Leno takes pay cut, so why cant billionairs?

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13593
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Leno takes pay cut, so why cant billionairs?

Jay Leno owns a airplane wearhouse full of all sorts of expensive and antique cars. And has given up half his paycheck. I have yet to see him bitch about it. Now if he accepts it, where is the introspection he seems to have in accepting it, and the billionairs who own not only the media he works in, but all of big business?

 

Now Beyond is going to come in here and give bullshit it's merely free market demand blah blah blah. Well, to be consistent, if Jay was all about money, then why wouldn't he bitch? Why? Maybe because he realizes that by taking that cut, someone below him might be able to keep their job. Or maybe he has a concious knowing his demographic is made up of working class and middle class. I have actually seen a live taping and can tell you, right out his studio, across the street there are mom and pop shops he frequents full of the working class. Maybe he has looked at himself and sayed "I don't need all this". Otherwise he should be screaming from the rooftops that he'd been constractually screwed.

 

And if I were in his position knowing how much I make vs the stage hand, I wouldn't bitch either.

I cant stress enough, that most of the people I personally know in the middle and working class don't begrudge someone like Jay making it. But it is absurd for the multi billionaires to bitch when a multiimillionair isn't.

When us "liberal" commies, which we are not, despite the lies the teafarty sells and the psudo libertarians who are nothing but republicans on steroids, when we bitch, all we are saying is don't stand on our sholders, push us down, and piss on us in the process.

Maybe if the top 1% cared enough about the cost of living the people who make them rich do, maybe if they cared more, and gave more directly to the worker, we wouldn't be in this mess.

So here is my new slogan "If Jay can take a pay cut, so can you".

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Jay Leno owns

Brian37 wrote:

Jay Leno owns a airplane wearhouse full of all sorts of expensive and antique cars. And has given up half his paycheck.

So by taking his pay cut, he is giving less money to auto workers, mechanics and security guards for all his stuff. He probably buys yachts and mansions, so he'll be putting out of work a bunch yacht builders and construction workers with families into the unemployment lines.

Where is your compassion for these people?

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4481
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Brian37 wrote:Jay Leno owns

Brian37 wrote:

Jay Leno owns a airplane wearhouse full of all sorts of expensive and antique cars. And has given up half his paycheck. I have yet to see him bitch about it. Now if he accepts it, where is the introspection he seems to have in accepting it, and the billionairs who own not only the media he works in, but all of big business?

Leno is taking a pay cut because he isn't worth nearly as much as he used to be. He doesn't pull in the same ratings, the same revenue and he has a lot more competition. 

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

Now Beyond is going to come in here and give bullshit it's merely free market demand blah blah blah. Well, to be consistent, if Jay was all about money, then why wouldn't he bitch? Why? Maybe because he realizes that by taking that cut, someone below him might be able to keep their job. Or maybe he has a concious knowing his demographic is made up of working class and middle class. I have actually seen a live taping and can tell you, right out his studio, across the street there are mom and pop shops he frequents full of the working class. Maybe he has looked at himself and sayed "I don't need all this". Otherwise he should be screaming from the rooftops that he'd been constractually screwed.

He probably did bitch and had fierce behind the scenes negotiations. There is little to gain from making such contract negotiations public for either side but I am sure that Leno negotiated the largest deal he could convince NBC to pay him. If Leno is really all that concerned about the "little guy" then why doesn't he donate a couple hundred of the thousands of cars he has? Leno is worth less and he is a smart enough man to know he is worth less and so is content to take less to continue working as opposed to making a big deal and not having a job anywhere. $15 million is still a lot more than nothing and probably more than an aging comedian like Leno could make touring. 

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

I cant stress enough, that most of the people I personally know in the middle and working class don't begrudge someone like Jay making it. But it is absurd for the multi billionaires to bitch when a multiimillionair isn't.

I don't see where all these billionaires are bitching anywhere other than your naked assertions that they are. 

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

Maybe if the top 1% cared enough about the cost of living the people who make them rich do, maybe if they cared more, and gave more directly to the worker, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Maybe if people like you cared enough about your income to do something to make more we wouldn't be in this mess. How many people do you employ again?

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

So here is my new slogan "If Jay can take a pay cut, so can you".

