tkhayes 348 #51 March 23, 2011 QuoteSince you still can't seem to explain how having LESS cashflow is somehow enhancing the ability of a company to hire, I shall, thanks. OK, I will explain it. I make widgets and I sell widgets. It takes X number of workers to make the widgets and my market share is Y Unless my market, Y, expands, I will have no more need for more than X workers. The expansion of market is what drives X. Amongst many other factors. I get a tax increase and now I have to pay more taxes than before. If I then reduce X workers in response to that tax increase, I will therefore produce fewer widgets and my market share Y will suffer, my bottom line will suffer and i begin a downward spiral most likely. So instead I examine my business for efficiency, and I probably raise my prices. I still have a market share Y and I still have workers X. I will hire more workers when my market share increases. At Skydive City, we enlarged our staff over the years. Had nothing to do with taxes. It had to do with increasing the business. The business has been relatively flat and quite predictable for many years; profitable, but flat. We are not complaining. And to think that lowering my taxes is actually going to make me go out and hire people is silly. I will hire more people when i have more business. And Skydive City has never seen a 'downturn' in business because we raised prices. Why? Because we raise prices when we need to and in response to REAL life situations, aircraft costs, fuels, expenses and cost of operation. Those prices have nothing to do with my hiring practices. We might look at it from time to time, but I hire based on the level of service I am trying to deliver and then I price my product and service based on the overall cost of delivering that level of service and product. If fuels hits $4/gallon (or the government imposes a huge corporate tax increase), then we will raise prices and I expect our customer base will stay EXACTLY the same, because it affects everyone globally and does not have anything to do with the jobs. So sorry to have to throw reality into your fantasy..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #52 March 23, 2011 QuoteQuoteAnd taking even MORE money away from struggling business is going to improve their hiring capability HOW? Again, and slowly - if you keep doing the same thing over and over again, expecting to get different results......then you are insane..... That's what I say every time the 'tax the rich' crap comes up. QuoteWe have lowered taxes for 30 years and the jobs are gone. And if you prove that the lower taxes caused the jobs loss, you might even have a valid argument. QuoteContinuing to lower taxes then will help how? Taking more money away from the business leaves them in a better position to expand, how? QuoteSo show me the numbers where lower taxes created more jobs, 'cause I ain't seeing it. Never made that claim, sorry - how about showing us where lower taxes caused the jobs to leave? QuoteShow me some country in the world that has the lowest taxes and does not suffer from unemployment. Who claimed that? (Besides your attempt to say that I have, that is) QuoteIt's a theory, albeit on paper, even a valid theory. It has little to do with reality. Except, you know, for the companies that HAVE had to do exactly that. QuoteThe reality is that Corporations and CEO's will line their pockets with the most amount of money and profits by cutting down expenses, workers included. Well, you'd certainly know about THAT part. QuoteLowering the taxes, unless LEGISLATED, will not create the jobs automatically. Keep beating that strawman, tk.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #53 March 23, 2011 QuoteQuoteSince you still can't seem to explain how having LESS cashflow is somehow enhancing the ability of a company to hire, I shall, thanks. OK, I will explain it. I make widgets and I sell widgets. It takes X number of workers to make the widgets and my market share is Y Unless my market, Y, expands, I will have no more need for more than X workers. The expansion of market is what drives X. Amongst many other factors. I get a tax increase and now I have to pay more taxes than before. If I then reduce X workers in response to that tax increase, I will therefore produce fewer widgets and my market share Y will suffer, my bottom line will suffer and i begin a downward spiral most likely. So instead I examine my business for efficiency, and I probably raise my prices. I still have a market share Y and I still have workers X. I will hire more workers when my market share increases. Thank you - so, we're in agreement that having less cashflow does *not* increase the capability of a business to grow.