GOP TAX PLAN

[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)

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

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)

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 ?