[andrei]

hrothgar, on 2017-December-21, 13:17, said:

You're both idiots

.....

You're both too busy stroking yourselves over your own specific idiotic conspiracy theories that you didn't bother looking the actual facts.

They have good company ...

hrothgar, on 2017-December-15, 05:31, said:

And, from what I am hearing the Kushner indictments are going out today

(Some chance still that it will be next week, but today is quite probable)

[RedSpawn]

andrei, on 2017-December-21, 18:59, said:

They have good company ...

None of the 'idiot' hecklers have rationalized mathematically a $1.5 trillion giveaway to Corporate America when all indicators show Corporate America is NOT hemorrhaging at all and doesn't need instant relief before Christmas.

I don't play Blue/Red talking points. That's too easy and rarely involves any research. I play math.

We have extremely low interest rates courtesy of our Federal Reserve Bank and enough quantitative easing to ensure robust liquidity in the capital markets. Corporate America didn't need the tax cut on top of the other interventionist strategies at play. That was icing on top of a cake they already had and owned outright.

Hrothgar, answer the AT&T question and present some evidence that Corporate America needed this tax relief when we all know the Average tax rates corporations pay is already lower.

https://americansfor...rate-tax-rates/

Please review this website and list which bullet points are patently false? Thanks

[awm]

RedSpawn, on 2017-December-21, 20:05, said:

None of the 'idiot' hecklers have rationalized mathematically a $1.5 trillion giveaway to Corporate America when all indicators show Corporate America is NOT hemorrhaging at all and doesn't need instant relief before Christmas.

I don't play Blue/Red talking points. That's too easy and rarely involves any research. I play math.

We have extremely low interest rates courtesy of our Federal Reserve Bank and enough quantitative easing to ensure robust liquidity in the capital markets. Corporate America didn't need the tax cut on top of the other interventionist strategies at play. That was icing on top of a cake they already had and owned outright.

Hrothgar, answer the AT&T question and present some evidence that Corporate America needed this tax relief when we all know the Average tax rates corporations pay is already lower.

https://americansfor...rate-tax-rates/

Please review this website and list which bullet points are patently false? Thanks

This website is a very biased left-wing source. Such sources usually do not resort to outright falsehoods (unlike right-wing sources; I think the difference is that liberals are more likely to investigate claims) but they still do a lot of cherry-picking of facts. To address some of the main points:

"Corporate share of federal tax revenue has dropped by two-thirds in 60 years" -- while this is literally true, a lot of it is due to changes in the individual tax code. Many businesses now report income as pass-throughs on their owners' tax forms. In the 1960s, the top individual rate was super-high (75%-90% I think) so there would be no incentive to report income in this way. This change in reporting makes it appear that a higher share of federal tax revenue is from individuals (some of whom own businesses) and a lower percentage is from corporations.

"General Electric, Boeing, Verizon and 23 other profitable Fortune 500 firms paid no federal income taxes from 2008 to 2012" -- again, this is literally true. But note the cherry-picking of dates. A lot of companies had enormous losses in 2007-2008 because of the economic crash. They were able to amortize these losses against their profits in subsequent years, so effectively they were still "writing off the 2007-2008 loss" up to five years later. It's common for companies (especially small companies, but even big ones) to have good and bad years and the ability to amortize losses against gains is critical to the tax code.

"Profitable corporations paid U.S. income taxes amounting to just 12.6% of worldwide income in 2010." -- why would you expect more? International companies have to pay taxes to non-US countries too. If half of profits are earned overseas, you'd expect approximately half of taxes to be paid overseas, and the US income tax rate would look like half what it would be if all the taxes were paid to the US. If we directly taxed companies on their worldwide profits (or even worse, income) then no company could operate internationally because of the duplicate taxation.

"Twenty-two of the 30 profitable Fortune 500 companies that paid the highest tax rates (30% or more) from 2008 to 2010 created almost 200,000 jobs between 2008 and 2012" -- what does this even mean? What did the other 8 companies do? Maybe they cut enough jobs to zero out the whole thing? This just seems like obvious cherry-picking.

