Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
What !! ? No pony ?
If Tax cuts create jobs
- Thread starter ChesusRice
- Start date
Not bingo, both sides are to blame. Fuck both those putos
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Ask mity about his dancing horse
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Would you like to buy a consonant ?
RyanTheRhino
Well-Known Member
Well whats the point of spending millions of dollars on a new products, and just before it is fully developed regulations shut it down. Sorry you wasted all that money but it took us a few years to get back to you with an answer.
RyanTheRhino
Well-Known Member
..........................................................
Companies pass taxes on to the customer until the product's price becomes too high to have anymore sales compared with competition. So what do companies do when they can no longer compete? Find ways in which they can, by moving operations where the cost to do the business is less.
Corporations have no loyalty to their home countries because corporations are run by the stock holders and all the stockholders want is higher stock prices.
Corporations have no loyalty to their home countries because corporations are run by the stock holders and all the stockholders want is higher stock prices.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Corporations are people my friend
RyanTheRhino
Well-Known Member
In my opinion taxes on big corporations should be adjusted by how much damage they do to infrastructure. Infrastructure they use to make money like roads and utilities. If a large factory opens up in a rural part of the city where there are no hookups to water or sewer or roads the government will build it for them. The government will extend the utility mains and pave new road just to accommodate them. It is always written off because they will add more jobs to the area( looks good for politicians). If a large shipyard gets built the government will dredge the channels for the large container/tanker ships or a cruise ship dock. Trucks and commercial shipping are the leading cause of road erosion. The government builds countless weigh stations to help prevent even more damage to the infrastructure.
All paid for by tax dollars from citizens and small businesses for what? So the largest users can make more money and not give a dam about the rest of the infrastructure that really needed repairs. The next time you hit a pothole look around at all the 18 wheelers with private company names that do 90% of the damage and pay the same generic tax for utilities.
The only effective way to tax large corporations properly would be with a dynamic tax based on many different criteria. This sounds like I am for regulations and I am, but only if they were written correctly. The current regulations are to broad and written by lobbyists that favor large companies and squeeze out new competition.
The best analogy I can use to describe what happens is a Chinese buffet.
Its all you can eat for everyone at the same fairly expensive price for the fast food they serve. In the end it equalizes the different customers, but it really isn't dynamic enough to fairly solve the underlying problem. That is most people eat a reasonable amount of food, but the pigs who eat mountains and mountains of food, plate after plate put a hurting on the restaurant. You can say they are the leading cause of food erosion & therefore cause the restaurant to hire more cooks and order more food.(maintaining infrastructure) All of this increases the cost of operating the restaurant. In order to maintain the higher volume & operational cost the restaurant raise it price. (tax) But this is raised for everyone to accommodate the few pigs that abuse and use most of the resources.
An efficient regulation could solve the problem if it was dynamic. A good system that exactly measures magnitude would calculate your personal price (tax). I know it sounds wired applying it to a buffet but it won't change the fact it is all you can eat. There would still be no limit on food but you would just pay more the more you eat. At first people who abused the system would be upset because they have to pay more but what do they have to argue with. You ate more it cost more.
What it will do is stop abuse and if it upsets the few pigs, who cares. Remember they are only a few and if they never came back im sure the restaurant would not lose sleep. you know why, because the majority of reasonable diners would be ecstatic at the lower price making it more appealing to the majority and theoretically increasing clients. The restaurant would hire more cooks and order more food to serve the higher volume of customers, but they will not have to raise cost (tax) because of much greater gross margin of operation.
So what dose this mean? The restaurant can keep within its operational budget while serving more customers (small businesses). This in no way restricts the pigs (fat cats) from dining at the restaurant it just adds a dynamic scale that fairly equalizes usage.
A real life example could be having all commercial trucking record the mileage of their trucks and pay a flat fee based on magnitude alone. No percentage rates something simple like $.001 for every mile a truck travels during shipping. This way a smaller company will not have to pay a generic percentage of profit just because they are in the trucking industry. This will actually tax based on actual usage and not a percentages of overall profits. This is just one out of the countless criteria and it would take a while to needle down every aspect that goes on in every sector of industry
We really need to rethink how to implement taxes. Percentages should be a thing of the past in our modern world where actual quantities are so easily measured. Compared to the current tax bracket percentages, the dynamic tax system is simpler and more specific to each business as a separate entity.
All paid for by tax dollars from citizens and small businesses for what? So the largest users can make more money and not give a dam about the rest of the infrastructure that really needed repairs. The next time you hit a pothole look around at all the 18 wheelers with private company names that do 90% of the damage and pay the same generic tax for utilities.
The only effective way to tax large corporations properly would be with a dynamic tax based on many different criteria. This sounds like I am for regulations and I am, but only if they were written correctly. The current regulations are to broad and written by lobbyists that favor large companies and squeeze out new competition.
The best analogy I can use to describe what happens is a Chinese buffet.
Its all you can eat for everyone at the same fairly expensive price for the fast food they serve. In the end it equalizes the different customers, but it really isn't dynamic enough to fairly solve the underlying problem. That is most people eat a reasonable amount of food, but the pigs who eat mountains and mountains of food, plate after plate put a hurting on the restaurant. You can say they are the leading cause of food erosion & therefore cause the restaurant to hire more cooks and order more food.(maintaining infrastructure) All of this increases the cost of operating the restaurant. In order to maintain the higher volume & operational cost the restaurant raise it price. (tax) But this is raised for everyone to accommodate the few pigs that abuse and use most of the resources.
An efficient regulation could solve the problem if it was dynamic. A good system that exactly measures magnitude would calculate your personal price (tax). I know it sounds wired applying it to a buffet but it won't change the fact it is all you can eat. There would still be no limit on food but you would just pay more the more you eat. At first people who abused the system would be upset because they have to pay more but what do they have to argue with. You ate more it cost more.
What it will do is stop abuse and if it upsets the few pigs, who cares. Remember they are only a few and if they never came back im sure the restaurant would not lose sleep. you know why, because the majority of reasonable diners would be ecstatic at the lower price making it more appealing to the majority and theoretically increasing clients. The restaurant would hire more cooks and order more food to serve the higher volume of customers, but they will not have to raise cost (tax) because of much greater gross margin of operation.
So what dose this mean? The restaurant can keep within its operational budget while serving more customers (small businesses). This in no way restricts the pigs (fat cats) from dining at the restaurant it just adds a dynamic scale that fairly equalizes usage.
A real life example could be having all commercial trucking record the mileage of their trucks and pay a flat fee based on magnitude alone. No percentage rates something simple like $.001 for every mile a truck travels during shipping. This way a smaller company will not have to pay a generic percentage of profit just because they are in the trucking industry. This will actually tax based on actual usage and not a percentages of overall profits. This is just one out of the countless criteria and it would take a while to needle down every aspect that goes on in every sector of industry
We really need to rethink how to implement taxes. Percentages should be a thing of the past in our modern world where actual quantities are so easily measured. Compared to the current tax bracket percentages, the dynamic tax system is simpler and more specific to each business as a separate entity.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Give me an example of such product..Now it just seems like you just asking "what if" questions....
RyanTheRhino
Well-Known Member
Good let them leave, large companies are at their apex and reform that would push them out also happens to let small businesses thrive. I would rather have a small business at every corner that are still growing then 1 large wallmart that treats its employees like a number while underpaying them.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
The Chinese have already found a solution: the dim sum restaurant. You get all you can eat, and pay in direct proportion to what you ate.
But the problem facing a situation more complex than a restauarnt is just that: complex. A fixed-price buffet situation has the signal virtue of simplicity. Complexity is fairer ... if it can be administered. Complex solutions are expensive to administer and much more prone to error and manipulation.
And wherever a system is put into place, it attracts the manipulators. They are our political immune system, testing half-baked ideas unto destruction. The mark of a truly great political idea is its capacity to survive the dealmakers. cn
But the problem facing a situation more complex than a restauarnt is just that: complex. A fixed-price buffet situation has the signal virtue of simplicity. Complexity is fairer ... if it can be administered. Complex solutions are expensive to administer and much more prone to error and manipulation.
And wherever a system is put into place, it attracts the manipulators. They are our political immune system, testing half-baked ideas unto destruction. The mark of a truly great political idea is its capacity to survive the dealmakers. cn
RyanTheRhino
Well-Known Member
Here are 3 That almost went bankrupt waiting for the FDA. 1 is still waiting for the FDA even after it was approved in Europe long before
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/03/15/3-biotechs-you-should-have-sold-years-ago/
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Dude your argument is about pharmaceutical drugs taking to long to be approved by the FDA...You saying they should rush the approval so people can make money. From the article you linked me to it seems as though one of these companies didn't even want to do new clinical testing..
Yup that is just what we need more pharmaceutical drugs
This product may cause nausea, vomiting, constipation, , dizziness, drowsiness, and other side effects...but you will get a good night sleep
RyanTheRhino
Well-Known Member
The deal makers already sneak through the loop holes. I understand that it would be a drastic change and you could supposedly alter "how many miles" on the forms, but how is that different forms people skimming on their earnings on current tax forms.
The quantity idea may be too complex but there has to be a better way then percentages. If you can tell me why we use parentage to tax verses any other scale I will keep to my self. I have a feeling it was because that's the best they could do at the time but times change.
The quantity idea may be too complex but there has to be a better way then percentages. If you can tell me why we use parentage to tax verses any other scale I will keep to my self. I have a feeling it was because that's the best they could do at the time but times change.
Attachments
RyanTheRhino
Well-Known Member
you should also know that they are generic drugs that have the same formula as the original. The copyright is up and yet it takes 10 years to get passed through the FDA. hmmmm i wonder who has a new beach house in the caribbean
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Grandpapy
Well-Known Member
And are prone to mistakes, for example, Bayer sells pesticide teated corn seed to European farmers that kills off bees needed for pollination in 1990.
Europe bans it's use, So Bayer sells it here until we lose all our bees, and then we ban it.
But not until farmers are loosing money due to poor crops. I feel sure Bayer thought it was just a geographical quirk.
I'm not saying the FDA turned it's head, but you can.
Now, one would have to wonder why would a person do such a horrible thing? Bayer and the FDA.
If that same "guy" had a 2nd DUI he would not be able drive any longer.
If Corporations are people, then they can play by the same rules as the rest of us. And can start by paying the same tax pecantage as me.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Dude that made me sad..
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Dude your argument is kinda seven days....weak