What did the rich do with their Bush tax cuts?

[Guns Guns Guns]

Corporate executives are clamoring for a tax holiday to encourage them to bring their offshore profits back to the United States.


And the money in question is big: Apple has $12 billion in offshore cash, while Google has $17 billion, and Microsoft, $29 billion.


The companies with money sitting offshore argue that if the federal government were to offer them a huge tax break—say, a one-year drop from 35 percent to 5.25 percent—the businesses would bring the money home and operate as a private-sector economic stimulus.


The Bush administration offered companies a similar tax incentive, in 2005, in hopes of spurring domestic hiring and investment, and 800 took advantage.


Though the tax break lured them into bringing $312 billion back to the United States, 92 percent of that money was returned to shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buybacks...

​

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs.../corporate-tax-cuts-dont-stimulate-job-growth

 

[RockX]

And yet your leader signed an extension of those same cuts???

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

And yet your leader signed an extension of those same cuts???

Not only did he extend them, he said it would be a 'devastating blow to our economy' not to extend them.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Corporate executives are clamoring for a tax holiday to encourage them to bring their offshore profits back to the United States.


And the money in question is big: Apple has $12 billion in offshore cash, while Google has $17 billion, and Microsoft, $29 billion.


The companies with money sitting offshore argue that if the federal government were to offer them a huge tax break—say, a one-year drop from 35 percent to 5.25 percent—the businesses would bring the money home and operate as a private-sector economic stimulus.


The Bush administration offered companies a similar tax incentive, in 2005, in hopes of spurring domestic hiring and investment, and 800 took advantage.


Though the tax break lured them into bringing $312 billion back to the United States, 92 percent of that money was returned to shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buybacks...

​

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs.../corporate-tax-cuts-dont-stimulate-job-growth

Is it any surprise that one year gimmicks do not work? That is not how businesses work. Bush was suckered by the businesses. We need a rational tax policy which you obviously do not support. You think that you can just take more and more from producers and think that they will not change their behavior to compensate. They always do.

What is hilarious is that you bring up GE and Google. The former is a HUGE Maobama supporter. In fact they have a cable news outlet dedicated to Maobama's reelection. And you have Google a left wing favorite and look how both organizations go out of their way to avoid taxes.

The answers are simple. But, you are not interested in what best raises revenue for this country. You are only interested in your partisan hackery and starting endless threads about the same ole thing

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Corporate executives are clamoring for a tax holiday to encourage them to bring their offshore profits back to the United States.


And the money in question is big: Apple has $12 billion in offshore cash, while Google has $17 billion, and Microsoft, $29 billion.


The companies with money sitting offshore argue that if the federal government were to offer them a huge tax break—say, a one-year drop from 35 percent to 5.25 percent—the businesses would bring the money home and operate as a private-sector economic stimulus.


The Bush administration offered companies a similar tax incentive, in 2005, in hopes of spurring domestic hiring and investment, and 800 took advantage.


Though the tax break lured them into bringing $312 billion back to the United States, 92 percent of that money was returned to shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buybacks...

​

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs.../corporate-tax-cuts-dont-stimulate-job-growth

Just for fun, I am going to throw a major fisting your way and force you to remove yet another chart from yet another thread.

Looking at the chart you provided, it is clear that taxes paid by corporations peaked around 1946. Then they precipitously fell during times of democrat control over the Presidency and Congress. Can you explain why so many democrats lowered corporate taxes?

Then in 1981 the taxes paid by corporations actually increased while Ronald Reagan was lowering taxes. I mean it flies in the face of what you are saying doesn't it puddin?

Then in 1993 Clinton passes his vaunted tax increases you love so much and the taxes paid by corporations goes down until 2002 when Bush lowered taxes and the amount of taxes paid by corporations goes up.

Now how about that puddin? Another graph blows up in your stupid face. Now hurry and remove it like you did the last one. You actually disproved what you are trying to claim. Maybe you should give up posting graphs/charts. It is clear you don't understand them

:

 

[Damocles]

The U.S. economy is very much consumer-driven; companies aren’t hiring because people aren’t buying.


The past behavior of corporations that have received huge tax cuts has not necessarily been to use the money to hire more people; the Bush-era tax cuts have been in place for a decade.



http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs.../corporate-tax-cuts-dont-stimulate-job-growth

True, the tax cuts of 2001 have been in effect since then but the reality is they were put in place because of the recession that began with the tech bubble. He began with an economy in recession, there was a recovery then the debt bubble hit.

 

[Damocles]

Banks now have a hoard of cash reserves of more than a trillion dollars, according to the business press.

