Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: 10 proposals of Occupy Wall Street

Posted 2 years ago on Nov. 24, 2011, 6:31 p.m. EST by kensai (13) from Seaford, DE
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

This will not be long. I support pretty much 100% of it. But my question is regarding proposals 1, and 2. Increasing corporate tax sounds good...but wont this cost simply get passed to the consumer? And also, penalty tax on businesses going overseas...this too will drive up product costs. Any info on fine-tuning legislation that will prevent this from being a consumer-cost?

30 Comments

30 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by Edgewaters (912) 2 years ago

The whole "get passed on to the consumer" bit is something of a myth. In some cases, yes, where the product has a really low markup it will get passed on to the consumer. But most products these days have an enormous markup, and their sticker price has almost nothing to do with the cost of production: it has to do with supply and demand. The price is set by what people are willing to pay for it. Production costs are only the tiniest fraction of that price. You might pay forty or fifty bucks for a pair of sneakers, but they're probably marked up 2 to 2.5 times and that's just retail markup, never mind the manufacturer. If taxes are raised, they will still cost 40 or 50 bucks same as before, because that's the most they can charge and still maintain sales volume (again, supply and demand sets the price, not production cost - it only determines the lowest threshold of price, and very few products these days are priced anywhere near that threshold).

Corporate tax though is one thing, but what we really need is a tax on financial transactions. It's not the manufacturers who are to blame here. It's the speculators and investors and banks.

[-] 0 points by classynancy (-73) 2 years ago

Read a bit more about the economic principle of zero economic benefit. Unless a company has no competition, economic profits will go to zero as both companies fight for customers. Additional taxes will affect both companies equally and the result will be higher prices in order for the companies to survive long-term.

[-] 2 points by Edgewaters (912) 2 years ago

Unless a company has no competition, economic profits will go to zero as both companies fight for customers.

Nonsense. We've always had both taxes and competition, and profits have not been "zero" the whole time.

Additional taxes will affect both companies equally and the result will be higher prices in order for the companies to survive long-term.

If they're bringing in large profits, and markups are high, they're not going to raise prices because that will reduce sales volume. They'll simply take a hit on the markup margin and profits will be reduced somewhat. If a company is bringing in, let's say, $10 million annually, and a tax increase equal to $100K is imposed, profits will not go to "zero". Even if there is competition because the competition is a constant and won't change with or without the increase (in fact, it might even ease off a bit, though probably not).

Again, prices are not based on cost of production (except as regards the minimum possible price, but most markups are very high, often double or more the cost after all expenses). They are based on supply and demand.

[-] 1 points by classynancy (-73) 2 years ago

I don't think you live in the real world. Companies compete on razor thin margin with local and global competition. Customers are very savvy and look for the best deals wherever they can get them. When was the last time you bought a TV from the first store you walked into? In some rare cases prices are based less on cost of goods sold and more on what the market will bear, but that is VERY infrequent and OFTEN very short as competition enters the market place and prices are then reduced to marginal profits. Many times, competitors actually offer prices at or below true costs and eventually go out of business, but then new competitions enters the market....

[-] 1 points by Edgewaters (912) 2 years ago

I don't think you live in the real world, either. Record profits do not a razor thin margin make. And consumers are not very savvy. They are directed mostly by advertising and distribution. This is why two of the exact same product (manufactured by the same manufacturer perhaps even part of the same lot), one bearing a name brand label and the other not, the latter will sell at a much lower cost and will not be as popular with consumers. If this were not true, VHS would have lost out to Beta (as a classic example). Beta was a better product and retailed for less. This happens, all the time.

In fact, if consumers were savvy, advertising as it is done would be utterly useless, as would the placement of goods on a shelf in the supermarket or the colourful packaging and so on. In a world where consumers were savvy, advertisers would talk only about the price of their product and perhaps some details of its features. There would not be hiring celebrities, draping scantily clad women over their products, and so on.

Here is your "savvy" consumer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfPAjUvvnIc

Skip ahead to about 10:00. Anyone can get experimental proof. It's easy.

In some rare cases prices are based less on cost of goods sold and more on what the market will bear

Are you seriously saying supply and demand is the price mechanic only in "rare" cases? Please.

[-] 1 points by classynancy (-73) 2 years ago

I run a business, so please bear with my stupidity....

It would seem that you would prefer to help the average non-savvy consumer understand what is best for them, however, I believe that consumers would prefer to vote with their wallets and let financial 'consensus' dictate the best solution. That is why your Betamax player is obsolete and your laserdisc should also be thrown away.

Advertising does not always win-out. Look at Windows versus early ipod. People go to what they like, they are not stupid. Is it the naive liberal who thinks that people are stupid and they should be told what to do/buy/watch//etc.

Supply and demand do set price, that is my point. what the market will 'support' is a bit different. I suppose it is different is other sales channels like direct retail. I'm more familiar with selling to other companies. In almost all cases, supply far exceeds demand. There are WAY more sellers than buyers these days, which is why you can spend 2 hours researching for the best price to buy that 42" plasma TV you've had your eye on. Think about it...

I like your video, very funny! If you've ever gone to Las Vegas you'll understand that pricing is different than cost, especially at the retail level. But there are 1,000 factors at play including how much competition there is.

[-] 1 points by Edgewaters (912) 2 years ago

I never said they should be told what to do/buy/watch. It's just a fact that consumers as a rule aren't that savvy. Any conclusions you come up with after that fact are yours alone; I never made any.

Supply and demand do set price, that is my point. what the market will 'support' is a bit different.

No, its not different at all. Supply and demand as the price mechanic is all about what the market will support. That's what the supply and demand price mechanic is.

There are WAY more sellers than buyers these days, which is why you can spend 2 hours researching for the best price to buy that 42" plasma TV you've had your eye on. Think about it

Why do people like you think the whole economy is composed of electronics? Tell me that there are more sellers than buyers for, say, food or gasoline and try to keep a straight face.

Yes, prices of 42 inch televsions are falling because in that particular market supply is increasing faster than demand. So prices go down. But 42 inch televisions are not indicative of the market as a whole.

[-] 1 points by classynancy (-73) 2 years ago

In MY business, I compete with 10 different suppliers, all spending days/months/weeks working with customers to secure contracts. We work at all levels of the customers organizations (purchasing, engineering, manufacturing, customer service, etc). Half of our competition are small start-up just as aggressive as we are, half are establish companies with seemingly unlimited resources. Our customer's buyers make us not only submit multiple quotes successively to drive down prices, they then demand that we agree to long-term price reduction regardless of what future economic conditions result. Forgive me for saying this, but you obviously have zero experience in business to business interactions.

My example of the TV was just that, an example. When was the last time you bought ANYTHING without checking online with 3 or more other retailers to make sure you were getting the best price? I'm older than dirt and do this when I buy stuff....

[-] 1 points by Edgewaters (912) 2 years ago

I've never worked for a startup and no, I've never handled business to business interaction specifically. And yes of course I shop around, who doesn't? I've still been fooled many a time. Hell we are all fooled all the time. I still have an old solid state (dial and all) that I got when I moved out, colour is a little off now but guess what, it still works pretty good. I don't watch a lot of TV and I'm rarely actually looking at the picture when I do anyway, you're chasing the latest deal on the newest TV which is going to break or be "obsolete" in a few years and you'll probably run out and buy another, because they designed it to break or be "obsolete" in a short time just to get you to do that. Which of us is the more savvy TV consumer? Shopping around for sales doesn't make you in the least bit savvy if you don't need whatever is on sale. Quite the opposite.

As far as your company, it is as you say a small startup. I think most people want small business to prosper and not to impose additional tax burdens there. But you're not a major multinational, not even close. Your economic situation isn't even vaguely comparable to a major banking firm, is it?

[-] 1 points by classynancy (-73) 2 years ago

Sounds like you need a new TV, Have you heard about "L-E-D" ?

Shopping around for sales once you've made up your mind does make you a price savvy consumer, perhaps I should have added that implied adjective. If you feel the TV is not necessary then that is your choice, lots of my friends would agree with you as I do. You obviously value your computer however, I assume it's not an Atari or Commodore either... Hmmm... And I assume that you've got high speed internet and not dial-up....Did you NEED that computer and internet access or did you WANT it......How savvy did that make you in your own eyes?

Not sure WHY my company should compare to a banking firm, but how right you are that it is not comparable. We are relatively small compare to our competitors, but we do well internationally and we source materials internationally.

[-] 2 points by Edgewaters (912) 2 years ago

That's the whole point. I don't need a new TV. Didn't you read what I said? I don't even look at the picture. What need would I have for an LED? I would be a fool to buy one. It isn't that I'm a Luddite or can't afford one. It's that I wouldn't be "savvy" if I shopped around for deals on things I don't want or need, no matter how good a deal I got. Think about it from a business perspective (which is what a "savvy" consumer does). Would you go around making purchases for things your business did not need, if they were at "Rock Bottom!" prices?

Did I need the computer. No. I want functions the computer has. Actually I just like building the damn things. It's something I enjoy. I'm not saying I don't need an LED in that sense. I'm saying, it wouldn't be an improvement over the TV I do have, for my purposes. My ex had a monster flatscreen and I found it simply distracting and annoying. I'm speaking here of needs as wants, of course we don't "need" any of these things, but I don't need (as in want) anything a new television has to offer. It would not make me savvy to buy one.

This is why it's silly to say going for deals necessarily makes a consumer savvy. It really depends on whether they would have bought those things anyway, or not. When retailers offer sales, they are counting on more than just beating out the competitor, they are counting on people going "oh look! a deal!" and jumping to buy it even though they have no particular need for that thing. My ex was sort of like that, clipped all kinds of coupons shopped for all sorts of deals. She went bankrupt from spending too much credit on a whole bunch of, well, junk. $20K in the hole and not a thing to show for a few years later except a washer/dryer set that cost maybe 800 bucks or something. Everything else was either used up, obsolete, had broken (being made as things are these days) or stuffed in a closet gathering dust within a few short years. She thought she was a savvy shopper, and she was really good at finding incredible deals ... but ...

[-] 0 points by classynancy (-73) 2 years ago

Well I think we should both be able to agree that savvy is a vague term, I'm certainly in agreement that many things are not savvy to buy if you don't need them, but if someone determines that they want something and it is important to them, then the rest is what they do with that and neither you nor I should have the right to challenge the how savvy their decision was to buy the device, just as you would not want someone telling you how un-savvy you were for buying a computer or buying internet access.

....unless you are one of those people who feel that they should be the ones to tell people what is right and wrong....

[-] 2 points by Edgewaters (912) 2 years ago

I don't think rational purchasing is vague in the least. You could do a flow chart if you wanted, just like making a logics circuit. That can still include subjective wants. "What want does this satisfy - yes/no - can this want be otherwise satisfied - yes/no" etc etc.

And its not me telling anyone what they want, its the kind of commercialism and consumerism you're defending. All of advertising is built on the principle of creating wants out of thin air where none had previously existed - telling people what they want. Just look at the English that's used, only a few ads make suggestions, almost all of them are phrased in the imperative, which is used for commands. "Just do it" "put a tiger in your tank" whatever, those are orders, by technical definition of grammar.

[-] 1 points by classynancy (-73) 2 years ago

Amazing, you really think that you are not affected by this but others are? I've watched tens of thousands of GM brand commercials on television over the years and never bought one of their cars because their quality/reliability suck. Same goes for just about everything else. I investigate my options, talk to friends, weigh whether I really need something, and make a rational decision. Maybe I'm one of the precious few who will be allowed to make their own decisions in your new world? Or are you just proposing that companies not be allowed to advertise? I'm not getting it. So far all I'm hearing is what's terrible and wrong, but not what you think should be done or how to specifically go about changing anything, is this on purpose?

[-] 1 points by Edgewaters (912) 2 years ago

Amazing, you really think that you are not affected by this but others are?

Can you point out where I said that? The only thing I recall saying in this regard was "And yes of course I shop around, who doesn't? I've still been fooled many a time. Hell we are all fooled all the time." It doesn't seem to resemble this view you're attributing to me.

Or are you just proposing that companies not be allowed to advertise? I'm not getting it.

No. I wasn't really proposing anything, we got off on kind of a tangent and I was just calling the truth as I see it. I guess on this particular topic, all I propose is that people don't buy into consumerism so much. To think a little more like the generation that survived the Depression and the war that followed did. In this regard, on this topic: Work hard, don't waste, don't be a spendthrift, don't buy things you don't need, and don't be so materialistic - to give a damn about the people we work with, our neighbours, our community. Pretty simple. Not all change needs to, or even can be, legislated. None of what I just mentioned could be.

[-] 1 points by kensai (13) from Seaford, DE 2 years ago

but collectively, thank you for your inputs everyone. But @exposed, no they're not bullshit, if you comb through the endless sources of supposed "OWS demands", alot of the reputable sources are calling for the same reforms.

[-] 1 points by kensai (13) from Seaford, DE 2 years ago

saying alternative energy is useless makes you a moron. Screw your facts. Saying "everything is fine just the way it is" makes yo usound like some kind of stubborn, "scared of change" old man. Why wouldnt mankind push our technologies to improve life? You're a fucking idiot. germany has towns that produce more energy than they use. Why the fuck is America in the stone age?

[-] 1 points by kensai (13) from Seaford, DE 2 years ago

They also found the Federal Reserve issued $13 trillion in loans to foreign and domestic investments/companies/banks. I wonder how much financial/economic return that gained us...but yes, i think the Federal Reserve should also be a topic of discussion of either ERADICATING, or restructuring.

[-] 1 points by Turtle (268) 2 years ago

$16.4 trillion is the number you were looking for... That's the amount of the loans let by the Federal Reserve over the last 4 years, in addition to the lesser amounts let by the TARP. And the loans were reportedly at 0% interest; no earnings, what so ever.

[-] 1 points by kensai (13) from Seaford, DE 2 years ago

and the link for these 10 proposals I found on Michael Moore's website. I believe them to be legit and not "fabricated" by his website, because they have the same reoccurring theme as all the other demands I've found of other various credible sources. -=> http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/where-does-occupy-wall-street-go-here And as for recreating a currency backed by gold...why gold? Gold is a resource. You could back money with ANY resource. Including grain. grain is one of america's largest exports...

[-] 1 points by EXPOSED (222) 2 years ago

Most of those demands are bullshit, we play right into the hands of the corporations...

For one, demand #8 says "Immediately reduce carbon emissions that are destroying the planet and discover ways to live without the oil that will be depleted and gone by the end of this century."

PEAK OIL IS A HOAX debunked ad infinitum:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LHD4U2q_p4c

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/confessionsexpeakoilbeliever14sep07.shtml

The US alone has unexploited reserves of oil that can last the world for 40 years: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204574470700973579402.html

Most of those demands are so much globalist crap it's unbelievable...

[-] 1 points by kensai (13) from Seaford, DE 2 years ago

I'm certainly aware of retail mark up. But i question, what prevents companies from "making the customer" pay the tax, instead of themselves. "passing the buck" is a legit saying for a reason lol.

[-] 1 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 2 years ago

Can you direct me to where you found these 10 proposals?

[-] 1 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 2 years ago

I think they're coming from todays topic here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/time-to-occupy-congress-with-strategic-demands-a-t/

ithink, you'll see my comment there ; ) Enjoy your evening

[-] 1 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 2 years ago

thanks, I don't see where they are talking about corporate tax, or a penalty on business going oversees, do you?

[-] 1 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 2 years ago

I just skimmed it. It's really up to the people in each district general assembly (DGA) to come up with their own lists and tweaks. That process needs to get underway ASAP. After the delegates are elected in March, those 870 people are going to have their work cut out for them when 435 lists hit the table!! At least that's what I picture happening.

[-] 1 points by kensai (13) from Seaford, DE 2 years ago

Also, I recognized that without overseas manufacturing, product cost would be significantly higher if these same products were made domestically. I went to an "all american made" website yesterday. A small children's t-shirt cost $40. A no-brand pair of men's boots...$150. How do you think this will translate if all the products you bought were american made? your toothbrush would cost $10.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 2 years ago

How about we write off every persons and every nations debt and start from scratch again and build a new system that works for the earth's ability to support us and stay within those boundaries without greed and corruption being a number one priorty?

[-] 1 points by entrepreneur (69) 2 years ago

what about those who lived debt free , don't then deserve some cash back in the proportion of write-offs on those who have debt. Instead of writing of debt , the people responsible for debt needs to be punished. someone should be held accountable and they need to pay for it one way or other. Since 15 Trillion is too much debt to forgive and let go.. instead just get rid of fed, and create new US dollar that is backed by gold or equivalent and use that to convert existing currency to new currency. The debt should still be re-payed by those responsible. If bank is responsible just seize the assets of bank including that of their executives.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 2 years ago

Most of that 15 trillion debt would not exist if the federal reserve could not print money whenever they felt like it.