Click here to close
New Message Alert
List Entire Thread
Msg ID: 2697069 Bladeslap, from below +1/-3     
Author:Old Guy
7/20/2021 2:48:23 PM

You referred that Biden was not responsible for the inflation.  Actually he is totally responsible.  We have inflation today because of 3 major reasons.  

1.  increased money supply.  The M2 money supply under Trump was around $15.41 trillion.  In just a short period of time under Biden that increased 30% to $20.11 trillion.  Biden has flooded the economy with more dollars.

2.  Declining value of the dollar.  Two many dollars in the system, not supported by production. Value is declining.  And companies have to pay more for import goods.  Take a guess when the value of the dollar started to drop on the marketplace.  if you guess when Biden took over you would be right!

3.  The Supply chain.  You are kind of right, but the left is really responsible for most for this, it is not the right that had major lockdowns.  Some states had very Short lockdowns if at all, and there recovery shows it.  I guess you could say that the lockdowns helped stop the virus, but there is NO proof of that.  It just screwed up the supply chain.

The first two reasons are all it takes for inflation,  and Biden is giving us that and wants to give us more.

useful idiot 

 



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2697071 You should teach economics. Economists can't explain inflation. (NT) +3/-0     
Author:TheCrow
7/20/2021 2:51:04 PM

Reply to: 2697069


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2697096 WRONG +2/-0     
Author:bladeslap
7/20/2021 5:54:50 PM

Reply to: 2697069

Now, look at what real economists are saying

The "inflation" you see was to be expected during an opening economy. It's temporary and will settle down.

Supply chain issues and constraints from all over are causing this. This will return to normal.

Nice try though

 



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2697101 Did you sleep thru economics 101 +1/-2     
Author:Old Guy
7/20/2021 6:30:34 PM

Reply to: 2697096

Try and explain it so you will understand.


If at your play ground there are 100 marbles to play with, the value of having a few marbles is about the same each play day.  But what happens if one day there are more marbles at the play ground, like 130 of them.  Oh! Boy! You get a few more marbles each play day, but the value of the marbles gets smaller.  Before you could get a kiss from Betty Sue for just 2 marbles, now it takes 3.  More marbles around soon they have less value!

And

If you trade your marbles to a different place and all of a sudden the other place thinks your marbles are (shitty) not worth as much as before, you will need to give them more of your marbles for the same trade.  like before it was just 2 marbles now it is 3 marbles.  Don't cry, your marbles just are not worth as much at different places.

And 

let's say you buy your marbles, like 10 for 10 pennies.  Lots of them in the store, the supply is good, and only a penny.  But the guy that makes the marbles has to stay home and can't make marbles.  No new marbles.  Soon the store starts to run out of marbles.  Fewer and fewer marbles in the store.  What happens?  The marbles become 1 for 2 pennies.  You hope the marble maker gets to got to work!

I hope that helps,  useful idiot



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2697107 When do you get to the part of the story where you lose your marbles? (NT) +3/-0     
Author:TheCrow
7/20/2021 8:05:07 PM

Reply to: 2697101


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2697135 I think I'll have a new term for you +1/-0     
Author:bladeslap
7/21/2021 6:23:17 AM

Reply to: 2697101

Old guy,

Anything you say on here, you pretty much have zero credibilty. Why?

You argued that the insurrection didn't really happen

You argued that Trump really won

You argued that all these election day issues happened, for which you still have not admitted you were wrong

1. More voters in Wisconsin voted than actual voters

2. In Michigan they added tens of thousands of votes miraculously

3. There was fraud in Georgia and it was going to be overturned

Every single one of them was debunked with clear evidence, especially 1 & 2.

You have not come clean to say "I was wrong about it". Because you never did, then nothing else you say on here has any meaning.

Your blinders are still on your ears and eyes to understand that supply chain issues are causing inflation, which is to be expected in the opening of an economy. You simply don't have the mental capacity to go beyond your preconceived notions, and I get that. 

 



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2697159 I think I'll have a new term for you +1/-2     
Author:Old Guy
7/21/2021 12:02:34 PM

Reply to: 2697135

Anything you say on here, you pretty much miss the truth.

look at this post!

first your argument that it is all supply chain is wrong, you are just repeating talking points, you personally do not know!  The lockdowns are basically over, supply issues are all most all over, the products are in the stores BUT INFLATION HAS NOT SLOWING DOWN!  You can not put 30% more cash into the market and not have to value drop.

Next, now you add crap about the election and you are wrong again!

1.  Number of Wisconsin registered voters.  A couple of State legislatures would not certify the election over this issue.  I understood it is about voting numbers in a few counties, not state wide.  But I could give you this one, you maybe wrong or maybe correct.

2.  Added Votes:  This is about votes for Biden that over night showed up by the thousands and only votes for Biden.  This is TRUE, even the left biased Reuters said " in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania the votes spikes for Biden did occur".

3.  Georgia voting fraud,  why did you list this, everyone know this is not resolved.

By my count you are wrong on most of your post, which is common!

useful idiot 



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2697162 WTF? Supply chain issues are not over, not even close... +2/-0     
Author:Jett
7/21/2021 12:30:31 PM

Reply to: 2697159

The supply chain is completely upside down, have you tried to buy an appliance lately? How about a car? How about a new lithium battery for your lawn mower? Ordered any kitchen cabinets recently, what was the time line on that? Have you shipped anything recently in a container on a ship? I don't see the supply chain improving until at least Q1/22, if then.

For those directly in the supply chain like myself, it's crazy out there. I'm sure you don't notice it as much in Idaho, but it's bad...  

 



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2697176 Really +1/-2     
Author:Old Guy
7/21/2021 1:13:21 PM

Reply to: 2697162

I did not say the supply chain problem is over, I said it is getting better and inflation is getting worse.  Most of the biggest effect has been from global supply chain items.  But the supply chain which Americans get most of their goods is holding up well and rapidly improving and inflation is not.  

Part of the inflation is from the supply chain, I agree with that.  But it is not the big factor. 

just heard a talking head say that inflation was too low before the pandemic.

So will that be your next talking point, "Trump was really bad, keep the dollar value too high, he is one of the worst presidents  ever."

useful idiot 



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2697181 Here's a follow up question- how did Trump's 2020 stimulus checks affect  +2/-0     
Author:TheCrow
7/21/2021 2:39:56 PM

Reply to: 2697101

Here's a follow up question- how did Trump's 2020 stimulus checks affect the deficit, the national debt?

The VEry Stable Genius Trump starts the novel coronavirus fire in America's house by minimizing the threat, delaying a response for three months while advising people that it would just go away or drink bleach.

Then he responds and sets operation Warp Speed in motion (kudos!). Recognizing the economic damage of the covid 19 recession he initiates a stimulus program, putting more dollars in circulation.

By your standards, old guy, that's inflationary, and the effects are surfacing now. Your claim that Trump's economic policiies contribute to our prosperity more than Biden's recent efforts, now Trump's inflation is obvious.

Oh, and Trump's billions/millions/whatever are like your example: "...  if one day there are more marbles at the play ground, like 130 of them.  Oh! Boy! You get a few more marbles each play day, but the value of the marbles gets smaller."

Stimulus spending sent both the FY 2020 deficit and the national debt to all time highs. Here are the numbers that show the breathtaking scope of the cost of the stimulus packages to date and the likely cost of the next round of stimulus.

Stimulus spending

US Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin testifies during the Senate's Committee on Banking, ... [+]

 POOL/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES
 

The United States first went into debt in 1790. Alexander Hamilton was the Treasury Secretary at the time under President George Washington. He wanted the federal government to assume war debt held by the states, a proposal many opposed. In the Dinner Table Bargain of June 1790, Thomas Jefferson agreed to the assumption of debt in exchange for relocating the nation's capital to its current location (after a 10-year hiatus in Philly).

Some might argue the deal was the equivalent of Jefferson exchanging his birthright for a bowl of stew. The assumed debt was about $25 million, more than our government will spend in the time it takes you to finish this article (and that's if you're a fast reader).

President Andrew Jackson managed to wrestle the debt back down to $0 in 1835, although a financial crises followed. From that date until last year, the total public debt accumulated through good years and bad stood at $22.8 trillion.

That's a lot of zeros: $22,800,000,000,000.00

The Covid-19 pandemic has thrown gas on the fire. As Congress negotiates a stimulus deal, then doesn't negotiate, then holds press conferences, then leaves town, then comes back, then tweets, then has a meltdown on CNN, it's worth taking stock of just how much we've spent on Covid-19 relief.

We should also take stock of what the folks in Washington are proposing we spend in what would be the fifth stimulus package. After all, our great, great, great grandchildren will have to pay for this someday.

 

The Numbers

Before we look at the details, here are the big numbers that show the immense scope of stimulus spending:

  • FY 2020 U.S. Government Spending: $6.5 trillion
  • FY 2020 Deficit: $3.1 trillion
  • Stimulus Spending: $2.6 trillion
  • Stimulus Tax Relief: $900 billion
  • Next Stimulus Proposal: $1.8 to $2.2 trillion

 

U.S. Government Spending and Debt in FY 2020

The U.S. government spent $6,551,872,000,000 in fiscal year 2020 that ended on September 30th. It was a record year, although not in a good way. Spending represented a jump of more than $2 trillion from the previous year, a 47% increase.

At the same time, government revenue was down. The difference wasn't significant, amounting to a 1% decline, or about $42 billion. As spending skyrockets, however, every dollar of revenue becomes all the more important.

The increased government spending combined with declining revenue resulted in more than $3.1 trillion added to the national debt. On the bright side, the deficit was a lot lower than the $4 trillion some predicted earlier this year. Of course, this doesn't all relate to stimulus spending, so let's turn to that now.

Covid-19 Stimulus Spending

While the CARES Act is the most recognized Covid-19 relief package, there have been four to date, not including President Trump's executive actions:

  • Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act (March 6, 2020)
  • Families First Coronavirus Response Act (March 18, 2020)
  • Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the CARES Act) (March 27, 2020)
  • Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act (April 24, 2020)

 

About $3.5 trillion has been authorized by these and other measures, including tax relief provisions. The impact on the deficit in FY 2020 is lower than the amount authorized. That’s because not all of the funds authorized under the Covid-19 relief packages have been spent yet. That means, unfortunately, that some of the deficit spending gets pushed into this and future fiscal years.

Here's a breakdown on spending by stimulus package and Mr. Trump's executive actions.

How Covid-19 Relief Spending Compares

As noted above, including the tax relief provisions, the total value of the above legislation rises to about $3.5 trillion. It can be difficult to put such a large number into perspective. It's helpful, if also a bit depressing, to compare the Covid-19 stimulus obligations to past relief packages and annual spending.

To date, Covid-19 relief obligations are more than twice the annual federal government discretionary spending in FY 2019 and exceed total FY 2019 revenue.

The Cost of the Next Stimulus Package

There have been several stimulus packages proposed for the next round of Covid-19 relief. As negotiations between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have narrowed the gap, let’s focus on their proposals.

Speaker Pelosi continues to stand behind what some have dubbed the Heroes Act 2.0. The current proposal weighs in at $2.2 trillion.

Senate Republicans have introduced several stimulus proposals. They range from the $1.1 trillion HEALS Act to a ‘skinny’ stimulus package that would cost roughly $300 billion. While the ‘skinny’ package has a value closer to $500 billion, some of the funds would come from unspent appropriations from early stimulus packages.

Nevertheless, Mnuchin has offered Pelosi a $1.8 trillion stimulus deal. If a deal is reached, therefore, it’s likely to cost somewhere between $1.8 and $2.2 trillion. In other words, it will roughly equal the size of the CARES Act, which itself was the largest relief package, by far, in the history of our country.

How much these deals would add to the federal debt is uncertain. What is clear, however, is that they will increase the national debt significantly. Back in April the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the FY 2021 deficit would be $2.1 trillion. That estimate assumed current laws didn’t change. In other words, it didn’t include additional spending on another round of stimulus now being negotiated.

As a result, a fifth stimulus package could result in a FY 2021 deficit that exceeds the FY 2020 shortfall.

Some Good News (kind of)

There is a silver lining to the massive debt our nation is accumulating—interest rates. The government is able to borrow money at near zero interest rates. Some have argued that the low interest rates should give the government the green light to borrow money with little regard to future consequences. They note that the rates on 30-year bonds hover at historic lows.

Low rates have saved the government billions of dollars in interest. But even 30-year bonds mature. Further, the government funds 60% of its deficits with 2 to 10-year notes. Just 14% of bond issues fall into the 10 to 30-year maturity range. The point is that the day will come when we have to pay the piper. And that day may be a lot closer than some believe.

 
Follow me on Twitter or LinkedIn. Check out my website or some of my other work here

 

Rob is a Contributing Editor for Forbes Advisor, host of the Financial Freedom Show, and the author of Retire Before Mom and Dad--The Simple Numbers Behind a Lifetime of Financial Freedom. He graduated in 1992 from law school and has written about personal finance and investing since 2007



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2697206 Follow up reply  +1/-2     
Author:Old Guy
7/21/2021 6:26:32 PM

Reply to: 2697181

Of course the stimulus that Trump did increased the debt and there was concern it would produce some inflation.  Do you ever watch real news, these issues were discussed.  Money was put into places that they considered had the biggest impact with the smallest effect on inflation.  Such as money paid to companies if they keep people on payroll.  That is what we did, did not lay anyone off.

The Biden's stimulus was a different beast.  It was just a program to spend money, the Trump stimulus still had money to spend, but Biden went ahead with more.  Double down on the spending.  Because of inflation concerns and of course a larger increase in debt the Biden stimulus got NO votes from the right.  The Biden stimulus is still paying big unemployment benefits, so some people just are still staying unemployed.

But most of your post I'd just rambling making NO sense.  

Inflation makes it appearance right away, we all see it as we put gas in the car.  The inflation did not pop up at all during the time Trump was in the big boy seat.  This inflation started well within Biden's office time, the inflation is due to Biden.



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2697332 The CARES Act Sent You a $1,200 Check but Gave Millionaires and Billionaire +2/-0     
Author:TheCrow
7/22/2021 7:43:00 PM

Reply to: 2697206

All the friends money can buy. (Trump' family motto)

 

The CARES Act Sent You a $1,200 Check but Gave Millionaires and Billionaires Far More

The stimulus checks were meant to get average Americans through the lockdown, but those $1,200 payouts were small change compared with the billions in tax breaks the CARES Act handed out to the country’s wealthiest.

President Donald Trump hands pens to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, left, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, center, after signing the CARES Act on March 27. (Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images)

SERIES:A CLOSER LOOK

Examining the News

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

Do you want to see how legislation that was supposed to be a bailout for our economy ended up committing almost as much taxpayer money to help a relative handful of the non-needy as it spent to help tens of millions of people in need? Then let’s step back and revisit parts of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act and look at some of the numbers involved.

The best-known feature of the CARES Act, as it’s known, is the cash grant of up to $1,200 per adult and $500 per child for households whose income was less than $99,000 for single taxpayers and $198,000 for couples. These grants are nontaxable, which makes them even more valuable. Some 159 million stimulus payments have gone out, according to the IRS.

The income limits suggested that the plan benefits the people most in need, those most likely to spend their stimulus payments and thus help the economy. The rhetoric conveyed the same: “The CARES Act Provides Assistance to Workers And Their Families” is how the Treasury’s website puts it. There were no grants to more-fortunate people, who for the most part aren’t in financial distress and are less likely than the less-fortunate to spend any money that Uncle Sam sent them.

But when I began looking at details of the legislation, I realized that several of its provisions quietly provided benefits that were worth much more than $1,200 to some upper-middle-class people who didn’t qualify for stimulus payments. Some other provisions provided vastly bigger benefits to the rich, to corporations and to a relative handful of ultra-rich folks.

 
 

So let me show you five provisions of the legislation that benefited the upper middle class (including yours truly); the families of Donald Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner; high-income people who make large charitable donations; and Boeing and other corporations that are showing losses; as well as indirectly benefited people who have substantial investments in U.S. stocks.

These five provisions that help the well-heeled will cost the Treasury — which is to say, U.S. taxpayers — an estimated $257.95 billion for the 2020 calendar year. That’s nearly as much as the estimated $292.37 billion price tag for the stimulus grants to regular folks. The numbers are from Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation, the official scorekeeper of the financial impact that legislation has on the Treasury. (I used those figures to calculate the spending for the 2020 calendar year rather than for 10 federal fiscal years because I’m interested in today’s impact, not the projected long-term impact.)

I’m writing this now, more than two months after the CARES Act took effect, as a cautionary tale. That’s because with massive unemployment upon us and the fall elections drawing near, there’s a temptation for Congress and Trump to produce legislation that will help needy people a bit but help the non-needy a lot more by doing things like reducing capital gains taxes.

Now, let me take you through the provisions, only one of which — the break for the Trumps, the Kushners and their ilk — has attracted meaningful public attention.

Eliminating Required Distributions From Retirement Accounts: $11.72 billion

 

People ages 72 and up who have IRAs or 401(k)s or other “defined contribution” retirement accounts must take federally taxable required minimum distributions from them every year. (Some states also tax these distributions.) People who inherit such accounts are also required to take annual distributions, regardless of their age.

Read More

Tear Gas Is Way More Dangerous Than Police Let On — Especially During the Coronavirus Pandemic

In the middle of a respiratory pandemic, law enforcement agencies have used tear gas in especially dangerous ways.

The required distribution amount is based on year-end age and account balances. For example, if you were 75 at year-end — as I was — your RMD for this year is 4.37% of your year-end 2019 retirement account balances. If you were 76, it’s 4.55%.

But this year, thanks to the CARES Act, I don’t have to take any retirement distributions at all.

Not having to take distributions matters a lot to some people. For instance, if I took my full RMD this year, which I don’t plan to do, it would be one of my larger income sources. And I would have to pay federal and state income tax on it, regardless of whether I spent the money or saved it.

I’d like to tell you how many people the JCT expects to benefit from this year’s RMD waiver; how much their distributions would have totaled and what the tax rate on them would have been; and how many people the JCT expects to take distributions this year even though they’re not required to take them. Alas, the JCT doesn’t disclose this information and declined to share it with me.

But even though I don’t have specific numbers, it’s clear that most of the benefit from this year’s RMD waiver goes to well-off people. Why? Because people who need retirement account money to live on are going to take distributions, and people who don’t need the money are unlikely to take distributions.

The reason for the no-RMD provision is that the stock market was sinking rapidly in March, when the CARES Act was being discussed. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index, for example, fell by 30.8% from the end of 2019 through its low for 2020 (at least so far) on March 23, a few days before Trump signed the CARES Act legislation. Congress didn’t want to penalize retirees by forcing them to sell stock during a market crash.

Thousands of small businesses, especially those owned by people of color, have been left behind by the stipulations of the Paycheck Protection Program. In Texas, local governments are lending millions of dollars and it’s not enough.

So if someone with a 4.37% required distribution had money in an S&P 500 index fund, our investor would have had to withdraw 6.32% of the fund’s balance (4.37 divided by 69.2) rather than 4.37% of it if the investor took the distribution on March 23. That would have hurt our investor’s future financial security.

If the market fell by 50% through year-end, which in the scary days of March seemed to be a distinct possibility and could still happen, our theoretical investor would have to cash out 8.74% of the account if RMDs were still required.

There were other ways to deal with this problem, such as letting people take a pass on their first $15,000 of RMDs, rather than giving a big break to the likes of me and a far bigger break to people with far larger retirement accounts than mine. But Congress and Trump didn’t do that.

Charitable Deductions: $4.83 billion

 

Normally, people who itemize deductions on their federal tax return can deduct no more than 60% of their adjusted gross income for charitable contributions. But for this year, the limit is 100% of AGI.

The Tax Policy Center, whose research helped inform this article, estimates that about two-thirds of the people who donated more than 60% of their AGI in past years had incomes of less than $100,000. But although such people accounted for the bulk of those making such large contributions relative to their income, the TPC says, “Most of the value of the deduction goes to just a small number of the very wealthy.”

The theory behind raising the limit this year is that it will encourage people to make larger donations than they otherwise would. But I can’t imagine how this provision — like the provision allowing people who take the standard deduction to subtract $300 from their taxable income for charitable contributions — is going to significantly increase donations to charities trying to help people cope with COVID-19.

The $4.83 billion JCT number for this provision’s cost to the Treasury includes tax savings for both individuals and corporations.

Pass-Through Entities: $140.61 billion

 

Now, we come to the huge item that benefits the likes of Trump and Kushner, their families, other wealthy real estate types, hedge fund investors and all sorts of ultra-high-income people, who derive large amounts of money from partnerships, LLCs and other so-called pass-through entities.

As you’ll see in a bit, this big-time break provides a big-time benefit to a relative handful of people.

