or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › President Obama calls Apple CEO Tim Cook to discuss 'fiscal cliff'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

President Obama calls Apple CEO Tim Cook to discuss 'fiscal cliff' - Page 2

post #41 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post


If we are talking about taxing the individuals who are wealthy, why would that affect their companies' decision to hire? It's not like the hiring budget will come out of the owners' salary.
Because the simple reality is the wealthy have bills too. If they get taxed excessively they effectively have to earn more which means increases in salary to cover whatis lost to taxes. Beyond that, if you are a business owner right now it really makes a lot of sense to screw over the people that voted for thIs idiot. Bad choice have consequences,voting for the liberal agenda is just as damaging as doing drugs. In the end you end up in a downward spiral.
Quote:
Spending cuts along cannot and will not reduce the deficit until the economy recovers.
Baloney! Cut welfare 100% and let the lazy starve.
Quote:
Since you are so big on history, you would know that tax cuts have been proven useless in stimulating economic recovery. The government (like most governments) has a spending problem as well as a revenue problem. You can pretend all you want that is not the case. It is.
You really don't know what you are talking about, tax cuts and a liberal money supply do stimulate the economy but they have to be combined with restraint within the government.
Quote:
It's easy to label those with opposing political views as idiots.
By definition anybody that votes for an idiot like Obama is an idiot. The problems his lack of leadership will bring in 2013 and beyond are well known, in reality simple economics.
Quote:
But ask yourself how often you have proven yourself smarter than any 51% of any population. If the 51% is made up of idiots, you are also an idiot. A tip - a sweeping insult like that earns you very few supporters.
Obviously somebodies toes have been stepped on.
Quote:
As for Mitt Romney's track record, please list all the companies that he brought back from fiscal cliffs without major layoffs. Please. As a student of history, I am sure you know that's a very short list. Right?
That is how it is done, People have a short memory but what did Steve do when he came back to Apple?
Quote:
Lest we forget history, there was Romneycare before Obamacare.
Obamacare is the wrong solution to the problem we had, get over the idea that it will make anything better.
post #42 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Half of the deficit could be eliminated in a single year if Obama simply passed a law removing the tax exempt status from "churches" in the United States.  If churches and religious organisations paid taxes, the figure is roughly 72 billion dollars a year.  One single law (and a very fair and reasonable law at that), and the entire deficit disappears in two years.  

 

It will never happen because Americans are crazier for religion overall than many Muslim states, but it's as reasonable as any other fix I've heard IMO.  1smile.gif

Most large churches are not for profit corporations. If you tax them you would have to tax all not for profit organizations. The zero property tax is a state/county issue not federal. I'm not usually one to support religious causes but just a reminder that probably something like half of the hospitals in the US and many of the nation's top colleges were started by or still run by Christian groups, so although their Bible stories may be questionable, their sincerity to offer real tangible benefits to humanity is not.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #43 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Most large churches are not for profit corporations. If you tax them you would have to tax all not for profit organizations. The zero property tax is a state/county issue not federal. I'm not usually one to support religious causes but just a reminder that probably something like half of the hospitals in the US and many of the nation's top colleges were started by or still run by Christian groups, so although their Bible stories may be questionable, their sincerity to offer real tangible benefits to humanity is not.

There should be no non-profit organizations, no religious organizations and no charities. They should pay taxes just like everybody else.

post #44 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

There should be no non-profit organizations, no religious organizations and no charities. They should pay taxes just like everybody else.

Tell that to the Red Cross the next time a hurricane hits New York.

 

Besides you only pay taxes on Profit anyway. If you have no profit you pay zero Federal tax. There is usually a minimum state tax but that varies from state to state.


Edited by mstone - 11/19/12 at 9:09am

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #45 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Tell that to the Red Cross the next time a hurricane hits New York.

I heard they dropped the ball pretty badly on that event, maybe the Salvation Army might be a better example.
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
post #46 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

(avoiding politics)

(Ditto)

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #47 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Tell that to the Red Cross the next time a hurricane hits New York.

 

Besides you only pay taxes on Profit anyway. If you have no profit you pay zero Federal tax. Their is usually a minimum state tax but that varies from state to state.

Funny that you mentioned the Red Cross, because I had them in mind when I mentioned no non-profits. How can somebody be working for the Red Cross making a million bucks a year, and yet, they are supposedly a non-profit? 

 

Tax them, just like everybody else. I have no need for the Red Cross.

post #48 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Most large churches are not for profit corporations. If you tax them you would have to tax all not for profit organizations. The zero property tax is a state/county issue not federal. I'm not usually one to support religious causes but just a reminder that probably something like half of the hospitals in the US and many of the nation's top colleges were started by or still run by Christian groups, so although their Bible stories may be questionable, their sincerity to offer real tangible benefits to humanity is not.

 

You pay taxes on the profit you make no?  At least that's the way it is in my country.  If they are truly not making a profit then their net tax burden will be zero anyway.  

 

In any case, my point was about the more "run-of-the-mill" churches and religious organisations who are basically operating in the grey economy.  There is no reporting of what they do or what money they do or do not take in and absolutely gushers of cash are "leaking" out of that situation.  Also, most of the charitable work in the world is actually done by organisations like Unicef and Unesco etc.  The average church contributes almost nothing in return for it's tax exempt status. 

 

I was also thinking of organisations like Scientology that are in fact, world-girdling corporations that also pay no tax whatsoever even though common sense tells us that billions flow through their coffers.  The Catholic church outdoes even Scientology from what I've heard in terms of earnings.  Most of this is not only not taxed, it's unreported, and unexamined by any government agency so it's difficult to say how much money is really being hidden here.  I have a feeling that when this finally happens (if any of us are alive to see it), that the amount of money being leached out of the economy by so-called "churches" will turn out to be surprisingly large and affecting.  

post #49 of 169
Quote:

At the end of the day, a corporation is focused on it's own self-interest, which by definition means it's not the best place to go for advice about what is best for the public interest.

 

So a healthy corporation is not in the best interest of the public?  

 

Personally, I can't imagine what Tim Cook could possibly tell President Obama.  If 16 trillion dollars in national debt and probably another 200 trillion in unfunded liabilities (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) doesn't already get his attention, nothing will.   You simply can't keep spending money you don't have.  You can't keep on making promises you can't fulfill.   Well, you can.  But what do you do when China completely owns the US? 

post #50 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

 

Funny that you mentioned the Red Cross, because I had them in mind when I mentioned no non-profits. How can somebody be working for the Red Cross making a million bucks a year, and yet, they are supposedly a non-profit? 

 

Tax them, just like everybody else. I have no need for the Red Cross.

Anyone who earns a salary does pay taxes and if he earns a million dollars they should tax him even more.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #51 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacVertigo View Post

Yes bailouts do work..

 

It is a slow day in a little town in America.

The rain is beating down and the streets are deserted.
Times are tough, everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit.
On this particular day a rich tourist is driving through the town, stops at the local hotel and lays a $100 note on the desk,
telling the hotel owner he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one to spend the night.
The owner gives him some keys and, as soon as the visitor has walked upstairs, the hotelier grabs the $100 note and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher.
The butcher takes the $100 note and runs down the street to repay his debt to the pig farmer.
The pig farmer takes the $100 note and heads off to pay his bill at the supplier of feed and fuel.
The guy at the Farmers' Co-op takes the $100 note and runs to pay his drinks bill at the Taverna.
The publican slips the money along to the local prostitute drinking at the bar, who has also been facing hard times and has had to offer him "services" on credit.
The hooker then rushes to the hotel and pays off her room bill to the hotel owner with the $100 note.
The hotel proprietor then places the $100 note back on the counter so the rich traveller will not suspect anything.
At that moment the traveller comes down the stairs, picks up the $100 note, states that the rooms are not satisfactory, pockets the money, and leaves town.
No one produced anything.
No one earned anything.
However, the whole village is now out of debt and looking to the future with a lot more optimism.

And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is how the bailout package works

Too bad it actually ends up like this:

 

 

It is a slow day in a little town in America.
 
The rain is beating down and the streets are deserted.
 
Times are tough, everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit.
On this particular day a rich tourist is driving through the town, stops at the local hotel and lays a $100 note on the desk,
telling the hotel owner he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one to spend the night.
The owner gives him some keys and, as soon as the visitor has walked upstairs, the hotelier grabs the $100 note and runs next door to buy an Apple TV.
 
:D

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #52 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Anyone who earns a salary does pay taxes.

Yes, but nobody should be making a million dollars, when their employer is a non-profit, in my opinion.

post #53 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post

I don't doubt there are companies, big and small, that have been adversely affected by ObamaCare.

 

But there are also many great stories and good benefits emerging from the program. Are you willing to cite those too or are you simply filtering data to fit your political predisposition?

 

Uggggggh!  How can you contradictorily say in two short sentences that ObamaCare adversely affects some, and then say it has some great stories and good benefits that I should cite!  

 

That's like saying a governmental program of enslaving blacks was a benefit for some Southern white plantation owners in the form of increase economic wealth and some killer dance balls.  So what if it was at the expense of some others being chained up. Just like a little pregnant, there is no such thing as a little wrong. Wrong is wrong.

 

Really, seriously now, please tell me, how to "cite" something that is good, from a government program that will cost someone their job for the benefit of another?  Does it make that person want to high five the person with the "great story to tell"?  Please "cite" what is great, when a person's company insurance is cancelled on them because of the health care law and they now have to go and get their own private insurance and pay higher monthly premiums or get on the government's insurance to now be covered?  That kind of goes against Obama's line of you can keep the insurance and doctor you have now!  Please tell me how to "cite" something good that causes one to have their work hours reduced and thus lower income and then the hassle of having two jobs to make back that lost take home pay?  I cannot for the life of me see how you can ask me to "cite" good from a law that is detrimental to others.  What is great when a government program causes one problems they did not previously have?  It makes no sense!

 

John Kerry in his anti Vietnam War rant did have a good question, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"  Well I say, 'How do you create a government program to provide for some, while the same program is detrimental to others and you ask me to cite its "goodness"?"  Political predisposition has NOTHING  to do with it!  I am not anti-medical care for people with chronic disease or pre-exisiting conditions or just do not have the money, thus preventing them to meet the requirements of their health needs if they are seriously ill.  I am against a government, with the track record of ours, from running anything successful, let alone trusting them with my health!

 

Outside of the military and that is an entity in and of itself in that it always makes do with what it has, can you name me a major government program that has been a giant success?  I can tell you now, that was a hypothetical question!

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply
post #54 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Apple 
[" url="/t/154437/president-obama-calls-apple-ceo-tim-cook-to-discuss-fiscal-cliff/40#post_2234667"]There should be no non-profit organizations, no religious organizations and no charities. They should pay taxes just like everybody else.

This is fucking absurd. Do you wish to explain why you think that non-profit organizations shouldn't exist? Do you wish to explain why people have no right to organized religions or religious beliefs? Do you wish to explain why someone like Alfred Nobel would not be allowed to donate and create an organization that would award prizes annually to people who have helped better the world or why the United States Olympic Committee should not exist because its an NPO?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #55 of 169

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


Because the simple reality is the wealthy have bills too. If they get taxed excessively they effectively have to earn more which means increases in salary to cover whatis lost to taxes. Beyond that, if you are a business owner right now it really makes a lot of sense to screw over the people that voted for thIs idiot. Bad choice have consequences,voting for the liberal agenda is just as damaging as doing drugs. In the end you end up in a downward spiral.
Baloney! Cut welfare 100% and let the lazy starve.
You really don't know what you are talking about, tax cuts and a liberal money supply do stimulate the economy but they have to be combined with restraint within the government.
By definition anybody that votes for an idiot like Obama is an idiot. The problems his lack of leadership will bring in 2013 and beyond are well known, in reality simple economics.
Obviously somebodies toes have been stepped on.
That is how it is done, People have a short memory but what did Steve do when he came back to Apple?
Obamacare is the wrong solution to the problem we had, get over the idea that it will make anything better.

Historically the US has prospered when taxes have been high. In the 1962 the rich were taxed almost double what they are now. At the same time the middle class also saw real growth in income. The earnings inequality has never been greater than it is now. in 2005 the combined wealth of Warren Buffet and Bill Gates was approximately the same as that of the 120 million people who made up the bottom 40% of the US population.

It beats me why people can possibly think that some kind of wealth distribution is not a good thing. If the Buffets and the Gate's, as well as wealthy corporations of this world were taxed at much higher rates, would they stop doing what they are doing? I don't think so. Its not as if they would not still be wealthy

post #56 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Funny that you mentioned the Red Cross, because I had them in mind when I mentioned no non-profits. How can somebody be working for the Red Cross making a million bucks a year, and yet, they are supposedly a non-profit? 

 

Tax them, just like everybody else. I have no need for the Red Cross.

Not taking sides here, but just putting out a point.  Say the CEO makes a Million.  Is that really unreasonable considering the size of the Red Cross?  Wouldn't you want to allure a smart CEO to your organization?  Would a top CEO do it for free?  Just saying to take into account the size and responsibilities- and then think what CEOs of publicly traded (companies shareholders own) make.  I've never had a problem with enormous Non-profit CEOs making good money.  What if they had a free CEO, but they suck, so the Red Cross loses half their revenue?

 

Also, I know you own a business if I recall.  I have a side company with a partner as well.  We never show profit.  Most of the time if I cant find expenses, we bonus ourselves out the difference.  But then we pay taxes on that money.  If the CEO of the Red Cross makes a million bucks, they still pay taxes- so the gov't it getting it's money one way or the other.  Through corporate profit or personal income.

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #57 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


This is fucking absurd. Do you wish to explain why you think that non-profit organizations shouldn't exist? Do you wish to explain why people have no right to organized religions or religious beliefs? Do you wish to explain why someone like Alfred Nobel would not be allowed to donate and create an organization that would award prizes annually to people who have helped better the world or why the United States Olympic Committee should not exist because its an NPO?

People are free to worship whatever crackpot religions they please. I don't believe that they are entitled to have a tax exempt status on their religious organizations though.

 

It is also debatable that the Nobel prize awards prizes to people who have helped better the world. They are a politically motivated organization and they should be taxed too.

 

The US Olympic Committee should also be taxed as the Olympics are motivated by money, with many people and corporations benefitting financially from it.

 

I basically believe that everything should be taxed.

post #58 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post

...

 

Spending cuts along cannot and will not reduce the deficit until the economy recovers. Since you are so big on history, you would know that tax cuts have been proven useless in stimulating economic recovery. The government (like most governments) has a spending problem as well as a revenue problem. You can pretend all you want that is not the case. It is.

 

...

 

 

Yep, there's a revenue problem.  That's what happens when you destroy an economy.    You can try to raise taxes, but revenue won't go up signficantly.  People will simply change their behavior to reduce the tax load.   They won't accept the punishment that the government is trying to force on them.

 

The government has simply grown too fast.   It's far outstripped revenue.   It's the spending, stupid!   Obama's first year in office, he grew the deficit by over 1.2 trillion dollars.  In one single solitary year.   That's more than Bush did in his entire second term.   But it's all Bush's fault somehow.   BS.

 

http://www.foundry.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg

 

 

This is a great read/listen - http://billwhittle.net/?p=562#more-562.   Really shows just how much debt we're talking about.

post #59 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

 

I basically believe that everything should be taxed.

You mean tax everything except... lower the tax for the wealthy, right? If I recall that was the platform that the Republicans were running on.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #60 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Apple 
[" url="/t/154437/president-obama-calls-apple-ceo-tim-cook-to-discuss-fiscal-cliff/40#post_2234691"]People are free to worship whatever crackpot religions they please. I don't believe that they are entitled to have a tax exempt status on their religious organizations though.

It is also debatable that the Nobel prize awards prizes to people who have helped better the world. They are a politically motivated organization and they should be taxed too.

The US Olympic Committee should also be taxed as the Olympics are motivated by money, with many people and corporations benefitting financially from it.

I basically believe that everything should be taxed.

But that's not what you wrote. You didn't say that all non-profit, religious, and charitable organizations should exist but not be tax exempt; you wrote, "There should be no non-profit organizations, no religious organizations and no charities."

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #61 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

Not taking sides here, but just putting out a point.  Say the CEO makes a Million.  Is that really unreasonable considering the size of the Red Cross?  Wouldn't you want to allure a smart CEO to your organization?  Would a top CEO do it for free?  Just saying to take into account the size and responsibilities- and then think what CEOs of publicly traded (companies shareholders own) make.  I've never had a problem with enormous Non-profit CEOs making good money.  What if they had a free CEO, but they suck, so the Red Cross loses half their revenue?

 

I don't disagree that having a good and qualified CEO for a big non-profit is obviously important, but I believe that people should not be motivated by money who do that sort of work. There should be a qualified CEO who is willing to work for let's say 100k, if the cause if worthy enough to them.

post #62 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


But that's not what you wrote. You didn't say that all non-profit, religious, and charitable organizations should exist but not be tax exempt; you wrote, "There should be no non-profit organizations, no religious organizations and no charities."

Then it was worded wrongly. Of course such organizations can exist, I just believe that they should not be entitled to have tax exempt status.

post #63 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

You mean tax everything except... lower the tax for the wealthy, right? If I recall that was the platform that the Republicans were running on.

Did they want to lower it? I thought that they just didn't want to raise any taxes.

 

Either way, it doesn't really bother me, as I'm not a Republican and I'm definitely not a Democrat.

 

Personally, I believe that taxes should be raised on the poor, as there are far too many freeloading Americans who should be contributing more. A country where the citizens rely more and more on the government is not a model for success.

post #64 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Apple 
[" url="/t/154437/president-obama-calls-apple-ceo-tim-cook-to-discuss-fiscal-cliff/40#post_2234698"]
I don't disagree that having a good and qualified CEO for a big non-profit is obviously important, but I believe that people should not be motivated by money who do that sort of work. There should be a qualified CEO who is willing to work for let's say 100k, if the cause if worthy enough to them.

1) You're just pulling the 100k figure out of your ass with no basis for it's value. You think it sounds good and so you went with it.

2) Any reasonable organization should function for the good of the organization. If you can get a CEO that cares about a cause, is the best for the job, and wants no compensation for it but the reality is that to make any organization work you have to invest in the people that run it and the most qualified people tend to be in higher demand and therefore can demand a higher wage. You sound like a hippie suggesting that people should work without adequate compensation. If an organization can improve by $10B with a certain CEO making $1M a year or a suffer financial losses because you paid someone less qualified $100k a year then doesn't it make sense to go with the guy that will net you $9.999B? Of course it does.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #65 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

Most of what you say here seems like total BS to me.  It's easy to cobble a few stats together and think that they prove your point even when your point is ridiculous.  

 

While we are throwing out wild and crazy idea however, how about this? 

 

Half of the deficit could be eliminated in a single year if Obama simply passed a law removing the tax exempt status from "churches" in the United States.  If churches and religious organisations paid taxes, the figure is roughly 72 billion dollars a year.  One single law (and a very fair and reasonable law at that), and the entire deficit disappears in two years.  

 

It will never happen because Americans are crazier for religion overall than many Muslim states, but it's as reasonable as any other fix I've heard IMO. 

 

It's so nice to see reasonable people do exist.  I've been saying this for years, tax churches like you do any other business - after all, that's what they are for the most part.  

post #66 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

 

Then it was worded wrongly. Of course such organizations can exist, I just believe that they should not be entitled to have tax exempt status.

Their tax exempt status only means that they don't have shareholders and they are allowed to have money in the bank at the end of the year. They don't make a profit so they are not taxed anyway. The revenue in the bank is to allow them to have the resources to react in case a charitable project needs funding. There are several different types of corporations, I think you are getting hung up on the name non-profit. The Red Cross for example could be a for profit company and they could charge hurricane or earthquake victims $12 for a bowl of soup. Would that make it better for you?

