***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[elpablo21]

Just heard a Bloomberg ad on the radio with Michael Douglas narrating....got him sounding like he came up working in the steel mills

 

[plansb]

dwalk31 thoughts???????

You know he’s just gonna day he disagrees and trump shoulda done better. But, ultimately, all dwalk cares about is money. Trump could start rounding up kids and putting them in cages and he still wouldn’t care enough to not support him, since that extra take home $ is top priority.

 

[mplsdunk]

I think he contacted middle class fancy too.

 

[dacomeup]

As I was listening to The Journal’s pod today on how Bloomberg is trying to buy this election like he did the Mayoral election in 01 I get this text.

 

[plansb]

I think he contacted middle class fancy too.

I love middle class fancy

 

[dwalk31]

“It certainly benefits the upper portion of the income population more than the lower half. Anyone with a high salary is likely investing anyway," says Yung-Yu Ma, chief investment strategist and managing director at BMO Wealth Management.

It only applies to household incomes “up to 200k.”

That’s rich people?

 

[junglejim]

It only applies to household incomes “up to 200k.”

That’s rich people?

when you compare it to people making 20-30k a year, yes it is.

But it’s pretty stupid when you consider the fact that they are using it to reduce future social security payments when the people who are going to benefit from it the most (those making 130-200k a year) don’t pay social security tax on those excess wages over 138k a year.

it’s a horrible plan

 

[boris]

It only applies to household incomes “up to 200k.”

That’s rich people?

“It certainly benefits the upper portion of the income population more than the lower half. Anyone with a high salary is likely investing anyway," says Yung-Yu Ma, chief investment strategist and managing director at BMO Wealth Management.

 

[-Red-]

As I was listening to The Journal’s pod today on how Bloomberg is trying to buy this election like he did the Mayoral election in 01 I get this text.

My brother just came to visit from out of town today. Both of us received this same text message. His response was “He is racist.” Not that it will matter in the slightest other than for cathartic purposes, but I’m gonna respond tomorrow with something even more hostile

 

[aepps20]

Fellas, I took my wife to the new movie called "The Photograph" and no spoilers but it proved once again that Liberals and their photos must be stopped.

 

[mplsdunk]

I love middle class fancy

It’s spot on.

 

[whywesteppin]

The fact people can think it's acceptable saying "okay boomer" with a hard "r" is deplorable.

quoted for the truth

 

[whywesteppin]

Fellas, I took my wife to the new movie called "The Photograph" and no spoilers but it proved once again that Liberals and their photos must be stopped.

I am scared of the world I have to raise my kids in. no morality. this is part of the decades long plot by Hollywood to feminize our sons by making them think that photography is an acceptable way to let our male aggression. and more "toxic masculinity" is being criminalized.

the straw that broke the horses back though is "Valentine's" day. a whole day to celebrate men carrying purses and taking selfies with their i-wear-the-pants girlfriends. I saw a ****** with a beard the other day. I'm scared and I'm upset. and it's not because I'm spending Valentine's Day alone. I CHOOSE to not endorse this pagan holiday that was started as an anti-Christian communist share-your-wealth-with-your-lazy-wife socialist agenda.

vote for Trump or watch this country destroy itself with chocolates and flowers every day of the year.

 

[RustyShackleford]

The hits keep on coming ...

This man was out here blaming Obama for the racial tensions in America.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/michael-bloomberg-obama-racial-division_n_5e47289ec5b64433c6167a1d

I would argue that today we are more segregated, in America certainly, than we were, in terms of race, than we were a dozen years ago, and yet we’re just finishing up eight years with our first Black president. “Why are we more separated than we were before?” is the question you’ve got to ask yourself. Why during the Obama administration didn’t we pull together? Ask the president. That’s his job really to pull people together.

So it is Obama's fault that regressive white people irrationally hated him, and conservatives fan those flames for political gain.

 

[RustyShackleford]

I case I haven't express my hatred for dude lately...

