Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 370
view profile
History
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climatePage 14 of 17    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
Money is on the side of the producers. That is supply-side. That is what you want. Well, you got it.

It's just that it's having the effect that the rest of us have been trying to tell you it would. You can cite Oblamo, and history will agree in part, I'm sure. However, congress' legacy will be quite a bit more tarnished-- of that, I am also sure.


Uhmmm.. It isn't supply-side that dictates that money is on the side of the producers. It is reality, life, and unchangeable. Even removing the concept of money wouldn't change it. The resources are on the side of the producers.

It is that core problem why communism and centrally controlled resource mgmt systems are doomed to class and oppression problems. Someone is always at the top.

The idea of being okay with rich people being rich and rewarding people for labor through wages and even encouraging with money and the value of money is to account for this while at the same time accounting for the inborn selfishness of humans. You account for it to take advantage of it. It's not a bad thing. People suck... make the best of it.

The best effort on this wasn't to create a system of equality where everyone gets rich or or where everyone is at some level determined by the state to be "fair". It is simply to have a functioning engine that allows for success and failure and class mobility. The opportunity to try. Class is not set at birth. Your own efforts, luck, skill, or anything are able to be put to use. Those at the top can fall, those at the bottom can succeed.

This isn't fitting reality to fit an idea. It is basing an idea on reality. You don't have to like it but it is what you are trying to change... reality.

The entertainment world and all those super rich famous celebrity elite understand this. They give away lots of money, adopt kids from third world countries and support everyone about how unfair the system is. yet they don''t equalize their life and live in regular middle class either. They get kind of upset when their toys and money are taken away also. The money doesn't turn them into better people either.

The biggest problem is Government being a provider. It is monopolistic behavior and breaks the basic principles. When you introduce a monkey wrench into a system the system will react.

The conclusions I "jump" to regarding taxes and jobs is because of experience. The idea that companies can use profits to invest "because" of higher taxes as a means to lower their tax burden is flawed because it assume that companies are not already trying to increase their profits. That is the goal every day. The budget planning meetings happen regardless of tax situation. That means that there is something else driving the situation and the taxes are not addressing it. Address that and you can leave taxes low and revenue would rise. Taxes are not the problem. Something else is.

I say it is environmental and created by the rhetoric of liberalism in it's current state attacking the producers. This doesn't necessarily require a conspiracy. I would mean that rich people are concerned and worried about risk. They are in a type of protection mode.

The idea that 'the rich' are doing this on purpose does require a conspiracy. It would require all rich people being greedy. That is just not realistic.

Being in protection mode better explains why there are fits and starts but little traction on the economy.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 371
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/16/2013 2:38:58 PM
The conclusions I "jump" to regarding taxes and jobs is because of experience.

Yes... and I notice that 'mr. experience" still hasn't responded to:

BTW I seem to recall you saying something about trying to start a business... How did that work out for you...?



The idea that companies can use profits to invest "because" of higher taxes as a means to lower their tax burden is flawed because it assume that companies are not already trying to increase their profits.

ROFLMAO

How the f*ck do you come to that conclusion...? Either this is a perfect example of what we have been saying about "just making sh!t up", a perfect example of what we have been saying about "a lack of critical thinking", or a perfect example of what I said about "conservatives seeing the world as binary images"... Personally, I think all three cover it but, that's just me...

Anyone else happen to catch Mungjoe's assertion that companies should spend thier profits and take advantage of the temporary tax reductions (DEDUCTIONS) in order to expand their business.

You shouldn't try to pretend that you are me (or at least on the same level)... You haven't got the hang of it yet...

Not contradictory at all....

This is one of the few things you have gotten right this entire thread... Try to remember how you managed to pull it off, it might come in handy...

I keep trying to figure out what the basis is.

I would suggest trying harder, even Avis understood why THAT was necessary...

Guess I am just wrong again.

Holy cow...! Are we 'on a roll' here...?

Okay, so you think that raising taxes is good...

See...? There you go again with the horsesh!t (guess I praised too soon, I guess that's what happens when you are an optimist)... I've never once said taxes are "good", it's only in your lack of logic that you find such things... I have, however asserted and/or implied that taxes are necessary and sometimes that necessity requires higher taxes... There is a world of difference between necessary and "good" (in the way you imply) but seeing that requires critical thinking rather than just making making sh!t up to suit your own biases...

So, just as a question from the idiot you think I am. Do you think it is a lack of trying and unwillingness to spend money that prevents companies from expanding their business to increase profits?

Well, that's a start... It's not quite acceptance but it is a step up from denial... On to your question...

Two words: "risk aversion"... Especially common among conservatives (it's one of the things that make them conservative) though they are either loathe to admit it or in complete denial...

If it is a wise decision for a company to reinvest their profits and grow when tax rates are high.... wouldn't it be just as wise (or wiser) to grow when rates are low?

Yes, they can expand during low tax years, it just wouldn't necessarily be "as wise or wiser" (see a bit further down for why)... but doing it during high tax times has a better chance of paying out REALY big later on... The increase in profits you realize through this will become huge if tax rates go down later, plenty of buffer for further growth or future increases in tax; when you do this during low tax times your profit levels won't grow as a result of future tax increases (you'll just have to figure out how you're going to expand further or eat the increase)...

^^^^It's kind of the same. A company that spends $100 million expanding their business when tax rates are 39% doesn't pay the high rate on that money like they would if it was still in their bank account. But they still spent $100 million.

Yes, I know... In fact I believe that, in suggesting the expansion, I said they would have to spend a large amount of money initially to make it happen and reap the returns in subsequent years... Or did you miss the part where I said:

I'm having them dump in an additional $45,750,000 of pre-tax (which will take taxable doen to a pittance in comparison) in one year to earn an additional $10 million the following and subsequent years...

Or did you somehow interperate that as "I'm having them save an additional $45,750,000 of pre-tax"...
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 372
view profile
History
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/16/2013 3:11:21 PM

Yes... and I notice that 'mr. experience" still hasn't responded to:

Because I don't have to answer to you like that. Not only did I forget the question but responding to it does nothing but serve to further your incessant ad hominem style of argument.


ROFLMAO

How the f*ck do you come to that conclusion...?

I came to that conclusion. Was there another one you thought would be more appropriate?


You shouldn't try to pretend that you are me (or at least on the same level)... You haven't got the hang of it yet...


You said:

The smart company takes advantage of the situation to temporarily reduce thier tax liabilities by reinvesting back into the company to raise thier revenue stream... That company (the smart one) will offset the impact on profit and maintain/increase thier real dollar profits for subsequent years, making themselves more viable and vibrant and providing thier shareholders (or themselves in a 'close corp.') with larger 'real dollar' dividends (despite with a lower revenue-to-profit ratio)...

I read that as you saying that it is beneficial for "smart companies" to take advantage of tax liabilities by reinvesting back into the company to raise their revenue. That sure sounds like "take deductions and reinvest" as a kickstart to growth. I agree.


. I've never once said taxes are "good", it's only in your lack of logic that you find such things...

Did you just turn republican or something? Why can't you even claim the most logical position that you could possibly have. If you didn't think they were good then why would you advocate them?


This is one of the few things you have gotten right this entire thread... Try to remember how you managed to pull it off, it might come in handy...

So, by me saying you advocate taxes which above you just attacked as being made up by me and then you saying that you advocate taking advantages of deductions which you don't like that companies lower their rates by that method now... You then say my sarcastic implied "not contradictory" was now actually true and it wasn't contradictory. Twisting in the wind I see.


Well, that's a start... It's not quite acceptance but it is a step up from denial

So, you can't even reluctantly even partially agree with a statement without an attack. You wonder why the conversation degrades into nonsense when it's like talking to a prickly plant. Just remove the plant and the ly.


Two words: "risk aversion"... Especially common among conservatives (it's one of the things that make them conservative) though they are either loathe to admit it or in complete denial...

Have never met a conservative that didn't admit to risk aversion. Being safe. Going slow. Or whatever little phrase you seem to be attributing as a negative. It's called, thinking things through and being prepared. I do it all the time. I can't help it. How is this possibly a negative trait?

Nothing you retorted about contained a single bit of logical negation of anything I said other then stamping your feet on the ground and blowing raspberries. Give me a reason to doubt my own positions.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 373
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/16/2013 4:03:32 PM

Give me a reason to doubt my own positions.

OK... Your "support" for your positions is riddled with logical failings, false assumptions, failures of critical analysis and just plain false "facts"... That should be enough to make anyone doubt thier positions... Of course, we have pointed all of that out to you, numerous times, and it doesn't seem to have taken yet... I seriously doubt it will take now even though the problem can't be explained any more simply...
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 374
view profile
History
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/16/2013 4:29:19 PM
. Of course, we have pointed all of that out to you, numerous times, and it doesn't seem to have taken yet... I seriously doubt it will take now even though the problem can't be explained any more simply...

I pointed out yours and showed your position has a lack of logical foundation also. So, while you may not agree with my position I also do not agree with yours. So, where is the basis that you have a solid foundation. You have yet to make an actual argument in support of your case. Sorry, you sucks at this. You spend so much time pointing out how wrong I am that you missed the entire point that you are also.

BTW... if you claim you are not wrong and in fact are the holder of actual truth. You have a very steep hill of evidence to start delivering.

Go ahead. Make your case.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 375
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/16/2013 4:35:19 PM

I pointed out yours and showed your position has a lack of logical foundation also.

