feel bad 4 them

I ignored no argument. I addressed each one specifically and challenged each statement that I thought was absurd and and asked for factual backup. That is not ignoring it. I can appreciate opinion. We all have one.
Absolutely no hard feelings. Like I said, I 'm glad to see so much interest. When I was your age I sure as hell did not think about such boring stuff. You are getting a head start. Now go chase some women or something.

Poster, again you're right. Margin is margin. It is a specific term.

By the way, I don't hate anyone for making money, so long as it is not illegal, or unethical (and even some of those activities I think should be legalized). I happen to own a significant amount of oil company stock, so clearly I dont' have a problem if they make money.

In answer to who cares what the ROI, one group is those who think that big rich companies should be paying more taxes. Whether you agree, or disagree, it is math that supports their argument. Spin doctoring at its finest.

I happen to be more on your side of economic views than I am with Joe. However, the point which I think he made, which I would agree with,is that in comparing margins between an oil company and a banking company is an apples to oranges comparison. The bank's margin, I believe, is a more accurate representation of its financial performance. For the oil company, ROI is a more accurate representation.

The truth is, to me, it is not terribly important what view that you, Joe, or Abundiga take. I admire you equally because you've taken the time to think about it, have done some reading and research and have a view which you're willing to stand by. To me, that's the freedom that our society gives us. Unfortunately, in my opinion, too many Americans are apathetic. That's why I've enjoyed reading this thread whether I agree or disagree. BKH

Exxon was a bargain just back in June for $57/share. Over $75 today. Thats about a 31.5% ROI in less than a year.

65 'cuda wrote: the examples above are greatly simplified. Gary

Absolutely. BKH

Poster, You are right. Margin is margin. The point that Joe is making is that everyone looks at profit margin. But profit margin is deceptive. Companies that have multiple inventory turns, actually make a far higher return on their investment than profit margin would indicate.

Let's say you sell widgets.

If a shipment of widgets cost 75K, and you sell them for 100K, your profit margin is 25% (25K profit/100K Sales).

If you sell 5 inventory turns per year, your margin is still 25% (125K profit/500K sales).

However, the company's total return on investment is actually much higher than its 25% margin. Each time the company buys a new shipment of widgets, it uses the 75K it initally had invested. The actual return on investement will be 167% (125K profit/75K Invested).

Like most things, you can skew the math to favor whatever argument you are trying to support.

BKH

My last words, not because it isn't fun but because someone has to work to keep this economy moving...

Poster112 wrote:
Joe, If the oil company was selling the same gas more than once, your argument about the changing profit margin would work. Fact is, they are not. They are selling a gallon of gas that they paid $1.80 for (raw cost, drilling, exploration, etc.) and are selling it for $2.00 cents. That is a 10% profit margin. If they sell 100 gallons, they make that same 10% profit margin. If they sell 300 million gallons, they still have a 10% profit margin.If their cost goes up to $2.00, they'll charge $2.20. That is still a 10% profit margin. You are saying that if they refill the tank, somehow the profit margin changes.
Only if they sell the same gas a second time will the profit margin go up. Then, it will only go up to 20%. Fact is, they only sell it once. If you know how to sell it twice, I would advise you to do it. I'll pa$$ on the economics lesson, though.


You shouldn’t reduce it to a percentage per gallon and compare it another field like banking that is reported on yearly return on investment, its false numbers. You need to include inventory turns and when you do you find out that the yearly return on investment if they made 10% per gallon is a well over 200% return on investment which is the only percentage you can compare to banking at 16%.

I have read the fair tax law (59 pages) and I even started reading the propaganda book written by the right wing talk show host out of atlanta that is promoting the “Fair Tax”

I have also read some more even handed takes, a few from my internet logs over the last month would be..

http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/06/pf/taxes/consumptiontax_0510/

http://www.mises.org/story/1814

http://www.commonvoice.com/article.asp?colid=1662

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/9/15/135951/261

and I studied it back when it was called a flat sales tax (I think that was the 96 presidential election primarys) and after I applied the concepts myself to the generally accepted economic models and theories I decided for myself that only the very rich would get richer and even that only in the short term, in the long term we will all lose.

Taxes are complicated, even the 59 page long bill that is to introduce the “Fair Tax” is very complicated, it would be nice if we had people working for us in Washington that would actually debate what would be good for the country, chances are even if we solve the problems right here on CCF the rest of the world probably won’t like the rebate (or “prebate” under a “fair tax” scenario) that we would require for all expenses related to preserving our countries finest inboard marine vessals.
-Joe.

AbunDiga909 wrote: For example, why is tax on buying property and expanding in general so much lower than simple income tax? This is because govt WANTS you to expand--this is how its "giving" you an opprotunity to expand/create your business to make you "rich."

Abundiga,

I'm impressed. You're getting better at these debates. If you want to get really good you're going to need facts to back up your argument. If you want to be outstanding, you will need to understand your opponent's position better than he does.

To your credit, you admit that you have more to learn. The good news is that you are willing to learn. In my observation, most Americans are uninformed, and unwilling to learn.

America's favorable policies toward home and property ownership are much more complicated than what you have stated here and go back to the very beginnings of this country. Certainly long before we had an Income Tax, Welfare, or Social Services. There are scholars who argue that when Thomas Jefferson referred to the "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence, he was actually referring to the pursuit of property. See this article for a brief description of some of the favorable legislation around property ownership throughout the US' history.Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property

As to subsidies for business, the net effect may be that some people are a$$isted in creating wealth, but that is not the social policy behind any legislation of which I am aware. For example: small business subsidies - social policy to help the little guy; farm subsidies - insure food for our nation; big business subsidies - create jobs for the ma$$es and stimulate the broader economy.

Certainly there are greater minds than mine who can make the case for fair tax, flat tax, no tax, higher tax, lower tax, or even socialism. I'm not in the business of politics or economic policy, so I'll stick with my own single vote.

BKH

Abundiga, that is the third time that you've mentioned that the government gives something to the rich or makes it possible for them to become rich. You have yet to say what it is that government gives or does. I can't wait to here it. Lay it on us.
Every time you mention it, it gets even more absurd sounding. You said, "the whole reason the person made that much money was made possible by the gov't!" ROFLMAO! Would you care to back that up with facts?
This country is #1 because of it's citizens and what they do, not for what the government does for the citizens.
Man, I've enjoyed this discussion a whole bunch. I am really surprised and encouraged that so many have put in their 2 cents on either side. I've taken enough bait and I am full. As tasty as it looks with these increasingly ridiculous statements, I just don't know if I can take much more.
Thanks, whatever your name is Abundiga?, and Joe in NY (kicka$$ holeshot vid, by the way), and especially you guys that actually may read about and understand the Fair Tax before making uninformed comments, good or bad.
I'm just trying to throw something "new" out there to think about. I try not to bitch about something without offering a solution or backing an existing solution. That is what I've tried to do here.
As far as Exxon goes. I say more power to 'em.
I'll try to buy some Exxon stock this year and share the bounty.
Then, I'm going to buy some Walmart Stock.
Oops!! Walmart is BAAAAD.

For you NY guys:
Old, but hilarious (Hillary-ous)

Thanks, BKH. You are correct.

I am enjoying it, but as far as needing the gov. The only things I want them to do is keep roads nice, keep the boat launch up to date, and protect our borders.

I have my own guns so I don't need the police for protection, they just give you speeding tickets anyway.

The house is insured so no need for fire department. Scratch that need the FD incase of car crash. NO need for police still they will still just ticket some one.

Mind you I am only kidding the PD and FD are very important parts of our country. I agree people should not count on the goverment for solving lifes problems for them.

I believe that the goverment should introduce drug tests for people on welfare.

The military does not protect "stuff", nor should it. The federal government should defend our borders, kill our enemies and deliver our mail and that is it! (We are currently getting 1.5 out of those three). If you want your 20 dollars protected, do it yourself, same for the 200 dollars. Don't rely on the freaking government to do it for you. That is the whole problem. The federal government is spending a bunch of our money on programs for people that think that it is the role of the government to solve their problems. Rewarding laziness gets you more laziness.

Giving back???? To give back, I would have had to have gotten something in the first place.
By the way, you never explained what rich people get from the government that poor people don't.

You are still making socialist points when you talk about portions of income. (From each according to their ability to each according to their need) That is simply redistribution of wealth and it is a socialist principal (some would say communist). That is fine. I just believe in capitalism. In a socialist nation, you get punished for trying to do better than than your neighbor. Is that what you would like? In France, you will be jailed if you work extra hours to make more money or get extra work accomplished. Sounds great, huh? This country is about freedom, not government mandated wealth redistribution. If you went to someone and took a "portion of their income" and gave to someone else "in need", you would be put in jail.
The money in social security is money that we earn. It is not the government's money to "give back". It's our money that they take every payday.
Social security is not a "safe". It is not guaranteed to be repaid to anyone. Never has been. It is a Ponzi scheme. You or I would be jailed for trying to do the same thing with "investors".
No one is saying that we should get rid of the government. I am saying that the federal government should be limited.

Dang. I was trying to put this discussion to bed. Fact is, as someone already stated, the current tax system sucks. Instead of just accepting it and bitching, though, I'm trying to do something about it.

So are you saying that you want to punish those that keep the economy running?
If the rich stop working, it creates a void, you are correct. Another basic tenant of the economy is that others will compete to fill that void. That is also what keeps the economy running. Agree?
What do the middle cla$$ spend their money on? If its just necessities, they pay no tax under the fair tax. If it's cell pones, wide screen TVs and rims on their cars, they pay the tax just like everyone else. If they do not want to pay the tax, they don't buy the stuff and save their money. It's their choice. Income taxes take it no matter what. As a member of the middle cla$$, I'd rather choose whether or not I pay taxes.
What does portion of income have to do with it? Spending most of what you make versus a small portion of what you make goes back to the socialism issue. If you use that argument you are tying the price of goods to percentage of income (the middle cla$$ guy spends 30 percent of his income for goods, so the rich guy, should, too). That is absurd (deja vu).

Joe, If the oil company was selling the same gas more than once, your argument about the changing profit margin would work. Fact is, they are not. They are selling a gallon of gas that they paid $1.80 for (raw cost, drilling, exploration, etc.) and are selling it for $2.00 cents. That is a 10% profit margin. If they sell 100 gallons, they make that same 10% profit margin. If they sell 300 million gallons, they still have a 10% profit margin.If their cost goes up to $2.00, they'll charge $2.20. That is still a 10% profit margin. You are saying that if they refill the tank, somehow the profit margin changes.
Only if they sell the same gas a second time will the profit margin go up. Then, it will only go up to 20%. Fact is, they only sell it once. If you know how to sell it twice, I would advise you to do it. I'll pa$$ on the economics lesson, though.
What type of person would accept high taxes, just so the rich get soaked?

I give a sh*t if portions of the population stop working because the basic tenant of economics is that the more work is produced the healthier the economy is at every level including the very top (where I plan to get).

I personally was born with a lot of advantages, the main ones being that I was born healthy to two greatparents right here in the gold old USA. The second basic tenant of capitalism is that with everyone in the economy should have the opportunity to contribute up to the level of thier talents regardless of where they start off.

Obviously I can't teach enough economics here to make a point in under 5000 words but I stand on my comments on Return on Sales vs Return on Investment its not disinformation.

A sales tax will always disproportionally tax the middle cla$$ because they spend most of what they make, the extremly rich doesn't so they will pay less taxes. The overall amount of taxes will at least stay the same so that means the middle cla$$ will pay more.

Thats how i see it, who has more to gain by putting out disinformation the big companies and the super rich or me who is just trying to get super rich.

Cheers to all
_Joe.

Joe, your comment about those "that weren't born with advantages" says it all. You seem to think that rich people were born with "advantages". Less than 2% of millionaires inherited it (fact). That leaves more than 98% that worked for it. Those darned rich people they sure a lucky bunch. Sure, we all know folks that had it easy growing up. I do not want to punish them for it. You seem to want to.

Now on to your points above:
10% on the dollar is 10% on the dollar. No matter how many dollars come in, you still get 10% on each one if that is the profit margin. You can turn over your inventory however many times you want, but you are still getting that profit margin on each one. Talk about misinformation.
Who gives a sh*t if the top 10% of wage earners stop working? Good for them. Don't you want to make enough or more than enough to retire? You can step in and earn what they do not want to or you can whine about how they have "advantage". Which will you do? The evil rich people will pay the taxes on what they buy under the fair tax and this tax money will help those "disadvantaged" people. This is about taxes, not trying to get the evil rich guy to work more.

If you think that investment has nothing to do with taxes, you must be one of the advantaged that has too much money. Investment is proportional to capital. If you pay less in taxes, you have more capital. If pay more in taxes, you have less. That is pretty easy to understand.
You are right about one thing, Exxon uses alot of our roadways, etc. They also paid over 100 Billion dollars is income taxes last year. Is that not enough?
Bottom line:
Under the fair tax, the only people that do not pay taxes are the poor. The rich pay more when they buy the expensive stuff. Sounds like it suits your philosophy to me.

The Middle cla$$ wins with the fair tax more than anyone. You get your whole check and do not have to pay taxes if you do not want to.

I think that I'm done with this subject. Man, I thought that bringing up taxes would be a conversation killer. I'm glad to see a few that find it important enough to debate.

What the law can do is not excessively favor those that already have more than they can ever spend at the expense of those who have yet to make thier fortune. Exxon-Mobil and the like use a lot more of our roads, bridges, sewers, water supplys, public lands, government superfund site cleanup grants etc. than you or me and should pay more if they don't its basically stealing our money and giving it to them.

It goes back and forth, sometimes overtaxed and overregulated and sometimes undertaxed and underregulated. In my view its pretty easy to see which way it is now. Its us right here in the middle cla$$ that get screwed, we have enough that they can take more but not enough to hire our own lobbists or buy our own candidates.