Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[Uncensored2008]

wrong of course libertarians would be for everyone paying equally for a can of soup in super market and for govt.

You think that prices in a market should be variable? Are you suggesting that the price paid at the register be "means tested" so that "the rich" pay more for a can of soup than "the poor" (or politically favored.)

 

[The Derp]

You're making it sound like investing outside the US is more profitable.

Well, the global market is bigger than just the US market. So...yeah. For instance, Hollywood films derive more than 2/3 of their total box office from international markets. Less than 1/3 of a movie's global box office is domestic (on average). Global Box Office for 2016 was about $38B. Domestic Box Office for 2016 was $11B

And if a large tax cut increases revenues, there will be plenty of lending.

Tax cuts don't increase revenues. They increase profits. Revenues are pre-tax.

The growth was before then.

What growth? In 8 years of Bush, he lost net 460,000 jobs. In the first four years of Bush, he lost 70,000. Bush had the worst growth rate since the Great Depression and handed Obama the worst recession in generations.

Simple; increased federal revenues reduced the deficit significantly which gave long-term planners optimism when making their LRPs. Why does that increase optimism?

Are you ******* kidding me?

 

[Uncensored2008]

NO IT DOESN'T. It results in more profit, because you pay taxes on profit, not revenues. Revenues are pre-tax, and that is what is used to determine if your business is growing or not.

First off, you don't know what revenue is. Revenue is simply income, pre-expense. Revenue by itself means utterly nothing. If you have revenue of one billion and expenses of two billion, you do not have a healthy or growing company.


What you probably are thinking of is. EBIT and EBITDA .

These are critical metrics of the health of an organization, but an organisation that fails to generate net income will go bankrupt, regardless of the EBIT generated. This is why highly leveraged companies with strong EBIT performance still go bankrupt. Interest payments kill them.

So this post of yours clues everyone here into how much of a bullshitter you actually are. Business won't expand without increased revenue, nor will a business expand if just its profits increase. It is possible for a business to increase profits without increasing revenue. That is done by cutting expenses. And what is the biggest expense in any business' budget? Labor. So that's why companies lay people off, even though they make a profit.

More nonsense. In retail labor MIGHT be the greatest cost element, but even then it is unlikely. Generally in manufacturing, material costs are 60 to 70% of total costs. Even in retail where labor might be a larger factor, overhead tends to become far more significant as advertising and facilities are used to attract customers.

No, what I said was that if everyone did that at the same time, then you would be hurting the economy. Also, if you remove $1T or so of government discretionary spending out of the economy, you have to replace it with spending from somewhere else, otherwise the economy contracts. The part Conservatives never figure out is how to replace the drop in government demand. You pretend that the private sector will magically, somehow, pick up the slack caused by the drop in spending that the government does. But that is, of course, a fantasy because the government spends money on things the private sector will not or cannot because it is not feasible for them to do so.

The only idiot here is the person who thinks "if you build it, they will come" is a valid economic policy.

Your lack of grasp of economics is extremely obvious. Government is not a net producer. Government does not produce goods for sale and exists as a service sector to the private sector. The idea that reducing government will harm the economy as a whole is simply ignorant. Capital that remains in the market will create economic activity. That which is consumed by government is far less likely to do so. Government is at best a consumer, buying goods that puts capital back into the market. However, the removal of capital through taxes and fees is a major inhibitor to economic growth.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Well, the global market is bigger than just the US market. So...yeah. For instance, Hollywood films derive more than 2/3 of their total box office from international markets. Less than 1/3 of a movie's global box office is domestic (on average). Global Box Office for 2016 was about $38B. Domestic Box Office for 2016 was $11B

I'd love to see your source for that claim.

Tax cuts don't increase revenues. They increase profits. Revenues are pre-tax.

Revenue has nothing to do with tax. Taxes are an expense. Why does no one on the left know how to read an income statement?

Taxes are a major factor on net income, which equates to retained earnings, which translate to capital expansion.

 

[The Derp]

Capital that remains in the market will create economic activity.

And thus, right here, is the fundamental flaw at the heart of Conservative economics...the faith that the private sector will increase its spending to fill the void created by a decline in government spending. Never has happened, doesn't happen now, and never will happen. If you remove $1T of government spending from the economy, it has to be replaced by something. "Trickle down" doesn't happen and will never happen.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A tax cut results in more revenue for business.

NO IT DOESN'T. It results in more profit, because you pay taxes on profit, not revenues. Revenues are pre-tax, and that is what is used to determine if your business is growing or not.

You said businesses won't expand without increased revenue.....business revenue, not government revenue.

So this post of yours clues everyone here into how much of a bullshitter you actually are. Business won't expand without increased revenue, nor will a business expand if just its profits increase. It is possible for a business to increase profits without increasing revenue. That is done by cutting expenses. And what is the biggest expense in any business' budget? Labor. So that's why companies lay people off, even though they make a profit.

Right, you think if you spend less than 100% of your income, less than 110%, less than 120%, you're being irresponsible and hurting the economy. Because you're an idiot.

No, what I said was that if everyone did that at the same time, then you would be hurting the economy. Also, if you remove $1T or so of government discretionary spending out of the economy, you have to replace it with spending from somewhere else, otherwise the economy contracts. The part Conservatives never figure out is how to replace the drop in government demand. You pretend that the private sector will magically, somehow, pick up the slack caused by the drop in spending that the government does. But that is, of course, a fantasy because the government spends money on things the private sector will not or cannot because it is not feasible for them to do so.

The only idiot here is the person who thinks "if you build it, they will come" is a valid economic policy.

NO IT DOESN'T. It results in more profit, because you pay taxes on profit, not revenues.

We're still talking about cuts for individuals. Duh.

Business won't expand without increased revenue, nor will a business expand if just its profits increase.

You seem to think it's unusual in America for business revenues to increase.

Also, if you remove $1T or so of government discretionary spending out of the economy, you have to replace it with spending from somewhere else,

And if you've given people $1T in tax cuts, they spend just fine without idiotic government wasting their money.

The part Conservatives never figure out is how to replace the drop in government demand.

And liberals never figure out that private demand is better than government demand.

You pretend that the private sector will magically, somehow, pick up the slack caused by the drop in spending that the government does.

Well, it's true, the private sector won't demand as many studies on transgender frogs and won't demand as much queer Asian poetry.

But that is, of course, a fantasy because the government spends money on things the private sector will not

No ******* kidding.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're making it sound like investing outside the US is more profitable.

Well, the global market is bigger than just the US market. So...yeah. For instance, Hollywood films derive more than 2/3 of their total box office from international markets. Less than 1/3 of a movie's global box office is domestic (on average). Global Box Office for 2016 was about $38B. Domestic Box Office for 2016 was $11B

And if a large tax cut increases revenues, there will be plenty of lending.

Tax cuts don't increase revenues. They increase profits. Revenues are pre-tax.

The growth was before then.

What growth? In 8 years of Bush, he lost net 460,000 jobs. In the first four years of Bush, he lost 70,000. Bush had the worst growth rate since the Great Depression and handed Obama the worst recession in generations.

Simple; increased federal revenues reduced the deficit significantly which gave long-term planners optimism when making their LRPs. Why does that increase optimism?

Are you ******* kidding me?

Tax cuts don't increase revenues.

Reagan's big tax cuts for individuals didn't increase business revenues?
Can you prove it?

What growth?

The growth after the tax cuts.

Are you ******* kidding me?

So you can't explain why increased government revenues give a business optimism.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Capital that remains in the market will create economic activity.

And thus, right here, is the fundamental flaw at the heart of Conservative economics...the faith that the private sector will increase its spending to fill the void created by a decline in government spending. Never has happened, doesn't happen now, and never will happen. If you remove $1T of government spending from the economy, it has to be replaced by something. "Trickle down" doesn't happen and will never happen.

And thus, right here, is the fundamental flaw at the heart of Conservative economics...the faith that the private sector will increase its spending to fill the void created by a decline in government spending.

And thus, right here, is the fundamental flaw at the heart of liberal economics...the faith that the public sector taking resources from the productive and spending it is somehow magically additive to the economy.

 

[danielpalos]

wrong of course libertarians would be for everyone paying equally for a can of soup in super market and for govt.

You think that prices in a market should be variable? Are you suggesting that the price paid at the register be "means tested" so that "the rich" pay more for a can of soup than "the poor" (or politically favored.)

How about, "being able to rent or lease" a girlfriend, at a Dollar Store?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

wrong of course libertarians would be for everyone paying equally for a can of soup in super market and for govt.

