OT - Trump

[clyde21]

Incredible...Demos completely **** up not giving this guy the nomination.

https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats/videos/1314868458606205/?pnref=story

[yesh]

How can a tax cut be a give away?

People earn and then they pay taxes on what they earn.

If you cut taxes on the wealthiest individuals it has a 2 pronged effect on the economy.

1) You are taking money out of the economy because less tax equals less revenue.

2) rich people don't spend that money because they don't need it, whereas if you give a tax cut to only working people they spend that money on existing, so that money goes back into businesses that sell things.

We all have a contract of sorts with our government for services we need. That's tax

[Mylie10]

Hmmm....I'm in the service industry and I know for a fact that people with money spend it. They employ millions of people. If you over regulate and over tax, jobs either are cut, shortened, or move over seas.

No one disputes paying a reasonable tax. The problem is when the tax becomes restrictive to hiring, job creation, and entrepreneurship, which employs millions of people.

The government doesn't create jobs or wealth. We as entrepreneurs, owners, risk takers do. The government jobs are all paid by the people's taxes. That is not job creation, it is taking a certain amount of created income.

So the real taking going on is from the government. And I'm ok with that in reason. Just not when it becomes overly restrictive.

[shazam_guy]

Taxes have been a lot higher on the rich in the past -- when we had a middle class.

The idea that rich people are job creators is largely illusory. Most rich people tend to hang onto their money -- the "job creator" thing is highly exaggerated. Four hundred average people spending ten million dollars distributes the money a lot better and faster and more effectively than one person with ten million. The people who really make jobs for other people are consumers spending money, not rich people "creating jobs".

[Mylie10]

Taxes have been a lot higher on the rich in the past -- when we had a middle class.

The idea that rich people are job creators is largely illusory. Most rich people tend to hang onto their money -- the "job creator" thing is highly exaggerated. Four hundred average people spending ten million dollars distributes the money a lot better and faster and more effectively than one person with ten million. The people who really make jobs for other people are consumers spending money, not rich people "creating jobs".

Top 2% or so pay the majority of the countries taxes.

[wco81]

They have way over half the assets and income too.

[Little Digger]

Taxes have been a lot higher on the rich in the past -- when we had a middle class.

The idea that rich people are job creators is largely illusory. Most rich people tend to hang onto their money -- the "job creator" thing is highly exaggerated. Four hundred average people spending ten million dollars distributes the money a lot better and faster and more effectively than one person with ten million. The people who really make jobs for other people are consumers spending money, not rich people "creating jobs".

Top 2% or so pay the majority of the countries taxes.

I have no problem with the top2% who actually did something to get to the top of the mountain..( 2% of the top 2%?)

If Trump had invested his 1970's inheritance in a S&P index fund he'd be worth more today than he is trying to do it on his own ...This fool is totally overrated..

[wco81]

If he gets rid of the "death tax" as he has talked about, that means billions in estate taxes that his children avoid when they inherit his wealth.

Right now, I think estate taxes exemption for 2017 will be $5.5 per individual or $11 million for couples. So Republicans will talk about how the poor family farmers will have to pay "death taxes" to their heirs. Well unless their estate is worth over $11 million, no the small family farm will not be paying "death taxes."

And if they are paying any "death taxes" that means they're not such small family farmers.

[e83pw2oa9hl5f]

My lord, we all know trickle down doesnt work and these old fables disproved. I cant believe some people still drink this coolaid and vote against their own self interest. Thats what they depend on to keep recycling this notion.

[Mylie10]

My lord, we all know trickle down doesnt work and these old fables disproved. I cant believe some people still drink this coolaid and vote against their own self interest. Thats what they depend on to keep recycling this notion.

Do you live in California?

Don't call it trickle down if you'd like. Do you really believe that people with money don't spend it? To me that's a laughable notion and belies common sense. And describe rich to me, because different people have different thoughts on that.

[wco81]

Rich do spend money but they are more likely to invest a lot of it.

But think of it this way. A billionaire spending $10 million or 10,000 people spending an average of $1000 over the same time period. Sure the billionaire could easily make one or two big purchases, like real estate or yachts. But the same $10 million spent by 10,000 people is going to be spread further around the economy, generating far more transactions.

Higher velocity of money is thought to be more stimulative.

[turk3d]

Yea, you can say that people with money creat jobs through their corporations but that doesn't equate to some "altruistic" event. It's not like those jobs (in most case) is to try to help people. Ever hear the expression "it takes money to make money"? Well it takes jobs to execute most businesses.

When an employer hires an employee, it is because they expect to get a return on whatever they pay them and a significant profit. As pointed out, it is the consumer that creates the wealth in this country (foreign or domestic). What is typically the way a company can increase profits one of the first things they do in order to increase their bottom line or in some cases reduce losses? Cut jobs.

The term "trickle down" is just a way to justify the rich getting richer off the backs of the common worker while the common worker cannot even keep up with inflation. The only time this is not the case is with company owned businesses where the employer is willing to share the wealth and when you have a generous employee who is willing to give out employee bonuses and healthy stock options. At least this is how I view it.

[Mylie10]

Most of the countries jobs are created by small business, not corporations. When taxes and other regulations become to restrictive it forces business owners into less hiring, shorter work weeks, and more business failure.

People with no jobs and no money spend nothing. You can't run a business, household, or country without it.

And what's wrong with investing? Many positives in investment.

If we don't become a more business friendly environment, how in the Hell can we even try and build up the middle class? People need opportunity and incentive....with over taxation it creates the opposite.

Taxation is needed, no doubt, but over taxation is whats crippling doing business in California and other states.

[wco81]

Businesses are doing fine in CA.

Apple tried to move to Austin in the '90s. Even before they became wildly successful starting about 10-12 years ago, they canceled the move, despite higher taxes and expensive Bay Area housing, probably because the talent who came out of Bay Area schools don't want to move to TX.

You certainly have states that offer sweetheart deals to lure businesses or has minimal regulations. For instance, OK is having a lot of earthquakes because they let the oil drillers do whatever they want, leading to damaged property in several cities.

We had more "business-friendly" taxation and regulatory environment under the Bush administration. How did that work out? Or a more recent example in states like KS where they've slashed taxes and regulations but haven't seen great economic growth.

One hopes the Trump administration doesn't have the same results but they're talking about the same kinds of policies.

[Mylie10]

Yea, you can say that people with money creat jobs through their corporations but that doesn't equate to some "altruistic" event. It's not like those jobs (in most case) is to try to help people. Ever hear the expression "it takes money to make money"? Well it takes jobs to execute most businesses.

When an employer hires an employee, it is because they expect to get a return on whatever they pay them and a significant profit. As pointed out, it is the consumer that creates the wealth in this country (foreign or domestic). What is typically the way a company can increase profits one of the first things they do in order to increase their bottom line or in some cases reduce losses? Cut jobs.

The term "trickle down" is just a way to justify the rich getting richer off the backs of the common worker while the common worker cannot even keep up with inflation. The only time this is not the case is with company owned businesses where the employer is willing to share the wealth and when you have a generous employee who is willing to give out employee bonuses and healthy stock options. At least this is how I view it.

What makes business profit, is a good product. If you make a good product people will buy it. If peso leader want to buy it, you need to hire people to make it, ship it, etc....businesses that put out a crappy product don't make solid profits. They may make some short for-profit, but long term it's the quality of the product or service that make the profit.

I own my own business for the last 25 years. Very small and want to keep it that way. Reputation is what drives a long term successful business. That comes with a good product and service. Over charging and cutting jobs doesnt strengthen a business. It weakens it. It's not how you MAKE PROFITS.

Name a successful profitable business and you'll see quality of product or service or both most likely. Bad business practices like you are saying makes business fail over time. Sometimes business is forced to cut jobs based on government over taxation and regulations. Or economic trends.

[Mylie10]

Businesses are doing fine in CA.

Apple tried to move to Austin in the '90s. Even before they became wildly successful starting about 10-12 years ago, they canceled the move, despite higher taxes and expensive Bay Area housing, probably because the talent who came out of Bay Area schools don't want to move to TX.

You certainly have states that offer sweetheart deals to lure businesses or has minimal regulations. For instance, OK is having a lot of earthquakes because they let the oil drillers do whatever they want, leading to damaged property in several cities.

We had more "business-friendly" taxation and regulatory environment under the Bush administration. How did that work out? Or a more recent example in states like KS where they've slashed taxes and regulations but haven't seen great economic growth.

One hopes the Trump administration doesn't have the same results but they're talking about the same kinds of policies.

Not all businesses are doing fine bud. California is in huge debt. We are not in the best economic position as you'd like us to believe. And even when businesses are "successful" they still have tons of issues that are restrictive on doing business and hiring people for good jobs and solid wages.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426974/why-businesses-leave-california-sarah-rumpf

[FNQ]

Most of the countries jobs are created by small business, not corporations. When taxes and other regulations become to restrictive it forces business owners into less hiring, shorter work weeks, and more business failure.

People with no jobs and no money spend nothing. You can't run a business, household, or country without it.

And what's wrong with investing? Many positives in investment.

If we don't become a more business friendly environment, how in the Hell can we even try and build up the middle class? People need opportunity and incentive....with over taxation it creates the opposite.

Taxation is needed, no doubt, but over taxation is whats crippling doing business in California and other states.

This is frustrating GOP logic though.

One, and only one, factor really matters when it comes to small businesses: do the lower and (diminishing) middle classes have enough disposable income to support local businesses who do not have the requisite volume to survive by minimizing their profits per transaction? When the answer is no, small businesses fail.

The thing is, these lower wages and higher taxes INVARIABLY favor the large corporations. Because they do have the volume to survive by nickel and diming everyone. In the midwest, you can find towns that are entirely sustained by a Walmart - the same Walmart that encourages it's employees to jump on any welfare program they can, while taking corporate welfare by the billions year after year. So they thrive and a record number of small businesses close each year. But take San Francisco and Seattle, 2 pioneers of the fight for 15, as an example - their areas are beginning to thrive after the common sense initial drop, and the suburbs around them are improving as well. Because unlike the extremely wealthy, the lower class and middle class are more likely to use disposable income - at way, way higher %s - on local, small businesses.

And as for the wealthy not hoarding their money, thats BS. They pass it amongst each other, other well sustained, high-end stuff that most cant afford. So the solution seems obvious when you look at the complete picture instead of boxing a part of it out - raise taxes on the highest earners, and raise minimum wages (which in turn raises median wages) and increases the velocity of money, and thus helps the economy. The problem is that not only have people hoarded the wealth, they do so while saying any other option would be un-American or hurtful, then turn around and demand people take pride in this "Best Country on the Planet" when we are essentially forcing them into a capitalistic caste system.

It's grade A horsesh*t. When inflation vastly outgrows the minimum wage over the past 40 years and one party fights tooth and nail not to correct it, despite America's economy flourishing the most when we did raise the wage in lockstep with inflation, you have to wonder - who are they really representing? Because it sure as hell isn't the majority.

[Mylie10]

If you guys don't think over taxation and over regulation have a negative affect on all business, then I'm out. I know for a fact it's restrictive because I've been in the game for 25 years trying to make it work. And I do, but every aspect of doing business in this state is extremely restrictive.

And businesses as well as tons of middle class people are moving out of the state for lack of jobs and the inability to do business properly.

[FNQ]

If you guys don't think over taxation and over regulation have a negative affect on all business, then I'm out. I know for a fact it's restrictive because I've been in the game for 25 years trying to make it work. And I do, but every aspect of doing business in this state is extremely restrictive.

And businesses as well as tons of middle class people are moving out of the state for lack of jobs and the inability to do business properly.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You completely gloss over one of the most important factors to land on the answer you want - that any taxation you deem excessive is bad for business. Yet if wages were increased, like they have in 2 prominent cities, that argument crumbles.

I ran a practice for 4 years. That same practice, which has always been based in Oakland, is now thriving due to the wage increases. Most of our clients are people who work in cities that have raised the median wage.

Here's how this feels to me: America's obese. The solution is to eat right and to exercise. So using standard GOP logic, they say "we've eaten right but dont exercise and nothing is changing!" or "we've started exercising but still eat McDonalds every day and we're still obese!"

Well, no kidding! You have to do both. One by itself won't work. Yet this rickety incomplete logic has worked for so long that people now don't think either raising taxes on the wealthy or raising the wages will actually benefit the economy despite empirical evidence that it did - every single time we raised it, all 9 times so far with the 10th one coming very soon.

Simply put, if there is no disposable income for the majority of Americans, then small businesses just cannibalize each other while big corporations continue to stockpile wealth and industry. Historically, when that happens, it inevitably breaks society down until the lower class revolts.

[Mylie10]

I'm not arguing against wage increase. I want wage increase. There are other restrictive taxes involved in doing business beyond raising the minimum wage. And what I as a business owner like, is to pay the people I work with more money, and give them more incentive. That is better for my business to have happy employees who want to and enjoy their work.

And I imagine the reason your practice is thriving has more to do with the quality of service you provide. Reputation is everything.