Unfortunately, Autocrat Walker has been cutting taxes across the board--in a time of dire fiscal crisis, of course.If the people really want to support the protesters, they can all pay higher taxes to the state government so the budget gets balanced.
sonicare
Thousands of People Rally in All Fifty States to Support Wisconsin Protesters
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]
I am happy that people aren't getting laid off.
I guess we could cut it all down and just fire people until the budget is balanced. While we are at it, we can raise the taxes on non-public workers and increase taxes on the businesses. It's not like they haven't had to cut their spending, cut their employees benifits, and lay off people in the past few years.
Public worker unions losing their power is regrettable but from what I've seen of public workers unions, they are a burden on the taxpayers and bring loads of inefficency to the government and other public sectors.
topsemag55
Agreed. I don't want people laid off, but the unions have ridiculous collective bargaining powers.Some school districts you can't move a Xerox machine without calling the union. The public workers are making more than their private counterparts.
A Democratic governor would have a conflict of interest supporting the unions when he's supposed to be on the side of the taxpayers (public).
The problem with this argument is he doesn't want to limit unions in lowering their powers.. He wants to destroy them.. And these unions just don't include teachers, but police, fire department, etc etc..
Business do not expand when the reach the optimal PPF and CPF ratios. When those ratios are reached, they DO pocket any extra the got from tax breaks.[QUOTE="ttobba07"]
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]They don't just "pocket" the money. Portions of it are towards expansion. This requires new employees. There is a **** ton of empirical evidence for the fact that higher tax rates on business, ceteris paribus, correlates to higher unemployment.
coolbeans90
Edit: I would also like to point out that the state with the highest current unemployment(Nevada) has ZERO income taxes on corporations or individuals and that is a trend across the nation. There is a balance between taxes and employment. Cut, cut, cut is a failure of an idea in every way.
Great. Those change. And my former statement stands.
And obviously there is a balance, given government spending obviously also plays some role in unemployment. No one has argued otherwise. You'd have to hold a lot of factors constant to make assumptions from states.
They do not change once optimal points are reached.......
Those optimal frontier ratios are their because they provide optimal supply versus the demand for largest profit. The only change that happens after optimal points are reached is an increase in efficiency which leads to layoffs and higher amounts of money pocketed. The PPF and CPF are economic law.
And obviously there is a balance, given government spending obviously also plays some role in unemployment. No one has argued otherwise. You'd have to hold a lot of factors constant to make assumptions from states.
coolbeans90
This is true, and it goes against your earlier statement of "more taxes = more unemployment!" which is obviously BS otherwise everybody would jack up the tax and you wouldn't be seeing states or countries that do not have income tax.
If the people really want to support the protesters, they can all pay higher taxes to the state government so the budget gets balanced.
Unfortunately, Autocrat Walker has been cutting taxes across the board--in a time of dire fiscal crisis, of course. Well I'm sure that people who actually pay any decent amount of tax were happy to have the cuts. But they should be willing to have their incomes garnished to support other worthy causes like funding someone else's pension so that they can continue to make 80-90% of their pre-retirment income.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
[QUOTE="ttobba07"] Business do not expand when the reach the optimal PPF and CPF ratios. When those ratios are reached, they DO pocket any extra the got from tax breaks.
Edit: I would also like to point out that the state with the highest current unemployment(Nevada) has ZERO income taxes on corporations or individuals and that is a trend across the nation. There is a balance between taxes and employment. Cut, cut, cut is a failure of an idea in every way.
ttobba07
Great. Those change. And my former statement stands.
And obviously there is a balance, given government spending obviously also plays some role in unemployment. No one has argued otherwise. You'd have to hold a lot of factors constant to make assumptions from states.
They do not change once optimal points are reached.......
Those optimal frontier ratios are their because they provide optimal supply versus the demand for largest profit. The only change that happens after optimal points are reached is an increase in efficiency which leads to layoffs and higher amounts of money pocketed. The PPF and CPF are economic law.
Optimal PPF and CPF are not static. Moreover shifts to the left of PPF occur with higher rates of taxation.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
And obviously there is a balance, given government spending obviously also plays some role in unemployment. No one has argued otherwise. You'd have to hold a lot of factors constant to make assumptions from states.
F1_2004
This is true, and it goes against your earlier statement of "more taxes = more unemployment!" which is obviously BS otherwise everybody would jack up the tax and you wouldn't be seeing states or countries that do not have income tax.
Clearly you didn't take the time to read my posts. I said that higher taxes, all things held equal, lower employment. This was said in response to the statement that there is inherently zero incentive to reduce taxes for the sake of reducing unemployment as supposedly said money would be pocketed.
Good. I'm sick of unions being demonized for getting decent benefits and pay for workforces.
Optimal PPF and CPF are not static. Moreover shifts to the left of PPF occur with higher rates of taxation.Shifts to the left of the PPF only occur when a business model is inefficient because of poor labor or lack of supplies. Shift to the left of the CPF only occur if the market is over saturated with the product. If direct labor, direct materials, overhead, and contribution margin are correctly accounted for on the income statements and efficient points on the frontiers are reached, taxation cannot cause a shift to the left. Blaming taxation for a miscalculation or inefficiency is a scapegoat and not reality.coolbeans90
Shifts to the left of the PPF only occur when a business model is inefficient because of poor labor or lack of supplies. Shift to the left of the CPF only occur if the market is over saturated with the product. If direct labor, direct materials, overhead, and contribution margin are correctly accounted for on the income statements and efficient points on the frontiers are reached, taxation cannot cause a shift to the left. Blaming taxation for a miscalculation or inefficiency is a scapegoat and not reality.[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]Optimal PPF and CPF are not static. Moreover shifts to the left of PPF occur with higher rates of taxation.
ttobba07
Companies having less operating capital lowers the PPF.
[QUOTE="F1_2004"]
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
And obviously there is a balance, given government spending obviously also plays some role in unemployment. No one has argued otherwise. You'd have to hold a lot of factors constant to make assumptions from states.
coolbeans90
This is true, and it goes against your earlier statement of "more taxes = more unemployment!" which is obviously BS otherwise everybody would jack up the tax and you wouldn't be seeing states or countries that do not have income tax.
Clearly you didn't take the time to read my posts. I said that higher taxes, all things held equal, lower employment. This was said in response to the statement that there is inherently zero incentive to reduce taxes for the sake of reducing unemployment as supposedly said money would be pocketed.
wtf does that mean? How does a government hold all things equal and why would that affect the results of increasing taxes? Are you talking about comparison between states?
*raises fist in the air*
Stick it to the man America!
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"][QUOTE="F1_2004"]
This is true, and it goes against your earlier statement of "more taxes = more unemployment!" which is obviously BS otherwise everybody would jack up the tax and you wouldn't be seeing states or countries that do not have income tax.
F1_2004
Clearly you didn't take the time to read my posts. I said that higher taxes, all things held equal, lower employment. This was said in response to the statement that there is inherently zero incentive to reduce taxes for the sake of reducing unemployment as supposedly said money would be pocketed.
wtf does that mean? How does a government hold all things equal and why would that affect the results of increasing taxes? Are you talking about comparison between states?That means that an increase in taxes, not taking into account government spending, will increase unemployment. The government doesn't hold spend equal as their spending level in some loose way is relative to their taxation level.
Shifts to the left of the PPF only occur when a business model is inefficient because of poor labor or lack of supplies. Shift to the left of the CPF only occur if the market is over saturated with the product. If direct labor, direct materials, overhead, and contribution margin are correctly accounted for on the income statements and efficient points on the frontiers are reached, taxation cannot cause a shift to the left. Blaming taxation for a miscalculation or inefficiency is a scapegoat and not reality.[QUOTE="ttobba07"]
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]Optimal PPF and CPF are not static. Moreover shifts to the left of PPF occur with higher rates of taxation.
coolbeans90
Companies having less operating capital lowers the PPF.
Taxation cannot affect the PPF unless the business underapplied costs. Operating capitol comes from predetermined labor, material, and overhead. If a business under applied their capital and had to use profit to cover it along with the tax, they were exceeding the efficient point of the frontiers which is their fault. Cutting taxes does nothing to an efficient business other then increase profit that goes into pockets. Raising taxes can only affect the PPF on an efficient business if the tax raise is obnoxiously high.
The idea that the Wisconsin taxpayers are paying extra to give teachers a pension is a blatant falsehood. The pensions are funded through defered money owed to the teachers that would have otherwise been part of their normal salary.
http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/02/25/the-wisconsin-lie-exposed-taxpayers-actually-contribute-nothing-to-public-employee-pensions/
They don't just "pocket" the money. Portions of it are towards expansion. This requires new employees. There is a **** ton of empirical evidence for the fact that higher tax rates on business, ceteris paribus, correlates to higher unemployment.
coolbeans90
Yes, and there is also not even any need for empirical evidence for the fact that lower tax rates on business (when on the left side of the Laffer curve maximum) correlate to lower government revenues.
Taxes can be too high. Taxes can also be too low. The latter truth is one that conservatives tend to try to brush under the carpet or pretend isn't true. The status of too high/too low also depend on the goals that one hopes to achieve through a given tax rate, many of which are necessarily mutually exclusive. To say "we should do X with tax rates because that will cause Y" is a terribly simplistic view of the situation, as it ignores the fact that there is no one singular effect in changing tax rates. There is near universal consensus that second of the two Bush tax cuts, for example, had very little effect except in lowering government revenue. Cutting taxes does not have a universally stimulating, positive effect, nor does raising taxes have a universally crushing, negative effect.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
They don't just "pocket" the money. Portions of it are towards expansion. This requires new employees. There is a **** ton of empirical evidence for the fact that higher tax rates on business, ceteris paribus, correlates to higher unemployment.
GabuEx
Yes, and there is also not even any need for empirical evidence for the fact that lower tax rates on business (when on the left side of the Laffer curve maximum) correlate to lower government revenues.
Taxes can be too high. Taxes can also be too low. The latter truth is one that conservatives tend to try to brush under the carpet or pretend isn't true. The status of too high/too low also depend on the goals that one hopes to achieve through a given tax rate, many of which are necessarily mutually exclusive. To say "we should do X with tax rates because that will cause Y" is a terribly simplistic view of the situation, as it ignores the fact that there is no one singular effect in changing tax rates. There is near universal consensus that second of the two Bush tax cuts, for example, had very little effect except in lowering government revenue. Cutting taxes does not have a universally stimulating, positive effect, nor does raising taxes have a universally crushing, negative effect.
I don't disagree with the first paragraph. However, raising taxes does to some extent limit business growth. (it's a necessary cost, but that isn't to say that it doesn't exist, which is all that I am arguing there) While I am not denying that different sorts of taxes have different magnitudes of effects, it is pretty universal that tax decreases (or all gov't spending increases for that matter) increase growth and raising the taxes the opposite effect. (not accounting for changes in gov't spending, which complicates things, but that wasn't the point I was addressing in his post as it focused specifically on business employment growth) However, said losses are weighed against benefits provided by government services. The Bush tax cuts aren't what is in discussion here insomuch as business related tax changes. While the Bush tax cuts certainly decreased revenue, and weren't particularly stimulative, it differs from the scenario in discussion here as the Bush tax cuts primarily dealt with wealthy individuals. Not businesses per se. Nevertheless, economists in general wanted the cuts renewed for two years. (the majority even for the top 2%)
I don't get why you keep saying "not accounting for changes in gov't spending". What is the government gonna do with all that tax? Buy a new government mercedes? The private business is far more likely to do that instead of create jobs. Government will change their spending of course. Create more public jobs like infrastructure renovation etc. F1_2004
Because my initial post was in response to one which stated that tax levels (within some extent) on businesses are irrelevant to how many people said businesses employed.
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
They don't just "pocket" the money. Portions of it are towards expansion. This requires new employees. There is a **** ton of empirical evidence for the fact that higher tax rates on business, ceteris paribus, correlates to higher unemployment.
coolbeans90
Yes, and there is also not even any need for empirical evidence for the fact that lower tax rates on business (when on the left side of the Laffer curve maximum) correlate to lower government revenues.
Taxes can be too high. Taxes can also be too low. The latter truth is one that conservatives tend to try to brush under the carpet or pretend isn't true. The status of too high/too low also depend on the goals that one hopes to achieve through a given tax rate, many of which are necessarily mutually exclusive. To say "we should do X with tax rates because that will cause Y" is a terribly simplistic view of the situation, as it ignores the fact that there is no one singular effect in changing tax rates. There is near universal consensus that second of the two Bush tax cuts, for example, had very little effect except in lowering government revenue. Cutting taxes does not have a universally stimulating, positive effect, nor does raising taxes have a universally crushing, negative effect.
I don't disagree with the first paragraph. However, raising taxes does to some extent limit business growth. (it's a necessary cost, but that isn't to say that it doesn't exist, which is all that I am arguing there) While I am not denying that different sorts of taxes have different magnitudes of effects, it is pretty universal that tax decreases (or all gov't spending increases for that matter) increase growth and raising the taxes the opposite effect. (not accounting for changes in gov't spending, which complicates things, but that wasn't the point I was addressing in his post as it focused specifically on business employment growth) However, said losses are weighed against benefits provided by government services. The Bush tax cuts aren't what is in discussion here insomuch as business related tax changes. While the Bush tax cuts certainly decreased revenue, and weren't particularly stimulative, it differs from the scenario in discussion here as the Bush tax cuts primarily dealt with wealthy individuals. Not businesses per se. Nevertheless, economists in general wanted the cuts renewed for two years. (the majority even for the top 2%)
I'm not disagreeing with your statement that taxes limit business growth. That much is obvious, as can be seeing by taking things to the extreme and considering the effects of a tax rate of 100%. The point that I'm making, rather, is that noting that effect and only that effect is missing the whole point of taxes. People make it out to be a zero sum game, but it's not, on account of the fact that the effect of tax increases on business growth is not linear. The first few percentage points of taxation make government able to actually function while not significantly impacting growth, creating a net positive effect overall. It's when the impact to growth from a tax increase outweighs the extra benefit to government operations that we've reached the tipping point and any further tax increases would be detrimental and should not be applied.
The main point I'm making is that the one thing absolutely no one seems to want to acknowledge is that increased taxation can be a perfectly legitimate way to close a budget shortfall, whether in part or wholly. Why politicians refuse to acknowledge this is obvious: politicians' jobs basically depend on their willingness to lie to the public and tell them what they want to hear, lest they get booted out of office in lieu of one who will. Why non-politicians refuse to acknowledge this is, however, significantly more baffling to me, if I give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they want to have an intellectually honest and upfront discussion. Every (well, every sane) economic policy has upsides and downsides; the real conversation that should be had is whether the former outweigh the latter, not whether one or the other exist. When one side starts asking the other, "So you want to decrease business growth, huh?", it can be safely concluded that that side is not interested in an actual discussion.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
Yes, and there is also not even any need for empirical evidence for the fact that lower tax rates on business (when on the left side of the Laffer curve maximum) correlate to lower government revenues.
Taxes can be too high. Taxes can also be too low. The latter truth is one that conservatives tend to try to brush under the carpet or pretend isn't true. The status of too high/too low also depend on the goals that one hopes to achieve through a given tax rate, many of which are necessarily mutually exclusive. To say "we should do X with tax rates because that will cause Y" is a terribly simplistic view of the situation, as it ignores the fact that there is no one singular effect in changing tax rates. There is near universal consensus that second of the two Bush tax cuts, for example, had very little effect except in lowering government revenue. Cutting taxes does not have a universally stimulating, positive effect, nor does raising taxes have a universally crushing, negative effect.
GabuEx
I don't disagree with the first paragraph. However, raising taxes does to some extent limit business growth. (it's a necessary cost, but that isn't to say that it doesn't exist, which is all that I am arguing there) While I am not denying that different sorts of taxes have different magnitudes of effects, it is pretty universal that tax decreases (or all gov't spending increases for that matter) increase growth and raising the taxes the opposite effect. (not accounting for changes in gov't spending, which complicates things, but that wasn't the point I was addressing in his post as it focused specifically on business employment growth) However, said losses are weighed against benefits provided by government services. The Bush tax cuts aren't what is in discussion here insomuch as business related tax changes. While the Bush tax cuts certainly decreased revenue, and weren't particularly stimulative, it differs from the scenario in discussion here as the Bush tax cuts primarily dealt with wealthy individuals. Not businesses per se. Nevertheless, economists in general wanted the cuts renewed for two years. (the majority even for the top 2%)
I'm not disagreeing with your statement that taxes limit business growth. That much is obvious, as can be seeing by taking things to the extreme and considering the effects of a tax rate of 100%. The point that I'm making, rather, is that noting that effect and only that effect is missing the whole point of taxes. People make it out to be a zero sum game, but it's not, on account of the fact that the effect of tax increases on business growth is not linear. The first few percentage points of taxation make government able to actually function while not significantly impacting growth, creating a net positive effect overall. It's when the impact to growth from a tax increase outweighs the extra benefit to government operations that we've reached the tipping point and any further tax increases would be detrimental and should not be applied.
The main point I'm making is that the one thing absolutely no one seems to want to acknowledge is that increased taxation can be a perfectly legitimate way to close a budget shortfall, whether in part or wholly. Why politicians refuse to acknowledge this is obvious: politicians' jobs basically depend on their willingness to lie to the public and tell them what they want to hear, lest they get booted out of office in lieu of one who will. Why non-politicians refuse to acknowledge this is, however, significantly more baffling to me, if I give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they want to have an intellectually honest and upfront discussion. Every (well, every sane) economic policy has upsides and downsides; the real conversation that should be had is whether the former outweigh the latter, not whether one or the other exist. When one side starts asking the other, "So you want to decrease business growth, huh?", it can be safely concluded that that side is not interested in an actual discussion.
It is not a zero-sum game, and as I said the magnitude of losses vary on the taxes themselves. (they are not linear) Moreover I said that said losses are weighted against the benefits from government function. (on both an economic and social level) I also didn't state that all things considered that more tax cuts should be implemented, so I'm not sure what you are arguing here. I merely touched upon the statement that higher taxes themselves do not impact businesses habits on hiring itself. I think both you and F1 missed what I was saying.
I agree that tax increases along with budget cuts (both quite unpopular public policy moves) will be necessary in order to fix the budget. (which everyone wants to fix, damned if you do, damned if you don't)
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"][QUOTE="ttobba07"] Shifts to the left of the PPF only occur when a business model is inefficient because of poor labor or lack of supplies. Shift to the left of the CPF only occur if the market is over saturated with the product. If direct labor, direct materials, overhead, and contribution margin are correctly accounted for on the income statements and efficient points on the frontiers are reached, taxation cannot cause a shift to the left. Blaming taxation for a miscalculation or inefficiency is a scapegoat and not reality.
ttobba07
Companies having less operating capital lowers the PPF.
Taxation cannot affect the PPF unless the business underapplied costs. Operating capitol comes from predetermined labor, material, and overhead. If a business under applied their capital and had to use profit to cover it along with the tax, they were exceeding the efficient point of the frontiers which is their fault. Cutting taxes does nothing to an efficient business other then increase profit that goes into pockets. Raising taxes can only affect the PPF on an efficient business if the tax raise is obnoxiously high.Upon further reflection, if we compartmentalize profitable efficient businesses and their hiring practices, you probably are correct. In times of economic distress, (this applies less so now than two years ago) profits are taking hits, and to recoup from that businesses lay people off. Higher taxes hurt on the aggregate level in that regard during recessions. Moreover, inefficient businesses, their fault or not, have employment that is affected by public policy regardless.
Indeed; it would improve our standing (socially and economically) and catch us up with the developed world.[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]
They aren't rights covered by our constitution and changing them would fundamentally change the society and economy that has made America become the economic leader it is.
Wasdie
Like Greece right? Oh wait, how about Iceland?
Wait, what is being argued here.... that Greece is in debt largely due to workers' unions? Because thats the implication you're making. If not, then you cant hope to make a big impression with your point.I wonder where you guys get your info about Greece.
A Democratic governor would have a conflict of interest supporting the unions when he's supposed to be on the side of the taxpayers (public).
topsemag55
The republican governor instead gave his donors $140 million dollars in special interest tax breaks t his corporate donors and exempted the three unions that supported him. He actually caused the budget shortfall. The rich ****ers get more money while the middle class workers are getting screwed.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment