Taxation and Misrepresentation

Discussion in 'Plumbing Forum, Professional & DIY Advice, Tips & ' started by nhmaster, Oct 30, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. nhmaster

    nhmaster Master Plumber

    Messages:
    3,189
    Location:
    S. Maine
    Don't the fools at the state house and the fed realize that every time they either come up with a new tax or raise the business taxes we already pay that we have to raise our prices to cover the increase. Naturally then we pass the tax on to the customer. So do all businesses. When the taxes eventually get to the point where we can no longer sell our products or services then we pack up and move our businesses to Taiwan or Korea. All business taxes are regressive and punish the consumer. Businesses don't just take the hit and live with it. We pass the misery on. I think there should be absolutly no business taxes at all. It's unfair to the consumer to tax business. Imagine how much less a gallon of gas would be if there were no business taxes attached to it. Would businesses be awash in profit? No more so than they would be anyway. The market adjusts to need and what the consumer is willing to pay. competition drives prices. Taxes drive prices up.

    Where's the harbor and that damn boat full of tea? :rolleyes:
  2. Ladiesman271

    Ladiesman271 Homeowner

    Messages:
    221
  3. Redwood

    Redwood Master Plumber

    Messages:
    7,450
    Location:
    Connecticut
    Oh no they get substidized! Check your facts!
  4. nhmaster

    nhmaster Master Plumber

    Messages:
    3,189
    Location:
    S. Maine

    You did not read and or understand. A tax on business is a tax YOU pay. If there were no business taxes, goods and services would be way way less expensive and the economy would be booming in a real way (not the wall street speculator way) and we would have a return of our industrial base that has been shipped overseas in the last 75 years. You can not continually punish capitalism and then expect your economy to be strong. You can directly trace the decline of Americas industrial base and the shipping of corporations and jobs overseas to the continuing rise in business rax rates. When the tax burden reaches the point where the company can no longer sell it's product at a competitive market price then they pack up and move to a more favorable environment. It is in vogue to blame the company and believe that they are only jumping ship in order to get cheap foreign labor. Though labor rates do indeed sweeten the deal, it is the grossly lower tax rates that are the real driving force behind their exodus. Do you really believe that if you raise Exxon Mobile's taxes that they will take it on the chin wighout raising gas and oil prices? To believe that is naive at best. Again, raise their taxes and YOU will pay the price.
  5. Cookie

    Cookie .

    Messages:
    5,658
    Location:
    .
    Corporate greed will never go away even if business taxes would.
  6. Redwood

    Redwood Master Plumber

    Messages:
    7,450
    Location:
    Connecticut
    [​IMG]

    You said it all Cookie...

    Looks like we still have a firm believer in the "Trickle Down Theory of Economics" among us...

    After 29 years of hearing that giving the wealthy breaks so they can get more wealth which they will then pass down to us worker bees...
    All we have seen is they want more for less and they are more willing to walk over anyone to get it...

    If you still believe that stuff you have got to have one of these things hanging off your lip!

    [​IMG]
  7. Cookie

    Cookie .

    Messages:
    5,658
    Location:
    .
    Greed rules.
    I think the average lifespan of an executive is -42. And, the lifespan of someone working for them, can be even worse.
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2008
  8. maintenanceguy

    maintenanceguy In the Trades

    Messages:
    107
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    The govt. is not going to do without the tax revenue it's now getting from business. So it really doesn't matter much if they pick the pocket of business who in turn picks my pocket or if they just pick mine directly.

    It's just easier for our government to tell the stupid public that they're not taxing them, they're taxing business.

    Besides, there are a huge number of 9-5ers who resent the business owner that does better financially than they are doing. It doesn't matter that the business owner usually works twice the hours, takes more then twice the risk. They just want to see the business owner get "what's coming to him" so tax away.
  9. nhmaster

    nhmaster Master Plumber

    Messages:
    3,189
    Location:
    S. Maine
    Please define for me "Corporate Greed" Are those of us running plumbing businesses greedy? How much profit should we be allowed to make? Is Exxon Mobile more greedy than a one man plumbing shop? Does it not stand to reason that companies driven by corporate greed will price their product out of reach? Why do we punish profit? Do you really want anyone putting a limit on your profit?
  10. Cass

    Cass Plumber

    Messages:
    5,980
    Location:
    Ohio
    Lets see I build and sell 10 expansion tanks a year.

    I sell it with my profit included for $10.00 each so I make $100.00 / year.

    The government assesses me a tax of $100.00/year.

    I tack it on to my expansion tank sales so now my tank sells for $20.00/each. and gross sales are $200.00/year.

    Ten home owners buy 1 tank each this year so I sell $200.00 worth.

    I send $100.00 to the government and keep my $100.00.

    Is this what your saying = taxing the people through taxing businesses?
  11. Ladiesman271

    Ladiesman271 Homeowner

    Messages:
    221


    You would fit in well with the wall street crowd. AKA greed is good.

    The way the wall street crowd thinks is that all profits should go to the risk taker. In the fine print notes, they forget to say that all losses will be paid for by the government (AKA the public).

    This is known as free market socialism. Wait until you see your next retirement account statement!
  12. hj

    hj Moderator & Master Plumber Staff Member

    Messages:
    26,689
    Location:
    Cave Creek, Arizona
    taxes

    How much money does the government "earn"? Absolutely ZERO, therefore its only income to fund social, welfare, and community development is from taxes. No taxes means no road work, no medicare, and no aid to the needy, (and I guess no bailout of the greedy ceos), regardless of how we feel about the needs of these programs. The problem is with the politicians who are more concerned with "pork" projects ifor the good of their states, or their reelection, than with using their tax income for the good of the entire nation. Thus needing more and more revenue to fund them. One candidate is boosting both increased social programs AND massive tax cuts, but I doubt if he is worried about how to accomplish that as long as the masses THINK it will benefit them.
  13. jimbo

    jimbo Plumber

    Messages:
    8,997
    Location:
    San Diego
    Oil companies only work on less than 5% profit margin. Most business would fail trying to work on that small a margin. The upfront exploration and drilling costs in that business are huge, and so are the risks.

    Now for the best part: If there is some "windfall" profits due to the ahabs jacking up the price of crude, where does that money go....( the part that does not go to the ahabs)? It goes out as dividends to people who are smart enough to own Exon stock. Like ME!!! So keep ponying $4 for gas....I love it!!!!!!!!!!
  14. MACPLUMB 777

    MACPLUMB 777 TROJAN WORLDWIDE SALES RP

    Messages:
    679
    Location:
    Houston, Texas, United States
    Tax's and bar stool economics

    BAR STOOL ECONOMICS

    Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

    If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

    The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
    The fifth would pay $1.
    The sixth would pay $3.
    The seventh would pay $7.
    The eighth would pay $12.
    The ninth would pay $18.
    The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

    So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the</ SPAN> owner threw them a curve.

    'Since you are all such good customers, he said, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.

    Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

    The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

    They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

    And so:

    The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
    The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
    The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
    The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
    The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
    The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

    Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

    'I only got a dollar out of the $20, 'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got $10!'

    'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'

    'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'*

    'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The syst em exploits the poor!'

    The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

    The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

    And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

    David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
    Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

    For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
    For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.










    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5 Travel Deals!
  15. nhmaster

    nhmaster Master Plumber

    Messages:
    3,189
    Location:
    S. Maine
    I'm just glad I got everyone thinking. Maybe if we all did some deeper thinking then we would begin to take a much closer look at the people that we elect to do our thinking for us. I do not have a solution. If I did I would be either the richest or dead'est person on the planet. I do know that I, as a businessman pass along any and all taxes, fines and fees to my customer base. So when I hear about upping taxes on business I know and they know that what they are really talking about is taxing you. And then to make you feel a little better they give you a tax break that amounts to fas less than the hidden tax increase because they know that Joe Average will never do the math and even if the figures are flashing neon in front of his eyes, he's too apathetic to actually do anything about it. I don't mind paying my fair share for security and infrastructure. But I do mind paying for needless and mindless waste. And Washington is more than full of it.
  16. Cookie

    Cookie .

