Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3025
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 10 Jan 2018, 11:23 am

As for taxing the rich, let me see if I could explain this is to you. In California, the wealthy are paying high state income tax and they are not (in general) making that big of a fuss over it. But if they can't deduct state taxes on their federal return they could get upset about it and ultimately that could undermine our own system if if an anti-tax movement develops over it. It's not about helping the rich, it's about keeping over overall liberal policies that matters. So please stop with your silly we're trying to only help the rich argument. If we wanted to do that we wouldn't be taxing them at such a high rate, now would we!
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 10 Jan 2018, 11:23 am

freeman3 wrote:You have lived in California and Massachusetts? Yeah...you just hate living in liberal states with their terrible policies. Why don't you move to Mississippi if it's so darn great?


I can give you six reasons: my grandchildren.

I'd move to Texas, Arizona, or maybe even Utah.

The problem with one-party states, like CA, MA, MD, NY, CT, and even some that are GOP-run: corruption is inevitable. It's not "just" the policies. It's the criminality.

I have a friend who is connected in Democratic politics in California. The party is as corrupt as any in our union.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 10 Jan 2018, 11:29 am

freeman3 wrote:As for taxing the rich, let me see if I could explain this is to you. In California, the wealthy are paying high state income tax and they are not (in general) making that big of a fuss over it. But if they can't deduct state taxes on their federal return they could get upset about it and ultimately that could undermine our own system if if an anti-tax movement develops over it. It's not about helping the rich, it's about keeping over overall liberal policies that matters. So please stop with your silly we're trying to only help the rich argument. If we wanted to do that we wouldn't be taxing them at such a high rate, now would we!


So, your argument, condescendingly presented, is that the rich want to pay more taxes (after all, they bankroll idiots like Kamala Harris), but if they can't deduct some of those high taxes, they may eventually revolt against the high taxes they clamor for, which would hurt the poor?

Try selling that to another jury. This one ain't buying.

I remember when popular Democrats were touting paying more in taxes as "patriotic."

Maybe liberals aren't that patriotic after all? It's fine for "someone" to pay more in taxes, as long as it isn't me?

That is the issue. In reducing deductions, the tax plan requires some to pay more. Those "some" happen to be the wealthiest folks in the bluest states. Apparently, that's not acceptable to . . . the wealthiest folks in the bluest states.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3025
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 10 Jan 2018, 12:18 pm

Apologies for being condescending. My bad. You're smart. Wrong...but smart :smile:
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 10 Jan 2018, 12:59 pm

freeman3 wrote:Apologies for being condescending. My bad. You're smart. Wrong...but smart :smile:


:winkgrin:

Thank you, sir. And, same to you: wrong, but smart.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10945
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 10 Jan 2018, 2:05 pm

Dr. Fate
California has a grocery bag fee. Who does it impact disparately and who does the money go to?

Who does it affect? People who refuse to use reusable shopping bags.
Where does the money go. The grocery stores.
What affect does it have? Where charges like this occur, plastic waste is substantially decreased.

http://www.politifact.com/california/st ... one-penny/

If the GOP had held hearings they would have discovered the problems inherent in the tax law they passed. But they didn't bother.
Like any tax law, you can't complain about tax payers who use the loop holes you leave them. (including state governments. ) Complain about the poorly written law.
As the law rolls out, its likely that there will be many more problems. Its not popular now, and if the problems continue, it won't get more popular ..
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 10 Jan 2018, 2:27 pm

rickyp wrote:Dr. Fate
California has a grocery bag fee. Who does it impact disparately and who does the money go to?

Who does it affect? People who refuse to use reusable shopping bags.
Where does the money go. The grocery stores.
What affect does it have? Where charges like this occur, plastic waste is substantially decreased.

http://www.politifact.com/california/st ... one-penny/


You got everything right, except the easy part. Who does it affect? People who can least AFFORD reusable grocery bags: the poor.

Democrats style themselves as champions of the poor. The truth is they soak them fairly often: sales taxes, highway tolls, gas taxes, grocery bag fees, etc. Every single one of those disparately impacts the poor.

If the GOP had held hearings they would have discovered the problems inherent in the tax law they passed. But they didn't bother.


Actually, it’s a feature, not a bug.

The GOP knew this. Many blue-state Republicans would not vote for it because of this. So, stop whining.

Like any tax law, you can't complain about tax payers who use the loop holes you leave them. (including state governments. ) Complain about the poorly written law.


Obviously, you didn’t read the article. California is looking to create a loophole to help the rich avoid paying their fair share. In other words, it’s a “feature,” not a “bug.” Democrats want the rich to pay less in taxes.

As the law rolls out, its likely that there will be many more problems. Its not popular now, and if the problems continue, it won't get more popular ..


Your “point” has nothing to do with the discussion. Thanks for playing.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10945
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 10 Jan 2018, 3:11 pm

Fate
Actually, it’s a feature, not a bug.


That depends on your point of view doesn't it. If the law affects the tax payer in California more than the tax payer in Mississippi ... If the law affects the State of California's tax reciepts more than the tax receipts of Mississippi...
Then it stands to reason that California and similar states would see it as a "bug" and not a feature.

Fae
The GOP knew this. Many blue-state Republicans would not vote for it because of this.

Did they also know about the possible work around ? And yet did nothing to address the work around in their law?
Why?
I assume that they actually didn't know about the work around possibility.... since the law was rushed through without hearings. and since few legislators actually read the bill before voting.

What the law does is shift the burden of federal taxation even more to coastal states (mostly blue). Already these states subsidize the red states greatly.
https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/ ... 071009.pdf

If California wants to keep its tax revenues equal, and not increase over all taxation on its citizens, it needs to find a gimmick to protect their citizens. Apparently it has... And isn't that what a government do Fate? Work in the interests of its citizens?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 10 Jan 2018, 3:38 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate
Actually, it’s a feature, not a bug.


That depends on your point of view doesn't it. If the law affects the tax payer in California more than the tax payer in Mississippi ... If the law affects the State of California's tax reciepts more than the tax receipts of Mississippi...
Then it stands to reason that California and similar states would see it as a "bug" and not a feature.


Liberal Democrats can certainly address that. Get elected.

Fae
The GOP knew this. Many blue-state Republicans would not vote for it because of this.

Did they also know about the possible work around ? And yet did nothing to address the work around in their law?
Why?


Because they don't write laws for California? That's the CA legislature's job. If they want to do something that may not be legal, the Congress cannot anticipate that--nor should it.

Certainly, it's bizarre that the "soak the rich" party would suddenly reverse course.

I assume that they actually didn't know about the work around possibility.... since the law was rushed through without hearings. and since few legislators actually read the bill before voting.


Yeah, you made that point. However, it has no bearing on what the California legislature is doing. Should they try and anticipate what every State might do?

If this goes into effect, it will be challenged in court. CA may well lose. If not, Congress could move to ban it.

What the law does is shift the burden of federal taxation even more to coastal states (mostly blue). Already these states subsidize the red states greatly.
https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/ ... 071009.pdf


Which is awesome! That's the way Democrats want it--uneven! They are the biggest proponents of a graduated tax system, so there you go! It's "progressive" as in the progressives get taxed the most!

If California wants to keep its tax revenues equal, and not increase over all taxation on its citizens, it needs to find a gimmick to protect their citizens. Apparently it has... And isn't that what a government do Fate? Work in the interests of its citizens?


Right. So, if Republicans do what Democrats do, they're "the party of the rich." If Democrats do it, they're "protecting their citizens."

Very rational.

:laugh:
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 17 Jan 2018, 12:59 pm

freeman3 wrote:Hmm...seems like the best bet is to look at what happened during the 2004 tax holiday, right?

At that that time there was about eight hundred billion held overseas. 362 billion was brought back. 312 qualified for the tax break. So the treasury got about 18 billion dollars.

So less than half of the money was brought back, at a time when the difference between the one-time rate of 5.25% and the normal rate of 35% was massive. Now, we have a very modest difference between 14 and 20 percent I think it is reasonable to assume that there will be a much lower rate of return as companies will wait for more generous terms. Companies for the most part don't need to bring this money for operational reasons, so they can afford to wait this out. It's hard to guesstimate how much will be brought back but 6% tax cut seems like peanuts. 500 billion seems high but if that happened 70 billion would be collected. It could be much, much lower than that. My guess we'll get 25 billion. An accountant would be embarrassed to only get a 6% reduction.

And of course we know what corporations will do with the money and that it will not create jobs and it will have little economic impact. 10 of the 15 companies that brought back the most money last time...cut jobs.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/b ... oogle.com/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnew ... -not-work/


Your services as an economic forecaster are no longer needed.

Apple Inc (AAPL.O) on Wednesday said it will make about $38 billion in tax payments on its overseas cash and plans to open a second U.S. campus as part of a 5-year, $30 billion U.S. investment plan.

Apple said it plans a wave of investing and hiring in the United States and will create 20,000 jobs through hiring at its existing campus and the new one. It will announce the location later this year.

About a third of the new spending will be on data centers to house its iCloud, App Store and Apple Music services. The company has data centers in seven states and also on Wednesday broke ground on an expansion of its operations in Reno, Nevada, where local officials granted it tax breaks on a downtown warehouse.

The announced tax payment was roughly in line with what analysts expected from the tax bill, which requires companies to pay a one-time tax on foreign-held earnings whether they intend to bring them back to the United States or not.


https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-pa ... 30477.html

This is a bad thing?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3025
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 17 Jan 2018, 1:35 pm

Hey if it works, great. Who am I to let my ego be more important than progress. But my measuring stick will be whether the tax plan helps average people instead of just the rich and corporations. And that will take several years to figure out.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 17 Jan 2018, 3:37 pm

freeman3 wrote:Hey if it works, great. Who am I to let my ego be more important than progress. But my measuring stick will be whether the tax plan helps average people instead of just the rich and corporations. And that will take several years to figure out.


The pie is not fixed. It's not "we win, they lose."

The headline from Apple is that it will “contribute” $350 billion to the U.S. economy over the next five years, although it’s unclear exactly how the company came to that number.

But the company promised to create 20,000 new jobs and a new campus thanks, in part, to the prospect of tax reform.

It anticipates a $38 billion tax bill for repatriated cash, as a result of the new tax bill. This implies it will bring back virtually all of its $250 billion in overseas cash.

Apple also said it would spend over $30 billion in capital expenditures over the next five years. About $10 billion in capital expenditures will be investments in U.S. data centers, the company said.


I dunno how 20,000 jobs and a new campus could possibly not be help to "average people."

Maybe Krugman can turn this into a bleep pie, but the reality is pretty clear.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10945
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 18 Jan 2018, 10:00 am

Fates source
About a third of the new spending will be on data centers to house its iCloud, App Store and Apple Music services. The company has data centers in seven states and also on Wednesday broke ground on an expansion of its operations in Reno, Nevada, where local officials granted it tax breaks on a downtown warehouse.

Once a data centre is up and running they typically employ 30 to 50 workers. (And although technical i nature, only a handful require advanced abilities).
Google says they employ about 200 at each of their data centres... But they may also be including local marketing staff ...
Forecasts of permanent employment often fall far short. And they probably are jigged to include the short term jobs created by construction, and the "jobs created" by purchase of equipment.... (Depending on where the equipment is created.)

Whats good about Apples decision to repatriate is that they see the US as a better place to invest than the rest of the world right now. Whats questionable is how they will actually use the $20 billion that they haven't designated to data centres.
The leading Rumour is that it is supposed to go to funding production of the Titan, The self driving electric car... that Apple has had in development for several years...
This, along with the 7 or 8 other manufacturers committed to the development of autonomous cars may well mean that another revolution, like the development of computers, will drive the American economy for the next couple of decades. (There's another thread about electric cars that is hilarious to read in light of the recent news about electric autonomous cars...)
American Universities do not currently graduate enough Engineers and Scientists to meet the employment demands of the burgeoning industry. And that's even though a significant portion of those graduates are foreign students. A surprising number from shit hole countries like China, India, Iran and Nigeria...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/233 ... of-origin/

So there is a demand for qualified immigrants period. Or growth in the US by the next up and coming industrial revolution may be throttled.
Countries will compete for work that the US can't fulfill. Many because they are not only allowing but recruiting immigrants.

If DACA residents are forced to leave, it will only exacerbate this situation. You can't take 600,000 young people (including some 20,000 who are currently employed as teachers) out of the economy and cause a huge hiccup.

There is nothing wrong with Trumps wanting to control immigration. The problem is that walls won't do it... In fact migrant workers used to travel back and forth across the border when it was particularly porous. They would fill an agricultural job for a season and return to Mexico. When the border was "hardened" and travel across it became more difficult - they stayed and brought their families.
The only way to control immigration properly is at the employer level. But many corporate interests don't want it because it would make employees legitimate and more expensive...
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6767
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 18 Jan 2018, 10:11 am

I am fine with penalties on both the illegal immigrants and illegal companies hiring workers here without documentation. I have said that before.

A two sided thrust against the problem is needed. Both are beneficial. Much like the drug problem, you move to take away the demand, and you attack the supply.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 18 Jan 2018, 10:20 am

rickyp wrote:If DACA residents are forced to leave, it will only exacerbate this situation. You can't take 600,000 young people (including some 20,000 who are currently employed as teachers) out of the economy and cause a huge hiccup.


Erm, just because DACA is removed won't mean every DACA recipient is instantly deported. And, some of them aren't so "young." Some are 35+.

Furthermore, not every DACA recipient is a teacher, combat veteran, or valedictorian. I wish liberals would stop pretending they are.

There is nothing wrong with Trumps wanting to control immigration. The problem is that walls won't do it... In fact migrant workers used to travel back and forth across the border when it was particularly porous. They would fill an agricultural job for a season and return to Mexico. When the border was "hardened" and travel across it became more difficult - they stayed and brought their families.
The only way to control immigration properly is at the employer level. But many corporate interests don't want it because it would make employees legitimate and more expensive...


Creating a corporate disincentive is important. Punish companies that violate the law and do so with gusto.

Why? Because punishment works. Imagine paying corporations to hire illegal aliens. What would happen?

They'd hire more of them.

So, what happens when you grant amnesty to illegal aliens and don't seal the border?

You get more of them.

Incentives work. Disincentives work.

Democrats are suddenly worried about the government wasting money when it comes to a wall. How sweet of them to find ONE thing the government should not spend money on, other than defense.

However, a wall will surely dissuade some. Proper use of E-verify type programs to stop illegals from working, renting, getting benefits, etc. would likely render the wall mostly useless.

But, I suspect the real reason Democrats are "morally" opposed to the wall is because Trump promised it.

That's not a valid reason to oppose it.

Their proposal for a "clean DACA bill" is folly. Shutting the government down for DACA would be the kindest gift they could give Trump.