She was impressively composed, definitely has talent... But she lied repeatedly

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: sactoking
If there's no functional equivalent between raising taxes directly and indirectly, why be disgusted?

Or better yet, maybe the American people should be MORE disgusted that Obama plans to raise their tax burden and not their taxes! Why? In the end, whether you charge me $5 in taxes or you charge AM/PM $5 to sell a Big Gulp, that $5 gets passed to SOMEONE. When you do it indirectly, all you do is increase inefficiency. Collecting $5 in taxes will cost the economy less that collecting $5 from AM/PM and having AM/PM collect it from me.

Don't tell us that raising tax burden is some sort of lie or 'out' using semantics. IT IS WORSE THAN DIRECTLY TAXING US!
I am not a tax expert by any means. But I don't agree with you that its the inefficiency of the tax burden that is actually worse for Americans than a direct tax increase.

I don't understand how if AMPM gets taxed $5 to sell a Big Gulp, then AMPM will pass that entire $5 tax increase down to me as a consumer. Is that increasing that big gulp price by $5? I think its more likely that if the tax burden for a corporation increases, then that corporation will POSSIBLY pass down that increase by some factor of the increase relative to whatever market demand price there is for it's product. In other words, that same Big Gulp will not have a price increase of $5 but more likely $.05.

In other words. IMHO its the very inefficiency in any tax increase passed to Businesses that protects Americans from having to dig deeper into their wallets wherein the alternative would be to pay for a direct tax increase.

I'm no expert, but I don't see the price of my Big Gulp increasing by a 1to1 factor related to any tax increase.
It increases across the board on everything they're selling. It also affects the amount they can pay the employees and the benefits they are able to give. The companies do eat some of the taxes, I'm sure, depending on the industry and whatnot, which affects their R&D, which has a direct impact on us and their employees.
That's great spin, but it's all smoke and mirrors designed to get average wage-earning Americans to vote against their own interests. The relevant tax for this issue is the business income tax, not this fantasy tax on goods you're postulating. Business income taxes are taxes on profits, not on goods or property or revenue. If one raises the profit tax on businesses, it comes out of the pocket of the business owners, e.g., stockholders.

While those owners may want to increase the price of goods to compensate for increased profit taxes, if the business is properly managed, they can't. Increasing their prices would actually be counterproductive, reducing their profits. Why? Basic economics. A properly-managed business will set its product prices to the optimal value that yields the greatest profit. If they lower prices, their margin drops and they profit less. If they increase prices, their sales drop and they profit less. Increasing product prices to offset increased profit taxes doesn't work.

Obviously real-world economics aren't quite this black and white, but the fact remains that all the crying about "increased profit taxes will be passed to consumers" is just another smoke screen. The reality is that increased profit taxes primarily affect investors. Like all taxes on investors, it is the very rich who pay the most, with average American wage earners seeing only a minor effect.


Edit: typo
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: seemingly random
We've had some good role models in rove, etc. It wears off on you whether you want it to or not.
Well then, it would seem to me that you must also give up the right to criticize such bullshit tactics.

no?
 

pstylesss

Platinum Member
Mar 21, 2007
2,914
0
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: sactoking
If there's no functional equivalent between raising taxes directly and indirectly, why be disgusted?

Or better yet, maybe the American people should be MORE disgusted that Obama plans to raise their tax burden and not their taxes! Why? In the end, whether you charge me $5 in taxes or you charge AM/PM $5 to sell a Big Gulp, that $5 gets passed to SOMEONE. When you do it indirectly, all you do is increase inefficiency. Collecting $5 in taxes will cost the economy less that collecting $5 from AM/PM and having AM/PM collect it from me.

Don't tell us that raising tax burden is some sort of lie or 'out' using semantics. IT IS WORSE THAN DIRECTLY TAXING US!
I am not a tax expert by any means. But I don't agree with you that its the inefficiency of the tax burden that is actually worse for Americans than a direct tax increase.

I don't understand how if AMPM gets taxed $5 to sell a Big Gulp, then AMPM will pass that entire $5 tax increase down to me as a consumer. Is that increasing that big gulp price by $5? I think its more likely that if the tax burden for a corporation increases, then that corporation will POSSIBLY pass down that increase by some factor of the increase relative to whatever market demand price there is for it's product. In other words, that same Big Gulp will not have a price increase of $5 but more likely $.05.

In other words. IMHO its the very inefficiency in any tax increase passed to Businesses that protects Americans from having to dig deeper into their wallets wherein the alternative would be to pay for a direct tax increase.

I'm no expert, but I don't see the price of my Big Gulp increasing by a 1to1 factor related to any tax increase.
It increases across the board on everything they're selling. It also affects the amount they can pay the employees and the benefits they are able to give. The companies do eat some of the taxes, I'm sure, depending on the industry and whatnot, which affects their R&D, which has a direct impact on us and their employees.
That's great spin, but it's all smoke and mirrors designed to get average wage-earning Americans to vote against their own interests. The relevant tax for this issue is the business income tax, not this fantasy tax on goods you're postulating. Business income taxes are taxes on profits, not on goods or property or revenue. If one raises the profit tax on businesses, it comes out of the pocket of the business owners, e.g., stockholders.

While those owners may want to increase the price of goods to compensate for increased profit taxes, if the business is properly managed, they can't. Increasing their prices would actually be counterproductive, reducing their profits. Why? Basic economics. A properly-managed business will set its product prices to the optimal value that yields the greatest profit. If they lower prices, their margin drops and they profit less. If they increase prices, their sales drop and they profit less. Increasing product prices to offset increased profit taxes doesn't work.

Obviously real-world economics aren't quite this black and white, but the fact remains that all the crying about "increased profit taxes will be passed to consumers" is just another smoke screen. The reality is that increased profit taxes primarily affect investors. Like all taxes on investors, it is the very rich who pay the most, with average American wage earners seeing only a minor affect.

Oh good god. If business "income tax" (it's called corporate tax) is taxed at a higher rate, then businesses will increase the cost of goods and services to maintain the same profit margin - or they will cut wages and/or benefits.

If you want to say it comes out of the business owners or shareholders, that also directly affects you. Don't think so? Do you have a 401(k)? Is your insurance in a trust? How well shareholders are doing (read: the economy) will directly affect you via the price of their goods and services.

I'm glad to see you have very basic business understanding. You failed to calculate into your failed logic that the tax will increase to all businesses, thereby allowing (or forcing) all businesses to increase prices to stay profitable and you won't be able to go anywhere else because all the business are affected by the same taxes.

It isn't a smoke and mirrors trick. You don't understand anything about the stock market, shareholders, economics, and investors. If you did, you wouldn't have made that amazingly ignorant post.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: sactoking
If there's no functional equivalent between raising taxes directly and indirectly, why be disgusted?

Or better yet, maybe the American people should be MORE disgusted that Obama plans to raise their tax burden and not their taxes! Why? In the end, whether you charge me $5 in taxes or you charge AM/PM $5 to sell a Big Gulp, that $5 gets passed to SOMEONE. When you do it indirectly, all you do is increase inefficiency. Collecting $5 in taxes will cost the economy less that collecting $5 from AM/PM and having AM/PM collect it from me.

Don't tell us that raising tax burden is some sort of lie or 'out' using semantics. IT IS WORSE THAN DIRECTLY TAXING US!
I am not a tax expert by any means. But I don't agree with you that its the inefficiency of the tax burden that is actually worse for Americans than a direct tax increase.

I don't understand how if AMPM gets taxed $5 to sell a Big Gulp, then AMPM will pass that entire $5 tax increase down to me as a consumer. Is that increasing that big gulp price by $5? I think its more likely that if the tax burden for a corporation increases, then that corporation will POSSIBLY pass down that increase by some factor of the increase relative to whatever market demand price there is for it's product. In other words, that same Big Gulp will not have a price increase of $5 but more likely $.05.

In other words. IMHO its the very inefficiency in any tax increase passed to Businesses that protects Americans from having to dig deeper into their wallets wherein the alternative would be to pay for a direct tax increase.

I'm no expert, but I don't see the price of my Big Gulp increasing by a 1to1 factor related to any tax increase.
It increases across the board on everything they're selling. It also affects the amount they can pay the employees and the benefits they are able to give. The companies do eat some of the taxes, I'm sure, depending on the industry and whatnot, which affects their R&D, which has a direct impact on us and their employees.
That's great spin, but it's all smoke and mirrors designed to get average wage-earning Americans to vote against their own interests. The relevant tax for this issue is the business income tax, not this fantasy tax on goods you're postulating. Business income taxes are taxes on profits, not on goods or property or revenue. If one raises the profit tax on businesses, it comes out of the pocket of the business owners, e.g., stockholders.

While those owners may want to increase the price of goods to compensate for increased profit taxes, if the business is properly managed, they can't. Increasing their prices would actually be counterproductive, reducing their profits. Why? Basic economics. A properly-managed business will set its product prices to the optimal value that yields the greatest profit. If they lower prices, their margin drops and they profit less. If they increase prices, their sales drop and they profit less. Increasing product prices to offset increased profit taxes doesn't work.

Obviously real-world economics aren't quite this black and white, but the fact remains that all the crying about "increased profit taxes will be passed to consumers" is just another smoke screen. The reality is that increased profit taxes primarily affect investors. Like all taxes on investors, it is the very rich who pay the most, with average American wage earners seeing only a minor affect.

True, but basic economics also says that a tax that affects all firms/goods in the market will lower the supply in the entire market, meaning at least part of the tax burden will be reflected in a new market price.
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,161
136
Here is what her "experience" consists of:

·Palin recently said that the war in Iraq is "God's task." She's even admitted she hasn't thought about the war much?just last year she was quoted saying, "I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq."

·Palin has actively sought the support of the fringe Alaska Independence Party. Six months ago, Palin told members of the group?who advocate for a vote on secession from the union?to "keep up the good work" and "wished the party luck on what she called its 'inspiring convention.'

·Palin wants to teach creationism in public schools. She hasn't made clear whether she thinks evolution is a fact.

·Palin doesn't believe that humans contribute to global warming. Speaking about climate change, she said, "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being manmade."

·Palin has close ties to Big Oil. Her inauguration was even sponsored by BP.

·Palin is extremely anti-choice. She doesn't even support abortion in the case of rape or incest.

·Palin opposes comprehensive sex-ed in public schools. She's said she will only support abstinence-only approaches.

·As mayor, Palin tried to ban books from the library. Palin asked the library how she might go about banning books because some had inappropriate language in them?shocking the librarian, Mary Ellen Baker. According to Time, "news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor."

·She DID support the Bridge to Nowhere (before she opposed it). Palin claimed that she said "thanks, but no thanks" to the infamous Bridge to Nowhere. But in 2006, Palin supported the project repeatedly, saying that Alaska should take advantage of earmarks "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: sportage
Here is what her "experience" consists of:

·Palin recently said that the war in Iraq is "God's task." She's even admitted she hasn't thought about the war much?just last year she was quoted saying, "I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq."

·Palin has actively sought the support of the fringe Alaska Independence Party. Six months ago, Palin told members of the group?who advocate for a vote on secession from the union?to "keep up the good work" and "wished the party luck on what she called its 'inspiring convention.'

·Palin wants to teach creationism in public schools. She hasn't made clear whether she thinks evolution is a fact.

·Palin doesn't believe that humans contribute to global warming. Speaking about climate change, she said, "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being manmade."

·Palin has close ties to Big Oil. Her inauguration was even sponsored by BP.

·Palin is extremely anti-choice. She doesn't even support abortion in the case of rape or incest.

·Palin opposes comprehensive sex-ed in public schools. She's said she will only support abstinence-only approaches.

·As mayor, Palin tried to ban books from the library. Palin asked the library how she might go about banning books because some had inappropriate language in them?shocking the librarian, Mary Ellen Baker. According to Time, "news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor."

·She DID support the Bridge to Nowhere (before she opposed it). Palin claimed that she said "thanks, but no thanks" to the infamous Bridge to Nowhere. But in 2006, Palin supported the project repeatedly, saying that Alaska should take advantage of earmarks "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."

How many threads are you going to post the DNC talking points in?
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
After listening to Palin crow and backstab in her speech, I wondered if this is what the girl in the sportsmanship commercial (bad winner of the spelling bee) would grow up to be.
 

FuzzyBee

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2000
5,172
1
81
Originally posted by: HomerJS

If you don't recognize a condesending tone when you hear it I can't explain. Nobody criticized her for being mayor but questioned if mayor of a town of 5000 people qualifies as tons of executive experiance.

Has Obama even acknowledged that she's the Governor of Alaska? All I've seen is him calling the former Mayor of "Wasilly". That's not condescending?

BTW - he said this *before* her speech.
 

Ballatician

Golden Member
Dec 6, 2007
1,985
0
0
I thought Fred Thompson did 1000x times better than Palin, I simply don't understand why everyone is going so crazy about her speech. It was meh, no substance at all and not even delivered that well.

On an another point, why does everyone go crazy when her daughters pregnancy is brought into the mix yet Palin is praised as some type of special needs champion by talking about her newborns disability?
It's already been shown she cut funding for special needs kids but still its considered controversial to point out how bad her own abstinence-only policy failed with her own daughter.
 

RKDaley

Senior member
Oct 27, 2007
392
0
0
Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
Originally posted by: HomerJS

If you don't recognize a condesending tone when you hear it I can't explain. Nobody criticized her for being mayor but questioned if mayor of a town of 5000 people qualifies as tons of executive experiance.

Has Obama even acknowledged that she's the Governor of Alaska?

Yes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...171731/6671/982/586846
Around the 4:16 mark
The times I have heard him discuss her, he's referred to her as Governor.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That's great spin, but it's all smoke and mirrors designed to get average wage-earning Americans to vote against their own interests. The relevant tax for this issue is the business income tax, not this fantasy tax on goods you're postulating. Business income taxes are taxes on profits, not on goods or property or revenue. If one raises the profit tax on businesses, it comes out of the pocket of the business owners, e.g., stockholders.

While those owners may want to increase the price of goods to compensate for increased profit taxes, if the business is properly managed, they can't. Increasing their prices would actually be counterproductive, reducing their profits. Why? Basic economics. A properly-managed business will set its product prices to the optimal value that yields the greatest profit. If they lower prices, their margin drops and they profit less. If they increase prices, their sales drop and they profit less. Increasing product prices to offset increased profit taxes doesn't work.

Obviously real-world economics aren't quite this black and white, but the fact remains that all the crying about "increased profit taxes will be passed to consumers" is just another smoke screen. The reality is that increased profit taxes primarily affect investors. Like all taxes on investors, it is the very rich who pay the most, with average American wage earners seeing only a minor effect.
Oh good god. If business "income tax" (it's called corporate tax) is taxed at a higher rate, then businesses will increase the cost of goods and services to maintain the same profit margin - or they will cut wages and/or benefits.
Or they will lower their expectations for returns. If they're managed competently and have already set optimal prices, they simply cannot raise prices without decreasing sales and hurting profits. Similarly, if they can cut wages or benefits, they will have already to maximize profits, again assuming they are managed competently. For all your bluster, you really don't seem to have a grasp on basic business economics.


If you want to say it comes out of the business owners or shareholders, that also directly affects you. Don't think so? Do you have a 401(k)? Is your insurance in a trust? How well shareholders are doing (read: the economy) will directly affect you via the price of their goods and services.
I already addressed this. Read all the words: "Like all taxes on investors, it is the very rich who pay the most, with average American wage earners seeing only a minor effect."


I'm glad to see you have very basic business understanding. You failed to calculate into your failed logic that the tax will increase to all businesses, thereby allowing (or forcing) all businesses to increase prices to stay profitable and you won't be able to go anywhere else because all the business are affected by the same taxes.
That's true to some extent on necessities which is why I acknowledged real world economics aren't quite that black and white. Nonetheless, for most goods and services, businesses already set their prices as high as they can to maximize profits. The fact that the tax on those profits increases doesn't magically erase the fundamental economics of the market.


It isn't a smoke and mirrors trick. You don't understand anything about the stock market, shareholders, economics, and investors. If you did, you wouldn't have made that amazingly ignorant post.
ROFL. Yes, I understand the anti-tax dogma you're parroting, but the amazing ignorance is yours. You've been brainwashed to vote against your own interests (unless your primary source of income is investments, of course).

 

pstylesss

Platinum Member
Mar 21, 2007
2,914
0
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That's great spin, but it's all smoke and mirrors designed to get average wage-earning Americans to vote against their own interests. The relevant tax for this issue is the business income tax, not this fantasy tax on goods you're postulating. Business income taxes are taxes on profits, not on goods or property or revenue. If one raises the profit tax on businesses, it comes out of the pocket of the business owners, e.g., stockholders.

While those owners may want to increase the price of goods to compensate for increased profit taxes, if the business is properly managed, they can't. Increasing their prices would actually be counterproductive, reducing their profits. Why? Basic economics. A properly-managed business will set its product prices to the optimal value that yields the greatest profit. If they lower prices, their margin drops and they profit less. If they increase prices, their sales drop and they profit less. Increasing product prices to offset increased profit taxes doesn't work.

Obviously real-world economics aren't quite this black and white, but the fact remains that all the crying about "increased profit taxes will be passed to consumers" is just another smoke screen. The reality is that increased profit taxes primarily affect investors. Like all taxes on investors, it is the very rich who pay the most, with average American wage earners seeing only a minor effect.
Oh good god. If business "income tax" (it's called corporate tax) is taxed at a higher rate, then businesses will increase the cost of goods and services to maintain the same profit margin - or they will cut wages and/or benefits.
Or they will lower their expectations for returns. If they're managed competently and have already set optimal prices, they simply cannot raise prices without decreasing sales and hurting profits. Similarly, if they can cut wages or benefits, they will have already to maximize profits, again assuming they are managed competently. For all your bluster, you really don't seem to have a grasp on basic business economics.


If you want to say it comes out of the business owners or shareholders, that also directly affects you. Don't think so? Do you have a 401(k)? Is your insurance in a trust? How well shareholders are doing (read: the economy) will directly affect you via the price of their goods and services.
I already addressed this. Read all the words: "Like all taxes on investors, it is the very rich who pay the most, with average American wage earners seeing only a minor effect."


I'm glad to see you have very basic business understanding. You failed to calculate into your failed logic that the tax will increase to all businesses, thereby allowing (or forcing) all businesses to increase prices to stay profitable and you won't be able to go anywhere else because all the business are affected by the same taxes.
That's true to some extent on necessities which is why I acknowledged real world economics aren't quite that black and white. Nonetheless, for most goods and services, businesses already set their prices as high as they can to maximize profits. The fact that the tax on those profits increases doesn't magically erase the fundamental economics of the market.


It isn't a smoke and mirrors trick. You don't understand anything about the stock market, shareholders, economics, and investors. If you did, you wouldn't have made that amazingly ignorant post.
ROFL. Yes, I understand the anti-tax dogma you're parroting, but the amazing ignorance is yours. You've been brainwashed to vote against your own interests (unless your primary source of income is investments, of course).

Increasing business taxes changes the dynamic of the market, thereby allowing the increase in prices.

You are extremely dense, if overhead is increased (i.e. ANY GOD DAMNED INCREASE IN COST TO RUN BUSINESS) prices will increase to keep the same profit margin. By your logic prices on goods and services should never increase, but my god they have. Fundamentals can change, if taxes increase - that's a change in fundamentals, fundamentals affect prices. Higher prices affect you're every day American.

You just don't get it. It's not only the very rich that pay the most. The stock market has a direct affect on peoples 401ks, they have a direct affect on pension plans, and trusts. The average American wage earner will be directly affected by increased taxes on businesses.

Think of taxes like gas prices. If gas prices are increased on businesses, businesses have to increase their prices (perfect example are shipping charges - and everything is shipped) to maintain the same profit margin. Prices went up all over when gas prices increased.

My "anti-tax dogma" is based on common sense. Your rebuttals are based on nonsense and ignorance to business and economics.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
That's great spin, but it's all smoke and mirrors designed to get average wage-earning Americans to vote against their own interests. The relevant tax for this issue is the business income tax, not this fantasy tax on goods you're postulating. Business income taxes are taxes on profits, not on goods or property or revenue. If one raises the profit tax on businesses, it comes out of the pocket of the business owners, e.g., stockholders.

While those owners may want to increase the price of goods to compensate for increased profit taxes, if the business is properly managed, they can't. Increasing their prices would actually be counterproductive, reducing their profits. Why? Basic economics. A properly-managed business will set its product prices to the optimal value that yields the greatest profit. If they lower prices, their margin drops and they profit less. If they increase prices, their sales drop and they profit less. Increasing product prices to offset increased profit taxes doesn't work.

Obviously real-world economics aren't quite this black and white, but the fact remains that all the crying about "increased profit taxes will be passed to consumers" is just another smoke screen. The reality is that increased profit taxes primarily affect investors. Like all taxes on investors, it is the very rich who pay the most, with average American wage earners seeing only a minor effect.
Oh good god. If business "income tax" (it's called corporate tax) is taxed at a higher rate, then businesses will increase the cost of goods and services to maintain the same profit margin - or they will cut wages and/or benefits.
Or they will lower their expectations for returns. If they're managed competently and have already set optimal prices, they simply cannot raise prices without decreasing sales and hurting profits. Similarly, if they can cut wages or benefits, they will have already to maximize profits, again assuming they are managed competently. For all your bluster, you really don't seem to have a grasp on basic business economics.


If you want to say it comes out of the business owners or shareholders, that also directly affects you. Don't think so? Do you have a 401(k)? Is your insurance in a trust? How well shareholders are doing (read: the economy) will directly affect you via the price of their goods and services.
I already addressed this. Read all the words: "Like all taxes on investors, it is the very rich who pay the most, with average American wage earners seeing only a minor effect."


I'm glad to see you have very basic business understanding. You failed to calculate into your failed logic that the tax will increase to all businesses, thereby allowing (or forcing) all businesses to increase prices to stay profitable and you won't be able to go anywhere else because all the business are affected by the same taxes.
That's true to some extent on necessities which is why I acknowledged real world economics aren't quite that black and white. Nonetheless, for most goods and services, businesses already set their prices as high as they can to maximize profits. The fact that the tax on those profits increases doesn't magically erase the fundamental economics of the market.


It isn't a smoke and mirrors trick. You don't understand anything about the stock market, shareholders, economics, and investors. If you did, you wouldn't have made that amazingly ignorant post.
ROFL. Yes, I understand the anti-tax dogma you're parroting, but the amazing ignorance is yours. You've been brainwashed to vote against your own interests (unless your primary source of income is investments, of course).
Increasing business taxes changes the dynamic of the market, thereby allowing the increase in prices.

You are extremely dense, if overhead is increased (i.e. ANY GOD DAMNED INCREASE IN COST TO RUN BUSINESS) prices will increase to keep the same profit margin.
The point you can't get through your head is that increasing profit taxes does NOT increase overhead. Materials costs? Wages? Shipping? Even taxes like VATs or property taxes? Yes, they all increase overhead. Income (profit) taxes? No. That's why your original example was so wrong. A profit tax is not overhead. (And if you can't grasp that difference, I suggest you educate yourself before continuing. It's the fundamental flaw with your entire argument.)


By your logic prices on goods and services should never increase, but my god they have. Fundamentals can change, if taxes increase - that's a change in fundamentals, fundamentals affect prices. Higher prices affect you're every day American.

You just don't get it. It's not only the very rich that pay the most. The stock market has a direct affect on peoples 401ks, they have a direct affect on pension plans, and trusts. The average American wage earner will be directly affected by increased taxes on businesses.
I get it just fine. It's a common talking point, but it is disingenuous. Sure, many ordinary wage earners get some income from investment. If you'll read all the words, you'll find this is the third time I've acknowledged this. It is, however, the wealthiest people who get the greatest overall portion of their income from investments, and who are therefore most affected by taxes on investment income like capital gains and business income (profit) taxes.


Think of taxes like gas prices. If gas prices are increased on businesses, businesses have to increase their prices (perfect example are shipping charges - and everything is shipped) to maintain the same profit margin. Prices went up all over when gas prices increased.
Once again, you're confusing overhead expenses with profit tax expenses (NOT overhead). Until you understand the difference, your entire argument is meaningless.


My "anti-tax dogma" is based on common nonsense. Your rebuttals are based on sound business and economics principles.
Fixed.
 

pstylesss

Platinum Member
Mar 21, 2007
2,914
0
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
...snip...
Profit tax or corporate tax (30%) is overhead. It is figured into the cost of the product or service by looking to the future at estimated amount of sales, and adding that amount of tax into the cost of the product to ensure the same profit margin. It can also be figured by looking at the previous years sales and figuring out estimated taxes that way, then adding it into the product. Ask ANY business owner. That tax must be taken into account or they are, basically, cheated out of 30% of their profit, do you really think businesses are stupid enough to let the government take 30% of their needed profit?

Someone that understands business please educate this fool.


Investors investments directly affect the economy and the average joe. If investors no longer invest then the economy runs into problems (housing market bailout ring a bell? Investors quit investing and we had quite a few problems...). So if investors are over taxed, sure they do not receive a very big return on their investment... it just means they don't invest as much. Which has a direct affect on the average joe and economy... and really more of an affect on us, not them.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: HomerJS
She put down community organizers in that smug sarcastic tone. Look up the history of COs and you will see some notables. One outstanding one Martin Luther King Jr.

Text
How did she 'put down' community organizers??? Specifics please.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: HomerJS
She put down community organizers in that smug sarcastic tone. Look up the history of COs and you will see some notables. One outstanding one Martin Luther King Jr.

Text
How did she 'put down' community organizers??? Specifics please.

Look up the words 'sarcastic' and 'condescending' then watch the speech again.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Businesses don't set prices, markets do. Profit margins may stay the same but sales will go down if businesses raise prices. Total profits decrease, assuming they were at their optimal price to begin with. Bowfinger is absolutely right on this. Look into price elasticity and optimal pricing before calling someone else ignorant on economics.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Profit tax or corporate tax (30%) is overhead. It is figured into the cost of the product or service by looking to the future at estimated amount of sales, and adding that amount of tax into the cost of the product to ensure the same profit margin. It can also be figured by looking at the previous years sales and figuring out estimated taxes that way, then adding it into the product. Ask ANY business owner. That tax must be taken into account or they are, basically, cheated out of 30% of their profit, do you really think businesses are stupid enough to let the government take 30% of their needed profit?

Someone that understands business please educate this fool.
The first step to getting out of the hole you've dug for yourself is to stop digging. Get back to us when you've educated yourself.


Investors investments directly affect the economy and the average joe. If investors no longer invest then the economy runs into problems (housing market bailout ring a bell? Investors quit investing and we had quite a few problems...). So if investors are over taxed, sure they do not receive a very big return on their investment... it just means they don't invest as much. Which has a direct affect on the average joe and economy... and really more of an affect on us, not them.
That's a wonderful straw man argument, but nobody's talking about overtaxing investments. Overall American business profit taxes are much lower than they have been in previous periods of great prosperity, and are among the lowest in the industrialized world. The fact investors are now skittish about housing in no way demonstrates there is any general shortage of investment capital available. Obama's relatively modest tax increase isn't going to significantly change that, but it will help us pay our bills.

Our crushing federal debt is far more damaging to the economy, and costs average Americans more, which is ultimately the point. Obama recognizes that, and proposes to help the problem with modest tax increases. McCain ignores it, instead promising to continue four more years of wanton BushCo borrowing. Instead of whining about taxes, the focus should be on spending. Taxes should be set to match spending. Reduce spending, something neither party is good at, and taxes can come down naturally.
 

RKDaley

Senior member
Oct 27, 2007
392
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: HomerJS
She put down community organizers in that smug sarcastic tone. Look up the history of COs and you will see some notables. One outstanding one Martin Luther King Jr.

Text
How did she 'put down' community organizers??? Specifics please.

From the speech:
I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities
This implies community organizers do not have reponsibilities. Add the sarcastic tone and voice inflection... That's where it could be perceived as a put down. Some community organizers have expressed how they felt from hearing that, and it's was not good.
 

skyking

Lifer
Nov 21, 2001
22,376
5,337
146
Originally posted by: RKDaley
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: HomerJS
She put down community organizers in that smug sarcastic tone. Look up the history of COs and you will see some notables. One outstanding one Martin Luther King Jr.

Text
How did she 'put down' community organizers??? Specifics please.

From the speech:
I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities
This implies community organizers do not have reponsibilities. Add the sarcastic tone and voice inflection... That's where it could be perceived as a put down. Some community organizers have expressed how they felt from hearing that, and it's was not good.[/i]





I imagine some of them are soccer or hockey moms too. ouch!
 

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,254
4,090
136
To be honest, the amount of deception and down right lies that have come out of the GOP over the past years, and especially during this election season has left me with few words. All I can do is :roll:.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: TheVrolok
To be honest, the amount of deception and down right lies that have come out of the GOP over the past years, and especially during this election season has left me with few words. All I can do is :roll:.

You can vote. :thumbsup:
 

pstylesss

Platinum Member
Mar 21, 2007
2,914
0
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Profit tax or corporate tax (30%) is overhead. It is figured into the cost of the product or service by looking to the future at estimated amount of sales, and adding that amount of tax into the cost of the product to ensure the same profit margin. It can also be figured by looking at the previous years sales and figuring out estimated taxes that way, then adding it into the product. Ask ANY business owner. That tax must be taken into account or they are, basically, cheated out of 30% of their profit, do you really think businesses are stupid enough to let the government take 30% of their needed profit?

Someone that understands business please educate this fool.
The first step to getting out of the hole you've dug for yourself is to stop digging. Get back to us when you've educated yourself.


Investors investments directly affect the economy and the average joe. If investors no longer invest then the economy runs into problems (housing market bailout ring a bell? Investors quit investing and we had quite a few problems...). So if investors are over taxed, sure they do not receive a very big return on their investment... it just means they don't invest as much. Which has a direct affect on the average joe and economy... and really more of an affect on us, not them.
That's a wonderful straw man argument, but nobody's talking about overtaxing investments. Overall American business profit taxes are much lower than they have been in previous periods of great prosperity, and are among the lowest in the industrialized world. The fact investors are now skittish about housing in no way demonstrates there is any general shortage of investment capital available. Obama's relatively modest tax increase isn't going to significantly change that, but it will help us pay our bills.

Our crushing federal debt is far more damaging to the economy, and costs average Americans more, which is ultimately the point. Obama recognizes that, and proposes to help the problem with modest tax increases. McCain ignores it, instead promising to continue four more years of wanton BushCo borrowing. Instead of whining about taxes, the focus should be on spending. Taxes should be set to match spending. Reduce spending, something neither party is good at, and taxes can come down naturally.

:Q You're definitely getting nowhere. I am not wrong, you are. What do you not understand about futuring?

That is not a straw man argument at all, investors, investments, and taxation on capital gains tax (tax on investments) is part of what we've been debating this entire time. America has one of the highest corporate tax and capital gains taxes, not the lowest. We certainly aren't the highest, but we are among the highest.

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Businesses don't set prices, markets do. Profit margins may stay the same but sales will go down if businesses raise prices. Total profits decrease, assuming they were at their optimal price to begin with. Bowfinger is absolutely right on this. Look into price elasticity and optimal pricing before calling someone else ignorant on economics.

He is wrong, especially on how corporate taxes affect prices.

You two are assuming that the current price of goods and services don't already take into account their level of taxation. Are you both naive enough to think that corps don't raise prices enough to where their tax level doesn't eat into their bottom line?
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Businesses don't set prices, markets do. Profit margins may stay the same but sales will go down if businesses raise prices. Total profits decrease, assuming they were at their optimal price to begin with. Bowfinger is absolutely right on this. Look into price elasticity and optimal pricing before calling someone else ignorant on economics.

He is wrong, especially on how corporate taxes affect prices.

You two are assuming that the current price of goods and services don't already take into account their level of taxation. Are you both naive enough to think that corps don't raise prices enough to where their tax level doesn't eat into their bottom line?
[/quote]

Markets set prices. If a business increases prices beyond that they are eating into their own bottom line.
http://office.microsoft.com/en...el/HA011929771033.aspx
 

pstylesss

Platinum Member
Mar 21, 2007
2,914
0
0
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Businesses don't set prices, markets do. Profit margins may stay the same but sales will go down if businesses raise prices. Total profits decrease, assuming they were at their optimal price to begin with. Bowfinger is absolutely right on this. Look into price elasticity and optimal pricing before calling someone else ignorant on economics.

He is wrong, especially on how corporate taxes affect prices.

You two are assuming that the current price of goods and services don't already take into account their level of taxation. Are you both naive enough to think that corps don't raise prices enough to where their tax level doesn't eat into their bottom line?

Markets set prices. If a business increases prices beyond that they are eating into their own bottom line.
http://office.microsoft.com/en...el/HA011929771033.aspx

What you two fail to understand is corporate tax is already set into the market and market price. If corporate tax is raised it changes the market and prices can change - just like if minimum wage is increased or gas prices increase. This is pretty basic stuff here.