raise income tax bracket rates to create economic/job growth

[sheehs1]

Announcement: Through the miracle of modern technology, E-R.org now has the capability to post live video updates of members as they post to a thread. Here is the live feed for the current discussion:

​

Good one REWahoo...!

 

[Texas Proud]

in essence i addressed what you say here in my 1st post on this thread. since business profits are at a 60 year high there HAS to be business income and demand. otherwise, how would you get a profit, let alone RECORD profits?



i dont understand how you cant see the tax payer psychology i am pointing out when you actually give examples of that very psychology in your post. i highlighted in red where you give an example of a business owner making a decision about his businesses based overwelmingly on the tax implications. you also mentioned lot of schemes that were used to reduce taxes, which you called "stupid". so therefore you are acknowledging that tax payers will do "stupid" things to avoid paying taxes. that is exactly the tax payer psychology i based my premise on.

Nobody has said that businesses are making decisions without considering taxes.... it is that with high taxes, businesses and people make stupid decisions to try and minimize taxes...

Are you suggesting that we should increase taxes so people can make a lot of stupid decisions and that this will help the economy That is just so wrong on the face of it... Also, almost all of the tax schemes that were back then have been outlawed...

And I can say that no smart businessman will invest a dollar to save 50 cents in taxes unless he is able to get NET profits above that dollar...

But, I am finished with this since to me the basic premiss is so plainly wrong it is not worth my time...


Read a few more posts... and decided to add something since it has gone to the cap gain for some reason.... but a higher tax make all assets worth less.... period..

And for some reason the OP still thinks that a business can grow just because.... the examples given mean nothing IMO... a business owner makes a decision on an investment... he wants the highest after tax profits with the risks he is willing to take... if the investment was a good investment with low taxes he will do it.... with high taxes he might not... because the investment itself has become more risky...

To the OP... have you even studied business What is your background?

 

[FinanceDude]

at the moment companies are having good revenue reports and, as i said in my 1st post on this thread, the highest profits/GDP in 60 years. why have they been realizing these profits instead of investing in their companies? maybe it is because the tax rates are so low that it makes more sense to book the profit.

There's one word that explains it all: UNCERTAINTY

Business owners are taking their profits and keeping them in cash. There is so much uncertainty they don't want to take a risk and have the govt tax them into oblivion.

 

[clifp]

Nobody has said that businesses are making decisions without considering taxes.... it is that with high taxes, businesses and people make stupid decisions to try and minimize taxes...


But, I am finished with this since to me the basic premiss is so plainly wrong it is not worth my time...

+1

I think one of the problem JDW, is I get the distinct impression that your not familiar with the mechanics of how accounting/taxes work for businesses.

Have you had college accounting classes? Do you do your own taxes? Have you run a small business?. Now if you answered yes to all 3 than maybe I'm the one that is confused. Otherwise may I suggest you sign up for an accounting class, I think you'd understand the practical problems of what you are suggesting.

 

[sheehs1]

sheeeeezzzzz, i never said that in practice the company would "convert all of their profit or even a good percentage of it to expenses for operations" (i am not sure what you mean by "a good percentage of it"). that example was used for illistrative purposes. and i dont think your point refutes my premise. the small companies dont have to convert all of it, just some of it, to produce economic/job growth!

That "assumes" they are not already doing so. Small businesses are going to invest back into their companies in a prudent manner. But some things that cost money are not an investment as there is no ROI. It is a cost of doing business and those cost go up every year reducing next years profit line (assuming no increase in sales).
Higher taxation will make it even more difficult for the small businesses to function successfully year after year. I think it is the sort of thing that you have to "experience it" to know it as a fact.
I know on the surface it seems to you your concept will work...but there are so many factors it doesn't take into account...that...well..I don't know what else to say.

 

[ERD50]

I think one of the problem JDW, is I get the distinct impression that you're not familiar with the mechanics of how accounting/taxes work for businesses.

For jdw_fire - I think I can be more specific as to why your examples are not passing muster with us.

On one hand, you use the after-tax value of the income to claim that it will change behaviors:

the tax rates also play a role and a higher top tax rate will get small business owners to look for more ways to shelter that income

but then you say a purchaser should value the business based on the pre-tax profits.

You can't have it both ways. We are talking the effect of tax rates here, they have to apply to all the income, and to the future value of the business. The next business owner is buying the business for the income, and he/she will pay those higher rates.

Do you still really believe that higher marginal tax rates will spur investment? There's nothing about it that makes sense to me on a 'gut level', and the numbers don't add up either.

-ERD50

 

[sheehs1]

sheeeeezzzzz, i never said that in practice the company would "convert all of their profit or even a good percentage of it to expenses for operations" (i am not sure what you mean by "a good percentage of it"). that example was used for illistrative purposes. and i dont think your point refutes my premise. the small companies dont have to convert all of it, just some of it, to produce economic/job growth!

Not to keep this thread going but JDW....this is what you said in an earlier post

JDW: "what this post seems to miss is that the case i am making is that the profit for any given year is converted to expenses in that same year thus eliminating the profit and therefore eliminating the need to pay the taxes on it in the 1st place".

I think anyone reading this would take your statements to mean "there are no more profits to pay tax on".

 

[sheehs1]

thanks for the tip
that being said i did come up with a dollars and cents example that does support my premise. let me set the stage: i will use your 2 tax rates and nomenclature (i.e. case L and case H), the business in question is expecting to make a profit in this year and determines how much that profit will be earlier enough in the busines year to make a decision as to whether to invest it in the business (thereby converting the profit to business expense) or taking the profit and paying the taxes on it. the amount of the profit is $1M. the expected return from that profit is $88k/yr in additional profit. i will continue to use a 10% cap rate. so, should this business owner make the investment?

case L:

if the investment is not made the owner reaps $1M - $250k (income taxes) = $750K net to business owner.

if the investment is made the business increases in value by $880K. $880K - $132K (capital gains taxes) = $748K net to business owner.

case L bottom line, it doesnt pay the business owner to make the investment.

case H:

if the investment is not made the owner reaps $1M - $500k (income taxes) = $500K net to business owner.

if the investment is made the business increases in value by $880K. $880K - $132K (capital gains taxes) = $748K net to business owner.

case H bottom line, it does pay the business owner to make the investment.

JDW...I'd like to point out that some of the investments back into the business you talk about will not necessarily increase the value of the business. Business value is what someone will pay. More importantly, a strategic buyer will buy only "hard assets". They also calculate "cash flow" ratios when they are purchasing.
So unless that investment back into the business is for equipment and hard assets, the value of the business does not necessarily go up. Unless "cash flow" is increased by some means whether it is thru increased sales or reduced cost....it does not increase the value of the business.
Meaning..adding jobs or employees...does not necessarily equate to increased business value unless those two things happen. One can not assume it will. EX: The government requires new labeling laws, new environment restrictions on waste water and you have to spend money to hire an employee to implement, track..or there are new OSHA laws and you have to improve working conditions for your employees...etc. This all becomes an added cost of doing business, cost money but does not increase your business value.
The value of the business is "some" multiple of EBITA...and that multiple changes. Even with that it is what someone is willing to pay.

I think your thought...that any money left in the business increases business value...throws your entire concept off.

 

[meierlde]

There's one word that explains it all: UNCERTAINTY

Business owners are taking their profits and keeping them in cash. There is so much uncertainty they don't want to take a risk and have the govt tax them into oblivion.

My suspicion is that the meme that you can always borrow when you need to has been proven wrong by 2008. So as a result companies want to be in a position not to be forced to borrow and it may become a long term shift as debt becomes less desirable. (In particular if the taxation of interest looks like the taxation of dividends one way or the other the cheapness of debt begins to change)

 

[Midpack]

My suspicion is that the meme that you can always borrow when you need to has been proven wrong by 2008. So as a result companies want to be in a position not to be forced to borrow and it may become a long term shift as debt becomes less desirable. (In particular if the taxation of interest looks like the taxation of dividends one way or the other the cheapness of debt begins to change)

+1, an important point that many may not think of. Not being able to borrow even with good business/revenues-profits/collateral was a sea change...

 

[ERD50]

JDW...I'd like to point out that some of the investments back into the business you talk about will not necessarily increase the value of the business.

.... Unless "cash flow" is increased by some means whether it is thru increased sales or reduced cost....it does not increase the value of the business.

Good points. To supplement that, let me provide a numeric example.

Let's say I am negotiating to sell a business. I have three buyers talking with me about a number right around $10M. Now I go to all three, and tell them I am considering buying/installing a $1M machine (hard asset) at the business.

The three buyers will not automatically raise their bids by $1M. They will be asking 'how much added (after-tax) profit will this provide the business?', and then they will re-value the business based on the additional after-tax profit.

If the answer is 'No, no added profit, but it's a really nice, modern, expensive, shiny machine', the potential buyers will not be impressed. They will be calculating ' gee, if he installs this machine, and it does not add to profits, I'm going to rip it out ($ cost) and sell it on the used market for 60 cents on the dollar'. These potential buyers would tell the owner to NOT install that equipment.

It is not worth shifting cash flow to capital expenditures, unless that capital returns even more cash flow. And then that cash flow is taxed at those higher rates. If just shifting money to hard assets accomplished anything, I guess businesses would just buy piles of gravel or something, and hope to recoup the cost of that pile of gravel when they sell the business. Makes no sense, and businesses don't do that, do they? Cap gains rates are lower than corp income rates now - so why don't we see this now?

-ERD50

 

[rescueme]

The three buyers will not automatically raise their bids by $1M. They will be asking 'how much added (after-tax) profit will this provide the business?', and then they will re-value the business based on the additional after-tax profit.

Exactly (sounds like part of a BUS101 course I took eons ago ).

 

[ziggy29]

at the moment companies are having good revenue reports and, as i said in my 1st post on this thread, the highest profits/GDP in 60 years.

As long as this doesn't translate to more hiring and wage increases, the average person on the street doesn't feel particularly giddy about this and it isn't likely to keep them opening their wallets. My Megacorp has been posting record profits quarter after quarter since 2008, and I've had one 2% raise in the last 5 years.

 

[sheehs1]

It is not worth shifting cash flow to capital expenditures, unless that capital returns even more cash flow. And then that cash flow is taxed at those higher rates. If just shifting money to hard assets accomplished anything, I guess businesses would just buy piles of gravel or something, and hope to recoup the cost of that pile of gravel when they sell the business. Makes no sense, and businesses don't do that, do they? Cap gains rates are lower than corp income rates now - so why don't we see this now?

-ERD50

Thanks for putting some numbers to it ERD50....

 

[ERD50]

Thanks for putting some numbers to it ERD50....

Yes, I got wordy... again

The numbers were in the section above, which you didn't quote:

Let's say I am negotiating to sell a business. I have three buyers talking with me about a number right around $10M. Now I go to all three, and tell them I am considering buying/installing a $1M machine (hard asset) at the business.

The three buyers will not automatically raise their bids by $1M. They will be asking 'how much added (after-tax) profit will this provide the business?', and then they will re-value the business based on the additional after-tax profit.

-ERD50

 

[sheehs1]

Yes, I got wordy... again

The numbers were in the section above, which you didn't quote:



-ERD50

Others, including you.... had or have said the same thing I did ...perhaps in a different way... but the points had been made. When one talks about increased business value, it needs to include "increased cash flow", "an increase in hard assets", increased sales, increased profit, EBITA...etc. all of which i know you and others on this thread...more than understand.
Raising taxes...puts more of a road block up ..towards all of those things.

 

[jdw_fire]

it is obvious that i am the only one arguing this side of my premise so the fact that there are multiple of you taking the other side is making responding to each of your posts alot of work and is very tiring. however, when you overlook points in my argument and then make your points based on that overlooking it really makes me feel like "what is the point of responding to them when they dont even read my posts".

JDW...I'd like to point out that some of the investments back into the business you talk about will not necessarily increase the value of the business. Business value is what someone will pay. More importantly, a strategic buyer will buy only "hard assets". They also calculate "cash flow" ratios when they are purchasing.
So unless that investment back into the business is for equipment and hard assets, the value of the business does not necessarily go up. Unless "cash flow" is increased by some means whether it is thru increased sales or reduced cost....it does not increase the value of the business.
Meaning..adding jobs or employees...does not necessarily equate to increased business value unless those two things happen. One can not assume it will. EX: The government requires new labeling laws, new environment restrictions on waste water and you have to spend money to hire an employee to implement, track..or there are new OSHA laws and you have to improve working conditions for your employees...etc. This all becomes an added cost of doing business, cost money but does not increase your business value.
The value of the business is "some" multiple of EBITA...and that multiple changes. Even with that it is what someone is willing to pay.

I think your thought...that any money left in the business increases business value...throws your entire concept off.

Good points. To supplement that, let me provide a numeric example.

Let's say I am negotiating to sell a business. I have three buyers talking with me about a number right around $10M. Now I go to all three, and tell them I am considering buying/installing a $1M machine (hard asset) at the business.

The three buyers will not automatically raise their bids by $1M. They will be asking 'how much added (after-tax) profit will this provide the business?', and then they will re-value the business based on the additional after-tax profit.

If the answer is 'No, no added profit, but it's a really nice, modern, expensive, shiny machine', the potential buyers will not be impressed. They will be calculating ' gee, if he installs this machine, and it does not add to profits, I'm going to rip it out ($ cost) and sell it on the used market for 60 cents on the dollar'. These potential buyers would tell the owner to NOT install that equipment.

It is not worth shifting cash flow to capital expenditures, unless that capital returns even more cash flow. And then that cash flow is taxed at those higher rates. If just shifting money to hard assets accomplished anything, I guess businesses would just buy piles of gravel or something, and hope to recoup the cost of that pile of gravel when they sell the business. Makes no sense, and businesses don't do that, do they? Cap gains rates are lower than corp income rates now - so why don't we see this now?

-ERD50

Others, including you.... had or have said the same thing I did ...perhaps in a different way... but the points had been made. When one talks about increased business value, it needs to include "increased cash flow", "an increase in hard assets", increased sales, increased profit, EBITA...etc. all of which i know you and others on this thread...more than understand.
Raising taxes...puts more of a road block up ..towards all of those things.

all based on the following post but you all overlooked what i highlight in red

that being said i did come up with a dollars and cents example that does support my premise. let me set the stage: i will use your 2 tax rates and nomenclature (i.e. case L and case H), the business in question is expecting to make a profit in this year and determines how much that profit will be earlier enough in the busines year to make a decision as to whether to invest it in the business (thereby converting the profit to business expense) or taking the profit and paying the taxes on it. the amount of the profit is $1M. the expected return from that profit is $88k/yr in additional profit. i will continue to use a 10% cap rate. so, should this business owner make the investment?

case L:

if the investment is not made the owner reaps $1M - $250k (income taxes) = $750K net to business owner.

if the investment is made the business increases in value by $880K. $880K - $132K (capital gains taxes) = $748K net to business owner.

case L bottom line, it doesnt pay the business owner to make the investment.

case H:

if the investment is not made the owner reaps $1M - $500k (income taxes) = $500K net to business owner.

if the investment is made the business increases in value by $880K. $880K - $132K (capital gains taxes) = $748K net to business owner.

case H bottom line, it does pay the business owner to make the investment.

and if you all had read the the post i was responding to and the discussion leading up to it, it should have been obvious that the argument i was making was that the investment of the scheduled profit back into the company would produce an increased expected profit the following year.

i am especially surprised at ERD50 doing it since i was responding to his example (see below) and in that response i followed his premise that the investment back into the company would produce an increase in profit the next and following years.

...

If so, then let's base it on the cases I used from the previous thread, and label them "Case L" for relatively lower income tax rates, and "Case H" for relatively higher income tax rates. Let's spread it over 10 years.


Let's put numbers to it - Say a person has a $1M taxable gain each year. Let's look at 10 year results with 50% effective tax rates versus 25% effective tax rates:

Case H: @ 50% rates, $10M gain, $5.0M Tax, $5.0M Take Home
Case L: @ 25% rates, $10M gain, $2.5M Tax, $7.5M Take Home

So consider if they invest the first year profits at the beginning of the year, and assume they get 25% higher profits each year based on their investment for the next 10 years. That is $12.5M over the ten years minus the $1M reinvested = $11.5M

Case H: @ 50% rates, $11.5M gain, $5.750M Tax, $5.750M Take Home
Case L: @ 25% rates, $11.5M gain, $2.875M Tax, $8.625M Take Home

In the other thread, you wanted to factor in the increased value of the business if it was sold, at 10x the increased annual profits...

Case H: annual after-tax profit increase due to investment = $0.750M; x10 = $ 7.50M more sale value
Case L: annual after-tax profit increase due to investment = $1.125M; x10 = $11.25M more sale value

...
-ERD50

 

[jdw_fire]

As long as this doesn't translate to more hiring and wage increases, the average person on the street doesn't feel particularly giddy about this and it isn't likely to keep them opening their wallets. My Megacorp has been posting record profits quarter after quarter since 2008, and I've had one 2% raise in the last 5 years.

you are correct and in fact, instead of feeling giddy, the average person on the street might just start feeling resentful. i know people who are resentful of the company they work for not giving any of the employees raises even though the company is making large profits. so i am suggesting raising the income tax rates in the upper brackets. then, 1 of 2 things happen to these profits: 1) they get taxed at the higher rate (which will lower the US gov deficit) or 2) the business owners reinvest that profit into there business before it is booked as a profit and that will mean either spending it on something for the business (increasing economic growth) or hire new employee(s) (increasing job growth)

 

[ERD50]

and if you all had read the the post i was responding to and the discussion leading up to it, it should have been obvious that the argument i was making was that the investment of the scheduled profit back into the company would produce an increased expected profit the following year.

i am especially surprised at ERD50 doing it since i was responding to his example (see below) and in that response i followed his premise that the investment back into the company would produce an increase in profit the next and following years.

jdw, I believe you have the same error there as before, using pre-tax profit where you need to use after-tax profit. But I will take a closer look and formulate a response when I have more time to quadruple check my work.

Thanks - ERD50

 

[Texas Proud]

Jdw-fire.... you still have not answered the question of your background... I am waiting... until then you are trolling with little knowledge IMO...

Most eople invest their money to get the highest AFTER TAX income they can... investing in something that has a higher tax as opposed to a lower tax means less investing...

The simple supply and demand curve tell you that if you increase the cost of something the demand goes down... higher taxes ONLY increase the cost of something.... so demand goes down... all your arguments are based on wishes and what ifs that do not reflect real society...

I would love to see any credible economist that supports even a hint of what you say.... even the most liberal ones that I see say 'it is not the time to raise taxes with the economy the way it is'....

 

[Texas Proud]

it is obvious that i am the only one arguing this side of my premise so the fact that there are multiple of you taking the other side is making responding to each of your posts alot of work and is very tiring. however, when you overlook points in my argument and then make your points based on that overlooking it really makes me feel like "what is the point of responding to them when they dont even read my posts".

Kind of shows how weak an argument it is, does it not

I do not overlook your responses... but it is like a guy a few offices down who said 'I can say the sky is pink all day long but it does not make it pink'....

 

[packrat44]

We can have lower taxes for individuals and small business owners or we can have higher taxes.

With lower taxes the individuals and small business owner are allowed to choose how to spend and how it will do the most good. They have strong motivation to spend wisely.

With higher taxes, our politicians get to choose how the money is spent. They do not have strong motivation to spend wisely. Once a politician is elected it appears they spend an excess amout of time on their reelection efforts than working on what is truly good for the country in the long term. They are short term thinkers. They want to look good on their watch and appease the masses so they get reelected. While buying votes outright is illegal, that is exactly what politicians are doing by wasteful and overspending. It feels good for some on the receiving end at that moment, but future generations will pay dearly. By the time payment becomes due, those politicians are long gone.

When big governments and politicians get things so fouled up as they have now, it becomes difficult for individuals and small business owners to know what is the right move. Our government and politicians most definetly do not know what direction to go. Their answer to resolving the finacial problems was to raise the debt ceiling. With that kind of reasoning they could solve the drunk driiving problem by simply raising the alcohol-blood limit.

I have great sorrow for those much younger than myself that with have to pay dearly in the future for the errors of our government and politicians who were short sighted. We need experienced businessmen running our government rather than a bunch of lawyers (sorry Martha, no slam intended).

 

[chinaco]

There's one word that explains it all: UNCERTAINTY

Business owners are taking their profits and keeping them in cash.

Yup... I agree with that assessment.

There is so much uncertainty they don't want to take a risk and have the govt tax them into oblivion.

Uh uh... oh, of course no one wants to be taxed into oblivion. But that level hasn't been discussed... at least not yet.

It is purely about the economic fear (another recession or stagnation) and the level of business opportunity they have right now. If they can squeak by with their current workforce level or delay expenditures/expenses... that is what they will do it... most businesses are not adding employees unless they absolutely have to do it.

 

[MichaelB]

Kind of shows how weak an argument it is, does it not

No, it doesn't. A position is weak because of its merits, not it popularity.

I do not overlook your responses... but it is like a guy a few offices down who said 'I can say the sky is pink all day long but it does not make it pink'....

Of course, the same could be said of all the others who continue to make the same points over and over again.

 

[sheehs1]

JDW...I don't think people have overlooked what you are saying. Sorry you feel that way.
In all seriousness....have you given any thought to the validity of the responses you have received? Do you not see where...they create big holes in your theory? This is a two way street (or not) and I don't sense in your writing that you have given any thoughtful pondering to what has been said...even when given hard facts, data and real life examples.

Not to change the subject but to add to how the government fouls things up. Read an article in the WSJ last night regarding our Nuclear Waste problem. Thirty years ago the federal government took over the problem of disposing of our nuclear waste. Bottom line, companies have been paying a tax for over 30 years to the federal government. That money was supposed to be used for the Nuclear Waste disposal program. Instead, the federal government took the money, routed it to the general fund and spent it !! Nuclear waste is piling up! How much money are we talking about? 25 billion....plus another 16 billion in law suits against the government. (WSJ Tuesday, August 9th page A3)
Sounds a bit like the social Security dollars it got...huh?