Corportate Tax Breaks Explained for Marixt Idiots

[g5000]

I respectfully disagree.

I understand your reasoning, and it sounds reasonable. If person A weren't getting a tax break, than all of the rest of society would not need to have their taxes so high.

But others don't see it that way. Others see it from a different POV. They see it from the POV, if we didn't waste so much money, or have so many useless programs, than we wouldn't need to give out tax breaks to help grow the economy in order to bring in future revenue to keep the system generating growth and future revenue.

It is all a matter of perspective. Yours is not necessarily the only correct viewpoint.

The best way to come to consensus is to understand all POV, and to respect them, acknowledge them, and to see that there is some legitimacy in them.
Some Thoughts on Supply-side Economics
What jobs are unfilled?
Some believe tax breaks on the lower and middle classes will not grow the economy, create jobs, and thus create a future tax base.

Not to detract from the intellectual honesty of the link, but it is over 35 years old. The idea was
Having reached a dead-end in attempts to stimulate the economy on the side of "aggregate demand," the macroeconomic manipulators have now discovered there is a new set of economic equations that can be massaged on the "aggregate supply" side as well.

We have full employment and stagnant wages coupled with interest rates that even ten years ago would be unthinkably low with full employment and a DOW over 22K. There's simply no shortage of capital looking for a place to be invested. In fact, a good case can be made that our budget deficits and increasingly concentrated wealth at the top 1% are contributing to a bubble stock market.

The EU was driven by Germany financing debt for other countries to buy their shit. Our economy is driven by debt so we can buy shit from everyone. G5000's point is economically correct that the largest tax expenditure causes us to buy larger houses with ... more debt. This was not the case in 1980.

We do not have full employment, nowhere even close.

You may look at government unemployment, or employment numbers, I ignore them, to me, they are meaningless statistics used to boost the state's and economists' street cred.

Labor force participation is the health of the nation.


Unthinkably low interest rates are a danger sign, not a good sign. It means the poor and middle class cannot earn anything on their savings and must make riskier and riskier investments to secure a future. This is like putting a gun to your children's head and forcing them to go into a casino.


And that "capital" you are talking about? It is all an illusion. It was created out of thin air.

You have free choice. How much tax breaks a corporation gets have nothing to do with how much debt you take on. Get real.

What jobs are unfilled. What sectors are begging for workers. We have <4% employment with stagnant wages.

Normally when we have full employment, wages rise, not stagnate.

4% is considered full employment. But since we do not see wages rising, then something is broken. I am convinced it is because of the Fed's massive interference in the economy since the Great Recession. Way too many QEs.

The cause is the million dollar question. I don't think the answer is immigration...

Neither is the problem immigration.

Actually, to grow the economy at the pace Trump wants it to grow, we will need MORE legal immigration.

 

[g5000]

Our public-private debt to GDP ratio is crazy. That is the cause of our sluggish growth. And it is the reason recovery from recessions is getting more and more difficult.

The Fed's constant program of pain avoidance only makes the next pain even greater.

Eventually, our banking system's failures will be Too Big To Save. Then we are really fucked.

 

[Brain357]

Labor force participation is the health of the nation.

Ah. This is one of those things which really pisses of the pseudocons and makes them think I am a liberal.

Whenever one of these tards tried to blame the dropping LFPR on Obama, they would sometimes post a chart of LFPR which started in 2009. This is a very common tactic of their propagandists. They deliberately frame their propaganda in a very narrow window, knowing the parroting tards have no critical thinking skills.

I would then post a chart of LFPR going back much further to show it has been plunging since 2000.

Parroting rubes hate it when I knock the piss cup out of their hands from which they have been drinking.

Obama is not the cause of the dropping LFPR. It precedes him by nearly a decade.

Point of fact is that LFPR leveled out in the last years of Obama Administration. It stopped its downward trend.

Because I do rather well, my wife stopped working and is full time with kids. I don't think that is a bad economic indicator as some claim. In my case it's a sign the economy is doing well.

While you might be doing well, wages for average Americans have been stagnant for a long time. Most families still need two incomes to survive. The high number of welfare recipients suggests the LFPR need to be much higher.

From what group will more workers come from? Most welfare recipients are in the workforce.

 

[nat4900]

Truly. Let them go peddle that shit in Venezuela because nobody's buying it here.

I noticed that now the "paragon" of LEFTISM is Venezuela.....It used to be Russia before Trump's love affair with Russian oligarchs........Interesting....LOL

 

[MisterBeale]

They see it from the POV, if we didn't waste so much money, or have so many useless programs, than we wouldn't need to give out tax breaks to help grow the economy in order to bring in future revenue to keep the system generating growth and future revenue.

Tax breaks do not grow the economy. That is the flaw in your thinking.

In fact, the biggest individual tax deduction not only causes higher tax rates, it also increases the price of housing. It steals from every taxpayer, and redistributes wealth from their pockets into the pockets of mortgage lenders, home builders, and realtors.

That is why I say no self-respecting libertarian would be caught dead defending such government distortion of the markets. No self-respecting libertarian would be caught dead defending such government behavioral controls.

Ahhh. . .

So, if you are taxed at 100%, how much are you going to work? Or, if you are a producer, and you are taxed at 100%, how much are you going to produce?

Seriously, that statement, "Tax breaks do not grow the economy." THat is just about the stupidest thing you have ever written. Do not let those that hate you ever know you have written that.

If you ran a business, and you were taxed at 95%, you would not open up another branch or hire any more people. Yet, if your taxes were cut? C'mon, you seriously can't be that obtuse, really?

When I say "tax breaks", it was in the context of tax expenditures, not lower tax rates for everyone, idiot. That was made even more clear in the example of the MID I then spoke of.

And you should have known that, so you are either being obtuse or disingenuous.

I have said, repeatedly, cutting tax expenditures means lower tax rates for everyone.

That is the right way to stimulate the economy. Tax expenditures are KILLING the economy.

The MID that you just spoke of? I guess that is where you lost me. So then, cutting taxes does grow the economy, except in the case of tax expenditures. Got it. I don't know what the acronym MID is, clarify.

And I am trying to tell you, you are living in a fantasy world.

You believe that this is the right way to stimulate the economy. Others disagree.

I have read over the literature that is proposed by this destination-based cash flow tax (DBCFT), and I believe, this, in combination with budget cuts, might be a good compromise. The fact is, I don't think the central bank or international corporations will allow it.

 

[Reasonable]

Say for instance there's a large boat harbor on the seaside. The harbormaster's name is Mr. Sam and he owns the landing and the boat docks.

There are ten ships docked in the harbor. Each of the ship-owners pays Mr. Sam a yearly fee that goes into maintenance of the harbor, and to protect them from pirates.

One of the ship-owners is an enterprising man named Mr. Hat. He tells the harbormaster that he will do some minor renovations to the docks and will give jobs to some of the riff-raff hanging around the docks, if Mr. Sam will forgo the harbor fee for a year.

Now tell me: How much did the other nine ship-owners have to fork over to cover Mr. Hat's yearly fee?

You sure love you some corporate cock.

 

[MisterBeale]

Labor force participation is the health of the nation.

Ah. This is one of those things which really pisses of the pseudocons and makes them think I am a liberal.

Whenever one of these tards tried to blame the dropping LFPR on Obama, they would sometimes post a chart of LFPR which started in 2009. This is a very common tactic of their propagandists. They deliberately frame their propaganda in a very narrow window, knowing the parroting tards have no critical thinking skills.

I would then post a chart of LFPR going back much further to show it has been plunging since 2000.

Parroting rubes hate it when I knock the piss cup out of their hands from which they have been drinking.

Obama is not the cause of the dropping LFPR. It precedes him by nearly a decade.

Point of fact is that LFPR leveled out in the last years of Obama Administration. It stopped its downward trend.

 

[bendog]

No, I did not make that mistake. What I am saying is that it makes no difference if you cut spending or increase spending or if spending stays the same, tax expenditures are still a major contributor to higher tax rates. I was merely stating if we eliminated tax expenditures, we could lower tax rates for everyone, even BEFORE we cut any other kind of spending.

I am for cutting all kinds of spending. Tax expenditures are by far the biggest and most corrupt spending, and so most of my concentration is on this particular waste and theft.

I respectfully disagree.

I understand your reasoning, and it sounds reasonable. If person A weren't getting a tax break, than all of the rest of society would not need to have their taxes so high.

But others don't see it that way. Others see it from a different POV. They see it from the POV, if we didn't waste so much money, or have so many useless programs, than we wouldn't need to give out tax breaks to help grow the economy in order to bring in future revenue to keep the system generating growth and future revenue.

It is all a matter of perspective. Yours is not necessarily the only correct viewpoint.

The best way to come to consensus is to understand all POV, and to respect them, acknowledge them, and to see that there is some legitimacy in them.
Some Thoughts on Supply-side Economics
What jobs are unfilled?
Some believe tax breaks on the lower and middle classes will not grow the economy, create jobs, and thus create a future tax base.

Not to detract from the intellectual honesty of the link, but it is over 35 years old. The idea was
Having reached a dead-end in attempts to stimulate the economy on the side of "aggregate demand," the macroeconomic manipulators have now discovered there is a new set of economic equations that can be massaged on the "aggregate supply" side as well.

We have full employment and stagnant wages coupled with interest rates that even ten years ago would be unthinkably low with full employment and a DOW over 22K. There's simply no shortage of capital looking for a place to be invested. In fact, a good case can be made that our budget deficits and increasingly concentrated wealth at the top 1% are contributing to a bubble stock market.

The EU was driven by Germany financing debt for other countries to buy their shit. Our economy is driven by debt so we can buy shit from everyone. G5000's point is economically correct that the largest tax expenditure causes us to buy larger houses with ... more debt. This was not the case in 1980.

We do not have full employment, nowhere even close.

You may look at government unemployment, or employment numbers, I ignore them, to me, they are meaningless statistics used to boost the state's and economists' street cred.

Labor force participation is the health of the nation.


Unthinkably low interest rates are a danger sign, not a good sign. It means the poor and middle class cannot earn anything on their savings and must make riskier and riskier investments to secure a future. This is like putting a gun to your children's head and forcing them to go into a casino.


And that "capital" you are talking about? It is all an illusion. It was created out of thin air.

You have free choice. How much tax breaks a corporation gets have nothing to do with how much debt you take on. Get real.

What jobs are unfilled. What sectors are begging for workers. We have <4% employment with stagnant wages.

Normally when we have full employment, wages rise, not stagnate.

4% is considered full employment. But since we do not see wages rising, then something is broken. I am convinced it is because of the Fed's massive interference in the economy since the Great Recession. Way too many QEs.

I can't see a nexis between wages and QE. I certainly see a nexis between the Dow and QE. Not only has the fed basically created wealth, other wealth is looking for a home. And that's precisely why supply side economics are beyond useless right now. The Fed is trying to withdraw the wealth it created when it bought bonds. As the bonds mature, they just fall off balance sheets and the money that was used to buy them goes .... poof. The question remains whether enough bonds will mature fast enough. Private money has to go somewhere, and the dow is sort of a self-feeding beast at this point. More investment = higher stock prices.

I think Beale would say basically we have lot of people working at jobs beneath their optimum abilities. And he'd be right. It's just that Supply Side cannot create jobs when there's already too much supply.

Ryan and Rubio are right that the way to create demand would be to put money in the pockets of the middle class. More demand for stuff to buy would allow capital to move out of the stock market and into venture capital a biz expansion (ie more new bonds that the fed would not own). Imo that might be a good thing, but what if we reach a budget standpoint where we cannot afford the level of defense we have along with Soc Sec, Medicare and Obamacare?

None of our politicians are really addressing this, but look what we have for a President. The guy can't sustain his attention on one problem for more than a couple of hours. Ryan? He's the brightest of leadership, but he's ceased to do anything but count votes. I haven't really been reading the Times or the Economist regularly, but I just don't see a lot of "answer guys" out there.

The gop has no interest in doing anything positive beyond cutting Obamacare to perhaps stave off single payer. I don't see any courage on the dems side. But our best bet might just be as much tax reform as is possible, and within each income quintile allocate the additional revenue to either reducing that quintiles tax rate to increase spending in the economy or to allocate the new capital to deficit reduction. We'd need a new law requiring any additional spending to be offset by cutting other spending or raising taxes.

 

[bendog]

Labor force participation is the health of the nation.

Ah. This is one of those things which really pisses of the pseudocons and makes them think I am a liberal.

Whenever one of these tards tried to blame the dropping LFPR on Obama, they would sometimes post a chart of LFPR which started in 2009. This is a very common tactic of their propagandists. They deliberately frame their propaganda in a very narrow window, knowing the parroting tards have no critical thinking skills.

I would then post a chart of LFPR going back much further to show it has been plunging since 2000.

Parroting rubes hate it when I knock the piss cup out of their hands from which they have been drinking.

Obama is not the cause of the dropping LFPR. It precedes him by nearly a decade.

Point of fact is that LFPR leveled out in the last years of Obama Administration. It stopped its downward trend.

The graph itself proves nothing because the % of people being of working age is getting lower.

 

[Cellblock2429]

The reduced revenues caused by every tax deduction, credit, and exemption has to be replaced by raising tax rates on EVERYONE. They are robbery, pure and simple. Theft. They steal from the pockets of every taxpayer.

They cost us all money. Just like welfare does. They are just as much a government gift as food stamps.

No self-respecting libertarian or conservative would EVER defend them.

/----/ Oh so no one else enters the job market and starts paying taxes for the first time?

 

[Cellblock2429]

The reduced revenues caused by every tax deduction, credit, and exemption has to be replaced by raising tax rates on EVERYONE. They are robbery, pure and simple. Theft. They steal from the pockets of every taxpayer.

They cost us all money. Just like welfare does. They are just as much a government gift as food stamps.

No self-respecting libertarian or conservative would EVER defend them.

You're a Marxist idiot and don't have a fucking clue how capitalism even works. While you were typing your Marxist spew, ten more ship-owners decided they liked Mr. Sam's renovations, and decided to dock there.

And those riff-raff Mr. Hat employed? Two of them actually made enough to buy their own ships.

Go practice your Marxism somewhere else.

/---/ Libs think everything is a zero sum gains. For one guy to get rich, 10 others have to lose money.

 

[Thinker101]

Labor force participation is the health of the nation.

Ah. This is one of those things which really pisses of the pseudocons and makes them think I am a liberal.

Whenever one of these tards tried to blame the dropping LFPR on Obama, they would sometimes post a chart of LFPR which started in 2009. This is a very common tactic of their propagandists. They deliberately frame their propaganda in a very narrow window, knowing the parroting tards have no critical thinking skills.

I would then post a chart of LFPR going back much further to show it has been plunging since 2000.

Parroting rubes hate it when I knock the piss cup out of their hands from which they have been drinking.

Obama is not the cause of the dropping LFPR. It precedes him by nearly a decade.

Point of fact is that LFPR leveled out in the last years of Obama Administration. It stopped its downward trend.

The graph itself proves nothing because the % of people being of working age is getting lower.

Yet the population keeps increasing. If you're referring to retired people, they are not included in the work force numbers,

 

[ph3iron]

Say for instance there's a large boat harbor on the seaside. The harbormaster's name is Mr. Sam and he owns the landing and the boat docks.

There are ten ships docked in the harbor. Each of the ship-owners pays Mr. Sam a yearly fee that goes into maintenance of the harbor, and to protect them from pirates.

One of the ship-owners is an enterprising man named Mr. Hat. He tells the harbormaster that he will do some minor renovations to the docks and will give jobs to some of the riff-raff hanging around the docks, if Mr. Sam will forgo the harbor fee for a year.

Now tell me: How much did the other nine ship-owners have to fork over to cover Mr. Hat's yearly fee?

Is that joe?
Idiots ?
Insult, dead giveaway for limited education.
Your advanced degree again?

 

[ph3iron]

The reduced revenues caused by every tax deduction, credit, and exemption has to be replaced by raising tax rates on EVERYONE. They are robbery, pure and simple. Theft. They steal from the pockets of every taxpayer.

They cost us all money. Just like welfare does. They are just as much a government gift as food stamps.

No self-respecting libertarian or conservative would EVER defend them.

You're a Marxist idiot and don't have a fucking clue how capitalism even works. While you were typing your Marxist spew, ten more ship-owners decided they liked Mr. Sam's renovations, and decided to dock there.

And those riff-raff Mr. Hat employed? Two of them actually made enough to buy their own ships.

Go practice your Marxism somewhere else.

/---/ Libs think everything is a zero sum gains. For one guy to get rich, 10 others have to lose money.

Another who hasn't had Latin in his confederate high school and doesn't know the def of liberal.
Love the ignorance

 

[ph3iron]

I just love it when pseudocons like yourself, JGalt, expose your ignorance of the giant ripoff that is our tax expenditure system. It only confirms you have no concept of libertarian or conservative principles.

Your analogy is completely flawed.

I thought libertarians were I'm alright screw you.
Like my corporate friends. We have been fixing drug prices for years

 

[Cellblock2429]

The reduced revenues caused by every tax deduction, credit, and exemption has to be replaced by raising tax rates on EVERYONE. They are robbery, pure and simple. Theft. They steal from the pockets of every taxpayer.

They cost us all money. Just like welfare does. They are just as much a government gift as food stamps.

No self-respecting libertarian or conservative would EVER defend them.

You're a Marxist idiot and don't have a fucking clue how capitalism even works. While you were typing your Marxist spew, ten more ship-owners decided they liked Mr. Sam's renovations, and decided to dock there.

And those riff-raff Mr. Hat employed? Two of them actually made enough to buy their own ships.

Go practice your Marxism somewhere else.

/---/ Libs think everything is a zero sum gains. For one guy to get rich, 10 others have to lose money.

Another who hasn't had Latin in his confederate high school and doesn't know the def of liberal.
Love the ignorance

/----/ Dominus vobiscum

 

[Brain357]

About tax expenditures.
The Case for Cutting Tax Expenditures

 

[RealDave]

Say for instance there's a large boat harbor on the seaside. The harbormaster's name is Mr. Sam and he owns the landing and the boat docks.

There are ten ships docked in the harbor. Each of the ship-owners pays Mr. Sam a yearly fee that goes into maintenance of the harbor, and to protect them from pirates.

One of the ship-owners is an enterprising man named Mr. Hat. He tells the harbormaster that he will do some minor renovations to the docks and will give jobs to some of the riff-raff hanging around the docks, if Mr. Sam will forgo the harbor fee for a year.

Now tell me: How much did the other nine ship-owners have to fork over to cover Mr. Hat's yearly fee?

If the harbormaster still spent the same amount of money, he would need to charge more to the others to maintain his income.

 

[RealDave]

The reduced revenues caused by every tax deduction, credit, and exemption has to be replaced by raising tax rates on EVERYONE. They are robbery, pure and simple. Theft. They steal from the pockets of every taxpayer.

They cost us all money. Just like welfare does. They are just as much a government gift as food stamps.

No self-respecting libertarian or conservative would EVER defend them.

You're a Marxist idiot and don't have a fucking clue how capitalism even works. While you were typing your Marxist spew, ten more ship-owners decided they liked Mr. Sam's renovations, and decided to dock there.

And those riff-raff Mr. Hat employed? Two of them actually made enough to buy their own ships.

Go practice your Marxism somewhere else.

I was thinking that the renovations were faulty because there were no studies done to note the poor footing for these new renovations & no one inspected them. So those ten new tenants moved in only to overtax the system causing a partial collapse & that started a fire that burned all the ships in port at the time.

a study dome after the fact determined that if the renovations had been to out for bid, a real construction company might have won & followed the guidelines & made proper renovations. What do ship owners know about port construction anyhow.

 

[RealDave]

About tax expenditures.
The Case for Cutting Tax Expenditures

I quit reading to to extreme laughter when a read the 23% sales tax.

This is to due dumbass Libertarians who know shit about mathematics & how taxes actually work.