[RedSpawn]

awm, on 2017-December-22, 03:10, said:

This website is a very biased left-wing source. Such sources usually do not resort to outright falsehoods (unlike right-wing sources; I think the difference is that liberals are more likely to investigate claims) but they still do a lot of cherry-picking of facts. To address some of the main points:

"Corporate share of federal tax revenue has dropped by two-thirds in 60 years" -- while this is literally true, a lot of it is due to changes in the individual tax code. Many businesses now report income as pass-throughs on their owners' tax forms. In the 1960s, the top individual rate was super-high (75%-90% I think) so there would be no incentive to report income in this way. This change in reporting makes it appear that a higher share of federal tax revenue is from individuals (some of whom own businesses) and a lower percentage is from corporations.

"General Electric, Boeing, Verizon and 23 other profitable Fortune 500 firms paid no federal income taxes from 2008 to 2012" -- again, this is literally true. But note the cherry-picking of dates. A lot of companies had enormous losses in 2007-2008 because of the economic crash. They were able to amortize these losses against their profits in subsequent years, so effectively they were still "writing off the 2007-2008 loss" up to five years later. It's common for companies (especially small companies, but even big ones) to have good and bad years and the ability to amortize losses against gains is critical to the tax code.

"Profitable corporations paid U.S. income taxes amounting to just 12.6% of worldwide income in 2010." -- why would you expect more? International companies have to pay taxes to non-US countries too. If half of profits are earned overseas, you'd expect approximately half of taxes to be paid overseas, and the US income tax rate would look like half what it would be if all the taxes were paid to the US. If we directly taxed companies on their worldwide profits (or even worse, income) then no company could operate internationally because of the duplicate taxation.

"Twenty-two of the 30 profitable Fortune 500 companies that paid the highest tax rates (30% or more) from 2008 to 2010 created almost 200,000 jobs between 2008 and 2012" -- what does this even mean? What did the other 8 companies do? Maybe they cut enough jobs to zero out the whole thing? This just seems like obvious cherry-picking.

Thank you for your responses. They are fair and I see your point.

Companies who have tax losses are said to have Deferred Tax Assets in their loss years and they can offset their taxes on the profitable years using this Deferred Tax Asset.

I still haven't seen the case made that Corporate America needed a $1.5 trillion tax cut to be competitive in the global economy. Do you have any suggested websites that presents the case that this was a necessary tax cut for Corporate America? Please provide.

WE HAVE ALREADY PLAYED WITH THE ECONOMIC LEVERS WITH VERY LOW INTEREST RATES AND QUANTITATIVE EASING. That has already helped plenty of corporations to buy back their stock, prop up their stock price, and engineer their way to an impressive cash flow statement through investment and financing activites. A lot of corporations are generating handsome profits on investment activities alone since the cost of capital is artificially cheap and the DJIA has been bullish during the Obama and Trump presidencies.

So, I am still waiting to hear the case that Corporate America needed this $1.5 trillion tax cut BEFORE Christmas and before we can balance the 2018 budget and with $20+ trillion in federal public debt.

[hrothgar]

RedSpawn, on 2017-December-21, 20:05, said:

Hrothgar, answer the AT&T question and present some evidence that Corporate America needed this tax relief when we all know the Average tax rates corporations pay is already lower.

I'm sorry. You seem to have confused me with someone who cares about your thoughts and opinions.

I don't.

Nor do I feel any requirement to engage with you on an intellectual level or pay attention to any of your claims.

You aren't worth the ink necessary to write a reply...

regards,

Hrothgar

[barmar]

RedSpawn, on 2017-December-22, 07:42, said:

I still haven't seen the case made that Corporate America needed a $1.5 trillion tax cut to be competitive in the global economy. Do you have any suggested websites that presents the case that this was a necessary tax cut for Corporate America? Please provide.

It clearly wasn't. The "evidence" is a small number of multinational corporations, like Apple, who have off-shored some of their international revenue for tax reasons.

Because these companies are household names their activities made the news, and it's easy for them to be used as examples. The public doesn't realize that they're really just outliers, not the norm.

And remember, they were just using this mechanism to shelter their international revenue. Lowering US taxes isn't going to make them reduce their international business. If they bring the money back to the US because of the lower tax rate, it doesn't mean there will be more jobs in the US. Apple still wants to sell lots of iPhones in Europe. They're not going to sell more US iPhones as a result of this. And either way, it will still be factories in China putting the phones together.

It's all a sham.

[awm]

RedSpawn, on 2017-December-22, 07:42, said:

So, I am still waiting to hear the case that Corporate America needed this $1.5 trillion tax cut BEFORE Christmas and before we can balance the 2018 budget and with $20+ trillion in federal public debt.

