First, I asked you what obama did that was better for the working poor than the gop tax overhaul. You chose not to answer, which means you can’t think of anything, but you aren’t capable of admitting that I have a point.

Second, allowing the owners of a company to keep more of what is theirs, is not “giving” them something. There is a meaningful difference between giving something to someone that wasn’t theirs, and confiscating less of what was theirs. Liberals often confuse those very different things.

The companies are stroking trumps ego? Comcast announced 50 billion in infastructure spending. Comcast owns MSNBC. So you are telling us, that the ceo of Comcast who signs Rachael Maddow’s paycheck, is spending 50 billion as a PR stunt to help Trump? The man who owns MSNBC is trying to help Trump? That’s what you’re saying?

Wow.

Would it kill you to admit that yes, while the gop tax plan will help the wealthy, it’s also helping the average working Joe, too? Are you afraid you’d explode if you admitted that?

The fact that the democrats opposed this, isn’t going to help them in November.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

November sure will be a day of reckoning. What it will be will just be further confirmation of our broken system and the problems of this country will just be kicked down the road like a rusty can.
We need term limits to purge Washington. We need people in congress and the senate who are fresh and don’t hold grudges and put country over party.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's going to be a fascinating November.

Almost no chance the GOP loses seats in the senate, only because there are so many more democrats up for re-election. If half the seats up for re-election were GOP seats, different story.

In the house? Most people say if the election were today, the democrats would re-take the house. However, these are the same people who said that Trump was going to get creamed.

Will people vote against Trump because he's such a jerk? Or will they vote in favor of their larger paychecks? I don't think anyone knows. Democrats don't usually vote in bug numbers in mid-terms, that helps the GOP. But in most midterms, the president's party loses seats, which helps the Dems. So many moving pieces.

Term limits for sure. Politics was never intended to be a career, it was intended to be a temporary call of service that wasn't even supposed to be all that pleasant.

There isn't a prayer in hell that Apple considers doing this unless the door was open for them to avoid paying taxes on a portion of this offshore war chest. They have kept funds off shore for years to avoid accounting for how much they have as well as paying taxes to the IRS. So they get a sweetheart deal and are going to pay $38 billion in taxes on that amount (pick a number, or let's use $252 billion) at a much lower rate than when they earned all this money, going back to company's founding. Who is to say that there isn't more than the 252 billion that will be repatriated and should have been taxed all along? This would not be the largest single tax payment if the debt had been rightfully paid when it should have been instead of being steered to an Irish bank. $38 billion is but a fraction of what they really should be paying, yet it is being spun as they are doing such great things by investing in the US economy..... yes. after t#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g it up our arses for years.....

Here's the rub, this overseas money is tied up in investments earning returns...it's not cash they're bringing back to the US. They can pay the taxes and have flexibility in the future but there's no guarantee any of it will be spent domestically.

Apple is giving its employees a $2,500 bonus
bringing $250 billion in cash that is currently overseas, back to the US
paying $38 billion in taxes on that cash
investing $30 billion in the US to create 20,000 jobs
matching employee charitable donations 2-to-1

is that not "domestically"?

So you want to pass a law mandating that they spend it domestically?

Apple said there were creating 20,000 jobs in the us. That qualifies as domestic spending.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you pay more than you have to? Why should the Apple shareholders? Thanks to the tax incentives, the irs will get 38 billion they otherwise would it have. That’s a good thing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s unbelieveable. The ability to deny that which doesn’t serve your personal agenda. A huge tax hit, bonuses, new jobs. None of that amounts to domestic spending.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I never said they weren't going to invest more here or that it would be a bad thing. Just some of the numbers are misleading.

You are missing the point. The only good thing about the 38 bil. to the IRS is that it is happening now. Much of that should never have been offshore and taxes should have been paid in the years it accrued. The Government is allowing them to pay a discount and pay late. There are two sets of books.... We will never know exactly how much was stashed offshore. This was their window of opportunity to settle for less, possibly much less than they would have owed, and to have a clean slate going forward. So my question back to you is why couldn't I do that???? Can I go back and amend my past twenty years of taxes and pay them at this years' lower rates???? Think they will cut me a big check for the difference????

No, the rub is that it is all pre-tax monies.... So in my view it is all dirty, comingled, and investments should be liquidated as a condition of clearing their liability.

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1135581]It’s unbelieveable. The ability to deny that which doesn’t serve your personal agenda. A huge tax hit, bonuses, new jobs. None of that amounts to domestic spending.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/QUOTE

A huge tax hit??? That is laughable.... It is roughly 15%.
The statutory corporate tax rate has gradually been reduced from over 50 percent in the 1950s to its current 35 percent. So who made out????

Hard to enforce that when their actions appear to be legal. But co-mingled...yes.

exactly

if apple was free

i wouldn't touch it

with a ten foot pole

8 years of Obama is why the economic out look is better
Not because of Trumps tax break .. the gop helped the wealthy as soon as it passed .. your trickle down hasn't helped the avg working Joe ... as you suggest let's see in 4 year when there is data aka facts to support your suggestion

[QUOTE=nightfighter;1135588]It’s 38 billion that can be used to help people.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

All. Heard during the obama years was that people at the bottom missed out on the recovery. Specifically what did obama do that helps these people more than tax reform?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1135605]My point is $87.5 billion (which is the 35% tax on $250 bilion) could help a lot more..... and build a wall too. This money could have been helping people during Clinton's, Bush's and Obama's administrations if it had been paid when due, instead of being diverted to Ireland and then the tax haven island of Jersey....:whackin:

that's pretty funny

[QUOTE=nightfighter;1135608]Yes, and we could also help more people if you paid a lot more taxes than you owe. But you don't. No one does.


If I owned a company, and I could legally minimize my taxes by moving money elsewhere, I would. So would you. How stupid would one have to be, to pay billions more in taxes than one has to?

W had an uncompetitive corporate tax rate. When you make stupid public policy, sometimes there are negative results. I'm not saying the GOP is perfect. I'm not even saying that the tax overhaul will necessarily prove to be a good thing. I'm saying that because of that tax overhaul, and only because of that tax overhaul, we will have 38 billion more to do some good with.

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1135617]Just think of how much more good could have been done if the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations had lowered the corporate tax rates. That's 24 years of collecting money lost to offshore accounts from even more companies than Apple. Were talking hundreds of billions, maybe trillions, and if most of it had been used to pay down the national debt, which was lower then--wow!!

But no, it's better in the eyes of Progressives to spend beyond means and tax the rich at higher rates to pay for overspending, then borrow from the rich in order to pay for money lost by overtaxing, and so get deeper in debt, and keep the circle jerk going of constantly paying by borrowing as the debt becomes unsustainable. And in the meantime grossly enriching the very rich whom the Progressives say are going to pay their "fair share" so that the government can give the rest of us a lot of good stuff. Genius!

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1135617]Legal? Questionable. It is a deferral at best. Or seen in another light, simply kicking the can and deal with it later.

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

Again you assume this Tax cut is going to help those at the bottom overnight where the 8 year recover has clearly helped those at the top disproportionately to those on the bottom ..

and your Tax cut has done the same over night...clearly helped those at the top disproportionately to those on the bottom .. the tax cut they changed the rules for so it would pass ..or the only way it would pass with less than 60 votes 51-48 Vote unlike ACA you use alot but which passed with in the rules 60-39
But you seem to avoid this truth with great effort

but will champion the stock market today but before Trump took office it didnt count just like the unemployment numbers or job growth numbers which were labeled as fake .. but Magically under Trump and republicans Now they count and mean something :faga:

Only 44 percent of private sector workers participate in a defined contribution plan.

why do you think that Why Americans saving so little for retirement? There are a few reasons:

-They simply are too broke to save

-The stock market has turned into a wild casino

-Many options within 401ks are loaded with wild expenses that eat away at your returns

-Lack of financial literacy

Could you please flesh out that simplistic opinion?

What if Obama and the Dems, in his first year, passed a tax bill similar to the current one? Would a lot of corporations have brought back, to the U.S., tax sheltered money? How many hundreds of billions of dollars would have been added to the U.S. treasury? And how many foreign companies would have decided to move to the U.S.? And how much more disposable income would the aggregate public have to spend into the economy? And how many more people could be employed in the expanded economy?

the left prefers a stick to a carrot

its very simple take economic data from election day 2008 to when Trump took office 2016 tada you have hard data

then we do the same with Trump in 4 years and Tada we have hard data could be positive could be negative

your in your time machine again talking what if's

re election money $5 million Ryan received in the 4th quarter of 2017, more than $330,000 arrived in the two days after the House passed the tax bill.

but he did it for the people

Now those things are clearly attributable to Trump policies.

You propose a what if. Then you pooh pooh me for proposing a what if. WTF is wrong with you?

I think you're ignoring the impact that flying babies have on the stroller industry. It's basic market forces at work.

I did not ignore that very significant factor. It has been empirically demonstrated that flying babies have zero impact on the stroller industry. But lower corporate taxes do have a significant impact.

Flying German Shepherds, on the other hand, do have quite an impact. It requires a sturdy stroller cover to protect the baby from the big load of sh*t those dogs are known to drop. Often, as well, we need a defense against loads dropped from incoming flying Spence posts. :spin:

Is there ANY empirical evidence that supports cutting corporate taxes or is it more like a test of faith?

Is there actually empirical evidence that economic theories work other than when tried they do or don't?

There is also the logic of the more money you have, the more you can spend.

"Again you assume this Tax cut is going to help those at the bottom overnight"

No I do not assume that, it's based on empirical evidence of companies announcing raises, bonuses, new jobs. I give Obama credit for helping the economy. But not once did the Democrats do anything that incentivized companies to reward rank-and-file employees in this fashion.

"your Tax cut has done the same over night...clearly helped those at the top disproportionately to those on the bottom"

When the economy grows, those at the top benefit more. You think that didn't happen when the stock market shot up during the Obama years? Or is income inequality only bad when the president is a republican?

"will champion the stock market today but before Trump took office it didnt count"

I always give Obama some credit for the stock market increase. Can you tell me if that helped the rich disproportionately?

"Only 44 percent of private sector workers participate in a defined contribution plan."

Because pensions are not viable or realistic. The reason the exist in the public sector is that you can just take my money with force of law. In the private sector, you have to make me choose to give you my money, and consumers want a low price, they aren't willing to pay exorbitant prices to companies that give pensions. You don't look for low prices?

Whereas Obama chose not to fundraise.

(1) Why are there so many companies with headquarters in Bermuda? Because CEOs like to wear plaid shorts and knee-high pink socks?

(2) have you not seen an y of the announcements from companies giving raises, bonuses, or making investments in the US?

(3) but there is some speculation involved. But what we do know, especially here in CT, is that uncompetitive taxes do not work.

Empirical evidence is information that verifies the truth (that which accurately corresponds to reality) or falsity (inaccuracy) of a claim.

Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. Scientists record and analyze this data. The process is a central part of the scientific method.

Jim in CT detbuch clearly dont understand Empirical evidence its clear data points exist for 8 years under obama

They are no such long term data points for Trump regarding his overall impact in the economy over time and some see 1 time offers from Companys as Empirical evidence of the benefits of a certain action.. thats not how it works

I am not suggesting Trumps hasn't had an impact on the US economy(its effect are founded only on speculation)
but their is no Empirical evidence any of his legislation he has passed (aka tax cut) or just repealing every this with Obamas name on it . will have the promised out come ... we'll see in the coming years how it shakes out ... and who wins and who looses