Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

American Jobs Plan


Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Sand said:

This is the only place Amtrak makes sense.  As far as thinking rail is going to displace vehicles to any significant extent...  Well, hopefully recreational drugs are legal in your state (not in mine!).  :P

Our self driving cars will zip around locally.  When going any further it will head to the ramps to drive onto the train where it can complete the bulk of the trip with a bit of comfort.   Freight will work pretty much the same way. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Infrastructure, simply put, is not sexy.  You don't get a shiny new plane out of it...its not something people like spending money on despite that it needs to be done.

Look at our own lives.  How many would be better off spending stimulus money updating windows in our homes, or HVAC, or so many other things?  Rather than say, a bigger TV or other luxury.  How often do people update their own infrastructure other than when something fails or falls apart?

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sho nuff said:

Infrastructure, simply put, is not sexy.  You don't get a shiny new plane out of it...its not something people like spending money on despite that it needs to be done.

Look at our own lives.  How many would be better off spending stimulus money updating windows in our homes, or HVAC, or so many other things?  Rather than say, a bigger TV or other luxury.  How often do people update their own infrastructure other than when something fails or falls apart?

Hardened power lines and new piping certainly isn't.  But, when it comes to bridges the gauntlet has been thrown.  We should be able to match these.

I'm also hoping with the trend in this country toward outdoor recreation that there will be monies put toward creating nature infrastructure - i.e. rails to trails, etc.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/4/2021 at 6:19 AM, Sand said:

This is the only place Amtrak makes sense.  

C'mon, even Kristi Noem realizes that Amtrak travel to Hawaii makes a ton of sense. That's why she's against infrastructure spending..... not enough spent on rail travel to Hawaii.

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Sand said:

Hardened power lines and new piping certainly isn't.  But, when it comes to bridges the gauntlet has been thrown.  We should be able to match these.

I'm also hoping with the trend in this country toward outdoor recreation that there will be monies put toward creating nature infrastructure - i.e. rails to trails, etc.

Ideas like this

More of this type stuff please

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, The General said:

We have so many total horse#### airports. Newark I'm looking at you.

Throw many dollars at these please.

Along with sticks of dynamite.  Newark is awful.  As is LaGuardia.  As is about 1/2 of LAX.  And DCA - can't wait until the train to Dulles is finished.

Yes, please put the most, first money into finishing the train into Dulles, por favor!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, The Dude said:

GOP and conservative media want you to cry about raising taxes

in 2018 91 fortune 500 companies paid zero federal tax - they paid more tax to foreign governments - but getting them to pay their share is a bad thing.

I'll say it - we should have a 0% corporate tax rate.

(BTW, corporate tax rates get flowed through.  Studies have shown a sliver goes to shareholders, 25% of the increase goes to cost increases to consumers, and 75% comes from pay and benefits of employees.  The thought that companies bear this cost is a terrible lie foisted on us by politicians.)

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Sand said:

I'll say it - we should have a 0% corporate tax rate.

(BTW, corporate tax rates get flowed through.  Studies have shown a sliver goes to shareholders, 25% of the increase goes to cost increases to consumers, and 75% comes from pay and benefits of employees.  The thought that companies bear this cost is a terrible lie foisted on us by politicians.)

You may have a point.  But what's the alternative to bring that tax money in to fund government?  Is 0% done anywhere in the world?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, The Dude said:

You may have a point.  But what's the alternative to bring that tax money in to fund government?  Is 0% done anywhere in the world?

No, and there's details regarding goods for internal use, exports, imports, etc. that would have to be worked.  These corporate taxes are essentially a hidden tax on consumers, so the tax money would be made up with a consumption tax or an increase in income taxes.  All of which should be offset by the cost decreases in goods and services.

But politically this is a very hard sell, as the hidden taxes become explicit (ZOMG, you're raising my taxes!).  It would lead to a huge renaissance in American companies though.  The US would be the world's corporate tax haven, instead of Ireland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sand said:

No, and there's details regarding goods for internal use, exports, imports, etc. that would have to be worked.  These corporate taxes are essentially a hidden tax on consumers, so the tax money would be made up with a consumption tax or an increase in income taxes.  All of which should be offset by the cost decreases in goods and services.

But politically this is a very hard sell, as the hidden taxes become explicit (ZOMG, you're raising my taxes!).  It would lead to a huge renaissance in American companies though.  The US would be the world's corporate tax haven, instead of Ireland.

But it doesn’t address how to fund us improvements.  Like roads, airports, bridges, etc.  we need more money not less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

But it doesn’t address how to fund us improvements.  Like roads, airports, bridges, etc.  we need more money not less.

Increased job activity, increased velocity of money means increased tax receipts if income/consumption taxes are increased a bit to compensate for the loss of corporate taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, The Dude said:

But it doesn’t address how to fund us improvements.  Like roads, airports, bridges, etc.  we need more money not less.

Tax cuts pay for themselves ;) 

Edited by Desert_Power
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sand said:

Increased job activity, increased velocity of money means increased tax receipts if income/consumption taxes are increased a bit to compensate for the loss of corporate taxes.

We just had a real life case of this - and it failed miserably

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Sand said:

I'll say it - we should have a 0% corporate tax rate.

(BTW, corporate tax rates get flowed through.  Studies have shown a sliver goes to shareholders, 25% of the increase goes to cost increases to consumers, and 75% comes from pay and benefits of employees.  The thought that companies bear this cost is a terrible lie foisted on us by politicians.)

I agree it should be zero. In 2015 when the corp rate was 35%, we collected around 280 billion from corps. It's enough to fund the government for a few weeks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, taxes should be funding a discretionary infrastructure annually.  Then the president along with congress gets to decide on the improvements to be made on that money.  
 

so it could be the wall or infrastructure or something else - but it shouldn’t rely on money being taxed under other presidents - which is where the wall would have failed and the current infrastructure plan.

but if you set it in motion, we will be rolling in progress

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Wouldn't the companies just pass their "consumption tax" on to the customer?  :confused: 

The most popular variation of a "consumption tax" around here is the FairTax.  The FairTax only, in theory taxes end users of products and services and not intermediate steps such as a "value added" tax might.  At least in theory there is little tax to pass on, but again the FairTax people believe that all taxes are passed on to consumers which means that you don't pay income taxes either, your employer's (which could be you) customers do (or their customers' customers' ... customers).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

The most popular variation of a "consumption tax" around here is the FairTax.  The FairTax only, in theory taxes end users of products and services and not intermediate steps such as a "value added" tax might.  At least in theory there is little tax to pass on, but again the FairTax people believe that all taxes are passed on to consumers which means that you don't pay income taxes either, your employer's (which could be you) customers do (or their customers' customers' ... customers).

So there is no tax on the purchase of raw materials by these companies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Commish said:

So there is no tax on the purchase of raw materials by these companies?

For the FairTax, at least in theory it is "retail" only.  And only for new items.   So raw materials are not taxes, only the finished retail goods (or services). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think maybe 10-20 trillion would be better

it's all funny money at this point anyway - why hold back at 2 trillion ?

 

I'm serious - if 2 trillion can do good, 20 trillion can do great

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

For the FairTax, at least in theory it is "retail" only.  And only for new items.   So raw materials are not taxes, only the finished retail goods (or services). 

Thanks....are "parts" to make the larger product "retail" or "raw material"?

Pretty much, I think you hit my issue on the head with this comment:  "all taxes are passed on to consumers" and why I'm good with a consumption tax and a dismantling of income and sales tax...if there is any avenue for a company to pass on the taxes they have to pay to the customer, they will.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Commish said:

Pretty much, I think you hit my issue on the head with this comment:  "all taxes are passed on to consumers" and why I'm good with a consumption tax and a dismantling of income and sales tax...if there is any avenue for a company to pass on the taxes they have to pay to the customer, they will. 

Right at least in concept it just changes our current "consumption tax" model to spread across products more evenly as opposed to  skewing the tax to punish "American Made" (via the income).   My problem with the FairTax isn't the concept, but the dishonesty (whether it is actual lies or just ignorance) in selling the ideas.   That and the hostile way those lies are defended.  Especially since the movement was taken over a few years ago (though to be fair it has been a while since I revisited so maybe they have cleaned up their act).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Commish said:

Wouldn't the companies just pass their "consumption tax" on to the customer?  :confused: 

I don't see the point in charging companies a consumption or sales tax. They would indeed just pass that on, just like they pass on their corporate taxes.

As noted we only take in 250B or so in corporate tax receipts.  Just get rid of all that overhead and go to zero.

2 hours ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

This is the exact opposite of what I would want.

I guess you'll have to unpack this.  I don't see the downside.  We become instantly a manufacturing powerhouse, a place to locate corporate headquarters with all those salaries, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

The most popular variation of a "consumption tax" around here is the FairTax.  The FairTax only, in theory taxes end users of products and services and not intermediate steps such as a "value added" tax might.  At least in theory there is little tax to pass on, but again the FairTax people believe that all taxes are passed on to consumers which means that you don't pay income taxes either, your employer's (which could be you) customers do (or their customers' customers' ... customers).

Which, it needs to be said, is a bogus assumption. Much like the idea that corporations pass on their tax directly to customers too. The world doesn't have fixed supply/demand curves for goods and services such that price doesn't matter. :lol:  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sand said:

I don't see the point in charging companies a consumption or sales tax. They would indeed just pass that on, just like they pass on their corporate taxes.

As noted we only take in 250B or so in corporate tax receipts.  Just get rid of all that overhead and go to zero.

Right...trickle down doesn't work...we know this...it all ends up in the hands of the consumer.  However, as I pointed out before, the current choice is to take the tax revenues from the corps and the tax revenues from the consumers OR tax revenues from consumers only.  Let's be honest...we all know that if we removed the corp tax rate, the price of goods isn't going down, so why not take the corp tax revenue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Right...trickle down doesn't work...we know this...it all ends up in the hands of the consumer.  However, as I pointed out before, the current choice is to take the tax revenues from the corps and the tax revenues from the consumers OR tax revenues from consumers only.  Let's be honest...we all know that if we removed the corp tax rate, the price of goods isn't going down, so why not take the corp tax revenue?

Even if that's true (and I'd believe public pressure would result in a step change like this being reflected in price drops), the increase in employment, velocity of money, etc. would be worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sand said:

Even if that's true (and I'd believe public pressure would result in a step change like this being reflected in price drops), the increase in employment, velocity of money, etc. would be worth it.

What historical evidence do you have to base this vote of confidence?  Either for the price drops or increase of employment....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Desert_Power said:

Which, it needs to be said, is a bogus assumption. Much like the idea that corporations pass on their tax directly to customers too. The world doesn't have fixed supply/demand curves for goods and services such that price doesn't matter. :lol:  

I understand what you are saying in that a 10% increase in cost (whether taxes or something else) has nothing to do with whether or not the price of the finished goods can simply get increased by 10% (or more) to cover that increase.  Maximizing revenue and minimizing costs are closer to being independent variables or functions  than dependent or even interdependent.  (But not completely independent such a paying for higher costing but higher quality components.)

But I don't think this negates the idea.  I (or more accurately the FairTax people) didn't say that the cost of taxation was completely passed on to consumers, but that the consumers paid the taxes.  It is built into (embedded into) the price that employees charge employers for their time and efforts.   That is still true if taxes go up while that overall price (wages and/or salaries) remain static.  If this is me I take home less pay as I take on the burden of the tax hike, but conceptually the tax is still being paid for by consumer of the consumption of my labor.   

Just don't ask the average person to believe that they don't pay their own income and payroll taxes.  Some will even be savvy enough to argue they pay their employer's share of the payroll tax even if the paperwork doesn't show it.  This is just a different perspective on everything.   The common FairTax lie is that they allow you to believe that you pay these income and payroll taxes of yours  and then you pay everyone else's income and payroll taxes in the embedded cost of everything you buy.  They leave out unless pushed that these are the same taxes and are only being paid once so the perspective of who is paying needs to be an either or choice.  Both are correct choices independently (though which one is best is context specific), both as a choice  at the same time however is not.

Edited by Bottomfeeder Sports
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, The Commish said:

What historical evidence do you have to base this vote of confidence?  Either for the price drops or increase of employment....

We certainly have evidence of increased corporate activity in places like Ireland due to the relatively low corporate tax rates.  As far as price drops, I don't have any there.  I don't know of a precedent for eliminating a category of taxes like that.

27 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

But I don't think this negates the idea.  I (or more accurately the FairTax people) didn't say that the cost of taxation was completely passed on to consumers, but that the consumers paid the taxes.  It is built into (embedded into) the price that employees charge employers for their time and efforts.   That is still true if taxes go up while that overall price (wages and/or salaries) remain static.  If this is me I take home less pay as I take on the burden of the tax hike, but conceptually the tax is still being paid for by consumer of the consumption of my labor.   

This is undoubtedly true, and one of the advantages of eliminating corporate taxes is eliminating the compliance costs.  Those are substantial.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

I think maybe 10-20 trillion would be better

it's all funny money at this point anyway - why hold back at 2 trillion ?

 

I'm serious - if 2 trillion can do good, 20 trillion can do great

You're certainly not alone.  And if there was ever an expense that came even close to paying for itself, it's infrastructure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sand said:
3 hours ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

This is the exact opposite of what I would want.

I guess you'll have to unpack this.  I don't see the downside.  We become instantly a manufacturing powerhouse, a place to locate corporate headquarters with all those salaries, etc.

It's the difference between exploiting a flaw in the system and trying to fix the flaw.  I would prefer that the United States be a good actor in the world that helps to fix international problems rather than a greedy actor attempting to exploit international problems. 

In my view being a country where corporations go so they don't need to pay taxes in other countries isn't that different from being a country that harbors terrorists. That's just us letting corporations take advantage of other countries by trying to win the race to the bottom.

Biden's worldwide minimum corporate tax is an attempt to end the race to the bottom altogether.  It can be a benefit to the United States and also benefit other countries. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sand said:
2 hours ago, The Commish said:

What historical evidence do you have to base this vote of confidence?  Either for the price drops or increase of employment....

We certainly have evidence of increased corporate activity in places like Ireland due to the relatively low corporate tax rates.  As far as price drops, I don't have any there.  I don't know of a precedent for eliminating a category of taxes like that.

Yeah, I meant here in this country.  Every piece of evidence I can point to (including the tax breaks as recent as 2018) is that those activities are not nearly as beneficial as companies will claim when they happen and benefit is rarely ever passed on to consumers.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Yeah, I meant here in this country.  Every piece of evidence I can point to (including the tax breaks as recent as 2018) is that those activities are not nearly as beneficial as companies will claim when they happen and benefit is rarely ever passed on to consumers.  

Historical evidence is that the majority of the benefits go to employees, not consumers, so you're right there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, -jb- said:

You're certainly not alone.  And if there was ever an expense that came even close to paying for itself, it's infrastructure.

except ... the Fed Govt doesn't have any money to spend, they're 25-30 Trillion in debt

why? because of gross overspending and no accountability 

but nobody really wants to talk about that ..... and the many of the ones accountable for all that spending people elect over and over

its a fascinating thing to look at and watch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

except ... the Fed Govt doesn't have any money to spend, they're 25-30 Trillion in debt

why? because of gross overspending and no accountability 

but nobody really wants to talk about that ..... and the many of the ones accountable for all that spending people elect over and over

its a fascinating thing to look at and watch

There are plenty that want to talk about it...just not in DC and certainly not when their "side" is in control...rinse, repeat.  I mean we are adding billions to our deficits/debt yearly from the 2018 tax cuts and could be trillions if we don't reach 3-4% GDP (which we won't...so it will).  It's not fascinating at all.  It's pathetic.  That said, this proposal is paid for in the plan (if they stick to the plan of course).  That's a baby step up from "hey, they'll pay for themselves!!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, The Commish said:

There are plenty that want to talk about it...just not in DC and certainly not when their "side" is in control...rinse, repeat.  I mean we are adding billions to our deficits/debt yearly from the 2018 tax cuts and could be trillions if we don't reach 3-4% GDP (which we won't...so it will).  It's not fascinating at all.  It's pathetic.  That said, this proposal is paid for in the plan (if they stick to the plan of course).  That's a baby step up from "hey, they'll pay for themselves!!"

yes and no

I don't remember the massive fed debt being anything debated on during the Presidential Debates - because they're all guilty and its NEVER about incoming money, its about how that money is spent and outgoing money

period

 

not a single poster here runs their finances like the Fed Govt does - accountability is non-existent 

 

tax cutting a half billion is chump change - this administration has spent what, 5 trillion already in 6 months? this Fed Govt doesn't bring in but 3.5 trillion every year

U.S. Tax Revenue by Year

Fiscal YearRevenue

FY 2019$3.46 trillion (actual)

FY 2018$3.33 trillion

FY 2017$3.32 trillion

FY 2016$3.27 trillion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

yes and no

I don't remember the massive fed debt being anything debated on during the Presidential Debates - because they're all guilty and its NEVER about incoming money, its about how that money is spent and outgoing money

period

 

not a single poster here runs their finances like the Fed Govt does - accountability is non-existent 

 

tax cutting a half billion is chump change - this administration has spent what, 5 trillion already in 6 months? this Fed Govt doesn't bring in but 3.5 trillion every year

U.S. Tax Revenue by Year

Fiscal YearRevenue

FY 2019$3.46 trillion (actual)

FY 2018$3.33 trillion

FY 2017$3.32 trillion

FY 2016$3.27 trillion

The COVID extension was 1.8T I believe.  The one with the $1400 payments.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Commish said:

The COVID extension was 1.8T I believe.  The one with the $1400 payments.  

spending is spending - and its hard to justify spending Trillions when you're already 25 TRILLION in debt 

its like a guy bringing in $35,000 who is already $2,000,000 in debt spending an extra $200,000 and nobody saying much about the sanity of it 🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

spending is spending - and its hard to justify spending Trillions when you're already 25 TRILLION in debt 

its like a guy bringing in $35,000 who is already $2,000,000 in debt spending an extra $200,000 and nobody saying much about the sanity of it 🙄

Don't disagree....just not sure where the $5T number came from....by the way, glad you're back to caring about spending now, even if it's only when the other "side" is doing it...I got you at least half the time :thumbup: 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Don't disagree....just not sure where the $5T number came from....by the way, glad you're back to caring about spending now, even if it's only when the other "side" is doing it...I got you at least half the time :thumbup: 

I ad hope Trump would bring something to the table on spending - he couldn't, and while he didn't spend more per year than Obama he certainly didn't stop and this Biden train ... good gawd ahmighty

3 trillion "infrastructure" and 2 trillion "covid relief" in first 6 months

5 trillion

 

might as well give everyone in the USA $100,000 and go 100 trillion in debt - its funny money now

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...