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

a reply to: Wayfarer

The money comes back on shore via investment. The reason its moved off shore is investment. If Dr Patel thinks his money is better spent investing in hotels in the US vs India, then the cash is spent in the US instead.

I mean, there are many reasons for it....that is just one example from someone I know, which is a frequent example in the world at large.

Im not a big supporter of trickle down. Because the wealthy are greedy. WHat I am a fan of is improving my situation regardless of how much it may improve someone elses. Personally, I like the idea of new properties being developed. Its gives me more work, and gives my position more demand which increases my wages.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
Cut taxes for the middle and lower classes. Money assured to go right back into the economy as there is a need to spend.

51% of Americans paid no federal income taxes last year. That's your lower class and half of the middle class. How, in the name of all things unwashed and reeking of patchouli, do you "cut" something that's already non existent? 47% of tax payers got more from the IRS than they paid in last year... again, what you're calling for can only be viewed by those of us actually having to budget for paying taxes as more hands jammed into my pockets in search of money made by me.

A tax cut for you represents an expense to the system. A tax cut for me represents less income to the system. There is a world of difference.

a reply to: TheRedneck

You keep saying this like its gospel, but you don't explain the wealth gap widening ever further as it has already done. Are you saying that the wealthy just need another 20% of their total wealth back into their US holdings to finally make the right decision and start using the wealth to grow in ways that benefit the middle class?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I agree with you that I wouldn't begrudge the wealthy getting wealthier if we all benefited, but I thought it was pretty clear that despite whatever it is their doing with the money, that's not the case.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Thank you. I know I get frustrated at times, but I am interested in educating.

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?

Because the economy.

Really.

Wealth inequality increases during bad economic times. When one is expecting to get fired, they do not go out shopping for new cars; they will hold onto what they have until they feel secure in their future. The wealthy are no different. If they see tough economic times ahead, they will tend to hold onto their money, even oif that constitutes a loss due to inflation. It's better than losing everything.

In actuality, they will not encounter an actual loss. There are low-risk. low-reward investment vehicles that will keep them stable, but these do not provide much benefit to the economy. I'm talking about CDs, bonds, commodities, that sort of thing. None of them produce jobs, so the gap between the rich and the poor grow. The rich do not get a lot richer, but the poor get much poorer.

On the other hand, if taxes are low and the economy is booming, there are so many opportunities around that an investor has no concern about risk; there will be another opportunity available if needed. The most lucrative investments are small- to medium-sized businesses wanting to expand and grow, and start-ups. A booming economy means these have a better chance of success as well. These happen to be the most beneficial investment vehicles to the economy as well. New jobs provide opportunities for the middle class and the poor, allowing them to increase in wealth along with (and in some cases, faster than percentage-wise) the rich. A wealthy person with assets of $100M and a yearly income of $10M might see his income jump to $12M, a 20% increase, while a poor person trying to survive on $10K from assistance who lands a $30K job just saw a 200% increase. They can also start to invest and save, which will only cause their income to grow more. Not to mention, they will likely spend most of their income on the things they could not afford before, so that will raise the opportunity level more as more money is flowing through the economy.

That is how wealth inequality is improved: making the poor wealthier, not by making the wealthy poorer. This tax bill does that overall, by making it easier for businesses to prosper while in the US, cutting taxes across the board, reducing yet another heinous regulation on the middle class (the insurance mandate), and by getting investment money repatriated. The entire plan is a shot in the arm to the economy; there is not one specific part that anyone can point to and say "This is what works. Ignore the rest."

TheRedneck

a reply to: Wayfarer

No, I am saying we need to let the wealthy do what they need to do: invest so everyone else can get their piece of the pie too.

See my last post.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I agree with you that I wouldn't begrudge the wealthy getting wealthier if we all benefited, but I thought it was pretty clear that despite whatever it is their doing with the money, that's not the case.

Its less about what they are doing with the money and more about the environment where they aren't doing anything with money.

It would be insane to invest in a market where you expect to suffer losses, even if its for the better of people within that market. If we were to rewind to the Clinton presidency, and address the beginnings of the housing bubble that Bush seemed to want to push over the edge, this conversation may be more moot.

Or not. But you can see that when a bubble bursts, the bigger loss %'s are generally in the middle class. They are the ones who lose their wealth when the markets hiccup.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Well I get a 3% tax cut. That essentially a standard pay raise and my stocks are going up. That is a trickle down in your sense. For those who make cr2p for living. You guys don't pay any taxes, why do you expect a tax cut when you already pay sh17.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The bubble occured because Dems forced companies to give bad loans because they believed everyone should own a home. The next bubble burst won't happen until Trump term is over because his policies are pro America so it will drive the stock market up and it won't be anything similar to 2008. That's a whole different story. The same bad loans are not available to create the same problems.

Corporations are depending on American ignorance and stupidity to create an illusion of smoke and mirrors, a suggestion that corporate tax savings will be passed on to workers, product prices, etc. But, just like the funds corporations spend on lobbying, the return on investment will run very high, much higher than any gains the public will ever see. By a long shot. Don't take my word for it. Just watch and pay attention to actions over time. Therein will lie the truth.

Companies get to keep more of their money they earned. The nerve. Then they decided to not give most of their money to already well paid employees beyond the pay they agreed too when hired on. The horror.

a reply to: tabularosa

Don't take my word for it. Just watch and pay attention to actions over time. Therein will lie the truth.

Yes, yes it will.

I hope when the facts are finally revealed, when naysayers have run out of their illusions, that you will remember that statement and accept the truth.

I doubt you will, but time will tell about that, too.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Southern Guardian

His "approval ratings are low" huh?... isn't that the same type of argument the left was making about "Trump not having the support and votes needed to win"?...

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Gifted a $1 trillion tax windfall from Congress,

Corporate welfare at its worst.

Now you know why welfare for individuals is declining and will continue to do decline. Its simply being taken off individuals and given to the corporate sector.

haven't you, the reader, not worked that out yet?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Im not a big supporter of trickle down. Because the wealthy are greedy. WHat I am a fan of is improving my situation regardless of how much it may improve someone elses. Personally, I like the idea of new properties being developed. Its gives me more work, and gives my position more demand which increases my wages.

I have always said the wealthy might as well live on Mars as to just how they effect my life as I live it. Everyone continually blames all their failures on the evil rich, but you know what? I am not rich and I have done very well with my life, so I actually give a rats ass to how much some rich guy has. In the end it means nothing to me...

originally posted by: Azureblue

Now you know why welfare for individuals is declining and will continue to do decline. Its simply being taken off individuals and given to the corporate sector.

haven't you, the reader, not worked that out yet?

When have the poor not been poor? I would say before we became a consumer society. Since then it is what can I get, and the poor just can't get what they want to keep up with everyone else, but there was a time that not having dollar in your pocket was not a bad thing because you really had nothing to buy.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Azureblue

Now you know why welfare for individuals is declining and will continue to do decline. Its simply being taken off individuals and given to the corporate sector.

haven't you, the reader, not worked that out yet?

When have the poor not been poor? I would say before we became a consumer society. Since then it is what can I get, and the poor just can't get what they want to keep up with everyone else, but there was a time that not having dollar in your pocket was not a bad thing because you really had nothing to buy.

Recent threads about missing trillions and the missing 2 trillion at the pentagon the 10/11 shows there is plenty of money to pay health levels of welfare to individuals. If 2 trillion dollars can get lost in the milititree, it proves beyond doubt that 2 trillion is just small change as far as the govt is concerned.

I read recently there are 47,000,000,000 homeless people in the US. Think of how much the economy would grow through injections of economic stimulus packages into the economy every month right throughout the country if the homeless and the poor were given $30k per year spread over 12 monthly receipts of cash?

Think of how much all local economies would spring into life with an injection of a fortnightly or monthly economic stimulus package that was spent into all local economies by the federal govt by bouncing it through the bank counts of the homeless, the poor and the unemployed?

How many new shops would open in shopping centers? How many new business would start up because more people have some money to spend? Dont forget we are talking about injections of monthly economic stimulus packages by bouncing it through banks accounts of the homeless, the poor and unemployed and straight into the local economy.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Oh there are loopholes and 'gifts' and they stink to high heaven because apparently if you have the money, you are above the law.

My last boss gave me a modest pay rise under the guise that I deserved it, but in truth he thought I had rocks in my head because It was the law that I had to be given a hourly pay rise, it was not from the kindness of his heart.

He made the mistake of thinking I was stupid and in retrospect I was because I could've demanded more and should've blown the whistle, after all his son used a loophole and only paid 12 bucks a week in child support but somehow managed to spend $60K on a car. His excuse? 'I never get to see my son' well when a car has more important than your child it's no wonder you never see him you backward thinking brat.

And His father? built a 990 square meter shed for the job because 1000 square meters would require him by law to install an in built fire sprinkler system that would cost money, so screw the workers and their safety. Not to mention he built the secretary a house on the work site so she is practically indentured for the rest of her life, I was offered the same deal and it was a big fat nope. The bosses daughter was complaining that her and her husband 'only' made $110K a year and were still trying to find tax loopholes!

I've seen this practices before and the big wigs shouldn't be rewarded for cutting corners, There is one word that might get them shaking in their boots...strike.

originally posted by: Azureblue

Recent threads about missing trillions and the missing 2 trillion at the pentagon the 10/11 shows there is plenty of money to pay health levels of welfare to individuals. If 2 trillion dollars can get lost in the milititree, it proves beyond doubt that 2 trillion is just small change as far as the govt is concerned.

Sometimes we need to take things with a grain of salt. In this case I would bet every dollar was spent on programs as part of normal annual budgets, so I'm not sure if missing is the right word here, but it sounds good. Its like you make 100k and you spend 100k but you only have receipts for 90k so that extra 10k must be missing...

I read recently there are 47,000,000,000 homeless people in the US. Think of how much the economy would grow through injections of economic stimulus packages into the economy every month right throughout the country if the homeless and the poor were given $30k per year spread over 12 monthly receipts of cash?

How about letting people keep their taxes instead of taxing their money and then giving it back in a stimulus package, plus what does that look like to you? Obama injected a trillion that...wait for it.... was mostly wasted, and we have receipts of that waste. So for that 30k where does that 2+ trillion come from each year when our full budget is 4 trillion? I don't know where you get your numbers but at (47 billion) I'm assuming 47 million is what you want to say but I still think you have a few too many number and it is like 470,000... There is a reason many live on the streets and it is more to do with mental illness than anything else.

Think of how much all local economies would spring into life with an injection of a fortnightly or monthly economic stimulus package that was spent into all local economies by the federal govt by bouncing it through the bank counts of the homeless, the poor and the unemployed?

How many new shops would open in shopping centers? How many new business would start up because more people have some money to spend? Dont forget we are talking about injections of monthly economic stimulus packages by bouncing it through banks accounts of the homeless, the poor and unemployed and straight into the local economy.

Money needs to come from somewhere...that is always the problem with liberals is they have great ideas, but they all cost a huge amount to actually happen and I just need to keep asking who pays for it all?

Should I work harder to make more money to give to someone that is mentally and physically able to work but don't? That is kind of what you are asking for...increase my taxes to give my earnings to others...

a reply to: Azureblue

I read recently there are 47,000,000,000 homeless people in the US.

I think you either read wrong, or your '0' key stuck. There are not 47 billion people homeless in the US. There are only between 4-5 billion people on the planet. Most of them are not in the US.

This link gives the 2016 number as about 564 thousand... still too many.

TheRedneck