The ultimate vindication of Republican supply-side economics

[Toddsterpatriot]

And I was able to find 02corate.pdf. It only goes to 2002.

Historical rates are here.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02corate.pdf

******* hilarious, you think "02corate.pdf" is different then "02corate.pdf" .

Do you screw up the "find the hidden object" puzzles too? Being an accountant isn't a good job for you.

And even more ******* hilarious, you think it goes to 2011.

Since our highest in the world corporate tax rate is currently 39%, I figured even an idiot like you would realize Bush didn't cut rates.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Non sequitur, Todd. Try again.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Non sequitur, Todd. Try again.

Sad?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, you are sad, Toddster. All of this has been clearly and succinctly explained to you. Your responses and attitude would have earned you a failing grade in any university in America. Please don't suggest that you are endowed with special knowledge or that our universities are out of touch with realty. You aren't and they are in touch.

 

[itfitzme]

We're raising the corporate tax on oil companies to 95%

That is ******* hilarious, you actually believe that the corporate tax rate is being raised to 95%.

No, that's a hypothetical example that demonstrates how stupid your claim was.

"Hypothetically" everyone might win the lottery.

"Hypothetically", you didn't say "We're raising the corporate tax on oil companies to 95%".

"Hypothetically" you read a book on economics.

"Hypothetically" you know what "at the margin" means.

"Hypothetically" you know what a hyperbole is.

Really, "We're raising the corporate tax on oil companies to 95%" just shows what a moron you are.

 

[itfitzme]

We're raising the corporate tax on oil companies to 95%

That is ******* hilarious, you actually believe that the corporate tax rate is being raised to 95%.

No, that's a hypothetical example that demonstrates how stupid your claim was.

Hypothetically, if you drink fifty gallons of water in a day, then you will die.

Therefore, water will kill you.

Hypothetically, if you pack your ass with dynamite and light it, then you will die.

Therefore, nitroglycerin is not a medication for heart illnesses.

Hypothetically, you might have a brain in your head.

 

[itfitzme]

Historical rates are here.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02corate.pdf

******* hilarious, you think "02corate.pdf" is different then "02corate.pdf" .

Do you screw up the "find the hidden object" puzzles too? Being an accountant isn't a good job for you.

And even more ******* hilarious, you think it goes to 2011.

Since our highest in the world corporate tax rate is currently 39%, I figured even an idiot like you would realize Bush didn't cut rates.

Do you simply not recall who it was that said Bush cut tax rates?

Are you completely unable to read?

By all means, present a quote where I said Bush cut corporate tax rates.

You endlessly show yourself as so out of touch with reality that you cannot even read your computer screen in front of your face, let alone tell the difference between what is inside your head and what is outside. You really need to be on anti-psychotic meds, dude. Seriously, your not in touch with basic reality.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

******* hilarious, you think "02corate.pdf" is different then "02corate.pdf" .

Do you screw up the "find the hidden object" puzzles too? Being an accountant isn't a good job for you.

And even more ******* hilarious, you think it goes to 2011.

Since our highest in the world corporate tax rate is currently 39%, I figured even an idiot like you would realize Bush didn't cut rates.

Do you simply not recall who it was that said Bush cut tax rates?

Are you completely unable to read?

By all means, present a quote where I said Bush cut corporate tax rates.

You endlessly show yourself as so out of touch with reality that you cannot even read your computer screen in front of your face, let alone tell the difference between what is inside your head and what is outside. You really need to be on anti-psychotic meds, dude. Seriously, your not in touch with basic reality.

Yes, another idiot said it.
I showed you both that he didn't.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, you are sad, Toddster. All of this has been clearly and succinctly explained to you. Your responses and attitude would have earned you a failing grade in any university in America. Please don't suggest that you are endowed with special knowledge or that our universities are out of touch with realty. You aren't and they are in touch.

It's sad that you're too stupid to understand. That's okay.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That is ******* hilarious, you actually believe that the corporate tax rate is being raised to 95%.

No, that's a hypothetical example that demonstrates how stupid your claim was.

"Hypothetically" everyone might win the lottery.

"Hypothetically", you didn't say "We're raising the corporate tax on oil companies to 95%".

"Hypothetically" you read a book on economics.

"Hypothetically" you know what "at the margin" means.

"Hypothetically" you know what a hyperbole is.

Really, "We're raising the corporate tax on oil companies to 95%" just shows what a moron you are.

And earnings are maximized based on the peak of price times quantity minus total costs. The business decision is on maximizing earnings, regardless of what the tax is.

OMG! Funniest thing I've seen all week.

 

[itfitzme]

e.g. "advertising" ?

Advertising cannot create demand out of nothing.

the word used was "increase", not "create"

yes, Advertising does not "create" Demand

also yes, Advertising does "increase" Demand

Please understand, I initially try to agree with you. The I think about it and get.

Billy had no cookies. Sally baked a dozen cookies and gave them to Billy. Billy's supply of cookies increased because Sally created (made by baking) cookies.

Demand requires, at least, money and willingness to pay.

Advertising does not create money. Advertising does not increase money. Advertising does not create demand. Advertising does not increase demand in the aggregate market. Advertising shifts demand from one place to another.

Unless, in the case that a need exists, like a faster way to clean the floor, and someone invents a vacuum cleaner. Then, if consumers have money to purchase it, advertising can attach the need to the new product. It did, though, in three out of four ways, create the demand. It added one out of four things to the requirements for demand.

Advertising does not increase or create demand in any appreciable manner, not when you start identifying the real physically measurable factors.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, that's a hypothetical example that demonstrates how stupid your claim was.

"Hypothetically" everyone might win the lottery.

"Hypothetically", you didn't say "We're raising the corporate tax on oil companies to 95%".

"Hypothetically" you read a book on economics.

"Hypothetically" you know what "at the margin" means.

"Hypothetically" you know what a hyperbole is.

Really, "We're raising the corporate tax on oil companies to 95%" just shows what a moron you are.

And earnings are maximized based on the peak of price times quantity minus total costs. The business decision is on maximizing earnings, regardless of what the tax is.

OMG! Funniest thing I've seen all week.

You truly don't get it.

 

[itfitzme]

e.g. "advertising" ?

Advertising cannot create demand out of nothing.

the word used was "increase", not "create"

yes, Advertising does not "create" Demand

also yes, Advertising does "increase" Demand

Please understand, I initially try to agree with you. Then I think about it and get.

Billy had no cookies. Sally baked a dozen cookies and gave them to Billy. Billy's supply of cookies increased because Sally created (made by baking) cookies.

Demand requires, at least, money and willingness to pay.

Advertising does not create money. Advertising does not increase money. Advertising does not create demand. Advertising does not increase demand in the aggregate market. Advertising shifts demand from one place to another, from one micro market to another micro market.

Unless, in the case that a need exists, like a faster way to clean the floor, and someone invents a vacuum cleaner. Then, if consumers have money to purchase it, advertising can attach the need to the new product. It did not create demand, in three out of four factors. It added one out of four things to the requirements for the creation of demand.

Advertising does not increase or create demand in any appreciable manner, not when you start identifying the real physically measurable factors.

 

[itfitzme]

I got an idea, you should take your theory of economics and apply for a teaching position at one of the conservative Christian colleges or universities. Then, when you have got an honorary PhD, tenure, published in peer reviewed journals, and have put it into a best selling text book, we will know that it does in fact work in reality.

Or maybe you might try applying for a job at Standard Oil or PB. They have great jobs for economists with accurate theories. If you can predict the price of gasoline, at the pump, within say a 90% level of confidence, I think you will have something.

if you tax all things exactly the same, and the add that much money to the supply, prices and incomes come into balance so there is no net effect.

In the long run, if you lower taxes on all things exactly the same, then the value of money adjusts so that there is no net effect.

Government Force "wades into the market-place";

The government doesn't "wear" a "swimsuit" or "waders" and the "market-place" isn't a "swimming pool". What is the "purpose" of "using" an "analogy?"

"market-place" is already a metaphor. "wades" is adding another metaphor to the metaphor "market-place", and creating a mixed metaphor.

"takes a wad from everybody's wallet"; and there is "no net effect" ??

Taxes are "paid" by "mailing" a "check".

"Business" are not "people". "Businesses" don't "carry a wallet". "Businesses" are "run" by "people".

"Taxes" on "individuals" are "paid" as "income taxes" after "deductions" but not "after" the "costs of living". Income "taxes" are "paid" on "income" before "living costs", though there a few deductions that are more like business costs such as that whole schedule A.

"Business taxes" are paid on "earnings" which is "after costs".

The term "everybody", in "from everybody's wallet", is personalizing the object "business", allowing for subjective personal feelings to be projected onto a the business that is neither motivated in the same manner as an individual nor calculates taxes in same manner.

Taxes "burden" economies, raising Prices, reducing Quantities, costing both Consumers & Producers;

Describe the mechanism by which "Taxes "burden" economies, raising Prices, reducing Quantities, costing both Consumers & Producers;" use a specific example of a product and a business. Show the math or thought process, that a business owner uses and that a consumer uses, that results in an increase in prices and a reduction in quantity for a change at the margin.

Taxes do "benefit" specific sectors, into which those Taxes are re-allocated

What business sector, as an example, to which business taxes are re-allocated? and how it this done? Do some agricultural businesses get an effective negative tax? Really, what are we talking about here?

Taxes "make or break" marginally Profitable businesses (specifically);

Present a "for instance" of a small marginally profitable business (specifically) being "made or broken" due to a marginal tax rate change of 34%. For instance, here is the 2002 tax table.

1993-2002

First $50,000 .................15.00
$50,000-$75,000 ...............25.00
$75,000-$100,000 ..............34.00
$100,000-$335,000 .............39.00
$335,000-$10,000,000 ..........34.00
$10,000,000-$15,000,000 .......35.00
$15,000,000-$18,333,333 .......38.00
Over $18,333,333 ..............35.00

Suppose it is a company in the $0.335 to $10 million tax bracket.

There is a difference between income and corporate taxes, between individuals and businesses, between the processes of stability and growth, between short term and long term. And, the significance of everything in economics is "at the margin" or "due to a marginal change". So, the real interest is, what is the effective process for a marginal change of the 35% bracket to a 39% rate? What is the physical and behavioral processes that would change a small business from being a stable market supplier to no longer being stable, in the short run, such that it fails?

------------------

side note: Who are you making all the fonts for? Is it for the reader, so your post presents clearer information? Or for you? And if you're not posting for the reader, but just to see your own words, why not just do it in Word or something, then you can save it to your hard drive.

Frankly it makes you look like you need to be on medication and institutionalized.

And the shear ignorance of the most basic fundamentals is just too much to keep up with. You have absolutely no chance of understanding economics. You're simply to far gone. Your only hope is to take each of your concepts, then the fundamentals book linked below, and attempt to prove them using fundamentals.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Hypothetically" everyone might win the lottery.

"Hypothetically", you didn't say "We're raising the corporate tax on oil companies to 95%".

"Hypothetically" you read a book on economics.

"Hypothetically" you know what "at the margin" means.

"Hypothetically" you know what a hyperbole is.

Really, "We're raising the corporate tax on oil companies to 95%" just shows what a moron you are.

And earnings are maximized based on the peak of price times quantity minus total costs. The business decision is on maximizing earnings, regardless of what the tax is.

OMG! Funniest thing I've seen all week.

You truly don't get it.

Maybe you can explain?
Pretend the government raises taxes on corporations to 95%.
Will that:

A) Have no effect on output
B) Increase output
C) Decrease output

Thanks!

 

[JakeStarkey]

And earnings are maximized based on the peak of price times quantity minus total costs. The business decision is on maximizing earnings, regardless of what the tax is.

OMG! Funniest thing I've seen all week.

You truly don't get it.

Maybe you can explain? Pretend the government raises taxes on corporations to 95%. Will that:

A) Have no effect on output
B) Increase output
C) Decrease output

Thanks!

Immaterial because it won't happen. Now reply to the one who is correctly teaching about this, not me.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You truly don't get it.

Maybe you can explain? Pretend the government raises taxes on corporations to 95%. Will that:

A) Have no effect on output
B) Increase output
C) Decrease output

Thanks!

Immaterial because it won't happen. Now reply to the one who is correctly teaching about this, not me.

You truly don't get it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Todd, the guy has you waxing the floor, not speaking at the podium.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd, the guy has you waxing the floor, not speaking at the podium.

As soon as you're done cleaning the bathroom, feel free to answer the question.

 

[Widdekind]

Advertising does not increase or create demand

for the past century, ~2% GDP has been spent on "advertising", now amounting to ~300 billion dollars per year