American Politics during the Obama Presidency

The description is about "progressive" income tax, ie. Fed tax. Some (about 15) states have flat tax, however. Also, sales tax is "regressive" imposing burden on poor. Rich and poor pay same percentage of "the price of purchased goods", but not of their respective income. Therefore poor pay a larger percentage of income for sales tax and rich pay a smaller percentage of income. Price increase in imported goods due to governmental tarriffs, and inflation caused by expansionist monetary policy are regressive for the same reasons.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 416876]Guys, this is more liberalspeak, similar to the "income vs net wealth" definition of who is a millionaire.

When liberals talk about "the rich need to pay more", they don't mean that the rich should pay a greater dollar amount that those with lesser income, which they already do. What liberals mean is that "the rich" should be paying a [U]greater percentage[/U] Of their income, which of course they also do, but that's lost in the class warfare rhetoric.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]

Speaking of drivel, Richard Pearle should be indicted for war crimes? Why? He wasn't even a politician or government employee. I was extremely pissed off when the US went into Iraq, because I was going to have to pay for it. However if it had played out as Cheney et al expected, with Iraqi's welcoming the USA with open arms, Bush would have been a hero. Sanctions would have ended, Sadam would have disappeared, and many, many Iraqi lives would have been saved.

If that list of characters deserves to be prosecuted for war crimes then how about JFK, LBJ, Abraham Lincoln, and Jefferson Davis? They're all more culpable than Bush IMHO.

Mongers-

Richard Perle, aka "the prince of darkness" was Chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee during the first three years of the Bush Administration and was one of the chief architects of the war and a huge advocate of the invasion. He was also responsible for doctoring up some of the bullshit evidence on WMD's and Saddam's alleged links to OBL that was sold to the American public in order to win support for the invasion.

RH

The fabrication of evidence was done by subordinates of Rumsfield. And fabrication might be too strong a word. The Bush administration probably believed there were WMD, despite what El Baradei and Blix were coming up with. Rumsfield believed the ends justify the means, so he gave his people orders to find something, or at least that's what I got out of an article Seymour Hersh wrote. The CIA also apparently believed there were WMD, although they were skeptical of the Al Quaeda connection. The Bush administration may have been guilty of hubris or stupidity, but not war crimes.

RH, Sometimes people f*ck up. And sometimes the repercussions are grave, like Iraq and like BP in the Gulf. But they shouldn't be executed or thrown in jail because somebody has a political agenda or wants a scapegoat.

Milocevic f*cked up in a similar context, and was indicted by the International Court. Although the news media in the U.S. did not report, thousands of Iraqi civilans were killed by the U.S. troops during the war. The world opinion, except Americans who maintain that it is an irrelevant analogy, considers that there are double standards and hypocrisy.

[QUOTE=Tiny12; 416905]The fabrication of evidence was done by subordinates of Rumsfield. And fabrication might be too strong a word. The Bush administration probably believed there were WMD, despite what El Baradei and Blix were coming up with. Rumsfield believed the ends justify the means, so he gave his people orders to find something, or at least that's what I got out of an article Seymour Hersh wrote. The CIA also apparently believed there were WMD, although they were skeptical of the Al Quaeda connection. The Bush administration may have been guilty of hubris or stupidity, but not war crimes.

RH, Sometimes people f*ck up. And sometimes the repercussions are grave, like Iraq and like BP in the Gulf. But they shouldn't be executed or thrown in jail because somebody has a political agenda or wants a scapegoat. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Tiny12;416893]Esten, He will indeed pass it onto his customers. He has no choice. [/QUOTE]Really. And you know this how? Do you work for Doppel? Are you his accountant?

Why don't you be honest and admit you really don't know, and therefore what you posted is baloney.

[QUOTE]Take a look at my post below, and also realize that American business reinvests the majority of net profits. [/QUOTE]That's a broad statement that requires closer inspection. Reinvestment is highly variable. Businesses can keep profits in the bank, pay off debt, increase compensation, make acquisitions, increase dividends or buy back shares, donate, invest in R&D, increase headcount, etc etc.

Your apparent implication that business profits are good for the country, for average Americans, is only in part true. A great deal of profit, especially as businesses become larger, is put to use in a variety of ways that merely end up helping wealthy people to become wealthier.

This reminds me of Jamie Dimon's defense for passing costs onto bank customers: 'If you're a restaurant and you can't charge for the soda, you're going to charge more for the burger. '

A restaurant analogy coming from a large bank CEO is amusing, though clever.

We all know businesses exist to make a profit, but profits and wealth are increasingly accumulating in a small subset of the population. This is not happening without a cost. The trade-off is increasing unemployment, poverty and stagnating wealth for the middle class.

We need policies that reverse this trend, not support it. Tax breaks for the wealthy and well-off are most definately not part of the solution, and have to go. If we are to support small businesses, do it through policies that address small business directly (which we already do) , not by lowering personal income tax brackets.

Well since the liberals here have pretty much lost the tax and spend debate on AP they want to change the subject.

Matt, I guess the next thing we will hear from you is to bring Harry Truman up on war crimes charges for dropping the bomb on Japan. Your source, Mohammed El Baradei, also said Iran was not enriching uranium either. The consensus since his ouster from the IAEA was he was a shill for Iran.

