Jump to content

$1.5 trillion tax cut had no major impact on business spending


Recommended Posts

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/1-5-trillion-tax-cut-had-no-major-impact-business-n963411

 

Quote

The National Association of Business Economics' quarterly business conditions poll, published on Monday, found that while some companies reported accelerating investments because of lower corporate taxes, 84 percent of respondents said they had not changed plans. That compares to 81 percent in the previous survey published in October.

 

Quote

The NABE survey also suggested a further slowdown in business spending after moderating sharply in the third quarter of 2018. The survey's measure of capital spending fell in January to its lowest level since July 2017. Expectations for capital spending for the next three months also weakened.

 

The one bright spot was the goods producing sector.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, marioandsonic said:

You mean to tell me that when companies get a huge amount of money, they don't act altruistic?

We're not even talking about "altruism" - they're not making capital investments that will enable them to be more productive and actually make higher profits.

 

It's practically all going to dividends for shareholders or stock buybacks that increase the share value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SFLUFAN said:

We're not even talking about "altruism" - they're not making capital investments that will enable them to be more productive and actually make higher profits.

 

It's practically all going to dividends for shareholders or stock buybacks that increase the share value.

 

Corporations being short sighted? No way! :p 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Anathema- said:

I'm not mad at the Republicans for lying anymore, I'm mad at the media for a) not calling them out and b) chiding anyone who does. 

 

Why not both :p

 

20 hours ago, sblfilms said:

I’m fine with the government taking in less money, just need to do the whole spend less money thing too.

 

This is one of those things that I’m not opposed to in principle, but the execution is never there. Same with the topic broadly; I’m not against stockholders seeing a positive ROI, dividends, etc. But if the only way we can stop the consolidation of wealth to an ever decreasing minority is taxing the shit out of people above a certain threshold, I’m not going to let perfect get in the way of good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kal-El814 said:

 

Why not both :p

 

Because at some point the benefits of lying make it hard for me to say I'd do any differently. They're practically incentivized into lying. Some of that is the community they've cultivated but a lot of it is because the institution that's meant to check them instead indulges them. How can I get mad at a teenager for eating a tub of ice cream because he told his parents it's for a school project and they just take him at his word, despite it being the tenth such project this year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Anathema- said:

I'm not mad at the Republicans for lying anymore, I'm mad at the media for a) not calling them out and b) chiding anyone who does. 

Are you upset at the fact that the media in this case left all the positive results from the survey out, like firms having to raise wages, the result in decrease in capital spending is because most companies had already built what they were planning last year, or the fact that firms are hiring and redirecting more jobs back to the states. Or what about the fact that this survey only covers 106 businesses. Who are these businesses?

 

They listed percentages of respondents to the survey, but why not how many places actually took the survey? There are like 3000 businesses in the NABE. Why did they only survey 106?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 2user1cup said:

Scary!!!!

 

AOC: "70% top marginal tax rate on any dollar made over $10 million."

 

Person who will never get close to making $10 million: "THINK OF THE RICH PEOPLE WON'T YOU? HOW DARE YOU ENDANGER HYPER CRONY CAPITALISM!"

 

Whether one agrees or disagrees with AOC or anyone else on this, poor people helping rich people stay rich (which, in turn, along with other factors, keeps them poor) just doesn't make any sense as a policy position from their perspective.

 

Yet, here we are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

It's weird after decades of the rich more and more abusing the system that there are non-rich people who want to perpetuate this slowly failing and decaying system. What's wrong with trying something new and revolutionary?

 

I think there are two general camps here.

 

The first is the delusional person who thinks one day they will be super rich and doesn’t want to hurt future them. I actually think this is a fairly large group. Though they probably wouldn’t explicitly state this expectation, you can see this subtext in the arguments they make.

 

The second group sees punitive tax rates as unquestionably immoral, while extreme wealth is either amoral or moral itself so long as the method of wealth generation was moral. They don’t think the wealth or income inequality are actual problems. These folks typically will point to the high standard of living most people in America have relative to other nations or Americans have previous generations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

I think there are two general camps here.

 

The first is the delusional person who thinks one day they will be super rich and doesn’t want to hurt future them. I actually think this is a fairly large group. Though they probably wouldn’t explicitly state this expectation, you can see this subtext in the arguments they make.

 

The second group sees punitive tax rates as unquestionably immoral, while extreme wealth is either amoral or moral itself so long as the method of wealth generation was moral. They don’t think the wealth or income inequality are actual problems. These folks typically will point to the high standard of living most people in America have relative to other nations or Americans have previous generations.

 

I agree on all points, you are spot on.

 

Both groups sound insane. :p 

 

"Quality of life for every American is better now than even 100 years ago!"

 

Well, no shit. One hundred years have passed. It's about whether the quality of life is improving proportionally equal for all classes as civilization continues to "improve". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

I think there are two general camps here.

 

The first is the delusional person who thinks one day they will be super rich and doesn’t want to hurt future them. I actually think this is a fairly large group. Though they probably wouldn’t explicitly state this expectation, you can see this subtext in the arguments they make.

 

The "temporarily embarrassed millionaire."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

It's about whether the quality of life is improving proportionally equal for all classes as civilization continues to "improve". 

 

They don’t value an equitable distribution of growth. The dsmistribution doesn’t matter, the system is working if the population is better off in the aggregate.

 

One thing I was thinking about the other night was AOC’s response to Coates question about billionaires. She said something like the system is immoral but maybe not the billionaires themselves.

 

I see it the other way. The system is amoral, but a person who accumulates billions is doing something immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

They don’t value an equitable distribution of growth. The dsmistribution doesn’t matter, the system is working if the population is better off in the aggregate.

 

One thing I was thinking about the other night was AOC’s response to Coates question about billionaires. She said something like the system is immoral but maybe not the billionaires themselves.

 

I see it the other way. The system is amoral, but a person who accumulates billions is doing something immoral.

 

I would agree with your assessment. It's a really selfish way for them to think that way - so long as we're doing better in the aggregate, fuck the fact I have ten yachts and the poor can barely feed their kids - but hey, availability of food is better than ever, so suck it poor people, because your poor-ness is better than the poor-ness of people 100 years ago.

 

Their standard is proper fucked. 

 

I think AOC is simply demanding social responsibility out of the system, but since the system isn't sentient but billionaires are, it's really the billionaires who need to be socially responsible, but since they are incapable of doing so, we must make the system do it inherently. If I understand things right. I agree it is the other way around though, but since biollionaires won't change, the system must. 

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...