Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 
 Author Thread: Top ten happiest countries
 aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 78 (view)
 
Top ten happiest countries
Posted: 6/7/2013 9:20:52 AM
Here is one for the top happiest countries
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/06/189282743/book-news-the-bible-an-unexpected-bestseller-in-norway


A new Norwegian language translation of the Bible was the secular country's best-selling book of 2012. (By comparison, the Bible didn't even break the top 100 in the U.S. last year). The Associated Press credits a marketing campaign by Norway's Bible Society for at least part of the Bible's popularity there: The society "promoted the new translation like a pop fiction novel, stirring anticipation by giving out teasers of biblical stories before its release," and "targeted teenagers with pink leather or denim covers, and adults with bridal or sophisticated literary covers." A popular six-hour play called Bibelen ("Bible" in Norwegian) just closed in Oslo after a successful three-month run.
Jean Rabe, editor of the Science Fiction Writers of America Bulletin, has stepped down after recent controversies surrounding the magazine's treatment of women. A cover featuring a scantily clad woman received a good deal of press, and after complaints from readers, two of the magazine's writers wrote a controversial column claiming that they were being censored by "liberal fascists." Another article said Barbie was a "role-model" because she maintained "quiet dignity the way a woman should." SFWA President John Scalzi has apologized: "The Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America is an organization that acts to support, inform, defend, promote and advocate for our members — all of them, not just some of them. When members believe that they or other members are belittled or minimized by our official publications, that's a problem."


Do those creating these lists of happy countries ignore parts of the population in order to get the list with their ideals at the top rather then the truth?

BS smells to much to remain hidden forever.
 aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 17 (view)
 
Useful, but also unconstitutional?
Posted: 5/28/2013 1:31:27 PM

If you want to be wrong you're free to be. Read carefully, I didn't say you were wrong, I said your position isn't the only right one. IOW stop calling wrong everyone who disagrees with you or has a different position.


So at what point is it acceptable to be either right or wrong? Does that need a definition now?
 aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 13 (view)
 
Useful, but also unconstitutional?
Posted: 5/27/2013 7:49:33 PM
So, Aries, just because you think these laws (or bills) are/should be unconstitutional due to your rigid adherence to textualism does not mean that your way is the only 'right' way.

Thanks for the attention. But you misread. I didn't say any of them were unconstitutional. I said it was up for debate in all cases. Thanks though. I thought you would have understood that.

I guess you must have missed that part. Thanks for trying to correct me. Am I still wrong?

And for the record I am not following Igor. I am just truly confounded by his positions. They make sense on the surface but on the surface only. It's just an appearance of tolerance and unbiased positions. However, I've seen enough of them to notice, that they are not this way at all. They are very much biased.

I'm not insinuating malevolence. Just a possible blindness.

The funny thing about liberal positions is that they are easy. Too easy. They can be defended quickly with very little effort. What is hard is defending the republican position. Not because it is wrong but because it is the more thoughtful, long term, and difficult position that makes an effort to end in the right place vs what is expedient and easy. Right actions vs good intentions. What is and is not constitutional should very much be within that scope.
 aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 11 (view)
 
Useful, but also unconstitutional?
Posted: 5/27/2013 6:03:39 PM

In my typically generalist way, I would only add that the fact that something isn't specifically mentioned IN the Constitution, does NOT mean that it is UN-Constitutional.


I wish that made sense. You are not general. You only say you are. You just choose to not disclose your position. What is and is not constitutional in a strict sense isn't so utterly ambiguous that it cant be understood. Some parts of it are very much open to arguments in one direction or another.


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If it isn't spelled out then it is up for challenge. It's pretty clear. Healthcare, entitlements, size of sugary drinks, who can who can not marry, abortion, drugs, and many other restrictions on choice, opportunity, privilege or influence of religion is all entirely legitimate discussions and valid as arguments against federal authority.

The one thing in the list provided earlier that made no sense was Air force. That is easily a responsibility of Federal Government. As are the negotiations of treaties and securing of boarders.

Why do you have to be a generalist in this? I do not understand the logic at all.

Are you saying that if you spent more time and looked into it you would have an opinion and until then anyone else must be bias?
 aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 6 (view)
 
Useful, but also unconstitutional?
Posted: 5/25/2013 5:15:35 PM

We agree again, if I read you right. "Strict Constructionists" are the silly ones, imagining that there can and should be exactly one right way to interpret a set of very general instructions, such as the U.S. Constitution.

We agree differently. Being of a single mind to run around the rules in place is destructive and defeating to the reason those restrictions were put in place. Not seeing that is not silly, it is counter productive.

There will and should always be opposition to those that want to twist and turn things to fit the feelings of the day. If they can respond to the concerns of those that feel the constitution matters we would be in a different place.

None of it is silly.
 aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 4 (view)
 
Useful, but also unconstitutional?
Posted: 5/25/2013 12:20:36 AM

It's all so silly.


It isn't silly. It's life. It's messy, unnecessarily complicated, imperfect, and confusing. Not adearing to a single minded approach to all things is messy. It's also better.

Rolling your eyes at the 'silliness' is silly. It's quite complex, adult and human.

Explain how else it could possibly work combining multiple long standing traditions and cultures under an ideal that the freedom to think, act, and be individuals is an imperative.

Try working within the context of a document that doesn't list everything you can do but specifically lists very specific areas you can't do.

The benefits of programs allowed can be justified but it will not be easy. That doesn't make it silly.
 aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 7 (view)
 
Human tendency to exaggerate (do we prefer fantasy over reality?)
Posted: 5/21/2013 9:00:47 AM

In short, are we all hard-wired with the tendency to choose our own reality?

I think that what you are bringing up is quite significant. Although I am not sure that I agree with it as being for the purpose of choosing reality or preference of fantasy.

I think it is more about desire. The superhero attraction is not just because of timing. Timing and technology had the ability to present it in non childish manner. The attraction becomes a bit more acceptable. But the attraction isn't because of fantasy. I think it is more about the desire of a hero.

The hero exists throughout history.
 aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 8 (view)
 
the un elected appointees
Posted: 5/10/2013 11:21:21 PM
Is anybody going to boycott their b.s.? Start demanding accountability? Demand that they get charged/brought to trial/imprisoned? Are you holding back taxes? Demanding GMO foods be banned? Refusing to pay anything? Refusing to abide? Pulling your money out of banks? Refusing to be pushed around by "security"? Protesting in any way?


How would you propose enforcing people to be held accountable for the government they are picking?


Our government is not just controlled by the lobbyists, they ARE the lobbyists.

how do they get in office? How do they move from office to the lobbyists trade and why?


