"If you're young and not liberal, you have no heart. If your old and not a conservative, you have no brain" - Winston Churchill. was actually said by Charles DeGaul..
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- How much are my taxes going up with a Democratic President / Congress?
So I have to pay 35% and they should pay 0%. And that seems reasonable to you - because a corporation might pass a portion of its net profits on to you - as cheaper products? Disregarding the utter unfairness of current tax code; a scaled rate is an unfair code IMO. I wouldn't be so sure that corporations are going to pass cost savings on to you.SealXo wrote:
yes, becausetopal63 wrote:
There is a ZERO point ZERO percent chance almost any small business owner - like myself - is going overseas; that includes employees and or looking for employees. I'd just like the bottom to get here sooner - so a real recovery can happen.Kmarion wrote:
That is correct.. the ppl making over 250k will just lay you off and ship (more) of your jobs overseas to compensate...lulz.
_____
I am not sure if I understand you (SealXo) perfectly?
Are you saying:
1.) You think corporations are going to make shit-loads of money regardless of who's in the oval office? I think I'd agree with that, more or less.
2.) And, you would like these corporations to pay as little tax as possible? Fuck the federal government and it's tax revenue. Which means any services tied to those revenues?
3.) "... than passing it on to me." I don't understand that part.
if you read a business book about corporations they say there is no such thing as corporate tax, because if they get taxed they will basically just inflate there service or products prices. So the corporations don't really end up paying the corporate taxes, we do, because they just pass the tax down to my when i buy there service or product.
AND i believe you wont be going overseas. I don't know about you, but a lot of small business's are barely hanging on right now, so increasing your taxes and your business's taxes, you won't be closing, you'll just be closing your doors.
For example Walmart works many Chinese workers more than 16 hours (even a full 24 hours) a day - at about 3 dollars a day per Chinese employee. They might be making a plastic toy that costs a total of 50-80 cents - do you think they are passing those savings on to you? What's a reasonable markup? 100% 1000% percent - how about 2000%. That's just an example... I wouldn't be so sure they're going to pass any savings on to you.
PS: I am not closing my doors or in risk of that happening. + There is no increase happening, if McCain gets elected he's proposing a 25% corporate tax - that won't help me out at all. Spending money on infrastructure that will help, stopping the drain of capital from middle America to Wall Street that will help... anything that produces gains in actual work will help. Any gains geared toward the financial sector will cause a slight bit more inflation (the hidden tax) and merely transfer more wealth to the top in our society.
Last edited by topal63 (2008-10-01 14:56:29)
If you are targeting the upper income (+$250k a year) the chances of outsourcing increase, big time. You can not force these corporations to stay home and pay by your rules. Make it tougher for them and it's sayonara alavidha. It just won't happen and I'm sure you know that. However, If there is to be loopholes it needs to only rewards those who keep the jobs at home.topal63 wrote:
There is a ZERO point ZERO percent chance almost any small business owner - like myself - is going overseas; that includes employees and or looking for employees. I'd just like the bottom to get here sooner - so a real recovery can happen.Kmarion wrote:
That is correct.. the ppl making over 250k will just lay you off and ship (more) of your jobs overseas to compensate...lulz.ATG wrote:
Unless you make $250000.00 per year or have a heart beat there is no reason to think your taxes will go up.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
How is a guy who owns a restaurant - going overseas? He isn't.Kmarion wrote:
If you are targeting the upper income (+$250k a year) the chances of outsourcing increase, big time. You can not force these corporations to stay home and pay by your rules. Make it tougher for them and it's sayonara alavidha. It just won't happen and I'm sure you know that. However, If there is to be loopholes it needs to only rewards those who keep the jobs at home.topal63 wrote:
There is a ZERO point ZERO percent chance almost any small business owner - like myself - is going overseas; that includes employees and or looking for employees. I'd just like the bottom to get here sooner - so a real recovery can happen.Kmarion wrote:
That is correct.. the ppl making over 250k will just lay you off and ship (more) of your jobs overseas to compensate...lulz.
