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.
Maybe it is time for you to recognize that an extremely imbalanced society in terms of affluence is very dangerous, both economically and socially. No one says that a capitalist system should produce an equality of outcomes, but when things become too distorted - when the top CEO makes 1,000 times the typical worker and the bottom 50% hasn't seen their living standard change much at all since 1970... what do you think will happen?
in the 50s and 60s, CEOs didnt make the money they make now, and understand that a large portion of their compensation package is stock options that they have to hold for a certain period of time before they can sell them. that means in order for them to make money from selling the stock, the stock has to rise in value.
also dont forget that the average CEO now oversees a multinational corporation, not just a national one. take allan mullaly for instance. he oversees not only ford of north america, but ford of europe, australia, china, japan, india, south africa, and brazil. so yes, he makes substantially more than the average factory worker, but then again he is also responsible for far more than the average factory worker.
Quote:
Not everyone can be a Bill Gates. The lower classes need jobs that can allow them to live. That's how it has always worked; the rich would take the risks and provide the jobs and wealth trickles down to the lower classes. The rich get to keep a lot more since they took the risk, and that's fine. But the lower classes used to also get something.
true, not everyone can be bill gates, but read on and i will explain a few things that most people tend to forget.
Quote:
But now the gap has skyrocketed. The rich are keeping an enormous chunk and the jobs...well, they're mostly gone or they're inferior to what used to be there. So you have a sea of lower class people who are now increasingly dependent on the direct transfer of aid from the top few percent - they are basically enslaved. What else do you expect them to do? Again, only a few are cut out to be a Bill Gates. Before, at least these people could really work and earn a real living. Not anymore.
So when you defend this skyrocketing disparity...what else do you expect? This is a vicious cycle! I'm not saying we should do something as naive as just sucking money out of the rich peoples' pockets into the poor's...this just perpetuates and exacerbates this cycle of disparity. I'm saying that fundamentally, this system has gotten way out of balance. It's not that taxes on the rich need to be raised; it's that jobs and incomes need to somehow come back for the rest of America.
again, read further on and i will clue you into somethings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by simetime
Please give examples of someone going from proverty to being rich without a inheritance, lottery, or self promotion (athletics/entertainment). Many of the people that you mentioned had enough money to invest which is something that the poor does not. BTW, many people became rich during the 80's were b/c of the dot.com rage (see Mark Cuban/Bill Gates) and a hell of alot of drug dealers. These new millionaires came about not because of tax breaks or anything else the government had an active hand in. Please explain the influx of the new milionaires and the destruction of the middle class today? Could it be that they are related (business or by blood) and are just continuing to feed off the political tit of the government?
alright then lets start with harlan sanders. he started a small restaurant out of his own living room. he made a decent living for a while, until the freeway bypassed the town he lived in and his business went away. did he quit? heck no. he got into his beat up old station wagon, and drove across country looking for people who would buy into his company as franchise owners. and he didnt have much money to do this road trip either.
or lets talk about howard johnson shall we? he started out working in the restaurant industry, and when the restaurant he worked at went up for sale, he went to the bank and bought the company. for a while he made money, but when the slow season hit, he couldnt pay the bank loan, and the bank repossessed the company. he was able however to convince the bank to let him run the company while they looked for a buyer. when the season hit again, he made enough money to pay the back payments, so the bank let him have the company back. this cycle went on for a few years until one slow season a convention came to town, and mr johnson made enough money during that time that he didnt lose the business to the bank. from that point on he never looked back. you might remember the howard johnson hotels and motels, we mr johnson saw a business opportunity when the highway system was being built, and he took a huge gamble and built some hotels along the new highways. the rest is history.
and how about steve jobs? he started apple in his garage along with a couple of other geeks that didnt have much money.
dave thomas started with little money and built the wendys chain.
ray croc convinced the mcdonald brothers to let him buy into their little restaurant, and turned that into one of the largest corporations in the world.
sam walton started with a five and dime store, and drove a beat up old pick up truck, and built not only walmart, but sam club as well.
the history of business in this country is rife with people who stood up and took a big risk, and made something of themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cindy_Jole
Corporate America can cut out the "creative economics" and actually pay taxes on their billion dollar profits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cindy_Jole
Last year GE paid no taxes on their 5 billion in profits. They also got billions in tax credits. What does that have to do with having middle and lower income customers?
thank obama for giving GE a return on their investment of getting obama elected to office.
