The Continuing Success of the Laffer Curve

[JasperL]

If you understand what I said.. then you realize why the costs of FICA.. is NOT like the cost of salary,, or bonuses.

You sir are stuck in your box thinking that compensation is only a number in a talley sheet.

I have no idea what your point is - we both understand what an expense is, and we understand that bonuses come with a FICA obligation of 6.2%. So this line of debate is pointless.

 

[JasperL]

You sir are too funny... the quote that I supposedly "ripped out of context?" I quoted your entire post... here it is again..

but whatever man.. look at you walk backward... we call that "crawfishing"

OK, I've had this problem before. I'm not sure if you're actually this dishonest in a debate, or just trolling me. It's a tough question. :doh

Here's the post I responded to (I quoted it in my response):

the Laffer Curve is not rocket science, and people read to much into it then there is......

if we raise taxes 100% we will get NO TAXES.

the lower end of the Curve does not even need to be explained.

So as you see, the person made a very specific claim. And I responded to his very specific claim, with:

OK, if that's all it is, then the Laffer Curve is worthless as a tool to analyze anything we're facing in this reality as we're nowhere near 100% tax rates, which was my point.

And as you know because we've had this discussion, I've said many times that the research indicates a peak of somewhere around 70-80%. You know this, or have the memory of a gnat, so you're fooling only yourself by pretending that you're accurately summarizing my position with your cherry picked quotes.

 

[JasperL]

Absolutely... and that's my point... you are not treating wages.. and FICA the same... and incidentally, neither do your employees. They don't decide to work for you or not work for you based on what percentage you pay to FICA.

They do complain and decide whether to work for you based on their wages, bonuses and other types of compensation.

That might be true, but only when they're comparing employee offer to employee offer. The percentage of FICA is the same, so the variable is salary. If you tell a therapist she can work as an employee or independent contractor, she will (unless stupid) absolutely base her decision in part on the fact that as employee you pay 8% of her salary in payroll taxes, and 0% if hired as independent.

 

[jaeger19]

That might be true, but only when they're comparing employee offer to employee offer. The percentage of FICA is the same, so the variable is salary. If you tell a therapist she can work as an employee or independent contractor, she will (unless stupid) absolutely base her decision in part on the fact that as employee you pay 8% of her salary in payroll taxes, and 0% if hired as independent.

Bingo... too bad you don't see that you just supported my position.

 

[jaeger19]

I have no idea what your point is - we both understand what an expense is, and we understand that bonuses come with a FICA obligation of 6.2%. So this line of debate is pointless.

Its only pointless to you because you seem to think all expenses are the same when it comes to employer employee decisions like deciding whether to offer raises or bonuses.. or on the employees end to ask for such or threaten to leave for another job.

You made the same mistake with healthcare thinking that a healthcare insurance policy from your employer was "the same" as being "paid in gold bars, or furs"

Can't go on the street and sell you healthcare policy like selling a gold bar. AND most people aren't deciding between being an employee and an independent contractor.

 

[jaeger19]

OK, I've had this problem before. I'm not sure if you're actually this dishonest in a debate, or just trolling me. It's a tough question. :doh

Here's the post I responded to (I quoted it in my response):



So as you see, the person made a very specific claim. And I responded to his very specific claim, with:



And as you know because we've had this discussion, I've said many times that the research indicates a peak of somewhere around 70-80%. You know this, or have the memory of a gnat, so you're fooling only yourself by pretending that you're accurately summarizing my position with your cherry picked quotes.

Yes Jasper.. you made a very specific claim that number one... was wrong concerning the laffer curve.. and two was a directed at laffer curve itself... and not on what "politicians" think the laffer curve is...

Which is what you claimed.

I understand you position very much. You have had to backtrack your position multiple times.. and the quotes prove that crawfishing. That's just the facts Jasper.

 

[JasperL]

Yes Jasper.. you made a very specific claim that number one... was wrong concerning the laffer curve.. and two was a directed at laffer curve itself... and not on what "politicians" think the laffer curve is...

Which is what you claimed.

I understand you position very much. You have had to backtrack your position multiple times.. and the quotes prove that crawfishing. That's just the facts Jasper.

Which very specific claim was wrong?

 

[JasperL]

Bingo... too bad you don't see that you just supported my position.

Which is what - that FICA you pay is an employee benefit? And that it will matter in employee decisions whether or not to take your offer? Glad to know we agree!

 

[JasperL]

Its only pointless to you because you seem to think all expenses are the same when it comes to employer employee decisions like deciding whether to offer raises or bonuses.. or on the employees end to ask for such or threaten to leave for another job.

Well, if you offer a raise of $1,000, it comes with it a payroll tax obligation of roughly $80. I'm assuming that you budget for both - one comes with the other. I think you're just trying hard to disagree, and don't see the point of this discussion beyond that.

You made the same mistake with healthcare thinking that a healthcare insurance policy from your employer was "the same" as being "paid in gold bars, or furs"

Gold isn't "the same" as furs, and furs aren't "the same" but they are both, like healthcare insurance, very valuable benefits highly prized by employees. It's an obvious point that, again, you seem to have a problem with only because you are determined to find some way to be disagreeable instead of recognizing the obvious.

Can't go on the street and sell you healthcare policy like selling a gold bar. AND most people aren't deciding between being an employee and an independent contractor.

No, you can't sell your insurance policy but it's as valuable a benefit as the equivalent in gold bars. If the insurance wasn't offered by you, they'd need cash or maybe sell some gold bars to buy their own policy. Again - this is utterly obvious so I have no idea what your point is.

And, no, 'most' people aren't deciding between employee or independent, but that's when the value of the employee benefit of your FICA contribution become OBVIOUS. You're assuming a liability of roughly 8% of salary. Are you telling me this isn't a valuable benefit to employees? I guess maybe you have to believe this so you can claim you and all other employers can jam 8% pay cuts onto the entire working population overnight, and all employers would be able to pocket for themselves the entire 8% payroll savings. It's a ludicrous claim.

 

[jaeger19]

Which very specific claim was wrong?

That its only valuable at or close to 100% taxation.

 

[jaeger19]

Which is what - that FICA you pay is an employee benefit? And that it will matter in employee decisions whether or not to take your offer? Glad to know we agree!

That Fica is not like any other employee benefit.. its a tax. and thus it doesn't have the same effect on decision making.

 

[jaeger19]

Well, if you offer a raise of $1,000, it comes with it a payroll tax obligation of roughly $80. I'm assuming that you budget for both - one comes with the other. I think you're just trying hard to disagree, and don't see the point of this discussion beyond that.

Exactly.. you don't see the point of the discussion because you are not able to see outside your little tiny box. I just don't think you are willing or capable of seeing the difference.

Gold isn't "the same" as furs, and furs aren't "the same" but they are both, like healthcare insurance, very valuable benefits highly prized by employees. It's an obvious point that, again, you seem to have a problem with only because you are determined to find some way to be disagreeable instead of recognizing the obvious.

And that sir is completely wrong. Terribly wrong... so wrong its laughable... but you are incapable of understanding.

I give my employees a choice of 20,000 dollars of gold bars... OR they can have a 20,000 dollar insurance policy.

Tell me.. which one do you think the vast majority would take? Or do you claim that half my employees would want a 20,000 dollar insurance plan when they spend on average less than 3000 dollars on medical bills a year? (the vast number of employees never even hit their deductible for the plan)...

Your lack of understanding on this speaks volumes.

No, you can't sell your insurance policy but it's as valuable a benefit as the equivalent in gold bars. If the insurance wasn't offered by you, they'd need cash or maybe sell some gold bars to buy their own policy. Again - this is utterly obvious so I have no idea what your point is.

See.. again.. you don't understand even your own posts.... Look what you just said...

or maybe sell some gold bars to buy their own policy

So even on some level.. you recognize that the gold bars have MORE worth... because you state they would have to sell SOME gold bars to buy their own policy.... in other words.. gold bars is a better deal because they end up with gold.. and a policy.

Rather than JUST a policy. that means the insurance policy in your example is NOT worth the same as the gold bars... otherwise they would have had to sell ALL their gold bars to buy their own policy.

Get it? Nope probably not.

And, no, 'most' people aren't deciding between employee or independent, but that's when the value of the employee benefit of your FICA contribution become OBVIOUS.

Bingo.. another reason that FICA contribution is not the same as getting a bonus or heck DONUTS...

I guess maybe you have to believe this so you can claim you and all other employers can jam 8% pay cuts onto the entire working population overnight, and all employers would be able to pocket for themselves the entire 8% payroll savings. It's a ludicrous claim.

First.. why do you think its ludicrous. If all employers could get together and ignore anti trust laws and set employee salaries across the board.. .why could we NOT jam a 8% pay cut? If we all agree to cut 8% off salaries... competition would remain the same.

So please explain why we could not do this?

 

[JasperL]

That its only valuable at or close to 100% taxation.

Again, you've made my question even harder. Dishonest or just trolling..... Obviously you know because a couple dozen responses have been TO YOU, that I don't believe "at or close to 100%" is the likely peak - unless you define 70-80% as "at or close to 100%." So are you making a pathetically weak argument that amounts to scouring posts for something you can pull out in a "gotcha" exercise, or are trolling me. Hmmm......... :doh

 

[JasperL]

Exactly.. you don't see the point of the discussion because you are not able to see outside your little tiny box. I just don't think you are willing or capable of seeing the difference.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make other than being disagreeable, so I'll pass on this one.

And that sir is completely wrong. Terribly wrong... so wrong its laughable... but you are incapable of understanding.

I give my employees a choice of 20,000 dollars of gold bars... OR they can have a 20,000 dollar insurance policy.

Tell me.. which one do you think the vast majority would take? Or do you claim that half my employees would want a 20,000 dollar insurance plan when they spend on average less than 3000 dollars on medical bills a year? (the vast number of employees never even hit their deductible for the plan)...

Well, if "the vast majority" of your employees would rather have $20,000 in cash or gold bars and not insurance, why the hell are you paying them in insurance policies that cost you $20,000. Just give them the cash or gold, they're happier, they can buy their own insurance, and you have a lot fewer headaches not having to run a benefits plan (I'm ignoring the tax differences in 20k in cash versus a policy costing $20k, since I know you're looking for another gotcha...)

Your lack of understanding on this speaks volumes.

What you call my "lack of understanding" is recognizing that insurance benefits are a very valuable employee benefit, as is cash, vacation, gifts of gold bars, new cars, etc. You want to quibble about the equivalent of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

See.. again.. you don't understand even your own posts.... Look what you just said...

So even on some level.. you recognize that the gold bars have MORE worth... because you state they would have to sell SOME gold bars to buy their own policy.... in other words.. gold bars is a better deal because they end up with gold.. and a policy.

Now it's official - you're just trolling me because you're not that stupid or dishonest. You're claiming some point because I said "some?" LMMFAO :lamo

If the choice was gold bars worth $20k or insurance that costs 20k (both deductible for you) the employee prefers the insurance because she will enjoy the policy tax free, but would owe income and employment taxes on the gold bar, and maybe keep only $15k of the gold, but enjoy the entire $20k value of insurance.

Rather than JUST a policy. that means the insurance policy in your example is NOT worth the same as the gold bars... otherwise they would have had to sell ALL their gold bars to buy their own policy.

OK, I see this is going nowhere but the crapper. If you want to say you'd be giving them gold worth $20, but the policy only costs $3,000, awesome point!!! But why in the hell would you pay out in cash/gold something far more than the cost of the policy? For fun or just because this stupid hypothetical allows you to play gotcha and be disagreeable? I'll pick the latter, for the WIN!!!

Bingo.. another reason that FICA contribution is not the same as getting a bonus or heck DONUTS...

First.. why do you think its ludicrous. If all employers could get together and ignore anti trust laws and set employee salaries across the board.. .why could we NOT jam a 8% pay cut? If we all agree to cut 8% off salaries... competition would remain the same.

Hey, that's a great point. Tens of thousands of employers colluding to set pay across the entire economy!! Sounds totally reasonable.....

So please explain why we could not do this?

It's only 5:30 in the east. Been hitting the :drink a little early? :funny