How is a guy who owns a construction company doing subcontractor work - going overseas? He isn't.
How is an Engineer/surveyor who does professional work - going overseas? I am not.
How is a doctor in a private practice - going overseas? They aren't either.
That guy who owns 2 or 3 McDonald's he's not going to close his doors either.
Etc, etc, etc...
These are not hypothetical situations. These are people who have a presence in the communities they exist and live in. These small business aren't going anywhere. (Open up any yellow book - to find out just how many small business aren't going anywhere).
Last edited by topal63 (2008-10-01 14:52:34)
And he probably ripped it off of some other guy. Who cares?IG-Calibre wrote:
"If you're young and not liberal, you have no heart. If your old and not a conservative, you have no brain" - Winston Churchill. was actually said by Charles DeGaul..
Well at least we've got that worked out. Thank you Captain Obvious. I am of course talking about major corporations and not individuals.. but if you want to raise the taxes on a successful restaurant owner, surveyor *wow your rich bitch!, doctor.. chances are that they will either move themselves or at the very least rethink their line of work/entrepreneurship. So by your line of logic you would only punish those who have no means of escaping (via outsourcing) the hurt the successful tax codes. Thats wonderful.topal63 wrote:
How is a guy who owns a resturant - going overseas? He isn't.Kmarion wrote:
If you are targeting the upper income (+$250k a year) the chances of outsourcing increase, big time. You can not force these corporations to stay home and pay by your rules. Make it tougher for them and it's sayonara alavidha. It just won't happen and I'm sure you know that. However, If there is to be loopholes it needs to only rewards those who keep the jobs at home.topal63 wrote:
There is a ZERO point ZERO percent chance almost any small business owner - like myself - is going overseas; that includes employees and or looking for employees. I'd just like the bottom to get here sooner - so a real recovery can happen.
How is a guy who owns a construction - going overseas? He isn't.
How is an Engineer/surveyor who does proffesional work - going overseas? I am not.
How is a doctor in private practice - going overseas? They aren't either.
That guy who owns 2 or 3 McDonald's he's not going to close his doors either.
Etc, etc, etc...
Xbone Stormsurgezz
And the guy that owns 2-3 McDonalds has to cut back hours for his employees and not hire any new workers with a tax increase... I bartend at a Restauraunt chain and they have already cut hours for the kitchen staff... 40 hours has turned into 30-35 for some... they have stopped using busboys/girls and food runners... the waiters do it now... I live in Loudon/Fairfax Va one of the wealthiest counties in the US so we are actually still pretty busy... The bussers/kitchen/waiters whose shifts have been cut are SOL...topal63 wrote:
How is a guy who owns a restaurant - going overseas? He isn't.Kmarion wrote:
If you are targeting the upper income (+$250k a year) the chances of outsourcing increase, big time. You can not force these corporations to stay home and pay by your rules. Make it tougher for them and it's sayonara alavidha. It just won't happen and I'm sure you know that. However, If there is to be loopholes it needs to only rewards those who keep the jobs at home.topal63 wrote:
There is a ZERO point ZERO percent chance almost any small business owner - like myself - is going overseas; that includes employees and or looking for employees. I'd just like the bottom to get here sooner - so a real recovery can happen.
How is a guy who owns a construction company doing subcontractor work - going overseas? He isn't.
How is an Engineer/surveyor who does professional work - going overseas? I am not.
How is a doctor in a private practice - going overseas? They aren't either.
That guy who owns 2 or 3 McDonald's he's not going to close his doors either.
Etc, etc, etc...
These are not hypothetical situations. These are people who have a presence in the communities they exist and live in. These small business aren't going anywhere.
More taxes, especially when it's going to wonderful, efficient govt programs is bad...
Love is the answer
Those individual small business owners employee more people than large corporations do (in total). And considering the trend has already been an outsourcing trend - in large corporations. Maybe it's time to do both make those at the top pay their fair share and punish them for outsourcing labor. Or maybe you should say fuck it - heck why don't we outsource all labor/work done in America - that'd be the capitalist thing to do.
