Jump to content

Winning...the economy under Trump

Politics   (195,233 Views 1,155 Comments)
18,501 Visitors; 2,281 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.

You are reading page 9 of Winning...the economy under Trump. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

Just another argument that letting a company or individual keep more of their own money is a tax giveaway or windfall.
My husband was a small businessman. He and then we paid taxes on the profits along with our other income. (I usually had a job)

Our customers used government roads to get to our business. Most parked on the street at metered spots. For many years with two businesses they parked in county parking lots.

Once the business next door burned down. If not for tax paid firefighters his restaurant would have burned too.

Of course he paid for licenses and paid sales taxes on what he sold. When he had a gift shop in a tourist area his paying all sales taxes cause the other nearby stores to be scrutinized. It was found that they were neither paying sales taxes on nor reporting about half their gross income. It was easy to prove because they purchased the items wholesale. Therefore no sales tax was collected by either seller.

He remained friends with the couple who owned the tee shirt store next door. They just paid what they owed and opened another store so both husband and wife worked in different locations. After getting caught not paying their taxes they did better than before. They eventually bought out my then 67 year old husband.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My husband was a small businessman. He and then we paid taxes on the profits along with our other income. (I usually had a job)

Our customers used government roads to get to our business. Most parked on the street at metered spots. For many years with two businesses they parked in county parking lots.

Once the business next door burned down. If not for tax paid firefighters his restaurant would have burned too.

Of course he paid for licenses and paid sales taxes on what he sold. When he had a gift shop in a tourist area his paying all sales taxes cause the other nearby stores to be scrutinized. It was found that they were neither paying sales taxes on nor reporting about half their gross income. It was easy to prove because they purchased the items wholesale. Therefore no sales tax was collected by either seller.

He remained friends with the couple who owned the tee shirt store next door. They just paid what they owed and opened another store so both husband and wife worked in different locations. After getting caught not paying their taxes they did better than before. They eventually bought out my then 67 year old husband.

thank you

I'm sick of the taxation is theft argument, especially when it trickles down to us from the wealthiest tax cheats in history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thank you

I'm sick of the taxation is theft argument, especially when it trickles down to us from the wealthiest tax cheats in history.

No one is arguing for no taxation.

Our problem isn't the amount our govt gets. It's the amount it spends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No one is arguing for no taxation.

Our problem isn't the amount our govt gets. It's the amount it spends.

I agree that the amount the government spends is just as important as the amount it gets in revenue when it comes to deficit spending, and the supposed conservatives (which used to refer to fiscal conservatives) are proposing increasing government spending, mainly in the form of increased military spending and the wall, which apparently Mexico is going to pay for with money from American taxpayers. This is only made worse when combined with drastically reduced revenues.

Increased spending + decreased revenues = big debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No one is arguing for no taxation.

Our problem isn't the amount our govt gets. It's the amount it spends.

Do you think our values, as a nation, are reflected in how we spend our revenue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think this is in the news cycle but one of our utilities has requested a rate decrease due to the Trump tax cuts.

APS now seeking electric rate decrease thanks to federal tax cuts

Glad to see Apple bringing $250 billion back onshore. Obviously that would not have happened without the new corporate tax rate. 20% of $250B is a lot more than 35% of nothing.

That is good news for Arizonans.

Regarding the news about Apple, I saw this article reporting a difference between what the President stated at Davos and what Apple has announced.

Trump Says Apple Will Bring Home $245 Billion in Foreign Cash, but Apple Hasn'''t Said That

Either way, as you say, something is better than nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that this tax plan does result in higher wages and benefit packages for the working class. I hope that there is a substantial reduction in the health insurance premium and deductibles.

I'm just not convinced that the evidence suggests that this top down economic policy will create sustainable growth.

The USA has now experienced many consecutive months of economic growth. I hope our current political leadership doesn't reverse the trend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think this is in the news cycle but one of our utilities has requested a rate decrease due to the Trump tax cuts.

APS now seeking electric rate decrease thanks to federal tax cuts

Thanks for posting that article from January 9th about the proposed rate decrease. I read it. One of the links within the article is to an article published by the same website on January 5th about a previous rate increase that was approved and implemented last August. The January 5th article says that enough APS customers have formally complained about the August rate increase to trigger an existing process to have the rate increase reviewed in court and the power company will have to defend the rate increase before an administrative court judge. The process could lead to the rate increase being revoked. I don't know if that article made the news cycle or if you read the link. The proposed rate "decrease" supposedly related to the tax cut legislation amounts to ~75% of the August rate increase.

Maybe it's because I'm a cynic, but I can't help wondering if the partial reduction in the August rate increase "thanks to the tax cut bill" isn't just a face-saving excuse to try to avoid going court over the August increase, esp. since it was announced just a few days after the finding that the review process has been triggered. But maybe that's just me.

APS rate hike will get a second look after customers protest

Edited by elkpark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think this is in the news cycle but one of our utilities has requested a rate decrease due to the Trump tax cuts.

APS now seeking electric rate decrease thanks to federal tax cuts

Glad to see Apple bringing $250 billion back onshore. Obviously that would not have happened without the new corporate tax rate. 20% of $250B is a lot more than 35% of nothing.

Adding $12,000 to each household's debt over 10 years, in exchange for a $4.70 reduction in monthly bills doesn't actually seem like a particularly good deal, and outside of tax reform taking a cash advance against someone's credit and then giving them a small portion of it with the hopes they won't notice you're keeping the rest is a criminal act, not something to be celebrated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He certainly made it clear that he values people differently based on their country of origin. A blonde, blue-eyed individual like myself is apparently more desirable than someone with a darker skin tone. Utterly disgraceful.

You're basing your assumptions on hearsay. In which, the hearsay was about the state of the countries, not the people of those countries themselves. Secondly, don't flatter yourself by thinking you are more desirable because of your looks, no one thinks that. I'll take anyone who is a patriot of the U.S., no matter what they look like.

Well as a Swede with one Swedish and one Norwegian parent, I believe I'm probably in a better position than most to know how Norway is different. What makes you think that Norway "doesn't pay for anyone else"?

So 5 million Norwegians contributed roughly $4 billion, 10 million Swedes about $7 billion and ~320 million Americans approximately $31 billion. Norway most certainly "pays for someone else".

That's great Norway pays so much. Norway pays about 43% in taxes, compared to the 33% the U.S. pays. So for someone that is making $50,000/year, in Norway, take home is ~39,000, U.S. is ~44,000. In your taxes is included healthcare, education, etc. So the $5,000 the U.S. taxpayer keeps, essentially pays for those things in insurance, loans, etc. each year. So the spending per tax payer is the same essentially. In regards to paying for someone else, yes, we do more so than your $800/year/person. The amount of illegal aliens in Norway is ~20,000, or 0.4% of your population. In the U.S., it's upwards of 12 million, (and that's debatable, as it could be up to twice that), or 4% of the population. Reportedly, HALF of those people are on welfare. There are 50 million people on welfare in the U.S., so that makes about 12% of the people on welfare in the U.S. are illegal. With the U.S. welfare budget hitting 1 trillion, making it so about each person on welfare is getting ~20,000/year from benefits, we are paying illegal aliens ~120 billion dollars every year in welfare. With the population at 300 million, reportedly 139 million employed, paying into that welfare, that's $860/year/U.S. working person AT LEAST we pay in taxes for ILLEGAL ALIENS, not U.S. citizens, other people if you will. And that's using the 12 million figure, if using what some reports say, 20 million, with half on welfare, that's $1720/year/U.S. working person. Yes, I would like to save that amount of money.

Furthermore, those illegal aliens NOT on welfare DO visit ER and hospitals, get free/reduced lunches, etc. So our insurance and taxes reflect that even more to offset the NON-paying people.

Additionally, the developmental aid you mention is a fraction of all donations given in a single year. You can bet Norway and Sweden both pay more per capita in most areas, however, the distinction isn't as stark in a lot of those aids, compared to the U.S.

Scandinavians don't have universal healthcare, free higher education and a generous amount of vacation because we don't pay for someone else. It's a political/policy choice. You've chosen differently.

You're right, that 120,000,000,000 (BILLION) we spend on illegal aliens on JUST welfare, per year is a choice. And FWIW, that's not counting the amount of people with stolen SS receiving benefits.

More chances in absolute or relative terms?

I'm not missing your point, I'm arguing it makes no sense. There are countries with large populations with high infant mortality rates and there are those with low. The same goes for countries with smaller populations.

I play tournament poker. Okay... Texas Hold'em... The flop's been dealt and I have four spades. I have nine outs for a flush. There is a 19.15% chance that the turn will be a spade and I make that flush. If the turn is a heart, diamond or club, then there is a 19.57% chance that I make my flush on the river. It doesn't matter if it's early in the tournament and there are 450 players at 50 tables still remaining in the tornament or if we're down to the final table. The cards are being dealt from one deck per table at a time. The odds are the same. The only thing that would change the odds is if someone had removed for example the jack of spades from the deck... In which case the infant mortality rate goes up. The missing card could for example be unequal access to prenatal care. If the poorer people in society don't have access to the same standard of care as the more affluent people do, that will affect the infant mortality rate/1,000, regardless of population size.

You're using a card game for comparison? You do realize there are only 52 types of cards in deck, right? Every single human being, so 7.6 billion, has a different chance of something happening. I'm willing to bet that if you surveyed 1,000 pregnancies, compared to the average of a countries pregnant population of 4 million, the country will have a higher infant mortality rate compared to just the 1,000 pregnancies. I'm not saying this is the only factor, it could have statistically insignificant results, or could change a rate from 1 to 2. It really is a game of chance that really does not matter in the grand scheme, since there are plenty more factors that we could debate to death in regards to infant mortality rates.

But I'll leave you with this. Since you are an expert, and better to speak on, the issues of Norway and I guess Sweden, since you are a descendent from those ethnicities, am I entitled to say, I am a better person to speak on the issues of AMERICAN politics and economics, than you, since you know, I live here? Is that really an argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×

This site uses cookies. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Read our Privacy, Cookies, and Terms of Service Policies to learn more.