GOP TAX PLAN

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

But that's the rub. Big corporations in general have excess cash they're unwilling to invest because they don't see a return.

"Excess" cash that is held rather than invested for expansion, will lose value to inflation. But if it goes to bonuses or raises in salaries or stock dividends (providing that the business sold stocks), the bonuses and raises and dividends will either be invested or used to buy things, all of which fuels the economy. However, raising salaries with government fiat money can lead to higher salaries than profitable when the fiat money runs out if there is no actual growth in productivity and profit.

For many sectors capital investment goes to automation which further reduces the need for employment.

In a previous post you said that "new technologies born from government funded programs" caused growth. Now you're saying that much investment goes to "automation," which would be a new technology related to a companies production, and that it reduces the need for employment. Which, I assume, is a negative impact on economic growth. But, somehow, if the technology is "born" from a government funded program, then it will grow the economy. Which implies that private investment in new technologies does not grow the economy, or even shrinks it, but government investment in technology will grow the economy.

In total, you seem to be saying that either business will sit on excess cash which loses value due to inflation, or invests in automation which reduces the work force therefor shrinking the economy, or, somehow, if the government provides fiat cash, it will grow the economy, or if government "invests" in technology it will grow the economy, but private investment in technology is either ineffective or will shrink the economy.

Very complex, and confusing.

Of the articles you linked, the heritage piece is just standard conservative philosophy but doesn't take in the complexities of our current situation.

Your assertions are just the standard Progressive philosophy. As I have said, there are conflicting thoughts and analyses re economics and economic forecasts. Not just what you consider uncontested, universally agreed to theories or forecasts.

Progressive economics requires a complex, abstruse theory (exemplified by the complex mess of your above assertions) to justify spending more than the revenue collected, and the necessity to borrow in unlimited fashion in order to fund the Progressive model of government which controls and defines the shape and content of the societal order. All of which requires government command of the economy and ultimately requires government funding of the economy.

Until that ultimate model is in place, programs must incrementally be added in the move toward the desired government command. And, while the private market still funds the government via taxation, Progressive economic theory has to constantly adjust and increase taxation to pay for those programs in ways that give the illusion that they are adequately funded. And those programs require ever new regulations. All of which create new "crises" that must be responded to with even more regulations. Which, in turn, compounds the complexity of the taxing bureaucracy's codes and rates in order pay for new regs and programs and still maintain the appearance of favoring the majority of voters. And thus it can continue to expand the private sector's and its people's dependence on government and its regulations . . . and continue the increasingly complex tax system required to give the appearance of funding that growth.

We have massive debt,

It wasn't "conservative" economic philosophy that created that massive debt. It was various forms of Keynesian economics that created it.

a crumbling infrastructure, an evolving global economy etc... What is the impact of increased leverage in terms of debt service and inflation? Hello???

Infrastructure is addressed in the articles I linked to. "Conservative" economics is in favor of infrastructure. I am not sure that Progressive economics requires anything other than whatever government wishes at any given time. What happened to the promised spending on infrastructure in the Progressive stimulus bill. We are still waiting for it.

"Conservative" economics is all for debt "service" (reduction). Progressive economics constantly increases debt to expand government power. Inflation is necessary to help even paying for the interest on the debt in order to avoid default. But actually paying down debt is of no concern to Progressives.

The other one is more just reform minded but doesn't even support your argument for the most part. I'm not against reform, that's not what is really being proposed right now though.

I didn't intend to link to that one. As you say, it doesn't speak to anything now . . . or ever, since the reform it specifies ain't gonna happen no matter who is in power.

The one I intended to link to was this one (I replaced the wrong one with this in my previous post):

https://www.thoughtco.com/effect-of-...growth-1146370

This article reduces "conservative" economic policy to the basic requirements to which taxes should be addressed and for which government should spend. When government is restricted to its constitutionally required basics, tax policies don't have to be obscure, complex beyond readability, as Progressive tax codes must be in order to give the illusion of fairness.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Progressive economic theory requires a complex, abstruse theory (exemplified by the complex mess of your above assertions)

yup...the Progressive city council(unanimous) and the mayor plan to argue before the Supreme Court that personal income is not personal property....this should be good

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...l-judge-rules/

“In order to uphold its income tax, the city would have to convince a court that individual income is not protected by the constitution.”

At the Supreme Court, Seattle officials hope to attack the long-standing interpretation that income taxes are property taxes.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

yup...the Progressive city council(unanimous) and the mayor plan to argue before the Supreme Court that personal income is not personal property....this should be good

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...l-judge-rules/

“In order to uphold its income tax, the city would have to convince a court that individual income is not protected by the constitution.”

At the Supreme Court, Seattle officials hope to attack the long-standing interpretation that income taxes are property taxes.

What your regressive mindset fails to process, is that high income individuals, only achieve that income thanks to everyone else- public teachers, libraries, public roads, police, etc. as senator warren proclaimed, if you have a business, YOU didn’t build it. YOU had help. YOU have to spread the wealth around to those who made your success possible.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

What your regressive mindset fails to process, is that high income individuals, only achieve that income thanks to everyone else- public teachers, libraries, public roads, police, etc. as senator warren proclaimed, if you have a business, YOU didn’t build it. YOU had help. YOU have to spread the wealth around to those who made your success possible.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are you ok?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by spence

Are you ok?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don’t think so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I don’t think so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Me? I'm great.

Here is the speech I was referring to, by Princess Lies Through Her Teeth.

Nebe, did you know that you didn't build your business? At least, not according to Princess Spreading Bull. Me think-um she want-um live in teepee of Great White Chief. Ugh!

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Nebe, did you know that you didn't build your business? At least, not according to Princess Spreading Bull. Me think-um she want-um live in teepee of Great White Chief. Ugh!

That's not what she said at all. Also, you're Native mockery is pretty pale.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

In a previous post you said that "new technologies born from government funded programs" caused growth. Now you're saying that much investment goes to "automation," which would be a new technology related to a companies production, and that it reduces the need for employment. Which, I assume, is a negative impact on economic growth. But, somehow, if the technology is "born" from a government funded program, then it will grow the economy. Which implies that private investment in new technologies does not grow the economy, or even shrinks it, but government investment in technology will grow the economy.

In total, you seem to be saying that either business will sit on excess cash which loses value due to inflation, or invests in automation which reduces the work force therefor shrinking the economy, or, somehow, if the government provides fiat cash, it will grow the economy, or if government "invests" in technology it will grow the economy, but private investment in technology is either ineffective or will shrink the economy.

Very complex, and confusing.

I think you're making it complex and confusing, just like this new GOP tax plan. Now you can set up 529s for the unborn? This is the simplification that was touted?

A lot of private sector growth the past century has been led by government funding. That doesn't mean it all is, certainly business funds their own innovation programs to some degree.

From what I've seen though the real growth is most likely to occur when risks are taken that lead to really new ideas. These often aren't see as the most profitable or if really disruptive totally absurd. It's hard to automate something you've never done before so there's a surge of energy required to bring it to life. That creates growth.

A lot of business today is totally stale though, they look to be more efficient and minimize risks until the point at which they are obsolete. They don't do this what for a lack of capital -- many are still very profitable -- they do it as a matter of culture and a really big problem their religious adherence to the virtue of shareholder value.

But, this still remains the bulk of the corporate sector. If you want to spur growth just routing cash disproportionately to non-managerial shareholders doesn't seem like an effective place to put it. To do so at the expense of additional debt and inflation is even further counter productive.

This is a money grab plain and simple.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

From what I've seen though the real growth is most likely to occur when risks are taken that lead to really new ideas. .

Ding ding ding! Give that man a cigar!

Now Spence, take it one step further...when corporate taxes are decreased, does that make risk-taking more attractive, or less attractive, than when corporate taxes are higher?

Corporate income taxes are the cost of income. And page 1 of every undergraduate economics text says that when you decrease the cost of something, the demand for that something (no matter what it is), goes up. And the opposite is true when you increase the cost of something.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Now Spence, take it one step further...when corporate taxes are decreased, does that make risk-taking more attractive, or less attractive, than when corporate taxes are higher?

Did you read my post? It's all there.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Did you read my post? It's all there.

Oh, I did. I've also read Chairman Mao's Little Red Book. Similarly useful.

[scottw]

[QUOTE=spence;1132382]

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



genius

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=scottw;1132395]

Originally Posted by spence

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



genius

I don’t get it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

This is a money grab plain and simple.

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.




great... more funding for these morons

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

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.




great... more funding for these morons

You can't make this stuff up.

[wdmso]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

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?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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...

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)