PDA

View Full Version : Simplifying the Tax Code



Chris
04-15-2012, 02:27 PM
Randall Holcombe, Professor of Economics, explains how to simplify the tax code by eliminating loopholes for special interests, lower tax rates and help improve economic growth.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fHUHFKELxVo

ramone
04-15-2012, 02:46 PM
I grasp the concept but you will never get the left to get it. It doesn't fit in with their ideal of spreading the wealth for some reason.

Chris
04-15-2012, 02:56 PM
You'd think "eliminating loopholes for special interests" would peak their interest, and if there were economic growth there'd be increased revenue. What more could you ask for!

ramone
04-15-2012, 03:11 PM
If you eliminated loopholes for special interests then their programs to feed the world would have to be paid for by someone. Economic growth and increased revenue does not resonate with their thinking. They would rather somebody else pay for things, I'm not conveying that properly but I hope you get what I'm saying

MMC
04-15-2012, 04:03 PM
Did you hear that.....bigger government results in slower economic growth. Higher tax rates slows down economic growth. All independant sources say this. Yet the left clings to their keynesian economics to keep pushing spending up while expanding not only the growth of government. But the intrusian into ones rights.

wingrider
04-15-2012, 05:11 PM
Did you hear that.....bigger government results in slower economic growth. Higher tax rates slows down economic growth. All independant sources say this. Yet the left clings to their keynesian economics to keep pushing spending up while expanding not only the growth of government. But the intrusian into ones rights. what rights?? you mean to tell me we have some left? here is a simple tax code for you.. throw away the 65 k IRS code book.. everyone pays 10 percent tax across the board , no deductions no loopholes that is it.

MMC
04-15-2012, 05:14 PM
what rights?? you mean to tell me we have some left? here is a simple tax code for you.. throw away the 65 k IRS code book.. everyone pays 10 percent tax across the board , no deductions no loopholes that is it.


Yes but then the Democrats can't find a way to be saviours in their minds. Besides a flat tax would confuse them.

Peter1469
04-15-2012, 05:23 PM
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

MMC
04-15-2012, 05:29 PM
Background
Consumption is income less savings. Thus, the only difference in principle between a consumption tax and an income tax is the treatment of the savings. An income tax taxes savings both when the money is earned and again when the savings earn interest. A consumption tax taxes saving only once: either when the funds are withdrawn and used for consumption or when the funds are first earned. Although this difference appears simple, consumption taxes come in many forms.....snip~

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=1000530 (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=1000530)

wingrider
04-15-2012, 05:34 PM
Yes but then the Democrats can't find a way to be saviours in their minds. Besides a flat tax would confuse them.
true it must be difficult to figure out that 10 percent of a dollar is a dime. ooops sorry I told them the answer.. dang!!!!!

MMC
04-15-2012, 05:34 PM
For a number of years now, people have asked me whether I prefer a “flat tax” or a “fair tax.” Both are problematic.
The “flat tax” is typically conceived as a replacement for the existing personal income tax. This is fine, but it ignores the payroll tax, which is really just another form of income tax. So, it is only half of an income tax reform. In practice, quite a few countries have gone this route, beginning especially with Russia in 2001, and the results have been very good. These countries have generally replaced their income tax systems, but have kept what amounts to relatively high payroll taxes.
I would like to see a top-to-bottom income tax reform, which includes payroll taxes. Or, I should say, which does not include payroll taxes: I would like to see the payroll tax system eliminated entirely and integrated into a single income tax system. Neither Hong Kong nor Singapore, which are models of what can be achieved with a flat tax system (or nearly so in Singapore), have a payroll tax. The result is that taxation on the lowest incomes is very low, and the overall system has a high degree of progressivity despite modest top rates.


Now we come to the “Fair Tax,” a rather horrible name for a system which aims to generate all revenue from a single national VAT or sales tax. This would be equivalent to a 30% sales tax rate, as normally calculated (exclusive method).
There are a lot of positive things to be said about the Fair Tax, especially the elimination of the IRS and all of the intrusive bookkeeping involved with the income tax. By maximizing the taxation on consumption, we would be theoretically minimizing the taxation on investment, capital, and employment, with potentially excellent results.
The problems are that many states already have a sales tax (9.6% average rate in 2010), which means that the combined rate would either be 39.6% or that states would have to generate income by some other means. States also have income taxes, which presumably would be eliminated along with the federal income tax, thus generating another revenue issue.
We end up with a rather impressively high sales tax rate, which raises the question of tax evasion — the higher the rate, the greater the incentive for evasion — and also the problem of regressivity, putting the largest burdens on the lowest incomes.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2011/10/13/flat-tax-vs-fair-tax-vs-herman-cains-9-9-9-plan/

With the Fair Tax Democrats would have a free license to steal even more than they do now.

MMC
04-15-2012, 05:36 PM
Also with the fair tax to work.....then we need to get rid of the IRS.

Peter1469
04-15-2012, 05:45 PM
I prefer the Fair Tax; and it is not a VAT. A VAT would allow manipulation by government. Not the Fair Tax.

