Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Click Here to Login

Reply
Old 07-14-2011, 12:26 PM  
mohel
 
blucher's Avatar

Keizer, OR
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,383 | Kudos: +123
Images: 99
The Audacity Of Republicans

Quote:
Unfortunately we elect people who are more concerned with buying votes than any lasting economic benefit so they cater to a largely ignorant or uninformed body of constituents.
The Audacity Of Republicans-130.jpg 

The Audacity Of Republicans-yoga-preacher2.jpg 

The Audacity Of Republicans-young-teabagger.jpg 

The Audacity Of Republicans-mad_tea_party_part_duh_mark_br.jpg 


__________________

__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2011, 01:28 PM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,892 | Kudos: +92
And some of them post cartoons.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2011, 12:45 PM  
mohel
 
blucher's Avatar

Keizer, OR
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,383 | Kudos: +123
Images: 99
The Audacity Of Republicans
The Audacity Of Republicans-repubmarry-printer-.jpg 

__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2011, 12:55 PM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie_T View Post
An analog can be developed between pricing of a product and taxation. The price of a product determines the sales but a happy medium must be sought that yields sufficient sales to maintain profit. Reaganomics was based upon the Laffer curve. If you lower taxes past a certain point you will lose tax revenue so you have to determine exactly where you are on the curve and consider periods of low economic activity as well as periods of high economic activity. There is also a lag between any government intervention and its impact. Building infrastructure sounds sweet but someone has to actually use that infrastructure to go to work or ship goods to market or it?s all in vain. Unfortunately we elect people who are more concerned with buying votes than any lasting economic benefit so they cater to a largely ignorant or uninformed body of constituents.
I understand the Laffer curve. The concept isn't very complicated; the curve is the result of two related ideas. For a constant amount of business done, increasing the tax rate increases revenue. The "curve" comes in determining the effects of the tax rate on the amount of business. You correctly pointed out another situation that balances two related ideas - maximizing profits by adjusting prices.

The problem is that the tax rate is NOT significantly related to a business's economic impact on the marketplace, but on its REPORTED PROFITS. A successful business need not ever report a profit. A successful business can spend its gross profits on manpower, advertising, and a whole array of business expenses, and report a loss, while that business's employees, vendors, board of directors, and CEO all earn substantial income.

The Laffer Curve suggests that a business cannot be successful with a high tax rate. It suggests that as taxation approaches 100%, business will grind to a halt, or switch to a barter system. This seems logical, but it is truly absurd. A businessman can be successful and prosperous even if he is assessed a tax rate of 120% on its profits, simply by turning all those profits into business expenditures. (the added payroll expense for his own job, for example)

My point is only that the logic is flawed that says taxing employers is bad for workers and the economy. It's simply not true.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2011, 01:10 PM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,892 | Kudos: +92
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivalarrival View Post
My point is only that the logic is flawed that says taxing employers is bad for workers and the economy. It's simply not true.
Is it really flawed, or is the application in error? Where did the data come from?
Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2011, 02:13 PM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie_T View Post
Is it really flawed, or is the application in error? Where did the data come from?
I suppose it would be fair to say that the theory is correct, but not correctly applied. The problem is that even with 200% taxes business income (which I am NOT proposing) lower taxes on the bottom end provide a means for businesses to avoid those higher taxes, by hiring additional employees and contractors, increasing their business expenditure.

The increased business expenditure boosts the GDP, and according to Hauser's law, long-term revenue increases can only come from GDP increases.

Yes, the theory that lower taxes for the rich improves the economy is demonstrably flawed.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2011, 03:09 PM  
Senior Member

Bristol, Tennessee
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062 | Kudos: +48
I think the issue is one of semantics with regard to the Laffer curve, if you want to help a single business you lower their taxes, if you want to help an entire economy you raise their taxes.

we can take this to the extreme to make the point: If in the U.S. we decided to have a 80% tax on all profits for 2012 do you not think all businesses would then find a way to reinvest that money in themselves or just pay the taxman? you bet they will spend it on their company buying new equipment, expanding to new markets/ new products because if they don't spend it the government will. of course there needs to be abalance but right now with many of the big companies sitting on piles of cash just waiting it is absurd to think another tax cut is needed, we have an excellent supply side, we just need more demand proving we are too far away from the optimal point on the curb which means we need to raise taxes
Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2011, 04:42 PM  
MRB
Senior Member
 
MRB's Avatar

Sacramento, California
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 389 | Kudos: +56
I think this thread should be re named the "audacity of all political parties"

Any and all politicians and all political parties are lower than a snakes belly and as crooked as a dogs hind leg pissin' in the snow.
Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2011, 10:42 PM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by MRB View Post
I think this thread should be re named the "audacity of all political parties"

Any and all politicians and all political parties are lower than a snakes belly and as crooked as a dogs hind leg pissin' in the snow.
You've disenfranchised yourself.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2011, 07:54 PM  
MRB
Senior Member
 
MRB's Avatar

Sacramento, California
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 389 | Kudos: +56
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivalarrival View Post
You've disenfranchised yourself.
No actually not. I've been a registered voting republican since 1973. I vote republican, democrat, and independent near whenever I want or can. However, I hate with a passion all politicians weather I vote for them or not.

Just because I vote for the guy or gal and they end up getting elected doesn't mean that I like them.

Really, when it all comes out in the wash, near all policitians are scum of the earth, especially incumbents and career politicians.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Bookmark this Page!

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Suggested Threads

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.