Supermoto
Well-Known Member
Removing the fraud from the social programs is all that is needed. What once was a safety net has become a lifestyle. Then gut the waste in the government. Stop giving our enemies billions of dollars
trump vs hillary
- Thread starter domo
- Start date
- Status
Removing the fraud from the social programs is all that is needed. What once was a safety net has become a lifestyle. Then gut the waste in the government. Stop giving our enemies billions of dollars
gtluke
The Moped
Yeah, Trump is all over the place. I haven't been paying attention to what he says THAT much but one thing he's never changed on is trade deals. He was screaming angry YEARS ago when NAFTA went in. And again when TPP is bring brought up. Hillary really got pinched in the TPP thing. She was 100% in for it, calling it the gold standard on trade. Then her supporters had to be physically removed from her rallies holding signs and chanting anti TPP deals. Nobody likes TPP except those who will profit (Hillary and all the companies that bribe her).
According to Trump, and well most people, our trade deals is what's causing all the manufacturing to leave the US. Companies like Ford move the plants to Canada and Mexico where there is less regulation, lower wages, and lower taxes. Then they import the cars to the US and pay no fees and no tax on it. That could be fine, except if you bought a US car made in the United States in Mexico, you'd pay a 20% tax on it. This is generally what happens worldwide, except for us. BUT, this keeps our purchases cheap. We could potentially have to pay a 20% import tax on bike parts as almost none of them are made in the US. Ideally, we pay no tax and THAT country pays no tax on our goods. That would be fair.
BUT globalism.
The Hillary types make these deals usually with nations that need "help". We give them these great deals and set them up so that they could be great business and manufacturing centers. On paper it seems like a great idea, until instead of one of their domestic companies growing and producing exports to us, one of the US companies packs up and moves to this 3rd world country and sets up manufacturing over there. Great, our air conditioners are now manufactured out of the country and we pay no import tax on them, but we just lost 4,000 jobs and a good source of tax revenue from the corporation. That's kinda fucked.
Our corporate tax rates are too high. We are of the highest in the world. We "have" companies like Apple who are an "american" company, the biggest american company actually who pay $0 in US taxes because they are incorporated and do banking in Ireland where it's more lucrative to be a business. And all the manufacturing is done in China. This is fucked, these loopholes need to be closed.
We have 600+ military bases in 40 foreign countries. Do we really need this? We are the world police and we aren't getting paid. Is it our job? Some of these are strategic bases because of location, but can we get away with half of them?
I mean we took out the world's 4th largest army in 24 hours and did we even suffer a loss? It was pretty pathetic, do we need to dominate that much? We are so advanced with our planes, carriers, drones, subs that we don't need such a large military presence overseas. Will another war be fought on the ground? I'm one to not worry so much about everyone else everywhere else when we have a lot of problems at home. Trump was raving mad during the debate at the trillions we spent in the middle east while we have cities here like detroit. We could have used that money here (not that I think it's the government's job to nation build here or abroad) but if we got to keep that money, or rather not borrow it we would all be in better shape.
I don't like Trump, but his stance on trade and military make much more sense to me.
Hillary STARTED a war. She also voted for the Iraq war. And sold Uranium to Russia after being paid in cash for it through the Clinton Foundation. She is absolutely not looking out for us, she's very very very dangerous and getting away with all of this right in front of our face. Nobody will prosecute here, they are all scared to death. And for a good reason.
alex_k
Well-Known Member
It is definitely working so american salaries are going down while the third world lives better. Meanwhile we import hundred thousand LOW skill IT workers - I've conducted dozens of interviews over the years where candidates show absence of basic skills - how did they get H1B visa?
I know you hate Apple, but I would love to see where you read this. They certainly avoid paying as much taxes as possible by using loopholes, but they pay the IRS billions of dollars per year in the US.
MMuller
Well-Known Member
I can't...can't...believe no one.....not them or you's guys and girls.....is talking about global climate change........At a certain point, a point in which the globe seems to be headed, none of all the previous posts on this thread matter.
This is not a political post, BTW.
This is not a political post, BTW.
gtluke
The Moped
I was wrong, they pay some tax, but not much. Globally they are under 10% even though a true domestic company like Walmart pays 25% just here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/b...ategy-aims-at-low-tax-states-and-nations.html
@jackx
My problem with your economy scenario is twofold. The first is that things work out like you say. I don't think either of us can say that it will or will not happen like that. Things are usually much more complex. But that's sort of a bottomless well of an argument. So let's just assume that it would play out like you say.
That leads to the second real issue I see which is that any influx of cash to any publicly traded company would be a one-time deal. For one year, companies would show a wonderful profit and the stockholders would be smitten. Then the next year, there would not be a similar influx of cash. The way that the stock market works is that investors want to see your rate of growth keep going up. Aside from the fact that this is mathematically impossible, it is a shitty model and is why this would stand as a one-time injection of money. My guess is that in 2 years everything would be back to the status quo, none of the industry would have moved back to the US, and in the end you have executives that make even more bonus money than they did before.
Apologies -> I don't have a counter solution to balance your suggestion/point. I know my reply is just bashing an idea and I dislike when people do that. I confess ignorance on the nuances of this discussion so forgive me for just shooting holes in the theory without offering anything positive in return.
My problem with your economy scenario is twofold. The first is that things work out like you say. I don't think either of us can say that it will or will not happen like that. Things are usually much more complex. But that's sort of a bottomless well of an argument. So let's just assume that it would play out like you say.
That leads to the second real issue I see which is that any influx of cash to any publicly traded company would be a one-time deal. For one year, companies would show a wonderful profit and the stockholders would be smitten. Then the next year, there would not be a similar influx of cash. The way that the stock market works is that investors want to see your rate of growth keep going up. Aside from the fact that this is mathematically impossible, it is a shitty model and is why this would stand as a one-time injection of money. My guess is that in 2 years everything would be back to the status quo, none of the industry would have moved back to the US, and in the end you have executives that make even more bonus money than they did before.
Apologies -> I don't have a counter solution to balance your suggestion/point. I know my reply is just bashing an idea and I dislike when people do that. I confess ignorance on the nuances of this discussion so forgive me for just shooting holes in the theory without offering anything positive in return.
Supermoto
Well-Known Member
Global climate change is going to happen when Iran pops Israel with a nuke. The way we are headed, that will happen long before the climates warming, or is cooling..no its warming and cooling at this same time, will have any dramatic effect
Supermoto
Well-Known Member
The easy solution is requiring the money to be invested in the company and not used for bottom line. Bring back 1 million, show 1 million investment into your company, like build a new factory, which will need more employees, which will lower the true unemployment rate, which will help the economy, and give more tax revenue
This won't work in an investor-based, publicly-traded-company world. You can't have the government adding more hands in the driving force of the country's retirement accounts.
You may reply and say it needs to be incentive-based, which is a fine solution...except for the fact that now you introduce loopholes, and exceptions, and further exacerbate the issues with corporate malfeasance that already exists. Riders on bills and lobbyists and the nonsense never ends. What you are proposing is a 45,000 page reform bill that will include personal golf courses for every Senator.
Therein lies the problem with much of the government.
Here is what I propose as a solution: Term limits for every publicly elected official. You are allowed to hold office for exactly ONE term. After that term you are never allowed to hold any publicly held office ever again. That way, you don't spend most of your term trying to hold on to power.
And while we're in this fantasyland, maybe every trail in the country is now legal for bikes.
And fucking free cake for EVERYONE!
I'm gonna run in 2020.
Red Mosquito
Formerly RLB the Scrapple Boy
So, I'm just gonna buy some guns and a lot of spam. And also stockpile gas and water.
This.
We gotta get our heads out of the sand on this one. Trump is wrong about climate change, because science.
i get what you mean, but money invested from capital markets is never recorded as income. it's recorded as "common stock (or something similar like preferred stock)" and "additional paid in capital" on the balance sheet, not the income statement.
but what you are saying about directing the funds brought in - isn't that just further regulation - like a pretty heavy handed regulation?
going back to the candidates, isn't trump anti regulation? i heard him bring up "regulations" and how hillary wants to regulate everything (insinuated that regulation is a bad thing) a few times in the debate the other night.
you bring up a good point which makes me think of one thing that bugs me which is healthcare costs and how they are related capital investments (the stock market). I think if people want to lower healthcare (drug) costs, they need to get earnings expectations out of the picture, which means the stock market either needs to stop trading pharma/healthcare companies or stop the expectation of 20% growth year-to-year... If you stop trading them, or make pharma companies less desirable (profitable) they won't get invested in, which means then they don't have access to capital, and research costs billions to come up with a drug, and that's where the capital is needed. But that's because earning expectations have driven up the costs of everything...
Maybe we should trade pharma companies like mutual funds - one time daily. But again, that's some heavy regulation. I don't know the answer, but I do know price increases are usually from external pressures to make earnings and keep that stock price up, as well as bring in cash to get the next big drug going... just one of the pieces of the puzzle that's been in the back of my mind.
Our tax structure does suck. Corporate taxes are too high when compared to other countries - and the inversions that companies have been doing (moving headquarters to Ireland to get lower tax rates) are the thing to do, but that won't last. Loopholes get exploited (like inversions) but they won't stick. For example, a judge in Ireland rules Apple owes a ton of taxes now. Governments like to think they can give tax holidays endlessly, but they can't, because like most everyone one else, they are greedy, and when they see lost revenue, they'll eventually change the rules and try to take a piece of the pie. So it's the cool thing to do now, but it will end. The US government has done repatriation holidays in the past - where the U.S. gives a tax-free (or very low tax rates) for a limited time window so companies can repatriate money and finally bring earnings back. There was talk of one happening a couple years ago, but Congress wouldn't go for it. I mean, how would they pay for our defense budget?
Red Mosquito
Formerly RLB the Scrapple Boy
Norm for president! In addition to term limits Citizens United needs to be repealed so that the politicians can no longer be bought.
Red Mosquito
Formerly RLB the Scrapple Boy
And isn't Johnson for TPP and Citizens United?
It was actually the EU that told them they have to pay the back taxes, Ireland doesn't want the money from Apple. Ireland purposely has some of the lowest tax rates in Europe in order to draw large companies there. Both the US government and the Irish government are planning to fight the EU on this issue.
totally right about that - my bad. will be interesting how it plays out, since its a ton of money. i just cant see governments not being tempted to take tax revenue when its there.
Supermoto
Well-Known Member
Trump and the USFL is enough for me to never vote for him for president....that was an unmitigated disaster. But I dont dislike him, I think hes entertaining...not for president though.
Man this would have been Perot's year. He must be throwing shit at the sanitarium wall.
Man this would have been Perot's year. He must be throwing shit at the sanitarium wall.
- Status