PS: I am not actually for any new taxes, but I am not actually concerned either. What concerns me is the lack of labor/work done in this current incarnation/evolution of our capitalistic system. More middleman, more service jobs, less production, less industry, more transfer of wealth to the top (in particular the financial sector).
PS: I am not actually for any new taxes, but I am not actually concerned either. What concerns me is the lack of labor/work done in this current incarnation/evolution of our capitalistic system. More middleman, more service jobs, less production, less industry, more transfer of wealth to the top (in particular the financial sector).
Last edited by topal63 (2008-10-01 15:08:37)
You try that after the phone books renew their ads., meaning most yellow page ads were signed up last year. Kind of hard to renew ads when you are in collections on the ones you have. Advertising is a gamble. Yellow pages ads are particularly harsh because they can't be dropped when business goes south.topal63 wrote:
These small business aren't going anywhere. (Open up any yellow book - to find out just how many small business aren't going anywhere).
I used to run 1/4 page color ads in a dozen books. lol, small businesses are being slaughtered by this paranoia.
I was talking to a competitor today. He said, if any of us are still operating in three years under the same name we will be heroes.
A client of mine is a dentist. She says her business is down 40%.
This bailout...is it to allow the continued bubbling of commodities and housing markets?
Because a nuclear bomb has went off in our economy, and the small business guy will be lucky to survive with good credit. So...what do I care if credit is available to these banks or not? So they can contiue to charge 30% interest?
Fuck 'em.
Last edited by ATG (2008-10-01 15:08:55)
That's the problem right there... though. We don't do enough actual work in this capitalist system. As a "fundamental in our economy" we have allowed this to deteriorate for far too long; and we've allowed a non-value added, non-productive, inflation causing, wealth transferring duo - to dominate the system. That would be the Fed. (its retarded monetary policy) and the Financial Sector (banks, invest banks, ins. co., etc).
PS:
It will only delay the inevitable.. there is a bottom not yet reached. Why throw money away? There is a need to get more work and labor done - within - the system. This stupid bailout doesn't address anything that's needed.
PS:
Fuck em - where they eat!!!ATG wrote:
This bailout...is it to allow the continued bubbling of commodities and housing markets? ...Fuck 'em.
It will only delay the inevitable.. there is a bottom not yet reached. Why throw money away? There is a need to get more work and labor done - within - the system. This stupid bailout doesn't address anything that's needed.
Last edited by topal63 (2008-10-01 16:07:26)
The theory, whether you buy into it or not, is that without the additional capital, all of those small and upstart companies will not be able to maintain. There would be no credit available to them .. to get things moving. Loans are already scarce, trust me. Also consider businesses that had nothing to do with speculation/housing will be screwed over. For instance Goodyear is having a tough time getting their own money now. 300 million or so. If they can't get a hold of their own capital guess what happens? Plants shut down, families go hungry. The situation is crap either way.ATG wrote:
This bailout...is it to allow the continued bubbling of commodities and housing markets?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
All that's a maybe. I know you know that but "Captain Obvious" is stating it anyways.
There are no guarantees this "bailout" will help out in the long term; or even the short term. It truly may be a waste. Plus the Fed. could directly loan monies at the discount rate (2%) directly to businesses that need them. Well there you have it - they call them selves the lender of last resort. So be it! It is last resort time - now lend some money.
There are no guarantees this "bailout" will help out in the long term; or even the short term. It truly may be a waste. Plus the Fed. could directly loan monies at the discount rate (2%) directly to businesses that need them. Well there you have it - they call them selves the lender of last resort. So be it! It is last resort time - now lend some money.
That's just another way of saying "what the market will bear". And companies will charge what the market will bear every single time to maximize profit.PureFodder wrote:
It also works for essential items if there is a resonable level of competition. Everyone has to buy clothes, but there's a lot of choice about where you buy them from and how much you are willing to spend. If your company doesn't raise prices and chooses to lose profit margin, the lost earnings can be regained by increasing market share as your stuff is cheaper than from other companies. Even with things like gas and electricity, people can usually choose to use less if prices rise.FEOS wrote:
That argument works for non-essential goods. For the essentials (food, clothing, utilities, etc), you can bet your ass the cost will be passed on...because it can without impacting bottomline.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
How do you punish someone who has the ability to move their business to another country with lower taxes and less regulation?topal63 wrote:
Those individual small business owners employee more people than large corporations do (in total). And considering the trend has already been an outsourcing trend - in large corporations. Maybe it's time to do both make those at the top pay their fair share and punish them for outsourcing labor. Or maybe you should say fuck it - heck why don't we outsource all labor/work done in America - that'd be the capitalist thing to do.
PS: I am not actually for any new taxes, but I am not actually concerned either. What concerns me is the lack of labor/work done in this current incarnation/evolution of our capitalistic system. More middleman, more service jobs, less production, less industry, more transfer of wealth to the top (in particular the financial sector).
Easy you limit their imports. We have a trade department just for things like that - that place levies on imports. Also, technology itself is applied science. Research grants to industry to improve anything(!) would help out - our ailing industrial base. Hmm... take for example LCD screen technology something once wholly invented and made in the US; not anymore. Why would our gov. and trade departments let such a thing happen? They don't really care, there were multinational corporations lobbying for the destruction of the US market-share (the Japanese), and the US has absolutely no real long term goals regarding industry. Well that pretty much went away with all the electronic industry; and like all other lost industry - the jobs and profit on industry that goes with it was lost as well. It could start anywhere with any item - what is not important - but we need to think-like the Japanese - that industry is a vital strategic interest that serves the National interest as well as National Security - not even mentioning the prosperity for all issue. Only when our government partners with industry as a vital American interest - and not just lobbyists for specific corporate goals (which is only about profit) - will we see a change.Harmor wrote:
How do you punish someone who has the ability to move their business to another country with lower taxes and less regulation?topal63 wrote:
Those individual small business owners employee more people than large corporations do (in total). And considering the trend has already been an outsourcing trend - in large corporations. Maybe it's time to do both make those at the top pay their fair share and punish them for outsourcing labor. Or maybe you should say fuck it - heck why don't we outsource all labor/work done in America - that'd be the capitalist thing to do.
PS: I am not actually for any new taxes, but I am not actually concerned either. What concerns me is the lack of labor/work done in this current incarnation/evolution of our capitalistic system. More middleman, more service jobs, less production, less industry, more transfer of wealth to the top (in particular the financial sector).
There are many things to do:
Tip the trade deficit slightly in favor of the US.
High levies on imports - for US corps. that split the scene. But, to stop the scene-splitting there needs to be more partnership. 0% tax on any capital gains - that is used to grow companies for example (or used in research, etc).
Research grants to industry - for any applied sciences.
Etc.
Last edited by topal63 (2008-10-02 07:55:22)
I like what you're saying topal, but how would some of that apply to a beast like Halliburton? They're based in the ME now, paying no taxes. A large portion of their income over the past few years has come from charging the US for services and goods provided in Iraq at 10X the going rate (no bid contracts FTL).
The levies you proposed would have to apply to services as well. Since almost all of our manufacturing has already gone overseas, services are about all we have left now, and those are leaving quickly too (IT, call centers, et al). I personally know people who are starting small software companies, getting projects and sending the work to their buddies in India.
The Bush administration was supposed to be the corporate administration. They were supposed to bring the efficiency and methods of the business world to the government. With the state of the US and current crisis in the financial industry, we can arguably say they did just that. I think an actual business leader (rather than corporate profit-mongers) could fix a lot of these problems for us. We wanted a Warren Buffett in office, but we got a Ken Lay instead. I have a better candidate in mind.
A lot of you will hate this, but I think Bill Gates could get us back on track. Think of the way he ran Microsoft. He crushed every competitor out there until the gov't stepped in to save the competitors. Imagine what he could do for the US.
