From: bugo on


"Matthew Russotto" <russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:32t3o.41809$cO.9086(a)newsfe09.iad...
> In article <i2lhgh$bmu$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
> bugo <watuzi(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>"Matthew Russotto" <russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>>news:Yzq3o.31783$4B7.24442(a)newsfe16.iad...
>>> In article <i2lbjo$o66$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> bugo <watuzi(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Matthew Russotto" <russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:Jiq3o.31778$4B7.23603(a)newsfe16.iad...
>>>>> In article <i2irg8$71v$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>>> bugo <watuzi(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What's the difference? They refuse to pay for health care, which is
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>same thing as murder as far as I'm concerned.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you're an idiot.
>>>>
>>>>Why am I an idiot? Elaborate.
>>>
>>> Because you claim that refusing to pay for health care is the same
>>> thing as murder. That's an idiotic statement.
>>
>>What's the difference? If you're dead, you're dead. It's at least
>>manslaughter.
>
> Even with that backpedal, you're still an idiot.

Oh look, I've just been called an idiot. I guess I won that argument.

From: Beam Me Up Scotty on
On 7/27/2010 12:59 AM, Michael Coburn wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:11:30 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>
>> On 7/27/2010 12:21 AM, Michael Coburn wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 21:59:20 -0400, Dave Head wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 27 Jul 2010 01:28:59 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 15:22:47 -0700, Larry G wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 25, 9:27 pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:13:26 -0500, "bugo" <wat...(a)yahoo.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Dave Head" <rally...(a)att.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:bhnp46teki6ftfe9lco9p88sg7a567u28m(a)4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>> The Fair Tax is applied as a sales tax on new items and services
>>>>>>>>> sold at retail. Things sold at wholesale, or for use in
>>>>>>>>> commerce, are not taxed. So, Farmer Brown's seed stock for the
>>>>>>>>> year is not taxed, nor is his tractor. The corn you buy from him
>>>>>>>>> is taxed since it is sold to you at retail. Every new item and
>>>>>>>>> every service, save one, is taxed. The only service not taxed is
>>>>>>>>> tuition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So corporations get off scot-free.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They always have. No corporation has ever paid a penny of tax.
>>>>>>> They've just passed that expense along to the rest of us who buy
>>>>>>> their products, and we pay it. THe corporation simply ends up
>>>>>>> being a tax collector, to the detriment of Ameican industrial
>>>>>>> competitiveness.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No wonder why you corporate-loving Repubs like it so much.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why would you not be "corporate-loving." Where else do you think
>>>>>>> you're going to get the good jobs to raise people out of poverty?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In your distorted world, corporations can do no wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Didn't say that, but that's no reason to hate them all because some
>>>>>>> of them do really nasty stuff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> corps just pass on the taxes to the customers... that's true.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely. The customer is the only source of money a corporation
>>>> has.
>>>> Its the only place that the tax money can come from.
>>>
>>> BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>> What matters is WHO suffers the "burden of the tax". Not where money
>>> comes from in the normal course of events:
>>
>>
>> The customer suffers the burden as he pays the cost of the new toaster
>> that is $1.00 more than it should have been.
>
> Nope. And I see that you now admit this below.
>
>> The business/corporation
>> owners will get the 8% return on their investment or they cut cost or
>> raise price or sell the business or sell their stock.... they don't
>> just lay down with their legs open for the government to f*ck them.
>
> So what??? The customer does not pay the all the tax and may not pay any
> of it. If the company could have gotten more for its toaster it would

Ignorant or stubborn is one thing, but Stupid just can't be fixed.

> have already done so. The company can't raise the price or it will lose
> volume and revenue. It depends on the elasticity of demand. But you are

Better to lose volume and fire a few people than to lose revenue. Or
increase volume export labor and lower price and sell more.

Tax to profit is a ratio and there is no one answer, for every change in
tax there are a dozen ways to configure the business to counter that tax.

If I raise the price and sell less, I can fire expensive employees.
Less income might mean greater after tax profit realized.

Then I make less profit and actually keep more money.

The tax code has no cut off... where you no longer make profit.

> too ignorant to understand such a concept.

Elasticity.... the price to profit has many sweet spots.

>> Why would I buy stock in a company that pays no dividend because they
>> can't make any money? I need a return on my investment to make the risk
>> worth it.
>
> Why do you think I, or anyone else, cares whether or not you buy stock,
> or count sheep???

Because there are 57,000,000 of me out there.



From: Michael Coburn on
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:58:39 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:

> On 7/27/2010 12:59 AM, Michael Coburn wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:11:30 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/27/2010 12:21 AM, Michael Coburn wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 21:59:20 -0400, Dave Head wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 27 Jul 2010 01:28:59 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 15:22:47 -0700, Larry G wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 25, 9:27 pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:13:26 -0500, "bugo" <wat...(a)yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Dave Head" <rally...(a)att.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:bhnp46teki6ftfe9lco9p88sg7a567u28m(a)4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>> The Fair Tax is applied as a sales tax on new items and
>>>>>>>>>> services sold at retail. Things sold at wholesale, or for use
>>>>>>>>>> in commerce, are not taxed. So, Farmer Brown's seed stock for
>>>>>>>>>> the year is not taxed, nor is his tractor. The corn you buy
>>>>>>>>>> from him is taxed since it is sold to you at retail. Every new
>>>>>>>>>> item and every service, save one, is taxed. The only service
>>>>>>>>>> not taxed is tuition.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So corporations get off scot-free.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They always have. No corporation has ever paid a penny of tax.
>>>>>>>> They've just passed that expense along to the rest of us who buy
>>>>>>>> their products, and we pay it. THe corporation simply ends up
>>>>>>>> being a tax collector, to the detriment of Ameican industrial
>>>>>>>> competitiveness.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No wonder why you corporate-loving Repubs like it so much.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why would you not be "corporate-loving." Where else do you think
>>>>>>>> you're going to get the good jobs to raise people out of poverty?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In your distorted world, corporations can do no wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Didn't say that, but that's no reason to hate them all because
>>>>>>>> some of them do really nasty stuff.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> corps just pass on the taxes to the customers... that's true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>> Absolutely. The customer is the only source of money a corporation
>>>>> has.
>>>>> Its the only place that the tax money can come from.
>>>>
>>>> BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>>
>>>> What matters is WHO suffers the "burden of the tax". Not where money
>>>> comes from in the normal course of events:
>>>
>>>
>>> The customer suffers the burden as he pays the cost of the new toaster
>>> that is $1.00 more than it should have been.
>>
>> Nope. And I see that you now admit this below.
>>
>>> The business/corporation
>>> owners will get the 8% return on their investment or they cut cost or
>>> raise price or sell the business or sell their stock.... they don't
>>> just lay down with their legs open for the government to f*ck them.
>>
>> So what??? The customer does not pay the all the tax and may not pay
>> any of it. If the company could have gotten more for its toaster it
>> would
>
> Ignorant or stubborn is one thing, but Stupid just can't be fixed.
>
>> have already done so. The company can't raise the price or it will
>> lose volume and revenue. It depends on the elasticity of demand. But
>> you are
>
> Better to lose volume and fire a few people than to lose revenue.

It won't wash, liar. As I said: If the company could have arranged
price and volume for greater profits they would have already done it.
They have tuned their work force and volumes to maximize profits and any
change (especially an additional tax on PROFITS) will therefore reduce
profits.

> Or
> increase volume export labor and lower price and sell more.

What stopped the business from exporting labor before and getting more
profit, liar?

> Tax to profit is a ratio and there is no one answer, for every change in
> tax there are a dozen ways to configure the business to counter that
> tax.

Yet there is _NO_ _WAY_ to avoid a hit to profits as a result of the tax
unless the company had been run poorly before the tax was assessed.

> If I raise the price and sell less, I can fire expensive employees. Less
> income might mean greater after tax profit realized.

No matter what wiggle you might try, the fact will remain: You will eat
some, of not all, of the tax increase because you were profit maximized
at the time the tax hit.

> Then I make less profit and actually keep more money.
>
> The tax code has no cut off... where you no longer make profit.

You are a liar. And your religion has just been skewered.

>> too ignorant to understand such a concept.
>
> Elasticity.... the price to profit has many sweet spots.
>
>>> Why would I buy stock in a company that pays no dividend because they
>>> can't make any money? I need a return on my investment to make the
>>> risk worth it.
>>
>> Why do you think I, or anyone else, cares whether or not you buy stock,
>> or count sheep???
>
> Because there are 57,000,000 of me out there.

Does it matter????

--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
From: bugo on
"Michael Coburn" <mikcob(a)verizon.net> wrote in message
news:i2lrai0sbk(a)news5.newsguy.com...
>> Because there are 57,000,000 of me out there.
>
> Does it matter????

57 million morons can be wrong.

