Tulane Skins Fan Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 You're ignoring one half of the supply and demand formula. With 10 percent unemployment (really closer to 20 but that's a whole other story, one that both the GOP and DEMs ignore), the employees HAVE to take a cut in salary, or as we see currently, accept layoffs. I'm not ignoring it. I'm saying you are not accounting for the other half a all. You are giving the company 100% unilateral control of salaries for their workers. That is not market based. I'm saying there are two sides to the equation, you are saying there is one. What you just described is called leverage for the wealthy or the top execs, but again its not dispositive. Employees don't have to take a salary cut because their company didn't make as big of profits as they could. They would have to take a salary cut if their employer cut their salaries AND they couldn't find higher wages anywhere else. That's market economics. Currently we're in a bad employment market, so again that's leverage for a company to lower salaries, but your theory is not sound. There is still an employment market out there. And workers will find the highest wages they can find and work at those companies. And if two competing companies are going to ask workers to do the same thing for different salaries, the worker is going to pick the company that pays him more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 You're ignoring one half of the supply and demand formula. With 10 percent unemployment (really closer to 20 but that's a whole other story, one that both the GOP and DEMs ignore), the employees HAVE to take a cut in salary, or as we see currently, accept layoffs. Please they just use free trade to ship the jobs out of country, they're "job creators" alright, Chinese job creators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Yes, I am giving companies unilateral control over the number and salary of their workers. A company will only maintain or raise those two things if the execs in that company are doing better than what they had been doing. Im not ignoring your point, Im saying that the chicken has to happen before the egg. And WHEN that happens, the overall pie grows bigger, so higher tax percentages arent needed to increase overall revenue to the Govt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Yes, I am giving companies unilateral control over the number and salary of their workers. A company will only maintain or raise those two things if the execs in that company are doing better than what they had been doing.Im not ignoring your point, Im saying that the chicken has to happen before the egg. And WHEN that happens, the overall pie grows bigger, so higher tax percentages arent needed to increase overall revenue to the Govt. Ok, that's not market economics. And for the reasons I said before, I believe you are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Why have companies been so gunshy about expanding and hiring over the last 3 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Why have companies been so gunshy about expanding and hiring over the last 3 years? Well its not because tax rates have changed, right? Honestly, when people were talking about setting salaries of the banks following the bailout, the banks objected saying that they wouldn't be able to hire the same talent because employment is a free market. They said they need to be able to compete to pay their workers the salaries they can get from other companies and in other fields. Oh, to answer your question, companies have been gunshy to hire mostly because credit has dried up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Well its not because tax rates have changed, right?Honestly, when people were talking about setting salaries of the banks following the bailout, the banks objected saying that they wouldn't be able to hire the same talent because employment is a free market. They said they need to be able to compete to pay their workers the salaries they can get from other companies and in other fields. Oh, to answer your question, companies have been gunshy to hire mostly because credit has dried up. No, but the fear of tax hikes certainly is a major hurdle to recovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Why have companies been so gunshy about expanding and hiring over the last 3 years? lack of demand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Baring things getting even worse; the Dems will have an easy time of painting Romney as out of touch with normal Americans. Not that Obama really is, but his opponent falls perfectly into the dems like of the classic Republican.Romney is the campaign's John Kerry, Al Gore, Mike Dukakis,Bush Sr- when he was running for reelection. As a liberal Democrat, I can tell you that from my point of view, Romney is the only one of the GOP candidates that has a chance of beating Obama in November. The rest of them are clowns who would get steamrolled in a general election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 lack of demand Circularly, the demand is down because the consumer has less, because companies have laid off and havent expanded. ---------- Post added January-18th-2012 at 01:41 PM ---------- As a liberal Democrat, I can tell you that from my point of view, Romney is the only one of the GOP candidates that has a chance of beating Obama in November. The rest of them are clowns who would get steamrolled in a general election. Shhh. No room for reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 It's the same argument. The rich people are the ones who control the companies and make those decisions.It's basic economics idea. If my pool guy charges me 50 bucks a month, and after 3 years his cost for chemicals triples, is he going to eat that cost or pass it on to me?. If that is how you think basic economics works, then you must have flunked basic economics. Businesses charge what the market will bear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Why have companies been so gunshy about expanding and hiring over the last 3 years? Lowest taxes in a generation, by "Conservative" logic our unemployment numbers should be 1-2%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 If that is how you think basic economics works, then you must have flunked basic economics. Businesses charge what the market will bear. There is an end game though too right? If it costs XYZ company 1 dollar per widget, but the market only supports 75 cents per widget, what happens to XYZ? Do you think the owners will lose money just to stay in business? Or will they shut down and keep their money, leaving employees out of work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Why have companies been so gunshy about expanding and hiring over the last 3 years? Because the economy is weak and they fear that they will not have anyone to sell their products to. Plain and simple. The idea that they are not expanding because they fear mythical future taxes and regulations is the sort of nonsense that the GOP candidates throw to the tea partier base voters. You know better. ---------- Post added January-18th-2012 at 12:51 PM ---------- There is an end game though too right?If it costs XYZ company 1 dollar per widget, but the market only supports 75 cents per widget, what happens to XYZ? Do you think the owners will lose money just to stay in business? Or will they shut down and keep their money, leaving employees out of work? That is a different question. I was responding to your "Econ 101" claim, which was silly. To answer your question, yes there is a point where that happens, eventually. But we are nowhere near that point. They havent even reached that point in Sweden, where the top income tax rate is 61 percent and regulation is much, much more onerous. So the point becomes meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 There is an end game though too right?If it costs XYZ company 1 dollar per widget, but the market only supports 75 cents per widget, what happens to XYZ? Do you think the owners will lose money just to stay in business? Or will they shut down and keep their money, leaving employees out of work? Companies going out of business is part of basic market economics as well. We shouldn't be assuming that companies won't go out of business. Those that can't figure out ways to make a profit will shut down. That doesn't mean they unilaterally control what kind of salaries they are able to pay. Its a market. And frankly, when a company goes out of business, its employees usually find work again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 This is like reading that old thread about Verizon's error on the guy's phone bill, where we had someone in here claiming that both dollars and cents are "PARTS OF MONEY" and therefore are equivalent. Replace that "lone wolf" and his Math 101 problems with this thread's "lone wolf" and his Econ 101 problems, and that old familiar feeling starts to come back... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Lowest taxes in a generation, by "Conservative" logic our unemployment numbers should be 1-2%. Did we forget to respond to my statement? Or are we just skipping that which interrupts the narrative? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Did we forget to respond to my statement? Or are we just skipping that which interrupts the narrative? Which conservative made such a claim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Which conservative made such a claim? Dunno about that one. Want me to point out which conservative made the claim that when executive salaries go up, then the wages of everybody else will, too? :halo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Which conservative made such a claim? Lower taxes will result in increased job growth. That isn't a Conservative claim? If not I'll eat my hat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 This is like reading that old thread about Verizon's error on the guy's phone bill, where we had someone in here claiming that both dollars and cents are "PARTS OF MONEY" and therefore are equivalent.Replace that "lone wolf" and his Math 101 problems with this thread's "lone wolf" and his Econ 101 problems, and that old familiar feeling starts to come back... So you're saying you are experiencing that warm feeling of familiar comfort of the special forum ambiance that every politically-enthused tailgater < including some mods cough cough> likes to contribute to at one time or another, whether in alternating between sweeping simplistic and erroneous generalization of groups, or snarky drive-by face-slapping of the unwashed and ill-clothed, or convoluted, hypocritical, and logic-twisting justifications of policy or ideology. :pfft: I know these are things that always warm the ****les of my heart (and you know how the smart girls feel about warm ****les) and to which I try to make my occasional tithing. :evilg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Lower taxes will result in increased job growth. That isn't a Conservative claim? If not I'll eat my hat. If you add "All things being equal" to the beginning of your statement, conservatives would agree. There are many factors in an economy though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 18, 2012 Author Share Posted January 18, 2012 Romney’s tax plan would cut his own taxes by nearly half, new analysis findsBy Greg Sargent The revelation that Mitt Romney pays a tax rate of around 15 percent opens the door to another question: How much would his own taxes fall under the tax plan he would pass if elected president? Here’s the answer, according to a new analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice that was provided to me this morning. Under his plan, Romney in 2013 would see his taxes cut by nearly half of what they would be if you use current law as a baseline. Another way to put this: If Romney, whose wealth is estimated at as much as $250 million, is elected president and gets his way on tax policy, he would pay barely more than half as much in taxes than he would if Obama is reelected and gets his way — and the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy expire and an additional Medicare tax as part of the Affordable Care Act kicks in. Here’s how Citizens for Tax Justice, which is liberal leaning but nonpartisan, calculated this finding. It’s based on Romney’s 2011 financial disclosure form for the year 2010, which reported that Romney made an annual income that year of between $6.6 million and $40 million. Some of that was based on royalties, salary, and interest, which would have been taxed at 35 percent, though that payment was minimized dramatically by deductions. A far bigger chunk was in and capital gains and dividends, which would have been taxed at the lower rate of 15 percent. more form the link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 more form the link Occupy Wall Street was not a coincidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 If you add "All things being equal" to the beginning of your statement, conservatives would agree. There are many factors in an economy though. Hogwash, it has been tattooed on Boehner's forehead that raising taxes will hurt the job creators, as such the implication is that lowering taxes will free them up to create jobs. Saying that they have parsed that language is nothing short of living in denial of reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.