feel bad 4 them
Printed From: CorrectCraftFan.com
Category: General Correct Craft Discussion
Forum Name: Off Topic
Forum Discription: Anything non-Correct Craft
URL: http://www.CorrectCraftFan.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5700
Printed Date: December-23-2024 at 12:12am
Topic: feel bad 4 them
Posted By: 87BFN owner
Subject: feel bad 4 them
Date Posted: February-08-2007 at 10:32pm
|
I don't know about everyone else but don't you feel bad for exxon they only had a record breaking profit year for the second year in a row. They only made 39.5 billion, and said they would have made more but fourth quater prices were down for gasoline, and nautral gas.
But remember your not being screwed at the pump by the gas company or the government. Hope nobody works for them, if so I am sorry for my rant. |
Replies:
Posted By: Ski Texas
Date Posted: February-08-2007 at 11:20pm
|
At least now you know what stock to buy.
And don't envy them to much soon Al Gore will have them out of business ------------- 3/4 of the Planet is water Spend 3/4 of you time on the water |
Posted By: Ski Blue
Date Posted: February-08-2007 at 11:21pm
|
It's hard to fathom how much of a profit that is. Just makes it kind of hard to understand things from their perspective. How much money do the top exec's really need?
Wish the would share those profits! ------------- 88 2001 - Family's boat We've got to carry each other - ONE |
Posted By: Waterdog
Date Posted: February-09-2007 at 10:03am
|
$39.5 billion = $75.000 every minute of every day x 365(that's what the news reported) ------------- - waterdog - http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=3896&sort=&pagenum=2&yrstart=1978&yrend=1978" rel="nofollow - 78 Ski Tique |
Posted By: 87BFN owner
Date Posted: February-09-2007 at 11:57am
|
so I guess we could bring gas prices back down aorund $1.50 a gallon and they can just be happy making $10 billion a year. Just my 2 cents. But that will never happen, so just fill them up and have fun. ------------- |
Posted By: backfoot100
Date Posted: February-09-2007 at 3:50pm
| And we help them out even more by buying premium for our toys. You gotta pay to play! |
Posted By: Poster112
Date Posted: February-09-2007 at 4:04pm
|
What???? Who are we to say how much that Exxon should be happy with. The shareholders, which included loads of retirement funds for teachers and unions, depend on those profits. I'll bet they will tell you that more is better. Exxon also paid Billions (yes with a "B") in income taxes. A certain female presidential hopeful wants to take the profits from the shareholders and do something else with the money. Do you agree with that? Yeah take away that profit or ad "windfall taxes" and see how much you'll be paying for gas. Anyway, the profit margin on the gasoline that they sell is around 10%. Banking runs about 16%. I don't hear any complaining about that. ------------- I'd rather have a bottle-in-front-of-me than a frontal-lobotomy. http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=3182&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1925&yrend=2009" rel="nofollow - 1985 Ski 1984 SW |
Posted By: 87BFN owner
Date Posted: February-09-2007 at 9:28pm
|
I hate the bank just as much, but I aleast get some of that back when I do my taxes. I get nothing from paying high gas bills. ------------- |
Posted By: Poster112
Date Posted: February-09-2007 at 10:10pm
|
So invest in the oil companies instead of whining about how much money they are making!
Also, you don't get money back from banks when you get an interest deduction on your income tax. You get less taken from you by the government. Big difference. The banks still make the 16% profit margin, which is 60% higher than the oil companies' profit margin! That means that they make 60% more profit than the oil companies do on every dollar that they take in. They just take in fewer dollars because there product does not cost as much and not everyone uses their product. In other words, buy banking and "greedy" oil company stocks. Then, some of the money that they make will go into your pocket, too. There's your gas money. ------------- I'd rather have a bottle-in-front-of-me than a frontal-lobotomy. http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=3182&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1925&yrend=2009" rel="nofollow - 1985 Ski 1984 SW |
Posted By: Poster112
Date Posted: February-09-2007 at 10:17pm
|
Oh, and the most important point is that if they made less profit, the prices would go up to compensate. Very few business are in business to make less than a 10% profit margin. ------------- I'd rather have a bottle-in-front-of-me than a frontal-lobotomy. http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=3182&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1925&yrend=2009" rel="nofollow - 1985 Ski 1984 SW |
Posted By: 88 Nautique
Date Posted: February-10-2007 at 1:27am
|
Poster112 is right. And add in the property taxes and regulatory taxes and fees they pay. Like the old saying... "Don't wish for something, you just might get it". Just let the government place profit caps or higher windfall taxes on oil profits and see what happens. You think oil prices are high now? But unfortunately we are headed down that path.
Take away the taxes that are added to each gallon of gas that WE pay at the pump and you'll be surprised how much cheaper that gallon actually is. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1657" rel="nofollow - My 88 Nautique |
Posted By: 87BFN owner
Date Posted: February-10-2007 at 7:44pm
|
it's 37.3 cents a gallon in michigan I believe. I know for sure it is over 34 cents and our roads suck. But that is from the heavy over wieght semis.
But by no means am I whining about gas prices, just stating the fact that we are getting screwed on the ptice per gallon. But supply and demand is the name of the game. As long as we demand they will control the supply make sure the price is in their favor. Windfall taxes are not something I want to see. I think every one should be taxed a straight ten percent of what you make no matter how much you make. No deductions straight ten percent whether your a business or an individual. Then see how things change. The people making multi-millions a year have tax people that hide all there money. Goto the straight ten percent plan and all that is gone. I think, just my two cents that we would be better off that way. Anyone else's opinion. I would like to hear it. See if we can find any down falls to this crazt idea. ------------- |
Posted By: Poster112
Date Posted: February-10-2007 at 9:32pm
|
We are not getting screwed on the price per gallon. The oil company makes 10 cents on every dollar that they take in. To lower the price would lower that profit margin. Would you invest in something that only gave you back less than 10 cents per dollar? I wouldn't. Then exploration and production would have to be cut back which would shorten supply, driving up the price on the market. Exxon also paid over 100 Billion in corporate taxes last year. That is a fact. So, basically, they paid over 100 Billion to the government, and after that, they had 39 Billion left over. If you had 139 dollars and the government took 100 of it and let you keep 39, what would you say to the guy whining that you are making to much money? I know what I would say to him.
