Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Harry has two of these exact threads so he can be stupid twice as much. It's just hilarious!
Myk, that he has two was inadvertent. Double posts happen all the time because the screen doesn't refresh easily and folks think the first post failed. Harry asked me to delete one when he noticed it, but as both already had comments, I did not do so.
Why is ANYONE discussing business economics with Harry? He is 15 for cryin' out loud. I own a business. I pay taxes. I know more about business economics than a self-entitled teenager that parrots FOX NOISE propaganda.
These are just random insults that you thought of because you thought they sounded bad. You concluded that I am a 'self entitled teenager' based on me not being a socialist. As I said before- its Sargon's law. The character analysis made by the leftist (that's you) is often times true about them. Low and behold this is exactly the case. You are propagandized, immature, and know nothing about economics, so you project that onto me.
I never claimed to be an expert- relative to you I am, but that is a fairly low bar. I am only a mediocre economist, you are completely retarded in economics.
I am 16, work a job, pay SS taxes, am studying economics, and am not a 'self entitled teenager.' These are random insults you made up because they are true about you yourself.
This is my thread, and if you aren't interested in having a civil discussion, maybe this isn't the place for you.
1) What you are describing is REALLY projection.
2) I am NOT projecting.
3) having a little job isn't really having a responsibility, at best it is training.
4) You'd better study harder because right now you don't know jack shit.
5) I own a business and know full well how business economics operates to include corporate taxes. I live it every day.
You don't OWN the thread. You just started it.
6) I am not a socialist, not even close. You don't even know what a socialist is.
This little statement by you "The character analysis made by the leftist (that's you) is often times true about them." isn't at all accurate. The fact is that projection can only be defined in an individual by qualified experienced people. You are not qualified, educated, or experienced.
Of course, I concluded that you are self-entitled because you ARE!
"having a little job isn't really having a responsibility, at best it is training"
In an earlier post you claimed that I sat around all day in my moms basement- that was my response. Regardless, I do have a number of responsibilities. Clearly not as much as an adult, bit your character analysis was nonetheless far from reality.
"You'd better study harder because right now you don't know jack shit."
I dont know jack shit because I'm not a socialist? There are many very educated people who are not socialists myckob, this is a false dichotomy.
"I own a business and know full well how business economics operates to include corporate taxes. I live it every day.
You don't OWN the thread. You just started it."
Well I don't want you responding to it unless you have something logical to say. Random insults do not count.
"I am not a socialist, not even close. You don't even know what a socialist is."
So you do not support government control over the economy? You don't support nationalizing healthcare and higher education? You don't want to implement a maximum wage? Albeit, a Fabian socialist rather than a Marxist, but a socialist nonetheless.
"Of course, I concluded that you are self-entitled because you ARE!"
I concluded you are a retarded old socialist because you are. I never claimed I was entitled to anything just for existing- you know who did? You, that's who.
"Why is ANYONE discussing business economics with Harry? He is 15 for cryin' out loud."
Perhaps so he can learn. 15 is a great age for that, myk.
And there we have it. You just approved of a corporation ultimately paying 0.1% (of profits); but have arguing for individuals to pay 25% (on revenue). Which is at least 250 times the effective corporate rate (at least in this real world example).
You know what is worse? Many corporations don't pay dividends at all! So in your system they would pay 0%; which I have suspect you'd be OK with.
If a company makes no profit, of course they shouldn't pay taxes on nothing. Perhaps you should read the book I cited earlier. Its not too long- but I it, it states that, in addition to dividends, companies should attribute all profit they made (excluding expenses obviously) to their shareholders. The shareholders would thus pay taxes on that when they account for it on their tax returns.
What tax rate should a private citizen pay who doesn't make a profit? Previously in this thread you argued for 25%.
Oh, and when I said that there are corporations that don't pay dividends, I didn't mean they don't make a profit. There are lots of corporations that turn huge profits that don't pay dividends.
---------------------------------
Well you can now wave goodbye to all your appeals to investment; as that would be a direct attack on investment.
Also, that is a basic accounting failure as you deduced expenses twice.
---------------------------------
The funny thing is, I'm not really arguing for this or that tax rate or policy; just pointing out that what you are saying is nothing short of madness. As just about every idea you've posted would bring about the end of capitalism in a matter of hours.
The shareholders own the company- if the company doesn't pay dividends, the shareholders must have bought those stocks for some other reason which they regard as better than dividends. Thus, they are benefiting. Regardless, I am only advocating we abolish the corporate tax and only tax individuals. I am not an economist and I didn't devise this plan- you know who is an economist and who did devise this plan- Milton Friedman, so go back through the forums to the book I posted and read through the part about this.
Harry, privately held companies do not have stockholders.
Well I have to agree with you there; as that does seem to be what you are advocating!
The reason corporations are taxed is because owners of stockholders would not claim any individual income and therefore would evade taxes. With corporate tax set at 39.6%, it motivates companies tho raise salaries because salaries are taxed at a lower rate, on average around 22%. I do the same in my company. My corporation realizes less than 3% profit. Salaries make up the bulk of where the profits go. Corporate tax rate is an incentive not a deterrent. Corrupt companies use tax shelters instead of paying higher salaries. Offshore accounts, fictitious purchases, and any number of illegal enterprises.
"Salaries make up the bulk of where the profits go."
That is what I was telling nyrianthrope- tax the salaries, not the corporation, a made up concept.
Harry that was done a long time ago. Over time it was found that taxing corporations at a higher rate caused salaries to go up. That is just economic history. It is so old that it isn't taught anymore. If you don't tax corporations, the corps will hold all of the profits. You have to drive business to spend money on expanding and paying higher salaries. In my business, if I didn't have to pay corporate taxes, I would hold all my income in the corporation. Because I have a corporate tax rate for higher than personal income tax, I pay higher salaries and in expenses. Taxes drive me to expand.
So because you can write off the expenses of expanding to avoid taxation, the corporate tax being higher than the income tax incentivises you to expand. I already went over this, I believe. To avoid the personal income tax, shareholders on corporations have the profits be reinvested. If, however, the expansions were advantageous to begin with, they would be done regardless- therefore, this incentivises shareholders to have this profit invested in less neccessary areas as opposed to more necessary areas.
I think you bring a valid point- though this idea was specifically for attracting foreign investment, as opposed to native investment. With regards to that, Friedman recommended that all corporate profits be attributed proportionally to shareholders, so that their taxation is the same whether they reinvest or nvest otherwise, or just save the money. This would cause people to only reinvest if it is a better use of resources han investing otherwise, or of saving.
Investment alone doesn't mean it is good. During the housing Bible people were investing a lot in housing. This was, however, bad, because they were over investing and inflating a bubble.
I have also talked to business owners who said that the corporate tax harms the growth of their business.
This is where regulation is necessary. The housing bubble was caused by predatory lending.
In an overall look, history tells us that deregulation leads to corruptions and fraud.
It also shows that "trickle-down economics never works.
The economies of Hoover, Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, were abject failures.
The economies of FDR, Clinton and Obama were tremendous successes.
The idea is that when you concentrate wealth into the top 1% the economy tanks.
When you provide an opportunity for a large portion of the populace you get an expansion. In many cases that means government spending. When you concentrate spending in just defense you get virtually no return. When you build the infrastructure, expand education, you not only get expansion but innovation and creativity. The key is to stimulate small business. Giving opportunity to people that are unable to compete breaks open new ideas, new markets, new businesses. Otherwise, you have a stagnation which leads to recession. Deregulation leads to corruption and fraud that leads to depression.
The USA needs workers. We are at almost 100% of our production capability. This means we need immigrants to increase productivity. A cardinal rule of economics is 4%. Meaning when GDP is 4% you have a very strong economy, not too fast, not too slow, stable and growing. When you control unemployment at 4% you have a strong economy. This accounts for the layabouts, criminals, and bums, that will never seek gainful employment. Also, you need to bridge the income gap between the very rich and the middle class. That happened under Clinton for the very first time and the only time in U.S. history. the result was a robust economy. I am not specifying details. There are other significant factors, but those basic goals are targets that work. In my own business, I shoot for an overall profit margin of 14 %. That accounts for quarterly and annual income goals. I keystone my product, I account for RMI loss, and I maintain an employment rate that provides the productivity needed to make that happen. Corporate taxes are the least of my challenges. Sourcing product is by far the hardest thing to do. That is the reality of owning a business. No, I won't ever be independently wealthy, but I make a good living, a secure living. Healthcare reform helped a great deal as it lowered my overall cost to provide medical insurance for myself and my employees. I do get free medical for me personally because I retired from the military, but I pay for my mom's healthcare and that is very very expensive.
"This is where regulation is necessary. The housing bubble was caused by predatory lending.
In an overall look, history tells us that deregulation leads to corruptions and fraud."
Predatory lending came about after the bubble began. You praise Clinton, yet he was the one who repealed the Glass Stegal Act, which you attribute as the cause of the housing crash.
In reality, it was caused by Alan Greenspan's loose money policy and low interest rates, which led to an over investment in housing. The banks didn't start the fire, but they kept it burning and dumped gasoline on it if you will.
If the government didn't bail out banks- they would have never done what they did, because they would have knewn that they would go bankrupt and the government wouldn't help them.
"It also shows that "trickle-down economics never works.
The economies of Hoover, Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, were abject failures.
The economies of FDR, Clinton and Obama were tremendous successes."
You need to look into these people a little more- Hoove actually tried the same policies as FDR did- his were failures because he didn't increase the money supply- he just moved it around. To claim that Nixon was for deregulation is just absurd- he created the EPA and passed the Economic Recovery Act of 1971, which instituted wage and price controls. Nixon wasn't a conservative even, he was a centrist!
Furthermore, Obamas economy was actually very bad. We have been having a GDP growth rate of about 0% for the bulk of his presidency.
"The idea is that when you concentrate wealth into the top 1% the economy tanks."
'Trickle down economics' is a deragotory term for supply side economics, coined by Bush Sr. That isn't even what it is. Supply Side economics simply states that economic growth arises from investment.
"When you provide an opportunity for a large portion of the populace you get an expansion. In many cases that means government spending. When you concentrate spending in just defense you get virtually no return. When you build the infrastructure, expand education, you not only get expansion but innovation and creativity."
Didn't Friedman support providing the capital neccessary for anyone to go to college? I am opposed to government interventions which interfere on individual liberty or which can be resolved another way.
"The USA needs workers. We are at almost 100% of our production capability. This means we need immigrants to increase productivity."
If we were having a shortage of workers, wages would go up- but they aren't.
"Also, you need to bridge the income gap between the very rich and the middle class. That happened under Clinton for the very first time and the only time in U.S. history. the result was a robust economy. I am not specifying details. There are other significant factors, but those basic goals are targets that work."
If some rich guy is producing more wealth than me, that isn't an issue. I believe that equity is far more important than equality. Enable to increase our overall quality of living, we need more capitalism- that's the only thing which has proven to do this.
"Healthcare reform helped a great deal as it lowered my overall cost to provide medical insurance for myself and my employees. I do get free medical for me personally because I retired from the military, but I pay for my mom's healthcare and that is very very expensive."
Increasing the cost of healthcare made it cheaper? You do know Obama care was a Republican plan right?
Harry, some of what you say is true. Hoover tried to stem the tide of unruly speculation but he had no vision. FDR solved the problem even before WW II. He was spending the nation out of depression. The war only speeded up the process. Ironically Hitler started that same process in Germany and it was working but he went off the rails and embarked on his crazy game of world domination.
Obama saved this nation from a certain depression. Yes, the GDP was slow to recover but it did. Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall Act under duress.
Please note: http://politicsthatwork.com/economic-record-president/obama
I don't have the time to go over every single point with you but no matter what you call it "Trickle-down" doesn't work.
The Affordable Healthcare Act is modeled after the Hawaiian State model. Romney adopted the model for Massachusetts. That is why it is sometimes claimed that it is a republican idea. The fact is that it is a Labor party idea from Britain originally.
Wages aren't going up because corporate heads are holding them down and for no other reason.
Hoover=Depression
Nixon=Inflation
Reagan=Deficit
Bush I=Stagnation
Bush II=Unregulated speculation and predatory lending.
That's just history.
The Great Depression was caused by a decline in the money supply- spending doesn't do anything. Incrrasing the money supply got us out of the depression, and spending was only the method Roosevelt used to do this.
The inflation we had during the Nixon Administration was caused by the Federal Reserve, and would have been eliminated by simply lowering the growth of the money supply.
Harry I am not going to argue these points with you. I lived through most of what you can only read about. I know how things work. I am not cutting you down with these statements so don't take it that way. Nixon didn't know how to deal with runaway inflation. He was on the board of Coke and all he cared about was Coke's bottom line.
Money supply increase unless you have a viable plan and spending. Roosevelt knew what he was doing and acted while Hoover just vacillated.
I believe it was Reagan that started with the trickle down economics. (aka supply side economics.) He also consolidated the tax brackets, cleverly giving the rich a large tax break. Not the first, not the last.
But yes Harry you are correct, the democrat side is not blameless in this process, they were just not as overt with it as republicans are, especially the current far right republicans in power now.
As it stands now, if you are not extremely rich, then government and government policy for the last 30 years or so, has reduced your wealth, and given it to the 1 percent of the 1 percent. There is no economical model that makes sense when you have .01% controlling nearly 40% of all the wealth.
Want to cut everyone's taxes...
Harry, I would love to have my taxes cut...but not at the expense of many things paid for by them. I like driving on roads. I want people educated. The justice system (despite its flaws) is valuable. NASA!!! We all benefit from these things. Sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
I'm talking about things like farm subsidies. Farm subsidies be like:
'I'll sell you a gallon of milk for 5$!'
'Hmm, how about I give you 5$, and in exchange you double the price!'
(Pays 15$)
Or maybe we can cut taxes at the expense of the military industrial complex? Sure we won't be able to bomb as many civilians, but who cares?
"Predatory lending came about after the bubble began. You praise Clinton, yet he was the one who repealed the Glass Stegal Act, which you attribute as the cause of the housing crash"
So I work in this industry and Glass Steagall just prevented commercial banks from getting involved with investment banking. That did little to affect the housing bubble. Yes the Clinton administration pushed for lower down payments and lower cred score requirements so people can purchase homes, BUT the Bush administration's faiure to implement proper Gov oversight for the Banking industry was what really cause the shit to hit the fan.
My generation of Mortgage Loan Originators are currently regulated heavily to make sure this does not happen again.
Harry Truman,
Do business owners whine about the cost of rent, utilities, and other overhead expenses? They whine about taxes because they are crooks who don't want to support the cost of running the country.
@MykCob: "If you don't tax corporations, the corps will hold all of the profits.'
Taxing corporations at a higher rate causes corporations to hire smarter lawyers and tax accountants to get around the tax. So instead of going into medicine or science, etc., our best young brains aspire to lucrative careers in tax avoidance.
Keeping all the profit in a corporation is pointless, because as soon as you spend it on anything but business expenses it becomes taxable as personal income. Unless you can organize vast tax avoidance schemes like Enron, or write off the cost of your house or car, etc., as a business expense, sooner or later the money has to be brought out of the corporation as owner-operator income or returns to shareholders.
There are all kinds of methods available to corporations to hide or remove profits and avoid tax. They can engage in transfer pricing with overseas subsidiaries. They can declare their income in tax havens with little or no tax. That's why companies like Apple and Starbucks can get away with paying minimal tax.
The trouble is that the experts hired by corporations will always be smarter than the politicians who vote for tax laws or the bureaucrats who write them and enforce them. If the tax rates are set low, tax avoidance will provide diminishing returns, and corporations will cough up a share of their earnings in the places where they live instead of the Cayman Islands. But politicians would rather have 30 or 40% of nothing than 10 or 15% of billions of dollars.
The tax gatherers rarely target the major corporations and focus instead on sucking the life out of small businesses with taxes and audit costs. In a tax audit, you're guilty until proven innocent, and even if you're innocent, the cost of proving it can be ruinous for a small company.
Economic history also teaches us that you can't tax your way to prosperity or even equality.
@Algebe
True but the actual effect is corporate spending instead of holding. In medium to smaller businesses spending is used to expand and higher new people.
Teddy R. Taxed the shit out of the rich and broke up the monopolies. They did just fine even though they screamed bloody murder.
Pages