Isn't Dannon (or Danone) involved in an "inversion" tax haven strategy? They might be one of the companies that does not benefit from this at all.
Isn't Dannon (or Danone) involved in an "inversion" tax haven strategy? They might be one of the companies that does not benefit from this at all.
Isn't Dannon (or Danone) involved in an "inversion" tax haven strategy? They might be one of the companies that does not benefit from this at all.
What's an "inversion" tax haven? I know they are classified as a public benefit company or some nonsense like that because they pretend to be environmentally friendly and sell nutritious (sugar filled) food.
That doesn't matter. DanoneWave is owned by Danone, and their official headquarters appears to be in France so the subsidiary is also technically headquartered in France. From their interim report, the effective tax rate on all their companies (they didn't differentiate by company or country), is 30.3 - 32.x%. It's possible under the new tax code that the US now becomes Danone's tax shelter.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
And most of us will wait a year or more for our wages/salaries catch up. Yeah inflation!
Rich people get more money that they get to spend at today's prices, cause inflation, and then drag their feet increasing the pay of their workforce. Woo-hoo
Deficit spending is a transfer of wealth. In this case(most cases) from the working poor to the wealthy. Whoever gets the "new dollar" first gets a little bit of every one else's dollar.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Wait, are some of you still debating whether this tax bill will actually increase the deficit?
Dude...
Guys...
Stop trusting what the orange clown says.
It’s really not that hard.
The CBO, the Tax Foundation, Heritage, hell even Goldman Sachs predicts these tax cuts to add $1 trillion onto the deficit by 2019.
The question isn’t whether this is redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class or whether this will add to the deficit, the question is if the GOP will swing for the fences and shred New Deal programs and safety nets to make up for the deficits?
Many repubs, knowing that they’re facing a blue tidal wave, might see that they have nothing to lose and finally fulfill their fantasies of erasing major progressive reforms. Some repubs might see an opportunity here to slash entitlements, since many of the individual tax cuts won’t expire for another decade. Make the cuts now, while you control all 3 branches.
Paul Ryan, for instance, has already said that the house will target SS and Medicare next year. Marco Rubio has hinted as much. McConnell and Trump meanwhile, have denied their desires for entitlement reform. But that won’t mean they won’t. They may see 2018 as their last year to get anything done.
So I think we are debating the wrong issue here.
* We know it’s going to add to the deficit.
* We know it won’t stimule the economy. We are already at full employment.
* Business owners have already admitted in conferences with Munchin that these tax cuts will be manifest in shareholder dividends and CEO bonuses, not job creation or salary increases.
* we know this will only lead to increased wealth inequality and political instability. But the GOP has thrived on this issue, successfully deflecting the primary cause and successfully deflected the blame onto entitlements and immigrants.
* But what we don’t know is what will be cut because of this tax cut. What do the Kochs and Mercers want to slash?
If entitlements are slashed but trump voters (the GOP core) are too stupid or brainwashed by Fox News to understand, then why won’t congresspeople support entitlement reform since they’ll be primaried for being too liberal?
Dude...
Guys...
Stop trusting what the orange clown says.
It’s really not that hard.
The CBO, the Tax Foundation, Heritage, hell even Goldman Sachs predicts these tax cuts to add $1 trillion onto the deficit by 2019.
The question isn’t whether this is redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class or whether this will add to the deficit, the question is if the GOP will swing for the fences and shred New Deal programs and safety nets to make up for the deficits?
Many repubs, knowing that they’re facing a blue tidal wave, might see that they have nothing to lose and finally fulfill their fantasies of erasing major progressive reforms. Some repubs might see an opportunity here to slash entitlements, since many of the individual tax cuts won’t expire for another decade. Make the cuts now, while you control all 3 branches.
Paul Ryan, for instance, has already said that the house will target SS and Medicare next year. Marco Rubio has hinted as much. McConnell and Trump meanwhile, have denied their desires for entitlement reform. But that won’t mean they won’t. They may see 2018 as their last year to get anything done.
So I think we are debating the wrong issue here.
* We know it’s going to add to the deficit.
* We know it won’t stimule the economy. We are already at full employment.
* Business owners have already admitted in conferences with Munchin that these tax cuts will be manifest in shareholder dividends and CEO bonuses, not job creation or salary increases.
* we know this will only lead to increased wealth inequality and political instability. But the GOP has thrived on this issue, successfully deflecting the primary cause and successfully deflected the blame onto entitlements and immigrants.
* But what we don’t know is what will be cut because of this tax cut. What do the Kochs and Mercers want to slash?
If entitlements are slashed but trump voters (the GOP core) are too stupid or brainwashed by Fox News to understand, then why won’t congresspeople support entitlement reform since they’ll be primaried for being too liberal?
Last edited:
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
The tax plan creates exploding deficits.
Which then creates the need/sense of urgency to make cuts to safety nets.
So not only to you see redistribution of wealth via tax cuts but then the middle and lower class get hit with cuts to programs they primarily Benefit from.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-is-just-a-prelude-to-attacking-entitlements/
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Stupid post. In what way was the ACA similar to this tax bill?
The ACA was debated for over 9 months, was presented in countless town halls, included over 100 amendments proposed by republicans (but then voted against because they wanted to make obama a one term president).
Oh, ontop of that, the ACA helped the country. Sure, some of you saw premiums go up. But that was already the case prior to the ACA passing. Some people act as if premiums had never gone up. Sheesh
Comparing the ACA to this unpopular tax bill literally written in the wee hours of the night by hundreds of lobbyists (with hand written notes and amendments) was unprecedented. Oh, and literally a handful of the richest Americans are benefitting from it. It’s the complete opposite of what trump campaigned on. He claimed he’d make rich people, like himself, pay their fair share and use those revenues to rebuild America. He’s doing the opposite. He’s pulling a reverse Robin Hood. He’s robbing his constituents and flooding the swamp he promised to drain.
So I’m not seeing the parallels to the ACA at all.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Thriller killing it
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Thank you.
One last post, doesn’t anyone find it a little suspicious that one year before this tax law kicks into effect that a handful of large corporations are already publicly announcing bonus checks to some employees? So clearly, they have the cash, why did they wait until this tax law was ramrodded through to give what could be a one time bonus check? Which, in the long run, will it compensate workers more the the tax increases/safety net losses?
Call me cynical, but I doubt this one time $1,000 dollar bonus that Comcast is offering to employees right now will compensate for the increased costs in health care due to the individual mandate being repealed and the cuts in safety nets required to offset budget deficits. Will it offset their increase in taxes due to SALT deductions going away? How about those who were using tution or medical deductions?
So IMO, it’s pretty disingenuous for large corporations to “award” employees with temporary bonuses (not salary increases) hoping they’ll forget how bad of a deal this tax law is for individual workers. Especially once the deficits explode and certain popular deductions expire in 2019-2027.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
My
What's it say?
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Do I have this formatted wrong? Anyone know? Here’s the tweet(s)
In a rally in September:
“I have some very wealthy friends -- not so happy with me” - Trump to voters at a Missouri rally
Last night:
"You all just got a lot richer," President Trump told friends dining at Mar-a-Lago Friday night, hours after signing tax overhaul into law
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
@Stoked
This is a “strong note???” Really?
http://www.newsweek.com/christmas-att-layoffs-midwest-bonuses-trump-758391
The companies who are handing out bonuses have not yet received the tax benefits from the new law, which means they could have afforded these bonuses at any time and chose not to do so. It is now just a PR move made at an advantageous moment. Good for the workers who get the bonuses, though a big raise would have been what would make a difference in their lives.
It is absolutely a PR move. Wells Fargo and Bancorp raised their minimum wage to $15 an hour and Boing will now have a matching TSP. Still shows they could have afforded this. But the CEOs gave the tax reform the credit.
J
JAZZGASM
Guest
1)Check your numbers. The tax bill will definitely not add a trillion to the deficit by 2019. The deficit may hit a TOTAL of trillion for 2018, but that is because we are already running a huge deficit. The tax bill is anticipated to raise the deficit by 1.5 trillion over a decade. Sounds like you have an agenda to state the bill will increase spending by a trillion by 2019. Look at the deficit added in the year the ACA was implemented (2010) was almost $2 Trillion, or check every year since 2008. Doesn't make the increase in deficit from the tax bill seem too bad. I mean, I hate the tax bill too, but let's post some accurate numbers.
