Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Benny B on August 26, 2011, 03:28:15 PM
-
How to Party Like a Billionaire Financier With a 15% Tax Rate
By Lynn Parramore
August 22, 2011, Printed on August 24, 2011
A full moon rises over the Hamptons as the crocs come out to play.
(http://images.alternet.org/images/managed/storyteaser_mt2.jpg_310x220)
While the world economy trembles and their fellow Americans face blown-up 401Ks, foreclosure threats, and fruitless job searches, financiers are embracing our current feed-the-rich/screw-the-rest mentality with renewed zest.
The NYT reports that last Saturday night, in the fabled NYC frolicking ground of Southampton, billionaire financier Leon D. Black threw himself a jaw-droppingly expensive 60th birthday bash. Two hundred well-heeled guests reclined on cushions Satyricon-style nibbling seared fois gras as Sir Elton John — earning a cool million bucks — sang ‘Crocodile Rock.’ Joining this Reptilian Cotillion were Martha Stewart and fashion designer Vera Wang, who partied alongside some of Wall Street’s most notorious denizens, including junk-bond pioneer Michael Milken, Blackstone’s buyout king Stephen A. Schwarzman (who became a symbol of greed when he threw his own $3 million b-day bash back in bubblicious 2007), and Lloyd “God’s Work” Blankfein of Goldman Sachs.
Mayor Bloomberg was among the revelers, as was NY Senator Charles Schumer, who must have been feeling grateful for his host’s generous political contributions as he soaked in the expansive view of moonlit Schinnecock Bay.
A fellow like Leon Black needs all the influential friends he can get because, like other private equity tycoons, he enjoys a ridiculously low 15% tax rate on “carried interest” (the share of profits that hedge fund managers get as part of their stratospheric compensation). Chances are the persons who, say, cook for Mr. Black or landscape his yard pay something more like 35% in taxes for the money they earn doing actual work.
In fact, if we got rid of this George W. Bush giveaway, we’d have $21 billion over the next decade. That’s enough money to pay a million jobless Americans $20,000 for a year’s work doing productive things like rebuilding schools or repairing bridges. That would be a lot more helpful to our country than proliferating casinos, which is Black’s line of work. His Apollo Global Management manages $72 billion in assets, including the largest gambling operation on Earth, Caesars Entertainment. He’s also into plastics.
Black, incidentally, is the 160th richest person in the United States. He is also the son of Eli M. Black, once head of the United Brands Company, whose career presents a tragic tale that we would do well to learn from a time of unchecked excess.
-
Trickle-down economics. Not a difficult thing to understand.
-
Probably w Bama in MV!
-
Trickle-down economics. Not a difficult thing to understand.
;D
in other news stupid ass republicans are now trying to increase taxes on the poorest americans, while still calling for lower tax rates on the wealthiest. :'(
-
;D
in other news stupid ass republicans are now trying to increase taxes on the poorest americans, while still calling for lower tax rates on the wealthiest. :'(
i thought obama was all for everyone paying their fair share?
-
;D
in other news stupid ass republicans are now trying to increase taxes on the poorest americans, while still calling for lower tax rates on the wealthiest. :'(
You obviously don't get it.
-
Trickle-down economics. Not a difficult thing to understand.
Tongue: firmly-in-cheek. ;D
-
Tongue: firmly-in-cheek. ;D
-
The holes in the percolator basket need to be made much bigger...
-
How to Party Like a Billionaire Financier With a 15% Tax Rate
By Lynn Parramore
August 22, 2011, Printed on August 24, 2011
A full moon rises over the Hamptons as the crocs come out to play.
(http://images.alternet.org/images/managed/storyteaser_mt2.jpg_310x220)
While the world economy trembles and their fellow Americans face blown-up 401Ks, foreclosure threats, and fruitless job searches, financiers are embracing our current feed-the-rich/screw-the-rest mentality with renewed zest.
The NYT reports that last Saturday night, in the fabled NYC frolicking ground of Southampton, billionaire financier Leon D. Black threw himself a jaw-droppingly expensive 60th birthday bash. Two hundred well-heeled guests reclined on cushions Satyricon-style nibbling seared fois gras as Sir Elton John — earning a cool million bucks — sang ‘Crocodile Rock.’ Joining this Reptilian Cotillion were Martha Stewart and fashion designer Vera Wang, who partied alongside some of Wall Street’s most notorious denizens, including junk-bond pioneer Michael Milken, Blackstone’s buyout king Stephen A. Schwarzman (who became a symbol of greed when he threw his own $3 million b-day bash back in bubblicious 2007), and Lloyd “God’s Work” Blankfein of Goldman Sachs.
Mayor Bloomberg was among the revelers, as was NY Senator Charles Schumer, who must have been feeling grateful for his host’s generous political contributions as he soaked in the expansive view of moonlit Schinnecock Bay.
A fellow like Leon Black needs all the influential friends he can get because, like other private equity tycoons, he enjoys a ridiculously low 15% tax rate on “carried interest” (the share of profits that hedge fund managers get as part of their stratospheric compensation). Chances are the persons who, say, cook for Mr. Black or landscape his yard pay something more like 35% in taxes for the money they earn doing actual work.
In fact, if we got rid of this George W. Bush giveaway, we’d have $21 billion over the next decade. That’s enough money to pay a million jobless Americans $20,000 for a year’s work doing productive things like rebuilding schools or repairing bridges. That would be a lot more helpful to our country than proliferating casinos, which is Black’s line of work. His Apollo Global Management manages $72 billion in assets, including the largest gambling operation on Earth, Caesars Entertainment. He’s also into plastics.
Black, incidentally, is the 160th richest person in the United States. He is also the son of Eli M. Black, once head of the United Brands Company, whose career presents a tragic tale that we would do well to learn from a time of unchecked excess.
-
they already pay payroll tax, sales tax, vehicle registration tax, ... taxes on everything they do. they pay their fair share.
but lets put that aside and just look at the economics.
poor to middle class people spend their money in the economy. decrease their taxes, more spending.
the corporations and business's spend money in response to demand. decrease their taxes, doesnt change demand, doesnt increase spending. but it does make them richer.
you want spending, you want job creation? decreases taxes on those who will spend it annnd for those who can increase demand.
-
they already pay payroll tax, sales tax, vehicle registration tax, ... taxes on everything they do. they pay their fair share.
but lets put that aside and just look at the economics.
poor to middle class people spend their money in the economy. decrease their taxes, more spending.
the corporations and business's spend money in response to demand. decrease their taxes, doesnt change demand, doesnt increase spending. but it does make them richer.
you want spending, you want job creation? decreases taxes on those who will spend it annnd for those who can increase demand.
So you're an economist now?
-
So you're an economist now?
lol - Of course he is. A minimum wage-making economist.
-
lol - Of course he is. A minimum wage-making economist.
Candizzle is an expert on everything, just ask him AND he will be Mr. Olympia one day.
-
Candizzle is an expert on everything, just ask him AND he will be Mr. Olympia one day.
;D
-
Candizzle is an expert on everything, just ask him AND he will be Mr. Olympia one day.
Well, he, alone, proved the existence of God, and scientifically, no less. :o
-
So you're an economist now?
basically :-*
demand creates jobs
tax cuts can incentivize business but business will always produce at the level correspondent with demand.
business are greedy fucks and they do not let profits 'trickle down'.
-
they already pay payroll tax, sales tax, vehicle registration tax, ... taxes on everything they do. they pay their fair share.
but lets put that aside and just look at the economics.
poor to middle class people spend their money in the economy. decrease their taxes, more spending.
the corporations and business's spend money in response to demand. decrease their taxes, doesnt change demand, doesnt increase spending. but it does make them richer.
you want spending, you want job creation? decreases taxes on those who will spend it annnd for those who can increase demand.
The problem with this is that as demand increases for goods, and the corporations are paying higher taxes, they have less resources to create jobs in which to fill the demand, which will result in higher prices, and we are right back at square one. Purchasing power remains unchanged.
-
Trickle-down economics. Not a difficult thing to understand.
george w bush showed us it works great! Please, trickle down economics doesn't exist, it is a made up fallacy that rich Americans promote to uneducated poor people that do not know any better, the rich are just lining their pockets and the poor get just not smart enough to see it.
To top it all off these republicans call themselves Christians ;D
-
basically :-*
demand creates jobs
tax cuts can incentivize business but business will always produce at the level correspondent with demand.
business are greedy fucks and they do not let profits 'trickle down'.
BOOM right on my friend
-
they already pay payroll tax, sales tax, vehicle registration tax, ... taxes on everything they do. they pay their fair share.
but lets put that aside and just look at the economics.
poor to middle class people spend their money in the economy. decrease their taxes, more spending.
the corporations and business's spend money in response to demand. decrease their taxes, doesnt change demand, doesnt increase spending. but it does make them richer.
you want spending, you want job creation? decreases taxes on those who will spend it annnd for those who can increase demand.
LOL very simple minded approach here, businesses create demand as well...they dont just respond to it.
the govt is simply going to give that money back out isnt it? thats the point the left makes about taxation.
To help limit debt and spur the economy?
well if thats the case then lets see it happen with everyone. Not just the ppl that make a certain amount or higher.
Everybody needs to have skin in the game.
-
BOOM right on my friend
of course they are greedy, they are a business!!!
they are in the business of making money...
-
LOL very simple minded approach here, businesses create demand as well...they dont just respond to it.
the govt is simply going to give that money back out isnt it? thats the point the left makes about taxation.
To help limit debt and spur the economy?
well if thats the case then lets see it happen with everyone. Not just the ppl that make a certain amount or higher.
Everybody needs to have skin in the game.
when we have so many poor in this country and a growing population of poor, a business cannot create demand like you say, no one can afford their product duh. How many new companies and small businesses do you see popping up and staying alive now days?
People just don't have the money to spend on these products.
-
of course they are greedy, they are a business!!!
they are in the business of making money...
yes funnel the money to the top, reduce workers wages and benefits, that type of greed, and it isn't going anywhere until gov't steps in and slaps these fools silly.
-
reppingfor20 clearly has a remedial job that doesn't pay well, so hes hating on the people who make the $$
-
george w bush showed us it works great! Please, trickle down economics doesn't exist, it is a made up fallacy that rich Americans promote to uneducated poor people that do not know any better, the rich are just lining their pockets and the poor get just not smart enough to see it.
To top it all off these republicans call themselves Christians ;D
the difference is that conservatives dont want to be told what to do.
look at who donates more the charity, but who wants to take money away to help the "less fortunate"?
-
Lets give money to crack heads who never worked - yeah that will work!
-
when we have so many poor in this country and a growing population of poor, a business cannot create demand like you say, no one can afford their product duh. How many new companies and small businesses do you see popping up and staying alive now days?
People just don't have the money to spend on these products.
LMFAO apple and the overpriced cars in this country disagree with you ;)
you are wrong sir...
-
yes funnel the money to the top, reduce workers wages and benefits, that type of greed, and it isn't going anywhere until gov't steps in and slaps these fools silly.
how about you just go get a job where you feel youre getting a decent wage?
-
The problem with this is that as demand increases for goods, and the corporations are paying higher taxes, they have less resources to create jobs in which to fill the demand, which will result in higher prices, and we are right back at square one. Purchasing power remains unchanged.
no, your logic is flawed. first, i didnt call for higher taxes on the rich. i said decreasing taxes on the poor helps the economy more so than decreasing taxes on the rich. in that scenario, decreasing taxes for the poor, we increase demand without changing the amount of resources available to business. but, yes, prices would rise. they always do when demand rises. :)
but see, here is where your logic fails, eocnomic adjustments are only fractional. prices dont rise to the point where they offset increases in demand, they only rise to the point at which the new demand will make production the most proftable. so even if taxes were raised on the rich, if demand was to increase at the same time(decreased taxes on the poor), production would still increase to match demand and thus jobs would be created. ;)
LOL very simple minded approach here, businesses create demand as well...they dont just respond to it.
the govt is simply going to give that money back out isnt it? thats the point the left makes about taxation.
To help limit debt and spur the economy?
well if thats the case then lets see it happen with everyone. Not just the ppl that make a certain amount or higher.
Everybody needs to have skin in the game.
business can create demand, sure. but they only do so when the demand for their products increase. see, the end game is the consumer demand.
the poor already pay taxes. there is truth in some of the conservative talking points. taxes are dead weight on the economy. they disincentive. when you tax poor people they work less and they spend less. double whammy.
-
basically :-*
demand creates jobs
tax cuts can incentivize business but business will always produce at the level correspondent with demand.
business are greedy fucks and they do not let profits 'trickle down'.
who do you think is the greediest business of them all?
whatever your answer is, you can buy a stock of that company and share in the profits.
i think the greediest business of all is the government; sadly there's zero demand for them.
-
business can create demand, sure. but they only do so when the demand for their products increase. see, the end game is the consumer demand.
the poor already pay taxes. there is truth in some of the conservative talking points. taxes are dead weight on the economy. they disincentive. when you tax poor people they work less and they spend less. double whammy.
business create demand for their own products was my point...they do this by...SPENDING!!!!
yes they do pay taxes so does everyone else the difference is that they get their INCOME TAX back at the end of the year...
we arent talking about other taxes b/c EVERYONE PAYS THOSE ::)
were talking about income tax here hoss, keep up
-
no, your logic is flawed. first, i didnt call for higher taxes on the rich. i said decreasing taxes on the poor helps the economy more so than decreasing taxes on the rich. in that scenario, decreasing taxes for the poor, we increase demand without changing the amount of resources available to business. but, yes, prices would rise. they always do when demand rises. :)
but see, here is where your logic fails, eocnomic adjustments are only fractional. prices dont rise to the point where they offset increases in demand, they only rise to the point at which the new demand will make production the most proftable. so even if taxes were raised on the rich, if demand was to increase at the same time(decreased taxes on the poor), production would still increase to match demand and thus jobs would be created. ;)
business can create demand, sure. but they only do so when the demand for their products increase. see, the end game is the consumer demand.
the poor already pay taxes. there is truth in some of the conservative talking points. taxes are dead weight on the economy. they disincentive. when you tax poor people they work less and they spend less. double whammy.
I don't know where you studied econ, but if demand increases then production will increase only to the extent of a firm's capacity. If firms are taxed heavier, their capacity to increase production will be less, which will result in a vertical demand curve shift, rather than horizontal. Thus prices will rise and supply will remain fixed. In the case of overcapacity, the demand curve would see a vertical and rightward shift, which would increase prices and supply, but only to the extent of the overcapacity, which would still result in higher prices for fewer goods and thus decreased purchasing power.
-
Quick observation about billionairs, mainly warren buffet. If hes all for raising taxes on the rich then why birkshire hathaway and his other companies are ALWAYS in discrepancy with the IRS with what they are required to pay....and I'm not talking paying less. They owe back taxes since 2001 to present. Benny, post in threads you know about....like burger flipping.
-
Quick observation about billionairs, mainly warren buffet. If hes all for raising taxes on the rich then why birkshire hathaway and his other companies are ALWAYS in discrepancy with the IRS with what they are required to pay....and I'm not talking paying less. They owe back taxes since 2001 to present. Benny, post in threads you know about....like burger flipping.
Stop drunk posting, Coach. ;D
-
Not even close....this is a fact.
-
Not even close< MY GRIP ON POLITICAL-ECONOMICAL REALITY>this is a fact.
-
I'm not nearly as bothered by a hit piece news article about a wealthy individual with an alleged 15% tax rate partying than I am bothered by a First "Lady" that spends taxpayers money like she's royalty and it's owed to her.So Generation Entitlement has finally found their Queen.
But there will be no lamestream news coverage, because that would be "racist" and it's Bush's fault anyway.
More Lib stupidity and greed on display.
-
Benny you're a jack ass. You don't even realize you are hurting your cause posting all this bs. More and more people aren't being fooled with this simple nonsense.
Obama just announced that he offered federal financial aid to the state of NY prior to the hurricane hitting. There was no aid announced for New Jersey. Why? NY has a democrat for governor and NJ has a Republican Chris Christie. This kind of stuff will guarantee he will lose the next election.
-
fuck this shit
-
Benny you're a jack ass. You don't even realize you are hurting your cause posting all this bs. More and more people aren't being fooled with this simple nonsense.
Obama just announced that he offered federal financial aid to the state of NY prior to the hurricane hitting. There was no aid announced for New Jersey. Why? NY has a democrat for governor and NJ has a Republican Chris Christie. This kind of stuff will guarantee he will lose the next election.
lol ok. Obama will destroy them. Chris Christie only has to cut back on his daily food intake to take care off all the damage that will be done, problem solved :)
Again rich republicans come out in droves when taxes are brought up, how dare they try and tax our millions and hundreds of thousands we make while we kick back at our nice luxury leather seats and shout orders, don't help feed the poor let them die! What great people !! ::)
-
reppingfor20 clearly has a remedial job that doesn't pay well, so hes hating on the people who make the $$
;D
-
Lets give money to crack heads who never worked - yeah that will work!
NO kidding! Did you know 50% of the folks in this country don't even pay taxes!!?? :o
Sad part is Dr. Chimps & Che both want to foot their bill. :o
-
lol ok. Obama will destroy them. Chris Christie only has to cut back on his daily food intake to take care off all the damage that will be done, problem solved :)
Again rich republicans come out in droves when taxes are brought up, how dare they try and tax our millions and hundreds of thousands we make while we kick back at our nice luxury leather seats and shout orders, don't help feed the poor let them die! What great people !! ::)
You just don't get it, the government taxes income not wealth. There is a big difference, sure Buffet can rail about income tax, because he knows it has no effect on him.
-
business create demand for their own products was my point...they do this by...SPENDING!!!!
yes they do pay taxes so does everyone else the difference is that they get their INCOME TAX back at the end of the year...
we arent talking about other taxes b/c EVERYONE PAYS THOSE ::)
were talking about income tax here hoss, keep up
::) dont talk down to me when your post has nothing of value or accuracy in it. the only time a business creaes demand is when its purachasing the goos and services necessary to produce its product. they do not create demand for their own products. thats gotta be the stupidest thing ive ever head. a business only creates demand when demand for its product goes up, and that only happens when consumers buy more of it. when consumers buy more products, business buy more raw goods and sevies to produce its product. consumer demand drives all demand and th entire economy. business does not have a direct role in creating demand and since demand is what creates jobs = business has no direct role in creating jobs either. learn some basic economics you fucktard and stop listenig to douchebag conservatives who dont know jack shit but what their super-pac-funded-by-big-business having politicians tell them
edit: i made this post without thinking about advertisings effect on demand, but im damn certain that is not what you were refering to. marketing has a very very small effect on aggregate demand anyways.
-
tbombz legit poster on political and economic issues as well as Benny always great to see the truth posted up on the g and o.
-
I don't know where you studied econ, but if demand increases then production will increase only to the extent of a firm's capacity. If firms are taxed heavier, their capacity to increase production will be less, which will result in a vertical demand curve shift, rather than horizontal. Thus prices will rise and supply will remain fixed. In the case of overcapacity, the demand curve would see a vertical and rightward shift, which would increase prices and supply, but only to the extent of the overcapacity, which would still result in higher prices for fewer goods and thus decreased purchasing power.
no, your wrong. if demand increases supply increases in response. prices will rise as well, true, with increased taxation on the business the price will rise higher, with less taxation the price will rise less. this is a very small but very real effect.
-
LOL @ JT saying is a solid poster on politics, he just as if not more clueless than you. Lets see, two 20 year olds with no jobs having shit handed to them with ZERO sense of responsibility. Continue your circle jerk of delution.
-
LOL @ JT saying is a solid poster on politics, he just as if not more clueless than you. Lets see, two 20 year olds with no jobs having shit handed to them with ZERO sense of responsibility. Continue your circle jerk of delution.
LOL at this delusional coach person talking to imaginary people, did you graduate high school coach, college?
-
How to Party Like a Billionaire Financier With a 15% Tax Rate
By Lynn Parramore
August 22, 2011, Printed on August 24, 2011
A full moon rises over the Hamptons as the crocs come out to play.
(http://images.alternet.org/images/managed/storyteaser_mt2.jpg_310x220)
While the world economy trembles and their fellow Americans face blown-up 401Ks, foreclosure threats, and fruitless job searches, financiers are embracing our current feed-the-rich/screw-the-rest mentality with renewed zest.
