Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: TweetyBird on July 30, 2004, 10:00:08 PM
-
Tax the rich. Cut the tax for the rich, they're overburdened.
Cutting taxes for business speeds growth. Class warfare - blah blah blah...
Its all smoke and mirrors. Its not complicated to figure out who pays taxes that keeps the US government afloat. Its the person at the end of the expense chain. Its the person who uses a US product or service and cannot expense the taxes on that product. Its that friggin simple. So the ONLY way to cut taxes is cut government spending. Cut the rich or the middle tax brackets, the people at the end of the expense chain will pay the same amount if the government is spending the same amount. Some creative ways of hiding this fact is defering the debt and running a deficit. Then the children of the people at the end of the expense chain will pay the debt - WITH INTEREST.
So when you hear ANY candidate talking about cutting taxes without cutting goverment spending, write it off as BS. And if you can't expense your taxes, you are one of the people paying for the US goverment. So when George W sent you your little rebate check while INCREASING government spending - know that you were BS'ed. He didn't give you money - he gave you a loan which you or your children will repay with interest. Thats unless you are fortunate enough to be able to expense your taxes down to the next unlucky shmuck on the the expense chain.
-
You might want some fiber in your diet.
-
>>You might want some fiber in your diet.
<
Crow has fiber doesn't it? I'll gladly eat it if you can post an accounting equation to refute the post.
-
The obvious flaw in your logic is that the Legislative branch would allow a reduction in spending.
That's their job you know, spending other people's money. You're thinking they're going to put themselves out of a job?
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/115_1091244404_johnkerryliarofamerica.gif)
-
I'm not for one second thinking that government is ever seriously considering cutting the size of goverment - you're exactly right - they'd be cutting their throat.
I'm trying to explain why the midde class will ALWAYS take it up the arse. The middle class are the unfortunate people at the end of the chain. Those in poverty get government relief. Those above poverty and below the common ground for expensing taxation are the people suffering for government spending.
When GMC whales about higher corporate tax, it not because it going to reduce their profits. Its because it going to tie up their money while they pass the cost down to the person at the end of the chain.
-
Define "middle class", please. How you view it by income for instance.
-
Those above poverty, don't own a business, and can't expense taxation in any way.
I think this is more accurate than an income bracket.
-
so somone who makes 200k+ a year needs to pay 75% of his income to the govt. I dont care how rich a person is the govt.....and the people are not entitled to that much of it~!
-
I think that just non-definitive. Probably for a reason.
Where would you draw the "poverty" line then? What income level?
Own a business? Any business? One that grossed $50K equal to one that grossed $5 million?
Expense taxation? How much? 5% of your gross income expensed? 25%? 50%?
BTW, did you find an "expense taxation" website or something?
-
No one pays 75% income tax in the US. Its been years since I looked, but I think the highest bracket is 40% (I'm pretty sure its lower now). Anyone in that group who isn't expensing that tax, is a fool or a lottery winner.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
No one pays 75% income tax in the US. Its been years since I looked, but I think the highest bracket is 40% (I'm pretty sure its lower now). Anyone in that group who isn't expensing that tax, is a fool or a lottery winner.
They did before Reagan took office.
-
Wrong - gota check but I think the highest ever was 63%
-
>>BTW, did you find an "expense taxation" website or something?
<<
Sorry you don't like that term. Can you think of a better term for passing taxation down the consumer line?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
They did before Reagan took office.
yup and that got us the great boom of the 90s
tweaty make sure you vote for kerry and you just might get 75% taxes on the "rich"
they allready pay over 90% of all income taxe tax collected.
-
I checked - the highest tax bracket before tax reform, was 70%
75% is closer than the 63% I stated - so sorry. But who was paying those taxes- end of the chain consumers. Ya can't get away from it. Businesses will pass the tax to the consumer. They write the check, but the guy at the end of the chain funds the check. You up taxes for businesses and you tie up their money until the increase can be passed down to the consumer. In a sense, they are giving the consumer a loan. They'll have to make up the money, but for a short while, the consumer is paying the same while expenses have increased.
The reverse is also true. Cut taxes for businesses, and they get a loan from the consumer.
-
>>yup and that got us the great boom of the 90s
<<
I'd debate that. Info technology propelled the boom of the 90's.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
I checked - the highest tax bracket before tax reform, was 70%
75% is closer than the 63% I stated - so sorry. But who was paying those taxes- end of the chain consumers. Ya can't get away from it. Businesses will pass the tax to the consumer. They write the check, but the guy at the end of the chain funds the check. You up taxes for businesses and you tie up their money until the increase can be passed down to the consumer. In a sense, they are giving the consumer a loan. They'll have to make up the money, but for a short while, the consumer is paying the same while expenses have increased.
The reverse is also true. Cut taxes for businesses, and they get a loan from the consumer.
reguardless of how govt is funded....do you think its fair that somone who makes more money pays more (percentage) of taxes?
based on your synopsis the govt could tax everyone based on their incomes so that everyone made the SAME income?
no more rich people?????? would that work? NO
why wouldnt the reverse also be true that if you cut taxes on high income they have more money to spend. More spending means more taxes collected?
-
I said none of that. I only said the only way to cut taxes is cut government spending - period. The only tricky issue is to decide what is needed and what is fluff. Anyone who cuts taxes and keeps goverment spending the same or increases it, is BSing you. There's no getting arround it. There's also no getting arround the fact that those at the end of the expense chain will bear the burden of financing the goverment. Thats just the dynamics of the system. In the US, that happens to be the middle class - i.e., joe consumer.
If you think you or your children will pay less if a Republic spends x dollars, than if a Democrat spends x dollars, you are living in a fantasy. Who *initially* pays x dollars, is just the direction of the loan. The end of the chain guy (i.e., the middle class) will always ultimately pay the x dollars.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
I checked - the highest tax bracket before tax reform, was 70%
7
I realize it was 70%. I was making a point, not being factual.
-
IMO, taxes should be proportionate to the assets protected by the US goverment. Takes more to protect a Chrysler plant than my 1974 pinto. But it don't matter - Chrysler will pass the cost to me if I upgrade my 1974 pinto.
So in the end, only the middle class will pay. The goverment KNOWING this has every duty to keep the cost as low as possible.
-
I've gotten a tax cut under every Republican administration since Reagan was elected in 1980. Can anyone tell me when was the last time a Democratic administration sponsored and passed a tax cut? Cause I sure as ell can't remember one.
-
Well what USUALLY happens is the Republicans run up the deficit ( that obsure thing that is nothing more than a loan that your 4 year old gives the government without a choice) and the Democrats come along and try to remove the deficit (or give your 4 year old back his money - without interest).
Trivia question - who was the last Republican President who left office without a deficit (or extorted money from 4 year olds).
Yup, when I was in the Knights of Columbus, every Republican president decreased dues, but ran up a $5000 bill with Visa. Every Democratic president raised the dues, but we had no Visa balance costing interest. Yea them Republicans certainly know how to use credit.
Hmmm - maybe thats the crux of it all. Those who aren't worried about a deficit think there will ultimately be a way to skip out on it.
Hmmm deadbeat spenders? Maybe its a character issue?
(seriously, I know all administrations run deficits - some just cover it up better by moving money)
But if the Republicans didn't cut spending, they damn sure didn't cut your taxes. They might have taken future earnings from your child and lent it to you.
-
Well Tweety, the budget process works like this.
The President and the OMB work up the budget...then they have a member of the House introduce it to the House of Representatives. A similar version is later submitted to the Senate. After being worked on in various committees, it is sent to the floor of the House for a vote. Any discrepancies with the version sent to the Senate are worked out in a joint congressional committee.
Guess who controls the committees...the majority parties of each House. The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee actually has more control over the final version of the budget than the President does. A lot of the deficit can be attributed to "Christmas Tree" amendments that are added to the various spending bills stemming from the budget while it is still in committee, or later when it is submitted to the floor for consideration. These amendments are where much of the pork in the budget comes from.
Care to guess which party controlled the House of Representatives and the Ways and Means Committee (and the finalization of the budget process) while Reagan was in office?
Care to guess which party controlled the House of Representatives and the Ways and Means Committee while Bush Sr. was in office?
Care to guess which party controlled the House of Representatives and the Ways and Means Committee while Clinton was in office?
Hint: Two of these presidents saw the final stages of the budget process in the hands of their rival political party.
Hint: One of these presidents is credited by his party with having reduced or largely eliminated the budget deficit while he was in office.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
No one pays 75% income tax in the US. Its been years since I looked, but I think the highest bracket is 40% (I'm pretty sure its lower now). Anyone in that group who isn't expensing that tax, is a fool or a lottery winner.
There must be a lot of fools and lottery winners because the top 20% of earners pay more than 80% of the taxes. Guess they aren't very good at "expensing" their taxes. (WhateverTF that means)
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
I said none of that. I only said the only way to cut taxes is cut government spending - period. The only tricky issue is to decide what is needed and what is fluff. Anyone who cuts taxes and keeps goverment spending the same or increases it, is BSing you. There's no getting arround it. There's also no getting arround the fact that those at the end of the expense chain will bear the burden of financing the goverment. Thats just the dynamics of the system. In the US, that happens to be the middle class - i.e., joe consumer.
If you think you or your children will pay less if a Republic spends x dollars, than if a Democrat spends x dollars, you are living in a fantasy. Who *initially* pays x dollars, is just the direction of the loan. The end of the chain guy (i.e., the middle class) will always ultimately pay the x dollars.
wow sounds like something right out of the DNC talking points.
How does this point DIRECTLY at JUST the middle class?
I suppose you'd preffer a recession to deficits?
-
And taxes on employers don't just get "passed down". Go to the local college and sign up for an economics series. The taxes end up getting shared. The employers make less profit, the workers get paid less, and the price of their products goes up. It's lose-lose-lose. The only winners are the Demorepublisocialists in DC, getting rich and powerful because doofus voters have repeatedly fallen for class warfare rhetoric for the last 70 years.
-
>>There must be a lot of fools and lottery winners because the top 20% of earners pay more than 80% of the taxes. Guess they aren't very good at "expensing" their taxes. (WhateverTF that means)<<
Well if you decifer what it means you'll know the top 20% of wage earners aren't paying the taxes - you are.
-
I have a few hours in economics. But its not economics - its basic arithmetic.
Rule of thumb - accountants that get creative go to jail. Its simple arithmetic.
-
Well it's established from my link in the other thread that the government is getting 80% of their money from the top 20%. You are saying this is somehow not true. Can you demonstrate that?
-
So how much tax do you actually pay at present then - as a % of earnings?
Here it's 22% for the first $58k and after that it's 40% on anything over $58k.
Earnings under I think $18k are not taxed.
-
I got tired of paying taxes while others merely had their hands out. Started my own business and almost everything I purchase now is tax deductible. I bought a 33K vehicle for work and will write the entire amount offf for 2004. You can do this once a year... you think maybe I'll be buying another vehicle in 2005?
-
>>Well it's established from my link in the other thread that the government is getting 80% of their money from the top 20%. You are saying this is somehow not true. Can you demonstrate that?
<<
As Curly would say - "coytainly!"
If I buy a car from GMC, included in the price along with labor cost, overhead etc., is tax expense (not to be confused with tax and liscense which is written clearly on the bill of sale). Its simple arithmetic to figure how much tax (income, property etc.) is being paid on each unit. That amount is added to the price of the unit. So the consumer pays his portion of the tax for GMC when buying the unit. GMC pays no portion of the tax on the sold unit. So if thats the only unit GMC sold and incurred a $50 tax liability for selling that unit, GMC writes out a check for $50 to the IRS and claims they paid more taxes than the guy who bought the unit. But didn't the guy who bought the unit pay that $50 when it was included in the price of the unit?
Now, if the car bought is a taxi cab - great!! The guy who bought the unit can pass that $50 off on his customers. So each person who gets into the cab pays an extra nickle to make up for that $50. So - who payed the $50? GMC? The taxie cab driver? The cab customers?
Headlines!!
GMC pays $50 a year in taxes
Taxicab drivers and customers pay nothing?
Its smoke and mirrors
GMC paid nothing
Taxi paid nothing
End of the chain customers paid the $50
but more realistic is
GMC claimed a loss and got a tax deduction
Taxi depreciated the vehicle and got a deduction
End of chain customers paid the $50 and owe a little more to pay off the credits comming from the deductions claimed by GMC and Taxi.
IRS people call this the two prong screw :D
-
I say, outsource the government!
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>Well it's established from my link in the other thread that the government is getting 80% of their money from the top 20%. You are saying this is somehow not true. Can you demonstrate that?
<<
As Curly would say - "coytainly!"
If I buy a car from GMC, included in the price along with labor cost, overhead etc., is tax expense (not to be confused with tax and liscense which is written clearly on the bill of sale). Its simple arithmetic to figure how much tax (income, property etc.) is being paid on each unit. That amount is added to the price of the unit. So the consumer pays his portion of the tax for GMC when buying the unit. GMC pays no portion of the tax on the sold unit. So if thats the only unit GMC sold and incurred a $50 tax liability for selling that unit, GMC writes out a check for $50 to the IRS and claims they paid more taxes than the guy who bought the unit. But didn't the guy who bought the unit pay that $50 when it was included in the price of the unit?
Now, if the car bought is a taxi cab - great!! The guy who bought the unit can pass that $50 off on his customers. So each person who gets into the cab pays an extra nickle to make up for that $50. So - who payed the $50? GMC? The taxie cab driver? The cab customers?
Headlines!!
GMC pays $50 a year in taxes
Taxicab drivers and customers pay nothing?
Its smoke and mirrors
GMC paid nothing
Taxi paid nothing
End of the chain customers paid the $50
but more realistic is
GMC claimed a loss and got a tax deduction
Taxi depreciated the vehicle and got a deduction
End of chain customers paid the $50 and owe a little more to pay off the credits comming from the deductions claimed by GMC and Taxi.
IRS people call this the two prong screw :D
your post is flawed at best. If you think GMC in that scenerio paid no taxes we are done talking cause you just dont get it.
Also companys have to do this thing call MAKE PROFITS in order to survive as a company and employ all the people that consume thier goods. SO yes if they have to pay taxes they are going to try and make a margin to cover it otherwise no profit.
SECOND: If you thing I as a low income worker pay more taxes than a high income person you are SORELY mistaken. If somone who makes a million dollars in a year pays 40% taxes on his income he will PAY MORE IN TAXES THAN I WILL CONSUME IN ABOUT 20 YEARS
your theory makes about as much sense as blind people playing golf during the daytime.
-
Nice try Tweety. It brutally ignores reality, but nice try.
Here's a fact for you... FACT: the top 2% of the wealthiest Americans pay 46% of all income tax.
FACT:
The bottom 50% of the wealthiest American pay less than 10% of income taxes.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
IMO, taxes should be proportionate to the assets protected by the US goverment.
I'll bet that you've never had more than a buck and fifty cents in your portfolio.
-
>>Nice try Tweety. It brutally ignores reality, but nice try.
<<
Ok- then show me the error of my ways.
Hypothetical:
The US goverment imposes on all automobile manufacturers a $5000 tax on every car sold.
What happens?
A) All car cxompanies start recording losses and go out of business, because the tax has stripped them of all their profits?
B)The price of cars go up $5000?
I'd guess B - what you think, Steve?
Now if its B,
A)has the car manufacturer started paying more taxes?
B)Has the car purchaser started paying more taxes?
Again, seems like B to me. But on paper it would look like the manufacturer was paying enormous taxes, when if fact, the consumer was paying enormous taxes. An ya know what. Thats exactly the reality of whats going on. Your stats of who is paying most of the taxes nothing more than than a stat of who is collecting most of the taxes.
Funny how people can warm up to trickle down economics, but can't (most likely won't) see how taxes are passed down the line.
Mietla, I had $1.50 in my portfolio but bought of hamburger and it wiped me out.
Of that 1.50, 10 cents went to the IRS. The hamburger stand collected it and will send it in when they"pay" their corporate taxes. In statistics, they get credit for the dime -not me.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>Nice try Tweety. It brutally ignores reality, but nice try.
<<
Ok- then show me the error of my ways.
Hypothetical:
The US goverment imposes on all automobile manufacturers a $5000 tax on every car sold.
What happens?
A) All car cxompanies start recording losses and go out of business, because the tax has stripped them of all their profits?
B)The price of cars go up $5000?
I'd guess B - what you think, Steve?
Now if its B,
A)has the car manufacturer started paying more taxes?
B)Has the car purchaser started paying more taxes?
Again, seems like B to me. But on paper it would look like the manufacturer was paying enormous taxes, when if fact, the consumer was paying enormous taxes. An ya know what. Thats exactly the reality of whats going on. Your stats of who is paying most of the taxes nothing more than than a stat of who is collecting most of the taxes.
Funny how people can warm up to trickle down economics, but can't (most likely won't) see how taxes are passed down the line.
Mietla, I had $1.50 in my portfolio but bought of hamburger and it wiped me out.
Of that 1.50, 10 cents went to the IRS. The hamburger stand collected it and will send it in when they"pay" their corporate taxes. In statistics, they get credit for the dime -not me.
yes this is true....business passes expenses on to the consumer....they have to make a "PROFIT" in order to stay in business.
BUT I'm only going to buy one car every couple of years....AND I cannot spend more money than I actually make......SO I as a low income person do NOT pay as much taxes as a person that makes twice...or three times as much as me.
-
Tweety, you're ignoring the FACTS. See my previous post. You're trying to confuse sales tax w/ income tax, denied.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Tweety, you're ignoring the FACTS. See my previous post. You're trying to confuse sales tax w/ income tax, denied.
steve he's also trying to say that the poor and middle class pay more taxes because business passes taxes on to them
and in some wierd way this equates to the rich not paying thier fair share.......something strait out of the DNC talking points.
Tweaty AGAIN
if I make 30K a year....I can ONLY spend 30K a year
If I'm only SPENDING 30K a year....according to you...business is only paying taxes on what they sell me wich is not that much compared to somone who makes 200K a year in wich 60K of that is going strait to the govt for personal income taxes.
In conclusion somone who makes 200K a year (IE "rich" according to kerry) is taxed by the govt twice as much money than I actually make!
plus they have more money to consume to business......again the rich pay the taxes in the country.....no matter how you look at it.
Business....they pay their taxes too.....since when is it a bad thing to want to make a profit?
-
2+3=5. I think.
-
>>if I make 30K a year....I can ONLY spend 30K a year
If I'm only SPENDING 30K a year....according to you...business is only paying taxes on what they sell me wich is not that much compared to somone who makes 200K a year in wich 60K of that is going strait to the govt for personal income taxes.
<<
According to the BLS consumer expenditure survey, 60% of the money spent by consumers is spent by people making less than $70,000 a year. Now the trick is find what percentage of the money spent in the US each year goes to cover things like corporate taxes. We know how much they are spending, we know who (by income) is spending what, just have to find the average amout in the cost of goods is cover the business' taxes....
hmmm
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>if I make 30K a year....I can ONLY spend 30K a year
If I'm only SPENDING 30K a year....according to you...business is only paying taxes on what they sell me wich is not that much compared to somone who makes 200K a year in wich 60K of that is going strait to the govt for personal income taxes.
<<
According to the BLS consumer expenditure survey, 60% of the money spent by consumers is spent by people making less than $70,000 a year. Now the trick is find what percentage of the money spent in the US each year goes to cover things like corporate taxes. We know how much they are spending, we know who (by income) is spending what, just have to find the average amout in the cost of goods is cover the business' taxes....
hmmm
hmmmm.....how bout the trick is to think about how ANY expense a big bad evil business has is passed on.....OR add as a cost of doing business.
all business pay taxes
your argument here is libral trife and makes no sesnse....everyone pays taxes....rich people pay most of them.
-
>>hmmmm.....how bout the trick is to think about how ANY expense a big bad evil business has is passed on.....OR add as a cost of doing business.
all business pay taxes
<<
Never once said business was evil or faulted them for passing their expenses (including their tax burden) on to the consumer.
Now that second part doesn't add up. If,and you seem to, agree that "ANY expense" (including taxes) are passed on, how do you say they pay taxes? They pass the consumer the tax by adding it to the purchase price, the consumer pays the price, the business takes out the tax portion and sends it off to the IRS. Are you telling me the business PAID the tax and not the consumer, or is it more accurate the business collected the tax from the consumer at the time of purchase?
BTW Steve, this has nothing to do with sales tax which is clearly written on a receipt. This is about the cost of doing business(TAXES, insurance, salaries ....) being included in the price you paid for the item.
I would love to see a price tag that says "10% of the price of this object goes toward Federal taxes."
-
cost of doing business(TAXES, insurance, salaries ....) being included in the price you paid for the item.
well no shiit Sherlock. If the cost of doing business was not included in the prcie the business wouldn't turn a profit.
Are you taking crazy pills?
-
Tweety what you are saying is somewhat right. But passing those taxes along has some other impacts. It reduces their ability to compete in the labor market (as an employer) and more importantly it raises the prices of their product. And due to supply and demand this means that volume decreases as do profits. So in reality what happens is that the employer eats some of the tax himself, because passing it all on will hurt his profit too much. It's freshman macroeconomics. I'm serious about taking a class. You would love it, and you could have some great arguments with the prof.
-
BTW Tweety if we use your logic ("The consumer pays the tax money to the manufacturer who pays it to the government"), we can take it one step further. The employer is the one paying the consumer his wages that he uses to buy the product in the first place!
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>hmmmm.....how bout the trick is to think about how ANY expense a big bad evil business has is passed on.....OR add as a cost of doing business.
all business pay taxes
<<
Never once said business was evil or faulted them for passing their expenses (including their tax burden) on to the consumer.
Now that second part doesn't add up. If,and you seem to, agree that "ANY expense" (including taxes) are passed on, how do you say they pay taxes? They pass the consumer the tax by adding it to the purchase price, the consumer pays the price, the business takes out the tax portion and sends it off to the IRS. Are you telling me the business PAID the tax and not the consumer, or is it more accurate the business collected the tax from the consumer at the time of purchase?
BTW Steve, this has nothing to do with sales tax which is clearly written on a receipt. This is about the cost of doing business(TAXES, insurance, salaries ....) being included in the price you paid for the item.
I would love to see a price tag that says "10% of the price of this object goes toward Federal taxes."
here's how business pay taxes. I manufacture widgets.
Cost of material and labor $5
cost per widget for overhead $4
so I sell my widgets to retailers for $12
so for a 3000 widget order I make a PROFIT of $9000. I am taxed on that money....
NOW if my business costs incresed YES I'm going to sell my wigets for $15 instead TO MAKE THE SAME AMOUNT OF PROFIT...
NOW
Here's were it gets trickey so try to keep up!
My competitors just lowered thier price....you know competition....its a product of capitalism.
Now I have to lower my price to remain competative!
at either price I'm still paying taxes on the profit I make on the products/service that I provide.
so to make a blanket statement that consumers pay the taxes is pretty dumb.
on your line of thinking I could say people dont pay taxes....their employers do because that's who pays them.
-
>>The employer is the one paying the consumer his wages that he uses to buy the product in the first place!
<<
True! And in return he gets man hours. He's purchasing a product - man hours. Its a resource needed to create his product - kinda like salt. But most people who punch a time clock can't pass the tax incurred (income tax) selling their product (man hours) to the consumer (the employee Edit: EMPLOYER!!!). The only point of this is to show the raw statistic that 20% of the highest income is paying all the taxes is a bunch of hogwash. And you are correct that freemarket competition makes some manufacturers absorb some of the tax - but certainly not most of the tax. Some is passed to the consumer, some is made by paying less for man hours. In the end, thats the lowest link. The man hour. The person selling only that is paying most of the taxes.
And Steve, 7-11 was out of crazy pills.
What did you mean when you wrote
>>You're trying to confuse sales tax w/ income tax, denied.<<
That was the reason for me telling you I was not talking about sales tax.
You musta got that last box of crazy pills :D
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
But most people who punch a time clock can't pass the tax incurred (income tax) selling their product (man hours) to the consumer (the employee Edit: EMPLOYER!!!).
Yes the employee can (and does) pass on his income taxes. He increases the price of his labor. Labor market has supply and demand just like any other market.
-
>>Yes the employee can (and does) pass on his income taxes. He increases the price of his labor. Labor market has supply and demand just like any other market.<<
I guess theoreticaly thats possible, but I rember a bunch of air controlers that tried to do that in the 80's. It didn't work out very well. Also there is the competition of "undocumented" aliens selling very cheap man hours -ask WalMart.
-
Supply and demand behavior in the labor market is not theoretical, it's quite real and well documented.
I'm not an economist, just a geek. But I'm just letting you know that you are asking me to choose between your view of the situation and the collective view of thousands of scientists who have studied the situation for a few centuries now. My choice is obvious. :)
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>Yes the employee can (and does) pass on his income taxes. He increases the price of his labor. Labor market has supply and demand just like any other market.<<
I guess theoreticaly thats possible, but I rember a bunch of air controlers that tried to do that in the 80's. It didn't work out very well. Also there is the competition of "undocumented" aliens selling very cheap man hours -ask WalMart.
so you are saying we should tax business more????? or less????
I have no idea what point you think you are making here. It is a FACT that rich people pay the MOST personal Income taxes....
It is not desputable.
To say that low income familys and middle class pay for business taxes is also dumb because people also pay busineses, electric bill their phone, their property leases, their sharholder dividends, ect....
rich pople spend more money than poor people BECAUSE THEY HAVE MORE MONEY! that's why they are rich!
Tax the rich. Cut the tax for the rich, they're overburdened.
Cutting taxes for business speeds growth. Class warfare - blah blah blah...
In 2001, the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.3 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (32.0 percent) of income.
The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.9 percent of all individual income taxes in 2001. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.
Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 90 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000 and 2001, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.
The President’s tax cuts have shifted a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2004, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.
The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.
The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 30.5 percent to 32.3 percent.
The average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers falls by 16 percent as compared to a 12 percent decline for taxpayers in the top 1 percent.
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js1287.htm
-
>>Supply and demand behavior in the labor market is not theoretical, it's quite real and well documented.
<<
Yea, well why the hell do unions exist and why does business hate unions. Without organization of labor there is no suply and demand. See "Grapes of wrath" lately?
The collective view is to hide the fact that you are paying the taxes - not GMC. The collective view is to pretend its possible to lower taxes and increase spending and have no ill effects. You try to get the statistic to follow the tax trail, you'll find them very well hidden among mounds and mounds of usless information.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>Supply and demand behavior in the labor market is not theoretical, it's quite real and well documented.
<<
Yea, well why the hell do unions exist and why does business hate unions. Without organization of labor there is no suply and demand. See "Grapes of wrath" lately?
DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING
That's the logic train passing you by :aok
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Without organization of labor there is no suply and demand.
Actually organized labor disrupts classical supply/demand behavior. It's just like a monopoly - bad for everyone except the seller.
-
>>DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING
That's the logic train passing you by <<
Oh well, you got me there, I guess I concede the point. I can't refute that clever point.
:lol
-
>>Actually organized labor disrupts classical supply/demand behavior. It's just like a monopoly - bad for everyone except the seller.<<
Yes it does, but it is a direct response to business monopolies. And they don't exist? Go shopping for cheap electricity for your house today? Find an emergency room for under $1000 lately?
Spend $5 driving to a gas station to save $3 on a tank of gas?
Notice the price of ALL beef increasing with the fad Adkins diet?
Yea, no monopolies in the business world eh?
You think businesses hate organized labor, watch their jaw drop at the thought of organized consumers. Yea, then you'll see a free market. I guess the only thing a business hates more than organized labor, is an organized consumer action (e.g., a boycott).
-
The few monopolies we have in the US are heavily regulated. Want to get rid of utility monopolies? Cool - refer to California for how that works out.
As far as medical care, fuel, food, there are plenty of choices for the consumer. And those sectors are already heavily regulated.
Unions are a response to monopolies? Explain the UAW then? They are creating monopolies by slowly driving automotive and aerospace companies out of business. Parasites.
Dude, take an econ sequence, night classes. I'm serious, you will love it, and you can argue all of these issues with people a lot smarter and more well-informed than me.
BTW if you think my economic views are the result of some kind of right wing indoctrination, remember that I learned them at that noted conservative think tank. The University of California. :D
-
tweetybird
replace your video card and you should be ok ...
-
>>Dude, take an econ sequence, night classes. I'm serious, you will love it, and you can argue all of these issues with people a lot smarter and more well-informed than me.
<<
I take courses, but its just a discussion. If it was expert testimony, it'd be a little boring :D
I enjoyed it.
-
No problem man