Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: mogulgangi on November 12, 2012, 06:43:47 PM
-
It be more economical to make less than 250,000 ...no incentive to working harder than anyone..making over 250,000 is not a lot of money in modern day America..with a couple kids, housewife, college savings...your really making peanuts..seriously..why even do it...I would actually not mind Obama so much if he had a pro business mentality ..
-
I don't really understand the average liberal mind..don't you want to be wealthy?..to at least be near there..are you guys economically retarded..how are you going to save for retirement..
-
I understand the whole disincentive thing but the fact remains that the more you earn the more you earn. It isn't better to make less than 250k. Its better to make more than 250k. The more you earn the more you earn. Period. Yes you get to keep less per dollar of what you earn, but your still earning more so it is rally insignificant
-
I don't really understand the average liberal mind..don't you want to be wealthy?..to at least be near there..are you guys economically retarded..how are you going to save for retirement..
taxes have never prevented anyone from being wealthy
are you a 333 gimmick ?
-
taxes have never prevented anyone from being wealthy
are you a 333 gimmick ?
neither did spending cuts and seeing as spending cuts are better at reducing the deficit than tax hikes I say we start there and let ppl keep more of their hard earned money.
-
neither did spending cuts and seeing as spending cuts are better at reducing the deficit than tax hikes I say we start there and let ppl keep more of their hard earned money.
uh ok, but then who ever said spending cuts prevented people from being rich or made them rich ?
If you're serious about reducing the deficit then you have to look at both sides of the equation
-
uh ok, but then who ever said spending cuts prevented people from being rich or made them rich ?
If you're serious about reducing the deficit then you have to look at both sides of the equation
Ill agree with that but seeing as one side is much more effective at reducing the deficit shouldnt that be the side thats focused on?
instead tax hikes on the "rich" is what politicians are crying for acting as if that is anything more than a drop in the bucket.
cut spending first and then talk about taking hard earned money way from ppl who earned it.
-
Ill agree with that but seeing as one side is much more effective at reducing the deficit shouldnt that be the side thats focused on?
instead tax hikes on the "rich" is what politicians are crying for acting as if that is anything more than a drop in the bucket.
cut spending first and then talk about taking hard earned money way from ppl who earned it.
please elaborate
-
It be more economical to make less than 250,000 ...no incentive to working harder than anyone..making over 250,000 is not a lot of money in modern day America..with a couple kids, housewife, college savings...your really making peanuts..seriously..why even do it...I would actually not mind Obama so much if he had a pro business mentality ..
It's only gay if you want it to be, sporto!
-
Ill agree with that but seeing as one side is much more effective at reducing the deficit shouldnt that be the side thats focused on?
instead tax hikes on the "rich" is what politicians are crying for acting as if that is anything more than a drop in the bucket.
cut spending first and then talk about taking hard earned money way from ppl who earned it.
Cutting spending is gonna cost jobs you are ok with 20% unemployment? And what is that gonna do for the economy?
-
taxes have never prevented anyone from being wealthy
are you a 333 gimmick ?
Ooh yea...France must be doing well...taxes for wealthy are up to 80 percent..and France is still bakrupt
-
please elaborate
create a basic income statement with revenue, COGS, Operating expenses and net income
now decrease your operating expense by 20% and notice the difference in net income
then create another I/S with the original operating expense and see how much you have to raise revenue to get to the same net income...you will notice that it is more than 20%
I can draw that out if you dont seem to get it...although you wouldnt think you have to explain this to a person with a finance degree who also has owned his own finance company for years.......
-
create a basic income statement with revenue, COGS, Operating expenses and net income
now decrease your operating expense by 20% and notice the difference in net income
then create another I/S with the original operating expense and see how much you have to raise revenue to get to the same net income...you will notice that it is more than 20%
I can draw that out if you dont seem to get it...although you wouldnt think you have to explain this to a person with a finance degree who also has owned his own finance company for years.......
I get it that you have nothing to support your claim that a dollar of spending decrease is somehow magically "much more effective" at reducing the deficit then a dollar of revenue increase
-
Raises taxes why?
-
Raises taxes why?
[/quote
hmmmmm
the debt
the deficit
shouldn't use be using your few remaining posts with more discretion ?
-
I guessed you missed the part of new spending o-thief is promising?
Raises taxes why?
[/quote
hmmmmm
the debt
the deficit
shouldn't use be using your few remaining posts with more discretion ?
-
I guessed you missed the part of new spending o-thief is promising?
why don't you tell me about it
-
why don't you tell me about it
I fixed this for you. Your welcome.
-
logic and democrats are enemies
russia tried socialism
japan is not socialist, and japan wil soon be no1
sad
why do we copy failure?
-
Japan has single payer universal healthcare...
-
I get it that you have nothing to support your claim that a dollar of spending decrease is somehow magically "much more effective" at reducing the deficit then a dollar of revenue increase
do you agree that you have to raise revenue a greater % than if you cut operating expenses to have the same effect on the bottom line?
-
do you agree that you have to raise revenue a greater % than if you cut operating expenses to have the same effect on the bottom line?
Cutting spending will cost jobs have you calculated with this in your math?
-
Cutting spending will cost jobs have you calculated with this in your math?
Are you really going to sit there and tell us that you think there isn't any waste in the govt budget that can be cut that wouldn't result in losing jobs?
You think the govt is run so efficiently that cutting any amount would result in job losses?
If you do you're a bigger idiot than I gave you credit for.
By the way obamas tax plan is set to cause us to lose 700k+ jobs...
-
WH: Obama 'Does Not Believe That Reducing Deficits and Debt Are Values Unto Themselves'
CNSNews ^
Posted on Wednesday, November 14, 2012 7:51:17 AM by
(CNSNews.com) - Plugging a "truly balanced approach to our fiscal challenges," White House spokesman Jay Carney on Tuesday said President Obama does not view the issue of deficits and debt in a vacuum:
"He does not believe that reducing deficits and debt are values unto themselves. He believes that they are part of an approach that is driven by his number-one priority, which is economic growth and job creation."
Also on Tuesday, the Treasury Department announced a $120-billion deficit for October, the first month of fiscal 2013. That puts the nation on track to its fifth straight trillion-dollar-plus deficit.
________________________ _______________
-
Are you really going to sit there and tell us that you think there isn't any waste in the govt budget that can be cut that wouldn't result in losing jobs?
You think the govt is run so efficiently that cutting any amount would result in job losses?
If you do you're a bigger idiot than I gave you credit for.
By the way obamas tax plan is set to cause us to lose 700k+ jobs...
Are you gonna tell me you can cut spending without the loss of jobs?
-
Are you gonna tell me you can cut spending without the loss of jobs?
Tonys bulb aint to bright. He says he's in finance but cant understand basic cost/loss equations.
And yes theres waste in gov't that we can use for better purposes. How about 700 billion saved by waste and fraud in medicare...(DOuble billing, inefficiant procedures etc) Support obama care...its all in there.
-
Are you gonna tell me you can cut spending without the loss of jobs?
hahahah hell yes you dip shit, you really think the govt has no waste in it?
you really think that its run as efficiently as possible and that any cuts will result in losses of jobs?
please tell me youre not that stupid....
-
do you agree that you have to raise revenue a greater % than if you cut operating expenses to have the same effect on the bottom line?
the US Govt is not a business and we don't have COGS, net income, etc..
we have a baseline and anything we can't pay for get's added to the debt
a dollar of revenue raised is equivalent to a dollar of spending saved
neither is "more effective" than the other at reducing the deficit
-
the US Govt is not a business and we don't have COGS, net income, etc..
we have a baseline and anything we can't pay for get's added to the debt
a dollar of revenue raised is equivalent to a dollar of spending saved
neither is "more effective" than the other at reducing the deficit
hahah the govt most certainly does have COGS...infrastructure, personel, materials = labor, materials and overhead
we provide many services military, post office, political leadership etc. you really think there isnt direct cost associated with providing those?
thats the COGS brainchild...
the keep their accounting books just like any other company does
they also have a net income, that is the savings or deficit that we have every year
I bet you think non profits arent businesses either right? LMFAO
I can create a graphic to show you in more detail how spending cuts are better than revenue increases in paying down the debt....
-
hahah the govt most certainly does have COGS...infrastructure, personel, materials = labor, materials and overhead
we provide many services military, post office, political leadership etc. you really think there isnt direct cost associated with providing those?
thats the COGS brainchild...
the keep their accounting books just like any other company does
they also have a net income, that is the savings or deficit that we have every year
I bet you think non profits arent businesses either right? LMFAO
I can create a graphic to show you in more detail how spending cuts are better than revenue increases in paying down the debt....
sure agencies but not the federal budget and you can't compare the federal budget to a business (big or small)
a dollar of tax revenue raised is just as effective as a dollar of spending saved at paying down the deficit
I actually expected you to be able to produce some studies to support your claim
surely if it were true the Repubs, Heritage Foundation, or even your favorite Ernst and Young, would have made this claim already and have a study to prove it
-
sure agencies but not the federal budget and you can't compare the federal budget to a business (big or small)
a dollar of tax revenue raised is just as effective as a dollar of spending saved at paying down the deficit
I actually expected you to be able to produce some studies to support your claim
surely if it were true the Repubs, Heritage Foundation, or even your favorite Ernst and Young, would have made this claim already and have a study to prove it
certainly you can compare the budget from the US to a normal companies buget.
why would you believe you couldnt?
the federal agencies roll up into the federal budget just like different departments roll up into the overall budget for a conglomerate.
LOL it most certainly does, did you create your I/S's?
-
certainly you can compare the budget from the US to a normal companies buget.
why would you believe you couldnt?
the federal agencies roll up into the federal budget just like different departments roll up into the overall budget for a conglomerate.
LOL it most certainly does, did you create your I/S's?
because the federal government is not a business
this boils down to your belief that a dollar of spending that is cut is somehow more effective than a dollar of revenue raised via taxes
If that were remotely true you'd be able to prove it
Poeple with vested interest in that belief would have proved it by now
-
because the federal government is not a business
this boils down to your belief that a dollar of spending that is cut is somehow more effective than a dollar of revenue raised via taxes
If that were remotely true you'd be able to prove it
Poeple with vested interest in that belief would have proved it by now
hahah whether you want to call it a business is your hang up the fact is though it operates like a business.
It has revenues, COGS, Operating Expenses and a net surplus or deficit at the end of the year AKA net income...
you didnt answer my question straw, did you create the I/S's and do the little exercise?
if you did you would know that cutting operating expenses has a creater effect on the net surplus/deficit than raising revenue.
Id be more than willing to draw it out for you but again youre a finance person this should not be a suprise to you.
-
for something you dont consider a business the govt sure adheres to business practices for as submitting financial statements(Income statement, Balance sheet, Cash flows)
http://www.gao.gov/financial/fy2011financialreport.html
"The Secretary of the Treasury, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), is required annually to submit financial statements for the U.S. government to the President and the Congress."
why would an entity thats not a business create financial reports?
hahahha
-
Hey look an income statement from the Govt...seems like something a business would do... :D
-
now have you dont the little experiment i proposed to you?
if you have you will see that cutting costs is more effective then raising revenue ;)
-
now have you dont the little experiment i proposed to you?
if you have you will see that cutting costs is more effective then raising revenue ;)
this one ?
create a basic income statement with revenue, COGS, Operating expenses and net income
now decrease your operating expense by 20% and notice the difference in net income
then create another I/S with the original operating expense and see how much you have to raise revenue to get to the same net income...you will notice that it is more than 20%
I can draw that out if you dont seem to get it...although you wouldnt think you have to explain this to a person with a finance degree who also has owned his own finance company for years.......
Revenue @ 1000
COGS @ 100
OE @ 100
NI @ 800
Revenue @ 1000
COGS @ 100
OE @ 80
NI @ 820
If I want to make 820 assuming OE @ 100 I need 1020 in revenue
I'm not sure what %'s you think are important
I still need 20 more in revenue if I want to make 820 while keeping OE @ 100
20 more in revenue or 20 less in OE gives me the same bottom line
-
this one ?
Revenue @ 1000
COGS @ 100
OE @ 100
NI @ 800
Revenue @ 1000
COGS @ 100
OE @ 80
NI @ 820
If I want to make 820 assuming OE @ 100 I need 1020 in revenue
I'm not sure what %'s you think are important
I still need 20 more in revenue if I want to make 820 while keeping OE @ 100
20 more in revenue or 20 less in OE gives me the same bottom line
Sorry it took me so long to respond, Ive been in Brazil for the past 2 weeks or so.
Yes that one, maybe I should have explained although I didnt think I needed to as youre in finance but you didnt keep the same gross margin as the original I/S. You see you have to exert extra effort in order to get that revenue. We could assume that the gross margin may decrease a little but I would imagine it would stay pretty close to the same. Ill explain a little more as you probably dont understand. The COGS will rise in order to keep the same gross profit % which is (Revenue-COGS). People arent just going to give you extra money without you having to do extra to gain it.
So lets say the gross margin stays the same:
Original I/S:
Revenue @ 1000
COGS @ 100
OE @ 100
NI @ 800
With a reduction in expenses:
Revenue @ 1000
COGS @ 100
OE @ 80
NI @ 820
With an increase in revenue(including the corresponding increase in COGS to remain at 10% gross margin):
Revenue @ 1020
COGS @ 102
OE @ 100
NI @ 818
Now notice the net income from an increase in revenue is lower. It may seem marginal now but we are using a revenue number of only 1000. Imagine using a revenue number of a couple trillion...
You see cost reduction does more for the bottom line than revenue increases.
If you can seriously sit there and tell me that there isnt a butt load of money that can be cut from both rep and dem causes I will gladly jump on board with raising taxes.
BUT if you cant you really need to rethink youre viewpoints.