3 ms·

That logic is completely asinine and you know it. If yacht makers sell a $20 million yacht, it doesn't mean half that money goes to the workers and the other h

by debt 18y ago

That logic is completely asinine and you know it. If yacht makers sell a $20 million yacht, it doesn't mean half that money goes to the workers and the other half goes to the CEO. No. It's called profit maximization. They pay the workers barely enough to live on while the board gets 30 times that amount. Maximize profits. The Yacht tax didn't work because yacht owners found loopholes in the tax code such as declaring their yacht as a second home, etc. Yacht owners buy high-quality, high-value yachts. It doesn't matter if they were made in Missouri or Malaysia, as long as they're expensive and are made of some rare resource. Stop spreading your bullshit half-baked "ideas" about capitalism. Read the damn business section of a newspaper sometime.

ceafefg333 18y ago
You obviously know nothing about economics, but if you're getting your ideas from the business section of a newspaper that's understandable.
krschultz 18y ago
Additionally to not knowing anything about economics, you know nothing of the yacht tax. As some one in the yacht industry, I can tell you it was devestating. And if you think the CEO of a yacht building company rakes in money like the yacht buyers - well you just haven't seen many of their homes. Realize we are competing with China on a significantly slimmer profit margin than your average startup, on a boom or bust industry with fickle buyers. And nearly all boat yards are sole proprietor private enterprises, so their is no board to pay out to. And there is no loophole in the tax code. Go to another country, buy a boat flagged their. Keep it outside US waters. Fly to it when you want to go on vacation. People rarely cruise in the US anyway, it is Bahamas, the Med, etc. The loop hole you are referring to if anything is flagging yourself as commercial vs private, and it has to do with income tax on charters - not the initial purchase.
anamax 18y ago
> The Yacht tax didn't work because yacht owners found loopholes in the tax code such as declaring their yacht as a second home, etc. The yacht tax was collected from US manufacturer and importerss, not the buyers, so it didn't matter what the buyers claimed. The boat-building industry in the US took a huge hit. It turns out that rich folks can keep their boats overseas and poorer folks can do without. That didn't happen before the tax. Maybe you don't think much of building boats but feel free to explain how losing their jobs did the US workers was good for them. They sure didn't like it. > They pay the workers barely enough to live on while the board gets 30 times that amount. Maximize profits. If you really believe that the workers are getting screwed, it's easy enough to set up a company that doesn't screw workers. If you're right, you'll get better workers, they'll make more money, and the money that you save by not paying "the board" can be used to undercut the "evil companies", driving them out of biz. It doesn't take much money to prove that you're correct, but it does take the courage to risk your money. I'm sure that you're doing that right now, right? BTW - feel free to name three companies whose profit is 30x the employee expense. (I'm making it easy - the profit can go to stockholders not on the board.) Include cites where we can verify. > That logic is completely asinine and you know it. It's asinine that folks will try to avoid taxes? Wowsers. It's asinine that folks will do less of things that are taxed? Better tell Congress that the taxes to discourage (their intended goal) and benefits to encourage (again, their intent) don't work. > Read the damn business section of a newspaper sometime. I do. That's where I read about the boat companies laying off workers. That's where I read about tax effects. The boat workers preferred building boats to being unemployed; we know that because they could have "unemployed" themselves before they were laid-off. Are they wrong?

by debt 18y ago

ceafefg333 18y ago

You obviously know nothing about economics, but if you're getting your ideas from the business section of a newspaper that's understandable.

krschultz 18y ago

Additionally to not knowing anything about economics, you know nothing of the yacht tax. As some one in the yacht industry, I can tell you it was devestating. And if you think the CEO of a yacht building company rakes in money like the yacht buyers - well you just haven't seen many of their homes. Realize we are competing with China on a significantly slimmer profit margin than your average startup, on a boom or bust industry with fickle buyers. And nearly all boat yards are sole proprietor private enterprises, so their is no board to pay out to. And there is no loophole in the tax code. Go to another country, buy a boat flagged their. Keep it outside US waters. Fly to it when you want to go on vacation. People rarely cruise in the US anyway, it is Bahamas, the Med, etc. The loop hole you are referring to if anything is flagging yourself as commercial vs private, and it has to do with income tax on charters - not the initial purchase.

anamax 18y ago

> The Yacht tax didn't work because yacht owners found loopholes in the tax code such as declaring their yacht as a second home, etc. The yacht tax was collected from US manufacturer and importerss, not the buyers, so it didn't matter what the buyers claimed. The boat-building industry in the US took a huge hit. It turns out that rich folks can keep their boats overseas and poorer folks can do without. That didn't happen before the tax. Maybe you don't think much of building boats but feel free to explain how losing their jobs did the US workers was good for them. They sure didn't like it. > They pay the workers barely enough to live on while the board gets 30 times that amount. Maximize profits. If you really believe that the workers are getting screwed, it's easy enough to set up a company that doesn't screw workers. If you're right, you'll get better workers, they'll make more money, and the money that you save by not paying "the board" can be used to undercut the "evil companies", driving them out of biz. It doesn't take much money to prove that you're correct, but it does take the courage to risk your money. I'm sure that you're doing that right now, right? BTW - feel free to name three companies whose profit is 30x the employee expense. (I'm making it easy - the profit can go to stockholders not on the board.) Include cites where we can verify. > That logic is completely asinine and you know it. It's asinine that folks will try to avoid taxes? Wowsers. It's asinine that folks will do less of things that are taxed? Better tell Congress that the taxes to discourage (their intended goal) and benefits to encourage (again, their intent) don't work. > Read the damn business section of a newspaper sometime. I do. That's where I read about the boat companies laying off workers. That's where I read about tax effects. The boat workers preferred building boats to being unemployed; we know that because they could have "unemployed" themselves before they were laid-off. Are they wrong?