Is anybody going to boycott their b.s.? Start demanding accountability? Demand that they get charged/brought to trial/imprisoned? Are you holding back taxes? Demanding GMO foods be banned? Refusing to pay anything? Refusing to abide? Pulling your money out of banks? Refusing to be pushed around by "security"? Protesting in any way?

What possible thing here do you have to protest?

GMO foods are not inherently bad. Feeding a very large population through technology and modern advancements saves lives and feeds the poor. You want to take it away with no evidence that it is really harmful?

Refusing to pay anything? You mean like rent? electricity? auto insurance? I guess going homeless has a sense of freedom.

Refusing to abide? What, the stop sign laws? Murder laws? What laws show a protest?

Pulling your money out of banks? Go for it... You have more than a few million your pulling out? Maybe that will teach that loan officer to write that loan to that community farm at your local credit union.

Refusing to be pushed around by security. Like TSA? take a bus?

Nothing you have listed is worth protesting. What is worth protesting is people expecting the Government, at the federal level, to provide for them because that is what is causing all of it. The Government, for better or worse, is trying to do what the people are asking for. Cheap health, cheap food, cheap energy, cheap housing in a safe world.

Truly democratic? So, every person votes on every law at the national level? You sure about that?

What am I doing? I live my life. I try. I am responsible. I raised my daughter to be a good person. I try to do what I can and improve my life. Is that not good enough?
 aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 83 (view)
 
Bill Maher - opinions? Thoughts?
Posted: 5/3/2013 9:42:44 AM

See, that's what not being a conservative means...that you can change your mind according to the facts at hand.

Uh, maybe you really don't quite get what freedom to change your mind actually means. You already just projected your belief in him that he will conform to your ideal. Conforming is not freedom. I don't like his opinions. I don't like his politics. I don't like his style. I don't have to. I have no expectations that he conforms to any ideal that I think.

I wouldn't be mad if he all of the sudden woke up and realized he was wrong about a lot of things. I don't expect it nor does he get punished for not doing so. Unlike those with ideas similar to what you project here who wish and seek to humiliate those that disagree.


proof positive that obesity rates dropped in New York City
What if this is not a controlled experiment with a static population tracked over decades and measured in every other aspect of human health both physical and mental. Does that statistic mean much independently?

Yes, reducing consumption of sugar and fat have an impact on weight. Positive results would be what... a net loss of 2lb per year for obese people... so, from 375 to 373 avg? Those on the "obese" BMI edge would dip below that edge and impact your number even if they drop by 1lb during testing. Do you count that? It makes the percentage look good.

Are you sure you know what "facts at hand" actually means?
 aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 48 (view)
 
Religion and morality. Hardwired in the Brain ?
Posted: 4/30/2013 9:57:44 AM
Love Derren Brown. In this show he does a demonstration in a room largely made up of skeptics and they did not want to recite a satanic prayer and stab a picture of a loved one and commit their souls to satan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=51B8MzcxOX0#t=78s

Born with and an inbuilt, hardwired tendency to believe.
 aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 404 (view)
 
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/24/2013 2:08:36 PM

Anyway, the government employees (the judges) went to prison; the company paid a small fine - a mere fraction of their profits from wrongfully imprisoning kids.

Good example.
So, in this case your concern is that the faceless corporation was punished less then the judicial person with a face caught accepting bribes.

What is the difference between a corporation and a government as an entity in the eyes of the law? If "Government" goes corrupt who is the face that goes to prison?

You insinuation of the lesser harm to government is that the corporation was punished less by another governing body. Are you at the same time asserting that the larger governing body is also somehow corrupted?


I expect FOX and the Murdoch media empire, plus all the right wingers in their media to make all the noise if there is anything that we should know.


How would you ever know the wolf was really there this time?
 aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 402 (view)
 
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/24/2013 9:59:33 AM

I have no illusions about people in government keeping their hands clean. If there is corruption in the government, it should be exposed.


Holy crap... this is the first time I have ever heard a real acknowledgment. How about the next step. The difference between government and business.

If a business does something corrupt what is the recourse?
If a government does something corrupt what is the recourse?

Keep in mind, government corruption will involve officials in charge or direct influence of investigations.


Question is Why aren't the people who know this and have access to the media making a whole lot more noise about it?

Good question. How do you know those that do make a noise about it aren't the ones labeled as "problems"?

Who do you want to point it out? CNN, MSNBC, Huffington Post?
 aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 147 (view)
 
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/21/2013 4:31:23 PM

...I therefore set my TOE before you all for peer revue and possible refutation. (LOL)

I second this and don't even need the LOL.

Wonder what it would be like to talk about it with people that didn't have the theory of, "I'm right and you are an idiot."

Probably another infinitely impossible dream.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 398 (view)
 
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/18/2013 8:12:31 PM
I think you are looking in the wrong direction.

That is it. I agree with your description of the problem but not in the fix. I think the problem is with government. Actually a really horrible managment of the country either on purpose or through incompetence. I can't tell which. Sometimes it looks like incompetence and others it really seems to be on purpose.

I really do think you are looking at the wrong people.

That fortune 500 list you were talking about... Where are they? They are located in the big cities, on the coasts and in typically democrat areas. Not middle class democrat areas either. Rich ones. The same people that have you convinced they are the great hope and change.

Just think about it...


So, if taxes are so high...and hording cash in high tax environments is bad business...then taxes must not be so high.
I have not said they were currently high. They are constantly threatened to become high. This puts regular business on edge and unsure and risk is not pleasant when it is a threat.

What you refer to is NOT rich. it is the super rich. A Million is nothing 5 million is a weekend. You are at 50 million to 100 million. Salary may only be 5 million but perks hit the 75 million mark. Make 10 million in 2011 and then make 30 million in 2012.

That is what you are rightfully pissed off about. That level that you see is unaffected by your tax. It won't fix anything because it is unrelated. It's a mask and penalizes the thousands of companies that do not do this. It hurts the rest of the country to punish the few.

If your taxes targeted the individual personal income they would turn in their salaries and get paid in perks. If you target perks... how are the counted? These same people paid for the administration to be in office just as much as they paid for both sides of congress and both sides of senate. But it's only turned bizzaro world in the past few years. Prior to that you had stuff to complain about but it wasn't 75% raises in one year with no uptick in company performance. If it did happen it was rare. Something else changed.

I really think you are looking at a symptom and not a cause and the cause is not where you are looking.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 396 (view)
 
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/18/2013 7:11:11 PM
BTW... I want to make a distinction in my position that I probably don't seem like I have. I do not like the insane exec compensation + perks and the abuse over the last few years. Something different has been happening that only started with Obama's administration and did not really exist as a wide scale problem over the past 30 years. It's only been recent where it has been this high and out of scale to performance.

My position against your position is on the fundamental principles of business and not tying it down with government regulation as a means to control production. And most definitely not in the destruction of the system to fix a symptom and not a cause.

So, what do you think the cause is? How are the execs getting away with such large increases with no matching increase in company performance.

I think something else is going on with business today and it is in government.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/04/02/wall-street-political-insiders-quake-in-their-guccis-about-coming-expose/

I think you are looking in the wrong direction.
 aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 395 (view)
 
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/18/2013 6:30:46 PM
so what do you want to do about it? Close the companies? Tax them out of business? Put them in jail or just get your fair share...

You brought up the point about the actions. My "rant" was about why it has no relevance to what you think. If you are so sure that what they did was wrong.. show the harm and sue. Use the legal system.

The ****ing and complaining about things does nothing. You can stomp around all day wrong condemning every person on the list of worlds largest companies. Do you have evidence of them committing crimes? Or is it just that you want what they do to be a crime? What would happen if you got your way... whatever way that may be.

You bringing up the action was more of a rant then me pointing out the lack of standing for your complaint.

Maybe read my responses with less inferred tone. I'm not yelling.
 aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 393 (view)
 
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/18/2013 6:12:21 PM
Some is always to be expected. Some is not an indicator of a systemic issue.

Although there are reasons for doing those things also and there is no reason to have a conclusion of greed. Apparently the terms exist for a reason.

Not being a shareholder means you don't get a piece. The purpose of public companies is to benefit "stake holders". If it wasn't for people buying stock and perceiving it as valuable enough to buy.... You are a stakeholder if you are a customer. If you are not a customer, not an employee, not a shareholder you have no say in how the company operates nor how it spends its money. You want a piece and a vote. Buy stock. You want to disagree with the company, don't buy their product. You have a grievance as an employee. See a lawyer. Forcing it through law. Foolish.
 aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 391 (view)
 
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/18/2013 5:45:47 PM
http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/in-the-mood-for-cash/2013/03/20/



The Economist reported last November that companies have been supplying cash rather than using it since 2008. Firms in the S&P 500 are holding close to a trillion dollars in cash on their collective balance sheets, an increase of 40% from the dark days of 2008.

President Obama has businesses scared to death of investing. Instead cash is sloshing around in banks around the globe. In fact, banks themselves are swimming in liquidity. The loan-to-deposit ratio of America's banks is a decades-low 70%. Plus, banks still have nearly $1.5 trillion parked at the central bank in excess reserves.

...

This cash hoarding is a worldwide phenomenon. Companies in Japan have increased their liquid assets by 75% since 2007 to $2.8 trillion. Canadian firms have $300 billion sitting on their balance sheets, a 25% increase from 2008.

Another effect of artificially lowered rates is the distortion of the appreciation of risk. According to Tyler Cowan, interest rates forced below the natural rate will lead businessmen to make risky investments (defined as 'long-term, costly to reverse, high-yielding, and having returns highly sensitive to the arrival of future information'), that leads to clusters of entrepreneurial error.


Isn't it pretty obvious... No one knows what to do. Politics have invaded business. People are scared to move. You get punished for succeeding. You get beaten to death if you screw up. You get taken to the cleaners if you spill.

I would call it an "unfriendly" business environment. You know... those places where people get their jobs from...
 aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 387 (view)
 
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/17/2013 5:49:48 PM
I see you have been taking lessons from "yet another poster"... Things are starting to make a bit more sense now, it's much easier to see where the intellectual dishonesty is coming from...

It apparently seems to be something that is required to get through before a real discussion can occur on divisive topics... so, get it all out (and there is a lot) and get it over with.


I think it was pretty clear what I was saying: Expansion is advantageous to a business (over 'hunkering down') if higher tax rates are expected/present... The increase in revenues offsets the impact of the higher tax on their bottomline...


But this is what I see as a flaw in your logic and thinking about this entire thing. It is based on the assumption that the business "knows how to grow". Making new money is really hard. Getting additional sales is hard. It is really really hard to come up with a new idea and to make a profit.

It is much easier to reduce costs and squeeze out more profits from what you already do... you already do what you do because it worked. It's like coming up with a second one hit wonder. It just isn't "on command".

Not only is it a risk to take a risk but having any clue about what risk to take is black magic. That was the point of my anecdotal story about the democratically run "idea" shop that I worked for. It failed from the day the CEO asked us for ideas. It virtually meant, "I am out of ideas... help me make money."

This is the norm. Your basis is flawed. Just as flawed as anything you have pointed out in my position.

http://www.campbellsoupcompany.com/atw_usa.asp


Our three most popular varieties are Chicken Noodle, Tomato and Cream of Mushroom, which are among the top 10 food items sold in grocery stores every week.


How do you top Chicken Noodle, Tomato and Cream of Mushroom soup? It isn't willingness to spend as much as the the idea that doesn't exist.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 384 (view)
 
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/17/2013 3:51:46 PM

You are going places with this where no one has been leading you. No one ever claimed that raising taxes would solve those problems. What HAS been implied is that a tax rise would not make those problems worse. However, there is a possibility that a tax rise would curb the "increasing cash" practice.

As for the current situation, I have already claimed in opposition to you that lowering business taxes would not help. In fact, it would hurt government revenues which are already strapped. I actually AGREE with you that tied deductions can be a good idea. I think they are just called tax credits.

My primary stance here is not so much pro-raising taxes on business. I want first to establish the feebleness of lowering taxes-- it is difficult even to get consensus on that. You and others talk of lowering taxes as the silver bullet in economics-- my main point here is to detail the flaws in that plan.

It is also evident from your post that all of our previous talk (and it was extensive) about the importance of healthy demand, which was in another thread, has fallen on deaf ears with you. Government "getting out of the way," whatever that means specifically, does NOT create demand.


We are not as far apart as you may think.
Now that neither of us think that increasing taxes will improve the situation... Stop and hold.

As I said before, I think we would be in a better position if nothing more then the election turned out differently. The reason is because I do also agree with this

As for the current situation, I have already claimed in opposition to you that lowering business taxes would not help


Taxes were raised at the fiscal cliff. However, the wrong taxes were raised. It shouldn't have been on 'the rich' it should have been deductions rather than raising overall rates.

Next, the argument of raising taxes on the 'rich' should never be used. Ever. It is not the role of the government to create public opinion regarding the fiscal success of individuals. Economic policy IS a function of government.

A valid use of taxes is slowing growth. This does not have to be a single rule that can be created that would properly apply across everyone and every industry appropriately at any one time. A valid reason to slow growth is economic bubbles. If a sector begins growing to fast or starts to become absorbed by individual companies than specific economic policy can be applied in those areas to "increase competition". "slow the growth" of oversized players. Tax breaks for smaller companies in specific areas vs tax breaks for all which are taken advantage of by the larger companies and which are used to continue keeping competition out.

A general policy that shifts for individual sectors would make more sense and would not continually punish the vast majority of business that didn't do anything wrong and it wouldn't be a punishment for the individual companies that did do well. It just helps keep the environment competitive. There are no picking winners. There is no reason to project feelings into the environment and cast a wrong headed portrayal of evil and manipulative rich.

If you see a problem you fix it. You do not begin divide and conquer techniques to smash out opposition and destroy the character of all the players involved.


As I'm already explaining rather than hinting, Reagan increased demand by enlarging the military

I also explained this and how it was related to one of the very few tweaks that the government can actually get involved with to create an expansion. That doesn't mean it can expand forever. The next follow up to that was the Internet. It was allowed to grow unregulated which must be recognized as the "fastest path" to growth.

Next, in the current environment taxes will not help. There is a human component that was tripped by the clash of cultures between right and left.

If you agree that taxes will not help the current business environment.
If I agree that lowering taxes will not help.

That only leaves what?

My suggestion is to roll back the upper rate increase from the fiscal cliff, and be smart with deduction rollbacks rather then blanket "rich" people attacks and have actual economists that are not in opposition to success determine administrations fiscal policy and not ideology.

Honestly, it is the blanket policies that are breaking things. We are to complicated to have a conversation regarding a one size fits all approach. These are not moral issues. We have an unknown lot of people constantly analyzing all aspects of economic health. Bubbles are fun but they cost and pop. Not doing that is probably a wiser fiscal policy then doing that.

Areas where you look and you think there is potential but unsure how to unlock it. GTFO of the way. If there is even any possibility of "green" energy being viable... Get out of the way. Hold off on regulating. Let it begin to bubble but watch out... if it is a false hope than a lot of people will lose their ass. That is risk. Let it happen. Do not rest the government on it. Wait until it actually becomes viable enough to properly support like oil.

My problem with liberals is that the ideology is based on false and misleading premises that rich people are an enemy bent on destroying the "working mans" rights. Get over yourselves. Living in the 1800's is not a whole lot different than living in the 1500's with religion. There is a reason why republicans can successfully use arguments against communism, Marxism and Lenin as weapons against the democrats.

The only way out is to not play the game right. None of us have really been taught how to not play.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 381 (view)
 
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/17/2013 11:03:04 AM
Because business is not against the laws that the government enforces, they are just against the laws that keep them from totally f*cking over both their competition.

Sorry, your spittle flew out all over this sentence. Can you say it again in a way that forms an actual meaningful and complete sentence.


At the end of the day the facts are the major corporations are making record profits while paying record low tax levels and if people can not see how this affects the economy then IMO they have no business in entering into a discussion about said economy.

At the end of the day this is not the point of life. Those that can not see how their own attitudes are a bigger cause of today's problems should go take a Valium and sit it out.

There is a way to handle this but it takes someone that is NOT liberal and pissed off to address it.

Problem:
SOME companies are achieving record profits.
SOME industries are consolidating rapidly

You have to explain WHY only some and the answer is never going to be universally "Greed"

 aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 379 (view)
 
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/17/2013 8:53:51 AM

That doesn't seem to be an unlikely possibility even if tax rates were higher. Of course, if you take into account the current situation where the consumer is unemployed and out of money, then even the most positive thinker would have some doubts about investing.

In the end, those who have the cash now may be in for a lot of trouble.


Nice answer.

Now, only one part I would ask that you consider for revision.


I would venture to say that the lack of hiring is due to the lack of prospect for future growth, a situation that was caused by the businesses themselves.

You have tied all of your answers which are generally true to self responsibility which I totally agree with. However, business does not sign bills into law. You must account for the other half of the environment. That is Government. Like it or not, in general, it requires both political parties to agree to get most laws passed. The current laws are typically the result of both sides agreeing.

With the outcome being, "In the end, those who have the cash now may be in for a lot of trouble." Then you should also see the problem with this outcome. It took Government and Business to create an environment where "the rich" are in for "a lot of trouble." Doesn't this seem at all strange to you?

There are at least three good arguments along this line.

It is a power struggle of Government vs Business in which there is a war between the two.
* more republican point of view (with the idea being there shouldn't be a war)
* more liberal point of view (with the idea that the war should be increased)
or
Government and Business are working hand in hand and are actually the same group trying to achieve an end.
* more liberal point of view as occurring
* more republican point of view as being needed.
or
It's just a mess and half the government is in a power struggle against the other half which makes this a natural part of government and unavoidable and Business is basically a victim.
* more republican point of view that liberals are at war against them
* more liberal point of view that republicans are at war against them
** Neither side claims responsibility for their own part. Both sides claim victim.

If the outcome of all of this is "those who have the cash now may be in for a lot of trouble." What is the cause? I would hope that you would agree that "in for a lot of trouble" is not a good outcome for anyone.
 aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 378 (view)
 
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/17/2013 7:25:12 AM

Now you can keep trying this foolish, stupid little game of "moving the goalposts", posting in the style of "another poster" and I'll treat it as a foolish, stupid little game, same as I do with "another poster"... Or you can continue with the honest discussion we started and I'll treat it as honest just as I have so far..

Glad you are not an angry person.

You seem to think you have the world covered with your responses. How does your position of the truth of the world explain and account for these current problems?

Protection and increasing cash rather then investing.
Consolidation of industries to increasingly larger and larger companies.
Lack of hiring despite the high unemployment which should decrease wages. (employers market)

Please show how generally raising taxes will correct these problems.
 aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 374 (view)
 
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/16/2013 4:29:19 PM
. Of course, we have pointed all of that out to you, numerous times, and it doesn't seem to have taken yet... I seriously doubt it will take now even though the problem can't be explained any more simply...

I pointed out yours and showed your position has a lack of logical foundation also. So, while you may not agree with my position I also do not agree with yours. So, where is the basis that you have a solid foundation. You have yet to make an actual argument in support of your case. Sorry, you sucks at this. You spend so much time pointing out how wrong I am that you missed the entire point that you are also.

BTW... if you claim you are not wrong and in fact are the holder of actual truth. You have a very steep hill of evidence to start delivering.

Go ahead. Make your case.
 aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 372 (view)
 
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/16/2013 3:11:21 PM

Yes... and I notice that 'mr. experience" still hasn't responded to:

Because I don't have to answer to you like that. Not only did I forget the question but responding to it does nothing but serve to further your incessant ad hominem style of argument.


ROFLMAO

How the f*ck do you come to that conclusion...?

I came to that conclusion. Was there another one you thought would be more appropriate?


You shouldn't try to pretend that you are me (or at least on the same level)... You haven't got the hang of it yet...


You said:

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 read that as you saying that it is beneficial for "smart companies" to take advantage of tax liabilities by reinvesting back into the company to raise their revenue. That sure sounds like "take deductions and reinvest" as a kickstart to growth. I agree.


. I've never once said taxes are "good", it's only in your lack of logic that you find such things...

Did you just turn republican or something? Why can't you even claim the most logical position that you could possibly have. If you didn't think they were good then why would you advocate them?


This is one of the few things you have gotten right this entire thread... Try to remember how you managed to pull it off, it might come in handy...

So, by me saying you advocate taxes which above you just attacked as being made up by me and then you saying that you advocate taking advantages of deductions which you don't like that companies lower their rates by that method now... You then say my sarcastic implied "not contradictory" was now actually true and it wasn't contradictory. Twisting in the wind I see.


Well, that's a start... It's not quite acceptance but it is a step up from denial

So, you can't even reluctantly even partially agree with a statement without an attack. You wonder why the conversation degrades into nonsense when it's like talking to a prickly plant. Just remove the plant and the ly.


Two words: "risk aversion"... Especially common among conservatives (it's one of the things that make them conservative) though they are either loathe to admit it or in complete denial...

Have never met a conservative that didn't admit to risk aversion. Being safe. Going slow. Or whatever little phrase you seem to be attributing as a negative. It's called, thinking things through and being prepared. I do it all the time. I can't help it. How is this possibly a negative trait?

Nothing you retorted about contained a single bit of logical negation of anything I said other then stamping your feet on the ground and blowing raspberries. Give me a reason to doubt my own positions.
 aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 370 (view)
 
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/16/2013 7:33:22 AM
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.


Uhmmm.. It isn't supply-side that dictates that money is on the side of the producers. It is reality, life, and unchangeable. Even removing the concept of money wouldn't change it. The resources are on the side of the producers.

It is that core problem why communism and centrally controlled resource mgmt systems are doomed to class and oppression problems. Someone is always at the top.

The idea of being okay with rich people being rich and rewarding people for labor through wages and even encouraging with money and the value of money is to account for this while at the same time accounting for the inborn selfishness of humans. You account for it to take advantage of it. It's not a bad thing. People suck... make the best of it.

The best effort on this wasn't to create a system of equality where everyone gets rich or or where everyone is at some level determined by the state to be "fair". It is simply to have a functioning engine that allows for success and failure and class mobility. The opportunity to try. Class is not set at birth. Your own efforts, luck, skill, or anything are able to be put to use. Those at the top can fall, those at the bottom can succeed.

This isn't fitting reality to fit an idea. It is basing an idea on reality. You don't have to like it but it is what you are trying to change... reality.

The entertainment world and all those super rich famous celebrity elite understand this. They give away lots of money, adopt kids from third world countries and support everyone about how unfair the system is. yet they don''t equalize their life and live in regular middle class either. They get kind of upset when their toys and money are taken away also. The money doesn't turn them into better people either.

The biggest problem is Government being a provider. It is monopolistic behavior and breaks the basic principles. When you introduce a monkey wrench into a system the system will react.

The conclusions I "jump" to regarding taxes and jobs is because of experience. The idea that companies can use profits to invest "because" of higher taxes as a means to lower their tax burden is flawed because it assume that companies are not already trying to increase their profits. That is the goal every day. The budget planning meetings happen regardless of tax situation. That means that there is something else driving the situation and the taxes are not addressing it. Address that and you can leave taxes low and revenue would rise. Taxes are not the problem. Something else is.

I say it is environmental and created by the rhetoric of liberalism in it's current state attacking the producers. This doesn't necessarily require a conspiracy. I would mean that rich people are concerned and worried about risk. They are in a type of protection mode.

The idea that 'the rich' are doing this on purpose does require a conspiracy. It would require all rich people being greedy. That is just not realistic.

Being in protection mode better explains why there are fits and starts but little traction on the economy.
 aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 367 (view)
 
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.
 aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 365 (view)
 
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.
 aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 362 (view)
 
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?
 aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 360 (view)
 
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.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 358 (view)
 
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.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 114 (view)
 
What is going on will all of the shootings....
Posted: 4/15/2013 11:10:15 AM
Shootings a unusual attacks are occuring much more frequently then before it seems. Maybe ^^^ could consider other reasons other then guns.

This past weekend we had someone try to burn a stranger in a car at 7-11. There was a pretty severe knife attack recently. Lot's of shootings also.

It's the Mental health system and state budgets with prisons. The crazy people are not getting uncrazier and they are not being managed because we don't know how to manage them.

It isn't the economy. It isn't lack of work. It isn't disillusionment. It isn't guns, knives, nor gasoline. It's the unfortunate problem of what must happen when equal rights also applies to crazy people. Any answer to the problem will make people uncomfortable.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/01/17/1460601/republicans-claim-mental-health-gun-violence-solution/?mobile=nc


Accessing mental health services in the United States is harder than accessing a gun. In 2008, Congress took a step toward addressing that issue by passing the long-delayed Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, which required most health insurance plans to start treating mental health services in the same way they treat all other medical care. The bill included exemptions for small businesses and those who opted not to cover mental health coverage at all, but House Republicans still overwhelmingly opposed the effort, 145 to 47.


Making weapons less available to everyone does not address the problem. Making screening for past mental state issues may do a little bit. How to handle real mental illness would be much more effective.
 ARIES_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 356 (view)
 
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.
 aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 352 (view)
 
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.
 aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 349 (view)
 
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.
 aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 346 (view)
 
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.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 335 (view)
 
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/13/2013 7:33:10 PM

I was just saying that higher taxes incentivize greater tax-exempt reinvestment in the business, and sizeable Christmas bonuses are less of a concern when employees are already competitively compensated.


OMG it is a chrismas miracle. He made a statement of belief regarding his position. Holy crap... Someone pour me a drink.

Now prove it with math and examples showing it is true enough to be generalized as true.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 332 (view)
 
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/13/2013 5:52:22 PM
You said

<div class='quote'>The one thing that you haven't taken into account is that companies don't just hire more people if revenues are going to stay the same. Companies hire more people when there is a prospect of growth, and that means increased revenues and more profitability. The higher expense due to having more employees doesn't necesarily increase the ratio of expenses vs profit if there are increased revenues.


I said

<div class='quote'>No one believes that the near future isn't going to include significantly higher taxes, more regulations, and a tough climate where companies need to build up cash reserves. IOW business numbers do not reflect trust in the coming economic environment model of "taxing the rich".

The operational expenses and taxable net is a red herring. If a company is healthy and claims operational expenses that is sill tied in with taxes and expenses. Since you guys are so incredibly gifted... Lower the Gross Revenue to the reported number taxed. Then that resolves your issue right?

http://www.advfn.com/p.php?pid=financials&symbol=NYSE%3AWMT
If you zero out tax rev per employee is 212.5k. This site lists 212.5k.

