Wednesday 23rd of September 2020


Social Media Says

Or sometimes they just pay out their board, and repeat.
Lol was gonna say this. The big companies love a buyback to raise the stock price because thats how most the big wigs get a bunch of their money.
Corporations be living from bailout check to bailout check.

What You Really Think

How does a company artificially inflate their stock price?

You forgot the layoffs because they are broke now.

Were Looking at you Starbucks.

Or give a $2,000 bonus to someone.

Those lobbyists got families to feed and don't work for free!

While it is true that buying back stock does not increase revenue or help the company release new products. It does make the current EPS for shares outstanding higher and therefore more valuable from a fundamental standpoint. It's really not "bullshitting the market". Just saying.

Do you all really think that only poor people are horrible companies exists? Theres nothing in between making $15k/yr and $15b/yr?

Or something like Trade Misinvoicing, which alone is estimated to be almost $1 trillion *per year*, much of this done when advanced countries trade with developing economies (often rich corporations trading with themselves, as around ~1/3 of all international trade occurs *within* firms, which gives control over both sides of the invoice) > Trade misinvoicing is a way of illicitly moving money (value) in or out of a country by hiding it within the regular international commercial trading system. This is done when importers or exporters deliberately falsify the price they declare for goods on the invoices they submit to customs authorities. For example, value can be illicitly moved out of countries by either over-stating the value of imports, or under-stating the value of exports. Conversely, value can be illicitly moved into countries by either over-stating the value of exports, or under-stating the value of imports. Given that only about 2 percent of all global cargo containers are ever physically inspected each year, trade misinvoicing is a well-established way of illicitly transferring value across borders. > The sum of the value gaps identified in trade between 135 developing countries and 36 advanced economies in 2017 alone equaled $817.6 billion; > The sum of the value gaps identified in trade between 135 developing countries and 36 advanced economies over the ten-year period 2008-2017 equaled $8.7 trillion Meanwhile trillions (equal in value to >1/5 of the worlds GDP) is stored offshore: > A new report finds that around the world the extremely wealthy have accumulated at least $21 trillion in secretive offshore accounts. Thats a sum equal to the gross domestic products of the United States and Japan added together. The number may sound unbelievable, but the study was conducted by James Henry, former chief economist at the consultancy McKinsey, an expert on tax havens and offshoring. It was commissioned by Tax Justice Network, a British activist group. > Other dataincluding a leak of confidential records from the Swiss subsidiary of HSBC in 2007suggest that the distribution of offshore wealth is heavily skewed toward the rich: about 80 percent belongs to the top 0.1 percent of house- holds. The conclusion: accounting for offshore assets substantially boosts the wealth share of the very richest people. In other words, inequality may be far greater than other studies have found.

Ask them what they think drives Target employing more people if not more people shopping at Target.

But if we tax them, they'll put their money offshore and refuse to pay Wait.

Im drowning in debt and I approve this message.

I also have a useless degree.

No you're not.

You mean were buying 2k of spy puts amiright r/WallStreetBets?

All this dude does is start every comment with Im a political scientist and the tards on reddit eat it up haha. Shit like this helps me remember not to take reddit seriously lol.

Instead of the $1,200 check we could have used bailout funds to give every American $15,000 and let the market decide who wins. Instead we shovel cash right into the pockets of the rich.

A Political Scientist would hopefully understand the Laffer Curve. Also judging by how shit your past comments are, I highly doubt you are.

He didnt mention people...

What are you qualifications? What degrees do you hold, and where did you earn them? What position do you hold now, and what research have you done?

Why tax businesses? Because you want to tax rich people. Then tax rich people. Taxing businesses more, stifle innovation and generally the burden falls to the consumer. Just tax the rich you want to tax. Allow more middle class folks to invest and have passive income.

Donald Trumps voice resonated on the first word. My god hes in my head now.

Yang is a bandaid that fails to fundamentally address the core of all our problems, just like all the other Capitalist candidates do. The problem is Capitalism itself, and until we change that, these issues will never go away.

As Will Rogers puts it: > This election was lost four and five and six years ago not this year. They dident start thinking of the old common fellow till just as they started out on the election tour. The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover was an engineer. He knew that water trickled down. Put it uphill and let it go and it will reach the dryest little spot. But he dident know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellows hands. They saved the big banks but the little ones went up the flue.

>Trickle down might be the dumbest thing ever. Youre literally hoping theres something left by the time it gets to you. >Yang 2024.

You cant call something the dumbest thing ever and they admit you support Yang in the same comment.

That's not the idea of trickle down. The idea is not that rich people get money and then benevolently hand it down to poor people. It's that if they kept more of the money they earned (i.e. got taxed less) that they'd use it for capital investment, which is how the economy grows and how you get more and better jobs, and more and better goods and services. And what I see from woke teens like yourself is that one day you're lamenting the fact that rich people just invest their money in order to easily get richer without doing anything, and then the next day when the topic is trickle down, talk about how they're not going to invest the money in the economy if they keep more of it. So which is it?

Infrastructure, NOW.

> Close those tax loopholes Easier said than done.

It's like scrooge mcduck, except more exotic locales.

A lot of companies, like Google, for example, will set up their headquarters in a country with a lower tax rate than the US (Ireland is a popular choice). They park the money there indefinitely, as it gets taxed when its repatriated. It became such a problem that, in 2004, Congress enacted a ]repatriation tax holiday](),which taxed repatriated income at 5.25%, rather than the 35% rate at the time. This still wasnt low enough for these assholes: Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, and Alphabet ]repatriated only 9% of their cash holdings]().

These Twitter subs that used to be funny are now literally just "person says anything.".

Rule 1 of the sub. LMFAO.

Eh, close enough.

Defense? It's literally how capital markets work. It seems like you simply don't understand economics.

If it's not wealth, they should stop measuring it in dollars. If it's wealth, you get taxed on it. If you can't efficiently convert stocks into currency (while claiming it's worth $X), then you lose Y% of the stocks and they are now publicly owned. Or in other words: If a company doesn't want to pay taxes, it can sell itself to the state in lieu of cash.

This falsely implies that it doesnt matter who you give the money to. Its still better to give an actual person a stimulus check and let the company get the money that way, instead of giving it directly to the company. Not only can the actual person get useful goods and services for that money, they can choose which company to give it to even if thats not their top priority. Does this solve all the problems with capitalism? No, capitalism is still fucked. But youre being grossly disingenuous to say that the two scenarios are equivalent. Shame on you.

We didnt all get the $1200.

Its not like the poor person is going to give all $2000 to one company. Half for rent, a quarter for groceries, then some spread out at the pharmacy, some new socks, a bit of school supplies, and some dog food is more likely. Maybe a small handful in savings if they can afford to hold on to $20.

Well the poor person would get $2000 worth of goods and services, and the $2000 for the company isnt all in profit.

The reality is the give a large corporation $2000 portion of the equation would be better described as let a large corporation keep more of its own money .

Feed the tax, rich the poor. Poor the rich, tax the feed.

Buying 2k worth of Chipotle and video games still goes into the economy...

Good news is that that still does a lot more for the economy than giving it to a big business.

Lol exactly...the amount of times people take out a loan to buy a fucking $1000 phone and cant repay it...

Capitalism is not when the government does stuff.

Yea those filthy peasants.

While most people will use excess money to pay their electric/utility bills, if theyre behind those may be considered debt, I dont know a single lower income person who wouldnt immediately buy groceries, new shoes for work, and get their car fixed. Which are all immediately back into the economy stream spending items. I cannot think of a single person Ive ever known or met who got an unexpected check and threw it at the debt collectors who have been hounding them for years anyways. They almost *always* buy something theyve needed that they cant usually afford. So not sure where your understanding comes from.

Which will be purchased by more people if you give poor people money.

I think OP's point is that all those things stimulate the economy, which is what the current bailouts are supposed to do.

So what you are saying is, if you give the money to the poor people that will benefit the large company? Shocking.

Probably a pair of Jordans and a Gucci belt.

I'm betting you genuinely thought this was so witty as you were typing it lmao.

Lol its related to an economic principle called a spending multiplier. Basically, this tells you how much total spending an initial injection of spending in the economy will generate. Poorer individuals have a much higher spending multiplier than do the wealthy or large companies Have you heard of this concept? I doubt it.

But then the people still get the goods and services they paid for with the money...

But then the poor people *get the necessities* you dunce.

No. 2000 would be enough to pay for a month of rent, bills, and necessities in the majority of cases. Poor people would be happy with literally anything especially 2 grand. Something tells me you don't know much about poverty.

One could argue the top 0.1% is more parasitic to society than the bottom 20%. Zero accountability is absolutely right...for the 0.1%.

LOL so funny how poor choices only apply to poor people and not businesses to Conservatives. Businesses have their hands out all over the place looking for handouts, and when they fail they want to be propped up. No one is buying Republicans pretending to care about "accountability".

Parasitic you say? Question, do you consider tax payers parasites? Because you have to have filled your taxes the previous year to get the money. I mean if you think they are then you are also a parasite that it suckling at my teat as I probably pay more in taxes than you. So you can keep suckling on me like the parasitic worm you are or you can get off my teat and, well you know what happens when you parasites no longer can suckle.

Off shore banks don't recirculate money in to the American economy. It's like if you give me money and I drive to Canada and buy a floppy disk there. I am supporting the Canadian economy while removing money from the american economy. Sure it may eventually come back but that is a matter of when and if.