usaone
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 9:10:23 GMT -5
Posts: 3,429
|
Post by usaone on Nov 15, 2012 16:59:05 GMT -5
IT WILL NOT affect what we pay for stuff. We have a free market economy and the smart companies WILL NOT pass a tax increase onto the consumer and those companies will see an increase in sales that will more than make up for a small tax increase. well damn....if you say it like that, it must be true "We have a free market economy and the smart companies WILL NOT pass a tax increase onto the consumer and those companies will see an increase in sales that will more than make up for a small tax increase." are you kidding.....do you work for a public company? if you do, ask the owner if he wants to take a pay cut that is what you are saying...that owners of companies will willingly take pay cuts for the good of the economy really? They will eat the tax cut to keep market share. Who ever does not raise prices to the consumer will have the most market share and therefore increase profits. If my competitor raises his prices when taxes go up and I do NOT raise my prices, who do you think the consumer is going to buy from?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 17:37:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2012 17:14:57 GMT -5
you guys are dreaming.....
changing from chapter s or llc to a chapter c can be very tricky....so i dont see that as a viable option for some
for others...maybe
someone that makes 10 million or more is not who i was talking about....but an owner who is making 800k - 1.5 million.....
if the competition is in the same circumstances...they will raise prices also
have you checked airline seats in the last 3 years
prices keep going up.....there is competition isnt there? but ALL of the carriers have raised prices
you think small business owners wont do the same damn thing you are kidding yourself
you are listening to the talking heads.....ask business owners
and one last point...i dont give a flying rip about market share if my margins are lower on all of it
profit is the key to any business.....not market share
|
|
sgtjer
Familiar Member
Joined: Feb 17, 2012 15:56:38 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by sgtjer on Nov 15, 2012 17:17:42 GMT -5
I could understand the wailing and wringing of hands if the tax rates were going back to historical averages from the 1930's to the 1980's (70% top brackets, and we did pretty well then).
I could understand if the Bush tax cuts had made life better for all classes of Americans, but it seems, a decade later, to have only helped the wealthiest among us.
So, if those folks want to lay off workers, and increase their prices during an already difficult economy, because their taxes are going back to the levels of 2000, (an increase of what, 4%?), will they expect their businesses to flourish as a result of those layoffs and price increases?
Greed overcoming logic, and the good of the nation that has made, and likely will continue to make, them wealthy, sounds counterproductive, IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 17:37:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2012 17:20:19 GMT -5
when you own your own business....and its your money, lets see if you feel the same way
maybe you would....maybe you wouldnt
its easy to talk about it when it is someone else's dime
|
|
sgtjer
Familiar Member
Joined: Feb 17, 2012 15:56:38 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by sgtjer on Nov 15, 2012 17:25:34 GMT -5
Who do you think buys the products of these companies, yours and mine?
Are we competing for market share, and is it possible we could lose that to a less greedy competitor, possibly an overseas company, that might further erode our job base and thereby further reduce local consumers?
Supply and demand, and competition, set prices. Logic dictates, even though it might make some folks feel good better to retaliate against the loss of an election in emotionally turbulent times.
|
|
TonyTiger
Junior Associate
Mundi est stupenda locus
Joined: Apr 15, 2012 20:08:39 GMT -5
Posts: 5,583
|
Post by TonyTiger on Nov 15, 2012 17:27:50 GMT -5
when you own your own business....and its your money, lets see if you feel the same way maybe you would....maybe you wouldnt its easy to talk about it when it is someone else's dime Or, the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of the United States of America could just nationalize your company and buy you out for 10 cents on the dollar and kick you to the curb? There are a lot of folks runnin'-about who have no clue about the story of the Goose and the Golden Egg, and how to draw the proper analogies in our context here... Then again, there are a lot of folks runnin'-about who resist finding a middle-ground during times of crisis and who don't "get it" that they can overplay the Goose-and-Egg story and that the more they resist compromise the more likely it is that they are going to get steamrollered sometime in the not too distant future... It's a puzzler alright...
|
|
sgtjer
Familiar Member
Joined: Feb 17, 2012 15:56:38 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by sgtjer on Nov 15, 2012 17:31:10 GMT -5
"Then again, there are a lot of folks runnin'-about who resist finding a middle-ground during times of crisis and who don't "get it" that they can overplay the Goose-and-Egg story and that the more they resist compromise the more likely it is that they are going to get steamrollered sometime in the not too distant future..." Lotta folks got rich off the American middle class; unlikely, IMO, that they'll spite their customers just because they might get a little less rich in the future.
|
|
sgtjer
Familiar Member
Joined: Feb 17, 2012 15:56:38 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by sgtjer on Nov 15, 2012 17:32:52 GMT -5
"You will never be able to force the billionaires to suffer, like you want."
That is likely the most absurd regurgitation of Rush Libaugh angry rhetoric that I've ever heard. He apparently owns you .....
|
|
sgtjer
Familiar Member
Joined: Feb 17, 2012 15:56:38 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by sgtjer on Nov 15, 2012 17:46:31 GMT -5
There are very few people who actually want billionaires to suffer, despite the rallying cry of radical right talking heads.
Those of us who work for a living (and some of us, self included, do very well at that), realize that we need those employers. We also realize that they need us, as employees and as consumers.
It's a symbiotic relationship, and only the hardest heads and short sighted greedmeisters are willing to try and force it into a one way street, my way or the highway.
As always, the far fringes make the most noise, and abandon logic in favor of emotion. Their protestations generate more heat than light.
|
|
mwcpa
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 7, 2011 6:35:43 GMT -5
Posts: 2,425
|
Post by mwcpa on Nov 15, 2012 17:48:00 GMT -5
"Lotta folks got rich off the American middle class; unlikely, IMO, that they'll spite their customers just because they might get a little less rich in the future. "
Some have threatened that... but caved...
Papa John threatened it... I suspect if he closed up a pizza shop here and there someone would take his place, unless the area was not good for pizza shops (taxes was his excuse to get rid of bad stores I bet)
The Koch Brother... did they fire people yet... I doubt it, they make too much money, but I can expect that will lobby that political contributions should be tax deductible
That real estate guy in FLA... oh wait, he realized he makes too much to cahs it in and he gave workers a raise....
"changing from chapter s or llc to a chapter c can be very tricky"
No it is not.... it's one peice of paper... it's harder to go from C to S or C to LLC or S to LLC... but for tax purposes we have had (for some time) check the box regs... and to make the S not valid it is not hard to create a second class of stock....
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Nov 15, 2012 18:08:25 GMT -5
nope....it wont affect jobs it will affect how much we pay for stuff profits are not going down because taxes are going up count on it.... That's exactly the way I see it. Does anyone think that some rich business owner is going to bend over and take the taxes. Nope. He'll either raise his prices or lay employees off or both. You can take that to the bank. Obviously some people here do not know many business owners or have operated a succesful business. The bullshit line- if the owner is taxed more on profits (regardless of structure) then they will lay off employees or raise prices- is the dumbest conclusion I have ever heard. Just about as dumb as the converse- if we cut taxes on the owners profits they will hire or cut prices. We did- they didn't.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 15, 2012 18:08:58 GMT -5
nobody said that soaking the rich was all of the solution. it isn't. but it is part of it. or at least it should be.
PS- the rich were way more soaked in the not too distant past. it is not really asking that much, despite the high pitched whining.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,453
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 15, 2012 18:10:55 GMT -5
That's exactly the way I see it. Does anyone think that some rich business owner is going to bend over and take the taxes. Nope. He'll either raise his prices or lay employees off or both. You can take that to the bank. Obviously some people here do not know many business owners or have operated a succesful business. The bullshit line- if the owner is taxed more on profits (regardless of structure) then they will lay off employees or raise prices- is the dumbest conclusion I have ever heard. Just about as dumb as the converse- if we cut taxes on the owners profits they will hire or cut prices. We did- they didn't. this claim that owners make: that being taxed higher on profits, which are by definition money LEFT OVER after all other expenses (like payroll) are met, will somehow affect payroll is complete nonsense- but the rich will continue making it, because the argument SOUNDS plausible, and most people are just too ignorant to figure it out.
|
|
usaone
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 9:10:23 GMT -5
Posts: 3,429
|
Post by usaone on Nov 15, 2012 18:33:09 GMT -5
you guys are dreaming..... changing from chapter s or llc to a chapter c can be very tricky....so i dont see that as a viable option for some for others...maybe someone that makes 10 million or more is not who i was talking about....but an owner who is making 800k - 1.5 million..... if the competition is in the same circumstances...they will raise prices also have you checked airline seats in the last 3 years prices keep going up.....there is competition isnt there? but ALL of the carriers have raised prices you think small business owners wont do the same damn thing you are kidding yourself you are listening to the talking heads.....ask business owners and one last point...i dont give a flying rip about market share if my margins are lower on all of it profit is the key to any business.....not market share Market share equals profit most of the time. You can't compare a handful of airlines to the common small business.
|
|
usaone
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 9:10:23 GMT -5
Posts: 3,429
|
Post by usaone on Nov 15, 2012 18:36:19 GMT -5
"You will never be able to force the billionaires to suffer, like you want." That is likely the most absurd regurgitation of Rush Libaugh angry rhetoric that I've ever heard. He apparently owns you ..... No. It's true. Those who DON'T have it, aren't willing to do what it takes to get it and are completely obsessed with those who do have it. You have the same amount of time in the day as these rich business people. Go get what they've got, do what they did, keep a business afloat, deal with all the government BS and then tell me you're willing to hand it over to others. It's nothing more than jealously. It's about the game being rigged towards the rich for the last 30+ years NOT about people not wanting to work. Who are all those people waiting in line for job openings?
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,910
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 15, 2012 18:39:54 GMT -5
Don't you worry about those evil rich people. They will figure out how to manage and not pay more taxes. Those that are affected are the ones I worry about.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 15, 2012 18:50:34 GMT -5
You seem to be missing the point that the employee layoffs occur for two reasons:
1. Corporate profits are remitted to shareholders. A drop in profits sparks a significant drop in share prices, which typically necessitates that a business shore up its pool of liquid capital and take measures to restore profitability in the short term. Laying off employees is one of the surest and easiest ways of accomplishing this. It may impact future growth, but the near-term takes priority.
2. Employee layoffs are a tool for extortion. Or more accurately, for counter-extortion. What much of America sees as "fair share", the wealthy see as confiscatory taxation, and they will not sit idly by while men they hold in contempt siphon off their profits. Layoffs, market crashes, outsourcing, etc. can all be used as bitter public reminders on who holds the strings to America's economic infrastructure. I for one believe that if a "tax the rich" policy is aggressive enough, many business will cut off their nose to spite their face and resist the precedent.
Put yourself in their mindset: What would you do if a bunch of lazy, irresponsible, resource-sucking, self-entitled pissants who pay only a fraction of the tax you do came to you demanding a larger share of your hard-earned profits, "or else"? How receptive would you be to their demands?
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Nov 15, 2012 18:59:54 GMT -5
Let's take a business owner that is pulling in say 350K a year- very successfull- and his taxes get raised 4.6% on income over 250K- so that owner is out an additional $4600. Wow- end of the world. Must raise prices of layoff someone for 12 weeks or else Even someone pulling in a million dollars would only be out an extra 35K- guess they could fire one person. Now take one of the Kochs or Waltons, multi-billionaires, who for them enough is never enough- they piss and moan and go out and buy politicians. That's where the real backlash is coming from- especially with capital gains and the estate tax. This has nothing at all to do with 'job creators' and all to do with personal greed.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 15, 2012 19:14:57 GMT -5
A 4.6% increase on 350K is $16,100.00. And at any rate, the "Soak the Rich" exercise is showing the negligible impact on the federal deficit by even doubling corporate income taxes. Not a paltry 4.6% increase. Even the doubling only accounts for 8.8% of the year deficit in the results I posted. Either the tax increase is going to sting the rich, or the tax increase isn't going to make a dent in the US's federal deficit. You can't have it both ways.
|
|
dumdeedoe
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 3, 2011 7:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 755
|
Post by dumdeedoe on Nov 15, 2012 19:54:18 GMT -5
Fine lay me off then,, I can use your tax increase to fund my unemployment checks. So class dictates how we feel for not living "within your means"?
|
|
sgtjer
Familiar Member
Joined: Feb 17, 2012 15:56:38 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by sgtjer on Nov 15, 2012 20:20:37 GMT -5
"Either the tax increase is going to sting the rich, or the tax increase isn't going to make a dent in the US's federal deficit. You can't have it both ways."
The tax increase is not going to sting any of the rich that much, but add them all together and couple them with cost cuts, and you have a formula for balancing the budget.
It's only the ultra greedy that want to balance the budget with OPM ..... other people's money.
|
|
sgtjer
Familiar Member
Joined: Feb 17, 2012 15:56:38 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by sgtjer on Nov 15, 2012 20:31:00 GMT -5
"What would you do if a bunch of lazy, irresponsible, resource-sucking, self-entitled pissants who pay only a fraction of the tax you do came to you demanding a larger share of your hard-earned profits, "or else"? How receptive would you be to their demands?" About as receptive as the American electorate was to demands by the repubs that there be not only no tax increases for the top 1%, but that they actually get another tax cut, disguised as "eliminating loopholes." Those folks who pay a fraction of the taxes of the CEO's are only getting a fraction of the wages; does that make them any more "resource sucking"? But, to answer your question, I would hire good workers and pay them good wages and make a good profit, and quit crying about a 4% increase in the tax on my increased profit. But that would be logical, instead of emotional, so I understand your angst.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Nov 15, 2012 20:39:17 GMT -5
A 4.6% increase on 350K is $16,100.00. And at any rate, the "Soak the Rich" exercise is showing the negligible impact on the federal deficit by even doubling corporate income taxes. Not a paltry 4.6% increase. Even the doubling only accounts for 8.8% of the year deficit in the results I posted. Either the tax increase is going to sting the rich, or the tax increase isn't going to make a dent in the US's federal deficit. You can't have it both ways. Come on man- you know how this works- I was using the old top tax rate- it doesn't go up on the whole 350K. And really the whole argument and website is ridiculous- pointing out the futility of having the rich try and cover the deficit- no one is suggesting that. The underlying theme is the same one they use to justify exorbitant CEO pay- that changing the rate has a negligible impact like the CEO pay package is such a small part so why bother. What I want to know is why so many middle class people go to bat for these greedy pigs. It isn't the 1%- it is the .1% behind this- and some of those people take the other side against their own interests- which is odd because the middle class supporters of the greed class are siding against their own interests. One of those two groups can afford their position.
|
|
sgtjer
Familiar Member
Joined: Feb 17, 2012 15:56:38 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by sgtjer on Nov 15, 2012 20:45:03 GMT -5
"What I want to know is why so many middle class people go to bat for these greedy pigs." Marketing works ..... especially if you throw in a picture of some minorities, or gays, or Nancy Pelosi.
|
|
dumdeedoe
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 3, 2011 7:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 755
|
Post by dumdeedoe on Nov 15, 2012 21:27:57 GMT -5
hum... maybe if you control them with social issues that mean very little but have huge emotional responses? ?
|
|
shelby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 21:29:02 GMT -5
Posts: 1,368
|
Post by shelby on Nov 15, 2012 21:59:03 GMT -5
"What I want to know is why so many middle class people go to bat for these greedy pigs." Marketing works ..... especially if you throw in a picture of some minorities, or gays, or Nancy Pelosi. Look at reply #41 people actually believe they have a shot at that type of success, and maybe if they take their side they will soon be in such company....never going to happen.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 15, 2012 22:29:37 GMT -5
Could've fooled me. The point of "putting yourself in their mindset" as I suggested isn't about what I think or you think. It's about accepting this as the 1%'s perspective, understanding why it might lead to layoffs in the event of a tax hike. My arguments thus far in this thread are that taxing the rich has real repercussions, and that taxing the rich is grossly insufficient to remedy the US's worsening debt crisis. I am not saying the repercussions of taxing the rich are so great that new taxes shouldn't be raised. I am not saying that I disagree with the philosophy "every little bit helps". My concern is that far fewer Americans acknowledge "the futility of having the rich try and cover the deficit" than you suggest. France is currently mired in the very same problem.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Nov 15, 2012 23:29:38 GMT -5
You mean grossly insufficient And I disagree- there was a point in the past where producivity spiked and the people that made it happen got shit on- not directly- but shit on. I'd rather tax the rich than cut their heads off but maybe it ends that way.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 16, 2012 0:01:05 GMT -5
Indeed.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 17:37:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2012 8:53:16 GMT -5
You seem to be missing the point that the employee layoffs occur for two reasons: 1. Corporate profits are remitted to shareholders. A drop in profits sparks a significant drop in share prices, which typically necessitates that a business shore up its pool of liquid capital and take measures to restore profitability in the short term. Laying off employees is one of the surest and easiest ways of accomplishing this. It may impact future growth, but the near-term takes priority. 2. Employee layoffs are a tool for extortion. Or more accurately, for counter-extortion. What much of America sees as "fair share", the wealthy see as confiscatory taxation, and they will not sit idly by while men they hold in contempt siphon off their profits. Layoffs, market crashes, outsourcing, etc. can all be used as bitter public reminders on who holds the strings to America's economic infrastructure. I for one believe that if a "tax the rich" policy is aggressive enough, many business will cut off their nose to spite their face and resist the precedent. Put yourself in their mindset: What would you do if a bunch of lazy, irresponsible, resource-sucking, self-entitled pissants who pay only a fraction of the tax you do came to you demanding a larger share of your hard-earned profits, "or else"? How receptive would you be to their demands? omg someone else that gets it ask the 18k workers at hostess what they think now you can only squeeze so much from a business, or its owner after that......well a lot of kids parents will be looking for jobs at christmas instead of presents and every business operates the exact same way....big, small, or in between buy or make a widget for 1.00....sell it for 2.00 and after expenses you get to keep your net profit that boys and girls is what makes business'es go....profit without it, they close up shop
|
|