Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 345
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climatePage 13 of 17    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
Do ya'll want to tell me what size business we're speaking of...because in the case of the trucker ...why would he go any farther with incorporation than an LLC that would still be taxed as a proprietorship??? Many small businesses never incorporate and are taxed at personal income levels...eg proprietorship...on to partnerships...on to LLC's that afford some level of seperation of liability to for the owner yet are taxed as proprietorships...on to S and C corps.

It is important to know what we size of business we are talking of and to what level of incorporation the business is incorporated....because it seems as though we're talking about mom and pop businesses and are appling the max corporate tax bracket to them...and thus the conversation sounds stupid to me because it is so far from reality it sounds as though I'm listening to my children talk about some subject that is beyond their understanding.

There are no retained earning on any corporation till one incorporates to the S or C level
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 346
view profile
History
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/14/2013 9:25:56 AM

So please keep working for those poor billionares and keep telling everyone that they are so hard up a tax adjustment back to pervious levels will be devistaiting to the ecomony, and in related news jabba the hut would like everyone to know that he is running out of food.


Okay... This isn't what I am saying at all. I am saying that liberal policies are the reason for the problems. Not billionaires. They do what they do because they can. In this environment only the largest are winning. This is directly related to national scale business. It is directly related to population growth. It is directly related to government consolidation and government paying for services.

Nothing you guys think you want to do will address the situation. It will just continually compound the problem over and over and over and over. The part I find interesting is I do not think the people in power are stupid. While you guys seem to think all republicans are stupid the same is not true in reverse. I just think it is done on purpose. The objective is to destroy the system and implement a new one.

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20130409/NEWS01/304090057/Medicare-leak-sparked-Humana-jump-investigated
When one company can set a price and impact everyone, including those not on the system, that is too big.


At issue is a private e-mail from a politically connected research firm that alerted recipients the rates, scheduled to drop under a preliminary decision, would increase instead.



It is just mind numbing how much of a giant corporation liberals want running the show.


Businesses expand when they see a growing market (i.e. buyers with money to spend), not simply because they have extra change rattling around.

If this were true then enterprise business would be expanding... Oh wait, they are. Large companies are eating smaller business and growing larger and cutting headcount. How's that healthcare industry going

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/15/so-you-want-to-buy-a-hospital/

Alhquist should know: He leads the health care division at consulting firm Booz & Company and recently completed a sweeping new study of health care mergers and acquisitions. It showed that, in recent years, hospital mergers have surged.


I have not seen a single bit of evidence that shows that you guys have put any thought into your beliefs about government and the impact on life, jobs, and the future.

The only arguments I see are boogey men and feeble good intentions. Nothing of substance. No support. Nothing but change for changes sake with no regard to consequences and no personal reflection of impact. Just expectations of government services as coming to the rescue.

The economy to liberals is about the equivalent as evolution is to the new american christian right. Ignore every single bit of evidence and facts and math and logic to support a mythical, unachievable , and illogical utopian goal of, "things are going to be okay."

If you can't show the math of how most companies improve by higher taxes then you can't show economic growth. You can't use individuals increase of social services as a marker to show economic growth. At best the only thing you can show is a flow of existing money. No new wealth is created. There can be no growth through this model. It is only an idealistic expectation that people will spend small amounts on necessities. That is not a plan for success.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 347
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/14/2013 9:32:20 AM
If you can't show the math of how most companies improve by higher taxes


Clearly, you still do not know the difference between marginal and effective tax rates....when it comes to effective tax rates US corporations have some of the lowest tax rates in the industrialized world...perhaps not as low as Bermuda...but, certianly lower than many of the rest....perhaps, in order to satisfy the conservative, we as a nation, instead of taxing corporations, should give them subsidies...opps...sorry about that...we already do.

And clearly, when you post gross earnings as being taxed at max corporate rates..you show your level of understanding to be quite deficient...and are relying on FOX News as a source of your expertise on the subject.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 348
view profile
History
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/14/2013 9:48:43 AM

If you can't show the math of how most companies improve by higher taxes then you can't show economic growth.


Utterly false "reasoning." I put reasoning in quotes, because there IS no reasoning involved with that statement.

Save for the attempts to shape corporate policies, and/or promote some endeavors and areas of emphasis over others, taxing anything isn't done to "improve how most companies" grow. It is done to collect revenue, in order to run the government which makes it POSSIBLE for them to do business at all.

No one has to prove that taxation improves a company's or an individuals ability to enrich themselves. That's a ludicrous demand to make, and not a little ingenuous.

And it certainly does absolutely nothing at all to respond rationally to arguments against allowing them to pay even less, when higher revenues are needed. As we've gone over many times, allowing people who already have a lot of money socked away to sock even more away, does nothing at all to either reduce deficits, or to improve investments that might generate growth.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 349
view profile
History
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/14/2013 10:33:59 AM

No one has to prove that taxation improves a company's or an individuals ability to enrich themselves. That's a ludicrous demand to make, and not a little ingenuous.