As far as touting his Nobel Peace Prize, the Nobel is not what it use to be. After all they gave one to Obama before he did dick and since then he has been fu*king up by the numbers.

Esten, why are you chastising Stan, you are not my accountant and you don't work for me either. Stan is stating the obvious to those who actually run companies. From my posts you know I have absorbed some cost increases and passed others along in the form of higher prices for services to my clients, but these increases are limited by my competition's prices.

You seem to believe business owners can cavalierly pass along any price increase they see fit, which is complete BS as we all have to compete in the market place. If your prices are higher for the same or similar product your customers will go to the lower cost provider. Same with Matt's BS about people not buying American goods, if our product is better and cheaper they buy it and don't give a damn about our politics.

As far as reinvestment, most companies do reinvest in capital goods. I have to retool every 3 years to keep up with changes in computer technology and program development. Not to mention sending employees to CE courses to stay current with the ever changing environment. You want companies to start hiring, then get the government out of business and stop paying 2 years of unemployment. You can not spend your way out of a recession as Obama is finding out now with near stagnant growth and higher fuel costs we are entering a double dip recession.

It is not my BS. It is scholars' BS!

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 416913]Same with Matt's BS about people not buying American goods, if our product is better and cheaper they buy it and don't give a damn about our politics.

[/QUOTE]

Esten, you're right, I don't know anything about Doppelgangers business. But I've looked at a lot of financial statements of a lot of companies, and I'm very confident in my general conclusion, that business pays a lot more to governments than what goes into the owners' pockets. I think my estimate below, that total taxes paid to federal, state and local governments is around 100% of net income before income tax, is in the ballpark for businesses that have low-to-medium profit margins and medium-to-high labor costs (and employment taxes) relative to sales. This would put the total tax burden as a % of net profit (after income tax) at over 150%.

The average dividend payout ratio for the S&P 500 is 30% of net profits. That means, in the long term. 70% is reinvested in the businesses. Yes, in the short term, you're right, what's left over for a particular business after paying dividends may go to pay down debt or increase cash. In the long term, though, about 70% of the net profits of S&P 500 companies are re-invested. The percentage is higher than 70% for smaller companies.

So if the total tax burden is 150% of net profit, and the amount going into the owners' pockets is less than 30% of net profit, government's making a LOT more from business than the owners are. The business owners have no choice except to pass higher taxes onto consumers, if they're going to stay in business.

Continuing to jack up taxes on business is a recipe for disaster. Fortunately, the majority of Republicans, and I think Democrats too, agree.

[QUOTE=Esten;416910]We all know businesses exist to make a profit, but profits and wealth are increasingly accumulating in a small subset of the population. This is not happening without a cost. The trade-off is increasing unemployment, poverty and stagnating wealth for the middle class.[/QUOTE]Funny, I think you're probably one of the few here who doesn't understand that businesses exist to make a profit. Just because you can mouth the words doesn't mean you understand it. Please provide some support for your assertions that "wealth" is increasingly "accumulating in a small subset of the population" resulting in "unemployment, poverty and stagnating wealth for the middle class."

On a different subject, I see that Scott Ritter, former UN Weapons Inspector and self-appointed critic-in-chief of the Iraq war, has been arrested for propositioning a minor. [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42537481/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/[/url] His defense? He fuc*ed up. He didn't believe she was underage. Hmmmmm. How ironic that this guy in particular would invoke the honest mistake defense. So, we've demonstrated that El Baradei and Ritter are less than credible. At least the left still has Elliot Spitzer.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 416895]First, when liberals talk about "the poor and middle class", they are in fact talking only about "the poor", because the middle class pay taxes, thus they are generally net contributors to the government's budget, and thus their interests are not the same as "the poor" who are beneficiaries of the government's largess.

Second, when liberals talk about "the burden" of spending cuts falling "all on the poor", or balancing the budget on the backs of "the poor", they make it sound like the poor are going to be asked to somehow pay more, as in shouldering an additional burden.

In fact, what it really means is that the taxpayers are not going to be able to [B][U]give[/U][/B] "the poor" as much [U][B]free[/B][/U] [U][B]money[/B][/U] As before. [/QUOTE]Free money. Is that Libertarian-speak?

That free money you speak of, is more commonly referred to as a component of the [U][B]social safety net[/B][/U].

Rest assured, when liberals talk about the poor and middle class, we are most definately talking about both. As the latest and greatest example, have a look at Ryan's plan for Medicare. He wants to cut spending on Medicare by hundreds of billions by turning it into a voucher system. Of course Medicare should be part of the debt debate, but his proposal will hit the middle class the hardest, with little pain for the wealthy.

But wait it gets better. In fact, Ryan also wants to lower the top income tax bracket, which will be a huge windfall for the wealthy. Along with their other proposals, Republicans would basically be putting a huge burden on both the poor and middle class, to help the rich get even richer. Amazing, but true.

Ryan's plan has accurately been described in the media as "Ideology on Steroids".

Now a question for you Jackson. When a rich guy parks a million dollars in a dividend paying stock for one year and gets a $30,000 dividend check, is that free money?

[QUOTE=Esten; 416956]Free money. Is that Libertarian-speak?

That free money you speak of, is more commonly referred to as a component of the [U][B]social safety net[/B][/U]. [/quote]What language is it that you speak, there in fantasy land? That's a $1. 6T safety net (or more than $15K / household).

[quote=]Rest assured, when liberals talk about the poor and middle class, we are most definately talking about both.[/quote]False! When liberals speak about the poor and middle class, they are trying to create the illusion that the US is a class-based society, which it is not. Further, the only reason why poor and middle class are in the liberal vocabulary is to be used as tools to solidify power, confiscate wealth and propagate the liberal, socialist agenda.

[quote=]As the latest and greatest example, have a look at Ryan's plan for Medicare. He wants to cut spending on Medicare by hundreds of billions by turning it into a voucher system.[/quote]If you could read, you'd see that Ryan's plan cuts less from Medicare than Obama's. So much for intellectual honesty.

[quote=]Of course Medicare should be part of the debt debate, but his proposal will hit the middle class the hardest, with little pain for the wealthy.[/quote]Wait a minute, Esten is showing a little more than he thinks. Cuts to Medicare can't hurt 90% of the middle class (those with jobs) , it's for the poor. What Esten is saying is that he wants everyone to be on Medicare.

[quote=]But wait it gets better. In fact, Ryan also wants to lower the top income tax bracket, which will be a huge windfall for the wealthy.[/quote]Based upon indisputable, historic facts, lowering marginal tax rates increases aggregate revenue. Check it out.

[quote=]Along with their other proposals, Republicans would basically be putting a huge burden on both the poor[/quote]False. There is no burden on the poor, they pay no taxes.

[quote=]and middle class,[/quote]How so? Most middle class homeowners pay almost nothing in income taxes.

[quote=]to help the rich get even richer.[/quote]How?

[quote=]Amazing, but true. [/quote]Agreed you are truly astonishing. However, we shouldn't be surprised. Abject ignorance and intellectual dishonesty have a long history together.

[quote=]Ryan's plan has accurately been described in the media as "Ideology on Steroids".[/quote]Might want to consider the source.

[quote=]Now a question for you Jackson. When a rich guy parks a million dollars in a dividend paying stock for one year and gets a $30,000 dividend check, is that free money?[/QUOTE]No. He didn't 'park' it. He risked it. And if he put in a million and only got a $30k return, he's a shitty stock picker and he will still owe income taxes on the divs that he received (about $4. 5K, I think) which lowers his return to approximately 2. 6, which sucks, unless you compare it to the performance of the $106K he was forced to put into Social Security for the same period (which when you account for inflation is negative).

Have a nice day.

Esten,"government money" is not "free money" its our money the governement has taken from us in the form of taxes. But of course you want to take more and more and more, why not just take it all, after all that is the end goal. In liberal speak "social safety net" = "nanny state". Yes folks surrender you freedom and your money, in exchange Uncle Sugar will take care of all your needs. What a crock.

Do we need a safety net for the helpless, yes. Do we need a nanny state that makes everyone helpless, no.

[QUOTE=Esten;416956]Free money. Is that Libertarian-speak?[/QUOTE]Esten,

You are correct in pointing out that my statement could be misinterpreted.

When I was describing the money that the government takes from the producers and gives to the parasites as "free money", I meant that it was free to the parasites as they do not have to do anything to earn it, and they are not expected to repay it.

Of course this money in not "free" to those who actually earned it in the 1st place.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Esten;416956]Now a question for you Jackson. When a rich guy parks a million dollars in a dividend paying stock for one year and gets a $30,000 dividend check, is that free money?[/QUOTE]Your question is moot: It's his money and he is entitled to do with it as he pleases.

In other words, it's not your money, and thus it's none of your business what he may or may not do with [u]his[/u] [u]money[/u].

Remember, this [strike]is[/strike] once was a free country.

And no, these dividends are not "free money", because he previously earned and paid taxes on the original capital, and then he subsequently risked his accumulated capital by essentially lending it to the company behind the "dividend paying stock".

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;416959]If you could read, you'd see that Ryan's plan cuts less from Medicare than Obama's.[/QUOTE]Which Obama plan?

- Do you mean the one his deficit reduction commission came up with in November and December, which he failed to endorse, and which is still the best plan of all of them because it is the only one with a snowball's chance of passing?

- Do you mean the budget he announced in January, that increased the deficit by trillions more?

- Or, do you mean the one that he shat out a few weeks ago, which blames the country's problems on all the "millionaires and billionaires" and suggests we can tax our way out of our spending mess?

Is it any wonder why no one takes this guy seriously any more?

The truth, though, is that neither of the plans proposed by Ryan or Obama are serious. Unless you have automatic provisions that kick in to reduce spending, etc, like Simpson-Boles, then there's nothing to force Future Congress and Future President to be constrained by a plan. Even automatic provisions are frequently ignored or overridden by Future Congresses, with little fanfare when this happens.

I'm not suggesting that there's no value in planning. If you're going to raise the retirement age or change eligibility for medicare, then it's good to signal these things now. But, in looking at these plans, the focus ought to be on what happens [u]now[/u] While Current Congress and Current President are still in office. What happens ten years from now on someone else's watch is mostly pie in the sky.

[QUOTE=Esten;416956]Now a question for you Jackson. When a rich guy parks a million dollars in a dividend paying stock for one year and gets a $30,000 dividend check, is that free money?[/QUOTE]Do you believe that owners of a business should receive no part of the profits from the business? If they do, it's free money? I don't think you really believe that -- it sounds like something that Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro would say.

