Here is what I am not understanding.
Dude or dudette makes 4 million a year.
Almost $2,000 an hour.
$32 a minute.
Dude is good at making money.
Now dude has to come up with what did we decide? $200,000.
So he can fire the lawn care company and spend a hundred hours a year doing lawn work.
Stop eating out at restaurants.
And stop making political donations.
Or he can work an extra 2 hours a week at what ever it is he does that pays 2,000 an hour.
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.
No, but you are implying that dollar for dollar cuts would occur. There's no evidence for that. In fact, there is evidence, Clinton Economy, that suggests the opposite would happen. That is, increase in employment and economic growth.
Here is what I am not understanding.
Dude or dudette makes 4 million a year.
Almost $2,000 an hour.
$32 a minute.
Dude is good at making money.
Now dude has to come up with what did we decide? $200,000.
So he can fire the lawn care company and spend a hundred hours a year doing lawn work.
Stop eating out at restaurants.
And stop making political donations.
Or he can work an extra 2 hours a week at what ever it is he does that pays 2,000 an hour.
He's probably not on an hourly wage. Like me, I can work 10 or 15 hours a day and it won't affect my pay.
Here is what I am not understanding.
Dude or dudette makes 4 million a year.
Almost $2,000 an hour.
$32 a minute.
Dude is good at making money.
Now dude has to come up with what did we decide? $200,000.
So he can fire the lawn care company and spend a hundred hours a year doing lawn work.
Stop eating out at restaurants.
And stop making political donations.
Or he can work an extra 2 hours a week at what ever it is he does that pays 2,000 an hour.
He's probably not on an hourly wage. Like me, I can work 10 or 15 hours a day and it won't affect my pay.
Plus it's suggesting a millionaire is leaving $200K on the table...which is unlikely.
Here is what I am not understanding.
Dude or dudette makes 4 million a year.
Almost $2,000 an hour.
$32 a minute.
Dude is good at making money.
Now dude has to come up with what did we decide? $200,000.
So he can fire the lawn care company and spend a hundred hours a year doing lawn work.
Stop eating out at restaurants.
And stop making political donations.
Or he can work an extra 2 hours a week at what ever it is he does that pays 2,000 an hour.
He's probably not on an hourly wage. Like me, I can work 10 or 15 hours a day and it won't affect my pay.
Plus it's suggesting a millionaire is leaving $200K on the table...which is unlikely.
Here is what I am not understanding.
Dude or dudette makes 4 million a year.
Almost $2,000 an hour.
$32 a minute.
Dude is good at making money.
Now dude has to come up with what did we decide? $200,000.
So he can fire the lawn care company and spend a hundred hours a year doing lawn work.
Stop eating out at restaurants.
And stop making political donations.
Or he can work an extra 2 hours a week at what ever it is he does that pays 2,000 an hour.
He's probably not on an hourly wage. Like me, I can work 10 or 15 hours a day and it won't affect my pay.
Plus it's suggesting a millionaire is leaving $200K on the table...which is unlikely.
What Rich is saying is that if business owners are allowed to keep less, they will punish their own businesses. That is the position of the Republican party and some in the Democratic party. I think this is patently wrong.
We see how it goes when the successful are allowed to keep more. Business owners and officers are personally enriched and the economy stagnates.
I think the best strategy is to raise tax rates on businesses and individuals who are already, clearly, successful. I think this will encourage them to reinvest, but it will also have the effect of raising - marginally - the revenue of federal and state governments that badly need it.
I think the proof is clear. I do not think, however, that most in the national discourse on this issue are serious, or are interested in proof.
My crackpot idea would be to levy a 4% tax on all domestic internet sales, across the board.
With shipping costs high and set to go higher, I don't think that it will drive people to overseas sites, and if it lessens internet sales at all, those sales will be driven into stores which will help local economies and jobs.
We see how it goes when the successful are allowed to keep more.
There is no need to wait. History already shows us that it's complete bullshit.You could have taxes at 0 and I bet you companies will still cut employees. When the stock value is the most important thing about the company. Shareholders, Wall St. and management give a flying fuck (For the most part) about much else until it starts to effect the stock.
As far as this whole "well they'll just reinvest in their business" deal goes, corporations have billions in cash right now just sitting. They're not spending because consumers aren't buying and also because of uncertainty. I don't disagree with encouraging an overall net inflow of taxes (which could be accomplished through simplifying the tax code) but all raising taxes will do now is result in a huge misallocation of capital and/or layoffs. If you can't see an end in sight to our current economic situation and if you think DC will go bi-polar at any time, why would you take any additional risk on?
My crackpot idea would be to levy a 4% tax on all domestic internet sales, across the board.
With shipping costs high and set to go higher, I don't think that it will drive people to overseas sites, and if it lessens internet sales at all, those sales will be driven into stores which will help local economies and jobs.
There's likely to be momentum towards this in the near future considering the recent development between California and Amazon. My biggest worry is how much of a burden it will place on small online businesses.
My crackpot idea would be to levy a 4% tax on all domestic internet sales, across the board.
With shipping costs high and set to go higher, I don't think that it will drive people to overseas sites, and if it lessens internet sales at all, those sales will be driven into stores which will help local economies and jobs.
There's likely to be momentum towards this in the near future considering the recent development between California and Amazon. My biggest worry is how much of a burden it will place on small online businesses.
That's why I would keep it low, around 4%, so it will still be lower than most/all retail rates.
I meant more from an implementation standpoint. Many will not be able to afford to rehaul their web backend, additional accounting fees, and whatever draconian reporting standard Congress decides to draft up. That coupled with an unpredictable drop in sales would be terrible.
As far as this whole "well they'll just reinvest in their business" deal goes, corporations have billions in cash right now just sitting. They're not spending because consumers aren't buying and also because of uncertainty.
our current economic situation
which economic situation? For whom?
Raise taxes on those businesses, on those individuals, I'll bet you see some reinvestment. All these corporations with millions on deck? Start taxing that, I'll bet they start creating some jobs. It's in their own best interest, and their own accountant would tell them that!
As far as uncertainty, I have no idea what this means. There is always uncertainty. Nothing is guaranteed in this life (that's why we're not teh socialists!!1!!1!)
Consumers aren't buying because the bulk of consumers are the people being worst hit by our current economic stalemate. Working class and middle class people buy lots of shit. It's a fact. Gas up that engine, and it'll drive. You keep giving money to these rich motherfuckers, they'll keep it all. That's, after all, what they've been arguing this whole time.
I meant more from an implementation standpoint. Many will not be able to afford to rehaul their web backend, additional accounting fees, and whatever draconian reporting standard Congress decides to draft up. That coupled with an unpredictable drop in sales would be terrible.
Hmmm, I don't know about that, collecting tax is pretty damn simple - especially a flat rate across the board.
I should know, I've been doing it for years (including my online sales) and any sales software etc has a tax feature built in. The added costs to any business would be marginal at most
Raise taxes on those businesses, on those individuals, I'll bet you see some reinvestment. All these corporations with millions on deck? Start taxing that, I'll bet they start creating some jobs. It's in their own best interest, and their own accountant would tell them that!
You can't force businesses to reinvest with the clusterfuck of a tax code that we have. They'll hire people when there's business to justify it and otherwise pay some shithead tax lawyer and accountant to squeeze cash.
As far as uncertainty, I have no idea what this means. There is always uncertainty. Nothing is guaranteed in this life (that's why we're not teh socialists!!1!!1!)
Here's uncertainty:
Uncertainty is wondering when Europe is going to finally blow up and what impact it will have here. Uncertainty is wondering what hyper-partisan garbage both sides will come up with in DC.
Consumers aren't buying because the bulk of consumers are the people being worst hit by our current economic stalemate. Working class and middle class people buy lots of shit. It's a fact. Gas up that engine, and it'll drive. You keep giving money to these rich motherfuckers, they'll keep it all. That's, after all, what they've been arguing this whole time.
World economic conditions are not necessarily relevant. Is Subway Franchise Dude worrying about this? Really?
If you think businesspeople would rather pay accountants to hide their money than actually grow their businesses, I would suggest that you don't know too many businesspeople.
World economic conditions are not necessarily relevant. Is Subway Franchise Dude worrying about this? Really?
He is if he knows what's good for him. A number of Euro banks are in at least moderate danger of collapsing - if that happens it will have a major impact on U.S. Banks and Wall Street.
World economic conditions are not necessarily relevant. Is Subway Franchise Dude worrying about this? Really?
He is if he knows what's good for him. A number of Euro banks are in at least moderate danger of collapsing - if that happens it will have a major impact on U.S. Banks and Wall Street.
What Rich is saying is that if business owners are allowed to keep less, they will punish their own businesses. That is the position of the Republican party and some in the Democratic party.
What Rich is saying is that if business owners are allowed to keep less, they will punish their own businesses. That is the position of the Republican party and some in the Democratic party.
Bingo
You just bingoed your patent wrongness...
My editor was asleep....I don't think we can reign in the greed....JP does.....I really do hope he's right.
I'm a skeptic mainly because what many people view as greed, a good part of our society has been conditioned to think is the lifestyle to aspire to.
You know that CEO's and top management in corporate America are mercenary.
That's the last time the wealth gap was as large as it is now. And it was reigned in, but it took some nightmare years before it got done.
What kills me isn't the greed of many of those on top - pure scumbags like the Koch brothers - but the support given them by so many schlubs who don't have a pot to piss in. So many morons out there are convinced that school teachers and migrant farm workers are ruining society. Yeah, sure.
You have the combination of being raised with the ideal that America is the land of opportunity and any schlub can become Mark Cuban(who was indeed a schlub) and a media that projects "Lifestyles Of The Rich & Famous" as the model of success.
And they perceive higher taxes as punishment for that success.
My crackpot idea would be to levy a 4% tax on all domestic internet sales, across the board.
With shipping costs high and set to go higher, I don't think that it will drive people to overseas sites, and if it lessens internet sales at all, those sales will be driven into stores which will help local economies and jobs.
Sounds good to me. My shop is in a no sales tax state.
My crackpot idea would be to levy a 4% tax on all domestic internet sales, across the board.
With shipping costs high and set to go higher, I don't think that it will drive people to overseas sites, and if it lessens internet sales at all, those sales will be driven into stores which will help local economies and jobs.
Sounds good to me. My shop is in a no sales tax state.
If anyone here can tell me why this would be a bad idea, I would honestly like to hear it. I've floated this to a number of knowledgeable people and nobody has come up with a significant downside so far.
Other than the fact that the Reps and their NO NEW TAXES pandering spiel would surely block it.
Comments
Dude or dudette makes 4 million a year.
Almost $2,000 an hour.
$32 a minute.
Dude is good at making money.
Now dude has to come up with what did we decide? $200,000.
So he can fire the lawn care company and spend a hundred hours a year doing lawn work.
Stop eating out at restaurants.
And stop making political donations.
Or he can work an extra 2 hours a week at what ever it is he does that pays 2,000 an hour.
Here's what I don't understand about Buffett.
No one forces you to use the loopholes and deductions that allow people like Buffett to not pay what he considers his "fair share" of taxes.
So if he thinks they are unfair, why does he use them to his advantage?
He is talking about tax rates.
The amount of taxes owed BEFORE deductions.
His rate is lower than yours.
If you still don't understand, read his essay on coddling the rich.
No, but you are implying that dollar for dollar cuts would occur. There's no evidence for that. In fact, there is evidence, Clinton Economy, that suggests the opposite would happen. That is, increase in employment and economic growth.
He's probably not on an hourly wage. Like me, I can work 10 or 15 hours a day and it won't affect my pay.
This has always been the weakest argument that the anti-tax people make, IMO."What's stopping you from paying more?".
The problem is the system. It's the system that needs to be changed. One guy voluntarily deciding to pay more does nothing to change the system.
