You have to quit your job first so you have nothing. Then you get it. The working people will get nothing and have things taken away from them so the lazy will have what they have!
-
Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
-
Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex
All Hail our New Leader, COMRADE OBAMA
- Thread starter Splash Log
- Start date
You have to quit your job first so you have nothing. Then you get it. The working people will get nothing and have things taken away from them so the lazy will have what they have!
I am not here to argue with you or anyone else, that is not my intention at all! Besides being to damn early, it's irrelevent. It is obvious you and I have very different political beliefs and I don't wish to use polemic skills. You may never persuade me to have your beliefs, and I you. Just give this man the equitable treatment given to his predecessor.
TexanTA1996
Registered
You don't even know what your beliefs are because you have no clue what Obama's policies are lol. You were clueless about what his tax plan was...
THE FREAKIN TAX PLANS WERE THE NUMBER ONE TALKED ABOUT ITEM IN THE DEBATES, yet you still had no clue he had lowered the 250k limit.
Whatever!!
There is so much shit that has lead to where we are right now, but let me lay something down.
Over the course of the last 10 or so years, probably even more, we have seen worker's wages stagnate, company profits skyrocket, and the gap between the rich and the middle class grow exponentially. How anyone in the 95% of normal wage earners cannot see that this gap is one of, if not the, primary cause of this economic collapse is beyond me. You have the top 5% of wage earners taking in ridiculous sums of money, and the other 95% not seeing a wage increase? How is that possible, isn't that supposed to trickle down? It should, if everyone has the same goal in mind, which, therein, lies the problem.
Trickle down works if the endgoal is to make a better America. Ronald Reagan, a great President, wanted a better America. John McCain and Barack Obama, want a better America. Most every American, even these greedy fuck executives, want a better America. The disconnect comes when these executive show up to work. When these execs show up to work, their only goal is to maximize profits and that is where we are at now.
There are 3 ways to increase profits; reduce costs, increase revenue, or both. Unfortunately, the approach most companies have taken has been to reduce costs through outsourcing of jobs to other countries, using inferior materials from china, and by not increasing employee wages annually.
So, regardless of which method these companies used, shouldn't they still be doing better if their profit margin stays the same or increases? That's the problem, cutting short-term costs gives short-term results. By sending a job elsewhere or thinking only of your immediate profit margin, you forget the fact that if every company is doing this, the number of people who can purchase your product decreases. Think about it, do you want to sell ipods to the top 5% or the bottom 95%? How many people are going to buy multiple ipods?
Everyone who is crying socialism, think about this...What is the goal of the president? To make a better country, right? How does sending a job to India make America better? How does giving 5% of the population a tax cut going to increase revenues for thousands of companies? How does that change the fact that the sole responsibility of these rich folk is to maximize their company's profits. Now tell me, how is that patriotic?
I would think that the fact that every single company we have given a bailout to has decided to somehow try to put it towards executive compensation and not towards putting liquidity in the market would raise a big flag.
Over the course of the last 10 or so years, probably even more, we have seen worker's wages stagnate, company profits skyrocket, and the gap between the rich and the middle class grow exponentially. How anyone in the 95% of normal wage earners cannot see that this gap is one of, if not the, primary cause of this economic collapse is beyond me. You have the top 5% of wage earners taking in ridiculous sums of money, and the other 95% not seeing a wage increase? How is that possible, isn't that supposed to trickle down? It should, if everyone has the same goal in mind, which, therein, lies the problem.
Trickle down works if the endgoal is to make a better America. Ronald Reagan, a great President, wanted a better America. John McCain and Barack Obama, want a better America. Most every American, even these greedy fuck executives, want a better America. The disconnect comes when these executive show up to work. When these execs show up to work, their only goal is to maximize profits and that is where we are at now.
There are 3 ways to increase profits; reduce costs, increase revenue, or both. Unfortunately, the approach most companies have taken has been to reduce costs through outsourcing of jobs to other countries, using inferior materials from china, and by not increasing employee wages annually.
So, regardless of which method these companies used, shouldn't they still be doing better if their profit margin stays the same or increases? That's the problem, cutting short-term costs gives short-term results. By sending a job elsewhere or thinking only of your immediate profit margin, you forget the fact that if every company is doing this, the number of people who can purchase your product decreases. Think about it, do you want to sell ipods to the top 5% or the bottom 95%? How many people are going to buy multiple ipods?
