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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Apple is so hip, they've been making up Irish-American corporations that reside in both countries yet pay taxes in neither. That's like...whoa, man. My mind just got blown by your bodacious use of tax loopholes   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 380
    More: Asinine, Apple Inc., United States, u.s. income tax, share buyback, income taxes  
•       •       •

7664 clicks; posted to Business » on 21 May 2013 at 10:05 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-05-21 08:49:26 AM
Tim Cook could shiat down the throats of everyone and they will like it because he is Apple
 
2013-05-21 08:53:08 AM
This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft.

/more at 11
 
2013-05-21 09:33:41 AM
I'm sure this only relates to their ongoing concern about work conditions in their Chinese factories. They're still working so hard to correct the rampant abuses that their in-depth investigations uncovered in places like FoxConn, and what they're probably thinking is that when it's time to start spending some money on improving those factories and giving the employees something closer to a living wage that moves them beyond what are essentially slave conditions, it'll be good to have the money closer by. See, if the money was all the way in America, it would be harder to get it there than if it was already in a foreign country overseas. They should be lauded for their concerned efficiency.
 
2013-05-21 09:44:47 AM
So I'm fuzzy on this. Do we hate loopholes that allow corporations to dodge taxes or not?

Exxon and Halliburton might not like it if the answer is "yes we hate them, close those loopholes."
 
2013-05-21 10:07:01 AM
Fix the damn loopholes!

Also, there is significant humor in the fact that Apple is one of the biggest tax payers as well as one of the biggest tax avoiders. That's just fantastic.
 
2013-05-21 10:07:54 AM
This is why I only use Samsung devices.  Their shell corporations are far superior and lower-priced than Apple shell corporations.

My preference of shell corporations is a unique statement of my personal brand identity and I have included these preferences as a part of my personality.
 
2013-05-21 10:08:09 AM

Walker: This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft.

/more at 11


This.

Pocket Ninja: I'm sure this only relates to their ongoing concern about work conditions in their Chinese factories. They're still working so hard to correct the rampant abuses that their in-depth investigations uncovered in places like FoxConn, and what they're probably thinking is that when it's time to start spending some money on improving those factories and giving the employees something closer to a living wage that moves them beyond what are essentially slave conditions, it'll be good to have the money closer by. See, if the money was all the way in America, it would be harder to get it there than if it was already in a foreign country overseas. They should be lauded for their concerned efficiency.


Brilliant.
 
2013-05-21 10:10:25 AM

Pocket Ninja: I'm sure this only relates to their ongoing concern about work conditions in their Chinese factories. They're still working so hard to correct the rampant abuses that their in-depth investigations uncovered in places like FoxConn, and what they're probably thinking is that when it's time to start spending some money on improving those factories and giving the employees something closer to a living wage that moves them beyond what are essentially slave conditions, it'll be good to have the money closer by. See, if the money was all the way in America, it would be harder to get it there than if it was already in a foreign country overseas. They should be lauded for their concerned efficiency.


Hi-larious.
 
2013-05-21 10:11:28 AM
you got some double dutch in my irish sandwich... or whatever they call it.

i wonder, would the US make more in tax revenue if it decreased taxes?  there is a point where it's not worth the financial complexity and costs of professional hours to avoid paying taxes.  or, should it just legislate out the possibility of these clever tactics?  not that it would work.  tax people would find a new loophole, or just leave.
 
2013-05-21 10:12:41 AM

Walker: This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft.

/more at 11



Yay!...more income envy.

This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise and gross) than you could even imagine.

Why do people think that raising taxes is going to fix a rising multi-trillion dollar deficit. Raising taxes is a drop in the bucket compared to what we need to do to get out of this hole.
 
2013-05-21 10:13:20 AM

unlikely: So I'm fuzzy on this. Do we hate loopholes that allow corporations to dodge taxes or not? Exxon and Halliburton might not like it if the answer is "yes we hate them, close those loopholes."


Quoted for truth.
 
2013-05-21 10:14:11 AM

Pappy091: This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise and gross) than you could even imagine.


Bullshiat. GTFO, you watercarrying shill.
 
2013-05-21 10:14:21 AM
Cook should just strip and drop a hot crackling shiat on the table while looking the lead of the panel in the eye and say "If you don't like it, change the law", then wipe with 100 dollar bills.
 
2013-05-21 10:15:14 AM

Pappy091: This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise...


Warren Buffet disagrees
 
2013-05-21 10:15:35 AM

Pappy091: Raising taxes is a drop in the bucket compared to what we need to do to get out of this hole.


So you agree it will help. Soak 'em
 
2013-05-21 10:16:57 AM

Pocket Ninja: I'm sure this only relates to their ongoing concern about work conditions in their Chinese factories. They're still working so hard to correct the rampant abuses that their in-depth investigations uncovered in places like FoxConn, and what they're probably thinking is that when it's time to start spending some money on improving those factories and giving the employees something closer to a living wage that moves them beyond what are essentially slave conditions, it'll be good to have the money closer by. See, if the money was all the way in America, it would be harder to get it there than if it was already in a foreign country overseas. They should be lauded for their concerned efficiency.


Never disappoints.
 
2013-05-21 10:17:20 AM

Pappy091: This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise and gross) than you could even imagine.


I'm pretty sure I could imagine the percentage. The gross might be a bit trickier, but I could probably manage.
 
2013-05-21 10:18:14 AM

Pappy091: Walker: This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft.

/more at 11


Yay!...more income envy.

This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise and gross) than you could even imagine.

Why do people think that raising taxes is going to fix a rising multi-trillion dollar deficit. Raising taxes is a drop in the bucket compared to what we need to do to get out of this hole.


Oh look everyone! Pappy is here tell us how bad the rich have it. Oh please, Pappy... do it some more! Stand up for those poor, oppressed, sad, rich folks who so desperately need you to defend them. They're counting on you!
 
2013-05-21 10:18:34 AM
Just in - Apple is a corporation doing what all other corporations do to reduce their tax burden. Interviews with Google, HP, IBM, and other tech giants show that they do the same thing and some even got called to testify on it last year.

/This is Apples turn in the barrel
 
2013-05-21 10:18:58 AM

Pappy091: Walker: This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft.

/more at 11


Yay!...more income envy.

This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise and gross) than you could even imagine.

Why do people think that raising taxes is going to fix a rising multi-trillion dollar deficit. Raising taxes is a drop in the bucket compared to what we need to do to get out of this hole.


This just in, rich people ON PAPER seemingly pay far more in taxes but have an army of accountants to find all the loopholes to bring that number way down.
 
2013-05-21 10:19:44 AM
The big companies don't mind corporate taxes at all, because they can buy themselves ways around paying.

It's the smaller outfits that can't buy legislators around the world who take it in the shorts.

The game is hopelessly rigged from the start, and any attempt to patch things is only going to result in more loopholes - so the only way to win is to kick over the board. Want to have the world's businesses beating a path to our door, with the Apples of the world pouring resources into employees instead of politicians? Put this on the table:

1) No US taxes, but also 1a) no US subsidies
2) A slight just-in-case upward bump for top individual income tax rates, subject to downward revision if tax revenue numbers look good enough
3) Now, about those regulations  you were biatching about because of the cost. Looks like a lot of that cost got taken care of since you don't have to pay all those extra tax accountants, tax lawyers and tax lobbyists any more.
 
2013-05-21 10:20:38 AM

Pappy091: Walker: This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft.

/more at 11


Yay!...more income envy.

This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise and gross) than you could even imagine.

Why do people think that raising taxes is going to fix a rising multi-trillion dollar deficit. Raising taxes is a drop in the bucket compared to what we need to do to get out of this hole.


Gross, yes, percent?  Not even close skippy.

Even my own accountant told me that for my income bracket, being single, and dependent-less, I may as well just bend over the desk.
I unfortunately lack the means to setup corporations/trusts/offshores to hide my income.
 
2013-05-21 10:20:38 AM
Two words: unitary taxation.
 
2013-05-21 10:21:14 AM
Misplaced Anger

Don't blame Apple's pencil whippers.

Blame Congress for Title 26 USC. Apple is using loopholes and accounting Congress made part of the Tax Code at Title 26.

Be angry at Congress.
 
2013-05-21 10:22:50 AM

Almet: Pappy091: This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise...

Warren Buffet disagrees


Well, I am in generally in a higher tax bracket and I can promise you that I pay much higher taxes than my employees do. While they generally get a few thousand back every year, I have to make significant quarterly payments to Uncle Sam with no return at tax time.
 
2013-05-21 10:22:57 AM
"This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft."

This is the way that congress makes taxes laws that favor themselves. Corporations (and many individuals) take advantage of legal means created by them to pay less on the income they earn. If they did not they would not be doing "due diligence" for the share holders, which is what capitalism is all about. You can also take advantage of the same laws by creating the same environment for your self, and then using the same laws to benefit your self (and your share holders).

If it's unfair, then it's been unfairly created. So we should look to the congress who created these "Loop holes" (which there not, the are written in the bills passed) to see where they benefit from passing these kinds of laws. A corporation is categorized as "A person" and a person would be a fool to give away more money then legally required.

So just follow the money, and see you get's it, then see how the lobbiests got the bill passed, then you will find your "Loop hole" for all it's worth.
 
2013-05-21 10:23:06 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Cook should just strip and drop a hot crackling shiat on the table while looking the lead of the panel in the eye and say "If you don't like it, change the law", then wipe with 100 dollar bills.


I'm afraid to GIS that... but I want to.
 
2013-05-21 10:23:14 AM
congressional hearing live now on c-span
 
GBB
2013-05-21 10:24:08 AM

pute kisses like a man: you got some double dutch in my irish sandwich... or whatever they call it.

i wonder, would the US make more in tax revenue if it decreased taxes?  there is a point where it's not worth the financial complexity and costs of professional hours to avoid paying taxes.  or, should it just legislate out the possibility of these clever tactics?  not that it would work.  tax people would find a new loophole, or just leave.


This is what I was thinking.  I think the only way to actually get this done is to offer to Rebuplicans a lower corporate tax rate, but also attach legislation that eliminates many loopholes.  If they turn it down, then they look petty for not accepting what they've been asking for.
 
2013-05-21 10:25:03 AM

Pappy091: While they generally get a few thousand back every year, I have to make significant quarterly payments to Uncle Sam with no return at tax time.


This information has very little relationship to the actual rate that you pay. Also, if your primary earnings are from wages, then you are not the kind of wealthy that people tend to complain about.
 
2013-05-21 10:25:28 AM
I was paying taxes in the US, but then like, I created a fictitious offshore shell corporation that totally reduced my tax liability.  'Cause taxes are like, a bummer.

www.wired.com

Introducing iDontPayMyTaxes®
 
2013-05-21 10:27:03 AM
Gulper Eel:

1) No US taxes, but also 1a) no US subsidies

I think the current system of low-to-no taxes and generous subsidies is much preferred.

That doesn't even get into the subsidies and tax breaks that local governments give away.  The reason your plan will never happen is not because of some ideological intransigence on the part of politicians.  I think you'll agree that politicians have no ideology when no one's looking.

It's because nobody with skin in the game (corporations) wants it your way.  The most powerful people are most benefiting from the current system and the current system keeps the same people in power.

Nothing is going to change and I don't really care for it to.  My investments are set up for this system.
 
2013-05-21 10:27:52 AM
Let this be a lesson to you, kids: slave labor and tax evasion will make you very very rich.

/bwahahahaha
 
GBB
2013-05-21 10:28:53 AM
You know what I would love to see?  I would love to see a major corporation track their expenses for trying to dodge taxes, combine it with their current tax liability, and take that the US Govt and say, "THIS is what we are willing to pay", and be done with it.
 
2013-05-21 10:28:58 AM

Pappy091: Walker: This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft.

/more at 11


Yay!...more income envy.

This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise and gross) than you could even imagine.

Why do people think that raising taxes is going to fix a rising multi-trillion dollar deficit. Raising taxes is a drop in the bucket compared to what we need to do to get out of this hole.


Not percentage wise.  And this isn't about rich people, it is about the biggest corporations in America that pay little to no tax yet they make billions of dollars.

Compare that to a small local store and the taxes they pay.

Go see what Delta or GE paid in taxes last year.
 
2013-05-21 10:30:04 AM
Show of hands, plz.
Stockholders should not take precedence over citizens.
Was there a shift from for the "Good of the American People" to "Whatever the Stockholder Needs" or was it always that way?
 
2013-05-21 10:30:41 AM

cman: Tim Cook could shiat down the throats of everyone and they will like it because he is Apple Apple did nothing against the law.


ftfy
 
2013-05-21 10:30:46 AM
The more I parse it, the more I think Pappy091 is trolling everyone. The tone of that post reminds me of the "top-shelf pussy" frat troll.
 
2013-05-21 10:31:31 AM

pute kisses like a man: you got some double dutch in my irish sandwich... or whatever they call it.

i wonder, would the US make more in tax revenue if it decreased taxes?  there is a point where it's not worth the financial complexity and costs of professional hours to avoid paying taxes.  or, should it just legislate out the possibility of these clever tactics?  not that it would work.  tax people would find a new loophole, or just leave.


  In terms of corporate tax, what is needed is a combination of lowering the nominal tax rate and closing a lot of the loopholes.  Our nominal rate is 35%, so conservatives tend to latch onto that number saying that corporations pay way too much tax here. But the reality is that our effective corporate tax rate, due to various subsidies, tax breaks and loop holes, is somewhere in the range of 12-16%, and many corporations pay no taxes at all.
   The biggest loopholes are the ones like Apple is exploiting to offshore the money to what is essentially a shell company, and similar ways to create giant write-offs.

 I'd be in favor of congress lowing the statutory rate to something in the high teens or low 20s, close the loopholes, and then add some tax breaks that will increase job creation.  For example, a lot of companies complain they can't find employees with the skills they need (because they're usually looking for something stupid like 5 years experience with software only they use).   Offer companies reasonable tax breaks/incentives to train new employees with the skills they need (with the incentive based on the amount of training required), as long as they keep that employee for at least 12 months after training is complete.
 
2013-05-21 10:32:09 AM

ggecko: Pappy091: Walker: This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft.

/more at 11


Yay!...more income envy.

This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise and gross) than you could even imagine.

Why do people think that raising taxes is going to fix a rising multi-trillion dollar deficit. Raising taxes is a drop in the bucket compared to what we need to do to get out of this hole.

Not percentage wise.  And this isn't about rich people, it is about the biggest corporations in America that pay little to no tax yet they make billions of dollars.

Compare that to a small local store and the taxes they pay.

Go see what Delta or GE paid in taxes last year.


I understand, but people need to blame the system, not the business. No one is going to voluntarily pay more taxes just because.

My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.
 
2013-05-21 10:32:39 AM

Pappy091: I have to make significant quarterly payments to Uncle Sam with no return at tax time.


You do know you're not supposed to get money back for filing 941s, right?
 
2013-05-21 10:32:41 AM
Subby's notion of 'hip' has not progressed since the early '70s, I see.
 
2013-05-21 10:33:23 AM

Quiefenburger: cman: Tim Cook could shiat down the throats of everyone and they will like it because he is Apple Apple did nothing against the law.
ftfy


Its still very telling what you left in place...
 
2013-05-21 10:33:43 AM
Loopholes are just ways of sticking it to the man.  They were just sticking it to the man.  Do you love the man, or something?
 
2013-05-21 10:34:06 AM

Pappy091: My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.


They're not the problem to the extent that they're just a byproduct of a system of taxation that's regressive beyond the point of upper middle / lower upper class, but they sure lobby like hell to keep things that way.
 
2013-05-21 10:34:15 AM

Rapmaster2000: I think the current system of low-to-no taxes and generous subsidies is much preferred.


Oh, I know that. I just want to see which businesses want to be capitalists and which ones want to be spongers.

I know that leftists don't want it because it's the opposite of their sticking-it-to-The-Man fever dreams, wingnuts don't want it because it might mean an upward bump in income taxes, and neither party wants to part with the ability to sell favors.

But just proposing it will draw the rats out.
 
2013-05-21 10:35:42 AM
Tax evasion (aka avoidance) now standard with about any large entity.

pute kisses like a man: you got some double dutch in my irish sandwich... or whatever they call it.

i wonder, would the US make more in tax revenue if it decreased taxes?


Enforcement comes first - even if it means that you end up with an agency that makes the current efforts (and Nixon's) look nice.  Then tax decreases.


there is a point where it's not worth the financial complexity and costs of professional hours to avoid paying taxes.  or, should it just legislate out the possibility of these clever tactics?  not that it would work.  tax people would find a new loophole, or just leave.

How about just auditing the shiat out of any use of creative accounting?  Scale up the questioning to a level such that Apple couldn't provide the proper paperwork; if they can, continue to do so until they fail.  Same thing with everyone else - not just one entity or political leaning.

As for the use of other jurisdictions, consider the possibility of extraordinary rendition as an absolute last resort.  Not pleasant, but necessary if all other efforts fail.

/Not really concerned about the income
//More concerned about the arrogance of tax evaders/avoiders
///If the IRS really wants you, they *can* get you.
 
2013-05-21 10:36:07 AM
Corporate taxes are silly/ridiculous. What is gained from taxing the corporate entity as opposed to those who own it? I am not a fan of capital gains taxes (or any taxes as a libertarian), but if we are going to have them we should enact them in a way that is most efficient (taxing the corporate entity increases inefficiency because it alters their market behavior and allows it to make tax decisions for investors) and hardest to avoid (large corporate entities will always have the scale to manage operations based on tax law, individuals rarely will.
 
2013-05-21 10:37:08 AM

You're the jerk... jerk: Corporate taxes are silly/ridiculous. What is gained from taxing the corporate entity as opposed to those who own it?


Corporations are people too, my friend.
 
2013-05-21 10:38:18 AM

Pappy091: Walker: This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft.

/more at 11


Yay!...more income envy.

This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise and gross) than you could even imagine.

Why do people think that raising taxes is going to fix a rising multi-trillion dollar deficit. Raising taxes is a drop in the bucket compared to what we need to do to get out of this hole.


10/10
Well done!
 
2013-05-21 10:38:46 AM
As global capital becomes ever more powerful, giant corporations are holding governments and citizens up for ransom - eliciting subsidies and tax breaks from countries concerned about their nation's "competitiveness" - while sheltering their profits in the lowest-tax jurisdictions they can find. Major advanced countries - and their citizens - need a comprehensive tax agreement that won't allow global corporations to get away with this.

Google, Amazon, Starbucks, every other major corporation, and every big Wall Street bank, are sheltering as much of their U.S. profits abroad as they can, while telling Washington that lower corporate taxes are necessary in order to keep the U.S. "competitive."

Baloney. The fact is, global corporations have no allegiance to any country; their only objective is to make as much money as possible - and play off one country against another to keep their taxes down and subsidies up, thereby shifting more of the tax burden to ordinary people whose wages are already shrinking because companies are playing workers off against each other.

Link
 
2013-05-21 10:38:47 AM

You're the jerk... jerk: What is gained from taxing the corporate entity as opposed to those who own it?


Corporations are people, so this doesn't make sense.
 
2013-05-21 10:38:49 AM

You're the jerk... jerk: What is gained from taxing the corporate entity as opposed to those who own it?


And how would you do that, tax the value of people's investment portfolios?
 
2013-05-21 10:39:05 AM

theorellior: Pappy091: I have to make significant quarterly payments to Uncle Sam with no return at tax time.

You do know you're not supposed to get money back for filing 941s, right?


And....?

Anyway, as another poster said, most of this discussion is directed to the wealthy which I am most certainly not.
 
2013-05-21 10:41:57 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Cook should just strip and drop a hot crackling shiat on the table while looking the lead of the panel in the eye and say "If you don't like it, change the law", then wipe with 100 dollar bills.


And here I am giggling over imagining a hot crackling shiat on a table. The new special at Lenny's.
 
2013-05-21 10:42:47 AM
The very rich people and large corporations utilize loopholes in our tax code, just like Apple does FTA.
No need to increase taxes or lower them if you are some backwards GOP moron. Just close the farking loopholes so the ultra rich and corporations can pay a proportionate amount like the rest of the working class...
 
2013-05-21 10:43:31 AM

jshine: You're the jerk... jerk: Corporate taxes are silly/ridiculous. What is gained from taxing the corporate entity as opposed to those who own it?

Corporations are people too, my friend.


Do you have something meaningful to add to the conversation? Do you have an argument that it is more efficient to tax the corporate entity rather than the stock holders?
 
2013-05-21 10:45:07 AM

Almet: Pappy091: This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise...

Warren Buffet disagrees


Yes. Point to a single outlier to cancel our the average effective tax rate of each quintile calculated by the IRS. Makes sense. Cold today so no global warming and all that.
 
2013-05-21 10:47:03 AM

GoldSpider: You're the jerk... jerk: What is gained from taxing the corporate entity as opposed to those who own it?

And how would you do that, tax the value of people's investment portfolios?


Same way it is done today, capital gains.
 
2013-05-21 10:47:17 AM

theorellior: The more I parse it, the more I think Pappy091 is trolling everyone. The tone of that post reminds me of the "top-shelf pussy" frat troll.



He thinks because he owns Jefferson County Investments, LLC he qualifies as "rich".  He doesn't realize that the rich we're talking about are orders of magnitude wealthier than him.

Another one of the 5% thinking they're part of the .005%
 
2013-05-21 10:47:22 AM
Don't hate the player; hate the game.
 
2013-05-21 10:47:36 AM

You're the jerk... jerk: jshine: You're the jerk... jerk: Corporate taxes are silly/ridiculous. What is gained from taxing the corporate entity as opposed to those who own it?

Corporations are people too, my friend.

Do you have something meaningful to add to the conversation? Do you have an argument that it is more efficient to tax the corporate entity rather than the stock holders?


Romney's quip may be glib, but its not really inaccurate.  They are (legal) "people" in most senses of the word, with most of the same rights & responsibilities.  I can't see any reason why they should get an exemption on taxation unless they're willing to also give up the other benefits of "personhood" -- i.e., free speech rights, the ability to absorb legal liability rather than passing it on to their owners, etc...  Why should a fictitious entity be treated as a person for the purpose of granting legal rights & benefits, but not for the purpose of tax liability?
 
2013-05-21 10:47:53 AM

jshine: Quiefenburger: cman: Tim Cook could shiat down the throats of everyone and they will like it because he is Apple Apple did nothing against the law.
ftfy

Its still very telling what you left in place...


Don't knock it til you try it
 
2013-05-21 10:49:00 AM

MyRandomName: Almet: Pappy091: This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise...

Warren Buffet disagrees

Yes. Point to a single outlier to cancel our the average effective tax rate of each quintile calculated by the IRS. Makes sense. Cold today so no global warming and all that.


Fine then, cup.
Rmoney, Donald Trump, every celebrity member of the church of Scientology, Bill Gates...should I keep going?
 
2013-05-21 10:54:14 AM

You're the jerk... jerk: Do you have an argument that it is more efficient to tax the corporate entity rather than the stock holders?


Because the shareholders are already taxed on any dividends they receive, and a corporation is under no obligation to pay them dividends in the first place. If a corporation make $1B, and the shareholders receive $0 of that $1B, why would we tax the share holders?

What, exactly, are the share holders paying taxes on, if not the income they receive from their shares?
 
2013-05-21 10:55:09 AM

jshine: You're the jerk... jerk: jshine: You're the jerk... jerk: Corporate taxes are silly/ridiculous. What is gained from taxing the corporate entity as opposed to those who own it?

Corporations are people too, my friend.

Do you have something meaningful to add to the conversation? Do you have an argument that it is more efficient to tax the corporate entity rather than the stock holders?

Romney's quip may be glib, but its not really inaccurate.  They are (legal) "people" in most senses of the word, with most of the same rights & responsibilities.  I can't see any reason why they should get an exemption on taxation unless they're willing to also give up the other benefits of "personhood" -- i.e., free speech rights, the ability to absorb legal liability rather than passing it on to their owners, etc...  Why should a fictitious entity be treated as a person for the purpose of granting legal rights & benefits, but not for the purpose of tax liability?


The legal rights of the owners are imputed onto the corporation, they don't exist without them. Instead of treating them as a separate entity for tax purposes, just continue the logic and treat the corporation as a pure investment vehicle. Otherwise, as I indicated the corporation is making inefficient decisions on how to utilize capital and making tax decisions for the investors.

There is also a common misconception about how they absorb legal liability, in essentially all cases there would be no liability for the owners at all without the corporate entity. It does not absorb the liability, it creates and limits the liability. I know this is not always the case (IANAL but I did graduate from law school) but it is the most common use of it today.
 
2013-05-21 10:55:34 AM

you have pee hands: Pappy091: My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.

They're not the problem to the extent that they're just a byproduct of a system of taxation that's regressive beyond the point of upper middle / lower upper class, but they sure lobby like hell to keep things that way.


BS.

I guarantee you a gigantic chunk of liberal progressive hippie Obama voters own Apple products.

I have been saying it all along, why no outrage over "Big Apple" like people demonize oil companies? We all depend on oil, their profit margins are low. Apple makes useless crap with large profit margins nobody really needs, and is sitting on more money than any other corporation on Earth.

I think we should come up with a federal smart phone tax, and make it big, say, 15% of the purchase price, at minimum. If you are going to tax the bajesus out of the stuff that gets us to work, and ships our goods, you can tax toys for the dumb masses.
 
2013-05-21 10:58:27 AM
Apple may not want to pay their fair share of taxes, but at least they still employee slave labor in China.

Hey, when does the new iPhone come out?
 
2013-05-21 10:58:57 AM

t3knomanser: You're the jerk... jerk: Do you have an argument that it is more efficient to tax the corporate entity rather than the stock holders?

Because the shareholders are already taxed on any dividends they receive, and a corporation is under no obligation to pay them dividends in the first place. If a corporation make $1B, and the shareholders receive $0 of that $1B, why would we tax the share holders?

What, exactly, are the share holders paying taxes on, if not the income they receive from their shares?


Ask yourself a question, if a corporation is profiting $1B and not paying a dividend (or the equivalent such as share buy backs) what are they doing with it?

Capital Gains taxes are paid on the increase in share price from time of purchase.
 
2013-05-21 10:59:12 AM

Thunderpipes: you have pee hands: Pappy091: My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.

They're not the problem to the extent that they're just a byproduct of a system of taxation that's regressive beyond the point of upper middle / lower upper class, but they sure lobby like hell to keep things that way.

BS.

I guarantee you a gigantic chunk of liberal progressive hippie Obama voters own Apple products.

I have been saying it all along, why no outrage over "Big Apple" like people demonize oil companies? We all depend on oil, their profit margins are low. Apple makes useless crap with large profit margins nobody really needs, and is sitting on more money than any other corporation on Earth.

I think we should come up with a federal smart phone tax, and make it big, say, 15% of the purchase price, at minimum. If you are going to tax the bajesus out of the stuff that gets us to work, and ships our goods, you can tax toys for the dumb masses.


Or how bout close the loopholes that lets Apple and all the other mega-corporations sit on the mountain of gold they have? Why pass on yet another tax to the working class?

/Apple sucks
 
2013-05-21 11:00:19 AM

scanman61: theorellior: The more I parse it, the more I think Pappy091 is trolling everyone. The tone of that post reminds me of the "top-shelf pussy" frat troll.


He thinks because he owns Jefferson County Investments, LLC he qualifies as "rich".  He doesn't realize that the rich we're talking about are orders of magnitude wealthier than him.

Another one of the 5% thinking they're part of the .005%


Wrong on almost all counts. I am not rich, not even close. I would love to be in the 5%. Hopefully I will be by the time I retire.
 
2013-05-21 11:02:15 AM
Apple be some gangster ass mofo's. Ya'll don't know it...but them fools is from the street son! They know how to get they rob on.
 
2013-05-21 11:02:48 AM

Thunderpipes: BS.

I guarantee you a gigantic chunk of liberal progressive hippie Obama voters own Apple products.

I have been saying it all along, why no outrage over "Big Apple" like people demonize oil companies? We all depend on oil, their profit margins are low. Apple makes useless crap with large profit margins nobody really needs, and is sitting on more money than any other corporation on Earth.

I think we should come up with a federal smart phone tax, and make it big, say, 15% of the purchase price, at minimum. If you are going to tax the bajesus out of the stuff that gets us to work, and ships our goods, you can tax toys for the dumb masses.


Your response has nothing to do with my post.  It also doesn't make any sense.  People in this thread are demonizing Apple for using tax loopholes and advocating taxing them more, and some of them are even liberals.  Also, specific taxes on specific products further complicates the tax structure, something I'd think a "conservative" would be against.
 
2013-05-21 11:02:49 AM
Make them pay every penny in back taxes + interest + penalties. Then fine them again for the sheer audacity to do this to the American people. Levy 100% import tax on all apple products manufactured outside the United States, that should be a good start.
 
2013-05-21 11:04:23 AM

Pappy091: Wrong on almost all counts. I am not rich, not even close. I would love to be in the 5%. Hopefully I will be by the time I retire.


Oh, so you're just one of the temporarily disadvantaged rich people. You'll qualify for that big tax break one day, gol durn it!
 
2013-05-21 11:05:27 AM

you have pee hands: Your response has nothing to do with my post. It also doesn't make any sense.


Basically the definition of his posts.
 
2013-05-21 11:05:41 AM
A corporation will spend 100 million dollars to avoid paying 99 million in taxes.
 
2013-05-21 11:05:47 AM

theorellior: Pappy091: Wrong on almost all counts. I am not rich, not even close. I would love to be in the 5%. Hopefully I will be by the time I retire.

Oh, so you're just one of the temporarily disadvantaged rich people. You'll qualify for that big tax break one day, gol durn it!


Hopefully, and then you will be free to hate me. I will be too rich to care, lol.
 
2013-05-21 11:06:32 AM
Or err, I got that backwards (or have I?)
 
2013-05-21 11:06:40 AM

someradicaldude: Make them pay every penny in back taxes + interest + penalties. Then fine them again for the sheer audacity to do this to the American people. Levy 100% import tax on all apple products manufactured outside the United States, that should be a good start.


static.giantbomb.com
 
2013-05-21 11:06:58 AM

DeathCipris: Rmoney, Donald Trump, every celebrity member of the church of Scientology, Bill Gates...should I keep going?


John Forbes Kerry, all of Hollywood, etc.

Here's a way to "solve" the under-taxation "problem" -- let's slap a 95% tax on all entertainment profits, at every level of the production and distribution chain, across all industries (sports, music, movies, etc.).  They're non-essential products and services, like cigarettes and liquor.  Entertainment is, by definition, a luxury.

Sure, the luxury tax invariably kills luxury industries, and Hollywood is a huge donor to Democrats, but that isn't a good reason to let them get away with not paying their Fair Share.

And what's with all the Slave Labor working for free on movies?  The highest-paid worker should get no more than, say, five times what the lowest-paid worker gets.  So, the interns should be fairly compensated compared to Matt Damon and George Clooney.

"We" should "ask" them to pay "more."

"We" have to "do something."

Who's with me on this Tax the Crap Out of Hollywood Campaign?
 
2013-05-21 11:07:22 AM

You're the jerk... jerk: Ask yourself a question, if a corporation is profiting $1B and not paying a dividend (or the equivalent such as share buy backs) what are they doing with it?


Well, in the case of Apple, they sat on it- for  years. They often use it for acquisitions- my employer has been buying up a lot of smaller companies lately, Apple's done the same. They may re-invest it into the company. Regardless, a company is not beholden to pay dividends, nor is there any guarantee that a successful company's share price will increase (Apple's profitability has remained incredibly high, their share price has tanked over the past year), and only a fool would believe that share price is an accurate representation of the value of a company,  anyway.

The key point is that there's no relationship between a company's income and the income of its share holders. As a result, it makes a great deal of sense to tax the company as an entity separate from its share holders.

You're the jerk... jerk: Capital Gains taxes are paid on the increase in share price from time of purchase.


Only when those gains are realized. If you're a buy-and-hold investor, like pretty much anybody with a 401(K), IRA, or any sort of mutual funds-  most shareholders- you aren't going to be paying very much capital gains tax on the increase of your net worth.
 
2013-05-21 11:08:09 AM
Rich 

you have pee hands: Your response has nothing to do with my post.  It also doesn't make any sense.  People in this thread are demonizing Apple for using tax loopholes and advocating taxing them more, and some of them are even liberals.  Also, specific taxes on specific products further complicates the tax structure, something I'd think a "conservative" would be against.



The problem here is that Apple doesn't HAVE to stay in the US. They do so because it suits them, but it's not absolutely necessary. Their attitude (shared among many corps) is that, "Well if you're going to tax us that much we'll just leave and you get a pittance."

I don't think it's right, but they do have a point. Squeeze the golden goose too hard and you get squat.

As a libertarian, I'm not sure what the best course of action here is. It's not like we can (or should) seize their companies and demand our national cut.
 
2013-05-21 11:08:51 AM

GORDON: Apple may not want to pay their fair share of taxes, but at least they still employee slave labor in China.

Hey, when does the new iPhone come out?


iPhone is coming out...now
 
2013-05-21 11:08:56 AM

pute kisses like a man: you got some double dutch in my irish sandwich... or whatever they call it.

i wonder, would the US make more in tax revenue if it decreased taxes?  there is a point where it's not worth the financial complexity and costs of professional hours to avoid paying taxes.  or, should it just legislate out the possibility of these clever tactics?  not that it would work.  tax people would find a new loophole, or just leave.


In and of itself no, it would not encourage companies to stop using clever accountants and loopholes to avoid taxes for a simple reason: if they're saving less money they're still saving money.

Think about it... Let's say Company X is using tax avoidance schemes to avoid paying $150 million in taxes. Let's say they pay $1 million in costs for the lawyers and accountants on the payroll to handle that for them, so they are profiting $149 million from the scheme. So say we slash the tax rate precipitously so that Company X now only owes $75 million. They're now still making $74 million on the deal. So they keep doing it because there's still $75 million in it for them. They'd be nuts to stop doing it, they have absolutely no reason to change their behavior, just because the rate was lowered. If anything they have the incentive to try to cheat the system even harder, to get back to as close to the $149 million from before as they can get.

It would be nice to just have a set corporate tax rate and no loopholes, no adjustments. But that will never happen because the folks running those companies basically write their own laws through the legislators that we elect and that they pay. They WANT deductions, loopholes and other complexity in the tax code - as much complexity as possible - because they can hide behind that complexity.

Honestly, the best solution is probably to end corporate income tax completely - and just tax the disproportionately wealthy directly instead. We and the rich all did just fine with a 90+% top marginal tax rate in the past... Now the effective tax rate for the wealthiest Americans is actually lower then the average Americans' rate. Drop the corporate rate completely, add a small financial transaction tax to quick stock sales (well, or all of them really) to help keep machine trading to a dull roar, push the top marginal tax rate back up to something like 75%, and an estate tax again for inheritances over (oh let's just pick a number) $600,000. We should probably do something about the capital gains rate as well...

The folks who were rich 100 years ago, are largely the same folks (their descendents that is) who are rich today. Money has power, and kind of it's own gravity. When you have money already you attract more of it more easily, in proportion, and are able to take advantage of our economy in ways that the poor simply cannot. There's nothing wrong with more taxes for those folks who benefit from our economic
system more. In fact, it would be (and currently is) wrong to do anything else.They are not seperate issues. The very reason why the system is as screwed up as it i
 
2013-05-21 11:09:20 AM

Pappy091: theorellior: Pappy091: Wrong on almost all counts. I am not rich, not even close. I would love to be in the 5%. Hopefully I will be by the time I retire.

Oh, so you're just one of the temporarily disadvantaged rich people. You'll qualify for that big tax break one day, gol durn it!

Hopefully, and then you will be free to hate me. I will be too rich to care, lol.


I know I shouldn't feed the fire here, but Pappy091's comments remind me of that episode of Futurama where Fry is advocating all these concessions for the rich, but actually isn't rich. Then he says "I might be someday, then people like me better watch out!"
 
2013-05-21 11:10:50 AM

Rapmaster2000: This is why I only use Samsung devices.  Their shell corporations are far superior and lower-priced than Apple shell corporations.

My preference of shell corporations is a unique statement of my personal brand identity and I have included these preferences as a part of my personality.


I only use a small, local shell corporation.  You probably haven't heard of it.
 
2013-05-21 11:11:43 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: As global capital becomes ever more powerful, giant corporations are holding governments and citizens up for ransom - eliciting subsidies and tax breaks from countries concerned about their nation's "competitiveness" - while sheltering their profits in the lowest-tax jurisdictions they can find. Major advanced countries - and their citizens - need a comprehensive tax agreement that won't allow global corporations to get away with this.

Google, Amazon, Starbucks, every other major corporation, and every big Wall Street bank, are sheltering as much of their U.S. profits abroad as they can, while telling Washington that lower corporate taxes are necessary in order to keep the U.S. "competitive."

Baloney. The fact is, global corporations have no allegiance to any country; their only objective is to make as much money as possible - and play off one country against another to keep their taxes down and subsidies up, thereby shifting more of the tax burden to ordinary people whose wages are already shrinking because companies are playing workers off against each other.


The more reason to start treating tax evasion/avoidance much like a variant of terrorism.  Leave no place to hide, no reward for creative accounting, no way to play nations against each other.

Unlike most of the world, the US has the assets to effectively moot jurisdiction - if it so pleases.  Perhaps it is time to use them.
 
2013-05-21 11:12:23 AM

Phinn: DeathCipris: Rmoney, Donald Trump, every celebrity member of the church of Scientology, Bill Gates...should I keep going?

John Forbes Kerry, all of Hollywood, etc.

Here's a way to "solve" the under-taxation "problem" -- let's slap a 95% tax on all entertainment profits, at every level of the production and distribution chain, across all industries (sports, music, movies, etc.).  They're non-essential products and services, like cigarettes and liquor.  Entertainment is, by definition, a luxury.

Sure, the luxury tax invariably kills luxury industries, and Hollywood is a huge donor to Democrats, but that isn't a good reason to let them get away with not paying their Fair Share.

And what's with all the Slave Labor working for free on movies?  The highest-paid worker should get no more than, say, five times what the lowest-paid worker gets.  So, the interns should be fairly compensated compared to Matt Damon and George Clooney.

"We" should "ask" them to pay "more."

"We" have to "do something."

Who's with me on this Tax the Crap Out of Hollywood Campaign?


Your reductio ad absurdum argument advocating communism with a sprinkling of teatard nonsense will get you no where.

0/10
 
2013-05-21 11:12:25 AM
But Apple isn't a corporation!  It's an environmentally conscious, culturally benevolent, liberal-minded collective of satisfied independent product effectors.
 
2013-05-21 11:14:00 AM

mongbiohazard: They WANT deductions, loopholes and other complexity in the tax code - as much complexity as possible - because they can hide behind that complexity.


That's not entirely false, but there's something else going on here.  Taxation is a complex problem. Simple tax systems- like say, the so-called "Fair Tax"- are deeply unfair and highly regressive. Complex tax systems  also end up being deeply unfair, because complexity creates confusion. It's simple to say, "Taxation should be fair," but it's much  much harder to identify what "fair" is.
 
2013-05-21 11:14:08 AM

Phinn: Who's with me on this Tax the Crap Out of Hollywood Campaign?


Your grandfather did marketing for Phillip Morris, didn't he? Did he come up with the "T-Zone" campaign? That was a pretty good one.
 
2013-05-21 11:14:20 AM

duenor: As a libertarian, I'm not sure what the best course of action here is. It's not like we can (or should) seize their companies and demand our national cut.


This is the Hipster Leftist's worst nightmare, when the Hipster side of their smartphone-and-student-loan-fueled lifestyles competes with their Leftist insane-hatred of all things related to profit.

On the one hand, there the idea that someone, somewhere might be profiting without the gubment getting a cut ...  Bbbbbut tax-killing Apple might interfere with the next generation of iPad ....   What is a Hipster Leftist to do?
 
2013-05-21 11:14:52 AM

you have pee hands: Thunderpipes: BS.

I guarantee you a gigantic chunk of liberal progressive hippie Obama voters own Apple products.

I have been saying it all along, why no outrage over "Big Apple" like people demonize oil companies? We all depend on oil, their profit margins are low. Apple makes useless crap with large profit margins nobody really needs, and is sitting on more money than any other corporation on Earth.

I think we should come up with a federal smart phone tax, and make it big, say, 15% of the purchase price, at minimum. If you are going to tax the bajesus out of the stuff that gets us to work, and ships our goods, you can tax toys for the dumb masses.

Your response has nothing to do with my post.  It also doesn't make any sense.  People in this thread are demonizing Apple for using tax loopholes and advocating taxing them more, and some of them are even liberals.  Also, specific taxes on specific products further complicates the tax structure, something I'd think a "conservative" would be against.


People in this thread are full of crap. My point is obvious. If liberals really cared about the welfare of the country, and fair taxation, none of this would be a problem. And let's face it, nothing will be done about Apple, because most Apple product owners vote Democrat. It is all about votes.

Personally, I think, good for Apple. Only way this will ever truly be solved is to make the US an attractive place to do business. Right now this is a terrible place to do business. You are punished for being successful. Why not outsource and hide your money?
 
2013-05-21 11:18:19 AM

DeathCipris: Your reductio ad absurdum argument advocating communism with a sprinkling of teatard nonsense will get you no where.

0/10


You're an enemy of the Hollywood Intern, I can tell you that much.

Hater.
 
2013-05-21 11:19:25 AM

Thunderpipes: you have pee hands: Thunderpipes: BS.

I guarantee you a gigantic chunk of liberal progressive hippie Obama voters own Apple products.

I have been saying it all along, why no outrage over "Big Apple" like people demonize oil companies? We all depend on oil, their profit margins are low. Apple makes useless crap with large profit margins nobody really needs, and is sitting on more money than any other corporation on Earth.

I think we should come up with a federal smart phone tax, and make it big, say, 15% of the purchase price, at minimum. If you are going to tax the bajesus out of the stuff that gets us to work, and ships our goods, you can tax toys for the dumb masses.

Your response has nothing to do with my post.  It also doesn't make any sense.  People in this thread are demonizing Apple for using tax loopholes and advocating taxing them more, and some of them are even liberals.  Also, specific taxes on specific products further complicates the tax structure, something I'd think a "conservative" would be against.

People in this thread are full of crap. My point is obvious. If liberals really cared about the welfare of the country, and fair taxation, none of this would be a problem. And let's face it, nothing will be done about Apple, because most Apple product owners vote Democrat. It is all about votes.

Personally, I think, good for Apple. Only way this will ever truly be solved is to make the US an attractive place to do business. Right now this is a terrible place to do business. You are punished for being successful. Why not outsource and hide your money?


Ah, I see, some nutjob that is determined to make everything political. Go peddle your insanity over in the politics tab, Thunderpipes. But I guess they made fun of you and that's why you are over here now.
 
2013-05-21 11:20:14 AM

Pappy091: Anyway, as another poster said, most of this discussion is directed to the wealthy which I am most certainly not.


Then why are you defending the very wealthy for paying less in taxes (from a percentage point of view) instead of defending people like you and I, who pay more from a percentage point of view?
 
2013-05-21 11:20:27 AM

Thunderpipes: you have pee hands: Thunderpipes: BS.

I guarantee you a gigantic chunk of liberal progressive hippie Obama voters own Apple products.

I have been saying it all along, why no outrage over "Big Apple" like people demonize oil companies? We all depend on oil, their profit margins are low. Apple makes useless crap with large profit margins nobody really needs, and is sitting on more money than any other corporation on Earth.

I think we should come up with a federal smart phone tax, and make it big, say, 15% of the purchase price, at minimum. If you are going to tax the bajesus out of the stuff that gets us to work, and ships our goods, you can tax toys for the dumb masses.

Your response has nothing to do with my post.  It also doesn't make any sense.  People in this thread are demonizing Apple for using tax loopholes and advocating taxing them more, and some of them are even liberals.  Also, specific taxes on specific products further complicates the tax structure, something I'd think a "conservative" would be against.

People in this thread are full of crap. My point is obvious. If liberals really cared about the welfare of the country, and fair taxation, none of this would be a problem. And let's face it, nothing will be done about Apple, because most Apple product owners vote Democrat. It is all about votes.

Personally, I think, good for Apple. Only way this will ever truly be solved is to make the US an attractive place to do business. Right now this is a terrible place to do business. You are punished for being successful. Why not outsource and hide your money?


Libbiest lib lib evar here.


Android/PC user.

Neener
 
2013-05-21 11:21:12 AM
Buy drugs = fund death, corruption and violence in Latin America.

but

Buy Apple products = fund unicorns who fart sprinkles and shiat rainbows.

Wait, WUT? It's really ...

Buy Apple products = fund morally reprehesible tax avoiders who hate America


i.imgur.com
 
2013-05-21 11:21:38 AM

t3knomanser: You're the jerk... jerk: Ask yourself a question, if a corporation is profiting $1B and not paying a dividend (or the equivalent such as share buy backs) what are they doing with it?

Well, in the case of Apple, they sat on it- for  years. They often use it for acquisitions- my employer has been buying up a lot of smaller companies lately, Apple's done the same. They may re-invest it into the company. Regardless, a company is not beholden to pay dividends, nor is there any guarantee that a successful company's share price will increase (Apple's profitability has remained incredibly high, their share price has tanked over the past year), and only a fool would believe that share price is an accurate representation of the value of a company,  anyway.

The key point is that there's no relationship between a company's income and the income of its share holders. As a result, it makes a great deal of sense to tax the company as an entity separate from its share holders.

You're the jerk... jerk: Capital Gains taxes are paid on the increase in share price from time of purchase.

Only when those gains are realized. If you're a buy-and-hold investor, like pretty much anybody with a 401(K), IRA, or any sort of mutual funds-  most shareholders- you aren't going to be paying very much capital gains tax on the increase of your net worth.


If you do not think a share price accurately reflects the expected future value of a company (based on the consensus of the investing public), than there is no discussion to be had. The fact you would think people who hold that view to be foolish, makes me wonder how much you have studied economics and/or corporate finance.

All investors who are pricing Apple will note the cash on the balance sheet and consider that part of the investment. (Hence the incredibly high P/E despite reduced growth projections). Your comment about Apple being profitable but declining in stock price implies you do not see them failing to hit margin goals (which the higher price included in their assumption) or downward revisions to growth plans (previous stock prices had included these higher projections)

Some investors are buy and hold investors, you would have to adjust capital gains rates to account for this when shrinking the revenue gap.
 
2013-05-21 11:24:20 AM

Pappy091: I understand, but people need to blame the system, not the business. No one is going to voluntarily pay more taxes just because.

My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.


Actually, as a whole, they are indeed the problem. The poor don't lobby for the laws the rich need to avoid paying taxes - the rich do. Both political parties which run our country are, to greater or lesser extent, worked by our wealthy class like puppets. The disproportionate power they - in ever increasing amounts - continue to wield through the elected officials they bankroll is exactly the problem.

Money has it's own peculiar form of gravity - piles of money attract other piles of money. The descendents of the rich tend to stay rich, and the descendents of the poor tend to stay poor. Having more resources means you have a greater ability to guard those resources then others do, and use them to aquire even more. The rich can take advantage of our economic and political system in many ways that the poor simply cannot, and thereby reinforce the kind of permenant castes we were trying to avoid in this country. That's why many of the founding fathers were concerned about the corrosive effects of dynastic wealth.

That's not to say we don't need any rich or should dissolve all large corporations... but we do need to re-balance the system which has tilted so very far in favor of them already. That lack of balance is why for decades now the average American has steadily become more and more impoverished and the weathiest have been getting wealthier at an increasing pace (which is where the wealth of the poor and middle class has been re-distributed to).

The money which is piling up and stagnating in those piles of dynastic wealth should be circulating through the economy instead. There's a reason why our economy is so fragile now, and recovering so anemically (we need both supply AND demand, not just supply). It would make for a stronger, healthier, more prosperous nation for everyone if we could re-balance things back towards the masses a bit and away from the wealthy.
 
2013-05-21 11:26:14 AM
I'm pretty sure Apple isn't the only company screwing over the countries they operate from
 
2013-05-21 11:28:42 AM

hugram: Pappy091: Anyway, as another poster said, most of this discussion is directed to the wealthy which I am most certainly not.

Then why are you defending the very wealthy for paying less in taxes (from a percentage point of view) instead of defending people like you and I, who pay more from a percentage point of view?


I am saying that if any of the people that complain about this were to find themselves in the "1%", then they are going to use the exact same "loopholes" they are complaining about today. I don't have a problem eliminating most loopholes. I think that an overall simpler tax code is a very good thing. What I have a problem with is everyone hating rich people and big companies. You used to be looked up to for being successful in this country. Now it something to almost be ashamed of.
 
2013-05-21 11:29:06 AM

Phinn: On the one hand, there the idea that someone, somewhere might be profiting without the gubment getting a cut ... Bbbbbut tax-killing Apple might interfere with the next generation of iPad .... What is a Hipster Leftist to do?


You're trying too hard. Subtlety, my son... you gotta lead the fish before you start jerking the bait.
 
2013-05-21 11:30:13 AM

Thunderpipes: People in this thread are full of crap. My point is obvious. If liberals really cared about the welfare of the country, and fair taxation, none of this would be a problem. And let's face it, nothing will be done about Apple, because most Apple product owners vote Democrat. It is all about votes.

Personally, I think, good for Apple. Only way this will ever truly be solved is to make the US an attractive place to do business. Right now this is a terrible place to do business. You are punished for being successful. Why not outsource and hide your money?


You're never really a great troll but come on.  This is really lazy.  Put some effort into it.  This is Fark, not your local newspaper message board.
 
2013-05-21 11:35:10 AM

t3knomanser: mongbiohazard: They WANT deductions, loopholes and other complexity in the tax code - as much complexity as possible - because they can hide behind that complexity.

That's not entirely false, but there's something else going on here.  Taxation is a complex problem. Simple tax systems- like say, the so-called "Fair Tax"- are deeply unfair and highly regressive. Complex tax systems  also end up being deeply unfair, because complexity creates confusion. It's simple to say, "Taxation should be fair," but it's much  much harder to identify what "fair" is.


I absolutely agree that a Flat/Fair tax would be awful, is regressive and is exactly what new age robber barons want.

However a simple tax system does not necessarily equal a flat tax. For instance a simpler tax system could just include different asset brackets, but just no (or fewer) deductions. There are many ways we could reduce complexity in the tax code without scrapping an ostensibly progressive (it's really pretty regressive right now as things stand) tax system entirely. I'd be happy if we lowered some of the rates but did away with ALL deductions. Instead of screwing with deductions and exemptions (which are disporportionately utilized by the wealthy) to hide the real rates, just put the rates where we want them to be and drop the facade.

But that's not likely to happen because it's part of the dance politicians play to keep getting votes from the public while also continuing to get their bribes lobbying/campaign money from the business community. Have rates supposedly high enough to appease to the proles, but include a bunch of opaque ways the wealthy can avoid actually paying any of it to appease the wealthy who bankroll them.
 
2013-05-21 11:35:18 AM

mongbiohazard: Pappy091: I understand, but people need to blame the system, not the business. No one is going to voluntarily pay more taxes just because.

My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.

Actually, as a whole, they are indeed the problem. The poor don't lobby for the laws the rich need to avoid paying taxes - the rich do. Both political parties which run our country are, to greater or lesser extent, worked by our wealthy class like puppets. The disproportionate power they - in ever increasing amounts - continue to wield through the elected officials they bankroll is exactly the problem.

Money has it's own peculiar form of gravity - piles of money attract other piles of money. The descendents of the rich tend to stay rich, and the descendents of the poor tend to stay poor. Having more resources means you have a greater ability to guard those resources then others do, and use them to aquire even more. The rich can take advantage of our economic and political system in many ways that the poor simply cannot, and thereby reinforce the kind of permenant castes we were trying to avoid in this country. That's why many of the founding fathers were concerned about the corrosive effects of dynastic wealth.

That's not to say we don't need any rich or should dissolve all large corporations... but we do need to re-balance the system which has tilted so very far in favor of them already. That lack of balance is why for decades now the average American has steadily become more and more impoverished and the weathiest have been getting wealthier at an increasing pace (which is where the wealth of the poor and middle class has been re-distributed to).

The money which is piling up and stagnating in those piles of dynastic wealth should be circulating through the economy instead. There's a reason why our economy is so fragile now, and recovering so anemica ...


I agree that lobbyist are a huge problem. Campaign finance reform and TERM LIMITS are our only hope of solving that problem.

Most of your points revolve around the common misconception that there is a finite amount of wealth in the country that is being hoarded to a greater and greater extent by the wealthy. These people aren't burying gold in their back yards. They are invested in the economy. Their wealth is measure by and large by their assets, not cash.

One way to solve the "advantage" that they descendants of wealthy parents have is to teach all of our children better fiscal responsibility as they grow. I have been a proponent for years for have mandatory financial classes taught to all children every year starting at a very young age. It is actually very easy to retire a multi-millionaire in this country. All you need to do is have a plan in place. The sooner the better. Very few people realize this.
 
2013-05-21 11:38:28 AM

Pappy091: hugram: Pappy091: Anyway, as another poster said, most of this discussion is directed to the wealthy which I am most certainly not.

Then why are you defending the very wealthy for paying less in taxes (from a percentage point of view) instead of defending people like you and I, who pay more from a percentage point of view?

I am saying that if any of the people that complain about this were to find themselves in the "1%", then they are going to use the exact same "loopholes" they are complaining about today. I don't have a problem eliminating most loopholes. I think that an overall simpler tax code is a very good thing. What I have a problem with is everyone hating rich people and big companies. You used to be looked up to for being successful in this country. Now it something to almost be ashamed of.


I don't hate rich people at all. I'm all for you to make as much as possible, assuming you are not hurting others to get your wealth.

What most people in here don't like is the level of greediness some of them possess, such as lobbying for tax breaks. That's just pure greed. Help pay back to the system that got you rich. Go try and get rich in Somalia or some other country that has no solid tax structures.

If I was super wealthy, I would not spend hundred of thousands of dollars lobbying to pay for less in taxes, but that's just me. After all, how many homes, cars, private jets, yachts, etc. do you really need?
 
2013-05-21 11:39:17 AM

You're the jerk... jerk: The fact you would think people who hold that view to be foolish, makes me wonder how much you have studied economics and/or corporate finance.


I've studied enough to know that markets are not rational, not even in aggregate. Models of market pricing are just that- models. The stock market is a stochastic system, and while over time, a stock price may average out to represent something close to a company's actual value, most of the variation in stock price is little more than noise.

You're the jerk... jerk: Your comment about Apple being profitable but declining in stock price implies you do not see them failing to hit margin goals (which the higher price included in their assumption) or downward revisions to growth plans (previous stock prices had included these higher projections)


I'm quite aware that Apple isn't hitting the targets that investors are setting for them. All that really tells us is that the targets investors want have nothing to do with what a company will actually try to do. Apple's high stock prices were never driven by healthy fundamentals- they were driven by faddishness. Note the fact that everybody's wondering when Apple will release the next product that's as disruptive as the iPhone.
 
2013-05-21 11:39:52 AM

Walker: This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft.

/more at 11


I think you meant to say Corporations ARE rich people...my friend.
 
2013-05-21 11:39:55 AM
Tim Cook testifying now
 
2013-05-21 11:40:16 AM

farker99: Just in - Apple is a corporation doing what all other corporations do to reduce their tax burden. Interviews with Google, HP, IBM, and other tech giants show that they do the same thing and some even got called to testify on it last year.

/This is Apples turn in the barrel


Well, apparently everyone defers their taxes, but only Apple has the gall to claim its overseas corporations don't need to pay taxes in any country.
 
2013-05-21 11:40:54 AM

mongbiohazard: That's not to say we don't need any rich or should dissolve all large corporations... but we do need to re-balance the system which has tilted so very far in favor of them already. That lack of balance is why for decades now the average American has steadily become more and more impoverished and the weathiest have been getting wealthier at an increasing pace (which is where the wealth of the poor and middle class has been re-distributed to).

The money which is piling up and stagnating in those piles of dynastic wealth should be circulating through the economy instead. There's a reason why our economy is so fragile now, and recovering so anemically (we need both supply AND demand, not just supply). It would make for a stronger, healthier, more prosperous nation for everyone if we could re-balance things back towards the masses a bit and away from the wealthy.


Looking at the big picture, it's fairly obvious what has happened over the last 30 years. It has to do with a battle between the forces trying to raise wages, and the forces trying to raise assets. The asset side, of course, has won this battle in both parties.
 
2013-05-21 11:42:37 AM

hugram: Pappy091: hugram: Pappy091: Anyway, as another poster said, most of this discussion is directed to the wealthy which I am most certainly not.

Then why are you defending the very wealthy for paying less in taxes (from a percentage point of view) instead of defending people like you and I, who pay more from a percentage point of view?

I am saying that if any of the people that complain about this were to find themselves in the "1%", then they are going to use the exact same "loopholes" they are complaining about today. I don't have a problem eliminating most loopholes. I think that an overall simpler tax code is a very good thing. What I have a problem with is everyone hating rich people and big companies. You used to be looked up to for being successful in this country. Now it something to almost be ashamed of.

I don't hate rich people at all. I'm all for you to make as much as possible, assuming you are not hurting others to get your wealth.

What most people in here don't like is the level of greediness some of them possess, such as lobbying for tax breaks. That's just pure greed. Help pay back to the system that got you rich. Go try and get rich in Somalia or some other country that has no solid tax structures.

If I was super wealthy, I would not spend hundred of thousands of dollars lobbying to pay for less in taxes, but that's just me. After all, how many homes, cars, private jets, yachts, etc. do you really need?


I can understand that, but what percentage of wealthy people do that?

Isn't that the same as a wealthy person hating all poor people because some poor people steal?

And I'm not talking about your viewpoint specifically, just the general public over the past several years.
 
2013-05-21 11:44:16 AM

Pappy091: hugram: Pappy091: Anyway, as another poster said, most of this discussion is directed to the wealthy which I am most certainly not.

Then why are you defending the very wealthy for paying less in taxes (from a percentage point of view) instead of defending people like you and I, who pay more from a percentage point of view?

I am saying that if any of the people that complain about this were to find themselves in the "1%", then they are going to use the exact same "loopholes" they are complaining about today. I don't have a problem eliminating most loopholes. I think that an overall simpler tax code is a very good thing. What I have a problem with is everyone hating rich people and big companies. You used to be looked up to for being successful in this country. Now it something to almost be ashamed of.


No, no I wouldn't.

I have something called ethics.  It's the very reason I currently pay my full tax liability.
 
2013-05-21 11:45:37 AM

mongbiohazard: However a simple tax system does not necessarily equal a flat tax


I agree, I pulled that one out as an example of extreme simplicity.

mongbiohazard: I'd be happy if we lowered some of the rates but did away with ALL deductions.


It sounds simple, but those deductions grew for  reasons. It's in the interests of the state to encourage people to have children, for example. Simply lowering the tax rate so that people have more disposable income doesn't mean that they'll have children. Giving them deductions for having children, on the other hand, allows the state to essentially invest a portion of its income into a future generation of workers and citizens. Similarly, local governments have a vested interest in getting people to purchase property in their borders. The state has a vested interest in supporting local governments, and hence things like mortgage interest deductions appear (it's also a sop to the banks and the real estate industry).

And so on. The state has good reasons to give up some of its tax income to encourage certain behaviors. Encouraging charitable giving. Encouraging investment in green energy. The state can plan for the long term, and doesn't need immediate returns on its investments. If you view tax deductions  as an investment made by the state, it quickly becomes clear why they get some complex so quickly.

Could it be simplified? Certainly. Could it ever be simple? Never.
 
2013-05-21 11:45:49 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: mongbiohazard: That's not to say we don't need any rich or should dissolve all large corporations... but we do need to re-balance the system which has tilted so very far in favor of them already. That lack of balance is why for decades now the average American has steadily become more and more impoverished and the weathiest have been getting wealthier at an increasing pace (which is where the wealth of the poor and middle class has been re-distributed to).

The money which is piling up and stagnating in those piles of dynastic wealth should be circulating through the economy instead. There's a reason why our economy is so fragile now, and recovering so anemically (we need both supply AND demand, not just supply). It would make for a stronger, healthier, more prosperous nation for everyone if we could re-balance things back towards the masses a bit and away from the wealthy.

Looking at the big picture, it's fairly obvious what has happened over the last 30 years. It has to do with a battle between the forces trying to raise wages, and the forces trying to raise assets. The asset side, of course, has won this battle in both parties.


Like I said in a previous post. A lot of people operate under the assumption of a finite amount of wealth. "If a rich person has $100 dollars, that's $100 that the rest of us don't have". It's just not true.
 
2013-05-21 11:46:38 AM
"Excuse me, sir, but I've just decided that a large sum of money that you have in your possession now suddenly belongs to the government, because some poor people in an internet forum want it that way."

"Oh, well, let me get my checkbook.  Should I make that out to 'kiss my arse' or 'there's always bum fights'"?
 
2013-05-21 11:49:27 AM

t3knomanser: You're the jerk... jerk: The fact you would think people who hold that view to be foolish, makes me wonder how much you have studied economics and/or corporate finance.

I've studied enough to know that markets are not rational, not even in aggregate. Models of market pricing are just that- models. The stock market is a stochastic system, and while over time, a stock price may average out to represent something close to a company's actual value, most of the variation in stock price is little more than noise.

You're the jerk... jerk: Your comment about Apple being profitable but declining in stock price implies you do not see them failing to hit margin goals (which the higher price included in their assumption) or downward revisions to growth plans (previous stock prices had included these higher projections)

I'm quite aware that Apple isn't hitting the targets that investors are setting for them. All that really tells us is that the targets investors want have nothing to do with what a company will actually try to do. Apple's high stock prices were never driven by healthy fundamentals- they were driven by faddishness. Note the fact that everybody's wondering when Apple will release the next product that's as disruptive as the iPhone.


You say this, but it is clearly wrong. AAPL's free cash flow grew over 600% since 2008, the P/E excluding cash is now under 6. The high prices are and continue to be warranted by the fundamentals. If anything the market under predicted growth in 2008 and slightly over predicted in 2011/2.

Also, please outline how you think a rational market would behave and how that is different than today. At any given time the stock price of a company represents the expected future value of the free cash flow of that company. Is it 100% correct? Obviously not. Does it generally correspond to the actual results? Yes.
 
2013-05-21 11:49:55 AM

Pappy091: Like I said in a previous post. A lot of people operate under the assumption of a finite amount of wealth. "If a rich person has $100 dollars, that's $100 that the rest of us don't have". It's just not true.


That wasn't my post. But it is true that our economy is 70% reliant on consumer spending. While corporate profits are at historic highs, wages are at historic lows. The middle class does not have any money to spend on things beyond necessities. As a result aggregate demand is suffering. So companies aren't hiring. So wages suffer even more. And on and on we go, down the spiral towards the bottom.
 
2013-05-21 11:51:50 AM
Yo dawg, we heard you like loopholes, so we exploited a loophole inside a loophole just for you!
 
2013-05-21 11:54:09 AM

You're the jerk... jerk: You say this, but it is clearly wrong. AAPL's free cash flow grew over 600% since 2008, the P/E excluding cash is now under 6.


Compare that to its stock price, however. Its stock price was clearly out of control, nearly to the point of being a bubble, and is just now coming back down to about where it probably should be. The same thing happened with Google's stock price a few years back.
 
2013-05-21 11:56:38 AM
The debate with Pappy091 is missing the point.  The tax planning opportunities available to multinational corporations have no relationship to the taxes paid by individuals, no matter how wealthy.

On the "loophole" issue, the folks at the IRS do their best to make international tax rules that are fair to both the government and the taxpayer but the reality is that there will never be broad multinational consensus on tax rules and so an army of very smart and highly-compensated professionals are always going to figure out ways to take advantage of the disparate rules in multiple jurisdictions.  It's not as simple as saying "oh, here's a big loophole, let's just close that up."  The rules are generally the way they are the way they are for perfectly legitimate reasons.  It's just that the folks the folks in Ireland (and the British Virgin Islands and so on) have different ideas of what is fair and appropriate.
 
2013-05-21 11:57:42 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Pappy091: Like I said in a previous post. A lot of people operate under the assumption of a finite amount of wealth. "If a rich person has $100 dollars, that's $100 that the rest of us don't have". It's just not true.

That wasn't my post. But it is true that our economy is 70% reliant on consumer spending. While corporate profits are at historic highs, wages are at historic lows. The middle class does not have any money to spend on things beyond necessities. As a result aggregate demand is suffering. So companies aren't hiring. So wages suffer even more. And on and on we go, down the spiral towards the bottom.


I believe it is a false belief that the middle class is suffering. Saying that they only have money to spend on necessities is just laughable in my opinion. Unless we have gotten to a point in our country where 52" flat screens and 2200 sq ft houses are "necessary".
 
2013-05-21 12:01:44 PM

Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: pute kisses like a man: you got some double dutch in my irish sandwich... or whatever they call it.

i wonder, would the US make more in tax revenue if it decreased taxes?  there is a point where it's not worth the financial complexity and costs of professional hours to avoid paying taxes.  or, should it just legislate out the possibility of these clever tactics?  not that it would work.  tax people would find a new loophole, or just leave.

  In terms of corporate tax, what is needed is a combination of lowering the nominal tax rate and closing a lot of the loopholes.  Our nominal rate is 35%, so conservatives tend to latch onto that number saying that corporations pay way too much tax here. But the reality is that our effective corporate tax rate, due to various subsidies, tax breaks and loop holes, is somewhere in the range of 12-16%, and many corporations pay no taxes at all.
   The biggest loopholes are the ones like Apple is exploiting to offshore the money to what is essentially a shell company, and similar ways to create giant write-offs.

 I'd be in favor of congress lowing the statutory rate to something in the high teens or low 20s, close the loopholes, and then add some tax breaks that will increase job creation.  For example, a lot of companies complain they can't find employees with the skills they need (because they're usually looking for something stupid like 5 years experience with software only they use).   Offer companies reasonable tax breaks/incentives to train new employees with the skills they need (with the incentive based on the amount of training required), as long as they keep that employee for at least 12 months after training is complete.


Our effective tax rate has historically hovered around 18%.  Tax increases, flat tax rate, loopholes, or no loopholes, it has always been about 18%.  Once everyone accepts that simple historical fact, everything else from any side is just theater.
 
2013-05-21 12:01:48 PM

farker99: Just in - Apple is a corporation doing what all other corporations do to reduce their tax burden. Interviews with Google, HP, IBM, and other tech giants show that they do the same thing and some even got called to testify on it last year.

/This is Apples turn in the barrel


Will you still feel this way when it's Exxon or Halliburton?
 
2013-05-21 12:01:51 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: our economy is 70% reliant on consumer spending



Stop now, before you hurt yourself.

See, all production is for the purpose of consumption.  That's sort of the point in engaging in productive activity.  Also, some production chains are longer than others, but they all point to the same place.  Chew on that before you strain your intellect.

Dusk-You-n-Me: While corporate profits are at historic highs, wages are at historic lows.



Especially in Hollywood, amiright?

