***Official Political Discussion Thread***

2,230
2,631
Joined Feb 21, 2006
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.

1581730802665.jpg
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 :lol:
 

whywesteppin

Supporter
15,719
22,698
Joined Mar 27, 2004
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

Supporter
42,219
90,227
Joined Jul 20, 2009
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.
 
Last edited:
15,340
20,695
Joined Dec 15, 2012
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.

6C2C8AB9-BD67-4CBA-95E4-AB2A1A1458B8.jpeg

9C963EE9-208E-49AE-BD78-B67147F17664.jpeg

5BB37D38-D08B-4EDA-88AD-1EC47A539AB2.jpeg


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
 
9,296
3,820
Joined Oct 14, 2008
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.

6C2C8AB9-BD67-4CBA-95E4-AB2A1A1458B8.jpeg

9C963EE9-208E-49AE-BD78-B67147F17664.jpeg

5BB37D38-D08B-4EDA-88AD-1EC47A539AB2.jpeg


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.
 
15,340
20,695
Joined Dec 15, 2012
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
 
Last edited:
9,296
3,820
Joined Oct 14, 2008
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.
 
15,340
20,695
Joined Dec 15, 2012
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
 

superblytrife

Supporter
17,107
12,083
Joined Mar 20, 2002
Apparently Bloomberg is floating the idea of asking Hillary to be his VP :lol:

This **** just gets more and more ridiculous
I **** with Hillary, but not like this. If her being near the presidency takes Bloomberg being in charge, we good over here.

I doubt that would be something she’d do anyways. Seems like she’s resigned to living the non-politician life at this point.
 
Top Bottom
  AdBlock Detected

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks some useful and important features of our website. For the best possible site experience please take a moment to disable your AdBlocker or head over to our upgrade page to donate for an ad-free experience Upgrade now