Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The savings went those of us who own stock in the companies. It is the responsibility of a company to charge as much as the market will bear to maximize shareholder profit.
well, even as a lifelong capitalist, I have a problem with the way our economics has shifted to stock price vs actual corporate value.
Maybe not but a lot of them gave raises and bonuses. And their stock prices skyrocketed. Oh and companies came back to the US.
that wasn't the argument. The argument is the old "when you change the tax rate, a corporation never pays that! The consumer does!!"
Yet the tax rate was dropped by a third and the converse of this "law" didn't happen.
Giving workers a one-time bonus right after passage was nice, but if it didn't affect their long-term wages it's no better than a $1,400 stimulus payment.
She was not part of the 2017 Tax Reform Act that didn't suddenly disappear after 2017, republican congress and president at that time. The year 2020 is not a good measurement of anything because of the pandemic but that is why giving away money when we had a great economy in 2017 was a terrible idea.
No the issues are intertwined. Ever run a company? I have.
Well, I "run a company" right now . And have a decade of experience doing commercial banking for small-medium (up to $100MM in sales) companies. And one degree in econ and another in finance.
Would love to discuss how the issues are intertwined. Maybe we're thinking different issues.
I thought the issue was "you shouldn't raise the corporate income tax rate because they just charge that to their consumers." If so, I'd say it's pretty basic logic that the converse should also be true - if raising it = higher cost to consumer, then lowering it should be lower cost to consumer. But it's not.
We're not talking about sales taxes. We're talking income taxes, right?
She was not part of the 2017 Tax Reform Act that didn't suddenly disappear after 2017, republican congress and president at that time. The year 2020 is not a good measurement of anything because of the pandemic but that is why giving away money when we had a great economy in 2017 was a terrible idea.
The 2017 Tax Reform Act wasn't a spending bill. Furthermore, federal tax revenues have increased every year since then. The problem is Pelosi and the House Dems spending too much money. Sorry, but they can't keep funneling unlimited pork spending to their donors.
Black unemployment was down to 6.3% in July of 2017 before the tax cuts when into place. At the lowest point it looks like in November of 2019 it was done to 5.3%. Could we have gotten to that level or at least close to it without blowing up our deficit in the midst of economic expansion? That is the biggest issue for me.
She was not part of the 2017 Tax Reform Act that didn't suddenly disappear after 2017, republican congress and president at that time. The year 2020 is not a good measurement of anything because of the pandemic but that is why giving away money when we had a great economy in 2017 was a terrible idea.
and there is the difference in philosophy in stark contrast.
I don't know how Independents break down, but the Goodnight Dems of the world believe taking less of someone's money = giving them money, as if all the money is the government's to decide who gets what.
The Republicans of the world see that it is their money, given away to a government that finds more ways to spend it than intended, and with an ever increasing appetite.
For example:
Why did we need to commit $1.5MM of Federal money for every public school campus in the land because of Covid, when some schools have operated 2020-2021 calendar in a regular fashion?
The 2017 Tax Reform Act wasn't a spending bill. Furthermore, federal tax revenues have increased every year since then. The problem is Pelosi and the House Dems spending too much money. Sorry, but they can't keep funneling unlimited pork spending to their donors.
the problem is ALL OF THEM spending too much money.
Well, I "run a company" right now . And have a decade of experience doing commercial banking for small-medium (up to $100MM in sales) companies. And one degree in econ and another in finance.
Would love to discuss how the issues are intertwined. Maybe we're thinking different issues.
I thought the issue was "you shouldn't raise the corporate income tax rate because they just charge that to their consumers." If so, I'd say it's pretty basic logic that the converse should also be true - if raising it = higher cost to consumer, then lowering it should be lower cost to consumer. But it's not.
We're not talking about sales taxes. We're talking income taxes, right?
Yes, income taxes. A business must maintain a certain Gross Margin to survive. Anything that rasies costs, higher labor, energy costs, insurance, other OpEx, etc erodes that gross margin. Then there is competition. How are you going to compete against states and countries with lower tax burdens? Yes, any lower costs, including lower tax burden, MAY lower prices. It depends on the MARKET and margins. So yes it is intertwined.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. And have a decade of experience doing commercial banking for small-medium (up to $100MM in sales) companies. And one degree in econ and another in finance. 
