Blockbuster sues Netflix (Anti-trust claims)

[adam]

I'm just saying that if you think that business (other than small business) is paying taxes you are misled.

You know, you seem like a nice guy and I don't think you meant anything by this statement, but for you to post such wild and inaccurate information and then tell me that I'm the one that's mislead, well it insults my intelligence. Federal taxation is the last thing I'd want to get into a debate about, so I won't. But you seem to be confusing accounting principles with tax laws and they are completely different things. Your description of corporation taxation is just ridiculous.

[ROF]

Just my two cents!!!

I would like to see Blockbuster lose only because of what they did in the retail rental business. I run a small video store not far from a Blockbuster and was very successful, we were the first to rent DVD's and had a great customer base with them. Blockbuster refused to jump on the DVD band wagon till the studios literally gave them a base inventory of DVDs. It would of cost us a foutune to replace all our videos with DVDs. We could no longer compete and lost customers as such. We are still in business but it out of the joy of doing it and not the profits.

No company should be able to dictate a market all it does is hurt the general public in the long run. Look at Wal-Mart.

The general customer base and technology dictated the marketplace not the corporation. They just had more money. Capitalism.

It is sad when a big Corp, moves into a small neighborhood or just down the street from the small neighborhood. The town I grew up in used to be a small town. Good Town. It still is but it has a couple of big stores, very few small stores. Unemployment is up. Population is down. It is just sad how the corporations destroyed the personality of the town. There was a small video chain in that town and the surrounding towns and villages. Maybe 20-30 stores. Blockbuster and Movie Time put them mostly out of business. They only have a couple stores now. There also used to be a 3 store chain hunting and fishing supply store. Walmart drove them out finally about 5 years ago.

What's worse is Kmart has been there and gone. Sears has been there twice and just closed there most recent store a year ago. Home Depot is closing up. A real shame. There used to be alot of nice businesses run and owned by locals.

BYE BYE Mom and Pop run business.

[lordsmurf]

The general customer base and technology dictated the marketplace not the corporation. They just had more money. Capitalism.

Oh please. Spare me the rhetoric on capitalist utopia where companies are innocent and consumers actually make all the rules.

[ROF]

The general customer base and technology dictated the marketplace not the corporation. They just had more money. Capitalism.

Oh please. Spare me the rhetoric on capitalist utopia where companies are innocent and consumers actually make all the rules.

There you go again. Quoting something out of context without bothering to read the rest. If you don't like the rhetoric at least read the truth. Spare me and the rest of us your snide commentary. Nobody said companies were innocent and consumers do make all the rules with their wallets.

[BobK]

That's not an either/or question. You can't maintain either without being loyal to both.

Not true. But also irrevelant. I don't owe any company my loyalty. I pay money for a service or product. Once I receive what I've paid for there's absolutely no obligation (legal, moral, ethical or any other 'al') for me to buy from that company again.

[ROF]

Not true. But also irrevelant. I don't owe any company my loyalty. I pay money for a service or product. Once I receive what I've paid for there's absolutely no obligation (legal, moral, ethical or any other 'al') for me to buy from that company again.

I'm with ya there Bob. I do not owe any company my loyalty. Sell a good product at a fair price and I will do business with you. If the next guy(Corporation or small business) can sell me a product with higher quality or better price I will spend my dollars there. I am only a consumer afterall.

[BobK]

It's been a while since I had any accounting classes, and I'm not a tax expert. But I'm sure that you don't know nearly as much as you think about taxes. Just a few of your errors:

In effect the corp does not really pay costs as they reduce taxable income.

In effect, that's like saying that I don't really pay the interest on my house mortgage beause it reduces my taxable income.

Also you have corps making projections of income. If the dont meet those projections they get to declare a LOSS. Can you really conceive this?

That's false. Unless you're talking about them paying estimated taxes on projected income and then getting a refund when their income is below the projection/estimate. But they're not declaring a LOSS- they're just getting back what they overpaid in the first place. But if you can reference where the tax code allows them to show a loss based on a projection then I'll admit I'm wrong.

Also the company is not taxed twice. I know it's a quoted misnomer of becoming .inc'ed The entity corporation is taxed if they even pay taxes then the shareholders are taxed if dividends are declared. Two different entities. (debatable somewhat, yes).L

Only debatable if you don't understand what people are saying when they say "corporate profits are taxed twice"- and that's probably what you're calling a "misnomer". No one that I know (with 1/2 a brain) claims that a company is taxed twice. They claim that the profits are taxed twice. And that's accurate- the company pays taxes on its profits. If they pay a dividend to the shareholder, then the shareholder pays taxes on the dividend. You're correct- it's two different entities- the company and then the shareholders. But the money is still taxed twice.

You might be able to get a job at H&R Block, but the standards of tax knowledge they require is pretty low.

[gadgetguy]

That's not an either/or question. You can't maintain either without being loyal to both.

Not true. But also irrevelant. I don't owe any company my loyalty. I pay money for a service or product. Once I receive what I've paid for there's absolutely no obligation (legal, moral, ethical or any other 'al') for me to buy from that company again.

You misunderstood what I was saying. A company has to be loyal to both the customer and the profit margin or they can't maintain either. It has nothing to do with how the customer reacts. If they want customers to return they have to provide what the customer wants, be it excellent service, low prices, quality merchandise, whatever. But if they don't maintain a decent profit margin they can't remain in business and what good is loyalty from a bankrupt company?

[ROF]

In my opinion, there is nothing with paying more for less if the quality is better.

[BobK]

You misunderstood what I was saying. A company has to be loyal to both the customer and the profit margin or they can't maintain either. It has nothing to do with how the customer reacts. If they want customers to return they have to provide what the customer wants, be it excellent service, low prices, quality merchandise, whatever. But if they don't maintain a decent profit margin they can't remain in business and what good is loyalty from a bankrupt company?

I understood what you meant. And you're right. But (with few exceptions- and most of them small businesses) the company doesn't do anything just because it's loyal to it's customers. It does them because appearing loyal will help bring the customers back and keep the money coming in.

I'm not blaming the company-. They're not in business to make friends, save the world, etc. They're in business to make a profit and that's what drives their decisions.

But there's no reason for customers to have loyalty to a company either if they can get a better deal elsewhere.

[ROF]

But there's no reason for customers to have loyalty to a company either if they can get a better deal elsewhere.

Unless you trust the company, in which case there is loyalty not based on a better deal but a better experience.

[gadgetguy]

I understood what you meant. And you're right. But (with few exceptions- and most of them small businesses) the company doesn't do anything just because it's loyal to it's customers. It does them because appearing loyal will help bring the customers back and keep the money coming in...

I guess I can't draw the distinction. If they are doing the things that I consider to demonstrate loyalty to the customer, that's good enough for me.

[NiteLite]

I'm just saying that if you think that business (other than small business) is paying taxes you are misled.

You know, you seem like a nice guy and I don't think you meant anything by this statement, but for you to post such wild and inaccurate information and then tell me that I'm the one that's mislead, well it insults my intelligence. Federal taxation is the last thing I'd want to get into a debate about, so I won't. But you seem to be confusing accounting principles with tax laws and they are completely different things. Your description of corporation taxation is just ridiculous.

Adam,
You also have my respect. That point I made was NOT to you. Please, it was just a generalization, Sorry for the late reply... out of town.
Most of my rants are never directed at anyone.
However, the confusion you speak of would take too long to come to terms with. I know I am not the "know all" of Accounting. But my records will show a 4.0 with my degree.
But that was some time back and things do change. I do know some of what I speak though not only from being taught but also from experience.
Once again, please do not accept the quote as directed at you.
Regards,
NL

[NiteLite]

It's been a while since I had any accounting classes, and I'm not a tax expert. But I'm sure that you don't know nearly as much as you think about taxes. Just a few of your errors:

In effect the corp does not really pay costs as they reduce taxable income.

In effect, that's like saying that I don't really pay the interest on my house mortgage beause it reduces my taxable income.

Apples and oranges.

Also you have corps making projections of income. If the dont meet those projections they get to declare a LOSS. Can you really conceive this?

That's false. Unless you're talking about them paying estimated taxes on projected income and then getting a refund when their income is below the projection/estimate. But they're not declaring a LOSS- they're just getting back what they overpaid in the first place. But if you can reference where the tax code allows them to show a loss based on a projection then I'll admit I'm wrong.

Too much deatil to go into but I will just say for simplicity the Gov't allows many many tax credits to Corps for not meeting projections

Also the company is not taxed twice. I know it's a quoted misnomer of becoming .inc'ed The entity corporation is taxed if they even pay taxes then the shareholders are taxed if dividends are declared. Two different entities. (debatable somewhat, yes).L

Only debatable if you don't understand what people are saying when they say "corporate profits are taxed twice"- and that's probably what you're calling a "misnomer". No one that I know (with 1/2 a brain) claims that a company is taxed twice. They claim that the profits are taxed twice. And that's accurate- the company pays taxes on its profits. If they pay a dividend to the shareholder, then the shareholder pays taxes on the dividend. You're correct- it's two different entities- the company and then the shareholders. But the money is still taxed twice.

I did not say the money was NOT taxed twice. You say "no one you know with half a brain". I'm saying that many here may Not know and trying to explain something in simple terms is not a reason to take it personally or to think everyone knows everything.

You might be able to get a job at H&R Block, but the standards of tax knowledge they require is pretty low.

Your attack is not accepted. If you want to try to insult someone that does not see things the way you do, I'm not the one going to participate.
NL