As i said before, your issue is not with taxes and "my idea" is not "my idea", its literally how the united states became the richest country in the world. This equation is unquestionable, you, simply seem to have a very hard time grasping it. Which again, if you cant even grasp the basics, you should not be discussing it.
That's not a catch 22. Again, we are not talking about small businesses, we are talking about corporations and corporate taxes. These companies have to bring in a certain amount in order to qualify for such a thing... again.... yet again.. . you dont know anything on this subject do you?
Let me go ahead and quickly explain how corporate taxes work since i think im done with you on this topic as youve demonstrated you don't know anything. When we say corporate taxes being 36%, 70%, whatever percentage it is, this is in reference to profits. Not cost of operation.... which includes expansion. Its not a catch 22, you simply don't know wtf youre talking about.
So they pay taxes on profits, not revenue,
Not the cost of operation and expansion
You probably don't understand what you said then. Revenue - Static Operation costs = profit. If you want to expand you have to take that out of profits or get a loan. If you can't afford to expand you have to pay taxes meaning less capitol is saved for pending expansion plans.
If this only affected walmart/amazon sure, sure its fine. But it doesn't.
You also seem to think corporations are all massive walmarts.. which is kind of comical.
I've already answered this everytime you bring up corporate welfare.
Yes or no.....and if it's no.......why aren't you raging about that since it costs more and they certainly don't need handouts. If you can't make a profit on your business......you shouldn't be in business.
Yes or no.....and if it's no.......why aren't you raging about that since it costs more and they certainly don't need handouts. If you can't make a profit on your business......you shouldn't be in business.
I've already answered this every time you brought up corporate welfare. **** off.
@Jacanuk: Deal with tax havens first. Nike has a deal with Netherland, or it is simply how Netherlands deal with it, where Netherlands thinks that Nike should be taxed in US for the profits they make, while US thinks they should be taxed in the country where it is made. Result is no tax for Nike.
Well, that is the biggest problem with the EU. Ireland and Holland have massive tax laws that are unfair to the rest of the EU.
Not to mention Ireland have a tendency to not collect enough, Apple got a huge fine from the EU because of it´s underpayment in Ireland.
Unfair is putting it mildly. Nike has through this scheme of their, avoided some 15 million $ (conservative guess) taxes to Norway. I'm glad these documents finally came into the light. The last thing we need is the common guy in Europe asking why he has to pay taxes when the rich people doesn't.
Yes or no.....and if it's no.......why aren't you raging about that since it costs more and they certainly don't need handouts. If you can't make a profit on your business......you shouldn't be in business.
I've already answered this every time you brought up corporate welfare. **** off.
You are so mature. I bet your parents are proud. Now let the adults talk.........
@Jacanuk: Deal with tax havens first. Nike has a deal with Netherland, or it is simply how Netherlands deal with it, where Netherlands thinks that Nike should be taxed in US for the profits they make, while US thinks they should be taxed in the country where it is made. Result is no tax for Nike.
Well, that is the biggest problem with the EU. Ireland and Holland have massive tax laws that are unfair to the rest of the EU.
Not to mention Ireland have a tendency to not collect enough, Apple got a huge fine from the EU because of it´s underpayment in Ireland.
Unfair is putting it mildly. Nike has through this scheme of their, avoided some 15 million $ (conservative guess) taxes to Norway. I'm glad these documents finally came into the light. The last thing we need is the common guy in Europe asking why he has to pay taxes when the rich people doesn't.
Corporations should be taxed on sales per country. Therefore...........they should pay both.
Yes or no.....and if it's no.......why aren't you raging about that since it costs more and they certainly don't need handouts. If you can't make a profit on your business......you shouldn't be in business.
I've already answered this every time you brought up corporate welfare. **** off.
You are so mature. I bet your parents are proud. Now let the adults talk.........
Dude you've been on about corporate welfare when I agreed with you. Your not any more of an adult when I agreed with you 100 times. I just pointed out its stupid to think because I omitted the idea that I'm in favor of it when I initially spoke.
But specifically I'm attacking the consequences of welfare on culture. Which has nothing to do with corporate welfare.
Yes, America may have become the Richest nation in a time where globalization was less apparent and it was not as easy to move goods across the world. And if you check most harvard and Yale economists they are pretty much in consensus about a corporate tax reform. As they say “lower rates, broaden the base.” where you lower the statutory rate from 35%. Which is the form the economists favor. Another thing economists say is not allowing deducting of interest payments. Not to forget the biggest problem us companies who hold their profits overseas. So again where US is the only country that fully taxes overseas earnings, it would be smart to cut that and by that get more money back into the us.
Globalization is nothing new but even if it was, it really has nothing to do with our ability to maintain our economy. What you're essentially pointing out is a shift in business within the country.
Yale - "The Constitutional Case for Progressive Taxation" http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1383&context=ylpr
That Yale one is the only one i found that was relevant, unless you want me to include the two studies on how bad the Clinton and Bush cuts to corporations were for the US economy.
@Jacanuk said:
No, i am not just saying hey let´s give billionaires more money, i am saying the best thing would be to lowering the tax so that we get more money back into the US and also at the same time penalize the companies like Apple who manufactures all their shit in China where they can pay slave like wages and shit on the environment.
Except you just admitted that you know this does not do anything. We're not manufacturing computer parts in America, its just not going to happen, this is a reality you need to accept and its not going to change. You're now talking about screwing with Japan, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, etc.'s economy as well as our own, to do something that we're very very very far removed from doing. Apple is not even paying taxes as it is, should we just start shoveling our tax dollars onto them to try to get this to happen? How much more lower can we go? Maybe, its time for you to adjust your rhetoric and understand yes? You also know that China owns pretty much all the worlds spots for coltan and mynol or whatever it is, right? They own pretty much every major source for the resources needed to build computer parts. We had a chance to invest in Africa where most of its coming from now, something i supported in the 90s when all we had to do was go in and stop the blood diamond trade, but you know..... for "some reason" we didnt.
Yes or no.....and if it's no.......why aren't you raging about that since it costs more and they certainly don't need handouts. If you can't make a profit on your business......you shouldn't be in business.
I've already answered this every time you brought up corporate welfare. **** off.
You are so mature. I bet your parents are proud. Now let the adults talk.........
Dude you've been on about corporate welfare when I agreed with you. Your not any more of an adult when I agreed with you 100 times. I just pointed out its stupid to think because I omitted the idea that I'm in favor of it when I initially spoke.
But specifically I'm attacking the consequences of welfare on culture. Which has nothing to do with corporate welfare.
It's your childish habit of insulting those you speak with............
Welfare on culture? Are you aware that welfare is not limited to one culture? And that not all individuals are the same?
As i said before, your issue is not with taxes and "my idea" is not "my idea", its literally how the united states became the richest country in the world. This equation is unquestionable, you, simply seem to have a very hard time grasping it. Which again, if you cant even grasp the basics, you should not be discussing it.
That's not a catch 22. Again, we are not talking about small businesses, we are talking about corporations and corporate taxes. These companies have to bring in a certain amount in order to qualify for such a thing... again.... yet again.. . you dont know anything on this subject do you?
Let me go ahead and quickly explain how corporate taxes work since i think im done with you on this topic as youve demonstrated you don't know anything. When we say corporate taxes being 36%, 70%, whatever percentage it is, this is in reference to profits. Not cost of operation.... which includes expansion. Its not a catch 22, you simply don't know wtf youre talking about.
So they pay taxes on profits, not revenue,
Not the cost of operation and expansion
You probably don't understand what you said then. Revenue - Static Operation costs = profit. If you want to expand you have to take that out of profits or get a loan. If you can't afford to expand you have to pay taxes meaning less capitol is saved for pending expansion plans.
If this only affected walmart/amazon sure, sure its fine. But it doesn't.
You also seem to think corporations are all massive walmarts.. which is kind of comical.
I was very clear with what i said and very accurate. I did this for about a decade.
Okay, so lets break this down for you since i can see you're just going to ramble nonsense.
Profits are what comes after operation costs. Operation costs include salaries, equipment, general bills, etc. Every company ive worked for, has always planned for expansion as an operating cost as well. For the sake of this point, we'll leave it out. The money that comes in after all of this, is the profits. Its money that would just be sitting in the bank for no good reason. Now again... every company ive worked for and ever heard of, tries their best to reinvest all of this anyway. But basically the proposal is... Hey company, you can take that 100 million and put it in the bank, but we will tax it 70%. Or, you can reinvest 50 million tax free, bank 50 million at 70%, have the best of both worlds and then next year, because you expanded you'll have even more money to put in the bank and to reinvest.
Get it? Again.... your issue is not with the tax rate. Corporations are not being affected by that tax rate until payroll, salary, reinvestment, operations costs as a whole, are taken care of. If they are not hitting that mark, they have much bigger problems than worrying about the tax rate, don't they? So again.. yet a-fucking-gain... this is business 101 stuff. Companies put their money to work for them, its how they exist.
And BTW, Walmart, became Walmart, when corporations were paying 20% higher taxes than they are now and companies have to hit a certain amount to qualify for these tax rates (so no, i have no illusions of company size).... But you didnt know that because you dont know what the **** you're talking about on anything in this topic.
But hey, if for some reason Amazon and Walmart folded, im okay with it, im a small business guy anyway. But we know that wont happen... you know how and why? Because Walmart and Amazon also exist in countries with far more taxes than what they're paying in the US.
It's your childish habit of insulting those you speak with............
Welfare on culture? Are you aware that welfare is not limited to one culture? And that not all individuals are the same?
Again your assuming I'm speaking of one culture and not generally. This is again misunderstanding the example I'm using about black culture and how its eroded over the past 50 years dis-proportionally, and instead of holding them accountable to poor decisions.. people yell its racist if you do. Granted they had a head start because of racism. But pretty much every other community has been following at the same rates.
The way welfare works today is not about recovering from hardship, its sustaining poor decision making over the long term.
@mattbbpl: So here's a question I have for you, I personally think that increasing the debt during hard times in an effort to keep the economy moving is a good idea and paying down the debt during good times, even if paying for things sucks, is the resposible thing to do. Now there's room for investing for the future of course in both hard times and good times so that we can stay in a good position for as long as possible. Here's my question, is this oversimplifying the concept?
@mattbbpl: So here's a question I have for you, I personally think that increasing the debt during hard times in an effort to keep the economy moving is a good idea and paying down the debt during good times, even if paying for things sucks, is the resposible thing to do. Now there's room for investing for the future of course in both hard times and good times so that we can stay in a good position for as long as possible. Here's my question, is this oversimplifying the concept?
Yes its oversimplifying the concept because your missing where the conversation is.. how do we pay for this debt? Who bears the burden and what are the ramifications for that.
@mattbbpl: So here's a question I have for you, I personally think that increasing the debt during hard times in an effort to keep the economy moving is a good idea and paying down the debt during good times, even if paying for things sucks, is the resposible thing to do. Now there's room for investing for the future of course in both hard times and good times so that we can stay in a good position for as long as possible. Here's my question, is this oversimplifying the concept?
Yes its oversimplifying the concept because your missing where the conversation is.. how do we pay for this debt? Who bears the burden and what are the ramifications for that.
How we go about it is important, but I mean the concept of caretaking for the economy and the people within it.
Corporations should be taxed on sales per country. Therefore...........they should pay both.
Sales tax is paid by the customer... ? Tax on profit, but the profit is never there because the brands are apparently rented from Nike in US or so. Their effective tax rate here is apparently only 4 %. You see Nike Norway pay royalties to Nike international to use the Nike brand in Norway. Effectively eating up their profits made in Norway.
How we go about it is important, but I mean the concept of caretaking for the economy and the people within it.
Its easy to say but its not the hard part.
And a big question is whether or not the government is generally the right mechanism for being the only caretaker. Mostly because its the only legal force that can take what people have. And then you should ask questions like, is it moral to be able to vote to take what people have. But this is something many people don't discuss.
Corporations should be taxed on sales per country. Therefore...........they should pay both.
Sales tax is paid by the customer... ? Tax on profit, but the profit is never there because the brands are apparently rented from Nike in US or so. Their effective tax rate here is apparently only 4 %. You see Nike Norway pay royalties to Nike international to use the Nike brand in Norway. Effectively eating up their profits made in Norway.
Yes that doesn't mean we can't change how corporations are taxed.......they are making money in those countries. Sales tax isn't the same thing though.
Globalization is nothing new but even if it was, it really has nothing to do with our ability to maintain our economy. What you're essentially pointing out is a shift in business within the country.
Yale - "The Constitutional Case for Progressive Taxation" http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1383&context=ylpr
That Yale one is the only one i found that was relevant, unless you want me to include the two studies on how bad the Clinton and Bush cuts to corporations were for the US economy.
From the bottom link you can see what i said about tax cuts on earnings abroad.
@kod said:
Except you just admitted that you know this does not do anything. We're not manufacturing computer parts in America, its just not going to happen, this is a reality you need to accept and its not going to change. You're now talking about screwing with Japan, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, etc.'s economy as well as our own, to do something that we're very very very far removed from doing. Apple is not even paying taxes as it is, should we just start shoveling our tax dollars onto them to try to get this to happen? How much more lower can we go? Maybe, its time for you to adjust your rhetoric and understand yes? You also know that China owns pretty much all the worlds spots for coltan and mynol or whatever it is, right? They own pretty much every major source for the resources needed to build computer parts. We had a chance to invest in Africa where most of its coming from now, something i supported in the 90s when all we had to do was go in and stop the blood diamond trade, but you know..... for "some reason" we didnt.
Yes, when we are talking about Tax cuts for the top income bracket. We are talking corporate taxes and here a cut would be more vise.
Yes we are not manufacturing computer parts here but we used to until the companies got wind of not only the idea of keeping profits abroad but also less wages , less government bureaucracy. So that is why we need to get walls up and also withdraw from tradedeals that keep the uneven terms up.
And this where we need to reduce tax on income abroad, raise toll on exports when it comes from an american company so we can get them to understand that american made is the way forward.
How we go about it is important, but I mean the concept of caretaking for the economy and the people within it.
Its easy to say but its not the hard part.
And a big question is whether or not the government is generally the right mechanism for being the only caretaker. Mostly because its the only legal force that can take what people have. And then you should ask questions like, is it moral to be able to vote to take what people have. But this is something many people don't discuss.
I'm not disagreeing, but at the same time those aren't the questions I'm looking to get answered right now.
edit to be a little more brutally honest I wasn't asking you to begin with.
Yes that doesn't mean we can't change how corporations are taxed.......they are making money in those countries. Sales tax isn't the same thing though.
Well remove the tax reduction because of paying interest rates maybe? Sales tax in Norway is paid by the consumer though. The shop/company collects it and then pay it forward to the state. That is not considered a part of what the company pays in taxes. As that money is never their even though they collect it.
How they magically make profits disappear in the documents they present in this country, yet is there in the papers the company is having in US.
How we go about it is important, but I mean the concept of caretaking for the economy and the people within it.
Its easy to say but its not the hard part.
And a big question is whether or not the government is generally the right mechanism for being the only caretaker. Mostly because its the only legal force that can take what people have. And then you should ask questions like, is it moral to be able to vote to take what people have. But this is something many people don't discuss.
I'm not disagreeing, but at the same time those aren't the questions I'm looking to get answered right now.
edit to be a little more brutally honest I wasn't asking you to begin with.
Right, I'm saying the answer to your question is easy. Of Course! Now the details how to deal with it a hard.
edit: doesn't mean I cant answer. Its just not an important question once you have to solve the issues withing dealing with that answer. Or you just don't care and let it go to shit.
As i said before, your issue is not with taxes and "my idea" is not "my idea", its literally how the united states became the richest country in the world. This equation is unquestionable, you, simply seem to have a very hard time grasping it. Which again, if you cant even grasp the basics, you should not be discussing it.
That's not a catch 22. Again, we are not talking about small businesses, we are talking about corporations and corporate taxes. These companies have to bring in a certain amount in order to qualify for such a thing... again.... yet again.. . you dont know anything on this subject do you?
Let me go ahead and quickly explain how corporate taxes work since i think im done with you on this topic as youve demonstrated you don't know anything. When we say corporate taxes being 36%, 70%, whatever percentage it is, this is in reference to profits. Not cost of operation.... which includes expansion. Its not a catch 22, you simply don't know wtf youre talking about.
So they pay taxes on profits, not revenue,
Not the cost of operation and expansion
You probably don't understand what you said then. Revenue - Static Operation costs = profit. If you want to expand you have to take that out of profits or get a loan. If you can't afford to expand you have to pay taxes meaning less capitol is saved for pending expansion plans.
If this only affected walmart/amazon sure, sure its fine. But it doesn't.
You also seem to think corporations are all massive walmarts.. which is kind of comical.
I was very clear with what i said and very accurate. I did this for about a decade.
Okay, so lets break this down for you since i can see you're just going to ramble nonsense.
Profits are what comes after operation costs. Operation costs include salaries, equipment, general bills, etc. Every company ive worked for, has always planned for expansion as an operating cost as well. For the sake of this point, we'll leave it out. The money that comes in after all of this, is the profits. Its money that would just be sitting in the bank for no good reason. Now again... every company ive worked for and ever heard of, tries their best to reinvest all of this anyway. But basically the proposal is... Hey company, you can take that 100 million and put it in the bank, but we will tax it 70%. Or, you can reinvest 50 million tax free, bank 50 million at 70%, have the best of both worlds and then next year, because you expanded you'll have even more money to put in the bank and to reinvest.
Get it? Again.... your issue is not with the tax rate. Corporations are not being affected by that tax rate until payroll, salary, reinvestment, operations costs as a whole, are taken care of. If they are not hitting that mark, they have much bigger problems than worrying about the tax rate, don't they? So again.. yet a-fucking-gain... this is business 101 stuff. Companies put their money to work for them, its how they exist.
And BTW, Walmart, became Walmart, when corporations were paying 20% higher taxes than they are now and companies have to hit a certain amount to qualify for these tax rates (so no, i have no illusions of company size).... But you didnt know that because you dont know what the **** you're talking about on anything in this topic.
But hey, if for some reason Amazon and Walmart folded, im okay with it, im a small business guy anyway. But we know that wont happen... you know how and why? Because Walmart and Amazon also exist in countries with far more taxes than what they're paying in the US.
I don't disagree with what your saying, I just don't care how it affects walmart, they dump 35million into their CEO and thats part of operating costs. Or the fact that if you can't afford the expansion, or didn't plan an expansion.. you end up either penalized paying higher taxes or pissing the money away.
How we go about it is important, but I mean the concept of caretaking for the economy and the people within it.
Its easy to say but its not the hard part.
And a big question is whether or not the government is generally the right mechanism for being the only caretaker. Mostly because its the only legal force that can take what people have. And then you should ask questions like, is it moral to be able to vote to take what people have. But this is something many people don't discuss.
I'm not disagreeing, but at the same time those aren't the questions I'm looking to get answered right now.
edit to be a little more brutally honest I wasn't asking you to begin with.
Right, I'm saying the answer to your question is easy. Of Course! Now the details how to deal with it a hard.
edit: doesn't mean I cant answer. Its just not an important question once you have to solve the issues withing dealing with that answer. Or you just don't care and let it go to shit.
You can answer, but I'm currently trying to focus on a single thing where you want to focus on many things. By all means ask those questions, hell make entire topic threads on them, they're good questions, but they aren't what I'm currently focused on.
You can answer, but I'm currently trying to focus on a single thing where you want to focus on many things. By all means ask those questions, hell make entire topic threads on them, they're good questions, but they aren't what I'm currently focused on.
My point is your answer is an easy yes but that leads into the many things and that is generally where the discussion is.
Yes that doesn't mean we can't change how corporations are taxed.......they are making money in those countries. Sales tax isn't the same thing though.
Well remove the tax reduction because of paying interest rates maybe? Sales tax in Norway is paid by the consumer though. The shop/company collects it and then pay it forward to the state. That is not considered a part of what the company pays in taxes. As that money is never their even though they collect it.
How they magically make profits disappear in the documents they present in this country, yet is there in the papers the company is having in US.
Yes over here we have sales tax though it's at state and local levels. But companies are making money on products in those countries and they should be taxed on that. That's what I mean.
Yes over here we have sales tax though it's at state and local levels. But companies are making money on products in those countries and they should be taxed on that. That's what I mean.
I agree. Here it is estimated that they pay around 4% in tax, and has avoided (dunno how much that would raise their effective tax rate) 15 million $ through their funneling the money to Netherlands and only renting the nike brand from Nike international or so.
the simple question is why now? why cut taxes to stimulate the economy when we have 3% GDP growth, 17-year low unemployment and a stock market boom?
it makes ZERO sense beyond a simple money-grab. why put more debt on the credit card in times of plenty when you know you're going to need that card in times of famine??
And that simple question is not that simple. Since World War II, the tax rate has changed significantly six times. And the effects on the economy were different each time
Also the 17-year low unemployment doesn't include people that abandoned the workforce so its kind of misleading. I'd love to see a study that shows how much of that statement can be attributed to the amount of people that gave up.
those numbers are tracked.
labor force participation rate, basically in decline since late 1990s ( higher is generally thought of as better in this case )
u5/u6 unemployment rates, at lowest points since basically 2000
the simple question is why now? why cut taxes to stimulate the economy when we have 3% GDP growth, 17-year low unemployment and a stock market boom?
it makes ZERO sense beyond a simple money-grab. why put more debt on the credit card in times of plenty when you know you're going to need that card in times of famine??
And that simple question is not that simple. Since World War II, the tax rate has changed significantly six times. And the effects on the economy were different each time
Also the 17-year low unemployment doesn't include people that abandoned the workforce so its kind of misleading. I'd love to see a study that shows how much of that statement can be attributed to the amount of people that gave up.
those numbers are tracked.
labor force participation rate, basically in decline since late 1990s ( higher is generally thought of as better in this case )
u5/u6 unemployment rates, at lowest points since basically 2000
I know the numbers are tracked, but nothing saying the % of people that could work that don't and how much the unemployment rate really is. Well maybe calling it a study is wrong... basically I'm too lazy to do some division.
With the release of the Paradise Papers and all the details coming about how rich people avoid taxes and freeload off society, it is very upsetting to see people still talk down on the poor and downtrodden like they are the reason the current economy is how it is. "Entitlements" and social security is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the amount of corporate welfare and tax avoidance vehicles out there.
When in doubt blame the fabled welfare queens while citing little to no statistical data. It's hard to argue against anecdotal arguments, a sincere waste of time.
Technically it is working with respect to how the people gunning for these tax breaks think, it's padding the pockets of the rich while simultaneously ballooning the deficit eventually calling for cuts to entitlement programs.
That IS how they are designed to work. This nonsense about trickle down economic stimulation is simply cover for their base so they can justify it.
I tested this out today. According to a preliminary analysis on the tax plan roughly a third of Americans could see their taxes raised. A Republican family member of mine sent it to me in disgust because he's in one of the demographics projected to see an increase. When I suggested that it's OK because that upward distribution will trickle down to him later in greater amounts, he caught the irony.
It appears people are only for trickle down economics when they think they're the ones on the top.
Even a large portion of the remaining 2/3 will see paltry tax savings. Apparently what's good for the goose isn't also for the gander. Stuff only works when it's applied to the 'other' demographics.
@mattbbpl: So here's a question I have for you, I personally think that increasing the debt during hard times in an effort to keep the economy moving is a good idea and paying down the debt during good times, even if paying for things sucks, is the resposible thing to do. Now there's room for investing for the future of course in both hard times and good times so that we can stay in a good position for as long as possible. Here's my question, is this oversimplifying the concept?
Well, yes, of course it's oversimplifying the concept. However, the concept above is the heart of the situation. When you get into the details it gets more complex because things like how, where, and by what mechanisms matter. Once you get into discussion about fiscal multipliers even conditions like the speed at which the changes occur can apply. Not to mention that monetary policy plays a role and has it's own set of multipliers and effects.
And of course, life happens and outside forces can force you into one situation or the other (such as war).
That being said, the heart of the situation outlined above is pretty darn consistent. Those who attempt to battle recessions with austerity find themselves in a losing battle. After all, it's pretty telling that regardless of the ideology of the president at the time, when the **** hits the fan on their watch everyone's a Keynesian.
the simple question is why now? why cut taxes to stimulate the economy when we have 3% GDP growth, 17-year low unemployment and a stock market boom?
it makes ZERO sense beyond a simple money-grab. why put more debt on the credit card in times of plenty when you know you're going to need that card in times of famine??
And that simple question is not that simple. Since World War II, the tax rate has changed significantly six times. And the effects on the economy were different each time
Also the 17-year low unemployment doesn't include people that abandoned the workforce so its kind of misleading. I'd love to see a study that shows how much of that statement can be attributed to the amount of people that gave up.
those numbers are tracked.
labor force participation rate, basically in decline since late 1990s ( higher is generally thought of as better in this case )
u5/u6 unemployment rates, at lowest points since basically 2000
I know the numbers are tracked, but nothing saying the % of people that could work that don't and how much the unemployment rate really is. Well maybe calling it a study is wrong... basically I'm too lazy to do some division.
not sure what you mean by "how much the unemployment rate really is"
as I mentioned, it is reported monthly by the BLS. i think you are looking for the u5 or u6 rates which include discouraged and part-time workers
not sure what you mean by "how much the unemployment rate really is"
as I mentioned, it is reported monthly by the BLS. i think you are looking for the u5 or u6 rates which include discouraged and part-time workers
The unemployment only count people participating in the workforce. This doesn't include people that have given up and live in their parents basement.
they could be counted as "marginally attached" and included in the u-5 rate, depending on when they last looked for work.
otherwise they would be included as part of the ~37% inverse of the labor force participation rate ( which also includes students, stay at home parents, retirees, etc.. )
not sure what you mean by "how much the unemployment rate really is"
as I mentioned, it is reported monthly by the BLS. i think you are looking for the u5 or u6 rates which include discouraged and part-time workers
The unemployment only count people participating in the workforce. This doesn't include people that have given up and live in their parents basement.
they could be counted as "marginally attached" and included in the u-5 rate, depending on when they last looked for work.
otherwise they would be included as part of the ~37% inverse of the labor force participation rate ( which also includes students, stay at home parents, retirees, etc.. )
so I guess I am looking for more of a study determining all peoples that should work but can't. So basically some place between u5-u6
From the bottom link you can see what i said about tax cuts on earnings abroad.
The first link is about raising workers wages.
Your second link says that tax cuts are a pointless giveaway.
Youre not doing too good on your examples here buddy.
Also, these are articles, not studies. I gave you studies, or at least one was an article of a study, the other a study. While i did not read the workers wages one, the second one does not even mention a study or even confirmed data.
@Jacanuk said:
Yes we are not manufacturing computer parts here but we used to until the companies got wind of not only the idea of keeping profits abroad but also less wages , less government bureaucracy. So that is why we need to get walls up and also withdraw from tradedeals that keep the uneven terms up.
No, we've never really manufactured computer parts. There are some smaller business that do it, but for the most part board manufacturing, processor, etc. has always... ALWAYS, been done in China, Taiwan or Japan.
But even if you were right here (which again, youre not), so what? We move forward as a society, things change, you have to be able to change with them and deal with it. Notice the countries that don't fail, the countries that do, don't fail.
@Jacanuk said:
And this where we need to reduce tax on income abroad, raise toll on exports when it comes from an american company so we can get them to understand that american made is the way forward.
I still don't understand how you guys make these connections. If anything the only thing you can demonstrate in the real world is that a reduction in taxes on corporations has lead to more jobs leaving. One could say that they are not related, i would disagree given that its the same greed mentality that allowed both to happen.
I don't disagree with what your saying, I just don't care how it affects walmart, they dump 35million into their CEO and thats part of operating costs. Or the fact that if you can't afford the expansion, or didn't plan an expansion.. you end up either penalized paying higher taxes or pissing the money away.
But again, if you understand this at all, you know its not "pissing money away" because of the incentive created, and even without that incentive not a single corporation would actually tell you this. You know why? Do you think they want that money sitting in a bank or actually out there being reinvested and making more money? This is basic capitalism here buddy.
I don't disagree with what your saying, I just don't care how it affects walmart, they dump 35million into their CEO and thats part of operating costs. Or the fact that if you can't afford the expansion, or didn't plan an expansion.. you end up either penalized paying higher taxes or pissing the money away.
But again, if you understand this at all, you know its not "pissing money away" because of the incentive created, and even without that incentive not a single corporation would actually tell you this. You know why? Do you think they want that money sitting in a bank or actually out there being reinvested and making more money? This is basic capitalism here buddy.
Companies have money in the bank, no one continuously expands and has nothing to fall back on. And no its not capitalism when the government meddles with it. Capitalism is allowing people to do what they see fit with their money, not be forced into things or have it stolen.
Companies have money in the bank, no one continuously expands and has nothing to fall back on. And no its not capitalism when the government meddles with it. Capitalism is allowing people to do what they see fit with their money, not be forced into things or have it stolen.
Again, there is not a single corporation out there that does not have yearly reinvestment plans... not one and quite frankly, at this point im convinced you've never had a job that was more important than being the lowest man on the totem pole. I granted you the idea that you made it through fifth grade... im not sure why though.
And again, why are you having such a hard time understanding what you're taking issue with? Even if we remove the reinvestment part entirely, you still have no point about the tax rate since the company is not taxed that until everything else is taken care of. Your point was that this will negatively affect a company, that it might not be able to properly operate at this tax rate, and you got schooled on how wrong you are on that fake "point". Because you don't know anything on this topic, you didnt know that nearly every operational business expense (including expansion and reinvestment) are exempt.
This was your point before you had to continuously dodge how wrong you are.
@waahahah said:
Its higher risk for everyone... its pretty simple but likely hard to track in a statistical manner because people will fail in different ways... couldn't afford equipment, couldn't higher enough help, cut corners on a product and people didn't like it...
You now know not a single point you made is true or accurate. So are you done? Will you finally acknowledge that you didnt know jack shit about this topic and jack left town?
Which is a lot better than almost 10billion over 1 1/2 term like Obama :)
Is the only way you can gauge success, no matter how mediocre, is to hold it in contrast? Seriously? Have you no barometer of your own? Is there actually a conservative agenda, or just an anti-liberal/Obama one?
THIS THIS THIS times 1000000. Can we quit with Pres. Obama already. Pres. Obama is NOT the standard Trump should be held to. He should be held to the standard of improving the nation as outlined in his campaign speeches and promises.
Enough about President Obama already. Trump has been in office a year and all he talks about is the mess he inherited. And his supporters eat it up. When will he talk about how he will clean it up?
Companies have money in the bank, no one continuously expands and has nothing to fall back on. And no its not capitalism when the government meddles with it. Capitalism is allowing people to do what they see fit with their money, not be forced into things or have it stolen.
Again, there is not a single corporation out there that does not have yearly reinvestment plans... not one and quite frankly, at this point im convinced you've never had a job that was more important than being the lowest man on the totem pole. I granted you the idea that you made it past fifth grade... im not sure why though.
And again, why are you having such a hard time understanding what you're taking issue with? Even if we remove the reinvestment part entirely, you still have no point about the tax rate since the company is not taxed that until everything else is taken care of. Your point was that this will negatively affect a company, that it might not be able to properly operate at this tax rate, and you got schooled on how wrong you are on that fake "point". Because you don't know anything on this topic, you didnt know that nearly every operational business expense (including expansion and reinvestment) are exempt.
This was your point before you had to continuously dodge how wrong you are.
@waahahah said:
Its higher risk for everyone... its pretty simple but likely hard to track in a statistical manner because people will fail in different ways... couldn't afford equipment, couldn't higher enough help, cut corners on a product and people didn't like it...
You now know not a single point you made is true or accurate. So are you done? Will you finally acknowledge that you didnt know jack shit about this topic and jack left town?
There are many companies that end up getting hurt because of government taxes... A lot of companies are hurt because people are constantly trying to strangle wallmart because they have too much money.
The fact is you still haven't proven your *point*. I understand your issue but it still means people are taxed, progressively more if they don't find ways to spend cash. At no point is there no tax for companies and corporations and it means every corporation small or large face the same use it or lose it choice. Use it or lose it mentality creates higher risk, higher taxes at any rate creates more risk because it takes out the available funds from the business.
Your completely focused on the walmart case with 70% marginal tax where they make so much money it doesn't matter. I don't care about walmart, they make so much money it doesn't matter.
“One big issue I have with high corporate taxes is that they encourage business owners to spend instead of save for the future,” says Jeff Kear, owner of Planning Pod, a comprehensive, online event-management application. The way the corporate tax code is structured, he explains, “if you spend your revenues in the current tax year on business-related expenses, you can effectively write many them off.”
Saving and investing revenues so that more capital is available for future growth, or to sustain the business through hard times, would be the smarter decision for many businesses, but those saved and invested revenues incur more taxes. “High corporate taxes disincentivize corporate saving, which leads to more instability in the business world,”
Again I understand that businesses have plans to expand... because they are essentially forced to regardless of whether or not its a good idea for the company or they potentially lose good chunks of revenue.
There are many companies that end up getting hurt because of government taxes... A lot of companies are hurt because people are constantly trying to strangle wallmart because they have too much money.
The fact is you still haven't proven your *point*. I understand your issue but it still means people are taxed, progressively more if they don't find ways to spend cash. At no point is there no tax for companies and corporations and it means every corporation small are large face the same use it or lose it. Use it or lose it mentality creates higher risk, higher taxes at any rate creates more risk because it takes out the available funds from the business.
Your completely focused on the walmart case with 70% marginal tax where they make so much money it doesn't matter. I don't care about walmart, they make so much money it doesn't matter.
“One big issue I have with high corporate taxes is that they encourage business owners to spend instead of save for the future,” says Jeff Kear, owner of Planning Pod, a comprehensive, online event-management application. The way the corporate tax code is structured, he explains, “if you spend your revenues in the current tax year on business-related expenses, you can effectively write many them off.”
Saving and investing revenues so that more capital is available for future growth, or to sustain the business through hard times, would be the smarter decision for many businesses, but those saved and invested revenues incur more taxes. “High corporate taxes disincentivize corporate saving, which leads to more instability in the business world,”
Again I understand that businesses have plans to expand... because they are essentially forced to regardless of whether or not its a good idea for the company or they potentially lose good chunks of revenue.
Okay, well, tell me when you can pass a fifth grade economics class or business 101 class and we can speak again. You've clearly demonstrated that you have no idea what you're talking about as you're constantly having to adjust what you've said in order to pretend as if you didnt get EVERYTHING wrong. So when you can pass those classes, and you can stop lying (because at this point, you're lying, you've been corrected) then hit me up. Until then, im done.
There are many companies that end up getting hurt because of government taxes... A lot of companies are hurt because people are constantly trying to strangle wallmart because they have too much money.
The fact is you still haven't proven your *point*. I understand your issue but it still means people are taxed, progressively more if they don't find ways to spend cash. At no point is there no tax for companies and corporations and it means every corporation small are large face the same use it or lose it. Use it or lose it mentality creates higher risk, higher taxes at any rate creates more risk because it takes out the available funds from the business.
Your completely focused on the walmart case with 70% marginal tax where they make so much money it doesn't matter. I don't care about walmart, they make so much money it doesn't matter.
“One big issue I have with high corporate taxes is that they encourage business owners to spend instead of save for the future,” says Jeff Kear, owner of Planning Pod, a comprehensive, online event-management application. The way the corporate tax code is structured, he explains, “if you spend your revenues in the current tax year on business-related expenses, you can effectively write many them off.”
Saving and investing revenues so that more capital is available for future growth, or to sustain the business through hard times, would be the smarter decision for many businesses, but those saved and invested revenues incur more taxes. “High corporate taxes disincentivize corporate saving, which leads to more instability in the business world,”
Again I understand that businesses have plans to expand... because they are essentially forced to regardless of whether or not its a good idea for the company or they potentially lose good chunks of revenue.
Okay, well, tell me when you can pass a fifth grade economics class or business 101 class and we can speak again. You've clearly demonstrated that you have no idea what you're talking about as you're constantly having to adjust what you've said in order to pretend as if you didnt get EVERYTHING wrong.
Dude I just linked you proof that my point is true.
If you can pass first grade we'll start talking again.
edit: I also never was disagreeing with you, I said the high taxes creates a higher risk scenario for everyone involved...
so link proves I'm right, that doesn't mean there aren't benefits to doing incentives this way so your also right. I don't see what so hard to understand that there are trade offs...
Log in to comment