Well, the job numbers sucked wind.

2»

Replies

  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Tell that to the teacher or police officer that just lost their job.

    The reason why this line of protest works is because we can't identify the guy who would've got a job but didn't because some business owner couldn't make hiring the guy work if he was going to pay higher taxes.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,770 Senior Member
    The reason you cannot identify him is because tax cuts to hedge fund managers do not create jobs.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • P.DieterP.Dieter Super Moderator Posts: 968 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    The reason why this line of protest works is because we can't identify the guy who would've got a job but didn't because some business owner couldn't make hiring the guy work if he was going to pay higher taxes.

    higher taxes on what?​I'm not buying this without some details.
    ___________________________________________________________________________________
    it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it
    - Aristotle



    Northwest Fly Anglers
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    to be more accurate in this particular instance, hedge fund managers haven't received tax cuts. Carried interest is a tax loophole that existed long before the hedge fund industry developed.

    FWIW, that loophole makes no sense and should be closed.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,770 Senior Member
    Exactly taxes have not gone up. 40% of the stimulus were tax cuts. So where are all the jobs these tax cuts create?

    Also if the Republicans really believe in tax breaks why have the rejected every single jobs bill introduced by the Dems that included them?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,770 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    to be more accurate in this particular instance, hedge fund managers haven't received tax cuts. Carried interest is a tax loophole that existed long before the hedge fund industry developed.

    FWIW, that loophole makes no sense and should be closed.

    And business owners have not received a tax increase. So what is your point?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Exactly taxes have not gone up. 40% of the stimulus were tax cuts. So where are all the jobs these tax cuts create?

    Also if the Republicans really believe in tax breaks why have the rejected every single jobs bill introduced by the Dems that included them?

    Actually, there was no cut in income tax rate. The tax breaks, which were mostly in the form of temporary credits, weren't exactly set to increase production (the point of supply-siders) but rather to increase demand (Keynesianism). How is an expanding the child deduction for low income earners going to increase supply? The homeowner's credit just moved purchasing from one period to the next.

    Point of fact - less than 10% of the "tax breaks" went to companies.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Sure, because of the 2010 election. You really think that business owners don't expect to pay higher taxes in the future to pay off the deficit? They'd be living in la-la land.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,770 Senior Member
    This is the ridiculous thing about supply siders. Explain to me how increased supply creates consumers.

    BTW this conjecture of possible tax increases is BS. People hire based on the realities of the moment not what might happen 5 or 6 years from now.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    This is the ridiculous thing about supply siders. Explain to me how increased supply creates consumers.

    BTW this conjecture of possible tax increases is BS. People hire based on the realities of the moment not what might happen 5 or 6 years from now.

    The point of supply side economics is to make it more profitable to produce more. To produce more, you need more employees, more employees means more people with money to buy things.

    Having spent more than half of my life watching executives, I guarantee they think well past the exigencies of today. And of course, more to the point,it wasn't that long ago that the President was demanding that the Bush tax rates be increased.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,770 Senior Member
    That only works if you pay employees enough so that they can afford things.

    Then tell me why did not the job market go bust when Clinton and Reagan increased taxes.

    My experiences with the corporate world tells me they do not think much past the next quarter.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    That only works if you pay employees enough so that they can afford things.

    Then tell me why did not the job market go bust when Clinton and Reagan increased taxes.

    My experiences with the corporate world tells me they do not think much past the next quarter.

    1) Somebody with no earnings can't afford anything.

    2) Many firms have operations in markets overseas - Brazil, India, Argentina, Russia, China - that are losing money currently in the hopes of what may happen in the future. If you were correct, this wouldn't be so. Just one of many obvious examples.
  • slenonslenon Senior Member Posts: 148 Senior Member
    As with the stock market, I'm ready for the economy to fluctuate based upon actual performanc of corporate earnings, or job's gained/lost rather than what analysts project.

    I refuse to become upset if Walmart or Exon profits are $0.01 less than projected. As for jobs, I don't expect anything to trickle down. I outgrew trickle down economics along withe tooth fairy.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Steven, this is all too glib by half.

    Keynesianism is not dead. Yes, there were errors in the initial theory, but the theory of countercyclical movement by government is well-established. In fact YOU are the one who said "WWII ended the depression." If not by ramping up demand through deficit spending then how?

    Second, the idea that spending now makes no difference because "people kmnow they'll just have to pay for it later" is equally BS. If this were true, then it would also be true that the use of credit has NEVER imnproved anyone's life or led to a successful business plan. And we both know that is BS. Timing of spending is just as important as totality of spending.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Jamespio wrote: »
    Steven, this is all too glib by half.

    Keynesianism is not dead. Yes, there were errors in the initial theory, but the theory of countercyclical movement by government is well-established. In fact YOU are the one who said "WWII ended the depression." If not by ramping up demand through deficit spending then how?

    Second, the idea that spending now makes no difference because "people kmnow they'll just have to pay for it later" is equally BS. If this were true, then it would also be true that the use of credit has NEVER imnproved anyone's life or led to a successful business plan. And we both know that is BS. Timing of spending is just as important as totality of spending.

    1) With regards to credit, you're mixing up the use of credit for consumption versus production.

    Using credit for consumption just moves consumption from one period to another - doubtful that that really helps - so I don't really accept that the timing of spending is as important as the totality.

    Companies use credit to create positive leverage. E.g., I'll borrow at 6% in order to buy equipment that I think will return me 12%. In this case credit is a positive, but very different from me buying a new Sage ONE on my Visa.

    2) As for Keynesianism being dead, you've failed to note how I've put this within the context of massive deficits.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,770 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    1) Somebody with no earnings can't afford anything.

    2) Many firms have operations in markets overseas - Brazil, India, Argentina, Russia, China - that are losing money currently in the hopes of what may happen in the future. If you were correct, this wouldn't be so. Just one of many obvious examples.

    This may be true for those firms. But why would they not be willing to lose a small amount of tax revenue for an increased market share. Again all the planning I ever did with my CFO for Retail banking focused on the coming quarter and not much beyond that.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,770 Senior Member
    You didn't answer my second question.

    Can you give us an example were a tax cut lead directly to jobs growth?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • creekguycreekguy Senior Member Posts: 3,905 Senior Member
    ist page comment - "just buy an old pair of crutches, leave them in your car an put a note on the dashboard "Someone stole my handicapped card". "

    Wasn't that a scene in a movie? Yes "Twins" With Danny DeVito And Arrnold. They are long lost brothers. DeVito pulls up into a Handicapped parking place: Officer: "Sir, i'm sorry, this is a handicapped parking spot". DeVito: "Do I look normal to you?"


    I know as much about economics as i do about catching Walleyes. I suspect I'm not alone in that.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    This may be true for those firms. But why would they not be willing to lose a small amount of tax revenue for an increased market share.

    What does increased tax expense have to do with market share?
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    You didn't answer my second question.

    Can you give us an example were a tax cut lead directly to jobs growth?

    Tax cuts don't lead directly to anything. Neither does spending either, really.

    Looking at your point about Reagan and Clinton...Clinton had the advantage of the peace dividend - a huge benny.

    Jobs grew under Reagan...while he did raise taxes later in administration, looking at it from point to point, he was a huge net tax cutter. Remember, the marginal rate when he came in to office was 70%.

    Kennedy would be another, I believe.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,770 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    What does increased tax expense have to do with market share?

    You are the one arguing that increased supply creates market demand.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,770 Senior Member
    You really cannot claim Reagan as deficit hawk, because he increased the deficit by increasing spending on the military and he changed the way we calculate unemployment. So who knows what the actual effect was.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    You really cannot claim Reagan as deficit hawk, because he increased the deficit by increasing spending on the military and he changed the way we calculate unemployment. So who knows what the actual effect was.

    I didn't say Reagan was a deficit hawk. He cut taxes, jobs went up. You were the one who noted the paltry increase in tax rates under Reagan rather than noting the big picture.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,770 Senior Member
    Perhaps jobs went up because of all his spending. Which is precisely what you are arguing against.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • GoldenladleGoldenladle Super Moderator Posts: 3,879 Senior Member
    Perhaps jobs went up because of all his spending.

    Heads start exploding when people say things like that

    Moved to Montana, gonna be a dental floss tycoon.

  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Another thing that didn't change while the Lodge was down, Steven is completely inconsistent when it comes to economics. He makes glib arguments regardless of whether he contradicts a previous glib argument. It's just sport for him, which I can respect, I do the same sometimes. But it's bad debate and bad economics.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Steven wrote: »
    I didn't say Reagan was a deficit hawk. He cut taxes, jobs went up. You were the one who noted the paltry increase in tax rates under Reagan rather than noting the big picture.
    No, Reagan increased spedning and jobs went up. Check the timing, as a proxy for causation. In addition, he took office at a time of incredibly high UE, so he could have done nothing at all, and more jobs would have been created.

    I'll actually give Reagan the supply siders some credit, and admit that a 70% marginal rate is probably counterproductive, though I'll qualify that by noting that nobody, NOBODY, has even been able to put actual values on a Laffer curve for the united states, so we can only say 70% is "probably" counterproductive.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Ok the Bush Tax Cuts have not worked and the stimulus may not have worked as prescribed. Both parties need to admit failure. The GOP will have to relent to higher taxes and the Dems and the GOP need to agree on a solution to reduce the debt. It's science.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.