America's companies are hoarding $1.4 trillion in cash

originally posted by: stabstab
How soon can space mining and prospecting begin?

As soon as it is profitable.

originally posted by: wantsome
The best part of trickle down economics is when the corporations pee on your leg and tell you it's raining. If these corporations want hide their money offshore and outsource jobs then maybe they should go live somewhere else. Why should they get to enjoy the privilege of being an American at everyone else's expense. The American people are the ones being exploited by these jerks.

Oh it's trickling down alright, little by little. The people get a little while the Big Biz and wealthy folk get the majority.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Semantics. An idea can generate profit and accomplish those goals.

You do release the wording is 'especially the difference' and not 'the difference'? It is a qualified. Again, if your salary is not profit why is it taxed? Income is profit, it is profit form your time.

Pointing out hypocritical comments is not a personal attack. Stop being hysterical.

We can't just go sit in the sun and grow like plants - we need food. Ideas can lead to products, products can lead to demand, and demand can lead to revenue. Ultimately, though, people further down the line still have to go harvest the fields and butcher the livestock. Supposing (hypothetically, not buying those prediction threads) society collapsed this week - you would still need food, but probably not an iPhone or an investment agent.

You are trying to link things that are not linked. Again, even if you (wrongly) believe that income = profit, you are ignoring that what my argument criticizes is (again) the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent. You are trying to link two things together which are dissimilar.

You are doing this to further your tu quoque. In doing so, the entire body of your replies breaks down to tu quoque. Let me read you what tu quoque is, since you keep saying you aren't attacking me:

the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).

It is a fallacy because the moral character or past actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument. It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of fact about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.

Like ad hominem, you are attacking me, not the argument.

This is stranger still, given that your answer when I asked about the argument:

originally posted by: Greven
Do you disagree with my argument or not?

..is that you agreed with it:

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
No, because if you are drawing a salary and criticize profits you are a hypocrite.

You keep going back to generalizing profit (so far as to say individual income is profit) while ignoring my specific critique (that of businesses seeking profit), yet not disagreeing with the argument.

What an odd attempt at deflection. Why?

originally posted by: Greven

We can't just go sit in the sun and grow like plants - we need food.

Yeah? And? You said resoruces are finite. I supplied an example to the contray. Now you want to wander off into the weeds about who processes your meat.

You are trying to link things that are not linked. Again, even if you (wrongly) believe that income = profit...

Income is profit, which is why you are taxed. If you sat around on your ass all day you would not be paying taxes because you are not generating a profit. Prove otherwise.

This is stranger still, given that your answer when I asked about the argument

...

...is that you agreed with it:

Because it applies. You decry one aspect, corporations making money, yet it is somehow kosher for you to make money. You cannot butter your bread on both sides.

You keep going back to generalizing profit (so far as to say individual income is profit) while ignoring my specific critique (that of businesses seeking profit), yet not disagreeing with the argument.

See above. You cannot have it both ways.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Greven

Growth requires a sustained source of income.

A renewable one at that.

Let's take the op.

Take that $1.4 from the evil corporations then what ?

Spend it of course, but then those companies no longer have the funds to do R and D, buy new equipment, and everything else it takes to RUN A BUSINESS.

That resource is GONE.

Then what ?

While your understanding could be better, it's your application of that to the OP that is faulty.

Those funds could be used on R&D, equipment, people... things that are called 'growth.'

Sitting on that money for a rainy day might be an idea, but it isn't growth.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Yeah? And? You said resoruces are finite. I supplied an example to the contray. Now you want to wander off into the weeds about who processes your meat.

Income is profit, which is why you are taxed. If you sat around on your ass all day you would not be paying taxes because you are not generating a profit. Prove otherwise.

Because it applies. You decry one aspect, corporations making money, yet it is somehow kosher for you to make money. You cannot butter your bread on both sides.

See above. You cannot have it both ways.

Ideas only matter if someone will pay you for them. If everyone is more concerned with what they're going to eat, you probably ain't going to be paid for ideas, no matter how limitless your intellect nor profound your ideas.

You're taxed on spending money on goods (even food in some states) in places with sales tax, too. That's certainly not profit. In business (which you especially should know), income is all revenue. Subtract out taxes and expenses, and you're left with profit. Ergo, income and profit are not the same thing. Do you for some reason disagree with this, too?

Here you go again, attacking me. You keep saying that you aren't, calling me hysterical and such. I think everyone reading this thread can see the side speaking from truth, now.

What are your motivations for these deflections... is it because you are also a business owner? Do you feel some degree of guilt in my words that motivate lashing out as such?

You know as well as I that for a business to grow, it has to spend money towards that goal. Businesses sitting on vast sums of money ain't headed towards that direction. They might be saving it for a rainy day (thinking things will go south), but they aren't using it to expand.

a reply to: Greven

Oh my understand is JUST fine.

People cry about corporations all day long.

Then turn around and cry wheres' my job.

Wheres my iphone.

Wheres my free corporate products.

originally posted by: Greven

Ideas only matter if someone will pay you for them. If everyone is more concerned with what they're going to eat, you probably ain't going to be paid for ideas, no matter how limitless your intellect nor profound your ideas.

Which is not the case since the world is still up and running last time I peeked out the window.

You're taxed on spending money on goods (even food in some states) in places with sales tax, too. That's certainly not profit. In business (which you especially should know), income is all revenue. Subtract out taxes and expenses, and you're left with profit. Ergo, income and profit are not the same thing. Do you for some reason disagree with this, too?

Taxes on goods and/or services are not the same as income taxes. When you work you generate income which is a profit of your labor. This is as simple as economics can possibly get.

Here you go again, attacking me. You keep saying that you aren't, calling me hysterical and such. I think everyone reading this thread can see the side speaking from truth, now.

It appears you have a persecution complex. Pointing out hypocritical statements is not a personal attack. Unless of course you knew you were being hypocritical and are doing it on purpose.

What are your motivations for these deflections... is it because you are also a business owner?

What deflection? And yes, I was a multiple business owner at one point. Now I work for an evil multi-national corporation.

Do you feel some degree of guilt in my words that motivate lashing out as such?

'Lashing out'? Stop being hyper-sensitive.

You know as well as I that for a business to grow, it has to spend money towards that goal.

Uh, huh.

Businesses sitting on vast sums of money ain't headed towards that direction.

Really? Apple is sitting on huge cash reserves and last time I check the ticker they were still heading up in value.

They might be saving it for a rainy day (thinking things will go south), but they aren't using it to expand.

Frankly what other people do with their money is not my concern unless I have a vested interest in that company.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Which is not the case since the world is still up and running last time I peeked out the window.

Taxes on goods and/or services are not the same as income taxes. When you work you generate income which is a profit of your labor. This is as simple as economics can possibly get.

Here you go again, attacking me. You keep saying that you aren't, calling me hysterical and such. I think everyone reading this thread can see the side speaking from truth, now.

It appears you have a persecution complex. Pointing out hypocritical statements is not a personal attack. Unless of course you knew you were being hypocritical and are doing it on purpose.

What are your motivations for these deflections... is it because you are also a business owner?

What deflection? And yes, I was a multiple business owner at one point. Now I work for an evil multi-national corporation.

Do you feel some degree of guilt in my words that motivate lashing out as such?

'Lashing out'? Stop being hyper-sensitive.

You know as well as I that for a business to grow, it has to spend money towards that goal.

Uh, huh.

Businesses sitting on vast sums of money ain't headed towards that direction.

Really? Apple is sitting on huge cash reserves and last time I check the ticker they were still heading up in value.

They might be saving it for a rainy day (thinking things will go south), but they aren't using it to expand.

Frankly what other people do with their money is not my concern unless I have a vested interest in that company.

Yet, you cannot deny that it has been the case in history. Therefore, an intangible resource being limitless is simply not relevant. Hell, if the hypothetical asteroid were to hit Earth and eliminate all humanity, then the 'limitless' resource would be eliminated. Care to try something else?

Yet, you say:

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Your salary is a profit, hence the reason it is taxed.

Your assertion is that a government taxes because profit is incurred. Which is wrong, of course... salary isn't profit, and governments don't just levy taxes on profit. In fact, taxes are part of the basis for calculating profit from income. Again, income and profit are not the same, no matter how many times you keep trying to cloud the issue.

There is no persecution complex. I call a spade a spade. Unlike you, who calls income profit.

With its money, Apple has been building a new campus and buying back stock, among other things. It also suffered earlier in its history and survived thanks to goodwill, which has probably influenced its holding of substantial funds in case of a repeat.

originally posted by: Greven

Yet, you cannot deny that it has been the case in history.

We are not talking about history, we are talking about the present.

Your assertion is that a government taxes because profit is incurred. Which is wrong, of course... salary isn't profit, and governments don't just levy taxes on profit. In fact, taxes are part of the basis for calculating profit from income. Again, income and profit are not the same, no matter how many times you keep trying to cloud the issue.

No, that is a made up assumption on your part, I never said that. I said your income is taxed because it is profit and I am still waiting for you to prove otherwise.

With its money, Apple has been building a new campus and buying back stock, among other things. It also suffered earlier in its history and survived thanks to goodwill, which has probably influenced its holding of substantial funds in case of a repeat.

Thank you for proving my point. They have tremendous cash reserves and they are growing.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: CB328

This is what happens when you have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world.

No, this is what happens when you have corporations running the country. There will be less and less companies in the future and soon the corporations will start competing with each other to death til one wins like Walmart. Canada is out of question Canada also has no companies left to compete with American Corporations. Timmy's signed a contract with King Burger. And Canadians rely on Americans Jets.
EU is also screwed already. Americans are still competing with Russians when it comes to Military. AK47 ftw!!

originally posted by: makemap
No, this is what happens when you have corporations running the country.

If they were 'running the country' do you not think they would have managed to cut the corporate tax rate, repeal taxation on overseas revenue and not need to offshore in tax havens?

There will be less and less companies in the future and soon the corporations will start competing with each other to death til one wins like Walmart.

Or until a competitor does a better job than Walmart and puts them out of business.

Canada is out of question Canada also has no companies left to compete with Americans Corporations. Timmy's signed a contract with King Burger. And Canadians rely on Americans Jets.

Tim Horton's signed with Burger King so Burger King could pay lower corporate rates.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
We are not talking about history, we are talking about the present.

Your assertion is that a government taxes because profit is incurred. Which is wrong, of course... salary isn't profit, and governments don't just levy taxes on profit. In fact, taxes are part of the basis for calculating profit from income. Again, income and profit are not the same, no matter how many times you keep trying to cloud the issue.

No, that is a made up assumption on your part, I never said that. I said your income is taxed because it is profit and I am still waiting for you to prove otherwise.

With its money, Apple has been building a new campus and buying back stock, among other things. It also suffered earlier in its history and survived thanks to goodwill, which has probably influenced its holding of substantial funds in case of a repeat.

Thank you for proving my point. They have tremendous cash reserves and they are growing.

I guess history matters to you as much as the meaning of words do.

Income is not profit, and again, my critique was not on people's salaries but business profits. It's hard to prove that to you when you don't read the words that I am typing. Let's try once more:
Suppose you have company A, which has an income of $200,000, non-tax expenses of $65,000, and taxes of $2500. Its profit would be $132,500.
Income: $200,000
Profit: $132,500
Same? NO.

I fail to see how it's proving your point when they are spending money, when you instead say they are sitting on money.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: makemap
No, this is what happens when you have corporations running the country.

If they were 'running the country' do you not think they would have managed to cut the corporate tax rate, repeal taxation on overseas revenue and not need to offshore in tax havens?

There will be less and less companies in the future and soon the corporations will start competing with each other to death til one wins like Walmart.

Or until a competitor does a better job than Walmart and puts them out of business.

Canada is out of question Canada also has no companies left to compete with Americans Corporations. Timmy's signed a contract with King Burger. And Canadians rely on Americans Jets.

Tim Horton's signed with Burger King so Burger King could pay lower corporate rates.

Keep blaming the Gov for all you know. If the gov doesn't do high tax rate, the corporations wouldn't be running. So, you really want corporations to run America do you? Small businesses have nothing to do with unable to do a better job than Walmart. Walmart freaking bought out the land and have enough resources to remain in power til someone starts buying out Walmart's land. "The rich gets richer." Corporations are your lords, obey them or get your home bought out.

originally posted by: Greven

I guess history matters to you as much as the meaning of words do.

History is irrelevant in this discussion, the article was clearly about the present and so are my replies.

Income is not profit...

Income is a profit from ones time.

Let's try once more:
Suppose you have company A, which has an income of $200,000, non-tax expenses of $65,000, and taxes of $2500. Its profit would be $132,500.
Income: $200,000
Profit: $132,500
Same? NO.

Try this instead: John works and makes $60,000 in one year. John does not work and makes $0 in one year. How much profit does John make if he works?

I fail to see how it's proving your point when they are spending money, when you instead say they are sitting on money.

Because Apple is still sitting on cash reserves totaling $159 billion. That is how.

originally posted by: makemap

Keep blaming the Gov for all you know.

I will and I do not need your permission to do so but thanks anyway.

If the gov doesn't do high tax rate, the corporations wouldn't be running. So, you really want corporations to run America do you? Small businesses have nothing to do with unable to do a better job than Walmart.

Really? Is that so? Ask me how many times I have shopped at Walmart.

The answer is zero. I have never purchased a thing from them and my mother is a store manager so I would get her employee discount if I did. For a company that has run the little guy into the ground they sure seemed to botch it in my area where I can get anything I want without shopping there.

Corporations are your lords, obey them or get your home bought out.

Okie, dokie. Whatever you say chief.

originally posted by: CB328
So you think Obama and government bureaucracy in general is terrible for business and stifling their profit making and by extension job creation? Well guess again. In fact, not only have a lot of companies continued to see record profits during the Obama years, but they have a lot of money at their disposal that they could be using if they wanted to. How much? Nearly one and a half trillion dollars. What is true is that American companies often don't hire as many people as they could because they care more about being cheap than the well being of America or Americans. Now these same CEO's want to control the Presidency. I hope they don't succeed.

America's companies are hoarding $1.4 trillion in cash

money.cnn.com...

My question is what did they spend the money on? 2 or 3 years ago they were holding A LOT more in cash.

Ok so the govt confiscates all 32 trillion. Now where does the money go? Either back to the corps( that rightfully earned it) or to the beaurocrats that will embezzle it and tell we the people to # off.

I would expect banks to be setting on 1.4 trillion not corporations.

originally posted by: CB328

This is what happens when you have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world

Most companies pay very little in taxes. This has been debunked about a billions times, yet somehow people keep making this bogus claim. I'm going to have to call dishonesty here.

This is a genuine question so forgive my ignorance. What exactly is it that corporations are supposed to pay taxes on? When a car company buys steel sheets from a Foundry, are they not paying taxes on that? When Boeing buys Jet Engines from General Electric for their fancy new Dreamliner, are they not paying taxes on that? When Wal Mart pays it's employees are they not paying a payroll tax? When Starbucks pays their CEO, are they not deducting taxes?

Again, this is a genuine question, I have heard this claim several times before and it always confused me. Please if someone wouldn't mind explaining.