|
|
On September 11 2012 06:02 ImAbstracT wrote:
Copied this from another site:
ECON 101: Tax cuts create a DIS-incentive to hire workers
Where in the world did you get this from?
How long have we been hearing about the "Job Creators" needing tax cuts in order to favor us with jobs. The natural instinct is to respond with "OK, where are the jobs?" That is a nice snarky response, but that leaves the issue open for Republicans to argue: a) the jobs were created -- you just didn't notice them, and b) we need even more tax cuts.
I rarely hear any Democrats addressing the basic premise, which is complete hogwash. It really isn't that complicated.
There's a reason why they don't....
First of all, most of the discussions are about PERSONAL taxes, and that really has minimal bearing on job creation.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. When you're talking about businesses that are incorporated such that they have pass-through taxation (basically any small business and non-public entity, regardless of how big), personal taxes are damn important because that's the biggest tax burden that the owners/employers have to consider.
But let's take the more general case of a company facing a decision whether to hire their next employee. Generally speaking, taxes do not even enter into that discussion, because companies hire the employees they need to conduct their business. They don't hire surplus employees when there is a favorable tax rate -- that would be socialism.
But let's look at the tax impact anyway. At the Federal level, and in almost every state, taxes are based on the net income (aka earnings). That is the amount of money you have left after you deduct the allowable business expenses.
Here is the key point. Wages and benefits are deductible expenses, so whenever you hire an additional employee, you automatically get a tax cut.
No, not really....
Now let's look at the effect of the tax rate. Let's consider two cases: one where the effective tax rate is 50% and one where the effective tax rate is 25%.
In the first case (50% tax) let's say the total cost of the next incremental employee (with benefits) is $100,000. You deduct $100,000 and that saves you $50,000 in taxes. The IRS is effectively paying for half the cost of that employee.
In the second case, you deduct $100,000, but this time you only save $25,000. The lower tax rate effectively RAISES the barrier to hiring new employees.
And here's the root problem. As a general rule, only profitable entities hire people. When an owner is considering whether he wants to hire a new employee, he has to weigh whether the new hire will affect his bottom line profits from the company. Business don't exist for the purpose of giving jobs to people. Businesses exist to generate money for their owners. If you jack up the personal taxes of the owners, you are necessarily reducing their profits and their income. Each added employee, thus, has to have a higher profit margin to offset the higher tax rate to justify their employment.
Let's look at the extreme case, where taxes are say, 90%. I'm not recommending that, but just using that as an example. In that case, a business has a huge incentive to continue to invest in the business (which creates deductible expenses) instead of taking money out of the business.
High tax rates favor business investment. Lower tax rates encourage owners to not invest, not hire, and to take money out of the business as fast as they can.
I sure wish just once somebody would explain this basic business principle in the MSM.
Whoever wrote this is just dumb.
|
|
|
On September 11 2012 06:39 NonCorporeal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 06:34 Derez wrote:On September 11 2012 06:31 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 06:29 Derez wrote:On September 11 2012 06:25 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 06:08 stk01001 wrote:On September 11 2012 05:37 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 05:31 Gben592 wrote:On September 11 2012 05:27 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 05:23 karpo wrote:
[quote]
Our swedish right wing politicians have promoted private schools, a lowered support for union driven welfare, they've outsourced pharmacies to private businesses, and they've made tax cuts. You just have a very skewed image of what makes someone a conservative, EVERY politician and party in the world beside the US republican party is socialist if you go by your fox news standard. I just love how you European lefties love to accuse anyone who supports capitalism of "being a Fox News slave." As another poster in this thread said, most economies in first world countries are mixed; but some are far more socialist than others (for instance EU countries are more socialist than America). Sorry, whats wrong with being left wing again?!? And yes, your right that most countries in europe are more left than america... but thats because america is WAY far right... + Europe isn't one massive country you know, lotta seperate countries that do different things. Nothing, you're entiteld to your opinion. You keep saying that America is "far-right," because we support capitalism. If you actually look at history though, America was a country founded on the ideas of freedom and capitalism. You Europeans were so inspired by America's ideas that you began adopting them in your own countries (French Revolution). Eventually Europe started moving further and further to the left, while America (more or less) stayed on the path of classical liberalism (freedom and capitalism). Thus would it not be correct to say that you have moved further to the left, as opposed to America moving further to the right? If anything, America has moved further to the left as well, with things like Social Security, Obamacare, Medicare, Food Stamps, and other such programs. There's no question that the republican party and politics in general in America continue to move to the far right. Look at the tea party. Look at the social issues.. we're the only developed country where it's normal for a major political party to flat out deny global warming. Abortion rights is still a huge issue which was supposed to be settled back in the 70's. Gays continue to be discriminated against and demonized. The tea partiers are especially super far right and unwilling to compromise, it's generally accepted that the republican party is now the most conservative it's ever been in modern history. They make Ronald Reagan look like FDR. Yes we have programs like SS and food stamps, but if it were up to republicans SS would be privatized and food stamps wouldn't exist. They just aren't getting their way, doesn't mean they aren't super far right. Hell Rick Santorum wanted to get rid of public education all together, he wanted to privatize education lol. And the guy almost won his party's nomination. The election of Obama has scared people even further to the right. The fact is the Obama is very centrist and middle of the road, but in America he's viewed as a super liberal socialist because the whole political spectrum is pushed so far to the right. Much like many Europeans here feel that Americans such as myself have "misrepresented" the European political structure, I feel as though you are no "misrepresenting" the American political structure. Oh don't get me wrong, there are a some Republicans out there who don't support gay marriage and/or abortion, but they don't represent the vast majority of the party, especially not members of the party who are under the age of 50; seniors in general tend to be more "religious," regardless of party or ideology. I live out in an area you would probably consider "redneck-ville" yet all of the people out where I live support gay marriage and they're all conservative Republicans. In the 12 years I have lived here, I only met one Republican who is opposed to gay marriage, and when I asked him why, he said he "wanted to stick with the old ways" (whatever that means). Also, you seem to mistakenly think that the Tea Party are a bunch of neo-Nazis who are apparently "not working with the Democrats," because apparently only Tea Party members are bigots and would never work with the other side. If you actually learned what they stood for, things like small government and personal freedom, then you might actually agree with them; the left-wing media is trying to paint a negative picture of them. That's not to say there aren't a few extremists in the grassroots organization, but the left has it's fair share of bigoted extremists as well. Though my primary complaint with your post is that you think Republicans want to get rid of Social Security and Food Stamps, which is a very misinformed statement indeed (no offense). Most conservatives support welfare for those who truly need it. What we are opposed to, is what welfare has become, handouts where able-bodied people receive unemployment five years after they lose their job. What's sad is that when they're unemployment finally runs out, they don't finally go to look for a job, they instead try to get on more government programs, such as Social Security Disability, even though they aren't really disabled. No offense meant, but even when it comes to the opinion of your own republican electorate you are wrong. Both taken from Gallup, both from 2012: ![[image loading]](http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/GOP-gay-marrige.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/gr1ma4zcwkgkwbzh3swbig.gif) I would have to see the collection methods used as well as the groups surveyed. Enjoy. http://www.gallup.com/file/poll/154754/Abortion_legality_labels_120523.pdfhttp://www.gallup.com/file/poll/154538/Gay_Marriage_120508.pdfNote that my post actually included data from a reputable polling firm and your posts so far have been without any reasonable sources at all. It appears as though you were right and I was wrong, my apologies, I am actually somewhat shocked by this.
How can anyone live in America while not knowing that Republicans are pro-life and against gay marriage? If you don't even know the most basic socio-political facts about the country you live in, how do you expect anyone to take what you say about the goings on of separate continents seriously?
|
On September 11 2012 06:35 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 06:33 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 06:31 Souma wrote:On September 11 2012 06:29 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 05:37 Souma wrote:
NonCorporeal has broken rule #4 time and time again. Why is he still allowed to continue this nonsense? -_- He has the whole thread up in arms proving him wrong yet his American-centrism blinds him. You're preaching that you're so tolerant and would never judge someone for their views; then you go and call for anyone who disagrees with you to be banned online and arrested in real life. Does that sound very tolerant to you? What are you even talking about? I'm telling you to FACT CHECK. You've been dismissing any evidence tossed at you and just keep going on and on, changing topics at every turn and spouting more incorrect nonsense that posters have to go out of their way to refute. I don't care about your opinion, I want you to stop being blatantly factually incorrect. When haven't I fact checked? When have I dismissed evidence? And when have I changed topics? If you're going to put words in my mouth, then is it too much to ask that you atleast try to provide some evidence to back it up? facepalm. Do us all a favor and just reread the past couple of pages very, very carefully. Pretty much almost every post has been directed at you.
Most posts by all parties in the past few pages have been opinion and theory for the most part. Again, please cite specific examples.
|
Why did you link these? None of them contains a single poll that backs up your claim. The only poll in these links I did see on the matter actually refuted what you said, showing that a measly 37% of Republicans under 30 (not 50!) support gay marriage. This number is supposed to be impressive by Republican standards.
|
I can just as easily point to the Democratic Party's anti-freedom stance on gun rights and use that to show that Democrats are "bad people." Gun rights are a far more important issue than whether or not you can marry someone; marriage is nothing more than a legal contract.
Note: I'm not saying that Democrats are bad people or anything, I'm merely stating that I could use this as an example and it would be just as valid (or invalid) as saying that Republicans are "bad people" for holding an anti-freedom stance on gay marriage.
|
On September 11 2012 06:49 NonCorporeal wrote:
I can just as easily point to the Democratic Party's anti-freedom stance on gun rights and use that to show that a Democrat is a terrible excuse for a human being. Gun rights are a far more important issue than whether or not you can marry someone; marriage is nothing more than a legal contract.
Note: I'm not saying that socialists are bad people or anything, I'm merely stating that I could use this as an example and it would be just as valid.
C'mon, man.
EDIT: In case you haven't figured it out, if you're going to survive at all in this thread, you need to raise the level of your posts. There is some absolutely ridiculous stuff being posted here, and the above is just bizarre.
|
On September 11 2012 06:49 NonCorporeal wrote:
I can just as easily point to the Democratic Party's anti-freedom stance on gun rights and use that to prove that a Democrat is a terrible excuse for a human being. Gun rights are a far more important issue than whether or not you can marry someone; marriage is nothing more than a legal contract.
I think it is time, that you prepare for watching NFL and stop posting in this thread. No need to start a discussion of gun-control with such an ad hominem...
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 11 2012 06:44 NonCorporeal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 06:35 Souma wrote:On September 11 2012 06:33 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 06:31 Souma wrote:On September 11 2012 06:29 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 11 2012 05:37 Souma wrote:
NonCorporeal has broken rule #4 time and time again. Why is he still allowed to continue this nonsense? -_- He has the whole thread up in arms proving him wrong yet his American-centrism blinds him. You're preaching that you're so tolerant and would never judge someone for their views; then you go and call for anyone who disagrees with you to be banned online and arrested in real life. Does that sound very tolerant to you? What are you even talking about? I'm telling you to FACT CHECK. You've been dismissing any evidence tossed at you and just keep going on and on, changing topics at every turn and spouting more incorrect nonsense that posters have to go out of their way to refute. I don't care about your opinion, I want you to stop being blatantly factually incorrect. When haven't I fact checked? When have I dismissed evidence? And when have I changed topics? If you're going to put words in my mouth, then is it too much to ask that you atleast try to provide some evidence to back it up? facepalm. Do us all a favor and just reread the past couple of pages very, very carefully. Pretty much almost every post has been directed at you. Most posts by all parties in the past few pages have been opinion and theory for the most part. Again, please cite specific examples.
People have been debunking you on European cultural/political differences, geography, "European" socialism, Republican ideals on gay marriage and abortion, and not only that, you actually have the audacity to try and impose American ideals such as the right to concealed weapons as fundamental rights that all humans should have. I don't know what more to tell you. I'm honestly flabbergasted that you can spew such absurdities with such confidence.
|
United States41936 Posts
On September 11 2012 06:49 NonCorporeal wrote:
I can just as easily point to the Democratic Party's anti-freedom stance on gun rights and use that to show that a Democrat is a terrible excuse for a human being. Gun rights are a far more important issue than whether or not you can marry someone; marriage is nothing more than a legal contract.
Note: I'm not saying that socialists are bad people or anything, I'm merely stating that I could use this as an example and it would be just as valid.
Your right to a tool that allows you to more easily kill people is far more important than your right for social acceptance of your love?
Do you proofread your own posts?
|
On September 11 2012 06:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 06:49 NonCorporeal wrote:
I can just as easily point to the Democratic Party's anti-freedom stance on gun rights and use that to show that a Democrat is a terrible excuse for a human being. Gun rights are a far more important issue than whether or not you can marry someone; marriage is nothing more than a legal contract.
Note: I'm not saying that socialists are bad people or anything, I'm merely stating that I could use this as an example and it would be just as valid. C'mon, man.
Is there something wrong, xDaunt?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 11 2012 06:49 NonCorporeal wrote:
I can just as easily point to the Democratic Party's anti-freedom stance on gun rights and use that to show that a Democrat is a terrible excuse for a human being. Gun rights are a far more important issue than whether or not you can marry someone; marriage is nothing more than a legal contract.
Note: I'm not saying that Democrats are bad people or anything, I'm merely stating that I could use this as an example and it would be just as valid (or invalid) as saying that Republicans are "bad people" for holding an anti-freedom stance on gay marriage.
I'M DONE.
|
On September 11 2012 06:49 NonCorporeal wrote:
I can just as easily point to the Democratic Party's anti-freedom stance on gun rights and use that to prove that a Democrat is a terrible excuse for a human being. Gun rights are a far more important issue than whether or not you can marry someone; marriage is nothing more than a legal contract.
Not the point.
You first make the claim that 'the vast majority of republicans' do not oppose gay marriage/abortion rights, which turns out not to be true. Then you claim most young republicans do support gay marriage, which is also not true (39% under 29), and then, you try and change the topic to something completely unrelated.
If you care that much about your guns, by all means, vote republican. But don't create some imaginary idea of what republicans/dems/socialism/europe stand for.
|
Look on the bright side, at least we will very soon have a break from NonCorporeal's fact-phobic posting now that his posts have gone over the line by any conceivable standards.
edit: Did he really think he could get away with the "terrible excuse for human beings" line?
|
On September 11 2012 06:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 06:49 NonCorporeal wrote:
I can just as easily point to the Democratic Party's anti-freedom stance on gun rights and use that to show that a Democrat is a terrible excuse for a human being. Gun rights are a far more important issue than whether or not you can marry someone; marriage is nothing more than a legal contract.
Note: I'm not saying that socialists are bad people or anything, I'm merely stating that I could use this as an example and it would be just as valid. Your right to a tool that allows you to more easily kill people is more important than your right for social acceptance of your sexuality and love?
All of the evidence shows the opposite, KwarK. As we've covered countless times in this thread, gun control INCREASES crime. Guns save lives every single day and CCW has been hailed a massive success. My right to a tool that can be used to defend the lives of myself and the people I care about; as well as keep the government in check, provide sustenance, and provide countless hours of entertainment; is indeed more important than whether or not two males can enter into a legally-binding contract with one another.
I fully support gay rights and abortion, but it is insulting and disturbing that anyone would dare compare marriage to a fundamental right like the right to bear arms or freedom of speech or any other fundamental right we have.
|
Who left these can of worms here?!?!?!?!? Who?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
looks like he is getting away with it pretty fast.
|
On September 11 2012 06:54 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 06:49 NonCorporeal wrote:
I can just as easily point to the Democratic Party's anti-freedom stance on gun rights and use that to prove that a Democrat is a terrible excuse for a human being. Gun rights are a far more important issue than whether or not you can marry someone; marriage is nothing more than a legal contract. Not the point. You first make the claim that 'the vast majority of republicans' do not oppose gay marriage/abortion rights, which turns out not to be true. Then you claim most young republicans do support gay marriage, which is also not true (39% under 29), and then, you try and change the topic to something completely unrelated. If you care that much about your guns, by all means, vote republican. But don't create some imaginary idea of what republicans/dems/socialism/europe stand for.
I suppose I was basing that assumption on the fact that Ron Paul had the vast majority of young voters behind him, and Ron Paul supports gay marriage; thus most young Republicans (who support Ron Paul), must also support gay marriage. I imagine it also differs between states, for instance, Republicans in the Missouri and New York probably support gay marriage more than Republicans in say, Louisiana or Mississippi.
|
On September 11 2012 06:57 NonCorporeal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 06:53 KwarK wrote:On September 11 2012 06:49 NonCorporeal wrote:
I can just as easily point to the Democratic Party's anti-freedom stance on gun rights and use that to show that a Democrat is a terrible excuse for a human being. Gun rights are a far more important issue than whether or not you can marry someone; marriage is nothing more than a legal contract.
Note: I'm not saying that socialists are bad people or anything, I'm merely stating that I could use this as an example and it would be just as valid. Your right to a tool that allows you to more easily kill people is more important than your right for social acceptance of your sexuality and love? All of the evidence shows the opposite, KwarK. As we've covered countless times in this thread, gun control INCREASES crime. Guns save lives every single day and CCW has been hailed a massive success. My right to a tool that can be used to defend the lives of myself and the people I care about; as well as keep the government in check, provide sustenance, and provide countless hours of entertainment; is indeed more important than whether or not two males can enter into a legally-binding contract with one another. I fully support gay rights and abortion, but it is insulting and disturbing that anyone would dare compare marriage to a fundamental right like the right to bear arms or freedom of speech or any other fundamental right we have.
I tried to wade through about 12 of your history posts to find your evidence for this statement but was discouraged and sunk into a deep depression from the extremely low level of every post you've made so far. After taking back a few drinks I'd like to ask you to support your evidence for this statement.
* Disclaimer I support gun rights *
|
On September 11 2012 06:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 06:02 ImAbstracT wrote:Let's look at the extreme case, where taxes are say, 90%. I'm not recommending that, but just using that as an example. In that case, a business has a huge incentive to continue to invest in the business (which creates deductible expenses) instead of taking money out of the business.
High tax rates favor business investment. Lower tax rates encourage owners to not invest, not hire, and to take money out of the business as fast as they can.
I sure wish just once somebody would explain this basic business principle in the MSM. Whoever wrote this is just dumb.
Calling someone dumb is a good argument... What he wrote is factually correct. When taxes are low, business hire less (in fact they lay off more), when taxes are high they invest in their company more and the economy of the country is much healthier because you have people actually spending their money instead of hoarding it off shore. Are you simply aware that businesses aren't competent and won't be able to invest their money appropriately, so you argue for these types of regressive policies? I really do want to know from where you get this distorted view of reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
