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

Forums - Politics - Stop Coddling the Super-Rich

Ail on 19 August 2011
HappySqurriel said:
While the current meme is that corporations are 'sitting' on their cash because they’re greedy, the truth is that they’re holding off on investing and creating jobs because they don’t know what the economic environment will look like 12 to 24 months from now. To create an analogy that most people can understand, if you were an employee in a company that was losing money and laying-off employees but you received a substantial raise would you be likely to spend that money or are you going to save it?

The same basic rules apply to companies, and (after the crisis in 2008) many companies have realized that they have been operating with too small of reserves and have been too dependent on credit. Many people may not remember this, but in 2008/2009 there were many companies that were in significant trouble because they depended on short term credit to cover their payrolls, inventory and other expenses; and without access to this credit they were (effectively) insolvent. Without confidence in the banking system, which is hurt both by the 2008 crisis and the current crisis in Europe, companies are going to want to build up cash reserves in case they face similar circumstances.

Finally, while the supporters of the Democrat party love it, no one is certain what the impacts of Obamacare (or other reforms) are going to be. While supporters have faith that it will bring down costs, businesses are afraid that the costs per-user are going to continue to escalate and they will be forced to cover more employees resulting in their healthcare costs increasing much more rapidly than they were before the bill was passed. If you’re afraid that your labor costs are going to dramatically outpace your revenue growth you’re probably going to try to limit or reduce your labor.


I will give you that for small business but lets face it big corporations are having an all-time high record profit and they are not reinvesting much of it.

http://www.standardandpoors.com/spf/fgr_articles/861242/6165512.gif

Heck if you look at the graph, profits at the worse of the last crisis where still double what they were in 2002...

The issue is that due to the success of a few companies like Apple, a lot of the corporations these days feel that if they don't have 30% profit margins somehow they have to cut expenses( this is pushed by investors ) ( look at Cisco laying off 15% of its workforce while the company has been profitable for ages, is making 7-9billion$ a year and is sitting on over 40 billion of cash).

 

The main issue is that we're stucked with the worse congress of the last 100 years and not much will happen until they are sent back to the voters ( and seeing what they have done the last 10 years I do not have a lot of trust in americans voters...)

 

PS : I mean, if a citizen starts saving money instead of spending it, he's almost accused of hurting the economy but you have the biggest US companies that are sitting on an all time high pile of cash that is unused and could generate a lot of jobs if it was properly used...). I'm actually surprised that noone in Washington has thought yet of some kind of tax on unused cash sitting in those companies, like force them to spend some if they have past a certain amount.

I know you said that they are afraid but some of those companies have enough cash that they could stop selling any product for 5 years, not fire anyone  and still have cash left... And those big companies never had any issue getting loans, it's the small business that have troubles...

http://www.standardandpoors.com/spf/fgr_articles/803997/5704639.gif

Instead of coming up with another stimulus funded by taxpayers, force those companies to use their cash !!!!!!!!!( heck even dividends would at least put the money in the hands of people that would use it.)



PS3-Xbox360 gap : 1.5 millions and going up in PS3 favor !

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

Around the Network
Jereel Hunter on 19 August 2011
irstupid said:

here is a simple way to think.

Lets say you own your own business.  Now you make 1,000,000 in revenue in one year, ignoring expenses.  You have 10 employees you pay 50,000 each.  And you pay yourself 100,000.  This leaves 400,000 for the year left the business made.  Now what is corporate tax rate?  probably 35% roughly.  so 350,000 of tax.  That now means you only have 50,000 of money for the business. 

Now simple thinking.  If you had 400,000 or 50,000.  In which scenerio are you most likely to hire someone new? buy new machinery?  expand? ect.  And don't forget that buying new equipment or expanding means JOBS for those business that make the equipment or build the expansion, ect. 

THere was something on 60 minutes not long ago talking about companies going over seas to austria or something becuase the tax rate is only like 11% there.  Many say they would and want to come back to U.S. but the tax is too high to have any incentive to.  They are running a business here, they are not charities.  regardless how harsh that sounds, that is business.  So lowering tax rate could potentially bring back companies and thus MILLIONS of jobs.  Not to mentino a lower tax rate could bring companies that were never here here.  Hell just look at in the states of america.  Copmanies move all the time to different states that have better tax laws.

Well, what you are saying is nice, in theory. Lets look a little closer. (this is of  course, all simplified as well) Taking into account the way corporations are actually taxed, as mentioned previously, they would be paying $140,000, not $350,000, and assuming the company's founder both works for the company pulling that 100k salary, and also made his company public, so there are shareholders (he also being one, with a large stake)

The founder could take and invest the $400,000 into the company, buying new equipment, hiring new people, expending the $400,000 on growing the business. This created jobs and is great for the economy and nearly eliminates what the company needs to pay in taxes. This in turn allows the company to grow, boosting revenue and profit, and causing it's stock price to rise, making additional money for the shareholders. He makes a small additional profit on the rise of stock prices.

He could also decide to spent the money on company retreats,an expensive company vehicle etc, get the exact same taxes because the company is posting minimal profit, while essentially spending a large portion on deductible things that benefit only himself (or himself and other execs).

The point is, though it gives them more money to play with, it gives a taxbreak "to create jobs" without guaranteeing any jobs are created. If creating jobs is the reason for a tax cut, there should be a way to control that. Some companies, this tax cut is just "new company jet for the execs, business as usual for employees." I have no problem with companies having extra leeway to hire - I DO have a problem with essentially handing these companies a bunch of money back with a "well, hope you do something that helps the economy, rather than yourselves!"



irstupid on 23 August 2011
Jereel Hunter said:
irstupid said:

here is a simple way to think.

Lets say you own your own business.  Now you make 1,000,000 in revenue in one year, ignoring expenses.  You have 10 employees you pay 50,000 each.  And you pay yourself 100,000.  This leaves 400,000 for the year left the business made.  Now what is corporate tax rate?  probably 35% roughly.  so 350,000 of tax.  That now means you only have 50,000 of money for the business. 

Now simple thinking.  If you had 400,000 or 50,000.  In which scenerio are you most likely to hire someone new? buy new machinery?  expand? ect.  And don't forget that buying new equipment or expanding means JOBS for those business that make the equipment or build the expansion, ect. 

THere was something on 60 minutes not long ago talking about companies going over seas to austria or something becuase the tax rate is only like 11% there.  Many say they would and want to come back to U.S. but the tax is too high to have any incentive to.  They are running a business here, they are not charities.  regardless how harsh that sounds, that is business.  So lowering tax rate could potentially bring back companies and thus MILLIONS of jobs.  Not to mentino a lower tax rate could bring companies that were never here here.  Hell just look at in the states of america.  Copmanies move all the time to different states that have better tax laws.

Well, what you are saying is nice, in theory. Lets look a little closer. (this is of  course, all simplified as well) Taking into account the way corporations are actually taxed, as mentioned previously, they would be paying $140,000, not $350,000, and assuming the company's founder both works for the company pulling that 100k salary, and also made his company public, so there are shareholders (he also being one, with a large stake)

The founder could take and invest the $400,000 into the company, buying new equipment, hiring new people, expending the $400,000 on growing the business. This created jobs and is great for the economy and nearly eliminates what the company needs to pay in taxes. This in turn allows the company to grow, boosting revenue and profit, and causing it's stock price to rise, making additional money for the shareholders. He makes a small additional profit on the rise of stock prices.

He could also decide to spent the money on company retreats,an expensive company vehicle etc, get the exact same taxes because the company is posting minimal profit, while essentially spending a large portion on deductible things that benefit only himself (or himself and other execs).

The point is, though it gives them more money to play with, it gives a taxbreak "to create jobs" without guaranteeing any jobs are created. If creating jobs is the reason for a tax cut, there should be a way to control that. Some companies, this tax cut is just "new company jet for the execs, business as usual for employees." I have no problem with companies having extra leeway to hire - I DO have a problem with essentially handing these companies a bunch of money back with a "well, hope you do something that helps the economy, rather than yourselves!"

yes they can be selfish as you said in company picnics or in jets, but does not this company picnic hire catererors? or how about the company that makes teh jet, do they not ahve employees to pay?  if no one is buying jets tehy go out of business.  or the people who fly the jet for him, or stewardes, ect.

 

i mean hell look at those insane billionaires that have yachts that are like 300 yards or something rediculous.  they have hundreds of people working on that yacht. 

even teh most selfish looking things in the end do serve a purpose.  one rich person spending is equal to a vast number of normal people like us spending.  Do you think us going and buying a $15 dvd is going to save the economy and put people to work?  hell no, as one we are nothing.  no amount of spending could i do that would put a dent in anything.  i coudl go as far into debt as i could and spend every penny i have and it still would not create one job.  us normal/poor people need to ALL act.  meanwhile a millionair/billionaire can do some pointless selfish spending and be beneficial to many.

also in regards to company picnic or anything that goes to employees, any business class will tell you that happier employees perform better.  a better performing company sells more and so on.  so these selfish employee picnics do serve a purpose.



rf40928 on 23 August 2011
Lostplanet22 said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=Buffet&st=cse


OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

 While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

 These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

 Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

 If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.

 To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.

 Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

 I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

 Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

 The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)

 I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.

 Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances. They’ve been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It’s vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country’s fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.

 Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

 But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

 My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.

Warren E. Buffett is the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway.


What is not understood by most individual voters in America is SUPER RICH Individuals need to pay more taxes .. while it is NOT understood in general MOST Corporations leave this country because the USA has the HIGHEST Federal Coporation tax rate in the world 33%.. Yes, there are exceptions.. but in general Rich individuals make out well, while most corporations lose out and consider going to another country with lower Corp Tax rates.. So understanding that while Bill Gates my actually pay a lower tax rate ( especially with individual deductions ) - it is not understood that Microsoft who payed so much in federal tax they told Obama if you rate the corporate tax rate more ( again 33% Federal - highest in the world ) they said they may leave this country.  Apple, who already has more production overseas was able to save in taxes because they payed lower taxes in the other countries..  THE USA wouldnt have to rely on individuals as much if they politicians werent spending money this country doesnt have !  Obama, who blasted Bush for spending too much, has spent 1 TRILLION MORE EVERY YEAR then Bush did per year ! Look, AMERICA we cant afford to be the worlds police dept !! Lets take care of this country and get the hell out of Iraq and Afghan !

The thing I absolutely LOVE (not ) is the HYPOCRISY of President Obama who publicly says "Everyone ( mostly the rich ) needs to pair their fair share of taxes" ..

 Yet just last year 2010.. General Electric ( that grossed 5.1 BILLION in the United States)  and Obama okayed a crooked deal so that his friends at General Electric PAYED ABSOLUTELY NO TAXES AT ALL... PLUS THEY GOT A 300 MILLION dollar tax credit..  after he saved them hundreds of million in taxes he asked one of General Electric's CEO's to be his economic advisor..  The man is full of two sided thinking.. He also set a time table for leaving Afghanastan Sep 2012.. that date serves no purpose.. no strategic purpose at all since we will not know at that time if we win or lose.. Ok, the date does SERVES ONE PURPOSE... to make sure he can say he ended the Afghan war before ELECTION, since the Sept 2012 timetable conviently coincides with election campaigning time !!!  Of course General Electric who owns MSNBC make sure that MSNBC never reports the "truth" in a way that hurts Obama.. Looking at MSNBC.com's msg boards is much worse then the bias you see at Fox news !   At CNN.com they ran a story that Americans questions Obama going on vacation in this needy time..AT MSNBC the same story says "Obama is working on the Unemployment Problem While on Vacation" ! HAHA.. Last time I checked the definition of VACATION is  a REPRIEVE (Hiatus ) from work.. I love it..



richardhutnik on 23 August 2011

Come on Warren!  Don't you know if your taxes go up, it will hinder you from creating jobs... in China?



Around the Network
rf40928 on 23 August 2011

What is not understood by most individual voters in America is SUPER RICH Individuals need to pay more taxes .. while it is NOT understood in general MOST Corporations leave this country because the USA has the HIGHEST Federal Coporation tax rate in the world 33%.. Yes, there are exceptions.. but in general Rich individuals make out well, while most corporations lose out and consider going to another country with lower Corp Tax rates.. So understanding that while Bill Gates my actually pay a lower tax rate ( especially with individual deductions ) - it is not understood that Microsoft who payed so much in federal tax they told Obama if you raise the corporate tax rate again ( already  33% Federal - highest in the world ) that MS may leave this country.  Apple, who already has more production overseas was able to save in taxes because they payed lower taxes in the other countries..  THE USA wouldnt have to rely on individuals as much if the politicians  werent irresponsibly spending money this country doesnt have !  Obama, who blasted Bush for spending too much, has spent 1 TRILLION MORE EVERY YEAR then Bush did per year ! Look, AMERICA we cant afford to be the worlds police dept !! Lets take care of this country and get the hell out of Iraq and Afghan !

The thing I absolutely LOVE (not ) is the HYPOCRISY of President Obama who publicly says "Everyone ( mostly the rich ) needs to pair their fair share of taxes" ..

 Yet just last year 2010.. General Electric ( that grossed 5.1 BILLION in the United States)  and Obama okayed a crooked deal so that his friends at General Electric PAYED ABSOLUTELY NO TAXES AT ALL... PLUS THEY GOT A 300 MILLION dollar tax credit..  after he saved them hundreds of million in taxes he asked one of General Electric's CEO's to be his economic advisor..  The man is full of two sided thinking.. He also set a time table for leaving Afghanastan Sep 2012.. that date serves no purpose.. no strategic purpose at all since we will not know at that time if we win or lose.. Ok, the date does SERVES ONE PURPOSE... to make sure he can say he ended the Afghan war before ELECTION, since the Sept 2012 timetable conviently coincides with election campaigning time !!!  Of course General Electric who owns MSNBC make sure that MSNBC never reports the "truth" in a way that hurts Obama.. Looking at MSNBC.com's msg boards is much worse then the bias you see at Fox news !   At CNN.com they ran a story that Americans questions Obama going on vacation in this needy time..AT MSNBC the same story says "Obama is working on the Unemployment Problem While on Vacation" ! HAHA.. Last time I checked the definition of VACATION is  a REPRIEVE (Hiatus ) from work.. I love it..

At election time the democrats took the election by marketing "The worse economy since the Great Depression" and it worked.. The truth is if anyone looks up the stats.. the economy was worse when Jimmy Carter left office then Bush.  President Reagan took over a jobless rate of 12%, inherited much worse inflation, and much higher interest rates.. back then getting a house was impossible because of interest, while now its actually easier.. Reagan DID ZERO bailouts.. and he started to turn this country around in ONLY 17 months !! And people say Obama needs more time !  Why is he talking about a PLAN NOW to fix the economy?  He sure didnt focus on this plan when Obama and democrats controlled both the HOUSE AND SENATE ! Heck, back then they could've easily passed a bill.. Oddly, Obama blames Republicans for not working with him.. How many people know or remember that (republican) Reagan did all he accomplished  under a democratically controlled senate?   Reagan even started Medicare with the Democrats ! Thats the kind of guy Reagan was - even the democrats worked with him !  Obama likes to say Republicans wont work with him, but does anyone remember ALL REPUBLICANS (except 4 ) voted for Obamas healthcare bill - full well knowing they might lose their jobs if they voted for it (because of upset voters) and they voted for it  anyways !!   I guess republicans that didnt want to vote for such a huge raise in the debt ceiling because no other President has spent so much money in US history in only 4 yrs ! I guess the media didnt tell its readers that Repulicans wanted to raise it 1 trillion and Democrats wanted 2 trillion because if they hit the ceiling too soon again Obama would be hurt at election time..



thx1139 on 23 August 2011
osamanobama said:

like i said my dad hasnt made 250k for a while now, i think the last year was 2006. but of course theres small businesses bigger than his who do make 250k.

also you answered your own question. what do you think happens when people spend less. thats right less jobs


Ok 1st off the poster was saying that Personal Income over 250K would be taxed higher.  Yet most small business's simply pass through earning to the owners unless they chose to be a C-Corp.  This is a reason why the argument that fixing corporate rates are bogus with regard that it will hurt small business's. Small Business's are not taxed at corporate rates.

2nd paying people is an expense and expenses lower profits. Taxes come at the very end once profits are determined. You hire the people to increase your profit. Otherwise you dont hire them. So they either let you make more product to sell or service more customers or continue to service customers that are threatening to leave because you arent servicing them well.  So if you hire them it is because it will make your profit higher. So lets say an extra painter can increase your profit from 250K to 275K.  For sake of argument you then pay an extra 5% on that extra 25K of profit. So take home still increases.

The subject is also about the Super-Rich and the Super-Rich are not the people making around 250K of income. Not to mention when it comes to tax brackets the Super-Rich dont make thier money in terms of income that falls within tax brackets. They make the income in the terms of Capital Gains.   So lets stop saying that the rich Income being taxed higher wouldnt make much of a dent because that hides the Capital Gains that they enjoy.  Lets say that the rich should pay tax at the same rates as the upper middle class, but on all the income and gains. Not higher than the upper middle class, but the same. I made about 100K in Capital Gains last year and paid tax at the 15% rate.  Someone working OT in the 25% tax bracket who made an extra $50K because they physically worked thier ass off paid nearly the same amount of tax, but had to sacrifice other parts of thier lives to do so. I just had to have my money work for me and talk to my advisor on average once per month for about an hour.



Its libraries that sell systems not a single game.

Ail on 23 August 2011
thx1139 said:
osamanobama said:

like i said my dad hasnt made 250k for a while now, i think the last year was 2006. but of course theres small businesses bigger than his who do make 250k.

also you answered your own question. what do you think happens when people spend less. thats right less jobs


Ok 1st off the poster was saying that Personal Income over 250K would be taxed higher.  Yet most small business's simply pass through earning to the owners unless they chose to be a C-Corp.  This is a reason why the argument that fixing corporate rates are bogus with regard that it will hurt small business's. Small Business's are not taxed at corporate rates.

2nd paying people is an expense and expenses lower profits. Taxes come at the very end once profits are determined. You hire the people to increase your profit. Otherwise you dont hire them. So they either let you make more product to sell or service more customers or continue to service customers that are threatening to leave because you arent servicing them well.  So if you hire them it is because it will make your profit higher. So lets say an extra painter can increase your profit from 250K to 275K.  For sake of argument you then pay an extra 5% on that extra 25K of profit. So take home still increases.

The subject is also about the Super-Rich and the Super-Rich are not the people making around 250K of income. Not to mention when it comes to tax brackets the Super-Rich dont make thier money in terms of income that falls within tax brackets. They make the income in the terms of Capital Gains.   So lets stop saying that the rich Income being taxed higher wouldnt make much of a dent because that hides the Capital Gains that they enjoy.  Lets say that the rich should pay tax at the same rates as the upper middle class, but on all the income and gains. Not higher than the upper middle class, but the same. I made about 100K in Capital Gains last year and paid tax at the 15% rate.  Someone working OT in the 25% tax bracket who made an extra $50K because they physically worked thier ass off paid nearly the same amount of tax, but had to sacrifice other parts of thier lives to do so. I just had to have my money work for me and talk to my advisor on average once per month for about an hour.


Thank god ! Someone that actually knows what he's talking about in this thread ;)

Getting tired of people spewing random stuff with no economic background or any knowledge in accounting......



PS3-Xbox360 gap : 1.5 millions and going up in PS3 favor !

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

Jereel Hunter on 26 August 2011
irstupid said:

yes they can be selfish as you said in company picnics or in jets, but does not this company picnic hire catererors? or how about the company that makes teh jet, do they not ahve employees to pay?  if no one is buying jets tehy go out of business.  or the people who fly the jet for him, or stewardes, ect.

i mean hell look at those insane billionaires that have yachts that are like 300 yards or something rediculous.  they have hundreds of people working on that yacht. 

even teh most selfish looking things in the end do serve a purpose.  one rich person spending is equal to a vast number of normal people like us spending.  Do you think us going and buying a $15 dvd is going to save the economy and put people to work?  hell no, as one we are nothing.  no amount of spending could i do that would put a dent in anything.  i coudl go as far into debt as i could and spend every penny i have and it still would not create one job.  us normal/poor people need to ALL act.  meanwhile a millionair/billionaire can do some pointless selfish spending and be beneficial to many.

also in regards to company picnic or anything that goes to employees, any business class will tell you that happier employees perform better.  a better performing company sells more and so on.  so these selfish employee picnics do serve a purpose.

Not company picnics, executive retreats - where a few execs spend vast amounts of luxury getaways at company expense. Do they add money to the economy? Sort of. The problem is, instead of coming from the pockets of these execs who can afford it anyway, it comes from the business, and becomes deductible. So while they are putting this money into the economy, a big chunk of it is essentially paid by what would otherwise go to taxes.

And yes, a billionaire buying a yacht causes people to work, but lets be clear, buying a $150 Million yacht creates a lot less jobs than a quarter of that amount spent growing a business and adding employees. Now obviously you as a person have no real impact on the economy, but in the lower and middle class, the impact on the economy had to do with volume - and there's a big impact when a large percentage of those people are out of work. Now, I don't think rich people need to be taxed into the ground. Billionaires will still have their yachts and catered affairs - But there are those at the top, who's assets grow at a rate of hundreds of millions per year, while paying a MUCH lower % of taxes overall (via earnings + capital gains), and putting relatively small amounts back into the economy, compared to regular folks. A normal person earning say... $40,000 a year might pay around 25% of that to total taxes, but pretty much every penny  of the rest gets spent on living expenses - every penny is going into the economy. People who are worth $10 Billion this year, and will be worth twice that in 15 years contribute less beneficially, relative to earnings, than the average working American.



mrstickball on 26 August 2011
Jereel Hunter said:
irstupid said:

yes they can be selfish as you said in company picnics or in jets, but does not this company picnic hire catererors? or how about the company that makes teh jet, do they not ahve employees to pay?  if no one is buying jets tehy go out of business.  or the people who fly the jet for him, or stewardes, ect.

i mean hell look at those insane billionaires that have yachts that are like 300 yards or something rediculous.  they have hundreds of people working on that yacht. 

even teh most selfish looking things in the end do serve a purpose.  one rich person spending is equal to a vast number of normal people like us spending.  Do you think us going and buying a $15 dvd is going to save the economy and put people to work?  hell no, as one we are nothing.  no amount of spending could i do that would put a dent in anything.  i coudl go as far into debt as i could and spend every penny i have and it still would not create one job.  us normal/poor people need to ALL act.  meanwhile a millionair/billionaire can do some pointless selfish spending and be beneficial to many.

also in regards to company picnic or anything that goes to employees, any business class will tell you that happier employees perform better.  a better performing company sells more and so on.  so these selfish employee picnics do serve a purpose.

Not company picnics, executive retreats - where a few execs spend vast amounts of luxury getaways at company expense. Do they add money to the economy? Sort of. The problem is, instead of coming from the pockets of these execs who can afford it anyway, it comes from the business, and becomes deductible. So while they are putting this money into the economy, a big chunk of it is essentially paid by what would otherwise go to taxes.

And yes, a billionaire buying a yacht causes people to work, but lets be clear, buying a $150 Million yacht creates a lot less jobs than a quarter of that amount spent growing a business and adding employees. Now obviously you as a person have no real impact on the economy, but in the lower and middle class, the impact on the economy had to do with volume - and there's a big impact when a large percentage of those people are out of work. Now, I don't think rich people need to be taxed into the ground. Billionaires will still have their yachts and catered affairs - But there are those at the top, who's assets grow at a rate of hundreds of millions per year, while paying a MUCH lower % of taxes overall (via earnings + capital gains), and putting relatively small amounts back into the economy, compared to regular folks. A normal person earning say... $40,000 a year might pay around 25% of that to total taxes, but pretty much every penny  of the rest gets spent on living expenses - every penny is going into the economy. People who are worth $10 Billion this year, and will be worth twice that in 15 years contribute less beneficially, relative to earnings, than the average working American.


Your numbers are off significantly. According to the Tax Foundation's research into 140 million tax returns, the tax rate among the super-rich top-1% was about 100% greater than those making $40,000/yr.

And according to your logic, the fact is that the people making $40,000/yr and spending everything they have on living expenses aren't going to grow the economy. They will pay into goods and services, but cannot invest in new opportunities. Therefore, it is the right thing to ensure that those that have more money aren't robbed of their monies so that they can invest into businesses and ventures that can create jobs - rather than be taxed. As much as you'd love to argue that a yacht creates few jobs, I shudder to think how many jobs are created by the government's taxation of the same amount of income. In most cases, the only jobs created from that have a horrible rate of return.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.