Huge Corporate Profits- so Why do They Need a Tax Cut?

a reply to: CB328

The obvious reason is that Republicans wan't to destroy the middle and lower class.

And that's the point where I stopped taking you seriously.

But for those who are actually interested:

There is a huge amount of money sitting in offshore accounts, specifically to avoid taxes. With that in mind, which is better for the government and the economy:
A) 40% of 2 trillion OR
B) 30% of 3 trillion

One results in a government revenue of $800B, the other results in a government revenue of $900B.
One results in $1.2T of spending in the USA, the other results in $2.1T of spending in the USA.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Blaine91555

We lose the ability for the average person or family to start a business and succeed while competing against huge companies who have a built in advantage, we as a country lose an important part of our identity.

Do you think it's taxes that prevent someone from competing with Apple? The glory of entrepreneurship is in the finding, or creation of a market that did not exist. Partnerships and sole proprietorships are the where such things begin, not the corporate world. Those are personal taxes, not corporate taxes.

I think that entrepreneurs are limited more by local regulation (in some localities) than anything else.

Phage, I left the suit and tie world in the mid 1980's. I've been self employed and an employer since that time. I'm fully aware of what is involved in succeeding in a small business.

Starting one involves a lot of sacrifice and a lot of hours. It involves not letting it bother you that you have employees who make more than you do and you work twice the hours they do. That was a reality for my wife and I the first few years and the payoff comes later in life. It's not about the rare fairy tale like stories of people who stumble over the holy grail and get rich overnight.

I agree things for an SP should be different and I've dealt with that for decades. I think that's a different topic than corporate taxes though. Small businesses have always been dumped on in favor of large ones. The only things that do help out are not being subject to having to provide the same things to employees or the regulation the larger businesses face.

In the end it's the State and Local that are the biggest impediment to starting out. I've watched so many small businesses over the years fail because the entrepreneur did flat out stupid stuff, I've lost count. That factors into it also.

One woman I got to know, decided to sell her house and start a Loom shop in a small city in Idaho of only 50,000 people or so. She quickly found out she had only three customers in the area and sat and lost it all, while blaming everyone but herself for her dumb idea.

I watched another that opened up next door to me go down quickly. A woman decided she wanted to open a used clothing store. Ok fine, that's a profitable business to go into. The problem was she was lazy, thought she could drag her feet, take her time opening and the money would just fall in her lap. She'd drop by every few days, put up one rack or hang one drape and then leave. She went on that way for three months, never getting her door open and working maybe three hours a week and then her doors were locked and she'd pissed off her investment out talking about starting a business instead just doing it. She should have had her doors opened in three days and ads running. She thought it was a game and she learned the hard way while she bankrupted herself.

The other mistake that causes most people to fail is not realizing they need as much as three years budget in hand to succeed and they may not be able to take any income themselves for the first couple of years. Unreasonable expectations.

Most I think look at who they work for and think I can do that, not realizing all the sacrifices and work the person they work for put in to get to that point. They just see someone doing well and letting others do the work and are not aware that person likely worked 30 years of hours in ten years and risked it all so they could be the one running the place and yes maybe taking it a bit easy later in life.

Sorry, you got me started

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Get you now. Yes they own a broad spectrum of listed companies. I was refering to the ownership not the companies owned.

Rouhgly 40% of the population is a very strong number in my opinion considering that the overall population number includes children and people in their 20's who typically do not own stock or have retirement accounts.

Yes but if pension funds represent the main way of holding stocks for the majority of people and pension funds make up a third of stock ownership then there is not really a wide spread ownership.

If the 99 % of the population owned 51% if all shares you could accurately claim that the majority of people owned the majority of shares, however it wouldn't really mean there is much in the way of equitable ownership.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Sorry, you got me started

No crap.

But it seems that you agree with me. It's local conditions which are the greatest impediment to new businesses, not difficulty in competing with huge corporations. It's two different worlds. Actually more that that.

A small building contractor can't compete with a large one, but they aren't necessarily after the same market. They don't bid the same jobs. The small guy can do pretty damned well for himself.

Granted, not being incorporated as a builder is not a good idea though. Risky.

a reply to: Phage

I think that depends on the business we are talking about. In retail the large corporations are crushing local businesses and the mom & pop stores are soon to be a thing of the past.

I don't really want to get into what I do for privacy reasons, but I spend most of my day talking to business owners or upper level management. For the last three years it's been coming to a head and the locally owned retail stores are beginning to sound almost suicidal. Due to Amazon and the Internet they had a horrible Christmas season last year and they simply cannot compete with the big box stores. They are dying off at an alarming rate and with them the possibility of young people now owning their own store. Unemployment is rising here and the lost jobs were high paying ones. Add the two together and you have the perfect storm for small businesses to board up their windows.

Federal Government regulation is behind the high paying jobs disappearing and the unfair advantage that large corporations have is crushing local retail. Times they be a changin.

a reply to: Blaine91555

I think that depends on the business we are talking about. In retail the large corporations are crushing local businesses and the mom & pop stores are soon to be a thing of the past.

True. That's why I said:

The glory of entrepreneurship is in the finding, or creation of a market that did not exist. Partnerships and sole proprietorships are the where such things begin, not the corporate world.

The old markets are going away.

a reply to: Phage

Yes, we do seem to be agreeing for the most part.

I'm truly saddened that the world I grew up in where a person really could take part in the American Dream is going away. Corporations with the help of bought and paid for politicians legislating tax loopholes to benefit them so they pay no taxes, is certainly a factor when small businesses, usually incorporated now, have no way to advantage the same loopholes.

I don't really care for that new reality, but it is what it is.

a reply to: Blaine91555

It's all too easy to be a reactionary, but seldom productive.

Make America great again. Right?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

37% of 22.8 trillion is only about 7 trillion. Spread among 320 million people that's $21,875 per person. Basically a pittance as far as retirement is concerned.

Retirement accounts are not substantial.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Great insights!

In an earlier post I mentioned removing profits and/or balanced at 0 economy. You assumed socialism however that doesn't need to be the case, capitalism can still exist in a "0" profit end game(I think?). Capitalism should not be about the profits turned by a company at the end of the year, but more so about the paychecks that enter the wage earners bank account(Or pockets). Would you still not have the desire to create a profitable business if it would serve the people you love, the community around you and improve the fate of mankind, IF you we're educated that the people around and the well being of society is more important than money? If we would come to realize most services are not NEEDS(though they are sold to us as if they we're) that provide nothing to society except increase our ecological footprint on this planet, could we not potentially all work much less(without being "Lazy"), and still suffice to achieve all our needs are human progression?

Removing profits does not remove paychecks, pay yourself a million a year if that's what your business is generating, you will be taxed on that salary, your business would not have taxes at this point. I personally would cap salaries though, surplus profits would be directly into the governments bank account, divided among its hard working wage earners or reflected in good and service prices.

How all this would work, I don't know...but I'm sure their is a coalition of greater minds out there that could come up with a logical, ethical and fair way to do something of the sorts, evolving the current system instead of tearing it down. Tearing it down does seem tempting, but unless you have complete economic control(one un-corrupt WORLD government), it would never work and even at that...I'm not sure it would work.

We are educated to believe that socialism would make people lazy and give people no need to "work"...but it is all about the education. If we we're educated that we should all contribute to society to ensure our basic needs, it would not be an issue. Look at history before capitalism. Look at tribes that barely still exist in parts of the world (Pygmys for example). These tribes barely still exist because capitalism is tearing down natural habitats and teaching us that our food and medicine should come from a store, anything else can kill you...but before money, before barter, humanity was able to co-exist and work together.

originally posted by: Blaine91555

originally posted by: Aazadan
If everything is a flat rate and we remove the loopholes, then how is West Virginia supposed to attract investment to one day retrain coal workers?

Well, we are talking about federal here I think, but like I said, equal playing field. Companies will chose their locations based on common sense things like infrastructure. If States want to attract business, do it by providing the right environment.

State interests are still at play with federal spending. Senators choose what companies the government contracts with, and more broadly where they sign those contracts. The job of a senator is to bring money and jobs to their state.

I did some math about two week's ago to tease some colleagues. Our employer's shareholders are expecting about 10 BIllion in declared profits for the year(which will mostly all be paid out to a few thousand rich shareholders). What would happen if those profits be given to the hardworking employees? Thousands of lives would be changed! That won't happen though.

a reply to: UndeadWarrior

The main problem with what you are saying is that profits is how businesses grow, how they pay for research and development to come up with new idea's and products.

Capitalism is imperfect for sure, but what you're suggesting I can't see working.

We are not much different than all other animals. You feed wild animals, you are abusing them and possibly killing them. They lose the ability to feed themselves and when food is not offered they become a danger by demanding it and trying to take it by force. People are the same.

Is there a middle ground that would be better? No doubt there is, until you mix in human nature.

What you suggest might be a good thing for small populations, but like it or not we are inside a global economy serving seven and half billion people.

Communism and Socialism are both good idea's on the surface, but sadly we are human and that always leads to a two class system and a faux middle class of party loyalists given the illusion of a middle class. Under Capitalism there is a path to a better life.

The genie is out of the bottle and the old world of small self sufficient communities is no more. The Earth could not support a population of this size living off the land like the tribes you mention. You think global business is messing up the environment, imagine 323 million people living off the land in the US. We would be in a perpetual cloud of wood smoke, the trees would be gone and the animal life would be no more. It's just no longer possible.

a reply to: UndeadWarrior

You believe that shareholders are all rich? You do understand that the largest block of shareholders are peoples retirement funds?

a reply to: Aazadan

Yes, I agree. That's how they can keep getting votes even though they are incompetent, by buying votes with a place at the federal trough.

originally posted by: UndeadWarrior
I did some math about two week's ago to tease some colleagues. Our employer's shareholders are expecting about 10 BIllion in declared profits for the year(which will mostly all be paid out to a few thousand rich shareholders). What would happen if those profits be given to the hardworking employees? Thousands of lives would be changed! That won't happen though.

Shouldn't the shareholders profit from taking a risk on funding the company? Furthermore, what if you negotiated stock options as part of your compensation? Many companies offer that, especially ones big enough to profit $10 billion in a year

originally posted by: Blaine91555
I think that depends on the business we are talking about. In retail the large corporations are crushing local businesses and the mom & pop stores are soon to be a thing of the past.

I don't really want to get into what I do for privacy reasons, but I spend most of my day talking to business owners or upper level management. For the last three years it's been coming to a head and the locally owned retail stores are beginning to sound almost suicidal. Due to Amazon and the Internet they had a horrible Christmas season last year and they simply cannot compete with the big box stores. They are dying off at an alarming rate and with them the possibility of young people now owning their own store. Unemployment is rising here and the lost jobs were high paying ones. Add the two together and you have the perfect storm for small businesses to board up their windows.

Federal Government regulation is behind the high paying jobs disappearing and the unfair advantage that large corporations have is crushing local retail. Times they be a changin.

What I do is software engineering, virtual reality development specifically. I attend a few software development conferences per year. Every year there's basically two subjects that have been gaining in popularity, virtual reality and entrepreneurship. Software is one of the easiest small businesses to create too, because you can set up shop anywhere, copy and distribute your product for free, and you can even license (rent) it at no risk to yourself of product damage. It also has the advantage that you have a world wide customer base to draw from rather than being subject to the whims of a local economy.

Maybe the businesses you see are simply running outdated business models?

a reply to: Blaine91555

I understand that. The largest block of shareholders belongs to an astronomical amount of people, while what may be a smaller block belongs to a MUCH smaller number of people. Retirement funds are all fine and dandy, how much of those "shareholder" profits are actually kept in the end after all the company overhead? Salaries, brokerage fees, various expenses, etc.

During that time, having so much money invested in the stock market artificially inflates certain products in our world, creates inflation and indirectly making the common person live paycheck to paycheck. These people, the average John or Jane doe are stuck in a cycle of consumption and debt, getting less than 2% pay increase while the cost of living increases. Cost of living is NOT what is used to be, living now means you NEED the internet(Try sending your kids to school and not have internet for example), you need to eat out (who has not had a family bday party in a restaurant in the last year, can you always say no?).

Most people from the generation that doesn't currently have grey hair is not likely to see their retirement funds in the end for a variety of reasons.
1) The "baby boomer" generation will retire first, theoretically not much should be left in the "bank" after that, and even if it does...with the US trying to limit immigration, how will your economy survive with all those retired folks and such a short amount of laborers?
2) Most will die of some sort of cancer before retirement
3) Even if you reach retirement age, odds are your retirement fund will not be enough to survive and you will need to continue working until the day you die(in terms of a wage owner, I don't know how retirement funds work in the US in terms of folks like you who own a business Blaine).

These are my thoughts on some of that, and I may be way off base on the whole thing.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Yes but if pension funds represent the main way of holding stocks for the majority of people and pension funds make up a third of stock ownership then there is not really a wide spread ownership.

The article stated pensions and 401Ks.

a reply to: Aazadan

Their is absolutely no risk in investing in the company I work for unless total economic collapse. So...no they shouldn't, their so called "risk" for the most part has been paid over ten fold+.
As a common wage earner I don't think I can negotiate stock options...that is for the big guns. If I could though, I wouldn't...because I need the money to feed my family and pay my bills. In the end, it's unlikely I would continue to work long enough for a company of the sorts for stock options to truly "pay off" in the end because raises to the common folk are less than 2%. I am better to jump ship after about 3 to 5 years to another company, and trying to get a 10%-20% pay increase instead. Loyalty does not pay off anymore...the higher your tenure, the higher your vacations allotments, the higher you salary and your bonus, the more likely you are to suddenly find yourself without a job and working in a fast food joint or grocery story. Take it from someone who has worked on and been forced to sign NDA's to cut several hundred jobs in the last 10 years working in the field...

Pay attention to the sheer amount of 40-50 year old+ people working minimum wage jobs, I dare you to ask them why they are working such a job. Sure some are dead enders...many had good jobs once and saw their positions "abolished" and replaced by a 20 year old doing a similar but not same job(since it would be illegal) for a fraction of the salary, and then you have a bunch of them who simply can not live on their retirement funds that need a side line.

At least, that's what it seems like from a Canadian perspective, and we are led to believe that we are in a much better position that our US counter parts.