Do you REALLY think it's fair that some big companies are allowed to make large profits?
Do you REALLY think it's fair that some big companies are allowed to make large profits?
Which is worse (or 'unfair') in your mind:
a) A company that makes a profit of $4 billion on revenues of $100 billion
b) A company that makes a profit of $4 million on revenues of $10 million
c) A company that makes a profit of $400,000 on revenues of $1 million?
As long as they and their board pay they same taxes or more than us poor folk, sure!
Your question illustrates your ignorance. Companies aren't "allowed" to make profits, they employ people and capital to go out and earn them against their competitors. This is like asking, do you really think it's fair that some runners are faster and get to run in the Olympics.
liberal mania wrote:
Do you REALLY think it's fair that some big companies are allowed to make large profits?
Profiting isn't the issue. Not paying a living wage and using government tax breaks & subsidies to profit are issues, however. There are more, but I'll start there.
liberal mania wrote:
Do you REALLY think it's fair that some big companies are allowed to make large profits?
It is counterproductive to penalize success and/or productivity. Success should be rewarded, not penalized.
Example: One guy wins several local 5k's. To be "fair," should he be required to run farther than everyone else or carry weights so he finishes when everyone else finishes?
Can't you not allow them by taxing them?
Your stop them from collecting their earnings
liberal mania wrote:Do you REALLY think it's fair that some big companies are allowed to make large profits?
Depends on the company. The most profitable:
1. Apple: good because liberals like their products and dirty poor republicans can't afford their products.
2. Exxon-Mobile: bad because oil is evil and our iPhones and Priuses are powered by unicorn farts.
3. Samsung: not sure. Not as cool as Apple but not evil like oil.
4. Berkshire-Hathaway: good because Warren Buffet is a democrat and he's going to give all his money away.
5. Chevron: evil oil.
Others:
China companies: okay. We don't care if nonwhite people are evil.
Russian companies: bad, I think. Are they still communist? Putin's bad, right? Can I get back to you on this one?
Microsoft: Not sure. They kinda looked like a big evil company in the past, but now Bill Gates seems like a liberal do-gooder, So maybe okay.
WalMart: you have to ask? Razor thin profit margin, but so much volume that they are actually making money, which bad because those smelly lower middle class people shop there. And they're not even union. WalMart: eww!
Lib Rules wrote:
liberal mania wrote:Do you REALLY think it's fair that some big companies are allowed to make large profits?
Profiting isn't the issue. Not paying a living wage and using government tax breaks & subsidies to profit are issues, however. There are more, but I'll start there.
No one forces people to work at a specific place or job. If they don't like the wage, then they can look for something better. Eventually the business owner (s) will have to offer bigger salaries to staff his/her business, if they cannot find workers at the wage they are paying. Supply and demand. if you accept a certain wage, don't whine about it. Or better yet, the workers can decide to take their destiny into their own hands IE go to school and study, scrape, save and eventually become successful as most that do it this way are. I don't like tax breaks and subsidies any more than the next guy but they wouldn't be necessary if our worthless politicians (on BOTH sides) were able to reduce significantly their out of control spending.............and thereby reduce the tax rates on everyone, including business.
Lobbbhy wrote:
As long as they and their board pay they same taxes or more than us poor folk, sure!
You are either a liberal, or a teenager, or just plain ignorant.
Board pay the same taxes? Of course they do. Board members are generally honorary positions, or are appointed because of a constituent shareholder base. Board members don't receive much compensation for their duties.
OLD SMTC SOB wrote:
Lib Rules wrote:Profiting isn't the issue. Not paying a living wage and using government tax breaks & subsidies to profit are issues, however. There are more, but I'll start there.
No one forces people to work at a specific place or job. If they don't like the wage, then they can look for something better. Eventually the business owner (s) will have to offer bigger salaries to staff his/her business, if they cannot find workers at the wage they are paying. Supply and demand. if you accept a certain wage, don't whine about it. Or better yet, the workers can decide to take their destiny into their own hands IE go to school and study, scrape, save and eventually become successful as most that do it this way are. I don't like tax breaks and subsidies any more than the next guy but they wouldn't be necessary if our worthless politicians (on BOTH sides) were able to reduce significantly their out of control spending.............and thereby reduce the tax rates on everyone, including business.
C'mon, man. Do you honestly believe the thousands of people working for "minimum wage" are all just lazy? There are people trying to support their families on minimum wage because there aren't other jobs to be had where they are - especially jobs that pay more. Meanwhile, the businesses are making profits had-over-fist and sending none of it to the men and women on their front lines.
Mine and about 150,000 other people worldwide have our salaries paid by the hugely profitable company we work for. I live very comfortably and have no problem with my company making gobs of money. They also give me stock and allow me to purchase more stock in the company at a discounted rate so I can reap in the rewards. Millions of people worldwide make their livelihood working for big companies making large profits.
Lib Rules wrote:
OLD SMTC SOB wrote:No one forces people to work at a specific place or job. If they don't like the wage, then they can look for something better. Eventually the business owner (s) will have to offer bigger salaries to staff his/her business, if they cannot find workers at the wage they are paying. Supply and demand. if you accept a certain wage, don't whine about it. Or better yet, the workers can decide to take their destiny into their own hands IE go to school and study, scrape, save and eventually become successful as most that do it this way are. I don't like tax breaks and subsidies any more than the next guy but they wouldn't be necessary if our worthless politicians (on BOTH sides) were able to reduce significantly their out of control spending.............and thereby reduce the tax rates on everyone, including business.
C'mon, man. Do you honestly believe the thousands of people working for "minimum wage" are all just lazy? There are people trying to support their families on minimum wage because there aren't other jobs to be had where they are - especially jobs that pay more. Meanwhile, the businesses are making profits had-over-fist and sending none of it to the men and women on their front lines.
Many, (but not all) are............yes. Time and time again I hear about folks that drag themselves up by shear force of will to do things that many would think not possible, but do it just the same. Granted not everyone has the drive and ambition............but they should also not be rewarded for the lack thereof. You get outta life (and athletic competition) what you put into it in terms of effort. I'm also not saying that many business owners and corporations are not greedy, but this is a capitalist system, and its up to the owners to do right by the people that work for them. That cannot be legislated. Case in point is here in New England, a chain of supermarkets called Market Basket. if you've not heard of them, you can look them up on the internet. Fascinating story.
Liberal consistency wrote:
liberal mania wrote:Do you REALLY think it's fair that some big companies are allowed to make large profits?Depends on the company. The most profitable:
1. Apple: good because liberals like their products and dirty poor republicans can't afford their products.
2. Exxon-Mobile: bad because oil is evil and our iPhones and Priuses are powered by unicorn farts.
3. Samsung: not sure. Not as cool as Apple but not evil like oil.
4. Berkshire-Hathaway: good because Warren Buffet is a democrat and he's going to give all his money away.
5. Chevron: evil oil.
Others:
China companies: okay. We don't care if nonwhite people are evil.
Russian companies: bad, I think. Are they still communist? Putin's bad, right? Can I get back to you on this one?
Microsoft: Not sure. They kinda looked like a big evil company in the past, but now Bill Gates seems like a liberal do-gooder, So maybe okay.
WalMart: you have to ask? Razor thin profit margin, but so much volume that they are actually making money, which bad because those smelly lower middle class people shop there. And they're not even union. WalMart: eww!
Well done.
Life isn't fair.
dummies amounst us wrote:
Lobbbhy wrote:As long as they and their board pay they same taxes or more than us poor folk, sure!
You are either a liberal, or a teenager, or just plain ignorant.
Board pay the same taxes? Of course they do. Board members are generally honorary positions, or are appointed because of a constituent shareholder base. Board members don't receive much compensation for their duties.
Do they pay the capital gains rate?
dummies amounst us wrote:
You are either a liberal, or a teenager, or just plain ignorant.
Board pay the same taxes? Of course they do. Board members are generally honorary positions, or are appointed because of a constituent shareholder base. Board members don't receive much compensation for their duties.
Um, do you know what the difference between an executive and a non-exuective director is?
An executive director sits on the board and will be making bank at most large companies. The CFO and CEO at the company I work for both earn well into the 7 figures.
A non-exec is not an "honorary" position, they are supposed to independently hold the company to account. They are also paid tens of thousands of dollars a year for a couple of days work a month. So not a bad deal.
OLD SMTC SOB wrote:
Lib Rules wrote:C'mon, man. Do you honestly believe the thousands of people working for "minimum wage" are all just lazy? There are people trying to support their families on minimum wage because there aren't other jobs to be had where they are - especially jobs that pay more. Meanwhile, the businesses are making profits had-over-fist and sending none of it to the men and women on their front lines.
Many, (but not all) are............yes. Time and time again I hear about folks that drag themselves up by shear force of will to do things that many would think not possible, but do it just the same. Granted not everyone has the drive and ambition............but they should also not be rewarded for the lack thereof. You get outta life (and athletic competition) what you put into it in terms of effort. I'm also not saying that many business owners and corporations are not greedy, but this is a capitalist system, and its up to the owners to do right by the people that work for them. That cannot be legislated. Case in point is here in New England, a chain of supermarkets called Market Basket. if you've not heard of them, you can look them up on the internet. Fascinating story.
" I'm also not saying that many business owners and corporations are not greedy, but this is a capitalist system, and its up to the owners to do right by the people that work for them. That cannot be legislated."
It is legislated. These companies are given subsidies and tax breaks from the gov't all while not being forced to provide adequate compensation & benefits. The company makes its profits and the employees have to go to the gov't for assistance.
Cut the subsidies and tax breaks to companies and allow the government to help everyone. The companies [especially the large companies] are helping no one but themselves.
OLD SMTC SOB wrote:
Lib Rules wrote:C'mon, man. Do you honestly believe the thousands of people working for "minimum wage" are all just lazy? There are people trying to support their families on minimum wage because there aren't other jobs to be had where they are - especially jobs that pay more. Meanwhile, the businesses are making profits had-over-fist and sending none of it to the men and women on their front lines.
Many, (but not all) are............yes. Time and time again I hear about folks that drag themselves up by shear force of will to do things that many would think not possible, but do it just the same. Granted not everyone has the drive and ambition............but they should also not be rewarded for the lack thereof. You get outta life (and athletic competition) what you put into it in terms of effort. I'm also not saying that many business owners and corporations are not greedy, but this is a capitalist system, and its up to the owners to do right by the people that work for them. That cannot be legislated. Case in point is here in New England, a chain of supermarkets called Market Basket. if you've not heard of them, you can look them up on the internet. Fascinating story.
Also, for every one feel-good "story" you hear/read about, how many not-so-feel-good stories do you think go unpublished? Thousands.
Lib Rules wrote:
liberal mania wrote:Do you REALLY think it's fair that some big companies are allowed to make large profits?
Profiting isn't the issue. Not paying a living wage and using government tax breaks & subsidies to profit are issues, however. There are more, but I'll start there.
We should shutter all profitable companies. They are evil and don't contribute anything to society in today's world.