Enjoying those tax cuts yet?

[grzegorz]

9 popular companies that paid $0 in taxes for 2018

Aarthi Swaminathan

Yahoo FinanceApril 15, 2019, 6:37 AM PDT

A new report reveals that some American companies didn’t just pay no taxes last year — they paid negative taxes.

The report by D.C.-based think tank Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) looked at how Fortune 500 companies have been affected by U.S. President Donald Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) and found that 60 of America’s biggest corporations paid $0 in taxes this year.

9 popular companies that paid $0 in taxes for 2018
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/companie ... 12117.html

[grzegorz]

You do understand that those big bad corporations that hire people above minimum wages are responsible to their shareholders
"stockholders" to make a profit. Their function is not about infrastructure.
They can always make their factories overseas and sell in the US.

This yr didn't pay any taxes,,,in fact all that was taken out by the federal gov was returned as a refund.

Trump has everything made overseas and I don't see him opening a tie factory in Indiana. Do you?

In fact this tax bill gives breaks to companies who outsource their jobs overseas.

I don't make minimum wage but when I moved back from China I was making $12 an hour for years (which is California is like making $7.50 anywhere else) and I paid about 20% to taxes. The difference is my tax money would have went to necessities like food, rent and gas. The rich don't "need" that money and it doesn't go to necessities.

Now I make more money and still most of my money goes back into the economy. I just had someone fix part of my roof for $300 and years ago that would have devastated us.

I believe in capitalism but not unregulated capitalism which we don't have anyhow. If anything our country is built on corporate welfare both through tax breaks and bail outs. To top it off those corporations usually move that money overseas never to be seen again unlike my money to the roofer. So please explain to me again why we worship the ground the CEOs walk on.

[grzegorz]

Since those riding the Trump train are going to say that these tax cuts for corporations are the best thing since sliced bread I would like to hear them explain how less money coming in is going to end the debt and deficit crisis in the country.

I recall that when Obama was in office that was the number 1 issue and I even recall many voting for Trump on that issue. So what's up? It's not an issue until the Dems get back in the white house?

As far as I am concerned the Republicons passed this tax bill in hopes that all this money would give the economy a sugar rush until the next presidential election. If the economy continues to do well at that point it will tougher to get Trump out.

[windwalker]

Is this fake news

"It is not as if the tax cuts were too small to notice. Forty-eight percent of households are getting a tax cut greater than $500, according to the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation. The middle fifth of earners received about a $780 tax cut last year on average, according to the Tax Policy Center."

[Steve James]

They're not "too small to notice," but "greater than $500" is a very loose figure. I.e., if it were "greater than $1000," we could say that 1/2 of all households got at least a $1K tax cut. That would mean that they paid $20 less per week on taxes. Of course, it didn't say "greater than $600. So, that implies that 1/2 of all household got less than $10 dollars more per week. Nope, it's not too small to notice.

"The middle fifth of earners" ... Ok, if we add 1/2 (5/10) and 1/5 (2/10), it equals 7/10ths or 75% of American households paid an average of $640 less in taxes. That leaves 25%. Does that mean that they paid less taxes or more? I dunno. What I do know is that 100% of the people lost the ability to deduct things like union dues, work clothes, state and local taxes, and their real estate taxes.

No, it's not fake news. It's the truth. The real question is how it affects the individual who has to pay taxes. I do, and it's not necessarily any better for me now. I think that a lot of people thought that the new law would make it better for them. They do have "some" more money in their pockets, and that's good. A poor family can use the extra 40 bucks every two weeks. It's not going to move them out of poverty, though. Frankly, I'm not sure that it would make much of a difference to a "middle class" family.

[windwalker]

This seems to answer some of the questions concerning whether the tax cuts were beneficial or not.

"According to the national survey of 102 Certified Public Accountants—representing over 5,500 small business pass through clients across the U.S.—conducted by Research Strategy Group International, nearly 80 percent of respondents believe that the implementation of the tax cuts legislation has helped America’s small businesses,” the pro-small business organization said in a statement timed for tax day.

“Moreover, almost as many also felt that the TCJA helped stimulate the economy (76%).”

[Steve James]

The question wasn't whether the tax cuts were beneficial. The question was who benefited most, and what the result of those benefits will be in the future. Reducing the corporate tax rate is great for them and for smaller businesses. Most American taxpayers do not own businesses, large or small. They are employed.

Anyway, I can only measure improvement from my own perspective. The new tax system has not had a negative effect on my personal situation. However, I can say that nothing has improved significantly or at all. So, it's easy to say that the cuts have stimulated the economy. I just don't hear people raving about how it has improved their lives.

As I've said in earlier posts, it hasn't done anything to secure Social Security or Medicare (things that most people will need eventually). It hasn't reduced the national debt or deficit. There's no more funding going to repair and replace the national infrastructures like bridges, tunnels, railways, roads, etc. There's not more money for dealing with health crises and the opioid problem. In fact, there are fewer funds for those things. Where's the money going to come from? Will the small businesses pay?

It's funny. This year, tax day, was much less of a big deal than it had been. Maybe it was because of the fire at Notre Dame that moved it from the center of attention. Or, maybe people don't want to talk about it.

[windwalker]

"Reducing the corporate tax rate is great for them and for smaller businesses. Most American taxpayers do not own businesses, large or small. They are employed."

Reducing the tax rates on those who employ them benefit them by allowing the employer's to stay in business, able to employ more people.

[Steve James]

Well, let's just have no taxes. Anyway, like I said, reducing taxes to stimulate the economy has been tried before, as has the theory that the benefits will trickle down. Seems like we went from a surplus to a deficit (from Clinton to Bush). Oh well, let's see.

[grzegorz]

Drain that swamp.

Promises made, promises kept...

[grzegorz]

Watch "Trump Supporters Deluded Into Believing The President Has Made Them Rich" on YouTube

https://youtu.be/jdJaQwC8L2Q

[grzegorz]

Watch "Bernie Sanders DESTROYS Trump & His Lackey for Their Lies and Hypocrisy" on YouTube

https://youtu.be/94nwYhT6PIo

[meeks]

"Reducing the corporate tax rate is great for them and for smaller businesses. Most American taxpayers do not own businesses, large or small. They are employed."

Reducing the tax rates on those who employ them benefit them by allowing the employer's to stay in business, able to employ more people.

This is a very flawed logic that is waved by the Republican party. A business owner's goal isn't to hire as many people as he/she can, it's to take home as as much money as they can. As a business owner I don't think to myself "I made $xxx in profits last quarter, I'll hire more people... don't know what I'm going to do with them, but they can stand around and do nothing for all I care - look at the money I have to share with them!". They also don't think "I made a shitload of money last year, I'm going to give everyone in the company a raise that is commensurate to the increase in profits we had". No, they throw you a meatless bone and think "I'll have a staff barbecue picnic. It'll cost me $2000 for my 100 employees" which means a $20 bonus for everyone.
The hiring of employees is based on need... I need someone to help me take some of the load because the amount of work I have exceeds some of my personal throughput. By hiring someone though, I'm taking money out of my own coffers that may have been used towards my teenager's new car and shunting it towards a new employee's family instead.

An example would be a lemonade stand at the state fair. You are manning the booth yourself. People (customers) walking through the fair grounds everywhere, and occasionally one comes up and buys a cup of lemonade. Trump says "I'm giving you a huge tax break as a business" - do you hire more people to stand next to you? No, it's only when the lineup gets to be long enough that you begin to get unhappy customers or customers that step out of the lineup to go elsewhere do you determine that it is in your best financial interest to hire a new helper.

What I'm saying is that financial buffers do not create jobs... customers do. You want to stimulate the economy? Put money in the hands of customers. A middle class family doesn't think "I got a huge tax bonus now I can squirrel money into my overseas tax haven away from prying tax men then use some of that hidden funds to purchase another yacht AND use that purchase as a business expense so that I qualify for another tax break while I continue to pay as little salary as I can for all my employees"... they think "I can now buy a motorbike" or "take my family to Disney this summer". Trickle down economics (I believe that was introduced by our ever so conveniently forgetful president Reagan?) has never benefited the 'economy', it was just a way of selling it to those that would never see a benefit from it. From what I understand, it used to be that companies were taxed a certain amount like everyone else, but any income that exceeded a certain amount would then have the excess amount taxed at a higher rate... that's where the 70% tax rate existed. So companies would often use the money that would have been taxed at a much higher rate towards philanthropic endeavors to avoid the higher rate. THAT is what made America great...

So now they talk about re-introducing that tax plan - taxing large corporations at a higher amount if their profits exceed a certain amount... and the Republicans pull out the boogeyman flag and wave it in our faces saying "Bernie wants to tax you at 70% of your income...! Run... run away from Bernie!" (or Ocasio-Cortez, etc...) when in fact most American families would never come anywhere close to even a whiff of the potential of needing to pay 70% tax rate on the amount of income that was in excess of a certain limit (the money beneath that limit being taxed at a normal rate no matter what the total income was).

Taking the money that we paid in our taxes and gifting it to the already rich does not benefit us. Taking the money we've already paid in our taxes and using it to rebuild our schools, parks, roads, and even refund to the middle class who pay the highest percentage in taxes (rather than refund to the rich) is what those taxes were intended to be used for. Unfortunately in our rigged economy and rigged election system we've got the rich in the position of making the rules and they're ruling in their own personal interests.

Remember when the Panama papers came out, exposing all these people that were hiding all their money overseas and how quickly it fell out of the headlines?

[windwalker]

"Reducing the corporate tax rate is great for them and for smaller businesses. Most American taxpayers do not own businesses, large or small. They are employed."

Reducing the tax rates on those who employ them benefit them by allowing the employer's to stay in business, able to employ more people.

This is a very flawed logic that is waved by the Republican party.

Its not flawed only your understanding is.
They hire people based on demand for their product that in part is part of being able to make things at a lower cost.
The reason many companies outsource was because of the tax incentives to do so.

As the JEC notes in its report:

"Taxpayers with incomes under $50,000 will see their share of the total federal tax burden drop from 4.2% to 3.9%."

"Those with less than $10,000 in income will see their taxes slashed by more than half."

"Average taxpayers with incomes between $10,000 and $20,000, a group that frequently claims refundable tax credits, will have no tax liability and receive an additional refund."

" Millionaires will actually see their share of the total federal tax burden rise to 20.2%, compare to 19.6% if tax relief expires."

"While taxpayers will enjoy an average 5.2% cut in their taxes, taxpayers that earn over $1 million will see a below-average reduction of 2.3%."

As we've mentioned more than once, these tax cuts aren't a "giveaway to the rich" or "fat cats." In fact, a new analysis from Congress' Joint Economic Committee (JEC) shows that the benefits of making the cuts permanent would mostly go to low- and middle-income earners

A third bill, the American Innovation Act of 2018, would allow businesses to deduct up to $20,000 in startup expenses in the year they are incurred, with some exceptions.

Critics have pounced on the $627 billion "price tag" for the tax cuts estimated over the next decade. But that raises the question: price tag for whom? Federal bureaucrats? Americans overwhelmingly like keeping their money rather than handing it over to a federal government that refuses to control its spending. As a recent report noted, the federal government could cut $3.1 trillion in spending over half a decade just by getting rid of wasteful, unnecessary programs

https://www.investors.com/politics/edit ... ss-growth/

2. Promise: The middle class will benefit. Yes, the vast majority of Americans — 65 percent — did get a tax cut. Looking specifically at the middle class, the Tax Policy Center predicted that 82 percent of middle-class earners (households who make $49,000 to $86,000 a year) would receive a tax cut averaging about $1,050.

The data out so far backs up the estimates. H&R Block said that among the millions of tax returns it processed by the end of March, the average tax cut was $1,200. (It’s also true not everyone is celebrating. About 9 percent of middle-income families had to pay more, and the rest paid about the same in taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... c4dd87b596

most news sources seem to agree that there was a benefit.

Taking the money that we paid in our taxes and gifting it to the already rich does not benefit us

good talking point, you as a business owner might seem rich to some who are not. I agree, you should pay more taxes
and pay your employees more.

As a business owner did your taxes go up or down? Did you pay more or less this yr?

[windwalker]

So now they talk about re-introducing that tax plan - taxing large corporations at a higher amount if their profits exceed a certain amount... and the Republicans pull out the boogeyman flag and wave it in our faces saying "Bernie wants to tax you at 70% of your income...! Run... run away from Bernie!" (or Ocasio-Cortez, etc...) when in fact most American families would never come anywhere close to even a whiff of the potential of needing to pay 70% tax rate on the amount of income that was in excess of a certain limit (the money beneath that limit being taxed at a normal rate no matter what the total income was).

Taking the money that we paid in our taxes and gifting it to the already rich does not benefit us. Taking the money we've already paid in our taxes and using it to rebuild our schools, parks, roads, and even refund to the middle class who pay the highest percentage in taxes (rather than refund to the rich) is what those taxes were intended to be used for. Unfortunately in our rigged economy and rigged election system we've got the rich in the position of making the rules and they're ruling in their own personal interests.

Remember when the Panama papers came out, exposing all these people that were hiding all their money overseas and how quickly it fell out of the headlines?

lets see what the numbers say.

This summer, manufacturing activity hit its highest level in 14 years, the economy is in the midst of the longest-running period of businesses adding new jobs, and wages are increase faster than they have since 2009, when we were first climbing out of the bottom of the Great Recession.

Many workers are benefiting twice from the tax cuts. First, by paying less in taxes, and second from higher wages generated by a faster-growing economy.

The Heritage Foundation recently calculated that, over the next decade, the typical American household will reap an additional $26,000 in take-home pay, thanks to the cuts and the economic growth they fuel.

For a family of four, the 10-year benefits are almost $45,000. That’s more than enough to buy a new car or to put a down payment on a house.

>>> See the economic benefits of tax reform for every congressional district

Q: Why should I care that businesses got a tax cut?

A: Most Americans are employed by businesses, and when businesses are doing well, workers do well, too.

It is true that businesses—and all people they employ—have benefited greatly from tax reform. The old U.S. tax code pushed businesses and their new investments overseas and put American workers at a disadvantage.

The new lower business taxes have reversed this trend, and the benefits are most directly accruing to workers.

For the first time in history, there are more jobs than applicants. More job openings are a sign of a healthy economy, one in which employees have the upper hand.

When unemployment is low, and workers have the upper hand, businesses are forced to use their tax savings for bonuses, increased wages, and better employee benefits.

Tax reform lowered the U.S. federal corporate-tax rate. As a result, the combined federal and state U.S. corporate-tax rate fell from almost 40 percent—the highest in the developed world—to below 25 percent.

The new rate, slightly above the world average, is making America more competitive in the global economy.

https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commenta ... p-tax-cuts