Wells Fargo CEO admits he won’t use his tax windfall to create more jobs

a reply to: seasonal

Tell me that you think DC spends the money they already take wisely and you might have an argument.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Southern Guardian


The US has some of the highest corporate taxes in the world. It has done nothing for the poor. So how do you square that circle?

Yet when those companies operate abroad, they pay no tax. Google, Amazon and Starbucks avoid taxes with an off-shore tax-haven patent-construction to avoid paying taxes in my native UK and The Netherlands where I now live. Luxembourg is also a popular country for tax-conscious corporations. They earn hundreds of millions in the countries in which they operate. Go globalism!

And ? Its his money he can do whatever the hell he wants with it .

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I'm not sure if many of the war's that we are getting entangled in are sensible decisions..some perhaps. I get what you are saying but really it's the lowest man on the totem pole(average citizen) who usually pay's the price, they are probably screwed either way in reality I suppose. I do think though, when you/we invade another country the citizenry forget about the screwing they are getting from their own, and focus on the invader..which leads to new problems.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I have an ugly feeling most of the debt is laying in deserts in the middle east. And what have we gotten from the dems and repubs for the trillions? very very very little. No our country has pissed away the next generations $$$ at a minimum.


Ahhh it's all ok as long as us short sighted idiots can get $3,000 of our money back? Most people are simpletons and lack critical thinking.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

I am fine with NONE of any windfalls providing any new jobs. Because it is their money anyways. It isn't the government's money and it certainly isn't your money.

Millions of new jobs have already been created under Trump. Millions of jobs were lost under Obama. * years worth of Obama failing to keep a single promise for all those poor people except to create a new generation of self entitled people who complain and think everything should be free. That is what Obama told them while pocketing all that money for himself and his best buddies including his Chicago Mafia friend Tony Rezko.

Anyone who wants money can go make it happen like you are supposed to do, instead of whining for handouts from democrat politicians who laugh at you behind your back and make huge bank deposits for themselves using tax payer dollars to do it.

originally posted by: LightSpeedDriver

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Southern Guardian


The US has some of the highest corporate taxes in the world. It has done nothing for the poor. So how do you square that circle?

Yet when those companies operate abroad, they pay no tax. Google, Amazon and Starbucks avoid taxes with an off-shore tax-haven patent-construction to avoid paying taxes in my native UK and The Netherlands where I now live. Luxembourg is also a popular country for tax-conscious corporations. They earn hundreds of millions in the countries in which they operate. Go globalism!

This is by far the biggest issue and somehow folks ignore it, or perhaps think it is fake news.

It makes no difference to these huge corporations what the tax rate is, they aren't paying taxes....

a reply to: vonclod

I agree. George W Bush's campaign to win the hearts and minds of the enemy was a waste of money and resources. I had no great problem with either war in theory, enter, destroy targets, claim spoils, leave. That's how war should be fought. None of this "rebuild our enemy and make them love us" ridiculousness. The point of war is twofold
1. Force a change in your enemy, not inside their heart, I honestly don't give a flip if the US is the most hated nation on Earth... as long as potential enemies view us as the wrath of God to the point where they are too petrified to act on their hatred, the peace will be kept sacrosanct.
2. Claim spoils. Be that land, resources, or in the case of Japan, decades of near fealty, spoils must be claimed or the war made no sense.

a reply to: seasonal

Is Washington spending the money they currently take, wisely?

If not, why the hell should we give them more?

I just find funny that there are people here on ITS who are talking paying off the national debt or in terms of when the nation is on the path to fixing the deficit vs the path to make it worse. I am guessing it is just force of lifelong habit and members here understand that there is literally mathematically scientifically and in all other ways - as in no scenario exists- where it is possible for anything to happen but it to get worse so long as we have no commodity backed money like a gold standard money but instead currency built on debt...debt of imaginary cash nonetheless...and controlled by banks who owe no audit to the common man and probably don't even stick to the 10% minimum cash on hand rule in their factional reserve lending

******BUT THE REAL reason for the national debt of that severity ------>

a country that gave up its right to make money and instead borrows it from a company with sole printing rights to the dollar that gives us that EVER IMPOSSIBLE feat to accomplish where they print atotal of a trillion dollars for our use but when we are done expect 1 trillion dollars back AND 100 billion dollars in interest for their services but don't understand if they are the only ones allowed to print dollars, where will we ever get 100 billion dollars more than were ever created leaving us no option but saying, "Fine, could you print us the 100 billion interest? " To which they reply, "of course!" So they do and we give it back and they say "nah uh uh...not so fast, you owe us 10 billion in interest for our services printing the 100 billion now!" And this is the never ending dance and puzzle with literally no solution that is responsible for the national debt. Like, this exact scenario accounts for 90 or more percent of it.

(which is the same problem that always leaves someone at the bottom without who can't return worthless currency like they expected and have their cars, gold, homes, land, etc taken in exchange-ACTUAL wealth- little by little allowing a few people to literally own the planet and everything in it even if it will take 1000 years, it works and will get to that...)------->

a reply to: Southern Guardian

remember this is the SAME BANK THAT LET ITS EMPLOYEES OPEN UP MILLIONS OF ACCOUNTS IN CUSTOMERS NAMES ILLEGALLY THEN ENJOYED CHARGING THE ACTUAL CUSTOMERS OVERDRAFT FEES. truthfully obamas justice department should have closed them down.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I think in the case of Germany and Japan, they did win hearts and minds, different circumstances of course, being a world war. I agree there were strategic wins for the effort.
But look at post WW1 Germany..the made Germany pay dearly for it and I think that helped inspire WW2.

I guess we are a bit off topic.

originally posted by: seasonal


It is called race to the bottom, and it will not change as our system is set up for never ending debt and we are neck deep in it ($20,000,000,000,000). In my opinion cutting taxes is irresponsible til the the US is in better financial shape. This shows us how piss poor our leadership is.
.

Seceded from Washington DC and let them pick up the tab.

originally posted by: VforVendettea

originally posted by: seasonal


It is called race to the bottom, and it will not change as our system is set up for never ending debt and we are neck deep in it ($20,000,000,000,000). In my opinion cutting taxes is irresponsible til the the US is in better financial shape. This shows us how piss poor our leadership is.
.

Seceded from Washington DC and let them pick up the tab.

Think a group tried that well over a hundred years ago. I can imagine the outcome would be the same.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: introvert
You take the small bones they throw at you, claiming it is a sweet deal, and will not raise a fuss, will even defend them in fact, while they still did nothing remotely close to what you would "actually want".

Tell me how that is supposed to make any damn sense.

It's called "compromise" and, in politics, it has long been considered a dirty word that everybody wants the other side to participate in.

ETA: I will celebrate anything that directly equals me keeping more of my own earnings, period.

What compromise? The GOP did not compromise with anyone, except for the demands from within their own ranks.

You had no seat at that table and neither did anyone that seeks to push the ideas you want.

You didn't compromise. You took what you were given and were thankful for it.

...please sir, may I have another.

originally posted by: introvert
You didn't compromise. You took what you were given and were thankful for it.

...please sir, may I have another.

OK, realistically, what would you suggest? There are two options here
1. Be happy with the fact that I will get to keep more of my money on payday.
2. Be pissed off about it because I didn't get exactly what I wanted.

Being angry about this, or particularly rejecting it because it isn't everything I'd have done, seems like cutting off your nose purely to spite your face or tossing out the baby with the bathwater. Trump and the GOP ran on cutting my taxes, which they just did. Yes, it was absolutely a compromise. Part of compromising is recognizing your place at any table, including the tables men sit at to determine who is sent to the main negotiation table, and another part of compromise is scaling down not only your demands, but also your expectations to be in line with the gravity of the situation. "Want" doesn't equal "expect" or even "demand" unless the negotiator is a real idiot. "Want" is the pie in the sky, "satisfied" is the most likely positive outcome, while "loser" has been the standard outcome for a number of years. This tax bill, for a change, doesn't make the earner a loser. It actually works out in our favor.

Do people wealthier than I also see it in their favor? Yeah, they do, but what the hell business of mine is that? I don't value my gains based off the gains of others, I value them based off of my own standards and baselines. Your position of "Uh, you didn't get as much (of your own money) as that guy over there" is the definition of greed and envy, neither of which allows for the simple fact... I will have a greater portion of my own earnings available to use as I see fit under this tax plan, as compared to prior tax schemes the government has violated us with.

If I had a magic wand, *poof* no more taxation of my wages... but I seem to have misplaced my magic wand and the magic wand store is closed for now, so I'll take this increase in take home pay and be a little less pissed off for a time.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

OK, realistically, what would you suggest?

I suggest we don't call it a compromise and we sure as hell don't call it a sweet deal.

We also do not celebrate a politician for doing more of the same, when his entire shtick was one of being different than the establishment.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: burdman30ott6

OK, realistically, what would you suggest?

I suggest we don't call it a compromise and we sure as hell don't call it a sweet deal.

We also do not celebrate a politician for doing more of the same, when his entire shtick was one of being different than the establishment.

Saving the average family 4 figures in income taxes isn't "doing more of the same," though. In what way is an action that reduces someone's tax burden at the federal level status quo?

a reply to: Southern Guardian
Why would the CEO of Wells Fargo take any action to benefit tax payers? Why would a company - which pays taxes, not receive them - start handing out corporate income to tax payers? To what end and why? Why do tax payers have title to a company’s revenue?

You do understand the shareholders he talks about are the actual owners of the company? Further, you must understand virtually anyone who invests in a 401(k) probably owns shares in WFC and therefore would directly benefit from what WFC will do?

You do understand the difference between personal income tax, the corporate tax rate companies pay and individual tax payers? I ask because your post clearly suggests otherwise.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: vonclod

I agree. George W Bush's campaign to win the hearts and minds of the enemy was a waste of money and resources. I had no great problem with either war in theory, enter, destroy targets, claim spoils, leave. That's how war should be fought. None of this "rebuild our enemy and make them love us" ridiculousness. The point of war is twofold
1. Force a change in your enemy, not inside their heart, I honestly don't give a flip if the US is the most hated nation on Earth... as long as potential enemies view us as the wrath of God to the point where they are too petrified to act on their hatred, the peace will be kept sacrosanct.
2. Claim spoils. Be that land, resources, or in the case of Japan, decades of near fealty, spoils must be claimed or the war made no sense.

it makes sense when u look at the business behind war. they get paid to destroy and rebuild and on and on