Psychology of money and taxation

[Gaffer]

Quote Originally Posted by Missileman View Post
The people insisted that they NOT pass healthcare reform.

palin rider
Clearly not enough of them.

A majority of people didn't want the health care bill. Makes no difference if its 51% or a 100%. The people were ignored. Now it's payback time.

[Palin Rider]

But they won't really pay the tax anyhow. Oh, on paper they will, sure, but do you really think Wal-Mart isn't going to take those things into account when setting prices to mitigate the new tax on their income.

Yeah, thanks, I don't need my goods and services raised. Maybe we could try spending responsibly for a change of pace.

First, how did Wal-Mart get into this? This entire thread has been about personal income taxes, not business taxes.

Second, this theory is totally wrong anyway. Product and service providers can't just arbitrarily raise their prices without losing business.

[Palin Rider]

So, cuz YOU can't defend nor explain your position of saddling a small percentage of the population with ALL the financial burden of the Country in the form of income taxes I'm a Troll?

You expect me to defend my position to a gray-haired toddler who does nothing but name-call?

Forget it. You don't deserve my respect or anyone else's.

[Missileman]

First, how did Wal-Mart get into this? This entire thread has been about personal income taxes, not business taxes.

Second, this theory is totally wrong anyway. Product and service providers can't just arbitrarily raise their prices without losing business.

The point, that went right over your head, is that when the government increases the costs to businesses, (many of the wealthy that are being targeted for this tax increase own those businesses), those costs will eventually wind up being paid by the consumers through higher prices.

The idiots in DC don't understand that basic principle and apparently they aren't alone. What do YOU suggest a company is supposed to do to stay in business if their profit margin is cut by new taxes or mandates like healthcare?

[Palin Rider]

The point, that went right over your head, is that when the government increases the costs to businesses, (many of the wealthy that are being targeted for this tax increase own those businesses), those costs will eventually wind up being paid by the consumers through higher prices.

Which I already demonstrated is wrong, so why are you repeating it?

The idiots in DC don't understand that basic principle and apparently they aren't alone. What do YOU suggest a company is supposed to do to stay in business if their profit margin is cut by new taxes or mandates like healthcare?

I'm sure they'll be creative enough to find SOMETHING that's still profitable to sell. That's what free enterprise does.

[Mr. P]

You expect me to defend my position to a gray-haired toddler who does nothing but name-call?

Forget it. You don't deserve my respect or anyone else's.

Actually no, I don't expect you to defend an undefendable position. It'd be fun to see ya try though.

[SassyLady]

Which I already demonstrated is wrong, so why are you repeating it?


I'm sure they'll be creative enough to find SOMETHING that's still profitable to sell. That's what free enterprise does.

It's no longer free enterprise, PR, when the government is taxing and regulating as heavily as it is now.

[Palin Rider]

It's no longer free enterprise, PR, when the government is taxing and regulating as heavily as it is now.

I'm disappointed, KP: that's an empty platitude worthy of a garden-variety Congressional candidate. You can do a lot better.

[SassyLady]

I'm disappointed, KP: that's an empty platitude worthy of a garden-variety Congressional candidate. You can do a lot better.

Well, PR, the truth is what it is no matter who says it. Trying to shame the speaker is just another progressive liberal tactic used when they know they are losing the debate.

I know I can do better but when I'm bored from debating with people who use circular logic I have a tendency to slack off.

Find another topic and perhaps we can have a more lively debate.

[Missileman]

Which I already demonstrated is wrong, so why are you repeating it?

Really? In which post did you provide evidence that rising costs to consumers aren't linked in any way to rising costs to manufacturers?

I'm sure they'll be creative enough to find SOMETHING that's still profitable to sell. That's what free enterprise does.

They CAN and WILL continue to make a profit by raising prices...are you unaware of how stupid you sound arguing otherwise?

[Agnapostate]

eliminating income tax only for anyone making less than $200k isn't the answer, we need to eliminate income tax itself and just go with a sales tax. That is the fairest form of tax there is, everyone pays their fair share.

That's incorrect. The diminishing marginal utility of higher income means that progressive taxation is the mechanism that ensures an equitable tax burden. When you take a microeconomics course and learn this, you might also learn that this doctrine of a forward shift in tax incidence exactly proportional to increased taxes on producers requires complete elasticity of supply, which is certainly not present.

Of course, the entire doctrine of an inverse relationship between government and capitalism promoted in this thread is completely wrong. From the welfare state's utility in maintaining the physical efficiency of the working class to the role of Keynesian demand management to the development of internationally competitive industries under protective tariffs and quotas, capitalism and the state are mutually supportive.

The problem is that the rightist membership here is not actually interested in sound economics so much as preservation of their moral views, though those are themselves based on inaccurate premises.

[Palin Rider]

Well, PR, the truth is what it is no matter who says it. Trying to shame the speaker is just another progressive liberal tactic used when they know they are losing the debate.

I know I can do better but when I'm bored from debating with people who use circular logic I have a tendency to slack off.

Making an empty point and using it to declare victory isn't just slacking off, it's GWB-level bullshit. (Not to mention that you never demonstrate any specific use of circular logic on my part.)

There's plenty of room left for debate on this topic, but if you're bored with it, just be honest, say so, and leave it at that.

[Palin Rider]

Really? In which post did you provide evidence that rising costs to consumers aren't linked in any way to rising costs to manufacturers?

No need to prove that. Manufacturers cannot raise prices beyond what the traffic will allow, or they simply won't have any buyers for their products. To claim otherwise shows a total lack of economic knowledge.

[Kathianne]

No need to prove that. Manufacturers cannot raise prices beyond what the traffic will allow, or they simply won't have any buyers for their products. To claim otherwise shows a total lack of economic knowledge.

Is there a cap with most products? Sure, especially discretionary buying. However, milk, clothing, etc? Nope, there comes times that you got to pay.

[Palin Rider]

Is there a cap with most products? Sure, especially discretionary buying. However, milk, clothing, etc? Nope, there comes times that you got to pay.

There's a de facto cap on prices with basic necessities, too. Above that level, people will turn to bartering and/or the black market. Happens frequently in much of the world.