Apple is giving its employees a $2,500 bonus
bringing $250 billion in cash that is currently overseas, back to the US
paying $38 billion in taxes on that cash
investing $30 billion in the US to create 20,000 jobs
matching employee charitable donations 2-to-1

not bad.

And Nancy Pelosi calls all these bonuses, raises, and new jobs...pathetic crumbs. Atta girl. Where'd they find her anyway, Scotland Yard?

They could use those funds to pay for defrauding customers into upgrading phones because they manipulated battery life and slowing the speed down with their updates. Pisses me off spending money I did not need to spend. screw apple

It’s one of the few thing she I have seen our government do in recent times that I agree with. I’m sure those $2500 bonuses will just go into the stock market or pay off some sort of personal debts. Saying it will be returned back to the “economy” is a stretch. Just let the economy do it’s own thing and it will....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I’m sure those $2500 bonuses will just go into the stock market or pay off some sort of personal debts. Saying it will be returned back to the “economy” is a stretch.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

clairvoyance...

Just let the economy do it’s own thing and it will....

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

thanks Yogi....

Phones are so fing expensive, what a fing racket, why do I need a GD computer in my pocket I have one on my desk?

It’s one of the few thing she I have seen our government do in recent times that I agree with. I’m sure those $2500 bonuses will just go into the stock market or pay off some sort of personal debts. Saying it will be returned back to the “economy” is a stretch. Just let the economy do it’s own thing and it will....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If they pay off debt with all of it (I'm impressed you know that's what they'll do), that's more $$ that the lenders can lend to others, which greases the wheels of the economy. Unless they burn it Nebe, it circulates back into the economy.

If they pay off debt with all of it (I'm impressed you know that's what they'll do), that's more $$ that the lenders can lend to others, which greases the wheels of the economy. Unless they burn it Nebe, it circulates back into the economy.
It's restricted stock...not paying off anything short-term. The overseas cash isn't coming back soon, they're just paying the taxes on it. As for the 20k jobs, that's a projection as to what the spending could possibly create through the entire supply chain not all Apple hires.

Good that they're investing for sure but all these press releases need to be taken with a grain of salt. Wal-Mart's bonus plan turns out impacts hardly anyone and a lot of these increases were already planned.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's restricted stock...not paying off anything short-term. The overseas cash isn't coming back soon, they're just paying the taxes on it. As for the 20k jobs, that's a projection as to what the spending could possibly create through the entire supply chain not all Apple hires.

Good that they're investing for sure but all these press releases need to be taken with a grain of salt. Wal-Mart's bonus plan turns out impacts hardly anyone and a lot of these increases were already planned.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"The overseas cash isn't coming back soon, they're just paying the taxes on it" 38 billion the feds will have, that they don't have now. That could fund at least 3 teacher pensions!

"Wal-Mart's bonus plan turns out impacts hardly anyone"

The minimum wage hike to $11/hr impacts a lot. Funny you chose to leave that out.

The minimum wage hike to $11/hr impacts a lot. Funny you chose to leave that out.
It's a dollar more. The Obama recovery has made it harder to fill low paying jobs...was going to happen regardless Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Obama recovery

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

aka...weakest recovery ever :bl:

It's a dollar more. The Obama recovery has made it harder to fill low paying jobs...was going to happen regardless Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"It's a dollar more."

Which is $2,000 more per year. In addition, thanks to tax reform, many will keep a higher % of their new higher income.

What did Obama do for these people, that helped more?

And if Obama gets credit for the economic improvements he oversaw, does that mean you give Trump credit for what has happened since January 2017? Otherwise, you would appear to be a hypocrite.

aka...weakest recovery ever :bl:

You don't think that's what he meant?

It's a dollar more. The Obama recovery has made it harder to fill low paying jobs...was going to happen regardless Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are you saying that because less people were available to fill the low paying jobs, the natural progression was that the wages would increase for those same low paying jobs.

I thought this theory was dis-proved in another thread. :hee:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are you saying that because less people were available to fill the low paying jobs, the natural progression was that the wages would increase for those same low paying jobs.

I thought this theory was dis-proved in another thread. :hee:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's right. His beliefs in the validity of supply and demand, depends on whose ox is getting gored. That was well played.

Are you saying that because less people were available to fill the low paying jobs, the natural progression was that the wages would increase for those same low paying jobs.

I thought this theory was dis-proved in another thread. :hee:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
No, it more a bigger shift overcoming long term wage suppression.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, it more a bigger shift overcoming long term wage suppression.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
You deny?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You deny?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Aren't you the denier? Aren't you denying that supply impacts price on one thread, and advocating for it in another.

Here, you say a shortage of low wage workers will drive up the price...and everyone agrees with you.

On the other thread, you denied that an increase in supply of low wage workers affected the price.

You are being inconsistent. The one commonality, is that in each argument, you were promoting liberalism.

Aren't you the denier? Aren't you denying that supply impacts price on one thread, and advocating for it in another.

Here, you say a shortage of low wage workers will drive up the price...and everyone agrees with you.

On the other thread, you denied that an increase in supply of low wage workers affected the price.

You are being inconsistent. The one commonality, is that in each argument, you were promoting liberalism.
I've never said supply and demand isn't an economic force, just that in the real world there are a lot of other factors to consider some of which can be more influential to actual results.

I've never said supply and demand isn't an economic force, just that in the real world there are a lot of other factors to consider some of which can be more influential to actual results.

Right. And if the impact of supply on price supports your agenda, you agree with it. When it doesn't support your agenda, you deny it.

Right. And if the impact of supply on price supports your agenda, you agree with it. When it doesn't support your agenda, you deny it.
The situations are different.

Just remember what an architect told me once, that every problem has a simple but elegant and incorrect solution.

Just remember what an architect told me once, that every problem has a simple but elegant and incorrect solution.

Every problem has an infinite number of simple or complex solutions that are incorrect. They all have simple or correct solutions that are correct depending on the definition of correct.

There are various "solutions" to paying for healthcare, which will have different effects on the economy, freedom of choice, the type of government that is desired, and especially on the effect they have on our constitutional system of government.

Each crisis we face is a moment for opertunity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

apple had the money to do this 10 years ago ... love how Republicans love PR stunts and tout them as signs of change .. and 1 dollar an hours a game changes in the life of someone who was just making 8 buck an hour .. are clueless

apple had the money to do this 10 years ago ... love how Republicans love PR stunts and tout them as signs of change .. and 1 dollar an hours a game changes in the life of someone who was just making 8 buck an hour .. are clueless

Why is Comcast (the company that owns MSNBC) doing it now? Does the CEO of Comcast (the guy who signs Rachael Maddow's paycheck) want to make Trump look good?

Of course they could have done it before. But they were finally incentivized to do it, with the tax reform.

If you think a tax windfall of $38 billion and 20,000 new jobs is a PR stunt, you can think that. You look very foolish to say that, in my opinion.

"and 1 dollar an hours a game changes in the life of someone who was just making 8 buck an hour "

if you work 2,000 hours a year, than a $1/hr a raise is a $2,000 gross bump in salary. In addition, these people will pay a lower tax rate. than they did last year. So not only does their gross pay increase, they keep a higher percentage of their gross pay, so that's a double benefit. They keep a higher percentage of each dollar, and they have more dollars of pay.

It's not going to end poverty. Not even close. But please tell me, what Obama did in 8 years, that did more for these people?

Have fun answering that...

and 1 dollar an hours a game changes in the life of someone who was just making 8 buck an hour .. are clueless

It's a 12.5% raise. I wish I got one of those.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's a 12.5% raise. I wish I got one of those.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Previous minimum was 10 I believe. So no...

Maybe they can get off foodstamps?

Previous minimum was 10 I believe. So no...

Maybe they can get off foodstamps?

Wdmso stated $8...a dollar an hour is 12.5% stop changing facts
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wdmso stated $8...a dollar an hour is 12.5% stop changing facts
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Funny now you're citing Wdmso as the source of public record :devil2:

Funny now you're citing Wdmso as the source of public record :devil2:

I'm doing simple math.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm doing simple math.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The problem with simple math is if your variables are all wrong the product doesn't make any sense.

Previous minimum was 10 I believe. So no...

Maybe they can get off foodstamps?

They pay higher than state minimum wage? You sure?

Best way to get off foodstamps is to acquire skills that give you ore options than being a cashier or a greeter.

I'll ask you what I asked WDMSO. What did Obama do that was better for these people, than what the GOP did?

I'm doing simple math.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think Walmart is moving everyone to a minimum of 11/hr. Not sure what everyone is at now, I had heard that they went according to statewide minimum wages.

I'll ask you what I asked WDMSO. What did Obama do that was better for these people, than what the GOP did?
I dunno, invested in the recovery act to save the economy from a deeper recession, got millions of poorer people access to health care they didn't have, helped shore policy to increase income for the bottom, etc... etc...

I dunno, invested in the recovery act to save the economy from a deeper recession, got millions of poorer people access to health care they didn't have, helped shore policy to increase income for the bottom, etc... etc...

" invested in the recovery act to save the economy from a deeper recession"

The act that he said would keep unemployment under 8%, and it went above 10% instead? That act? How many people benefitted directly from that? And who are they?

"helped shore policy to increase income for the bottom"

See if you can be a bit more vague and evasive?

I dunno, invested in the recovery act to save the economy from a deeper recession, got millions of poorer people access to health care they didn't have, helped shore policy to increase income for the bottom, etc... etc...

"I dunno"

The only true thing in your post, you might have stopped there.

Wdmso stated $8...a dollar an hour is 12.5% stop changing facts
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

8 to 9 - 9 to 10 or 10 to 11 dollars as I said if you think that a 1 dollar raise. is so how a great thing for people who cant find full time work or companys who wont give full time hours. its because your not making min wage

Congress hasn't voted to raise the minimum wage in more than a decade.

Missouri, for example, the minimum wage will rise from $7.70 an hour to $7.85 an hour in 2018, a slight uptick said to account for inflation.

Facts are facts every one is not seeing a dollar

They pay higher than state minimum wage? You sure?

Best way to get off foodstamps is to acquire skills that give you ore options than being a cashier or a greeter.

I'll ask you what I asked WDMSO. What did Obama do that was better for these people, than what the GOP did?

the GOP gave away billions of dollars to companys who have all ways had the money to pay employees better ..

these announcements are propaganda they are stroking Trumps ego you ve seen what happens when he dosn't get praise from thoses he feels should bend a knee to him

the GOP gave away billions of dollars to companys who have all ways had the money to pay employees better ..

these announcements are propaganda they are stroking Trumps ego you ve seen what happens when he dosn't get praise from thoses he feels should bend a knee to him

First, I asked you what obama did that was better for the working poor than the gop tax overhaul. You chose not to answer, which means you can’t think of anything, but you aren’t capable of admitting that I have a point.

Second, allowing the owners of a company to keep more of what is theirs, is not “giving” them something. There is a meaningful difference between giving something to someone that wasn’t theirs, and confiscating less of what was theirs. Liberals often confuse those very different things.

The companies are stroking trumps ego? Comcast announced 50 billion in infastructure spending. Comcast owns MSNBC. So you are telling us, that the ceo of Comcast who signs Rachael Maddow’s paycheck, is spending 50 billion as a PR stunt to help Trump? The man who owns MSNBC is trying to help Trump? That’s what you’re saying?

Wow.

Would it kill you to admit that yes, while the gop tax plan will help the wealthy, it’s also helping the average working Joe, too? Are you afraid you’d explode if you admitted that?

The fact that the democrats opposed this, isn’t going to help them in November.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

November sure will be a day of reckoning. What it will be will just be further confirmation of our broken system and the problems of this country will just be kicked down the road like a rusty can.
We need term limits to purge Washington. We need people in congress and the senate who are fresh and don’t hold grudges and put country over party.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

November sure will be a day of reckoning. What it will be will just be further confirmation of our broken system and the problems of this country will just be kicked down the road like a rusty can.
We need term limits to purge Washington. We need people in congress and the senate who are fresh and don’t hold grudges and put country over party.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's going to be a fascinating November.

Almost no chance the GOP loses seats in the senate, only because there are so many more democrats up for re-election. If half the seats up for re-election were GOP seats, different story.

In the house? Most people say if the election were today, the democrats would re-take the house. However, these are the same people who said that Trump was going to get creamed.

Will people vote against Trump because he's such a jerk? Or will they vote in favor of their larger paychecks? I don't think anyone knows. Democrats don't usually vote in bug numbers in mid-terms, that helps the GOP. But in most midterms, the president's party loses seats, which helps the Dems. So many moving pieces.

Term limits for sure. Politics was never intended to be a career, it was intended to be a temporary call of service that wasn't even supposed to be all that pleasant.

There isn't a prayer in hell that Apple considers doing this unless the door was open for them to avoid paying taxes on a portion of this offshore war chest. They have kept funds off shore for years to avoid accounting for how much they have as well as paying taxes to the IRS. So they get a sweetheart deal and are going to pay $38 billion in taxes on that amount (pick a number, or let's use $252 billion) at a much lower rate than when they earned all this money, going back to company's founding. Who is to say that there isn't more than the 252 billion that will be repatriated and should have been taxed all along? This would not be the largest single tax payment if the debt had been rightfully paid when it should have been instead of being steered to an Irish bank. $38 billion is but a fraction of what they really should be paying, yet it is being spun as they are doing such great things by investing in the US economy..... yes. after t#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g it up our arses for years.....

Who is to say that there isn't more than the 252 billion that will be repatriated and should have been taxed all along?
Here's the rub, this overseas money is tied up in investments earning returns...it's not cash they're bringing back to the US. They can pay the taxes and have flexibility in the future but there's no guarantee any of it will be spent domestically.

They can pay the taxes and have flexibility in the future but there's no guarantee any of it will be spent domestically.

Apple is giving its employees a $2,500 bonus
bringing $250 billion in cash that is currently overseas, back to the US
paying $38 billion in taxes on that cash
investing $30 billion in the US to create 20,000 jobs
matching employee charitable donations 2-to-1

is that not "domestically"?

Here's the rub, this overseas money is tied up in investments earning returns...it's not cash they're bringing back to the US. They can pay the taxes and have flexibility in the future but there's no guarantee any of it will be spent domestically.

So you want to pass a law mandating that they spend it domestically?

Apple said there were creating 20,000 jobs in the us. That qualifies as domestic spending.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There isn't a prayer in hell that Apple considers doing this unless the door was open for them to avoid paying taxes on a portion of this offshore war chest. They have kept funds off shore for years to avoid accounting for how much they have as well as paying taxes to the IRS. So they get a sweetheart deal and are going to pay $38 billion in taxes on that amount (pick a number, or let's use $252 billion) at a much lower rate than when they earned all this money, going back to company's founding. Who is to say that there isn't more than the 252 billion that will be repatriated and should have been taxed all along? This would not be the largest single tax payment if the debt had been rightfully paid when it should have been instead of being steered to an Irish bank. $38 billion is but a fraction of what they really should be paying, yet it is being spun as they are doing such great things by investing in the US economy..... yes. after t#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g it up our arses for years.....

Do you pay more than you have to? Why should the Apple shareholders? Thanks to the tax incentives, the irs will get 38 billion they otherwise would it have. That’s a good thing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Apple is giving its employees a $2,500 bonus
bringing $250 billion in cash that is currently overseas, back to the US
paying $38 billion in taxes on that cash
investing $30 billion in the US to create 20,000 jobs
matching employee charitable donations 2-to-1

is that not "domestically"?

It’s unbelieveable. The ability to deny that which doesn’t serve your personal agenda. A huge tax hit, bonuses, new jobs. None of that amounts to domestic spending.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

is that not "domestically"?
I never said they weren't going to invest more here or that it would be a bad thing. Just some of the numbers are misleading.

Do you pay more than you have to? Why should the Apple shareholders? Thanks to the tax incentives, the irs will get 38 billion they otherwise would it have. That’s a good thing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are missing the point. The only good thing about the 38 bil. to the IRS is that it is happening now. Much of that should never have been offshore and taxes should have been paid in the years it accrued. The Government is allowing them to pay a discount and pay late. There are two sets of books.... We will never know exactly how much was stashed offshore. This was their window of opportunity to settle for less, possibly much less than they would have owed, and to have a clean slate going forward. So my question back to you is why couldn't I do that???? Can I go back and amend my past twenty years of taxes and pay them at this years' lower rates???? Think they will cut me a big check for the difference????

Here's the rub, this overseas money is tied up in investments earning returns...it's not cash they're bringing back to the US. They can pay the taxes and have flexibility in the future but there's no guarantee any of it will be spent domestically.

No, the rub is that it is all pre-tax monies.... So in my view it is all dirty, comingled, and investments should be liquidated as a condition of clearing their liability.

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1135581]It’s unbelieveable. The ability to deny that which doesn’t serve your personal agenda. A huge tax hit, bonuses, new jobs. None of that amounts to domestic spending.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/QUOTE

A huge tax hit??? That is laughable.... It is roughly 15%.
The statutory corporate tax rate has gradually been reduced from over 50 percent in the 1950s to its current 35 percent. So who made out????

No, the rub is that it is all pre-tax monies.... So in my view it is all dirty, comingled, and investments should be liquidated as a condition of clearing their liability.
Hard to enforce that when their actions appear to be legal. But co-mingled...yes.

There isn't a prayer in hell that Apple considers doing this unless the door was open for them to avoid paying taxes on a portion of this offshore war chest. They have kept funds off shore for years to avoid accounting for how much they have as well as paying taxes to the IRS. So they get a sweetheart deal and are going to pay $38 billion in taxes on that amount (pick a number, or let's use $252 billion) at a much lower rate than when they earned all this money, going back to company's founding. Who is to say that there isn't more than the 252 billion that will be repatriated and should have been taxed all along? This would not be the largest single tax payment if the debt had been rightfully paid when it should have been instead of being steered to an Irish bank. $38 billion is but a fraction of what they really should be paying, yet it is being spun as they are doing such great things by investing in the US economy..... yes. after t#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g it up our arses for years.....

exactly

if apple was free

i wouldn't touch it

with a ten foot pole

First, I asked you what obama did that was better for the working poor than the gop tax overhaul.

Would it kill you to admit that yes, while the gop tax plan will help the wealthy, it’s also helping the average working Joe, too? Are you afraid you’d explode if you admitted that?


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

8 years of Obama is why the economic out look is better
Not because of Trumps tax break .. the gop helped the wealthy as soon as it passed .. your trickle down hasn't helped the avg working Joe ... as you suggest let's see in 4 year when there is data aka facts to support your suggestion

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1135581]It’s unbelieveable. The ability to deny that which doesn’t serve your personal agenda. A huge tax hit, bonuses, new jobs. None of that amounts to domestic spending.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/QUOTE

A huge tax hit??? That is laughable.... It is roughly 15%.
The statutory corporate tax rate has gradually been reduced from over 50 percent in the 1950s to its current 35 percent. So who made out????

It’s 38 billion that can be used to help people.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

8 years of Obama is why the economic out look is better
Not because of Trumps tax break .. the gop helped the wealthy as soon as it passed .. your trickle down hasn't helped the avg working Joe ... as you suggest let's see in 4 year when there is data aka facts to support your suggestion
All. Heard during the obama years was that people at the bottom missed out on the recovery. Specifically what did obama do that helps these people more than tax reform?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=nightfighter;1135588]

It’s 38 billion that can be used to help people.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My point is $87.5 billion (which is the 35% tax on $250 bilion) could help a lot more..... and build a wall too. This money could have been helping people during Clinton's, Bush's and Obama's administrations if it had been paid when due, instead of being diverted to Ireland and then the tax haven island of Jersey....:whackin:

8 years of Obama is why the economic out look is better



that's pretty funny

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1135605]

My point is $87.5 billion (which is the 35% tax on $250 bilion) could help a lot more..... and build a wall too. This money could have been helping people during Clinton's, Bush's and Obama's administrations if it had been paid when due, instead of being diverted to Ireland and then the tax haven island of Jersey....:whackin:

Yes, and we could also help more people if you paid a lot more taxes than you owe. But you don't. No one does.


If I owned a company, and I could legally minimize my taxes by moving money elsewhere, I would. So would you. How stupid would one have to be, to pay billions more in taxes than one has to?

W had an uncompetitive corporate tax rate. When you make stupid public policy, sometimes there are negative results. I'm not saying the GOP is perfect. I'm not even saying that the tax overhaul will necessarily prove to be a good thing. I'm saying that because of that tax overhaul, and only because of that tax overhaul, we will have 38 billion more to do some good with.

[QUOTE=nightfighter;1135608]

Yes, and we could also help more people if you paid a lot more taxes than you owe. But you don't. No one does.


If I owned a company, and I could legally minimize my taxes by moving money elsewhere, I would. So would you. How stupid would one have to be, to pay billions more in taxes than one has to?

W had an uncompetitive corporate tax rate. When you make stupid public policy, sometimes there are negative results. I'm not saying the GOP is perfect. I'm not even saying that the tax overhaul will necessarily prove to be a good thing. I'm saying that because of that tax overhaul, and only because of that tax overhaul, we will have 38 billion more to do some good with.

Just think of how much more good could have been done if the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations had lowered the corporate tax rates. That's 24 years of collecting money lost to offshore accounts from even more companies than Apple. Were talking hundreds of billions, maybe trillions, and if most of it had been used to pay down the national debt, which was lower then--wow!!

But no, it's better in the eyes of Progressives to spend beyond means and tax the rich at higher rates to pay for overspending, then borrow from the rich in order to pay for money lost by overtaxing, and so get deeper in debt, and keep the circle jerk going of constantly paying by borrowing as the debt becomes unsustainable. And in the meantime grossly enriching the very rich whom the Progressives say are going to pay their "fair share" so that the government can give the rest of us a lot of good stuff. Genius!

[QUOTE=nightfighter;1135608]

If I owned a company, and I could legally minimize my taxes by moving money elsewhere, I would. So would you.

Legal? Questionable. It is a deferral at best. Or seen in another light, simply kicking the can and deal with it later.

that's pretty funny

funny but true .. and in 3 years there will be data to see the True Trump affect good or bad

All. Heard during the obama years was that people at the bottom missed out on the recovery. Specifically what did obama do that helps these people more than tax reform?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again you assume this Tax cut is going to help those at the bottom overnight where the 8 year recover has clearly helped those at the top disproportionately to those on the bottom ..

and your Tax cut has done the same over night...clearly helped those at the top disproportionately to those on the bottom .. the tax cut they changed the rules for so it would pass ..or the only way it would pass with less than 60 votes 51-48 Vote unlike ACA you use alot but which passed with in the rules 60-39
But you seem to avoid this truth with great effort

but will champion the stock market today but before Trump took office it didnt count just like the unemployment numbers or job growth numbers which were labeled as fake .. but Magically under Trump and republicans Now they count and mean something :faga:

Only 44 percent of private sector workers participate in a defined contribution plan.

why do you think that Why Americans saving so little for retirement? There are a few reasons:

-They simply are too broke to save

-The stock market has turned into a wild casino

-Many options within 401ks are loaded with wild expenses that eat away at your returns

-Lack of financial literacy

funny but true ..

Could you please flesh out that simplistic opinion?

What if Obama and the Dems, in his first year, passed a tax bill similar to the current one? Would a lot of corporations have brought back, to the U.S., tax sheltered money? How many hundreds of billions of dollars would have been added to the U.S. treasury? And how many foreign companies would have decided to move to the U.S.? And how much more disposable income would the aggregate public have to spend into the economy? And how many more people could be employed in the expanded economy?

the left prefers a stick to a carrot

Could you please flesh out that simplistic opinion?

What if Obama and the Dems, in his first year, passed a tax bill similar to the current one? Would a lot of corporations have brought back, to the U.S., tax sheltered money? How many hundreds of billions of dollars would have been added to the U.S. treasury? And how many foreign companies would have decided to move to the U.S.? And how much more disposable income would the aggregate public have to spend into the economy? And how many more people could be employed in the expanded economy?

its very simple take economic data from election day 2008 to when Trump took office 2016 tada you have hard data

then we do the same with Trump in 4 years and Tada we have hard data could be positive could be negative

your in your time machine again talking what if's

re election money $5 million Ryan received in the 4th quarter of 2017, more than $330,000 arrived in the two days after the House passed the tax bill.

but he did it for the people

Again you assume this Tax cut is going to help those at the bottom overnight where the 8 year recover has clearly helped those at the top disproportionately to those on the bottom ..

So what was so good about the 8 year recovery if it helped those at the top disproportionately?

and your Tax cut has done the same over night...clearly helped those at the top disproportionately to those on the bottom .. the tax cut they changed the rules for so it would pass ..or the only way it would pass with less than 60 votes 51-48 Vote unlike ACA you use alot but which passed with in the rules 60-39
But you seem to avoid this truth with great effort

Who's avoiding this truth? Senate rules have changed several times so the party in power can do what it wants. There is no constitutional requirement that the Senate must make rules according to an established order. The Dems have changed rules.

but will champion the stock market today but before Trump took office it didnt count just like the unemployment numbers or job growth numbers which were labeled as fake .. but Magically under Trump and republicans Now they count and mean something :faga:

According to you, the Trump numbers don't count, they don't mean something, they are fake, they are really Obama numbers not Trump numbers.

Only 44 percent of private sector workers participate in a defined contribution plan.

why do you think that Why Americans saving so little for retirement? There are a few reasons:

-They are simply too broke to save

The Obama "recovery" should have fixed that problem. Actually employed Americans have always been able to save. It has always been a matter of what to spend money on.

-The stock market has turned into a wild casino

But you attribute the rising stock prices all to Obama.

-Many options within 401ks are loaded with wild expenses that eat away at your returns

-Lack of financial literacy

Now those things are clearly attributable to Trump policies.

its very simple take economic data from election day 2008 to when Trump took office 2016 tada you have hard data

then we do the same with Trump in 4 years and Tada we have hard data could be positive could be negative

your in your time machine again talking what if's

You propose a what if. Then you pooh pooh me for proposing a what if. WTF is wrong with you?

What if Obama and the Dems, in his first year, passed a tax bill similar to the current one? Would a lot of corporations have brought back, to the U.S., tax sheltered money? How many hundreds of billions of dollars would have been added to the U.S. treasury? And how many foreign companies would have decided to move to the U.S.? And how much more disposable income would the aggregate public have to spend into the economy? And how many more people could be employed in the expanded economy?
I think you're ignoring the impact that flying babies have on the stroller industry. It's basic market forces at work.

I think you're ignoring the impact that flying babies have on the stroller industry. It's basic market forces at work.

I did not ignore that very significant factor. It has been empirically demonstrated that flying babies have zero impact on the stroller industry. But lower corporate taxes do have a significant impact.

Flying German Shepherds, on the other hand, do have quite an impact. It requires a sturdy stroller cover to protect the baby from the big load of sh*t those dogs are known to drop. Often, as well, we need a defense against loads dropped from incoming flying Spence posts. :spin:

I did not ignore that very significant factor. It has been empirically demonstrated that flying babies have zero impact on the stroller industry. But lower corporate taxes do have a significant impact.

Flying German Shepherds, on the other hand, do have quite an impact. It requires a sturdy stroller cover to protect the baby from the big load of sh*t those dogs are known to drop. Often, as well, we need a defense against loads dropped from incoming flying Spence posts.
Is there ANY empirical evidence that supports cutting corporate taxes or is it more like a test of faith?

Is there ANY empirical evidence that supports cutting corporate taxes or is it more like a test of faith?

Is there actually empirical evidence that economic theories work other than when tried they do or don't?

There is also the logic of the more money you have, the more you can spend.

Again you assume this Tax cut is going to help those at the bottom overnight where the 8 year recover has clearly helped those at the top disproportionately to those on the bottom ..

and your Tax cut has done the same over night...clearly helped those at the top disproportionately to those on the bottom .. the tax cut they changed the rules for so it would pass ..or the only way it would pass with less than 60 votes 51-48 Vote unlike ACA you use alot but which passed with in the rules 60-39
But you seem to avoid this truth with great effort

but will champion the stock market today but before Trump took office it didnt count just like the unemployment numbers or job growth numbers which were labeled as fake .. but Magically under Trump and republicans Now they count and mean something :faga:

Only 44 percent of private sector workers participate in a defined contribution plan.

why do you think that Why Americans saving so little for retirement? There are a few reasons:

-They simply are too broke to save

-The stock market has turned into a wild casino

-Many options within 401ks are loaded with wild expenses that eat away at your returns

-Lack of financial literacy

"Again you assume this Tax cut is going to help those at the bottom overnight"

No I do not assume that, it's based on empirical evidence of companies announcing raises, bonuses, new jobs. I give Obama credit for helping the economy. But not once did the Democrats do anything that incentivized companies to reward rank-and-file employees in this fashion.

"your Tax cut has done the same over night...clearly helped those at the top disproportionately to those on the bottom"

When the economy grows, those at the top benefit more. You think that didn't happen when the stock market shot up during the Obama years? Or is income inequality only bad when the president is a republican?

"will champion the stock market today but before Trump took office it didnt count"

I always give Obama some credit for the stock market increase. Can you tell me if that helped the rich disproportionately?

"Only 44 percent of private sector workers participate in a defined contribution plan."

Because pensions are not viable or realistic. The reason the exist in the public sector is that you can just take my money with force of law. In the private sector, you have to make me choose to give you my money, and consumers want a low price, they aren't willing to pay exorbitant prices to companies that give pensions. You don't look for low prices?

re election money $5 million Ryan received in the 4th quarter of 2017, more than $330,000 arrived in the two days after the House passed the tax bill.

but he did it for the people

Whereas Obama chose not to fundraise.

Is there ANY empirical evidence that supports cutting corporate taxes or is it more like a test of faith?

(1) Why are there so many companies with headquarters in Bermuda? Because CEOs like to wear plaid shorts and knee-high pink socks?

(2) have you not seen an y of the announcements from companies giving raises, bonuses, or making investments in the US?

(3) but there is some speculation involved. But what we do know, especially here in CT, is that uncompetitive taxes do not work.

Empirical evidence is information that verifies the truth (that which accurately corresponds to reality) or falsity (inaccuracy) of a claim.

Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. Scientists record and analyze this data. The process is a central part of the scientific method.

Jim in CT detbuch clearly dont understand Empirical evidence its clear data points exist for 8 years under obama

They are no such long term data points for Trump regarding his overall impact in the economy over time and some see 1 time offers from Companys as Empirical evidence of the benefits of a certain action.. thats not how it works

I am not suggesting Trumps hasn't had an impact on the US economy(its effect are founded only on speculation)
but their is no Empirical evidence any of his legislation he has passed (aka tax cut) or just repealing every this with Obamas name on it . will have the promised out come ... we'll see in the coming years how it shakes out ... and who wins and who looses

Empirical evidence is information that verifies the truth (that which accurately corresponds to reality) or falsity (inaccuracy) of a claim.

Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. Scientists record and analyze this data. The process is a central part of the scientific method.

Jim in CT detbuch clearly dont understand Empirical evidence its clear data points exist for 8 years under obama

They are no such long term data points for Trump regarding his overall impact in the economy over time and some see 1 time offers from Companys as Empirical evidence of the benefits of a certain action.. thats not how it works

I am not suggesting Trumps hasn't had an impact on the US economy(its effect are founded only on speculation)
but their is no Empirical evidence any of his legislation he has passed (aka tax cut) or just repealing every this with Obamas name on it . will have the promised out come ... we'll see in the coming years how it shakes out ... and who wins and who looses

"Jim in CT detbuch clearly dont understand Empirical evidence its clear data points exist for 8 years under Obama"

I keep saying I give Obama some credit for helping to get the economy chugging again. Is that going too fast for you? Do you need me to sing it for you? Believe me, you don't want that.

You keep saying that under Trump, it's the rich that are benefitting more. I agree the rich benefit more. I keep asking you, didn't the rich benefit more when the stock market surged during the Obama years? Did Obama pass a law saying that the wealthy couldn't buy stocks, in order to prevent them from disproportionately benefitting from the market surge?

When the economy grows, the wealthy benefit more. Simple arithmetic guarantees that will happen, because they have a lot more to invest. You cannot stop that, and I don't see why you'd want to.

WDMSO, does it help anyone, if the wealthy don't get wealthier? That's the only question that matters if your beef is income inequality. If the wealthy all decide to stop working and stop investing, how is anyone better off?

"They are no such long term data points for Trump regarding his overall impact in the economy"

It's been a year. That's not exactly a meaningless time horizon. No one is calling for a recession anytime soon. The market has been booming since 09, so we are due for a pullback, regardless of which party I sin charge. Not many financial planners are calling for that.

Here's another question. Which party ran Congress (where laws and budgets are passed) for the last 6 years of Obama's 8 years?

" am not suggesting Trumps hasn't had an impact on the US economy(its effect are founded only on speculation) "

Wrong. It's not pure speculation. We know what the stock market is doing, we know what's happening with black unemployment and home ownership. We have empirical data to measure those things.

As to the impact of the tax overhaul, that is mostly speculative. But most fair-minded financial professionals will concede that the economy is doing well in general, because it perceives that there is a very business-friendly person in the Oval Office. There wasn't really any specific policy that was enacted until the tax overhaul. But there has been optimism that Trump would be business-friendly. That optimism, matters.

"we'll see in the coming years how it shakes out "

True. But as I said, a year isn't a worthless sample size. if the market tanked in the first year, do you expect anyone to believe that you'd be saying "hey, it's only been a year, we need to give Trump time before we can judge him"? .

we can go into a recession that isn't necessarily Trump's fault. Some things, probably many things, are beyond the control of the feds. Maybe the best Trump can do is make a recession les severe than it otherwise would be.

If Obama was POTUS in 2017, I am confident the economy would still have improved. I don't think it would have improved as much. All I can base that on, is my speculation that the optimism that the market clearly feels, at having a rabidly pro-business POTUS. The economy likes having him as POTUS. I'm not sure that can be denied.

All I can base that on, is my speculation that the optimism that the market clearly feels, at having a rabidly pro-business POTUS. The economy likes having him as POTUS. I'm not sure that can be denied.
Finally something we can all agree on. He's rabid.
:D

The economy likes having him as POTUS. I'm not sure that can be denied.

I agree in the short term .but only time will tell how much the economy will like him

Jim in CT detbuch clearly dont understand Empirical evidence its clear data points exist for 8 years under obama

The two times I mentioned empirical evidence I said "It has been empirically demonstrated that flying babies have zero impact on the stroller industry." And "Is there actually empirical evidence that economic theories work other than when tried they do or don't?"
What do you disagree with in those statements?

They are no such long term data points for Trump regarding his overall impact in the economy over time and some see 1 time offers from Companys as Empirical evidence of the benefits of a certain action.. thats not how it works

Data points, apparently, are not empirical to some, as observed by those who say that Trump's policies are not the cause for the highly improved data points existing under his administration. Rather, we are told, they are data points which belong to the Obama administration. If the relevances of data points are disputed, what are they empirical evidence of? That there is disagreement? And how long in "long term" is relevant for you. Apparently 100 years, for you, is a "time machine" and is too long ago to be relevant. The fact that when administrations in the past, even 50, 30, or 15 years ago, lowered taxes which was accompanied by positive "data points," that also" must have been too long ago to be relevant for today. The fact that when several other countries lowered their corporate tax rates, their economy improved substantially and they drew businesses away from higher corporate tax countries like the U.S. also is not a set of relevant data points for you. Apparently, only the last eight years under Obama and the future 3 or 7 years under Trump will be relevant data points. But if they are disputed, which one party will do, will they be relevant?

I am not suggesting Trumps hasn't had an impact on the US economy(its effect are founded only on speculation)

Political speculation is what determines the relevance of economic data points. Speculative partisan conjectures and theories regarding data becomes the reason for dismissal of opposition success, the meat for further opposing policies, and the grist that feeds election propaganda.

And speculation in the market has a profound effect on the market.

And creating confidence and optimism, whether in war, or politics, or in economies, or even in personal life, is an important component for success.

but their is no Empirical evidence any of his legislation he has passed (aka tax cut) or just repealing every this with Obamas name on it . will have the promised out come ... we'll see in the coming years how it shakes out ... and who wins and who looses

A great deal of the current business optimism has been created by his policies. The empirical evidence is that the greater optimism and more expansive forecasts occurred after his promises were made and policies began being put into place as evidence that the promises would be kept. The time period may be too short for you (one year instead of four) but evidence gathered from observation does not require a specific period of time (e.g., not too long as in not more than eight years, and not too short as in more than one year) to be empirical. Time may produce more evidence. But, in the immediate now, the evidence, for the time being, is in.

And your use of the "time machine" contradicts itself and other things you've said. As in when I proposed that if past administrations had reduced the corporate tax rates over the past 24 years, the Federal government, during that period, would have collected hundreds of millions, even trillions of revenue more than they got with the high tax rates, you rejected that as being in the past, that I was in my time machine again. Yet you then went on your own time machine into the future, the gathering of "hard data" that will have occurred after Trump's first term is over, to be compared to the past time machine of Obama's eight years and the "hard data" it produced.

First, the data is softer than you portray. The data gets "interpreted" by politically opposing reporters. We're still arguing about the data from the Reagan years or the Kennedy years or the Roosevelt years, and all the data before, in between and after them.

Nor, as in my "what if" conjecture about economic decisions that could have been made in the past, is your sally forth into the future an actual future that is assured to happen. We don't know if Trump will survive the through the rest of this year. We don't know if some cataclysmic event or war will happen. And all of the data that is gathered will be subject to interpretation and will not confirm anything for those who wish it not to. You validate your time machine conjecture merely by expressing it. And pooh-pooh mine, again, merely by saying so.

So far, human nature has not changed since antiquity. And you don't get to limit how far back or how far into the future one may go to find evidence or to speculate on how humans will act under given circumstances. You certainly cannot dismiss how they acted under those circumstances in the past as being too long ago to matter. At least, not without "hard data" to suggest they would act differently today than in the past under the same circumstances.