Posted on 11/30/2017 1:02:35 PM PST by DoodleDawg
Republicans insist their tax cut bill will benefit workers, though the legislation has few provisions that directly benefit people with modest incomes in the long run.
Instead, the core of the bill is a huge cut to corporate taxes, bringing the top rate down from 35 to 20 percent. Republicans say workers will be better off if corporate executives and shareholders have more money.
“If they’re making money, they invest that money, they create more opportunities, more jobs, more research,” Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) told HuffPost.
A number of top CEOs, however, have signaled they plan to reward their investors instead.
Instead of hiring more workers or increasing wages, executives from major companies including Cisco Systems, Pfizer, Coca-Cola, Amgen and Honeywell have said they plan to use the windfall from the corporate tax cut to first increase stock dividends or to buy back shares.
“We’ll be able to get much more aggressive on the share buyback” after the tax cut is passed into law, Cisco CFO Kelly Kramer said in an earnings call earlier this month. Stock buybacks increase the value of shares held by investors ― a group that typically includes corporate executives, who are among the corporate tax cut’s biggest proponents.
(Excerpt) Read more at huffingtonpost.com ...
NOT unless there is a mechanism to keep those employers from investing that windfall in Mexico and China...
And the only way to increase demand for their products is to cut the throat of the supply chain from China and Mexico...And you can bet that the same congresscreeps who passed this tax thing will fight that measure with every thing they've got...
Let us not forget some of that tax reduction windfall will find its way back to our Washington politicians...
Well if you believe that then I suggest you get on the phone right away with an investment broker and buy up some stock so you can be one of those that are running instead of missing out.
Our corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world by far and needs to be significantly lowered and it must be permanent or no long term investments can or will be made. That’s simple economics.
Even assuming that’s true, who installs the new office décor? Ships the office décor? Works at the resorts, etc? (then where do those people spend the money in their pocket from the work?) Where do they spend the “huge bonuses”? On stuff like new cars? Who sells the cars at the lot? Who shipped the cars to the lot, the supplies to make those cars, etc?
Do you have any basic understanding of how an economy functions to make remarks like that as though they make sense? Your comments are right out of the leftwing playbook.
Then get on the phone and start buying up that stock right now. What are you waiting for?
I started buying after the Trump inauguration and have been enjoying the returns I've gotten over the past year. If this bill passes I expect next year to be even better.
If it’s not profitable enough to be worth the risk and hassle, they won’t.
Exactly. Just because their taxes are cut that won't change.
That's not what the President has been saying. Lowest unemployment in decades.
Statistical full employment
Lowest unemployment in decades.
The first statement is incorrect, the second is generally misleading in the current environment. It is comparable to a year ago when makeup of the non-employed was generally similar, but not to ten years ago.
Economists consider an unemployment rate of 4% or less as full employment.
It is comparable to a year ago when makeup of the non-employed was generally similar, but not to ten years ago.
Ten years ago you didn't have as many retired people.
...I don’t believe they have an obligation to do so. I’ve nothing against “the rich” - most have earned it by producing things others want and working hard. I’m not rich but I’m willing to work at a supply/demand rate, finding my way to make myself as valuable as possible. If that intersects, at some point, with making myself rich then great, if I just have to keep working then fine too.
This notion that the government has some responsibility to force money in certain directions is a form of tyranny. It creates its own problems. Policies that “take just because it’s fair” only lowers all boats, creating equal misery. Some just don’t like the ability for some to outperform others because they’re willing to learn, work, innovate, and be rewarded for it. Stopping this process isn’t good for anyone. How can a poor person get themselves out of poverty if there’s nobody that has more than they do? Having the government just taking from those that “have” to those that don’t is just government sanctioned theft. It is still immoral.
I believe a healthy, and free market, economy leads to reasonable wages. The only responsibility “the rich” has is to pay a wage based on market demands, they’ll have no choice. They have no responsibility outside that.
There are several positives .... which specific selling point do you want the GOP to use to conform to your world view?
No argument there. But Congress keeps pitching this tax bill and a job creator that will lead to higher wages while the President is promising $4000 income increases for an average family. The tax bill will likely lead to neither of those. So why the misinformation?
The ones that are true. How about those?
It's not a matter of whether the Fedz take it or not, this started with "revenue neutral", or didn't you notice that? It's a matter of letting individuals keep what they earn rather either Federal or Corporate extortionists taking a share then praising the fact that some small percentage of it trickles back down to them after the various special interests and preferred parties take a slice.
Do you have any basic understanding of the term, "revenue neutral"?
Actually, it is.
Are you a communist? I'm sure you'll say, No!
And why not? I'm sure you'll say, Communism is government ownership of the economy's means of production.
I set this up to throw this out, something I thought about the other day:
A 35% corporate tax rate means that Fedzilla has a 35% ownership of every corporations net profit. We are all viscerally anti-communist, opposing 100% government ownership of the means of production, but many here are OK with a 35% government ownership of the means of production.
So are we FReepers 1/3 communist?
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.