A shareholder is an owner of a business. The business pays federal income tax, state income tax, sales taxes, employment taxes and property taxes. Then the corporation re-invests most or the majority of what's left over, in the business. When the business distributes some small part of what it makes before taxes to the owners, then the owners pay tax again on the dividend.

If you jack up the tax on dividends, you encourage corporations to raise capital via debt instead of equity. Some will become heavily indebted. This is a bad thing. You also encourage management to retain earnings instead of distributing them. A company with, say, a 5% return on equity should distribute most of its earnings to shareholders, who then re-invest the proceeds in businesses with higher returns. That improves productivity and the economy. If there's a large tax on dividends, this is less likely to happen.

Tiny, Stan don't confuse Esten with Facts and real life Economics it hurts his little head and only confuses him.

Almost every day I stop by here to read the latest pro-business, pro-wealthy arguments from our resident conservatives and libertarians. On some days it is an impressive selection, difficult to choose from. A buffet worthy of Oscar Mayer.

One huge fallacy here is that one's income is entirely their own. Though some might wish it so, it isn't true. Part of your income belongs to the government. It got that way because Americans decided that's how it should be. Though we differ in the degree, most Americans recognize that government plays an important role in making a country great. There is no government without people to run it, and it is Americans that elect those people to represent them. Stating that the government is taking 'your' money doesn't mean what is being taken is yours. And repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.

It is only entirely 'your' money from the viewpoint of self-interest.

Tiny continues to insist that a business or business owner has "no choice" but to pass on costs (or loss of profit) to workers or customers. This is pure baloney. A fictional defense in which business profit is the supreme goal. If Tiny wants to argue that there is a downside to limiting business profit, that's a different claim. Then we can debate the downside of limiting business profit somewhat to the downside of allowing profits to accumulate at the expense of workers, consumers and government revenues. But stating there is "no choice" is nonsense. There is always a choice.

The defense for sparing folks like Doppel from a tax increase has several flaws.

1. First, it isn't just small business owners with incomes over 250K. It's plenty of other people who don't run businesses. In fact most small business owners make less than 250K. So while the argument that small business owners re-invest in their business is relevant, sparing all 250K+ earners from a tax increase is not the right approach. Rather, help small businesses with policies aimed directly at small business.

2. Speaking of which, governments already provide plenty of help to small businesses. While ranting against the government, Doppel conveniently fails to mention policies that are helping his business to be successful. Some of them are perhaps even from Obama. Doppel, surely you are taking advantage of deductions like Section 179 or other policies that are adding tens of thousands of dollars to your bottom line. Do tell.

3. It is claimed a tax increase would make it harder for a small business to compete. But the federal tax hits comparable competitors too, so its a level playing field for the most part.

Plenty of excuses, but weak defenses.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;416887]Esten, it's time for some 'Tough Love' and "Sacrifice"! Are you up to it buddy?[/QUOTE]I sure am. I'll be glad to pay a few % more in income taxes to help our country address it's fiscal challenges.

And you? Are you willing to do anything else beyond what you are presently doing for your country? Or will you be governed by self-interest and pass the burden onto others?

[QUOTE=Esten; 416979]Almost every day I stop by here to read the latest pro-business, pro-wealthy arguments from our resident conservatives and libertarians. On some days it is an impressive selection, difficult to choose from. A buffet worthy of Oscar Mayer.

One huge fallacy here is that one's income is entirely their own. Though some might wish it so, it isn't true. Part of your income belongs to the government. It got that way because Americans decided that's how it should be. Though we differ in the degree, most Americans recognize that government plays an important role in making a country great. There is no government without people to run it, and it is Americans that elect those people to represent them. Stating that the government is taking 'your' money doesn't mean what is being taken is yours. And repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.

It is only entirely 'your' money from the viewpoint of self-interest.[/QUOTE]Well stated. I don't know anyone who enjoys paying taxes. Not too long ago, people used to throw away their money into tax shelters rather than paying it to the government. But the determining factor is "do we have a responsible and capable government?" Congress has failed the test for a few decades now. And here lies the difference between Zimbawe and Singapore. In Singapore, to attract top-notch people, the salaries of the Ministries are comparable to top CEOs. Corruption is not an issue, and then you have a guy from MIT running the Ministry rather than somebody's uncle. The media likes to make fun of Singapore due to censorship issues, but Singapore is a very serious country where almost everything works.

Esten, you are wrong as usual. The Section 179 deduction has been around a long time and only accelerates depreciation of assets with limits on the amount you can deduct. This was not an Obama 'gift to small business' I wish you would get your facts straight first.

I have seen nothing that helps small business from Obama. The temporary social security reduction to individuals, really stupid considering the shape the social security system is in, does not apply to the employers matching contribution.

Perhaps we need to adopt the old Russian model, the government owns and runs everything on 5 year plans. We all know what a colossal success that was.

I'll say it again;

YES. We need to help the helpless.

NO – We don't need a federal nanny state who makes everyone helpless

Should we ask for Trump's birth certificate? Or just because he is white, we should give him a pass.

Skin color can still influence one's political thinking in America today, I guess. Middle America, I wonder about you.

So I am in Colombia right now, and the question is what shade of skin should I choose? Just kidding, I am a hip & ass guy, and it is quite an overwhelming chore here.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 416986]Should we ask for Trump's birth certificate? Or just because he is white, we should give him a pass.

