🚀 go-pugleaf

JimP wrote:
> On 8 Feb 2018 14:40:58 GMT, jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Dave Garland wrote:
>>> On 2/7/2018 9:07 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>>>>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:37:35 -0800 (PST), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 9:31:46 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Reverse inversion".  What's "spurious" about it?  US corporate
>>taxes
>>>>>>>>>>> were ludicrously high
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nonsense.   US Companies were rolling in dough before the
>>>>>>>>>> manifestly foolish tax plan was passed, which will never
>>>>>>>>>> be paid for in our children's lifetime.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Spoken like true knee-jerk liberals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wow, you can't support your statement so you devolve to namecalling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A lot of that money was just sitting overseas collecting dust and
>>interest.
>>>>>> Now some companies are moving it back to the States using it for
>>>>>> infrastructure and distributions to employees (which is taxed as
income--
>>>>>> so part of it is ending up in the Federal coffers).
>>>>>
>>>>> Cite?
>>>>>
>>>>> Many (Most?) CEO's have indicated they'll return the cash to
shareholders
>>>> rather
>>>>> than invest in plant or people.   There obviously will be exceptions by
>>>>> either altrusistic CEOS (one in 10000) or those currying favor from the
>>>>> idiot-in-chief.
>>>>
>>>> Shareholders have been experiencing reductions in dividends since the
>>>> banking system imploded so they should get some.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect a lot of CEO's are leery so are waiting to see if Congress
takes
>>>> it all back which they can with one pen-stroke.
>>>>
>>>> What I don't know is whether the cash brought in from overseas is subject
>>>> to an income tax; I think it is so Congress will be getting windfall
>>>> to waste.
>>>
>>> Yes, but this Congress is already using it to lower personal income
>>> taxes for the rich. Unfortunately, it's a one-time gob of money, and
>>> the next years they'll either have to raise taxes, or cut stuff like
>>> the military and Social Security (and it's not likely to be the military).
>>
>>Why do you think that?  Power will eventually shift to the Democrats and
>>they will continue gutting the military like they were during the
>>Obama admin.  Soc. Sec. is already shifting from providing cash for
>>the recipients to withholding for Medicare.
>>
>>/BAH
>
> I never received a check from Social Security. Medicare Part B and D
> are deducted before I get my money. Its direct.

i guess I didn't write very well.  In my long-range planning, I'm
expecting at least half of the Soc.Sec. gross amount to be applied
towards medical insurance ( and whatever other insurances are added
in the future).

When I used the word cash, I meant the amount deposited in a
person's bank account or the check which is sent to him/her.

/BAH