Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;741838 wrote:That is true, but we need jobs ....

  Need for employment by someone has never been a component of a company's decision in hiring.
  
  In order to increase one's chances of getting employed they should focus on the value they themselves can provide.
• O-Trap

  

  Con_Alma;741888 wrote:Need for employment by someone has never been a component of a company's decision in hiring.
  
  In order to increase one's chances of getting employed they should focus on the value they themselves can provide.

  Bin-friggin'-go!
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "Your rant about uncertainty is nonsense. Why don't you just say that you don't like Obama and be done with it. We get it. "
  
  I don't like Obama. I didn't vote for him and think he's making fool of a lot of people, especially those that think he isn't bad for business.
  
  The 1099 part of the healthcare was seriously the dumbest thing I've ever seen in any piece of legislation, and he signed off on it.
• fish82

  

  I Wear Pants;741793 wrote:Just looking at corporations alone (Not S Corps, Sole Proprietorships, Partnerships, etc) you just got rid of $353,083,862,000 in tax revenue!
  
  http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07coccr.pdf

  ...at a 34% tax rate...damn greedy corporations!
• stlouiedipalma

  Con_Alma;741823 wrote:I wish people would embrace this fact.
  
  If you don't bring value to a potential employer....more value than your co-worker, there's no reason to employ you.

  
  And if there is no demand for a company's goods or service it wouldn't matter how qualified or valuable a potential employee is. These folks aren't going to hire for the sake of hiring. There must be a reason (sales) to add more personnel.
• O-Trap

  

  stlouiedipalma;742236 wrote:And if there is no demand for a company's goods or service it wouldn't matter how qualified or valuable a potential employee is. These folks aren't going to hire for the sake of hiring. There must be a reason (sales) to add more personnel.

  Exactly. If your service is no longer relevant, why weren't you diversifying? Keeping up with trends? Prospecting properly? Market projection analysis?
  
  If you let yourself become irrelevant, why be upset when you are treated as such?
• I Wear Pants

  fish82;741930 wrote:...at a 34% tax rate...damn greedy corporations!

  Very, very, very few corporations are paying anywhere even remotely close to that rate.
• I Wear Pants

  O-Trap;742242 wrote:Exactly. If your service is no longer relevant, why weren't you diversifying? Keeping up with trends? Prospecting properly? Market projection analysis?
  
  If you let yourself become irrelevant, why be upset when you are treated as such?

  Well yeah, but he wasn't talking about companies doing poorly. He's talking about how most companies are currently making quite good profits and yet not having trouble meeting demand. So they won't hire.
  
  The problem is raising demand or finding new markets. Both of which are tricky things and why I don't believe either side currently has a good solution for the job problem we have.
• Footwedge

  I Wear Pants;742338 wrote:Very, very, very few corporations are paying anywhere even remotely close to that rate.

  Winner.
• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;742339 wrote:Well yeah, but he wasn't talking about companies doing poorly. He's talking about how most companies are currently making quite good profits and yet not having trouble meeting demand. So they won't hire.

  First, part of that is that we are just now coming out of a bad situation.
  
  But beyond that, the solution is to be "better" than the parts already in place. In this instance, you've got at-will employers and employees. As such, if you go to an employer who isn't hiring, but you can establish why hiring you (either in addition to, or in place of, a current piece of the company's puzzle) will cause his company to run better, you have, in essence, created the very opening you can fill.
  
  And to be fair, a lot of companies are still not making good profits yet. They may look good in light of all the cut-backs they've made to their overhead, so that for now, their ROI is higher, but that doesn't mean they have (a) realistic leeway for expansion, or (b) a purpose for hiring.
  
  Naturally, if a company has the money to hire someone, but they don't have the need for someone, then they're going to just pocket the profit. That gets back to my point. You need to not only BE relevantly valuable, but you need to UNDERSTAND your value, so that you can make others understand it as well. A CEO might be happy with his business model until someone shows him how it can improve. Same applies all the way down to middle management. If you can establish yourself to anyone along that hierarchical ladder as an asset, then you can still get a job when they aren't hiring.
  

  I Wear Pants;742339 wrote:The problem is raising demand or finding new markets. Both of which are tricky things and why I don't believe either side currently has a good solution for the job problem we have.

  Oh, I agree with this. I'm not sure there is a solution beyond time, quite honestly.
• I Wear Pants

  Yeah, we're agreed on that. A lot of people seem to not understand that if you explain why you will be a benefit to the companies endeavors they're likely to hire you. I've even done that for the relatively few and entry level jobs that I have/had.
• Con_Alma

  stlouiedipalma;742236 wrote:And if there is no demand for a company's goods or service it wouldn't matter how qualified or valuable a potential employee is. These folks aren't going to hire for the sake of hiring. There must be a reason (sales) to add more personnel.

  I didn't say add personnel though. I said hire you and that's where you must bring more value than a "co-worker" or other employer. We have replaced employees before with a new hire who brought more value to us.
• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;742371 wrote:Yeah, we're agreed on that. A lot of people seem to not understand that if you explain why you will be a benefit to the companies endeavors they're likely to hire you. I've even done that for the relatively few and entry level jobs that I have/had.

  
  Done it twice. Worked both times.
  
  Now, it does mean that you'd better PROVE that value once you're there, but if you're willing to do that, they'll keep you around.
• Tobias Fünke

  

  Con_Alma;741823 wrote:If you don't bring value to a potential employer....more value than your co-worker, there's no reason to employ you.

  
  Very, very true. But you see the problem is that since the industrial revolution started we've needed fewer and fewer people to do X job. The more automated society becomes the less "value" the average person has. It already happened to manufacturing, teachers are next.
• fish82

  

  I Wear Pants;742338 wrote:Very, very, very few corporations are paying anywhere even remotely close to that rate.

  So the rest are paying 50-60% then? Someone is if the government is collecting 34% of corporate revenues, no?
• bigorangebuck22

  sleeper;741798 wrote:Although I don't have the numbers in front of me, assuming there was no corporate income tax, there is a good chance that we would generate more revenue in the long run without one. How? Corporations would likely either spend the extra money they have hiring new workers(who pay taxes), investing in new technology(creating new industries), or paying out more in dividends(which are taxed). Corporations already have to deal with the so called "Double taxation" because they have to pay a corporate income tax on gross profits as well as pay an additional tax on anything they pay out through dividends.
  
  Plus, we instantly become the place where other corporations want to come because we have a favorable business environment via low taxes, thus generating more revenue through jobs that way too.

  Or they'll just pay the CEO 50 million instead of 10 Million and his accountant will use every loophole available to make sure he pays 4 bucks in taxes.
• I Wear Pants

  fish82;742563 wrote:So the rest are paying 50-60% then? Someone is if the government is collecting 34% of corporate revenues, no?

  No the government isn't collecting 34% of corporate revenues.
• queencitybuckeye

  The reality is that corporations pay no taxes, they merely function as middlemen, transfer agents. Just another layer of government inefficiency.
• I Wear Pants

  Again, so you think there should be no corporate taxes then?
• sleeper

  

  bigorangebuck22;742565 wrote:Or they'll just pay the CEO 50 million instead of 10 Million and his accountant will use every loophole available to make sure he pays 4 bucks in taxes.

  
  If the shareholders are okay with it, then what is the problem?
• BGFalcons82

  

  sleeper;742603 wrote:If the shareholders are okay with it, then what is the problem?

  
  It's not FAIR!! boo hoo waaaah sniffle sniffle waaahh
• BGFalcons82

  

  I Wear Pants;742586 wrote:Again, so you think there should be no corporate taxes then?

  
  YESSSS!! No corporate taxes.
  No income taxes.
  No phone taxes.
  No capital gains taxes.
  No Death Tax.
  No Gas Tax.
  No FICA Tax.
  No employer match of the FICA tax.
  No FEDERAL TAXES WHATSOEVER!!
  
  Everybody is flailing about regarding GE paying no taxes, yet making tens of billions in profits. Dig deeper. Why? The answer lies in the hundreds of people GE employs to look at ways AROUND paying taxes. They are legally doing what the tax code drafters, i.e. the IRS, have FORCED them to do. Do NOT be mad at GE, they are merely living by the rules given to them by our elitist rulers, whom designate who wins (pays no taxes) and loses (pays taxes as penalties). There are only a couple solutions to win this class war that has been raging since 1913. One is the flat tax, wherein everybody pays the same rate across the board with no deductions, no credits, no qualifications, and no protected classes. The other way is to tax consumption through the...
  
  www.fairtax.org
• fish82

  

  I Wear Pants;742568 wrote:No the government isn't collecting 34% of corporate revenues.

  Sorry...net income. Still, the point stands...if "very few if any" are paying that rate, then there are a shitload of corps paying way more than that.
• I Wear Pants

  They aren't collecting 34% of net income.
  
  The 35% is the MAXIMUM they can collect and nearly all corporations pay far, far less than that percentage.
• fish82

  

  I Wear Pants;742623 wrote:They aren't collecting 34% of net income.
  
  The 35% is the MAXIMUM they can collect and nearly all corporations pay far, far less than that percentage.

  Right again lol...the zoom feature in Adobe is my friend, I know.