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.
You are both arguing the same thing, return is affected by taxes, although its not always the 1-1 ratio most folks assume.
No, we're not.
Zero return on investment is, I invest 1 dollar, I get back 1 dollar.
It's not about "slower" returns, the risk is complete loss, where I invest a dollar and it's just gone.
Businesses REQUIRE profits to continue. You cannot continue without change or financial investment for any significant period of time - and that investment has to come from after-tax profits. Thus, tax rates are an INHERENT risk of survival - not just about slowing return.
Wow, so much lack on knowledge wrapped up in such a short post.
First, do you even understand "offshoring" and the tax implications?
Second, do you really not understand a global market? .
Do you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by earthlyfather
Oh look, a occupy sighting. Or is that an even rarer bird, ostentalis for action it's? They are so similar in their look and lack of productivity, it really is hard to tell them apart.
Let's seal the deal and go back to Thomas Aquinas or Aristotle. SMH
No, you don't.
I realize that ignorance is bliss, but here's a history of the highest tax rate. And yes, long after Woodrow Wilson left office, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90% --- while KENNEDY was in office. And when Carter was in office, the tax rate was still 70%.
Our tax code has had more work done on it than a 53 year-old drug-addicted stripper has......and it's aging about as well. At some point, it's going to need to be blown up and started all over again.
In our own country, Hauser's Law(Observation) has held true for 80 years. Look at Office of Management & Budgets own historical tables. No matter what the brackets are, the government gets ~17.5% of GDP in taxes. When it was 91% top marginal, they collected the chunk of GDP as when it was 35%.
OpinYunated has the right call here. Massive tax hikes are not for increasing revenue, they are hamfisted attempts to smooth inequality, or at least make a show of trying to. Beyond that, it's a control/oppression tool to make sure nobody gets too rich. It's stupid, since people like Warren Buffet, along with just about our entire Congress, report very little income and are wealthy based on owned property, interest and capital gains. But that's their way of making they stay rich and nobody gets rich enough to challenge them. The tax code is simply a way of the royalty in our country controlling membership in their ranks.
Given the currency sovereign thing, we don't even need taxes to pay bills. We use taxes to control behavior and engineer societal outcomes. Period. It's a tool of tyranny, nothing more.
It's most certainly about return, but has nothing to do with risk.
Do you get it now?
Risk and reward are intertwined. They're inseparable. You can't say that the return is involved in the discussion but not the risk - that's just silly.
A: "I'm going to invest and make a million dollars!"
B: "How much do you have to invest to make that million?"
A: "That doesn't matter."
WTF?
Maybe you're just not communicating what you mean very clearly, and yes, I did read your post.
Risk and reward are intertwined. They're inseparable. You can't say that the return is involved in the discussion but not the risk - that's just silly.
A: "I'm going to invest and make a million dollars!"
B: "How much do you have to invest to make that million?"
A: "That doesn't matter."
WTF?
Maybe you're just not communicating what you mean very clearly, and yes, I did read your post.
Again, question B - how much - involves return. Risk involves the likelihood of failure, not the amount earned. To me, that's perfectly clear. I don't know what you're not understanding.
Here's a definition: The probability of loss inherent in an organization's operations and environment (such as competition and adverse economic conditions) that may impair its ability to provide returns on investment. Business risk plus the financial risk arising from use of debt (borrowed capital and/or trade credit) equal total corporate risk.
Because he said this: the risk has already been realized by the time the tax collector comes around
Which is incorrect.
Risk is defined as the probability - in this case, of failure to achieve something.
From the perspective of the investor, risk has a direct proportional relationship to tax rates, because returns are all after tax. He's arguing that risk is all in the venture, but RETURN is not part of risk. But RETURN is the ENTIRE reason for investment. What's the investor's risk? Lack of return. The two are completely inseparable.
If taxes are due, a profit has been realized, thus there is no "[l]ack of return."
Quote:
If you want to go deeper, tax rates also play a very high role in risk of the failure (inability to survive, regardless of return) of the venture itself. As growth, innovation, renovation - every aspect of the ability to survive uses after-tax dollars. Thus, tax rates are directly responsible for a sizable portion of the risk of the venture itself - even when not considering the investor's risk.
If you're adding growth into the equation, then yes, your point is correct, but that's another argument.
Quote:
That's why I don't comprehend your or his argument as being anything but noise. It is simply rhetoric aimed attempting to decouple tax and economic performance in people's minds - when they are absolutely impossible to separate - as they are inherently homogeneous.
Incorrect. My point is to clear people's minds. If someone doesn't know the difference between risk and return, they are ill-prepared to discuss economics. Regardless of the insistent claim that "risk and return are intertwined," they are two very distinct ideas. Proper terminology is anything but noise. Indeed, misuse of the terms is noise, which I'm trying to clear up.
Here's a basic example. You live in California, and give a sum of money to BofA. I live in Nevada, and give the same amount of money to BofA, put into the same fund as you. I am not taxed on income from that fund. You are. Yet, the risk is identical.
Last edited by nvxplorer; 12-24-2014 at 01:13 PM..
I'd have no objection to it. Just make the bracket extremely high. It's more of a deterrent than a revenue generator. Anyone over $5 million / year in salary raise their rate to 75%. Also tax capital gains at the same clip. You'll see the wealth "trickle down" real quick.
You always put on display how much someone can say with so little knowledge.
raising taxes doesnt encourage trickle down, it encourages hoarding of wealth.
Why the fk would somoene cash in wealth and let it trickle down at an extremely high tax rate?
Why on earth would a business want to invest in a country that protects its workers? There are dozens of other countries that will allow businesses to pay pitiful wages with no worker protections. Ohhh, also they will be able to rape the country's infrastructure with paying little to nothing in taxes. What business wouldn't want that?
(France is not one of those countries...)
A high tax rate does nothing to protect its workers. One has nothing to do with the other.
Really, what grade are you in?
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.
