Gifted a $1 trillion tax windfall from Congress, US companies only pledge $2 billion for workers

a reply to: TheRedneck

So in a system where there are no rich, lets say its a room with 100 people in it, then nothing happens/gets done, society stagnates and collapses, and the world ends.......

It is ignorant of you to assume that the rich matriculated into existence on the 8th day. The system started from a homeostatic baseline and grew into the monstrosity it is today.

Money is a fiat that can be employed without backing (though it is obviously riskier) in a society were suddenly everyone has 0 in their bank account. In that case, something as simple as the government 'creating' money then portioning it out for a variety of services kick-starts the economic system again.

I'm sorry you suckle at the teat of the rich expecting to get anything more than the crumbs they are too lazy to sequester (and they're getting better and better at 'cleaning up after themselves' every year). Is it so hard to rationalize that the rich would rather keep their money, suppress wage growth, increase productivity (as has been happening) so that they can get more out of their workforce for less and therefore further enrich only themselves?

Only 2 Billion? Oh, well heck then... let's cancel it all.

We should appoint a commission to explain to these corporations that "...ALL YOUR BA$E ARE BELONG TO US!"

Idiots! They think their money is THEIR money???? How dare they!!!

Oh... the humanity!!!!

Screw it... I'm going to walk down to the neighborhood hardware store and demand a share of their profits... just because...

LOL

a reply to: Wayfarer

The point is that even if you took every dime of assets and equally divided them among the world's population, in a few short years the world would return to the exact same state: some would be wealthy, more would be middle-class, and even more would be struggling to get by. It would likely be mostly the same people in each class that we have now, with a few exceptions.

WE WOULD STILL HAVE RICH PEOPLE, BECAUSE PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO STAGNATE AND GO BROKE.

I know, I know... in your world, everyone would get wealthy together and all would be wonderful. People would take turns being the 'boss' and everyone would be equal and happy as they watched an endless parade of fairies riding unicorns across rainbows...

I still live in reality.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Except the reality you live in has already indoctrinated you to believe that the wealthy deserve not to pay taxes since they're the magical engine of the economy. This is not the case.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

you cite words of ceo of wells fargo the bank that let thousands of employees open millions of accounts illegally in customers names after the employees overdrafted these bogus accounts the bank started hitting customers real accounts for overdraft fees and made a big profit off those fees. and at and t laying off people is because other telecoms kicking their butt. now that we got lower corporate taxe pres needs to start hitting american companies that export jobs with 35 cent on dollar import tariff on items they make overseas

a reply to: Wayfarer

No, I believe the wealthy should actually pay a higher percentage, because it more closely reflects their ability to make income. It should not be so much that it damages their ability to contribute to the economy, however.

You make a lot of assumptions.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Well apologies for assuming you were supporting the latest tax cuts. Are you saying that giving the wealthy the lions share of the tax cuts isn't optimal?

a reply to: Wayfarer

Again with the assumptions...

I do support the recent tax plan. It reduces corporate taxes to make domestic companies competitive with foreign companies, it increases immediate expenditures to allow companies to expand easier, it reduces the tax rates across the board, and it increases the standard deductions... that last one will benefit the middle class more than anyone else. It also allows for cheaper repatriation of finances presently stored offshore, to get that money back into investment circles.

Those are good things.

It removed the individual healthcare mandate. That is an awesome, amazing, wonderful thing.

I wish the corporate tax rates had been cut deeper, and that the number of tax brackets had been increased instead of decreased. But it's still a far sight better than continuing to spiral down into economic oblivion.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Wayfarer

when i look at the tax plan, it looks like "the wealthy" pay more than half their earnings in taxes.

Am i missing something?

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: TheGOAT

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Why are you parroting the media?

Can't you see this is just dividing us?

(did I do that right?)

The liberal mindset, tax the rich until they leave the country and we all go broke.

Uh, if you think a country full of people goes broke and collapses when the rich leave, then I've got a couple bridges to sell you (super cheap).

Go look at all the countries in the world and tell me what ones have the best living conditions, oh right, where the rich are who hire people to work, and spend money. You are blinded, or so jealous, of rich people you'd be willing to forgo what is good for you and the rest of us, just to see them suffer. Makes no sense to me.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: TheRedneck

So in a system where there are no rich, lets say its a room with 100 people in it, then nothing happens/gets done, society stagnates and collapses, and the world ends.......

It is ignorant of you to assume that the rich matriculated into existence on the 8th day. The system started from a homeostatic baseline and grew into the monstrosity it is today.

Money is a fiat that can be employed without backing (though it is obviously riskier) in a society were suddenly everyone has 0 in their bank account. In that case, something as simple as the government 'creating' money then portioning it out for a variety of services kick-starts the economic system again.

