Increased capital expenditures will result in improved labor productivity. Competition in the labor market will then force employers to pay out most of the increase to their employees.
Posted on 11/27/2017 10:55:44 PM PST by Oshkalaboomboom
Everyone who makes any recommendations on taxation has to acknowledge that it will be a moving of who pays what.
For it to be a net reduction in all taxation, spending would have to actually also be decreased, and there is only one way that will ever happen:
By getting government out of specific things completely.
Congress loves to claim that they are giving taxpayers back a dollar while taking two dollars from taxpayers.
> But then we itemizers who get a tax increase? Well its our own damn fault for living in a “ blue” state and being “ subsidized” by red staters - right?
Right! :-) Perhaps it will give incentive for those who pass high taxes in their state, where they can write them off on the fed, will promote and support lower state taxes to change blue to red.
Trump genuinely wants the MAGA agenda implemented, but allows Congress too much leeway, resulting in Congress leaving only a pretense of the MAGA agenda on top of their usual uniparty crony corporatism garbage.
Increased capital expenditures will result in improved labor productivity. Competition in the labor market will then force employers to pay out most of the increase to their employees.
Of course it will. But what's going to drive capital expenditures? Companies don't invest unless there is a reason to. And if you really thing companies will increase pay for their employees out of the goodness of their heart then you're kidding yourself.
But they do invest to make money, and competition in the labor market compels them to pay out a good chunk of that money to their employees.
Companies don't really pay taxes. Individuals do. Thus, the question arises, who really pays the corporate tax? Shareholders, via reduced dividends? Customers, via higher prices? Or employees, via lower wages?
Economists estimate 70% of the corporate tax falls on employees. Shareholders can shift their investments abroad. Customers can buy foreign goods. But employees are stuck. Thus, reducing the corporate tax can be expected to further boost wages.
Sure, thats real easy
/sarc
I’m fairly certain that federal tax deductibility has little to do with state legislatures and local govt decisions on tax policy. This new “ reform” by Congress is just a way to stick it to the middle class and impoverish us little by little every year until we all move to FL or Texas which are turning purple btw
In case you havent looked around , people in the US who actually pay federal tax are a shrinking minority no matter what state you live in
And what should my response be to those who raised my federal taxes?
take $8000 and that leaves $16000....
not even close to what we could deduct last year and a couple thousand below what we could deduct this coming year if this passes...
oh, so they might lower the tax rate...
and they can simply raise it at a whim....
THIS IS A TOTAL CROCK.....
But won't invest unless they are sure they will get a return on their investment. Cutting corporate taxes doesn't do that in and of itself.
...and competition in the labor market compels them to pay out a good chunk of that money to their employees.
We're are close to zero statistical unemployment now and salaries are not skyrocketing.
Companies don't really pay taxes. Individuals do. Thus, the question arises, who really pays the corporate tax? Shareholders, via reduced dividends? Customers, via higher prices? Or employees, via lower wages?
Eliminate the taxes and what do you think will happen? Lower costs? Higher wages? Complete nonsense.
don’t leave out your dirty rat party...the last eight yrs before DJT were a windfall for the wall streeters and their sidekicks..
so now not only are we getting a real tax cut but we’re going to get big pay raises...Halleluiah!
> And what should my response be to those who raised my federal taxes?
Don’t vote for them. But the other party would be worse.
If your state didn’t have high state taxes, your federal taxes, would likely be lower unless you’re in the top bracket.
Nope.
In order for the Byrd rule to bind the current congress, it would have to be a constitutional amendment, not a mere federal statute, much less a Senate rule (Senate rules can be changed by a majority, even Senate rules requiring a supermajority — thank you, Dingy Harry!).
Congress makes the law by majority, with the approval of the President, unless two thirds of both houses vote to override his veto. New law supersedes old law (provided it's constitutional).
Thus, if the Senate were to pass a law in violation of the Byrd Rule, and the House passed it, and the President signed it, it is the law, Exalted Democrat Cyclops Byrd be damned!
My state taxes are neither here nor there. I want to know why the Republican Congress is raising my federal taxes. I thought that the Republicans were supposed to be opposed to that?
> ... if the House and DJT agree, it’s the law. Byrd Rule or not.
Late reply, but I wanted to say, I agree with you. So many bills were passed that were unconstitutional, so if one doesn’t fit the “Byrd Rule” so be it :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
