US tax reform, if it passes, predicted to drive Apple toward $1 trillion market cap

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 55
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,301member
    jbdragon said:
    We are so much in Debt, you could tax the so called rich 100% of their money and it wouldn't put a dent in it. Before we got off the Gold Standard with our money, You could put your money into the bank, it'll build interest and you could retire with that money. Inflation was very slow. Got off the gold standard so that the Government could just spend more money. Don't have enough, no problem, print a bunch more!!! Devaluing the dollar. 

    The more money the Government steals from people, the more it wants. It's never enough. There's no end in site. If you let them, they'll take 100% of every single persons money and it still wouldn't be enough. There's no such thing as FREE STUFF. Someone ends up having to pay for it. As some point, it'll be you.
    And, when you see *how* it's being done, you'll get really tweaked off. It's bills stuffed inside bills... like some Veteran's Act will have all kinds of unrelated things in it, or a bunch of stuff will get burred into a budget where it's all or nothing (shut down the gov't or keep it going level stuff). To make matters worse, these bills often are introduced less than 24 hours from the vote. Some of the biggest things in the last decade (TPP for example) was done in secret where a Congress-person had to schedule to go into a room with no note-taking capabilities if they even wanted to read it or know about it before the vote. It's also not one party or the other necessarily, they are both in on it for the big stuff.

    A podcast every American needs to follow is Congressional Dish where the host (whether you agree or disagree with her take on it) keeps up on this stuff. It's pretty much a situation where they all need to be fired and we start over.
  • Reply 42 of 55
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    cgWerks said:
    spice-boy said:
    I am still waiting for the 1980's tax reform and the promised "trickle down" to reach the poor and middle class.....
    Corporations which will benefit from such tax reform will not use that that extra cash to create jobs in this country history has proven this. More money will be hoarded overseas in tax shelters and the consolidation of wealth and power will keep it's steady pace. 
    Most small to medium companies don't have oversea tax shelters or hordes of investors to keep happy. When they have more operating capital, they often invest it back into the company. Don't confuse the typical business with the few giant mega-corporations. The latter always has plenty of tax options no matter what the local government policy. If the tax burden gets too great, business slows and so does tax collection. There's nothing magic about 'trickle down'... it's kind of economics 101. (Note: I'm not agreeing with any particular linkage of those words to particular historical policies... just stating the obvious. What's you're referring to is a huge mixed bag with a bunch of other social movements, changes, and implications thrown in.)
    Trickle down relates to cutting taxes and expecting you'll get a boost in revenues from increase in the rest of the overall economy.
    That this tide will magically lift all boats in some near future and compensate for the massive cuts in the ability of government to affect its leverage in the overall economy in the near to mid term..

    That's what it means and that's how it's used. Your own imaginary definition is not relevant when actual decade long use is counter to it.

    BTW, this leverage, the government, has been proven to actual be a very efficient way of boosting the overall economy unlike tax cuts which mostly go to the top 5% (EVERY TIME) and that money either sits in assets, or is used in the market (and that most of that money's not staying home).
    (and yes, this is actually taught in econ 101) unlike that worthless neo-con trickle down crap which IS NOT.
    Why, because it's total bullshit that's been discredited 10 times over since it became popular in the 1970s to 1980s.

    Only idiots and Trump would believe such things (someone who has dozens of business failures, hundreds of settlements (including a 15M one in the university fraud case) and 6 bankruptcies) and has said his net worth depends on how he feels (in court!).

    That you even talk about those poor SME is diversion, they get a small fraction of the lot, while everything around them gets crappier and their potential clients get poorer.

    The US borrowing in the short term to cut taxes for in the hope of making it up long term is looting the US's future; a future were the US is heavily socially stratified and were there is no such things as the american dream for most.



    edited October 2017
  • Reply 43 of 55
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    cgWerks said:
    jbdragon said:
    We are so much in Debt, you could tax the so called rich 100% of their money and it wouldn't put a dent in it. Before we got off the Gold Standard with our money, You could put your money into the bank, it'll build interest and you could retire with that money. Inflation was very slow. Got off the gold standard so that the Government could just spend more money. Don't have enough, no problem, print a bunch more!!! Devaluing the dollar. 

    The more money the Government steals from people, the more it wants. It's never enough. There's no end in site. If you let them, they'll take 100% of every single persons money and it still wouldn't be enough. There's no such thing as FREE STUFF. Someone ends up having to pay for it. As some point, it'll be you.
    And, when you see *how* it's being done, you'll get really tweaked off. It's bills stuffed inside bills... like some Veteran's Act will have all kinds of unrelated things in it, or a bunch of stuff will get burred into a budget where it's all or nothing (shut down the gov't or keep it going level stuff). To make matters worse, these bills often are introduced less than 24 hours from the vote. Some of the biggest things in the last decade (TPP for example) was done in secret where a Congress-person had to schedule to go into a room with no note-taking capabilities if they even wanted to read it or know about it before the vote. It's also not one party or the other necessarily, they are both in on it for the big stuff.

    A podcast every American needs to follow is Congressional Dish where the host (whether you agree or disagree with her take on it) keeps up on this stuff. It's pretty much a situation where they all need to be fired and we start over.
    The bill's content was well known, that you believe all that crap means you're part of the problem.
    edited October 2017
  • Reply 44 of 55
    "Tax reform." What farce.

    This is, a *tax cut* for the wealthy. No one here is going to benefit from it, and unless you still believe that a company like Apple (and not just Apple) having an affective ZERO percent tax rate is going to do anything for you, just ask the folks of Kansas how this nonsense worked for them.

    Spoiler: it didn't. Not by a long shot.
  • Reply 45 of 55
    Let me make it simple how it impacts upper middle class with an example.

    Let's say your family's annual earning is rounded to 200,000. You are a family of 4, with state tax of 5% and paying property tax of about $12000 and Mortgage interest is about $15000.($1250 / month interest)

    First example is using standard deduction.
    Year 2017:
    Standard Deduction $12700
    Personal Exemption $4000/person =$16000 for family of 4.
    Total deduction for year 2017 = $28700

    Year 2018: Under new tax plan:
    Standard Deduction $25000
    Personal Exemption $0

    You will be paying additional tax with your highest bracket for $3700 (28700 - 25000)

    This case will not apply to most.
    Below case will apply to most who uses itemized deductions
    2017 Itemized deduction:
    Home property tax $12000
    Home mortgage $15000
    State tax 5% = $10000
    Personal Exemption $4000×4= $16000
    Donations $2000
    Total Deduction taken = $55000

    Under 2018 proposed tax plan.
    -Property tax deduction going away
    -Home mortgage $15000
    -State tax/Sales tax deduction going away
    -Personal Exemption going away
    -Donation $2000
    Total deduction allowed = $17000, which is lower than $25000 standard deduction, so most will end up getting standard deduction.

    So compared to old tax proposal,upper middle class will be paying additional tax on their highest bracket on  $55000 - $25000=$30000 of income, which may come around $30000 × 28-33% = $10000
    In summary every middle class with house and around 5% sales tax will be paying $10000 for exact same income as last year.
    These number are just used as roundup to give real time example on how it will impact middle class.
    edited October 2017
  • Reply 46 of 55
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,301member
    foggyhill said:
    The bill's content was well known, that you believe all that crap means you're part of the problem.
    Which one? This happens every couple weeks (or possibly more). And, no, if our Representatives don't know what's in them, it's quite unlikely you, I, or the average citizen does. (If you listen to any of the hearings, you'll hear some of them complaining about it!)
  • Reply 47 of 55
    Or for simplicity, you can think of this way.
    To balance the budget they are taking almost trillion dollars of deduction away from working/middle class families. Where is that trillion dollars of deductions are going? They are going to Corporate/LLC/rich people, so who is really benefitting from his tax plan? Serious question?
  • Reply 48 of 55
    frankie said:
    The last thing multi-billion $ companies need is another tax break, when most of them are barely paying as it is.
    I will say again: who are you to say how much someone else pays in taxes? To this point, I will add that there should be no personal income tax whatsoever, and that all companies–regardless of size–should have their income taxed at the same rate, regardless of source thereof. It's that simple. 
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 49 of 55
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,301member
    frankie said:
    The last thing multi-billion $ companies need is another tax break, when most of them are barely paying as it is.
    I will say again: who are you to say how much someone else pays in taxes? To this point, I will add that there should be no personal income tax whatsoever, and that all companies–regardless of size–should have their income taxed at the same rate, regardless of source thereof. It's that simple. 
    Yea, I think a lot more emphasis should be on how they are wasting the tax money they do collect, than how to squeeze more out or where it should come from. And, yes, I also like the more flat-tax oriented plans and/or consumption tax and simplify the heck out of it all.
    tallest skil
  • Reply 50 of 55
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    shahhet2 said:
    Let me make it simple how it impacts upper middle class with an example.

    Let's say your family's annual earning is rounded to 200,000. You are a family of 4, with state tax of 5% and paying property tax of about $12000 and Mortgage interest is about $15000.($1250 / month interest)

    First example is using standard deduction.
    Year 2017:
    Standard Deduction $12700
    Personal Exemption $4000/person =$16000 for family of 4.
    Total deduction for year 2017 = $28700

    Year 2018: Under new tax plan:
    Standard Deduction $25000
    Personal Exemption $0

    You will be paying additional tax with your highest bracket for $3700 (28700 - 25000)

    This case will not apply to most.
    Below case will apply to most who uses itemized deductions
    2017 Itemized deduction:
    Home property tax $12000
    Home mortgage $15000
    State tax 5% = $10000
    Personal Exemption $4000×4= $16000
    Donations $2000
    Total Deduction taken = $55000

    Under 2018 proposed tax plan.
    -Property tax deduction going away
    -Home mortgage $15000
    -State tax/Sales tax deduction going away
    -Personal Exemption going away
    -Donation $2000
    Total deduction allowed = $17000, which is lower than $25000 standard deduction, so most will end up getting standard deduction.

    So compared to old tax proposal,upper middle class will be paying additional tax on their highest bracket on  $55000 - $25000=$30000 of income, which may come around $30000 × 28-33% = $10000
    In summary every middle class with house and around 5% sales tax will be paying $10000 for exact same income as last year.
    These number are just used as roundup to give real time example on how it will impact middle class.
    That's not the "real impact", the real impact is a lot less services (because less gov revenues and from having to finance these tax cuts that will never pay for themselves).
    If your actually think anyone but the richest really "get something" out of this you're being funny.

    BTW, I would be part of the 1% if I was taxed in the US (I'm a Canadian). But, in Canada, my taxes are ahem, really really high and I'm OK with that.
    I lived in California for a decade and there the taxes were pretty high, but not not as high.
  • Reply 51 of 55
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    cgWerks said:
    foggyhill said:
    The bill's content was well known, that you believe all that crap means you're part of the problem.
    Which one? This happens every couple weeks (or possibly more). And, no, if our Representatives don't know what's in them, it's quite unlikely you, I, or the average citizen does. (If you listen to any of the hearings, you'll hear some of them complaining about it!)
    The TPP.
     Most representative don't give a crap of what's in the bills, and yes, it is very knowable.
    They give a crap what they're donor says they should vote on. Sad but true.

    I've read a text book on quantum mechanics in 3 days (and I'm pretty sure it is a 10 times harder read than any of those texts) and those bums can't get though a bill, or hire a dozens people to create a resume in a few hours that they can pass around to the rest of congress... Give me a break.  

    Things like TPP (and most trade pact) have been worked on for years. When these things come out, there is NO SURPRISES, unless some congress bozos decided to tack some riders in there (and they sure know what they added: pork).
  • Reply 52 of 55
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,301member
    foggyhill said:
    BTW, I would be part of the 1% if I was taxed in the US (I'm a Canadian). But, in Canada, my taxes are ahem, really really high and I'm OK with that. 
    I lived in California for a decade and there the taxes were pretty high, but not not as high.
    If you make over like $20k/yr, you're part of the 1%. I'm a US citizen who also now lives in Canada. The difference is that I feel the taxes here are better put to use. When the vast majority of taxes are simply wasted, we've got a right to complain about them.

    foggyhill said:
    Things like TPP (and most trade pact) have been worked on for years. When these things come out, there is NO SURPRISES, unless some congress bozos decided to tack some riders in there (and they sure know what they added: pork).
    That was just one example... but I think you should check into that a bit more.
    https://congressionaldish.com/?s=TPP
    There's a reason the term 'fast-track' was used in reference to it.
    Lots of pork to go around.

    (Also, capitalism isn't the problem... it's capitalism sans a moral foundation and proper regulation.)
  • Reply 53 of 55
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,229moderator
    cgWerks said:
    foggyhill said:
    BTW, I would be part of the 1% if I was taxed in the US (I'm a Canadian). But, in Canada, my taxes are ahem, really really high and I'm OK with that. 
    I lived in California for a decade and there the taxes were pretty high, but not not as high.
    If you make over like $20k/yr, you're part of the 1%. I'm a US citizen who also now lives in Canada. The difference is that I feel the taxes here are better put to use. When the vast majority of taxes are simply wasted, we've got a right to complain about them.
    Globally it's around $34k/yr according to the following site but it's different comparing countries locally and by wealth accumulated:

    http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp
    http://www.businessinsider.com/income-top-one-percent-us-cities-2015-8
    https://www.aol.com/article/finance/2017/08/09/how-much-money-millennials-need-to-earn-to-be-in-the-top-1-perce/23072496/
    https://globalnews.ca/news/2316192/heres-what-we-know-about-canadas-highest-earning-1/

    In developed countries, the minimum to be in the top 1% is around $150-250k/yr. It has to be weighed up against living costs.

    There wouldn't be nearly the same problems with taxation if the taxes were part of transactions like sales tax. In order for anyone to acquire money, there has to be a transaction. Rather than wait until after the transaction is settled where people complain about taxes being requested, make it part of the transaction. All through the year, tax money would be constantly collected from transactions. If too much was taken from certain companies or individuals then they could claim some back. As soon as someone makes a suspicious looking claim, they investigate them for fraud.

    This would make it much easier for businesses to operate because you could just hire someone and don't have to think about income tax returns. When the income transaction is made, they pay the tax during the transaction. The percentage of the tax can scale based on the transaction but would be fixed in most cases and just claimed back. The requirement for this has to be moving to cashless transactions. This doesn't have to mean no concept of cash, they can create signed digital units of cash that are encrypted files, which are verified with a central authority, similar to cryptocurrency but centrally controlled rather than decentralized and don't need to be mined. They still have some anonymity as the files don't need to know who had them, they just need to be valid with the id of who currently has them. Each file would be updated during a transaction and the central authority controls the software to handle this. There would be a maximum cash wallet size, beyond which the transaction has to be done the standard verified way.

    This makes it easy for the elderly to handle their cash and it can be protected behind biometrics e.g you go to a cashpoint or online, take out a phone or other secure device, authenticate to remove cash but instead of cash, it transfers encrypted digital tokens onto the device. When they go to a store or restaurant or just pass a busker and need to pay, they can transfer the tokens and those tokens would be verified by the central authority (can be in real-time as the tax would be taken from them during the process or it can be deferred under the condition of trust - the devices can store a number of valid transactions from a particular source to know a false one is abnormal but a new source wouldn't be trusted).

