So I used to be a degreed corporate tax director. For the largest companies in the world.

[wiffleball 4,639]

And I swear to god, I still don't understand how raising the federal interest rate is somehow going to reduce inflation? Because, doesn't that just raise the price of pretty much everything? 

 

I still believe that the FED is most impactful organization in the world. Screw the White House or congress or scotus. But  GD...

[Strike 3,964]

Biden thinks raising the corporate tax rate will reduce inflation.  He's an idiot. 

[wiffleball 4,639]

I do love the fact that Realtors are getting fired literally by the thousands.

 

Worthless c****. They all enjoyed their heyday for far too long.

[GutterBoy 2,281]

4 minutes ago, wiffleball said:

And I swear to god, I still don't understand how raising the federal interest rate is somehow going to reduce inflation? Because, doesn't that just raise the price of pretty much everything? 

 

I still believe that the FED is most impactful organization in the world. Screw the White House or congress or scotus. But  GD...

It makes it harder to borrow money, which means less spending, which means prices come down.

[wiffleball 4,639]

Just now, Strike said:

Biden thinks raising the corporate tax rate will reduce inflation.  He's an idiot. 

I don't know that to be true. But if so? I agree with you. 

 

On the other hand, about every two years I post an article about the most profitable companies in America who pay literally $0 in income tax. And half of the FFT morons think that I'm just making it up. Until I post a link and then you're like :crickets:

 

You can make the corporate tax rate 89%. But with all the deductions and exemptions and loopholes, your rate doesn't mean s*** if your taxable  base is nothing. But nobody seems to get that.

 

I do however think we should go after billionaires a lot harder.

 

I don't think I've ever seen a single article on Hollywood billionaires and what they actually pay in cash  taxes.

[Strike 3,964]

3 minutes ago, wiffleball said:

I don't know that to be true. But if so? I agree with you.

 

 

[Utilit99 4,099]

6 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

It makes it harder to borrow money, which means less spending, which means prices come down.

Which means less consumer spending, less manufacturing of goods, less services desired, people lose jobs, etc. 

It's a terrible approach.

[wiffleball 4,639]

7 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

It makes it harder to borrow money, which means less spending, which means prices come down.

Or:

If it costs more to borrow money, businesses never just eat that cost, they just pass it along to the customer. That's number one.

 

And number two, if it cost more money to borrow money, then businesses are less likely to expand. And as far as I know, that kind of f**** with the job market.

Seriously, I think economist should be punched in the diick.

[wiffleball 4,639]

3 minutes ago, Utilit99 said:

Which means less consumer spending, less manufacturing of goods, people lose jobs, etc. 

It's a terrible approach.

Jesus christ. I hope my liver explodes this afternoon. Because we actually f****** agree on something.

[Utilit99 4,099]

Just now, wiffleball said:

Jesus christ. I hope my liver explodes this afternoon. Because we actually f****** agree on something.

[wiffleball 4,639]

4 minutes ago, Strike said:

 

 

See? Here's what I'm saying. Paying their fair share and increasing the corporate tax rate are two different things. Unless the m*********** throws in the words effective tax rate. Then that's something.

[Strike 3,964]

1 minute ago, wiffleball said:

See? Here's what I'm saying. Paying their fair share and increasing the corporate tax rate are two different things. Unless the m*********** throws in the words effective tax rate. Then that's something.

Sure.  Ok Wiff.  Have another drink.  It's already almost 2:00 PM.

[Alias Detective 1,179]

3 minutes ago, wiffleball said:

Or:

If it costs more to borrow money, businesses never just eat that cost, they just pass it along to the customer. That's number one.

 

And number two, if it cost more money to borrow money, then businesses are less likely to expand. And as far as I know, that kind of f**** with the job market.

Seriously, I think economist should be punched in the diick.

If people can’t afford the price and demand weakens guess what happens to the supply and thus the price.

[wiffleball 4,639]

Just now, Strike said:

Sure.  Ok Wiff.  Have another drink.  It's already almost 2:00 PM.

wow. You might want to delete your evidence of ignorance.

[Strike 3,964]

Just now, wiffleball said:

wow. You might want to delete your evidence of ignorance.

Not ignorant of anything.  The fact is whether you change the effective amount corporations pay or increase the tax rate to get them to pay more, them paying more isn't going to reduce inflation.  I'm not going to get in to a debate about WHY some corporations might not pay a lot of taxes in a given year, since there are a lot of reasons that can happen (some legit and some not so much) with a drunk, crazy talking Reverend Jim wannabe. 

[wiffleball 4,639]

4 minutes ago, Strike said:

Not ignorant of anything.  The fact is whether you change the effective amount corporations pay or increase the tax rate to get them to pay more, them paying more isn't going to reduce inflation.  I'm not going to get in to a debate about WHY some corporations might not pay a lot of taxes in a given year, since there are a lot of reasons that can happen (some legit and some not so much) with a drunk, crazy talking Reverend Jim wannabe. 

Not only do I not think you understand what effective tax rate means, I know you don't know what effective tax rate means f****** moron.

 

Jesus...

[GutterBoy 2,281]

19 minutes ago, Utilit99 said:

Which means less consumer spending, less manufacturing of goods, less services desired, people lose jobs, etc. 

It's a terrible approach.

OK, how would you reduce inflation?

[Strike 3,964]

1 minute ago, wiffleball said:

Not only do I not think you understand what effective tax rate means, I know you don't know what effective tax rate means f****** moron.

 

Jesus...

Have another drink.  You seem agitated. 

[Baker Boy 1,485]

23 minutes ago, Utilit99 said:

Which means less consumer spending, less manufacturing of goods, less services desired, people lose jobs, etc. 

It's a terrible approach.

Unfortunately that is the best approach in our current situation. Other options had to be dealt with a year ago when our administration was calling inflation transitory.  This will definitely put us in a recession but it is our best option today. I am too young to remember the 80s but that was the action they took then.

[JustinCharge 2,397]

30 minutes ago, wiffleball said:

Or:

If it costs more to borrow money, businesses never just eat that cost, they just pass it along to the customer. That's number one.

 

And number two, if it cost more money to borrow money, then businesses are less likely to expand. And as far as I know, that kind of f**** with the job market.

Seriously, I think economist should be punched in the diick.

That's how they fixed the inflation in the 1970s.  The Fed jacked up interest rates to the sky.  It ended inflation and crashed the economy, creating what we refer to as the "recession of 1982".  In 1982, people felt Reagan was a one-termer due to the crash.  But the economy rebounded strongly by 1984 and he got a second term.  Most economists expected inflation to take off again in 1983, 1984, etc.  But it did not.  Economists say the reason inflation stayed low during the rebound was the emergence of discount brokerages and popularity of 401ks, which meant when people regained purchasing power, they used a lot of it to buy stocks instead of things, so the inflation was transferred into stock prices as we got the start of a 20 year stock market boom.

[JustinCharge 2,397]

if i was Biden, id crash the economy with high interest rates from the fed, then also create a NEW investment vehicle, something like a 401k, to entice people to put there money market in the money when the rebound comes to stifle inflation.  basically replay 1982.

[Utilit99 4,099]

7 minutes ago, Baker Boy said:

Unfortunately that is the best approach in our current situation. Other options had to be dealt with a year ago when our administration was calling inflation transitory.  This will definitely put us in a recession but it is our best option today. I am too young to remember the 80s but that was the action they took then.

I don't agree it's the only way but I'm fine with the economy eroding just long enough to get people to suffer enough to vote differently in November. Massive government spending has got to go. And I won't trust anyone saying there is a "big red wave" coming in November until I see it. 

[jerryskids 5,192]

I've been confused by this as well.  When I took an econ class in the 90s we learned that inflation and interest rates were positively correlated (i.e., higher rates cause higher inflation).  Later in the semester the professor talked about increasing rates to stave off inflation.

Me:  "uh professor, didn't we learn the opposite earlier?"

Him: "huh, yeah, you are right."

As I think about it now, I think maybe small increases have the positive correlation, doing the kinds of things wiff and utilit are mentioning.  If you raise them enough to crash the economy, perhaps you get the opposite effect?  

We'll see if inflation goes up or down as we slowly increase the rates.

[Utilit99 4,099]

10 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I've been confused by this as well.  When I took an econ class in the 90s we learned that inflation and interest rates were positively correlated (i.e., higher rates cause higher inflation).  Later in the semester the professor talked about increasing rates to stave off inflation.

Me:  "uh professor, didn't we learn the opposite earlier?"

Him: "huh, yeah, you are right."

As I think about it now, I think maybe small increases have the positive correlation, doing the kinds of things wiff and utilit are mentioning.  If you raise them enough to crash the economy, perhaps you get the opposite effect?  

We'll see if inflation goes up or down as we slowly increase the rates.

I think I heard it was 3/4 of a point? That did excite the people in the market but probably not much else. 

Let's just hope our current "leaders" don't fock up food supply. 

This country is in 'tilt' mode.

[GutterBoy 2,281]

1 minute ago, Utilit99 said:

Let's just hope our current "leaders" don't fock up food supply. 

Well digby told us a few weeks ago that Biden is personally setting fires to the food warehouses, if you believe anything that clown says.

[nobody 2,037]

The entire economy runs and grows off of credit.  Raising interest rates adds friction to the credit market.  If you slow down credit, you slow down the economy.

[Utilit99 4,099]

Just now, nobody said:

The entire economy runs and grows off of credit.  Raising interest rates adds friction to the credit market.  If you slow down credit, you slow down the economy.

There's no doubt about it. 

[BudBro 117]

Too much cheap money in circulation from printing money for 15 years.  Look to the people paying for stupid s**t like cartoon nfts on the blockchain.  Nothing has any value because money has no value.  $6 for a coffee?  A fool and his money are soon parted.  Housing prices have skyrocketed, yet it's still the same house, while the wages to pay the debt on the house have not kept pace with house values.  Even if the central bank bought bonds and lowered the cash in circulation, it will take a year to have any effect.

