What in the Sam hell is a windfall profit and why ever would we want to tax it? Let me make this perfectly clear:
PROFITS ARE GOOD!!
(The more the merrier)
Besides you bumbling idiots, they're not your profits anyway. So why don't you get the hell out of Washington politics and get a real flippin' job and try to earn some yourselves?
What's more, when it comes to business, there is no such thing as "profits". There are only costs.
What companies deem as "profits" are nothing more than genuine and largely quantifiable costs. These costs are defined in one of 3 ways: as a genuine cost of a major resource, namely capital; as a necessary insurance premium for the real--and again largely quantifiable--risks and uncertainties of all economic activity; and as cost of the jobs and pensions of tomorrow.
And, while I have been critical of much of the Republican leadership, it is comforting to know that on this issue, they have found and exercised their sensibilities.
16 comments:
The leftist idiots of this world don't even know the basics of economics to know they are going to end up costing everyone more, with all their meddling into business.
Oh, make no mistake about it; they know it. They know it full well. It's part of their grand scheme to enslave us all.
The leadership maybe, but the people who vote for them don't understand it then.
Either way, just wait. McCain will get back to the Senate and screw us again. I think I heard him promising to 'do something' about 'greedy' ceo's or something the other day.
Yes he did say something about regulating CEO pay. I mean are some of their salaries outrageously huge?? Sure they are. But, who the hell are these envious bafoons who think it's their God given right to determine what a company chooses to pay its CEO??
Then you get these morons that say something like "Yeah the CEO's are getting big and rich at the expense of the little man in the company."
Well...if the little man finds it so unjust, then perhaps the little man can take his credentials somewhere else and get a job.
Talk about being green (with Envy that is)...which brings me to yet another t-shirt idea!!!!
"But, who the hell are these envious bafoons who think it's their God given right to determine what a company chooses to pay its CEO??" the shareholders
Exactly. It is the shareholder's right. Not the right of some envious average day Joe on the street who laments about how much CEO's get paid. Or, Senator McCain for that matter.
Exactly, the shareholder. And as we note at the recent Home Deport
kerffufle, they have no more right
than "the envious average Joe on the street". The business logic
of a $210million parachute for an individual that devalued their HD
shares is peculiar. As a "The leftist idiot of this world don't even know the basics of economics"
..thanks Beth!..I would posit that
ultimately it is the consumer who
sets CEO pay, or even profit margin. They don't buy, you don't sell..econ 101. Yet, in my 40 years in mfg, I watched the company
goals go from Customer Employee Community Shareholder to simply profit. You are right it is the American way...overpay the egocentric fools..while they ship the jobs overseas and fold up their own businesses. [from the POV of shareholder, customer, leftist idiot and former manager]
"...while they ship the jobs overseas and fold up their own businesses."
And why, from an economic standpoint, might we suppose that happens?
As I said before, there are no such thing as profits in business. There are only costs. And, if your labor cost is high, and your tax liability is even higher still, something's gotta give.
So, you get big business here in America who champion (by getting in bed with government) for cheap immigrant labor. Or, they use government by way of regulation to overcome their competitor (eg. government bans a certain lightbulb or certain chemical and the lobbying company is the sole maker of the alternative).
Or, you get companies who say "screw it" and up and leave either to another state with a lower corporate rate or leave the country altogether.
When you couple the corporate tax rate in America with what some state's corporate tax rate is (here in Minnesota it's 9.8%) that is higher than most other countries.
Why would a company then want to headquarter in Minnesota? Why would a company want to headquarter here in America??
What's more, let us not forget, Nardelli was ousted. There again, market forces at work.
His role was to make money for the shareholders thereby increasing the company's overall value. Obviously, he was none too sucessful.
If there are 'no profits' in business, why does business exist?
While I agree in part on state tax rates on corporations, note at
http://www.bls.gov/web/laumstrk.htm
and
http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/corp_inc.html that employment rates vs corp tax rates do not compare directly; some companies seek infrastructure (transportation hubs, good schools, educated work force etc), and then there is the cost of building in a new place.
I see two of my old employers,
Federal Cartridge & ATK are still
HQ'd in your fine state. :) It would be interesting if state corp tax rates were all the same, say
3%, on where big corps would locate.
Even profits get largely eaten up and back into costs. Take oil companies for example.
40% of their "profits" amounts to their tax liability. Again, costs...
So let's consider where the other 60% might go??
Salaries?? Benefits??? R&D???
Profitability in one way shape or form goes back into the business.
Profitability in one way shape or form goes back into the business.
You mean the evil rich white guys don't just dump it on the floor and roll in it while their poor slaves are made to suffer?
Well there might be a little bit of that. But then...they've earned it. ;-)
When my tax dollars (2.6 Billion) get sent to uber profitable oil companies, they are my profits. Why is illegal for gas stations to price gouge but not oil companies?
I'm rather confused over this notion that "in business, there is no such thing as 'profit' there are only costs."
I always thought the purpose of a corporation (ANY corporation or business entity) was to make money for its shareholders (or owners).
What "profit" isn't distributed as a dividend is left in the company to be used for expansion, what have you.
Of course, the tax burden a business owner bears has a great deal to do with the type of entity that they are (C Corp, S Corp, LLC, LLP, LP, etc.). But either way, what money isn't retained in the business could very well be deemed a "profit" that is taken out as a "distribution." Explain to me, then, how a "distribution" could be deemed a "cost." By virtue of one's being taxed for it? That seems specious. Why? For the simple reason that one doesn't write off distributions as a cost of doing business on their corporate tax return (at least I don't see such a line existing on Schedule C: Profit or Loss from Business for Sole Proprietorships nor have I seen one on Form 1120S).
Post a Comment