Effect of allowing the Bush ERA tax cuts to expire.

• BoatShoes

  HitsRus;453688 wrote:It is not a matter of whether I think it is wrong, as much as I'm not naive enough to believe that a man will not act in self interest....no matter how much he makes. If it were a matter of society"asking", and people paying taxes, we wouldn't need the IRS would we? We wouldn't need to make your employer an unpaid tax collector who garnishes a portion of your wages to feed the bloated spending in Washington. LOL...
  
  "The government suggests that at your income level, you donate "$X.00" to the Treasury." I'm sure ALL but the top 2% would pay their suggested share...because they are 'good' people...and the top 2% are bad.....
  
  I'm just trying to keep it real here. There is no business or employer that is not going to pass a tax on at the expense of his bottom line. To make tax policy on the assumption of something different, or on the basis of some elitist fantasy is ludicrous.

  
  The business owner raising prices in response to a tax increase is contradictory to his willful consent (through his elected representatives) to offer more of his profits to the state. Back to the days of Aristotle he wrote about how every state has goals and ends some of which may be good or bad. A person can be both a good person and a bad citizen or a bad person and a good citizen. Take Nazi Germany for example; a good citizen was complicit in exterminating the jews but general notions of morality would suggest that this person was a "bad person."
  
  Evolutionary psychology will tell you that self-interest is indeed the general rule and yet, a man passing tax onto his customers, therefore passing a harm onto others violates all kinds of notions of popular morality from christian morality to deonotological ethics and even utilitarianism. Not only does it seem contrary to various moral philosophies; it also reflects poorly on this person's citizenship. If he were a "good" citizen, he would gladly adhere to the will of the majority when that will did not violate rights prescribed in the social contract to which he is privy.
  
  As to the "donation of tax." This is commonly used as an argument that the government forcefully takes your property. Obviously, if there were no witholding mechanism, the government would not receive the taxes it is owed under the laws developed by the will of the people collectively from not only the top 2%, as evidenced by the fact that sole proprietors are the largest group responsible for under-reporting their income. This I don't see how is relevant to the discussion. But nonetheless, the gubment has a future interest in money owed as tax the second it is passed and therefore it becomes, not only the taxpayer's property but the governments...(fwiw I do think it would be a worthy reform to allow for businesses to receive compensation for the service of tax collector (which would also be taxed following s61 of the IRC) and that interest should accrue on overpayments of tax due back to the taxpayer).
  
  In the 80's, The University of Chicago school of thought got into everything and society was told that by cutting taxes lower than ever before, these good citizens at the very top would hire more and increase wages and redistribute their new found wealth from being relieved of tax burdens down through their would be employees; this was their civic duty as part of this new economic strategy. As people, could they individually avoid this mandate and hoard it all to themselves as free individuals in a capitalistic society? Sure, but are they good citizens then? It seems to me that the answer is no.
  
  The small business man who passes a tax onto his consumers is the same as the top 2% guy; perhaps not a good citizen...but his economic impact is nowhere near the same as the truly elite in the very top...the very top who have seen extraordinary increases in income since 1990 where as the rest of us have stagnated.
  
  You say, "there's no business that's going to pass on a tax at the expense of the bottom line." But that is to say that morality cannot be taught and that business schools cannot repudiate strict shareholder theories of the firm in favor of other's; that a history of political thought and an understanding that we're a united republic founded on Lockean and Hobbesian principles cannot be the foundation for which a business incorporated under the laws of one of our sovereign states?
  
  But alas, even if we're to throw naivety out the window and just accept that our employers and the large companies who's products we consume will pass all of their societal responsibilities and burdens (of which we already have our own) onto us....where is your anger? Why are you not angry that they are passing the buck onto us?
  
  There is plenty of anger around here for the lazy, non-self-reliant, bums who pass their societal burdens onto us but what about those perfectly well off...self-reliant and autonomous; who also pass that burden onto us? You just accept it as "acting in self-interest." Why not also accept a welfare queen spitting out babies and getting them on SSI as "acting in self-interest." You don't. You have a moral disdain for this person; yet the man at Wal-mart who raises the price of your food even after he's consented through representative democracy to absorb the cost of paying for healthcare for his millions of employees.
  
