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: 6069 | Rating: (2.7) | Category: News & Politics | Added by: CaptKangaroo
Page: 1 2 3 46 7 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1804 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:15:31 PM
@klaxor: Sry rewrote it, but it's how you tax them. If your talking federal tax they just move their money offshore and it's less to tax. Corporate tax is passed to the consumer. Sales tax forces business overseas resulting in no revenue.
What type of tax are you indicating?

@jamie76: The great recession is generally considered by almost all economists to be the result of the American dot com bubble and finally the housing bubble. here

klaxor
Male, 18-29, Western US
 647 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:15:06 PM
Just b/c they have less to invest doesn't mean that investment will stop. It's in their interest to invest for two reasons. The interest rate and inflation. If they leave their money sitting in the bank, even with a good r, they effectively lose around 2% of it a year(2% of a billion is 20 million). If there's one thing rich ppl hate, is losing money. If they want to keep their same purchasing power, the only option is to invest.

And, most of the time, they don't deal with their own finances. They have brokers and accountants who's salary depends on their investment, and you can bet that those brokers will remind them about the 20 million.

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1804 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:07:31 PM
@klaxor: The Laffer curve represents that increasing tax rates beyond a certain point will be counterproductive for raising further tax revenue. Not because people will hide money after a certain point but that they have less to invest in build a larger company and less capital to actually motivate them into business where the taxes are higher.

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.

klaxor
Male, 18-29, Western US
 647 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:06:06 PM
@richanddead - like I said, you're talking about a tax on production/goods.

How is taxing a CEO a cost to the company... it's a cost to the CEO.

jamie76
Male, 30-39, Western US
 2336 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:03:47 PM
Dear Republicans

you and I know this is primarily caused by your party.

you need to ask yourselves why you continue to follow a party that does not want to do crap to help you ever get more than you have while they at the top, rake in the dough.

you are sheep.

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1804 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 8:58:55 PM
@klaxor: You seem very passionate about what you are saying but I must disagree. If you read what I said I add the par "so long as the market will bare the price." This means that the increase in price does not adversely effect the company and yes a CEO will take a temporary pay cut to monopolize his industry, but if he his doing it for altruistic reasons and not an economic strategy, the shareholders will usually replace the CEO, almost all major corporations have contract clauses to this effect. The purpose of a business is to make a profit and the shareholders are the ones who have invested their money to make it happen. If they feel someone is going against their interests they can sell their stocks and invest elsewhere, bankrupting the company. Companies are indifferent to their workers I agree, but a company that routinely absorbs all costs, is a company bound for failure and that helps no one. That why its the consumer not the workers who often feel the tax.

klaxor
Male, 18-29, Western US
 647 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 8:48:48 PM
F*UCK YOU Cajun247!!!!!!

whew.... that was a close one

klaxor
Male, 18-29, Western US
 647 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 8:48:01 PM
Also, the laffer curve is based on the fact that if you raise taxes too high, people will find a way to not pay them ( which is what they're doing right now).

The other graph you show is based on taxing production/goods, not wages or investment.

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10227 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 8:43:05 PM
Where were all these passionate hateful comments again?

klaxor
Male, 18-29, Western US
 647 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 8:34:55 PM
@richanddead - It's called a free market. If the CEO of a publicly shared company decides to raise the price of his product, you can bet that there's a CEO at another company willing to take a slightly lower paycheck in order to keep his prices low, and run the other guy out of business.

As we all know, corporations are all about profit at the expense of the workers... all the workers, it's just that the board of directors likes to put all of that weight on their employees, but they can't just take it upon themselves to raises prices without a better excuse than "they raised my taxes and I want to make more money" to the shareholders.

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1804 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 8:02:16 PM
@klaxor: they would need to consult the major shareholders but so long as the market will bare the price and the corperation is expecting profit, the shareholders have an economic incentive to approve. People often do not enter the stockmarket to exact social justice.

As I said before the old economic adage "people pay all taxes" means all tax is passed to the consumer. To do otherwise is altruistic, yet uneconomic.

klaxor
Male, 18-29, Western US
 647 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:54:34 PM
"if you raise taxes on the ultra rich by 2%, they raise prices of poo they make by 2% and pass the cost back to us."

- Except it's not the ultra rich who actually make stuff. I doubt most of them have such direct control of a company that they can just raise the price w/o consulting shareholders. Don't let them fool you, you don't have to get screwed for their sake.

OldOllie
Male, 60-69, Midwest US
 13554 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:51:54 PM
SmegmaBoy, of that 150 million, over half of them have a NEGATIVE net worth, i.e., they owe more than they own. I wouldn't count on them to invest in anything they can't drive or f***.

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1804 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:25:44 PM
"Now WHY do the "rich" earn more income than they used to?"

The reason the rich become richer during times of economic stress is due to many businesses going out of business and the slack is taken up by bigger more durable companies. When local produce shops close their doors, companies like Walmart takes up the slack. On a global scale this can be exponential. Combine this with market instability and the wealthier companies and people prefer to have more liquid funds and less investitures increasing personal wealth but limiting personal investment. Not saying this is soley it, yet things like government forcing business to purchase health insurance raise the cost of business. Smaller mom and pop shops often are the first fall when operating cost increase. As they do larger corporations make a profit due to their ability to fill the void left by the smaller companies closing.

markust123
Male, 40-49, Western US
 3784 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:19:49 PM
I love how opinion media has brainwashed conservatives into thinking that liberals hate the rich. The richest guy I know is a liberal (net worth $19 Million). I have a huge drive to become independently wealthy. Being rich or wanting to be rich is not a partisan quality. The majority of Liberals do not hate the rich. Same as the majority of conservatives do not hate the poor.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:17:26 PM
@QueenZira

So we don't have a spending problem? Let's consider some cumulative, inflation-adjusted budget deficits over different timespans:

1985-2008 (24 Total Years): $6.0t deficit
2009-2013 (5 Total Years): $6.2t deficit

But no, your conjecture is probably, like, so totally right.

When was the last serious budget surplus? Between 1998-2001, when two of the three governmental entities were Republican. Yep - read that again; in the last 40+ years, the only budget surplus was between 1998-2001 and was headed by Republicans.

@randomxnp

If ever you find yourself in Wisconsin, I'd gladly introduce you to some famed Wisconsin beer. Why, you ask? Because up until reading your posts, I had absolutely zero hope for Europe.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 24435 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:03:01 PM
there's no one with torches and pitchforks demanding money.

@QZ: No, there's lawyers, police with handcuffs and Federal Prisons...

I guess all the wealth being redistributed to the top 1% over the past 30 yrs is...

Nooo, the income was redistributed, the WEALTH accumulated AFTER that. DUH! Now WHY do the "rich" earn more income than they used to? THAT is another question, but trillions of $$ in gov't HANDOUTS are a fine place to start looking.
And what did Obama do? Handed out more "pork" than ever before! So "blame the Republicans" all you like, it's the Dems who've been doing it for quite a while now.

The only time money is taken from the poor is...

...is when ANY TAX goes up!
Tax the gasoline? The poor pay MORE (proportionally) than the "rich". ANY TAX will hurt the poor, it's a fact.


paperduck
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 1703 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 6:19:10 PM
poor and middle class get fuxored either way. if you raise taxes on the ultra rich by 2%, they raise prices of poo they make by 2% and pass the cost back to us.

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1804 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 6:04:25 PM
I'm sorry but taxation and revenues are a defined mathematical sum, not a generalized feeling of quality like fairness. I understand the argument but it isn't reasonable, it would hurt more people than it helped.

QueenZira
Female, 18-29, Midwest US
 2181 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 6:02:32 PM
Medicare and Medicaid are popular programs and here's the kicker, *they work*. There is no "rationing" or any of that bulls#it. It simply works.

And the NHS works in Britain too, well I might add. I once read where a Brit woman came here and saw one those "Please Donate" cups on the counter of a diner for a little girl who had brain cancer. She was shocked to learn that we even had to do such a thing, raise money from generous strangers so a little girl could have the opportunity to live, or otherwise she would go w/o health care. She thought it was barbaric.

And you know something, she was absolutely right.

richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1804 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 5:59:38 PM
I hate to also bring up the laffer curve, because dems. hate it so much. But it is a fixture in every modern working economy and taught in every economic textbook. Now I will agree it is not a perfect bell curve yet A 1996 study by Y. Hsing of the United States economy between 1959 and 1991 placed the revenue-maximizing average federal tax rate between 32.67% and 35.21%. Which is what the top 1% currently pay not including sales and corporate taxes.

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10227 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 5:59:38 PM
No exceptions.

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10227 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 5:59:12 PM
The only time money is taken from the poor is when we coddle the rich and say...


So let's erase the entire tax code. You pay taxes in accordance to the brackets and nothing else.

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10227 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 5:55:00 PM
Oh and granny's chemo isn't free, in fact health care costs are the main driver of American debt.


To granny it is, because Uncle Sam picking up the tab at everyone else's expense. Letting govt decide how long people wait for care will not improve the system overall.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 16909 Posts
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 5:47:36 PM
QueenZira: "...there's no one with torches and pitchforks demanding money."

The IRS is more insidious than that actually, because you can see an unruly mob coming your way and at least have a few moments to prepare. the IRS seizes bank accounts, garnishes wages, seizes property and more.

Also, you are considered guilty, in tax court, and have to prove your innocence. Even if you are innocent, getting back your money, property, lost wages, and the rest of your life is not only difficult, it's expensive, requires specialized attorneys and a lot of time.

On top of all that, even if the IRS wrongfully seized your assets, you can't sue them for the expenses of getting it all back, or the damage they do to your credit or business.

Page: 1 2 3 46 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.