independent economists overwhelmingly side with democrats on economic policy

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Billy000, Sep 28, 2017.

  1. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    35,099
    Thanks Received:
    4,543
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +16,299
    Tell me, just exactly what "value" do financial intermediaries add to GDP?

    upload_2017-10-5_17-9-39.png

    About $1.44 trillion in Q2.

    Now, to the claim that I have not explained why a 50% corporate tax rate results in more investment than a 20% rate. I have explained it profusely.

    And your explanation was something like, "A company wants a return of its capital more than a return on its capital, so they'll invest more at a 50% tax rate because if they fail, they'll have a bigger write off"

    Is that about it?

    try the Angry Bear, you know, a group of financial professionals, most with Phd's in Economics.

    Thanks for the link.
    Looks like they're discussing more of a Laffer like curve idea, not that, in the original claim, a 90% rate yields more investment than a 20% rate.
     
  2. Winston
    Offline

    Winston VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2016
    Messages:
    1,136
    Thanks Received:
    204
    Trophy Points:
    80
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +603
    Dumbfuck, that was taxes as a percentage of GDP, which would account for both a recessionary economy and a booming economy. It wasn't total tax receipts, but honestly, even that probably just flies right over your head. The more you post the more you reveal your ignorance as to Economics.
     
  3. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    35,099
    Thanks Received:
    4,543
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +16,299
    Well first of all look at the damn graph of the Laffer curve.

    Why are you talking about government tax revenues?
    The original claim was that a business will invest a bunch of money at a 90% rate, because otherwise they'll be taxed on their profits. They won't invest at a 20% rate, because they'll want to take all their profits out of the business.

    Have you forgotten the origins of your (and DERP's) confused claims?
     
  4. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    35,099
    Thanks Received:
    4,543
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +16,299
    that was taxes as a percentage of GDP

    Yes, asshole, recessions reduce revenues as a percentage of GDP.

    which would account for both a recessionary economy and a booming economy.

    You think booming economies give us lower revenues as a percentage of GDP? Fuck, that's DERP level idiocy.
     
  5. Winston
    Offline

    Winston VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2016
    Messages:
    1,136
    Thanks Received:
    204
    Trophy Points:
    80
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +603
    I used the ninety percent example to demonstrate that both companies had a million dollars to invest before the end of the year. Evidently your reading comprehension level is just as bad as your economic intelligence. I admitted ninety percent might be too high, but then I said fifty percent would definitely result in more investment than twenty percent. Angry Bear agrees, and provides historical data to prove it.
     
  6. Winston
    Offline

    Winston VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2016
    Messages:
    1,136
    Thanks Received:
    204
    Trophy Points:
    80
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +603
    I didn't say that asswipe. If tax rates are the same it should remain consistent through both a recession and a boom. What happens is the government takes measures that decrease taxes during a recession and that reduces revenues as a percentage of GDP. Jesus christ, this is some simple shit although I do realize that some people just can't grasp simple economic concepts. Maybe you are better at physical labor.
     
  7. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    35,099
    Thanks Received:
    4,543
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +16,299
    but then I said fifty percent would definitely result in more investment than twenty percent.

    So prove it. Why does someone start a business in the first place?
    Is it to forever after reinvest all of the profits back into the business?
     
  8. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    35,099
    Thanks Received:
    4,543
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +16,299

    I didn't say that

    You said....

    Because our taxes are CHEAP AS SHIT dumbass. In 2009 they were lower than at anytime in the last FIFTY YEARS.

    Did you mean dollar revenues were "lower than at anytime in the last FIFTY YEARS"?
    Did you mean tax rates were "lower than at anytime in the last FIFTY YEARS"?

    Then I said, "Yeah, recessions tend to reduce revenues, moron"

    And you said, "that was taxes as a percentage of GDP".

    And I said, "Yes, asshole, recessions reduce revenues as a percentage of GDP"

    And you said, "which would account for both a recessionary economy and a booming economy"

    So why does a booming economy result in "reduced revenues as a percentage of GDP"?

    Pretend you're not a DERP level moron when you try to answer.

    If tax rates are the same it should remain consistent through both a recession and a boom.

    You think tax revenues as a percent of GDP "should remain consistent through both a recession and a boom" ?

    Wow! That's just stupid.

    Do you think lower corporate profits (losses even) reduce corp tax paid to government?
    Do you think lower employment reduces income tax and payroll tax paid to government?

    Shit, it's like I'm talking to a 3rd grader.
     
  9. Winston
    Offline

    Winston VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2016
    Messages:
    1,136
    Thanks Received:
    204
    Trophy Points:
    80
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +603
    What kind of fantasy world do you live in, the one where individuals worry about their tax rate before they start a business. I started my business because I could make more money working for myself then I could for somebody else. And guess what, now I pay more taxes, and at a higher rate.

    I mean it really is ignorance. As if a corporation would just close up shop and go home if the tax rate went up a little. Or if entrepreneurs would start jumping out of the woodwork because taxes went down.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    35,099
    Thanks Received:
    4,543
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +16,299
    What kind of fantasy world do you live in, the one where individuals worry about their tax rate before they start a business.

    The kind of world where a company looks at many, many factors before deciding to open a plant in an area with a 35% tax rate or in an area where a plant would incur a 15% tax rate.

    I started my business because I could make more money working for myself then I could for somebody else.

    Excellent! Now if you could choose between one location in Indiana and a similar location across the street in Illinois, would the difference in state tax rates be a factor in your decision where to locate?

    Would you pick the higher tax rate location, because you'd be incentivized to reinvest more?

    I mean it really is ignorance.

    I agree, you guys are dumb.

    As if a corporation would just close up shop and go home if the tax rate went up a little.

    I know, corporations never move or close, so tax them more, eh?
     

Share This Page