like yeah. oh my god. it's not like anything like this has ever occurred in human history. there is absolutely no precedent for people to look to when the rich/poor power balance gets this far out of balance.
higher taxes on those rich job creators might inspire them to reinvest some of the gazillions they would otherwise use to "feed their family" back in their businesses (tax write off!). One way to reinvest in your business is to hire more workers to satisfy increasing demand for your product. That's growth!
Unless, of course, there's not much demand, and these "job creators" really aren't particularly interested in growth, just in taking their toys and going home.
like yeah. oh my god. it's not like anything like this has ever occurred in human history. there is absolutely no precedent for people to look to when the rich/poor power balance gets this far out of balance.
Not saying this has never happened, saying this has never happened in America. Surely things would work out a little differently in the US than Egypt or Cuba
like yeah. oh my god. it's not like anything like this has ever occurred in human history. there is absolutely no precedent for people to look to when the rich/poor power balance gets this far out of balance.
Not saying this has never happened, saying this has never happened in America. Surely things would work out a little differently in the US than Egypt or Cuba
I could see a Christian Fundamentalist government taking over as a result of being the best armed and organized when a power vacuum inevitably occurs. Terrifying.
higher taxes on those rich job creators might inspire them to reinvest some of the gazillions they would otherwise use to "feed their family" back in their businesses (tax write off!). One way to reinvest in your business is to hire more workers to satisfy increasing demand for your product. That's growth!
Unless, of course, there's not much demand, and these "job creators" really aren't particularly interested in growth, just in taking their toys and going home.
Which of course is what has been happening the last 5-10 years. I don't see why Rich is having a problem with this.
It is not, if we tax them more their business will suffer. It is we gave them huge breaks and their businesses HAVE suffered. I'm with Reynaldo 100% on this... They were given breaks, they failed, there is no nice way to take them back.
I'm no fan of the financial industry but this isn't just about them. Plenty of people like the Subway franchisee in the video elsewhere are behind the current situation. Blaming "regulation" and uncertainty about tax rates when it is actually that customers have less money than ever... because their wages have stagnated... and their property is worth nothing... and their student loans are due... and they're working at... a Subway franchise whose owner won't hire new workers or give out raises because he is uncertain about tax rates.... rinse... repeat.
fuck this guy and the people who have used this is an example of the "plight" of the rich...using the underpaid and underemployed as pawns in a sob story and threat to cut jobs because of a tax hike on the "job creators"...simple math would tell you if his "500" jobs were full time and paid a paltry $10 an hour, he would need OVER 10 million a year just to meet these people's salaries...the fact he can still pocket 400 grand AFTER he pays his own personal bills AND his business bills on just 6 million means his 500 employees do not make a livable wage working for him. He is as much a "job creator" as I am because I pay a dude to mow my lawn.
How does Tom Brady feel about the Buffett Tax? I bet Kreayshawn has an opinion.
"We're just taking it one game at a time. Just focusing on doing our jobs. You know, we can always get better, so we focus on the things we can improve on. I'm not interested in stats except the wins and losses."
I never understood this. What business owners pay their employees' salaries from their personal income?
The owner of the company Joe works for has an income 20x that of Joe....his taxes are going up $200K....he too is going to make up for it somewhere else. He can cut his employees benefits, not invest in new equipment/technology, or cut the "fat" at his company by way of employees so that his increased profitability maintains the current level of his quality of life.
Just so I follow... Since employee benefits, new equipment and salaries don't come from his personal income, you're saying that he would make these cuts in his company in order to give himself a salary increase that would make up for his higher personal income taxes?
Yes.
I see this on a regular basis in my industry.
The CEO isn't on track to make his FULL bonus.....make cuts.
The shareholders/owners aren't going to make the profits that their annual business plan was shooting for.....make cuts.
There is only 3 ways* that a company can increase their profitability....growth, increased pricing or making cuts.
Making cuts is the quickest and easiest(laziest) way to make up for lost or expected profits.
The people up top are not going to lose, so they give orders for their plants, sales, administration to cut spending when growth and price increases are not feasible or stagnant.....and unfortunately in 2011 this is the most common route.
They don't necessarily say cut people or jobs, they just want costs cut by any means possible.
In my 9-5 I deal with a lot of well known large corporations. Just last month I had an incident where a product(plastic tubes & caps) that I had been buying for many years from a subsidiary of a very well known corporation changed. Without notice I was delivered a thinner, lighter product. When I called them they explained that their sales were down and the corporate office ordered them to cut their budget by six figures. Rather than cost people their jobs they adjusted their molds and used less material when making the tubes. The cost savings was enough to satisfy the CEO/Owners/shareholders. If it happens again people will surely lose their jobs.
In the last 5 years I've seen so much of this it would make your head spin. I've even seen a couple of companies cut themselves into extinction and/or having to be sold. In all cases the guys up top still walked away with a profit.
I've never heard of a company whose business plan was to make less money than they had the year before.
By no means am I saying that this is a morally, ethically or economically sound business practice and if you're looking for someone to argue that point I'm not your guy. I'm not championing or defending these practices, just reporting them as I see them.
But if you think that these same folks will just sit back and pay $1.5 trillion without looking to make up for it elsewhere I suggest you're naive.
Look at the recent Solyndra incident. It's pretty well documented that the heads of that company knew that a Chinese competitor had developed a cheaper and more efficient product even before they invested in building the state of the art Solyndra Plant. Why the hell would anyone make such a bad business decision that would inevitably lead to their going under. Because either way they were going to come out ahead....and they did.
*A fourth way to increase profitability for one final time would be to sell the company.
I never understood this. What business owners pay their employees' salaries from their personal income?
The owner of the company Joe works for has an income 20x that of Joe....his taxes are going up $200K....he too is going to make up for it somewhere else. He can cut his employees benefits, not invest in new equipment/technology, or cut the "fat" at his company by way of employees so that his increased profitability maintains the current level of his quality of life.
Just so I follow... Since employee benefits, new equipment and salaries don't come from his personal income, you're saying that he would make these cuts in his company in order to give himself a salary increase that would make up for his higher personal income taxes?
Yes.
I see this on a regular basis in my industry.
The CEO isn't on track to make his FULL bonus.....make cuts.
The shareholders/owners aren't going to make the profits that their annual business plan was shooting for.....make cuts.
There is only 3 ways* that a company can increase their profitability....growth, increased pricing or making cuts.
Making cuts is the quickest and easiest(laziest) way to make up for lost or expected profits.
The people up top are not going to lose, so they give orders for their plants, sales, administration to cut spending when growth and price increases are not feasible or stagnant.....and unfortunately in 2011 this is the most common route.
They don't necessarily say cut people or jobs, they just want costs cut by any means possible.
In my 9-5 I deal with a lot of well known large corporations. Just last month I had an incident where a product(plastic tubes & caps) that I had been buying for many years from a subsidiary of a very well known corporation changed. Without notice I was delivered a thinner, lighter product. When I called them they explained that their sales were down and the corporate office ordered them to cut their budget by six figures. Rather than cost people their jobs they adjusted their molds and used less material when making the tubes. The cost savings was enough to satisfy the CEO/Owners/shareholders. If it happens again people will surely lose their jobs.
In the last 5 years I've seen so much of this it would make your head spin. I've even seen a couple of companies cut themselves into extinction and/or having to be sold. In all cases the guys up top still walked away with a profit.
I've never heard of a company whose business plan was to make less money than they had the year before.
By no means am I saying that this is a morally, ethically or economically sound business practice and if you're looking for someone to argue that point I'm not your guy. I'm not championing or defending these practices, just reporting them as I see them.
But if you think that these same folks will just sit back and pay $1.5 trillion without looking to make up for it elsewhere I suggest you're naive.
Look at the recent Solyndra incident. It's pretty well documented that the heads of that company knew that a Chinese competitor had developed a cheaper and more efficient product even before they invested in building the state of the art Solyndra Plant. Why the hell would anyone make such a bad business decision that would inevitably lead to their going under. Because either way they were going to come out ahead....and they did.
*A fourth way to increase profitability for one final time would be to sell the company.
I still don't see how higher personal income tax for the CEO reduces company profits.
I still don't see how higher personal income tax for the CEO reduces company profits.
I don't think I said it did.....it's taking money out of the pockets of the CEO and he is in a position to make up for it elsewhere, and in my experience, he will.
There is only 3 ways* that a company can increase their profitability....growth, increased pricing or making cuts.
*A fourth way to increase profitability for one final time would be to sell the company.
You're forgetting the Wal-Mart way, which is to control such a large share of the market that they can force manufacturers to sell to them for lower prices.
And you're not addressing the point Jonny made about higher tax rates giving companies an incentive to invest profit back into their companies, which can lead to growth.
We have almost historically low levels of taxation now and corporations are flush with cash. It's time to make them do something with that cash - either invest it or send it to the government to pay the country's bills. Being afraid that taxing them more will lead to cuts seems silly at this point since they're already making those cuts.
What's your alternative suggestion? More tax cuts?
The Wal-Mart model actually falls under cutting costs.
And they don't stop there. Once an item reaches a certain level in sales they will have a Chinese company knock it off and ditch the original manufacturer altogether.
I'm not going to post up details but I have experienced this first hand.
I'm not suggesting there should be an alternative.....nor have I suggested these taxes shouldn't be levied.
But the entire premise of this thread "Class Warfare: Bring It On" is foolish and I'm sharing personal experience as to why.
