Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Consumption Tax

ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 6:54:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I recently read heard a report on NPR about taxes. Apparently, a growing number of economists favor eliminating the income tax, the corporate tax, and the payroll tax, and replacing it with a consumption tax designed to be progressive in nature (little to no taxation on basics, like food, but gets higher).

Apparently, corporate taxes are the most harmful to an economy, followed by income taxes, and then consumption taxes.

http://taxfoundation.org...

Thoughts?
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 9:02:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 6:54:39 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
I recently read heard a report on NPR about taxes. Apparently, a growing number of economists favor eliminating the income tax, the corporate tax, and the payroll tax, and replacing it with a consumption tax designed to be progressive in nature (little to no taxation on basics, like food, but gets higher).

Apparently, corporate taxes are the most harmful to an economy, followed by income taxes, and then consumption taxes.

http://taxfoundation.org...

Thoughts?

I prefer the income tax to consumption taxes; however, I strongly believe that income taxes should never be negative (i.e. refundable tax credits).

I also generally disagree with corporate taxes, although, I think they should exist, but it should be lower than it is. After all, they do just pass the taxes onto the public, anyway.
My work here is, finally, done.
Tophatdoc
Posts: 534
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 10:27:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 6:54:39 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
I recently read heard a report on NPR about taxes. Apparently, a growing number of economists favor eliminating the income tax, the corporate tax, and the payroll tax, and replacing it with a consumption tax designed to be progressive in nature (little to no taxation on basics, like food, but gets higher).

Apparently, corporate taxes are the most harmful to an economy, followed by income taxes, and then consumption taxes.

http://taxfoundation.org...

Thoughts?

Interesting, I prefer a progressive consumption tax or a the X-Tax. Under such a tax, cashflow will be taxed and the consumption of higher priced items will be taxed more so. Savings will not be punished as it is under the current progressive income tax system. This means investment and saving of any sort will not be taxed under a progressive consumption tax. I have know about the other tax proposals such as the Flat Tax. But I am not sold on the Flat Tax as of yet.

http://www.aei.org...
"Don't click on my profile. Don't send me friend requests. Don't read my debates. There are many interesting people on DDO. Find one of them. Go find someone exciting and loquacious. Go click on their profile. Go send them friend requests. Go read their debates. Leave me alone." -Tophatdoc
Tophatdoc
Posts: 534
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 10:31:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 9:02:45 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

I prefer the income tax to consumption taxes; however, I strongly believe that income taxes should never be negative (i.e. refundable tax credits).

I also generally disagree with corporate taxes, although, I think they should exist, but it should be lower than it is. After all, they do just pass the taxes onto the public, anyway.

Out of curiosity, why do you think that corporate taxes should be lowered?
"Don't click on my profile. Don't send me friend requests. Don't read my debates. There are many interesting people on DDO. Find one of them. Go find someone exciting and loquacious. Go click on their profile. Go send them friend requests. Go read their debates. Leave me alone." -Tophatdoc
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 10:41:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 10:31:14 AM, Tophatdoc wrote:
At 1/22/2014 9:02:45 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

I prefer the income tax to consumption taxes; however, I strongly believe that income taxes should never be negative (i.e. refundable tax credits).

I also generally disagree with corporate taxes, although, I think they should exist, but it should be lower than it is. After all, they do just pass the taxes onto the public, anyway.

Out of curiosity, why do you think that corporate taxes should be lowered?

Because they pass the taxes on.
If a corporation needs to make $X in profit, they will try to have revenue of $X/(1-T%).
What's the point? Goods will just cost more.

However, in typing this response, I am rethinking my stance on the consumption tax. I might be in favor of it if it replaces the corporate tax.
My work here is, finally, done.
Tophatdoc
Posts: 534
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 10:47:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 10:41:35 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

Because they pass the taxes on.
If a corporation needs to make $X in profit, they will try to have revenue of $X/(1-T%).
What's the point? Goods will just cost more.

However, in typing this response, I am rethinking my stance on the consumption tax. I might be in favor of it if it replaces the corporate tax.

That is why I was asking actually. I was wondering why you be for the corporate tax and against the consumption tax considering both pass the cost over to the consumer.
"Don't click on my profile. Don't send me friend requests. Don't read my debates. There are many interesting people on DDO. Find one of them. Go find someone exciting and loquacious. Go click on their profile. Go send them friend requests. Go read their debates. Leave me alone." -Tophatdoc
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 10:59:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 6:54:39 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
I recently read heard a report on NPR about taxes. Apparently, a growing number of economists favor eliminating the income tax, the corporate tax, and the payroll tax, and replacing it with a consumption tax designed to be progressive in nature (little to no taxation on basics, like food, but gets higher).

Apparently, corporate taxes are the most harmful to an economy, followed by income taxes, and then consumption taxes.

http://taxfoundation.org...

Thoughts?

1) Your poor source choice bothers me. The tax foundation has come under fire several times for being pro-business, and conservative. It also has several connections to other conservative groups. Furthermore, it is a think tank .. not peer-reviewed sources, so it's hardly objective.

2) claiming that taxes are harmful is disingenuous in that it's on the basis of an ideology/agenda in-behind it. Milton Friedman couldn't understand that his ideology was unfalsifiable, and therefore weak arguments as a result. In fact, the non-partisan congressional research service has noted that higher income tax rates in capital gains (a form of income tax) is correlated with a stronger economy (here: http://www.dpcc.senate.gov...)

3) While I agree that certain taxes ought to be reduced (any taxes on essential items is simply a money grab and unfair to those who need it most) claiming that somehow taxing businesses is bad for business and thus the economy ignores one simple fact: just because a business is doing well, does not mean that the economy will, nor the people at the same time. (correlation is not causation dude..)

If your a criminal defense lawyer, you actually make more money in your business when the economy sucks. The economy isn't just about businesses but people too, and I think you forget that sometimes.

and 4) lets have a thought experiment on your corporate tax crap for a second. Let's just assume for the sake of argument I AGREE with you; that taxes are bad for the economy and that they ought to be reduced. Here are some facts you have to consider:

your people (neoclassicals) complain about the lack of "free-markets" and attribute this to Obama's ideology, and thus an extension of it is it's slow growth as a result. Obama has in fact reduced corporate income taxes in 2011 from 31% to 12%. I find it amazing how, in light of this, you still claim they're too high, yet Obama's policies have still been largely a failure: this would mean you have to go against your own ideology as a result. Corporations now pay less in taxes than people. Yet almost all of them make far more money. How is this fair at all? It isn't. And your study is crap.

Besides, even to have this conservation you must first concede that Obama's policies (stimulus) has in fact worked, to create economic growth, it's just that the opposition claims "it isn't fast enough". Otherwise, if having such a high tax rate was bad for the economy at 35%, then we would not have seen economic growth but a continued slide into the depression.

Those are my thoughts.
Thank you for voting!
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 11:01:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 10:41:35 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/22/2014 10:31:14 AM, Tophatdoc wrote:
At 1/22/2014 9:02:45 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

I prefer the income tax to consumption taxes; however, I strongly believe that income taxes should never be negative (i.e. refundable tax credits).

I also generally disagree with corporate taxes, although, I think they should exist, but it should be lower than it is. After all, they do just pass the taxes onto the public, anyway.

Out of curiosity, why do you think that corporate taxes should be lowered?

Because they pass the taxes on.

LOL not always.
If a corporation needs to make $X in profit, they will try to have revenue of $X/(1-T%).
What's the point? Goods will just cost more.

Uhh no. This is price elasticity. If the good is an essential good (bread tax for instance) then yes consumers bear all tax burden.

If your buying a fvcking ferrari, the company pays all the tax, because even a little increase in price has huge impacts on people buying your sh!t.

Do you even economy bro?

However, in typing this response, I am rethinking my stance on the consumption tax. I might be in favor of it if it replaces the corporate tax.
Thank you for voting!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 4:19:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 11:01:19 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 1/22/2014 10:41:35 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/22/2014 10:31:14 AM, Tophatdoc wrote:
At 1/22/2014 9:02:45 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

I prefer the income tax to consumption taxes; however, I strongly believe that income taxes should never be negative (i.e. refundable tax credits).

I also generally disagree with corporate taxes, although, I think they should exist, but it should be lower than it is. After all, they do just pass the taxes onto the public, anyway.

Out of curiosity, why do you think that corporate taxes should be lowered?

Because they pass the taxes on.

LOL not always.
If a corporation needs to make $X in profit, they will try to have revenue of $X/(1-T%).
What's the point? Goods will just cost more.

Uhh no. This is price elasticity. If the good is an essential good (bread tax for instance) then yes consumers bear all tax burden.

If your buying a fvcking ferrari, the company pays all the tax, because even a little increase in price has huge impacts on people buying your sh!t.
And, if I am not making enough by selling said goods, I will stop selling them, won't I?
I'm not going to sell a Ferrari if I only make $100 after taxes and expenses.

Do you even economy bro?
Not usually.

However, in typing this response, I am rethinking my stance on the consumption tax. I might be in favor of it if it replaces the corporate tax.
My work here is, finally, done.
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 9:02:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 4:19:12 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/22/2014 11:01:19 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 1/22/2014 10:41:35 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/22/2014 10:31:14 AM, Tophatdoc wrote:
At 1/22/2014 9:02:45 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

I prefer the income tax to consumption taxes; however, I strongly believe that income taxes should never be negative (i.e. refundable tax credits).

I also generally disagree with corporate taxes, although, I think they should exist, but it should be lower than it is. After all, they do just pass the taxes onto the public, anyway.

Out of curiosity, why do you think that corporate taxes should be lowered?

Because they pass the taxes on.

LOL not always.
If a corporation needs to make $X in profit, they will try to have revenue of $X/(1-T%).
What's the point? Goods will just cost more.

Uhh no. This is price elasticity. If the good is an essential good (bread tax for instance) then yes consumers bear all tax burden.

If your buying a fvcking ferrari, the company pays all the tax, because even a little increase in price has huge impacts on people buying your sh!t.
And, if I am not making enough by selling said goods, I will stop selling them, won't I?

Nope you forget the famous quote that "Supply creates its own demand"

I'm not going to sell a Ferrari if I only make $100 after taxes and expenses.

Yeah I'm calling bullsh!t on this one.
If you only made 100 bucks after expenses and taxes, your gonna try to lower your expenses won't you? Or leave it the same.
Besides, your still making a profit, so no reason to leave. Like at all.
In fact, you seem to pre-suppose a form of rationality that simply does not exist. A business in it's first two years does not generate a profit (on average). This is the most illogical stuff ever!

Do you even economy bro?
Not usually.
Glad you can admit this.

However, in typing this response, I am rethinking my stance on the consumption tax. I might be in favor of it if it replaces the corporate tax.
Thank you for voting!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 9:48:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 9:02:39 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 1/22/2014 4:19:12 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/22/2014 11:01:19 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 1/22/2014 10:41:35 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/22/2014 10:31:14 AM, Tophatdoc wrote:
At 1/22/2014 9:02:45 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

I prefer the income tax to consumption taxes; however, I strongly believe that income taxes should never be negative (i.e. refundable tax credits).

I also generally disagree with corporate taxes, although, I think they should exist, but it should be lower than it is. After all, they do just pass the taxes onto the public, anyway.

Out of curiosity, why do you think that corporate taxes should be lowered?

Because they pass the taxes on.

LOL not always.
If a corporation needs to make $X in profit, they will try to have revenue of $X/(1-T%).
What's the point? Goods will just cost more.

Uhh no. This is price elasticity. If the good is an essential good (bread tax for instance) then yes consumers bear all tax burden.

If your buying a fvcking ferrari, the company pays all the tax, because even a little increase in price has huge impacts on people buying your sh!t.
And, if I am not making enough by selling said goods, I will stop selling them, won't I?

Nope you forget the famous quote that "Supply creates its own demand"
Care to explain this to a child for me?
If there isn't a high enough demand, the price is lower than some suppliers would prefer.

I'm not going to sell a Ferrari if I only make $100 after taxes and expenses.

Yeah I'm calling bullsh!t on this one.
If you only made 100 bucks after expenses and taxes, your gonna try to lower your expenses won't you? Or leave it the same.
Besides, your still making a profit, so no reason to leave. Like at all.

How many Ferraris do you think I would sell in a month?
Why would I take the risk of having such expensive inventory if I am only selling five in a week?
My wife owns a business, which we may bail on, because, even though we turn a profit, it is not enough of a profit to stay in business. (i.e. she could have a minimum wage job and bring in more money to the household, without the headache and stress of paying rent on time)

In fact, you seem to pre-suppose a form of rationality that simply does not exist. A business in it's first two years does not generate a profit (on average). This is the most illogical stuff ever!
That fact is misleading, and frankly I don't know the validity of it.
A business can break even, while the owner still is paid (LLC owner can cash his paycheck).
Profits, in my experience with this type of statistic, are referring to owner equity over liabilities. I can still be in debt, and post a profit, can't I? For example, I borrow $10K to start a business, have $10K in revenue my first year, and $8K in expenses, including loan payments, I post a $2K profit, but my business is hardly financially secure.
My work here is, finally, done.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 9:56:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 10:59:18 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 1/22/2014 6:54:39 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
I recently read heard a report on NPR about taxes. Apparently, a growing number of economists favor eliminating the income tax, the corporate tax, and the payroll tax, and replacing it with a consumption tax designed to be progressive in nature (little to no taxation on basics, like food, but gets higher).

Apparently, corporate taxes are the most harmful to an economy, followed by income taxes, and then consumption taxes.

http://taxfoundation.org...

Thoughts?

1) Your poor source choice bothers me. The tax foundation has come under fire several times for being pro-business, and conservative. It also has several connections to other conservative groups. Furthermore, it is a think tank .. not peer-reviewed sources, so it's hardly objective.

That's just a secondary source describing a study from the OECD so people don't have to read a whole study. Here it is for you though http://search.oecd.org...(2008)28&docLanguage=En
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 9:58:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 9:56:01 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 1/22/2014 10:59:18 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 1/22/2014 6:54:39 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
I recently read heard a report on NPR about taxes. Apparently, a growing number of economists favor eliminating the income tax, the corporate tax, and the payroll tax, and replacing it with a consumption tax designed to be progressive in nature (little to no taxation on basics, like food, but gets higher).

Apparently, corporate taxes are the most harmful to an economy, followed by income taxes, and then consumption taxes.

http://taxfoundation.org...

Thoughts?

1) Your poor source choice bothers me. The tax foundation has come under fire several times for being pro-business, and conservative. It also has several connections to other conservative groups. Furthermore, it is a think tank .. not peer-reviewed sources, so it's hardly objective.

That's just a secondary source describing a study from the OECD so people don't have to read a whole study. Here it is for you though http://search.oecd.org...(2008)28&docLanguage=En

It's not letting me post the link for whatever reason... just go to search.oecd.org and search Tax and Economic Growth.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 10:08:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 9:56:01 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 1/22/2014 10:59:18 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 1/22/2014 6:54:39 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
I recently read heard a report on NPR about taxes. Apparently, a growing number of economists favor eliminating the income tax, the corporate tax, and the payroll tax, and replacing it with a consumption tax designed to be progressive in nature (little to no taxation on basics, like food, but gets higher).

Apparently, corporate taxes are the most harmful to an economy, followed by income taxes, and then consumption taxes.

http://taxfoundation.org...

Thoughts?

1) Your poor source choice bothers me. The tax foundation has come under fire several times for being pro-business, and conservative. It also has several connections to other conservative groups. Furthermore, it is a think tank .. not peer-reviewed sources, so it's hardly objective.

That's just a secondary source describing a study from the OECD so people don't have to read a whole study. Here it is for you though http://search.oecd.org...(2008)28&docLanguage=En

Well. TBH even though the OECD isn't peer-reviewed, it is a pretty legit source. I believe you Bobbert.
Thank you for voting!
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 10:39:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 9:48:09 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/22/2014 9:02:39 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 1/22/2014 4:19:12 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/22/2014 11:01:19 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 1/22/2014 10:41:35 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/22/2014 10:31:14 AM, Tophatdoc wrote:
At 1/22/2014 9:02:45 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

I prefer the income tax to consumption taxes; however, I strongly believe that income taxes should never be negative (i.e. refundable tax credits).

I also generally disagree with corporate taxes, although, I think they should exist, but it should be lower than it is. After all, they do just pass the taxes onto the public, anyway.

Out of curiosity, why do you think that corporate taxes should be lowered?

Because they pass the taxes on.

LOL not always.
If a corporation needs to make $X in profit, they will try to have revenue of $X/(1-T%).
What's the point? Goods will just cost more.

Uhh no. This is price elasticity. If the good is an essential good (bread tax for instance) then yes consumers bear all tax burden.

If your buying a fvcking ferrari, the company pays all the tax, because even a little increase in price has huge impacts on people buying your sh!t.
And, if I am not making enough by selling said goods, I will stop selling them, won't I?

Nope you forget the famous quote that "Supply creates its own demand"
Care to explain this to a child for me?

Yeah sure: if you make something. Something completely random that no one actually demands at all. That thing you make, you can sell, and thus the supply of the new good you bring in creates demand, out of nothing. Underpinning this is human irrationality.

If there isn't a high enough demand, the price is lower than some suppliers would prefer.

LOL no.
Companies use cost/profit analysis to determine prices. Not supply and demand. In fact, Oxford did a study about this in the 1930's and noted that businesses never follow supply and demand.

Take the NFL.
If supply and demand were actually true, and worked like how neoclassicals claim or austrians claim, then what we would see is varying prices per merchandise for each team. Hence, some teams are more popular (say Cowboys) than others (say Bronco's). Now let's say we're selling hats: if you were right, we would see that the Dallas Cowboys would cost more per hat (due to supply and demand) than the Bronco's. We don't. In fact even though they're completely differing franchises, they both cost the exact same. Why? Because they ignore supply and demand. As does most firms. They dictate prices through a price administrator who literally just assigns prices all day long.

I'm not going to sell a Ferrari if I only make $100 after taxes and expenses.

Yeah I'm calling bullsh!t on this one.
If you only made 100 bucks after expenses and taxes, your gonna try to lower your expenses won't you? Or leave it the same.
Besides, your still making a profit, so no reason to leave. Like at all.

How many Ferraris do you think I would sell in a month?

No idea... too many variables.

Why would I take the risk of having such expensive inventory if I am only selling five in a week?

1) prestige of saying "HEY GUYZ I OWN A FERRARI DEALERSHIP!"
2) because your irrational
3) selling 5 in a week by previous numbers is 500 bucks.. now maybe it's because I'm a university student...but I would KILL to make 500 bucks a week! That's GOOD MONEY! Imagine if you got a little cost down?
and 4) because realistically later you'd probably lobby the government to hate on anything they throw at you, then use some silly straw-man about "economic equilibrium" to try and make your point, and claim what's good for businesses is good for people, despite the fact that really you'll hire no one and pocket all the cash because you's a selfish som-beotch!

My wife owns a business,
Cool story bro
which we may bail on, because, even though we turn a profit, it is not enough of a profit to stay in business. (i.e. she could have a minimum wage job and bring in more money to the household, without the headache and stress of paying rent on time)

Okay... so?
Your situation is NOT representative of all business operations in the economy. Whats the problem? You make rent, and you make profit. You knew what you were getting into. The fact that you said "rent" makes me guess lower income right? Means you took one hell of a risk with a severe lack of resources for support.
Why not find someone else to help expand you instead? Like a venture capitalist for instance? Leaving simply seems dumb. No really good reason to do so.