As far as income tax is concerned: Flat tax keeps us paying income taxes to be redistributed. Guy making a million pays for a hell of a lot more programs than the guy making 15 thousand. That punishes the higher achiever that may be employing 200 people. Why work so hard just to get punished? He may just cut back to 100 or 50 employees. How about the " http://fairtax.org/fairtax/about.htm - Fair Tax " ? The fair tax eliminates personal and corporate income tax. No more IRS. April 15th will be just another day of the year. You will get your whole paycheck, no payroll taxes at all. It is replaced by a consumption based tax (sales tax) and you get a rebate every month for sales tax paid on food and necessities. No more taxes on used cars or boats, either. The sale tax will be paid on the retail level only and it will bring production costs down (no more corporate taxes on every step of every process that the materials go through before being purchased by the manufacturer) and the prices will come down with the cost, as they all undercut each other. The US then becomes a tax haven and all manufacturers across the globe will flock here to open plants and create more jobs that they can fill. You would have to hide in order to not be employed. Wages will be up, as well, as their will be less compliance costs to filing all of the corporate and payroll taxes. Just think, you will not have to pay ANY taxes, if you don't want to. The poorest folks will truly live tax free, as they will get the rebate on food and necessities, just like all of us. If they do not buy anything other than those bare necessities, they pay no taxes at all. I'm not advertising this, just committed to help get it pa$$ed. It has 52 co-sponsors in the US House right now (Dems and Reps). Whichever party can get this pa$$ed will be heroes. Sorry for the terribly long and boring post, though I find nothing boring about the possibility of eliminating income tax! ------------- I'd rather have a bottle-in-front-of-me than a frontal-lobotomy. http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=3182&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1925&yrend=2009" rel="nofollow - 1985 Ski 1984 SW |
Posted By: The Dude
Date Posted: February-10-2007 at 10:06pm
|
poster what's your line of work? ------------- Mullet Free since 93 http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=717&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1991&yrend=1995" rel="nofollow - 95 Sport 1978 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: The Lake
Date Posted: February-10-2007 at 10:13pm
|
Poster,
The Fair Tax is intriguing. I think it is a great idea to tax spending as opposed to income. I think it would be a great way to encourage saving. Over the years so much of our economy is built around income taxes, corporate and personal, not to mention the huge labor force in the IRS and State DOR's. I suppose the theory would be that with the increase of manufacturing that those jobs would then would offset the no longer needed CPA's and tax attorneys. Chuck ------------- Walk on Water www.coldwater.me http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=775&sort=&pagenum=3&yrstart=1966&yrend=1970 - 69 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: Poster112
Date Posted: February-11-2007 at 9:53am
|
Dude, I'm an insurance auditor. I used to be in the restaurant business.
Chris ------------- I'd rather have a bottle-in-front-of-me than a frontal-lobotomy. http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=3182&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1925&yrend=2009" rel="nofollow - 1985 Ski 1984 SW |
Posted By: Poster112
Date Posted: February-11-2007 at 10:05am
|
Chuck, accountants spend a lot more time performing business services other than income and corporate taxes. Several of the big accounting firms endorse the fair tax. They can then focus on helping their clients make money rather than trying not to pay as much in taxes. (offense rather than defense)
Virtually all of the opposition to this tax plan comes from tax lobbyists in Washington that make their money influencing the tax law makers, those that do not take the time to fully understand it, or those that think that it is too good to be true. Another thing about the fairtax that many here would appreciate is the fact that no taxes would be paid on used goods. That means to tax on used boats, cars, motorcycles. Can't beat that. ------------- I'd rather have a bottle-in-front-of-me than a frontal-lobotomy. http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=3182&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1925&yrend=2009" rel="nofollow - 1985 Ski 1984 SW |
Posted By: 88 Nautique
Date Posted: February-11-2007 at 11:00am
|
Would the "fair tax" just be at the federal level? If so, states would still be free to tax used items again and again such as boats and cars. And counties could still a$$ess taxes on so called "luxury items" such as boats.
I'm still all for it. Where do I sign up? ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1657" rel="nofollow - My 88 Nautique |
Posted By: Poster112
Date Posted: February-11-2007 at 11:46am
|
The fair tax proposals HR25 and SR25 are in the US House and Senate (federal level, only, which would repeal the 16th amendment and eliminate the IRS completely. State taxes would not change, unless they adopted a state version of the fair tax. Those in FL and other states where there are no state income taxes would be loving it.
