Wealth distribution

mmi · Nov 23, 2015

gdgyva said:
i think your frame of mind, and outlook is completely opposite what most business people have

So you figure most businesspeople are greedy. That's not my experience.

>>i have a very hard time believing you own a successful business

Gee, that's very disappointing.

>>i have a hard time believing you can deal with competition, and the dog eat dog world

I don't deal with the dog-eat-dog world any more than I have to; I try to avoid it.

I have no problem competing. My small business ranks #1 on Google, and has for several years, among non-AdWord sites for my top search term ("copyediting websites"), not that SEO is all that important.

>>it may well be....it just is beyond my scope of belief....

I'm happy to present you with an opportunity to expand that.

>>until the laws change....they are legal

Obviously. Legal is legal. No great insight there. The law should be changed.

Absentglare · Nov 23, 2015

Kushinator said:
You are come off as very ignorant with comments like these in an economics forum. According to your statements, people are poor because of choice, which lacks the slightest bit of empirical support, and can only be based on anecdotal nonsense.

Psychology has well established that people are largely a product of their environment.

I do hope that, one day, society catches up to all this research that's, what, half a century old at this point?

Absentglare · Nov 23, 2015

gdgyva said:
not really

startups have notoriously not offered benefits

most cant afford to give them out

Over 2.7 Million Small and Medium Businesses Do Not Offer Health Insurance

There are approximately 7.4 million employers in the US. Did you know the majority are micro and small businesses?

Currently in the U.S., 6 million firms have less than 200 employees. That’s 82% of all employers.

But what might surprise you is that a majority (62% of all U.S. employers) have fewer than 10 employees - 4.6 million firms.

FAQ - How Many Small Businesses Offer Health Insurance?

startups are just trying to get enough income into the door to keep the paychecks flowing....

they do not even think about benefits for the most part

Every startup i've looked at offers full benefits AND generous salaries to compensate for risk.

Conversely, big employers like Western Digital often offer high deductible health insurance plans that are essentially catastrophe-only. They don't have to compete for employees, they have the name recognition to get plenty of applicants and, well, people are generally desperate for income.

Absentglare · Nov 23, 2015

gdgyva said:
first define poor....

american poor? or 3rd world poor?

if we are talking american poor.....which i will assume

they have "no" choices, huh? really?

please tell me what choices they DONT have....

please be specific

Educated parents -> head start in school (historical investment $)
Quality education k-12 (property $)
Quality college education (tuition $)
Time to follow passion (rent food $)

The poor don't get any of these options that rich people routinely take for granted. It reminds me of Marie Antoinette. Wake up man, poor people get **** on their entire lives and have nothing to show for it.

gdgyva · Nov 23, 2015

Absentglare said:
Even spending the time to apply for a job is a risk. Raises/promotions are a form of "risk" and so is loyalty. Job searching takes time and energy, people will only search so much. That's why employers love when all the unemployed's choices are complete ****. It gives them leverage so they can squeeze more profits out- here, we'll pay you under minimum wage but you get tips. Lol...

Most executives do not want to grow the company. They want to increase personal profit in the short term. That's why dividends and stock buybacks are so harmful. They don't grow the company, they overwhelmingly enfranchise those who work the least, those whose contribution is simple capital ownership (in the form of shareholding). That includes the executives, sure. Their salaries are often dwarfed by their stock benefits. Companies can just hand over tens of thousands of shares to top execs.

Since the recession, $294,000 has been spent on dividends and stock buybacks for every job created. That's sickening. They want to make money for sitting on their fat asses, and they've muddied the waters so much that they maintain this capitalism-worshipper majority in the US. It is sickening.

Even spending the time to apply for a job is a risk. Raises/promotions are a form of "risk" and so is loyalty. Job searching takes time and energy, people will only search so much.....walking across the street is a risk too....people do it millions of times a day....sorry....life is full of risks, and these examples are bull**** when compared to the risks that employers take when starting businesses....

That's why employers love when all the unemployed's choices are complete ****. yeah...the whole world is out to stick it to john q public....too much of an oedipus complex in there somewhere

It gives them leverage so they can squeeze more profits out- here, we'll pay you under minimum wage but you get tips. Lol...the only businesses allowed to do that are restaurants/bars that i am aware of....and those are state laws....again, a choice to be a server/waiter/bartender

Most executives do not want to grow the company. They want to increase personal profit in the short term. That's why dividends and stock buybacks are so harmful. They don't grow the company, they overwhelmingly enfranchise those who work the least, those whose contribution is simple capital ownership (in the form of shareholding). That includes the executives, sure. Their salaries are often dwarfed by their stock benefits. Companies can just hand over tens of thousands of shares to top execs........this is just wrong imo....are there some executives like this....yes....i said so earlier....but MOST? not even close....just wrong

i wont change your mind....you have this hatred built up against corporations, and think they are are evil

they arent perfect....and some executives have royally screwed up....but imo, most do a good job

pdog · Nov 23, 2015

jaeger19 said:
No.. because a government paid universal healthcare insurance would be a decrease for my employees. A government paid universal health insurance like most countries have would be equal to Medicaid. And Medicaid insurance is far inferior to what I and my employees have now.

Besides the large "WHEN or IF".. that tax money is used to support my employees. Taxes have increased on the wealthy in the last several years.. and it has not helped my employees. Why is that if taxing the wealthy is beneficial to my employees?

while I might be able to agree with you, this also doesn't need to be an all or nothing proposition. A national system could be the base while an employer (especially one in the medical industry like you) could offer premium coverage on top of that.

jaeger19 · Nov 23, 2015

pdog said:
It depends on your marginal propensity to consume. If you save 50% of your income, that savings can be put to something productive, putting more people to work and raising wages. It might mean better roads so they don't have to pay so much in car maintenance. It could be better schools so their kids are less dependent on them. It might mean you have less control over the political system. There's a lot of ways that reducing your savings can make a difference for somebody else. Am I suggesting that nobody saves? Of course not. But there are people that don't spend even 10% of their income and that simply makes no economic sense.

Well.. number one.. your assumption is predicated on the idea that when one "saves" that means that I take dollars and dig a hole in the backyard and bury it. Which is not the case. the money that I SAVE goes into investments.. that means a college student gets a loan for school. It means that a start up gets private loans to start their own business.. or operating loans to keep afloat until they get paid.. or it goes toward a bond to build a bridge.. or improve a road. Or millions of other things that keep the economy going.

Absentglare · Nov 23, 2015

gdgyva said:
Even spending the time to apply for a job is a risk. Raises/promotions are a form of "risk" and so is loyalty. Job searching takes time and energy, people will only search so much.....walking across the street is a risk too....people do it millions of times a day....sorry....life is full of risks, and these examples are bull**** when compared to the risks that employers take when starting businesses....

That's why employers love when all the unemployed's choices are complete ****. yeah...the whole world is out to stick it to john q public....too much of an oedipus complex in there somewhere

It gives them leverage so they can squeeze more profits out- here, we'll pay you under minimum wage but you get tips. Lol...the only businesses allowed to do that are restaurants/bars that i am aware of....and those are state laws....again, a choice to be a server/waiter/bartender

Most executives do not want to grow the company. They want to increase personal profit in the short term. That's why dividends and stock buybacks are so harmful. They don't grow the company, they overwhelmingly enfranchise those who work the least, those whose contribution is simple capital ownership (in the form of shareholding). That includes the executives, sure. Their salaries are often dwarfed by their stock benefits. Companies can just hand over tens of thousands of shares to top execs........this is just wrong imo....are there some executives like this....yes....i said so earlier....but MOST? not even close....just wrong

i wont change your mind....you have this hatred built up against corporations, and think they are are evil

they arent perfect....and some executives have royally screwed up....but imo, most do a good job

No hatred, i don't want to "take" their affluence. I want the people who succeed to meet their end of the social contract. They've been siphoning money into their personal coffers, tipping the scales of capitalism in their personal favor, for several generations now. I want them to pay their fair share.

There's no good justification to give a rich guy more money because he is rich but that is exactly the result of the dividends and capital gains tax cuts enacted fairly recently.

jaeger19 · Nov 23, 2015

pdog said:
while I might be able to agree with you, this also doesn't need to be an all or nothing proposition. A national system could be the base while an employer (especially one in the medical industry like you) could offer premium coverage on top of that.

Well.. that would mean that either ..1. My employees are paying increased taxes for a system that they don't like.. and then I have to pay more on top of that to get better coverage.
2. or I am paying more in increased taxes to support a government program thats less than what most have now.. and then have to pay more on top of that to get better coverage, which means that something has to give.. such as employee salaries.

Absentglare · Nov 23, 2015

pdog said:
while I might be able to agree with you, this also doesn't need to be an all or nothing proposition. A national system could be the base while an employer (especially one in the medical industry like you) could offer premium coverage on top of that.

I think he missed the point. I was saying it was good for the businesses to both simplify logistics and reduce costs (as pointed out above). Further, the "idea" is that, when the business makes more money, it pays its employees more. The idea being that the money being earmarked for health coverage could be entirely redirected into workers paychecks. It wouldn't happen, but it would be even better if it did.

gdgyva · Nov 23, 2015

Absentglare said:
Educated parents -> head start in school (historical investment $)
Quality education k-12 (property $)
Quality college education (tuition $)
Time to follow passion (rent food $)

The poor don't get any of these options that rich people routinely take for granted. It reminds me of Marie Antoinette. Wake up man, poor people get **** on their entire lives and have nothing to show for it.

no poor people get basic education?

all rich people have educated parents?

college is only available to the rich?

the poor dont eat?

your arguments all fall apart....because they arent absolutes....not even close

what about the lower middle class? they have a lot of the same detriments the poor do....

why arent you putting them into the same categories?

life isnt perfect....growing up in a poor environment with crappy parents makes it 10x harder to climb out....but it can and does happen

and coming from a rich household doesnt guarantee you anything other than a head start....which way too many blow

i understand what some of the pitfalls are for some people.....but where you all see victims, i see victors on those who make it out

gotta run...big meeting...

jaeger19 · Nov 23, 2015

gavinfielder said:
I applaud your business, then, sir. Absentglare's point wasn't that it relieved a burden from the employees, but that it relieved a burden from the employer. Obviously that much is true. This would likely have a great impact on startups.

That's only if you believe that you get something for nothing. Relieving employers from the "burden" of providing health insurance coverage would actually cost employers more than keeping coverage. That's because the tax benefits are tremendous and its why we offer coverage. No one is doing it out of the goodness of their heart. its because its financially beneficial.

Kushinator · Nov 23, 2015

gdgyva said:
what?

What are the facts you have posted? I haven't seen a single reference to fact since you began participating in this thread.

we were talking about people buying cars....

Why were you talking about cars... what does that have to do with the thread?

i have zero idea what the hell you are talking about....care to expound....15% of what?

and does it have anything to do with what i was saying?

Roughly 15% of the U.S. population is living in poverty, according to the census bureau (that is a fact, see how it's done).

jaeger19 · Nov 23, 2015

Absentglare said:
Even spending the time to apply for a job is a risk. Raises/promotions are a form of "risk" and so is loyalty. Job searching takes time and energy, people will only search so much. That's why employers love when all the unemployed's choices are complete ****. It gives them leverage so they can squeeze more profits out- here, we'll pay you under minimum wage but you get tips. Lol...

Most executives do not want to grow the company. They want to increase personal profit in the short term. That's why dividends and stock buybacks are so harmful. They don't grow the company, they overwhelmingly enfranchise those who work the least, those whose contribution is simple capital ownership (in the form of shareholding). That includes the executives, sure. Their salaries are often dwarfed by their stock benefits. Companies can just hand over tens of thousands of shares to top execs.

Since the recession, $294,000 has been spent on dividends and stock buybacks for every job created. That's sickening. They want to make money for sitting on their fat asses, and they've muddied the waters so much that they maintain this capitalism-worshipper majority in the US. It is sickening.

Wrong.. dividends are a great way to grow a company. In fact its WHY you grow a company.. to make more money. No offense but that's a major flaw in the liberal meme.. that they think that I am going to take all that risk to grow a company.. to build a company for no reward.
Dividends are a great way to grow a company because its why we grow it.

Now.. when people are making money through sale of stock and stock price? thats what discourages growth for short term gain. Improve the quarterly report by cutting jobs.. and look stock price goes up.. and we make money.

Cut jobs? And now a year from now we lose market share and there is less dividend or no dividend to pay out.

Kushinator · Nov 23, 2015

jaeger19 said:
Wrong.. dividends are a great way to grow a company. In fact its WHY you grow a company.. to make more money. No offense but that's a major flaw in the liberal meme.. that they think that I am going to take all that risk to grow a company.. to build a company for no reward.
Dividends are a great way to grow a company because its why we grow it.

Now.. when people are making money through sale of stock and stock price? thats what discourages growth for short term gain. Improve the quarterly report by cutting jobs.. and look stock price goes up.. and we make money.

Cut jobs? And now a year from now we lose market share and there is less dividend or no dividend to pay out.

How exactly does dispersing dividends grow a company?

jaeger19 · Nov 23, 2015

Absentglare said:
I think he missed the point. I was saying it was good for the businesses to both simplify logistics and reduce costs (as pointed out above). Further, the "idea" is that, when the business makes more money, it pays its employees more. The idea being that the money being earmarked for health coverage could be entirely redirected into workers paychecks. It wouldn't happen, but it would be even better if it did.

