>

What are the odds? This will never pass. It’s for political capital, which I guess is something.
President Joe Biden will call for quadrupling the levy on corporate stock buybacks and renew his calls for a minimum tax on billionaires during his State of the Union address Tuesday. 
“This minimum tax would make sure that the wealthiest Americans no longer pay a tax rate lower than teachers and firefighters,” the White House said in a preview Monday of the economic aspects of Biden’s speech. >

Hmm, I was about to say there's no way this passes, but I imagine a billionaire tax could pass through reconciliation right?
Though I would bet on conservative Democrats like Manchin killing it.
Edit:  I should note it'd also need to pass the Republican controlled house.  So I'm back to the first thing. This isn't gonna pass even if they try to put it to a vote.  If it gets out of the Senate, it's dying in the house.  I'd be happy to be convinced otherwise, of course. >

The VP only votes if there is a tie after all Senators have voted. Manchin and Sinema voting no would result in a 49-51 tally. >

There's also the non-trivial consideration that it would still need to pass the house, which just isn't going to happen.  I could maybe stretch my imagination to conclude that every Democrat would vote for it, (which is far from certain), but I would then also have to imagine a handful of Republicans in the house voting against their party. >

Yeah, and it's why Biden is calling for it now. Silent on the subject when he had control of both chambers. >

The problem with our government is that it's easy to place the blame on a party that has control of all branches of government--until you peel it back, and realize that in actuality, they don't have enough of a majority to even really be able to do anything meaningful because just enough people sitting in those chambers are willing to vote against crucial and necessary initiatives.
To break the deadlock a party needs to have absolute control over every level of government.
The way our government is set up, and with the 24/7 war of information being conducted, we will never see unanimous control. The only thing we can hope for is that there's enough people sitting in those chambers that can prevent widely-spanning and destructive legislation from being passed. >

Control of the supreme court is important, and Dems take full responsibility for punting that for a whole generation. It's very easy to say "well, this is impossible nowwwwww" on every topic while ignoring the lack of discussion on the topic when it was possible. I am not supporting anything Republican, I'm just stating that the Dems love to talk about issues they "can't" fix, and they just need "more Dems," and they could... and yet they don't really have much of a track record even when they have those "more Dems" and there is always an excuse as to why something couldn't happen. 
Both parties work for corporations. Dems are better when it comes to social issues; that is undeniable. But, if you look at covid policy as an example, Biden and Trump were pretty much in line so far as policy even though their tone and communication differed greatly when it came to the subject. Example being Biden standing behind the shortened quarantine time that by the CDC's admission returned 33% of people to work while still contagious, all during the worst covid wave we had ever seen. Now, Biden was much better in talking about masking and vaccination, etc. but policy-wise, they were both very pro business in a way that harmed the average working American. 
I'm not stating that both sides are the same on everything just that they align often when it comes to corporate interests, and there will likely always be just enough "rogue" senators to block legislation that reduces corporate profits. If you look at moments where corporations need things (ie the bailouts for the airlines), you'll see how quickly laws can get passed. >

Do you know how many days out of the last 30 years Democrats have had control of the Presidency , the house and a filibuster proof Senate? >

and when they had that, they totally passed all the things they say they want to, right? 
ooohhhh... wait... they had "one bad democrat"™ who wouldn't go along with it so they couldn't... whoops. a story as old as time.
do you know what the supreme court would look like today if the dem justices retired when Obama could have replaced them? do you know how long the current supreme court makeup is going to last? do you realize that was a generational setback that was due almost entirely to Dem hubris? >


and when they had that, they totally passed all the things they say they want to, right?

They passed the ACA in the few short weeks they had filibuster-proof control. It's not perfect, but it was a big deal. >

Stock buy-backs were illegal up until Reagan (1982) as they were seen to be market manipulation, which they are. >

It isn’t any more manipulating than issuing new shares. Give the people a stake in such a company and see how angry they get when they realize what a new share issuance means.   
A business should be able to buy its shares back and retire them, the fact it wasn’t legal before 1982 was the mistake.  
However, I’m all for there being some kind of special tax levied on stock buybacks such as 10%. >


10%

Companies are spending 70 billion dollars on buybacks while buddying up to Congress to make sure their workers can't strike for sick days. Fuck 10%. Make it goddamn 100%. Make it 200. If they wanna buy their stocks back, they need to pay out the nose for it, and then every other orifice too. >

How about we just have federally guaranteed sick days instead of outlawing any way to counteract share dilution? >

Before buybacks were legalized, companies put profits into dividends which incentivized shareholders to hold stock. Buybacks incentivize short term profits. Buybacks also mask the fact that companies use the stocks they buy back as compensation to upper management. They don’t necessarily retire the stock. They artificially inflate the stock price and then funnel a chunk of that value into upper management. The employees don’t see any of it. (Sure, argue they see it in their 401k which is a retirement investment with major strings attached, not an investment that can be used as compensation today.) Finally, it’s a way to funnel wealth to the already-wealthy in a way that avoid income taxes. Those are the problems with buybacks - it’s another way to funnel company profit into the hands of the wealthy AND in such a way as to avoid income taxes. >

There’s nothing artificial about what it is doing to the stock price.  
Without buybacks, the market is purely dilutive in perpetuity.  
Also it isn’t avoiding taxes because the shareholder doesn’t benefit from holding more of the company until they sell the stock, the value of which is proportionally higher to how much the buyback was. >

Unless the holder keeps it in a taxable account and dies with it. Then the basis is stepped up for the beneficiary who can sell it at an extremely minimal gain and in some cases a loss. Sure there’s estate tax, but I’m sure these assholes have ways to circumvent that while still enjoying the step up >

So eliminate the step up provision………………………………………………… >

Could work. I fear it’d mess with more regular folks than rich but maybe not. I suppose if they made a certain limit after which it doesn’t apply that could work >

Rich people should not have to pay taxes! They should not have to pay anything. In fact we should all just stand in line to give them blowjobs all day. I love rich people and fuck the poor! >

Fuck the poor! >

You found our propaganda piece I see. >

A sacred film to be sure. This scene just speaks to my capitalist heart. >

Yes. Cash runs through my veins. >

And do you also piss pennies or dimes or quarters? o.0 >

That's nice but there's zero chance the GOP majority House goes for it, or enough GOP Senators to pass the filibuster. >

There is no chance this will happen. Ever. Period. >

Good intentions. It's a shame that Republicans in Congress will cockblock it. >

That's why he waited until now to do it. >

I'm warming up to Biden, and I'm glad that he's president!
I'm slowly becoming less anti-Trump and more pro-Biden >

I can't believe after everything he's done, Bidens numbers are still unchanged. He's gotten us out of the longest war the country has ever been in, rolled out vaccines and surplus checks, given trans right back to the military, reunited families at the border by reversing trump era racist shit, passed the largest infrastructure bill in history, given veterans more help, protected marriage equality, pardoned federal marijuana charges, given predatory student loan forgiveness, made medicine cheaper for americans, took action to address the gun violence, reauthorized and strengthened the violence against women act, and has the largest job growth of any president in like 6 decades or so if I remember right.
He's done more in 2 years than other presidents did in 8... >


I can't believe after everything he's done, Bidens numbers are still unchanged.

Probably because so little of what Biden has done has had a tangible effect on the lives of the voters. >

Yep. Did I think the war in Afghanistan needed to end? Certainly. Does ending it make my rent any cheaper? Nope. 
They’re not really related of course, and a ton of what drives my rent is due to state and local policy, not federal. But people don’t vote based on nuanced analysis of policy, they vote based on vibes. And right now the vibes aren’t great, at least not for a lot of people. >

Oh buddy they’re totally related.. each we spend about 2 trillion annually on tanks/planes/missiles and the lot. If we took even a FRACTION of that budget and reinvested it into the American people we’d be living in a hell of a different society >

Lol the war ended and the budget went up, didn’t it? Just maddening >

Hello? Oil company profits? >

He will call for it knowing full well there is no chance it will actually happen. His own party wouldn't even pass that let alone the GOP >

I challenge each and every member who was elected  to congress by the people to pass this to prove that you don't work for the billionaires. >

And no one heard you cause you said it on Reddit. >

Yeah, only Americans have the right to say on the laws of the land. I'm not an American yet so I only express my opinions on reddit. >

Gotta say, I’m really digging this Dark Brandon fella. >

How about we eliminate their ability to perform stock buy backs whenever they:
A) Receive bail-out money and have not remitted this back to the tax payers (not even a thing currently, this should be standard), or
B) Reduce their workforce, contributing it to unemployment, and increase their pay outs to CEOs. If they can't afford workers, they can't afford to spend the money they don't have right?
Any other suggestions? >