Plus it's suggesting a millionaire is leaving $200K on the table...which is unlikely.
So his income does not reflect how hard he works?
It's called a salary.
If people are allowed to keep more, they will.
What Rich is saying is that if business owners are allowed to keep less, they will punish their own businesses. That is the position of the Republican party and some in the Democratic party. I think this is patently wrong.
We see how it goes when the successful are allowed to keep more. Business owners and officers are personally enriched and the economy stagnates.
I think the best strategy is to raise tax rates on businesses and individuals who are already, clearly, successful. I think this will encourage them to reinvest, but it will also have the effect of raising - marginally - the revenue of federal and state governments that badly need it.
I think the proof is clear. I do not think, however, that most in the national discourse on this issue are serious, or are interested in proof.
With shipping costs high and set to go higher, I don't think that it will drive people to overseas sites, and if it lessens internet sales at all, those sales will be driven into stores which will help local economies and jobs.
There is no need to wait. History already shows us that it's complete bullshit.You could have taxes at 0 and I bet you companies will still cut employees. When the stock value is the most important thing about the company. Shareholders, Wall St. and management give a flying fuck (For the most part) about much else until it starts to effect the stock.
As far as this whole "well they'll just reinvest in their business" deal goes, corporations have billions in cash right now just sitting. They're not spending because consumers aren't buying and also because of uncertainty. I don't disagree with encouraging an overall net inflow of taxes (which could be accomplished through simplifying the tax code) but all raising taxes will do now is result in a huge misallocation of capital and/or layoffs. If you can't see an end in sight to our current economic situation and if you think DC will go bi-polar at any time, why would you take any additional risk on?
That's why I would keep it low, around 4%, so it will still be lower than most/all retail rates.
which economic situation? For whom?
Raise taxes on those businesses, on those individuals, I'll bet you see some reinvestment. All these corporations with millions on deck? Start taxing that, I'll bet they start creating some jobs. It's in their own best interest, and their own accountant would tell them that!
As far as uncertainty, I have no idea what this means. There is always uncertainty. Nothing is guaranteed in this life (that's why we're not teh socialists!!1!!1!)
Consumers aren't buying because the bulk of consumers are the people being worst hit by our current economic stalemate. Working class and middle class people buy lots of shit. It's a fact. Gas up that engine, and it'll drive. You keep giving money to these rich motherfuckers, they'll keep it all. That's, after all, what they've been arguing this whole time.
Hmmm, I don't know about that, collecting tax is pretty damn simple - especially a flat rate across the board.
I should know, I've been doing it for years (including my online sales) and any sales software etc has a tax feature built in. The added costs to any business would be marginal at most
Here's uncertainty:
Uncertainty is wondering when Europe is going to finally blow up and what impact it will have here. Uncertainty is wondering what hyper-partisan garbage both sides will come up with in DC.
No argument here.
If you think businesspeople would rather pay accountants to hide their money than actually grow their businesses, I would suggest that you don't know too many businesspeople.
He is if he knows what's good for him. A number of Euro banks are in at least moderate danger of collapsing - if that happens it will have a major impact on U.S. Banks and Wall Street.
Bingo
My editor was asleep....I don't think we can reign in the greed....JP does.....I really do hope he's right.
I'm a skeptic mainly because what many people view as greed, a good part of our society has been conditioned to think is the lifestyle to aspire to.
You know that CEO's and top management in corporate America are mercenary.
You have the combination of being raised with the ideal that America is the land of opportunity and any schlub can become Mark Cuban(who was indeed a schlub) and a media that projects "Lifestyles Of The Rich & Famous" as the model of success.
And they perceive higher taxes as punishment for that success.
We didn't have that in the '20's
Sounds good to me. My shop is in a no sales tax state.
If anyone here can tell me why this would be a bad idea, I would honestly like to hear it. I've floated this to a number of knowledgeable people and nobody has come up with a significant downside so far.
Other than the fact that the Reps and their NO NEW TAXES pandering spiel would surely block it.