Pro-Wrestler Smacks Down Keynesian

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Capitalists cannot create jobs,

For capitalism to create a job it must take money from the private sector thus destroy a job.

That makes just about as much sense as what you just wrote Kev.

Oh, I'm, wrong?

Tell me, if capitalism is not borrowing money (thus competing for money to be borrowed, just as the government deos) then why do corporations float bonds?

Everything you think you know about economics is jaded by your goofy presuppositions which are inherently biased, sport.

Capitalism doesn't create jobs, bud. The market creates jobs, and since the market is every person and every transaction in the private sector it can't possibly be taking jobs or money from the private sector now can it?

Government creates jobs all the time, Kev.

If they didn't you wouldn't be bitching about government so.

CApitalists compete for money just as the government does, sport.

That's why the major borrowers in our system are corporations.

The government creates a job, at the expense of somebody else's job.

Capitalists compete for money on the market, and those who are successful are the ones who offer something that people want to buy. The government takes money from the people and then puts it where they think it ought to go. The fatal conceit, more or less.

 

[Agnapostate]

The government creates a job, at the expense of somebody else's job.

Capitalists compete for money on the market, and those who are successful are the ones who offer something that people want to buy. The government takes money from the people and then puts it where they think it ought to go. The fatal conceit, more or less.

That claim relies on a utopian understanding of political economy, and fails to comprehend the coercive nature of capitalism itself. For instance, as a market socialist insightfully pointed out to me the other day, asset specificity functions as a form of coercion in contracts.

 

[Paulie]

Ravi usually never gives up when she truely believes she's right.

Her flight from the thread at this point speaks volumes.

 

[Ravi]

Ah, you went of on a tangent about tax cuts, which is my fault, but it isn't really the topic of the thread. I don't blame them for the unemployment rate...they are just a small piece of the overall picture. The unemployment rate has to do with the bad economy: inflated real estate prices, bad credit rating agencies, and the ability banks had to lend in the morning and turn around in the afternoon and push their risk to someone else. Yes, and no doubt the Fed had some part in it all.

You libertarians have some crazy belief that only private enterprise can create employment and there is absolutely no truth to that statement.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ah, you went of on a tangent about tax cuts, which is my fault, but it isn't really the topic of the thread. I don't blame them for the unemployment rate...they are just a small piece of the overall picture. The unemployment rate has to do with the bad economy: inflated real estate prices, bad credit rating agencies, and the ability banks had to lend in the morning and turn around in the afternoon and push their risk to someone else. Yes, and no doubt the Fed had some part in it all.

You libertarians have some crazy belief that only private enterprise can create employment and there is absolutely no truth to that statement.

You're simply ignoring the truth.

 

[Paulie]

Ah, you went of on a tangent about tax cuts, which is my fault, but it isn't really the topic of the thread. I don't blame them for the unemployment rate...they are just a small piece of the overall picture. The unemployment rate has to do with the bad economy: inflated real estate prices, bad credit rating agencies, and the ability banks had to lend in the morning and turn around in the afternoon and push their risk to someone else. Yes, and no doubt the Fed had some part in it all.

You libertarians have some crazy belief that only private enterprise can create employment and there is absolutely no truth to that statement.

You're spinning what we're saying and you know it.

I don't argue that the government can create employment. All I'm saying is that when the government creates a job, one is lost somewhere else in the private sector because the government taxed someone to pay for that job. I understand what you're saying about other private industries getting a boom out of a government job, and all I'm asking you is to show how that evens out the jobs lost elsewhere. It's simple really, Rav.

What we KNOW is that the government can not create a job without taxing to pay for it. That is a fact. So in light of that, it stands to reason that the more jobs the government creates, the more jobs are lost in the private sector because the more you tax a business, the more they have to trim their budget. That's what businesses do, they BUDGET, unlike the government. If the government's going to increase your taxes which in turn decreases your revenue, you have to make up for that revenue somehow, and that virtually always leads to a lost job.

You could theoretically create government jobs to infinity. Your only limitation would be how much tax revenue you can bring in. Eventually you're going to run out of tax revenue as the private sector cuts enough jobs that no more tax revenue exists. I'm speaking hypothetically.

So with this all said, it would seem to me that the burden would fall on YOU to show how it could be good policy for the government to create new jobs, and how you feel that it in the LEAST balances with the private sector, rather than taking away more jobs than it creates.

 

[Ravi]

and all I'm asking you is to show how that evens out the jobs lost elsewhere. It's simple really, Rav.

Here you go.

Take 50 businesses that report a yearly profit of $50,000 and use 2% of their taxed income to create a job that pays $50,000. You create a job where there was no job because none of the 50 businesses can use $1,000 by itself to create a $50,000 job. And this schmoe that has a $50,000 dollar job will more than likely spend every penny of it, thus contributing to potentially hundreds of other businesses.

 

[Paulie]

and all I'm asking you is to show how that evens out the jobs lost elsewhere. It's simple really, Rav.

Here you go.

Take 50 businesses that report a yearly profit of $50,000 and use 2% of their taxed income to create a job that pays $50,000. You create a job where there was no job because none of the 50 businesses can use $1,000 by itself to create a $50,000 job. And this schmoe that has a $50,000 dollar job will more than likely spend every penny of it, thus contributing to potentially hundreds of other businesses.

You didn't necessarily balance the job creation/loss ratio, because you didn't account for how many private sector jobs were lost due to the taxation. You can account for how many the government created because you know the government will spend that tax money, and there's a given amount of jobs that they'll create with it. You don't know how much of that private loss went towards cutting the companies' budgets, though.

You also made the fatal mistake of ASSUMING that the "schmoes" will spend every penny of their income. That's kind of ridiculous, don't you think? All those schmoes have to do is sit on it, and your entire theory goes right out the window altogether. In that case, all that ultimately happened was wealth redistribution. But you liberals LIKE that sort of thing, so why not, right?

 

[Ravi]

and all I'm asking you is to show how that evens out the jobs lost elsewhere. It's simple really, Rav.

Here you go.

Take 50 businesses that report a yearly profit of $50,000 and use 2% of their taxed income to create a job that pays $50,000. You create a job where there was no job because none of the 50 businesses can use $1,000 by itself to create a $50,000 job. And this schmoe that has a $50,000 dollar job will more than likely spend every penny of it, thus contributing to potentially hundreds of other businesses.

You didn't necessarily balance the job creation/loss ratio, because you didn't account for how many private sector jobs were lost due to the taxation. You can account for how many the government created because you know the government will spend that tax money, and there's a given amount of jobs that they'll create with it. You don't know how much of that private loss went towards cutting the companies' budgets, though.

You also made the fatal mistake of ASSUMING that the "schmoes" will spend every penny of their income. That's kind of ridiculous, don't you think? All those schmoes have to do is sit on it, and your entire theory goes right out the window altogether. In that case, all that ultimately happened was wealth redistribution. But you liberals LIKE that sort of thing, so why not, right?

You tell me, Pauli, how many private sector jobs were lost because a company paid their $1,000 portion of $50,000? I'd guess zero.

I think I'm pretty safe in assuming that someone with a yearly salary of $50,000 will spend the vast majority of it.

You can call it wealth distribution if it makes you feel better. Taxes are not going away, and most people understand that...most of the bickering comes into deciding where they will be spent.

 

[Paulie]

50 sole-proprietorships making $50,000 each. Each has one employee making minimum wage of a rounded up $7/hr, for a total payroll of about $15,000 each. Tax rate of theoretical 30%. Each loses $10,500 in taxes on their $35,000 profit. So each business loses a total of $25,500.

Government takes the $525,000 in revenue and can only create 35 minimum wage jobs, so already they didn't keep pace with the private sector. How long do you think those companies are going to continue losing more than half of their revenue before they either cut that job and the owner works alone, or they go out of business completely as minimum wage rises, tax rates rise, etc?

There's many variables involved that would either mitigate or aggravate the private loss, but assuming government will continue taking MORE, and business cycles are becoming more frequent as consumers, businesses, and government misallocate, the losses seem like they'll be aggravated over time.

 

[Ravi]

50 sole-proprietorships making $50,000 each. Each has one employee making minimum wage of a rounded up $7/hr, for a total payroll of about $15,000 each. Tax rate of theoretical 30%. Each loses $10,500 in taxes on their $35,000 profit. So each business loses a total of $25,500.

Government takes the $525,000 in revenue and can only create 35 minimum wage jobs, so already they didn't keep pace with the private sector. How long do you think those companies are going to continue losing more than half of their revenue before they either cut that job and the owner works alone, or they go out of business completely as minimum wage rises, tax rates rise, etc?

There's many variables involved that would either mitigate or aggravate the private loss, but assuming government will continue taking MORE, and business cycles are becoming more frequent as consumers, businesses, and government misallocate, the losses seem like they'll be aggravated over time.

Your tax liability is wrong, and even if it were correct, the government created an additional 35 jobs that probably wouldn't exist if the business owner kept his profit...cause he's not creating a minimum wage job with the $10,500 you think he's being taxed.

I was talking about a tax on a clear profit of 50,000, btw, to keep the math easier.

But we'll use your numbers...though this is pretty off topic.

$35,000 profit to the business owner without any deductions would actually only be a tax liability of $5,093.75, which is roughly 14.5%.

The formula from the IRS website is:

if your taxable income is between 32,550 and 78,500 you pay $4,481.25 plus 25% of the amount over $32,550....which comes out to a total of $5093.75.

The same bracket would cover the $50,000 profit, but it would end up being a slightly higher percentage (17.5%) for a total tax liability (again, with no deductions) of $8843.75.

 

[Paulie]

50 sole-proprietorships making $50,000 each. Each has one employee making minimum wage of a rounded up $7/hr, for a total payroll of about $15,000 each. Tax rate of theoretical 30%. Each loses $10,500 in taxes on their $35,000 profit. So each business loses a total of $25,500.

Government takes the $525,000 in revenue and can only create 35 minimum wage jobs, so already they didn't keep pace with the private sector. How long do you think those companies are going to continue losing more than half of their revenue before they either cut that job and the owner works alone, or they go out of business completely as minimum wage rises, tax rates rise, etc?

There's many variables involved that would either mitigate or aggravate the private loss, but assuming government will continue taking MORE, and business cycles are becoming more frequent as consumers, businesses, and government misallocate, the losses seem like they'll be aggravated over time.

Your tax liability is wrong, and even if it were correct, the government created an additional 35 jobs that probably wouldn't exist if the business owner kept his profit...cause he's not creating a minimum wage job with the $10,500 you think he's being taxed.

I was talking about a tax on a clear profit of 50,000, btw, to keep the math easier.

But we'll use your numbers...though this is pretty off topic.

$35,000 profit to the business owner without any deductions would actually only be a tax liability of $5,093.75, which is roughly 14.5%.

The formula from the IRS website is:

if your taxable income is between 32,550 and 78,500 you pay $4,481.25 plus 25% of the amount over $32,550....which comes out to a total of $5093.75.

The same bracket would cover the $50,000 profit, but it would end up being a slightly higher percentage (17.5%) for a total tax liability (again, with no deductions) of $8843.75.

Ok, you're right about the tax rates being off. I was hypothetically speaking, though. So you reduced the tax liability, but that's still a LOSS that a business will want to find a way to recoup. Often, that means a job cut. Not every business will automatically cut that job to recoup the loss in taxes, but eventually the business will have to find some way to recoup, and it could mean malinvestment, job cut, trimmed expenses which may reduce overall production and therefore profit, etc...All of which can or will lead to lost jobs. Are those lost jobs worth it to you, just to recreate one in the government? Why should someone lose his already established job, so someone ELSE can get a new one with the government? This is what I'm having a real hard time reconciling, especially in the face of a situation where taxes are GOING to have to be increased to account for all this new spending.

But I'm enjoying this discussion nonetheless

 

[Ravi]

50 sole-proprietorships making $50,000 each. Each has one employee making minimum wage of a rounded up $7/hr, for a total payroll of about $15,000 each. Tax rate of theoretical 30%. Each loses $10,500 in taxes on their $35,000 profit. So each business loses a total of $25,500.

Government takes the $525,000 in revenue and can only create 35 minimum wage jobs, so already they didn't keep pace with the private sector. How long do you think those companies are going to continue losing more than half of their revenue before they either cut that job and the owner works alone, or they go out of business completely as minimum wage rises, tax rates rise, etc?

There's many variables involved that would either mitigate or aggravate the private loss, but assuming government will continue taking MORE, and business cycles are becoming more frequent as consumers, businesses, and government misallocate, the losses seem like they'll be aggravated over time.

Your tax liability is wrong, and even if it were correct, the government created an additional 35 jobs that probably wouldn't exist if the business owner kept his profit...cause he's not creating a minimum wage job with the $10,500 you think he's being taxed.

I was talking about a tax on a clear profit of 50,000, btw, to keep the math easier.

But we'll use your numbers...though this is pretty off topic.

$35,000 profit to the business owner without any deductions would actually only be a tax liability of $5,093.75, which is roughly 14.5%.

The formula from the IRS website is:

if your taxable income is between 32,550 and 78,500 you pay $4,481.25 plus 25% of the amount over $32,550....which comes out to a total of $5093.75.

The same bracket would cover the $50,000 profit, but it would end up being a slightly higher percentage (17.5%) for a total tax liability (again, with no deductions) of $8843.75.

Ok, you're right about the tax rates being off. I was hypothetically speaking, though. So you reduced the tax liability, but that's still a LOSS that a business will want to find a way to recoup. Often, that means a job cut. Not every business will automatically cut that job to recoup the loss in taxes, but eventually the business will have to find some way to recoup, and it could mean malinvestment, job cut, trimmed expenses which may reduce overall production and therefore profit, etc...All of which can or will lead to lost jobs. Are those lost jobs worth it to you, just to recreate one in the government? Why should someone lose his already established job, so someone ELSE can get a new one with the government? This is what I'm having a real hard time reconciling, especially in the face of a situation where taxes are GOING to have to be increased to account for all this new spending.

But I'm enjoying this discussion nonetheless

I'll have to address this later.

But fairness is a topic for a different thread.

 

[xsited1]

...

Professional wrestler Glenn Jacobs, aka "Kane," wrote a letter to Robert Reich. Reich was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration.

When Obama's 'stimulus' plan goes down in flames, I'm sure the liberals will find a way to blame it on the free market.

 

[Paulie]

Your tax liability is wrong, and even if it were correct, the government created an additional 35 jobs that probably wouldn't exist if the business owner kept his profit...cause he's not creating a minimum wage job with the $10,500 you think he's being taxed.

I was talking about a tax on a clear profit of 50,000, btw, to keep the math easier.

But we'll use your numbers...though this is pretty off topic.

$35,000 profit to the business owner without any deductions would actually only be a tax liability of $5,093.75, which is roughly 14.5%.

The formula from the IRS website is:

if your taxable income is between 32,550 and 78,500 you pay $4,481.25 plus 25% of the amount over $32,550....which comes out to a total of $5093.75.

The same bracket would cover the $50,000 profit, but it would end up being a slightly higher percentage (17.5%) for a total tax liability (again, with no deductions) of $8843.75.

Ok, you're right about the tax rates being off. I was hypothetically speaking, though. So you reduced the tax liability, but that's still a LOSS that a business will want to find a way to recoup. Often, that means a job cut. Not every business will automatically cut that job to recoup the loss in taxes, but eventually the business will have to find some way to recoup, and it could mean malinvestment, job cut, trimmed expenses which may reduce overall production and therefore profit, etc...All of which can or will lead to lost jobs. Are those lost jobs worth it to you, just to recreate one in the government? Why should someone lose his already established job, so someone ELSE can get a new one with the government? This is what I'm having a real hard time reconciling, especially in the face of a situation where taxes are GOING to have to be increased to account for all this new spending.

But I'm enjoying this discussion nonetheless

I'll have to address this later.

But fairness is a topic for a different thread.

What's up with the laugh smiley? I haven't found much humor in this thread, other than your lack of knowledge

 

[Ravi]

Ok, you're right about the tax rates being off. I was hypothetically speaking, though. So you reduced the tax liability, but that's still a LOSS that a business will want to find a way to recoup. Often, that means a job cut. Not every business will automatically cut that job to recoup the loss in taxes, but eventually the business will have to find some way to recoup, and it could mean malinvestment, job cut, trimmed expenses which may reduce overall production and therefore profit, etc...All of which can or will lead to lost jobs. Are those lost jobs worth it to you, just to recreate one in the government? Why should someone lose his already established job, so someone ELSE can get a new one with the government? This is what I'm having a real hard time reconciling, especially in the face of a situation where taxes are GOING to have to be increased to account for all this new spending.

But I'm enjoying this discussion nonetheless

I'll have to address this later.

But fairness is a topic for a different thread.

What's up with the laugh smiley? I haven't found much humor in this thread, other than your lack of knowledge

Jeesh, you idiot... I was laughing at your enjoyment of being beat into a pulp.

 

[Paulie]

I'll have to address this later.

But fairness is a topic for a different thread.

What's up with the laugh smiley? I haven't found much humor in this thread, other than your lack of knowledge

Jeesh, you idiot... I was laughing at your enjoyment of being beat into a pulp.

Beat into a pulp? I have yet to see you make your case. Mine was made clearly. Taxes taken from businesses will lead to job cuts. It's an inevitable certainty. The easiest way to recoup a loss is to cut a job. It's the last resort, but it's the quickest recoupment.

Do go ahead and refute that though, since that's what we've been waiting for, for about 4 pages of thread now Rav. Go ahead and tax the shit out of businesses. I fucking DARE you.

 

[Ravi]

Already did with my example of using $1,000 from 50 business to create a $50,000 job. I'm waiting for you to show me how you are going to create a $50,000 job with $1,000.

I've never had to cut back on personnel because of taxes. Neither should anyone, quite honestly. Taxes are just factored in as a cost of doing business.

Also, there is no tax the shit out of business going on in this country and no proposals to do such a thing.

 

[Paulie]

Already did with my example of using $1,000 from 50 business to create a $50,000 job. I'm waiting for you to show me how you are going to create a $50,000 job with $1,000.

I've never had to cut back on personnel because of taxes. Neither should anyone, quite honestly. Taxes are just factored in as a cost of doing business.

Also, there is no tax the shit out of business going on in this country and no proposals to do such a thing.

Why should no one have to cut expenses because of taxes? The purpose of a business is profit. When the government is taking from your profit margin, you're just going to sit back and take the loss in the ass? That's not how business is run. It's like when anything else goes up in price, you trim the budget. When gas prices were up high, businesses laid off employees. The trucking industry, for instance, was hurting. Gas prices going up is no different than taxes going up, in that it creates more revenue loss which requires some kind of budget cut to balance the loss.

You're saying no one is proposing tax increases, but that only reinforces your ignorance. Where do you think all this money is going to have to come from that's being divied out to failing businesses, stimulating the economy, or being borrowed from the international community?

Either they tax the shit out of us over time, or they just fucking print the shit. Either way, business will get hurt. Either higher taxes, or out of control inflation. Both will cause businesses to cut their budgets, and both are inevitably in our future.

Just where the fuck do you think all these trillions of dollars are going to come from? Our fucking WALLETS, Rav. Wake the fuck up.

 

[Ravi]

Does that mean you can't show me how you could create a $50,000 job with $1,000?