However, as U.S. Federal Reserve Bank data show, as the biggest 19 U.S. banks recovered in 2009-2010, their lending to small and medium businesses declined steadily.

Nor has that lending recovered...

Without bank lending to small businesses—the main engine of job creation in the U.S.—there can be no job creation.

Similarly the largest companies, the S&P 500 non-bank corporations, are also sitting on a hoard of cash.




http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/6726/why_tax_cuts_dontand_wontcreate_jobs/

And that is Bush's fault in what way? Reality: the Bush tax cuts were put in place for a different recession, one from which we had recovered.

 

[Damocles]

Did I say it was Bush's fault?

Ah, I should have said, "How was that the fault of Bush's Tax cuts which were in effect when they were lending money out at a record level before the debt bubble?"

By the time of George W. Bush, businesses could claim tax cuts for investments made offshore.

GM cut hundreds of thousands of jobs in the U.S. while adding thousands in China.

Ford cut jobs while adding them in St. Petersburg, Russia.

Corporations could claim the investment tax cuts, even if jobs were created offshore and simultaneously eliminated in the U.S.

In effect, U.S. taxpayers were paying US corporations to send their jobs overseas.

Between 2001-2004 George W. Bush pushed through a series of annual tax cuts for investors and corporations that amounted to a total of $3.4 trillion over the recent decade, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Every tax cut bill passed between 2001-2004 was called a jobs creation bill. More than 80% of the $3.4 trillion eventually accrued to the wealthiest 20% of households and corporations, and most of that to the top 0.1%, or 100,000 households, and the S&P's largest companies.

And what did George W. Bush's business-investor tax cut produce in terms of jobs? The period 2001-2004 witnessed the weakest jobs creation on record following a recession.

It took a full 46 months just to recover the level of jobs in the U.S. that existed in January 2001, when the recession began.

Estimates today after the current recession are that it will take 7-8 years to recover the lost jobs, if even then.





http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/6726/why_tax_cuts_dontand_wontcreate_jobs/

Again, the tax cuts were in response to a different recession, one from which we recovered.

Now you try to blame them for banks not lending money, when another President has put forward policy for 3 1/2 years. If the banks are not lending, look to the one in power not to the tax cuts put in place to fight a different recession.

Tell me, what tax cuts did Bush get done in his last 4 months that were targeted at this recession? Are you saying that Obama's middle class payroll tax cut isn't making banks lend money?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Another, more recent test of the "business tax cuts create jobs" idea happened in the spring of 2008.

Bush and Congress passed a $168 billion stimulus bill as the recession of 2007-2010 began to deepen.

About $90 billion of that comprised tax cuts.

What jobs did it create? None.

The jobs market collapsed in the second half of 2008 at a rate of nearly one million a month for six months, a rate of job loss that roughly paralleled that of 1929-30.

The Obama stimulus bill of 2009 is yet another example of why tax cuts in general, and business-investor tax cuts in particular, do not create jobs.

Of Obama's original $787 billion stimulus passed in February 2009, about half were tax cuts and more than $225 billion were specifically business-investor cuts.

For its part, the federal government has created no net new jobs since Obama came into office, while State and Local government have laid off hundreds of thousands over the past year and even more cuts are planned...



http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/6726/why_tax_cuts_dontand_wontcreate_jobs/

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Banks now have a hoard of cash reserves of more than a trillion dollars, according to the business press.

However, as U.S. Federal Reserve Bank data show, as the biggest 19 U.S. banks recovered in 2009-2010, their lending to small and medium businesses declined steadily.

Nor has that lending recovered...

Without bank lending to small businesses—the main engine of job creation in the U.S.—there can be no job creation.

Similarly the largest companies, the S&P 500 non-bank corporations, are also sitting on a hoard of cash.




http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/6726/why_tax_cuts_dontand_wontcreate_jobs/

Why aren't banks lending?

 

[Damocles]

Why aren't banks lending?

He hasn't done well explaining how that had anything to do with the Tax cuts he began the thread about.

I'm waiting myself. I'm interested to know how tax cuts put in place for the Tech Bubble recession have anything to do with the rate of lending after the debt bubble recession. My guess is he'll continue to throw out stuff that have nothing to do with that trying to cover it like a cat in the sandbox. It's this President's policy that would engage the banks, not policy put into place to fight a recession in 2001 from which we recovered.

 

[Damocles]

So what did John Q. Taxpayer get for all that tax cutting?


Certainly not jobs, but instead a huge deficit bill now coming due.


Nonetheless, the debates in Washington now still focus on more tax cuts...

http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/6726/why_tax_cuts_dontand_wontcreate_jobs/

Again, you are trying to blame tax cuts passed against a recession in 2001, and from which we recovered, to a later recession as if they were passed for that next recession. The only tax cuts passed against the debt recession were Obama's.

 

[Timshel]

Corporate executives are clamoring for a tax holiday to encourage them to bring their offshore profits back to the United States.


And the money in question is big: Apple has $12 billion in offshore cash, while Google has $17 billion, and Microsoft, $29 billion.


The companies with money sitting offshore argue that if the federal government were to offer them a huge tax break—say, a one-year drop from 35 percent to 5.25 percent—the businesses would bring the money home and operate as a private-sector economic stimulus.


The Bush administration offered companies a similar tax incentive, in 2005, in hopes of spurring domestic hiring and investment, and 800 took advantage.


Though the tax break lured them into bringing $312 billion back to the United States, 92 percent of that money was returned to shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buybacks...

​

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs.../corporate-tax-cuts-dont-stimulate-job-growth

They invested it in government debt, i.e., an unproductive line. The reason there is debt to buy is due to government SPENDING. Once the debt becomes too high taxes will be raised. It's a very stable investment because... But governement SPENDING has become unsustainable. It does not matter how you finance government SPENDING, it is a drain on the economy... NOW... TODAY... THIS VERY MOMENT.

If you are sincere, then pick up a copy of Economics in One Lesson. If not then I will enjoy continuing to knock over your weak strawmen to educate the proles, trolls and the seer who cannot see a thing because they are all too busy looking in the mirror and/or laughing at others from their false perches. lol

Another weak strawmen. Of course, Republican Keynesians cannot answer truthfully, because they are either part of the shell games or just don't get it.

 

[Timshel]

Again, you are trying to blame tax cuts passed against a recession in 2001, and from which we recovered, to a later recession as if they were passed for that next recession. The only tax cuts passed against the debt recession were Obama's.

Bull! We never recovered. They blew another bubble which lead to MASSIVE malinvestment. You are not listening to Paul, because you are too busy being another reactionary.

Which side did you think was right, the Big Endians or the Little Endians?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Bull! We never recovered. They blew another bubble which lead to MASSIVE malinvestment. You are not listening to Paul, because you are too busy being another reactionary.

Which side did you think was right, the Big Endians or the Little Endians?

Agreed. Just another fed induced bubble

 

[Damocles]

Bull! We never recovered. They blew another bubble which lead to MASSIVE malinvestment. You are not listening to Paul, because you are too busy being another reactionary.

Which side did you think was right, the Big Endians or the Little Endians?

You think we never recovered from the Tech bubble? Unemployment averaged 4.2% under W, that is not a recession. While the debt bubble burst at the end of his term the recession that began in 2001 was reversed and there was a long stretch with economic growth.

 

[Damocles]

So we agree that nobody has proven that tax cuts create jobs?

No, we have proven that tax cuts applied to the Tech bubble do not apply to the Debt/Housing bubble. Can you list the Bush tax cuts that were passed in response to the Debt/Housing bubble? We have patience. When you realize that there were none, then list the tax cuts for the rich passed by Obama... We'll be waiting for those too. (Remember extending a tax rate is not a cut).

 

[Timshel]

You think we never recovered from the Tech bubble? Unemployment averaged 4.2% under W, that is not a recession. While the debt bubble burst at the end of his term the recession that began in 2001 was reversed and there was a long stretch with economic growth.

There was a long stretch of malinvestment that is now being liquidated and will not be fully liquidated for a longer strech than the "growth" you believe it created.

The Keynesian levers are broken. It does not matter who pulls them. Swinging this way and then that way is not going to help anymore. It does not matter if it benefits this class or that. It does not matter what letter is on the man behind the curtains shirt. The game is over becasue too many understand the game and they will not be able to fool the people repeatedly.

I am sorry to say, you are not listening to Paul. You don't get it.

 

[Damocles]

So you contend that extending (or increasing) tax cuts will create jobs?

I contend that extending a tax rate is not a cut. No cuts were passed by George W. Bush in relation to this recession. Are you contending that you cannot produce a tax cut passed by Obama "for the rich" in relation to the current debt crisis?

 

[Damocles]

There was a long stretch of malinvestment that is now being liquidated and will not be fully liquidated for a longer strech than the "growth" you believe it created.

What growth do I believe it created?

The Keynesian levers are broken. It does not matter who pulls them. Swinging this way and then that way is not going to help anymore. It does not matter if it benefits this class or that. It does not matter what letter is on the man behind the curtains shirt. The game is over becasue too many understand the game and they will not be able to fool the people repeatedly.

I am sorry to say, you are not listening to Paul. You don't get it.

I think you are mistaken in what you think I believe.