Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   U.S. Employers have more job openings than at any other time in nearly five years, they are in no hurry to fill them. We're living in a fear-based environment right now, thanks Obama   ( finance.yahoo.com) divider line
    More: Sad, United States, job opening, staffing firm, environmentalisms, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago  
•       •       •

3178 clicks; posted to Business » on 10 Apr 2013 at 4:11 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



293 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-04-11 04:19:24 PM  

MFK: o5iiawah: And you have proof the rich are hoarding this money? You do know that rich people go broke, right? And that 70-80% of people who are worth over a $1m inherited little to no wealth from their parents and are first-generation.

To suggest that people aim to get rich to they can lock their money in a drawer and do nothing with it, living like a pauper to ensure nobody gets their hand on it or can even earn it through a business transaction is the highest order of retardation.

Jesus, dude. This took less than 2 seconds to find on google and it's recent news.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/23/business/la-fi-mo-tax-havens -2 0120723


So the wealthy put their money in tax havens to avoid high tax rates.
The solution is obviously to raise taxes.

Spending has never been higher in this country.  The personal savings rate is -1.3%.  We run trillion dollar deficits to run public assitance and stimulus programs for the economy.  If public spending was the answer, 5 years on, it would be working now.
 
2013-04-11 05:02:17 PM  

Ishkur: poor man pays 100% of his wealth/time/labor back into the system


No he doesn't.  The poor man drains the system.  He lives off the system.  he relies on the system for his next meal.  The "system" is only the aggregate of what goes in, minus what goes out. How can a man who puts nothing in be a hero when a man who puts in 20-40% of his income is a bum?

Before you go accusing wealthy people of not supporting infrastructure, or whatever boneheaded argument you're pushing, how many roads, bridges and battleships do we have on account of the poor man, taking $15-30k out of the system each year?  How many poor men eat because of the $10m in taxes paid by hedge fund managers.

I guess I'll never understand the way progressive economists seem to think.  The only litmus test for their knowledge is the acceptance of like-minded individuals since every time this stimulus-based demand-driven economy has been tried, it has failed miserably.
 
2013-04-11 05:03:10 PM  

o5iiawah: Ishkur: The rich man is the moocher, sponging off the system that gives him privilege and position and doesn't pay it forward. The poor man spends all of his paycheck, making everyone around him wealthy.

Holy crap that has to be the funniest thing I've ever read on fark.  The top 1% foot 40% of the tax bill in this country.  Lies, lies lies...does it hurt a little to tell them?So let me get this straight - a person who makes $500,000/yr and pays half of that in taxes, putting $250k into state and local coffers is a dirtbag while the person who doesn't work and merely consumes and demands support from others is a hero.  You could write policy you're so effing smart.


Although the 1%/40% might be hyperbolic, other than that great post.  The scary part is he (and many other neo-Marxists around here) actually believe that the rich guy is mooching, and the poor guy spending all the assistance he gets from government programs is helping.
 
2013-04-11 05:15:57 PM  
Now, some folks just aren't satisfied with their place here at Fink Industries. But I tell you, there's a purpose for all living things. Would the pharaohs of Egypt have been able to stand at the top of their pyramids if the Israelites had not made their bricks? Would the captains of industry have been able to ride the rails had not the Chinamen laid the track for them? So I say, chin up! History is built on the backs of men like you!
 
2013-04-11 05:21:13 PM  

o5iiawah: You were trying to push some lie that if businesses are given a tax holiday, they will simply raise prices and eat the profit for themselves.


Oh, you're still going over that butthurt. No, I didn't say they would raise prices. YOU said they would lower prices if a tax burden is removed. I asked you to provide ONE example where that's occurred and you have yet to do so.

You lost that argument. Stop bringing it up.

o5iiawah: The value a CEO brings to a company is assigned by the owners of the company who hire the CEO to steer the company in a profitable direction. It is whatever the market will bear.


Stop dodging the farking question: DOES A CEO WORK 420 TIMES HARDER THAN A FLOOR WORKER? Yes or no.

o5iiawah: Some of the oldest laws ever to have existed concerned property and possessions.


No, they concern human recognition, acknowledgement and acceptance of those laws. That's what all laws are: Agreements between people. You cannot have laws (and thereby property/ownership/rights/etc) if no one recognizes those laws.

o5iiawah: The top 1% foot 40% of the tax bill in this country.


Yeah, it's too disproportionate. They should be paying the amount of taxes commensurate with their income. Sooooo... closer to 80%.

o5iiawah: So let me get this straight -


No, you haven't gotten it straight. You never get anything straight. Your reading comprehension is functionally broken.

Go back and read it again.
 
2013-04-11 05:23:46 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Assets in hedge funds, corporate bonds or equity investments, etc. all help the economy just as much as bank loans. What do you think corporate bond proceeds are used for? What do you think companies do with money raised in equity issuances? Do you think it just disappears?


No, it just gets moved laterally. It's just bouncing around between various high finance portfolios right now. This is the failure of Reaganomics. None of it trickles down. You give the rich more money, they just spend it on each other. The rest of the economy is grinding down to a halt because of this.

I explained this already. Why are you so stupid?
 
2013-04-11 05:28:02 PM  

o5iiawah: The poor man drains the system. He lives off the system. he relies on the system for his next meal. The "system" is only the aggregate of what goes in, minus what goes out. How can a man who puts nothing in be a hero when a man who puts in 20-40% of his income is a bum?


He doesn't put nothing in, he puts 100% in. Everything that you give him, he gives back. He is the perfect positive feedback mechanism.

If you give a billion dollar stimulus to 10 rich people ($100 million each), they won't spend all of it and not all at once, and when they do they'll just invest it in each other's companies and cause a financial bubble (and we've had three in the last thirty years that affirm this assertion -- supply side does not work). Great for accounting ledgers but it doesn't really help the economy or anyone's standard of living (not even them) because none of it actually gets into general circulation.

You give a billion dollar stimulus to 100 million working class people ($10 each), they're going to spend it on lunch. In one day, the money is instantly back into the system, helping everyone.

This is why the best stimulus' plans are always for the poor.
 
2013-04-11 05:53:01 PM  

Ishkur: Debeo Summa Credo: Assets in hedge funds, corporate bonds or equity investments, etc. all help the economy just as much as bank loans. What do you think corporate bond proceeds are used for? What do you think companies do with money raised in equity issuances? Do you think it just disappears?

No, it just gets moved laterally. It's just bouncing around between various high finance portfolios right now. This is the failure of Reaganomics. None of it trickles down. You give the rich more money, they just spend it on each other. The rest of the economy is grinding down to a halt because of this.

I explained this already. Why are you so stupid?


What do you mean 'bounced around'.   If I buy a stock from investor A, he now has cash.  He can use it for consumption (which you seem to be in favor of) or make another investment.  If he invests in newly issued bonds or equity, that is money used by the corporation to invest in new plants, expansion, advertising, hiring more workers, whatever.  That puts the money back into the economy.  If he makes a secondary market purchase, it goes to investor B, and the process starts over again. He either consumes, lends, or invests.  Money just doesn't disappear from the system.

It astounds me that there are so many farkers who don't understand this.
 
2013-04-11 05:56:52 PM  

Ishkur: o5iiawah: The poor man drains the system. He lives off the system. he relies on the system for his next meal. The "system" is only the aggregate of what goes in, minus what goes out. How can a man who puts nothing in be a hero when a man who puts in 20-40% of his income is a bum?

He doesn't put nothing in, he puts 100% in. Everything that you give him, he gives back. He is the perfect positive feedback mechanism.

If you give a billion dollar stimulus to 10 rich people ($100 million each), they won't spend all of it and not all at once, and when they do they'll just invest it in each other's companies and cause a financial bubble (and we've had three in the last thirty years that affirm this assertion -- supply side does not work). Great for accounting ledgers but it doesn't really help the economy or anyone's standard of living (not even them) because none of it actually gets into general circulation.

You give a billion dollar stimulus to 100 million working class people ($10 each), they're going to spend it on lunch. In one day, the money is instantly back into the system, helping everyone.

This is why the best stimulus' plans are always for the poor.


They spend it on $10 worth of food (a non-productive resource) and turn it into shiat.  The $10 each goes to farmers/fast food workers/food delivery truck drivers/whatever, who then do what they want with it.  You give the $1 billion to an investor, it goes into loans, investments (productive resources), what have you.   The cash goes to borrowers or businesses who have a use for it.  They spend it, injecting it into the economy once again.

Cash just doesn't dissappear like some magic trick.  Do you enjoy embarrassing yourself over and over like this?
 
2013-04-11 06:10:03 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: If he makes a secondary market purchase, it goes to investor B, and the process starts over again.


That's the trick. It never leaves the hands of investors, effectively removed from the rest of the economy. and we have tax structures and investment vehicles that make this more lucrative than actually spending the money.

It doesn't get spent on loans, productive resources, and what have you. It doesn't get injected into the economy once again. That's the whole problem. At least the $10 for lunch is actually getting spent.

But go ahead, keep pretending people are stupid for describing what has been happening right in front of them for decades at a time.
 
2013-04-11 06:21:58 PM  

Ishkur: You lost that argument. Stop bringing it up.