Let me ask you, how should Solyndra handled the $385 million in tax money that was handed to them differently so they would have been successful?
I still don't see how higher personal income tax for the CEO reduces company profits.
I don't think I said it did.....it's taking money out of the pockets of the CEO and he is in a position to make up for it elsewhere, and in my experience, he will.
So you're saying a CEO who has his personal income reduced (through taxes) will make cuts in his business in order to increase his personal take, to make up for the taxation?
That really doesn't make any sense. Business profit is taxable. Personal income is taxable. You're suggesting that a business would lessen its tax deductible overhead in order to compensate for additional taxation. That doesn't stand to reason. And this is all assuming that the businessman and his company are doing so well that they would fall under this $1m+ bracket. In which case the course of action you describe would be just cutting off his nose to spite his face.
I believe that rich people will look for more ways to hide their money. I think the claim that raising taxes will somehow kill necessary jobs in successful companies is ridiculous on its face.
So you're saying a CEO who has his personal income reduced (through taxes) will make cuts in his business in order to increase his personal take, to make up for the taxation?
I'm telling you I have witnessed this more than once when it came to whether or not a CEO would reach his full bonus(money in his pocket) and yes, they harmed the business for the simple reason they would not have as much income in a fiscal year than they did the year before..
And what a CEO considers a "necessary" position is probably not what you and I would.
It's also my experience that owners and shareholders will give free reign to a CEO as long as the bottom line is putting cash in their pockets.
Even rich people live a lifestyle up to the level of their income and if you fuck with that income they'll fuck back......maybe, as you suggest, by hiding more. But they will most definitely not just pay with a smile on their face.
Even rich people live a lifestyle up to the level of their income and if you fuck with that income they'll fuck back......maybe, as you suggest, by hiding more. But they will most definitely not just pay with a smile on their face.
I don't think anyone's suggesting that they would.
Just that the prevailing wisdom - that marginal tax increases on successful businesses and individuals would Cost American Jobs - is bullshit.
the entire premise of this thread "Class Warfare: Bring It On" is foolish and I'm sharing personal experience as to why.
Rock, I agree with you that Boehner and Co. were foolish to frame Obama's tax proposal as "Class Warfare". The last thing this country needs is another thing to fight over. But that is a cat they let out the bag, so my response is bring it. Their idea of "Class Warfare" is basically rich people whining about having to give even a modicum of their wealth back to society. Just not sure how many people right now have tolerance or sympathy for that sentiment.
Comments
like yeah. oh my god. it's not like anything like this has ever occurred in human history. there is absolutely no precedent for people to look to when the rich/poor power balance gets this far out of balance.
Unless, of course, there's not much demand, and these "job creators" really aren't particularly interested in growth, just in taking their toys and going home.
Not saying this has never happened, saying this has never happened in America. Surely things would work out a little differently in the US than Egypt or Cuba
I could see a Christian Fundamentalist government taking over as a result of being the best armed and organized when a power vacuum inevitably occurs. Terrifying.
Which of course is what has been happening the last 5-10 years. I don't see why Rich is having a problem with this.
It is not, if we tax them more their business will suffer. It is we gave them huge breaks and their businesses HAVE suffered. I'm with Reynaldo 100% on this... They were given breaks, they failed, there is no nice way to take them back.
I'm no fan of the financial industry but this isn't just about them. Plenty of people like the Subway franchisee in the video elsewhere are behind the current situation. Blaming "regulation" and uncertainty about tax rates when it is actually that customers have less money than ever... because their wages have stagnated... and their property is worth nothing... and their student loans are due... and they're working at... a Subway franchise whose owner won't hire new workers or give out raises because he is uncertain about tax rates.... rinse... repeat.
Why?
You make a mean smoked pork shoulder.
So you got that going for you.
Which is nice.
fuck this guy and the people who have used this is an example of the "plight" of the rich...using the underpaid and underemployed as pawns in a sob story and threat to cut jobs because of a tax hike on the "job creators"...simple math would tell you if his "500" jobs were full time and paid a paltry $10 an hour, he would need OVER 10 million a year just to meet these people's salaries...the fact he can still pocket 400 grand AFTER he pays his own personal bills AND his business bills on just 6 million means his 500 employees do not make a livable wage working for him. He is as much a "job creator" as I am because I pay a dude to mow my lawn.
The Occupy Park Slope BBQ is coming soon!
:beerbang:
Just don't do it on a Sunday. Wouldn't want the Giants to put you off your appetite.
"We're just taking it one game at a time. Just focusing on doing our jobs. You know, we can always get better, so we focus on the things we can improve on. I'm not interested in stats except the wins and losses."
"What was the question, again?"
b/w
Swag Tax
Yes.
I see this on a regular basis in my industry.
The CEO isn't on track to make his FULL bonus.....make cuts.
The shareholders/owners aren't going to make the profits that their annual business plan was shooting for.....make cuts.
There is only 3 ways* that a company can increase their profitability....growth, increased pricing or making cuts.
Making cuts is the quickest and easiest(laziest) way to make up for lost or expected profits.
The people up top are not going to lose, so they give orders for their plants, sales, administration to cut spending when growth and price increases are not feasible or stagnant.....and unfortunately in 2011 this is the most common route.
They don't necessarily say cut people or jobs, they just want costs cut by any means possible.
In my 9-5 I deal with a lot of well known large corporations. Just last month I had an incident where a product(plastic tubes & caps) that I had been buying for many years from a subsidiary of a very well known corporation changed. Without notice I was delivered a thinner, lighter product. When I called them they explained that their sales were down and the corporate office ordered them to cut their budget by six figures. Rather than cost people their jobs they adjusted their molds and used less material when making the tubes. The cost savings was enough to satisfy the CEO/Owners/shareholders. If it happens again people will surely lose their jobs.
In the last 5 years I've seen so much of this it would make your head spin. I've even seen a couple of companies cut themselves into extinction and/or having to be sold. In all cases the guys up top still walked away with a profit.
I've never heard of a company whose business plan was to make less money than they had the year before.
By no means am I saying that this is a morally, ethically or economically sound business practice and if you're looking for someone to argue that point I'm not your guy. I'm not championing or defending these practices, just reporting them as I see them.
But if you think that these same folks will just sit back and pay $1.5 trillion without looking to make up for it elsewhere I suggest you're naive.
Look at the recent Solyndra incident. It's pretty well documented that the heads of that company knew that a Chinese competitor had developed a cheaper and more efficient product even before they invested in building the state of the art Solyndra Plant. Why the hell would anyone make such a bad business decision that would inevitably lead to their going under. Because either way they were going to come out ahead....and they did.
*A fourth way to increase profitability for one final time would be to sell the company.
I still don't see how higher personal income tax for the CEO reduces company profits.
I don't think I said it did.....it's taking money out of the pockets of the CEO and he is in a position to make up for it elsewhere, and in my experience, he will.
The Wal-Mart model actually falls under cutting costs.
And they don't stop there. Once an item reaches a certain level in sales they will have a Chinese company knock it off and ditch the original manufacturer altogether.
I'm not going to post up details but I have experienced this first hand.
I'm not suggesting there should be an alternative.....nor have I suggested these taxes shouldn't be levied.
But the entire premise of this thread "Class Warfare: Bring It On" is foolish and I'm sharing personal experience as to why.
Let me ask you, how should Solyndra handled the $385 million in tax money that was handed to them differently so they would have been successful?
So you're saying a CEO who has his personal income reduced (through taxes) will make cuts in his business in order to increase his personal take, to make up for the taxation?
That really doesn't make any sense. Business profit is taxable. Personal income is taxable. You're suggesting that a business would lessen its tax deductible overhead in order to compensate for additional taxation. That doesn't stand to reason. And this is all assuming that the businessman and his company are doing so well that they would fall under this $1m+ bracket. In which case the course of action you describe would be just cutting off his nose to spite his face.
I believe that rich people will look for more ways to hide their money. I think the claim that raising taxes will somehow kill necessary jobs in successful companies is ridiculous on its face.
I'm telling you I have witnessed this more than once when it came to whether or not a CEO would reach his full bonus(money in his pocket) and yes, they harmed the business for the simple reason they would not have as much income in a fiscal year than they did the year before..
And what a CEO considers a "necessary" position is probably not what you and I would.
It's also my experience that owners and shareholders will give free reign to a CEO as long as the bottom line is putting cash in their pockets.
Even rich people live a lifestyle up to the level of their income and if you fuck with that income they'll fuck back......maybe, as you suggest, by hiding more. But they will most definitely not just pay with a smile on their face.
I don't think anyone's suggesting that they would.
Just that the prevailing wisdom - that marginal tax increases on successful businesses and individuals would Cost American Jobs - is bullshit.
Rock, I agree with you that Boehner and Co. were foolish to frame Obama's tax proposal as "Class Warfare". The last thing this country needs is another thing to fight over. But that is a cat they let out the bag, so my response is bring it. Their idea of "Class Warfare" is basically rich people whining about having to give even a modicum of their wealth back to society. Just not sure how many people right now have tolerance or sympathy for that sentiment.
Bigger fish to fry
First, I think we all need to agree with not-rich-Rich that corporations make foolish long term decisions to achieve short term gain.
That is well documented and undisputed, and what he is describing.
They will continue to do this no matter if their taxes go up or down.
The Obama tax plan will drastically lower taxes for Wal-Mart and other giant retailers.