California Governor, Without Republicans To Obstruct Him, Creates Budget Surplus
By
ibx, in Speakers Corner
Recommended Posts
Stumpy 256
lawrocket[Reply]
QuoteQuestion: have you ever had to make a payroll?
Oh goody! A red herring!
Serious question. Have you ever had to make a payroll? If so, did you have margins that increases in taxes could kill? Ever fire a person because of a tax increase? Ever lose a job because taxes increased?
Or is that a side of the equation that you don't want to appreciate?
yes, no, no, no.
Never try to eat more than you can lift
kallend 1,620
-Joey-******My friend robbed a bank and created a budget surplus for his family. That makes him a good person, right?
That's the level of your game? LOL, ok.
And yet you can't argue it. Common, I want to know your thoughts. He created a surplus! The means by which he did it shouldn't matter, right? it's a surplus!
Funny how those who equate taxes with robbery get so upset when the IRS scrutinizes their organizations.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
jcd11235 0
lawrocketSerious question. Have you ever had to make a payroll? If so, did you have margins that increases in taxes could kill? Ever fire a person because of a tax increase? Ever lose a job because taxes increased?
Or is that a side of the equation that you don't want to appreciate?
It's naïve to believe that one needs to make payroll in order to understand how taxes affect hiring decisions. It is equally naïve to believe having to make payroll means one can make competent hiring decisions.
Considering labor is generally a tax deductible business expense, so tax rates have little, if any, effect on the pool of money available to pay labor costs.
In general, if it is profitable to hire someone at 1% tax rate, it is also profitable to hire that person at a 99% tax rate.
Suppose we have a rational business owner. She prefers more profit to less profit. Now consider two effective tax rates, r1 and r2, such that 0 < r1 < r2 < 1. Let's say that, before taxes, if you don't hire a new employee, you can expect your pre-tax profit to be P1, and if you do hire a new employee, you can expect your pre-tax profit to be P2. If P2 > P1, then management should hire a new employee. If P1 > P2, the new employee should not be hired. Note that if P2 > P1, then:
- r1*P2 > r1*P1, and
- r2*P2 > r2*P1.
Hence, the tax rate should not affect the hiring decision.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
Kennedy 0
jcd11235***Serious question. Have you ever had to make a payroll? If so, did you have margins that increases in taxes could kill? Ever fire a person because of a tax increase? Ever lose a job because taxes increased?
Or is that a side of the equation that you don't want to appreciate?
It's naïve to believe that one needs to make payroll in order to understand how taxes affect hiring decisions. It is equally naïve to believe having to make payroll means one can make competent hiring decisions.
Considering labor is generally a tax deductible business expense, so tax rates have little, if any, effect on the pool of money available to pay labor costs.
In general, if it is profitable to hire someone at 1% tax rate, it is also profitable to hire that person at a 99% tax rate.
Suppose we have a rational business owner. She prefers more profit to less profit. Now consider two effective tax rates, r1 and r2, such that 0 < r1 < r2 < 1. Let's say that, before taxes, if you don't hire a new employee, you can expect your pre-tax profit to be P1, and if you do hire a new employee, you can expect your pre-tax profit to be P2. If P2 > P1, then management should hire a new employee. If P1 > P2, the new employee should not be hired. Note that if P2 > P1, then:
- r1*P2 > r1*P1, and
- r2*P2 > r2*P1.
Hence, the tax rate should not affect the hiring decision.
Congratulations. You've demonstrated ignorance of tax law and answered definitively that you've never owned or operated a business.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
jcd11235 0
KennedyYou've demonstrated ignorance of tax law and answered definitively that you've never owned or operated a business.
You're wrong on both counts.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
Kennedy 0
QuoteFunny how those who equate taxes with robbery get so upset when the IRS scrutinizes their organizations.
Not funny to me.
Would you be ok if the IRS had targeted politically left organizations and refused to decide tax status, effectively denying them benefits? It's odd that you're ok with it when even POTUS and left wing groups are coming out against it.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
jcd11235 0
KennedyWould you be ok if the IRS had targeted politically left organizations and refused to decide tax status, effectively denying them benefits? It's odd that you're ok with it when even POTUS and left wing groups are coming out against it.
They did.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
BIGUN 1,049
jcd11235***It worked out great until all the backroom deals the Dems were cooking caught up and backfired.
That's one way to fictionalize history.
The reality is that President Bush clearly demonstrated that tax cuts do not promote job growth and that eliminating a budget surplus in order to decrease taxes is a foolish fiscal strategy.
Sorry, but you're mistaken in this case and the Counselor is correct. In the first place, there is a huge difference between a tax cut and a rebate.
Quote
Heritage experts assert that any realistic, practical plan to prime the economy’s pump must emphasize permanent reductions in income tax rates for individuals and businesses – not, as liberals advocate, one-time or short-term tax rebates and credits combined with upward of $1 trillion in deficit spending.
Reducing tax rates on Americans’ income — such as President Bush’s 2003 tax cuts and those championed roughly 20 and 40 years earlier by Presidents Reagan and Kennedy – demonstrably creates incentives to work, innovate and invest. The evidence of history and decades of research bear this out.
SOURCE: http://blog.heritage.org/2009/02/12/when-a-tax-cut-isnt-a-tax-cut/
The bottom line is..
Extreme conservatives always push for tax cuts for the wealthy. Extreme liberals are against all tax cuts, believing that we need higher taxes to pay for government programs ... and that taxes somehow won't create any drag on the economy. Both extremes are wrong. Of which I spoke - Tax cuts for the middle class and poor stimulate the economy, but tax cuts for the wealthy hurt the economy.
ETA:
It's the closest thing to a tongue sticking out... nah nee nah nee nah nah - your turn.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.
How are jobs "created?" Answer me and tell me how full employment can be obtained. I.e., let's give until jan. 1, 2015. How do we get full employment by then?
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites