« prev   random   next »

2
7

Corporate tax breaks do NOT create jobs

By joeyjojojunior following x   2017 Sep 4, 10:59am 11,883 views   89 comments   watch   nsfw   quote     share    


Can we please put an end to this obvious myth?

https://www.thestreet.com/story/14284462/1/corporate-tax-cuts-promote-ceo-pay-raises-and-stock-buybacks-not-jobs.html
"Researchers looked at 92 publicly-held companies that reported a U.S. profit from 2008 to 2015 and paid a federal income tax of less than 20%, the rate proposed by House Republicans, by exploiting loopholes in the current tax code.

The 92 companies examined saw median job growth of negative 1% over an eight-year period, compared to 6% across the entire U.S. private sector. Moreover, half of those firms eliminated jobs during that time, downsizing by a combined total of 483,000 jobs.

At the same time, average CEO pay among the 92 firms rose by 18%, compared to a 13% increase across the entire S&P 500"

But, cutting corporate tax rates would ABSOLUTELY enrich Trump himself. When the Trumpcucks realize that he cares not for the average American. Everything he does, he does for one reason alone. To enrich himself and his family.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-promised-put-american-workers-142940732.html
is another interesting article detailing how Trump has screwed the American worker but helped his businesses.

#MAGA

« First    « Previous    Comments 51 - 90 of 90    Last »

51   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (5)   2018 Aug 3, 1:02pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
If raising tariffs is good for the economy, why not put a 1000% tariff on everything?


If you applied that to Seimans and Bose Radio, yeah, it could create a shitton of medical equipment and audio research, design, and manufacturing jobs.

The demand would be the same, but the tariff would make it no longer viable to purchase equipment from German companies, that would be replaced by domestic production.
52   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Aug 3, 1:07pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Strategist says
oran did not ask you to "play" He just asked you to answer a very simple question, but you didn't because you couldn't.


lol--you're kidding, right? He asked a very trollish, meme like question.

I thought the answer was fairly obvious. The way our tax structure gives breaks to capital investment encourages more investment as taxes are raised. Obviously, if you go to the extreme limit, then other problems are encountered.
53   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (5)   2018 Aug 3, 1:13pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says
The demand would be the same, but the tariff would make it no longer viable to purchase equipment from German companies, that would be replaced by domestic production.


This is proven by the histories of Central America vs. the Asian Tigers.

The former were run by rich mine and plantation owners who had no protective tariffs and imported all their finished and luxury goods from Europe for much of their first part of existence. Hence no industry developed, and no middle class, and weak taxation, infrastructure, and economy.

The latter tariffed the fuck out of imported finished goods and made everything at home, and then for export.

The UK also. The "Invisible Hand" of Tariffs on Linen brought the Textile Industry to England, and then the Industrial Revolution happened because England had captured the Textile market with Protectionist Mercantilism.
54   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Aug 3, 1:14pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
Trump is not using tariffs because "they're good for the economy" he used them as a bargaining tool to gain leverage in negotiations with the EU which obviously worked since there is a new deal between the EU and the United States where the EU gave the US some of the concessions Trump was looking for and the tariffs are now going to disappear.


#1--there is no new deal. If you really think there is a concrete agreement, please link to it.
#2--You're splitting hairs with the explanation.
55   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Aug 3, 1:15pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Strategist says
ook closely at your participation rate chart. We hit a new low just before the 2016 election. As soon as Trump won, the trend changed for the better.
Yes, we created a new vaccine when you weren't looking. It's a not so secret formula called "Trump's Tax Cuts"


You're kidding. The tax law didn't take effect until 2018. It cannot possibly explain anything happening in 2016
56   Strategist   ignore (2)   2018 Aug 3, 1:16pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
Strategist says

A downward trend that goes to a flat trend, is still a change in trend.


Okay, a trend that started in 2015 (or early 2016 depending on how you define it).

And now, even with massive increase in deficit spending (massive increase compared to what it would have been without the tax cuts), we don't see the labor participation rate trending higher.


Look at the graph again. The lowest point reached was late 2016, exactly when Trump was elected. That is when the trend changed.
Without the tax cuts and without the confidence boost that Trump gave, the downward trend would have continued.
57   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Aug 3, 1:16pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
Obama could claim credit for reducing unemployment. Turning people from unemployed to disabled isn’t a noble deed, however, and this cup and ball magic trick was not explained to the public.
What Obama’s real legacy will show is that he transformed millions of able workers into dependent derelicts, drug addicted and hopeless.


That is what the worst recession since the Great Depression did. Blaming it on Obama is idiotic.
58   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Aug 3, 1:17pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

The demand would be the same, but the tariff would make it eno longer viable to purchase equipment from German companies, that would be replaced by domestic production.


That's incorrect. The demand would be less as prices rose.
59   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Aug 3, 1:21pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Strategist says

Look at the graph again. The lowest point reached was late 2016, exactly when Trump was elected. That is when the trend changed.
Without the tax cuts and without the confidence boost that Trump gave, the downward trend would have continued.


bwahahahahahahaha. And unicorns started dancing on gumdrop hills while leprechauns played.
60   Strategist   ignore (2)   2018 Aug 3, 1:21pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
Strategist says
oran did not ask you to "play" He just asked you to answer a very simple question, but you didn't because you couldn't.


lol--you're kidding, right? He asked a very trollish, meme like question.

Not really. I think he was just trying to make a point.

LeonDurham says
I thought the answer was fairly obvious. The way our tax structure gives breaks to capital investment encourages more investment as taxes are raised. Obviously, if you go to the extreme limit, then other problems are encountered.

Tax cuts on the bottom line is what encourages the most investment. All else is just accounting gimmicks.
61   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Aug 3, 1:23pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says
The former were run by rich mine and plantation owners who had no protective tariffs and imported all their finished and luxury goods from Europe for much of their first part of existence. Hence no industry developed, and no middle class, and weak taxation, infrastructure, and economy.

The latter tariffed the fuck out of imported finished goods and made everything at home, and then for export.

The UK also. The "Invisible Hand" of Tariffs on Linen brought the Textile Industry to England, and then the Industrial Revolution happened because England had captured the Textile market with Protectionist Mercantilism.


Yes, if you want the American consumers to subsidize and protect certain industries as a strategic play to make your country a stronghold in those industries, it can be done.
62   Strategist   ignore (2)   2018 Aug 3, 1:25pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
Goran_K says
Trump is not using tariffs because "they're good for the economy" he used them as a bargaining tool to gain leverage in negotiations with the EU which obviously worked since there is a new deal between the EU and the United States where the EU gave the US some of the concessions Trump was looking for and the tariffs are now going to disappear.


#1--there is no new deal. If you really think there is a concrete agreement, please link to it.


A concrete agreement never was and never can be expected instantly. You have to wait until the end of the negotiations.
63   Strategist   ignore (2)   2018 Aug 3, 1:29pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
Strategist says
ook closely at your participation rate chart. We hit a new low just before the 2016 election. As soon as Trump won, the trend changed for the better.
Yes, we created a new vaccine when you weren't looking. It's a not so secret formula called "Trump's Tax Cuts"


You're kidding. The tax law didn't take effect until 2018. It cannot possibly explain anything happening in 2016


Businesses make decisions in advance, in anticipation of a favorable business climate. That's how it works.
64   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Aug 3, 1:29pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Strategist says
A concrete agreement never was and never can be expected instantly. You have to wait until the end of the negotiations.


Fair enough--but let's not pretend that there's a deal already then.

Didn't you guys learn already from the "deal" that Trump made with N. Korea?

http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2018/jul/31/n-korea-still-building-missiles-u-s-obs-1/

"U.S. spy agencies are seeing signs that North Korea is constructing new missiles at a factory that produced the country's first intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching the United States, according to officials familiar with the intelligence."
65   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (5)   2018 Aug 3, 2:53pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
That's incorrect. The demand would be less as prices rose.


CAT scans are needed, they will be made and brought.

It's not like US made CAT machines are going to cost 10x what German ones did.
66   Onvacation   ignore (4)   2018 Aug 3, 4:18pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
Actually it does. It encourages investment which typically creates jobs.

So at what percentage should corporations be taxed ? At 100% there is no incentive to risk capital and labor if you know all your profits will be confiscated. How does taxing corporations encourage investment? Please explain as it makes no sense.
67   Onvacation   ignore (4)   2018 Aug 3, 4:42pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says

I thought the answer was fairly obvious. The way our tax structure gives breaks to capital investment encourages more investment as taxes are raised. Obviously, if you go to the extreme limit, then other problems are encountered.

Tax breaks encourage investment as taxes are raised?
Still makes no sense.
Oh wait, you are saying that our tax structure is the problem and corporations are incentivised to reinvest their profits instead of letting the profits be taxed. Is this correct?
And if this is correct would it not be better to lower all taxes so that successful companies can decide how to invest their money and create more jobs? Or are you in favor of redistribution and incentivizing people to go on the dole?
68   mell   ignore (2)   2018 Aug 3, 4:47pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tax breaks and deductions are bs and lead inevitably to crony capitalism/socialism. Just keep taxes at zero or as low as possible and eliminate all breaks, incentives, loopholes.
69   Goran_K   ignore (3)   2018 Aug 3, 4:58pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says
At 100% there is no incentive to risk capital and labor if you know all your profits will be confiscated. How does taxing corporations encourage investment? Please explain as it makes no sense.


Yes, I agree. I would like to know what the perfect balance of taxation is to "create jobs".
70   clambo   ignore (4)   2018 Aug 4, 7:12am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The tax breaks for corporations was intended to make the US more competitive in a global market.

There are some advantages to lower taxes on corporations that do business internationally.

If the corporate taxes are too high, companies like Apple keep profits in foreign countries. This capital is lost from the USA economy.

Lower taxes meant many workers got more pay in the USA, which is now in the USA economy. Capital has many uses in an economy. If you want to see some effects of a lack of capital in an economy, visit Mexico.

Shareholders of companies that have more money from lower taxes gain with higher dividends and share prices. This means they can invest this capital or spend it. This is in the USA economy instead of languishing in foreign countries.

Lower taxes are a benefit to the USA economy and its workers and investors. The government is not a responsible user of your money.
71   TrumpingTits   ignore (1)   2018 Aug 4, 2:10pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I guess those 4.9 million jobs created then just fell from the trees like apples or something.
72   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Aug 4, 4:22pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says
Oh wait, you are saying that our tax structure is the problem and corporations are incentivised to reinvest their profits instead of letting the profits be taxed. Is this correct?
And if this is correct would it not be better to lower all taxes so that successful companies can decide how to invest their money and create more jobs? Or are you in favor of redistribution and incentivizing people to go on the dole?


No, as the Trump tax cut has shown, companies will almost always take the money and give it to the top officers and shareholders instead of investing it:

http://time.com/money/5267940/companies-spending-trump-tax-cuts-stock-buybacks/

"We’re starting to learn what America’s biggest companies are doing with the huge windfalls from President Donald Trump’s tax cuts. And the answer is great for investors – but not so great for workers. That’s because many companies are returning huge portions of their billions in tax savings to shareholders in the form of share buybacks and dividend increases — not necessarily new hiring and investment."

https://money.cnn.com/2018/02/16/investing/stock-buybacks-tax-law-bonuses/index.html

"American companies have lavished Wall Street with $171 billion of stock buyback announcements so far this year, according to research firm Birinyi Associates."

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/what-did-corporate-america-do-tax-break-buy-record-amounts-n886621

"The Republican tax reform package that was supposed to raise wages and spur hiring has instead funded a record stock buyback and dividend spree, benefiting investors and company executives over workers."

Having a decent business tax rate along with benefits for investment helps create jobs.
74   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Aug 4, 5:41pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

It's funny. Obama created more jobs in his last 18 months than Trump did in his first 18 months.

Obama had multiple quarters of 4% growth.

But the sheeple somehow still believe that Trump has helped the economy. lol.
75   Patrick   ignore (1)   2018 Aug 4, 6:16pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
Goran_K says


So why not just tax corporations at 100% and creates lots of jobs?


I think trolling is against the rules here.


That's not trolling, that's simply asking about the logical conclusion of the assertion that taxing corporations creates jobs.

In Internet slang, a troll (/troʊl, trɒl/) is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.
76   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2018 Aug 4, 6:42pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
It's funny. Obama created more jobs in his last 18 months than Trump did in his first 18 months.


It's funny, why not do it apples to apples, compare Obama's first 18 months to Trumps first 18.

How much QE has Trump added to economy to get new jobs? Obama added $4 Trillion.
77   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2018 Aug 4, 6:44pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
But the sheeple somehow still believe that Trump has helped the economy. lol.


LoL..

78   bob2356   ignore (4)   2018 Aug 5, 6:23am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

MrMagic says
LeonDurham says
It's funny. Obama created more jobs in his last 18 months than Trump did in his first 18 months.


It's funny, why not do it apples to apples, compare Obama's first 18 months to Trumps first 18.


If someone really wanted to compare apples to apples, which they don't, then the 18 months before the inauguration would have to be included to see the trend going into the new presidency.
79   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2018 Aug 5, 7:05am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

bob2356 says
If someone really wanted to compare apples to apples, which they don't, then the 18 months before the inauguration would have to be included to see the trend going into the new presidency.


Feel free to step up and provide some FACTS, DATA and links, instead of your normal hyperbole.

We'll be waiting...... and waiting....... and waiting....... and waiting......
80   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Aug 5, 7:17am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

MrMagic says

It's funny, why not do it apples to apples, compare Obama's first 18 months to Trumps first 18.

How much QE has Trump added to economy to get new jobs? Obama added $4 Trillion.


I thought the point was obvious. All the Trumpkins claim that Trump has done great things for the economy. If that were the case, I would have expected better job numbers after his election than immediately before his election. But the opposite is the case. Things have gotten worse, despite his tax plan borrowing trillions from future generations.
81   TrumpingTits   ignore (1)   2018 Aug 5, 3:23pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
I thought the point was obvious. But the opposite is the case. Things have gotten worse, despite his tax plan borrowing trillions from future generations.


Hahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!

Oh MAN!

Are YOU FUCKING SERIOUS? No, really? That was a serious question. Especially since a) things are a helluva lot better no matter how you spin things (or try to) and b) he isn't borrowing TRILLIONS. The new econ stats prove that was a bunch of total crap! Larry Kudlow has been vindicated, pal.

The NEC Chair Larry Kudlow stated on CBS “Face The Nation” that "Even the CBO numbers show now that the entire $1.5 trillion tax cut is virtually paid for by higher revenues and better nominal GDP.

Jon Greenberg of PolitiFact rated that claim as “False”. Yet is Larry Kudlow correct that “better nominal GDP” has generated “higher revenues” that have “virtually paid” for the “entire $1.5 trillion tax cut”?

The CBO has issued two budget and economic reports after President Trump took office in January 2017. In CBO’s June 2017 “Updated to the Budget and Economic Outlook”, page 19 reports that ten-year revenue estimates rose by $195 billion for “economic reasons”. Then in CBO’s April 2018 “Budget and Economic Outlook”, page 94 reports that ten-year revenue estimates rose by $1,088 billion for “economic reasons”. This is the largest jump in revenues for economic reasons ever reported by CBO, and results from, in CBO’s words, their “current projections suggest[ing] a stronger economic outlook than those that the agency published in June 2017”.

How do these revenue gains compare to the tax cut? The JCT’s “ESTIMATED BUDGET EFFECTS OF THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT FOR H.R. 2” reported on page 8 their estimate of the tax cut’s ten-year cost at $1.456 trillion. Thus “better nominal GDP” has generated “higher revenues” of $1,283 billion or 88% of the tax cuts net cost of $1,456 billion or “virtually” all.

Even if the 2017 adjustment is ignored, it is remarkable that CBO is projecting in a single economic adjustment just four months after the tax cut was enacted that higher growth will add a record-breaking $1,088 billion in revenues or 74.7% of the tax cut’s net cost. But when compared to recent revenue losses from slow growth, this turnaround is nothing short of astounding.

From: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/08/05/both_the_budget_and_economy_are_winning_137723.html>


So, I hereby openly declare that what you are pitching is TOTALLY UNSUBSTANTIATED LIES. Not just 'crap' but outright LIES.

It is one thing to have differences of opinion. Quite another to push disingenuous lies.

Yes, you read that right. I am tired of folks like you pitching complete bullshit and not being called out on it. I don't fucking tolerate it anymore and call it out like I'm doing right now.

Why @Patrick tolerates trolls like you here is beyond me.
82   TrumpingTits   ignore (1)   2018 Aug 5, 3:27pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
I think trolling is against the rules here.


Then why are you still allowed to post?
83   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2018 Aug 5, 3:38pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TrumpingTits says
Why @Patrick tolerates trolls like you here is beyond me.


TrumpingTits says
LeonDurham says
I think trolling is against the rules here.


Then why are you still allowed to post?


Seriously, it really doesn't get anymore blatant then what Leon posts on a daily basis.
84   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2018 Aug 5, 3:40pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
MrMagic says

It's funny, why not do it apples to apples, compare Obama's first 18 months to Trumps first 18.

How much QE has Trump added to economy to get new jobs? Obama added $4 Trillion.


I thought the point was obvious. All the Trumpkins claim that Trump has done great things for the economy.


Nope, not obvious, but it will be as soon as you post Obama's numbers from his first 18 months as a comparison...

We'll be waiting...
85   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Aug 5, 4:02pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TrumpingTits says


Then why are you still allowed to post?


Excellent--could you point to the post that you think is trolling?
86   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Aug 5, 4:26pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

MrMagic says
Nope, not obvious, but it will be as soon as you post Obama's numbers from his first 18 months as a comparison...

We'll be waiting...


No problem--I post data all the time. Here you go:



Trump first 18 months -- 3,432K jobs created
Obama last 18 months-- 3709K jobs created
87   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 Aug 5, 4:31pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TrumpingTits says
Are YOU FUCKING SERIOUS? No, really? That was a serious question. Especially since a) things are a helluva lot better no matter how you spin things (or try to) and b) he isn't borrowing TRILLIONS. The new econ stats prove that was a bunch of total crap! Larry Kudlow has been vindicated, pal.


Yes, I'm serious. Things are not better. Jobs created is down. GDP is the same. All the tax savings have gone to the 1% in the favor of stock buybacks and bonuses.

And the only reason that revenue is up is Trump gave in to multinational companies and let them bring their money back to the US. Once all the money is back, you can be certain the revenues will be down. And the trillions will be borrowed.
88   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2018 Aug 5, 6:18pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
Trump first 18 months -- 3,432K jobs created
Obama last 18 months-- 3709K jobs created


Wow, now let's try this again, but this time, really try to use reading comprehension, OK?

MrMagic says
It's funny, why not do it apples to apples, compare Obama's first 18 months to Trumps first 18.


Leon, do you see the operative word in that sentence, "first". This is how you do an apples to apples comparison.

A "first" and "last" comparison shows absolutely nothing, except that you're just trolling again and being dishonest.

LeonDurham says
Excellent--could you point to the post that you think is trolling?


I just did.
89   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2018 Aug 5, 7:09pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says
Obama had multiple quarters of 4% growth.

But the sheeple somehow still believe that Trump has helped the economy. lol.




LOL

« First    « Previous    Comments 51 - 90 of 90    Last »


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions