(04-18-2019 08:20 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 07:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I blame republicans for this. They made no discernible effort to get out in front of this.
Moreover, the message that I've never seen or heard them get out is that the corporate tax cut that drew a lot of fire was absolutely essential to eliminate a huge competitive gap that US companies were facing. Before 2017 we had the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, almost twice the average rate. Now we are slightly below the average if you consider only federal taxes, but somewhat above if you also consider average state taxes. If you don't think that tax differential drove businesses and jobs and economic activity offshore, then you are simply too naive for belief. No, not everybody who moved overseas did it for taxes. But some sure as hell did. And there went a big hunk of our middle class with them. Since that law was passed, we've added something on the order of 450,000 manufacturing jobs, after Obama told us repeatedly that manufacturing wasn't coming back. Republicans were simply asleep at the wheel on this, like so many other things.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend, but I'm getting damn tired of my enemies having such incompetent enemies.

Any discernible proof yet whether the tax cut had anything to do with these jobs?

Any discernible proof that it didn't? Particularly considering that it was supposed to do precisely that?

Quote:And no, Obama did not say blanketly that "manufacturing jobs were not coming back." And yes, while manufacturing jobs may have increased due to a better economy, how many of these jobs gains are the result of jobs coming back from over seas?

From PBS: A steel worker union official asked President Barack Obama at a June 1 town hall in Elkhart, Indiana, about job losses at a plant run by Carrier, an air conditioning manufacturer that recently announced plans to move jobs from Indiana to Mexico. He replied that some jobs "are just not going to come back," while others are in flux or rebounding. That may not be blanket, but it's pretty close.

As long as they are increasing, who cares wether they are coming back? I've said many times that the real story under the old tax law was not how many jobs were being sent overseas, but how many new jobs were being created there rather than here. Bring our tax rates in line with the rest of the world, and those new jobs--or at least our fair share--will be created here. And manufacturing jobs are important because jobs that are actually making things--manufacturing, construction--add value and can therefore pay more.

(04-18-2019 09:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 08:20 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 07:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I blame republicans for this. They made no discernible effort to get out in front of this.
Moreover, the message that I've never seen or heard them get out is that the corporate tax cut that drew a lot of fire was absolutely essential to eliminate a huge competitive gap that US companies were facing. Before 2017 we had the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, almost twice the average rate. Now we are slightly below the average if you consider only federal taxes, but somewhat above if you also consider average state taxes. If you don't think that tax differential drove businesses and jobs and economic activity offshore, then you are simply too naive for belief. No, not everybody who moved overseas did it for taxes. But some sure as hell did. And there went a big hunk of our middle class with them. Since that law was passed, we've added something on the order of 450,000 manufacturing jobs, after Obama told us repeatedly that manufacturing wasn't coming back. Republicans were simply asleep at the wheel on this, like so many other things.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend, but I'm getting damn tired of my enemies having such incompetent enemies.

Any discernible proof yet whether the tax cut had anything to do with these jobs?

Any discernible proof that it didn't? Particularly considering that it was supposed to do precisely that?

Quote:And no, Obama did not say blanketly that "manufacturing jobs were not coming back." And yes, while manufacturing jobs may have increased due to a better economy, how many of these jobs gains are the result of jobs coming back from over seas?

From PBS: A steel worker union official asked President Barack Obama at a June 1 town hall in Elkhart, Indiana, about job losses at a plant run by Carrier, an air conditioning manufacturer that recently announced plans to move jobs from Indiana to Mexico. He replied that some jobs "are just not going to come back," while others are in flux or rebounding. That may not be blanket, but it's pretty close.

As long as they are increasing, who cares wether they are coming back? I've said many times that the real story under the old tax law was not how many jobs were being sent overseas, but how many new jobs were being created there rather than here. Bring our tax rates in line with the rest of the world, and those new jobs--or at least our fair share--will be created here. And manufacturing jobs are important because jobs that are actually making things--manufacturing, construction--add value and can therefore pay more.

Right, he said SOME jobs. And yes, SOME jobs will never come back. What's your issue with his comment again? Thought so.

And you want me to prove the negative?

I will give everyone the greatest healthcare plan ever. I will show it to you after the next election. Believe me.

(04-18-2019 12:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Right, he said SOME jobs. And yes, SOME jobs will never come back. What's your issue with his comment again? Thought so.

The SOME to which he was clearly referring were manufacturing jobs. He made that point several times, and you and his water carriers emphasized it.

Quote:And you want me to prove the negative?

The reality is that no direct connection can be shown or denied in matters such as this. You can't "prove" the positive or negative. But common sense says that when the US corporate tax rate is twice that of other countries, that then reducing it to bring it in line will attract more jobs. That was how it was advertised, that is what's happening, it's reasonable to infer that the expected connection is happening.

(04-17-2019 11:42 AM)king king Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 11:34 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 09:08 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 09:04 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 08:54 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Are we ever going to come to our senses and change the way we collect taxes? I still fully support some type of consumption paradigm. We should not even have to file any more. This is beyond stupid.

it really is that simple....the question that remains is how to fix 'the washtub' in DC...good luck with that....

I'm like what we have. Consumption taxes breed vast black markets.

We already have lots of black markets...particularly in regard to criminal activites like drugs, prostitution, gambling.. ect. A consumption tax would actually capture revenue from these activities where our current system does not. It would also capture revenue from foreign visitors. Unless one engaging in the black market strictly bought black market goods a consumption tax would take revenue from them when they made purchases. A system like HR25 is designed to be revenue neutral but many experts think it would actually drag in more than now due to the capture of revenue from black market and criminal activities.

Even drug dealers, prostitutes, and bookies need diapers.

......and food, clothing and every thing else sold at Walmart. The point is that untold billions of dollars of black market activity(any transaction in which the IRS is not informed of) goes totally untaxed at the Federal level. A consumption tax pulls that in. The only way anyone could escape taxation under a consumption paradigm would be to buy only used goods and grow and raise your own food. Very few of us could or would do that.

(04-18-2019 06:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 12:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Right, he said SOME jobs. And yes, SOME jobs will never come back. What's your issue with his comment again? Thought so.

The SOME to which he was clearly referring were manufacturing jobs. He made that point several times, and you and his water carriers emphasized it.

Quote:And you want me to prove the negative?

The reality is that no direct connection can be shown or denied in matters such as this. You can't "prove" the positive or negative. But common sense says that when the US corporate tax rate is twice that of other countries, that then reducing it to bring it in line will attract more jobs. That was how it was advertised, that is what's happening, it's reasonable to infer that the expected connection is happening.

Ive said it a hundred times....Only individuals pay taxes. Businesses pass on their tax burden in the price of goods and services. We should have long ago replaced our system with one that taxes at the point of consumption and ends tax rates on everyone. You buy goods and services?...You pay the tax. Pure and simple. No loopholes..not exemptions for anyone. Id have no problem extending this to 401c's either.

You want to see a hot economy? Institute a consumption tax that would eliminate withholding and put that money back in the hands of the consumers. Id bet a good sum that the treasury would see an instant increase in revenues.

(04-18-2019 01:40 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  I will give everyone the greatest healthcare plan ever. I will show it to you after the next election. Believe me.

I thought we already had that?

(04-18-2019 06:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 12:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Right, he said SOME jobs. And yes, SOME jobs will never come back. What's your issue with his comment again? Thought so.

The SOME to which he was clearly referring were manufacturing jobs. He made that point several times, and you and his water carriers emphasized it.

Quote:And you want me to prove the negative?

The reality is that no direct connection can be shown or denied in matters such as this. You can't "prove" the positive or negative. But common sense says that when the US corporate tax rate is twice that of other countries, that then reducing it to bring it in line will attract more jobs. That was how it was advertised, that is what's happening, it's reasonable to infer that the expected connection is happening.

Yes, SOME manufacturing jobs. And yes, SOME manufacturing jobs are not coming back. He's not wrong, and you know it. He also equated some it to workplace innovation and the use of automation. Both of which are true and occurring. Move along.

(04-19-2019 10:15 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 06:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 12:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Right, he said SOME jobs. And yes, SOME jobs will never come back. What's your issue with his comment again? Thought so.

The SOME to which he was clearly referring were manufacturing jobs. He made that point several times, and you and his water carriers emphasized it.

Quote:And you want me to prove the negative?

The reality is that no direct connection can be shown or denied in matters such as this. You can't "prove" the positive or negative. But common sense says that when the US corporate tax rate is twice that of other countries, that then reducing it to bring it in line will attract more jobs. That was how it was advertised, that is what's happening, it's reasonable to infer that the expected connection is happening.

Yes, SOME manufacturing jobs. And yes, SOME manufacturing jobs are not coming back. He's not wrong, and you know it. He also equated some it to workplace innovation and the use of automation. Both of which are true and occurring. Move along.

Innovation and automation are coming and will reduce, but not eliminate, manual labor. Rather that throw up our arms in resignation, a better approach seems to be to get as many of those as we can. Automation plays to what should be one of our strengths (educated work force) and reduces the impact of one of our weaknesses (higher labor costs). Those $1 a day workers in third world countries don't have the skill sets to operate high tech automated processes.

Some jobs are coming back, some are not. My larger point is that we should be doing what we can to bring as many back as we can. And removing a huge tax disincentive is a big step in doing that. The tax cut was conceived as a way to bring manufacturing jobs back, that was what it was supposed to do, and it is happening. No I have not gone and interviewed every job creator to determine why. But when it makes conceptual sense, and that was promoted as one advantage of bringing our corporate taxes more in line with the rest of the developed world, and the predicted result is occurring, it's not much of a leap to conclude that it is working.

(04-19-2019 09:31 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 01:40 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  I will give everyone the greatest healthcare plan ever. I will show it to you after the next election. Believe me.

I thought we already had that?

It needs to be fixed, but it's better than the plan that doesn't exist in trump's empty head.

So, it's been two years since the tax cuts. I found an interesting article that discusses the impacts of the tax cuts from perception/reality and/or winners/losers. Note: this isn't the most conservative source either.

Two years after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act — who are the winners and the losers?

We have more mony coming into the treasury than ever before. So the numbnuts that keep saying cutting taxes causes a growth of the debt and deficit are proven wrong once again.

(02-11-2020 03:18 PM)VA49er Wrote:  So, it's been two years since the tax cuts. I found an interesting article that discusses the impacts of the tax cuts from perception/reality and/or winners/losers. Note: this isn't the most conservative source either.

Two years after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act — who are the winners and the losers?

So that article is saying the tax refund should be more noticeable this year? I'm in the highest tax bracket in that chart and my 2019 refund is about the same as it was in 2018 (and 2017 and 2016, etc., etc., etc.). Still not seeing any change myself.

(02-11-2020 03:45 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(02-11-2020 03:18 PM)VA49er Wrote:  So, it's been two years since the tax cuts. I found an interesting article that discusses the impacts of the tax cuts from perception/reality and/or winners/losers. Note: this isn't the most conservative source either.

Two years after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act — who are the winners and the losers?

So that article is saying the tax refund should be more noticeable this year? I'm in the highest tax bracket in that chart and my 2019 refund is about the same as it was in 2018 (and 2017 and 2016, etc., etc., etc.). Still not seeing any change myself.

Why does everyone get wrapped on the "refund". The only thing the refund tells you was if you had the right amount withheld from from your paychecks. You should be looking at your total tax (state & federal) and your effective tax rate.

The most interesting thing about that article is this:


30% of those with under $30k
69.1% of those with between $30-$50k
81.7% of those with between $50 - $75k
86,6% of those with between $75-$100k
and
89,5% of those with over $100k in household income received tax cuts.

But didn't our leftist friends on here decry this as a "tax cut for the rich"? How could they be so wrong?

crumbs!

(02-11-2020 03:48 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(02-11-2020 03:45 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(02-11-2020 03:18 PM)VA49er Wrote:  So, it's been two years since the tax cuts. I found an interesting article that discusses the impacts of the tax cuts from perception/reality and/or winners/losers. Note: this isn't the most conservative source either.

Two years after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act — who are the winners and the losers?

So that article is saying the tax refund should be more noticeable this year? I'm in the highest tax bracket in that chart and my 2019 refund is about the same as it was in 2018 (and 2017 and 2016, etc., etc., etc.). Still not seeing any change myself.

Why does everyone get wrapped on the "refund". The only thing the refund tells you was if you had the right amount withheld from from your paychecks. You should be looking at your total tax (state & federal) and your effective tax rate.

Yeah, the article points out it's a common fallacy for people to look only at the tax refunds to determine if they benefited or not from the tax cuts. People that got smaller refunds hated the tax cuts even though, due to changes in withholding rates, they actually made more money throughout the year.

Our income went down 6%(wife is a prn nurse so her income is not steady) and our tax bill went down 15% between 2018 and 2019

(02-11-2020 04:48 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  Our income went down 6%(wife is a prn nurse so her income is not steady) and our tax bill went down 15% between 2018 and 2019

Makes sense, right?

(02-11-2020 04:48 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  Our income went down 6%(wife is a prn nurse so her income is not steady) and our tax bill went down 15% between 2018 and 2019

You must be lying. Everyone else is saying that it was just a tax cut for the billionaires. How much money do you make?