The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-28-2013, 07:31 AM   #101
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,895
Default

What we really need is a new international corp tax rate. Along with it though we need to force by law american companies making money overseas to return home a certian % to be taxed and/or re-invested. Right now we have to much profit and dollars being left overseas never to help our country. Fact is companies can't pay 30 something % in the USA after paying all the money it takes to do business in other countries. They just leave it offshore.

Clinton has talked about, Bush SR talked about it, IMO its not a left or right issue its a hey times have changed issue. We never anticipated this much money being made overseas when we made the tax system one % fits all business.

Most big economies have already done this we are behind the times.

What would you rather do have them leave it overseason or have it back in the USA?
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 07:41 AM   #102
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
What we really need is a new international corp tax rate. Along with it though we need to force by law american companies making money overseas to return home a certian % to be taxed and/or re-invested. Right now we have to much profit and dollars being left overseas never to help our country. Fact is companies can't pay 30 something % in the USA after paying all the money it takes to do business in other countries. They just leave it offshore.

Clinton has talked about, Bush SR talked about it, IMO its not a left or right issue its a hey times have changed issue. We never anticipated this much money being made overseas when we made the tax system one % fits all business.

Most big economies have already done this we are behind the times.

What would you rather do have them leave it overseason or have it back in the USA?
Being competitive is most important. Force an American company to repatriate all their Chinese proceeds, and they'll just move their HQ overseas and become just another foreign company selling Chinese goods to US consumers.

Stop actively punishing them for being American companies, and things will work out much better.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 07:43 AM   #103
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,165
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
It's really a production problem, not a demand problem.
No, it's not. Production follows demand. Although to some extent you could argue that if we were producing more we'd have more people employed in the production process. But, companies aren't going to produce much above and beyond demand.
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 08:00 AM   #104
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
No, it's not. Production follows demand. Although to some extent you could argue that if we were producing more we'd have more people employed in the production process. But, companies aren't going to produce much above and beyond demand.
No, I saw Field of Dreams.

If you build it, they will come. Powerful Reaganomics messages in that film.

houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 08:01 AM   #105
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,003

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chadta View Post
Not at all, why do you think containers of everything have been getting smaller and smaller, costs have gone up, rather than raising prices they have been shrinking product sizes.

...
You miss the point. The straw man is your assertion that I have claimed costs should not be passed on. In fact, I said EXACTLY the opposite in this very thread.

That's, of course, not to say there aren't many business who are currently gouging their customers and/or abusing their labor. It's a great strategy for short terms profits, but does not lend itself to long term viability.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 08:03 AM   #106
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
No, it's not. Production follows demand.
That's the fundamental disagreement.

Quote:
Although to some extent you could argue that if we were producing more we'd have more people employed in the production process. But, companies aren't going to produce much above and beyond demand.
Production is where all the real money is. Buy a Chinese pencil and you employ freight and retail channels.

Buy an American pencil, and you employ American loggers, sawmillers, miners, paint makers, plus freight and retail channels.

Demand stoked in a vacuum will buy whatever's available from wherever available. It diminishes itself over time. Demand driven by people producing things others need feeds itself.

Our biggest problem is the retail-demand-first economy. Great for multinationals and their upper crust. Pretty useless for the average underemployed American.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 08:06 AM   #107
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,003

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pony Boy View Post
Right, I have a 30 year successful track record in business and you donít. Feel free to PM Doc B. he uses my business quite often. Here are a couple of posts from past threads, now do you want to call a very highly successful young surgeon a liar also.
I ain't saying you don't own a successful business. I AM saying you have demonstrated quite clearly that you don't understand the economics of that business and/or are quite willing to lie about the performance of that business (e.g. absurdest claims about being able to maintain a constant profit margin for 30 years).

... all while being a silly douche bag trying, wildly unsuccessfully, to be condescending.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 08:11 AM   #108
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,895
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Being competitive is most important. Force an American company to repatriate all their Chinese proceeds, and they'll just move their HQ overseas and become just another foreign company selling Chinese goods to US consumers.

Stop actively punishing them for being American companies, and things will work out much better.
I disagree many of them would love to bring that money home but they can't. Not at 30% tax. Drop it to about 5% and they will bring it back.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 08:18 AM   #109
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,003

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Under feds plan you wouldn't have any small businesses. Forcing mom and pop diners, small retail stores etc to pay 15 bucks an hour would kill their business model.
Not my plan, you illiterate wanker.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 08:24 AM   #110
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,895
Default

informal falacy.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 08:26 AM   #111
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,003

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
informal falacy.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 08:27 AM   #112
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,895
Default

This is a thread about whether or not we should raise the min wage to 15 bucks. You seemed to be arguing that would be a good thing. Then at same time you talk proper debating you use name calling all over the place. So trying to figure out where you are coming from is tough Ms Fed. You are just like Obama no wonder you love him so much.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 08:30 AM   #113
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 19,165
Default

I suggest some of you re-read (or, in many cases, read for the first time) the 2nd article I linked (below). I just re-read myself and Felix Salmon is making many of the same points myself and others are trying to make. Then, if you disagree, argue directly against these enumerated points.

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmo...wage-stimulus/

This here, for example, is almost exactly one of the things I was trying to explain earlier in the thread:

Quote:
...a higher minimum wage would be good for employment. A $450 billion stimulus, delivered directly into the hands of the Americans most likely to spend it, canít help but create jobs across the economy. Of course, as in any healthy economy, there will be a birth/death model: some employers will see demand soar, while others will see their costs rise and their margins shrink. But thereís empirical evidence to suggest that states which raise the minimum wage when unemployment is high ó when thereís a lot of slack in the labor force ó then you get faster job growth than in the country as a whole.
(Pony should particularly take note of the underlined part...)
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 08:59 AM   #114
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,003

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
This is a thread about whether or not we should raise the min wage to 15 bucks. You seemed to be arguing that would be a good thing.
Let's see. I didn't start the thread. I never said I agreed with $15 min wage, and in fact, I already went over this with you...

That you can't follow a simple conversation is not my problem, dumbass.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpos...3&postcount=68

I prompted you again to see if you would own up to your original mistake. Instead you launch into more sillyness.

Quote:
Then at same time you talk proper debating you use name calling all over the place.
There's a difference between TONE and content. I have no problem telling someone they are a dumbass when they behave like a dumbass. I also back it up with actual content, and don't rely on ad hominem as an argument.

Quote:
So trying to figure out where you are coming from is tough Ms Fed. You are just like Obama no wonder you love him so much.
Show me where I've professed to "love" Obama.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 09:05 AM   #115
Pony Boy
"Whoa Nellie"
 
Pony Boy's Avatar
 
Omaha !!!

Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,652

Adopt-a-Bronco:
mellon head
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
(Pony should particularly take note of the underlined part...)
Yes there is a certain business class that would be hit harder than others, for the example the food industry in most cases they would not be able to pass the increase on to the consumer.

In my case, I'm able to control the cost of doing business with a very simple program. I'm able to adjust my selling prices for goods and services on a daily basis as needed.

For example UPS and FedEx are able to adjust the shipping charges billed to their customers on a weekly basis by using a "fuel service charge", a simple way of passing the increase on to the customer. If the UPS customer chooses not to pass it on he is throwing money down the drain. USPS has fixed rates with no way to adjust to higher costs and they are currently 40 billion in the red.

http://www.aitaonline.com/Info/Gener...urcharges.html

A fuel surcharge is a fee that can be added to the freight charges that allows the hauler to be reimbursed for excessive fuel costs incurred in the performance of hauling freight from one point to another. This assessment doesnít require governmental approval and you do not need to file an application with DOT to implement a fuel surcharge.
Pony Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 09:14 AM   #116
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,003

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pony Boy View Post
Yes there is a certain business class that would be hit harder than others, for the example the food industry in most cases they would not be able to pass the increase on to the consumer.

In my case, I'm able to control the cost of doing business with a very simple program. I'm able to adjust my selling prices for goods and services on a daily basis as needed.

For example UPS and FedEx are able to adjust the shipping charges billed to their customers on a weekly basis by using a "fuel service charge", a simple way of passing the increase on to the customer. If the UPS customer chooses not to pass it on he is throwing money down the drain. USPS has fixed rates with no way to adjust to higher costs and they are currently 40 billion in the red.

http://www.aitaonline.com/Info/Gener...urcharges.html

A fuel surcharge is a fee that can be added to the freight charges that allows the hauler to be reimbursed for excessive fuel costs incurred in the performance of hauling freight from one point to another. This assessment doesnít require governmental approval and you do not need to file an application with DOT to implement a fuel surcharge.
http://ycharts.com/companies/FDX/profit_margin
http://ycharts.com/companies/UPS/profit_margin

Still haven't looked up elasticity of demand eh?

Last edited by Fedaykin; 06-28-2013 at 09:18 AM..
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 09:15 AM   #117
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pony Boy View Post
Yes there is a certain business class that would be hit harder than others, for the example the food industry in most cases they would not be able to pass the increase on to the consumer.

In my case, I'm able to control the cost of doing business with a very simple program. I'm able to adjust my selling prices for goods and services on a daily basis as needed.

For example UPS and FedEx are able to adjust the shipping charges billed to their customers on a weekly basis by using a "fuel service charge", a simple way of passing the increase on to the customer. If the UPS customer chooses not to pass it on he is throwing money down the drain. USPS has fixed rates with no way to adjust to higher costs and they are currently 40 billion in the red.

http://www.aitaonline.com/Info/Gener...urcharges.html

A fuel surcharge is a fee that can be added to the freight charges that allows the hauler to be reimbursed for excessive fuel costs incurred in the performance of hauling freight from one point to another. This assessment doesnít require governmental approval and you do not need to file an application with DOT to implement a fuel surcharge.
Yeah, we got hit with fuel surcharges pretty hard several years ago with the theater, and before that at the stadium.

You know what we did?

We found another company to do business with.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 10:17 AM   #118
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
I disagree many of them would love to bring that money home but they can't. Not at 30% tax. Drop it to about 5% and they will bring it back.
That's what I mean. If the rate is decent, they'll bring it back. It was the 'forcing them by law' part I don't agree with.

That no longer works. At least not in a free trade world.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 10:20 AM   #119
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
All hail Hercules!

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,133

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Thirty years ago, this country bought into the Reagan crapfest of supply-side economics and started rewriting our progressive taxation laws and regulations on Wall Street, banksters, and corporations in order to create (what Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. called a hundred years ago) a "Horse and Sparrow" economy. Yes, it's all been done before. And we shockingly discovered that the same thing happened as the last time we tried it: All the money flowed to the top, labor was wiped out, and the criminal investment community turned our markets into a casino, robbed us blind, stole all our money, and stashed it offshore. Big surprise. Only this time they were smart enough to buy up Washington to keep themselves out of jail (and keep the money) and we wake up to the worst income disparity in our nation's history and all the equity sucked out of our homes.

Holmes called it the "Horse and Sparrow" economy because the theory was that if you overfed the horse with oats, there would be plenty left over in the horse poop on the road for the sparrows to pick out. Unfortunately, what we discovered was that our horses didn't leave one grain behind. Impeccable digestion, these beasts have. And now we argue that a livable wage for the bottom tier of Americans is unacceptable because it might create a hardship for billionaires. Don't worry. The vaults in the Cayman Islands are holding fast. They'll be okay. Amazing what changing a few laws and regulations can do, isn't it?

Here's the funny part: The Right Wingers aren't satisfied. They want zero capital gains taxes, zero corporate taxes and zero estate taxes. Welcome to Wonderland.

Last edited by Rohirrim; 06-28-2013 at 10:22 AM..
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 10:27 AM   #120
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Thirty years ago, this country bought into the Reagan crapfest of supply-side economics and started rewriting our progressive taxation laws and regulations on Wall Street, banksters, and corporations in order to create (what Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. called a hundred years ago) a "Horse and Sparrow" economy. Yes, it's all been done before. And we shockingly discovered that the same thing happened as the last time we tried it: All the money flowed to the top, labor was wiped out, and the criminal investment community turned our markets into a casino, robbed us blind, stole all our money, and stashed it offshore. Big surprise. Only this time they were smart enough to buy up Washington to keep themselves out of jail (and keep the money) and we wake up to the worst income disparity in our nation's history and all the equity sucked out of our homes.

Holmes called it the "Horse and Sparrow" economy because the theory was that if you overfed the horse with oats, there would be plenty left over in the horse poop on the road for the sparrows to pick out. Unfortunately, what we discovered was that our horses didn't leave one grain behind. Impeccable digestion, these beasts have. And now we argue that a livable wage for the bottom tier of Americans is unacceptable because it might create a hardship for billionaires. Don't worry. The vaults in the Cayman Islands are holding fast. They'll be okay. Amazing what changing a few laws and regulations can do, isn't it?

Here's the funny part: The Right Wingers aren't satisfied. They want zero capital gains taxes, zero corporate taxes and zero estate taxes. Welcome to Wonderland.
Yeah, but the horse took all the risk in being fed those oats to begin with.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 10:29 AM   #121
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
All hail Hercules!

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,133

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
Yeah, but the horse took all the risk in being fed those oats to begin with.
I can only imagine the torture Romney went through.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 10:31 AM   #122
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Thirty years ago, this country bought into the Reagan crapfest of supply-side economics and started rewriting our progressive taxation laws and regulations on Wall Street, banksters, and corporations in order to create (what Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. called a hundred years ago) a "Horse and Sparrow" economy. Yes, it's all been done before. And we shockingly discovered that the same thing happened as the last time we tried it: All the money flowed to the top, labor was wiped out, and the criminal investment community turned our markets into a casino, robbed us blind, stole all our money, and stashed it offshore. Big surprise. Only this time they were smart enough to buy up Washington to keep themselves out of jail (and keep the money) and we wake up to the worst income disparity in our nation's history and all the equity sucked out of our homes.

Holmes called it the "Horse and Sparrow" economy because the theory was that if you overfed the horse with oats, there would be plenty left over in the horse poop on the road for the sparrows to pick out. Unfortunately, what we discovered was that our horses didn't leave one grain behind. Impeccable digestion, these beasts have. And now we argue that a livable wage for the bottom tier of Americans is unacceptable because it might create a hardship for billionaires. Don't worry. The vaults in the Cayman Islands are holding fast. They'll be okay. Amazing what changing a few laws and regulations can do, isn't it?

Here's the funny part: The Right Wingers aren't satisfied. They want zero capital gains taxes, zero corporate taxes and zero estate taxes. Welcome to Wonderland.
Most of this is pretty much wrong, or at least the wrong emphasis. The major thing that happened is Asia started getting it's **** together, and we kept playing it like we were the only game in town.

Free trade has it's advantages, but you have to play that game with an eye towards competitiveness.

If you don't want to compete, you'd better keep those trade barriers up. Although that approach can only work for so long. Highest taxes in the world combined with MFN was a recipe for industrial collapse. Now we are where we are.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 10:37 AM   #123
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
All hail Hercules!

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,133

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Most of this is pretty much wrong, or at least the wrong emphasis. The major thing that happened is Asia started getting it's **** together, and we kept playing it like we were the only game in town.

Free trade has it's advantages, but you have to play that game with an eye towards competitiveness.

If you don't want to compete, you'd better keep those trade barriers up. Although that approach can only work for so long. Highest taxes in the world combined with MFN was a recipe for industrial collapse. Now we are where we are.
If what you say is true, the hit would be felt across all classes. That's not the case:

The richest 7% of American families saw their average wealth soar 28% from 2009 to 2011, while the remaining 93% of households lost 4% of their net worth over that same period, according to a new report.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr...ealth-20130423

Highest taxes in the world? You've got to be kidding.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 10:39 AM   #124
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,003

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Most of this is pretty much wrong, or at least the wrong emphasis. The major thing that happened is Asia started getting it's **** together, and we kept playing it like we were the only game in town.

Free trade has it's advantages, but you have to play that game with an eye towards competitiveness.

If you don't want to compete, you'd better keep those trade barriers up. Although that approach can only work for so long. Highest taxes in the world combined with MFN was a recipe for industrial collapse. Now we are where we are.
Asia improving economically caused Reagan to explicitly, and proudly engage in an economic strategy that funnels money to the upper 1%?
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2013, 10:40 AM   #125
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,003

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post

Highest taxes in the world? You've got to be kidding.
It's pretty amazing the silly things these wingnuts will claim.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:07 AM.


Denver Broncos