Dusk-You-n-Me: The middle class does not have any money to spend on things beyond necessities.



Except beer, cigarettes, smartphones, movies, cable TV and Disney World vacations. See, I told you to stop before ...

Dusk-You-n-Me: aggregate demand is suffering



Crap.  Never mind.
 
2013-05-21 12:08:08 PM

Pappy091: I believe it is a false belief that the middle class is suffering.


It isn't false. It's a fact that wages are at historic lows. It's a fact that half the jobs in America pay less than $34,000 a year. It's a fact that without government assistance, 30% of our population would live in poverty. It's a fact that one in five children in the U.S. lives in poverty. You can ignore it, as most of our politicians and media does, or you can accept it and decide whether this is how you think the richest most powerful nation in the world should operate.
 
2013-05-21 12:09:12 PM
And this makes them different then every big corporation how?
 
2013-05-21 12:09:29 PM

t3knomanser: You're the jerk... jerk: You say this, but it is clearly wrong. AAPL's free cash flow grew over 600% since 2008, the P/E excluding cash is now under 6.

Compare that to its stock price, however. Its stock price was clearly out of control, nearly to the point of being a bubble, and is just now coming back down to about where it probably should be. The same thing happened with Google's stock price a few years back.


I don't see the trend you are talking about:
1. P/E excluding cash already adjusts for stock price. It was higher before when growth was expected (and obtained) it is much lower now that growth prospects have waned
2. The FCF seems to grow much faster than price indicating the market did a very good job of predicting growth and the eventual leveling off (ycharts)
 
2013-05-21 12:11:13 PM

Pappy091: Walker: This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft.

/more at 11


Yay!...more income envy.

This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise and gross) than you could even imagine.

Why do people think that raising taxes is going to fix a rising multi-trillion dollar deficit. Raising taxes is a drop in the bucket compared to what we need to do to get out of this hole.


Oh please, oh wise one.  Tell us plebs what we must do to save our country!?!?!?
 
2013-05-21 12:11:46 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Pappy091: I believe it is a false belief that the middle class is suffering.

It isn't false. It's a fact that wages are at historic lows. It's a fact that half the jobs in America pay less than $34,000 a year. It's a fact that without government assistance, 30% of our population would live in poverty. It's a fact that one in five children in the U.S. lives in poverty. You can ignore it, as most of our politicians and media does, or you can accept it and decide whether this is how you think the richest most powerful nation in the world should operate.


I think that most of the world laughs their asses of at America's definition of poverty. I'm not saying that the lower class should be content, but our definition of classes is way out of whack with the rest of the world. Just look at the quality of life that the lower/middle classes have today compared to 50 years ago.

This is still America, where you are responsible for your life. Everyone has the opportunity to be successful, however they define success. Redistribution of wealth is not the way to raise the lower/middle class. Better education with an emphasis on financial smarts is a good start though.
 
2013-05-21 12:12:32 PM

JohnnyC: Pappy091: Walker: This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft.

/more at 11


Yay!...more income envy.

This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise and gross) than you could even imagine.

Why do people think that raising taxes is going to fix a rising multi-trillion dollar deficit. Raising taxes is a drop in the bucket compared to what we need to do to get out of this hole.

Oh look everyone! Pappy is here tell us how bad the rich have it. Oh please, Pappy... do it some more! Stand up for those poor, oppressed, sad, rich folks who so desperately need you to defend them. They're counting on you!


LOL Johnny C
 
2013-05-21 12:13:04 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: It isn't false. It's a fact that wages are at historic lows. It's a fact that half the jobs in America pay less than $34,000 a year. It's a fact that without government assistance, 30% of our population would live in poverty. It's a fact that one in five children in the U.S. lives in poverty. You can ignore it, as most of our politicians and media does, or you can accept it and decide whether this is how you think the richest most powerful nation in the world should operate.


You're not describing the middle class.

Also, earlier governmental action is the root cause of every problem you describe.
 
2013-05-21 12:15:12 PM
Today is probably the only time I will ever agree with Rand Paul....
 
2013-05-21 12:18:50 PM

Pappy091: Just look at the quality of life that the lower/middle classes have today compared to 50 years ago.


Hey what a coincidence, 40% of Americans now make less than the 1968 minimum wage. Things are totally better.

Pappy091: Redistribution of wealth is not the way to raise the lower/middle class


Sure it is. That's what taxes are, a redistribution of wealth. Those who have been successful need to pay back the country that facilitated their wealth. It's We the People, not Me the Person. I don't have kids, but I don't mind paying for public schools because it enhances the public good, and that's good for everybody - poor, middle, and rich.
 
2013-05-21 12:19:09 PM
Appel literally has so much cash (not profits, not operating capital, actually excess CASH) that it is becoming a signficant problem for them on how and where to store it.  They've created a hedge fund for it, Braebrun, that is the single largest hedge fund in the world now.  Despite all this, they STILL feel the need to go to exteme lengths to chisel the last cent they can out of thier tax obligations and essentially refuse to say "thank you" to all those countries who legal, physical and poltical infrastructures make their operations possible and profitable.   Sickening really, but what do expect from a sompany built in the personal image of a confirmed sociopath?
 
2013-05-21 12:21:03 PM
Dusk-You-n-Me:

It's a fact that wages are at historic lows.False statement.Quick Census Bureau check of historical wages by individual and household proves this to be false


It's a fact that half the jobs in America pay less than $34,000 a year.False Statement.  Again, Census Bureau check of Average Income for Americans shows this to be false for 2012.

It's a fact that without government assistance, 30% of our population would live in poverty.  Very vague statement with so many ways to define govt. assistance and poverty line discussion and Monte Carlo simulations of unknown situations to arise from cutting off govt. assistance that this is not a fact, but just conjecture.

It's a fact that one in five children in the U.S. lives in poverty.This is highly argumentative.  Whereas, I know where you got this data point, it is questionable based on the methodology they are employing to determine poverty line.  But, I'll grant you some legitimacy to this point given that you apparently haven't delved into the problems with bright line arguements on determination of poverty lines.
 
2013-05-21 12:21:15 PM

Source4leko: Pappy091: Walker: This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft.

/more at 11


Yay!...more income envy.

This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise and gross) than you could even imagine.

Why do people think that raising taxes is going to fix a rising multi-trillion dollar deficit. Raising taxes is a drop in the bucket compared to what we need to do to get out of this hole.

Oh please, oh wise one.  Tell us plebs what we must do to save our country!?!?!?


Your choice, pitchforks and torches or move.
Panama is lookin' good.
 
2013-05-21 12:21:24 PM

unlikely: So I'm fuzzy on this. Do we hate loopholes that allow corporations to dodge taxes or not?



Well, see that's the tricky part. We hate the loopholes and want the stop corporate exploitation of them right up to the point where we have a vested interest (ie. we makes some monies) from that loophole exploitation. And those are the people who have Congress' ear. But chances are you and I will never be in the position to enjoy that privilege, SO in short, no. We hate and yell and scream but ultimately we are serfs, not all that different than those toiling for barons and dukes and kings in Europe a thousand years ago. We have better shoes. And we have television and cell phones to tell us that we're actually something more than serfs, but the vast majority of us will work full-time, grateful for a handful of Federal Holidays and 2 weeks vacation each year. We'll work and work and work and keep working until we're unable to work anymore (just like our feudal ancestors). Then we'll hope there's enough squirreled away to live out our days indoors with heat and food. And family, we'll hope they'll help. And we have Social Security which will keep us just below poverty and most likely festering in squalor with minimal care until we eventually die. It takes the place of the convent that might have given us a fetid bed and bowl of gruel once upon a time, but the quality's about the same. Dull tedium, aching, and shiatting ourselves. Comfortable, or at least not in agony, as we reminisce about that one time we did something wonderful.

With the exception of some technologies and a some comforts here and there, it's pretty much no different than it was back then. We delude ourselves with our "American Dream" and we watch wealthy people cavort and fark each other and say profoundly stupid things on the television. It makes us feel like we're part of their circle, that we share some of this fancy living, the parties and socializing. We can't really tell the difference because we feel like we're at the party with them in High Def, and imagine what it must be like as we drink our cheap imitations of what they're drinking. We know they sleep at night, and we sleep at night so we figure that's pretty much the same. And we have an uncle who says stupid, outrageous, uninformed things so we tell ourselves, "hey, I've made it!"

What we don't see is while we're waiting for that 2 weeks this summer where we'll spend half of it cleaning out the attic and maybe 5 days at the beach with a day of travel at each end, the 1% is taking weeks at the beach frequently, and it's a private beach in the South of France, or somewhere in Central America with guards to keep the drug cartels and begger children away.  But we don't see that so we go ahead and identify them and it pacifies us. And we'll spend the next 8 months paying off the debt from that vacation. And unable to buy new eyeglasses as a result, but that's OK, 'cause these are still working. The 1% paid cash for their trip and didn't even notice the expense.

And we'll toil at our dumb jobs until we're 65, 68, 70, maybe more, and we might actually enjoy it now and then, just as our feudal serf ancestors might have enjoyed tending a particular garden (that also belonged to someone else), and there you have it. And then we'll grow decrepit and die, and the billionaires who've socked away their wealth and connived with their accountants and lobbyists to protect and keep their wealth will not notice our passing, except to tell some flunky to find another, younger serf to take our former place at the mill-wheel.
 
2013-05-21 12:22:23 PM
i.imgur.com

Not a good reason to do it, but a good reason to fix the problem rather than going around blaming one business after another.

Perhaps, I don't know, we could close the loopholes? Could we? Probably not, that would negate "Trickle Down".
 
2013-05-21 12:23:42 PM

Pappy091: I agree that lobbyist are a huge problem. Campaign finance reform and TERM LIMITS are our only hope of solving that problem.

Most of your points revolve around the common misconception that there is a finite amount of wealth in the country that is being hoarded to a greater and greater extent by the wealthy. These people aren't burying gold in their back yards. They are invested in the economy. Their wealth is measure by and large by their assets, not cash.



False. I said no such thing, nor do I believe it. But look at what's happened to corporate profits and worker productivity during this period of severe upwards wealth redistribution. Wealth HAS been created and it is all going straight to the top of the income pyramid. As the pool of the nation's wealth has grown ever larger no one is seeing it except for a small, already afluent, segment of our society.

And the wealthy don't sit on wealth by burying it in the backyard - that's something you're more likely to see the poor do (hide it in mattresses and such). The wealthy hide it in offshore accounts, tax havens, bank accounts, hedge funds, expensive durable goods, jewels, bearer bonds, expensive foreign villas, etc. etc...

One way to solve the "advantage" that they descendants of wealthy parents have is to teach all of our children better fiscal responsibility as they grow. I have been a proponent for years for have mandatory financial classes taught to all children every year starting at a very young age. It is actually very easy to retire a multi-millionaire in this country. All you need to do is have a plan in place. The sooner the better. Very few people realize this.

False. Fiscal responsibility is a basic skill we should indeed teach our youth, but it will absolutely not solve our problems whatsoever.

For one thing, I suspect that you're relying on a misconception that wealthy children are more fiscally responsible then poor children. Not only do I seriously doubt that they are, I'd suggest they're more likely to be personally irresposible, as they have employees who are paid to manage their finances for them.

But MUCH more importantly than that, the wealthy take disproportionate advantage of our economic system then the poor do in a vast myriad of ways. Someone poor may have an idea for a product or business but be unable to easily capitalize on it - if at all. The children of the wealthy (and wealthy themselves) tend to have the capital backing they need without much effort. The children of the poor have a harder time affording higher education - if they can manage to afford it at all - while the wealthy send their kids to whatever school they would like, which also tend to be schools where the wealthy children congregate thus ensuring them more lucrative networking then is available to poor children. Poor families pay more of their income to taxes, wealthy families don't become insolvent when the primary wage earner becomes sick or is laid off, wealthy families don't have the same stresses that poor families do trying to survive each day - which has a developmental cost for the children. The poor families are more likely to go to jail or suffer financial penalties which harm them to a far greater degree then wealthy families for the same criminal infractions. Small costs or fines may make the food or rent budget hard to meet, whereas a wealthy family doesn't have that problem. Etc. etc. etc....... You could go on all day long like that.

There are a million ways the wealthy are advantaged just by being wealthy. So in addition to the head start they got by starting out wealthy (the starting conditions) the accumulated million different advantages they continue to enjoy throughout their lives while competing ensure that they STAY wealthy for generations. This is why there's absolutely nothing inherently wrong with a progressive tax system. You tax the wealthy at a higher rate because they disproportionately benefit from society - and then use that money to continue running the society writ large and helping level the playing field for those at the bottom (increased education spending, maintaining the infrastructure the poor rely on proportionally more, etc.). I'd argue it's immoral to have anything BUT a progressive tax system. Unfortunately, because of the disproportionate power the wealthy wield over our government the tax system we currently have is actually fairly regressive right now.
 
2013-05-21 12:24:25 PM
So, when do we arrest Apple? Or Microsoft? Or Hewlett-Packard?

After all, these corporations are people in so many areas of the law - why aren't they people here, too?

Dusk-You-n-Me: Sure it is. That's what taxes are, a redistribution of wealth. Those who have been successful need to pay back the country that facilitated their wealth. It's We the People, not Me the Person. I don't have kids, but I don't mind paying for public schools because it enhances the public good, and that's good for everybody - poor, middle, and rich.


Well stated. The "fark you, got mine" message pushed so hard by some folks goes against the public good, and such folks see corporate tax shelters as just good business sense. The rich get to pass the costs onto others, while they stay rich. Sure, it's anti-societal, but that's business for you.
 
2013-05-21 12:24:30 PM

duenor: Rich  you have pee hands: Your response has nothing to do with my post.  It also doesn't make any sense.  People in this thread are demonizing Apple for using tax loopholes and advocating taxing them more, and some of them are even liberals.  Also, specific taxes on specific products further complicates the tax structure, something I'd think a "conservative" would be against.


The problem here is that Apple doesn't HAVE to stay in the US. They do so because it suits them, but it's not absolutely necessary. Their attitude (shared among many corps) is that, "Well if you're going to tax us that much we'll just leave and you get a pittance."

I don't think it's right, but they do have a point. Squeeze the golden goose too hard and you get squat.

As a libertarian, I'm not sure what the best course of action here is. It's not like we can (or should) seize their companies and demand our national cut.


Can't seize them, but it's not as if the US can't make it a living nightmare to try this form of creative accounting for all involved.  Unlike most countries and prior eras, the US can go anywhere it pleases.
 
2013-05-21 12:25:07 PM

snocone: Was there a shift from for the "Good of the American People" to "Whatever the Stockholder Needs" or was it always that way?


The shift from "Stakeholder" capitalism to "Shareholder" capitalism in the US, can be traced back to a couple of journal articles in the late 70's, early 80's. It was promoted heavily by Jack Welch and other high profile executives, and ended up being adopted by the majority of American and British firms.

http://www.salon.com/2011/03/29/failure_of_shareholder_capitalism/

As the Salon article above points out, Shareholder capitalism has not been good for most folks, and has even failed in it's primary purpose of increasing share prices.

It has, however, helped make CEO's obscenely wealthy, and will therefore remain the default mode for all companies until there are widespread shareholder revolts against their boards.
 
2013-05-21 12:25:15 PM

mekki: Pappy091: Walker: This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft.

/more at 11


Yay!...more income envy.

This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise and gross) than you could even imagine.

Why do people think that raising taxes is going to fix a rising multi-trillion dollar deficit. Raising taxes is a drop in the bucket compared to what we need to do to get out of this hole.

This just in, rich people ON PAPER seemingly pay far more in taxes but have an army of accountants to find all the loopholes to bring that number way down.


Newsflash .. There are people who use the Title CPA that can tell you how to pay less too. Lets not get persnickety because you haven't looked into reducing your tax liabilities using one or do you people really have nothing better to do all day than biatch about the way the country is run yet still manage to do nothing about it? Seriously. Inquiring minds would like to know.
 
2013-05-21 12:25:37 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Pappy091: Just look at the quality of life that the lower/middle classes have today compared to 50 years ago.

Hey what a coincidence, 40% of Americans now make less than the 1968 minimum wage. Things are totally better.

Pappy091: Redistribution of wealth is not the way to raise the lower/middle class

Sure it is. That's what taxes are, a redistribution of wealth. Those who have been successful need to pay back the country that facilitated their wealth. It's We the People, not Me the Person. I don't have kids, but I don't mind paying for public schools because it enhances the public good, and that's good for everybody - poor, middle, and rich.


I MIGHT be able to see some reason in that argument if I thought that for one second our government was good stewards of our money.
 
2013-05-21 12:25:59 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Those who have been successful need to pay back the country that facilitated their wealth. It's We the People, not Me the Person. I don't have kids, but I don't mind paying for public schools because it enhances the public good, and that's good for everybody - poor, middle, and rich.


No we don't.  Those that have been successful have done so in spite of governmental interference and harm.

People who make a real profit (in a free market, not in a rigged, crony-infested industry, which is just about all of them, nowadays) help themselves, and help society in the process.  They make a profit because they are providing the valuable goods and services desired by consumers, and doing so better and cheaper than others.

I don't care what you mind paying for, or not.  You only seem to care about what I'm paying for, in order to benefit you.

You're the selfish one.  You're the one who's only concerned about Me the Person.
 
2013-05-21 12:27:39 PM

GBB: i wonder, would the US make more in tax revenue if it decreased taxes? there is a point where it's not worth the financial complexity and costs of professional hours to avoid paying taxes.


www.quotesworthrepeating.com

This is the blank curve? Anyone?

Anyone?
 
2013-05-21 12:28:02 PM

Pocket Ninja: I'm sure this only relates to their ongoing concern about work conditions in their Chinese factories. They're still working so hard to correct the rampant abuses that their in-depth investigations uncovered in places like FoxConn, and what they're probably thinking is that when it's time to start spending some money on improving those factories and giving the employees something closer to a living wage that moves them beyond what are essentially slave conditions, it'll be good to have the money closer by. See, if the money was all the way in America, it would be harder to get it there than if it was already in a foreign country overseas. They should be lauded for their concerned efficiency.


Rephrase.

/B+
 
2013-05-21 12:28:41 PM

van1ty: A corporation will spend 100 million dollars to avoid paying 99 million in taxes.


And then they'll claim that $100M as a deductible business expense the following year.
 
2013-05-21 12:29:02 PM

Pappy091: Dusk-You-n-Me: Pappy091: Like I said in a previous post. A lot of people operate under the assumption of a finite amount of wealth. "If a rich person has $100 dollars, that's $100 that the rest of us don't have". It's just not true.

That wasn't my post. But it is true that our economy is 70% reliant on consumer spending. While corporate profits are at historic highs, wages are at historic lows. The middle class does not have any money to spend on things beyond necessities. As a result aggregate demand is suffering. So companies aren't hiring. So wages suffer even more. And on and on we go, down the spiral towards the bottom.

I believe it is a false belief that the middle class is suffering. Saying that they only have money to spend on necessities is just laughable in my opinion. Unless we have gotten to a point in our country where 52" flat screens and 2200 sq ft houses are "necessary".


http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-08-03/opinions/35491334_1_mi dd le-class-median-household-income-income-gains

FTA: "Wage levels in the middle and below have barely budged since the 1970s because of a barrage of shifts in our economy and economic institutions - from globalization and technological advances to the decline of unions and new corporate practices that emphasize value for shareholders. Most of the increase that did happen in middle-class incomes was not because of rising wages but because households added a second earner. "
 
2013-05-21 12:29:19 PM

Pappy091: Dusk-You-n-Me: Pappy091: Just look at the quality of life that the lower/middle classes have today compared to 50 years ago.

Hey what a coincidence, 40% of Americans now make less than the 1968 minimum wage. Things are totally better.

Pappy091: Redistribution of wealth is not the way to raise the lower/middle class

Sure it is. That's what taxes are, a redistribution of wealth. Those who have been successful need to pay back the country that facilitated their wealth. It's We the People, not Me the Person. I don't have kids, but I don't mind paying for public schools because it enhances the public good, and that's good for everybody - poor, middle, and rich.

I MIGHT be able to see some reason in that argument if I thought that for one second our government was good stewards of our money.

 Yes, they're terrible stewards, which is why we no longer have an army and were conquered by commies, and we aren't a superpower, and we don't enjoy a high standard of living....
 
2013-05-21 12:30:58 PM

Pappy091: I MIGHT be able to see some reason in that argument if I thought that for one second our government was good stewards of our money.


Well since you've already stated:

Also, earlier governmental action is the root cause of every problem you describe.

and

Those that have been successful have done so in spite of governmental interference and harm.

It's pretty clear what you think of our government. I do not agree government is the cause of all of our problems (nor the solution to all of our problems). Government is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together (B. Frank). If you don't have any confidence in the government the answer isn't to write it off completely. The government isn't going away. The answer is to make it better.
 
2013-05-21 12:31:41 PM

Pappy091: Almet: Pappy091: This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise...

Warren Buffet disagrees

Well, I am in generally in a higher tax bracket and I can promise you that I pay much higher taxes than my employees do. While they generally get a few thousand back every year, I have to make significant quarterly payments to Uncle Sam with no return at tax time.


So, you don't understand how paying taxes work, and you somehow know how much your employees  get refunded?

Now you sound like a liar as well as a fool.
 
2013-05-21 12:31:48 PM

Pappy091: Dusk-You-n-Me: Pappy091: I believe it is a false belief that the middle class is suffering.

It isn't false. It's a fact that wages are at historic lows. It's a fact that half the jobs in America pay less than $34,000 a year. It's a fact that without government assistance, 30% of our population would live in poverty. It's a fact that one in five children in the U.S. lives in poverty. You can ignore it, as most of our politicians and media does, or you can accept it and decide whether this is how you think the richest most powerful nation in the world should operate.

I think that most of the world laughs their asses of at America's definition of poverty. I'm not saying that the lower class should be content, but our definition of classes is way out of whack with the rest of the world. Just look at the quality of life that the lower/middle classes have today compared to 50 years ago.

This is still America, where you are responsible for your life. Everyone has the opportunity to be successful, however they define success. Redistribution of wealth is not the way to raise the lower/middle class. Better education with an emphasis on financial smarts is a good start though.


Cool, so we should be holding our standard of living to what the world thinks is appropriate?  Since a poor person in Bangladesh things a poor person in New York is rich that means the person in New York is really just a complainer.  I mean, 98% of poor households in the U.S have a refrigerator, poor my ass, right?
 
2013-05-21 12:33:57 PM

Cubicle Jockey: snocone: Was there a shift from for the "Good of the American People" to "Whatever the Stockholder Needs" or was it always that way?

The shift from "Stakeholder" capitalism to "Shareholder" capitalism in the US, can be traced back to a couple of journal articles in the late 70's, early 80's. It was promoted heavily by Jack Welch and other high profile executives, and ended up being adopted by the majority of American and British firms.

http://www.salon.com/2011/03/29/failure_of_shareholder_capitalism/

As the Salon article above points out, Shareholder capitalism has not been good for most folks, and has even failed in it's primary purpose of increasing share prices.

It has, however, helped make CEO's obscenely wealthy, and will therefore remain the default mode for all companies until there are widespread shareholder revolts against their boards.


Would be a neat trick to "encourage" BODs to leash up their CEOs. I just don't understand how they abrogate that responsibility and give away all that nice money. This group should have some smarts.
But since I know how you create, feed and keep a BOD, good luck.
 
2013-05-21 12:34:03 PM

Pappy091: This is still America, where you are responsible for your life. Everyone has the opportunity to be successful, however they define success. Redistribution of wealth is not the way to raise the lower/middle class. Better education with an emphasis on financial smarts is a good start though.



We already HAVE wealth redistribution, and have had it since the late 70's...

For the average American wages have risen around 24% since 1979.... but at the same time cost of living has risen over 60%. That means the average American is poorer then their parents and grandparents were. The proportion of those living below the poverty line has also risen.

Meanwhile the very wealthy have increased their wealth during that same time period by over 280%. The wealth IS being redistributed upwards - and sharply. Corporate profits have also risen sharply during this period while worker productivity rises as well. No one in the middle and bottom is seeing any of those gains. They are entirely being consumed by the already wealthy - AND MORE.

This is not a recipe for long-term national success. Demand is important to any economic system, and we have almost entirely neglected demand in favor of "supply side" type economics for decades now. That was dumb. WIthout anyone who can afford products, who are they going to be sold to? This is why our economic recovery has been so anemic. That will only continue to worsen as these trends continue, and the end result will eventually be a society of permenant, fixed classes/castes - with the lower castes in a form of indentured servitude.
 
2013-05-21 12:34:09 PM

van1ty: A corporation will spend 100 million dollars to avoid paying 99 million in taxes.


Not really.  A couple million bucks will get you some pretty good tax planning.
 
2013-05-21 12:34:14 PM
For these threads about the evils of the rich people is why I have this...

imageshack.us

Am I just not being open minded about the superfluous rich?
I mean, I like Warren Buffet because he has some form of conscious. Eh?
How much of G.E. does he own?
 
2013-05-21 12:36:32 PM

pute kisses like a man: i wonder, would the US make more in tax revenue if it decreased taxes?


Don't make me Laff.
 
2013-05-21 12:37:21 PM

Magnus: It's a fact that half the jobs in America pay less than $34,000 a year.False Statement. Again, Census Bureau check of Average Income for Americans shows this to be false for 2012.


He said less than half, which implies median. You used average, which is the mean. Two different things.

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000

I am not sure why the table here doesn't list median income, but it can be derived from the other columns.

The median wage is 16.71 while the mean wage is 22.01. The median is only 76% of the mean.
The mean income is $45,790.
76% of that is $34,800.

So he was wrong, but not by much (~3%).
 
2013-05-21 12:37:51 PM

AngryJailhouseFistfark: Well, see that's the tricky part


Since I'll be stealing some of this to kind of troll my dad, I figure I ought to do something nice for you...
 
2013-05-21 12:38:11 PM
iTaxEvasion


Guess it's time to have them claim that they invented it and so forth, so that they may start suing everyone that also evade taxes?
 
2013-05-21 12:38:57 PM

mongbiohazard: Pappy091: This is still America, where you are responsible for your life. Everyone has the opportunity to be successful, however they define success. Redistribution of wealth is not the way to raise the lower/middle class. Better education with an emphasis on financial smarts is a good start though.


We already HAVE wealth redistribution, and have had it since the late 70's...

For the average American wages have risen around 24% since 1979.... but at the same time cost of living has risen over 60%. That means the average American is poorer then their parents and grandparents were. The proportion of those living below the poverty line has also risen.

Meanwhile the very wealthy have increased their wealth during that same time period by over 280%. The wealth IS being redistributed upwards - and sharply. Corporate profits have also risen sharply during this period while worker productivity rises as well. No one in the middle and bottom is seeing any of those gains. They are entirely being consumed by the already wealthy - AND MORE.

This is not a recipe for long-term national success. Demand is important to any economic system, and we have almost entirely neglected demand in favor of "supply side" type economics for decades now. That was dumb. WIthout anyone who can afford products, who are they going to be sold to? This is why our economic recovery has been so anemic. That will only continue to worsen as these trends continue, and the end result will eventually be a society of permenant, fixed classes/castes - with the lower castes in a form of indentured servitude.


Cite source please. Also please clarify, are you saying inflation adjusted wages have gone up 24% and cost of living has grown faster than inflation, to a total of 60% since 1979?
 
2013-05-21 12:40:18 PM
Step 1) Make tax loopholes so you can get more political donations

Step 2) Get mad at the people who use those loopholes you helped make so you can get more votes

Step 3) The American people are a bunch of suckers

Are we really that surprised that this came from a tax code that has been amended over TEN THOUSAND times since it was revised in the 1980s?
 
2013-05-21 12:40:19 PM

Cubicle Jockey: So he was wrong, but not by much (~3%).


I was quoting the Times, who were quoting EPI.

Half the jobs in the nation pay less than $34,000 a year, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Link

I think most people agree that whichever number you choose, it is far too low.
 
2013-05-21 12:42:00 PM

unlikely: AngryJailhouseFistfark: Well, see that's the tricky part

Since I'll be stealing some of this to kind of troll my dad, I figure I ought to do something nice for you...


And for that, I thank ye!
 
2013-05-21 12:42:35 PM

AngryJailhouseFistfark: And we have television and cell phones to tell us that we're actually something more than serfs,


i141.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-21 12:42:56 PM
iEthics
 
2013-05-21 12:44:17 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Pappy091: I MIGHT be able to see some reason in that argument if I thought that for one second our government was good stewards of our money.

Well since you've already stated:

Also, earlier governmental action is the root cause of every problem you describe.

and

Those that have been successful have done so in spite of governmental interference and harm.

It's pretty clear what you think of our government. I do not agree government is the cause of all of our problems (nor the solution to all of our problems). Government is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together (B. Frank). If you don't have any confidence in the government the answer isn't to write it off completely. The government isn't going away. The answer is to make it better.


Those weren't my posts.

I absolutely agree with you last statement.
 
2013-05-21 12:46:00 PM

Pappy091: Dusk-You-n-Me: Pappy091: Like I said in a previous post. A lot of people operate under the assumption of a finite amount of wealth. "If a rich person has $100 dollars, that's $100 that the rest of us don't have". It's just not true.

That wasn't my post. But it is true that our economy is 70% reliant on consumer spending. While corporate profits are at historic highs, wages are at historic lows. The middle class does not have any money to spend on things beyond necessities. As a result aggregate demand is suffering. So companies aren't hiring. So wages suffer even more. And on and on we go, down the spiral towards the bottom.

I believe it is a false belief that the middle class is suffering. Saying that they only have money to spend on necessities is just laughable in my opinion. Unless we have gotten to a point in our country where 52" flat screens and 2200 sq ft houses are "necessary".


Fact: Average household income  in constant dollars has been stagnant since 1974
Fact: In 1974 the average American household had 1 income earner, not two
Fact: in the same time worker productivity has tripled as have corporate profits
Fact: The housing crisis of 2008 was precipitated in part by a recognition that after the tech bubble burst, and tanked the stock market, the increase invalue of real estate owned was the middle class, only source of accumulating wealth.
Fact: While the average consumer has more material goods than ever before they are also taking on historic levels of debt to pay for them.
Fact: Income inequality is higher tight now that at any other point in US history with a greater percentage of the wealth concentrated in the hands  of the top 10% than at any other time in US History including the Gilded Age
 
2013-05-21 12:46:35 PM

Elroydb: Step 1) Make tax loopholes so you can get more political donations

Step 2) Get mad at the people who use those loopholes you helped make so you can get more votes

Step 3) The American people are a bunch of suckers

Are we really that surprised that this came from a tax code that has been amended over TEN THOUSAND times since it was revised in the 1980s?


Wouldn't it be nice,,
Maybe a tax code written by taxpayers would work better.
 
2013-05-21 12:46:51 PM

Pappy091: Almet: Pappy091: This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise...

Warren Buffet disagrees

Well, I am in generally in a higher tax bracket and I can promise you that I pay much higher taxes than my employees do. While they generally get a few thousand back every year, I have to make significant quarterly payments to Uncle Sam with no return at tax time.



Wow... they're real Lucky Duckies ain't they?

prolecenter.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-05-21 12:47:09 PM

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Pappy091: Almet: Pappy091: This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise...

Warren Buffet disagrees

Well, I am in generally in a higher tax bracket and I can promise you that I pay much higher taxes than my employees do. While they generally get a few thousand back every year, I have to make significant quarterly payments to Uncle Sam with no return at tax time.

So, you don't understand how paying taxes work, and you somehow know how much your employees  get refunded?

Now you sound like a liar as well as a fool.


I do understand how taxes work. I have a general idea of their tax returns based on conversations with them, not because I know as their employer. It is generally a much talked about subject around the water cooler during tax season. It's not something I ask about, it's just something they talk about. Telling a co-worker how much your tax return was isn't exactly uncommon.
 
2013-05-21 12:47:29 PM

Cubicle Jockey: Magnus: It's a fact that half the jobs in America pay less than $34,000 a year.False Statement. Again, Census Bureau check of Average Income for Americans shows this to be false for 2012.

He said less than half, which implies median. You used average, which is the mean. Two different things.

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000

I am not sure why the table here doesn't list median income, but it can be derived from the other columns.

The median wage is 16.71 while the mean wage is 22.01. The median is only 76% of the mean.
The mean income is $45,790.
76% of that is $34,800.

So he was wrong, but not by much (~3%).


Yes, two different things.  An implication is not a absolute.  That is an assumption on your part.  He also stated that "half the jobs in America pay less than $34,000 a year".   This is separate from income. Two different things.  I think we can both agree that he claimed facts that were clearly not backed up by facts.
 
2013-05-21 12:48:19 PM

Pappy091: Those weren't my posts.


My mistake. Got p-names mixed up. My apologies.
 
2013-05-21 12:49:08 PM

Pappy091: Dusk-You-n-Me: mongbiohazard: That's not to say we don't need any rich or should dissolve all large corporations... but we do need to re-balance the system which has tilted so very far in favor of them already. That lack of balance is why for decades now the average American has steadily become more and more impoverished and the weathiest have been getting wealthier at an increasing pace (which is where the wealth of the poor and middle class has been re-distributed to).

The money which is piling up and stagnating in those piles of dynastic wealth should be circulating through the economy instead. There's a reason why our economy is so fragile now, and recovering so anemically (we need both supply AND demand, not just supply). It would make for a stronger, healthier, more prosperous nation for everyone if we could re-balance things back towards the masses a bit and away from the wealthy.

Looking at the big picture, it's fairly obvious what has happened over the last 30 years. It has to do with a battle between the forces trying to raise wages, and the forces trying to raise assets. The asset side, of course, has won this battle in both parties.

Like I said in a previous post. A lot of people operate under the assumption of a finite amount of wealth. "If a rich person has $100 dollars, that's $100 that the rest of us don't have". It's just not true.


Wait, what?  The assumption that wealth is finite is invalid?  Explain.
Also it's not so much that the rich person that has $100 that someone else could, it's that the extra $100 in the hands of someone who already has $2,000,000 in their bank account is less likely to spend that incremental $100 than the family who is living paycheck to paycheck on $30,000 /yr...so its win-win: improving quality of life of the less fortunate and also getting money flowing through the economy.

Now in terms of corporate welfare, the same may not necessarily hold true, as different industries have different levels of operating expenses and require varying degrees of cash on hand to remain afloat.  Its much easier to draw a line for income tax and say that there is some reasonable ceiling where a person is rich to the point that it starts to have diminishing returns, simply as they have too much money to even spend...
 
2013-05-21 12:50:01 PM

mongbiohazard: Pappy091: This is still America, where you are responsible for your life. Everyone has the opportunity to be successful, however they define success. Redistribution of wealth is not the way to raise the lower/middle class. Better education with an emphasis on financial smarts is a good start though.


We already HAVE wealth redistribution, and have had it since the late 70's...

For the average American wages have risen around 24% since 1979.... but at the same time cost of living has risen over 60%. That means the average American is poorer then their parents and grandparents were. The proportion of those living below the poverty line has also risen.

Meanwhile the very wealthy have increased their wealth during that same time period by over 280%. The wealth IS being redistributed upwards - and sharply. Corporate profits have also risen sharply during this period while worker productivity rises as well. No one in the middle and bottom is seeing any of those gains. They are entirely being consumed by the already wealthy - AND MORE.

This is not a recipe for long-term national success. Demand is important to any economic system, and we have almost entirely neglected demand in favor of "supply side" type economics for decades now. That was dumb. WIthout anyone who can afford products, who are they going to be sold to? This is why our economic recovery has been so anemic. That will only continue to worsen as these trends continue, and the end result will eventually be a society of permenant, fixed classes/castes - with the lower castes in a form of indentured servitude.


I would be willing to bet that our parents and grandparents would completely disagree with this.
 
2013-05-21 12:50:35 PM

Magorn: Pappy091: Dusk-You-n-Me: Pappy091: Like I said in a previous post. A lot of people operate under the assumption of a finite amount of wealth. "If a rich person has $100 dollars, that's $100 that the rest of us don't have". It's just not true.

That wasn't my post. But it is true that our economy is 70% reliant on consumer spending. While corporate profits are at historic highs, wages are at historic lows. The middle class does not have any money to spend on things beyond necessities. As a result aggregate demand is suffering. So companies aren't hiring. So wages suffer even more. And on and on we go, down the spiral towards the bottom.

I believe it is a false belief that the middle class is suffering. Saying that they only have money to spend on necessities is just laughable in my opinion. Unless we have gotten to a point in our country where 52" flat screens and 2200 sq ft houses are "necessary".

Fact: Average household income  in constant dollars has been stagnant since 1974
Fact: In 1974 the average American household had 1 income earner, not two
Fact: in the same time worker productivity has tripled as have corporate profits
Fact: The housing crisis of 2008 was precipitated in part by a recognition that after the tech bubble burst, and tanked the stock market, the increase invalue of real estate owned was the middle class, only source of accumulating wealth.
Fact: While the average consumer has more material goods than ever before they are also taking on historic levels of debt to pay for them.
Fact: Income inequality is higher tight now that at any other point in US history with a greater percentage of the wealth concentrated in the hands  of the top 10% than at any other time in US History including the Gilded Age


The 70's keep rearing it's ugly head.
Seems that the near economic collapse fostered by corporate extortion of the government was a real game changer.
Now days, it is what is for dinner.
 
2013-05-21 12:50:55 PM

Pappy091: My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.



Yeah, when will the rich ever catch a break in this country?

 cdn.socialtrade.com

www.doctorhousingbubble.com

Gosh, I just don't know where this frustration comes from.   Just jealous, I guess.
 
2013-05-21 12:52:58 PM

chocolate covered poop: Pappy091: Dusk-You-n-Me: mongbiohazard: That's not to say we don't need any rich or should dissolve all large corporations... but we do need to re-balance the system which has tilted so very far in favor of them already. That lack of balance is why for decades now the average American has steadily become more and more impoverished and the weathiest have been getting wealthier at an increasing pace (which is where the wealth of the poor and middle class has been re-distributed to).

The money which is piling up and stagnating in those piles of dynastic wealth should be circulating through the economy instead. There's a reason why our economy is so fragile now, and recovering so anemically (we need both supply AND demand, not just supply). It would make for a stronger, healthier, more prosperous nation for everyone if we could re-balance things back towards the masses a bit and away from the wealthy.

Looking at the big picture, it's fairly obvious what has happened over the last 30 years. It has to do with a battle between the forces trying to raise wages, and the forces trying to raise assets. The asset side, of course, has won this battle in both parties.

Like I said in a previous post. A lot of people operate under the assumption of a finite amount of wealth. "If a rich person has $100 dollars, that's $100 that the rest of us don't have". It's just not true.

Wait, what?  The assumption that wealth is finite is invalid?  Explain.
Also it's not so much that the rich person that has $100 that someone else could, it's that the extra $100 in the hands of someone who already has $2,000,000 in their bank account is less likely to spend that incremental $100 than the family who is living paycheck to paycheck on $30,000 /yr...so its win-win: improving quality of life of the less fortunate and also getting money flowing through the economy.

Now in terms of corporate welfare, the same may not necessarily hold true, as different industries have different levels of operatin ...


That $100 isn't sitting in their bank account. It's invested in some form or fashion in the economy. That $100 isn't taken out of the pool.

This is the exact reason that our schools should teach more economic/financial classes.
 
2013-05-21 12:53:22 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Government is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together


Clownshoes.

Government is the name we give to the things that are done by force, at the point of a gun.

Government is a perfect map of the things that people choose NOT to do "together" -- the things they do NOT want to do.

And the degree of force that governments use against those who do not submit their instructions is a perfect map of the degree to which they do not want to do it.

Mutual cooperation is "choosing to do things together."  That is what a market transaction is -- both parties respect each other's person and property, and mutually agree to exchange goods and services, on mutually-agreeable terms, and if either person declines to engage in the trade, then the other will not retaliate or exert force.

Commerce is mutual cooperation.  Government is the exact opposite.

I sincerely do not understand how someone could possibly be as confused as you are.
 
2013-05-21 12:54:55 PM

Phinn: Government is the name we give to the things that are done by force, at the point of a gun.


Oh boy. I don't think we need to converse anymore. Good luck out there on your own.
 
2013-05-21 12:55:23 PM

Magorn: Average household income in constant dollars has been stagnant since 1974


http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/

Average household income 1974 in 2011 US dollars:  $71,163
Average household income 2011 in 2011 US dollars:  $121,084
source:  Census Bureau.
 
2013-05-21 12:56:19 PM
Don't hate the player, hate the game.

It's completely asinine that the Senate is yelling at Apple for following the law.  If Congress thinks Apple isn't paying enough taxes, they should change the law so they pay more.
 
2013-05-21 12:57:48 PM

Magorn: Pappy091: Dusk-You-n-Me: Pappy091: Like I said in a previous post. A lot of people operate under the assumption of a finite amount of wealth. "If a rich person has $100 dollars, that's $100 that the rest of us don't have". It's just not true.


Fact: While the average consumer has more material goods than ever before they are also taking on historic levels of debt to pay for them.


Well maybe if these people would learn how to manage their money and not go into debt for them they wouldn't be in nearly the condition they are now. You never go into debt for playthings. That's the problem in a nutshell. too many peoples parents didn't teach them the meaning of the words No, Need,and Want.
The level of entitlement im seeing in the early to mid twenty somethings is astounding. Since when did being here actually guarantee you anything.  Case and point... The brides sister calls he constantly wanting money for rent power etc yet always has money to party but she ends up paying her bills.. that is until the last time she called crying and i demanded the wife not send a red cent. Amazingly she went to work the next day.
I would say it was just her but I'm seeing it all over. WTF happened?
 
2013-05-21 12:58:20 PM
Not percentage wise.  And this isn't about rich people, it is about the biggest corporations in America that pay little to no tax yet they make billions of dollars.

Hey, next time try including some facts in your bullshiat.  In 2012, Apple paid $6 billion in taxes to the US Treasury.  That's about $16.5 million per day, and about 1 dollar out of every 40 paid in US corporate taxes for 2012.  For 2013 they expect to pay $7 billion in the US.

That doesn't count the taxes they pay in other countries on the revenue they get from selling products there, because -- and this may shock you -- American companies that sell stuff in, say, Japan have to pay income tax in Japan.

Yes, there are problems with the US tax system that favor corporations.  Yes, it would be a great idea to simplify corporate tax laws and close a shiat-ton of loopholes.  Get some actual numbers before claiming that one of the largest tax-payers in the country is getting a free ride though.

Challenge:  name three private individuals who pay more in US taxes than Apple.
 
2013-05-21 12:58:27 PM

Geotpf: Don't hate the player, hate the game.

It's completely asinine that the Senate is yelling at Apple for following the law.  If Congress thinks Apple isn't paying enough taxes, they should change the law so they pay more.


Congress does that to take the focus off of the real crooks, themselves. They are promoting this class warfare so that the heat is turned off of them.

This discussion is proof positive that they are succeeding.
 
2013-05-21 01:00:37 PM
Reminds me of senior year of high school.

CSB:
Had an "independent study" that was taught at my primary school, but involved driving across the country to another school that actually taught the class I wanted to take, taught by a completely different teacher.  Neither teacher ever talked to the other one ever.  I cared about the lessons, and did my work (usually at home) but it was 1st period and I was a tired/lazy high schooler.  So I could skip it on an almost daily basis, and both teachers just assumed that I was at the other school that day, and didn't bother reporting my absence.  I would show up to 2nd period as usual, and enjoy an extra 45 minutes of sleep in the morning.

Even won a state-level competition for the class I was driving to, boo ya.
 
2013-05-21 01:00:59 PM

Magnus: Magorn: Average household income in constant dollars has been stagnant since 1974

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/

Average household income 1974 in 2011 US dollars:  $71,163
Average household income 2011 in 2011 US dollars:  $121,084
source:  Census Bureau.


Now, we should be more specific as to how many income earners are in each household during each period.  Expenses, etc.  I'm not claiming roses and champagne are pouring from all public fountains.  Just that we need to be more specific because even the Census Bureau data can leave some non-realistic impressions.
 
2013-05-21 01:01:34 PM

Magnus: Yes, two different things. An implication is not a absolute. That is an assumption on your part. He also stated that "half the jobs in America pay less than $34,000 a year". This is separate from income. Two different things. I think we can both agree that he claimed facts that were clearly not backed up by facts.



I am still unclear as to why you replied to his "Apples are red" statement with "Wrong, oranges are orange", and then decided to double down when this was pointed out.
 
2013-05-21 01:01:47 PM

Netrngr: Magorn: Pappy091: Dusk-You-n-Me: Pappy091: Like I said in a previous post. A lot of people operate under the assumption of a finite amount of wealth. "If a rich person has $100 dollars, that's $100 that the rest of us don't have". It's just not true.


Fact: While the average consumer has more material goods than ever before they are also taking on historic levels of debt to pay for them.

Well maybe if these people would learn how to manage their money and not go into debt for them they wouldn't be in nearly the condition they are now. You never go into debt for playthings. That's the problem in a nutshell. too many peoples parents didn't teach them the meaning of the words No, Need,and Want.
The level of entitlement im seeing in the early to mid twenty somethings is astounding. Since when did being here actually guarantee you anything.  Case and point... The brides sister calls he constantly wanting money for rent power etc yet always has money to party but she ends up paying her bills.. that is until the last time she called crying and i demanded the wife not send a red cent. Amazingly she went to work the next day.
I would say it was just her but I'm seeing it all over. WTF happened?


It's a major failing of our country that our youth has no understanding of sound financial management.

One of the biggest reasons that the children of people that are well off are way more likely to be well off themselves is because they are much more likely to be taught how to manage money in a smart, forward thinking way. The farther down the income scale you go the less knowledge there is of basic finance, much less things like retirement investing, etc.
 
2013-05-21 01:03:29 PM

Pappy091: My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.

i53.tinypic.com
i52.tinypic.comi54.tinypic.comi51.tinypic.com


You were saying? And yes, those charts are a little outdated.  The current ones do not paint any better of a picture
 
2013-05-21 01:05:47 PM

Geotpf: It's completely asinine that the Senate is yelling at Apple for following the law. If Congress thinks Apple isn't paying enough taxes, they should change the law so they pay more.


But if they change the law, they'll piss of all the corporations who pay for their campaign budgets. They only yell and fuss because some spoil-sport went and publicized it and so they have to "harrumph!" and "Wha'phlphplfff!" and point a finger in a non-specific direction and make the scowly-face.
 
2013-05-21 01:06:47 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Oh boy. I don't think we need to converse anymore. Good luck out there on your own.


No one is on his own.  I'm certainly not.

The difference between you and me is that I cooperate with everyone I interact with.  I give more than I take.  I never rob, steal, or threaten them.  I never do so directly, and I never rely on an agent or proxy to do those things for me.

It takes hundreds of people working in dozens of different places just to make a pencil.  When I buy that pencil, I am cooperating with a complex web of people, none of whom knows everyone else, but we all cooperate, for our mutual benefit, to make and have useful things.

You, on the other hand, take and take and take and take, and you resent the people who organize people into productive enterprises.  You cheerlead from the sidelines as the Men With Guns go around telling everyone what they can make, what they have to charge for it, and how much everyone is supposed to pay for their "services."  This is from you, I'm sure, who has built nothing, created nothing, employed no one, and helped no one.

How many successful, self-sustaining enterprises have you created that employed anyone?  More than 5 people?  Ten?

I wouldn't trust a shiat-stain taker like you to run a Starbucks for one shift.  But you presume to know that the people who help create EVERYTHING you use in your life, from the coffee you drink to the shoes on your feet, must certainly OWE MORE than what they've already paid.  As if you know.  As if you've taken the time to carefully calculate it all.

The creators and producers of all of the desired things in this world owe you fark-all.
 
2013-05-21 01:07:15 PM

ltdanman44: Pappy091: My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.

[i53.tinypic.com image 590x443]
[i52.tinypic.com image 590x442][i54.tinypic.com image 590x442][i51.tinypic.com image 590x443]

You were saying? And yes, those charts are a little outdated.  The current ones do not paint any better of a picture


And why does any of that mean that we should hate rich people?
 
2013-05-21 01:09:24 PM

Phinn: You, on the other hand,


Well that was a nice rant from up there on your high horse. But you that you know nothing about me. And this thread isn't about me. So please get off my nuts. Thank you.
 
2013-05-21 01:10:02 PM
so a  sizable portion of their yearly earnings can be tied directly to tax avoidance?
 
2013-05-21 01:10:36 PM

Pappy091: ltdanman44: Pappy091: My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.

[i53.tinypic.com image 590x443]
[i52.tinypic.com image 590x442][i54.tinypic.com image 590x442][i51.tinypic.com image 590x443]

You were saying? And yes, those charts are a little outdated.  The current ones do not paint any better of a picture

And why does any of that mean that we should hate rich people?


I because they control it all.  We get the leftovers
 
2013-05-21 01:15:59 PM

Walker: This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft.

/more at 11


Yet another reason for the fair tax.

The tax code should have no more than eight words, not eighty million.
 
2013-05-21 01:19:32 PM

ltdanman44: Pappy091: ltdanman44: Pappy091: My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.

[i53.tinypic.com image 590x443]
[i52.tinypic.com image 590x442][i54.tinypic.com image 590x442][i51.tinypic.com image 590x443]

You were saying? And yes, those charts are a little outdated.  The current ones do not paint any better of a picture

And why does any of that mean that we should hate rich people?

I because they control it all.  We get the leftovers


That is absolutely ridiculous and shows a complete lack of understanding of economics. No one can "control it all". They aren't burying gold bars in the backyard.

I think it's just easier for a lot of people to complain about the haves vs. the have not rather than work to become one of the haves, which is shockingly easy to do. Not talking about you specifically, just people in general that share your view point.
 
2013-05-21 01:23:13 PM
It is almost like that giant talking vagina, Jobs, is still alive.  If all goes as he planned we will indeed be building phones for the Chinese in 3 years.  Just the kind of Dickensian jerb push we need :)
This is not about greed, but insufferable greed.  "Put lead back into clean drinking water and then charge people for clean water" kinda greed that makes me kinda stabby.
 
2013-05-21 01:24:14 PM

Pappy091: chocolate covered poop: Pappy091: Dusk-You-n-Me: mongbiohazard: That's not to say we don't need any rich or should dissolve all large corporations... but we do need to re-balance the system which has tilted so very far in favor of them already. That lack of balance is why for decades now the average American has steadily become more and more impoverished and the weathiest have been getting wealthier at an increasing pace (which is where the wealth of the poor and middle class has been re-distributed to).

The money which is piling up and stagnating in those piles of dynastic wealth should be circulating through the economy instead. There's a reason why our economy is so fragile now, and recovering so anemically (we need both supply AND demand, not just supply). It would make for a stronger, healthier, more prosperous nation for everyone if we could re-balance things back towards the masses a bit and away from the wealthy.

Looking at the big picture, it's fairly obvious what has happened over the last 30 years. It has to do with a battle between the forces trying to raise wages, and the forces trying to raise assets. The asset side, of course, has won this battle in both parties.

Like I said in a previous post. A lot of people operate under the assumption of a finite amount of wealth. "If a rich person has $100 dollars, that's $100 that the rest of us don't have". It's just not true.

Wait, what?  The assumption that wealth is finite is invalid?  Explain.
Also it's not so much that the rich person that has $100 that someone else could, it's that the extra $100 in the hands of someone who already has $2,000,000 in their bank account is less likely to spend that incremental $100 than the family who is living paycheck to paycheck on $30,000 /yr...so its win-win: improving quality of life of the less fortunate and also getting money flowing through the economy.


That $100 isn't sitting in their bank account. It's invested in some form or fashion in the economy. That $100 isn't taken out of the pool.

This is the exact reason that our schools should teach more economic/financial classes.


So there's some physical or economic law that says the $100 HAS to be invested?  That the earned interest isn't just a self fulfilling snowball effect of inflation?  Or that any real value generated from that interest isn't just swapped back and forth between those who are already exorbitantly wealthy (just bankers swapping money and none of it ever actually returns to the bottom of the pyramid).  And these investments might help nominal GDP but I sincerely doubt they have anywhere near the impact on unemployment as most people like to believe.  and I think that comes to the core of the issue, why do we want the economy to be "good"?  is it so that the median human quality of life improves, or just so the aggregate pile of human "wealth" grows?

and part of the education problem is that economics and finance are pseudo-sciences that are cast off at times as actual science - there are no underlying physical phenomena that unify economic observations, yet we treat most economic notions with a level of sacredness one might grant to the laws of thermodynamics.  or at the very least economic systems are so complex and linked to human decisions that trying to come up with any theoretical background is presently impossible. so it's become highly empirical in nature, and as human history proceeds we are collecting more and more data points that could suggest some of our old assumptions might have been flawed, or outright bad ideas.
 
2013-05-21 01:24:23 PM

AngryJailhouseFistfark: unlikely: So I'm fuzzy on this. Do we hate loopholes that allow corporations to dodge taxes or not?


Well, see that's the tricky part. ...(snip)


That was a thing of beauty, and sadly, truth.
 
2013-05-21 01:27:23 PM
duenor:

The problem here is that Apple doesn't HAVE to stay in the US. They do so because it suits them, but it's not absolutely necessary. Their attitude (shared among many corps) is that, "Well if you're going to tax us that much we'll just leave and you get a pittance."

Why would it hurt the US? They are only paying on their US gains and they funnel their loses to the US and their gains the tax havens. What gets lost if they move? The US would still tax them on their US earnings. Maybe we'll lost taxes on some of their execs.. but whatever. Let them move to China or Ireland, or the Cayman Islands.

but then again, I'm stupid.
 
2013-05-21 01:28:21 PM

Pappy091: Walker: This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft.

/more at 11


Yay!...more income envy.

This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise and gross) than you could even imagine.

Why do people think that raising taxes is going to fix a rising multi-trillion dollar deficit. Raising taxes is a drop in the bucket compared to what we need to do to get out of this hole.


Does your dad own a dealership?
 
2013-05-21 01:29:10 PM

Pappy091: ltdanman44: Pappy091: ltdanman44: Pappy091: My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.

[i53.tinypic.com image 590x443]
[i52.tinypic.com image 590x442][i54.tinypic.com image 590x442][i51.tinypic.com image 590x443]

You were saying? And yes, those charts are a little outdated.  The current ones do not paint any better of a picture

And why does any of that mean that we should hate rich people?

I because they control it all.  We get the leftovers

That is absolutely ridiculous and shows a complete lack of understanding of economics. No one can "control it all". They aren't burying gold bars in the backyard.

I think it's just easier for a lot of people to complain about the haves vs. the have not rather than work to become one of the haves, which is shockingly easy to do. Not talking about you specifically, just people in general that share your view point.



Care to elaborate on this?  How it is "Shockingly easy" to become one of the haves?  I am legitimately curious how this is so easy.
 
2013-05-21 01:29:42 PM

kimmygibblershomework: It is almost like that giant talking vagina, Jobs, is still alive.  If all goes as he planned we will indeed be building phones for the Chinese in 3 years.  Just the kind of Dickensian jerb push we need :)
This is not about greed, but insufferable greed.  "Put lead back into clean drinking water and then charge people for clean water" kinda greed that makes me kinda stabby.


What kind of organizations run the water supplies?
 
2013-05-21 01:30:54 PM

chocolate covered poop: So there's some physical or economic law that says the $100 HAS to be invested?  That the earned interest isn't just a self fulfilling snowball effect of inflation?  Or that any real value generated from that interest isn't just swapped back and forth between those who are already exorbitantly wealthy (just bankers swapping money and none of it ever actually returns to the bottom of the pyramid).  And these investments might help nominal GDP but I sincerely doubt they have anywhere near the impact on unemployment as most people like to believe.  and I think that comes to the core of the issue, why do we want the economy to be "good"?  is it so that the median human quality of life improves, or just so the aggregate pile of human "wealth" grows?

and part of the education problem is that economics and finance are pseudo-sciences that are cast off at times as actual science - there are no underlying physical phenomena that unify economic observations, yet we treat most economic notions with a level of sacredness one might grant to the laws of thermodynamics.  or at the very least economic systems are so complex and linked to human decisions that trying to come up with any theoretical background is presently impossible. so it's become highly empirical in nature, and as human history proceeds we are collecting more and more data points that could suggest some of our old assumptions might have been flawed, or outright bad ideas.


There is no "law", it's just common sense. The super rich aren't sitting around with hundreds of millions of dollars in cash sitting in their bank accounts. At the very least they will be invested in low rish ventures such as CDs, bonds, etc.

When I say that we should teach our youth about financials/economics, I don't just mean how to invest in the stock market. I am talking about how to save for retirement, the dangers of too much debt, how to buy a house that you can afford, the benefits of living within your means, etc.
 
2013-05-21 01:31:09 PM

Source4leko: How it is "Shockingly easy" to become one of the haves?


You have to deserve it. See, poor people are poor because they deserve it. Rich people are rich because they deserve it. If you aren't rich, it's because you didn't deserve. If you did, you'd be rich. QED
 
2013-05-21 01:31:19 PM

Pappy091: I think it's just easier for a lot of people to complain about the haves vs. the have not rather than work to become one of the haves, which is shockingly easy to do. Not talking about you specifically, just people in general that share your view point.


Let me guess.  You also believe "The world needs ditch diggers too" and don't see the contradiction of the two statements.

If not, please explain how a society can operate with all chiefs and no indians.
 
2013-05-21 01:32:27 PM

Magnus: Magorn: Average household income in constant dollars has been stagnant since 1974

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/

Average household income 1974 in 2011 US dollars:  $71,163
Average household income 2011 in 2011 US dollars:  $121,084
source:  Census Bureau.


This is one of the worst misreadings of data I have ever seen. You got those numbers from Table H-17 from your Census Bureau link, but they are not dollar values. Those are the numbers (in thousands) of households in 1974 and 2011, not the median household income for those years.

Did it seriously not tip you off that you were doing something wrong when you pegged the median household income for 2011 at $121,084? Did that number actually sound reasonable to you?
 
2013-05-21 01:32:38 PM

cman: Tim Cook could shiat down the throats of everyone and they will like it because he is Apple


southparkstudios.mtvnimages.com

He bereeves in ru!
 
2013-05-21 01:33:32 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Source4leko: How it is "Shockingly easy" to become one of the haves?

You have to deserve it. See, poor people are poor because they deserve it. Rich people are rich because they deserve it. If you aren't rich, it's because you didn't deserve. If you did, you'd be rich. QED


No, I really want someone to explain this so me.  I am tired of just getting farked, and I know things are never going to change, so I figure why not become the person doing the farking.  I want to know how I do that, no shiat.
 
2013-05-21 01:33:40 PM

Phinn: Dusk-You-n-Me: Oh boy. I don't think we need to converse anymore. Good luck out there on your own.

No one is on his own.  I'm certainly not.

The difference between you and me is that I cooperate with everyone I interact with.  I give more than I take.  I never rob, steal, or threaten them.  I never do so directly, and I never rely on an agent or proxy to do those things for me.

It takes hundreds of people working in dozens of different places just to make a pencil.  When I buy that pencil, I am cooperating with a complex web of people, none of whom knows everyone else, but we all cooperate, for our mutual benefit, to make and have useful things.

You, on the other hand, take and take and take and take, and you resent the people who organize people into productive enterprises.  You cheerlead from the sidelines as the Men With Guns go around telling everyone what they can make, what they have to charge for it, and how much everyone is supposed to pay for their "services."  This is from you, I'm sure, who has built nothing, created nothing, employed no one, and helped no one.

How many successful, self-sustaining enterprises have you created that employed anyone?  More than 5 people?  Ten?

I wouldn't trust a shiat-stain taker like you to run a Starbucks for one shift.  But you presume to know that the people who help create EVERYTHING you use in your life, from the coffee you drink to the shoes on your feet, must certainly OWE MORE than what they've already paid.  As if you know.  As if you've taken the time to carefully calculate it all.

The creators and producers of all of the desired things in this world owe you fark-all.


This is the epitome of what is wrong with this country, it's literally fark you i got mine.
 
2013-05-21 01:34:07 PM

Source4leko: Pappy091: ltdanman44: Pappy091: ltdanman44: Pappy091: My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.

[i53.tinypic.com image 590x443]
[i52.tinypic.com image 590x442][i54.tinypic.com image 590x442][i51.tinypic.com image 590x443]

You were saying? And yes, those charts are a little outdated.  The current ones do not paint any better of a picture

And why does any of that mean that we should hate rich people?

I because they control it all.  We get the leftovers

That is absolutely ridiculous and shows a complete lack of understanding of economics. No one can "control it all". They aren't burying gold bars in the backyard.

I think it's just easier for a lot of people to complain about the haves vs. the have not rather than work to become one of the haves, which is shockingly easy to do. Not talking about you specifically, just people in general that share your view point.


Care to elaborate on this?  How it is "Shockingly easy" to become one of the haves?  I am legitimately curious how this is so easy.


Live within your means and start saving/investing at an early age. Don't buy a house you can't afford with no to little down payment. Don't run up your CCs every month. etc, etc.

If your average person started investing in a Roth IRA or some other retirement investment in their early 20's they would retire a multi-millionaire. It's so easy that it is insane that more people don't do it. I know I sound like a broken record, but the reason it isn't done is because our youth isn't taught to do it.
 
2013-05-21 01:34:47 PM

Space Station Wagon: Pappy091: Walker: This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft.

/more at 11


Yay!...more income envy.

This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise and gross) than you could even imagine.

Why do people think that raising taxes is going to fix a rising multi-trillion dollar deficit. Raising taxes is a drop in the bucket compared to what we need to do to get out of this hole.

Does your dad own a dealership?


Huh? No.....why?
 
2013-05-21 01:39:27 PM
It just shows hypocritcal all the leftists are.  You can find the most left-leaning company and ceo out there, one who demands taxes be increased every chance he gets, and you will find the company jumps through hoops to avoid paying taxes.

they want taxes to be raised - on everyone else, but not themselves.

also, high taxes favor incumbent companies.  the higher tax rates are, the lower the chance a new challenger company can unseat the incumbent company.  there is a selfish purpose for advocating liberalism.
 
2013-05-21 01:42:04 PM

snocone: Show of hands, plz.
Stockholders should not take precedence over citizens.
Was there a shift from for the "Good of the American People" to "Whatever the Stockholder Needs" or was it always that way?


www.maggiesnotebook.com

There you go again...

 
2013-05-21 01:43:21 PM

Pappy091: Source4leko: Pappy091: ltdanman44: Pappy091: ltdanman44: Pappy091: My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.

[i53.tinypic.com image 590x443]
[i52.tinypic.com image 590x442][i54.tinypic.com image 590x442][i51.tinypic.com image 590x443]

You were saying? And yes, those charts are a little outdated.  The current ones do not paint any better of a picture

And why does any of that mean that we should hate rich people?

I because they control it all.  We get the leftovers

That is absolutely ridiculous and shows a complete lack of understanding of economics. No one can "control it all". They aren't burying gold bars in the backyard.

I think it's just easier for a lot of people to complain about the haves vs. the have not rather than work to become one of the haves, which is shockingly easy to do. Not talking about you specifically, just people in general that share your view point.


Care to elaborate on this?  How it is "Shockingly easy" to become one of the haves?  I am legitimately curious how this is so easy.

Live within your means and start saving/investing at an early age. Don't buy a house you can't afford with no to little down payment. Don't run up your CCs every month. etc, etc.

If your average person started investing in a Roth IRA or some other retirement investment in their early 20's they would retire a multi-millionaire. It's so easy that it is insane that more people don't do it. I know I sound like a broken record, but the reason it isn't done is because our youth isn't taught to do it.


What youth can afford that now? College kids can't even get a decent job, and are burdened with heavy debt right out of the gate.

Until the economy improves, we are screwed. Economy will never improve to what it needs to be with liberals in charge.
 
2013-05-21 01:43:37 PM

Pappy091: Source4leko: Pappy091: ltdanman44: Pappy091: ltdanman44: Pappy091: My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.

[i53.tinypic.com image 590x443]
[i52.tinypic.com image 590x442][i54.tinypic.com image 590x442][i51.tinypic.com image 590x443]

You were saying? And yes, those charts are a little outdated.  The current ones do not paint any better of a picture

And why does any of that mean that we should hate rich people?

I because they control it all.  We get the leftovers

That is absolutely ridiculous and shows a complete lack of understanding of economics. No one can "control it all". They aren't burying gold bars in the backyard.

I think it's just easier for a lot of people to complain about the haves vs. the have not rather than work to become one of the haves, which is shockingly easy to do. Not talking about you specifically, just people in general that share your view point.


Care to elaborate on this?  How it is "Shockingly easy" to become one of the haves?  I am legitimately curious how this is so easy.

Live within your means and start saving/investing at an early age. Don't buy a house you can't afford with no to little down payment. Don't run up your CCs every month. etc, etc.

If your average person started investing in a Roth IRA or some other retirement investment in their early 20's they would retire a multi-millionaire. It's so easy that it is insane that more people don't do it. I know I sound like a broken record, but the reason it isn't done is because our youth isn't taught to do it.


A lot of young people barely make enough to cover their bills. Expecting them to put aside enough money to make that IRA worthwhile is pretty ridiculous.
 
2013-05-21 01:45:30 PM
If Apple is following the law, they're just doing what Congress incentivized them to do. Personally I don't look to maximize my tax liability every April.
 
2013-05-21 01:46:39 PM
Here are a few salient points:
1) Apple pays taxes on all profits is makes in each country in which it makes those profits.  German profits are paid to Germany; Japan profits are paid to Japan; US profits are paid to the US; etc.
2) Apple is simply transferring its ALREADY TAXED foreign profits to Ireland for centralized management. Apple pays taxes to Ireland, at an arguably low tax rate, when it makes these transfers. This violates no laws anywhere and is not immoral.
3) Apple is only required to pay US income tax on these foreign profits if it chooses to transfer these funds back to the US.  Under US law, Apple is not required to transfer its foreign profits back to the US.
4) Lastly, let's remember that Apple pays US taxes, at a 35% tax rate, on all interest earned through investments of it's foreign capital.
Maybe the US government should reduce the tax rate for the return foreign profits to the US.  Remember, these profits have already been appropriately taxed by foreign governments.
 
2013-05-21 01:46:43 PM

Thunderpipes: Pappy091: Source4leko: Pappy091: ltdanman44: Pappy091: ltdanman44: Pappy091: My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.

[i53.tinypic.com image 590x443]
[i52.tinypic.com image 590x442][i54.tinypic.com image 590x442][i51.tinypic.com image 590x443]

You were saying? And yes, those charts are a little outdated.  The current ones do not paint any better of a picture

And why does any of that mean that we should hate rich people?

I because they control it all.  We get the leftovers

That is absolutely ridiculous and shows a complete lack of understanding of economics. No one can "control it all". They aren't burying gold bars in the backyard.

I think it's just easier for a lot of people to complain about the haves vs. the have not rather than work to become one of the haves, which is shockingly easy to do. Not talking about you specifically, just people in general that share your view point.


Care to elaborate on this?  How it is "Shockingly easy" to become one of the haves?  I am legitimately curious how this is so easy.

Live within your means and start saving/investing at an early age. Don't buy a house you can't afford with no to little down payment. Don't run up your CCs every month. etc, etc.

If your average person started investing in a Roth IRA or some other retirement investment in their early 20's they would retire a multi-millionaire. It's so easy that it is insane that more people don't do it. I know I sound like a broken record, but the reason it isn't done is because our youth isn't taught to do it.

What youth can afford that now? College kids can't even get a decent job, and are burdened with heavy debt right out of the gate.

Until the economy improves, we are screwed. Economy will never improve to what it needs to be with liberals in charge.


cdn.fd.uproxx.com
 
2013-05-21 01:47:51 PM

bingethinker: Pappy091: Source4leko: Pappy091: ltdanman44: Pappy091: ltdanman44: Pappy091: My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.

[i53.tinypic.com image 590x443]
[i52.tinypic.com image 590x442][i54.tinypic.com image 590x442][i51.tinypic.com image 590x443]

You were saying? And yes, those charts are a little outdated.  The current ones do not paint any better of a picture

And why does any of that mean that we should hate rich people?

I because they control it all.  We get the leftovers

That is absolutely ridiculous and shows a complete lack of understanding of economics. No one can "control it all". They aren't burying gold bars in the backyard.

I think it's just easier for a lot of people to complain about the haves vs. the have not rather than work to become one of the haves, which is shockingly easy to do. Not talking about you specifically, just people in general that share your view point.


Care to elaborate on this?  How it is "Shockingly easy" to become one of the haves?  I am legitimately curious how this is so easy.

Live within your means and start saving/investing at an early age. Don't buy a house you can't afford with no to little down payment. Don't run up your CCs every month. etc, etc.

If your average person started investing in a Roth IRA or some other retirement investment in their early 20's they would retire a multi-millionaire. It's so easy that it is insane that more people don't do it. I know I sound like a broken record, but the reason it isn't done is because our youth isn't taught to do it.

A lot of young people barely make enough to cover their bills. Expecting them to put aside enough money to make that IRA worthwhile is pretty ridiculous.


You would be shocked at how little you needed to put away to make it worthwhile. 10% would be ideal, but if the isn't feasible all the time then even a few percent of each paycheck would make a big difference 30-40 years down the road. Everyone can do it. You may need to sacrifice a few beers over the weekend before you get settled in your career/life, but it is worth it. You don't have to get started in your early 20's. Better late than never.
 
2013-05-21 01:48:09 PM

Pappy091: Source4leko: Pappy091: ltdanman44: Pappy091: ltdanman44: Pappy091: My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.

[i53.tinypic.com image 590x443]
[i52.tinypic.com image 590x442][i54.tinypic.com image 590x442][i51.tinypic.com image 590x443]

You were saying? And yes, those charts are a little outdated.  The current ones do not paint any better of a picture

And why does any of that mean that we should hate rich people?

I because they control it all.  We get the leftovers

That is absolutely ridiculous and shows a complete lack of understanding of economics. No one can "control it all". They aren't burying gold bars in the backyard.

I think it's just easier for a lot of people to complain about the haves vs. the have not rather than work to become one of the haves, which is shockingly easy to do. Not talking about you specifically, just people in general that share your view point.


Care to elaborate on this?  How it is "Shockingly easy" to become one of the haves?  I am legitimately curious how this is so easy.

Live within your means and start saving/investing at an early age. Don't buy a house you can't afford with no to little down payment. Don't run up your CCs every month. etc, etc.

If your average person started investing in a Roth IRA or some other retirement investment in their early 20's they would retire a multi-millionaire. It's so easy that it is insane that more people don't do it. I know I sound like a broken record, but the reason it isn't done is because our youth isn't taught to do it.


Inherited a house no mortage, and I save 10% of my income, with 3% of my pre tax pay in an IRA with employer matching.  Car will be paid off at the end of the summer, student loans equal one days pay a month.  I made the average wage (approx 40k).  I have CC debt that I am paying down from when I was injured and had to take unpaid time off work.  I eat out maybe one day a week, and the other 6 nights a week myself and other mid 20's friends all cook a large dinner for all of us to save money.  I am asking you what I can change to actually become a 'have'.  Not "save for retirement" bullshiat that you think middle income earners and below don't understand, they just cant afford it.  So what should I change to become a 'have'?  Go to busisness school?  Because my 40k is just enough for me to work my way out of minor CC debt, keep current with small car and student loan payments, and put away enough for my property tax (10% of my income, pre tax.)  God help me if I had a kid.  Or if I get hurt again.  And it hurts my brain to think about if I wasn't fortunate enough to inherit someplace to live, how long it would take
 
2013-05-21 01:49:03 PM
(continued from accidentally hitting add comment)

How long it would take me to save to actually buy a house, hell or a condo.  I just want to know what easy things I can do to become a have, since I've heard it so much.
 
2013-05-21 01:49:56 PM

Source4leko: Dusk-You-n-Me: Source4leko: How it is "Shockingly easy" to become one of the haves?

You have to deserve it. See, poor people are poor because they deserve it. Rich people are rich because they deserve it. If you aren't rich, it's because you didn't deserve. If you did, you'd be rich. QED

No, I really want someone to explain this so me.  I am tired of just getting farked, and I know things are never going to change, so I figure why not become the person doing the farking.  I want to know how I do that, no shiat.


1. Earn more than you spend.

2. Invest the difference in cash-generating ways, either through conventional financial instruments (IRAs, funds, etc.), or use it to start or expand a profitable enterprise. Which will help you earn more ...

3. Repeat.

How do you identify a profitable business to start and grow? Learn to give the people what they want. Start by asking yourself that question 90 times a day -- what can I do to deliver something to people that they want?

Give, give, give. Focus on yourself and your production of desired goods and services. Focus on other people's unmet (or undermet) wants.

Learning how to get paid in the process is always much easier than figuring out what people really want but don't have.

Once you've done this a few times, and built profitable businesses that please lots and lots of satisfied customers, you'll soon encounter all the myriad ways that government will get in your way, take from you, and favor its cronies.

Have fun!
 
2013-05-21 01:51:22 PM

Pappy091: Almet: Pappy091: This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise...

Warren Buffet disagrees

Well, I am in generally in a higher tax bracket and I can promise you that I pay much higher taxes than my employees do. While they generally get a few thousand back every year, I have to make significant quarterly payments to Uncle Sam with no return at tax time.


This is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read. Whether you get a refund, and the amount of that refund, tells nobody anything about the amount, or percentage, of taxes you pay.
 
2013-05-21 01:51:29 PM
so does this make microsoft the least evil smartphone maker?
 
2013-05-21 01:52:26 PM

Clemkadidlefark: Misplaced Anger

Don't blame Apple's pencil whippers.

Blame Congress for Title 26 USC. Apple is using loopholes and accounting Congress made part of the Tax Code at Title 26.

Be angry at Congress.


I'm already perpetually angry at Congress. It's exhausting!
 
2013-05-21 01:54:33 PM

Phinn: Source4leko: Dusk-You-n-Me: Source4leko: How it is "Shockingly easy" to become one of the haves?

You have to deserve it. See, poor people are poor because they deserve it. Rich people are rich because they deserve it. If you aren't rich, it's because you didn't deserve. If you did, you'd be rich. QED

No, I really want someone to explain this so me.  I am tired of just getting farked, and I know things are never going to change, so I figure why not become the person doing the farking.  I want to know how I do that, no shiat.

1. Earn more than you spend.

2. Invest the difference in cash-generating ways, either through conventional financial instruments (IRAs, funds, etc.), or use it to start or expand a profitable enterprise. Which will help you earn more ...

3. Repeat.

How do you identify a profitable business to start and grow? Learn to give the people what they want. Start by asking yourself that question 90 times a day -- what can I do to deliver something to people that they want?

Give, give, give. Focus on yourself and your production of desired goods and services. Focus on other people's unmet (or undermet) wants.

Learning how to get paid in the process is always much easier than figuring out what people really want but don't have.

Once you've done this a few times, and built profitable businesses that please lots and lots of satisfied customers, you'll soon encounter all the myriad ways that government will get in your way, take from you, and favor its cronies.

Have fun!


Oh look, another answer that could be on CNN.com of 'how to save for retirement'.  There was a ton of new information there.  I think you forgot 'buy low, sell high!'   Also, thanks for the chip about how the government will take from me, that makes me realize you aren't an ideologue at all, and that your information is not ideologically motivated in any way.
 
2013-05-21 01:55:46 PM

Source4leko: Phinn: Source4leko: Dusk-You-n-Me: Source4leko: How it is "Shockingly easy" to become one of the haves?

You have to deserve it. See, poor people are poor because they deserve it. Rich people are rich because they deserve it. If you aren't rich, it's because you didn't deserve. If you did, you'd be rich. QED

No, I really want someone to explain this so me.  I am tired of just getting farked, and I know things are never going to change, so I figure why not become the person doing the farking.  I want to know how I do that, no shiat.

1. Earn more than you spend.

2. Invest the difference in cash-generating ways, either through conventional financial instruments (IRAs, funds, etc.), or use it to start or expand a profitable enterprise. Which will help you earn more ...

3. Repeat.

How do you identify a profitable business to start and grow? Learn to give the people what they want. Start by asking yourself that question 90 times a day -- what can I do to deliver something to people that they want?

Give, give, give. Focus on yourself and your production of desired goods and services. Focus on other people's unmet (or undermet) wants.

Learning how to get paid in the process is always much easier than figuring out what people really want but don't have.

Once you've done this a few times, and built profitable businesses that please lots and lots of satisfied customers, you'll soon encounter all the myriad ways that government will get in your way, take from you, and favor its cronies.

Have fun!

Oh look, another answer that could be on CNN.com of 'how to save for retirement'.  There was a ton of new information there.  I think you forgot 'buy low, sell high!'   Also, thanks for the chip about how the government will take from me, that makes me realize you aren't an ideologue at all, and that your information is not ideologically motivated in any way.


How many businesses have you started?
 
2013-05-21 01:57:36 PM

Source4leko: Oh look, another answer that could be on CNN.com of 'how to save for retirement'


Nobody's claiming it's rocket science to be comfortable.
 
2013-05-21 01:58:51 PM

SlothB77: You can find the most left-leaning company and ceo out there, one who demands taxes be increased every chance he gets, and you will find the company jumps through hoops to avoid paying taxes.


Is Apple really the most left-leaning company? Has Tim Cook really called for higher taxes "every chance he gets"? Or was that a story someone sold to you?
 
2013-05-21 01:59:04 PM
This thread is an excellent example of why it's not possible to have an intelligent public debate about taxes. In general farkers are pretty smart but on this issue even they are clueless.
 
2013-05-21 02:04:25 PM

Clemkadidlefark: Misplaced Anger

Don't blame Apple's pencil whippers.

Blame Congress for Title 26 USC. Apple is using loopholes and accounting Congress made part of the Tax Code at Title 26.

Be angry at Congress.


About 90% of the people in this thread are getting it wrong. This is NOT a loophole. It is the way the system is supposed to work, but Apple is throwing all ethics and honor to the wind in using it.

Licensing costs are a valid tax deduction. If I create a small factory in the US manufacturing Festina watches, and have to send 45% of my gross to Barcelona in order to use the Festina name, of course that's a completely valid deduction, and I shouldn't have to pay taxes on it. Even if Spain had a corporate tax rate of 0%, that's not an issue for the US authorities to address.

Apple is manufacturing the boss from whole cloth. So they sell an iMac for $2000, and send $1000 to a company in Ireland that doesn't exist, so that they can use their own brand. Technically, it's legal, but anyone would agree that the intent of the law is otherwise. Congress knows this is going to blow up in their faces, so they want to put on a dog and pony show to show people how much they care.

Save your time and don't bother writing to whichever idiot is supposed to be looking out for you in Congress. The answer to this is public shaming. Don't go after Apple. Put pressure on their customers. If you're an IT geek, make it known that only retarded sh*tbags use Apple products. Every chance you get, remind people that all the money from their shiny new iPad went to an imaginary company in Ireland, and that's why their kid doesn't have a freaking job. The Apple brand in IT circles needs to become what Nike has become to serious runners.
 
2013-05-21 02:06:43 PM

YixilTesiphon: Source4leko: Oh look, another answer that could be on CNN.com of 'how to save for retirement'

Nobody's claiming it's rocket science to be comfortable.


Actually, he's given me a business idea -- a website (app, social media portal?) devoted to providing resources, training and encouragement to 20-somethings to help them start businesses.

Concrete help for the young person who wants to be an entrepreneur and still hold onto his social values.

If I can't think of one, and he can't think of one, then it already sounds like an unmet need.
 
2013-05-21 02:09:06 PM

Pappy091: Netrngr: Magorn: Pappy091: Dusk-You-n-Me: Pappy091: Like I said in a previous post. A lot of people operate under the assumption of a finite amount of wealth. "If a rich person has $100 dollars, that's $100 that the rest of us don't have". It's just not true.


Fact: While the average consumer has more material goods than ever before they are also taking on historic levels of debt to pay for them.

Well maybe if these people would learn how to manage their money and not go into debt for them they wouldn't be in nearly the condition they are now. You never go into debt for playthings. That's the problem in a nutshell. too many peoples parents didn't teach them the meaning of the words No, Need,and Want.
The level of entitlement im seeing in the early to mid twenty somethings is astounding. Since when did being here actually guarantee you anything.  Case and point... The brides sister calls he constantly wanting money for rent power etc yet always has money to party but she ends up paying her bills.. that is until the last time she called crying and i demanded the wife not send a red cent. Amazingly she went to work the next day.
I would say it was just her but I'm seeing it all over. WTF happened?

It's a major failing of our country that our youth has no understanding of sound financial management.

One of the biggest reasons that the children of people that are well off are way more likely to be well off themselves is because they are much more likely to be taught how to manage money in a smart, forward thinking way. The farther down the income scale you go the less knowledge there is of basic finance, much less things like retirement investing, etc.


You know what would happen if the youth of today WERE taught sound financial management, moral rectitude and generally to have a lesser appetite for the consumption of commerical goods?  The Economy fails.  It drops right the fark off a cliff and doesn;t come back.  Seriously,  the American economy is now entirely dependent on consumer spending.   During the worst part of the Great recession in 2009 it was reported that people were saving more, paying off existing debts and showing a general reluctance to take on new ones.   Wall Street's reaction was just short of panic.  Economists the country over from both sides of the political aisle opined about how disatrous a state of affairs this was and called on the government to do something, anything to fix it.

That's the brutal bottom line right now.  Our whole economy is utterly depndant on middle class consumers making wrong choices for themselves that hurt them financially.  If tey stop, the whole house of cards comes crashing down/
 
2013-05-21 02:09:54 PM

Phinn: Actually, he's given me a business idea -- a website (app, social media portal?) devoted to providing resources, training and encouragement to 20-somethings to help them start businesses.

Concrete help for the young person who wants to be an entrepreneur and still hold onto his social values.

If I can't think of one, and he can't think of one, then it already sounds like an unmet need.


There's literally tons of services *claiming* to meet that need, the trouble is separating yourself from the charlatans.  Or marketing effectively enough that you can get away with being a charlatan yourself.
 
2013-05-21 02:11:05 PM

Magorn: You know what would happen if the youth of today WERE taught sound financial management, moral rectitude and generally to have a lesser appetite for the consumption of commerical goods?  The Economy fails.  It drops right the fark off a cliff and doesn;t come back.


DERP
 
2013-05-21 02:14:22 PM
A corporation is finding loopholes to avoid paying taxes?  I'm SHOCKED,  SHOCKED I tell you!

Was  s23.postimg.org   tag on vacation?
 
2013-05-21 02:17:38 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Cook should just strip and drop a hot crackling shiat on the table while looking the lead of the panel in the eye and say "If you don't like it, change the law", then wipe with 100 dollar bills.


And that's the gist of the problem in one fell (funny) swoop.  It's the laws and the lawmakers who are the problem, not the corporations.  Everyone wants things to be in their favor (can't fault corporations for trying to make as much money as possible...that's what they do, they're a business), it's the politicians who are the ones decided to allow the corporations to get away with it.  It'd be like baseball allowing players to use steroids, and then the fans get upset when the players start using it...
 
2013-05-21 02:21:37 PM

Pappy091: theorellior: Pappy091: Wrong on almost all counts. I am not rich, not even close. I would love to be in the 5%. Hopefully I will be by the time I retire.

Oh, so you're just one of the temporarily disadvantaged rich people. You'll qualify for that big tax break one day, gol durn it!

Hopefully, and then you will be free to hate me. I will be too rich to care, lol.


This mentality is what's wrong with this country.
 
2013-05-21 02:22:21 PM

Source4leko: Pappy091: Source4leko: Pappy091: ltdanman44: Pappy091: ltdanman44: Pappy091: My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.

[i53.tinypic.com image 590x443]
[i52.tinypic.com image 590x442][i54.tinypic.com image 590x442][i51.tinypic.com image 590x443]

You were saying? And yes, those charts are a little outdated.  The current ones do not paint any better of a picture

And why does any of that mean that we should hate rich people?

I because they control it all.  We get the leftovers

That is absolutely ridiculous and shows a complete lack of understanding of economics. No one can "control it all". They aren't burying gold bars in the backyard.

I think it's just easier for a lot of people to complain about the haves vs. the have not rather than work to become one of the haves, which is shockingly easy to do. Not talking about you specifically, just people in general that share your view point.


Care to elaborate on this?  How it is "Shockingly easy" to become one of the haves?  I am legitimately curious how this is so easy.

Live within your means and start saving/investing at an early age. Don't buy a house you can't afford with no to little down payment. Don't run up your CCs every month. etc, etc.

If your average person started investing in a Roth IRA or some other retirement investment in their early 20's they would retire a multi-millionaire. It's so easy that it is insane that more people don't do it. I know I sound like a broken record, but the reason it isn't done is because our youth isn't taught to do it.

Inherited a house no mortage, and I save 10% of my income, with 3% of my pre tax pay in an IRA with employer matching.  Car will be paid off at the end of the summer, student loans equal one days pay a month.  I made the average wage (approx 40k).  I have CC debt that I am paying down from when I was injured and had to take u ...


I simplified it as much as I can.

I don't know, or want to know, enough about you to become your life coach. From what you said it sounds like you are doing much better than most people your age. There are a lot of people that would consider you one of the "haves". Keep doing what you are doing.

Are you asking how to become super rich by your mid twenties?  Invent Facebook or something.
 
2013-05-21 02:23:19 PM

you have pee hands: Phinn: Actually, he's given me a business idea -- a website (app, social media portal?) devoted to providing resources, training and encouragement to 20-somethings to help them start businesses.

Concrete help for the young person who wants to be an entrepreneur and still hold onto his social values.

If I can't think of one, and he can't think of one, then it already sounds like an unmet need.

There's literally tons of services *claiming* to meet that need, the trouble is separating yourself from the charlatans.  Or marketing effectively enough that you can get away with being a charlatan yourself.


Some of us don't want to be charlatans.
 
2013-05-21 02:31:22 PM

ZeroPly: About 90% of the people in this thread are getting it wrong. This is NOT a loophole. It is the way the system is supposed to work, but Apple is throwing all ethics and honor to the wind in using it.


No they are not.  Businesses exist to make money for their shareholders.  Not to make you feel good and cuddly.  Noble concepts like "ethics" and "honor" have nothing to do it.
 
2013-05-21 02:33:35 PM

GBB: I think the only way to actually get this done is to offer to Rebuplicans a lower corporate tax rate, but also attach legislation that eliminates many loopholes. If they turn it down, then they look petty for not accepting what they've been asking for.


lol

Those companies didn't buy those Republican and Democrat politicians for nothing. You guys are adorable with the way you think Democrats aren't corrupt. The only difference between them is that the Republicans actually admit that they are corrupt.
 
2013-05-21 02:34:11 PM

theorellior: The more I parse it, the more I think Pappy091 is trolling everyone. The tone of that post reminds me of the "top-shelf pussy" frat troll.


I just mark all his posts as "Funny" and move along.  Just assuming he's a troll, but either way the shiat he says is pretty funny (in a "senile grandparent" kind of way)
 
2013-05-21 02:35:12 PM

gingerjet: ZeroPly: About 90% of the people in this thread are getting it wrong. This is NOT a loophole. It is the way the system is supposed to work, but Apple is throwing all ethics and honor to the wind in using it.

No they are not.  Businesses exist to make money for their shareholders.  Not to make you feel good and cuddly.  Noble concepts like "ethics" and "honor" have nothing to do it.


I thought they existed to turn us all into Soylent Green.
 
2013-05-21 02:35:27 PM

JohnnyC: Oh look everyone! Pappy is here tell us how bad the rich have it. Oh please, Pappy... do it some more! Stand up for those poor, oppressed, sad, rich folks who so desperately need you to defend them. They're counting on you!


He sounds like the perfect worker...

llwproductions.files.wordpress.com

dailyreckoning.com
www.oftwominds.com
 
2013-05-21 02:36:35 PM

Phinn: Some of us don't want to be charlatans.


Well then you're stuck with the other difficulty, which is convincing everyone that you're not one.  I don't think it's breaking news that 90% of advice on the internet is either bullshiat or outright duplicitous.
 
2013-05-21 02:40:26 PM

InmanRoshi: JohnnyC: Oh look everyone! Pappy is here tell us how bad the rich have it. Oh please, Pappy... do it some more! Stand up for those poor, oppressed, sad, rich folks who so desperately need you to defend them. They're counting on you!

He sounds like the perfect worker...

[llwproductions.files.wordpress.com image 720x405]

[dailyreckoning.com image 470x447]
[www.oftwominds.com image 545x223]


Are you surprised?  Most people are farking idiots, incapable of even the most basic modern work tasks.

Heck, if anything, the -1% change tells me some of the morons are at least trying to claw their way out.  Or maybe they're getting killed.  Either way it's a good thing.
 
2013-05-21 02:40:54 PM

Pappy091: Source4leko: Pappy091: Source4leko: Pappy091: ltdanman44: Pappy091: ltdanman44: Pappy091: My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.

[i53.tinypic.com image 590x443]
[i52.tinypic.com image 590x442][i54.tinypic.com image 590x442][i51.tinypic.com image 590x443]

You were saying? And yes, those charts are a little outdated.  The current ones do not paint any better of a picture

And why does any of that mean that we should hate rich people?

I because they control it all.  We get the leftovers

That is absolutely ridiculous and shows a complete lack of understanding of economics. No one can "control it all". They aren't burying gold bars in the backyard.

I think it's just easier for a lot of people to complain about the haves vs. the have not rather than work to become one of the haves, which is shockingly easy to do. Not talking about you specifically, just people in general that share your view point.


Care to elaborate on this?  How it is "Shockingly easy" to become one of the haves?  I am legitimately curious how this is so easy.

Live within your means and start saving/investing at an early age. Don't buy a house you can't afford with no to little down payment. Don't run up your CCs every month. etc, etc.

If your average person started investing in a Roth IRA or some other retirement investment in their early 20's they would retire a multi-millionaire. It's so easy that it is insane that more people don't do it. I know I sound like a broken record, but the reason it isn't done is because our youth isn't taught to do it.

Inherited a house no mortage, and I save 10% of my income, with 3% of my pre tax pay in an IRA with employer matching.  Car will be paid off at the end of the summer, student loans equal one days pay a month.  I made the average wage (approx 40k).  I have CC debt that I am paying down from when I was injured and ...


I simplified it as much as I can.
I don't know, or want to know, enough about you to become your life coach. From what you said it sounds like you are doing much better than most people your age. There are a lot of people that would consider you one of the "haves". Keep doing what you are doing.
Are you asking how to become super rich by your mid twenties?  Invent Facebook or something.


I know the difference between hitting a triple and being born on third base.  I have friends ask me for advice because 'I know what I'm doing' and my answer to them is that if they are asking me, they are in trouble.  I see nothing but stagnant wages around me, outside of the financial fields, and not much hope for the middle class down the road as more jobs are outsourced.  Right now I work in a SETM field, (High precision manufacturing, on the floor which is why I am responding slowly).  I don't want to be super rich ever, I want to someday be able to provide for a family, and possibly even retire.  I just want to know what I should do to be able to expect to do that?  Go back and get a finance degree?  Mechanical engineering?  Serious question.  Or is starting a business really my only plan?
 
2013-05-21 02:44:40 PM

Thunderpipes: you have pee hands: Pappy091: My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.

They're not the problem to the extent that they're just a byproduct of a system of taxation that's regressive beyond the point of upper middle / lower upper class, but they sure lobby like hell to keep things that way.

BS.

I guarantee you a gigantic chunk of liberal progressive hippie Obama voters own Apple products.

I have been saying it all along, why no outrage over "Big Apple" like people demonize oil companies? We all depend on oil, their profit margins are low. Apple makes useless crap with large profit margins nobody really needs, and is sitting on more money than any other corporation on Earth.

I think we should come up with a federal smart phone tax, and make it big, say, 15% of the purchase price, at minimum. If you are going to tax the bajesus out of the stuff that gets us to work, and ships our goods, you can tax toys for the dumb masses.


As a progressive/liberal (Obama's not a liberal btw, he's actually right of center), who voted for Obama (all politicians are corporate whores, it's just which corporate whore do you think is less slimy than the next guy), I'm "upset" about this.  I'm not mad or angry at Apple or any other corporations (such as oil companies).  They are businesses, and businesses are there to make as much money as possible.  It's the politicians who allow these loopholes to exist in the first place that are to blame.

Did I just blow your mind?  Of course not, you'll still go back to your "liberals are all like this" world view.  Because you're a farking moron.
 
2013-05-21 02:51:36 PM

Source4leko: I know the difference between hitting a triple and being born on third base.  I have friends ask me for advice because 'I know what I'm doing' and my answer to them is that if they are asking me, they are in trouble.  I see nothing but stagnant wages around me, outside of the financial fields, and not much hope for the middle class down the road as more jobs are outsourced.  Right now I work in a SETM field, (High precision manufacturing, on the floor which is why I am responding slowly).  I don't want to be super rich ever, I want to someday be able to provide for a family, and possibly even retire.  I just want to know what I should do to be able to expect to do that?  Go back and get a finance degree?  Mechanical engineering?  Serious question.  Or is starting a business really my only plan?


I don't know enough about what you do for a living to really give you solid advice. If everything you said earlier is true then you are most likely on the right path. As long as you have chosen a career that you can grow in and that you are happy with. Also, keep in mind that the economy is cyclical. Maybe your field seems stagnant now, but it could look a lot different once the economy turns around and is booming again. If a career in finance or engineering interests you then I would say go for it. Just be careful not to get swamped with student loans.

Obviously inheriting a paid of house is a big bonus, but even without that you are making good financial decisions. Keep saving/Investing and living within your means and you will probably see a drastic turn in your "quality of life" in your mid-30's. I always look at your 20's as the "grind" years. It's not supposed to be easy. As you get older you start to reap the benefits of what you've sown. People that blew off responsibilities are going to be going through what you are going through in their 30's and 40's.
 
2013-05-21 02:56:46 PM

Pappy091: There is no "law", it's just common sense. The super rich aren't sitting around with hundreds of millions of dollars in cash sitting in their bank accounts. At the very least they will be invested in low rish ventures such as CDs, bonds, etc.


Your right but hoarding money would actually be better than what really happens.

What really happens is closer to "rent-seeking".

And before someone says "those rents are invested back into the economy" you only need to watch what the wealthy do with capital gains. They mostly invest the gains from capital gains back into another thing that will make additional capital gains.

The rich learned a long time ago that money sitting is money wasted.
 
2013-05-21 02:58:05 PM
coromandal.files.wordpress.com

Later that day, at the sweatshop factory...

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-21 02:59:47 PM

Walker: This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft.

/more at 11


Yup.
I guess this is a story because some people think Apple is different or less evil.
They think the same thing about Google for some reason too.

The country dodged a bullet by not electing Romney, but we've already been shot a few dozen times.
 
2013-05-21 03:00:10 PM

Flargan: rent-seeking

Flargan: Pappy091: There is no "law", it's just common sense. The super rich aren't sitting around with hundreds of millions of dollars in cash sitting in their bank accounts. At the very least they will be invested in low rish ventures such as CDs, bonds, etc.

Your right but hoarding money would actually be better than what really happens.

What really happens is closer to "rent-seeking".

And before someone says "those rents are invested back into the economy" you only need to watch what the wealthy do with capital gains. They mostly invest the gains from capital gains back into another thing that will make additional capital gains.

The rich learned a long time ago that money sitting is money wasted.


That's ridiculous. By that logic you are "rent-seeking" when you invest in your 401k or Roth IRA.
 
2013-05-21 03:04:03 PM

YixilTesiphon: Magorn: You know what would happen if the youth of today WERE taught sound financial management, moral rectitude and generally to have a lesser appetite for the consumption of commerical goods?  The Economy fails.  It drops right the fark off a cliff and doesn;t come back.

DERP


call it derp if you like.  but then go read any article on modern economics or the US economy written in the last 20 years and you'll see I am 100% correct.  We are a consumption based economy and any lessening in consumer spending is considered a negative for the economy
 
2013-05-21 03:11:07 PM

Flargan: Pappy091: There is no "law", it's just common sense. The super rich aren't sitting around with hundreds of millions of dollars in cash sitting in their bank accounts. At the very least they will be invested in low rish ventures such as CDs, bonds, etc.

Your right but hoarding money would actually be better than what really happens.

What really happens is closer to "rent-seeking".

And before someone says "those rents are invested back into the economy" you only need to watch what the wealthy do with capital gains. They mostly invest the gains from capital gains back into another thing that will make additional capital gains.

The rich learned a long time ago that money sitting is money wasted.


I hope they don't let it sit, and so should you.  When money is successfully reinvested in the production of desired goods and services, then everyone benefits.  The producer makes a profit, the consumer gets the best deal on Product X available and improves his quality of life.  Even competitors can benefit, by observing the market leader and learning better ways of doing things. This is how civilization happens.

Rent-seeking is using something other than these market processes to make a profit.  It refers to actions when there is something other than the win-win transaction in a voluntary trade, such as obtaining the use of governmental force to exclude competitors, fix prices, mandate production methods, or some other creative way to violate people's human rights.    When that happens, the crony and the government wins, and everyone else loses.
 
2013-05-21 03:11:46 PM

gingerjet: ZeroPly: About 90% of the people in this thread are getting it wrong. This is NOT a loophole. It is the way the system is supposed to work, but Apple is throwing all ethics and honor to the wind in using it.

No they are not.  Businesses exist to make money for their shareholders.  Not to make you feel good and cuddly.  Noble concepts like "ethics" and "honor" have nothing to do it.


No. That's something that mega-corporations want people to accept as axiomatic, and is a remnant of long deprecated "free market solves all" thinking that some idiots still believe in. To wit, if corporations just focus on making money, then public relations pressures will lead to conservative unicorns-and-rainbow magic, and voila, the corporation is an asset to the community.

In case you haven't noticed, that line of thinking hasn't exactly worked out. That idiocy has led to corporate welfare, legions of unpaid interns replacing salaried workers, older IT staff let go to make room for cheap young college graduates, patent trolling, running sweatshops in China to produce shiny mass-market crap, and buying legislators like I buy dental floss. All because "profits are all we deal in".

F*ck that. It's time to start putting some feet to the fire. If you're a corporation and you can't operate ethically, then set up shop somewhere besides the US. We really don't need any more companies that can't see beyond the next quarterly statement. No more "but it was legal" BS like Apple is trying to shovel.
 
2013-05-21 03:15:42 PM

Pappy091: That's ridiculous. By that logic you are "rent-seeking" when you invest in your 401k or Roth IRA.


Your 401k is just a bundle of equity claims on a company.

What do you think dividends are?
Heck converting cash flows to a dividend is converting a cash asset into an interest payment.
Shoot even the accounts I work with acknowledge that much.
Most of them simply say that profit is for paying interest.

Yea we all engage in "rent-seeking" its frankly the right term for it. (Historically speaking its the correct word even though we banished it from our economic lexicon when it was decided that all forms of capital formation was useful when in reality some are just extractive/harmful.)
 
2013-05-21 03:16:19 PM

Thunderpipes: you have pee hands: Pappy091: My main complaint is how we are demonizing rich people/ large companies in this country. I just don't get it. They aren't the problem. It just gets under my skin when I see it.

They're not the problem to the extent that they're just a byproduct of a system of taxation that's regressive beyond the point of upper middle / lower upper class, but they sure lobby like hell to keep things that way.

BS.

I guarantee you a gigantic chunk of liberal progressive hippie Obama voters own Apple products.

I have been saying it all along, why no outrage over "Big Apple" like people demonize oil companies? We all depend on oil, their profit margins are low. Apple makes useless crap with large profit margins nobody really needs, and is sitting on more money than any other corporation on Earth.

I think we should come up with a federal smart phone tax, and make it big, say, 15% of the purchase price, at minimum. If you are going to tax the bajesus out of the stuff that gets us to work, and ships our goods, you can tax toys for the dumb masses.


I don't agree with you on... well, pretty much everything.  But, seriously, ^^^^ THIS ^^^^
 
2013-05-21 03:18:32 PM

Phinn: When money is successfully reinvested in the production of desired goods and services, then everyone benefits.


Yea but that isn't happening just check Capex and compare it the occurence of share buy backs.
 
2013-05-21 03:19:26 PM

Magorn: Pappy091: Netrngr: Magorn: Pappy091: Dusk-You-n-Me: Pappy091: Like I said in a previous post. A lot of people operate under the assumption of a finite amount of wealth. "If a rich person has $100 dollars, that's $100 that the rest of us don't have". It's just not true.

It's a major failing of our country that our youth has no understanding of sound financial management.


I am a little late to the thread, but finally read it all and have a question for Pappy091 and Phinn and everyone else calling for better education and teaching kids more about finances:

how is the "better education" going to be paid for and who is going to pay for the "better education" to be provided?  How would education be reformed to provide this?

and for Source4leko, I think you are asking how to be a "haves" immediately, to which there is no easy solution.  Phinn is close with the start the business idea, it goes along with the saying "you will never be rich working for someone else" but it also runs contradictory to the idea that everyone can own a business which leads to no workers.

The advice they are giving about becoming a multimillionaire in 3-4 decades is vaild, but it basically means live poor for 3-4 decades.  And i think they are doing the math on some very healthy (and possibly unrealistic) rates of growth 10-15%.  It is a hard balance of having fun in life while you are able to or saving in the hopes you can live long enough to enjoy the money you saved.

I am 34, have 88k in my 401k, and contribute 16% of my 70k salary a year into it and I am projected to barely crack 1 million in 30 years at 5%.  (2 million if I can get a steady 8%.)

accounting for inflation (2.5% ) 1 million would be equivalent to 533k in today's money. so I will still not be a millionaire in the same sense of buying power when I retire at 65.

http://www.mycalculators.com/ca/savecalcm.html
 
2013-05-21 03:22:33 PM
It's simple, we kill the batman TAXman.

The IRS is a joke, it has more agents than the FBI and CIA and NSA combined.  Think about that for just one second.

Allow me to propose a fair, scaling tax rate for all transactions. (first party only please, no double dipping).  2% of gross transactions which happen on US soil.  For the purposes of this law only, the internet shall be considered to be located at the shipping address the customer gives, and taxes will be assessed based on that.

Now, there are also no deductions, no "breaks" and no "incentives".  You pay 2%, if you fail to pay 2% by more than .5%, you spend 1 year in jail.  This MUST include the Board of directors or CEO of any company failing to pay correct taxes.

I could enforce this law with a small computer system and 200 people MAX.  It would provide MORE income to the government, with less overhead (by thousands and thousands of percent), and after a handful of lawsuits where a CEO spent time in a prison cell, we would be hot to trot.

(I've posted this before, because I've been saying this for years... just like Ron Paul )
 
2013-05-21 03:26:04 PM

Magorn: YixilTesiphon: Magorn: You know what would happen if the youth of today WERE taught sound financial management, moral rectitude and generally to have a lesser appetite for the consumption of commerical goods?  The Economy fails.  It drops right the fark off a cliff and doesn;t come back.

DERP

call it derp if you like.  but then go read any article on modern economics or the US economy written in the last 20 years and you'll see I am 100% correct.  We are a consumption based economy and any lessening in consumer spending is considered a negative for the economy


All economies are consumption-based economies.  The whole point of production is consumption.  They are both seamless parts of the same economic system.  Every part of a system is connected to every other part.  You can't look at one part in isolation and hope to say anything meaningful about the system.  Only systemic thinking can explain it.  Everyone is, at times, a consumer and a producer.  Saying one is more important than the other is not just wrong, it's gibberish.

Consumption and production contract (i.e., an economy declines) when consumer preferences become discoordinated from the existing production supply and its capital structure.  Producers are making the wrong things, in the wrong quantities, in the wrong ways.

The over-building of single-family houses is a prime example.  That disaster occurred for the same reasons that economic decline in general occurs, in slightly different ways and on different scales every day -- artificial, government-sponsored manipulation of the money supply.

Money is half of every transaction in America (except for a tiny amount of barter).  When you distort money, and fark with it, you fark with everything.  Government decreed that money for single-family houses would be artificially easy to get.  They did this to buy votes.  But it made house-buying loan-money under-priced, which is another way of saying that it made single-family houses over-priced.  This was experienced by the ordinary consumer as outrageous inflation in the single-housing market.

College prices are doing the same thing, for the same reasons.  But this dis-coordination between production and consumption occurs daily, in a less-differentiated way, with all money and all goods, all the time, because of the Federal Reserve.  All because of the manipulation of money and its concomitant manipulation of prices.
 
2013-05-21 03:26:55 PM

Hyjamon: Magorn: Pappy091: Netrngr: Magorn: Pappy091: Dusk-You-n-Me: Pappy091: Like I said in a previous post. A lot of people operate under the assumption of a finite amount of wealth. "If a rich person has $100 dollars, that's $100 that the rest of us don't have". It's just not true.

It's a major failing of our country that our youth has no understanding of sound financial management.

I am a little late to the thread, but finally read it all and have a question for Pappy091 and Phinn and everyone else calling for better education and teaching kids more about finances:

how is the "better education" going to be paid for and who is going to pay for the "better education" to be provided?  How would education be reformed to provide this?

and for Source4leko, I think you are asking how to be a "haves" immediately, to which there is no easy solution.  Phinn is close with the start the business idea, it goes along with the saying "you will never be rich working for someone else" but it also runs contradictory to the idea that everyone can own a business which leads to no workers.

The advice they are giving about becoming a multimillionaire in 3-4 decades is vaild, but it basically means live poor for 3-4 decades.  And i think they are doing the math on some very healthy (and possibly unrealistic) rates of growth 10-15%.  It is a hard balance of having fun in life while you are able to or saving in the hopes you can live long enough to enjoy the money you saved.

I am 34, have 88k in my 401k, and contribute 16% of my 70k salary a year into it and I am projected to barely crack 1 million in 30 years at 5%.  (2 million if I can get a steady 8%.)

accounting for inflation (2.5% ) 1 million would be equivalent to 533k in today's money. so I will still not be a millionaire in the same sense of buying power when I retire at 65.

http://www.mycalculators.com/ca/savecalcm.html


I think that is we spent our money wisely we could do twice as much for half the price. We need to invest in our teachers. I would like to see teachers making $100k+. Whenever a teacher leaves there should be enough applicants for the vacant position that the school can select the cream of the crop. Being a teacher should have the same societal prestige as being a doctor.

My local school district just spent over $50 million building a farking football stadium. Every single school except for one already had a perfectly good football stadium. I wish I could say that this was the exception, but money is wasted like this all the time in the name of "education".
 
2013-05-21 03:29:39 PM

Phinn: Rent-seeking is using something other than these market processes to make a profit.


It had a much broader definition in the past, then it was re-defined, and now mostly banished.
Historically the fastest way to amass land was lending with interest to your neighbors (which is more or less where the term originated) and no one called it a win-win.

And I am not going to claim that I don't invest in a 401k or buy shares etc... (I do and frequently)
But I am not going to pretend that this mostly re-deploys money back into the economy when it so clearly does not.
God if that was true the boom-bust cycle would still result in net growth but that is not the case.
You could even make the arguement that we are actually paying for the bust of 2001 not the bust of 2008.
 
2013-05-21 03:30:03 PM

Kahabut: It's simple, we kill the batman TAXman.

The IRS is a joke, it has more agents than the FBI and CIA and NSA combined.  Think about that for just one second.

Allow me to propose a fair, scaling tax rate for all transactions. (first party only please, no double dipping).  2% of gross transactions which happen on US soil.  For the purposes of this law only, the internet shall be considered to be located at the shipping address the customer gives, and taxes will be assessed based on that.

Now, there are also no deductions, no "breaks" and no "incentives".  You pay 2%, if you fail to pay 2% by more than .5%, you spend 1 year in jail.  This MUST include the Board of directors or CEO of any company failing to pay correct taxes.

I could enforce this law with a small computer system and 200 people MAX.  It would provide MORE income to the government, with less overhead (by thousands and thousands of percent), and after a handful of lawsuits where a CEO spent time in a prison cell, we would be hot to trot.

(I've posted this before, because I've been saying this for years... just like Ron Paul )


So, if my company gets $100K in revenue, I pay 2% tax on that, and even though my employee costs are, say, $95K (which is a deduction for the company), does that mean that the employee pays less income tax, since that money was previously taxed?
 
2013-05-21 03:31:06 PM

Kahabut: It's simple, we kill the batman TAXman.

The IRS is a joke, it has more agents than the FBI and CIA and NSA combined.  Think about that for just one second.

Allow me to propose a fair, scaling tax rate for all transactions. (first party only please, no double dipping).  2% of gross transactions which happen on US soil.  For the purposes of this law only, the internet shall be considered to be located at the shipping address the customer gives, and taxes will be assessed based on that.

Now, there are also no deductions, no "breaks" and no "incentives".  You pay 2%, if you fail to pay 2% by more than .5%, you spend 1 year in jail.  This MUST include the Board of directors or CEO of any company failing to pay correct taxes.

I could enforce this law with a small computer system and 200 people MAX.  It would provide MORE income to the government, with less overhead (by thousands and thousands of percent), and after a handful of lawsuits where a CEO spent time in a prison cell, we would be hot to trot.

(I've posted this before, because I've been saying this for years... just like Ron Paul )


The problem with this is that it shifts too much of the burden onto the lower and middle classes.
 
2013-05-21 03:35:41 PM

Pappy091: Hyjamon: Magorn: Pappy091: Netrngr: Magorn: Pappy091: Dusk-You-n-Me: Pappy091:


I think that is we spent our money wisely we could do twice as much for half the price. We need to invest in our teachers. I would like to see teachers making $100k+. Whenever a teacher leaves there should be enough applicants for the vacant position that the school can select the cream of the crop. Being a teacher should have the same societal prestige as being a doctor.

My local school district just spent over $50 million building a farking football stadium. Every single school except for one already had a perfectly good football stadium. I wish I could say that this was the exception, but money is wasted like this all the time in the name of "education".


I like your thoughts on this but I think someone (local, state or federal) would have to deal with a tax increase to see teachers reach an average (mean or median) of 100k.  50 million on a football stadium sounds like a lot, but what does it translate to when spread out over all the teachers (and admin?) in the district and it can be spun as something that brings in revenue.  I live in the south and see this all the time, it is sad parents would rather have a state championship sports program (or just a nice stadium regardless of the success of the team) and school SAT average of 650 instead of a regular football team and a SAT average of 1000+
 
2013-05-21 03:41:01 PM

Pappy091: The problem with this is that it shifts too much of the burden onto the lower and middle classes.


There would be no burden, overall, if the government weren't spending money faster than the printers could possibly print it -- agriculture subsidies, energy subsidies, a global military empire, and now a government-run medical-services industry that will eat every dollar thrown in its direction.

Here's the bedrock truth -- It's impossible for a government to manage an economy, or improve it through regulation or taxation or spending patterns.  I don't know how emphatic I can be about the word "impossible," but it's a matter of combinatorial complexity that demonstrates that centralized, forcible economic control is completely, not even remotely, in the realm of a whisper of possible.
 
2013-05-21 03:43:27 PM

Hyjamon: Pappy091: Hyjamon: Magorn: Pappy091: Netrngr: Magorn: Pappy091: Dusk-You-n-Me: Pappy091:

I think that is we spent our money wisely we could do twice as much for half the price. We need to invest in our teachers. I would like to see teachers making $100k+. Whenever a teacher leaves there should be enough applicants for the vacant position that the school can select the cream of the crop. Being a teacher should have the same societal prestige as being a doctor.

My local school district just spent over $50 million building a farking football stadium. Every single school except for one already had a perfectly good football stadium. I wish I could say that this was the exception, but money is wasted like this all the time in the name of "education".

I like your thoughts on this but I think someone (local, state or federal) would have to deal with a tax increase to see teachers reach an average (mean or median) of 100k.  50 million on a football stadium sounds like a lot, but what does it translate to when spread out over all the teachers (and admin?) in the district and it can be spun as something that brings in revenue.  I live in the south and see this all the time, it is sad parents would rather have a state championship sports program (or just a nice stadium regardless of the success of the team) and school SAT average of 650 instead of a regular football team and a SAT average of 1000+


I use that stadium as one small example of a much larger problem. It goes well beyond sports. Education spending is out of control and to make matter worse it's not being spent on things that actual benefit kids. We are falling farther and farther behind the rest of the world each year.
 
2013-05-21 03:44:18 PM

Phinn: Pappy091: The problem with this is that it shifts too much of the burden onto the lower and middle classes.

There would be no burden, overall, if the government weren't spending money faster than the printers could possibly print it -- agriculture subsidies, energy subsidies, a global military empire, and now a government-run medical-services industry that will eat every dollar thrown in its direction.

Here's the bedrock truth -- It's impossible for a government to manage an economy, or improve it through regulation or taxation or spending patterns.  I don't know how emphatic I can be about the word "impossible," but it's a matter of combinatorial complexity that demonstrates that centralized, forcible economic control is completely, not even remotely, in the realm of a whisper of possible.


Agreed.
 
2013-05-21 03:47:23 PM

DeathCipris: Or how bout close the loopholes that lets Apple and all the other mega-corporations sit on the mountain of gold they have? Why pass on yet another tax to the working class?

/Apple sucks


You're better off actually setting a tax rate that corprations will pay.  At 35% corporate tax and the most mobile society in history, is it any surprise that companies move overseas?  Sure, we'll never get to cayman levels of banking tax but there's probably a lot of companies that would come back if they only paid in the area of 5-10%.  The 10% that you get is better than the 35% that you dont.
 
2013-05-21 03:47:48 PM

Magorn: We are a consumption based economy and any lessening in consumer spending is considered a negative for the economy


Guess that depends on who you read.

Some state that S = I (Savings = Investment)
Others state S = I + (S - I)

Another way I have seen it framed is the 3 sector balance (public, private, trade account) and tracking where the economic surplus is.
 
2013-05-21 03:51:51 PM
With all this money Apple is saving on taxes. And that almost $1billion in cash they have, I have to ask, WHERE IS MY $99 iPad and $300 MacBook Pro???????????
 
2013-05-21 03:59:48 PM
The world of Rollerball is closer than you think.
 
2013-05-21 04:00:04 PM
HA HA!

pixel.nymag.com
 
2013-05-21 04:00:32 PM

Pappy091: We are falling farther and farther behind the rest of the world each year.


If you haven't already you should watch some of the lectures of John Taylor Gatto.
He goes into great detail on how we couldn't catch up with anyone doing what we have been doing.
And for him it isn't a money problem but a problem of the form/structure of our educational system.
 
2013-05-21 04:04:57 PM

Pappy091: I use that stadium as one small example of a much larger problem. It goes well beyond sports. Education spending is out of control and to make matter worse it's not being spent on things that actual benefit kids. We are falling farther and farther behind the rest of the world each year.


The reason this happens is because school districts are government operations.  They get their revenue by force.  They have no customers.

Because schools have no customers, every capital-expenditure decision (and every managerial decision, frankly) becomes a complete guess.  A shot in the dark -- a decision that has ZERO effect on the ability of the school to get paid.

By disconnecting expenditure decisions and revenue (i.e., funding via forced taxation instead of voluntary purchase of educational services), the school has no economic information on which to base its executive decisions.  They couldn't make the right decisions even if they wanted to.  If Starbucks spent billions of dollars on things that customers didn't actually want, it would lose that money, which could have been spent on profitable, desired things.   It gets immediate economic feedback on every spending decision it makes.  That information guides its decisions.

Schools do not get economic feedback on their expenditures, which would help them determine when their spending decisions were actually increasing consumer satisfaction.  The consumers continue to pay if they want to or not because they are forced to pay.

Tax-supported schools operate in an informational vacuum.  In that vacuum of economic information, something else creeps in to guide a school's spending decisions -- political information.  All they have is political information, which usually comes in the form of squawking and shrieking at board meetings, and other attempts to cause political embarrassment.

That's why schools tend to decline in quality, and increase in cost, until they reach a point of political embarrassment.
 
2013-05-21 04:08:09 PM

Phinn: Pappy091: I use that stadium as one small example of a much larger problem. It goes well beyond sports. Education spending is out of control and to make matter worse it's not being spent on things that actual benefit kids. We are falling farther and farther behind the rest of the world each year.

The reason this happens is because school districts are government operations.  They get their revenue by force.  They have no customers.

Because schools have no customers, every capital-expenditure decision (and every managerial decision, frankly) becomes a complete guess.  A shot in the dark -- a decision that has ZERO effect on the ability of the school to get paid.

By disconnecting expenditure decisions and revenue (i.e., funding via forced taxation instead of voluntary purchase of educational services), the school has no economic information on which to base its executive decisions.  They couldn't make the right decisions even if they wanted to.  If Starbucks spent billions of dollars on things that customers didn't actually want, it would lose that money, which could have been spent on profitable, desired things.   It gets immediate economic feedback on every spending decision it makes.  That information guides its decisions.

Schools do not get economic feedback on their expenditures, which would help them determine when their spending decisions were actually increasing consumer satisfaction.  The consumers continue to pay if they want to or not because they are forced to pay.

Tax-supported schools operate in an informational vacuum.  In that vacuum of economic information, something else creeps in to guide a school's spending decisions -- political information.  All they have is political information, which usually comes in the form of squawking and shrieking at board meetings, and other attempts to cause political embarrassment.

That's why schools tend to decline in quality, and increase in cost, until they reach a point of political embarrassment.


You just summed up my local school district. It it is one of the most useless, corrupt government entities I have ever seen. The state education agency is threatening to take them over and I pray every day that they end up doing that.
 
2013-05-21 04:16:19 PM
Sofakinbd: Here are a few salient points:
 1) Apple pays taxes on all profits is makes in each country in which it makes those profits.  German profits are paid to Germany; Japan profits are paid to Japan; US profits are paid to the US; etc.

False.  It is avoiding it for every one of those countries.

2) Apple is simply transferring its ALREADY TAXED foreign profits to Ireland for centralized management. Apple pays taxes to Ireland, at an arguably low tax rate, when it makes these transfers. This violates no laws anywhere and is not immoral.
That requires a suspension of disbelief to believe such a fantastic tale.


3) Apple is only required to pay US income tax on these foreign profits if it chooses to transfer these funds back to the US.  Under US law, Apple is not required to transfer its foreign profits back to the US.
One more reason to consider converting those domiciles to US soil - before any transfers can occur.


4) Lastly, let's remember that Apple pays US taxes, at a 35% tax rate, on all interest earned through investments of it's foreign capital.
Maybe the US government should reduce the tax rate for the return foreign profits to the US.  Remember, these profits have already been appropriately taxed by foreign governments.

Stop trying to evade and perhaps that might happen.  Until then, the IRS would do well to escalate their response to something that the DoD would do - to moot jurisidictional arbitrage.

Shame that the IRS has to go for a political group when it could go for much more.
 
2013-05-21 04:16:24 PM
I own a small business.  I pay federal, state, county and city taxes on my income, the company's income, and the company's property.  I take home about 60% of the income I produce; the rest goes to various taxes. I have been audited twice in the past eight years (with no wrongdoing ever found).  Yet the biggest companies in the nation pay nothing upon billions of dollars in income.

The best government money can buy indeed.
 
2013-05-21 04:17:36 PM

mongbiohazard: pute kisses like a man: you got some double dutch in my irish sandwich... or whatever they call it.

i wonder, would the US make more in tax revenue if it decreased taxes?  there is a point where it's not worth the financial complexity and costs of professional hours to avoid paying taxes.  or, should it just legislate out the possibility of these clever tactics?  not that it would work.  tax people would find a new loophole, or just leave.

In and of itself no, it would not encourage companies to stop using clever accountants and loopholes to avoid taxes for a simple reason: if they're saving less money they're still saving money.

Think about it... Let's say Company X is using tax avoidance schemes to avoid paying $150 million in taxes. Let's say they pay $1 million in costs for the lawyers and accountants on the payroll to handle that for them, so they are profiting $149 million from the scheme. So say we slash the tax rate precipitously so that Company X now only owes $75 million. They're now still making $74 million on the deal. So they keep doing it because there's still $75 million in it for them. They'd be nuts to stop doing it, they have absolutely no reason to change their behavior, just because the rate was lowered. If anything they have the incentive to try to cheat the system even harder, to get back to as close to the $149 million from before as they can get.

It would be nice to just have a set corporate tax rate and no loopholes, no adjustments. But that will never happen because the folks running those companies basically write their own laws through the legislators that we elect and that they pay. They WANT deductions, loopholes and other complexity in the tax code - as much complexity as possible - because they can hide behind that complexity.

Honestly, the best solution is probably to end corporate income tax completely - and just tax the disproportionately wealthy directly instead. We and the rich all did just fine with a 90+% top marginal tax ...


I agree with you, but it's shouted down as envy or class warfare when it's really just people using their money to game the system to stay wealthy and keep others from becoming so.
 
2013-05-21 04:19:43 PM

Pappy091: Almet: Pappy091: This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise...

Warren Buffet disagrees

Well, I am in generally in a higher tax bracket and I can promise you that I pay much higher taxes than my employees do. While they generally get a few thousand back every year, I have to make significant quarterly payments to Uncle Sam with no return at tax time.


You think you qualify as rich, that's cute.
 
2013-05-21 04:19:55 PM

caddisfly: I own a small business.  I pay federal, state, county and city taxes on my income, the company's income, and the company's property.  I take home about 60% of the income I produce; the rest goes to various taxes. I have been audited twice in the past eight years (with no wrongdoing ever found).  Yet the biggest companies in the nation pay nothing upon billions of dollars in income.

The best government money can buy indeed.


Also this.
 
2013-05-21 04:20:25 PM

caddisfly: I own a small business.  I pay federal, state, county and city taxes on my income, the company's income, and the company's property.  I take home about 60% of the income I produce; the rest goes to various taxes. I have been audited twice in the past eight years (with no wrongdoing ever found).  Yet the biggest companies in the nation pay nothing upon billions of dollars in income.

The best government money can buy indeed.


Apple pays taxes on anything sold in the USA to the USA.

That income was made overseas. Learn the difference. America is not 'entitled' to that $$$. Key word here..entitled.
 
2013-05-21 04:24:18 PM

Phinn: duenor: As a libertarian, I'm not sure what the best course of action here is. It's not like we can (or should) seize their companies and demand our national cut.

This is the Hipster Leftist's worst nightmare, when the Hipster side of their smartphone-and-student-loan-fueled lifestyles competes with their Leftist insane-hatred of all things related to profit.

On the one hand, there the idea that someone, somewhere might be profiting without the gubment getting a cut ...  Bbbbbut tax-killing Apple might interfere with the next generation of iPad ....   What is a Hipster Leftist to do?


Jump to bigger conclusions? Apple's business practices suck. They sell overpriced shiny boxes.

/screw 'em
 
2013-05-21 04:26:09 PM

CrazyCracka420: It's the politicians who allow these loopholes to exist in the first place that are to blame.


THIS!

You so crazy, cracka.


The Farkers claiming how easy it is to be wealthy and successful remind me of the Tony Robbins sort who sell you books and seminars on how to be successful, and when you get there it's all smoke and mirrors about attitude and positive thinking and hard work and striving and self-sacrifice, but the reality is they refuse to accept that there's an enormous amount of luck involved.

For example, the kid who inherited the house, all paid off. Luck (and he knows it). I'll wager that Pappy and Phinn were not born in the ghetto, raised by their grandmothers while dad was in jail & mom was on and off the crack/smack/booze/etc, trying to function in a run-down urban school overrun with gangs and noise and crime. Effort, sure, but there's a whole lotta right place, right time. It doesn't matter how hard you work if the opportunity isn't there. Likewise, housing prices, and for fark's sake, the commodification of higher education has driven those costs through the roof. Kids saddled with so much debt. Sure, bold, tough Grandfatherly talk:

Live within your means;
Save regularly;

And don't have children. And find that one place where the cost of living is far lower than what they're paying you and pray they don't find out they can pay you less and you'll stay on. Oh, and if you're from a shiatty, depressed area where there used to be jobs until the factory packed up and moved to China, be ready to say goodbye to your (loser) family and never see them again because you damn sure can't afford to take them with you to your new job and efficiency apartment in Bootstrapville. And while you're at it, go ahead an invest in your company's 401k, because that matching pays off. In however many years it takes you to vest. So be prepared to give their matching funds back or pass on that better opportunity that comes along because you don't want to lose those matching funds. And don't get sick or have any pre-existing medical conditions because your health insurance is tied to your job and every time you leave you'll have coverage gaps and other potential lags. And forget about straight commission gigs, unless you're really a gambler and don't plan on getting sick. Ever.

But be bold. Be your own boss. Put everything into that new business venture where you're providing Nonspecific Service to Nonspecific Market. Student loan payments be damned, they can wait until your gamble pays off.  Or doesn't. And that old car should keep running, because you bought it within your means and the guy said it was reliable. You'd have taken it to a mechanic, but, well, that would have exceeded your budget and by golly, you're not about to be saddled with more debt. Not on your schedule. Not on your program.

I am reminded of that Saturday Night Live HR satire video on sexual harassment.

Be Handsome Be Attractive
 Don't Be Unattractive
 
2013-05-21 04:30:40 PM

Kahabut: It's simple, we kill the batman TAXman.

The IRS is a joke, it has more agents than the FBI and CIA and NSA combined.  Think about that for just one second.

Allow me to propose a fair, scaling tax rate for all transactions. (first party only please, no double dipping).  2% of gross transactions which happen on US soil.  For the purposes of this law only, the internet shall be considered to be located at the shipping address the customer gives, and taxes will be assessed based on that.

Now, there are also no deductions, no "breaks" and no "incentives".  You pay 2%, if you fail to pay 2% by more than .5%, you spend 1 year in jail.  This MUST include the Board of directors or CEO of any company failing to pay correct taxes.

I could enforce this law with a small computer system and 200 people MAX.  It would provide MORE income to the government, with less overhead (by thousands and thousands of percent), and after a handful of lawsuits where a CEO spent time in a prison cell, we would be hot to trot.

(I've posted this before, because I've been saying this for years... just like Ron Paul )


Let's list the most obvious problems with your suggestion:

1. You'll never enforce that with 200 people.  Or 20,000.
2. Your suggested tax rate is way too low to get the same amount of revenue that the current system provides.
3. At an actual realistic rate, poor people will get a huge tax increase and rich people will get a huge tax decrease.
4. The chances of that passing Congress is 0.000000000000%.
 
2013-05-21 04:34:09 PM

AngryJailhouseFistfark: CrazyCracka420: It's the politicians who allow these loopholes to exist in the first place that are to blame.

THIS!

You so crazy, cracka.


The Farkers claiming how easy it is to be wealthy and successful remind me of the Tony Robbins sort who sell you books and seminars on how to be successful, and when you get there it's all smoke and mirrors about attitude and positive thinking and hard work and striving and self-sacrifice, but the reality is they refuse to accept that there's an enormous amount of luck involved.

For example, the kid who inherited the house, all paid off. Luck (and he knows it). I'll wager that Pappy and Phinn were not born in the ghetto, raised by their grandmothers while dad was in jail & mom was on and off the crack/smack/booze/etc, trying to function in a run-down urban school overrun with gangs and noise and crime. Effort, sure, but there's a whole lotta right place, right time. It doesn't matter how hard you work if the opportunity isn't there. Likewise, housing prices, and for fark's sake, the commodification of higher education has driven those costs through the roof. Kids saddled with so much debt. Sure, bold, tough Grandfatherly talk:

Live within your means;
Save regularly;

And don't have children. And find that one place where the cost of living is far lower than what they're paying you and pray they don't find out they can pay you less and you'll stay on. Oh, and if you're from a shiatty, depressed area where there used to be jobs until the factory packed up and moved to China, be ready to say goodbye to your (loser) family and never see them again because you damn sure can't afford to take them with you to your new job and efficiency apartment in Bootstrapville. And while you're at it, go ahead an invest in your company's 401k, because that matching pays off. In however many years it takes you to vest. So be prepared to give their matching funds back or pass on that better opportunity that comes along because you don't want to l ...


The great thing about America is that even those kids that are born in a situation like that can succeed if they want to. Sure, it takes hard work, but what doesn't? It's MUCH easier to sit around like you and cry about everyone else have more advantages while you go nowhere. Get off your arse and get to work and you will reap what you sow. What is your alternative? In what system do the kids of those drug addicts have it easy in life?

Guess what? Some people will have advantages that you don't have. Life isn't fair, get over it.
 
2013-05-21 04:34:22 PM

AngryJailhouseFistfark: CrazyCracka420: It's the politicians who allow these loopholes to exist in the first place that are to blame.

THIS!

You so crazy, cracka.


The Farkers claiming how easy it is to be wealthy and successful remind me of the Tony Robbins sort who sell you books and seminars on how to be successful, and when you get there it's all smoke and mirrors about attitude and positive thinking and hard work and striving and self-sacrifice, but the reality is they refuse to accept that there's an enormous amount of luck involved.

For example, the kid who inherited the house, all paid off. Luck (and he knows it). I'll wager that Pappy and Phinn were not born in the ghetto, raised by their grandmothers while dad was in jail & mom was on and off the crack/smack/booze/etc, trying to function in a run-down urban school overrun with gangs and noise and crime. Effort, sure, but there's a whole lotta right place, right time. It doesn't matter how hard you work if the opportunity isn't there. Likewise, housing prices, and for fark's sake, the commodification of higher education has driven those costs through the roof. Kids saddled with so much debt. Sure, bold, tough Grandfatherly talk:

Live within your means;
Save regularly;

And don't have children. And find that one place where the cost of living is far lower than what they're paying you and pray they don't find out they can pay you less and you'll stay on. Oh, and if you're from a shiatty, depressed area where there used to be jobs until the factory packed up and moved to China, be ready to say goodbye to your (loser) family and never see them again because you damn sure can't afford to take them with you to your new job and efficiency apartment in Bootstrapville. And while you're at it, go ahead an invest in your company's 401k, because that matching pays off. In however many years it takes you to vest. So be prepared to give their matching funds back or pass on that better opportunity that comes along because you don't want to l ...


Preach it.
 
2013-05-21 04:34:22 PM

JC22: caddisfly: I own a small business.  I pay federal, state, county and city taxes on my income, the company's income, and the company's property.  I take home about 60% of the income I produce; the rest goes to various taxes. I have been audited twice in the past eight years (with no wrongdoing ever found).  Yet the biggest companies in the nation pay nothing upon billions of dollars in income.

The best government money can buy indeed.

Apple pays taxes on anything sold in the USA to the USA.

That income was made overseas. Learn the difference. America is not 'entitled' to that $$$. Key word here..entitled.


You need to do more research.  Apple is transferring US assets to the Irish shell so that the income from those assets isn't taxed as it would be absent the straw-man transfer.  It's "made overseas" only because Apple first transfers the assets overseas- to itself by another name.   I pay 40%, Apple pays .06%.  Read this:  http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/21/3-mindbending-ways-apple-dodged-13-8 b -in-taxes/
 
2013-05-21 04:35:28 PM

Kahabut: It's simple, we kill the batman TAXman.

The IRS is a joke, it has more agents than the FBI and CIA and NSA combined. Think about that for just one second.


The IRS isn't a joke when it can manage to do what it's been accused of doing recently.  The only thing they really haven't done is partnered up with other revenue collections agencies of other countries along with their military/intelligence departments.
 
2013-05-21 04:39:05 PM

Pappy091: My local school district just spent over $50 million building a farking football stadium. Every single school except for one already had a perfectly good football stadium. I wish I could say that this was the exception, but money is wasted like this all the time in the name of "education".


Voters frequently pass bonds for school construction, usually by proposition (so no politicians are directly involved).  These bonds can typically not be used to pay for new textbooks or teacher salaries; they have to pay for bricks and mortar.

So, what happens if a school district doesn't need any new buildings, but is entitled to a portion of said bond money?  You get a brand new $50 million dollar football stadium, frequently at the same time when said school district has trouble paying salaries for teachers.

Blame the voters for passing a bond measure as opposed to a tax increase for the schools to spend how they want to, because, hey, bonds are "free money" and "don't raise taxes" (which is completely false-the bonds have to paid off somehow, with interest).
 
2013-05-21 04:39:50 PM
I set one obvious troll on mute and suddenly the thread is only 2/3s the size.  Nice.
 
2013-05-21 04:40:02 PM

JC22: caddisfly: I own a small business.  I pay federal, state, county and city taxes on my income, the company's income, and the company's property.  I take home about 60% of the income I produce; the rest goes to various taxes. I have been audited twice in the past eight years (with no wrongdoing ever found).  Yet the biggest companies in the nation pay nothing upon billions of dollars in income.

The best government money can buy indeed.

Apple pays taxes on anything sold in the USA to the USA.

That income was made overseas. Learn the difference. America is not 'entitled' to that $$$. Key word here..entitled.


You're not getting it. We're not talking about overseas sales, as in where someone walks into a retail store in London and buys an iPad. No one is claiming Apple should pay US tax on that transaction.

Apple is claiming that it is paying for "licensing of the brand", except those license payments are going to imaginary Irish companies. That allows it to bring its net profits down, and pay less tax. It's inventing a business expense. This is similar to "Son of Boss", if you understand how that works. Which was also perfectly legal until it was not. The money was technically "made" by the imaginary Irish company exactly in the way it is "made" in Son of Boss.

Apple will skate on this, largely because the majority of American are too stupid to understand exactly what it is Apple is doing to avoid the taxes.
 
2013-05-21 04:40:20 PM
Like it or not, nothing actually illegal happened.

Your legislators at work
 
2013-05-21 04:43:46 PM

Reverend Monkeypants: Like it or not, nothing actually illegal happened.

Your legislators at work


Exactly.  Blame Congress, not Apple.  It's Apple's job (and every individual) to pay as little taxes as possible without breaking any laws.  Congress writes the laws; if they have a problem with them, they can change them.
 
2013-05-21 04:45:40 PM

Pappy091: AngryJailhouseFistfark: CrazyCracka420: It's the politicians who allow these loopholes to exist in the first place that are to blame.

THIS!

You so crazy, cracka.


The Farkers claiming how easy it is to be wealthy and successful remind me of the Tony Robbins sort who sell you books and seminars on how to be successful, and when you get there it's all smoke and mirrors about attitude and positive thinking and hard work and striving and self-sacrifice, but the reality is they refuse to accept that there's an enormous amount of luck involved.

For example, the kid who inherited the house, all paid off. Luck (and he knows it). I'll wager that Pappy and Phinn were not born in the ghetto, raised by their grandmothers while dad was in jail & mom was on and off the crack/smack/booze/etc, trying to function in a run-down urban school overrun with gangs and noise and crime. Effort, sure, but there's a whole lotta right place, right time. It doesn't matter how hard you work if the opportunity isn't there. Likewise, housing prices, and for fark's sake, the commodification of higher education has driven those costs through the roof. Kids saddled with so much debt. Sure, bold, tough Grandfatherly talk:

Live within your means;
Save regularly;

And don't have children. And find that one place where the cost of living is far lower than what they're paying you and pray they don't find out they can pay you less and you'll stay on. Oh, and if you're from a shiatty, depressed area where there used to be jobs until the factory packed up and moved to China, be ready to say goodbye to your (loser) family and never see them again because you damn sure can't afford to take them with you to your new job and efficiency apartment in Bootstrapville. And while you're at it, go ahead an invest in your company's 401k, because that matching pays off. In however many years it takes you to vest. So be prepared to give their matching funds back or pass on that better opportunity that comes along bec ...


Reading comprehension is your friend.

It's not the advantages that some people are born with or even their wealth. Either you're an idiot (doubtful) or you're just being willfully obtuse. Here's the point, so pay attention:

Being born into better conditions than someone else does not mean you get to lecture them on hard work or responsibility. You had help, someone else did not. You are not a better person because you won the genetic lottery while someone else is born into poverty.

Your parental and economic circumstances do not make you a better person nor do they give you the moral right to wag your finger at someone less fortunate than yourself.

So, yeah, get bent.
 
2013-05-21 04:46:56 PM

Geotpf: Reverend Monkeypants: Like it or not, nothing actually illegal happened.

Your legislators at work

Exactly.  Blame Congress, not Apple.  It's Apple's job (and every individual) to pay as little taxes as possible without breaking any laws.  Congress writes the laws; if they have a problem with them, they can change them.


Wasn't it only recently that some state managed to making having sex with corpses illegal?  Doing up to the line of what is considered illegal is a morally bankrupt stance to take.  But you're right, corporations are people too, just psychopaths that's all.
 
2013-05-21 04:47:42 PM
The culture of greed in this country is pervasive and disgusting. Twain was right about the "temporarily-embarrassed millionaires".

The Worthington Principle is alive and well in America.
 
2013-05-21 04:48:26 PM

JC22: caddisfly: I own a small business.  I pay federal, state, county and city taxes on my income, the company's income, and the company's property.  I take home about 60% of the income I produce; the rest goes to various taxes. I have been audited twice in the past eight years (with no wrongdoing ever found).  Yet the biggest companies in the nation pay nothing upon billions of dollars in income.

The best government money can buy indeed.

Apple pays taxes on anything sold in the USA to the USA.

That income was made overseas*. Derp.


* From "creatively juggled accounting" based on US income/operations.


America is not '[buzzword]' to that $$$. Overused buzzword here...

Offend the US enough in the tax department, and it will have it regardless of legitimacy.
 
2013-05-21 04:49:31 PM

pxlboy: Apple's business practices suck. They sell overpriced shiny boxes.


Suck? No, citizen, they are geniuses! Second only to the Pet Rock in terms of getting people to pay far and away more for a thing than it is worth. Marketing geniuses, even down to the insular little community and jargon they create. THIS is business acumen of the highest caliber, a la P.T. Barnum.
 
2013-05-21 04:55:04 PM

pxlboy: Pappy091: AngryJailhouseFistfark: CrazyCracka420: It's the politicians who allow these loopholes to exist in the first place that are to blame.

THIS!

You so crazy, cracka.


The Farkers claiming how easy it is to be wealthy and successful remind me of the Tony Robbins sort who sell you books and seminars on how to be successful, and when you get there it's all smoke and mirrors about attitude and positive thinking and hard work and striving and self-sacrifice, but the reality is they refuse to accept that there's an enormous amount of luck involved.

For example, the kid who inherited the house, all paid off. Luck (and he knows it). I'll wager that Pappy and Phinn were not born in the ghetto, raised by their grandmothers while dad was in jail & mom was on and off the crack/smack/booze/etc, trying to function in a run-down urban school overrun with gangs and noise and crime. Effort, sure, but there's a whole lotta right place, right time. It doesn't matter how hard you work if the opportunity isn't there. Likewise, housing prices, and for fark's sake, the commodification of higher education has driven those costs through the roof. Kids saddled with so much debt. Sure, bold, tough Grandfatherly talk:

Live within your means;
Save regularly;

And don't have children. And find that one place where the cost of living is far lower than what they're paying you and pray they don't find out they can pay you less and you'll stay on. Oh, and if you're from a shiatty, depressed area where there used to be jobs until the factory packed up and moved to China, be ready to say goodbye to your (loser) family and never see them again because you damn sure can't afford to take them with you to your new job and efficiency apartment in Bootstrapville. And while you're at it, go ahead an invest in your company's 401k, because that matching pays off. In however many years it takes you to vest. So be prepared to give their matching funds back or pass on that better opportunity that comes ...


So you are assuming that people that are born into "better" circumstances just coast through life?

How is saying that someone needs to work hard a bad thing? How can they, or anyone, else succeed without working hard?

When did I say that who your parents are makes you a better person or gives you the moral right to do anything?

You are mistakenly thinking that I am talking "down" to people, which is absurd. How is telling someone that they need to work hard talking down? That's just common sense. And it applies to everyone, regardless of your background.
 
2013-05-21 04:55:26 PM

BumpInTheNight: Geotpf: Reverend Monkeypants: Like it or not, nothing actually illegal happened.

Your legislators at work

Exactly.  Blame Congress, not Apple.  It's Apple's job (and every individual) to pay as little taxes as possible without breaking any laws.  Congress writes the laws; if they have a problem with them, they can change them.

Wasn't it only recently that some state managed to making having sex with corpses illegal?  Doing up to the line of what is considered illegal is a morally bankrupt stance to take.  But you're right, corporations are people too, just psychopaths that's all.


Psychopathic and sociopathic behavior are prevalent in business. It's the "world needs assholes to get sh*t done" mentality that helps keep business going. But they need to kept in check, and they're not.

There were some economic counterbalances in place that still allowed the wealthy to be wealthy, but not at the expense of the rest of us.

And they are enabled by their pets in Congress who gave sold us down the river for a relative pittance and we get to foot the bill.
 
2013-05-21 05:02:53 PM

Pappy091: pxlboy: Pappy091: AngryJailhouseFistfark: CrazyCracka420: It's the politicians who allow these loopholes to exist in the first place that are to blame.

THIS!

You so crazy, cracka.


The Farkers claiming how easy it is to be wealthy and successful remind me of the Tony Robbins sort who sell you books and seminars on how to be successful, and when you get there it's all smoke and mirrors about attitude and positive thinking and hard work and striving and self-sacrifice, but the reality is they refuse to accept that there's an enormous amount of luck involved.

For example, the kid who inherited the house, all paid off. Luck (and he knows it). I'll wager that Pappy and Phinn were not born in the ghetto, raised by their grandmothers while dad was in jail & mom was on and off the crack/smack/booze/etc, trying to function in a run-down urban school overrun with gangs and noise and crime. Effort, sure, but there's a whole lotta right place, right time. It doesn't matter how hard you work if the opportunity isn't there. Likewise, housing prices, and for fark's sake, the commodification of higher education has driven those costs through the roof. Kids saddled with so much debt. Sure, bold, tough Grandfatherly talk:

Live within your means;
Save regularly;

And don't have children. And find that one place where the cost of living is far lower than what they're paying you and pray they don't find out they can pay you less and you'll stay on. Oh, and if you're from a shiatty, depressed area where there used to be jobs until the factory packed up and moved to China, be ready to say goodbye to your (loser) family and never see them again because you damn sure can't afford to take them with you to your new job and efficiency apartment in Bootstrapville. And while you're at it, go ahead an invest in your company's 401k, because that matching pays off. In however many years it takes you to vest. So be prepared to give their matching funds back or pass on that better opportunity th ...


Hard work is a generic term. No one disagrees with hard work.

The general thought is that without a certain level of familial, social, and possibly even financial support. The useless platitudes of, "Work hard, bootstraps, etc" are just that -- platitudes.

That support network, the upbringing, the education, and what not are going to play a huge role. People are, in many ways, a product of their environment. To say that someone who didn't have the same level of nurturing and support is on a level playing with someone who did not is ludicrous.

"Why don't they just get a job"
"Why don't they just go to school?"
"Maybe they shouldn't have had kids so young"

And so on. Privilege takes itself for granted and too seriously. It forgets that not everyone starts at the same place. It forgets where it comes from and has the audacity to chastise others for not having it.

So yeah, to just blurt out, "Work hard and I'm sure something will happen" is empty and worthless.
 
2013-05-21 05:10:40 PM

BumpInTheNight: Geotpf: Reverend Monkeypants: Like it or not, nothing actually illegal happened.

Your legislators at work

Exactly.  Blame Congress, not Apple.  It's Apple's job (and every individual) to pay as little taxes as possible without breaking any laws.  Congress writes the laws; if they have a problem with them, they can change them.

Wasn't it only recently that some state managed to making having sex with corpses illegal?  Doing up to the line of what is considered illegal is a morally bankrupt stance to take.  But you're right, corporations are people too, just psychopaths that's all.


Hey we know this story already: leave a bunch of loopholes around so your buddies can take advantage of them UNTIL somebody you don't like uses them then spread some mob rule around.  To bad there's no end.
 
2013-05-21 05:12:05 PM

Pappy091: Guess what? Some people will have advantages that you don't have. Life isn't fair, get over it.


But you were just saying how easy it was to retire as a multi-millionaire. Or did you leave off the asterisk with the terms and conditions?

My story, It's not so unusual, I'm sure you've heard it all before. I'm 48. I've worked full or part time since I was 13. I went to state universities in the 80's and early 90's before the tuition got out of control so no loans. I always had jobs at school that either paid me money, or housing, or food. I took time off of school to work. I had help from my family. I changed careers after graduate school because the path I'd chosen just wasn't going to pay enough to have a home and family. I was fortunate to have been living in a community with an excellent Junior College program where I could get the training and a large enough sector of the IT economy that I could get a paid internship right away. And again, right time, at the start of the IT boom in the late 90's. One cannot make that happen.

I was lucky to buy a house in a stable community right before the boom. I divorced after 14 years of marriage. Ex wife is a goddamn shrew. I spent a huge pile of money, including much of my retirement savings, in custody litigation. Bummer. Kids are a liability. It would have been cheaper just to never see them and pay more child support, I guess, so I didn't make such a good choice there. I've bought a second house, but following the recent banking fiasco it was overpriced. This market's strong though, and it will continue to appreciate so long as I'm there, but it'll be a while before the actual value catches up to what I paid for it. And I'll never pay it off and actually live in it. Not at my age.

Bank owns it, really, I'm just renting it from them. I make good money. Latest numbers out say I make more than the median income for my state, so I got that going for me, which is nice. My wife's second wife is disabled. Again, a liability. I should have dumped her when I had the chance. I guess I'm a romantic. Rich in love, right? Huh? Am I right? Yeah.

I don't begrudge the successful. I admire the hard-work and determination, especially if it can be done without shiatting all over friends and neglecting family. Or if one has the discipline and self awareness to say, "I want to be a Captain of Industry and will remain a childless bachelor until I am." Good on ye. It's the X-treme wealth. The more-money-than-God crowd who take their wealth and don't trickle it down through investments, at least not here in the US. Their wealth is trickling down all over Asia. Fat lot of good that does anyone here. They talk a great game about globalization, about freeing up capital and creating jobs, but unless you have the mobility to go where they're doing business, and can pick up everything to go (or leave it all behind to go), you're farked and left greeting customers at the Wal-Mart.
 
2013-05-21 05:16:24 PM

pxlboy: Pappy091: pxlboy: Pappy091: AngryJailhouseFistfark: CrazyCracka420:


"Why don't they just get a job"
"Why don't they just go to school?"
"Maybe they shouldn't have had kids so young"
And so on. Privilege takes itself for granted and too seriously. It forgets that not everyone starts at the same place. It forgets where it comes from and has the audacity to chastise others for not having it.
So yeah, to just blurt out, "Work hard and I'm sure something will happen" is empty and worthless.


what is a better idea or solution?

Let me attempt to clarify what I think the arguments are being made (if there are any at all) here.  Some people are born into situations that provide more support and thus allow offspring in that environment a better chance to succeed compared to other offspring born into less nurturing environments.

someone from the less nurturing environment seeks advice on how to better their lot in life.  Apparently, someone from the better support environment cannot just say "work hard and hope for a break" because it is merely a platitude.  What would be something more worthwhile to say or suggest?
 
2013-05-21 05:16:46 PM

Phinn: Rent-seeking is using something other than these market processes to make a profit. It refers to actions when there is something other than the win-win transaction in a voluntary trade, such as obtaining the use of governmental force to exclude competitors, fix prices, mandate production methods, or some other creative way to violate people's human rights. When that happens, the crony and the government wins, and everyone else loses.


I believe you have described perfectly the world in which we are currently living. In fact, this is the world that has existed for the past 8,000 years. That other scenario you described exists only in text books.
 
2013-05-21 05:19:55 PM
Good old liberal companies.
 
2013-05-21 05:21:45 PM

Hyjamon: pxlboy: Pappy091: pxlboy: Pappy091: AngryJailhouseFistfark: CrazyCracka420:

"Why don't they just get a job"
"Why don't they just go to school?"
"Maybe they shouldn't have had kids so young"
And so on. Privilege takes itself for granted and too seriously. It forgets that not everyone starts at the same place. It forgets where it comes from and has the audacity to chastise others for not having it.
So yeah, to just blurt out, "Work hard and I'm sure something will happen" is empty and worthless.

what is a better idea or solution?

Let me attempt to clarify what I think the arguments are being made (if there are any at all) here.  Some people are born into situations that provide more support and thus allow offspring in that environment a better chance to succeed compared to other offspring born into less nurturing environments.

someone from the less nurturing environment seeks advice on how to better their lot in life.  Apparently, someone from the better support environment cannot just say "work hard and hope for a break" because it is merely a platitude.  What would be something more worthwhile to say or suggest?


De-rigging the game a little.

Put education back within reach.

without that foundation what you have its just not as obtainable as it used to be
 
2013-05-21 05:22:27 PM

AngryJailhouseFistfark: Pappy091: Guess what? Some people will have advantages that you don't have. Life isn't fair, get over it.

But you were just saying how easy it was to retire as a multi-millionaire. Or did you leave off the asterisk with the terms and conditions?

My story, It's not so unusual, I'm sure you've heard it all before. I'm 48. I've worked full or part time since I was 13. I went to state universities in the 80's and early 90's before the tuition got out of control so no loans. I always had jobs at school that either paid me money, or housing, or food. I took time off of school to work. I had help from my family. I changed careers after graduate school because the path I'd chosen just wasn't going to pay enough to have a home and family. I was fortunate to have been living in a community with an excellent Junior College program where I could get the training and a large enough sector of the IT economy that I could get a paid internship right away. And again, right time, at the start of the IT boom in the late 90's. One cannot make that happen.

I was lucky to buy a house in a stable community right before the boom. I divorced after 14 years of marriage. Ex wife is a goddamn shrew. I spent a huge pile of money, including much of my retirement savings, in custody litigation. Bummer. Kids are a liability. It would have been cheaper just to never see them and pay more child support, I guess, so I didn't make such a good choice there. I've bought a second house, but following the recent banking fiasco it was overpriced. This market's strong though, and it will continue to appreciate so long as I'm there, but it'll be a while before the actual value catches up to what I paid for it. And I'll never pay it off and actually live in it. Not at my age.

Bank owns it, really, I'm just renting it from them. I make good money. Latest numbers out say I make more than the median income for my state, so I got that going for me, which is nice. My wife's second wife is disabled. Again, a li ...


Meh.  I don't have any sympathy for you. You had some luck that were wiped out by some bad life choices.
 
2013-05-21 05:23:02 PM
The occupy crowd cares not.
 
2013-05-21 05:24:48 PM

Hyjamon: e. What would be something more worthwhile to say or suggest?


Actually listening to the person who needs help and figuring out just what their situation is and offering advice based on that. Unless you happen to be someone a fair bit up the ladder at which point you may want to look into doing something. It used to be a not unheard of thing that someone who was successful would come across someone who wasn't and actually invest the time into helping them turn their life around. Some went pretty far with it, just because they could.
 
2013-05-21 05:26:41 PM

Shazam999: I don't have any sympathy for you. You had some luck that were wiped out by some bad life choices.


and thanks for being part of the problem.
 
2013-05-21 05:27:17 PM

AngryJailhouseFistfark: believe you have described perfectly the world in which we are currently living. In fact, this is the world that has existed for the past 8,000 years. That other scenario you described exists only in text books.


I wonder how different things would be if we had a more expansive view of history.
 
2013-05-21 05:30:49 PM

Phinn: The over-building of single-family houses is a prime example. That disaster occurred for the same reasons that economic decline in general occurs, in slightly different ways and on different scales every day -- artificial, government-sponsored manipulation of the money supply.

Money is half of every transaction in America (except for a tiny amount of barter). When you distort money, and fark with it, you fark with everything. Government decreed that money for single-family houses would be artificially easy to get. They did this to buy votes. But it made house-buying loan-money under-priced, which is another way of saying that it made single-family houses over-priced. This was experienced by the ordinary consumer as outrageous inflation in the single-housing market.

College prices are doing the same thing, for the same reasons. But this dis-coordination between production and consumption occurs daily, in a less-differentiated way, with all money and all goods, all the time, because of the Federal Reserve. All because of the manipulation of money and its concomitant manipulation of prices.


YES! Flooding these markets with capital, and the same with health care insurance, such that it is nearly impossible to participate in those markets (housing, education, healthcare), without paying a tribute to a bank or insurance company in the form of interest or subscriber premiums. Sickening. And thus we all become debt-slaves. I've had to pass up good contracting jobs because they didn't include health-care insurance or pay enough for me to buy it privately (married, two children). All because the insurance weasels have burrowed so far into our system and the Fed is too chickenshiat to create a real state healthcare system like the rest of the civilized world has.
 
2013-05-21 05:31:48 PM

Pappy091: hugram: Pappy091: Anyway, as another poster said, most of this discussion is directed to the wealthy which I am most certainly not.

Then why are you defending the very wealthy for paying less in taxes (from a percentage point of view) instead of defending people like you and I, who pay more from a percentage point of view?

I am saying that if any of the people that complain about this were to find themselves in the "1%", then they are going to use the exact same "loopholes" they are complaining about today. I don't have a problem eliminating most loopholes. I think that an overall simpler tax code is a very good thing. What I have a problem with is everyone hating rich people and big companies. You used to be looked up to for being successful in this country. Now it something to almost be ashamed of.


It isn't their wealth that they need to be ashamed of, it is their behavior. I sold my company and retired. I am pretty quiet about it but, yeah, "I got it like that." I give and give and share and help. I pay my full share of taxes and donate more than I can actually write off some years. My kid's kids are taken care of even so what else is my choice? I could hoard it. I could grow it. It's easy to do when you have it. I have, on paper, grown (oddly enough, I spend like a drunken sailor) for the past few years. (I went down pretty quick though when I first cashed out.) I couldn't spend it all in a lifetime of coke and hookers, so I share it and actually do good things as I see the need and capacity. I do it quietly, with little fanfare, and try to not get an ego.

That is the difference between me and the old money folk. It isn't their money, it is their behavior.
 
2013-05-21 05:36:33 PM
i90.photobucket.com

Is that rain?
 
2013-05-21 05:39:41 PM

WhyteRaven74: Shazam999: I don't have any sympathy for you. You had some luck that were wiped out by some bad life choices.

and thanks for being part of the problem.


Alright then.  How much tax does Apple have to pay before AngryJailhouseFistfark stops being a moron?
 
2013-05-21 05:42:20 PM

pxlboy: Reading comprehension is your friend.


And yours, chum. Or were your comments directed at the other guy, to whom I had responded?

Shazam999: Meh. I don't have any sympathy for you. You had some luck that were wiped out by some bad life choices.


And you, Shazam. I don't need your sympathy. I don't want your greasy sympathy. I don't need your smarmy, oily, stinkin' sympathy. Yeah, my choices are my own and I lives with 'em I does. Every stinkin' day I lives with 'em and I'm gonna keep right on livin' with 'em until I find the peaceful embrace of the grave. I'm gonna get drunk and make sweet love to those choices THIS VERY NIGHT, although it's a weeknight and I think I'm gettin' a cold, but still, I'm gonna cuddle right up to my choices. And I don't want your sympathy. It's a cold blanket anyway.

The point in telling my charming tale was to illustrate, if even in my own peculiar style and anecdote, that the achievement of success and accumulation of material wealth is not so simple as some in this thread are suggesting. It is not some simple plan one lays out and follows on schedule with predictable result. There are Enrons who will take your hard earned and well-saved money and leave you holding the sack. There are unforseen diseases and injuries that will wring out your bank account leaving you, again, with nothing.

As for me, I'm a wretched creature, and have always been so. I make no pretense otherwise.
 
2013-05-21 05:45:15 PM

AngryJailhouseFistfark: pxlboy: Reading comprehension is your friend.

And yours, chum. Or were your comments directed at the other guy, to whom I had responded?

Shazam999: Meh. I don't have any sympathy for you. You had some luck that were wiped out by some bad life choices.

And you, Shazam. I don't need your sympathy. I don't want your greasy sympathy. I don't need your smarmy, oily, stinkin' sympathy. Yeah, my choices are my own and I lives with 'em I does. Every stinkin' day I lives with 'em and I'm gonna keep right on livin' with 'em until I find the peaceful embrace of the grave. I'm gonna get drunk and make sweet love to those choices THIS VERY NIGHT, although it's a weeknight and I think I'm gettin' a cold, but still, I'm gonna cuddle right up to my choices. And I don't want your sympathy. It's a cold blanket anyway.

The point in telling my charming tale was to illustrate, if even in my own peculiar style and anecdote, that the achievement of success and accumulation of material wealth is not so simple as some in this thread are suggesting. It is not some simple plan one lays out and follows on schedule with predictable result. There are Enrons who will take your hard earned and well-saved money and leave you holding the sack. There are unforseen diseases and injuries that will wring out your bank account leaving you, again, with nothing.

As for me, I'm a wretched creature, and have always been so. I make no pretense otherwise.


Yep, it's not simple.  But some of the Farkers' sorta other insinuation is that if the gov't got mores moneys, then life situations like yourself's wouldn't exist.  Which we both know isn't true.
 
2013-05-21 05:50:17 PM

Pappy091: My local school district just spent over $50 million building a farking football stadium. Every single school except for one already had a perfectly good football stadium. I wish I could say that this was the exception, but money is wasted like this all the time in the name of "education".

 

Those football stadiums are paid for using voter approved bond issuances.   They're not "football stadiums' they're thinly veiled self congratulatory shrines to a community's affluence.    The type crass materialistic wealth for wealth's sake you've been supporting through out the thread.

In short, you are a collossal blowhard, an ignoramus  and there's not left to do but point and laugh at you.
 
2013-05-21 05:55:47 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Pappy091: I MIGHT be able to see some reason in that argument if I thought that for one second our government was good stewards of our money.

Well since you've already stated:

Also, earlier governmental action is the root cause of every problem you describe.

and

Those that have been successful have done so in spite of governmental interference and harm.

It's pretty clear what you think of our government. I do not agree government is the cause of all of our problems (nor the solution to all of our problems). Government is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together (B. Frank). If you don't have any confidence in the government the answer isn't to write it off completely. The government isn't going away. The answer is to make it better.


I love you.
 
2013-05-21 05:56:14 PM

pxlboy: The culture of greed in this country is pervasive and disgusting. Twain was right about the "temporarily-embarrassed millionaires".

The Worthington Principle is alive and well in America.



I'm guessing by "this country" you mean the United States.  This says you are dead wrong and the US people are the most giving on earth.  But it is Huffpo, so...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/19/world-giving-index-us-ran_n _1 159562.html

I'm always curious as to what drives people to have certain beliefs.  What makes you think America isn't giving?  I doesn't come out of nowhere.  Are you one of those who thinks the rich aren't paying their fair share and by extension the US isn't either?  Maybe you don't donate anything to anyone, and assume the rich aren't either - basic projection?   Maybe I'm misunderstanding my own link?
 
2013-05-21 05:57:49 PM

Pappy091: My local school district just spent over $50 million building a farking football stadium. Every single school except for one already had a perfectly good football stadium. I wish I could say that this was the exception, but money is wasted like this all the time in the name of "education".


Specifically, your football stadium was paid for using a voter approved municipal bond issuance.

The funding was not taking from your by "gun point".    It was funded by issuing municipal bonds via voter approval.

Your community voluntarily decided to borrow $50 million dollars of debt to pool together to  show off how rich and wealthy you were through a stupid football stadium, to rub it in poorer community's faces .
 
2013-05-21 06:00:54 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com

Ireland's economy is driven by a bustling finance sector, fueled by their unusually low corporate tax rate.  Most US technology companies, including IBM, Intel, and Microsoft, have offices there to take advantage of this.
 
2013-05-21 06:02:48 PM

InmanRoshi: Pappy091: My local school district just spent over $50 million building a farking football stadium. Every single school except for one already had a perfectly good football stadium. I wish I could say that this was the exception, but money is wasted like this all the time in the name of "education".

Specifically, your football stadium was paid for using a voter approved municipal bond issuance.

The funding was not taking from your by "gun point".    It was funded by issuing municipal bonds via voter approval.

Your community voluntarily decided to borrow $50 million dollars of debt to pool together to  show off how rich and wealthy you were through a stupid football stadium, to rub it in poorer community's faces .


Wow, assume much?  I don't live in a rich and wealthy community. In fact, most of the "rich and wealthy" in our community were vehemently against the football stadium among other things in the bond.

As I said in another post, I was using the football stadium as one example of a much larger problem. But go ahead and twist it around anyway you want.
 
2013-05-21 06:10:32 PM
You mean Apple isn't doing their duty to find out the way to pay the MOST tax they can? Unpossible.
 
2013-05-21 06:10:58 PM

Pappy091: InmanRoshi: Pappy091: My local school district just spent over $50 million building a farking football stadium. Every single school except for one already had a perfectly good football stadium. I wish I could say that this was the exception, but money is wasted like this all the time in the name of "education".

Specifically, your football stadium was paid for using a voter approved municipal bond issuance.

The funding was not taking from your by "gun point".    It was funded by issuing municipal bonds via voter approval.

Your community voluntarily decided to borrow $50 million dollars of debt to pool together to  show off how rich and wealthy you were through a stupid football stadium, to rub it in poorer community's faces .

Wow, assume much?  I don't live in a rich and wealthy community. In fact, most of the "rich and wealthy" in our community were vehemently against the football stadium among other things in the bond.

As I said in another post, I was using the football stadium as one example of a much larger problem. But go ahead and twist it around anyway you want.



A larger problem of rich communities voluntarily wanting to flagrantly show off their wealth?    Because that's the only thing applicable here.  You can claim you don't live in a rich and wealthy community, but evidently you live in a community where the voters feel they can afford to pay for a $50 million dollar high school football stadium.

Faceless bureaucrats and Da Gubmint did not force that stadium down your throat, the voters in your community voluntarily decided that's where they wanted to collectively put their money.
 
2013-05-21 06:13:30 PM

SevenizGud: You mean Apple isn't doing their duty to find out the way to pay the MOST tax they can? Unpossible.


Are you dense? There's a bit of a difference from me claiming my kid as a dependent, versus sending imaginary child support payments to a fictitious child in Elbonia. "Because the system made me do it" is an excuse only retards will accept. Apparently there are enough retards for Apple to get away with it.
 
xcv
2013-05-21 06:13:35 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: As global capital becomes ever more powerful, giant corporations are holding governments and citizens up for ransom - eliciting subsidies and tax breaks from countries concerned about their nation's "competitiveness" - while sheltering their profits in the lowest-tax jurisdictions they can find. Major advanced countries - and their citizens - need a comprehensive tax agreement that won't allow global corporations to get away with this.

Google, Amazon, Starbucks, every other major corporation, and every big Wall Street bank, are sheltering as much of their U.S. profits abroad as they can, while telling Washington that lower corporate taxes are necessary in order to keep the U.S. "competitive."

Baloney. The fact is, global corporations have no allegiance to any country; their only objective is to make as much money as possible - and play off one country against another to keep their taxes down and subsidies up, thereby shifting more of the tax burden to ordinary people whose wages are already shrinking because companies are playing workers off against each other.

Link


No different than how American states conspire against each other all the time to attract businesses via low tax deals, see Delaware, Nebraska etc.
 
2013-05-21 06:14:53 PM

WhyteRaven74: Shazam999: I don't have any sympathy for you. You had some luck that were wiped out by some bad life choices.

and thanks for being part of the problem.


How is that being part of the problem? Subsidizing or banning "bad choices" would be much worse than the current system. People should be free to make stupid decisions, and the only people who should have to deal with the consequences of those stupid decisions are the people who actually made them. That is how liberty works.
 
2013-05-21 06:19:29 PM

Pappy091: InmanRoshi: Pappy091: My local school district just spent over $50 million building a farking football stadium. Every single school except for one already had a perfectly good football stadium. I wish I could say that this was the exception, but money is wasted like this all the time in the name of "education".

Specifically, your football stadium was paid for using a voter approved municipal bond issuance.

The funding was not taking from your by "gun point".    It was funded by issuing municipal bonds via voter approval.

Your community voluntarily decided to borrow $50 million dollars of debt to pool together to  show off how rich and wealthy you were through a stupid football stadium, to rub it in poorer community's faces .

Wow, assume much?  I don't live in a rich and wealthy community. In fact, most of the "rich and wealthy" in our community were vehemently against the football stadium among other things in the bond.

As I said in another post, I was using the football stadium as one example of a much larger problem. But go ahead and twist it around anyway you want.


The question is how do we fix the education perception in order to fund it properly (both in amount and what the amount is spent on).  I agree there is unwise spending but to do it right there will need to be an increase in spending as well.  more schools, more classrooms in order to reduce class sizes which would also require more teachers.  and on the topic of teachers, recruiting, retaining:

I think we know the current climate will make it impossible to raise teachers salaries to any semblance of a worthy amount that respects the level of education/certification required and to attract other vibrant people to the profession.  Right now people are happy with school serving as a babysitter and thus feel we pay the babysitters too much as is.

schools are having to choose between which programs to keep and which to cut: art vs. the football team; music vs. having a band play at football games; adequate labs vs. baseball fields; social science vs. math.

Also, everyone is fixated in education on the "quick fix" and the gadget or gimmick that will accomplish that goal.  We just need quality teachers, adequate classrooms and smaller class sizes (I would argue for tracking: smart kids in the same class, "less-than-smart" kids in the same class or even vo-tec)  Note adequate classrooms does not equal laptop for every kid, smart boards, projectors (all of which require the school to hire IT folk = bloated admin) but just chalkboards with chalk, pencils, paper.

I don't want to just flatly say "throw more money at the problem" but we do need to spend more on education and in a wiser fashion...but we won't.
 
2013-05-21 07:03:42 PM

Big_Fat_Liar: What makes you think America isn't giving?


Tens of thousands of people out on the streets with no place to sleep. That comes to mind as one thing that could cause someone to think that. Then there's the hundreds of thousands living in slums.
 
2013-05-21 07:14:38 PM

sethstorm: Sofakinbd: Here are a few salient points:
 1) Apple pays taxes on all profits is makes in each country in which it makes those profits.  German profits are paid to Germany; Japan profits are paid to Japan; US profits are paid to the US; etc.

False.  It is avoiding it for every one of those countries.


[citation needed]

Rent Party: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 200x150]

Ireland's economy is driven by a bustling finance sector, fueled by their unusually low corporate tax rate.  Most US technology companies, including IBM, Intel, and Microsoft, have offices there to take advantage of this.


This.  And this has been the case for over 30 years, yes?
 
2013-05-21 07:27:02 PM

Pocket Ninja: I'm sure this only relates to their ongoing concern about work conditions in their Chinese factories. They're still working so hard to correct the rampant abuses that their in-depth investigations uncovered in places like FoxConn, and what they're probably thinking is that when it's time to start spending some money on improving those factories and giving the employees something closer to a living wage that moves them beyond what are essentially slave conditions, it'll be good to have the money closer by. See, if the money was all the way in America, it would be harder to get it there than if it was already in a foreign country overseas. They should be lauded for their concerned efficiency.


Thank you.  Your posts are always an instant classic.  By the way, are you an attorney?
 
2013-05-21 07:49:51 PM

mongbiohazard: Pappy091: This is still America, where you are responsible for your life. Everyone has the opportunity to be successful, however they define success. Redistribution of wealth is not the way to raise the lower/middle class. Better education with an emphasis on financial smarts is a good start though.


We already HAVE wealth redistribution, and have had it since the late 70's...

For the average American wages have risen around 24% since 1979.... but at the same time cost of living has risen over 60%. That means the average American is poorer then their parents and grandparents were. The proportion of those living below the poverty line has also risen.

Meanwhile the very wealthy have increased their wealth during that same time period by over 280%. The wealth IS being redistributed upwards - and sharply. Corporate profits have also risen sharply during this period while worker productivity rises as well. No one in the middle and bottom is seeing any of those gains. They are entirely being consumed by the already wealthy - AND MORE.

This is not a recipe for long-term national success. Demand is important to any economic system, and we have almost entirely neglected demand in favor of "supply side" type economics for decades now. That was dumb. WIthout anyone who can afford products, who are they going to be sold to? This is why our economic recovery has been so anemic. That will only continue to worsen as these trends continue, and the end result will eventually be a society of permenant, fixed classes/castes - with the lower castes in a form of indentured servitude.


I graduated college in 2001. I started out in my first job making 28K. I now make over 80K. That's about a 285% increase. I'm beating the average, but I'm nowhere near rich.

Luckily, I have enough to invest a little bit every month, so I'm taking advantage of the economy to grow my net worth over time. Hopefully by the time I'm 60 I'll be able to retire and not worry about money, but that's still a long shot in my mind.

I don't have any kids, so I'm not worried about safe withdrawal rates, leaving money behind for future generations, or anything like that. I've got enough life insurance to pay off the house and leave the wife a nice chunk of change, so as soon as I have enough stashed to live 20 - 30 years on a meager income, I'll consider that my F YOU money and either cut back to part time or retire completely and spend my days drinking beer and playing video games.
 
2013-05-21 07:53:38 PM

dbirchall: sethstorm: Sofakinbd: Here are a few salient points:
 1) Apple pays taxes on all profits is makes in each country in which it makes those profits.  German profits are paid to Germany; Japan profits are paid to Japan; US profits are paid to the US; etc.

False.  It is avoiding it for every one of those countries.

[citation needed]

Rent Party: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 200x150]

Ireland's economy is driven by a bustling finance sector, fueled by their unusually low corporate tax rate.  Most US technology companies, including IBM, Intel, and Microsoft, have offices there to take advantage of this.

This.  And this has been the case for over 30 years, yes?


Don't know the date exactly, but figure mid 90's, when the "Celtic Tiger" started.   The EU is kind of pissed at them over it still, and want them to up it to whatever their standard is.
 
2013-05-21 08:20:46 PM
Wealth increases agency, agency increases opportunity. Opportunity is a finite resource. So another person's wealth is a direct threat to the lives of you and yours.

I am almost to the point where I seriously think there should be no inheritance, we all given an equal stipend at the age of 16 and offered the same opportunities based on our natural abilities. Working for relatives is outlawed. Nepotism is punishable by death for both involved parties. The only provisions you may make in case of your death are for charitable foundations/donations. Lobbying government to support your fiscal interests is punishable by being stripped of all worldly goods and cast into the streets as a pauper. Every time you attempt to use frivolous litigation to prevent meaningful competition, everyone on the legal team and the CEO/board of directors for the entity in question loses a limb. Once you're out of limbs you lose your head.

If you are greedy, you should become acquainted with the end of a spear.
 
2013-05-21 08:30:50 PM

Source4leko: Phinn: Source4leko: Dusk-You-n-Me: Source4leko: How it is "Shockingly easy" to become one of the haves?

You have to deserve it. See, poor people are poor because they deserve it. Rich people are rich because they deserve it. If you aren't rich, it's because you didn't deserve. If you did, you'd be rich. QED

No, I really want someone to explain this so me.  I am tired of just getting farked, and I know things are never going to change, so I figure why not become the person doing the farking.  I want to know how I do that, no shiat.

1. Earn more than you spend.

2. Invest the difference in cash-generating ways, either through conventional financial instruments (IRAs, funds, etc.), or use it to start or expand a profitable enterprise. Which will help you earn more ...

3. Repeat.

How do you identify a profitable business to start and grow? Learn to give the people what they want. Start by asking yourself that question 90 times a day -- what can I do to deliver something to people that they want?

Give, give, give. Focus on yourself and your production of desired goods and services. Focus on other people's unmet (or undermet) wants.

Learning how to get paid in the process is always much easier than figuring out what people really want but don't have.

Once you've done this a few times, and built profitable businesses that please lots and lots of satisfied customers, you'll soon encounter all the myriad ways that government will get in your way, take from you, and favor its cronies.

Have fun!

Oh look, another answer that could be on CNN.com of 'how to save for retirement'.  There was a ton of new information there.  I think you forgot 'buy low, sell high!'   Also, thanks for the chip about how the government will take from me, that makes me realize you aren't an ideologue at all, and that your information is not ideologically motivated in any way.


Read this guy's blog: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/22/getting-rich-from-zero-to-h e ro-in-one-blog-post/

Basically boils down to:
- don't eat out
- ride a bike or walk instead of driving
- buy cheap groceries
- invest in vanguard index funds
- don't pay car payments
- don't buy a house you can't afford
- invest your earnings in other investments to create a snowball effect

I just recently started following this dude, but in the last two months I have made some drastic changes by following his advice which makes my future look much brighter. It's not easy, but it's necessary.
 
2013-05-21 08:36:38 PM

InmanRoshi: Pappy091: My local school district just spent over $50 million building a farking football stadium. Every single school except for one already had a perfectly good football stadium. I wish I could say that this was the exception, but money is wasted like this all the time in the name of "education".

Specifically, your football stadium was paid for using a voter approved municipal bond issuance.

The funding was not taking from your by "gun point".    It was funded by issuing municipal bonds via voter approval.

Your community voluntarily decided to borrow $50 million dollars of debt to pool together to  show off how rich and wealthy you were through a stupid football stadium, to rub it in poorer community's faces .


What is the source of money to repay these bonds? Taxes.

The people who wanted the stadium are forcing everyone else to pay for it.

The fiction of voting doesn't change the fact that people are paying for that stadium at the point of a gun.

The people who support banning guns always seem to be the same people who get a hard-on for using guns to force others to pay for their preferred crap. They don't hate guns, as long as they're the State's guns.
 
2013-05-21 08:48:43 PM

dchurch0: I just recently started following this dude, but in the last two months I have made some drastic changes by following his advice which makes my future look much brighter. It's not easy, but it's necessary.


I really hate that kind of drek. It's like listening to Dave Ramsey. The people whose problems can be solved by these solutions don't really have problems, they're just bad with the money they already have.
It does jack shiat for the people who don't have money and the "work harder" platitudes are getting tiresome as the evidence piles up that it is unlikely to improve your lot. It's especially galling to hear repeatedly that the solution to financial woes is to invest, invest, INVEST all this money we supposedly have that's just lying around.

From Mr. Mustache: if you can save 50% of your take-home pay starting at age 20, you'll be wealthy enough to retire by age 37. If you already have some assets now, you're even closer than that. If you can save 75%, If you can save 75%, you working career is only 7 years.
So remember my freaky magician story up in the first paragraph? There was not really any magic - I just saved about 66% of my pay without really noticing it


I didn't realize I was going to be reading a fantasy blog.
 
2013-05-21 08:53:17 PM

Phinn: What is the source of money to repay these bonds? Taxes.

The people who wanted the stadium are forcing everyone else to pay for it.

The fiction of voting doesn't change the fact that people are paying for that stadium at the point of a gun.

The people who support banning guns always seem to be the same people who get a hard-on for using guns to force others to pay for their preferred crap. They don't hate guns, as long as they're the State's guns.


Sorry, can't blame "The Gubment" for this one.   This wasn't Washigton, it wasn't even Austin, it was as local as local gets.   I thought that's what "small govenrment" was all about?   There's no "fiction" here, only fact.    The local community decided they wanted to pool their money together to pay for a $50 million for a football stadium.

Got to hand it to Texans.  They hate to  pay money to educate or heal brown skin people, but they never pass up an opportunity to spend money blowing them up, imprisoning them or watching them run around with a ball for their entertainment.
 
2013-05-21 09:06:05 PM

Phinn: What is the source of money to repay these bonds? Taxes.

The people who wanted the stadium are forcing everyone else to pay for it.

The fiction of voting doesn't change the fact that people are paying for that stadium at the point of a gun.


No one is forcing you to by the point of the gun to live in a community where $50 million for a high school football stadium seems like a good use of local resources.   You can live anywhere else in the country as an American citizen if you don't like it.   There's no shortage of areas in the country where it would seem pants on the head retarded to spend $50 million on a high school stadium, and it's called "Anywhere but Texas."     Keeping all government local has consequences when everyone around you is a retard.
 
2013-05-21 09:07:40 PM

Pappy091: Most of your points revolve around the common misconception that there is a finite amount of wealth in the country that is being hoarded to a greater and greater extent by the wealthy. These people aren't burying gold in their back yards. They are invested in the economy. Their wealth is measure by and large by their assets, not cash.


The economy has enough investment capital to employ everyone, in fact there is too much of it because the richest 0.01% have accumulated far too much income/assets. This is why all the asset bubbles keep growing so large and it just keeps coming - because there is nowhere productive for that excess investment capital to go, so it just ends up overpricing some class of asset for a while, and then once the bubble is too large it bursts and the money flows elsewhere. There is no such thing as a supply based economy - it is demand based. People don't create businesses to make stuff unless someone wants to buy it. People don't buy stuff if they don't have the money/income to do so. When money goes to the rich a large portion of it gets split off into the investment side of the economy, when if it went to the poor or middle class it would mostly go into creating demand for goods and services. Setting up the economy so the rich get a disproportionate amount of it means that economic growth is more and more fragile, and more and more anemic as time goes on.

By the way, it sounds like you own a company with a moderate handful of people at most, so unless your company is in a ridiculously profitable industry, that puts you somewhere in the middle class at most, so you are likely about half as well off as you would be if the economy was more equitable. The reason most people can't really get a handle on how screwed up the US economy is, is because they just have no clue how far it has been skewed in favor of the ultra rich - there was a good video with some graphs to try and give people a handle on it linked a while back:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QPKKQnijnsM
 
2013-05-21 09:28:35 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: dchurch0: I just recently started following this dude, but in the last two months I have made some drastic changes by following his advice which makes my future look much brighter. It's not easy, but it's necessary.

I really hate that kind of drek. It's like listening to Dave Ramsey. The people whose problems can be solved by these solutions don't really have problems, they're just bad with the money they already have.
It does jack shiat for the people who don't have money and the "work harder" platitudes are getting tiresome as the evidence piles up that it is unlikely to improve your lot. It's especially galling to hear repeatedly that the solution to financial woes is to invest, invest, INVEST all this money we supposedly have that's just lying around.

From Mr. Mustache: if you can save 50% of your take-home pay starting at age 20, you'll be wealthy enough to retire by age 37. If you already have some assets now, you're even closer than that. If you can save 75%, If you can save 75%, you working career is only 7 years.
So remember my freaky magician story up in the first paragraph? There was not really any magic - I just saved about 66% of my pay without really noticing it

I didn't realize I was going to be reading a fantasy blog.


I completely agree with you, so please don't take my post as demeaning. It was not meant to be so. This guy posts on his blog numerous times that he is not out to tell people living paycheck to paycheck how to get rich or how to beat the system. He is purely focused on the middle class earners who are handling their finances poorly and committing themselves to years of soul-sucking work for no reason.

For the person living paycheck to paycheck, I don't really have an answer. I hate Dave Ramsey. He's too damned religious for me, so I never really listened to him.

Personally, I grew up in a trailer home in Iowa. My mom was disabled when I was 8. She was a nurse and got hurt helping an obese patient that rolled out of bed and crushed her. Once she was unable to work, we survived on my father's income. He was a mechanic making about 30K a year, and supporting a family of four.

I went to college (worked 40 hours a week to pay for it while living at home), and then got a job in IT. Since getting out of college and starting my professional career, I've been fairly successful, and extremely lucky to work for small companies that value their personnel. About three years ago I moved to a small town in the panhandle of Nebraska where I make about 2.5X the median income of the town I now call home. I have more than enough money to invest and save, but I realize that the majority of people don't have the ability to even consider those choices, let alone make them.

So, long story short, I'm lucky. I apologize if I came across as a snob. I guess I just feel like if I can make it based on where my life started, anyone can with a little bit of planning and focus.
 
2013-05-21 10:09:11 PM

dchurch0: I went to college (worked 40 hours a week to pay for it while living at home), and then got a job in IT. Since getting out of college and starting my professional career, I've been fairly successful, and extremely lucky to work for small companies that value their personnel. About three years ago I moved to a small town in the panhandle of Nebraska where I make about 2.5X the median income of the town I now call home. I have more than enough money to invest and save, but I realize that the majority of people don't have the ability to even consider those choices, let alone make them.So, long story short, I'm lucky. I apologize if I came across as a snob. I guess I just feel like if I can make it based on where my life started, anyone can with a little bit of planning and focus.


Maybe anyone can make it to a middle class level of vague economic security if they are careful, but everyone can't. Which is why you need to tax companies like Apple and the richest 1% or so (because between them they have a large chunk of the wealth and income, so it is a waste of time worrying about what you are taxing small companies or the middle class, or even the moderately rich) to ensure the people that end up at the bottom one way or another don't get farked by their lack of bargaining power in the economy. The ultimate end game of any free market capitalist system is for those without any skills that are scarce enough to push the wages up beyond the bare minimum will be paid exactly the amount to subsist on and no more, absent unions to act as a counterweight to the capitalists large market influence, or government intervention (such as minimum wage laws, or unemployment insurance/payments). Of course that is just enough to subsist on when nothing bad happens, because a company is going to pay enough to ensure the employee can build up a contingency fund for future emergencies, or pay for insurance against bad times, given there is some other unemployed guy that is otherwise homeless willing to take the risk he won't get sick and thus undercut the current employee that wants health insurance or whatever.
 
2013-05-21 10:27:11 PM

dchurch0: So, long story short, I'm lucky. I apologize if I came across as a snob. I guess I just feel like if I can make it based on where my life started, anyone can with a little bit of planning and focus.


I apologize as well for assuming the worst. It's an unfortunate knee-jerk when I see the likes of "earn more than you spend" and "stop going out to eat" that gets bandied about.
The disconnect just seems to be kind of disconcerting even if Mr. Mustache isn't selling get rich quick schemes.

Dave Ramsey is always on when I go to dinner, so I end up listening rather than having to punch the radio because Taylor Swift seems to be on every other station. The Christian thing is bothersome, but I seem to hear a lot of situations like "I own my own home and two rental properties. I am $120,000K in student loan debt and don't think I can afford my payments. Should I sell one of my rentals to pay for it?" followed by "Stop going to Starbucks every time you go outside and live debt free!"
It's like they have no idea...
It's like when Mitt Romney said he hit hard times when he had to sell stock to afford college.
And then they tell people to work hard, move to where the jobs are, start your own business, retire like a king, etc, like the only thing stopping them is restaurant bills and an underutilized stock portfolio. The problem isn't even understood.

Bah, sorry. Twitchy after reading through a thread full of bootstrappers.
 
2013-05-21 10:49:57 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: dchurch0: So, long story short, I'm lucky. I apologize if I came across as a snob. I guess I just feel like if I can make it based on where my life started, anyone can with a little bit of planning and focus.

I apologize as well for assuming the worst. It's an unfortunate knee-jerk when I see the likes of "earn more than you spend" and "stop going out to eat" that gets bandied about.
The disconnect just seems to be kind of disconcerting even if Mr. Mustache isn't selling get rich quick schemes.

Dave Ramsey is always on when I go to dinner, so I end up listening rather than having to punch the radio because Taylor Swift seems to be on every other station. The Christian thing is bothersome, but I seem to hear a lot of situations like "I own my own home and two rental properties. I am $120,000K in student loan debt and don't think I can afford my payments. Should I sell one of my rentals to pay for it?" followed by "Stop going to Starbucks every time you go outside and live debt free!"
It's like they have no idea...
It's like when Mitt Romney said he hit hard times when he had to sell stock to afford college.
And then they tell people to work hard, move to where the jobs are, start your own business, retire like a king, etc, like the only thing stopping them is restaurant bills and an underutilized stock portfolio. The problem isn't even understood.

Bah, sorry. Twitchy after reading through a thread full of bootstrappers.


Dude... no worries. Life sucks, and I understand. I was just throwing out a link to a blogger who espouses frugal living and good life choices in the hopes that someone will read it and find a way to save a few bucks. I don't think it will work for everyone.

A lot of people have messed up priorities. I should know, cuz I was one of them in my 20's. Now that I'm in my 30's and starting to realize that having a nice car and a fancy place to live are relatively meaningless in the grand scheme of things, my life is starting to improve. I could give a shiat less about the people around me. The important thing is myself. I know that sounds selfish, but if I don't look out for myself, who will?

You have nothing to apologize for. I have been in your shoes and understand wholeheartedly where you are coming from.

As for Apple, I agree with a lot of posters in this thread. They didn't break any laws, so I can't really be mad at them. My congressman and representatives, though, I will be more than happy to be furious with them.

I hope you have a good night.
 
2013-05-21 11:03:17 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: dchurch0: So, long story short, I'm lucky. I apologize if I came across as a snob. I guess I just feel like if I can make it based on where my life started, anyone can with a little bit of planning and focus.

I apologize as well for assuming the worst. It's an unfortunate knee-jerk when I see the likes of "earn more than you spend" and "stop going out to eat" that gets bandied about.
The disconnect just seems to be kind of disconcerting even if Mr. Mustache isn't selling get rich quick schemes.

Dave Ramsey is always on when I go to dinner, so I end up listening rather than having to punch the radio because Taylor Swift seems to be on every other station. The Christian thing is bothersome, but I seem to hear a lot of situations like "I own my own home and two rental properties. I am $120,000K in student loan debt and don't think I can afford my payments. Should I sell one of my rentals to pay for it?" followed by "Stop going to Starbucks every time you go outside and live debt free!"
It's like they have no idea...
It's like when Mitt Romney said he hit hard times when he had to sell stock to afford college.
And then they tell people to work hard, move to where the jobs are, start your own business, retire like a king, etc, like the only thing stopping them is restaurant bills and an underutilized stock portfolio. The problem isn't even understood.

Bah, sorry. Twitchy after reading through a thread full of bootstrappers.


Yea, I read some of Mr. Mustache and just wondered how some people could do the save 50-75% of their income.  I started out making 35k when I hit the workforce, which worked out to roughly 2200-2400 a month.  I couldn't think of a way to only live on 1000 seeing how I had small student loans, was no where near family (so I had to rent), furnish the apartment (basic stuff like washer/dryer, fridge etc.) car payment, rural area, food etc.  Some people may be able to accomplish what he mentions, but they would be the exception.

As far as those people who are living paycheck-to-paycheck and seem to have no plan or way to build up wealth, I really don't know what to say other than "life sucks, here's a beer".  Those folks, cutting out starbucks, selling stocks, etc, are not options so might as well make the best of a shiatty life is all I can think.

or the platitude "enjoy the little things"
 
2013-05-21 11:37:01 PM

dbirchall: sethstorm: Sofakinbd: Here are a few salient points:
1) Apple pays taxes on all profits is makes in each country in which it makes those profits. German profits are paid to Germany; Japan profits are paid to Japan; US profits are paid to the US; etc.

False. It is avoiding it for every one of those countries.

[citation needed]


The article's documentation of the company's tax structuring is the proof.

(As for an ironic coincidence, Ireland's people outside the finance sector aren't doing too hot either.)
 
2013-05-21 11:40:47 PM

InmanRoshi: Got to hand it to Texans. They hate to pay money to educate or heal brown skin people, but they never pass up an opportunity to spend money blowing them up, imprisoning them or watching them run around with a ball for their entertainment.


Yet Texas's rejection of SB1070-like laws - for the dubious purpose of "business friendliness" - also says that they won't pass up an opportunity to use them as leverage against the Texans that are legally there and/or have full citizenship.

/Why yes, I do support SB1070
//Shame it can't be made a federal law.
 
2013-05-22 12:08:20 AM
rape everything.

fark it and kill it.

why give when you can take?

that's American, baby.
 
2013-05-22 12:10:31 AM

InmanRoshi: Sorry, can't blame "The Gubment" for this one. This wasn't Washigton, it wasn't even Austin, it was as local as local gets. I thought that's what "small govenrment" was all about? There's no "fiction" here, only fact. The local community decided they wanted to pool their money together to pay for a $50 million for a football stadium.

The "local community" doesn't decide anything.  It doesn't even exist.  It's only an abstraction.  Only individuals can decide anything.  If "they" wanted to pool "their" money, then they would have pooled their money.

But instead, what they actually did, and which you refuse to even acknowledge (because it's nauseatingly unethical), is that they didn't merely pool their money; they decided to forcibly take money from their neighbors to pay for something the stadium promoters wanted.

Do you honestly think that taking a vote authorizes a group of people to do whatever they want with other people's money?  It's a meaningless ritual, and it doens't cleanse unethical acts and magically make them ethical.  What's next? Are you're going to tell me that there's some magical incantation that makes murder ok too?  You think that the ritual where some number of people who live inside some arbitrary boundary fill in a bubble with the word "YES" next to it on a piece of ballot paper means they can take whatever they want from anyone?  I could have a very fancy piece of paper created that says that I am legally permitted to take everything you own, and kill you if you try to stop me.

What possible ethical difference does it make that this crime was committed by local gangsters instead of the national ones?  Is a crime less of a crime because ten people commit it instead of one?  How many people, exactly, have to commit a crime before you don't consider it to be a crime anymore?  80?  8,000?  A million?  I don't care if it's only me and two other guys -- that's as "local" as it gets.  Whoever puts his hands on another person's money is scum.

The people who tolerate this behavior, or even promote and defend it, are scum, too.


InmanRoshi: No one is forcing you to by the point of the gun to live in a community where $50 million for a high school football stadium seems like a good use of local resources. You can live anywhere else in the country as an American citizen if you don't like it. There's no shortage of areas in the country where it would seem pants on the head retarded to spend $50 million on a high school stadium, and it's called "Anywhere but Texas." Keeping all government local has consequences when everyone around you is a retard.



Look at the ethical gymnastics you feel the need to engage in to justify taking other people's money!   "The local community decided!"  "You consented by living there!"

For a minute, try to sweep away all the fictions and legalisms and infinite layers of bullshiat that you've been exposed to your whole life, and try to see the plain, literal reality of the way this stadium gets paid for -- the people promoting it have declaring that everyone inside some arbitrary region are going to pay for it, whether they want to or not.  If they resist payment, men with guns will come and take it.  If they resist those men, shots will be fired.

Why do you even bother with all of the mental effort needed to contort yourself into justifying this?  We both know that the question of the legitimacy of this kind of "bond measure" rests on nothing that's even in the realm of ethics!  It is a matter of raw power.  If I scratch the surface of your pitiful little attempt at rationalizing the patent immorality of forcing others to pay for stadiums, you and I both know what we're going to find -- you believe they can because they have more guns on their side.  You don't genuinely care about ethics.  You care about power.  Stop wasting your time and everyone else's by pretending that you are an ethical person.
 
2013-05-22 12:48:21 AM

Phinn: Stop wasting your time and everyone else's by pretending that you are an ethical person.


Stop wasting everyone's time and go live by yourself in the wilderness. You're clearly not cut out for this civilization thing.
 
2013-05-22 02:33:54 AM

Pappy091: Walker: This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft.

/more at 11


Yay!...more income envy.

This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise and gross) than you could even imagine.

Why do people think that raising taxes is going to fix a rising multi-trillion dollar deficit. Raising taxes is a drop in the bucket compared to what we need to do to get out of this hole.


Hurrrrr...

The deficit is falling, dumbass, and your statement about what the wealthy pay is BS, particularly the percentage wise comment.  How do maths work?  Oh, and the rich people still aren't going to sleep with you.
 
2013-05-22 05:05:29 AM
Steve Jobs would never put license plates on his cars.  He'd rather trade them in within the first two months for a new one rather than pay a cent in taxes for the plates.

That says something.
 
2013-05-22 06:43:18 AM

theorellior: Pappy091: This just in, rich people pay FAR more in taxes (both percentage-wise and gross) than you could even imagine.

Bullshiat. GTFO, you watercarrying shill.


Actually pappy is partially correct, but he cuts wouldn't be liked. Ending the production of unneeded combat / support vehicles isn't very popular with defense contractors or the congresscritters they own.
 
2013-05-22 07:53:18 AM

Sergeant Grumbles: Phinn: Stop wasting your time and everyone else's by pretending that you are an ethical person.

Stop wasting everyone's time and go live by yourself in the wilderness. You're clearly not cut out for this civilization thing.


You've managed to put your finger on one of the government's most effective lies -- that what it does is civilization; and that voluntary, peaceful cooperation through trade is somehow equivalent to living in isolation and solitude.

It's a complete doublespeak perversion of reality. The State is violence that drives people apart, and the market is one of several ways in which people connect to others and rely on each other.
 
2013-05-22 08:34:44 AM
Pappy091:

Well, I am in generally in a higher tax bracket and I can promise you that I pay much higher taxes than my employees do. While they generally get a few thousand back every year, I have to make significant quarterly payments to Uncle Sam with no return at tax time.

Holy shiat that statement is ignorant in the ways of finance.
 
2013-05-22 08:43:13 AM

Sergeant Grumbles: I really hate that kind of drek. It's like listening to Dave Ramsey. The people whose problems can be solved by these solutions don't really have problems, they're just bad with the money they already have.
It does jack shiat for the people who don't have money and the "work harder" platitudes are getting tiresome as the evidence piles up that it is unlikely to improve your lot. It's especially galling to hear repeatedly that the solution to financial woes is to invest, invest, INVEST all this money we supposedly have that's just lying around.


Some people, yes they have no money.  They go through life for 40 years and acquire no job or currency whatsoever.

Some people however, do get jobs and many of them call the show asking Dave what they are doing wrong.  You get all types: the attorney who makes $155k/yr who is completely broke and the Army Wife who heads a household making $32,000/yr with a paid off house, 2 cars and the kids playing sports.  Often the people who have a job but never seem to have money engage in behavior that doesn't beget a lifestyle of financial responsibility - gambling, obsessive TV/movie/gadget worship, substance.

Sergeant Grumbles: but I seem to hear a lot of situations like "I own my own home and two rental properties. I am $120,000K in student loan debt and don't think I can afford my payments. Should I sell one of my rentals to pay for it?" followed by "Stop going to Starbucks every time you go outside and live debt free!


No you dont.  You're making up lies to tear down a person who supports a way of living that is antithetical to your worldview.

What you're more likely to hear is someone say, "I have $5,000 in credit card debt and $7k in the bank. What should i do?"
"If you had zero credit card debt, would you take out a $5,000 cash advance to augment the $2k you already had?"
"Uhh, that sounds kinda dumb"
"Well thats exactly what you're doing"

So in that instance, such advice can help people.  We've been trained as a society to love credit and debt.  As a personal point, I know a few people who are worth $1M+ and neither of them got there by borrowing at 5% to try to beat the market at 7% or putting everything they can on an airline miles credit card
 
2013-05-22 09:07:48 AM

dchurch0: Dude... no worries. Life sucks, and I understand. I was just throwing out a link to a blogger who espouses frugal living and good life choices in the hopes that someone will read it and find a way to save a few bucks. I don't think it will work for everyone.


Of course if it worked for everyone the economy would collapse due to lack of demand for goods and virtually everyone would be unemployed. Obvious an individual or small groups decision to reduce their demand doesn't really have much impact on an economy, so it isn't particularly important whether a single individual/family follows such a plan or not, but it would be problematic if scaled up to a large fraction of a population.

This is why government social security, nationalized health insurance, unemployment insurance, and such are important in keeping an economy stable in an era when so few people are producing necessities and thus 90% or more of the economy could be shut down and everyone could in theory still have enough to eat, homes to live in and so on, to avoid the economy spiraling downwards every time there is a recession it is necessary for people to feel reasonably secure. Of course this conflicts with both the need to incentivize people to work and the issue of wage-push inflation that can happen if people are too secure in their finances.
 
2013-05-22 09:19:26 AM

Source4leko: Pappy091: Dusk-You-n-Me: Pappy091: Like I said in a previous post. A lot of people operate under the assumption of a finite amount of wealth. "If a rich person has $100 dollars, that's $100 that the rest of us don't have". It's just not true.

That wasn't my post. But it is true that our economy is 70% reliant on consumer spending. While corporate profits are at historic highs, wages are at historic lows. The middle class does not have any money to spend on things beyond necessities. As a result aggregate demand is suffering. So companies aren't hiring. So wages suffer even more. And on and on we go, down the spiral towards the bottom.

I believe it is a false belief that the middle class is suffering. Saying that they only have money to spend on necessities is just laughable in my opinion. Unless we have gotten to a point in our country where 52" flat screens and 2200 sq ft houses are "necessary".

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-08-03/opinions/35491334_1_mi dd le-class-median-household-income-income-gains

FTA: "Wage levels in the middle and below have barely budged since the 1970s because of a barrage of shifts in our economy and economic institutions - from globalization and technological advances to the decline of unions and new corporate practices that emphasize value for shareholders. Most of the increase that did happen in middle-class incomes was not because of rising wages but because households added a second earner. "



www.myfacewhen.net
 
2013-05-22 09:30:18 AM

Phinn: kimmygibblershomework: It is almost like that giant talking vagina, Jobs, is still alive.  If all goes as he planned we will indeed be building phones for the Chinese in 3 years.  Just the kind of Dickensian jerb push we need :)
This is not about greed, but insufferable greed.  "Put lead back into clean drinking water and then charge people for clean water" kinda greed that makes me kinda stabby.

What kind of organizations run the water supplies?



Or the air?
 
2013-05-22 10:11:02 AM
Replace "Apple" with the "1%" and I have a feeling this board would be singing a very different tune iHypocrites
 
2013-05-22 11:08:31 AM
So a corporation ,in this case Apple, builds a product outside the US.  Then it sell that product outside the US earning a profit outside the US.  It then decides not to bring that profit back to the US so as to avoid paying taxes to the US.

Please explain how this is a 'loophole'.
 
2013-05-22 12:17:07 PM

Source4leko: FTA: "Wage levels in the middle and below have barely budged since the 1970s because of a barrage of shifts in our economy and economic institutions - from globalization and technological advances to the decline of unions and new corporate practices that emphasize value for shareholders. Most of the increase that did happen in middle-class incomes was not because of rising wages but because households added a second earner.


I refuse to accept any article on wage earnings that doesn't account for the 1980's amnesty and the current levels of undocumented/low wage workers that flood the labor market.  A better metric would not be to look at a hard-to-define "Middle class" but look at what purchasing power the average 35 year old high school graduate has today versus 40 years ago.  Maybe analyze how many 1975 dollars a high school kid making minimum wage would earn in a summer in 2013 and what he could buy with that today versus 1975

The "middle class" as it relates to wage-earning could be a Georgetown law grad at his first real job earning the same as a career 30-year train mechanic who has a high school education.
 
2013-05-22 01:15:18 PM

pdee: So a corporation ,in this case Apple, builds a product outside the US. Then it sell that product outside the US earning a profit outside the US. It then decides not to bring that profit back to the US so as to avoid paying taxes to the US.

Please explain how this is a 'loophole'.


Another Farker already explained this:

caddisfly: You need to do more research. Apple is transferring US assets to the Irish shell so that the income from those assets isn't taxed as it would be absent the straw-man transfer. It's "made overseas" only because Apple first transfers the assets overseas- to itself by another name. I pay 40%, Apple pays .06%. Read this: http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/21/3-mindbending-ways-apple-dodged-13-8 b -in-taxes/


The NYT covered this as well:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/28/business/Double-Irish-W i th-A-Dutch-Sandwich.html?_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 2/04/28/business/Double-Irish-Wi th-A-Dutch-Sandwich.html?_r=0
 
2013-05-22 03:47:36 PM

Phinn: InmanRoshi: Pappy091: My local school district just spent over $50 million building a farking football stadium. Every single school except for one already had a perfectly good football stadium. I wish I could say that this was the exception, but money is wasted like this all the time in the name of "education".

Specifically, your football stadium was paid for using a voter approved municipal bond issuance.

The funding was not taking from your by "gun point".    It was funded by issuing municipal bonds via voter approval.

Your community voluntarily decided to borrow $50 million dollars of debt to pool together to  show off how rich and wealthy you were through a stupid football stadium, to rub it in poorer community's faces .

What is the source of money to repay these bonds? Taxes.

The people who wanted the stadium are forcing everyone else to pay for it.

The fiction of voting doesn't change the fact that people are paying for that stadium at the point of a gun.

The people who support banning guns always seem to be the same people who get a hard-on for using guns to force others to pay for their preferred crap. They don't hate guns, as long as they're the State's guns.



And, just like that, Phinn goes directly into Red 1 (you held such promise).
 
2013-05-22 03:52:28 PM

InmanRoshi: Phinn: What is the source of money to repay these bonds? Taxes.

The people who wanted the stadium are forcing everyone else to pay for it.

The fiction of voting doesn't change the fact that people are paying for that stadium at the point of a gun.

No one is forcing you to by the point of the gun to live in a community where $50 million for a high school football stadium seems like a good use of local resources.   You can live anywhere else in the country as an American citizen if you don't like it.   There's no shortage of areas in the country where it would seem pants on the head retarded to spend $50 million on a high school stadium, and it's called "Anywhere but Texas."     Keeping all government local has consequences when everyone around you is a retard.


This should be pretty much everyone's life-mantra.
 
2013-05-22 05:20:18 PM

Walker: This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft.

/more at 11


Welcome to the system. Please enjoy your stay because we told you to, and you will do as you're told!
 
2013-05-22 06:09:03 PM
Walker: This just in (please sit down): Corporations and rich people find  ARE PROVIDED WITH ways to avoid paying taxes, while the little people get audited, fined, and basically get the shaft.

/more at 11

And they call the 99% "entitled".
/ Har Har Har Arrgg Har hark, whoop, oops, hurt myself a little there
 
Displayed 380 of 380 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report