The NYT reports that last Saturday night, in the fabled NYC frolicking ground of Southampton, billionaire financier Leon D. Black threw himself a jaw-droppingly expensive 60th birthday bash. Two hundred well-heeled guests reclined on cushions Satyricon-style nibbling seared fois gras as Sir Elton John — earning a cool million bucks — sang ‘Crocodile Rock.’ Joining this Reptilian Cotillion were Martha Stewart and fashion designer Vera Wang, who partied alongside some of Wall Street’s most notorious denizens, including junk-bond pioneer Michael Milken, Blackstone’s buyout king Stephen A. Schwarzman (who became a symbol of greed when he threw his own $3 million b-day bash back in bubblicious 2007), and Lloyd “God’s Work” Blankfein of Goldman Sachs.
Mayor Bloomberg was among the revelers, as was NY Senator Charles Schumer, who must have been feeling grateful for his host’s generous political contributions as he soaked in the expansive view of moonlit Schinnecock Bay.
A fellow like Leon Black needs all the influential friends he can get because, like other private equity tycoons, he enjoys a ridiculously low 15% tax rate on “carried interest” (the share of profits that hedge fund managers get as part of their stratospheric compensation). Chances are the persons who, say, cook for Mr. Black or landscape his yard pay something more like 35% in taxes for the money they earn doing actual work.
In fact, if we got rid of this George W. Bush giveaway, we’d have $21 billion over the next decade. That’s enough money to pay a million jobless Americans $20,000 for a year’s work doing productive things like rebuilding schools or repairing bridges. That would be a lot more helpful to our country than proliferating casinos, which is Black’s line of work. His Apollo Global Management manages $72 billion in assets, including the largest gambling operation on Earth, Caesars Entertainment. He’s also into plastics.
Black, incidentally, is the 160th richest person in the United States. He is also the son of Eli M. Black, once head of the United Brands Company, whose career presents a tragic tale that we would do well to learn from a time of unchecked excess.
But... But... His name is "Black"! Doesn't that somehow exempt him from your wrath, Sir Bernardo of the B? As usual, you desire equality but only with those you consider to be your superiors. The liberal way to equality is to make everyone poor, except they Massas, errrrrr... their Democrat Politicians.
Fuck your noise, CN.
-
not necessarily disagreeing with your lower income tax for poorer people (a good amount of merit in that)but businesses can definitely create demand - via advertising, the difference between needs &wants- just watch some ads and think how many of these specific brandsed products we actually need. a big part of advertising and the consumer society is based on creating demand
yeah i forgot about that. very true.
-
Don't skate the facts JT, a 6th grader can figure this clusterfuck better than liberal politician whos been in for 30 years, simply because he has more commonsense.
-
Don't skate the facts JT, a 6th grader can figure this clusterfuck better than liberal politician whos been in for 30 years, simply because he has more commonsense.
youve never made on intelligent comment on economics in your entire span here. weve been having a conversation here full of issues that would allow you to show off your knowledge if you had any
-
Yes....and if you back in history you can see I've been right almost everytime. As a matter of fact go back to me posts before this asshole was elected and see what i said.
-
Yes....and if you back in history you can see I've been right almost everytime. As a matter of fact go back to me posts before this asshole was elected and see what i said.
im not even going to address that as its been gone over and over and over again.. the defecit is the result of the recession and the recession is the result of the financial crisis/housing bust.. nothing to do with obama.. hed have to have a time machine to have been responsible for those things..
but you can prove you know something about anything right now, lets hear a half way intelligent comment about economic policy from you.
-
Got hundreds of posts on this dude, dont need to reiterate.
-
Got hundreds of posts on this dude, dont need to reiterate.
you dont even have one
-
Then either your blind or illiterate.
-
im not even going to address that as its been gone over and over and over again.. the defecit is the result of the recession and the recession is the result of the financial crisis/housing bust.. nothing to do with obama.. hed have to have a time machine to have been responsible for those things..
but you can prove you know something about anything right now, lets hear a half way intelligent comment about economic policy from you.
Bama has a ton to do w the housing market.
-
Bama has a ton to do w the housing market.
::) dumb fuck, the housing bubble burst before he came in office, and the market has been on the rise slowly for the past two years.
-
::) dumb fuck, the housing bubble burst before he came in office, and the market has been on the rise slowly for the past two years.
Yawn. He threatened to filibuster reform of fanny and Freddy in 2005 and was the biggest receipient of their cash.
-
Tbombz is speaking from exeperiance when he bought his hou....nevermind.
-
Yawn. He threatened to filibuster reform of fanny and Freddy in 2005 and was the biggest receipient of their cash.
that makes him a sellout but it doesnt make him responsible, not even in the slightest. by 2005 the damage had already been done, the market was already inflated. besides, hes just one vote in the senate at the time. you can say hes not perfect, he certainly isnt. but he is in no way responsible for the recession or the defecit.
-
if you disagree with coach you either A ) don't have a job B) living with your parents C ) both
-
No..only kids and liberals like you who feel they have this sense of entitlement because they feel like they're "owed" somehting because they're too lazy to make it on their own.
-
I've never posted that I was entitled to anything, I just believe the rich should help out more in times of economic turmoil. Look at the tax rates after the great depression on the rich, and look at them now, don't think we will be getting out of this recession with such low tax rates on the rich. The rich made their money on a booming economy in the US, no one is entirely self made.
Here's some history :
TIMELINE OF GENERAL EVENTS
1920s (Decade)
Organized labor declines throughout the decade. The United Mine Workers Union will see its membership fall from 500,000 in 1920 to 75,000 in 1928. The American Federation of Labor would fall from 5.1 million in 1920 to 3.4 million in 1929.
By the end of the decade, the bottom 80 percent of all income-earners will be removed from the tax rolls completely. Taxes on the rich will fall throughout the decade.
By 1929, the richest 1 percent will own 40 percent of the nation's wealth. The bottom 93 percent will have experienced a 4 percent drop in real disposable per-capita income between 1923 and 1929.
1925
The top tax rate is lowered to 25 percent - the lowest top rate in the eight decades since World War I.
1929
Recession begins in August, two months before the stock market crash. During this two month period, production will decline at an annual rate of 20 percent, wholesale prices at 7.5 percent, and personal income at 5 percent.
1945
The top tax rate is 91 percent. It will stay at least 88 percent until 1963, when it is lowered to 70 percent. During this time, America will experience the greatest economic boom it has ever known.
So with your theory Coach low taxes are good for business, economy, people, this doesn't seem to workout in the real world.
-
LOL.....perhaps you havent read the recent CBO forcast.....Obama fucked us. But nice comparison from 67 years ago. Haha.
-
BTW.....get a job and if you can't do that take some initiative to start a business.
-
::) dont talk down to me when your post has nothing of value or accuracy in it. the only time a business creaes demand is when its purachasing the goos and services necessary to produce its product. they do not create demand for their own products. thats gotta be the stupidest thing ive ever head. a business only creates demand when demand for its product goes up, and that only happens when consumers buy more of it. when consumers buy more products, business buy more raw goods and sevies to produce its product. consumer demand drives all demand and th entire economy. business does not have a direct role in creating demand and since demand is what creates jobs = business has no direct role in creating jobs either. learn some basic economics you fucktard and stop listenig to douchebag conservatives who dont know jack shit but what their super-pac-funded-by-big-business having politicians tell them
edit: i made this post without thinking about advertisings effect on demand, but im damn certain that is not what you were refering to. marketing has a very very small effect on aggregate demand anyways.
thanks for the caveat you ignorant dumb ass, you have little to no experience with business outside of a book...and even that is limited
thats exactly what I was talking about...you think radio stations and tv stations play their programming for free? how do you think they make money?
how do you think businesses inspire demand for their products?
with social media the extent to which a single company can inspire demand for their product is amazing....ALMOST AS AMASZING AS YOU THINKING A COMPANY CANT INCREASE DEMAND FOR THEIR OWN PRODUCT...you ignorant fuck
-
think about apple and its advertising campaign you really think that has had "very very small effect"(using your ignorance) on the demand for the iphone/ipad/itunes/ipod?
fuking really?
i guess all the money they spend on advertising was wasted in your eyes huh? since companies spending money on advertising doesnt make much of a difference on the demand for their products right?
LOL dizzle stick to shit you know, you dont know business or economics bro...you know talking points plan and simple
-
how about you just go get a job where you feel youre getting a decent wage?
would anyone against companies making a big profit answer this question?
-
would anyone against companies making a big profit answer this question?
they cant because they are uneducated and work remedial jobs. they will never earn a decent wage because of that and thus try to bring everyone else down to their level so that they won't feel so bad.
-
Every one of those guys mentioned in the article are Jewish, btw. Sorry, no new taxes on their wealth for them. ;)
A stated increase on the wealthiest of Americans would only placate the unwashed masses. They wouldn't get a dime of it. To fix the tax problem, you have to close the loopholes and use smarter, not more, regulations.
America has a spending problem first and foremost.
-
thanks for the caveat you ignorant dumb ass, you have little to no experience with business outside of a book...and even that is limited
thats exactly what I was talking about...you think radio stations and tv stations play their programming for free? how do you think they make money?
how do you think businesses inspire demand for their products?
with social media the extent to which a single company can inspire demand for their product is amazing....ALMOST AS AMASZING AS YOU THINKING A COMPANY CANT INCREASE DEMAND FOR THEIR OWN PRODUCT...you ignorant fuck
think about apple and its advertising campaign you really think that has had "very very small effect"(using your ignorance) on the demand for the iphone/ipad/itunes/ipod?
fuking really?
i guess all the money they spend on advertising was wasted in your eyes huh? since companies spending money on advertising doesnt make much of a difference on the demand for their products right?
LOL dizzle stick to shit you know, you dont know business or economics bro...you know talking points plan and simple
the key word is AGGREGATE demand dumbass
-
^^^^
LOL way to refute my points...
again you know talking points and little else
-
Tbombz is speaking from exeperiance when he bought his hou....nevermind.
LOL ;D
-
Silly thread, anyway. Billionaires don't sweat taxes. The shareholders and attorneys do. Billionaires, Bernie Madoff aside, push their losses onto the public, hide behind shell corps, and retire unhappy and rich.
