Loose: Tax cuts are bad for the wealthy

[Yurt]

From what I have heard and read from the dems, is that those evil tax cuts that Bush gave to the wealthy, the very wealthy, what not, were bad. In fact, the democratic platform is to increase the taxes on the wealthy, especially the very wealthy 1%.

Loosy; and here is your chance to debate, what say you regarding taxes?

Btw, this debate is open to all members. I really don't feel like debating Loosy one on one again (leave it alone), rather, I would like to see the masterful debator, as he/she indicates he/she is, debate this topic.

I proffer no rules, for they are useless with you. Attack all you want. The board and those on the net who see this board will know your "skill" at debating. I am not an expert in this field, but, you have run rampant around this forum with cries of, debate, debate, debate....

Bring it Loosecannon.

[diuretic]

If lowering taxes for the very wealthy (I mean "very" wealthy, not just comfortably well off) would help the economy then I'd support them. But they don't because the very wealthy (see above) simply keep their additional wealth and don't put it back into the economy. So tax cuts cease to become an economic stimulus and simply become a nice little earner for the already very wealthy.

[loosecannon]

From what I have heard and read from the dems, is that those evil tax cuts that Bush gave to the wealthy, the very wealthy, what not, were bad. In fact, the democratic platform is to increase the taxes on the wealthy, especially the very wealthy 1%.

Loosy; and here is your chance to debate, what say you regarding taxes?

Btw, this debate is open to all members. I really don't feel like debating Loosy one on one again (leave it alone), rather, I would like to see the masterful debator, as he/she indicates he/she is, debate this topic.

I proffer no rules, for they are useless with you. Attack all you want. The board and those on the net who see this board will know your "skill" at debating. I am not an expert in this field, but, you have run rampant around this forum with cries of, debate, debate, debate....

Bring it Loosecannon.

Well sure. Tho I have yet no idea at all what your actual question is.

Taxes are an uneccesary evil. We do not need to be taxed in the first place. There are several ways to fund nations other than taxes. But if you discount all of them, you are left with only the system of tax as a means to fund government.

So what is taxation supposed to accomplish? Funding the gummit.

What else? Well taxation is additionally bound by two other standards: providing or retarding economic growth and being equitable in terms of progressive and regressive dynamics.

Fortunately taxing the wealthiest the most has always proven to be the best compromise in both cases.

It is most equitable and provides the greatest relative stimulus to the economy. (which is still negative but not as negative as the alternatives. My favorite choices have always involved no taxes at all because all taxes drain the economy)

So what exactly was your question?

[Hobbit]

If lowering taxes for the very wealthy (I mean "very" wealthy, not just comfortably well off) would help the economy then I'd support them. But they don't because the very wealthy (see above) simply keep their additional wealth and don't put it back into the economy. So tax cuts cease to become an economic stimulus and simply become a nice little earner for the already very wealthy.

Incorrect. You think rich people simply hide their money in a mattress? Hell no. Some of it is in banks, the rest is in the stock market.

Banks use the money to give out loans, about 80% of it, in fact (if I remember correctly, average minimum reserves is 20%). Those loans go mainly towards houses, cars, and small businesses, all of which contribute greatly to the economy. In fact, small business is the leading creator of jobs, and most small businesses start with a loan (after they make the business plan to present to a bank loan officer).

The stock market, well, is simple. If you don't know how stock market investments improve the economy, then it's really not worth it to debate this with you, but if you honestly don't know, money that goes into the stock market goes directly into investments by publicly traded companies. Those companies use this extra capital to expand, thus creating new jobs and stimulating the economy.

These two investments, in fact, contribute a great deal more to the economy than the impulsive, wasteful spending of the lower class. Just look at who buys lottery tickets and the fact that that money causes zero economic growth.

As to loosecannon's post, I think our best deal was taxing consumption. For a long time, our country could fund itself on far less intrusive taxes than an income tax, and the income tax, by its very definition, slows the economy by removing VAST sums of money from it before those funds are even spent. This is why I support the FairTax. Also, if taxing the rich is such a good idea, then how come states with very progressive income taxes (i.e. California) lag far behind states with no income tax at all in terms of economic growth (i.e. Texas). In fact, the states with no income tax are the fastest growing economies in the Western Hemisphere (with economically free countries like Singapore and Hong Kong growing faster). In fact, taxing income, and the income of the wealthy more so, is only a good idea if the end goal is political power, rather than an efficient form of funding the government. It's monolithic, slows economic growth by leaps and bounds, and is pretty easy to avoid.

[diuretic]

Incorrect. You think rich people simply hide their money in a mattress? Hell no. Some of it is in banks, the rest is in the stock market.

Banks use the money to give out loans, about 80% of it, in fact (if I remember correctly, average minimum reserves is 20%). Those loans go mainly towards houses, cars, and small businesses, all of which contribute greatly to the economy. In fact, small business is the leading creator of jobs, and most small businesses start with a loan (after they make the business plan to present to a bank loan officer).

The stock market, well, is simple. If you don't know how stock market investments improve the economy, then it's really not worth it to debate this with you, but if you honestly don't know, money that goes into the stock market goes directly into investments by publicly traded companies. Those companies use this extra capital to expand, thus creating new jobs and stimulating the economy.

These two investments, in fact, contribute a great deal more to the economy than the impulsive, wasteful spending of the lower class. Just look at who buys lottery tickets and the fact that that money causes zero economic growth.

As to loosecannon's post, I think our best deal was taxing consumption. For a long time, our country could fund itself on far less intrusive taxes than an income tax, and the income tax, by its very definition, slows the economy by removing VAST sums of money from it before those funds are even spent. This is why I support the FairTax. Also, if taxing the rich is such a good idea, then how come states with very progressive income taxes (i.e. California) lag far behind states with no income tax at all in terms of economic growth (i.e. Texas). In fact, the states with no income tax are the fastest growing economies in the Western Hemisphere (with economically free countries like Singapore and Hong Kong growing faster). In fact, taxing income, and the income of the wealthy more so, is only a good idea if the end goal is political power, rather than an efficient form of funding the government. It's monolithic, slows economic growth by leaps and bounds, and is pretty easy to avoid.

Did you read my post?

Let me reproduce it for you:


If lowering taxes for the very wealthy (I mean "very" wealthy, not just comfortably well off) would help the economy then I'd support them. But they don't because the very wealthy (see above) simply keep their additional wealth and don't put it back into the economy. So tax cuts cease to become an economic stimulus and simply become a nice little earner for the already very wealthy.

Can you address the point? I mean your post couldn't be more irrelevant if you planned it that way.

The very wealthy don't spend their increased money. An economy would be far better off to cut the income tax rates for the less well off and increase the tax rates for the very wealthy. The objective of tax is to get money for the government to function. It doesn't matter where the money comes from, the government just needs the money. Now if the very wealthy pay more it means there's more left for the less well-off to spend and they do spend it. In a consumer-driven economy such as in the US having more spending moves the economy along nicely.

It's really dumb to tax the not-so wealthy a larger amount of their total income than it is to tax the very wealthy.

Simple really.

If you have the time to read it there's a very good paper by Christopher Carroll from Johns Hopkins just here - http://www.econ.jhu.edu/Papers/Carroll/why.pdf It's called "Why Do the Rich Save So Much?" and unlike your spray it's actually an empirical study. Do have a read, educate yourself.

[Hobbit]

Did you read my post?

Let me reproduce it for you:



Can you address the point? I mean your post couldn't be more irrelevant if you planned it that way.

The very wealthy don't spend their increased money. An economy would be far better off to cut the income tax rates for the less well off and increase the tax rates for the very wealthy. The objective of tax is to get money for the government to function. It doesn't matter where the money comes from, the government just needs the money. Now if the very wealthy pay more it means there's more left for the less well-off to spend and they do spend it. In a consumer-driven economy such as in the US having more spending moves the economy along nicely.

It's really dumb to tax the not-so wealthy a larger amount of their total income than it is to tax the very wealthy.

Simple really.

If you have the time to read it there's a very good paper by Christopher Carroll from Johns Hopkins just here - http://www.econ.jhu.edu/Papers/Carroll/why.pdf It's called "Why Do the Rich Save So Much?" and unlike your spray it's actually an empirical study. Do have a read, educate yourself.

I addressed your point. The wealthy may not spend their money on goods and services, but they do invest it, and investment easily leads to economic growth. One more time:

Investments by the wealthy grow the economy, often even faster than direct spending!

And before you jump on me, I'm not advocating tax hikes on the poor. That would just be mean. I'm just saying that if you look at it solely from the viewpoint of maximum economic growth, it makes far more sense than tax hikes on the wealthy.

Ok, read most of the paper. All it says is that the wealthy save a lot, rather than spend (that's why they're wealthy, you know). What I'm saying is that saving also grows the economy. That money isn't hiding in the mattress, you know. Rich people got that way by either being smart or being related to somebody smart, and smart people who make more than they spend send the rest of the money out to 'work for them.'

[diuretic]

I addressed your point. The wealthy may not spend their money on goods and services, but they do invest it, and investment easily leads to economic growth. One more time:

Investments by the wealthy grow the economy, often even faster than direct spending!

If the wealthy invest their money then that means they put money into companies right? The companies take their money and use it. If things work out they give the wealthy more money back, if they don't then the wealthy have lost that money. But the companies produce more goods and services with that money from the wealthy right? And people, consumers, buy those goods and services.....so.....the economy is driven by the consumer and since the wealthy are investors and not high consumers....they're not helping the economy.




And before you jump on me, I'm not advocating tax hikes on the poor. That would just be mean. I'm just saying that if you look at it solely from the viewpoint of maximum economic growth, it makes far more sense than tax hikes on the wealthy.

And I'm looking at it from the point of view of the reason tax exists - to fund government. As I said, government needs x amount of dollars to function. If the wealthy can provide more of that amount of dollars without hurting their own interests then they should because if the poor or middle class have to shell out more in terms of percentage of their personal income then it means there's less money for them to spend in an economy driven by the consumer. So it makes sense from that standpoint to get the wealthy to pay more tax.

Now, to be fair, it would be interesting to hear your views on the link between taxation and economic growth. Really, I'm here to learn.





Ok, read most of the paper. All it says is that the wealthy save a lot, rather than spend (that's why they're wealthy, you know). What I'm saying is that saving also grows the economy. That money isn't hiding in the mattress, you know. Rich people got that way by either being smart or being related to somebody smart, and smart people who make more than they spend send the rest of the money out to 'work for them.'

Some make the money themselves, some inherit it. Some borrowed it to get started. I am always minded of that old saying that if you owe the bank fifty thousand dollars and you can't pay it you're in trouble but if you owe the bank fifty million dollars and you can't pay it then the bank's in trouble. Ah it's all about risk management.

You know it's an old economic maxim that saving never made anyone wealthy. The only way to generate personal wealth in a capitalist economy is............to be a capitalist! Yes, you have to actually invest money rather than save it, investing generates far more return than simply saving. Saving is for the poor or the middle class. Saving gives a buffer in bad times. Investing is what the wealhy do so they can get wealthier and pass the wealth onto their children, who then get wealthier still.

Saving doesn't grow an economy. Saving is dead money in economic terms. If it's sitting around not working then how does that help the economy?

[Hobbit]

If the wealthy invest their money then that means they put money into companies right? The companies take their money and use it. If things work out they give the wealthy more money back, if they don't then the wealthy have lost that money. But the companies produce more goods and services with that money from the wealthy right? And people, consumers, buy those goods and services.....so.....the economy is driven by the consumer and since the wealthy are investors and not high consumers....they're not helping the economy.

Consumers have nothing to consume without investors. In the long run, yes, investments are meant to make money, but smart investors invest in the long term, meaning that the money sits there and is used to grow the economy for a LONG time. In fact, many retirement plans center around investing mountains of cash and then living off of the dividends. The money continues to be used by the company, and the profits they make off of that are the return.


And I'm looking at it from the point of view of the reason tax exists - to fund government. As I said, government needs x amount of dollars to function. If the wealthy can provide more of that amount of dollars without hurting their own interests then they should because if the poor or middle class have to shell out more in terms of percentage of their personal income then it means there's less money for them to spend in an economy driven by the consumer. So it makes sense from that standpoint to get the wealthy to pay more tax.

Yes, and the income tax also fails to effectively fund the government by reducing the power of the economy, something which tax revenue is inherently dependant upon. Once again, this is why I support the FairTax, as it doesn't tax income, which is a really stupid idea...unless your sole purpose is to gain political power by exploiting class warfare.


Now, to be fair, it would be interesting to hear your views on the link between taxation and economic growth. Really, I'm here to learn.

The more taxes are raised on income, the less people have to spend, and the slower the economy grows. It's actually pretty simple.


Some make the money themselves, some inherit it. Some borrowed it to get started. I am always minded of that old saying that if you owe the bank fifty thousand dollars and you can't pay it you're in trouble but if you owe the bank fifty million dollars and you can't pay it then the bank's in trouble. Ah it's all about risk management.

You know it's an old economic maxim that saving never made anyone wealthy. The only way to generate personal wealth in a capitalist economy is............to be a capitalist! Yes, you have to actually invest money rather than save it, investing generates far more return than simply saving. Saving is for the poor or the middle class. Saving gives a buffer in bad times. Investing is what the wealhy do so they can get wealthier and pass the wealth onto their children, who then get wealthier still.

Saving doesn't grow an economy. Saving is dead money in economic terms. If it's sitting around not working then how does that help the economy?

Investing is just another form of saving. If you put all of your money in one stock or play the stocks like it's some sort of massive game of Keno, then no, it's not saving, it's just stupid. However, most people invest by spreading their money around. It's a good way to make it grow while they don't use it. Many also open savings accounts. Once again, money in the bank is money being used to grant loans, which grow the economy.

[diuretic]

Thanks I'm learning a lot about this stuff as I go along here. And it's good to discuss things without invective.


Consumers have nothing to consume without investors. In the long run, yes, investments are meant to make money, but smart investors invest in the long term, meaning that the money sits there and is used to grow the economy for a LONG time. In fact, many retirement plans center around investing mountains of cash and then living off of the dividends. The money continues to be used by the company, and the profits they make off of that are the return.

Consumers don't need investors to consume, they just need something to purchase. That could be from an individual couldn't it?

An individual investor (as opposed to an institutional investor) who can afford (has to afford I suppose) to wait must need a lot of money to keep him and his family alive while the investment money ticks along for a few years. I wonder if, with the growth of institutions that invest, pension funds for example - particulary in the public sector - the smallish as opposed to the extremely wealthy - investor is eventually going to get sidelined?





Yes, and the income tax also fails to effectively fund the government by reducing the power of the economy, something which tax revenue is inherently dependant upon. Once again, this is why I support the FairTax, as it doesn't tax income, which is a really stupid idea...unless your sole purpose is to gain political power by exploiting class warfare.

I doubt if anyone is stupid enough to use economic policy to pursue class warfare when in government. You know how it goes:

Sung to the tune of O Tannenbaum: *

"The working class can kiss my arse,
I've got the bosses job at last!"

Tax policy is out of my league but I do think that income tax is a necessity. A consumption tax - Goods and Services Tax that we have for example - is useful to roll in all the other visible and invisible taxes (Australians can't get used to the various state taxes on goods in the US, it's quite confusing). A government can't rely solely on a consumption tax for its income.




The more taxes are raised on income, the less people have to spend, and the slower the economy grows. It's actually pretty simple.

Yes, the economy is driven by consumption, that was my original point.





Investing is just another form of saving. If you put all of your money in one stock or play the stocks like it's some sort of massive game of Keno, then no, it's not saving, it's just stupid. However, most people invest by spreading their money around. It's a good way to make it grow while they don't use it. Many also open savings accounts. Once again, money in the bank is money being used to grant loans, which grow the economy.

That makes sense.

------------------------------

*The original song The Red Flag was set to the tune of O Tannenbaum. There is an altenativ version that is much less mournful and a bit more lively and it's sung to the tune of the old Jacobite song The White Cockade

[OCA]

Interesting how this was an invitation by Yurt to Loose, 1 reply from Loose, being a smartass as usual, then nothing.

He/she is afraid.

[OCA]

Taxing the wealthy at a high rate is counterproductive to a healthy economy, the wealthy create new business and investment which in turn creates more jobs which in turn creates more money being pumped into the economy via consumption of goods and services, simple really. When was the last time the poor created any new jobs?

Libs love high taxes because they believe that government knows how to appropriate funds better than the individual.

[loosecannon]

Banks use the money to give out loans, about 80% of it, in fact (if I remember correctly, average minimum reserves is 20%). Those loans go mainly towards houses, cars, and small businesses, all of which contribute greatly to the economy.

This is almost entirely myth. The reserve requirements for banks is less than 1% now.

And banks hardly hold any cash from depositors to relend. Banks borrow the vast majority of what they lend from central banks at discounted interest rates and make profits based on the differences in those interest rates.

[loosecannon]

The stock market, well, is simple. If you don't know how stock market investments improve the economy, then it's really not worth it to debate this with you, but if you honestly don't know, money that goes into the stock market goes directly into investments by publicly traded companies. Those companies use this extra capital to expand, thus creating new jobs and stimulating the economy.



More myths. The only money that goes into the coffers of corporations from the sale and purchase of stocks occurs at the initial offering of those stock certificates. And then only if those stocks are sold. Many, perhaps most stocks issued by corps today are compensation to employees and mangement producing no investment capital at all.

Once a share of stock is sold it is usually retraded dozens or hundreds of times. NONE of that money ever goes into corporate coffers for investments that stimulate econ growth. It is just recirculated thru the hands of investors and is not only not producing any growth in the econoimy but is subtracting from the capital available for corporate growth.

After their first sale stocks only serve to deplete the economy.

[loosecannon]

These two investments, in fact, contribute a great deal more to the economy than the impulsive, wasteful spending of the lower class.



Another two myths.

Without demand then producing products to buy can not stimulate the economy.

No amount of capital for investments into production capacity can do a thing to stimulate the economy unless there is a customer who is ready to buy that product.

Aggregate demand is even more important than capital in driving economic growth.

And that impulsive, wasteful consumer that you criticize comprises 2/3 of the purchasing power of the US economy.

AND poorer consumers spend a larger % of their income immediately which immediately stokes the cycles of demand/production/economic growth.

The ideal economy would be one in which everybody spent every penny they earned asap and saved nothing. The cycles of consumption and production and growth would be optimized.

It would make for an imbalanced world but an optimized economy.

[loosecannon]

I think our best deal was taxing consumption. For a long time, our country could fund itself on far less intrusive taxes than an income tax, and the income tax, by its very definition, slows the economy by removing VAST sums of money from it before those funds are even spent.

That was my point. ALL taxes do this including taxing consumption.



Also, if taxing the rich is such a good idea, then how come states with very progressive income taxes (i.e. California) lag far behind states with no income tax at all in terms of economic growth (i.e. Texas).

Well really? You do realize that if CA was a nation it would be the worlds fifth largest economy right?

Whatever CA is doing, must be working.

[loosecannon]

The very wealthy don't spend their increased money. An economy would be far better off to cut the income tax rates for the less well off and increase the tax rates for the very wealthy. The objective of tax is to get money for the government to function. It doesn't matter where the money comes from, the government just needs the money. Now if the very wealthy pay more it means there's more left for the less well-off to spend and they do spend it. In a consumer-driven economy such as in the US having more spending moves the economy along nicely.



This is spot on. John Maynard Keynes was the economist who identified demand as the driving force in economies, not investment capital.

And most of what we call "investment capital" anymore is any thing but. It is money spent in non productive closed loops that are outside of the production demand cycle and do nothing but drain the economy.

[diuretic]

Thanks for this post and the foregoing, I had reached the limit of my knowledge and I was trying to work out things of which I have no direct knowledge, just a faint memory of a couple of classes some years ago. It's good to learn.

[Mr. P]

This is spot on. John Maynard Keynes was the economist who identified demand as the driving force in economies, not investment capital.

....

Yea, yea. What came first, the chicken or the egg? :poke:

[diuretic]

No idea what you mean.

[loosecannon]

Yea, yea. What came first, the chicken or the egg? :poke:


Demand came first. Supply followed it.

"if you build a better mousetrap the world will beat a path to your door" implies that the demand already exists if you can fill it.

But supply is not equivelant to capital input which is the source of most of the misunderstandings about economic cycles.

It is not necesary for new money to be invested into new business for growth to occur. Most of the growth is fueled by profits which is why taxing corps can be counter productive.

[Mr. P]

Demand came first. Supply followed it.

"if you build a better mousetrap the world will beat a path to your door" implies that the demand already exists if you can fill it.

But supply is not equivelant to capital input which is the source of most of the misunderstandings about economic cycles.

It is not necesary for new money to be invested into new business for growth to occur. Most of the growth is fueled by profits which is why taxing corps can be counter productive.

I'd say a need came first and it was filled, creating demand.

Sometimes it does, a bank loan for example if the company wants to use the profit for operations but use the loan for improvements. The loan comes from banks which are investors.

[loosecannon]

I'd say a need came first and it was filled, creating demand.



Need is the same as demand. When it is filled demand is satisfied.

demand is the quantity of a product that a consumer or buyer would be willing and able to buy at any given price in a given period

[Mr. P]

Need is the same as demand. When it is filled demand is satisfied.

demand is the quantity of a product that a consumer or buyer would be willing and able to buy at any given price in a given period

Demand is nothing more than need for a solution, IMO. It doesn't mean that one mousetrap will prevail or satisfy demand over another solution for the same need, therefore demand is not satisfied. Ahhhh competition.

[Hobbit]

Well really? You do realize that if CA was a nation it would be the worlds fifth largest economy right?

Whatever CA is doing, must be working.

It won't be for long if the economies of Texas and Nevada keep growing at the rate that they are. In any case, maybe California was a bad example. Look at Taxachussetts.

As for the rest of your stuff, I'd like to see a link on how stock market investments never actually result in investment, and if required reserves are as low as 1% right now, then that's all the more money being sent out to grow the economy.

