Author Topic: Republican Tax Plan  (Read 2063 times)

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #50 on: November 17, 2017, 10:36:23 AM »
ACA is already effectively dead from dropping payment. Premiums will/have doubled. I don't think the tax bill has much relevance on that front now.

Trump's legacy, part of it, will be making healthcare unaffordable for millions that used to have access. The tax reform is irrelevant to that.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #51 on: November 20, 2017, 10:51:06 AM »
Here's one for the books.

The Republican tax plan could increase taxes on graduate students by up to 400 percent.

Graduate students often receive a tuition waver, worth up to $50,000 or more.  This makes sense, since more graduate students aren't working, and live off stipends or other financial aid which barely cover the cost of living.

The proposed Republican plan would make this waiver taxable.

So a grad student living off a $30,000 stipend (which is taxable) with a $50,000 tuition waiver would suddenly see his taxable income increase from $30,000 a year to $80,000 a year!  :o

You want to try to live off $30,000 a year after paying taxes for $80,000 a year?

This is truly insane.  Trying to pay for a corporate tax cut by taxing graduate students, forcing many of them to drop out?

Call your Representative.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #52 on: November 20, 2017, 11:24:36 AM »
Perhaps without a waiver, schools would have to lower their tuition from the egregiously high levels that are currently the case. The current system is designed to smash the rich students with massive bills while winking and nodding to all the working poor students. The answer is not to wreck the lives of the poor students, but rather to redress this poor system.

117(d) requires that students work for the university in exchange for the aid. That sounds a whole lot like salary to me, or a taxable benefit. Universities can still get students to work for their stipends (taxable).

Since no real increase in revenue will occur, it can't pay for any other tax cuts. Even if the dire pronouncement were true (students will have to drop out), they still won't be providing revenue, they'll be out of the system.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #53 on: November 20, 2017, 12:11:35 PM »
Perhaps without a waiver, schools would have to lower their tuition from the egregiously high levels that are currently the case. The current system is designed to smash the rich students with massive bills while winking and nodding to all the working poor students. The answer is not to wreck the lives of the poor students, but rather to redress this poor system.

It's certainly a ham-handed way to do it, don't you think?  Make graduate education unaffordable until universities lower the cost.  What happens to the students in the meantime?

And, of course, who decided that tuitions are at "egregiously high levels?"  Are universities rolling in unspent money, or paying their stock holders large dividends?  Or are they not as frugal as some people outside the universities think they should be? 

"Egregiously high" is somewhat subjective, don't you think?  To a student, the tuitions are egregiously high.  To the university president, who doesn't have enough money to pay for everything, they might be egregiously low.  Yet this tax assumes it is high, across the board, regardless of circumstances.

Quote
117(d) requires that students work for the university in exchange for the aid. That sounds a whole lot like salary to me, or a taxable benefit. Universities can still get students to work for their stipends (taxable).

Since no real increase in revenue will occur, it can't pay for any other tax cuts. Even if the dire pronouncement were true (students will have to drop out), they still won't be providing revenue, they'll be out of the system.

Revenue increase will occur, from those graduate students who hang on and get the tax increase.

But, of course, the tax is for something they are not paying for.  ::)  So it's not like they were getting this money from the university and now have to give the Federal government part of it.  It was money they didn't have to pay, that the university was not charging them, and now they have to pay.

So universities will have to increase their graduate student stipends to help them pay the government for money they didn't charge the student in the first place.  Does this make any sense to anyone?  ???

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #54 on: November 20, 2017, 12:18:21 PM »
Quote
"Egregiously high" is somewhat subjective, don't you think?
It's only subjective in that some people will have differing opinions about how many years one should be willing to accept tuition debt after graduation based upon how easily they can find employment with their degree and the pay they are likely to receive on that job. 

By historical comparisons, it IS egregiously high. 

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #55 on: November 20, 2017, 12:49:58 PM »
And, of course, who decided that tuitions are at "egregiously high levels?"

Who decided that putting young people into debt slavery is bad? No one decided it, it's a fact.

Quote
"Egregiously high" is somewhat subjective, don't you think?

No. Being overcharged for a service you're led to believe is essentially mandatory removes any subjectivity from the equation. An important discussion is whether it should be considered mandatory or whether the job market should expect university degrees for some kinds of employment. But while it does require them the discussion is moot: the cost is outrageous.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #56 on: November 20, 2017, 12:50:25 PM »
"Egregiously high" is somewhat subjective, don't you think?  To a student, the tuitions are egregiously high.  To the university president, who doesn't have enough money to pay for everything, they might be egregiously low.  Yet this tax assumes it is high, across the board, regardless of circumstances.

That's fair, it is somewhat subjective. I base my own personal assessment on the time value of money. Unless you earn back more than you put in, versus the money that you could have made with the best alternative, that's one way to look at it. Another is personal satisfaction - does it make the individual happier than $300,000 spent on consumer goods or travel or charitable giving?

If the former, it is about training and career value. If the latter, it can get as expensive as someone can bear, but doesn't need subsidy.

Quote
Quote
117(d) requires that students work for the university in exchange for the aid. That sounds a whole lot like salary to me, or a taxable benefit. Universities can still get students to work for their stipends (taxable).

Since no real increase in revenue will occur, it can't pay for any other tax cuts. Even if the dire pronouncement were true (students will have to drop out), they still won't be providing revenue, they'll be out of the system.

Revenue increase will occur, from those graduate students who hang on and get the tax increase.

But, of course, the tax is for something they are not paying for.  ::)  So it's not like they were getting this money from the university and now have to give the Federal government part of it.  It was money they didn't have to pay, that the university was not charging them, and now they have to pay.

So universities will have to increase their graduate student stipends to help them pay the government for money they didn't charge the student in the first place.  Does this make any sense to anyone?  ???

Stipends don't help, they are already taxed. Very very simple solution - scholarships instead of tuition waivers. Problem solved.

BTW, other employers are capped at $5,250 tax free tuition assistance. So if IBM wants to pay somebody to be a full time student, they are only allowed a paltry assistance tax free, but if a University wants to pay somebody to be a full time student they get to do whatever they want.

Discounts also do tend to be taxable after some point. The current standard for every other company discounting its own product, is that employee discounts may not exceed 20% of the normal price. Otherwise Tesla would just pay employees in Teslas, tax free.

A university is essentially offering a student an employee discount, I don't know why it should have special rules. If the societal goal is to promote more education, I would think you'd want it to apply to any potential entity that wants to get in on it.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #57 on: November 20, 2017, 01:06:16 PM »
A university is essentially offering a student an employee discount, I don't know why it should have special rules. If the societal goal is to promote more education, I would think you'd want it to apply to any potential entity that wants to get in on it.

No, a university is offering employee training.  The knowledge is generally necessary for the research that the graduate student is being paid for.

Do you think that employees should be taxed on the training that they receive from their employers?
« Last Edit: November 20, 2017, 01:11:42 PM by LetterRip »

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #58 on: November 20, 2017, 01:13:44 PM »
Do you think that employees should be taxed on the training that they receive from their employers?

The only proviso is that the training gained at once place can be used to gain employment at another university. However if we consider the system on the aggregate it probably evens out to an extent (i.e. one business 'loses' people it's trained but then gains people trained elsewhere under the same system).

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #59 on: November 20, 2017, 01:39:57 PM »
Quote
No, a university is offering employee training.  The knowledge is generally necessary for the research that the graduate student is being paid for.

Do you think that employees should be taxed on the training that they receive from their employers?

That's an interesting way of looking at it. I'm not sure what happens when a company that gives training that has an open-market value generally has to do. Without a market value, everything becomes moot, because there is no standard for taxation. If I sit in on an internal seminar, it has no public value.

This argument does nothing to salvage tuition waivers for family members, but I think it has merit for the student-employees.

As for the "knowledge generally necessary" part - this would apply equally to corporate tuition reimbursement, wouldn't it? I don't know why it is any different when you provide the training personally or outsource it.

The tests for this under IRS rules:

Quote
To qualify as a working condition benefit, the education must meet at least one of the following tests:

» The education is required by the employer or by law for the employee to keep his or her present salary, status, or job and must serve a bona fide business purpose.

» The education maintains or improves skills needed in the job.

Even if the education meets one or both of those tests, the costs would count as taxable income if the education:

» Is needed to meet the minimum educational requirements of the employee's present trade or business, or

» Is part of a program of study that will qualify the employee for a new trade or business.



LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #60 on: November 20, 2017, 01:47:18 PM »
TheDrake,

I've had training - both external training required for my job; and internal training required for my job - that were valuable and marketable to future employers.

It is a reasonable question why tuition shouldn't be fully deductible to employers in general.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #61 on: November 20, 2017, 07:00:38 PM »
No, a university is offering employee training.  The knowledge is generally necessary for the research that the graduate student is being paid for.

Do you think that employees should be taxed on the training that they receive from their employers?

If this were the end all of the issue, then someone who graduates with a degree, and someone who completes four years and doesn't get a degree should have substantially the same market value.

Another difference, of course, is that almost all schools are tax exempt organizations, while most other companies are not.  A company is not likely to provide training that is not in its own self interest, which means the employee, while benefiting is primarily being trained at a cost to the company to provide benefits to the company which themselves will be taxed when the company earns income. The training of a university, it tangentially to its benefit, it's obligation is to educate its students (that's what they pay for), and they certainly could run a graduate program that did not require "free" work from its graduate students to be applied to the Universities benefit.  In fact, it's questionable that other than getting slave labor and prestige that the work is to the University's benefit in many cases.  And, again, the labor doesn't get taxed when it generates benefits to the University at all.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #62 on: November 20, 2017, 08:48:41 PM »

If this were the end all of the issue, then someone who graduates with a degree, and someone who completes four years and doesn't get a degree should have substantially the same market value.

For many graduate students what matters is what they publish - aka their work experience.  The degree in and of itself is fairly worthless.

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #63 on: November 20, 2017, 09:19:53 PM »
Lower taxes for Corps (check)
Eliminate taxes for dynastic wealth (check)
Lower taxes for the highest wage earners (check)
Lower taxes for middle - high income earners in "red states" (low income/property tax) (check)
Higher taxes for middle - high income earners those east/west coast liberals (check)
Higher taxes for grad students (check)
No change for low income people (check)

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #64 on: November 21, 2017, 12:01:48 PM »
Yossarian, can you give me a valid reason why there should be a deduction for high local taxes? Not a "who wins versus what we did last year" but a logical argument that stands on its own? E.g.

In order to achieve <blank> we should ensure that people who live in high tax states and municipalities pay less federal income tax.

Also: The state and local tax deduction disproportionately benefits high-income taxpayers, with more than 88 percent of the benefit flowing to those with incomes in excess of $100,000. Sounds like a fat benefit for the rich just got taken away.


D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #65 on: November 21, 2017, 12:07:40 PM »
This is the game.  You make token gestures that trap people by their own hypocrisy and do so without harming your own voting base.  I don't think their are many valid reasons to be honest.  That doesn't mean that blatant partisanship forced through on a party line vote isn't infuriating. 

This whole bill is nothing but a gift to the high value donors.  This is what they spent their money for.  The only surprising thing is how the working class Trump supporters are eating up the BS being force fed to the party out of power.

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #66 on: November 21, 2017, 01:04:26 PM »
Yossarian, can you give me a valid reason why there should be a deduction for high local taxes? Not a "who wins versus what we did last year" but a logical argument that stands on its own? E.g.

Well you get taxed on income by your local and state government and then the feds tax what is left over. If there is any justifiable deduction it is that. I am much more sympathetic to the elimination of the mortgage interest deduction which benefits many of the people in the same group.

They are also eliminating the deduction for health care expenses in excess of 10% of income. I don't really see a reason for a tax bill that picks on the sick and grad students so congress can pay for eliminating the estate tax.

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #67 on: November 21, 2017, 01:52:50 PM »
While we're on it, state and local taxes I think should actually be a deduction everyone gets (i.e. not an either/or with the standard deduction). I would be happy if this were automatically calculated as part of your w2 so that everyone got this deduction. In exchange I would be happy to see the mortgage interest deduction scrapped, I see little merit in a tax benefit to people taking on large debts.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #68 on: November 21, 2017, 02:07:51 PM »
In exchange I would be happy to see the mortgage interest deduction scrapped, I see little merit in a tax benefit to people taking on large debts.

I don't know about that one. I don't see the value in making it harder for middle class people to open a new business or to purchase property when they're the ones who might be on the border of being able to do so in the first place. If what you're going after is to hit the pocketbook of 'the rich' then I don't think this is a good way. Maybe what you might want to do is put a cap on the absolute amount of interest you can deduct per year in this way so that everyone across the board gets an equal value there and the rich don't cash in more than the middle class. Eliminating it altogether sounds like an exercise in hurting the economy while helping no one.

In any case I find discussions about which important thing to cut laughable when the military budget is what it is.

NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #69 on: November 21, 2017, 02:15:32 PM »
There's an argument that the mortgage deduction just inflates house prices by making bigger mortgages more "affordable."

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #70 on: November 21, 2017, 02:27:32 PM »
There's an argument that the mortgage deduction just inflates house prices by making bigger mortgages more "affordable."

If foreign investment wasn't a thing then I could see this argument holding water. You could at least measure the local effects of changing the amount and decide whether it's causing an inflation or not. But as it stands in areas where the laws make foreign investment easy you have a situation where a combination of factors can drive up housing prices. In NYC in the last 30 years the prices went insanely high and I very much doubt this can be attributed to the ease of taking housing loans. Maybe it was a contributing factor, maybe not, but the sheer amount of foreign investment there makes any such effect probably negligible in comparison. In other cities it may not be quite that extreme but bottom line if we're talking about definitely hitting the middle class with eliminating their deduction then you'd better be pretty sure that the deduction is the real cause of the supposed inflation. And even if it is I would worry that it would pave the way for wealthier competition to swoop in and buy up the real estate that someone on the border could have done and now can't, so instead of a deflation it might just cause the proportion of buyers to shift to the wealthier end of the spectrum.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #71 on: November 21, 2017, 03:16:49 PM »
There's an argument that the mortgage deduction just inflates house prices by making bigger mortgages more "affordable."

What makes housing prices inflate are rules on easy credit.  Pegging the fed rate at zero for eight years, letting people finance with less than 5% down, forcing banks to lend to people with damaged or horrible credit in disadvantaged areas.  The end result of that is what causes massive loans.

The trade off you get is that you put people into houses 10-20 years before they otherwise would have afforded and the vast majority of them "make it".  With that kind of credit policy the mortgage interest deduction is necessary to keep the line of the "make its" versus the "loses their houses" relatively stable.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #72 on: November 21, 2017, 03:22:28 PM »
Lower taxes for Corps (check)
Eliminate taxes for dynastic wealth (check)
Lower taxes for the highest wage earners (check)
Lower taxes for middle - high income earners in "red states" (low income/property tax) (check)
Higher taxes for middle - high income earners those east/west coast liberals (check)
Higher taxes for grad students (check)
No change for low income people (check)

Poorly thought out list of bullets (check)

You seem not understand the actual tax impacts of the proposals, or have the remotest understanding of how they would interact.  You'd have to posit that the corporate tax change won't increase the economy or salaries (notwithstanding that all evidence globally is that this is a settled fact, and most other countries have deliberately lowered their corporate tax rates to achieve this effect), which if either occur, virtually all income groups improve, but particularly the middle class.

You also seem to ignore that many low income people are going to have their tax burdens (if they bore any taxes) radically reduced by the bracket change.  It also seems with the changes to certain credits there will be additional gifts to some of those whose taxes are negative (and refundable).

Professionals in high tax states are about the only group that doesn't straight up benefit, and even they will benefit if the economy improves even half as much as is reasonably predictable.

Maybe you could offer some explanation rather that "check" for the opinions.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #73 on: November 21, 2017, 03:52:50 PM »
Quote
You'd have to posit that the corporate tax change won't increase the economy or salaries (notwithstanding that all evidence globally is that this is a settled fact, and most other countries have deliberately lowered their corporate tax rates to achieve this effect), which if either occur, virtually all income groups improve, but particularly the middle class.
I don't think the word "fact" means what you think it means.

Corporations are already making record profits.  Increasing their profits and expecting that will magically lead to higher salaries?  it's just not going to happen; otherwise, their record profits in recent years would have led to higher salaries, not to the salary stagnation that we have seen.

As for "increasing the economy" (whatever that means): I suppose giving shareholders, board members and C-level administrators stock value increases might be considered "increasing the economy", but I can't imagine most people think that to be terribly sexy.

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #74 on: November 21, 2017, 05:04:20 PM »
Lower taxes for Corps (check)
Eliminate taxes for dynastic wealth (check)
Lower taxes for the highest wage earners (check)
Lower taxes for middle - high income earners in "red states" (low income/property tax) (check)
Higher taxes for middle - high income earners those east/west coast liberals (check)
Higher taxes for grad students (check)
No change for low income people (check)

Poorly thought out list of bullets (check)

You seem not understand the actual tax impacts of the proposals, or have the remotest understanding of how they would interact.  You'd have to posit that the corporate tax change won't increase the economy or salaries (notwithstanding that all evidence globally is that this is a settled fact, and most other countries have deliberately lowered their corporate tax rates to achieve this effect), which if either occur, virtually all income groups improve, but particularly the middle class.