There is a reason that this bill was passed relatively quickly, without any hearings, and with a number of Congresspeople saying that they didn't have time to read the bill (even as they voted for it). Many of the details are inexcusable!

There is significant support among economists for lowering the corporate tax rate, but they normally want to do it in a revenue-neutral way. The issue isn't that US corporations pay "too much tax" on average (the average rate was one of the few indisputable things about the left wing source you posted earlier). The issue is that the current system favors large multi-nationals which can spend a lot on tax attorneys and allocate profits to off-shore divisions in Ireland (or other tax havens), while disadvantaging smaller companies that end up paying close to the high statutory rate. By eliminating deductions (making the tax attorneys less useful) and lowering the rate (making off-shoring less useful and helping out the small domestic firms), we can level the playing field and reduce the "wasted" resources spent on tax optimization. Here's an article about the cost of tax avoidance and an article suggesting eliminating the corporate tax altogether.

Summary: the idea of lowering the corporate rate makes sense and has some support from economists. However, economists want this to be done in a revenue-neutral way (by eliminating deductions). By doing one without the other (and adding this ridiculously easy-to-game "pass through business tax cut") Republicans basically turned a reasonable idea into a huge giveaway to rich "business owners" like Trump.

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2017-December-22, 10:35, said:

It clearly wasn't. The "evidence" is a small number of multinational corporations, like Apple, who have off-shored some of their international revenue for tax reasons.

Because these companies are household names their activities made the news, and it's easy for them to be used as examples. The public doesn't realize that they're really just outliers, not the norm.

It is not only household names of course. My company recently got taken over, more or less, by an American PE company. Their company structure is eye-opening, consisting of around 20 levels directed through such places as the Cayman Islands. Perhaps they do that only because of the specific skill set of the Cayman Island workforce; on the other hand...

The truth is that it probably is sensible for the American tax system to remove all of the tax loopholes and instead use a lower basic rate of corporation tax. It would simplify the system and make it easier for start-ups, which are the lifeblood of an economy. The problem here is that it seems the bill reduces the rate without clawing back the exceptions, meaning that the tax rake is significantly reduced for little benefit. Well, little benefit to ordinary Americans - for DT and his family the benefits are absolutely massive!

[y66]

From The Republican Grovelling at the White House Was an Alarm Call for 2018 by John Cassidy at the New Yorker:

Quote

A lot of unusual and disturbing things have happened in Washington this year. Yet for sheer bizarreness, it’s hard to think of anything that matched the scene on Wednesday afternoon on the South Lawn of the White House, where Republican leaders, celebrating the passage of their terrible tax bill, lavished praise on Donald Trump in the manner of Communist functionaries addressing Mao or Stalin.

“This has been a year of extraordinary accomplishment for the Trump Administration,” Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, said. “Thank you, Mr. President, for all you are doing.” Paul Ryan, the House Speaker, added that passing the tax bill “could not have been done without exquisite Presidential leadership.” Senator Orrin Hatch, of Utah, spoke directly to Trump, saying, “You are one heckuva leader, and we’re all benefitting from it.” And Congresswoman Diane Black, of Tennessee, put it even more bluntly. “Thank you, President Trump, for allowing us to have you as our President,” she said.

It is well known that Trump, his ego as fragile as an eggshell, demands constant flattery. But this was cravenness of a level rare even for Washington. Perhaps the Republican senators and representatives were taking their cue from Mike Pence. At an end-of-year Cabinet meeting that was held shortly before the celebration on the South Lawn, the Vice-President praised his boss fourteen times in three minutes—once every 12.5 seconds, the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake pointed out—and after Pence had finished his obsequious speech, other Cabinet members chimed in with their own gushing tributes.

I’d wager that many Democrats, independents, and Never Trump Republicans felt queasy after watching, or reading about, these events. I hope, though, that the sight of the G.O.P. celebrating its first big legislative success of the Trump era in such a degrading fashion will also remind everybody who opposes Trump and the Republicans about what’s at stake going into the critical election year of 2018. It’s the same thing that’s been at stake since November 6, 2016: the future of democracy in this country.

No pressure.

[RedSpawn]

hrothgar, on 2017-December-22, 08:03, said:

I'm sorry. You seem to have confused me with someone who cares about your thoughts and opinions.

I don't.