Go ahead. Prove me wrong.

All that leads me to believe that you have no argument.

Come on... Prove me wrong. Don't just claim I am wrong. Prove it. I gave a formula for general estimation of impact. You show how higher corporate tax rates will results in more jobs and higher wages. Show your work.
 aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 330 (view)
 
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/13/2013 4:30:41 PM
^^^ you really don't get it do you.

Prove it wrong. Prove my point wrong. I said I accept your point regarding the placement of taxes for a more accurate basis. I am still saying that for estimation it is close enough. I don't have the detail necessary to get the number so I used an alternative for approximation.

I explained that. You give me an alternative method if you don't like it.
That will only change a number result and it will not change the demonstration. So the fluctuation between an employees % of revenue through wages is the only thing that will change.

Taxes on business have a direct impact on wages and employee headcount.
I claim that taxes are relevant to this because they are federal and impact every business which is why taxing is part of an overall economic policy. One that you idiots keep wanting to screw with which is doing nothing but having the complete opposition effect of what is intended. because you do not understand the most basic fact of life. It's all about expenses vs profit. That will never change. No amount of good intentions will ever change that. A business can not remain in business unless it manages that.

You can be as smug as you want. Prove me wrong.
 aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 328 (view)
 
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/13/2013 2:48:37 PM

Order of operations matters-- here's hoping you don't put your boxers on over your slacks before heading off to work!

So, because businesses don't pay employees with revenue that has already been taxed, employee salaries are a tax credit, not part of the tax burden. Per your example, each dollar paid to an employee is 39 cents less paid in taxes. Yes, you are missing out on 61 cents profit, but look at it this way: for every dollar you pay your hopefully trusty employees, that is 39 cents less you have to pay the untrustworthy government!


I can not demonstrate what you want without going further into company reports. It is valid enough to be an estimation of expenses. That's as close as it needs to be. You can move the taxes post expenses if you want but it will not significantly change the result. Taxes have a direct impact on expense vs profit and the employee loses when rates go up.

It's a simple concept. The company made a total revenue. There is an 'average' wage paid to employees. That average wage is a % of the total revenue. Because taxes must be paid a company can not rationally consider pre tax revenue for employee compensation. The only place to consider an employees wages is Expenses vs Profit. Cost of running the business without salary is operating costs. Employees are an expense.



Please exercise your mind and present a method of demonstrating this to your liking. The only thing your order of operations does is change expenses/profit. It still must start with Gross Revenue and end with avg employee salary. What you do in the middle may show some other relationship between wages/profit% But what does that matter? I can't show the difference between non wage expenses and profit. I can only show wages vs expenses/profit. This means that there may be zero profit because expenses are too high.

There is nothing wrong with the model I presented and it effectively demonstrates the problem of taxing a business and how it can reduce wages and jobs. You know... those things people have which they use to feed themselves and their families.

Go ahead and correct it. Don't forget... you have to have an end result of showing that increasing taxes improves jobs. Use that incredibly brilliant brain power of yours to solve a problem. It will take a bit more research and looking up corporate earnings statements and calculating operating expenses so you can then apply the effective tax rate properly. I'm saying that... It will only have a slight change on % of wage vs profit and expense. It will not invalidate the whole. Go ahead. Prove me wrong.
 aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 323 (view)
 
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/13/2013 12:26:59 PM
All I did was to try to show the impact of taxes on business and how that relates to employment and wages.

You can put the tax anywhere you want. So you are going to claim order of operations error?
There is no way I'm going to know or be able to work out the operating costs vs everything else to get the absolute number you think I was trying to recreate. This is an after the fact example that shows how tax rate can directly impact jobs and wages as well as the liberal target of employee wage vs profit.

The liberal ideal is that profits should go to employees right. So you can keep taxes high and pay employees high and just lower profit.

Tell me wtf is wrong with what I am showing?

Electronic Arts
Gross
4.143b

Tax
11%

Opex/Profit .42

Salary
167,875.71

http://www.nerdwallet.com/investing/corporate-taxes/rates#


$166.026


EA is in trouble. They are losing money. Operating costs too high? Taxes can't fix this. Employee salaries too high? Too many employees? Taxes can't fix failing business and they can harm healthy ones.
When employee % is too high the business stops working also. Liberal ideal of squeezing out profits for wages at work.

 aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 320 (view)
 
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/13/2013 12:02:42 PM

Marginal tax rate =39%...effective tax rate=13%


Not sure if you missed the point, agreed with it or were disagreeing. You want the effective rate raised right? You want fair is fair you pay @30% they should pay fair 30%. Government revenue remember.

I was a bit concerned that I posted this without even doing a simple check... So I just looked up Walmart. Had no idea... they have 2.1 million employees. Kind of the size of govt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walmart

Gross
446.950b

Tax rate:
24%

Opex/profit #To get walmart avg employee wage avg it is 14% .
14%

Salary:
$22,833.10.

http://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-employees-pay

The average Walmart "associate," Wake Up Walmart reports, makes $11.75 an hour. That's $20,744 per year. Those wages are slightly below the national average for retail employees, which is $12.04 an hour. They also produce annual earnings that, in a one-earner household, are below the $22,000 poverty line.


Looking around it's difficult to find the effective tax rate that Walmart paid. I found one that claimed 24%
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/30/apple-pays-lower-corporate-tax-rate-than-wal-mart-report/

http://www.fedsmith.com/2013/01/09/average-federal-salary-rises-despite-pay-freeze/
Average government employee pay :
$74,558


The Governments revenue is YOU. This makes the case that Government spending should never exceed GDP. in fact it should be less. Government should not be in the role of provider unless it is of last resort. That is for the economy and the people to fix.

The biggest difference between people and business and Government, no one has ever been afraid that a Walmart employee was going to come and arrest them at gunpoint. Business can be held accountable to Law. Governments write the laws. What is necessary to hold Government accountable for a bad law?

If you want more tax revenue. Grow the economy. Taxing higher won't accomplish that. It is a self defeating proposal.


Yeah, your company is mythical, alright. As are the tax rate, the portion of income that is taxed... everything in your example is mythical. Heck, I've never run a business, and I can tell just by looking at your example that it is a farce. You think that a company is taxed the full state and federal percentage on gross revenues straight off the top? And that employees are paid with revenues that have already been taxed? It's all kinds of wrong there in post 333.

It's pretty dang cheeky of you to accuse others of ignorance in how businesses work. By the example you present, you exemplify either gross ignorance which parades itself as superior knowledge and insight, or you exemplify gross dishonesty and misrepresentation of reality. Either ain't good...

You can look at my example as mythical all you want. It just worked on walmart. It really is that simple in business. All the black magic you describe comes in the form of accounting measures to achieve the lowest tax, the lowest operating costs, a wide range of wages, and Profit. It is that simple. If you had run a business... how could you possibly come up with a different model for determining wage/employee numbers?

The difference in my example and the real world is that I am using after the fact information. Business must perform this in advance and on their own. That is where you see the creative accounting and variations in rates vs profit and everything else. You have to show that I am wrong. Constantly just rejecting everything with no argument is really all that you ever do. Claim crazy and reject. At some point shouldn't you provide some from of basis for your positions?

All I did was to try to show the impact of taxes on business and how that relates to employment and wages.
 aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 316 (view)
 
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/13/2013 9:57:15 AM
Experiment time to show problem on how corporate taxes negatively impacts jobs.

Please do this in excel on your own.

Mythical Tech company: xcorp

Gross yearly revenue
100,000,000.00

Tax rate
39%

Taxes paid = 39,000,000.00

Net revenue (to be split between operating costs and profit)
61,000,000

Number of employees
400

Revenue per employee (net revenue / number of employees)
$152,500.00

#Salary comes from the pool of "revenue per employee" which is split as operating expense vs profit. To be objective about mythical company we will split 50%. This leaves 50% for wage/salary and 50% for costs and profit. For the company to be profitable costs must be well managed. Opex cuts directly from profit.

Salary (rev per employee / .50)
$76,250.00 ###This is a common salary for computer professionals. It's close enough to avg)

Using formulas in excel you can easily see that effect of taxes on number of employees and salary size by adjusting only taxes and #of employees. There are standard market rates for salaries to get people and remain competitive. If the tax rate is unchangeable then the only easily changeable variable is #of employees. When salary goes over standard market there is a case for hiring more employees which is a case for expanding the business. When that salary starts going below market rates then cuts are going to occur. Taxes have a direct impact on this.

Reducing Taxes to 18%
Salary becomes $102,500

Increasing number of employees to 525 with tax rate of 18%
salary becomes $78,095.24. #Still enough to give a general raise and increase 125 employees.

Simple problem... With corporate tax rates low now why is ^^^not occurring? "Because tax rates are not as low as portrayed. Getting the low rates requires enormous amounts of accounting magic. No one believes that the near future isn't going to include significantly higher taxes, more regulations, and a tough climate where companies need to build up cash reserves. IOW business numbers do not reflect trust in the coming economic environment model of "taxing the rich".

Lowering corporate tax rates will grow the economy IF the rates are high. Low rates that are raised in a healthy environment will produce additional government revenue (it will slow growth). This is a healthy system. Knocking the stick from low to high to low to high through political games and social manipulation is destabalzing.. That is why jobs are stuck.... Liberal policies, rhetoric, and activism are destroying our economic environment.







 aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 315 (view)
 
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/13/2013 7:57:26 AM
Dam right I earned it, you failed to answer a single one of my questions due most to what looks like a fox news level education on how the economy works.

Your response was a predictable as your incessant fox news retorts.

It is you that does not understand how economics work. Not only that but you obviously have absolutely not a single thought regarding manufacturing and supply chain requirements to deliver goods and services because it is your position to change all functioning economy and supply to nationalized government distribution points. The total failure to realize that this will result in a few very large manufacturing companies, medical companies, food production companies able to handle the nationalized distribution requirements and that those running these companies will be the anointed nationalized elite is spectacular. And I bet you complain about Halliburton.

Because you refuse to acknowledge this basic fact of socialized models it is you that pretends that these things already exist and it's just stupid republicans messing with the existing system.

I answered every question. Your responses were worth every penny.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 313 (view)
 
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/12/2013 10:49:38 PM
Can you provide any logical reasons why corporations would do a better job?

? In case you didn't notice... the government isn't a manufacturer. They do not produce goods and services. You seem to believe that the Governments function is distribution. Is it a Government or is it "logistics".

Allowing the government to do all of this only ensures a consistent slowing of progress. Being locked in place in class with only the very few people in the top of the supply chain for the government doing infinitely better then anyone will ever be allowed. Just imagine Walmart running the country. Tell me how good of a job wall mart would do?

We need a government. Not a mega monolithic multinational corporation. Get it?



How will you make up for the lost revenue in the economy, as for corporations to do it more efficiently they will have to cut cost which will mean lower wage, fewer people employed.?

? lost revenue in the economy by not having a giant corporation run the show? You mean actually having an economy vs a shell game of government programs?



Your social services will start to cripple your economy as more people, even many of the working ones will need assistance in some way, how will you make up for this?

So, getting people off of social services will cripple social services? Or will it be more accessible to those that really need it?



Also as more the money earned by the top earners less of it gets washed through the economy, thus creating another deficient, so less tax revenues coming in.

This makes no sense at all. There are only a few of those "top earners" They don't (individually) "earn" enough to damage the economy... yet. They will if the government continues to expand. There is no option. The Government is only a distributor.



I have a dime ridding on you not being able to refute anything I have said with any degree of logic, so if you would be so kind, please do not disappoint.
You would never acknowledge any form of logic other then liberal anyway so ... Keep your dime. You earned it.


No rationality required (hey, that might make a good, if somewhat 'ripped off' , movie title)

Let me know when you finish rewriting history. East Germany, the Bolsheviks, and the Communist party of America never existed. There was no counter culture in the 60's. The Berlin Wall was poorly constructed and it's collapse was due to poor construction. Nothing ever gets through. That's what happens when you are a true believer. Should I be impressed that you think you are smarter and more "ethical" then all those that came before you?

Simple question. Do you believe that anti-monopoly laws are good? If so why? If so then why doesn't the Government qualify to be held to those same rules. If not then please also explain. Then explain why companies should not be restricted from monopolistic behavior.
 aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 310 (view)
 
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/12/2013 8:45:25 PM

Perhaps that is precisely what you want-- a smaller government with low revenues, but then you reference the benefit of all of the government programs that are available to various people who might need a helping hand-- I have to point out that these exist under the system we have now, not the system you envision. You really don't seem to realize how often you contradict yourself.

Well, yes. There is no logical reason why the government must provide everything. It becomes corrupt despite good intentions. When has a monopoly the size of the US Federal Government ever existed in all of history? You want it bigger? You are insane. If you are not insane then you are just irresponsible and could care less about the country, its future and the future for generations to come. When liberalism turns to leftism, which is unstoppable, it will be too late. Don't forget to walk in a straight line while the drones are passing by. Wouldn't want them to think you were suspicious.

