Jump to content

"If You’ve Got A Business — You Didn’t Build That"


Shady

Recommended Posts

History also showed us what happens when a lot of countries try to force income equality on it's population, that didn't work out very well in those countries either.

You mean like the Scandinavian states? Seems to be working well for them. Or are you using the strawman of communist states. Nobody I see is advocating the latter. More are return to the trend of only a few decades ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 558
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's a great start. Imagination is the engine that drives empathy.

But as I said: is it in fact the case that the perceived "outsiders" receive the lion's share of tax-funded social benefits? Or are most recipients of European heritage, with generations of Canadian-born precedents?

Don't the massive corporations have imaginations as well, they're the ones bankrolling the developing world getting out of the poor house. No revolution or massive taxes necessary.

Would you prefer that all of the poor countries at the UN say "you know what north America and Europe are too rich, their GDP needs to be taxed and given to us so that we have a level playing field". I'd like to wonder how the average north American would feel about that. Unfortunately the rest of the world doesn't and is getting richer by investment which is a voluntary distribution of wealth with the caveat of a return on investment at a later date. The reason why private investment and private charities are far more efficient at helping poor people is because it stays out of govt inefficiencies.

What people don't realize is that back in the late 1800s when govt was small, a lot of the charities that exist today were founded back then because some people wanted to help out. Far more people benefit when the giving is voluntary, not mandatory. Ask the kids who get to go to camp because Tim bottoms has camp day when proceeds of coffee sales go to putting kids in camp. Now imagine a govt program with the same goal, which would cost taxpayers/customers less therefore is more efficient?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if that's so, "generous benefits system" is to some degree in the eye of the beholder.
I would say taxes in this country are as high as they can go (the 'make someone else pay for my benefits' yahoos notwithstanding). This limits the benefit system to what can be paid for with those taxes. This means that governments need to be talking about how to reduce the cost of providing those benefits since the costs are set to explode. .
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean like the Scandinavian states? Seems to be working well for them. Or are you using the strawman of communist states. Nobody I see is advocating the latter. More are return to the trend of only a few decades ago.

That's not a straw man, you guys want income equality, and communist states are as fair example as any. China seems to be abandoning income equality because they know through experience it's a failure.

Here at home we have western Canada which is slashing it's taxes yet is the jurisdiction putting all of Canada on it's back economically. Seems to me slashing taxes and encouraging private enterprise works very well for us.

Heck my previous example of Sweden punting out their left wing govt and installing a centre right govt that is cutting taxes, didn't spend on stimulus, and has private sector job growth as it's main priority. If income equality is so good in Scandinavia, why did Sweden decide to change?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say taxes in this country are as high as they can go (the 'make someone else pay for my benefits' yahoos notwithstanding).

These comments from you are incredibly foolish. A great number of the "benefits" in this country are universal.

Do you know what universal means, Tim?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't the massive corporations have imaginations as well, they're the ones bankrolling the developing world getting out of the poor house. No revolution or massive taxes necessary.

You believe they are performing out of empathy???

Would you prefer that all of the poor countries at the UN say "you know what north America and Europe are too rich, their GDP needs to be taxed and given to us so that we have a level playing field". I'd like to wonder how the average north American would feel about that. Unfortunately the rest of the world doesn't and is getting richer by investment which is a voluntary distribution of wealth with the caveat of a return on investment at a later date. The reason why private investment and private charities are far more efficient at helping poor people is because it stays out of govt inefficiencies.

I don't know what you're responding to...but it isn't any of my posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not a straw man, you guys want income equality

Quit making crap up that just isn't true. Obviously you didn't watch the entire video that I posted, since Wilkinson says specifically that absoiute income equality would create its own problems. It is neither desirable nor preferable to what we have now. You also didn't read the post someone made earlier saying that there needs to be a balance between growing income disparity and absolute equality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quit making crap up that just isn't true. Obviously you didn't watch the entire video that I posted, since Wilkinson says specifically that absoiute income equality would create its own problems. It is neither desirable nor preferable to what we have now. You also didn't read the post someone made earlier saying that there needs to be a balance between growing income disparity and absolute equality.

When I hear yahoos calling for 75 and 90 cents on the dollar taxes for upper class with no loopholes, what are we supposed to expect? What your person fails to mention is that he is advocating a slippery slope to income equality.

The free market already takes care of the balance between disparity and equality, just not at the levels you guys want.

Would you want to work for 10 cents on the dollar? A simple yes or no will do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I hear yahoos calling for 75 and 90 cents on the dollar taxes for upper class with no loopholes, what are we supposed to expect? What your person fails to mention is that he is advocating a slippery slope to income equality.

The free market already takes care of the balance between disparity and equality, just not at the levels you guys want.

Would you want to work for 10 cents on the dollar? A simple yes or no will do.

If you gave me the choice of earning 10 cents on the dollar but taking home 10 million a year or working for 90 cents on the dollar and earning 40,000. I will take the 10 million.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you gave me the choice of earning 10 cents on the dollar but taking home 10 million a year or working for 90 cents on the dollar and earning 40,000. I will take the 10 million.

Exactly, the unfair, attempted debate-killing "yes or no" demand notwithstanding.

And every person, rich and poor, would agree with you. Obviously.

Edited by bleeding heart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And every person, rich and poor, would agree with you. Obviously.
But it is a false choice. People who earn 10 million a year would simply demand more money to compensate them for the higher taxes. So income disparity is unchanged but companies are a less profitable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it is a false choice. People who earn 10 million a year would simply demand more money to compensate them for the higher taxes. So income disparity is unchanged but companies are a less profitable.

What if the company says "Nope you 10 million after taxes," and every company does that? You think this guy earning 10 million is irreplaceable? First rule of Business besides "learn to hate taxes" is "no is irreplaceable".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly, the unfair, attempted debate-killing "yes or no" demand notwithstanding.

And every person, rich and poor, would agree with you. Obviously.

Boo hoo unfair, it's a simple question. It's not a debate killing question, it's a simple question who would want to work for 10 cents on the dollar, and we have punked here moving the goal posts asking for a choice. No choice, work for 10 cents on the dollar, whatever outcome happens goes.

So we have punked here who thinks he would work for 10 cents on the dollar if he were rich. So every decision he made, all the hours at the job, all the work of building up the company, vision for where the company goes, and he'll make 10 cents on the dollar. And punked would look at that paycheck and see a 90% deduction and what he could have been making and been fine with it. Punked would be fine seeing all that money go to the government instead of him financing entrepreneurs, buying more goods and services, giving to charity, and saving it in a credit union for members to have access to more capital. Hmmm....

I call BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think this guy earning 10 million is irreplaceable?
There is no free market in CEO salaries. The are set at whatever level their buddies on the compensation committee can justify. Raise the tax rate and that gives them an easy justification for a big tax increase.

I don't have a link at the moment but I read a paper out of Britain that looked at this exact problem and concluded that raising tax rates does not necessarily reduce inequality for that reason. In fact, increasing tax rates exacerbates inequality as companies reduce investment.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if the company says "Nope you 10 million after taxes," and every company does that? You think this guy earning 10 million is irreplaceable? First rule of Business besides "learn to hate taxes" is "no is irreplaceable".

That's a false scenario, no company is going to put a cap on CEO compensation because there is massive competition to get that CEO. Companies want the best and brightest leading them and will gladly pay for it. And at the end of the day, those CEOs often deliver. Not only that, a CEO screws up and they are canned fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no free market in CEO salaries. The are set at whatever level their buddies on the compensation committee can justify. Raise the tax rate and that gives them an easy justification for a big tax increase.

I don't have a link at the moment but I read a paper out of Britain that looked at this exact problem and concluded that raising tax rates does not necessarily reduce inequality for that reason. In fact, increasing tax rates exacerbates inequality as companies reduce investment.

I beg to differ, there is a market on CEO salaries, it's just a mind boggling some of money market because of the intense competition for management.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boo hoo unfair, it's a simple question. It's not a debate killing question, it's a simple question who would want to work for 10 cents on the dollar, and we have punked here moving the goal posts asking for a choice. No choice, work for 10 cents on the dollar, whatever outcome happens goes.

So we have punked here who thinks he would work for 10 cents on the dollar if he were rich. So every decision he made, all the hours at the job, all the work of building up the company, vision for where the company goes, and he'll make 10 cents on the dollar. And punked would look at that paycheck and see a 90% deduction and what he could have been making and been fine with it. Punked would be fine seeing all that money go to the government instead of him financing entrepreneurs, buying more goods and services, giving to charity, and saving it in a credit union for members to have access to more capital. Hmmm....

I call BS.

I would love to work for 10 cents on the dollar if I take home 10 million dollars a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boo hoo unfair, it's a simple question. It's not a debate killing question, it's a simple question who would want to work for 10 cents on the dollar, and we have punked here moving the goal posts asking for a choice.

Actually, you, blueblood, have determined that you should be able to draw parameters of your choosing around each debate; and when punkd decides not to play by your tautological demands, he is "moving the goal posts."

No choice, work for 10 cents on the dollar, whatever outcome happens goes.

And like punkd pointed out: if you were told, "work for $40 000 at 10% tax...or work for a hundred million at 90% tax"...the choice is obvious. Simple. You would choose the latter too. Without blinking.

If you dispute this, I call, as you say, BS.

So we have punked here who thinks he would work for 10 cents on the dollar if he were rich. So every decision he made, all the hours at the job, all the work of building up the company, vision for where the company goes, and he'll make 10 cents on the dollar. And punked would look at that paycheck and see a 90% deduction and what he could have been making and been fine with it.

He didn't say he'd be fine with it. (And our "job," as citizxens, is not to ensure that the very wealthy are pleased and happy with their tax rates. there is no obligaiton to think this way, even if you, oh-aptly-named elitist, believe their delight is our life's work.

What he said was he'd choose ten million a year over $36 000.

that's it.

And so would you.

As for all his hard work and whatnot: there's not a job in the world in which ten million is not enough.

Punked would be fine seeing all that money go to the government

To Government?

To society, blueblood. Punkd believes in Civic Reponsibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer to your question takes 15 minutes to explain briefly.

And yet, cybercoma, world income inequality is falling. More people, around the world, have more choices than ever before.

Your TED link is to a national comparison.

That said, I can understand why you care more about those people that live inside the imaginary lines. The trouble is your presumption that something can be done about it. Nothing can be done. This redistribution of wealth is an inevitable consequence of a more equitable global economy. It sucks for those of us that have enjoyed a privileged existence living in developed countries.
TimG, at the end of WWII, ordinary American soldiers were "rich guys" in Europe. Heck, in the Vietnam War, on R&R, they were rich in Thailand and the Philippines.

Nowadays, women in Germany, Vietnam, Thailand and the Philippines have more choices. Is that bad? Is it bad for you if your neighbour finds a better way to drive to work?

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Minimum wage is only a job killer if you're stupid enough to believe that labour and the economy is a zero sum game. When people have more money to spend, it increases demand for products and services. You know what that does? It sure as hell doesn't kill jobs.
So taxing me $100, giving the money to hire you to dig a hole by my house that I must then spend a Saturday afternoon filling in - that will give people money to spend, and stimulate the economy.

Why not simply give the money to you - without digging a hole? Or even better, why bother taxing me in the first place? I'm sure my daughters and ex-wives will happily use my credit card.

----

Paul Krugman has a complex explanation involving liquidity traps, and why it's bad that I have $100 tax cut. The Nobel Committee may have given him a Prize (as they did Obama) but I'm still not sure of his argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, you, blueblood, have determined that you should be able to draw parameters of your choosing around each debate; and when punkd decides not to play by your tautological demands, he is "moving the goal posts."

And like punkd pointed out: if you were told, "work for $40 000 at 10% tax...or work for a hundred million at 90% tax"...the choice is obvious. Simple. You would choose the latter too. Without blinking.

If you dispute this, I call, as you say, BS.

He didn't say he'd be fine with it. (And our "job," as citizxens, is not to ensure that the very wealthy are pleased and happy with their tax rates. there is no obligaiton to think this way, even if you, oh-aptly-named elitist, believe their delight is our life's work.

What he said was he'd choose ten million a year over $36 000.

that's it.

And so would you.

As for all his hard work and whatnot: there's not a job in the world in which ten million is not enough.

To Government?

To society, blueblood. Punkd believes in Civic Reponsibility.

If I'm making decisions that can make or lose a company billions of dollars and my ass can be fired at the drop of a hat, 10 million might not be enough when another company down the road is willing to pay me more.

I asked the question who would work for 10 cents on the dollar, punked moved the goal posts and stated he would work for 10 cents on the dollar if he were to get 10 million. Obviously, he is using extremes and is not taking into account competition from low tax jurisdictions. How about this, since punked likes to offer choices, here's some more food for thought, society a offers a 30 cents on the dollar tax for a CEO to go work in that country and society b offers a 90 cents on the dollar tax. Society a and b are both western countries with all the amenities and comforts of western civilization. At the end of the day, society b would allow the CEO to keep 10 million dollars, and society a would allow the CEO to keep 70 million dollars. Where would you want to be? If your saying you would rather take the 10 million dollars over the 70 million, I call BS.

What you guys fail to realize is that when somebody makes that kind of money they aren't burying it in the ground. They are saving it in banks for others to borrow, investing it in companies helping them grow and provide jobs, buying others goods and services, and making the decisions to provide jobs and goods and services to others. Isn't that contributing enough, yet you want more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...