scarykitties on 14/9/2011 at 15:37
Oh, woops. Lost track of who I was responding to.
My mistake. :)
hopper on 14/9/2011 at 16:17
Quote Posted by scarykitties
Perhaps, but feel free to cite some sources to back up your stance that taxation of the higher earners is the key to fixing the financial crisis. Since you're making a claim, the burden of proof is on you and, so far, you have not offered any proof.
Look who's talking.
june gloom on 14/9/2011 at 19:01
Quote Posted by Forever420
neo-nazi sheeple ilk.
It's like I'm back in my college philosophy classes. :(
Rug Burn Junky on 14/9/2011 at 19:26
I'm on my phone, so a fuller explanation will have to wait until I have a real keyboard, but I hope that it's readily apparent to everyone that not only is scarykitties's assessment entirely at odds with reality, but not even internally consistent.
scarykitties on 14/9/2011 at 19:28
Quote Posted by hopper
Look who's talking.
Oh, sorry. Here's my source:
Talley, Dan, PhD. "Microeconomics." My Discussions with My Professor. Dakota State University, Madison, South Dakota. 14 Sept. 2011. Lecture.
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
I'm on my phone, so a fuller explanation will have to wait until I have a real keyboard, but I hope that it's readily apparent to everyone that not only is scarykitties's assessment entirely at odds with reality, but not even internally consistent.
I look forward to hearing your points.
Pyrian on 14/9/2011 at 20:14
Yup, scarykitties is espousing the "inverse of reality" macroeconomic view. It's interesting that there's a whole field of this junk; every prediction they've made is wrong (where's my hyperinflation!?), but it doesn't stop them. Right now we're in a situation where the tax burden is lower than its been in generations, the rich are richer than they've ever been, corporations are flush with cash, and guess what? All that supply-side stuff isn't working, which shouldn't be a surprise because it never really did. It's just an excuse dreamed up for already wealthy people to justify having an even larger slice of the pie.
Anyway, on the tax-incentives thing. Consider the extremes for a moment. 100% tax on corporate profits, versus 0% tax on corporate profits. In the first case, you try very hard to not run a profit. How do you do this? By reinvesting all your revenue back into the company, growing the company. In the latter case, you try to maximize your profits. How do you do this? By running the company as lean as possible to squeeze as much of the revenue into profit as you can manage. The latter is certainly better for the stockholder, but the former is better for the economy as a whole. The fact that these sorts of things are directly at odds with each other is the reason why microeconomics is not very applicable to macroeconomics.
scarykitties on 14/9/2011 at 20:36
We were discussing macroeconomics at the time. It just happened to be in a microeconomics class.
If 100% of profits would be taxed, people wouldn't bother investing and there would be no company to begin with.
You say that the rich are richer. That may very well be true, but there is also more money in the USA's economy than there ever has been. Also, the remnants of the Internet boom has allowed people to get very wealthy with the sudden rise of technology, but that boom is tapering off somewhat. Yes, there are still giants like Facebook, Google, etc., but it's not as easy to start from scratch and become rich on the Internet craze as it once was.
But the bottom line is...
How does taking an employer (the rich, corporations, etc.)'s money encourage them to hire (give money to) workers?
Azaran on 14/9/2011 at 22:08
Quote Posted by Forever420
Fuck Perry, Fuck the bitch Bachmann and fuck all their neo-nazi sheeple ilk.
:thumb:
With a 10 inch cactus
Matthew on 14/9/2011 at 22:14
How does not taking it encourage them to do anything but buy more Cristal with it?
june gloom on 14/9/2011 at 22:21
Quote Posted by Azaran
:thumb:
With a 10 inch cactus
Don't encourage him.