**** MIKE BLOOMBERG AS A STAFF, RECORD LABEL, AND A MOTHER****ING CREW

 

[junglejim]

Thank god for those federal tax cuts. That way we can let a company that pays its average employee $28k a year and disproportionately uses our infrastructure more than any other company in the United States continue to not raise wages and invest in technology to displace workers.

glad those tax cuts went to a McMansion for Bezos instead of higher wages to employees. Those tax cuts truly stimulated the economy for 50 individuals

 

[IATT]

Bloomberg 2020: It's MURDAAA!!!

Spoiler

 

[rolaholic]

The Onion has been bringing so much in the tiny hands era

 

[Quincy McCall]

The Onion has been bringing so much in the tiny hands era

I thought that was a stock photo for a second, which would've been hilarious, but 10x funnier after I noticed the Bloomberg shirt button. Props to the Onion

 

[biggie62]

Thank god for those federal tax cuts. That way we can let a company that pays its average employee $28k a year and disproportionately uses our infrastructure more than any other company in the United States continue to not raise wages and invest in technology to displace workers.

glad those tax cuts went to a McMansion for Bezos instead of higher wages to employees. Those tax cuts truly stimulated the economy for 50 individuals

Okay since I’m probably only one of a handful of people on this forum who could even truly understand what this means. It’s not as black and whie as you think it is. Amazon, unlike many other corporations invests in a lot of credits (tell municipalities not to give them any if you have an issues with this) and capital spending(new wearhouses and such) these items are a dollar for dollar savings and many can be expensed immediately. For companies it makes sense to do so because it does sort of help to let them continue their investments.

However this is part of that deferred tax portion, because it’s just a timing difference. It reverses itself out over time and you end up paying more taxes later since you got the deduction today rather than say depreciate a computer over 5 years. So say you buy a computer for 2k, you get the 2k deduction against income today rather than a 400 deduction each year over 5 years. You will have your income essentially increase by 400 each of the next 4 years as it reverses A lot of times when you do this you can put yourself into a loss situation for taxes when you are a company like amazon.

now let me first point out that this wasn’t too much different before when Obama and Bush were president. So I wouldn’t go crazy into trying to make this a Trump thing only. Tracking all these items and understanding them is why public accountants who do corporate work can be a decently lucrative job. It’s confusing and constantly changing.

 

[Belgium]

 

[junglejim]

Okay since I’m probably only one of a handful of people on this forum who could even truly understand what this means. It’s not as black and whie as you think it is. Amazon, unlike many other corporations invests in a lot of credits (tell municipalities not to give them any if you have an issues with this) and capital spending(new wearhouses and such) these items are a dollar for dollar savings and many can be expensed immediately. For companies it makes sense to do so because it does sort of help to let them continue their investments.

However this is part of that deferred tax portion, because it’s just a timing difference. It reverses itself out over time and you end up paying more taxes later since you got the deduction today rather than say depreciate a computer over 5 years. So say you buy a computer for 2k, you get the 2k deduction against income today rather than a 400 deduction each year over 5 years. You will have your income essentially increase by 400 each of the next 4 years as it reverses A lot of times when you do this you can put yourself into a loss situation for taxes when you are a company like amazon.

now let me first point out that this wasn’t too much different before when Obama and Bush were president. So I wouldn’t go crazy into trying to make this a Trump thing only. Tracking all these items and understanding them is why public accountants who do corporate work can be a decently lucrative job. It’s confusing and constantly changing.

I spent 10 years as a senior manager in a public accounting firm doing tax consulting and compliance work before becoming a tax director at a international manufacturing company so for the most part I feel entirely comfortable speaking on this. Their reduced tax rate was largely due to new expensing rules for fixed assets, a reduced federal rate, and R&D credits which they have claimed on new research product and automation that they have used in their warehouse to help eliminate some of those previous warehouse workers positions.

You posit that this is not a Trump only thing and happened under Obama and Bush. That is partially true. Under prior law there was an R&D credit and partial expensing of assets, but for the most part those expensing rules only allowed corporations to expense 50% immediately with the rest being depreciated over a typical period of 5-10 years so it was much less of a benefit in previous years than it is now. Now add in the fact that the corporate rate is now 14% less than what it was previously while giving corporations more beneficial deductions than in previous years then you end up in a situation where R&D credits (which are not a temporary difference and do not reverse in future years) have a greater effect on actual cash taxes paid and booked in financial statements.

