Trickle down Econ already working for AT&T, Wells Fargo and Comcast employees...Thanks Donny!

[The Derp]

So ummm...that chart there shows barely a rise in the median household income, yet the mean household income rose sharply. So what does that mean? It means a few people got really rich while everyone else treads water. In fact, wages declined during Bush.

How did wages decline when the median went up?

Ah, the haters are just pissy because folks are prospering under Trump. The Democratic Party relies on folks being poor & bitter. Those folks make up a large percentage of its base. So they have no interest in seeing Americans prosper. They need em to stay poor & bitter.

It was also reported last week, that African Americans are experiencing their lowest Unemployment Rate in 17yrs. So Trump is actually doing more for African Americans than Hussein did. That one really stings Democrats. They make up every excuse in the book to not give Trump any credit. They're just pissy haters at this point. It's 'Party before Country' for em. Hopefully, Trump will continue winning. I love watchin Dem hater hissy-fits. It's a lotta fun.

The problem is how many blacks actually know what conservative policies do for them? I bet maybe one out of every 50. That's why they keep voting Democrat. Instead of realizing that our goal of keeping illegals out helps them, the Democrats brainwash them into believing Republicans are against foreigners because they are all racist.

The two largest bases for the Democrat party are victims and government dependents. That's why Democrats are constantly trying to make more of them. Big ears created 40 million new government dependents on food stamps and Commie Care alone. It was no accident either.

It's all about 'Perpetual Victimhood.' Democrats need folks to be poor, ignorant, and bitter. Democrats exploit those folks expertly. The last thing they want is less 'victims.' So they see no benefit in Americans prospering. Just keep em poor, ignorant, and bitter. That's all that Party has at this point. More Americans being poor and solely dependent on Government, is exactly what they want.

I don't see why so many continue voting Democrat. I mean, just look at all the once great cities and states the Party's destroyed in this country. Do folks really want our Country resembling Democrat Hellholes like Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, and so on? Americans really do need to tune out the Democrat Fake News, and get real. The Democratic Party is only offering Third World misery at this point. They need to seriously think about that before casting their votes for Democrats. Their nation's survival depends on it.

You're preaching to the choir. Cleveland is one of those hell holes.

We recently had our mayoral election, and the Demmy dopes voted in the same creep again.

Mayor Frank Jackson hired an ex-councilwoman who just got out of prison for fraud. He said she deserved a second chance (wink-wink). Afterwards, he pushed through a bill that set aside over a million dollars for a new dirt bike park. Why a dirt bike park? Because his grandson got busted by the cops a couple of times for riding his dirt bike on the street.

Speaking of his grandson, about a year ago he got busted with pot, a scale, a good sum of cash, and carrying an illegal firearm. He said he was concerned about doing time and losing his job at the city water department. Gee, I wonder how he got that job?

Just before the election, the Mayor's great grandson got busted with an illegal gun as well. His grandson is 14 years old. When asked for comment, the Mayor stated his family is in need of protection just like any other Cleveland family. Do you believe that?

But the Mayor just didn't get reelected unchallenged. His opponent is a councilman who got busted for DUI three times. There were six people running in the primaries, and those two were the ones these dummy Dems picked.

Do you want to see this widespread all over the country? I certainly don't.

Trump created the fewest jobs since 2012.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why does a company expand? What's the endgame? After-tax profit.

TO MEET DEMAND. That's why a company expands. You just admitted right here that the corporate profit tax rate doesn't affect a company expanding! The corporate tax rate doesn't affect the demand that justifies expansion. You fucking idiot.

Moving corporate headquarters from Connecticut to Ireland doesn't suddenly provide the justification to expand into the Canadian market. Canadian demand justifies expansion into the Canadian market. not Ireland's corporate profit tax. Because you're going to be increasing revenues by expanding, so you increase your profit. That's independent of the profit tax.

This is, like, really basic economics.

Thanks. For admitting what we all knew. And that you were wrong.

I'm not wrong because expansion is driven first and foremost by demand. You just admitted that a company expands to increase its profits. That has what to do with the tax rate? Nothing.

No, the increased after tax profits don't disappear after year 1.

Yes, they certainly do, because now you've set a new profit margin and if that profit margin isn't met, which it won't be because we're going to be in a recession by this time next year, suddenly the stock value plummets. Why? Because businesses don't look at net revenue, they look at net revenue growth year-to-year. You're not going to be able to match that year-over-year growth in profit margins from 2018-19. Because, math.

TO MEET DEMAND. That's why a company expands.

Bullshit.
If an expansion to meet demand loses money, screw demand.
If an expansion makes money, expand.
If an expansion under a 21% tax rate makes more after tax than the same expansion under a 35% tax rate,
the 21% expansion will take place and the 35% expansion WILL NOT!!!

You just admitted that a company expands to increase its profits. That has what to do with the tax rate?

HOLY FUCK!

Did you just say profits have nothing to do with the tax rate?

Get that brain injury checked out, immediately.

 

[The Derp]

It's all about 'Perpetual Victimhood.'

• Immigrants are taking my job
• I can't practice my religious bigotry and Christians are oppressed
• Obama made my health care costs go up
• Kneeling football players offends my delicate sensitivities
• Voter fraud is why my candidate lost the popular vote (or the actual vote, as is the case in AL

Seriously, the right wing whines about everything, casting themselves as the victims of some grand liberal plot to give everyone health care.

 

[Faun]

It was also reported last week, that African Americans are experiencing their lowest Unemployment Rate in 17yrs. So Trump is actually doing more for African Americans than Hussein did.

It never ceases to amaze me at how utterly rightarded conservatives are. Here’s one who moronically claims trump has done more for blacks than Obama did in terms of employment.

So let’s take a look at this, shall we?

When Obama became president, unemployment of blacks aged 16 and over was 12.7% (it was 8.2% when Bush became president). Black unemployment was 7.7% when Obama left office. It’s currently at 7.3%.

According to the brain-dead right, a meager drop of 0.4 points, a decrease of 5.2%; is better for blacks than the 5.0 drop, or 39.4% decrease, under Obama.

And the fuzzy ”mathematicians” on the right are baffled why sane folks laugh at them. <smh>

Now let’s look a little deeper at these figures...

When Obama became president, white unemployment was at 7.1%. It fell to 4.3% (a 39.4% decrease) when he left and is currently at 3.6% (a 16.3% decrease).

That means under Obama, blacks did as well as whites in that the unemployment dropped by 39.4% for both blacks and whites, while under trump, whites (16.3% drop) have done more than 3 times better than blacks (5.2% drop).

So again, we laugh at the ignorant conservatives who think blacks are doing better under trump than they did under Obama.

 

[The Derp]

TO MEET DEMAND. That's why a company expands.
Bullshit.

No, moron, that's the reason why. A company expands to meet demand. That's the only reason a company expands. Why would a company expand if there's no demand for the product they produce? Why would a company hire a worker if there's no increased demand to fill supply? This is the fundamental, tragic flaw of your belief system; supply-side economic theory is bullshit.

If an expansion to meet demand loses money, screw demand.

Sure, but that failure of expansion has nothing to do with the corporate profit tax rate and everything to do with consumer demand. Why would a business lose money by expanding to meet demand? That equation doesn't result in a negative profit margin because you're a) expanding pre-tax and b) only paying tax on profit, and you write off your losses. You would know this if you ever worked a day in your lazy, entitled life.

If an expansion makes money, expand.
If an expansion under a 21% tax rate makes more after tax than the same expansion under a 35% tax rate,
the 21% expansion will take place and the 35% expansion WILL NOT!!!.

It's not either/or you stupid fucking idiot. The corporate profit tax is paid off all revenues collected, that's why they move their corporate HQ's and why they expand pre-tax. Moving the corporate HQ's and ultimately where the profit is taxed doesn't have anything to do with expanding sales into consumer markets. Not at all. You are truly an economic illiterate. This isn't microeconomics, this is macroeconomics. The expansion happens regardless of the rate because the expansion is bringing in more revenue, as it meets demand by filling supply. In no world is that demand tied to the corporate profit tax rate.

AND FURTHERMORE YOU STUPID FUCKING NOBODY, THE 21% CORPORATE TAX RATE IS STILL HIGHER THAN ALL THESE COUNTRIES WHERE THESE HQ's ARE LOCATED.

So you did nothing to bring back those HQ's to the US. All you did was increase the share price, which is a one-time only thing that will fizzle out by this time next year, if not sooner; and you increased the debt by at least $1.5T, most likely much, much more because growth never delivers on the promises Conservatives make of it. Never. Not once. Ever.

Did you just say profits have nothing to do with the tax rate?Get that brain injury checked out, immediately.

Nope. A company expands before it pays a single cent in taxes on profits.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

TO MEET DEMAND. That's why a company expands.
Bullshit.

No, moron, that's the reason why. A company expands to meet demand. That's the only reason a company expands. Why would a company expand if there's no demand for the product they produce? Why would a company hire a worker if there's no increased demand to fill supply? This is the fundamental, tragic flaw of your belief system; supply-side economic theory is bullshit.

If an expansion to meet demand loses money, screw demand.

Sure, but that failure of expansion has nothing to do with the corporate profit tax rate and everything to do with consumer demand. Why would a business lose money by expanding to meet demand? That equation doesn't result in a negative profit margin because you're a) expanding pre-tax and b) only paying tax on profit, and you write off your losses. You would know this if you ever worked a day in your lazy, entitled life.

If an expansion makes money, expand.
If an expansion under a 21% tax rate makes more after tax than the same expansion under a 35% tax rate,
the 21% expansion will take place and the 35% expansion WILL NOT!!!.

It's not either/or you stupid fucking idiot. The corporate profit tax is paid off all revenues collected, that's why they move their corporate HQ's and why they expand pre-tax. Moving the corporate HQ's and ultimately where the profit is taxed doesn't have anything to do with expanding sales into consumer markets. Not at all. You are truly an economic illiterate. This isn't microeconomics, this is macroeconomics. The expansion happens regardless of the rate because the expansion is bringing in more revenue, as it meets demand by filling supply. In no world is that demand tied to the corporate profit tax rate.

AND FURTHERMORE YOU STUPID FUCKING NOBODY, THE 21% CORPORATE TAX RATE IS STILL HIGHER THAN ALL THESE COUNTRIES WHERE THESE HQ's ARE LOCATED.

So you did nothing to bring back those HQ's to the US. All you did was increase the share price, which is a one-time only thing that will fizzle out by this time next year, if not sooner; and you increased the debt by at least $1.5T, most likely much, much more because growth never delivers on the promises Conservatives make of it. Never. Not once. Ever.

Did you just say profits have nothing to do with the tax rate?Get that brain injury checked out, immediately.

Nope. A company expands before it pays a single cent in taxes on profits.

A company expands to meet demand.

Coffee consumption is going to increase by 2% next year.
How large should I make my Chicago coffee farm.

Why would a business lose money by expanding to meet demand?

Come visit my coffee farm, I'll show you.

It's not either/or you stupid fucking idiot.

I can build my new plant anywhere in the world.
Either in Area A, with a 35% tax on my profits or in Area B, with a 21% tax on my profit.
Either/or.
​

The corporate profit tax is paid off all revenues collected​

Exactly. Which is why $500,000 in pre-tax profit is nicer under a 21% tax rate than under a 35% tax rate.
​

All you did was increase the share price, which is a one-time only thing that will fizzle out by this time next year,​

My higher profit, $395,000 versus $325,000 will still be higher next year, under the 21% tax than under the previous 35% tax. ​

Feel free to boost pre-tax profit by 2% and use 35% and 21%. Post your results.

 

[The Derp]

Coffee consumption is going to increase by 2% next year.
How large should I make my Chicago coffee farm.

They don't grow coffee beans in Chicago. But if demand is increasing, then you should increase supply to fill it, otherwise a competitor will and you'll lose market share.

Come visit my coffee farm, I'll show you.

The farm that, like everything else about yourself, you just invented and made up on the spot for the benefit of this debate? The problem with you using this tactic is that it casts doubt on everything else you say about yourself. And if there's doubt over what you say about yourself, then there's also doubt about what you say, period. So because you've diminished your own credibility, you've diminished the credibility of the argument you're making too.

So if you're not being truthful about yourself, why would anything you say be truthful?

 

[The Derp]

I can build my new plant anywhere in the world.
Either in Area A, with a 35% tax on my profits or in Area B, with a 21% tax on my profit.

Either/or.​

The plant is not what's getting taxed, the profits are. You can build the plant anywhere you want, production isn't what's being taxed, sales revenue is. So you can set up your tax HQ in whatever country you want, it doesn't make a difference when it comes to expanding into or within different consumer markets. So you build the plant in China because they offer you low labor costs, then you put your corporate HQ in Ireland because of the low corporate rate, but none of that has anything to do with you expanding into the Dutch market because of Dutch demand for your product. The demand for your product in Holland isn't determined by the corporate tax rate in Ireland, and thus, neither is the decision to expand into Holland.

Exactly. Which is why $500,000 in pre-tax profit is nicer under a 21% tax rate than under a 35% tax rate.

But it doesn't do anything to expand to meet increased demand. That's the point and connection you can't make because it doesn't exist. And furthermore, the 21% corporate rate is still higher than those countries to where the corporate HQ's relocated. So cutting the rate wasn't about creating jobs, or spurring investment and expansion (which happens pre-tax anyway), it was about increasing profit margins in the short term to boost share prices, also in the short term.

My higher profit, $395,000 versus $325,000 will still be higher next year, under the 21% tax than under the previous 35% tax.

But the year after that, the increase isn't as high because the rate didn't change. So then that means your profit margin for 2019 is less than your profit margin for 2018. And if a profit margin goes down, what happens to the share price? BTW - this is all going to happen much sooner than 2019 too, because quarterly profits are going to reflect it almost immediately...and when Q2 2018 profit margins fail to reach Q1 2018 levels, the market will turn into a bear one and a recession will be imminent. I'd say it's more likely than not that by this time next year, the economy will contract.​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Coffee consumption is going to increase by 2% next year.
How large should I make my Chicago coffee farm.

They don't grow coffee beans in Chicago. But if demand is increasing, then you should increase supply to fill it, otherwise a competitor will and you'll lose market share.

Come visit my coffee farm, I'll show you.

The farm that, like everything else about yourself, you just invented and made up on the spot for the benefit of this debate? The problem with you using this tactic is that it casts doubt on everything else you say about yourself. And if there's doubt over what you say about yourself, then there's also doubt about what you say, period. So because you've diminished your own credibility, you've diminished the credibility of the argument you're making too.

So if you're not being truthful about yourself, why would anything you say be truthful?

They don't grow coffee beans in Chicago.

But demand is increasing........

But if demand is increasing, then you should increase supply to fill it,

Great! How profitable will my Chicago coffee production be................?

The farm that, like everything else about yourself, you just invented and made up on the spot for the benefit of this debate?

You said the only thing that matters is demand, right?
I insisted that profitability matters. Don't meet new demand if new production is unprofitable.
You had a problem with my claim.

The problem with you using this tactic is that it casts doubt on everything else you say about yourself.

You don't like my sarcastic examples that highlight your idiocy? Tough.

So because you've diminished your own credibility

Coming from the guy who won't admit that $395,000 after-tax is better than $325,000 after-tax .....hilarious!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I can build my new plant anywhere in the world.
Either in Area A, with a 35% tax on my profits or in Area B, with a 21% tax on my profit.

Either/or.​

The plant is not what's getting taxed, the profits are. You can build the plant anywhere you want, production isn't what's being taxed, sales revenue is. So you can set up your tax HQ in whatever country you want, it doesn't make a difference when it comes to expanding into or within different consumer markets. So you build the plant in China because they offer you low labor costs, then you put your corporate HQ in Ireland because of the low corporate rate, but none of that has anything to do with you expanding into the Dutch market because of Dutch demand for your product. The demand for your product in Holland isn't determined by the corporate tax rate in Ireland, and thus, neither is the decision to expand into Holland.

Exactly. Which is why $500,000 in pre-tax profit is nicer under a 21% tax rate than under a 35% tax rate.

But it doesn't do anything to expand to meet increased demand. That's the point and connection you can't make because it doesn't exist. And furthermore, the 21% corporate rate is still higher than those countries to where the corporate HQ's relocated. So cutting the rate wasn't about creating jobs, or spurring investment and expansion (which happens pre-tax anyway), it was about increasing profit margins in the short term to boost share prices, also in the short term.

My higher profit, $395,000 versus $325,000 will still be higher next year, under the 21% tax than under the previous 35% tax.

But the year after that, the increase isn't as high because the rate didn't change. So then that means your profit margin for 2019 is less than your profit margin for 2018. And if a profit margin goes down, what happens to the share price? BTW - this is all going to happen much sooner than 2019 too, because quarterly profits are going to reflect it almost immediately...and when Q2 2018 profit margins fail to reach Q1 2018 levels, the market will turn into a bear one and a recession will be imminent. I'd say it's more likely than not that by this time next year, the economy will contract.​

But the year after that, the increase isn't as high because the rate didn't change.

