The war on the Trump Tax Cuts continues

The people who have always been against Trump's large tax cuts are doing everything they can to imply that they aren't working to invigorate the overall economy.

Apple just fueled everyone's biggest fear about how companies are going to use their extra tax reform cash

When President  Donald Trump's massive  tax plan was announced, experts immediately feared the worst about how companies would spend the additional cash they'd soon have for deployment.

They figured corporations would choose to enrich shareholders through  buybacks and  dividends rather than reinvest in their own businesses or create jobs.

Heaven forbid that companies use cash they earn for things they want to spend the money on, including shareholders, who take all the risk.  It would be so much better for the government to confiscate a bigger share for themselves to spend on things they want, especially to make more people dependent on government.

Federal, state, and local politicians along with other Democrats, including the media, should be cheering the fact that corporations are upping dividends and doing other things like stock buybacks that are intended to push up the price of their stocks.  These people are all for higher taxes, so why are they claiming they fear this use of lower taxes when it could substantially increase tax revenue?

Under the previous law, federal corporate income taxes could be as high as 35%.  Under the new law, the tax rate is 21%.  If the tax savings are used for dividends, and since dividends are non-deductible, the federal government can collect up to another 23.8% or a total of 44.8%.  If the stock price goes up because of stock buybacks, the federal government can collect up to another 23.8% there also.  If the money goes to taxable retirement accounts, the government can collect up to 37% ordinary income taxes.  States that have income taxes can also collect additional money from dividends and capital gains if less goes to the federal government.  Local governments will do well also because more money is being left in the local economy to trickle around, providing more sales.

Federal, state, and local pension funds along with mutual funds, 401(k)s, and IRAs will be in better shape if stock prices and dividends go up, so why is anyone fearful?

My guess is that politicians and bureaucrats are fearful that if the economy does better, some of their power disappears.  Many of the wealthiest counties are around D.C., and their greed is endless.

If anyone wants to see where the mentality of people being against lower tax rates – even if it raises more revenue for the government – they need to look no farther than an exchange between Charles Gibson and President Obama in 2008.  Obama essentially didn't care if revenues went down when rates went up on capital gains and went up after rates went down because Obama didn't think that was "fair."  It was dangerous to have a president who believed that.  Obama would rather have a slower economy and less revenue for the government, and the results of his eight years showed very slow growth.

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money.  And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

I get frustrated when I hear almost all Democrats, including most of the media, say the richest 1%, 5%, and 10% are getting richer while the rest of us are not because it is absolutely not true.  The richest people today are mostly not the same people as the richest people five, ten, and especially twenty years ago.  In capitalism, people move up the economic ladder.  People who were poor or in the middle class moved up, and some of the rich moved down.  For example, Bezos, Zuckerburg, and the Clintons would not have been anywhere on the richest list twenty years ago, but they are extremely rich today.  I do not begrudge people who get rich or stay rich as long as they do it honestly.  I can't stand people like the Clintons, who got rich selling their power for favors because that is dangerous to society.

A true statement would be that the richest 1% of people today are much richer than the richest 1% of people were twenty years ago.  Or we could say truthfully that the United States as a whole today is richer than it was five, ten, and twenty years ago.  Thank goodness for capitalism that allows for economic mobility.  Most of us move up the ladder during our lifetime of work.

What is dangerous and should make people fearful is when government, with the support of a complicit media, believes that it is entitled to so much of the money even though the people in the private sector took the risk.

The people who have always been against Trump's large tax cuts are doing everything they can to imply that they aren't working to invigorate the overall economy.

Apple just fueled everyone's biggest fear about how companies are going to use their extra tax reform cash

When President  Donald Trump's massive  tax plan was announced, experts immediately feared the worst about how companies would spend the additional cash they'd soon have for deployment.

They figured corporations would choose to enrich shareholders through  buybacks and  dividends rather than reinvest in their own businesses or create jobs.

Heaven forbid that companies use cash they earn for things they want to spend the money on, including shareholders, who take all the risk.  It would be so much better for the government to confiscate a bigger share for themselves to spend on things they want, especially to make more people dependent on government.

Federal, state, and local politicians along with other Democrats, including the media, should be cheering the fact that corporations are upping dividends and doing other things like stock buybacks that are intended to push up the price of their stocks.  These people are all for higher taxes, so why are they claiming they fear this use of lower taxes when it could substantially increase tax revenue?

Under the previous law, federal corporate income taxes could be as high as 35%.  Under the new law, the tax rate is 21%.  If the tax savings are used for dividends, and since dividends are non-deductible, the federal government can collect up to another 23.8% or a total of 44.8%.  If the stock price goes up because of stock buybacks, the federal government can collect up to another 23.8% there also.  If the money goes to taxable retirement accounts, the government can collect up to 37% ordinary income taxes.  States that have income taxes can also collect additional money from dividends and capital gains if less goes to the federal government.  Local governments will do well also because more money is being left in the local economy to trickle around, providing more sales.

Federal, state, and local pension funds along with mutual funds, 401(k)s, and IRAs will be in better shape if stock prices and dividends go up, so why is anyone fearful?

My guess is that politicians and bureaucrats are fearful that if the economy does better, some of their power disappears.  Many of the wealthiest counties are around D.C., and their greed is endless.

If anyone wants to see where the mentality of people being against lower tax rates – even if it raises more revenue for the government – they need to look no farther than an exchange between Charles Gibson and President Obama in 2008.  Obama essentially didn't care if revenues went down when rates went up on capital gains and went up after rates went down because Obama didn't think that was "fair."  It was dangerous to have a president who believed that.  Obama would rather have a slower economy and less revenue for the government, and the results of his eight years showed very slow growth.

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money.  And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

I get frustrated when I hear almost all Democrats, including most of the media, say the richest 1%, 5%, and 10% are getting richer while the rest of us are not because it is absolutely not true.  The richest people today are mostly not the same people as the richest people five, ten, and especially twenty years ago.  In capitalism, people move up the economic ladder.  People who were poor or in the middle class moved up, and some of the rich moved down.  For example, Bezos, Zuckerburg, and the Clintons would not have been anywhere on the richest list twenty years ago, but they are extremely rich today.  I do not begrudge people who get rich or stay rich as long as they do it honestly.  I can't stand people like the Clintons, who got rich selling their power for favors because that is dangerous to society.

A true statement would be that the richest 1% of people today are much richer than the richest 1% of people were twenty years ago.  Or we could say truthfully that the United States as a whole today is richer than it was five, ten, and twenty years ago.  Thank goodness for capitalism that allows for economic mobility.  Most of us move up the ladder during our lifetime of work.

What is dangerous and should make people fearful is when government, with the support of a complicit media, believes that it is entitled to so much of the money even though the people in the private sector took the risk.