Sirius Left......... believers in supply side economics? Say it aint so!

[Deudalus]

Businesses are Taxed, mainly, based upon their Bottom Line, not before it. Theft is not just Revenue Loss, but Loss of Stock, thus affect the Bottom Line directly. Taxes also pay for Infrastructure that the Business Needs and Uses. Theft has no Utility for a Business.

Businesses being taxed upon the bottom line rather than before it is somewhat a valid point in theory. However, you do realize that companies do figure taxes into their bottom line yes?

People are hired, fired, pay raised, or pay cut based on profits which ties hand in hand with the bottom line. When I say bottom line I basically mean what that company spends and whatever is left is profit. Another way to look at it would be disposable income for a business.

I get paid X. Out of X I have to pay taxes, bills, etc.

After all of that is paid then I have disposable income which I can use to buy dinner and a movie for example or I can save (profit).

A business has funds represented by X. Out of X they have to pay taxes, bills, personnel, etc.

After all of that is paid then they have actual profit which they can use to hire, promote people, give pay raises, increase benefits. Now you bet your ass that a business will keep a certain amount every year for profit. If that business is not creating enough profit then they will fire people or jack prices up until they see the profit they want.

Do you disagree with that premise?


This basically brings us to the current problem with people and government. People do not care about profit, they want more credit so they can buy more shit they don't need. Government does not care about profit, they bring in whatever they get and spend whatever they want.

The irony is that currently government is pissed off at business for enabling people to over spend beyond their means which has us in this financial crisis and overspending beyond their means is exactly what our government does on a daily basis.



Loss of stock completely does not apply here. When a movie or album is downloaded online it is not stolen in a physical sense which means no one actually loses stock.

What's more even if a movie or album were stolen from a store this would not hurt the supplier, in fact it might help them, it would only effect Best Buy for example.

 

[sandorski]

Businesses being taxed upon the bottom line rather than before it is somewhat a valid point in theory. However, you do realize that companies do figure taxes into their bottom line yes?

People are hired, fired, pay raised, or pay cut based on profits which ties hand in hand with the bottom line.

Do you disagree with that premise?


Loss of stock completely does not apply here. When a movie or album is downloaded online it is not stolen in a physical sense which means no one actually loses stock.

What's more even if a movie or album were stolen from a store this would not hurt the supplier, in fact it might help them, it would only effect Best Buy for example.

Business *might* Hire/Fire based upon Taxes, but usually don't. Especially for established Taxes. There are many other more important factors than Taxes. Still has nothing to do with Supply Side/Trickle Down, just the Costs of doing Business.

Loss of Stock is only one aspect of Losses incurred from Theft. I concede that for Movies/Music this is a rarity in those industries concerns is more focused on Lost Revenues.

 

[ohnoes]

Profit's more tied into equity and re-investing in the company and not necessarily as directly related to hiring/firing since those costs are deducted from Revenue anyways.

Put it another way, if my business pulls in $1M in revenue and has $700K in employee+other costs, I'm taxed only on the $300K. If I determine that I can create another $1M in revenue by adding another $700K in costs ($2M revenue, $1.4M costs), then it's still a good idea to hire those extra people even if my taxes go up; it still results in more dollars into my pocket.

In other words, the idea to hire/fire is really a separate business question from taxes. If it makes sense to hire more people under a 10% tax rate, it should still make sense to hire them under a 20% tax rate. That said, if you skew those numbers out too far, things will change.

 

[rudder]

Sorry, you're still wrong in your Summation and Supply Side tangent. Taxes are an essential part within a functioning Economic System, Theft is not.

Unconstrained deficit spending is not an essential part of a functioning economic system. Plus when the government takes my tax money and uses it for a bridge to nowhere or a ted kennedy library no one needs... that is theft.

 

[Bitek]

What I'm most in shock about is that you pay $15/mo for Sirius, and you spent that time listening and getting enraged about left-wing talk radio.

 

[sandorski]

Unconstrained deficit spending is not an essential part of a functioning economic system. Plus when the government takes my tax money and uses it for a bridge to nowhere or a ted kennedy library no one needs... that is theft.

No one said it was.

 

[HGC]

Taxes are much worse than theft. What business loses 35% a year to theft?

Also, you can't steal the same inventory three times.

Money invested in corporations has already been taxed once as individual income. It's taxed again as corporate profits, then taxed a third time as dividend income or capital gains.

 

[sandorski]

Taxes are much worse than theft. What business loses 35% a year to theft?

Also, you can't steal the same inventory three times.

Money invested in corporations has already been taxed once as individual income. It's taxed again as corporate profits, then taxed a third time as dividend income or capital gains.

ridiculous

 

[Nemesis 1]

Isn't music provided on the radio for free? Using his logic, it SHOULD be okay to download it. (I'm not endorsing pirating of music & would happily agree to allow someone to search my hard drives for anything pirated - there is none. Just pointing out his twisted logic.)

Ya you can search my harddrives also . But befor that 12 year old girl got busted . I had A massive collection I keep off line now. As far as pirating music I would be happy to give the performers royalties . But the middle man , I will walk all over them . I consider all middle men fair game no matter what industry . I will rape and pilage them its only justice

 

[heyheybooboo]

This analogy is lame as Hell on 'Supply Side' economics.

The primary tenet of VooDoo Economics is that reducing taxes and regulations stimulates economic growth and the benefits 'trickle down'.

How has that worked over the last 30 years?

We've spent over $8 trillion in interest on the Federal debt, tax receipts are at the lowest percentage of GDP since the Great Depression, and wealth and income distribution is now highly concentrated 'at the top' of the pyramid.

Furthermore, 'payroll' taxes now constitute their greatest share of total Federal receipts, ever, and the trust funds have been sucked dry to the tune of $4.5 trillion.

So much so that 25% of our Federal debt over the next ten years will be interest we pay on the funds 'borrowed' from the trust funds to pay for Tax Cuts and War.

Now do you understand why it is called VooDoo Economics ?





--

 

[jackace]

Answer this simple question for me. Do you believe that taxes have the same impact on the bottom line as theft?

For example, if Company A has their cost go up 1 million dollars per year due to:

Situation A: Tax increases
Situation B: Property theft

Do you think their response via pricing and personnel will be different?

Like do you believe they will say "ahh shit property theft is up time to lay someone off" but when its "ahh shit corporate taxes are up guess we just have to eat that one its on the house".......

The difference between theft and taxes is taxes you get something from. You might not value it for the amount the government charges you, but you are still getting something. Theft you are only losing something.

 

[bfdd]

No. The main reason being that Taxes and Theft do not affect the Bottom line in the same manner.

Just accept the fact that you over reached in order to get some shots at some guy on the Radio you don't like and save yourself further embarrassment.

You are honestly a fucking moron. You honestly believe what you say after reading him breaking it down for you? Anything that takes away from the bottom line affects the bottom line the same way. Theft and taxes are the same to the bottom line. You tell me I have to charge 10 cents tax on my Cups that I was selling for 20 cents, I now either have to raise the price to 30 cents which will probably drive away consumers, I can sell them for 20 cents, but only get 10 cents of it and lower my profit, or I can scale back what I pay people to make them or I can get rid of some of the people to keep the profit margins the same. Theft does the same shit.

Reading your other post Sandroski, that would be perfectly fine if people were actually stealing CDs see then stock is lost, but there is no "item" when something is digital, there is no "stock." When you pirate music you're not stealing from their "stock" of music. So you aren't removing any items, the potential customer is removing themselves from the potential customer pool.

 

[sandorski]

You are honestly a fucking moron. You honestly believe what you say after reading him breaking it down for you? Anything that takes away from the bottom line affects the bottom line the same way. Theft and taxes are the same to the bottom line. You tell me I have to charge 10 cents tax on my Cups that I was selling for 20 cents, I now either have to raise the price to 30 cents which will probably drive away consumers, I can sell them for 20 cents, but only get 10 cents of it and lower my profit, or I can scale back what I pay people to make them or I can get rid of some of the people to keep the profit margins the same. Theft does the same shit.

Reading your other post Sandroski, that would be perfectly fine if people were actually stealing CDs see then stock is lost, but there is no "item" when something is digital, there is no "stock." When you pirate music you're not stealing from their "stock" of music. So you aren't removing any items, the potential customer is removing themselves from the potential customer pool.

Ugh, Fail. Seriously dude, I already addressed the "Stock" theft with the very post I first mentioned it. There are 2 aspects to Theft, Revenue Loss and/or Stock Loss. Any Teenager should have the Intelligence to go with the one that applies and not drag on the conversation with such a Fail point as you are.

I'm sorry, Theft and Taxes simply do not affect a Business equally. Again your inability to Think beyond simple Sloganeering has failed you. Time to live in the Real World, the Idiots feeding you Simple Answers are clueless and/or simply using you for other purposes.

 

[Rangoric]

You are honestly a fucking moron. You honestly believe what you say after reading him breaking it down for you? Anything that takes away from the bottom line affects the bottom line the same way. Theft and taxes are the same to the bottom line. You tell me I have to charge 10 cents tax on my Cups that I was selling for 20 cents, I now either have to raise the price to 30 cents which will probably drive away consumers, I can sell them for 20 cents, but only get 10 cents of it and lower my profit, or I can scale back what I pay people to make them or I can get rid of some of the people to keep the profit margins the same. Theft does the same shit.

Theft Reduces Taxes, while Taxes do not reduce Theft.

Reading your other post Sandroski, that would be perfectly fine if people were actually stealing CDs see then stock is lost, but there is no "item" when something is digital, there is no "stock." When you pirate music you're not stealing from their "stock" of music. So you aren't removing any items, the potential customer is removing themselves from the potential customer pool.

So theft doesn't effect the bottom line? Does effect the bottom line? Which is it? Do you have a single story or are you about to start on the "Pirates don't hurt anyone, because I'm an idiot"

Also WTF is with the shifting goalposts in this thread?

 

[JSt0rm]

hi guys! go out to the movies tonight k thx by!

 

[daishi5]

Thank you.

I can now clearly see that you don't have a point.

Fern

Unless my political terminology is all mixed up, supply side economics is based on Say's law that basically states that the act of production creates its own demand. Supply side economics is a macro theory of economic regulation, and this deals with a single businesses decisions, so it is micro. So, this is not a supply or demand side argument at all.