It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Huge Corporate Profits- so Why do They Need a Tax Cut?

page: 8
25
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
Do 401Ks derive substantial income from corporate profits? I thought it had more to do with trading, but I admit I don't pay much attention to the details.




posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: jacobe001

The main beneficiaries of the finance sector are the top wealthy, not your average American than has a 401k.


Incorrect:


It's easy to think that the stock market is the playground of hedge funds and day traders, but in reality most of the stock market is owned by the average joe.

In fact, the largest chunk is doing one thing: helping people retire.

In a white paper, Steven Rosenthal and Lydia Austin of the Tax Policy Center have broken out exactly which kind of investors own the stock market. They found that a majority of corporate stock is owned by different types of retirement plans, the largest being IRAs and defined-benefit plans. Source



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

Do 401Ks derive substantial income from corporate profits?


If you have dividend paying issues they will, mine are set up as a DRIP.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: jacobe001
A global corporation that has their widgets made in China with the cheap labor you can get under Communism where workers have no rights is the chosen winner.
While Joe Corp the American cannot compete with communist labor.


That is a misnomer, American workers can compete in many sectors versus the Chinese or other nations. As a matter of fact, the Chinese are having issues with their burgeoning middle class and increasing wages. Outsourcing or automating from/in China began some time ago.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Well that would certainly explain your point of view on corporate taxation.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
Well that would certainly explain your point of view on corporate taxation.


I've never hid my feelings or rationale on this topic.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: jacobe001

The main beneficiaries of the finance sector are the top wealthy, not your average American than has a 401k.


Incorrect:


It's easy to think that the stock market is the playground of hedge funds and day traders, but in reality most of the stock market is owned by the average joe.

In fact, the largest chunk is doing one thing: helping people retire.

In a white paper, Steven Rosenthal and Lydia Austin of the Tax Policy Center have broken out exactly which kind of investors own the stock market. They found that a majority of corporate stock is owned by different types of retirement plans, the largest being IRAs and defined-benefit plans. Source




Yes, as I said, less than 50% of Americans have a 401K and IRA
Two-Thirds of Americans Aren’t Putting Money in Their 401(k)

www.mybudget360.com...
The 401k has been a disaster for most Americans: Only 44 percent of private sector workers participate in a defined contribution plan.

www.bloomberg.com...

www2.ucsc.edu...

An Investment Manager's View on The Upper Half of the Top 1%

Membership in this elite group is likely to come from being involved in some aspect of the financial services or banking industry, real estate development involved with those industries, or government contracting. Some hard working and clever physicians and attorneys can acquire as much as $15M-$20M before retirement but they are rare. Those in the top 0.5% have incomes over $500k if working and a net worth over $1.8M if retired. The higher we go up into the top 0.5% the more likely it is that their wealth is in some way tied to the investment industry and borrowed money than from personally selling goods or services or labor as do most in the bottom 99.5%. They are much more likely to have built their net worth from stock options and capital gains in stocks and real estate and private business sales, not from income which is taxed at a much higher rate. These opportunities are largely unavailable to the bottom 99.5%.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: jacobe001
Yes, as I said, less than 50% of Americans have a 401K and IRA
Two-Thirds of Americans Aren’t Putting Money in Their 401(k)


And despite that the average person is still the largest single block of stock ownership. These are facts, not opinion.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: jacobe001
Yes, as I said, less than 50% of Americans have a 401K and IRA
Two-Thirds of Americans Aren’t Putting Money in Their 401(k)


And despite that the average person is still the largest single block of stock ownership. These are facts, not opinion.


Single largest block represents just over a third of ownership. Distributed over all the people who have pension schemes.

Doesn't really suggest there is a broad ownership of listed companies.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
If everything is a flat rate and we remove the loopholes, then how is West Virginia supposed to attract investment to one day retrain coal workers?


Well, we are talking about federal here I think, but like I said, equal playing field. Companies will chose their locations based on common sense things like infrastructure. If States want to attract business, do it by providing the right environment.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: UndeadWarrior
a reply to: Blaine91555

What would your thoughts be on abolishing profits, thus eliminating the need for taxes? Kind of off derailing this a bit, but I like your thought process and would like to pick your brain on this.

A truly balanced economy should always balance to a "0" in the end should it not? You made a dollar because you worked a day, I made a dollar because I worked one day. Those who paid you and I that dollar, made that dollar off of us somehow due to company XYZ. In the end, I will give my dollar back to XYZ, and it should theoretically in turn return that dollar to me in the end.


I'm not into Socialism in any way. There is zero incentive without profits and no reason for anyone to innovate or start new businesses.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I don't doubt that at all.
But personal disclosure helps understanding.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Doesn't really suggest there is a broad ownership of listed companies.


Do you think they are all with only a handful of issues?




edit on 12-11-2017 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
I don't doubt that at all.
But personal disclosure helps understanding.


No worries. Not everything I own is a dividend stock, I have several types.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
I'm lazy... Indexed, complete.
Not a lot in it though so it's ok.


edit on 11/12/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

I'm lazy... Indexed.


Not that lazy, you're at least doing something.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Doesn't really suggest there is a broad ownership of listed companies.


Do you think they are all with only a handful of issues?





Sorry but I don't understand the question.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Sorry but I don't understand the question.


You said it doesn't suggest broad ownership of companies, I asked if those pension funds only held a few issues.

I tend to think they are very broad and in as many sectors as possible.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Sorry but I don't understand the question.


You said it doesn't suggest broad ownership of companies, I asked if those pension funds only held a few issues.

I tend to think they are very broad and in as many sectors as possible.


Get you now. Yes they own a broad spectrum of listed companies. I was refering to the ownership not the companies owned.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Get you now. Yes they own a broad spectrum of listed companies. I was refering to the ownership not the companies owned.


Rouhgly 40% of the population is a very strong number in my opinion considering that the overall population number includes children and people in their 20's who typically do not own stock or have retirement accounts.




top topics



 
25
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join