Recruiting Forum Off Topic Thread III

Devo182

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2015
Messages
5,818
Likes
7,233
This has to be the worst idea I've ever heard of. Glad you aren't in a position of power..
Lol it's not merely an idea... ever heard of Section 8? That is one form of it. And many cities are spreading out government housing as well across the city, rather than in 1 place. I know Knoxville was doing this to some degree before I left. Asheville has done it for quite some time and has a good model that has worked and is studied by others. Charlotte is in the midst of working on something similar. It has been implemented and to good effect in plenty of places. How would ghettos be preferable? The poor must be a part of the city, not swept into a corner to be isolated.
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2011
Messages
11,616
Likes
10,572
I think GT will be in much better shape long term for having moved on from Johnson. Was not a great recruiter. GT takes care of athletes as far as academics. They don’t all have to be Josh Dobb like. They play in the ACC. With a good coach and staff, they pulled bama’s OL coach, they can be a top 20 program. It’s a great town to play in if you like a major league city. Under Johnson, they had become no threat to Georgia in recruiting. Still enough talent to be successful. Watch and wait and see what happens. I wanted Johnson fired.
 

chargervol

Are you sure
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
13,612
Likes
34,043
@reVOLution33
After skimming through the Football Forum, (yeah I know), I was reminded how stupid 99% of interweb kerfuffles are. And why it's not my thing.
We obviously disagree, but if I came across as insulting towards your family.. or you.., that's messed up and not what I meant.
Not my intention at all. 👍

But I did get to use "kerfuffle". Sweet.
 

Devo182

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2015
Messages
5,818
Likes
7,233
Millionaires and corporations don’t pay nearly as much in taxes as they should so yeah. Amazon paid zero in taxes. How does that make any sense?
They are still carrying forward losses from some time ago and just now getting deductions for stock compensation being excercised, but issued some time ago. Not all too unusual for young companies. And they paid hundreds of millions in state and int'l fwiw.

Not that they are at all innocent - been playing the int'l tax inversion schemes, like inBev and others, for quite some time to shelter oversea profits.
 

Devo182

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2015
Messages
5,818
Likes
7,233
The consumer pays 100% of corporate taxes.
Economists disagree. Studies show workers or shareholders tend to take on the burden. Have to remember most companies aren't c-corps and prices are based on supply and demand, not companies willing their desired profit margin into existence. If your good or service is part of a c-corp and corporate taxes go up, an llc will just steal market share if you try to raise your prices.
 

InVOLuntary

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2012
Messages
38,113
Likes
33,861
Economists disagree. Studies show workers or shareholders tend to take on the burden. Have to remember most companies aren't c-corps and prices are based on supply and demand, not companies willing their desired profit margin into existence. If your good or service is part of a c-corp and corporate taxes go up, an llc will just steal market share if you try to raise your prices.
Meh. All cost of doing business is passed down to the cost of the service or goods being produced. Be it taxes, light bills, raw material, it is all passed down to the purchaser of the product.
 

Devo182

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2015
Messages
5,818
Likes
7,233
Meh. All cost of doing business is passed down to the cost of the service or goods being produced. Be it taxes, light bills, raw material, it is all passed down to the purchaser of the product.
Not necessarily, shareholders/owners can accept less, wages could decrease, efficiency improved, product quality lowered, cut back on other expenses, scale to size, vert/horizontally integrate, etc. "just raise the price" is too simplistic and can be a quick route to ruin if your competitors are smart. Depends on the market share, margins, suppliers, buyers, etc.

Especially these days - the "build market share while operating with massive losses for years and years...then monetize" is all the rage.
 

InVOLuntary

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2012
Messages
38,113
Likes
33,861
Not necessarily, shareholders/owners can accept less, wages could decrease, efficiency improved, product quality lowered, cut back on other expenses, scale to size, vert/horizontally integrate, etc. "just raise the price" is too simplistic and can be a quick route to ruin if your competitors are smart. Depends on the market share, margins, suppliers, buyers, etc.

Especially these days - the "build market share while operating with massive losses for years and years...then monetize" is all the rage.
So the consumer pays by lower wages? Less employment? I don't think companies absorb taxes and accept lower profit.

If you purchase a product from me, your paying my payroll taxes, property taxes, business taxes, income taxes, vehicle ttaxes and any other license and fees that I am responsible for. Not only the taxes but a markup on those taxes as well.
 

Vols4us

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
15,930
Likes
9,047
So the consumer pays by lower wages? Less employment? I don't think companies absorb taxes and accept lower profit.

If you purchase a product from me, your paying my payroll taxes, property taxes, business taxes, income taxes, vehicle ttaxes and any other license and fees that I am responsible for. Not only the taxes but a markup on those taxes as well.
Yep. Real world versus academia.

I was a business banker. Thousands and thousands of small business loans of about every type throughout the country in addition to years as an young underwriter of larger corporate financing. Businesses do not operate in vacuums. They adapt to conditions on the ground wherever they are located. The ones that succeed are not going to eat additional costs permanently without passing them on at some point. They may short term if the competition is stiff and know they will be able to return to acceptable margins reasonably soon. The consumer always pays the freight. Period.
 

Devo182

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2015
Messages
5,818
Likes
7,233
So the consumer pays by lower wages? Less employment? I don't think companies absorb taxes and accept lower profit.

If you purchase a product from me, your paying my payroll taxes, property taxes, business taxes, income taxes, vehicle ttaxes and any other license and fees that I am responsible for. Not only the taxes but a markup on those taxes as well.
uhh what? No the workers may make less or have hours cut, not sure where the consumer comes in there. And yes companies will take lower MARGINS if it could mean higher market share. Thinking of absorbing additional tax as meaning less profit is too simplistic. We are talking a shift in taxes...not taxes in general.

Again, most companies are not c-corps. Understand? The landscape of competition doesn't often allow raising prices when non c-corps would just beat you. Fact is the real world doesn't work like you may expect from an econ 101 class. Real businnesses have larger strategic scopes than to just raise prices every time something comes up.
 
Last edited:

VN Store



Sponsors
 

Top