Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

American Jobs Plan


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

I'm talking about spending

CARES Act into law, March 27, 2020, Congress and President Trump set into motion a massive $2.2 trillion COVID-19 relief bill and the largest single economic rescue plan in the history of the U.S.

An interim funding bill—known as the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act—added $484 billion to that total. And in December 2020, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, was passed, adding another $900 billion in economic relief amid the ongoing fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic

Then on March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan into law bringing total COVID-19 relief so far to nearly $5.7 trillion

Last night, 1.8 trillion more spending was announced

that's above and beyond what the Govt spends

 

 

I don't accept that politicians are just going to spend - I don't accept 30 trillion in irresponsibility that will eventually results in the citizens of this country being economic slaves to the Fed Govt or, the USA defaults on its debt

Democrats and Republicans have failed - and right now, its Democrats failing yugely

Of course you do.  You vote for them over and over and over.  And then, when pressed in the other spending threads that were GOP centric, you threw up your hands and acknowledged they all spend and lamented to "hope they don't, but what can I do?" shtick.  The answer then is the same as it is now...don't vote for them if you have issues with their spending.  

The point you completely ignored (I should be used to it by now) is that they are all going to spend.  The only question you can ask is "what do I prefer they spend on?" at this point.  If it's big business and really rich people you vote X.  If it's things like healthcare, education, infrastructure, you vote Y.  THAT is what your choices are today.  Feigning concern on spending depending on who's in office doesn't get you anywhere.  You aren't fooling anyone.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Of course you do.  You vote for them over and over and over.  And then, when pressed in the other spending threads that were GOP centric, you threw up your hands and acknowledged they all spend and lamented to "hope they don't, but what can I do?" shtick.  The answer then is the same as it is now...don't vote for them if you have issues with their spending.  

The point you completely ignored (I should be used to it by now) is that they are all going to spend.  The only question you can ask is "what do I prefer they spend on?" at this point.  If it's big business and really rich people you vote X.  If it's things like healthcare, education, infrastructure, you vote Y.  THAT is what your choices are today.  Feigning concern on spending depending on who's in office doesn't get you anywhere.  You aren't fooling anyone.

Which is why i have moved more left over the years.  Both spend...fiscal conservatism is basically gone.  So of we are going to spend...Id rather it be in a way that helps more who need it and rather than spend to build the military machine and prop up corps and the rich.

Edited by sho nuff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Of course you do.  You vote for them over and over and over.  And then, when pressed in the other spending threads that were GOP centric, you threw up your hands and acknowledged they all spend and lamented to "hope they don't, but what can I do?" shtick.  The answer then is the same as it is now...don't vote for them if you have issues with their spending.  

The point you completely ignored (I should be used to it by now) is that they are all going to spend.  The only question you can ask is "what do I prefer they spend on?" at this point.  If it's big business and really rich people you vote X.  If it's things like healthcare, education, infrastructure, you vote Y.  THAT is what your choices are today.  Feigning concern on spending depending on who's in office doesn't get you anywhere.  You aren't fooling anyone.

so  quit voting is your solution ?

Trump was a success in that he didn't increase the massive spending, he just kept par with Obama .... although I had hoped for some/any kind of attention to the deficit

I'm 52 this summer .... I have semi-given up hope, that is true.

I do have a reality check for you - Y has many rich people and they take care of their own and line their pockets heavily. Don't be naïve and think X don't care about education and infrastructure and healthcare etc. That's CNN garbage lies and I'd think you'd know better than all that by now. 

Biden, Schumer, Pelosi, Waters, Clintons, Obama's ... even the 3 BLM founders ..... all have lined their pockets, set their families and friends up with deals and wealth for decades to come. in that, they are no different 

I see it as vote X if you still believe in a 2nd Amendment, still believe in human rights, still believe in state rights and still have hope that the people will not end up serving the Fed Govt. 

Vote Y if you want a village and a king to control it all, gun bans, forcing people to do whatever the Fed Govt says and becoming a socialist state.

how this Govt spends ..... its becoming less and less relevant because ##### about it or not, 30 trillion is now too much, it is a lost battle now :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

Trump was a success in that he didn't increase the massive spending, he just kept par with Obama .... although I had hoped for some/any kind of attention to the deficit

Deficits were declining at the end of the Obama admin and the economy was moving along just fine.  To "stay on par" with Obama, that trend would have had to continue and there was ZERO reason that Trump couldn't have continued it, but his deficits changed direction and increased.  They did this in a booming economy where businesses were thriving under existing market conditions.  

If you're going to do comparisons, be thorough and understand the context and how that context matters.  Though I will say it's quite interesting for the same person to say both "Obama was terrible and blew up our deficits/debt" and "Trump was a success since he just kept par with Obama".  It's amazing what people can convince themselves of....ignoring of course the things I just brought up as differences.  Trump's admin was the PERFECT time to actually do some major investment in this country and he choose tax cuts to people/companies that didn't really need them.  :shrug: 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

I do have a reality check for you - Y has many rich people and they take care of their own and line their pockets heavily. Don't be naïve and think X don't care about education and infrastructure and healthcare etc. That's CNN garbage lies and I'd think you'd know better than all that by now. 

Of course they do...no question.  X has a funny way of showing it given the reality they had complete control over the government for two years and chose to do what they did instead of education, infrastructure and healthcare.  Actions speak louder than words :shrug: I don't need CNN or any MSM outlet to tell me that.  X is telling me loud and clear. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Commish said:

Of course they do...no question.  X has a funny way of showing it given the reality they had complete control over the government for two years and chose to do what they did instead of education, infrastructure and healthcare.  Actions speak louder than words :shrug: I don't need CNN or any MSM outlet to tell me that.  X is telling me loud and clear. 

Exactly. Trump chose to cut tax at the worst time, during economic prosperity. He could have chosen to pay down the debt or invest in the middle class. Instead he chose a massive tax cut for the rich.

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

27 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

Exactly. Trump chose to cut tax at the worst time, during economic prosperity. He could have chosen to pay down the debt or invest in the middle class. Instead he chose a massive tax cut for the rich.

To be fair, this isn't just Trump.  It is the GOP playbook as a whole.  Bush 2 did it as well and it blew up in his (well, McCain's) face when the housing bubble burst.

Considering how the Right's tax breaks to corporations usually lead to stock buy backs, the right should take that as a hint and use surpluses in the economy to pay down the government debt, but they do not.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gatorman said:

To be fair, this isn't just Trump.  It is the GOP playbook as a whole.  Bush 2 did it as well and it blew up in his (well, McCain's) face when the housing bubble burst.

Considering how the Right's tax breaks to corporations usually lead to stock buy backs, the right should take that as a hint and use surpluses in the economy to pay down the government debt, but they do not.

Agreed and I was going to include the bolded in my post but took it out. When given the chance, the GOP will almost always side with big business, trying to justify it as "trickle down". 

I like giving it to the lower and middle class and let it work its way up. It certainly will in time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

does it matter ?

we don't live in a % world

if we did, 75% of the NBA , elected officials, company employee's etc etc would be white, 13% black, 18% hispanic and so on

 

but I've said I'm all for 10% flat taxing and the liberal left says no - they don't want fair taxing, they want people more successful than they are to pay out the nose and discriminate against 

To me, yes it does.   

What my understanding is - you factor in all the capital gains, inheritance, corporate, etc.. type taxes and the uber wealthy don't pay the same %s as Joe Middleclass.    I don't care if Bezos paid 100M taxes and I paid 10K taxes if mine account for 20% earnings for the year and his is 5%.   So yes, it does matter if we are talking raw dollars or %.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Commish said:

Deficits were declining at the end of the Obama admin

why do type foolishness like this ? do you think no national debt was added in those 8 years ?

serious question - do you know ?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KarmaPolice said:

To me, yes it does.   

What my understanding is - you factor in all the capital gains, inheritance, corporate, etc.. type taxes and the uber wealthy don't pay the same %s as Joe Middleclass.    I don't care if Bezos paid 100M taxes and I paid 10K taxes if mine account for 20% earnings for the year and his is 5%.   So yes, it does matter if we are talking raw dollars or %.  

if fair and equal matters - a flat tax is what you should want - everyone pays the SAME %

but what many seem to want is people making more than they do to pay more - which is income discrimination and hate IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Amused to Death said:

the GOP will almost always side with big business

why do you say "big business" ?

do you think Democrats don't cater to all the big businesses that give to the Democratic party like facebook, twitter, Amazon, etc etc ? Hollywood ? 

billionaires contributed in 2018 to Democratic party election more than to Republicans -- $313 million to $278 million   a quick google said

 

I think there is probably a very 50-50 split in rich being Republican and rich being Democrats ..... and make no mistake, these massive spending bills by Democrats are lining the pockets of the people who got Biden in there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

if fair and equal matters - a flat tax is what you should want - everyone pays the SAME %

but what many seem to want is people making more than they do to pay more - which is income discrimination and hate IMO

I have been interested in a flat tax of some sort for awhile now.  

 I don't want the Uber rich people to pay a higher % of their worth than me.  I would like them to pay more than they are now, so they are paying the same % of their worth as I do.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, KarmaPolice said:

I have been interested in a flat tax of some sort for awhile now.  

 I don't want the Uber rich people to pay a higher % of their worth than me.  I would like them to pay more than they are now, so they are paying the same % of their worth as I do.

 

how do you calculate that worth ?

a person making $3,000,000 a year say .... they likely have 2-3 homes, boats, go on vacations, they donate to charity, they employee a good number of people, they have properties and investments 

and they pay taxes on ALL of that and in some IRS perks, they get to write off what they spend and buy etc

doesn't any of that count ? because in theory we could remove all those perks ........... and the rich wouldn't donate, wouldn't invest, wouldn't do a lot of what they do now for writeoff's and look at the damages that'd do - all in the name of the Fed Govt getting a bit more money ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:
3 hours ago, The Commish said:

Deficits were declining at the end of the Obama admin

why do type foolishness like this ? do you think no national debt was added in those 8 years ?

serious question - do you know ?

Serious question - do you know that you rebutted a point not made?   His "foolishness" is fact.  The answer to your question doesn't change that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

how do you calculate that worth ?

a person making $3,000,000 a year say .... they likely have 2-3 homes, boats, go on vacations, they donate to charity, they employee a good number of people, they have properties and investments 

and they pay taxes on ALL of that and in some IRS perks, they get to write off what they spend and buy etc

doesn't any of that count ? because in theory we could remove all those perks ........... and the rich wouldn't donate, wouldn't invest, wouldn't do a lot of what they do now for writeoff's and look at the damages that'd do - all in the name of the Fed Govt getting a bit more money ? 

When we had 90% top tax rate did those earning this amount not invest, not donate, not whatever.  In 2018 it was guesstimated that 90% of households did not itemize.  Did none of these households invest or donate?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

why do type foolishness like this ? do you think no national debt was added in those 8 years ?

serious question - do you know ?

 

 

Of course I know....deficits were in decline and the debt was going up.  Is this a revelation to you?  It shouldn't be...the info is in the article and links you posted up thread.  It came from YOUR post.  :confused: 

Edited by The Commish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Commish said:
28 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

why do type foolishness like this ? do you think no national debt was added in those 8 years ?

serious question - do you know ?

 

 

Of course I know....deficits were in decline and the debt was going up.  Is this a revelation to you?  It shouldn't be...the info is in the article and links you posted up thread.  It came from YOUR post.  :confused: 

APOLOGIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  It was NOT in your post...so here it is:

https://datalab.usaspending.gov/americas-finance-guide/deficit/trends/

2011-2015 were all declining and then a blip up in 2016 (relative to 2015).....then the steady rise from 2017 on.

Edited by The Commish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Serious question - do you know that you rebutted a point not made?   His "foolishness" is fact.  The answer to your question doesn't change that.  

so you are telling me during the Biden years the United States of America didn't go more in debt? the national debt didn't increase ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

When we had 90% top tax rate did those earning this amount not invest, not donate, not whatever.  In 2018 it was guesstimated that 90% of households did not itemize.  Did none of these households invest or donate?  

I'm not sure what they did - but those 90% didn't pay the bulk of everything either did they ?

And I'm betting more than 10% put into 401K's (tax writeoffs) ... the same 90% gladly took their child care credits didn't they? wrote off their home mortgage interests and donations to charity ?

yeah, they did .... and so do the rich

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, The Commish said:

APOLOGIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  It was NOT in your post...so here it is:

https://datalab.usaspending.gov/americas-finance-guide/deficit/trends/

2011-2015 were all declining and then a blip up in 2016 (relative to 2015).....then the steady rise from 2017 on.

that's not national debt 

you're confused

its like your family having a cash budget of $4,000 every month .... you use that, and then you use $2,000 more in special spending and call it a balanced budget

the numbers don't lie

https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287

 

that's the true debt this Fed Govt - led by elected Democrats and Republicans - had saddled this country with

$85,000 for each of us

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

so you are telling me during the Biden years the United States of America didn't go more in debt? the national debt didn't increase ?

 

I'm telling you that if you read more and posted less then you might have a clue as to why your rebuttal to @The Commishrebutted nothing he said.  I'll give you a hint - he said nothing about the debt (at least directly) in the section you quoted.  Nor did he mention the Biden years, but that is probably just the kind of simple, innocent mistake one makes when they post without giving what the other person said any consideration.

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

2 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

I'm telling you that if you read more and posted less then you might have a clue as to why your rebuttal to @The Commishrebutted nothing he said.  I'll give you a hint - he said nothing about the debt (at least directly) in the section you quoted.  Nor did he mention the Biden years, but that is probably just the kind of simple, innocent mistake one makes when they post without giving what the other person said any consideration.

people confuse Debt with Deficit 

sometimes they do it with intent, other times because they don't know the difference

 

question - will the US Fed Govt, in 2021, under Joe Biden's leadership, spend more or less money than the US Fed Govt brings in

call it debt, deficit, call it a puppy ..... but will they ADD debt to this nation ?

that's the bottom line - and talking about budget surplus when ignoring the added debt in the same year is intentionally ignoring the core problem 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

that's not national debt 

you're confused

its like your family having a cash budget of $4,000 every month .... you use that, and then you use $2,000 more in special spending and call it a balanced budget

the numbers don't lie

https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287

 

that's the true debt this Fed Govt - led by elected Democrats and Republicans - had saddled this country with

$85,000 for each of us

I'm not confused on anything.  I fully understand the difference and I don't use the terms interchangeably.  You asked before if there was a way to get out of this and I said there was and it starts with reducing deficits and paying down debt.  They are factors 1A and 1B.  What I have pointed out ad nauseum is exactly what is in that chart and is a pretty indicator of where our "debt" problems sit.  You can look at it or not.  Doesn't matter to me.  But looking at it and processing it requires abandoning the talking points, so I'm not holding my breath.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Stealthycat said:

people confuse Debt with Deficit 

sometimes they do it with intent, other times because they don't know the difference

 

@The Commishwas not someone that was confused.  He said that Obama had the deficits declining year over year while the economy was growing year over year.  That if we just kept that trajectory while the economy was going well that the deficit problem would go away.  He was correct.  We have had a deficit in most every year since the depression and since WWII the debt situation improved under every single president except for Reagan, Bush (HW), Bush (W), Obama, and Trump.  The situation improved despite adding to the debt because the amount added (the deficit) was far less than what was added to the economy.  That could be where we are now.  It could be where we would have been  all along if not for one mistake that we keep making over and over again as if this time will be different.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

if fair and equal matters - a flat tax is what you should want - everyone pays the SAME %

but what many seem to want is people making more than they do to pay more - which is income discrimination and hate IMO

If you cut taxes on lower income people the economy does better.

If you cut taxes on upper income people the economy does worst.

If you cut taxes across the board the economy roughly breaks even.

Do you know why this is true (at least most of the time)?  Any theories?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I'm not confused on anything.  I fully understand the difference and I don't use the terms interchangeably.  You asked before if there was a way to get out of this and I said there was and it starts with reducing deficits and paying down debt.  They are factors 1A and 1B.  What I have pointed out ad nauseum is exactly what is in that chart and is a pretty indicator of where our "debt" problems sit.  You can look at it or not.  Doesn't matter to me.  But looking at it and processing it requires abandoning the talking points, so I'm not holding my breath.  

except in 8 years, Obama DOUBLED that debt, and Trump added roughly the same yearly increased spending (at least he didn't double it)  and now, Biden is tripling yearly what Trump followed Obama's precedence

do you see a trend ? Biden isn't reducing and he's not paying down - he's adding Trillions in spending proposals every month

I didn't vote for him or that - did you ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

If you cut taxes on lower income people the economy does better.

If you cut taxes on upper income people the economy does worst.

If you cut taxes across the board the economy roughly breaks even.

Do you know why this is true (at least most of the time)?  Any theories?  

can you link me something to show me the above is factually true and not just a guess ?

I know it isn't cut and dried - Federal Spending, Global issues, 9-11, market crashes etc all play big parts but, what you said about is very black and white and I'd like to see why you say it is 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

can you link me something to show me the above is factually true and not just a guess ?

I know it isn't cut and dried - Federal Spending, Global issues, 9-11, market crashes etc all play big parts but, what you said about is very black and white and I'd like to see why you say it is 

In the time I have use this and this quick and dirty and somewhat less than precise list.  

Across the board tax cuts-

Nonrefundable lump-sum tax rebate  1.01
Across-the-board tax cut   1.02

Tax Cuts for lower income-

Refundable lump-sum tax rebate 1.22
Payroll tax holiday  1.29

Tax Cuts for upper income (or companies)-

 

Accelerated depreciation 0.25
Extend alternative minimum tax patch 0.51
Make Bush income tax cuts permanent 0.32
Make dividend and capital gains tax cuts permanent 0.37

Cut corporate tax rate 0.32

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

except in 8 years, Obama DOUBLED that debt, and Trump added roughly the same yearly increased spending (at least he didn't double it)  and now, Biden is tripling yearly what Trump followed Obama's precedence

do you see a trend ? Biden isn't reducing and he's not paying down - he's adding Trillions in spending proposals every month

I didn't vote for him or that - did you ?

This seems like a good place for you to start:  https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306

Summary of the things you're obsessed with:

Debt increase from deficits 2008 - 2016:  $10.5T (roughly) (8 years)
Debt increases from deficits 2017 - 2020:  $7.37T (roughly) (4 years)

If you want to say that is "adding roughly the same" then you do you.  I'll just disagree.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AAABatteries said:

I literally cannot believe people still reply to him.  Most shocking things of the last four years:

1. People reply to SC

2. Trump gets elected POTUS

3. Leicester wins EPL

......

5,153,124 @The Gatorvotes yes on Proposition 64

Watching Chopped 420 right now... we’ve come a long way!

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

In the time I have use this and this quick and dirty and somewhat less than precise list.  

I didn't see the 25 trillion debt and the interest paid on that debt factored in anywhere - is it just ignored or ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/28/2021 at 9:53 AM, The Commish said:

And Capital Gains tax increase would be the MOST DIRECT and meaningful way to impact the tax gap in this country :shrug: 

Unfortunately not the way that it's currently laid out.  Under Biden plan the top short term cap gains tax will be 39.6%.  The long term cap gains tax will be 43.4%.  Holy perverse incentives.  I have much stronger words for this, but this is flat out dumb(, yet typical for politicians who can't seem to be able to add properly).

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

30 minutes ago, Sand said:

Unfortunately not the way that it's currently laid out.  Under Biden plan the top short term cap gains tax will be 39.6%.  The long term cap gains tax will be 43.4%.  Holy perverse incentives.  I have much stronger words for this, but this is flat out dumb(, yet typical for politicians who can't seem to be able to add properly).

I haven't seen the proposal, but this seems backwards.  I think the tax rate should be different depending on longevity rewarding those who are in it for the long haul.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

I didn't see the 25 trillion debt and the interest paid on that debt factored in anywhere - is it just ignored or ?

i know you are mostly concerned about the debt number but that is completely irrelevant to the claims you asked me to support.   At least directly.  This ties into this discussion in several ways.  The first is because you continually to support policies that are claimed to pay for themselves by growing the economy but they actually harm the economy.  The second where this conversation began is because you think proportional taxation (taking the same percentage from everyone) as opposed to progressive (taking more from those dollars that are of less value) hurts evenly.  There are economic (and political) reasons to support proportional taxation (flat rates) but the idea that the nth dollar is just as valuable as the first is simply not one of them.  Why not is one of the most basic concepts of economics.  Why not is why taking from the rich and giving to the poor tends to make the rich even richer.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

i know you are mostly concerned about the debt number but that is completely irrelevant to the claims you asked me to support.   At least directly.  This ties into this discussion in several ways.  The first is because you continually to support policies that are claimed to pay for themselves by growing the economy but they actually harm the economy.  The second where this conversation began is because you think proportional taxation (taking the same percentage from everyone) as opposed to progressive (taking more from those dollars that are of less value) hurts evenly.  There are economic (and political) reasons to support proportional taxation (flat rates) but the idea that the nth dollar is just as valuable as the first is simply not one of them.  Why not is one of the most basic concepts of economics.  Why not is why taking from the rich and giving to the poor tends to make the rich even richer.

here is what we know

rich pay the bulk of the taxation in this country - and we are 25 trillion in debt

if spending 16 trillion in 12 years is the key to economic booming .... where is it at? theoretically that 16 trillion should have generated an economy where everyone has jobs, the return of that investment greater than the 16 trillion spent and all that

its not happened, which is the problem with economic theory

 

would you be ok with 50 trillion in debt? 100 trillion? 500 trillion? is there a limit or is it now truly funny money and the Fed Govt controlled by some 550 people elected spending trillion is acceptable ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biden announces intentions for massively increased corporate taxes.  

In the first shoe to drop GM (you know, the company we taxpayers saved from bankruptcy) announced 1B of investment going to Mexico for EV plant.  

There will be many, many more of these as corporations look for low tax havens for a better business climate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Sand said:

Biden announces intentions for massively increased corporate taxes.  

In the first shoe to drop GM (you know, the company we taxpayers saved from bankruptcy) announced 1B of investment going to Mexico for EV plant.  

There will be many, many more of these as corporations look for low tax havens for a better business climate.

To escape from a proposed 28% corporate tax rate, General Motors is running to Mexico's tax haven 30% rate?   No wonder they needed to be bailed out!

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Sand said:

Biden announces intentions for massively increased corporate taxes.  

In the first shoe to drop GM (you know, the company we taxpayers saved from bankruptcy) announced 1B of investment going to Mexico for EV plant.  

There will be many, many more of these as corporations look for low tax havens for a better business climate.

I’m guessing these plans have probably been in place for awhile. Regardless, GM is putting 9 Billion into US EV related stuff. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

To escape from a proposed 28% corporate tax rate, General Motors is running to Mexico's tax haven 30% rate?   No wonder they needed to be bailed out!

Yeah, not for the cheap labor or anything.  :doh:

That will more than offset any of their "tax haven".  And, who knows, maybe they got a tax deal moving down there.  Did you check?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Sand said:

Biden announces intentions for massively increased corporate taxes.  

In the first shoe to drop GM (you know, the company we taxpayers saved from bankruptcy) announced 1B of investment going to Mexico for EV plant.  

There will be many, many more of these as corporations look for low tax havens for a better business climate.

Not for nuttin' but I'm pretty sure this was part of the "new" nafta agreement if I remember correctly, but that was a while ago, so don't hold me to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

Yeah, not for the cheap labor or anything.  :doh:

That will more than offset any of their "tax haven".  And, who knows, maybe they got a tax deal moving down there.  Did you check?

Exactly.  I used to be a financial analyst for a Fortune 500 company.  We ran models all the time on facilities.  Basically the financial models calculated IRR's across various scenarios.  Of course, always included were tax and labor rates among many other factors.  Then there are incremental summaries showing the variances between each case and why each performed better/worse than their alternates.  So yeah, tax rates will change those and will make those facilities that can be moved overseas more attractive than before.  It is just basic financial reality.  

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Shula-holic said:

Exactly.  I used to be a financial analyst for a Fortune 500 company.  We ran models all the time on facilities.  Basically the financial models calculated IRR's across various scenarios.  Of course, always included were tax and labor rates among many other factors.  Then there are incremental summaries showing the variances between each case and why each performed better/worse than their alternates.  So yeah, tax rates will change those and will make those facilities that can be moved overseas more attractive than before.  It is just basic financial reality.  

You’re correct. 
But of course tax rates is only one of several elements. If we improve our infrastructure I presume that would be a positive. Companies do like good roads and nice places to live for their executives don’t they? 
 

Overall though, as I noted in the Biden thread, I don’t approve of the way the Democrats are going about raising taxation. It’s lazy. 

Edited by timschochet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, timschochet said:

You’re correct. 
But of course tax rates is only one of several elements. If we improve our infrastructure I presume that would be a positive. Companies do like good roads and nice places to live for their executives don’t they? 
 

Overall though, as I noted in the Biden thread, I don’t approve of the way the Democrats are going about raising taxation. It’s lazy. 

Roads or infrastructure is all presumed equal.  I never saw a financial model we had that took non-economic factors into account.  Now if you are comparing a remote site to one in an industrial area, you might decide not to look at the remote site because access to it simply wouldn't work.  But that's more an issue of whether the site was feasible rather than its economic viability.  The biggest inputs that varied were sales projections but the biggest drivers were really labor and fringes (benefits).  Tax rates are easy fixed costs to project and change because there is no room for variance, they are what they are.

We actually had a large operation in Mexico, shocking how the health and safety costs were so much cheaper there than any of the domestic facilities.

  • Like 1
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...