And it certainly does absolutely nothing at all to respond rationally to arguments against allowing them to pay even less, when higher revenues are needed. As we've gone over many times, allowing people who already have a lot of money socked away to sock even more away, does nothing at all to either reduce deficits, or to improve investments that might generate growth.


I absolutely accept your first statement. Without question. Can you also accept that this is why wages and employment are not doing so great? You just restated what I have been saying. You can't prove it because it is ludicrous. This is where your jobs come from.

You then fall back to the need for higher taxes. Okay, why are higher taxes needed? Because welfare is higher, food stamp enrollment is off the charts, and people are in need. Why? Because they don't have JOBS.

So, explain again how restricting wealth creation is going to improve this situation?

We have gone over it many times. Those at the top are getting bigger because of consolidation, lack of confidence, insecurity, and a general protection stance against higher taxes that are being waged through political rhetoric and activism.

I would assume you think Exxon makes an obscene profit right. There is a report that says 16billion which inludes the sale of assets and about 8 billion for regular profit. Sounds like a ton. It does to me.

http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/xom/financials/cash-flow
Currently they are at 11Billion cash on had. They may be trying to prepare for the eventual "mistake"
http://wallstcheatsheet.com/business/how-much-more-will-the-deepwater-oil-spill-cost-bp.html/

the oil and gas producer has paid $14 billion in clean-up costs for the damage done to the Gulf of Mexico and surrounding coastline and $10 billion in compensation.
....
The settlement the company made with businesses and individuals affected by the 2010 spill has also added quite a burden. BP noted in its annual report this week that costs stemming from that deal will be “significantly higher” than the $7.7 billion it has already paid, reported the FinancialTimes. Payments came in higher than expected, and the company still has thousands of claims for businesses’ economic losses left to process.

A decision made on March 5 in the New Orleans courtroom could also add billions to that sum…

So they could be heading up over 30 billion in cash.

Exxon couldn't publicly state this but that could be a reason why the industry has gone on a profit binge. Maybe it isn't just to enrich the guy at the top. It's insurance. No one else will be coming to help them.

So, instead of always having the default position that rich people lie, cheat, steal, and horde and only dole out a pittance when forced.... try considering more complex scenarios that you may not see on msnbc or fox, or cnn.

If this position was already stated somewhere I am unaware of it. I think it will pretty much just cause general fits of laughter from most here anyway.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 350
view profile
History
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/14/2013 11:35:28 AM

So, explain again how restricting wealth creation is going to improve this situation?


Get the terms correct first. You are the one claiming that taxing wealthy individuals and corporations has as it's goal, or it's inevitable result, the restriction of wealth creation. That has not only never been proved positively, but was directly proved to be false, during Reagan's administration long ago. They had to go into wild deficit spending to spur the economy into activity, because the tax breaks did nothing at all that they promised that they would. No surprise to anyone who thinks for more than a few seconds about how and why people spend money.

Taxes don't restrict wealth creation. Taxes feed off of it. If no wealth is created, then no taxation occurs (save the ones I dislike the most, property taxes).
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 351
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/14/2013 12:40:04 PM
If you can't show the math of how most companies improve by higher taxes then you can't show economic growth.

OK, sunshine... Even though your assertions about taxes are false, I'll play along just for sh!ts 'n' giggles... We'll even use your formula to do it (see how nice I am in letting you 'have it your way'?)... Let's just plug these numbers into your little formula (calculated correctly, rather than your way)...

We'll assume we have a 'high tax' environment because the rate is now 60% rather than 39%... Let's take advantage of that by expanding our company by doubling our size... Lets assume that this business has a excellent model and that income accurately reflects the effect of this model (after all, you want a well managed business, right?)... On this basis we can make a sound assumption that they have read the markets well and will also double thier revenues as a result...

Total expenses (salary/other)
$91,500,000

Total income
$200,000,000

Net income
$108,500,000

Tax rate
60%

Tax paid
$65,100,000

Total profit
$43,400,000


So, by expanding our company to take advantage of the higher tax environment we have: Tripled the revenues generated through taxes, expanded the company's profit by over $10 million and grown both the business and economy... Happy to have been proven wrong again...?

I think it will pretty much just cause general fits of laughter from most here anyway.

Well, at least THAT observation is consistent with the facts...

Do ya'll want to tell me what size business we're speaking of...because in the case of the trucker ...why would he go any farther with incorporation than an LLC that would still be taxed as a proprietorship??? Many small businesses never incorporate and are taxed at personal income levels...eg proprietorship...on to partnerships...on to LLC's that afford some level of seperation of liability to for the owner yet are taxed as proprietorships...on to S and C corps.

It is important to know what we size of business we are talking of and to what level of incorporation the business is incorporated....because it seems as though we're talking about mom and pop businesses and are appling the max corporate tax bracket to them...and thus the conversation sounds stupid to me because it is so far from reality it sounds as though I'm listening to my children talk about some subject that is beyond their understanding.

There are no retained earning on any corporation till one incorporates to the S or C level

Well, from my perspective, I'm referring mainly to the higher level corporation since we are talking about federal corporate taxes and 'retained earnings' (that is why I keep referencing 'corporate taxes' which are paid by the higher-level corps separately from the owner(s) personal income(s), but not the 'pass-through' type businesses, like most small businesses, where earnings are taxed as personal income)... However, I suspect the other poster is trying to conflate proprietorships/partnerships with higher-level incorporation to 'muddy the waters' and make a point which otherwise would not be valid... I suspect that the instance he is referring to is run as a "proprietorship" or "limited liabilty" company where the guy is putting excess income into a 'tax-deferred account' or 'rrsp'... I'm choosing to ignore his largely irrelevant 'oranges' and focus on the relevant 'apples' (it's either that or become sarcastic and condescending but I try to reserve for unmitigated idiocy, a point he hasn't reached yet)...
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 352
view profile
History
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/14/2013 1:12:42 PM

We'll assume we have a 'high tax' environment because the rate is now 60% rather than 39%... Let's take advantage of that by expanding our company by doubling our size... Lets assume that this business has a excellent model and that income accurately reflects the effect of this model (after all, you want a well managed business, right?)... On this basis we can make a sound assumption that they have read the markets well and will also double thier revenues as a result..


Uh... okay... so you are saying that going from 39% tax to 60% tax will let the company double in size?

Or are you assuming that the prior rate was 90% and then it gets lowered to 60%?

It should be painfully clear that business is not the origin of all of these problems. It is government. You may complain about business influence but it is the government that loves lobbyist. You may bemoan the amount of money that corporations avoid in taxes but you can think Job #2. The job post government office. Lobbyist. It's where the real money is.

Your government that you want to save you is making the rules to create the environment that defies all sense of logic.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120315/23155418121/elected-officials-get-average-1452-salary-increase-when-they-take-lobbying-job.shtml

Republic Report has looked up the details on some former elected officials who became lobbyists and noted that, on average, they got a boost in salaries of 1,452%. Also of note: they can negotiate these deals while still in office and don't have to tell anyone about them or even reveal what their salaries are. That can lead to clear conflicts of interest that are mostly ignored by the public and the press:


The reason none of this gets addressed is quite simple. Not trusting government officials goes against the core religion of the left for the government to fix everything. If there was a healthy economy and job market there would hardly be a need for widespread and overarching welfare programs now. They are in business to get more customers also.
 427cammer
Joined: 3/1/2008
Msg: 353
view profile
History
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/14/2013 1:29:54 PM
mungojoe:


He either has to take his money out and pay the taxes, or he has to find new business ventures for that money within a year.

...............Or are you suggesting that a company can only keep it so long until it has to pay the corporate tax a second time...

I'm pretty sure I mispoke. Thinking back on it, he had sold a bunch of equipment for a lot higher prices than what his accountant had it valued at (the accountant had depreciated it at a certain value every year when in fact it had gained in value). I think he either had to re-invest that money or pay capital gains on it.

At any rate, the point I was getting at, was that in order for a company to expand it needs to have cash in the bank and be able to show it has been making a profit.... eliminating any profit by turning that money into wages for the owner would be an indicator of a business that'll never grow. Having a lower corporate rate than the owners' income tax bracket (like we have here in Canada) would be an incentive to leave the money in the company. I still believe this to be true.

First you give examples of these things being provided for middle-management/grunt workers (because you have personally "heard" of it) but deny that it can/is done for upper management (because you haven't personally "heard" of it)...?

The examples I gave would be purchases the company made that were legitimate business decisions. Accountants get pretty tetchy about this stuff, "Can you show how this purchase will earn the company money (or at least save company money)?". I don't see how someone could fool the taxman into believing that a $10 million house or a $20 million yacht is a legitimate business expense. On "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" Robin Leach will show us a mansion that is owned by the CEO of XYZ corp.... nobody ever mentions that XYZ corp is the owner.

It's easy to imagine that the giant corps are screwing us at taxtime (pretty much all the time).... sometimes the accusations made don't even make sense.... obvious bullshit. There was a rumour going around my town that when they built our local pulp mill, P&G buried tens of millions of dollars worth of construction equipment out in the nearby sand dunes so they could use it as a tax write-off (because this makes sense to people who don't understand taxes). You'd here about this through a friend's dad's uncle. I'm always sceptical abot inuendo.


Irish:

Do ya'll want to tell me what size business we're speaking of...because in the case of the trucker ...why would he go any farther with incorporation than an LLC that would still be taxed as a proprietorship??? Many small businesses never incorporate and are taxed at personal income levels...eg proprietorship...

Don't know what an LLC is.... probably doesn't apply to Canada.

Many (most?) of the small businesses up here work for oil companies. Some of these businesses are small enough that it'd make more sense to run as a proprietorship but the oil companies only want to deal with an incorporated business (one reason I heard was that if the proprietorship didn't pay it's taxes and went broke the oil company would be on the hook).
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 354
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/14/2013 4:15:01 PM

Uh... okay... so you are saying that going from 39% tax to 60% tax will let the company double in size?

Ummm... No...?

I'm assuming that the company has $54,250,000 in pre-tax net revenues that it can avoid tax on by dumping it back into the company... I'm having them dump in an additional $45,750,000 of pre-tax (which will take taxable doen to a pittance in comparison) in one year to earn an additional $10 million the following and subsequent years... I thought that would be obvious (guess you missed the business class where they talked about that kind of stuff)...

I think he either had to re-invest that money or pay capital gains on it.

Sounds about right...

Having a lower corporate rate than the owners' income tax bracket (like we have here in Canada) would be an incentive to leave the money in the company. I still believe this to be true.

Well of course, as a means of tax minimization (actually re-investing it) or tax avoidance (put it in a deferred account)... I just don't think such tax differentials provides a primary motive for expansion for the 'mom and pop' size business...

It's easy to imagine that the giant corps are screwing us at taxtime (pretty much all the time)....

Oh, it's very easy to imagine, I absolutely agree... It becomes even easier when places like Delaware go out of thier way to make this sort of thing easy...

Corporate owned yacht:
If you decide to form a Delaware corporation to own property like yacht, aircraft or real estate there can be tax advantages and you can limit your personal liability.

http://www.offshoregate.com/usa.html


Purchasing a new or used yacht? Why should I buy my yacht in a corporation or LLC?

Are you aware that all of your personal assets are in jeopardy if you own your yacht as an individual or as a partnership. To shield yourself from total financial disaster take advantage of the limited liability offered by a Delaware Corporation or a Delaware Limited Liability Company. Owning an yacht in this manner can offer you asset protection, privacy and tax savings.

http://www.global-inter.net/boat.html


On "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" Robin Leach will show us a mansion that is owned by the CEO of XYZ corp....

That is because you generally don't see it happening to that extent in publicly-traded corps. like Xerox, they have shareholders to answer to... More common would be the 'close corporations' (unlisted companies) such as Koch Industries...
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 355
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/14/2013 6:01:51 PM
I heard about a pretty clever tax avoidance technique for people of means awhile back. The gist is this: own a holding company that owns multiple other companies. If one of the held companies loses money, that can be used as a tax write off for the holding company, and it further reduces its tax liability from its more profitable ventures-- a hedging technique, in other words.

In this particular case, the person had one successful company and an air charter company. The air charter company was the one losing money (as is often the case in aviation). But with this clever way of using one company's losses to reduce the tax liability of his successful company, he gets use of a fleet of aircraft for business or pleasure at an overall reduced cost to himself.

Pretty smart! An owner is able to take advantage of the varying tax situations (tax bracket, public/private, profitable or no) of different companies simultaneously. Having heard that, I realized that even poor performing (privately held, at least) companies cannot necessarily be taken at face value. One has to follow who owns what to get the fuller picture.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 356
view profile
History
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/14/2013 10:40:46 PM
Okay, despite being totally obnoxious about it I have been trying to figure out how you guys think.

Okay, here is your numbers but a bit more realistic. I mixed it with mine to account for people and get the avg salary per employee. I put the tax rate back to normal in this example. Picked a relatively avg salary to target.

Net profit margin is a very generous 20% based off of
http://biz.yahoo.com/p/sum_qpmd.html


Gross $200,000,000.00
net profit margin 80%
expenses $160,000,000.00
net $40,000,000.00
tax rate 24%
tax paid $9,600,000.00
profit 30,400,000
profit percentage 15%

employees 600
ratio of expenses 0.22
available for operating $124,800,000.00
available for wage $35,200,000.00
avg wage $58,666.67


I think I understand your position. In this model tax rate only has impact on Profit. So, you can raise the tax to 60% and it will not touch any other part of the business.

ex:


Gross $200,000,000.00
net profit margin 80%
expenses $160,000,000.00
net $40,000,000.00
tax rate 60%
tax paid $24,000,000.00
profit 16,000,000
profit percentage 8%

employees 600
ratio of expenses 0.22
available for operating $124,800,000.00
available for wage $35,200,000.00
avg wage $58,666.67


And they still have 16 million to "grow the business". Nothing else changed. No other impacts. It's just attaching profits for redistribution to government services for the common good.
*** I am assuming this is where most liberal positions sit.

Profit % went from 15 to 8 and there is plenty left for everyone. And it is a fair system because "everyone gets to write off company expenses" so it is only profit that is taxed.

Just so we don't lose our minds here let's bring it back to rational... not 60% tax but 39.


tax rate 39%
tax paid $15,600,000.00
profit 24,400,000
profit percentage 12%

So, we went from a 15% profit to a 12% profit and that should be fine and everyone should just be happy. Except the stock holders, investors, banks, and competition. But that's okay because everyone gets impacted the same.

The idea that companies operate with large amounts of operating expense waste is true.... but for companies that have been around the block they have been around the block. With decent employees and even half ass ones you can generally be sure that operating costs are as low as they can be made at the time and employee's do not count on double digit raises every year... a few cents per hour is typically what is expected.

So, why do taxes directly impact wages, employement, and growth when they are clearly so distinct from taxes...

"gross profit" or what i have listed as "profit percentage".

