[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Athens 

You can relocate to China any time you like then if you want to work an unsafe, low paid job.

You've gotten as bad as hycet- ehh whatever his handle is- lately. You seem to have lost all ability to mount a rational argument and just resort to this type of ignore-worthy claptrap.

[Uncle Skeleton]

It would seem that marginal tax rate is more relevant than effective tax rate, when you're deciding whether to spend or save marginal dollars.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It would seem that marginal tax rate is more relevant than effective tax rate, when you're deciding whether to spend or save marginal dollars.

Ok. I trust you'll agree that a marginal tax rate is the ratio of the change in tax liability to the change in taxable income. But even that "tax liability" side of the equation is based upon statutory tax rates. Which has already been demonstrated to be far different than what US corporations actually pay after the various tax deductions, credits, and loopholes have been exploited.

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Ok. I trust you'll agree that a marginal tax rate is the ratio of the change in tax liability to the change in taxable income. But even that "tax liability" side of the equation is based upon statutory tax rates. Which has already been demonstrated to be far different than what US corporations actually pay after the various tax deductions, credits, and loopholes have been exploited.

OAW

Irrelevant, unless the deduction, credit or loophole derives from the marginal dollar.

[OAW]

And therein lies the rub. It's not a straightforward proposition to determine such things when they are rooted in Excel spreadsheet formulas. But the actual check someone has to sign over to the government is another ball of wax … n'est-ce pas?

OAW

PS: The bottom line here is that US corporations actually pay far less than the statutory tax rate. If they aren't then they seriously need to fire their accountant.

[Uncle Skeleton]

No, it is not pas. It's perfectly straightforward. If you think it's beyond comprehension, then you're just bad at math

What loophole affects the marginal dollar in question? If it only affects other marginal dollars, it's irrelevant.

[Athens]

Saw something interesting on the news today which im going to try and find a copy of it online. American retail companies are flocking to Canada. Target is about to open up its first stores here among many others who previously did not touch are market.

So what does this say.
Higher taxes, more regulations, complex tax structure don't count nearly as much as consumer demand. Consumer demand is high here. Malls are expanding not closing. People are shopping not saving. The businesses are following the money and demand despite a less friendly business environment.

[Athens]

CBC.ca Player

33:15 (takes 2 ads to get to it)

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No, it is not pas. It's perfectly straightforward. If you think it's beyond comprehension, then you're just bad at math

What loophole affects the marginal dollar in question? If it only affects other marginal dollars, it's irrelevant.

Forget it. Half of OAW's posts are cut&paste from internet sources, w/o any direct relevance, and w/o him understanding what he's saying.

Discussing this "content spam" is futile.

-t

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Forget it. Half of OAW's posts are cut&paste from internet sources, w/o any direct relevance, and w/o him understanding what he's saying.

Discussing this "content spam" is futile.

-t

[OAW]

@Uncle Skeleton

Unless I'm missing something, you seem to be contradicting what you said earlier. It appears we are on the same page regarding what the marginal tax rate is. Our disagreement (perhaps?) is centered on my contention that the tax liability portion of the marginal tax rate calculation is still based upon statutory tax rates.

Now first you said that any difference between effective and statutory tax rates when looking at the tax liability portion is ....

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Irrelevant, unless the deduction, credit or loophole derives from the marginal dollar.

Which in and of itself is a valid statement because the effective tax rate paid on that marginal dollar would be the statutory tax rate if there were no deduction, credit, or loophole that was applicable. Where you are losing me is when you then turn around and say this ....

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What loophole affects the marginal dollar in question? If it only affects other marginal dollars, it's irrelevant.

If "it" ... i.e the "deduction, credit or loophole" ... "only affects other marginal dollars" then that is precisely when the effective tax rate would be more applicable than the statutory tax rate. But you say that too is "irrelevant" even though it's the complete opposite of what you said before.

In any event, I suspect this is more of an issue with clarity rather than intent.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Forget it. Half of OAW's posts are cut&paste from internet sources, w/o any direct relevance, and w/o him understanding what he's saying.

Discussing this "content spam" is futile.

-t

Typical turtle777. Long on dismissal and short on rebuttal. Imagine that.

In any event, feel free to demonstrate your supposed intellectual superiority with something that actually proves me wrong. Until then ....

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Which in and of itself is a valid statement because the effective tax rate paid on that marginal dollar would be the statutory tax rate if there were no deduction, credit, or loophole that was applicable.

Yes

If "it" ... i.e the "deduction, credit or loophole" ... "only affects other marginal dollars" then that is precisely when the effective tax rate would be more applicable than the statutory tax rate.

No. I bolded the word that maybe you didn't notice(?). I'll start you off with a simple example, my taxes. My marginal rate is 25%, but my effective rate is 2%. That's because of deductions, credits or loopholes. If I earn a marginal regular dollar, say from bank interest, it will be taxed 25¢. If I earn a marginal loop-hole dollar, say from tax-exempt municipal bond interest, it will be taxed 0¢. Because the loophole applies to the dollar.

Now apply that example to what I said above... I am deciding whether to take a risk or make a sacrifice to earn a marginal dollar. Is it a regular dollar or a loophole dollar? Well if it's a dollar of bank interest, then it's a regular dollar. If it's a dollar of tax-exempt bond interest, then it's a loophole dollar. If "it" ... i.e. the "deduction, credit or loophole" ... only affects the other marginal dollar (the tax-exempt dollar), then it is irrelevant to the regular interest dollar. In other words, the fact that I have marginal dollars in tax-exempt bonds and marginal dollars in tax-deferred retirement accounts all makes my overall tax picture ever so complicated, but with respect to that one marginal dollar of bank interest, the picture is still clear. When considering the regular dollar (from bank interest), it doesn't matter whether I am subject to a thousand other loopholes or none, because those loopholes only affect other dollars. The only thing that matters wrt to this dollar are the loopholes (or none) that apply to this dollar. Do you get it now?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Forget it. Half of OAW's posts are cut&paste from internet sources, w/o any direct relevance, and w/o him understanding what he's saying.

Discussing this "content spam" is futile.

-t

Funny. Coming from a guy who started a thread with "content spam" without any understanding of Illinois unemployment rate.

Why don't you look up Illinois unemployment rate and seasonal-adjusted employment. Then you'll realize how wrong you are.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No. I bolded the word that maybe you didn't notice(?).

I see where you are coming from. Your comment was a bit ambiguous which is why I said I suspected it was more an issue of clarity than intent. Words like "it" and "other" refer to something else as you know. I initially interpreted "other marginal dollar" to be in reference to the dollar being analyzed given the context of the discussion and your first statement using the word "irrelevant". I see now that was not your intent. In any event, you are absolutely correct. Which is why I agreed with you earlier by saying that the effective tax rate and the statutory tax rate are one and the same unless a " tax deduction, credit, or loophole" is applicable. Hence, your example makes perfect sense.

Now circling back to what took us down this tangent ...

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

It would seem that marginal tax rate is more relevant than effective tax rate, when you're deciding whether to spend or save marginal dollars.

Agreed .... to a certain extent.

I agree 100% that a marginal tax rate analysis of a specific investment would be more relevant than the OVERALL effective tax rate. Which I presume is what you meant when you made that statement. But hopefully you will agree with me that when doing an analysis of this sort on say ... a potential increase in head count (i.e. net job creation) ... sometimes "tax deductions, credits, and loopholes" will be applicable. And sometimes not. Therefore, whether or not the tax liability portion of the marginal tax rate calculation utilizes the statutory or effective tax rate will depend upon the circumstances. Certainly there are plenty of circumstances in which the latter (i.e. effective) is applicable otherwise the OVERALL effective tax rate that US corporations actually pay wouldn't be so much lower than the statutory tax rate that they are subject to. So clearly it can't be dismissed altogether. Therefore, those who cite only the former (i.e. statutory) in the midst of discussions about net job creation vis a vis tax policy and completely ignore the latter (i.e. effective) are being misleading at best and disingenuous at worst.

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

But hopefully you will agree with me that when doing an analysis of this sort on say ... a potential increase in head count (i.e. net job creation) ... sometimes "tax deductions, credits, and loopholes" will be applicable. And sometimes not. Therefore, whether or not the tax liability portion of the marginal tax rate calculation utilizes the statutory or effective tax rate will depend upon the circumstances. Certainly there are plenty of circumstances in which the latter (i.e. effective) is applicable otherwise the OVERALL effective tax rate that US corporations actually pay wouldn't be so much lower than the statutory tax rate that they are subject to.

But consider a business that chooses to expand up to the point where taxes turn disadvantageous, and then stop right at that point. In this situation, they actually pay a low rate, AND the job market is being stifled by taxes.

Next, consider a business who benefits from a tax loophole, but could not depend on that loophole prior to hiring staff (say, 2 years earlier), either because the tax code was indeterminate, or it was simply too complicated for the employer to be sure it was what it seemed to be. A competent businessperson must "hope for the best but plan for the worst," so can't commit to as many employees as would maximize profits, even while there is a good chance they will be vindicated by a low actual tax liability after the fact. Again you have low actual payments even while jobs are actually being stifled by the high nominal tax rate.

What you wind up with is the worst of both worlds. You have low tax revenue for the government, and you have the stifling effects of a high tax rate, constantly hanging over the employers' heads.

Simply looking at what was paid doesn't tell you the effect of what was avoided to be payed. And you certainly can't assume that the two are going to be the same (or consecutive) numbers.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

But consider a business that chooses to expand up to the point where taxes turn disadvantageous, and then stop right at that point. In this situation, they actually pay a low rate, AND the job market is being stifled by taxes.

If a business expands to the point that the taxes are disadvantageous, then they have expanded way beyond the point where demand makes it profitable anyways. Taxation on businesses is a reflection of the business activities itself. If you hire some one or fire some one and the business income is the exact same with or with out the extra body the tax burden is the exact same for the business. Unless your counting all benefits as taxes to. I've been arguing this on direct taxation.

Next, consider a business who benefits from a tax loophole, but could not depend on that loophole prior to hiring staff (say, 2 years earlier), either because the tax code was indeterminate, or it was simply too complicated for the employer to be sure it was what it seemed to be. A competent businessperson must "hope for the best but plan for the worst," so can't commit to as many employees as would maximize profits, even while there is a good chance they will be vindicated by a low actual tax liability after the fact. Again you have low actual payments even while jobs are actually being stifled by the high nominal tax rate.

Again useless, because unless the business activities require additional people, does not matter how cheap it is to hire some one or how expensive it is because of taxes. A business that does not need another body is not going to hire another body. If the lack of bodies is impeding business, and the business requires more bodies, taxes are not going to hinder full filling this requirement. At worst prices may rise to maintain the same margins.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

If a business expands to the point that the taxes are disadvantageous, then they have expanded way beyond the point where demand makes it profitable anyways. Taxation on businesses is a reflection of the business activities itself. If you hire some one or fire some one and the business income is the exact same with or with out the extra body the tax burden is the exact same for the business. Unless your counting all benefits as taxes to. I've been arguing this on direct taxation.

By that logic no tax rate matters, it could be 99%. Clearly that is not the case.

Again useless, because unless the business activities require additional people, does not matter how cheap it is to hire some one or how expensive it is because of taxes. A business that does not need another body is not going to hire another body.

But a business that does need another body at 85¢ on the dollar, but doesn't need one at 65¢ on the dollar, would be considering the tax rate (and risk) before hiring.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Again useless, because unless the business activities require additional people, does not matter how cheap it is to hire some one or how expensive it is because of taxes. A business that does not need another body is not going to hire another body.

Your logic is useful as long as no one wants to grow their business in a competitive environment. The truth is you've never worked for a company that wasn't interested in growing the business. In fact, you're interested in growing your business too. I can assure you, if your business is not interested in growing, there is another business interested in growing that will attain a large enough share of the market to lowball you and take your customers. That's just reality. If you're not growing, you're dying.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Your logic is useful as long as no one wants to grow their business in a competitive environment. The truth is you've never worked for a company that wasn't interested in growing the business. In fact, you're interested in growing your business too. I can assure you, if your business is not interested in growing, there is another business interested in growing that will attain a large enough share of the market to lowball you and take your customers. That's just reality. If you're not growing, you're dying.

Your logic is flawed because the tax paid would not change regardless of how many employees you hire. Its proportional to the business activities itself. If the business grows (more income) the amount paid in taxes grows. I work for a company that is the largest company in its industry. And it was the 4th largest when I started. The largest thing affecting the growth of the company I work for right now is the high Canadian Dollar for our location and labor costs with the lack of demand from our customers. The union contracts is by far the most limiting factor right now. Not the taxes. Taxes get passed on to purchases of services and products. A tax increase just means a price increase.

Let me try and explain it this way

Business revenue is 1 billion dollars 2010 and pays about 14% in taxes on $140,000,000 profits ($19,600,000)
Business has 200 employees average of $60 000 a year. ($12000000)

Business revenue is 800 Million dollars in 2011 because customer demand is lower and still pays about 14% in taxes on $160,000,000 ($22,400,000)
Business still has 200 employees averaging $61000 a year. ($12,200,000)

The amount the business spent in taxes is less in 2011 then in 2010 because the business made less money from the reduced demand of services. The reduced demand has cost the business $200 Million in revenue or $28,000,000 in profit not the taxation. With the reduced demand the business can remove 40 employees because they are not needed.

Assume the economy grows again in 2014 the same business is now making 1.6 Billion dollars in revenue BUT the only way it could do that was to hire back the 40 people and increase by 50 more people. Its not at 250 people. The tax paid out on $320,000,000 is now $44,800,000 and the labor at a average of $63000 a year is now $15,750,000

To compete better the business replaces 100 jobs with $60 million in automation tools. The 100 jobs valued at $6,300,000 a year means a ROI of 9 Years on the reduced labor. But usually with automation comes increased productivity as well so a 5 year ROI instead.

Right now businesses are reducing labor because the demand is lower and in some cases replacing with automation. So not only are jobs gone right now but they will be gone for ever as companies become more efficient. Looking at these numbers, if the Business was given a free tax year, so they don't have to pay the 44 Million on taxes, what happens is not new employment. That 44 Million goes to share holders OR is invested in technology that will further reduce employment numbers while increasing how efficient the business is. In fact because it becomes more efficient the business can close other locations down removing additional jobs.

Its what has and is occurring and is the future in the industry I work in.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Your logic is flawed because the tax paid would not change regardless of how many employees you hire. Its proportional to the business activities itself. If the business grows (more income) the amount paid in taxes grows. I work for a company that is the largest company in its industry. And it was the 4th largest when I started. The largest thing affecting the growth of the company I work for right now is the high Canadian Dollar for our location and labor costs with the lack of demand from our customers. The union contracts is by far the most limiting factor right now. Not the taxes. Taxes get passed on to purchases of services and products. A tax increase just means a price increase.

A price increase which causes lack of demand from your customers?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

A price increase which causes lack of demand from your customers?

Yup. And lowering taxes wont cause a lowering of prices. So no net job creation. Only competition causes price drops and as the competition decreases companies have no need to lower prices. Business is doing it to themselves anyways because as they replace jobs with better machines it leads to less people being employed which further reduces consumer demand.

At my work this is how its gone.

20 Years ago Department A needed 40 people to function. The operators for the machines required crews of 10. 10 years ago the work done by the 40 people in Department A was reduced to about 8 thanks to computers. And they could do more as well. The operators for the machines required crews of 10 still because they had not been replaced. 5 years ago the Operators in Department A was down to 4, 1 person per shift doing the work of what used to take 7, 5 times as fast. The machines replaced 5 years ago with new ones do twice as much out put in size and operate faster producing 70% more product with crews of 6. And a upgrade coming next year will further reduce that to crews of 3 when the new automation comes in.

So over 20 years the 160 people needed has gone down to 52 and will be further reduced by 24 next year while producing twice as much product. Thats a 132 jobs gone for ever just from one facility. And because our out put is double what it was in the past 2 other facilities have been closed out right. So what was 480 well paid people 20 years ago in this region is now only 52 people.

What does this mean for the economy. What should be $33,600,000 in employment had our numbers today been what it was 20 years ago is now only $3,640,000. If half our money is considered disposable after taxes that's $16,800,000 lost in personal income tax, and 8.4 Million lost in disposable income to be spent on stuff.

As a industry as a whole, 6 years ago the company I work for had 125 facilities. 3 years ago it was down to 45 Facilities. Take our competitors combined the industry had 300 Facilities which is now down to about 100 now.

The company I work for NOW bought my former company up just to close facilities to reduce capacity in the industry. 8 Major players are now 3 major players. Less choice for the customer and less choice for employees. Means prices are higher now then before even though the cost of production is a lot lower. No competition to force price wars. And employees have taken pay cuts and cant exactly go to a competitor because of the reduce capacity and competition has made it a employment shrinking industry not a growing one. Product wise more is being produced then ever with a 3rd of the facilities, and a 10th of the work force it used to have.

That is the direction of every major industry.

If you average every facility against the one I work at that was 48000 jobs 20 years ago now sitting at 5200. $3,360,000,000 dollars of income down to $364,000,000. $1,680,000,000 in tax's now $182,000,000. Disposable income that would have been $840,000,000 for the economy down to $182,000,000. The shift from well paying to low paying service jobs means the 48000 that would have occurred with staffing levels of 20 years ago is now sitting at 5200 well paying jobs and 42800 low paying jobs in other sectors.

While new industries have been created over the years, its still not going to keep up with the efficiency being created in business. The industry I am in has to be local. But its even worse when you consider how many jobs have shifted to China as well. So not only does it require less people but many have moved out of North America as well.

Less well paying jobs means less expendable income which means less demand. Its why so many families have 2 working parents making just enough to get by these days vs 30 years ago it only took one working parent to make more then 2 working parents make now.

Can try and blame taxes all your want but its the job shifts and reductions that are hurting the economy the most.

Oh and of course more demand on government services is a by product of this as well meaning that more taxes have to be collected to support ever growing numbers of people that can't make it.

Isn't progress great.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Yup. And lowering taxes wont cause a lowering of prices. So no net job creation. Only competition causes price drops and as the competition decreases companies have no need to lower prices.

Why wouldn't there be competition?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Why wouldn't there be competition?

Consolidations, acquisitions, bankruptcies. Haven't you noticed that a lot of companies are becoming owned by other companies. Look at meat packing. 30 Years ago you had 40 major meat packers and the largest 5 controlled only 20% of the industry. Today you have 5 major meat packers and they control like 75% of the industry.

The same thing has or is occurring in most industries.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Consolidations, acquisitions, bankruptcies. Haven't you noticed that a lot of companies are becoming owned by other companies. Look at meat packing. 30 Years ago you had 40 major meat packers and the largest 5 controlled only 20% of the industry. Today you have 5 major meat packers and they control like 75% of the industry.

The same thing has or is occurring in most industries.

5 competitors is a competition

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

But consider a business that chooses to expand up to the point where taxes turn disadvantageous, and then stop right at that point. In this situation, they actually pay a low rate, AND the job market is being stifled by taxes.

et al

Ok I see where you are coming from. But as you know the wages and benefits of an employee are tax deductible for a business. So the cost of an employee ... existing or new ... has no bearing on a business' eventual tax liability. Regardless of whether the tax rate on the pre-tax profit of that business is 35% or 3.5%. What you are talking about is an ROI or risk vs. reward analysis. IOW if I expect to make $X in profits ... is it worth the $Y investment (which may or may not involve net job creation) .... if I'm only going to get to keep $Z after Uncle Sam takes his cut? I think you'd agree that this is a question that will exist as long as the tax rate is less than 100%. Even if the tax rate was 0% at some point the $Y investment will turn disadvantageous. Because there are a lot of other factors besides tax policy that influence an ROI analysis. Keep in mind that it's never been my position that tax rates have no impact whatsoever on net job creation. I'm simply disputing the standard GOP mantra that tax cuts for the wealthy um I mean "job creators" will automatically result in net job creation in the US. If I'm a wealthy guy and I get yet another GOP tax cut and I decide to invest that extra money in an Asian Emerging Market Hedge Fund ... because there's more profit to be made due to the structural wage disparities between the US and Asian job markets ... that doesn't create any jobs in the US. It just puts a bigger hole in the US deficit and a pumps more money into a foreign economy.

I'm all for lowering tax rates and expanding the tax base by streamlining the tax code. I think that would be good for the economy and the finances of the US government. But the US has lost approximately 50,000 manufacturing factories over the last 10 years ... despite the Bush Tax Cuts. So clearly there were other factors involved besides tax policy.

OAW

PS: I've really enjoyed this dialogue with you. Like with my man ebuddy, I always appreciate someone who can debate the issues intelligently, stay on topic, and is not ideological to the point of being irrational. Kudos!

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

5 competitors is a competition

It can be. Just tends not to be. Look at the Cell phone market. For years Rogers, Telus and Bell rapped Canadians with high fee's, pathetic data limits. All 3 where happy with the prices and did not want to cause a devaluation of the service in price wars. Didn't matter if you went to Telus or Bell or Rogers. They all had very similar prices for services. Telus would offer a extra 200 bonus minutes. Rogers would offer free call display. Bell would offer free ring tones. Regardless of what special offer provided none actually lowered prices. Then Fido comes on the market with a much lower prices and disrupts the market place. The solution, a take over that was fought between 2 of them. In the end Rogers bought Fido for over a billion dollars. Rogers decides to change the brand around as a low cost carrier with less options. Telus and Bell answer back with there own low cost brands. But for the most part prices are still fixed. Was not until the wireless spectrum auction when we got totally new carriers protected from take overs did we actually get to see prices drop. In the governments own wards, not enough competition in the market place. The major carriers where not allowed to get any of the new open spectrum to prevent them from limiting new competition. So in your eyes 3 or 5 might be competition. But does not always create real competition unless they are actually going to compete against each other vs protecting the price and models they enjoy already.

Originally Posted by oaw

simply disputing the standard GOP mantra that tax cuts for the wealthy um I mean "job creators" will automatically result in net job creation in the US. If I'm a wealthy guy and I get yet another GOP tax cut and I decide to invest that extra money in an Asian Emerging Market Hedge Fund ... because there's more profit to be made due to the structural wage disparities between the US and Asian job markets ... that doesn't create any jobs in the US. It just puts a bigger hole in the US deficit and a pumps more money into a foreign economy.

Going on right now. US Companies are investing in expansion out side of the US. A lot of US companies are expanding to Canada that never had any interest in us before. Even though its a more complex tax structure. Higher cost in labor. More red tape and rules and higher taxes. The consumer demand is strong and that alone is getting interest by US companies. Target is finally moving here, now I can only hope Jack N the Box moves up here too

[turtle777]

Of course, it's absolutely impossible that the pricing reflected the carrier's cost and profit expectations.

In an entitled world, where everyone expects 4G flatrate data plans and unlimited minutes for $9.99, anything higher than that is always regarded as "monopolistics" behavior and ripping off customers

-t

[Athens]

The True Price of SMS Messages | A GThing Science Project

Cost and profit expectations. When yous see all 3 carriers making record profits year after year after year and then compare the price disparity with our US counter parts down south, it clicks in your getting screwed. Granted our network is better then the US one. But it does not take a genius to realize that price fixing occurs. The MORE competition in a market the less chance of price fixing and more chance of real price wars which is how its supposed to work. When the numbers get down to just a few players, its easy for those few players to mirror each other and not rock the boat.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I'm all for lowering tax rates and expanding the tax base by streamlining the tax code. I think that would be good for the economy and the finances of the US government. But the US has lost approximately 50,000 manufacturing factories over the last 10 years ... despite the Bush Tax Cuts. So clearly there were other factors involved besides tax policy.

Well we mostly agree (I think the most-common ground might be to close the gap between the nominal and effective rates, or as some people call it "closing loopholes"), the bone I have to pick with you is that you are as enamored with the low effective rate as the right-leaning ideologues are with the high nominal rate. It's not as simple as "somewhere in the middle," it's that there is a time and a place where each is 100% right (to focus on) and the other is wrong. Or to put it a different way, just because no one ends up paying that nominal rate, doesn't mean it doesn't have a significant effect on the economy. Lowering that nominal rate might make a noticeable difference, even if it doesn't change the outcome of who pays what. Because it changes the worst-case scenario that all the players have to make allowances for.

PS: I've really enjoyed this dialogue with you. Like with my man ebuddy, I always appreciate someone who can debate the issues intelligently, stay on topic, and is not ideological to the point of being irrational. Kudos!

*high 5*

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

The True Price of SMS Messages | A GThing Science Project

Cost and profit expectations. When yous see all 3 carriers making record profits year after year after year and then compare the price disparity with our US counter parts down south, it clicks in your getting screwed. Granted our network is better then the US one. But it does not take a genius to realize that price fixing occurs. The MORE competition in a market the less chance of price fixing and more chance of real price wars which is how its supposed to work. When the numbers get down to just a few players, its easy for those few players to mirror each other and not rock the boat.

They don't have to compete, if people like you keep throwing your money at them without demanding better services. I dropped SMS service a decade ago. I dropped cell altogether 2 years ago. It's called "what the market will bear." You're as big a part of the market as they are, and as long as you agree to bear them, they'll keep riding on your back. You can't just kick back and wait for one of the merchants to save you from the others. Be proactive.

[Athens]

Exactly, "what the market will bear" and regardless of what I do as a individual my choices are limited by the collective actions of others who take it up the ass. But that isn't really the point. When your options become limited such as the case with our Cell Phone industry competition becomes limited as well resulting in less choice and higher prices, less jobs and less wealth diversity.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I can't help someone who's not interested in helping themself...

Regardless, no one is claiming that consolidation is caused by taxes, low or high. This is a red herring.

[Athens]

NO my point about consolidation was it being a driving force, not the only force but a driving for in the lack of consumer demand affecting the need to hire or not, regardless of tax increases or decreases.

Employment is subject to demand for services. Some of that demand has been lost from the unemployment of consolidation and automation. Can cut taxes as much as you want but its not going to give those displaced people a income to consume which drives more demand.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

NO my point about consolidation was it being a driving force, not the only force but a driving for

And taxation is another driving force. So what?

"Diet is a driving force, not the only force but a driving for in the development of heart disease, regardless of high or low exercise.

Heart disease is subject to diet. Some of that diet has been absorbed over decades. Can exercise as much as you want but its not going to lose those love-handles and blood clogs."

Does that mean exercise is irrelevant to health?

[Athens]

I get your point. So let me ask you this, if diet is the main factor in the development of heart disease, then no matter what you do with exercise, high or low, diet is going to determine those love handles of yours and the blood clogs making exercise unimportant. Trim down the diet then exercise becomes more important because it will now have a effect. Does this sound about right?

[Uncle Skeleton]

More like certain old fogies like Kirstie Alley or Chrysler are beyond the point where further exercise will save them. But it's still vitally relevant for the next generation.

It's not a time machine, so if you decide to wait until you're able to turn back time before you start making changes, you'll be waiting forever.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

@ebuddy

We'll just note that you continue to try to muddy the waters and duck the question.

You mean like citing the corporate tax burden as a percent of GDP knowing that the US still dwarfs OECD countries in consumption, government expenditure, and investment both internationally and domestically? Does this mean the corporate tax burden is actually low? Of course not. The fact of the matter is that our exceedingly high, real corporate tax rate and overall complexity in the code affects compliance, causes undue tax planning and administration, and hinders new growth. Don't take my word for it. The US private sector is almost in unanimous agreement here.

The very fact that your post above talks about a "35% tax rate" that's too high shows that you either aren't listening or are trying to pull a fast one. Again … that is the STATUTORY tax rate. The EFFECTIVE tax rate … that is the rate businesses large and small ACTUALLY PAY on average is in fact the second lowest in the developed world. Even lower than CHINA.

New Estimates of Effective Corporate Tax Rates on Business Investment
Effective Tax Rates: Which One?

Treasury Secretary Geithner recently said, “Although our effective tax rates for corporations ... are roughly the average of the other major economies, our statutory rates are much higher.” However, the frequent claim that the U.S. effective corporate rate is average or low is off-base. It is true that often dubious tax preferences help many companies pay federal tax at an average effective rate lower than the 35 percent statutory rate [emphasis mine as these are the tempting "top 500" invoked so frequently by proponents of the lower rate myth]. But we find that the marginal effective tax rate on new investment is 34.6 percent, and thus just about as high as the statutory rate. It is also true that temporary capital expensing or “bonus depreciation” rules recently passed by Congress have reduced effective tax rates for 2011. We do not think that temporary or narrow tax breaks are good policy. Potential investors usually look at the longer-term tax structure in making major investment decisions. Under the temporary U.S. rules, businesses may deduct 100 percent of the cost of new capital equipment in the first year. We calculate that this provision reduces the U.S. effective tax rate to as low as 17.5 percent, but this is only a single-year windfall. It does not create certainty for businesses in their capital planning, and it may simply accelerate investment ahead of the normal replacement schedule. [cash for clunkers anyone?]

The bottom here my friend is that if US businesses are already paying less in taxes than all other businesses in the developed world except for ICELAND … then clearly US jobs aren't being outsourced overseas because of the tax burden.

Yet when Apple says this is the case and Pfizer says this is the case, and a host of others say this is the case; why should they care what the tax rate is in the US if they're simply going to outsource overseas? They're answering the question you keep asking, but you refuse to listen.

To be clear, I disagree with your above premise and I've already given you the reasons why not only in hard data, but in the form of a question you refuse to answer. Again, which is the more consumer friendly; the car lot offering a 35% discount over 180 days for filing a 55,000 page rebate form (sometimes more than once) or the other offering a 29% discount? Only slightly more than half the richest people in the US (by comparison, the Fortune 500) are shopping for the 35% discount because they've got a battery of administrators that may help them realize a very small advantage. This is not effective. It distorts the market, chooses winners and losers, and in real numbers does not equate to a lower tax burden when compared to other OECD nations, particularly on the sector that actually creates the lion's share of new jobs in this country; small business.

We can debate politics or ideology all day long. But I'm sorry … simple mathematics is not subject to interpretation.

If you dispute that US businesses don't pay the second lowest tax rate in the developed world then just say that and present your evidence to the contrary. But don't just continue to ignore the point and the logical conclusions that ensue from it.

Actually, your data is subject to a great deal of debate as you can plainly see.

Walmart CEO, Others Call For Lower U.S. Corporate Taxes
I wonder how the CEO of Walmart for example, could site an effective rate of 32.2% if his corporation is privy to the advantages of such a vast dichotomy between the statutory and effective rates? While the statutory rate is in fact 35% and Walmart is paying less than the statutory rate, their effective rate of 32.2% doesn't strike me as competitive, but you see... this is the mathematical reality. And it's clearly not competitive.

Here's a good read on what the real difference between Statutory and Effective tax rates mean as well as speaking to what Uncle was saying: AEI - Report Card on Effective Corporate Tax Rates

If net job creation in the US was as simple as handing out yet another tax cut to the wealthy or as the GOP would say "job creators" … whether they actually do so or not … then the Bush years would have been off the chain. But yet net job creation was ZILCH. Middle class income declined. And the rich got even richer. Obama has left those tax cuts in place. Even added more. Let's not forget that the stimulus package was somewhere between 20-40% tax cuts IIRC. Now we can debate the effectiveness of the stimulus if you'd like. But if you take the position that it was ineffective then you have to also take the position that the hundreds of billions in tax cuts it contained were also ineffective. Because surely you know you can't get away with the standard GOP mantra of trying to claim the stimulus package was all new spending … least of all with me right?

Do these tax cuts from the stimulus include $3 billion on "Cash for Clunkers"? Yes. $64 billion on tax credits to help low-income workers? Yes. $14 billion for first-time home buyers? Yes. Increased Eligibility for the Refundable Portion of Child Credit for families who don’t earn enough to pay income tax, eligible to claim the $1,000 child credit? Yes. Hope Scholarship credit? Yes. Temporary Suspension of Taxation of Unemployment Benefits? Yes. Premium Credits for COBRA Continuation Coverage for Unemployed Workers? Yes. Economic Recovery Credits to Recipients of Social Security? Yes. Short term (5 years or less) small business cuts in the form of some credits and deductions? Yes. Advanced Energy Investment Credit? Yes. Tax Credits for Alternative Refueling Property? Yes.

We've been telling you that A. tax cuts not targeted toward economic expansion and business growth will not see economic expansion and business growth. By far the largest portion of the tax cuts in the stimulus (somewhere around 25-30% of total stimulus) were focused on those who do not and cannot produce jobs. That's just the painful fact of the matter. B. Temporary, targeted tax cuts are clearly not the answer for long-term economic growth and worse, they weren't even enticing enough to bolster short-term growth. We need fundamental tax reform. Businesses require stability for long-term planning and investment strategy, not short-term "give-aways" to win a few Republican votes. Yes, we certainly did learn this from Bush along with the fallacy behind the "hope and change" bs.

Look at where the US is in relation to China and then see if you can finally acknowledge that US corporations pay a higher effective tax rate in China than they do in the US .... yet they still outsource to China. Clearly a lower tax burden isn't the panacea that the GOP portrays it to be. Imagine that.

Of course any honest discussion on the differences between China and the US would have to acknowledge their wage dichotomy. However, the global economy as you can see has been equalizing this phenomena and IMO, will not be as much a factor going forward. Besides, if we refuse to pay our labor the wages paid to the Chinese, we have the ol' resource triangle to consider. The number of means for competing are not infinite. Regulatory reform, broad tax reform, and immigration reform all geared toward permanence and growth are really the only options IMO.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You mean like citing the corporate tax burden as a percent of GDP knowing that the US still dwarfs OECD countries in consumption, government expenditure, and investment both internationally and domestically? Does this mean the corporate tax burden is actually low? Of course not.

Well what measure would you suggest to do such a comparison?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yet when Apple says this is the case and Pfizer says this is the case, and a host of others say this is the case; why should they care what the tax rate is in the US if they're simply going to outsource overseas?

Perhaps because the interest is in repatriating profits made overseas?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

To be clear, I disagree with your above premise and I've already given you the reasons why not only in hard data, but in the form of a question you refuse to answer. Again, which is the more consumer friendly; the car lot offering a 35% discount over 180 days for filing a 55,000 page rebate form (sometimes more than once) or the other offering a 29% discount?

My bad. I wasn't ducking you ... I just thought this was rhetorical. Naturally, I'd rather go with the 29% discount. Just like I still have a $75 rebate form for a new dishwasher I bought a year ago. Would have much rather have received $50 off at the register.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Only slightly more than half the richest people in the US (by comparison, the Fortune 500) are shopping for the 35% discount because they've got a battery of administrators that may help them realize a very small advantage. This is not effective. It distorts the market, chooses winners and losers, and in real numbers does not equate to a lower tax burden when compared to other OECD nations, particularly on the sector that actually creates the lion's share of new jobs in this country; small business.

You get no argument from me on this.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Actually, your data is subject to a great deal of debate as you can plainly see.

Walmart CEO, Others Call For Lower U.S. Corporate Taxes
I wonder how the CEO of Walmart for example, could site an effective rate of 32.2% if his corporation is privy to the advantages of such a vast dichotomy between the statutory and effective rates? While the statutory rate is in fact 35% and Walmart is paying less than the statutory rate, their effective rate of 32.2% doesn't strike me as competitive, but you see... this is the mathematical reality. And it's clearly not competitive.

Indeed ... for Walmart. For an individual company the tax code may have them paying closer to the statutory rate or a much lower rate. But we were talking about US corporations in general.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

We've been telling you that A. tax cuts not targeted toward economic expansion and business growth will not see economic expansion and business growth. By far the largest portion of the tax cuts in the stimulus (somewhere around 25-30% of total stimulus) were focused on those who do not and cannot produce jobs. That's just the painful fact of the matter.

But therein lies the rub my friend. This comes down to a difference in philosophy on what produces jobs. For the GOP ... "tax cuts targeted toward economic expansion and business growth" equates to tax cuts for the wealthy. Uh .. I mean "job creators". Gotta love that new euphemism and their ability to stay on message with it. It's the same ole Reagan era "trickle down economics". Make the wealthy pay less in taxes. De-regulate everything. And manna will fall from heaven. The problem is while this has some benefits it tends to lead to massive deficits. Like it did during both the Reagan and Bush II Administrations. And then of course the GOP turns around and decries the deficit as the cause of all that is evil in the world ... totally banking on the public at large conveniently forgetting that "deficits don't matter" whenever they control the White House. It's fundamentally a supply-side, "If you build it they will come." approach. Which may have some merit in a good economy.

But there's another philosophy on what produces jobs ... especially in a down economy. First of all, this notion that we hear bandied about on the right that "Government doesn't produce jobs." is simply nonsensical. If someone gets paid by the federal government and the check doesn't bounce then it is producing jobs. Whether that person is on the federal payroll or an employee of a private contractor doing business with the government. Do all the people that work in the defense industry at companies like Boeing or Lockheed-Martin not have "real jobs" because they are funded by government spending? So when the private sector is not hiring ... because there's no increased demand for the products/services ... then government can be the "employer of last resort" in order to get the people who really create jobs ... i.e. the middle class ... working again. It's not that the middle class creates jobs directly. What I'm saying is that if the middle class isn't spending money then there's no reason for the "job creators" to do that which the name states.

So what's more effective? Tax cuts targeted to the middle class who nearly every economist will say is more likely to spend the money ... which is needed in an economy like ours that is driven by consumer spending? Or tax cuts targeted to the "job creators" who may or may not invest those tax savings in net job creation? I say the former ... because if there's money to be made you can best believe that some business is going to capitalize on it ... whether they get a tax break or not. Whereas a company that gets a tax cut still isn't going to create new jobs unless there is a sustained increase in demand for its product/service.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

B. Temporary, targeted tax cuts are clearly not the answer for long-term economic growth and worse, they weren't even enticing enough to bolster short-term growth. We need fundamental tax reform. Businesses require stability for long-term planning and investment strategy, not short-term "give-aways" to win a few Republican votes. Yes, we certainly did learn this from Bush along with the fallacy behind the "hope and change" bs.

Again ... you get no argument from me on the need for fundamental tax reform. I'm a proponent of a much simpler and efficient tax code with a lower tax rate that broadens the tax base.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Of course any honest discussion on the differences between China and the US would have to acknowledge their wage dichotomy. However, the global economy as you can see has been equalizing this phenomena and IMO, will not be as much a factor going forward. Besides, if we refuse to pay our labor the wages paid to the Chinese, we have the ol' resource triangle to consider. The number of means for competing are not infinite. Regulatory reform, broad tax reform, and immigration reform all geared toward permanence and growth are really the only options IMO.

Indeed it must take this into account. Which is why it bothers me to hear this simplistic "Tax Cuts = New Jobs" mantra from the right. The economic performance of the Bush Administration clearly shows that isn't necessarily true. And is the wage dichotomy equalizing? I'm not so sure my friend. Sure wages are rising in China as their economy revs up. So those low wage manufacturing jobs are now being outsourced to other countries ... even from China. It's that fundamental "race to the bottom" that a business will naturally do since its organizing principle is the maximization of profit. And while that may be good for shareholders ... it's not necessarily good for society at large.

OAW

[Athens]

Whats funny is in this thread I see Canada always coming up as a lower tax rate for corporations yet every one I know that owns a business says we are taxed to death and rather have a US corporate tax structure and rate. So either business owners here have no idea how bad the US structure and rate is or the people in the US don't know how good it is. Either way something seems amiss.

Had to quote for truth

if the middle class isn't spending money then there's no reason for the "job creators" to do that which the name states.

Such a simple and easy concept, I just don't understand how it can be so blindly ignored.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

It's circular logic. It's litterally like trying to argue which comes first, the chicken or the egg.

People without jobs won't spend money in ANY case. Period.

So before you can get people spending, they have to have jobs in the first place- which means job creators need to have money to hire people.

As usual, everything is an either/or to the simple minded. The fact of the matter is, businesses need tax cuts, AND the middle class need tax cuts. The government needs to get by with what it has, which is PLENTY.

Statists have just bought into the idea that our system of government can't function without constantly chewing through fortunes greater than ANY that's ever existed on the planet before- and then having to beg, borrow and STEAL endless fortunes beyond even that.

If this were even remotely true- then no other country, no other system of government, no other people on earth could ever have survived.

The bullshit many people have bought into that the US government is starved for money, can't function on the greatest pile of money ever amassed in all of world history, and therefore has some constant need to raise taxes and borrow endlessly or else the "poor poor paupers will default!" This is -bar none- the BIGGEST political ruse ever played on a populace. Wake up already and realize you're being had, and you're cheerleading for a total fraud.

[Athens]

So before you can get people spending, they have to have jobs in the first place- which means job creators need to have money to hire people.

The catch 22, which I totally agree with. I disagree that businesses needs tax cuts. I agree the middle class could use tax cuts. Business needs simplified regulatory code, simplified taxation structure and healthcare / social benefits reforms to make it easier to administer and cheaper for a business to provide.

They also need stability in government and a functional government which currently is lacking on both fronts.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Well what measure would you suggest to do such a comparison?

How about the tax rate? I mean, instead of Buffet running about the place acting as if he doesn't know the difference between capital gains taxes and income taxes talking about his poor secretary, or the fact that the money he invested was taxed to begin with, or that he too is obviously having troubles complying with the tax code owing more than a billion dollars in back-taxes from 2002; how about we just discuss the subject honestly?

My bad. I wasn't ducking you ... I just thought this was rhetorical. Naturally, I'd rather go with the 29% discount. Just like I still have a $75 rebate form for a new dishwasher I bought a year ago. Would have much rather have received $50 off at the register.

There's the difference and why those capable are seeking havens away from our structure; a US structure that is hostile to the business community. While many are not paying the full 35%, the 29% paid in is not that much more competitive globally. You get the double-whammy of a high rate, complex code, and the promise of more.

Indeed ... for Walmart. For an individual company the tax code may have them paying closer to the statutory rate or a much lower rate. But we were talking about US corporations in general.

Right, paying on average 29% unless they have some very close crony-capitalist friends in Washington such as the Obama Administration.

But therein lies the rub my friend. This comes down to a difference in philosophy on what produces jobs. For the GOP ... "tax cuts targeted toward economic expansion and business growth" equates to tax cuts for the wealthy. Uh .. I mean "job creators". Gotta love that new euphemism and their ability to stay on message with it. It's the same ole Reagan era "trickle down economics".

But they are "job creators" and there's no good reason to demonize success. By international standards, you're loaded. How much are you sending abroad or should those abroad continuously deride you for your success and expect for you to pony up? Indicting the successful record of Reagan won't really help you make your point to Democrats or Republicans. There's a reason he was popular to both and it was political panache. Government-run trickle down is faring much worse my friend. Again, the proposed tax hikes aren't going to the debt, they're going to more stimulus. You can see bees as nasty insects that sting and hurt people or a beautiful, intelligent insect that produces honey. As distasteful as it may seem, the wealthy are the job-creators. There's no reason to deride their wealth. They're not evil. They're not subhuman. They're not out to get you. They do create jobs. They are the job creators. Show me the poor people hiring and I'll try to look at it differently. Otherwise, there's no reason to avoid facts in order to create some common enemy out of success.

Make the wealthy pay less in taxes. De-regulate everything. And manna will fall from heaven.

With all due respect, this is just emotional blather. No one is saying to deregulate everything and no one from the left can tell us what a fair rate of taxation is for the rich. 40%? 50%? 60%? Whatever we need? "The wealthy" are already paying the overwhelming majority of taxes in this country, but whenever we've run up the ol' credit cards, who is the easiest to demonize and take from? The wealthy. Demonizing success in a recession, the new economy.

The problem is while this has some benefits it tends to lead to massive deficits. Like it did during both the Reagan and Bush II Administrations.

Umm... it wasn't the tax cuts that brought on the deficit, it was COLA adjustments resulting in $400 billion in additional entitlement spending from '79 to '81, substantial drop in revenues due to recession caused by an overreaction to inflation by the new Fed chair, and interest on preceding debt. Although, I'd argue we had a great deal more to show for Reagan's actual spending such as the ending of the cold war, 20 million new jobs, dropped inflation from 13.5% to 4.1%, unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%, the economy grew by 40%, and the net-worth of the middle income family grew by 27% annually. Why? A tax structure targeted toward wealth, business, and growth. Period. There's a reason Reagan enjoyed so much support from the left and it's because he was able to compromise with Congress, but only when the books supported it. In this the only measurement is percent of GDP which is vastly superior to what we have today under Obama my friend and before you cite Bush II; please tell me what this Administration (the one you voted for) has done differently.

And then of course the GOP turns around and decries the deficit as the cause of all that is evil in the world ... totally banking on the public at large conveniently forgetting that "deficits don't matter" whenever they control the White House. It's fundamentally a supply-side, "If you build it they will come." approach. Which may have some merit in a good economy.

Businesses that aren't growing will succumb to businesses that are. If you're not growing, you're dying. I've not once (regardless of the economy) worked for a company that wasn't interested in "growing the business". That's what they do. Consumption grows in the mere fact that the population continues to grow. Companies like Apple are selling like hotcakes and that's because they invest in innovation and creativity. These things cost money. Apple will continue to grow, but their growth is hampered by an out of control tax code and rate and we don't have to pretend to have the answers, they're telling us every day.

But there's another philosophy on what produces jobs ... especially in a down economy. First of all, this notion that we hear bandied about on the right that "Government doesn't produce jobs." is simply nonsensical. If someone gets paid by the federal government and the check doesn't bounce then it is producing jobs.

This is precisely why the left is accused of not having a clue what they're talking about. Yes, the government can afford to pay $250k for two years employment on a project paying $60k/year without bouncing the check only because it is the government. Anyone else writing checks this way would be imprisoned it's as simple as that. Why? They'll borrow more from China, print more, or take it from you. These are their options. They don't earn money like a business and the only businesses capable of this financial model are those artificially propped up by the government; neither with any concern for solvency or profit. Their growth is entirely on our backs. Period.

Whether that person is on the federal payroll or an employee of a private contractor doing business with the government. Do all the people that work in the defense industry at companies like Boeing or Lockheed-Martin not have "real jobs" because they are funded by government spending? So when the private sector is not hiring ... because there's no increased demand for the products/services ... then government can be the "employer of last resort" in order to get the people who really create jobs ... i.e. the middle class ... working again. It's not that the middle class creates jobs directly. What I'm saying is that if the middle class isn't spending money then there's no reason for the "job creators" to do that which the name states.

The middle class is spending tons of money and they'll continue to spend on fancy new iPads, Pods, Phones, players, etc... You have to create something people want bad enough and trust me, they'll buy it. Those are all jobs yes, but there's a diminishing point of returns here to consider. You cannot pay $250k for a two-year project paying someone $60k/year or "be sure to use the full allotment to guarantee this budget for next year!". You just can't. No sane business can handle this model. When outlays continue to exceed revenue (yes, minus all tax "cuts" and I love how the left is really hammering home the "revenue" dialogue as if we're supposed to forget that it's OUR money ), your business will fail. The US is a failing business.

So what's more effective? Tax cuts targeted to the middle class who nearly every economist will say is more likely to spend the money ... which is needed in an economy like ours that is driven by consumer spending? Or tax cuts targeted to the "job creators" who may or may not invest those tax savings in net job creation? I say the former ... because if there's money to be made you can best believe that some business is going to capitalize on it ... whether they get a tax break or not. Whereas a company that gets a tax cut still isn't going to create new jobs unless there is a sustained increase in demand for its product/service.

I say both. Any reason why we have to choose between the spenders and the providers? Decrease taxes on both. Unless of course you believe the government has been better with their money than the two classes of people you're pitting against one another above.

Indeed it must take this into account. Which is why it bothers me to hear this simplistic "Tax Cuts = New Jobs" mantra from the right.

You're getting your caricature of the right from those spoon-feeding it to you on the left. No one is offering the simplistic arguments, they're giving you medicine you don't like the taste of so you're simply saying it doesn't work. The problem is, there's a wealth of evidence from Kennedy forward suggesting it does.

The economic performance of the Bush Administration clearly shows that isn't necessarily true. And is the wage dichotomy equalizing? I'm not so sure my friend. Sure wages are rising in China as their economy revs up. So those low wage manufacturing jobs are now being outsourced to other countries ... even from China. It's that fundamental "race to the bottom" that a business will naturally do since its organizing principle is the maximization of profit. And while that may be good for shareholders ... it's not necessarily good for society at large.

There is no "race to the bottom". Yes, companies maximize profits, but the overwhelming majority of the businesses driving the US economy are serving Americans and hiring Americans to do it. Don't pretend a 29% rate of taxation or an increase in taxation addresses this dichotomy anyway, not for a minute. If this is truly your concern, you've got a bizarre way of expressing it.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

It's circular logic. It's litterally like trying to argue which comes first, the chicken or the egg.

People without jobs won't spend money in ANY case. Period.

Dumbest thing said on this thread.

Yes, because people without jobs don't need to eat, feed their families, or need shelter.

I bet those millions of college students without jobs aren't spending any money in ANY case.
I bet those millionaires without jobs aren't spending any money in ANY case.
I bet those millions of retired elderly aren't spending any money in ANY case.

[screener]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

how about we just discuss the subject honestly?

Honest discussion requires all the facts.
The debt ceiling thread shows you're incapable of that.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by screener 

Honest discussion requires all the facts.
The debt ceiling thread shows you're incapable of that.

Something tells me if you were more comfortable with how you fared in that thread, you wouldn't be chasing me around in another thread. I gave all the facts necessary to make my point including the liberal usage of your "facts" to prove you wrong.

You don't have to like it, but there's no reason to follow me around.

[screener]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I gave all the facts necessary to make my point including the liberal usage of your "facts" to prove you wrong.

That sentence alone shows that you can't have an honest discussion.
My facts, you have no shame.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You don't have to like it, but there's no reason to follow me around.

You claim to want an honest discussion, I point out what to expect from you.
You don't have to like it, but members can post in any thread and point out that posting the same crap in a different thread doesn't make it smell any less.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by screener 

That sentence alone shows that you can't have an honest discussion.
My facts, you have no shame.

Yes, your facts including your articles and your numbers. You called me a liar because the Senate passed TEFRA, not the House. While I even told you "kneejerk senators urged the President" you just ignored that to call me a liar; a common tactic around here when arguments fail. Details: Reagan and Congressional Republicans wanted cuts in spending, congressional Democrats wanted an increase in taxes; both were concerned about deficit projections and had different ideals for how to handle the problem not unlike today. The House passed a series of measures including tax increases that were not going to be signed by the President. Yes, the original measures involved smaller tax increases than the measure eventually signed into law, but did not provide the cuts Reagan wanted. They were at an impasse. The call to order then, just as now, was compromise. In came a bipartisan commission known as the "Gang of 17" to draft a compromise both parties could live with. The article you cited even indicates there was still hesitancy. This is why I said "some kneejerk senators urged the President". You claimed I didn't give you numbers, I gave you the tax increases to raise more than $98.3 billion over three years in return for an agreement to cut spending by $280 billion.

You claim to want an honest discussion, I point out what to expect from you.

I claim to want an honest discussion yes. I didn't think a refusal to acknowledge the chronological order of hikes and cuts, ignoring the cuts altogether, was honest discussion. I didn't think the repeated use of "wow" was honest discussion. I felt bringing up a conservative activist who died in 1982 was more argumentative desperation than honest discussion, particularly when you weren't even familiar enough with the person to get her name correct. I did not feel putting words in my mouth was honest discussion. I didn't feel the kneejerk emotional outbursts about tax cuts for "the rich" and cutting services for the "losers" was honest discussion. Then I became sarcastic with you because it was increasingly apparent you had no interest in honest discussion. Your indictment against me for dishonesty is just more predictable bs.

You don't have to like it, but members can post in any thread and point out that posting the same crap in a different thread doesn't make it smell any less.

They certainly can, but it'd behoove them to at least try to appear educated.

[screener]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

They certainly can, but it'd behoove them to at least try to appear educated.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

None the less,

I posted a warning to anyone interested that you shouldn't take what you post as undistorted truth.

I said what thread I was referring to, try posting a rebuttal there instead of rehashing it in this one.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by screener 

I posted a warning to anyone interested that you shouldn't take what you post as undistorted truth.

I said what thread I was referring to, try posting a rebuttal there instead of rehashing it in this one.

And I just told you why I decided to let you have the last word in that thread and you chased me into this thread. If you don't want to discuss that thread here; don't.