You think that prices in a market should be variable? Are you suggesting that the price paid at the register be "means tested" so that "the rich" pay more for a can of soup than "the poor" (or politically favored.)

If the rich have to pay more for govt why not for a can of soup in the supermarket?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If you remove $1T of government spending from the economy, it has to be replaced by something.

That is embarrassingly stupid and liberal. If you remove $1 trillion in govt spending, taxes go down by $1 trillion, the private sector has $1 trillion more to spend, and net spending stays the same. But, since a govt monopoly run by brain dead bureaucrats does not invent anything and the private sector does, the economy moves forward when you increase private spending some of which will go toward invention. Remember, we got from the stone age to here thanks to new inventions not thank to govt bureaucrat monopolists wasting our money. Do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"Trickle down" doesn't happen and will never happen.

1) if it doesn't happen why do we have 100 million super computer smart phones at $140/month?

2) if it doesn't happen you want to replace it with trickle down welfare from the federal govt?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"Trickle down" doesn't happen and will never happen.

100% stupid and liberal of course. The Iphone, for example, has to be the lowest price possible so it will trickle down [ be affordable] to billions of people; if not a competitor will have the lowest price, the economies of scale, and bankrupt Apple.
The same is true for jobs at Apple. Either they the best jobs possible trickle down or the best employees are free to leave

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
And thus, right here, is the fundamental flaw at the heart of Conservative economics...the faith that the private sector will increase its spending to fill the void created by a decline in government spending. Never has happened, doesn't happen now, and never will happen. If you remove $1T of government spending from the economy, it has to be replaced by something. "Trickle down" doesn't happen and will never happen.

Economics are not conservative not liberal. You highlight the the flaw in ignorant partisanship. You substitute partisan goals for fact.

As for removing a trillion of government spending, you ignorantly have fallen into the one sided transaction trap. Before government can spend a trillion, it must first remove several trillion from the economy, significantly lowering economic activity in the far more efficient private sector. Since government does not and in fact cannot create wealth, it must by necessity remove capital from the market prior to spending anything.

 

[Uncensored2008]

"Trickle down" doesn't happen and will never happen.

1) if it doesn't happen why do we have 100 million super computer smart phones at $140/month?

2) if it doesn't happen you want to replace it with trickle down welfare from the federal govt?

"Trickle down" is a foolish term used by those who fail to grasp basic economics. It was a disparaging epithet applied to Arthur Laffers ideas. There is not, nor has there ever been anything such as "trickle down economics." The moment a person uses the term you can be assured that they have no grasp of basic economics and are pursuing a partisan agenda.

 

[Uncensored2008]

wrong of course libertarians would be for everyone paying equally for a can of soup in super market and for govt.

You think that prices in a market should be variable? Are you suggesting that the price paid at the register be "means tested" so that "the rich" pay more for a can of soup than "the poor" (or politically favored.)

How about, "being able to rent or lease" a girlfriend, at a Dollar Store?

**** off pot head

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

If the rich have to pay more for govt why not for a can of soup in the supermarket?

I am opposed to both. I view direct taxation as evil.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"Trickle down" doesn't happen and will never happen.

1) if it doesn't happen why do we have 100 million super computer smart phones at $140/month?

2) if it doesn't happen you want to replace it with trickle down welfare from the federal govt?

"Trickle down" is a foolish term used by those who fail to grasp basic economics. It was a disparaging epithet applied to Arthur Laffers ideas. There is not, nor has there ever been anything such as "trickle down economics." The moment a person uses the term you can be assured that they have no grasp of basic economics and are pursuing a partisan agenda.

well yes and no. Steve Jobs invents the Iphone and soon enough they trickle down and 100 million Americans have them. Seems accurate to me. And certainly useful when directly compared to the trickle down welfare that liberals want.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Economics are not conservative not liberal.

???conservatives want capitalism and freedom. Friedman wrote a book with that name.
liberals spied for stalin and always want a bigger state and more socialism.

 

[danielpalos]

wrong of course libertarians would be for everyone paying equally for a can of soup in super market and for govt.

You think that prices in a market should be variable? Are you suggesting that the price paid at the register be "means tested" so that "the rich" pay more for a can of soup than "the poor" (or politically favored.)

If the rich have to pay more for govt why not for a can of soup in the supermarket?

It could be possible, with ID checkout for every transaction. Who wants to do that? the right wing.