1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Trump Tax Law: Lower Federal Tax Withholding will increase Net to Employees!

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Rocketman1981, Jan 11, 2018.

  1. Rocketman1981

    Rocketman1981 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,499
    Likes Received:
    581
  2. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    39,206
    Likes Received:
    20,353
    Yes but with lower deductions you may get killed at tax time with owing a lot more money. Be careful.
     
  3. ipaman

    ipaman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    13,208
    Likes Received:
    8,046
    i always max out my dependents to make sure i owe money at the end of the year. free interest loan baby!!!
     
  4. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,683
    Likes Received:
    16,209
    For someone who claims to have a business background, you really don't understand taxes very well at all.
     
  5. Rocketman1981

    Rocketman1981 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,499
    Likes Received:
    581
    I think most people will understand come tax time that they are ahead. Ultimately the corporate tax cut will
    have an affect of increasing wages, lowering costs to consumers (which is a raise to them), or increasing
    shareholder value to the pensions that manage their money.
     
  6. Rocketman1981

    Rocketman1981 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,499
    Likes Received:
    581
    So with all your internetelligence please explain to me what happens when you lower taxes to corporations?

    Just a basic simple question.
     
  7. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    39,206
    Likes Received:
    20,353
    US corporations have more cash at hand then at any time in history of corporations - in real dollars too - and way before this corporate tax cut. They have not been spending that money increasing wages but instead returning to shareholders or investing in developing markets overseas as the US market is very mature with established and entrenched players. Since the end of most labor unions and globalization, there is no need to increase wages in the US. And given the nature of the pressure from shareholders on the bottom line, most CEO's are not incentivized to make long term bets but rather optimize for the next quarterly earnings report. Only industries that face an existential threat from overseas show investment in longer term technologies and often they make those investments sparsely relative to their size.

    Innovation in the US has long been dying. It's not promoted by the gov't anymore and the private sector isn't interested in sharing discoveries - quite the opposite, they want to hide it as a competitive advantage. This is why we're seeing more and more innovation happening in other nations.

    We're in trouble in the long-term. By capitulating to short-term market forces that's focused on immediate monetization, we're going to lose out to China which is taking a very forward and longer term approach. They aren't trying to beat us in the battle of today, but rather in the battle for tomorrow - and by all counts - they will win.

    But this is the nature of power. The most powerful take their power for granted, unable to conceive of decline. Unable to see the early warning signs of trouble ahead. Blinded by a track record of success. Nothing lasts forever. So perhaps its time for the world to have a new super power. And that will be China.
     
    superfob and snowconeman22 like this.
  8. snowconeman22

    snowconeman22 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2008
    Messages:
    14,576
    Likes Received:
    16,508
    I like your first two paragraphs , but disagree with some of your conclusion . I don't think the powerful are naive and blind . I think they know absolutely what to do to hold on to power ... Personal power and wealth that is .

    I think more than unable to see the warning signs , they see the warnings and cling to their power .... After all what is the "long term" for these people ? They will surely die before their wealth diminishes , likely their children and those children's children will also be unbelievably well off .
     
  9. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    39,206
    Likes Received:
    20,353
    It all depends on what you mean by the powerful. I am referring to us as a nation - a collective of the whole which includes the population - who are indeed naive and blind. Those with wealth and power are not blind...they just don't care. It's more that they are just getting their slice as you are pointing out. Frankly, that's what I am doing. But as a powerful nation, as a collective, we don't know what's coming
     
  10. snowconeman22

    snowconeman22 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2008
    Messages:
    14,576
    Likes Received:
    16,508
    Yes it does depend . My comment was referencing powerful people or organizations within the nation .

    As a whole nation I would agree to a certain extent . But who actually runs the nation ? I would argue that the "powerful" people that run the nation know full well the future course .... Or at the very least have some inclination as towards what might happen .

    Sure , I don't think random Joe has any clue about anything in the current and future geopolitical power balance .
     
  11. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    39,206
    Likes Received:
    20,353
    I don't think that the powerful do know the reality. I think they believe they are acting in the best interests of the nation. That people like the Koch brothers really do think the way they do - it's how they see themselves as good people.
     
  12. snowconeman22

    snowconeman22 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2008
    Messages:
    14,576
    Likes Received:
    16,508
    I disagree . I think it's in their self interest to continue down the current path , because changing to a model where the country is better off in the future means they have to give up profits and power in the nearer term. Present value and all of that .

    If the powerful were intent on the edification and economic empowerment of the rest of us , it could already be done .
     
  13. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    39,206
    Likes Received:
    20,353
    I don't think I have explained myself well.

    The rich and powerful think that their self-interest align with what is good for the rest of us. People inherently twist their reality to suit their self-interests. Greed is good sort of crap. They aren't as cynical as you think - that's the scary part. They truly believe that if they don't maximize profits, they are doing a disservice to the world.
     
  14. Space Ghost

    Space Ghost Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    18,217
    Likes Received:
    8,604
    Uhh yes, they are cynical. The flaw in your argument is that you believe these people are wealthy and powerful simply because you are comparing to your state of being. What you need to realize is that half the planet looks up to you as the 'wealthy and powerful' because they too are comparing their state of being with yours.
    So why do you not help these people? Why do you try to maximize your profits instead of giving to the poor nations of the world? Perhaps you justify you rationale because you donated a few hundred bucks to some charity. These elite wealthy give millions and millions to charity to help them sleep better at night. At the end of the day, humans are greedy and self serving. And those of us with some sense of self awareness know this about ourselves.
     
  15. ipaman

    ipaman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    13,208
    Likes Received:
    8,046
    no joke, i just got an extra 3k bonus from one of my clients because of great project delivery/success we had and the fact that the company had extra cash i'm sure impacted their decision. we're also inline for a project renewal so it's been a great start to the new year!
     
  16. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    39,206
    Likes Received:
    20,353
    I like how you use relativism to try to justify your world outlook. That's the flaw in your argument. Beyond the fact that you aren't even addressing mine but instead trying to turn it into a personal attack.

    This isn't about giving money to poor people. You aren't even reading the thread. Go back and read it first. Then come back and debate. I really can't stand it when people like yourself who have this agenda just throw attacks at strawmans. We're discussing America's economic might not charity for god's sake.
     
  17. Space Ghost

    Space Ghost Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    18,217
    Likes Received:
    8,604
    Wrong. You're trying to justify the wealthy and powerful as misguided ignorant children who do not know better. They know exactly what they are doing, thus them being wealthy and powerful. They dont care for you. They don't care for me. They dont care for the poor. They dont care for the well being of this country. Its just laughable that you, of all people, think you know better than them.

    This is what you said.
    At best, they understand you have a dollar in your pocket and its going to be spent. They want you to spend it on their product.
    At worst, they will take it by force through contracts and obligations.

    So let me said it again, they have no interest in whats good for 'the rest of us'. The reality is there are very few kind wealthy people in this world.
     
  18. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    39,206
    Likes Received:
    20,353

    Again, you cherry pick what I wrote because you just have a need to argue with me. I have stated that many are just callous and don't care about their country. I never said anything about the poor or you or me or whatever. This is you twisting things around. We're talking about the economy and world positioning, and now you are trying to derail this thread.

    What I did say is that people rationalize all their views as good. They act in their self interest and then convince themselves it is good, ala Gordon Gekko.

    But you aren't here to discuss that, you are here to troll
     
  19. Rocketman1981

    Rocketman1981 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,499
    Likes Received:
    581
    I actually agree with much of your statements regarding capital allocation towards short term window dressing but take an example
    of Google vs. IBM in which google is reinvesting earnings in projects long-term growth and moonshots whereas IBM is focused
    on stock buybacks and dividend payouts.

    It really depends on the industry and whether its an entrepreneurial leader and/or industry.

    A direct tax cut to large corporations must be broken down to the type of corporation.

    1. Regulated industries (i.e. utilities) - these industries have government mandated ROI's so savings are then
    passed on to customers in lower prices (a wage increase in terms of excess purchasing power)

    2. Highly Competitive or Commodity businesses which due to extreme competition will force those savings to be
    passed on the customers in lower prices, capital expansion etc.

    3. Branded businesses with moats in which the excess earnings are thereby retained and therefore the wealth and
    value trickles to shareholders (prob exec's too)

    Typically the innovation doesn't come from the large, archaic bureaucratic businesses but more from the upstarts attempting
    to do things differently and are not at the mercy of their historical inertia or the short-term incentives of a quarterly based
    financial markets system in which exec's and fund managers don't look beyond their time cycle (3-5 years)

    But i disagree in the entrenchment as today virtually every industry is up for grabs.
     
  20. Rocketman1981

    Rocketman1981 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,499
    Likes Received:
    581
    Business however is global in nature and don't believe it resides in nation-states as historically it has. The internet and technology
    have democratized the entrance of many new players akin to the railroads in the late 1800's.

    Take the example of a TV show that would have needed incredible capex to manage and then the distribution available on few
    networks whereas today any kid with an iphone can have their own show on youtube.

    To me the quickly capital moves from the entrenched to the new, innovative and better is a positive for our society.
    The onerous and complicated tax system and regulatory framework puts an undue burden on smaller starting businesses
    and makes it more difficult which is one reason i'm pretty happy about that side of the de-regulatory agenda.

    enjoy the discussion by the way..
     

Share This Page