CBO: Individual, corporate income tax revenue down

Hedgology · Feb 9, 2019

JasperL said:
Not providing "guidance" doesn't mean they don't plan, and don't track the numbers internally. They DO. In fact they report the numbers to IRS and the public at least quarterly.

Maybe they do; maybe they don't. We don't know what they do, yet, you are stating it as a fact and expecting the world to treat it as such.

There are easier ways of just admitting you have no idea what you are talking about.

Why are you even mentioning "guidance" - what possible relevance could it have to anything in this thread?

Because guidance determines what firms plans are, and how markets can anticipate performance based on their plans. If firms inform markets of their plans (e.g. we can expect a higher firm wide headcount based on changes in financial regulation), shareholders would know about it.

Since shareholders are unaware of such plans, we can infer that firms had no such guidance (or plans, if you prefer) based on future changes in tax laws.

The reasons for this is obvious: changes in tax regulations is not something one can reasonably predict. No one is saying that you can't run a sensitivity analysis on how much small or large changes in taxes would cost the firm. However, it is not likely that firm will provide that information based on changes in taxes. It is more likely that estimates are done, under the assumption that tax regulations remain unchanged.

And in the post where I explained that GE and others estimate their taxes quarterly you said it might work for little S corps or individuals, but not for big companies. I've never seen a little S corp or sole proprietor give "guidance" on anything - who are they "guiding." So it's a mystery what your point is talking about "guidance" that is broadcast to the public.

You've never seen an S corp or sole proprietor provide guidance because these entities are not separate from their owners. They tend not to go public, and therefore, are not required to provide guidance to anyone.

Companies spend an enormous amount of time and effort knowing their tax obligations by the quarter, in part so they can release quarterly earnings and make quarterly estimated payments. That's especially true of the biggest companies. Little companies do safe estimates - SALY +10% or whatever. So, no, they don't release "guidance" on tax liabilities, they just report the ACTUAL figure to everyone who cares to look quarterly, and report an ACTUAL but different number to the IRS, also roughly quarterly.

Okay....

JasperL · Feb 9, 2019

Hedgology said:
You're confused. Working cash is what is used to operate the business. The cash balance you see on a balance sheet is any amount excess of that cash, which is why it's called EXCESS cash.

That's complete nonsense. The amount on the balance sheet is simply in the case of GE,

"Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash and marketable securities."

That's the total amount of cash and equivalents on hand, and the intended use of it has nothing to do with anything for purposes of that amount. It's laughable that "working cash" will NOT be in that line. Of course it's in that line. Or, if not there, where is this amount disclosed? Does 'working' cash go POOF! for purposes of the balance sheet? :lamo

There is no arbitrary designation because there is nothing to designate. What you see on a publicly released balance sheet is usually an excess cash figure.

LOL, that's stupidly wrong.

JasperL · Feb 9, 2019

Hedgology said:
Maybe they do; maybe they don't. We don't know what they do, yet, you are stating it as a fact and expecting the world to treat it as such.

Who is "they?" Public companies do, all of them.

Anyway, you lost me at "working cash" isn't on the cash line of the balance sheet. I've wasted enough of a nice day arguing against ignorance.

Hedgology · Feb 9, 2019

Kobie said:
From an accounting standpoint, what you're saying makes sense, but that's not what we've been told for decades. We've been told that if corporate tax rates were lower, corporations would create jobs. That rarely seems to be the case.

If all they're doing is moving their chesspieces around and shielding themselves from tax burdens, then why should I buy for an instant that cutting corporate taxes is somehow good for the economy? I've never seen a scintilla of evidence that it actually is, just the assurance that our glorious corporate benefactors will throw some cheese to the peasants.

If Apple is flush with cash yet is still issuing debt, it obviously has a reason to. Since we're in an industrial age tax code, how would you update it?

Specifically for many tech firms, the IRS offers an annual deduction for R&D spending and a nonrefundable tax credit for incremental R&D spending. However, since these credits are nonrefundable, and cannot reduce tax liability below the ATM, it's not beneficial for corporations to utilize this until firms have used all of their net operating loss carryovers. This, along with a statutory rate above 30%, doesn't make the U.S. an ideal place to conduct R&D operations.

Many developed nations around the world (including China) have much lower tax rates and offer R&D tax credits greater than 20% of total expenditures.

JohnfrmClevelan · Feb 9, 2019

Conservative said:
Apparently you do have an issue with Treasury because that is the data I continue to post. What interpretation have I given that is wrong?

Conservative said:
Consumer spending isn't the number one component of GDP by far?

Yes, it is, but nobody was contending that it wasn't.

Where you are making your mistake (or simply obfuscating on purpose) is that any taxes removed from consumers are added to government spending. And because the taxpayers would have saved some of that money, (bigger G + smaller C) > (smaller G + bigger C). In other words, the economy is better off when the government taxes $1000 away from you and spends it, instead of you spending a portion of that $1000 yourself.

Conservative said:
Tax increases don't take money out of the consumer's hands to spend?

Yes, they do. But unless the government is running a budget surplus, every cent of that money is being spent back into the economy. And further, none of it is being saved by the government. You can't say that about the same money in taxpayer hands.

Conservative said:
Your issue is you are a partisan leftwing zealot who cannot admit when wrong. tax increases hurt economic activity and it is economic activity that creates jobs and GDP Growth

No, the issue is that you are either too partisan, or too thick, to understand that the government spending is every bit as good for the economy as consumer spending. And probably better, because the government makes a point of spending domestically.

Hedgology · Feb 9, 2019

JasperL said:
That's complete nonsense. The amount on the balance sheet is simply in the case of GE,

"Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash and marketable securities."

That's the total amount of cash and equivalents on hand, and the intended use of it has nothing to do with anything for purposes of that amount. It's laughable that "working cash" will NOT be in that line. Of course it's in that line. Or, if not there, where is this amount disclosed? Does 'working' cash go POOF! for purposes of the balance sheet? :lamo

Huh?

No, it doesn't go "poof." Excess cash is a figure NET of working cash. The figure you see on a balance sheet is always excess cash.

Think of it like the term Net Debt, which is merely total debt less cash. If a company's net debt figure is negative, it doesn't mean that the company has no debt at all. It's just a figure net of cash.

LOL, that's stupidly wrong.

When you calculate a company's enterprise value, you'll notice that you always subtract cash from the company's overall value. Why do you think that is...

Conservative · Feb 9, 2019

JohnfrmClevelan said:
Yes, it is, but nobody was contending that it wasn't.

Where you are making your mistake (or simply obfuscating on purpose) is that any taxes removed from consumers are added to government spending. And because the taxpayers would have saved some of that money, (bigger G + smaller C) > (smaller G + bigger C). In other words, the economy is better off when the government taxes $1000 away from you and spends it, instead of you spending a portion of that $1000 yourself.

Yes, they do. But unless the government is running a budget surplus, every cent of that money is being spent back into the economy. And further, none of it is being saved by the government. You can't say that about the same money in taxpayer hands.

No, the issue is that you are either too partisan, or too thick, to understand that the government spending is every bit as good for the economy as consumer spending. And probably better, because the government makes a point of spending domestically.

Actually it is you making the mistake into believing what you are told by bureaucrats that keep people dependent and created the 21 trillion dollar debt by buying votes from others just like you and authorizing a 4.4 trillion dollar gov't.

No one said gov't spending wasn't good but it does depend on what and why. Why did Obama bail out the teacher's unions as teachers are state expenses? Why did Obama take over GM, Sell off Chrysler and Audi to the Italians?

Gov't spending done in the private sector i.e. defense contractors does indeed work but spending it in the public sector doesn't. There is no such thing as a saved job as Obama claimed as there is no official measurement. Gov't spending is only as good as its use, to buy votes serves only bureaucrats and keeps people dependent

Hedgology · Feb 9, 2019

JasperL said:
You're just splitting hairs because you must think it makes you look smart. It's not working. What you're suggesting is the past earnings of a company have no relationship to how much they can and do pay out to owners in the form of dividends, which is stupid.

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm only telling you how dividends are issued.

I don't even know what that means, and I've got a Masters in Accounting and have worked in accounting for more than 30 years. So I have an actually quite thorough understanding of how the statements relate because I've prepared them, audited them, compiled them and reviewed them. "paid" before what expenses?

You have to be talking about whether payments to the equity owners are debited to expenses or equity, and it's the latter, they're not expenses for book or deductible for tax, so they don't appear on the income statement, but that has nothing to do with the amount or timing of the PAYMENT, just how it's recorded and presented to readers.

I'm not talking about journal entities; referring to the simple expenses flows through financial statements. You'll never see a corporation pay dividends before they pay salaries or taxes because they're not legally allowed to pay dividends.

JasperL · Feb 9, 2019

Hedgology said:
I'm not suggesting anything. I'm only telling you how dividends are issued.

I know how they're issued. Was there a point?

I'm not talking about journal entities; referring to the simple expenses flows through financial statements. You'll never see a corporation pay dividends before they pay salaries or taxes because they're not legally allowed to pay dividends.

That doesn't make any sense. I understand the words but that bolded is incomprehensible as a sentence. They don't pay dividends before what salaries or taxes? And why aren't they legally allowed to pay dividends? What law are you talking about?

JasperL · Feb 9, 2019

Hedgology said:
Huh?

No, it doesn't go "poof." Excess cash is a figure NET of working cash. The figure you see on a balance sheet is always excess cash.

The figure on the balance sheet is cash and equivalents. Period. There is no netting. It's the total of the value at the end of the period in all the company's cash accounts. The End. If you want to claim otherwise, you can tell us the SFAS that applies, or point to where this is disclosed in the footnotes to the financials, and you cannot do either one. You're wrong.

Think of it like the term Net Debt, which is merely total debt less cash. If a company's net debt figure is negative, it doesn't mean that the company has no debt at all. It's just a figure net of cash.

False.

When you calculate a company's enterprise value, you'll notice that you always subtract cash from the company's overall value. Why do you think that is...

Enterprise value isn't an accounting er

Conservative · Feb 9, 2019

Oh, the horror of it all, Federal Revenue being reduced!!! OMG, we all know that the federal govt. in the eyes of the left needs the money more than the private sector and actual taxpayers so the whining and total depression being experienced by the left is stunning to watch.

With state and local taxes setting records notice that not one leftist has responded to my request that it be time to return social programs to the states. Must be quite difficult for you big gov't liberals to accept that reality for fear of losing your subsidies as your states won't do what the Federal gov't tells you they are doing

JohnfrmClevelan · Feb 9, 2019

Conservative said:
Actually it is you making the mistake into believing what you are told by bureaucrats that keep people dependent and created the 21 trillion dollar debt by buying votes from others just like you and authorizing a 4.4 trillion dollar gov't.

No one said gov't spending wasn't good but it does depend on what and why. Why did Obama bail out the teacher's unions as teachers are state expenses? Why did Obama take over GM, Sell off Chrysler and Audi to the Italians?

Gov't spending done in the private sector i.e. defense contractors does indeed work but spending it in the public sector doesn't. There is no such thing as a saved job as Obama claimed as there is no official measurement. Gov't spending is only as good as its use, to buy votes serves only bureaucrats and keeps people dependent

Well, nothing partisan about that position. :roll:

Saving the car companies saved many thousands of jobs. What did you do with your money in 2008?

Conservative · Feb 9, 2019

JohnfrmClevelan said:
Well, nothing partisan about that position. :roll:

Saving the car companies saved many thousands of jobs. What did you do with your money in 2008?

So you have been told and lied to again as usual but you want to believe that. GM wasn't going out of business, it would have been taken over by someone else. Obama kicked the can down the road and cost the taxpayers over 10 billion dollars. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty

Greenbeard · Feb 9, 2019

Conservative said:
With state and local taxes setting records notice that not one leftist has responded to my request that it be time to return social programs to the states. Must be quite difficult for you big gov't liberals to accept that reality for fear of losing your subsidies as your states won't do what the Federal gov't tells you they are doing

Projecting a bit? You're the one reluctant to hand Social Security and Medicare off to the states.

JohnfrmClevelan · Feb 9, 2019

Conservative said:
So you have been told and lied to again as usual but you want to believe that. GM wasn't going out of business, it would have been taken over by someone else. Obama kicked the can down the road and cost the taxpayers over 10 billion dollars. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty

GM would have been sold off piece by piece in bankruptcy, or sold off piece by piece by a fire-sale buyer. Nobody had the wherewithal to buy up GM and keep it running as is.

And that sale would have destroyed hundreds of other businesses up and down the supply chain, too.

You are clueless.

Conservative · Feb 9, 2019

Greenbeard said:
Projecting a bit? You're the one reluctant to hand Social Security and Medicare off to the states.

It is you projecting, SS and Medicare are funded by payroll taxes thus have to remain with the Federal Gov't but that should be it, all other social programs including healthcare issues should go back to the states

Conservative · Feb 9, 2019

JohnfrmClevelan said:
GM would have been sold off piece by piece in bankruptcy, or sold off piece by piece by a fire-sale buyer. Nobody had the wherewithal to buy up GM and keep it running as is.

And that sale would have destroyed hundreds of other businesses up and down the supply chain, too.

You are clueless.

Maybe and maybe not, you have no idea but want to project what you think would happen. GM isn't the only auto company out there and there are millions of cars that need servicing creating demand. What Obama did was bail out the union and we are seeing the cost of that as we continue today. Liberalism never solves problems they just postpone them

Greenbeard · Feb 9, 2019

Conservative said:
It is you projecting, SS and Medicare are funded by payroll taxes thus have to remain with the Federal Gov't

Not if they're given to the states, they won't be. It'll be up to each state to figure out how (and if) to fund them. I'm sure Texas will take care of you!

Conservative · Feb 9, 2019

Greenbeard said:
Not if they're given to the states, they won't be. It'll be up to each state to figure out how (and if) to fund them. I'm sure Texas will take care of you!

SS and Medicare aren't the problem but the use of those dollars to fund those programs has always been the problem. Trillions of unfunded mandates or T-Bills that have to be funded is the issue as the bureaucrats have used the money for years on everything other than SS and Medicare but keep diverting from the real problems facing this country, the 4.4 trillion dollar federal gov't that bureaucrats use to buy votes and keep people dependent

Hedgology · Feb 10, 2019

JasperL said:
The figure on the balance sheet is cash and equivalents. Period. There is no netting. It's the total of the value at the end of the period in all the company's cash accounts. The End. If you want to claim otherwise, you can tell us the SFAS that applies, or point to where this is disclosed in the footnotes to the financials, and you cannot do either one. You're wrong.

Companies require a certain amount of cash on hand to pay bills, buy raw materials, pay employees, etc. Investors should demand a return on the “required cash” for use in operations. Cash that is not required for operations is excess cash.

Excess Cash - Invested Capital Adjustment - New Constructs

False.

Net debt can be expressed as a metric that indicates the overall debt situation of a company by netting the value of the liabilities and debts of a company along with its cash and other similar liquid assets. To put it simple, net debt refers to the total debt of a company minus cash on hand. As expressed by Investopedia, one of the most important factors that require consideration while investing in a company is the amount of debt carried by the company.

Net Debt

Enterprise value isn't an accounting er

I know people with no background love to make **** up, but what's an accounting er...

Conservative · Feb 10, 2019

JohnfrmClevelan said:
GM would have been sold off piece by piece in bankruptcy, or sold off piece by piece by a fire-sale buyer. Nobody had the wherewithal to buy up GM and keep it running as is.

And that sale would have destroyed hundreds of other businesses up and down the supply chain, too.

You are clueless.

Apparently being clueless means ignoring the private sector and gov't take over of a private business which violates the very basis of our private sector economy. There are consequences for poor choices except in that liberal world in which you live, fantasy land. The federal govt. has no business taking over any private sector business in this country as failure is an option and caused by poor business practices.

I was NOT in favor of TARP but know that TARP was a LOAN not a takeover and that loan was repaid. GM/Chrysler was a gov't take over and cost the taxpayers 10 billion dollars and set dangerous precedence but did nothing to solve the GM problem which is totally and completely union based

JasperL · Feb 10, 2019

Hedgology said:
I know people with no background love to make **** up, but what's an accounting er...

It's a typo, 'accounting term.' So let's look at your links:

This report is one of a series on the adjustments we make to convert GAAP data to economic earnings. This report focuses on an adjustment we make to convert the reported balance sheet assets into invested capital.

Do you know what GAAP means? Do you know there is a difference between what is reported on the balance sheet, in accordance with GAAP, and the unlimited number of ways you can use the data reported on the balance sheet to do various analyses? Your links show ways to "convert" what's reported on the financials prepared in accordance with GAAP to one of hundreds of ratios that are hopefully useful to investors or other users, but that are not part of GAAP.

So you're ignorant of financial reporting basics, or you are trolling. But we both knew that already.

Hedgology · Feb 10, 2019

JasperL said:
It's a typo, 'accounting term.' So let's look at your links:

Do you know what GAAP means? Do you know there is a difference between what is reported on the balance sheet, in accordance with GAAP, and the unlimited number of ways you can use the data reported on the balance sheet to do various analyses? Your links show ways to "convert" what's reported on the financials prepared in accordance with GAAP to one of hundreds of ratios that are hopefully useful to investors or other users, but that are not part of GAAP.

You do understand that companies also report Non-GAAP financials, don't you?

So you're ignorant of financial reporting basics, or you are trolling. But we both knew that already.

There are easier ways of just admitting that you learned something new.

JasperL · Feb 10, 2019

Hedgology said:
You do understand that companies also report Non-GAAP financials, don't you?

You mean like a tax return? Of course. But that's not a "financial" it's a tax return prepared for a specific purpose, to comply with U.S. or state or foreign tax laws.

Otherwise, no they don't. If a company releases a "financial statement" to the public, it must be reported in accordance with GAAP. There is only ONE "balance sheet" reported by GE and every other publicly traded company and released to the public. They can't produce one "balance sheet" for their 10-Q and quarterly releases and then do another release of their "non-GAAP" balance sheet.

They can compile into reports any financial information they want in whatever form using whatever numbers they want for internal reporting or for a special purpose, such as something a lender might want or a potential buyer, but those cannot be publicly released and they're not "financials."

There are easier ways of just admitting that you learned something new.

I learned you think financial ratios are reported on the balance sheet, which is that you're ignorant of financial reporting basics.

Hedgology · Feb 10, 2019

JasperL said:
You mean like a tax return? Of course.

No, not like a tax return. You're already 8 words in your post and you're already going to say something stupid.

But that's not a "financial" it's a tax return prepared for a specific purpose, to comply with U.S. or state or foreign tax laws.

:doh

Otherwise, no they don't. If a company releases a "financial statement" to the public, it must be reported in accordance with GAAP. There is only ONE "balance sheet" reported by GE and every other publicly traded company and released to the public..

Companies can (and do) release both GAAP and Non-GAAP earnings. GAAP earnings is for investors; non-GAAP is for analyst.

They can't produce one "balance sheet" for their 10-Q and quarterly releases and then do another release of their "non-GAAP" balance sheet.

You don't even know that 10-Q and Quarterly releases are the same thing... :doh

They can compile into reports any financial information they want in whatever form using whatever numbers they want for internal reporting or for a special purpose, such as something a lender might want or a potential buyer, but those cannot be publicly released and they're not "financials."

Non-gaap reports are most certainly financials. I can assure you that companies releases Non-gaap earnings along with their gaap earnings.

Go to any press release (or 8-K) for any company on the date of their earnings figures, search for the words "non-GAAP" or "reconciliation" and you'll find a company's non-GAAP figures.

I learned you think financial ratios are reported on the balance sheet, which is that you're ignorant of financial reporting basics.

This sentence doesn't make sense.