I got the point. The problem is that you don't get that it would not be good for business because it would not reduce costs.

pdog · Nov 23, 2015

jaeger19 said:
Well.. number one.. your assumption is predicated on the idea that when one "saves" that means that I take dollars and dig a hole in the backyard and bury it. Which is not the case. the money that I SAVE goes into investments.. that means a college student gets a loan for school. It means that a start up gets private loans to start their own business.. or operating loans to keep afloat until they get paid.. or it goes toward a bond to build a bridge.. or improve a road. Or millions of other things that keep the economy going.

its not predicated on that at all. The capital market is just as susceptible to inflation as goods and services are. Of course that "inflation" is simply looked at as investment growth. But the reality is its just money chasing money. Again, I don't assert that we eliminate savings but I think we can agree there is an optimum level of available capital. Any thing beyond that are dollars not working ay their potential.

jaeger19 · Nov 23, 2015

Kushinator said:
How exactly does dispersing dividends grow a company?

Incentive. If the way you make your money is off a dividend.. then the company needs to turn a profit.. and to turn more profit especially long term.. the company needs to expand.

If the way you plan on making money is off stock price, then you are more concerned with manipulating stock price, than with sustainable growth and profitability.

gavinfielder · Nov 23, 2015

jaeger19 said:
That's only if you believe that you get something for nothing. Relieving employers from the "burden" of providing health insurance coverage would actually cost employers more than keeping coverage. That's because the tax benefits are tremendous and its why we offer coverage. No one is doing it out of the goodness of their heart. its because its financially beneficial.

Interesting. Carry on then. I'll go back to reading.

jaeger19 · Nov 23, 2015

pdog said:
its not predicated on that at all. The capital market is just as susceptible to inflation as goods and services are. Of course that "inflation" is simply looked at as investment growth. But the reality is its just money chasing money. Again, I don't assert that we eliminate savings but I think we can agree there is an optimum level of available capital. Any thing beyond that are dollars not working ay their potential.

yes it is predicated on that. How can dollars "not work at their potential".. if they are not being buried in the ground? If they are in the market.. then they are working exactly at their potential. Its not like the bank has a vault for "scrooge Mcduck".. where he can go swim in his cash. Instead that money is available for a multitude of investments.

Where if its taken in taxes.. it just might end up overseas propping up another country.. or being given to a small handful individuals or companies.

Kushinator · Nov 23, 2015

jaeger19 said:
Incentive. If the way you make your money is off a dividend.. then the company needs to turn a profit.. and to turn more profit especially long term.. the company needs to expand.

How does offering a dividend allow a company to expand? Since a dividend requires a reduction in assets (cash) or an an increase in debt (liabilities), distributing a dividend reduces a companies ability to expand, as resources that could be going towards expansion are no longer available.

If the way you plan on making money is off stock price, then you are more concerned with manipulating stock price, than with sustainable growth and profitability.

I don't understand what you're saying here. We were talking about growing a company.

jaeger19 · Nov 23, 2015

Kushinator said:
How does offering a dividend allow a company to expand? Since a dividend requires a reduction in assets (cash) or an an increase in debt (liabilities), distributing a dividend reduces a companies ability to expand, as resources that could be going towards expansion are no longer available.

I don't understand what you're saying here. We were talking about growing a company.

Simple.. let me help you.

Answer this.. why does an investor start a company?

Kushinator · Nov 23, 2015

jaeger19 said:
How can dollars "not work at their potential".. if they are not being buried in the ground? If they are in the market.. then they are working exactly at their potential. Its not like the bank has a vault for "scrooge Mcduck".. where he can go swim in his cash. Instead that money is available for a multitude of investments.

First and foremost, banks are not reserve constrained, i.e. a banks ability to lend is not based on deposits. Secondly, the majority of excess cash is kept as various risk-free fixed-incomes. Are you stating that supporting budget deficits is an acceptable means of investment?

Where if its taken in taxes.. it just might end up overseas propping up another country.. or being given to a small handful individuals or companies.

A company is taxed on profits, not revenue. If a firm buys something with the profits from operations, the money used for that transaction is not taxed, and the purchase becomes an asset... with a depreciation schedule.

Kushinator · Nov 23, 2015

jaeger19 said:
Simple.. let me help you.

Answer this.. why does an investor start a company?

Entrepreneurs start companies.

gavinfielder · Nov 23, 2015

Kushinator said:
First and foremost, banks are not reserve constrained, i.e. a banks ability to lend is not based on deposits. Secondly, the majority of excess cash is kept as various risk-free fixed-incomes. Are you stating that supporting budget deficits is an acceptable means of investment?

Well, good means of investments often result in budget deficits.

Damn Right Amazon Runs a ****ing Deficit and So Should America
(The direct link didn't work because the parser is *** the url. Click through to medium.)

Wealth distribution

mmi

Absentglare

Absentglare

Absentglare

gdgyva

pdog

jaeger19

Absentglare

jaeger19

Absentglare

gdgyva

jaeger19

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

jaeger19

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

jaeger19

pdog

jaeger19

gavinfielder

jaeger19

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

jaeger19

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

gavinfielder