Apple expected to repatriate $214 billion to the U.S.; expect increased buybacks and dividends, not big acquisitions

116 Comments

“With the new tax structure we expect Apple will bring $214 billion back to the U.S. using a 15.5% one-time repatriation tax rate,” Gene Munster writes for Loup Ventures. “We don’t expect this cash will change Apple’s M&A philosophy, which will likely continue to be focused on sub-$1 billion technology acquisitions.”

“We do anticipate Apple will increase its share buyback by $69 billion, which will be added to the $166 billion that Apple has already spent on share repurchases from Jun-2012 to Sep-2017,” Munster writes. “Additionally, we expect Apple will increase its annual dividend by 15%, higher than the 10% increase they announced in April of both 2017 and 2016.”

“We believe Apple will maintain its debt level at the $104 billion. In theory this will leave Apple with about $150B in cash, but in practice it won’t get that low,” Munster writes. “To give a sense of Apple’s current cash generation, the company generated $31 billion in cash from Sep-16 to Sep-17. If we assume $30 billion in annual cash generation for the next 4 years implies a 2022 cash ending balance of $270 billion, unchanged from the $269B today.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: To quote Carl Sagan, “Billions and billions.”

AAPL shareholders will likely be happy if this comes to pass.

We’ll be happy when that gorgeous silver cylinder of pre-Christmas Christmas beer is tapped! Posthaste, beloved interns, posthaste!

Prost, everyone!

SEE ALSO:
Apple notches big league win with U.S. Republican tax cuts, but faces snag with taxes on foreign patents – December 21, 2017
Congressional Republicans deliver epic overhaul of U.S. tax laws to President Donald Trump – December 20, 2017

116 Comments

    3. I volunteered to help man the Suicide Prevention Hotline on Christmas Eve…whenever a despairing libtard called in, we would put him on hold, smoke a cigarette…

      and laugh and laugh and laugh.

      Reply

      2. I hope you never have to deal with the suicide of a family member, loved one or neighbor. It is nothing to joke about.
        Many of us have- I lost an Uncle a couple of years back who was a Vietnam Vet and a Steelworker. Great guy who battled Depression for years.

        And as to “Libtards”, I never noticed D’s or R’s in any Veteran’s Cemetery or at Arlington. Did not see them at the Battlefield Cemetery at Normandy either.

        Show some class

        Reply

        3. “Trump always lies.”

          Your absolute ignorant comment aside, just look at the economic numbers since Trump took office. You won’t find FAIR praise in the Democrat controlled MSM media …

        5. Typically, I don’t respond to posts that are removed from reality and clueless. Riding the same horse? Yeah, right. That eight-year old horse was put out to pasture permanently on Nov. 2. Personally, I prefer the glue factory, but show a little kindness for a clueless animal and its rider. Fast forward to present day Thoroughbred and the masterful rider that accomplished more in the first eleven months than ever before … 🇺🇸👍🏻🇺🇸👍🏻🇺🇸

      3. “If you like your money, you can keep your money.”
        – Donald J. Trump

        You mean if I don’t want to pay the IRS and state so “The Donald” can piss it away, I don’t have to?

        The answer would be no, unless you would like to see the inside of a prison for tax evasion. Even Mnuchin, who got a box of horse shit for Christmas won’t allow that.

        Reply

    2. 84% of the tax cut goes to the top 1%. A company is under no obligation to share that tax savings with its workers and historically doesn’t trickle down because: The demand for iPhones has not changed, so why hire more or build new factories? I.E.: the top 1/10 of 1% is 400 richest owns more wealth than the bottom 90% but only buys a few hundred iPhones and socks the tax savings in stock buybacks and overseas accounts that don’t help the US economy. If the middle class gets a bigger tax cut or gets a living wage then they can buy millions of iPhones and the economy and big biz does better. Economics 101.

      Reply

      1. Per your last sentence, I’ll bet you’re not a business owner? You would then know that you pay according to the skill, and or, the person’s ability, not to some prescribed number un-factored to the business. Also, pay scales that are in-line with a business profitability are sustainable and that’s truly Econ 101, not someone outside the biz determining what the pay should be. Related, is the statement alluding to larger tax cuts enable greater buying power to the mid class. It is true that tax cuts increase buying power/money circulation, but tax cuts don’t produce money…jobs do and their power is real, more sustainable and more enduring. I recommend you real a good Econ 101 book titled; Econ in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt.

        Reply

      2. “84% of tax cuts go to the top 1%?” Because that percentage (approx–depending on the year) mimics taxes paid. If you think it’s odd that the cuts provided to the people that paid the most, please help me understand.
        A tax cut doesn’t mean it’s a time for gifts for all with no sense of proportion to what they paid. Paying more = greater cuts.

        Reply

    2. and speaking of wanting some….

      assuming mdn is correct and more stock buybacks are in the offing, here are a couple of questions….

      has anyone ever computed the cumulative added value to each individual share of stock that has resulted from mr. apples buyback programs over the years ?

      and since most corporations have two different classes of stock: “preferred” corporate leadership and large investors, and “common” for the rest of us…

      has anyone tracked the relative proportion of each class of stock that has been bought back? not to seem to be of an overly suspicious turn of mind, but has preferred stock been the preferred stock to be bought back over the common? or vice versa? or at an even proportion?

      and thirdly has anyone computed the relative impact upon individual share value delivered by buybacks vs, had that same amount of money been put strictly into increasing our dividends ?

      Reply

      1. “has anyone ever computed the cumulative added value to each individual share of stock”

        If Apple buys back, for example, 5% of the stock, then earnings per share go up by a bit more than 5.25%.

        Some of that buyback is to offset share granted as employee bonuses, but not all.

        Reply

  4. Why aren’t analyst the richest people in the world. Apple will pay 15+% on money when it could pay 1+% in interest on bonds and incur no tax lability? Well, now, that does sound like a trump thing to do. Much like his casinos, people throwing money down at the casino and some how this trump = liar idiot goes bankrupt. trump can’t get an American bank to give him a dime cause he will not pay them back and then sues them, apparently for being stupid enough to give him money in the first place. HaHaHaHaHaHaHa Come on that is funny as hell.

    Hey folks, use Charles Swab online. Get some darts. Throw the darts at a list of publicly traded stocks.
    You now have done as well as any analyst. Now there is another method, a chicken on stock page, where she pecks, buy… LOL Hey youtube the research. You will be surprised.

    You know it, you can feel it, nobody is watching the candy store. Now I do not advocate stealing, but apparently with donald trump = liar you are invited to leave what you want on the counter top. Hey, hey, leave something.

    Good Grief.

    Reply

    1. Debt is risk and as long as Apple can make more than 15% Present Value by repatriating the money and getting it to work it would seem to have a very good chance of making financial sense. When you have $262billion sitting around doing very little you can tell us all how you chose to solve the problem.

      Reply

      1. For only about the fifteenth time, IT DOESN’T MATTER how much return Apple can get on the offshore cash, either here in America or where it is now! It does not matter how low its cost of borrowing money. It will owe the taxes whether it brings the money back or not. Payment is mandatory, not optional.

