Halftime in America

[cgroupman]

Quote from achilles28:

Dude, seriously. Get a grip.

What you say makes no sense.

What I am saying is this:

If the Government cut your tax and compliance costs in half:

1) Would you not be able to sell your product at a lower cost, for the same margin? Yes or no?

2) Would a lower price of your product not increase your demand? Yes or no?

3) Would that higher demand not warrant an additional hiring of production/managerial staff to accommodate it? Yes or no?

4) Would consumers, in general, not benefit from the cheaper supply of your product, of which they could buy more of? Yes or no?


Simple shit man. You guys are wedded to this ideology, whatever it is, and it makes zero fucking sense.

Now could you please do me a favor and answer those questions?

And if you can't/won't answer those questions, can you please tell me if you give all your money to charity? If not, can you please explain why you keep it?

Don't want to get in the middle of your discussion, but are these not the same arguments that are being made for the purchase of Chinese products? I'm not even saying that is a bad thing, I'm just saying that without all the rules and regulations, all of our retailers/middlemen and all the rest could save money. As in buying at Walmart.

Is there something wrong in my comparison?


c

 

[jem]

Quote from Brass:

Right. I present real world historical examples via the links while your guy speaks in imaginary hypotheticals, and I'm the one who's lacking a fact-based argument? Yes, please do continue to keep me on ignore and be sure to tell all your friends.

you presented models.

I presented the proof that after mellon and kennedy tax cuts revenues went up. Your link confirmed it.

Your link stated that revenues were up more in their models.. but they were citing models I cited actually tax revenues.

 

[achilles28]

Quote from cgroupman:

Don't want to get in the middle of your discussion, but are these not the same arguments that are being made for the purchase of Chinese products?

Sort of. Cheap imports keep inflation down and make the dollar go farther. Problem is, they do so at the expense of American manufacturing/engineering/managerial jobs that migrate overseas, which puts downward pressure on wages.

Quote from cgroupman:

I'm not even saying that is a bad thing, I'm just saying that without all the rules and regulations, all of our retailers/middlemen and all the rest could save money. As in buying at Walmart.

Is there something wrong in my comparison?
c

Not sure what you're driving at here

 

[achilles28]

Quote from Maverick74:

Correct. When you look at India and China and other emerging economies, their standard of living is not going up because they are "making" more, but because they can "afford" more. If inflation rises more then wages then you can't increase your standard of living.

+1

 

[Brass]

Quote from jem:

you presented models.

I presented the proof that after mellon and kennedy tax cuts revenues went up. Your link confirmed it.

Your link stated that revenues were up more in their models.. but they were citing models I cited actually tax revenues.

Sorry, but you did not comprehend what you were presented with. This brings us to an impasse because I'm not a special needs tutor.

 

[Brass]

Quote from achilles28:

...When you get around to it, why don't you explain to the good people of Elite why the Third World is poor? Why America is rich? And why the Soviet Union collapsed? Do you even know where wealth comes from, dildo?

I think it's interesting that you should point to examples that are contextually very different from those in the US, while simultaneously ignoring the very real examples that US economic history provides regarding the effects of tax cuts. What was that about obfuscating?

 

[cgroupman]

Quote from achilles28:



Not sure what you're driving at here

Basically, just that if our store owners, distributors, drop-ship type of businesses just bought products from China instead of the U.S., they would likely save money, sell their wares cheaper and keep the same profit margins.

When and if we become more isolationist, and get back to buy American, then some of this would change. Almost as if we treated American companies on American soil as start-ups who may need some subsidy. I know that's a bad word, but with Federal Subsidies where would the American Farming community be? Being paid to not plant various things, and all that.

Brings me to the 'paying people to not work' concern that some have with unemployment. Similar deal with farmers, and the gigantic companies involved who get paid to not plant.



c

 

[achilles28]

Quote from Brass:

I think it's interesting that you should point to examples that are contextually very different from those in the US, while simultaneously ignoring the very real examples that US economic history provides regarding the effects of tax cuts. What was that about obfuscating?

Context is everything. That's the point. The ingredients to wealth creation aren't unique to America. Why would they be? Economic principles are universal and so is the recipe for growth.

 

[jem]

Quote from Brass:

Sorry, but you did not comprehend what you were presented with. This brings us to an impasse because I'm not a special needs tutor.

I will chunk this down for you.

taxes revenues went up after kennedy and mellon tax cuts, yes or no.
answer yes or no?

your article compared those increases to a baseline which was created by a model which modeled the idea the tax cuts did not happen.

yes or no?

I will cut and paste your quote next.

 

[jem]

Could you be any more ridiculous. I take your quote from slate magazine and show you tax revenues went up after tax cuts and you still lie.

here is the final line of your quote...

"Shorthand: The tax cuts did pay for themselves a little bit by inducing growth, but not nearly enough to pay for themselves entirely..."

do you know what that means.

Tax revenues went up, but not as much as the lefty modeled wanted.


Read it again and again the baseline is established by a model in which the tax cuts did not happen.

here is another quote...

"lowered overall revenue, relative to a baseline where the tax cuts did not happen."

That means

1. the tax cuts paid for themselves because revenue increased, just not as much as the lefty model wanted.

2. the baseline was established by a model...

3. . you quote also says the cuts increased receipts from richer families... which if you check the states created an overall increase in tax revenues. Just as supply side theory and experience predict and illustrate.

here is your quote form the slate....

"...Both the Kennedy and Mellon tax-cut packages actually lowered overall revenue, relative to a baseline where the tax cuts did not happen. They just increased some receipts from richer families. Take a Congressional Budget Office analysis of the Kennedy-era cuts. No studies "showed that the increased economic activity generated by the tax cut raised revenues and lowered countercyclical transfer payments enough to make the tax-rate reductions self-financing," it wrote in 1978. "Instead, the models showed a net increase in the federal deficit, after three years, of $5 billion to $13 billion," versus models where the tax cuts never took effect. Shorthand: The tax cuts did pay for themselves a little bit by inducing growth, but not nearly enough to pay for themselves entirely..."

Quote from jem:

I will chunk this down for you.

taxes revenues went up after kennedy and mellon tax cuts, yes or no.
answer yes or no?

your article compared those increases to a baseline which was created by a model which modeled the idea the tax cuts did not happen.

yes or no?

I will cut and paste your quote next.