Republicans are afraid to propose spending cuts!

[Jarhead]

My business grosses less than $250,000 a year, albeit, I'd be tickled pink if it grossed more, even if the top rate was 90%, since 10% of something is way better than nothing. More net, is why I'm business. Period.

Whose isn't?

Good thing you don't have a lot of overhead then. With less than $250,000 GROSS, you can't afford to tie up funds.

Laugh away. Meanwhile, why does a conmpany need lower overhead to be profitable? What if both sales and costs are high, but the gross profit is around, let's say, $180,000?

A problem, you think?

would you risk a million dollars if there is a possibility of losing it all...and at best a return of 18%?

Look at the stats...how many new businesses dont make it past the first year?

How many companies die when they try to grow?

You are assumning all investments have a positive return. Part of ones analysis is looking at the possibility of NO return....and a loss of investment.

Nope...you dont own a business...you are speaking out of your ass.

 

[Koios]

This is far from an ideal business climate. Businesses are actually hoarding cash and delaying decisions until there is a clear direction.

Correct. It makes profit harder to come by. But those lucky enough to have pre-tax gross profit in excess of $250,000 a year, will pay a slightly higher rate. And thus right-wing nincumpoops who claim higher taxes are a barrier to investment are simply ignorant of what motivates investment and/or how businesses funtion.

So I'll ask you staight out: what about 39% and change is so fucking awful that folks who paid 35% on incomes north of about $330,000 suddenly have a stuggling business?

Offhand I'd say quite a few. 4% is a big change on a percentage basis (11%). Of course in your ignorance, you fail to realize business will attempt to pass all of this increase on to customers.

Pure fucking comedy. Absolutely astonishing.

Profit comes by identifying an under-served need, and serving it by selling a solution, profitably. Costs me X and I need Y. Plus maybe I have competition, and keep it at Y (lowest price I can offer) as opposed to Y+5%, or Y+50%, which would diminish unit volumes, and thus lower my profit.

The mission is to make money, selling stuff; as much as I can and stay profitable, maximizing profit, largely with volume, and whenever possible, if I have a unique market advantage, higher margin. Period.

Then if you're lucky, you'll pay a butt load of tax, since after tax is even a bigger butt load.

 

[Jarhead]

you used the 1000 scenario...

OK....if you had 1000 to invest....

And you had the choice to put it in a nop risk fund with a return of 3%.....OR invest in it in a company with a 70% chance of a return of 10%....but a 30% chance of a return of zero and a loss of the investment....what would you do?

Now...lets say you just had 4 years of no substantial revenue above operating costs......and you are just on the verge of making a little money again...and you are cash poor....but the future has some light......but you really dont want to take any major risks yet.......now what would you do?

 

[Koios]

Good thing you don't have a lot of overhead then. With less than $250,000 GROSS, you can't afford to tie up funds.

Laugh away. Meanwhile, why does a conmpany need lower overhead to be profitable? What if both sales and costs are high, but the gross profit is around, let's say, $180,000?

A problem, you think?

would you risk a million dollars if there is a possibility of losing it all...and at best a return of 18%?

Look at the stats...how many new businesses dont make it past the first year?

How many companies die when they try to grow?

You are assumning all investments have a positive return. Part of ones analysis is looking at the possibility of NO return....and a loss of investment.

Nope...you dont own a business...you are speaking out of your ass.

No. That would be stupid.

The idea is to profit. The more the merrier.

 

[Koios]

you used the 1000 scenario...

OK....if you had 1000 to invest....

And you had the choice to put it in a nop risk fund with a return of 3%.....OR invest in it in a company with a 70% chance of a return of 10%....but a 30 return of zero and a loss of the investment....what would you do?

Now...lets say you just had 4 years of no substantial revenue above operating costs......and you are just on the verge of making a little money again...and you are cash poor....but the future has some light......but you really dont want to take any major risks yet.......now what would you do?

The only no risk fund I know of is a savings account, up to the FDIC-guranteed maximum.

 

[Jarhead]

Laugh away. Meanwhile, why does a conmpany need lower overhead to be profitable? What if both sales and costs are high, but the gross profit is around, let's say, $180,000?

A problem, you think?

would you risk a million dollars if there is a possibility of losing it all...and at best a return of 18%?

Look at the stats...how many new businesses dont make it past the first year?

How many companies die when they try to grow?

You are assumning all investments have a positive return. Part of ones analysis is looking at the possibility of NO return....and a loss of investment.

Nope...you dont own a business...you are speaking out of your ass.

No. That would be stupid.

The idea is to profit. The more the merrier.

But the discussion is about risk/gain analysis.

And that analysis includes all costs associated with the risk so an accurate IN POCKET ROI can be determined.

Therefore, taxes plays a major role in deciding if the anticipated ROI is worthy of the risk.

FYI...if I have 1000...that 1000 has a spebnding power of 1000....

If I invest it and get back...say 1100.....that 100 is taxed at the proposed 25% as opposed to 15%...so now my return is only 75 as opposed to 85..

So I need to say to myself....there is the risk of losing the entire 1000 and losing my spending power of 1000....and the return is only 75 more in spending power....

So I am risking 1000 spending power to be able to have 1075 spending power

So the analysis:

a) doing nothing and haviung 1000 spending power
b) winning and having 1075 spending power
c) losing it all and having 0 spending power

Now...sure...you will say..."come on...what is $10 difference?
That $10 in this situation amounts to 1% of the money invested.....people have many times made decisions over 1%......and we have not yet addressed the percentage value of the risk.....

 

[Koios]

would you risk a million dollars if there is a possibility of losing it all...and at best a return of 18%?

Look at the stats...how many new businesses dont make it past the first year?

How many companies die when they try to grow?

You are assumning all investments have a positive return. Part of ones analysis is looking at the possibility of NO return....and a loss of investment.

Nope...you dont own a business...you are speaking out of your ass.

No. That would be stupid.

The idea is to profit. The more the merrier.

But the discussion is about risk/gain analysis.

And that analysis includes all costs associated with the risk so an accurate IN POCKET ROI can be determined.

Therefore, taxes plays a major role in deciding if the anticipated ROI is worthy of the risk.

FYI...if I have 1000...that 1000 has a spebnding power of 1000....

If I invest it and get back...say 1100.....that 100 is taxed at the proposed 25% as opposed to 15%...so now my return is only 75 as opposed to 85..

So I need to say to myself....there is the risk of losing the entire 1000 and losing my spending power of 1000....and the return is only 75 more in spending power....

So I am risking 1000 spending power to be able to have 1075 spending power

So the analysis:

a) doing nothing and haviung 1000 spending power
b) winning and having 1075 spending power
c) losing it all and having 0 spending power

Now...sure...you will say..."come on...what is $10 difference?
That $10 in this situation amounts to 1% of the money invested.....people have many times made decisions over 1%......and we have not yet addressed the percentage value of the risk.....

You're speaking about something you know little about, in service of a senario that supports your belief that taxes are as bad as is said by think tanks paid to come up with the pseudo-economic bullshit anti-tax nonsense.

Consider the $1 MM risk versus possible 18% ROI: where does tax come in? Whether or not part of the 18% might be taxed at a higher rate, assuming you have other income, what in your cost/risk assessment changes? Answer: nada. The upside is too lean in contrast to the down-side (- $1 MM is too much risk for potential + $180 K)

Find me a better risk/reward senario, and I jump at it, in hopes of maximum ROI, which if sufficiently rewarding might be subject to a higher tax rates on a portion of it.

Simple as that.

 

[candycorn]

OMG, this is getting funnier by the minute.

According to the latest accounts, Obama is pushing very hard on taxing the rich -- not only expiration of Bush tax cuts, but also rising the dividend and estate taxes. In exchange, Dems are proposing modest spending cuts, leaving it to Republicans to offer what else they see fit to axe.

Now that is where it gets comical -- Republicans refuse to detail any additional spending cuts! They say they are desperately needed, huge cuts too. But they are afraid -- and for a good reason too -- that if they themselves would put any specific proposals regarding the entitlement programs on the table, the voters would punish them.

So Republicnas are practically begging the Dems to do the honor and commit a political suicide.

Now tell me -- aren't they cute? Saying no to them is like taking a candy from a little girl -- breaks one's heart! I see John Boehner crying again.

I don't know that is is true but I have yet to hear specifics from either side about proposed cuts. I see general numbers floated around but not one that shows

Medicare cut by $XXX,XXX,XXX,XXX
Defense cut by $XXX,XXX,XXX,XXX

etc...

I look forward to seeing these numbers.

the proposed spending cuts of the GOP have been voted on in the house and presented to the senate for 2 years in a row...

Unfortunately, the senate majority leader refused to allow a vote on them.

Understand something....the senate majority leader made it clear to the GOP that he is not interested in their cuts....so now they are saying..."OK, then tell us what YOU want to cut"

You need to remove yourself from the political rhetoric and look at the facts.

The GOP has presented a way to increase revenue by the porposed 80 billion a year.
The GOP has presented the cuts they would like to see....but the demoicratic senate said "we disagree"

OK...you disagree...so what DO YOU want to cut?

What cuts were proposed...I don't know if I disagree or not.

 

[Jarhead]

No. That would be stupid.

The idea is to profit. The more the merrier.

But the discussion is about risk/gain analysis.

And that analysis includes all costs associated with the risk so an accurate IN POCKET ROI can be determined.

Therefore, taxes plays a major role in deciding if the anticipated ROI is worthy of the risk.

FYI...if I have 1000...that 1000 has a spebnding power of 1000....

If I invest it and get back...say 1100.....that 100 is taxed at the proposed 25% as opposed to 15%...so now my return is only 75 as opposed to 85..

So I need to say to myself....there is the risk of losing the entire 1000 and losing my spending power of 1000....and the return is only 75 more in spending power....

So I am risking 1000 spending power to be able to have 1075 spending power

So the analysis:

a) doing nothing and haviung 1000 spending power
b) winning and having 1075 spending power
c) losing it all and having 0 spending power

Now...sure...you will say..."come on...what is $10 difference?
That $10 in this situation amounts to 1% of the money invested.....people have many times made decisions over 1%......and we have not yet addressed the percentage value of the risk.....

You're speaking about something you know little about, in service of a senario that supports your belief that taxes are as bad as is said by think tanks paid to come up with the pseudo-economic bullshit anti-tax nonsense.

Consider the $1 MM risk versus possible 18% ROI: where does tax come in? Whether or not part of the 18% might be taxed at a higher rate, assuming you have other income, what in your cost/risk assessment changes? Answer: nada. The upside is too lean in contrast to the down-side (- $1 MM is too much risk for potential + $180 K)

Find me a better risk/reward senario, and I jump at it, in hopes of maximum ROI, which if sufficiently rewarding might be subject to a higher tax rates on a portion of it.

Simple as that.

the ROI is a number based on the investment...and the investment money is POST TAX dollars.....so your final ROI MUST BE A POST TAX number.

NO ONE invests by saying...well, I have this 1000 to invest when, in fact, they have yet to pay taxes on it....they talk about investing what they can spend....that 1000 is a spendable 1000....POST TAX.....

So if your tax is 15% or 25% of gains is a major deal to consider....for that 10% MORE in taxes means that much less in the return.

And lets not forget...

The "return" is what the RETURN on investment is all about.

I made it clear that I am not AGAINST a tax hike during prosperous times...I support it.

But not now...

Why?

Becuase every penny counts right now....after 4 years of stunted income.

And an FYI....I really dont care what you think I do or dont know about. But if you think I know very little about this topic, then you are not going to have the advantage of learning in this debate......

 

[Oldstyle]

Correct. It makes profit harder to come by. But those lucky enough to have pre-tax gross profit in excess of $250,000 a year, will pay a slightly higher rate. And thus right-wing nincumpoops who claim higher taxes are a barrier to investment are simply ignorant of what motivates investment and/or how businesses funtion.

So I'll ask you staight out: what about 39% and change is so fucking awful that folks who paid 35% on incomes north of about $330,000 suddenly have a stuggling business?

Offhand I'd say quite a few. 4% is a big change on a percentage basis (11%). Of course in your ignorance, you fail to realize business will attempt to pass all of this increase on to customers.

Pure fucking comedy. Absolutely astonishing.

Profit comes by identifying an under-served need, and serving it by selling a solution, profitably. Costs me X and I need Y. Plus maybe I have competition, and keep it at Y (lowest price I can offer) as opposed to Y+5%, or Y+50%, which would diminish unit volumes, and thus lower my profit.

The mission is to make money, selling stuff; as much as I can and stay profitable, maximizing profit, largely with volume, and whenever possible, if I have a unique market advantage, higher margin. Period.

Then if you're lucky, you'll pay a butt load of tax, since after tax is even a bigger butt load.

Ah, yes...competition! So what happens when I'm running my business here in the good 'old US of A and my main competitor is running their business in let's say Ireland. We both make a quality product and we're both selling to the same international markets but my competitor in Ireland just got a tax break from their government and I'm being threatened with a sizable tax increase by mine. Who's going to win that battle? If my Irish competition REALLY wants to make my life miserable they'll take the savings in taxes they just got and knock that off the price of their product. They maintain the same profit margin while making me slash my profit margin drastically if I want to compete with them. I'm screwed.

Now let's carry that scenario out one further step...let's say I'm "thinking" about building a new factory to build my product? Where would I be more apt to build that new factory...in a country, State or city that had high taxes...or in a country, State or city that had lower taxes or none at all?

Can you REALLY not understand how raising taxes can have unforeseen consequences? How it can actually lead to lower revenues as you lose the very entities that you tax to other places that don't tax as high? Come on...use your brain a little. This really isn't rocket science...you just have to use a little common sense.

 

[Jarhead]

Offhand I'd say quite a few. 4% is a big change on a percentage basis (11%). Of course in your ignorance, you fail to realize business will attempt to pass all of this increase on to customers.

Pure fucking comedy. Absolutely astonishing.

Profit comes by identifying an under-served need, and serving it by selling a solution, profitably. Costs me X and I need Y. Plus maybe I have competition, and keep it at Y (lowest price I can offer) as opposed to Y+5%, or Y+50%, which would diminish unit volumes, and thus lower my profit.

The mission is to make money, selling stuff; as much as I can and stay profitable, maximizing profit, largely with volume, and whenever possible, if I have a unique market advantage, higher margin. Period.

Then if you're lucky, you'll pay a butt load of tax, since after tax is even a bigger butt load.

Ah, yes...competition! So what happens when I'm running my business here in the good 'old US of A and my main competitor is running their business in let's say Ireland. We both make a quality product and we're both selling to the same international markets but my competitor in Ireland just got a tax break from their government and I'm being threatened with a sizable tax increase by mine. Who's going to win that battle? If my Irish competition REALLY wants to make my life miserable they'll take the savings in taxes they just got and knock that off the price of their product. They maintain the same profit margin while making me slash my profit margin drastically if I want to compete with them. I'm screwed.

Now let's carry that scenario out one further step...let's say I'm "thinking" about building a new factory to build my product? Where would I be more apt to build that new factory...in a country, State or city that had high taxes...or in a country, State or city that had lower taxes or none at all?

Can you REALLY not understand how raising taxes can have unforeseen consequences? How it can actually lead to lower revenues as you lose the very entities that you tax to other places that don't tax as high? Come on...use your brain a little. This really isn't rocket science...you just have to use a little common sense.

if one is a business owner it is quite difficult to think like a business owner.

Heck....my first few years, I was thinking like an employee....but in time I learned.

 

[Koios]

But the discussion is about risk/gain analysis.

And that analysis includes all costs associated with the risk so an accurate IN POCKET ROI can be determined.

Therefore, taxes plays a major role in deciding if the anticipated ROI is worthy of the risk.

FYI...if I have 1000...that 1000 has a spebnding power of 1000....

If I invest it and get back...say 1100.....that 100 is taxed at the proposed 25% as opposed to 15%...so now my return is only 75 as opposed to 85..

So I need to say to myself....there is the risk of losing the entire 1000 and losing my spending power of 1000....and the return is only 75 more in spending power....

So I am risking 1000 spending power to be able to have 1075 spending power

So the analysis:

a) doing nothing and haviung 1000 spending power
b) winning and having 1075 spending power
c) losing it all and having 0 spending power

Now...sure...you will say..."come on...what is $10 difference?
That $10 in this situation amounts to 1% of the money invested.....people have many times made decisions over 1%......and we have not yet addressed the percentage value of the risk.....

You're speaking about something you know little about, in service of a senario that supports your belief that taxes are as bad as is said by think tanks paid to come up with the pseudo-economic bullshit anti-tax nonsense.

Consider the $1 MM risk versus possible 18% ROI: where does tax come in? Whether or not part of the 18% might be taxed at a higher rate, assuming you have other income, what in your cost/risk assessment changes? Answer: nada. The upside is too lean in contrast to the down-side (- $1 MM is too much risk for potential + $180 K)

Find me a better risk/reward senario, and I jump at it, in hopes of maximum ROI, which if sufficiently rewarding might be subject to a higher tax rates on a portion of it.

Simple as that.

the ROI is a number based on the investment...and the investment money is POST TAX dollars.....so your final ROI MUST BE A POST TAX number.

NO ONE invests by saying...well, I have this 1000 to invest when, in fact, they have yet to pay taxes on it....they talk about investing what they can spend....that 1000 is a spendable 1000....POST TAX.....

So if your tax is 15% or 25% of gains is a major deal to consider....for that 10% MORE in taxes means that much less in the return.

And lets not forget...

The "return" is what the RETURN on investment is all about.

I made it clear that I am not AGAINST a tax hike during prosperous times...I support it.

But not now...

Why?

Becuase every penny counts right now....after 4 years of stunted income.

And an FYI....I really dont care what you think I do or dont know about. But if you think I know very little about this topic, then you are not going to have the advantage of learning in this debate......

No. That's not how investors look at it. Risk is balanced to reward, within an acceptable range. Taxes are anyone's guess. Example:

I need minimum 150% of what I put in, contrary to the "bird in the hand" maxim. So I risk a hundred grand for something I think will get me $150 back within the specified time, or better, hopefully.

What's my tax liability if I get $110,863 back, or $190,786 back, or anything in between? Or something more of less? How on earth do I know what in the fuck my increased tax might be?

I just look at return potential, and jump at anything that has a high probability of turning my buck into a buck-fifty, or thereabouts.

 

[Koios]

Offhand I'd say quite a few. 4% is a big change on a percentage basis (11%). Of course in your ignorance, you fail to realize business will attempt to pass all of this increase on to customers.

Pure fucking comedy. Absolutely astonishing.

Profit comes by identifying an under-served need, and serving it by selling a solution, profitably. Costs me X and I need Y. Plus maybe I have competition, and keep it at Y (lowest price I can offer) as opposed to Y+5%, or Y+50%, which would diminish unit volumes, and thus lower my profit.

The mission is to make money, selling stuff; as much as I can and stay profitable, maximizing profit, largely with volume, and whenever possible, if I have a unique market advantage, higher margin. Period.

Then if you're lucky, you'll pay a butt load of tax, since after tax is even a bigger butt load.

Ah, yes...competition! So what happens when I'm running my business here in the good 'old US of A and my main competitor is running their business in let's say Ireland. We both make a quality product and we're both selling to the same international markets but my competitor in Ireland just got a tax break from their government and I'm being threatened with a sizable tax increase by mine. Who's going to win that battle? If my Irish competition REALLY wants to make my life miserable they'll take the savings in taxes they just got and knock that off the price of their product. They maintain the same profit margin while making me slash my profit margin drastically if I want to compete with them. I'm screwed.

Now let's carry that scenario out one further step...let's say I'm "thinking" about building a new factory to build my product? Where would I be more apt to build that new factory...in a country, State or city that had high taxes...or in a country, State or city that had lower taxes or none at all?

Can you REALLY not understand how raising taxes can have unforeseen consequences? How it can actually lead to lower revenues as you lose the very entities that you tax to other places that don't tax as high? Come on...use your brain a little. This really isn't rocket science...you just have to use a little common sense.

I'll kick the Mick's butt on the larger US market since I'm close-in and have an advantage. But my pal in Ireland will get more of his/her market, since they're closer-in and know the market there better than I do.

 

[Koios]

Pure fucking comedy. Absolutely astonishing.

Profit comes by identifying an under-served need, and serving it by selling a solution, profitably. Costs me X and I need Y. Plus maybe I have competition, and keep it at Y (lowest price I can offer) as opposed to Y+5%, or Y+50%, which would diminish unit volumes, and thus lower my profit.

The mission is to make money, selling stuff; as much as I can and stay profitable, maximizing profit, largely with volume, and whenever possible, if I have a unique market advantage, higher margin. Period.

Then if you're lucky, you'll pay a butt load of tax, since after tax is even a bigger butt load.

Ah, yes...competition! So what happens when I'm running my business here in the good 'old US of A and my main competitor is running their business in let's say Ireland. We both make a quality product and we're both selling to the same international markets but my competitor in Ireland just got a tax break from their government and I'm being threatened with a sizable tax increase by mine. Who's going to win that battle? If my Irish competition REALLY wants to make my life miserable they'll take the savings in taxes they just got and knock that off the price of their product. They maintain the same profit margin while making me slash my profit margin drastically if I want to compete with them. I'm screwed.

Now let's carry that scenario out one further step...let's say I'm "thinking" about building a new factory to build my product? Where would I be more apt to build that new factory...in a country, State or city that had high taxes...or in a country, State or city that had lower taxes or none at all?

Can you REALLY not understand how raising taxes can have unforeseen consequences? How it can actually lead to lower revenues as you lose the very entities that you tax to other places that don't tax as high? Come on...use your brain a little. This really isn't rocket science...you just have to use a little common sense.

if one is a business owner it is quite difficult to think like a business owner.

Heck....my first few years, I was thinking like an employee....but in time I learned.

What did you learn?

 

[Jarhead]

You're speaking about something you know little about, in service of a senario that supports your belief that taxes are as bad as is said by think tanks paid to come up with the pseudo-economic bullshit anti-tax nonsense.

Consider the $1 MM risk versus possible 18% ROI: where does tax come in? Whether or not part of the 18% might be taxed at a higher rate, assuming you have other income, what in your cost/risk assessment changes? Answer: nada. The upside is too lean in contrast to the down-side (- $1 MM is too much risk for potential + $180 K)

Find me a better risk/reward senario, and I jump at it, in hopes of maximum ROI, which if sufficiently rewarding might be subject to a higher tax rates on a portion of it.

Simple as that.

the ROI is a number based on the investment...and the investment money is POST TAX dollars.....so your final ROI MUST BE A POST TAX number.

NO ONE invests by saying...well, I have this 1000 to invest when, in fact, they have yet to pay taxes on it....they talk about investing what they can spend....that 1000 is a spendable 1000....POST TAX.....

So if your tax is 15% or 25% of gains is a major deal to consider....for that 10% MORE in taxes means that much less in the return.

And lets not forget...

The "return" is what the RETURN on investment is all about.

I made it clear that I am not AGAINST a tax hike during prosperous times...I support it.

But not now...

Why?

Becuase every penny counts right now....after 4 years of stunted income.

And an FYI....I really dont care what you think I do or dont know about. But if you think I know very little about this topic, then you are not going to have the advantage of learning in this debate......

No. That's not how investors look at it. Risk is balanced to reward, within an acceptable range. Taxes are anyone's guess. Example:

I need minimum 150% of what I put in, contrary to the "bird in the hand" maxim. So I risk a hundred grand for something I think will get me $150 back within the specified time, or better, hopefully.

What's my tax liability if I get $110,863 back, or $190,786 back, or anything in between? Or something more of less? How on earth do I know what in the fuck my increased tax might be?

I just look at return potential, and jump at anything that has a high probability of turning my buck into a buck-fifty, or thereabouts.

you dont even see it, but you are supporting my side of the debate.

You say....

"I need minimum 150% of what I put in"

Well....what you put in is POST TAX dollars......so your 150% has to be calcxulated as post tax dollars.....and so you need to know what the tax is going to be to decide if you can get the return you want.....and you need to use that tax percentage to determine if the investment is worthy.

And you are also supporting the point the GOP has been making......business owners and investors MUST Know what their tax liability will be so they can make educated decisions....so having the tax hikes looming gives business owners more reaon NOT to invest in their companies...for they cant determine what the optimum ROI will be.

Jeez..I read your post and I truly believed we were arguing the same side...but then I re -read some of your other posts and I realized you are just coinfused.

 

[Jarhead]

Ah, yes...competition! So what happens when I'm running my business here in the good 'old US of A and my main competitor is running their business in let's say Ireland. We both make a quality product and we're both selling to the same international markets but my competitor in Ireland just got a tax break from their government and I'm being threatened with a sizable tax increase by mine. Who's going to win that battle? If my Irish competition REALLY wants to make my life miserable they'll take the savings in taxes they just got and knock that off the price of their product. They maintain the same profit margin while making me slash my profit margin drastically if I want to compete with them. I'm screwed.

Now let's carry that scenario out one further step...let's say I'm "thinking" about building a new factory to build my product? Where would I be more apt to build that new factory...in a country, State or city that had high taxes...or in a country, State or city that had lower taxes or none at all?

Can you REALLY not understand how raising taxes can have unforeseen consequences? How it can actually lead to lower revenues as you lose the very entities that you tax to other places that don't tax as high? Come on...use your brain a little. This really isn't rocket science...you just have to use a little common sense.

if one is a business owner it is quite difficult to think like a business owner.

Heck....my first few years, I was thinking like an employee....but in time I learned.

What did you learn?

I learned that running a business is more than just knowing thebusiness. It is knowing how to analyze so educated decisions can be made. It is not as simple as "I can make money if I do this"....it is "how much is the risk, what is the expected return, is there a better way to spend the money; what are other costs that may be incurred due to governemnt legislation..."

 

[Jarhead]

Pure fucking comedy. Absolutely astonishing.

Profit comes by identifying an under-served need, and serving it by selling a solution, profitably. Costs me X and I need Y. Plus maybe I have competition, and keep it at Y (lowest price I can offer) as opposed to Y+5%, or Y+50%, which would diminish unit volumes, and thus lower my profit.

The mission is to make money, selling stuff; as much as I can and stay profitable, maximizing profit, largely with volume, and whenever possible, if I have a unique market advantage, higher margin. Period.

Then if you're lucky, you'll pay a butt load of tax, since after tax is even a bigger butt load.

Ah, yes...competition! So what happens when I'm running my business here in the good 'old US of A and my main competitor is running their business in let's say Ireland. We both make a quality product and we're both selling to the same international markets but my competitor in Ireland just got a tax break from their government and I'm being threatened with a sizable tax increase by mine. Who's going to win that battle? If my Irish competition REALLY wants to make my life miserable they'll take the savings in taxes they just got and knock that off the price of their product. They maintain the same profit margin while making me slash my profit margin drastically if I want to compete with them. I'm screwed.

Now let's carry that scenario out one further step...let's say I'm "thinking" about building a new factory to build my product? Where would I be more apt to build that new factory...in a country, State or city that had high taxes...or in a country, State or city that had lower taxes or none at all?

Can you REALLY not understand how raising taxes can have unforeseen consequences? How it can actually lead to lower revenues as you lose the very entities that you tax to other places that don't tax as high? Come on...use your brain a little. This really isn't rocket science...you just have to use a little common sense.

I'll kick the Mick's butt on the larger US market since I'm close-in and have an advantage. But my pal in Ireland will get more of his/her market, since they're closer-in and know the market there better than I do.

how is that working for the solar panel market? The automobile market?
Hopw is that working for the local merchant who is losing business to Walmart where people have to drive 40 minutes to get to it.

You are quite naive when it comes to running a business.

 

[Koios]

the ROI is a number based on the investment...and the investment money is POST TAX dollars.....so your final ROI MUST BE A POST TAX number.

NO ONE invests by saying...well, I have this 1000 to invest when, in fact, they have yet to pay taxes on it....they talk about investing what they can spend....that 1000 is a spendable 1000....POST TAX.....

So if your tax is 15% or 25% of gains is a major deal to consider....for that 10% MORE in taxes means that much less in the return.

And lets not forget...

The "return" is what the RETURN on investment is all about.

I made it clear that I am not AGAINST a tax hike during prosperous times...I support it.

But not now...

Why?

Becuase every penny counts right now....after 4 years of stunted income.

And an FYI....I really dont care what you think I do or dont know about. But if you think I know very little about this topic, then you are not going to have the advantage of learning in this debate......

No. That's not how investors look at it. Risk is balanced to reward, within an acceptable range. Taxes are anyone's guess. Example:

I need minimum 150% of what I put in, contrary to the "bird in the hand" maxim. So I risk a hundred grand for something I think will get me $150 back within the specified time, or better, hopefully.

What's my tax liability if I get $110,863 back, or $190,786 back, or anything in between? Or something more of less? How on earth do I know what in the fuck my increased tax might be?

I just look at return potential, and jump at anything that has a high probability of turning my buck into a buck-fifty, or thereabouts.

you dont even see it, but you are supporting my side of the debate.

You say....

"I need minimum 150% of what I put in"

Well....what you put in is POST TAX dollars......so your 150% has to be calcxulated as post tax dollars.....and so you need to know what the tax is going to be to decide if you can get the return you want.....and you need to use that tax percentage to determine if the investment is worthy.

And you are also supporting the point the GOP has been making......business owners and investors MUST Know what their tax liability will be so they can make educated decisions....so having the tax hikes looming gives business owners more reaon NOT to invest in their companies...for they cant determine what the optimum ROI will be.

Jeez..I read your post and I truly believed we were arguing the same side...but then I re -read some of your other posts and I realized you are just coinfused.

I see it; but's it's bullshit, as in shit, straight from a bull's ass (read: pseudo-economic nonsense, aka, politics masquerading as economics, or business methodology.)

 

[lukelk]

The real problem is this, the people who actually use the most entitlement programs, the military, poor whites in red states, the old........ So you take Billy bob who lives in Mississippi, he is a low income earner. He is one of the core republican white voters in the south, he is flooded with" the blacks use all the entitlements" or " if more people get insurance I will lose mine or the quality will go down" or many of the other arguments. Now if the cons get their way with let's say one of crazy Ryan budget plans, Billy bob will suffer. Only till one suffers does one understand. This way the republicans can put out crazy plans they know will get turned down and then say"see we put out a plan" if the republicans got there way, the USA would be a corporation. Let's see, states rights, which means women get less rights, minorities get less rights, like gays. The public school system is gone. The EPA is gone, public radio is gone. I mean the list is endless, Medicare under they Ryan budget would have killed it, every economist says so that cares about his or her creditibility. I don't think I need to go on farther, I think I got my point across.

 

[Oldstyle]

Pure fucking comedy. Absolutely astonishing.

Profit comes by identifying an under-served need, and serving it by selling a solution, profitably. Costs me X and I need Y. Plus maybe I have competition, and keep it at Y (lowest price I can offer) as opposed to Y+5%, or Y+50%, which would diminish unit volumes, and thus lower my profit.

The mission is to make money, selling stuff; as much as I can and stay profitable, maximizing profit, largely with volume, and whenever possible, if I have a unique market advantage, higher margin. Period.

Then if you're lucky, you'll pay a butt load of tax, since after tax is even a bigger butt load.

Ah, yes...competition! So what happens when I'm running my business here in the good 'old US of A and my main competitor is running their business in let's say Ireland. We both make a quality product and we're both selling to the same international markets but my competitor in Ireland just got a tax break from their government and I'm being threatened with a sizable tax increase by mine. Who's going to win that battle? If my Irish competition REALLY wants to make my life miserable they'll take the savings in taxes they just got and knock that off the price of their product. They maintain the same profit margin while making me slash my profit margin drastically if I want to compete with them. I'm screwed.

Now let's carry that scenario out one further step...let's say I'm "thinking" about building a new factory to build my product? Where would I be more apt to build that new factory...in a country, State or city that had high taxes...or in a country, State or city that had lower taxes or none at all?

Can you REALLY not understand how raising taxes can have unforeseen consequences? How it can actually lead to lower revenues as you lose the very entities that you tax to other places that don't tax as high? Come on...use your brain a little. This really isn't rocket science...you just have to use a little common sense.

I'll kick the Mick's butt on the larger US market since I'm close-in and have an advantage. But my pal in Ireland will get more of his/her market, since they're closer-in and know the market there better than I do.

Let's say 60% of the market is here in the US and 40% is over seas. You can't even come close to matching the Irish competitor's price there and he can most likely still ship his product here at a price that's lower than yours. Here's where it gets nasty though...what's to keep him from discounting his prices to goods sold in the US until he's breaking even...knowing that you can't afford to go lower and still make a profit because of your higher costs? What if he decides he REALLY wants to play hard ball and uses the profits of what he's selling to the overseas market...where he is slaughtering you...to subsidize even lower prices to the US market? Selling at a loss here, knowing that he will shortly put you out of business at which point he can raise his prices once again and still claim most of the market share?

To be honest with you, K? I don't think you know the first thing about business. At least not from what I'm seeing from you here.