        This is not actually a tax on income or a repatriation tax, but a property tax on wealth currently held overseas by US taxpayers. Once the tax is paid, Apple is free to move the post-tax remainder wherever it likes. Leaving the money owed for the tax overseas and instead borrowing to pay the tax makes no sense. It will not reduce Apple’s tax liability by a penny. Why is this difficult to understand?

        Reply

    1. Just so you know, I’m conservative,

      BUT I’M NO ONE’S FOOL.
      I HAVE EYES AND I CHOOSE TO SEE.
      I’M NOT ON A TEAM, THIS IS NOT BASEBALL, FOOTBALL, …

      LET THE LIE (donald trump talking) HIT YOU WHERE THE GOOD LORD SPLIT YOU.

      Ted, open your eyes. You don’t know donald trump.
      You don’t live with him. You don’t exchange Christmas presents. He doesn’t visit you or family. Come on. At least see the man for what he is. Hell you can enjoy the show. Love the stupid crap he does, but at least see he is a butt.

      Know also this trump guy is a traitor and a coward. You know he told Flynn to make those calls. You know his son talked to him about the Russians and you see how he sneaks off to have quiet conversions with Putin. Ever seen the movie Paton. trump has been laundering money for these criminals for a long time now. If he had any balls (excuse me ladies) he would say he told Flynn to make the calls. Hell we could almost forgive that. We know trump knows nothing about the law, well other than being a defendant in a Civil Suit. You want conservative policies, trump is not the only conservative in America. … Oh, wait… Flynn doesn’t get off that easy though. That guy is a traitor to the nation and to the uniform. Hell I’m almost willing to let trump have a pass on going to jail, to give Flynn the death penalty. Almost, but trump can’t remain President. trump is a liar, traitor, conman, sexual abuser, racist, and fool. (way stronger language is deserved, but macdailynews is kind enough to let use post here, so we can certainly be respectful enough to watch our choice of words.)

      The russians are not our friends and would love to prove America is a corrupt place, where the high vaulted democracy claim to love is a lie, and Americans are fat lazy, son of ….., that are only interested in their money.

      If you are going to join a team, try the one that doesn’t measure freedom by how much it pays or does not pay in taxes.

      Fellow, I guess I’m telling you to grow up.

      Reply

      1. BGB, respectfully, you don’t sound very conservative.

        You don’t see how little “evidence” of the Russia kerfuffle has escaped side splitting derision?

        I know that I don’t know the truth, but I am willing to wait and see what a true and faire airing of the facts leads to. I have seen that a lot of things that have been said about the man have been dramatically overblown or outright lied about….so much so that he was able to win an election with over 90% of the stories written about him being negative…..so I am not the only one who thinks a lot of the things said about him don’t pass the smell test.

        Merry Christmas and Have a Happy and Prosperous New Year

        Reply

        3. he doesn’t need to sound conservative, or even liberal, he and all of us just need to be bright enough to see what is happening.

          one should not let his or her political perspective blind them to the sins of their own side while condemning the same or similar sins of their opponents.

          personally i refused to vote for either hillary or trump, they are, in my opinion, both deeply dishonest and unworthy of the office.

          so while hillary is rightfully condemned for her deeply suspicious pay to play accusations about contributions to the clinton foundation, from foreign entities while she was secretary of state, nobody other than robert mueller seems interested in exploring the potential influence of russian oligarchs connected to putin who have financed trumps business interests for years. (because american banks refuse to loan him any more money )

          so if hillary had been elected i cannot imagine that conservative watch dogs would not be clamoring for an investigation of her state/foundations ties and how would they feel if she refused to release her taxes so we could figure out any possible connections.

          but where are the conservative voices calling for trump to release his taxes, and what they might reveal, after he promised during the campaign that he would do so?

          people jump all over accusations that hillary backed the sale of 20% of american uranium resources to a russian company

          but those same forks seem undisturbed that trump refuses to even recognize the efforts of the russian govt. to undermine our democracy, let alone do anything about it.

          we as a nation need to get past our current tribal approach to national policy and politics and hold both sides to the same standards.

          we can start by asking ourselves if we find certain actions of our political opponents to be unacceptable why do we over look the same or similar actions by our own side ?

          crookery is crookery no matter who does it and it should be unacceptable when done by either side.

          we need to get a grip or we may find ourselves losing our grip on our american democracy, imperfect though it may be.

        4. “we need to get a grip or we may find ourselves losing our grip on our american democracy…”

          uh, hey, Mr. Stupid, the United States is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. Democracies cannot protect the rights of the individual, as any 7th grade American civics student would know…
          “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for lunch.”

        5. oh botty,

          back to your same old tired bag of tricks, unable to refute a previous point made by someone else, you then slide onto something unrelated and demand “oh yeah? well what about….”

          always having to try to have the last word

          neither a very convincing nor intellectually honest response.

          go take a nap, you are too cranky.

          yer pal, the good doctor

      3. Another example:

        You wonder why people call ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. and so on “Fake News?”
        This NYPOST article is a must-read.
        “Politico published a jaw-dropping, meticulously sourced investigative piece this week detailing how the Obama administration had secretly undermined US law enforcement agency efforts to shut down an international drug-trafficking ring run by the terror group Hezbollah. The effort was part of a wider push by the administration to placate Iran and ensure the signing of the nuclear deal.
        Obama protected Hezbollah drug ring to save Iran nukes deal
        Obama protected Hezbollah drug ring to save Iran nukes deal
        Now swap out “Trump” for “Obama” and “Russia” for “Iran” and imagine the eruption these revelations would generate. Because, by any conceivable journalistic standard, this scandal should’ve triggered widespread coverage and been plastered on front pages across the country. By any historic standard, the scandal should elicit outrage regarding the corrosion of governing norms from pundits and editorial boards.”

        https://nypost.com/2017/12/21/a-deafening-media-silence-on-the-obama-hezbollah-scandal/

        Reply

        1. Right on, TMac.

          The media has simply lost ALL CREDIBILITY since the election of President Trump.

          MSM are 24/7 reporting every scintilla of negative reporting against Trump, while at the same time, 24/7 covering up for the corrupt Obama administration and crooked Hillary.

          Fingers crossed justice will soon prevail …

      2. the liberal mindset that she feel bad about having $$ that others don’t. Or, more correctly, she blame the other recipients of the 1k, so she can more enjoy spending.

        Reply

        1. The moderate and liberal mindsets don’t worry about a $1K bonus. It’s the Trillion dollar free ride for the Billionaires Boy’s Club while the minimum wage is still well below the poverty level.

    2. Interesting fact: AT&T (like BoA) is giving a $1000 bonus to 200,000 of its employees. That sum, in total, is only eight times larger than the annual salary it pays to its CEO.

      My guess is that the bonuses for all those BoA employees will likewise be less than an order of magnitude greater than what several of its individual top executives are paid. Unlike most of the line employees, the executives are heavily vested in company stock options that will shoot up due to the planned stock buybacks. Most of that income will be taxable at the reduced capital gains rate, while the regular employees’ bonuses are taxable as ordinary income.

      Giving bonuses and pointing out the changes in withholding is a lot cheaper for these companies than actually raising employee salaries. The executives will get much richer in real terms (and be taxed less on their income) while the working stiffs, at best, just keep up with the inflation that the increased government deficits and borrowing will cause.

      All the Trump supporters on this site have criticized Apple for having a Social Justice Warrior mindset. Yet even Apple is devoting most of the money freed up by the Trump Tax Act to directly benefiting its shareholders (including its executives) in the short run, rather than to investing in infrastructure or creating jobs for the long run. Assuming that is also what less liberal companies do, where is the “trickledown” that is supposed to benefit the middle and working classes?

      Reply

      1. Companies don’t create a new campus and dedicate it to new jobs, for job’s sake. They start with a reason for budgeted R&D, because it’s in their plan. To do otherwise is risky and lacking business sense. It is something govt does and govt isn’t very good with biz sense.
        Trickle down occurs when more $$ circulates. Some may bank it, some may invest. In both cases, the availability of $$ (velocity) enables/promotes individuals/companies to invest, which often translates to others experiencing the $$.
        TXUser, do you see/expect that trickle down means, Bob/Mary/John are going to mysteriously find a new wad in their pocket because some company/individual received some sort of financial windfall? Same question if the economy grows?

        I know many think trickle down is a farce and that’s a discussion for another time, but I’m curious what the more liberal/progressive expects to happen when the wealthier receive a windfall, tax credit? Are they to be castigated b/c they might be wealthy, castigated because their investment wrought them a heathy return/cap gain, castigated because their gain isn’t shared with others as a “community gain,” all the while, forgetting their gain is shared to the community via taxes? Maybe it’s expected there be another type of sharing of their wealth? Speaking of taxes, are the savvy, smart & knowledgable to be castigated/besmirched if they use the US tax laws to defer/diminish their tax owed?

        Just to give my experience of trickle down. I was hired by a company, owned by a rich man, who was once scraping and looking for capitol. His smarts and ongoing tenacious efforts made him $250 million by age 25. In addition, his efforts resurrected a dying company and his company’s stock grew more than 1000%. A low level employee saved his company stock purchases (less than $6/share–pre split) and now doesn’t need to work anymore. One man’s riches, wrought from effort & intelligence, trickled down to another (not rich) and made him rich. In my world, trickle-down worked and does work. Is this not trickle-down? If not, what am I missing?

        Reply

        1. forgot to mention….with the aforementioned gains, I’ve invested in real estate that’s employed people directly and indirectly, including blue to white collar types. That doesn’t include the increased resources spent on personal matters. Trickle from person to person.

        2. Simple Econ,

          I absolutely agree with you that “trickledown” works when the people at the top invest in the economy. Your former employer is an example of that, and so are you.

          Where it does not work is if the people at the top just pocket the money without passing it on. From all indications, that is what the major recipients of these tax benefits plan to do with them. My point was that even a socially conscious firm like Apple seems to be doing that.

          If these tax cuts had been combined with cutting government spending and avoiding any increase in deficits, the net effect on the overall money supply and economic activity would have been zero. For every extra dollar that the recipients of the cuts spent, the government would spend one dollar less. What would change is that there would be less governmental redistribution of wealth from the people who pay for government services to those who provide and receive them. We could debate whether that is a good idea—most Republicans and conservatives think that it is—but it doesn’t matter in this case because that isn’t this tax cut.

          This tax cut leaves government spending essentially intact and replaces the loss of revenue with an increased issuance of government debt. Yes, that means that more money will be circulating, which will have the stimulation benefits you describe.

          You could achieve that same effect with a tax reform like the one the President and Speaker originally promised—one that substantially cut the overall tax burden on the middle class and that made the benefits for corporations and the wealthy contingent on investment in America. That promise was a very large part of Mr. Trump’s election victory.

          That isn’t this tax cut, either. Middle-class families will be paying a higher proportion of government revenue, not a smaller one. They will be contributing a larger slice to a pie that is smaller because so much more of the federal budget is going to be financed with debt. There are no additional inducements for investment in America and some of the existing ones have been reduced. This bill guarantees that the rich will get richer with no mechanism for making sure that anyone else benefits substantially as well.

          If all you want to do is increase the money supply, there also is the nakedly liberal approach: the economy-stimulating effects of having more money in circulation could be achieved simply by increasing government spending without a tax increase. The effect on the national debt would be no worse than the impact of this bill, and it would avoid the issues connected with the increasing concentration of most of America’s wealth in less than 1% of its people.

          That is clearly a bridge too far. Nevertheless, even a Republican fiscal conservative like me can see that pursuing a strategy of taxing the poor to benefit the rich might have very, very bad consequences. Ask Louis XVI or Alexander II.

        3. Oops, I meant Nicholas II (married to Alexandra). Tsar Alexander II was a liberal, assassinated by a populist. I wish you could go back to correct mistakes on this site.

          The point remains.

        4. The basic issue goes way beyond the “trickle-down” theory of economic growth, which is positively Dickensian. (It could be called the “table scraps theory”…)

          The true test of a fair & just social & economic system was described by John Rawls in his book: A Theory of Justice.

          The idea is simple and goes something like this: what society would we want to design and live in …when we cannot know in advance what our position in that society would be.

          I don’t think most wealthy people would consider themselves lucky to have been poor, unfortunate, or unhealthy in our great country. This, to me, is truly sad.

        5. No, it does not work in a mature low demand economy.

          Tax policy is and has been used to force companies and people to carry out certain behaviors, cause it is the nature of those entities to not spend money on things not needed. (redistribution that a result, maybe)

          If you want to create jobs congress is the wrong place to go work. One should start a business, then hire people, doing all the things that would create a healthy business. If you are in government and promising to create jobs, then you should be trying to figure out how to create government jobs.

          The republicans are just in congress to make money. Cutting government spending and cutting taxes is no guarantee of jobs creation. One only needs to look at societies around the world where there are no taxes, or extremely low taxation, and little to no government services or little no government regulation to see proof.

          The theory were government cuts spending there by allowing more money to be available for business is a straw man, has been ever since the research paper was written to introduce it. In order for it to be valid one would have to assume that there will always be a set amount of money allowed out or placed into society.(the central banks in place in different countries) That has not proven to be the case. One only needs to look at how many more billionaires and millionaire are in existence now compared to 30 years ago. The theory sounds good, probably due more to hearing it in Econ 100, so we got that question right on the test, mainly cause we were told that what it is. The thing is few of us continue on to Econ 600, in which many other variables are included and need to be consider if one wants to set policy for creating a growing productive policy for a society.

          Regulations are an important job creator. Take water for example. A government places demands on what is considered to be clean water, fit for consumption by its public, and demands water sold to its public must meet those standards. Take a look at the job creation that occurs from that regulation. White collar and blue collar jobs are created, engineers like, chemical, electrical, mechanical, environmental, scientist, like chemist, biologist, labors like electricians, plumbers, carpenters, earth movers, concrete worker, steelworker, wire worker, plastic workers, … I hope you are getting the idea, cause I left out the miners and producers of the raw materials. There are other regulations that are create by government because of people’s bad behavior that create jobs. An example would be regulation on the stock market. Insider trading is an easy way to get rich, and one may argue in a free market what’s the problem. People should be free to give tips to each other, hide information to maximize one’s profits. Well, ok, but after a while the public gets hip. hahaha. The public would make a decision that participating in such a market is a waste for them because they are always at a disadvantage. The public would want a party that would be impartial to make sure information is not shared in such a fashion and that any information is given to the public freely and without preference. Jobs: yes paper pushers, but jobs, people at those companies that compile that information. Designers, computer managers, marketers, personnel managers, not the mention architects, steel works, concrete works, … you see those jobs right? A place for those people to work, a building or at least more space.

          So, regulations are not the job killers the republicans scream they are. Nor is trickle down the end all be all solution to growing an economy. Dependence on the guy at the top letting the crumbs fall through is no way to run an economy. The war on the rich, please. The rich have big money to spend on this War on them, great marketing. Well, with their money what should one expect. That’s right, the best marketing money can buy.

          yeah, yeah i’m off work, plenty of time…

        6. “Where it does not work is if the people at the top just pocket the money without passing it on. From all indications, that is what the major recipients of these tax benefits plan to do with them.”

          DEFINE “all indications.” Of course you cannot and simply your leftist opinion.

          “This tax cut leaves government spending essentially intact and replaces the loss of revenue with an increased issuance of government debt.”

          Well, unlike under Obama which issued RECORD 10 trillion in debt over eight years and returned ZERO tax money to U.S. citizens. — 1.5 trillion is a pittance by comparison.

          Once the economy roars and dynamic scoring kicks in the debt number will greatly reduce if not eliminated entirely. Either way, this time debt is spent on ALL the people and not just the Democrat special interests we saw with Obama’s failed and politically targeted “stimulus” spending.

          “Middle-class families will be paying a higher proportion of government revenue, not a smaller one.”

          Middle-class families will be getting more money in their pay checks come February. That is a lower proportion of tax money to the Feds, not a higher one.

          “This bill guarantees that the rich will get richer with no mechanism for making sure that anyone else benefits substantially as well.”

          Unless I’m wrong, your point is you have a problem with successful companies (the dreaded evil rich) given tax breaks to grow their companies on their OWN, without government STRINGS. How mighty conservative of you. Well, we shall see if they all pocket the money or MAGA.

          “If all you want to do is increase the money supply, there also is the nakedly liberal approach: the economy-stimulating effects of having more money in circulation could be achieved simply by increasing government spending without a tax increase.”

          Advocating the “nakedly liberal approach.” Let me ponder that for a moment self-described straight, white male conservative. Ummm, NOT!

          More specifically, you continue the liberal big spending government meme as the ONLY SOLUTION. Yeah, 10 trillion in new debt over eight years and please tell the rest of the class how more of the failed Democrat policies will work this time around.

          Whether the tax cuts will work better than debt incurred government spending remains to be seen. If you remember history, it certainly worked under presidents JFK and Reagan.

          “Nevertheless, even a Republican fiscal conservative like me …”

          I’m in stitches rolling on the floor laughing. TWO WORDS: YOU LIE …

        8. Simple — you are giving an example of a brilliant entrepreneur building up a company in response to demand for some product. But that is not an example of supposed trickle down.

          Say the government gave him a huge tax break — $50million.
          The demand is the same. So he has no reason to build another factory. Who’s going to buying the product? Not the workers with their $18 tax break per week? Where such money overwhelmingly goes is into the offshore bank accounts.

          Now let’s say the goverment gave him a $25mil break and gave the other $25mil break to his workers. Let’s pretend that is 1000 people getting $25,000 each. Can you imagine the tsunami of economic activity that would unleash!? 1000 people with an extra $25,000 per year plus an owner with $25,000,000 to invest to expand to meet the demand.

          Throwing nearly all the money at the ultrarich is not going to work. Just look at other countries where the split between the rich and poor is even more obscene than in the US. The money is not trickling down. If any of the conservative readers are here are “working joes”… you are so fucked. Let’s talk in a year or two.

      2. “Interesting fact: AT&T (like BoA) is giving a $1000 bonus to 200,000 of its employees.”

        Great news!

        “That sum, in total, is only eight times larger than the annual salary it pays to its CEO.”

        Awh, not good news and not good enough for you. Those greedy CEOS.

        “My guess is that the bonuses for all those BoA employees will likewise be less than an order of magnitude greater than what several of its individual top executives are paid.”

        “My guess?” Doctor IF is back!

        “Giving bonuses and pointing out the changes in withholding is a lot cheaper for these companies than actually raising employee salaries.”

        Correct, so what exactly do you not like in this GOOD NEWS story?

        “The executives will get much richer in real terms (and be taxed less on their income) while the working stiffs, at best, just keep up with the inflation that the increased government deficits and borrowing will cause.”

        That is a projection opinion, NOT FACT. Only time will tell.

        “All the Trump supporters on this site have criticized Apple for having a Social Justice Warrior mindset.”

        Yeah, include me many times. And your point exactly is?

        “Yet even Apple is devoting most of the money freed up by the Trump Tax Act to directly benefiting its shareholders (including its executives) in the short run, rather than to investing in infrastructure or creating jobs for the long run.”

        Wow! Talk about CLUELESS! The tax act was signed yesterday and today you know ALL ABOUT what Apple will do. Unbelievable.

        “Assuming that is also what less liberal companies do, where is the “trickledown” that is supposed to benefit the middle and working classes?”

        “Assuming,” more Doctor IF.

        “…where is the “trickledown…”

        Hey FAKE conservative, you just LOVE those denigrating Democrat labels and can’t help yourself. They mean NOTHING. Like I said above, the act was signed yesterday. Putting aside your impatience the so called “trickledown” will play out and when the positives kick in down the road, you will be eating a big fresh pie of crow …

        Reply

        1. AT&T is firing over 1000 people, too. It will pay for most of the the $1000 bonus ‘blood money’ to others. You don’t brag about that, do you ?

        2. I don’t work for AT&T, so no bragging here. Simply acknowledgement of a good corporate move, RARE the last eight years when big business and profit was under siege daily. Sorry to hear about the layoffs. But I guarantee not one spec of blood will be on the money …

    1. I don’t think lack of money had much to do with Apple not updating their computers more often. Just to update CPUs, GPUs and memory each year wouldn’t add up to very much money. Look at struggling HP, a company always short on cash. They don’t have much of a problem updating their consumer computers on a yearly basis. Apple just seems to be too focused on the iPhone more than anything else. How much could it cost to update the MacMini each year. There’s almost nothing to that computer. A processor with integrated graphics. I bet it wouldn’t even cost $50 per unit to swap older with newer components on base models. I’m pretty certain Apple just doesn’t give a fig about low-end products.

      Reply

      1. I was being facetious. They’ve always had plenty of money just not plenty of will or situational awareness of what customers want and expect from a premium device maker. Apple must think if the year to year improvements in components aren’t big enough they choose to ignore them failing to appreciate the value of at least appearing to be up to date or “cutting edge.” Every Mac should be upgraded yearly like they used to be. It not only makes great perceptual sense it makes sense for stimulating sales.

        Reply

    2. Exactly what I was thinking, PB.

      The billion dollar APPLE behemoth monster corporation of all time with thousands of employees and the most sophisticated artful modern workplace digs, also of all time — and they cannot keep a handful of products updated, fresh, cutting edge and the best computers the world has ever seen. No excuse!!!

