Please help me...

#26
#26
TennxxVol said:
We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

How does that encourage domestic investment?
Click to expand...

There is a major difference between announced tax rate and effective tax rate. Only the effective tax rate is relative.

TennxxVol said:
In order to bring about a modern day system which amounts to feudalism, the middle class, aka the bourgeoisie, must be eliminated, that seems to be the current political policy by the executive branch of our government.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think the goal is for everyone to be either middle class or upper middle class with little to no poverty.

In their attempts to do so, they are effectively killing what they are trying so fervently to create.
 
#27
#27
volprof said:
So this goes back to my original question here about why such a system is just or right. I guess one argument could be that if we substantially lower the rate then that is the less the consumer (or middle-class) has to pay, and for that reason is a good or just thing. And that view makes sense. There's another view, however, and perhaps it's a naive one, that wonders why these costs are necessarily passed on at the point of sale (so to speak) when we hear about rising executive salaries, etc.

And I'll just add that I'm not including small businesses in this; just mega-corporations. The Wall Streets and Dow Jones of the world.
Click to expand...

To maximize profit, which coincidentally is the purpose of a business. In some industries the profit margin is actually relatively small. If they were to absorb the taxes, they would be out of business. In that case everyone loses.

The argument that if corporate taxes were to be eliminated, businesses would just keep that "tax money" as extra profit. That is a myth. Competition in the free market will eliminate the price increase due to taxes.
 
#28
#28
PKT_VOL said:
There is a major difference between announced tax rate and effective tax rate. Only the effective tax rate is relative.
Click to expand...

This

My tax rate is 25%. My effective tax rate is much, much, MUCH lower.
 
Last edited:
#30
#30
lawgator1 said:
Up until I'd say about the late 1970s or so, the way to make money as an investor was to identify the need for a product or service, then put money into the physical plant and hiring of people in order to fill it. An investment meant dedication of capital for years so as to earn a return on the money invested.

Then, you could credibly argue that higher taxes on the investment class left less money available for them to put into such projects.

But now, fortunes are made and loss on fictional investment vehicles in a matter of hours. The financial industry has created a self-contained casino, where only other super wealthy are allowed to play, and they make huge sums based on exchanges between microchips, not based on creation if anything.

What is a fictional investment? You do know (as a supposed attorney) that any investment income made in less than one year is subject to marginal tax rates don't you?

In fact, for many, dedication of investment capital to real, sustained industry is effectively a huge loss because the money could generate so much more in these fake vehicles.

When the investment class these days say they want to pay less tax on their investment returns, it's not because they can or will use it to build a factory in Indiana. It's so they have more cash to put into credit derivatives, bundled mortgages, and covering trades that last seconds, and yield virtually no jobs or economic growth relative to the amounts involved.

I will give you credit derivatives as a bad/fictional investment. Several of my peers (international organization CFO's) lost megabucks and jobs because of them 30 years ago. Bundled mortgages mean that buildings have been constructed and sold giving jobs to construction workers, sales people and many more if the construction was small retail/manufacturing property. The housing mortgage problem was started by Clinton and Reno threatening the finance industry for not making more marginal mortgages, but you know that and choose to ignore it.

Now-a-days they call it too much taxing of job creators. But that's code for trickle down economics. You would think we'd have learned our lesson after the failure of the Bush tax cuts, which dramatically increased our debt and produced no jobs, just led to a boom time for the casino mentioned above.

Trickle down is the only way to create jobs. How many poor people do you know that have created a business and jobs.

Alas, people are still buying into that great fraud. You want proof ?

Look at the amounts of money accumulated by corporations and the investment class. It's enormous. And just sitting there. Arranging the tax structure to give them even more, to put into the casino, is just insanely stupid for everyone else.

The main reason that companies are currently holding cash is the unknown cost of doing business in the near future because of the current administration that you apparently so dearly love. Business can handle just about any problem that is defined, but uncertainty will cause them to freeze and do nothing.
Click to expand...

.
 
#31
#31
volprof said:
That's a pretty solid explanation. Like PKT said above, the extra costs will simply be passed on to the consumer (although as I've said before this raises ethical questions for some, whether these questions are fair or not). I think it's safe to say that, like with numerous issues, there's some sort of give-or-take and no universal solution. If we create more incentives for big corporations to invest, grow, etc., some of them will use the incentives wastefully and some of them will use them wisely and fairly (like creating more jobs, for instance). In that sense, it may sound ironic, but I guess we could say that there are a few similarities between welfare/entitlement and corporate incentives (although certainly not a perfect analogy; personal welfare is not creating jobs obviously). Determining which ones will act wisely or not, however, is perhaps impossible until we actually see the waste materialize. And just as we wonder about the wastefulness of some of those on personal welfare and the justice of all of us having to sport their bill, we might also wonder at the justice of some of these corporate incentives. I'm not completely sure, but if the current tax money that comes to the fed/states from corporations were to be cut dramatically, wouldn't this bill still have to be taken up somewhere else, like the middle-class possibly? How would the tax gap be filled? Like I said, I don't know if the middle-class would have to fill the gap or not, but it sounds very plausible that it could, at least in part.
Click to expand...

