Ben Folds/Nick Hornby: From Above
Music • Views: 25,568
Here’s “From Above,” from the excellent Ben Folds/Nick Hornby album Lonely Avenue.
450 comments
4 |
Killgore Trout Tue, Dec 7, 2010 10:55:06pm |
Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.- Marcus Aurelius
Namaste, y’all
| 6 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:08:34pm |
re: #4 Killgore Trout
Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.- Marcus Aurelius
Namaste, y’all
I don’t think Marcus Aurelius ever had a parent conference like the one I just got through.
| 7 |
goddamnedfrank Wed, Dec 8, 2010 12:14:34am |
Australia’s foreign minister has said the US is to blame for the release of thousands of diplomatic cables on Wikileaks, not its Australian founder, Julian Assange.Kevin Rudd said the release raised questions about US security.
Mr Rudd said he did not “give a damn” about criticism of him in the cables.
| 8 |
goddamnedfrank Wed, Dec 8, 2010 12:15:57am |
re: #7 goddamnedfrank
Link fixed. (sorry)
| 9 |
freetoken Wed, Dec 8, 2010 12:27:49am |
I see the right-wing is somewhat in a huff about Boehner’s decisions tonight to place less reactionary, old hands, in the chairmanships of key committees.
It’ll be interesting to see if the tea partiers revolt when the likes of Upton and Bachus don’t purely stick to the tea partying line.
[Link: www.washingtonpost.com…]
And, Demint is already chaffing at the bit over his leaders in the Senate making a deal with Obama on the taxes and unemployment.
It’ll be interesting to see how the GOP will hang together in the coming year.
Or… maybe, they’ll hang apart.
| 14 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Wed, Dec 8, 2010 1:25:13am |
I’ve discovered one of the downright weirdest metal bands I’ve ever heard
Maudlin of the Well:
| 15 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Wed, Dec 8, 2010 1:28:53am |
re: #14 WindUpBird
And by weird I mean amazing
| 16 |
laZardo Wed, Dec 8, 2010 1:51:09am |
Forgetful Dumbassery Of The Moment, Bro.
Taser left on police vehicle roof in Lambeth is lost
Taser (generic) Police have urged anyone who finds the Taser not to touch itA Metropolitan Police firearms officer is under investigation after a Taser was lost when he drove off with it still on the roof of a police vehicle.
The weapon was left on top of the vehicle as the officer left a briefing at a force firearms base in Norfolk Row, Lambeth, between 0700 GMT and 0830 GMT on Tuesday.
Officers said the stun gun and four cartridges were left on the roof.
| 17 |
Sol Berdinowitz Wed, Dec 8, 2010 1:59:18am |
re: #16 laZardo
Somebody is gonna have a fun Christmas party…
| 19 |
freetoken Wed, Dec 8, 2010 2:53:11am |
Money can buy love, after a fashion?
Some nations say they won’t attend Nobel Peace Prize ceremony
| 22 |
freetoken Wed, Dec 8, 2010 3:06:13am |
| 23 |
Sol Berdinowitz Wed, Dec 8, 2010 3:09:48am |
vivé la deference!!!
Lotsa nations have decided it is not in their long-term commercial and political interest to piss off the world’s most populous country and what is likely soon going to become the world’s most powerful economy.
| 24 |
freetoken Wed, Dec 8, 2010 3:10:31am |
I noticed in Fox New’s website story about the Louisiana textbook decision:
www.foxnews.com...]>www.foxnews.com…]>Louisiana Moves to Block Creationism Debate From Inclusion in Biology Textbook
That Fox spends a relatively large portion of the article referencing Prof. John Oller of the University of Louisiana, who is critical of the decision.
Of course he is, as he is a creationist and buddies with the LFF:
[Link: webcache.googleusercontent.com…]
who’s long been involved in the undermining of science there.
But Fox didn’t see the need to mention Oller’s involvement and bias.
Also, I see that article has gotten over 2000 comments after a day of being posted. Certainly the Fox readers seem to care about it.
| 25 |
freetoken Wed, Dec 8, 2010 3:12:32am |
Let’s try that again, but with better formatting:
I noticed in Fox New’s website story about the Louisiana textbook decision:
Louisiana Moves to Block Creationism Debate From Inclusion in Biology Textbook
That Fox spends a relatively large portion of the article referencing Prof. John Oller of the University of Louisiana, who is critical of the decision.
Of course he is, as he is a creationist and buddies with the LFF and part of ICR:
[Link: webcache.googleusercontent.com…]
who’s long been involved in the undermining of science there.
But Fox didn’t see the need to mention Oller’s involvement and bias.
Also, I see that article has gotten over 2000 comments after a day of being posted. Certainly the Fox readers seem to care about it.
| 26 |
Sol Berdinowitz Wed, Dec 8, 2010 3:15:42am |
Teach the controversy!!! Just ignore the bias!!!
| 30 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Wed, Dec 8, 2010 3:38:03am |
Today’s the Anniversary of John Lennon’s murder.
| 31 |
freetoken Wed, Dec 8, 2010 3:40:23am |
re: #30 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
Didn’t see it on the news aggregators I normally used. Does it get much press anymore?
| 32 |
sattv4u2 Wed, Dec 8, 2010 3:44:50am |
| 33 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Wed, Dec 8, 2010 3:46:09am |
re: #31 freetoken
I didn’t either. Thought it’d be a bigger deal. This being the 30 year anniversary and all. Maybe some folks will show up today at Strawberry Fields.
I kind of hope so.
But it is cold as hell.
Jai guru deva om.
| 34 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Wed, Dec 8, 2010 3:47:04am |
“Wouldn’t the world be better off if that guy would have aimed just a little bit to his left?”
-Judy Tenuta
| 35 |
sattv4u2 Wed, Dec 8, 2010 3:47:33am |
re: #33 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
How old would he be now?
Sorry ,, I’m too lazy to
A) look it up
and
B) do the math
| 36 |
freetoken Wed, Dec 8, 2010 3:52:04am |
Well, I’ve got a gazillion Christmas songs cued up… (is that cheering I hear in the background?? …), but given the new topic I’ll leave you all with this:
| 40 |
sattv4u2 Wed, Dec 8, 2010 3:54:38am |
| 41 |
sattv4u2 Wed, Dec 8, 2010 3:54:51am |
| 42 |
sattv4u2 Wed, Dec 8, 2010 4:03:19am |
SO,,
Now I know why so many rednecks leave their Christmas Lights up all year long
Started putting up the lights/ decorations yesterday and it was FRAKKIN FREEZIN’!!
Living in Boston for most of the 1st 45 years of my life, I would have considered a December day like yesterday as downright balmy!!
After being here (Atlanta) for 11 years now, I’m officially a wuss
A wuss, I say ,, a wuss!
| 43 |
Sol Berdinowitz Wed, Dec 8, 2010 4:04:53am |
re: #40 sattv4u2
I’m sure we don’t want to know how/why!!
/
Last line of “Helter Skelter”, which, to me, is one of Lennon’s most poigniant artistic and philosophical statements…
| 44 |
sattv4u2 Wed, Dec 8, 2010 4:07:00am |
re: #34 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
“Wouldn’t the world be better off if that guy would have aimed just a little bit to his left?”
-Judy Tenuta
Another terrible joke (at the time)
Can’t recall the comic
BUT
“What would it take for a Beatles Reunion?
Three more bullets”
| 46 |
Sol Berdinowitz Wed, Dec 8, 2010 4:10:17am |
This parody is based on actual quotes from a “Rolling Stone” interview…
| 47 |
researchok Wed, Dec 8, 2010 4:10:21am |
re: #31 freetoken
Didn’t see it on the news aggregators I normally used. Does it get much press anymore?
See this: Re-imagine- John Lennon wasn’t the pacifist we’ve turned him into
| 50 |
rwdflynavy Wed, Dec 8, 2010 4:13:43am |
re: #39 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
He was 40. He’d be 70.
Did you do that math in your head?!?!
Good Morning FBV and the rest of the Lizards!
| 51 |
Flounder Wed, Dec 8, 2010 4:15:56am |
Good morming all, 12 degrees F in upstate NY this morning. Even the deer stayed inside this morning.
| 52 |
sattv4u2 Wed, Dec 8, 2010 4:16:49am |
re: #50 rwdflynavy
Did you do that math in your head?!?!
Good Morning FBV and the rest of the Lizards!
he did
He’s now taking a rest!
| 53 |
sattv4u2 Wed, Dec 8, 2010 4:18:22am |
re: #51 Shropshire_Slasher
Good morming all, 12 degrees F in upstate NY this morning. Even the deer stayed inside this morning.
See #42
| 55 |
Flounder Wed, Dec 8, 2010 4:23:34am |
re: #42 sattv4u2
Usually by mid January the holiday lights extension cord gets run thru my snow-blower, and before I cut the grass in the spring the lights/cords get put away.
| 56 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 4:25:58am |
re: #51 Shropshire_Slasher
Good morming all, 12 degrees F in upstate NY this morning. Even the deer stayed inside this morning.
Warm here at 8200 feet in the Rockies… 22 degrees (f) and the pellet stove isn’t even kicking in,
| 57 |
sattv4u2 Wed, Dec 8, 2010 4:28:50am |
| 58 |
sattv4u2 Wed, Dec 8, 2010 4:32:27am |
re: #55 Shropshire_Slasher
Usually by mid January the holiday lights extension cord gets run thru my snow-blower, and before I cut the grass in the spring the lights/cords get put away.
You would think after the 1st few times, you would put a post-it-note somewhere as a reminder
Say, on the snow blower starter switch
‘SHROP ,,, DON’T FORGET TO NOT RUN OVER THE EXTENSION CORDS”
//
| 59 |
Sol Berdinowitz Wed, Dec 8, 2010 4:39:12am |
re: #58 sattv4u2
Might as well put a post-it note on my zipper “Remember: women will mess up your head!!!”
| 60 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 4:39:25am |
There have been a lot of discussion here recently about extending the Bush tax cuts.
Here’s an article explaining the benefits of taxing consumption rather than investment.
Why should capital income be treated differently than wages and salaries? The economic reason is very different from the political rhetoric. It is not to favor the rich at the expense of the working man. Nor is the principal reason to eliminate the double taxation of profits, first at the corporate level and again at the individual level as dividends or capital gains. Proponents of a consumption tax argue that it is superior to an income tax because it achieves what tax economists call “temporal neutrality.” A tax is neutral (or “efficient”) if it does not alter spending habits or behavior patterns from what they would be in a tax-free world, and thus does not distort the allocation of resources. No tax is completely neutral, because taxing any activity will cause people to do less of it and more of other things. For instance, the income tax creates a “tax wedge” between the value of a person’s labor (the pretax wages employers are willing to pay) and what the person receives (after-tax income). As a consequence, people work less—and choose more leisure—than they would in a world with no taxes.
The case for a consumption tax is that the tax wedge created by taxing capital income does enormous long-term damage to the economy. Taxing interest, dividends, and capital gains penalizes thrift by taxing away part of the return to saving. The unavoidable result is less saving than society would choose in the absence of any taxes. The social value of saving is the market interest rate that borrowers are willing to pay for the use of resources now. Economists are confident that this is the value to society because it is a market price that reflects the desires of the various savers and borrowers. If each potential saver could collect the market interest rate, the result would be an optimal amount of saving—that is, an optimal division of resources between current consumption and future consumption. “Optimal” in this sense refers to the amount of saving that individuals, deciding freely on the basis of market prices, would choose to do on their own, rather than the amount of saving that a politician, social planner, or economist thinks they ought to do.
Market interest rates effectively pay people to defer consumption into the future (i.e., to save). Because the tax wedge reduces those payments, people inevitably will choose less future consumption (saving) and more current consumption. This harms the economy because less saving results in less investment, less innovation, slower growth, and lower future living standards than would be enjoyed without a tax on saving. Future consumption is reduced by both the extra current consumption and the forgone returns that greater saving would otherwise have produced. Some of this loss is a deadweight loss to society, that is, a loss to some that is a benefit to no one. Eliminating taxes on capital income would eliminate the tax wedge on saving, and total saving would be much closer to the optimal amount. The tax system would be “temporally” neutral in the sense that it would not affect the choice between current consumption and future consumption (saving).
| 61 |
rwdflynavy Wed, Dec 8, 2010 4:39:42am |
re: #59 ralphieboy
Might as well put a post-it note on my zipper “Remember: women will mess up your head!!!”
Which one?//
| 63 |
Flounder Wed, Dec 8, 2010 4:40:14am |
re: #58 sattv4u2
You would think, huh.
Its a game my wife/kids/orally fixated dogs and I play, hide the extension cords/toys/stuffed animals etc. I got a tickle me elmo that is going flyin thru the chute after the first snow!
| 64 |
sattv4u2 Wed, Dec 8, 2010 4:43:20am |
re: #63 Shropshire_Slasher
You would think, huh.
Its a game my wife/kids/orally fixated dogs and I play, hide the extension cords/toys/stuffed animals etc. I got a tickle me elmo that is going flyin thru the chute after the first snow!
Sounds like a winner on Americas Funniest Videos
Break out the camera and submit it for $$$!!!
| 65 |
laZardo Wed, Dec 8, 2010 4:44:13am |
re: #19 freetoken
Money can buy love, after a fashion?
Some nations say they won’t attend Nobel Peace Prize ceremony
And I’m living in one.
Goddammit.
| 66 |
Sol Berdinowitz Wed, Dec 8, 2010 4:49:29am |
re: #60 schnapp
Newt Gingrich was even sounding sensible in recent comments that any upper-income tax breaks should be reinvested in the domestic economy to create jobs.
But the realities of the investment markets are otherwise: capital flows to to wherever it brings the greatest rate of return, whether it creates jobs for Americans or not.
| 67 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 4:58:38am |
| 68 |
garhighway Wed, Dec 8, 2010 5:06:01am |
re: #67 schnapp
Corporate taxes are also too high. According to the Congressional Budget Office workers bear 70% of the burden of corporate taxation through lower wages and less jobs.
US Congressional Budget Office, International
Burdens of the Corporate Income Tax, 2006.
re: #66 ralphieboy
In other words, the workers are paying the tax anyway, so we might as well just assess them directly and skip the middleman?
| 69 |
garhighway Wed, Dec 8, 2010 5:12:00am |
| 71 |
sattv4u2 Wed, Dec 8, 2010 5:15:34am |
re: #70 iossarian
Tax on rich people is too high bla bla bla.
The rich don’t pay their “fair share” bla bla bla
Same noise,, different direction!
| 72 |
JeffFX Wed, Dec 8, 2010 5:16:23am |
re: #25 freetoken
I noticed in Fox New’s website story about the Louisiana textbook decision:
…
Wow, that article was misleading, even for Fox. Conservatives have built their own alternate reality, and these nitwits have political power.
There’s no way I’m clicking on the comments considering the insane topic and location.
| 73 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 5:26:29am |
(For comparison - taxes in France)
French income tax is assessed on a family basis. The husband is responsible for the return which includes the income of his wife and children who are still in the educational system, or doing their military service. Divorced, separated or widowed persons claim allowances according to circumstances. Across the board allowances include:
Money spent on major property repairs.
Money spent on certain ‘green projects’ such as the installation of solar energy panels for heating.
Payments for maintenance and dependent relatives other than children.
Gifts to certain charities.
Contributions to the Securite Sociale.
Approved life assurance premiums.
Interest payments on certain loans.
Speci al arrangements for single parents with young children.
Taxable income is worked out by deducting allowances from total income and dividing the net figure by:
One for a single person with no children.
Two for a married couple with no children.
2.5 for a married couple with one child.
An extra 0.5 for each additional child. A married couple with four children will divide by four.
When a taxable income has been worked out the rates that apply fall into a banded structure. The following are approximate figures for those incurring an incoming tax liability in France in 2002. They are based on indexing the tax authorities 2001 figures. The following bands should therefore be treated only as a rough guide:
The first €5,666 of taxable income is tax free
€5,666 to €6,166 - 5%
€6,166 to €7,000 - 10%
€7,001 to €10,833 - 15 %
€10,834 to €14,000 - 20%
€14,001 to €18,333 - 25%
€18,334 to €21,333 - 30%
€21,334 to €25,334 - 35%
€25,334 to €41,000 - 40%
€41,001 to €58,000 - 45 %
€58,001 to €67,166 - 50%
€67,167 to €77,333 - 55 %
€77,334 and upwards - 58%
(and then remember, they have a 19% value added tax, a sales like tax, on must consumption items)
| 75 |
iossarian Wed, Dec 8, 2010 5:27:34am |
re: #71 sattv4u2
The rich don’t pay their “fair share” bla bla bla
Same noise,, different direction!
Fair point, although the US has been moving exclusively in one direction since the 70s, with the result that 90% of the population has handed the reward for productivity increases to the other 10%.
30 years ago most people with any kind of job could afford to send their kids to the flagship state university, if they qualified academically. Now they’re screwed: it’s the community college or $50K in debt.
| 76 |
sattv4u2 Wed, Dec 8, 2010 5:32:54am |
re: #75 iossarian
30 years ago most people with any kind of job could afford to send their kids to the flagship state university, if they qualified academically. Now they’re screwed: it’s the community college or $50K in debt
Not really
In-state tuitions are (relatively) inexpensive. My son, for instance, is a high school junior going to a private High School. He has his eye on Georgia Tech (amogst others) and had the grades for it. Without any scholarships/ grants he may get, his tuition for Ga. Tech will be LESS than what I am now paying for his high school!
