GOP TAX PLAN

[spence]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ward-investors

So there appears to be few economists who think this tax plan will grow the economy, the independent congressional analysis says it's going to add to the deficit, the Treasury department may have lied about it's analysis and CEO's plan to use the windfall to benefit shareholders.

What a victory for the Republicans.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ward-investors

So there appears to be few economists who think this tax plan will grow the economy, the independent congressional analysis says it's going to add to the deficit, the Treasury department may have lied about it's analysis and CEO's plan to use the windfall to benefit shareholders.

What a victory for the Republicans.

"appears to be few economists who think this tax plan will grow the economy"

when you poll Marxists only, that's probably true. I wonder what those same economists said about the Clinton/Gingrich tax cuts.

Spence, tell me where this statement is wrong, please...

Corporate income taxes are the cost of corporate income. When the cost of income decreases, the demand for income will increase. Some corporate projects might not make economic sense to undertake at a tax rate of 35%, but would make perfect sense at a tax rate of 20%.

Finally, returning some income to the owners of the company as dividends, doesn't help the economy? Unless they bury that money in their yards or burn it, they will use it in ways that cannot fail to help the economy.

"few economists who think this tax plan will grow the economy"

Finally, there is this...just the talk about the possibility of tax cuts, has helped push the stock market up. That hasn't helped the economy? Really?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"appears to be few economists who think this tax plan will grow the economy" ( find the 1 guy guy who agrees with you out the thousands who dont just like climate change and use them to suport your factless argument
change )

when you poll Marxists only, that's probably true. (shows your bias against facts ) I wonder what those same economists said about the Clinton/Gingrich tax cuts. ( you love for living in the past )

Spence, tell me where this statement is wrong, please...

Corporate income taxes are the cost of corporate income. When the cost of income decreases, the demand for income will increase. Some corporate projects might not make economic sense to undertake at a tax rate of 35%, but would make perfect sense at a tax rate of 20%.

Finally, returning some income to the owners of the company as dividends, doesn't help the economy? Unless they bury that money in their yards or burn it, they will use it in ways that cannot fail to help the economy.(these companys are all ready flush with cash your guess is just that a guess not based in any evidence that they do that now or will do so in the future

"few economists who think this tax plan will grow the economy"

Finally, there is this...just the talk about the possibility of tax cuts, has helped push the stock market up. That hasn't helped the economy? Really?

Trump's tax plan, if it passes, will free up a little cash in the typical household's monthly budget. But the biggest winners are likely to be the wealthiest Americans, who are poised to save significantly .. just the estate tax supports this statement as Fact

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Trump's tax plan, if it passes, will free up a little cash in the typical household's monthly budget. But the biggest winners are likely to be the wealthiest Americans, who are poised to save significantly .. just the estate tax supports this statement as Fact

"shows your bias against facts "

What 'facts'? The GOP has studies saying the poor will pay less, the Democrats have studies showing that everyone making less than $500,000 will be tortured to death. As usual. We'll see how it plays out, and if (like with Obamacare) it turns out that the supporting party was wrong about everything they promised, they will (and should) pay a political price.

"these companys are all ready flush with cash"

Some large companies are flush with cash, true. Many, many smaller companies are not.

Here on this forum, Nebe said that a reduction in corporate taxes would help his business and therefore him personally. Is he some heartless, right-wing plutocrat?

I'm a lot of things, not all of them good. I'm not a hypocrite, and I don't ignore facts that I don't find convenient.

"the biggest winners are likely to be the wealthiest Americans"

The wealthy have more of their money invested in things that take advantage of things like this. That's just how math works. It may not be fair or "equitable", but I'm not sure it's bad. They wealthy will use that money in ways that cannot fail to help the economy. Not even Spence can make that wrong, he doesn't even try.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Trump's tax plan, if it passes, will free up a little cash in the typical household's monthly budget. But the biggest winners are likely to be the wealthiest Americans, who are poised to save significantly .. just the estate tax supports this statement as Fact

you just stated the obvious then pounded the desk and yelled "that's a fact!"

we're constantly told that typical households have little or no savings and I was reading recently that credit card debt has soared again...sooo...typical households will probably welcome a little cash in the monthly budget

I'm not an expert but I believe the wealthiest Americans have the most money and probably the largest estates sooooo.....

I'm still trying to figure out how the poor are going to pay more...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

you just stated the obvious then pounded the desk and yelled "that's a fact!"

we're constantly told that typical households have little or no savings and I was reading recently that credit card debt has soared again...sooo...typical households will probably welcome a little cash in the monthly budget

I'm not an expert but I believe the wealthiest Americans have the most money and probably the largest estates sooooo.....

I'm still trying to figure out how the poor are going to pay more...

It’s going to pass. If it hurts the middle class, the gop will fairly pay a price. If it helps the middle class, the democrats will pay a price.

I read this morning that the claims that the middle class will see a tax hike, are based on the assumption that these cuts will expire in ten years, so at that point the middle class would see a tax hike. A deranged assumption. Even if the cuts were temporary, temporary cuts are better than no cuts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, tell me where this statement is wrong, please...

Corporate income taxes are the cost of corporate income. When the cost of income decreases, the demand for income will increase. Some corporate projects might not make economic sense to undertake at a tax rate of 35%, but would make perfect sense at a tax rate of 20%.

The front half of your statement doesn't make any sense.

