[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31498071]That particle piece brings up an excellent point. If higher taxes lead to a worse economy, then the 40s/50s should have been our worst time, when income tax at its highest levels was 94%.[/quote]
um do you guys know anything bout the 40s and 50s and why we had such a boom then?
hint: it wasnt high taxes
[quote]Doesn't seem to actually put any statistics behind that.[/QUOTE]
i thought statistical evidence was irrelevant
[editline]3rd August 2011[/editline]
also the postwar boom is the perfect time to increase taxes anyways, it increases government revenue and can give the government a lot of money to do a lot of programs
but during a recession those taxes would cause a depression
[QUOTE=yawmwen;31498108]um do you guys know anything bout the 40s and 50s and why we had such a boom then?
hint: it wasnt high taxes[/quote]
I'm not saying high taxes caused that boom, but you're saying that high taxes hurt the economy. By that logic extremely high taxes should cripple it.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;31498108]i thought statistical evidence was irrelevant[/QUOTE]
No, when did I say this?
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31498182]I'm not saying high taxes caused that boom, but you're saying that high taxes hurt the economy. By that logic extremely high taxes should cripple it.[/quote]
even if you put on the brakes on a runaway train it will do little more than slow it for a while. maybe the growth would have been higher if taxes were lower during this time(although i hate to speculate about this), which is good because uncontrolled rapid growth could end very badly(see stock market crash of 1929)
[quote]No, when did I say this?[/QUOTE]
maybe it was humanabyss who said it...anyways the document i sourced analyses taxes and their effects on the economy from postwar to around 2000 i believe. statistics are sorta irrelevant here because you cant just say "gdp grew 1% in 1980 and taxes grew 2%" and say for every 2% of taxes gdp will grow 1%, there are too many causes of gdp growth or decline that you need to use scientific methods to actually see what caused and didnt cause the growth
Well, regardless of GDP growth, you mentioned something in particular: incentive for corporate spending. How do lower taxes encourage corporations to spend more wisely/more money than if taxes were higher?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;31498311]even if you put on the brakes on a runaway train it will do little more than slow it for a while. maybe the growth would have been higher if taxes were lower during this time(although i hate to speculate about this), which is good because uncontrolled rapid growth could end very badly(see stock market crash of 1929)
maybe it was humanabyss who said it...anyways the document i sourced analyses taxes and their effects on the economy from postwar to around 2000 i believe. statistics are sorta irrelevant here because you cant just say "gdp grew 1% in 1980 and taxes grew 2%" and say for every 2% of taxes gdp will grow 1%, there are too many causes of gdp growth or decline that you need to use scientific methods to actually see what caused and didnt cause the growth[/QUOTE]
I never said that. Not even close.
Maybe it is when you say "Fact" and then cite a study then immediately after others post multiple studies saying the opposite thing. I'm simply of the mind that there are multiple sides to this, but that doesn't mean there's a lot of answers.
Flat tax rate for everyone.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31498386]Well, regardless of GDP growth, you mentioned something in particular: incentive for corporate spending. How do lower taxes encourage corporations to spend more wisely/more money than if taxes were higher?[/QUOTE]
the corporation has more money to spend. when a corporation has more money to spend the will generally use that money to expand and increase their profits further
now you will cite recent corporate profits to debunk this, but its arguable that the obama administration actually caused corporations to begin laying off workers and increasing their profits
[quote]This was the direct outcome of the Obama administration’s restructuring program, in which the government insisted that workers take major concessions. The contract forced onto auto workers in 2009 drastically increased the proportion of workers making $14 per hour, half the previous wage, combined with thousands of layoffs.
This White House-managed corporate restructuring, initiated in early 2009, opened the floodgates for other companies to take similar measures on their own initiative, using the economic crisis to lay off thousands and impose speedup and wage cuts on those who remained.[/quote]
[url]http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/corp-m01.shtml[/url]
either way you can use the logic that as the economy naturally begins to recover that these corporations will use their assets and profits they have made during the recession to expand and grow. i mean you dont think these corporations are going to just sit there for the next 50 years with their thumbs in their asses? they arent going to stagnate, they will expand when they feel they are ready
the government has to do their part with economic intervention to speed up this process and get corporations ready, and willing, to expand.
[editline]3rd August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31498550]I never said that. Not even close.
Maybe it is when you say "Fact" and then cite a study then immediately after others post multiple studies saying the opposite thing. I'm simply of the mind that there are multiple sides to this, but that doesn't mean there's a lot of answers.[/QUOTE]
they werent studies, they were pseudoscientific at best. my source was scientifically done
[editline]3rd August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Hostel;31498559]Flat tax rate for everyone.[/QUOTE]
flat tax actually taxes the poor more than the rich
Actually, when corporations have more money, they'll raise the pay of the guys on top instead of expanding the company by adding new jobs. This has been proven empirically because it's what happened when the bush tax cuts went into effect.
[QUOTE=Communist Cake;31498950]Actually, when corporations have more money, they'll raise the pay of the guys on top instead of expanding the company by adding new jobs. This has been proven empirically because it's what happened when the bush tax cuts went into effect.[/QUOTE]
so then when do corporations decide to expand?
So, assuming I read this right, this deal is all cuts and no tax revenue?
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];31499015']So, assuming I read this right, this deal is all cuts and no tax revenue?[/QUOTE]
yea
[QUOTE=Communist Cake;31498950]Actually, when corporations have more money, they'll raise the pay of the guys on top instead of expanding the company by adding new jobs. This has been proven empirically because it's what happened when the bush tax cuts went into effect.[/QUOTE]
What kind of argument are you making? That a company won't necessarily expand if they have more money? That expansion isn't necessarily linked to tax breaks but more to other factors? If you establish that a business can only expand with saved money, and that tax breaks allow businesses to save more money, it is logical to say that tax breaks will allow businesses to expand faster. It seems as though you're saying that any money saved through tax cuts will only affect the corporate heads, yet there are a studies like the one I'm linking to below that find that corporate tax hikes cause a lowering in the average worker wage while corporate tax cuts cause an increase in worker wage.
[url]http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr169.pdf[/url]
It's fine to be against corporations and think they should be taxed at much higher rates, but you also can't ignore that an increase in the corporate tax will likely have a negative effect on the average worker's pay. If you want to think of it this was, the high ups are really greedy and want to keep their high salary the so when there are tax hikes they will take their money from their workers. You don't even have to acknowledge or believe that tax cuts do benefit the average worker, but it's certainly good to understand that higher corporate taxes don't result in lower CEO salaries.
So I've been out all day and you guys are my news source basically.
What happened?
[QUOTE=Dark Descent;31499578]So I've been out all day and you guys are my news source basically.
What happened?[/QUOTE]
Debt deal passed, no diarrhea.
Like i said earlier... china's gonna come a-knockin' one day, and what are we gonna say? 'lol nope we dun got ur money LOL'
[QUOTE=yawmwen;31499005]so then when do corporations decide to expand?[/QUOTE]
When they're taxed and there is no incentive to horde all their money.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;31500539]When they're taxed and there is no incentive to horde all their money.[/QUOTE]
was this a serious response?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;31500628]was this a serious response?[/QUOTE]
Typical response from someone who doesn't have an argument.
[editline]3rd August 2011[/editline]
I know that you aren't going to refute this and you'll make another crappy post, but whatever.
You know how Apple is sitting on $74 billion in cash? You do realize that's money that isn't being spent on hiring new employees or expanding the business in any way. It's jut being hoarded.
What do you think will get Apple to spend it on hiring new employees? Lower taxes? No. They'll just hoard more and the top executives will use it to buy private jets and hookers.
What you do is you tax the money that they're sitting on so they spend it so they pay less in taxes.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;31501143]Typical response from someone who doesn't have an argument.[/QUOTE]
um iv been arguing for a while i was asking an honest question because it sounded sarcastic
anyways taxing a corporation more doesnt make executives want to stop hoarding money, in fact they will do it more since they dont have the same incentive to produce, because they get a diminished return from the same work
proper, constructive, tax breaks provide incentive for corporations and companies to expand, this is a big part of keynesian economic theory
I'm fucking ftunk xcan sdomeone tell me if I should hide in my bomb shelter or nit? did we default err what
[QUOTE=bluesky;31501237]I'm fucking ftunk xcan sdomeone tell me if I should hide in my bomb shelter or nit? did we default err what[/QUOTE]
yea we did default
[editline]3rd August 2011[/editline]
i mean the answer to your question hasnt been said 5 times already
[QUOTE=yawmwen;31501204]um iv been arguing for a while i was asking an honest question because it sounded sarcastic
anyways taxing a corporation more doesnt make executives want to stop hoarding money, in fact they will do it more since they dont have the same incentive to produce, because they get a diminished return from the same work
proper, constructive, tax breaks provide incentive for corporations and companies to expand, this is a big part of keynesian economic theory[/QUOTE]
They obviously have little to no incentive to produce when taxes are as low as they are now.
oh fuck were all fucked oh shit oh shit
I have six dollars, I'm already in michigan im gonna boat to canada and start a new life
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;31501254]They obviously have little to no incentive to produce when taxes are as low as they are now.[/QUOTE]
taxes are not low now, they are still pretty high. another 5% cut would be a good start. and there are other factors that are making corporations hesitant to produce, a large part being the fact we are in a god damn recession and shit doesnt happen overnight.
if taxes were raised our recession would deepen and take a lot longer to recover from. it would not get better.
taxes and spending need to be counter-cyclical, lowering with economic downturn and raising with economic boom
[editline]3rd August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=bluesky;31501269]oh fuck were all fucked oh shit oh shit
I have six dollars, I'm already in michigan im gonna boat to canada and start a new life[/QUOTE]
i was being sarcastic, we didnt default
i think megafanx should edit the op with
[b]WE DID NOT DEFAULT GUYS, THE BILL WAS PASSED[/b]
The government didn't put any regulations on derivatives so cases like Enron in 2001 and Bear Stearns in 2007 will keep happening which will cause other banks and business to collaspe around them.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;31501294]taxes and spending need to be counter-cyclical, lowering with economic downturn and raising with economic boom
[/QUOTE]
This is true but we already fucked up by lowering taxes since Bush was elected.
So we cut taxes then spent all of our money one the military which is 100% inflationary and is a major factor of the recession.
And the entire point of the counter cyclical taxation is control the money supply. Money isn't flowing if huge corporations are sitting on billions of dollars. What we should do is tax them then use it pay for universal healthcare.
At this point it doesn't even matter what the corporate tax rate is. No matter how low it is, corporations will continue to look for excuses to cheat their employees out of a few bucks and do everything they can to not hire more employees.
Hah. All the people going "omg we're all gonna die." Or "Nice knowing all of you."
Our country is still fucked, even if the bill was passed.
So...that new committee thing, what's the deal with that? My conspiracy theory friend thinks it's going to start a dictatorship or something
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;31501423]This is true but we already fucked up by lowering taxes since Bush was elected.[/quote]
we have fucked up by running at a deficit for such a long time whether the economy was growing or shrinking. bush's tax cuts were ill-conceived and badly implemented, but this isnt the only fuckup
[quote]So we cut taxes then spent all of our money one the military which is 100% inflationary and is a major factor of the recession.[/quote]
yea, in a perfect world we wouldnt be funding the military nearly like we do
[quote]And the entire point of the counter cyclical taxation is control the money supply. Money isn't flowing if huge corporations are sitting on billions of dollars. What we should do is tax them then use it pay for universal healthcare.[/quote]
that becomes a diminishing return on the part of the government as well. if we lower taxes now(constructively) and stimulate the economy we will be able to raise taxes back up when the economy begins recovering and that revenue will be much greater
[quote]At this point it doesn't even matter what the corporate tax rate is. No matter how low it is, corporations will continue to look for excuses to cheat their employees out of a few bucks and do everything they can to not hire more employees.[/QUOTE]
thats what a corporation does, in a nutshell, in any case. they want to hire as few workers for as cheap as possible to get high profits. but at some point these corporations are going to need to expand and the tax cuts are a great way to give them more power to do so.
why is a corporation going to want to sit there and not exploit the economy for larger profits? they arent doing it now because of uncertainty, fear, and lack of demand for goods and services. but as surely as the seasons change, so will the economic climate, and we want to give every push we can to ensure a shorter winter, and create a longer more prosperous summer.
also im not just saying cut taxes and forget about it, taxes have to be cut in conjunction with stimulus projects such as infrastructure, so that more demand for goods and services is created. lower taxes and increased demand will provide a great incentive for corporate expansion
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.