Trickle down is bullshit

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Yeah those profits were really being gutted.

Caterpillar scaled back production and reduced its inventory by $2 billion, a measure that is likely to continue through the first quarter of 2013. Full-year profit was up 15 percent to $5.68 billion, or $8.48 per share, on revenues of $65.9 billion.

And didn't you say this?

No it's not. That's like the last place they go. And they don't cut salaries, they cut employees. It's usually because they don't have enough work to justify that many employees.
So they cut salaries and employees while still making 4 times as much from employee productivity.

I'm glad we agree that salaries are cut to increase profits.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
Yeah those profits were really being gutted.

Caterpillar scaled back production and reduced its inventory by $2 billion, a measure that is likely to continue through the first quarter of 2013. Full-year profit was up 15 percent to $5.68 billion, or $8.48 per share, on revenues of $65.9 billion.

And didn't you say this?



So they cut salaries and employees while still making 4 times as much from employee productivity.

I'm glad we agree that salaries are cut to increase profits.
Lol did you even look at the link. Catipillars profits dropped 55% in 2013. So yeah cutting salaries was necissary. But then again you still don't seem to know what profits are so I get why this would be tough.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Go back to your post where you bolded the term pre-tax profits and see who is throwing out bullshit. You Google cut and paste then you forget who is the bullshit artist.
I said employers could pay employees more of a share of profits. you said they could not.

Pre-tax or post-tax has nothing to do with that.

What bearing does pre-tax have on giving employees more income?
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
I said employers could pay employees more of a share of profits. you said they could not.

Pre-tax or post-tax has nothing to do with that.

What bearing does pre-tax have on giving employees more income?
Pre tax profit has everything to do with that. As long as the accounting is in a pre tax mode a company can continue to expense items to the profit such as benefits bonuses etc. Once the books are closed out and the bottom line moves to the net profit nothing further can be expended against it because it is now declared the amount of taxable profits. From this point the profits can only be distributed to ownership or retained.

If the net profits are retained the company pays the taxes on that amount. If the net profit Is distributed the individual owners pay the proportionate share on the taxes.
 
Last edited:

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Lol did you even look at the link. Catipillars profits dropped 55% in 2013. So yeah cutting salaries was necissary. But then again you still don't seem to know what profits are so I get why this would be tough.
No they dropped 55% in the 4th quarter and on the year profits were still up.

Caterpillar's fourth-quarter profit fell 55 percent from a year ago to $697 million, or $1.04 per share, on lower sales and the $580 million write off of ERA. Revenue fell by 7 percent to $16.1 billion. Caterpillar said dealers reduced their inventory by about $600 million, lowering sales by $1.4 billion.

Caterpillar scaled back production and reduced its inventory by $2 billion, a measure that is likely to continue through the first quarter of 2013. Full-year profit was up 15 percent to $5.68 billion, or $8.48 per share, on revenues of $65.9 billion.
They still made 5.68 billion in profits, did you read the link?

So yeah cutting salaries was necessary, to keep profit margins up like you have ben denying this whole time.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
I doubt under our current (unreasonably inflated) budget we could ever afford just 15% from even the middle tier of taxpayers, but I agree in principle that the government shouldn't be permitted to ransack someone's earnings, just because they earn quite a bit.
As far as "progressive tax" makes sense. That doesn't take an economist to figure out. Poor people usually need all of the money they earn, a single emergency might lose them their livelihood (for instance if their car breaks down, and they can't go to work). Keeping them infused with as much of their own income as possible makes it more likely they won't become a burden of the state.

The larger a percentage of someone's earnings are devoted to necessities, the more they're going to feed that money directly back into the economy. The less they can afford to pay in taxes. Poor people spend close to 100% of their income on necessities. Rich people spend a fraction of theirs. They can afford to take up poor people's tax burden.

As an aside, this is where businesses and individuals are very different. A business that earns 2 mil a year should be treated as a "middle class" business, since they likely have a ton of expensive necessities.
I guess thinking it makes sense depends on what you think is fair. Of course the poor have less disposable income and thus less available to pay taxes, but the majority of government services also benefit them. They shouldn't be required to pay in an equal share? They are still paying dollar for dollar much less than the middle and upper classes.

This goes back to the idea that only property owners could vote. Of course when you have nothing and you have no stake wasteful spending, you will vote for stupid things like frivolous overseas wars, ridiculous social programs, etc. You don't see it coming out of your pocket. When spending goes up, since you don't pay taxes, why not vote for it?

You should have to have skin in the game. It would make people think about what is really necessary. If taxes hit everyone equal percentage wise, you'd see a lot more informed voter decisions because the budgeting then really hits home. As of now, it's far too abstract a concept to matter to people. Just print more money, we can't see inflation at work!

