Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,102
- 245
Sure. 7.94B ÷ 446.95B = 0.017764850654435619196778163105493
Anything else?
Which is approximately 1.8%, not 0.01%, which is what you claimed.
Is that the new RWN math?
What?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sure. 7.94B ÷ 446.95B = 0.017764850654435619196778163105493
Anything else?
Which is approximately 1.8%, not 0.01%, which is what you claimed.
Is that the new RWN math?
but they do have elecetric bills and heat bills and water bills, and sometimes lawn maintenance and repair of their homes, and the costs of maids, costs of leasing or buying a car etc etc etc....which are expenses that are similar to businesses, that businesses can write off....effective rates are not comparable between individuals and business UNLESS you calculate taxes on the gross income revenues of both imho.....it may not be defined or calculated that way but to compare, equally and fairly, it should be...again, imo.Effective tax is total taxes divided by total income. For Walmart it's 2%. For the average married couple it's 12%.
Correct, income not revenue. The average married couple doesn't have COGS. You're clearly not a very educated "one percenter." No wonder you're a liberal.![]()
We are BOTH, the individual and the business, suppose to pay taxes only on our PROFITS....yet, from what I have read, 60% of all tax filers, only use the short form.....? And maybe that is what the standard deduction is for....???? the deduction from our income....??? but it is NOT nearly enough to cover what it takes.....and having all those individuals filing the short form, no matter the income, only to have operating expenses equal to the one FLAT standard deduction amount is insane.....for the gvt to use that net as our profits, on the individual
Walmart, and other corporations, pay taxes on their NET income, not their gross income. Walmart paid an effective tax rate of 31%, based on their net income.
While Obama's supporters over at GE paid ZERO in 2010. Don't see much commentary on that.
General Electric Paid No Federal Taxes in 2010 - ABC News
Sure. 7.94B ÷ 446.95B = 0.017764850654435619196778163105493
Anything else?
Which is approximately 1.8%, not 0.01%, which is what you claimed.
Is that the new RWN math?
If minimum wage were raised, presumably many people's wages would be bumped at least a little. Even though only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, the people who started out at minimum wage and got raises would get upset if brand new employees suddenly got as much as they did, so lots of wages would go up.
So how many jobs would be created or saved by this move -- for instance because of the increase in spending money available for local spending?
And how many jobs would be lost -- for instance because the increase in American wages would make offshore labor look more appealing, or because business owners' profit margin wouldn't support a 20% hike in labor costs so they would let a small portion of their workforce go and hope for more productivity from the rest?
Let’s just say for example that the new “living” minimum wage is double the current federal minimum wage: $7.25 x 2= $14.5/hr (+-$30,160 per year). The people who would supposedly benefit the most would be low skilled workers right? Now what about the moderate skilled workers who were making $15/hr already? Would they sweat in the hot sun all day as a construction worker if they knew they could make the same stocking shelves at Wal-Mart? Would they freeze in the winter as an HVAC repairman crawling under people’s houses if they could make the same amount sweeping the floors as a janitor? Would you? Employers dealing in construction, heating/air, plumbing, etc., will need to considerably increase wages to keep their staff on board. Indeed, all skilled labor employers would need to increase the wages of their workers in order to remain competitive in the market for skilled labor, or else, their competitors will grab them. Moreover, high skilled labor would need to increase their pay and benefits.
If you mandated a living wage you would only create a new poverty line with the same amount of poverty as you started off with, if not more, after the market settles down. There is indeed a reason why service stations no longer hire teenagers to service the cars of travelers.
Exactly.......If raising the minimum wage would end poverty, poverty would have been eradicated when the MW went from 75 cents an hour to $1.25 an hour.
Poverty is relative. Pay people $100.00 an hour and they will still be poor.
Even if the minimum wage went to $100 per hour.
Then a gallon of milk would cost $50 and a loaf of bread would be $25 at the grocery store.
Like Katzndogz said......it's all relative. ..![]()
Which is approximately 1.8%, not 0.01%, which is what you claimed.
Is that the new RWN math?
Actually it is basic math. I understand now why you are so confused if something as simple as division and how numerals are expressed is confusing to you.
Percentage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Interestingly enough such concepts were used as far back as Rome according to the article. That certainly precludes it from being ‘new.’
One thing I know, what is a living wage is entirely subjective. I know people who couldn't live on $1000/week. And I know others who can live on a flat rock.
I'm not advocating one way or the other on Walmart paying more taxes....I'd rather they pay their own employees more, the ones who actually do the work, and sell and stock and maintain their products so that they CAN sell what they sell and be profitable. Paying employees more is actually TAX FREE for walmart....no?but they do have elecetric bills and heat bills and water bills, and sometimes lawn maintenance and repair of their homes, and the costs of maids, costs of leasing or buying a car etc etc etc....which are expenses that are similar to businesses, that businesses can write off....effective rates are not comparable between individuals and business UNLESS you calculate taxes on the gross income revenues of both imho.....it may not be defined or calculated that way but to compare, equally and fairly, it should be...again, imo.Correct, income not revenue. The average married couple doesn't have COGS. You're clearly not a very educated "one percenter." No wonder you're a liberal.![]()
We are BOTH, the individual and the business, suppose to pay taxes only on our PROFITS....yet, from what I have read, 60% of all tax filers, only use the short form.....? And maybe that is what the standard deduction is for....???? the deduction from our income....??? but it is NOT nearly enough to cover what it takes.....and having all those individuals filing the short form, no matter the income, only to have operating expenses equal to the one FLAT standard deduction amount is insane.....for the gvt to use that net as our profits, on the individual
And companies are not the same as people nor do they pay taxes in that matter. They should NOT pay taxes in that manner either and nowhere in the world that I know of does such an asinine system exist. They don’t do this because the money that you are so bent on them paying taxes is NOT income – it is money recycled BACK into the company in order to create goods. That is NOT what you do with your money at all. Instead, you expend it on whatever you want at the moment. No creation at all. IF you were creating something to sell, it would be a business AND TAXED in that same manner. Should you decide to create said business, your ‘income’ would be taxed in the same way that Wal-Mart does but first you might actually have to offer something of value.
What you are advocating ensures one thing – the complete collapse of how the market works and businesses ability to exist.
Here is what you are advocating:
Wal-Mart sold 446.95 billion in sales. If you were to tax that figure at 10% (still less than you are demanding but simplifies the math) you end up with a tax burden of 44.7 billion dollars. Wall-Marts actual profits (pre-tax) were 25.7B meaning that Wal-Mart would be running at a net loss of 19B. They either drastically increase prices, fire thousands or more likely both. You want to equate this to a person’s check – it would be like the government deciding that even though you took home 50k last year, you actually owe 100k in taxes because you own a big house.
You have completely misunderstood how taxes actually work to include the fact that you contradicted you OWN source (the one that defines taxes).
Walmart, and other corporations, pay taxes on their NET income, not their gross income. Walmart paid an effective tax rate of 31%, based on their net income.
While Obama's supporters over at GE paid ZERO in 2010. Don't see much commentary on that.
Answer this: How much of the ability for GE to do this came from Republicans? Then you'll have your answer.
While Obama's supporters over at GE paid ZERO in 2010. Don't see much commentary on that.
Answer this: How much of the ability for GE to do this came from Republicans? Then you'll have your answer.
In 2010, Democrats controlled the White House and Congress. In fact, Democrats controlled 26 of the last 33 Congresses, during which the tax code as it is today was shaped. So, you're right, I have my answer.
Democrats are hypocrites who blame Republicans as they ensure their cronies won't have to pay the same taxes as the rest of us.
Answer this: How much of the ability for GE to do this came from Republicans? Then you'll have your answer.
In 2010, Democrats controlled the White House and Congress. In fact, Democrats controlled 26 of the last 33 Congresses, during which the tax code as it is today was shaped. So, you're right, I have my answer.
Democrats are hypocrites who blame Republicans as they ensure their cronies won't have to pay the same taxes as the rest of us.
Really?
Meltdown 2008 Timeline
Show us how smart you are.
The economic meltdown was years in the making. It was the result of 10 years of Republican control of the public purse from 1996 to 2006. While Bill Clinton was President, taxes and spending were balanced and responsible, but once Bush was elected, it was cut and spend all the way.
The Democrats took back the House in 2006, taking control of the House in January of 2007, and their first fiscal year began in the Fall of 2007 as the outgoing Congress' last budget year ended in October, 2007. There is no way you can blame the Democrats for the results of 10 years of Republican mismanagement of the public purse because it takes years for the results of public policy to impact the general economy.
Republicans never want to take responsibility for the messes they create and saying that it's the fault of the Democratic congress which had had control of the public purse for less than a year when the shit hit the fan is just laughably weak.
The economic meltdown was years in the making. It was the result of 10 years of Republican control of the public purse from 1996 to 2006. While Bill Clinton was President, taxes and spending were balanced and responsible, but once Bush was elected, it was cut and spend all the way.
The Democrats took back the House in 2006, taking control of the House in January of 2007, and their first fiscal year began in the Fall of 2007 as the outgoing Congress' last budget year ended in October, 2007. There is no way you can blame the Democrats for the results of 10 years of Republican mismanagement of the public purse because it takes years for the results of public policy to impact the general economy.
Republicans never want to take responsibility for the messes they create and saying that it's the fault of the Democratic congress which had had control of the public purse for less than a year when the shit hit the fan is just laughably weak.
Far left propaganda.
If the minimum wage was raised in a year the effect would be non existent.
The economic meltdown was years in the making. It was the result of 10 years of Republican control of the public purse from 1996 to 2006. While Bill Clinton was President, taxes and spending were balanced and responsible, but once Bush was elected, it was cut and spend all the way.
The Democrats took back the House in 2006, taking control of the House in January of 2007, and their first fiscal year began in the Fall of 2007 as the outgoing Congress' last budget year ended in October, 2007. There is no way you can blame the Democrats for the results of 10 years of Republican mismanagement of the public purse because it takes years for the results of public policy to impact the general economy.
Republicans never want to take responsibility for the messes they create and saying that it's the fault of the Democratic congress which had had control of the public purse for less than a year when the shit hit the fan is just laughably weak.
The economic meltdown was years in the making. It was the result of 10 years of Republican control of the public purse from 1996 to 2006. While Bill Clinton was President, taxes and spending were balanced and responsible, but once Bush was elected, it was cut and spend all the way.
The Democrats took back the House in 2006, taking control of the House in January of 2007, and their first fiscal year began in the Fall of 2007 as the outgoing Congress' last budget year ended in October, 2007. There is no way you can blame the Democrats for the results of 10 years of Republican mismanagement of the public purse because it takes years for the results of public policy to impact the general economy.
Republicans never want to take responsibility for the messes they create and saying that it's the fault of the Democratic congress which had had control of the public purse for less than a year when the shit hit the fan is just laughably weak.
If the minimum wage was raised in a year the effect would be non existent.
Since the cost of everything would increase rather sharply, the only ones that would really be affected are those elderly trying to get by on Social Security or are on a fixed income. Most pensions don't have a COL adjustment as well. And it would be forever, not just a year.