Two points:

1) What do you mean about corporations being wasteful? In a true free market, if a business is wasteful they become noncompetitive and thus will exit the free market. Businesses have a major incentive not to be wasteful but rather as efficient as possible.

You also bring up incentives for corporations which is a good point. However, you paint such incentives in a negative light. Right now, the biggest difference between most states are their corporate incentives (or lack their of) to invest in that particular state. For example, last week I unknowingly walked through a movie scene and almost bumped into Vince Vaughn without realizing it on Georgia Tech's campus. This is because no one would ever suspect Hollywood shooting a movie in Georgia. Unbeknownst to most Georgians, the state of Georgia has passed some serious incentives in the past couple of years for Hollywood to shoot their movies here. In just the last couple of years, the amount of movies and TV shows being filmed here is phenomenal. It creates more jobs, stimulates the local economy, which in turn elevates gross tax collection, which boosts education in the state of Georgia.

In a perfect world, the United States would be as much of a free market as possible; thus eliminating the need for corporate "incentives".

2) You made a good point about who would make up the difference in tax revenue if the corporate taxes were eliminated. The obvious answer is the middle class. The beauty of corporate taxes for politicians is that they are essentially hidden to the public (in everyday life) and unbeknownst to most ignorant consumers/voters period. The other beautiful aspect of corporate taxes for politicians is that they can change the tax code behind closed doors to benefit their particular donors. Thus, it is a very easy and powerful tool for incumbent politicians.
 
#32
#32
volprof said:
That's a fair point. I think many of the ethical questions for some, though, stem from corporate waste and profits. For instance (and this might not be the best example), but consumers have watched the price of gas go up for years now while the big oil companies' profits continue to go up. Some of the price increase can be justified by increased expenditure costs (so it is passed on to the consumer), but the concern then becomes why are they making exponentially more in profit. Perhaps some of this can be justified if there is indeed job growth allowed by increased profit, and, obviously, businesses need to constantly increase profit if they are to grow. But if we don't see any job growth, or anything that helps the consumer/worker, with increased corporate profits and prices, then it becomes an ethical concern.

Obviously the oil example is not indicative of all industry; I just thought it might help to clarify that particular viewpoint that I alluded to earlier.
Click to expand...

Oil companies and their profits are grossly misconstrued. Yes, the are posting huge profits. However, this is due to scale/volume not profit margin. Almost everything all over the world needs energy. Therefore, the scale of their companies are absolutely huge. In reality, they have somewhere near a six percent profit margin which is actually pretty small for most businesses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#34
#34
The great depression was caused because the fed dried up the markets money by not producing enough, and now were just going the other way into a great inflation. It wasn't from the free market failing.
 
#35
#35
PKT_VOL said:
Oil companies and their profits are grossly misconstrued. Yes, the are posting huge profits. However, this is due to scale/volume not profit margin.
Click to expand...
yes.
Major Integrated Oil & Gas has a profit margin of 7.9%

Publishing - Periodicals has a profit margin of 53.%

If people are mad they should be mad at how much magazines cost.
 
Last edited:
#36
#36
lawgator1 said:
OP, this is what the GOP says whenever you point out that tax cuts for the investment class, and particularly the lower capital gains tax, is not working to spur real investment, jobs, or growth. They just say "too much spending caused the debt."

Sure, spending is a huge problem. But so are obscene tax breaks that were adopted under the guise of causing investment, but clearly do not.

I am all for curbing spending and sensible entitlement reform. I think everyone is. But the other side of the equation is to end the charade of trickle down.
Click to expand...

Man, it's a good thing you are a lawyer, your math skills SUCK.
 
#37
#37
PKT_VOL said:
The middle class is responsible, politically speaking, for most all problems we have. They are the victims of their own actions; albeit unintended and unforeseen consequences when they were voting for their various candidates with lofty Utopian ideals.
Click to expand...

There is only one response to this. It is too rude for this forum. When you are 24 and make a statement like this someone needs to take you to the woodshed.
 
#39
#39
PKT_VOL said:
Oil companies and their profits are grossly misconstrued. Yes, the are posting huge profits. However, this is due to scale/volume not profit margin. Almost everything all over the world needs energy. Therefore, the scale of their companies are absolutely huge. In reality, they have somewhere near a six percent profit margin which is actually pretty small for most businesses.
Click to expand...

How can you make the last two or three posts that you have made and make the one like I responded too above?
 
#41
#41
lawgator1 said:
OP, this is what the GOP says whenever you point out that tax cuts for the investment class, and particularly the lower capital gains tax, is not working to spur real investment, jobs, or growth. They just say "too much spending caused the debt."

Sure, spending is a huge problem. But so are obscene tax breaks that were adopted under the guise of causing investment, but clearly do not.


How
I am all for curbing spending and sensible entitlement reform. I think everyone is. But the other side of the equation is to end the charade of trickle down.
Click to expand...
How much did u pay in taxes last year after factoting in ur return?
 
#42
#42
Middle class cant live within its means so i agree somewhat with pkt.
 
#45
#45
Gramps said:
So do I.

One of the reasons the middle class doesn't is the tax system is structured in a way to encourage debt.
Click to expand...

Really? Tell me how the tax system encourages debt. Taxpayers in the 35% bracket really spend a dollar in interest to save 35 cents on taxes? If you are in a lesser bracket the yield is even worse.

I have asked several "financial experts" that encouraged home ownership as a tax hedge that very question and have only received a blank stare in response.
 
#46
#46
volprof said:
In the short time that I've been on this forum, I've gathered that there is a consensus for a lowering of the corporate tax rate (and furthermore, deregulation), as well as a consensus for keeping the corporate rate where it is, comparable to the middle-class tax rate. The rationale, often, of the first party mentioned is that cutting corporate taxes, etc. will create jobs, and this may very well be true. To be honest, I have no clue as to how this would play out if indeed placed into effect. My question, however, is why should this be the case? Why do we require a system that needs minimal corporate taxes to create jobs, while the middle-class is taxed (statutory) higher than the wealthy? Even if this creates jobs, what kind of sense does this make? I don't claim to know how the economy works. I'm sure many on here will call me out. But I just wonder what is the justice in a system where regular folks are taxed more than the super-wealthy, and we deem this necessary for job growth. Maybe I just don't get it.

In all honesty, those of you who support the first party mentioned above (roughly speaking), please explain why this is just beyond just merely creating jobs, or, please explain why I have it all wrong. Maybe I have it all wrong. I don't pretend to understand the intricacies of our economy, not for one second. So I am open for input.
Click to expand...
Premises appear ridiculous.
 
#48
#48
PKT_VOL said:
Two points:

1) What do you mean about corporations being wasteful? In a true free market, if a business is wasteful they become noncompetitive and thus will exit the free market. Businesses have a major incentive not to be wasteful but rather as efficient as possible.

You also bring up incentives for corporations which is a good point. However, you paint such incentives in a negative light. Right now, the biggest difference between most states are their corporate incentives (or lack their of) to invest in that particular state. For example, last week I unknowingly walked through a movie scene and almost bumped into Vince Vaughn without realizing it on Georgia Tech's campus. This is because no one would ever suspect Hollywood shooting a movie in Georgia. Unbeknownst to most Georgians, the state of Georgia has passed some serious incentives in the past couple of years for Hollywood to shoot their movies here. In just the last couple of years, the amount of movies and TV shows being filmed here is phenomenal. It creates more jobs, stimulates the local economy, which in turn elevates gross tax collection, which boosts education in the state of Georgia.

In a perfect world, the United States would be as much of a free market as possible; thus eliminating the need for corporate "incentives".

2) You made a good point about who would make up the difference in tax revenue if the corporate taxes were eliminated. The obvious answer is the middle class. The beauty of corporate taxes for politicians is that they are essentially hidden to the public (in everyday life) and unbeknownst to most ignorant consumers/voters period. The other beautiful aspect of corporate taxes for politicians is that they can change the tax code behind closed doors to benefit their particular donors. Thus, it is a very easy and powerful tool for incumbent politicians.
Click to expand...

Did you ask Vince what the hell happened with him and Jennifer? That's a damn good thing to go to waste! haha! No, in all honesty, you make good points, but I still wonder about the whole "market will dictate the market" argument I've seen on here. That is, consumers will dictate what is best for the market, and the market will abide. I just watched 60 Minutes, and they had a segment on the Lehman Brothers fiasco. Maybe that doesn't work exactly for the argument you provide, but it seems to suggest to me that there are things that go on in big business that are far beyond the cognizance of the consumer, or even the market for that matter.
 
#49
#49
KentheOrange said:
Really? Tell me how the tax system encourages debt. Taxpayers in the 35% bracket really spend a dollar in interest to save 35 cents on taxes? If you are in a lesser bracket the yield is even worse.

I have asked several "financial experts" that encouraged home ownership as a tax hedge that very question and have only received a blank stare in response.
Click to expand...

Here is a link that shows some of the tax benefits of home ownership with mortgage.

The Tax Benefits of Home Ownership | AllLaw.com
 
#50
#50
Too many posts and I don't want to do that much copying and pasting

LG: Yes, I'm not going to deny that I lean more GOP then I do Democratic. BUT I hate to break it to you with 8 hundred billion deficits under W and 1.6 trillion deficits under Obama, even if you not only scaled back the tax cuts but then doubled the rates you wouldn't make a dent in that. Flat out we have a spending problem bottom line.

I agree with the sentiment that the middle class is indeed their own worst enemy here. They are the ones that just want to live their lives, and are busy with the daily living thereof. But at the end of the day they probably make the largest voting block, and our country has not exactly been doing that hot lately.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top