WOOoooo...capitalists deserve profits because they take risks

[Mairead]

[loudnclear]

1. Risks with taxpayer subsidies and huge tax breaks..

That is for big business only.

[mmonk]

3. I would support tax breaks

for hiring people. The tax code is flexible in order to influence what needs to be achieved. Its just supply siders constantly screw it up when they achieve power.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mmonk]

4. and without profits

they can't expand or hire. Sometimes, I don't think some people understand the most basic tenets of economic reality. Also, no profits means no taxes which means less money for government programs (or for any income redistribution for that matter).

[sal]

34. Right. Like that ever happened.

and the birds get the seed that falls from the horse's mouth. (props to Galbraith)

my hands hurt bad today (as does my back) from 30 years of risk taking.

[9215]

36. Corporate taxes have dropped like the 29' stock market.

Corporations pay about 13% of the income taxes today where it was more like 50% a few decades ago.

It's socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.

[livinontheedge]

40. Get a clue . . . U.S. corporations pay the second HIGHEST corporate tax

rates in the WORLD!!!!! Furthermore, the 35% tax rate applies to WORLDWIDE earnings, not just earnings in the U.S.

For Christ's sake, U.S. companies are already at a competitive disadvantage in countries with lower tax rates. You would have to be a total fool to want to make us even less competitive. If you love jobs moving offshore, just raise the corporate tax rate some more.

[9215]

46. here are some links. You need to get me a few too.

Below:http://www.ctj.org/html/corp0402.htm

Citizens for Tax Justice , 202-626-3780

Surge in Corporate Tax Welfare Drives Corporate Tax Payments Down to Near Record Low
Click here <../pdf/corp0402.pdf> to see this analysis in PDF format.
Click here <../html/corp0302.htm> for a chart showing trends in corporate income taxes.

A startling surge in corporate tax welfare is expected to drive corporate income taxes over the next two years down to only 1.3 percent of the gross domestic product. That will be the lowest level since the early 1980s-and the second lowest level in at least six decades.......

Instead of racing to the bottom (wages wise) the US, if it was really interested in democracy, would have long ago helped in improving workers rights and wages abroad instead of trying to force workers into poverty while the corporate heads earn 1000 times what the worker earns.


After World War II, the nation's tax bill was roughly split between corporations and individuals. But after years of changes in the federal tax code and international economy, the corporate share of taxes has declined to a fourth the amount individuals pay, according to the US Office of Management and Budget." --Boston Globe series on Corporate Welfare

[livinontheedge]

47. You didn't address the issue . . . corporate tax rates of 35% is the

second highest in the whole fucking WORLD. We are now competing with India and China and other low cost manufacturers who have much lower effective tax rates . . . thus they can offer the same good at a lower sales price and make the same net profit as the US company. That makes the US company less competitive. That means the Chinese worker gets to work and the US worker gets laid off.

If you want to cost America more manufacturing jobs, raise the corporate tax rate. Hopefully, no democratic nominee will even dream of raising corporate taxes.

[9215]

50. oK, no prob. Just keep giving

corporate execs like Kenny "fuckem till they drop" Lay rewards for being thieves and the rest:

1000 times more than their workers and when the company goes under and the workers have no pension tell them: "You should have been smarter investors".

You see you never address the bigger problem: raising the living standard for the rest of the world instead of racing to the bottom so that corporations can make a profit.

[bahrbearian]

7. Hog Wash !!

take for example Chimmpy and the Texas Ranger's

[Skittles]

8. HA HA, HA HA HA HA

NICE TRY

[BiggJawn]

9. But, how MUCH profit?

50%? 100%? 1,000%??
The CEO makes 600 megabucks a year and the guy who sweeps the floor of his factory in Guatamala makes $400 a year. Is that fair?

He runs his company from a PO Box in Bermuda to avoid paying US taxes, those same taxes that Holmes once said are the "dues we pay for living in a civilized society" Those taxes that pay for the fire and police services that protect his mansion and REAL "headquarters" (NOT that box at "MailboxsPlus" in Bermuda)and the roads that he and his family drive their Lincoln Navigators down.

The cartoon is referring to those great "Captains of Industry" who once ran Tyco, Enron, etc. NOT the guy down the street who owns a bicycle shop in the strip mall out by the highway.

[mmonk]

29. I didn't know that was what the discussion was about,

thought it was about profits (which is the only way a business can survive, expand, hire, and produce taxes). I didn't know the discussion changed to off shore tax havens.

Why should the government determine how much profit and how can they? Make the cost of business too high or keep people from buying a businesses goods or services?

[Isome]

45. It's about the fallacy that businesses take all the risks...

and should therefore be able to reap all the profits. Not all of them do, so not all of them should take all the profits, and they should certainly be made to pay at least 20 percent in taxes.

"Research and development grants are a favored form of corporate welfare," says Steve Weissman of CongressWatch. General Electric, Xerox and Caterpillar are only three big names pocketing a total of $ 1 billion in federal R&D money annually. One billion dollars in federal subsidies goes to the pharmaceutical industry for the development of drugs - which together earned $22 billion in profits (sans the risk) and probably didn't need any help from the government. Additionaly, the corporations get to hold on to all patent rights-and all of the profits generated from these subsidies.

Government hands over our public resources to make mining companies rich-under an old law dating to 1872, mining companies need not pay for the $2 billion worth of minerals they extract from public lands, a loss to taxpayers of $2 million in royalties a year. "Land itself can be acquired by mining companies at $5 an acre and taxpayers pay for the cleanup," says Weissman. Oil companies reap their own $66 million giveaway since the feds undercharge them by about $2 a barrel for the oil they extract from public property.

"There are 77 programs that could be cut and save taxpayers $55 billion over five years," says Lexi Shultz, staff attorney with the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. USPIRG has joined with Friends of the Earth and Taxpayers for Common Sense in a coalition called Green Scissors which targets subsidies like those to mining companies that damage the environment. These subsidies are worse than giveaways-they "distort the economy" by encouraging corporations to act in ways that are environmentally destructive. For instance, agribusiness is more likely to plant on flood plains that shouldn't be cultivated because the U.S. Department of Agriculture subsidizes crop insurance even on marginal land to the tune of $1.5 billion a year.

[Dauerlauf]

12. Thank you

for stating sense.

[Nobody]

13. I object to living off the labor of others

People who make money the old fashioned way: inheriting it and not working a day in their lives except for hobbies.

People who have lots and sink them into the Wall Street Casino, living off capital gains and dividends, which incidentally, received a huge tax cut. Who does the work that produces those dividends? Other people, many of whom make minimum wage and get no benefits.

CEOs who run a company into the ground, throwing thousands of people out of work, not only keeping their jobs but receiving huge bonuses for cutting costs.

Profitable companies where the execs make 7 figure bonuses and the peons who face the public every day get pay freezes, no bonuses of any kind, rumors of impending layoffs, rising cost of their benfit package, laid off and replaced by temps, laid off and replaced by people in 3rd world countries.

You talk about how the people who create wealth should make profits, well, where's the profit for the people who assemble the widgets, who make sure the widgets are working, who keep the store clean so that the health dept doesn't shut them down and customers don't get grossed out from the smell of raw sewage, who talk to dissatisfied customers whose widgets don't work and keep them from becoming disgruntled former customers?

Don't you think they should be able to have some job security, a living wage with a little left over, and stay healthy so they can continue to build and support the product? Don't you think they should have the ability to make their hard work pay off instead of having to work until they drop dead, unable to afford to retire?

A company can't succeed without people doing the scutwork.

[Muddleoftheroad]

15. Then don't live that way

Many people came to America for economic not political reasons. Those people wanted things better for their children. They worked, they scrimped, they saved. If those children don't need to work as a result, so be it. Their parents DID work.

That said, I've never met any "idle" rich. Even the wealthy folks that I've met or interviewed still did a lot more than just hobbies. They started businesses. They helped out charities. They started foundations. They ran for office. In short, they were still productive members of society.

I often see the generic attack on CEOs. Sure, some CEOs stink, just like coaches in football. But the skill set required to run a major company is pretty unique, so there is a pretty limited pool of likely applicants. And sometimes, probably oftentimes, there are other factors why a company is doing bad. Perhaps the previous CEO did a poor job. Perhaps the market for the products has turned suddenly because of a development elsewhere. Perhaps new government regulation has limited opportunity.

It's all in a day's work for a CEO. And a hard day's work at that. It's not all golf and glory. Hell, even golf for them is drumming up business or trying to keep it.

CEOs fire people because some companies -- many companies -- have bloated payrolls. Technology came along and eased how jobs get done. Business travel is no longer as essential. Virtual meetings can handle that. E-mail and fax speed document delivery and cooperative projects, yet companies didn't cut the resulting unnecessary staff. But in economic downturns, they do just that.

Profitable companies stay profitable by making hard choices. They decide to try new markets -- either for their goods or for their production process. If they don't, they leave openings for their competitors and then NO ONE in the company has a job.

The people who assemble the widgets, who make sure the widgets have jobs. They are paid for the labor at an agreed-to rate. If they did not wish to do the job, they could look elsewhere. Either side can quit the other. That is fair.

Should they have job security? Why? CEOs don't. Bosses don't. In this economy, no one does except for union people and even that is probably changing. Tenure, for instance, is going away as a way to encourage results in colleges and universities. Your concept of a "living wage" appears a little naive. If you have marketable skills (i.e., someone ELSE will pay more for them), then you are a premium employee. But an employee who mops floors can easily be replaced. No, that doesn't make them less of a person, but less of a necessary employee.

Ultimately, it is in a company's best interests to keep good employees happy. The other employees should not be happy. They should leave or become good employees. Modern business texts often encourage companies to only give raises (above cost of living) to A and B employees. C employees should get no raises and anyone below a C should be fired. This encourages employees to work hard and excel and, in turn, they should be compensated well because it benefits both sides.

[bread_and_roses]

16. perhaps corporations should read

some of those texts? But since they seem to be making a lot of money by paying slave wages in third world countries, or in this country (Walmart, for example) and getting away with pollution the wage slaves have to pay for, and using the schools, etc. the wage slaves have to pay for, I doubt they'll take those texts much to heart.

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. This is why the future is bleak for Walmart

Yes, they have gotten this far, but you can only abuse employees so long before it comes back to bite you in the ass. Especially now that Walmart is trying to move into other areas of business (groceries) that are heavily unionized.

The doctrine they need to learn is benign self interest. It makes sense to pay good employees more money. Otherwise they become former employees. Microsoft knew this and it contributed to their success.

[Occulus]

32. Wow.

I am sooo glad I'm not this blind:

"The people who assemble the widgets, who make sure the widgets have jobs. They are paid for the labor at an agreed-to rate. If they did not wish to do the job, they could look elsewhere. Either side can quit the other. That is fair."

(this post was written before Muddle responded to another person along this conversation. I was writing when Muddle responded. After reading his other statements, it got through to me that Muddle doesn't actually think this way. I'm leaving it up simply for completeness, and regret any untoward feelings it may have caused on first reading.)

That whole idea stinks of apology to me, but that one.... man, I don't know what country you're in, but it isn't the US.

Agreed-to rate... agreed to by whom, the CEO and the board? Sheesh.... you're making it sound like any of us have any real say in what we're making for the job we're doing, unless we're actually the owners- a very small number of employees in the country, in case you hadn't noticed. Oh, and by the way, there are always those who are supremely overqualified for the job they're doing, who do NOT agree to their rate of pay but CAN'T increase it for any of a variety of reasons.

Oh, hell, I never get through to business types when I talk about these things... they're always far more concerned about the bottom line than they ever are about the people who make that bottom line possible. Were it up to me, the CEO would receive their housing expenses (food, bills, etc) and no pay beyond that of any kind.

Don't you dare tell me that CEOs make "hard decisions" and that's "hard work". Bullshit. Hard work is physically taxing. Hard work can get you injured. Hard work can even get you killed.

CEOs never, ever do anything close to what I call "hard work".

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

42. And the government makes sure the unemployment rate is high

This idea that it's a free market is ridiculous. What happened when the demand for engineers in the late 1990s was much higher than the supply? The corporations and the government got together to import lots of cheaper foreign workers, temporarily, until the wages went down, then deported them.

When the rules don't work in the company's favor, the government changes them. I'd like to see the government change the rules in our favor, but that usually doesn't happen.

[quaker bill]

20. I agree those who create the profit deserve it.

Of course, I mean those who physically take the raw materials and with their hands fashion something more useful with it.

As opposed to some arbitrageur who in this environment takes the bulk of their work for his personal profit and shares as little as possible with the workers who make the profitable item.

[Muddleoftheroad]

23. Then workers should unite

And start their own company.

[w4rma]

26. How? All the manufacturing is done overseas now.

How does any American company compete against a multinational?

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. Depends on what you do

Cheapest products don't always win out. People pay a premium for premium products. Good marketing, innovation, customer service all contribute.

[w4rma]

39. I have an idea for a gadget. I'll hire an engineer from Inda to design

the specifications (at less than 1/5 the salary of an American engineer). I'll contract a factory in China to build a bunch of them (at less than 1/100th of the salary of an American factory worker). I'll contract a Chinese shipping company to ship the order to the United States (also at less than 1/100th of the salary of an American factory worker). I'll hire telemarketers from Inda to promote it (at less than 1/20th of an American telemarketer). I'll get Wal-Mart, aka the Red Chinese retail outlet, to sell it.

How many Americans make money off my innovation?

[sandnsea]

21. Whacked out values

How did we get to a place where people who throw some money around deserve more than people who put their sweat and labor on the line? Some guy who invests in a mine deserves more money than the miner that puts his life on the line? Our values are distorted, way distorted.

We're supposed to be a country where developing ones talents leads to economic gain. Money isn't supposed to deserve more return than the talent and drive that created an idea or product in the first place.

[Muddleoftheroad]

25. Risk

While you might see risking your life as the greater risk, it is balanced by how expensive it is to find someone else willing to do that same job.

Let's say I start a mine. I invest $10 million in the mine to get it started, but equipment, land rights, build an office, etc. I have all of that money at risk, possibly more depending on leverage, liability and such. I hire 100 workers, mostly miners. Yes, each puts his life on the line every day. But, frankly, so do people in many professions. I pay on average (no idea what a miner's salary is) let's say $50,000 per employee.

Now the company makes $1 million in profit. Would you have me distribute that money to the 100 employees or don't I get to benefit from my risk of $10 million?

[Mairead]

41. You conveniently ignore the fact that it's generally someone else's money

you're risking, especially when you're very, very wealthy. It's the little guy, the one who wants to open a taco stand, who takes out a second mortgage, begs money from his relatives, and stands to go down the drain if he loses out. It's not the guy who wants $10M. You think the Enron guys lost anything? Hell no. Only the 'suckers' did.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

43. Their argument is always the same

They talk about a market, and give us examples where everyone is equal or close to equal. They will never choose an example where someone has billions of dollars buying or selling with someone who has hundreds of dollars. And of course, the wealthy players are always fair, and when cheating happens, it's not a market problem or an economic problem, that's blamed on the government. The solution? Make the cheating legal.

As usual, the only involvement of government (read: democracy) they want is a strong state to protect their property and maintain their wealth.

[sandnsea]

52. Why is your money more important than life?

Why should you get more return for risking your lesiure capital than the miner gets for risking his life? Why shouldn't that $1 million be distributed equally between the workers and investors?

There's NO valid reason, only what we've been taught to believe which is fed by our own greed.

[bread_and_roses]

5. qr123 and mmonk

one doesn't have to be a socialist to understand that without the structure of a civilized society - roads, schools, water, sewer, courts, firefighters, etc., there could be no "business" as we know it, and thus no "profits." The question is not (at least at the moment, as far as I know) whether or not business/entrepreneurs/corporations should make profits, but what society should "charge" them in the form of taxes, wages, benefits, and regulation for the opportunity to make those profits. Right now, the formula is wildly skewed to benefit the profiteers and put the burden of maintaining a civilized society on wage-earners.

[teryang]

6. This is the government of monopoly capitalism

...they don't take risks they take government guaranteed handouts in protected markets. Many of their markets depend on right wing military regimes to obscure and defend their takeover of public revenues, resources, services and utilities for mere pennies. The destruction of standards for labor, standards of living, the environment and democracy are their calling cards. The campaign contribution and the bribe are their entrees to government guaranteed largesse. Their only risk is that the people might retake control of their government. Otherwise, they are above the law. They write the law.

True entrepreneurs fight an uphill battle against the monopoly government protected and subsidized corporate giants. Tax codes and business regulations are written and enforced in such a way that the top dog status of corporate monopoly giants cannot be challenged by mere entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs are forced by this system ultimately to sell out to monopoly capital if they can or go under.

[jumptheshadow]

11. Bingo

You nailed it.

[jumptheshadow]

10. You have to distinguish between businesses

A small business, for example, usually doesn't have the resources that it takes to get the tax-free benefits of its larger counterparts. ;)

I know in our business we invest a fairly large amount of money in yellow page ads, Internet listings and association memberships that in turn generate jobs for people. We also do an extensive amount of networking and we spend many hours polishing our product so that customers will return.

[John_H]

14. Laissez faire Republicans, not corporations are bad.

Yet another reasons why liberals are smarter than Rethugs and socialists: we understand that companies are like machines--they relentlessly seek profit without being good or evil. We also understand that smart government and regulation can help make sure they do the good stuff they do and minimize the bad.

Repugs think they're good, and just want to let em' run amok. Socialists think they're evil and want to get rid of 'em entirely.

As 200 years of american history have shown, both are dead wrong.

[RichM]

30. Interesting post (unintentionally, of course)

One interesting point here is this poster's undisguised hostility towards the political left.

The more comic aspect of the post resides in the phrase, "As 200 years of american history have shown, both are dead wrong."
- Please draw upon your vast knowledge of American history, & tell us when there ever was an example of socialists "getting rid of 'em entirely," & this being proven "dead wrong." :eyes: Come on! Please try to support that statement with an example. (I could use a good laugh.)

[John_H]

48. You don't need a vast knowledge of American history, Richmiester

You just need a exosophmoric worldview and half a jigger of common sense, niether of which are standardard equipment on the 2003 model of RichM, apparently.

Glad I got my comic aspect residin' for you, my brother. (Is that, like, Freshman Essay for "funny?")

Ya wanna read something really gut busting?

"The Democratic platform does not differ from the Republican platform at all... Like the Republican Party, the Democratic Party stands for the interests of the capitalist class..."

Socialist Party leaflet, 1916

Jeezuz. Nader can't even think of an original lie. But I digress. Here's your Socialists advocating getting rid of 'em entirely.

"Corporations should be abolished. There can be no justification for temporizing about corporations.They are illegal by any interpretation of common-law that deals with ownership and its responsibilities. Corporations are deliberately created to avoid liability."

Per the dead wrong part I truly cannot cite a real world example. While half the 'mercun people are dumb enough to vote republican, they havn't been dim bulb enough to put a socialist in a position to do any damage.

[RichM]

53. Re: "Per the dead wrong part I truly cannot cite a real world example..."

Translation: "What I asserted in my last post was just my usual pile of mindless bullshit." What a surprise.

[JanMichael]

17. How very true.

A few years ago I was looking for venture capital for some projects in Central Europe. Had a meeting in Palm Beach with a very, very, wealthy investor.

His business manager had basically qualified the projects prior to the meeting so this person was at least a tiny bit interested. Things went well but he finally said, "They look great, but I really only deal in protected industries now, like cable TV." Funny thing is that cable TV is where the family fortune came from:eyes:

"Protected Industries" ie. Monopolistic ventures that have either Government protection or Capital entry costs that limit competition to a tiny few.

So while the cartoon is rather cute it's also true in a very big way.

[livinontheedge]

18. Capital at risk deserves a reward . . . period.

We would have no economy at all if we stopped rewarding capital for risk-taking. The higher the risk, the higher the reward.

People who complain about high executive pay have a point to a degree. What you need to dial in to your thinking is the fact that a CEO can make one decision that contributes bottom line profits of billions of dollars. It's hard to argue against giving him a million dollar bonus for billion dollar results. What I'm against is rewarding a guy who lost money for his company.

[quaker bill]

24. This is so much BS.

No CEO's decision alone makes a profit. It is those who bust their hump delivering the product that make the profit.

[Muddleoftheroad]

27. Not in the least

Sure, some scientists and inventors come up with products that can make a firm a ton of money. And those people are enormously special and need to be kept happy. But if the CEO decides, weighing all information, to try a new market in Peru and it works out, that was HIS decision, not some guy/gal on the production line. Salespeople are an exception because they bring in big bucks and get paid appropriately.

[Occulus]

33. If even one single employee in the company

isn't able to pay all their bills on time from the pay they are receiving, then yes, that million dollar bonus is a very easy thing to argue against, regardless of the results.

My heart is too big for me to be in business of any kind.

[indigo32]

38. Most Capitalists DO take risks

With other peoples money..LOL
lets just get that straight.

[jody]

22. NWO capitalism "Heads Corporations win, Tails We the People lose" eom

[Bushknew]

31. love it love it

[Character Assassin]

35. What purposefully misleading BS.

The cartoon has nothing to do with your headline, but don't let a little thing like accuracy get in the way of an agenda.

The cartoon is about corporate criminals (cheaters, in the headline of the paper the guy is holding), not about capitalists, per se.

If you're going to attmept to spin, at least put some effort into it.

[9215]

37. Yours is purposefully misleading BS

It is obviously a play on the word risk....oh, never mind....I forgot, you have to have a sense of humor to enjoy it. :eyes:

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

44. What CharacterAssassain said is purposefully misleading BS

The risk of being caught cheating is called "political risk" - as the oligarchs in Russia are finding out. But CA knew that.

[9215]

51. Well, why don't you tell him that?

I already know it. :eyes:

[paulk]

49. you should say corporatists

There are many levels of capitalism, and not all are bad. You smear a lot of good people with such a large brush.