Nor do I feel any requirement to engage with you on an intellectual level or pay attention to any of your claims.

You aren't worth the ink necessary to write a reply...

regards,

Hrothgar

Actually,

I assumed you were a person who enjoyed discussion of arguments based on intellectual merit.

I assumed you were a person who was above throwing poisoned "ad hominem" air darts at others when out of ammunition.

I assumed you were a person who would at least provide supporting evidence of your viewpoint when challenged.

I was wrong on all counts.

I stand corrected. Thank you for showing me who you are.

Wishing You Happy Holidays!

[RedSpawn]

awm, on 2017-December-22, 11:05, said:

There is a reason that this bill was passed relatively quickly, without any hearings, and with a number of Congresspeople saying that they didn't have time to read the bill (even as they voted for it). Many of the details are inexcusable!

There is significant support among economists for lowering the corporate tax rate, but they normally want to do it in a revenue-neutral way. The issue isn't that US corporations pay "too much tax" on average (the average rate was one of the few indisputable things about the left wing source you posted earlier). The issue is that the current system favors large multi-nationals which can spend a lot on tax attorneys and allocate profits to off-shore divisions in Ireland (or other tax havens), while disadvantaging smaller companies that end up paying close to the high statutory rate. By eliminating deductions (making the tax attorneys less useful) and lowering the rate (making off-shoring less useful and helping out the small domestic firms), we can level the playing field and reduce the "wasted" resources spent on tax optimization. Here's an article about the cost of tax avoidance and an article suggesting eliminating the corporate tax altogether.

Summary: the idea of lowering the corporate rate makes sense and has some support from economists. However, economists want this to be done in a revenue-neutral way (by eliminating deductions). By doing one without the other (and adding this ridiculously easy-to-game "pass through business tax cut") Republicans basically turned a reasonable idea into a huge giveaway to rich "business owners" like Trump.

AWM,

Congress passed this bill around Christmas to reduce the backlash and political fallout and the need for a healthy discussion about this.

Most of America is traveling across the country or finalizing Christmas shopping and don't have time to trifle with the machinations of Washington D.C.

This bill was ramrodded around Christmas and the timing of doing this was not coincidental. Our politicians are not that dimwitted.

[hrothgar]

RedSpawn, on 2017-December-22, 15:16, said:

I assumed you were a person who enjoyed discussion of arguments based on intellectual merit.

I assumed you were a person who was above throwing poisoned "ad hominem" air darts at others when out of ammunition.

I assumed you were a person who would at least provide supporting evidence of your viewpoint when challenged.

I do, but not with you.

[RedSpawn]

jjbrr, on 2017-December-21, 12:53, said:

here

True,

So we are talking about 600 AT&T union people losing jobs out a total population of 256,000 AT&T employees, and 200,000 of that is union, correct?

That's a loss of 0.3% of the AT&T union workforce.

Is that material given AT&T's employee turnover rate?

Source: https://www.att.com/...pdf/att_btn.pdf
https://www.cnbc.com...-employees.html

[RedSpawn]

hrothgar, on 2017-December-22, 15:39, said:

I do, but not with you.

I recognize the humanity in you and have treated you with more dignity and respect than you have afforded me.

That's because I have learned that we can disagree without being disagreeable.

We don't have to have a race to the bottom and begin tearing each other down because we don't share the same beliefs or arguments or viewpoints or life experiences.

We are both better than that, and you know it.

Quote

Issues that are personally important usually produce an emotional response. Once we become emotional about an issue, we tend towards behaviors that escalate the conflict rather than resolve it. We attack the other person's character or intelligence. We dismiss their perspective as irrational or stupid. In short, we make it about their personhood. We become disagreeable.

Source: https://recoveringen...g-disagreeable/

I think this is what occurred when you resorted to the "idiot" ad hominem attack.

[jjbrr]

RedSpawn, on 2017-December-22, 15:44, said:

True,

So we are talking about 600 AT&T union people losing jobs out a total population of 256,000 AT&T employees, and 200,000 of that is union, correct?

That's a loss of 0.3% of the AT&T union workforce.

Is that material given AT&T's employee turnover rate?

Source: https://www.att.com/...pdf/att_btn.pdf
https://www.cnbc.com...-employees.html

Of course it's not material. I'm often just here to rustle jimmies.

[Zelandakh]

jjbrr, on 2017-December-22, 17:05, said:

Of course it's not material. I'm often just here to rustle jimmies.

To continue the story about the American PE company, they recently announced that nationally over 70% of the offices will be closed along with over 25% of the workforce being laid off. That probably counts as a material number...

[RedSpawn]

awm, on 2017-December-22, 03:10, said:

This website is a very biased left-wing source. Such sources usually do not resort to outright falsehoods (unlike right-wing sources; I think the difference is that liberals are more likely to investigate claims) but they still do a lot of cherry-picking of facts. To address some of the main points:

....

"Twenty-two of the 30 profitable Fortune 500 companies that paid the highest tax rates (30% or more) from 2008 to 2010 created almost 200,000 jobs between 2008 and 2012" -- what does this even mean? What did the other 8 companies do? Maybe they cut enough jobs to zero out the whole thing? This just seems like obvious cherry-picking.

Let's try this website instead and see if the case about the average tax rate for corporations is made a bit better. . . .

Source:
https://www.investop...ing-income-tax/

http://fortune.com/2...-500-tax-haven/

Quote

On paper, the United States has the highest corporate income tax, at 35%, amongst all of the OECD industrialized nations. President Donald Trump has promised to cut that rate to 15% even as he has boasted that his corporate empire has managed to pay little to no income tax in some years. Yet, he is not alone, as hardly any company pays the full 35%, as indicated in a recent New York Times article. Some companies have even managed to pay absolutely zero in income taxes, and no, it is not because they weren’t profitable. (For more, see: How Trump's Proposals Can Impact Your Taxes.)

The Real Tax Bill
The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), in a recent study, found that over the eight-year period from 2008 to 2015, 258 profitable Fortune 500 companies paid an average effective federal income tax rate of 21.2%. Over that same period, exactly 18 companies, including General Electric, International Paper, Priceline.com and PG&E Corp., avoided paying a single penny of federal income tax.

A total of 100 companies avoided paying income taxes in at least one year between 2008 and 2015, and their combined pretax income during that period totaled $336 billion. Yet, instead of paying $118 billion according to the 35% statutory income tax rate, the number of tax breaks applicable to these companies allowed them to earn a negative effective tax rate. That means they actually earned more in their after-tax income than in their pretax income, often due to tax rebates from the U.S. Treasury.

How to Avoid Taxes
There are several major ways that corporations avoid paying taxes, or manage to earn tax subsidies. One way is through finding ways to shift U.S. profits to foreign subsidiaries in countries with lower tax rates, a practice known as offshore tax sheltering.


Another way is through the use of accelerated depreciation. The relative degree of freedom in tax laws has allowed companies to expense the cost of their capital at a faster pace than it actually wears out. This allows a company to declare less income and thus defer paying taxes until later years, and as long as the company continues to invest, the deferral of taxes can continue for an indefinite amount of time.

The giving of stock options to employees, as a part of their compensation, is another avenue that has helped companies reduce their total tax bill. When the options are exercised, the difference between what employees pay for the stock and its market value can be claimed for a tax deduction.

Finally, some industries such as research, oil and gas drilling, ethanol production, alternative energy, video game and film production, are privileged by the federal tax code to receive certain tax breaks. (For more, see: How Big Corporations Avoid Big Tax Bills.)

Over the eight years, more than half of the total tax subsidies, which totaled $286 billion, went to just 25 companies. AT&T raked in the largest amount with a total of $38 billion in subsidies over the period. Other major recipients included Wells Fargo at $31.4 billion, J.P. Morgan Chase at $22.2 billion, Verizon at $21.1 billion, IBM at $17.8 billion and Exxon Mobil at $12.9 billion.

[Winstonm]

Back to your regularly scheduled programming:

Quote

Over the past 12 months, President Trump has been on a mission to try to erase Barack Obama’s legacy.

“I’ve been very active in overturning a number of executive actions by my predecessor,” Trump boasted in November before lamenting that he could not go so far as to reverse Obama’s pardon of two Thanksgiving turkeys

Vindictiveness does not make for great governance.

[Winstonm]

Karma? Sarah Huckabee Sanders tweeted this a year or so ago:

Quote

“When you’re attacking FBI agents because you’re under criminal investigation, you’re losing.”

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2017-December-24, 15:41, said:

Karma? Sarah Huckabee Sanders tweeted this a year or so ago:

Seems to me that at the moment Trump is winning.