Trump's tax plan

[alexw]

This is what is disturbing and a nonsense. Fascism is also a thought process and not just a political party. Get rid of those who disagree with them is becoming too common.

So a company which wants to grow and thus sees enough profit to do so, are just going to sit on the profits? And if a company gets a tax break which effectively gives them a higher profit, they are not going to use it to grow their business? Talk about nonsense.

Yes you are talking nonsense. We know that for a fact because similar tax breaks have been given before and its never resulted in what you suggested it should. For example remember the Bush corporate tax holiday in the 2000's? When they got to repatriate hundreds of billions of dollars at a 5% rate instead of the normal 35%?

I remember all the talk of how it would result in so much new investment, job creation, and rising wages, but it did absolutely none of those things. Afterwards congress commissioned an in-depth study to find out what happened. 92% of it went to shareholders (no mention was made of the other 8% but I'm presuming it went into executive pay - their bonus for conning congress into writing such a ludicrous law).

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/bu.../05norris.html

Now the most detailed analysis of what actually happened — using confidential government data as well as corporate reports — has estimated what happened to the $299 billion companies brought back from foreign subsidiaries. About 92 percent of it went to shareholders, mostly in the form of increased share buybacks and the rest through increased dividends.

There is no evidence that companies that took advantage of the tax break — which enabled them to bring home, or repatriate, overseas profits while paying a tax rate far below the normal rate — used the money as Congress expected.

“Repatriations did not lead to an increase in domestic investment, employment or R.& D., even for the firms that lobbied for the tax holiday stating these intentions,” concluded the study by three economists, including a former official of the Bush administration who took part in the discussions leading to enactment of the plan in 2004.

“The restrictions on how the money will be spent seem to have been completely ineffective,” Ms. Forbes said in an interview this week.

“Dell was a great example,” she added, referring to Dell Computer. “They lobbied very hard for the tax holiday. They said part of the money would be brought back to build a new plant in Winston-Salem, N.C. They did bring back $4 billion, and spent $100 million on the plant, which they admitted would have been built anyway. About two months after that, they used $2 billion for a share buyback.”

As everyone keeps telling you and you keep ignoring because you are a partisan hack who will never ever question republican doctrine, job creation and investment is based on demand. Companies only EVER invest or hire additional workers if there is an increase in demand to warrant that expenditure. Corporate tax rates are irrelevant to that. Corporate tax rates can be cut to zero but not a single additional worker will be hired unless there is enough additional demand to warrant it. Demand drives jobs and nothing else.

[Deleted]

This is what is disturbing and a nonsense. Fascism is also a thought process and not just a political party. Get rid of those who disagree with them is becoming too common.

So a company which wants to grow and thus sees enough profit to do so, are just going to sit on the profits? And if a company gets a tax break which effectively gives them a higher profit, they are not going to use it to grow their business? Talk about nonsense.

If they employ people that revenue is not taxed at all, since only profits are taxed. Hence why lower corporate taxes does not create more jobs, just more profit.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

My money is on Trump will benefit the most. The hordes of people that voted for him that suffer from it will continue to blame Obama.

[Jtbrig7390]

Guys Guys if his new Tax Plan pass's we will get to learn part 2 and 3 of it, Just like part 2 and 3 of his Healthcare plan.

I got the inside scoop tho, I know what those parts are and ill give you great detail on them because both are the same.

Those details are...........

Part 2 : Fuck

Part 3: You (Poor People).........Biggly.

[Nadiru]

We are among the top countries in FDI a good chunck of it goes to manufacturing and the like. I don't see the problem.

Because FDI in the US doesn't make the US wealthier, it simply displaces local investment which hurts local investors.

[Swagger]

Well assuming he's going to cut each bracket so that they pay less (except the lower income who don't pay any at all), it is obvious that the top earners are going to get the biggest tax cut.

That makes sense though, since the top earners in this country may most of the income tax. (Below from 2012, has gone up since then).

The top 1% of taxpayers paid over 35% of all income taxes in the USA.
The top 5% of taxpayers paid over 60% of all income taxes in the USA.
The top 50% of taxpayers paid almost 100% of all income taxes in the USA. (Over 97%).

[Macaquerie]

We are among the top countries in FDI a good chunck of it goes to manufacturing and the like. I don't see the problem.

The problem is that the white working class in America is so fucking deluded with right wing propaganda that they think that their employer is doing THEM a service by providing them with a job. Idiots so desperate for work that they don't realize the Chinese businessman who "invested in their community" isn't doing them a favor. And you know, for all the bitching that conservatives do about the Chinese owning all of our debt, that was never really an important issue compared to this.

The sad thing is that this used to be OUR schtick, effectively colonizing countries by moving in and forcing them to basically sell their entire country to American business interests. No one is going to feel bad if it happens to us.

[Ghostpanther]

Can't grow a business if there's no one to buy your stuff.

