Republican Tax Plan (a nothingburger with cheese)

[row_33]

 

 

FISA just got extended six more years in January.....

 

[What a Tuel]

3 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Because it was passed with 60 votes and doesn't have to satisfy the Byrd rule, stop deflecting the question, this is about the GOP's choice in satisfying the Byrd rule. Why did they chose to have the middle class rates expire in order to satsify the Byrd rule instead of making the corporate and top rates be the ones that have to be renewed? 

 

I am not a huge fan of the tax plan, I think they could've done much better for the middle class especially when they tote it as being so great for the middle class (I get a whopping $100 in savings). However you have to conduct business in a different manner than private taxes. Corporations consistently look to the long term and may not trust that the taxes wouldn't go right back up in less than 10 years. That would affect their behavior and defeat the purpose far more than private citizens thinking their tax cuts would expire. And as someone already mentioned, those individual tax cuts will be much easier to renew when it comes time.

[billsfan89]

16 hours ago, /dev/null said:

Neither the Byrd rule nor 60 votes are relevant to my question

 

Should pieces of legislation such as the ACA or the recent tax bill be subject for renewal every few years, or should all acts of Congress continue in perpetuity?

 

Your response to my serious question about the GOP priorities in terms of which set of tax cuts they decided to keep permanent was to bring up the affordable care act. One has nothing to do with the other in this context. The reason the GOP had to have one set be up for renewal was the Byrd rule. The ACA did not have to follow the Byrd rule because it was passed with 60 votes. I think if a Bill passes with 60 votes, filibuster-proof majority in Congress, and the president does not veto (or a veto gets overridden) then it should be in perpetuity if it is written to be in perpetuity. If it is unconstitutional then it can be overturned by the Supreme Court. If it is a disaster then a new party can be voted in and pass a new law undoing the law or writing a new one. I don't think the civil rights act should be up for renewal every 7-10 years. I like the way the Constitution is set up. 

 

The GOP had to due to the Byrd rule make one set of tax cuts expire, they chose to make the middle-class tax cuts expire. That to me show their priorities and the fact that they know the gigantic top rate and corporate tax rates were a **** sandwich so they had to make them hard to return. 

Edited February 25, 2018 by billsfan89

[billsfan89]

16 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

Yes, the Dow was rising. It only took 8 'Summers of Recovery' to overcome Obama's inept policies and regulations. Having a business-friendly administration who made it a priority to cut burdensome and unnecessary regulations really does affect investments and consumer confidence, despite what the DNC talking points say.

 

The corporate tax cuts weren't about "jumpstarting the middle class" (whatever that means). It was about growing the economy, which benefits everyone. The US tax rate was not even remotely competitive for multinational corporations, especially since companies had to pay taxes in the countries they operated in, just to pay additional taxes just to repatriate that money. Why the hell would any business bring their money back to the US, just to have it double-taxed under the old scheme?

 

1

 

Growing the economy by dumping money to corporations and the top 1% of income earners is a bad way to grow the economy. If we are spending 1.5 trillion on the countries credit card to grow the economy why are we spending that money helping the sectors of the economy that are doing the best they have done in modern history? If the key to growing the economy was corporate profits, corporate cash reserves, the stock market, and the income and percentage of wealth at the top 1% then we should have the best economic growth since the 1920's. 

 

The middle class is shrinking, 50% of Americans can't afford a 1,000$ emergency, wages have stagnated, and over 80% of economists say that the biggest issue with the American economy is a lack of consumer demand. If you want to grow the economy in a long-term meaningful way you need to grow the middle class. Corporations and the top 1% of earners have nothing to invest in without consumer demand. America has massive infrastructure needs and building infrastructure could put millions to work and actually help businesses due to the fact that new and sustained infrastructure makes the flow of commerce easier. Why not just have a massive tax cut for the middle class instead of having any for top earners? 

 

Will the tax cuts really have the desired impact long term? I don't think they will. Sure there might be some short-term boost given to the economy (dumping massive amounts of money into it on the credit card will juice things up) but a lot of the corporate money will flow outside of the country (40-50% of stocks are owned by international interests) and a lot of the money to top earners will not matriculate throughout the economy as intended. Middle-income earners will not see the majority of the benefits and economic growth will not be sustained because this policy does not address the lack of consumer demand that plagues the economy. 

[ALF]

fwiw

 

Amazon earned $5.6B in 2017, but paid no federal taxes

 

That’s largely attributable to “excess stock-based compensation deductions” and the effect of the 2017 Tax Act, according to the company’s U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing earlier this month. In other words, Amazon was able to leverage the tax credits and breaks to zero out taxes it owed this year, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economy Policy (ITEP), a non-partisan think tank.

 

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/amazon-earned-5-6b-in-2017-but-paid-no-federal-taxes

[/dev/null]

6 minutes ago, ALF said:

fwiw

 

Amazon earned $5.6B in 2017, but paid no federal taxes

 

That’s largely attributable to “excess stock-based compensation deductions” and the effect of the 2017 Tax Act, according to the company’s U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing earlier this month. In other words, Amazon was able to leverage the tax credits and breaks to zero out taxes it owed this year, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economy Policy (ITEP), a non-partisan think tank.