Same goes for University of Georgia (which at this point he is not interested in) as well as Auburn U (which he is interested in and qualifies for Georgias HOPE scholarship even though it’s in Alabama)
| 77 |
sattv4u2 Wed, Dec 8, 2010 5:34:02am |
re: #75 iossarian
re: #76 sattv4u2
30 years ago most people with any kind of job could afford to send their kids to the flagship state university, if they qualified academically. Now they’re screwed: it’s the community college or $50K in debt
Not really
In-state tuitions are (relatively) inexpensive. My son, for instance, is a high school junior going to a private High School. He has his eye on Georgia Tech (amoNgst others) and
hadHAS the grades for it. Without any scholarships/ grants he may get, his tuition for Ga. Tech will be LESS than what I am now paying for his high school!Same goes for University of Georgia (which at this point he is not interested in) as well as Auburn U (which he is interested in and qualifies for Georgias HOPE scholarship even though it’s in Alabama)
pimf
| 78 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 5:35:36am |
re: #68 garhighway
No we should cut corporate taxes because effective corporate taxes in the US are just about the highest in the developed world.
| 79 |
iossarian Wed, Dec 8, 2010 5:44:23am |
re: #76 sattv4u2
In-state tuitions are (relatively) inexpensive. My son, for instance, is a high school junior going to a private High School. He has his eye on Georgia Tech (amogst others) and had the grades for it. Without any scholarships/ grants he may get, his tuition for Ga. Tech will be LESS than what I am now paying for his high school!
Well, you’re right up to a point. First of all, the fact that college costs less than a private high school doesn’t mean it’s cheap - a lot of people can’t afford a private high school either.
It also varies by state - it looks as if a full-time in-state student at Ga. Tech is going to be paying ~$4,300 in tuition and fees for the fall term in 2010. Based on a 2-term system, which most students will be using, this will be ~$8,600 a term (ignoring the possible mid-year increase which many colleges are now using as a way of hiding their tuition hikes).
Room and board also varies, a good rule of thumb is that it is often in line with tuition and fees. Let’s put it on the low side and say that total cost at Ga. Tech is going to be in the region of $16K a year, before financial aid.
Those are similar figures to flagship institutions in quite a few states, and for a lot of middle class people there will not be a whole lot of need-based aid. Nor, thanks to the economic policies of the last 30 years, do many middle class people have a spare $16K per year, per child, to spend on college.
Hence $50K in debt. And that’s before Georgia cuts its education budget because WE CAN’T RAISE TAXES EVER OR INCREASE THE DEFICIT IN A RECESSION THAT WOULD BE SOCIALISM:
[Link: www2.wsav.com…]
Happy trails.
| 80 |
sattv4u2 Wed, Dec 8, 2010 5:49:18am |
re: #79 iossarian
Sorry ,, I took your 50K figure (from your #75) as being a PER YEAR tuition ,, not what the families “debt” would be for all 4 years
| 81 |
iossarian Wed, Dec 8, 2010 5:55:15am |
re: #80 sattv4u2
Sorry ,, I took your 50K figure (from your #75) as being a PER YEAR tuition ,, not what the families “debt” would be for all 4 years
Oh, fair enough. My point was that, in the 70s, you could reasonably expect to send your kids to a good college if they qualified, and not have to pay too much for it out of pocket (GASP).
Now, you’re $50K worse off, per child, than you were then. And your income hasn’t gone up in inflation-adjusted terms to compensate. Oh, and if you get sick, you might just lose the house.
In other words, you’ve been had.
But, hedge fund managers are doing great! And all that wealth is trickling down on you! Doesn’t that make you feel better!
| 83 |
Flounder Wed, Dec 8, 2010 5:56:06am |
Ok, I’m stuck on todays first word of the Jumble, “PAROE”
| 84 |
sattv4u2 Wed, Dec 8, 2010 5:58:58am |
re: #81 iossarian
Oh, fair enough. My point was that, in the 70s, you could reasonably expect to send your kids to a good college if they qualified, and not have to pay too much for it out of pocket (GASP).
Now, you’re $50K worse off, per child, than you were then. And your income hasn’t gone up in inflation-adjusted terms to compensate. Oh, and if you get sick, you might just lose the house.In other words, you’ve been had.
But, hedge fund managers are doing great! And all that wealth is trickling down on you! Doesn’t that make you feel better!
Not really (again)
My parents (very middle class at the time) had to go in debt to send me and my older sister to college. I was accepted at MIT but couldn;t go because of the costs. The college I did attend was in state, middle of the raod tuition wise and my parents still had to borrow to send me
((parantheticaly ,, I started college in 1971))
| 85 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 5:59:12am |
| 86 |
NJDhockeyfan Wed, Dec 8, 2010 6:00:02am |
| 87 |
NJDhockeyfan Wed, Dec 8, 2010 6:02:40am |
| 89 |
sattv4u2 Wed, Dec 8, 2010 6:06:09am |
re: #88 Shropshire_Slasher
Thanks all!
Good thing I didn’t weigh in
My guess would have been A Rope!
//
| 90 |
sattv4u2 Wed, Dec 8, 2010 6:06:44am |
| 91 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 6:07:01am |
re: #87 NJDhockeyfan
You are quicker on the clicker.
Nope… just good at the Jumble. My grandfather used to do the Jumble daily, when I was a kid (under 11), I would sit with him every day, seven days a week, and we would work it out. He was really good (he worked for the NYT, had a way with words and the English language), when his eyesight got bad, I would simply read out the letters to him and he would come back with the answer in seconds, without scratching any notes or anything.
Some of that rubbed off on me.
| 92 |
NJDhockeyfan Wed, Dec 8, 2010 6:09:25am |
re: #91 Walter L. Newton
Nope… just good at the Jumble. My grandfather used to do the Jumble daily, when I was a kid (under 11), I would sit with him every day, seven days a week, and we would work it out. He was really good (he worked for the NYT, had a way with words and the English language), when his eyesight got bad, I would simply read out the letters to him and he would come back with the answer in seconds, without scratching any notes or anything.
Some of that rubbed off on me.
Spelling has never been easy for me however math always came easy. Spell check has worked wonders posting here.
| 93 |
Vicious Babushka Wed, Dec 8, 2010 6:10:56am |
re: #84 sattv4u2
Not really (again)
My parents (very middle class at the time) had to go in debt to send me and my older sister to college. I was accepted at MIT but couldn;t go because of the costs. The college I did attend was in state, middle of the raod tuition wise and my parents still had to borrow to send me
((parantheticaly ,, I started college in 1971))
I attended community college for two years, then transferred to a four-year private college on a Pell grant. Cost to my parents: $0. I graduated in 1986.
| 94 |
iossarian Wed, Dec 8, 2010 6:12:34am |
re: #84 sattv4u2
Not really (again)
My parents (very middle class at the time) had to go in debt to send me and my older sister to college. I was accepted at MIT but couldn;t go because of the costs. The college I did attend was in state, middle of the raod tuition wise and my parents still had to borrow to send me
((parantheticaly ,, I started college in 1971))
OK, but now they have to borrow more. The cost of college has been passed on to the individual, which basically means that there is less redistribution of income going on (there is also a problem that it is very hard to do cost control in higher education because of the way that the industry is (not) regulated, which is another complex piece of the puzzle).
So, crudely, it comes down to: how much should CEOs have to pay for the education of people whose education, in part, makes the companies they manage productive?
Got to go now…
| 95 |
iossarian Wed, Dec 8, 2010 6:14:47am |
re: #93 Alouette
I attended community college for two years, then transferred to a four-year private college on a Pell grant. Cost to my parents: $0. I graduated in 1986.
Evil socialism paid for that degree! Hope the job is going well…
| 96 |
sattv4u2 Wed, Dec 8, 2010 6:15:26am |
re: #94 iossarian
OK, but now they have to borrow more
Yes ,, but people MAKE more
I make way more than my father did back in the 70’s
Like him, I am “middle class”
I paid way more for my house than he did
I pay way more for my cars than he did
etc etc etc
how much should CEOs have to pay for the education of people whose education, in part, makes the companies they manage productive
NOTHING ,, unless the company has a program (like the one I work for does ) for ONGOING education AFTER I’ve been hired
| 97 |
iossarian Wed, Dec 8, 2010 6:19:23am |
re: #96 sattv4u2
OK, but now they have to borrow more
Yes ,, but people MAKE more
I make way more than my father did back in the 70’s
Like him, I am “middle class”
I paid way more for my house than he did
I pay way more for my cars than he did
etc etc etc
Again, for most people, income has been more or less flat in inflation-adjusted terms since the 70s. However, higher education costs have increased much more rapidly than inflation, so you are paying more in inflation-adjusted terms now than you were then.
how much should CEOs have to pay for the education of people whose education, in part, makes the companies they manage productiveNOTHING ,, unless the company has a program (like the one I work for does ) for ONGOING education AFTER I’ve been hired
I am eager to see how this strategy plays out in a global economy where competitiveness is largely determined by education levels.
| 99 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 6:21:12am |
re: #96 sattv4u2
No, people don’t actually enough more to compensate for the climb in education prices.
Real wages have stagnated since the 70s for everyone except the top income earners. They’ve climbed a little, but, as you can see, nothing like they did before.
Meanwhile, the price of education over time:
Has exploded, especially at the private schools.
Here’s a graph that compares actual income to college prices, so you can see that tuition & fees really does outpace increase in income hugely.
| 100 |
NJDhockeyfan Wed, Dec 8, 2010 6:29:42am |
My girls are putting on a Christmas show at school next week. I can’t wait to see it.
| 101 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 6:33:51am |
re: #99 Obdicut
If real wages are stagnant for most workers it’s because US effective corporate taxes are some of the highest in the world, and US workers bare 70% of that burden according to the Congressional Budget Office.
| 102 |
gamark Wed, Dec 8, 2010 6:36:41am |
re: #99 Obdicut
Real wages have stagnated since the 70s for everyone except the top income earners.
I think I get your overall point, but you state it poorly. I have been working since the 70s and my inflation-adjusted income has steadily risen since then. I suspect I am not alone. We don’t have a caste system in the US. Movement up and down the economic scale is not at all uncommon. There has been a lot of turnover in the top bracket since the 70s.
| 103 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 6:48:35am |
re: #101 schnapp
If real wages are stagnant for most workers it’s because US effective corporate taxes are some of the highest in the world, and US workers bare 70% of that burden according to the Congressional Budget Office.
No, that’s not the reason why. I’m not sure why you’d think it was. Can you explain what relationship you see between corporate taxes and only one segment of the population accruing gains in real income?
| 104 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 6:50:09am |
re: #102 gamark
I think I get your overall point, but you state it poorly. I
No, you don’t get my point. You’re responding with anecdote, and making a category mistake. I’m not talking about class mobility in the least, I’m talking about the level or real wages for people in those classes. If they move from one class to another, then they’re no longer in that class.
The US, however, has much lower economic mobility than many other nations— that, too, has slowed and stagnated.
| 105 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 6:54:57am |
re: #103 Obdicut
Because labour is less mobile than capital, firms employ less workers rather than provide lower returns to investors.
Do you have an explanation?
| 106 |
Sol Berdinowitz Wed, Dec 8, 2010 6:57:42am |
re: #105 schnapp
Because labour is less mobile than capital, firms employ less workers rather than provide lower returns to investors.
Do you have an explanation?
Labor is seen as just another commodity to be sourced wherever it is cheapest, and if that is overseas, then the jobs move abroad. The profits remain, the wages and benefits go elsewhere
| 107 |
gamark Wed, Dec 8, 2010 6:58:00am |
re: #104 Obdicut
No, you don’t get my point..
Maybe because you state it poorly. You stated:
Real wages have stagnated since the 70s for everyone except the top income earners.
I belong to the set of “everyone”. My wages haven’t stagnated. They have steadily increased in inflation-adjusted terms since I started working in the 70s.
| 108 |
Jeff In Ohio Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:02:41am |
re: #107 gamark
Average hourly wages adjusted for inflation since 1964
| 109 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:02:46am |
re: #105 schnapp
Because labour is less mobile than capital, firms employ less workers rather than provide lower returns to investors.
I’m sorry, but I’m really not understanding what the corporate taxes have to do with that.
First of all, US corporate taxes have an effective rate that is at or lower much of the rest of the industrialized world.
[Link: wonkroom.thinkprogress.org…]
Second of all, if a worker is profitable, that worker will be employed; taxation on profit cannot make a profitable worker unprofitable. So using fewer worker would be a rather foolish thing to do, given that it would lower overall profits and thus return to investors.
You understand that corporate tax is a tax on profits, right?
| 110 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:02:48am |
re: #106 ralphieboy
Wherever it is most productive, which doesn’t always mean “cheapest”. Most Chinese workers are not nearly as educated and skilled as most US workers.
But international trade ultimately makes countries move to producing what they can do the most productively, and for the past 250 years higher productivity has meant higher wages.
| 111 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:03:51am |
re: #107 gamark
Maybe because you state it poorly. You stated:
I belong to the set of “everyone”. My wages haven’t stagnated. They have steadily increased in inflation-adjusted terms since I started working in the 70s.
Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t realize you were just nitpicking the semantics.
Let me rewrite it:
Real wages have stagnated since the 70s for all groups other than the top income earners.
| 112 |
Sol Berdinowitz Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:05:46am |
re: #110 schnapp
Wherever it is most productive, which doesn’t always mean “cheapest”. Most Chinese workers are not nearly as educated and skilled as most US workers.
But international trade ultimately makes countries move to producing what they can do the most productively, and for the past 250 years higher productivity has meant higher wages.
Was too terse in my terminology: whatever brings the highest ROI.
| 113 |
laZardo Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:09:19am |
re: #112 ralphieboy
Was too terse in my terminology: whatever brings the highest ROI.
Yes.
To throw in a conservative term, I think corruption also heavily factors into this as it prevents whatever taxes are being paid from actually “trickling down” into better public services.
x:
| 114 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:09:28am |
re: #109 Obdicut
That graph was just showing corporate tax revenue as a percent of GDP. It had nothing to do with effective tax rates on individual companies’ profits.
http://www.itif.org/files/2009-atlantic-century.pdf Page 20.
Taxes alter a firm’s behaviour. They are an expense to firms and to maintain profits they must give lower returns to either workers or investors. Since capital is more mobile than labour, because it is easier for investors to pull out of a country than for workers to emigrate, the burden of higher taxes will fall on workers rather than investors.
70% according to the Congressional Budget Office (International
Burdens of the Corporate Income Tax, 2006.)
| 115 |
Jeff In Ohio Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:11:33am |
Historical Consumer Price Index:
[Link: inflationdata.com…]
| 116 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:13:10am |
re: #114 schnapp
You missed this bit, apparently:
Now, new IRS data shows typical American companies paid only 25.3 percent of their U.S. book income in federal corporate taxes in 2005, despite a statutory corporate tax rate of 35 percent, by using loopholes and shelters.
re: #114 schnapp
Taxes alter a firm’s behaviour. They are an expense to firms and to maintain profits they must give lower returns to either workers or investors. Since capital is more mobile than labour, because it is easier for investors to pull out of a country than for workers to emigrate, the burden of higher taxes will fall on workers rather than investors.
Oh, I get you. You’re talking about lower wages, not fewer employed workers.
It’s certainly true that capital has a coercive power over labor to demand lower wages given the immobility of labor. however, why you say that this has to do with corporate taxes rather than simple profit-seeking behavior from the companies, I’m at a complete loss for. If those taxes were removed, it wouldn’t alter labor’s willingness to work for those same wages. So why on earth would those corporations raise those wages for workers from that extra profit? Just for the hell of it?
| 117 |
gamark Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:16:41am |
re: #111 Obdicut
Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t realize you were just nitpicking the semantics.Let me rewrite it:
Well, that statement has the same problem as your first version and is just as false.
How can you expect people to get your point if you can’t state clearly. Call it nitpicking if you want, but a clear and accurate statement of a problem is a necessary prerequisite to meaningful discussion of that problem.
| 118 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:16:59am |
re: #116 Obdicut
Because taxes are an expense and firms could afford to invest in more workers (and capital) and become more productive if taxes were lower. The marginal benefit of hiring another worker would exceed the marginal cost until wages are bid up and enough workers are hired.
| 119 |
Vicious Babushka Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:17:31am |
re: #104 Obdicut
No, you don’t get my point. You’re responding with anecdote, and making a category mistake. I’m not talking about class mobility in the least, I’m talking about the level or real wages for people in those classes. If they move from one class to another, then they’re no longer in that class.
The US, however, has much lower economic mobility than many other nations— that, too, has slowed and stagnated.
Well, I am making less money now than I was making 10 years ago, BUT, that is my choice to remain competitive in a recession. I also don’t NEED as much money as I did 10 years ago when I had kids in private school and college.
| 120 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:18:35am |
re: #116 Obdicut
And maybe you missed this whole chunk:
Europe vs. the United States: When it comes to corporate tax competition,
Europe is far more competitive than the United States, with rates in the
United States that are 68 percent higher than in the EU-15 and 185 percent
higher than in the EU-10. Most EU-10 nations have made a conscious choice
to keep effective corporate tax rates low in order to be a more attractive
location for internationally mobile business investment. Some have done
this with generous incentives, including R&D tax credits36, while others
have lowered statutory rates. However, effective tax rates differ significantly
throughout Europe, with Ireland, Spain, and Sweden having relatively low
effective rates, and Germany having higher rates.
Given that government expenditures as a share of GDP are higher in Europe,
Europe’s lower corporate rates may come as a surprise. However, one
reason that Europe is able to afford lower corporate rates, despite having
higher government spending, is that it raises a significant share of revenues
from border adjustable value-added taxes. Because these are levied on
imports but exempted on exports, the European tax system gives companies
located inside Europe’s borders a double advantage in international
markets—lower corporate rates and value-added taxes levied on imports.
Europe and the United States vs. the Rest of the World: When it comes
to corporate tax competitiveness, the EU-10 as a whole is, with the exception
of Ireland, the most competitive of the nations or regions included here. For
example, Poland’s effective corporate rate is just 12.5 percent, compared
to 32 percent in the United States. In addition, three of the BRICs (Brazil,
Russia, and China) have similarly adopted lower effective corporate rates to
be attractive to FDI. Japan and the United States have the highest rates.
| 121 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:18:35am |
re: #117 gamark
Well, that statement has the same problem as your first version and is just as false.
No, it doesn’t. Your anecdotal evidence doesn’t dispute the point about the classes in general.
Do you understand that?
| 122 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:21:09am |
re: #118 schnapp
Because taxes are an expense and firms could afford to invest in more workers (and capital) and become more productive if taxes were lower.
Okay, now you’re switching back to ‘more workers’. That is much, much more false. Let me walk you through it:
Taxes are assessed on profits. They are not an ‘expense’ that needs to be paid no matter what. only on profits.
So if you have the opportunity to hire Employee A at continuing cost X, who will produce value Y for the company, then, as long as Y is larger than X, it makes sense to hire him no matter what the tax is, because the tax is on profits. It doesn’t rise the cost of the employee except in so far as that employee is profitable. If the employee is profitable, it makes sense to hire them.
Unless you’re simply claiming the initial hiring cost is the barrier, which would be rather odd.
| 123 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:22:11am |
re: #119 Alouette
Well, I am making less money now than I was making 10 years ago, BUT, that is my choice to remain competitive in a recession. I also don’t NEED as much money as I did 10 years ago when I had kids in private school and college.
It’s not a recession anymore, though. Companies are making healthy profits. That isn’t trickling down to workers, and it hasn’t during the last 20+ years. The top income earners have had their incomes increase at a much, much, much, much faster rate.
| 124 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:23:14am |
Gotta love these little practical jokers…
Hackers strike back to support WikiLeaks founderLONDON – WikiLeaks supporters struck back Wednesday at perceived enemies of founder Julian Assange, attacking the websites of Swedish prosecutors, the Swedish lawyer whose clients have accused Assange of sexual crimes and the Swiss authority that froze Assange’s bank account.
MasterCard, which pulled the plug on its relationship with WikiLeaks on Tuesday, also seemed to be having severe technological problems.
The online vengeance campaign appeared to be taking the form of denial of service attacks in which computers across the Internet are harnessed — sometimes surreptitiously — to jam target sites with mountains of requests for data, knocking them out of commission.
[Link: news.yahoo.com…]
| 125 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:24:40am |
re: #120 schnapp
Which is sourced from where?
| 126 |
laZardo Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:31:03am |
re: #124 Walter L. Newton
Per Hellqvist, a security specialist with the firm Symantec, said a loose network of web activists called “Anonymous” appeared to be behind the attacks.
OH 4CHAN. NEVER CHANGE.
| 127 |
Four More Tears Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:31:25am |
re: #125 Obdicut
Which is sourced from where?
I tracked it down to a report that came from the The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation.
Here’s their board: [Link: www.itif.org…]
heh
| 128 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:32:21am |
re: #122 Obdicut
But firms are obviously going to have less money to pay their workers or their investors if the government takes more profits away in tax. They will have a lower demand for workers or capital and because capital is more mobile, they will instead lay off workers because they can’t afford to higher as many. More people will be unemployed, that drives wages down. Basic supply and demand.
From Greg Mankiw
re: #125 Obdicut
From the link to the PDF I posted above.
| 129 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:32:26am |
re: #122 Obdicut
Okay, now you’re switching back to ‘more workers’. That is much, much more false. Let me walk you through it:
Taxes are assessed on profits. They are not an ‘expense’ that needs to be paid no matter what. only on profits.
So if you have the opportunity to hire Employee A at continuing cost X, who will produce value Y for the company, then, as long as Y is larger than X, it makes sense to hire him no matter what the tax is, because the tax is on profits. It doesn’t rise the cost of the employee except in so far as that employee is profitable. If the employee is profitable, it makes sense to hire them.
Unless you’re simply claiming the initial hiring cost is the barrier, which would be rather odd.
If a corporation has more profits, then they are capable of bidding higher for those workers because suddenly ALL CORPORATIONS have more money, perspective employees who have profitable qualifications will be more sort out after, competitively, by corporations.
| 130 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:33:21am |
re: #129 Walter L. Newton
If a corporation has more profits, then they are capable of bidding higher for those workers because suddenly ALL CORPORATIONS have more money, perspective employees who have profitable qualifications will be more sort out after, competitively, by corporations.
sort = sought PIMF.
| 131 |
Four More Tears Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:34:15am |
| 132 |
Jeff In Ohio Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:34:28am |
re: #119 Alouette
That doesn’t change the fact that real average hourly wages adjusted for inflation have fallen since the mid 1970’s.
Here’s a link that works:
| 133 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:34:45am |
| 134 |
jamesfirecat Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:34:53am |
re: #128 schnapp
But firms are obviously going to have less money to pay their workers or their investors if the government takes more profits away in tax. They will have a lower demand for workers or capital and because capital is more mobile, they will instead lay off workers because they can’t afford to higher as many. More people will be unemployed, that drives wages down. Basic supply and demand.
From Greg Mankiwre: #125 Obdicut
From the link to the PDF I posted above.
So corporations think…
“I’m gonna make less money because of a government tax… therefore I should commit this unprofitable action so that I have less money to give the government…. that’ll show em!”
| 135 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:35:27am |
| 136 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:36:02am |
re: #125 Obdicut
Ah, I see. It’s from the report by the The European American Business Council, which cites it’s taxation information from
2006 marginal corporate tax rate: The World Bank, The Effect of Corporate Taxes on Investment and Entrepreneurship (2007), which sources it’s information from the doingbusiness database.
However, other citations to that database show very different results.
In addition, that paper:
[Link: docs.google.com…]
Does not appear to contain any such claim about US effective tax rates.
Can you explain the discrepancy?
| 137 |
Four More Tears Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:36:42am |
re: #135 Walter L. Newton
Thanks.
I love that your sarcasm comes through even when only using one word. Never change.
| 138 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:36:44am |
re: #134 jamesfirecat
No they simply can’t afford to higher more workers … I don’t understand how you could possibly claim that higher taxes make firms more likely to hire workers.
| 139 |
laZardo Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:37:26am |
re: #133 Walter L. Newton
What? I don’t recognize your references. Sorry.
Anonymous is the default posting name on 4chan. More on that…
| 140 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:37:58am |
re: #128 schnapp
But firms are obviously going to have less money to pay their workers or their investors if the government takes more profits away in tax.
Yes. What I’m asking is why on earth you think that, if workers are willing to work for wage X, the business would spontaneously give them X + N, instead of passing N along as profits to investors. Can you explain?
And do you understand that your point about hiring new workers isn’t relevant, given that the profitability of a worker is not affected by a tax on profits?
They will have a lower demand for workers or capital and because capital is more mobile, they will instead lay off workers because they can’t afford to higher as many.
Ah, evidently you don’t understand. I’m sorry, I can’t make the explanation any simpler: If an employee is profitable, it makes sense to hire them. A tax on profits does not affect whether or not a company can afford to hire that worker, because the tax is on profits, not on net income.
| 141 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:39:13am |
re: #136 Obdicut
I don’t know where they sourced their data from but I assume that that is only federal corporate taxes. The US, unlike most other countries, has high state corporate taxes.
| 142 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:40:51am |
re: #138 schnapp
No they simply can’t afford to higher more workers … I don’t understand how you could possibly claim that higher taxes make firms more likely to hire workers.
Because the taxes are on profits.
Sigh.
Let me try one more example:
I run a small tech service, helping people fix computers. My cost-per-hour of my workers is $30, and I bill customers at $130 per hour. So, I make $100 per employee/hour worked.
Lets look at that under a few different tax environments.
Say that there’s a 90% tax on profits. Bastards! So, after taxes, I make $10 per worker/hour.
Let’s say that there’s a 10% tax on profits. Cool! So, after taxes, I make $90 per worker hour.
In both cases, it makes sense to hire as many workers as I can, because each worker is, individually, profitable.
Does that make it clearer?
| 143 |
jamesfirecat Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:41:44am |
re: #138 schnapp
No they simply can’t afford to higher more workers … I don’t understand how you could possibly claim that higher taxes make firms more likely to hire workers.
I’m not saying it does.
But how does a higher corporate tax force 70% of its burden on the employees as you attempt to point out?
Also how can we correct this?
Maybe with a CEO tax?
| 144 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:42:09am |
re: #137 JasonA
I love that your sarcasm comes through even when only using one word. Never change.
No… I really meant thanks. I have the same problems with my scripts. A standard two act play is generally 70-100 pages long, and I ALWAYS have to have a good editor or script reader comb through the material, early on, to correct my mistakes.
Even after 2 years development, rewrites, a script supervisor and a major production, after “I Never Promised You A Rose Garden” came back from the publisher, I found a medical term that I had used incorrectly.
| 145 |
Four More Tears Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:43:46am |
re: #144 Walter L. Newton
Damn. Just when I think I have you pegged.
| 146 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:43:59am |
re: #141 schnapp
I don’t know where they sourced their data from but I assume that that is only federal corporate taxes. The US, unlike most other countries, has high state corporate taxes.
I’m sorry, you don’t appear to understand. The US has high statutory rates, but we’re discussing effective tax rates. The source that you cited cites another document as a source, but when you read that document, there no direct references to the US’s effective tax rate as high, whatsoever. So, I’m asking why the document you sourced cites that document as the source on something that that document does not, in fact, say.
In fact, if you look at the various graphs and the US’s position in them as far as effective tax rates go, they are bang in the middle of the pack.
Such as here.
[Link: docs.google.com…]
Can you explain why your source claims something that the source it’s citing contradicts?
| 147 |
Jeff In Ohio Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:44:16am |
re: #142 Obdicut
But if you fired your workers, you’d have less profit to pay taxes on, and that’s the goal of a business, to pay less taxes.
/
On the other hand, you are a publicly traded company, it is in your short term interested to suppress salaries to maintain share price.
| 148 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:45:39am |
re: #145 JasonA
Damn. Just when I think I have you pegged.
Sorry… but I really meant thanks. I’ll try to be sarcastic to you sometime later today, just so you won’t have to go to bed tonight feeling deprived.
(Was that sarcastic enough?) :)
| 149 |
Four More Tears Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:46:01am |
re: #148 Walter L. Newton
Sorry… but I really meant thanks. I’ll try to be sarcastic to you sometime later today, just so you won’t have to go to bed tonight feeling deprived.
(Was that sarcastic enough?) :)
Yo complete me.
| 151 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:46:29am |
| 152 |
McSpiff Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:47:19am |
re: #145 JasonA
Damn. Just when I think I have you pegged.
Heh I still remember the first time I noticed Walter had updinged a post of mine. Spent about 5 minutes looking to see where I had accidentally made an ass out of myself. Turns out he just agreed with me.
| 153 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:49:03am |
re: #146 Obdicut
[Link: www.itif.org…]
Page 20. Effective corporate tax rates. That’s what i’ve been saying the whole time. The US is at the bottom of the list.
| 154 |
harlequinade Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:49:03am |
re: #124 Walter L. Newton
Actually - it’s appears to be a little bigger than that. The Guardian has been live blogging.
It looks like there’s going to be law suits against visa in the offing, too.
[Link: www.guardian.co.uk…]
In Europe there’s a lot of rumblings about the effect of this - The UK’s Channel 4 news’s anchor posted this a couple of days ago.
[Link: blogs.channel4.com…]
It might be because when the UK went through this in the 80’s most people outside the UK saw this as a free speech issue - not a state secret one.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]
| 155 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:50:27am |
re: #153 schnapp
Yes, but what they source for that claim— the only document they cite— contradicts them, as I’ve already shown. That source shows the US in the middle of the pack in terms of effective taxes.
| 156 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:51:00am |
re: #142 Obdicut
There is no economist who will say that taxes do not alter the decisions of households or firms. Did you read the Mankiw link?
| 157 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:51:58am |
re: #156 schnapp
There is no economist who will say that taxes do not alter the decisions of households or firms. Did you read the Mankiw link?
Since I didn’t say that taxes won’t alter the decisions of households or firms, I don’t understand why you’re making this point.
Do you understand, through my example, why hiring profitable workers is not affected by a tax on profits?
| 158 |
jamesfirecat Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:53:49am |
re: #156 schnapp
There is no economist who will say that taxes do not alter the decisions of households or firms. Did you read the Mankiw link?
Taxing the incomes of households is a very different thing than taxing the profits of firms.
| 159 |
laZardo Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:54:59am |
re: #158 jamesfirecat
But they both ultimately affect the people that work there.
/the fuck if I’ve been paying attention. Been packing for a school-related-business trip.
//also, added you to my DA watchlist. :3
| 160 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:56:09am |
re: #157 Obdicut
Since I didn’t say that taxes won’t alter the decisions of households or firms, I don’t understand why you’re making this point.
Do you understand, through my example, why hiring profitable workers is not affected by a tax on profits?
Honest question… if a corporation has MORE money, higher profits, won’t they hire more competitively, along with all the other corporations who have more money to hire more competitively, looking for the most productive employees.
| 161 |
jamesfirecat Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:57:37am |
re: #159 laZardo
But they both ultimately affect the people that work there.
/the fuck if I’ve been paying attention. Been packing for a school-related-business trip.
//also, added you to my DA watchlist. :3
Yeah but he’s talking about taxing the profits of companies the same as if it is taxing the income of homes, as if taxing profits means they have less money to spend on hiring profitable workers, which they don’t, they get a smaller amount of profit from those profitable workers, but they still make profit off them….
| 162 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:58:45am |
re: #157 Obdicut
Since I didn’t say that taxes won’t alter the decisions of households or firms, I don’t understand why you’re making this point.
Do you understand, through my example, why hiring profitable workers is not affected by a tax on profits?
What part of lower after-tax profits and lower retained earnings meaning less workers can afford to be hired is hard to understand?
Let’s reverse the situation and say that corporate taxes are lowered. Firms will have more to invest in either capital or labour. They will choose a mixture of both. Firms will hire more workers. Wages will rise because firms will “bid” them up.
| 163 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 7:58:51am |
re: #160 Walter L. Newton
First of all, higher profits and more money aren’t strongly related to each other.
Second of all, there’s not a strong relationship between productivity and salary, not at that scale.
So, in general, no.
| 164 |
McSpiff Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:00:04am |
re: #157 Obdicut
Since I didn’t say that taxes won’t alter the decisions of households or firms, I don’t understand why you’re making this point.
Do you understand, through my example, why hiring profitable workers is not affected by a tax on profits?
I read about this recently, I believe it falls under: [Link: en.wikipedia.org…] or [Link: en.wikipedia.org…] (2nd one might be more applicable?)
People are fickle. I don’t doubt that some companies won’t hire, even tho they would still end up with greater profit in the end.
| 165 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:00:05am |
re: #158 jamesfirecat
No it’s not. They are both taxing income. They give firms and households less disposable cash to spend.
How are they different?
| 166 |
cliffster Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:00:11am |
| 167 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:00:19am |
re: #162 schnapp
What part of lower after-tax profits and lower retained earnings meaning less workers can afford to be hired is hard to understand?
I’ve explained it three different ways. I’m not sure what you’re not getting about this. A worker can afford to be hired if that worker is profitable. A tax on profits does not affect that. It can’t really be made any simpler.
Let’s reverse the situation and say that corporate taxes are lowered. Firms will have more to invest in either capital or labour.
Why won’t they simply pass the increased profits to investors?
| 168 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:01:18am |
re: #167 Obdicut
They will choose a mix of both, depending on what is the most productive mixture of capital and labour.
| 169 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:01:28am |
re: #165 schnapp
No. A corporate tax doesn’t tax income. It taxes profits.
Do you not understand that part?
| 170 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:01:52am |
re: #168 schnapp
They will choose a mix of both, depending on what is the most productive mixture of capital and labour.
I’m sorry, but passing profits to investors isn’t either capital or labour.
| 171 |
lawhawk Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:03:13am |
Space X Falcon launch was successful in delivering the Falcon capsule to orbit.
| 172 |
jamesfirecat Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:03:40am |
re: #165 schnapp
No it’s not. They are both taxing income. They give firms and households less disposable cash to spend.
How are they different?
Because income taxing, taxes all the money you take in.
Profit taxing only taxes the money you take in after you’ve covered all your expenses.
| 173 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:04:18am |
re: #164 McSpiff
Oh yeah. If you bring game theory into it, it goes fucking haywire all over the place. In that way, attempting to predict the behavior of corporations nears insanity. Humans are involved, after all.
However, when looking at the behavior of all corporations, a little bit of order is restored. But only a little.
I mean, look at Japan and the US. Both countries operate under capitalism, with freely-traded stocks. There isn’t a huge difference in the way the economies are set up in an abstract form.
However, there are absolutely gigantic differences in the culture of Japan and the US, and you can see that corporations in Japan operate very, very differently from the corporations in the US, in a ton of different ways. The easiest and most rational explanation for this is the cultural difference.
| 174 |
darthstar Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:05:16am |
re: #171 lawhawk
Space X Falcon launch was successful in delivering the Falcon capsule to orbit.
Take that, Russia, with your failed launch this week!
| 175 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:05:51am |
And here is the link to the report; International burdens of the corporate income tax, by the Congressional Budget Office no less.
[Link: www.cbo.gov…]
| 176 |
McSpiff Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:06:48am |
re: #173 Obdicut
Oh yeah. If you bring game theory into it, it goes fucking haywire all over the place. In that way, attempting to predict the behavior of corporations nears insanity. Humans are involved, after all.