      Whoopsie, well they do have myopic beancounter Cook, unfortunately …

      Reply

  9. History has a way of repeating itself. Past massive tax cuts have led to significant economic downturns. And yet here we are again. Politicians on the right once again assuring us it will somehow be different this time, i.e. companies will invest in expansion rather than self-profiting; economic growth will be spurred to never before seen heights. Yet, trickle down economics is just that: a mere trickle of what would result if business put country first rather than their own insideous greed.

    Reply

    1. What do you do with a pay increase, tax refund, or a financial gift? If you don’t spend it now, it’s spent at some point, no? One can’t spend $$ that’s not in your possession. Assuming yes for an individual, same for a business, no?
      Could you please explain how your the ideal re: your last sentence would be lived? How does a business that puts “country first” contrast to those with “insidious greed? Do they do it at the expense of security/survival of their business?
      Maybe you could give comment on “Simple econ” above as it’s related?

      Reply

    1. Goeb makes statements of faith as if he was Nostradamus.

      I ask you about your personal financial planning. Let’s assume you are mature, still working, but lots of life left to plan for. Now you can convince everyone that you’re having a midlife crisis, but objectively, what do you do to balance your budget for current and future needs? You may want a slush fund for foreseeable disaster (fires and hurricanes). You will want to invest in your diet and health (medicaid, medicare, aha). You will want to keep yourself mentally sharp to be employable and competitive via continuing education (school grants and standards). Do you decide because you’re stressed in this new hyper competitive world that cutting your income will make you more prosperous? All while doing nothing to restrain your lifestyle?????

      Well that’s what Trump is telling you. If you slash federal income and add an estimated $1.4 trillion onto the national credit card, and don’t cut spending or invest for the future, then you will be great.

      I don’t buy it. Trump claims oligarchs need the money. If he wanted to stimulate economic growth, he would reform taxes to put more money to work in small businesses, infrastructure, education, and other national investments that pay huge dividends. Handing multinational corporations rebate checks , and not simplifying or cutting loopholes, just keeps corporate tax attorneys well employed for the next several years.

      You and I will not be able to do our taxes on the back of a postcard as promised. Payroll taxes are as high as ever. Worst of all, the incentive to work at building something is more reduced since capital gains are taxed less than income from labor. Think about this. If you have money to invest, then your corrupt government would rather you speculate with your money than hire new employees. Read the goddamn bill, don’t drink the stupid trickle down kool aide.

      Mark my words, the Trump tax cut will implode the economy in a few years, just like the gipper’s first tax cuts, just like dubya’s unfunded wars and medicare part D, and yes, just like Kennedy’s ill timed tax reforms. Short term sugar rush followed by decades of stagnation. Happened every time.

      True tax reform would lower personal income taxes and payroll taxes, slash loopholes, and reduce spending without handing it all to oligarchs. This bill is a gift to multinational globalists.

      Reply

      1. The giveaway in your opinion analysis is that both Reagan and JFK tax cuts did not work, so you are saying tax cuts NEVER WORK. That is false IMHO.

        It would be foolish to then flip the equation and say high taxes work. Well, if that were the case why does Apple and many corporation behemoths HIDE THEIR CASH OUTSIDE THE U.S., hmmm?

        Give it time …

        Reply

        1. Reality didn’t say NEVER. Putting words in other people’s mouths is the giveaway that you can’t win the debate either.

          Reagan raised taxes several times inbetween the two different tax cuts you lionize endlessly. But you conveniently forget that the Reagan tax tinkering took years of bipartisan work. Your party in 2017 just rammed through a package that appears to have been written by corporate lawyers, not the people’s representatives.

          You also conveniently forget that the 1980’s saw rapid acceleration of outsourcing, stagnant wage growth in manufacturing, and a mild recession was handed to George HW Bush. It might have been worse but Reagan was happy to use debt spending (stimulus under another name) of government military largesse in peacetime to outspend all other militaries in the world combined. Americans are still paying for that.

          In large part it was the IT revolution, with Microsoft and Apple and others, that make you so fondly reminiscent for the 1980s.

        2. “Reality didn’t say NEVER. Putting words in other people’s mouths is the giveaway that you can’t win the debate either.”

          Yes, I know what Reality said — OPINION. My post was about interpretation of that posted opinion and my own opinion as well. I don’t speak for others, simply try to understand where they are coming from.

          “Reagan raised taxes several times inbetween the two different tax cuts you lionize endlessly. But you conveniently forget that the Reagan tax tinkering took years of bipartisan work.”

          Conveniently forget nothing. Where in God’s good name is that coming from? President Reagan indeed liked and worked well with the Tipster for many years. But you may be the one conveniently forgetting something.

          The Democratic Party of the early 1980s and present day are as different as night and day. The Democrats passed Obamacare unanimously without a single Republican vote in control of all branches of government. The Republicans passed tax cuts unanimously without a single Democrat vote in control of all branches of government.

          Bottom line: What goes around, comes around. I love karma, don’t you?

          “Your party in 2017 just rammed through a package that appears to have been written by corporate lawyers, not the people’s representatives.”

          I have written this here on MDN dozens of times over the years. Obviously, with some people it will never SINK IN. Lifetime registered independent voter here. So you are wrong, again.

          I do however enthusiastically support the Republican Party platform after watching the Democrats since the 1960s when I first started paying attention. Decades of hollow words, real debt and the same old, same old problems STILL unresolved. As the unions are fond of saying, “job security.”

          Fingers crossed it will work out better than tax cuts under JFK and Reagan. But, we shall see.

          “You also conveniently forget that the 1980’s saw rapid acceleration of outsourcing, stagnant wage growth in manufacturing, and a mild recession was handed to George HW Bush.”

          I told you once and here once again — I forget next to nothing. STOP putting thoughts in my head!

          “It might have been worse but Reagan was happy to use debt spending (stimulus under another name) of government military largesse in peacetime to outspend all other militaries in the world combined. Americans are still paying for that.”

          First off, Americans have been paying for debt under presidents of both parties since 1969, the last time the federal budget was balanced. Oh, possibly you forget history?

          Reagan’s huge mistake was making a deal with the Democrat “good meaning” Devils at the time. His successful tax cuts were overflowing the U.S. treasury and in a weak deal agreed to increase spending. Problem with that in very SIMPLE terms later in the Reagan years, for every dollar coming in, two dollars were spent. Ah, yes that leads to deficits.

          “In large part it was the IT revolution, with Microsoft and Apple and others, that make you so fondly reminiscent for the 1980s.”

          Yes indeed, “fondly reminiscent” of the 1980s. Tax cuts working, booming economy with huge salaries and a feel good president liked by all parties and the American people. The music was much better almost free of RAP. President Reagan stared down the Soviet Union and the wall came down in East Germany, just to name a few.

          In the 1980s, Apple was the biggest dog in the tech universe! Windows released the first version in 1986 and Apple immediately drug them into court until the case was resolved in May 1992, if I remember correctly. After winning the court case, Microsoft released Windows 95 and went on to conquer Apple and the tech world, almost leading to Apple’s total demise until prodigal Steve returned to the iCEO helm around 1996.

          SORRY, Sarah. You certainly don’t know jack, about what I know and what I forget. Much less the 1980s … 🤔

        3. What I remember about the eighties is that I turned twenty-one and could legally buy alcohol. I got an actual boyfriend. I learnt to operate the IBM XT, and parlayed that into an industrial job and never looked back. The popular music at the time was horrid. Ronald Reagan was endearing like an Irish uncle of mine, but I distrusted his witch of a wife who consulted an astrologer about White House policy-making. And the two of them were Hollywood actors. I supposed that was better than both being lawyers. But today I would think wait, what—?

        4. Late 1970s I was able to legally purchase alcohol, so not that far apart in years. Yeah, I also had an actual girlfriend back then six years older than me. An original Irish/Italian cougar ahead of her time. 😊 I don’t remember the IBM XT, but certainly sounds like your big tech dog understanding at the time led to a prosperous career and if my guess is right from previous posts, you retired early. 👍🏻 Some of the 80s pop artists had a good beat like select lists from Duran Duran, Bangles, B-52’s and others. 1970s Prog Rock pioneer YES scored their FIRST number one single with “Owner of a Lonely Heart.” My favorite probably was a Scottish band singing “In a Big Country.” Hmmm, that may apply to our current POTUS. 😉 Hollywood actors or lawyers in the big house. I’ll go with the latest tinsel town successful series installment. Now, admittedly I’m paraphrasing here and don’t remember the exact quote. Something along the lines of actor President Reagan turned out to be president and President Bill Clinton turned out to be actor. Something like that. That said, 1980s was indeed, VERY good times … 👍🏻😀🍻🍾🍢

        5. You are always good for a laugh, a nudge and a wink. I see you appreciate older women—funny, it used to be “old” women, but then political correctness started setting in. Yes, that’s right, political correctness started not so much due to racism and sexism but because of AGEISM. I fear that both you and I are slated to be retired to the sludge bins soon, kicked to the kerb by insensitive millenials, damn their vacant eyes.

        6. Thanks, Herself. 😊

          I suspect the “insensitive millennials” need help to grow up well rounded with critical thinking skills. This whole snowflake movement needs a serious reality check. I am less worried about battle tested US than THEM.

          Happy and prosperous New Year! … 🍾🎉

        7. ATTENTION: actual economic data below, disconnected from the partisan rhetoric and propaganda that pervades this site.

          Trickle down fans tell you that tax cuts are always good for them, because they believe the federal government is inherently incompetent, only huge unelected corporate bureaucracy could possibly know what to do with your money. Except if it goes to weapons, then the federal government is perfect and we should all support our troops in endless overseas offensive oil crusades.

          The Voodoo economists tell you that by drowning the federal government in debt (so international bankers can make money lending to Uncle Sam, you think?) then economic growth will be unleashed. What they refuse to do is demonstrate what trickles down or REQUIRE that employers increase hiring. None of these so-called economists knows if the rich will pocket their money or spread it around. They just know that greed is a great campaign tactic. Promise the plebiscite a tax break, but steer most of it to campaign donors. AT&T and Bank of America for example.

          What we do know is debt is a drag on your budget, and also a drag on national prosperity. Look at the plot below: republican presidents rang up debt. The growth DID NOT pay off the debt. In fact, democratic presidents have in the last generation have had to cull military overreaching and yes raise funds to pay for off the books BS that republicans have done over and over. Republicans Still they were able to bring the deficit down. LOOK AT THE DATA. The incessant right wing propagandists on this site don’t ever show you what a horrid track record that their poorly designed tax breaks for the rich have always done. The DEBT WAS NOT PAID OFF.

          There is a time and a place to cut taxes, but this bill is a giveaway that does nothing to simplify the tax code or promote domestic wage growth. Unless of course if you consider holiday part time jobs at untaxed Amazon distributing disposable Chinese plastic junk to be full employment. Companies like Apple don’t need the money as much as underemployed Americans do.

        8. @Scott K.

          “ATTENTION: actual economic data below, disconnected from the partisan rhetoric and propaganda that pervades this site.”

          ATTENTION: the picture of so called “actual economic data” is MISSING CRITICAL SOURCING and impartial transparent data collection by an independent and unbiased source. In layman terms, it is unscientific and certainly not credible.

          You believe it? I have been seeing the same type of chart for years circulated in handouts by Democrat unions at election time. Unless empirical unbiased data EVIDENCE behind the picture surfaces, simply suggest don’t be a tool, or better yet, a fool for anybody. THINK CRITICALLY.

          As to the rest of your post, you certainly have FULL command of all the boogeyman terms used by Democrats to denigrate EVERYONE they do not support. Fine if you enjoy that sorta thing, but does nothing to advance the country.

          I’ll comment on one graf in your stereotypical screed (below).

          “The incessant right wing propagandists on this site don’t ever show you what a horrid track record that their poorly designed tax breaks for the rich have always done. The DEBT WAS NOT PAID OFF.”

          To be fair and balanced, what about the incessant LEFT wing propagandists on this site? Ahhh, don’t bother.

          You’re absolutely right, “The DEBT WAS NOT PAID OFF.” Not by Carter, Clinton or Obama. Not by Nixon, Ford, Reagan, H. W. Bush, George Bush or Trump.

          Historical FACT: The national debt has been accumulating daily since 1969. If you want to get into a pissing match that my Democrat President generated less debt in his term than your Republican President in his term, OK FINE.

          Obama doubled the national debt in EIGHT YEARS. More than ALL combined presidents going back to George Washington who took office on April 30, 1789. You lose.

          If your MAIN point is to pin DEBT SQUARELY on Republicans you are sadly mistaken and know little of economic and political history …

        9. Goeb, always brainwashed, never able to bring forth any data.

          It cannot be more clear that you don’t think, you are incapable of independent thought. As a political religious zealot, you refuse to ever consider anything that contradicts your party platform. You strut in lock step with every political position that your party propagandists tell you, there is no room debate in your narrow world view. Anyone who doesn’t fly your banner is the enemy. Just as stupid and unproductive as any religious war or tech intolerance that this site promotes.

          Thankfully, Goeb, while you choose to ignore data that you don’t want to hear, the majority of people are willing to open their minds.

    2. You will notice that when I extrapolate the future, I am “Dr. If.” When GeoB or botvinnik do the same, they are just being faithful prophets proclaiming the Gospel of Our Lord and Savior Donald Trump.

      Has anyone seen his long-form birth certificate? Is it possible he was born in Bethlehem?

      No mortal man deserves this sort of unreasoning faith. It is a violation of the First Commandment.

      Reply

      1. My ONE “extrapolation” is based on history of tax cuts under Reagan and JFK.

        Unlike you, Dr. IF, that extrapolates dozens of times in a single (opinion) post that we have noticed ALWAYS DENIGRATES Republicans and NEVER DENIGRATES Democrats.

        And we all know you are never going to admit your false and deceptive game.

        Conservative my arse! 🐂💩🐂💩🐂💩

        Reply

  14. To all of you ‘economists’, we should all hope that corporations do as well as possible. Company paid Retirement plans, individual retirement plans, 401Ks, IRAs, all are managed by companies/people that invest those plans in corporations. The better the corporations do, the better the plans do, and the more money earned/saved in retirement plans.