Remove stock buy backs OVERALL. It's an artificial way to increase shareholder value without actually adding value to the company. All that money could go towards improvements for the actual staff and customers. 
We have bent over too much to wallstreet and quarterly growth that stock buy backs should be banned overall. If you want to improve your share price or market cap then do it by improving the actual business and not playing around with outstanding shares. >

Actually buy backs increase the proportion of the company held by the remaining outstanding shares. It’s stupid for the only possible direction to be stock issuance. What we need is a fix, not a ban. >

Yeah this is a part I'm curious of myself for what's the right solution. Gut feeling is that it should be eliminated all together. But that turns it into a one sided economy that's ripe for manipulation. Buybacks can be used to fight wall Street manipulation, but I'm not sure if that benefit outweighs the burden buybacks give >

How about we just go back to pre-1980's where stock buy backs were illegal? >

Can someone ELI5 stock buy backs? I just tried to figure it out…do they just line the pockets of investors at the expense of running the business properly? Which in turn, puts employees at risk? >

Basically, CEOs don't have much of a base salary. They get paid in stock, and in bonuses if the stock does well. This makes CEOs want the company to do well in the short term while overlooking the long-term.
Companies don't pay taxes on every penny they make, they pay money on their profits. If they have a lot of profit at the end of the year, they can do things to reduce their tax obligations. One of those is buying back publicly traded stock and taking it off the market. If a company has a $1 billion profit, and they buy back $1 billion in stock, they suddenly have no profit and don't pay taxes on it, while at the same time become a more wealthy company.
When a stock buyback occurs, two things happen. One the company is showing that they are profitable, and two the company is increasing the scarcity of the stock in the marketplace. Both of these drive up the price.
So a company will buy back stock, the company is now more wealthy, the CEO is now better paid because the stock price went up, and the company didn't have to pay any taxes.
Prior to 1982, stock buybacks were considered an act of price manipulation, and it was illegal. The Reagan administration changed that by fiat. Last year, stock buybacks themselves were taxed for the first time at a rate of 1% as part of the Inflation Reduction Act. It's been successful at raising funds, but not successful at deterring that behavior, so Democrats want to increase it. >

2 quick things:


Buybacks aren’t a tax deduction, and they don’t reduce profit. It doesn’t touch the income statement at all actually 


It’s unclear on whether buybacks actually increase the share price, since they also reduce total equity and cash in the company >

And the billionaire's in front of him, and the patsies PAID by said billionaires, will be very impressed I'm sure. >

This is a good step, though very unlikely to go anywhere. 
What I would love to see a Dem do though is to lay out a comprehensive vision of taxation in this country - a vision for a complete re-do of the tax system that makes it much more simple, much more direct, and much more broadly progressive in its brackets and rates. >

Stock buybacks were illegal until Regan.
Once again we have to fight tooth and nail to claw halfway back to how things were. >

At least, unlike Republicans, Democrats know where they stand. They actively try to help average Americans so they keep winning elections. Republicans just suck off billionaires and pretend like helping them is helping us. Which isn't true and is a broken way of continuing onward. This country is screwed though until at least 2024 and Democrats can take back Congress. The Republican party just serves to obstruct actual progress. >

Sure hope not!  I plan on being a billionaire real soon and would hate to spoil the reward! 
-some republican living in a hut in Tennessee. >

Nice. >

Lol ok. If he actually cared he would have brought this up sometime in the first 2 years when it was remotely possible. >

I don't think this was possible when Manchin and Sinema were in control in the Senate :/ >

None of it will pass. This will be two years of nothing passing. >

Funny how the Dems only call for a billionaire tax when there's no chance they could actually pass it... >

Unfortunately there is no such thing as a billionaire. No one in the world has a bank account/s that read (or total) +$1,000,000,000. Their billionaire status comes from owning stock, and as long as they don't sell the stock, they can't be taxed on it. Sure they can implement a feel good billionaire tax, but if know one is making a billion dollars, then no one gets taxed. >

He calls for it because knows it will never pass in the house or senate, and he can score free brownie points without pissing off his corpo handlers. >

Talk is cheap. Make it happen.