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #67 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


1) You're just pulling the 100k figure out of your ass with no basis for it's value. You think it sounds good and so you went with it.
2) Any reasonable organization should function for the good of the organization. If you can get a CEO that cares about a cause, is the best for the job, and wants no compensation for it but the reality is that to make any organization work you have to invest in the people that run it and the most qualified people tend to be in higher demand and therefore can demand a higher wage. You sound like a hippie suggesting that people should work without adequate compensation. If an organization can improve by $10B with a certain CEO making $1M a year or a suffer financial losses because you paid someone less qualified $100k a year then doesn't it make sense to go with the guy that will net you $9.999B? Of course it does.

I'm just suggesting that people who do so called humanitarian work should not be motivated by money, in my opinion.

post #68 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Apple 
[" url="/t/154437/president-obama-calls-apple-ceo-tim-cook-to-discuss-fiscal-cliff/40#post_2234699"]Then it was worded wrongly. Of course such organizations can exist, I just believe that they should not be entitled to have tax exempt status.

Do you think those serving our country's military should have their housing and subsistence allowances taxed? What about when they are fighting overseas? If you truly believe that every little thing in this country should be taxed without question they you have the right to fight for change the law. This country will be worse for it but I support your right to do so.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #69 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macboy Pro View Post

@allenbf:   OMG you define clueless.   All of your statements can be DESTROYED by facts and by math but I do not have time to waste with trying to convince someone who probably votes for a living and has no intention of not voting for a living. 

 

Clueless because we disagree?  Votes for a living?  Nah, wrong guy.  I'm college educated, earn a higher than average wage and I do pay income tax.  I also pay tax on my investments.  Also, for what it's worth, I work in financial services, and more specifically, Economics.  Not that it makes my opinion more valuable than yours or anyone else's.

 

But facts are facts.  If you had time to type a rant in my direction, you had time to "destroy" my statements.  I'm waiting.

post #70 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

The Red Cross for example could be a for profit company and they could charge hurricane or earthquake victims $12 for a bowl of soup. Would that make it better for you?

Yes, I wouldn't have any objections to that.

 

Another for profit company could also come in and undercut them on the price. I believe in free enterprise.

post #71 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

Historically the US has prospered when taxes have been high. In the 1962 the rich were taxed almost double what they are now. At the same time the middle class also saw real growth in income. The earnings inequality has never been greater than it is now. in 2005 the combined wealth of Warren Buffet and Bill Gates was approximately the same as that of the 120 million people who made up the bottom 40% of the US population.

It beats me why people can possibly think that some kind of wealth distribution is not a good thing. If the Buffets and the Gate's, as well as wealthy corporations of this world were taxed at much higher rates, would they stop doing what they are doing? I don't think so. Its not as if they would not still be wealthy

Not to mention the two individuals you mentioned FAVOR being taxed at a higher rate.  It's the lower class republicans that don't want to be taxed on the hypothetical money that they'll never earn anyway.

post #72 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Do you think those serving our country's military should have their housing and subsistence allowances taxed? What about when they are fighting overseas? If you truly believe that every little thing in this country should be taxed without question they you have the right to fight for change the law. This country will be worse for it but I support your right to do so.

I wouldn't put the military or it's members in the same category as a non-profit organization. I do believe that they do have a right to have their votes count though, something which has currently been problematic for many of them.

post #73 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

You really don't know what you are talking about, tax cuts and a liberal money supply do stimulate the economy but they have to be combined with restraint within the government.

 

There is zero evidence to support the notion that tax cuts for the wealthy stimulate the economy. Zero. And although on an entirely superficial level it seems plausible that they might, an even cursory examination of the logic of the issue discredits the idea entirely. Those who are already making more than they can reasonably spend, aren't going to go on a consumption spree because the now have even more in excess of what than they can reasonably spend. On the other hand, tax cuts for the middle class, where most are not already maxed out on consumption, but rather, constrained in the same by available funds, will likely stimulate the economy because their spending becomes less constrained, and they are likely to actually spend the money from tax cuts, not hoard it as the wealthy will do. Historical facts bear this out: all the evidence and logic indicates that tax cuts for the wealthy is money thrown down the toilet.

post #74 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenbf View Post

Not to mention the two individuals you mentioned FAVOR being taxed at a higher rate. 

That Warren Buffet guy is full of shit. He's a hypocrite.

 

How can he say with a straight face that he favors a higher tax rate, when he owes a shitload in taxes that he hasn't paid?

post #75 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Yes, I wouldn't have any objections to that.

 

So long as you are not the victim, I'm sure.

 

If your home gets washed out to sea in a tsunami or burned to the ground in a wildfire, because you lost your wallet in the disaster, you go hungry. 

 

There is not and ounce of compassion in you. Everything is so black or white. That is not how relationships or society works.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #76 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by maccherry View Post

The president and the president of the most valuable company on earth. Very smart move.

Think about it, the rich are hoarding over 40 trillion overseas. The country is pathetically rich.

A little taxes ain't sh** to the wealthy.

I remember watching a documentary where Dominique Strauss Khan said he was at a party attend by plutocrats and he overhead some hedge fund mangers say the government should tax them more. Why?

Because they are making too much damn money.

or maybe because the extremely wealthy like the exclusive spot they hold.  No one has proposed a tax on wealth, but rather one on income.  The super wealthy will still be super wealthy no matter how high income taxes are... they just stop earning income.  And for many of them, they don't care.  They have enough to live the good life already, and by taxing incomes heavily, it becomes significantly harder for anyone else (or their small competitors) to reach the same point that they're at.  Despite the picture people may have painted in the past, the big business leaders are often the LEAST pro-market people you will ever meet.  At least, in their field.  They're pro market for their suppliers etc, but they tend to do everything in their power to get the government to give them an advantage over their competitors.  This can occur through tax breaks for them, higher taxes on startups, higher income taxes (those who currently don't have money will be less likely to build up the money to fund a competitor in the future), new regulations (often with grandfathering rules to not harm existing businesses), etc.  Big business is not the enemy of the federal government, and they have, and will latch on to people from both political parties to help pass their agenda.

 

Phil

post #77 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Personally, I believe that taxes should be raised on the poor, as there are far too many freeloading Americans who should be contributing more. A country where the citizens rely more and more on the government is not a model for success.

And if they go hungry, let them eat cake.

And that some people earn millions from playing with hedge funds, that is fine. Because they really contribute to the US economy and it would be unreasonable to ask them for more. If they did, well they might end up having to eat cake, too.

post #78 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

That Warren Buffet guy is full of shit. He's a hypocrite.

 

How can he say with a straight face that he favors a higher tax rate, when he owes a shitload in taxes that he hasn't paid?

 

He uses the system like anyone else. 

 

Which brings up a great point that not enough are discussing - reforming the entire tax code.  It should be central to the discussion of raising revenue and cutting spending.

post #79 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

So long as you are not the victim, I'm sure.

 

If your home gets washed out to sea in a tsunami or burned to the ground in a wildfire, because you lost your wallet in the disaster, you go hungry. 

 

There is not and ounce of compassion in you. Everything is so black or white. That is not how relationships or society works.

 

The entire premise reminds me of Texas' desire to secede.  That'll last until the next hurricane hits the TX coast, then they'll wish for FEMA funds.

post #80 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

And if they go hungry, let them eat cake.

And that some people earn millions from playing with hedge funds, that is fine. Because they really contribute to the US economy and it would be unreasonable to ask them for more. If they did, well they might end up having to eat cake, too.

I don't have any big objections to raising the tax rate slightly on the super wealthy, though I don't believe that it will help much in solving the spending problem that the administration and government has.

 

The poor and the wealthy can have their taxes raised, I'm ok with that. The poor don't pay anything at all, make them pay just a little bit, so that they can become contributing members of society, not reliant on government. It's the middle class that should be left alone, in my opinion.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › President Obama calls Apple CEO Tim Cook to discuss 'fiscal cliff'