The robots went on strike for better pensions and better dental.
It was a scam. The money from bail outs built factories in China, Russia and India.
Occupy Wall Street Fail
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
It was a scam. The money from bail outs built factories in China, Russia and India.
Where do you really think all of the tax money comes from GF?... Really?
Tell ya what, you want things to change, how about this: we all pay equally for what we each, individually consume.. What could possibly be better than that?
You consume more, you pay more - that'd really stick it to the fat cats, wouldn't it?
I love how you smugly deny a criticism with a slippery slope.
It was that same magic that made the global warming threads so fun.
Ok OK... One more before Bedtime...Ol' Sayin' Goes ....Everytime You Climb the Ladder, Some A-Hole's Comin Down ...( Think About it ...)
Sorry, Gotta Go... Bedtime For Bonzo ...
Nite Nite ...
Peace , out ...
(4 Real this time ).
Sorry, Gotta Go... Bedtime For Bonzo ...
Nite Nite ...
Peace , out ...
(4 Real this time ).
Last edited:
That kinda formula comes across so rarely.
But I digress... Isn't my suggestion exactly what's called for?.. You know, all of those fat cats paying through the nose for their cognac, Cohibas and luxury yachts?
Fat cats don't have money. They own properties because they ain't makin' any more land.
No idea, but I for one don't look at every rich person as some asshole (even though some are). It's just that there seems to be some unfortunate repercussions to society due to their obscenely successful businesses - even if they got there fair and square.
Did you consider that some of those repercussions are that they pay taxes, both corporate and personal, in addition to employing people on top of spending their money at local business'?
Your "repercussions" are not enough to offset the real damage caused, which is a gross inequality in wealth distribution. Like I said, it is harmful for the economy and that harm extends to those same businesses, by the way.
Every time a corporation makes an obscene profit to the detriment of the consumer, it further widens that gap. While avoiding taxes on the rich already killed things for the U.S. in the last decade, it's the unreasonable profit margin of gouging corporations that have the long-term negative effects.
Look, I know it's not what free marketers want to hear, but when you can sell a product at a 90% markup, there isn't much competition or a free market to begin with.
So we have to either find a way to force new competitors into the market or we play with profit margins a bit. In this way, products and services can be more appropriately priced or consumers have more bargaining power.
You forgot to mention it's a bitch to spend your company money on yourself without paying the same income tax as everyone else but as far as employees go they get billed out at double their pay as per standard contract these days. CPP, WCB EI, Health/Life benefits and admin costs involved that the employer pays adds up quick too.
.. So, it's the fault of the individual or corporation for providing that service or product that generated the profits that lead to the gross inequality?
What's an obscene profit? Further, if the plan is to limit the profitability via a tax component, don't you think that the corps/individuals will respond accordingly? That too will have a negative effect on the consumer in terms of new products made available, R&D and overall taxes payable.
You can't look only at one side on the equation and not the other.
They should be paying those taxes, those aren't really repercussions...the goods they produce use infrastructure we all pay for, and in some cases the goods they ship are much harder on the infrastructure than the use by the average consumer. In some cases the tax payers are even subsidizing the energy use by large commercial users. Part of the social contract is that they pay those taxes forward so the next entrepreneur can benefit as well.
Further to the shared infrastructure, the point Walt failed to grasp is that the huge growth in wealth at the top would not be possible without factory workers, technicians, truck drivers, etc. etc. who make those realized gains by the wealthy possible. The distribution of those gains have not been symmetric at all.
Even if you ignore those points, the growing gap has tangible effects across a range of societal types. Income inequality reduces growth potential. Moderate income inequality actually promotes growth. Exactly what is moderate is debatable, but when the indicators have been massive increases decade on decade on decade, the conclusions are clear about the path such an economy is on and the repercussions.
I was lead to believe that the combined payroll taxes basically adds 30% to the employer's cost. I can't confirm the precise #, but that's the rule of thumb that I've been told.
It's not their fault in the sense that they all employ deceptive practices to reap a large profit. Certainly, if there is very little competition in that market or if the market has very large barriers to entry, then they can get away with obscene profits. But, yes, in the strictest sense - if they provide a service or product that lends itself to an unreasonably large profit, it means that the true value of that particular good or service is not being produced for consumers.
This leads to the natural repercussion of a widening gap of wealth distribution. No one is saying that there should be a small or medium sized gap. But when you have no consumers left to buy products or services, the whole system collapses.
It depends on the industry and the product.
We would have to start with services that begin at obscene markups - like at 90% or so - and of course, we would have to look at the unit cost of that product/service as well.
A reasonable tax rate will not have any negative effect on the business. Certainly if the profit margin covers that tax rate, there would be no effect at all.
The point I tried to make is that capping profitability will have repercussions in terms of the response that a person or corporation makes.
As for the infrastructure issue, considering that the taxes are expressed as a % on multiple levels, (ie Fed, Prov and Muni), that component is addressed in large part.
The Devil's Advocate argument here is that the risk capital and investment into the factories (et al), there is no need for the human component to operate these business'.
One might even suggest that it is the aspiration for these realized gains that create the factory and the jobs that go along.
I don't disagree with the general parameters you state, however, capping/taxing the upside for risk capital without having a legislated floor relative to losses will simply result in that capital moving outside that jurisdiction where it is less expensive in terms of taxes, labour or materials.
Then there are costs no-one really consider.Coverall rental and cleaning, somewhere to take a leak or dump and wash up, costs of cleaning, drinking water, and a myriad of safety equip and Jesus Christ 6 people will go through $30 of toilet paper, paper towel and Gojo a day.
Al Gore Says He‘s ’Cheering on the Occupy Wall Street Movement’
For the past several weeks I have watched and read news about the Occupy Wall Street protests with both interest and admiration. I thought The New York Times hit the nail on the head in an editorial Sunday:
“The message — and the solutions — should be obvious to anyone who has been paying attention since the economy went into a recession that continues to sock the middle class while the rich have recovered and prospered. The problem is that no one in Washington has been listening.”
Al's Journal : Thoughts on Occupy Wall Street
Cool story 1% Al. :lol:
Some great reactions to this clown here:
Al Gore Says He’s Cheering on the Occupy Wall Street Protest Movement | TheBlaze.com
If there was ever a gauge of whether you were on the right side of an issue or not, it’s when Al Gore chimes in to support or detract your cause. If he’s on your side, you’re doomed from the word “go!"
For the past several weeks I have watched and read news about the Occupy Wall Street protests with both interest and admiration. I thought The New York Times hit the nail on the head in an editorial Sunday:
“The message — and the solutions — should be obvious to anyone who has been paying attention since the economy went into a recession that continues to sock the middle class while the rich have recovered and prospered. The problem is that no one in Washington has been listening.”
Al's Journal : Thoughts on Occupy Wall Street
Cool story 1% Al. :lol:
Some great reactions to this clown here:
Al Gore Says He’s Cheering on the Occupy Wall Street Protest Movement | TheBlaze.com
If there was ever a gauge of whether you were on the right side of an issue or not, it’s when Al Gore chimes in to support or detract your cause. If he’s on your side, you’re doomed from the word “go!"