 

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/amazon-earned-5-6b-in-2017-but-paid-no-federal-taxes

 

Besides the fact that the tax bill passed last year didn't actually kick in until 2018

 

Large corporations have been doing this for years.  They dig for loopholes to legally cook the books.  And put yourself in their shoes for a moment.  If there was a way you could avoid paying a tax, would you not take advantage of it?

[DC Tom]

19 minutes ago, ALF said:

fwiw

 

Amazon earned $5.6B in 2017, but paid no federal taxes

 

That’s largely attributable to “excess stock-based compensation deductions” and the effect of the 2017 Tax Act, according to the company’s U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing earlier this month. In other words, Amazon was able to leverage the tax credits and breaks to zero out taxes it owed this year, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economy Policy (ITEP), a non-partisan think tank.

 

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/amazon-earned-5-6b-in-2017-but-paid-no-federal-taxes

 

I think it's important to note that ITEP is, in fact, full of ****.  According to their 10k, Amazon paid $957M in taxes 0n $3.5B.

 

 

[billsfan89]

3 hours ago, /dev/null said:

 

Besides the fact that the tax bill passed last year didn't actually kick in until 2018

 

Large corporations have been doing this for years.  They dig for loopholes to legally cook the books.  And put yourself in their shoes for a moment.  If there was a way you could avoid paying a tax, would you not take advantage of it?

 

I always think that the "Wouldn't you do it" argument is a poor rationale. Listen I get why businesses particularly gigantic corporations (Who have a responsibility to their investors to maximize profits and are competing against other cut throat corps) do they things that they do. But that's a very poor ethical standard to have. If I could avoid my taxes but it would result in schools being dramatically underfunded and societies infrastructure collapsing because no one is paying taxes I think I would have to rethink the consequences of my actions. 

 

We have a corrupt government where you could legally bribe politicians through campaign donations, are we really surprised that the people with the most money get represented over the needs of the vast majority. 

Edited March 7, 2018 by billsfan89

[ALF]

12 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

I think it's important to note that ITEP is, in fact, full of ****.  According to their 10k, Amazon paid $957M in taxes 0n $3.5B.

 

 

 

I trust DC Tom's research more then online articles , but here is another take

 

Thanks to a complex system of credits and deferment, Amazon won't pay any federal income taxes after topping $5.6 billion in income in 2017. The Seattle-based online retailer will end up paying out roughly $769 million in taxes for the year, but $724 million of that will be in foreign taxes

 

That's according to an analysis of the online behemoth's 2017 10-K form, which "provides a comprehensive overview of the company's business and financial condition," according to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Public companies are required to submit the form every year to the SEC in addition to quarterly updates (10-Q forms) and, when announcing major events shareholders should know about, the 8-K  or "current report" form.

 

https://www.sfgate.com/business/tech/article/Amazon-paid-no-US-income-taxes-for-2017-12713961.php

 

Edited March 7, 2018 by ALF

[Tiberius]

On 2/24/2018 at 8:00 PM, 3rdnlng said:

You keep bunching in corporate tax cuts with tax cuts for the wealthy. Corporate tax cuts were to jump start a tepid economy and bring money back to the U.S. Tax cuts for the wealthy are only about 20%, Apple is returning cash to the U.S. and paying 38 billion in taxes, 350 billion in new investments in the U.S. and hiring 20,000 people.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-tax/apple-plans-new-u-s-campus-to-pay-38-billion-in-foreign-cash-taxes-idUSKBN1F62FJ

The tepid economy? 

 

And most of the cash is going back into stock buybacks that mostly benefit the wealthy. 

[row_33]

Don’t bother bloviating on corporate tax law and particular companies unless you are paid to do so and have access to all relevant documents for a company like Amazon

 

 

 

 

[sherpa]

31 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

The tepid economy? 

 

And most of the cash is going back into stock buybacks that mostly benefit the wealthy. 

 

I get that you post from a completely partisan position, and I have no issue with that.

What is not intellectually honest is to post something, suggest it is a negative when it isn't, and them either avoid or disregard many other indicators that don't support your argument.

There is nothing wrong with stock buybacks or increased dividends. About 50% of Americans hold stock.

Pension plans, 401k's, 403bs, benefit mightily by such programs.

 

More important is what is going on off the headlines of stock buybacks?

Have you ever paid any attention to various corporate associations and what they are saying.

You know, real decision makers. The people who really do the heavy lifting away from political posturing?

 

Here's a link to the National Association of Manufacturers, the group that actually represents job creators, capital investors, manufacturing expanders.

 

This is from their survey just prior to tax reform passage.

     "“Four quarters of record-setting optimism don’t happen by accident,” said NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons. “It is the direct result of manufacturers witnessing a sea change in policymaking in Washington, D.C., empowering them to hire more, invest more and build more—all in America."

 

http://www.nam.org/Newsroom/Press-Releases/2017/12/NAM-Survey--Manufacturers--Optimism-Reaches-Record-High-Amid-Progress-on-Tax-Reform/

 

 

Last week, the president of the NAM was even more positive, stating that well over 60% planned on expansion and additional hiring.

