Harris tax plan - raising taxes on high earners

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny thread.. All the eco warriors and LGBTQABCD warriors suddenly want to vote for Trump because their taxes go up a smidge. More than likely she won't have congressional support for most of these proposals and will end up with something rather tame.. much like the pathetic gun control legislation we normally get. So, chill.

If it really ends up being as bad as OP's propaganda, pay up. If you make $400K+, you are afford to. It will still be progressive.

I really hate the "you can afford it" crowd. Makes me even more determined to vote red. And I am pro choice, pro LGBTQ, pro environment. But the biggest impact that politics has on me, personally, is how much of MY money that I use to care for MY loved ones are they going to take. So I hold my nose and vote Republican. I always say, if Republicans would drop their stupid social platforms, they'd be the perfect party. And so would Dems, if they would drop the revolting "you can afford it" + "fair share" BS that disincentivizes hard work and productivity and encourages laziness and hands out.

How much money do you really "need" to care of your family? I'm not saying you should only have enough to see to their needs, but at $400K, you are more than able to care for your family.

You don't get to define what I need. Yes, we have far more than we "need." I suspect you do, too. Our system incentives work and progress by promising a better life to those willing to work hard and increase their earnings over time. By taxing the hell out of high earners, this hard work (and the innovation that comes with it) is disincentivized.

Again, this liberal view of "how much do you need" and "you can afford it" enrages me and gets me to the polls to pull the straight R lever.

You were an R no matter what. This isn’t what changed your mind. Stop being disingenuous.

Yep.

It's such a stupid argument too, because personal income tax is not stopping anyone from "working hard" or "innovating." "I was going to accept the promotion to SVP but only getting a $100,000 raise after taxes instead of a $125,000 raise made it not worth the trouble," said nobody ever.

I’m a doctor. I can earn more by taking more calls and shifts. How much of the extra I will pay in taxes versus keep definitely figures into whether I take those shifts.

And it's not just wage earners who make such a calculation. It can have a chilling effect on entrepreneurship or starting a small business, activities that can generate more jobs for others.

Except it didn’t in the case of Obama’s tax increases. And Trump’s corporate tax cuts were used for stock buy backs.

If corporations don't have good productive uses in which to invest excess funds for growth, they should return them to the owners via either stock buybacks or special dividends/dividend increases.

By the way, stock buybacks aren't different economically from dividend increases. Many companies, especially larger ones with broad access to capital markets, would rather do buybacks than dividend increases because investors really dislike dividend decreases that inevitably follow when companies do have good uses for excess funds. Smaller companies are more wary of stock buybacks because there are often poor market times for them to raise more capital when they need it.

Please, even Trump was not happy with the stock buybacks.

I predicted this would happen. I think I even started a thread about it. I've worked in the corporate world for 20 years, and saw this happen time and again.

https://www.reuters.com/article/business/trump-slams-companies-for-using-us-tax-credit-to-buy-back-stocks-idUSKBN2173HX/

"I never liked stock buybacks from their standpoint. When we did a big tax cut, and when they took the money and did buybacks, that's not building a hangar, that's not buying aircraft, that is not doing the kind of things that I want them to do," he said.

Trump said on Friday that restrictions were not placed on companies at the time because "we thought they would have known better but they didn't know better."
"I am fine with restricting buybacks," Trump added. "In fact, I would demand that there be no stock buybacks. I don't want them taking hundreds of millions of dollars and buying back their stock because that does nothing," he said.

Trump didn't realize this would happen because he has zero experience with corporate America. He wanted the corporate tax cuts because it was self serving.

Some corporates saw no good opportunities for investing the funds. But many others did and did not do stock buybacks, using the funds instead to expand their business, pay higher wages, and invest in productivity.

What we do know about increases in corporate tax rates is that they pass the costs along to their customers, fire employees or pay them less or move operations to a more tax friendly jurisdiction.

This line of thinking makes it impossible to ever raise taxes. Trump cut the corporate rate from 35% to 21% with negligible or no economic benefit (Harris and Biden pare only proposing to raise the rate to 28%). But once the rate is cut, all those who buy into trickle down economics insist you can’t increase rates without some economic harm. It creates this weird cycle where you claim benefits to rate cuts that don’t actually exist or impact a majority of the population while insisting we cannot possibly raise rates without harming the economy when you policy decisions bear no fruit and plunder tax revenue, placing more of the tax burden on individuals.

[Anonymous]

PO here, sorry for the run in sentence. Hit send too soon. Hopefully the point comes across.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny thread.. All the eco warriors and LGBTQABCD warriors suddenly want to vote for Trump because their taxes go up a smidge. More than likely she won't have congressional support for most of these proposals and will end up with something rather tame.. much like the pathetic gun control legislation we normally get. So, chill.

If it really ends up being as bad as OP's propaganda, pay up. If you make $400K+, you are afford to. It will still be progressive.

I really hate the "you can afford it" crowd. Makes me even more determined to vote red. And I am pro choice, pro LGBTQ, pro environment. But the biggest impact that politics has on me, personally, is how much of MY money that I use to care for MY loved ones are they going to take. So I hold my nose and vote Republican. I always say, if Republicans would drop their stupid social platforms, they'd be the perfect party. And so would Dems, if they would drop the revolting "you can afford it" + "fair share" BS that disincentivizes hard work and productivity and encourages laziness and hands out.

How much money do you really "need" to care of your family? I'm not saying you should only have enough to see to their needs, but at $400K, you are more than able to care for your family.

You don't get to define what I need. Yes, we have far more than we "need." I suspect you do, too. Our system incentives work and progress by promising a better life to those willing to work hard and increase their earnings over time. By taxing the hell out of high earners, this hard work (and the innovation that comes with it) is disincentivized.

Again, this liberal view of "how much do you need" and "you can afford it" enrages me and gets me to the polls to pull the straight R lever.

You were an R no matter what. This isn’t what changed your mind. Stop being disingenuous.

Yep.

It's such a stupid argument too, because personal income tax is not stopping anyone from "working hard" or "innovating." "I was going to accept the promotion to SVP but only getting a $100,000 raise after taxes instead of a $125,000 raise made it not worth the trouble," said nobody ever.

I’m a doctor. I can earn more by taking more calls and shifts. How much of the extra I will pay in taxes versus keep definitely figures into whether I take those shifts.

And it's not just wage earners who make such a calculation. It can have a chilling effect on entrepreneurship or starting a small business, activities that can generate more jobs for others.

Except it didn’t in the case of Obama’s tax increases. And Trump’s corporate tax cuts were used for stock buy backs.

If corporations don't have good productive uses in which to invest excess funds for growth, they should return them to the owners via either stock buybacks or special dividends/dividend increases.

By the way, stock buybacks aren't different economically from dividend increases. Many companies, especially larger ones with broad access to capital markets, would rather do buybacks than dividend increases because investors really dislike dividend decreases that inevitably follow when companies do have good uses for excess funds. Smaller companies are more wary of stock buybacks because there are often poor market times for them to raise more capital when they need it.

Please, even Trump was not happy with the stock buybacks.

I predicted this would happen. I think I even started a thread about it. I've worked in the corporate world for 20 years, and saw this happen time and again.

https://www.reuters.com/article/business/trump-slams-companies-for-using-us-tax-credit-to-buy-back-stocks-idUSKBN2173HX/

"I never liked stock buybacks from their standpoint. When we did a big tax cut, and when they took the money and did buybacks, that's not building a hangar, that's not buying aircraft, that is not doing the kind of things that I want them to do," he said.

Trump said on Friday that restrictions were not placed on companies at the time because "we thought they would have known better but they didn't know better."
"I am fine with restricting buybacks," Trump added. "In fact, I would demand that there be no stock buybacks. I don't want them taking hundreds of millions of dollars and buying back their stock because that does nothing," he said.

Trump didn't realize this would happen because he has zero experience with corporate America. He wanted the corporate tax cuts because it was self serving.

Some corporates saw no good opportunities for investing the funds. But many others did and did not do stock buybacks, using the funds instead to expand their business, pay higher wages, and invest in productivity.

What we do know about increases in corporate tax rates is that they pass the costs along to their customers, fire employees or pay them less or move operations to a more tax friendly jurisdiction.

Cites for the first paragraph?

For the second, the proposal isn’t simply to raise the corporate tax rate. It includes proposals to disincentive the behavior to flag as concerning.

No cite necessary unless you have a cite showing every corporation did stock buybacks. There are over 5500 companies listed on the NYSE and Nasdaq. The stock buybacks that did occur were concentrated in financial services and information technology. That leaves a lot of other companies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny thread.. All the eco warriors and LGBTQABCD warriors suddenly want to vote for Trump because their taxes go up a smidge. More than likely she won't have congressional support for most of these proposals and will end up with something rather tame.. much like the pathetic gun control legislation we normally get. So, chill.

If it really ends up being as bad as OP's propaganda, pay up. If you make $400K+, you are afford to. It will still be progressive.

I really hate the "you can afford it" crowd. Makes me even more determined to vote red. And I am pro choice, pro LGBTQ, pro environment. But the biggest impact that politics has on me, personally, is how much of MY money that I use to care for MY loved ones are they going to take. So I hold my nose and vote Republican. I always say, if Republicans would drop their stupid social platforms, they'd be the perfect party. And so would Dems, if they would drop the revolting "you can afford it" + "fair share" BS that disincentivizes hard work and productivity and encourages laziness and hands out.

How much money do you really "need" to care of your family? I'm not saying you should only have enough to see to their needs, but at $400K, you are more than able to care for your family.

You don't get to define what I need. Yes, we have far more than we "need." I suspect you do, too. Our system incentives work and progress by promising a better life to those willing to work hard and increase their earnings over time. By taxing the hell out of high earners, this hard work (and the innovation that comes with it) is disincentivized.

Again, this liberal view of "how much do you need" and "you can afford it" enrages me and gets me to the polls to pull the straight R lever.

You were an R no matter what. This isn’t what changed your mind. Stop being disingenuous.

Yep.

It's such a stupid argument too, because personal income tax is not stopping anyone from "working hard" or "innovating." "I was going to accept the promotion to SVP but only getting a $100,000 raise after taxes instead of a $125,000 raise made it not worth the trouble," said nobody ever.

I’m a doctor. I can earn more by taking more calls and shifts. How much of the extra I will pay in taxes versus keep definitely figures into whether I take those shifts.

And it's not just wage earners who make such a calculation. It can have a chilling effect on entrepreneurship or starting a small business, activities that can generate more jobs for others.

Except it didn’t in the case of Obama’s tax increases. And Trump’s corporate tax cuts were used for stock buy backs.

If corporations don't have good productive uses in which to invest excess funds for growth, they should return them to the owners via either stock buybacks or special dividends/dividend increases.

By the way, stock buybacks aren't different economically from dividend increases. Many companies, especially larger ones with broad access to capital markets, would rather do buybacks than dividend increases because investors really dislike dividend decreases that inevitably follow when companies do have good uses for excess funds. Smaller companies are more wary of stock buybacks because there are often poor market times for them to raise more capital when they need it.

Please, even Trump was not happy with the stock buybacks.

I predicted this would happen. I think I even started a thread about it. I've worked in the corporate world for 20 years, and saw this happen time and again.

https://www.reuters.com/article/business/trump-slams-companies-for-using-us-tax-credit-to-buy-back-stocks-idUSKBN2173HX/

"I never liked stock buybacks from their standpoint. When we did a big tax cut, and when they took the money and did buybacks, that's not building a hangar, that's not buying aircraft, that is not doing the kind of things that I want them to do," he said.

Trump said on Friday that restrictions were not placed on companies at the time because "we thought they would have known better but they didn't know better."
"I am fine with restricting buybacks," Trump added. "In fact, I would demand that there be no stock buybacks. I don't want them taking hundreds of millions of dollars and buying back their stock because that does nothing," he said.

Trump didn't realize this would happen because he has zero experience with corporate America. He wanted the corporate tax cuts because it was self serving.

Some corporates saw no good opportunities for investing the funds. But many others did and did not do stock buybacks, using the funds instead to expand their business, pay higher wages, and invest in productivity.

What we do know about increases in corporate tax rates is that they pass the costs along to their customers, fire employees or pay them less or move operations to a more tax friendly jurisdiction.

Cites for the first paragraph?

For the second, the proposal isn’t simply to raise the corporate tax rate. It includes proposals to disincentive the behavior to flag as concerning.

No cite necessary unless you have a cite showing every corporation did stock buybacks. There are over 5500 companies listed on the NYSE and Nasdaq. The stock buybacks that did occur were concentrated in financial services and information technology. That leaves a lot of other companies.

Well there is a cite above that debunks your claim that the tax cuts results in increased wages or productivity investment.

Why do you need proof that every single company engaged in a stock buy back. We know the 1200 biggest did, amounting to 1.3T. Policy is made and analyzed based on its aggregate impact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny thread.. All the eco warriors and LGBTQABCD warriors suddenly want to vote for Trump because their taxes go up a smidge. More than likely she won't have congressional support for most of these proposals and will end up with something rather tame.. much like the pathetic gun control legislation we normally get. So, chill.

If it really ends up being as bad as OP's propaganda, pay up. If you make $400K+, you are afford to. It will still be progressive.

I really hate the "you can afford it" crowd. Makes me even more determined to vote red. And I am pro choice, pro LGBTQ, pro environment. But the biggest impact that politics has on me, personally, is how much of MY money that I use to care for MY loved ones are they going to take. So I hold my nose and vote Republican. I always say, if Republicans would drop their stupid social platforms, they'd be the perfect party. And so would Dems, if they would drop the revolting "you can afford it" + "fair share" BS that disincentivizes hard work and productivity and encourages laziness and hands out.

How much money do you really "need" to care of your family? I'm not saying you should only have enough to see to their needs, but at $400K, you are more than able to care for your family.

You don't get to define what I need. Yes, we have far more than we "need." I suspect you do, too. Our system incentives work and progress by promising a better life to those willing to work hard and increase their earnings over time. By taxing the hell out of high earners, this hard work (and the innovation that comes with it) is disincentivized.

Again, this liberal view of "how much do you need" and "you can afford it" enrages me and gets me to the polls to pull the straight R lever.

You were an R no matter what. This isn’t what changed your mind. Stop being disingenuous.

Yep.

It's such a stupid argument too, because personal income tax is not stopping anyone from "working hard" or "innovating." "I was going to accept the promotion to SVP but only getting a $100,000 raise after taxes instead of a $125,000 raise made it not worth the trouble," said nobody ever.

I’m a doctor. I can earn more by taking more calls and shifts. How much of the extra I will pay in taxes versus keep definitely figures into whether I take those shifts.

And it's not just wage earners who make such a calculation. It can have a chilling effect on entrepreneurship or starting a small business, activities that can generate more jobs for others.

Except it didn’t in the case of Obama’s tax increases. And Trump’s corporate tax cuts were used for stock buy backs.

If corporations don't have good productive uses in which to invest excess funds for growth, they should return them to the owners via either stock buybacks or special dividends/dividend increases.

By the way, stock buybacks aren't different economically from dividend increases. Many companies, especially larger ones with broad access to capital markets, would rather do buybacks than dividend increases because investors really dislike dividend decreases that inevitably follow when companies do have good uses for excess funds. Smaller companies are more wary of stock buybacks because there are often poor market times for them to raise more capital when they need it.

