Learn Me: Average Wage Across Business as Measure of Success vs Profitability?

GameboyRMH said:

z31maniac said:

This is the typical "Perfect is the enemy of good" situation. 

Is the www.fairtax.org perfect? Absolutely not. Is it loads better than the nearly 80,000 page tax code we currently have that is massively skewed toward things like the wealthy and rewarding people for having children? I think it is. 

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. Yes the current tax code is overcomplicated and full of loopholes and flaws, but to me, keeping progressive tax brackets around is worth keeping that baggage vs. going to a flat sales tax which is effectively regressive. This thread was really about inequality, and with the FairTax, the wealthier you are the harder you'd be laughing all the way to the bank, especially because sales taxes are the easiest tax to jurisdiction-shop for. Very wealthy people already do a lot of their spending outside their home country, this would just turn it up to 11.

To me it seems like the reverse income tax carve-out at the bottom is the only thing keeping FairTax from looking like it's twirling its mustache at me.
 

How can it be a real progressive tax when with the loopholes and perks  that are deductible  don't count?  
   It may claim that but as always the devil is in the details.  
       A no exception flat sales tax  will collect equally and automatically from everyone.  Including many like Jeff Bezos who previously didn't pay much if any income tax.  
   If the tax burden is unfair on the poor there is a extremely simple way to correct it. 
  Below a certain level the government supplements your income.  
  

z31maniac said:

Datsun310Guy said:

In reply to z31maniac :

Manager at work would throw this down to me all the time.  Salesman gets big order and he gets a big commission.  Branch manager gets paid extra on branch growth. Regional guy gets extra too.  

Three guys making hoses might now have to work all day Saturday for 1.5x hourly wage.  Work enough overtime and it's decent but not as encouraging as the other guys.  

Our problem was overtime wasn't always a way to motivate our guys. Why kill yourself? For the donuts the salesperson would bring in on Saturday?

Exactly. That's why I don't take side jobs. Even if the companies that ask were willing to pay 1.5x my rate, I'd rather not be working late nights/weekends. 

That's your right.   It also should be an incentive for the company to either offer you enough to make it worth your while or be willing to hire and train others to do what needs to be done.  ( at likely a much higher cost ). 

I like that in a traditional progressive-bracket system the loopholes can be fixed, in a FairTax system the fact that the system becomes effectively regressive above the cutoff point for the government supplement is an inherent feature that can't be addressed. Bezos will always pay the same percentage of sales tax as someone making $1 above the cutoff...except that person will spend most of their money on basic necessities in-country, and if Bezos lives frugally enough in the US and spends all his money in Monaco, he might be able to pay a smaller absolute amount than that guy.

And the first step to fixing that loophole (more of a design flaw) would be to start taxing money spent outside the country.

GameboyRMH said:

I like that in a traditional progressive-bracket system the loopholes can be fixed, in a FairTax system the fact that the system becomes effectively regressive above the cutoff point for the government supplement is an inherent feature that can't be addressed. Bezos will always pay the same percentage of sales tax as someone making $1 above the cutoff...except that person will spend most of their money on basic necessities in-country, and if Bezos lives frugally enough in the US and spends all his money in Monaco, he might be able to pay a smaller absolute amount than that guy.

And the first step to fixing that loophole (more of a design flaw) would be to start taxing money spent outside the country.

Well "theoretically" the loopholes can be fixed. But the point is they won't. If you say "they could" again, I would ask "Well then why haven't they?"

Which goes back to my point is that the tax code allows Congress to encourage/reward certain behaviors. 

I enjoy theoretical discussions, hence the philosophy minor, but I also know what happens in the real world. 

In reply to GameboyRMH :

In effect we do!   When you fly back into the country you have to declare  purchase which are subject to import duty.  With a flat tax you'd also need to pay that tax as well.  All a national sales tax eliminates is income tax.  If you look 2% of the GDP is near perfectly what is collected in income tax.  
    I'm not saying there aren't ways around that  but at least it's a start.  
  

z31maniac said:

GameboyRMH said:

I like that in a traditional progressive-bracket system the loopholes can be fixed, in a FairTax system the fact that the system becomes effectively regressive above the cutoff point for the government supplement is an inherent feature that can't be addressed. Bezos will always pay the same percentage of sales tax as someone making $1 above the cutoff...except that person will spend most of their money on basic necessities in-country, and if Bezos lives frugally enough in the US and spends all his money in Monaco, he might be able to pay a smaller absolute amount than that guy.

And the first step to fixing that loophole (more of a design flaw) would be to start taxing money spent outside the country.

Well "theoretically" the loopholes can be fixed. But the point is they won't. If you say "they could" again, I would ask "Well then why haven't they?"

Which goes back to my point is that the tax code allows Congress to encourage/reward certain behaviors. 

I enjoy theoretical discussions, hence the philosophy minor, but I also know what happens in the real world. 

I don't remember the constitution giving Congress  the right to control / reward any  behaviors.    
     

z31maniac said:

Well "theoretically" the loopholes can be fixed. But the point is they won't. If you say "they could" again, I would ask "Well then why haven't they?"

Well they have fixed the loopholes. The problem is that they're also making more, so some loopholes still exist much like fixing bugs in software.

Edit: Maybe I should add that this piece of software also suffers from supply chain attacks where intentionally exploitable code gets committed to the repo and regularly makes it to release...

I'd argue that the bailouts and handouts that the government has been giving in the last decade are indicative of the weird stuff happening in our economy as a result of the inability to get more money spread around the economy, but also some of the weird accounting loopholes being used so that people who should be more responsible for their individual finances, or corporate finances, escape the comeuppance they deserve. 

I don't think anyone is proposing to scrap the capitalist system, but improve upon it in ways that we already see value similar to Germany, Norway, Sweden, etc. 

While yes, the poorest in our country have it better than those in the DRC, they are also probably using a lot more government assistance, and benefit from infrastructure built decades ago (where DRC never had it in the first place.) 

I just don't like this idea that we're saying "poor people should be happy." I'm not poor, I'm not unhappy, but there is a lot of division in our society due to pointing blame at others, and I'd bet some of everyone's complaints are actually based in fact. 

Would we not be more productive, as a society, as humanity, if we could address those real, measurable issues on inequality in a way that would make both the poorest and richest agree on the fairness? 

frenchyd said:

z31maniac said:

GameboyRMH said:

I like that in a traditional progressive-bracket system the loopholes can be fixed, in a FairTax system the fact that the system becomes effectively regressive above the cutoff point for the government supplement is an inherent feature that can't be addressed. Bezos will always pay the same percentage of sales tax as someone making $1 above the cutoff...except that person will spend most of their money on basic necessities in-country, and if Bezos lives frugally enough in the US and spends all his money in Monaco, he might be able to pay a smaller absolute amount than that guy.

And the first step to fixing that loophole (more of a design flaw) would be to start taxing money spent outside the country.

Well "theoretically" the loopholes can be fixed. But the point is they won't. If you say "they could" again, I would ask "Well then why haven't they?"

Which goes back to my point is that the tax code allows Congress to encourage/reward certain behaviors. 

I enjoy theoretical discussions, hence the philosophy minor, but I also know what happens in the real world. 

I don't remember the constitution giving Congress  the right to control / reward any  behaviors.    
     

And? 

How many times have we gone to war without Congressional approval? The last time there was congressional approval was WWII. But let's not take this off on a completely unrelated subject. 

pheller said:

I'd argue that the bailouts and handouts that the government has been giving in the last decade are indicative of the weird stuff happening in our economy as a result of the inability to get more money spread around the economy, but also some of the weird accounting loopholes being used so that people who should be more responsible for their individual finances, or corporate finances, escape the comeuppance they deserve. 

I don't think anyone is proposing to scrap the capitalist system, but improve upon it in ways that we already see value similar to Germany, Norway, Sweden, etc. 

While yes, the poorest in our country have it better than those in the DRC, they are also probably using a lot more government assistance, and benefit from infrastructure built decades ago (where DRC never had it in the first place.) 

I just don't like this idea that we're saying "poor people should be happy." I'm not poor, I'm not unhappy, but there is a lot of division in our society due to pointing blame at others, and I'd bet some of everyone's complaints are actually based in fact. 

Would we not be more productive, as a society, as humanity, if we could address those real, measurable issues on inequality in a way that would make both the poorest and richest agree on the fairness? 

Bailouts/handouts were a result of loosening financial regulations on many different things, nothing about reducing inequality. It was specifically in response to a few different bills passed that allowed egregious risk taking. For example repealing of the Glass-Steagall act, took less than 10 years to wreck the economy with that one.  And the rich guys still got their money back and more. 

There are many other examples, but it's Friday night so I'm getting off the internet. Have a good weekend!

Oh good, this debate again. I'll just assume the same people are arguing the same fake points as the last 6 times and ignore it this time. I know, rich people are bad and poor people are poor for reasons they can't control. Rich people that were poor, were never "really poor". I get it. 

In reply to pheller :

I just don't like this idea that we're saying "poor people should be happy." I'm not poor, I'm not unhappy, but there is a lot of division in our society due to pointing blame at others, and I'd bet some of everyone's complaints are actually based in fact. 

Would we not be more productive, as a society, as humanity, if we could address those real, measurable issues on inequality in a way that would make both the poorest and richest agree on the fairness? 
 

Unfortunately, it's based a lot more on feelings than fact. There is also a lot of confusion about the differences between equal opportunity and equal outcome. Equal opportunity is important, and I firmly believe that we are at the peak of equal opportunity in all of the history of human civilization. Equal outcome is not realistic, and destructive to try to implement. The only way to guarantee equal outcome is to make everything worse.

Again, be careful what you wish for. Who do you want to make things more "fair" for? Because if you include the world, be ready for your standard of living to drop like a rock. 

Don't get me started on the word "fair". It's the most misused word in the English language. Agree on fairness? What does that even mean? It's a word with a specific definition. You can't change the definition and then expect to come to an agreement. 

In reply to Steve_Jones :

Yea, I don't know why joined this discussion again. I know it mostly falls on deaf ears, but I hope someone reads it and gets it. The thought of relying on others to fix my life for me rather than taking responsibility makes me shudder.

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to Steve_Jones :

The thought of relying on others to fix my life for me rather than taking responsibility makes me shudder.

Started my career in purchasing - always wanted to be in sales.  

Left for a job in inside sales while loudly telling everyone I want to go to outsides sales.  Learned the rubber, belting and hose industry. 

Left for an outside sales position that was good but lacked a solid compensation plan.  

Left for a small base pay and a heavy commission based outside sales position.  Push myself 5-6 days a week to make the most I've ever made.  A lot of work but the wife and I are okay with how it all works out.  

You gotta have some ambition in this world.  

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to frenchyd :

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

Job mobility isn't as simple as you make it.   If your home is near your employment finding a similar job with better pay includes calculating the cost of the move.  Either commute costs that may be significantly higher or selling you home which may have serious costs to your long term  fincial health even with higher pay.   
  The cost of selling is typically around 10% of the houses valve between listing costs, required repairs, updates, moving costs, and acquisition of required items to make the new home liveable.  
 If you live in a typical $250,000 that's $25,000 moving costs which come from the equity in your home which may have taken you 10 years to achieve.  
 

So the solution is to overhaul the whole capitalist system instead? Which, if you play the math out- puts everyone back in the same position in which they started. 
 

I know lots of successful people, and a few unsuccessful people. Do you they have in common? The unsuccessful people make excuses and blame others for their position in life, while the successful people don't, and take ownership of their own situations. Every time we have these discussions- successful people who have been there, done that, share the keys to getting ahead. Instead of heading the advice, the same old arguments of why they are wrong keep coming up, despite all evidence to the contrary.

I work with dozens of business owners. I've seen failures and successes. Success is hard, it doesn't just happen. In my experience- hard work, setting goals, and the willingness to make sacrifices trump all other advantages to success. I've seen those with every opportunity blow it because the lacked the above and those with lots of disadvantages succeed because they were willing to do whatever it took. 

Nailed it. 

It's a super odd phenomenon, but the harder and longer I work, the more money I have.

Odd.

In reply to SV reX :

Or.  

 The unsuccessful ones work hard improve things and eventually succeed. 

     Kinda like I did.  

Steve_Jones said:

Oh good, this debate again. I'll just assume the same people are arguing the same fake points as the last 6 times and ignore it this time. I know, rich people are bad and poor people are poor for reasons they can't control. Rich people that were poor, were never "really poor". I get it. 

Steve if that's all you take away from debates like this you won't learn anything.   
 When informed articulate people with opinions different than mine Speak I listen.  
  They may have valid points even if I disagree with their premise. 
   For example I used to be anti gun. 
 Then someone explained that it's wasn't about guns but a freedom of choice. As said in the Declaration of Independence. 
 Pursuit of Happiness

I know plenty of people who work much harder than me who earn far less and have less wealth than I do. I know people who don't work as hard as me who have way more. I know people who work much harder than me who have more. I know people who are lazy and complain about how hard life is.

I notice people who are successful tend to take more credit on themselves and not any fortunate position or lucky breaks.

I notice people who are poor tend to place more blame on their position and bad luck.

It's almost like the situation you're in and the work you put in BOTH matter.

frenchyd said:

In reply to SV reX :

Or.  

 The unsuccessful ones work hard improve things and eventually succeed. 

     Kinda like I did.  

Frenchy, you have an odd way of playing whichever side of the fence you happen to like on any particular day. 
 

Some days you are a poor school bus driver who got really beat down by a system completely beyond his control that everyone should feel pity for.
 

Other days you are a millionaire genius businessman and salesman par excellence who has set an example everyone else should follow. 
 

It's like a split personality. Honestly, it makes me skip over much of what you write. 

frenchyd said:

Steve_Jones said:

Oh good, this debate again. I'll just assume the same people are arguing the same fake points as the last 6 times and ignore it this time. I know, rich people are bad and poor people are poor for reasons they can't control. Rich people that were poor, were never "really poor". I get it. 

Steve if that's all you take away from debates like this you won't learn anything.   
 When informed articulate people with opinions different than mine Speak I listen.  
  They may have valid points even if I disagree with their premise. 
   For example I used to be anti gun. 
 Then someone explained that it's wasn't about guns but a freedom of choice. As said in the Declaration of Independence. 
 Pursuit of Happiness

  

    

Well, you're either broke because of "reasons" or you're crazy rich depending on the day. For that reason alone, I put 0 faith in anything you write. I have nothing to learn from you. 
 

Edit: Paul must have typed while I had a tab open. What he said. 

In reply to SV reX :

Have you ever worked for someone who did some good things and some bad things?   I've worked for a fair number of companies like that. 
Caterpillar for example makes some great equipment and some equipment made for political reasons. 
   They started a high lift division. I worked for and made them a lot of money.   ( myself too) My Boss really pulled everything together and got it up and running to be the most profitable division.  3 1/2 years in the owner retired and his son took over.  The first move he did was fire my Boss and hire his college roommate buddy.   Within a Year everyone who had made that division successful was fired and the room mate buddy hired all new guys who knew nothing.  When I was let go?  I was averaging over 2 million dollars in sales at over 15% gross. My replacement took 14 months to make his first sale.  That was the 1990's 
  Later during the 2008 recession. I was the last salesman left working for Ingersol Rand.  They had to let me go.   No problem, they were a great company well run. Good people. But the economy couldn't support me.  Or my 6 figure income or expenses.  
  After that you know what happened to me.