Sachs and that does hold true, then Trump took Obama’s good economy, kept building it and kept it pretty damn healthy for 3 plus years to survive the massive losses over the last 6 plus months.
RoshawnMarkwees
Assimilationist
- Thread starter
- #259
Obama ruined this economy. We could have recovered quickly from the housing market fiasco but Obama instead drove energy prices up and the economy stayed in the hole. Fracking turned it all around. Obama opposed fracking. Trump added to fracking by removing drilling restrictions and overbearing regulation.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.
Depends on how many more trillions are thrown at Americans. Right now many businesses have shutdown and will not come back. The transportation industry is a train wreck, Amtrak, Greyhound and all major airlines have cutback and are barely hanging on. The bus, air, and boat charter, is virtually dead. Cruise ships have been grounded and may not comeback, ever, the tour industry is all but dead. Restaurants large chains to mom and pops are all near bankruptcy, unemployment has ran out in most states, stadiums, sports arenas, theaters, concert venues are all shutdown, unless the vaccine is expedited, America won’t be back until summer, with a lot of businesses gone. If that is a good economy? Then you might have a point but the effects of this virus will take years to recover, just like the 2008.
Now, if you believe Goldman Sachs and that does hold true, then Trump took Obama’s good economy, kept building it and kept it pretty damn healthy for 3 plus years to survive the massive losses over the last 6 plus months.
Now we have the Wuhan virus economy to overcome. The worst thing we could do now would be to drive energy prices up again. And that is exactly what the democrat admin will do. It will be even worse than what Obama did.
Democrats are stupid and ignorant and hurt people.
- Moderator
- #260
Good luck with that.
Similar threads