The levies you proposed would have to apply to services as well. Since almost all of our manufacturing has already gone overseas, services are about all we have left now, and those are leaving quickly too (IT, call centers, et al). I personally know people who are starting small software companies, getting projects and sending the work to their buddies in India.
The Bush administration was supposed to be the corporate administration. They were supposed to bring the efficiency and methods of the business world to the government. With the state of the US and current crisis in the financial industry, we can arguably say they did just that. I think an actual business leader (rather than corporate profit-mongers) could fix a lot of these problems for us. We wanted a Warren Buffett in office, but we got a Ken Lay instead. I have a better candidate in mind.
A lot of you will hate this, but I think Bill Gates could get us back on track. Think of the way he ran Microsoft. He crushed every competitor out there until the gov't stepped in to save the competitors. Imagine what he could do for the US.
They military is not a really a corporation IMO it is a social institution. Halliburton, Black Water and the like aren't even necessary. What an evolution of absurdity! Why do we need an outside corp. draining money from the system; from the needed social institution? I think a soldier who has to have Halliburton clean his clothes at about a hundred a pop is nonsense (as an example). I doubt they actually even clean it well and I am sure the soldier is forced to comply. Why do we need a mercenary (from Black Water corp.) doing what a soldier already does at 4 times the rate. I bet the soldier either trained the Black Water personal to do a job he was already doing - or the soldier after service (and training in the Military) went to Black Water.
The DoD is den of thieves. No one is talking about the 2-3 trillion the GAO says is missing from the books (pre 9-11, then American minds went blank on this issue). Reforming the corporations that have grown-up around our military is something we need to do. Certain ones like Halliburton or Black Water - I am not sure if their existence is even necessary at all.
The DoD is den of thieves. No one is talking about the 2-3 trillion the GAO says is missing from the books (pre 9-11, then American minds went blank on this issue). Reforming the corporations that have grown-up around our military is something we need to do. Certain ones like Halliburton or Black Water - I am not sure if their existence is even necessary at all.
Last edited by topal63 (2008-10-02 10:46:29)
Talk to Congress. They are the ones who mandate the end strength caps that drive the cuts in combat support service personnel. It's those functions that get contracted out at ridiculous prices as compared to the cost of soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen who could (and used to) do those things.topal63 wrote:
They military is not a really a corporation IMO it is a social institution. Halliburton, Black Water and the like aren't even necessary. What an evolution of absurdity! Why do we need an outside corp. draining money from the system; from the needed social institution? I think a soldier who has to have Halliburton clean his clothes at about a hundred a pop is nonsense (as an example). I doubt they actually even clean it well and I am sure the soldier is forced to comply. Why do we need a mercenary (from Black Water corp.) doing what a soldier already does at 4 times the rate. I bet the soldier either trained the Black Water personal to do a job he was already doing - or the soldier after service (and training in the Military) went to Black Water.
The DoD is den of thieves. No one is talking about the 2-3 trillion the GAO says is missing from the books (pre 9-11, then American minds went blank on this issue). Reforming the corporations that have grown-up around our military is something we need to do. Certain ones like Halliburton or Black Water - I am not sure if their existence is even necessary at all.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
when I enlisted there were 220 MOS's in the Army. By the time I left I think that number went down to 150.
Don't limiting imports make things more expensive (ala Walmart)? Don't get me wrong, but if someone in China can make a Barbi Doll for 50% cheaper, why should I pay more? To be patriotic?
If they (Walmart directly or indirectly) used child labor in India (12 or more hours per shift - making a few dollars a day) - would you want to buy it?Harmor wrote:
Don't limiting imports make things more expensive (ala Walmart)? Don't get me wrong, but if someone in China can make a Barbi Doll for 50% cheaper, why should I pay more? To be patriotic?
If they (Walmart directly or indirectly) used young Chinese men and woman; this Chinese labor-force was then told they have to live in squalor, or pay rent to a factory for the squalor even if they don't live there, and were making 3 dollars a day for a 16-24 hour shift - would you want to buy it?
In that example of LCD screen technology, what if I told you more of the truth, that those multinational (Japanese) corps. employed former Trade Dept. employees with insider information (about the system) and insider contacts. That Americans were helping (working directly for) multinational (Japanese) corps., that had the strategic goal of destroying all competition with the backing of the Japanese gov. Their goal was to have 100% or near 100% market share. The scheme works as follows: someone else invents something, you make a similar or the near-exact same thing, sell the product at a loss (with the help of government subsidies), once you have a large market share or even near 100% market share, you can then alter the price to a profitable level. How is that good for America (quality labor-jobs lost and Industry lost) or how is that even Free trade?
There is no such thing as free trade in the real world. It is merely a hypothetical; an idea.
There is no such as non-regulation either. It is merely a hypothetical; an idea, as well. Even no-regulation means regulation by de facto exploitation as one group masses wealth at the expense of another group. We should not be at the whim of another groups discretion because "he who has the gold makes the rules." The very idea of it - is against; a contradiction of; the idea of a Republic.
There is the exploitation of foreign labor to consider. There are lax environmental regulations abroad to consider. There is market interference to consider; both private and governmental. There are jobs at home to consider. There are human rights abuses to consider. And so on...
_______
(2nd post down) Bye-bye nice chatting with ya.
Last edited by topal63 (2008-10-03 22:44:55)
Lead poisoning?Harmor wrote:
Don't limiting imports make things more expensive (ala Walmart)? Don't get me wrong, but if someone in China can make a Barbi Doll for 50% cheaper, why should I pay more? To be patriotic?
Whoa, don't think I'm a China or child labor enthusiast, but if someone else can make the same product cheaper with all the SAFETY and LEGAL requirements, then I don't see why we can't respecialize.
Do we really want a factory job? Its hard work and with enough education you can find something better. Goto the local community college, get your MBA, whatever and improve yourself with skills beyond what's necessary to flip a burger or insert slot-A into slot-B 10,000 times a day!
You're right that China has ALOT of abuses of their quality standards and they and the businesses that deal with them are being held accountable. So when you tally it all up with the litigation the lower costs are not apparent.
At my last company I've seen us reverse our 'foreign contractor' influx at a programming firm, bringing jobs back here. In 2003 I was laid off when the company I worked for at the time replaced me with 3 Chinese programmers. I later learned it was not my productivity, but it was the fact that they were selling the company to Adobe and need to show 'head-count'. Ok, that's probably a bad example.
So after that I started two companies and they both failed after two years...so that's a bad example too...one sec.
Ok, so I have a new job and we use contractors, but they are all American contractors in the same city I work in, because you can't yell at someone 6,000 miles away in a language you can't speak.
Do we really want a factory job? Its hard work and with enough education you can find something better. Goto the local community college, get your MBA, whatever and improve yourself with skills beyond what's necessary to flip a burger or insert slot-A into slot-B 10,000 times a day!
You're right that China has ALOT of abuses of their quality standards and they and the businesses that deal with them are being held accountable. So when you tally it all up with the litigation the lower costs are not apparent.
At my last company I've seen us reverse our 'foreign contractor' influx at a programming firm, bringing jobs back here. In 2003 I was laid off when the company I worked for at the time replaced me with 3 Chinese programmers. I later learned it was not my productivity, but it was the fact that they were selling the company to Adobe and need to show 'head-count'. Ok, that's probably a bad example.
So after that I started two companies and they both failed after two years...so that's a bad example too...one sec.
Ok, so I have a new job and we use contractors, but they are all American contractors in the same city I work in, because you can't yell at someone 6,000 miles away in a language you can't speak.
Last edited by Harmor (2008-10-03 20:05:44)
I think we've had this conversation before, and I call ten tons of bullshit on this claim.PureFodder wrote:
If they actually take steps towards some kind of socialization of healthcare you'll see a rise in taxes, but that's a good thing as the fact that you no longer have to personally pay for healthcare (of through your employer) means you'll be saving money overall.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- How much are my taxes going up with a Democratic President / Congress?