I'd go one step further too. Not only does out national spending affect everyone equally, thus making you really have to decide whether it's worth it for everyone to be paying for it, I'd make it so that you have to balance the budget and when you go over budget it has to be made up from tax increases in the next calendar year. Went to war in Iraq? Ok. Now everyone's taxes have to jump to 55% next year to cover it.

We'd see priorities fall in line REAL fucking fast.
 
Last edited:

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Pre tax profit has everything to do with that. As long as the accounting is in a pre tax mode a company can continue to expense items to the profit such as benefits bonuses etc. Once the books are closed out and the bottom line moves to the net profit nothing further can be expended against it because it is now declared the amount of taxable profits. From this point the profits can only be distributed to ownership or retained.
Yeah and what does any of that have to do with companies giving employees higher wages or more income.

And since you want to continue going down this road, here is what you said.

In addition I see I am going to have to go simplistic again to make the point.

First of all accounting principles prohibit profits being shared by anyone except ownership. If an owner pays profits to anyone other than ownership they will be paying the taxes as well and take a double hit.

Owners can declare benefits and wages with increases to employees and charge them as expenses to the business but they cannot share profits with employees unless the are part of ownership. If there were other owners or stockholders they could bring legal action for such an act as giving their profits to non ownership. Anything given to an employee must be done before profits are declared because once declared they are the sole property of ownership.

By accounting and by law profits cannot be distributed to anyone other than stockholders or owners without penalty of taxation or risk of civil litigation.


So simply stated owners are not allowed to share profits with employees. They are only allowed to pay wages and benefits before profits are declared. Profits belong to ownership.
Notice how you never mentioned profits as pre and post tax.

That strawman came up when you were proven wrong about the liability of profits being shared.

And just to continue to show you how wrong you continue to be.

For small business owners looking to maximize their savings and minimize their taxes, utilizing a profit sharing option in a 401(k) plan can be a very good decision. Here are some of the benefits for small business owners:

- Employee contributions to the plan are not taxed by the federal and most state governments until they are distributed (usually at retirement age).

- Employer profit sharing contributions are an allowable business deduction. Contributions to the plan are not taxed until they are distributed.

- The small business owner can defer up to $51,000 to his / her 401(k) account in a single year. Significantly more than if they just maximize the $17,500 employee contribution limit.
Many companies are also encouraged to develop profit-sharing programs because they provide significant tax advantages, which can benefit higher-paid as well as lower-paid employees. IRS regulations allow the deductibility of the employer's profit-sharing contributions as a business expense and also allow the deferral of this money into a trust without any tax liabilities until the money is received (usually at retirement, disability, death, severance of employment, or under withdrawal provisions), at which point the employee is usually in a lower tax bracket.

Read more: http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Pr-Sa/Profit-Sharing.html#ixzz487IpDNaK
So it looks like PROFIT sharing actually can benefit companies.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
No they dropped 55% in the 4th quarter and on the year profits were still up.



They still made 5.68 billion in profits, did you read the link?

So yeah cutting salaries was necessary, to keep profit margins up like you have ben denying this whole time.
Lol or because they recognized that demand was going way down. Like any person with an ounce of logic could see. A business that makes zero profit won't last long.

There is a reason you don't understand. You've never owned a business, you never will own a business and in all honesty you probably have never met a person who has owned a business. Your depiction of business owners as some devil like creature in an ivory tower may be the dumbest thing I have read on these boards. If you think business owners owners just wake up and go "I know what I'll do, I'll just go down to the factory floor and ask all of my workers to take a 50% pay cut so that I can make even more money" and that somehow works or is their reasoning then you are even dumber then I thought.

And by the way, the reason you will never own a business isn't because you weren't born rich. It's because your lack of understanding of profits and how to create them is so retarded that your business would instantly fail. Your knowledge on this subject is some of the least intelligent stuff I have read on these message boards. We are all dumber for having read it.
 
Last edited:

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
[MENTION=63]Jiggyfly[/MENTION]
Completely off the topic. Companies can have profit sharing as long as it is expended to the company before they declare the net profit. Once to books are moved to the net profit status they cannot. It's actually pretty simple as long as you can charge it to the company it's okay. Once you move the books to the owners share you cannot. You have now been enlightened so there is no further need to Google non relevant information.
 
Last edited:

skidadl

El Presidente'
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
11,888
Lol or because they recognized that demand was going way down. Like any person with an ounce of logic could see. A business that makes zero profit won't last long.

