Should Mitt release his tax returns?

[northeast]

But isn't it the responsibility of the company to create the greatest profit for the benefit of the shareholders of the company?

Hypothetically, but in reality it is to create the greatest profit for its executives. .

 

[Stoked]

Seems you have nothing to contribute cept to stalk me and make stuff up. I was not talking to you.

Public forum where any one can jump in and out of a conversation at any time. If you wish a personal, private convo, which is fine, then I suggest PMs.

Name one thing I have made up. If have the wrong opinion of what you have posted then please explain to me where I went wrong.

 

[SaltyDawg]

That's not the point.

https://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2011/03/08/econ-101-protectionism-for-dummies/

That's a nice theory, but the current economic conditions in the USA are reality. Unemployment is sky high while corporate profits are at an all time high. It's time to force the hands a little.

But isn't it the responsibility of the company to create the greatest profit for the benefit of the shareholders of the company?

That seems to be the common saying nowadays. But there absolutely has to be a responsibility to give back to your country too. And that should be the highest priority. If someone doesn't want to give back to the country that allowed them to prosper, then let them move to another country.

 

[Stoked]

That's a nice theory, but the current economic conditions in the USA are reality. Unemployment is sky high while corporate profits are at an all time high. It's time to force the hands a little.

That seems to be the common saying nowadays. But there absolutely has to be a responsibility to give back to your country too. And that should be the highest priority. If someone doesn't want to give back to the country that allowed them to prosper, then let them move to another country.

Why? What country does that qualify as? The country where the headoffice is located, the country with the most property, workers and wealth for the company? Where they were founded? or do we expand that responsibility to every country they operate in?

 

[PearlWatson]

Changes in the budget made with the specific purpose of improving job growth.

Stimulus=Change

 

[PearlWatson]

But there absolutely has to be a responsibility to give back to your country too. And that should be the highest priority. If someone doesn't want to give back to the country that allowed them to prosper, then let them move to another country.

Amen Lefty.

What have you given back to your country.

 

[leftyjace]

Hypothetically, but in reality it is to create the greatest profit for its executives. .

And how, exactly, do you think those executives get their profit?
The vast majority of their compensation is in stock and stock options. The same stock that the other shareholders hold, and see value in.
So you're saying that it's a bad thing for corporate executives to look to maximize their own income by increasing the value and/or dividend payable to shares of stock that regular shareholders hold?

 

[SaltyDawg]

Why? What country does that qualify as? The country where the headoffice is located, the country with the most property, workers and wealth for the company? Where they were founded? or do we expand that responsibility to every country they operate in?

I guess all of that would have to be defined. Some combination of the above would probably be the definition.

If you want the protections of the US government, and Apple uses these protections every day, and the American system is what allowed you to prosper, then you owe it to the nation to give back a little so the next guy with a dream has a chance to succeed.

Make no mistake about it, if Jobs and Woz would have been in deep recession and the house (and famous garage) foreclosed, there would probably be no Apple today. If there had not been skilled American workers to help them build this company, there would be no Apple today. The foundation being laid right now is only going to make the next Apple or whatever great company likely be in China.

 

[leftyjace]

That's a nice theory, but the current economic conditions in the USA are reality. Unemployment is sky high while corporate profits are at an all time high. It's time to force the hands a little.

Corporate profits are at an all time high... are you speaking in real or adjusted dollars? Or as a percentage of net income? Or are you judging it based on stock valuations - which are subjective? Or are you basing it on dividend performance? And are those dividend increases reflected in real or adjusted dollars?

Where are your sources? What are you referring to, specifically? Let's get some context here.

That seems to be the common saying nowadays. But there absolutely has to be a responsibility to give back to your country too. And that should be the highest priority. If someone doesn't want to give back to the country that allowed them to prosper, then let them move to another country.

Forgive me, but isn't that what institutional economics is all about? Specifically - the government? You cannot fault a company for working in its own best interests. That's what the government is for, is to regulate that self-interest. What you're asking for is a company that does not try to maximize profit. That's fine and good, but the executives that put that in place will be gone at the next board meeting or the next shareholders vote to put board members on the board who will vote that executive out of a position.

Corporations pay income tax. Those taxes are used to facilitate welfare and other social programs. How about we get the government to use the tools that this economic model has in place to facilitate those types of aide? Or at the very least, use them efficiently and correctly?

 

[Stoked]

Salty, who defines what "a little" is? I am sure Apple could argue they are doing that with their apple stores or the transportation demand they create in the US by shipping products to stores, engeneers, tech programers...

 

[franklin]

And America wouldn't also use that money to purchase jet engines and other American goods?

Restricting end markets doesn't increase living standards. You talk like a caveman in love with an inefficient barter system.

If you want to impose restrictions that increase American competitiveness, or at least tilt the labor advantage back towards fairness, then Mitt Romney is your guy. He's promised to label China a currency manipulator on day one. Of course Obama made this promise too... just one of many he's stabbed his base in the back with. He said he'd fix the problem but immediately backtracked by having Tax Cheat Timothy warn us of sactioning China or even hinting at doing taking action.

Just another reason to vote Mitt Romney over Obama.

 

[northeast]

And how, exactly, do you think those executives get their profit?
The vast majority of their compensation is in stock and stock options. The same stock that the other shareholders hold, and see value in.
So you're saying that it's a bad thing for corporate executives to look to maximize their own income by increasing the value and/or dividend payable to shares of stock that regular shareholders hold?

liar, it is in their interest to drive the price of the stock down, and give themselves millions of options, and then let the market give them free billions for sitting on their butts and enjoying their expense accounts, all of which is taken from the holdings of the true investors

 

[northeast]

Restricting end markets doesn't increase living standards. You talk like a caveman in love with an inefficient barter system.

If you want to impose restrictions that increase American competitiveness, or at least tilt the labor advantage back towards fairness, then Mitt Romney is your guy. He's promised to label China a currency manipulator on day one. Of course Obama made this promise too... just one of many he's stabbed his base in the back with. He said he'd fix the problem but immediately backtracked by having Tax Cheat Timothy warn us of sactioning China or even hinting at doing taking action.

Just another reason to vote Mitt Romney over Obama.

ah , when you have an opinion you can't prove, discredit the other side with insults.
how original.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Corporate profits are at an all time high... are you speaking in real or adjusted dollars? Or as a percentage of net income? Or are you judging it based on stock valuations - which are subjective? Or are you basing it on dividend performance? And are those dividend increases reflected in real or adjusted dollars?

Where are your sources? What are you referring to, specifically? Let's get some context here.

There are a number of sources on this. Here is what a quick google returned:
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2012...rate-Profits-All-Time-High-Wages-All-Time-Low

Forgive me, but isn't that what institutional economics is all about? Specifically - the government? You cannot fault a company for working in its own best interests. That's what the government is for, is to regulate that self-interest. What you're asking for is a company that does not try to maximize profit. That's fine and good, but the executives that put that in place will be gone at the next board meeting or the next shareholders vote to put board members on the board who will vote that executive out of a position.

Corporations pay income tax. Those taxes are used to facilitate welfare and other social programs. How about we get the government to use the tools that this economic model has in place to facilitate those types of aide? Or at the very least, use them efficiently and correctly?

Right, I understand all of that and don't disagree. That's why I am asking for the government to "regulate" what is in America's best interest, and not just allow the corporations to continue to put their own profits above the good of the nation.

I get that the taxes can be used for entitlement programs and shelters for everyone when the corporations decide to send all the jobs overseas. But when these programs are under attack, and our deficit is ridiculous, that's obviously not going to work.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Salty, who defines what "a little" is? I am sure Apple could argue they are doing that with their apple stores or the transportation demand they create in the US by shipping products to stores, engeneers, tech programers...

And all of that same stuff would still be happening if their products were being made in Detroit.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Restricting end markets doesn't increase living standards. You talk like a caveman in love with an inefficient barter system.

If you want to impose restrictions that increase American competitiveness, or at least tilt the labor advantage back towards fairness, then Mitt Romney is your guy. He's promised to label China a currency manipulator on day one. Of course Obama made this promise too... just one of many he's stabbed his base in the back with. He said he'd fix the problem but immediately backtracked by having Tax Cheat Timothy warn us of sactioning China or even hinting at doing taking action.

Just another reason to vote Mitt Romney over Obama.

I think having a job would certainly improve the livng conditions for the unemployed. And having a neighborhood full of people that are gainfully employed will improve the conditions for the neighborhood store owner (who then hires more people to help him sell his products). And so on.

And yes, I am aware that Romney said that and I am 100% behind him in that. However, you have to factor in that with just about any issue Romney has ever commented on, you can also find him taking the exact opposite stance. I have no confidence that Romney would follow through with that.

I do have confidence that Obama will raise the taxes on outsources and give "insourcers" a tax break. That's a good start.

 

[Stoked]

And all of that same stuff would still be happening if their products were being made in Detroit.

At less of a profit to the company. So we come back to who gets to decide when they are meeting their responsibility? Doesn't the company have aresponsibility to China for employing people there as well. So who do they place first?

 

[SaltyDawg]

At less of a profit to the company. So we come back to who gets to decide when they are meeting their responsibility? Doesn't the company have aresponsibility to China for employing people there as well. So who do they place first?

Why would they have a responsibility to China to employ people there? It's the USA protecting all of their patents and money.

 

[SaltyDawg]

double post

 

[leftyjace]

liar, it is in their interest to drive the price of the stock down, and give themselves millions of options, and then let the market give them free billions for sitting on their butts and enjoying their expense accounts, all of which is taken from the holdings of the true investors

Wow. And just how long do you think they keep their jobs if they drive the stock down? And they don't "give themselves" millions of options. Their compensation package is determined by the board of directors - the very same people who will quickly and easily remove the offender if he tanks things. Companies that have offered a golden parachute for ineffective executives have suffered dramatically. But the responsibility ultimately lies with the shareholders, doesn't it? Because they are the ones who pick the Board. If they put dolts on the board, who act like dolts, and lose their money, isn't it their own fault?