From: Dave Head on
On 27 Jul 2010 04:21:51 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net>
wrote:

>On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 21:59:20 -0400, Dave Head wrote:
>
>> On 27 Jul 2010 01:28:59 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 15:22:47 -0700, Larry G wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 25, 9:27�pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:13:26 -0500, "bugo" <wat...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> >"Dave Head" <rally...(a)att.net> wrote in message
>>>>> >news:bhnp46teki6ftfe9lco9p88sg7a567u28m(a)4ax.com...
>>>>> >> The Fair Tax is applied as a sales tax on new items and services
>>>>> >> sold at retail. �Things sold at wholesale, or for use in commerce,
>>>>> >> are not taxed. �So, Farmer Brown's seed stock for the year is not
>>>>> >> taxed, nor is his tractor. �The corn you buy from him is taxed
>>>>> >> since it is sold to you at retail. �Every new item and every
>>>>> >> service, save one, is taxed. �The only service not taxed is
>>>>> >> tuition.
>>>>>
>>>>> >So corporations get off scot-free.
>>>>>
>>>>> They always have. �No corporation has ever paid a penny of tax.
>>>>> They've just passed that expense along to the rest of us who buy
>>>>> their products, and we pay it. �THe corporation simply ends up being
>>>>> a tax collector, to the detriment of Ameican industrial
>>>>> competitiveness.
>>>>>
>>>>> >No wonder why you corporate-loving Repubs like it so much.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would you not be "corporate-loving." �Where else do you think
>>>>> you're going to get the good jobs to raise people out of poverty?
>>>>>
>>>>> >In your distorted world, corporations can do no wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Didn't say that, but that's no reason to hate them all because some
>>>>> of them do really nasty stuff.
>>>>
>>>> corps just pass on the taxes to the customers... that's true.
>>>
>>>Nope.
>>
>> Absolutely. The customer is the only source of money a corporation has.
>> Its the only place that the tax money can come from.
>
>BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>What matters is WHO suffers the "burden of the tax". Not where money
>comes from in the normal course of events:
>
>The XYZ corporation (that makes Slinkys) pays $1.00/share in dividends to
>all share holders each year. Then there is a new tax on the XYZ
>corporation or one of its suppliers that CAN PASS the TAX to XYZ. What
>will happen is that if the XYZ corporation attempts to raise the price of
>Slinkys then the people will buy hula hoops instead (or maybe they will
>decide to make stuff on their own). Hence, the XYZ corporation can't
>increase the tax so as to "pass" it to the consumer. This actually
>follows from the _FACT_ that all entities are profit maximizing. If XYZ
>could have raised the price, they would already have done so. They would
>not be sitting around waiting on an excuse. What _WILL_ happen in this
>market is that the stockholders will receive less in dividends.

Exacty. That makes XYZ corp less valuable on the market, fewer will
want their stock, it makes it harder for them to borrow money by
issuing more stock (why buy it? Their dividends suck), and XYZ is
competitively harmed. ABC corp in Korea has no such burden, and
therefore takes market share from XYZ because it can expand at will,
and make more. ABC can get into new markets, possibly overseas, and
XYZ can't.

Income taxes harm our corporations.

>Effectvely, the stockholders were taxed. Not the customers.

And yet, as I said, XYZ corp was not taxed a penny. No corp pays any
tax.

And the stockholders know when they're getting screwed, dump XYZ
stock, and buy ABC's stock. XYZ's stock tumbles.

>In the real
>world it is a SPLIT (all else equal). But we still can't determine where
>the burden actually falls until we know what was done with the proceeds.

We know that the corp didn't pay it, tho. No corp. pays it. Some
HUMAN BEING gets screwed, somewhere.

And if the company is healthy, and isn't being screwed by foreign
competition, yes, it will raise its price and get that tax from the
customer. If its on its way out of business, then it might have to do
as you suggested.

And, BTW, its more likely that XYZ will screw its employees, and make
the tax up by failing to give them raises they deserve, rather than
screw their stockholders.

>> If you didn't pay it from revenues from sales, then you'd have to pay it
>> by lowering worker salaries, failing to pay dividends, etc. That'd harm
>> the company, and it'd probably, eventually, go out of business.
>
>NO... It will not be "go out of business".

Philco, Sylvania, Stromberg Carlson, Zenith, etc. etc. Where are
these American TV brands? Out of business, or in some cases fled to a
different market, 'cuz they couldn't compete. Yes, it was the income
taxes that made their products too expensive.


>The shareholders will
>receive _LESS_ than they otherwise would have and the price of the stock
>will probably fall.

Exactly. The stock will eventually reach $0, and the company will be
out of business.

Its the job of the American government to see that Amiercan company's
stock goes UP, BTW. That means prosperity for the American people.

>That does not mean "out of business".

Zenith, Philco, Stroberg Carlson....

>It means that
>the non-productive segment of the economy will get LESS for doing the
>same NOTHING that they were doing before.

Not non-productive. They were making great products. They were just
taxed out of existence.