Trump fires Comey

[ImTheCaptain]

might be a good argument if the profits were flat

 

[WakeandBake]

So maybe if the owners weren't so squeezed by their 50% tax burdens they could get their profits via reduced taxes as opposed to keeping down wages.

That's the point.

 

[WakeandBake]

If you're wondering why this is a shitty thread:

[h=2]Who Posted?[/h]

• Posts 110 jhmd2000
  
• Posts 49 RJKarl
  
• Posts 42 riscdeac

thank Christ, I thought it was me

 

[dartsndeacs]

I know I'd get about a 20% bump within 2-3 years if this tax change went into effect, as would most of our employees. Because then our industry would just easily be able to pilfer the top employees of our competitors (or vice versa) if one side decided to try to keep all the profits for themselves.

 

[MHBDemon]

So maybe if the owners weren't so squeezed by their 50% tax burdens they could get their profits via reduced taxes as opposed to keeping down wages.

That's the point.

In those graphs, who is getting "squeezed?"

 

[ImTheCaptain]

I know I'd get about a 20% bump within 2-3 years if this tax change went into effect, as would most of our employees. Because then our industry would just easily be able to pilfer the top employees of our competitors (or vice versa) if one side decided to try to keep all the profits for themselves.

why? why would you get a raise because of lowered tax bill? that's a totally ridiculous assumption

 

[deacvision7]

So maybe if the owners weren't so squeezed by their 50% tax burdens they could get their profits via reduced taxes as opposed to keeping down wages.

That's the point.

Yeah, because the greedy fucks would do that. Right.


Fuck off with that bullshit.

 

[deacvision7]

I know I'd get about a 20% bump within 2-3 years if this tax change went into effect, as would most of our employees. Because then our industry would just easily be able to pilfer the top employees of our competitors (or vice versa) if one side decided to try to keep all the profits for themselves.

You "know" that, do you? According to whom, may I ask? Your boss?

 

[dartsndeacs]

In those graphs, who is getting "squeezed?"

Generally rich people have a compensation amount in mind that they'd like to make. If they're getting taxed at a higher amount, they'll cut somewhere else (employee wages). If they're taxed at a lower amount all of the sudden, they have more to play with. Will that go proportionately? No, but the market can sort that out. Especially now with all the online tools and the millennial generation. Everyone knows or can know what everyone makes. It's not the 1950's anymore where employers can tell employees not to discuss salary with others and no one knows what anyone's making.

 

[WakeandBake]

I don't blame the Russians for the dem political losses, I blame the voters who fall for this kind of horseshit right here. This is the crux. This hoodwink right here is the greatest con of the past 40 years. It sounds so smart and logical. Guys with business degrees tell it to the middle-American worker and he believes it because a smart guy told him it would work and get him better wages and jobs. It has never worked, yet they still fall for it because the dems cannot seem to make the truth sound as sexy. Its hucksterism.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

nah

 

[PhDeac]

Everyone knows once rich people make a certain amount, they don't really care about making more, right palma?

 

[WakeandBake]

Will that go proportionately? No, but the market can sort that out. Especially now with all the online tools and the millennial generation. Everyone knows or can know what everyone makes. It's not the 1950's anymore where employers can tell employees not to discuss salary with others and no one knows what anyone's making.

 

[dartsndeacs]

why? why would you get a raise because of lowered tax bill? that's a totally ridiculous assumption

Most good firms try and peg their salaries to the upper quartile of their respective industries to get the top talent. Absent a monopoly or collusion, if all the sudden our owners tax bills dropped from 50% to 15%, there'd be much more flexibility in the wages we could offer top talent from our competitors. The good firms without greedy owners will do that and prosper. The firms where the owners take 100% of the benefit themselves will lose their employees. Not instanteously, but with time.

Note I'm talking about non-public companies (I'm not smart enough to think I have any idea how large corporations run), my history has mostly been working with 2 owners or so taxed on a pass through basis. And their tax rates are absurd.

 

[dartsndeacs]

Everyone knows once rich people make a certain amount, they don't really care about making more, right palma?

They do, until their businesses fail because others are taking their best staff.

 

[deactherunner]

The administration, in one headline:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...rump_of_surveilling_trump_in_tapes_tweet.html

It Appears That Trump May Have Just Falsely Accused Himself of Wiretapping Himself

 

[warak]

this is a good graph...

 

[jhmd2000]

this is a good graph...

Imagine what that lower line would look like if we actually enforced our Southern border.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

Imagine what that lower line would look like if we actually enforced our Southern border.

 

[warak]

Generally rich people have a compensation amount in mind that they'd like to make. If they're getting taxed at a higher amount, they'll cut somewhere else (employee wages). If they're taxed at a lower amount all of the sudden, they have more to play with. Will that go proportionately? No, but the market can sort that out. Especially now with all the online tools and the millennial generation. Everyone knows or can know what everyone makes. It's not the 1950's anymore where employers can tell employees not to discuss salary with others and no one knows what anyone's making.

BS, if your theory was correct this graph would look quite differently