In fact, you seem to pre-suppose a form of rationality that simply does not exist. A business in it's first two years does not generate a profit (on average). This is the most illogical stuff ever!
That fact is misleading, and frankly I don't know the validity of it.
A business can break even, while the owner still is paid (LLC owner can cash his paycheck).
Profits, in my experience with this type of statistic, are referring to owner equity over liabilities. I can still be in debt, and post a profit, can't I? For example, I borrow $10K to start a business, have $10K in revenue my first year, and $8K in expenses, including loan payments, I post a $2K profit, but my business is hardly financially secure.

Well thankfully experience is crappy data riddled with confirmation bias, selection bias, sample bias ...

and no. Actually not at all really. No wonder your having troubles in your business.

The formula for net profits = operating profit - taxes - interests
formula for operations profits = gross profit - total operation expenses
Thank you for voting!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 11:14:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 10:39:05 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:

Okay... so?
Your situation is NOT representative of all business operations in the economy. Whats the problem? You make rent, and you make profit. You knew what you were getting into. The fact that you said "rent" makes me guess lower income right? Means you took one hell of a risk with a severe lack of resources for support.

Rent, being the rent for space for the business.
It's a dog grooming shop. The only real expense is rent, plus shampoo, shears, and whatnot occasionally.
The risk was more of opportunity cost, since, instead of her bringing into the household $20K - $30K, she brought in about $1,500 for the year. (that doesn't quite pay the mortgage, and I am sick of eating tuna sandwiches and working two jobs)
Why not find someone else to help expand you instead? Like a venture capitalist for instance? Leaving simply seems dumb. No really good reason to do so.

The reason to leave is that we can't afford a one income household, when we could actually pay off debt and live comfortably if she were to have any job, working a decent amount of hours.


In fact, you seem to pre-suppose a form of rationality that simply does not exist. A business in it's first two years does not generate a profit (on average). This is the most illogical stuff ever!
That fact is misleading, and frankly I don't know the validity of it.
A business can break even, while the owner still is paid (LLC owner can cash his paycheck).
Profits, in my experience with this type of statistic, are referring to owner equity over liabilities. I can still be in debt, and post a profit, can't I? For example, I borrow $10K to start a business, have $10K in revenue my first year, and $8K in expenses, including loan payments, I post a $2K profit, but my business is hardly financially secure.

Well thankfully experience is crappy data riddled with confirmation bias, selection bias, sample bias ...

and no. Actually not at all really. No wonder your having troubles in your business.

The formula for net profits = operating profit - taxes - interests
formula for operations profits = gross profit - total operation expenses

Define interests, because unless interests mean liabilities, that doesn't negate what I said. Also, you are quite insulting.

Also, $500/wk is not a whole lot. If I had no debt except my mortgage, that would pay utilities and housing. No food, no car, no entertainment.
My work here is, finally, done.
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 9:31:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 11:14:13 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/22/2014 10:39:05 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:

Okay... so?
Your situation is NOT representative of all business operations in the economy. Whats the problem? You make rent, and you make profit. You knew what you were getting into. The fact that you said "rent" makes me guess lower income right? Means you took one hell of a risk with a severe lack of resources for support.

Rent, being the rent for space for the business.
It's a dog grooming shop. The only real expense is rent, plus shampoo, shears, and whatnot occasionally.
The risk was more of opportunity cost, since, instead of her bringing into the household $20K - $30K, she brought in about $1,500 for the year. (that doesn't quite pay the mortgage, and I am sick of eating tuna sandwiches and working two jobs)
Why not find someone else to help expand you instead? Like a venture capitalist for instance? Leaving simply seems dumb. No really good reason to do so.

The reason to leave is that we can't afford a one income household, when we could actually pay off debt and live comfortably if she were to have any job, working a decent amount of hours.

HAAAAHAHAHAHA!


In fact, you seem to pre-suppose a form of rationality that simply does not exist. A business in it's first two years does not generate a profit (on average). This is the most illogical stuff ever!
That fact is misleading, and frankly I don't know the validity of it.
A business can break even, while the owner still is paid (LLC owner can cash his paycheck).
Profits, in my experience with this type of statistic, are referring to owner equity over liabilities. I can still be in debt, and post a profit, can't I? For example, I borrow $10K to start a business, have $10K in revenue my first year, and $8K in expenses, including loan payments, I post a $2K profit, but my business is hardly financially secure.

Well thankfully experience is crappy data riddled with confirmation bias, selection bias, sample bias ...

and no. Actually not at all really. No wonder your having troubles in your business.

The formula for net profits = operating profit - taxes - interests
formula for operations profits = gross profit - total operation expenses

Define interests,
As in loan interests

because unless interests mean liabilities, that doesn't negate what I said. Also, you are quite insulting.

Yes it does, and in all honestly good. If you cannot tell me what profit is, then why your going into business is seriously beyond me.

Also, $500/wk is not a whole lot. If I had no debt except my mortgage, that would pay utilities and housing. No food, no car, no entertainment.

LOfuckingL

Buddy, I go to university, work 2 jobs, have rent to pay, etc..

So, My rent is 430/month(utilities included)
My schooling is 6 grand...but with the loans the interest rate means I pay about 100 bucks a month (so far 530)
This is not including food. Which I pay 60 bucks a month with some friends for a pool and we stretch it like mad. So 590 in expenses.

On average I make 275 every two weeks from job 1 (retail) meaning I make about 550 a month from that job
The other is a little job I do on the side for the school which pays me monthly about 50-100 bucks. I guess we'll say 75 for a joke. So I get about 625.
625 - 590 = $35

I make as much money in a month, than you do in a week, and I live fine. And you have the audasity to cry to me? Fvck you, you snob. You actually deserve it.

Sell your fvcking car, that's a luxury I'm just dreaming to have one day, and something you actually DO NOT need.

Your house is also not a priority, you could easily afford an apartment (I grew up in them) and just make the best use of your space. Why do you think this is something you're entitled to?

And finally, entertainment? LOL Don't even talk to me about entertainment! YOU GET NONE. Unless you plan your sh!t out more carefully. You are not entitled to this either. This is a luxury.

If i actually got 500 bucks a month, the reality is my paycheck would double. And yet here you are with this" woah is me" attitude to me? Fvck off. Welcome to the real world.
Thank you for voting!
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 12:42:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Supply does not create its own demand. No credible economist has ever argued that. The absurd statement comes from the Keynesians critique of Say's Law. But Says Law postulates that the products are paid with money we earn from producing other products, so demand is linked to production, not caused by it.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 2:02:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 9:31:33 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 1/22/2014 11:14:13 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/22/2014 10:39:05 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:

Okay... so?
Your situation is NOT representative of all business operations in the economy. Whats the problem? You make rent, and you make profit. You knew what you were getting into. The fact that you said "rent" makes me guess lower income right? Means you took one hell of a risk with a severe lack of resources for support.

Rent, being the rent for space for the business.
It's a dog grooming shop. The only real expense is rent, plus shampoo, shears, and whatnot occasionally.
The risk was more of opportunity cost, since, instead of her bringing into the household $20K - $30K, she brought in about $1,500 for the year. (that doesn't quite pay the mortgage, and I am sick of eating tuna sandwiches and working two jobs)
Why not find someone else to help expand you instead? Like a venture capitalist for instance? Leaving simply seems dumb. No really good reason to do so.

The reason to leave is that we can't afford a one income household, when we could actually pay off debt and live comfortably if she were to have any job, working a decent amount of hours.

HAAAAHAHAHAHA!
Really, you laugh at the response to your question?
Let me ask you this, if you had a business where your operating profits were only $100/month, would you keep at it after a year? Two years? Five years?
At what point would you say, "Fvck it, I'll just be an employee somewhere"?


In fact, you seem to pre-suppose a form of rationality that simply does not exist. A business in it's first two years does not generate a profit (on average). This is the most illogical stuff ever!
That fact is misleading, and frankly I don't know the validity of it.
A business can break even, while the owner still is paid (LLC owner can cash his paycheck).
Profits, in my experience with this type of statistic, are referring to owner equity over liabilities. I can still be in debt, and post a profit, can't I? For example, I borrow $10K to start a business, have $10K in revenue my first year, and $8K in expenses, including loan payments, I post a $2K profit, but my business is hardly financially secure.

Well thankfully experience is crappy data riddled with confirmation bias, selection bias, sample bias ...

and no. Actually not at all really. No wonder your having troubles in your business.

The formula for net profits = operating profit - taxes - interests
formula for operations profits = gross profit - total operation expenses

Define interests,
As in loan interests

because unless interests mean liabilities, that doesn't negate what I said. Also, you are quite insulting.

Yes it does, and in all honestly good. If you cannot tell me what profit is, then why your going into business is seriously beyond me.

So, to you, I cannot have profits, if I have liabilities, huh?
That makes no fvcking sense.
I think you are confusing profit with net worth or something else.

I borrow $10K from a friend to start a business, interest free.
I have $25K in revenue, and expenses, taxes, and rent is $22K.
I have $3K in profits.
Why does the store not have a profit, simply because I still have that $10K bond?

That makes no fvcking sense.

Also, $500/wk is not a whole lot. If I had no debt except my mortgage, that would pay utilities and housing. No food, no car, no entertainment.

LOfuckingL

Buddy, I go to university, work 2 jobs, have rent to pay, etc..
Congratulations, so did I.

So, My rent is 430/month(utilities included)
Mine was $625 plus utilities for a two bedroom apartment. (my roommate paid the other half)
My schooling is 6 grand...but with the loans the interest rate means I pay about 100 bucks a month (so far 530)
My schooling for two years was $30,000.
This is not including food. Which I pay 60 bucks a month with some friends for a pool and we stretch it like mad. So 590 in expenses.
Not a bad idea, we spend about $2-300, so my share would ideally be $100-150, this includes cleaning supplies.

On average I make 275 every two weeks from job 1 (retail) meaning I make about 550 a month from that job
My main job, up until recently when I quit, I made about $650/wk.
My other job I had since May (call center), I made about $140/wk
The other is a little job I do on the side for the school which pays me monthly about 50-100 bucks. I guess we'll say 75 for a joke. So I get about 625.

Do you economics?
Your monthly income is less than half of the minimum wage in America.
There is a reason why it is so high here, we have a higher cost of living, in most parts of the country.
I'd be lucky if I could find a one bedroom apartment for less than $600 where I live,

I make as much money in a month, than you do in a week, and I live fine. And you have the audasity to cry to me? Fvck you, you snob. You actually deserve it.
I'm not crying you moron.
I'm simply saying that where I live, you can't support yourself because of the cost of things.
It was clear to me that the cost of living where you are is dramatically different.
I elaborated on that, dumbass.
And now you sling insults at me for addressing your shortsighted nature.
Fvck off.

Sell your fvcking car, that's a luxury I'm just dreaming to have one day, and something you actually DO NOT need.
My car is how I make my money, so, no, I can't.

Your house is also not a priority, you could easily afford an apartment (I grew up in them) and just make the best use of your space. Why do you think this is something you're entitled to?
Wow, and I grew up in a trailor, what's your point?
I bought the house in an effort to obtain wealth, you know, have something to show for years of work.
Believe it or not, the mortgage was actually less than we were paying in rent.


And finally, entertainment? LOL Don't even talk to me about entertainment! YOU GET NONE. Unless you plan your sh!t out more carefully. You are not entitled to this either. This is a luxury.
Did I say it wasn't?
I elaborated the point that $2K/month is living expenses only for me.
If I had an apartment somewhere, it would be maybe closer to $1K, depending.
Either way, that's almost twice your income just for shelter.
For someone that talks about assumptions and experience being crappy, you sure like to look down upon me for it based on yours.

If i actually got 500 bucks a month, the reality is my paycheck would double. And yet here you are with this" woah is me" attitude to me? Fvck off. Welcome to the real world.

Welcome to the real world?
Fvck you, kid.
You don't know me, you don't know what I do, you don't know what I've done to be where I am at.
Hell, here's a story for you, I pay $600/month in student loans alone. So, don't sit here and tell me that I should be able to live on your income.
Tell me, do you have a roommate? Now, tell me what it would be like if your roommate all of a sudden stopped paying bills? How fun would that be?

Go fvck yourself.
I never was complaining about my lot in life. I only brought that up to show you that $500/wk is not a lot of money, especially if one owns a business. In Canada, maybe it is. But not around where I live.
One is considered living in poverty if they make less than $13K or so, which is about twice your income.
The fact that you mistake my explaining money's value to you, who thought $500/wk is fantastic, is me complaining, is quite a black mark on your intelligence.
My work here is, finally, done.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 2:37:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 2:02:42 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/23/2014 9:31:33 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:


Rent, being the rent for space for the business.
It's a dog grooming shop. The only real expense is rent, plus shampoo, shears, and whatnot occasionally.
The risk was more of opportunity cost, since, instead of her bringing into the household $20K - $30K, she brought in about $1,500 for the year. (that doesn't quite pay the mortgage, and I am sick of eating tuna sandwiches and working two jobs)
Why not find someone else to help expand you instead? Like a venture capitalist for instance? Leaving simply seems dumb. No really good reason to do so.

The reason to leave is that we can't afford a one income household, when we could actually pay off debt and live comfortably if she were to have any job, working a decent amount of hours.

HAAAAHAHAHAHA!
Really, you laugh at the response to your question?
Let me ask you this, if you had a business where your operating profits were only $100/month, would you keep at it after a year? Two years? Five years?
At what point would you say, "Fvck it, I'll just be an employee somewhere"?


In fact, you seem to pre-suppose a form of rationality that simply does not exist. A business in it's first two years does not generate a profit (on average). This is the most illogical stuff ever!
That fact is misleading, and frankly I don't know the validity of it.
A business can break even, while the owner still is paid (LLC owner can cash his paycheck).
Profits, in my experience with this type of statistic, are referring to owner equity over liabilities. I can still be in debt, and post a profit, can't I? For example, I borrow $10K to start a business, have $10K in revenue my first year, and $8K in expenses, including loan payments, I post a $2K profit, but my business is hardly financially secure.

Well thankfully experience is crappy data riddled with confirmation bias, selection bias, sample bias ...

and no. Actually not at all really. No wonder your having troubles in your business.

The formula for net profits = operating profit - taxes - interests
formula for operations profits = gross profit - total operation expenses

Define interests,
As in loan interests

because unless interests mean liabilities, that doesn't negate what I said. Also, you are quite insulting.

Yes it does, and in all honestly good. If you cannot tell me what profit is, then why your going into business is seriously beyond me.

So, to you, I cannot have profits, if I have liabilities, huh?
That makes no fvcking sense.
I think you are confusing profit with net worth or something else.

I borrow $10K from a friend to start a business, interest free.
I have $25K in revenue, and expenses, taxes, and rent is $22K.
I have $3K in profits.
Why does the store not have a profit, simply because I still have that $10K bond?

That makes no fvcking sense.

Also, $500/wk is not a whole lot. If I had no debt except my mortgage, that would pay utilities and housing. No food, no car, no entertainment.

LOfuckingL

Buddy, I go to university, work 2 jobs, have rent to pay, etc..
Congratulations, so did I.

So, My rent is 430/month(utilities included)
Mine was $625 plus utilities for a two bedroom apartment. (my roommate paid the other half)
My schooling is 6 grand...but with the loans the interest rate means I pay about 100 bucks a month (so far 530)
My schooling for two years was $30,000.
This is not including food. Which I pay 60 bucks a month with some friends for a pool and we stretch it like mad. So 590 in expenses.
Not a bad idea, we spend about $2-300, so my share would ideally be $100-150, this includes cleaning supplies.

On average I make 275 every two weeks from job 1 (retail) meaning I make about 550 a month from that job
My main job, up until recently when I quit, I made about $650/wk.
My other job I had since May (call center), I made about $140/wk
The other is a little job I do on the side for the school which pays me monthly about 50-100 bucks. I guess we'll say 75 for a joke. So I get about 625.

Do you economics?
Your monthly income is less than half of the minimum wage in America.
There is a reason why it is so high here, we have a higher cost of living, in most parts of the country.
I'd be lucky if I could find a one bedroom apartment for less than $600 where I live,

I make as much money in a month, than you do in a week, and I live fine. And you have the audasity to cry to me? Fvck you, you snob. You actually deserve it.
I'm not crying you moron.
I'm simply saying that where I live, you can't support yourself because of the cost of things.
It was clear to me that the cost of living where you are is dramatically different.
I elaborated on that, dumbass.
And now you sling insults at me for addressing your shortsighted nature.
Fvck off.

Sell your fvcking car, that's a luxury I'm just dreaming to have one day, and something you actually DO NOT need.
My car is how I make my money, so, no, I can't.

Your house is also not a priority, you could easily afford an apartment (I grew up in them) and just make the best use of your space. Why do you think this is something you're entitled to?
Wow, and I grew up in a trailor, what's your point?
I bought the house in an effort to obtain wealth, you know, have something to show for years of work.
Believe it or not, the mortgage was actually less than we were paying in rent.


And finally, entertainment? LOL Don't even talk to me about entertainment! YOU GET NONE. Unless you plan your sh!t out more carefully. You are not entitled to this either. This is a luxury.
Did I say it wasn't?
I elaborated the point that $2K/month is living expenses only for me.
If I had an apartment somewhere, it would be maybe closer to $1K, depending.
Either way, that's almost twice your income just for shelter.
For someone that talks about assumptions and experience being crappy, you sure like to look down upon me for it based on yours.

If i actually got 500 bucks a month, the reality is my paycheck would double. And yet here you are with this" woah is me" attitude to me? Fvck off. Welcome to the real world.

Welcome to the real world?
Fvck you, kid.
You don't know me, you don't know what I do, you don't know what I've done to be where I am at.
Hell, here's a story for you, I pay $600/month in student loans alone. So, don't sit here and tell me that I should be able to live on your income.
Tell me, do you have a roommate? Now, tell me what it would be like if your roommate all of a sudden stopped paying bills? How fun would that be?

Go fvck yourself.
I never was complaining about my lot in life. I only brought that up to show you that $500/wk is not a lot of money, especially if one owns a business. In Canada, maybe it is. But not around where I live.
One is considered living in poverty if they make less than $13K or so, which is about twice your income.
The fact that you mistake my explaining money's value to you, who thought $500/wk is fantastic, is me complaining, is quite a black mark on your intelligence.

This response reminds me of something I did in another thread, lol. =)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 2:42:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 6:54:39 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
I recently read heard a report on NPR about taxes. Apparently, a growing number of economists favor eliminating the income tax, the corporate tax, and the payroll tax, and replacing it with a consumption tax designed to be progressive in nature (little to no taxation on basics, like food, but gets higher).

Apparently, corporate taxes are the most harmful to an economy, followed by income taxes, and then consumption taxes.

http://taxfoundation.org...

Thoughts?

Extremely preliminary, but I would eschew corporate and consumption taxes in favor of a progressive income tax. Not eliminate, just discourage. Perhaps even eliminate capital gains taxes to encourage investment.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 3:03:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hey, Hitchslap, why don't you send me a link to your net profit somehow factors in liabilities.

http://beta.investinganswers.com...

Net profit represents the number of sales dollars remaining after all operating expenses, interest, taxes and preferred stock dividends (but not common stock dividends) have been deducted from a company's total revenue.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 3:49:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 2:37:43 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

This response reminds me of something I did in another thread, lol. =)

I think you rubbed off on me ;)
My work here is, finally, done.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 4:09:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 3:49:41 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/23/2014 2:37:43 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

This response reminds me of something I did in another thread, lol. =)

I think you rubbed off on me ;)

lol, in both of our defenses, there are a lot of college kids on this website that haven't seen what's out there.

While I very much admire hitch bootstrapping his way through college, what hitch is advocating is for all of us to become part of a sharecropper society, which is mildly disturbing, i.e. "Your house is also not a priority, you could easily afford an apartment (I grew up in them) and just make the best use of your space. Why do you think this is something you're entitled to?" I really can't believe he made that statement. It's not even as though KM is saying he's entitled to it...he's working for it, and hitch is bitching at him for it. That's just plain stupid.

As it is, median household income in the US is around $45000, so exactly half earn more and half earn less. That's probably enough for a family to stake a modest claim in our Great Society. For anyone to call someone who earns less than that a "snob" is someone who is extremely unaware of the economic realities in America, especially pertaining to family creation (I'm assuming KM may be thinking of that somewhere down the road). That's ok given hitch is still in college I suppose, but it does mean that we don't have much reason to take such an opinion seriously.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 4:15:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 3:49:41 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/23/2014 2:37:43 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

This response reminds me of something I did in another thread, lol. =)

I think you rubbed off on me ;)

btw, disclaimer...I don't act like this in real life, lol. Unlike here, in real life there generally are rules, and authorities that enforce rules when they are broken...well at least there are in my neck of the woods.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2014 12:43:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 2:02:42 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/23/2014 9:31:33 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 1/22/2014 11:14:13 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Really, you laugh at the response to your question?
Let me ask you this, if you had a business where your operating profits were only $100/month, would you keep at it after a year? Two years? Five years?
At what point would you say, "Fvck it, I'll just be an employee somewhere"?

I laughed because your @$$hole must be getting jealous of the sh!t your mouth is spewing.
You're not even considering any other alternatives, Just boom or bust. That's your problem and that's what I'm trying to point out. To which, you're not even considering,
just trying to play contrarian.
You have other options.
The formula for net profits = operating profit - taxes - interests
formula for operations profits = gross profit - total operation expenses

because unless interests mean liabilities, that doesn't negate what I said. Also, you are quite insulting.

Yes it does, and in all honestly good. If you cannot tell me what profit is, then why your going into business is seriously beyond me.

So, to you, I cannot have profits, if I have liabilities, huh?

That makes no fvcking sense.
I think you are confusing profit with net worth or something else.

I borrow $10K from a friend to start a business, interest free.
I have $25K in revenue, and expenses, taxes, and rent is $22K.
I have $3K in profits.
Why does the store not have a profit, simply because I still have that $10K bond?

That makes no fvcking sense.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com...

That's revenue you fvcking idiot.


Also, $500/wk is not a whole lot. If I had no debt except my mortgage, that would pay utilities and housing. No food, no car, no entertainment.

LOfuckingL

Buddy, I go to university, work 2 jobs, have rent to pay, etc..
Congratulations, so did I.
Apparently not based on your comments...

So, My rent is 430/month (utilities included)
Mine was $625 plus utilities for a two bedroom apartment. (my roommate paid the other half)
Well then, you realize you could have gotten cheaper right?
My schooling is 6 grand...but with the loans the interest rate means I pay about 100 bucks a month (so far 530)
My schooling for two years was $30,000.
Same as what I'll leave university with.
This is not including food. Which I pay 60 bucks a month with some friends for a pool and we stretch it like mad. So 590 in expenses.
Not a bad idea, we spend about $2-300, so my share would ideally be $100-150, this includes cleaning supplies.
And your complaining about expenses? Jesus! This is wayyy too high!

On average I make 275 every two weeks from job 1 (retail) meaning I make about 550 a month from that job
My main job, up until recently when I quit, I made about $650/wk.
My other job I had since May (call center), I made about $140/wk
So you make 1,580/month and have trouble getting by?
The other is a little job I do on the side for the school which pays me monthly about 50-100 bucks. I guess we'll say 75 for a joke. So I get about 625.

Do you economics?
Your monthly income is less than half of the minimum wage in America.
Uhh .. no.
Min wage in canada (in my province) is 10.25 an hour. Yours varies by state but is about 7 an hour. Do you math bro?
There is a reason why it is so high here, we have a higher cost of living, in most parts of the country.
LMFAO!
You realize the cost of living in Canada is HIGHER than the US?!
I'd be lucky if I could find a one bedroom apartment for less than $600 where I live,
I don't live in a 1 bedroom dude. 3 of us live in a 2.

I make as much money in a month, than you do in a week, and I live fine. And you have the audasity to cry to me? Fvck you, you snob. You actually deserve it.
I'm not crying you moron.
Yeah actually you kinda are.
I'm simply saying that where I live, you can't support yourself because of the cost of things.
LOL and I'm saying your full of sh!T.
Canada: Apartment (1 bedroom) in City Centre 1,054.09 C$
Apartment (3 bedrooms) in City Centre 1,760.10 C$

US: Apartment (1 bedroom) in City Centre 983.26 $
Apartment (3 bedrooms) in City Centre 1,689.32 $
http://www.numbeo.com...

It was clear to me that the cost of living where you are is dramatically different.
I elaborated on that, dumbass.
And now you sling insults at me for addressing your shortsighted nature.
Fvck off.

That is because, as per the stats above, you are incompetent and have shown that unequivocally.

Sell your fvcking car, that's a luxury I'm just dreaming to have one day, and something you actually DO NOT need.
My car is how I make my money, so, no, I can't.
Uhh yeah you can. BUS. But I see why you're not doing so well. Thanks for proving my point.

Wow, and I grew up in a trailor, what's your point?

The fact that you seem to think you're entitled to live a certain way when your finances do not agree.

I bought the house in an effort to obtain wealth, you know, have something to show for years of work.

See? Entitlement.
You need to face the reality that you DO NOT MAKE ENOUGH MONEY TO AFFORD IT. It is a LUXURY, not a NECESSITY. Otherwise, you have no right to complain.

Believe it or not, the mortgage was actually less than we were paying in rent.
I don't believe you.

Did I say it wasn't?
I elaborated the point that $2K/month is living expenses only for me.
If I had an apartment somewhere, it would be maybe closer to $1K, depending.
Either way, that's almost twice your income just for shelter.
For someone that talks about assumptions and experience being crappy, you sure like to look down upon me for it based on yours.

If i actually got 500 bucks a month, the reality is my paycheck would double. And yet here you are with this" woah is me" attitude to me? Fvck off. Welcome to the real world.

Welcome to the real world?
Fvck you, kid.
You don't know me, you don't know what I do, you don't know what I've done to be where I am at.

LOL you literally just told me on here bud. Entitled snob.

Hell, here's a story for you, I pay $600/month in student loans alone. So, don't sit here and tell me that I should be able to live on your income.

Now I KNOW your full of sh!t.

Tell me, do you have a roommate? Now, tell me what it would be like if your roommate all of a sudden stopped paying bills? How fun would that be?
Pretty fun (own contracts). Nothing happens to me, he gets taken to claims.
Try again?

Go fvck yourself.
I never was complaining about my lot in life. I only brought that up to show you that $500/wk is not a lot of money, especially if one owns a business. In Canada, maybe it is. But not around where I live.
One is considered living in poverty if they make less than $13K or so, which is about twice your income.
The fact that you mistake my explaining money's value to you, who thought $500/wk is fantastic, is me complaining, is quite a black mark on your intelligence.

1) the fact that you think I don't know the value based on this exchange is a mark on your intelligence, not mine.
2) my point was that others may have it worse than you, you should take advantage of what you got and economize and
3) I rest my case: you sir are a moron.

Can your d!ck touch your @$$hole? If so, then kindly go fvck yourself. Good day.
Thank you for voting!
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2014 12:45:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 12:42:57 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
Supply does not create its own demand. No credible economist has ever argued that.

...since when is John Maynard Keynes not a credible economist again?

The absurd statement comes from the Keynesians critique of Say's Law. But Says Law postulates that the products are paid with money we earn from producing other products, so demand is linked to production, not caused by it.
Thank you for voting!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2014 1:17:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/24/2014 12:43:54 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 1/23/2014 2:02:42 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

The formula for net profits = operating profit - taxes - interests
formula for operations profits = gross profit - total operation expenses

because unless interests mean liabilities, that doesn't negate what I said. Also, you are quite insulting.

Yes it does, and in all honestly good. If you cannot tell me what profit is, then why your going into business is seriously beyond me.

So, to you, I cannot have profits, if I have liabilities, huh?

That makes no fvcking sense.
I think you are confusing profit with net worth or something else.

I borrow $10K from a friend to start a business, interest free.
I have $25K in revenue, and expenses, taxes, and rent is $22K.
I have $3K in profits.
Why does the store not have a profit, simply because I still have that $10K bond?

That makes no fvcking sense.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com...

That's revenue you fvcking idiot.

No, the revenue is $25K, moron.
Do Canadians have a different method of accounting?
Show me a link to this formula which states that profits are dependent upon liabilities.
None of my accounting books, nor an internet search, state such a formula for net profit.

Buddy, I go to university, work 2 jobs, have rent to pay, etc..
Congratulations, so did I.
Apparently not based on your comments...
What comments?
Your monthly income is less than half of the minimum wage in America.
Uhh .. no.
Min wage in canada (in my province) is 10.25 an hour. Yours varies by state but is about 7 an hour. Do you math bro?
Yeah, here it is:
40 hours x 52 weeks x $7.25 / 12 months = $1256.67 (twice your income)
And if you're only making 275 every two weeks, that means you're only working like 12 hours a week.

I work 60 hours every week, and went to school full time, while working 45 hours a week. So, if I am a snob for wanting something to show for working more than I sleep, then I guess I am a snob.

Sell your fvcking car, that's a luxury I'm just dreaming to have one day, and something you actually DO NOT need.
My car is how I make my money, so, no, I can't.
Uhh yeah you can. BUS. But I see why you're not doing so well. Thanks for proving my point.
Uhhh, there is no bus that operates at night where I live, so I can't work two jobs, can I?
Regardless, one of my jobs is delivery, so, yeah, my car is how I make my money.

Wow, and I grew up in a trailor, what's your point?

The fact that you seem to think you're entitled to live a certain way when your finances do not agree.
What does my finances have to do with me saying $500/wk is not worth owning a business for? How does that make me entitled?

You need to face the reality that you DO NOT MAKE ENOUGH MONEY TO AFFORD IT. It is a LUXURY, not a NECESSITY. Otherwise, you have no right to complain.
Again, none of this was said to complain about. It was to clarify.
Why you think this was about me bitching about my life I haven't a clue.

Believe it or not, the mortgage was actually less than we were paying in rent.
I don't believe you.
Don't care.
Hell, here's a story for you, I pay $600/month in student loans alone. So, don't sit here and tell me that I should be able to live on your income.

Now I KNOW your full of sh!t.
Your right, I did lie. It's closer to $500. ($78 + 262 + 122 + 50)
Of course, that is also me and my wife, but that means I pay almost more than you make in a month in student loan payments. Of course, I also work more than 20 hours a week.
My work here is, finally, done.
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2014 1:49:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/24/2014 12:45:50 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 1/23/2014 12:42:57 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
Supply does not create its own demand. No credible economist has ever argued that.

...since when is John Maynard Keynes not a credible economist again?

The absurd statement comes from the Keynesians critique of Say's Law. But Says Law postulates that the products are paid with money we earn from producing other products, so demand is linked to production, not caused by it.

Keynes said "supply creates is own demand" as a simplification of Say's Law to demonstrate its supposed absurdity. He never actually argued that it actually does.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2014 3:35:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/24/2014 12:43:54 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 1/23/2014 2:02:42 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

I bought the house in an effort to obtain wealth, you know, have something to show for years of work.

See? Entitlement.
You need to face the reality that you DO NOT MAKE ENOUGH MONEY TO AFFORD IT. It is a LUXURY, not a NECESSITY. Otherwise, you have no right to complain.

Believe it or not, the mortgage was actually less than we were paying in rent.
I don't believe you.

Did I say it wasn't?

This line of thinking is stupid and insulting. There's nothing in KM's statement that indicates entitlement. It shows proper planning for wealth creation. He even saved money by buying the home instead of renting at a higher monthly rate.

KM's income level easily passes a bank's qualifying standard for debt-to-income ratios. He can afford it. It's tough, because his stated income is well below the mean and the median for the US, but it's doable.

It's almost hilarious that a college student who's probably still living off ramen is criticizing someone who is out in the work force with a significant other looking to stake a claim. It's even funnier (if not extremely sad and depressing) that the specific criticism is that such people should not stake claims. It makes hitch look as if he's advocating a form of slavery. Perhaps he is thank for his own potential future as one.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?