If you can pay off a house and have a stable income it can be a good decision, but a mortgage is essentially no different then renting for the first 5, maybe 10 years when you have little equity. The important part is that it's now a rental that shifts all the risk to you. Roof blows off, furnace fails, plumbing catastrophe, that's all on you now.
It's definitely a comedy, but your right about the bad acting. My wife doesn't think MacFrlane will hire anyone that acts better then him, which is a pretty low ceiling. I like it so far, but the ham fisted social commentary is rough. MacFarlane seems to love setting up a both sides are bad scenario. He's classic fence sitter ruining America, shitting on a real issue then making a joke about the corn in the turd.
I know the profit margin of most companies, this article is not about the corner bakery. Your crafting towering straw man arguments and getting mad when I ignore them. I might be wrong about dividends, but executive bonuses do serve in the capacity of decreasing "profit". This is probably where most of this extra tax will come from. It's hard to feel bad when someone making 28 times the other workers takes a hit.
Shifting around profits absolutely impacts taxes, what this argument is about. Creating a tax structure where this is not advantageous is the entire premise of this article. Creating a method to capture those taxes is not going to affect cost to consumer. I keep saying price, what I mean is cost to consumer. We could also include cost to society. The main thrust of my argument is that cost to consumer will not change significantly when new taxes are added. It's not like these taxes are more then afew percent. I would also add that cost to society will probably go down. We are subsidizing these corporations. Your happy with spending your money on executive bonuses?
I was kind of hoping we could just go back and forth with a "no you are" for awhile, it would have been more produtive.
Gross Company Profits are what is left over after paying expenses, salaries, etc...
Those can and are increased and decreased by giving out bonuses, raising or lowering wages, paying stock dividends, etc. Non-profits in the US are notorios for this, paying high salaries to execs and often covering many dubious expenses.
This also doesn't go into the intellectual IP that is often used to siphon profit from one company to another, which is again, what this article is talking about and what all my comments are referencing. I'm no economist and don't purport to be, but I know a bullshitter.
citations: https://uk.reuters.com/article... https://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/3...
Why would they do that when they can swap out some bisquick for an identical box stuffed with heroin. Sounds like a great dead drop. Swap a box stuffed with heroin for a box stuffed with cash.
These sound like a great way to move illicit products. Whether your switching items out yourself, or the distributor is putting a box of potatoes out that is packed with heroin... I wonder if that is the point.
No, my original argument hinged on the fact that price is inelastic, in a perfect world, with spherical cows, your economic model might work. In our world, price obfuscation often prevents people from even knowing what they are paying. Usually because of enormous profit margins with plenty of room to carve some tax out of the profits. They are already soaking you for every dollar they can get, regulations and taxes merely level things out.
On glassdoor, if you filter to US only, the rating drops from 2.6 to 2.5. I've heard bad things about the site in Indiana. https://www.glassdoor.com/Revi...
My kids get Ipads from the school. They hand them in at the end of the school year. every year their backups have been available in the icloud despite us using no other apple devices.
Your misinformed, or lying.
Every system has constraints, but near universal coverage with low out of pocket costs is something we should strive for.
"Approximately 74% of the population is compelled to join a sickness fund. Another 14% are members who join voluntarily even though their income exceeds the statutory cutoff. Of the remaining portion, 10% is covered by private insurance and 2% by police officers insurance, student insurance and public assistance. One of every 10 Germans covered by sickness fund insurance also purchases private supplementary insurance to cover co-payments and other amenities."
It may not be single payer, but a single payment negotation is also something Americans should not only dream about, but should demand.
"Perhaps the biggest difference between our two approaches is the extent to which Germany has managed to rein in the cost of healthcare for consumers. Prices for procedures there are lower and more uniform because doctors’ associations negotiate their fees directly with all of the sickness funds in each state. That's part of the reason why an appendectomy costs $3,093 in Germany, but $13,000 in the U.S."
This article is about Google and Apple, both have comfortable profit margins.
In any case:
https://economix.blogs.nytimes...
"Probably most people assume that the corporate income tax is largely paid by consumers of its products or services. That is, they assume that although the tax is nominally levied on the corporation as a whole, in fact the burden of the tax is shifted onto customers in the form of higher prices.
All economists reject that idea. "
From Econ101 at Carnegie Mellon University.: Myth: Any new corporate taxes will just get passed on to consumers
Often, if taxes are raised (or other costs go up) for businesses, the owners say that they will just raise prices and pass the costs on to their customers.
This claim is often accepted as fact because many people don't know about "elasticity of demand".
Elasticity of demand is perhaps the most important basic idea in economics that many people don't know.
The ACA could become the german system with few tweaks, it's closer to that then the Canadian or English single payer model. I'm not picky, but what we have isn't working.
Slashdot Mirror
ACLU still protects the rights of Nazi's, along with everyone else. Free speech is not a privilege.
Gutenberg Australia has it here:
http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks...
I think most librarians and bibliophiles would find that suggestion offensive. Literature from opposing viewpoints is important.
If you can pay off a house and have a stable income it can be a good decision, but a mortgage is essentially no different then renting for the first 5, maybe 10 years when you have little equity.
The important part is that it's now a rental that shifts all the risk to you. Roof blows off, furnace fails, plumbing catastrophe, that's all on you now.
Schools around here are switching to Canvas.
They farmed out a simple system of keeping track of tests and students to an east indian firm called 'blackboard'.
East Indian? I have a buddy who works for them.
It's definitely a comedy, but your right about the bad acting. My wife doesn't think MacFrlane will hire anyone that acts better then him, which is a pretty low ceiling.
I like it so far, but the ham fisted social commentary is rough. MacFarlane seems to love setting up a both sides are bad scenario.
He's classic fence sitter ruining America, shitting on a real issue then making a joke about the corn in the turd.
I know the profit margin of most companies, this article is not about the corner bakery. Your crafting towering straw man arguments and getting mad when I ignore them.
I might be wrong about dividends, but executive bonuses do serve in the capacity of decreasing "profit". This is probably where most of this extra tax will come from. It's hard to feel bad when someone making 28 times the other workers takes a hit.
Shifting around profits absolutely impacts taxes, what this argument is about. Creating a tax structure where this is not advantageous is the entire premise of this article. Creating a method to capture those taxes is not going to affect cost to consumer.
I keep saying price, what I mean is cost to consumer. We could also include cost to society. The main thrust of my argument is that cost to consumer will not change significantly when new taxes are added. It's not like these taxes are more then afew percent. I would also add that cost to society will probably go down. We are subsidizing these corporations. Your happy with spending your money on executive bonuses?
I was kind of hoping we could just go back and forth with a "no you are" for awhile, it would have been more produtive.
Gross Company Profits are what is left over after paying expenses, salaries, etc...
Those can and are increased and decreased by giving out bonuses, raising or lowering wages, paying stock dividends, etc. Non-profits in the US are notorios for this, paying high salaries to execs and often covering many dubious expenses.
This also doesn't go into the intellectual IP that is often used to siphon profit from one company to another, which is again, what this article is talking about and what all my comments are referencing.
I'm no economist and don't purport to be, but I know a bullshitter.
citations:
https://uk.reuters.com/article...
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/3...
no, you do
Ok, let's pretend profit margin isn't easily manipulated or anything, which is exactly why this entire discussion started.
You claim corporations are basically pass through devices, and yet they are also somehow holding onto almost $2 trillion? Obviously, there is some sort of logical disconnect.
Why would they do that when they can swap out some bisquick for an identical box stuffed with heroin. Sounds like a great dead drop.
Swap a box stuffed with heroin for a box stuffed with cash.
These sound like a great way to move illicit products. Whether your switching items out yourself, or the distributor is putting a box of potatoes out that is packed with heroin...
I wonder if that is the point.
No, my original argument hinged on the fact that price is inelastic, in a perfect world, with spherical cows, your economic model might work.
In our world, price obfuscation often prevents people from even knowing what they are paying. Usually because of enormous profit margins with plenty of room to carve some tax out of the profits. They are already soaking you for every dollar they can get, regulations and taxes merely level things out.
By contrast, for $169/mo I could get 4 Verizon phones with "unlimited" data and have change left over. ;)
FTFY, since that option is now past
On glassdoor, if you filter to US only, the rating drops from 2.6 to 2.5. I've heard bad things about the site in Indiana.
https://www.glassdoor.com/Revi...
My kids get Ipads from the school. They hand them in at the end of the school year. every year their backups have been available in the icloud despite us using no other apple devices.
Yeah, it's not like Solare energy is cost effective and beating estimates for cost or anything.
The people with money didn't end up running the Soviet Union. If only they had realized they were cutting their own throat.
Your misinformed, or lying.
Every system has constraints, but near universal coverage with low out of pocket costs is something we should strive for.
"Approximately 74% of the population is compelled to join a sickness fund. Another 14% are members who join voluntarily even though their income exceeds the statutory cutoff. Of the remaining portion, 10% is covered by private insurance and 2% by police officers insurance, student insurance and public assistance. One of every 10 Germans covered by sickness fund insurance also purchases private supplementary insurance to cover co-payments and other amenities."
It may not be single payer, but a single payment negotation is also something Americans should not only dream about, but should demand.
"Perhaps the biggest difference between our two approaches is the extent to which Germany has managed to rein in the cost of healthcare for consumers. Prices for procedures there are lower and more uniform because doctors’ associations negotiate their fees directly with all of the sickness funds in each state. That's part of the reason why an appendectomy costs $3,093 in Germany, but $13,000 in the U.S."
Thanks for agreeing with me. As I stated, tax increases don't directly increase prices. It's facetious to say so and I'm glad you've learned.
How's this:
http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/standard-of-living
This article is about Google and Apple, both have comfortable profit margins.
In any case: https://economix.blogs.nytimes...
"Probably most people assume that the corporate income tax is largely paid by consumers of its products or services. That is, they assume that although the tax is nominally levied on the corporation as a whole, in fact the burden of the tax is shifted onto customers in the form of higher prices.
All economists reject that idea. "
From Econ101 at Carnegie Mellon University.:
Myth: Any new corporate taxes will just get passed on to consumers
Often, if taxes are raised (or other costs go up) for businesses, the owners say that they will just raise prices and pass the costs on to their customers.
This claim is often accepted as fact because many people don't know about "elasticity of demand".
Elasticity of demand is perhaps the most important basic idea in economics that many people don't know.
The ACA could become the german system with few tweaks, it's closer to that then the Canadian or English single payer model. I'm not picky, but what we have isn't working.