However, when looking at the behavior of all corporations, a little bit of order is restored. But only a little.
I mean, look at Japan and the US. Both countries operate under capitalism, with freely-traded stocks. There isn’t a huge difference in the way the economies are set up in an abstract form.
However, there are absolutely gigantic differences in the culture of Japan and the US, and you can see that corporations in Japan operate very, very differently from the corporations in the US, in a ton of different ways. The easiest and most rational explanation for this is the cultural difference.
That’s always been my impression, although I have 0 practical experience with Japanese companies. They seem, at least from a distance, to be much more of a social institution, with all that entails. Again, that’s just my impression from what I’ve read, reality could be much different.
| 177 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:07:10am |
re: #170 Obdicut
ummm yes it is … the return on capital is the return to investors.
| 178 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:07:12am |
re: #175 schnapp
No, that’s by one person at the CBO.
Note the disclaimer at the top:
Working papers in this series are preliminary and are circulated to stimulate discussion and critical comment. These papers are not subject to CBO’s formal review and editing processes.The analysis and conclusions expressed in them are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as those of the Congressional Budget Office
Did you not notice that part? It’s really clearly stating you shouldn’t represent that paper as being from the CBO.
| 179 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:07:34am |
re: #172 jamesfirecat
And what about tax deductions for work-related expenses?
| 180 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:07:39am |
re: #175 schnapp
And here is the link to the report; International burdens of the corporate income tax, by the Congressional Budget Office no less.
[Link: www.cbo.gov…]
Working papers in this series are preliminary and are circulated to stimulate discussion and critical comment. These papers are not subject to CBO’s formal review and editing processes. The analysis and conclusions expressed in them are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as those of the Congressional Budget Office. References in publications should be cleared with the authors. Papers in this series can be obtained at [Link: www.cbo.gov…] (select Publications and then Working Papers).
| 181 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:09:01am |
re: #177 schnapp
ummm yes it is … the return on capital is the return to investors.
No. Capital expenditure is investment in the non-consumable means of production.
You’re mixing up the financial sense of ‘capital’— which just means money, basically— with the economic sense of the word ‘capital’, which means, as I said, the non-consumed means of production.
So, a company investing in capital would be a company buying new computers.
A company giving money back to the investors is not investing in anything— that money is leaving the company.
| 182 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:09:08am |
re: #172 jamesfirecat
Either way, they’re not that different. My point still stands. The burden of higher corporate taxes falls most heavily on workers.
| 183 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:10:03am |
re: #181 Obdicut
But it is assumed that capital in the economic sense is rented or the funds to purchase it are borrwed.
| 185 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:11:10am |
| 186 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:11:12am |
re: #182 schnapp
Either way, they’re not that different. My point still stands. The burden of higher corporate taxes falls most heavily on workers.
No, it really doesn’t. You haven’t done anything to show that contention is true. You’ve made a lot of various mistakes in your argument, chief amongst them appearing to think corporate taxation is on income rather than on profits. You’ve cited two sources, one of which appears to mispreresent the data in its source— you haven’t replied to my inquiry about this. You cited another source claiming it was something that it wasn’t. You don’t appear to understand the very simple concept that the profitability of a worker is unaffected by tax rates, nor that a return of profits to investors is the opposite of a investment.
Your contention remains simply a contention, bereft of any shred of support for it.
| 187 |
McSpiff Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:11:47am |
re: #182 schnapp
Either way, they’re not that different. My point still stands. The burden of higher corporate taxes falls most heavily on workers.
Increasing a tax on income can easily remove any profit margin. A tax on profit would need to be over 100% before that would occur, no?
| 188 |
jamesfirecat Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:12:06am |
re: #177 schnapp
ummm yes it is … the return on capital is the return to investors.
But the money has been taken out of the company and not reinvested in it to bring more profits.
| 189 |
McSpiff Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:12:49am |
re: #188 jamesfirecat
But the money has been taken out of the company and not reinvested in it to bring more profits.
I don’t think he actually understands what profits are in the sense of how we’re using that word…
| 190 |
jamesfirecat Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:13:53am |
re: #182 schnapp
Either way, they’re not that different. My point still stands. The burden of higher corporate taxes falls most heavily on workers.
No it doesn’t.
Hiring this person will get you $1,000 dollars of profit.
Taxes take x% of that.
For any value of X less than 100% you’re only being hurting yourself if you don’t hire that person.
If you worry that corporations don’t have enough money to hire people there are better ways to fix that then lower profit taxes, like tax credits for every person they hire….
| 191 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:14:12am |
re: #186 Obdicut
The distinction between profits and income is not relevent.
How does it misrepresent the data? Please explain. I have also referenced the Congressional Budget Offic and a Harvard economist. Did you read either of them?
And the profitability of a worker is clearly affcted by the tax rates. The higher what they produce is taxed, the lower the marginal product of each worker will be.
| 192 |
jamesfirecat Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:16:14am |
re: #191 schnapp
The distinction between profits and income is not relevent.
How does it misrepresent the data? Please explain. I have also referenced the Congressional Budget Offic and a Harvard economist. Did you read either of them?
And the profitability of a worker is clearly affcted by the tax rates. The higher what they produce is taxed, the lower the marginal product of each worker will be.
So basically companies will behave the way everyone accuses unions of? Of not realizing that a smaller slice of a bigger pie is better than nothing at all?
Good to know.
| 193 |
McSpiff Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:16:19am |
re: #191 schnapp
..which, if we’re taxing profit at a rate below 100%, will still be a net gain for you. You’re essentially arguing that an increase of $1000/worker in profit means you’ll hire more employees, but $500/worker in profit means you won’t. That’s simply not rational.
| 194 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:17:46am |
And on another tax topic…
So do Obama supporters agree with the president’s assessment that this was the best compromise he could get and he did all he could to fight for middle class tax cuts and not those for the wealthy?
The answer seems to be a pretty resounding no. A poll commissioned by MoveOn.org yesterday found that 74 percent of Obama volunteers or financial backers in ’08 oppose the deal. More than half said they’d be less likely to support Democrats in 2012 who back the compromise and would be less likely to donate to Obama’s re-election campaign. Pretty sobering statistics for the president and his team.
[Link: www.thenation.com…]
| 195 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:17:58am |
re: #190 jamesfirecat
If taxes are high investors will pull away from the country to another country with lower tax rates. How does lower investment help workers?
So maybe your solution is tax all companies at, say, 99%?
| 196 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:18:10am |
re: #191 schnapp
The distinction between profits and income is not relevent.
Ha hah.
What the fuck. Seriously, this is the way you argue? The difference between profits and income isn’t relevant?
If a company makes seven billion dollars in income, but zero profits, they have zero tax liability.
How is that not relevant?
How does it misrepresent the data? Please explain. I have also referenced the Congressional Budget Offic and a Harvard economist. Did you read either of them?
Again, you didn’t reference the CBO. You referenced something from one person at the CBO, that has the disclaimer that the information should not be referenced as though it is from the CBO. Why are you continuing to misrepresent that paper?
Can you explain why the other source you cited misrepresents the source that it cites— as I showed above?
And the profitability of a worker is clearly affcted by the tax rates. The higher what they produce is taxed, the lower the marginal product of each worker will be.
Did you skip my actual example of employees operating under different tax scenarios above? It shows why this statement is flatly untrue.
| 197 |
iossarian Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:18:56am |
re: #195 schnapp
If taxes are high investors will pull away from the country to another country with lower tax rates. How does lower investment help workers?
So maybe your solution is tax all companies at, say, 99%?
Race to the bottom, here we come!
China has appalling human rights laws, WE SHOULD TOO!
I, for one, welcome my new, sweatier, working conditions.
| 198 |
McSpiff Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:19:14am |
re: #195 schnapp
If taxes are high investors will pull away from the country to another country with lower tax rates. How does lower investment help workers?
So maybe your solution is tax all companies at, say, 99%?
Now we’re getting somewhere! So, how does the American corporate tax rate compare to other first world countries?
| 199 |
jamesfirecat Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:20:04am |
re: #195 schnapp
If taxes are high investors will pull away from the country to another country with lower tax rates. How does lower investment help workers?
So maybe your solution is tax all companies at, say, 99%?
Nice straw man you just built.
By the way globilization is always going to make things more difficult but you are failing to prove your point that employees suffer the most because of taxing companies income.
So maybe your solution is tax all companies at, say, 0.01%?
| 200 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:20:24am |
re: #198 McSpiff
From the source of the source he cited, we’re bang in the middle.
[Link: docs.google.com…]
| 201 |
Varek Raith Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:21:19am |
re: #195 schnapp
If taxes are high investors will pull away from the country to another country with lower tax rates. How does lower investment help workers?
So maybe your solution is tax all companies at, say, 99%?
What do you suggest it should be?
0%???
| 202 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:21:44am |
| 203 |
harlequinade Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:23:36am |
re: #202 Sergey Romanov
I love Klaus Nomi. I remember seeing the bio-pic about him in LA a bunch of years ago.
| 204 |
iossarian Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:24:06am |
It’s the same old bullshit.
“If you tax profits, companies won’t hiring.” (Profits are currently high and companies are not, apparently, hiring. Hiring is driven by demand, not profit margin.)
“If you tax companies, they will go abroad.” (One of the nice things about living in the US is that you don’t have to work in a sweatshop at a lathe that nibbles your fingers away.)
Etc. etc.
| 205 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:24:14am |
re: #203 harlequinade
I love Klaus Nomi. I remember seeing the bio-pic about him in LA a bunch of years ago.
That’s a human?
| 206 |
McSpiff Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:24:16am |
re: #200 Obdicut
From the source of the source he cited, we’re bang in the middle.
[Link: docs.google.com…]
Which, based on everything we’ve said, suggests American corporate taxes are roughly where they should be.
| 207 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:24:30am |
re: #196 Obdicut
Ok so I got it wrong about the CBO but it is still a valid paper.
I don’t know what misrepresentation you are referencing to.
And I ask again, did you read the Greg Mankiw link? Here it is (again) [Link: gregmankiw.blogspot.com…]
And do you understand the concept of marginal analysis? The marginal tax rate is a tax on the value added by each worker. so obviously if the value that they add to the firm is taxed they are going to have a lower marginal product.
How about you actually cite a paper by an economist saying that higher corporate taxes have absoluely no effect on wages or firms’ decision to hire. Yeah, I’d really like to see that.
| 208 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:26:00am |
| 209 |
McSpiff Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:26:35am |
re: #207 schnapp
I don’t have the slightest understanding of marginal analysis. Layman’s explanation?
| 210 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:27:46am |
re: #205 Walter L. Newton
That’s a human?
I think Arturo Brachetti and Klaus Nomi may have been separated at birth.
| 211 |
iossarian Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:28:01am |
re: #207 schnapp
How about you actually cite a paper by an economist saying that higher corporate taxes have absoluely no effect on wages or firms’ decision to hire. Yeah, I’d really like to see that.
How about I repeat the absolutely obvious argument regarding profits, taxes, and hiring that has been made here and in every single Econ 101 class since the dawn of time:
If you tax profits, then any increase in profitability for a company before tax remains an increase in profitability after tax, providing the tax rate is below 100%.
Hence, if hiring a worker is profitable before tax, it will be profitable after tax, again providing the rate is below 100%.
Hence, a tax rate of less than 100% on profits does not affect whether an additional worker is profitable or not.
Hence, the economically rational decision to hire (or not) a worker is not affected by a tax rate on profits of less than 100%.
What part of that is not clear?
| 212 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:28:17am |
re: #209 McSpiff
The additional output or cost created from one addition unit of input.
| 213 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:29:58am |
re: #208 Sergey Romanov
He was from Mars.
(Oops…. I replied to myself… here… for you)
I think Arturo Brachetti and Klaus Nomi may have been separated at birth.
| 214 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:30:32am |
re: #207 schnapp
Ok so I got it wrong about the CBO but it is still a valid paper.
In what way? It’s a non-peer reviewed paper written to invite commentary.
And I ask again, did you read the Greg Mankiw link?
I read it. It’s talking about statutory rates, not effective rates.
And do you understand the concept of marginal analysis?
I’m sorry, but someone asserting that the difference between income and profits isn’t important really shouldn’t ask other people if they understand things. Do you understand yet why the difference between income and profit is hugely, hugely important?
so obviously if the value that they add to the firm is taxed they are going to have a lower marginal product.
Yes. But since the tax is on profits, not on the value added by the worker, what I’ve already said completely holds true. I”m sorry, but there really aren’t any more ways to explain to you why, economically, a profitable worker is not affected by a tax on profits. It makes them produce less profit for the company; however, since they’re still producing profit, they are a net benefit to the company.
If you can’t grasp that, this is not going to make any sense to you, but it’s a very, very, very easy concept to grasp.
How about you actually cite a paper by an economist saying that higher corporate taxes have absoluely no effect on wages or firms’ decision to hire.
I’m not sure why you’d ask me to cite a paper proving something I haven’t contended, except that at this point you really can’t do much except lash out at strawmen.
It is easy to show that profits don’t affect hiring, though; the current economy shows that.
| 215 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:31:13am |
re: #213 Walter L. Newton
Thanks. I’ve looked him up. Glad I did.
| 216 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:31:20am |
re: #211 iossarian
Of course it is affected by the tax rate. Ever studied finance? Net operating income? Net present value of future free cash flows? Anything like that ring a bell?
| 217 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:32:08am |
re: #216 schnapp
I’d just like to remind you that you’re the guy who claimed that the difference between income and profits is irrelevant.
That’s still the funniest thing anyone’s said in this thread.
| 218 |
shutdown Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:32:21am |
re: #207 schnapp
…
And do you understand the concept of marginal analysis? The marginal tax rate is a tax on the value added by each worker. so obviously if the value that they add to the firm is taxed they are going to have a lower marginal product.
How about you actually cite a paper by an economist saying that higher corporate taxes have absoluely no effect on wages or firms’ decision to hire. Yeah, I’d really like to see that.
I have no idea what this discussion is about, but your definition of “marginal tax rate” and the “obvious” conclusion you want to draw are on their face incorrect, and tautological, respectively. Any value (I assume you mean gross profit) added may in fact be taxed incrementally, but to the extent there has been an addition to gross profit, net profit will also increase. Non-profitable workers may have a negative effect on a company’s bottom line, but that effect is unrelated to the argument you are making. Higher corporate income taxes have no effect on a company’s willingness to add profit margin. Higher cost per worker in terms of healthcare, and other benefits which are a drag on net profits, will have such an effect to the extent that the additional workers are cost centres rather than profit centres.
| 219 |
jamesfirecat Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:32:34am |
re: #217 Obdicut
I’d just like to remind you that you’re the guy who claimed that the difference between income and profits is irrelevant.
That’s still the funniest thing anyone’s said in this thread.
Should I make a lol-troll cat of it when I get home?
| 220 |
iossarian Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:32:59am |
re: #216 schnapp
Of course it is affected by the tax rate. Ever studied finance? Net operating income? Net present value of future free cash flows? Anything like that ring a bell?
Ha ha. Everyone is whoever they want to be on the internet, however, suffice it to say that I am familiar with all of the terms that you are able to find in your “right wing economics for the gullible” handbook.
| 221 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:33:22am |
re: #215 Sergey Romanov
Thanks. I’ve looked him up. Glad I did.
Amazing quick change artist and performance artist. He rarely comes through the US, I saw him once in Denver a number of years ago, every time I go to Europe, I try to see if he is performing anywhere near where I am going.
[Link: www.brachetti.com…]
| 222 |
iossarian Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:33:36am |
I can also pedal up steep inclines without flagging!
| 223 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:34:53am |
re: #222 iossarian
I’m sorry, I can’t hear you over the sound of my solid gold robot coming to cater to my every whim. Great piece of tech, but damn is it loud as it walks over my floors made out of Fabergé eggs.
| 224 |
NJDhockeyfan Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:35:02am |
Breaking:
Arrest made in plot to blow up area military recruiting center
Authorities say an individual has been arrested in the Baltimore area for plotting to blow up a military recruitment center.
Marcia Murphy, a spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney’s office in Baltimore, confirms to the Associated Press that an arrest has been made and says the individual will appear in court Wednesday afternoon. Murphy did not provide any further details. An FBI spokesman also confirmed the arrest.
An official who was briefed on the arrest told AP on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information that the person was given a phony bomb and was arrested after trying to detonate it. The official says the suspect’s goal was to blow up a military recruitment center. The official says the individual is a United States citizen and that the plot was carried out in Baltimore County.
Who the fuck would want to blow up a military recruiting center?
| 225 |
shutdown Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:35:26am |
re: #222 iossarian
I can also pedal up steep inclines without flagging!
“Flagging” as in “tiring”, or as in “waving to a passing vehicle and begging for a ride?”
;)
| 226 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:36:00am |
re: #224 NJDhockeyfan
A) Anti-military sentiment.
B) Anti-American sentiment.
C) Craziness.
D) They got rejected by the military and just can’t handle any more rejection right now, man.
| 227 |
shutdown Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:36:23am |
re: #224 NJDhockeyfan
BTW did they ever catch the guy who was shooting at military installations?
| 228 |
Killgore Trout Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:36:34am |
Looks like the ball is rolling….
Assange could face espionage trial in US
Informal discussions have already taken place between US and Swedish officials over the possibility of the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange being delivered into American custody, according to diplomatic sources.
| 229 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:36:54am |
re: #224 NJDhockeyfan
Breaking:
Arrest made in plot to blow up area military recruiting center
Who the fuck would want to blow up a military recruiting center?
It’s evident… a Tea Party member.
| 230 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:37:49am |
re: #214 Obdicut
In what way? It’s a non-peer reviewed paper written to invite commentary.
I read it. It’s talking about statutory rates, not effective rates.
I’m sorry, but someone asserting that the difference between income and profits isn’t important really shouldn’t ask other people if they understand things. Do you understand yet why the difference between income and profit is hugely, hugely important?
Yes. But since the tax is on profits, not on the value added by the worker, what I’ve already said completely holds true. I”m sorry, but there really aren’t any more ways to explain to you why, economically, a profitable worker is not affected by a tax on profits. It makes them produce less profit for the company; however, since they’re still producing profit, they are a net benefit to the company.If you can’t grasp that, this is not going to make any sense to you, but it’s a very, very, very easy concept to grasp.
I’m not sure why you’d ask me to cite a paper proving something I haven’t contended, except that at this point you really can’t do much except lash out at strawmen.It is easy to show that profits don’t affect hiring, though; the current economy shows that.
It is exactly what you have contended. You have said that higher taxes have absolutely no impact on firms incentive to hire workers.
Yes Mankiw is talking about statutory tax rates, but profit for tax purposes is different to accounting profit. That is what effective tax rates take into account. The statutory rate might be 30% but the effective rate (on accounting profits) might be different. The two are still related. US effective corporate taxes are amognst the highest in the OECD as I have shown inlinks but you refuse to accept.
I have also cited a harvard economist and that other one from the CBO (sort of) but you refuse to accept that higher taxes on company profits hurt workers. Why is that when it is so logically and emprically clear?
| 231 |
McSpiff Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:37:53am |
Alright, I’m gonna lay out my understanding of the situation and you can correct me if I’m wrong
Income - expenses = profit or loss.
Assuming Income > expenses, we have a profit.
That’s all true before any profit tax.
So assuming we have a new hire that increases income by $1000, and expenses by $250, we have a profit of $750/worker
assuming a tax rate of 0% on profit, we increase profit by $750/worker
at 25%, we increase it by $562
50%, increase of $375
75%, increase of $187.
Its only when you go past 100% that you stop increasing profit, or actually decrease it.
So why would you hire a
| 232 |
McSpiff Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:38:38am |
| 233 |
McSpiff Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:39:52am |
re: #230 schnapp
Please see my 231/232. They were directed to you.
| 234 |
Varek Raith Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:39:55am |
re: #226 Obdicut
A) Anti-military sentiment.
B) Anti-American sentiment.
C) Craziness.
D) They got rejected by the military and just can’t handle any more rejection right now, man.
Nope.
A) Muslim.
B) Muslim.
C) Muslim.
| 235 |
Varek Raith Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:40:19am |
| 236 |
NJDhockeyfan Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:40:53am |
re: #227 imp_62
BTW did they ever catch the guy who was shooting at military installations?
Not that I know of. I hope this is the same jerk.
| 237 |
shutdown Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:41:21am |
I believe it was Shaw who said “If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion”
| 238 |
NJDhockeyfan Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:41:49am |
| 239 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:43:32am |
re: #217 Obdicut
What I meant was that it doesn’t change the fact that higher corporate taxes hurt workers. I have cited proper economists. You haven’t cited any evidence to the contrary.
| 240 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:43:59am |
re: #230 schnapp
It is exactly what you have contended. You have said that higher taxes have absolutely no impact on firms incentive to hire workers.
Which is not the same thing as:
How about you actually cite a paper by an economist saying that higher corporate taxes have absoluely no effect on wages or firms’ decision to hire.
It has an effect on their decision, because they’re human. Not because the incentive is affected. It’s not.
Yes Mankiw is talking about statutory tax rates, but profit for tax purposes is different to accounting profit. That is what effective tax rates take into account.
No, I’m sorry, you don’t appear to understand what effective tax rates are. Effective tax rates take into account tax benefits, breaks, shelters, etc. etc.
US effective corporate taxes are amognst the highest in the OECD as I have shown inlinks but you refuse to accept.
No, you haven’t actually shown this. As I’ve said, the source of the source you cited says that we’re in the middle of the pack as far as effective corporate tax goes. I pointed this out to you several times and asked you to comment, but you didn’t.
I have also cited a harvard economist and that other one from the CBO (sort of) but you refuse to accept that higher taxes on company profits hurt workers.
Heh. You don’t actually feel at all embarassed by attempting to falsely represent that paper as being from the CBO several times. That’s hilarious.
You are asking me to accept your conclusion based on one Harvard economist. Does this mean you, likewise, will accept any economic conclusions that are made by a single Harvard economist?
Why is that when it is so logically and emprically clear?
As has been repeatedly demonstrated to you, it is not logically clear, given that corporate taxes are on profits, not on value added per worker or on income. You still don’t appear to understand this.
Empirically, we can, in the current time, see that very high profits are not leading to hiring. So, it is empirically demonstrated that higher profits do not lead to hiring. Since the only effect of taxes on profits is to lower profits, it is therefore in no way empirically demonstrated that higher taxes diminish hiring, since there does not appear to be a relationship between profits and hiring.
| 241 |
iossarian Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:45:20am |
re: #240 Obdicut
I bet even Harvard has a couple of Marxists hanging around its Econ department.
| 242 |
sattv4u2 Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:48:29am |
Another nutjob thwarted, this time in Maryland
[Link: news.yahoo.com…]
Arrest in recruiting center bomb plot
Thank you, LE
| 243 |
iossarian Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:48:36am |
Isn’t there a pretty smart economist at Princeton, can’t remember his name, it’s on the tip of my tongue…
Flugman? Is that it?
I wonder what he thinks about the US effective corporate tax rate.
(Actually, I went to a talk of his recently, so I know what he thinks because someone like our friend schnapp asked him this very question. I think his response could be categorized somewhere along the line between “withering” and “openly disdainful”.)
| 244 |
McSpiff Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:48:55am |
re: #240 Obdicut
I love it when dogma hits the road…
“Well, as this paper sorta states…if you carry the one…its clearly evident… left as an exercise to the reader….VOTE GOP….profit tax is bad!”
| 245 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:49:38am |
re: #244 McSpiff
I’ve simply never heard anyone assert that there’s no relevant distinction between income and profit before. As a small business owner, dear god how I wish that was true.
| 247 |
Varek Raith Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:50:31am |
re: #245 Obdicut
I’ve simply never heard anyone assert that there’s no relevant distinction between income and profit before. As a small business owner, dear god how I wish that was true.
It’s easy, really.
Step 1 - Divorce yourself from reality.
Step 2 - ???
Step Eleventy - PROFIT!
| 249 |
McSpiff Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:51:29am |
re: #247 Varek Raith
It’s easy, really.
Step 1 - Divorce yourself from reality.
Step 2 - ???
Step Eleventy - PROFIT!
Well no, there’s a tax on the profit…so its not really profit…its like communism or something. Da?
| 250 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:53:01am |
re: #240 Obdicut
[Link: www.people.hbs.edu…]
[Link: www.voxeu.org…]
I can go on and on and on providing links. The one from voxeu cited Stiglitz, a very liberal economist and Nobel Prize winner, as demonstrating that worker can bear more than 100% of the corporate tax burden. How about the kansas city fed.
And that link which showed effective corporate tax rates used data from the World Bank. Out of developed and BRIC nations the US is near the bottom of the ladder.
| 251 |
McSpiff Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:53:53am |
re: #250 schnapp
[Link: www.people.hbs.edu…]
[Link: www.voxeu.org…]
I can go on and on and on providing links. The one from voxeu cited Stiglitz, a very liberal economist and Nobel Prize winner, as demonstrating that worker can bear more than 100% of the corporate tax burden. How about the kansas city fed.
And that link which showed effective corporate tax rates used data from the World Bank. Out of developed and BRIC nations the US is near the bottom of the ladder.
Could you please address any incorrect statements in my #231?
| 252 |
cliffster Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:53:59am |
re: #245 Obdicut
I’ve simply never heard anyone assert that there’s no relevant distinction between income and profit before. As a small business owner, dear god how I wish that was true.
go get some venture capital. you’ll suddenly find that not only is the distinction between income and profit are irrelevant, income and profit themselves are irrelevant. revenue - however you can recognize it, however you can grow it. everything else is just noise.
| 253 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:54:18am |
re: #250 schnapp
Instead of citing more and more, how about dealing with the problems already existing in your argument?
For example, you’ve asserted that there’s no relevant difference between income and profit.
However, corporate taxation falls only on profit, not on income.
Wouldn’t you say that makes the distinction rather highly relevant?
| 254 |
NJDhockeyfan Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:54:50am |
Updated…
Authorities say a Baltimore man has been arrested for attempting to blow up a military recruitment center in Catonsville.
A spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Baltimore said the man attempted to detonate what he believed to be a vehicle bomb this morning.
“There was no danger to the public as the explosives were inert, and the suspect had been carefully monitored by law enforcement for months,” the office said in a statement.
There was no evidence that the plot was tied to recent shootings at military recruiting centers in the Washington D.C. area.
Car bomb. Definitely a wingnut.
| 255 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:55:02am |
re: #252 cliffster
In terms of taxation, the difference is highly, highly, highly, highly relevant.
It couldn’t really be more relevant.
| 256 |
Gus Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:55:45am |
re: #254 NJDhockeyfan
Updated…
Car bomb. Definitely a wingnut.
No doubt. Considering the high frequency of wingnut car bombings.
| 257 |
jamesfirecat Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:56:18am |
re: #254 NJDhockeyfan
Updated…
Car bomb. Definitely a wingnut.
///Well it might have been a hybrid….
| 258 |
cliffster Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:56:26am |
re: #255 Obdicut
in terms of taxes, sure. in terms of exit strategies, however…
| 259 |
harlequinade Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:56:52am |
re: #228 Killgore Trout
It might be a short roll: [Link: www.guardian.co.uk…]
“In short, for every politician itching to put Assange on trial, there is a legal obstacle to be overcome, which makes one thing and one thing only certain – for the question of Assange’s future under the law, there is no end in sight.”
| 260 |
McSpiff Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:57:11am |
re: #258 cliffster
in terms of taxes, sure. in terms of exit strategies, however…
As the lovely banking sector showed, none of these matter if you have the right friends…
| 261 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:57:14am |
re: #254 NJDhockeyfan
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Given the target, a military recruitment station, it is most likely to have been a radical Islamic terrorist, don’t you think?
There’s an off-chance it’s a simply anti-government black helicopter whoo moron, of course.
And another chance it’s just a crazy person.
| 262 |
shutdown Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:57:50am |
re: #250 schnapp
[Link: www.people.hbs.edu…]
[Link: www.voxeu.org…]
I can go on and on and on providing links. The one from voxeu cited Stiglitz, a very liberal economist and Nobel Prize winner, as demonstrating that worker can bear more than 100% of the corporate tax burden. How about the kansas city fed.
And that link which showed effective corporate tax rates used data from the World Bank. Out of developed and BRIC nations the US is near the bottom of the ladder.
Look, enough. You are stating or quoting a series of disparate facts, and then linking them according to whatever hypothesis it is you are trying to support. Linking three correct statements does not make a derived statement correct. That is akin to my saying: Respectable scientists say that evolution is true. Respectable theologists say that God exists. Respectable geologists say that obsidian is magmatic in origin. Therefore, God is an evolutionary possibility made out of obsidian.
| 263 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:57:55am |
re: #258 cliffster
in terms of taxes, sure. in terms of exit strategies, however…
The conversation where Schnapp claimed the distinction was irrelevant was in regard to taxes.
| 264 |
shutdown Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:58:59am |
re: #259 harlequinade
It might be a short roll: [Link: www.guardian.co.uk…]
“In short, for every politician itching to put Assange on trial, there is a legal obstacle to be overcome, which makes one thing and one thing only certain – for the question of Assange’s future under the law, there is no end in sight.”
Add: “for as long as he can count on third parties to finance his legal costs.”
| 265 |
McSpiff Wed, Dec 8, 2010 8:59:55am |
re: #264 imp_62
Add: “for as long as he can count on third parties to finance his legal costs.”
I think any possible trial of Wikileaks or Assange will be the defining trial of the internet age.
| 266 |
McSpiff Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:00:06am |
re: #265 McSpiff
I think any possible trial of Wikileaks or Assange will be the defining trial of the internet age.
Unless its for rape.
| 267 |
shutdown Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:01:01am |
re: #265 McSpiff
I think any possible trial of Wikileaks or Assange will be the defining trial of the internet age.
Agreed. Plus a potentially interesting book and a great holiday movie. Plus, Assange bobble-head dolls are a distinct possibility…
| 268 |
Gus Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:01:01am |
re: #235 Varek Raith
D) Ron Paul.
I woke up one morning an all the wanted posters were for Ron Paul and everyone was speaking in Esperanto.
| 269 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:01:06am |
re: #245 Obdicut
I’m sorry yes that was a mistake but it is 1 oçlock in the morning for me. So I made a mistake. I was busy trying to reply to you and find links at the same time. Get over it.
But it still doesn’t changemy point. High corporate taxes fall on workers.
How about the Kansas City Fed? [Link: www.kansascityfed.org…]
How about
| 270 |
Killgore Trout Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:01:06am |
re: #254 NJDhockeyfan
A spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Baltimore said the man attempted to detonate what he believed to be a vehicle bomb this morning.
Looks like the FBI has a nice gimmick going on.
| 271 |
iossarian Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:02:23am |
Awesome. Mankiw was the author of the “I’ll work less if you put my taxes up” whine-fest in the NY Times that was referenced on LGF a while back:
[Link: www.nytimes.com…]
I cannot wait for the tax rate to go up to the point where Mankiw fucks off to Somalia and lets actual grown-ups formulate economic policy.
| 272 |
lostlakehiker Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:02:23am |
re: #79 iossarian
Well, you’re right up to a point. First of all, the fact that college costs less than a private high school doesn’t mean it’s cheap - a lot of people can’t afford a private high school either.
It also varies by state - it looks as if a full-time in-state student at Ga. Tech is going to be paying ~$4,300 in tuition and fees for the fall term in 2010. Based on a 2-term system, which most students will be using, this will be ~$8,600 a term (ignoring the possible mid-year increase which many colleges are now using as a way of hiding their tuition hikes).
Room and board also varies, a good rule of thumb is that it is often in line with tuition and fees. Let’s put it on the low side and say that total cost at Ga. Tech is going to be in the region of $16K a year, before financial aid.
Those are similar figures to flagship institutions in quite a few states, and for a lot of middle class people there will not be a whole lot of need-based aid. Nor, thanks to the economic policies of the last 30 years, do many middle class people have a spare $16K per year, per child, to spend on college.
Hence $50K in debt. And that’s before Georgia cuts its education budget because WE CAN’T RAISE TAXES EVER OR INCREASE THE DEFICIT IN A RECESSION THAT WOULD BE SOCIALISM:
[Link: www2.wsav.com…]
Happy trails.
There’s other ways to pay for college, if the parents can’t scrape together $50K. Part time jobs can defray part of the cost. If that isn’t sufficient, the armed forces offer quite substantial support through college in return for an enlistment.
Students who are well qualified can find a way to that college degree, with meaningful education into the bargain.
Our colleges are also enrolling students who are ill prepared, not much inclined to hard study, and sometimes, frankly not all that bright.
All three categories are unlikely to profit much from their studies, but they pay the same as the good students. For them, college is a bad buy. The money would do them or their parents, or society, much more good spent elsewhere.
| 273 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:02:28am |
re: #269 schnapp
I’m sorry yes that was a mistake but it is 1 oçlock in the morning for me. So I made a mistake. I was busy trying to reply to you and find links at the same time. Get over it.
How gracious of you.
But it still doesn’t changemy point. High corporate taxes fall on workers.
Actually, yes it does. It attacks the very central contention that you were making. Please reread what I’ve already written about profitable workers being a sensible hire no matter what the effective tax rate is. I’ve explained it in multiple different ways, and I do not see any barrier to you understanding it.
| 274 |
shutdown Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:02:44am |
re: #268 Gus 802
I woke up one morning an all the wanted posters were for Ron Paul and everyone was speaking in Esperanto.
And a triple shot latte cost $1.25…
| 275 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:03:10am |
re: #270 Killgore Trout
Looks like the FBI has a nice gimmick going on.
There was an ad in the Denver Post online classified… “Employment opportunities with the FBI - car bombers wanted” this morning.
| 276 |
Gus Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:03:42am |
re: #275 Walter L. Newton
There was an ad in the Denver Post online classified… “Employment opportunities with the FBI - car bombers wanted” this morning.
Maybe I should apply. I already have the beard.
| 277 |
researchok Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:04:15am |
re: #275 Walter L. Newton
There was an ad in the Denver Post online classified… “Employment opportunities with the FBI - car bombers wanted” this morning.
And they say TARP didn’t work.
| 278 |
Killgore Trout Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:04:27am |
re: #259 harlequinade
From that article….
The espionage act makes it a crime to disclose information “relating to the national defence” to “any person not entitled to receive it”. But this is an offence designed to prosecute insiders who commit acts of espionage or leaking – it has never been used successfully against a media organisation
I think it’s a mistake to assume he’s a member of the media. There is some grey area here but just because he runs a website doesn’t make him a member of the media.
| 280 |
harlequinade Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:05:04am |
re: #266 McSpiff
Those are both very true. The Swedes have gone on record saying that there’s been no talk about sending him to the US, and it’s all about the rape charge.
That said “Having said that, even Swedish rape experts – whose primary concern is with the treatment of female victims of rape – have told me that when it comes to the question of political interference in Sweden’s criminal justice system, “it’s impossible to rule it out”. “
And there’s a lack of faith in the independence of the Swedish justice system after the Pirate Bay trial.
It is going to be very interesting to see how this plays out - and if a DarkNet, or a non-US DNS system is heavily adopted in the aftermath.
| 281 |
Flounder Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:05:29am |
Lunchtime! PB&J today. The secret is to apply copious amounts of PB on each piece of bread, with a smackerel of red raspberry jelly!
| 282 |
researchok Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:06:13am |
re: #279 Gus 802
I thought that was part of the stimulus package.
No…stimulus jobs come with health insurance.
These jobs are on the opt out plan.
| 283 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:06:23am |
re: #278 Killgore Trout
From that article…
I think it’s a mistake to assume he’s a member of the media. There is some grey area here but just because he runs a website doesn’t make him a member of the media.
His definition…
“Assange described his organization to The New Yorker as “scientific journalism,” comparing it to biology researchers publishing their data sets along with their papers. In recapping a talk by Assange at London’s Center for Investigative Journalism earlier this month, a reporter for the British newspaper The Guardian cheekily pointed out that “if Assange was producing this article, he would post the rambling hour-and-a-half talk he delivers” instead of quoting from it.”
[Link: www.csmonitor.com…]
| 284 |
harlequinade Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:06:40am |
re: #278 Killgore Trout
I’m not sure about that.
Media doesn’t have to mean Journalism. (Said not as a lawyer, or a reporter)
Is HuffPo just a website or a member of the media? Who decides?
| 285 |
iossarian Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:08:00am |
re: #272 lostlakehiker
Your point about colleges enrolling people who do not need to attend is correct, but that is due to the fact that our current economic policy makes employment highly unstable without (at least) a bachelor’s degree. In countries where skilled laborers enjoy stable employment conditions, there is less incentive for people to go to college if it does not satisfy a need.
As for your point about there being other ways to pay, this does not change the fact that you are still worse off! That’s like saying that if I steal your car, you are no worse off because you can always pawn your silver and buy a new one!
To be honest, there is some truth to the idea that “free” higher education (paid for via taxation) is actually a subsidy to the well-off, whose children tend to be most academically eligible to attend college. However, my personal experience in the industry has convinced me that it remains the best way of providing equal access to those best positioned to benefit from it, and in any case as long as the taxation is progressive, it does not unduly hurt lower-income people.
| 286 |
McSpiff Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:08:42am |
re: #269 schnapp
I’m sorry yes that was a mistake but it is 1 oçlock in the morning for me. So I made a mistake. I was busy trying to reply to you and find links at the same time. Get over it.
But it still doesn’t changemy point. High corporate taxes fall on workers.
How about the Kansas City Fed? [Link: www.kansascityfed.org…]
How about
Right, same claim again. From your article:
Therefore, if a country places a tax on capital, capital will flee to obtain the higher after-tax world rate of return. Capital will continue to move abroad until the marginal productivity of capital at home is driven
up to the point where the after-tax return to capital equals the world return. This decrease in capital results in a lower marginal productivity of labor and thereby, if capital is perfectly mobile, labor bears the entire burden of a capital tax.
Again, lower American standards of living to 3rd world standards isn’t really an option. With an open economy, you accept a certain level of capital flight. Otherwise America would need to lower not only the tax rate, but wages as well, to have the ‘ideal global economy’. Anyone want to point out the obvious flaws in this?
| 287 |
researchok Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:08:42am |
re: #283 Walter L. Newton
His definition…
“Assange described his organization to The New Yorker as “scientific journalism,” comparing it to biology researchers publishing their data sets along with their papers. In recapping a talk by Assange at London’s Center for Investigative Journalism earlier this month, a reporter for the British newspaper The Guardian cheekily pointed out that “if Assange was producing this article, he would post the rambling hour-and-a-half talk he delivers” instead of quoting from it.”
[Link: www.csmonitor.com…]
Assange is a wannabe journalist- no more, no less.
Simply publishing material does not a journalist make.
Further, what organizations have accredited him?
| 288 |
Gus Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:09:20am |
re: #283 Walter L. Newton
His definition…
“Assange described his organization to The New Yorker as “scientific journalism,” comparing it to biology researchers publishing their data sets along with their papers. In recapping a talk by Assange at London’s Center for Investigative Journalism earlier this month, a reporter for the British newspaper The Guardian cheekily pointed out that “if Assange was producing this article, he would post the rambling hour-and-a-half talk he delivers” instead of quoting from it.”
[Link: www.csmonitor.com…]
Clearly only creationists support his prosecution.
| 289 |
shutdown Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:09:23am |
re: #269 schnapp
I’m sorry yes that was a mistake but it is 1 oçlock in the morning for me. So I made a mistake. I was busy trying to reply to you and find links at the same time. Get over it.
But it still doesn’t changemy point. High corporate taxes fall on workers.
How about the Kansas City Fed? [Link: www.kansascityfed.org…]
How about
The conclusion reached by the paper is in fact that taxes should be directly imposed on workers, rather than on corporations. There is also a difference between the conclusions of the paper and your statement that : “High corporate taxes fall on workers.” Quite correctly, the KC Fed concludes that impaired profits reduce the ability of a company to pay workers. In a Venn diagram, the area congruence of your arguments and the economic discussion entered into in the paper is not terribly large. You are muddling up certain concepts, and while you may have a generally correct hypothesis in mind (“when corporations have less money, workers get paid less”), you are mis-phrasing it (“corporate taxes are a burden to the worker”) and by extension, your arguments and proofs are a bit confused.
| 290 |
Killgore Trout Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:09:55am |
re: #283 Walter L. Newton
I don’t think his own delusions about journalism have much legal standing. But even if he is legally considered a journalist I’m not sure it would make a difference. If the New York Times started publishing mass amounts of stolen government documents I suspect they’d find themselves in trouble too.
| 291 |
Gus Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:10:11am |
re: #287 researchok
Assange is a wannabe journalist- no more, no less.
Simply publishing material does not a journalist make.
Further, what organizations have accredited him?
Is it peer reviewed?
| 292 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:10:52am |
re: #287 researchok
Assange is a wannabe journalist- no more, no less.
Simply publishing material does not a journalist make.
Further, what organizations have accredited him?
I agree… but it’s evident that he is getting some traction from actual journalist and media people. Those remarks were made at a meeting of the London’s Center for Investigative Journalism.
| 293 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:11:20am |
re: #290 Killgore Trout
I don’t think his own delusions about journalism have much legal standing. But even if he is legally considered a journalist I’m not sure it would make a difference. If the New York Times started publishing mass amounts of stolen government documents I suspect they’d find themselves in trouble too.
Er…. they did.
| 294 |
McSpiff Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:12:04am |
re: #291 Gus 802
Is it peer reviewed?
Well yes, all the ‘data’ was given to major media outlets before release, so i’d say that counts.
| 295 |
Killgore Trout Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:13:36am |
re: #284 harlequinade
I’m not sure about that.
Media doesn’t have to mean Journalism. (Said not as a lawyer, or a reporter)
Is HuffPo just a website or a member of the media? Who decides?
I’m sure there’s a legal definition of journalism. Assange isn’t exposing some sort of illegal government activity for the public good. He’s just publishing mass amounts of random stolen documents. I’m not sure if there’s a legal difference between publishing them on the web or discreetly passing them on to a foreign government. It’s data mining from stolen government documents and you just can’t do that.
| 296 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:14:05am |
re: #273 Obdicut
Look, ultimately people pay all taxes. Someone has to bear the burden. And that someone is either going to be shareholders, customers of workers.
Maybe I can try to articulate better now, because it’s late and I’m tired so I’ll put some more thought into this explanation.
If the US has high cororate tax rates, investors will invest elsewhere because the US becomes less profitable. With less investment in the US there is less economic output, less employment and lower wages.
I was explaining it wrong before. But I have read a bit more now and understand a bit better.
If labour was more mobile then workers would move to other countries that are attracting more investment, producing more, and had higher output, productivity, employment and wages. The corporate taxes would not affect workers because the supply of domestic workers would shrink and so less supply means higher wages etc.
Maybe that makes more sense because I’ve taken time to write this properly.
| 297 |
McSpiff Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:14:26am |
re: #290 Killgore Trout
I don’t think his own delusions about journalism have much legal standing. But even if he is legally considered a journalist I’m not sure it would make a difference. If the New York Times started publishing mass amounts of stolen government documents I suspect they’d find themselves in trouble too.
Heh tell me you’re being ironic. The NYT was the actual one who successfully argued that newspapers do in fact have the right to publish government documents before the USSC, provided they weren’t the ones to actually steal them. In that particular case it was the pentagon papers, but legally I don’t see a different.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]
| 298 |
Killgore Trout Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:15:06am |
re: #293 Walter L. Newton
Er… they did.
There’s a difference between what Assange is doing and what journalists do with uncovering government wrongdoings.
| 299 |
harlequinade Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:15:20am |
re: #292 Walter L. Newton
I’m only replying to yours, Walter, to continue the conversation, as opposed to agreeing/disagreeing with your statement.
Which is wonderfully interesting. Who knows if “new media” fits “media’ of old?
But - why are they prosecuting Assange? For posting the cables?
Well, he’s in prison and they’re still being posted.
What about all the people hosting mirrors?
Or all the newspapers that are posting extracts - are they all getting hauled into court?
| 300 |
McSpiff Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:15:25am |
re: #296 schnapp
So, couldn’t you argue that its equally valid to state that the problem is the global mobility of capital at fault?
| 301 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:15:55am |
re: #289 imp_62
The conclusion reached by the paper is in fact that taxes should be directly imposed on workers, rather than on corporations. There is also a difference between the conclusions of the paper and your statement that : “High corporate taxes fall on workers.” Quite correctly, the KC Fed concludes that impaired profits reduce the ability of a company to pay workers. In a Venn diagram, the area congruence of your arguments and the economic discussion entered into in the paper is not terribly large. You are muddling up certain concepts, and while you may have a generally correct hypothesis in mind (“when corporations have less money, workers get paid less”), you are mis-phrasing it (“corporate taxes are a burden to the worker”) and by extension, your arguments and proofs are a bit confused.
Yeah, sorry it’s quarter past one in the morning where I am so forgive me.
| 302 |
harlequinade Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:16:12am |
re: #295 Killgore Trout
But that was the point of Wikileaks - a safe harbour to blow whistles. To post documents that may have been stolen, surely?
| 303 |
iossarian Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:16:20am |
re: #296 schnapp
For what it’s worth, you’ve explained why the wealthy tend to be in favor of liberal rules governing the movement of capital, and strict rules governing the movement of labor.
| 304 |
Killgore Trout Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:16:42am |
re: #297 McSpiff
Heh tell me you’re being ironic. The NYT was the actual one who successfully argued that newspapers do in fact have the right to publish government documents before the USSC, provided they weren’t the ones to actually steal them. In that particular case it was the pentagon papers, but legally I don’t see a different.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]
There’s a very big difference between Assange and Woodward/Bernstein.
| 305 |
lawhawk Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:17:01am |
re: #254 NJDhockeyfan
[Link: www.cnn.com…]
The man — described as a 21-year-old convert to Islam — is upset that the military continues to kill Muslims, a law enforcement source said. His name and residence were not immediately made available.
Marcia Murphy with the U.S. attorney’s office in Baltimore said the suspect was arrested in the morning hours “in connection with a scheme to attack an armed forces recruiting station in Catonsville, Maryland, with what he believed to be a vehicle bomb.”
He is to make an initial appearance in a U.S. District Court in Baltimore at 2 p.m. Wednesday.
This plot, and law enforcement efforts to thwart said plot, mirrors the attempts by an Oregon man to blow up a tree-lighting ceremony in Portland.
| 306 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:17:08am |
re: #296 schnapp
You are still conflating a large number of disparate things which do not actually support each other; capital flight because of corporate tax, the effects on wages of corproate tax, labor mobility and productivity, etc. You are also, for some reason, treating labor motility as though it is simply non-existent, rather than simply less than capital movement.
I’d recommend sleeping and attempting to engage with this again later, and to read what I’ve written about the relationship of corporate taxes and the profitability of workers.
| 307 |
harlequinade Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:17:17am |
re: #304 Killgore Trout
Notionally, but what about legally?
| 308 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:17:34am |
re: #300 McSpiff
Kind of but capital mobility is a good thing generally. The immobility of labour is at fault.
| 309 |
shutdown Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:17:36am |
re: #296 schnapp
Again, you are doing yourself no favours here by shooting from the hip on these issues. You compounded your error by continuing to argue even as you were determining that your hypothesis and proofs were a bit squirrelly. Get some sleep, re-group and start the conversation again tomorrow. Folks here are always happy to debate (
| 310 |
jamesfirecat Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:17:47am |
re: #296 schnapp
Look, ultimately people pay all taxes. Someone has to bear the burden. And that someone is either going to be shareholders, customers of workers.
Maybe I can try to articulate better now, because it’s late and I’m tired so I’ll put some more thought into this explanation.
If the US has high cororate tax rates, investors will invest elsewhere because the US becomes less profitable. With less investment in the US there is less economic output, less employment and lower wages.
I was explaining it wrong before. But I have read a bit more now and understand a bit better.
If labour was more mobile then workers would move to other countries that are attracting more investment, producing more, and had higher output, productivity, employment and wages. The corporate taxes would not affect workers because the supply of domestic workers would shrink and so less supply means higher wages etc.
Maybe that makes more sense because I’ve taken time to write this properly.
The problem is that while this is reasonable well thought out, the only solution to it is a race to the bottom isn’t it?
| 311 |
McSpiff Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:18:05am |
re: #295 Killgore Trout
I’m sure there’s a legal definition of journalism. Assange isn’t exposing some sort of illegal government activity for the public good. He’s just publishing mass amounts of random stolen documents. I’m not sure if there’s a legal difference between publishing them on the web or discreetly passing them on to a foreign government. It’s data mining from stolen government documents and you just can’t do that.
I’ve not seen a legal definition of journalism in the United States, and the Supreme Court case I cited does not rely on the fact that the NYT was a news paper or journalist, merely that they had a Free speech right to publish them.
| 312 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:18:15am |
re: #299 harlequinade
I’m only replying to yours, Walter, to continue the conversation, as opposed to agreeing/disagreeing with your statement.
Which is wonderfully interesting. Who knows if “new media” fits “media’ of old?
But - why are they prosecuting Assange? For posting the cables?
Well, he’s in prison and they’re still being posted.What about all the people hosting mirrors?
Or all the newspapers that are posting extracts - are they all getting hauled into court?
I suspect there is not a definitive answer to any of the questions you pose above… but I bet when The Assange Affair (tm) finally shakes all out… we may have a clearer idea what is protected journalism and what constitutes freedom of speech in the brave new world of the internet.
| 313 |
McSpiff Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:18:42am |
re: #304 Killgore Trout
There’s a very big difference between Assange and Woodward/Bernstein.
Care to cite something in that ruling that would support that notion?
| 314 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:18:48am |
re: #303 iossarian
Yeah. Labour should be more mobile. The rich are all for protectionism and government regulation when it helps them.
| 315 |
harlequinade Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:19:12am |
re: #312 Walter L. Newton
but I bet when The Assange Affair (tm) finally shakes all out… we may have a clearer idea what is protected journalism and what constitutes freedom of speech in the brave new world of the internet.
Quoted for truth
| 316 |
Skeetghazi Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:19:32am |
What a bona fide dipshit
Christine O’Donnell: “Tragedy comes in threes. Pearl Harbor, Elizabeth Edwards’ passing and Barack Obama’s announcement of extending the tax cuts, which is good, but also extending the unemployment benefits.”
| 317 |
shutdown Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:19:39am |
re: #309 imp_62
Again, you are doing yourself no favours here by shooting from the hip on these issues. You compounded your error by continuing to argue even as you were determining that your hypothesis and proofs were a bit squirrelly. Get some sleep, re-group and start the conversation again tomorrow. Folks here are always happy to debate (
it cut off somehow.. continued…
to debate (
| 318 |
Gus Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:20:02am |
re: #305 lawhawk
[Link: www.cnn.com…]
This plot, and law enforcement efforts to thwart said plot, mirrors the attempts by an Oregon man to blow up a tree-lighting ceremony in Portland.
Suspect in Baltimore Bombing Plot Is an American Convert to Islam
December 8, 2010 12:09 P.M.
By Andrew C. McCarthy
ABC-7 News in Baltimore is reporting on Twitter that the suspect in custody for plotting to blow up a military recruitment center is Antonio Martinez, an American convert to Islam who is now known as Muhammad Hussein.
| 319 |
Varek Raith Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:20:13am |
The intricacies of corporate taxation and figuring out where, exactly, wikileaks and the internet fall when classified info is released.
My head hurts.
| 320 |
Four More Tears Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:20:28am |
re: #316 Stanley Sea
What a bona fide dipshit
She compared extending unemployment bennies to Pearl Harbor?
| 322 |
jamesfirecat Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:20:37am |
re: #316 Stanley Sea
What a bona fide dipshit
Wow…. its just like that scene in History of the world…
“F**K THE POOR!”
| 323 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:20:43am |
re: #309 imp_62
Yeah I admit I was kind of wrong but yeah it’s late and I couldn’t be bothered going too indepth. But this is my point, now that I have explained it clearly, that corporate taxes end up hurting workers.
| 324 |
Varek Raith Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:21:01am |
| 325 |
Gus Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:21:08am |
re: #319 Varek Raith
The intricacies of corporate taxation and figuring out where, exactly, wikileaks and the internet fall when classified info is released.
My head hurts.
There is no more debate.
| 326 |
shutdown Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:21:13am |
re: #317 imp_62
weird did it again. must have something to do with some keystrokes i was using.
| 327 |
McSpiff Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:21:57am |
re: #323 schnapp
Yeah I admit I was kind of wrong but yeah it’s late and I couldn’t be bothered going too indepth. But this is my point, now that I have explained it clearly, that corporate taxes end up hurting workers.
No, you’ve clearly shown that the mobility of capital, when there is a lack of similar mobility of labor hurts workers.
| 328 |
Four More Tears Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:22:02am |
Someone needs to explain to Christine that Pearl Harbor happened 69 years ago…
| 329 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:22:09am |
re: #323 schnapp
Yeah I admit I was kind of wrong but yeah it’s late and I couldn’t be bothered going too indepth. But this is my point, now that I have explained it clearly, that corporate taxes end up hurting workers.
I’m sorry, but your point still remains completely unsupported. We understand that’s what your point is. What you haven’t done is support that point.
You have supported, in a small way, the point that restriction of labor motility hurts workers.
| 330 |
Varek Raith Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:22:33am |
re: #325 Gus 802
There is no more debate.
That’s not fair!
I haven’t even begun to form an educated opinion on them!
:(
| 331 |
shutdown Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:22:33am |
re: #323 schnapp
Yeah I admit I was kind of wrong but yeah it’s late and I couldn’t be bothered going too indepth. But this is my point, now that I have explained it clearly, that corporate taxes end up hurting workers.
Even that statement is way too broad. There are tipping ponts, break even points, bla bla bla. Anyway, I don’t even like economists :/
| 332 |
Gus Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:22:35am |
re: #318 Gus 802
Suspect in Baltimore Bombing Plot Is an American Convert to Islam
December 8, 2010 12:09 P.M.
By Andrew C. McCarthy
Different spelling from the ABC Tweet:
ABC News: Suspects name in #baltimore bomb plots is Antonio Martinez, aka Muhammed Hussain.
| 333 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:23:09am |
re: #332 Gus 802
Whoo-hoo, I guessed right. What do I win?
| 334 |
Varek Raith Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:23:15am |
re: #328 JasonA
Someone needs to explain to Christine that Pearl Harbor happened 69 years ago…
She doesn’t approve of that position.
…
..
.
| 336 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:24:26am |
re: #306 Obdicut
Because labour is relatively less mobile than capital, the corporate tax burden fall relatively more on workers. Maybe that’s better.
| 337 |
shutdown Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:24:38am |
re: #333 Obdicut
Whoo-hoo, I guessed right. What do I win?
A car. Make sure you clip the black wire and then the red wire before turning the key, though.
| 338 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:24:50am |
re: #335 Gus 802
A years supply of Eskimo Pies!
I’m lactose intolerant!
Besides, Its Its are far superior. God, I miss ‘em.
| 339 |
Varek Raith Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:25:09am |
re: #337 imp_62
A car. Make sure you clip the black wire and then the red wire before turning the key, though.
Sorry chief.
I made the wires all the same color.
Rainbow.
:P
| 340 |
shutdown Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:25:23am |
re: #336 schnapp
Because labour is relatively less mobile than capital, the corporate tax burden fall relatively more on workers. Maybe that’s better.
You are not, repeat not helping yourself. O_o
| 341 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:25:35am |
re: #336 schnapp
Because labour is relatively less mobile than capital, the corporate tax burden fall relatively more on workers. Maybe that’s better.
No, that is still just an unsupported assertion, and it ignores the whole ‘taxes are on profits, and profitable workers are profitable no matter what the tax rate is’ thing.
Please, just get some sleep, dude.
| 342 |
Four More Tears Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:25:54am |
Okay these people just don’t give a shit at all.
Two Major Conservative Obstacles Emerge To Tax Cut Compromise
Two key obstacles emerged Tuesday night to the passage of President Obama’s tax cut compromise with the GOP. This time they come from the right: The influential anti-tax group Club for Growth and conservative kingmaker Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) both came out in opposition to the agreement, threatening the breadth of Republican support for the plan.“This is bad policy, bad politics, and a bad deal for the American people,” said Club President Chris Chocola in a statement. “The plan would resurrect the Death Tax, grow government, blow a hole in the deficit with unpaid-for spending, and do so without providing the permanent relief and security our economy needs to finally start hiring and growing again.”
| 343 |
McSpiff Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:25:55am |
re: #336 schnapp
Because labour is relatively less mobile than capital, the corporate tax burden fall relatively more on workers. Maybe that’s better.
So why would a similar restriction on capital not benefit workers?
| 344 |
Gus Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:26:01am |
re: #339 Varek Raith
Sorry chief.
I made the wires all the same color.
Rainbow.
:P
How come no one ever thought of that?
“The wires are all the same color!!”
BOOM!
| 345 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:26:20am |
re: #339 Varek Raith
I bet you somewhere, sometime, a colorblind terrorist blew himself up, or failed to blow something else up.
“Wait, which green wire?”
| 346 |
shutdown Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:27:17am |
re: #344 Gus 802
How come no one ever thought of that?
“The wires are all the same color!!”
BOOM!
Work accident. Palis doing the post explosion relic collection swarm.
| 347 |
McSpiff Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:27:58am |
re: #341 Obdicut
No, that is still just an unsupported assertion, and it ignores the whole ‘taxes are on profits, and profitable workers are profitable no matter what the tax rate is’ thing.
Please, just get some sleep, dude.
I think I see his point, assuming you can hire globally, if one country offers $1000/worker increase in profits, and America only offers $250/worker increase you’ll take the first. Which ignores a whole ton of other issues, like the fact that you’re paying some kid $2/day to work in a sweatshop, instead of providing an American with a job and health care. But hey, externalize those pesky moral concerns too!
| 348 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:28:27am |
re: #342 JasonA
Okay these people just don’t give a shit at all.
Two Major Conservative Obstacles Emerge To Tax Cut Compromise
I was wondering when the tea party types would finally stick to their promises and put their foot down.
| 349 |
jamesfirecat Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:28:47am |
re: #342 JasonA
Okay these people just don’t give a shit at all.
Two Major Conservative Obstacles Emerge To Tax Cut Compromise
If this leads to the Bush tax cuts lapsing for everyone I will laugh till I cry then cry till I laugh….
| 350 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:29:03am |
re: #347 McSpiff
Yeah, but that point bears no relationship to the actual wage paid the worker.
As you note.
| 351 |
shutdown Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:29:13am |
re: #348 Walter L. Newton
I was wondering when the tea party types would finally stick to their promises and put their foot
downstraight into the economy’s arse.
FTFY
| 352 |
shutdown Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:29:50am |
re: #349 jamesfirecat
If this leads to the Bush tax cuts lapsing for everyone I will laugh till I cry then cry till I laugh…
And then drink til I forget why I was crying.
| 353 |
McSpiff Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:29:52am |
re: #350 Obdicut
Yeah, but that point bears no relationship to the actual wage paid the worker.
As you note.
I’m sure you could find a country that pays a similar wage with less tax on profit. Ireland comes to mind. I mean look at that economic powerhouse….Shit.
| 354 |
Varek Raith Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:30:29am |
| 355 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:30:43am |
re: #351 imp_62
FTFY
You didn’t have to fix shit. I was simply pointed out the obvious. No where did I agree with the position or give it any support. So, keep your partisan claptrap out of my comments.
| 356 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:30:58am |
re: #329 Obdicut
Yes but labour will always be less mobile. That is why corporate taxes end up hurting workers more. The best taxes are the ones on immobile sources like land.
Workers ultimately pay the corporate tax.
And a tax on profits just make the marginal product of workers diminish at a faster rate once the break even point is reached where the company starts paying tax, because marginal returns are always decreasing.
| 357 |
shutdown Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:33:15am |
re: #355 Walter L. Newton
You didn’t have to fix shit. I was simply pointed out the obvious. No where did I agree with the position or give it any support. So, keep your partisan claptrap out of my comments.
Thank you for reacting just as I knew you would. You are becoming predictable, Walter…
Anyway, i will refrain from adjustments to your comments in future. It is only amusing once to goad you, and just mildly at that.
| 358 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:33:18am |
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is trying to use the tax cut package President Barack Obama brokered with Republicans to legalize online poker, POLITICO has learned — a move that could further complicate the deal Obama announced Monday.
[Link: www.politico.com…]
| 359 |
Four More Tears Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:33:40am |
re: #349 jamesfirecat
If this leads to the Bush tax cuts lapsing for everyone I will laugh till I cry then cry till I laugh…
My money’s on bluff, but I need to be a wide-eyed optimist right now.
| 360 |
McSpiff Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:33:46am |
re: #356 schnapp
Yes but labour will always be less mobile. That is why corporate taxes end up hurting workers more. The best taxes are the ones on immobile sources like land.
Workers ultimately pay the corporate tax.
And a tax on profits just make the marginal product of workers diminish at a faster rate once the break even point is reached where the company starts paying tax, because marginal returns are always decreasing.
If you get a small kitchen fire, you don’t start carrying furniture out of the house, you put out the fire. If the mobility of capital allows for them to dodge paying their fair share in taxes, the solution isn’t to be thankful they aren’t fucking us more, its to put in place measures to restrict that flow.
Tax all profits coming back to Americans at a rate comparable to what they would have paid in country, in addition to any local taxes they already paid.
| 361 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:33:51am |
re: #356 schnapp
That is why corporate taxes end up hurting workers more.
Dude. This is a completely unsupported contention. Your attempts to support it have mainly wound up badly, with you asserting things like the difference between profit and income being irrelevant, citing papers while falsely claiming their provenance, and appearing not to grasp the basic principle that a profitable worker is always a good hire no matter what the tax on profits.
For example:
And a tax on profits just make the marginal product of workers diminish at a faster rate once the break even point is reached where the company starts paying tax, because marginal returns are always decreasing.
This never happens, because the tax is on profits, not on value added per worker or on income.
| 362 |
Gus Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:33:51am |
re: #358 Walter L. Newton
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is trying to use the tax cut package President Barack Obama brokered with Republicans to legalize online poker, POLITICO has learned — a move that could further complicate the deal Obama announced Monday.
[Link: www.politico.com…]
Harry Reid: still an asshat.
| 363 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:34:09am |
re: #357 imp_62
Thank you for reacting just as I knew you would. You are becoming predictable, Walter…
Anyway, i will refrain from adjustments to your comments in future. It is only amusing once to goad you, and just mildly at that.
Glad to oblige you ;)
| 364 |
jamesfirecat Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:35:20am |
re: #356 schnapp
Yes but labour will always be less mobile. That is why corporate taxes end up hurting workers more. The best taxes are the ones on immobile sources like land.
Workers ultimately pay the corporate tax.
And a tax on profits just make the marginal product of workers diminish at a faster rate once the break even point is reached where the company starts paying tax, because marginal returns are always decreasing.
In that case clearly we need to do more to tax the money as its being handed out of the company to shareholders and less to tax profits themselves!
| 365 |
jamesfirecat Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:36:02am |
re: #358 Walter L. Newton
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is trying to use the tax cut package President Barack Obama brokered with Republicans to legalize online poker, POLITICO has learned — a move that could further complicate the deal Obama announced Monday.
[Link: www.politico.com…]
///Whores and Gambling, Whores and Gambling, Whores and Gambling that’s Nevada!
| 366 |
jamesfirecat Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:36:20am |
| 367 |
shutdown Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:37:30am |
re: #365 jamesfirecat
///Whores and Gambling, Whores and Gambling, Whores and Gambling that’s Nevada!
Don’t know how any of you are familiar with Father Ted…
| 368 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:39:51am |
re: #366 jamesfirecat
Still better than Sharon Angle…
No… people like Angle and Reid are not a matter of “better than,” they are a prime example of walking piles of shit brains. There is a point where nothing is better than anything. This is one of those points.
| 370 |
Four More Tears Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:39:59am |
‘Christine PAC’: Christine O’Donnell Plans Political Action Committee
WASHINGTON — Former Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell is forming an issues-oriented political action committee.O’Donnell said late Tuesday after a tea party gathering in northern Virginia that she wants to start the PAC as soon as possible to become more vocal and run ads on issues such as health care reform and taxes. She’s calling it “Christine PAC” for now.
I feel like this has all happened before…
| 371 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:40:39am |
re: #368 Walter L. Newton
Why?
| 372 |
McSpiff Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:41:01am |
re: #370 JasonA
‘Christine PAC’: Christine O’Donnell Plans Political Action Committee
I feel like this has all happened before…
Tell me she’s making a run for GOP nomination. I want a momma bear grizzly off.
| 373 |
shutdown Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:41:23am |
re: #369 McSpiff
What is this… I don’t even…
Brilliant English comedy. Cult standing; main character died of a heart attack after series 3.
| 374 |
McSpiff Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:42:32am |
re: #368 Walter L. Newton
No… people like Angle and Reid are not a matter of “better than,” they are a prime example of walking piles of shit brains. There is a point where nothing is better than anything. This is one of those points.
Failure of the two party system IMO.
| 375 |
cliffster Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:43:01am |
re: #368 Walter L. Newton
No… people like Angle and Reid are not a matter of “better than,” they are a prime example of walking piles of shit brains. There is a point where nothing is better than anything. This is one of those points.
she would have less seniority in congress. her pile of shit brain wouldn’t have as much influence as his pile of shit brain.. that would be a plus.
| 376 |
Four More Tears Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:43:14am |
re: #372 McSpiff
Tell me she’s making a run for GOP nomination. I want a momma bear grizzly off.
But she’s not even a momma. She’s waiting for a man like Jesus.
| 377 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:43:23am |
| 378 |
iossarian Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:43:37am |
re: #373 imp_62
Brilliant English comedy. Cult standing; main character died of a heart attack after series 3.
“OK, Dougall, one more time.”
(Points at small toy cow.)
“Small, close up.”
(Points out of caravan window.)
“Big, far away.”
| 379 |
darthstar Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:43:47am |
Woke up to a blocked Google account. Don’t get cell phone reception at home, so I had to wait until I got down the hill to reset my account from my phone…”suspicious activity” was the cause…Well, I took a look at my access history, and sure enough, there was this. Nope…I haven’t been to China…yet.
| 380 |
jamesfirecat Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:43:55am |
re: #377 Walter L. Newton
Why (channeling Obdicut) :)
Because nobody is willing to vote for the wigs!
(Channeling Ojoe…)
| 381 |
schnapp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:44:24am |
re: #361 Obdicut
You are confusing the marginal product per worker with an individual worker’s productivty. Say you get a job at subway and when they are taining you you can make 30 subs per hour. But then when you actually start serving customers and it’s busy and there are other workers around you can only make one sub every 5 minutes, or 6 per hour. The less crowded it is behind the counter, the faster workers can work. Each worker added will less an less marginal benefit to the subway store, regardless of their individual productivity.
Firms are concerned with the marginal product per worker. Taxes lower the marginal benefit per worker, assuming the firm is making a profit and paying taxes, because they reduce the value that an extra worker adds to the firm.
That’s pretty much straight from my economics textbook.
Anyway I’m off to bed. If the argument got heated imsorry but its late and im tired. Night!
| 382 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:44:38am |
| 383 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:44:40am |
re: #379 darthstar
Where do you get that access info from?
| 384 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:45:00am |
re: #381 schnapp
Dude, please go to sleep.
| 385 |
McSpiff Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:45:39am |
re: #377 Walter L. Newton
Why (channeling Obdicut) :)
Heh, before I make a fool out of myself, I’m going to look up some voter turn out numbers…
| 386 |
shutdown Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:45:52am |
re: #378 iossarian
“OK, Dougall, one more time.”
(Points at small toy cow.)
“Small, close up.”
(Points out of caravan window.)
“Big, far away.”
Favourite quote. Just watched that episode recently and almost wet myself. No matter how many times… Also the one where Ted has to present a diagramme to Dougall to explain the difference between reality and fantasy….
| 387 |
shutdown Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:46:30am |
| 388 |
darthstar Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:47:13am |
re: #383 Obdicut
Where do you get that access info from?
At the bottom of your gmail window, there’s a last account activity link.
| 389 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:47:25am |
re: #385 McSpiff
I really like systems like Condorcet voting. However, I haven’t seen anything from other systems, like in Israel and/or the UK, that indicates those systems really produce better results in terms of actual candidates.
Which system do you think produces better candidates than the US?
| 390 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:47:37am |
re: #388 darthstar
Cool, thanks.
| 391 |
McSpiff Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:47:48am |
re: #385 McSpiff
Heh, before I make a fool out of myself, I’m going to look up some voter turn out numbers…
Higher than I would have expected. I figured with two shit candidates, most people would have stayed home. 67% turnout though, I think the point I was going to make is slightly less valid now.
| 392 |
garhighway Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:48:36am |
re: #78 schnapp
No we should cut corporate taxes because effective corporate taxes in the US are just about the highest in the developed world.
data?
| 393 |
Gus Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:49:17am |
re: #375 cliffster
she would have less seniority in congress. her pile of shit brain wouldn’t have as much influence as his pile of shit brain.. that would be a plus.
That would be true. The GOP however could have won that race had they picked a candidate similar to Scott Brown of Mass.
I’m wondering why the federal government has to be involved in online gambling for the state of Nevada. Oh I see. It’s an online poker tax amendment so the federal government can get another cut of the deal.
| 394 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:49:25am |
| 395 |
shutdown Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:49:59am |
re: #394 Walter L. Newton
Yes Captain?
Would that I had more than one upding to give in thanks for making me lol
| 396 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:50:43am |
re: #395 imp_62
Would that I had more than one upding to give in thanks for making me lol
You’re welcome… after my last dig to you, you also deserve it.
| 397 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:51:09am |
re: #393 Gus 802
I think it’s more that it legalizes it cross-state, thus removing the abilities of other states to regulate it. I’m not sure, though. But if it just allowed the federal government to get a slice, then the gambling lobby would be opposed to it, and given what supporters they are of Reid, I’d be very surprised if he favored anything that hurt the gambling lobby.
| 398 |
McSpiff Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:51:31am |
re: #389 Obdicut
I really like systems like Condorcet voting. However, I haven’t seen anything from other systems, like in Israel and/or the UK, that indicates those systems really produce better results in terms of actual candidates.
Which system do you think produces better candidates than the US?
I wouldn’t argue that any system produces better candidates per se, but when you have multiple candidates that are closer in ideology than the GOP and the Dems, it reduces the need to vote for the party. I’m sure for both Reid and Angele many were simply voting Dem and GOP, rather than for either candidate. Or even against the other. Note: This is a gut feeling, have no polling numbers or anything to back this.
| 399 |
cliffster Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:51:49am |
| 400 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:52:16am |
re: #395 imp_62
Would that I had more than one upding to give in thanks for making me lol
I actually never watched the series much at all, but I am a fan of Rene Auberjonois, mainly for his stage craft, seen him first in the early 70’s in a Broadway show, so, I’m familiar with the Data character.
| 401 |
shutdown Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:52:23am |
re: #396 Walter L. Newton
You’re welcome… after my last dig to you, you also deserve it.
Hell no, I deserved what I got and got what I expected. I think I have the online measure of you to the point where I can poke without prodding, and do so in good spirits.
| 402 |
wrenchwench Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:52:43am |
Apologies in advance for the On Topic comment:
What a nice song.
As you were.
| 403 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:52:46am |
re: #398 McSpiff
No, you’re probably right about voting for party. I’m most interested, however, in systems which produce the best candidates, rather than the ones that block party-line voting.
| 404 |
Gus Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:53:36am |
re: #397 Obdicut
I think it’s more that it legalizes it cross-state, thus removing the abilities of other states to regulate it. I’m not sure, though. But if it just allowed the federal government to get a slice, then the gambling lobby would be opposed to it, and given what supporters they are of Reid, I’d be very surprised if he favored anything that hurt the gambling lobby.
It would result in more tax compliance. Here’s the amendment:
[Link: www.politico.com…]
It’s ONLY 157 pages long.
| 405 |
shutdown Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:53:45am |
re: #400 Walter L. Newton
I actually never watched the series much at all, but I am a fan of Rene Auberjonois, mainly for his stage craft, seen him first in the early 70’s in a Broadway show, so, I’m familiar with the Data character.
Answering my first intuitive response to your post, that you have never seemed like much of a “Trekkie”; but the classic theatre connection closes the circuit.
| 406 |
b_sharp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:53:49am |
re: #400 Walter L. Newton
I actually never watched the series much at all, but I am a fan of Rene Auberjonois, mainly for his stage craft, seen him first in the early 70’s in a Broadway show, so, I’m familiar with the Data character.
Wrong dude. Brent Spiner played Data.
| 407 |
McSpiff Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:54:22am |
re: #403 Obdicut
No, you’re probably right about voting for party. I’m most interested, however, in systems which produce the best candidates, rather than the ones that block party-line voting.
I’m not sure how much the system can really make a difference when it comes to candidates. Although things like the American primary aren’t done in Canada, so that might be one data point to look at?
| 408 |
Gus Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:54:34am |
re: #404 Gus 802
It would result in more tax compliance. Here’s the amendment:
[Link: www.politico.com…]
It’s ONLY 157 pages long.
Which I got here.
But Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), as well as several senior congressional sources and gambling lobbyists, confirmed that Reid and his staff have reached out to other Senate offices to try to build support for adding the online poker legislation — a draft of which POLITICO has obtained — to a measure extending the Bush-era tax cuts.
| 410 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:55:01am |
re: #404 Gus 802
I’m sorry, I don’t have time to read it. I’m going by the logic of:
Reid is in the pocket of the gambling lobby, therefore, it must be a net benefit to the gambling lobby.
Unless he’s decided to just say fuck it, take his pants off, and flame out.
| 411 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:55:56am |
re: #407 McSpiff
Evaluating quality of candidates is also an incredibly hard thing to do. So it’s pretty much all theoretical.
I think the Condorcet system would do a good job of electing good candidates, because I feel it’s the best at weeding out extremists. But I have no real-world proof of it.
| 412 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:55:58am |
re: #406 b_sharp
Wrong dude. Brent Spiner played Data.
Sorry… meant Odo… as I said above, not much of a fan of the show…
| 413 |
shutdown Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:56:14am |
re: #410 Obdicut
I’m sorry, I don’t have time to read it. I’m going by the logic of:
Reid is in the pocket of the gambling lobby, therefore, it must be a net benefit to the gambling lobby.
Unless he’s decided to just say fuck it, take his pants off, and flame out.
Is the removal of strategic items of clothing somehow a prerequisite to “flaming out”?
| 414 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:56:33am |
re: #413 imp_62
I mean, fuck it, you might as well, right?
| 415 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:57:02am |
re: #405 imp_62
Answering my first intuitive response to your post, that you have never seemed like much of a “Trekkie”; but the classic theatre connection closes the circuit.
Never really a Trek fan. See my correction above… he played Odo… I knew he was on the show… but wrong character.
| 416 |
b_sharp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:57:28am |
re: #412 Walter L. Newton
Sorry… meant Odo… as I said above, not much of a fan of the show…
Rene has been good in everything I’ve seen him in, although that does not include live theatre.
Just saw Spamalot though - hilarious.
| 417 |
McSpiff Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:57:33am |
re: #407 McSpiff
I’m not sure how much the system can really make a difference when it comes to candidates. Although things like the American primary aren’t done in Canada, so that might be one data point to look at?
For example, the Liberal Party (roughly analogous to your Democrat party) had 6,000 delegates vote at the last leadership conference.
| 418 |
Killgore Trout Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:57:34am |
| 419 |
Gus Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:57:40am |
re: #410 Obdicut
I’m sorry, I don’t have time to read it. I’m going by the logic of:
Reid is in the pocket of the gambling lobby, therefore, it must be a net benefit to the gambling lobby.
Unless he’s decided to just say fuck it, take his pants off, and flame out.
It would make sense for it to benefit the Vegas gambling interests but how much would be questionable. I think there’s a difference between people that want to hit the Strip and go out for an evening of gambling and someone that wants to sit at home in front of their computer. I imagine it would be quantifiable.
Bottom line, for me, is that there are far too many amendments being attached to bills in congress. That of course is nothing new.
| 420 |
b_sharp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:58:08am |
re: #413 imp_62
Is the removal of strategic items of clothing somehow a prerequisite to “flaming out”?
If they are made of flammable cloth, yes.
| 422 |
shutdown Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:58:25am |
| 423 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:58:46am |
re: #419 Gus 802
If I could have one dream-request of how congress operated, it would be that bills had to contain coherent legislation, that amendments could only be directly relevant, and that the bills had to have metrics attached and a way of verifying the success or failure of the bill.
I don’t have a dream-request, though.
| 424 |
shutdown Wed, Dec 8, 2010 9:59:56am |
re: #423 Obdicut
If I could have one dream-request of how congress operated, it would be that bills had to contain coherent legislation, that amendments could only be directly relevant, and that the bills had to have metrics attached and a way of verifying the success or failure of the bill.
I don’t have a dream-request, though.
Can a 21 year old Teri Hatcher be in the dream-request dream? Then I am in.
| 425 |
McSpiff Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:01:21am |
re: #424 imp_62
Can a 21 year old Teri Hatcher be in the dream-request dream? Then I am in.
Unless you’re a 21 year old Teri Hatcher-lookalike, stay out of our dreams!
| 428 |
Killgore Trout Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:03:10am |
Buried in the middle of an article….
Man arrested in alleged plot to blow up military recruitment center
Officials said he gave off repeated warning signs before the sting began, trying at least three times to persuade people he knew to get him guns. He also posted videos online advocating violent jihad, they said.
| 429 |
Walter L. Newton Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:04:08am |
re: #428 Killgore Trout
Buried in the middle of an article…
Man arrested in alleged plot to blow up military recruitment center
I see a premise for a new reality show… “Dog: The Taliban”
| 430 |
garhighway Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:04:35am |
re: #419 Gus 802
It would make sense for it to benefit the Vegas gambling interests but how much would be questionable. I think there’s a difference between people that want to hit the Strip and go out for an evening of gambling and someone that wants to sit at home in front of their computer. I imagine it would be quantifiable.
Bottom line, for me, is that there are far too many amendments being attached to bills in congress. That of course is nothing new.
Some states have that in their Constitutions.
| 431 |
Gus Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:05:06am |
re: #428 Killgore Trout
Buried in the middle of an article…
Man arrested in alleged plot to blow up military recruitment center
Maybe he’s just a journalist.
| 432 |
jamesfirecat Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:07:04am |
| 433 |
lawhawk Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:07:07am |
re: #430 garhighway
It’s fascinating to see how the state run operation couldn’t generate profits even though it had the largest handle in the nation.
| 434 |
Killgore Trout Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:07:39am |
| 435 |
shutdown Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:07:51am |
re: #427 Gus 802
Didn’t she get an Oscar for that?
Should have. Better than all of Titanic put together.
| 436 |
Killgore Trout Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:08:33am |
| 437 |
Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:09:01am |
re: #436 Killgore Trout
He’s a 2nd amendment journalist.
| 438 |
jamesfirecat Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:09:59am |
re: #434 Killgore Trout
Fox: Parents Pull Son Out of New Hampshire School Over Assigned Book That Refers to Jesus as ‘Wine-Guzzling Vagrant and Socialist’
Blasphemy!
///Get a hair cut and some shoes you hippie!
| 439 |
Gus Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:10:09am |
re: #437 Obdicut
He’s a 2nd amendment journalist.
He wanted his own militia but found out it was inert!
“Teh FBI violated mah 2nd Amednment rights!”
| 440 |
b_sharp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:11:33am |
re: #434 Killgore Trout
Fox: Parents Pull Son Out of New Hampshire School Over Assigned Book That Refers to Jesus as ‘Wine-Guzzling Vagrant and Socialist’
Blasphemy!
Did it also mention he had brownish skin, dark hair and brown eyes?
| 441 |
jamesfirecat Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:12:24am |
re: #440 b_sharp
Did it also mention he had brownish skin, dark hair and brown eyes?
Next you’re gonna be telling me that Santa Claus isn’t white either!
| 442 |
tradewind Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:14:55am |
It’s come to this:
This election in ‘12 is going to be some fun.
Arianna Huffington, A Nation Turns Its Lonely Eyes To You
[Link: douthat.blogs.nytimes.com…]
| 443 |
lawhawk Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:15:12am |
re: #441 jamesfirecat
No, but the Turks have wanted his remains back for some time now.
| 444 |
garhighway Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:15:25am |
re: #392 garhighway
re: #78 schnapp
No we should cut corporate taxes because effective corporate taxes in the US are just about the highest in the developed world.
So I looked this up. Corporate taxes in the US are 1.8% of GDP. (That’s a good measure to use, as others, like the top rate, are highly distorted by issues like deductions and credits and how issues like depreciation and capitalization are covered.)
The weighted average of the OECD (a reasonable proxy for the concept of “the developed world”) countries is 2.4%. The unweighted average is 3.8%. (The weighted average is driven down by the fact that we are both low and have a big economy.)
So the whole “corporate taxes in the US are just about the highest in the developed world” meme is, sadly, bullshit.
Source:
[Link: www.cbo.gov…]
| 445 |
b_sharp Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:16:27am |
re: #441 jamesfirecat
Next you’re gonna be telling me that Santa Claus isn’t white either!
Sorry, but Klaus is aryan white, with blonde hair, blue eyes and a suspicious preoccupation with children.
| 446 |
garhighway Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:17:51am |
re: #433 lawhawk
It’s fascinating to see how the state run operation couldn’t generate profits even though it had the largest handle in the nation.
In general, the parimutuel wagering business is dying. Gamblers have so many other options nowadays that the track or OTB has a pretty brisk headwind.
| 447 |
kirkspencer Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:30:51am |
re: #296 schnapp
Look, ultimately people pay all taxes. Someone has to bear the burden. And that someone is either going to be shareholders, customers of workers.
Maybe I can try to articulate better now, because it’s late and I’m tired so I’ll put some more thought into this explanation.
If the US has high cororate tax rates, investors will invest elsewhere because the US becomes less profitable. With less investment in the US there is less economic output, less employment and lower wages.
I was explaining it wrong before. But I have read a bit more now and understand a bit better.
If labour was more mobile then workers would move to other countries that are attracting more investment, producing more, and had higher output, productivity, employment and wages. The corporate taxes would not affect workers because the supply of domestic workers would shrink and so less supply means higher wages etc.
Maybe that makes more sense because I’ve taken time to write this properly.
I’m way late to the party but let me make a simple observation that refutes your claim.
Businesses are still in New York City.
To expand that slightly, there is more to decisions of location than the tax level. A significant part of that is the benefits derived from the tax level. If the taxes ensure more efficient transportation and communications (to name two of several) then the cost may be well worth it. This is especially true when considering the cost of providing one’s own road network and rail network and port security and, well, the list goes on.
All else being equal, higher taxes will encourage relocation of a business. But that clause “All else being equal” is significant, and failure to recognize it can lead to a great deal of error.
| 448 |
garhighway Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:33:13am |
re: #447 kirkspencer
I’m way late to the party but let me make a simple observation that refutes your claim.
Businesses are still in New York City.
To expand that slightly, there is more to decisions of location than the tax level. A significant part of that is the benefits derived from the tax level. If the taxes ensure more efficient transportation and communications (to name two of several) then the cost may be well worth it. This is especially true when considering the cost of providing one’s own road network and rail network and port security and, well, the list goes on.
All else being equal, higher taxes will encourage relocation of a business. But that clause “All else being equal” is significant, and failure to recognize it can lead to a great deal of error.
I read a study once that showed that the single most powerful driving factor behind a company’s shift in HQ location was the CEO’s zip code. Not taxes, not cost of labor, not any other “rational” factors. Companies do what they do for lots and lots of reasons.
| 449 |
iossarian Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:42:44am |
re: #419 Gus 802
Online gambling is a massive, massive growth area for the industry (I have a friend who is fairly high up in one of the UK betting exchange sites).
The US outfits would love to set up their own offerings.
| 450 |
Fozzie Bear Wed, Dec 8, 2010 11:42:09am |
re: #410 Obdicut
I’m sorry, I don’t have time to read it. I’m going by the logic of:
Reid is in the pocket of the gambling lobby, therefore, it must be a net benefit to the gambling lobby.
Unless he’s decided to just say fuck it, take his pants off, and flame out.
If you are going to pull the congressional equivalent of a flounce, why not do so pantsless?
This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.
Comments are closed.
Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds
- Featured PagesClick to refresh
The Cause of the Rain Here? dryad, in Greek mythology, a nymph or nature spirit who lives in trees and takes the form of a beautiful young woman. Dryads were originally the spirits of oak trees (drys: “oak”), but the name was later applied to ...
William Lewis
6 days ago
Views: 221 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 6
Uncommon US Flags #3: Storm Warning Flags Indianola, Texas after the Civil War became the principal port for the state, due to its location on Matagorda Bay. The town steadily grew as commerce, tourism, and agriculture expanded. In 1875, a powerful Category 3 hurricane struck Indianola, ...
Anymouse 🌹🏡😷
2 weeks ago
Views: 281 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 4
A Friday at the Tail End of SpringJust out and about for a bit. First a walk downtown where the two rivers meet, then a short drive just outside of town. William Lewis
2 weeks ago
Views: 318 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 4
This Civil War Submarine Vanished for 136 Years [VIDEO] A Civil War submarine powered by hand cranks and lit by candlelight. What could possibly go wrong? Meet the HL Hunley. Support the production of these videos through our Patreon: patreon.com Thank you to Nick DeLong from Clemson University ...
teleskiguy
2 weeks ago
Views: 1,148 • Comments: 2 • Rating: 6
Billions in US Taxpayer Dollars Now Go to Religious Schools via Vouchers Billions in taxpayer dollars are being used to pay tuition at religious schools throughout the country, as state voucher programs expand dramatically and the line separating public education and religion fades. School vouchers can be used at almost any ...
Cheechako
4 weeks ago
Views: 430 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 2
Adobe Caught Selling AI Generated Images Imitating Ansel Adams’ Work Adobe scolded for selling ‘Ansel Adams-style’ images generated by AI Adobe found itself in hot water this weekend after the Ansel Adams estate publicly scolded the company for selling generative AI imitations of the late photographer’s work. On Friday, ... William Lewis
3 weeks ago
Views: 1,991 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 5
The Good Liars at The Libertarian Convention [VIDEO] The Good Liars visit the Libertarian Convention in Washington DC. They interview presidential candidates, talk to someone who thinks people should be allowed to own nuclear weapons, and Starchild. SUPPORT US: herohero.co SEE THE GOOD LIARS LIVE!NASHVILLE, TN JUNE ... teleskiguy
4 weeks ago
Views: 652 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 2
Adam Conover - How Google RUINED the Internet [VIDEO] Google sucks now. Here's why. Get 20% off DeleteMe US consumer plans when you go to joindeleteme.com and use promo code ADAM at checkout. DeleteMe International Plans: international.joindeleteme.com You may have noticed that Google isn't what it used to ... teleskiguy
4 weeks ago
Views: 421 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 0
What Result Will There Be From the Trump Trial?I did my best to boil this down. What say you?
Rightwingconspirator
4 weeks ago
Views: 723 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 2
- Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Good Liars at Miami Trump Rally [VIDEO] Jason and Davram talk with Trump supporters about art, Mike Lindell, who is really president and more! SUPPORT US: herohero.co SEE THE GOOD LIARS LIVE!LOS ANGELES, CA squadup.com SUBSCRIBE TO OUR AUDIO PODCAST:Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.comSpotify: open.spotify.comJoin this channel to ... teleskiguy
2 weeks ago
Views: 680 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
