wood burning stoves 2.0*
The moose likes Jobs Discussion and the fly likes Bill could mean billions for tech Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


JavaRanch » Java Forums » Careers » Jobs Discussion
Bookmark "Bill could mean billions for tech" Watch "Bill could mean billions for tech" New topic
Author

Bill could mean billions for tech

Jesse Torres
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 985
The high-tech industry stands to collect a windfall from a major business-tax bill approved overwhelmingly by the U.S. Senate on Monday


-- <br />4 8 15 16 23 42
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479


Can't think of situation of how this could bad for anyone in the US. Nor can I think of any example where tax cuts were did not have a positve effect.
Jesse Torres
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 985
What's funny is that I haven't heard about the bill on the news.
peter wooster
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 13, 2004
Posts: 1033
Originally posted by herb slocomb:

Can't think of situation of how this could bad for anyone in the US. Nor can I think of any example where tax cuts were did not have a positve effect.


All it means is that there will be big dividends for Pfizer, HP and Intel shareholders. They'll be able to buy a new Lexus, and take a vacation on the Riviera. That will really help the American industry.

"Trickle down" was discredited in the late '80s.
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by peter wooster:


All it means is that there will be big dividends for Pfizer, HP and Intel shareholders. They'll be able to buy a new Lexus, and take a vacation on the Riviera. That will really help the American industry.

"Trickle down" was discredited in the late '80s.


If by "discredited" you mean that during the 80's, after the Reagan tax cuts, the US experienced the longest economic peace time expansion since WWII and the Federal revenues increased because of the tax cuts, then I heartily agree.

A few obvious points to make things more clear :

1. The money will be taxed to the benefit of the US rather than sitting overseas untaxed by the US govt. Increasing revenues can help with US deficit and debt, and reduce needed federal borrowing thus putting less upward pressure on interest rates.

2. The dividends when distributed will be taxed (at the normal rate) further increasing federal revenues again.

3. The distributed dividends will not be stuffed under a mattress as you correctly observed, they will be spent. The spending will have an impact; also known as an economic stimulus. The numbers range from an unlikely maximum of $600 billion or so, to a more probably $300 billion dollars. I don't care whether its going to Lexus dealership owners or Frito-Lay potato chip distributors, its going to have a tremedous effect. Investigate what economists call "multiplier" effects ( http://www.tutor2u.net/economics/content/topics/macroeconomy/multiplier.htm )

4. Not all of the gain will be distributed as dividends. The corporations will retain some of it and they will be able to expand their operations (jobs) and purchases (increasing jobs at other corporations).


For a deeper analysis see :

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
http://www.ncpa.org/pi/taxes/pdtx64.html
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brucebartlett/bb20030926.shtml
[ October 15, 2004: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]
Jesse Torres
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 985
Originally posted by herb slocomb:


If by "discredited" you mean that during the 80's, after the Reagan tax cuts, the US experienced the longest economic peace time expansion since WWII and the Federal revenues increased because of the tax cuts, then I heartily agree.

A few obvious points to make things more clear :

1. The money will be taxed to the benefit of the US rather than sitting overseas untaxed by the US govt. Increasing revenues can help with US deficit and debt, and reduce needed federal borrowing thus putting less upward pressure on interest rates.

2. The dividends when distributed will be taxed (at the normal rate) further increasing federal revenues again.

3. The distributed dividends will not be stuffed under a mattress as you correctly observed, they will be spent. The spending will have an impact; also known as an economic stimulus. The numbers range from an unlikely maximum of $600 billion or so, to a more probably $300 billion dollars. I don't care whether its going to Lexus dealership owners or Frito-Lay potato chip distributors, its going to have a tremedous effect. Investigate what economists call "multiplier" effects ( http://www.tutor2u.net/economics/content/topics/macroeconomy/multiplier.htm )

4. Not all of the gain will be distributed as dividends. The corporations will retain some of it and they will be able to expand their operations (jobs) and purchases (increasing jobs at other corporations).


For a deeper analysis see :

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
http://www.ncpa.org/pi/taxes/pdtx64.html
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brucebartlett/bb20030926.shtml

[ October 15, 2004: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]


Great Points! Why aren't the news media giving the bill any coverage?
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by Jesse Torres:


Great Points! Why aren't the news media giving the bill any coverage?


The media is biased against the current administration.
Jesse Torres
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 985
Originally posted by herb slocomb:


The media is biased against the current administration.


If your statement is accurate, then the bill might be a positive step. I guess only time will tell.
peter wooster
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 13, 2004
Posts: 1033
Originally posted by herb slocomb:

The media is biased against the current administration.


The US media are NOT biased against the Bush administration. They have given him a very easy ride compared to the campaign they waged against Clinton over a minor sexual indescretion that even his wife wasn't too disturbed by.

The legislation you are discussing has been reported by USA Today (your quote) and Reuters. It ends up on the 3rd page of the business section because its just not big news. It will be big news if it works. In that case it will become a "Man bites Dog" story, since these measures are an annual event, and rarely of much import. The biggest news about it was that some Republicans wanted to tie a change (the Jones law) to allow churches to participate in elections into it, i don't know if they got that through or not.
Jesse Torres
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 985
Herb Slocomb posted a topic that is good news for the tech industry. Can anyone verify the validity of this story?
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by peter wooster:


The US media are NOT biased against the Bush administration. They have given him a very easy ride compared to the campaign they waged against Clinton over a minor sexual indescretion that even his wife wasn't too disturbed by.



In my lifetime, there has never been a lower point in journalistic ( or any other type ) integrity that could ever compare to the recent CBS Dan Rather sham involving forged documents used against Bush in an attempt to influence the upcoming election. Not long after the CBS fiasco, an internal memo from ABC revealed a corporate policy of official bias against Bush. None of this should be surprising since over 75% of journalists identified themselves as liberal in their political beliefs. Further evidence comes from long time CBS employees, such as Goldberg, who revelaed how CBS manipulates the news for a liberal spin.

Clinton is not the issue here, but coverage of his antics and lies could not be avoided due to the sensationalistic content (sex sells) and the fact that the President called a national conference to denounce "that woman" on prime time TV. At that point, the lie made in front of the nation on prime time TV with millions of viewers was never going to die until the impeachment hearings were over. How could the media avoid the subject of impeachment hearings??? Clinton could have owned up to his mistake and the media (and everyone else) would have given it a much lower priority.
peter wooster
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 13, 2004
Posts: 1033
Originally posted by herb slocomb:

In my lifetime, there has never been a lower point in journalistic ( or any other type ) integrity that could ever compare to the recent CBS Dan Rather sham involving forged documents used against Bush in an attempt to influence the upcoming election. Not long after the CBS fiasco, an internal memo from ABC revealed a corporate policy of official bias against Bush. None of this should be surprising since over 75% of journalists identified themselves as liberal in their political beliefs. Further evidence comes from long time CBS employees, such as Goldberg, who revelaed how CBS manipulates the news for a liberal spin.

Clinton is not the issue here, but coverage of his antics and lies could not be avoided due to the sensationalistic content (sex sells) and the fact that the President called a national conference to denounce "that woman" on prime time TV. At that point, the lie made in front of the nation on prime time TV with millions of viewers was never going to die until the impeachment hearings were over. How could the media avoid the subject of impeachment hearings??? Clinton could have owned up to his mistake and the media (and everyone else) would have given it a much lower priority.


Here's an anti-republican story that is completely buried by your so-called liberal press, it was reported on the CBC and by the Mail Tribune in Medford Oregon. An organization from Phoenix Arizona, run by a Republican campaign worker, has been masquerading as a well known non-partisan organization "America Votes" and then destroying any Democratic voter registrations they receive. This kind of shenanigans is exactly the stuff that got Nixon thrown out of office. If you feel like digging into this one, do a search on "america votes"+"sproul". All sides will be revealed, both Dem and GOP.

You are probably correct that most journalists are liberal, that comes from reading a lot of news. As a counterbalance most media owners are very conservative, that comes from having lots of money, and wanting to protect it. These two forces work to provide a balance in the media. All incumbants believe that the media is their enemy, that just comes with being the incumbant.

As you pointed out ("sex sells") all the media really care about is what sells papers, or improves ratings. Right now trashing "the worst president since Herbert Hoover" sells papers (over 500,000 jobs lost). If Kerry gets elected, he'll be the target in a year or so, when he can't stop the Iraq fiasco and is forced to bring back the draft.
Jesse Torres
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 985
Originally posted by peter wooster:


....is forced to bring back the draft.


If that is the case, I will head towards the Mountains.
No just kidding. I will head towards Toronto; maybe Vancouver.
[ October 15, 2004: Message edited by: Jesse Torres ]
peter wooster
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 13, 2004
Posts: 1033
Originally posted by Jesse Torres:

If that is the case, I will head towards the Mountains.
No just kidding. I will head towards Toronto; maybe Vancouver.

[ October 15, 2004: Message edited by: Jesse Torres ]


Vancouver has some very nice Mountains!
Jesse Torres
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 985
Originally posted by peter wooster:


Vancouver has some very nice Mountains!


In that case, I will head towards the Mountains of Vancouver!
scott dawson
Greenhorn

Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Posts: 18
I'll be happy if they do create some jobs. However, if you read the article it says that "buybacks" are one of the methods that corporations can use the money. Stock buybacks fatten the wallets of CEO's and worthless Boards of Directors. They make each share/option worth more.BOD compensation is generally in stock/options....Call me cynical, I hope I'm wrong, but I wouldn't be holding my breath for these guys to start returning big amounts into IT jobs here in the US. Somehow Enron, Adelphia, MCI/Worldcom just sort of come to mind.
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
Originally posted by scott dawson:
Stock buybacks fatten the wallets of CEO's and worthless Boards of Directors. They make each share/option worth more.



"...nearly half of all U.S. households are stockholders" http://www.house.gov/jec/tax/stock/stock.htm

52% of US households own stocks :
http://www.ici.org/pdf/fm-v10n4.pdf

Even I used to invest in mutual funds even with a mere $28k salary...

Bottom line is that CEOs benefit, ordinary Americans benefit, spending increases (Americans save very little), and jobs increase as a result, and everyone is happy except a few always disgruntled socialists.
Warren Dew
blacksmith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 04, 2004
Posts: 1332
    
    2
herb slocomb:

In my lifetime, there has never been a lower point in journalistic ( or any other type ) integrity that could ever compare to the recent CBS Dan Rather sham involving forged documents used against Bush in an attempt to influence the upcoming election.

While I think there may be a liberal bias in most of the press, I'm not sure this is an example - just an example of how dishonest certain people in the press are. "60 minutes" has been caught faking their evidence before - remember the "GM pickup trucks have exploding gas tanks" videos that turned out to be because the "60 minutes" crew put dynamite under the pickup trucks to make a better video?

I would bet that every other "60 minutes" show is just as faked, but in most cases, the victims just don't have the resources to uncover the dishonesty.
Warren Dew
blacksmith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 04, 2004
Posts: 1332
    
    2
Scott Dawson:

I'll be happy if they do create some jobs. However, if you read the article it says that "buybacks" are one of the methods that corporations can use the money. Stock buybacks fatten the wallets of CEO's and worthless Boards of Directors.

Er, no they don't. In fact, CEOs usually oppose stock buybacks, because they move money out of the control of the company, and thus out of the control of the CEO. And while the company is buying back shares from investors, from the investors' point of view, it isn't any different from selling the shares to any other buyer.

What the bill does do is move money out of overseas cash hoards back to the U.S., and in the case of stock buybacks, back into the private investor market, where it can be invested in U.S. ventures that are likely to create some jobs, among other effects.

Whether it's worth giving the corporations a big temporary tax break on the repatriated money is another issue ... I don't know enough about the corporate tax code to have an opinion on that one.

herb slocomb:

52% of US households own stocks :
http://www.ici.org/pdf/fm-v10n4.pdf


That number would be even higher if they counted all the people that have vested interests in pension plans that own stocks. Pension plans are the biggest owners of stock in the U.S., which means that retirees and people closing on retirement are really the biggest beneficiaries of anything that helps stocks.
[ October 17, 2004: Message edited by: Warren Dew ]
Jesse Torres
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 985
Since we are discussing Taxes, here is an interesting article on taxes. Whether it is a good idea, I don't know.
*********************************************************************
Does replacing personal income and payroll taxes with a
national sales tax, an idea President Bush has shown
interest in, help the U.S.


tax system?

[ October 17, 2004: Message edited by: Jesse Torres ]
 
I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
 
subject: Bill could mean billions for tech