That 15% rise in taxes that reduced profit from 15% to 12%. Guess what.... That money was allocated, or planned to be allocated for at least a year, if not 3 or 5 or 10. There are things called budget projections and planning that are done every few months. It is done in advance for yearly budgets with assumptions made for long term plans and projections. Guess what. That 15% number. That just may have been the company happy number. That number got them investments in stocks, some good credit lines, and a whole bunch of other intangible assets. That number going lower is a red flag of problems. Especially if the following three years depended on the 15%. The smart answer... make up that 3%.

Where is the only place it can come from.
Operating costs? Only if you do less business or get lucky and negotiate some good lower terms. Unreliable.
Make more money? Well isn't that everyone's pie in the sky dream... unreliable.
The only place left is Wages or head count.

lets find 3%.



24% $30,400,000.00
39% $24,400,000.00
need to make up $6,000,000.00
cut how many people 102.27


To make up that 3% in avg salary 102 people need to go. That will then lower the expenses

How do we look now. Great!

Gross $200,000,000.00
net profit margin 76%
expenses $152,000,000.00
net $48,000,000.00
tax rate 39%
tax paid $18,720,000.00
profit 29,280,000
profit percentage 15%

employees 498
ratio of expenses 0.192
available for operating $122,816,000.00
available for wage $29,184,000.00
avg wage $58,602.41


employee expense ratio only dropped by 3% to restore profits. Operating cutbacks had to occur to allow current salary rates. Perfect. Everyone is happy. The government got their increase. How much of an increase?



tax rate 24%
tax paid $9,600,000.00


To


tax rate 39%
tax paid $18,720,000.00


9 million more in taxes for 3% (6 million) of expenses and 102 jobs to cover and retain profit levels.
More taxes collected (in value) then jobs lost. Good because there are now new customers for government services.

So, thanks... I understand now why liberals think taxes have no impact. They just forget that corporations are not people. They are groups of policies and procedures. They do not think, have feelings, nor do they care. Kind of like the government. They just have smaller spheres of influence.

Taxes have a direct impact on employment and wages. Of all the variables to work with the only one that is constant, knowable, and under any reliable business control is "employees". Just about everything else is externally driven control therefore not a reliable mechanism for addressing things like, "increased taxes.".

Thanks for trying to set me straight. You are doing a good job helping me establish what I already knew.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 357
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/15/2013 1:59:23 PM
Okay, here is your numbers but a bit more realistic.

ROFLMAO

A bit more realistic...?!?
ROFLMAO

Dude, you altered every number to a higher value EXCEPT the gross revenue... When you raised the tax rate you didn't 'grow the company' to increase the revenue stream AND you jacked the tax rate up by 250% compared to 153%...

The ONLY thing you proved was that you aren't even capable of being honest with math either... Of course you got the results you wanted, you rigged the numbers to achieve exactly that goal... You rigged the numbers so there wouldn't be an off-set due to the increase in real dollar profit...

In short, dude, you tried to scam your way to a point you couldn't get to by honesty and logic...

You are doing a good job helping me establish what I already knew.

I'm glad you think so because I doubt you could handle the admission that you realy have no clue and have to resort to dishonesty to try and make your point... Here is a hint for you, sunshine, if you have to use falsehoods and invented "facts" to make your point, you have no point...

So, why do taxes directly impact wages, employement, and growth when they are clearly so distinct from taxes...

Umm... it wasn't taxes that made the company in your example cut employment... taxes cannot 'make' anyone 'do' anything... It is a personal choice that 'makes' people 'do' and in your case the personal choice was one based on personal greed... They did not have to cut employment, they could have accepted a lower gross v. profit ratio owing to the increase in real dollar profit (which you would have obtained if you had been honest rather than trying to rig the example)...
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 358
view profile
History
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/15/2013 2:52:35 PM
^^^ I don't see the problems with the numbers used. Is there an error?


I'm glad you think so because I doubt you could handle the admission that you realy have no clue and have to resort to dishonesty to try and make your point... Here is a hint for you, sunshine, if you have to use falsehoods and invented "facts" to make your point, you have no point...

wth man... I tried to use numbers and simple math with common terms to understand your position vs mine. All you do is **** and complain about everything.

I made a comment that I think your position is that raising and lower of taxes has no impact other than on profit and you still reject that.

I made a comment that my position says that lowering the gross revenue causes business problems because of future predictions, stock ratings, investor ratings as well as bank credit and reputation and that is where the effort to account for the tax hit on profits.

Is there anything at all you can get from this? Not one thing I have said was being dishonest. I tried to figure out your position which I really do not understand and the only justification I get from people like you is that rich people are mean. so.... I tried to really understand wtf you think.... Apparently it is just magic and only the special people get it.
It is a personal choice that 'makes' people 'do' and in your case the personal choice was one based on personal greed... They did not have to cut employment, they could have accepted a lower gross v. profit ratio owing to the increase in real dollar profit (which you would have obtained if you had been honest rather than trying to rig the example)...


It is not my fault that you can not comprehend or do not like that the basis for business is profit.

Apparently no one is allowed to even try to understand your position without blindly accepting that rich people are greedy.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 359
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/15/2013 4:17:20 PM

I don't see the problems with the numbers used. Is there an error?

