truth on hold Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 So Manhattan socialite and major donor to Democratic campaigns (who got her fortune from fugitive Marc rich) escapes the wrath of chuck schumer but the Facebook entrepreneur who helps build a successful business and creates jobs is publicly chastised? Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/07/09/denis-rich-gives-up-us-citizenship-will-save-millions-in-us-taxes-report-says/#ixzz20AAfCjBy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 (edited) you didnt realize the democratic party was also mostly a pro business party? they are liberal in name only man... do you remember bill clinton??? the parties are the same. Edited July 9, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted July 9, 2012 Author Share Posted July 9, 2012 Pro business I dont have a problem with. Pro selective punishment based on campaign donations I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 That's different!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Don't forget she purchased her husband's pardon by making large contributions to the Clinton Library (and probably threw in some personal attention for the former CiC to clinch the deal). Come on rich, liberal celebrities...tell us again how you wouldn't mind paying more in taxes so you can insinuate that everyone who makes $100,000/year should too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted July 9, 2012 Author Share Posted July 9, 2012 (edited) Pro business : low taxes, deregulation, minimal red tape = job growth Pro selective punishment based on campaign contributions : grease Clinton campaign coffers = secure pardon for undeserving billionaire fugitive husband Edited July 9, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Because sometimes one thread just isn't enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted July 9, 2012 Author Share Posted July 9, 2012 * warning: starting threads from mobile phones entails risk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 the parties are the same. Christ, I hope this isn't a herald of the apocalypse, I actually agree with MDP... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 you didnt realize the democratic party was also mostly a pro business party? they are liberal in name only man... do you remember bill clinton??? the parties are the same. yep both parties are owned by big corporations, my order would be FIRE, military industry, Energy, big Pharm, big Farm, and telecommunications/entertainment but I'm sure arguments could be made- use to be the Dems had much bigger obligation to labor and lawyers but not really since Clinton. Pro Business? pro big business or pro corporate would be more accurate I don't see much pro bias towards small and medium size businesses, and of course Pro anyone who writes me a check would be more accurate still as congressmen will support those on the terrorist list (MEK) if they contribute generously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 (edited) The bias is against small and medium size upstarts. Big Business loves to be regulated, usually penning the legislation themselves, because they know that burdensome regulatory costs cannot possibly be absorbed by their smaller would-be competitors, creating insurmountable financial entry barriers and guaranteeing themselves massive and permanent market share. Edited July 10, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 The bias is against small and medium size upstarts. Big Business loves to be regulated, usually penning the legislation themselves, because they know that burdensome regulatory costs cannot possibly be absorbed by their smaller would-be competitors, creating insurmountable financial entry barriers and guaranteeing themselves massive and permanent market share. again yep- these principled stands against regulation are usually just so much hot air, more just a stand against a regulation that is going to cost them money, and I'm sure there are a lot of bad regulations that they are justified to rail against, but most I read about seem to be corporations not wanting to pay for an externality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted July 10, 2012 Author Share Posted July 10, 2012 (edited) The bias is against small and medium size upstarts. Big Business loves to be regulated, usually penning the legislation themselves, because they know that burdensome regulatory costs cannot possibly be absorbed by their smaller would-be competitors, creating insurmountable financial entry barriers and guaranteeing themselves massive and permanent market share. You hit the nail on the head wrt schumer. Saw it first hand in hedge fund space. Post crisis he lobbied hard for more regulation and red tape for smaller and new funds, including putting words in bernankes mouth. When clearly the problem was on a scale of magnitude it was 99% the domain of large banks, insurance companies and mega funds. But chuckie gets a lot of dough from major billionaire hedge fund managers like Steve Cohen, who can stomach the costs of increased regs the smaller ones cant. Big guys love the thought of more barriers to keep néw entrants out Edited July 10, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 again yep- these principled stands against regulation are usually just so much hot air, more just a stand against a regulation that is going to cost them money, and I'm sure there are a lot of bad regulations that they are justified to rail against, but most I read about seem to be corporations not wanting to pay for an externality. While the corporations will often want to avoid the short run burden of excessive regulatory requirements, in the long run it's largely irrelevant to their profit structure b/c it applies to their competitors as well so they just add it into the price structure. This benefits the biggest corporations for the reasons TYTT stated, & the burden of regulatory compliance is paid for by those who consume the output of the industry, usually the general public. Just as a corporate tax isn't so much transferring money from big corporations to the government but is in practice a relatively flat tax on the public, regulatory compliance drains resources out of the economy and is lost like harnessed energy being lost as heat. The question is whether the value added by that regulation is greater than the value of production lost as a result of that burden. And most, if able to fully comprehend the impact, would be shocked to know how much of our resources are burned in the furnace of regulatory compliance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) While the corporations will often want to avoid the short run burden of excessive regulatory requirements, in the long run it's largely irrelevant to their profit structure b/c it applies to their competitors as well so they just add it into the price structure. This benefits the biggest corporations for the reasons TYTT stated, & the burden of regulatory compliance is paid for by those who consume the output of the industry, usually the general public. Just as a corporate tax isn't so much transferring money from big corporations to the government but is in practice a relatively flat tax on the public, regulatory compliance drains resources out of the economy and is lost like harnessed energy being lost as heat. The question is whether the value added by that regulation is greater than the value of production lost as a result of that burden. And most, if able to fully comprehend the impact, would be shocked to know how much of our resources are burned in the furnace of regulatory compliance. Precisely. Businesses don't pay taxes, individuals do. Businesses report to a bottom line, and on the ledger, taxes are just another expense that must be factored into the business plan. When taxes on business go up, prices go up to reflect those tax increases and pass the cost along to the consumer. The saddest part is, that those who scream to soak the corporations with higher taxes are those who most often cannot afford the correlating price increases which they directly cause. Edited July 11, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts