2016 Election Thread Part Deux

#6,126
#6,126
Vol8188 said:
So you agree that there's multiple issues, but you don't believe that removing one of them would help?
Click to expand...


I'm asking because I do not understand the economic logic of it. If I understand correctly, Corp A has gross income, and then net income, and is taxed on the net.

The only advantage to a lower rate, it would seem, is if that increases what is retained at the end of the year. But, it gets distributed, to shareholders and often massive bonuses to management. All of whom pay taxes on that income.

Its not like the company retains it ALL.

So if that is the case, then the lower corporate rate means only that there is more money for management to take for themselves, or to hand out to shareholders.

The corporation does not benefit, in the end, at all.

And if the management won't invest what the corporation retains now, why would it invest if it retained more? Seems to me the logical explanation is that the claim that they will invest it is bogus, and is designed to garner more support for them increasing corporate earnings, only to turn around and give it to themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,127
#6,127
lawgator1 said:
I'm asking because I do not understand the economic logic of it. If I understand correctly, Corp A has gross income, and then net income, and is taxed on the net.

The only advantage to a lower rate, it would seem, is if that increases what is retained at the end of the year. But, it gets distributed, to shareholders and often massive bonuses to management. All of whom pay taxes on that income.

Its not like the company retains it ALL.

So if that is the case, then the lower corporate rate means only that there is more money for management to take for themselves, or to hand out to shareholders.

The corporation does not benefit, in the end, at all.

And if the management won't invest what the corporation retains now, why would it invest if it retained more? Seems to me the logical explanation is that the claim that they will invest it is bogus, and is designed to garner more support for them increasing corporate earnings, only to turn around and give it to themselves.
Click to expand...

So you agree they will make more money, but don't believe that would influence their decision to do business here?
 
#6,128
#6,128
Vol8188 said:
So you agree they will make more money, but don't believe that would influence their decision to do business here?
Click to expand...


"Do business here?

I think they already do, they just base themselves overseas to avoid the higher corporate rate.

And in any event, what I question is the claim that if you lowered the corporate tax rate on Corp A, then Corp A would register here because it could then take the tax savings and invest it in new tech or plants or jobs.

I'm not seeing the logic of that, since Corp A does not invest what it has now. It pays it to its management. Or, more accurately, the management tells Corp A to pay it to them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,130
#6,130
lawgator1 said:
I'm asking because I do not understand the economic logic of it. If I understand correctly, Corp A has gross income, and then net income, and is taxed on the net.

The only advantage to a lower rate, it would seem, is if that increases what is retained at the end of the year. But, it gets distributed, to shareholders and often massive bonuses to management. All of whom pay taxes on that income.

Its not like the company retains it ALL.

So if that is the case, then the lower corporate rate means only that there is more money for management to take for themselves, or to hand out to shareholders.

The corporation does not benefit, in the end, at all.

And if the management won't invest what the corporation retains now, why would it invest if it retained more? Seems to me the logical explanation is that the claim that they will invest it is bogus, and is designed to garner more support for them increasing corporate earnings, only to turn around and give it to themselves.
Click to expand...

They do invest retained earnings now.

Management is paid prior to profits - they don't pay themselves again.

No companies pay all earnings out as dividends.

A company that currently makes 10 million in profit would have an additional 2 - 3.5 million (depending on effective rate) to invest.

If cutting tax rates was not effective in attracting businesses high tax rate states like NY wouldn't be falling all over themselves to lower tax rates (and regulations) to attract business.
 
#6,139
#6,139
lawgator1 said:
"Do business here?

I think they already do, they just base themselves overseas to avoid the higher corporate rate.

And in any event, what I question is the claim that if you lowered the corporate tax rate on Corp A, then Corp A would register here because it could then take the tax savings and invest it in new tech or plants or jobs.

I'm not seeing the logic of that, since Corp A does not invest what it has now. It pays it to its management. Or, more accurately, the management tells Corp A to pay it to them.
Click to expand...

I don't care what they do with their additional earnings. It's not important. Either way we are leaving money with the people. If they spend it, jobs are created. If they invest it, jobs are created. But you still seem to be missing the point.

The point is that you agreed that they don't "base" themselves here due to tax rates. If they were to do so, they would by nature bring more jobs here.
 
#6,141
#6,141
Vol8188 said:
I don't care what they do with their additional earnings. It's not important. Either way we are leaving money with the people. If they spend it, jobs are created. If they invest it, jobs are created. But you still seem to be missing the point.

The point is that you agreed that they don't "base" themselves here due to tax rates. If they were to do so, they would by nature bring more jobs here.
Click to expand...
You do realize that you are arguing with a tax and spend liberal doncha?
 
#6,149
#6,149
According to an ABC/Washington Post poll, a majority of Americans disapprove of the FBI’s recommendation not to press charges against the former secretary of state. Additionally, those polled said the issue raised concerns about how Clinton would handle her responsibilities as commander in chief, should she win the election in November.

In fact, 56 percent of those polled objected to the FBI’s recommendation. Additionally, 57 percent said they were concerned about Clinton would handle classified information as president.


BREAKING: Americans Who Are Furious Over FBI's Hillary Decision Just Got Good News
 
#6,150
#6,150
Obsessed said:
According to an ABC/Washington Post poll, a majority of Americans disapprove of the FBI’s recommendation not to press charges against the former secretary of state. Additionally, those polled said the issue raised concerns about how Clinton would handle her responsibilities as commander in chief, should she win the election in November.

In fact, 56 percent of those polled objected to the FBI’s recommendation. Additionally, 57 percent said they were concerned about Clinton would handle classified information as president.


BREAKING: Americans Who Are Furious Over FBI's Hillary Decision Just Got Good News
Click to expand...

The truly scary part of that poll is that barely over half of America has concerns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top