fixed it

[QUOTE=spence;1132382]

certainly business funds their own innovation programs to some degree./QUOTE]



genius

But it doesn’t bother you one bit when Warren disrespects Native Americans. So your outrage at those who disrespect native Americans is quite selective. Which means, your outrage is fake.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=scottw;1132395]I don’t get it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Warren is right when she gives credit to the entrepreneur for creating a business. But she is wrong when she says that the business uses infrastructure, etc. that the REST OF US paid for. No, it is not just the rest of us, but ALL of us, including the entrepreneur. The entrepreneur also pays taxes that pay for infrastructure, etc. The business builder does not ride on the backs of those who build infrastructure. He rides along with them and is entitled every bit as much to use that infrastructure to build a business or not. He does not get a gift by the REST of society. He is part of society.

And that entrepreneur, while using his rightful share of the infrastructure, gives the gift of his hard work to create wealth and jobs for ALL of us, not just himself.

Warren does not give the business maker credit for contributing (probably even more so than the REST of us) to the economic well being of society, rather she warns him that, yeah, go ahead and keep some of the money he's earned, but he owes the rest of it to us for the groundwork that made it possible. As if the entrepreneur, by building a business, has not already given more to the economic well being of society than the REST of us.

She is wrong. The entrepreneur did create a business on his or her own. We all pay for the infrastructure. And we all use it in our own way. And when we use it to work or to play or to learn or to build, however we use it is entirely up to us. We are all entirely responsible for how we use the various public roads that we all helped to build.

Depends on which "study" you prefer to believe. Most studies don't find an "explicit" correlation between taxes and growth regardless if whether or not taxes are raised or lowered. So "explicit" correlation is not a useful metric.

You may argue that other factors contributed to, or were the reason for, growth when the taxes were also lowered. But those other reasons were not a result of "explicit" correlation because they, too, were also historically in play when growth did not occur or happened less robustly. But the four times there was a significant lowering of federal business taxes there was significant economic growth.

Various "studies" show that lowering corporate tax rates have a greater impact on creating growth than lowering income or consumption or property tax rates. Other studies disagree. Again, when it was tried at the federal level, it created growth, and "other" factors were not consistently present in each case. That may not be an "explicit" correlation, it may be and "implicit" correlation, or just a correlation. But a consistent one.

Also, when I refer to "conservative" economic theory (basically updated classical economics), I'm not referring to Republican policies. Many Republican tax proposals are a mix of some "conservative" (classical) and some, often a lot, of Progressive ideas. As we are witnessing now, the Republican tax plan has been morphing, along the way to finalization, from a more "conservative" plan to an equally or more Progressive one as the planners keep caving in to political pressure.

Here is an article by the Tax Foundation supporting the theory that lowering taxes, especially corporate taxes, promotes growth:

https://taxfoundation.org/what-evide...xes-and-growth

Also, the article that I previously posted, which gives a good foundation on which type of programs government should and must spend tax revenue, should be read if you didn't already do so:
https://www.thoughtco.com/effect-of-...growth-1146370

Other articles disagree--but by theoretical or conjectural, not "explicit," reasoning. One of the most empirical reasons for disagreement is not necessarily that lowering tax rates does or doesn't generate economic growth, but that it grows income inequality. But, again, there isn't necessarily an "explicit" correlation between income inequality and economic growth, because "other" factors can always be pointed to as causation.

That's a pejorative way of putting it. I resent how you characterize the fact that it will help me, at tax time, to grab back a good sum more of the money that the government took from me.

and there you have it...

raising taxes is not a "money grab".....celebrate!

lowering taxes is a "money grab"...and...deplorable

that's some pretty screwed up thinking...

oooh...here's more from Progressive Seattle

"They(city council) also claimed that the city has a right to tax people on the privilege of living in Seattle proper because city of residence is elective."

“Where you choose to live is a voluntary choice and you make that choice based on what the benefits are to that choice and also the detriment, whatever the tax consequences (constitutional or not) are to making that choice,” said Paul Lawrence, an attorney for the city, during the hearing. “If they don’t like the tax consequences that Seattle has chosen to do, an (unconstitutional)income tax, they can move to Bellevue.”

“We’re here to tax the rich,” proclaimed councilmember Kshama Sawant, the bill’s sponsor.

Then-mayor Ed Murray said that his “progressive city” had hit upon “a new formula for fairness.” (Murray resigned after the fifth allegation of child-sex abuse, was lodged against him).

Murray explained that he planned to use the revenue generated by the tax to lower other taxes. :kewl:




great... more funding for these morons :hihi:

You can't make this stuff up.

If the current tax set up is so horrible for companies why are they making record profits ? History has shown us big buiness can not be trusted .. whether it's labor laws of workers safety or the environment, so the likelyhood that any of this tax money will ever land in the pockets of their workers or be used for expansion is as laughably just like the administration thinking a 1000.00 tax break is going to change he lives of The middle class

Everything you've said here is false, or a gross exaggeration, or a political spin.

Who said the current system is 'horrible'? But it can be better.

"History has shown us big buiness can not be trusted"

I have worked for huge companies - Aetna, Travelers, The Hartford. All good places to work, providing tens of thousands of good jobs. And all did good work in their communities. You have no idea what you are talking about. None. Of course some businesses are owned by awful people. But we have all kinds of laws that limit what they can and cannot do.

"so the likelyhood that any of this tax money will ever land in the pockets of their workers or be used for expansion is as laughably"

So tell us, mister business expert, where will the money go? Is any of it going to go to the shareholders, many of whom are not rich?

Even if all of the extra profits go to the CEO, what do you think he does with that money? Unless he buries it in his backyard, he uses it in a way that helps the economy.