MMC
04-15-2012, 05:50 PM
The problems are that many states already have a sales tax (9.6% average rate in 2010), which means that the combined rate would either be 39.6% or that states would have to generate income by some other means. States also have income taxes, which presumably would be eliminated along with the federal income tax, thus generating another revenue issue.....snip~

Yeah but what about this part of it Pete?

Conley
04-15-2012, 05:57 PM
The problems are that many states already have a sales tax (9.6% average rate in 2010), which means that the combined rate would either be 39.6% or that states would have to generate income by some other means. States also have income taxes, which presumably would be eliminated along with the federal income tax, thus generating another revenue issue.....snip~

Yeah but what about this part of it Pete?

I know that's a quote from the article but doesn't 9.6% average seem really high? I don't see how the author comes up with that number.

http://www.salestaxinstitute.com/State_Sales_Tax_Rates

Chris
04-15-2012, 06:04 PM
Fair Tax, Flat Tax, anything would be better than what we have. I prefer Fair Tax, to remove disincentives from working, and buying use is without tax.

MMC
04-15-2012, 06:07 PM
I know that's a quote from the article but doesn't 9.6% average seem really high? I don't see how the author comes up with that number.

http://www.salestaxinstitute.com/State_Sales_Tax_Rates

Look up Chicago bro and Cook County Illinois.

Conley
04-15-2012, 06:11 PM
Why don't you save me the trouble and tell me what it is? Besides, Chicago is one of the most expensive...CA is expensive too. Those figures aren't average by any stretch.

MMC
04-15-2012, 06:11 PM
Policy administrationTaxes, in addition to providing revenue, can be potent instruments of policy. For example, it is common for governments to encourage social policy such as home insulation or low income housing with tax credits rather than constituting a ministry to implement these policies.[7] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-6) In a flat tax system with limited deductions such policy administration mechanisms are curtailed. In addition to social policy, flat taxes can remove tools for adjusting economic policy as well. For example, in the US short term gains are taxed at a higher rate than long term gains as means to promote long term investment horizons and damp speculative fluctuation.[8] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-tobin-7) Thus claims that flat taxes are cheaper/simpler to administer than others are incomplete until they factor in costs for alternative policy administration.

This is another problem I see with the flat tax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax

Chris
04-15-2012, 06:18 PM
Texas 6.250% 0% - 2%

San Antonio adds 2% to the state sales tax.

Ah, but no income tax like Illinois.

But property taxes are high.

wingrider
04-15-2012, 06:21 PM
I know that's a quote from the article but doesn't 9.6% average seem really high? I don't see how the author comes up with that number.

http://www.salestaxinstitute.com/State_Sales_Tax_Rates

yeah like Colorado state sales tax is about 3.5 percent and Colorado income tax is a percentage of the federal tax

Conley
04-15-2012, 06:23 PM
The average U.S. state sales tax rate increased to a record average of 5.52 percent in the first nine months of 2010, exceeding the former record of 5.48 percent for the full year 2009 (http://www.vertexinc.com/pressroom/2010/Sales-Tax-Rate-Report-09-030210.asp)
. This is according to the Sales Tax Rate Report (http://www.vertexinc.com/pressroom/PDF/2010/sales-tax-rate-report-q3-2010.pdf)
for the first three quarters of 2010 issued today by Vertex Inc (http://www.vertexinc.com/)
., the leading provider of corporate enterprise tax solutions.
The average rate of 5.52 percent marks the highest average U.S. state sales tax rate since Vertex began tracking the data in 1982. The average sales tax rate continued to increase despite a decrease in the number of rate changes overall. In the first nine months of 2010 there were a total of 455 state, county, city and district sales tax rate changes, as compared to 496 in the same period of 2009 and 707 for the full year.

http://www.vertexinc.com/pressroom/2010/sales-tax-rate-record-increases-101210.asp

MMC
04-15-2012, 06:26 PM
Okay again look at the 3 largest cities with the most populations. Yes high and not the average. But what portion do they make up for the country? Now how many are not paying. Didn't they say like 46%?

All of them. With high Property taxes and taxed out to the max.

Isn't there any way to combine these to make up for what both are missing?

Conley
04-15-2012, 06:34 PM
Yes, definitely...if you add up all the taxes it becomes quite a burden.

MMC
04-15-2012, 06:42 PM
So how would states find revenue then?

wingrider
04-15-2012, 06:46 PM
So how would states find revenue then?
legalize marijuana and tax it?

MMC
04-15-2012, 06:48 PM
Yeah, Illinois 6.250% (10)

Range of Local Rates - 0% - 4.25% (7)

MMC
04-15-2012, 07:04 PM
legalize marijuana and tax it?

Even with that they would still be forced to find revenue somehweres.

Peter1469
04-15-2012, 07:06 PM
The problems are that many states already have a sales tax (9.6% average rate in 2010), which means that the combined rate would either be 39.6% or that states would have to generate income by some other means. States also have income taxes, which presumably would be eliminated along with the federal income tax, thus generating another revenue issue.....snip~

Yeah but what about this part of it Pete?

Perhaps people would leave states with high taxes?

In a perfect world the federal government would do only what the Constitution permitted and then federal taxes would be like 10% and state taxes would be about 15%.

MMC
04-15-2012, 07:09 PM
Perhaps people would leave states with high taxes?

In a perfect world the federal government would do only what the Constitution permitted and then federal taxes would be like 10% and state taxes would be about 15%.

I think we are seeing that with Illinois and California already. Which means buisness isn't knockin on the door to get in either.

Peter1469
04-15-2012, 07:10 PM
Tax rates are at historic lows. Where is the economic growth?

Face it. Manufacturing isn't coming back.

That is a separate issue from taxation. That is caused by globalization. And we could take measures to protect our manufacturing base- at a cost.

Conley
04-15-2012, 07:11 PM
The business exodus from California is massive. Texas has lured a lot of them away with their incentives.

wingrider
04-15-2012, 07:13 PM
yeah I hear ya Colorado has been getting some transfers also, offering tax exemptions and in some cases free land

MMC
04-15-2012, 07:20 PM
That is a separate issue from taxation. That is caused by globalization. And we could take measures to protect our manufacturing base- at a cost.


Yep.....pretty much separate and not about taxation period.

MMC
04-15-2012, 07:21 PM
The business exodus from California is massive. Texas has lured a lot of them away with their incentives.

Thats what Indiana is doing to Illinois. Buisness are moving over the border and still remaining in Chicagoland area.

wingrider
04-15-2012, 07:36 PM
Thats what Indiana is doing to Illinois. Buisness are moving over the border and still remaining in Chicagoland area.
yep people will only put up with just so much and then they vote with their feet

MMC
04-15-2012, 07:51 PM
Worked for me.....I got the same style of house in Indiana that is in Illinois for about 30k less. Less taxes. Less cost of living.

wingrider
04-15-2012, 07:53 PM
yep. I have a 2600 sq foot house with 3 baths,5 bedrooms in Colorado.. cost 38 K

Conley
04-15-2012, 07:57 PM
Worked for me.....I got the same style of house in Indiana that is in Illinois for about 30k less. Less taxes. Less cost of living.

I saw Indiana has one of the highest state sales taxes. That surprised me.

MMC
04-15-2012, 08:05 PM
I saw Indiana has one of the highest state sales taxes. That surprised me.


Yep, all due to Chicago to. Course having a majority of the population in NE Indiana play a part as well.

Peter1469
04-15-2012, 08:34 PM
I disagree. No matter how low you make taxes, you won't get manufacturing back here. So, how are you going to improve the economy solely by lowering record low tax rates?

I disagree. Cut taxes on American business; cut deductions for moving overseas; impose tariffs on foreign goods that are from countries that undercut their prices on their exports; and make quality goods here.

Chris
04-16-2012, 06:14 AM
I disagree. Cut taxes on American business; cut deductions for moving overseas; impose tariffs on foreign goods that are from countries that undercut their prices on their exports; and make quality goods here.

Other than the initial tax cut, I don't see how dagny can disagree with such liberal policies as you propose, peter.

Chris
04-16-2012, 06:39 AM
Told ya so, peter. Now both of you are proposing policies to promote the impossible, for "you won't get manufacturing back here." And both of you promote policies that harm American consumers, for no matter how you tax, tariff and fine business, it's all just passed onto consumers, and if that doesn't happen, closing businesses and losing jobs.

Peter1469
04-16-2012, 03:32 PM
Told ya so, peter. Now both of you are proposing policies to promote the impossible, for "you won't get manufacturing back here." And both of you promote policies that harm American consumers, for no matter how you tax, tariff and fine business, it's all just passed onto consumers, and if that doesn't happen, closing businesses and losing jobs.

:shocked: http://www.nam.org/Statistics-And-Data/Facts-About-Manufacturing/Landing.aspx

Manufacturing in the US is not dead. Sure we aren't going to be able to compete in the cheap crap department. But we can compete in quality items and technical items. We should not provide incentives for business to move those jobs overseas.

When you advocate for complete non intervention by the US government in international markets you make America workers easy prey and the US government misses out on a legitimate source of income.

Peter1469
04-16-2012, 04:19 PM
We don't need quality items, until people can afford to purchase them. And microchips go into quality items. We'll never get that market back.

Sometimes a lot of menial tasks go into making a high end item.

Look into Germany and their manufacturing. Then you may understand my point.

You can also look at my link and see how big manufacturing is in the US.

Chris
04-16-2012, 06:57 PM
So what's the answer?
Keep in mind that we have 2 unfunded wars to pay off.

Raise the tax on Whiskey?

The problem is spending.

Chris
04-16-2012, 07:06 PM
:shocked: http://www.nam.org/Statistics-And-Data/Facts-About-Manufacturing/Landing.aspx

Manufacturing in the US is not dead. Sure we aren't going to be able to compete in the cheap crap department. But we can compete in quality items and technical items. We should not provide incentives for business to move those jobs overseas.

When you advocate for complete non intervention by the US government in international markets you make America workers easy prey and the US government misses out on a legitimate source of income.

You've given stats for a slice in time, how is it doing over time?

Manufacturing’s Declining Share of GDP is a Global Phenomenon, and It’s Something to Celebrate (http://ncf.uschamber.com/blog/2012/03/manufacturing%E2%80%99s-declining-share-gdp):

http://i.snag.gy/vThgn.jpg

Not dead, dying.

"Sure we aren't going to be able to compete in the cheap crap department. But we can compete in quality items and technical items."

But we're not.

"We should not provide incentives for business to move those jobs overseas."

Agree, the business of government is not business.

"When you advocate for complete non intervention by the US government in international markets you make America workers easy prey and the US government misses out on a legitimate source of income."

And yet the reality of tariffs and quotas and embargoes and such harm only American consumers.

Chris
04-16-2012, 07:07 PM
Yes. However, we still have billions in war costs to pay for. How do we do that?

The video suggests a way.

Chris
04-16-2012, 07:26 PM
Part of the solution offered in the video is to end all tax loopholes and breaks.

Demand alone will create shortages and higher prices.

Peter1469
04-16-2012, 07:44 PM
Employers in Germany aren't burdened with healthcare costs. I'll check the link when I get a minute....

I don't believe that they are. But that is besides the point. They make very high quality stuff that people need and the slave labor of the 3rd world can't make it even if they wanted to.

MMC
04-16-2012, 07:45 PM
Part of the solution offered in the video is to end all tax loopholes and breaks.

Demand alone will create shortages and higher prices.

That and the Spending.

Peter1469
04-16-2012, 07:45 PM
Yes. However, we still have billions in war costs to pay for. How do we do that?

And we have ~$100T in entitlement spending committed out to 2075.

That war spending is a rounding error.

Peter1469
04-16-2012, 07:48 PM
If I offered that link, you would dismiss it as unacceptable. Clearly a bias, but I read through it anyway. Not much meat, plenty of potatoes.

They aren't specific as to what they consider 'manufacturing'. Is agriculture included? The % of our manufacturing seems high, but they aren't showing what industries they address.

They mention the high tax rates, but we all know that many large corporations skirt all/most taxation.

When manufacturers reference 'regulations', it really means that they want to dump toxic waste wherever they damn well please.

When they reference the issues that keep them from hiring, they never mention the ONLY thing that will create more jobs.....DEMAND.

Nobody is going to hire, if there's no demand for their products. Taxes are at record lows.

We have bills to pay. We need revenue, and giving large corporations tax breaks typically leads to higher dividends to stock holders, and higher bonuses for upper level positions.

It is valid to include agriculture in manufacturing. If we moved towards replace the oil economy with an alcohol economy the US would be set, and so would our impoverished neighbors to our south. Of course the Middle East would be royally screwed.

Chris
04-17-2012, 06:10 AM
Here's another comparative trend, the US v World on "Decline of Manufacturing" is Global Phenomenon: And Yet the World Is Much Better Off Because of It (http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/04/decline-of-manufacturing-is-global.html):

http://i.snag.gy/57bPe.jpg

The chart above shows manufacturing output as a share of GDP, for both the world and the U.S., using United Nations data for GDP and its components at current prices in U.S. dollars from 1970 to 2009. We hear all the time from Donald Trump and others about the "decline of U.S. manufacturing," about how nothing is made here any more, and how everything that used to be made here is now made in China, etc. An underlying assumption here is that if the manufacturing base is shrinking in the U.S., there is an offsetting manufacturing gain that is captured elsewhere in the world. In reality, the decline in U.S. manufacturing as share of GDP is a really a global phenomenon as the entire world becomes increasingly a services-intensive economy.

...The complaints about the "decline in U.S. manufacturing" are really a somewhat misguided acknowledgment of the global shift in production that has taken place since we entered the Information Age with the commercial introduction of the microchip in 1971 and gradually left the Machine Age behind. When we complain that "nothing is made here anymore," it's not so much that somebody else is making the stuff we used to make as it is the case that we (and others around the world) just don't need as much "stuff" any more in relation to the overall size of the economy.

The standard of living around the world today, along with global wealth and prosperity, are all much, much higher today with manufacturing representing 16-17% of total world output compared to 1970, when it was almost twice as high at 26.7%. And for that progress, we should applaud, not complain.

Chris
04-17-2012, 06:30 AM
Regarding offshoring, Mankiw has an interesting op ed in the NYT, Competition Is Healthy for Governments, Too (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/business/competition-is-good-for-governments-too-economic-view.html):
...The argument applies not only to people but also to capital. Because capital is more mobile than labor, competition among governments significantly constrains how capital is taxed. Corporations benefit from various government services, including infrastructure, the protection of property rights and the enforcement of contracts. But if taxes vastly exceed these benefits, businesses can — and often do — move to places offering a better mix of taxes and services.

This lesson is on the minds of policy makers today. Over the last few decades, corporate tax rates have fallen around the world. As of April 1, when Japan cut its tax rate, the United States was left with the world’s highest statutory corporate tax rate. This is one reason corporate tax reform is now high on the policy agenda. President Obama has proposed cutting the rate to 28 percent from its current 35 percent, while Mitt Romney — for whom I am an adviser — has proposed cutting it to 25 percent. While their proposals differ in some key details, it is noteworthy that they agree on the direction this rate should head.

Conservatives applaud such competition among governments. They are skeptical of government power, and they see competition as a check on its potential abuse. Because people and capital will flee from places where their tax dollars do not deliver commensurate value, government officials have little latitude to pursue personal agendas that are substantially adverse to any group of citizens.

This logic leads naturally to the principle of federalism....

Chris
04-17-2012, 06:34 AM
How does demand create shortages?

I said demand alone, iow, demand without commensurate supply, will create shortage.

http://i.snag.gy/qmXc1.jpg

Isoalting one or the other results in misbegotten trickle down and trickle up policies.

Chris
04-17-2012, 06:37 AM
"Entitlements shrink, as you increase employment."

They should, but entitlements as incentives can also lead to higher unemployment.

Where do jobs come from? Not government but the private sector though improved economic growth. The video argues this can be attained via simpler tax code.

Chris
04-17-2012, 07:33 PM
Well, yes...but isn't that a silly issue to bring up, in a discussion about job creation? There will never be a shortage of anything, so long as there is the proper balance of employment/demand. Right now, the labor pool is at its highest. Demand is at its lowest.

Not silly at all, at least not outside Marxist economics and his labor theory of value that you argue. You also need to consider supply. What if, we need to ask, simplifying the tax code increased revenues not only to the point of paying off the debt but lead to surpluses? Why then taxes could be lowered such that not only more money is left in the hands of suppliers to create jobs but also in the hands of consumers to demand more. And here's the thing, with economic growth, even with lower taxes, revenue would still increase.

Chris
04-17-2012, 07:39 PM
While I'm loathe to watch yet another 999 type scheme, I'll have to check the video when I get a second. Are you claiming that people would rather live in poverty while doing nothing, than to work toward climbing out?

People make rational choices, they chose what will get them the most for the least effort. If government offers to reward them for nothing, working even if it earned more may not be worth the effort because it will take longer.

The time-preference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_preference) is short-sighted, as short-sighted as paying CEO exorbitant salaries and bonuses for managing short-term profits.


I exclude from that those people who are unable to work, I speak of those unwilling.

Chris
04-17-2012, 07:43 PM
Taxes are the least of the issues that corporations have in this country. Taxes are based on profits. As long as there are profits, businesses are happy.

The cost of labor, coupled with low demand, are the two main factors when addressing the lack of jobs in this country.

Actually the cost of labor is going down as manufacturing is automated. Less workers output more.

Peter1469
04-17-2012, 07:56 PM
Good couple of posts Chris.

MMC
04-17-2012, 08:12 PM
I thought so to Chris. I always learn something with you. :greatjob:

MMC
04-18-2012, 06:11 AM
So you now think that automation is going to create manufacturing jobs?

Thats not what the statement implied. Or do you think the cost of labor is not going down with Automation?

Chris
04-18-2012, 08:14 AM
So you now think that automation is going to create manufacturing jobs?

How'd you get that from what I said, dagny? Might point was to counter your claim.

As I showed earlier, manufacturing, as a percent of GDP, is on the decline, not just here, but worldwide. On the rise is service, especially information technology. Trying to change that would be like trying to automobiles with replace horse and buggy.

Chris
04-18-2012, 08:24 AM
You're going to have to be more specific when you say 'simplify' the tax code. There are valid reasons for certain deductions. For instance, local govts./infrastructure funding is placed on the shoulders of property owners. In many states, so is school funding. If you remove the mortgage interest deduction, or prop. tax deduction, you will have to share said burden with all the people of the given state....including renters.

You still can't make the correlation between your lower taxes, and stimulation of the economy. If you want to give a tax break to those who earn less than 100k/yr, then you'll see a marked bump in demand. It would have to be substantial...perhaps a lowering from 25% marginal rate to 15%.

There is no business that is going to hire, solely because you give them more cash. They have plenty of cash right now...more than any time in history.

Do you believe corporations are benevolent?

No, I'll leave simplify at eliminate all loopholes and deductions. Burdening the people with costs might just get them to think whether they really want all they think they get "free" from government.

"(A) You still can't make the correlation between your lower taxes, and stimulation of the economy. (B) If you want to give a tax break to those who earn less than 100k/yr, then you'll see a marked bump in demand. It would have to be substantial...perhaps a lowering from 25% marginal rate to 15%."

(B) just made half the case for (A), thanks! The other half is more money left in the hands of those who make more than 100k/yr, same as (B) but in addition much more investment in business to supply the rise in demand, and that means jobs and so on and so forth.

"There is no business that is going to hire, solely because you give them more cash. They have plenty of cash right now...more than any time in history."

No one's arguing just that, you need to add in the desire to make more profit at least. And right, not all that will go directly to new jobs, but increased capital, and investment elsewhere.

Document they have more cash.

If they do and they're not investing it, it's because the government is creating an unstable economy because you never know what social democrats will do next.

"Do you believe corporations are benevolent?"

No, not the purpose, not the way the market works: As Adam Smith put it “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” Corporations, as political entities, controlled by government, also suffer from time preference.

Chris
04-18-2012, 08:32 AM
I thought so to Chris. I always learn something with you. :greatjob:

I learn half this stuff from reading elsewhere and half from talking to you all, and still I'll bet I'm 90% wrong! But being wrong is how you learn.

MMC
04-18-2012, 08:40 AM
I learn half this stuff from reading elsewhere and half from talking to you all, and still I'll bet I'm 90% wrong! But being wrong is how you learn.

Trust me Chris from what I have seen you talk about. I doubt that you are 90% wrong. Especially when I check your material. Often you have me looking for a counter arguments as well. Even if I agree with you at times. One that is not just made up. I am the same with Certain aspects of History that peaks my interests. Then When I am learning something new or something that was not brought out with what I have learned. I often enjoy going thru it all.

Chris
04-18-2012, 09:27 AM
Trust me Chris from what I have seen you talk about. I doubt that you are 90% wrong. Especially when I check your material. Often you have me looking for a counter arguments as well. Even if I agree with you at times. One that is not just made up. I am the same with Certain aspects of History that peaks my interests. Then When I am learning something new or something that was not brought out with what I have learned. I often enjoy going thru it all.

Trust but verify!

And there always is a counterargument for we may be looking at different data and even if we're looking at the same data we're looking at it from different angles.

I appreciate the compliment and appreciate your input as well!

Chris
04-18-2012, 11:02 AM
One more bit, well, two of data to consider here: Increased Worker Productivity Has Destroyed Millions of Jobs, and We Should Be Grateful (http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/07/increased-worker-productivity-has.html).

http://i.snag.gy/ELHus.jpg

http://i.snag.gy/5ZQE8.jpg

Chris
04-18-2012, 05:02 PM
So...productivity is up, due to automation, and more pressure on remaining workers to increase output.

So how will giving corporate tax breaks create more jobs?

If you give the 100k/and down crowd a large tax break, you increase demand. If you cut taxes across the board, you lose needed revenue from the top earners. Using (flawed) trickle down theory, and reversing it...if the middle class consumes more, the top of the food chain realizes higher earnings naturally. Given the claim that the wealthy business owners create the jobs in this country.

The top of the food chain has had a 14 year tax holiday. It hasn't created any jobs.

We're going in circles now. I agree with cutting taxes on consumers which might result in increased demand--though even consumers would start to save more as well, and those savings the banks could loan out as investments in start ups and recapitalization. And as I said tax cuts to producers would result in investments--and savings loaded for investments. It's investments in business that create the jobs--driven by demand and desire for profit.

Both will have the effect of increased economic growth, which, even with lower tax rates, will result in higher revenues.

"Using (flawed) trickle down theory"

Trickle down is flawed inasmuch as it considers only supply-side factors.

Reversing trick down leads to trickle up, which is just as flawed inasmuch as it considers only demand-side factors.

Thus we arrive as the "trickle" theory :-) that leaves more money in the hands of producers and in the hands of consumers, more money in the hands of the people, hell, it's their money to begin with!

"The top of the food chain has had a 14 year tax holiday."

Social Darwinism is a myth.

It hasn't created any jobs."

Where do you think jobs come from?

Chris
04-18-2012, 06:21 PM
What jobs?

Non response


"The top of the food chain has had a 14 year tax holiday" is social Darwinism, but Darwinism, evolutionary theory says nothing of the sort.




Demand creates profits for producers...no?

So does supply. In fact, BOTH are required. And the profits are either spent, so the produced becomes consumer, or invested, the producer becomes investor.

You're too focused on the labor theory of value. Too Marxian.



What exactly are the producers going to invest in?

Business. Capital. Innovations. Expansion. Start ups.



They have loads of cash now.

Because the economy is too unstable. But if they sit on it, it sits in banks, who loan it out anyway. Or would, but the fed mas made it more attractive for banks to sit on it as well. Which is odd when the same fed is flooding the economy with dollars. The fed is bipolar.

wingrider
04-18-2012, 07:11 PM
tell me...what jobs are being created?


still not responding? You do realize we have 2 wars to pay for? There has been a 14 year tax holiday for the ultra wealthy. You can use catchy right wing cliches, or you can have the discussion. You're calling for more of the same failed policies that got us into debt.




.And you would do well to stop ascribing your erroneous labels to thoughts that don't fit your criteria. You are focusing on production, in a climate with no demand.

Do you have a catchphrase for that?





And yet...they've got the money to do that now.





Economy is unstable? How can that be? With the lowest tax rates in history, the economy should be booming...according to your theory.

what jobs are being created.. government jobs,, of course government doesn't make any money to pay for those jobs.. it only has what it can steal from the regular working stiff,

simply end the wars . ... if your in a hole the first thing to do is stop digging

the rest of that sounds like class envy and soak the successful for your failings,

a catch phrase would be progressive socialism


it isn't just the tax rate that is affecting it,, it is all the uncertaintanty in the market and in what new programs will be enacted to further hurt the business's and how they will be able to expand.. Obamacare is the primary cause at this time

Vilifier of Zombies
04-18-2012, 08:20 PM
I prefer the Fair Tax; and it is not a VAT. A VAT would allow manipulation by government. Not the Fair Tax.

Just one of the reasons I liked Gary Johnson over the rest of the candidates, including the incumbent.

Conley
04-19-2012, 07:25 AM
Gary Johnson is a great candidate. You can still vote for him, he's not dead. :grin:

Vilifier of Zombies
04-19-2012, 08:04 AM
Gary Johnson is a great candidate. You can still vote for him, he's not dead. :grin:

Gary Johnson - RIP...

Chris
04-19-2012, 08:21 AM
tell me...what jobs are being created?

The question was to you. The question was general, not topical. The question was "Where do you think jobs come from?" Does government create jobs, productive ones? Or does the private sector?



still not responding? You do realize we have 2 wars to pay for? There has been a 14 year tax holiday for the ultra wealthy. You can use catchy right wing cliches, or you can have the discussion. You're calling for more of the same failed policies that got us into debt.

You're starting to play games now. As I said earlier, in response to this question for the second time, we're going in circles. You keep asking and I keep answering and you keep ignoring my answers and instead circle back to repeat the question.



What exactly are the producers going to invest in?

Business. Capital. Innovations. Expansion. Start ups.

And yet...they've got the money to do that now.
As explained because of govt policies the economy is unstable--too risky--and the fed with its contradictory policies has been interfering with that. Another case where I have responded directly to your questions and you have ignored my response.

Still, a recent report from the Federal Reserve indicates lending and spending have actually turned around:

http://i.snag.gy/X3byO.jpg

(For those interested in an economist's, Arnold Kling's, take on the causality implies by the fed, see the tongue-in-cheek The Crisis Response Worked Wonderfully (http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/04/the_crisis_resp.html), where I got the graph.)



Economy is unstable?

Where've you been?




From Here's How High Today's Rates Really Are (http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates): History of the top income tax bracket, 1913-2008:

http://i.snag.gy/cYXTM.jpg

And to counter where you're headed with that, there's no correlation between top tax rates and revenue, from President Obama isn’t Interested in Solving our Debt and Deficit Problems (http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/02/17/president-obama-isn%E2%80%99t-interested-in-solving-our-debt-and-deficit-problems/):

http://i.snag.gy/wHDoh.jpg




according to your theory

So which is it, I have responded or I have not? Question ought to be are you reading my responses?

Chris
04-19-2012, 08:22 AM
Gary Johnson is a great candidate. You can still vote for him, he's not dead. :grin:

Might have to look at him some more. Won't vote for the other two statist clowns.

Conley
04-19-2012, 12:12 PM
Might have to look at him some more. Won't vote for the other two statist clowns.


Gary Earl Johnson (born January 1, 1953) is an American businessman, former Governor of New Mexico, and candidate for the Libertarian Party nomination for President of the United States in the 2012 election.[1][2][3] He served as the 29th Governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003, as a member of the Republican Party, and is known for his low-tax libertarian views and his regular participation in triathlons.

Johnson founded one of New Mexico's largest construction companies.[4] He entered politics for the first time by running for Governor of New Mexico in 1994 on a conservative, low-tax, anti-crime platform.[5] He beat incumbent Democratic governor Bruce King by 50% to 40%. He cut the 10% annual growth in the budget using his gubernatorial veto 200 times during his first six months in office.[4] His use of the veto over his two terms gained him the nickname "Governor Veto".[6][7]

Johnson sought re-election in 1998, winning by 55% to 45%. In his second term he concentrated on the issue of school voucher reforms,[8] as well as campaigning for marijuana decriminalization. During his tenure as governor Johnson adhered to an anti-tax and anti-bureaucracy policy, setting state and national records for his use of veto powers:[4] more than the other 49 contemporary governors put together.[9][10] Term-limited, Johnson could not run for reelection at the end of his second term.

Johnson announced his candidacy for President on April 21, 2011 as a Republican.[11] On December 28, 2011, he withdrew his candidacy for the Republican nomination and announced he would continue his presidential campaign as a candidate for the nomination of the Libertarian Party.[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson

Chris
04-19-2012, 02:03 PM
Thanks!

Vilifier of Zombies
04-19-2012, 02:13 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson

What's your take on him dropping out of the Republican primaries?