    This would mean global transactions would be taxed more easily too. Someone sells a product in one country, the tax is taken during the transaction and the money can be moved directly back to a native country and repatriation tax can be taken during that transaction. This would be for income tax and it can be set at 10%. If an employee is paid $2k a month, they'd only receive $1800 and the business doesn't need to file income tax returns. When they pay for a product (rent, utilities, groceries), a similar 10% is taken from the business being paid. Wherever there are instances where the compounding percentage has too much impact, they claim back explaining the impact.

    Documentation for employees is also done for social security. Instead, someone can just show an aggregate log of payments, which both governments and banks would have, to show social security contributions.

    There should also be a tax on large amounts of unused assets (including property). If someone is just hoarding digital cash, that's damaging the economy. This can work itself out more easily with physical cash. Pablo Escobar the drug lord lost around 10% of his billions every year due to spoilage of physical bank notes. Depreciation does this to an extent but not fast enough. If people then move all their assets to tax havens, as soon as they try to spend it, it gets taxed during transactions at a higher rate. Often celebrities will try to hide millions in earnings to avoid high income tax fees like 50-75% tax rate. If they were instead charged 10% plus 5% yearly on the assets, they'd be less likely to look for avoidance e.g $5m earnings instantly dropping to $2.5m vs $5m dropping to $4.5m in year 1, dropping to $2.5m after 11 years (the rate would lower to zero as the assets diminished below a threshold). This would put an end to off-shoring too if the off-shore countries followed the same rules (companies would decide between 5% per year to the tax-haven or 10% one-off repatriation) and if not, the transaction tax will sort it out anyway.

    The unfairness in the tax systems are down to the differences in the way they are exploited by different companies and this exploitation takes place because transactions are allowed to take place freely and companies are hatching all kinds of schemes to avoid paying when the time is due. Take away the option to exploit and make the companies try to claim it back. Then the rates can be made more fair because everyone is contributing, even the people at the bottom who either don't through negligence or similar tax avoidance measures.
  • Reply 54 of 55
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,117member
    Marvin said:
    cgWerks said:
    foggyhill said:
    BTW, I would be part of the 1% if I was taxed in the US (I'm a Canadian). But, in Canada, my taxes are ahem, really really high and I'm OK with that. 
    I lived in California for a decade and there the taxes were pretty high, but not not as high.
    If you make over like $20k/yr, you're part of the 1%. I'm a US citizen who also now lives in Canada. The difference is that I feel the taxes here are better put to use. When the vast majority of taxes are simply wasted, we've got a right to complain about them.
    Globally it's around $34k/yr according to the following site but it's different comparing countries locally and by wealth accumulated:

    http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp
    http://www.businessinsider.com/income-top-one-percent-us-cities-2015-8
    https://www.aol.com/article/finance/2017/08/09/how-much-money-millennials-need-to-earn-to-be-in-the-top-1-perce/23072496/
    https://globalnews.ca/news/2316192/heres-what-we-know-about-canadas-highest-earning-1/

    In developed countries, the minimum to be in the top 1% is around $150-250k/yr. It has to be weighed up against living costs.

    There wouldn't be nearly the same problems with taxation if the taxes were part of transactions like sales tax. In order for anyone to acquire money, there has to be a transaction. Rather than wait until after the transaction is settled where people complain about taxes being requested, make it part of the transaction. All through the year, tax money would be constantly collected from transactions. If too much was taken from certain companies or individuals then they could claim some back. As soon as someone makes a suspicious looking claim, they investigate them for fraud.

    This would make it much easier for businesses to operate because you could just hire someone and don't have to think about income tax returns. When the income transaction is made, they pay the tax during the transaction. The percentage of the tax can scale based on the transaction but would be fixed in most cases and just claimed back. The requirement for this has to be moving to cashless transactions. This doesn't have to mean no concept of cash, they can create signed digital units of cash that are encrypted files, which are verified with a central authority, similar to cryptocurrency but centrally controlled rather than decentralized and don't need to be mined. They still have some anonymity as the files don't need to know who had them, they just need to be valid with the id of who currently has them. Each file would be updated during a transaction and the central authority controls the software to handle this. There would be a maximum cash wallet size, beyond which the transaction has to be done the standard verified way.

    This makes it easy for the elderly to handle their cash and it can be protected behind biometrics e.g you go to a cashpoint or online, take out a phone or other secure device, authenticate to remove cash but instead of cash, it transfers encrypted digital tokens onto the device. When they go to a store or restaurant or just pass a busker and need to pay, they can transfer the tokens and those tokens would be verified by the central authority (can be in real-time as the tax would be taken from them during the process or it can be deferred under the condition of trust - the devices can store a number of valid transactions from a particular source to know a false one is abnormal but a new source wouldn't be trusted).

    This would mean global transactions would be taxed more easily too. Someone sells a product in one country, the tax is taken during the transaction and the money can be moved directly back to a native country and repatriation tax can be taken during that transaction. This would be for income tax and it can be set at 10%. If an employee is paid $2k a month, they'd only receive $1800 and the business doesn't need to file income tax returns. When they pay for a product (rent, utilities, groceries), a similar 10% is taken from the business being paid. Wherever there are instances where the compounding percentage has too much impact, they claim back explaining the impact.

    Documentation for employees is also done for social security. Instead, someone can just show an aggregate log of payments, which both governments and banks would have, to show social security contributions.

    There should also be a tax on large amounts of unused assets (including property). If someone is just hoarding digital cash, that's damaging the economy. This can work itself out more easily with physical cash. Pablo Escobar the drug lord lost around 10% of his billions every year due to spoilage of physical bank notes. Depreciation does this to an extent but not fast enough. If people then move all their assets to tax havens, as soon as they try to spend it, it gets taxed during transactions at a higher rate. Often celebrities will try to hide millions in earnings to avoid high income tax fees like 50-75% tax rate. If they were instead charged 10% plus 5% yearly on the assets, they'd be less likely to look for avoidance e.g $5m earnings instantly dropping to $2.5m vs $5m dropping to $4.5m in year 1, dropping to $2.5m after 11 years (the rate would lower to zero as the assets diminished below a threshold). This would put an end to off-shoring too if the off-shore countries followed the same rules (companies would decide between 5% per year to the tax-haven or 10% one-off repatriation) and if not, the transaction tax will sort it out anyway.

    The unfairness in the tax systems are down to the differences in the way they are exploited by different companies and this exploitation takes place because transactions are allowed to take place freely and companies are hatching all kinds of schemes to avoid paying when the time is due. Take away the option to exploit and make the companies try to claim it back. Then the rates can be made more fair because everyone is contributing, even the people at the bottom who either don't through negligence or similar tax avoidance measures.
    Seems a logically argued position, and one I hadn't actually thought about. Certainly preferable to a consumption tax IMHO which always favors the wealthy as a group over those of lesser means.
  • Reply 55 of 55
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,301member
    gatorguy said:
    Seems a logically argued position, and one I hadn't actually thought about. Certainly preferable to a consumption tax IMHO which always favors the wealthy as a group over those of lesser means.
    Yes, it sounds like a pretty good plan, technically. My concerns would be that we'd have to trust whoever controls the system, as corruption doesn't just exist at the tax-payer or corporation level, there's plenty at the government level too. (Though, maybe they could be forced to participate so we can hold them accountable in the same way?)

    Also, I don't like the centralization capability to totally cut someone out of the system. We're too close to that today already, IMO, but at least physical currency can be used as a backup. (Oh, you don't want to comply with our wishes?.... Let's see how a week or two of starvation adjusts your attitude!)
Sign In or Register to comment.