What about the thousands and thousands of small businesses? Nebe has said it would help him if he got to keep more of his income...Is he an evil plutocrat?

he's definitely an evil something or other...:devil2:

what Wayne is saying is he trusts Trump and the Republican Senate and Congress to spend the money more wisely than America's evil, corrupt business Crooketeers.....I think in Seattle they were planning to also use the extra tax money to fund gender fluidity programs/seminars for the City's kindergartens(ok, I made that up...but it's entirely believable)

What I am saying if the car just needs tires why is the GOP looking at buying a new car and telling Americans were just getting new tires ?

If the car needs tires, why not get better tires for less money?

I like that. Comparing taxes to tires. Good one.

Like a tax return on a post card:cheers2:

OK . . . now comparing tires to postcards . . . falling a little bit off the edge here.

"In 2019, those making less than $25,000 would get an average $50 tax reduction, or 0.3 percent of their after-tax income. Middle-income earners would get average cuts of $850, while people making at least $746,000 would get average cuts of $34,000, or 2.2 percent of income.
The center also said the Senate proposal would generate enough economic growth to produce additional revenue of $169 billion over a decade. That's far short of closing the near $1.5 trillion in red ink that Congress' nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated the bill would produce over that period."

"Middle-income earners would get average cuts of $850"

Is that not a good thing?

"The center also said the Senate proposal would generate enough economic growth to produce additional revenue of $169 billion over a decade. That's far short of closing the near $1.5 trillion in red ink that Congress' nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated the bill would produce over that period."

And some other think tank said that Obamacare would save the average family $2,500 a year. Who believes these people?

But we need to cut wasteful spending to pay for this, no doubt.

Unemployment is down to a very low number. That has to have a positive impact, it cannot fail to do so.

The rich have more money invested in places to take advantage of things like this. When the stock market goes up, that will always help the rich more than it helps everyone else. It's not exactly "fair" or equitable, but it's not a bad thing, either.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ward-investors

So there appears to be few economists who think this tax plan will grow the economy, the independent congressional analysis says it's going to add to the deficit, the Treasury department may have lied about it's analysis and CEO's plan to use the windfall to benefit shareholders.

What a victory for the Republicans.

"appears to be few economists who think this tax plan will grow the economy"

when you poll Marxists only, that's probably true. I wonder what those same economists said about the Clinton/Gingrich tax cuts.

Spence, tell me where this statement is wrong, please...

Corporate income taxes are the cost of corporate income. When the cost of income decreases, the demand for income will increase. Some corporate projects might not make economic sense to undertake at a tax rate of 35%, but would make perfect sense at a tax rate of 20%.

Finally, returning some income to the owners of the company as dividends, doesn't help the economy? Unless they bury that money in their yards or burn it, they will use it in ways that cannot fail to help the economy.

"few economists who think this tax plan will grow the economy"

Finally, there is this...just the talk about the possibility of tax cuts, has helped push the stock market up. That hasn't helped the economy? Really?

December 2, 2017 1:54 AM

The Senate version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act just passed, 51 to 49, on a party line vote.

Trump's tax plan, if it passes, will free up a little cash in the typical household's monthly budget. But the biggest winners are likely to be the wealthiest Americans, who are poised to save significantly .. just the estate tax supports this statement as Fact

"shows your bias against facts "

What 'facts'? The GOP has studies saying the poor will pay less, the Democrats have studies showing that everyone making less than $500,000 will be tortured to death. As usual. We'll see how it plays out, and if (like with Obamacare) it turns out that the supporting party was wrong about everything they promised, they will (and should) pay a political price.

"these companys are all ready flush with cash"

Some large companies are flush with cash, true. Many, many smaller companies are not.

Here on this forum, Nebe said that a reduction in corporate taxes would help his business and therefore him personally. Is he some heartless, right-wing plutocrat?

I'm a lot of things, not all of them good. I'm not a hypocrite, and I don't ignore facts that I don't find convenient.

"the biggest winners are likely to be the wealthiest Americans"

The wealthy have more of their money invested in things that take advantage of things like this. That's just how math works. It may not be fair or "equitable", but I'm not sure it's bad. They wealthy will use that money in ways that cannot fail to help the economy. Not even Spence can make that wrong, he doesn't even try.

Wdmso, here are some actual facts. The threshold below which no one pays any tax is almost doubled to 24,000. The standard deduction is doubled. The 15% tax bracket is reduced to a rate of 12%. And the corporate rate is reduced from 35 to 20. Despite what liberals like to claim, most businesses are not owned by the Waltons or the Koch brothers, and most who own businesses are not in the top 1%. I asked Nebe what this would mean to him. You won’t like his answer one bit.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you just stated the obvious then pounded the desk and yelled "that's a fact!"

we're constantly told that typical households have little or no savings and I was reading recently that credit card debt has soared again...sooo...typical households will probably welcome a little cash in the monthly budget

I'm not an expert but I believe the wealthiest Americans have the most money and probably the largest estates sooooo.....

I'm still trying to figure out how the poor are going to pay more...

It’s going to pass. If it hurts the middle class, the gop will fairly pay a price. If it helps the middle class, the democrats will pay a price.

I read this morning that the claims that the middle class will see a tax hike, are based on the assumption that these cuts will expire in ten years, so at that point the middle class would see a tax hike. A deranged assumption. Even if the cuts were temporary, temporary cuts are better than no cuts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Small businsses and family farms get the most from the estate tax repeal. It dosen't take much for a building, some land and cattle and some equipment to go over $6 million. How do you pass your farm or business to your family without having to sell a portion for taxes? I won't even get into the number of times the resources were taxed already.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually a professor from Iowa State studied this issue and couldn't find a single instance of a family losing their farm because of the estate tax in the past 40 years. It's just an urban myth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's not what he wrote "How do you pass your farm or business to your family without having to sell a portion for taxes?"