The back half makes some sense but it's more complicated than you state. In capital budgeting the tax rate is just one variable in the calculation. The net return is a factor of investments, anticipated benefits, taxes on profit (income less expenses) as well as the hurdle rate etc...

Dialing the corporate tax rate down isn't going to impact investments as much because if the projects are justified they would typically need to be justified by a wider margin than the difference in tax rates provide.

Small business could be different.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The front half of your statement doesn't make any sense.

The back half makes some sense but it's more complicated than you state. In capital budgeting the tax rate is just one variable in the calculation. The net return is a factor of investments, anticipated benefits, taxes on profit (income less expenses) as well as the hurdle rate etc...

Dialing the corporate tax rate down isn't going to impact investments as much because if the projects are justified they would typically need to be justified by a wider margin than the difference in tax rates provide.

Small business could be different.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's right....dazzle him with BS

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The front half of your statement doesn't make any sense.

The back half makes some sense but it's more complicated than you state. In capital budgeting the tax rate is just one variable in the calculation. The net return is a factor of investments, anticipated benefits, taxes on profit (income less expenses) as well as the hurdle rate etc...

Dialing the corporate tax rate down isn't going to impact investments as much because if the projects are justified they would typically need to be justified by a wider margin than the difference in tax rates provide.

Small business could be different.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"The front half of your statement doesn't make any sense. "

If a business makes a dollar of income, today they owe Uncle Sam 35 cents. Am I going too fast for you?

"In capital budgeting the tax rate is just one variable in the calculation"

Agreed. But the cost associated with that one variable, is set to decrease significantly. So all other things being equal, when doing a cost/benefit analysis, the cost is going to decrease. Which makes investments look more attractive. This cannot fail to occur.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If a business makes a dollar of income, today they owe Uncle Sam 35 cents. Am I going too fast for you?

Your wit is dizzying.

Agreed. But the cost associated with that one variable, is set to decrease significantly. So all other things being equal, when doing a cost/benefit analysis, the cost is going to decrease. Which makes investments look more attractive. This cannot fail to occur.

In simple terms, if you were to make a 10m capital investment that hoped to net 1.5m in profit, the proposed difference in marginal corporate taxes would be 2.25% of the total investment. That's not usually going to big enough to sway an investment decision given much larger factors. One reason is that the capital investment is risk adjusted using a hurdle rate which could be 19%. What kind of a return would you get if you just invested that 10m into bonds? This is usually subtracted and make the tax savings even less significant.

Note that the 35% rate is misleading. The effective average rate is closer to 20%...buy maintaining deductions that's even going to go way down which is why the deficit will explode.

The bottom line is that investment ideas are either good or bad. A good idea isn't going to be shelved because of a few percentage points...most companies either have the cash or can leverage given the low interest rates.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Your wit is dizzying.


In simple terms, if you were to make a 10m capital investment that hoped to net 1.5m in profit, the proposed difference in marginal corporate taxes would be 2.25% of the total investment. That's not usually going to big enough to sway an investment decision given much larger factors. One reason is that the capital investment is risk adjusted using a hurdle rate which could be 19%. What kind of a return would you get if you just invested that 10m into bonds? This is usually subtracted and make the tax savings even less significant.

Note that the 35% rate is misleading. The effective average rate is closer to 20%...buy maintaining deductions that's even going to go way down which is why the deficit will explode.

The bottom line is that investment ideas are either good or bad. A good idea isn't going to be shelved because of a few percentage points...most companies either have the cash or can leverage given the low interest rates.

If the true effective rate is 20%, then cutting the published rate to 20 costs us nothing, and thus the liberals can’t say it’s a gimmick to help the rich. Can’t have it both ways, sorry.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The front half of your statement doesn't make any sense.

The back half makes some sense but it's more complicated than you state. In capital budgeting the tax rate is just one variable in the calculation. The net return is a factor of investments, anticipated benefits, taxes on profit (income less expenses) as well as the hurdle rate etc...

Dialing the corporate tax rate down isn't going to impact investments as much because if the projects are justified they would typically need to be justified by a wider margin than the difference in tax rates provide.

Small business could be different.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Dialing the corporate tax rate down isn't going to impact investments as much because if the projects are justified they would typically need to be justified by a wider margin than the difference in tax rates provide"

Pure speculation on your part.

Cutting the corporate tax rate tilts the scales of the cost/benefit math. It doesn't make every single project now viable. But it makes more projects viable.

Corporations often look for a 15% return on any investments. Being able to keep 80% of income versus 65%, is not an insignificant shift.




"

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Small business could be different.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And what are most businesses? Small or large?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

And what are most businesses? Small or large?

Depends on how do you define it. Yes, the vast majority of businesses in the US are small, for the most part they are non-employee, not incorporated and don't pay corporate taxes.

I'm not sure what is going to be in the final bill but earlier this month it was looking like the GOP wanted to increase taxes on most small business profits dramatically while cutting rates on the larger classes dramatically. Not sure how this helps employment. It does help wall street.

Hey, maybe that's why markets went up on the news ya THINK?

*Edit - it looks like the Senate bill that passed this morning did include provisions to help small businesses. It was added at the very last second to influence the final two votes. This should scare the heck out of everyone. It wasn't an oversight.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

What a victory for the Republicans.

December 2, 2017 1:54 AM

The Senate version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act just passed, 51 to 49, on a party line vote.