2020 US Election (Part One)

[Estebonrober]

Hence, tax reform not tax cut. In effect, the old plan was a tariff on our own businesses.

J

You could have gotten many more to agree with you had you made that tax cut revenue neutral. Instead we've indebted our children and grandchildren so apple could launch a huge stock buyback.
Also this race to the bottom globally on business taxation is a foolhardy enterprise driven by the bad parts of globalism. Its reinforcing negative stewardship in our societies and as long as that continues the disparity in first world countries will worsen. Eventually that gap will lead to unrest. This policy itself is nearsighted.

 

[onejayhawk]

What did the tax reform achieve that was necessary? What problem did it solve?

I already covered this.

Hence, tax reform not tax cut. In effect, the old plan was a tariff on our own businesses.

J

 

[metalhead]

That makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Did any businesses use the cuts to invest? Businesses buy back stock for a variety of reasons ostensibly to better their prospects. Do you believe increasing tax rates will make businesses more competitive? Seems to me businesses seek out low tax jurisdictions so they can better compete.

Businesses buy back stock to reward owners and boost stock prices, which also rewards owners. No one mentioned raising taxes as an alternative. Keeping them the same was an option. Lowering taxes doesn't keep US businesses competitive, it might keep the US competitive in attracting and keeping businesses. Businesses don't compete on their tax rates; they compete on their product and services.

 

[stinkubus]

In related news, I managed to find a plausible Dem map where they lose despite winning Texas and Arizona. Lighter shades are for states that flip in my scenario vs. 2016.

That map isn't at all plausible. There's no way TX is going blue while the upper Midwest and PA stay red.

 

[AdrienIer]

Not really. Texas is reasonably well educated and with lots of non-whites. Midwest is lots of non educated whites. This map is just a more extreme 2016 in terms of party shift in specific populations

 

[Hrothbern]

Businesses buy back stock to reward owners and boost stock prices, which also rewards owners. No one mentioned raising taxes as an alternative. Keeping them the same was an option. Lowering taxes doesn't keep US businesses competitive, it might keep the US competitive in attracting and keeping businesses. Businesses don't compete on their tax rates; they compete on their product and services.

Yes
A growing business investing all the time does not pay much tax anyway.
Deduction of depn from the profit comes before tax.
It is when you stop or cut on investing that lowering tax becomes important.
Important.. well... it becomes beneficial for the owners... not for the country, the jobs, the customers.... the labour productivity.

 

[metalhead]

Imagine where corporations would prioritize spending their capital if there were high corporate tax rates, with deductions available only for money spent on wages and benefits for non-management workers. Then imagine how much better we would do if there were additional tax penalties for businesses that grow above a certain size.

Corporstists and Capitalists always argue that companies should and will act in ways that best suit their bottom lines. So let's take that as a given, and use it so that what is best for corporate bottom lines is aligned with what is best for society and, specifically, what is best for workers.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Not really. Texas is reasonably well educated and with lots of non-whites. Midwest is lots of non educated whites.

You are correct in the racial assessment. The educational assessment, not so much.

http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/?level=nation&mode=map&state=0&submeasure=232

% that is a High school graduate, midwest has TX beat in every age bracket (over 25), except Indiana in the 25-34 age group.
Associate degree or higher, Midwest wins in the younger groups, TX pulls close to a few in the 45-64 age, then beats half of the midwest in the 65+ age bracket.
Bachelor's degree or higher, most midwest beats TX in the younger groups, TX is in the middle of the pack with the midwest in 45-64, and among the leaders in the 65+ group.
Young Mid Westerners is better educated than young Texans. Old Texans are slightly better educated than Old Mid Westerners

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You are correct in the racial assessment. The educational assessment, not so much.

http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/?level=nation&mode=map&state=0&submeasure=232

% that is a High school graduate, midwest has TX beat in every age bracket (over 25), except Indiana in the 25-34 age group.
Associate degree or higher, Midwest wins in the younger groups, TX pulls close to a few in the 45-64 age, then beats half of the midwest in the 65+ age bracket.
Bachelor's degree or higher, most midwest beats TX in the younger groups, TX is in the middle of the pack with the midwest in 45-64, and among the leaders in the 65+ group.
Young Mid Westerners is better educated than young Texans. Old Texans are slightly better educated than Old Mid Westerners

The difference being that young educated mid-westerners aren't as likely to stay mid-westerners.

 

[Bamspeedy]

The difference being that young educated mid-westerners aren't as likely to stay mid-westerners.

In the 65+ age bracket, TX may be more educated, but they aren't moving for work at that age.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

In the 65+ age bracket, TX may be more educated, but they aren't moving for work at that age.

I didn't say that young educated midwesterners were moving directly to Texas. They move here first, then move to Texas when they are old.

 

[Estebonrober]

Corporstists and Capitalists always argue that companies should and will act in ways that best suit their bottom lines. So let's take that as a given, and use it so that what is best for corporate bottom lines is aligned with what is best for society and, specifically, what is best for workers.

This has been my big thing. We should structure capitalism so it serves all as much as possible. It is a means to and end not an end in of itself.

 

[rah]

You don't structure capitalism, capitalism structures itself for it's own sake.

 

[stinkubus]

Where can I find a real world example of an economy that doesn't have heavy involvement of the government?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Where can I find a real world example of an economy that doesn't have heavy involvement of the government?

Holland, 1619.

 

[stinkubus]

I know you are being facetious, but the tulip was introduced to Europe as the result of a diplomatic gesture on the part of the Ottomans. The fact that the product was even available to sell was the result of government action.

 

[Estebonrober]

Where can I find a real world example of an economy that doesn't have heavy involvement of the government?

In my view of history this is almost an oxymoron. You can’t hve economy without government. One always begets the other, by necessity.

 

[JollyRoger]

The tax "reform" gave me the incentive not to spend on labor, products, or services. I get to deduct 20% of my business income from my taxable income. If I spend on labor, products, or services, that reduces my income and thus reduces the amount I can deduct from my taxable income. It is the exact backwards way to spur a business to invest in itself. I've got other things to spend the bounty on. That cocaine is not going to snort itself off the hooker's backside.

 

[Berzerker]

Who is Apple really competing with so much so they needed Ireland...

https://www.marketing91.com/apple-competitors/

The fact Apple sought out lower taxes makes my point

You could have gotten many more to agree with you had you made that tax cut revenue neutral. Instead we've indebted our children and grandchildren so apple could launch a huge stock buyback. Also this race to the bottom globally on business taxation is a foolhardy enterprise driven by the bad parts of globalism. Its reinforcing negative stewardship in our societies and as long as that continues the disparity in first world countries will worsen. Eventually that gap will lead to unrest. This policy itself is nearsighted.

If you could set tax policy how much would you tax domestic businesses? Would you 'roughly' match that rate with import tariffs on foreign competitors? What would you do if foreign competition had the advantage of paying lower taxes in their homelands and were out competing the businesses in your country? Hit 'em with tariffs, lower your tax rates, or bleed jobs and industry?

I wouldn't mind a small tax to cover the costs of infrastructure enjoyed by those businesses, but generally there should be no business taxes - hit everyone with income and sales taxes. I dont even like how business got stuck paying for health care (wage and price controls), I'd rather free business of that burden with 'medicare for all' paid from general revenue (and cuts in the military/law enforcement/prison industries).

Businesses buy back stock to reward owners and boost stock prices, which also rewards owners. No one mentioned raising taxes as an alternative. Keeping them the same was an option. Lowering taxes doesn't keep US businesses competitive, it might keep the US competitive in attracting and keeping businesses. Businesses don't compete on their tax rates; they compete on their product and services.

Did any businesses use the cuts to invest? Do you believe increasing tax rates will make businesses more competitive?

If foreign competition gets a tax cut in their country and our rates stay the same, does that make our businesses more or less competitive? The foreign tax cut has the effect of raising our rates wrt the ability to compete. Lowering our rates helps our businesses compete.

Imagine where corporations would prioritize spending their capital if there were high corporate tax rates

Other places with lower tax rates?

Corporstists and Capitalists always argue that companies should and will act in ways that best suit their bottom lines. So let's take that as a given, and use it so that what is best for corporate bottom lines is aligned with what is best for society and, specifically, what is best for workers.

We'd lose manufacturing jobs to places with lower taxes