Financial News

[Balta1701]

If youre going to say something is "laughable" at least have the courtesy of commenting on the actual quote, which is supported by fact. You have yet to bring in all of these other economists who think 4% unemployment isnt low. Or have yet to bring in any articles etc where economists dont talk about a range of unemployment floor.

I need to bring in other economists to prove that something that is happening right now can happen?

[Soxbadger]

I need to bring in other economists to prove that something that is happening right now can happen?

 

The key word was "thought".

 

Its just like saying "Many scientists thought the Earth was flat."

 

Im not sure if its purposeful or not, but the crux of the post was that currently unemployment is low. And the support for that was many economists thought sustained 4% unemployment may not even be possible.

 

Now maybe your saying 3% is the floor? I dont know, but the entire point was that there is an unemployment floor and that the US economy is around that floor.

[Balta1701]

The key word was "thought".

 

Its just like saying "Many scientists thought the Earth was flat."

 

Im not sure if its purposeful or not, but the crux of the post was that currently unemployment is low. And the support for that was many economists thought sustained 4% unemployment may not even be possible.

 

Now maybe your saying 3% is the floor? I dont know, but the entire point was that there is an unemployment floor and that the US economy is around that floor.

Well you specifically cited ones who "thought" the range was in 5-6%. I totally agree there is a floor, I think we're approaching it but not there yet, and that's why I think there will still be some stimulative effect from this tax cut, for example. We'll know we're close to the floor when we have a much stronger spike in earnings because companies will be paying higher wages to attract workers. We may also see an increase in productivity, after a very long time, if the labor market gets tight enough that companies look for other ways to improve output without having to hire.

 

I also think, if there are economists out there who are saying the floor is several percent higher than it was 98-2000, that we need better economists, and it's not worth citing ones who said that there's now a 5% floor to U3 once we've passed that.

[Soxbadger]

Well you specifically cited ones who "thought" the range was in 5-6%. I totally agree there is a floor, I think we're approaching it but not there yet, and that's why I think there will still be some stimulative effect from this tax cut, for example. We'll know we're close to the floor when we have a much stronger spike in earnings because companies will be paying higher wages to attract workers. We may also see an increase in productivity, after a very long time, if the labor market gets tight enough that companies look for other ways to improve output without having to hire.

 

I also think, if there are economists out there who are saying the floor is several percent higher than it was 98-2000, that we need better economists, and it's not worth citing ones who said that there's now a 5% floor to U3 once we've passed that.

 

Yes I cited ones who said 5-6% because that further proves the point that 4% is low. If you want to prove something is low (imo) the best way would be to show people who thought it could never even get there.

 

I think wage increase etc is much more complicated and a lot of it depends on how easy it is to hire people outside of the US or replace them with automation. A big part of the reason why there isnt huge wage increases is that I can hire someone from another country far cheaper or I can get a machine to do it.

 

For example, McDonalds now has kiosks to take your orders. Those kiosks compete with the workers for the cashier job, if the cashiers start making too much money, you start replacing more of them with the kiosks.

[StrangeSox]

Automation is going to do some pretty awful things to the work force, more than it's already done in a lot of sectors, and there's no easy answer there. If we automate away the need for a lot of jobs, how are those people going to make ends meet?

 

Weirdly enough, Jewel has pulled out their self-checkout lanes in a lot of stores and replaced them with expanded express checkouts.

[Balta1701]

Yes I cited ones who said 5-6% because that further proves the point that 4% is low. If you want to prove something is low (imo) the best way would be to show people who thought it could never even get there.

 

I think wage increase etc is much more complicated and a lot of it depends on how easy it is to hire people outside of the US or replace them with automation. A big part of the reason why there isnt huge wage increases is that I can hire someone from another country far cheaper or I can get a machine to do it.

 

For example, McDonalds now has kiosks to take your orders. Those kiosks compete with the workers for the cashier job, if the cashiers start making too much money, you start replacing more of them with the kiosks.

Then, as I said - we'd start seeing a boost in productivity, that's literally how that is defined - doing more business with the same number of workers. That has been remarkably low for a decade as well, and there may only be some hints of it ticking up the last few months.

[Soxbadger]

Then, as I said - we'd start seeing a boost in productivity, that's literally how that is defined - doing more business with the same number of workers. That has been remarkably low for a decade as well, and there may only be some hints of it ticking up the last few months.

 

https://commercial.jpmorganchase.com/pages/...on-effect-wages

 

I think this article touches on a lot of things we are talking about.

 

Its a combination of a lot of things, but I still dont think the argument that "unemployment is low" is some novel thing.

[Chisoxfn]

Let me ask a question...do people think our actual corporate tax rate was appropriate? Staying away from individuals for a second, do we think Corporations are taxed appropriately? This is somewhat of a loaded question because some of this is dependent on what industry the Corporation is in?

[Balta1701]

Let me ask a question...do people think our actual corporate tax rate was appropriate? Staying away from individuals for a second, do we think Corporations are taxed appropriately? This is somewhat of a loaded question because some of this is dependent on what industry the Corporation is in?

God no. It was a disaster of a statutory rate that was too high and way too many deductions for everything. If you owned a good set of lobbyists, you could make it so that the bigger your company was, the smaller the tax rate you paid.

 

We fixed the statutory rate that was too high and opened even more gaping holes with this bill. It basically fixes the problem of anyone who is incorporated having to pay taxes. If you're a believer in helping small businesses grow, this bill is a major obstacle now as big businesses now have a much larger tax advantage. The "simplification" part, the part where we're wasting huge amounts of resources on finding tax loopholes - that actually was made worse by this bill.

[Soxbadger]

Let me ask a question...do people think our actual corporate tax rate was appropriate? Staying away from individuals for a second, do we think Corporations are taxed appropriately? This is somewhat of a loaded question because some of this is dependent on what industry the Corporation is in?

 

I dont really have an answer to that. I think that the problem is that wealth keeps getting more concentrated in a few people and that is just not beneficial long term for our society.

 

So the issue I have with the tax cut is that on one hand we are saying we dont have enough money to make sure everyone has some level of health insurance or food on their table. But at the same time we are taking actions to give back more to people who dont really need it.

 

Again thats just all opinion.

[StrangeSox]

God no. It was a disaster of a statutory rate that was too high and way too many deductions for everything. If you owned a good set of lobbyists, you could make it so that the bigger your company was, the smaller the tax rate you paid.

 

We fixed the statutory rate that was too high and opened even more gaping holes with this bill. It basically fixes the problem of anyone who is incorporated having to pay taxes. If you're a believer in helping small businesses grow, this bill is a major obstacle now as big businesses now have a much larger tax advantage. The "simplification" part, the part where we're wasting huge amounts of resources on finding tax loopholes - that actually was made worse by this bill.

 

pretty much my thoughts as well

[bmags]

Let me ask a question...do people think our actual corporate tax rate was appropriate? Staying away from individuals for a second, do we think Corporations are taxed appropriately? This is somewhat of a loaded question because some of this is dependent on what industry the Corporation is in?

 

No, but I would have lowered the rate and raised cap gains to fund gains on lower end..

 

Conceivable bill.

Lower corp rate to 27%, raise cap gains to 19% and 25%, I don't know what math looks like, maybe raise top two brackets to 36.5 and 41.

Increase EITC and Child Tax credit, cap MITC and eliminate 529s. Raise standard deduction, keep personal exemption.

[StrangeSox]

No, but I would have lowered the rate and raised cap gains to fund gains on lower end..

 

Conceivable bill.

Lower corp rate to 27%, raise cap gains to 19% and 25%, I don't know what math looks like, maybe raise top two brackets to 36.5 and 41.

Increase EITC and Child Tax credit, cap MITC and eliminate 529s. Raise standard deduction, keep personal exemption.

 

Mortgage interest deduction should be gone entirely, I think basically every economist agrees it's bad public policy that just distorts the housing market and inflates home prices. I'd support that as part of a broad tax reform plan that actually simplified things and, on the whole, made our tax code more progressive instead of regressive.

 

Ideally 529's would become irrelevant because we'd properly fund state school systems so that they weren't prohibitively expensive or even go back to the old UC "free for every resident" days.

[caulfield12]

Dear Mr. Jenks:

 

Support with evidence any Fortune 500 corporations paying more than an average rate of 19% in Federal/corporation taxes over the last decade.

 

Support with evidence any of the Top 1% paying more than that same 19-21% for their individual Federal income taxes...due to the majority of their earnings being taxed at 19% due to capital gains/stock options.

 

Nobody's going to pay the government MORE (especially the military-industrial complex, they will donate to veterans' organizations instead).

 

But they will do the following:

 

1) Run for political office/advocate for fairness/equity in policy

2) Vote

3) Donate to local charities/churches/501c3's

4) Volunteer

5) Start their own organizations. In particular, there's going to be a greater need (the way things are going) that lots of seniors are going to be hurting due to increased health care/prescription medicine costs, potential cuts in Medicare/Medicaid/SS and the fact that their cost-of-living (COLA) increases are not keeping up with the "real" rate of inflation over time.

 

 

The system is completely gamed against the middle class. With the estate taxes being bumped up to $11 (individual) and $22 (couple) million, and with the fact that your cost-basis gets bumped up to present day values should you inherit significant investment accounts from family members, it's almost impossible to see any way of avoiding 90% of wealth going to the top 1-2% in the near future.