Yesterday, the Chairman of the Dallas Fed said we could see a 3 handle on the unemployment rate.

That is far more important in grasping the big picture than the specious argument that stock buybacks are anything other than a positive.

If Trump doesn't screw this up with this silly tariff thing, letting US business do it's thing is a huge positive.

 

 

Edited March 7, 2018 by sherpa

[Tiberius]

14 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

I get that you post from a completely partisan position, and I have no issue with that.

What is not intellectually honest is to post something, suggest it is a negative when it isn't, and them either avoid or disregard many other indicators that don't support your argument.

There is nothing wrong with stock buybacks or increased dividends. About 50% of Americans hold stock.

Pension plans, 401k's, 403bs, benefit mightily by such programs.

 

More important is what is going on off the headlines of stock buybacks?

Have you ever paid any attention to various corporate associations and what they are saying.

You know, real decision makers. The people who really do the heavy lifting away from political posturing?

 

Here's a link to the National Association of Manufacturers, the group that actually represents job creators, capital investors, manufacturing expanders.

 

This is from their survey just prior to tax reform passage.

     "“Four quarters of record-setting optimism don’t happen by accident,” said NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons. “It is the direct result of manufacturers witnessing a sea change in policymaking in Washington, D.C., empowering them to hire more, invest more and build more—all in America."

 

http://www.nam.org/Newsroom/Press-Releases/2017/12/NAM-Survey--Manufacturers--Optimism-Reaches-Record-High-Amid-Progress-on-Tax-Reform/

 

 

Last week, the president of the NAM was even more positive, stating that well over 60% planned on expansion and additional hiring.

Yesterday, the Chairman of the Dallas Fed said we could see a 3 handle on the unemployment rate.

That is far more important in grasping the big picture than the specious argument that stock buybacks are anything other than a positive.

If Trump doesn't screw this up with this silly tariff thing, letting US business do it's thing is a huge positive.

 

 

Stock buy backs are fine, I myself benefit from them. But let's not pretend this is a huge benefit that goes to the middle class. The wealthy own the vast majority of the stocks and get the vast majority of the benefits from them. And I might add, through the government borrowing more money, which the wealthy also buy up in bonds and get a piece of that action, too. http://time.com/money/5054009/stock-ownership-10-percent-richest/

 

I'm sure the NAM people are going to be thrilled with getting more money, what do you expect them to say? Let's stop pretending--not you specifically--that this economy wasn't already taking off under the previous administration because we saw great gains over the past eight years. 

[sherpa]

13 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Stock buy backs are fine, I myself benefit from them. But let's not pretend.......

 

I'm sure the NAM people are going to be thrilled with getting more money, what do you expect them to say? Let's stop pretending--not you specifically--that this economy wasn't already taking off under the previous administration because we saw great gains over the past eight years. 

 

I'm all aboard with "not pretending."

 

There has been a very significant change in US corporate expansion plans since Obama retired.

I'm not sure you follow this stuff but the change is palpable.

[sherpa]

Late thought.

By the way, I would attribute most any gains during Obama's tenure to an historically FED easing program.

Almost impossible to not be extremely stimulative.

[Nanker]

Just like Yellen's Fed... he has zero interest in anything that isn't anti-Trump or ball washing B.O. 

[Tiberius]

10 minutes ago, sherpa said:

Late thought.

By the way, I would attribute most any gains during Obama's tenure to an historically FED easing program.

Almost impossible to not be extremely stimulative.

Are not interest rates still really low? 

 

BTW, Obama never did anything as stupid as try to start a trade war. You admit that, right? 

[row_33]

That’s why Tibs and others are on ignore 

 

 

[3rdnlng]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

The tepid economy? 

 

And most of the cash is going back into stock buybacks that mostly benefit the wealthy. 

Please provide a legitimate link.

[DC Tom]

3 hours ago, ALF said:

 

I trust DC Tom's research more then online articles , but here is another take

 

Thanks to a complex system of credits and deferment, Amazon won't pay any federal income taxes after topping $5.6 billion in income in 2017. The Seattle-based online retailer will end up paying out roughly $769 million in taxes for the year, but $724 million of that will be in foreign taxes

 

That's according to an analysis of the online behemoth's 2017 10-K form, which "provides a comprehensive overview of the company's business and financial condition," according to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Public companies are required to submit the form every year to the SEC in addition to quarterly updates (10-Q forms) and, when announcing major events shareholders should know about, the 8-K  or "current report" form.

 

https://www.sfgate.com/business/tech/article/Amazon-paid-no-US-income-taxes-for-2017-12713961.php

 

 

There's as many takes as there are people who've read Amazon's 10k.  I spent about an hour going through it, and I found maybe five different numbers for "income," depending on what definition you want to use, and as many for "taxes."

 

The only two things I'm sure of in this case is: 1) Amazon paid $957 in taxes - that's an explicit number, from their statement of cash flow, and 2) ITEP was being willfully mendacious in cherry-picking whatever numbers looked worst to support their agenda.