The largest portion of these tax cuts were supposed to be paid for by economic growth and international tax reform. The biggest issue with how the tax law was written Congress assumed that the average company has offshore subsidiaries for the sole purpose of evading taxes which is simply not true. As a result, their Global Intangible Low Tax Income regime Has had less of an effect on corporate taxes due to a fundamental misunderstanding of how corporations operate internationally and a benefit of the foreign tax credit for taxes paid on that income in other countries. On top of this, they added a tax benefit for sales to foreign entities and affiliates called the Foreign Derived Intangible Income deduction (which is also not a temporary difference) which largely wiped out most companies GILTI liability so the stuff they set up to pay for these tax cuts absolutely is not working in practice.

This is absolutely a function of an extremely poorly written law by a bunch of individuals who have a poor knowledge of how the tax code works and this is absolutely something that started under the Trump administration.

This is a direct result of two branches of the government trying to push through a tax overhaul package that was 500 pages in a months span. I’m done ranting now

 

[deuce king]

Hey if it's Bernie, it's Bernie.

Pass.

 

[biggie62]

I spent 10 years as a senior manager in a public accounting firm doing tax consulting and compliance work before becoming a tax director at a international manufacturing company so for the most part I feel entirely comfortable speaking on this. Their reduced tax rate was largely due to new expensing rules for fixed assets, a reduced federal rate, and R&D credits which they have claimed on new research product and automation that they have used in their warehouse to help eliminate some of those previous warehouse workers positions.

You posit that this is not a Trump only thing and happened under Obama and Bush. That is partially true. Under prior law there was an R&D credit and partial expensing of assets, but for the most part those expensing rules only allowed corporations to expense 50% immediately with the rest being depreciated over a typical period of 5-10 years so it was much less of a benefit in previous years than it is now. Now add in the fact that the corporate rate is now 14% less than what it was previously while giving corporations more beneficial deductions than in previous years then you end up in a situation where R&D credits (which are not a temporary difference and do not reverse in future years) have a greater effect on actual cash taxes paid and booked in financial statements.

The largest portion of these tax cuts were supposed to be paid for by economic growth and international tax reform. The biggest issue with how the tax law was written Congress assumed that the average company has offshore subsidiaries for the sole purpose of evading taxes which is simply not true. As a result, their Global Intangible Low Tax Income regime Has had less of an effect on corporate taxes due to a fundamental misunderstanding of how corporations operate internationally and a benefit of the foreign tax credit for taxes paid on that income in other countries. On top of this, they added a tax benefit for sales to foreign entities and affiliates called the Foreign Derived Intangible Income deduction (which is also not a temporary difference) which largely wiped out most companies GILTI liability so the stuff they set up to pay for these tax cuts absolutely is not working in practice.

This is absolutely a function of an extremely poorly written law by a bunch of individuals who have a poor knowledge of how the tax code works and this is absolutely something that started under the Trump administration.

Im done ranting now.

I mean anyone who understood the tax law and how it was being shaped that it was all farce. Companies don’t spend money just to spend money even if you paid them to do so. They spend when there is either a need in order to survive or to develop something new into the market.

No amount of tax cuts will force business investment. I look at the companies I do quarterly provisions for and see what they plan spending their money on and it’s mostly just acquisitions of smaller competitors or technology to bring down labor and payroll costs.

 

[junglejim]

I mean anyone who understood the tax law and how it was being shaped that it was all farce. Companies don’t spend money just to spend money even if you paid them to do so. They spend when there is either a need in order to survive or to develop something new into the market.

No amount of tax cuts will force business investment. I look at the companies I do quarterly provisions for and see what they plan spending their money on and it’s mostly just acquisitions of smaller competitors or technology to bring down labor and payroll costs.

^This. And largely for the last 10 years tax extender packages were passed in the last two weeks of the year so there is zero chance that any of these asset expensing rules had any effect on corporate spend