The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
A top economist believes,Trumps tax bill will help the economy
Good thing that Trump inherited a healthy economy from Obama
(totally different from the economy that Obama iinherited from George 'tax cuts' Bush jr. )
Tamsin (Lost Girl): "I am the Harbinger of Death. I arrive on winds of blessed air. Air that you no longer deserve." Tamsin (Lost Girl): "He has fallen in battle and I must take him to the Einherjar in Valhalla"
Let me explain how this will all work with a concrete example. I work for an S&P 500 Tech company that has paid an average effective tax rate of 36% over the last 11 years. The company has about $1B in cash. Our hiring, like the majority of companies, is constrained by our sales growth, not our investment. I happen to know that our tax savings will be mostly spent on stock buy backs and the rest will be saved for possible future acquisitions. Thus, reducing the effective tax rate from 36% to 20% will result in additional stock buy backs that will amount to a little over 1% of the company's market cap. This will have no affect on hiring and acquisitions are also head count neutral.
On the other hand, employees and directors are also compensated with stock. Employees at my level get about 5x the stock of lower level employees (entry level employees get no stock) and C level executives get between 10x and 25x the stock I get. Conservatively, 1% additional market cap buy back will raise the value of our stock by about 1.1% a year. This will result in about a $1,000 raise per year for me. After taxes, this will result in about $600/yr more spending money for me (I am a 98%er). Lower level employees will get an extra $150/yr in spending money (they are 90%ers). And, C level executives will between $6000 - $15000/yr more spending money (they are 99.9%ers). Entry level employees will get nothing (they are the under 90%ers).
So, I will be boosting the economy with an extra nice dinner out for me and the wife per year. C level executives will boosting the economy with several nice dinners out or perhaps an extra day or two of vacation at a nice resort. Everyone else will not be boosting the economy in any appreciable manner. Thanks for the extra raise. Too bad you will be paying for it with future taxes on yourself to take care of your share of the deficit.
“It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.”
Let me explain how this will all work with a concrete example. I work for an S&P 500 Tech company that has paid an average effective tax rate of 36% over the last 11 years. The company has about $1B in cash. Our hiring, like the majority of companies, is constrained by our sales growth, not our investment. I happen to know that our tax savings will be mostly spent on stock buy backs and the rest will be saved for possible future acquisitions. Thus, reducing the effective tax rate from 36% to 20% will result in additional stock buy backs that will amount to a little over 1% of the company's market cap. This will have no affect on hiring and acquisitions are also head count neutral.
On the other hand, employees and directors are also compensated with stock. Employees at my level get about 5x the stock of lower level employees (entry level employees get no stock) and C level executives get between 10x and 25x the stock I get. Conservatively, 1% additional market cap buy back will raise the value of our stock by about 1.1% a year. This will result in about a $1,000 raise per year for me. After taxes, this will result in about $600/yr more spending money for me (I am a 98%er). Lower level employees will get an extra $150/yr in spending money (they are 90%ers). And, C level executives will between $6000 - $15000/yr more spending money (they are 99.9%ers). Entry level employees will get nothing (they are the under 90%ers).
So, I will be boosting the economy with an extra nice dinner out for me and the wife per year. C level executives will boosting the economy with several nice dinners out or perhaps an extra day or two of vacation at a nice resort. Everyone else will not be boosting the economy in any appreciable manner. Thanks for the extra raise. Too bad you will be paying for it with future taxes on yourself to take care of your share of the deficit.
If effective tax rates go down that much many companies will be investing. Trust me. If they don't then their competitors will, especially with the economy growing so fast. I'm sure willing to bet on this.
The second thing is with interest rates so low I'm sure willing to get some of my own money back, and it will encourage the government to keep from spending it like a drunken sailor. You should know that. The more cash your company has the more they spend. That's the first thing they teach you.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Scouse Git (2)La Fayette Adam SmithSolomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
Let me explain how this will all work with a concrete example. I work for an S&P 500 Tech company that has paid an average effective tax rate of 36% over the last 11 years. The company has about $1B in cash. Our hiring, like the majority of companies, is constrained by our sales growth, not our investment. I happen to know that our tax savings will be mostly spent on stock buy backs and the rest will be saved for possible future acquisitions. Thus, reducing the effective tax rate from 36% to 20% will result in additional stock buy backs that will amount to a little over 1% of the company's market cap. This will have no affect on hiring and acquisitions are also head count neutral.
I'm going to highlight a little point here. What happens to your company's market capitalization and your sales if your clients and customers have more to spend? Assuming that you don't cut your prices (which you might, given the drop in your taxation), we'd expect your sales to increase which would thus give you an incentive to either take more profits OR to hire more people.
Two, why are you portraying stock buybacks as a bad thing? That money will raise your share prices making all the shareholders of your stock wealthier, while at the same time - that money that you pay your current shareholders in buying back the stock will pay the owners of your stock who are willing to sell. This means that the money you are saving in taxes IS going back into the economy, where it can either be reinvested in other stocks, or taken as profits and spent. The reason your company is doing stock buybacks is because they are doing well and have extra money to spend.
Too bad you will be paying for it with future taxes on yourself to take care of your share of the deficit.
How the hell you ever got your position I'll never understand. You're assuming that the economy is fixed and that it won't grow. If the corporate taxes are cut, this has the biggest effect on businesses like Apple et al that are offshoring cash, and other businesses that have relocated outside of America due to your high corporate taxation. If they relocate back to America as the cut will change the economics, then the American economy can actually make more money - quite a bit more, than they were making previous. This would actually increase and not decrease the total money collected in taxes, even as the proportion shrinks.
Now, granted - there is spending in the bill that will be detrimental. But the cut in corporate taxes was much needed.
Scouse Git (2)La Fayette Adam SmithSolomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
It seems that he doesn't understand that if he's worried about future taxes he can just invest his tax cut. I'm sure that his disciples don't understand either.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Increasing the money in the pockets of rich people while decreasing the money in pockets of poor and middle class will reduce sales for almost all goods and services. The rich are people who have voluntarily already decided that they have more wealth than they want to consume. The middle class and poor are where increases or decreases to purchasing power will correlate to actual sales. This bill decreases their purchasing power in aggregate in the long term.
Also the rich people (and corporations) are those whoo have the best abilities to invest their money outside of the USA
(be it on property outside of the USA, or on sub companies in other countries (Trump, as someone of those who profits most from the tax cuts, for example, lets the majority of his fashion items get produced outside of the USA ... the probability is high that he rather will use the additional money enlarge his production capabilities in one asian country (and create a job boom there), than create jonbs in the USA ... so the °"return on investment" from the tax cuts affecting Trumps corporations will probably rather be low)).
Tamsin (Lost Girl): "I am the Harbinger of Death. I arrive on winds of blessed air. Air that you no longer deserve." Tamsin (Lost Girl): "He has fallen in battle and I must take him to the Einherjar in Valhalla"
This happens when you pass a tax bill than noone actually has read in full, together with handwritten last minute addendums
The senate tax bill seems to contain some glaring error, which turns the tax reduction into a massive tax hike, because one part (Corporate AMT-Provision) as it is written into the senate tax bill will actually raise 300B US-$ ... and not 40B, as calculated.
If true than I can only say one thing: Karma is a biatch
Tamsin (Lost Girl): "I am the Harbinger of Death. I arrive on winds of blessed air. Air that you no longer deserve." Tamsin (Lost Girl): "He has fallen in battle and I must take him to the Einherjar in Valhalla"
Increasing the money in the pockets of rich people while decreasing the money in pockets of poor and middle class will reduce sales for almost all goods and services. The rich are people who have voluntarily already decided that they have more wealth than they want to consume. The middle class and poor are where increases or decreases to purchasing power will correlate to actual sales. This bill decreases their purchasing power in aggregate in the long term.
Care to make a bet?
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Seems like I don't need to make a bet.
If the things in my last posting (#87) are true, then the tax bill as passed by the senate will never ever make it through the consolidation process
(and considering that the senate bill (in contrast to the house bill) is the only one that is supposed to be cost neutral after 10 years, it will prove difficulty/impossible to actually create a consolidated bill that fulfills this condition (which, I guess, means that the consolidated final version will need the help of the democrats to pass house and senate ... which it surely won't get )
Tamsin (Lost Girl): "I am the Harbinger of Death. I arrive on winds of blessed air. Air that you no longer deserve." Tamsin (Lost Girl): "He has fallen in battle and I must take him to the Einherjar in Valhalla"
Tweet
)
Comment