USA & World Economics

[QUOTE=Jackson;441388]Hey Esten,

So fucking what?

Did any of this make you any poorer?

Did any of this make anyone any poorer?

Then what's your complaint?

Oh, I get it, you just don't like that somebody else made some money.[/QUOTE]No, you don't get it Jackson. The Alibaba IPO is one aspect of many of an economic system that is increasingly dominated by large corporations (some call it Corporatism). It is largely controlled by wealthy interests looking to make themselves richer, not to create jobs or help the broad economy. Well-funded corporations gradually out-muscle and displace small businesses, or acquire them, and the wealthy interests exert control on these corporations to extract profits. These profits do indeed come at the expense of others, in the form of layoffs, understaffing, and stagnant wage growth. These profits in turn are used in subsequent financial "investments", parking cash in more dividend-paying companies and instant profit IPO deals.

I don't have a problem with people making money. I have a problem with an economic system in which prosperity is shared so unequally.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;441397] Regarding the tax on Wal-Mart, who pays it? Answer: Wal-Mart shareholders and Wal-Mart customers. The customers might be poor but the shareholders aren't. Which group pays what percentage? The excess burden of a tax falls mostly on the seller in a highly competitive, commodity-oriented market like Wal-Mart operates in. That means the burden of the tax falls mainly on the (rich) shareholders. [/QUOTE]I think you've got that backwards. In a business where you have to shave pennies to compete, the excess burden is more likely to fall on customers and employees. Or look at it in terms of the dividend payout ratio. Walmart's has increased through the years, from 10% to 38%, although the 38% may be an outlier. In any event, in recent years, about 30% of profits have been distributed to shareholders. The other 70% have gone back into the business. I'd argue that part that goes back into the business largely benefits customers and employees. And income taxes reduce retained earnings, used to grow the business, as well as profits distributed as dividends.

Of course Esten would argue otherwise. If a company like Walmart invests to grow the business, that's not benefiting anyone except the rich shareholders, whose dividends by the way account for about 1. 2% of the sales of the company.

[QUOTE=Esten;441404]Tiny's statement is typical of right wingers who don't understand or can't refute arguments from the left. He [B]lies[/B]. I never said companies shouldn't be allowed to raise capital by selling stock.

Lying, distortion and mis-characterization are staples of right wing politics and their media outlets.[/QUOTE]So exactly what were you saying Esten? Alibaba sold shares. You said that's a bad thing. I think I understand though. It's okay if people buy and sell shares in a business, just so long as they don't make a profit.

[QUOTE=Esten;441405]No, you don't get it Jackson. The Alibaba IPO is one aspect of many of an economic system that is increasingly dominated by large corporations (some call it Corporatism). It is largely controlled by wealthy interests looking to make themselves richer, not to create jobs or help the broad economy. Well-funded corporations gradually out-muscle and displace small businesses, or acquire them, and the wealthy interests exert control on these corporations to extract profits. These profits do indeed come at the expense of others, in the form of layoffs, understaffing, and stagnant wage growth. These profits in turn are used in subsequent financial "investments", parking cash in more dividend-paying companies and instant profit IPO deals.

I don't have a problem with people making money. I have a problem with an economic system in which prosperity is shared so unequally.[/QUOTE]What's the solution? Have the government take over the corporations? Then government could make sure there are no layoffs and that companies are overstaffed. Low productivity - that's the ticket. And then government could grow wages much faster than inflation. Government could could get rid of those evil dividends and IPO's. In doing that you could make sure crappy companies with low returns will hold onto all their cash, and conversely keep promising new companies from raising funds through public offerings.

Tiny, I think they did that already in a little place once called the USSR and it was a resounding failure.

I'm sure Esten will find some twisted, tortured exercise in creative thinking to prove this wrong somehow.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;441407]I think you've got that backwards. In a business where you have to shave pennies to compete, the excess burden is more likely to fall on customers and employees. Or look at it in terms of the dividend payout ratio. Walmart's has increased through the years, from 10% to 38%, although the 38% may be an outlier. In any event, in recent years, about 30% of profits have been distributed to shareholders. The other 70% have gone back into the business. I'd argue that part that goes back into the business largely benefits customers and employees. And income taxes reduce retained earnings, used to grow the business, as well as profits distributed as dividends.[/QUOTE]The dividend payout ratio is irrelevant as long as dividends and capital gains are taxed at the same rate (see Modigliani and Miller, who won a Nobel Prize demonstrating this). Typically a firm's payout ratio increases as it matures and has fewer profitable opportunities to expand. That pretty well describes Wal-Mart. Retained earnings can't be used to grow the business. Retained earnings do not represent cash, nor claims on future cash. Retained earnings is merely the excess of credits over debits to the corporation's nominal accounts over its entire life. As far as on whom the excess burden of a tax falls, you can research that on your own.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;441415] Retained earnings can't be used to grow the business. Retained earnings do not represent cash, nor claims on future cash. Retained earnings is merely the excess of credits over debits to the corporation's nominal accounts over its entire life. [/QUOTE]Respectfully, your first sentence above is not true. Retained earnings result in an equivalent increase in shareholders equity. They can translate to an increase in cash. Or a decrease in bank debt, or increase in property plant & equipment, or increase in working capital, etc. Just like an increase in borrowings or selling equity, they can and are used to grow the business. If your point is that free cash flow and net income are not the same, then I agree.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;441418]Respectfully, your first sentence above is not true. Retained earnings result in an equivalent increase in shareholders equity. They can translate to an increase in cash. Or a decrease in bank debt, or increase in property plant & equipment, or increase in working capital, etc. Just like an increase in borrowings or selling equity, they can and are used to grow the business. If your point is that free cash flow and net income are not the same, then I agree.[/QUOTE]Sorry, no. You cannot pay down bank debt, or any other debt, with retained earnings. You can't buy property, plant, and equipment with retained earnings. Retained earnings neither increase nor decrease working capital. Yes, as retained earnings increase or decrease, so does equity. You can't pay down debt or buy equipment with equity either. My point is that retained earnings is the least meaningful number on most balance sheets, and is not a liquidity concept. Basically, retained earnings is a "plug. " If you don't believe me, you could read the literature on it, but the literature on retained earnings is remarkably boring even by accounting standards. One reason for that is precisely because retained earnings is such a meaningless number.

You're focusing on a lot of the wrong things (corporate tax rates, dividend payout ratios, retained earnings), things that don't affect the overall economy. If corporate rates were lower, individual rates would be higher and vice versa. So, only one system or the other is needed. The difference between borrowing or selling equity, versus increasing retained earnings, is that in the former two cases there is a debit to cash, whereas in the case of an increase in retained earnings, the debit is very seldom to cash even if you collapse the transaction through the operating cycle. Retained earnings is polluted by bullshit like stock dividends and historical cost depreciation. It's not a good number to focus on.

From Wikipedia: "Retained earnings refers to the portion of net income of a corporation that is retained by the corporation rather than distributed to shareholders as dividends. " I'm talking about this concept, not the number that appears on a balance sheet. You're getting bogged down in accounting minutiae.

Let me make it simple. If Walmart produces $1 billion in free cash flow, and distributes $300 million in dividends to shareholders, and retains the remaining $700 million in the business, the $700 million can grow the business. Growth in the business means they hire more people, open more stores, have more customers, pay more property and sales taxes, etc. That's good for the economy. The $700 million in undistributed free cash flow, in an intensely competitive business, also provides a margin to cut prices, which is good for shoppers.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;441419]If corporate rates were lower, individual rates would be higher and vice versa. So, only one system or the other is needed. [/QUOTE]

I have no argument with that. It takes an ungodly amount of time and effort for individuals and businesses to comply with the tax code. Doing away with the corporate tax and simplifying the rest of the system would be a good thing.

Where we probably disagree is that I'd like to see the income tax system promoting investment, savings, and debt reduction, while you likely believe it should promote consumption and higher federal government expenditures.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;441420]Let me make it simple. If Walmart produces $1 billion in free cash flow, and distributes $300 million in dividends to shareholders, and retains the remaining $700 million in the business, the $700 million can grow the business.[/QUOTE]And if it distributes the whole $1 billion as a dividend, the shareholders receiving the dividend can invest in things with much higher growth potential than Wal-Mart. It's just a management choice, the payout ratio, and retained earnings remains meaningless.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;441420]Where we probably disagree is that I'd like to see the income tax system promoting investment, savings, and debt reduction, while you likely believe it should promote consumption and higher federal government expenditures.[/QUOTE]Mmmm. That's kind of backwards of how I view it. I think that in times of slack demand, higher (any) government expenditures can promote consumption, if done effectively. And, I do believe that reducing government expenditures can brake an overheating economy.

How would you propose to promote debt reduction with the tax structure? Eliminate the interest deduction? Again, if done at the corporate level it would be meaningless, and except for mortgage and investment interest, that was done long ago at the individual level. I bet a lot of people don't even remember that you used to be able to deduct credit card interest, car loan interest, etc. Boy, was that a bad idea! I guess I don't want the tax structure to "promote" anything in particular. I am fine with eliminating the mortgage interest deduction.

The current idea for "promoting investment" is the Section 179 rapid write off. Previously we had accelerated depreciation on real estate. Then there are a lot of bullshit targeted credits that I'm not to enamored of. Those are all pretty feeble, so you could sure make some suggestions there. There are a few provisions now to promote savings, such as the IRA deduction, the retirement contribution credit, 401 and 457 plans, 529 plans, and tax deferral of capital gains.

I'd argue that progressive tax rates give wealthier people an incentive to promptly invest excess funds in some form or another, since dividends are preferentially taxed and capital gains are deferred until sale. The higher the tax rate, the greater should be the motivating effect of the deferral. If you wanted to put bondholders on a more equal footing with equity holders, you could get rid of the OID rules and then people could buy zero coupon bonds and defer taxation until maturity; I would favor that change for fairness.

[QUOTE=Jackson;441388]Hey Esten,

So fucking what?

Did any of this make you any poorer?

Did any of this make anyone any poorer?

Then what's your complaint?

Oh, I get it, you just don't like that somebody else made some money.

Thanks,

Jax.[/QUOTE]He is also ignoring that most IPO stocks have required holding periods.

[URL]http://www.ehow.com/how_12292230_sell-post-ipo-stock.html[/URL]

In the sense that the brokerage firms do intentionally under price the shares to guarantee themselves a profit, I would agree. But the losers in that case are those shareholders prior to the IPO. And since Esten would consider them greedy, blood sucking parasites, I doubt he is concerned that they experienced less enrichment.

Dickhead, You're dancing around the main point. You said benefits of a lower corporate tax rate flow through mostly to the "rich" shareholders. You therefore believe, if there is to be a corporate income tax, that high rates are fine and dandy. All this makes about as much sense as Esten maintaining Alibaba shouldn't raise equity capital by selling shares because he (incorrectly) believes most of the benefit goes to rich Wall Street types. You tax business at high rates and the private sector and the economy suffer, not just the "rich" shareholders. The rest of the world, including the Scandinavian countries and Switzerland that you held up as models in a previous post, learned this lesson and lowered corporate rates. They get it.