You also seem to ignore that many low income people are going to have their tax burdens (if they bore any taxes) radically reduced by the bracket change.  It also seems with the changes to certain credits there will be additional gifts to some of those whose taxes are negative (and refundable).

Professionals in high tax states are about the only group that doesn't straight up benefit, and even they will benefit if the economy improves even half as much as is reasonably predictable.

Maybe you could offer some explanation rather that "check" for the opinions.

So you agree with all the points except the no change for low income people? Did you just not like the presentation or are there more of those points you actually disagree with?

I didn't address the knock off issues just the direct effects of the bill. That would be a more detailed discussion but almost no economist not in the administration is claiming a majority of the corporate tax cut would end up in workers pockets. Other countries have lowered taxes in a race to the bottom regulation/tax environment in order to attract companies to come in the first place, I haven't seen any evidence that lower corporate tax rates in a country lead directly to significantly higher wages.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #75 on: November 21, 2017, 06:01:17 PM »
I don't think you can at all correlate a change in tax rate with an increase in workers wages. More debatable is an increase in available jobs, certainly in the short term a drop in rate has an effect (usually a "special deal" for situations like the Amazon HQ Bonanza Scavenger Hunt).

In general, It think the company is not going to suddenly decide to give their employees better compensation. The only way it goes up is scarcity of workers, but especially in this day and age, a company may be much better off buying automation than paying for hard to find workers. Leftovers might fuel an expansion, but it also might just as easily spur a stock buyback, translate in to windfall dividends, or power an M&A frenzy that can actually consolidate work, losing jobs and the mobility of workers at the same time.

I'm generally in favor of lowering corporate income tax, I think it leads to pathologies. I'd much rather just tax individuals appropriately due to the impact on exports. "Tax corporations" really just translates into "Tax investors", "Tax employees", or "Tax Customers"

You can do the former by raising capital gains taxes, the second by raising personal income tax or payroll tax, the third by a sales or use tax.


Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #76 on: November 22, 2017, 11:30:07 PM »
So you guys don't think it sounds right that corporate tax rates being lower will increase wages, and therefore its not a fact.  Can I ask that you do a little bit of research on the point and come back to me.  Whether something sounds right to you is not a test of whether its a fact, or is representative of a fairly large body of research, and you certainly didn't dispute or even acknowledge that many countries around the world have deliberately cut their corporate tax rates to try and achieve this result.

But hey, "corporations" have "too much money" ergo higher taxes must be good.  /sigh

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #77 on: November 23, 2017, 07:48:14 AM »
So you guys don't think it sounds right that corporate tax rates being lower will increase wages, and therefore its not a fact.  Can I ask that you do a little bit of research on the point and come back to me. 

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/corporate-tax-cuts-mainly-benefit-shareholders-and-ceos-not-workers

Countries cut taxes in order to attract businesses in the first place. Sometimes getting Apple to set up "headquarters" in Ireland is going to bring some relatively high paying jobs but I don't think that goes through to raises in workers already employed there. You have the reason for the tax cuts wrong.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #78 on: November 23, 2017, 08:16:33 AM »
Fact: Corporate profits have been increasing over a number of years.
Fact: Wage rates have been stagnant over that same period.
Fact: Corporate profits are at an all time high.
Fact: Reducing actual corporate taxes will increase corporate profits further.
Wishful thinking: the profit increases related to reduced corporate taxes will be redirected in significant amounts to raising wages, where profit increases not related to tax reduction have not gone towards raising wages.

As to this
Quote
But hey, "corporations" have "too much money" ergo higher taxes must be good.  /sigh
This goes a long way to understanding why you are unable to process these points.  On this topic, as on many others, your argument is based on how you perceive others' motives for holding a position, as opposed to their actual reasons.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #79 on: November 27, 2017, 03:07:15 PM »
So you guys don't think it sounds right that corporate tax rates being lower will increase wages, and therefore its not a fact.  Can I ask that you do a little bit of research on the point and come back to me. 

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/corporate-tax-cuts-mainly-benefit-shareholders-and-ceos-not-workers

Lol, I'll see your progressive think tank (literally by the way a progressive think tank, not figuratively), and raise you a Wall Street Journal (by the way there are several there):

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-wages-of-corporate-taxes-1508799171

A journal article (pay particular attention to the sections where it talks of labor bearing the burden of corporate taxes, but really the whole thing is on point):

https://www.kansascityfed.org/kdnRn/publicat/econrev/pdf/09q2felix.pdf

Or you could take a look at a meta-analysis, that includes a good bit of review on other studies (all of which show increases to corporate taxes strongly depress wages), which itself says the assumption that corporate taxes are paid by shareholders should be questioned, as labor appears to bear a substantial portion.

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/WP-101.pdf

And here's a more recent article just to show that this is an international belief:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451811/corporate-tax-cuts-benefit-ordinary-workers

I get it, it's counter-intuitive for you, but that doesn't make it wrong.

Quote
Countries cut taxes in order to attract businesses in the first place. Sometimes getting Apple to set up "headquarters" in Ireland is going to bring some relatively high paying jobs but I don't think that goes through to raises in workers already employed there. You have the reason for the tax cuts wrong.

Not really, you're just really confused about what it means to move investment capital across jurisdictions.  By the way, you can't have it both ways.  You can't simultaneously believe that government cash infusions through lending and giveaways will generate economic activity and discount that an impact on capital investment won't.  The latter, is far and away, more directly tied to economic growth than the former.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #80 on: November 27, 2017, 03:26:07 PM »
Fact: Corporate profits have been increasing over a number of years.

And what do you mean by that?  Did you account for this in the "information" you are looking at?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/05/07/why-have-corporate-profits-been-rising-as-a-percentage-of-gdp-globalisation/#1717f30d2a6e

Quote
Fact: Wage rates have been stagnant over that same period.

Which is exactly what I would predict in the environment of past eight years, with extreme regulatory uncertainty, massive corporate tax burden and little to no incentive to invest capital in the US or even repatriate it.

Quote
Fact: Corporate profits are at an all time high.

But investment is not at a record high.  There's some interesting scholarship on why.  Did you intend to cite to it, or just to run through a "facts" list and make implications.

FACT:   Honey bees have been dying in droves.
FACT:  Wages are stagnant.

Conclusion?  We need more honey bees?

Quote
Fact: Reducing actual corporate taxes will increase corporate profits further.

Maybe, though that link isn't as clear as you think.  In any event, where do you think that money will go?  Either into new investments by corp, higher wages or dividends (which the recipient will be looking to reinvest). 

If you want better wages, the key is to make reinvestment desirable.  Nothing about anything you've said even remotely tries to do that, which is why your claims are fairly superficial.

Quote
Wishful thinking: the profit increases related to reduced corporate taxes will be redirected in significant amounts to raising wages, where profit increases not related to tax reduction have not gone towards raising wages.

Well, again, I recommend you spend some time reading about why, rather than emoting. Wages are down because re-investment is down, lowering the tax rate is designed to increase investment.  To my view it doesn't even have to be a straight percentage reduction, I'm not above a bit of heavy handedness that ties breaks to generating better jobs in the US (like say giving bonus to the wages deductions (but only on wages for middle class jobs).

Quote
As to this
Quote
But hey, "corporations" have "too much money" ergo higher taxes must be good.  /sigh
This goes a long way to understanding why you are unable to process these points.  On this topic, as on many others, your argument is based on how you perceive others' motives for holding a position, as opposed to their actual reasons.

No, my argument is based on having read enough to have an opinion about why things are happening.  Feel free to walk me through even a marginally sophisticated position.  Emoting things that are described as "naive" in the literature isn't terribly convincing.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #81 on: November 27, 2017, 04:32:29 PM »
Quote
massive corporate tax burden
According to GAO and IRS numbers, almost nobody alive today and still working in corporate governance has ever experienced either a lower statutory or effective rates on capital income in the USA (with the exception of a couple of years post 2008 when the tax bailout was in place).

Since WWII, both rates are currently sitting at or very near their lowest points.  The effective rate is also roughly the same as or lower than other first world countries with which the USA might be competing for corporate interest.

So no, there is no "massive corporate tax burden" - at least not as compared to the last 70 years.

Putting aside your misstatement, given that the modern USA economy has never seen lower corporate rates, it is extremely speculative to make any claims on the effects of further reducing the effective rates.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #82 on: November 27, 2017, 05:33:10 PM »
I read most of your links, Seriati (except for the WSJ, for which I am not a subscriber :( ), and I noticed something.

The links talked about how increased corporate taxes were borne by labor, but they did not address how decreased corporate taxes would benefit labor.

The only study cited that talked about benefits to labor (that I noticed) was in the National Review article, which talked about how "workers at a fully unionized firm capture roughly 54 percent of the benefits of low tax rates."  But notice that the paper limited it to "fully unionized firm"s, not firms in general.

While it is logical that corporations hit with higher taxes would cut expenses by cutting labor expenses, it does not follow that those same corporations would increase their labor expenses if they had lower taxes (unless forced to by union negotiations).  When you consider that these same corporations have seen record profits in the past few years and have shown no increase it wages, your links simply do not show that tax cuts to corporations will increase wages.

Perhaps you have some other links that show that?
 

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #83 on: November 27, 2017, 06:16:44 PM »
Meanwhile, a deficit hawk at Forbes is having a real hard time with the bill.

Quote
There's no economic justification whatsoever for a tax cut at this time. U.S. GDP is growing, unemployment is close to 4 percent (below what is commonly considered "full employment"), corporate profits are at record levels and stock markets are soaring. It makes no sense to add any federal government-induced stimulus to all this private sector-caused economic activity, let alone a tax cut as big as this one...

Consider the following.
•The $1 trillion a year budget deficit will not be the result of cyclical changes that will be reversed when the economy improves. These will be permanent structural deficit increases.
•The tax hikes that will be needed to resolve the structural imbalance between federal spending and revenues will be impossible for political reasons.
•Whenever the U.S. economy grows more slowly than expected or there's a downturn, an annual deficit of $2 trillion could easily become the norm.
•The federal government will have far less ability to respond to economic downturns unless previously unimaginable and politically intolerable deficits, tax increases or spending cuts suddenly become acceptable.
•Reduce the national debt? As they say in New York, fuhgeddaboudit at least in the next decade.
•Much more national debt plus rising interest rates means interest on the national debt will be the fastest growing part of the federal budget.
•Without massive cuts in Social Security, Medicare and the Pentagon, it won't be possible to reduce federal spending enough to do more than tweak the deficit.
•Washington's ability to invest in anything new that will improve the economy (think infrastructure, education and medical research) will be far less given the already-high deficits.
•Even though the limits to monetary policy became obvious the past few years, the Federal Reserve will be the major economic policy maker in Washington over the next decade.

In other words, if the GOP tax bill is enacted, Congress and the president this year will give up almost all ability to deal with the U.S. economy for at least a decade even when, as almost certainly will happen, there's a downturn. No one else will be able to fulfill this role.

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #84 on: November 27, 2017, 06:25:23 PM »
I would have more faith in their analysis if they had realized the 1.4 trillion was a 10 year number. That said many of the points retain validity at 150 billion a year.

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #85 on: November 27, 2017, 10:00:51 PM »
So you guys don't think it sounds right that corporate tax rates being lower will increase wages, and therefore its not a fact.  Can I ask that you do a little bit of research on the point and come back to me. 

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/corporate-tax-cuts-mainly-benefit-shareholders-and-ceos-not-workers

Lol, I'll see your progressive think tank (literally by the way a progressive think tank, not figuratively), and raise you a Wall Street Journal (by the way there are several there):

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-wages-of-corporate-taxes-1508799171

A journal article (pay particular attention to the sections where it talks of labor bearing the burden of corporate taxes, but really the whole thing is on point):

https://www.kansascityfed.org/kdnRn/publicat/econrev/pdf/09q2felix.pdf

You could also look at this paper from the fed.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/feds/2016/files/2016006pap.pdf

Quote
While tax increases are uniformly harmful, tax cuts have, in general, no significant effect on
either employment or income. The one exception is when tax cuts are implemented during a
recession. In this case, tax cuts lead to sizeable increases in both employment and income. This
finding suggests that corporate tax cuts, when used counter-cyclically, can be an effective policy
tool if government desires to stimulate employment and income during economic downturns.

The paper does show a small positive uptick in employment/wages after a tax cut but it is within their estimated margin of error based on their methodology.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #86 on: November 28, 2017, 04:34:03 PM »
Quote
massive corporate tax burden
According to GAO and IRS numbers, almost nobody alive today and still working in corporate governance has ever experienced either a lower statutory or effective rates on capital income in the USA (with the exception of a couple of years post 2008 when the tax bailout was in place).

And?  How does that respond to what I said?  Go luck, US corporate rates are top 3 highest in the world, and even on a "effective tax rate" measure (which is not necessarily the one that drives capital movements) are still higher than most everyone else's.  Meanwhile, everyone else in the globe lowers their rates to drive investment, and we pursue the dark ages repressive tax regime because "corporations make too much" without any real thought about what that means.

Quote
Putting aside your misstatement, given that the modern USA economy has never seen lower corporate rates, it is extremely speculative to make any claims on the effects of further reducing the effective rates.

The only "misstatement" is your misstatement of what I said.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #87 on: November 28, 2017, 04:46:36 PM »
The links talked about how increased corporate taxes were borne by labor, but they did not address how decreased corporate taxes would benefit labor.

I take your point, though I think the studies on this topic pretty much flat out demonstrate that linkage works in both ways (take a look again at the references to the data driven studies, a bunch of them are based on reductions in tax rates), the authors did describe it in the opposite terms.  It's theorehtically possible that while labor may bear up to 100% of the costs of increasing the corporate tax rate, they bear none of the benefits, it's just incredibly unlikely.  For that to be the true, the increase in money would have to be pulled out and wasted (not invested or reinvested, not used to increase competitiveness or wages).  It would literally have to go under the mattress to have no economic impact.

Quote
The only study cited that talked about benefits to labor (that I noticed) was in the National Review article, which talked about how "workers at a fully unionized firm capture roughly 54 percent of the benefits of low tax rates."  But notice that the paper limited it to "fully unionized firm"s, not firms in general.

The paper didn't limit it, the study was based on that data.  I didn't claim this is an economic law, just that recent research indicates the very strong likelihood that corporate tax rate changes flow through to worker wages (even more strongly than to shareholder profits), most of them indicate this is true in the short term and especially in the long run.  Taking a position that lowering the corporate tax rate is bad, is almost certainly anti-worker.

Quote
While it is logical that corporations hit with higher taxes would cut expenses by cutting labor expenses, it does not follow that those same corporations would increase their labor expenses if they had lower taxes (unless forced to by union negotiations).

It actually does follow.  Increasing profits in that manner is almost directly linked historically to increasing investment, both in equipment and labor (and labor wages also benefit directly from equipment investment as a historical manner).

Quote
When you consider that these same corporations have seen record profits in the past few years and have shown no increase it wages, your links simply do not show that tax cuts to corporations will increase wages.

Well, the confounder, as I pointed out, is that these "record" profits are heavily tied into non-US growth (which is the proverbial mattress I referred to above, at least with respect to the US economy).  They are not being taxed now.  They are not being used to benefit American workers or mainland capital improvements (because bringing them back is subject to punitive taxation).  You broke the historical link to reinvestment with the current tax policies.  What do you think the whole inversion stink has been about? 

Quote
Perhaps you have some other links that show that?

Could, of course so could you.  I find it hard to fathom how anyone could have a valid opinion on tax policy and not have seen some of this on their own.  What exactly are you guys basing your opinions on?  Is literally just corporate profits = bad?
« Last Edit: November 28, 2017, 04:48:57 PM by Seriati »

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #88 on: November 28, 2017, 10:57:55 PM »
Quote
How does that respond to what I said?
Your argument is based at least in part, on the belief that corporations are behaving uncharacteristically due to their "massive" tax burden.  I showed you that corporate tax burdens in the USA are at a 70 year (at least) low.
Quote
US corporate rates are top 3 highest in the world, and even on a "effective tax rate" measure (which is not necessarily the one that drives capital movements) are still higher than most everyone else's
The statutory rates are lower than they have been historically, so even using that as a metric, without taking into account that basically no corporations actually pay the statutory rate, doesn't support your position.  But we know that all corporations do take advantage of tax credits, deductions and other tax avoidance mechanisms, so basing any argument on that statutory rate is silly, unless also taking into account the specifics of the deduction mechanisms as well.
Quote
we pursue the dark ages repressive tax regime because "corporations make too much"
You keep repeating this, so I have to ask: why do you think corporations make too much, and why do you think corporate profit is an inherently bad thing?

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #89 on: November 29, 2017, 09:41:10 AM »
Could, of course so could you.  I find it hard to fathom how anyone could have a valid opinion on tax policy and not have seen some of this on their own.  What exactly are you guys basing your opinions on?  Is literally just corporate profits = bad?

No it's that corporations prioritize shareholders (as is their fiduciary responsibility) and executives over the average worker. I have never made the argument that corporate profits are bad, I simply disagreed with your claim that when a big corporation gets more money (in this case through a tax cut) that it automatically ends up as raises for the common worker in that corporation. Wall street seems to think that reduced corporate taxes are going to lead to increased returns for shareholders, hence the accelerated stock market rally in the past year. So they obviously think a large chunk of those increased profits will be realized by the shareholders instead of the workers of the corporation.

I agree that some of the money would trickle down to wages, but I see no evidence that the majority would. I think from your links the highest % that went to workers was 54% in fully unionized workplaces.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #90 on: November 30, 2017, 11:23:40 AM »
Quote
Could, of course so could you.  I find it hard to fathom how anyone could have a valid opinion on tax policy and not have seen some of this on their own. I find it hard to fathom how anyone could have a valid opinion on tax policy and not have seen some of this on their own.  What exactly are you guys basing your opinions on?

Seriati, I'm basing my opinion on analyses like this one, along with the general consensus among economists.

Quote
While there is uncertainty and debate regarding the extent to which lowering statutory corporate taxes to 20 percent might boost worker wages, the CEA’s claim that workers’ income would rise by $4,000 to $9,000 is well above the top of the range of consensus estimates. And one can recount examples of countries that lowered corporate tax rates without a resulting rise in wages, such as the experience of the United Kingdom, which, as a large open economy, is in many ways comparable to the United States. If one goal of tax reform is to raise worker incomes, there are much more direct ways to go about doing so. We know that workers pay all of the payroll tax and that they receive most of the benefit from the Earned Income Tax Credit, so focusing on those areas provides a more direct benefit to workers.

Still, there are good reasons to reform the United States corporate tax system. Ideally, corporate tax reform should not have an adverse effect on government revenue, should reduce distortions that make people respond to tax incentives rather than underlying economic considerations, and should eliminate current incentives that discourage companies from distributing their profits to their shareholders. An ideal corporate tax reform would likely combine a lower tax rate with a broader tax base (including steps to combat profit shifting) and a more even treatment of different types of investment. But deficit-financed corporate tax cuts are more likely to hurt workers than help them.

But, of course, what I was trying to find out was what you based your opinion on, which is why I asked for better references (since the ones you linked to I found to be somewhat lacking).

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #91 on: November 30, 2017, 11:28:24 AM »
Also of interest, apparently this GOP tax cut are the least popular in recent history, even less popular than Bush I's tax increase, which helped him lose his re-election campaign.  (Remember "Read my lips.  No new taxes"? :) )

Which is neither here nor there as far as the merits of the tax bill (whatever it is at the moment), but does affect whether it will pass or not.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #92 on: November 30, 2017, 11:40:07 AM »
I think it will pass.  As much as even the Republican congress is loath to give Trump a win, and alienate large swaths of the country who don't like this bill...

They MUST pass something of note soon or they're all toast.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #93 on: November 30, 2017, 12:17:23 PM »
My gut tells me it is going to pass, too (although my gut has been very wrong in the past).

But if those numbers are correct, it may mean that they might just be toast if they pass it, too. 

Especially when they get around to "starving the beast" because of it. ;)

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #94 on: November 30, 2017, 12:54:53 PM »
Quote
How does that respond to what I said?
Your argument is based at least in part, on the belief that corporations are behaving uncharacteristically due to their "massive" tax burden.  I showed you that corporate tax burdens in the USA are at a 70 year (at least) low.

My argument is not is not remotely based on an absolute tax burden, it's based on a relative one.  Your point doesn't even remotely address that.

Meanwhile, the global economy has been for years increasing and the level of international trade exceeds anything remotely present in history.  International capital movements are both easier and more frequent than they have ever been.  You seem fixated on looking at the American tax rate as if America is a closed system, when it's not only less closed than it's ever been, the rate of "openness" has been fairly consistently accelerating for our entire lives.

So no, your point isn't at all responsive to my argument that the US tax rate is too high and that lowering it will lead to more investment and better wages.

Quote
The statutory rates are lower than they have been historically, so even using that as a metric, without taking into account that basically no corporations actually pay the statutory rate, doesn't support your position.

Again it does, but more importantly, the statutory rate does influence decision making.  In fact part of the reason the effective rate is lower (and still generally higher than other places in the world) is specifically because the statutory rate has influenced decisions.  It's caused massive amounts of channeling investment into tax preferred manners and any number of results that are horrid for the American people.

Keeping profit over seas (I saw that for instance that Apple alone is holding over $200 billion overseas), means it's neither taxed or used to invest in America.

Tax inversions are a direct response to the US taxing global income, while virtually everyone else only taxes on a local basis.

Have you even heard of how US multinationals load down their US entities with debt while spending the money over seas?  The interest payments are fully  deductible, notwithstanding that the gains the debt generate are not often taxed in the US (and won't be unless repatriated).

Quote
But we know that all corporations do take advantage of tax credits, deductions and other tax avoidance mechanisms, so basing any argument on that statutory rate is silly, unless also taking into account the specifics of the deduction mechanisms as well.

Well I agree, but not understanding that the two concepts are directly linked and how we got here in the first place is even sillier.

Quote
Quote
we pursue the dark ages repressive tax regime because "corporations make too much"
You keep repeating this, so I have to ask: why do you think corporations make too much, and why do you think corporate profit is an inherently bad thing?

I don't, did you misunderstand the purpose of putting that phrase in quotes?  You know that I'm attributing to others.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #95 on: November 30, 2017, 12:59:33 PM »
Agree with WS - the simplistic "get rid of Obamacare" and "reduce the crap out of taxes" got the current set of Republicans nominated, but was far less responsible for getting the majority of them elected.

Now they're in a position of either breaking their Obamacare promises, or excluding millions of people from accessing healthcare; of either breaking their tax promises, or of pushing through the most ill-timed and ill-conceived tax cuts in generations - the stock market is at its highest level ever, the job market is currently above what is considered full employment, and the tax cuts will create a record setting increase in the structural deficit.  Short term, this increases the risk of unmanaged inflation; long term, when the economic cycle inevitably turns downward, there will be nowhere to go with deficit spending to ease the fall.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #96 on: November 30, 2017, 01:03:29 PM »
Quote
You know that I'm attributing to others.
Yes, and I was pointing out to you that none of your interlocutors holds that position, so continuing to harp on it even after being corrected is just stubbornly creating repetitive straw men.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #97 on: November 30, 2017, 01:23:23 PM »
Seriati, I'm basing my opinion on analyses like this one, along with the general consensus among economists.

Well, I don't find it terribly impressive.  Maybe because it's trivially easy to find "experts" who will state their own views persuasively while not really responding to the other side on point.

Let's think about what she said (and, she's definitely a progressive based on her history).  She said that she thinks the claims of how much the wages would increase are overstated, not that they aren't true.  She admits that how much of the benefits go to wages versus shareholders is a topic of debate among economists (by the way I never said otherwise), yet she doesn't even try to directly refute the connection.  She acknowledges both the high tax rates and the repatriation problem.

Her primary argument for why wages may not increase is summarized as follows, "There are important reasons to doubt that these mechanisms will be particularly strong at present, and there is little empirical evidence to suggest that these effects will contribute much to wages."  That's pretty much an acknowledgment of the link, and an opinion based argument on how big the swing will be (the reference to lack of empirical evidence, is what in left leaning causes would be rephrased, as "promising research shows reasons for optimism and a need for more study").

She questions that lower taxes will lead to new investment.  Her argument, we subsidize debt and corporations already borrow.  They sure do, as I mentioned above, they use US debt to boost global tax advantaged profits and reduce troubling tax disadvantaged profits, this accelerates the investment of capital outside the US.  She cites to record corporate profits (with reference to GDP, a favorite to create misleading statistics), which should increase wages (and by the way, most predictions are that wages will increase in the near future as a result of the profit levels), without really acknowledging any of the policy decisions that have caused actual corporate decision makers not to reinvest.  The regulatory climate of the Obama administration certainly contributed to the "war chest" phenomenum.

She has a fair point that greater investment may put more people out of work.  Of course that doesn't answer that those remaining will have higher wages (which is the claim that was made).  Nor does it answer the fact that as the economy has been increasing unemployment has been heading down.  But it is fair to consider whether the historically proven link between investment and employee wages will continue in the future.  Do you not however find it curious that this proposition - for which there is even less empirical evidence - is something that shows up as worthy of consideration by her, but the politically less advantageous one (from her view point) doesn't have enough empirical evidence?  She's not writing a paper here, she's writing an opinion piece.

So end of day her conclusion is that the scale of the worker benefit is disputable.  Like wow.  Almost all economic predictions are disputable.  She didn't do anything though to undermine the claims that the two concepts are linked.

Quote
But, of course, what I was trying to find out was what you based your opinion on, which is why I asked for better references (since the ones you linked to I found to be somewhat lacking).

Well generally I pick references for clarity, and if possible for clarity.  Opinions are based on extensive reading, as well as some research into the bias of the sources and into critiques of studies and opinion pieces that I strongly agree with or strongly disagree with.  In this case, I found the research interesting and surprising and worth sharing since it's initially counter intuitive (though not really after you think about it).  Didn't really expect the dogmatic responses of some.

I mean really, denying any link seems silly, questioning the scale seems reasonable.  Refusing to acknowledge that our current system has over time come to be massively anti-competitive on a global scale seems almost insane to me.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #98 on: November 30, 2017, 01:34:04 PM »
Could, of course so could you.  I find it hard to fathom how anyone could have a valid opinion on tax policy and not have seen some of this on their own.  What exactly are you guys basing your opinions on?  Is literally just corporate profits = bad?

No it's that corporations prioritize shareholders (as is their fiduciary responsibility) and executives over the average worker.

Well agreed they do prioritize shareholders.  But take the next step and examine what that really means.  I'll tell you what it doesn't mean.  It doesn't mean that the company pays massive dividends.  Very few companies take the obligation to return profits to shareholders seriously.  In almost all cases the shareholders don't want them to return capital, they want them to reinvest in.  The beauty of a function stock market is that shareholder's gain from the reinvestment (through capital gains) even more easily that through a dividend. 

What does that retention of capital get used for?  Companies expand, they reinvest, they get better employees and conduct more research. 

Profits are not disbursements, they are capital that is available to put to a new use.

Quote
I have never made the argument that corporate profits are bad, I simply disagreed with your claim that when a big corporation gets more money (in this case through a tax cut) that it automatically ends up as raises for the common worker in that corporation.

It's not my claim, its the claim of certain economists based on both empirical and theorehtical research.  It makes sense to me though.

Quote
Wall street seems to think that reduced corporate taxes are going to lead to increased returns for shareholders, hence the accelerated stock market rally in the past year. So they obviously think a large chunk of those increased profits will be realized by the shareholders instead of the workers of the corporation.

See above.  Profits don't disappear, in most cases the company doesn't even release them.  How exactly will that money be transferred to the shareholders in your view if it's not paid by a dividend.  Shareholder's may profit in sales of the appreciated stock, but that's only because another shareholder is paying them, that causes no harm at all for the employees, meanwhile the company they work for is spending that profit on useful things including them.

Quote
I agree that some of the money would trickle down to wages, but I see no evidence that the majority would. I think from your links the highest % that went to workers was 54% in fully unionized workplaces.

Actually, some of them project that 250% or more of a dollar cut in taxes ends up in increase wages. 

Seriously, examine what profit actually is and tell me if you might want to reconsider.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Tax Plan
« Reply #99 on: November 30, 2017, 01:36:51 PM »
Quote
You know that I'm attributing to others.
Yes, and I was pointing out to you that none of your interlocutors holds that position, so continuing to harp on it even after being corrected is just stubbornly creating repetitive straw men.

DonaldD, I honestly can't tell why any of you are oppositionally opposed to what seems to be a rational concept that seems to have some evidence behind it.  And several people have made statements to the effect that corporate profits are too high or large enough, or that taxes shouldn't be lower.  What am I to think?