Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops

Go Back   Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops > InsideHoops Main Basketball Forums > Off the Court Lounge

Off the Court Lounge Basketball fans talk about everything EXCEPT basketball here

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-15-2018, 10:56 AM   #31
MaxFly
Stylin' on you
 
MaxFly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 8,043
Default Re: The Road to Trillion Dollar Federal Deficit

Quote:
Originally Posted by bladefd
The only thing that drives the party now is spreading fear. It is this fear that drives up military spending up the wazoo. Since they cater to the rich, it is also why we see massive tax cuts everytime they are in power and cuts to social programs. They have become a party for the rich.

This...

It used to be taxes, defense, and morality. They had to drop morality given Trump's shortcomings and double down on taxes and defense.
MaxFly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2018, 12:11 PM   #32
Charlie Sheen
National High School Star
 
Charlie Sheen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,498
Default Re: The Road to Trillion Dollar Federal Deficit

Quote:
Originally Posted by bladefd

Republicans were much more respectable 30 years ago and before. Since then, it has been a laughingstock. The only thing that drives the party now is spreading fear. It is this fear that drives up military spending up the wazoo. Since they cater to the rich, it is also why we see massive tax cuts everytime they are in power and cuts to social programs. They have become a party for the rich.

Save Bernie, you could say nearly all of this about the Democratic party. Where do you think the Democrats are getting their campaign funding from? Most of the new blood in the fortune 500 is skewed towards Democrat. What's the difference between serving Tech and Banking masters versus Military and Oil?
Charlie Sheen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2018, 06:42 PM   #33
SomeBlackDude
Good college starter
 
SomeBlackDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,491
Default Re: The Road to Trillion Dollar Federal Deficit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawker
Revenue up 1%. Sounds like we have a spending problem - not a tax revenue problem.

new info

Quote:
Spending is up 7% so far this fiscal year while revenues have risen 1%, the Treasury said. That doesn’t capture the full impact of the Republican tax overhaul that took effect in January, because it includes revenue from October, November and December—the first three months of fiscal year 2018.

“When you remove all of the last-year tax revenue and just focus on this year, revenue is actually down about 4%,” said Marc Goldwein, a senior policy director at the Center for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Corporate income taxes in particular have dropped off. The Treasury said Thursday gross corporate taxes have fallen 20% so far this fiscal year, while individual income-tax receipts are up 1%.

-wsj

first fiscal year of maga post goat tax bill has been an absolute disaster. only going to get much worse from here.
SomeBlackDude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2018, 07:55 PM   #34
Hawker
Repeal FATCA
 
Hawker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 19,147
Default Re: The Road to Trillion Dollar Federal Deficit

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxFly
The revenue increase by percentage is the smallest I believe we have seen since the recession. The Trump administration estimated that revenue would grow more and that the deficit would be smaller than what we are currently seeing. Unsurprisingly, independent analysts were pretty accurate in their assessment.



The problem is that money is needed for a myriad of essential government functions and programs. Republicans consistently advocate for a government run on a shoe-string budget and then complain when things don't run well, using those failures as a justification for defunding and privatization. A few years ago, conservatives were complaining about FEMA and even wanted to withhold additional funds from Hurricane Sandy victims. Now FEMA is a darling as red states are being hit with natural disasters.

More money in the hands of individuals is a great thing. People and their spending drive our economy; businesses only thrive when people have money and spend it on goods and services. More money in the hand of businesses would be a great thing if we could ensure that businesses would reinvest much of that money in their employees and the US economy. The truth of the matter is that many businesses don't; they find ways to move their profits overseas to avoid taxes and so that they can invest in new, emerging, more exciting markets. They use tax cuts to buy back stock and provide higher salaries, bonuses, and more stock options to their executives. They complain that taxes are stymying their ability to conduct research and invest in their businesses, but when they get tax cuts, research and investments find themselves at the bottom of the priority list. Why? Because these corporations always had enough, and in many cases, more than enough, for research and investment. Their cries and pleas weren't about how cash-strapped they were. Rather, they simply wanted to hold onto more profit. It's the nature of capitalism.