Remember, federal withholding was supposed to be temporary during the war, but it made taxation so less transparent, the federal government kept it in place, as folks do not know exactly how much they pay. Prior to that, people knew exactly how much they had to pay because they had to write a check. Now, it is withheld, so you never really have it in your pocket before it goes to the government, so it hurts less. If we all had to write a check every pay period to the government for taxes, there would be a freaking revolution because we would know exactly how much we are paying. The way it is now, most people couldn't tell you the dollar amount that they pay in federal taxes every pay period. That's how many of the politicians like it. I'm not sure what is meant by taxing used items "again and again". There would be no need for increased taxes just for fun. The politicians that would try would still have to get it through their local governmental processes and risk getting voted out of office. As far as where to sign up, see the link above in my previous post. On that site, there is also a FAQ section and a link to see where your Senators and House Representatives stand on it. Write them or email them and vote for whomever supports it. I'll vote for any politician that supports it, regardless of their party, except Hillary, who would never support it, anyway. ------------- I'd rather have a bottle-in-front-of-me than a frontal-lobotomy. http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=3182&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1925&yrend=2009" rel="nofollow - 1985 Ski 1984 SW |
Posted By: 05 210
Date Posted: February-11-2007 at 11:58am
I don't follow this type of stuff much.Too busy to keep up with it.I guess that makes me dangerous,cause I don't know all the facts and I still voice my opinion  .Anyway,I just think it's odd that oil/gas prices fluctuate so much.It's not the taxes that cause the price to do that.I'm glad they're not charging us 4.00 a gal.for it,but if it STAYED at that price consistently I may eventually feel better about it....If that makes any sense.I just feel like when heating oil goes up cause winter is coming or it is cold out,or gas prices go up as millions prepare to hit the streets for a holiday weekend,that I'm being taken advantage of.The guy who put the heating system in my house was telling me last year as oil prices were skyrocketing,that there was x amount(millions) MORE oil in the reserve at that time,than in previous years when oil was cheaper.Just makes me wonder.
Mike ------------- http:/diaries/details.asp?ID=2219" rel="nofollow - Air Nautique 210 Team 640 hours, not 1 regret |
Posted By: 88 Nautique
Date Posted: February-11-2007 at 1:53pm
|
What I mean by taxing over and over again is our lovely state of California charges you a use tax upon transferring ownership based on what you paid for a used auto or boat. This means that this vehicle was taxed when it was purchased new and then taxed again every time it is sold to a new owner. With this corrupt system, theoretically, if the vehicle was sold enough times, the state of California could confiscate more money in taxes on this vehicle than the vehicle sold for when new.
Taxes are a sore subject with me and I will do anything I can to help the cause. But with this congress and possibly a democrat president in 08, I just don't see it happening. But look... my republicans couldn't get it done either when they had the power. Sorry... I didn't mean to gripe or offend. Kurt ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1657" rel="nofollow - My 88 Nautique |
Posted By: Poster112
Date Posted: February-11-2007 at 4:59pm
|
Kurt, I agree, they did nothing when they had the chance. That is why they are gone. Perhaps they will learn from it. If they would run on the fair tax in '08, I don't think that they could be stopped.
Chris ------------- I'd rather have a bottle-in-front-of-me than a frontal-lobotomy. http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=3182&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1925&yrend=2009" rel="nofollow - 1985 Ski 1984 SW |
Posted By: 87BFN owner
Date Posted: February-12-2007 at 12:23am
|
learn something new everyday on this site. I have not had time to check out the fair tax link but I will this week sometime. Sounds good though.
BKH in michigan we have to pay sales tax on used items cars, boats, bikes. Is that what your reffering to in cal? It's dependent on the price of the sale how much it is, is it the same for you? Does cal use a chart and say how much you have to pay for a certain used item based on original sale price? ------------- |
Posted By: 88 Nautique
Date Posted: February-12-2007 at 2:16pm
|
The national sales tax thing was going around during the 04 elections. I'm telling you the elected idiots don't want it. Look at the fair tax site and look at the list of reps that support it. Not even a handfull. It doesn't stand a chance in hell, but I have already started emailing my reps and telling them to support it. The news media will do everything they can to suppress it as well.
87BFN, California charges taxes on used vehicles based on the price you paid for the used item. Of course everyone is honest on how much they paid for it. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1657" rel="nofollow - My 88 Nautique |
Posted By: bkhallpass
Date Posted: February-12-2007 at 2:37pm
87, I haven't posted a response to this topic. But, you are correct, in CA we pay a sales tax on the puchase of used cars, boats, and motorcycles. In addition, the way the California Constitution is written, we are subject to a personal property tax on everthing we own, unless explicitly exempted by law. Each year we pay a personal property tax on our homes, cars, boats and motorcycles. Household and personal items have been exempted. Businesses pay a personal property tax on all of the a$$ets they own. BKH ------------- Livin' the Dream |
87BFN owner wrote:Posted By: AbunDiga909
Date Posted: February-12-2007 at 4:32pm
|
I've never liked Exxon, probably never will. two words: exxon valdese (sp?)
poster, do you believe in the PROGRESSIVE income tax, or would you rather see it regressive, like sales? which do you think is fairer? ------------- I Nautique, therefore I am. |
Posted By: Poster112
Date Posted: February-12-2007 at 5:03pm
|
We have a progressive tax now. It punishes achievement. The more you make, the higher percentage you pay. I think that is BS. It's good for people that are jealous of other peoples wealth. Cla$$ envy is a national pastime for certain folks. They love a progressive tax because it punishes those that have made better decisions than they have made.
I believe that we should pay taxes on what we buy, not our income, period. How could you be more fair than that? If you buy toys, you pay taxes. If you don't, you pay no taxes. Sounds fair to me. I don't know why you call sales tax "regressive". By definition, a regressive tax rate decreases as the amount to which you apply it increases. The Fair tax does not. In fact, you could call the fair tax progressive in the sense that it punishes the "rich" when they buy their toys. It will not even apply to the "poor" who buy nothing other than the bare necessities (food, clothing, diapers). Again, how can you more fair than that? Let me also be clear that I am not "rich" (less that 40 thousand a year income due to my own bad decisions). I just don't think that hard work and good decision making should be punished with a progressive tax. ------------- I'd rather have a bottle-in-front-of-me than a frontal-lobotomy. http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=3182&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1925&yrend=2009" rel="nofollow - 1985 Ski 1984 SW |
Posted By: Poster112
Date Posted: February-12-2007 at 5:05pm
|
Oh, I've not forgiven Exxon for the Valdez spill, either. ------------- I'd rather have a bottle-in-front-of-me than a frontal-lobotomy. http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=3182&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1925&yrend=2009" rel="nofollow - 1985 Ski 1984 SW |
Posted By: AbunDiga909
Date Posted: February-12-2007 at 5:20pm
|
poster, I have to say I am at least happy you have not forgiven them for that spill, lol. But, I do disagree (which is ok) with you on the tax matter. A "regressive" doesn't have to be a tax whose rates go down as income rises--regressive is comonly synonomous with "flat." In that case, I'd call sales tax flat. Flat taxes, bottom line, aren't fair, imho. Consider the guy making 20K a year. He wants to buy a shirt, that costs, lets say, 20 bucks, for easy math. Also for easy math, a guy making 200K a year wants to buy that same shirt for 20 bucks. Lets say sales tax is 10%, also for easy math. Both the 20K/yr and 200K/yr guy are paying $22 for that same product, yet that poorer dude is paying .11% of his income, while the richer dude .011$ of his income. These numbers seem small, but think of it like this--the poorer guy is paying 10 TIMES as much in regards to income, as the rich guy is. I don't think this is fair.