Edited December 22, 2017 by caulfield12

[Dick Allen]

Ivanka on Fox and Friends is looking forward to this spring when people will be filing their taxes on a single postcard.

 

Yep, she's a Trump. No need for Maury.

Edited December 22, 2017 by Dick Allen

[ptatc]

As a percentage of his income, it is far, far less.

But the highest tax bracket has a higher % to pay than the lower tax brackets. So the rich pay more by % and more by gross amount.

 

 

By saying "as a percentage of their income" its like saying you want what they have just because they have it.

[caulfield12]

But the highest tax bracket has a higher % to pay than the lower tax brackets. So the rich pay more by % and more by gross amount.

 

 

By saying "as a percentage of their income" its like saying you want what they have just because they have it.

 

 

No, they don't, because for the Top 1-2%, the majority of their income is classified as a capital gain and taxed at a much lower percentage than a CEO/executive salary.

 

It's the same exact reason Silicon Valley employees are always fighting for stock options, compared to salary/benefits packages. Being on the right side of a huge IPO offering for a Facebook, Nvidia, Uber, etc., sets your family up for life when you're only in your 20's or 30's.

 

The average member of the middle class, because of the changes in itemization/standard deduction...is MUCH more likely to pay those published rates or higher brackets than previously due to changes in the tax code.

 

Whereas no members of the Top 10% are really paying anything more than their salaries at those higher Federal rates (once again, those salaries being a small percentage of their overall financial assets).

Edited December 22, 2017 by caulfield12

[Dam8610]

But the highest tax bracket has a higher % to pay than the lower tax brackets. So the rich pay more by % and more by gross amount.

 

 

By saying "as a percentage of their income" its like saying you want what they have just because they have it.

 

Not "just because they have it" so much as "because that's what pays for society to be a society".

[caulfield12]

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/...porate-tax-rate

 

From 1950 until about the middle of the Reagan years, the rate for corporate taxes was very close to 50%. In fact, it was between 50-55% for at least half of that time. (just click on max, like a stock chart to go back to around 1915)

 

Somehow, that "robbing" of the corporations didn't keep America from being the strongest, most prosperous country in the world as the Baby Boom generation was born from 1945-1960.

[ptatc]

No, they don't, because for the Top 1-2%, the majority of their income is classified as a capital gain and taxed at a much lower percentage than a CEO/executive salary.

 

It's the same exact reason Silicon Valley employees are always fighting for stock options, compared to salary/benefits packages. Being on the right side of a huge IPO offering for a Facebook, Nvidia, Uber, etc., sets your family up for life when you're only in your 20's or 30's.

 

The average member of the middle class, because of the changes in itemization/standard deduction...is MUCH more likely to pay those published rates or higher brackets than previously due to changes in the tax code.

 

Whereas no members of the Top 10% are really paying anything more than their salaries at those higher Federal rates (once again, those salaries being a small percentage of their overall financial assets).

Not according to the IRS. Look at the tax revenue collected table on their website. The last data was from 2015.

There were 150,493,263 submissions.

Only 99,012,731 submissions were considered to have "taxable income"

 

Of those 1,320,338 made 500,000 or more. The tax collected made up 25.1% of all taxes collected. That means 1.3% of the people who paid taxes paid 25% of all tax revenue.

 

If you look at all submissions, that .01% of all people who submitted taxes, paid for 25% of all tax revenue.

 

They may hide a great deal of taxable income but they are still paying a a vast amount more than others.

[ptatc]

Not "just because they have it" so much as "because that's what pays for society to be a society".

that can be said already because of the vast amount more they pay than everyone else.

 

[caulfield12]

Not according to the IRS. Look at the tax revenue collected table on their website. The last data was from 2015.

There were 150,493,263 submissions.

Only 99,012,731 submissions were considered to have "taxable income"

 

Of those 1,320,338 made 500,000 or more. The tax collected made up 25.1% of all taxes collected. That means 1.3% of the people who paid taxes paid 25% of all tax revenue.

 

If you look at all submissions, that .01% of all people who submitted taxes, paid for 25% of all tax revenue.

 

They may hide a great deal of taxable income but they are still paying a a vast amount more than others.

 

 

We're talking about two different things.

 

Total percentage of all tax revenue derived is quite different from marginal tax rates for each household.

 

It's back to that overall question of fairness or equity.

 

• , Buffett told NBC Nightly News that he pays a smaller tax rate than multiple employees in his office.
• In 2011, Buffett wrote an op-ed in the New York Times called "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich." In the article, Buffett said that his taxes amounted to "only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office."
• In 2013, he told CNBC that while his tax rate rose 8 to 9 points more that year, "The differential between me and the rest of the office, not just my secretary but the rest of the office, was greater than that. It'll be closer, but I'll probably be the lowest-paying taxpayer in the office."

source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/st...lower-tax-rate/

 

 

 

 

And we're not even considering corporations: They're only paying between 10-15%, and that's WITH a 35-39.2% (including state tax) OFFICIAL CORPORATE TAX BURDEN. Imagine what it will be when they cut it by exactly 40%. This tax bill has enough loopholes and "special cases" to drive a Brinks truck through.

 

U.S. companies face the highest official corporate tax rate in the world. But there's a big difference between the rates set out by law and the cash that's actually collected. Large, profitable U.S. corporations paid an average effective federal tax rate of 12.6% in 2010, the Government Accountability Office said Monday.

 

The federal corporate tax rate stands at 35%, and jumps to 39.2% when state rates are taken into account. But thanks to things like tax credits, exemptions and offshore tax havens, the actual tax burden of American companies is much lower.

 

 

 

 

 

http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/01/news/econo...rate/index.html

Edited December 22, 2017 by caulfield12

[ptatc]

We're talking about two different things.

 

Total percentage of all tax revenue derived is quite different from marginal tax rates for each household.

 

It's back to that overall question of fairness or equity.

 

• , Buffett told NBC Nightly News that he pays a smaller tax rate than multiple employees in his office.
• In 2011, Buffett wrote an op-ed in the New York Times called "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich." In the article, Buffett said that his taxes amounted to "only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office."
• In 2013, he told CNBC that while his tax rate rose 8 to 9 points more that year, "The differential between me and the rest of the office, not just my secretary but the rest of the office, was greater than that. It'll be closer, but I'll probably be the lowest-paying taxpayer in the office."

source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/st...lower-tax-rate/

 

 

 

 

And we're not even considering corporations: They're only paying between 10-15%, and that's WITH a 35-39.2% (including state tax) OFFICIAL CORPORATE TAX BURDEN. Imagine what it will be when they cut it by exactly 40%. This tax bill has enough loopholes and "special cases" to drive a Brinks truck through.

 

U.S. companies face the highest official corporate tax rate in the world. But there's a big difference between the rates set out by law and the cash that's actually collected. Large, profitable U.S. corporations paid an average effective federal tax rate of 12.6% in 2010, the Government Accountability Office said Monday.

 

The federal corporate tax rate stands at 35%, and jumps to 39.2% when state rates are taken into account. But thanks to things like tax credits, exemptions and offshore tax havens, the actual tax burden of American companies is much lower.

 

 

 

 

 

http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/01/news/econo...rate/index.html

Not sure what you're talking about. My comment was just that the people who have the highest taxable income (500,000 and up) pay the most into the IRS revenue. They do. They pay by far the most amount.

 

Who can make all the other points you want but these people still pay the most into the revenues collected by taxes.

[caulfield12]

In a short letter to the local Telegraph Herald, Rank said, "Congressman Rod Blum in a Dubuque town hall (Monday) night asked, 'Why should a 62-year-old man have to pay for maternity care?' I ask, why should I pay for a bridge I don’t cross, a sidewalk I don’t walk on, a library book I don’t read?"

 

She continued, "Why should I pay for a flower I won’t smell, a park I don’t visit, or art I can’t appreciate? Why should I pay the salaries of politicians I didn’t vote for, a tax cut that doesn’t affect me, or a loophole I can’t take advantage of?"

 

"It’s called democracy, a civil society, the greater good. That’s what we pay for," she quipped.

http://www.refinery29.com/2017/05/154527/a...rnity-insurance

 

 

Why shouldn't the richest Americans and corporations pay the most? If it was not for all of the benefits they've received from the American system (Constitutional democracy), the American military and the American government/public services system (schools/firefighters/police, etc.) WHERE WOULD ANYONE BE?

 

What would the "American Dream" be then?

 

And what developed countries in the world don't have progressive tax systems? Here's a list if you want to investigate further.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates

Edited December 22, 2017 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

And here's where Jenks should be sending his "donations" for underpaying on taxes:

 

 

MIGHT WE WANT TO ADDRESS SOME OF THESE ISSUES FIRST, Mr. Ryan and Mr. McConnell???

 

 

Roughly $5.672 trillion of that is intra-government holdings. Intragovernmental debt includes the Social Security Trust Fund (no lockbox!!!), other retirement funds for the military and government employees, and medical trust funds. It also includes cash on hand to fund government outlays.

 

The US Federal Reserve holds about $4.453 trillion worth of US debt (money we owe ourselves, essentially). The Federal "balance sheet." This is not considered intragovernmental debt.

 

Foreigners hold roughly $6.36 trillion worth of US debt (31%). That's more or less $16.5 trillion.

 

That leaves another $4.1 trillion of debt held by US mutual funds, Exchange Traded Funds (ETF's), pension funds, banks, insurance companies and individual US holders.

 

 

 

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Edited December 22, 2017 by caulfield12