The deficit spiked in 2009 as a result of the recession and then saw a consistent decrease under Obama as the economy improved. Let's not forget that Obama inherited a recession and two wars. The positive is that progress was made in reducing the amount that was added to the national debt each year, even under those conditions. Under Trump, we have reversed that trend significantly. Republicans complained throughout Obama's tenure that the economy was terrible and are now exclaiming that the economy is great, yet somehow our deficit decreased under Obama and is exploding under Trump.



Yes, deficit spending is helpful when a stimulus is needed in an attempt to pull out of a recession or when the economy is generally anemic. Remember how opposed to the stimulus Republicans were? However, if we are to believe that the economy is only now great after Trump took office, there is little need for the ridiculous deficits we'll be seeing over the next decade. As the economy improves further, the deficit should be shrinking further. But Republicans are now living in Bizarro world where large deficits are good, after spending the last decade complaining about deficits. I wonder what changed... lol.

Yes, you have to decrease spending when you cut taxes. They messed up. Regardless, I see less money going to the federal government as a great thing. Even if some business choose to buyback stock (which gets a bad rep...if that money goes back to shareholders in cash and those shareholders use that cash elsewhere, that's stimulating other parts of the economy...aka "trickledown")

I don't believe the programs you deem essential to be essential at all. They don't run well because it's a federal government program.

Would it be better if they put that money back in R&D, projects etc., yes sure, but maybe there's nothing profitable out there at the moment (interest rates are rising). The funny thing is that stock buybacks have been going on since the recession so this BS about it being from the tax cut is so intellectually dishonest. Most didn't even know what a stock buyback was before the media brought it up as a way to make the tax cuts look bad without actually understanding why a company may do it. They don't ask this question though...like yourself, you just stated, "rich managers getting richer blah blah blah." Maybe they hold onto the profits now and wait later for when a better project comes around. Let them make that choice.

That pie chart bladefd posted shows 20% went to jobs. Some businesses chose to "create" jobs while others chose to buyback stock (which in effect creates/stimulates jobs in other parts of the economy due to the cash given to shareholders). Why is this good thing not being highlighted? You could make the argument those jobs wouldn't have been created otherwise.

The stimulus was actually a terrible thing and didn't work like predicted. Unemployment rose much higher than the economists who created the program said it would. All you're doing is falsely creating economic growth in sectors that when the stimulus money finally dries up, creates a bubble. That is money taken from individuals who would've chose to spend it or save it and stimulated real economic growth elsewhere.

BTW...investing overseas does create jobs in America. Someone in America has to manage those sectors at the head office. If they are moving profits overseas, that's even more reason to continue to lower taxes and regulations. Seems a bit Trumpian to force a company to spend they way you want it to spend (Apple products no longer being made here, Amazon paying no tax etc.). Honestly, I think a lot of dems are stuck in the 1950s that think the US is the only country that can make things. You have to be competitive and increasing costs for businesses isn't the way to go about it anymore.
Hawker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2018, 07:57 PM   #35
Hawker
Repeal FATCA
 
Hawker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 19,147
Default Re: The Road to Trillion Dollar Federal Deficit

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxFly
This...

It used to be taxes, defense, and morality. They had to drop morality given Trump's shortcomings and double down on taxes and defense.

They dropped morality because no matter what republican was put up for the election, he was called the same names Trump was called.
Hawker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2018, 07:58 PM   #36
Hawker
Repeal FATCA
 
Hawker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 19,147
Default Re: The Road to Trillion Dollar Federal Deficit

Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeBlackDude
new info



first fiscal year of maga post goat tax bill has been an absolute disaster. only going to get much worse from here.

Less money going to the government is always a good thing. Stealing is immoral.

Doesn't change the fact that it's still a spending problem.

Individual tax receipts are up btw....wonder why that is?

Last edited by Hawker : 09-15-2018 at 08:09 PM.
Hawker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2018, 07:11 PM   #37
MaxFly
Stylin' on you
 
MaxFly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 8,043
Default Re: The Road to Trillion Dollar Federal Deficit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawker
They dropped morality because no matter what republican was put up for the election, he was called the same names Trump was called.

Neither Kasich nor Jeb Bush for instance have the baggage nor questionable background that Trump has. The opposition would have been based mainly around policy, not on character and temperament as well. Remember, Trump had the Trump University controversy, the Central Park 5 controversy, the fair housing controversy, his disrespect of John McCain, his statements about Mexicans, and his marital infidelities. None of the other candidates in the '16 Republican field could hold a candle to the amount of controversy and amoral behavior that was ripe for commentary.

I've noticed this new tactic as a way to explain Trump's selection as the Republican candidate in 2016: liberals were going be mean to whomever we nominated, so we chose Trump. But it's a specious argument and it won't fly. Let's nip it in the bud. Certain people on the right rail against the "War on Christmas" and advocate for Christian values, but all talk of values and morality falls to the wayside when they are reminded of Trump, and people who have been casting stones for decades are suddenly outraged that others are calling out their hypocrisy.
MaxFly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2018, 10:18 PM   #38
MaxFly
Stylin' on you
 
MaxFly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 8,043
Default Re: The Road to Trillion Dollar Federal Deficit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawker
Yes, you have to decrease spending when you cut taxes. They messed up. Regardless, I see less money going to the federal government as a great thing. Even if some business choose to buyback stock (which gets a bad rep...if that money goes back to shareholders in cash and those shareholders use that cash elsewhere, that's stimulating other parts of the economy...aka "trickledown")

You certainly need to decrease spending when you cut taxes if there is any hope of balancing the budget. Unfortunately, those cuts in spending fall squarely on the backs of the middle class and the poor while those who are more affluent primarily reap the benefit of the tax cuts. The trickledown that the middle class and the poor receive rarely takes form in noticeably increased wages or job training, but the drawbacks of the cuts are noticeable. Their wages don't keep up with inflation and now programs that they depended on to help take care of parents, children or themselves become more stingy due to fewer resources or start to disappear entirely.

And no, the vast majority of value that shareholders see as share prices rise does not make it's way back into the economy in a manner that is immediately and meaningfully helpful to the middle class. Investors don't immediately sell their shares and spend their money when they see a nice rise or bump. I've certainly never done that with any of my investments. Instead, I and shareholders around the world look for other promising investment opportunities in the markets. Additionally, while the increase in share prices that stock buybacks invoke are beneficial for those in the middle class with pensions, IRAs, 401Ks or 403Bs, those rewards aren't generally reaped for decades. An investment account that they can't touch penalty-free until they are 63 doesn't help a teacher in Oklahoma who has seen their salary stagnant and their work hours increase due to cutbacks originating from spending cuts.

Quote:
I don't believe the programs you deem essential to be essential at all. They don't run well because it's a federal government program.

I believe FEMA is essential. I believe the EPA is essential. I believe public education is essential. I believe programs designed to help students earn higher Ed degrees are essential. I believe programs designed to ensure that people with pre-existing medical conditions can get health insurance are essential. This is a small sample of essential items that conservatives have sought to stymie, defund or get rid of in the recent past. Again, conservatives want government to run on a shoe-string budget while privatizing as much as they can, but are then shocked when government can't come through for them and the private companies in which they placed their trust prove to care more about profits than people.

Quote:
Would it be better if they put that money back in R&D, projects etc., yes sure, but maybe there's nothing profitable out there at the moment (interest rates are rising). The funny thing is that stock buybacks have been going on since the recession so this BS about it being from the tax cut is so intellectually dishonest. Most didn't even know what a stock buyback was before the media brought it up as a way to make the tax cuts look bad without actually understanding why a company may do it. They don't ask this question though...like yourself, you just stated, "rich managers getting richer blah blah blah." Maybe they hold onto the profits now and wait later for when a better project comes around. Let them make that choice.

Lol, so then they were lying about needing the money for research and investments. They just wanted to pad their profits. Let's be clear, many of these companies are not holding onto their additional profits from the tax cuts so that they can invest at a later time. They were already sitting on tens of billions of dollars and had ample amounts for R&D and investments. They just wanted more. Share buybacks have been a thing for generations. There has been a noticeable increase in buyback announcements and buyback amounts since the tax cuts. Anyone who invests or follows the market is aware of this. As an investor, I have no issue with buybacks, however, the money from the extra tax savings would better serve our economy if it were invested in the middle class and small businesses, not corporate America and the rich; this is Econ 101.



Quote:
That pie chart bladefd posted shows 20% went to jobs. Some businesses chose to "create" jobs while others chose to buyback stock (which in effect creates/stimulates jobs in other parts of the economy due to the cash given to shareholders). Why is this good thing not being highlighted? You could make the argument those jobs wouldn't have been created otherwise.

Stock buybacks do not result in cash given to shareholders. Shareholders rarely choose to sell their shares and cash out after a buyback announcement and in the month following. On the rare occasion that they do sell, they simply use that money to make other investments in the market. Buybacks have little effect on the real and immediate economy. Investors aren't 13 year-olds who get their allowance and splurge.

Quote:
The stimulus was actually a terrible thing and didn't work like predicted. Unemployment rose much higher than the economists who created the program said it would. All you're doing is falsely creating economic growth in sectors that when the stimulus money finally dries up, creates a bubble. That is money taken from individuals who would've chose to spend it or save it and stimulated real economic growth elsewhere.

It's pretty clear to all fair-minded economists and even mildly rational, non-hyperpartisan individuals that the stimulus helped the economy. Study after study has been conducted about the Obama stimulus, and most agree that it saved jobs, helped prop up the economy and the markets, and ultimately helped us avoid a deeper recession. Again, Republicans, unwilling to give Obama credit for anything he did and hoping to stymie any and all progress he made, railed about his stimulus bill. When they were confronted about their support for Bush Jr's stimulus in 2008, they had no answer... no justification. Here's an easy test. Ask a Republican how they felt about Obama's TARP plan. After they answer, apologize for misleading them and remind them that TARP was actually put in place by Bush Jr. in '08. Ask them whether Obama should have let the major car companies go under, and whether our economy would have been better with those lost jobs, lost tax revenue and unemployment benefit payments.
MaxFly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2018, 10:19 PM   #39
MaxFly
Stylin' on you
 
MaxFly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 8,043
Default Re: The Road to Trillion Dollar Federal Deficit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawker
BTW...investing overseas does create jobs in America. Someone in America has to manage those sectors at the head office. If they are moving profits overseas, that's even more reason to continue to lower taxes and regulations. Seems a bit Trumpian to force a company to spend they way you want it to spend (Apple products no longer being made here, Amazon paying no tax etc.). Honestly, I think a lot of dems are stuck in the 1950s that think the US is the only country that can make things. You have to be competitive and increasing costs for businesses isn't the way to go about it anymore.

Not necessarily. Most corporations have offices overseas that manage operations in various countries and report to VPs or high-level executives either in those countries or back here in America. Regional operations are generally managed by regional staff based in those locations. You want staff located in the country that understands the business, understands the culture and can connect with vendors, manufacturers, marketing, etc... in ways that will most effectively benefit the company. In any case, most of the money that moves overseas stays overseas.

And no, the fact that companies can find havens in low tax countries should not be a primary impetus for us to lower taxes in the US. We shouldn't be held hostage. The primary impetus should be whether it makes sense for our economy, factoring in the responsibility corporations have to the citizens and residents who work for them and buy their products. Everything has a proper balance. Tax policy is no exception. Taxes that are too high can stymie innovation, research, hiring and investment, and taxes that are too low will result in concentrated wealth in the hands of the few and the powerful.

I don't even want to get started on regulation. We have people in Flint, Michigan who are still dealing with the consequences of actions undertaken by state and city officials who flouted protocol and regulations, made poor decisions, and then tried to blame the EPA for not stopping them. Mind you, these are the same kinds of people who want to defund the EPA.
MaxFly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2018, 10:44 PM   #40
SomeBlackDude
Good college starter
 
SomeBlackDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,491
Default Re: The Road to Trillion Dollar Federal Deficit

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxFly
Not necessarily. Most corporations have offices overseas...
And no, the fact that companies can find havens in low tax countries should not be a primary impetus for us to lower taxes in the US.

gawd emperor- 'lower corporate taxes bigly, $4-5 trillion dollar will come back from overseas.'

corporations-

Quote:
Trump Promised a Rush of Repatriated Cash, But Company Responses Are Modest

U.S. companies have moved cautiously in repatriating profits stockpiled overseas in response to last year’s tax-law rewrite, after the Trump administration’s assertions that trillions of dollars would come home quickly and supercharge the domestic economy.

The tax-law revamp ended the practice of taxing U.S. companies when they bring home foreign profits. Companies long complained that profit earned abroad was trapped and held it in foreign subsidiaries to avoid additional taxes.

The new law imposes a one-time tax on those old earnings—whether or not money is repatriated. It also removes federal taxes on subsequent repatriations and makes future foreign profits generally free from U.S. taxes.

We expect to have in excess of $4 trillion brought back very shortly,” President Trump told executives assembled at his golf course in Bedminster, N.J., in August. “Over $4 [trillion], but close to $5 trillion, will be brought back into our country. This is money that would never, ever be seen again by the workers and the people of our country.”

The Wall Street Journal reviewed securities filings from 108 publicly traded companies accounting for the vast majority of an estimated $2.7 trillion in profits parked abroad, and asked each company what it was doing with the funds. In their filings and responses, they said they have repatriated about $143 billion so far this year.

About two-thirds of the money came from two corporations—networking-equipment giant Cisco Systems Inc. and drugmaker Gilead Sciences Inc. Beyond that, companies have announced plans to repatriate an additional $37 billion. Some with the largest stockpiles, including Apple Inc., have made general promises to repatriate profits without saying when or how much.

More than a dozen large companies, including General Electric Co. and Boston Scientific Corp., have said they don’t need past foreign earnings in the U.S. or have no immediate plans to bring cash home. Far more are waiting or won’t say.

Many provided no information beyond vague public filings. That includes Microsoft Corp. , Alphabet Inc. and other companies that held some of the largest foreign cash piles before the tax law.

-crooked wsj

tldr- boiled down
SomeBlackDude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2018, 07:28 AM   #41
Hawker
Repeal FATCA
 
Hawker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 19,147
Default Re: The Road to Trillion Dollar Federal Deficit

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxFly
Not necessarily. Most corporations have offices overseas that manage operations in various countries and report to VPs or high-level executives either in those countries or back here in America. Regional operations are generally managed by regional staff based in those locations. You want staff located in the country that understands the business, understands the culture and can connect with vendors, manufacturers, marketing, etc... in ways that will most effectively benefit the company. In any case, most of the money that moves overseas stays overseas.

And no, the fact that companies can find havens in low tax countries should not be a primary impetus for us to lower taxes in the US. We shouldn't be held hostage. The primary impetus should be whether it makes sense for our economy, factoring in the responsibility corporations have to the citizens and residents who work for them and buy their products. Everything has a proper balance. Tax policy is no exception. Taxes that are too high can stymie innovation, research, hiring and investment, and taxes that are too low will result in concentrated wealth in the hands of the few and the powerful.

I don't even want to get started on regulation. We have people in Flint, Michigan who are still dealing with the consequences of actions undertaken by state and city officials who flouted protocol and regulations, made poor decisions, and then tried to blame the EPA for not stopping them. Mind you, these are the same kinds of people who want to defund the EPA.

Yes, and last I checked, those are jobs. You just reiterated what I said with saying americans lead these operations from the head office...but yet disagreed with me? And those americans spend money which create jobs in America. I worked for a multi-national in two countries and the head office is stacked with americans that are in charge of certain sectors of the worldwide business. Yes there are a fair amount of locals in the overseas businesses but no doubt they need experience that can likely only be found in America due to the sheer amount of business that goes on there.

Also, a lot of the vendors/manufacturers will likely be the same that the american company uses. That translates into more american jobs indirectly. I work for an australian company and all of our chemicals/equipment come from America. The american competitor I worked for here - same shit.

How do taxes being too low result in concentrated wealth? I'd hazard a guess that most would think even at 35% the wealth was still concentrated - yet always pointed to scandinavian countries who had lower tax rates than the US.

You saying "too high" and "too low" is just too arbitrary. You have to come up with some number and define it. What is the balance? You're being way too vague. Give me numbers.

The only thing your Flint example shows is that government failed - how does that prove you to be correct?
Hawker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2018, 06:29 PM   #42
MaxFly
Stylin' on you
 
MaxFly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 8,043
Default Re: The Road to Trillion Dollar Federal Deficit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawker
Yes, and last I checked, those are jobs. You just reiterated what I said with saying americans lead these operations from the head office...but yet disagreed with me?

No, read what I wrote again.

"Most corporations have offices overseas that manage operations in various countries and report to VPs or high-level executives either in those countries or back here in America. Regional operations are generally managed by regional staff based in those locations."

Quote:
And those americans spend money which create jobs in America. I worked for a multi-national in two countries and the head office is stacked with americans that are in charge of certain sectors of the worldwide business. Yes there are a fair amount of locals in the overseas businesses but no doubt they need experience that can likely only be found in America due to the sheer amount of business that goes on there.

Americans who live and work overseas pay much less in US taxes and contribute much less to the US economy than Americans who live and work in America... obviously. Many corporations that do business overseas look to hire locals, but also make sure that they have Americans based and living in the regions where business is conducted. As a result, those Americans pay income taxes to the government of the country in which they are living. They are also required to file a US tax return but can receive a tax credit for the foreign taxes they have paid or can exclude a little more than 100k of foreign earnings from their taxable income. Long story short, creating jobs overseas for Americans has little immediate benefit to the US economy.

Quote:
Also, a lot of the vendors/manufacturers will likely be the same that the american company uses. That translates into more american jobs indirectly. I work for an australian company and all of our chemicals/equipment come from America. The american competitor I worked for here - same shit.

Many of our vendors and manufacturers are based overseas... most of which do not employ American labor. You are fortunate to work in an industry where the products come from America. Most of the very large corporations, however, establish manufacturing and pipelines outside of the US when doing business outside of the US. Our automotive companies, for example, make a concerted effort to build cars that they are selling in overseas markets overseas so as to save money on taxes, shipping, labor and manufacturing, etc...

Quote:
How do taxes being too low result in concentrated wealth? I'd hazard a guess that most would think even at 35% the wealth was still concentrated - yet always pointed to scandinavian countries who had lower tax rates than the US
.

Most individuals and families who are wealthy do not pay 35%. Before I tell you, I'm going to let you guess. What do YOU think wealthy individuals actually pay in taxes on their incomes? I want to see how informed you really are.

Quote:
The only thing your Flint example shows is that government failed - how does that prove you to be correct?

A Republican government failed because they flouted regulations and due diligence... the same sorts of regulations that they are so keen on getting rid of.
MaxFly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2018, 06:46 PM   #43
NumberSix
Big Booty Hoes!!
 
NumberSix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: The Internets
Posts: 28,303
Default Re: The Road to Trillion Dollar Federal Deficit

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxFly
Neither Kasich nor Jeb Bush for instance have the baggage nor questionable background that Trump has. The opposition would have been based mainly around policy, not on character and temperament as well.
I’m old enough to remember 2001-2009.
NumberSix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2018, 07:34 PM   #44
Hawker
Repeal FATCA
 
Hawker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 19,147
Default Re: The Road to Trillion Dollar Federal Deficit

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxFly
Neither Kasich nor Jeb Bush for instance have the baggage nor questionable background that Trump has. The opposition would have been based mainly around policy, not on character and temperament as well. Remember, Trump had the Trump University controversy, the Central Park 5 controversy, the fair housing controversy, his disrespect of John McCain, his statements about Mexicans, and his marital infidelities. None of the other candidates in the '16 Republican field could hold a candle to the amount of controversy and amoral behavior that was ripe for commentary.

I've noticed this new tactic as a way to explain Trump's selection as the Republican candidate in 2016: liberals were going be mean to whomever we nominated, so we chose Trump. But it's a specious argument and it won't fly. Let's nip it in the bud. Certain people on the right rail against the "War on Christmas" and advocate for Christian values, but all talk of values and morality falls to the wayside when they are reminded of Trump, and people who have been casting stones for decades are suddenly outraged that others are calling out their hypocrisy.

Yeah I'm sorry but you're full of crap on this one.

Biden: Romney will put ya'll back in chains.

The war on women comments have been going on well before Trump. Repubicans being called white racist rednecks have been going on well before Trump. Kanye said, "George Bush doesn't care about black people." So culturally and politically, it was still the same.

Republicans no longer hold a morality standard because liberals don't really hold one either - which is a good strategy as they can never be called out for hypocrisy.
Hawker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2018, 07:50 PM   #45
Hawker
Repeal FATCA
 
Hawker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 19,147
Default Re: The Road to Trillion Dollar Federal Deficit

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxFly
No, read what I wrote again.

"Most corporations have offices overseas that manage operations in various countries and report to VPs or high-level executives either in those countries or back here in America. Regional operations are generally managed by regional staff based in those locations."

While true, there are still americans leading this in the head office in the states and overseas. This does stimulate the economy by giving these americans career experiences and chance to advance themselves and (likely) return to America and then spend more money. It all absolutely matters.


Quote:
Americans who live and work overseas pay much less in US taxes and contribute much less to the US economy than Americans who live and work in America... obviously. Many corporations that do business overseas look to hire locals, but also make sure that they have Americans based and living in the regions where business is conducted. As a result, those Americans pay income taxes to the government of the country in which they are living. They are also required to file a US tax return but can receive a tax credit for the foreign taxes they have paid or can exclude a little more than 100k of foreign earnings from their taxable income. Long story short, creating jobs overseas for Americans has little immediate benefit to the US economy.

Thanks for the condescending tax lesson bro. I live and work overseas as stated in my previous post. I am aware of this.

How does it not have an immediate benefit? If an american leaves his job in the US, his job has to be replaced in America. Who will take that job? An American. Who will take that individuals job...another american underneath him and so forth. When I left the US, they hired someone to replace me.

Generally, most americans go back and that means they've made a career progression move and now making more money which allows more money to spend, investments, houses etc. This all helps american workers. Creating great career opportunities for Americans overseas isn't a burden to the US economy.



Quote:
Many of our vendors and manufacturers are based overseas... most of which do not employ American labor. You are fortunate to work in an industry where the products come from America. Most of the very large corporations, however, establish manufacturing and pipelines outside of the US when doing business outside of the US. Our automotive companies, for example, make a concerted effort to build cars that they are selling in overseas markets overseas so as to save money on taxes, shipping, labor and manufacturing, etc...


I worked in a very large corporation. Tons of pipeline, oil and gas, mining businesses buy american made products. It's a lot more common than you think in industrial sectors.



Quote:
Most individuals and families who are wealthy do not pay 35%. Before I tell you, I'm going to let you guess. What do YOU think wealthy individuals actually pay in taxes on their incomes? I want to see how informed you really are.

I was talking about corporations in this instance. I don't believe redistribution gets wealth into the hands effectively through the government. I have no idea what "wealthy" individuals pay. They likely pay quite a lot. Maybe not percentage wise but gross tax...quite a bit. And that's perfectly fine with me. Can you please give me a number and back it up as to when taxes are too low and too high? You were being extremely vague.

Main point was that corporation taxes are quite low in those scandinavian countries and they are pointed at as for low inequality. I don't see the correlation.


Quote:
A Republican government failed because they flouted regulations and due diligence... the same sorts of regulations that they are so keen on getting rid of.

So again, the government failed. There have been mulitple instances of government intervention causing a problem but it's never pointed out as a "government" problem but every time a corporation causes an issue, it needs regulation. Remain consistent.

Last edited by Hawker : 09-17-2018 at 07:58 PM.
Hawker is offline   Reply With Quote
This NBA Basketball News Website Sponsored by:


Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:54 AM.






NBA BASKETBALL FORUM KEY LINKS:

NBA Basketball

NBA Rumors

Basketball Blog

NBA Videos

Search Site

FOLLOW US
Twitter
Facebook
Instagram
YouTube
















Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Terms of Use/Service | Privacy Policy