FINALLY ... "The GOP is debating whether Reaganomics needs an update"

grouseguy

12 pointer
Dec 9, 2001
6,218
Phillips, WI / Grayson, KY
You make it sound like people are still working for the company store.
In effect, we all are. As long as corporate taxes are roughly 1/3 of what they were a few decades ago ... WE ... the working middle class tax payers are making up the rest in increased taxes or national debt. So ... YES ... corporations have stacked the deck through paid for politicians and legislation to where they control the economy and US. It is a form of long term indentured servitude to pay off debt accumulated from corporations not paying their fair share.
 

possumal

10 pointer
Jun 21, 2007
1,530
Nicholasville, Ky.
I don't mean to over simplify the situation, but I am not dumb enough to believe such crap as increasing the minimum wage being a job killer either. There is absolutely no proof of that being true. The only people who are spouting off with that stuff are friends of the big corporations.
 

EdLongshanks

12 pointer
Nov 16, 2013
18,543
Northern Kentucky
In effect, we all are. As long as corporate taxes are roughly 1/3 of what they were a few decades ago ... WE ... the working middle class tax payers are making up the rest in increased taxes or national debt. So ... YES ... corporations have stacked the deck through paid for politicians and legislation to where they control the economy and US. It is a form of long term indentured servitude to pay off debt accumulated from corporations not paying their fair share.
Hey there grouse guy, just a few things. First, the U.S. has the highest corporate income tax rate in the civilized world. 39.1 percent is paid in taxes to our federal and state governments. That's absurd and will not grow the economy. Second, corporations have nothing...absolutely nothing, to do with our national debt. That falls squarely on the shoulders of the wretched politicians that you have mentioned. Third, if paying 40% of every dollar made is not enough, what percentage would make it "fair"?
 

High Rack

12 pointer
Dec 21, 2009
6,122
in the hills
It takes both parties signature in order to sign a contract. If a company can't afford the demands set out in a negotiation, thenthey should pull the books and make it clear where the comany stands financially, that way clear heads prevail and both sides meet in the middle. The problem with Detroit and any city like it was the failure of it's leaders to continue with the same benefits and perks without a thought to the continual decline in the tax base that funded those benefits until it was to late.

When a comany is crying poor mouth and the CEO and VP's are making 20-50X more than a regular employee is and you want to take away from the employee , yet those at the top lose nothing, things go south pretty quickly, and the poor mouth excuse will never work. You guys can continue to denounce unions, but you best realize that this is where the middle class came from, and if you are not a member, those better wages you are getting are still a direct result from a contract negotiated somewhere, and every contract deal I was involved in, the management always got theirs after the labor signed the bottom line..ie, "Cause and Effect".
 

High Rack

12 pointer
Dec 21, 2009
6,122
in the hills
Hey there grouse guy, just a few things. First, the U.S. has the highest corporate income tax rate in the civilized world. 39.1 percent is paid in taxes to our federal and state governments. That's absurd and will not grow the economy. Second, corporations have nothing...absolutely nothing, to do with our national debt. That falls squarely on the shoulders of the wretched politicians that you have mentioned. Third, if paying 40% of every dollar made is not enough, what percentage would make it "fair"?

GE and a few other corporations must have not got that memo. Until this country gets a flat tax, the system will always be gamed by those who can afford the best lawyers and accountants.
 

Art

12 pointer
Nov 27, 2004
14,765
Lexington, KY
The problem is that as long as corporations are not under government control, liberals will be against them. Having a union control them is the second best option. It's not about the people that pay nothing, it's that the corporations don't pay enough. If they did, liberals could expand the nanny state and add to their voting base.

You never hear a liberal promote the jobs that corporations create, and that's because they don't want people to work and be successful. I don't understand how liberals believe that they know the books of every corporation out there, and how they can "afford to pay more." It's like these corporations don't pay any taxes and have unlimited capital?
 

Brit's and Birds

10 pointer
Nov 24, 2008
1,215
Oldham County
I don't mean to over simplify the situation, but I am not dumb enough to believe such crap as increasing the minimum wage being a job killer either. There is absolutely no proof of that being true. The only people who are spouting off with that stuff are friends of the big corporations.
Let's think about this along the lines of the actual financial impacts. Any large corporation is going to fund a lot of what it does by issueing stock to investors. Those investors purchase the stock only if they see it as generating a return in the future. If company A is forced to raise wages, that is an additional hit to their books. At this point, they can do one of two things; 1) they can hold prices of their goods. That means more liability (higher wages) and same revenue. This means profits decrease. Decreased profits lead to a lower stock price, which leads to investors pulling their money. Now the company has less capital, which causes them to reduce workforce to compensate. Now unemployment goes up. I think we can all agree that is not good for the middle class. Or 2) they can raise the price of their goods to compensate for the higher wages. Investors are good as profits have not decreased, but because of the higher cost of goods, those who had their pay increased experience no real increase in buying power. They make X more per paycheck, but everything they buy costs X more, so it's a wash in the end. No real economic impact there.

So what is the solution? I keep hearing that the CEOs not making so much will help, but the scaling will in the end cause little impact. What is the ratio of people making these atrocious salaries compared to the people working the lines making much less? I'd be wiling to bet it's at least 200:1, probably more. What kind of increase do you want for Joe Lineworker? $100 a week? At that rate, the average CEO would need to take an annual pay cut of $1 million to cover the 200 workers they have to compensate for. I'd be willing to bet real world numbers are far higher then that too. I work for a fortune 100 company with 10s of thousands of employees. I know and work with many of the VPs, and they all have many more than 200 people working under them. I also doubt they are all making multi millions each like everyone says. Sure their salaries are high, but not that high. Only the top handful of people in the largest corporations make that much. Take their salary down to $50k and I bet you give less than $10 a week to all the other employees with the excess.

In the end, an employee is only as valuable as the work and profit he produces for his employer. He should not make more than the value he brings solely because he wants a better living. If he wants a better living, he should work to improve his value to his employer. I have busted my rear at my current job and have been rewarded handsomely on multiple occasions. And I am in an industry that has NEVER had union representation.
 

grouseguy

12 pointer
Dec 9, 2001
6,218
Phillips, WI / Grayson, KY
Hey there grouse guy, just a few things. First, the U.S. has the highest corporate income tax rate in the civilized world. 39.1 percent is paid in taxes to our federal and state governments. That's absurd and will not grow the economy. Second, corporations have nothing...absolutely nothing, to do with our national debt. That falls squarely on the shoulders of the wretched politicians that you have mentioned. Third, if paying 40% of every dollar made is not enough, what percentage would make it "fair"?
Two points ...
You can't lay this solely on the politicians ... Follow the Money ... Who bought and paid for the politicians?

Tha tax rate is only one component. The devil is in the details of the legislated loopholes, credits and deductions. It doesn't matter what the tax rate is if the Taxable Income is zero. Zero X 39.1% = Zero
 

WildmanWilson

12 pointer
Dec 26, 2004
11,827
Western Ky.
Its not Reaganomics that needs an update....its the ball less GOP that needs and update. Bigger and more intrusive government is not helping anyone but the politicians themselves. They have created a permanent ruling class while creating more dependent citizens hooked on the handouts. The Tea Party was our last hope for conservatism but the entrenched lawless republican leadership felt threatened by them and joined the left in destroying them.

Reaganomics works. Allowing people and businesses to keep more of what they earn works. Liberalism is on a fast tract to destroying the country and so many are too stupid to see it. Most people don't even have a clue or care whats going on in the country...NOT A CLUE !! All they know is they are a victim and that Uncle Sugar will take care of them.
 

grouseguy

12 pointer
Dec 9, 2001
6,218
Phillips, WI / Grayson, KY
Its not Reaganomics that needs an update....its the ball less GOP that needs and update. Bigger and more intrusive government is not helping anyone but the politicians themselves. They have created a permanent ruling class while creating more dependent citizens hooked on the handouts. The Tea Party was our last hope for conservatism but the entrenched lawless republican leadership felt threatened by them and joined the left in destroying them.

Reaganomics works. Allowing people and businesses to keep more of what they earn works. Liberalism is on a fast tract to destroying the country and so many are too stupid to see it. Most people don't even have a clue or care whats going on in the country...NOT A CLUE !! All they know is they are a victim and that Uncle Sugar will take care of them.

I can see where self deception would be beneficial to a conservative ... There's times when I also wish I could pretent the effects of the past 30 years fiscal policy weren't real.
 

riverview

8 pointer
Jan 27, 2014
788
On a hill in Hancock County
Let's think about this along the lines of the actual financial impacts. Any large corporation is going to fund a lot of what it does by issueing stock to investors. Those investors purchase the stock only if they see it as generating a return in the future. If company A is forced to raise wages, that is an additional hit to their books. At this point, they can do one of two things; 1) they can hold prices of their goods. That means more liability (higher wages) and same revenue. This means profits decrease. Decreased profits lead to a lower stock price, which leads to investors pulling their money. Now the company has less capital, which causes them to reduce workforce to compensate. Now unemployment goes up. I think we can all agree that is not good for the middle class. Or 2) they can raise the price of their goods to compensate for the higher wages. Investors are good as profits have not decreased, but because of the higher cost of goods, those who had their pay increased experience no real increase in buying power. They make X more per paycheck, but everything they buy costs X more, so it's a wash in the end. No real economic impact there.

So what is the solution? I keep hearing that the CEOs not making so much will help, but the scaling will in the end cause little impact. What is the ratio of people making these atrocious salaries compared to the people working the lines making much less? I'd be wiling to bet it's at least 200:1, probably more. What kind of increase do you want for Joe Lineworker? $100 a week? At that rate, the average CEO would need to take an annual pay cut of $1 million to cover the 200 workers they have to compensate for. I'd be willing to bet real world numbers are far higher then that too. I work for a fortune 100 company with 10s of thousands of employees. I know and work with many of the VPs, and they all have many more than 200 people working under them. I also doubt they are all making multi millions each like everyone says. Sure their salaries are high, but not that high. Only the top handful of people in the largest corporations make that much. Take their salary down to $50k and I bet you give less than $10 a week to all the other employees with the excess.

In the end, an employee is only as valuable as the work and profit he produces for his employer. He should not make more than the value he brings solely because he wants a better living. If he wants a better living, he should work to improve his value to his employer. I have busted my rear at my current job and have been rewarded handsomely on multiple occasions. And I am in an industry that has NEVER had union representation.
The problem with you logic is that we have the most educated, productive workforce in our history, yet inflation adjusted middle class wages have been stagnant for 25 years, executive pay has skyrocketed. By your theory a more productive workforce should be rewarded with better wages since they are more valuable to the company. That hasn't happened.

I am glad you are having success at your company, but you can't take individual experiences and apply them to the collective.
 

possumal

10 pointer
Jun 21, 2007
1,530
Nicholasville, Ky.
Trickle down economics never has worked and it never will. You give the super rich a tax break, and they buy their children and grandchildren more toys. If it was ever going to work, it surely would have worked under President George W. Bush. He inherited a balanced budget and a surplus, gave the upper echelon tax breaks, but more jobs were lost during his tenure than any period in modern times.
 

High Rack

12 pointer
Dec 21, 2009
6,122
in the hills
The problem is that as long as corporations are not under government control, liberals will be against them. Having a union control them is the second best option. It's not about the people that pay nothing, it's that the corporations don't pay enough. If they did, liberals could expand the nanny state and add to their voting base.

You never hear a liberal promote the jobs that corporations create, and that's because they don't want people to work and be successful. I don't understand how liberals believe that they know the books of every corporation out there, and how they can "afford to pay more." It's like these corporations don't pay any taxes and have unlimited capital?

IMO, you have it in reverse.......The real problem began when corporations took over government control.ou can continue to think you know what every liberal thinks, and that they are all the same, but you are dead wrong. Any person that calls themsevles a true democrat or "Liberal" will never say that they are against jobs or sucess in such. Anyone who does the opposite on either side are nothing but kooks hiding behind a party line. This "liberal" montra that has taken over the real meaning is nothing more than a glass window with a bucket of rocks in front of it, nothing more than a Faux news talking head trying to gain points, and you guys suck on it like it was your moma's teet.

I would gladly trade out the welfare reform as long as it includes corporate welfare reform. I would gladly give you corporate tax cuts as long as it was in the form of a flat tax across the board with a stern fine for holding money offshore to avoid the tax , and a higher corporate tax for those that claim to be an american company, yet make everything in china. These are just simple common sense ideas, but if you would put this to the corporations you speak of, your answer would be, not only no, but Hell No, because they are on the take just as much, if not more than those under the poverty line.
 

slobear

12 pointer
Nov 20, 2014
4,567
Trump town, USA
Trickle down economics never has worked and it never will. You give the super rich a tax break, and they buy their children and grandchildren more toys. If it was ever going to work, it surely would have worked under President George W. Bush. He inherited a balanced budget and a surplus, gave the upper echelon tax breaks, but more jobs were lost during his tenure than any period in modern times.

My,my,my. First let me give you the reason that i'm opposed to unions. Every single union member or union I have been associated with have an entitlement attitude. You need to look no further than this thread to see it. Some of the most successful people in the world were born dirt poor, never received a college degree, no handouts, etc. What they did have was drive, motivation,willpower, and hard work mentality. Those are the people that made this country the greatest on earth, not some socialist share the wealth union brainwashing their followers to become even less productive.

I'm really not surprised that you believe that George W Bush inherited a surplus, did your boss tell you that or did you hear it from dan rather or brian williams? I'm not interested in explaining it to you but encourage you to do the research so you can learn the facts about the pie in sky surplus. Balanced budget was also BS
 
Last edited:

possumal

10 pointer
Jun 21, 2007
1,530
Nicholasville, Ky.
Evidently you think you know facts better than any of the top economists and the various bureaus like the Congressional Budget Office. I have done the research and don't depend on any of the talking heads on the various channels. Take a read on David Cay Johnston's writings.
 


Latest posts

Top