How to Party Like a Billionaire Financier With A 15% Tax Rate!

[Devon97]

Tbombz is speaking from exeperiance when he bought his hou....nevermind.

LOL

[dr.chimps]

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.  

[tbombz]

^^^^
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..    

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.

[tonymctones]

 

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..   

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?

[tbombz]

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

[Heywood]

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......

[tonymctones]

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....

[tbombz]

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

[tonymctones]

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?

[tbombz]

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  moron

[tonymctones]

now your advocating redistribution of wealth , or at the very least an increased minimum wage  moron

they were questions you jack ass, not statements

are smoking again?

[tbombz]

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 ? 

[tonymctones]

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 ? 

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...

[tbombz]

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

[tonymctones]

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?

[tbombz]

the ppl that get hired increase their spending broham, did you not understand that?

people get hired, but other people get fired   

[tonymctones]

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...

[tbombz]

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?

 

[tonymctones]

.. 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...

[reppingfor20]

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.

[tbombz]

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. 

[Internet Tough Guy]

Too busy riding dirt bikes and fvkking trannies to understand economics, even with an extensive community college education. 

[tbombz]

 


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.

[tonymctones]

this is very simple



demand creates jobs, not business.

yes and as weve already established businesses can create demand...

[D_1000]

You obviously don't get it.

Hmmm. Thinking you need to look in the mirror for that person.