Skin color can still influence one's political thinking in America today, I guess. Middle America, I wonder about you.

So I am in Colombia right now, and the question is what shade of skin should I choose? Just kidding, I am a hip & ass guy, and it is quite an overwhelming chore here. [/QUOTE]I heard that Obama was really born in Boston and that he is completely white, but wears blackface. Can anyone confirm this?

[QUOTE=Esten;416979]Almost every day I stop by here to read the latest pro-business, pro-wealthy arguments from our resident conservatives and libertarians. On some days it is an impressive selection, difficult to choose from. A buffet worthy of Oscar Mayer.[/quote]Lookout, a humorless left winger trying to be funny. I give you credit for trying.

[quote=]One huge fallacy here is that one's income is entirely their own. Though some might wish it so, it isn't true. Part of your income belongs to the government.[/quote]That is entirely false. US income taxes are a labyrinth of nearly incomprehensible and often contradictory regulations that place liabilities upon certain individuals, namely one half of the country. While income and taxes are inextricably intertwined in our Byzantine cluster fuck of a tax system, they are two distinctly separate things.

There are many possible types of income some are taxable while others are tax free. Regardless of the aforementioned varieties of income, when you earn them, theoretically, they are entirely yours (excluding of course instances of adjudicative order such as wage garnishee, QDRO, alimony, etc). Also theoretically, when you earn moneys, you are likely incurring a tax liability, which you are required to pay at some point in time, depending upon the circumstances. Further, depending upon one's situation, there are many, many permissible deductions that can reduce one's tax liability. It is quite possible that in some situations, individuals earning a great deal of money pay little or no taxes.

However, there is 18% unemployment and underemployment and 50% of the public pay no taxes. We can therefore assume that 30% of the US population earns income and pays no taxes at all and perhaps receive payments and or fungible or quantifiable benefits from the government. So, I guess the fallacy you point to is just for those individuals in the top 50, who pay all the taxes.

[quote=]It got that way because Americans decided that's how it should be.[/quote]Just like the decided that slavery and segregation should be legal? You are way off here. We have our mess of a tax system not because it is the aggregate wish of the citizenry but due to the long-term dereliction of our elected representatives who have been extending the reach of government in all directions and far beyond the Constitutional limits, for far too long. Then they shakedown the citizenry to pay for it.

[quote=]Though we differ in the degree, most Americans recognize that government plays an important role in making a country great.[/quote]What? I couldn't disagree with you more. The principals embodied in our founding documents as written by our founders laid the foundation for a great nation where the individual may pursue his self interests, while being protected by a limited government. End of story.

Our national greatness is derivative of the PEOPLE. The role that the government has played in our greatness has been getting out of the way of the individual. We have a history of greatness that includes certain presidents, military leaders and heroic soldiers, who while ostensibly in the employ of the government in no way derived their greatness from the government, other than certain statutory powers. We also have a had a myriad of great inventors, scientists, doctors, business men and investment bankers; all of which are testament to what can be achieved despite our overreaching government.



[quote=]There is no government without people to run it, and it is Americans that elect those people to represent them.[/quote]You are absolutely right and every last individual who votes for politicians that routinely exceed their constitutional authority or act in a way so as to burden the nation with insurmountable debt is responsible to their fellow citizens (past, present and future) for selfishly or cavalierly casting a vote for the destruction of this great nation.

[quote=]Stating that the government is taking 'your' money doesn't mean what is being taken is yours.[/quote]If it wasn't yours, your name wouldn't be on the check.

[quote=]And repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.[/quote]Yes it does. Yes it does. Yes it does.

[quote=]It is only entirely 'your' money from the viewpoint of self-interest.[/QUOTE]Maybe you could enlighten us as to how your view of self-interest works out for everyone within your utopian, socialist / communist workers' paradise.

Donald Trump has already produced his long form Birth Certificate, replete with the date and time of his birth, the name of the hospital, his birth weight, and the printed name and signature of the attending physician.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 416986]Should we ask for Trump's birth certificate? Or just because he is white, we should give him a pass.

Skin color can still influence one's political thinking in America today, I guess. Middle America, I wonder about you.

So I am in Colombia right now, and the question is what shade of skin should I choose? Just kidding, I am a hip & ass guy, and it is quite an overwhelming chore here. [/QUOTE]

OK Esten, I agree. There is a choice. Business owners don't have to pass costs onto customers. They can go bankrupt instead. I made no distinction between small business and large business. Your preferred tax policies would hurt both, along with the majority of Americans. You appear to argue for higher tax rates and lots of loopholes, that run up accounting and legal expense and make the economy less efficient.

Black Shirt, The maximum marginal tax rate charged by Singapore on individuals is 20% and it's 17% on corporations. Singapore spends 2. 6% of GDP on healthcare versus 16% for the USA. Singapore is an example of what a government can do when it uses resources wisely. Putting aside Luxembourg, Switzerland and places blessed with oil and small populations, it's perhaps the most prosperous country in the world, at least in terms of GDP per capita adjusted for purchasing power. It shows the fallacy of higher taxes and government spending as a path to prosperity.

[QUOTE=Esten;416981]Tiny continues to insist that a business or business owner has "no choice" but to pass on costs (or loss of profit) to workers or customers. This is pure baloney. A fictional defense in which business profit is the supreme goal. If Tiny wants to argue that there is a downside to limiting business profit, that's a different claim. Then we can debate the downside of limiting business profit somewhat to the downside of allowing profits to accumulate at the expense of workers, consumers and government revenues. But stating there is "no choice" is nonsense. There is always a choice.[/QUOTE]My dear Esten, you are once again woefully uneducated regarding the subject upon which you opined. I'll try to make this simple for you. Profitability is perhaps the most important facet of any company. Why you ask? Because the existence of a profit is perhaps the single most determinant as to whether or not the company will continue to be in business next year. Additionally, whether public or private, the value of most companies is determined by looking at their profitability. Every thing that reduces profitability also reduces the overall value of the company thereby denying the company the ability to use the funds taken as well as denying the owners realization of deserved gains. Investors make their decisions based upon the risk / reward relationship. Every time you increase the risk or reduce the risk, you drive investors away.

Moreover, profitable companies tend to reinvest most of their profits into their businesses rather than distribute to shareholders via dividend. This is important because if the board of directors and management don't believe that they can generate better returns via reinvestment they have a fiduciary responsibility to return the funds to shareholders via dividend or other similar means such as a buy-back.

There are different ways of expressing profit or profit potential such as: net income, ebitda, ebit, free cash flow, unlevered free cash flow, etc). However, in its most basic state (cash accounting basis without NOLs or other offsets) , profitability is determined by taking all of the companies revenues and subtracting all of its costs. For most small businesses, this is all the owner gets to take home. You decrease the profit and you make it necessary for him to reduce head count or go out of business. Everything that you and Obama say about business is complete and utter bullshit. With nearly 20% unemployment and underemployment, the foregoing is fairly evident to all.

Why don't we look at big Oil. Let's take their profits! Why are they so damn profitable right now? Obama and the liberals that come before them, pure and simple. Oil companies pump oil out of the earth via infrastructure they have already put in place and probably have paid for. Their local costs are often denominated in local currencies (other than the dollar) however, their cash flow is denominated in OIL. When Obama and his folks force oil companies offshore, they usually have lower costs. Further, because their products are global commodities, their profits are somewhat hedged against a weaker US dollar and inflation. If they sold a barrel of oil for $86 six months ago and another barrel today at $112, the cost of production is the same (delivery costs are somewhat higher) therefore profits grow due to the weak dollar, not due to an actual increase in the price of oil. So if you want to lessen their profits, go ask Obama to stop deflating the dollar.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;416991]OK Esten, I agree. There is a choice. Business owners don't have to pass costs onto customers. They can go bankrupt instead. I made no distinction between small business and large business. Your preferred tax policies would hurt both, along with the majority of Americans. You appear to argue for higher tax rates and lots of loopholes, that run up accounting and legal expense and make the economy less efficient.[/QUOTE]So the only choice is between profits and bankruptcy?

Tiny, you seem like a gentleman attempting to make reasoned arguments based on research. That's commendable. Unfortunately, your steady stream of wild statements and conclusions is casting a shadow on your credibility.

You may have noticed that until recently, I haven't responded to anything you wrote for awhile. There's a reason for that: crazy statements and suggestions. I believe one of them was that Bush tax cuts were progressive, implying it was a good thing. While there may be some paper argument to support this in % terms (i'd have to check), it ignores that in dollar amounts those cuts had little benefit for low income earners and huge benefit for high income earners. Meanwhile those tax cuts contributed substantially to deficits, that the same party that gave us those cuts now wants to balance on the backs of those that benefited the least from them in the first place.

Today you are presenting us with another gem. That a business will go bankrupt if a cost is not passed on to customers (or workers, I presume).

Tell me:
If a corporation postpones a planned dividend raise because of a tax increase, will it go bankrupt?
If a CEO's compensation package is frozen for a year because of a tax increase, will his company go bankrupt?
Will either of these responses necessitate raising the price the customer pays?

The sheer absurdity of some of your conclusions and statements has me considering whether to put you on "ignore mode" for awhile. Alongside the only other poster that has earned that distinction, your friend and mine, Walleye.

Esten, The answers to your questions are no, no, and probably not.

However, I'm confused. You don't necessarily dispute that the Bush tax cuts were progressive but you're unhappy because I pointed that out? (By the way, they weren't progressive for all tax brackets, but did result in the top 1% and top 5% paying a higher share of the income tax, according to the Congressional Budget Office.) You say they had little benefit for low income earners (because low income earners paid little or no income tax to start with) and huge benefit for high income earners. So if someone who was making $1, 000, 000 a year gets a $20, 000 tax cut, then the guy making $50, 000 a year should get at least $20, 000 in tax cuts too? Apparently the desired outcome is that we all become more equal, even if that means we all become poorer.

My statement about passing costs onto customers is just math. I'm probably foolish spending the time to do this, especially since you're putting me on ignore, but here are the trailing 12 month profit margins, before income tax, of the 10 largest USA public companies by sales. I've kicked out financial companies:

Wal-Mart 5. 52%

ExxonMobil 11. 51%

Chevron 13. 22%

ConocoPhillips 6. 79%

GE 9. 84%

GM 2. 89%

Ford 5. 39%

Hewlett Packard 10. 4%

AT&T 12. 58%

McKesson 1. 81%

If you, say, raise property taxes and employment taxes enough to wipe out 1. 81% of sales of McKesson or 2. 89% of sales of GM, then the companies become unprofitable if they don't pass the additional cost onto consumers. If they continually lose money they go bankrupt.

You have a point, if you raise the income tax, companies don't necessarily go bankrupt. However, that does put more wealth and power in the hands of the government, and it does reduce the capacity of companies to grow, invest, add jobs, etc. I believe that's something you favor, and I know it's something I detest.

He Ran Before and chickened Out. He is a Pussy. Do we really need is a pussy in the WHITE HOUSE!

Bring it on Toymann?

I am here and your toys are not.

The Chicas, do know you! Or miss you? Ha Ha Joke, Relax.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 416989]Donald Trump has already produced his long form Birth Certificate, replete with the date and time of his birth, the name of the hospital, his birth weight, and the printed name and signature of the attending physician.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]

Stan, Tiny, WW you are missing Esten's objective.

Esten does not object to seeing the majority of power and wealth concentrated in a minority of holders, his objective is for the power and wealth to be shifted from private companies and individuals to the government.

Once the government has amassed the vast majority of the wealth and power in the US then the government can redistribute it any way the government sees fit, making everyone "equal" except of course the government.

[QUOTE=Esten; 416998]Tell me:

If a corporation postpones a planned dividend raise because of a tax increase, will it go bankrupt? [/quote]What is this 'planned dividend raise? ' Why not look at it in a more realistic scenario?

If there is a tax raise and the company doesn't price it into their products and pass it on to the customers, their profits will fall. Dividends normally are just a fraction of the company's profit. The portion that isn't distributed via dividend goes on the balance sheet as 'retained earnings' as part of shareholders' equity on the right side of the balance sheet. Retained earnings fuel cash flow (cash generated via operations) which provides the company with the funds necessary to continue to operate and grow the company. A CEO of any of those big companies Tiny named would need a body guard if he tampered with the dividend at all, let alone before it became absolutely necessary. Therefore, the profit would shrink, the dividend would stay the same and retained earnings would be reduced. The reduction in retained earnings effects the funds available for future growth which means they will have to borrow or issue more stock (thus diluting the ownership of existing shareholders) in order to maintain the forward trajectory that they have previously promised shareholders. In any event, that future plan has just become more expensive (interest, investment banking fees and dilutions) and therefore future profits will come at a greater cost thus reducing the profit margin that can be expected down the road. As profits narrow and future prospects are diminished, investors' view of the value of the company and thus its stock will fall as well. Investors holding the stock will sell it and those interested in owning the stock will wait until the price falls to a point where they believe it is properly valued. Therefore the effect of not passing the tax increase through to the customers lead to a loss of capital on behalf of the owners of the company and will increase future operating costs, unnecessarily. The CEO has a fiduciary responsibility to the owners of the company not to the politburo.

Why should owners of corporations have the value of their assets diminished and why should corporations be forced to pay higher operating costs for a political agenda of social engineering?

[quote=]If a CEO's compensation package is frozen for a year because of a tax increase, will his company go bankrupt? [/quote]No, his compensation won't be frozen. He will be fired and collect his severance for being a dolt and not looking out for the best interests of the owners of the company. He may have trouble finding a new job if other boards of directors view his actions a some sort of bias or agenda that could harm the interests of their owners.

[quote=]Will either of these responses necessitate raising the price the customer pays?[/quote]That depends upon where the company is located. If it is in the real world, yes, the company needs to pass the cost on to the customers. Where you are in fantasy land, they can do whatever they want, even defy gravity if it helps bring social justice.

[quote=]The sheer absurdity of some of your conclusions and statements has me considering whether to put you on "ignore mode" for awhile. Alongside the only other poster that has earned that distinction, your friend and mine, Walleye.[/QUOTE]It is an honor I wear with pride.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 417000]He Ran Before and chickened Out. He is a Pussy. Do we really need is a pussy in the WHITE HOUSE!

Bring it on Toymann?

I am here and your toys are not.

The Chicas, do know you! Or miss you? Ha Ha Joke, Relax. [/QUOTE]I agree with you completely that Trump is a court jester. That said, every time he lays a glove on Obama, it is good for the nation. I hope he keeps the circus act going until a true conservative shows up to the party. I can't imagine any scenario in which I would vote for Trump in a primary. In fact, I can only imagine one scenario in which I would ever vote for Trump: Trump vs. Obama. Shit, I'd vote for Barney Rubble over Obama.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 417001]Stan, Tiny, WW you are missing Esten's objective.

Esten does not object to seeing the majority of power and wealth concentrated in a minority of holders, his objective is for the power and wealth to be shifted from private companies and individuals to the government.

Once the government has amassed the vast majority of the wealth and power in the US then the government can redistribute it any way the government sees fit, making everyone "equal" except of course the government. [/QUOTE]Estenism = Marxism

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;417000]He Ran Before and chickened Out. He is a Pussy. Do we really need is a pussy in the WHITE HOUSE![/QUOTE]We've got a pussy in the White House now.

Case in point: Obama released his long form birth certificate yesterday, a move that was intended to embarrass those who were suggesting that he was hiding something. A lot of politicians would have been eviscerated by this move, but what does Trump do? He walks up to the microphone and takes full credit for [U]forcing[/U] the President to finally release his actual birth certificate.

