BW,

Actually companies do care about profits. However, since they are in competition with others, they are concerned about providing good service. Government on the other hand, has a monopoly. It is not necessary for them to care much for providing good service.

Hell, every monopoly acts like government.

Justinian:

Any business class at the 100 level teaches that the bottom line is what counts.....profits....sure.

When you get to the upper levels of business, Economics, statistical analisys of the corporate finances, its the expense end that is the most important.

Just because a company turns a profit, doesnt mean anything if it is not meeting reasonable basic ratios.

Im just making a point, its a failed, uninformed montra of the Socialist-Elitist.... "Corporations only care about profits."

http://current.com/items/76391882_first_repub_debate_08

Its written as, Gross Income - Expenses = Profit.    A very SIMPLISTIC equation that by know means explains the relative health of a corporation.

/me wonders if the implied (-) that should denote "Expenses" was left out, or was the Fool, trying to be Funny.

You see, when you are dealing w/people w/limited to no knowledge of business, they automatically THINK that Profit is the import factor on a Profit/Loss statement.  Its not.

Its Expenses first.  Gross Sales/receipts 2nd. 

Profit only determines viability. 

A company can have a net loss, and still be profitable.    When you all can understand that statement....then we can talk.  If you cant, then move on.

Never really understood what the profit of companies (that got stocks) helps any growth of a society anymore since they give a very big part of the profit to the stockholders...

Like a company here in Sweden, last year they had a profit of... I dunno exactly what it was but let's say $1.2 billion and this year their profit was $0.8 bilion. So what do they do? The cut back on employes... 1/3 (!!!) of their employes to get a better profit. Tell me what this helps any growth?

Another thing, we can't tax rich people cause they would buy less then? Don't you think that they have enough to spend anyways? And the people that got the most money, do they spend it? Nah, they let it be in stocks or in banks or wherever where it builds up and never get used. Clever people, who gonna buy their stuff when nobody can afford them soon?

Also, this world is weird, all depends on people spending more and more, consuming more and more. Ofc it won't last very much longer going on like this.

Oh Boy.
As I said, a little knowledge, and people think they are experts.
Now we went from Finance of a Compnay to Marketing of a company. 

Dragon:

Explain to me, what is a company to do if it doesnt have work for its employees ?? 

What exactly is "Rich" to you, and what is "enough" money ??

You wrote"
"Rich" people put their money "in stocks or in banks or wherever where it builds up and never get used."

Never gets used in stocks or banks ??  Can you explain this position for me ??

* * * *

A sliding sales tax scale.  ROFL. 

You socialist types are so clouded by evaluating other peoples lives.  Why dont you all just mind your business ??
Its called CLASS ENVY.

This one is rich.
That one is poor.

I have a plan for both.  I will figure out what is best for them.  After all, its not fair......according to me.

Then, in 50 years, we will start all over again.

That one got "Rich" again, and that one is poor.  Lets redistribute this EQUALLY, after all, isnt that fair ??  I mean that one has to much......who cares how they got it. 

WE will now take it away......because we are the GOVT.

We are now the power.

I even have some uniformed guys with guns to make sure it goes my way.

BW: Are you telling me that the guy buying his third or fourth BMW is worried because it now costs 10% more? DOes he really need the 10 million dollar super-yacht? Are they essential to his daily needs? Add to that the fact that the cost increase is, comparatively minimal, then you really are looking silly.

Our world will not work without a central government, this is known. What ever government is in power needs to raise funds to provide what ever social/economic programs it has promised the voters to secure that power, if it does not then it will lose the power it gained. Thus there are several ways to do this:

1) Tax income tax as currently done, thus penalizing those who earn more and providing a barrier peoples personal growth.

2) A low or no Income Tax and make money in other ways (trade tarrifs, etc...) thus either having to cut services, which will not resonate well with the voters who use those services, or so stifling trade and buissnesses that the economy stalls.

3) Some other method of Taxation, of which my proposed taxation scheme is one of them. Providing no or low restrictions to personal income growth, no or little restrictions to growth of a buissness  and a steady stream of income to use to better the society. It also allows for a simple mechanism for a population to show its dissatisfaction by where they just don't buy luxury goods, thus killing the governments income stream. The so called rich have the power of the dollar whilst the 'poor' have the power of the vote (always more in the 'poor' bracket than 'rich' bracket.)

None of this has anything to do with 'class' envy, I have no hatred to the 'rich' because they are rich; but if one needs a model to use to raise money one doesn't do looking at those without money themselves, that would be silly. Thus finding a model where there is choice in if one gives money (and there is plenty of choice in my model)  and also being able to provide to the societies needs seems to be a good idea.

Of course you can go live in your libertarian world if you so desire, but you will find that the others in your world are not as friendly nor as caring as those in the real world. Libertarianism is a good ideal, and my model is derived from it, but in reality it is jsut as flawed as communism. OF course you can't see that ause you are an idiot, but thats fine.

I really dunno what's with BW. Geez. Yea yea I get it you love rich people. Doubt you are rich yourself but you want to be.  I guess you have figured that the cash flow is going to the already rich and from the already poor? I can't understand what's "fair" about this. Big companies take advantage over people in need, ofc it's "unfair"! And yes they should help the poor people through the tax to even it out a bit. What is your problem with it? You are selfish yes, we all know that, you don't want to share a penny. We know that as well. But the way you want it to work, with no taxes, (called anarchy in the end) will not work.

It's so absurd really. If someone gets rich, he/she gets more greedy (in 99% of the cases) and wants more cash and often even spends a bit less in the end. Very good for the "economy" don't ya think? "Rich" people save, make more money, make themselves billionairs... and then they die... fun life ehh. And no, they don't help the economy very much.

Ofc I'm not a graduate economy expert. In my opinion they are IDIOTS. Economy analyzers, they could as well role the dice to see what is going to happen, perhaps you are one of them BW? Or perhaps you want to be one of them? To be in charge of something. In any case it's absurd.

In any case, the government needs to be in controll over the basic things that people in the country needs. Private companies should never be alowed to benefit from people in need.

"You socialist types are so clouded by evaluating other peoples lives.  Why dont you all just mind your business ??
Its called CLASS ENVY."

Do you want to see perfect example off what happen when governments follow your way of thinking? Have you seen John Q? I advise you to see. And after you saw it, came here and say that it's a fail politic to offer free health care to people that don't have the possibilities to pay them.

"
I have a plan for both.  I will figure out what is best for them.  After all, its not fair......according to me.
Then, in 50 years, we will start all over again.

That one got "Rich" again, and that one is poor.  Lets redistribute this EQUALLY, after all, isnt that fair ??  I mean that one has to much......who cares how they got it. "

Socialism is not communism

What we are saying where, is to take for example 100.000 dollars from a person who makes 7 million a year to help people survive. We are not taking all!!!

Every people must have the right to have some dignity. Everyone deserves health care, food, education.

You seem to be afraid that if we give those things they will somehow stop working, thats its not the truth!!

"Luxury taxes dont work.   I went over that already.  Its been tried, and its a failure."

Its been tried and its a failure? well in my country there is a VAT system that penalizes alot luxury goods and it does actually work, do you think that its fair to pay for example 7% of tax for a bottle of milk, or some meat? And then a guy is going to by its 4th porshe and pays 7% of VAT?

Do you think it is fair for some one who has an income of 750 of something to pay 75 and a guy earning 750 million to pay only 75 million of tax?

It shocks me when USA people tries to show us that you are united in the "common good"that you like to help nation blablabla, and then find stupid to pay a little more tax in order to help some when they need an heart transplant

"Central Govt. mandated social services are wasteful, and an infringement on freedom.  It goes against individual freedom.  The more of your freedom you give to the central Govt., the stronger the Govt. gets to control your freedoms."

This part really tells the screwed view you have.

"Central Govt. mandated social services are wasteful" - They aren't supposed to make a profit, they are supposed to serve the people, so yea you could call it "wasteful" but that doesn't say that they are bad in ANY WAY.

"and an infringement on freedom" - The freedom of the rich or what? That you can decide which doc you want? That you can decide what school you want? Something wrong with regular docs or regular schools? Thought they all should be as good.

"It goes against individual freedom.  The more of your freedom you give to the central Govt., the stronger the Govt. gets to control your freedoms."" - This is the totaly wrong way of seeing it. You need a strong government to put up rules for everyone to follow and to make sure that they are followed. This does NOT go against your own freedom. Dunno how you figure that? Except the thing above ofc.

"
Where did I state ... "That they are bad" ??    Medical coverage or education, should be optional and varied for the people to decide.

Freedom to choose and do as you want.  Not the Central Govt. running the show."

Lol since when? Here in Portugal, the state provides health care and education, does that means that we can't chose? WRONG!!!!!

There is a growing private medical care in Portugal and about private schools, well i think that in my town there are 3 private schools... (there are 5 state schools)

Has you see, when the state provides something, that does not mean that there can't be a private sector. We do have the freedom to chose what we want!!!