I've already explained the dishonesty you engaged in... I'm not going to do it a second time, you can read back and try again to comprehend...

Not one thing I have said was being dishonest.

Geez, man... Now you are going to be dishonest about your dishonesty...? While this is typical for a conservative, you are carrying it to another level...

Apparently no one is allowed to even try to understand your position without blindly accepting that rich people are greedy.

Typical... First you rant and rave about how percentages are "unfair" and "meaningless" when it comes to money you have to pay out (taxes)... Then you start ranting in favor of percentages when it comes to money you take in (profit)... Seems an awful lot like "Louis and Marie, Together Again"... You're not just saying "eat cake" because you have all the bread, you want the cake too... And, of course, personal greed has nothing to do with it, oh no, not here...
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 360
view profile
History
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/15/2013 5:47:19 PM

Then you start ranting in favor of percentages when it comes to money you take in (profit)...

I am not in favor of it.

Reality is the 3% was not significant. Reality is that business judges that 3% as a loss. Loss in business is a sign of decline. It's the problem with seeing things as a percentage that is a problem. Percentage does not reflect reality of value.

Percentages are poor comparisons between the value of contributions. WTF is contradicting in any of this? Why is it so impossible for you to have your own rational inferences? The problem is that you can not change how business works. It is based on profit and projected revenue. You can't change it. The business is forced to compensate.

It is not a 'fair' portrayal to claim that a small company had a 50% increase in profits and is more attractive as an investment then a company that had 10% growth. But that is the reality. 50% company may only be 1/100 the size of the 8% company and that 50% growth is nowhere near as impressive as the 8% growth of the larger company.


I wasn't arguing for the %. I was saying simply that wages and employment are easier variables for a company to control then external factors. This makes wages and employment an effective tool for altering that %. You may not like it but it is true.

You don't have to like it. You are supposed to prove it wrong. I am really trying to understand how a liberal thinks. It is really a different plane of existence apparently. It seems like the only way is to just stop thinking, ignore reality, ignore human nature, and just believe.

I do not want you to think like me I just want you to think. Even a little bit would be impressive.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 361
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/15/2013 6:39:26 PM
Reality is the 3% was not significant. Reality is that business judges that 3% as a loss.
....
The business is forced to compensate.

They are NOT forced to compensate by dropping employees... That is the point I made...

Dropping employees only becomes the "more attractive" option if they are stupid enough to hunker down, eat the tax increase and hope to "ride it out" until taxes come back down (which may not happen for years)... The smart company takes advantage of the situation to temporarily reduce thier tax liabilities by reinvesting back into the company to raise thier revenue stream... That company (the smart one) will offset the impact on profit and maintain/increase thier real dollar profits for subsequent years, making themselves more viable and vibrant and providing thier shareholders (or themselves in a 'close corp.') with larger 'real dollar' dividends (despite with a lower revenue-to-profit ratio)...

I do not want you to think like me...

Well thank god for that... I can't even begin to imagine how long I would have to be 'under the knife' for that to happen...

... I just want you to think. Even a little bit would be impressive.

Funny, that's what we are trying to get you to do... The difference is that we have demonstrated that need (for you) numerous times by pointing out the umpteen errors in fact and logic that you have made in just this one thread... All you seem to be able to manage is to throw out yet more logical and factual errors while claiming (without any proof to back it up, I might add) that it is we who don't think...
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 362
view profile
History
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/15/2013 7:28:16 PM

The smart company takes advantage of the situation to temporarily reduce thier tax liabilities by reinvesting back into the company to raise thier revenue stream...


Okay, so you think that raising taxes is good for business because they can spend their "profits" to reduce their tax rates (temporarily) to become more profitable. And then after this temporary period their profits will be higher and you get more taxes. Everybody wins.

Is that accurate or not?

So, just as a question from the idiot you think I am. Do you think it is a lack of trying and unwillingness to spend money that prevents companies from expanding their business to increase profits? Like they have the money just not the motivation?
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 363
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/15/2013 8:06:54 PM
So, why do taxes directly impact wages, employement, and growth when they are clearly so distinct from taxes...

I think you mean "taxes indirectly impact..."

To make up that 3% in avg salary 102 people need to go. That will then lower the expenses

How do we look now. Great!

You are assuming that you can cut the workforce by 17% while leaving gross revenues unaffected. It is not a reasonable assumption. Are we, in return, supposed to assume that the cotton gin or something was invented in the interim? That would undoubtedly be convenient.

I understand now why liberals think taxes have no impact.

You have some rereading to do if that is how you "understand" things.

Taxes have a direct impact on employment and wages.

Again, I think you mean that taxes have an indirect impact on employment and wages.

You are doing a good job helping me establish what I already knew.

More accurately, it is what you already concluded to be true without benefit of historical knowledge or relevant facts. You certainly are a student of Sowell-- make the information fit your foregone conclusion-- contradictory information can be discarded/ignored. Sowell's errors are just less obvious.

Having cash on hand is currently not a problem for successful businesses right now. They still aren't hiring more workers, for the most part, even if their staff is smaller than 5 years ago. According to your example, they should be hiring again. It's no mystery to me why they are not, but this fact should be completely mystifying to you. You have to resort to "Oblamo" to explain it.
 427cammer
Joined: 3/1/2008
Msg: 364
view profile
History
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/15/2013 8:20:16 PM
mungojoe:

The smart company takes advantage of the situation to temporarily reduce thier tax liabilities by reinvesting back into the company to raise thier revenue stream... That company (the smart one) will offset the impact on profit and maintain/increase thier real dollar profits for subsequent years, making themselves more viable and vibrant and providing thier shareholders (or themselves in a 'close corp.') with larger 'real dollar' dividends (despite with a lower revenue-to-profit ratio)...

If it is a wise decision for a company to reinvest their profits and grow when tax rates are high.... wouldn't it be just as wise (or wiser) to grow when rates are low? It still costs the same amount to expand the business.

This reminds me of an argument I had with an ex-girlfriend. She had a 50% off coupon to be spent at a store specializing in jeans. She wasn't flush with cash.... I was feeding her and keeping a roof over her head. She certainly wasn't in dire need of a new pair of jeans.... she had at least a dozen pairs. Yet... she insisted on buying a $200 pair of jeans.... I was trying to convince her to buy an $80 pair. In my mind she spent $100 that she couldn't afford. In her mind she "saved" $100 that day.

^^^^It's kind of the same. A company that spends $100 million expanding their business when tax rates are 39% doesn't pay the high rate on that money like they would if it was still in their bank account. But they still spent $100 million.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 365
view profile
History
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/15/2013 9:35:12 PM
I think you mean "taxes indirectly impact..."

If indirect works for you then by all means....

When I have been part of budget planning meetings during down times there are objectives to "meet numbers." Most of the time these numbers are quite often made up to meet an irrational goal to present a good picture of growth. That good picture of growth is what the executives are looking for. The general idea is to improve "the bottom line." What is the bottom line... Profit. During "better times" the meetings are not a whole lot different. However, there is almost a default expectation of "taking advantage" and projections are aimed higher then just presenting a 'good picture.' They are aimed at presenting a 'great picture.'

Taxes are a direct attachment to expenses. Just as direct as "Operating Expenses" are linked directly to profit. There is no reason to consider them indirect. Order of operations means nothing to the bottom line. What is known is that when taxes are higher bottom line will need compensation or it will be lower. Bottom line being lower is not presenting a 'good' or 'great' picture. In large companies it brings into question the competency of mgmt.


You are assuming that you can cut the workforce by 17% while leaving gross revenues unaffected. It is not a reasonable assumption. Are we, in return, supposed to assume that the cotton gin or something was invented in the interim? That would undoubtedly be convenient.


Not entirely. There also has to be a drop in operating costs or wages will need to be lowered also.

It is hard to make new money. It is less hard to squeeze money out of existing business then to create new business.

I have been through 7 layoffs. Yes, they expect the cotton gin to be invented during these times. Yes, I have been the last remaining departmental employee at least 3 times. Each time we pick up the pieces and try to move on. Until pieces stop being picked up and there are mergers or acquisitions and the whole cycle starts over again. The guys at the top make a boatload of unearned cash on the deals and everyone else gets... what they get. Employees are an expense in business. It is the way it works. You can pretend it isn't like this all you want but it is. Almost every employer that I went through these cycles with were liberal. Politics is BS in business. They love the causes but they behave just like most business and will continue to do so.

There is a case where ^ doesn't happen. It's basically the exceptions. you need to have someone that is actually good at the business in charge. They have to have ideas. The ideas to make money do not come from average worker. It's an anecdote but I was fortunate to be in a place that wasn't doing well. All the employees kept harping about all the different things that could be done to make money. Exec leadership came out during a company meeting and even said, "the big ideas can come from anywhere including you. please give us your ideas." That was pretty much the beginning of the end of the company. None of the ideas "the employees" had had any viablility, mgmt was out of ideas and it was pretty much down hill from there. That was where I finally saw the "democratically run employee lead" company make an attempt. It was a funny failure. Nothing changed. There was no shortage of back slapping and pimping the 'little wins' either.


You have some rereading to do if that is how you "understand" things.

I keep trying to figure out what the basis is. Guess I am just wrong again.


More accurately, it is what you already concluded to be true without benefit of historical knowledge or relevant facts. You certainly are a student of Sowell-- make the information fit your foregone conclusion-- contradictory information can be discarded/ignored. Sowell's errors are just less obvious.

I have errors, contradictory issues, and try to make information fit conclusions. Okay. So, you don't like how Tomas Sowell thinks. Was he wrong? A forgone conclusion is inevitable. I look around. It seems pretty inevitable. Taxes are going to rise. Economy is going to continue to be over burdened by unsustainable spending. Entitlements are going to continue to rise and more people will need help. Big successful companies will continue to grow profits through being the only ones capable of surviving the economic climate being created by the ongoing, never ending, and inevitable increasing of government provided services. As the government grows the private sector shrinks.


