rubato wrote:A few years ago US international corporations got BushCo to let them re-patriate profits from overseas with a very low tax rate. The argument was that it would stimulate the economy and create jobs.
It didn't.
It just added to the deficit and most large companies used the money to pay investors dividends and buy back their stock; 'pumping' the stock price w/o adding to growth.
Only stupid people think that a recession characterized by a lack of demand can be cured by adding investment capital. When there is already an excess of supply no one will build factories or hire people.
yrs,
rubato
this is from the same person that wants 'investment capital' from the govt? oh wait...
The government paying to build or re-build infrastructure is nothing like "investment capital". But people smarter than mollusks already know that.
You really need to be in re-hab. You are a gibbering idiot.
you have none. two incomplete courses of study do not degrees make.
you have a life full of evaluations with words like 'dull' and phrases like 'dim-witted' peppered thru-out.
and the cool, or not cool thing is, it shows. In everything you do. say. write. experience.
of all of the supposed 'enigmas' here, you are the least enigmatic. you live, breathe, experience, thru others. Your entire lifetime is composed soley of the make believe reality you have *here*. No secret.
But, returning to the thread you have derailed with yet another Gob-style diatribe of inane-ness, in your own words please, tell us how your 'few' (3) stock certificates work.
So Quaddy's whole contrbution to Plan B now comes down to; "Shit I make up in my head due to my inability to get the hang of debate, (and capitalisation,) as I'm a useless drunk."
Still waiting for proof of GE's "70% labour costs".
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
quaddriver wrote: just how many people do GE employ? GE, yanno, the one that brings good things to life and while of course a large importer, is one of the LAST manufacturers in the US....
How many people do they employ, people who make up Quaddy's "70% labour costs"? Fewer and fewer it would seem...
Of course, General Electric (GE) has sold divisions and made acquisitions that make it a different company than it was in 2000, when Immelt took over. But overall, the company has fewer employees, and is much more reliant on foreign workers, than it was when he began his tenure. At the end of 2000, GE employed 313,000 people, including 168,000 in the U.S. (54%). By the start of 2010, when the company filed its most recent annual report, GE had 304,000 workers, including 134,000 in the U.S. (44%).
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Still waiting for *any* number on the labor cost of any manufactured product. Since you stated i cannot be wrong you are therefore easily able to prove it*
(ps: I didnt limit this to GE, you did as the post shows. I state firmly the labor cost for a car, toaster or operating system, is about the same. Now how could I possibly know that?)
*the truth is apparent, he cannot prove me wrong, hence the hissy fit
Last edited by quaddriver on Fri Nov 04, 2011 2:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
How could you know that, yet not prove it? I don't know, maybe you're just dense? Dense enough to make the statement, then to think others will go out of their way to gather the evidence to prove you right, in any case.
You make the claim that labour costs are 70% of production costs (item unspecified), you prove it, dumbass!
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Gob wrote:How could you know that, yet not prove it? I don't know, maybe you're just dense? Dense enough to make the statement, then to think others will go out of their way to gather the evidence to prove you right, in any case.
gee dumbshit. mebbe I work for companys at some point. mebbe I have employees. mebbe I can FUCKING READ when a company moves offshore and states as the reason: labor costs
you dont have to act stupid. You demonstrate you ARE stupid. I take no pleasure in noting that. I just report the facts.
(which brings us to another point, since you derailed the thread. As Sue et al have pointed out, I make no effort to hide in any way. Nearly every facet of my life save bank account numbers and SS is available online via google and the browser of your choice. If at any point EVER I had ever uttered an untruth, it would be easily discoverable. and we all know how you like to jump on untruths you INVENT, let alone find. you have not found one yet. what does THAT say about your mental 'acuity' (snicker))
Gob wrote:How could you know that, yet not prove it? I don't know, maybe you're just dense? Dense enough to make the statement, then to think others will go out of their way to gather the evidence to prove you right, in any case.
gee dumbshit. mebbe I work for companys at some point. mebbe I have employees. mebbe I can FUCKING READ when a company moves offshore and states as the reason: labor costs
you dont have to act stupid. You demonstrate you ARE stupid. I take no pleasure in noting that. I just report the facts.