Conley
04-19-2012, 02:28 PM
Chris, I couldn't find a good summary of his positions - there is a lot more to him than vetoes, but that Wikipedia article may get you started.

VoZ, I think the largest reason he dropped out of the GOP race was because he never had a real shot. Part of that is his own fault, but a much larger part IMO is the GOP disconnect with what the people want (and what that party used to stand for).

Based on his record as governor of New Mexico I think he's orders of magnitude better than Obama or Romney.

Chris
04-19-2012, 02:35 PM
There's this standard site (not sure accuracy): http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm

Conley
04-19-2012, 02:44 PM
There's this standard site (not sure accuracy): http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm

Thanks Chris. I love that site and for some reason can never remember it. It is a great place to start for researching where a candidate stands on the issues.

Vilifier of Zombies
04-19-2012, 02:51 PM
Chris, I couldn't find a good summary of his positions - there is a lot more to him than vetoes, but that Wikipedia article may get you started.

VoZ, I think the largest reason he dropped out of the GOP race was because he never had a real shot. Part of that is his own fault, but a much larger part IMO is the GOP disconnect with what the people want (and what that party used to stand for).

Based on his record as governor of New Mexico I think he's orders of magnitude better than Obama or Romney.

I agree, it's twofold, he didn't assert himself the way he should've and the media didn't give him the time of day because he wasn't fuck'n crazy like the others. I do think he should've held out a little longer, all he needed was his fifteen minutes of fame in order for him to shine, which he would've in my opinion, he's definitely smarter than the others without all the baggage or drama. Same goes for Huntsman, smart, moderate, wasn't given the time of day, it's like the GOP went out of it's way to present the least electable candidates....

Now I don't agree with his every stance but I do think his stances overal are the most articulate and well thought out stances, when he dropped out of the GOP primaries, he lost any shot he might've had, his best bet was to hold out for as long as he could, that's the shame of it.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm

Johnson and Huntsman were the two that would've been able to pull large swaths of moderate votes, even some the fringe of the left if you include Johnson's stances on drugs and religion.

Vilifier of Zombies
04-19-2012, 02:52 PM
There's this standard site (not sure accuracy): http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm

That's it, he had a different site up and running when he was still in the hunt for the GOP primary - I don't see anything that's different.

Conley
04-19-2012, 02:56 PM
I agree, it's twofold, he didn't assert himself the way he should've and the media didn't give him the time of day because he wasn't fuck'n crazy like the others. I do think he should've held out a little longer, all he needed was his fifteen minutes of fame in order for him to shine, which he would've in my opinion, he's definitely smarter than the others without all the baggage or drama. Same goes for Huntsman, smart, moderate, wasn't given the time of day, it's like the GOP went out of it's way to present the least electable candidates....

Now I don't agree with his every stance but I do think his stances overal are the most articulate and well thought out stances, when he dropped out of the GOP primaries, he lost any shot he might've had, his best bet was to hold out for as long as he could, that's the shame of it.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm

Johnson and Huntsman were the two that would've been able to pull large swaths of moderate votes, even some the fringe of the left if you include Johnson's stances on drugs and religion.

Right, I think if he'd have known that the GOP would have a new front runner each month he might have stuck it out. It was a crazy ride.

He was bad for the media because he didn't have the drama or the baggage, just a bright mind and consistent message. It's a sorry state of affairs when that's a negative on the campaign trail.

Really, I think these campaigns come down to money. You can't survive the primary/caucus process without millions and millions of dollars, and it gets worse every election cycle. There's a feeling out process before the donations come in to see who will play ball and who won't. Johnson's record on limiting budgets made him a black sheep from the start.

Vilifier of Zombies
04-19-2012, 03:58 PM
Right, I think if he'd have known that the GOP would have a new front runner each month he might have stuck it out. It was a crazy ride.

He was bad for the media because he didn't have the drama or the baggage, just a bright mind and consistent message. It's a sorry state of affairs when that's a negative on the campaign trail.

Really, I think these campaigns come down to money. You can't survive the primary/caucus process without millions and millions of dollars, and it gets worse every election cycle. There's a feeling out process before the donations come in to see who will play ball and who won't. Johnson's record on limiting budgets made him a black sheep from the start.

I don't think campaign budgets would've been as much of an issue if Johnson garnered the primaries, what monies that would've been needed would've come afterward and he wouldn't have needed as much, instead the GOP contenders now will need hundreds of millions just to keep up with the incumbent's coffers and I still don't think that'll be enough.

His stances on the budget and economy is where I tend to differ (as well as not agreeing with his stances on education and corporations), the reality is he wouldn't be able to end the Fed (which he's more or less made the same point) nor could any other candidate/incumbent so I've been able to look past those differences, his reasoning is sound though it's just that I'm not in agreement, his stances on abortion, immigration, crime, drugs, marriage, the environment, and especially tax reform are right on though - some of his other stances I'm somewhere in the middle of the road on.

Overall I think he's got more pros than cons when weighing what I'd like in a candidate...right now he'd make for a good president, too bad he's got no chance whatsoever.