Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next > Jump to:  Bottom  Last Post
 richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 398 Posts
|
Monday, March 18, 2013 4:45:59 AM
@alltagstod: The region of declining revenue includes corruption in its construct and never states that even at optimum levels that corruption vanishes, merely that it becomes far less prominent, this spans all income brackets too not simply the rich, anyone can cheat on their taxes rich, middle class, or poor.
Secondly, it does not correlate to any of the fallacies of logic since it is based on deductive reasoning and empirical data. Which fallacy did you believe it was by the way?
Even if you did tax the rich more because you dislike this, your revenue produced will continue to fall. The gov. will take in less money then it is presently and as taxes increase so will the amounts corruption.
Everyone, not simply the rich, hopes to save their own money, including Warren Buffet. If a person wishes to give everything they own away, they are an outlier and not statistically relevant. It is even considered a sign of mental illness according to the DSM. |
|
 alltagstod
Male, 18-29, Southern US
17 Posts
|
Sunday, March 17, 2013 10:30:17 AM
@richanddead
The rich already hide their money, so your "region of declining revenue" is a fallacy. People with money will always look for ways to not part with that money, especially where the government is concerned(exceptions made for Warren Buffet and the like). SO in fact, since the rich already are hiding their money, we might as well go for a hiked up tax rate on them anyways. |
|
 AvatarJohn
Male, 30-39, Southern US
480 Posts
|
Friday, March 15, 2013 7:10:17 AM
Richanddead, we're just to the right of point C.
Can we just tax Robert Reichhhhhhhhhhh's vast wealth about 99.9%? |
|
 5Cats
Male, 40-49, Canada
16929 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:05:48 PM
Funny thing: I was watching BBC World News today, and they reported on how the "disparity between the very rich and the very poor" is a big problem... in China!
But bash away at the USA! It's been a "problem" since the dawn of humanity. |
|
richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
398 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:08:11 PM
as I said before,
Taxation and revenues are a clinically defined mathematical sum based on thousands of years of market study, not a generalized feeling of quality like "fairness" or "what should be". I understand the argument but it isn't reasonable, it would hurt more people than it helped. |
|
richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
398 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:17:10 PM
"but it can't afford to take a HIGH LEVEL INCOME based tax cost."
@klaxor: ok I'm back but doing some home repairs, so I won't be able to answer as fast as before.
In regards to your questions about income tax, as you tax higher amounts of personal income, despite if it be from rich or middle class. After a certain point the total revenues from the tax begin to decrease, its known as the "region of declining revenue." It's occurs because of more incentive traps, demotivation, corruption, and increasing inefficiencies as income taxes increase.
In essence, in a non-extreme example, if you had 100 people at a tax of $10 a day you make $1000 a day in revenue. If you increase it to $50 a day, some people will leave or give up, some will hide their money, some choose other forms of payment, ect. Then you end up with say 17 people who fill the void and still pay the $50 tax. Yet now your only making $850 in revenues. It's an opportunity cost of $150 |
|
richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
398 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:12:06 PM
 |
|
5Cats
Male, 40-49, Canada
16929 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:08:35 PM
How is a CEO making less money a cost to the company. Hell, it frees up more funds.
@klaxor: How does "taxing a CEO" free up money for a company? You wonder if I can read? lolz! Srsly dude...
Speaking of "ignorant asses who spew pseudo-economic bullpooe" do you have the faintest idea what "predatory pricing" is?
You charge a low-low price, steal customers, drive the cometition out of business, gaining a "monopoly". Then... you RAISE prices and make lots of money! There's no more competition, so consumers have NO CHOICE but to pay!
Basic. Economic. Priciples. You seem to not understand a single one of them.
@HumanAction: You're correct! @klaxor seems to have trouble understanding ANY of this!
ESPECIALLY: That R.Reich is asking for a tax on WEALTH, NOT INCOME!! Get the two straight before replying, k-thx! |
|
 HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
1139 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 11:16:21 AM
The reason that they don't is b/c their prices are all as low as they can be.
Thus, if your $5/dildo tax was levied against all of them, which do you suppose would be able to keep selling dildos at the lowest price? It would still be Walmart. Additionally, more people would buy their dildos from Walmart and these other retailers may stop selling dildos entirely. So, your dildo tax has actually led to a pseudo-monopoly.
If the CEO a smaller company makes 500k, and there's a tax on CEO's that make over 2 million, then why would he raise his prices to offset a tax that doesn't affect him?
What does this have to do with taxing dildos? I don't understand how you've considered this to be a reasonable defense to your suggested $5/dildo tax.
It would appear that you should attempt to read more precisely as the may assist you in staying on topic. |
|
HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
1139 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 11:11:30 AM
@klaxor
Jeez, someone else who can't read.
Really? Are you sure this is the road you want to go down? You offered a hypothetical situation based on an absurd assumption in a pathetic attempt to validate your argument. What's more, you vainly attempted to relate it to a free market system.
I'm sorry your feelings were hurt that I called you out for your bullsh*t. That being said, your argument was still bullsh*t.
Kmart, Target, Bestbuy, Costco
So, in your attempt to disprove my statement that corporate taxation leads to the growth of corporations, you offer a variety of corporations that could benefit? Do you see why I would have an issue with this logic?
So yea, Walmart can take a SALES tax cost, but it can't afford to take a HIGH LEVEL INCOME based tax cost.
We were discussing you $5/dildo tax. That is a sales tax, not an income tax. |
|
klaxor
Male, 18-29, Western US
647 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:59:45 AM
@HumanAction - Jeez, someone else who can't read.
First of all, there's more than one corporation willing to sell cheap chinese goods other than Walmart. Kmart, Target, Bestbuy, Costco and many others are willing to undercut Walmarts prices if given the chance. The reason that they don't is b/c their prices are all as low as they can be.
The CEO's of smaller companies most likely make less than those of bigger companies. If the CEO a smaller company makes 500k, and there's a tax on CEO's that make over 2 million, then why would he raise his prices to offset a tax that doesn't affect him? He won't. And if he doesn't, why would Walmart? They can't. Not without risking the loss of customers.
So yea, Walmart can take a SALES tax cost, but it can't afford to take a HIGH LEVEL INCOME based tax cost. |
|
HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
1139 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:33:09 AM
@klaxor
His neighbor will steal his customers, and the guy will be even worse off than before.
This assumes that the "neighbor" is more efficient than the original seller. The problem, of course, is that the most efficient entities tend to be large corporations as they typically enjoy a much lower cost per unit output.
With this in mind, we find that large corporations tend to be the entities that can absorb such costs as tax increases; as such, they are more capable of shielding consumers from price increases than smaller competitors. Inevitably, consumers will migrate to the lower priced product (See: Walmart).
Corporate taxes, in any form, assist in the creation of corporations. They do not punish or spread the wealth of corporations. Rather, they remove potential competition from the market and accelerate the formation of pseudo-monopolies. |
|
klaxor
Male, 18-29, Western US
647 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 9:56:45 AM
"It's just that the worst idea ever is to let the government have more money. "
- Except for the fact that govt has run a huge deficit that they have to pay back if they ever want to be able to borrow money again.
"I am dumb cause I think the problem isn't how much taxes will bring in but in the deregulation of the stock market"
- Those two are kind of connected. Low regulation requires low taxes. |
|
klaxor
Male, 18-29, Western US
647 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 9:50:35 AM
"Can someone explain where all that money they lost went to?"
- Depends on what money you're talking about. In terms of the housing crash, people were selling each other other people's debt. The problem came when people couldn't pay back that debt. They declared bankruptcy and the debt was cancelled, which is fine for the bank, b/c they get a really expensive house as collateral, which they can sell. But, when there are a lot of expensive houses that nobody wants/can buy, then they are no longer that expensive, and the money invested in it is lost.
It's like hot potato, where a bunch of people bet on one guy, and if that guy loses, they lose their money, and the guy says "well, you shouldn't have bet on me. |
|
klaxor
Male, 18-29, Western US
647 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 9:35:26 AM
" Oh, I guess you are scared. Poor bunny! "
- I'm scared of ignorant asses who spew pseudo-economic bullpooe that they pick up from other ignorant asses who spew pseudo-economic bullpooe.
It's like a human centipede of dumbass. And, just like in the movie, it's the middle class that ends up eating all the pooe |
|
klaxor
Male, 18-29, Western US
647 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 9:28:14 AM
@5cats - Manufacturing jobs move b/c of taxes on "production".
SO, if you impose a $5 tax on dildo's, then yes, the cost of dildo's will go up by $5. But, if you tax the guy who makes dildo's by 5%, and he decides to raise the price by 5%, his
neighbor down the street may keep the prices where they are.
His neighbor will steal his customers, and the guy will be even worse off than before.
"O'really? Then just how did they get those multi-million dollar paycheques with multi-million dollar bonuses every year"
- Either, the company is doing well, they lie about how the company is doing, the bonuses are written into their contract, or they just don't tell anyone how much they actually get paid (lack of regulation).
"If the company makes less money (ie: does NOT pass the cost to the consumer)" - How is a CEO making less money a cost to the company. Hell, it frees up more funds. |
|
5Cats
Male, 40-49, Canada
16929 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 7:57:12 AM
We're not talking about foreign companies
@klaxor: What do you imagine they are after they move? srsly. And where do these "outsourced jobs" goto? Where do they make "Levi Jeans" now? China. Is Levi still an "American Company"? Yes, but the bulk of it's workers are not. It wouldn't take much for them to move the rest of their infrastructure "offshore" as well, and yes the shareholders would support more profits, duh!
I gotta go to bed people..good night, sleep tight, don't let the keynesians bite, lol.
@richanddead: You are far more patient and polite than I am! 
That "IAB thing" is from the character counter: the number of characters inside your link isn't counted, but does drive you over 1000, which causes that "eats the post below it" effect. (when you end on a link) |
|
5Cats
Male, 40-49, Canada
16929 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 7:48:26 AM
They can't just give themselves "a fat raise"at the expense of the company and piss off shareholders for no reason.
@klaxor: O'really? Then just how did they get those multi-million dollar paycheques with multi-million dollar bonuses every year? Eh?
#2 If the company makes less money (ie: does NOT pass the cost to the consumer) then the shareholders make less, and spend less on goods and services, and guess what? The POOR take the hit anyways!
@5cats, please read the entire conversation,
I've read EVERY WORD @klaxor, and why shouldn't I "pick what I disagree with" to discuss? You scared of being asked a simple question? Oh, I guess you are scared. Poor bunny!
"Mergers and acquisitions" = Yup!
Also: Stock options, bonuses, golden retirement plan... lots of ways. |
|
 Magentab0b
Female, 30-39, Western US
619 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 6:51:22 AM
I am dumb cause I think the problem isn't how much taxes will bring in but in the deregulation of the stock market. Who cares if we fix the economy now when we will probably mess it up again in 2045. This is a short term solution for the cry of "fix the economy" when we should be saying "no more bubbles." |
|
scapegoat7
Male, 18-29, Western US
200 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:37:42 AM
Honestly, fuq the government. Both parties work for the rich. The banks, wall street, and huge corporations screwed up the economy and stole TRILLIONS from tax payers. The government wont even go after these greedy mofo's because their "too big to jail". fuq that. When they break the laws and ruin the economy they get bailed out and we get raped up the ass.
Can someone explain where all that money they lost went to? |
|
onoffonoffon
Male, 30-39, Western US
1245 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:16:49 AM
I'm all for the greedy corporations not getting so rich off of cheap labor. It's just that the worst idea ever is to let the government have more money. Why couldn't they just not allow corporate lobbyists. Oh wait I forgot... the lobbyists are needed to help the leaders decide what to do ie. make life easy for giant multinationals. |
|
klaxor
Male, 18-29, Western US
647 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:02:04 AM
@richanddead - you're also just giving me a bunch of what ifs and "extreme cases", and the situations that you're giving me are just not as simply as you want to make them seem., especially when you move out of a closed economy and into a global one. Other countries' economies don't operate in the same western economic manner that you think that they do.
"We'll just agree to disagree" - and get led into a f*ing economic depression along the way |
|
richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
398 Posts
|
Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:01:01 AM
@klaxor: As of April 17, 2012, most of the cruises that visited the island are leaving because of their own economic reasons.
Here
It effects the tourism industry there. Now seriously, I'm turning the PC off, see you tomorrow if you have more questions. |
|
richanddead
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
398 Posts
|
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:49:11 PM
I gotta go to bed people..good night, sleep tight, don't let the keynesians bite, lol. |
|
klaxor
Male, 18-29, Western US
647 Posts
|
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:47:12 PM
"No thats it's independent GDP, what are you going on if not the regional GDP? Anyway it said, if you read it, the majority comes from manufacturing jobs"
- How does that make it economically helpful for the US. Especially with 13.5% unemployment, and with median income salaries of less than half of Mississippi's. If puerto rico is doing so wellthen why is it's population declining as people leave the island to come to the US,
and why is it's credit rating LOWER THN GREECE. Clearly, it is the diamond of the Caribbean. |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next >
|
Back to Listing
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}