Apple Inc

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

that's pretty funny

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=nightfighter;1135608]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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....

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.

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1135617]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

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!

[nightfighter]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1135617]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

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.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

that's pretty funny

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

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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?

[scottw]

the left prefers a stick to a carrot

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[wdmso]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[wdmso]

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]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[wdmso]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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.