Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 04:28:04 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Libertarianism and externalities  (Read 6446 times)
Anonymous
Guest

June 27, 2011, 07:57:44 PM
 #101

Of course Wal-Mart doesn't pay the same amount of taxes. They have government lee-way.
1481214484
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481214484

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481214484
Reply with quote  #2

1481214484
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
June 27, 2011, 08:38:18 PM
 #102

Assuming that the numbers in that chart on page 30 (not 17, learn to read page numbers) Are in fact in the billions, which is a reasonable assumption, though in my perusal of the document I did not find specific information saying so, Walmart paid 304.657 billion as 'Cost of sales' (in other words, incoming goods.) Actual numbers are moot, however, since we're dealing with percentages here. Expressed as a percentage of cost of incoming goods, Walmart paid 2.44% in taxes. If you include operating costs (since walmart doesn't split off numbers for their shipping arm in this document, we'll have to) That adds another 79 billion, bringing the total percentage down to 1.9% But even that's not exactly accurate, since for it to be accurate, the tax has to be considered a part of that operating expense, so we have to add that in, bringing the percentage down to 1.8%


LOLOLOLOL At you not knowing how to read financial statements.  Let me learn you a little something...

First off, page 30 is about uncertain tax positions, which are exactly what their name implies. haha

Anyway, page 17 is the income statement, if you look 1/3 of the way down you'll see "provisions for income taxes".  "Current" is the amount the company has set aside to pay taxes for the fiscal year indicated.  "Deferred" is what's left over (or extra owed) from whether the estimate was too high/too low from last fiscal year.

Furthermore, there's small text at the top left of almost every statement that says "amounts in millions except share date" or "amounts in millions unless otherwise indicated". Roll Eyes


As for the rest of it...

Income tax is NOT part of operating expenses, property taxes are though, something you're failing to factor into the taxes they paid. 

How on earth do you find it logical to use cost of goods sold AND operating expenses to show... the cost of shipping goods? LOLOLOLOL  Do you realize how much stuff is included in operating expenses?  Do you realize that cost of goods sold is NOT just tranporation costs, but also the actual cost of the goods?



But ALL of this is irrelevant, since the specific taxes I was speaking about was the GAS tax which is what actually goes to fund the roads, and the number you quoted above was the INCOME tax.

I don't need to do any math at all to show that carrying 16 pallets in a semi is more fuel-efficient than carrying 1 pallet's worth of individual items in a small diesel truck. Proportional to the cost of one shipment, Walmart pays less in GAS TAX per shipment than does the Mom & Pop. In a free market system, Mom & Pops who sell locally produced items would handily be able to compete with the 'big box' stores which ship their goods in from all over, since the actual cost of shipping that banana in from Peru would be reflected in the price, and not externalized to the taxpayers via trade subsidies, gas taxes, and other factors.

See, you NEED to provide EVIDENCE and NUMBERS to back up those kind of bullshit claims... otherwise they'll remain bullshit claims.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
TheGer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490



View Profile
June 27, 2011, 08:42:42 PM
 #103

Assuming the above poster is referring to the highlighted text in his quote I can only say Are You Retarded?  It makes plain sense for those having Common Sense.

"See, you NEED to provide EVIDENCE and NUMBERS to back up those kind of bullshit claims... otherwise they'll remain bullshit claims."
Anonymous
Guest

June 27, 2011, 08:43:58 PM
 #104


LOLOLOLOL At you not knowing how to read financial statements. 


Yeah, I'm putting this guy on ignore. The arrogance isn't tolerable any longer.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 27, 2011, 08:46:52 PM
 #105

See, you NEED to provide EVIDENCE and NUMBERS to back up those kind of bullshit claims... otherwise they'll remain bullshit claims.

You know, coming from anyone else, I might take this seriously. From you... From you, I can't help but laugh as I think back to all the other BS claims you've made.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
June 27, 2011, 09:49:17 PM
 #106

See, you NEED to provide EVIDENCE and NUMBERS to back up those kind of bullshit claims... otherwise they'll remain bullshit claims.

You know, coming from anyone else, I might take this seriously. From you... From you, I can't help but laugh as I think back to all the other BS claims you've made.

That's fine, and you can get away with that here because most people here agree with you.  Just an FYI though, when you step out of your circle of people that already agree with you, you'll be required to back up your bold claims or you'll be laughed into oblivion.


Assuming the above poster is referring to the highlighted text in his quote I can only say Are You Retarded?  It makes plain sense for those having Common Sense.

"See, you NEED to provide EVIDENCE and NUMBERS to back up those kind of bullshit claims... otherwise they'll remain bullshit claims."


There's just one problem with "common sense" answers to complex situations... they're almost never right.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 27, 2011, 09:58:10 PM
 #107

There's just one problem with "common sense" answers to complex situations... they're almost never right.

Funny fact: TheGer and I, we disagree on a lot of things. I think the main problem with common sense is that it's not as common as it should be.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
June 27, 2011, 10:03:12 PM
 #108

There's just one problem with "common sense" answers to complex situations... they're almost never right.

Funny fact: TheGer and I, we disagree on a lot of things. I think the main problem with common sense is that it's not as common as it should be.

Quote
Common Sense:
unfortunately, there simply isn't a common-sense answer for many questions. In politics, for example, there are a lot of issues where people disagree. Each side thinks that their answer is common sense. Clearly, some of these people are wrong.
The reason they are wrong is because common sense depends on the context, knowledge and experience of the observer. That is why instruction manuals will often have paragraphs like these:

When boating, use common sense. Have one life preserver for each person in the boat.
When towing a water skier, use common sense. Have one person watching the skier at all times.

If the ideas are so obvious, then why the second sentence ? Why do they have to spell it out ? The answer is that "use common sense" actually meant "pay attention, I am about to tell you something that inexperienced people often get wrong."
Science has discovered a lot of situations which are far more unfamiliar than water skiing. Not surprisingly, beginners find that much of it violates their common sense. For example, many people can't imagine how a mountain range would form. But in fact anyone can take good GPS equipment to the Himalayas, and measure for themselves that those mountains are rising today.



http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#complexity

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!