As for what diuretic said about how stupid it would be to use income tax for class warfare, think about what you're saying? When the income tax was originally introduced, it was passed by class warfare, as those in favor of it campaigned in poor areas, telling those people that they'd only tax the rich and then use to money to help these poor people. Then there's the politicians today. Listen to the speeches. Most Democrats, especially those with poor neighborhoods in their districts, have high taxes on the rich with subsidies to the poor as one of their major platforms. That's class warfare.

[diuretic]

It is not necesary for new money to be invested into new business for growth to occur.

I don't understand that statement, can you explain it a bit more for me please?

As for taxing corporations - which is another issue of course - why should they not pay tax?

[Hobbit]

I don't understand that statement, can you explain it a bit more for me please?

As for taxing corporations - which is another issue of course - why should they not pay tax?

They don't pay tax anyway. They collect tax. Only wealth can be taxed. Corporations do not accumulate wealth. Any wealth they get that doesn't go right out the door in expansion is paid to workers and shareholders. You can't short shareholders, as that's the fastest way to watch your business burn, so any corporate income tax is instead paid for by either wage decreases or price increases. Corporations don't pay corporate income tax. You do.

It is, in fact, one of the most brilliant scams the government has come up with. How else would you ever get hordes of rabid people demanding to be taxed more?

[loosecannon]

As for the rest of your stuff, I'd like to see a link on how stock market investments never actually result in investment

Google wiki stock market or any simplified assesment of the stock market.

When a company sells a stock they get that money generated from the sale. ONCE.

The stock certificate is then immortal and is independently bought and sold over and over without another penny ever going to the corporation it represents a share of.

Let's just pretend that Ford motor company issued stock in 1924 at a price of $1/share.

That $1 went to Ford and then for the next 83 years that share was bought and sold 400 times.

The price of that share after splits may have grown to $350 today. So where did that $350 come from? Where did it go?

Well the first dollar went to Ford to invest in new plants.

The other $349 were slowly sucked out of the pockets of the shareholders who were buying and selling that stock privately.

[loosecannon]

They don't pay tax anyway. They collect tax. Only wealth can be taxed. Corporations do not accumulate wealth. Any wealth they get that doesn't go right out the door in expansion is paid to workers and shareholders. You can't short shareholders, as that's the fastest way to watch your business burn, so any corporate income tax is instead paid for by either wage decreases or price increases. Corporations don't pay corporate income tax. You do.

It is, in fact, one of the most brilliant scams the government has come up with. How else would you ever get hordes of rabid people demanding to be taxed more?


wealth isn't taxed while you are alive, income is. And corps do pay corporate income tax.

And corps do accumulate wealth.

[loosecannon]

I don't understand that statement, can you explain it a bit more for me please?

As for taxing corporations - which is another issue of course - why should they not pay tax?

I didn't say they should not pay tax. I said it is not always productive to tax them.

Corporations that are established make profits. They can divide those profits amongst their shareholders as dividends OR they can reinvest in themselves.

If they are reinvesting in them selves then they are the capital engine that fuels their own growth independent of more capitalist investment.

[Mr. P]

wealth isn't taxed while you are alive, income is. And corps do pay corporate income tax.

And corps do accumulate wealth.

Not really. Sure they fork over money for tax, but it's not out of their pocket. It's collected in the price of the product they sell.

[diuretic]

They don't pay tax anyway. They collect tax. Only wealth can be taxed. Corporations do not accumulate wealth. Any wealth they get that doesn't go right out the door in expansion is paid to workers and shareholders. You can't short shareholders, as that's the fastest way to watch your business burn, so any corporate income tax is instead paid for by either wage decreases or price increases. Corporations don't pay corporate income tax. You do.

It is, in fact, one of the most brilliant scams the government has come up with. How else would you ever get hordes of rabid people demanding to be taxed more?

Ah I get the point. How about this: a corporation is a legal entity, a "person" in the eyes of the law. It earns profits over and above its operating expenses. This legal "person" owes a share of the profits to investors who might be human beings or other corporate entities such as institutional investors. The corporation, which gets immense benefit out of being given the status of a person under law, pays tax as required, it then distributes the rest of the money among its shareholders.

As for consumers paying corporate tax for them - true, all costs are usually passed on to the consumer by corporations, what a great facility that is for the corporation. But at least it's distributed and at least we choose whether or not to buy from a particular corporation.

[loosecannon]

Not really. Sure they fork over money for tax, but it's not out of their pocket. It's collected in the price of the product they sell.

I hate to do this but using that reasoning people don't pay income tax either , they pass it along to their employers, who also don't pay because they pass it along to their customers.

So who are these customers that are paying everybody else's taxes?

[Mr. P]

I hate to do this but using that reasoning people don't pay income tax either , they pass it along to their employers, who also don't pay because they pass it along to their customers.

So who are these customers that are paying everybody else's taxes?

Don’t be ridicules, individuals do pay income tax and they don’t pass it to the employer, the Gov does.

The employer may budget $100 per day for your pay.
They must withhold $50 tax
They pay the Gov. $50 on your behalf
You file a return and maybe get $25 back
The gov keeps $25
The employer paid that missing $25 from the price of goods or service.

Have you ever heard of embedded tax? It's like the spaghetti sauce, it's in there.

[loosecannon]

Don’t be ridicules, individuals do pay income tax and they don’t pass it to the employer, the Gov does.

The employer may budget $100 per day for your pay.
They must withhold $50 tax
They pay the Gov. $50 on your behalf
You file a return and maybe get $25 back
The gov keeps $25
The employer paid that missing $25 from the price of goods or service.

Have you ever heard of embedded tax? It's like the spaghetti sauce, it's in there.

I am not gonna argue with you Mr P.

But applying that same logic to any tax is specious.

[Mr. P]

I am not gonna argue with you Mr P.

But applying that same logic to any tax is specious.

Which tax? It's all in the same pot. does it matter what it's called, income, corporate, payroll etc?

[diuretic]

Which tax? It's all in the same pot. does it matter what it's called, income, corporate, payroll etc?

It matters to whoever is paying it.

[Yurt]

=loosecannon;48275]Well sure. Tho I have yet no idea at all what your actual question is.

This is not surprising, which is one of the reasons it is a waste of time to debate you one on one.


From what I have heard and read from the dems, is that those evil tax cuts that Bush gave to the wealthy, the very wealthy, what not, were bad. In fact, the democratic platform is to increase the taxes on the wealthy, especially the very wealthy 1%.

Loosy; and here is your chance to debate, what say you regarding taxes?

That is the core issue. The very first reply in post #2 understood the question quite clearly and answered it. Why you still did not get the gist after that reply is, well, no, not puzzling, I guess it should be expected.

I left it general at the end to allow a healthy discussion regarding taxes as I wish to learn more about taxes.


Taxes are an uneccesary evil. We do not need to be taxed in the first place. There are several ways to fund nations other than taxes. But if you discount all of them, you are left with only the system of tax as a means to fund government.

I don't think they are evil. And yes, they are necessary. Certain functions of a government necessarily require funding that inherently should be taxed from its citizens. But to tax one class of citizens unfairly, no matter how wealthy, is still, unfair.




So what is taxation supposed to accomplish? Funding the gummit.



What else? Well taxation is additionally bound by two other standards: providing or retarding economic growth and being equitable in terms of progressive and regressive dynamics.

So taxes are solely about economics?


Fortunately taxing the wealthiest the most has always proven to be the best compromise in both cases.

I may be mistaken, but did not Reagan's tax system create a vibrant economy? One vastly superior to Commie Carter.




It is most equitable and provides the greatest relative stimulus to the economy. (which is still negative but not as negative as the alternatives. My favorite choices have always involved no taxes at all because all taxes drain the economy)

How is it "equitable?" Because you are not the one being taxed at an inherently unjust rate? Treating a class of people different than another class of people generally violates the equal protection clause. Even though the economic class has the lowest standard for the "gummit" to overcome, it does not, however, change the fact that the rich are being treated unequal.




So what exactly was your question?


Do you like repeating yourself? You spend all that time making a post to close with this, what a waste of time. You just have to dig don't you? You think because YOU don't understand the issues that this somehow makes my post less. Nice try.

Just ask the second poster. :poke:

[Yurt]

wealth isn't taxed while you are alive, income is. And corps do pay corporate income tax.

And corps do accumulate wealth.



I disagree that wealth is not taxed. Property tax.

Next.

[loosecannon]

I don't think they are evil. And yes, they are necessary. Certain functions of a government necessarily require funding that inherently should be taxed from its citizens.

Governments need money. But taxation is only one way of many that governments can raise the money they need to cover their expenses.

Why do you automatically disregard all of the other ways gummits can raise funds without even knowing what they are?

[loosecannon]

This is not surprising, which is one of the reasons it is a waste of time to debate you one on one.

I did address your question, you just didn't see the response. I said taxing the wealthy is the best way to accomplish the three goals of taxation is by taxing the wealthy.

That is actually not true, but once you accept taxation as a necesary you have pretty much blown off all of your relationship with economic truth.

Reality is that the ONLY reason why the Gummit taxes people is to make it mandatory for them to use US currency as a sole means of exchange.

And I can look and find quotes from the federal reserve itself that say exactly that. It will take 45 minutes of my life to find em, but I think it is worth it if there is sufficient interest.

Later tho. Not now.

Taxes aren't neccesary.

[loosecannon]

I may be mistaken, but did not Reagan's tax system create a vibrant economy? One vastly superior to Commie Carter.

Vibrant economy? Well actually the reagan years were the lowest point in the US economy in the last 60 years. Not all Reagan's fault by any means but vibrant would pretty much the opposite of reality.

The economy could suck ice cubes thru a straw during the reagan era.

[loosecannon]

How is it "equitable?" Because you are not the one being taxed at an inherently unjust rate? Treating a class of people different than another class of people generally violates the equal protection clause. Even though the economic class has the lowest standard for the "gummit" to overcome, it does not, however, change the fact that the rich are being treated unequal.

The rich are receiving a far greater share of government services as well.

The reality is this:

Left to our own devices nopne of us could ever become anything more than extremely poor and always struggling to survive.

It is society and society alone that integrates people into an organization that is capable of creating wealth. Adam Smith said something about how one man working alone could produce something like two of thing x in a day but with division of labor and organization each man could produce 4000 of the same objects. Maybe it was buttons.

It isn't the labor that makes that efficiency occur, or the capital that bought the machines, or the organization, or the highways, and past inventions and distant mines and forests and farm land that are reaped without sowing that produce that efficiency. It is ALL of that combined.

So each of us no matter how wealthy we are owe almost all of our wealth to the benfits of society as a whole and NOT to our own efforts ingenuity and intelligence except to a small, small degree.

To whom much is given, much is expected. The wealthy reap far, far more benfits from society than the poor who almost always work much harder for their money.

So the wealthy are actually very much priviledged to be taxed at a much higher rate and still be wealthy than to be taxed at a lower rate and be destitute working like mules everyday just to subsist, as they would be if society was not supporting them.

Taxing the rich much more is far more than fair.

And equitable merely means that it is the most fair and also does the least harm to the overall economy.









Do you like repeating yourself? You spend all that time making a post to close with this, what a waste of time. You just have to dig don't you? You think because YOU don't understand the issues that this somehow makes my post less. Nice try.

Just ask the second poster. :poke:


You are talking to yourself, start your own thread. Just a Yurt on Yurt thread and we will all read it.

[loosecannon]

I disagree that wealth is not taxed. Property tax.

Next.


Inheritance tax, that's two, but I was responding to somebody who said that income is not taxed, but wealth is.

And wealth and property are not synonomous.

A property tax is a tax on SOME of your wealth.

So is an income tax or a sales tax, etc.

[Yurt]

loosecannon;48635]I did address your question, you just didn't see the response.

Are you in special education? If so, I will stop any digs at you. If not, you are an idiot. I saw the question at the beginning of your post and at the end of your post. You did not see my response to both questions. Stuff like this is why it is a waste of time to have one on one thread with you. You are either plain ignorant or ignorant on purpose to supposedly further some point you have. Either way, it speaks ill of your alleged debating prowess which you are so fond of talking about.


I said taxing the wealthy is the best way to accomplish the three goals of taxation is by taxing the wealthy.

That is actually not true, but once you accept taxation as a necesary you have pretty much blown off all of your relationship with economic truth.

WTF? Your first sentence is incomprehensionable. I know you said taxing the wealthy is the best way, then you repeat (seems a habit with you) .. "is by taxing the wealthy." Is english your first language? For you next say that "is" (which must be an identifiable something, though we have no clue) not true, "but" if I accept taxes as necessary, then this somehow blows off my "relationship" with economic "truth?"

There is no single economic "truth." If there is one, let us know.


Reality is that the ONLY reason why the Gummit taxes people is to make it mandatory for them to use US currency as a sole means of exchange.

So you don't need roads? If not the gummit, then who? Serious, I am open to suggestions. I think it goes beyond roads, but the "road" is really the very basic of an empire/gummit. Who should pay? Should all roads by "toll?"


And I can look and find quotes from the federal reserve itself that say exactly that. It will take 45 minutes of my life to find em, but I think it is worth it if there is sufficient interest.
Later tho. Not now.

I said bring it. So bring it. Don't whine about your time, if you don't have it, don't respond. Before going to cambria this morning I perused the board, but did not respond because the misses wanted me on the road. I did not make a post telling people about that, I simply put the CP to sleep and went. Get a life.



Taxes aren't neccesary

Explain you big bad awesome great terrific superior beyond intellectual grasp debator.

[Yurt]

You are talking to yourself, start your own thread. Just a Yurt on Yurt thread and we will all read it

dickhead, you are the one spouting crap about debates, i make one, invite you personally, and allow others to join, wtf this has to do with this asinine post is beyond me.

[Yurt]

loosecannon;48640]The rich are receiving a far greater share of government services as well.

How? So you are saying that their higher tax rate gives them proportionally higher government services?



The reality is this:

Left to our own devices nopne of us could ever become anything more than extremely poor and always struggling to survive.

That is your reality. Maybe you should pay more taxes.




It is society and society alone that integrates people into an organization that is capable of creating wealth. Adam Smith said something about how one man working alone could produce something like two of thing x in a day but with division of labor and organization each man could produce 4000 of the same objects. Maybe it was buttons.

It isn't the labor that makes that efficiency occur, or the capital that bought the machines, or the organization, or the highways, and past inventions and distant mines and forests and farm land that are reaped without sowing that produce that efficiency. It is ALL of that combined.

So each of us no matter how wealthy we are owe almost all of our wealth to the benfits of society as a whole and NOT to our own efforts ingenuity and intelligence except to a small, small degree.

To whom much is given, much is expected. The wealthy reap far, far more benfits from society than the poor who almost always work much harder for their money.




And equitable merely means that it is the most fair and also does the least harm to the overall economy.


The poor almost always work much hard for their money. You class bigot you. So rich people don't work?


So the wealthy are actually very much priviledged to be taxed at a much higher rate and still be wealthy than to be taxed at a lower rate and be destitute working like mules everyday just to subsist, as they would be if society was not supporting them.


Taxing the rich much more is far more than fair.

By what fairness standards? Simply because the wealthy are well, wealthy? So these "few" should be taxed more because..........the "harder" working, less money making citizens? Crap. Absolute crap. For you to judge not only the person for their wealthy, but also their work is the height of UNEQUAL thinking and will thus lead to unequal protection. You have proven yourself a bigot. You somehow think the rich work "less" than the poor.

You are bigot. Prove otherwise.

[Hobbit]

Corporations are incapable of accumulating wealth. I have a bank account, several thousand dollars in stocks, and money in my pocket. Taxes are taken from those things. Corporations, on the other hand, don't hold those things. Individuals, and only individuals, do. An individual cannot charge his employer more money because of a tax hike, and usually has to simply make do with buying less. Corporations simply raise prices or lower wages, and the cost of any tax ultimately rests solely on individuals. Corporate income tax is a scam.

[Yurt]

Corporations are incapable of accumulating wealth. I have a bank account, several thousand dollars in stocks, and money in my pocket. Taxes are taken from those things. Corporations, on the other hand, don't hold those things. Individuals, and only individuals, do. An individual cannot charge his employer more money because of a tax hike, and usually has to simply make do with buying less. Corporations simply raise prices or lower wages, and the cost of any tax ultimately rests solely on individuals. Corporate income tax is a scam.

Cash reserves?

[loosecannon]

How? So you are saying that their higher tax rate gives them proportionally higher government services?

No I am saying that their acquisition maintenance and consumption of more wealth demands almost without exception a much higher reliance on the service matrix of the greater society.



That is your reality. Maybe you should pay more taxes.

No that is THE reality.


The poor almost always work much hard for their money. You class bigot you. So rich people don't work?

Sure they work. Bill Gates made and kept approximately 1.5 billion dollars/year throughout his entire working career.

Do you think Bill worked 50,000 times harder than the guys who mowed the lawns at his corporate offices? Cuz he got paid 50,000 times as much.

So he didn't work as hard/dollar. That is what I said. Please try to actually read listen and comprehend, instead of just jumping to wild conclusions.

[loosecannon]

By what fairness standards? Simply because the wealthy are well, wealthy? So these "few" should be taxed more because..........the "harder" working, less money making citizens? Crap. Absolute crap. For you to judge not only the person for their wealthy, but also their work is the height of UNEQUAL thinking and will thus lead to unequal protection. You have proven yourself a bigot. You somehow think the rich work "less" than the poor.

You are bigot. Prove otherwise.


The rich work less for each dollar than the poor.

Prove otherwise bigot.

Please apologize for dramatically mischaracterizing my posts into your confused paradigm.

[loosecannon]

Corporations are incapable of accumulating wealth. I have a bank account, several thousand dollars in stocks, and money in my pocket. Taxes are taken from those things. Corporations, on the other hand, don't hold those things.

Sure they do. Corporations have everything you have and 1000 times more. They have bank accounts, stocks (their own and others) cash on hand and they pay taxes.

They also have teams of lawyers and accountants, subsidiaries, offshore accounts, contracts, buckuu assets like oil tankers and private jets and skyscrapers.




Individuals, and only individuals, do. An individual cannot charge his employer more money because of a tax hike, and usually has to simply make do with buying less. Corporations simply raise prices or lower wages, and the cost of any tax ultimately rests solely on individuals. Corporate income tax is a scam.


Corporations can not just charge more for their products just because they want to or because their costs went up either. They are just like you in that respect.

Unless they are edging toward a monopoly.

Corporations pay taxes just like you. Very little diff except you earned your money and the corp used a formula.

[Yurt]

Inheritance tax, that's two, but I was responding to somebody who said that income is not taxed, but wealth is.

And wealth and property are not synonomous.

A property tax is a tax on SOME of your wealth.

So is an income tax or a sales tax, etc.

Are you well? You just contradicted yourself. "some"what...LOL

[diuretic]

Corporations are incapable of accumulating wealth. I have a bank account, several thousand dollars in stocks, and money in my pocket. Taxes are taken from those things. Corporations, on the other hand, don't hold those things. Individuals, and only individuals, do. An individual cannot charge his employer more money because of a tax hike, and usually has to simply make do with buying less. Corporations simply raise prices or lower wages, and the cost of any tax ultimately rests solely on individuals. Corporate income tax is a scam.

Here's a clue from the end of the discussion that really counts, a tax-paying individual who is also a consumer. I wager that if corporate taxes were to be removed overnight that there would be no adjustment in prices of goods and services offered by corporations. Given that I say tax them because at least it's spreading the pain.

[Yurt]

How? So you are saying that their higher tax rate gives them proportionally higher government services?


loosecannon;48657]No I am saying that their acquisition maintenance and consumption of more wealth demands almost without exception a much higher reliance on the service matrix of the greater society.

Good.

The rest is nonsense. Get another DVD, cause what you are watching is not working....


That is your reality. Maybe you should pay more taxes.


No that is THE reality.

Irrelevent. If this was a debate competition, you would lose. What is "the" reality? Huh? You offer nothing.... But YOUR reality.



Sure they work. Bill Gates made and kept approximately 1.5 billion dollars/year throughout his entire working career.

Do you think Bill worked 50,000 times harder than the guys who mowed the lawns at his corporate offices? Cuz he got paid 50,000 times as much.

So he didn't work as hard/dollar. That is what I said. Please try to actually read listen and comprehend, instead of just jumping to wild conclusions

You are are a class bigot. You somehow think that Bill Gates worked less than the guy that mowed his lawn. You are are a class bigot. Bill Gates WORK gave that lawn person the job. So to you, only elbow grease is work?

You also contradict yourself with value. You seem to indicate that because Bill Gates gets paid "more" than the landscaper, that he should work this imaginary percent higher.

You are done. You have lost this debate with that very premise.

[loosecannon]

Are you well? You just contradicted yourself. "some"what...LOL

Boy this is getting tedious.

Yes I am well, no I didn't contradict.

Property taxes are a tax on some, but not all of your wealth.

BUT, and this is the important BUT, so read it slow....I was responding to somebody else, not you, somebody else who said that people are not taxed on income but on wealth. So I said no people ARE TAXED ON INCOME. THEY CALL IT INCOME TAX.

And you are ALSO correct, people are ALSO taxed on SOME of their wealth.

As in inheritance tax and property tax.

Are you well enough to get that really basic stuff?

Please read post until you have at least exhausted your potential for actually understanding what was posted before you jump to these wildassed assumptions Yurt.

[loosecannon]

You are are a class bigot. You somehow think that Bill Gates worked less than the guy that mowed his lawn.

Yurt, I suspect you are as drunk as a skunk. I said no such thing and if you are sober and lucid you know it.

did Bill Gates work 50,000 times harder than the guys mowing his lawns? Because he got paid 50,000 times more. Supporting my statement that he did not work as hard for each dollar as the guys mowing his lawns.

This is getting absurd.

Either sober up or stop posting till you sober up.

[loosecannon]

Here's a clue from the end of the discussion that really counts, a tax-paying individual who is also a consumer. I wager that if corporate taxes were to be removed overnight that there would be no adjustment in prices of goods and services offered by corporations. Given that I say tax them because at least it's spreading the pain.

Exactly. Prices charged by corps are at least theoretically determined by supply and demand, not by cost plus formulas.

[Yurt]

Boy this is getting tedious.

Yes I am well, no I didn't contradict.

Property taxes are a tax on some, but not all of your wealth.

BUT, and this is the important BUT, so read it slow....I was responding to somebody else, not you, somebody else who said that people are not taxed on income but on wealth. So I said no people ARE TAXED ON INCOME. THEY CALL IT INCOME TAX.

And you are ALSO correct, people are ALSO taxed on SOME of their wealth.

As in inheritance tax and property tax.

Are you well enough to get that really basic stuff?

Please read post until you have at least exhausted your potential for actually understanding what was posted before you jump to these wildassed assumptions Yurt.



wealth isn't taxed while you are alive, income is. And corps do pay corporate income tax.

And corps do accumulate wealth.



I don't need your excuses, just the fact you admit that this statement is WRONG will suffice, for now.

You are losing, it so plain, and sheesh, this is not even a subject I know alot about. Don't make excuses, and please, don't try to explain this post, it is clear. You only now try to wiggle your out because I called you on it.

You are weak.

Now I know why you would not take OCA up on a debate. You are a coward.

[diuretic]

Careful with the projection there chief, it could get nasty if you keep that up.

[Yurt]

Boy this is getting tedious.

Yes I am well, no I didn't contradict.

Property taxes are a tax on some, but not all of your wealth.

BUT, and this is the important BUT, so read it slow....I was responding to somebody else, not you, somebody else who said that people are not taxed on income but on wealth. So I said no people ARE TAXED ON INCOME. THEY CALL IT INCOME TAX.

And you are ALSO correct, people are ALSO taxed on SOME of their wealth.

As in inheritance tax and property tax.

Are you well enough to get that really basic stuff?

Please read post until you have at least exhausted your potential for actually understanding what was posted before you jump to these wildassed assumptions Yurt.

Whatever drunkard:



Do you think Bill worked 50,000 times harder than the guys who mowed the lawns at his corporate offices? Cuz he got paid 50,000 times as much.

So he didn't work as hard/dollar. That is what I said.



can you spell logic? You also say this, which is very clear:


The rich work less for each dollar than the poor.


This "also" correct.... loser. You know it, you are loosing........

so easy

[loosecannon]

I don't need your excuses, just the fact you admit that this statement is WRONG will suffice, for now.

No, the statement was correct in context with an execption that your extraneous exception was also correct out of context.




You are losing, it so plain, and sheesh, this is not even a subject I know alot about. Don't make excuses, and please, don't try to explain this post, it is clear. You only now try to wiggle your out because I called you on it.

You are weak.

Now I know why you would not take OCA up on a debate. You are a coward.

You need to quit posting drunk off your ass Yurt. You are gonna be mighty embarrassed in the AM.

You have been unable to even follow the thread and have jumped to conclusions befitting a lunatic or a drug addled narcoleptic.

Give it a rest, come back when you find your sanity and sobriety.

[loosecannon]

Whatever drunkard:






can you spell logic? You also say this, which is very clear:




This "also" correct.... loser. You know it, you are loosing........

so easy


You are shitfaced dude. Put that bottle down and sleep it off.

[Yurt]

You are shitfaced dude. Put that bottle down and sleep it off.

Both posts failed to answer anything. Still on the booze are you?

[Yurt]

No, the statement was correct in context with an execption that your extraneous exception was also correct out of context.





You need to quit posting drunk off your ass Yurt. You are gonna be mighty embarrassed in the AM.

You have been unable to even follow the thread and have jumped to conclusions befitting a lunatic or a drug addled narcoleptic.

Give it a rest, come back when you find your sanity and sobriety.


*hiccup, huh, hic, hu* *spills drink*


uggg, drunk............. but yet you still can't answer the topic. Rather, you would like to spend time on my mental state. What does it matter to you? Think about it, if I am drunk or whatever, then you should be able to easily win. Yet, you spend so much time on my mental state. Not the "debate" points.

[loosecannon]

Both posts failed to answer anything. Still on the booze are you?

take two of these http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1033237/2/istockphoto_1033237_fresh_coffee_poured.jpg

and call us in the morning

[loosecannon]

*hiccup, huh, hic, hu* *spills drink*


uggg, drunk............. but yet you still can't answer the topic. Rather, you would like to spend time on my mental state. What does it matter to you? Think about it, if I am drunk or whatever, then you should be able to easily win. Yet, you spend so much time on my mental state. Not the "debate" points.

I am not even trying to win Yurt. I am simply correcting your several misunderstandings.

And that is getting old.

Once you get your game back on, try again.

[Yurt]

I am not even trying to win Yurt. I am simply correcting your several misunderstandings.

And that is getting old.

Once you get your game back on, try again.

LOOOOOOOOOOOL. Then why make challenges about debates?

You don't even have game. I won't make fun of your mental state, drugs, alcohol, booze, beer, drugs, alccchohol, dddruugss, or bzzeeerzze, man, cuase IZZZZZ don't need to tooooooooooooooz, *sklsipppedsssz*

If you can't debate, fine. Just admit it.

[diuretic]

Listen blokes, this is funny, the to and fro (and I mean "funny" because I'm laughing with you both, not at you, I enjoy creative insults and these are good) BUT will ya lay off the booze insults.

I'm dead sober this afternoon (time zone thing) but I may do something about that tonight (don't worry North America will either be safely tucked up in bed or wil be out partying so hard they won't give a shit about my drunken bullshit posts later). I have a day off tomorrow so I may go overboard. But all this accusing each other of being on the turps is really putting me off. I'm getting the the guilts even before I get the hangover.

So please, I'm asking nicely (and I can be a real prick, just ask Pale Rider), will you stop making me feel bad about wanting to rip the top off a beer or ten?

Thanks blokes, much appreciated. :beer:

[Yurt]

Listen blokes, this is funny, the to and fro (and I mean "funny" because I'm laughing with you both, not at you, I enjoy creative insults and these are good) BUT will ya lay off the booze insults.

I'm dead sober this afternoon (time zone thing) but I may do something about that tonight (don't worry North America will either be safely tucked up in bed or wil be out partying so hard they won't give a shit about my drunken bullshit posts later). I have a day off tomorrow so I may go overboard. But all this accusing each other of being on the turps is really putting me off. I'm getting the the guilts even before I get the hangover.

So please, I'm asking nicely (and I can be a real prick, just ask Pale Rider), will you stop making me feel bad about wanting to rip the top off a beer or ten?

Thanks blokes, much appreciated. :beer:


Away weeeez go. No worries, rip one off. But, if you are going to be a prick, stay out of this thread. Its not about beer and booze and eh (canadian wife).

So, why don't you like, bugger off..............:finger3:

[diuretic]

I had a Canadian wife (she got rid of me) and I might be lining up for another one (if things get better) so I know what you mean :D

Buggering off now....:laugh2:

[Hobbit]

Here's a clue from the end of the discussion that really counts, a tax-paying individual who is also a consumer. I wager that if corporate taxes were to be removed overnight that there would be no adjustment in prices of goods and services offered by corporations. Given that I say tax them because at least it's spreading the pain.

Incorrect. The free market being what it is, the prices will go down. They may stay steady for a while, but then, some company will figure out that with the tax gone, they can undercut everyone and still make a profit, thus making a killing in volume. It happened when the airlines got their tax break. One small, western airline cut its prices to match the tax break, and in less than a week, every other airline in the country followed suit so they'd be able to compete.

[loosecannon]

Incorrect. The free market being what it is, the prices will go down. They may stay steady for a while, but then, some company will figure out that with the tax gone, they can undercut everyone and still make a profit, thus making a killing in volume. It happened when the airlines got their tax break. One small, western airline cut its prices to match the tax break, and in less than a week, every other airline in the country followed suit so they'd be able to compete.


What is true for the airline industry may not apply to any other industry.

It certainly does not apply to the oil industry. Or the cable industry.

I spose the diff is the degree of monopolization within the industry. And therefore the level of competitiveness and price leveling.

[pegwinn]

Well really? You do realize that if CA was a nation it would be the worlds fifth largest economy right?

Whatever CA is doing, must be working.

CA is merely capitalizing on the per capita wealth/income. Everyone from the descendents of the gold rush, to the entertainment business lives there.


It won't be for long if the economies of Texas and Nevada keep growing at the rate that they are. In any case, maybe California was a bad example. Look at Taxachussetts.


True. Texas has a property tax and a sales tax.

IF the USA wishes to fully fund itself it will adopt a national sales tax such as the one before congress now. Then every time Paris Hilton throws a huge party she is contributing to the nation. Same for the drug dealer buying upgrades on the escalade. Same for the illegal alien buying cigarettes and beer.

IF the USA wants to turn a profit they should impose a matching national property tax and matching national sales tax.

But of course it means the folks will have to lose the income paradigm. That is the tough part.

[Yurt]

What is true for the airline industry may not apply to any other industry.

It certainly does not apply to the oil industry. Or the cable industry.

I spose the diff is the degree of monopolization within the industry. And therefore the level of competitiveness and price leveling.

Why are you still posting on this thread. You failed to engage in a decent debate, so leave it be.

[loosecannon]

Krugman on "investment"

Another Economic Disconnect
By PAUL KRUGMAN
April 30, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist

Last fall Edward Lazear, the Bush administration’s top economist, explained that what’s good for corporations is good for America. “Profits,” he declared, “provide the incentive for physical capital investment, and physical capital growth contributes to productivity growth. Thus profits are important not only for investors but also for the workers who benefit from the growth in productivity.”

In other words, ask not for whom the closing bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

Unfortunately, these days none of what Mr. Lazear said seems to be true. In the Bush years high profits haven’t led to high investment, and rising productivity hasn’t led to rising wages.

The second of those two disconnects has gotten a lot of attention because of its political consequences. The administration and its allies whine that they aren’t getting credit for a great economy, but because wages have been stagnant — the median worker’s earnings, adjusted for inflation, haven’t gone up at all since the current economic expansion began in 2001 — the economy feels anything but great to most Americans.

Less attention, however, has been given to the first disconnect: the failure of high profits to produce an investment boom.

Since President Bush took office, the combination of rising productivity and stagnant wages — workers are producing more, but they aren’t getting paid more — has led to a veritable profit gusher, with corporate profits more than doubling since 2000. Last year, profits as a share of national income were at the highest level ever recorded.
You might have expected this gusher of profits, which surely owes something to the Bush administration’s pro-corporate, anti-labor tilt, to produce a corresponding gusher of business investment. But the reality has been more of a trickle. Nonresidential investment — that is, investment other than housing construction — has grown very slowly by historical standards. As a share of G.D.P., nonresidential investment remains far below its levels of the late 1990s, and it has been declining for the last two quarters.

Why aren’t corporations investing, and what does the lack of business investment mean for the economy?
It’s possible that sluggish business investment reflects lack of confidence in the economic outlook — a lack of confidence that’s understandable given the bursting of the housing bubble, which has already caused G.D.P. growth to slow to a crawl.
But as Floyd Norris recently reported in The Times, there is a more disturbing possibility. Instead of investing in physical capital, many companies are using profits to buy back their own stock. And cynics suggest that the purpose of these buybacks is to produce a temporary rise in stock prices that increases the value of executives’ stock options, even if it’s against the long-term interests of investors.

It’s not a far-fetched idea. Researchers at the Federal Reserve have found evidence that company decisions about stock buybacks are strongly influenced by “agency conflicts,” a genteel term for self-dealing by corporate insiders. In the 1990s that kind of self-dealing often led to excessive investment, which at least left a tangible legacy behind. But today the self-interest of management may be standing in the way of productive investment.

Whatever the reasons, we now have an economy with incredibly high profits and surprisingly low investment. This raises some immediate, short-run concerns: with housing still in free fall and consumers ever more stretched, optimistic projections for the economy depend on vigorous growth in business investment. And that doesn’t seem to be happening.

The bigger issue, however, may be longer term. Mr. Lazear was right about one thing: business investment plays an important role in raising productivity. High investment in equipment and software was one major reason for the productivity takeoff that began in the Clinton era, and continued in the early years of this decade.
And low investment may be one reason productivity growth has slowed dramatically over the last three years — another development that hasn’t received as much attention as it should.

In any case, next time someone tells you that any action that might reduce corporate profits a bit — like actually enforcing health and safety regulations or making it easier for workers to organize — will reduce business investment, bear in mind that today’s record profits aren’t being invested. Instead, they’re being used to enrich executives and a few lucky stock owners.

[Mr. P]

In any case IF I ever form economic opinion based on what an Op-Ed Columnist has to say, just shoot me.

[shattered]

In any case IF I ever form economic opinion based on what an Op-Ed Columnist has to say, just shoot me.

**grabs epi-pen** I hear those are fun! :D

[Yurt]

This is not surprising, which is one of the reasons it is a waste of time to debate you one on one.



That is the core issue. The very first reply in post #2 understood the question quite clearly and answered it. Why you still did not get the gist after that reply is, well, no, not puzzling, I guess it should be expected.

I left it general at the end to allow a healthy discussion regarding taxes as I wish to learn more about taxes.



I don't think they are evil. And yes, they are necessary. Certain functions of a government necessarily require funding that inherently should be taxed from its citizens. But to tax one class of citizens unfairly, no matter how wealthy, is still, unfair.








So taxes are solely about economics?



I may be mistaken, but did not Reagan's tax system create a vibrant economy? One vastly superior to Commie Carter.





How is it "equitable?" Because you are not the one being taxed at an inherently unjust rate? Treating a class of people different than another class of people generally violates the equal protection clause. Even though the economic class has the lowest standard for the "gummit" to overcome, it does not, however, change the fact that the rich are being treated unequal.






Do you like repeating yourself? You spend all that time making a post to close with this, what a waste of time. You just have to dig don't you? You think because YOU don't understand the issues that this somehow makes my post less. Nice try.

Just ask the second poster. :poke:

My stance is clear.

[loosecannon]

In any case IF I ever form economic opinion based on what an Op-Ed Columnist has to say, just shoot me.

Not just an op ed columnist MP, a Princeton economist and a close freind and peer to Ben Bernake the current Fed Chairman.

He knows as much about economics as anybody alive.

Read it again as if it was God's word.

[loosecannon]

My stance is clear.

But nobody is talking to you cuz you spout utter gibberish.

[Yurt]

But nobody is talking to you cuz you spout utter gibberish.

:laugh2: