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.

 

CONCERNED - Corporate America is NOT Confirming President Trumps Tax-Cut Promises.

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 09:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Throes
This thread is dumb. Silence is acceptance. Corporate tax decreases are going to benefit middle class Americans more than additional government programs.



This is NOT a dumb thread. With 5 Republican Senators still on the fence, President Trump has an uphill battle to fight, if he wants Tax Reform passed.

Those of us who will pay more in taxes after reform is passed, want to know that our sacrifice will be worth it. Unless corporations back Trump's promises to the American people, and publically state that they're going to inject much of the additional $$$ back into the U.S. economy, it's hard to be comforted.




posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Throes

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: carewemust

Got to go where the $$$ is. And I would be more interested in % of earnings.


Top 20% of Earners Pay 84% of Income Tax
www.wsj.com...


A flat tax is the only way to solve this, and there is no way a very wealthy earner (billionaire) is going to allow (lobby) for that.


Oh..that's the ratio: 20% pay 84% of income tax. Thanks!

Also, I see here: www.forbes.com... that 45% of Individuals/Corporations pay NO taxes.




Yep, the poor walk around with $800 cell phones and fake nails while not paying an ounce into the tax system. Boohoo.


You forgot the FAKE hair.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: rickymouse


I would like to delve further into your post and ask a couple of questions, but they would totally be off-topic for this thread. Maybe another time. Appreciate your input though!


Yeah, this is actually really off topic, I should refrain myself.


You should really start more threads, RickyMouse. Your mind is ripe with ideas.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Throes

Then your not paying attention, cuts to corporations do not benefit the people, they benefit the shareholders.


I was listening to the Neil Cavuto show on Fox News radio recently. He's really into this Tax Reform legislation...very excited about it.

Neil and a guest were concerned that corporations would take most of the money from tax-cuts, and buy more of their own shares, to increase company value for shareholders.

Neil and guest discussed how disquieting it was for them to have no clue as to what corporate boards were planning for the windfall of cash coming their way, if Tax Reform became law.

But they did agree that President Trump would be in DEEP TROUBLE if corporations didn't reinvest into the economy. It's then that I decided to start this thread. 30% of us will pay more in taxes so that corporations will get big cuts. They'd better not phuck up.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Personal injury is limited to 30%. That is it, at least in michigan.



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: rickymouse

Personal injury is limited to 30%. That is it, at least in michigan.


The lawyer who files it gets thirty percent, but the contracts clearly state that expenses are not part of that amount. Those are deducted from the settlement too. I actually think it is thirty three percent yet.

Those expenses can be court fees, travel expenses, and even the fees of other lawyers from a separate firm if needed. Those fees can also include extra for any time office help spent on the case sometimes. I know someone who had the extra fees bring the check to about half, the lawyer got an attorney to attend some meetings down state with the company and added that to the bill. It amounted to about three grand over and above the third. Maybe you should read up on this, that rule is in the bar association regulations governing all states. This is in the legal contract you sign when you get an attorney for something
edit on 27-11-2017 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2017 @ 10:55 PM
link   
THIS MAKES SENSE... Two Senators voting "NO", unless small businesses get the same tax break as large corporations.


Sens. Ron Johnson (Wis.) and Steve Daines (Mont.), the two Republicans who have said they cannot support the Senate tax reform package in its current form, want to end a major tax break for big companies to help small businesses.

They say the tax bill needs to treat big companies and small- and medium-sized businesses more equally.

The legislation would permanently reduce the tax rate for big companies classified as C corporations to 20 percent while setting a top effective tax rate for many small businesses classified 32 percent. The special rate for so-called “pass-through” companies, whose income is taxed through the individual tax code, would expire after 2025.

Johnson and Daines want to increase the deduction available to small businesses, which the Senate bill now sets at 17.4 percent, by not allowing big companies to deduct state and local taxes.

SOURCE: thehill.com...

Since companies with fewer than 500 employees, employ 56% of all working Americans, it's only fair that they get the same tax-cut that the large corporations receive.

I hope Senators Johnson and Daines stand their ground, and don't give an inch on this issue.



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: rickymouse

Please look into the McD's law suit before spreading the usual corporate sided propaganda. There is more to it than meets the eye.


When a person sues McDs for hot coffee burning them, that raises insurance costs across the board for all businesses, a raise that is compounded double by the time it reaches the consumer.


As an interesting aside, the reason you think that was a stupid/spurious case, is because McDonald's wanted you to think that.

They spent a lot of money during that case to make the defendant sound like an idiot, in order to try and win the case. They lost the case anyway!

They lost because they were using dangerous methods to keep their coffee as hot as possible. Their tanks were keeping the coffee at a constant 100 degree temperature, so that they would always be very hot for the customer.

Although common sense dictates that hot drinks are indeed hot, common sense would also dictate that hot drinks are comparably hot to a hot drink you would make for yourself. A hot cup of coffee at home is probably 80-90 degrees C by the time you have made it. Still hot, but not scalding.

The lady who was injured had spilled her drink over her lap when driving away from the drive through, with the drink between her legs. Might be a silly idea to keep it there, fair enough.

But would you honestly expect, after spilling a hot drink on your legs, to end up with YOUR VAGINA MELTED AND STUCK TO THE INSIDE OF YOUR LEG!!

Because that is what happened to that poor lady.



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 07:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: rickymouse

Please look into the McD's law suit before spreading the usual corporate sided propaganda. There is more to it than meets the eye.


When a person sues McDs for hot coffee burning them, that raises insurance costs across the board for all businesses, a raise that is compounded double by the time it reaches the consumer.


The coffee was too hot. It was a bad burn. But that does not justify a multimillion dollar lawsuit. I understand how liaility insurance works, If something I did injured an employee or someone else on the job, I had to back what the insurance company lawyers did or I would be completely liable for the judgement. That goes for McDs too, they are hushed by the insurance company even if they know it is their fault.

A coffee machine making the coffee too hot is not to do with McDs, it has to do with the manufacturer of the pot. There should be a maximum temperature it heats to. So was this McDs fault?


Yes, it was McDonald's fault. It was there own tanks holding the drink at that temperature, it was very easy for them to turn the setting down once they lost the lawsuit.



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 09:09 AM
link   
A promise was given based on the belief or trust in the macro economic mechanics set into motion by the tax reform.
So basically this promise boils down to trickle down economics. Enjoy
edit on 28-11-2017 by Jubei42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jubei42
A promise was given based on the belief or trust in the macro economic mechanics set into motion by the tax reform.
So basically this promise boils down to trickle down economics. Enjoy


It's better than the huge tax increases that Hillary or Bernie would have TRIED to implement. "Trickle Down" is preferable to "Bend Over and Take It!".



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Regardless of who would try what, this promise is based on wealth created at the top hopefully flowing down.
I'm sure there is some trickle down effect but in general I think it's safe to say that wealth at the top stays at the top.

Money talks and also tends to walk, to the nearest tax free zone



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Me and Neil Kavuto must have a similar distrust of large corporations. He is on TV now, asking more experts what the ramifications would be if large businesses did not reinvest the money they receive from tax cuts back into the economy.



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 04:03 PM
link   
BOYCOTT CORPORATIONS!


I could get tips from the Mennonites. They have a community not far from here. ;D



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   
The Tax 'Reform' is going to be just as beautiful as his healthcare plan. Step right up and get your snakeoil. It cures cancer, lumbago, liberalism. Trust me. I know more than other people.

edit on 28-11-2017 by jtma508 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

1) The deficit will not decrease
2) Greater profits for corporations and those who invest in them, depending upon how dividends are (or aren't) distributed.

Pretty simple math.

edit on 11/28/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: carewemust

1) The deficit will not decrease
2) Greater profits for corporations and those who invest in them, depending upon how dividends are (or aren't) distributed.

Pretty simple math.


What are the negative effects that everyday Americans can see due to the deficit increasing?

I remember people warning Ronald Reagan about the deficit going over 1 trillion dollars due to his tax reduction plan. Right now, it's at 19 or 20 trillion dollars isn't it?



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

You are confusing deficit with debt but what it means is that a greater amount of taxes (which will be, apparently going up for a lot of the middle class) will be going to servicing (paying interest) on the debt instead of things like infrastructure.

Infrastructure. Remember that? Wha' happened to all that beautiful infrastructure stuff?

edit on 11/28/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2017 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

What are you talking about? Thats all going on the wall along the southern border. Bridges, railroads, solarpanels. Heck they'll even throw in a couple of ladders. That delicious chocolate dessert is not making it to the table by itself



posted on Nov, 29 2017 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: carewemust

You are confusing deficit with debt but what it means is that a greater amount of taxes (which will be, apparently going up for a lot of the middle class) will be going to servicing (paying interest) on the debt instead of things like infrastructure.

Infrastructure. Remember that? Wha' happened to all that beautiful infrastructure stuff?


The president just said at a Missouri rally that infrastructure will be a 2018 item, along with welfare reform.




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join