Facts you cannot prove are valueless. Proof you have offered? None.
So here we have final proof; Quaddy makes a dumbshit assertion, then cannot prove it, so he throws his toys out of the pram in a tantrum as he’s embarrassed himself again.
quaddriver wrote:(which brings us to another point, since you derailed the thread. As Sue et al have pointed out, I make no effort to hide in any way. Nearly every facet of my life save bank account numbers and SS is available online via google and the browser of your choice. If at any point EVER I had ever uttered an untruth, it would be easily discoverable. and we all know how you like to jump on untruths you INVENT, let alone find. you have not found one yet. what does THAT say about your mental 'acuity' (snicker))
He's lost the plot! What is he raving about now? What untruths have I invented Quaddy?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
But you decided to state emphatically what a dumbshit you are:
Labor costs account for roughly 70% of
firms’ production costs.
sez:
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
and the funny part is, that number has held since I first heard it in macro econ class at CMU in 1984, and later iterated by the IBM/ESD president circa 1990 and later by CEO Louie G when he took over. (edited to add: the exact quote I used above came from a document (I had to pick one after all) that was dated 2004)
you could have found this in 10 seconds. I state for the record that you DID find it in 10 seconds, but it proved you once again, WRONG, so we got the value add of your posts above. yay for us!
I suspect you are older than I, hence not likely ever to improve your lot and education et al. Which means, in effect, you actually DID stumble thru life a dumbshit. Yet you call out others.....boggles.
ps: note that the quote supplied by me does not mention GE at all. I submit that the inclusion of GE as Gob did it was a red herring.
But you decided to state emphatically what a dumbshit you are:
Labor costs account for roughly 70% of
firms’ production costs.
sez:
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Linky?
And Quaddy, I hate to break this to you, but that is such a generalised figure as to be meaningless.
quaddriver wrote:and the funny part is, that number has held since I first heard it in macro econ class at CMU in 1984, and later iterated by the IBM/ESD president circa 1990 and later by CEO Louie G when he took over. (edited to add: the exact quote I used above came from a document (I had to pick one after all) that was dated 2004)
Oh, so the mass automation, and computer / IT/ internet development, and changes in manufacturing techniques have not changed that figure since 1984. Do you know how stupid you sound?
quaddriver wrote:you could have found this in 10 seconds. I state for the record that you DID find it in 10 seconds, but it proved you once again, WRONG, so we got the value add of your posts above. yay for us!
I suspect you are older than I, hence not likely ever to improve your lot and education et al. Which means, in effect, you actually DID stumble thru life a dumbshit. Yet you call out others.....boggles.
Sorry to point this out, but you saying something, without actually offering any evidence to back it up;
a) Counts for nothing.
b) Makes you look stupid.
c) Is as childish as hopscotch.
quaddriver wrote:ps: note that the quote supplied by me does not mention GE at all. I submit that the inclusion of GE as Gob did it was a red herring.
No I just pulled out one of the firms mentioned in the report I linked to, you see I, unlike you, provide evidence.
God, you're dumb Quaddy.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Oh, so the mass automation, and computer / IT/ internet development, and changes in manufacturing techniques have not changed that figure since 1984. Do you know how stupid you sound?
um no, I quoted the US dept of labor, and now, a financial publication. So it must be how stupid THEY sound.
Sorry to point this out, but you saying something, without actually offering any evidence to back it up;
Lets see, by my count I gave 5 sources.
1) college
2) Nick Donofrio
3) Lou Gerstner
4) US dept of labor
5) Fiscal times publication
I gave 5 time references
1) 1984
2) 1990
3) 1996
4) 2004
5) 2011
It seems a whole lot of somebodys must sound stupid (as per you) OR the reality is: you are a dumbass.
I'm kinda thinking the latter is the safe bet.
edited to add: still waiting for your dissenting number since I, and well, pretty much a whole shitload of people have proved MY side.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Gob wrote:He gave five sources! Source one; "College"
ahem, apparently my class was worth the credit hours since the lessons taught in it STILL HOLD.
your dissenting claim and source?
still waiting....
edited to add: if only you had attended yourself and learned *anything*...the possibilities would be endless. But we would not be having a derailment about US taxation policy with a proclaimed know it all whose resume is 'shoulder striker for a prison of the mentally infirm'
quaddriver wrote:your dissenting claim and source?
still waiting....
Unit labor costs in nonfarm businesses fell 2.4 percent in the third quarter of 2011 as the 3.1 percent increase in output per hour outpaced a 0.6 percent rise in hourly compensation. Unit labor costs rose 1.2 percent over the last four quarters, because the increase in hourly compensation was greater than the increase in output per hour
BLS defines unit labor costs as the ratio of hourly compensation to labor productivity; increases in hourly compensation tend to increase unit labor costs and increases in output per hour tend to reduce them.
A modest example of how unit labour costs, cannot be, and have never been, static, this is impossible. If unit labour costs can change 1.2% in one quarter, how Quaddy expects them to remain constant over three decades, is, well just more proof of how dumb the man is. Of course, saying “labour costs’ for a nation is meaningless, do silicon chips have the same labour costs as car tyres? Of course not! Meaningless drivel from a meaningless man.
edited to add: if only you had attended yourself and learned *anything*...the possibilities would be endless. But we would not be having a derailment about US taxation policy with a proclaimed know it all whose resume is 'shoulder striker for a prison of the mentally infirm'
Oh dear, in his tantrum he's channelling Editec the well known liar, yet again. Not even original in his lies and slurs. Poor Quaddy, not even man enough to invent his own insults.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
repeating someone else (hint way way smarter than Gob):
Labor costs, which average about 70 percent of total costs, have always held the bigger inflation threat
It just shows, you do not understand the concept, terminology etc. proven quite well. Anyone at home will note that the ONLY??? quote Gob could find does not disprove what many others have said. In fact, it does not even disagree with it.
In fact, (oh this is just so precious) what ELSE did Bloomberg.com have to say about it?
Employment expenses in the U.S. rose more than forecast in the second quarter, led by higher costs for benefits such as health care.
The 0.7 percent increase in the employment cost index from April through June followed a 0.6 percent gain in the prior three months, Labor Department figures showed today. Economists projected a 0.5 percent gain, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey. Wages rose 0.4 percent for a third straight quarter.
With 14.1 million people unemployed and a 9.2 percent jobless rate, workers have little leeway to demand pay increases that account for almost 70 percent of a company’s costs
ps: remember when I always tell people to thoroughly READ the shit they decide to link in? If only yinz would listen OCCASIONALLY
edited to add: Rube and scooter have been frantically thumbing thru thier google searches trying to aid you. they see that they cannot but had the good sense to remain quiet. You could have taken a page from them....
quaddriver wrote:repeating someone else (hint way way smarter than Gob):
Labor costs, which average about 70 percent of total costs, have always held the bigger inflation threat
It just shows, you do not understand the concept, terminology etc. proven quite well. Anyone at home will note that the ONLY??? quote Gob could find does not disprove what many others have said. In fact, it does not even disagree with it.
No it shows I understand the concept far better than you, as I have pointed out all through this thread that an "average" is meaningless.
quaddriver wrote:In fact, (oh this is just so precious) what ELSE did Bloomberg.com have to say about it?
Employment expenses in the U.S. rose more than forecast in the second quarter, led by higher costs for benefits such as health care.
The 0.7 percent increase in the employment cost index from April through June followed a 0.6 percent gain in the prior three months, Labor Department figures showed today. Economists projected a 0.5 percent gain, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey. Wages rose 0.4 percent for a third straight quarter.
With 14.1 million people unemployed and a 9.2 percent jobless rate, workers have little leeway to demand pay increases that account for almost 70 percent of a company’s costs
Yes, thus proving me right and you wrong, yet again. Do you like proving yourself wrong or something?
quaddriver wrote:ps: remember when I always tell people to thoroughly READ the shit they decide to link in? If only yinz would listen OCCASIONALLY
edited to add: Rube and scooter have been frantically thumbing thru thier google searches trying to aid you. they see that they cannot but had the good sense to remain quiet. You could have taken a page from them....
Listening to morons who make up fantasies, as you have above, is pointless. You are an embarrasement to yourself.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
As Harold L. Sirkin, a BCG senior partner, says he expects “net labor costs for manufacturing in China and the U.S. to converge by around 2015. As a result of the changing economics, you’re going to see a lot more products ‘Made in the USA’ in the next five years.”
Shrinking wage gaps, as described by BCG, are part of the story. There’s also a technology side to the story. There are already some new concepts coming out of US shops, including “desktop manufacturing,” made possible by 3D printing. If 3D printing takes hold, mass production within the US could be far cheaper than producing and shipping products from overseas.
BCG also cites examples of US companies that are rethinking their production locations and supply chains for goods destined to be sold in the United States:
Caterpillar Inc. announced last year the construction of a new 600,000-square-foot hydraulic excavator manufacturing facility in Victoria, Texas. Once fully operational, the plant is expected to employ more than 500 people and will triple the company’s U.S.-based excavator capacity. “Victoria’s proximity to our supply base, access to ports and other transportation, as well as the positive business climate in Texas made this the ideal site for this project,” said Gary Stampanato, a Caterpillar vice president.
NCR Corp. announced in late 2009 that it was bringing back production of its ATMs to Columbus, Georgia, in order to decrease the time to market, increase internal collaboration, and lower operating costs.
Wham-O Inc. last year returned 50 percent of its Frisbee production and its Hula Hoop production from China and Mexico to the United States.
Cheaper wages are only just part of the story, BCG adds. Skillsets also play an important role in a region’s ability to support business and manufacturing. “In the U.S., we have highly skilled workers in many of our lower-cost states. By contrast, in the lower-cost regions in China it’s actually very hard to find the skilled workers you need to run an effective plant,” says BCG’s Doug Hohner. Plus, there are infrastructure matters to consider. Smaller low-cost countries simply lack the supply chain, infrastructure, and labor skills to absorb all of it, Hohner says.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
since you have conceded that apparently the entire business world accepts the fact that labor costs are about 70% of a product costs.....we can move on? (as based on the evidence that you provided 3 quotes which in no way refuted it)
Dales mentioned that GE had a $14B 'windfall' ($14B for a company the size of GE is a windfall?) and paid no taxes, lets look at that.
was the 14B NEBT or NEAT? since they paid no taxes and it was income, it has the be NEAT.
$14B would set a tax liability, there is no way to escape that (surely you are not suggesting that no one here has ever done a tax form and at least understands THAT?)
We do understand the difference between income deductions and tax credits right? right?
Anyways, there was some tax liability. and apparently it went to zero. well the only way it could go to zero is if they found tax credits. For a corporation, those are strictly defined and easiliy spottable - investing in disadvantaged areas, hiring disadvantaged workers, investing in green policies and so forth. Credits set BY congress and no other entity. In fact, since the 30's, our tax policy has been largely set by one party: the democrats. small changes by the GOP from time to time yes, but the democrats have always been happy to continue and expand on said changes.
(the tax code is 100% online, you are free to educate yourselves)
so, all that being said, you are getting bunched up because a corporation obeyed the law? wtf?
and lets consider this $14B windfall. Last time I checked, GE was a corporation, so there was no 'who' that took that $14B home and swam in it or converted it into yachts. it was returned to the stock holders (of which Gob is apparently one of) in the form of a 20 some cent dividend. how much does GE stock cost? how much of an ROI is that?
there are a few things they teach at the jr high level, never mind HS or college. One might be that with no profit, net assets or cash on hand - a company wont expand. another might be that with no profit it wont pay shareholders, driving down the price of its own stock and wiping out the valuation. Take england for example - taxed the hell out of its sovereign companys. now they are almost wholly owned by foreign sources. I was under the impression that in the 80's the USA (having bought most of those companies, while losing some ownership stakes to yet more foreigners) decided this was a BAD idea.
I, for the record, belong to the (rational) camp that beleive corporations should pay no income tax. Any profitable endeavor a corporation undertakes will be taxed on the back end as income or dividend income. any undertakings that are expansive in nature will infuse cash into the economy and boost employment. Or, we can decide we no longer need those things.
or put it this way: GE has already outsourced enuf. Mebbe we should force them to outsource the rest? How will THAT work out?
The percentage that labor cost comprises of the ultimate selling price varies from company to company, and product to product. Products that are patented or contain commercially-valuable proprietary technology are likely to have higher gross margins than"commodities." In my experience working for manufacturers, I think that 70% of cost being "labor" is more than a little bit high. Certainly it depends on how you define "labor cost." Journalists are very loose and unsophisticated when it comes to anything technical, including cost accounting. Direct labor? Fringe" Payroll overheads? Supervision? Fixed overheads?
But what difference does it make?
A corporation is not a person. It is a fictitious person created by the state in order to provide certain benefits to investors and founders. For reasons I will explain below, there is no reason - other than public ignorance - for corporations to pay any income taxes at all.
The vast majority of corporations are small businesses, and the vast majority of those small businesses file their taxes under Subchapter S of the Internal Revenue Code. Filing under Subchapter S allows the corporation to file in the same way as a partnership, which is to say that the corporation itself pays no taxes. (This is why you often read breathless headlines telling you that XX percent of American corporations PAID NO TAXES AT ALL LAST YEAR!") The corporation is merely a conduit for the owners to channel their earnings/profits to themselves. The owners pay income tax on the profits that come to them through the corporation. But the corporation pays no INCOME TAXES. It does pay sales taxes property taxes, excise taxes, fuel taxes, and so forth, but no income taxes.
Large corporations (and small businesses who choose not to file under Subchapter S, referred to as "C-Corps"), are treated differently by the Tax Code, because they are perceived by the public and hence, by politicians, as being a different kettle of fish. A C-corp is considered a taxpaying "person" by the Code. There are two major reasons why large corps are treated differently by the taxing bodies: (1) they can generate tax revenue without any individual feeling any significant pain, therefore they are an easy source of money for politicians, and (2) so that their corporate behavior can be manipulated.
Sometimes, if can be argued, Number (2) is a good thing. Congress can induce companies to invest in things that Congress "thinks" are beneficial overall, among which are, drilling for oil, research and development, giving to charity, and making capital investments (through accelerated depreciation provisions).
But the downside of that paradigm is that corporations are tailoring their operations to take advantage of "loopholes" in the tax code, when they should be focusing on making products that people want, and being profitable. It has been said that if the nation's costs of "Tax Avoidance" could be accurately compiled, it would be the second or third largest "industry" in the United States. And yet it produces nothing at all - rather like the practice of law. Would we not all be better off if the tax code were abolished as respects C-corporations, and instead a mandate went out that all corporate profits must be either: (a) paid out to shareholders as taxable dividends, (b) paid to employees as taxable salary and bonus, or (c) re-invested into the company? (and hoarding cash beyond a certain level would not be allowed).
Same as under Subchapter S.
I would venture to say that this change would have no measurable impact on the total revenue coming to the U.S. Treasury through income taxes. The only difference would be that much of the tax revenue would shift from corporate income taxes to personal income taxes. And I suspect that many companies would follow the lead of companies like NUCOR, where up to half of a person's total compensation (production employees included) would be based on the profitability of the enterprise/department.
Again, corporate income taxes are stupid, and serve only to create a wholly-unproductive "industry" of tax avoidance, and to divert corporate attention from profit-making, which is after all the only reason for any corporation to exist. I submit that taxing corporations raises ZERO net money for the Government, but merely sources it from a different revenue stream.
Parenthetically, one must acknowledge that a Large Corporation "thinks" differently from a small corporation, and that does justify different treatment from a regulatory standpoint. If the President of a small company is negotiating with, for example, his employees, he is "close to the ground," and recognizes that there may be more at stake than the mere dollars and cents issues. He wants to run a company where people want to work, not a hell hole.
But in a large corporation, the focus is on "maximizing shareholder value," in order to promote profitability to the exclusion of (almost) all other considerations. And this is the underlying philosophy that justifies outsourcing jobs and the other decisions that make the company profitable at the expense of the employees and the overall society. Unfortunately, in the past 20 years, outsourcing work offshore has become fashionable - a sign of how sophisticated a company want to be perceived as - and I know of a couple typical companies where work was sent overseas and the bottom line didn't improve at all. The expected benefit never panned out.
Maybe the OWS movement will teach these inhumane corporate bastards a lesson.
