Does net wealth or income indicate the productivity or merit of someone?

[imagep]

So how many of these cheap foriegn workers have American taxes taken out of their paycheck?

Well, since they baned inheritance tax along with Windfall tax.
Gues what class of Americans these taxes are most likely to be taken from?

When I employed to illegals, every Friday I made my paycheck out for triple the amount I actually paid myself, I cashed the check, and then paid the illegals out of it. They paid taxes, the taxes came out of my pay check. The fair tax people claim that 30% of every dollar you spend is a "hidden tax". Illegals do pay taxes, they do it in many indirect ways that you would never think of.

 

[liblady]

But there are lots and lots of consumers that don't have jobs. You don't have to have a job to have access to money. My 17 year old is a consumer, yet he doen't have a job. I am not so sure that Paris Hilton has what you may call a job right now, but she certainly purchases stuff. There are lots of retired people who are consumers, but if they are retired, then obviously they don't have jobs. I think that only something like 1 out of 3 Americans have jobs, but almost everyone over the age of 10 or 12 makes purchasing decisions and spends money.

And businesses can also increase their net profits in other ways other than increasing sales. They can raise prices, or operate more efficently, they can reduce their cost of products (ie outsourcing), or start scamming people.

Outsourcing is generally good for individual businesses and consumers. Otherwise we wouldn't outsource.

It is also good for the global economy, it lets countries that are capable of being very efficent producing certain products to concentrate on producing those products instead of having to produce a little of everything. Like Brazil has the climate to produce abundent coffey, but maybe they arn't good at growning wheat. So we outsource our coffey needs to them and they outsource their wheat needs to us.

Only when you look at a particular countries economy is outsourcing bad, but if the outsourcing between two or more countries is mutually receiprocated, it can be benefical to individual countries also.

except it never is mutually reciprocated.

 

[imagep]

except it never is mutually reciprocated.

I really don't know that is true. We export lots of goods. Maybe if we produced goods more efficently we would export more or have the need to import less.

 

[presluc]

but i was responding to your inaccurate rebuttal found immediately below:

i explained why business to business sales are not dependent on one's job
i pointed out your notion, that more customers are required if more profits are to be attained, is a fallacy ... because there are ways to generate more sales revenues and/or profit margins than by acquiring a larger slice of the consumer pizza. certainly, that is one way, but not the only way, as you had presented it to be


that litany has nothing to do with my post, causing me to wonder if you have any real sense about what you are attempting to express

again, you present something which had absolutely no bearing on our discussion

you continue to interject references to internationally produced goods that had absolutely nothing to do with the dialogue in which we had engaged

and tell me again, what does this have to do with your assertion (and my rebuttal to your argument) that "To have greater net profits you must have more consumers, consumers have jobs or they are not consumers and don't buy"?

again, i ask, what does this have to do with your inaccurate point that "To have greater net profits you must have more consumers, consumers have jobs or they are not consumers and don't buy?

Well, I don't know where you're from, but I think unless I'm mistaken there are these people who have jobs and work they get taxes taken out of their paycheck they take what's left of their paycheck and cash it to buy what they need if there's any left over they buy what they want,
In this decade just a small example Americans lost 400,000 jobs in 3 months, that's 400,000 consumers not paying taxes or buying what they want.

Business is dependant on money, money comes from people who have jobs with at least a fair salary.
The degrading of tax revenue has always played a factor in every American .
The federal government just can't keep printing money, and state and local governments can only budget cut so much If America stays on this track the result will be higher taxes.

The foriegn sales beating American product sales has everything to do with this if America is going to be a major player in Globalisation.

Some international produced goods is one thing when it becomes a monopoly that's a new problem American corporations will have to deal with. Business is a competition against nations not riding the coatails on other nations at least it's supposed to be.

If corporatins make products with cheap foriegn labor whose gonna buy their products cheap foriegn labor?
That old patriotic phrase buy American left with American jobs.

If foriegn products are cheaper and better and have American jobs and someday they can be bought and recieved the same day.
Why would Americans buy American products or invest in American corporations???

 

[presluc]

When I employed to illegals, every Friday I made my paycheck out for triple the amount I actually paid myself, I cashed the check, and then paid the illegals out of it. They paid taxes, the taxes came out of my pay check. The fair tax people claim that 30% of every dollar you spend is a "hidden tax". Illegals do pay taxes, they do it in many indirect ways that you would never think of.

Perhaps that is true.
However a worker working on American products overseas is not going to be circulating too much money in the states.
I don't think they'll be paying into SS taxes either.

 

[presluc]

I really don't know that is true. We export lots of goods. Maybe if we produced goods more efficently we would export more or have the need to import less.

Now that I would agree with right now the scales of import and export are more than slightly tipped add American parts made overseas to that it's worse.

 

[masonkiller]

...it would be like taking money from your right pocket and putting it into your left and calling it profit. So personally, he's productive, but as far as the economy is concerned he's impeding production.

Cough cough stimulus package cough cough

 

[presluc]

Cough cough stimulus package cough cough

Cough tax cuts, cough the repeal of the inheoatance tax, cough the repeal of the windfall tax, big cough bailouts.

 

[Mensch]

Lets say that some poor working dude got fed up with working and robbed a bank and got millions from his crime. Then he invested it in stocks and quit working, spending all of his time looking at porn magazines. Some would praise the guys merit's because he is now a "capital provider" claiming that because he has the financial ability to fund businesses he is now more productive than he was when he was just a worker.

Did he actually do anything to improve production? Actually, all he did was transfer control of wealth from the bank to himself. He produced nothing and no additional production will result in his actions. If anything, but quitting working, he is impeding production.

Now after a few years, he is feeling guilty about his crime so he goes back to work and donates all of his money to a wino on the street who does nothing with the money because he is happy being a wino. Is the bank robber now somehow less productive since he is no longer a "capital provider" and has gone back to his lowly job? Is the wino somehow now more productive since he is now considered a "capital provider" - even though he is still a wino?

Lets say that the bank robber now gets paid more at his job (the same job he had before he robbed the bank) because his employer things that he is a good person for giving all of that money away to charity. So does the fact that the former bank robber now makes more money indicate that he is more productive than he used to be?

What if the bank robber gave the money back to the bank, would the bank employees suddenly have became more productive just because the bank now shows a big windfall profit due to getting the money back?

And would it make any difference if he got rich by inheriting money instead of robbing a bank? What if he won the lottery instead? Or if he became a CEO of his mom's business and was paid $10 million bucks before he was fired for being not doing his job? What if he got rich from being in a commercial for the company that he worked for (I once had a roomate who was paid a fairly good size amount of money for doing a Holiday Inn commercial - he was selected just because he had the right "look" for the part and they wanted an actual employee to play the part).

This is a ridiculous post. I'm assuming your M.O. is to paint the picture of Jesse James capitalism with the Wall Street cowboys as the evil, greedy villans. I'm having a really difficult time wrapping my mind around this post, or the reason you decided to waste x amount of your life to write it. He stole the money. Under any ethical system, he should be punished. End of story. The only thing you've painted is a word picture of current government procedures. Are you just being sarcastic?

 

[Mensch]

I have a question.

If corporations are outsourceing more , wouldn't that be considered transferring wealth from American labor to cheap foriegn labor?

Wouldn't that be considered conterproductive due to the loss of tax revenue and consumer sales?

I guess that would be true on fantasy island. But in the real world, the numbers are against you.

 

[presluc]

This is a ridiculous post. I'm assuming your M.O. is to paint the picture of Jesse James capitalism with the Wall Street cowboys as the evil, greedy villans. I'm having a really difficult time wrapping my mind around this post, or the reason you decided to waste x amount of your life to write it. He stole the money. Under any ethical system, he should be punished. End of story. The only thing you've painted is a word picture of current government procedures. Are you just being sarcastic?

Well lets see Jesse James stole money got shot in the back by Bob Ford working for the pinkertons.

Martha Stewart stole money and got to go to camp cupcake.

Stewart was not the first upper class to steal money and go to camp cupcake or club fed.

 

[TurtleDude]

This thread appears to be another case of those who want the government to take the money of some and spend it on them trying to justify their calls for income redistribution

 

[presluc]

I guess that would be true on fantasy island. But in the real world, the numbers are against you.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[presluc]

This thread appears to be another case of those who want the government to take the money of some and spend it on them trying to justify their calls for income redistribution

The government is slowly losing its power to big corporations and special interest.

as for income redistribution, one word should suffice BAILOUTS!!!!

 

[cpwill]

Lets say that some poor working dude congressman got fed up with working being blamed for the results of his own actions and robbed a bank American Children and got mTrillions from his crime. Then he invested it in stocks pork projects and fueling unsustainable state-level spending and quit working, spending all of his time looking at porn magazines trying to do to the rest of the economy what he'd done to the part of it he'd crashed in the first place. Some Keyensians would praise the guys merit's because he is now a "capital provider" increasing aggregate demand, claiming that because he has the financial ability to fund businesses he is now more productive than he was when he was just a worker their master.

fixed that for you

Did he actually do anything to improve production? Actually, all he did was transfer control of wealth from the bank to himself.

and from their to his political cronies and pet causes.

He produced nothing and no additional production will result in his actions.

amen!

If anything, but quitting working, he is impeding production.

HAH! we wish he would quit working. production would skyrocket.

Now after a few years, he is feeling guilty about his crime angry that the little people would dare question his wisdom and Divine Mandate so he goes back to work and donates all of his money to a wino on the street brings accusation of racism against the Tea Parties and gives tax breaks to corporate donors who does nothing with the money because he is happy being a wino. Is the bank robber (i was going to strike that out, but the term fits) now somehow less productive since he is no longer a "capital provider

Lets say that the bank robber now gets paid more at his job (the same job he had before he robbed the bank) because his employer things that he is a good person for giving all of that money away to charity. So does the fact that the former bank robber now makes more money indicate that he is more productive than he used to be?

And would it make any difference if he got rich by inheriting money instead of robbing a bank? What if he won the lottery instead? Or if he became a CEO of his mom's business and was paid $10 million bucks before he was fired for being not doing his job? What if he got rich from being in a commercial for the company that he worked for (I once had a roomate who was paid a fairly good size amount of money for doing a Holiday Inn commercial - he was selected just because he had the right "look" for the part and they wanted an actual employee to play the part).

of course it makes a difference whether or not wealth is stolen or earned. but why is it any of your business (outside of breaking the law) how other people actually earn their money? or what they choose to do with it (maybe give it to their kids maybe not - its theirs, not yours)?

 

[TurtleDude]

The government is slowly losing its power to big corporations and special interest.

as for income redistribution, one word should suffice BAILOUTS!!!!

I don't see that. the government is expanding and ruining this nation

 

[LizardofOz]

Naw not really because after a certain point, it just becomes super damn easy to keep making more money. Some people will work their dick in the ground and spread the wealth. Others just horde money.

 

[cpwill]

really?

color me curious; how are they going to hoarde this money? do they have a giant vault full of gold; a-la uncle scrooge mcduck?

 

[presluc]

I don't see that. the government is expanding and ruining this nation

Really there's an old saying where I come from to find the power follow the money.

Whose got the most the government or the 10% at the top?

 

[presluc]

really?

color me curious; how are they going to hoarde this money? do they have a giant vault full of gold; a-la uncle scrooge mcduck?

More like off shore accounts. with laundered money.

 

[imagep]

More like off shore accounts. with laundered money.

Some of it maybe.

A lot of it is simply in various accounts. I keep hearing how companies are "hording" money, I assume that most of that money is in bank accounts. Since the rich own a disporportionate share of stocks, they indirectly own a very large share of this horded money. I also recently saw that a particular Ivy League college (think it was Princeton but I dont remember for sure) had an endowment in the billions of dollars. Who controls this endowment? I am sure it aint the Ivy League janitor.

 

[cpwill]

'various' accounts. so we are talking about stocks?

 

[imagep]

'various' accounts. so we are talking about stocks?

A lot of it yes. Have you ever wondered why even in bad times that many stocks are valued at 30 to 100+ PE ratios? Thats like a 1% to 3% ROI. It's crazy. If you were going to by a local dry cleaning business that netted $10,000 per year, you wouldn't pay a million bucks for it would you? Essentially, there is more money available for investments than there are investments that are worth being invested in. The system works because people dont really seriously look at the PE ratios, they look at the fact that the company is always valued at a high PE ratio and they assume it always will be. Of course that is just another indicator that we have a lot of people who have more money than they know what to do with.

It's nonsense like that that caused the tech stock bubble and the tech stock burst. People saw tech stocks going up like crazy, particularly for websites. At the time none of those websites were profitable, and few of them had any type of plan for a revenue stream. But people bought them like crazy because they were going up, and that made them go up like crazy. Ultimately, the most of the websites went bust because they burned the money from the IPO like crazy and they had developed no income stream. Then the bubble burst. The only real winners were the people who started the failed companies and looted them. I don't feel sorry for the loosers though, they should have been smarter than to invest in a company that had no feasable business model.

But a lot of it is being held by corporations that people own stock in, a lot of it is in bonds, money market accounts, checking accounts and savings accounts, etc.

 

[cpwill]

hm. okay. so these rich people are hoarding their wealth in stocks rather than spreading it to where it will help others.


so. what's a stock?

 

[imagep]

hm. okay. so these rich people are hoarding their wealth in stocks rather than spreading it to where it will help others.


so. what's a stock?

I have a feeling that I am being baited, but what the heck, I'll bite:

A fractional ownership of a company.