Jump to content


Trump's Tax Plan


sho

Recommended Posts


6 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I know.

 

I haven't heard or seen a logical and well thought out plan to accomplish it.  I don't think it's possible. 

My company already gives us a total compensation summary every year, including the cost of healthcare provided by the company and other benefits. It is a way for my company to show you the total value given to you as a way to increase retention. This could be required to be produced by all companies with more than X employees. Submit it with other year end documents to the government. Add law or the like from above.

 

Does that work?

 

edit: My company does this voluntarily because it has value to workers and trying to retain talent. It must not be that difficult to produce compared to the value of it.

Edited by deedsker
Link to comment
1 hour ago, deedsker said:

My company already gives us a total compensation summary every year, including the cost of healthcare provided by the company and other benefits. It is a way for my company to show you the total value given to you as a way to increase retention. This could be required to be produced by all companies with more than X employees. Submit it with other year end documents to the government. Add law or the like from above.

 

Does that work?

 

edit: My company does this voluntarily because it has value to workers and trying to retain talent. It must not be that difficult to produce compared to the value of it.

 

I'm all for a company doing something like this voluntarily.  However, when it becomes mandatory through a government mandate that tax cuts are somehow needed to be documented that they are passed on to employees, that's when it becomes a cluster f*** for many involved.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

I'm all for a company doing something like this voluntarily.  However, when it becomes mandatory through a government mandate that tax cuts are somehow needed to be documented that they are passed on to employees, that's when it becomes a cluster f*** for many involved.

So, you just don't like government, but it is possible.

Link to comment

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

:facepalm:

 

Seriously???

What? I am just not trying to mince words. Tell me what the real issue is.

 

You can do it and it isn't terribly difficult/costly/ has more worth than expense. Isn't that worth doing to verify the right people get what so many are saying they want?

Link to comment

I agree with BRB here, and I remember our last discussion about it :P

 

I haven't read much about this amendment, but at a glance it doesn't look like a serious one. They knew it would be shut down. It was an exercise in demonstration. The point being made is that cutting corporate taxes is obviously not going to guarantee that it goes to wages. You could try to force them to use the money this way but of course that would be a ridiculous mandate. The point of not taxing a certain amount of money is that you are being given freedom to do with it as you like. Otherwise, you keep the taxes. 

 

To improve wages, you can increase wage requirements (for those at the bottom). You can expand the social safety net and especially socialize medicine, to ease some of the more ludicrous costs imposed on people, all but the richest of whom are not insulated from feeling the burdens. And particularly important, I think, you can increase the power of organized labor, so that workers at all salary levels regain some of the bargaining power they have steadily been stripped of in preceding decades. Name a scenario with vast power disparity and you'll find one where the powerless are taken advantage of by the powerful, up to whatever voluntary limits are sustainable. People aren't paid what they deserve, they're paid what they have the power to negotiate.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, deedsker said:

What? I am just not trying to mince words. Tell me what the real issue is.

 

You can do it and it isn't terribly difficult/costly/ has more worth than expense. Isn't that worth doing to verify the right people get what so many are saying they want?

 

 

First of all.....the "you don't like government" comment had nothing to do with my post.  It was something you obviously pulled out of thin air.

 

I'm a moderate conservative.  I fully understand a need for government and know it's needed to have a well organized and healthy society.  I believe government needs to be as efficient as possible and do what needs done as least expensive as possible so individuals can live their own lives on their own terms.

 

Now....to your questions.

 

What you posted does not accomplish what is being discussed.  Just because your company provides this information, doesn't accomplish guaranteeing tax cuts go to increasing wages.  It's a nice little perk so you know what is going on in your company and how you fit into the big picture.  But, it's not what we are talking about.

 

To do that, let's say I have a company where right now, I'm getting by OK but I really need to invest in capital expenditures to keep my company healthy long term.  Now.....let's say I get a tax cut.  I need the money for equipment or a new building.  This also helps employees by...maybe I'm going to hire more people or helps them have job security long term because the company is healthier.  NOW.....I'm required to take that money and instead give raises.  OK....I need the money in one area to help everyone employed by the company but it's not going directly to wages.

 

Those expenditures typically would be either expensed or depreciated that would lower taxes.  This would all be tied to the same taxes that supposedly this tax bill would be decreasing and some how I have to document that tax relief went to higher wages.

 

Now....how do I document that?

Link to comment

From what I read, it was a direct comparison of top executives to other employees compensation, hence my company example of such. It taxes cuts were used to upgrade equipment, facilities, technology, etc. for business that wouldn't matter. Just that executives, management, technicians, and others have a running compensation file and that employees, (not executives or shareholders) get same or greater increases. Executive or shareholders get a 25% raise and employees got 20% isn't acceptable and entailed in a one page document.

 

32 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

that's when it becomes a cluster f*** for many involved.

Sorry to offend, but this made me think that you belief the government cannot perform ANY task without a clustering it up. I mean no offense.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, deedsker said:

From what I read, it was a direct comparison of top executives to other employees compensation, hence my company example of such. It taxes cuts were used to upgrade equipment, facilities, technology, etc. for business that wouldn't matter. Just that executives, management, technicians, and others have a running compensation file and that employees, (not executives or shareholders) get same or greater increases. Executive or shareholders get a 25% raise and employees got 20% isn't acceptable and entailed in a one page document.

 

 

 

Question...do you view privately owned companies the same as publicly traded companies?

Link to comment

2 minutes ago, deedsker said:

Yes. They all have to file the same IRS paperwork.

Then I'll have to disagree with your idea.

 

I could somewhat get on board with it for publicly traded companies.  I view those much more as public entities that individuals have the opportunity to invest in and sell stock.  The executives of those companies typically are not the people who invested their life's work building and risking everything they had to grow the company.  I do think executive pay at many of these companies is outrageous and many times those executives are raping the companies at the same time the company is failing.

 

I personally view that very different than someone who starts a company, invests their life's work and risks their entire life savings to build what they have.  In general, I would have a problem regulating what someone like that can take out of the business personally.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Then I'll have to disagree with your idea.

 

I could somewhat get on board with it for publicly traded companies.  I view those much more as public entities that individuals have the opportunity to invest in and sell stock.  The executives of those companies typically are not the people who invested their life's work building and risking everything they had to grow the company.  I do think executive pay at many of these companies is outrageous and many times those executives are raping the companies at the same time the company is failing.

 

I personally view that very different than someone who starts a company, invests their life's work and risks their entire life savings to build what they have.  In general, I would have a problem regulating what someone like that can take out of the business personally.

 

If that is the premise, do you think we need to find a way to distinguish those hypothetical companies you speak of and your billion dollar privately helds (Koch, Mars, Dell, etc.)

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

Then I'll have to disagree with your idea.

 

I could somewhat get on board with it for publicly traded companies.  I view those much more as public entities that individuals have the opportunity to invest in and sell stock.  The executives of those companies typically are not the people who invested their life's work building and risking everything they had to grow the company.  I do think executive pay at many of these companies is outrageous and many times those executives are raping the companies at the same time the company is failing.

 

I personally view that very different than someone who starts a company, invests their life's work and risks their entire life savings to build what they have.  In general, I would have a problem regulating what someone like that can take out of the business personally.

The pass through tax cut being proposed is an attempt to give these people the most benefit. Notice I said X employees. If you own a business, employ no one else, and make whatever money, then the CEO (you), shareholders (you), and employees (you) all received the same benefits. 

 

I guess you could add one line that says you own this many companies and got paid through them all and cap the limit before you loose benefits. Help eliminate shell companies and the millions they are trying to siphon off.

Link to comment

It appears this polished turd is going to get across the finish line.

Flake was bought off by a promise of a "permanent, pro-growth solution to protecting DACA kids" (apparently by Pence himself).

Collins will vote yes by getting an amendment allowing up to $10K of state and local tax (SALT) deductions.

 

Steve Daines and Ron Johnson (from Wisconsin) were bought off with more money for pass-throughs.

Apparently Flake/Johnson didn't care about the deficit or Collins about protecting the ACA as much as they wanted us to believe.

Edited by dudeguyy
  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...