Jump to content

Surprise! Effectively all of that corporate tax cut went to shareholders - not worker wages, not capital expenditures


Recommended Posts

The Republican tax reform package that was supposed to raise wages and spur hiring has instead funded a record stock buyback and dividend spree, benefiting investors and company executives over workers.

 

I sure as hell didn't expect it to go to workers' wages, but for it to not even go towards capital expenditures is olololololworthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Massdriver said:

Would lowering the corporate tax rate but increasing personal income taxes on higher brackets be acceptable to most people here?

Do you mean lower than the 21% it is now?

 

I'm not opposed to the lower corporate tax rate as it moves the US in-line with the rest of the OECD, but I want SIGNIFICANTLY higher personal tax rates for the upper income brackets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Do you mean lower than the 21% it is now?

 

I'm not opposed to the lower corporate tax rate as it moves the US in-line with the rest of the OECD, but I want SIGNIFICANTLY higher personal tax rates for the upper income brackets.

Not lower than 21%, but simply raising some taxes on higher income brackets to make up for the lost tax revenue from the corporate rate cuts. I am asking because the corporate tax rate is simply an inefficient way of raising tax revenue. I wouldn't want to see it go above 25% so we stay competitive with other developed nations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

I would be willing to drop the corporate tax rate to 20% in exchange for a marginal rate on personal adjusted gross incomes of $5 million and greater of 100%.

 

In effect, the creation of a "maximum personal income".

 

I think that would be a bad idea. Capping income would have uncertain effects on economic growth and incentives. I wish more people would get on board with a land value tax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

 

I think that would be a bad idea. Capping income would have uncertain effects on economic growth and incentives. I wish more people would get on board with a land value tax.

What about an intangibles tax like Florida had for decades where intangible property (stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc) were taxed based on their value at market close on December 31?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was pretty clear from the beginning that this is how the windfall would be spent; anyone predicting differently hasn’t been paying attention to corporate behavior for a looooong time.  Stock buybacks have siphoned investment away from tangible capital formation and wages for large corporations for awhile now.  Only smaller businesses do it the old-fashioned—and, IMO, far more economically productive—way nowadays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SFLUFAN said:

What about an intangibles tax like Florida had for decades where intangible property (stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc) were taxed based on their value at market close on December 31?

I don't like that nearly as much as a LVT. A LVT is about as efficient as you can get and it taxes wealth at the same time. Taxing capital and investment seems like the wrong move. I would tax land value and consumption progressively if I could wage a wand a couple it with social insurance such as universal healthcare and wage subsides/negative income tax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

It was pretty clear from the beginning that this is how the windfall would be spent; anyone predicting differently hasn’t been paying attention to corporate behavior for a looooong time.  Stock buybacks have siphoned investment away from tangible capital formation and wages for large corporations for awhile now.  Only smaller businesses do it the old-fashioned—and, IMO, far more economically productive—way nowadays.

I'm thinking that maybe some light touch restrictions on buybacks could do the economy some good and encourage capital investment, dividends, and wage increases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SFLUFAN said:

Alright @Massdriver - let's hear how this LVT works.

https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/02/henry-georges-land-value-tax-idea-whose-time-come/  Scroll down to Land Value Taxation

https://www.vox.com/2016/5/2/11533936/the-weeds-land-value-tax-explained

https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2014/11/10/why-land-value-taxes-are-so-popular-yet-so-rare

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

 

Think about it in terms of using most states' local property tax assessment systems to collect revenue and move it up. The first link I gave you goes through what it is, who it benefits, and some mechanisms on how it could work. The problem is going to  be political will because real estate speculators will oppose the LVT, but I would like to point out that investors will oppose your financial wealth tax and the LVT is simply better theoretically than what you're proposing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the things that has always pissed me off about my company is that every town hall meeting they seem to hold they bring up dividends. Not a stockholder's meeting, employee town hall and they're bragging to their employees about how their handing out more money to stockholders instead of increasing pay/benefits for their employees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, ThreePi said:

One of the things that has always pissed me off about my company is that every town hall meeting they seem to hold they bring up dividends. Not a stockholder's meeting, employee town hall and they're bragging to their employees about how their handing out more money to stockholders instead of increasing pay/benefits for their employees.

When the workers deliver a lot of surplus value and it gets passed through to the shareholders that's good. When the workers want a raise for the first time in a decade for creating that surplus value it's greedy and that kind of entitled thinking is what's wrong with the world today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, The def star said:

Hey now according to somebody on my Facebook he gets an extra $200 because of these tax cuts, FACT!

 

Screenshot_20180630-133811_2.png

 

Is that $200 extra a month, $200 bi weekly. I don't know but either way it's small beans compared to what corporations got out of it. 

I get about an extra $20 per biweekly check.  Totally worth having to deal with this president for 4 (or God forbid 8) years...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Reputator said:

I need to stop checking CEB. This is the depressing crap that greets me.

 

 

In the eventuality that the Dems fail to take either chamber of Congress this year, Trump shuts down the Mueller probe, and Ruth Bader Ginsberg "retires" and makes Samuel fucking  Alito the new swing vote on the court might I interest you in joining a murder/suicide pact?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Massdriver said:

https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/02/henry-georges-land-value-tax-idea-whose-time-come/  Scroll down to Land Value Taxation

https://www.vox.com/2016/5/2/11533936/the-weeds-land-value-tax-explained

https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2014/11/10/why-land-value-taxes-are-so-popular-yet-so-rare

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

 

Think about it in terms of using most states' local property tax assessment systems to collect revenue and move it up. The first link I gave you goes through what it is, who it benefits, and some mechanisms on how it could work. The problem is going to  be political will because real estate speculators will oppose the LVT, but I would like to point out that investors will oppose your financial wealth tax and the LVT is simply better theoretically than what you're proposing.

I second revenue-raising by taxing land value.

 

Not just for reasons for efficiency, but because it helps in fighting against the FIRE sector’s drive to load the economy up with debt and maximize the amount of economic rent that can be extracted from land by pledging the rental value of land to the banks and recycling it into mortgage interest.

 

Economic rent does not contribute to the expansion of the economic surplus—it merely leeches parasitically off of it, and as such should form as much of the tax base as possible.  Unfortunately, the financialization of our economy is so far along that powerful FIRE sector interests will pull out all the stops to prevent the imposition of something like a land value tax.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, run32.dll said:

When the workers deliver a lot of surplus value and it gets passed through to the shareholders that's good. When the workers want a raise for the first time in a decade for creating that surplus value it's greedy and that kind of entitled thinking is what's wrong with the world today.

Perhaps, but all that rests on the presumption that labor creates all value; I doubt the people you need to convince in order to change these policies believe that.

 

Plus, it’s a pretty dubious proposition on its own terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...