What's new
By:

Kamala Harris for Pres

SoberasHotRod said:
Sure, and if there is real evidence of this happening it should stop.

Hopefully non food industry people can also respect and understand that the food industry is extremely competitive, already has very low margins, and that commodity pricing in a global market makes price gouging in those categories less likely.
Click to expand...
Here and a DOJ investigation and suit are some of the evidence...


View: https://youtu.be/ycEczZKYLW8?si=220w6ExBCkctHg61
 
RandyForRubio said:
I don’t see how anybody can support a tax on unrealized capital gains. Unless the goal is to severely reduce the stock market.
Click to expand...
Please keep in mind that a lot of the taxes were already in effect in one form or another and in much higher percentages during our Golden age, from the late 40's through the mid-60's. Then they started fiddling with the tax laws, giving huge breaks to corporations and wealthy individuals, spurring us to a rollercoaster of recession after recession and insane national debt. Let's go back to the Golden age of the 50's, minus the racism and bigotry, when everyone had a piece of the American Pie, and not just the crumbs people can scrape off the edge of the plate of the ultra-wealthy and huge oligopolistic corporations. To do this, taxes will have to go up. And no, no matter how much the right tries to fear-monger this, it wont lead to complete societal collapse.. In fact it will lead to better societal balance and prosperity for a majority of Americans. Of course you have to give up ultra-billionaire like musk and bezos, and add some competition into the supposedly "free market economy" we all supposedly love. To me that's a pretty damn good trade. But boy will the death-throes of the ultra-wealthy be fierce! You mean I can only be worth more than 1,000 people can spend in a lifetime and not 10,000? The hell you say!
 
LogGrad98 said:
Here and a DOJ investigation and suit are some of the evidence...


View: https://youtu.be/ycEczZKYLW8?si=220w6ExBCkctHg61
Click to expand...

Wow, that's crazy, and really bad if true. Also it's obviously illegal and should be stopped.

I don't typically trust documentaries, but a couple searches for new releases at least confirm the lawsuit. I do like to be fair and there are always two sides to every story. FWIW this is what agristats is claiming.

 
SoberasHotRod said:
Wow, that's crazy, and really bad if true. Also it's obviously illegal and should be stopped.

I don't typically trust documentaries, but a couple searches for new releases at least confirm the lawsuit. I do like to be fair and there are always two sides to every story. FWIW this is what agristats is claiming.

Click to expand...
Yep and Bundy claimed he never killed anyone for the first half decade he was in prison. Where there is smoke smoke there is most often fire. And for this one there is a California-wild-fire load of smoke.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Please keep in mind that a lot of the taxes were already in effect in one form or another and in much higher percentages during our Golden age, from the late 40's through the mid-60's. Then they started fiddling with the tax laws, giving huge breaks to corporations and wealthy individuals, spurring us to a rollercoaster of recession after recession and insane national debt. Let's go back to the Golden age of the 50's, minus the racism and bigotry, when everyone had a piece of the American Pie, and not just the crumbs people can scrape off the edge of the plate of the ultra-wealthy and huge oligopolistic corporations. To do this, taxes will have to go up. And no, no matter how much the right tries to fear-monger this, it wont lead to complete societal collapse.. In fact it will lead to better societal balance and prosperity for a majority of Americans. Of course you have to give up ultra-billionaire like musk and bezos, and add some competition into the supposedly "free market economy" we all supposedly love. To me that's a pretty damn good trade. But boy will the death-throes of the ultra-wealthy be fierce! You mean I can only be worth more than 1,000 people can spend in a lifetime and not 10,000? The hell you say!
Click to expand...
Nothing you said has anything to do with why taxing unrealized capital gains makes any sense. It’s a really nice word salad, but completely irrelevant.
 
SoberasHotRod said:
Wow, that's crazy, and really bad if true. Also it's obviously illegal and should be stopped.

I don't typically trust documentaries, but a couple searches for new releases at least confirm the lawsuit. I do like to be fair and there are always two sides to every story. FWIW this is what agristats is claiming.

Click to expand...
Google around some more. There is actually a LOT of info out there on this. Some circumstantial, but even that seems to be a bit too circumstantial really. Hard to defend a hell of a lot of it.

And frankly it's very hard to defend the gutting of anti-trust laws and enforcement, which is pretty well-documented.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Google around some more. There is actually a LOT of info out there on this. Some circumstantial, but even that seems to be a bit too circumstantial really. Hard to defend a hell of a lot of it.

And frankly it's very hard to defend the gutting of anti-trust laws and enforcement, which is pretty well-documented.
Click to expand...

Ok, and for what it's worth I was able to talk to my friend at PepsiCo. She doesn't work on their soft drink category, but in their snacks devision, but I trust what she says and that she knows what she's talking about.
She said there is no way there would be any anti competitive working with Coke. She also mentioned some sticky costing on their end that is hurting their margins as a company. They have some ingredient contracts that were agreed upon during shortages that are long term and prevent them from getting better better costing right away. Just a small piece of the puzzle, but from everything I'm seeing as well, raw material costs are still really high.
 
RandyForRubio said:
I’d kinda like our economy to do well, and if the stock market crashes…well, I mean, it’s kinda obvious.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's gonna crash, sure dude.

1. It's not gonna ****ing crash.

2. If the line goes down for a minute, who gives a flying ****. Oh I'll tell you who:

1724206478653.png

I have a sizable 401k but guess what, we need a way to effectively and fairly tax high-wealth individuals. Income tax isn't gonna cut it. what's your solution?

Here, you get taxed on your house, It's called property tax. I think we can tax other assets too.
 
SoberasHotRod said:
Ok, and for what it's worth I was able to talk to my friend at PepsiCo. She doesn't work on their soft drink category, but in their snacks devision, but I trust what she says and that she knows what she's talking about.
She said there is no way there would be any anti competitive working with Coke. She also mentioned some sticky costing on their end that is hurting their margins as a company. They have some ingredient contracts that were agreed upon during shortages that are long term and prevent them from getting better better costing right away. Just a small piece of the puzzle, but from everything I'm seeing as well, raw material costs are still really high.
Click to expand...
Yeah but they brought in record profits and used chunks of that in stock buy-backs, right after a price hike. And coke immediately followed suit. When there are only 2 of you in the sandbox it's not hard to see what the other one is building and build one a little bigger. Still hard to argue that 2 humongous companies controlling any industry are better than many with roughly even shares duking it out. Unless you are looking for what is best for the companies and not the consumers. Free market economics would greatly favor multiple companies, again, for the consumer.
 
MT Steve said:
For clarity's sake, you should also probably point out that it only applies to people whose income exceeds $100 million for 3 straight years or whose assets exceed $1 billion for 3 straight years.
Click to expand...
And in a few years it’ll get dropped down to a lower level of income. We’ve seen it before.

Regardless, the point is that it doesn’t make sense to tax a gain that hasn’t physically materialized yet. It would be like if your house gained value, you’d have to pay a tax on the amount it increased, every single year, in addition to property tax.
 
MT Steve said:
For clarity's sake, you should also probably point out that it only applies to people whose income exceeds $100 million for 3 straight years or whose assets exceed $1 billion for 3 straight years.
Click to expand...
How will they survive though?

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
Safetydan said:
Yeah it's gonna crash, sure dude.

1. It's not gonna ****ing crash.

2. If the line goes down for a minute, who gives a flying ****. Oh I'll tell you who:

View attachment 17091

I have a sizable 401k but guess what, we need a way to effectively and fairly tax high-wealth individuals. Income tax isn't gonna cut it. what's your solution?

Here, you get taxed on your house, It's called property tax. I think we can tax other assets too.
Click to expand...
Easiest way to increase the tax on high wealth individuals is to simplify the tax code and make it a flat tax. Don’t create a billion ways to get out of things.

But creating a tax on a wealth gain that hasn’t physically materialized doesn’t make any sense! Are they going to credit if a stock tanks and they lose money? The logistics of it just don’t make any sense at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top