-
^^^^
LOL way to refute my points...
again you know talking points and little else
::)
talking point.. lmao.. your criticism applies to yourself
find one democrat, nay find one politician or talking head from either sid eof the political spectrum who has made comments about aggregate demand not being effected to a significant degree by marketing.. ;D
dumbass.. your the one spouting off republican talking points..
sure, apple's advertising has helped them sell, but even more so their research and development has helped them sell, cuz thats what created the products. without apples advertissing , without apple in general, there would still be a huge demand for mp3 players, personal computers, smart phones, ect. the proof lies in common sense as well as the success of apples compeititors. marketing can sway customers from one brand to another and at it can even boost total demand to a degree, but even in that instance what boosts in demand occur coincide with decreases in demand for product substitutes.
again, key word AGGREGATE demand. jackass
demand stems from consumers, you want jobs, you get consumers to buy more products, that is what creates demand. business only create jobs when there is a demand for their products.
-
::)
talking point.. lmao.. your criticism applies to yourself
find one democrat, nay find one politician or talking head from either sid eof the political spectrum who has made comments about aggregate demand not being effected to a significant degree by marketing.. ;D
dumbass.. your the one spouting off republican talking points..
sure, apple's advertising has helped them sell, but even more so their research and development has helped them sell, cuz thats what created the products. without apples advertissing , without apple in general, there would still be a huge demand for mp3 players, personal computers, smart phones, ect. the proof lies in common sense as well as the success of apples compeititors. marketing can sway customers from one brand to another and at it can even boost total demand to a degree, but even in that instance what boosts in demand occur coincide with decreases in demand for product substitutes.
again, key word AGGREGATE demand. jackass
demand stems from consumers, you want jobs, you get consumers to buy more products, that is what creates demand. business only create jobs when there is a demand for their products.
LOL youre an idiot, advertising has a direct impact on aggregate demand, thats why ppl are more willing to buy an iphone as opposed to an HTC phone.
they are more willing the spend more on a mercedes than a kia
you see advertising is more than just simply getting your name out there, its branding...branding does help to increase demand...yes even aggregate demand you moronic fuck...
let me guess dizzle your taking economics this semester?
-
LOL youre an idiot, advertising has a direct impact on aggregate demand, thats why ppl are more willing to buy an iphone as opposed to an HTC phone.
they are more willing the spend more on a mercedes than a kia
you see advertising is more than just simply getting your name out there, its branding...branding does help to increase demand...yes even aggregate demand you moronic fuck...
let me guess dizzle your taking economics this semester?
your two examples are examples of marketing influencing product choice from an inexpensive to a more exzpensive version, but in both instances the consumer still has money left over which it will spend elsewhere.
let me make this even simpler for you... consumers have a set amount of money to spend. they are going to spend all of it regardless of what products are on the market. demand can be called the sum total of all consumer spending. marketing does not give consumers extra money to spend and therefore can not effect the sum total of consumer spending thus its unable to influence aggregate demand.
thank me later jackass
-
Obama and the Democratic Congress could have ended the special LTCG rate on dividend income but chose not to.
Don't blame Bush for that. Tax legislation could have changed this on any given day for 2 years, but Obama chose to concentrate elsewhere......
-
your two examples are examples of marketing influencing product choice from an inexpensive to a more exzpensive version, but in both instances the consumer still has money left over which it will spend elsewhere.
let me make this even simpler for you... consumers have a set amount of money to spend. they are going to spend all of it regardless of what products are on the market. demand can be called the sum total of all consumer spending. marketing does not give consumers extra money to spend and therefore can not effect the sum total of consumer spending thus its unable to influence aggregate demand.
thank me later jackass
LOL are you that damn stupid? youve been missing my points the entire way...
go back and read moron....
-
LOL are you that damn stupid? youve been missing my points the entire way...
go back and read moron....
fact= demand is equal to consumer spending
deal with it bitch
-
fact= demand is equal to consumer spending
deal with it bitch
lets try this another way dizzle
do you not understand the money cycle?
how do the consumers get their money?
LOL like i said your taking economics this semester?
-
lets try this another way dizzle
do you not understand the money cycle?
how do the consumers get their money?
LOL like i said your taking economics this semester?
now your advocating redistribution of wealth , or at the very least an increased minimum wage ;D moron
-
now your advocating redistribution of wealth , or at the very least an increased minimum wage ;D moron
they were questions you jack ass, not statements
are smoking again?
-
they were questions you jack ass, not statements
are smoking again?
and your questions led to conclusions
money cycle.. how do cunsomers get money... ;) what your saying is that business CAN increase consumer spending BY WAY OF INCREASING THEIR INCOME.. which means business would have to either pay higher wages or just hand out its money to masses.. ie increased minimum wage or redistribution of wealth... thats the only way business can increase consumer spending
havent actually thought about your opinions before, just been sitting on classical economic theory thinking it make syou infallible, eh ? ;D
-
and your questions led to conclusions
money cycle.. how do cunsomers get money... ;) what your saying is that business CAN increase consumer spending BY WAY OF INCREASING THEIR INCOME.. which means business would have to either pay higher wages or just hand out its money to masses.. ie increased minimum wage or redistribution of wealth... thats the only way business can increase consumer spending
havent actually thought about your opinions before, just been sitting on classical economic theory thinking it make syou infallible, eh ? ;D
or higher more ppl b/c their advertising results in more demand for their product and its competitions products...
hmmm novel idea eh?
guess you didnt cover that in economics?
well maybe next semester...;)
-
or higher more ppl b/c their advertising results in more demand for their product and its competitions products...
hmmm novel idea eh?
guess you didnt cover that in economics?
well maybe next semester...;)
higher more people for their business, but what about the busineesses who are have to fire people because their customers have gone over to the other business? :)
AGGREGATE demand= AGGREGATE consumer spending
-
higher more people for their business, but what about the busineesses who are have to fire people because their customers have gone over to the other business? :)
AGGREGATE demand= AGGREGATE consumer spending
the ppl that get hired increase their spending broham, did you not understand that?
-
the ppl that get hired increase their spending broham, did you not understand that?
people get hired, but other people get fired :-\ ;)
-
people get hired, but other people get fired :-\ ;)
no b/c the ppl that got hired will start spending INCREASING, what?
come on now dizzle, you know this...
-
no b/c the ppl that got hired will start spending INCREASING, what?
come on now dizzle, you know this...
.. those people start spending, but the people at the business who lost customers because of a shift in consumer preference due to marketing will have to fire employees and those people will stop spending..
get it?
-
.. those people start spending, but the people at the business who lost customers because of a shift in consumer preference due to marketing will have to fire employees and those people will stop spending..
get it?
LOL so youre making the assumption that the new ppl working wont buy their products then?
LOL goodness gracious bro...
-
LOL.....perhaps you havent read the recent CBO forcast.....Obama fucked us. But nice comparison from 67 years ago. Haha.
that alone shows just how naive you are, you need to learn history, history will repeat itself if you do not correct past mistakes.
-
LOL so youre making the assumption that the new ppl working wont buy their products then?
LOL goodness gracious bro...
sure they will!
heres the deal...
marketing can increase demand for a company or even an entire market of products! but at the end of the day consumers only have so much money to spend. they can buy more of a certain product due to marrketing, but that will be at the expense of some of their normal purchases. with limited money they have limited purhcasing power. businesses can not create demand because they can not give the consumers extra money to spend. they may be able to increase demand for their own product and thus be able to hire more people and those people they hire can indeed spend more money than they used to, BUT in order for a company to do that they must be eating up part of the consumers purchasing power, thus causing a decline in workers elsewhere.
lets see if i can make this simpler for you
total consumer spending= 1000units
currently consumers buy product x y and z.
marketing goes into effect for product z.
consumers stop buying x so they can buy two z's and one y.
total consumer spending still equals 1000units.
company z can increase workers but company x has to decrease workers. employment remains the same.
-
Too busy riding dirt bikes and fvkking trannies to understand economics, even with an extensive community college education. ::)
-
::)
this is very simple
lets see if i can make this simpler for you
total consumer spending= 1000units
currently consumers buy product x y and z.
marketing goes into effect for product z.
consumers stop buying x so they can buy two z's and one y.
total consumer spending still equals 1000units.
company z can increase workers but company x has to decrease workers. employment remains the same.
demand creates jobs, not business.
-
::)
this is very simple
demand creates jobs, not business.
yes and as weve already established businesses can create demand...
-
You obviously don't get it.
Hmmm. Thinking you need to look in the mirror for that person.
-
as weve already established businesses can createredistribute demand...
fixed it for ya
-
You obviously don't get it.
if you know you right for certain why would use this weak line to insult the person your disagreeing with?
-
you are relentless haha
ok in the spirit of debate - take an example many getbiggers can probably relate to:
a young 15yr old skinny kid wants to put on some muscle to impress the girl down the road. he buys the mag & sees the latest muscletech ads with phil/jay or whoever saying you will put on 20 lbs if you buy the latest mass stack range. great! the only problem is that all this costs a decent amount of $ for a young dude & he & his family are very tight on money and cant afford it.
so he gets a part time job to earn the money to pay for these products. and on a very micro level this demonstrates how business and advertising can create demand (as well as redistributing)
advertising often creates this desire that wasnt there previously - whether that be to buy the latest crappy supplement, a new 50 inch tv when their current one works fine, the latest fashion etc. - that results in people workin harder to earn the income to buy them
in large part people have for thousands of years lived based on needs. what businesses, marketing and advertising have and can do is create this desire to earn more in order to purchase these products that will 'make them happy'. hence they can create demand
your assuming that if the kid didnt get enthused about getting a better body that he wouldnt have found some other reason why he ought to make some money.
... but lets go with that assumption. marketing caused an increase in motivation to consume and caused an increase in aggreggate production for an individual.
the argument is about tax breaks. which is better for the economy, breaks on the poor and middle class or breaks on big business? you can argue that if taxes are too the point where profits are eliminated and marketing is impossible then we would experience a decrease in total economic activity. but the taxes arent nearly that level. marketing is as widely present influential as it has ever been and companies are still making big profits. on top of that the ceos are getting paid 20 times what the entire advertisement budget. and your hoping that if you give them a tax break they will use that money to expand, market, invest in reseacrh and development but you have no guarantee it will do that.
now lets compare that situation to the one with the poor and middle class. you raise their taxes, the have to spend less. you decrease their taxes, they always spend more. no guesswork here