Depends on what the companies do with the money once it's here. If they just sit on it then nothing much will happen. Investing it on things like research and development or even on people (hiring and/or pay raises) should have a big impact.
Tax Plan pushed through - What does it mean?
- Thread starter ticket2ride04
- Start date
That’s a big if. Typically many of the big corporations don’t do any of that in investing you mentioned. If I’m skeptical of the ability of the government to create wealth, I’m also skeptical of these big companies ability to do so as well. Most of the time they are just in it for themselves.
But remember, liberals don’t think you were successful by yourself. “You didn’t build that on your own”.
False. Even the companies with the biggest stock piles of cash, like Apple, invest heavily in things like R&D.
You are right to be skeptical of government, because they haven't created anything. Every penny they have came from you. Well, not you since you are a history major.
I wouldn't say most of the time, but there are certainly companies that are "in it for themselves."
Maybe that poor panhandler on the street corner could provide you with a job.
The only feedback I've seen on this is that stock buybacks will be at the top of the list of a lot of companies.
CC
That's certainly a possibility, however since equity prices are so high the amount of buybacks could be substantially less than they were last time it happened. Paying down debt that some of these companies have is also a possibility. Regardless, at least some of the money will be invested and that's better than nothing.
Zero would be fine but the lowest will have a net loss (pay more) if the bill goes thru.
CC
You know perfectly damn well that it isn't local
small businesses that liberals have a problem with. It's the massive corporations that have sufficient assets to endlessly lobby congress until they can get a garbage tax plan shoved through like this one. Do you have a better explanation for adding tax breaks for the costs of corporations offshoring their production?
Oh FFS. Yeah those people earning billions of dollars are really getting screwed. Everyone can see that it's the single mom who can barely keep food on the table that is actually getting the handouts. Those poor rich people... they're getting penalized so harshly...
You talk about the "free ride" while massive corporations use these kinds of tax bills to outsource their own costs. Whether it's Walmart lobbying to keep the minimum wage down so it's employees have to take food stamps, or it's some oil company getting the tax payers to pay its cleanup costs... all of that shit adds up to a lot more of a free ride than poor people are getting. What about the free ride the financial sector got after 2008? They steal billions of dollars from working people, then those same working people have to bail them out.
I just don’t trust big corporations any more than I do the government is what I’m trying to say.
Hey, us history majors have to make a living too
I don’t completely disagree with where you’re coming from. But the difference is that the oil company and Wal-Mart at least provide something. That single mom who has become a professional baby-making machine doesn’t.
Nobody said anything about a "professional baby making machine." Without moms to make babies, and raise them in decent environments, society will have a damn hard time will it not?
Too many of the mom’s we’re talking about are not raising their kids and certainly not in decent environments. Your belief is that they can’t. Mine is that they won’t.
If even one mom was like that then it would be "too many." So that's just a pointless rhetorical trick. The actual statistics indicate that the people abusing the system are a small minority.
Some won't. Some can't. That's why its fukked up to talk about cutting these programs just because a small minority abuse the system. There are still countless broken families and people who need help that aren't getting it. Far more than the number of people getting help who don't need it.
Ok, I offer no editorial comment on the following, but as a CPA I've researched the house and senate versions of the tax proposals. Here is a schedule of each version compared to current tax law on a married couple if either version were passed today. We know that once these go through conference some hybrid of the two will result. As it currently stands, a couple with taxable income of $19,050 would pay $381 more tax compared to the current law under the house bill and would pay the same amount as current under the senate bill. A married couple with taxable income of $1 million would pay $27,844 less than current law under the house bill and $38,665 less under the senate bill.
I will say that I am anxiously waiting on the pink slip that Louigi in another thread said I will be receiving once this "simplified" tax law is passed.
Comparison House vs Senate Tax on a Joint Return
(Edit: the columns didn't space properly but the first column is taxable income, second is current law, third is house bill and fourth is senate bill.)
Taxable Current Tax Tax
Income (2018) House Senate
$19,050 $ 1,905 $ 2,286 $ 1,905
$77,400 $ 10,658 $ 9,288 $ 8,907
$140,000 $ 26,308 $ 23,300 $ 22,679
$320,000 $ 80,326 $ 74,300 $ 65,879
$400,000 $106,726 $102,300 $ 91,479
$1 Million $340,144 $312,300 $301,479
I will say that I am anxiously waiting on the pink slip that Louigi in another thread said I will be receiving once this "simplified" tax law is passed.
Comparison House vs Senate Tax on a Joint Return
(Edit: the columns didn't space properly but the first column is taxable income, second is current law, third is house bill and fourth is senate bill.)
Taxable Current Tax Tax
Income (2018) House Senate
$19,050 $ 1,905 $ 2,286 $ 1,905
$77,400 $ 10,658 $ 9,288 $ 8,907
$140,000 $ 26,308 $ 23,300 $ 22,679
$320,000 $ 80,326 $ 74,300 $ 65,879
$400,000 $106,726 $102,300 $ 91,479
$1 Million $340,144 $312,300 $301,479
This is an important point that shouldn't be overlooked. The higher the marginal tax rate is at the highest bracket, the less incentive people have of continuing to innovate.
Say we instituted a tax rate of 75% for every dollar over 10 million in income. Now, the visionary making $20 million can look at a potential project/venture and say, ya I can bust my ass on this venture and make another $10 million, however I'll actually only make $2.5M on that after taxes.
So the talking point of "does he really need all that money!?" is fairly accurate, cuz in reality - we as a country don't need him to make $22.5M instead of $22M, however for the sake of economic expansion, we want him to have the incentive to take on new and innovative projects - and for that reason, we can't tax the shit out of him for embarking on new projects otherwise he'll just sit on his $20M at the expense of future growth.
Thank you, Hook. Very useful visualization. So under the House tax plan, it appears every bracket is better off (with the lowest being equal), and under the Senate plan, the lowest is marginally worse, while the others are better off.
Th done thing I know to be true of all the tax plans proposed is they happen to be far more favorable to the large C-Corps/Multi-Nationals than they are to the Mom and Pop Small businesses.
Can anyone debate that?
Can anyone debate that?
I hope so, as I work for a large corp, but I haven't seen the numbers breakdown - have you?
I don't know all the numbers, but I do know @strummingram can't deduct his post it notes.
Welp, that's it guys. The economy is going to come screeching to a halt now.
No. But I this is where it’s going based on the tea leaves. The pass through tax is a joke. The whole idea was to invigorate Main Street but it’s more Wall Street. If WS and big Corp actually spend their savings and cash on books, the US economy wins.
But this could have done more for the small business owner.
ticket, you make a good point. Most small C corps taxable income is less than $50,000 because the shareholders take salaries to keep the corporate profit low to avoid double taxation. That first $50,000 is subject to a 15% tax rate under current law. Under the new proposals the corporate rate will be a flat 20% across the board. That's an additional $2,500 on that $50,000.
Yes.
Big corps are reaping the benefits here and they have been doing just fine. Lowering the tax rate to 20% is absurd when our effective tax rate is around that.
There needs to be more small business support. Small businesses take the loans from the banks and hire local people. Big corps line the pockets of executives and board members.
I can agree with some of that. I don't really have a problem with big companies getting a benefit as long as everyone else is too. I guess trying to determine how much is enough/too much is the biggest issue here.
The big C-Corps are getting a disparate amount of benefit in this bill. This goes back to both Dems and Pubs being in the pocket of corporate America. I loathe Super PACs.
Middle class families will save a $1000 while major companies will save Billions. If, and it’s a big if, companies start hiring big time and increasing pay, it’s a win. But I doubt that happens. Money will continue to collect at the top. Additionally, we are pretty much at capacity with jobs and that will only get smaller as innovation takes away jobs.
Small business is the last vestige to create meaningful jobs in this country. I’d like to see the little guys get more of a break.
Looking at it as a dollar figure is misleading. Percentage is a better way. Companies will always have a bigger dollar figure in savings because they will always have more money than an individual.
Innovation doesn't take away jobs. That's a fallacy. There will always be jobs.
That's fine, but I'm not going to completely scrap a bill just because it doesn't go far enough. I'm not going to turn away $100 just because I'd rather have $1,000.
I got hired by a large multinational corp that has an office within 10 miles of my house - that's pretty local.
Through the money they pay me, I was able to take out a mortgage (loan) from a local bank on the house I bought.
I am neither an executive nor board member of my company.
Your anecdotal story is cute but has nothing to do with macro economics.
- lowering corporate taxes from 35% to 20% is a 43% decrease. That’s far greater than any one else is experiencing.
- innovation absolutely takes away jobs. If you don’t believe this, I’m not sure what to tell you.
- don’t scrap the bill. But don’t push through a bad one. Take the time to get it right.
I figured I'd throw out an anecdotal story since that was still better than your generalizations with no proof to support it.
"Big Corps line the pockets of execs" - I merely showed they "lined" my pockets as well...
It’s not a generalization. Look at stagnant wages vs executive pay growth in this country over ththe last 50 years.
A strong Middle Class has been and hopefully will be the backbone of this country. I’m not for class warfare but the concentration of too much wealth in the hands of a few is not a good thing. Especially as upward mobility becomes a steeper climb.
I suggest you expand your learning before jumping into an argument with me, kid.
@Hark_The_Sound_2010 He does have a point. In the sense that much of the new wealth since the 80s has gone to the 1% and not the middle class. While I agree the rich should not be penalized simply by the virtue that they’re rich, I also believe that the middle class population is most important to the well being of our economic success.
That's true, although if we are being honest these companies aren't really paying a 35% rate.
There has been more innovation in the past few decades than ever before, yet we have managed to keep unemployment low. Innovation may make a certain job obsolete, but it will always be a net positive when it comes to jobs. The guys who made buggy whips were able to find a job making cars.
What's right or not is extremely subjective when it comes to tax bills. Some people will be happy to save a dollar and won't care if the other guy saves two dollars because he's in a different situation. Other people will always be upset that they aren't saving as much. Until we get rid of the progressive tax system and deductions, all tax bills will be bad bills to someone.
Ok, I'll ask you the same question I've asked hundreds of people but have never gotten an answer. What amount is a fair amount? If the 1% were getting 50% of the new wealth would that be too much? How about 25%? Maybe they shouldn't get any since they already have so much? It's never going to be enough for some people. I don't want to derail this thread too much, because it's an interesting discussion, but you should look at where that wealth is actually coming from. It's not just wages and it's not really a tax issue that has caused it. It would also help if we were truly a capitalistic nation in my opinion.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Class of 2025 Recruiting Thread (Updated 2-4: Signing Day eve RB commit added)- Latest: Bryant Baucom