Tax Reform Isn't A Panacea But It Will Help!

We can all post 1 million articles that debunk conservative or liberal thinking. But this is your opportunity to do it yourself if you think you have the ability.

 

with republican in charge, it will just be another tax cut for the rich with scraps for the working class

 

Facebook buying twitter or Walmart buying Sears doesn't add anything to the economy. You talk about more revenue. That is not the problem. It is about finding new markets for existing goods or new products to sell. One existing company buying another existing company usually costs jobs and does nothing for GDP.

 

Trump could release his taxes, bet there is a lot of ideas for reform in there

 

We have plenty of money, plenty of profits and plenty of wealth right now. The problem is the distribution schemes currently in play move it all to the top and there is no way to recover it once it is earned without taxing the **** out of it. Oh sure we can all say that creating new wealth sources might do the trick but we have been doing this for several decades, has it worked? What exactly do you think cisco and Apple will do with repatriated money if we give them a tax break to bring it back? They sure as hell aren't going to hire your kid with it. If that hire made sense then, it would make sense today even at higher rates. Tax policy is always, always political except when it is based upon economic goals. What is the real affect of cutting taxes on the rich? Don't tell me what they sell it as, tell me what it does. Tom Barrack lives in our area, he is a multi-billionaire. If he got another billion, what would change?

 

another tax cut for the rich?? the top 1% pay 45% of all federal taxes up from 20% under Reagan so there have been no tax cuts. Who tricked you into saying that?

 

1) it increases freedom when govt does not steal your money at gun point, the basic principle of America
2) it leaves the rich, those who provide the jobs and products that sustain and improve our lives, more money with which to provide more jobs and more products to further improve our lives.
3) it teaches everyone that welfare from the rich cripples your life

 

totally wrong of course. One company buys another to increase efficiency or gain synergistic benefits. this is how we got from the stone age to here

 

I am not wrong at all. These aren't supply chain purchases. They are unrelated operations purchases. Amazon buying Whole Foods wasn't so Whole Foods get sold through Amazon.

 

100000% wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In the last few years, Amazon has expanded its online grocery business, AmazonFresh, but it hasn’t quite mastered online groceries the same way it’s mastered books and media. With Whole Foods, which will continue to operate under its own name, an Amazon Prime subscription might operate just like Costco membership. Maybe Prime members would get deals on Whole Foods produce, and they could elect to have the fresh veggies and organic dips delivered to their homes and apartments. The Whole Foods purchase is a $14 billion bet on the future of food that comes in boxes.

Second, this is about Whole Foods as a distribution hub—and Amazon as a physical retail presence. Several analysts have said that Whole Foods’ urban and suburban locations are so valuable for Amazon’s delivery business that the deal could be worth it even if the grocer all but stopped selling food. “Amazon did not just buy Whole Foods grocery stores. It bought 431 upper-income, prime-location distribution nodes for everything it does,” tweeted Dennis Berman, the Wall Street Journal’s financial editor. Amazon is trying to become Walmart—not just an online megalith, but also a physical retail powerhouse with dynamic pricing and stocking strategies—faster than Walmart can become Amazon.

Third, this is about Amazon as a “life bundle,” particularly for affluent Americans. Several years ago, I predicted that Amazon Prime was becoming the cable bundle of the future —an annual subscription to a
fleet of diverse services that gave the retail company a dependable revenue stream and a growing, devoted customer base. Indeed, more than half of American households with income over $100,000 are already Prime subscribers, and they spend more than $1,000 a year with it. With Whole Foods, where wealthy families regularly spend$500 a month, Amazon could expect its richest customers to spend thousands of dollars a year through Amazon. As Whole Foods customers are urged to sign up for Prime—and as Prime customers get enticing deals at Whole Foods—Amazon’s penetration of the affluent yuppie market should grow (even as it offers discounts to lower-income Americans).

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/why-amazon-bought-whole-foods/530652/

 

People aren't going to be paying $100+ a year membership fee to drive to their whole foods to pick up groceries and Amazon's entire business model is predicated on central distribution, not diffuse distribution. Amazon wants it data and its private label brand. That is all.

 

and you know that how?????????????? Absurd??? It paid $14 billion for that?? Care to try again????

 

More revenue in their hair?

Anyway, your lack of punctuation makes understanding your post pretty difficult. But corporations are making plenty of profits but investing none of it. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/09/private-investment-profits-united-states

 

In bold above is about the dumbest thing I've read all day! Where do you think the US gets all the business growth? All the new facilities? All the technology? All the innovation? All the patents? All of the R&D?

 

You really should investigate your ideas before stuffing your foot into your mouth. Business growth has been mostly the result of personal consumption and exports. Growth from gross domestic private investment is barely 26% of those two. https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/Documents/20120502_EconomicGrowth.pdf

 

There are huge tax incentives for borrowing money to expand one's business-and it's called depreciation or accelerated depreciation. It was the main area of focus for both the Jobs, Growth, and Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2001/2003, as well as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

In the simplest terms I've spent my life working construction and as a landlord. When I owned a business my clothes and bar tabs for team building were an expense, as they typically wear out or get pissed out quickly, but my tools and truck were assets, and therefore not deductible as a business expense. They were depreciable, as over time they wore out, and over their working lives I was able to deduct their total cost from my revenue.

Costco borrowed several billion dollars to pay a massive special dividend to avoid paying taxes(immediately after supporting higher taxes, liberals are funny), and immediately got their credit rating downgraded. Capitalism self regulates.

Amazon diligently plows all of it's profit back into the business, cornering it's market, and it's share price soars, while Costco ate a **** sandwich when their board chose an immediate gain over long term growth.

 

Republicans cut taxes for the poor 100%, and slightly for the wealthy. How dare they give the wealthy anything!

 

Did you read your own source?

 

OF COURSE! That's where I got my numbers.

 

I guess you cannot fathom the constant growth of facilities/buildings, new technologies, innovation, patents, R&D? Try checking out Google, Apple, Amazon, and thousands others who never stop investing in their products and business...

 

The only way I see to put an end to the constant bickering about taxes would be to require ALL citizens to pay taxes in the form of money or labour, and to experience an equal application of increase or decrease based on government spending. Instead of a tax deduction for each member of a family, a tax multiplier could be applied. In other words a single person would owe $X or X amount of labour each year, a couple or single Mother/Father would owe $2X or 2X amount of labour, etc. Family planning should be based on what is affordable, and perhaps government then might be able to force people to become more responsible citizens.
After all, how many voters would support more government spending when it will result in their having to pay for it, in dollars or labour?
I live in a small collective society, where the cost and maintenance of our area is provided by the members of our society. Each household has the option of contributing a days labour or the cost of a days labour when there is work to be done. Most people are quite liberal when spending others money, but much more conservative when spending what they had to labour for.

 

The more that government subsidizes Americans the more they will vote to support those policies...especially since most of these Americans are paying little to no income taxes. Basically there is no ownership, no incentive to tens of millions of Americans, who are exempt from paying taxes...from paying their way...from worrying about things like deficit spending and debt...

 

Do you feel that those who are not paying taxes should be paying some? How much?... Percentage?

 

Gripe, gripe, gripe about tax burden. Let's cut to the chase. What is the maximum percentage of TAXABLE income of:

$50,000
$60,000
$70,000

-should be paid in taxes? What is the maximum acceptable limit?

 

I think it would be great if all Americans, whether it be with cash or labor, provide some form of support to the nation. An American who makes constant demands on government but refuses to contribute for those demands, is self-serving. We're supposed to be a nation of everyone...indivisible...but this does not seem to apply when it comes to funding the government that Americans demand. Sure people have a million stories/excuses why they refuse to fund the government which they demand but at the end of the day they're just stories and excuses.

It's not any different than preferring all Americans to vote. How can Americans whine and complain about everything government/society then refuse to vote? It doesn't cost a penny to vote so it's just laziness...