The "Legal Tender" myth

[willedoo]

Sky (the outrage channel) is getting loopier all the time. The editors must keep telling them that more paranoia and conspiracy = more viewers = more income for Sky. I don't intentionally go there, but I'm a dinosaur with the remote and do a big one channel at a time clicking trek from 9 all the way down to the ABC. Sky is in the vicinity of the happy clapper channel and gadgets for sale channel about half way. Sometimes I can't help myself and have a brief pause at Sky to see if they have become any madder since the last visit. I don't know why I bother because it's a given that they will be madder, and always will be madder with each visit.

 

One thing I've noticed is that some of them (like the bloke with the round head) are using practiced speech techniques very much in line with brainwashing techniques. Very, very, similar to the evangelists on the neighbouring happy clapper channel. The way the Sky nutters craft their speech looks like it's purposely designed to make a paranoid audience even more paranoid. But I suppose they do have a purpose. Someone has to expose those dangerous Lefties.

[facthunter]

yeah . the might even give money to beggars. Can't have any of that rot or any "unfunded" empathy.  Nev

Edited August 24, 2023 by facthunter

[old man emu]

The thought struck me this morning that we wage slaves are tricking ourselves somewhat when we react angrily to announcements by the big businesses we have to deal with announce huge profits. Take Woolies for example. The supermarket giant posted a $1.62 billion profit for 2023. The first thing we say is, "The bastards should drop their prices!". But let's look at that figure and how it plays to the Nation's well-being.

 

That figure is the "after tax" profit. Which means that its "before tax" profit was (1.62 x100)/70 = $2.31B. At the tax rate of 30%, it paid $690,000,000 to the Government.

 

But to reach that "before tax" figure, it had to pay off all its costs, which for a large part consisted of payments to employees and suppliers of everything from potatoes to premises. All the money it paid out would later be taxed in the hands of its recipients.

 

For a lot of those expenses, it also had to pay non-recoverable GST, which at its level of activity would have been substantial. It also collected the GST that we handed over to it when we purchased GST-bearing products.

 

Now, what is going to happen to that $1.62B? First a lot will be paid to shareholders. That's income to them, and will be taxed accordingly. Institutional investors  with make investments elsewhere that will generate income that will be taxed. Profits from those investments will go to individuals (say superannuation recipients) who will at least pay GST when they spend the money.

 

One wonders how many times a dollar can be taxed.

 

So, we shouldn't really arc up when these companies announce thee massive profits. In reality they are only the crumbs that fall from the banqueting table of a robust Economy. 

 

E&OE regarding tax rates and arithmetic.

[facthunter]

Competition reduces  prices.  Nev

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

Competition reduces  prices.  Nev

Competition produces commercials. We don't live under a system of competition. We are the victims of collusion when it comes to pricing. Coles and Woolies own, or trade with different dairy companies from the the other. But the price of their 'home brand' milk is the same. 

 

[facthunter]

That is NOT competition. It's collusion Costs of advertising add to the Price. The lowest price is not always the best value.  Nev

[red750]

https://www.facebook.com/607596833/videos/1363115780945451/

[red750]

On 25/08/2023 at 12:35 PM, facthunter said:

Costs of advertising add to the Price.

How much is it costing the ANZ for all those ads with a guy talking weird for the ad?

[facthunter]

Sorry haven't seen that ad. Banks act in self INTEREST.  Nev

[Old Koreelah]

On 24/8/2023 at 12:31 PM, old man emu said:

...In other words, the US tax payer is going to pay through the nose in order for America to be the world police.

That analogy is long out of date. The US is mainly concerned with protecting its investments, not fostering world peace.