I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Asylum

Holy Taco

Funny Videos

BuzzFeed

NothingToxic

Oddee

Mousebreaker

Online Games

Eat Liver

Online Games

Gorilla Mask

Full Downloads

Norway Games

Damn Cool Pics

Kontraband

Extreme Humor

X Hollywood

I Dont Like You

123 Games

Hollywoodtuna

Funny Games

Cool Stuff

Viva La Games

X - Vids

Smit Happens

Funny Videos

Funny Stuff

ebaumsworld



Back to Listing

Here's Why You Can Stop Trying To Get Richer

Hits: 6065 | Rating: (2.7) | Category: News & Politics | Added by: CaptKangaroo
Page: 1 2 35 6 7 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
klaxor
Male, 18-29, Western US
 647 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:46:45 PM
"F U isn't a good economic strategy, just saying."

- Right, b/c puerto rico's economy is what's keeping us afloat. There's no way that puerto rico isn't an economic drain on the US

"here"

- what, we keep them around so that we can draft them. hardly seems worth it, and actually seems very, very wrong.

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1712 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:41:31 PM
"What ways are there for them to "get paid" that will cost a publicly shared company and be accepted by shareholders?"

Mergers and acquisitions

klaxor
Male, 18-29, Western US
 647 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:38:53 PM
@5cats, please read the entire conversation, instead of just picking parts you don't like, b4 trying to troll.

@richanddead, i think that you're underestimating how difficult it is to just move to another country and not pay taxes. If it were that easy, ppl wouldn't wait for a rise in American taxes, they would have done it already. Why haven't they?

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1712 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:35:22 PM
- Then you say F U to puerto rico

F U isn't a good economic strategy, just saying.

"and force them to pay taxes."
You see the loop your going on here right?

"I don't see why we're even supporting them any more."

here

klaxor
Male, 18-29, Western US
 647 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:30:41 PM
"Then the CEOs will find other ways to "get paid" and avoid the tax. This will likely cost the company more, and that gets passed to the consumer. Or they just give themselves a fat raise to cover the new tax. Guess who pays for that?"

What ways are there for them to "get paid" that will cost a publicly shared company and be accepted by shareholders? They can't just give themselves "a fat raise"at the expense of the company and piss off shareholders for no reason. They run the risk of losing their jobs, and being sued. Also, if i raise the wage tax on the CEO of google, will google suddenly start charging me for every search? Bing would be happy to hear that.

"There's 100s of countries that would welcome America's billionares (and their companies too!) with open arms (and LOW taxes!)."

- I doubt most billionaires own 100% share, or even 50% share of their company, so they can't just move it.

Andrew155
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 2564 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:29:26 PM
Any household from the 1950's and 1960's would be considered in poverty by today's standard. If you just look around at American consumerist society today, and compare it to history, you will be reminded of that Roman saying and realize that America has become panem et circenses.

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1712 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:26:16 PM
@klaxor: ""human rights" as part of their vocabulary."

Like Russia, china, or India. Our main competitors.

"a lot of chinese industries are dependent upon American industries"
Sure but if your introducing your industry to their market or simply selling your expertise on running a corporation, they certainly are not hurting for it.

" but if you increase the tax on foreign investment to 100%, keeping domestic at 99%, domestic investment will still be the better option."
Yes, truly, for anyone who would be foolish enough to invest in that market. The stocks would lose their values almost instantly, crippling the companies. Because the majority of revenue would go to the gov. no one would have much incentive to invest even for 1%. They would move, then invest in other markets. And the gov. would still get less revenue because the stock market would crash.

5Cats: Thanks :) but Jamie is just voicing an opi

klaxor
Male, 18-29, Western US
 647 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:18:14 PM
"Or you move to a nontaxable principality of the US like John Paulson, keep your citizenship, rights, and money."

- Then you say F U to puerto rico and force them to pay taxes. I don't see why we're even supporting them any more.

Even with dual citizenship, you can't escape paying certain American taxes. And, it's not always easy to just up and go to another country with lower taxes, otherwise the rich would have done this a long time ago.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 24093 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:18:08 PM
They don't move/invest in those countries for a reason.

They sure enough WILL move!
You think John Lennon lived in Toronto and New York for fun? He was a "tax refugee" because England taxed his income at 90%. So he refused to pay.
Ask France about billionares moving to avoid their newest "tax on the rich".
There's 100s of countries that would welcome America's billionares (and their companies too!) with open arms (and LOW taxes!).

Money has legs, if you bother it? It walks away.
If you try to chain it? It dies.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 24093 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:12:25 PM
Except it's not the ultra rich who actually make stuff.

@klaxor: Be quiet, you obviously know nothing about even BASIC economics.
If you raise a company's cost 2%? They'll pass that on to the customers EVERY time. Tax the CEO of the parent company more? Same thing!

If you tax teh CEO's wages...

Then the CEOs will find other ways to "get paid" and avoid the tax. This will likely cost the company more, and that gets passed to the consumer. Or they just give themselves a fat raise to cover the new tax. Guess who pays for that?

@richanddead: Thank goodness someone who knows more than I do about "economics" is voicing their opinion. Excellent explainations, and polite too!
Pay no attention to @jamie76, he's IAB's resident "Republican Basher" - it's all he does!

klaxor
Male, 18-29, Western US
 647 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:12:16 PM
"invest in/move to another country with a lower tax rate."

Like I said, there's a limit to how much you can invest in countries as a foreigner. Many countries don't like foreigners owning over 50% of their industries. Those that do, aren't well developed and/or don't have the word "human rights" as part of their vocabulary.

Also, a lot of chinese industries are dependent upon American industries. American companies fail, China takes a huge hit.

There's also a tax on foreign investment. These "extreme cases" are getting ridiculous, but if you increase the tax on foreign investment to 100%, keeping domestic at 99%, domestic investment will still be the better option.

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1712 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:09:19 PM
"Unless you give up your citizenship. But then say bye bye to diplomatic leverage/protection when a local warlord decides to take your money."

Or you move to a nontaxable principality of the US like John Paulson, keep your citizenship, rights, and money. But you never give up your citizenship you just acquire dual citizenship if you move to say China.

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10209 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:07:17 PM
A) drop to a lower income bracket
B) invest in/move to another country with a lower tax rate.



If they're a business owner they have additional option: Split the business they own into smaller units in terms of revenue they generate placing the business as a whole in a lower tax bracket.

They can also divert their revenue into municipal bonds, the returns from which are largely tax exempt.

klaxor
Male, 18-29, Western US
 647 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:04:00 PM
Americans also pay certain taxes even if they move/work in another country.

Unless you give up your citizenship. But then say bye bye to diplomatic leverage/protection when a local warlord decides to take your money.

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1712 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:02:54 PM
To the first question I choose option B)

"invest in/move to another country with a lower tax rate."

This is our problem with china.

"Why would they sell their stocks as long as the company is making money?"

Because the market becomes less competitive, they can make more elsewhere, if they don't its called an opportunity cost.

"Especially with less people buying them."
This is a bad thing, a it drops the price of the stock, so there is less investment. And without the capital the stock becomes higher risk, and more likely to go under.

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10209 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:56:06 PM
F*UCK YOU Cajun247!!!!!!


Oh come now, I know you're being sarcastic.

Republicans care about growing business and those growing businesses create jobs and grow the economy.


Yes and no. Republicans play the power game just like Democrats do. Republicans have a fondness for military Keynesianism, hence their whining over small cuts to military spending (defense is a horrific euphemism) in the sequester deal. They also don't seem very keen to put an end to the epically horrific scheme of civil asset forfeiture that targets entities simply "suspected" of being involved in the drug trade.

klaxor
Male, 18-29, Western US
 647 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:53:22 PM
"in this case it would be reflects in less people buying stocks, and top 10% selling their stocks"

- Why would they sell their stocks as long as the company is making money? Especially with less people buying them.

It's also not always that easy to invest in foreign companies, especially in communist countries that impose limits on how much stock a foreigner can own.

klaxor
Male, 18-29, Western US
 647 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:46:34 PM
"The American markets, reflected in our stockmarket."

- Like I said, investments aren't wages. If you tax their wages, and they decide to leave, then what? A CEO can't force a company to move for his benefit.

If you only tax the wages of the top 10%, and they can't move without losing their jobs, and you tax their investments, what then? They stop working and investing and just wait for their money to run out? Their only other options are to

A) drop to a lower income bracket
B) invest in/move to another country with a lower tax rate.

There are plenty of countries that act as tax havens, but rich ppl only send their money there. They don't move/invest in those countries for a reason.

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1712 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:46:12 PM
"I'm talking about a tax on investment, on wages and inheritance."

These are forms of income tax. To which the Laffer curve applies.

"not if you tax their investment"

in this case it would be reflects in less people buying stocks, and top 10% selling their stocks.
By the way if you make minimum wage your part of the top 12% on earth.

"That doesn't make sense. Investment isn't wages. If you invest money, and that money grows, and 99% of that growth is taxed, you still made 1% profit."

I said 100% at 99% you are correct but as you must admit 1% profit does not draw as much incentive, especially compared to a foreign market competing with us, such as china. In this case, yea someone may invest, but the government wouldn't make nearly as much revenue comparability. Which is what the laffer curve states.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 16713 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:35:46 PM
jamie: "...why you continue to follow a party that does not want to do crap to help you ever get more than you have..."

More class warfare rhetoric. You believe only the liberals in government want to help people. What they really want is a cradle to grave populace beholden to government handouts, a permanent voting block. The liberals really DO NOT care about the poor, they care about becoming career politicians.

Republicans care about growing business and those growing businesses create jobs and grow the economy. A growing economy nets more revenue which in turn gets re-invested and grows more business and jobs.

But you don't believe in that, you believe business leaders re-invest just to make more money for themselves alone. Sure maybe greed is a motivating factor, but when that greed nets more jobs, more economic growth and more tax revenue, then what good reason do you have for wanting to stunt that growth with more punitive taxes?

klaxor
Male, 18-29, Western US
 647 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:35:17 PM
"they just move their money offshore and it's less to tax"

- not if you tax their investment.

I'm talking about a tax on investment, on wages and inheritance.

"But in that scenario the alternative is 100% and losing 20 million rather than the full billion is still considered advantages. The 100% is just to high-lite how as taxation increase past a certain point it doesn't amount to more revenue."

- That doesn't make sense. Investment isn't wages. If you invest money, and that money grows, and 99% of that growth is taxed, you still made 1% profit. The only thing that you worry about then, is the chance for loss, forcing investors to make less risky investments, which is kind of a good thing since risky investments are what got us into this mess in the first place.

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1712 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:33:50 PM
"It only works that way if you're introducing a flat tax rate across the board, with no deductions, that's some communist type stuff."

Unfortunitly, no. It has to do with market elasticity and deals with income based tax.


"A better extreme would be, what happens if you only tax the wages of the top 10%? What market do they exit?"

The American markets, reflected in our stockmarket.

DromEd
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 1507 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:25:16 PM
conservatives = delusional greedy bastards


My wife just got a yearly bonus from her work for about 8,400 bucks. After the fed takes a bite she gets 4,500. Who the drat is the greedy one in this picture?

klaxor
Male, 18-29, Western US
 647 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:25:06 PM
"In an extreme version meant to highlight this, the Laffer Curve states if a person is taxed at 100% they have no income and no investments, and therefore exits the market, producing zero residual revenue."

It only works that way if you're introducing a flat tax rate across the board, with no deductions, that's some communist type stuff.

A better extreme would be, what happens if you only tax the wages of the top 10%? What market do they exit?

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1712 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:24:38 PM
"Just b/c they have less to invest doesn't mean that investment will stop."

True, they don't stop unless you reach 100% But studies show you can't maximize the revenues past around 35%.

"brokers will remind them about the 20 million."
But in that scenario the alternative is 100% and losing 20 million rather than the full billion is still considered advantages. The 100% is just to high-lite how as taxation increase past a certain point it doesn't amount to more revenue.

Page: 1 2 35 6 7 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.