Having cash on hand is currently not a problem for successful businesses right now. They still aren't hiring more workers, for the most part, even if their staff is smaller than 5 years ago. According to your example, they should be hiring again.

No where in my example did I say they should be hiring again. I am saying they won't. They won't be hiring until the environment is predictable again. That can mean higher taxes... but not too high. They are not hiring because there is no way to predict what the environment will look like 6 months from now let alone a year from now. Only cautious steps into growth will be taken.

Anyone else happen to catch Mungjoe's assertion that companies should spend thier profits and take advantage of the temporary tax reductions (DEDUCTIONS) in order to expand their business. Not contradictory at all.... since isn't "deductions" the reason why business don't pay their 'fair share'. I said this earlier but it was missed. Tie strings to the deductions that requires additional hiring, expanding, new factories, etc. I also said to lower the tax rate across the board and remove some deductions. Also, lower it even more for those that do not take any deductions.

I don't resort to blaming Obama for the sake of blaming him. I just remember who is at the helm and who's biggest influence is on rhetoric. Also, I have no problem blaming republicans for their part in this also. That actually serves my 'forgone conclusions'. The reason for the current situation is Government.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 366
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/15/2013 10:26:23 PM

When I have been part of budget planning meetings during down times there are objectives to "meet numbers." Most of the time these numbers are quite often made up to meet an irrational goal to present a good picture of growth. That good picture of growth is what the executives are looking for. The general idea is to improve "the bottom line." What is the bottom line... Profit. During "better times" the meetings are not a whole lot different. However, there is almost a default expectation of "taking advantage" and projections are aimed higher then just presenting a 'good picture.' They are aimed at presenting a 'great picture.'

I don't doubt it. How did tax increases fit into these discussions?

No where in my example did I say they should be hiring again. I am saying they won't.

I am not referring to what your example says explicitly; I am referring to what your example implies.

Your example maintains that less cash in hand means cuts to employment. Here comes your implict implication: more cash in hand means more employment, or at least a return to previous employment levels.

That is not what is happening now. The cash in hand increases tax exposure, yet it is being held in large amounts. Therefor, lowering tax rates on these already large cash reserves is not going to magically spur employment by these flush companies that aren't hiring.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 367
view profile
History
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/15/2013 11:14:44 PM
Your example maintains that less cash in hand means cuts to employment. Here comes your implict implication: more cash in hand means more employment, or at least a return to previous employment levels.


Because the "cash in hand" is not widespread. The environment sucks. Money that is growing is basically self insurance. There is no appetite for risk.

http://dailyreckoning.com/im-in-the-mood-for-cash/

Leave Wall Street and talk to people on Main Street, and you quickly learn that consumer sentiment is dismal. College graduates are underemployed or can’t find any jobs. There are as many as 20 million homeowners that are still underwater on their homes. A record number of people buy their groceries courtesy of food stamps.

The negative psychology has created an extraordinary demand for liquidity, as evidenced by decades-low money velocity.

The wariness of business to invest and instead hoard cash is a reflection of this negative mood. Try as he might, Ben Bernanke can’t do anything about it.

The monetary authorities may have the will, but the negative social mood holds the sway. It’s the market’s way of thumbing its nose at the great and powerful.


Success is hated today.

I am absolutely positive taxes are going to rise. In fact I'm fairly certain taxes are going to rise for middle class even more. Food and Fuel are going to get more expensive despite recent drops. That is the world we live in today. Can't wait for the reign to end. I think the thing that is most clear is that that what we see today is the inevitable result of blaming the producers for the problem. They are not the enemy.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 368
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/16/2013 4:26:10 AM
I wonder why if the corporate tax rate is so high here in America that corporations are still holding a record amout of cash on hand??? Corporations in America are holding a record $1.7 trillion i n cash.


There are as many as 20 million homeowners that are still underwater on their home


20 million underwater homes you say???hmmmm:



One of the big drags on the U.S. economy right now is the housing market. Among other problems, about 10.8 million Americans are “underwater” on their mortgages right now — these are homeowners who owe more than their houses are currently worth.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/17/underwater-mortgages-drop-by-1-3-million-how-much-will-that-boost-the-economy/



And that data is from September 2012...since then there has been a significant uptick in home sales and values.



I am absolutely positive taxes are going to rise. In fact I'm fairly certain taxes are going to rise for middle class even more.


Just when do you expect taxes on the middle class to rise...before or after 2014??? And who's going to do it??? Because President Obama and the democrats in congress aren't going to raise taxes on the middle class until the top 1% start paying at least as much in effective tax rates as the rest of us.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 369
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/16/2013 7:04:53 AM

Because the "cash in hand" is not widespread. The environment sucks. Money that is growing is basically self insurance. There is no appetite for risk.

You say things as though they naturally support what you have been claiming all along when they actually support what your opponents have been saying all along. It's really something to behold.

Money is on the side of the producers. That is supply-side. That is what you want. Well, you got it.

It's just that it's having the effect that the rest of us have been trying to tell you it would. You can cite Oblamo, and history will agree in part, I'm sure. However, congress' legacy will be quite a bit more tarnished-- of that, I am also sure.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  >