  And yes, the issue of "consent" through a representative democracy as our founders envisioned is a fuzzy one...but it is nonetheless the root of our Republic and John Locke tells us that we have the right to revolution against it. Nonetheless, our people, many of which are still alive, have consented to tax rates as high as 98% and as high as 60% in the early 80's in order to pay for things willed by our federal majority. Certainly if those were thought justified, 39.6% is no time for revolution.
  
  In grade school we learn about the virtues of being a citizen before we consent to the laws of that state and become a full citizen at the time of being able to vote...we say the pledge of allegiance to that state daily...."I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of American and to the Republic for which it stands one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
  
  It is an oath of loyalty to the democratic will that forms the laws of that republic; an oath to be a good citizen and loyal to the stars and stripes (perhaps even if it means being a bad person? In which case a moral dilemma would arise....but I digress).
  
  It seems that for you, the oath of citizenship is meaningless. Why should we expect our businesses to keep in mind their allegiance to our nation? Why should we expect those benefitting greatly from our demand and consumption and the regulated capitalistic system forged by us and the impenetrable military force that protects their substantial property, lives and liberty?
  
  Maybe it's true...maybe we're all lost causes....maybe ethical egoism always trumps the conflicting duty of being a good citizen; but in a world knowing that we're all intertwined...;doesn't this unsettle you at all?
  
  Again, the raped defending the rapist...surely, it's in the rapists interest to rape if his victim not only will let him get away with it but preach to the world as to why it's justified. Hoodwinked.
• Paladin

  Excellent post, Boat Shoes.
  
  Needs repeating -- "the eeevil rich"
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Paladin;454086 wrote:Excellent post, Boat Shoes.
  
  Needs repeating -- "the eeevil rich"

  
  I've read it 3 times, if you can explain a single sentence of it, please do.
• I Wear Pants

  You really couldn't understand it?
• Manhattan Buckeye

  No, I didn't. This paragraph in particular I found perplexing:
  
  "You say, "there's no business that's going to pass on a tax at the expense of the bottom line." But that is to say that morality cannot be taught and that business schools cannot repudiate strict shareholder theories of the firm in favor of other's; that a history of political thought and an understanding that we're a united republic founded on Lockean and Hobbesian principles cannot be the foundation for which a business incorporated under the laws of one of our sovereign states?"
  
  I have no idea what the heck Boatshoes is talking about. Is that even English?
• BoatShoes

  Paladin;454086 wrote:Excellent post, Boat Shoes.
  
  Needs repeating -- "the eeevil rich"

  
  Well now, I wouldn't go that far...I don't agree with "the eeevvil rich"
• QuakerOats

  Paladin;454086 wrote:Excellent post, Boat Shoes.
  
  Needs repeating -- "the eeevil rich"

  
  
  Seek counseling.
• gibby08

  

  QuakerOats;454124 wrote:Seek counseling.

  
  Right back at ya
• believer

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;454117 wrote:No, I didn't. This paragraph in particular I found perplexing:
  
  "You say, "there's no business that's going to pass on a tax at the expense of the bottom line." But that is to say that morality cannot be taught and that business schools cannot repudiate strict shareholder theories of the firm in favor of other's; that a history of political thought and an understanding that we're a united republic founded on Lockean and Hobbesian principles cannot be the foundation for which a business incorporated under the laws of one of our sovereign states?"
  
  I have no idea what the heck Boatshoes is talking about. Is that even English?

  I have to admit...I had to laugh at that one. Yes it's English employing the highest form of obfuscation. Sorry Boatshoes...I really do appreciate ya brother.
• HitsRus

  

  I have to admit...I had to laugh at that one. Yes it's English employing the highest form of obfuscation. Sorry Boatshoes...I really do appreciate ya brother

  One might call it eco-ethico-babble.
  
  after I read it...images of Billy Flynn...the silver tongued lawyer in the musical 'Chicago' came to mind....
  
  "Give 'em the old Razzle dazzle...razzle dazzle 'em
  how can they see with sequins in their eyes?"
• Writerbuckeye

  

  It "sounded" purty, even if it didn't make a lick of sense.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;454092 wrote:I've read it 3 times, if you can explain a single sentence of it, please do.

  
  I'll take a shot...
  
  Boat is lamenting the fact that business needs to have revenue exceed costs in order to stay in business at all. He is begrudging that there are bad persons who choose profits over social conscience and are evil for passing on costs to consumers when they should absorb said costs and be the humanitarians as granted by this nation. He further goes on to state that this is akin to rape. Sad....truly sad that he wrote this drivel and that so many people agree with it.
  
  He truly represents the thoughts and desires of the socialists or Far Left side of the political spectrum. At least he isn't shy about what he thinks.
• believer

  

  BGFalcons82;454547 wrote:I'll take a shot...
  
  Boat is lamenting the fact that business needs to have revenue exceed costs in order to stay in business at all. He is begrudging that there are bad persons who choose profits over social conscience and are evil for passing on costs to consumers when they should absorb said costs and be the humanitarians as granted by this nation. He further goes on to state that this is akin to rape. Sad....truly sad that he wrote this drivel and that so many people agree with it.
  
  He truly represents the thoughts and desires of the socialists or Far Left side of the political spectrum. At least he isn't shy about what he thinks.

  True. Like I've said many times on this forum capitalism - despite its obvious flaws - has provided millions of people a far better quality of life than socialism ever hopes to achieve. America itself is proof of that yet despite the fact that the socialist experiment is failing miserably world wide (see Europe as a classic example), a significant number of Americans long for us to become more like Europe.
  
  They'd rather see us all living an economically modest and somewhat stagnant government-dependent lifestyle than be beholden to those eeeeeevil rich people who are driven by p-p-p-profits.
  
  You know...the profits that spur investment which spurs economic growth which spurs jobs creation which provides decent personal income and raises based on merit (unless of course your hands are tied because of labor unions) which spurs creativity which spurs innovation which spurs more economic growth which creates more jobs thereby creating more tax revenue for the anti-capitalist socialists in Washington to spend.
  
  See how that works?
• jmog

  believer;453852 wrote: Like I've said before when the leftists on Capitol Hill finally agree to spending cuts, I'll be the first Ohio Chatter conservative to agree that allowing the tax cuts to expire makes sense.
  But as long as "spend now, spend more" is the norm in DC, our only "hope" of keeping the private sector economy moving is to allow the people to keep more of their money by extending the tax cuts.

  
  Nope, you'll be 2nd, I'll be the 1st .
• BoatShoes

  As long as a businesses profits are in the black, at the very least, solidly, as many corporation's profits are now (who aren't hiring), I don't think it unreasonable to look sourly upon them when, instead of paying a new tax out of those hefty profits, they pass it onto their employees and consumers because their one maxim that they follow is that they must maximize shareholder wealth; a theory of the firm that, I must admit, I do not agree with and they ought to encourage other theories in business school. I feel the same anger when I have to wait behind an obese woman at Wal Mart loading up on unhealthy food with her food stamps. People at the top and people at the bottom pass the buck and there's plenty of people here who get upset about the people at bottom but what about these other folks who told us that if we cut their taxes they'd employ us all and wage our wages and then didn't do any of that for 30 years? I believe in profit and I believe in capitalism and that -people who put up lots of risk and succeed ought to be able to live opulently and be rich...but I also believe this is an integrated society and not one of yeoman farmers minding their own affairs and that we're all in this together.
  
  In previous decades wages, investment and savings all went up along with corporate profits...but these days, only corporate profits go up. I don't have a link to the study and I can't remember the think tank...if you don't believe me I'll search for it. Look, if you're a small business like the Campgrounds my family owns and you happen to not be making a profit and a tax increase will make that more difficult; I can see why these additional costs would lead you to raise prices on your products. Obviously this is reasonable. But when you're XYZ, Inc. and your profit margins are through the roof; and the actual profit is something like billions of dollars; I don't think it all that reasonable to not absorb the cost of a small tax increase.
  
  I don't know, if that's so unreasonable than I'll accept that I'm an unreasonable man.
• BoatShoes

  believer;454836 wrote:
  You know...the profits that spur investment which spurs economic growth which spurs jobs creation which provides decent personal income and raises based on merit (unless of course your hands are tied because of labor unions) which spurs creativity which spurs innovation which spurs more economic growth which creates more jobs thereby creating more tax revenue for the anti-capitalist socialists in Washington to spend.

  
  Listen to all of those assumptions....as if it necessarily follows that an economic actor with free will will plow his profits into investments and higher wages and jobs for americans....you've bought in entirely to the lie that's been sold for the last 30 years....it hasn't happened this way...the proof is out there. None of what you say necessarily follows and hasn't followed.
  
  http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/percent_income_top_0_1.gif
  
  http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/shareofgdp.gif
  
  http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/incomegdpratioincl.gif
  
  http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_1.gif
  
  the bottom 80% owns only 7% of the financial wealth in this country and you're telling me that the people at the top are going to hire them and increase their wages and give them a job when they haven't for the last 30 years with the lowest interest rates, capital gain rates and individual tax rates since WWII. DREAM ON!
• believer

  

  ^^^Capitalism isn't perfect but it kicks socialism in the ass every time.
• queencitybuckeye

  BoatShoes;455110 wrote:and you're telling me that the people at the top are going to hire them and increase their wages and give them a job when they haven't for the last 30 years with the lowest interest rates, capital gain rates and individual tax rates since WWII.!

  
  Within the timeframe you mentioned was a significant period with the lowest unemployment in recorded history. They did exactly what you seem to want to deny. Don't start going footwedge on us and just start making shit up.
• BoatShoes

  queencitybuckeye;455305 wrote:Within the timeframe you mentioned was a significant period with the lowest unemployment in recorded history. They did exactly what you seem to want to deny. Don't start going footwedge on us and just start making shit up.

  
  But wages didn't go up and prices inflated...higher paying jobs were replaced with lower paying jobs in the retail and service sectors.
  
  I mean look at this graph...you correctly point out that people had jobs....but their wages weren't increasing...and that goes even for people in the top 5%; not even close to those in the very top 1% running the companies that hired these folks...
  
  http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//6-25-10inc-f1.jpg
• HitsRus

  

  I don't know, if that's so unreasonable than I'll accept that I'm an unreasonable man.

  You are not unreasonable, just an elitist.
• BoatShoes

  HitsRus;455407 wrote:You are not unreasonable, just an elitist.

  
  How can that be true if I'm arguing that elite people are screwing over the common man who entrust the elites? An elitist believes that power should be in the hands of a few elite people...that certain people are better or smarter and have more skills and are specially fit to govern. Plato was an elitist. But I don't agree with that...I believe I take an Aristotelian point of view on the matter and that it is in the best interest of the elites to encourage a strong middle class and share power and influence with them and that it encourages the self-sufficiency of a state.
  
  But perhaps I am an elitist I don't know...I guess I'd be interested in hearing why you think I am?
• BoatShoes

  I mean I am an elitist in some aspects...for instance, I believe people with education backgrounds and perhaps education psychologists are certainly more fit than I am to serve on school boards or the state boards of education and would never think I'm qualified to serve in such capacities.......but I mean I never really said anything like that in this thread and wouldn't want it to get off topic.
• BoatShoes

  Here is the graph that shows that during the 2001-2007 expansion....GDP, Investment, Consumption, Net Worth, Wages and Salaries, and Employment all were less than in other expansions but the increase in corporate profits dwarfed previous expanisions.
  
  
• Cleveland Buck

  

  If a business is not making a profit, they will soon be out of business. That isn't something to applaud. I'm all for cracking down on the oligopolies that, with the help of the federal government, are ruining this country, but let's not put the rest of the country out of business while we do it.
• gut

  Well, there's research that the US has among the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world, and this puts us at a competitive disadvantage. Now, to the extent that can be passed on to the consumer, it is in effect a wash.
  
  But let's turn this argument around a bit. You, as an investor, are looking to put your hard-earned money to work. Are you going to be a "good" person, and do your civic duty to support firms with inferior returns because they don't pass on this tax? You know GM's returns are and will be lousy, but you're more than happy to support the union and the govt and the expense of your nest egg? The ugly reality is the "altruistic" firms struggle to raise capital, and ultimately that leads to stagnation and more jobs going overseas.
  
  The bottom line is corporations aren't people. The taxes paid by corporations are ultimately always borne by the stakeholders (investors and employees) and consumers. When you start playing with the tax balance between investors and corporate profits it becomes a very complicated discussion with classes of investors and after-tax returns as far as where capital goes.
  
  Another spin on the argument: you think corporations should pay more to their employees and/or the govt. Ignoring the question of why the investors who bear the lionshare of the risk should be shortchanged, let's just entertain what else a company could do with those "excess" profits. What if instead they charged your company less so you could get a bigger paycheck? What if instead they paid more for supplies from you wife's company so her paycheck was bigger? Would you prefer those scenarios over them giving their own employees more?
  
  Hey, you could always risk your life savings and go start your own business. Then when you are proud that you employ 100 people and provide for their families let's see how agreeable you are to pay each employee another $1k out of your $250k profit.