    Reply

    1. To follow up, what is your better alternative? What if government taxed corporations at 90%? What if the government limited corporate salaries to $300K per year. That would add dollars to the bottom line, of courses, but the government would get 90% of that also, and how would corporations compete for the best talent to run the companies? Believe it or not, running a company takes enormous talent and hard earned experience that is not that plentiful. Even if it were plentiful, what would incentivize the people to do their very best to earn their money if they could get that salary anywhere, or they could take a much less demanding job elsewhere.
      What would your retirement plan look like? How would any of this make you better off? How would American corporations compete with others in the world?

      This kind of rationale stinks and smacks of pure jealousy. It sounds like “Its not fair that they are doing better than me. Even if it hurts me, I don’t want them to do well.”

      Reply

    2. As a further follow up, ultimately, we are discussing the merits and faults of capitalism vs. socialism. I don’t mean the dirty word ‘Socialism’, but the difference between free enterprise and state controlled enterprise. Consider all the jobs we consider valuable. Teachers, for example, are paid poorly (some way too much) compared to their potential value to society. Military personnel are paid poorly (again, some way too much) compared to their potential value to society. The thread here is “If you are paid by the government (federal, state, local, etc.), your contribution to society is quite possibly not commensurate with your pay. You might be the best or you might be the worst, but it doesn’t matter because it is government controlled. It is only a truly non-economic decision, thank God, that some of the best people in the country stay in these and other professions.

      Reply

      1. Managing an economy is a quandary. It isn’t a binary choice between socialism (state ownership of the means of production) and completely unregulated free markets. Every real country has a mixed economy that lets markets do what the decision makers (voters or The Leader) think they do best and lets government regulations do what they do best.

        As a fiscal conservative, I would err towards letting private enterprise and free markets make most of the decisions about the distribution of societal resources. However, history tells us that economic free markets without any regulation tend to develop monopolies like the oil, steel, and railway trusts Teddy Roosevelt busted over a century ago, or like the AT&T monopoly broken up in 1984.

        The worst of both worlds is to adopt government policies that make the concentration of wealth and power in fewer hands even easier than in a free market. It is my belief (and it is an opinion, not a fact, since I can’t predict the future) that the Trump Tax Bill is exactly that sort of worst-case government intervention.

        The benefits are not broadly based, but focus on the very top of the economic scale. Most Americans do not participate in the stock market. Only about 40% of adults have a 401k or defined private pension plan. Surprisingly few have enough savings to get them past a few missed paychecks.

        These individuals do not directly benefit when tax cuts have the principal benefit of making corporations more valuable. They rely on having a regular paycheck that increases at a rate faster than inflation. They look for tax policies that will help them achieve that. This bill does not do that because it does not incentivize investment.

        An Aside:

        As a retired public employee, I’m glad to see somebody who understands that most public servants stay in those positions because they feel a calling to public service, and not because they can make more money—or even as much—as they could in private industry. People do not become policemen, firemen, teachers, or soldiers to get rich… or to avoid being belittled as fools because they aren’t out for Number One. Their social value greatly exceeds their financial net worth.

        You also understand that government employees have the same secondary impacts on the economy as private industry. They buy housing, health care, food, and so forth at the same rate as corporate employees. There isn’t some magic economic benefit from shifting money away from government employees to corporate employees.

        The same is true of other government vs. corporate expenditures. When the government pays for concrete and steel to build a building, that benefits the economy exactly as if a private company were doing it. There may actually be less administrative overhead in government because there is no profit and lower personnel costs.

        Yes, private enterprise can do far more than government in many cases… but not in all cases.

        Reply

        1. Dr. If strikes again in yet another monotonous, droning screed of “if, but, could, maybe and feelies.”

          Moral of story: NEVER take economics advice from a retired, public employee whose career has been one long public trough tit-suck. They are inherently part of the problem, not the solution.

          They create nothing.

        2. Please cc: us a copy of your letter to the “tit-sucking” prosecutors, police, firemen, paramedics, and garbage collectors in your community telling them that they are “inherently part of the problem” and that you will henceforth refuse their services if offered.

          I would also like to see a copy of your letter reporting this (and your street address) to the local newspaper so that all the local burglars, arsonists and litterbugs in your community will know where they can act out without consequences.

          After a year or so of living under that regime, write back and tell us again that government employees “create nothing.”

          Merry Christmas!

        3. …don’t attempt to deflect by conflating your marxist sophistry with honorable men who do their duty, you piece of shít. The jig is up.

          Merry Christmas!

        4. “The Lord God is One God, and thou shalt love the Lord your God with all your heart and mind and strength. Thou shalt not worship any created thing, nor bow down to it nor worship it.”

          As Paul Tillich pointed out, any man’s god is that which he regards as his matter of ultimate concern. It is that in which he puts all his faith and confidence. It is the single firm pivot on which his universe turns. It is the sole criterion of truth. For example, it is how he distinguishes between “honorable men who do their duty” and “a piece of shit.”

          You have wished me a Merry Christmas. Thank you.

          Have a Merry Trumpmas!

        5. “Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.”

          – Jesus of Nazareth

        6. PS: Tillich was a socialist fraud…similar to you.

          “The Fellowship of Socialist Christians was organized in the early 1930s by Reinhold Niebuhr and others with similar views. Later it changed its name to Frontier Fellowship and then to Christian Action. The main supporters of the Fellowship in the early days included Tillich, Eduard Heimann, Sherwood Eddy and Rose Terlin. In its early days the group thought capitalist individualism was incompatible with Christian ethics. Although not Communist, the group acknowledged Karl Marx’s social philosophy.”

        7. “The worst of both worlds is to adopt government policies that make the concentration of wealth and power in fewer hands even easier than in a free market. It is my belief (and it is an opinion, not a fact, since I can’t predict the future) that the Trump Tax Bill is exactly that sort of worst-case government intervention.”

          I am ok with your argument until your third paragraph because the first two paragraphs apply to a perfect world. I was commenting strictly on corporations, and you broadened the subject. I will disagree with you on the tax plan, especially as it pertains to corporations. In fact, if it could be done fairly (it can’t) I would rather see no taxes to corporations. I would rather that all the profits be passed on to the stock holder to be taxed at the same rate as any other income. Currently it is taxed twice. It can’t happen because a thriving business would not be able to reinvest, etc. Also, this is more government ‘cut back’ rather than ‘intervention’.

          “The benefits are not broadly based, but focus on the very top of the economic scale. Most Americans do not participate in the stock market. Only about 40% of adults have a 401k or defined private pension plan. Surprisingly few have enough savings to get them past a few missed paychecks.”

          I can not comment on your 40% number, but if true, it also cuts across the economic scale at least up to the middle class, who should know better. If you think that someone who makes $40K, $50K or $60K a year getting $1K net back each year (4% more in the pocket) isn’t helped, you have been making too much money too long to remember what 4% net means. We could argue about whether that should be higher and the rate to the rich should be higher, but the point I am trying to make is that it will boost well being for those people a considerably.

          “These individuals do not directly benefit when tax cuts have the principal benefit of making corporations more valuable. They rely on having a regular paycheck that increases at a rate faster than inflation. They look for tax policies that will help them achieve that. This bill does not do that because it does not incentivize investment.”

          Your choice of the phrase ‘more valuable’ should be ‘more competitive’. Your comment that this bill does not incentivize investment is unfounded. Most companies want to grow. To do that, they have to invest, period. And you are disregarding that it will create more jobs. More jobs create still more jobs.

          An Aside:

          “People do not become policemen, firemen, teachers, or soldiers to get rich… or to avoid being belittled as fools because they aren’t out for Number One. Their social value greatly exceeds their financial net worth.”

          It is true that millions in government of people don’t seek wealth. Their reasons, though, are across the map. Altruism, Safety, security, etc.

          “There isn’t some magic economic benefit from shifting money away from government employees to corporate employees.”

          The point is not shifting money away from the government employees to corporate employees. The point is getting the economy growing so that if we must endure the current and unsustainable inefficiency of the government, then we have the money to pay for it.

          “The same is true of other government vs. corporate expenditures. When the government pays for concrete and steel to build a building, that benefits the economy exactly as if a private company were doing it. There may actually be less administrative overhead in government because there is no profit and lower personnel costs.”

          This paragraph has been proven wrong so many times that is is not even debate worthy. The government doesn’t build anything. They hire corporations and companies to build everything. They build so much red tape into every contract that companies only take the job if they can recover the bloated costs that they have to incur.

          Don’t take my disagreements as believing we shouldn’t have government. It is just too big and bloated with unpaid, unsustainable, well intentioned in most cases, voter-seeking programs.

    3. Peasants, pray that your overlords do well! Give onto the Fortune 500 royalty that which these 1%ers self select as their lion’s share, you must support economic feudalism because the billionaires tell you it is best! Surely a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people is an obsolete concept. Only by granting corporations and their executives privileges unimaginable to the common citizen will multinational corporations be able to distribute token trickle down to ye miserable vassals.

      And yet, deep in the forest, disgruntlement grows. It is plainly obvious the game is rigged. A revolt will continue to brew since this distraction does nothing to level the field of play. Only when personal income tax upon the citizen is equal or less than that granted by corrupt sheriffs to their favorite unelected corporate fiefdoms, only then will justice prevail.

      Reply

  15. It amazes me how many people don’t realize that those that work in the government do necessary work. It seems to me people would want to have an impartial group, that is answerable to the public, through, their elected representative or some such mechanism to safe guard them against entities that only want to take from them something. money, land, mineral rights, right of ways, fresh air, clean water, etc.

    The founders of America I suspect did not want efficiency in government. They created three separate branches, equal in power, to behave as checks on one another. Even within those branches, they created even more inefficiencies, more than one person in two of those branches that would share power. On top of that, they allowed little versions of the big, united, federal system in each state in the union. More and more wasteful duplication of responsibilities. Here is what is truly crazy, truly, in the states, at town and city levels, there is even more to the same. You talk about wasteful. It also amazes me how many claim to love America and in the next breath condemn what is America, inefficiency at its best.

    It is funny how many people think a government should be run like a household. It verges on crazy talk, no it is crazy talk. … when I sit at the dinner table I figure out how much money I have and I stay within my budget… we never spend more then we have and government should be like that …
    That is an unAmerican household and we all know it. I say that in jest. Many American live in debt. Trump is a prime example. Many buy a house on credit, buy cars on credit, buy clothes on credit. Why not wait, save the money and pay cash. Interesting too is the thought 300 million people all want the same things, have the same priorities, the same drive, same problems. … it should be run like a business …
    That is funny as everything too. A business’s drive is to make money. Are you proposing the government make money? Certainly you know businesses have debt, they even look to acquire debt, even when they have more money then they can spend.

    It’s best a government reject being run as a business. That means in the case of America, the American people should reject that the government be run a business or as a household. Those ideas, run as a business or household, were marketing speak that tested well. Much like ‘War on the Rich’, or ‘War on Christmas’ something to make people look other there, when they should be looking right here. No doubt great marketing.

    Reply

    1. I couldn’t disagree more, BOB.

      Government needs serious efficiency reform, eliminate the duplicate services and agencies. Run it like a business or a household budget NOT to make money, but wise, careful and deliberate action with funding, waste, debt and above all SOLVE THE PROBLEMS …

      Reply

  17. @ BOB

    “It amazes me how many people don’t realize that those that work in the government do necessary work. ”

    I don’t know anyone, personally, who believes that government does necessary work. How much is necessary is what is in debate.

    “The founders of America I suspect did not want efficiency in government. They created three separate branches, equal in power, to behave as checks on one another.”

    This is not duplication of power. It is separation of power.

    Even within those branches, they created even more inefficiencies, more than one person in two of those branches that would share power. On top of that, they allowed little versions of the big, united, federal system in each state in the union. More and more wasteful duplication of responsibilities. Here is what is truly crazy, truly, in the states, at town and city levels, there is even more to the same.”

    This paragraph is way off base. There was no intended duplication here. Towns govern only those things that affect their town. States govern only things that affect more than one town and only affect their state. The federal government was founded to govern things that affect more than one state.

    The overreach of federal, state and local government is not the founding fathers fault.

    “It is funny how many people think a government should be run like a household. It verges on crazy talk, no it is crazy talk. … when I sit at the dinner table I figure out how much money I have and I stay within my budget… we never spend more then we have and government should be like that …
    That is an unAmerican household and we all know it. I say that in jest. Many American live in debt. Trump is a prime example. Many buy a house on credit, buy cars on credit, buy clothes on credit. Why not wait, save the money and pay cash. Interesting too is the thought 300 million people all want the same things, have the same priorities, the same drive, same problems. … it should be run like a business …”

    Nowhere has anyone said that a responsible family should not borrow money. However responsible families do not spend or borrow more than they can afford.

    “That is funny as everything too. A business’s drive is to make money. Are you proposing the government make money?”

    The government does make money in taxes. So, yes I would propose that the government ‘make money’ if they are going to spend money.

    “Certainly you know businesses have debt, they even look to acquire debt, even when they have more money then they can spend.”

    Acquiring debt is a well know and used business practice. It is a way to invest in the business in the hope that it wil turn into more profit. It is also a well known and used family practice. Responsible families will stay within their means, and might even make an economic decision that their income and the appreciation on their homes, for example, will result in better economic well being. However, no business or family will last long if they borrow and continue to borrow more than they can afford to pay back. Their are checks in place to prevent these people from hurting others, but their is no sure way to prevent them from hurting themselves.

    “It’s best a government reject being run as a business.”

    Couldn’t disagree more. We are approaching the point when the interest on our national debt is not even going to be payable, much less our debt principal, unless we either drastically cut down the government spending, or drastically increase the money being ‘made’ by the government or both. We can drastically increase the money being made by the government either by an astounding increase in the tax rates or by somehow getting our business engine hitting on all cylinders and then some. It has been proven that tax increases have a negative effect on getting the engine running. Less money for people to spend, less products sold by business, etc. If government refuses to quit increasing the spending with money we don’t have or expect to get, and don’t find a way to ‘make’ more money, the same fate will befall us as an irresponsible family.

    Reply

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,