• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Taxes, More Taxes?

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
SouthernDemocrat said:
You need links to know that economic growth was high in the 50s, 60s, and 90s?

If that is the case, I think the whole thread is probably over your head.

Two words for you Tax Cuts
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
SouthernDemocrat said:
What is funny, is the Bush Administration started recalculating how they calculate employment so as to make themselves look better.

You don't even know who calculates unemployment.........:roll:
 

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
27,648
Reaction score
18,172
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Navy Pride said:
You don't even know who calculates unemployment.........:roll:

The Labor Department.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,154
Reaction score
565
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
SouthernDemocrat said:
I worded that poorly. However, you guys are confusing two different things.

Yes, people create markets for new products all the time. Especially if that product or service enables people to work more efficiently or better their lives.

That’s a given, no argument there.

However, from an economics perspective, you can’t create a market for any product or service if the economy you are marketing it does not have the ability to support the consumption of that product. That is a basic economic principle.

That's why investment and expenditure of labor for profit is so important in an economy, it creates the wealth that can then support those new markets and the products brought to them. Remove the profit motive and you remove the incentives. That's why it is important to leave as much of that profit and wealth creation in the private market and not have it confiscated by government.

As I said earlier, it seems that those on the far right and those on the far left have no idea how an economy actually functions.

Well would you rather live in a "far left" economy or a "far right" economy?
 

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
27,648
Reaction score
18,172
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Stinger said:
That's why investment and expenditure of labor for profit is so important in an economy, it creates the wealth that can then support those new markets and the products brought to them. Remove the profit motive and you remove the incentives. That's why it is important to leave as much of that profit and wealth creation in the private market and not have it confiscated by government.



Well would you rather live in a "far left" economy or a "far right" economy?

Neither.

In a far left economy, there is no poverty, but there is no incentive to work hard and get ahead either.

In a far right economy, there are a few rich people, no middle class, and poverty is rampant.

In an economy where ideology is cast aside and pragmatic economics is the rule, you have a strong middle class, low poverty rates, and fairly equitable distribution of wealth.

What you guys on the ideological right don’t seem to get is that investment while key to economic growth is nothing without an economy that can support adequate consumption. There is no reason to investing in anything if there is no chance of actually selling a service or product in the end. If you don’t have a strong middle class where wealth is not almost fully concentrated at the top, you wont have the consumption necessary to support a strong economy. A rising tide lifts all boats. During the nineties, the rich continued to get richer at a fast pace as always, investment was strong, median income grew at a healthy pace, poverty rates dropped, the job market expanded dramatically, and we had slightly higher tax rates and balanced budgets.

Today, investment is strong, the rich are continuing to get richer, but median income has been flat for a record 5 years now, poverty rates have risen every year for 5 years now, the job market has not expanded at near the rate it did during the nineties, we have a lower tax rate, but huge deficits which are quickly becoming untenable.


Contrary to what the ideological right and ideological left think, you cannot make the economy work the way you want it to work, but rather you have to govern in such a way that you recognize in a practical manner how the economy does actually work.


Which economy would you choose?
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
SouthernDemocrat said:
I am sure you know how to run a business, but I think you need to read up a little on basic macro economics.

No, the government did not have a surplus under Kennedy, but it also did not have a very large deficit at all. The concern his economists had was that economic growth at the current level of taxation was going to provide so much revenue that the revenue would be greater than the government’s fiscal obligations and that would slow the velocity of money and thus slow economic growth. The velocity of money is simply the rate that money moves in an economy. For example, the velocity of money at walmart is faster than at a rolls royce dealership. You have to understand that the governing economic philosophy at the time was a lot different than the one since the Carter years; we now have a fed that is anti-inflationary in its policies. During the Kennedy era, the Federal Reserve was low unemployment at the expense of high inflation in its policies. The velocity of money was key to that policy.

Once again, I stand by more original point that your portion of payroll taxes is simply that much less money that you would be normally paid. That is economics 101. You brought up the minimum wage, but increases in minimum wage have never led to higher unemployment, there is simply too much money at the top tier in our economy for that to happen.

First, BleedingHeart, it was Richard Nixon that had the last surplus before President Clinton wasn't allowed to spend his historically huge 560 Billion Dollar tax increase; prevented from spending it by the now spend happy Republicans. Isn't it interesting how alike Democrats and Republicans are except for the hot air that comes out of their mouths?

And Southern Democrat. If you want to talk Cash Flow why not call it what it is. Economics 101? And you passed the course? I am still trying to figure out how you don't think employers pay payroll taxes out of their own pockets ALONG WITH the employees. You don't understand this, you really don't, do you? SOCIAL SECURITY? Ever heard of it? DISABILITY? Ever heard of it? WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE? Ever heard of it. You want me to believe that the employer takes money from the employee to pay these? You have no clue.

Velocity of money? Cash Flow. Let me just say that when the salesman sells the Mercedes that money gets a little more volitile in the speed it comes out of the customer's pocket, goes to the dealership, hits the finance house, gets paid to the bank; all while the car loses value under the customer and the others make money.

You're really a hoot Southern Democrat. Are you from the southern United States or South Bora Bora? Just wondered where you went to Economics 101. Oh and, that's just an LOL on my part. Someone else here mentioned Bill Gates and Stephen Jobs but I'll bet that went right over your... well I won't speculate what's on your shoulders. You could be from South of Vega the way you talk. Oh and that's another LOL you know?
:duel :cool:
 

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
27,648
Reaction score
18,172
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
gordontravels said:
First, BleedingHeart, it was Richard Nixon that had the last surplus before President Clinton wasn't allowed to spend his historically huge 560 Billion Dollar tax increase; prevented from spending it by the now spend happy Republicans. Isn't it interesting how alike Democrats and Republicans are except for the hot air that comes out of their mouths?

And Southern Democrat. If you want to talk Cash Flow why not call it what it is. Economics 101? And you passed the course? I am still trying to figure out how you don't think employers pay payroll taxes out of their own pockets ALONG WITH the employees. You don't understand this, you really don't, do you? SOCIAL SECURITY? Ever heard of it? DISABILITY? Ever heard of it? WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE? Ever heard of it. You want me to believe that the employer takes money from the employee to pay these? You have no clue.

Velocity of money? Cash Flow. Let me just say that when the salesman sells the Mercedes that money gets a little more volitile in the speed it comes out of the customer's pocket, goes to the dealership, hits the finance house, gets paid to the bank; all while the car loses value under the customer and the others make money.

You're really a hoot Southern Democrat. Are you from the southern United States or South Bora Bora? Just wondered where you went to Economics 101. Oh and, that's just an LOL on my part. Someone else here mentioned Bill Gates and Stephen Jobs but I'll bet that went right over your... well I won't speculate what's on your shoulders. You could be from South of Vega the way you talk. Oh and that's another LOL you know?
:duel:cool:

With all do respect, despite the condescending tone in your responses, we are talking about completely different things here. You are talking about running a business; I am talking about macro-economics. When setting economic policy, there are a lot more factors to consider other than just what an individual needs to run a business.

  • Your right that an entrepreneur must create a market for whatever good or service he or she plans on offering. Sometimes they can create a new market for an entirely new product or servers. However, you cannot market anything if the economy you are marketing it to is not capable of consuming that product or service. Concentration of wealth and income leads to an environment where investment is high, but consumption is stifled. Any companies profits are eventually tied the ability of an economy to consume their goods or services. That is a concept that any investor knows to well because in the end, despite all of the investment in a company, it still has to make money at some point.
  • The velocity of money is not cash flow. Basically in any economy you have a certain amount of money at any one time in circulation. The velocity of money is how many times that currency turns over in that economy in a given period of time. Generally you don’t want currency to be stagnant in an economy, the more money that’s moving, the more economic growth. The flip side of this is the more money that’s moving, the more opportunity for inflation. It’s a delicate balance.
3. If payroll taxes stifled employment, then we would always have high unemployment. Yet that is not the case.
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
SouthernDemocrat said:
With all do respect, despite the condescending tone in your responses, we are talking about completely different things here. You are talking about running a business; I am talking about macro-economics. When setting economic policy, there are a lot more factors to consider other than just what an individual needs to run a business.

  • Your right that an entrepreneur must create a market for whatever good or service he or she plans on offering. Sometimes they can create a new market for an entirely new product or servers. However, you cannot market anything if the economy you are marketing it to is not capable of consuming that product or service. Concentration of wealth and income leads to an environment where investment is high, but consumption is stifled. Any companies profits are eventually tied the ability of an economy to consume their goods or services. That is a concept that any investor knows to well because in the end, despite all of the investment in a company, it still has to make money at some point.
  • The velocity of money is not cash flow. Basically in any economy you have a certain amount of money at any one time in circulation. The velocity of money is how many times that currency turns over in that economy in a given period of time. Generally you don’t want currency to be stagnant in an economy, the more money that’s moving, the more economic growth. The flip side of this is the more money that’s moving, the more opportunity for inflation. It’s a delicate balance.
3. If payroll taxes stifled employment, then we would always have high unemployment. Yet that is not the case.

Sorry about the condescending tone. Let me try the direct approach.

You started with employees pay payroll taxes, "not employers". Your premis was that employers could adjust their payroll, at the expense of employees, to keep their payroll taxes down.

Everything after that is SO WHAT except the laughable Kennedy tax cut comments from you. The government hoarding money? LOLOLOLOL. I read that and still can't believe it. You go macro guy. Get any smaller and addition and subtraction won't make a difference either.

Want to get back on track? What did you mean by that payroll thing and don't make me go back and cut and paste. You know what you wrote.
:duel :cool:
 

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
27,648
Reaction score
18,172
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
gordontravels said:
Sorry about the condescending tone. Let me try the direct approach.

You started with employees pay payroll taxes, "not employers". Your premis was that employers could adjust their payroll, at the expense of employees, to keep their payroll taxes down.

Everything after that is SO WHAT except the laughable Kennedy tax cut comments from you. The government hoarding money? LOLOLOLOL. I read that and still can't believe it. You go macro guy. Get any smaller and addition and subtraction won't make a difference either.

Want to get back on track? What did you mean by that payroll thing and don't make me go back and cut and paste. You know what you wrote.
:duel :cool:

Any economist will tell you that the costs of employing workers whether its payroll taxes, insurance, or what ever, is simply passed on to employees in the form of lower wages.

Moreover, how could you possibly argue that payroll taxes lead to less hiring? We have had very low unemployment rates at times, yet the payroll taxes have still been there.

And are you saying that the government cannot hoard money, or at the very least slow the velocity of money in an economy when it takes in more than it has fiscal oblications for?
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
SouthernDemocrat said:
Any economist will tell you that the costs of employing workers whether its payroll taxes, insurance, or what ever, is simply passed on to employees in the form of lower wages.

Moreover, how could you possibly argue that payroll taxes lead to less hiring? We have had very low unemployment rates at times, yet the payroll taxes have still been there.

And are you saying that the government cannot hoard money, or at the very least slow the velocity of money in an economy when it takes in more than it has fiscal oblications for?

I don't like dealing with "any" economist because then you get the crap you are dealing out here. Any GOOD economist will tell you that it all depends on the bottom line and that the beginning of the bottom line is PROFIT. I don't know where you get your economists but if you believe what you are writing I think you are way off the mark.

It's easy. Payroll Taxes have nothing to do with how many people you hire. NOTHING. You hire the number of people you need to run your business efficiently and at a profit. You pay wages prevalent in your industry if you want to compete for competent workers. You raise prices when inflation or increases in taxes, any taxes, put your profits below the percentage you have to have to continue a profitable business.

Good Holy Cow man don't you know that expenses are passed on to the customer at a level that won't price you out of the market? Your insistence that you put it on your employees will only cause turnover in your workforce and destabalize your business. You are absolutely full of it - it being your understanding how a business works.

Put your extra expenses on your employees? My God man. Tell me one book on economics where I can find that. Please don't say Economics 101, please? It ain't in there, not at all or in any language.
:duel :cool:
 

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
27,648
Reaction score
18,172
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
gordontravels said:
I don't like dealing with "any" economist because then you get the crap you are dealing out here. Any GOOD economist will tell you that it all depends on the bottom line and that the beginning of the bottom line is PROFIT. I don't know where you get your economists but if you believe what you are writing I think you are way off the mark.

It's easy. Payroll Taxes have nothing to do with how many people you hire. NOTHING. You hire the number of people you need to run your business efficiently and at a profit. You pay wages prevalent in your industry if you want to compete for competent workers. You raise prices when inflation or increases in taxes, any taxes, put your profits below the percentage you have to have to continue a profitable business.

Good Holy Cow man don't you know that expenses are passed on to the customer at a level that won't price you out of the market? Your insistence that you put it on your employees will only cause turnover in your workforce and destabalize your business. You are absolutely full of it - it being your understanding how a business works.

Put your extra expenses on your employees? My God man. Tell me one book on economics where I can find that. Please don't say Economics 101, please? It ain't in there, not at all or in any language.
:duel:cool:

Acme makes cell phone batteries, acme charges 100 dollars each for them. Acme pays its employees 100 dollars a day to make those cell phone batteries. Each employee makes 200 cell phone batteries a day.

OtherCompany makes cell phone batteries too. Other company charges 100 dollars each of them. Other company pays its employees 100 dollars a day to make those cell phone batteries. Each employee makes 200 cell phones a day.

Taxes are increased for both companies.

In response to the tax increase, Acme raises what it charges for cell phone batteries to 110 dollars each for them.

OtherCompany just absorbs the cost by earning slightly less per cell phone battery on the hopes that they will make it up in volume as they have the cheaper product now.

Acme now has the following options:

  • It can absorb the costs too.
  • It can outsource its production somewhere else.
  • It can attempt to find cheaper labor.
  • It can take measures to increase production.
  • It can try to build a better significantly better battery than OtherCompany and create a market for that better product.
One of those five is going to happen pretty much every time.

If costs were always passed on to the consumer, median wages would increase at a higher rate than inflation and wealth would not trend to the top. That has not happened though. We have an anti-inflationary economic policy. We trade increased production, higher unemployment, longer hours, and slower median wage growth for lower inflation. Prior to 1980 that was not the case. Then we traded higher inflation for lower unemployment, more equitable wealth distribution, and strong median wage growth.

Moreover, you don’t seem to get my original point. It doesn’t matter how you run your business if an economy does not support the consumption necessary for you to sell what every product or service that you sell. Without adequate consumption in an economy, there is no reason for anyone with means to invest in any company. That is why consumption is over 2/3 of the economy, not investment. If you don’t have a strong middle class, you have a third world economy. That is why Supply Side Economics is completely dismissed by almost every single economist in the nation as a pie in the sky idea. It did not work in the 80s. Bush Sr. completely departed from that policy while he was in office, and he and Clinton returned the nation’s economic policy to a traditional conservative economic policy. Now current president Bush is trying to revive the old Supply Side model. What have we gotten out of it. Flat median wage growth, increased poverty rates, huge deficits, and historically below average job creation.

And that is the turd you are trying to polish for everyone in the thread.
 
Last edited:

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
SouthernDemocrat said:
Acme makes cell phone batteries, acme charges 100 dollars each for them. Acme pays its employees 100 dollars a day to make those cell phone batteries. Each employee makes 200 cell phone batteries a day.

OtherCompany makes cell phone batteries too. Other company charges 100 dollars each of them. Other company pays its employees 100 dollars a day to make those cell phone batteries. Each employee makes 200 cell phones a day.

Taxes are increased for both companies.

In response to the tax increase, Acme raises what it charges for cell phone batteries to 110 dollars each for them.

OtherCompany just absorbs the cost by earning slightly less per cell phone battery on the hopes that they will make it up in volume as they have the cheaper product now.

Acme now has the following options:

  • It can absorb the costs too.
  • It can outsource its production somewhere else.
  • It can attempt to find cheaper labor.
  • It can take measures to increase production.
  • It can try to build a better significantly better battery than OtherCompany and create a market for that better product.
One of those five is going to happen pretty much every time.

If costs were always passed on to the consumer, median wages would increase at a higher rate than inflation and wealth would not trend to the top. That has not happened though. We have an anti-inflationary economic policy. We trade increased production, higher unemployment, longer hours, and slower median wage growth for lower inflation. Prior to 1980 that was not the case. Then we traded higher inflation for lower unemployment, more equitable wealth distribution, and strong median wage growth.

Moreover, you don’t seem to get my original point. It doesn’t matter how you run your business if an economy does not support the consumption necessary for you to sell what every product or service that you sell. Without adequate consumption in an economy, there is no reason for anyone with means to invest in any company. That is why consumption is over 2/3 of the economy, not investment. If you don’t have a strong middle class, you have a third world economy. That is why Supply Side Economics is completely dismissed by almost every single economist in the nation as a pie in the sky idea. It did not work in the 80s. Bush Sr. completely departed from that policy while he was in office, and he and Clinton returned the nation’s economic policy to a traditional conservative economic policy. Now current president Bush is trying to revive the old Supply Side model. What have we gotten out of it. Flat median wage growth, increased poverty rates, huge deficits, and historically below average job creation.

And that is the turd you are trying to polish for everyone in the thread.

Absolute bull. You said that employers save money on payroll taxes by passing the cost on to their employees. Now you want to go into Clinton, Bush and hiding. Sorry, I know what you said and what I asked.

I think it's simple so let me simply say: You made this absurd premis in your own words so here's cut and paste time:

QUOTE FROM SOUTHERNDEMOCRAT: Secondly, do you honestly think that your employer pays those payroll taxes out of his or her pocket? Or, do you think that they simply pass that expense along to the worker. If you guessed option 2, then you are correct and any economist out there will agree. END QUOTE

Any economist out there that agrees with that WILL BE FIRED.

Hide if you want. Bring up other deflections but either you explain your statement with words that make sense or go away.
:duel :cool:
 

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
27,648
Reaction score
18,172
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
gordontravels said:
Absolute bull. You said that employers save money on payroll taxes by passing the cost on to their employees. Now you want to go into Clinton, Bush and hiding. Sorry, I know what you said and what I asked.

I think it's simple so let me simply say: You made this absurd premis in your own words so here's cut and paste time:

QUOTE FROM SOUTHERNDEMOCRAT: Secondly, do you honestly think that your employer pays those payroll taxes out of his or her pocket? Or, do you think that they simply pass that expense along to the worker. If you guessed option 2, then you are correct and any economist out there will agree. END QUOTE

Any economist out there that agrees with that WILL BE FIRED.

Hide if you want. Bring up other deflections but either you explain your statement with words that make sense or go away.
:duel:cool:

You obviously no nothing about Economics.

The following is a quote from the CBO's website on the effects of a payroll tax holiday as a way of stimulating economic growth:

"As noted earlier, most analysts consider the employer's share of payroll taxes to be borne by employees"

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3251&sequence=0

Here is a quote from a release from the tax policy center on payroll taxes:

"Recent policy discussions have raised the possibility of payroll tax cuts or income tax credits based on payroll tax payments. In 2003, workers and employers
each owe 6.2 percent Social Security tax on the first $87,000 of a worker’s earnings, and a 1.45 percent Medicare tax on all wages. Although the statutory obligation to pay payroll taxes is split between the worker and the employer, most economists believe that workers bear most or all of the economic burden."

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1000456_payroll_income.pdf

Like I say, it is economics 101. I could find a 1000 examples just like this one from economic liberal, conservative, non-partisan think tanks, and CBO sources.
 

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
27,648
Reaction score
18,172
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Hmm, no more know-it-all-ness now that I threw some facts up.:2razz:
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
SouthernDemocrat said:
Hmm, no more know-it-all-ness now that I threw some facts up.:2razz:

If you will actually take the time to read this post I think we may at the very least, understand each other. Sorry for the length.

Although I would like to sit and post endlessly whether accomplishing anything with those posts or not. I enjoy having my opinion in front of my own eyes so I can see where I am in my own thinking. I enjoy seeing yours. I have a novel to write and business matters that need daily attention so sometimes when I delay or stop replying it usually isn't because I just can't respond to your rhetoric which I am sure you enjoy too.

You fault my business knowledge and cite the CBO. I should believe everything that comes out of the CBO? Bureaucrats that may have a slant for their own political desires? You see it written there and you say "fact". I see it written there and compare it to my own knowledge of hands on business having had as many as 387 employees at one time and numerous businesses, all profitable and successful (the two are not mutally exclusive).

I go too far probably with this but: I retired at 41 to be able to do absolutely anything I want with my life. From that day to this and until my life is over, I will not be responsible to anyone but myself. I will never be employed again except for my own responsibilities to myself and my own situation. I did this through a life of operating businesses and understanding how business works. I started with nothing right out of the Army that had disrupted anything in my life that came before. I served and then began my own recovery. I earned it.

You site that "most economists think workers bear most of the burden" of payroll taxes. Then they pay their rent or house payment, living expenses, any extras like car payment or insurance or medical bill. The employer does that too, bill for bill. But he also pays everything the employee sees when he drives up for work in the morning. The employer also pays all the hidden costs the employee doesn't see. The employer also pays those payroll costs for himself and completely out of his pocket along with all the other taxes that are local, state and federal.

You make this statement, "You obviously no nothing about Economics."

This statement from you really says your arguement in total doesn't it. That I may disagree with you or some government bureaucrats that have been taken out of context, I am totally written off as one you see "no" (that's know by the way) nothing about economics. Isn't that just like the Democrats and Republicans and what they do to our government? If I know nothing about economics then the 18 years of my personal business career meant what? I was a really lucky guy? Every time I made a decision it "just happened to be right"?

Tell me. When you read the CBO say that "most economists" think this or that do you think that they have some survey or have actually talked to these economists? How many times have you seen government predictions about the economy follow their model? You believe everything the government tells you? If it enhances your arguement are you more inclined to believe it?

I made my "economic gains" that I know nothing about, obviously, with my own mind and due diligence. Your CBO friends are wrong in your quoted statement and if even some of those economists had understood how wrong they were they could have advised their clients and helped their businesses survive instead of failing. The vast majority of businesses fail you know. Not to blow a horn but, maybe they should have asked me; a successful businessman many times over.

I'll remind you. Democrats and Republicans run our government. I say beware. I was and it worked for me.
:duel :cool:
 

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
27,648
Reaction score
18,172
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I don’t deny that you know how to run a business. I am saying that running a business and macro-economics is apples and oranges. If you need a CFO, you don’t hire an economist. A business owner might make a poor economist and an economist a poor businessman.

If I am a mechanic, I don’t need to know all the ins and outs of what went into urban planning and the design of the interstate highway system. That knowledge would have little do to with how to work on a vehicle.

Similarly, if I own a business, I don’t need a knowledge of macro economics because macro economics does not really apply to the workings of a business. Instead it is a piece of the infrastructure that all businesses in an economy operate in.

I stand by my point and like I say, I would challenge you to find any economist that would disagree with it.

Moreover, public spending benefits business owners greatly. The public sector educates your workers, builds the infrastructure that makes commerce even possible, provides security, provides oversight, and a thousand other things that everyone takes for granted. Anyone who is successful in this nation owes this nation some gratitude for their success. No one does anything completely on their own.
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
SouthernDemocrat said:
I don’t deny that you know how to run a business. I am saying that running a business and macro-economics is apples and oranges. If you need a CFO, you don’t hire an economist. A business owner might make a poor economist and an economist a poor businessman.

If I am a mechanic, I don’t need to know all the ins and outs of what went into urban planning and the design of the interstate highway system. That knowledge would have little do to with how to work on a vehicle.

Similarly, if I own a business, I don’t need a knowledge of macro economics because macro economics does not really apply to the workings of a business. Instead it is a piece of the infrastructure that all businesses in an economy operate in.

I stand by my point and like I say, I would challenge you to find any economist that would disagree with it.

Moreover, public spending benefits business owners greatly. The public sector educates your workers, builds the infrastructure that makes commerce even possible, provides security, provides oversight, and a thousand other things that everyone takes for granted. Anyone who is successful in this nation owes this nation some gratitude for their success. No one does anything completely on their own.

And no matter your macro or economists, if you still stand by your statement, no matter where you got it, that payroll taxes or their increases are put on the employee rather than the employer then... you are being led and not thinking for yourself. That has been my question of you all through this and you skirt it with someone else's words. You are wrong and since I wrote those payroll checks, I know you are. Have a happy macro life.

Oh and, did you get my comments about your "most economists" bull? Just where did they get that since you stand behind it?
:duel :cool:
 

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
27,648
Reaction score
18,172
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
gordontravels said:
And no matter your macro or economists, if you still stand by your statement, no matter where you got it, that payroll taxes or their increases are put on the employee rather than the employer then... you are being led and not thinking for yourself. That has been my question of you all through this and you skirt it with someone else's words. You are wrong and since I wrote those payroll checks, I know you are. Have a happy macro life.

Oh and, did you get my comments about your "most economists" bull? Just where did they get that since you stand behind it?
:duel :cool:

Economic science is where they get it. Like I said, it is the belief held by the vast majority of economists. So basically, I am merely posting the opinion of experts. In your case, possibly that was not the case, but obviously it is the case with the vast majority of employers, or the vast majority of economists would not hold that belief. Are you honestly going to claim that you know more than Alan Greenspan?

Moreover, it is a fact that bolsters the claims of some conservatives about payroll taxes.
 

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
27,648
Reaction score
18,172
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
More sources:

“Most economists agree that while the payroll tax burden is shared between employers and employees, the total burden of the tax is borne by employees in the form of lower wages or fringe benefits.”

http://www.socioeconomic.org/RSA2.pdf

“Economists generally agree that the employer share of payroll taxes is borne by the employee in the form of lower wages.”

http://www.fairtax.org/pdfs/education.pdf

I might add that this is not even an economic rule that applies to the United States, but rather it is a rule that applies to almost any capitalist economy in the world.
 

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
27,648
Reaction score
18,172
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
In fact, I will go so far as to say that the company that I work for, when it releases its annual personalized salary and benefits summary to each of its employees, treats payroll taxes in that summary as a benefit and as part of the employees total compensation package.
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat
You need links to know that economic growth was high in the 50s, 60s, and 90s?

If that is the case, I think the whole thread is probably over your head.

Navy Pride said:
Two words for you Tax Cuts

Taxes were increased in 1993, top rate from 31% to 39% where it stayed until 2000.
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
gordontravels said:
Let's see. Our economy is currently growing at over 4%. The economy of France as measured by their own economics council to the government is growing at 1.2%. Our unemployment hovers around 5% which is equal to the Clinton amazing Administration years.

Shroeder just lost his reelection bid in Germany because of the poor economy and a conservative woman beat him.

I think your figures bear me out when you look at the global economy. Tell me why they don't. See? I don't post links and let them talk for me. I wrote an indepth post. Let's see your words beyond the obvious sarcasm and please spell out what you think your links tell and figures tell us. Oh and don't forget, this country isn't equaled at this moment by any country in the world when it comes to economics. In fact it is a fact that they all depend on us.
:duel :cool:

Why are you bringing up France and Germany and other economies? They are totally different.

You state that tax cuts creates jobs. I cite statistics from the Dept of Labor over the last past 15 years showing the complete opposite. Strong job growth in the 90s after the tax increase on the wealthy and poor job growth in the 00s with the tax cuts for the wealthy.

If you disagree with the employment figures posted by the Dept of Labor, show me what is a better source.
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Navy Pride said:
When we have a surplus that means the government has to much of our money.....There should be more tax cuts.........

The deficit is high but when you factor in the GNP percentage wise it is smaller then it was in the eighties............

To whom does the $8 trillion public debt our Govt has accumulated mostly with Republican deficits?

Tax cuts are great. We pay less taxes, and borrow the cost of our government and let the next generation pay for it. That is why, thanks to our Republican leadership over the past 25 years, we are the pass the buck generation.
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
SouthernDemocrat said:
What is funny, is the Bush Administration started recalculating how they calculate employment so as to make themselves look better.

A big percentage of job creation since 2000 has been in Govt/military jobs.
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
gordontravels said:

I'll remind you. Democrats and Republicans run our government. I say beware. I was and it worked for me.
:duel :cool:

Last I checked, since 2000 the Republicans have had control of the House, Senate, and White House. I'd say they are the folks running our Govt since 2000. Though if you are a Republican, I can certainly understand why you'd try to include Democrats.
 
Top Bottom