No, you keep ignoring that when states enact sales tax holidays, people shop because prices are lower.  No matter how many times I post that, you call me a "Liar" or put forth some other 2nd grade response.  You called me out with a copy-pasta of lies you're spreading about me since you're not intelligent enough to actually debate facts.

Ishkur: DOES A CEO WORK 420 TIMES HARDER THAN A FLOOR WORKER? Yes or no.


"Hard work" is not the metric by which we measure compensation in the marketplace.  We measure wages by what value that employee brings to the market.  I could answer yes, or no.  Each is irrelevant since your frame of reference is a false assumption on how wages are earned.

Ishkur: No, you haven't gotten it straight. You never get anything straight. Your reading comprehension is functionally broken.


No, you asserted that a poor man who consumes everything and demands resources from the public treasury is of more value to the economy than a millionaire who is paying less than 80% of his income in taxes.  I present...

Ishkur: Because I can tell you easily that the poor man pays 100% of his wealth/time/labor back into the system and the rich man does not. The rich man is the moocher, sponging off the system that gives him privilege and position and doesn't pay it forward.


Ishkur: No, they concern human recognition, acknowledgement and acceptance of those laws.


You arent understanding something (no surprise here.) the acceptance of laws or who recognizes them has no relevance on why they were passed in the first place - which is to protect life, family and property.  If a man stole food from another man, there was punishment.  The thief could reject the law all he wanted, he was still subject to it if he was in the jurisdiction of the law.  When in rome...

Ishkur: No, it just gets moved laterally. It's just bouncing around between various high finance portfolios right now.


Yeah, you have no idea how economics works.  Just stop.
Nobody gets rich from bouncing money around.  If money goes somewhere, it comes from somewhere.  If what you said were true than no millionaire would go broke and nobody could ever become one.  This "I'll transfer you $400,000 and you transfer it back to me, then we'll have $800,000 between us" scheme is not how it works.  you keep saying that you are explaining things but they are your own retarded opinions which arent rooted in a shred of fact or modern observation.

Ishkur: If you give a billion dollar stimulus to 10 rich people ($100 million each), they won't spend all of it and not all at once, and when they do they'll just invest it in each other's companies and cause a financial bubble (and we've had three in the last thirty years that affirm this assertion -- supply side does not work). Great for accounting ledgers but it doesn't really help the economy or anyone's standard of living (not even them) because none of it actually gets into general circulation.

You give a billion dollar stimulus to 100 million working class people ($10 each), they're going to spend it on lunch. In one day, the money is instantly back into the system, helping everyone.

This is why the best stimulus' plans are always for the poor.


Where did you get your $100Bn stimulus from?  You took it away from 100 million working class people, who now each dont have $10 to spend on lunch.
Congratulations.  You are retarded.  Zero-Sum has nothing to do with this.  The benefits of giving a $100Bn stimulus is offset by the resulting taxation you levied on the people you took it from.
 
2013-04-11 06:27:13 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: That's the trick. It never leaves the hands of investors, effectively removed from the rest of the economy. and we have tax structures and investment vehicles that make this more lucrative than actually spending the money.

It doesn't get spent on loans, productive resources, and what have you. It doesn't get injected into the economy once again. That's the whole problem. At least the $10 for lunch is actually getting spent.


Sounds like you've just made a great argument for ending QE, too big to fail and lowering corporate tax and capital gains rates to keep money in the private economy and forcing banks to make money the old fashioned way, loaning to people who have ideas for generating capital
 
2013-04-11 06:33:25 PM  

o5iiawah: Sounds like you've just made a great argument for ending QE, too big to fail


Following....

o5iiawah: and lowering corporate tax and capital gains rates to keep money in the private economy


And you lost me. Low corporate taxes and capital gains rates are exactly the things that keep money uselessly bouncing around inflated investments.

o5iiawah: and forcing banks to make money the old fashioned way, loaning to people who have ideas for generating capital


So, 2 out of 3. Not bad for you, since your usual score is -5 out of 3.
 
2013-04-11 06:35:19 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Money just doesn't disappear from the system.


He didn't say it disappeared from the system.  The point was that it never trickles down to the rest of the economy.  Why are you so stupid?

o5iiawah: No, you asserted that a poor man who consumes everything and demands resources from the public treasury is of more value to the economy than a millionaire who is paying less than 80% of his income in taxes. I present...


Nobody is paying just under 80% of their income in taxes.  Please stop with the hyperbole but then again that's all you've got.
 
2013-04-11 06:36:12 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Debeo Summa Credo: If he makes a secondary market purchase, it goes to investor B, and the process starts over again.

That's the trick. It never leaves the hands of investors, effectively removed from the rest of the economy. and we have tax structures and investment vehicles that make this more lucrative than actually spending the money.

It doesn't get spent on loans, productive resources, and what have you. It doesn't get injected into the economy once again. That's the whole problem. At least the $10 for lunch is actually getting spent.

But go ahead, keep pretending people are stupid for describing what has been happening right in front of them for decades at a time.


Dude, you are stupid for not understanding what you think you've been seeing.  If you put money in your 401k or a regular mutual fund, do you really think that money disappears from the economy forever?  What happens to it?
 
2013-04-11 06:39:39 PM  

Fart_Machine: Debeo Summa Credo: Money just doesn't disappear from the system.

He didn't say it disappeared from the system.  The point was that it never trickles down to the rest of the economy.  Why are you so stupid?

o5iiawah: No, you asserted that a poor man who consumes everything and demands resources from the public treasury is of more value to the economy than a millionaire who is paying less than 80% of his income in taxes. I present...

Nobody is paying just under 80% of their income in taxes.  Please stop with the hyperbole but then again that's all you've got.


Of course it does.  Where does it go?  Follow it from the investors pocket onward....any money that doesn't disappear from the system has to go into the economy.
 
2013-04-11 06:39:53 PM  

o5iiawah: So the wealthy put their money in tax havens to avoid high tax rates.
The solution is obviously to raise taxes.


Actually the solution would be to crack down on tax havens.  But nice dodge showing you were wrong, again.
 
2013-04-11 06:42:48 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: If you put money in your 401k or a regular mutual fund, do you really think that money disappears from the economy forever?


You're a farking moron if you think the ultrarich are keeping their money in a farking 401K and they're going to get it back out when they farking retire.
 
2013-04-11 06:42:51 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: And you lost me. Low corporate taxes and capital gains rates are exactly the things that keep money uselessly bouncing around inflated investments.


First off, corporations dont pay taxes, they just build the cost of the taxes into the goods and services.  Exxon doesn't pay a penny of tax. They build it into the cost of a gallon of gas and you pay it.  Lowering that would have a benefit on consumers.  More corporate profits (and perhaps a tax grace if the profits were reinvested) would allow for hiring and expansion.

And a lowering of tax rates might actually bring home expatriated investments and savings.  Would you rather a 35% tax rate that nobody pays or a 10-15% tax rate that people are happy to pay to enjoy the stability offered by a US-based bank that has an honest policeman patrolling out front?  you have to remember that in Ike's day, when tax rates were 90%, there were less than 100 people who actually paid that amount.

Dude, I drive to Delaware to save $40 on big purchases (including booze) and I am a working stiff like most everyone.  You think a person with millions (and means) is just going to buck up and pay the 80% rate that your buddy Ishtur wants him to pay?
 
2013-04-11 06:46:22 PM  

Fart_Machine: Nobody is paying just under 80% of their income in taxes.  Please stop with the hyperbole but then again that's all you've got.


Ishkur wants people paying 80%.  his words - not mine.

Ishkur: Yeah, it's too disproportionate. They should be paying the amount of taxes commensurate with their income. Sooooo... closer to 80%.



Fart_Machine: Actually the solution would be to crack down on tax havens.  But nice dodge showing you were wrong, again


What jurisdiction does the US have over a Cayman bank?  You're also making a good argument for a fair, or flat tax, which affects all people equally.  You might find that people like warren buffett, Jeff immelt and Facebook might actually be paying the taxes they've been begging for.
 
2013-04-11 06:47:02 PM  
o5iiawah: First off, corporations dont pay taxes, they just build the cost of the taxes into the goods and services. Exxon doesn't pay a penny of tax. They build it into the cost of a gallon of gas and you pay it. Lowering that would have a benefit on consumers. More corporate profits (and perhaps a tax grace if the profits were reinvested) would allow for hiring and expansion.

And a lowering of tax rates might actually bring home expatriated investments and savings. Would you rather a 35% tax rate that nobody pays or a 10-15% tax rate that people are happy to pay to enjoy the stability offered by a US-based bank that has an honest policeman patrolling out front? you have to remember that in Ike's day, when tax rates were 90%, there were less than 100 people who actually paid that amount.

Dude, I drive to Delaware to save $40 on big purchases (including booze) and I am a working stiff like most everyone. You think a person with millions (and means) is just going to buck up and pay the 80% rate that your buddy Ishtur wants him to pay?
Derp.

FTFY.
There isn't a single thing you've said there that isn't total fantasy or proven patently wrong by reality.
 
2013-04-11 06:48:31 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Debeo Summa Credo: If you put money in your 401k or a regular mutual fund, do you really think that money disappears from the economy forever?

You're a farking moron if you think the ultrarich are keeping their money in a farking 401K and they're going to get it back out when they farking retire.


I was trying to dumb it down for you.  Follow your 401k  to see where the money goes and ends up.  That's the same path that the ultrarich's investments take when they make bond or equity investments.

Seriously, you and Fart machine and Ishkur, get together and trace out where you think money goes when it is invested by a rich person.  Follow it from the rich person, to whomever receives it, and what they do with it, and so on.  If I give you a dollar, you have a dollar.  The dollar doesn't disappear.  Same concept with rich people and $100m dollars, you dolt.
 
2013-04-11 06:49:16 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Fart_Machine: Debeo Summa Credo: Money just doesn't disappear from the system.

He didn't say it disappeared from the system.  The point was that it never trickles down to the rest of the economy.  Why are you so stupid?

o5iiawah: No, you asserted that a poor man who consumes everything and demands resources from the public treasury is of more value to the economy than a millionaire who is paying less than 80% of his income in taxes. I present...

Nobody is paying just under 80% of their income in taxes.  Please stop with the hyperbole but then again that's all you've got.

Of course it does.  Where does it go?  Follow it from the investors pocket onward....any money that doesn't disappear from the system has to go into the economy.


Except it doesn't reach the middle class or poor.  That's the point.  Nobody said the money disappeared from the system.
 
2013-04-11 06:52:30 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: FTFY.
There isn't a single thing you've said there that isn't total fantasy or proven patently wrong by reality.


Wait, so corporations dont build taxes into the price of their goods?  Well then.  you're a goddamn genius.

just keep saying derp...adults are talking.
 
2013-04-11 06:52:35 PM  

o5iiawah: What jurisdiction does the US have over a Cayman bank?


Nothing but we do have some jurisdiction over the companies that put the money there.

o5iiawah: You're also making a good argument for a fair, or flat tax, which affects all people equally.


Except it doesn't, even according to the advocates of both of those systems.
 
2013-04-11 06:54:14 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: The dollar doesn't disappear.


No one ever said it did. Just that the dollar bouncing around investment after investment can have the same effect as being removed from the rest of the economy. It doesn't trickle down, it doesn't filter back up, it just bounces around inflating investments without ever being used to actually produce anything of value.
 
2013-04-11 06:55:15 PM  

o5iiawah: Wait, so corporations dont build taxes into the price of their goods?


There is only so much of the tax they can include in the price before people shop elsewhere.

Debeo Summa Credo: The dollar doesn't disappear.


Nobody said that.  You dolt!
 
2013-04-11 06:57:55 PM  

o5iiawah: Derp, so corporations dont build taxes into the price of their goods?


They charge what the market will bear. It is not as simple as tacking on the tax to the price tag. An adult would know this.
 
2013-04-11 07:03:48 PM  

Fart_Machine: Except it doesn't reach the middle class or poor.  That's the point.  Nobody said the money disappeared from the system.


In other words, when rich people go on vacation, get their car serviced, their house worked on, or go out to eat, they are waited on by other millionaires who are greedily keeping it all for themselves.  I caught a glimpse of the millionaire's colony once before a security guard (also a millionaire) ushered me away
 
2013-04-11 07:08:37 PM  

o5iiawah: Fart_Machine: Except it doesn't reach the middle class or poor.  That's the point.  Nobody said the money disappeared from the system.

In other words, when rich people go on vacation, get their car serviced, their house worked on, or go out to eat, they are waited on by other millionaires who are greedily keeping it all for themselves.  I caught a glimpse of the millionaire's colony once before a security guard (also a millionaire) ushered me away


Yes, that's exactly what we were talking about.  Now go run outside and play.
 
2013-04-11 07:09:39 PM  

o5iiawah: In other words, when rich people go on vacation, get their car serviced, their house worked on, or go out to eat, they are waited on by other millionaires who are greedily keeping it all for themselves. I caught a glimpse of the millionaire's colony once before a security guard (also a millionaire) ushered me away


farking christ...
 
2013-04-11 07:10:14 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: o5iiawah: Derp, so corporations dont build taxes into the price of their goods?

They charge what the market will bear. It is not as simple as tacking on the tax to the price tag. An adult would know this.


and the retail cost of the product is a function of the businesses cost to produce the product. I would think that an adult would know that, but this is fark.
Expansion, R&D, marketing, sales, etc are all costs than can be adjusted to meet the market.  If a business is required to pay a tax, it has to pay that tax and it does so by building the cost of the tax into the price of the goods.

Rewind back to the gas surge of 2006-7 ish.  Why did food prices go up when gas went up?  Well the farmer paid the tax when he fueled his tractor, so he increased the price of corn.  The distributor who picked up the corn paid a premium price for it and thus hard to charge the packer more since the distributor's trucks needed to be fueled.  The packer had to charge the retail store more for the corn since it had absorbed all the costs and the store had to pass the cost onto the consumer.

You can fight it all you want.  This is how pricing and taxation works.  Crack an econ book if you think I am a liar.
 
2013-04-11 07:11:28 PM  

Fart_Machine: o5iiawah: Fart_Machine: Except it doesn't reach the middle class or poor.  That's the point.  Nobody said the money disappeared from the system.

In other words, when rich people go on vacation, get their car serviced, their house worked on, or go out to eat, they are waited on by other millionaires who are greedily keeping it all for themselves.  I caught a glimpse of the millionaire's colony once before a security guard (also a millionaire) ushered me away

Yes, that's exactly what we were talking about.  Now go run outside and play.


You're the one suggesting there's some cabal of uber rich and that society doesn't benefit by the fact that they run businesses, capitalize banks or invest in corporations.
 
2013-04-11 07:22:44 PM  

o5iiawah: You're the one suggesting there's some cabal of uber rich and that society doesn't benefit by the fact that they run businesses, capitalize banks or invest in corporations.


I'm saying that much of their money isn't tied up in investments that will circulate money throughout the economy.  You're pitching a cornfield full of strawmen.

o5iiawah: If a business is required to pay a tax, it has to pay that tax and it does so by building the cost of the tax into the price of the goods.


And if the price is too high then people will buy less of that product which is why taxes are never completely absorbed by the consumer.  This is pretty basic stuff.
 
2013-04-11 07:44:36 PM  

o5iiawah: Sergeant Grumbles: And you lost me. Low corporate taxes and capital gains rates are exactly the things that keep money uselessly bouncing around inflated investments.

First off, corporations dont pay taxes, they just build the cost of the taxes into the goods and services.  Exxon doesn't pay a penny of tax. They build it into the cost of a gallon of gas and you pay it.  Lowering that would have a benefit on consumers.  More corporate profits (and perhaps a tax grace if the profits were reinvested) would allow for hiring and expansion.


imgs.xkcd.comView Full Size
 
2013-04-11 07:50:28 PM  
Wow, so many dumb arguments in this thread I'm having a hard time choosing a side.
 
2013-04-11 08:27:56 PM  

dumbobruni: o5iiawah: Sergeant Grumbles: And you lost me. Low corporate taxes and capital gains rates are exactly the things that keep money uselessly bouncing around inflated investments.

First off, corporations dont pay taxes, they just build the cost of the taxes into the goods and services.  Exxon doesn't pay a penny of tax. They build it into the cost of a gallon of gas and you pay it.  Lowering that would have a benefit on consumers.  More corporate profits (and perhaps a tax grace if the profits were reinvested) would allow for hiring and expansion.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 300x300]


No citation needed. This is taught on the second day of any micro-economics class. If it helps, relevant textbooks are filled with colorful pictures and bar charts as visual aids. You know, if you're not a "reader".
 
2013-04-11 08:45:26 PM  

Lawyers With Nukes: dumbobruni: o5iiawah: Sergeant Grumbles: And you lost me. Low corporate taxes and capital gains rates are exactly the things that keep money uselessly bouncing around inflated investments.

First off, corporations dont pay taxes, they just build the cost of the taxes into the goods and services.  Exxon doesn't pay a penny of tax. They build it into the cost of a gallon of gas and you pay it.  Lowering that would have a benefit on consumers.  More corporate profits (and perhaps a tax grace if the profits were reinvested) would allow for hiring and expansion.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 300x300]

No citation needed. This is taught on the second day of any micro-economics class. If it helps, relevant textbooks are filled with colorful pictures and bar charts as visual aids. You know, if you're not a "reader".


I guess the chapter on price elasticity didn't have enough pictures for you.
 
2013-04-11 08:52:58 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Debeo Summa Credo: The dollar doesn't disappear.

No one ever said it did. Just that the dollar bouncing around investment after investment can have the same effect as being removed from the rest of the economy. It doesn't trickle down, it doesn't filter back up, it just bounces around inflating investments without ever being used to actually produce anything of value.


It doesn't "bounce around from investment to investment". That's the farking point. You idiots think rich guys are just trading dollar bills, but you dont realize that every dollar invested has to be used to purchase something tangible. Rich guy A might buy a stock from rich guy B, and so forth, but one of those investors has to take the proceeds from a sale of a stock to consume (which benefits the economy) or make a primary investment (that benefits the economy).
 
2013-04-11 09:08:01 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: It doesn't "bounce around from investment to investment". That's the farking point. You idiots think rich guys are just trading dollar bills, but you dont realize that every dollar invested has to be used to purchase something tangible. Rich guy A might buy a stock from rich guy B, and so forth, but one of those investors has to take the proceeds from a sale of a stock to consume (which benefits the economy) or make a primary investment (that benefits the economy).


Wrong.
Record-breaking corporate profit coinciding with high unemployment proves you wrong.
The DOW reaching highs it's never seen before combined with average Americans seeing their net worth decrease proves you wrong.
Stagnating wages even as productivity increases proves you wrong.
30 years of supply-side failure proves you wrong.
You are wrong.
 
2013-04-11 09:27:10 PM  

Fart_Machine: I guess the chapter on price elasticity didn't have enough pictures for you.


Elasticity has fark-all to do with what we are discussing.  If the market wont bear the increase in cost, the company goes out of business.  They cant sell product at a loss and if the market wont bear the cost - game over.

Stop trying to sound smart.  you arent fooling anyone.

Sergeant Grumbles: combined with average Americans seeing their net worth decrease proves you wrong.


Wait, I just heard upstream that it benefits the economy when people spend every penny that they take in and that is a good thing that we have a negative savings rate. now you are telling me that its a problem people arent saving and acquiring assets.  Can you consult your retard crew and make up your mind?

Sergeant Grumbles: Stagnating wages


arent a problem unless there's inflation.  Its impossible to get a mortgage or a college education. Healthcare costs are through the roof. Food, energy and rent are expensive.  But keep telling me there's no inflation because of treasury-level financial bonds that are available for hedge funds and overseas banks to pay to park their money in.  That helps the average joe who buys milk, bread, eggs and a tank of gas on the way home.

Sergeant Grumbles: 30 years of supply-side failure proves you wrong.


We've been implementing demand-side policies for the last 6 years and unemployment hasn't moved an inch, the labor participation rate is the lowest its been since the depression and we've spent almost $2Tn in stimulus to do so.  $2Tn is almost a year's worth of intake which we've conjured up to inject into the economy and nothing!?  what happened to all those dollars that are supposed to be circulating?  I heard for a decade how horrible the Bush tax cuts were yet those same cuts put money back into people's hands - exactly what you demand-siders are suggesting is the way to run an economy.

So tell me, why after $2Tn spent, companies rescued, investments made, along with a stimulus package that fixed infrastructure, a robust defense industry full of contractors who spend their paychecks just as teachers, cops and firefighters do, is the economy in the crapper?  Why is there record debt and deficit, and a new normal of 7.7% unemployment.  We've been doing all the crap that you've been begging for in the last 5-6 years.
 
2013-04-11 09:34:14 PM  

o5iiawah: Sergeant Grumbles: FTFY.
There isn't a single thing you've said there that isn't total fantasy or proven patently wrong by reality.

Wait, so corporations dont build taxes into the price of their goods?  Well then.  you're a goddamn genius.

just keep saying derp...adults are talking.


They do, but the taxes aren't entirely absorbed by the consumer. If you took econ, I would suggest you recall how deadweight loss due to taxation is calculated, and then recall that the tax is not passed on entirely to the consumer.
 
2013-04-11 09:38:26 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Debeo Summa Credo: It doesn't "bounce around from investment to investment". That's the farking point. You idiots think rich guys are just trading dollar bills, but you dont realize that every dollar invested has to be used to purchase something tangible. Rich guy A might buy a stock from rich guy B, and so forth, but one of those investors has to take the proceeds from a sale of a stock to consume (which benefits the economy) or make a primary investment (that benefits the economy).

Wrong.
Record-breaking corporate profit coinciding with high unemployment proves you wrong.
The DOW reaching highs it's never seen before combined with average Americans seeing their net worth decrease proves you wrong.
Stagnating wages even as productivity increases proves you wrong.
30 years of supply-side failure proves you wrong.
You are wrong.


None of those things are even remotely relevant to your original point, "That's the trick. It never leaves the hands of investors, effectively removed from the rest of the economy. and we have tax structures and investment vehicles that make this more lucrative than actually spending the money."

Of course invested money is not removed from the rest of the economy.  Just because the economy doesn't look like you'd want it to doesn't change that fact.  You have no idea what you are talking about, and are unable to respond substantively to my posts, so you are spewing random unconnected bullshiat.
 
2013-04-11 09:42:13 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: What do you mean 'bounced around'. If I buy a stock from investor A, he now has cash. He can use it for consumption (which you seem to be in favor of) or make another investment. If he invests in newly issued bonds or equity, that is money used by the corporation to invest in new plants, expansion, advertising, hiring more workers, whatever. That puts the money back into the economy.


I hilighted the parts where your argument falls apart.
 
2013-04-11 09:44:03 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Sergeant Grumbles: Debeo Summa Credo: It doesn't "bounce around from investment to investment". That's the farking point. You idiots think rich guys are just trading dollar bills, but you dont realize that every dollar invested has to be used to purchase something tangible. Rich guy A might buy a stock from rich guy B, and so forth, but one of those investors has to take the proceeds from a sale of a stock to consume (which benefits the economy) or make a primary investment (that benefits the economy).

Wrong.
Record-breaking corporate profit coinciding with high unemployment proves you wrong.
The DOW reaching highs it's never seen before combined with average Americans seeing their net worth decrease proves you wrong.
Stagnating wages even as productivity increases proves you wrong.
30 years of supply-side failure proves you wrong.
You are wrong.

None of those things are even remotely relevant to your original point, "That's the trick. It never leaves the hands of investors, effectively removed from the rest of the economy. and we have tax structures and investment vehicles that make this more lucrative than actually spending the money."

Of course invested money is not removed from the rest of the economy.  Just because the economy doesn't look like you'd want it to doesn't change that fact.  You have no idea what you are talking about, and are unable to respond substantively to my posts, so you are spewing random unconnected bullshiat.


That's a common misperception. Dunno who started it, but it's hard to get people to move off of that assertion despite the fact it doesn't stand up to even casual scrutiny.
 
2013-04-11 09:44:37 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: They spend it on $10 worth of food (a non-productive resource) and turn it into shiat. The $10 each goes to farmers/fast food workers/food delivery truck drivers/whatever, who then do what they want with it.


Yes, that's good for the economy because it means everyone touches the money.


Debeo Summa Credo: You give the $1 billion to an investor, it goes into loans, investments (productive resources), what have you. The cash goes to borrowers or businesses who have a use for it. They spend it, injecting it into the economy once again


Only they are not doing that. It is bad for the economy because not everyone is touching the money. It is staying within the coffers of the 1% and none of it is trickling down.
 
2013-04-11 09:46:29 PM  

Ishkur: It is staying within the coffers of the 1% and none of it is trickling down.


Do you envision a great big chest where they stick wads of cash? Because they didn't get rich doing that.
 
2013-04-11 09:49:23 PM  

o5iiawah: Elasticity has fark-all to do with what we are discussing. If the market wont bear the increase in cost, the company goes out of business. They cant sell product at a loss and if the market wont bear the cost - game over.


Well it's a good thing you aren't trying to sound smart because you're failing badly.  Do you even understand what elasticity is? That's the whole derping factor behind your retarded claim that consumers bear the entire brunt of increased taxes.  Because if the market won't bear the increase then the product won't sell.  That is what we are discussing.  Perhaps when you said to crack an econ book it was over your head.
 
2013-04-11 09:51:16 PM  

vygramul: o5iiawah: Sergeant Grumbles: FTFY.
There isn't a single thing you've said there that isn't total fantasy or proven patently wrong by reality.

Wait, so corporations dont build taxes into the price of their goods?  Well then.  you're a goddamn genius.

just keep saying derp...adults are talking.

They do, but the taxes aren't entirely absorbed by the consumer. If you took econ, I would suggest you recall how deadweight loss due to taxation is calculated, and then recall that the tax is not passed on entirely to the consumer.


o5iiawah, I agreed with you upthread on another subject, so don't confuse me with a typical farklilb, but I think vyrgramul is correct here.  Its not as simple as you think.  Higher corporate income taxes reduce after tax returns to investors, reducing incentive to invest and therefore reducing supply, creating an indirect increase in price to the consumer.  But corporations cant just unilaterally raise prices to offset higher income taxes.

here's a link on deadweight loss of corporate income tax, from none other than Austan Goolsbee:  http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=deadweight%20loss%20of%20corpo r ate%20income%20taxes&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CFMQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fci teseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.202.5632%26rep %3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=l2dnUfjcFubi4AO7m4DoAg&usg=AFQjCNEe8KnIkV9eYsB E0ey82sva2ddf2w&bvm=bv.45107431,d.dmg
 
2013-04-11 09:52:50 PM  

Ishkur: Debeo Summa Credo: What do you mean 'bounced around'. If I buy a stock from investor A, he now has cash. He can use it for consumption (which you seem to be in favor of) or make another investment. If he invests in newly issued bonds or equity, that is money used by the corporation to invest in new plants, expansion, advertising, hiring more workers, whatever. That puts the money back into the economy.

I hilighted the parts where your argument falls apart.


[jackiechanperplexedface.jpg]
 
Displayed 50 of 293 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report