Trump's blatant lie about the tax cut

So you're in the camp that corporations are not in the business of “Growing the Business” and them having less money is actually a good thing for employees?

I can tell you as a fact that the workforce in my industry is historically better when the corporation has been more profitable. I have been laid off and even fourloughed during times of low profit and bankruptcy. I have lost jobs due to one airline I worked for going out of business.

I was given very large raises in times of record profits including stock options and profit sharing. Corpoorations that I have worked for “Has” added jobs during times of high profits. My current employer has a very nice profit sharing which everyone at my job will benefit from.

These are real world facts..

 

You continue to ignore the the Debt to GDP ratio. Critics will always criticize.

http://www.macrotrends.net/1381/debt-to-gdp-ratio-historical-chart

As Reagan once famously told voters during a debate with Walter Mondale during his re-election campaign, “If you are better off then you were 4 years ago then re-elect me, if not then elect Mondale.” It was a drop the mic moment in that debate as we all knew the answer and Reagan was re-elected in a landslide.

 

Personal anecdotes when discussing macroeconomics... Bold move, dumb... but bold.

Question for you. Why does investment banking exist? Why do investment banks throw billions of dollars in loans at companies? Answer this question, and you will figure out why your theory of supply side is stupid. Hint: Companies don't expand products and services because of increased savings.

Also, do you know the percentage of Americans that have significant enough stock investments where the stock market would positively affect their economic outlook in meaningful tangible way?

 

Most people I know have 401k accounts (which consist of stock) at the least. I hope you do as well. Most people in a corporation has a 401k account.

Do you know how many 100s of thousands of people are employed in the airline industry? My story is not just one person.

So for the record, you are saying the workforce is better when corporations make less money?

I don’t want to mis quote you.

 

No, the workforce is better when we don't cut taxes from a group of people that emperically are holding onto the most accumulated wealth in mankind history.

So answer my question. Why does investment banking exist?

I hope you aren't a computer engineer from your ridiculous "smartphones advanced because of tax cutting" claim and I hope you ain't no economist because you can only shout "debt to GDP ratio!"

 

I will simply leave this thread with this:

In my experience people become emotionally attached to one party or the other. Partisan politics has damaged the country IMO.

It seems to me that there is one philosophy that is built around bringing down “The Man” otherwise known as corporations, in order to make them suffer with us. The other philosophy seems to be one that doesn’t care how much corporations make as long as we wave a healthy economy and there is a healthy and prosperous workforce.

I beleave this tax plan is great and will binefit this country tremendously. I hope everyone in this thread binefits in some way from the tax plan.

I hope everyone in this thread benefits from the tax plan regardless of their feelings towards it.

 

And I hope for the sake of humanity, you are playing a shtick.

And lol at not desring tax cuts that will drastically increase our defecit by more than a trillion dollars for people that don't need it as "wanting corporations to suffer".

I'm a mechanical engineer. Why would I want industry to suffer?

You still haven't answered my question. Why is investment banking a thing? Why do giant corporations take out half a billion dollar loans?

 

Who says that anyone wants Corporations to be broke? All anyone is saying is that the need isn't more cash on hand. Its demand to drive them to expand their business instead of just cash without demand that will drive them to pay down debt, cut unnecessary jobs to run more lean, and buy back stocks to get bigger pay days for investors.

Funny thing is you could substitute Reagan for Obama here and it would still apply regarding the Great Recession of 2009. Interest rates weren't 15%, but still... the great recession that Obama inherited was pretty damn substantial, and he helped climb the economy out of the gutter by giving a tax break to the middle class, saving the car industry, and offering a stimulus package that went directly to the working class & working class infrastructure instead of relying on trickle down theory. The impact is debated often (especially by right think tanks shockingly), but the fact of the matter is, we recovered pretty significantly, and now at the end of his two term presidency have a very strong economy.

The biggest issue coming out of Obamas presidency was the lack of wage growth when unemployment dropped to historic lows. Something that is baffling given the higher demand for workers, and a big reason why Trump won in 16 when he appealed to these working class folks that are working their tail off, but need pay raises they thought would come when better paying blue collar jobs would magically come back with a stroke of a pen.

Voters were duped, and I think voters are also going to be duped this year into thinking that increasing the debt 1.5 trillion dollars (which will lead to either massively cutting social security & medicaid type of programs, or dramatically increasing interest rates, or both) to get a tax cut that mostly affects trickle down policy will be good for our economy.

You can argue for Supply Side economics all day, but it doesn't change the fact that it wasn't what the massive majority of Americans in 2016 and now think is the problem they needed fixed. They overwhelmingly poll and vote for policy they think will get their wages increased by their work & skills being in higher demand.

I'm in the belief that MOST PEOPLE don't want to pay less taxes that will go programs like social security and health care. They want to be in demand as a worker to get paid more from the thriving company that employs them. The tax scam is a short term higher paycheck, but most people are smart enough to know that it will come at a cost elsewhere, and the affects could ultimately cost them their job if the economy busts from ripple affects like a Black Monday type of situation.

 

This is my inherent problem with the idea of punishing the rich. No matter what measures are taken to tax the rich and make them 'pay their fair' share, they will find a way around the laws. And often these laws are written in a manner that the rich already know how they will take advantage of the new tax laws.

I will support any bill that helps the middle class.

 

I am quoting a sourced document that literally quotes a member of Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers. You attempt a dismissive hand wave calling him a "critic".

btw, are there other possible reasons why the GDP rose during Reagan's presidency?

source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...percharge-the-economy/?utm_term=.e0975652400c

btw, if you really want to rate presidents by GDP growth you should be looking at JFK, LBJ, and Clinton. They are the top three in U.S. history.

 

Glad your also against this bill then.

 

AT&T?

First off, the $1,000 bonuses were negotiated by the Union prior to the passing of the tax bill. Indeed, the initial demand was a $4,000 guarantee.
Also AT&T responded by cutting 2,000 jobs at the same time.

Boeing said that they will invest 300 million in charitable causes.

The effective corporate tax rate was cut from 35% to 21%. That is a MASSIVE tax cut. The US weighted average is one of the lowest in the industrialized world now.

The tax cut at a minimum is 1.5 trillion dollars. For comparison sake, you could forgive all of the outstanding student loans in the USA for 1.3 trillion dollars.

Personally I don't have an issue with some cut in the corporate tax cut because it hasn't been cut in 30 years, and over that period of time most of the world has cut their corporate tax rates quite a bit. However, a 40% cut? No, that is absurd.

Further, the issue in the USA is that the top 1/10th of 1% control 50% of the wealth in the USA. That is not good for the USA. If their percentage was cut to 25% the amount of upper middle class and reasonably wealthy would grow substantially.

 

You don't think the fact that 1/10th of 1% of the USA has 50% of the wealth in the country concerns you? You really believe that fact isn't reflected in the amount of income and wealth you have? You don't believe there are political consequences?

 

Paying fair share is punishment for the rich?

No matter what? Can't be solve. So let's not solve it. In fact, lets give the rich more and that's fine, I'm supportive because I get something. Sounds exactly like what the rich would love the middle and lower class to believe in.

Give me some immediate crumbs, let me ignore the great pressure to cut services for me, so that rich can have a larger cake. Smart.

 

Actually, the effective tax rate for corporations is lower than 35% previously... and will go much lower than 21% after the trumprepublican rich person's tax cut.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksh...how-litte-companies-already-pay/#6ce0ae0a58aa

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...rate-benefits-come-early-then-fade-study-says

 

You're idea of 'making the rich pay for their share' is creating new rules and regulation that goes on to punish those who do not try to game the system all while the rich just find a new way not to pay those taxes.

As usual, you ignore the substance of the argument to fit your narrative.

As I said, people like yourself should concentrate more on trying to help the middle class instead of hurting them by trying to 'punish' the rich who do not pay for their fair share.

And to state it again, its your beloved party who is just as deep in bed with the wealthy elite as the Republicans. So cut the nonsense and at least admit nobody in Washington gives a **** about the middle or lower class under than using them pawns for election purposes. Stop mindlessly following your parties.

 

Haha, I actually have a PhD, this was years ago. But it sounds like you just finished your first business 101 course. Congrats to you!

My metaphor also appears to have gone over your head, so I would advise you go back and actually read it. The idea that corporations will take this extra cash and actually invest in job creation is also a hilarious. Economic growth won't be stimulated this way, more over it will just further the gap between the rich and the poor weakening the power of your dollar. Again, look at the boost you are talking about. Profit sharing gave you a boost. Your 401K got a bump. Not many people actually get profit sharing, and most likely the savings generated will go to increasing profits for investors. That in itself isn't job creation. A lot of Americans won't see the benefits you speak of. If this was really about increasing job growth, the legislation put forth on the tax break would have included a clause about the tax break going directly to job growth. If that was in the bill, it never would have passed. Why? Because Mr. Trump isn't the savior of the working man as much as he likes to pretend he is.

What anyone in college should want is actually a booming economy and an environment where innovation is allowed to flourish. This is what creates jobs. What anyone in college should want is a strengthening of the middle class because they are the ones who are more likely to go on and create these innovative businesses. Again, this and other legislation this administration has done very little to nothing to help them. When you cut research funding, take on a war against science, think factory jobs will be the savior of this country you aren't a proponent of the middle class or even real job creation.

 

TIL that punishing the rich means not giving them tax cuts that would inflate the annual defecit by 1.8 trillion dollars.

You aren't understanding the premise. It has nothing to do with punishment.

If there was a way for corporations to have zero tax rates and at the same time that wouldn't increase the defecit while also having enough tax revenue to fund our deterioting public education system and crumbling public infrastructure, you wouldn't see people complaining. The tax cuts result in ansever increase in the defecit which results in eventual slashing of federal programs which effect the middle and poor class significantly more than the wealthy .

You are trying hard to create a premise that we just hate wealthy people and want to punish them when it's obvious that on pure pragmaticism alone, these tax cuts are horrible for the health of the long term economy .

 

Again, all their actions stem for this stupid idea that corporations will always do whats right, and that business success has nothing to do with the government, but somehow all business failure stems from the government. Also, let's stomp on people's rights. Or my favorite one is, rich people got rich because they just work harder than you do. Do you hate the rich? That means you're a lazy welfare receiving asshat. Like I would love to see one of these A-holes complete a PhD program, then tell me about hard work. I've worked menial jobs, I've worked sales, I've done teaching, I've worked in industry, and I also worked toward getting a PhD. The PhD was the lowest paying, and hardest working job I have ever had. You make less than minimum wage and work horrendously long hours. Oh, but please continue to tell me how I don't understand hard work. This is so enlightening!