I also disagree on your use of the word "punishes." I do not see the progressive tax as punishing the rich--if you look at what the rich people gain from the government, compared to the poor, and also compare how much the rich and the poor guys have to LOSE, then it is clear that the rich SHOULD be paying more. Quick example: rich guy has 4 houses around the country, a yacht, private jet, 1 ferrari, 1 rolls, and 1 mercedes; the poor guy has a small apartment living off of welfare. Who has more to lose? Who has more VALUE? The rich guy. So, don't you think its fair that the poor guy doesn't have to pay as much as the rich guy, for the same education, same military defense, etc? (BTW, the rich guy also has 5 kids, poor guy has none). And, its not like the progressive tax increases forever. I think the income tax rate increases until around 200K or so, or some number, where it levels off. This number is about 43% I THINK. I don't see it as punishment at all, I see it as the law. also sorry this is so long and boring, just trying to have a good cnvo ------------- I Nautique, therefore I am. |
Posted By: 87BFN owner
Date Posted: February-12-2007 at 6:03pm
|
sorry about that BKH mixed you and 88 up from another post. But I did get the answer I was looking for between the two fo you . Thank you. ------------- |
Posted By: Poster112
Date Posted: February-12-2007 at 6:44pm
|
What do you have against someone who has worked hard to earn a bunch of money? Maybe that "rich" guy that you mention employs you or someone in your family. Higher taxes do not encourage higher achievement. They discourage it. Why would you discourage his achievement? Would you want me to discourage you from working hard to earn money? Would you want your boss punished because he has invested in his business so that he makes enough to employ you? Do you think that higher taxes have no impact on whether or not he chooses to fire you or not so that he can pay the tax bill? Whose pocket will the taxes come out of? Yours and his customers.
What do you consider rich? One of your examples was a guy making $200,000, the other was a guy with 4 houses, yacht, Ferrari, jet, rolls, Mercedes. These are two completely different cla$$es of people. Who do you hate more? Sounds like the guy with the airplane. You did not bother to mention what kind of cars or number of houses for the other guy. (What do you have against airplanes, anyway?) A regressive tax does have to have a decreasing rate, by definition. It is not commonly synonymous with flat tax. If you mean flat, say flat. I know that it does not sound as negative as "regressive", but let's use the correct term just for discussion's sake. Also, remember that communism requires a progressive tax. Not calling anyone a communist, but it is a fact that communism requires a progressive tax. What argument can you make other that that it will "feel" more fair if the rich guy pays more? Percentage of income does not apply when you are talking about purchase prices here in the US. There are some socialist countries in which this may apply, as that is a socialist concept. Under the same principal, the government should be able to mandate that retailers charge a certain percentage of their patron's income for a product. That is absurd, unless you are a socialist (I believe that you have a female senator and presidential hopeful that would go along with this). Tell me what every rich guy "gains more" of from the government. How is taxing higher achievement at a higher rate not punishing it? Does a progressive tax encourage higher achievement or discourage it? What is so "clear" about the statement that one with more to lose should pay more taxes than someone with less to lose? The guy with more to lose earned it. The guy with less earned less. He should try harder, not get a tax break. If you punish high achievement you will get less of it. If you reward low achievement, you will get more of it. And vice versa. Enjoying the conversation, but tax policy or any governmental policy based on wanting to soak someone else is not very practical. ------------- I'd rather have a bottle-in-front-of-me than a frontal-lobotomy. http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=3182&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1925&yrend=2009" rel="nofollow - 1985 Ski 1984 SW |
Posted By: AbunDiga909
Date Posted: February-12-2007 at 11:06pm
|
well., just wrote some good stuff and hit the back button by mistake, so its gone...crap
Bottom line is we'll have to agree on what we think "fair" really is. I think of all that money that Exxon's, and other company's, CEOs and executives make and think, what if we just took 1 or 2 mil of their salary and but it towards, lets say, a new medical center, further education, reknew and refurbish government housing, etc... How would that guy's life who makes 39 mil a year differ that much if he only made 38? 35? 30? 20 GOD FORBID!  Not all THAT much, especially when there are people on the streets.
It is the governments responsibilty to provide those things that private companies cannot, and the government needs the money they can get. This tax cut is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. I know a guy who got a check in the mail for $400, woo hoo, great, ALL HIS FINANCIAL PROBLEMS WERE SOLVED! The top 2% of the country got about 98% of the tax break! Billions of dollars that could have been put to good use went to the people. Their excuse: the rich will put it back in the economy. Well, the government just took billions that couold have gone to cancer research, and put it in the hands of the richest executives in America, HOPING they will expand their businesses. Again, the tpyical argument against this is that the rich earned it. But I think this is a very selfish way of looking at things. What I meant when I said they get more out of the government is that, not only did they get the bigger tax breaks (unfortunately), the rich guy is having more protected by the government services out there, where the homeless guy has nothing to lose. Maybe I just like giving too much, but I certaintly dont think the rich guy is being PUNISHED by having higher taxes.... I do not see how you think its fair that the sales tax on a shirt for a rich person is almost nothing compared to his income, while for the poor person, it is huge, how the heck is that fair? I wouldn't say b/c the "poor guy made some bad decisions, isn't as smart as the rich guy, etc..." That idea is making the poor poorer and the rich richer! Goldman Sachs just gave out 16.8 BILLION in bonuses... some executive got a check for $500 million! I havent lived on welfare, and hope I never have to, but if you are exposed to some of these peoples living conditions, I hope, i really hope, that you will not see as a progressive tax "punishing" the rich. It is simply the law. And, I cannot think of one person who has deliberately not tried to be sucessful to avoid higher taxes... I'm sure theres more to say but thats all the crap that comes to mind now... good convo btw p.s. not proofread at all, tired as hell ------------- I Nautique, therefore I am. |
Posted By: 88 Nautique
Date Posted: February-13-2007 at 9:51am
Why is it the governments responsibility? I want the government to supply roads, police, fire protection, schools and the military, period. How did it get this way that the government is somehow responsible for every aspect of our lives? This will be the downfall of our country if everybody doesn't wake up and see whats happening. And before you blast the big corporations, check and see how much money they donate to charities. It will astound you. Having been a telephone repairman for 23 years, I have seen the living conditions you speak of and the people that live that way. They are being paid to stay home by the government and most have no desire to seek employment. What did people do before we started the welfare state? They worked. Because they knew it was the only way their family would eat. By the way, you all should check with your elected officials and see what they mean when they want to "soak the rich". None of them will answer just what they consider "rich". It could very well mean YOU. There are not enough rich people in this country to pay for all these things that everybody thinks is a necessity that should be provided by their government. Great... Now I've done it!!! Now I'll be audited. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1657" rel="nofollow - My 88 Nautique |
Posted By: duffnit
Date Posted: February-13-2007 at 10:47am
|
Great debate here.
Some food for thought. Two men of equal means begin their journey through life. Man A, pays his way through school and eventually owns a thriving buisness. Man B get's a goverment grant to pay some of his schooling and gets student loans to complete the same degree as man B. After college, man B defaults on school loans, works dead end jobs, becomes a drunk and eventually becomes a begger on the street. Which man needs the goverment's aid and why? ------------- Danny "no offense- but the rate at which you spread bad information is very impressive" |
Posted By: PLBC
Date Posted: February-13-2007 at 10:56am
|
OMFG! How did today's youth get these whacka$$backwards ideas? ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=5164&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 99 |
Posted By: JoeinNY
Date Posted: February-13-2007 at 11:09am
|
I fall with AbunDiga on this topic, true capitalism only works when it rewards hard work and talent with a proportional return. If you implement a so-called "Fair Tax" you have just made it possible for the top 10% of the country and all thier decendents to never again do a days work, or take a reasonable risk of capital in thier lives.
The money behind the disinformation on these topics typically comes from those who make more money than they can spend (and therefore be taxed under a "Fair Tax" setup, and they don't make it because they are working 400 times harder or smarter than their employees or because they made some better decisions, with few exceptions these are people born with advantages. I have worked on a daily basis with a billionaire (Todd W. Herrick), and met a few more along the way and they were all running their fathers, or their grandfathers company's. I can say without any doubt that if there were no income taxes their companies would have been boarded up years ago and they would be makeing a safe 6% on thier billions (60 million a year per billion is more than you can spend). With compound interest and no taxes the fortune would grow every generation without any of the future dependants ever so much as taking a risk. Talent and Money removed from the economy forever is not good capitalism. I don't begrudge people the american dream, I make 80k a year as a 30 year old, and I hope to make more, if I make enough I would love to provide all my decendents with a comfortable future and even with our pre GWB tax giveaways to the rich it was possible for people to do so, but it should remain the vast exception to the rule. I have no love for oil companies because they make money on a resource that they had no hand in producing, and the use of which has negative externalities which effect not only everyone in the current world but also all those that will come after. As for 10 percent profits, that 10% number is a return on sales and doesn't reflect inventory turns. Walmart makes about 3 percent return on sales but somehow all the waltons are billionaires? When we talk about our investments and returns we talk about return on the investment over a year. If walmart turns over its inventory 20 (it was actually alot more than that last I checked) times a year and makes 3 percent a turn thats an annual return on investment of 60%, (actually more because the 3% gets reinvested and compounded but you get the idea). Its the same way with Exxon Mobil how many inventory turns do you think they do in a year? My guess its about the average number of times a truck shows up to fill the tanks at the average gas station, similar to the number of times an average person fills thier gas tank in an average year, thats a lot of 10% turns, if it was 1% of each fill up they wouldn't shut the doors. If it was an efficient market with no lobbyists, no monopolys, no wars, no tarrifs, no preferential contracts that allow them the use of oil taken off of public land someone else would open up and do it for less. Basically I expect businesses and the rich to take care of themselves, and I prefer to worry about those hard working innovators who werent born with advantages. Final meandering thought, taxing income less does not increase investment in business. Investment in business is not taxed, only profits or income. Business owners invest more back in the business to avoid paying taxes on profits that are above what they can or want to spend, I have seen this first hand, it is what keeps people with multimillion or billion dollar companies in business and thier money in circulation buying equipment and paying salaries. The above mentioned billionaire, owns 49% of a multibillion dollar corporation that spent 650 million dollars on an aquisition three years ago in a year when the company reported 27 million dollars in profits. That was about 1% on sales, he didn't close the doors, he didn't retire, he expanded his net worth through work and the risk of taking on a new company, if there was no income tax the company would have been sold off years ago and he would be getting progressively richer without working or risking his capital forever... Economics isn't simple any solution that sounds too simple to be true probably isnt. my 2cents.. Joe. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1477 - 1983 Ski Nautique 2001 1967 Mustang 302 "Decoy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5MkcBXBBs - Holeshot Video |
Posted By: PLBC
Date Posted: February-13-2007 at 1:10pm
|
I'm with Poster, that sounds semi socialist. Wealthy people can and will find ways around or under their higher tax rate.
Do I think the incomes of a few mentioned execs are totally ridiculous? Absolutely but that is what America has become, all about money and greed. Until America as a whole finds this habit morally and socially unacceptable, it will continue. There is nothing the law can do. Bottom line in America, life is not fair. ONLY YOU have the freedom to seek or ignore opportunities to better yourself. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=5164&sort=&pagenum=1" rel="nofollow - 99 |
Posted By: Hollywood
Date Posted: February-13-2007 at 1:25pm
This thread needs some boobs. ------------- |
Posted By: JoeinNY
Date Posted: February-13-2007 at 1:53pm
|
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. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1477 - 1983 Ski Nautique 2001 1967 Mustang 302 "Decoy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5MkcBXBBs - Holeshot Video |
Posted By: GottaSki
Date Posted: February-13-2007 at 2:36pm
Not those kind of boobs. ------------- "There is nothing, absolutely nothing, half so much worthwhile as messing around with boats...simply messing." River Rat to Mole |
Posted By: Poster112
Date Posted: February-13-2007 at 3:30pm
|
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. ------------- I'd rather have a bottle-in-front-of-me than a frontal-lobotomy. http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=3182&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1925&yrend=2009" rel="nofollow - 1985 Ski 1984 SW |
Posted By: 87BFN owner
Date Posted: February-13-2007 at 4:05pm
|
poster112 do you work for the government, I am just kidding please don't get mad. I originaly started this as a rant. Didn't mean to make anyone mad at each other.
But I guess we can talk about faiths next. After all your not supposed to talk about politics, faiths, and can not think of the third one that your not supposed to talk about with friends, family, and co-workers. But I have seen, heard and learn some very interesting points to think about because of this thread. But Ken can you please ease are pain and lighten the mood with some of your infinite stash of pics.  ------------- |
Posted By: JoeinNY
Date Posted: February-13-2007 at 4:22pm
|
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$$ will pay more. Thats how i see it, who has more to gain by putting out disinformation the big companies and the super rich or me who is just trying to get super rich. Cheers to all _Joe. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1477 - 1983 Ski Nautique 2001 1967 Mustang 302 "Decoy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5MkcBXBBs - Holeshot Video |
Posted By: Poster112
Date Posted: February-13-2007 at 4:27pm
|
I'm all for pics, as well.
No, I don't work for the government, just the Workers Comp and General Liability insurance companies, which is much, much worse. I do get to meet and chat with small business owners every day and see what they have to do just to try and survive, which means wrestling with the idea of laying people off and how to grow their businesses. Some of these folks are "rich", but I've met very few that have had anything handed to them. Man I don't know about ya'll, but I am no financial genius. Until I can figure out how to get rich, I'm going to try to keep the government off what little money I do have. This is the best plan that I've heard, yet. Instead of joining the chorus of folks that hate the rich, we should try and be rich. I have a great family and a Correct Craft. I'm rich beyond measure with those few things!!  ------------- I'd rather have a bottle-in-front-of-me than a frontal-lobotomy. http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=3182&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1925&yrend=2009" rel="nofollow - 1985 Ski 1984 SW |
Posted By: Poster112
Date Posted: February-13-2007 at 5:16pm
|
So are you saying that you want to punish those that keep the economy running?
If the rich stop working, it creates a void, you are correct. Another basic tenant of the economy is that others will compete to fill that void. That is also what keeps the economy running. Agree? What do the middle cla$$ 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'd rather have a bottle-in-front-of-me than a frontal-lobotomy. http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=3182&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1925&yrend=2009" rel="nofollow - 1985 Ski 1984 SW |
Posted By: AbunDiga909
Date Posted: February-13-2007 at 5:46pm
|
Everyone has good points here, but don't you realize that you (the general 'you') wouldn't be able to get "rich" or make money, for that matter, without the government, and the taxes that EVERYONE pays? It is your way of giving back. I don't know enough about econ. to say this well shortly either, but I'll give it a shot with a short anology...
When you turn 65 and are offered medicare and get a discount on medical items, or if you get a discounted transportation ride, would you call that fair? Why should these people get breaks? The answer is because when you were young, your taxes, no matter what, went towards the 65+ yr olds when you were young. So, when you are of that age and need the care, the government "gives you a break" and you get the discounted prices. Same goes for things like Social Security--the place that is SUPPOSED to be safe where money is stored to be returned to us when we are seniors, but some dude is taking money FROM SS TO the War. (but thats a whole different story) This might not affect you, but prob. me... Again, I'm no professor so Im sorry if this isnt totally clear.... I also stand behind my point about the more affluent guy having more to protect than the lesser guy. If I have $20 bucks in my pocket and you have $200, the same military and police is protecting your 200 as my 20, but if the same service is protecting MORE for you and LESS for me, it seems fair that you would have to pay more for that service. Why should a portion of my taxes go towards protecting your 200 bucks? Well, thats the point I'm trying to make about progressive income tax--it is the "only" fair way we have to make sure each person pays an equal PORTION, key word there, of their wealth. If the rates were equal, the portions wouldn't be the same--its not as simple as just a percentage, the rate must go up on the wealthier guy to keep his portion of wealth going towrads taxes as the poorer guy's. Lastly, I'm not saying this government is perfect, there are plenty of things I find wrong with it, plenty. I also agree that the welfare system is f'd up myself. However, I'm also skeptical about saying we should do without it. I also know someone who had a happy life, and went all downhill from there. Had many family & financial problems, hit rock bottom, finally found a cheap min. wage job and was starting his way back up. After about a hear, he said f it, and said it'd be easier to live on welfare. Its sad... likin the convo.. also agree its good to see that people care, i guess post some pics brosef 8-) ------------- I Nautique, therefore I am. |
Posted By: Poster112
Date Posted: February-13-2007 at 6:20pm
|
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. ------------- I'd rather have a bottle-in-front-of-me than a frontal-lobotomy. http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=3182&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1925&yrend=2009" rel="nofollow - 1985 Ski 1984 SW |
Posted By: bkhallpass
Date Posted: February-13-2007 at 6:40pm
Actually Socialism is from each according to ability to each according to his deeds. Communism is from each according to ability to each according to his need. But do carry on. I'm rather enjoying this. BKH ------------- Livin' the Dream |
Posted By: 87BFN owner
Date Posted: February-13-2007 at 6:59pm
|
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. ------------- |
Posted By: copcraft
Date Posted: February-13-2007 at 7:17pm
|
87BFN
Now you are talkin! Every day the people I see milking the system. One at 18 that gets social security because she has trouble "paying attention", another on SS because he shot himself in the stomach putting a gun in his waitband and he's now "disabled", calling an ambulance when you're only a block from the hospital for a headache, the list goes on and on. Guess who's paying all those bills and paying for the services nd not using any of them? You got it, the good ol middle cla$$ guy. Okay, I've said my peace. David |
Posted By: Poster112
Date Posted: February-13-2007 at 7:35pm
|
Thanks, BKH. You are correct. ------------- I'd rather have a bottle-in-front-of-me than a frontal-lobotomy. http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=3182&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1925&yrend=2009" rel="nofollow - 1985 Ski 1984 SW |
Posted By: AbunDiga909
Date Posted: February-13-2007 at 9:14pm
|
Way to give back? You have to understand that the whole reason the person made that much money was made possible by the gov't! I know this seems very abstract and your initial reaction is probably shooting this idea down, but if you think about the corporations through which a "rich" person made money, the government makes it possible for people to become wealthy, that is how you GET something from them...
lol can't wait to hear the responses to this.. woops ------------- I Nautique, therefore I am. |
Posted By: Poster112
Date Posted: February-13-2007 at 10:10pm
|
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)  ------------- I'd rather have a bottle-in-front-of-me than a frontal-lobotomy. http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=3182&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1925&yrend=2009" rel="nofollow - 1985 Ski 1984 SW |
Posted By: AbunDiga909
Date Posted: February-13-2007 at 10:46pm
|
Yeah, i knew it'd sound absurd, and I wish I had a real answer for you. I don't think highly of the gov't at all, despite what what I say may sound like.
And I guess I have to explain what I meant about the 'govt giving back.' Again, I wish i knew more, i dont know everything i should right now, but from what I do know, i can say that I do not mean it in the literal sense that the govt will be sending you a check for your business. I mean it in terms of the gov't allowing you to start businesses, with taxes that it collected from EVERYONE, including the poorer people. 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." Also, the Fed (although independent) can lower the banking interest rates, promoting you to invest less due to low rates, and put that money towards expansion. This is bad for inflation because it increases the flow of money faster than the supply of goods and services, but it DOES promote, aka help, or "give," you an easier opprotunity to expand than if these programs/ideals from the govt didnt exist. So, those are just two examples of ways that the gov't makes it POSSIBLE for you to become rich.. I hope that helps and sounds less absurd... I'll be honest, I didn't read all of the fair tax thing you showed us, but I didn't comment on it directly either, so I think thats fair... I've enjoyed the convo too yada yada yada and also think i've had enough.... but to end on one note... "This country is #1 because of it's citizens and what they do." Thats a pretty bold claim, America is #1... sure, its awesome, but there are a sh*t load of other sick countries too. I'd love to live in Europe some day... there are a lot of aspects of America that throw it down the drain, imho... but again, this is where we differ.. ;) later ------------- I Nautique, therefore I am. |
Posted By: bkhallpass
Date Posted: February-14-2007 at 12:16am
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. http://www.sfaa.org/magazine/archives/05/may/0505.roberts.html - 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$$es and stimulate the broader economy. Certainly there are greater minds than mine who can make the case for fair tax, flat tax, no tax, higher tax, lower tax, or even socialism. I'm not in the business of politics or economic policy, so I'll stick with my own single vote. BKH ------------- Livin' the Dream |
Posted By: Poster112
Date Posted: February-14-2007 at 8:45am
|
Abundiga, the government of our country does not "allow" you to open a business. They can restrict certain aspects of it, but they cannot keep you from selling goods to paying customers, unless they have restricted those goods (another argument for another day).
Secondly, the government sets tax rates to generate revenues in their local districts or states. They charge as much as they can without the people throwing them out of office. It has nothing to do with being nice. Your right. You have much to learn. Start by reading the US Constitution. It's not that long. You are not too far from Philly. Go to the Constitution Center there. You can learn alot just by doing that. Our government does not give us our rights or our property. They sure as heck do not make a point to let us start businesses. I just can't figure out where you have gotten the idea that our government helps us so much. A pretty bold statement that this country is # 1 because of it's citizens??? What is wrong with you? Learn more about the founding of this country and what the purpose of our Constitution is. You will then not make such dumba$$ statements. I've said to to before in another post, one country has to be the best. I want it to be the US. If you want it to be Europe, pack your bags. They would love you there. I think that it would be a great experience for you to go to Europe. Many countries operate just as you want this country to operate. You can see the result in places like France. It ain't pretty. make sure that you do not criticize their government, as they have no guaranteed freedom of speech as we have. Make sure that you do not offend muslims their, as the EU has now made that a crime, as well. You'll find that it is not quite like what you see in travel and fashion mags. ------------- I'd rather have a bottle-in-front-of-me than a frontal-lobotomy. http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=3182&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1925&yrend=2009" rel="nofollow - 1985 Ski 1984 SW |
Posted By: JoeinNY
Date Posted: February-14-2007 at 10:05am
|
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. ------------- http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=1477 - 1983 Ski Nautique 2001 1967 Mustang 302 "Decoy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5MkcBXBBs - Holeshot Video |
Posted By: Poster112
Date Posted: February-14-2007 at 1:29pm
|
Agreed about complexity of taxes.
But, profit margin is profit margin. It is a margin of profit shown as a percentage of revenues. It is not that complicated. I was showing it on the gallon, as that is what folks are whining about. It is still a fact that a margin does not increase as revenues increase. But what good are facts when trying to debate something, right? The Fair tax book was mainly written by John Linder, house republican, who introduced it. I don't know if it quite qualifies as "propaganda", though. The "Right-wing" Boortz just has the audience. I'll read your links and see what they have to say about it. ------------- I'd rather have a bottle-in-front-of-me than a frontal-lobotomy. http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=3182&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1925&yrend=2009" rel="nofollow - 1985 Ski 1984 SW |
Posted By: bkhallpass
Date Posted: February-14-2007 at 3:05pm
|
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 ------------- Livin' the Dream |
Posted By: 65 'cuda
Date Posted: February-14-2007 at 6:14pm
|
ROI is much different than gross margins, which are different from net margins, the examples above are greatly simplified. The oil industry is experiencing a period of great profitability. In 1998 and 1999 the opposite was true, the industry was bleeding badly which led to a round of consolodation worldwide, including the exxon mobile merger and the BP amoco merger, among others.
The fact is many industries and companies have higher net profit margins than Exxon Mobil. Be careful wishing for taxes on "excess" profits. Your company or industry could be next. Gary ------------- Gary http://www.correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=941" rel="nofollow - 1965 Barracuda SS |
Posted By: bkhallpass
Date Posted: February-14-2007 at 6:20pm
Absolutely. BKH ------------- Livin' the Dream |
Posted By: The Lake
Date Posted: February-14-2007 at 7:17pm
|
Way off thread jack.
Gary, I really like your boat, and don't those old Chryslers have a great sound! Chuck ------------- Walk on Water www.coldwater.me http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=775&sort=&pagenum=3&yrstart=1966&yrend=1970 - 69 Ski Nautique |
Posted By: Darrel
Date Posted: February-14-2007 at 7:50pm
| 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. |
Posted By: Poster112
Date Posted: February-14-2007 at 8:57pm
|
BKH, Joe was saying that "profit margin" increases when inventories turn over, which is factually inaccurate. That is what I was disputing. I never mentioned return on investment. So now we hate them because they are making a good return on their investment???? What in the hell would you expect a company to do? Make a bad return? What do you think a poor ROI would that do to the price of gas? It sure wouldn't make it come down! You can't have it both ways. Either the oil companies succeed or you pay more. Sounds like alot of folks would gladly get screwed over themselves just to see a successful company weakened. Who in the hell cares what their return on investment is other than the shareholders? Returns on investment have alot to do with good decisions being made on the investment. I can't change someones mind of they make decisions purely on emotion, so I am done with trying to convince folks not to hate rich people or successful companies. However, words have meaning. If one side is changing the terms in order to back up their side, he no longer has credibility. I brought up "profit margin" which has a finite definition and finite way to calculate. Someone else is using the same word "profit margin" but is talking about something completely different in order to advance their argument(you are probably right that he was talking about return on investment). I knew that I had the facts on my side, so I kept arguing. I thought that this was being done intentionally, but perhaps it was done by mistake. Same thing goes for when someone talks a about a sales tax and another person says that the sales tax is a "regressive tax, as "regressive tax" and "flat tax" are "commonly synonymous". Since the fact is that they are completely different, that person loses credibility. ------------- I'd rather have a bottle-in-front-of-me than a frontal-lobotomy. http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=3182&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1925&yrend=2009" rel="nofollow - 1985 Ski 1984 SW |
Posted By: bkhallpass
Date Posted: February-14-2007 at 9:27pm
|
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 ------------- Livin' the Dream |
Posted By: AbunDiga909
Date Posted: February-14-2007 at 9:56pm
|
I'm with BKH in regards to his statement about reading this post and being able to talk about it...
Poster, now I think you've got to relax on what I've said. I'll be honest, when I learned this, I knew the definitions, most of them were self-definable. But, since I couldn't find any one regressive tax by definition, I led myself to believe that is was regressive in proportion to your income, which I thought made sense. In that case, a flat tax would be regressive. But, my mistake, no need to get pissed about it--thats not my only point, so credibility is not lost. Don't also a$$ume that I hate the rich or the sucessful companies--that couldn't be further from the truth. We are talking about specific scenarios here. I have a drive for sucess myself, and hopefully I can be high up in a company. But, I've also got morals. I don't want to make a mil. a year for Molboro or something harmful like that. Instead, maybe working for Merck would be nice, as an example, where I can help get the world the medicine it needs, and continue the legacy. One thing is for sure, also, NO decision I make is based purely on "emotion." That's just wrong, sorry... A person also loses credibility when he ignores the opposing argument and a$$umes it to be incorrect or immediately dislikes it without proper judgment--a reason why I always study what the "enemy" is thinking... nice talkin', no hard feelings, i hope, nonehere at least... ------------- I Nautique, therefore I am. |
Posted By: Poster112
Date Posted: February-15-2007 at 8:48am
|
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. ------------- I'd rather have a bottle-in-front-of-me than a frontal-lobotomy. http://correctcraftfan.com/diaries/details.asp?ID=3182&sort=&pagenum=1&yrstart=1925&yrend=2009" rel="nofollow - 1985 Ski 1984 SW |
Posted By: 82tique
Date Posted: February-15-2007 at 11:16am
|
good debate,is it just coincidence that it's tax season?
------------- Life is Good. |