Domain: tiger-web1.srvr.media3.us RE: corporate tax cuts | Page 7 | Political Talk
Started By
Message

re: RE: corporate tax cuts

Posted on 11/21/17 at 6:38 pm to
Posted by texridder
The Woodlands, TX
Member since Oct 2017
14941 posts
Posted on 11/21/17 at 6:38 pm to
There is no way that a stipulation like that would be possible - it would be impossible to word it to make it enforcible, and if it was the corps wouldn't sign it, and the cuts would be passed anyway.

The corps are going to go for profits - first, last, and foremost. Giving pay raises with the monies from a tax cut, in an of itself, in a vacuum, is not near the top of their to do list in that event.

Posted by ShortyRob
Member since Oct 2008
82116 posts
Posted on 11/21/17 at 6:41 pm to
quote:


If you were a member of Congress would you insist that any corporate tax cuts would be contingent on each company proving that they are investing those savings in hiring more people/better wages?

I would, sorry I don't just trust that corporate fat fricks would do the right thing

Sigh.

SMDH
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
298305 posts
Posted on 11/21/17 at 6:54 pm to
quote:

Lower taxes won't cause me to hire more people.


Keeping more of your profit for shareholders encourages competition and more investment. If you can't understand this, it's impossible to discuss any further.
Posted by Huey1
Member since Dec 2010
46 posts
Posted on 11/21/17 at 7:46 pm to
Respect your opinion. I can tell you, the additional money saved would allow us to expand, reinvest in equip and facilities. As well as hire additional personnel. In business it is grow or die in the global/domestic market. A mom & pop can survive with minimal growth if debt free. A national domestic / global company cannot. Your theory of we are going to hoard the tax cuts and not expand and grow is inaccuarate - within my universe. It may in others but not in my industry. We need this. That is all carry on...
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
298305 posts
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:00 am to
How this thread makes me feel

Posted by Tyrusrex
Member since Jul 2011
907 posts
Posted on 11/22/17 at 12:14 am to
quote:

I would, sorry I don't just trust that corporate fat fricks would do the right thing.



you're right to be suspicious. The US have tried tax holidays before to bring back overseas money. The money was was taxed at a one time rate of 5% and was specifically was supposed to be used only for job creation, but after all was said and done, corporations did 3 things with the extra cash. 1) They paid out stock dividends. 2) They did company stock buy back. 3) They purchsased other companies. And in the end, instead of creating jobs, 20,000 jobs were cut. You can read about it here:

Report: Repatriation Tax Holiday a 'Failed' Policy



This post was edited on 11/22/17 at 12:15 am
Posted by Jay Quest
Once removed from Massachusetts
Member since Nov 2009
10703 posts
Posted on 11/22/17 at 7:00 am to
quote:

And we can agree that there is a lack of incentive to hold RE in an S Corp?

I don't believe we can determine that incentive and apply it across the board for all S corps. Some may have little to no incentive to retain earnings and pass the overwhelming majority through to individuals who will then be taxed.

However

If you don't wish to take on additional debt and if you have a need/desire to expand your business that includes acquiring new equipment, expanding facilities and workforce, upgrading distribution and so on then you will have to retain a portion of your earnings.

What you retain and have earmarked for expansion is going to be shared with the government before you purchase your next piece of equipment.

You have to hold the money or go into debt but know the IRS is coming for their cut.

first pageprev pagePage 7 of 7Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram