There is a big difference in how we talk about Bernie Sanders, the rather progressive candidate, and some of his “Bernie-bros” or very radical supporters. Sanders isnt all that radical, he is progressive. But SOME of his most vocal supporters here on the boards were “Bernie or bust” voters and pleaders, and yes, we hated that, as among many other things- that gave us four years of trump. Who can blame us to despising those bernie bros that refused to vote for Hillary?
Yep, some few were super obnoxious. And I mean FEW. Polls here had Bernie vs Hillary as about even, but a few of those dozens and dozens became annoying as hell.
The trickle down theory has been totally debunked. Time after time, the increased savings just went into executives pockets.
No, there isn’t. You may think there is, but it simply wasn’t the case. “Bernie-bros” was routinely applied to ALL Sanders supporters, I know because people would use it in reference to me even though I don’t fit the definition. I can certainly blame the people who say that anyone speaking favorably of Sanders was one of the aforementioned Bernie-Bros, and also happily blame anyone foolish enough blame Trump on the tiny number of Bernie Bros rather than the huge, glaring, blatant failures of the Clinton campaign.
And people routinely refer to Bernie as far-left without contradiction in political threads today, so the argument that ‘the board’ doesn’t seem him that way is… rather lacking.
Nope. You get taxed the minute you take any proceeds out of the corp for your own use. And taxed steeply.
Nope. Go back and re-read for comprehension.
What will you live on while your corporation accumulates money? Oh, you pay yourself a salary? Tax it heavily. But maybe those fake corporations have to be regulated out of existence. Still you raise a valid point. Perhaps undistributed profits should be taxed after a certain point.
How do you define “own use”? I don’t drive a personal car, I drive a company car. And I don’t own a house, but I live in a company-owned space for use by executives. I don’t pay for meals; the corporation pays for per-diem business expenses, and I’m always on business.
Conservative here. But I’m also pro choice and am for a national health care system like Canada has. I also think the rich should be taxed more.
When it comes to elections I wish there was a choice for “None of the Above” and where if neither candidate gets more than 40% of the vote we should start with a new slate.
It’s not nearly that easy. Some of my coworkers have take-home vehicles that they can use for commuting and personal use- they pay taxes on the personal use. Meal reimbursements for non-overnight travel are taxable to the employee and the value of company housing is usually taxable to the employee. And it typically doesn’t matter if the employer gives the employee money or just pays the bills directly
You’ve never been paid a salary, then?
You know, I think I have somewhat misjudged you. I will keep that in mind.
The point is that I could subsist on a much lower salary if certain corporate amenities were directed my way. If I control the corporation, then I control the disbursement of said amenities.
I agree that it’s not quite as simple as I made it sound, but the fact is that the system is (already) easy to abuse. A personal lunch with a friend becomes a business lunch if you spend 5 minutes talking about something vaguely business related (and really, who’s going to check?). Likewise for business trips that are really vacations. A corporate tax rate of zero means it’s suddenly in everyone’s interest to start their own personal corporation and treat as much as possible as a business expense.
In fact, even aside from all that–a personal corp with no taxes is like an unlimited 401k with no early withdrawal penalty. Even if I have to pay taxes on the final distribution, the corp doesn’t have to pay anything on its income or investment growth. It can act as a holding company for my retirement funds and then I only pay taxes on the final amount.
Nope, we didnt. And the elections was so close, that just that- bernie bros or 3rd party voters turning up thise noses at Clinton- was enuf to lose. Sure the Comey memo was the big thing, but if any one of several things had gone Hillarys way, she would have won.
He is progressive, which is kinda farish left.
Yep. Go back and re-read for comprehension.
My counter to that would be, fine, if those amenities take pressure off what you’d normally need as income, then guess what those amenities really are: income. And what did I suggest we do with income? We tax it. More.
All good now?
I comprehended that you incorrectly made a blanket characterization of my post as “trickle-down economics”, which it is not. I could correct your misconception if you’d explain how you arrived at it, but I don’t expect you’re really interested in that.
It more or less is trickle down:…“slashing the corporate tax rate and making up the difference with higher marginal personal income tax rates. If we do that, then corporations will have more money to reinvest,…”
That is one of the points the trickle down people used to make, that if we cut the corporate tax rate , the corporations will “invest” that money into better working conditions, more pay, better benefits, and yes, more capital expenditures.
However, they don’t, and they havent been. As anyone can see by any graph of how the 2% got richer and the work people got poorer, or by comparisons between CEO pay and worker pay. The CEOs etc, just give the extra money to themselves.
Trickle down has been totally and complete debunked and busted, even your mild version. They wont 'reinvest" they will give themselves raises. Proven time after time after time after time.
You have a vague notion of what these concepts are, but you’ve still got it wrong.
Actual trickle-down economics, to the extent that it was a real thing, centered around justifying why rich people should get more money. Theoretically, they have to spend that money, so benefits would accrue to everyone. (Turns out, they do not have to spend that money. They can just sit on it. Bad!).
Pay attention to the key difference: in trickle-down, we cut the individual tax rate. I am suggesting the exact opposite of that. To wit:
If we cut the corporate tax rate, the tax paid on corporate revenues, then that’s more money in the business’s coffers. More money for the business to invest! But wait, what if the executives loot the surplus? This is why the proposal to pair corp tax reduction with a steep marginal income tax increase on the upper brackets. There would be no point in executives awarding themselves outrageous salaries and bonuses if they’d lose most of it to income taxes. But if they went ahead and did it anyway, much of the loot would go back to the gov’t where it could actually do some good.
No part of that plan is trickle-down. We’re not giving wealthy people stacks of money and expecting their personal spending decisions to lift the rest of the boats. Get it?
Trickle-Down Economics: Theory, Policies, Critique.
What Is the Trickle-Down Theory?
Trickle-down economics, or “trickle-down theory,” states that tax breaks and benefits for corporations and the wealthy will trickle down to everyone else. It argues for income and capital gains tax breaks or other financial benefits to large businesses, investors, and entrepreneurs to stimulate economic growth. The argument hinges on two assumptions: All members of society benefit from growth, and growth is most likely to come from those with the resources and skills to increase productive output.
tax breaks and benefits for corporations
It argues for income …tax… breaks or other financial benefits to large businesses
trickle-down economics is a theory that claims benefits for the wealthy trickle down to everyone else. These benefits are tax cuts on businesses, high-income earners, capital gains, and dividends.
Trickle-down economics assumes investors, savers, and company owners are the real drivers of growth. It promises they’ll use any extra cash from tax cuts to expand businesses. Investors will buy more companies or stocks. Banks will increase lending. Owners will invest in their operations and hire workers.
tax cuts on businesses…tax cuts to expand businesses…Owners will invest in their operations
The latest indicator that things are terribly out of whack came in a report last week from the Economic Policy Institute, which found that compensation for American chief executives increased by 940% from 1978 to 2018, while pay for the average worker rose by a miserable 12% over the same 40-year period.
Average pay for CEOs of the 350 biggest U.S. companies hit $17.2 million last year, the researchers found.
Put another way, compensation for CEOs is now 278 times greater than for ordinary workers. That’s a stratospherically larger income gap than the 20-to-1 ratio in 1965.
“This escalation of CEO compensation, and of executive compensation more generally, has fueled the growth of top 1% and top 0.1% incomes, leaving less of the fruits of economic growth for ordinary workers and widening the gap between very high earners and the bottom 90%,” the report concluded.
So again, a major part of 'trickle down" is cuts in corporate tax rate.You have a vague notion of what these concepts are, but you’ve still got it wrong.