Everyone who is crying socialism, think about this...What is the goal of the president? To make a better country, right? How does sending a job to India make America better? How does giving 5% of the population a tax cut going to increase revenues for thousands of companies? How does that change the fact that the sole responsibility of these rich folk is to maximize their company's profits. Now tell me, how is that patriotic?
I would think that the fact that every single company we have given a bailout to has decided to somehow try to put it towards executive compensation and not towards putting liquidity in the market would raise a big flag.
Last edited:
TexanTA1996
Registered
The reason jobs go overseas is because of our corporate tax rate. Our corporate tax rate is the second highest in the world. Companies will continue to ship jobs overseas as long as this rate is so high. McCain was going to lower this to stop the drastic amount of outsourcing, but you didn't want to hear that.
It's no wonder people voted for Obama with such a lack of understanding of how the economy works.
You are incorrect, we have gone over this already in another thread. Corporate tax rate or not, it is cheaper to pay $2/hr than it is to pay $6.50. Labor and materials are a much bigger savings issue than the 10% you are going to save on that tax rate, not to mention the regs you can choose to ignore (Think Chinese toothpaste). Factor in the $8-10k you save per employee for benefits, and the Corporate tax rate is just a drop in a lake. You just chose not to respond because you are wrong. Unless the corporate tax rate goes to -30% here, it will always be cheaper to outsource overseas. But, you never answered my question, how is that good for the U.S.?
EDIT:Looking at those numbers, assuming you pay the overseas employee 50%, which is probably an overestimate, you would save $23k per employee for a outsourcing a $30k job. 10 employees, and you save $230k...I think "drop in a lake" is an understatement.
Last edited:
TexanTA1996
Registered
Uh, what jobs are being outsourced that pay $6.50 an hour? That's hardly our number one concern when it comes to the outsourcing of jobs.
The tax rate is a key factor in outsourcing. Obama isn't going to do anything at all to change that.
| YouTube Video | |
I wouldn't consider it in the top 5. Look at the numbers, the larger the salary, the bigger the savings.
I would rate it:
1)Human Capital
2)Materials
3)No benefits
4)Circumvent regs
5)Build repoir with new customer (Host country, which would be higher if they weren't so brokeass)
Dale 1 --- Texa 0
TexanTA1996
Registered
So what you're saying is that although the corporate tax rate isn't on your top 5 list, it is still a contributing problem.
This means that since it's not the number one problem, according to you, we should completely forget about fixing it?
Think about it, if it's, let's say 5th, that would mean the 4 positions higher than it would be at the very least slightly more money, which they are not even remotely close, manpower kills it. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume they are all essentially the same, that would mean our tax rate would have to be 25% of any given country for it to make sense with regard to profitability. India's highest corporate tax rate is 30%, that would mean ours would need to be 7%, and that is if we assume all issues being equal, a best case scenario. Even if you put the corporate tax rate at 15%, that would only make up half the ground. It will always be cheaper to outsource overseas, cutting the corporate tax rate by 10% doesn't do shit other than throw more money into a rich man's wallet.
Is it a rule for Republicans not to raise taxes? Do you really think McCain wouldn't raise our taxes?
Mayor Michael Bloomberg: New York City may be forced to raise taxes
KATHLEEN LUCADAMO
DAILY NEWS CITY HALL BUREAU
Wednesday, November 5th 2008, 3:45 PM
Watts/News
Mayor Bloomberg gives the grim budget news at a press conference Wednesday.
Mayor Bloomberg painted a bleak economic picture Wednesday for the Big Apple and pitched raising income taxes up to 15% to plug expanding budget holes.
While the income tax hike is considered a last resort, his midyear budget plan calls for higher property taxes, fewer city jobs and eliminating the $400 tax rebate many homeowners were counting on receiving this month.
When the Daily News asked the Department of Finance recently why the rebates hadn't been mailed yet, a spokesman blamed a glitch with addresses.
"Although our forecast for the economy was pessimistic six months ago, New York City is experiencing even greater economic distress than any economist or financial expert had anticipated," he said.
this might be late, but I'd like to point out for the record bloomberg is a nutjob! he ran as republican and in his earlier years as mayor has called himself a republican but by no means is he one. he is more like a moderate liberal, if that makes any sense. mino- do you agree with the crap he is pulling about changing the length of terms for being mayor?
He actually was a lifelong Democrat. The guy has been doing a decent job to be honest.....he's a business man and we all know how good he is with money.
I think he's doing a better job than Guliani. Under Guliani there was a whole lot of waste that I personally saw.
It may not be right what he's doing but who else is there.
