Soak The Rich! A fun game for P&M wonks...

[Deleted]

Or companies will hire more contractors that they don't have to provide health insurance to. Or ask their salaried employees to work longer hours.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 15, 2012 18:50:34 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

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.

this is profoundly bad thinking. corporate profits are at near records, whereas wages are stagnating. without the virtuous loop between workers and management, there is no real economic growth, only a siphoning off of labor into the pockets of management, which does not create a sustainable future.

there was a time when corporate leaders knew that. it was not actually that long ago. if they have forgotten it, it is only a matter of time before labor reminds them.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 16, 2012 10:13:06 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

Nov 16, 2012 9:57:32 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

exactly


not what you sell something for....it is how much you KEEP

Yes! No one risks what they have, works their butt off, damages their health and neglects their families because they want to give their profits to those who have the ability to do the same, but choose not to.

if you have no disposable income (or very little) you have very limited ability to do the same.

and workers also work their butts off.

[sgtjer]

"this is profoundly bad thinking. corporate profits are at near records, whereas wages are stagnating. without the virtuous loop between workers and management, there is no real economic growth, only a siphoning off of labor into the pockets of management, which does not create a sustainable future.

there was a time when corporate leaders knew that. it was not actually that long ago. if they have forgotten it, it is only a matter of time before labor reminds them."

Times are changing, and the middle class is getting squeezed. It's unrealistic for the top 1% to expect the same profit margins from less consumption by the middle class.

[sgtjer]

The company I work for has a $40 mil annual budget; the owners make a tidy profit.

They EXPECT to net less next year because of higher taxes, but they know how well they've done in the last decade (as do I, their CFO).

And they're not crying; they recognize the ebb and flow of business cycles, and understand the dynamics of their customer base. They're invested in the country for the long run, and realize that they depend on the long term health of the American middle class, and their employees.

It's a healthy approach to business, IMO.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 16, 2012 17:29:16 GMT -5 sgtjer said:

"this is profoundly bad thinking. corporate profits are at near records, whereas wages are stagnating. without the virtuous loop between workers and management, there is no real economic growth, only a siphoning off of labor into the pockets of management, which does not create a sustainable future.

there was a time when corporate leaders knew that. it was not actually that long ago. if they have forgotten it, it is only a matter of time before labor reminds them."

Times are changing, and the middle class is getting squeezed. It's unrealistic for the top 1% to expect the same profit margins from less consumption by the middle class.

it won't take long for them to realize that they are not going to turn the US into China so that they can continue siphoning off wealth from the middle class in the form of low cost labor. when they figure that out, the pendulum will swing back, and things will improve for the middle class.

[Phoenix84]

Thanks for posting this SF. I've been saying the same thing for a while. Even if we assume no adverse affects on the economy, dramatically raising the taxes on the rich is just a drop in the bucket. At most we'll cover a few percentage points of the national deficit, and that doesn't even begin to count the debt.

So, at best, Obama's plan to tax the rich to cover the deficit is a ideologic victory that will be like spitting on a forest fire.

As I've said time and time again, the government doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 16, 2012 17:45:11 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Thanks for posting this SF. I've been saying the same thing for a while. Even if we assume no adverse affects on the economy, dramatically raising the taxes on the rich is just a drop in the bucket. At most we'll cover a few percentage points of the national deficit, and that doesn't even begin to count the debt.

So, at best, Obama's plan to tax the rich to cover the deficit is a ideologic victory that will be like spitting on a forest fire.

As I've said time and time again, the government doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem.

statistically, it has both. revenues are about 20% below normal, and spending is about 20% above.

[Phoenix84]

I'm of the mind go ahead and let the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthy. I don't think the GOP should throw themselves on the sword for the rich, most of whom voted for Obama anyway.

As SF pointed out, it's a meaningless gesture that won't come close to fixing the deficit problem. So why not go ahead and do it, maybe then we can focus on where we really need to focus on, spending.

However, the thing I'm worried about is most people don't realize this. When the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthy, and it's still not enough, what then?

[Virgil Showlion]

Nov 16, 2012 17:16:50 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Nov 15, 2012 18:50:34 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

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.

this is profoundly bad thinking. corporate profits are at near records, whereas wages are stagnating. without the virtuous loop between workers and management, there is no real economic growth, only a siphoning off of labor into the pockets of management, which does not create a sustainable future.

there was a time when corporate leaders knew that. it was not actually that long ago. if they have forgotten it, it is only a matter of time before labor reminds them.

Again, I didn't say I approve of it. I'm pointing out where "Obamacare equals jobs lost" may be a legitimate concern.

[zibazinski]

Well, DF continues to be the dummy who pays for all his employee and their dependent health insurance. But then again, he laid three off so it's just about a wash.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Nov 16, 2012 10:02:58 GMT -5 usaone said:

Believe me A I am not a fan of Obama care.

My point is the constant defending of the super rich.

Where we are today has much more to do with what the top 1% have done to us over the last few decades not the government.

If we as Republicans had looked out a little more for the middle class and not the top 1% over the last few years We would not have lost the last two elections.

I think I understand what you are saying now usawon? It's the presentation you're talking about. For some reason the Republican party is carving out the idea that they are they party of the 2%.

When the fact is that way more super rich elite people support the democratic party, (Movie/music stars/Soros/Oprah/ect). So instead of talking about taxing the rich over and over, they should be taking the more Conservative approach and focus on the solutions.(Focused on what the "fiscal cliff" really means for socail spending)?

[djAdvocate]

Nov 16, 2012 19:06:27 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Nov 16, 2012 17:16:50 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

this is profoundly bad thinking. corporate profits are at near records, whereas wages are stagnating. without the virtuous loop between workers and management, there is no real economic growth, only a siphoning off of labor into the pockets of management, which does not create a sustainable future.

there was a time when corporate leaders knew that. it was not actually that long ago. if they have forgotten it, it is only a matter of time before labor reminds them.

Again, I didn't say I approve of it. I'm pointing out where "Obamacare equals jobs lost" may be a legitimate concern.

i think the statement makes zero economic sense. but to each their own.

[formerexpat]

How about a nice transaction tax in the stock market as well? High frequency traders can pay high frequency taxes ;D.

We already have that - it's called short term capital gains tax.

Capital gain income from assets held one year or less is taxed at the ordinary income tax rates in effect for the year, ranging from 10% to 35%.

JFC - people can be so fucking stupid.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 16, 2012 19:10:27 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Well, DF continues to be the dummy who pays for all his employee and their dependent health insurance. But then again, he laid three off so it's just about a wash.

no wonder you are hurting. cut back that benefit, and retain your employees.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Please stick to the topic in the OP. This is not a discussion about whether tax cuts benefit growth and the economy. The exercise is merely to pick and choose what areas of the economy taxes need to be raised to create more tax revenue.

I am surprised the moderators have not taken action.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 18, 2012 5:01:25 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

Please stick to the topic in the OP. This is not a discussion about whether tax cuts benefit growth and the economy. The exercise is merely to pick and choose what areas of the economy taxes need to be raised to create more tax revenue.

edit: here is your reply:

all other things remaining equal, payroll taxes increase revenue.