Middle class is what creates jobs. They create the demand for goods and services. When the middle class is doing well businesses prosper because people have more money to spend on stuff. Which means those businesses can expand and hire more people to meet the increased demand.

The middle class is not doing well right now. They're the ones that need the tax breaks. Businesses do not, especially since they manage to get out of paying most of their taxes.

I'm sorry, trickle down is bullshit. Basic supply and demand economics would tell you that.

I certainly agree with the bold part. But how does one sell stuff to people who have no jobs? And the companies are not going to hire anymore than they can afford and need for their present output.

[Fahrenheit]

I bet my left nut it'll be all corporate, capital gains, and the top marginal tax bracket cuts. His core 'real american' voters are going to get dick.

[Wyrt]

I certainly agree with the bold part. But how does one sell stuff to people who have no jobs? And the companies are not going to hire anymore than they can afford and need for their present output.

I'm not understanding your point. More demand for goods and services means more jobs, not less.

[Ghostpanther]

I'm not understanding your point. More demand for goods and services means more jobs, not less.

So the old riddle, which came first? The chicken or the egg? lol. There can not be a demand for more services and goods if there are not enough people making a good enough wage to afford to buy them. Correct? And if a company can not make enough of a profit to hire more people, then the jobs for those folks will not be available.

[Masark]

I bet my left nut it'll be all corporate, capital gains, and the top marginal tax bracket cuts. His core 'real american' voters are going to get dick.

Don't forget axing the alternative minimum tax.

[Felya]

What a loaded question.

I'd link what he had on his site, but unfortunately, a link to his policy is no longer on the site and my bookmark 404s:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/

Thank goodness for archives:

http://web.archive.org/web/201701010...cies/tax-plan/

- - - Updated - - -

So the old riddle, which came first? The chicken or the egg? lol. There can not be a demand for more services and goods if there are not enough people making a good enough wage to afford to buy them. Correct? And if a company can not make enough of a profit to hire more people, then the jobs for those folks will not be available.

The egg... dinasours laid eggs, chickens came later.

By the way, the enough is totally arbitrary. It's not enough, it's the least they can pay to make as much profit as possible.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I certainly agree with the bold part. But how does one sell stuff to people who have no jobs? And the companies are not going to hire anymore than they can afford and need for their present output.

It's not really a chicken and egg thing. A company generally knows how many people it needs to hire to make money, and will hire those people. If they have the money, they have the money. If they don't there are these things called business loans. Jobs aren't money sinks either. That person is bringing profit and value to your company. You need people buying your stuff to create jobs, and those people need jobs and pay to buy stuff... Now, ever wonder why the left keeps pushing increase in minimum wage, and pushes for higher wages across the board?

I'll give you a hint, it increases aggregate demand.

[Gorgodeus]

Yeah. If you accept that as a realistic effect. Which I do. Cutting the corporate business tax rate will without question for myself, increase the profits for a company, allowing them better success at expanding and thus hiring more people.

So a policy that was started by Reagan, which has been proven not to work, is magically going to start working. Yeah, ok. Keep telling yourself that.

[Nadiru]

So a policy that was started by Reagan, which has been proven not to work, is magically going to start working. Yeah, ok. Keep telling yourself that.

It works under some conditions. Conditions which the US doesn't have, nor did it have back in 1980. But it does work under some conditions. It's largely responsible for the massive reduction in global poverty, for example. As it turns out, unleashing massive quantities of capital on a global market has the knock-on effect of quickly improving living standards for barely post-Iron Age societies.

[Gorgodeus]

It works under some conditions. Conditions which the US doesn't have, nor did it have back in 1980. But it does work under some conditions. It's largely responsible for the massive reduction in global poverty, for example. As it turns out, unleashing massive quantities of capital on a global market has the knock-on effect of quickly improving living standards for barely post-Iron Age societies.

Last time I checked, the US is not a "barely post-Iron Age society", so no, it will not work, and never will. Trickle down policy does nothing but put more money in the pockets of the wealthy, and that is one of the goals of the GOP.

[Zan15]

Yeah. If you accept that as a realistic effect. Which I do. Cutting the corporate business tax rate will without question for myself, increase the profits for a company, allowing them better success at expanding and thus hiring more people.

well i can tell it works, corporations are paying what 40% less tax then they were in the 60-70's and we are all swimming in money, high paying jobs and one hell of an economy.

explain why companies are sitting on 2 trillion dollars in cash if they are going to expand if you give them another 10-20% tax break??? Why are they not expanding now?

[Milchshake]

Oh neat, a little tax break that wont cover the rise in health care costs after they fuck it all up. Also the very rich will suddenly have a lot more disposable income. Where is a good place to park all that extra money... housing and real estate?
So we'll get fewer government services and more rent or mortgage money to the 1%.

[Kaleredar]

We shall see. I think it will work out for the best. But, time proves all things.

No, it absolutely doesn't.

Sometimes it gives you president Trump.