Yup, the huge increase is a one time thing.
Going forward, the tax rate is still 21%.

So then that means your profit margin for 2019 is less than your profit margin for 2018.

Wrong.

And if a profit margin goes down

It doesn't.

and when Q2 2018 profit margins fail to reach Q1 2018 levels

They'll be higher.

 

[The Derp]

up, the huge increase is a one time thing.
Going forward, the tax rate is still 21%..

Which is still higher than the rate in those countries to where those businesses relocated their HQ's. So that lowering of the rate accomplished exactly nothing except increasing after-tax profits and the share price. But that's going to disappear even sooner than 2019 because corporations look at quarterly earnings and when the earnings increase for Q2 2018 fails to reach the increase from Q1 2018 (where the rate change takes effect), the share price will decline and the market will turn bear. Expect that to happen in Q3 next year, just in time for a mid-term recession and job loss.

From Q4 to Q1, the corporation made huge gains in profits because the rate was lowered. But then the rate's not being lowered for Q2, which means there won't be any huge gains. Q2 isn't going to be able to match Q1's gains, and because of that, the share price is going to fall and the market will turn bear.

Wrong.

No, you're wrong. And the reason you're wrong is because corporations examine quarterly gains. The earnings increase going from Q4 2017 to Q1 2018 is going to be much higher than the earnings increase from Q1 2018 to Q2 2018 simply by virtue of the fact that the rate was lowered once. But the rate isn't being lowered again for Q2, it's staying the same...which means the earnings increase for Q2 are going to be less than Q1. That's going to trigger a bear market as soon as the Q2 quarterly earnings reports are distributed to shareholders, which will be around July. So expect to see the market start falling mid-year.

They'll be higher.

No they won't. They'll stay the same from Q1 to Q2, if they're lucky. But the increase in profits from Q4 to Q1 is bigger than the one from Q1 to Q2, and that's because the rate change started in Q1. So Q1 is going to be great for these corporations and the market...then it'll all come crashing down in Q2 and by Q4, we'll be in a recession.

 

[The Derp]

Going forward, the tax rate is still 21%.

And that is exactly why the market will turn bear. Because the tax rate stays at 21%. Which means the boost to quarterly earnings enjoyed by companies for Q1 2018 isn't going to be there for Q2...so without the boost to quarterly earnings, what happens to the share price...?

 

[The Derp]

But demand is increasing........

So expand! That's what you do to meet demand, you expand. And because the laws are very generous, if your expansion fails you can simply write it off.

Great! How profitable will my Chicago coffee production be................?

As profitable as you want.

You said the only thing that matters is demand, right?
I insisted that profitability matters. Don't meet new demand if new production is unprofitable.

Why would new production be unprofitable if you're meeting demand, and what does the tax rate on profits have to do with anything? You only pay profit tax on profits. The profit tax only makes a company unprofitable if it's 100%. But that's not what anyone's proposing. So why the sophistry?

The problem with you using this tactic is that it casts doubt on everything else you say about yourself.
You don't like my sarcastic examples that highlight your idiocy? Tough..

Your "sarcastic examples" that ended up proving my point for me; that expansion has nothing to do with the corporate profit tax. Why would it be unprofitable for you to expand if there's increased demand in the market? Do you...do you think businesses expand using after-tax income? Your inexperience is showing.

Coming from the guy who won't admit that $395,000 after-tax is better than $325,000 after-tax .....hilarious!

That's a false choice and you're a sophist.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

up, the huge increase is a one time thing.
Going forward, the tax rate is still 21%..

Which is still higher than the rate in those countries to where those businesses relocated their HQ's. So that lowering of the rate accomplished exactly nothing except increasing after-tax profits and the share price. But that's going to disappear even sooner than 2019 because corporations look at quarterly earnings and when the earnings increase for Q2 2018 fails to reach the increase from Q1 2018 (where the rate change takes effect), the share price will decline and the market will turn bear. Expect that to happen in Q3 next year, just in time for a mid-term recession and job loss.

From Q4 to Q1, the corporation made huge gains in profits because the rate was lowered. But then the rate's not being lowered for Q2, which means there won't be any huge gains. Q2 isn't going to be able to match Q1's gains, and because of that, the share price is going to fall and the market will turn bear.

Wrong.

No, you're wrong. And the reason you're wrong is because corporations examine quarterly gains. The earnings increase going from Q4 2017 to Q1 2018 is going to be much higher than the earnings increase from Q1 2018 to Q2 2018 simply by virtue of the fact that the rate was lowered once. But the rate isn't being lowered again for Q2, it's staying the same...which means the earnings increase for Q2 are going to be less than Q1. That's going to trigger a bear market as soon as the Q2 quarterly earnings reports are distributed to shareholders, which will be around July. So expect to see the market start falling mid-year.

They'll be higher.

No they won't. They'll stay the same from Q1 to Q2, if they're lucky. But the increase in profits from Q4 to Q1 is bigger than the one from Q1 to Q2, and that's because the rate change started in Q1. So Q1 is going to be great for these corporations and the market...then it'll all come crashing down in Q2 and by Q4, we'll be in a recession.

Which is still higher than the rate in those countries to where those businesses relocated their HQ's.

With the new territorial tax system, why would any HQ relocate now?

So that lowering of the rate accomplished exactly nothing except increasing after-tax profits and the share price.

Higher after tax profits and higher share prices are bad, eh comrade?

But that's going to disappear even sooner than 2019 because corporations look at quarterly earnings and when the earnings increase for Q2 2018 fails to reach the increase from Q1 2018

Only an ignorant twat would be surprised that the 21.5% profit surge from the rate change doesn't mean every quarter sees a profit surge of 21.5% over the preceding quarter.

which means the earnings increase for Q2 are going to be less than Q1.

Duh.

So Q1 is going to be great for these corporations and the market...then it'll all come crashing down in Q2

You should definitely go short the market after Q1. Be sure to post here when you do.
I'd love to keep track of your performance.

So Q1 is going to be great for these corporations and the market...then it'll all come crashing down in Q2 and by Q4,

I'll try to dumb this down for you.

Company A is currently doing well, earning $10 a quarter in 2017.
They forecast a conservative increase in 2018 of 1% in each quarter . Q1 should be $10.10
Tax cut results in Q1 after tax earnings of $12.27. Your theory says the stock rallies.
In Q2, they meet expectations of 1% growth and earnings are $12.39.
In Q3 earnings are $12.51 and Q4 earnings are $12.64.

2017 FY earnings were $40/share, 2018 earnings were $49.81/share.
2019 FY earnings are projected to hit $51.83.

Why is this going to cause a crash?
Why is this going to cause a recession?

 

[danielpalos]

Structural inefficiencies in our economy.

Promoting the general welfare engenders a positive multiplier effect on our economy, promoting the general warfare does not. Only the right wing never gets it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But demand is increasing........

So expand! That's what you do to meet demand, you expand. And because the laws are very generous, if your expansion fails you can simply write it off.

Great! How profitable will my Chicago coffee production be................?

As profitable as you want.

You said the only thing that matters is demand, right?
I insisted that profitability matters. Don't meet new demand if new production is unprofitable.

Why would new production be unprofitable if you're meeting demand, and what does the tax rate on profits have to do with anything? You only pay profit tax on profits. The profit tax only makes a company unprofitable if it's 100%. But that's not what anyone's proposing. So why the sophistry?

The problem with you using this tactic is that it casts doubt on everything else you say about yourself.
You don't like my sarcastic examples that highlight your idiocy? Tough..

Your "sarcastic examples" that ended up proving my point for me; that expansion has nothing to do with the corporate profit tax. Why would it be unprofitable for you to expand if there's increased demand in the market? Do you...do you think businesses expand using after-tax income? Your inexperience is showing.

Coming from the guy who won't admit that $395,000 after-tax is better than $325,000 after-tax .....hilarious!

That's a false choice and you're a sophist.

So expand! That's what you do to meet demand, you expand.

I have a funny feeling that meeting increased demand by producing coffee in Chicago may not be profitable.
What do you think?

Why would new production be unprofitable if you're meeting demand

Some production is less profitable than some other production.

and what does the tax rate on profits have to do with anything?

The money available to pay owners is reduced by taxes.
Owners are very concerned about taxes reducing profits.
If you owned any stock, you might understand that. Maybe.

The profit tax only makes a company unprofitable if it's 100%.

What if a profit tax is 10% in California and 5% across the state line in Nevada?
Any incentive to locate in Nevada? Or is a tax on profit of no concern at all for a corporation?

Your "sarcastic examples" that ended up proving my point for me; that expansion has nothing to do with the corporate profit tax.

Expansion has everything to do with after tax profit.
Because that's how investors get paid. That's how loans get repaid.

Why would it be unprofitable for you to expand if there's increased demand in the market?

How expensive is coffee production in Chicago? More expensive than production in Mexico?
More expensive than production in Costa Rica? Why?

That's a false choice and you're a sophist.

I want to buy a corporation. I find two that look promising. Their prices are identical.
Assets and debts are identical. Sales are identical.
One has $395,000 after-tax earnings the other $325,000 after-tax earnings.
Which one would you choose?

 

[danielpalos]

It is being financed by debt.

 

[The Derp]

ith the new territorial tax system, why would any HQ relocate now?

Exactly, so there's no point in lowering the corporate profit tax rate to lure business tax HQ's back to America. Which was my point from the beginning. All this tax cut did was improve the profit margins of corporations. But that irrational exuberance will be short-lived when Q2 earnings come in far below Q1.

iHigher after tax profits and higher share prices are bad, eh comrade?

They are when they prime the market for a switch from bull to bear, which is what your tax cut does. Because Q2's profit increase won't come close to Q1's, and all those Q2 quarterly earnings calls in July are going to be somber affairs when the CFO's have to reveal that the sky-high increases to profits in Q1 won't be matched by equally sky-high profit increases for Q2. That is going to reduce the share price, which will turn the market from bull to bear, most likely by Q3...and that means a recession is imminent.

iOnly an ignorant twat would be surprised that the 21.5% profit surge from the rate change doesn't mean every quarter sees a profit surge of 21.5% over the preceding quarter.

So this is where your economic illiteracy and lack of experience shines most bright. Shareholders are ignorant twats, and because they look at quarterly revenue growth instead of yearly, as you mistakenly think they do, when they don't get that big increase that prompted those huge profits in Q1 (and the increased share price as a result), the share price will be lowered as shareholders sell of stock (bear market).

It's called "irrational exuberance". This GOPTaxScam will be the direct cause of the next recession.

iYou should definitely go short the market after Q1. Be sure to post here when you do.
I'd love to keep track of your performance.

Not shorting it until Q3 because that's when Q2 earnings reports are released. Those earnings calls are going to be...not good.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

ith the new territorial tax system, why would any HQ relocate now?

Exactly, so there's no point in lowering the corporate profit tax rate to lure business tax HQ's back to America. Which was my point from the beginning. All this tax cut did was improve the profit margins of corporations. But that irrational exuberance will be short-lived when Q2 earnings come in far below Q1.

iHigher after tax profits and higher share prices are bad, eh comrade?

They are when they prime the market for a switch from bull to bear, which is what your tax cut does. Because Q2's profit increase won't come close to Q1's, and all those Q2 quarterly earnings calls in July are going to be somber affairs when the CFO's have to reveal that the sky-high increases to profits in Q1 won't be matched by equally sky-high profit increases for Q2. That is going to reduce the share price, which will turn the market from bull to bear, most likely by Q3...and that means a recession is imminent.

iOnly an ignorant twat would be surprised that the 21.5% profit surge from the rate change doesn't mean every quarter sees a profit surge of 21.5% over the preceding quarter.

So this is where your economic illiteracy and lack of experience shines most bright. Shareholders are ignorant twats, and because they look at quarterly revenue growth instead of yearly, as you mistakenly think they do, when they don't get that big increase that prompted those huge profits in Q1 (and the increased share price as a result), the share price will be lowered as shareholders sell of stock (bear market).

It's called "irrational exuberance". This GOPTaxScam will be the direct cause of the next recession.

iYou should definitely go short the market after Q1. Be sure to post here when you do.
I'd love to keep track of your performance.

Not shorting it until Q3 because that's when Q2 earnings reports are released. Those earnings calls are going to be...not good.

Shareholders are ignorant twats, and because they look at quarterly revenue growth instead of yearly,

Yes, if you look at Q2 growth and say, "Wow, earnings only increased by 1% over Q1...while Q1 earnings increased by 21.5% over Q4, business must suck because earnings didn't increase by 21.5% again", you are an ignorant twat.

all those Q2 quarterly earnings calls in July are going to be somber affairs when the CFO's have to reveal that the sky-high increases to profits in Q1 won't be matched by equally sky-high profit increases for Q2

Last year, each and every quarter we earned $25 a share.
This year, each and every quarter, we're going to earn at least $30 a share.

If you think those earnings calls are going to be somber, you may be an ignorant twat.

 

[The Derp]

I have a funny feeling that meeting increased demand by producing coffee in Chicago may not be profitable.

First of all, coffee doesn't grow in Chicago, so if you're going to make a shitty point, at least make one that makes sense. Secondly, why would producing more coffee result in less profits if there's demand for the coffee? Oh because according to you: Some production is less profitable than some other production. OK, so what specific type of coffee production is less profitable than what other specific type of coffee production? Why am I even asking you this? You just made up the coffee analogy on the spot without bothering to think about it first. But that's really your MO; you post without thinking, then have to spend the thread walking back everything you just said.

The money available to pay owners is reduced by taxes.

Which has nothing to do with expansion. So what fucking point are you trying to make? Your argument has migrated from "lowering corporate profit tax will create jobs and expansion" to "lowering the corporate profit tax will enrich owners". So your original arguments are completely abandoned for this new tract which makes little sense and speaks in contradiction to your earlier points.

Owners are very concerned about taxes reducing profits.
If you owned any stock, you might understand that. Maybe.

LOL! What's hilarious is that someone who has no clue what a bear market is, what causes a bear market, and what effects a bear market has on an economy, thinks they know anything about the stock market. Owners are concerned about taxes reducing profits, you say...well you know how you get around that problem? INCREASE REVENUES. You do that through expansion. Expansion that happens before a cent of profit is taxed. You're telling me that lowering the corporate tax rate is what makes a company profitable and not expanding the company to collect more revenues (sales). So you think that businesses just voluntarily stop growing because they don't want to make too much money? What kind of fucking idiot thinks that? The same kind who doesn't understand that shareholders look at quarterly profit gains and not year-over-year, and who postures economic knowledge on anonymous internet message boards. Pfft.

So owners aren't concerned about taxes reducing profits, owners are concerned about soft sales that reduce revenues. As any business owner will tell you, the key to profits isn't the tax rate, but demand and sales of your product/service. But you don't think that way because you're an economic illiterate. You only pay taxes on profits.

What if a profit tax is 10% in California and 5% across the state line in Nevada?
Any incentive to locate in Nevada? Or is a tax on profit of no concern at all for a corporation?

So you're talking about relocating a tax HQ, you're not talking about expanding into the NV and CA market. Your claim is that by lowering the corporate tax rate, companies would expand and invest...but here you are, claiming the exact opposite. So since this corporate tax cut isn't going to prompt expansion, isn't going to create a single job, and leaves a rate still higher than those countries you screeched about businesses relocating to...why the fuck was it necessary? All it did is temporarily boost earnings for a quarter, priming the market for a switch from bull to bear.

Where the HQ is located has no determination on whether or not the business expands into or within the consumer market. Your claim, and the claim of frauds like you, is that it somehow does and that's why we needed to cut the corporate tax rate to a rate that is still above that of countries like Ireland.

Expansion has everything to do with after tax profit.
Because that's how investors get paid. That's how loans get repaid.

LOL! You fucking moron. First of all, expansion happens pre-tax. And expansion increases revenues. Profit comes after expansion, not before it. This is just your lack of experience showing. You don't even know how or when a business expands. Apparently, you think they do that after they pay a profit tax...and you think that because you're a fucking fraud.

How expensive is coffee production in Chicago? More expensive than production in Mexico?
More expensive than production in Costa Rica? Why?

Coffee doesn't grow in Chicago so pick something that does and let's talk about it. Your arguments never deviate from hypothetical a priori. That's what makes you such a sophist and dishonest, lying fuckwad.

I want to buy a corporation. I find two that look promising. Their prices are identical.
Assets and debts are identical. Sales are identical.
One has $395,000 after-tax earnings the other $325,000 after-tax earnings.
Which one would you choose?

I'd choose the one that has the strongest revenue growth...like any smart investor would.