Yes, I get it. SciFi fantasy right... No one has ever had this amount of power. The Government now employees
The Federal Government now employees over 2,600,000 full time employees. That is not economic wealth generation. What is being created is not sustainable. A liberal value is sustainability but for some strange reason a government collapse due to being unsustainable is a nutty fantasy conspiracy. Did someone not research and study this phenomena and stamp it with a "truth 'o' meter" logo?


I (and Irish, I believe) would argue that this is already the case. The difference is that it is the effective tax rates, not the published marginal rates, that start to go down as income gets uncommonly high-- one of the many advantages of wealth.

Well, liberals haven't won completely yet. Wonder why the fight is getting so brutal? Some people don't want to destroy the world to save the planet.

Nice gifts wrapped up in nice promises are not wise policy nor do they build a good society.


You really like to tilt at those windmills there, Don.

Do you need something in your pipe?


And you said that you have no liberal in you! This is just further proof that that quiz you posted is flawed.

At what point is "family" a liberal ideal? As near as I can tell the liberal ideal is that family is a mere biological function and without really any merit beyond that. Getting the child away from the parental influence as early and completely as possible is the only way society will progress. In fact, even having knowledge of medical procedures and being aware of their own teenage child's sexual activity is virtually a crime now. Don't give me this BS that liberals care about society or family. The only thing cared about is power.

The real problem is that you think you are a good person because you care and these things you support are because you care. You just have absolutely no idea that what you support is the total opposite of what will be the outcome. You know it... if you really are rational. You just prefer not to think about it. It's just all so unknowable.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 33 (view)
 
Psychotic or Logical
Posted: 4/12/2013 7:05:00 PM
This is the same type of model and process used by hijackers.

How many lives are worth x. There is only one ethical answer. None. If you do it once then they will be back with an even greater challenge.

At least that's what TV taught me. This is where Superman comes flying in and saves the children and saves the day.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 307 (view)
 
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/12/2013 6:44:59 PM
late edit

drooling at the thought of taking 30 million from a company earning 100 million a year to get your 30 percent is obscene. That is what liberals do. They drool at the thought of all the money they can take. Money they didn't' earn. Money they have no right to. Money that they throw down black holes of bureaucracies and ambivalent programs that do not care if the people they help live or die. It's just a system. No accountability with several thousand pages of rules. TSA has 58 thousand employees permitted to do nothing but enforce policy and procedures without thought and without question. Cross a policy or a rule and watch out.

To not see this reality should be considered shameful.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 306 (view)
 
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/12/2013 5:50:55 PM
Just because you refuse to consider alternative views does not make you the sane one. Of course you do not understand "value". You have been conditioned to not perceive value. Value is a corruption isn't it?

Let's ignore all that for now, though, and get to the meat here. What is the appropriate policy to adopt, according to your principles?


None of this is an option being presented or considered by any side so... That is why I don't say it. I'm sure you it will give you some nice fits of laughter though.

Variable tax rate. Not strictly progressive and with % steps that are progressively harder to reach. Top rate is a general "Not to exceed" rate. The higher you go the harder it is to raise %

People understanding that comparison of percentage of gross income is not an indicator of contribution value.

Tying strings to some deductions for corporations. Lower top rates across the board.
You want that tax credit for your corporation then you must show headcount growth within US. Maybe a new factory. How about that?

Don't make the system punitive to success. Lowering of % at the top end for individuals if deductions are not taken.

For that matter a system that lowers percentage as your income goes up with the upper middle being the top of a wave curve but at which point would the top would be and where the limits are... variable.
---I'm sure this one will send you to the hospital for spleen rupture from laughing.



Oh, and most importantly... Having success does not make you a bad person. In fact, we need more successful people. Not less. It isn't shameful to perform well or to do well. It isn't bad to use your skills and provide services that have a market value higher than someone else. It isn't bad or a lower value to society to be happy with a family and a day job that doesn't make you rich beyond your dreams. And it sure the hell isn't bad to want to keep what you earned.

I really just do not like a system that feeds off of people and punishes success and tries to falsely cure social ills that are not in any way related to how much money someone has. Being poor is not an excuse or a reason nor a cause of committing bad behavior. Just like being rich doesn't prevent it in rich people.

The income inequality gap is a false claim. The people at the very bottom, that really are at the bottom are not slaves. They are either mentally incapable or mentally disabled in some way that prevents them from even seeking out available assistance. There are the lower segments above that class that do not have the education and do not know how or what to do to change their situation. They still have assistance. They are not left out.

At each range we have top and bottom. There are programs for many ranges in society and hell, there are even programs for me for starting a new business if I were to go out and look hard enough for them. They may not help me in day to day life nor do they ease up on me with food / gas / education / but I would never say there are no programs available to me.

The entire class argument and wealthy paying fair share is just crap. It's a lie. There will always be examples and anecdotal stories. There are going to be polls, and graphs that present the picture. They present the picture of what they want the outcome to be and that is about it. A graph on a chart showing a billion x difference between the top and the bottom doesn't in any way represent the quality of life available at the bottom. Comparing that quality of life with pretty much most of human history and what services are available should be the real picture. But, that doesn't get more voters with impassioned fists of anger in the streets.

Redefining poverty to achieve a political end. That is all I get from "liberal" positions today. Actually redefining seems to be quite a popular liberal goal. Gotta keep everyone on their toes right.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 303 (view)
 
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/12/2013 2:01:45 PM
what an infantile dissection of the post...

The 0 tax people are quite possibly on corporate welfare is not contradicting that most taxes are paid by companies. None of that contradicts the top 50% pay 97% of all taxes while the bottom 50% pays 3%.

There is no reason to keep harping on fairness in the way that liberals do stating solely that "the rich do not pay their fair share".

And I still don't see how making corporations that are paying the majority of taxes and rasing their rates because of a false argument of fairness is in any way fair.


A consistent percentage is nowhere near fair? Yep-- rationality has left the building. Was it ever in the building? That is the question.

And the absurd reduction of reason award goes to ^ You misrepresented everything.

I am saying that a single consistent percentage across the board is not equal in value. It isn't. Not that you really care what "fair" means or that fair is more than a single view of % compared to self.

10% of 100 is 10. You can't change that. Fair has nothing to do with it. 50% of nothing is nothing. Is that fair? 97% of 100 is 97. Is that fair? 1% of 100... is that fair? It means nothing because 100 has no meaning. Is it a cat? It's yearly net worth. How is that in any way fair to determine a single % across the board to determine contribution to government services? It's the government services growth that is the problem skewing percentage value. But you can't grasp that concept. It might make you feel "unfair".

Especially when you look at it that you contribute less than another individual. Does that make them better than you? Are they "more fair" than you are because they give a higher value? Maybe that's why... you are jealous.
 
Show ALL Forums