To answer your question, a higher percentage of revenues from taxes should be used to pay down government debt.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;441429]Dickhead, You're dancing around the main point. You said benefits of a lower corporate tax rate flow through mostly to the "rich" shareholders. You therefore believe, if there is to be a corporate income tax, that high rates are fine and dandy. All this makes about as much sense as Esten maintaining Alibaba shouldn't raise equity capital by selling shares because he (incorrectly) believes most of the benefit goes to rich Wall Street types. You tax business at high rates and the private sector and the economy suffer, not just the "rich" shareholders. The rest of the world, including the Scandinavian countries and Switzerland that you held up as models in a previous post, learned this lesson and lowered corporate rates. They get it.

To answer your question, a higher percentage of revenues from taxes should be used to pay down government debt.[/QUOTE]I never said anything about the benefits of a lower corporate tax rate. [B]The corporate tax, and the corporate tax rate, are irrelevant[/B]. I said, and you can research this, that the excess burden of a tax falls on the consumer to the extent their demand is inelastic, and on the corporation and thus the shareholders to the extent demand is elastic. That's all I said. Then I said Wal-Mart looks like an example of a company whose customers are very price sensitive, meaning elastic demand. Then I said that the higher the corporate rate is, the lower the individual rate needs to be, and vice versa. What you just don't understand, even though you say you do, that the corporate tax and the individual tax are one and the same since shareholders and not corporations pay the corporate tax, and since shareholders are either individuals or other entities held by individuals in the long run. Thus high corporate rates are "fine and dandy" if individual rates are lowered as a result. [B]And vice versa[/B].

But remember, I don't favor either high corporate tax rates or low corporate tax rates. I favor the immediate and complete abolition of the corporate income tax, because it's redundant. The overall savings to the economy would be tremendous, and it's these types of gains in efficiency that can truly lead to sustainable growth. It's similar to a productivity increase.

So don't paint me with Esten's brush, because I haven't said any of the same things. Maybe you would like me to be more philosophically opposed to you so the discussion would be more interesting, but I just don't view anything financial in philosophical terms. I am 100% pragmatic about economics and taxation. You could label me a demand-sider or a Keynesian but you can't paint me as advocating high corporate tax rates. I don't, and I haven't.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;441429]All this makes about as much sense as Esten maintaining Alibaba shouldn't raise equity capital by selling shares because he (incorrectly) believes most of the benefit goes to rich Wall Street types. [/QUOTE]Tiny, you can repeat your [B]LIES[/B] about me as much as you want, but they're still [B]LIES[/B].

I fully support raising capital by selling shares. However, in IPO deals like this it's easy money for those who get shares, which in most cases are in fact rich Wall Street types. The average Joe didn't have a chance at getting in.

I stand somewhat corrected by Dccpa who notes the holding period, which sometimes (not always) applies. We brought this up before with Twitter. Looking back at TWTR, it never fell below it's IPO price, so everyone who got in made a profit. Again, mostly Wall Street.

Almost all economic gains in recent decades have gone to the top few %. There is something terribly wrong with that. And the cause is free market capitalism. The answer is better regulation of capitalism.

[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/opinion/roger-cohen-truths-of-a-french-village.html[/URL]

If I could, I always avoid Starbucks but they do have the best locations, so convenience comes into play often. And they do represent a certain standard of product that you can count on, and especially until the last few years, they often was the only provider of a clean western toilet in developing countries. But it all come with a hefty price. The signature "DNA" that defines corporatism.

What's wrong with that? Nothing really. But as you read in this article, it can seep into the social & secular mindset that can define a cultural way of life. Individuals can become "corporate", too in their behavior. How we hate that? Especially when we come across a "corporate" sex provider. Ahh now, you relating now or still lost? Of course, you still have freedom of choice not to indulge, or search deeper into the night for that angel.

So suck it up! I remember a decade plus years ago, when you ask "how much? The answer was "up to you". I smile every time I remember that. A different world, and a definitely better time.

The young people of Hong Kong was compelled to go into the streets, acting on the stirrings within their hearts for the kind of future they want for themselves. How will this play out. Stay tune.

The solution is going to require Confucious himself to resurrect and proclaim the edict.