Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > How government creates jobs by raising taxes

How government creates jobs by raising taxes (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2011, 09:27 AM
 
ok so this is what your saying ebuddy, if tax rate is to high even though business is profitable and making money it will shut down... profitable but the business wants to throw a tantrum and not make money and shut down...

Profit is profit... as long as a business is profitable it will continue to do business. Mobile industries like the Movie industry tax rate will play a part in which state, which city they do business to a point. But Walmart and other non mobile business will still do business as long as it makes money. If you really want to save a business money, lower minimum wage. Cut out the cost of employees of the business portion of entitlement programs. Lower the standards for employees and business will hire more but its going to be pretty ugly for people.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2011, 09:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
ok so this is what your saying ebuddy, if tax rate is to high even though business is profitable and making money it will shut down... profitable but the business wants to throw a tantrum and not make money and shut down...

Profit is profit... as long as a business is profitable it will continue to do business. Mobile industries like the Movie industry tax rate will play a part in which state, which city they do business to a point. But Walmart and other non mobile business will still do business as long as it makes money. If you really want to save a business money, lower minimum wage. Cut out the cost of employees of the business portion of entitlement programs. Lower the standards for employees and business will hire more but its going to be pretty ugly for people.
Don't be silly. The only ones throwing tantrums are the ones opposing others' wealth while coveting their own as somehow more virtuous or necessary.

Profit is not profit any more than employment is employment. It's about risk/reward. The less the reward, the less enticing the risk, fewer new startups, fewer new jobs, the higher the unemployment rate. Whether you are earning $2.50/hr or $20.50/hr, you are still earning a profit, true, but which one do you suppose is more worthwhile? You are not going to risk every dime you have in a venture that will return $2.50/hr. Sure, a business in business might stay in business, but they will not expand and new prospects will not risk what they have on such meager returns.

With regard to minimum wage, how long do you suppose people stay at minimum wage? Who do you suppose comprises the demographic working at minimum wage? Likewise, where do you suppose people would rather work? Company A would like to grow, but it's going to need employees. Did you know that businesses not only compete against one another in the marketplace, but in the labor market as well? Government tweaking into the labor market has distorted it as apparently as it has distorted the free market.
ebuddy
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2011, 10:03 AM
 
I think business itself has distorted the free market more so then any government intervention. But thats a different topic. The topic of the thread was lowering taxes will create jobs. I don't think so. A business will just pocket the extra money that is currently running. For start ups, a lot of other factors will affect it more. Ability to compete against multinational mega companies in price. Access to capital through loans. Consumer confidence with spending.

A leads to B which leads to C which lead to A. Because the economy is in a down turn, businesses stop hiring people, trim the work force and stop spending. This introduces problems with consumer confidence and consumers tighten the money belt and slow down in spending. If every one is fearful of losing their job they hunker down and pay off debts. Demand on business lowers because of this validating the layoffs and reduction of spending. Its a terrible cycle. Banks who start seeing losses from those out of work and the reduce business demand on loans tighten up as well making credit harder to get. Tax breaks do nothing to solve this issue. Lots of spending on projects though injects money and stable jobs in the economy which has a trickle down effect that helps restart a economy.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2011, 10:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I think business itself has distorted the free market more so then any government intervention. But thats a different topic. The topic of the thread was lowering taxes will create jobs. I don't think so. A business will just pocket the extra money that is currently running. For start ups, a lot of other factors will affect it more. Ability to compete against multinational mega companies in price. Access to capital through loans. Consumer confidence with spending.
IMO, this is the fundamental error of those who don't understand the mind of the entrepreneur. They are risk takers. The more they have, the more they'll risk. Period. We have centuries of data to affirm this just as we have a wealth of history to understand the impacts of taxation. We use them to curb behaviors, but somehow the entire paradigm shifts when talking about taxes on wealth and business.

A leads to B which leads to C which lead to A.
Right. A person enticed by a more favorable tax environment will hire more people who feel more confident about their incomes and will spend more, growing the businesses enticed by a more favorable tax environment. All having zero to do with what China is up to. You'd be amazed at how many businesses aren't concerned about what people in China are making as they are more interested in growing their own businesses. Why is it some are only worried about others?

Because the economy is in a down turn
... uncertain of an increasingly hostile policy environment focused on their wealth and their business model.
businesses stop hiring people
... because they have no clue what this new base of employees will cost them in two years when Obamacare kicks in and with the expressed Administration's distaste for their "greed".
trim the work force and stop spending.
Right because A leads to B which leads to C and back to A just as a favorable tax environment works in the inverse order.

This introduces problems with consumer confidence and consumers tighten the money belt and slow down in spending.
Of course, because they have nothing to spend and one of every 5 of them have no job to produce money to spend.

If every one is fearful of losing their job they hunker down and pay off debts. Demand on business lowers because of this validating the layoffs and reduction of spending. Its a terrible cycle. Banks who start seeing losses from those out of work and the reduce business demand on loans tighten up as well making credit harder to get. Tax breaks do nothing to solve this issue. Lots of spending on projects though injects money and stable jobs in the economy which has a trickle down effect that helps restart a economy.
What you're missing IMO is that government growth occurs at your expense on failed policies like infrastructure "project" spending that costs the taxpayer $250k for one employee to work a 2-year project making $60,000.00 per year, returning him to the unemployment line in year 3.
ebuddy
     
turtle777  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2011, 10:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I also thought you where talking about business taxes not taxes on all people.
It doesn't matter much, tax on businesses is similar to tax on individuals.

If someone starts a business, puts money in it, and takes the risk, he wants a reward. If that potential reward is taxed 100%, he will not take the risk, i.e., not start the business.

Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I thought you meant raised by 100% ie 6% now to 12% not raise taxes to 100% which is just ludicrous to even suggest that as a possibility.
You are missing the point. The closer you get to 100% taxation, the more people drop out because it's not worth it.

Sure, raising from 6% to 12% will only make some go away, and more if you raised it to 20%, 50%, 75%.
Point is, taxes DOES kill employment in ever so little increases.

May I remind you that your statement was

Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Raising and lowering taxes have zero affect on unemployment rate.
We both agree that raising it to 100% will kill employment and businesses. Therefore, your statement is wrong.

-t
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2011, 05:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Reagan increased taxes in 1982 taking the unemployment rate from 8.6% in January 1982 to 10.6% in January 1983 per the Bureau of Labor Statistics. You seem to have a real problem understanding that these Presidents both cut taxes (Reagans tax cuts were designed to "phase-in" over several years to garner Democratic support) and increased taxes (in Reagan's case, reductions in deductions and credits) and in every case whatever factor leading to increasing unemployment was exacerbated by tax increases. We saw it under Kennedy, we saw it under Carter, we saw it under Reagan, we saw it under Bush I, under Clinton, and under Bush II. It is simply unmistakable.

Under Reagan, inflation fell from 12.5 percent in 1980 to 3.9 percent in 1984, interest rates fell, and economic growth went from -.2% in 1980 to +7.3% in 1984, leading to Reagan's landslide re-election. Real economic growth averaged 3.2% during the Reagan years versus 2.8% during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1% during the Bush-Clinton years. Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years. Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency. On almost every economic variable you can cite, the country fared better under Reagan than the Administrations before or after.
You mean the tax increase Reagan signed into law on Sept. 3 1982?



Analyzing 2 years after Reagan's Tax increase on Sept. 3 1982.

Unemployment rate

Sept. 1982: 10.1%
Sept. 1983: 9.2%
Sept. 1984: 7.3%


Haha... so Reagan Tax increase on Sept. 3 1982 has the effect of lowering unemployment rate.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2011, 05:20 PM
 
Unemployment rate under Reagan. Unemployment rate jump 2.4% after Reagan tax cuts on Aug. 1981. Unemployment rate drop after Reagan's tax increase on Sept. 3 1982.

July 1981: 7.2%

Reagan tax cuts on Aug. 1981
Aug 1981: 7.4%
...
July 1982: 9.8%
Aug. 1982: 9.8%
----------------
2.4% increase in unemployment in 1 year

Reagan tax increase on Sept. 1982
Sept. 1982: 10.1%
...
Sept. 1983: 9.2%
-----------------
.9% drop in unemployment after 1 year of tax increase.



Yet, the current conservative Republicans in congress refuse to raise taxes like Reagan did on Sept. 3 1982.

Republicans in congress: Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. God, God, God.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2011, 05:34 PM
 
Regulations, taxes aren't killing small business, owners say | McClatchy


It's the cost of insurance, the inability to get loans, and the decrease in demand that's killing small business.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2011, 06:41 PM
 
ebuddy there is one important fact you seem to be omitting, a tax decrease does not mean hired employees just because they have more money. It will still matter if the business "needs" to hire more people or not. If they don't have the business need to hire some one they wont, not matter what is done with taxes.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2011, 07:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
We both agree that raising it to 100% will kill employment and businesses. Therefore, your statement is wrong.
You don't even need to go anywhere near 100% to prove this true.

I would ask the clueless left: if businesses don't consider tax rates one way or the other, where has a state or municipality EVER said to businesses looking to move there, "Hey, if you locate your new plant in our state, and bring those thousands of jobs with you, we promise to raise your taxes higher than you'd pay elsewhere!"

Please lefties, show me where this has ever been used as a dangled carrot for new jobs and businesses. Have at it.

You can of course find nearly endless examples of the exact opposite though. As if there was anyone older than 12 that didn't already know that.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2011, 04:39 AM
 
Town (A) property taxes are say $2000 a year. Town (B) property taxes are say $4000 a year. Mcdonalds is going to open up multiple locations in both towns regardless of the taxes because there are customers to serve and profits to be made.

Coca-cola Water bottling plant, Same thing Town (A) property taxes are $2000 a year and Town (B) property taxes are $4000 a year. Town (B) has easy access to water supply while Town (A) has more limited resources not suitable for a bottling planet. Coca-cola is going to open up in Town (B) because or the resources it needs.

One state has a sales tax of 10% another has a sales tax of 5%, a new movie production will go to the state with the 5% sales tax to save on costs. Some industries are affected by taxes. Most are not. Something like a film production is going to move to the cheaper locations because its a very mobile business. Brick and mortar stores are going to go everywhere because customers are there to make money off of regardless of the tax.

What you righties don't get is Wal-Marts, Chevrons and 7-Elevens don't need tax breaks. Targeted tax breaks for big massive things like Smelters and Refiners and Manufacturing plants are good. Across the board tax breaks are BAD!
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2011, 09:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
You mean the tax increase Reagan signed into law on Sept. 3 1982?
Yes, just as I said. They were an elimination of many deductions and tax credits effectively increasing taxes. Reagan's tax CUTS were phased in for Congressional support. I can see where you'd want to miss that.

We've been over and over this. You want to believe something in spite of any contrarian evidence that might damage the Keynesian pipe dream you're living. Tell me again how trickle-down doesn't work hyteckit. I've certainly explained why trickle-down from the government doesn't work, tell me why it does.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2011, 09:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
ebuddy there is one important fact you seem to be omitting, a tax decrease does not mean hired employees just because they have more money. It will still matter if the business "needs" to hire more people or not. If they don't have the business need to hire some one they wont, not matter what is done with taxes.
Of course they will. Again... grow the business. That's what businesses do. If they don't, their competition will. If no one is investing in new ventures, they're not as concerned. Hence the problem, but I've already given the root cause, but because it's this Administration's only successful bill passage and signature legislation, they'll continue to peddle it at all costs.

The other mistaken notion is this ideal that folks "sit" on money. No one "sits" on money or stashes it under a floorboard in the kitchen. They're saving it. When they save money, it places more money into the banking system for lending out. The letters of new offers haven't stopped coming to my house, have they stopped coming to yours?
ebuddy
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2011, 04:36 PM
 
So your telling be a Bestbuy which has a staff of 40 people and only needs 40 people in its store is going to hire 10 more people just because of a tax break even though they only need 40 people. Customer demand has not gone up to require the extra staff but for the goodness of whatever they decide oh a tax break lets hire more people just because....

Your telling me a A&W is going to hire extra people to stand at tils empty of customers because of a tax break. Your logic is flawed.

Tim Hortons has 4 stores in each major city except 2. They want to add a few stores to those 2 cities that don't have any yet. Reguardless of tax cuts they are going to because its a unserved market. If the taxes are the same, raised or lowered they are going to open up those stores because its currently not served.

And most businesses don't sit on money. Profits go to share holders or to optimizations of the business to reduce staff. It is either going to go to share holder pocket books OR they are going to invest in equiptment and tools that allow them to reduce the most expensive part of the business which is staff. Take the printing industry. If one older press requires a crew of 6 to operate it, the investment of a few million to replace it with a larger, faster press that requires 3 people to operate it is where investment money is going to go. Such a investment will save almost million a year in staff over head, expand capacity and lower the cost of operation. They don't go hey we have more money now lets add a 7th perosn to the crew just because....

Or they buy out the competition or merge with it to monopolise the market. They call it reducing under used capacity. Trimming the fat in the market place.

futreshop and Bestbuy
Quad Graphics and Worldcolor
AT&T and T-Mobile
Rogers and Fido
MGM and United Artists
Viacom and Paramount
AOL and Time Warner
GTE and Bell Atlantic
Qwest and US West
AT&T and TCI
( Last edited by Athens; Sep 4, 2011 at 04:54 PM. )
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2011, 05:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Yes, just as I said. They were an elimination of many deductions and tax credits effectively increasing taxes. Reagan's tax CUTS were phased in for Congressional support. I can see where you'd want to miss that.

We've been over and over this. You want to believe something in spite of any contrarian evidence that might damage the Keynesian pipe dream you're living. Tell me again how trickle-down doesn't work hyteckit. I've certainly explained why trickle-down from the government doesn't work, tell me why it does.
Your argument that the tax hike passed in Sept. 3 1982 ripple back in time and cause unemployment rate to increase from Jan. 1982 to Jan. 1983 is freaking hilarious, ignoring reality. It's you who is living in a pipe dream.

Since you missed it the first time.

Unemployment rate under Reagan. Unemployment rate jump 2.4% after Reagan tax cuts on Aug. 1981. Unemployment rate drop after Reagan's tax increase on Sept. 3 1982.

July 1981: 7.2%

Reagan tax cuts on Aug. 1981
Aug 1981: 7.4%
...
July 1982: 9.8%
Aug. 1982: 9.8%
----------------
2.4% increase in unemployment in 1 year

Reagan tax increase on Sept. 1982
Sept. 1982: 10.1%
...
Sept. 1983: 9.2%
-----------------
.9% drop in unemployment after 1 year of tax increase.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2011, 05:50 PM
 
ebuddy just lost all common sense.

ebuddy thinks Reagan's tax increase in Sept. 3 1982 ripple back in time to cause unemployment to go up from Jan 1982 to Jan 1983.

Yes buddy, it's not the tax cuts on Aug. 1981 that cause unemployment to go up in 1982, it's the tax increase on Sept. 3, 1982 the ripple back in time to the beginning of Jan. 1982.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Reagan increased taxes in 1982 taking the unemployment rate from 8.6% in January 1982 to 10.6% in January 1983 per the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

I see why conservatives think there was no domestic terrorist attack under Pres. Bush.
I see why conservatives still think there are WMD in Iraq.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2011, 05:53 PM
 
By the way, turtle is ignoring reality too.

Employment went up in Illinois from Jan. 2011 to May 2011 after the tax hike.
Employment went down in Illinois from Jun 2011 to July 2011 because of budget cuts and government layoffs.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2011, 06:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
So your telling be a Best buy which has a staff of 40 people and only needs 40 people in its store is going to hire 10 more people just because of a tax break even though they only need 40 people. Customer demand has not gone up to require the extra staff but for the goodness of whatever they decide oh a tax break lets hire more people just because....
Now you're being silly again. By your logic, there should only be one Best Buy, employing only 40 people. I can give you more time if you'd rather find a better example, one that doesn't make my point.

Your telling me a A&W is going to hire extra people to stand at tils empty of customers because of a tax break. Your logic is flawed.
A&W is a franchise as well with locations all over both our countries, just like Best Buy. You're 2 for 2 in making my point. If taxes don't have an impact on market behaviors, why not employ this logic in doubling the cost of a large root beer? Think of all the money they could make. Ooh... yeah, competition. That ol' chestnut. Maybe they should keep their prices low, avoid regions with unfavorable market conditions and open up numerous franchises throughout the US.

Tim Hortons has 4 stores in each major city except 2. They want to add a few stores to those 2 cities that don't have any yet. Reguardless of tax cuts they are going to because its a unserved market. If the taxes are the same, raised or lowered they are going to open up those stores because its currently not served.
If you don't think a company like Tim Hortons has any concerns about the market condition of a city in which it seeks to conduct business, you haven't a clue of what makes business tick. A tax environment produces a favorable or unfavorable market condition just as any other factor such as zoning laws, etc. It there's a high tax, but the business determines it will make a suitable profit in that city in spite of the tax rate, it may move in. If however, the taxes are high and there's every indication they will increase again, the business may hold off for a while. That's what happening today. The environment is not as favorable and businesses are holding off for a while. This impacts employment. Rising unemployment decreases stable income, and not having a stable income affects consumer confidence.

And most businesses don't sit on money. Profits go to share holders or to optimizations of the business to reduce staff. It is either going to go to share holder pocket books OR they are going to invest in equiptment and tools that allow them to reduce the most expensive part of the business which is staff. Take the printing industry. If one older press requires a crew of 6 to operate it, the investment of a few million to replace it with a larger, faster press that requires 3 people to operate it is where investment money is going to go. Such a investment will save almost million a year in staff over head, expand capacity and lower the cost of operation. They don't go hey we have more money now lets add a 7th perosn to the crew just because....
No, chances are they will expand into new regions of the country with their improved model. Why? Because if they don't, their competition will. By opening two additional branches, they're now employing 9 people instead of 6, just like the two companies you mentioned above as well as the 10 companies you listed below. Were they happy just sitting around in their own tiny little niche or were they not continuously looking for means of growing the business? You already know the answer.


Or they buy out the competition or merge with it to monopolise the market. They call it reducing under used capacity. Trimming the fat in the market place.

futreshop and Bestbuy
Quad Graphics and Worldcolor
AT&T and T-Mobile
Rogers and Fido
MGM and United Artists
Viacom and Paramount
AOL and Time Warner
GTE and Bell Atlantic
Qwest and US West
AT&T and TCI
What are you trying to say, that these are all examples of companies who weren't continuously looking for ways to expand their businesses? The above list comprises a who's who of companies not satisfied with status quo, always looking for ways to cut expenses and grow the business. It's called competition.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2011, 07:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Your argument that the tax hike passed in Sept. 3 1982 ripple back in time and cause unemployment rate to increase from Jan. 1982 to Jan. 1983 is freaking hilarious, ignoring reality. It's you who is living in a pipe dream.
Maybe you missed it chuckles, Reagan's tax cuts did not go into effect until January of 1983 because they were phased in for Congressional support.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2011, 07:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
ebuddy just lost all common sense.

ebuddy thinks Reagan's tax increase in Sept. 3 1982 ripple back in time to cause unemployment to go up from Jan 1982 to Jan 1983.

Yes buddy, it's not the tax cuts on Aug. 1981 that cause unemployment to go up in 1982, it's the tax increase on Sept. 3, 1982 the ripple back in time to the beginning of Jan. 1982.
You have a reading comprehension problem. Go back through and read our exchange again Cheech. Repetition is the key to retention. Reagan's tax cuts were not implemented immediately. What you show is declining unemployment as a result of the much more profound tax cuts once implemented than a couple of tax deductions and credits removals.

Otherwise, I'm not interested in trying to convince the ministers of the moronic, the folly of their failed ideology.

I see why conservatives think there was no domestic terrorist attack under Pres. Bush.
I see why conservatives still think there are WMD in Iraq.

^
Troll Alert!
ebuddy
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2011, 07:49 PM
 
ebuddy, maybe you should read what you wrote.

According to buddy, tax increase passed on Sept. 3 1982 rippled back in time to cause unemployment rate to increase from 8.6% in Jan 1982 to 10.6% in Jan. 1983. Haha... hilarious.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Reagan increased taxes in 1982 taking the unemployment rate from 8.6% in January 1982 to 10.6% in January 1983 per the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2011, 08:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
ebuddy, maybe you should read what you wrote.

According to buddy, tax increase passed on Sept. 3 1982 rippled back in time to cause unemployment rate to increase from 8.6% in Jan 1982 to 10.6% in Jan. 1983. Haha... hilarious.
The data covered January to January and the end figure was taken in January of 1983. Not only are you suggesting that September 1982 is somehow after January 1983, you fail to acknowledge the net result of his Presidency; vast domestic economic improvement and a landslide victory in the following election. The laughter emoticon was more maniacal than zinger.

The point is, the most profound economic impacts occurred as the result of Reagan's more profound tax policy; the drastic cuts implemented over several years to garner Congressional support.

I have a hunch folks continue talking about Reagan, 9/11 conspiracies (because they did such a smashing good job at Cash for Clunkers afterall), and WMDs in Iraq is because they are on the zealous defensive about their political sensitivities being offended by the failures of their current brain trust with regard to today's problems. I remain hopeful that they will realize the true product of their frustration; their ideals are indefensible, even when revising history to suite the folly.
ebuddy
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2011, 08:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The data covered January to January and the end figure was taken in January of 1983. Not only are you suggesting that September 1982 is somehow after January 1983, you fail to acknowledge the net result of his Presidency; vast domestic economic improvement and a landslide victory in the following election. The laughter emoticon was more maniacal than zinger.
I'm sorry you don't have unemployment data beside from Jan 1982 to Jan. 1983? Sounds like the lamest excuse ever.

Trying very hard to backtrack I see. Maybe you need that time machine.


I suggest Sept 1982 is somehow after Jan 1983? Really?

I was pretty clear the first 2 times.

In case you missed it the first 2 times.

Here it is again for the 3rd time.


Unemployment rate under Reagan. Unemployment rate jump 2.4% after Reagan tax cuts on Aug. 1981. Unemployment rate drop after Reagan's tax increase on Sept. 3 1982.

July 1981: 7.2%

Reagan tax cuts on Aug. 1981
Aug 1981: 7.4%
...
July 1982: 9.8%
Aug. 1982: 9.8%
----------------
2.4% increase in unemployment in 1 year

Reagan tax increase on Sept. 1982
Sept. 1982: 10.1%
...
Sept. 1983: 9.2%
-----------------
.9% drop in unemployment after 1 year of tax increase.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
turtle777  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2011, 11:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
^
Troll Alert!
LOL, I can't believe that people still read and respond to lowcheckit.

I thought he was on ignore by default for everyone at 'NN.

-t
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2011, 01:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I remain hopeful that they will realize the true product of their frustration; their ideals are indefensible, even when revising history to suite the folly.
Ah ebuddy, ever the optimist.

That's an admirable trait, but in this case a hopeless cause.
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2011, 03:40 AM
 
I'm so much better under Obama than I was under Bush.

I actually love this shitty economy.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2011, 09:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Ah ebuddy, ever the optimist.

That's an admirable trait, but in this case a hopeless cause.
I appreciate that CRASH and you're right, I've given up. He'll continue posting the same blurb of inaccurate data as the spam-bot that he is.
ebuddy
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2011, 05:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Now you're being silly again. By your logic, there should only be one Best Buy, employing only 40 people. I can give you more time if you'd rather find a better example, one that doesn't make my point.
Why is business so difficult to understand. Are you a rich kid that never had to work a day in your life or something. BUSINESS OPERATES ON PROFIT. If profit is to be had, a customer base to sell goods and services to, the tax market is not going to make a difference as long as Customers are to be had. If NY taxes are double that of Washington, Best Buy is still going to open up a store there to sell goods to customers. As long as there is a customer demand to buy products the taxes make no difference. Its not going to stop a company from operating in a market and making money with Retail, Service and Resource markets.

A&W is a franchise as well with locations all over both our countries, just like Best Buy. You're 2 for 2 in making my point. If taxes don't have an impact on market behaviors, why not employ this logic in doubling the cost of a large root beer? Think of all the money they could make. Ooh... yeah, competition. That ol' chestnut. Maybe they should keep their prices low, avoid regions with unfavorable market conditions and open up numerous franchises throughout the US.
Im not even sure what your trying to say here.

If you don't think a company like Tim Hortons has any concerns about the market condition of a city in which it seeks to conduct business, you haven't a clue of what makes business tick. A tax environment produces a favorable or unfavorable market condition just as any other factor such as zoning laws, etc. It there's a high tax, but the business determines it will make a suitable profit in that city in spite of the tax rate, it may move in. If however, the taxes are high and there's every indication they will increase again, the business may hold off for a while. That's what happening today. The environment is not as favorable and businesses are holding off for a while. This impacts employment. Rising unemployment decreases stable income, and not having a stable income affects consumer confidence.
Of course they have market concerns, which relates to enough customers to make the business profitable. Would be idiotic to open up a business in a town of 100 people since its not going to sustain the business operations. No the reason a business is going to hold off is not because of taxes. Its because of consumer confidence in spending. If every one is saving money, spending less that is going to have a larger affect on a businesses will to expand then taxes. After all tax liability is proportional to business activity. If you don't have a lot of customers spending, your not going to be paying much in taxes.


What are you trying to say, that these are all examples of companies who weren't continuously looking for ways to expand their businesses? The above list comprises a who's who of companies not satisfied with status quo, always looking for ways to cut expenses and grow the business. It's called competition.
I wouldn't say its ways to expand business but ways to contract the market to make the business more profitable. By removing excess capacity in the market you raise the value of your products. At the same time this reduces employment and competition and choice. When 2 companies merge through a friendly merger or a hostile take over or a buy out, you end up with redundancy in the same markets. Look at AT&T and Sprint as a example. If they merge, any market that has both AT&T and Sprint retail stores are going to suffer the closure of stores from either the AT&T stores or the Sprint stores. This is a immediate reduction of staff. Next look at the carrier options, by removing a carrier from the market you reduce competition making it easier to keep prices higher. In some markets that only had Sprint and AT&T it makes it a monopoly situation. As the options for companies shrink as well it means less competition for skill workers and less choice for them as well. If you had 20 companies competing for the best of the best you had to pay more to get them or keep them from your competitors. When it dwindles down to just a few companies. The company does not need to offer nearly as much to get the people they want or keep them.

Ok then look at the historical data on what companies do with tax breaks, and tax holidays then.

Lower corporate taxes won't create more jobs - Term Sheet

The last tax holiday that occurred to encourage business to return money to the US, most of it when to share holders. Wages didn't go up. Investments didn't go up.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2011, 05:58 PM
 
Here is a more direct question then for you ebuddy. In this current market what would you do with your business, real or hypothetical. And why.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2011, 07:22 PM
 
Let me see.

Turtle started the thread with fake data.
ebuddy makes up fake data.

Blames me for providing accurate data.
( Last edited by hyteckit; Sep 5, 2011 at 07:37 PM. )
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2011, 07:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Maybe you missed it chuckles, Reagan's tax cuts did not go into effect until January of 1983 because they were phased in for Congressional support.
More BS from ebuddy. I guess you can't stop believing in your own BS or making up BS. 2 tax cuts were phased in before Jan. 1983.

5% tax cut took effect on Oct. 1981.
10% tax cut in July 1982.
10% tax cut in July 1983.

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Following enactment in August 1981, the first 5% of the 25% total cuts took place beginning in October of the same year. An additional 10% began in July 1982, followed by a third decrease of 10% beginning in July 1983.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2011, 12:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Why is business so difficult to understand. Are you a rich kid that never had to work a day in your life or something. BUSINESS OPERATES ON PROFIT. If profit is to be had, a customer base to sell goods and services to, the tax market is not going to make a difference as long as Customers are to be had. If NY taxes are double that of Washington, Best Buy is still going to open up a store there to sell goods to customers. As long as there is a customer demand to buy products the taxes make no difference. Its not going to stop a company from operating in a market and making money with Retail, Service and Resource markets.
You don't sound like you understand much about business, so I don't know what you're harping on ebuddy for. Your examples are silly, because you're only talking about retail, businesses that must rely on being located at the point of sale of its customers.

Of course they have market concerns, which relates to enough customers to make the business profitable. Would be idiotic to open up a business in a town of 100 people since its not going to sustain the business operations.
Case in point- because your flimsy argument is only considering retail. In reality, a company could easily choose to locate in a town of 100 people if it's favorable to their operations and they can find the employees needed. A trucking company, a bakery, a mill or a warehouse or whatever can choose to locate where the business climate is most favorable -certainly in very small towns.

And even with retail chains you are wrong. Many retailers only operate regionally, not all over the country, for various reasons. If a state wanted to attract a chain to move into their state, I seriously doubt that advertising high tax rates and deficit spending would be the way to do it.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2011, 03:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
You don't sound like you understand much about business, so I don't know what you're harping on ebuddy for. Your examples are silly, because you're only talking about retail, businesses that must rely on being located at the point of sale of its customers.


Case in point- because your flimsy argument is only considering retail. In reality, a company could easily choose to locate in a town of 100 people if it's favorable to their operations and they can find the employees needed. A trucking company, a bakery, a mill or a warehouse or whatever can choose to locate where the business climate is most favorable -certainly in very small towns.

And even with retail chains you are wrong. Many retailers only operate regionally, not all over the country, for various reasons. If a state wanted to attract a chain to move into their state, I seriously doubt that advertising high tax rates and deficit spending would be the way to do it.
At least what you say has substance. ebuddy is just blah blah blah with nothing of substance. All ideological arguments and nothing more.

Yes I said many posts before, Retail, Service and Resource based business. Some like trucking, manufacturing and mobile industries like the Film industry are more sensitive to taxes. There is always going to be some place with a lower tax, or more tax incentives but sometimes no matter what a town can't entice a business over because they lack everything else a business needs. What is really being proposed is a race to the bottom for taxes to the point you might as well not have any at all. Tax rates should be the same across the board from state to state to remove tax as a factor. But your right non retail and service industries are sensitive to taxes which is why targeted tax breaks for those industries make a lot more sense then a across the board tax cuts for every one including those that don't need or deserve it.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2011, 07:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
More BS from ebuddy. I guess you can't stop believing in your own BS or making up BS. 2 tax cuts were phased in before Jan. 1983.

5% tax cut took effect on Oct. 1981.
10% tax cut in July 1982.
10% tax cut in July 1983.

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Following enactment in August 1981, the first 5% of the 25% total cuts took place beginning in October of the same year. An additional 10% began in July 1982, followed by a third decrease of 10% beginning in July 1983.
TROLL ^

ebuddy: The tax cuts you keep referring to in August of 1981 were not implemented immediately, but phased in over several years for Congressional support. (I said January of 83, but was mistaken as it was actually even later to July of 1983 per your information. Thank you)

hyteckit: TeaParty...FOXNEWS...REAGAN...WMDs... the jump in unemployment happened after Reagan's tax cuts in August of 1981. There was a tax increase in 1982.

ebuddy: The tax cuts were phased in for Congressional support. Your employment data does not claim what you think it does.

hyteckit: HAHA!! THE TAX CUTS WERE PHASED IN OVER SEVERAL YEARS JUST LIKE I SAID! THE EMPLOYMENT DATA DOES NOT CLAIM WHAT I THINK IT DOES!!! HAHA EBUDDY!!! HERE'S A LINK TO SHOW EBUDDY WAS CORRECT!... I MEAN- TERRORISTS, BUSHIEEEE...
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2011, 07:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
At least what you say has substance. ebuddy is just blah blah blah with nothing of substance. All ideological arguments and nothing more.
I'm telling you the same thing the folks who do the hiring around here are suggesting. When you show a mastery of the basics, we can move on to more granular data.

Yes I said many posts before, Retail, Service and Resource based business. Some like trucking, manufacturing and mobile industries like the Film industry are more sensitive to taxes. There is always going to be some place with a lower tax, or more tax incentives but sometimes no matter what a town can't entice a business over because they lack everything else a business needs. What is really being proposed is a race to the bottom for taxes to the point you might as well not have any at all. Tax rates should be the same across the board from state to state to remove tax as a factor. But your right non retail and service industries are sensitive to taxes which is why targeted tax breaks for those industries make a lot more sense then a across the board tax cuts for every one including those that don't need or deserve it.
When you lack a fundamental, ideological foundation for your views you end up saying moronic things like "targeted tax cuts"; the very shallow, thoughtless ideals that have lead to such a jenkity, convoluted tax structure to begin with, providing the government more opportunities for picking winners and losers. I'm guessing you would not favor a targeted tax cut for the oil industry who earns a smaller profit margin than your public utility.
ebuddy
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2011, 05:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
You don't sound like you understand much about [insert anything]
Improved!
     
turtle777  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2011, 06:59 PM
 


-t
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2011, 07:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post


When you lack a fundamental, ideological foundation for your views you end up saying moronic things like "targeted tax cuts"; the very shallow, thoughtless ideals that have lead to such a jenkity, convoluted tax structure to begin with, providing the government more opportunities for picking winners and losers. I'm guessing you would not favor a targeted tax cut for the oil industry who earns a smaller profit margin than your public utility.
Yes and No. I would agree to targeted tax cuts for such things as building refineries. But not a overall general tax cut on the entire business. Personally I think all the refining should be of national control, with the gas companies purchasing at whole sale the gas from a single source. Gas is one of those items that directly affects inflation and stability in a nation because we are so dependent on it. Its easy enough for Gas companies to restrict artificially supply to raise pump prices. But that's a different debate. Targeted tax cuts is a better way to go so entice industry you want to move in, with out given every one across the board a free ride.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
turtle777  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2011, 07:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Personally I think all the refining should be of national control, with the gas companies purchasing at whole sale the gas from a single source. Gas is one of those items that directly affects inflation and stability in a nation because we are so dependent on it.
OMG. Why stop at oil and gas? Nationalize EVERYTHING, because obviously, the gubmint is SOOOOOOOO great at running things.

You DO understand that "whole sale" from a government run entity will be significantly more expensive than from a private entity.

Upon second thought, you probably don't.

-t
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2011, 09:06 PM
 
Ya no, it wouldn't and unlike most things Gasoline is of vital interest to the well being of a nation. If anything would result in stable fuel prices, consistent prices.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2011, 09:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
TROLL ^

ebuddy: The tax cuts you keep referring to in August of 1981 were not implemented immediately, but phased in over several years for Congressional support. (I said January of 83, but was mistaken as it was actually even later to July of 1983 per your information. Thank you)

hyteckit: TeaParty...FOXNEWS...REAGAN...WMDs... the jump in unemployment happened after Reagan's tax cuts in August of 1981. There was a tax increase in 1982.

ebuddy: The tax cuts were phased in for Congressional support. Your employment data does not claim what you think it does.

hyteckit: HAHA!! THE TAX CUTS WERE PHASED IN OVER SEVERAL YEARS JUST LIKE I SAID! THE EMPLOYMENT DATA DOES NOT CLAIM WHAT I THINK IT DOES!!! HAHA EBUDDY!!! HERE'S A LINK TO SHOW EBUDDY WAS CORRECT!... I MEAN- TERRORISTS, BUSHIEEEE...
You can't even get your dates straight.

5% tax cut took effect on Oct. 1981.
10% tax cut in July 1982.
10% tax cut in July 1983.

ebuddy and his time machine. I guess tax cuts that took effect on Oct. 1981 and July 1982 aren't real in ebuddy's mind.

Those tax cuts before 1983 time travel into the future.

I'm glad you can at least admit you got your dates wrong.

I just thought ebuddy can't get facts right. I didn't realize ebuddy is delusional until now. His own version of reality.
( Last edited by hyteckit; Sep 7, 2011 at 09:25 PM. )
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2011, 09:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
So your telling be a Bestbuy which has a staff of 40 people and only needs 40 people in its store is going to hire 10 more people just because of a tax break even though they only need 40 people. Customer demand has not gone up to require the extra staff but for the goodness of whatever they decide oh a tax break lets hire more people just because....
Let me give you an example of what I've been trying to tell you Athens.



Recession? What recession? People are buying stuff my friend, make no mistake. The trick is to be more creative, more innovative, and hopefully deemed more reliable than the competition. This requires R&D, creative engineering (expensive help), and a lot of new retail locations just to name a few things that might set it apart from the competition in sales. I can't imagine what they might do with a few more bucks.

You might say; "well... I like Apple. Of course they should be recipients of a targeted tax cut." Unfortunately, there is no fair arbiter of such a thing. If a business is legal, it should enjoy equal protection with any other business.
ebuddy
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2011, 09:27 PM
 
ebuddy,

Here's a sanity test.

The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 phased in 3 tax cuts totally up to 25%.

5% tax cut took effect on Oct. 1981.
10% tax cut in July 1982.
10% tax cut in July 1983.


How many tax cuts took effect before Jan. 1983?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2011, 01:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Let me give you an example of what I've been trying to tell you Athens.



Recession? What recession? People are buying stuff my friend, make no mistake. The trick is to be more creative, more innovative, and hopefully deemed more reliable than the competition. This requires R&D, creative engineering (expensive help), and a lot of new retail locations just to name a few things that might set it apart from the competition in sales. I can't imagine what they might do with a few more bucks.

You might say; "well... I like Apple. Of course they should be recipients of a targeted tax cut." Unfortunately, there is no fair arbiter of such a thing. If a business is legal, it should enjoy equal protection with any other business.
Are you shitting me, thats the best example you can come up with. One of the VERY few and I do mean very few companies to buck the trend. Why don't you pull up Samsungs numbers, Lenovo's, Microsoft, Dell, HP...

And no retail store would ever deserve a targeted tax cut. And I don't know what this equal protection stuff comes from because that's not how the world works. Its already full of unfair advantages like special tax cuts and other incentives to encourage some of the big name companies to setup show now. At least in the US. Here Companies like Wal-Mart get denied zoning permits and sue the cities to force their way in. Amoungst higher Taxes go figure... They want in so bad they take the city to court and in a location full of high taxes.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2011, 07:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Are you shitting me, thats the best example you can come up with. One of the VERY few and I do mean very few companies to buck the trend. Why don't you pull up Samsungs numbers, Lenovo's, Microsoft, Dell, HP...
McDonalds, Amazon.com, Apple, Autozone, Wal Mart... to name a few off the bat. These are companies with sound, stable business models, aggressive advertising, investing, and in the tech world; innovation and creativity. This costs money. Where the crappy economy is taking its largest toll however is in small businesses not starting up, but in the cases of the larger companies if you're not buying from HP or Lenovo, you're buying from Apple.

And no retail store would ever deserve a targeted tax cut. And I don't know what this equal protection stuff comes from because that's not how the world works. Its already full of unfair advantages like special tax cuts and other incentives to encourage some of the big name companies to setup show now. At least in the US. Here Companies like Wal-Mart get denied zoning permits and sue the cities to force their way in. Amoungst higher Taxes go figure... They want in so bad they take the city to court and in a location full of high taxes.
In the US they're employing your model of targeted tax cuts; a failed notion where the government picks winners and losers. By "equal protection", I'm not talking about overall societal fairness. There's a concept of equal protection under the law in the US and our tax code stands in stark contrast to that principle. Forget the larger companies for now; the companies that make the biggest difference are new, small business startups. Taxes and a heavy regulatory environment absolutely hamper the prospect of starting up a new business by imposing more risk on the would-be entrepreneur.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2011, 07:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
ebuddy,

Here's a sanity test.

The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 phased in 3 tax cuts totally up to 25%.

5% tax cut took effect on Oct. 1981.
10% tax cut in July 1982.
10% tax cut in July 1983.


How many tax cuts took effect before Jan. 1983?
You failed the sanity test.
ebuddy
     
turtle777  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2011, 09:32 AM
 
eBuddy, how much more drivel from lowteckit until you put him on ignore ?

Just wondering...

-t
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2011, 11:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
McDonalds, Amazon.com, Apple, Autozone, Wal Mart... to name a few off the bat. These are companies with sound, stable business models, aggressive advertising, investing, and in the tech world; innovation and creativity. This costs money. Where the crappy economy is taking its largest toll however is in small businesses not starting up, but in the cases of the larger companies if you're not buying from HP or Lenovo, you're buying from Apple.


In the US they're employing your model of targeted tax cuts; a failed notion where the government picks winners and losers. By "equal protection", I'm not talking about overall societal fairness. There's a concept of equal protection under the law in the US and our tax code stands in stark contrast to that principle. Forget the larger companies for now; the companies that make the biggest difference are new, small business startups. Taxes and a heavy regulatory environment absolutely hamper the prospect of starting up a new business by imposing more risk on the would-be entrepreneur.
Targeted tax cuts have worked well here. Vancouver stole a LOT of business from California with the film industry over the last couple decades. You do realize in the companies you listed, with the exception of Apple, they are all the lowest cost places which makes sense that during a recession they will get more business. McDonalds innovative?

Tell me why Amazon, Mcdonalds, Walmart should get tax cuts?
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
turtle777  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2011, 11:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Targeted tax cuts have worked well here. Vancouver stole a LOT of business from California with the film industry over the last couple decades.
Ok, so more business = more people employed, right ?
You just admitted that Vancouver RAISED employment because of tax cuts.

Didn't you say earlier that tax cuts have NO impact on employment ?

Originally Posted by Athens
Raising and lowering taxes have zero affect on unemployment rate.
Are you ignoring your own facts ?

-t
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2011, 03:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Ok, so more business = more people employed, right ?
You just admitted that Vancouver RAISED employment because of tax cuts.

Didn't you say earlier that tax cuts have NO impact on employment ?



Are you ignoring your own facts ?

-t
Raising and lower taxes do not have a effect on employment. Targeted Tax cuts and incentives can introduce new industries to a market, especially mobile ones like the Film Industry.

Lower the taxes on Walmart, McDonalds, Cheveron, 7-11, Nike, Sony, Norco, is not going to create jobs
Targeted Tax cuts on a specific industry like Movie Production, something that is high risk, low gains where every dollar counts and your competing against other cities like Toronto and Los Angeles who are also playing the targeted tax cut game shows that targeted tax cuts work. So the statement about lowering and raising taxes is true. So is the statement of using targeted tax cuts on some industries is true. Does this clear up your confusion or should I draw it out with crayons to make it easier to understand?
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:03 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,