By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Former McDonald's USA CEO: $35K Robots Cheaper Than Hiring at $15 Per Hour

Norris2k said:

About sponsoring, we are not thinking on the same base. 35% of tax is normal, that what happens in modern countries, in Europe, USA, Japan. I can't think about a decent country without petrol that don't have at least such a level of tax. 

Hong Kong and Singapore have no natural resources, populations similar to Nordic countries, and flat taxes of 17% and 20% respectively. They are city-states of course, but that creates unique problems in itself.  

Edit: Switzerland also has pretty low taxes.



Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
The problem of people... they want the products dirty cheap and wages sky high... and since they know jackshit about economies they forget to make the balance of it.

Yep, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. We live in a world of scarcity and tradeoffs.



sc94597 said:
DonFerrari said:
The problem of people... they want the products dirty cheap and wages sky high... and since they know jackshit about economies they forget to make the balance of it.

Yep, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. We live in a world of scarcity and tradeoffs.

Which is the main reason I don't discuss economies with commies and socialists... they only talk about what would be just, but they never bother explaining how that would be paid...

And in the case of the minimum wage, no one is mandated to pay only the minimum. The hard truth they don't want to face is that without minimum wage there would be less unemployment and with hikes in it then unemployment rises. But in a society that everybody is a winner then we have to pay high salaries to everyone.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

sc94597 said:
Norris2k said:

About sponsoring, we are not thinking on the same base. 35% of tax is normal, that what happens in modern countries, in Europe, USA, Japan. I can't think about a decent country without petrol that don't have at least such a level of tax. 

Hong Kong and Singapore have no natural resources, populations similar to Nordic countries, and flat taxes of 17% and 20% respectively. They are city-states of course, but that creates unique problems in itself.  

Edit: Switzerland also has pretty low taxes.

Not to mention that 35% - which is higher than the vast majority of nations - is merely the FEDERAL tax.  State taxes can go as high as 12%.  Meaning there are many states with a total corporate tax of over 40%



Norris2k said:
Nuvendil said:

Sponsor them with taxes?  Taxes are one of the largest expenses they face.  McDonalds and other large companies face a tax rate in excess 35% of taxable income (that's billions of dollars, their taxable income exceeds 7 billion) and that's just federal.  State goes on top of that and varies.  

As for the bits about raising wages and stuff, as I said I am fine with a raise to something survivable but that's not what people keep demanding.  They want a minimum wage that makes everyone middle class but my point is the cost of that plan is astronomical and it would have to be recouped somewhere.  And that somewhere is going to be product prices.  And if the cost of goods goes up on average significantly what's the point?  You can't forcibly make the economy pay out more than it is able.  Which is why it must fall to the States to set the minimum wage according to the cost of living and economic health.  Keep the federal low to allow for that.

And in the case of McDonalds, as I explained before they aren't looking to provide all their employees with careers or even most.  They are capitalizing on the fluidity of the work force, that there are always people either just entering the workforce or in between jobs or otherwise just looking for *some* work.  In other words, these are jobs and products that otherwise wouldn't exist, many currently working at McDos wouldn't have a job if not for that very business model.  It's not a model you have to agree with.  And as I said I would be fine with (and McDos could survive with) a moderate increase in minimum wage.

Also, food for thought, the old minimum wages were set in a time where one person per household supported the household.  Now a much larger percentage of households have two or more sources of income.  Which does effect the dynamics here.  Not only does that mean lower amounts support more, but also that more money is payed out via payroll than many think.  Not saying this swings the debate either way.  Just another thing to throw into the mix of highly complicated factors that go into discussing such large, impactful changes to laws regarding business.

That's exactly the point of Bernie and such, they do want to make a disruptive change, while you are thinking inside the reality of the current system. The "fluidity of work", these people that can't have any other job (and that's fact), the fact you now need 2 people to barely support a family, we are forced into it by greed. In part by these jobs that does not pay enough, that doesn't offer a carrier or a significant experience.

About sponsoring, we are not thinking on the same base. 35% of tax is normal, that what happens in modern countries, in Europe, USA, Japan. I can't think about a decent country without petrol that don't have at least such a level of tax. They have to deal with it, we are all. What is not normal is to costs directly (food stamp and such), and indirectly (vast debate, but I believe that the impact of poverty is huge, from criminality rate to education). That's sponsoring if we pay taxes to lower their costs and increase their profits.

Uh, no, the part of multiple people pulling in money for the household came before the rise in cost of living began offsetting the difference.  

And fluidity in the workforce is inevitable, it will be there no matter what you raise the minimum wage to.  And it will be capitalized on.  And you can dislike the idea of it but unemployment is what is behind door number two.  Unless, of course, you continuously push minimum wages beyond what the economy can afford to pay out.  The fact is simply this:  if you want a stable, open market that can endure and recover from recessions, you cannot have the minimum wage as freaking high as guys like Bernie love to talk about.  I've spoken on this numerous times in this thread in varying levels of detail.  Raise the minimum wage by all means, but it must not be raised so high as to be beyond the ability of the economy of the region to support, nor so high that the economy becomes rigid, inflexible, and hostile to small businesses (which frankly the States is already on its way to being)



Around the Network
Nuvendil said:
sc94597 said:

Hong Kong and Singapore have no natural resources, populations similar to Nordic countries, and flat taxes of 17% and 20% respectively. They are city-states of course, but that creates unique problems in itself.  

Edit: Switzerland also has pretty low taxes.

Not to mention that 35% - which is higher than the vast majority of nations - is merely the FEDERAL tax.  State taxes can go as high as 12%.  Meaning there are many states with a total corporate tax of over 40%

Oh this was about corporate taxes? That then makes the claim I was quoting just outright false. The U.S has the highest nominal corporate tax rate, and the second highest effective (after tax-inversion) corporate tax rate (after New Zealand) among OECD countries. 

The world average corporate tax rate is 22.4%. There are countries like Ireland (12.5%), Liechtenstein (12.5%), and Hong Kong (16.5%) with very low corporate tax rates, but first world economies. The average corporate tax rate for European countries is 18.6%, EU (22.6%) and for OECD (25.2%.) 

A corporate tax rate of almost 40%, as you noted, is indeed unreasonable. And with state corporate tax rates, it is no wonder corporations are fleeing progressive states. 

I hope that ends the argument people are making that such a high corporate tax rate is normal, and that it should be even higher. 



sc94597 said:
Nuvendil said:

Not to mention that 35% - which is higher than the vast majority of nations - is merely the FEDERAL tax.  State taxes can go as high as 12%.  Meaning there are many states with a total corporate tax of over 40%

Oh this was about corporate taxes? That then makes the claim I was quoting just outright false. The U.S has the highest nominal corporate tax rate, and the second highest effective (after tax-inversion) corporate tax rate (after New Zealand) among OECD countries. 

The world average corporate tax rate is 22.4%. There are countries like Ireland (12.5%), Liechtenstein (12.5%), and Hong Kong (16.5%) with very low corporate tax rates, but first world economies. The average corporate tax rate for European countries is 18.6%, EU (22.6%) and for OECD (25.2%.) 

A corporate tax rate of almost 40%, as you noted, is indeed unreasonable. And with state corporate tax rates, it is no wonder corporations are fleeing progressive states. 

I hope that ends the argument people are making that such a high corporate tax rate is normal, and that it should be even higher. 

And on this bombshell we can finish the "the rich should pay more taxes" argument.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
sc94597 said:

Oh this was about corporate taxes? That then makes the claim I was quoting just outright false. The U.S has the highest nominal corporate tax rate, and the second highest effective (after tax-inversion) corporate tax rate (after New Zealand) among OECD countries. 

The world average corporate tax rate is 22.4%. There are countries like Ireland (12.5%), Liechtenstein (12.5%), and Hong Kong (16.5%) with very low corporate tax rates, but first world economies. The average corporate tax rate for European countries is 18.6%, EU (22.6%) and for OECD (25.2%.) 

A corporate tax rate of almost 40%, as you noted, is indeed unreasonable. And with state corporate tax rates, it is no wonder corporations are fleeing progressive states. 

I hope that ends the argument people are making that such a high corporate tax rate is normal, and that it should be even higher. 

And on this bombshell we can finish the "the rich should pay more taxes" argument.

Corporate tax should be abolished if you ask me. Taxes should be higher on other areas.

Companies can very easily avoid corporate tax by diverting profits or "investing" etc. Starbucks used to do it here by the Dutch Starbucks selling the UK Starbucks the branded cups at about the same price the UK Starbucks charged for the whole drink this meant the UK Starbucks (where corporation tax was higher) was always making a loss and so not subject to paying the tax, while that money had been shifted over to Holland where they paid much less tax on the prof its. In places like Europe "sales tax" is much higher. As I believe are income taxes etc. So a different way of raising the taxation revenue that is more evenly distributed ( though this did penalise poorer people to some extent,it also means when the rich are spending heavily they're also being taxed on that.

As for the rich need to pay more taxes. I think people miss  the real issues with that. The rich need fewer ways to get around paying tax rather than higher tax rates IMO. It seems to be where the main issues arise.

I personally find the idea of really high tax rates for rich people very unfair. I also think historically its shown that you already raise less tax with punitive tax rates as the rich are the demographic that can up sticks and nice elsewhere the easiest.



RIP Dad 25/11/51 - 13/12/13. You will be missed but never forgotten.

MikeRox said:
DonFerrari said:

And on this bombshell we can finish the "the rich should pay more taxes" argument.

Corporate tax should be abolished if you ask me. Taxes should be higher on other areas.

Companies can very easily avoid corporate tax by diverting profits or "investing" etc. Starbucks used to do it here by the Dutch Starbucks selling the UK Starbucks the branded cups at about the same price the UK Starbucks charged for the whole drink this meant the UK Starbucks (where corporation tax was higher) was always making a loss and so not subject to paying the tax, while that money had been shifted over to Holland where they paid much less tax on the prof its. In places like Europe "sales tax" is much higher. As I believe are income taxes etc. So a different way of raising the taxation revenue that is more evenly distributed ( though this did penalise poorer people to some extent,it also means when the rich are spending heavily they're also being taxed on that.

As for the rich need to pay more taxes. I think people miss  the real issues with that. The rich need fewer ways to get around paying tax rather than higher tax rates IMO. It seems to be where the main issues arise.

I personally find the idea of really high tax rates for rich people very unfair. I also think historically its shown that you already raise less tax with punitive tax rates as the rich are the demographic that can up sticks and nice elsewhere the easiest.

Yep.... a lot of countries with high taxes are subject to tax divertion taxes... there are a lot of companies that will charge very high the internal sales of inventory to have marginal profit for years in and out to make it easier to send profits overseas and avoid local taxes.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."