Please, even Trump was not happy with the stock buybacks.

I predicted this would happen. I think I even started a thread about it. I've worked in the corporate world for 20 years, and saw this happen time and again.

https://www.reuters.com/article/business/trump-slams-companies-for-using-us-tax-credit-to-buy-back-stocks-idUSKBN2173HX/

"I never liked stock buybacks from their standpoint. When we did a big tax cut, and when they took the money and did buybacks, that's not building a hangar, that's not buying aircraft, that is not doing the kind of things that I want them to do," he said.

Trump said on Friday that restrictions were not placed on companies at the time because "we thought they would have known better but they didn't know better."
"I am fine with restricting buybacks," Trump added. "In fact, I would demand that there be no stock buybacks. I don't want them taking hundreds of millions of dollars and buying back their stock because that does nothing," he said.

Trump didn't realize this would happen because he has zero experience with corporate America. He wanted the corporate tax cuts because it was self serving.

Some corporates saw no good opportunities for investing the funds. But many others did and did not do stock buybacks, using the funds instead to expand their business, pay higher wages, and invest in productivity.

What we do know about increases in corporate tax rates is that they pass the costs along to their customers, fire employees or pay them less or move operations to a more tax friendly jurisdiction.

This line of thinking makes it impossible to ever raise taxes. Trump cut the corporate rate from 35% to 21% with negligible or no economic benefit (Harris and Biden pare only proposing to raise the rate to 28%). But once the rate is cut, all those who buy into trickle down economics insist you can’t increase rates without some economic harm. It creates this weird cycle where you claim benefits to rate cuts that don’t actually exist or impact a majority of the population while insisting we cannot possibly raise rates without harming the economy when you policy decisions bear no fruit and plunder tax revenue, placing more of the tax burden on individuals.

Corporate rates in the US were very high, especially after you add state corporate taxes on top of federal taxes.

The average EU corporate rate is 21.13 percent; across OECD countries it is 23.73 percent. When you combine the 21% federal rate with state level corporate taxes, the U.S. rate is 25.77%. The 2017 rate cuts moved the US from having the fourth highest corporate tax rate in the world at around 35% to the middle of the pack.

Increasing the federal tax to 28% would bring the rate to 32.77% when combined with state tax rates, which would place the US around 10th highest in the world.

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/global/corporate-tax-rates-by-country-2023/#_ftn3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny thread.. All the eco warriors and LGBTQABCD warriors suddenly want to vote for Trump because their taxes go up a smidge. More than likely she won't have congressional support for most of these proposals and will end up with something rather tame.. much like the pathetic gun control legislation we normally get. So, chill.

If it really ends up being as bad as OP's propaganda, pay up. If you make $400K+, you are afford to. It will still be progressive.

I really hate the "you can afford it" crowd. Makes me even more determined to vote red. And I am pro choice, pro LGBTQ, pro environment. But the biggest impact that politics has on me, personally, is how much of MY money that I use to care for MY loved ones are they going to take. So I hold my nose and vote Republican. I always say, if Republicans would drop their stupid social platforms, they'd be the perfect party. And so would Dems, if they would drop the revolting "you can afford it" + "fair share" BS that disincentivizes hard work and productivity and encourages laziness and hands out.

How much money do you really "need" to care of your family? I'm not saying you should only have enough to see to their needs, but at $400K, you are more than able to care for your family.

You don't get to define what I need. Yes, we have far more than we "need." I suspect you do, too. Our system incentives work and progress by promising a better life to those willing to work hard and increase their earnings over time. By taxing the hell out of high earners, this hard work (and the innovation that comes with it) is disincentivized.

Again, this liberal view of "how much do you need" and "you can afford it" enrages me and gets me to the polls to pull the straight R lever.

You were an R no matter what. This isn’t what changed your mind. Stop being disingenuous.

Yep.

It's such a stupid argument too, because personal income tax is not stopping anyone from "working hard" or "innovating." "I was going to accept the promotion to SVP but only getting a $100,000 raise after taxes instead of a $125,000 raise made it not worth the trouble," said nobody ever.

I’m a doctor. I can earn more by taking more calls and shifts. How much of the extra I will pay in taxes versus keep definitely figures into whether I take those shifts.

And it's not just wage earners who make such a calculation. It can have a chilling effect on entrepreneurship or starting a small business, activities that can generate more jobs for others.

Except it didn’t in the case of Obama’s tax increases. And Trump’s corporate tax cuts were used for stock buy backs.

If corporations don't have good productive uses in which to invest excess funds for growth, they should return them to the owners via either stock buybacks or special dividends/dividend increases.

By the way, stock buybacks aren't different economically from dividend increases. Many companies, especially larger ones with broad access to capital markets, would rather do buybacks than dividend increases because investors really dislike dividend decreases that inevitably follow when companies do have good uses for excess funds. Smaller companies are more wary of stock buybacks because there are often poor market times for them to raise more capital when they need it.

Please, even Trump was not happy with the stock buybacks.

I predicted this would happen. I think I even started a thread about it. I've worked in the corporate world for 20 years, and saw this happen time and again.

https://www.reuters.com/article/business/trump-slams-companies-for-using-us-tax-credit-to-buy-back-stocks-idUSKBN2173HX/

"I never liked stock buybacks from their standpoint. When we did a big tax cut, and when they took the money and did buybacks, that's not building a hangar, that's not buying aircraft, that is not doing the kind of things that I want them to do," he said.

Trump said on Friday that restrictions were not placed on companies at the time because "we thought they would have known better but they didn't know better."
"I am fine with restricting buybacks," Trump added. "In fact, I would demand that there be no stock buybacks. I don't want them taking hundreds of millions of dollars and buying back their stock because that does nothing," he said.

Trump didn't realize this would happen because he has zero experience with corporate America. He wanted the corporate tax cuts because it was self serving.

Some corporates saw no good opportunities for investing the funds. But many others did and did not do stock buybacks, using the funds instead to expand their business, pay higher wages, and invest in productivity.

What we do know about increases in corporate tax rates is that they pass the costs along to their customers, fire employees or pay them less or move operations to a more tax friendly jurisdiction.

Cites for the first paragraph?

For the second, the proposal isn’t simply to raise the corporate tax rate. It includes proposals to disincentive the behavior to flag as concerning.

No cite necessary unless you have a cite showing every corporation did stock buybacks. There are over 5500 companies listed on the NYSE and Nasdaq. The stock buybacks that did occur were concentrated in financial services and information technology. That leaves a lot of other companies.

Many company onshored their operations once there was a lower corporate rate. There is a reason why Ireland with a 12.5% rate is booming.

Well there is a cite above that debunks your claim that the tax cuts results in increased wages or productivity investment.

Why do you need proof that every single company engaged in a stock buy back. We know the 1200 biggest did, amounting to 1.3T. Policy is made and analyzed based on its aggregate impact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny thread.. All the eco warriors and LGBTQABCD warriors suddenly want to vote for Trump because their taxes go up a smidge. More than likely she won't have congressional support for most of these proposals and will end up with something rather tame.. much like the pathetic gun control legislation we normally get. So, chill.

If it really ends up being as bad as OP's propaganda, pay up. If you make $400K+, you are afford to. It will still be progressive.

I really hate the "you can afford it" crowd. Makes me even more determined to vote red. And I am pro choice, pro LGBTQ, pro environment. But the biggest impact that politics has on me, personally, is how much of MY money that I use to care for MY loved ones are they going to take. So I hold my nose and vote Republican. I always say, if Republicans would drop their stupid social platforms, they'd be the perfect party. And so would Dems, if they would drop the revolting "you can afford it" + "fair share" BS that disincentivizes hard work and productivity and encourages laziness and hands out.

How much money do you really "need" to care of your family? I'm not saying you should only have enough to see to their needs, but at $400K, you are more than able to care for your family.

You don't get to define what I need. Yes, we have far more than we "need." I suspect you do, too. Our system incentives work and progress by promising a better life to those willing to work hard and increase their earnings over time. By taxing the hell out of high earners, this hard work (and the innovation that comes with it) is disincentivized.

Again, this liberal view of "how much do you need" and "you can afford it" enrages me and gets me to the polls to pull the straight R lever.

You were an R no matter what. This isn’t what changed your mind. Stop being disingenuous.

Yep.

It's such a stupid argument too, because personal income tax is not stopping anyone from "working hard" or "innovating." "I was going to accept the promotion to SVP but only getting a $100,000 raise after taxes instead of a $125,000 raise made it not worth the trouble," said nobody ever.

I’m a doctor. I can earn more by taking more calls and shifts. How much of the extra I will pay in taxes versus keep definitely figures into whether I take those shifts.

And it's not just wage earners who make such a calculation. It can have a chilling effect on entrepreneurship or starting a small business, activities that can generate more jobs for others.

Except it didn’t in the case of Obama’s tax increases. And Trump’s corporate tax cuts were used for stock buy backs.

If corporations don't have good productive uses in which to invest excess funds for growth, they should return them to the owners via either stock buybacks or special dividends/dividend increases.

By the way, stock buybacks aren't different economically from dividend increases. Many companies, especially larger ones with broad access to capital markets, would rather do buybacks than dividend increases because investors really dislike dividend decreases that inevitably follow when companies do have good uses for excess funds. Smaller companies are more wary of stock buybacks because there are often poor market times for them to raise more capital when they need it.

Please, even Trump was not happy with the stock buybacks.

I predicted this would happen. I think I even started a thread about it. I've worked in the corporate world for 20 years, and saw this happen time and again.

https://www.reuters.com/article/business/trump-slams-companies-for-using-us-tax-credit-to-buy-back-stocks-idUSKBN2173HX/

"I never liked stock buybacks from their standpoint. When we did a big tax cut, and when they took the money and did buybacks, that's not building a hangar, that's not buying aircraft, that is not doing the kind of things that I want them to do," he said.

Trump said on Friday that restrictions were not placed on companies at the time because "we thought they would have known better but they didn't know better."
"I am fine with restricting buybacks," Trump added. "In fact, I would demand that there be no stock buybacks. I don't want them taking hundreds of millions of dollars and buying back their stock because that does nothing," he said.

Trump didn't realize this would happen because he has zero experience with corporate America. He wanted the corporate tax cuts because it was self serving.

Some corporates saw no good opportunities for investing the funds. But many others did and did not do stock buybacks, using the funds instead to expand their business, pay higher wages, and invest in productivity.

What we do know about increases in corporate tax rates is that they pass the costs along to their customers, fire employees or pay them less or move operations to a more tax friendly jurisdiction.

Cites for the first paragraph?

For the second, the proposal isn’t simply to raise the corporate tax rate. It includes proposals to disincentive the behavior to flag as concerning.

No cite necessary unless you have a cite showing every corporation did stock buybacks. There are over 5500 companies listed on the NYSE and Nasdaq. The stock buybacks that did occur were concentrated in financial services and information technology. That leaves a lot of other companies.

Well there is a cite above that debunks your claim that the tax cuts results in increased wages or productivity investment.

Why do you need proof that every single company engaged in a stock buy back. We know the 1200 biggest did, amounting to 1.3T. Policy is made and analyzed based on its aggregate impact.

Messed up response.

Many companies onshored their operations once there was a lower corporate rate. There is a reason why Ireland with a 12.5% rate is booming, increasing employment and wages for all.

[Anonymous]

400 effing K...

I'm raising my daughter on 85K.

Tax the richies to pieces!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny thread.. All the eco warriors and LGBTQABCD warriors suddenly want to vote for Trump because their taxes go up a smidge. More than likely she won't have congressional support for most of these proposals and will end up with something rather tame.. much like the pathetic gun control legislation we normally get. So, chill.

If it really ends up being as bad as OP's propaganda, pay up. If you make $400K+, you are afford to. It will still be progressive.

I really hate the "you can afford it" crowd. Makes me even more determined to vote red. And I am pro choice, pro LGBTQ, pro environment. But the biggest impact that politics has on me, personally, is how much of MY money that I use to care for MY loved ones are they going to take. So I hold my nose and vote Republican. I always say, if Republicans would drop their stupid social platforms, they'd be the perfect party. And so would Dems, if they would drop the revolting "you can afford it" + "fair share" BS that disincentivizes hard work and productivity and encourages laziness and hands out.

How much money do you really "need" to care of your family? I'm not saying you should only have enough to see to their needs, but at $400K, you are more than able to care for your family.

You don't get to define what I need. Yes, we have far more than we "need." I suspect you do, too. Our system incentives work and progress by promising a better life to those willing to work hard and increase their earnings over time. By taxing the hell out of high earners, this hard work (and the innovation that comes with it) is disincentivized.

Again, this liberal view of "how much do you need" and "you can afford it" enrages me and gets me to the polls to pull the straight R lever.

You were an R no matter what. This isn’t what changed your mind. Stop being disingenuous.

Yep.

It's such a stupid argument too, because personal income tax is not stopping anyone from "working hard" or "innovating." "I was going to accept the promotion to SVP but only getting a $100,000 raise after taxes instead of a $125,000 raise made it not worth the trouble," said nobody ever.

I’m a doctor. I can earn more by taking more calls and shifts. How much of the extra I will pay in taxes versus keep definitely figures into whether I take those shifts.

And it's not just wage earners who make such a calculation. It can have a chilling effect on entrepreneurship or starting a small business, activities that can generate more jobs for others.

Except it didn’t in the case of Obama’s tax increases. And Trump’s corporate tax cuts were used for stock buy backs.

If corporations don't have good productive uses in which to invest excess funds for growth, they should return them to the owners via either stock buybacks or special dividends/dividend increases.

By the way, stock buybacks aren't different economically from dividend increases. Many companies, especially larger ones with broad access to capital markets, would rather do buybacks than dividend increases because investors really dislike dividend decreases that inevitably follow when companies do have good uses for excess funds. Smaller companies are more wary of stock buybacks because there are often poor market times for them to raise more capital when they need it.

Please, even Trump was not happy with the stock buybacks.

I predicted this would happen. I think I even started a thread about it. I've worked in the corporate world for 20 years, and saw this happen time and again.

https://www.reuters.com/article/business/trump-slams-companies-for-using-us-tax-credit-to-buy-back-stocks-idUSKBN2173HX/

"I never liked stock buybacks from their standpoint. When we did a big tax cut, and when they took the money and did buybacks, that's not building a hangar, that's not buying aircraft, that is not doing the kind of things that I want them to do," he said.

Trump said on Friday that restrictions were not placed on companies at the time because "we thought they would have known better but they didn't know better."
"I am fine with restricting buybacks," Trump added. "In fact, I would demand that there be no stock buybacks. I don't want them taking hundreds of millions of dollars and buying back their stock because that does nothing," he said.

Trump didn't realize this would happen because he has zero experience with corporate America. He wanted the corporate tax cuts because it was self serving.

Some corporates saw no good opportunities for investing the funds. But many others did and did not do stock buybacks, using the funds instead to expand their business, pay higher wages, and invest in productivity.

What we do know about increases in corporate tax rates is that they pass the costs along to their customers, fire employees or pay them less or move operations to a more tax friendly jurisdiction.

Cites for the first paragraph?

For the second, the proposal isn’t simply to raise the corporate tax rate. It includes proposals to disincentive the behavior to flag as concerning.

No cite necessary unless you have a cite showing every corporation did stock buybacks. There are over 5500 companies listed on the NYSE and Nasdaq. The stock buybacks that did occur were concentrated in financial services and information technology. That leaves a lot of other companies.

Many company onshored their operations once there was a lower corporate rate. There is a reason why Ireland with a 12.5% rate is booming.

Well there is a cite above that debunks your claim that the tax cuts results in increased wages or productivity investment.

Why do you need proof that every single company engaged in a stock buy back. We know the 1200 biggest did, amounting to 1.3T. Policy is made and analyzed based on its aggregate impact.

Yes, and there are means to prevent that from happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny thread.. All the eco warriors and LGBTQABCD warriors suddenly want to vote for Trump because their taxes go up a smidge. More than likely she won't have congressional support for most of these proposals and will end up with something rather tame.. much like the pathetic gun control legislation we normally get. So, chill.

If it really ends up being as bad as OP's propaganda, pay up. If you make $400K+, you are afford to. It will still be progressive.

I really hate the "you can afford it" crowd. Makes me even more determined to vote red. And I am pro choice, pro LGBTQ, pro environment. But the biggest impact that politics has on me, personally, is how much of MY money that I use to care for MY loved ones are they going to take. So I hold my nose and vote Republican. I always say, if Republicans would drop their stupid social platforms, they'd be the perfect party. And so would Dems, if they would drop the revolting "you can afford it" + "fair share" BS that disincentivizes hard work and productivity and encourages laziness and hands out.

How much money do you really "need" to care of your family? I'm not saying you should only have enough to see to their needs, but at $400K, you are more than able to care for your family.

You don't get to define what I need. Yes, we have far more than we "need." I suspect you do, too. Our system incentives work and progress by promising a better life to those willing to work hard and increase their earnings over time. By taxing the hell out of high earners, this hard work (and the innovation that comes with it) is disincentivized.

Again, this liberal view of "how much do you need" and "you can afford it" enrages me and gets me to the polls to pull the straight R lever.

You were an R no matter what. This isn’t what changed your mind. Stop being disingenuous.

Yep.

It's such a stupid argument too, because personal income tax is not stopping anyone from "working hard" or "innovating." "I was going to accept the promotion to SVP but only getting a $100,000 raise after taxes instead of a $125,000 raise made it not worth the trouble," said nobody ever.

I’m a doctor. I can earn more by taking more calls and shifts. How much of the extra I will pay in taxes versus keep definitely figures into whether I take those shifts.

And it's not just wage earners who make such a calculation. It can have a chilling effect on entrepreneurship or starting a small business, activities that can generate more jobs for others.

Except it didn’t in the case of Obama’s tax increases. And Trump’s corporate tax cuts were used for stock buy backs.

If corporations don't have good productive uses in which to invest excess funds for growth, they should return them to the owners via either stock buybacks or special dividends/dividend increases.

By the way, stock buybacks aren't different economically from dividend increases. Many companies, especially larger ones with broad access to capital markets, would rather do buybacks than dividend increases because investors really dislike dividend decreases that inevitably follow when companies do have good uses for excess funds. Smaller companies are more wary of stock buybacks because there are often poor market times for them to raise more capital when they need it.

Please, even Trump was not happy with the stock buybacks.

I predicted this would happen. I think I even started a thread about it. I've worked in the corporate world for 20 years, and saw this happen time and again.

https://www.reuters.com/article/business/trump-slams-companies-for-using-us-tax-credit-to-buy-back-stocks-idUSKBN2173HX/

"I never liked stock buybacks from their standpoint. When we did a big tax cut, and when they took the money and did buybacks, that's not building a hangar, that's not buying aircraft, that is not doing the kind of things that I want them to do," he said.

Trump said on Friday that restrictions were not placed on companies at the time because "we thought they would have known better but they didn't know better."
"I am fine with restricting buybacks," Trump added. "In fact, I would demand that there be no stock buybacks. I don't want them taking hundreds of millions of dollars and buying back their stock because that does nothing," he said.

Trump didn't realize this would happen because he has zero experience with corporate America. He wanted the corporate tax cuts because it was self serving.

Some corporates saw no good opportunities for investing the funds. But many others did and did not do stock buybacks, using the funds instead to expand their business, pay higher wages, and invest in productivity.

What we do know about increases in corporate tax rates is that they pass the costs along to their customers, fire employees or pay them less or move operations to a more tax friendly jurisdiction.

Cites for the first paragraph?

For the second, the proposal isn’t simply to raise the corporate tax rate. It includes proposals to disincentive the behavior to flag as concerning.

No cite necessary unless you have a cite showing every corporation did stock buybacks. There are over 5500 companies listed on the NYSE and Nasdaq. The stock buybacks that did occur were concentrated in financial services and information technology. That leaves a lot of other companies.

Well there is a cite above that debunks your claim that the tax cuts results in increased wages or productivity investment.

Why do you need proof that every single company engaged in a stock buy back. We know the 1200 biggest did, amounting to 1.3T. Policy is made and analyzed based on its aggregate impact.

Messed up response.

Many companies onshored their operations once there was a lower corporate rate. There is a reason why Ireland with a 12.5% rate is booming, increasing employment and wages for all.

Ireland is booming and yet the marginal tax rate on income over €40,000 is 40%. Gee, I thought someone said that sort of tax rate would kill economic growth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny thread.. All the eco warriors and LGBTQABCD warriors suddenly want to vote for Trump because their taxes go up a smidge. More than likely she won't have congressional support for most of these proposals and will end up with something rather tame.. much like the pathetic gun control legislation we normally get. So, chill.

If it really ends up being as bad as OP's propaganda, pay up. If you make $400K+, you are afford to. It will still be progressive.

I really hate the "you can afford it" crowd. Makes me even more determined to vote red. And I am pro choice, pro LGBTQ, pro environment. But the biggest impact that politics has on me, personally, is how much of MY money that I use to care for MY loved ones are they going to take. So I hold my nose and vote Republican. I always say, if Republicans would drop their stupid social platforms, they'd be the perfect party. And so would Dems, if they would drop the revolting "you can afford it" + "fair share" BS that disincentivizes hard work and productivity and encourages laziness and hands out.

How much money do you really "need" to care of your family? I'm not saying you should only have enough to see to their needs, but at $400K, you are more than able to care for your family.

You don't get to define what I need. Yes, we have far more than we "need." I suspect you do, too. Our system incentives work and progress by promising a better life to those willing to work hard and increase their earnings over time. By taxing the hell out of high earners, this hard work (and the innovation that comes with it) is disincentivized.

Again, this liberal view of "how much do you need" and "you can afford it" enrages me and gets me to the polls to pull the straight R lever.

You were an R no matter what. This isn’t what changed your mind. Stop being disingenuous.

Yep.

It's such a stupid argument too, because personal income tax is not stopping anyone from "working hard" or "innovating." "I was going to accept the promotion to SVP but only getting a $100,000 raise after taxes instead of a $125,000 raise made it not worth the trouble," said nobody ever.

I’m a doctor. I can earn more by taking more calls and shifts. How much of the extra I will pay in taxes versus keep definitely figures into whether I take those shifts.

And it's not just wage earners who make such a calculation. It can have a chilling effect on entrepreneurship or starting a small business, activities that can generate more jobs for others.

Except it didn’t in the case of Obama’s tax increases. And Trump’s corporate tax cuts were used for stock buy backs.

If corporations don't have good productive uses in which to invest excess funds for growth, they should return them to the owners via either stock buybacks or special dividends/dividend increases.

By the way, stock buybacks aren't different economically from dividend increases. Many companies, especially larger ones with broad access to capital markets, would rather do buybacks than dividend increases because investors really dislike dividend decreases that inevitably follow when companies do have good uses for excess funds. Smaller companies are more wary of stock buybacks because there are often poor market times for them to raise more capital when they need it.

Please, even Trump was not happy with the stock buybacks.

I predicted this would happen. I think I even started a thread about it. I've worked in the corporate world for 20 years, and saw this happen time and again.

https://www.reuters.com/article/business/trump-slams-companies-for-using-us-tax-credit-to-buy-back-stocks-idUSKBN2173HX/

"I never liked stock buybacks from their standpoint. When we did a big tax cut, and when they took the money and did buybacks, that's not building a hangar, that's not buying aircraft, that is not doing the kind of things that I want them to do," he said.

Trump said on Friday that restrictions were not placed on companies at the time because "we thought they would have known better but they didn't know better."
"I am fine with restricting buybacks," Trump added. "In fact, I would demand that there be no stock buybacks. I don't want them taking hundreds of millions of dollars and buying back their stock because that does nothing," he said.

Trump didn't realize this would happen because he has zero experience with corporate America. He wanted the corporate tax cuts because it was self serving.

Some corporates saw no good opportunities for investing the funds. But many others did and did not do stock buybacks, using the funds instead to expand their business, pay higher wages, and invest in productivity.

What we do know about increases in corporate tax rates is that they pass the costs along to their customers, fire employees or pay them less or move operations to a more tax friendly jurisdiction.

This line of thinking makes it impossible to ever raise taxes. Trump cut the corporate rate from 35% to 21% with negligible or no economic benefit (Harris and Biden pare only proposing to raise the rate to 28%). But once the rate is cut, all those who buy into trickle down economics insist you can’t increase rates without some economic harm. It creates this weird cycle where you claim benefits to rate cuts that don’t actually exist or impact a majority of the population while insisting we cannot possibly raise rates without harming the economy when you policy decisions bear no fruit and plunder tax revenue, placing more of the tax burden on individuals.

Corporate rates in the US were very high, especially after you add state corporate taxes on top of federal taxes.

The average EU corporate rate is 21.13 percent; across OECD countries it is 23.73 percent. When you combine the 21% federal rate with state level corporate taxes, the U.S. rate is 25.77%. The 2017 rate cuts moved the US from having the fourth highest corporate tax rate in the world at around 35% to the middle of the pack.

Increasing the federal tax to 28% would bring the rate to 32.77% when combined with state tax rates, which would place the US around 10th highest in the world.

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/global/corporate-tax-rates-by-country-2023/#_ftn3

What are the chances that all those EU countries with lower corporate tax rates have higher personal income tax rates? At the end of the day, someone had to pay the bills. If it’s not companies then maybe it’s individuals. You choose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny thread.. All the eco warriors and LGBTQABCD warriors suddenly want to vote for Trump because their taxes go up a smidge. More than likely she won't have congressional support for most of these proposals and will end up with something rather tame.. much like the pathetic gun control legislation we normally get. So, chill.

If it really ends up being as bad as OP's propaganda, pay up. If you make $400K+, you are afford to. It will still be progressive.

I really hate the "you can afford it" crowd. Makes me even more determined to vote red. And I am pro choice, pro LGBTQ, pro environment. But the biggest impact that politics has on me, personally, is how much of MY money that I use to care for MY loved ones are they going to take. So I hold my nose and vote Republican. I always say, if Republicans would drop their stupid social platforms, they'd be the perfect party. And so would Dems, if they would drop the revolting "you can afford it" + "fair share" BS that disincentivizes hard work and productivity and encourages laziness and hands out.

How much money do you really "need" to care of your family? I'm not saying you should only have enough to see to their needs, but at $400K, you are more than able to care for your family.

You don't get to define what I need. Yes, we have far more than we "need." I suspect you do, too. Our system incentives work and progress by promising a better life to those willing to work hard and increase their earnings over time. By taxing the hell out of high earners, this hard work (and the innovation that comes with it) is disincentivized.

Again, this liberal view of "how much do you need" and "you can afford it" enrages me and gets me to the polls to pull the straight R lever.

You were an R no matter what. This isn’t what changed your mind. Stop being disingenuous.

Yep.

It's such a stupid argument too, because personal income tax is not stopping anyone from "working hard" or "innovating." "I was going to accept the promotion to SVP but only getting a $100,000 raise after taxes instead of a $125,000 raise made it not worth the trouble," said nobody ever.

I’m a doctor. I can earn more by taking more calls and shifts. How much of the extra I will pay in taxes versus keep definitely figures into whether I take those shifts.

And it's not just wage earners who make such a calculation. It can have a chilling effect on entrepreneurship or starting a small business, activities that can generate more jobs for others.

Except it didn’t in the case of Obama’s tax increases. And Trump’s corporate tax cuts were used for stock buy backs.

If corporations don't have good productive uses in which to invest excess funds for growth, they should return them to the owners via either stock buybacks or special dividends/dividend increases.

By the way, stock buybacks aren't different economically from dividend increases. Many companies, especially larger ones with broad access to capital markets, would rather do buybacks than dividend increases because investors really dislike dividend decreases that inevitably follow when companies do have good uses for excess funds. Smaller companies are more wary of stock buybacks because there are often poor market times for them to raise more capital when they need it.

Please, even Trump was not happy with the stock buybacks.

I predicted this would happen. I think I even started a thread about it. I've worked in the corporate world for 20 years, and saw this happen time and again.

https://www.reuters.com/article/business/trump-slams-companies-for-using-us-tax-credit-to-buy-back-stocks-idUSKBN2173HX/

"I never liked stock buybacks from their standpoint. When we did a big tax cut, and when they took the money and did buybacks, that's not building a hangar, that's not buying aircraft, that is not doing the kind of things that I want them to do," he said.

Trump said on Friday that restrictions were not placed on companies at the time because "we thought they would have known better but they didn't know better."
"I am fine with restricting buybacks," Trump added. "In fact, I would demand that there be no stock buybacks. I don't want them taking hundreds of millions of dollars and buying back their stock because that does nothing," he said.

Trump didn't realize this would happen because he has zero experience with corporate America. He wanted the corporate tax cuts because it was self serving.

Some corporates saw no good opportunities for investing the funds. But many others did and did not do stock buybacks, using the funds instead to expand their business, pay higher wages, and invest in productivity.

What we do know about increases in corporate tax rates is that they pass the costs along to their customers, fire employees or pay them less or move operations to a more tax friendly jurisdiction.

This line of thinking makes it impossible to ever raise taxes. Trump cut the corporate rate from 35% to 21% with negligible or no economic benefit (Harris and Biden pare only proposing to raise the rate to 28%). But once the rate is cut, all those who buy into trickle down economics insist you can’t increase rates without some economic harm. It creates this weird cycle where you claim benefits to rate cuts that don’t actually exist or impact a majority of the population while insisting we cannot possibly raise rates without harming the economy when you policy decisions bear no fruit and plunder tax revenue, placing more of the tax burden on individuals.

Corporate rates in the US were very high, especially after you add state corporate taxes on top of federal taxes.

The average EU corporate rate is 21.13 percent; across OECD countries it is 23.73 percent. When you combine the 21% federal rate with state level corporate taxes, the U.S. rate is 25.77%. The 2017 rate cuts moved the US from having the fourth highest corporate tax rate in the world at around 35% to the middle of the pack.

Increasing the federal tax to 28% would bring the rate to 32.77% when combined with state tax rates, which would place the US around 10th highest in the world.

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/global/corporate-tax-rates-by-country-2023/#_ftn3

Yes, and? Was the US doing terribly with higher corporate tax rates? Because we didn’t see a tangible benefit to lowering them.

We are one of the largest and wealthiest nations in the world. Acting like we cannot control this situation is beneath us. That includes taking measures to ensure corporations hire US citizens, get taxes on offshore profits and headquarter themselves in the US.

Also, again, the tax foundation is a libertarian organization that support a flat tax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny thread.. All the eco warriors and LGBTQABCD warriors suddenly want to vote for Trump because their taxes go up a smidge. More than likely she won't have congressional support for most of these proposals and will end up with something rather tame.. much like the pathetic gun control legislation we normally get. So, chill.

If it really ends up being as bad as OP's propaganda, pay up. If you make $400K+, you are afford to. It will still be progressive.

I really hate the "you can afford it" crowd. Makes me even more determined to vote red. And I am pro choice, pro LGBTQ, pro environment. But the biggest impact that politics has on me, personally, is how much of MY money that I use to care for MY loved ones are they going to take. So I hold my nose and vote Republican. I always say, if Republicans would drop their stupid social platforms, they'd be the perfect party. And so would Dems, if they would drop the revolting "you can afford it" + "fair share" BS that disincentivizes hard work and productivity and encourages laziness and hands out.

How much money do you really "need" to care of your family? I'm not saying you should only have enough to see to their needs, but at $400K, you are more than able to care for your family.

You don't get to define what I need. Yes, we have far more than we "need." I suspect you do, too. Our system incentives work and progress by promising a better life to those willing to work hard and increase their earnings over time. By taxing the hell out of high earners, this hard work (and the innovation that comes with it) is disincentivized.

Again, this liberal view of "how much do you need" and "you can afford it" enrages me and gets me to the polls to pull the straight R lever.

You were an R no matter what. This isn’t what changed your mind. Stop being disingenuous.

Yep.

It's such a stupid argument too, because personal income tax is not stopping anyone from "working hard" or "innovating." "I was going to accept the promotion to SVP but only getting a $100,000 raise after taxes instead of a $125,000 raise made it not worth the trouble," said nobody ever.

I’m a doctor. I can earn more by taking more calls and shifts. How much of the extra I will pay in taxes versus keep definitely figures into whether I take those shifts.

And it's not just wage earners who make such a calculation. It can have a chilling effect on entrepreneurship or starting a small business, activities that can generate more jobs for others.

Except it didn’t in the case of Obama’s tax increases. And Trump’s corporate tax cuts were used for stock buy backs.

If corporations don't have good productive uses in which to invest excess funds for growth, they should return them to the owners via either stock buybacks or special dividends/dividend increases.

By the way, stock buybacks aren't different economically from dividend increases. Many companies, especially larger ones with broad access to capital markets, would rather do buybacks than dividend increases because investors really dislike dividend decreases that inevitably follow when companies do have good uses for excess funds. Smaller companies are more wary of stock buybacks because there are often poor market times for them to raise more capital when they need it.

Please, even Trump was not happy with the stock buybacks.

I predicted this would happen. I think I even started a thread about it. I've worked in the corporate world for 20 years, and saw this happen time and again.

https://www.reuters.com/article/business/trump-slams-companies-for-using-us-tax-credit-to-buy-back-stocks-idUSKBN2173HX/

"I never liked stock buybacks from their standpoint. When we did a big tax cut, and when they took the money and did buybacks, that's not building a hangar, that's not buying aircraft, that is not doing the kind of things that I want them to do," he said.

Trump said on Friday that restrictions were not placed on companies at the time because "we thought they would have known better but they didn't know better."
"I am fine with restricting buybacks," Trump added. "In fact, I would demand that there be no stock buybacks. I don't want them taking hundreds of millions of dollars and buying back their stock because that does nothing," he said.

Trump didn't realize this would happen because he has zero experience with corporate America. He wanted the corporate tax cuts because it was self serving.

Some corporates saw no good opportunities for investing the funds. But many others did and did not do stock buybacks, using the funds instead to expand their business, pay higher wages, and invest in productivity.

What we do know about increases in corporate tax rates is that they pass the costs along to their customers, fire employees or pay them less or move operations to a more tax friendly jurisdiction.

Cites for the first paragraph?

For the second, the proposal isn’t simply to raise the corporate tax rate. It includes proposals to disincentive the behavior to flag as concerning.

No cite necessary unless you have a cite showing every corporation did stock buybacks. There are over 5500 companies listed on the NYSE and Nasdaq. The stock buybacks that did occur were concentrated in financial services and information technology. That leaves a lot of other companies.

Well there is a cite above that debunks your claim that the tax cuts results in increased wages or productivity investment.

Why do you need proof that every single company engaged in a stock buy back. We know the 1200 biggest did, amounting to 1.3T. Policy is made and analyzed based on its aggregate impact.

Messed up response.

Many companies onshored their operations once there was a lower corporate rate. There is a reason why Ireland with a 12.5% rate is booming, increasing employment and wages for all.

Ireland is booming and yet the marginal tax rate on income over €40,000 is 40%. Gee, I thought someone said that sort of tax rate would kill economic growth.

You are confusing individual tax rates with corporate tax rates. It is Ireland's low corporate rate that has attracted companies to set up operations there, resulting in the boom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny thread.. All the eco warriors and LGBTQABCD warriors suddenly want to vote for Trump because their taxes go up a smidge. More than likely she won't have congressional support for most of these proposals and will end up with something rather tame.. much like the pathetic gun control legislation we normally get. So, chill.

If it really ends up being as bad as OP's propaganda, pay up. If you make $400K+, you are afford to. It will still be progressive.

I really hate the "you can afford it" crowd. Makes me even more determined to vote red. And I am pro choice, pro LGBTQ, pro environment. But the biggest impact that politics has on me, personally, is how much of MY money that I use to care for MY loved ones are they going to take. So I hold my nose and vote Republican. I always say, if Republicans would drop their stupid social platforms, they'd be the perfect party. And so would Dems, if they would drop the revolting "you can afford it" + "fair share" BS that disincentivizes hard work and productivity and encourages laziness and hands out.

How much money do you really "need" to care of your family? I'm not saying you should only have enough to see to their needs, but at $400K, you are more than able to care for your family.

You don't get to define what I need. Yes, we have far more than we "need." I suspect you do, too. Our system incentives work and progress by promising a better life to those willing to work hard and increase their earnings over time. By taxing the hell out of high earners, this hard work (and the innovation that comes with it) is disincentivized.

Again, this liberal view of "how much do you need" and "you can afford it" enrages me and gets me to the polls to pull the straight R lever.

You were an R no matter what. This isn’t what changed your mind. Stop being disingenuous.

Yep.

It's such a stupid argument too, because personal income tax is not stopping anyone from "working hard" or "innovating." "I was going to accept the promotion to SVP but only getting a $100,000 raise after taxes instead of a $125,000 raise made it not worth the trouble," said nobody ever.

I’m a doctor. I can earn more by taking more calls and shifts. How much of the extra I will pay in taxes versus keep definitely figures into whether I take those shifts.

And it's not just wage earners who make such a calculation. It can have a chilling effect on entrepreneurship or starting a small business, activities that can generate more jobs for others.

Except it didn’t in the case of Obama’s tax increases. And Trump’s corporate tax cuts were used for stock buy backs.

If corporations don't have good productive uses in which to invest excess funds for growth, they should return them to the owners via either stock buybacks or special dividends/dividend increases.

By the way, stock buybacks aren't different economically from dividend increases. Many companies, especially larger ones with broad access to capital markets, would rather do buybacks than dividend increases because investors really dislike dividend decreases that inevitably follow when companies do have good uses for excess funds. Smaller companies are more wary of stock buybacks because there are often poor market times for them to raise more capital when they need it.

Please, even Trump was not happy with the stock buybacks.

I predicted this would happen. I think I even started a thread about it. I've worked in the corporate world for 20 years, and saw this happen time and again.

https://www.reuters.com/article/business/trump-slams-companies-for-using-us-tax-credit-to-buy-back-stocks-idUSKBN2173HX/

"I never liked stock buybacks from their standpoint. When we did a big tax cut, and when they took the money and did buybacks, that's not building a hangar, that's not buying aircraft, that is not doing the kind of things that I want them to do," he said.

Trump said on Friday that restrictions were not placed on companies at the time because "we thought they would have known better but they didn't know better."
"I am fine with restricting buybacks," Trump added. "In fact, I would demand that there be no stock buybacks. I don't want them taking hundreds of millions of dollars and buying back their stock because that does nothing," he said.

Trump didn't realize this would happen because he has zero experience with corporate America. He wanted the corporate tax cuts because it was self serving.

Some corporates saw no good opportunities for investing the funds. But many others did and did not do stock buybacks, using the funds instead to expand their business, pay higher wages, and invest in productivity.

What we do know about increases in corporate tax rates is that they pass the costs along to their customers, fire employees or pay them less or move operations to a more tax friendly jurisdiction.

This line of thinking makes it impossible to ever raise taxes. Trump cut the corporate rate from 35% to 21% with negligible or no economic benefit (Harris and Biden pare only proposing to raise the rate to 28%). But once the rate is cut, all those who buy into trickle down economics insist you can’t increase rates without some economic harm. It creates this weird cycle where you claim benefits to rate cuts that don’t actually exist or impact a majority of the population while insisting we cannot possibly raise rates without harming the economy when you policy decisions bear no fruit and plunder tax revenue, placing more of the tax burden on individuals.

Corporate rates in the US were very high, especially after you add state corporate taxes on top of federal taxes.

The average EU corporate rate is 21.13 percent; across OECD countries it is 23.73 percent. When you combine the 21% federal rate with state level corporate taxes, the U.S. rate is 25.77%. The 2017 rate cuts moved the US from having the fourth highest corporate tax rate in the world at around 35% to the middle of the pack.

Increasing the federal tax to 28% would bring the rate to 32.77% when combined with state tax rates, which would place the US around 10th highest in the world.

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/global/corporate-tax-rates-by-country-2023/#_ftn3

Yes, and? Was the US doing terribly with higher corporate tax rates? Because we didn’t see a tangible benefit to lowering them.

We are one of the largest and wealthiest nations in the world. Acting like we cannot control this situation is beneath us. That includes taking measures to ensure corporations hire US citizens, get taxes on offshore profits and headquarter themselves in the US.

Also, again, the tax foundation is a libertarian organization that support a flat tax.

You may not like the Tax Foundation, but it puts together the data, a nonpartisan activity.

How are you going to force corporations to headquarter themselves in the US?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny thread.. All the eco warriors and LGBTQABCD warriors suddenly want to vote for Trump because their taxes go up a smidge. More than likely she won't have congressional support for most of these proposals and will end up with something rather tame.. much like the pathetic gun control legislation we normally get. So, chill.

If it really ends up being as bad as OP's propaganda, pay up. If you make $400K+, you are afford to. It will still be progressive.

I really hate the "you can afford it" crowd. Makes me even more determined to vote red. And I am pro choice, pro LGBTQ, pro environment. But the biggest impact that politics has on me, personally, is how much of MY money that I use to care for MY loved ones are they going to take. So I hold my nose and vote Republican. I always say, if Republicans would drop their stupid social platforms, they'd be the perfect party. And so would Dems, if they would drop the revolting "you can afford it" + "fair share" BS that disincentivizes hard work and productivity and encourages laziness and hands out.

How much money do you really "need" to care of your family? I'm not saying you should only have enough to see to their needs, but at $400K, you are more than able to care for your family.

You don't get to define what I need. Yes, we have far more than we "need." I suspect you do, too. Our system incentives work and progress by promising a better life to those willing to work hard and increase their earnings over time. By taxing the hell out of high earners, this hard work (and the innovation that comes with it) is disincentivized.

Again, this liberal view of "how much do you need" and "you can afford it" enrages me and gets me to the polls to pull the straight R lever.

You were an R no matter what. This isn’t what changed your mind. Stop being disingenuous.

Yep.

It's such a stupid argument too, because personal income tax is not stopping anyone from "working hard" or "innovating." "I was going to accept the promotion to SVP but only getting a $100,000 raise after taxes instead of a $125,000 raise made it not worth the trouble," said nobody ever.

I’m a doctor. I can earn more by taking more calls and shifts. How much of the extra I will pay in taxes versus keep definitely figures into whether I take those shifts.

And it's not just wage earners who make such a calculation. It can have a chilling effect on entrepreneurship or starting a small business, activities that can generate more jobs for others.

Except it didn’t in the case of Obama’s tax increases. And Trump’s corporate tax cuts were used for stock buy backs.

If corporations don't have good productive uses in which to invest excess funds for growth, they should return them to the owners via either stock buybacks or special dividends/dividend increases.

By the way, stock buybacks aren't different economically from dividend increases. Many companies, especially larger ones with broad access to capital markets, would rather do buybacks than dividend increases because investors really dislike dividend decreases that inevitably follow when companies do have good uses for excess funds. Smaller companies are more wary of stock buybacks because there are often poor market times for them to raise more capital when they need it.

Please, even Trump was not happy with the stock buybacks.

I predicted this would happen. I think I even started a thread about it. I've worked in the corporate world for 20 years, and saw this happen time and again.

https://www.reuters.com/article/business/trump-slams-companies-for-using-us-tax-credit-to-buy-back-stocks-idUSKBN2173HX/

"I never liked stock buybacks from their standpoint. When we did a big tax cut, and when they took the money and did buybacks, that's not building a hangar, that's not buying aircraft, that is not doing the kind of things that I want them to do," he said.

Trump said on Friday that restrictions were not placed on companies at the time because "we thought they would have known better but they didn't know better."
"I am fine with restricting buybacks," Trump added. "In fact, I would demand that there be no stock buybacks. I don't want them taking hundreds of millions of dollars and buying back their stock because that does nothing," he said.

Trump didn't realize this would happen because he has zero experience with corporate America. He wanted the corporate tax cuts because it was self serving.

Some corporates saw no good opportunities for investing the funds. But many others did and did not do stock buybacks, using the funds instead to expand their business, pay higher wages, and invest in productivity.

What we do know about increases in corporate tax rates is that they pass the costs along to their customers, fire employees or pay them less or move operations to a more tax friendly jurisdiction.

Cites for the first paragraph?

For the second, the proposal isn’t simply to raise the corporate tax rate. It includes proposals to disincentive the behavior to flag as concerning.

No cite necessary unless you have a cite showing every corporation did stock buybacks. There are over 5500 companies listed on the NYSE and Nasdaq. The stock buybacks that did occur were concentrated in financial services and information technology. That leaves a lot of other companies.

Well there is a cite above that debunks your claim that the tax cuts results in increased wages or productivity investment.

Why do you need proof that every single company engaged in a stock buy back. We know the 1200 biggest did, amounting to 1.3T. Policy is made and analyzed based on its aggregate impact.

Messed up response.

Many companies onshored their operations once there was a lower corporate rate. There is a reason why Ireland with a 12.5% rate is booming, increasing employment and wages for all.

Ireland is booming and yet the marginal tax rate on income over €40,000 is 40%. Gee, I thought someone said that sort of tax rate would kill economic growth.

You are confusing individual tax rates with corporate tax rates. It is Ireland's low corporate rate that has attracted companies to set up operations there, resulting in the boom.

No, I’m not. Other posters claim that high personal tax rates discourage people from working and hence economic growth. They seem to be working for Ireland if it’s booming.