Quote:
Originally Posted by simetime
They are also responsible for the deployment of American men and women to foriegn lands in order to destablize governments and finanace covert wars overseas. They are aslo responsible providing more jobs overseas to maximize their profits while avoiding their fair share of taxes. They are partially responsible for the fragmentation of this country through the finanicing of partial truths and down right lies through the media in order to promote their own agendas.
really? and here i thought only the president could send troops into battle. as for outsourcing jobs, you need look no further than congress and the rules and regulations they place on business, and the unions for what they do to business, for the reasons why big business is going overseas to more business friendly environments. this is the making of the progressives in this country who are antibusiness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by simetime
Truthfully, how do you think money is circulated? The poor and middle class SPEND more then the rich on a variety of items that nine times out of ten that they don't need. A perfect example is Air Jordan tennis shoes
BINGO!!!!!!! when the poor buy something, they do it to have things. when the rich buy something, they tend to do it to make money. take those air jordans for instance. the poor and middle class people are going to buy those things one or two pair at a time, and use them until they are no good. the rich on the other hand are going to buy 200 pair, and sell them at a profit, then they reinvest that profit into other things that will make them money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
Perfect example, hedge fund managers.
They are allowed to pay the capital gains tax rate of 18% on their income taxes, even when making millions or billions.
really? very few hedge fund managers really make more than a few hundred thousand a year, you do know that dont you? and it is NOT classed as income but rather capital gains from investments. and in order to encourage investment, the capital gains tax is kept fairly low.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox Terrier
The point of this thread was to find out what the wealthy and wealthy corporations can do in our country's time of need. They certainly can CHOOSE to take lower profits if they wanted to aid the nation.
I doubt very much that it will cause them go hungry for even a millisecond.
the reason corporations raise prices when you raise their taxes, is to maintain liquidity in case the economy goes south, due to normal business cycles, so they can weather the lean times with a minimum of disruption to their company finances. that means that people tend to stay employed during short business downturn cycles. remember that if a business does not make money, then it eventually goes out of business, and then where are the jobs going to come from?
as for the wealthy, most of them are business owners, and as such they are trying to hold onto their business.
do you know the difference between what a rich person does and what a poor person does to make money?
the poor person goes out and works his 40 hours per week, then goes home and forgets work.
the rich person however works 120 hours per week, and when they go home, they usually take work home with them.
the poor person buys things to own them.
the rich person buys things to make money from them.
the poor person does not take advantage of opportunities laid out in front of them
the rich person does take advantage of every opportunity they can.
Stock is neither an asset nor liability to a company, it is an equity investment that represents part ownership.
Another reason for you not to be my realtor..
Chapter 1 of elementary accounting
Principles of Accounting Chapter 1 (http://www.principlesofaccounting.com/chapter%201.htm - broken link)
Note where the stockholders equity gets reported on a balance sheet? On the liability side, not the asset side.
And since its difficult for you to comprehend, lets dumb it down
Person A has a company, who then sells stocks to the public.
Person A receives payment, corporation issues stock, public receives stock
In order for person A to regain the company, they must rebuy the stock sold by taking cash out of their pocket. This need to expense cash is what makes it a liability.
Someone buying the "equity" means that the someone else sold it. Its a liability to the corporation, its an asset to those who buy it. Thats why stock owners normally receive zero in bankruptcy court http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/bankrupt.htm The bankruptcy court may determine that stockholders don't get anything because the debtor is insolvent. (A debtor's solvency is determined by the difference between the value of its assets and its liabilities.) If the company's liabilities are greater than its assets, your stock may be worthless.
Yet again I must question the education system in america because people dont know this. Let me guess, you think a home is an asset and not a liability as well?
I'm a little confused (or you are). Are you saying that someone can have no income but be wealthy at the same time?
Isnt an inheritance an example of such a scenario where this is true?
How about other scenarios, like the one which is how I make my living. Last year I bought a $4M property, and 100% of the rental income goes towards the mortgages. Do I have income? Not taxable because there is no profit, but surely you agree that owning tens of millions of dollars worth of property, especially after the mortgages get paid off would be "wealth" correct? Surely the banks believe its wealth, because I borrow against them yearly to substain a living.. (borrowed money isnt taxable so its cheaper to pay the 2.99% interest I pay than it is to take the "profits" and become subject to taxable liabilities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox Terrier
Yes, I suppose some can, and they sure know how to work the system. Live off the interest on your 'wealth' and watch the rest of the country go to crap. Maybe for the uber wealthy interest income is not taxable, unlike for the rest of us.
Interest is income, and yes its taxable. For those with who are substantially wealthy, you dont need interest to live off of. You can re-invest 100% of your "interest" and pay no taxes, while simply living off cash reserves in the bank.
Another reason for you not to be my realtor..
Chapter 1 of elementary accounting
Principles of Accounting Chapter 1 (http://www.principlesofaccounting.com/chapter%201.htm - broken link)
Note where the stockholders equity gets reported on a balance sheet? On the liability side, not the asset side.
And since its difficult for you to comprehend, lets dumb it down
Person A has a company, who then sells stocks to the public.
Person A receives payment, corporation issues stock, public receives stock
In order for person A to regain the company, they must rebuy the stock sold by taking cash out of their pocket. This need to expense cash is what makes it a liability.
Someone buying the "equity" means that the someone else sold it. Its a liability to the corporation, its an asset to those who buy it. Thats why stock owners normally receive zero in bankruptcy court Corporate Bankruptcy The bankruptcy court may determine that stockholders don't get anything because the debtor is insolvent. (A debtor's solvency is determined by the difference between the value of its assets and its liabilities.) If the company's liabilities are greater than its assets, your stock may be worthless.
Yet again I must question the education system in america because people dont know this. Let me guess, you think a home is an asset and not a liability as well?
I was with you right up until that last sentence. Of course a house is an asset. There may be liabilities attached to it, such as a mortgage, and taxes, but the house itself and the land on which it sits are certainly assets.
Look at how many BILLIONARIES that have been running for office lately.
Look at how Wall Street, the insurance industry, the pharma industry, the oil and natural gas industry, the telecom industry, the agrobusiness industry, all have HUGE influnence in Washington.
Seriously, you look at who's donating to campaigns of BOTH parties, it's a who's who of corporate America!
To say that the wealthy and well-connected have too little influence in Washington and the state governments and local governments is insane at best, deliberatey deceitful at worst.
still trying to find a liberal who will explain how a corporation can have its taxes raised without that additional cost being passed along to its customers.
We already know you think the poor/middle class should sacrafice by giving up some benefits to social programs such as social security, medicare, medicaid, pell grants, heating assistance, housing assistance, etc.
In what ways should the rich and corporate america contribute?
They've already contributed. Lessening the suffering on the job creators creates more jobs and we all suffer less. Then the poor/middle class would not be sacrificing to give up government handouts but would instead have jobs to create their own wealth.
have any of the "tax the corporatoin" people explained how we can tax a company without that company passing the cost along to their customers?
Well according to the raging mad crowd..the companies are "hoarding cash" and should just absorb it.
Someone has to pay and it isn't going to be them.
"Let someone else pay" is the mantra.
Well you know what..we ran out of "someone elses" to pay.
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.