Now that it’s a fait accompli, this provision is belatedly getting a lot of media attention. So I’ll spare you most of the details about how it allows the ultra-wealthy to use paper losses to offset income that was taxed in previous years, when tax rates were higher than they are now, and get refunds based on those old, higher rates.

Suffice it to say that the JCT estimates that about 82% of these benefits — let’s call it $115 billion — will go to about 43,000 taxpayers with $1 million or more in annual income. That’s an average of about $2.68 million each.

The new proposed stimulus package passed by the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives — the HEROES (for Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions) Act — would repeal this provision. However, its prospects for passage in the Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has called the HEROES Act a “totally unserious effort,” seem remote. He and other Senate Republicans insisted on making the break for pass-through entities part of the CARES legislation. It’s hard to imagine them allowing any new bailout legislation to reverse that benefit. I’m sure Democrats realized this but wanted to go on record as opposing the pass-through break.

The HEROES Act would also repeal the $10,000 limit on deductions for state and local income and real estate taxes, which Republicans included in the 2017 tax cut legislation to reduce the cost to the Treasury of the big cuts they gave to corporations and ultra-high-income people. (Not coincidentally, the cap hurt people in high-income, high-tax blue states.) It’s hard to imagine this provision becoming law, either.


 

Now, let’s look at two corporate tax breaks inserted in the CARES Act. One lets corporations increase their interest deductions; the second lets them use tax losses from 2018, 2019 and this year to get immediate, substantial refunds rather than having to wait until they show future profits that offset those losses.

 
 

The people who benefit most from these corporate tax breaks, of course, are the corporations’ owners. (Workers, in theory, benefit to some extent, as well.)

By increasing companies’ cash flows and reported earnings, these breaks help the share prices of corporations whose stock is publicly traded and help increase the value of privately held corporations.

Stock ownership by individuals is concentrated among higher-income people.

Corporate Interest Deductions: $12.09 billion

 

One of the reforms of the 2017 tax act was reducing the amount of interest that corporations could deduct on their federal tax returns. The idea was to reduce the attractiveness of debt, which is subsidized by taxpayers and carries big risks to corporate owners as well as employees. (For examples, see the recent bankruptcies of Neiman Marcus and J. Crew, which were burdened with debt, part of it incurred to pay fees and distributions to the buyout firms that had taken them over.)

The CARES Act undid part of the 2017 act by increasing the deductible level to 50% of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization from the previous 30%.

Like some of the other provisions that we’ve looked at, this doesn’t involve a lot of money relative to the numbers that we’re dealing with. But it’s symbolic. And the people benefiting the most from it because they have major investments in stocks aren’t likely to be worrying about how to pay for food or avoid losing their homes.

Corporate Loss Treatment: $88.70 billion

 

This does the same kind of thing for corporations that the pass-through provision we discussed earlier does for LLCs and partnerships and such. But it hasn’t attracted anything like the same attention that the pass-through giveaway has gotten because it doesn’t involve names like Trump and Kushner.

Until now, corporations that had losses last year and this year could carry them forward to offset taxes for future years, but they couldn’t apply them to get refunds of taxes paid in previous years.

Merritt Corrigan, USAID’s new deputy White House liaison, has condemned the “tyrannical LGBT agenda” and celebrated Hungary’s right-wing prime minister as “the shining champion of Western civilization.”

Corporations can now apply losses from this year, last year and 2018 to income from the previous five years. That’s going to be a big deal for companies — can you say Boeing? — that are likely to show losses.

What’s more, these companies can get refunds of up to 35% of the losses they carry back to 2017 and earlier years, even though the corporate tax rate is now only 21%. The rationale is that because the corporate tax rate was 35% before 2018, companies should be able to get refunds today based on what they paid then, not on what they’d be paying now.

So this pays off on multiple levels: The beneficiaries not only benefit today from current and recent losses rather than having to wait until they have profits in the future, but they get a much bigger bang for the buck.

Our country is suffering through major, major problems. We’ve got more than 100,000 people dead from COVID-19, unemployment levels not seen since the Great Depression, and protests and civil unrest in cities and towns across the country. We’re appropriately adding trillions of dollars to our national debt to try to forestall an economic meltdown. Let’s just hope that further federal aid goes to those who really need it. And doesn’t go to those who don’t.



Return-To-Index