MMT is just communist Keynesian economics rebranded.  The govt is a consumer, not a producer.  These fags just keep trying and trying to make Keynes work.  It never has, nor will it ever.  Stop voting for f*****g democrats!

[edjr 5,562]

1 hour ago, GutterBoy said:

It makes it harder to borrow money, which means less spending, which means prices come down.

I am one of the dumbest people here and I knew this

[Strike 3,964]

40 minutes ago, JustinCharge said:

if i was Biden, id crash the economy with high interest rates from the fed, then also create a NEW investment vehicle, something like a 401k, to entice people to put there money in the money when the rebound comes to stifle inflation.  basically replay 1982.

Why wouldn't people just use their OLD 401k instead of having two of them? 

[nobody 2,037]

8 minutes ago, Strike said:

Why wouldn't people just use their OLD 401k instead of having two of them? 

For a JustinCharge idea, it's not that bad.  I mean we already have alternative investment vehicles like IRAs, HSAs, 529Bs...

It would have to be a pretty sweet deal to encourage people to save instead of spend though.  I doubt Biden or his crew would have enough savvy to think of something though. 

[GutterBoy 2,281]

25 minutes ago, nobody said:

For a JustinCharge idea, it's not that bad.  I mean we already have alternative investment vehicles like IRAs, HSAs, 529Bs...

It would have to be a pretty sweet deal to encourage people to save instead of spend though.  I doubt Biden or his crew would have enough savvy to think of something though. 

Why does Justin charge care about the economy?  He guaranteed nuclear war by year end.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Less consumer and corporate borrowing doesn't mean less government borrowing, so we are paying off debt with no personal benefit. Communism.

[nobody 2,037]

21 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

Less consumer and corporate borrowing doesn't mean less government borrowing, so we are paying off debt with no personal benefit. Communism.

I believe the government has already curtailed bond offerings significantly.  

[easilyscan 558]

2 hours ago, wiffleball said:

On the other hand, about every two years I post an article about the most profitable companies in America who pay literally $0 in income tax. And half of the FFT morons think that I'm just making it up. Until I post a link and then you're like :crickets:

You can make the corporate tax rate 89%. But with all the deductions and exemptions and loopholes, your rate doesn't mean s*** if your taxable  base is nothing. But nobody seems to get that.

Amazon was one of those who paid zero taxes a couple times. The only way that could ever be rectified would be to streamline the IRS tax code and get rid of some of the

deductions/ loopholes you mentioned.

That's probably never going to happen. In addition to the corporations themselves, the CPA lobby would fight tooth & nail to prevent it.

A big part of the 2017 tax reform bill was to lower corporate taxes in America.

They were at 35%. Highest in the world. However, through research, I found a list of the fortune 500 companies and what their actual tax rate was in previous years.

 

Due to the loopholes/special deductions, very few paid anywhere near that amount. It's now a flat 21% 

Just so no one gets the wrong idea, I've been a capitalist my entire life. I was able to retire early because the economy has been so favorable for the markets over the past 2 or 3 decades.

But I believe the pendulum can swing too far one way. When you lower the corporate tax rate by 40%, the other side of the political aisle is going to do what they think is right for their constituents. Coming up with things like the earned income tax credit, increasing deductions for 'poor' families, direct payments for every child in the house, letting 'children' stay on their parents health insurance plan until age 26, free breakfasts not only during the school year, but all year long with weekends included as well, etc.

Before corona, around 50% of people who filed a 1040 got back as much, or more than they had paid in federal taxes. Reports say that was over 60% in 2020 & 2021.

Meanwhile the debt piles up. 

If it ever has to be addressed seriously (and by that I mean the treasury can't just print more money) it won't be pretty.

 

 

 

[JustinCharge 2,397]

2 hours ago, Strike said:

Why wouldn't people just use their OLD 401k instead of having two of them? 

i didnt say it had to be a 401k.  could be anything, really.  but it should be something to rekindle the American people's interest in investment over spending.

[JustinCharge 2,397]

2 hours ago, nobody said:

For a JustinCharge idea, it's not that bad.  I mean we already have alternative investment vehicles like IRAs, HSAs, 529Bs...

It would have to be a pretty sweet deal to encourage people to save instead of spend though.  I doubt Biden or his crew would have enough savvy to think of something though. 

hey look you motherfocking pedo, if you want to be a piece of shiit, do it elsewhere.  thanks.

[GutterBoy 2,281]

1 minute ago, JustinCharge said:

hey look you motherfocking pedo, if you want to be a piece of shiit, do it elsewhere.  thanks.

[nobody 2,037]

Just now, JustinCharge said:

hey look you motherfocking pedo, if you want to be a piece of shiit, do it elsewhere.  thanks.

I agreed with you, dummy.  And if either of us is a piece of shìt, it's you for calling me a pedo because your feelings are hurt.

[Strike 3,964]

3 minutes ago, JustinCharge said:

i didnt say it had to be a 401k.  could be anything, really.  but it should be something to rekindle the American people's interest in investment over spending.

Why don't we try educating people on investing, such as teaching the theory of compounding?  You know, teach a man how to fish and all that.  Also, let's get rid of government run lotteries.