ROFLMAO

I'm afraid that you will be the only person on this thread who will perceive it that way... But at least you are consistent, I will give you that much credit...
 427cammer
Joined: 3/1/2008
Msg: 376
view profile
History
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/16/2013 6:14:45 PM
Mungojoe

Yes, they can expand during low tax years, it just wouldn't necessarily be "as wise or wiser" (see a bit further down for why)... but doing it during high tax times has a better chance of paying out REALY big later on... The increase in profits you realize through this will become huge if tax rates go down later

No, you're running a race against an imaginary horse.

It's as if you've got a 50% off coupon for a new car. The price of the car you want is $30,000..... by next year (for whatever reasons) that same car is priced at $40,000. You can hold on to that coupon and buy a car next year and tell yourself you saved $5,000 more than if you'd bought this year. In reality you paid $20,000 when you could have got it for $15,000.

^^^^ of course none of this factors in the depreciation of the car once you drive it off the lot. You might be better off to say "Screw the 50% off coupon" and drive your old clunker for another 5 years and then buy a used car with low mileage.

If your business has a million dollars in the bank and an opportunity exists to expand your business and see a 20%
return on that money anually, you're better off to do that expansion RIGHT NOW, regardless of which way taxes are going.... every extra year that money is invested will bring you $200,000 in profits.... just taxed at different rates.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 377
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/16/2013 10:49:02 PM

No, you're running a race against an imaginary horse.

It's as if you've got a 50% off coupon for a new car. The price of the car you want is $30,000..... by next year (for whatever reasons) that same car is priced at $40,000. You can hold on to that coupon and buy a car next year and tell yourself you saved $5,000 more than if you'd bought this year. In reality you paid $20,000 when you could have got it for $15,000.

OK, now this is just dense... Whether I expand before a tax increase comes into effect or after it comes into effect, I'm still spending the same $45 million... I'm putting $45 mill in if I do it before taxes increase and I'm putting $45 mil in if I do it after an increase comes in... Either way, I am spending the same $45 mil...


Yes, they can expand during low tax years, it just wouldn't necessarily be "as wise or wiser" (see a bit further down for why)... but doing it during high tax times has a better chance of paying out REALY big later on... The increase in profits you realize through this will become huge if tax rates go down later

If your business has a million dollars in the bank and an opportunity exists to expand your business and see a 20% return on that money anually, you're better off to do that expansion RIGHT NOW, regardless of which way taxes are going.... every extra year that money is invested will bring you $200,000 in profits.... just taxed at different rates.

Ok, first off, I noticed you felt it necessary to truncate my quote when you responded... I'm wondering why... So let's put the whole thing out there, just because...

Yes, they can expand during low tax years, it just wouldn't necessarily be "as wise or wiser" (see a bit further down for why)... but doing it during high tax times has a better chance of paying out REALY big later on... The increase in profits you realize through this will become huge if tax rates go down later, plenty of buffer for further growth or future increases in tax; when you do this during low tax times your profit levels won't grow as a result of future tax increases (you'll just have to figure out how you're going to expand further or eat the increase)...

Now I'm sort of happy...

Second, I pointed out that it wouldn't necessarily be "as wise or wiser", not that it absolutely wouldn't be "as wise or wiser"... The part you left out clearly illustrates exactly why it wouldn't necessarily be "as wise or wiser"... Perhaps this is why you felt such the need to truncate the quote, as it would be destructive of your attempt...

Third, you're attempting to "move the goalposts"... You know damn well the issue at hand is "raising taxes" and my comments were based on a scenario where there was a tax increase coming...

I have no problem acknowledging that, in a general scenario, that it would a good move to expand when taxes are low and are expected to stay flat or decrease over time... I said as much in the part you quoted... the same is true for expanding when taxes are high and both are equally wise as both take equal advantage of the prevailing climate...But that is NOT the scenario we are talking about here (this is where you are trying to "move the goalposts")... We are talking about how a business should respond to a tax increase and when compared with "hunkering down", laying off employees, riding it out, the scenario I proposed is infinitely superior and you know it...

Fourth, when viewed from my full quote (expanding when higher taxes are expected and having them drop afterwards vs expanding when low taxes are expected and having them go up) the claim that you are better off with expansion when taxes are high and they drop compared to expansion when taxes are low and they rise is absolutely right... The only time that the claim in your quote above (they are equal) is true for this scenario is if there is an almost exact split between the years of low tax and the years of high tax (e.g. ~2.5 years at the low rate and ~2.5 years at the high rate)... I'll illustrate that with the previous example:

Profit for expansion at 39% for 2 yrs, 60% for 3 yrs
$262,570,000

Profit for expansion at 60% for 2 yrs, 39% for 3 yrs
$285,355,000

Now you can keep trying this foolish, stupid little game of "moving the goalposts", posting in the style of "another poster" and I'll treat it as a foolish, stupid little game, same as I do with "another poster"... Or you can continue with the honest discussion we started and I'll treat it as honest just as I have so far...
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 378
view profile
History
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/17/2013 7:25:12 AM

Now you can keep trying this foolish, stupid little game of "moving the goalposts", posting in the style of "another poster" and I'll treat it as a foolish, stupid little game, same as I do with "another poster"... Or you can continue with the honest discussion we started and I'll treat it as honest just as I have so far..

Glad you are not an angry person.

You seem to think you have the world covered with your responses. How does your position of the truth of the world explain and account for these current problems?

Protection and increasing cash rather then investing.
Consolidation of industries to increasingly larger and larger companies.
Lack of hiring despite the high unemployment which should decrease wages. (employers market)

Please show how generally raising taxes will correct these problems.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 379
view profile
History
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/17/2013 8:53:51 AM

That doesn't seem to be an unlikely possibility even if tax rates were higher. Of course, if you take into account the current situation where the consumer is unemployed and out of money, then even the most positive thinker would have some doubts about investing.

In the end, those who have the cash now may be in for a lot of trouble.


Nice answer.

Now, only one part I would ask that you consider for revision.


I would venture to say that the lack of hiring is due to the lack of prospect for future growth, a situation that was caused by the businesses themselves.

You have tied all of your answers which are generally true to self responsibility which I totally agree with. However, business does not sign bills into law. You must account for the other half of the environment. That is Government. Like it or not, in general, it requires both political parties to agree to get most laws passed. The current laws are typically the result of both sides agreeing.

With the outcome being, "In the end, those who have the cash now may be in for a lot of trouble." Then you should also see the problem with this outcome. It took Government and Business to create an environment where "the rich" are in for "a lot of trouble." Doesn't this seem at all strange to you?

There are at least three good arguments along this line.

It is a power struggle of Government vs Business in which there is a war between the two.
* more republican point of view (with the idea being there shouldn't be a war)
* more liberal point of view (with the idea that the war should be increased)
or
Government and Business are working hand in hand and are actually the same group trying to achieve an end.
* more liberal point of view as occurring
* more republican point of view as being needed.
or
It's just a mess and half the government is in a power struggle against the other half which makes this a natural part of government and unavoidable and Business is basically a victim.
* more republican point of view that liberals are at war against them
* more liberal point of view that republicans are at war against them
** Neither side claims responsibility for their own part. Both sides claim victim.

If the outcome of all of this is "those who have the cash now may be in for a lot of trouble." What is the cause? I would hope that you would agree that "in for a lot of trouble" is not a good outcome for anyone.
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 380
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/17/2013 10:22:34 AM

However, business does not sign bills into law. You must account for the other half of the environment. That is Government. Like it or not, in general, it requires both political parties to agree to get most laws passed. The current laws are typically the result of both sides agreeing.

You are somewhat correct in saying that business's do not sign bills into law, but you are leaving out the part where they create them and then pass them along to people who can.

Because business is not against the laws that the government enforces, they are just against the laws that keep them from totally f*cking over both their competition.



At the end of the day the facts are the major corporations are making record profits while paying record low tax levels and if people can not see how this affects the economy then IMO they have no business in entering into a discussion about said economy.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 381
view profile
History
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/17/2013 11:03:04 AM
Because business is not against the laws that the government enforces, they are just against the laws that keep them from totally f*cking over both their competition.

Sorry, your spittle flew out all over this sentence. Can you say it again in a way that forms an actual meaningful and complete sentence.


At the end of the day the facts are the major corporations are making record profits while paying record low tax levels and if people can not see how this affects the economy then IMO they have no business in entering into a discussion about said economy.

At the end of the day this is not the point of life. Those that can not see how their own attitudes are a bigger cause of today's problems should go take a Valium and sit it out.

There is a way to handle this but it takes someone that is NOT liberal and pissed off to address it.

Problem:
SOME companies are achieving record profits.
SOME industries are consolidating rapidly

You have to explain WHY only some and the answer is never going to be universally "Greed"

 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 382
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/17/2013 12:38:19 PM

Protection and increasing cash rather then investing.
Consolidation of industries to increasingly larger and larger companies.
Lack of hiring despite the high unemployment which should decrease wages. (employers market)

Please show how generally raising taxes will correct these problems.

You are going places with this where no one has been leading you. No one ever claimed that raising taxes would solve those problems. What HAS been implied is that a tax rise would not make those problems worse. However, there is a possibility that a tax rise would curb the "increasing cash" practice.

As for the current situation, I have already claimed in opposition to you that lowering business taxes would not help. In fact, it would hurt government revenues which are already strapped. I actually AGREE with you that tied deductions can be a good idea. I think they are just called tax credits.

My primary stance here is not so much pro-raising taxes on business. I want first to establish the feebleness of lowering taxes-- it is difficult even to get consensus on that. You and others talk of lowering taxes as the silver bullet in economics-- my main point here is to detail the flaws in that plan.

It is also evident from your post that all of our previous talk (and it was extensive) about the importance of healthy demand, which was in another thread, has fallen on deaf ears with you. Government "getting out of the way," whatever that means specifically, does NOT create demand.

To speak in a language that all Republicans understand, look at how Reagan spurred demand, although he didn't have to work around a housing crisis. Hint: it wasn't solely through lowering taxes and decreasing certain regulations! Those moves just spurred supply.

Second hint: massive deficit spending-- yes, government involvement! OK-- that wasn't merely a hint...

As I'm already explaining rather than hinting, Reagan increased demand by enlarging the military (the GOP accepted form of massive spending and enlarging government). He raised recruitment levels and raised salaries. He also ordered more nukes, subs, tanks, ships, and planes. That was a big cash cow for the private manufacturing/R&D sector. It is no shocker that demand was able to meet the loosened supply.

The major problem is it wasn't and isn't sustainable. I know trust fund children who are more fiscally conservative than Reagan. But it does get the economy moving. At least the Dems admit to being government spenders upfront and are willing to pay for it in part through increased taxation.
 427cammer
Joined: 3/1/2008
Msg: 383
view profile
History
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/17/2013 3:32:23 PM

Ok, first off, I noticed you felt it necessary to truncate my quote when you responded... I'm wondering why...

No maliciousness intended.

Third, you're attempting to "move the goalposts"... You know damn well the issue at hand is "raising taxes" and my comments were based on a scenario where there was a tax increase coming...

Not sure what "I knew damn well"... I thought you were trying to say that higher taxes are advantageous to a business if they have plans for expansion..... the tax write-off they get is more valuable than it would be with lower rates:

Yes, they can expand during low tax years, it just wouldn't necessarily be "as wise or wiser" (see a bit further down for why)... but doing it during high tax times has a better chance of paying out REALY big later on... The increase in profits you realize through this will become huge if tax rates go down later, plenty of buffer for further growth or future increases in tax; when you do this during low tax times your profit levels won't grow as a result of future tax increases (you'll just have to figure out how you're going to expand further or eat the increase)...

My position is that having and keeping lower tax rates is even more advantageous to the business (not neccesarily saying we should lower rates.... our government needs money too.... but from the businesses' standpoint lower taxes are always better).

Also my position is that if a business sees an opportunity to expand and has realistic expectations of decent returns on their money, then they should do it right now. Waiting a few years so their deductions align nicely with tax increases/decreases doesn't make sense.

^^^^^If business "A" does a million dollar expansion in 2013 and earns $600 grand in after tax profits over the next 5 yrs.... while business "B" waits until 2016 to maximize their deductions and realizes a $800 grand in profits over 5 yrs then business "A" probably still finishes ahead of the other guy. Company "A" has already recouped 40% of it's initial investment before "B" has even got started.

This is true because governments don't raise (or lower) rates by huge chunks at a time. A 20% increase would take at at least 5-10 years incrementally.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 384
view profile
History
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/17/2013 3:51:46 PM

You are going places with this where no one has been leading you. No one ever claimed that raising taxes would solve those problems. What HAS been implied is that a tax rise would not make those problems worse. However, there is a possibility that a tax rise would curb the "increasing cash" practice.

As for the current situation, I have already claimed in opposition to you that lowering business taxes would not help. In fact, it would hurt government revenues which are already strapped. I actually AGREE with you that tied deductions can be a good idea. I think they are just called tax credits.

My primary stance here is not so much pro-raising taxes on business. I want first to establish the feebleness of lowering taxes-- it is difficult even to get consensus on that. You and others talk of lowering taxes as the silver bullet in economics-- my main point here is to detail the flaws in that plan.

It is also evident from your post that all of our previous talk (and it was extensive) about the importance of healthy demand, which was in another thread, has fallen on deaf ears with you. Government "getting out of the way," whatever that means specifically, does NOT create demand.


We are not as far apart as you may think.
Now that neither of us think that increasing taxes will improve the situation... Stop and hold.

As I said before, I think we would be in a better position if nothing more then the election turned out differently. The reason is because I do also agree with this

As for the current situation, I have already claimed in opposition to you that lowering business taxes would not help


Taxes were raised at the fiscal cliff. However, the wrong taxes were raised. It shouldn't have been on 'the rich' it should have been deductions rather than raising overall rates.

Next, the argument of raising taxes on the 'rich' should never be used. Ever. It is not the role of the government to create public opinion regarding the fiscal success of individuals. Economic policy IS a function of government.

A valid use of taxes is slowing growth. This does not have to be a single rule that can be created that would properly apply across everyone and every industry appropriately at any one time. A valid reason to slow growth is economic bubbles. If a sector begins growing to fast or starts to become absorbed by individual companies than specific economic policy can be applied in those areas to "increase competition". "slow the growth" of oversized players. Tax breaks for smaller companies in specific areas vs tax breaks for all which are taken advantage of by the larger companies and which are used to continue keeping competition out.

A general policy that shifts for individual sectors would make more sense and would not continually punish the vast majority of business that didn't do anything wrong and it wouldn't be a punishment for the individual companies that did do well. It just helps keep the environment competitive. There are no picking winners. There is no reason to project feelings into the environment and cast a wrong headed portrayal of evil and manipulative rich.

If you see a problem you fix it. You do not begin divide and conquer techniques to smash out opposition and destroy the character of all the players involved.


As I'm already explaining rather than hinting, Reagan increased demand by enlarging the military

I also explained this and how it was related to one of the very few tweaks that the government can actually get involved with to create an expansion. That doesn't mean it can expand forever. The next follow up to that was the Internet. It was allowed to grow unregulated which must be recognized as the "fastest path" to growth.

Next, in the current environment taxes will not help. There is a human component that was tripped by the clash of cultures between right and left.

If you agree that taxes will not help the current business environment.
If I agree that lowering taxes will not help.

That only leaves what?

My suggestion is to roll back the upper rate increase from the fiscal cliff, and be smart with deduction rollbacks rather then blanket "rich" people attacks and have actual economists that are not in opposition to success determine administrations fiscal policy and not ideology.

Honestly, it is the blanket policies that are breaking things. We are to complicated to have a conversation regarding a one size fits all approach. These are not moral issues. We have an unknown lot of people constantly analyzing all aspects of economic health. Bubbles are fun but they cost and pop. Not doing that is probably a wiser fiscal policy then doing that.

Areas where you look and you think there is potential but unsure how to unlock it. GTFO of the way. If there is even any possibility of "green" energy being viable... Get out of the way. Hold off on regulating. Let it begin to bubble but watch out... if it is a false hope than a lot of people will lose their ass. That is risk. Let it happen. Do not rest the government on it. Wait until it actually becomes viable enough to properly support like oil.

My problem with liberals is that the ideology is based on false and misleading premises that rich people are an enemy bent on destroying the "working mans" rights. Get over yourselves. Living in the 1800's is not a whole lot different than living in the 1500's with religion. There is a reason why republicans can successfully use arguments against communism, Marxism and Lenin as weapons against the democrats.

The only way out is to not play the game right. None of us have really been taught how to not play.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 385
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/17/2013 4:49:04 PM

Glad you are not an angry person.

You seem to think you have the world covered with your responses.

I see you have been taking lessons from "yet another poster"... Things are starting to make a bit more sense now, it's much easier to see where the intellectual dishonesty is coming from...

This reminds me of another observation about the differences between liberal and conservative... When a liberal wants to "get under the skin" of a conservative, they tend to use points which annoy conservatives; when a conservative wants to "get under the skin" of a liberal, they tend to use points which annoy conservatives...

Protection and increasing cash rather then investing.
Consolidation of industries to increasingly larger and larger companies.
Lack of hiring despite the high unemployment which should decrease wages. (employers market)

I see you have asked yet another question which answers itself... What you have described is a self-perpetuating cycle that some businesses seem to have locked themselves into (and I would assert that "risk aversion" is the primary reason for that)... The last item on your list begets the first two, while the first two beget the third... Once you lock yourself into that path it takes a major shift in thinking to get out... Perhaps this is the problem for some conservatives, thier "natural risk aversion" prevents them from effectively adapting to dynamic situations (because they tend to demand the ability to quickly alter your way of thinking)...


I thought you were trying to say that higher taxes are advantageous to a business if they have plans for expansion..... the tax write-off they get is more valuable than it would be with lower rates:

I think it was pretty clear what I was saying: Expansion is advantageous to a business (over 'hunkering down') if higher tax rates are expected/present... The increase in revenues offsets the impact of the higher tax on their bottomline...

It may seem to be the way you interpreted it but, only if you ignore the rest of the sentence that you cut off the quote... You may note that there is not a period after "go down later" (not even my usual "unconventional" ellipsis) but a comma, which would indicate that the thought is not yet complete at that point and requires what follows for completion...

^^^^^If business "A" does a million dollar expansion in 2013 and earns $600 grand in after tax profits over the next 5 yrs.... while business "B" waits until 2016 to maximize their deductions and realizes a $800 grand in profits over 5 yrs then business "A" probably still finishes ahead of the other guy. Company "A" has already recouped 40% of it's initial investment before "B" has even got started.

In the short term, that is true but, not in the long term (or if you only count the 5 yr earnings of each)... To use your example...

You have "A" profits @600 for 5 years and "B" profits @800 for 5 years and in that case your statement is not correct... "A" profit equals $3000 and "B" profit equals $4000 (of course that is NOT what I think that you mean, below is what I think you are getting at)...

You have "A" profits @600 for 8 years and "B" profits @800 for 5 years and in that case you are correct... "A" profit equals $4800 and "B" profit equals $4000...

But what happens at 12 years...? "A" profit (@600 x 12) equals $7200 and "B" profit (@800 x 9) equals $7200... Which one comes out ahead at this point...?

And if we extend that model even longer, say over 15 years... Which one comes out ahead in the end...?
 427cammer
Joined: 3/1/2008
Msg: 386
view profile
History
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/17/2013 5:37:19 PM

In the short term, that is true but, not in the long term (or if you only count the 5 yr earnings of each)... To use your example...

You have "A" profits @600 for 5 years and "B" profits @800 for 5 years and in that case your statement is not correct... "A" profit equals $3000 and "B" profit equals $4000 (of course that is NOT what I think that you mean, below is what I think you are getting at)...

You have "A" profits @600 for 8 years and "B" profits @800 for 5 years and in that case you are correct... "A" profit equals $4800 and "B" profit equals $4000...

But what happens at 12 years...? "A" profit (@600 x 12) equals $7200 and "B" profit (@800 x 9) equals $7200... Which one comes out ahead at this point...?

And if we extend that model even longer, say over 15 years... Which one comes out ahead in the end...?

The extra deduction company B got (I never mentioned a rate... but I'm gonna say 20%.... it works out.... $600k vs $800k...) would be null and void after a year and a bit... after that both companies would be on equal footing again (same tax rates for both, company B has already recieved full benefit for the extra deduction).

... except company A has an additional $400 grand ready to invest by the year 2016 and take advantage of the same deductions company B got.

edit^^^^ I should have said null and void after five years.... my mind is fuzzy today
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 387
view profile
History
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/17/2013 5:49:48 PM
I see you have been taking lessons from "yet another poster"... Things are starting to make a bit more sense now, it's much easier to see where the intellectual dishonesty is coming from...

It apparently seems to be something that is required to get through before a real discussion can occur on divisive topics... so, get it all out (and there is a lot) and get it over with.


I think it was pretty clear what I was saying: Expansion is advantageous to a business (over 'hunkering down') if higher tax rates are expected/present... The increase in revenues offsets the impact of the higher tax on their bottomline...


But this is what I see as a flaw in your logic and thinking about this entire thing. It is based on the assumption that the business "knows how to grow". Making new money is really hard. Getting additional sales is hard. It is really really hard to come up with a new idea and to make a profit.

It is much easier to reduce costs and squeeze out more profits from what you already do... you already do what you do because it worked. It's like coming up with a second one hit wonder. It just isn't "on command".

Not only is it a risk to take a risk but having any clue about what risk to take is black magic. That was the point of my anecdotal story about the democratically run "idea" shop that I worked for. It failed from the day the CEO asked us for ideas. It virtually meant, "I am out of ideas... help me make money."

This is the norm. Your basis is flawed. Just as flawed as anything you have pointed out in my position.

http://www.campbellsoupcompany.com/atw_usa.asp


Our three most popular varieties are Chicken Noodle, Tomato and Cream of Mushroom, which are among the top 10 food items sold in grocery stores every week.


How do you top Chicken Noodle, Tomato and Cream of Mushroom soup? It isn't willingness to spend as much as the the idea that doesn't exist.
 427cammer
Joined: 3/1/2008
Msg: 388
view profile
History
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/17/2013 5:58:06 PM

You have "A" profits @600 for 5 years and "B" profits @800 for 5 years and in that case your statement is not correct... "A" profit equals $3000 and "B" profit equals $4000 (of course that is NOT what I think that you mean, below is what I think you are getting at)...

You have "A" profits @600 for 8 years and "B" profits @800 for 5 years and in that case you are correct... "A" profit equals $4800 and "B" profit equals $4000...

My mind is really fuzzzy.... I missed this.

I'm assuming both companies are identical..... for their million dollar investment they both expect to see 20% returns anually before taxes. Because company B managed to take advantage of an extra 20% deduction on that million, it's after tax profits are higher for a five year period... after five years the deductions are used up.

edit for below:

You are changing the model based on "what you didn't say the first time"...?!? Now you are asserting that "A" can still beat "B" by expanding a second time when "B" expands...

I'm not changing any model.... right from the start I said company A had $400 grand.... why shouldn't it invest?

This is my point.... as long as decent returns are expected it makes sense to invest NOW. I said this once already.... waiting around to play games with deductions won't pay off in a real world race.

 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 389
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/17/2013 5:59:05 PM

The extra deduction company B got (I never mentioned a rate... but I'm gonna say 20%.... it works out.... $600k vs $800k...) would be null and void after a year and a bit... after that both companies would be on equal footing again (same tax rates for both, company B has already recieved full benefit for the extra deduction).

... except company A has an additional $400 grand ready to invest by the year 2016 and take advantage of the same deductions company B got.

You are changing the model based on "what you didn't say the first time"...?!? Now you are asserting that "A" can still beat "B" by expanding a second time when "B" expands... What you are doing is attempting to "stack the deck"... If we are going to take that tack, what, exactly, stops "B" from expanding again after 3 years (they can STILL use thier net pre-tax income to do this)... And then who ends up ahead over the long term if we continue to equalize the number of expansions each company makes (this is a rhetorical question)...?

We COULD continue to go around in circles with you saying "but what if "A" does y" and me responding with "what if "B" does y too" but, don't you think that would devolve into a "who's on first" comedy routine rather quickly...?
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 390
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/18/2013 5:38:10 PM
Yanno...the basics of coroporate taxes are no real mystery...the intricacies are...

But, if corporate taxes are so high, and have been for some time (the rate hasn't changed), then why are corporations holding on to $2 trillion in cash in America??? From a purely tax leverage POV there would be some reinvestment into the corporation, but there isn't...leading one to conclude all the GOP hoopla about the corporate tax rate isn't very close to factual.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 391
view profile
History
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/18/2013 5:45:47 PM
http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/in-the-mood-for-cash/2013/03/20/



The Economist reported last November that companies have been supplying cash rather than using it since 2008. Firms in the S&P 500 are holding close to a trillion dollars in cash on their collective balance sheets, an increase of 40% from the dark days of 2008.

President Obama has businesses scared to death of investing. Instead cash is sloshing around in banks around the globe. In fact, banks themselves are swimming in liquidity. The loan-to-deposit ratio of America's banks is a decades-low 70%. Plus, banks still have nearly $1.5 trillion parked at the central bank in excess reserves.

...

This cash hoarding is a worldwide phenomenon. Companies in Japan have increased their liquid assets by 75% since 2007 to $2.8 trillion. Canadian firms have $300 billion sitting on their balance sheets, a 25% increase from 2008.

Another effect of artificially lowered rates is the distortion of the appreciation of risk. According to Tyler Cowan, interest rates forced below the natural rate will lead businessmen to make risky investments (defined as 'long-term, costly to reverse, high-yielding, and having returns highly sensitive to the arrival of future information'), that leads to clusters of entrepreneurial error.


Isn't it pretty obvious... No one knows what to do. Politics have invaded business. People are scared to move. You get punished for succeeding. You get beaten to death if you screw up. You get taken to the cleaners if you spill.

I would call it an "unfriendly" business environment. You know... those places where people get their jobs from...
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 392
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/18/2013 5:48:28 PM
Isn't it pretty obvious... No one knows what to do.


Actually "some" of these business have been using some of their held cash....giving out one time dividends and stock buyback programs...and guess who benefits from that???
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 393
view profile
History
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/18/2013 6:12:21 PM
Some is always to be expected. Some is not an indicator of a systemic issue.

Although there are reasons for doing those things also and there is no reason to have a conclusion of greed. Apparently the terms exist for a reason.

Not being a shareholder means you don't get a piece. The purpose of public companies is to benefit "stake holders". If it wasn't for people buying stock and perceiving it as valuable enough to buy.... You are a stakeholder if you are a customer. If you are not a customer, not an employee, not a shareholder you have no say in how the company operates nor how it spends its money. You want a piece and a vote. Buy stock. You want to disagree with the company, don't buy their product. You have a grievance as an employee. See a lawyer. Forcing it through law. Foolish.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 394
Talking left and your view of the changes in political climate
Posted: 4/18/2013 6:20:24 PM

Not being a shareholder means you don't get a piece. The purpose of public companies is to benefit "stake holders". If it wasn't for people buying stock and perceiving it as valuable enough to buy.... You are a stakeholder if you are a customer. If you are not a customer, not an employee, not a shareholder you have no say in how the company operates nor how it spends its money. You want a piece and a vote. Buy stock. You want to disagree with the company, don't buy their product. You have a grievance as an employee. See a lawyer. Forcing it through law. Foolish.


You really need to stop drinking coffe and eating spicy foods...I don't know where this rant came from...


Although there are reasons for doing those things also and there is no reason to have a conclusion of greed. Apparently the terms exist for a reason.


Seriously, you show how nieve you are...do you happen to know who are the largest individual shareholders of most companies??? Apparently you don't...so, why don't you educate yourself...pick the fortune 500 companies you like and peruse the list of largest indivual shareholder...then come back and try to tell me something I don't know....geezeeeee...sometimes you actually sound like you know something...and then there are other times...where clearly you don't....this is one of them.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  >