Tax Cuts Steal Democracy

[Wyatt earp]

Prove your claim.

Actually, it's incumbent on you to prove they do. I have 37 years of empirical data showing they don't. Can't help it that you have a fundamental misunderstanding (deliberate or not) of the economy.

Supply fulfills demand, not the other way around.

Basically, your ideology boils down to "if you built it, they will come". If "they" don't have any money to spend because "they" have not seen wages grow, then "they" will not come.

You're proposing a solution for which there is no problem. You're completely missing the mark. It's not the suppliers who need money, it's consumers. From that consumption will naturally evolve innovation and demand. But you gotta start off with demand. Right now, demand is stagnant, as we saw in last quarter's GDP growth rate of 0.7%.

if you built it, they will come". If "they" don't have any money to spend


Earth to derp, ever hear of credit cards?

.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You ever hear of the billing dollars plus sales industry?

Retailers typically sell back inventory. You think everything at WalMart gets sold? Ridiculous.

A good salesman can sell ice to a Eskimo..

No.

Or how about the computer, what you think consumers sat around and thought we need personal computers and inventors made one?.

Computers already existed prior to PC's. The demand was already there.

View attachment 124748



.

 

[The Derp]

Their was no demand, sales created the demand

OMG, dude. Sales = demand. But this whole debate is completely missing the mark. You don't get an increase in consumer demand by giving suppliers more money. You get an increase in consumer demand by giving consumers more money. Innovation will evolve naturally. You're trying to force it to happen by sheer will and magical thinking.

P = Profit
T = Tax Rate
R = Revenues
E = Expenses

P = T * (R-E)

So explain to us all how decreasing T in that equation results in an increase in R? You can't, because it doesn't. All reducing T does is increase P, but P isn't what indicates rising demand. R is. So if you P goes up because T goes down, you're not increasing R, which is the indicator of demand growth.

That's why supply-side theory is a crock of shit. It doesn't obey the laws of economics...it's just magical thinking. You may as well believe in leprechauns too while you're at it, and count their pots of gold as part of the GDP.

God damn people throw out perfectly good cell phones every year to buy new ones they heard about on television

So you've just said the demand for cell phones is already there. So you're not arguing supply-side. You're not arguing anything. Reducing a company's T doesn't magically translate to an increase in R. You get that, right?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Prove your claim.

Actually, it's incumbent on you to prove they do.

Supply fulfills demand, not the other way around.

Basically, your ideology boils down to "if you built it, they will come". If "they" don't have any money to spend because "they" have not seen wages grow, then "they" will not come.

You're proposing a solution for which there is no problem. You're completely missing the mark. It's not the suppliers who need money, it's consumers. From that consumption will naturally evolve innovation and demand. But you gotta start off with demand. Right now, demand is stagnant, as we saw in last quarter's GDP growth rate of 0.7%.

I have 37 years of empirical data showing they don't.

Let's see your 37 years of data.

And your data from the 20s and 60s after top rates were cut.

It's not the suppliers who need money, it's consumers.

When new suppliers are created and existing suppliers expand, what happens to employee wages?

 

[The Derp]

Earth to derp, ever hear of credit cards?.

So thanks for helping me prove my point! Supply-side policies result in consumer debt!

 

[Wyatt earp]

Their was no demand, sales created the demand

OMG, dude. Sales = demand. But this whole debate is completely missing the mark. You don't get an increase in consumer demand by giving suppliers more money. You get an increase in consumer demand by giving consumers more money. Innovation will evolve naturally. You're trying to force it to happen by sheer will and magical thinking.

P = Profit
T = Tax Rate
R = Revenues
E = Expenses

P = T * (R-E)

So explain to us all how decreasing T in that equation results in an increase in R? You can't, because it doesn't. All reducing T does is increase P, but P isn't what indicates rising demand. R is. So if you P goes up because T goes down, you're not increasing R, which is the indicator of demand growth.

That's why supply-side theory is a crock of shit. It doesn't obey the laws of economics...it's just magical thinking. You may as well believe in leprechauns too while you're at it, and count their pots of gold as part of the GDP.

God damn people throw out perfectly good cell phones every year to buy new ones they heard about on television

So you've just said the demand for cell phones is already there. So you're not arguing supply-side. You're not arguing anything. Reducing a company's T doesn't magically translate to an increase in R. You get that, right?

I didn't say that, sales creates a demand for new shiny stuff they don't even need..



Again sales is a huge business in case you didn't know..



.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Their was no demand, sales created the demand

OMG, dude. Sales = demand. But this whole debate is completely missing the mark. You don't get an increase in consumer demand by giving suppliers more money. You get an increase in consumer demand by giving consumers more money. Innovation will evolve naturally. You're trying to force it to happen by sheer will and magical thinking.

P = Profit
T = Tax Rate
R = Revenues
E = Expenses

P = T * (R-E)

So explain to us all how decreasing T in that equation results in an increase in R? You can't, because it doesn't. All reducing T does is increase P, but P isn't what indicates rising demand. R is. So if you P goes up because T goes down, you're not increasing R, which is the indicator of demand growth.

That's why supply-side theory is a crock of shit. It doesn't obey the laws of economics...it's just magical thinking. You may as well believe in leprechauns too while you're at it, and count their pots of gold as part of the GDP.

God damn people throw out perfectly good cell phones every year to buy new ones they heard about on television

So you've just said the demand for cell phones is already there. So you're not arguing supply-side. You're not arguing anything. Reducing a company's T doesn't magically translate to an increase in R. You get that, right?

P = T * (R-E)

For fuck sake, for at least the third time, that's not the formula for after-tax profit.
That's the formula for taxes paid.

No wonder you failed Econ 101.

 

[The Derp]

And your data from the 20s and 60s after top rates were cut.

So the 1920's preceded the Great Depression - not sure why you would even want to reference that since the hallmarks of 1920's economic policy are rehashed in 1980's trickle-down policy.

For the 60's, we've been over this before. From 1961 - 1964 government spending grew by 22%. From 1964-1968, government spending grew by 51%. So all you're doing is helping me make the case that government spending leads to economic growth. Which...duh! There is no direct correlation between tax cuts and increased revenues, however there is a direct correlation between tax cuts and decreased revenues...as we saw in 1983, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. In each of those years, the revenue collected was below the revenue collected pre-tax cut. Which means tax cuts reduce revenue. No more is this more apparent than during the Bush Tax Cuts, and the Brownback Tax Cuts a decade later.

When new suppliers are created and existing suppliers expand, what happens to employee wages?

Nothing. Wages remain stagnant, as has been the case since the 1980's. And new suppliers are only created if there is demand. You can't manufacture artificial demand if there's no demand in the first place because of stagnant wages. A company has no obligation to increase its workers' pay based on expansion.

Again, the equation is:

P = Profit
T = Tax Rate
R = Revenues (The measure of demand)
E = Expenses (Payroll, etc.)

P = T * (R - E)

So how do you increase R by decreasing T and/or increasing P? You cannot unless you rely on the magical thinking of trickle-down.

 

[The Derp]

For fuck sake, for at least the third time, that's not the formula for after-tax profit. That's the formula for taxes paid. No wonder you failed Econ 101.

LOL!

Formula for taxes paid? No, try again:

Profit = Tax Rate x (Revenue - Expenses)

That is your basic P&L right there. Your pre-tax profit is in the parenthetical.

 

[The Derp]

I didn't say that, sales creates a demand for new shiny stuff they don't even need..

Dude, sales (revenues) is demand. Your revenue growth is how you measure whether or not the demand for your product is increasing. In no way does revenue grow by giving tax cuts to pre-tax profits. Unless you are subscribing to the magical thinking of "trickle down" which you insist you aren't, even though you are.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And your data from the 20s and 60s after top rates were cut.

So the 1920's preceded the Great Depression - not sure why you would even want to reference that since the hallmarks of 1920's economic policy are rehashed in 1980's trickle-down policy.

For the 60's, we've been over this before. From 1961 - 1964 government spending grew by 22%. From 1964-1968, government spending grew by 51%. So all you're doing is helping me make the case that government spending leads to economic growth. Which...duh! There is no direct correlation between tax cuts and increased revenues, however there is a direct correlation between tax cuts and decreased revenues...as we saw in 1983, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. In each of those years, the revenue collected was below the revenue collected pre-tax cut. Which means tax cuts reduce revenue. No more is this more apparent than during the Bush Tax Cuts, and the Brownback Tax Cuts a decade later.

When new suppliers are created and existing suppliers expand, what happens to employee wages?

Nothing. Wages remain stagnant, as has been the case since the 1980's. And new suppliers are only created if there is demand. You can't manufacture artificial demand if there's no demand in the first place because of stagnant wages. A company has no obligation to increase its workers' pay based on expansion.

Again, the equation is:

P = Profit
T = Tax Rate
R = Revenues (The measure of demand)
E = Expenses (Payroll, etc.)

P = T * (R - E)

So how do you increase R by decreasing T and/or increasing P? You cannot unless you rely on the magical thinking of trickle-down.

So the 1920's preceded the Great Depression

They also preceded WWII. So fucking what?

Your claim is that "Supply-side does not lead to economic growth"

Show the lack of growth after the rate cuts.

 

[hadit]

So what? Nobody said they got them all at once???The issue is whether supply side miracles happen right under your nose or only in the movies. Now do you understand?

If there is no demand, then why oversupply? You can't will demand into being by giving rich people more money. Trickle down doesn't work. We've suffered through this crap for 37 years. Time to give it a rest.

Supply-side does not lead to economic growth. It may lead to profit growth, but profit growth and economic growth are not the same thing.

37 years? And here this whole time we thought democrats were against supply-side economics. Bubba, Reid, Pelosi, Obama, Hillary. All supply-siders. Who knew?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

For fuck sake, for at least the third time, that's not the formula for after-tax profit. That's the formula for taxes paid. No wonder you failed Econ 101.

LOL!

Formula for taxes paid? No, try again:

Profit = Tax Rate x (Revenue - Expenses)

That is your basic P&L right there. Your pre-tax profit is in the parenthetical.

Formula for taxes paid? No, try again:

Yes, moron.

Tax rate times gross profit gives you taxes paid.

I could plug in numbers, but you probably failed math class before you failed Econ 101.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I didn't say that, sales creates a demand for new shiny stuff they don't even need..

Dude, sales (revenues) is demand. Your revenue growth is how you measure whether or not the demand for your product is increasing. In no way does revenue grow by giving tax cuts to pre-tax profits. Unless you are subscribing to the magical thinking of "trickle down" which you insist you aren't, even though you are.

Dude, sales (revenues) is demand. Your revenue growth is how you measure whether or not the demand for your product is increasing. In no way does revenue grow by giving tax cuts to pre-tax profits.

Individual tax rates were the ones being cut in the 20s, 60s 80s and in 2003.

 

[The Derp]

They also preceded WWII. So fucking what?

You're the one who submitted the 1920's. And the low taxes were part of the reason for the Great Depression.

Show the lack of growth after the rate cuts.

Just look at Bush's GDP from 2001-2002. 1% growth for 2001, 1.8% growth for 2002. Whereas 1999 and 2000 saw GDP growth rates of 4.7% and 4.1% respectively.

Not only that, but as taxes are cut, consumers are plunged into debt:

In fact, one of your fellow Conservatives had a bit of a Freudian slip when he mentioned that credit cards can fill the void made up for the lack of demand. So the Conservative approach to the economy is to plunge consumers in debt, rather than get a wage increase. Look at how the household debt levels spike after tax cuts (particularly in 2001-7). If "letting people keep more of what they earned" is good, how come doing so results in increased consumer debt?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And your data from the 20s and 60s after top rates were cut.

So the 1920's preceded the Great Depression - not sure why you would even want to reference that since the hallmarks of 1920's economic policy are rehashed in 1980's trickle-down policy.

For the 60's, we've been over this before. From 1961 - 1964 government spending grew by 22%. From 1964-1968, government spending grew by 51%. So all you're doing is helping me make the case that government spending leads to economic growth. Which...duh! There is no direct correlation between tax cuts and increased revenues, however there is a direct correlation between tax cuts and decreased revenues...as we saw in 1983, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. In each of those years, the revenue collected was below the revenue collected pre-tax cut. Which means tax cuts reduce revenue. No more is this more apparent than during the Bush Tax Cuts, and the Brownback Tax Cuts a decade later.

When new suppliers are created and existing suppliers expand, what happens to employee wages?

Nothing. Wages remain stagnant, as has been the case since the 1980's. And new suppliers are only created if there is demand. You can't manufacture artificial demand if there's no demand in the first place because of stagnant wages. A company has no obligation to increase its workers' pay based on expansion.

Again, the equation is:

P = Profit
T = Tax Rate
R = Revenues (The measure of demand)
E = Expenses (Payroll, etc.)

P = T * (R - E)

So how do you increase R by decreasing T and/or increasing P? You cannot unless you rely on the magical thinking of trickle-down.

Nothing. Wages remain stagnant,

New suppliers hire workers. Pay them wages.
Existing suppliers have to raise their wages to keep their workers.
Wages per worker rose.
Total wages rose.

Looks like demand rises as well. You're wrong again.

 

[The Derp]

New suppliers hire workers. Pay them wages.

So why would they hire workers when there's no demand? Because...magic?

 

[The Derp]

New suppliers hire workers. Pay them wages.
Existing suppliers have to raise their wages to keep their workers.
Wages per worker rose.
Total wages rose.
Looks like demand rises as well. You're wrong again.

Again, your position starts off on the false assumption that you can manufacture demand artificially by increasing supply. You cannot do that. So because of that false assumption, the whole rest of the sweater unravels.

 

[The Derp]

37 years? And here this whole time we thought democrats were against supply-side economics. Bubba, Reid, Pelosi, Obama, Hillary. All supply-siders. Who knew?

Clinton raised taxes. As did Obama.

 

[hadit]

37 years? And here this whole time we thought democrats were against supply-side economics. Bubba, Reid, Pelosi, Obama, Hillary. All supply-siders. Who knew?

Clinton raised taxes. As did Obama.

So did Reagan and Bush Sr.