The ultimate vindication of Republican supply-side economics

[itfitzme]

Demand-side economics is an economic theory which suggest that economic stimulation comes best from increasing the demand for goods and services.

e.g. "advertising" ?

Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomic thought that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as lowering income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation. According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices.

how could "raising barriers" against economic activity, improve economic activity ? use of Government Force, to oppose economic activity, improves economic activity ?? i grab a "Government Gun", i tell you "no you cannot do that", thence "you can do more" ???

i guess, if i wield the "Government Gun", then i can "take more" (especially if i "re-package" my thievery, behind "flowery rhetorical wrapping paper")

lowering taxes on "White-Collar" workers, leaves them with more money, which they will tend to Invest (de facto buying (parts of) "Big Things", i.e. Capital), or Consume on luxuries (i.e. buying (whole) "small things", i.e. goods & services). No money, either Invested or Consumed, "vanishes", but "flows on down the stream-of-spending", ultimately into the "pockets" of people who produce those "Big Things" Invested in; and those "small things" Consumed:

• wine
• luxury cars
• Plant/Property/Equipment
• off-shore tax-havens

Woefully, because the US is "hostile" to domestic business, so "White-Collar" Investments tend to "flee to foreigners" (Qui bono ?); then "Blue-Collar" voters demand Government Force, to "nationalize" wealthy Investors' money, via taxes... so that "Blue-Collar" consumers can subsidize themselves (proximately), so as to subsidize their purchase of cheap foreign products (ultimately). Prima facie, both "White-Collar Fascists" & "Blue-Collar Communists" act to the (ultimate) advantage of foreigners (who financially own the Government, whose Force, both Fascists & Communists seek to wield, against Communists & Fascists; cp. Qui bono ? [until, at some point, they cease, acting so stupid ? "but Fascists have put 'scalp-prices' on Communists!", "so Communists have put 'scalp-prices' on Fascists!"]).

In the long run, Say's law applies in that people that produce also demand. But that is in the long run. If Say's law was functional in the short run, there would have been no recession because those that were producing were also demanding. The problem lies elsewhere.

If there are barriers, then reducing barriers might increase output.

Reducing barriers simply does not necessitate that output will increase. If there is no demand, no increase in supply will occur. If a company is making "excess" profits, due to market imperfections, "reducing barriers" will not increase supply because the company is already producing at it's maximum level of earnings. It has no incentive to increase output. The barriers are not barriers.

What is a barrier to increasing output and supplying potential demand would be to aid small and mid size businesses that are in markets with high competition. The very nature of nearly perfect markets is that profit is hard to come by. Companies function in a sustainable fashion, just meeting material costs and salaries. While they higher now, pay two weeks later, after product has sold, they often cannot accumulate enough capital to invest in expanding capital equipment or even purchasing supplies ahead of production.

But this all is predicated on the existence of excess demand. There is only one section of the business cycle when this is true, when the business cycle is on an upswing. When it is on a down swing, demand is declining. At the bottom, demand is flat. And at the top, there is no more market to supply, all the market is being supplied.

A theory of economics cannot be built on just the first few chapters of a text on fundamentals. Doing so ignores market imperfections, Carnot monopolies, Nash equilibrium, diminishing returns, and chapter after chapter of how real markets work.

There is no "supply side" economics vs "demand side" economics any more then there is "Newtonian physics" vs "Einstinian physics". There is simply economics which includes supply and demand. There are ideological "supply siders", and there are periods of history when there has been a focus on the demand or the supply side. In its details and application, it all depends on the market and the economy.

And taxes are not necessarily a barrier. Lumping them all into some "government gun" concept is over simplified and childish. It fails on the outset because the free market simply does not exist without contract law and property rights. The government exists for the purpose of ensuring a market that is as close to the ideal of a perfectly competitive free market as can be gotten. In the long run, without government management, most markets become dominated by monopolies.

This whole idea is equivalent to having an air intake and fuel pump sides of auto mechanics and saying that the air filter is always a barrier to fuel mixture flow. Then, ignoring the timing mechanism that changes according to engine speed. The whole concept fails about two feet into the engine and two chapters into any fundamentals text book.

Science is not a "pick and choose" which theory we "believe in". We take all of it or don't bother.

 

[itfitzme]

Demand-side economics is an economic theory which suggest that economic stimulation comes best from increasing the demand for goods and services.

e.g. "advertising" ?

Advertising cannot create demand out of nothing. Demand depends on the ability to pay and the willingness to purchase. Without the ability to pay, there is no demand.

Advertising typically just shifts demand from one substitute to another. Coke advertises to shift demand away from Pepsi. McDonald's advertises to shift demand away from Taco Bell.

And interestingly, in the equilibrium, the advertising that Coke and Pepsi are forced to do, or lose market share, ends up reducing profits compared to what it would be if they both simply didn't advertise.

Advertising does not create demand where no ability to pay or need exists. And in the few instances where one might consider it as shifting demand away from savings to consumption, one might consider it as "creating" demand. But that is hardly a condition that is a dependable major consideration that would make advertising as considered to be a creator of demand.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Our economy would boom if BO eliminated the corporate tax altogether as Ireland proved by just lowering it. Its the ultimate vindication of supply-side economics.

Ireland, having stupidly invested heavily in our private and commerical mortgage security bundles, is doing its darnedest to get new investment money into a dying country. The Irish are throwing the workers under the bus and giving the keys to the treasury to business, which will rape country and workers.

Edward, this proves nothing except you are a nut.

The Irish had their own real estate bubble.
They didn't lose money buying our MBS.
Your claim proves nothing except you are ignorant.

 

[itfitzme]

how could "raising barriers" against economic activity, improve economic activity ? use of Government Force, to oppose economic activity, improves economic activity ?? i grab a "Government Gun", i tell you "no you cannot do that", thence "you can do more" ???.

Well, here is one simple example, fishing limits. The fishing industry not only happily accepts government imposed fishing limits, they want them. They don't want to do business without them because a few seasons of overfishing will destroy the fishing for years to come. A single competitor that doesn't limit its catch will start a chain of competition that will decimate the resources. And having the government do it allow them to focus on what they do best, fish.

Agriculture happily accepts, even insists on, environmental restrictions that impact neighboring farms. They are know the lessons learned from the dust bowl, that decimated farm land during the Great Depression. A single farmer that doesn't work within the regulations will start a chain of competition that will destroy not only the farming capacity of his neighbors but also his own farming capacity. And they prefer to have the government do the regulations so they can do what they do best, farm.

So, in example after example, especially when it comes to the tragedy of the commons, oppose economic activity, improves economic activity.

An economic theory cannot be built on a generalize "Government Gun" ideology. "Government Gun" is a subjective feeling and has no place in economics.

 

[itfitzme]

Our economy would boom if BO eliminated the corporate tax altogether as Ireland proved by just lowering it. Its the ultimate vindication of supply-side economics.

Ireland, having stupidly invested heavily in our private and commerical mortgage security bundles, is doing its darnedest to get new investment money into a dying country. The Irish are throwing the workers under the bus and giving the keys to the treasury to business, which will rape country and workers.

Edward, this proves nothing except you are a nut.

The Irish had their own real estate bubble.
They didn't lose money buying our MBS.
Your claim proves nothing except you are ignorant.

And yet, you prove the greatest point.


While the corporate tax cuts in Ireland were effective in the short run, to bring manufacturing into the country, in the long run it didn't mitigate the very natures of the economy that are the fundamental issues which cause recessions.

Discussing tax cuts as a fix for three quarters of the business cycle is simple ignorance. It ignorance of 75% of the business cycle.

Ireland's low corporate tax rates didn't cause the recession. And they didn't stop it either.

At the same time, in a race to the bottom, lowering corporate taxes to zero will do absolutely nothing in the long run.

And that Ireland previously lowered taxes fails as vindication simply because, in 2006, just prior to the recession, the US was fully utilizing all labor at 48% of the total population. And this in spite of the fact that Ireland had lower corporate tax rates.

Looking for "vindication of supply side economics" by looking at Ireland's tax rates is meaningless in terms of the current structural changes in the economy.

Its not that lowering tax rates, at the right margins, at the right time do not have some effect on some businesses in some markets. The questions are, which, when and by how much.

 

[itfitzme]

Our economy would boom if BO eliminated the corporate tax altogether as Ireland proved by just lowering it. Its the ultimate vindication of supply-side economics.

Ireland, having stupidly invested heavily in our private and commerical mortgage security bundles, is doing its darnedest to get new investment money into a dying country. The Irish are throwing the workers under the bus and giving the keys to the treasury to business, which will rape country and workers.

Edward, this proves nothing except you are a nut.