I'm sorry you suckle at the teat of the rich expecting to get anything more than the crumbs they are too lazy to sequester (and they're getting better and better at 'cleaning up after themselves' every year). Is it so hard to rationalize that the rich would rather keep their money, suppress wage growth, increase productivity (as has been happening) so that they can get more out of their workforce for less and therefore further enrich only themselves?

Take everyones money so we start at zero again and you're going to see raping and pillaging like never before. The strong will survive, like they did 100's or thousands of years ago. You basically want to set the entire world back to square one, which is hilarious btw, only because you don't like the rich. Well, guess what, someone will come out rich again and your little fantasy will have to start all over again.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: TheRedneck

Well apologies for assuming you were supporting the latest tax cuts. Are you saying that giving the wealthy the lions share of the tax cuts isn't optimal?

I still have no idea why you are so worried about what other people are getting. If you walk through life always worried about what other people have more than you, you're living a pretty sorry life.

What does it matter that some person or entity is getting more money? Are you that reliant on the government that you need every single cent possible to go to them to waste?

I thought it had been made pretty clear already in this thread that the 'Rich' are not planning on reinvesting most of the money they're getting back, but rather collecting/sequestering it to further enrich themselves. It sounds like you all are making the argument that if we give the rich all the money in the world, they'll share 1% of it with us little folk, and that the 1% they share is better than 0%.

I can't rationalize this as anything other than indoctrination into the belief that the rich have already won, will always win, and we should just give them everything in the hopes that the rest of us can survive off whatever marginal amount they allow us to so we don't all starve.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
I thought it had been made pretty clear already in this thread that the 'Rich' are not planning on reinvesting most of the money they're getting back, but rather collecting/sequestering it to further enrich themselves. It sounds like you all are making the argument that if we give the rich all the money in the world, they'll share 1% of it with us little folk, and that the 1% they share is better than 0%.

Clear to who? Using what evidence? Is it pure conflation?

I can't rationalize this as anything other than indoctrination into the belief that the rich have already won, will always win, and we should just give them everything in the hopes that the rest of us can survive off whatever marginal amount they allow us to so we don't all starve.

So when your imagination fails you, the only rational response is to insult those who seem to have more imagination? You have just shrugged off reasonable replies that were made addressing this concern? Or did you not have a chance to read any of it?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Uh, I'm sorry if you feel insulted, I was trying not to direct my assertions at you or Redneck if that's how you felt (In fact I'm genuinely trying to reign in my responses back to civility here). I'm referring to the various graphs posted earlier in this thread that illustrated wage stagnation while profits rose (which I feel is a pretty good indication of the lack of 'trickle down' effects that many are claiming will occur with the huge corporate tax break).

Are you saying that all that data posted in the first several pages of this thread are bunk?

a reply to: Wayfarer

Im not sure why you'd worry about civility, etc. You don't seem to be rude.

Part of my job is interpreting data. The one thing i have learned is that data may point to something that isn't really there. An example from the first few pages (page 1, actually):



Could relate to the increase in efficiency seen in systems as a natural progression into the industrial age and post war era. It could be that when computers began to be used to gain efficiency in the mid 70's, you see the divergence of productivity and compensation. Honestly, you can't pay me for doing the job of 4 people when i've created efficiencies that allow me to do said work in 50 hours a week.

The only other graph i found is this:



Which creates quite a few questions for me to answer before I can give you any kind of intelligent reply. But I would point out that it isn't the poor we should be measuring, its the middle class. With a strong middle class, the poor feel much less pain.

An example of a question I have is: all the cash holdings from among the top 10% in the US....how many of those are foreign nationals/expats who are offshoring our currency?

a reply to: Wayfarer

I thought it had been made pretty clear already in this thread that the 'Rich' are not planning on reinvesting most of the money they're getting back, but rather collecting/sequestering it to further enrich themselves.

When a CEO says he plans on using the increased income to increase dividends, that is not him saying he's pocketing it. Do you understand what dividends are? They are the stockholders' portions of the profits. Who else should get it if there is nowhere to grow the company?

That includes retirees who have 401k plans... little old ladies who live on their pensions... and yes, more wealthy investors who invested their money in that company expecting to make a profit. Do you think they should just forfeit that profit? To what end and for what reason? Because they are successful?

As I have stated, over and over, mature businesses will not create new jobs. They are mature; they have nowhere to grow into. Wells Fargo can't get people to borrow more money, because everyone who wants to borrow (and is able to show they have the ability to repay) already has the ability to borrow. Ford Motor Company is another good example; their car sales are going to rise a little as more middle class can afford cars, but they are not going to experience a massive growth spurt. There are already Ford dealers everywhere you look.

Tesla will see a growth spurt, because they can grab a bigger share of the market. Tesla will add jobs and buy equipment, to make their cars better and cheaper so more people will buy them. That's the difference between a mature company and a growing company.

You seem to be suffering from this illusion that the 'rich' are all alike, clones of each other who will always act the same, dress the same, think the same, walk the same, talk the same... it's a false belief. The innovators will prosper, while the satiated will simply stagnate until they are overtaken by younger, hungrier companies. It's happened that way since the beginnings of commerce. What I care about is not what Ford does, or what Wells Fargo does, or what Wal-Mart does... I care about the overall gains, and the path we have set ourselves on now has great potential to make massive improvements overall.

And if some lazy fat-rat makes a few million extra while I get a better job, a better future, and a chance to grow and succeed... who cares? I get what I want.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Wayfarer

Im not sure why you'd worry about civility, etc. You don't seem to be rude.

Part of my job is interpreting data. The one thing i have learned is that data may point to something that isn't really there. An example from the first few pages (page 1, actually):

Could relate to the increase in efficiency seen in systems as a natural progression into the industrial age and post war era. It could be that when computers began to be used to gain efficiency in the mid 70's, you see the divergence of productivity and compensation. Honestly, you can't pay me for doing the job of 4 people when i've created efficiencies that allow me to do said work in 50 hours a week.

The only other graph i found is this:

Which creates quite a few questions for me to answer before I can give you any kind of intelligent reply. But I would point out that it isn't the poor we should be measuring, its the middle class. With a strong middle class, the poor feel much less pain.

An example of a question I have is: all the cash holdings from among the top 10% in the US....how many of those are foreign nationals/expats who are offshoring our currency?

First, does it really matter what the driver is for wealth inequality (automation, wealth hoarding, etc.) when the effect is what should be tackled? I understand that nobody is going to have their mind changed regarding trickle down economics (as most of its supporters/detractors can point to as many datasets that potentially support their cause as they can find, but which are ultimately inconclusive on account of the plethora of factors that are yet to be correlated). Rather, when its clear that money is becoming focused into the top 1% (and shown that only a small portion of that reinvested) how does that re-invigorate the economy better than putting that money into lower/middle class hands that instantly return it into the economic system? My earlier post regarding my inability to conceptualize making the wealthy even wealthier hinges on the fact wouldn't it make sense that as the wealthy got wealthier so to would the lower/middle class (which in fact this isn't whats happening). I just can't imagine that there is some magical 'break-point' we are just short of that when reached will suddenly propagate spending surges by the ultra-wealthy.

Secondly, why would the wealthy return their money to the US unless it won't be taxed (or taxed at a lower rate than where it is currently being held)? They exist to perpetuate their wealth, and the only reason it gets brought back into the US is because we're allowing them to return it tax free (which doesn't feed back into the system). Is the middle class made stronger by the rich having larger bank accounts (that aren't being spent, but rather accrued in ever increasing fashion)?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
You seem to be suffering from this illusion that the 'rich' are all alike, clones of each other who will always act the same, dress the same, think the same, walk the same, talk the same... it's a false belief. The innovators will prosper, while the satiated will simply stagnate until they are overtaken by younger, hungrier companies. It's happened that way since the beginnings of commerce. What I care about is not what Ford does, or what Wells Fargo does, or what Wal-Mart does... I care about the overall gains, and the path we have set ourselves on now has great potential to make massive improvements overall.

And if some lazy fat-rat makes a few million extra while I get a better job, a better future, and a chance to grow and succeed... who cares? I get what I want.

TheRedneck

This is a really salient response, and I appreciate you taking the time to re-iterate it. I have heard this before from my Republican friends, and my counter is 'I truly hope your right, but if that's the case why has wealth inequality only gotten worse if those 'rich folk' who 'stagnate' their wealth by holding onto it rather than reinvesting are supposed to diminish while the economic forward folks accruing wealth supplant them to the betterment of the middle class?'

Have I missed some aspect of the tax overhaul that drastically incentivises returning the wealth into the market rather than letting it accrue through other various financial engines directly?

a reply to: Wayfarer

why would the wealthy return their money to the US unless it won't be taxed (or taxed at a lower rate than where it is currently being held)? They exist to perpetuate their wealth, and the only reason it gets brought back into the US is because we're allowing them to return it tax free (which doesn't feed back into the system).

You are so confused and wrong on so many levels... where do I start?

They want to repatriate their money because they can make more by using it to invest. The present tax penalties mean everything they make by repatriating it are just paid to the government; they get no return on investment.

Everyone wants to increase their wealth. You, me, BFFT, the guy down the street, the manager of the local grocery store, the CEO of JC Penneys, the janitor mopping the floors, and the bum lying the gutter. Everyone.

We are not allowing it to return tax-free. That is just incorrect. We are allowing a tax break on returns during a specific period, so the government is no longer taking all the profits if they bring it back now.

Any investment in new or expanding businesses, which are the most lucrative investments, feeds back into the 'system.' No government involvement required. All economic activity is not government based; as a matter of fact, precious little of it is.

I am impressed, though. It has to be hard to get so much incorrect information in so few lines of text. That's a talent.

TheRedneck