    Messages:
    5,658
    Location:
    .
    I don't know, you tell me. What is greed to you? What is the difference between greed and a corporation greed? I can't answer if you are as a businessman, running your plumbing business or any business for that fact greedy. Are you? How much profit do you want to make? How do you want to make that profit? In what terms? Is Exxon more greedy than a one-man show? I can't answer that either, who is the one man? I don't punish profit, so how can you say, " we" punish profit? You can punish profit, but, you can't say we meaning, me. No one is putting a limit on how much profit you can make, it is on only HOW you make that profit. If you can understand greed, then you would understand that last sentence.

    I hope I answered your questions to the best of my ablility.
  17. nhmaster

    nhmaster Master Plumber

    Messages:
    3,189
    Location:
    S. Maine
    First off Cookie, I didn't mean you. I was talking metaphorically. On to how much profit do I want to make? As much as the traffic will bare.

    Mac Plumb that piece is absolutly brilliant. Indeed if you don't understand it you probably never will.
  18. Furd

    Furd Engineer

    Messages:
    446
    Location:
    Wet side of Washington State
    In principle, I agree with nh. It truly is the end consumer that really pays all the taxes. But in many cases the consumer can reduce, if not avoid, taxes simply by not buying the goods or services offered by any particular seller.
  19. Cookie

    Cookie .

    Messages:
    5,658
    Location:
    .
    I didn't think you did, but when you generalize that is the way it looks to others. You got to realize that. I was setting an example for you by which to learn. I am quoting you when you said, " you are glad you got everyone thinking and thinking to deeper levels" I am just enlightening on using generalizations. To go deeper you would have to start to use statistics, and collect data from research. You would need to delve deeper into philosophical reasonings. This may not be brillant, infact, it is just first year material.
  20. Cookie

    Cookie .

    Messages:
    5,658
    Location:
    .
    Yep, they could always replace their own gas lines and boilers. *Grumpy, are you reading this, jump in and say something!" You are boiler king!

    Just for your knowledge:

    Metaphorical Generalisation
    The use of metaphor is a dynamic phenomenon which enables us to generate new meanings from old. This process can be illustrated with the phenomenon of metaphorical generalisation. The view that metaphor is a principal avenue by which language progresses is based on the perfectly reasonable assumptions that language has to start somehow, and its initial concerns would have been with items in a speaker's immediate vicinity. A plausible origin myth is that the most primitive linguistic resources provided rudimentary verbal representations for solid sensible objects and for animal and (especially) human activities (Stanford 1936). Initially the resources of natural language would presumably have been fairly parsimonious. A problem is: how could the primitive linguistic resources, grounded in representations for sensible objects and expressions for basic activities, be extended to embrace the higher reaches of abstract thought that we now articulate through the rich resources of natural language? A fundamental mechanism for extending and refining language is metaphor.

    Consider the verb 'run'. In its simplest and most basic sense it designates a human (and animal) activity. But through metaphorical extension it comes to be applied to objects which lie outside its basic reference class, such as rivers. The term began with a more limited scope or extension, and when talk first arose of rivers running it must have sounded bizarre. It might well have been objected, when the metaphor was green and fresh, that rivers cannot run: they have no legs. This is a banal example of so-called frozen (or dead) metaphor. Once metaphor freezes (or dies) it becomes an ordinary part of our literal vocabulary. So it comes about that rivers run, taps run and fences run, and they 'run' in a way which has generalised the meaning of this expression.

    When we speak of fences 'running' around a boundary, for example, there is no suggestion of motion. The metaphor has generated a static sense of 'running'. Running has acquired the sense of following a path. That has amplified one aspect of the original idea of running, and suppressed other elements. Running is a simple activity which involves putting one leg in front of the other in a certain systematic, sequential and rhythmic fashion. It is a basic activity, but one nevertheless with complicated aspects, and by abstracting certain elements of the activity we are able to produce a generalisation of the basic sense of the word.

    Metaphorical extension in this way, starting from the modest beginnings of describing macroscopic objects and simple activities, forges and reshapes concepts and thereby modifies language so that it comes to embrace an ever wider and more complicated repertoire of referents and activities. This process or generalisation and abstraction is a plausible explanation of how it is that we are able to start off with a decidedly limited or restricted set of verbal resources and extend them further, and reshape and refine them, to cope with the ever more complicated world which these very resources help us to create.


    Semantic Depth
    Metaphor, then, is not an alternative way of expressing common sense but a common way of achieving new sense. But how does metaphor change meaning? And why is the process problematic? A basic puzzle is that metaphors are typically literally false. Yet clearly there is some sense in which they are not only not false, but can provide very valuable insights. But how can a sentence provide important insights if it is false? Evidently there must be some internal or underlying complexity which will explain this.

    Expressions surely must have a deep as well as a surface level. It is at the surface level that we recognize the falsehood of the metaphor. Consider the example (taken from Searle 1979) 'Richard is a gorilla'. We apprehend immediately that this sentence is not literally true. Indeed if Kripke (1980) is right about the meaning of natural kind expressions, not only is Richard not a gorilla, he is necessarily not a gorilla. How can a necessarily false statement provide us with an interesting and possibly useful insight?

    The answer presumably is that the words have more complex structure than a naive Fregean account might lead us to believe, and this structure is revealed by the possibility of metaphorical use. Expressions may have a primary sense and a primary reference, but metaphorical use is able to activate secondary sense, and thereby generate a new extension for the expression. These subsidiary ideas and associations show that in addition to a primary sense and reference there is also a penumbra of additional associations or meanings. When the literal meaning is deactivated, because of the falsehood of the sentence, a switching happens and the secondary meanings latent in the penumbra are activated.

    It will have been noted that I have been producing a steady stream of metaphors in the process of explicating metaphor. There is nothing viciously circular or objectionable in this procedure. In the case of metaphor, explication need not involve elimination.

    The penumbra of associated secondary meanings is extremely interesting. Suppose that Mabel is a gorilla in the local zoo. When we say that Mabel is a gorilla, the associated meanings do not intrude at all. But when we apply the description to the man Richard, something interesting happens. As soon as we apprehend that the description is literally false, which usually happens immediately and unconsciously, the expression becomes semantically charged with secondary meanings latent in the associated semantic penumbra. Metaphors work typically by activating these subsystems of associations described by Black (1962), as a 'system of associated commonplaces', and by Mill (1875: Book I, Ch. 2, §5) as 'connotations'.

    Another interesting fact is that the associated commonplaces are often not literally true of the objects from which they are derived. To describe someone as a gorilla might be to suggest that they are large, clumsy, hairy, and perhaps unpleasantly fierce or aggressive. That is one possible interpretation of this metaphorical description. But, thanks to ethologists such as Dian Fossey (1985), we know that gorillas in fact are quite gentle creatures, and by no means clumsy. What is important for the effectiveness of the metaphor is not what is true about gorillas, but rather the associated conceptions, or misconceptions, about gorillas.

    These commonplaces or associations have a habit of hanging around, even after the literal meaning has changed. To be in a political wilderness is not to be in a pristine, unspoiled place of great natural beauty. Even a person who knows what gorillas are really like, may use and understand that word metaphorically in a way which respects not the actual characteristics of gorillas, but the common prejudices that are associated with them.

    There are, in short, commonplaces or connotations associated with a large number of expressions, and this constellation of associated ideas provides the semantic charge which explodes when the expression is used metaphorically.
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2008
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page