drinkTHEkoolaid Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Of course they do! It is the American thing to do! Phuck everybody else, even your American consumer brethren. no its not screwing everyone, its smart business. They are not in business to feel good, they are in business to make money. When the government raises taxes, businesses will raise prices to compensate. end of story. blame big government not business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 no its not screwing everyone, its smart business. They are not in business to feel good, they are in business to make money. When the government raises taxes, businesses will raise prices to compensate. end of story. blame big government not business. You're missing Exiles point. You see, a business should not focus on making a profit. They should focus on the American consumer brethren, even if that means they go bankrupt,. And that's okay --even preferable, because then the government can take over the businesses via bailouts. Once the government owns the companies, then they can use taxpayer dollars to fund the company, which means the government gets to run the company, and you don't need to be a Democrat or a Republican to understand that no one knows how to run a business like the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Did your charts come with a box of crayons? I actually prefer candlestick charts. Was your comment supposed to be funny? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 No. You guys are both missing my point. It is not about profit... Business is free to make profit. It is LA's tone that I objected to. IMO, it sounded like he was saying that business will pass the cost onto customer out of spite. Nowhere in there did I get the hint of dwindling profit or loss in revenue or lower quality of life for the business owner. If that is the case, more power in passing the cost onto the customer. Again, IMO it is almost like business is doing out of spite. And that my friends is un-American. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Of course they do! It is the American thing to do! Phuck everybody else, even your American consumer brethren. We really, really need to get rid of the civil service protections of the inept, who fester for decades. Can a good man need such artificial protection? Are you with me, in eliminating this anachronism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 No. You guys are both missing my point. It is not about profit... Business is free to make profit. It is LA's tone that I objected to. IMO, it sounded like he was saying that business will pass the cost onto customer out of spite. Nowhere in there did I get the hint of dwindling profit or loss in revenue or lower quality of life for the business owner. If that is the case, more power in passing the cost onto the customer. Again, IMO it is almost like business is doing out of spite. And that my friends is un-American. The tone you inferred is likely born from the fact that every person who has ever managed or owned a company knows that you build your costs to produce a product or service into your sale price of that product or service. Here's a basic, child-proof example: When gas prices rose, so did the cost of an airline ticket. When the cost of an airline ticket rose, so did the cost for (as an example) tech companies to send support personnel to remote job sites. You just simply have to be an idiot NOT to know this is how companies operate, and a spike in gas prices is treated the same as a spike in taxes. So when a company has to pay higher taxes, that cost gets built into the cost of their product. Who buys the product? The consumer. Who's paying for the higher tax rate? The consumer. So who's really getting taxed? Exactly; the very consumer the Obama administration says WON'T receive a tax increase. So let's follow their logic. Taxes go higher. Costs go higher. Products cost more. What do we have? Inflation. Now people have to pick and choose what they can and can not afford to buy since prices are so high, which means some companies cut back, which means more people are unemployed, which for the Obama administration means higher taxes to the wealthy to cover the costs of the unemployed. The tone you hear is from a guy who is so frustrated that a little economic idiot like myself can see the utter stupidity in what is happening, but the leader of the free world simply does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 The tone you inferred is likely born from the fact that every person who has ever managed or owned a company knows that you build your costs to produce a product or service into your sale price of that product or service. Here's a basic, child-proof example: When gas prices rose, so did the cost of an airline ticket. When the cost of an airline ticket rose, so did the cost for (as an example) tech companies to send support personnel to remote job sites. You just simply have to be an idiot NOT to know this is how companies operate, and a spike in gas prices is treated the same as a spike in taxes. So when a company has to pay higher taxes, that cost gets built into the cost of their product. Who buys the product? The consumer. Who's paying for the higher tax rate? The consumer. So who's really getting taxed? Exactly; the very consumer the Obama administration says WON'T receive a tax increase. So let's follow their logic. Taxes go higher. Costs go higher. Products cost more. What do we have? Inflation. Now people have to pick and choose what they can and can not afford to buy since prices are so high, which means some companies cut back, which means more people are unemployed, which for the Obama administration means higher taxes to the wealthy to cover the costs of the unemployed. The tone you hear is from a guy who is so frustrated that a little economic idiot like myself can see the utter stupidity in what is happening, but the leader of the free world simply does not. When corporate taxes were much higher in the 1950's and 1960's why wasn't the price passed onto the consumer? Why did America's economy growing wonderfully? The higher tax rate is beinig paid by the worker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 We really, really need to get rid of the civil service protections of the inept, who fester for decades. Can a good man need such artificial protection? Are you with me, in eliminating this anachronism? I totally agree... And I hope to be "the point" on this someday! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 When corporate taxes were much higher in the 1950's and 1960's why wasn't the price passed onto the consumer? Why did America's economy growing wonderfully? The higher tax rate is beinig paid by the worker. I appreciate the thought, Chachi, but WTF does that have to do with the realities of today's economy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 When corporate taxes were much higher in the 1950's and 1960's why wasn't the price passed onto the consumer? Why did America's economy growing wonderfully? The higher tax rate is beinig paid by the worker. Because Japan and Germany were hollow shells, the rest of Europe was rebuilding, China was still very rural, India was closed and USSR was communist. The only place to get anything was the USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Because Japan and Germany were hollow shells, the rest of Europe was rebuilding, China was still very rural, India was closed and USSR was communist. The only place to get anything was the USA. So in other words out society was due to take a step back once the countries got the feet on the ground. I really have no problem with that. I just people would admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 I appreciate the thought, Chachi, but WTF does that have to do with the realities of today's economy? Does this mean I have to love Joanie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 So in other words out society was due to take a step back once the countries got the feet on the ground. I really have no problem with that. I just people would admit it. Could someone tell me what he said here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Could someone tell me what he said here? Translation: May I mommy dog face to the banana patch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 So in other words out society was due to take a step back once the countries got the feet on the ground. I really have no problem with that. I just people would admit it. Not even close to my point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EndZoneCrew Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Translation: May I mommy dog face to the banana patch? NO!! Real audio of the translation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 whoa...what erudite thinking..am I reading the nazi board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 whoa...what erudite thinking..am I reading the nazi board? What is the difference between a Communist, and a Nazi (National Socialist)? It can't be oppression. It can't be the numbers of murdering of a population. Stalin beat Hitler there. Please explain why you chronically refer to our PPP section as a Nazi board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=74796 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 What is the difference between a Communist, and a Nazi (National Socialist)? It can't be oppression. It can't be the numbers of murdering of a population. Stalin beat Hitler there. Please explain why you chronically refer to our PPP section as a Nazi board. Because he was banned for being a disruptive child despite repeated requests and warnings to grow up, but he thinks it's because he's a liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts