Scrooge McDuck I mean Corporate America

[SuburbanFarmer]

Well I'll take my dividends where I can find them, but if the United States is inclined to break up large corporations by force of law, that doesn't bother me, but now you've moved the goalposts, and there should be no confiscation involved, and I can still take my dividends sector wide, regardless of how many head offices you impose on it.

And moreover, it wouldn't do anything for the poor, who, again, are mostly suffering from habitual and/or behaviorial issues, generally related to substance abuse and associated criminal activity.

I'd settle for a rethink of the patent system, and a major overhaul of tax codes. Then we can work on having corporate lobbyists banned from capital hill, and term limits on congress. Ya know, the basics of a functioning system.

[Smitty-48]

Well I'll take my dividends where I can find them, but if the United States is inclined to break up large corporations by force of law, that doesn't bother me, but now you've moved the goalposts, and there should be no confiscation involved, and I can still take my dividends sector wide, regardless of how many head offices you impose on it.

And moreover, it wouldn't do anything for the poor, who, again, are mostly suffering from habitual and/or behaviorial issues, generally related to substance abuse and associated criminal activity.

I'd settle for a rethink of the patent system, and a major overhaul of tax codes. Then we can work on having corporate lobbyists banned from capital hill, and term limits on congress. Ya know, the basics of a functioning system.

I don't think that would do anything for the poor neither, pretty much all the inside baseball of the upper middle class and wealthy, that.

You'd have to be in the top 20% of (highly educated) earners to even take any notice of that. Or in a college economics class.

If you want to help the poor, go down to the church and help them already, if you're talking corporate tax reform and patent law, that's all amongst us well to do, so let's not pretend it has anything to do with poverty, because we ain't the poor.

[Viktorthepirate]

There are a good amount of people who are poor and always will be because they can't help themselves.

Best you can do for them is try and make things as good as you can for them without compromising the system for everyone else.

Healthcare would be a good start.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Well I'll take my dividends where I can find them, but if the United States is inclined to break up large corporations by force of law, that doesn't bother me, but now you've moved the goalposts, and there should be no confiscation involved, and I can still take my dividends sector wide, regardless of how many head offices you impose on it.

And moreover, it wouldn't do anything for the poor, who, again, are mostly suffering from habitual and/or behaviorial issues, generally related to substance abuse and associated criminal activity.

I'd settle for a rethink of the patent system, and a major overhaul of tax codes. Then we can work on having corporate lobbyists banned from capital hill, and term limits on congress. Ya know, the basics of a functioning system.

I don't think that would do anything for the poor neither, pretty much all the inside baseball of the upper middle class and wealthy, that.

You'd have to be in the top 20% of (highly educated) earners to even take any notice of that. Or in a college economics class.

That's where you're wrong, imo. These changes would make plain the systemic chicanery perpetuated upon the 99% every single day.

If it became public knowledge, the size of the cock lodged in our collective anus, Wall Street would burn tomorrow.

[C-Mag]

I'd settle for a rethink of the patent system, and a major overhaul of tax codes. Then we can work on having corporate lobbyists banned from capital hill, and term limits on congress. Ya know, the basics of a functioning system.

I don't think that would do anything for the poor neither, pretty much all the inside baseball of the upper middle class and wealthy, that.

You'd have to be in the top 20% of (highly educated) earners to even take any notice of that. Or in a college economics class.

That's where you're wrong, imo. These changes would make plain the systemic chicanery perpetuated upon the 99% every single day.

If it became public knowledge, the size of the cock lodged in our collective anus, Wall Street would burn tomorrow.

Always comes down to brute force for you Lefties doesn't it


This is the damn OWS argument all over again.

[Smitty-48]

That's where you're wrong, imo. These changes would make plain the systemic chicanery perpetuated upon the 99% every single day.

If it became public knowledge, the size of the cock lodged in our collective anus, Wall Street would burn tomorrow.

"1% v, 99%" is simply a Cultrual Marxist opressor v. opressed meme, even if you were invoking an ostensible financial ruling class, the ratio is actually more like 20% v. 80%

As soon as anybody invokes themselves as the 99%, that there's a Commie, so conversation over, and call out the Mounties.

We don't cotton that sort of Commie shit round here.

[SuburbanFarmer]

That's where you're wrong, imo. These changes would make plain the systemic chicanery perpetuated upon the 99% every single day.

If it became public knowledge, the size of the cock lodged in our collective anus, Wall Street would burn tomorrow.

"1% v, 99%" is simply a Cultrual Marxist opressor v. opressed meme, even if you were invoking an ostensible financial ruling class, the ratio is actually more like 20% v. 80%

As soon as anybody invokes themselves as the 1%, that there's a Commie, so conversation over, and call out the Mounties.

We like to think it's 20-80. Ideally, we even fantasize about 30-70. The reality (at least in the States) is not even close.

Bear in mind that this is based on reported, traceable income. Again, not even close to reality.

[Smitty-48]

Again, you invoked the "99%", so conversation over, you can come and take these dividends from my cold dead hands, Commie, but otherwise, there's nothing more to discuss.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Again, you invoked the "99%", so conversation over, you can come and take these dividends from my cold dead hands, Commie, but otherwise, there's nothing more to discuss.

That's about what I figured. You'll be hearing from your broker shortly.

[GloryofGreece]

You're looking at final net profits, not markup at the register, which is what the OP refers to.

They can mark it up to whatever the market can bear as far as I am concerned, if you have to have an iPhone, that's what it costs, I'm not in anyway poor, and I own AAPL, but I do not own an iPhone, because I'm cheap, er I mean, frugal.

The problem, of course, is the barrier to entry. This is what happens when you have a state-sponsored monopoly.

The price of iPhones, cheeseburgers, bread, and cars will continue to rise every year, despite cheaper technologies, and more efficient manufacturing, hidden behind clever price-shifting and financing deals. It hath been written in teh Holy Book of Crony Capitalism.

You think anyone would have paid $700 for a fucking iPhone, when the carriers were subsidizing the cost? I paid $100 for mine. Now, I can sign up for low, low payments every month over the next 20 years, for the same product.

Just went to McDonalds for lunch, noticed that my meal was more than the menu price. Looked at the receipt, and apparently a "meal" now consists of the burger and fries. You pay for the sugar water that comes with it.

Where's that money going? Oh right, your fucking dividends.

It would be a bit funny if it wasn't quite so frightening. Everyone is on the hook. How much debt does the average individual American have again? Are we just on borrowed time for the most part? I never quite got how most people are basically just renting their cell phones. All that money each month.

I know all the capitalistic "rugged" individualists here want to believe everyone can just work a little harder and be smarter and they'd make plenty of money so everyone and every corporation deserves what it gets and "earned" their billions but the essence of the article hasn't been addressed because i know its too long and people just come in here to regurgitate what they believe.

The paper says, essentially, that corporations before 1980 used to charge 18% above cost for stuff. In 2016 they charged 67% above cost.