The singular issue that I have with it is in the words "just lowering it." The best I can find is that Ireland has has a 12.5% top marginal rate since for so long that no one even bothers to say when it was lowered. And, as I am aware, now defunct Northstar Computers, formally Kentucky Fried Computers, moved it's manufacturing to Ireland in the mid '70s. So I am under the impression that "since for so long that no one even bothers to say" is like for about 40 years, not "just lowering it."

Then there is the whole issue that just because someone does something doesn't vindicate it being done. There was a guy in the news recently that barricaded himself in his house and took on a SWAT team. That hardly qualifies "vindication of taking on a SWAT team". I mean, it seems to me that the vindication is in the pudding.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ireland, having stupidly invested heavily in our private and commerical mortgage security bundles, is doing its darnedest to get new investment money into a dying country. The Irish are throwing the workers under the bus and giving the keys to the treasury to business, which will rape country and workers.

Edward, this proves nothing except you are a nut.

The Irish had their own real estate bubble.
They didn't lose money buying our MBS.
Your claim proves nothing except you are ignorant.

And yet, you prove the greatest point.


While the corporate tax cuts in Ireland were effective in the short run, to bring manufacturing into the country, in the long run it didn't mitigate the very natures of the economy that are the fundamental issues which cause recessions.

Discussing tax cuts as a fix for three quarters of the business cycle is simple ignorance. It ignorance of 75% of the business cycle.

Ireland's low corporate tax rates didn't cause the recession. And they didn't stop it either.

At the same time, in a race to the bottom, lowering corporate taxes to zero will do absolutely nothing in the long run.

And that Ireland previously lowered taxes fails as vindication simply because, in 2006, just prior to the recession, the US was fully utilizing all labor at 48% of the total population. And this in spite of the fact that Ireland had lower corporate tax rates.

Looking for "vindication of supply side economics" by looking at Ireland's tax rates is meaningless in terms of the current structural changes in the economy.

Its not that lowering tax rates, at the right margins, at the right time do not have some effect on some businesses in some markets. The questions are, which, when and by how much.

It's true, tax cuts don't prevent booms and busts.
Japan's highest in the world corporate tax rate didn't prevent their bust in 1989 and our second highest in the world didn't prevent our bust in 2008.

At the same time, in a race to the bottom, lowering corporate taxes to zero will do absolutely nothing in the long run.

I think it would absolutely increase corporate output. How could it not?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Our economy would boom if BO eliminated the corporate tax altogether as Ireland proved by just lowering it. Its the ultimate vindication of supply-side economics.

Ireland, having stupidly invested heavily in our private and commerical mortgage security bundles, is doing its darnedest to get new investment money into a dying country. The Irish are throwing the workers under the bus and giving the keys to the treasury to business, which will rape country and workers.

Edward, this proves nothing except you are a nut.

The singular issue that I have with it is in the words "just lowering it." The best I can find is that Ireland has has a 12.5% top marginal rate since for so long that no one even bothers to say when it was lowered. And, as I am aware, now defunct Northstar Computers, formally Kentucky Fried Computers, moved it's manufacturing to Ireland in the mid '70s. So I am under the impression that "since for so long that no one even bothers to say" is like for about 40 years, not "just lowering it."

Then there is the whole issue that just because someone does something doesn't vindicate it being done. There was a guy in the news recently that barricaded himself in his house and took on a SWAT team. That hardly qualifies "vindication of taking on a SWAT team". I mean, it seems to me that the vindication is in the pudding.

Taxation in the Republic of Ireland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to the above link, they enacted a 10% rate for "a limited number of manufacturing firms, IFSC finance enterprises and businesses located in the Shannon Free Zone; all typically large multi-nationals." in 1981.

Looks like the 12.5% rate started in 2003.

 

[itfitzme]

Economics is not about money. Economics is about how society reallocates scarce resources. It is all about the resources. Money is simply a tool for keeping track of the stuff.

In the long run, production output is all about the resources and nothing.

In the long run, the nominal value of money simply due to the money supply, relative to the quantity of goods, and nothing else.

The Irish had their own real estate bubble.
They didn't lose money buying our MBS.
Your claim proves nothing except you are ignorant.

And yet, you prove the greatest point.


While the corporate tax cuts in Ireland were effective in the short run, to bring manufacturing into the country, in the long run it didn't mitigate the very natures of the economy that are the fundamental issues which cause recessions.

Discussing tax cuts as a fix for three quarters of the business cycle is simple ignorance. It ignorance of 75% of the business cycle.

Ireland's low corporate tax rates didn't cause the recession. And they didn't stop it either.

At the same time, in a race to the bottom, lowering corporate taxes to zero will do absolutely nothing in the long run.

And that Ireland previously lowered taxes fails as vindication simply because, in 2006, just prior to the recession, the US was fully utilizing all labor at 48% of the total population. And this in spite of the fact that Ireland had lower corporate tax rates.

Looking for "vindication of supply side economics" by looking at Ireland's tax rates is meaningless in terms of the current structural changes in the economy.

Its not that lowering tax rates, at the right margins, at the right time do not have some effect on some businesses in some markets. The questions are, which, when and by how much.

It's true, tax cuts don't prevent booms and busts.
Japan's highest in the world corporate tax rate didn't prevent their bust in 1989 and our second highest in the world didn't prevent our bust in 2008.

At the same time, in a race to the bottom, lowering corporate taxes to zero will do absolutely nothing in the long run.

I think it would absolutely increase corporate output. How could it not?

Because, in the long run, output has nothing to do with the money. It has everything to do with the resources and how they are redistributed by the economy. Money is simply a system of accounting, like the score on the score board at the ball game. In the long run, money simple takes on a value that is determined by the users of that money.

In the long run, the nominal price of products is determined by how much money is in circulation. It is determined by nothing else. The price of a product is simply a percentage of the money supply.

If there is $15 trillion in circulation and there are $15 trillion in the quantity of goods, then the average price will be $1, or (100*1/15 trillion )%. If there is $10 trillion in circulation, then the price is (100*1/15 trillion )% of the total money in circulation.

Economics is not about money. Economics is about how society reallocates scarce resources. It is all about the resources. Money is simply a tool for keeping track of the stuff.

In the long run, a wood chuck chucks as much wood as it could if a wood chuck could chuck wood. And a wood chuck will pay as much money as it is willing to pay if a wood chuck could pay for wood.

In the short run, it becomes all about market imperfections.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Economics is not about money. Economics is about how society reallocates scarce resources. It is all about the resources. Money is simply a tool for keeping track of the stuff.

In the long run, production output is all about the resources and nothing.

In the long run, the nominal value of money simply due to the money supply, relative to the quantity of goods, and nothing else.

And yet, you prove the greatest point.


While the corporate tax cuts in Ireland were effective in the short run, to bring manufacturing into the country, in the long run it didn't mitigate the very natures of the economy that are the fundamental issues which cause recessions.

Discussing tax cuts as a fix for three quarters of the business cycle is simple ignorance. It ignorance of 75% of the business cycle.

Ireland's low corporate tax rates didn't cause the recession. And they didn't stop it either.

At the same time, in a race to the bottom, lowering corporate taxes to zero will do absolutely nothing in the long run.

And that Ireland previously lowered taxes fails as vindication simply because, in 2006, just prior to the recession, the US was fully utilizing all labor at 48% of the total population. And this in spite of the fact that Ireland had lower corporate tax rates.

Looking for "vindication of supply side economics" by looking at Ireland's tax rates is meaningless in terms of the current structural changes in the economy.

Its not that lowering tax rates, at the right margins, at the right time do not have some effect on some businesses in some markets. The questions are, which, when and by how much.

It's true, tax cuts don't prevent booms and busts.
Japan's highest in the world corporate tax rate didn't prevent their bust in 1989 and our second highest in the world didn't prevent our bust in 2008.

At the same time, in a race to the bottom, lowering corporate taxes to zero will do absolutely nothing in the long run.

I think it would absolutely increase corporate output. How could it not?

Because, in the long run, output has nothing to do with the money. It has everything to do with the resources and how they are redistributed by the economy. Money is simply a system of accounting, like the score on the score board at the ball game. In the long run, money simple takes on a value that is determined by the users of that money.

In the long run, the nominal price of products is determined by how much money is in circulation. It is determined by nothing else. The price of a product is simply a percentage of the money supply.

If there is $15 trillion in circulation and there are $15 trillion in the quantity of goods, then the average price will be $1, or (100*1/15 trillion )%. If there is $10 trillion in circulation, then the price is (100*1/15 trillion )% of the total money in circulation.

Economics is not about money. Economics is about how society reallocates scarce resources. It is all about the resources. Money is simply a tool for keeping track of the stuff.

In the long run, a wood chuck chucks as much wood as it could if a wood chuck could chuck wood. And a wood chuck will pay as much money as it is willing to pay if a wood chuck could pay for wood.

In the short run, it becomes all about market imperfections.

If you want less of something, tax it.

 

[rdean]

Our economy would boom if BO eliminated the corporate tax altogether as Ireland proved by just lowering it. Its the ultimate vindication of supply-side economics.

Corporate tax was cut along with the Bush tax cuts. Gave corporations the money to move millions of jobs to China. Hey, China needed those jobs. Considering how much China gives to the Chamber and Commerce and the fact the Chamber of Commerce gives to Republicans 9 to 1 OVER Democrats, the corporate tax cut was a HUGE success. At least that's how Republicans see it.

And the Bush tax cuts worked beyond Republicans wildest dreams.

Republican policies are SOOOO underestimated for what they do for America.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Our economy would boom if BO eliminated the corporate tax altogether as Ireland proved by just lowering it. Its the ultimate vindication of supply-side economics.

Corporate tax was cut along with the Bush tax cuts. Gave corporations the money to move millions of jobs to China. Hey, China needed those jobs. Considering how much China gives to the Chamber and Commerce and the fact the Chamber of Commerce gives to Republicans 9 to 1 OVER Democrats, the corporate tax cut was a HUGE success. At least that's how Republicans see it.

And the Bush tax cuts worked beyond Republicans wildest dreams.

Republican policies are SOOOO underestimated for what they do for America.

Corporate tax was cut along with the Bush tax cuts.

It appears you are mistaken.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02corate.pdf

Considering how much China gives to the Chamber and Commerce

Link?

 

[itfitzme]

Economics is not about money. Economics is about how society reallocates scarce resources. It is all about the resources. Money is simply a tool for keeping track of the stuff.

In the long run, production output is all about the resources and nothing.

In the long run, the nominal value of money simply due to the money supply, relative to the quantity of goods, and nothing else.

It's true, tax cuts don't prevent booms and busts.
Japan's highest in the world corporate tax rate didn't prevent their bust in 1989 and our second highest in the world didn't prevent our bust in 2008.

At the same time, in a race to the bottom, lowering corporate taxes to zero will do absolutely nothing in the long run.

I think it would absolutely increase corporate output. How could it not?

Because, in the long run, output has nothing to do with the money. It has everything to do with the resources and how they are redistributed by the economy. Money is simply a system of accounting, like the score on the score board at the ball game. In the long run, money simple takes on a value that is determined by the users of that money.

In the long run, the nominal price of products is determined by how much money is in circulation. It is determined by nothing else. The price of a product is simply a percentage of the money supply.

If there is $15 trillion in circulation and there are $15 trillion in the quantity of goods, then the average price will be $1, or (100*1/15 trillion )%. If there is $10 trillion in circulation, then the price is (100*1/15 trillion )% of the total money in circulation.

Economics is not about money. Economics is about how society reallocates scarce resources. It is all about the resources. Money is simply a tool for keeping track of the stuff.

In the long run, a wood chuck chucks as much wood as it could if a wood chuck could chuck wood. And a wood chuck will pay as much money as it is willing to pay if a wood chuck could pay for wood.

In the short run, it becomes all about market imperfections.

If you want less of something, tax it.

That is only true in micro economics and for a single product relative to all other products. And it depends on the elasticity of the product.

In general and in the long run, if you tax all things exactly the same and the add that much money to the supply, prices and incomes come into balance so there is no net effect.

In the long run, if you lower taxes on all things exactly the same then the value of money adjusts so that there is not net effect.

Taxes only have a short term effect and only in the specific markets, like small businesses, that are low on profits compared to the remainder of the economy. And they are effective only if there is sufficient excess demand that can be tapped by the extra funds before the market adjusts again to the lower taxes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Economics is not about money. Economics is about how society reallocates scarce resources. It is all about the resources. Money is simply a tool for keeping track of the stuff.

In the long run, production output is all about the resources and nothing.

In the long run, the nominal value of money simply due to the money supply, relative to the quantity of goods, and nothing else.



Because, in the long run, output has nothing to do with the money. It has everything to do with the resources and how they are redistributed by the economy. Money is simply a system of accounting, like the score on the score board at the ball game. In the long run, money simple takes on a value that is determined by the users of that money.

In the long run, the nominal price of products is determined by how much money is in circulation. It is determined by nothing else. The price of a product is simply a percentage of the money supply.

If there is $15 trillion in circulation and there are $15 trillion in the quantity of goods, then the average price will be $1, or (100*1/15 trillion )%. If there is $10 trillion in circulation, then the price is (100*1/15 trillion )% of the total money in circulation.

Economics is not about money. Economics is about how society reallocates scarce resources. It is all about the resources. Money is simply a tool for keeping track of the stuff.

In the long run, a wood chuck chucks as much wood as it could if a wood chuck could chuck wood. And a wood chuck will pay as much money as it is willing to pay if a wood chuck could pay for wood.

In the short run, it becomes all about market imperfections.

If you want less of something, tax it.

That is only true in micro economics and for a single product relative to all other products. And it depends on the elasticity of the product.

In general and in the long run, if you tax all things exactly the same and the add that much money to the supply, prices and incomes come into balance so there is no net effect.

In the long run, if you lower taxes on all things exactly the same then the value of money adjusts so that there is not net effect.

Taxes only have a short term effect and only in the specific markets, like small businesses, that are low on profits compared to the remainder of the economy. And they are effective only if there is sufficient excess demand that can be tapped by the extra funds before the market adjusts again to the lower taxes.

If taxes on oil production were cut, oil production wouldn't increase?
That's an interesting claim.

 

[itfitzme]

If taxes on oil production were cut, oil production wouldn't increase?
That's an interesting claim.

And it is based on basic business math and micro economics. Taxes are after earnings. Taxes are not a cost of production. Taxes are a percentage of earnings. A buck is a buck. If there are no earnings, there are no taxes.

Come on, you pay taxes. If you don't make anything, you don't pay taxes. And you wouldn't work less because your taxes were 5% higher. Nor would you work more because they were 5% lower. In fact, more likely if taxes were 5% higher, you'd work more to make up the difference, and be pissed about it. If they were 5% lower, you'd just be happy with a few more dollars in your paycheck. Eventually, because everyone is affected identically, prices would just adjust.

And earnings are maximized based on the peak of price times quantity minus total costs. The business decision is on maximizing earnings, regardless of what the tax is. Taxes don't increase for just oil. They increase for all companies based on there tax bracket. No earnings, no taxes. Less earnings, lower taxes. Higher earnings, higher taxes.

Profit is after interest and taxes. Taxes just cuts into profit margin, but as a percentage. Less profit because of less earnings means less taxes. And while profit may be lower due to taxes, it doesn't directly translate to prices. It all depends on a the product and market leverage. Products with high market leverage enjoy higher profits because they are in higher demand.

If we were talking about Blockbuster and DVDs, its another issue because Blockbuster has very little market leverage as a product and high competition. They work like crazy to get their 4 for $20 or 5 for $20 just right. But with low earning, taxes have lesser effect.

And price is not based on cost per unit. It is based on total revenue and total revenue is maximized without suppling the entire market demand.

Surely, if taxes are 100%, or some outrageous amount, there might be a case to be made that it would cause an issue. But we are not talking about unrealistic extreme conditions. And, we are not talking about sales tax, which is a tax slapped on the price.

Even then, we still need to look at how the business model works out because, for all practical purposes, the sales tax is distributive in an algebraic equation. (Thankfully, 99.9% business math is just algebra.)

Prices are set to as much as the consumer is willing to pay. The price competition is between products competing for a bigger percentage of your wallet, until it is all gone. (I'm assuming you're not uber wealthy and don't give a carp because you have so much money that average prices just don't matter.)

The oil companies are masters at figuring out, to the penny on any particular day of the week, day of the month, month of the year, exactly how much the consumer is willing to pay before they say f.u.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And it is based on basic business math and micro economics. Taxes are after earnings. Taxes are not a cost of production. Taxes are a percentage of earnings. A buck is a buck. If there are not earnings, there are no taxes. Come one, you pay taxes. If you don't make anything, you don't pay taxes. And you wouldn't work less because your taxes were 5% higher. Nor would you work more because they were 5% lower.

And earnings are maximized based on the peak of price times quantity minus total costs. The business decision is on maximizing earnings, regardless of what the tax is.

Price is not based on cost per unit. It is based on total revenue and total revenue is maximized without supply the entire market demand.

Surely, if taxes are 100%, or some outrageous amount, there might be a case to be made that it would cause issue. But we are not talking about unrealistic extreme conditions. And, we are not talking about sales tax, which is a tax slapped on the price.

Even then, we still need to look at how the business model works out because, for all practical purposes, the sales tax is distributive in an algebraic equation. (Thankfully, 99.9% business math is just algebra.)

Prices are set to as much as the consumer is willing to pay. The price competition is between products competing for a bigger percentage of your wallet, until it is all gone. (I'm assuming you're not uber wealthy and don't give a carp because you have so much money that average prices just don't matter.)

And you wouldn't work less because your taxes were 5% higher.

There is no point at which the higher marginal rate causes lower earning spouses to drop out of the work force?
That causes business owners to spend more time with their family?
To think twice about investing more in their business?

The business decision is on maximizing earnings, regardless of what the tax is.

Lowering taxes on earnings don't make after tax earnings higher?
Raising the tax on earnings to 50% (60%, 70%, 80%, 90%) won't reduce the incentive to create those earnings?

 

[itfitzme]

And it is based on basic business math and micro economics. Taxes are after earnings. Taxes are not a cost of production. Taxes are a percentage of earnings. A buck is a buck. If there are not earnings, there are no taxes. Come one, you pay taxes. If you don't make anything, you don't pay taxes. And you wouldn't work less because your taxes were 5% higher. Nor would you work more because they were 5% lower.

And earnings are maximized based on the peak of price times quantity minus total costs. The business decision is on maximizing earnings, regardless of what the tax is.

Price is not based on cost per unit. It is based on total revenue and total revenue is maximized without supply the entire market demand.

Surely, if taxes are 100%, or some outrageous amount, there might be a case to be made that it would cause issue. But we are not talking about unrealistic extreme conditions. And, we are not talking about sales tax, which is a tax slapped on the price.

Even then, we still need to look at how the business model works out because, for all practical purposes, the sales tax is distributive in an algebraic equation. (Thankfully, 99.9% business math is just algebra.)

Prices are set to as much as the consumer is willing to pay. The price competition is between products competing for a bigger percentage of your wallet, until it is all gone. (I'm assuming you're not uber wealthy and don't give a carp because you have so much money that average prices just don't matter.)

And you wouldn't work less because your taxes were 5% higher.

There is no point at which the higher marginal rate causes lower earning spouses to drop out of the work force?
That causes business owners to spend more time with their family?
To think twice about investing more in their business?

The business decision is on maximizing earnings, regardless of what the tax is.

Lowering taxes on earnings don't make after tax earnings higher?
Raising the tax on earnings to 50% (60%, 70%, 80%, 90%) won't reduce the incentive to create those earnings?

I ask if you would work more or less if your taxes were lower or higher by 5%. And I say, specifically, "we are not talking about some outrageous amount."

Not only do you not answer the question, you reply with a stupid number of a 90% tax rate, a ridiculous extreme.

Clearly, the answer is "yes, you wouldn't work more if taxes were 5% less." Short of that, we could program computers in the '70s to display as much intelligence as you do.
Your wasting my time. I can come up with more intelligent questions on my own. And right now, I have some import-export data to sort through. And your information entropy is still running below 10%.

If you're not going to do the math, and you're going to play games, then go to the bathroom and jerk yourself off. I'm not here so you can mentally jerk yourself off at your computer. Go surf some porn sites.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And it is based on basic business math and micro economics. Taxes are after earnings. Taxes are not a cost of production. Taxes are a percentage of earnings. A buck is a buck. If there are not earnings, there are no taxes. Come one, you pay taxes. If you don't make anything, you don't pay taxes. And you wouldn't work less because your taxes were 5% higher. Nor would you work more because they were 5% lower.

And earnings are maximized based on the peak of price times quantity minus total costs. The business decision is on maximizing earnings, regardless of what the tax is.

Price is not based on cost per unit. It is based on total revenue and total revenue is maximized without supply the entire market demand.

Surely, if taxes are 100%, or some outrageous amount, there might be a case to be made that it would cause issue. But we are not talking about unrealistic extreme conditions. And, we are not talking about sales tax, which is a tax slapped on the price.

Even then, we still need to look at how the business model works out because, for all practical purposes, the sales tax is distributive in an algebraic equation. (Thankfully, 99.9% business math is just algebra.)

Prices are set to as much as the consumer is willing to pay. The price competition is between products competing for a bigger percentage of your wallet, until it is all gone. (I'm assuming you're not uber wealthy and don't give a carp because you have so much money that average prices just don't matter.)

And you wouldn't work less because your taxes were 5% higher.

There is no point at which the higher marginal rate causes lower earning spouses to drop out of the work force?
That causes business owners to spend more time with their family?
To think twice about investing more in their business?

The business decision is on maximizing earnings, regardless of what the tax is.

Lowering taxes on earnings don't make after tax earnings higher?
Raising the tax on earnings to 50% (60%, 70%, 80%, 90%) won't reduce the incentive to create those earnings?

I ask if you would work more or less if your taxes were lower or higher by 5%. And I say, specifically, "we are not talking about some outrageous amount."

Not only do you not answer the question, you reply with a stupid number of a 90% tax rate, a ridiculous extreme.

Clearly, the answer is "yes, you wouldn't work more if taxes were 5% less." Short of that, we could program computers in the '70s to display as much intelligence as you do.
Your wasting my time. I can come up with more intelligent questions on my own. And right now, I have some import-export data to sort through. And your information entropy is still running below 10%.

If you're not going to do the math, and you're going to play games, then go to the bathroom and jerk yourself off. I'm not here so you can mentally jerk yourself off at your computer. Go surf some porn sites.

I ask if you would work more or less if your taxes were lower or higher by 5%. And I say, specifically, "we are not talking about some outrageous amount."

What? Some outrageous amount will change incentives? And I thought you said they have no impact on output?

The business decision is on maximizing earnings, regardless of what the tax is.

I guess you didn't mean it?

Not only do you not answer the question, you reply with a stupid number of a 90% tax rate, a ridiculous extreme.

Maybe you missed it, the first rate I posted was 50%. Is that ridiculous?

If you're not going to do the math, and you're going to play games...

You'll whine some more? Too bad.

 

[Widdekind]

If there are barriers, then reducing barriers might increase output.

Reducing barriers simply does not necessitate that output will increase. If there is no demand, no increase in supply will occur... the existence of excess demand [occurs] when the business cycle is on an upswing. When it is on a down swing, demand is declining. At the bottom, demand is flat. And at the top, there is no more market to supply, all the market is being supplied.

if no excess Demand exists; then "reducing taxes" increases business Profits, w/o increasing Quantities "Demanded-and-Supplied". Those increased Profits do not "vanish"; they become Investments (proximately), becoming wages for workers in the expanding sectors Invested in (ultimately)

And taxes are not necessarily a barrier. Lumping them all into some "government gun" concept is over simplified and childish.

Guns are "childish" ? According to Chairman Mao Zedong, "all power flows from the barrels of Guns"

the free market simply does not exist without contract law and property rights.

en-Forced by Government Military & Police Guns, brought to bear, against those opposing Laws (e.g. "contracts & property"). Government "camouflages" Force, e.g. "Police stand in the shadowed corners, of Court Houses, and keep their Guns holstered"; voters appear to forget, that all Government Intervention is intrinsically "at Gun point" (ultimately, "obey or else...")

The government exists for the purpose of ensuring a market that is as close to the ideal of a perfectly competitive free market as can be gotten.

by Protecting thusly-free-markets ("Protect & Serve"), i.e. ensuring that "nobody draws their guns in the market-place"

In the long run, without government management, most markets become dominated by monopolies.

if those monopolies rely on Government Force, via political influence; then those monopolies have "bribed the Police, taken their Guns, and are mugging the market-place" (i.e. Fascism); without Government Force "Protecting & Serving" that market-place, that place is "plundered" (cp. Communism, "a group of shoppers bribes the Police, takes their Guns, and mugs the market-place")

(if those monopolies fairly out-competed all other businesses, thusly dominating their market through superior economic efficiency; then those monopolies are economically superior, and make their market more efficient & competitive (cp. "tautology"); monopolies can be competitive (cp. Standard Oil))

ultimately, a "Law" is an Order, to all Local, State, & Federal Police, National Guard, & Military, to deploy human-lethal Force, against opponents of the Law (where-and-when necessary); voters appear to forget, that "Laws" are intrinsically Coercive & Force-ful Kill Orders (where-and-when necessary), i.e. "they don't take Guns seriously" (cp. NRA fire-arms safety course, topic heading one)

 

[Widdekind]

Demand-side economics is an economic theory which suggest that economic stimulation comes best from increasing the demand for goods and services.

e.g. "advertising" ?

Advertising cannot create demand out of nothing.

the word used was "increase", not "create"

yes, Advertising does not "create" Demand

also yes, Advertising does "increase" Demand