Psyched!

I loved it!

This Presidential race could be very interesting: The do-nothing, inept, incompetent, in-over-his-head community organizer verses a proven, experienced, get-it-done negotiator who has made billions for himself and created tens of thousands of jobs.

Remember, Trump is the guy who [U]made[/U] a billion dollars doing business with the Chinese.

My guess is that Trump is getting inside Obama's head, and he's going to continue to mind fuck the current Pussy-In-Chief right through to election day.

ROTFLMAO!

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Jackson; 417010]We've got a pussy in the White House now.[/quote]That is an insult to pussies the world over.

[quote=]Case in point: Obama released his long form birth certificate yesterday, a move that was intended to embarrass those who were suggesting that he was hiding something. A lot of politicians would have been eviscerated by this move, but what does Trump do? He walks up to the microphone and takes full credit for [U]forcing[/U] the President to finally release his actual birth certificate.

Psyched!

I loved it!

This Presidential race could be very interesting: The do-nothing, inept, incompetent, in-over-his-head community organizer verses a proven, experienced, get-it-done negotiator who has made billions for himself and created tens of thousands of jobs.

Remember, Trump is the guy who [U]made[/U] a billion dollars doing business with the Chinese.

My guess is that Trump is getting inside Obama's head, and he's going to continue to mind fuck the current Pussy-In-Chief right through to election day.

ROTFLMAO!

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]As previously stated, Trump will be my candidate in only one scenario. That said, I love that he keeps landing body blows on Obama.

Obama is bad for America. It can get any simpler than that. Anyone working toward replacing Obama in 2012, via constitutionally prescribed processes, it alright with me, provided it isn't someone who goes third party and splits the national majority that will be voting anti-Obama.

As for the whole birth certificate issue, the one that is responsible for it being an issue is also the one who looks dumbest in its wake. If he has always had it, why did he let it be a distraction for 2. 5 years? If it was as a political game or trap, it is more proof that he is the 'joke' president. If he was trying to create some sort of gotcha-trap, it blew up in his face, in large part because it was Trump who stepped into it rather than some pussy politician.

Again, I am no Trump fan (although I did read his first book about 20 years ago, can't remember the name of it though) but Trump is far more qualified to be president than Obama and Obama is the joke candidate between these two.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;417012]Again, I am no Trump fan (although I did read his first book about 20 years ago, can't remember the name of it though) but Trump is far more qualified to be president than Obama and Obama is the joke candidate between these two.[/QUOTE]To be perfectly candid, I think Trump is a Democrat, and this whole thing about him running for President, demanding transcripts and birth certificates, etc, etc, is just a stunt. We know the guy is in favor of abortion and has given more money to Democrats than Republicans over the years.

[url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/27/politics/washingtonpost/main20057806.shtml[/url]

I could care less about his position on abortion, but where he spends his political money is revealing. If he were on Wall Street or Silicon Valley, it wouldn't mean much. Those guys normally give mostly to Democrats, even though Dems would have you believe that Republicans are the "big money" party. But, for a property developer, this is highly unusual, even one in New York.

Beyond that, no one knows too much about his positions on anything. He hasn't been completely successful in business despite his current fortune, whatever that might be. He's filed bankruptcy personally and for numerous businesses he's started. So what exactly qualifies him to run the country? He's smarter than a community organizer? Okay, but if that's our threshold, then we're really screwed.

No one really knows his position on major issues, other than he thinks the country is going in the wrong direction, and he would hold his breath until the Chinese agreed to play fair. The guy is a joke, at best.

Watch as this knucklehead pulls a Lebron James and "announces" whether he'll run for President in some prime time event, where he sells the media rights. It only works if people are dumb enough to watch. Unfortunately, plenty are.

I like Trump in the same way that I like Big Time Wrestling: I know it's fake, so that makes it sort of fun. But, every once in a while, you run into someone who swears it's all real.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 417001]Stan, Tiny, WW you are missing Esten's objective.

Esten does not object to seeing the majority of power and wealth concentrated in a minority of holders, his objective is for the power and wealth to be shifted from private companies and individuals to the government.

Once the government has amassed the vast majority of the wealth and power in the US then the government can redistribute it any way the government sees fit, making everyone "equal" except of course the government. [/QUOTE]Doppelganger, I think I get it now. The governments' share of the economy grew from 35% to 42% during the Bush and Obama administrations. Esten and Moveon (if he's still with us; if not, may he rest in peace) believe this is a good thing. And they rightly question how the government can stay afloat when it's spending a lot more than it's taking in. They think Art Laffer and Milton Friedman were idiots. That there's no way, for example, that you'd see the tax revenue from capital gains increase if you cut the marginal tax rate on capital gains. They also think we're idiots. If big government is a good thing, then the low tax policies we believe in would bankrupt America.

I don't think that they realize that people who believe in liberal economics, like Stan, WW, you and me, didn't necessarily buy into mainstream Republicans' spending binge in the last decade. In any event, when it comes to spending more than we take in, Obama is like Bush on speed.

We want to see government shrink. I personally don't want to live in a country where the government is 42% of the economy. Unfortunately, while I believe our type is in the majority right now, in 10 or 20 years, I think we're going to be the minority. The Esten's and Moveon's will control the USA, which will come to look more and more like the socialist economies of Europe before they started to reform. It's time to start thinking about moving.