Some older, but still relevant information

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Andrew Jackson, May 16, 2020.

  1. Andrew Jackson

    Andrew Jackson New Member

  2. SmalltownMN
    Doh

    SmalltownMN Active Member

    Here’s another number for us to entertain: 798,000. What does that represent? The number of people that Amazon employees. Do those employees not pay federal taxes? What about state taxes for where they reside? I’m not 100% on board with a company like this getting that kind of perk either but we must look at the bigger picture. Three quarters of a million people work under this companies name, that is a staggering number. Does amazon offer health coverage to most employees? I’d venture to guess yes on that. There are most likely other benefits to the employees that cost a ton to the corporation (paid time off, disability, life insurance, etc).

    I really think one has to look at the Pros and Cons of the overall situation. Though it might seem unfair to the likes of some such as AOC (who BTW should know better considering she was an economic major), we really have to consider that the company as a whole is making lives for a ton of people.
     
  3. Andrew Jackson

    Andrew Jackson New Member

    Indeed- good that they are a large-scale employer. However- they reported $75 billion in earnings for the first quarter alone- and judging by their share price, and simple common sense- they seem to be doing pretty well, what with people continuously buying goods through Amazon (and subsequently hoarding them)- especially in this situation. As for Alexandra Cortez, please don’t bring her into this- she knows as much about the economy as I do about quantum physics.
    The point of the second article was that such a large company shouldn’t be cutting hazard pay- especially with reported COVID cases at their company. That would be akin to a businessman clad in a $5000 suit reaching into a homeless man’s cup, and taking the $5 that he has in there.
    And for the first point- regardless of how well an enterprise treats its employees, it shouldn’t completely avoid paying tax. For a corporation- it’s called “loopholes”. For an everyday man- it’s called tax evasion.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2020
  4. JohnHamilton
    Pensive

    JohnHamilton Well-Known Member

    As a consumer, I must admire them. They are the source for goods I can't find anywhere else. For example, the Spink British coin guide, which is like The Red Book for U.S. coins, is only easily available from them. I have imported coins from firms in England, and it is expensive, and I don't really want to do that very much.

    Amazon represents other smaller firms on their website, which helps them to sell goods more easily. The Britsh coin book came from such a firm. Small companies benefit from their marketing strength.

    If you don't like the tax policies, talk to your congress person. The way the Federal Government creates and spends money, I've ceased to care about the "fairness" issue. There are inequities on the tax code, but it beats alternative of electing Democrats who will raise taxes on everyone and give nothing or very little in return.
     
  5. SmalltownMN
    Doh

    SmalltownMN Active Member

    Through this pandemic, there have been many companies that have not shut down and not even offered hazard pay. The employees of Amazon that received this extra pay should feel fortunate that they even received it to begin with. Heck, I know of companies with fiscal years beginning in Q2 that did not even give their employees merit increases because of the slow down in business and economic uncertainty.

    In my opinion, the only people that truly deserve hazard pay in a situation like this are those in the medical and first responder fields, the people on the “front lines” as it were, like @JoeNation ’s boy.

    Employment at will, ever heard of that? All fifty states have it. The Amazon employee who feels that strongly about the situation is 100% free to seek employment elsewhere.

    Amazon is certainly not the only company to utilize tax “loopholes”. If the government allows it, that’s on them, wouldn’t you say?
     
    JohnHamilton likes this.
  6. JoeNation
    Angelic

    JoeNation Patron Saint of Idiots

    Spoken like a true believing drone.
     
    Andrew Jackson likes this.
  7. FryDaddyJr

    FryDaddyJr Well-Known Member

    Plenty of companies play the same games. Why do you only boycott Amazon?
     
  8. Andrew Jackson

    Andrew Jackson New Member

    Because they’re the largest cancerous cell for the American economy. And they’ve seen increased growth in online ordering due to the current epidemic.
     
  9. FryDaddyJr

    FryDaddyJr Well-Known Member


    along with the oil companies, mining companies, tobacco, walmart, dow chemical, archer danials midland etc

    right?

    Or is it just because the toddler trump doesn't like Bezos and will always be a failure in comparison?
     
  10. Andrew Jackson

    Andrew Jackson New Member

    Your incoherent rambling makes absolutely no sense. I don’t buy from Walmart or other large companies either, nor am I a shareholder of them. Amazon is the focus of the post because they’re an exceptionally large corporation.
    And, if you’re planning on bringing Trump into this- he has reduced the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%. This is more of an economic concept rather than a political one. With that, your assumption that I support a certain politician is entirely baseless. But- if you’re a Democrat- which is what you sound like- why are you defending the cancer cell Amazon? Do they pay you to be their shill online? I wouldn’t put it past them- they have money enough to own a propaganda machine known as the “Washington ComPost”.
    About oil companies- their shares have fallen throughout the epidemic. I’ve been observing one oil exploration company for a month now, and their shares have fallen completely to the floor- seeing a minor rebound in recent times. Amazon’s share price has risen significantly. Do you pay attention to the stock market- at least on TV? Or are you wearing some really darkened sunglasses that obstruct your view?
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2020
  11. JohnHamilton
    Pensive

    JohnHamilton Well-Known Member

    Trump needed to do that because we had the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Obama promised to lower the corporate rate during the 2012 campaign, but he never followed through on it. It was a an American job killer.
     
  12. GeneWright

    GeneWright Active Member

    The data doesn't reflect the conclusion that the corporate tax rate was hindering job creation. The rate was stable at 35% from the 80s to 2016. But there was no change in the trajectory of unemployment in 2018. Obviously, ignore the spike at April 2020.

    28159354-8300753-image-a-8_1588942333482.jpg
     
  13. JoeNation
    Angelic

    JoeNation Patron Saint of Idiots

    What kind of a fool does it really take to still believe this nonsense?
     
  14. JohnHamilton
    Pensive

    JohnHamilton Well-Known Member

    It was the truth, but you were too ignorant or bigoted to know or realize it.
     
  15. JohnHamilton
    Pensive

    JohnHamilton Well-Known Member

    Several important point here.
    • The unemployment rate continued to go down after the recession of 2008.
    • The labor participation rate has gone up since Trump took office. During Obama’s time a lot of people were leaving the labor force. They were no longer looking for jobs. Under Trump they returned to the labor force. That makes the continuing reductions in the unemployment rate more impressive.
    • There were more advantages to lowering the corporate tax rate than just employment. There was also a flow of capital back to the United States. That provided more funds to expand businesses and grow jobs.
    • Lowering the tax rates allowed businesses to keep more of their earnings which could be plowed into business expansion, renovation and innovation.
    There are conservatives who claim that corporate tax rates should be zero. They argue that corporate taxes are double taxation because the stockholders have to pay on the corporate earnings they receive in cash dividends.

    I am not one of them. Corporations are like “super human beings” that never die. They use government benefits and services and as such have a responsibility to pay their fair share of taxes to support those.
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2020
  16. JoeNation
    Angelic

    JoeNation Patron Saint of Idiots

    Prove it! Instead of just running your toothless old man jaw, prove it. When has tax cuts ever brought more jobs. It's just the BS you sycophants buy into but ignore that it never ever has worked. Ignorance is your forte.
     
  17. JohnHamilton
    Pensive

    JohnHamilton Well-Known Member

    So, I guess that you have rejected all of the Keynesian economic theory. As for examples:
    • John F. Kennedy in the early 1960
    • Ronald Reagan in the 1980s
    • Barack Obama extended George W. Bush’s tax cuts in his first term because of concerns that tax increases would damage the fragile economy.
    • The Trump tax cuts, which along with de-regulation resulted in the best economy since the 1980s.
     
    Mopar Dude likes this.
  18. GeneWright

    GeneWright Active Member

    You may find these graphs from an academic paper comparing measures in 17 countries including corporate ETR (effective tax rate).

    Here's a scatter plot with ETR vs unemployment Screenshot_20200518-104555.png There's a very slight (though not statistically significant) effect on unemployment by the corporate tax rate. Screenshot_20200518-104519.png
    Here's a breakdown of the correlations, significance denoted by an asterisk.

    Based on this data, it seems most likely that any spikes in economic growth or better unemployment/labor participation rates are caused by other factors than corporate tax cuts. Thanks for bringing up labor participation earlier by the way, good parameter to consider.
     
  19. JoeNation
    Angelic

    JoeNation Patron Saint of Idiots

    Yes, Trickle down is a failure and it always has been. Nobody but the dumbest people still believe that crap.

    Where is your proof? I still see nothing that objectively proves lowing corporate taxes creates jobs. Face it. You can't prove anything because there is no data supporting such a crass overt lie. You're just a corporate toady. Nothing more.

    People like you are the reason that the national debt climbs every year, the poor get poorer, the rich get richer. People too dumb to actually research the propaganda they're spoon-fed.
     
  20. JohnHamilton
    Pensive

    JohnHamilton Well-Known Member

    The national debt climbs because the Federal Government has forever increasing non-discretionary expenditures. Here is a list of items in trillions of dollars for 2019:
    • Social Security 1.0 trillion
    • Medicare 0.644
    • Medicaid 0.409
    • Other * 0.642
    • Interest on debt 0.375 – 69.7% of the total
    *Other includes Federal employee and military pensions, some veterans’ benefits, earned income tax credit, supplemental nutrition programs with some offsets for receipts received from the programs.
    Total non-discretionary 3.070 trillion
    Discretionary:
    • National defense 0.676
    • Other non-defense** 0.661
    ** Transportation, education, health and housing assistance.
    Total discretionary 1.337 – 30.3 % of the total
    Looking at the items on this list, “the discretionary spending items” are not all that discretionary.
    • BOTH PARTIES are guilty of overspending and have been guilty of it for years.
    You progressive fellows seem to think that raising taxes would fix this. If it could, would come down hard Democrats NOT to spend money simply because the budget was now balanced?

    As for raising taxes, one thing that is true is when you raise taxes on something, you get less of it. If you were really busting your butt to produce income, would you be more or less likely to work hard if the government is going to take most all that you earn?

    I have given up on trying to reform government spending which at the heart of the problem. BOTH parties are incorrigible. Raising taxes will not fix it.

    Here is one more stat. If you taxed all of the personal income beyond $500,000 a year, that would run the government for about three months. The trouble is you could only get away with that for a couple of years at the most. The high income earners will find ways to avoid the taxes, and have enough politicians in their pockets to get it changed. If they couldn’t get changed, they might well leave the country for some other place that is more business friendly.
     

Share This Page