Damn those evil rich people!!!!Follow

Not to mention that by reducing wages by 1k via taxable income, limits their free economic capital by significantly more than 2% thus stagnating a consumer centric economy.

(It limits free capital by >2% because you have to discount the cost of living, as well as current tax amounts.) I'll be generous and say basic cost of living plus taxes/fees etc. are 40k/yr leaving them with 10k in unallocated capital. After a 1k reduction, they are left with 9k, or a 10% reduction in money to be invested or funneled through the economy in some way. Which inevitably hurts small businesses most especially those in the consumer goods and services sector.

In addition, if the CO. were to receive a 500k bounty, they would likely split up the areas of expenditure, put a little into dividends, give the CEO a ~50k bonus for procuring these additional funds, and maybe hire 2-3 more people if it looked like they would be useful long-term. In any event, short term capital gains are unlikely to result in more jobs, unless they really should already be hiring and expanding their company based on economic indicators. A well run company should be adding jobs based on need for production, as those jobs should provide a net greater output than input, not because they have cash burning a hole in their pocket.

Trickle down is a significantly worse approach, especially in this case because you don't get anywhere near the full dollar or >$1/$1 output that you get from cycling it through, since you need to have those funds flow through so many middlemen brokers.

It can be useful in cases where the net return for it is higher than demand side capital flow, but that is very unlikely to be the case in this situation.

It's you're. Saying "Your an idiot" makes you look retarded.



I have to admit, that's a pretty decent description of how I view Haliburton execs.



All of us get this. We just have morals & believe that there's certain things you shouldn't have to sacrifice to make more of a profit. Outsourcing, cutting benifits, et al.



Why do you believe this? The reality is that about half of the wealthiest people in the US inherited their wealth. Deal with it.



Perhaps, but notice how our guy LOWERED taxes on small businesses while raising taxes on the big guys?



Once California legalizes pot, you'll be set financially for generations.


Sure they are. They're "maximizing profits" by doing so (once the machine "pays for itself") provided it isn't offset by theft or repair costs. I don't fault businesses for trying stuff like this. However, I personally believe that if the business is all ready making a decent profit there is little reason to cut jobs/outsource them/cut benefits. Liberals & Conservatives tend to disagree on this point.



But they never stop trying to make more money, of which I'll happily have taxed. They can afford it, while I cannot.

Are you seriously quoting yourself in your sig?

Ignorance is bliss, eh?



********* As long as the American consumer remains the biggest god damn commodity in the world, they'll stay. I do not believe corporations are over taxed. In fact...



I get the conservative argument that a corporations "taxed" money could be used to invest, but really couldn't give a hoot. Honestly, I'd just like all corporations to pay their fair share & eliminate corporate welfare. I do realize, however, that this will never happen.



They are, though. Which is why I'm all for slavery repatriations as a way to help african americans compete with us crackers who have a generational wealth advantage. I'd even up corporate taxes in order to pay for it!



I smoke, work at a hotel, & live in Massachusetts. I know all about tax increases. I was cool with them back when Romney raised them in order to pay for Mass. Care. I'm still cool with them.



And people will pay it. I fail to see the problem.



Cite about the 150K to start a business in CA, please. And corporations do kill small businesses. Not all the time, mind you, by why go to your local hardware store & buy a good quality $5 hammer when you can go to Wal-Mart & get a cheap one for $.99?



That's not all you need to do, but legalizing & taxing pot while cutting spending & raising taxes will certainly help.

Re: ThiefX's figure of $150k on average to start a small business in California.

I suspect it's $150k on average to start any business, ranging from - interestingly - basically nothing at the low end (sole proprietorship, not having to worry about any sort of licenses to deal with things like hazardous waste or the like - the only license required being one for the county or city, and there are cities where no license is required at all) on out to, potentially, fairly substantial amounts of money for people who are going to be starting a business in an extremely heavily regulated field. Also, the cost of leasing property in California is being included in there... but that just proves that all property in California is overpriced.

You could start up a home business in California, no problems, for $0 in certain parts of the state. Hell, in certain parts of Orange County.

EDIT: Also, interesting comparison - it'd run you $51 to get a business license in San Diego. It runs $50 where I live - in a town about 7% the size of San Diego. Someone is overpaying. It's not the Californians.

Edited, Apr 11th 2010 10:43pm by MDenham