As far as I can tell, 99% of US workers won't benefit. Even the few hundred dollars they get back in taxes will largely be swallowed up by inflation and of course the fact that they will be paying more in taxes after 2025.
SIAP: Does this HUGE Apple announcement prove Trump was right?
- Thread starter Hawkman34
- Start date
I think a large tax cut like this absolutely has some good impacts in the short term - the first year or two.
My concern is the damage this does long term. When Reagan cut taxes in the 80's, the deficit soared. If spending isn't drastically cut (which would cut services that no one wants to see cut) then make no mistake. This tax cut will increase the deficit ... bigly.
These cuts really kill our ability to respond to any upcoming recessions. Even under current growth, the cuts will still add well over a hundred billion dollars to the deficit each year. If we go into recession, growth won't be there to mitigate the lessened revenue which means that deficits would go even higher. Worse, because we've already cut taxes, using that tool to spur on more economic growth to get us out of the recession is taken away. This is probably why economists don't think that cutting taxes in strong economies and full employment is a good idea.
In fairness, people have talked about the US high corporate tax rates for years, but they never got traction to lower them. This wasn't some genius Trump innovation. The tax changes are just full of holes and problems, but the corporate tax rate reduction was the right thing to do.
If they mentioned the Tax changes as one of the reasons then, YES, that is likely correct. I don't see the leadership of Apple being Trump fanboys so my guess is the tax changes did indeed convince them to make some of these moves.
Fanboys of Trump has little to do with it. If you can get national press for free, you do it. It's clearly a PR stunt.
Some are predicting this announcement alone will push the market to 27K. I wonder if the DJIA being over 30,000 (or maybe 40,000) by election day has any liberals worried. Apparently the democratic party wants people to vote to RAISE taxes, to RAISE the price of gas, to RAISE utility bills, to FORCE people to by health insurance. All so we can take care on NON-Americans through fair immigration. Yes, I hate it when things are going so well. I want life to suck, I want the democrats to be on my back. I want them to control my life!
Republicans and democrats have largely agreed for some time (prior to Trump) that being able to bring off-shored corporate profits/cash back to the US to be invested here would be a good idea and they have long agreed that in order for that to happen the tax penalty for doing so needed to be reduced.
Just bc we have an asshole in charge that was the one that signed the final bill doesn't mean we have to ignore that reality.
You will not find one leftist on this board that will bring themselves to say anything positive about Trump. Why bother with them? Let them sulk in their own misery for the next 7 years.
Donald Trump is the best presidential criminal I have ever seen.
This is pretty spot on. It's like when Walmart came out to announce what they were doing for their employees because of the tax cuts. Trump and the Republicans just shoveled a bunch of money we don't have to the wealthiest people in the country--of course Apple and Walmart are going to sing its praises. The recently passed tax cuts aren't the reason why the economy has trended up for a lot longer than Trump has been in office. This should be painstakingly obvious to anyone paying attention who has a working brain.
I do agree that presidents can receive too much credit or blame for the economy. But I also think Washington and the POTUS can still influence or jumpstart the economy. Obama should get a lot of credit for reversing the direction the country was headed, which was toward Great Depression 2.0. I would also add that while there were a lot of flaws with the ACA, it wasn't quite the job killer many on the right were glibly prophesying. The greatest advantage of the ACA--besides it gave millions of people access to healthcare--is it is the likely precursor to single-payer healthcare, which will eliminate the profit motive of private insurance companies whose insatiable greed is solely responsible for the ridiculously high premiums and high deductibles people pay today. The failure of the ACA is it tried to impose socialism through the private sector, which led to a greater financial burden for a lot of families and below average wage earners not eligible for Medicaid--all of whom had to shoulder the rising cost of health care due to private insurance companies needing to make larger profits.
The biggest issue that wasn't solved under Obama was the increasing number of people dependent on government and the lack of growth in average people's wages. This was clearly evidenced by the low employment rate but record number of people on food assistance and welfare. The biggest challenge to our economy now is rebuilding the middle class and increasing average people's earnings in light of inflation and the rising cost of living. This is something that has not been solved in twenty years. We need a new direction and unfortunately Trump's souped up trickle-down economics is not it.
Last edited:
Probably true, but you could say the same thing about the tea baggers and right wingers during Obama.
And believe me did they like to whine and bitch for eight years. Pick your racial epithet coupled with the "he's a Muslim" "he's a terrorist" "he hates the police" "he wasn't born here" idiocy.
Yeah, right wingers are so much more above reproach than the lefties.
Whatever they're doing is probably good, but don't be fooled the announcement is just PR/rhetoric for tax cuts.
The stock market has very little relation to the financial health of the average American citizen these days.
Probably true, but you could say the same thing about the tea baggers and right wingers during Obama.
And believe me did they like to whine and bitch for eight years. Pick your racial epithet coupled with the "he's a Muslim" "he's a terrorist" "he hates the police" "he wasn't born here" idiocy.
Yeah, right wingers are so much more above reproach than the lefties.
I agree both can be vile, but it seems impossible for the left to acknowledge any good doing. Hey, I voted for BO once so you cant lump me into a right or left person.
I'm not lumping you in any group. Just pointing out that vilifying one side in that manner is inaccurate and hypocritical.
I'll be honest, I do believe there was a lot of liberal hyperbole when President Bush 43 was in office. That said, I don't see the stuff being said about Trump as being even close to hyperbolic. And that's pretty darn scary when you think about it.
Also, I'd be interested in where you see the right ever acknowledging the good things Obama did. I see no difference in how right wingers spoke about Obama compared to how liberals rag on Trump today. Turnabout is fair play, right?
His new plan to raise taxes to fund infrastructure sounds good. Almost sounds like something a D would suggest.
Last edited:
I’m starting to believe some people don’t know what the stock market is.
Did you guys even read the freaking article?
Apple is bring back 252 billion dollars of offshore cash because of the one time rate cut to 15.5%. That is 10000% attributed to the Trump tax cut. No way around that one. That pumps 38 billion to the USA treasury and using a good portion to build the 2nd campus and hire people.
If Hillary is elected, that cash stays off shore...just like under Obama.
Apple is bring back 252 billion dollars of offshore cash because of the one time rate cut to 15.5%. That is 10000% attributed to the Trump tax cut. No way around that one. That pumps 38 billion to the USA treasury and using a good portion to build the 2nd campus and hire people.
If Hillary is elected, that cash stays off shore...just like under Obama.
For the most part though I don’t think govt revenues decreased outside of the short term. Same thing happened with the Bush cuts, revenues dipped a bit during the recession and then kept growing after the tax cuts.
There are some here who can’t be objective at all and thus they will never give Trump credit for anything JUST like there are those on the other side of the political isle that are the exact same way w Democrats (previously Obama).
Read the rest of the thread. We already explained why this is unlikely because of the tax cuts. In fact that argument was thoroughly destroyed.
Yeah....the average American citizen doesn't have an IRA or 401(k).
What part of the fact that they are bring that cash back because of the 1 time 15% rate is not a truthful statement? The fuking CEO of apple is telling you guys that they are doing it because of the rate cut.
I really just wish Obama would come out and read the article to you so that you would believe it
For the most part though I don’t think govt revenues decreased outside of the short term. Same thing happened with the Bush cuts, revenues dipped a bit during the recession and then kept growing after the tax cuts.
Now show us in "inflation-adjusted dollars"
...as I suspected:For the most part though I don’t think govt revenues decreased outside of the short term. Same thing happened with the Bush cuts, revenues dipped a bit during the recession and then kept growing after the tax cuts.
...as I suspected:
Do you feel the govt should get more efficient as the economy grows or should it always eat up the same (and growing) portion of the GDP?
Also it looks like GWB pushed the needle of collected revenues above the adjusted for inflation dollars.
Huh?
I see the "highest tax as pct of GDP" back in WWII. It's lower than ever, now ( as of the 2011 timeframe this graph stops).
Also appears that the biggest increases in revenues occurred under Clinton, not Reagan, when there were tax increases.
Ouch.
And, as noted ad nauseum here: our economy is no longer a "manufacturing based" economy. It is services and technology. And consumer-based.
If you WANT economic growth, you NEED more money in the hands of the consumers that drive it. NOT the companies that store it offshore, or give it to our own "oligarchs" who will simply invest it overseas where they find opportunities to use it.
It WILL NOT "bring manufacturing back" to the US. It can't. It simply costs too much to live here (property/house-wise) than most other places that DO have manufacturing growth. Our main "living expense" is housing, and US (as well as most other developed nations') housing costs are well out of line with what they are in the developing areas that DO have growing manufacturing bases.
So you have decided to move the goal posts from absolutely dollars to percentage of GDP?
Look at 2005/06/07, real dollars were above inflation adjusted dollars.
No; but if you look at "inflation adjusted dollars", there is no "major runup" in revenues following the Reagan era tax cuts.
Revenues have tracked overall growth. Period. (That's why "as a pct of GDP" is mostly flat)
So you don't feel our govt should get more efficient with the larger the country's economy and people grow...I disagree. As the pot gets bigger (the economy) the amount, as a percentage, the govt needs should decrease. Govt probably shouldn't have target margin goals for tax revenues.
Why do you think the government should be able to serve more people for the same amount of money as the population rises?
