DescentBB

callmeslick wrote:another thing that should alarm more people, and is DIRECTLY tied to tax policy and greed, is the concept of long-term profitability vs. short-term profits that generally come at the expense of workers. The latter has been the norm, especially since cap gains taxes were lowered, and high income tax rates were capped much lower. What you see far more than you did 3 or more decades back is the wholesale rape of businesses by 'capital investment' companies, that yield a quick return, but do nothing to provide for a long-term profitable business model, beyond continuing to plunder companies hitting a temporary lull in their business.

Just out of curiosty, why do you say short term gain is the norm? You have a breakdown of business that are going for short term gain? I don't seeit when I look at say:

1)Ford Motor company or any of the big 3. Fact is I see them handing out nice phat bonus checks at the end of the year to the hourly workers.

2) Caterpillar are they looking for short gain profits at the expense of their workers?

3) McDonnell Douglas ?

4) How about all those small business that have been around for years, treat their workers like family and put profits back into the business to grow.

Now lets look at the govt. and Obama care. NYT's ran a story on a bakery that has 90 employee's. Under Obama care they will have to pay the govt. $110,000.00. They only make $200k in profit. So now they are facing firing 41 employee's:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/busin ... .html?_r=0

So who is the more evil? Ford Motor Co. or the govt.?

woodchip wrote:Just out of curiosty, why do you say short term gain is the norm?

because most large corporations in America are run by executives with the focus on quarterly stock valuation gains. Anyone who invests seriously is aware of that. 30 years ago, the focus was on 10 year plans, now, one hears non of that, and sees none of that in shareholder reports(which I can provide you stacks of).

You have a breakdown of business that are going for short term gain? I don't seeit when I look at say:

1)Ford Motor company or any of the big 3. Fact is I see them handing out nice phat bonus checks at the end of the year to the hourly workers.

2) Caterpillar are they looking for short gain profits at the expense of their workers?

3) McDonnell Douglas ?

short term gain and employee payouts are frequently unrelated. I'm talking about long-term business viability at the cost of short term profits. That used to be the focus, and what any of the above show to disprove that is unclear to me.

4) How about all those small business that have been around for years, treat their workers like family and put profits back into the business to grow.

I'm not talking about small business.

Now lets look at the govt. and Obama care. NYT's ran a story on a bakery that has 90 employee's. Under Obama care they will have to pay the govt. $110,000.00. They only make $200k in profit. So now they are facing firing 41 employee's:

that whole notion has long ago been shown to be bogus. It isn't happening, nor is it going to happen. Have fun going back over time and watching how truly little of this happens.

So who is the more evil? Ford Motor Co. or the govt.?

actually, the source of evil is folks who politicize stuff like you do for the sake of cheap talking points. Why? Because the end result is an economy that is run for the profit of a very few, and continues the current path towards a bipolar society of haves and have-nots, all because the folks who are getting screwed are engaged in a back and forth over relative drivel. If you are satisfied with the status quo, fine.....frankly, I shouldn't complain, I'll continue to be one of the 'haves', but I just don't relish the thought of living in a society with a vast number of poor people living on the economic edge. That's what you have in Mexico, and it doesn't seem like my idea of an ideal situation.

callmeslick wrote:the fix isn't that difficult, because we had it in place, and working perfectly in 1955:

1. top tax rate on all income over $1,000,000 per year(indexed up for inflation, the number in 1955 was $250,000) of 90%
2. Banks cannot be in the investment or insurance businesses, and visa versa for insurers or investment houses
3. Cap gains taxed at 25%

problem solved....moreover, wealthy people still remained wealthy. The corporations focused on long term plans and rewarded execs with longterm stock options(with fixed valuation, unlike current options that can be devalued) to drive that focus. The employees, being critical to longterm corporate survival, were compensated well and fairly, and treated as long-term human investments(thus, high job security for competent workers). The middle class expanded wildly.

Me thinks the uber liberal Bill Maher has been smoking waaaaaaaay too much weed. Either that, or he's been infected with the greed virus that's spreading around the country ever since Reagan AND he's has been smoking waaaaaaaay too much weed.

http://news.yahoo.com/why-conservatives ... 00646.html

Yea, because everyone knows all wealthy liberals “want” to pay more taxes.

And it's no mystery why people move to Delaware either.

Spidey wrote:Yea, because everyone knows all wealthy liberals “want” to pay more taxes.

And it's no mystery why people move to Delaware either.

The hypocrisy runs rampant.
One of my favorites is how Hollywood loudmouth actors love to puff up their self righteous chests on camera and pretend to be the spokesmen for the little guys on all sorts of issues. They do it often in interviews between takes on the movie set... filming in Canada... because the Canadian labor union rules add much less cost and inconvenience to the productions!

Spidey wrote:Yea, because everyone knows all wealthy liberals “want” to pay more taxes.

And it's no mystery why people move to Delaware either.

ummm, my income taxes are higher in Delaware than they were in PA. Just sayin'.......

As you are so fond of pointing out…income is not the only tax. You yourself pointed out how you were saving real estate taxes while actually living in a more expensive house, and couple that with the fact that you are now retired, and there is no sales tax…

Of course I can’t do the actual math, but I can imagine how it could work out, in saving you money.

well, I always shopped down here anyway. Delaware at least has the sense to charge a higher income tax rate to get the income from the wealthy(of which there are plenty here) as opposed to soaking the lower income folks with a sales tax. Funny how a lot of states don't have governors or legislatures that see that relationship.

vision wrote:Walmart vs Costco on wages.

Please forgive the idiotic Liberal website I found this on, but there is a point to be made in that article.

Saw this story today and thought, "Well, you brought it on yourselves". There are consequences to cutting labor costs to the bone as a means of doing business and making a profit. Something is going to give.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-0 ... get-costco