2) Both the ACA and the Tax bill have a lot of flaws. Both were designed to redistribute wealth from the middle class, and I hate both for different reasons. Simply but, the ACA was implemented with the goal of a future single payer system when the ACA became unsustainable. The bill was sold as a "fix" to our healthcare system, when every politician knew it would not fix the major flaw (trying to operate a micro free market health system in our country when there is a global socialist health system). Essentially pre and post PPA, the U.S. subsidizes the medical costs for much of the world. The tax bill also contains a lot of flaws, but it does reduce taxes, and from a total percentage standpoint, it reduces taxes pretty significantly for the middle class, and attempted to clean up a lot of issues (that unfortunately had most of the cut items added back in--gotta love the corrupt political system). The tax bill was put in place with the idea to trim entitlements. This needs to be done regardless of what happens with taxes. Obviously Trump is lying when he says the bill was not done as part of this goal. It is a big part of the republican point of view. The sad fact is, everyone wants their entitlements, but we are ALREADY running huge deficits. There needs to be reductions either way. And it should start with the older generation as they have already received a lot of benefit that the current workforce is paying for and will never receive. We also need to cut out foreign aid if we don't have $$$ to spend. The tax bill will reduce a lot of tax to middle income individuals, in the near term, but hurt them in the long-term unless parts of the bill are renewed. In fact, from a percentage standpoint, it will help the middle class out of the gate the most. From a dollar perspective, it will put more $$$ back in the pockets of the rich, which is anticipated as the richest Americans (to 20%) pay 69% of federal income tax (and 45-50% (depending on how you crunch the data) of American households pay 0 income tax). So they both have in common that they had deceptive motives that hurt the middle class. Expect anything different from Congress?
3) You really believe the ACA didn't cause a significant increase to premiums? Per Forbes:
The data allow us to break down the pre- and post-ACA changes by age, individual vs. family, and plan type. Overall, Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) premiums actually decreased 4.6% in the four years before the ACA reforms came into effect (that is, from 2009 to 2013), but increased 46.4% in the first four years under the ACA. Point-of-Service (POS) premiums decreased 14.9% before the ACA, and increased a whopping 66.2% afterwards. Premiums for the more common Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) plans increased 15% in the four years before the ACA, and 66.2% afterwards.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...are-act-that-increased-premiums/#4a825e4911d2
The ACA allowed anyone with a pre-existing illness to get insurance coverage for any time in the future. So essentially, it takes everyone in a cost sharing pool, and increases there costs because other people that haven't been contributing to the cost sharing pool can join with no limitation. And then congress was flummoxed as to why young healthy people were not signing up (they knew full well what the numbers would look like out of the gate). Why pay for homeowners insurance every month when you can get coverage for your house after it burns down?
The other thing the ACA did, is it requires employers with over 50 FT employees to provide those employees with good affordable coverage, but no requirements for affordable coverage for spouses or children. In effect, this has caused employers to provide low premium insurance to employees only, and very high cost insurance to add spouse or families. The fact that we have so many two parent working families in this country attenuates what the actual overall increase in premiums. So what, in effect has the ACA done???? It has hurt the middle class by increasing premiums while subsidizing insurance for the poor. The rich from a percentage standpoint had little effect from the ACA. Both bills hurt the middle class.
TLDR:
1) The tax bill will not come close to increasing the debt by a trillion by 2019
2) The ACA DID increases premiums
3) The ACA and Tax bill will hurt the middle class (unless steps are taken to renew provisions of the tax bill)
4) I hate the ACA
5) I hate the tax bill
6) I hate Gargamel
Last edited by a moderator:
candrew
Well-Known Member
There was an initial spike in premiums when the ACA went into effect mostly because of the increased benefit requirements - your above example being one of them. Obama knew that was going to happen and wasn't as forthcoming about it with the American public as he should have been; which resulted in a nice "gotcha moment" - shame on him.
But since then, the rate of growth in premiums have gone down every year and we are now at a historical LOW.
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/03/employer-premiums-and-the-aca/
And, oh yeah, millions of Americans now have health insurance that didn't have it before. I'd call that a fair trade off.