Really? Jay still makes way more in a year than I will in 50 years. I took a large pay cut last year- large enough to move me down two tax brackets, so if I can take a pay cut so can you. But the only person I have seen bitching about not getting paid enough is you. And I am pretty sure I make less than 50 times what you make even in a good year. Mark Zuckerberg took a huge pay cut too. It is just reality that when you are near the top your income is going to be far more variable than everyone else because your income is generally much more closely tied to actual results whereas the dishwasher gets the same rate whether you wash one dish all day or a thousand.  

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13593
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
EXC wrote:Brian37 wrote:Jay

EXC wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Jay Leno owns a airplane wearhouse full of all sorts of expensive and antique cars. And has given up half his paycheck.

So by taking his pay cut, he is giving less money to auto workers, mechanics and security guards for all his stuff. He probably buys yachts and mansions, so he'll be putting out of work a bunch yacht builders and construction workers with families into the unemployment lines.

Where is your compassion for these people?

 

Nice try, and you can certainly view it that way. But the money he doesn't get as a result of that pay cut can ALSO go to pay raises for those below him, or better benifits to those below him. If that stage hand gets more hours or better benifits that person has more buying power, more buying power in the lower two classes is what drives our economy, not the rich spending money . That money can also go to hire more workers, more workers, more people spending in the economy.

You really fucking think the bulk of spending is done by the uber rich? No, the bulk of spending that drives our economy IS NOT done by people like Jay, but people in the middle class and people like me. I am suggesting WE as a collective society be direct about it, a concept you piss on out of sheer greed.

Now don't be an idiot, you don't have to take my word for it. I would think a billionaire like Nick Hanour, saying the same thing I am, in that WE drive the economy, not the minority class 1%, would you shut the fuck up? How about MILLIONAIRE SUZY ORMAN? She's not poor and she is also a finance expert.

In your model the money goes up. In your model the middle and poor get less pay and you get more profit. The cost of that is we buy less, when we by less the vicious cycle of idiots like you make more cuts which creates more instibility.

 In my model the money goes down to the people who need it more who collectively spend more. T It is merely the recongition that economic stability in all three classes will keep the train on the rails.

One class does not make and economy and 99% of us outnumber that 1%. When we hurt, eventually you hurt, something you are too fucking stupid to see.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4481
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Brian37 wrote:Nice try, and

Brian37 wrote:

Nice try, and you can certainly view it that way. But the money he doesn't get as a result of that pay cut can ALSO go to pay raises for those below him, or better benifits to those below him. If that stage hand gets more hours or better benifits that person has more buying power, more buying power in the lower two classes is what drives our economy, not the rich spending money . That money can also go to hire more workers, more workers, more people spending in the economy.

No it doesn't. Leno got a pay cut because NBC cut costs for the entire show (because ratings suck and advertising revenue is down and NBC as a whole is not doing well), there probably isn't a single person in the whole deal who is getting a raise and it is quite likely that other executives on the show are getting pay cuts as well. 

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

Now don't be an idiot, you don't have to take my word for it. I would think a billionaire like Nick Hanour, saying the same thing I am, in that WE drive the economy, not the minority class 1%, would you shut the fuck up? How about MILLIONAIRE SUZY ORMAN? She's not poor and she is also a finance expert.

If Orman cares so much why is she a millionaire?

 

 

Edit:

According to CNN 20-25 employees were laid off even with Leno taking the cut. The money doesn't go to the "little guys", the money doesn't exist because the show is no longer making as much as it used to. 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/07/showbiz/jay-leno-tonight-show/index.html

 

Why didn't the greedy SOB take an additional $2 million a year to protect the 25 people who got laid off? $13 million is still a lot of money. 

 

 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13593
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote: I took a large pay

Quote:
I took a large pay cut last year- large enough to move me down two tax brackets, so if I can take a pay cut so can you.

No, dipshit.The lower the payscale the harder it is to make ends meet. Fucking the middle class and working poor can only end up hurting even the 1%.

 

Jays pay cut will not cause him to be homeless. And the way you advocate for the free market I doubt even your cut will make you homeless. But I'll laugh in your fucking face if you think cutting a cops pay or teacher's pay or my pay and or hours doesn't or cant hurt us is flat out a fucking joke!

It is simple psychology that causes your type of thinking, not any reality that would actually harm you. It is merely a matter of not knowing what you have vs what you actually need.

You make more than me, good for you. I wish you could honestly see that. But if others at your same payscale or higher than you can and do agree with me, like Nick and Suzy, you have no case.

I have never claimed everyone should be poor or stay poor. The higher up you go introspection in place of narcisistic jaded self importance in a market that requires ALL classes to be healthy. It is an atitude change not a demand to end the free market.

Making more than someone else IS FINE, but it is absurd when those below you and at the bottom are hurting, to complain, it's just plain laughable. You took a pay cut, and I am sure it sucks, but if you are not living in a box or eating cat food, cry me a fucking river.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Nice try,

Brian37 wrote:

 

Nice try, and you can certainly view it that way. But the money he doesn't get as a result of that pay cut can ALSO go to pay raises for those below him, or better benifits to those below him. If that stage hand gets more hours or better benifits that person has more buying power, more buying power in the lower two classes is what drives our economy, not the rich spending money . That money can also go to hire more workers, more workers, more people spending in the economy.

I don't think you understand the concept of productivity. Automation and technology helped eliminate the need for a lot of these jobs. They can put on a show with a lot fewer workers. For the overall economy, this is a good thing. NBC charges it's advertisers less, who in turn charge you less.

What he is creating is a situaltion where a lot of the workers will be standing around doing nothing productive, just trying to look busy. If he spends the money on expensive cars, the money is helping autoworkers develop job skills because expensive cars is where new auto technology is first developed.

 

Brian37 wrote:

You really fucking think the bulk of spending is done by the uber rich?

 

No but the bulk of the taxes are paid for by the top 5% of income earners. The net effect of this is less income for the California and Federal governents. When money flows to people without any productivity, it creates inflation. They have more money but they are all chasing the commodity of gasoline, so the price of gas goes up. An economic benefit is when there is increased productivity, when something can be produced with less labor or commondities.

If Leno wanted to help these workers and everyone else in the economy, he should pay to train them for available jobs. It would benefit them and the rest of the economy.

Brian37 wrote:

No, the bulk of spending that drives our economy IS NOT done by people like Jay, but people in the middle class and people like me. I am suggesting WE as a collective society be direct about it, a concept you piss on out of sheer greed.

Spending without productivity equals inflation and debt.

Brian37 wrote:

In your model the money goes up. In your model the middle and poor get less pay and you get more profit. The cost of that is we buy less, when we by less the vicious cycle of idiots like you make more cuts which creates more instibility.

In my model the poor are actually trained to do something productive instead of collecting a check for doing nothing. They would have something of value to sell and then would no longer be poor.

Brian37 wrote:

In my model the money goes down to the people who need it more who collectively spend more. T It is merely the recongition that economic stability in all three classes will keep the train on the rails.

But they are not producing any more. So all you have is inflation and debt. The price of food and gasoline is supply and demand. So you take from the rich to help the poor buy more food. But there is no gain in food production because people do nothing to collect a check.

If just giving people money was the solution. We could just print money to solve all economic problems.

 

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13593
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:No it doesn't. Leno

Quote:
No it doesn't. Leno got a pay cut because NBC cut costs for the entire show (because ratings suck and advertising revenue is down and NBC as a whole is not doing well), there probably isn't a single person in the whole deal who is getting a raise and it is quite likely that other executives on the show are getting pay cuts as well

Nope, that may be the excuse given nand certainly that might be partially true, but I judging by the acts of car companies, bank CEOS and housing market executives., and Wal Street being turned into a giant ponzy scheme, that drove us into this ditch even with ratings being the case for some of it, you wont get me to buy the cuts hurting the top of any big business. Even with ratings I doubt the CEO of NBC is eating cat food. And NBC has more than one show and does socialize its revenue to keep shows on that dont do as well as others. Why do you think they have time slots and lead ins and teases. No different than the "discount" rack at a department store.

So ratings are not always the issue otherwise Jay would be off air and the Simpsons would have died 5 to 8 years ago. He is still on the air because he gets enough attention to be worth their time.

If I go from 1 billion to half a bilion with the cost of living the way it is, I will not end up homeless. Whearas if I am supporting 4 kids on 50k and drop down to 25k,and a mortgage I suddenly cant afford due to economy out of my control, that is far worse. You are not taking into account proportions, or don't care about proportions

 And Nick HANOUR, and I will continue to repeat that BILLIONAIRE'S name, WHO AGREES WITH ME, that the middle class and people like me are the ones who make the bulk of the demand thad drives people like him to hire more.

The top CAN take the hit, the middle and bottom cant and it is bullshit to claim otherwise.

There is a difference between "Cant" and "dont want to".

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10599
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Frankly, I never understood

Frankly, I never understood how Leno deserved a paycheque in the first place, so him taking a cut doesn't impress me. Not many people in the entertainment industry are getting what they are worth (a comment that cuts in multiple ways).

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3310
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Frankly, I

Vastet wrote:
Frankly, I never understood how Leno deserved a paycheque in the first place, so him taking a cut doesn't impress me. Not many people in the entertainment industry are getting what they are worth (a comment that cuts in multiple ways).

I too, have never been able to deal with more than five seconds of Leno and have never cracked a smile over a single joke that he has ever made. Guy just has no talent, but that is just from my perspective. Of course, I am not big on comedies and comedians anyway. There are very few that I have ever actually laughed over.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:The top CAN

Brian37 wrote:

The top CAN take the hit, the middle and bottom cant and it is bullshit to claim otherwise.

As usual you have to distort the claims of people that argue against you to justify your position.

My claim(and I believe BS's) is not that the rich can't afford to take a hit. But rather that there is no long term net benefit to any group of people rich, middle class or poor in naked wealth redistribution. I claim your version of wealth redistribution creates inflation, lower overall productivity and creates a moral hazard because it rewards economic failure and punishes sucess. In the end the overall damage is worse than any temporary benefit these workers may receive.

If you're going to argue againt someone's position, stop making shit up about it!

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4481
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Brian37 wrote:Quote: I took

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
I took a large pay cut last year- large enough to move me down two tax brackets, so if I can take a pay cut so can you.

No, dipshit.The lower the payscale the harder it is to make ends meet. Fucking the middle class and working poor can only end up hurting even the 1%.

 

Jays pay cut will not cause him to be homeless. And the way you advocate for the free market I doubt even your cut will make you homeless. But I'll laugh in your fucking face if you think cutting a cops pay or teacher's pay or my pay and or hours doesn't or cant hurt us is flat out a fucking joke!

So you are different? You are special? Cut everyone else's pay but not yours? No, you can cut my pay to $0 and I will not be homeless, I purchased my house with cash. So does that  mean that a pay cut doesn't affect my budget? Of course not. When I earn less I have to spend/invest less, just like everyone else. And any given year there is a chance I might make negative income. You know why? Because I am the last person in the company to take a paycheck, it is perfectly possible, even probable that I will have a year where I will not make any income at all. Everyone else gets paid first, all the employees, all of the bills and all of the suppliers get paid first. I don't get a single penny until everyone else is paid and then I get a percentage of what is left. Sometimes, there is a lot left and I do very well. Other times, there isn't enough to cover the bills and I have to reach into my private banking account to meet payroll meaning I actually lose money. Such is the reality of owning a business.  

Then suppose I have 3 years where a business makes no money at all for me, then the fourth year I cash in and make a large net profit of $200,000. Do I pay taxes like I made $50,000 a year? No. I pay taxes on an income of $200,000 at the higher rate even though that money took me four years to make and I worked three years for free. But simply because my work paid off and I had that one good year, I am "rich" and I get to write a check to uncle sam for $66,000. Whereas if I was a teacher earning $50k a year for four years I would pay significantly less even though over the course of those four years I made exactly the same income. Is that right? 

 

Brian37 wrote:

It is simple psychology that causes your type of thinking, not any reality that would actually harm you. It is merely a matter of not knowing what you have vs what you actually need.

I know exactly what I have and exactly what I need. I need roughly $10,000 a year to live, I want roughly $50,000 a year to live the lifestyle I choose to live, anything beyond that is investing money.

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

Making more than someone else IS FINE, but it is absurd when those below you and at the bottom are hurting, to complain, it's just plain laughable. You took a pay cut, and I am sure it sucks, but if you are not living in a box or eating cat food, cry me a fucking river. 

Who is complaining? My pay cut is directly a result of my choices and quite frankly, I am fine with it. I don't recall ever complaining or demanding anyone pay me more. Are you eating cat food? Are you living in a box? There are people in the world who are substantially worse off than you. You act like somehow someone owes you more money, for what? What have you done that no one has paid you for? You constantly whine about how much other people make as if it is significant. The reality is that very few people in the US are hurting, you don't have a fucking clue what real poverty looks like. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
 Brian, Jay's pay cut is a

 Brian, Jay's pay cut is a drop in the bucket and not terribly helpful. Cutting the pay of everyone in the 1% is not a miracle cure.

BS, you run your own business, right? Is not putting money in your personal account and leaving it in your business's account (which you have sole access to) a pay cut? Or is it just you getting a tax break?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4481
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
jcgadfly wrote: Brian,

jcgadfly wrote:

 Brian, Jay's pay cut is a drop in the bucket and not terribly helpful. Cutting the pay of everyone in the 1% is not a miracle cure.

BS, you run your own business, right? Is not putting money in your personal account and leaving it in your business's account (which you have sole access to) a pay cut? Or is it just you getting a tax break?

I have my business set up as a separate corporation, so if I leave the money in the account it is taxed at the corporate rate. If I later decide to take that money out and pay myself I then have to also pay personal taxes on it which may be capital gains or income depending on how long ago I invested. Leaving money in the corporation is not a very effective way to avoid taxes. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

 Brian, Jay's pay cut is a drop in the bucket and not terribly helpful. Cutting the pay of everyone in the 1% is not a miracle cure.

BS, you run your own business, right? Is not putting money in your personal account and leaving it in your business's account (which you have sole access to) a pay cut? Or is it just you getting a tax break?

I have my business set up as a separate corporation, so if I leave the money in the account it is taxed at the corporate rate. If I later decide to take that money out and pay myself I then have to also pay personal taxes on it which may be capital gains or income depending on how long ago I invested. Leaving money in the corporation is not a very effective way to avoid taxes. 

This is assuming you're not like the folks at the larger corps and actually pay your corporate taxes. A good number don't.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4481
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
jcgadfly wrote:This is

jcgadfly wrote:

This is assuming you're not like the folks at the larger corps and actually pay your corporate taxes. A good number don't.

Prove it. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

This is assuming you're not like the folks at the larger corps and actually pay your corporate taxes. A good number don't.

Prove it. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/03/major-corporations-tax-subsidies_n_1073548.html

30 is a good number. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/08/16/two-thirds-of-us-corporations-dont-pay-federal-income-tax-true-but-horribly-misleading/

S corporations get around it by passing it to their shareholders which falls under the personal income tax. Roughly two thirds of US corps take this route. Still corporations that pay no corporate tax. 

Forbes calls it "misleading" as if S corporations aren't real corporations - is there a no true corporation fallacy?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4481
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
jcgadfly

They pay taxes and they obey the tax code. I have never supported tax subsidies and I have never supported our fucked up tax code- it might surprise you to learn that I don't qualify for such tax credits and subsidies. You can look at the financial statements of any of those 30 corporations and you will see tax payments, then the money is taxed again when it is dispersed. They just get so much money from uncle sams teat in what Obama calls "investment" or "stimulus" but really is nothing but corporate welfare and that exceeds what they pay in taxes. I agree we should stop that corrupt practice. That hardly describes reality for most of us corporations that don't own Senators and don't donate heavily to the democratic party.  

 

jcgadfly wrote:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/08/16/two-thirds-of-us-corporations-dont-pay-federal-income-tax-true-but-horribly-misleading/

S corporations get around it by passing it to their shareholders which falls under the personal income tax. Roughly two thirds of US corps take this route. Still corporations that pay no corporate tax. 

Forbes calls it "misleading" as if S corporations aren't real corporations - is there a no true corporation fallacy?

Yes.... like my corporation pays zero income tax because I drain the money out of it every year but I still pay personal income tax on that money. I have a choice, I could leave it in the corporation and pay corporate tax or I can take it out and pay personal tax. Most corporations choose to pay personal income tax because it is easier paperwork wise. Whichever way you choose, you pay taxes on that money. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 Just wanted to put my vote

 Just wanted to put my vote in on the Leno sucks committee.  Leno is not funny, and he's extremely annoying.  The only things on his show that are funny are stolen from other acts. 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3329
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Just wanted

Sapient wrote:

 Just wanted to put my vote in on the Leno sucks committee.  Leno is not funny, and he's extremely annoying.  The only things on his show that are funny are stolen from other acts. 

 

 

no kidding.  letterman kicks leno's ass.  even joan rivers would have been better, if carson hadn't gotten pissed off at her and blacklisted her at nbc.

i was once flipping back and forth between letterman and leno and heard letterman tell a joke that leno told--nearly word-for-word--less than 5 minutes later.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10599
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Dave's not spectacularly

Dave's not spectacularly funny either, though he at least has his moments. And he owns the interview, cooperating guest or not. I'd say he's easily the #2 late night host.

The true king of late night is Craig Ferguson. Lot of his stuff is campy or weird, but he's the only late host who's ever made me look forward to the next episode, and also the only one to make me cry I was laughing so hard. I still grin just remembering Carrie Fisher bringing the kangaroo balls to the show.

In your pants.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3329
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Dave's not

Vastet wrote:
Dave's not spectacularly funny either, though he at least has his moments. And he owns the interview, cooperating guest or not. I'd say he's easily the #2 late night host. The true king of late night is Craig Ferguson. Lot of his stuff is campy or weird, but he's the only late host who's ever made me look forward to the next episode, and also the only one to make me cry I was laughing so hard. I still grin just remembering Carrie Fisher bringing the kangaroo balls to the show. In your pants.

i love dave's humor for the same reason i love monty python.  i'm a huge fan of sight gags and non sequiturs.  and you're right about the interviews, he owns every one.  even bill o'reilly basically just sat there and took it when dave poked fun at his bullshit.  judging from anecdotes i've heard from people who have been on his show, he's a goofy guy on camera but he's a guy you don't want to fuck with.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
 I will agree they follow

 I will agree they follow the tax code but less than zero isn't "paying taxes". But wouldn't removing tax subsidies punish the rich for success (something you seem to be wildly against)?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4481
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
jcgadfly wrote: I will

jcgadfly wrote:

 I will agree they follow the tax code but less than zero isn't "paying taxes". But wouldn't removing tax subsidies punish the rich for success (something you seem to be wildly against)?

I am not at all against leveling the tax code- it is precisely what I argue for. I believe everyone should pay exactly the same tax rate including the very rich and the very poor. The only time I bitch about taxes is when I pay an effective rate in the mid 20's and am told by people who pay less than 10% that somehow I am the one not paying my "fair share". If someone who makes $200,000 has to write a check for $80,000 then someone who makes $10,000 should have to write a check for $4,000. One of the largest problems in our country IMO is that congress uses the tax code to encourage/discourage behaviors rather than a method of revenue collection. The only goal of taxes should be to collect the revenue necessary to pay our bills.  

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10599
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I admit I haven't done the

I admit I haven't done the math to figure out if there's an ideal rate which would be cheap enough for the poor yet generate sufficient income to pay for required services, but the appeal of a flat tax is still balanced by the ability to pay it. Someone who made 10k in a year certainly can't afford to pay even 10% of it in taxes. Whereas the person who made 200k could easily go without 50% of the income without any strain at all.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4481
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Vastet wrote:I admit I

Vastet wrote:
I admit I haven't done the math to figure out if there's an ideal rate which would be cheap enough for the poor yet generate sufficient income to pay for required services, but the appeal of a flat tax is still balanced by the ability to pay it. Someone who made 10k in a year certainly can't afford to pay even 10% of it in taxes. Whereas the person who made 200k could easily go without 50% of the income without any strain at all.

For the US to pay our current bills it would have to be approximately 40% for everyone. Of course, I believe that government should survive on far less and everyone should pay closer to 15% and government just has to stop spending so damn much. I think if everyone in the country had to write a check for 40% of their income, a lot more people would agree government has to stop spending like a drunken sailor. There is just no reason to support spending cuts if you are not the one paying for it. 

Since I am a nice guy, I am willing to compromise with a tax plan where everyone can earn $x tax free where $x is calculated to determine a survivable income- say $15,000. So no one pays one penny of taxes on say the first $15,000 but then everyone pays the same rate on every dollar past that. So if the rate is 40% someone earning $20,000 would pay $2,000 in taxes ($5,000 X .4) and someone earning $100,000 would pay $34,000 ($85,000 X .4). I think that is a reasonable compromise for those who obsess over the poor.

In reality, I would argue that a straight tax would simply lead to higher wages because no one would be willing to work for $10,000- they would demand an income high enough to continue to provide livable money after taxes and employers would be forced to pay it. And I do think it is important that everyone pays taxes because if you are paying the bill yourself you are more likely to be concerned with whether or not that money is spent wisely.   

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10599
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Since I am a nice guy,

Quote:
Since I am a nice guy, I am willing to compromise with a tax plan where everyone can earn $x tax free where $x is calculated to determine a survivable income- say $15,000. So no one pays one penny of taxes on say the first $15,000 but then everyone pays the same rate on every dollar past that. So if the rate is 40% someone earning $20,000 would pay $2,000 in taxes ($5,000 X .4) and someone earning $100,000 would pay $34,000 ($85,000 X .4). I think that is a reasonable compromise for those who obsess over the poor.

I'd also consider that reasonable. I agree with everything you said.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 I remember something about

 I remember something about the highest rate of tax for self-employed people in Sweden in the 70s to have been over 100% due to some bad accounting by the tax office.. 

Now that's something Brian could agree with Eye-wink

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
 I can see that as sensible

 I can see that as sensible as well BS

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 I remember something about the highest rate of tax for self-employed people in Sweden in the 70s to have been over 100% due to some bad accounting by the tax office.. 

Now that's something Brian could agree with Eye-wink

 

I'd just like to get some of them off -25% to -50% tax rates.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3329
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
BeyondSaving wrote:Since I

BeyondSaving wrote:
Since I am a nice guy, I am willing to compromise with a tax plan where everyone can earn $x tax free where $x is calculated to determine a survivable income- say $15,000. So no one pays one penny of taxes on say the first $15,000 but then everyone pays the same rate on every dollar past that. So if the rate is 40% someone earning $20,000 would pay $2,000 in taxes ($5,000 X .4) and someone earning $100,000 would pay $34,000 ($85,000 X .4). I think that is a reasonable compromise for those who obsess over the poor.

that's pretty much how it is here in slovakia.  i can't remember what the taxable minimum is but it's extremely reasonable.  it just goes to show you that affordable compulsory healthcare and strong, sustainable social insurance don't have to come with exhorbitant taxes.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4481
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
iwbiek wrote:BeyondSaving

iwbiek wrote:

BeyondSaving wrote:
Since I am a nice guy, I am willing to compromise with a tax plan where everyone can earn $x tax free where $x is calculated to determine a survivable income- say $15,000. So no one pays one penny of taxes on say the first $15,000 but then everyone pays the same rate on every dollar past that. So if the rate is 40% someone earning $20,000 would pay $2,000 in taxes ($5,000 X .4) and someone earning $100,000 would pay $34,000 ($85,000 X .4). I think that is a reasonable compromise for those who obsess over the poor.

that's pretty much how it is here in slovakia.  i can't remember what the taxable minimum is but it's extremely reasonable.  it just goes to show you that affordable compulsory healthcare and strong, sustainable social insurance don't have to come with exhorbitant taxes.

Even in other countries with progressive tax codes they generally only apply the higher rate to higher amounts. So everyone on their first $15,000 or whatever pays the same rate and the higher percentage starts at $15,001.

As far as I know, the US is the only country where it is possible that getting a raise can actually lead to you bringing less money home. Especially when you approach the 28% to 33% bracket. If you make $175,000 (net taxable) you pay roughly $49,000. If you get a raise to say $180,000 you pay $59,400 in taxes. So simply because you got a $5,000 raise you only take home $120,600 instead of $126,000 in reality, your raise is a pay cut. The moral of the story is that if you are near a tax bracket either make just under it or break it by a lot. I am pretty sure we have the most fucked up tax code in the modern world. (In the above example you also have to start worrying about the AMT tax as well which can dramatically increase your tax burden if you have a lot of deductions.)

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10599
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I don't have specific

I don't have specific experience with raises, but the same basic effect can occur here with OT. I was always keeping an eye on my hours to make sure I didn't accept enough to put me in another bracket. As such, I can only assume a raise could easily result in the same.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
 BeyondSaving wrote:Since I

 

BeyondSaving wrote:
Since I am a nice guy, I am willing to compromise with a tax plan where everyone can earn $x tax free where $x is calculated to determine a survivable income- say $15,000. So no one pays one penny of taxes on say the first $15,000 but then everyone pays the same rate on every dollar past that. So if the rate is 40% someone earning $20,000 would pay $2,000 in taxes ($5,000 X .4) and someone earning $100,000 would pay $34,000 ($85,000 X .4). I think that is a reasonable compromise for those who obsess over the poor.

Ensuring that their will be a new generation of dependent people on the government that and pay little or no tax that will survive and increase in number pass on their values to the next generation. So in the future, they'll more people with their hand out or and fewer people willing or able to pay.

When the war on poverty was started two generations ago, we were promised it would only cost a little. The price keeps going up as does the poverty rate and dependency. When does the insanity end? We're creating a moral hazard by not having pay as you go for all services. Do you only care about now and not people in the future?

You make yourself more popular with libs and maybe you can feel good that you're so generous. But don't kid yourself that you're supporting a real long term solution to income discrepancy.

Problems don't get solved by being "nice", they get solved by being rational.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10599
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Says the guy who still never

Says the guy who still never figured out a society only works when there's a government that restricts the wealthy and provides services for the poor.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4481
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
EXC wrote: Do you only care

EXC wrote:

 Do you only care about now and not people in the future?

What possible reason do I have to care about people in the future?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3329
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Even in

Beyond Saving wrote:

Even in other countries with progressive tax codes they generally only apply the higher rate to higher amounts. So everyone on their first $15,000 or whatever pays the same rate and the higher percentage starts at $15,001.

forgot to mention, slovakia has a flat tax rate.  20% taxable income, 20% sales.  works wonderfully.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:What

Beyond Saving wrote:

What possible reason do I have to care about people in the future?

None whatsoever, so if you feel like building a biological weapon that goes off in a few hundred years and infects everyone with AIDS then it's just fine cos those people don't exist yet *thumbs up*.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10599
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
AIDS'll be cured by then. I

AIDS'll be cured by then. I doubt anyone would notice.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4481
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Manageri wrote:Beyond Saving

Manageri wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

What possible reason do I have to care about people in the future?

None whatsoever, so if you feel like building a biological weapon that goes off in a few hundred years and infects everyone with AIDS then it's just fine cos those people don't exist yet *thumbs up*.

What possible reason would I have to want to infect a bunch of people I will never meet with AIDS? Or any other virus?

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:What

Beyond Saving wrote:

What possible reason do I have to care about people in the future?

 

What possible reason do you have to care about people in the present? The only reason may be to fear rioting when poverty leads to chaos.

People back in the 30's and 60's set up things like Social Security, Food Stamps and Medicare because they only cared about themselves or the people living then. They kicked the can down the road as far as dealing with the root causes of poverty and created basically Ponzi schemes. So now we are being forced to pay even higher rates for these entitlements.

At some point it would be nice if a generation was rational enough to use science to tell us what are the root causes of poverty and then create a sustainable fix.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4481
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
EXC wrote:Beyond Saving

EXC wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

What possible reason do I have to care about people in the future?

 

What possible reason do you have to care about people in the present? The only reason may be to fear rioting when poverty leads to chaos.

People back in the 30's and 60's set up things like Social Security, Food Stamps and Medicare because they only cared about themselves or the people living then. They kicked the can down the road as far as dealing with the root causes of poverty and created basically Ponzi schemes. So now we are being forced to pay even higher rates for these entitlements.

At some point it would be nice if a generation was rational enough to use science to tell us what are the root causes of poverty and then create a sustainable fix.

 

I have a lot of reason to care about politics now because I am living in it. But in the future (or really anywhere I am not living) people want to live in a communist, socialist, fascist, RBE, or some other kind of society I don't care. It will be their choice to pass whatever laws they want. If 90% of people are mooching off of 10% or whatever, I don't see why I need to worry about it. They can live in whatever kind of government they want and if the 10% then is willing to pay the burden, their choice. 

We are not forced to pay for entitlements. Indeed, I will not be surprised if in 30 years old people get fucked over on their entitlements and the checks stop coming. They are living on the charity of those still working, and sooner or later the producers will probably decide to stop paying the tab. The danger when you make yourself dependent on others is that other people might not carry your burden indefinitely. Sooner or later they get sick of paying or the money runs out. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson