Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Im sure that's good for Comcast, but how exactly are higher bills , filtering of media content, and.less overall competition good for America and.its citizens? It's not, and what's good for.business often comes at corruption of.our system that is put in place to.protect us from these parasitic cu orporation terrorists. People like Meredith baker should be flogged publicly for their corruption that will cost all you and I more out of.our pockets every month
This goes back to the same argument I've made since the beginning of this thread. What's good for one corporation or individual is not necessarily what is good for business as a whole.
I can't speak as to this particular example, as I know virtually nothing about the deal, but step back and look at the effect on the telecommunications industry as a whole.
If it appears that Comcast has been given an unfair advantage by outside (government) interference (or lack of interference if they're interfering with everyone else), then I'd say that's generally a bad thing for the industry, as Comcast no longer needs to actually run a good business in order to be successful. We've unbalanced the whole system, so to speak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldengrain
You missed what I said or I was not clear.
The poorer pay a larger share of THEIR INCOME often, having no deductions. This is what is wrong with the flat tax proposal. Fifteen percent of $40k means a lot more to the guy working for that amount than it would to the guy making $400k.
I understood what you're saying, but did you actually look at the chart? Your example isn't accurate to what's actually happening.
Take two people:
Person 1 makes $30,000, putting them just below the 50% mark. That bracket pays an average of 2.59% of income in taxes ($777)
Person 2 makes $381,000, putting them just within the top 1%. That bracket pays an average of 23.27% of income in taxes ($88,658)
$381,000 is 12.7 times greater than $30,000
$88,658 is 114 times greater than $777.
This also takes into account deductions, as the numbers above are based on actual dollars paid and collected, rather than potential figures.
This goes back to the same argument I've made since the beginning of this thread. What's good for one corporation or individual is not necessarily what is good for business as a whole.
I can't speak as to this particular example, as I know virtually nothing about the deal, but step back and look at the effect on the telecommunications industry as a whole.
If it appears that Comcast has been given an unfair advantage by outside (government) interference (or lack of interference if they're interfering with everyone else), then I'd say that's generally a bad thing for the industry, as Comcast no longer needs to actually run a good business in order to be successful. We've unbalanced the whole system, so to speak.
I understood what you're saying, but did you actually look at the chart? Your example isn't accurate to what's actually happening.
Take two people:
Person 1 makes $30,000, putting them just below the 50% mark. That bracket pays an average of 2.59% of income in taxes ($777)
Person 2 makes $381,000, putting them just within the top 1%. That bracket pays an average of 23.27% of income in taxes ($88,658)
$381,000 is 12.7 times greater than $30,000
$88,658 is 114 times greater than $777.
This also takes into account deductions, as the numbers above are based on actual dollars paid and collected, rather than potential figures.
Yes, but that $777 is a much bigger hit to the $30,000 guy than the $88k would be to the $381k guy. Mr30 may need that money to pay the rent, save for retirement, send his kid to college. Mr380 can easily do those things and still pay that amount in taxes.
Also, the more money you make the more you can invest in things that offer protection from taxes. I'll bet Mr30 has a problem getting a mortgage. Then, Mr380 may marry a woman who makes next to nothing, and file jointly, cutting his bracket in half effectively. There are things that always work out better if you make big bucks.
Warren Buffet says his tax rate is lower than that of his secretary. He should know.
Yes, but that $777 is a much bigger hit to the $30,000 guy than the $88k would be to the $381k guy.
+1
It should be easy to appreciate that the first $40,000 that a family has available to them will be spending itself
without very many, if any, choices in the matter being made aside by that family.
In fact, this is probably just as true of the first $80,000 that another family would have available as well.
But when that $40,000 (or even $80,000) is the limit of what they'll have available?
There are no discretionary purchases getting made.
Yes, but that $777 is a much bigger hit to the $30,000 guy than the $88k would be to the $381k guy. Mr30 may need that money to pay the rent, save for retirement, send his kid to college. Mr380 can easily do those things and still pay that amount in taxes.
Also, the more money you make the more you can invest in things that offer protection from taxes. I'll bet Mr30 has a problem getting a mortgage. Then, Mr380 may marry a woman who makes next to nothing, and file jointly, cutting his bracket in half effectively. There are things that always work out better if you make big bucks.
Warren Buffet says his tax rate is lower than that of his secretary. He should know.
Where then, would you have the cut off? Who gets to make the arbitrary decision of what, exactly, is 'enough' money? At what point do we have to start paying for the services we use? Or should we continue to expect someone else to pay for them?
The biggest problem with taxing Mr380 to oblivion is that he won't put up with it. Someone will come along and offer to let him live and work with less tax burden. And what if Mr30 worked for him? Now, he's Mr 0.
Who gets to make the arbitrary decision of what, exactly, is 'enough' money?
Mr380 has the control now... what decision is he making?
Is it a responsible one? Not especially.
Does it come with costs? Of all sorts.
Quote:
The biggest problem with taxing Mr380 to oblivion is that he won't put up with it.
Mr380 has the largest role in determining that he is Mr380 and paying those taxes...
and not Mr300 or Mr250 and pay less tax instead.
It's his considered business decision (choice) to withdraw that money from the company in compensation to himself
rather than to reinvest in the business with another production line or category of inventory, etc.
If he were to do that... he should be able to employ two or three more Mr30's or maybe even a Mr50...
and by that simple act of Capitalism actually improve everyone's life, spread the tax burden around,
and maybe even foster greater equity as well.
Or is it all really just about hoarding what he can?
And paying the lowest tax he can get away with on that?
Mr380 has the control now... what decision is he making?
Is it a responsible one? Not especially.
Does it come with costs? Of all sorts.
It's likely as responsible a decision as would be made by Mr30. There really isn't a way to make some sort of utopian tax structure, where everybody wins.
Quote:
Mr380 has the largest role in determining that he is Mr380 and paying those taxes...
and not Mr300 or Mr250 and pay less tax instead.
It's his considered business decision (choice) to withdraw that money from the company in compensation to himself
rather than to reinvest in the business with another production line or category of inventory, etc.
If he were to do that... he should be able to employ two or three more Mr30's or maybe even a Mr50...
and by that simple act of Capitalism actually improve everyone's life, spread the tax burden around,
and maybe even foster greater equity as well.
Or is it all really just about hoarding what he can?
And paying the lowest tax he can get away with on that?
I sure hope not.
That's an excellent point, and one I agree wholeheartedly with. I think it also illustrates, better than I did, the point I tried to make earlier in the thread about 'good for business' and 'good for rich people' not necessarily being the same thing.
It's amazing how Canada has resisted much of the global economic meltdown. Canada has also steadily refused to deregulate its banking system. Coincidence? I think not.
-We let lending and commercial banks merge during the early 2000s
-We let the derivatives market go with almost no oversight
These were 'supposed' to be good for business according to free market talking heads like former Senator Phil Gramm, Senator McCain, and a whole bunch of other banking lobbyists. What happened since? Well, that uncontrolled derivatives market has now ballooned into a $600 trillion dollar bubble and commodities for things like food and oil have risen to record highs all over the world. The housing market also tanked. Commercial and lending banks that subsequently merged and that lost billions once the markets crashed needed $700 billion in tax payer bailouts. Meanwhile the common American is left jobless, homeless, and with a huge tax bill to pay for the cleanup of this mess.
America simply won't learn it's lesson until it's banking system has failed enough times. There's really no hope until regulations like Glass Steagall are reinstated, the CFTC actually starts cracking down on the shadow derivatives economy, and corporate malfeasance goes severely punished.
What's good for business in this country isn't good for 'small businesses', the only things being passed in Washington are for huge banks and corporations with much deeper lobbying pockets.
That's an excellent point, and one I agree wholeheartedly with. I think it also illustrates, better than I did, the point I tried to make earlier in the thread about 'good for business' and 'good for rich people' not necessarily being the same thing.
They clearly aren't the same thing.
However... there are some deep corollaries.
But (at present) there is no real penalty for raping the business...
and damned little encouragement to do otherwise.
I could miss something but a good (not speaking of a great) debate starts from definitions. What is "business" and "America" you are talking about in this thread? Those are NOT self-evident terms even if your ears are used to hear them. OK, let's leave definitions of "good" and "evil" out of this thread, but for a meaningful discussions definitions of "Business" and "America" are a must.
but for a meaningful discussions definitions of "Business" and "America" are a must.
America= "We The people" the folks who want and even expect that more perfect Union, with established Justice, insured domestic Tranquility, provided for the common defense, promoted general welfare, secured the Blessings of Liberty etc
Business= the entities which sell them stuff.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
