Blackjack and Card Counting Forums - BlackjackInfo.com

  #81  
Old October 15th, 2011, 07:49 PM
QFIT's Avatar
QFIT QFIT is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NO LONGER HERE
Posts: 2,884
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aslan View Post
In all you business experience, do corporations ever say they want to make at least X number of dollars? Do they ever take measures to make at least X number of dollars?
One last answer, since this seems to be a source of all of your misunderstandings. The answer is NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. That's totally absurd. In olden days, "blue chips" used to try to be this way, and yes there exist mutual funds that attempt this, and Ponzi schemes, like Madoof. And some tiny companies that are fading away. And corps have future plans with predicted earnings (EBITDA, not including tax effects). But, unlike the USSR with its five-year plans, these plans were constantly adjusted. And there are fixed-income plans, that are not corps at all but investors in T-bills and municipal bonds.

This has not been true for many decades. This is the way PEOPLE act, not corporations or governments. And, it isn't even the way people act that expect to do well in the corporate world. I have had many negative income years while starting companies. That is required. Entrepreneurs take chances by enduring negative income to maximize future income. Hugely successful companies, like Google, lose money for years. Most fail completely. Some make a bloddy fortune. This is the basis of the free enterprise system. It ain't Socialism, with guaranteed, regular income. Your view of Entrepreneurship sounds like Socialism to me. Perhaps it is the Tea Party folk that are Socialists. I have been called a Socialist here more times than I can count, and am actually one of the few that actually believe in, and have experienced, entrepreneurship.
  #82  
Old October 15th, 2011, 08:10 PM
blackriver blackriver is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 364
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aslan View Post
In all you business experience, do corporations ever say they want to make at least X number of dollars? Do they ever take measures to make at least X number of dollars?
No. This is what we keep tring to tell you. You keep saying they look at the tax rate and then decide how much profit to make. we are trying to convince you that they seek to maximize profit regardless of tax rate.

this part of the discussion started with corporate behavior in the market for goods and services. Whether or not to form or continue as a corp it's another problem. that's why I specified that I was only talking about that.

If the public finds it in its best interests to raise taxes on corporations, this just means small businesses will meet that markets demand. As it stands, corporations are effectively subsidized to squeeze out small businesses because of the effectiveness of having lots of lawyers, lobbyists, oligopoly maneuvers and tax loopholes that smaller businesses can't afford.

(i love corporations for many reasons, but it's important to see their ramifications)

Last edited by blackriver; October 15th, 2011 at 08:20 PM.
  #83  
Old October 15th, 2011, 09:51 PM
zengrifter's Avatar
zengrifter zengrifter is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 10,532
Default

9-9-9 is a sucker's bet proposed by a bold faced lying Uncle Tom Bad Apple* who stole the 999 idea from a video-game (SimCity). zg

*Harry Belafonte calls Cain "bad Apple" Uncle Tom

*Cain lied in debates, denying that he used to poo-poo the idea of auditing the Fed

*UK Mail broke the SimCity 999 story
.
.
.

Last edited by zengrifter; October 15th, 2011 at 09:54 PM.
  #84  
Old October 15th, 2011, 09:54 PM
QFIT's Avatar
QFIT QFIT is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NO LONGER HERE
Posts: 2,884
Default

It occurs to me that Aslan may be thinking of yield. Blue chips attempt to show a gradually increasing yield. Yield is essentially dividend rate. But, companies can issue dividends even if they lose money, and often don’t increase dividends by much or anything in banner years. So, the dividend can show gradual growth, even though the company’s net bounces all over. Some mutual funds, by their by-laws, cannot invest in a zero yield company. So, companies may issue dividends for several bad years in a row to avoid forced fund selloffs. Yields and profits are not well-related. Apple and Google have a yield of zero.

Last edited by QFIT; October 15th, 2011 at 09:57 PM.
  #85  
Old October 15th, 2011, 10:08 PM
aslan's Avatar
aslan aslan is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 8,683
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by QFIT View Post
Another strawman. I was talking about honest corporations. Of course what you said is true and it is a shame that you say you could never convince me of something that is obvious. In fact, what you are saying is exactly what the Occupy Wall Strret people are saying, and why I went to visit them.

But, the disgusting acts of crooks has NOTHING to do with the discussion. You are now trying to divert the discussion. Oddly, before this, you seemed to suggest we should trust corps and not gov't. Now you are saying we can't trust Corps.

I am talking about companies that act in the interest of their owners. I thought you were.

It is now clear that the people on one side of this discussion have given up on honest discussion. I have given examples and logic for my position, and received mantras and strawmen in return. You guys can have the last words.

I will add, I think the TP has lowered the IQ of the country by 5% with their idiotic mantras. Who needs PHDs when you can listen to simplistic logic from high-school texts and phony degrees from Bachmann. (Look up her actual jobs and "degrees" if you didn't know.)
With you I was. This was a side response to blackriver, not you. This was not part of our discussion, even though I mentioned your name, but not in the context of other than the profit motive of corporations.
  #86  
Old October 15th, 2011, 10:13 PM
mmeyers mmeyers is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: South
Posts: 74
Default Effect of 25% Corporate Tax Rate

Lowering the rate to 25 percent would also increase the real after-tax profits of corporations by $124 billion on average per year. Further, the increase in equity financing gives households (through savings accounts, pension funds, etc.) a share in those higher profits. Increased corporate profits are reflected in stock prices and dividend payouts. The value of the stock index is 8.3 percent higher, and total dividend income is on average $90 billion (not adjusted for inflation) more per year. Economic growth, resulting in higher income and higher asset values, allows households to have, in total, an average $1.4 trillion per year more of net wealth.

Karen A. Campbell, Ph.D., is Policy Analyst in Macroeconomics and John L. Ligon is a Policy Analyst in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.


mmeyers
  #87  
Old October 15th, 2011, 11:34 PM
aslan's Avatar
aslan aslan is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 8,683
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by QFIT View Post
One last answer, since this seems to be a source of all of your misunderstandings. The answer is NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. That's totally absurd. In olden days, "blue chips" used to try to be this way, and yes there exist mutual funds that attempt this, and Ponzi schemes, like Madoof. And some tiny companies that are fading away. And corps have future plans with predicted earnings (EBITDA, not including tax effects). But, unlike the USSR with its five-year plans, these plans were constantly adjusted. And there are fixed-income plans, that are not corps at all but investors in T-bills and municipal bonds.

This has not been true for many decades. This is the way PEOPLE act, not corporations or governments. And, it isn't even the way people act that expect to do well in the corporate world. I have had many negative income years while starting companies. That is required. Entrepreneurs take chances by enduring negative income to maximize future income. Hugely successful companies, like Google, lose money for years. Most fail completely. Some make a bloddy fortune. This is the basis of the free enterprise system. It ain't Socialism, with guaranteed, regular income. Your view of Entrepreneurship sounds like Socialism to me. Perhaps it is the Tea Party folk that are Socialists. I have been called a Socialist here more times than I can count, and am actually one of the few that actually believe in, and have experienced, entrepreneurship.
That was a totally unsatisfactory answer. You can't just pick exceptions to the rule and unique situations and make a case for the majority of companies. The .coms are in a unique business situation and they are willing to take great gambles in this frontier business environment because the stakes are so high and great rewards await those who dominate, and utter failure to those who cannot. But I wouldn't put the average business in the same category.

Of course profit and other goals are adjusted constantly; why would you suppose I thought otherwise? Guaranteed income-- who suggested that? Not me. And to suggest that I am a socialist because I think most established businesses have profit goals is beyond my comprehension.

I don't accept your word for it that you are the authority on these matters that you claim to be. I audited billion dollar corporations for many years and they did not act as you purport they do.

I would expect that any startup businesses might have negative income years; there's nothing surprising about that-- some established businesses as well. And the remark that corporations have not acted as I depicted for many decades-- at least I suppose you are admitting that in your opinion they once acted like that. I believe the majority still act like that, maybe not companies trying to become one of the dominant internet giants, but ordinary, everyday companies-- manufacturing companies of everyday goods, paper mills, dairies, utility companies, food chains, department stores, and small businesses-- restaurants, beauty salons, hardware stores, grocery stores, auto repair shops, body shops, clothing stores, etc.

I understand some of your ideas, and I will think about them. But your contention that big changes in income taxes do not enter into corporate decision making/planning is not even debatable IMHO. No more discussion for me.
  #88  
Old October 16th, 2011, 06:36 AM
QFIT's Avatar
QFIT QFIT is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NO LONGER HERE
Posts: 2,884
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmeyers View Post
Lowering the rate to 25 percent would also increase the real after-tax profits of corporations by $124 billion on average per year. Further, the increase in equity financing gives households (through savings accounts, pension funds, etc.) a share in those higher profits. Increased corporate profits are reflected in stock prices and dividend payouts. The value of the stock index is 8.3 percent higher, and total dividend income is on average $90 billion (not adjusted for inflation) more per year. Economic growth, resulting in higher income and higher asset values, allows households to have, in total, an average $1.4 trillion per year more of net wealth.

Karen A. Campbell, Ph.D., is Policy Analyst in Macroeconomics and John L. Ligon is a Policy Analyst in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.


mmeyers
The Heritage Foundation. What a surprise.
  #89  
Old October 16th, 2011, 06:39 AM
QFIT's Avatar
QFIT QFIT is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NO LONGER HERE
Posts: 2,884
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aslan View Post
No more discussion for me.
Good. You just keep repeating that companies will pass on taxes with zero evidence or examples.
  #90  
Old October 16th, 2011, 07:18 AM
tthree tthree is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by QFIT View Post
The Heritage Foundation. What a surprise.
QFIT, the sources you haven't figured out are total BS yet most people have. I am talking about the mainstream media. Most worldly people with actual knowledge of what they report on left 20 years ago. That was what started FOX news. The big boys wanted to tell the sheeple what to think and they decided it was the obvious left leaning political bent of these sources that had them lose most of their viewers. They started a right wing propaganda source to try to control these people's thoughts and views of major issues and events. What they didn't realize is most left because the world had gotten small enough for them to know what they were reporting was total BS.

So for all those times you use the mainstream media to form your opinion from those that are worldly. The mainstream media. Please, what a surprise.
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:06 AM.


Forum Software vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005-2011 Bayview Strategies LLC