There is a reason you don't understand. You've never owned a business, you never will own a business and in all honesty you probably have never met a person who has owned a business. Your depiction of business owners as some devil like creature in an ivory tower may be the dumbest thing I have read on these boards. If you think business owners owners just wake up and go "I know what I'll do, I'll just go down to the factory floor and ask all of my workers to take a 50% pay cut so that I can make even more money" and that somehow works or is their reasoning then you are even dumber then I thought.

And by the way, the reason you will never own a business isn't because you weren't born rich. It's because your lack of understanding of profits and how to create them is so retarded that your business would instantly fail. Your knowledge on this subject is some of the least intelligent stuff I have read on these message boards. We are all dumber for having read it.
He likes arguing. When he starts losing he finds something that seemingly fits his view and cuts and pastes. Real life application is beyond him. It is real easy to tear an organization or system down when you live in the land of ideas.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Lol or because they recognized that demand was going way down. Like any person with an ounce of logic could see. A business that makes zero profit won't last long.

There is a reason you don't understand. You've never owned a business, you never will own a business and in all honesty you probably have never met a person who has owned a business. Your depiction of business owners as some devil like creature in an ivory tower may be the dumbest thing I have read on these boards. If you think business owners owners just wake up and go "I know what I'll do, I'll just go down to the factory floor and ask all of my workers to take a 50% pay cut so that I can make even more money" and that somehow works or is their reasoning then you are even dumber then I thought.

And by the way, the reason you will never own a business isn't because you weren't born rich. It's because your lack of understanding of profits and how to create them is so retarded that your business would instantly fail. Your knowledge on this subject is some of the least intelligent stuff I have read on these message boards. We are all dumber for having read it.
Actually businesses that don't earn profits can last for a very long time, often times they're called non-profits. The NFL was a non-profit until recently. Even Amazon has basically failed to earn profits, despite being a for profit company.. It's interesting to me that you'd make such a bold statement as "a business that makes zero profit won't last long", maybe you don't understand business very well. You see there are five fingers: revenue, expenses, assets, liabilities, and owner equity. A business can last indefinitely as long as revenue clears expenses, it would just not add anything to owner equity.

Now obviously it's in the owners best interest to get equity out of their business, but failing to fairly reimburse their work force is still just a shitty thing to do. This is important, because we've seen jobs dwindle down to part time positions and dying wages over the last 50 years, and corporate greed has a lot to do with it. Before executives started fucking,with it, wal-mart employees were like real full time employees.

I had a coworker who was an electrical engineer for Anheiser Busch. When INBEV acquired them they immediately laid off 2/3rds of his department. He was spared from the layoffs, but then they told him that he was going to have to do his own job, as well as his laid off coworkers. Anheiser Busch was not unprofitable as is, but the hallowed "business owners" that took it over wanted the most possible profits, and they did it by firing loyal employees and overworking the rest.

This is not an infrequent event either. I don't know how many factories you've worked for, but it's not uncommon for a functioning company to get bought out or come under knew leadership to get cut to the bone by lean six sigma assholes.

The "ownership" of a lot of these companies didn't start as small business men, they're rich people who haven't built anything for themselves, they acquire a company, and hire some executives to strip in for parts. It's 100% because they were born rich. Near 65% of all stocks are owned by a select few, and they're the same upper class that you could never be, even if your business was wildly successful. (Assuming you have your own)

Those are the people worth complaining about. The people who started this supply side nonsense, not mom n' pops but hugely profitable corporations that do not fairly reimburse their employees, do not pay taxes, and thanks to this faulty system are frequently favored by gov't regulation, and are granted unfair competitive advantages.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
Actually businesses that don't earn profits can last for a very long time, often times they're called non-profits. The NFL was a non-profit until recently. Even Amazon has basically failed to earn profits, despite being a for profit company.. It's interesting to me that you'd make such a bold statement as "a business that makes zero profit won't last long", maybe you don't understand business very well. You see there are five fingers: revenue, expenses, assets, liabilities, and owner equity.
Jesus, if you think the nonprofit designation means that the NFL wasn't turning a profit then you have zero idea what that designation means or how the NFL is able to manipulate the system. I'm not sure if you're intentionally being dense or not. Hell most nonprofits absolutely turn a profit. And if you want to run a business striving for zero profit go for it, you'll be dead broke in a few months.

Again, you clearly have never owned a business. If you think businesses strive to be as efficient as possible so that they can just beat down average Joe for an extra penny in their pocket then you have no idea what it's like to actually own a business. Business owners strive for efficiency (which is what cutting an employee is, whose worl can be done by another employee) because tomorrow isn't promised. Business owners live daily with the knowledge that their business could hit hard times tomorrow. And the best way is efficiency.

You think its cruel ownership firing a man whose job work can be picked up by the guy next to him. I think thats efficiency and its absolute waste having 2 employees doing the work of one.
 

shane

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
1,184
Don't like how a company invests their profits? Don't patronize the company, and don't buy their stock. Problem solved.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Jesus, if you think the nonprofit designation means that the NFL wasn't turning a profit then you have zero idea what that designation means or how the NFL is able to manipulate the system. I'm not sure if you're intentionally being dense or not. Hell most nonprofits absolutely turn a profit. And if you want to run a business striving for zero profit go for it, you'll be dead broke in a few months.

Again, you clearly have never owned a business. If you think businesses strive to be as efficient as possible so that they can just beat down average Joe for an extra penny in their pocket then you have no idea what it's like to actually own a business. Business owners strive for efficiency (which is what cutting an employee is, whose worl can be done by another employee) because tomorrow isn't promised. Business owners live daily with the knowledge that their business could hit hard times tomorrow. And the best way is efficiency.

You think its cruel ownership firing a man whose job work can be picked up by the guy next to him. I think thats efficiency and its absolute waste having 2 employees doing the work of one.
There are some businesses that intentionally create a non profit company and their business operating model is structured to divert incomes to a set of pre determined expenses and never turn a profit. Charities, churches and others fall into that category such as habitat for humanity. These organizations could possibly be profitable but that isn't their intent. All incomes derived are automatically expended or are earmarked for future projects. This is part of the conditions to retain a tax exempt status.

These companies however are staffed with a lot of volunteers who receive no income.

That said, this isn't a business that can contribute to the community with a spendable income staff to influence the economy nor can they assist communities with tax revenue. They are not an example of business for profit that is the revenue functions of most capitalist business enterprises.

Probably tagged this to the wrong post.
 
Last edited:

shane

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
1,184
It doesn't fit the victim agenda.
Yep. They won't be happy until America like Venezuela apparently. Lefties would put every minority in the gutter permanently in a second if it meant robbing and subjugating the rich folks they are so envious of. Worst people on Earth.
 

skidadl

El Presidente'
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
11,888
Yep. They won't be happy until America like Venezuela apparently. Lefties would put every minority in the gutter permanently in a second if it meant robbing and subjugating the rich folks they are so envious of. Worst people on Earth.
Oh no you dint












































tell the truth
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Jesus, if you think the nonprofit designation means that the NFL wasn't turning a profit then you have zero idea what that designation means or how the NFL is able to manipulate the system. I'm not sure if you're intentionally being dense or not. Hell most nonprofits absolutely turn a profit. And if you want to run a business striving for zero profit go for it, you'll be dead broke in a few months.
Amazon has spent most of its existence not posting a profit. They've been around for 12 years. So you're wrong there. Also most businesses are in the red for their first year at least, so if the I managed to get a business into the black within a few months, I'd be a genius. Now absolutely there's nothing wrong with making profit. As long as your model is sustainable. If Mr. Plow doesn't plan for maintenance on his plow, then he's got an unsustainable model. If a company doesn't pay its workforce a living wage, it's model is unsustainable.

Again, you clearly have never owned a business. If you think businesses strive to be as efficient as possible so that they can just beat down average Joe for an extra penny in their pocket then you have no idea what it's like to actually own a business. Business owners strive for efficiency (which is what cutting an employee is, whose worl can be done by another employee) because tomorrow isn't promised. Business owners live daily with the knowledge that their business could hit hard times tomorrow. And the best way is efficiency.
Seriously, how dare you reduce my experiences just because they don't match your own. I don't know what your resume is, but I'm going to fucking assume you haven't seen a toxic management damage a company, solely because they were trying to minimize their work force. I have.

I worked in a factory with a half automated line, because some shining example of efficiency decided to cut our production crew from 12 workers to 4. At the same time layoffs in maintenance caused massive amounts of down time, since there was no one trained on how to repair this equipment, and often faults in the process would go unnoticed for a while because the skeleton production crew wouldn't get around that faze soon enough to catch it. The result was tons and tons of scrap. I got hired on as part of the company trying put the golden egg back in the butchered goose, and had to learn how to fix equipment through hearsay and guess work.

By the way I've studied economics, business, and accounting. I was about 31 hours into an accounting degree before I changed course, so I haven't just fallen off the turnip truck. I also have friends and family who are business owners. Most of them take care of their employees too, because they aren't sociopaths.

Employees are people who make a commitment to a business and a business should be committed to them. That's basic morality, but I guess if Ayn Rand didn't write about it, it's no use to you.

Efficiency in this case was a way to lower expenses, that greatly increased expenses. It's a greedy departure from a functioning business model, to force workers to have less, so stockholders can have more.
You think its cruel ownership firing a man whose job work can be picked up by the guy next to him. I think thats efficiency and its absolute waste having 2 employees doing the work of one.
This proves just how out of touch you are. If you can force one employee to have a miserable life working 100 hours a week, and two more to be fired, you should for efficiency's sake. Fuck that. That's immoral, and unsustainable.

There are plenty of successful companies that treat their employees equitably, pay living wages, and promote a work/life balance and frankly, if they can't they shouldn't exist. Employees just need to hold them to that standard.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
Amazon has spent most of its existence not posting a profit.
:lol

And if they continued that way, their doors would shut, do you not agree? I mean you're making a ridiculous argument and certainly you can see that. Of course luckily for Amazon they turn massive profits at times as well.

"Amazon reported a profit of $513 million, or $1.07 a share, reversing its year-ago loss of $57 million"

If you need me to do that math for you I can certainly can.

I think it is awfully arrogant of you to think that a company should only exist if they operate themselves exactly how you would. And if you were so good at it, you'd run your own business. And by the way, I was working on a factory floor before I could drive a car, so stop with the bleeding heart bullshit. Business owners aren't sociopaths simply because they try to turn a profit. They may make the wrong decisions in attempting to turn a profit but it's not because they want to hurt their employees. They do it because they think what they are doing is best for their business. And anyone who has a problem with their employer is more then free to leave that business and go somewhere else or try their hand at owning a business. The problem is, you can't play victim any long if you actually go out and trying do something. You only get to play the victim card if you act helpless.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
:lol

And if they continued that way, their doors would shut, do you not agree? I mean you're making a ridiculous argument and certainly you can see that. Of course luckily for Amazon they turn massive profits at times as well.

"Amazon reported a profit of $513 million, or $1.07 a share, reversing its year-ago loss of $57 million"

If you need me to do that math for you I can certainly can.
Amazon has secured themselves as titans of retail because they intentionally undercut their own profit to make them more competitive with big box retailers. Personally I have an issue with how they overwork their employees, but the point is that undercutting short profit to invest in your model is a viable business strategy. Having a loyal work force with minimal turnover is an incredible business advantage, and investing in your work force is just as vital as any portion of a business model.

Adding to that is the moral implication. If I were to move elsewhere to work for a factory/firm/upscale prostitution ring, I'm making a commitment to that company, I'm making myself more economically vulnerable for the promise of a reliable job. Treating that as disposable, treating a person's livelihood as meaningless is intensely immoral, and frankly treacherous. Like I've said, there are instances where cuts are necessary to sustain a business, but if you're just trimming the fat for the sake of bigger dividends, that's a son of a bitch thing to do. More so, if you hire a person at what you can afford, and they're there through the lean times, they deserve to be rewarded for their loyalty. As the company starts making gains.

On the Macro scale we've seen a despicable level of wealth disparity in this country, and that's where this "struggling small business owner" comparison fails, companies that make huge profits are acting unethically by failing to consistently compensate the people who are actually producing the product or service that are making these people obscenely rich.

I think it is awfully arrogant of you to think that a company should only exist if they operate themselves exactly how you would. And if you were so good at it, you'd run your own business. And by the way, I was working on a factory floor before I could drive a car, so stop with the bleeding heart bullshit. Business owners aren't sociopaths simply because they try to turn a profit
They're acting unethically if they fail to treat workers equitably, if they can. That's just a statement of fact. Murder is bad, you shouldn't fuck your sister, pay your employees fairly.

They may make the wrong decisions in attempting to turn a profit but it's not because they want to hurt their employees. They do it because they think what they are doing is best for their business. And anyone who has a problem with their employer is more then free to leave that business and go somewhere else or try their hand at owning a business. The problem is, you can't play victim any long if you actually go out and trying do something. You only get to play the victim card if you act helpless.
I don't assume malice. I assume poor intent leading to poor results. Killing the golden goose for the egg. I actually left my last job, because their under staffed maintenance department was making me work a rotating shift schedule that was incredibly dangerous. I worked 7am-7pm 3 days straight, had two days off, and then worked 7pm to 7am for 3 days straight. I quit because there were days where I started losing time on my commute. I would get home without any memory of most of the drive back. So I politely left the factory on good terms. I'm not any kind of victim. I'm going to do fine. I might or might not start a business, depending on a dozen different factors. The best business owners don't just start a business without a very solid plan in place, it's not the kind of thing you should half ass. Of course every dumb asshole who's run a business into the ground has experience as a business owner. So they're sages in your mind.
 
Top Bottom