Donald's Trump tax plan.

sturg33 said:
Look, you can be upset at the beneficiaries, or you can be upset with the folks who made the policy. I'm an anti-fed reserve guy... Many on here are anti-corporation folks. Where do you fall?
Click to expand...

You're still acting like these laws, policies, scenarios, etc,. are "just there waiting for someone/anyone to take advantage of them". Who do you think pays our elected officials to make these laws and rules? Who do you think pays our elected officials to let the Fed do whatever the hell they want? The correct answer is the few, the oligarchs who run this country, their two stooge groups of choice are the Republicans and Democrats. Whichever person from whichever party gets elected does what they're told or they are replaced by someone who will.

In many cases the banks and other corporations who need language specific laws or rules written a certain way write it themselves and then just deliver it to the elected official elected official/stooge and they add a little political mumbo jumbo at the beginning and the end so it looks official and they send it to be voted on. They set up rules and laws and situations that only certain people can enter into, where they're set up in a no-lose situation, then they come in and don't lose and everybody thinks they're role models.

I know you need to think everything is on the up and up and that the system just needs a little fine tuning but it's way beyond that, and has been for a long time, especially since the 1980s.

Oh and how many walmart cashiers do you know who have the time, energy, and education to understand that good old S&P index and become expert day traders? And that's not even counting those same people having the money to invest IF they understood it.
 
Oklahomahawk said:
You're still acting like these laws, policies, scenarios, etc,. are "just there waiting for someone/anyone to take advantage of them". Who do you think pays our elected officials to make these laws and rules? Who do you think pays our elected officials to let the Fed do whatever the hell they want? The correct answer is the few, the oligarchs who run this country, their two stooge groups of choice are the Republicans and Democrats. Whichever person from whichever party gets elected does what they're told or they are replaced by someone who will.

In many cases the banks and other corporations who need language specific laws or rules written a certain way write it themselves and then just deliver it to the elected official elected official/stooge and they add a little political mumbo jumbo at the beginning and the end so it looks official and they send it to be voted on. They set up rules and laws and situations that only certain people can enter into, where they're set up in a no-lose situation, then they come in and don't lose and everybody thinks they're role models.

I know you need to think everything is on the up and up and that the system just needs a little fine tuning but it's way beyond that, and has been for a long time, especially since the 1980s.

Oh and how many walmart cashiers do you know who have the time, energy, and education to understand that good old S&P index and become expert day traders? And that's not even counting those same people having the money to invest IF they understood it.
Click to expand...

I don't know exactly what you're arguing, though half your post seems to agree with me.

The system is absolutely broken. I have been bitching about it for some time now. But the system is not broken because of CEO pay and corporate inversions. It's broken because of our INDEPENDENT central bank making horrifying anti-free market monetary policy that creates bubble after bubble. The rich benefit. The poor continue to get screwed.
 
sturg33 said:
I don't know exactly what you're arguing, though half your post seems to agree with me.

The system is absolutely broken. I have been bitching about it for some time now. But the system is not broken because of CEO pay and corporate inversions. It's broken because of our INDEPENDENT central bank making horrifying anti-free market monetary policy that creates bubble after bubble. The rich benefit. The poor continue to get screwed.
Click to expand...

Well what do you know, we do agree, at least to a large degree. I don't think CEO pay is the cause of the problems, though I do think it's a contributing factor and I guess it's the pedestal so many Americans put these people up on. Yeah I get that their job is important and not just everybody can do it, but the people at the other end of the spectrum are suffering because of it, the American family until it dissolving because of many things, but not enough decent jobs is one of them, and there's only so much money to go around, when the CEOs make over $20M/year that doesn't leave a lot for anyone else. If you need to think about it another way $10M would still be way higher than CEOs anywhere else in world make and that would allow more money for regular workers to maybe be able to make their freakin' house payments and it would also leave more to pay out in dividends. In the end it still comes back to the same things, the rich take care of the rich. you don't think it's that walmart cashier who influences national policy and not only allows the fed to run wild but even encourages it, as long as they get to share in the orgy of unsubstantiated money printing and passing out?
 
sturg33 said:
Look, you can be upset at the beneficiaries, or you can be upset with the folks who made the policy. I'm an anti-fed reserve guy... Many on here are anti-corporation folks. Where do you fall?
Click to expand...

Well, they obviously deserve their great fortunes if they can figure out so many clever ways to benefit from government policy. It's almost like they're the ones writing it. It's uncanny.
 
Julio3000 said:
Well, they obviously deserve their great fortunes if they can figure out so many clever ways to benefit from government policy. It's almost like they're the ones writing it. It's uncanny.
Click to expand...

That would be true if the Fed Reserve was part of our government. But alas, they are an independent private bank who controls the world's largest economy.

But yes - the government is despicable for being slaves to corporate lobbyists. It's why I'm always clamoring for less government and then I'm told I'm an extremist and that more government is the answer.

Now that's uncanny
 
sturg33 said:
I'm not sure I'm following the logic there. Can you explain why they are related?
Click to expand...

It's really simple, they took the money and repurchased stocks for a huge payout to shareholders.

Or

"The top 15 repatriating corporations repatriated more than $150 billion during the holiday while cuttingtheir U.S. workforces by 21,000 between 2004 and 2007, a Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report found"

http://www.cbpp.org/research/repatr...d-lose-revenue-and-is-a-proven-policy-failure
 
weso1 said:
This is basically along the lines of what I've been arguing for a while now. Lower rates for everyone but cut out the loopholes that make the uber rich pay less than some who make less. I think this plan takes away the argument that the rich don't pay their fair share. Technically it's possible that a rich person would pay literally infinitely more taxes than a poor person.

The one thing I don't like about it is are we really going from 10% to 20%? No incremental step ladder? This is the one part that I think is unfair. Technically families who have 99,000 in taxable income would pay 10% less than a family with 100,000.

Also, this was Trump at his best today. This is the Trump that could actually win the presidency.
Click to expand...

weso, it's only the increment above a bracket amount that is subjected to the higher rate. Someone making $100,000 and someone making $100,001 would pay the same rate on the first $100,000 of income. The $1 above for the second taxpayer would be subject to the higher rate.
 
zitothebrave said:
It's really simple, they took the money and repurchased stocks for a huge payout to shareholders.

Or

"The top 15 repatriating corporations repatriated more than $150 billion during the holiday while cuttingtheir U.S. workforces by 21,000 between 2004 and 2007, a Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report found"

http://www.cbpp.org/research/repatr...d-lose-revenue-and-is-a-proven-policy-failure
Click to expand...

I don't understand why getting the money at a lower tax rate would lead to layoffs... Why would those two things be related?
 
sturg33 said:
I don't understand why getting the money at a lower tax rate would lead to layoffs... Why would those two things be related?
Click to expand...

Did you not read my source material? Companies used the massive influx of cash as a way to bolster shareholders pockets because it's what the shareholders demanded. We had a incometax repatriation before, and nothing good came of it.

I personally think it's more fun watching these corporations leave large sums of money overseas where they can't do **** with it. They're expecting the repatriation. I would be a dick. I'd lower the tax rate, on all new income just to **** with them even more. Make them kinda happy, but still really pissed off.
 
zitothebrave said:
Did you not read my source material? Companies used the massive influx of cash as a way to bolster shareholders pockets because it's what the shareholders demanded. We had a incometax repatriation before, and nothing good came of it.

I personally think it's more fun watching these corporations leave large sums of money overseas where they can't do **** with it. They're expecting the repatriation. I would be a dick. I'd lower the tax rate, on all new income just to **** with them even more. Make them kinda happy, but still really pissed off.
Click to expand...

You're not answering my question. I'm not saying it hasn't happened. I'm asking why a company needs a tax benefit to justify layoffs?

They can still give the shareholders the extra cash without laying anyone off... Or they could lay someone off regardless if they got the tax break.

Saying "lowering the tax rate for companies to bring their money back to America will just lead to massive layoffs" makes absolutely no sense at all.
 
sturg33 said:
You're not answering my question. I'm not saying it hasn't happened. I'm asking why a company needs a tax benefit to justify layoffs?

They can still give the shareholders the extra cash without laying anyone off... Or they could lay someone off regardless if they got the tax break.

Saying "lowering the tax rate for companies to bring their money back to America will just lead to massive layoffs" makes absolutely no sense at all.
Click to expand...

They had a massive influx of cash, they raised the value of their shares with layoffs before that cash came in, and repurchased stocks.

They could have done a million things with the money, but instead they maximized returns. And I'm not just saying it because I have a hunch. WE watched it happen. Again

"The top 15 repatriating corporations repatriated more than $150 billion during the holiday while cuttingtheir U.S. workforces by 21,000 between 2004 and 2007, a Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report found"

Look at the numbers, 15 companies, 150 million, 21,000 lost jobs.
 
zitothebrave said:
They had a massive influx of cash, they raised the value of their shares with layoffs before that cash came in, and repurchased stocks.

They could have done a million things with the money, but instead they maximized returns. And I'm not just saying it because I have a hunch. WE watched it happen. Again

"The top 15 repatriating corporations repatriated more than $150 billion during the holiday while cuttingtheir U.S. workforces by 21,000 between 2004 and 2007, a Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report found"

Look at the numbers, 15 companies, 150 million, 21,000 lost jobs.
Click to expand...

Again, you're sentences are making no sense. Why would a company want to raise the value of their shares before repurchasing stock? Why would they want to do that before instituting a dividend (giving it a lower yield)? What you're saying is making no sense at all.

You're saying that a company that makes more money is more likely to do massive layoffs. You're really going to have to help me understand that one...

Just because something happened at a time when a tax holiday happened, doesn't mean they were related, or are poised to repeat.
 
But they are poised to repeat. Because it paid the shareholders. Again you're right, they could have given the shareholders X amount of dollars, or they could have given them X+1 amount of dollars. YOu don't think they voted for X+1 and clammored, so on so forth. Like that guy who called apple idiots or whatever for not using their cash to buyback stocks, when he's one of the biggest benefactors of them buying back stock instead of them investing that money in R&D or employees, or buying other companies (whcih they did)
 
goldfly said:
There's no way Donald Trump's tax plan (which reduces revenues to the treasury by $11.98 trillion on a static basis and $10.14 trillion on a dynamic basis over the next decade) will be revenue-neutral. Here's why:http://taxfoundation.org/blog/donal...ot-be-revenue-neutral-under-any-circumstances
Click to expand...

I heard a staff member from The Tax Foundation expound on that on NPR yesterday. It's a fiction that tax cuts pay for themselves. That doesn't necessarily mean you don't cut taxes, but the Laffer Curve is just that: a laugh.
 
AerchAngel said:
Trump is a Democrat in wolf clothing. You should love him, anti-religious, anti-warmonger, but I know he has an "R" in his name so he is automatically the enemy.
Click to expand...

i don't support someone cause an R or D

and my support of Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders while being on these boards proves just that

but hey, don't let that get in the way of your "point"

not really sure how you think those 2 things mean i should love someone
 
goldfly said:
i don't support someone cause an R or D

and my support of Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders while being on these boards proves just that

but hey, don't let that get in the way of your "point"

not really sure how you think those 2 things mean i should love someone
Click to expand...

bullsh*t
 
50PoundHead said:
I heard a staff member from The Tax Foundation expound on that on NPR yesterday. It's a fiction that tax cuts pay for themselves. That doesn't necessarily mean you don't cut taxes, but the Laffer Curve is just that: a laugh.
Click to expand...

I've always hated the expression that you have to "pay for a tax cut"

That implies that the money belongs to the government, not the individual of which it's being confiscated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top