The ultimate vindication of Republican supply-side 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.

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."

And I was able to find 02corate.pdf. It only goes to 2002, so it misses 2003 and all successive years. There is some 10corate.pof, but the link is brokenand i cannot find a more recent IRS document of corporate tax rates. I did find a historical tax table of marginal rates, though it is a bit inadequate for doing any serious work. It has

Year Top Marginal Rate
2000 0.40 <---?
2001 0.39 <---?
2002 0.39 <---?
2003 0.35
2004 0.35
2005 0.35
2006 0.35
2007 0.35
2008 0.35
2009 0.35
2010 0.35
2011 0.35

but is isn't supported by the 2002 IRS document. What are you suppose to believe? There is no telling, for sure, errors creep in all sorts of ways. That's the thing about errors, they are unpredictable.

I am looking in their FTP at Index of /pub/ which, if you click the parent directory link has a folder "wistleblowers"....hmm...looks kind of dull with just three reports to congress.

Got anything better?

 

[Widdekind]

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.

"tragedies of commons" can be prevented, by Government Force, Policing the market-place, i.e. "preventing poaching". (an excellent example, of an economically "good" Law, cp. "the businessmen themselves voted for it")

"Government Gun" is a subjective feeling and has no place in economics.

try opposing Laws, backed by Government Force, and your "subjective feelings" will seem small, compared to "objective death & wounds"

 

[Widdekind]

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.

Government Force "wades into the market-place"; "takes a wad from everybody's wallet"; and there is "no net effect" ?? Taxes "burden" economies, raising Prices, reducing Quantities, costing both Consumers & Producers; Taxes do "benefit" specific sectors, into which those Taxes are re-allocated

[reducing ??] 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.

Taxes "make or break" marginally Profitable businesses (specifically); "extra funds" from reduced Taxes can be "self-Invested", to increase production, to tap excess Demand; can be Invested, in other businesses, to increase production, to tap excess Demand, in other sectors; can be dispersed to workers, e.g. "bonuses & raises" (generally). In all such cases, "extra funds" from reduced Taxes improve the "natural economy", i.e. improve the economic efficiency, of the "natural markets", reflecting the "natural Demands", of that economy, in the absence of Government Coercion Force-fully re-allocating "scarce resources", according to Laws, at "Government Gun-point".

when is a "Force-fully Coerced" economy "better" than a "natural" economy ? "Force-fully Coerced" economies break marginally Profitable businesses, e.g. "small businesses"; are not "small businesses" the "heart" of the US economy:

In the US, small business (less than 500 employees) accounts for around half the GDP and more than half the employment

? Prima facie, a majority of voters work for "marginally Profitable small businesses", most adversely affected, by the Taxes, that they vote Government Force, to take, at "Government Gun-point"..

(In the history of humanity, businessmen themselves have voted for Laws, e.g. "Regulation of otherwise-tragic commons"; have voted for Taxes for their Laws, i.e. "paying for the Policing"; those Laws are directly related to existing markets. Meanwhile, Leftists have voted for Laws, e.g. "Social Programs (for themselves)"; have voted for Taxes for their Laws, i.e. "(making others) pay for the Policing"; those Laws are un-related to existing markets. Prima facie, Laws un-related to existing markets are "transfers of wealth", i.e. "mass muggings", i.e. "looting". Money is prosperity is "your family's future"; non-legit-ness re: money is a "silent insult", e.g. "to children, born & unborn", i.e. "they never really doffed the 'Blues & Grays'.)

 

[Widdekind]

we are not talking about sales tax, which is a tax slapped on the price.

Labor is a Commodity, "sold" by workers, "bought" by businesses; economically, Tax on Labor, is a sales-Tax; sales-Taxes are economically legitimate, representing the (expected) costs of Government Force providing "Police Protection" for that economic activity, in that market-place ("paying the Bouncer")

Profits derive from prior "sales"; Taxes on Profits represent "double jeopardy", re-Taxing already-(sales-)Taxed Money ("getting mugged, then re-mugged a block away"); legally, "double jeopardy" is non-valid

 

[JakeStarkey]

I wonder if Toddsterpatriot is being the silly straight main so that itfitzme can put out the information that should clearly educate toddster who refuses, petulantly stamping his foot angrily in denial.

 

[itfitzme]

Taxes "make or break" marginally Profitable businesses (specifically).

Specifically, how does this work? Describe the mechanism by which a tax makes and breaks a marginally profitable business.

Suppose, for instance, the local cigar and cigarette shop. Or maybe a small manufacturing firm.

There is, after all, a process there that I think we should understand.

 

[itfitzme]

I wonder if Toddsterpatriot is being the silly straight main so that itfitzme can put out the information that should clearly educate toddster who refuses, petulantly stamping his foot angrily in denial.

Passive aggressive.

 

[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."

And I was able to find 02corate.pdf. It only goes to 2002, so it misses 2003 and all successive years. There is some 10corate.pof, but the link is brokenand i cannot find a more recent IRS document of corporate tax rates. I did find a historical tax table of marginal rates, though it is a bit inadequate for doing any serious work. It has

Year Top Marginal Rate
2000 0.40 <---?
2001 0.39 <---?
2002 0.39 <---?
2003 0.35
2004 0.35
2005 0.35
2006 0.35
2007 0.35
2008 0.35
2009 0.35
2010 0.35
2011 0.35

but is isn't supported by the 2002 IRS document. What are you suppose to believe? There is no telling, for sure, errors creep in all sorts of ways. That's the thing about errors, they are unpredictable.

I am looking in their FTP at Index of /pub/ which, if you click the parent directory link has a folder "wistleblowers"....hmm...looks kind of dull with just three reports to congress.

Got anything better?

Historical rates are here.

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

You're welcome.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Toddsterpatriot shoots!!!! . . . and missess!!!!

Folks, I have to tell you that itfitzme is mopping up the floor with the toddster, who is now looking like a toddler!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddsterpatriot shoots!!!! . . . and missess!!!!

Folks, I have to tell you that itfitzme is mopping up the floor with the toddster, who is now looking like a toddler!!

Facts are painful for you as well?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Toddsterpatriot shoots!!!! . . . and missess!!!!

Folks, I have to tell you that itfitzme is mopping up the floor with the toddster, who is now looking like a toddler!!

Facts are painful for you as well?

Simply, kid, you are falling every farther behind the dude. You simply reveal that apparently you do not understand taxes, taxation, and their role in modern society.

Keep reading him carefully and you will eventually learn, if you want to.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddsterpatriot shoots!!!! . . . and missess!!!!

Folks, I have to tell you that itfitzme is mopping up the floor with the toddster, who is now looking like a toddler!!

Facts are painful for you as well?

Simply, kid, you are falling every farther behind the dude. You simply reveal that apparently you do not understand taxes, taxation, and their role in modern society.

Keep reading him carefully and you will eventually learn, if you want to.

You're right, I don't understand that raising taxes wouldn't reduce output. Silly me.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, silly you. Keep reading.

 

[itfitzme]

"Government Gun" is a subjective feeling and has no place in economics.

try opposing Laws, backed by Government Force, and your "subjective feelings" will seem small, compared to "objective death & wounds"

Why would I want to oppose laws. I don't run red lights because it is a stupid thing to do. Thankfully, the DMV publishes a book of recommended driving behaviors. And, if I am having a bad week and getting distracted, we have police officers that are nice enough to remind me of important things that I wasn't paying attention to.

I have absolutely no concern for "objective death and wounds" caused by the government. The idea never crossed my mind, not like ever, until you brought them up. Nor should it as I have never experienced such a thing, never seen such a thing (except of some fantasy on TV), and never had any cause for concern of anything remotely close. In fact, now that I think about it, the major cause for concern for me, that might result in wounds, is running with scissors or cutting a box with a box cutter.

That you personally feel a "Government Gun" is simply a subjective description of your personal economics. That "Government Gun" isn't a problem for me, because they don't carry that gun to make me do anything. I do whatever I want to do. They carry that "Government Gun" to protect themselves, and me, from the likes of others that have some personal problem and find working with others difficult.

Hmm.... Now that I think about it, most of those people that the police apparently carry that gun for, have some attitude like your "Government Gun". Hmm... you are presenting a striking resemblance to individuals who end up in jail. (Have you?)

And seeing as most individual never end up in jail, then this "Government Gun" is meaningless in describing the economics of a nation of 320+ million people, 160+ million workers, and 8+ million businesses that are run by in excess of 8 million managers.

It certainly doesn't describe me nor does it describe the majority of the economic agents in the economy.

You simply cannot build an economic understanding based on personal anecdotes and personal feelings.

 

[itfitzme]

Profits derive from prior "sales"; Taxes on Profits represent "double jeopardy", re-Taxing already-(sales-)Taxed Money ("getting mugged, then re-mugged a block away"); legally, "double jeopardy" is non-valid

That makes absolutely no mathematical sense. That makes no accounting sense, and it makes no economic sense. And as money and taxes are numbers and mathematics is the method of numbers, then the concept makes no sense in any terms.

A multiplier, like a tax, is communicative or distributive, or one of those mathematitive rules. It doesn't matter if you tax something at 20% in one place or 10% in two places. In the end, and in general, it's the same number. In the end, there is not general meaning to it or fundamental principle that makes a difference.

We might want to point out that, in fact, some money is taxed twice, once in one place and once in another, if someone misses this fact and claims that the total tax is only 10%. But that it is taxed in two place, is economically meaningless, unless you can present some mechanism by which it has some effect that is distinct from the same net taxes in a single place.

Taxes on money, as it flows through the system

By all means, present this "double jeopardy" theory of economics. Law is not an economic theory.

It like you "making up" all these "rules", where 'up' is "down", "down" is "up", and "rocks float" "in the air" because you don't like "gravity". Natural laws are simply what they are. And basic mathematics is a collection of natural laws that begins with simply counting things and the fact that they always add up the same. If you're going to ignore that things always add up the same, then there is no wonder your confused.

 

[itfitzme]

Facts are painful for you as well?

Simply, kid, you are falling every farther behind the dude. You simply reveal that apparently you do not understand taxes, taxation, and their role in modern society.

Keep reading him carefully and you will eventually learn, if you want to.

You're right, I don't understand that raising taxes wouldn't reduce output. Silly me.

Oh, I totally believe that if the sales tax was increased by 2%, you would threaten to not buy food or eat, and if individual income taxes went up by 25, you threaten to would quite working. You might even try holding your breath until you turn blue.

But in an economy of 160+ million workers, you are 0.000000625% of the total output. You could never pay taxes again and the economy wouldn't skip a beat.

And while we are all sorry that your mommy or daddy were mean to you, that's about as far as it goes. We FEEL sorry, how's that working for you.

Economics doesn't give a shit that you are all upset. There is no macro "toddster might get whinny and upset because he's still all mad at his mommy and daddy" economics .

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Simply, kid, you are falling every farther behind the dude. You simply reveal that apparently you do not understand taxes, taxation, and their role in modern society.

Keep reading him carefully and you will eventually learn, if you want to.

You're right, I don't understand that raising taxes wouldn't reduce output. Silly me.

Oh, I totally believe that if the sales tax was increased by 2%, you would threaten to not buy food or eat, and if individual income taxes went up by 25, you threaten to would quite working. You might even try holding your breath until you turn blue.

But in an economy of 160+ million workers, you are 0.000000625% of the total output. You could never pay taxes again and the economy wouldn't skip a beat.

And while we are all sorry that your mommy or daddy were mean to you, that's about as far as it goes. We FEEL sorry, how's that working for you.

Economics doesn't give a shit that you are all upset. There is no macro "toddster might get whinny and upset because he's still all mad at his mommy and daddy" economics .

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.

OMG! Funniest thing I've seen all week.
We're raising the corporate tax on oil companies to 95%, but that won't impact their business decisions, they just want to maximize earnings, no matter how little of those earnings they get to keep.

 

[itfitzme]

We're raising the corporate tax on oil companies to 95%

That is fucking hilarious, you actually believe that the corporate tax rate is being raised to 95%.

 

[itfitzme]

And I was able to find 02corate.pdf. It only goes to 2002.

Historical rates are here.

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

Fucking hilarious, you think "02corate.pdf" is different then "02corate.pdf" .

Do you screw up the "find the hidden object" puzzles too? Being an accountant isn't a good job for you.

And even more fucking hilarious, you think it goes to 2011.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We're raising the corporate tax on oil companies to 95%

That is fucking hilarious, you actually believe that the corporate tax rate is being raised to 95%.

No, that's a hypothetical example that demonstrates how stupid your claim was.