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #54 March 23, 2011 In general, there is only one way to stop this country from going under. The feds will have to cuts programs and raise taxes. Doing one or the other is not going to sovle the problem. Anyone talking about cutting taxes further or expanding programs is either ignorant of our coutry's situation, or simply unwilling to fix it. Think about it. Forty to fifty percent of the population pay no income tax. Our sales tax doesn't cover much. Military, medicare, and social security make up more than forty percent of our expenditures. If the feds cut every single program and agency, shut them all down tomorrow except for those three and stopped paying back other debt, the budget still would not balance. Not even close. The argument in WDC right now is whether or not cutting fifty to sixty Billion dollars is radical. I don't know if it's radical, but I do know that it's a completely insignificant number. If the government is going to stop the country from complete insolvency and/or bankruptcy, they are going to have to man up, risk their jobs, and cause their constituent some pain. The kind with past politicians' faces on it. Other wise we'd better all prepare for a government breakdown and some riots in the streets.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #55 March 23, 2011 Quotehow about showing us where lower taxes caused the jobs to leave? I did not say that either, I said it makes no real difference. Corporate America is MOST DEFINITELY making the claim that lower taxes will grow jobs and you are MOST DEFINITELY backing that position. I ask you to show me the data and you cannot so your respond to a question with a question. At least I provided a real-life scenario to back my claim that it makes no difference. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #56 March 23, 2011 wow, me and Kennedy agree on something. I do not thinnk any of the parties in DC have the balls to do either (raise taxes or cut spending), so we will sluff along until who knows what happens. But you are right, the (very minor) changes that they are proposing are just that, very minor......and will have no appreciable difference to the bottom line. I get to meet our new Congressman tomorrow at Zephyrhills City Hall. He called an "Emergency Meeting of all citizens to discuss the impending deficit" What a load of hype! I will sure to tell him what is on my mind.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #57 March 23, 2011 QuoteQuotehow about showing us where lower taxes caused the jobs to leave? I did not say that either, I said it makes no real difference. Corporate America is MOST DEFINITELY making the claim that lower taxes will grow jobs and you are MOST DEFINITELY backing that position. I ask you to show me the data and you cannot so your respond to a question with a question. You showed it yourself in your example - the higher tax made you do things that harmed your fictional company. QuoteAt least I provided a real-life scenario to back my claim that it makes no difference. No, you really didn't. Your example only makes sense if you're a sole supplier and saturating the market. In reality, what you label as 'market share' should realistically be called 'production capability'. And it STILL showed that the higher taxes hurt business - thanks for proving my point for me.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #58 March 23, 2011 Quotethanks for proving my point for me. your point being you really don't know anything about economics or running a business...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #59 March 23, 2011 QuoteQuotethanks for proving my point for me. your point being you really don't know anything about economics or running a business... Evidently more so than you, Kevin - still on that 'karmic accounting' kick from a few months back?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #60 March 23, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuotethanks for proving my point for me. your point being you really don't know anything about economics or running a business... Evidently more so than you, the facts tell us otherwise. two and two make...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #61 March 23, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotethanks for proving my point for me. your point being you really don't know anything about economics or running a business... Evidently more so than you, the facts tell us otherwise. two and two make... In your reality? Greedy business owners who aren't paying their share.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #62 March 23, 2011 >Again, and slowly - if you keep doing the same thing over and over again, expecting to >get different results......then you are insane..... >That's what I say every time the 'tax the rich' crap comes up. That's his point. We've cut taxes on the rich by a factor of 3 (from over 90% to 35%.) And yet jobs have left. If your solution is to cut taxes some more, and hope the opposite happens - that's doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Indeed, if you just compare highest income tax rates to keeping companies here, then there is a positive correlation between the two. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #63 March 23, 2011 QuoteIf your solution is to cut taxes some more, and hope the opposite happens - that's doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Haven't seen that solution suggested, which was MY point. Care to discuss what I've ACTUALLY said, which was 'higher taxes hurt businesses' and not the strawmen that you and tk keep tossing out? QuoteIndeed, if you just compare highest income tax rates to keeping companies here, then there is a positive correlation between the two. Got a cite for that? Because I recall a lot of jobs getting offshored during the Clinton years when taxes were higher.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #64 March 23, 2011 QuoteQuotehow about showing us where lower taxes caused the jobs to leave? I did not say that either, I said it makes no real difference. What I read was that if your costs go up, you'll charge more. And that you don't care because it doesn't matter, everybody's doing it. So, OK, you note it won't hurt YOU, because skydivers are addicts and will continue to patronize. But they will spend more to jump and have less (because they aren't getting raises) - so some other vendor they patronize will take a hit. Your customers don't make more, but you charge more - someone's going to take the loss somewhere as a result. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #65 March 23, 2011 Taxes began lowering dramatically when Reagan took office, continued through the Clinton years, into the Bush years and yes jobs declined the entire period. Much manufacturing moved overseas, and the American manufacturing base was decimated - all with the corporations continuing to argue that lower and lower taxes will help. All it did was make a select few very rich and dumbed down the avergae worker to les and less. Productivity is higher than it has ever been (good for corporations) - wages are lower than they have ever been (good for corporations) It's a pretty lame arguement to say that 'taxes were higher' during Clinton. They certainly were higher than they are today, but not higher than 'before Reagan' administrations. so my point (again) - LOWERING taxes has had little to do with economic growth or providing jobs. We need to raise taxes to pay for the services (and the wars) that we choose to fight. The economy and taxes are not connected (directly). Most European Countries are fairing far better economically, that we are and they all have high taxes. But they enjoy the social services that everyone here seems to want to keep, but no one will stand up for fear of being called a commie..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #66 March 23, 2011 >Because I recall a lot of jobs getting offshored during the Clinton years >when taxes were higher. During the Clinton years, highest marginal rate was 39.6%. Outsourcing got started in a big way in the US in the late 1970's, due primarily to improvements in telecommunications, globalization of US companies and free trade agreements. Let's look at highest marginal tax rates during those times: 1963: 91% 1971: 70% 1982: 50% So going purely by history, cutting taxes on the rich ENCOURAGES outsourcing. Indeed, your bringing up Clinton proves the point - cutting taxes on the rich from 91% to 39.6% resulted in the level of outsourcing we saw during the Clinton years. >Haven't seen that solution suggested So you are backing away from the assertion that raising taxes causes outsourcing. Cool; sounds like you agree with historical data, then. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #67 March 23, 2011 QuoteWhat I read was that if your costs go up, you'll charge more. And that you don't care because it doesn't matter, everybody's doing it. So, OK, you note it won't hurt YOU, because skydivers are addicts and will continue to patronize. But they will spend more to jump and have less (because they aren't getting raises) - so some other vendor they patronize will take a hit. Your customers don't make more, but you charge more - someone's going to take the loss somewhere as a result. Does not matter if I 'care' or not - that's not the issue. I am saying that prices have gone up - DRAMATICALLY at Skydive City during 2007 when fuel prices sky-rocketed. And from 1995 ($15 jump) to now ($24.50 jumps), our business has increased. So who exactly is taking the hit, as you say? This is just business. I price for what I offer and what my competition is doing, and what my customers will tolerate (in some cases). And my hiring practices revolve around....what I offer, what my competition is doing and what my customers will tolerate. Not around what my corporate tax rate is. So to say it won't hurt 'ME', well it does not appear to hurt anyone does it? I have more business than I did a bunch of years ago, I have a larger staff, I have a good customer base, due to the services that I offer, I would like to thin, not because of the corporate tax rate..... My customers have plenty of dropzones they can go to in Florida. They choose to come here. It's a pretty lame arguement as well to say that some other vendor (like a restaurant? Or what do you you mean?) is suffering because people chose to skydive instead of eating at their restaurant? That is called day-to-day life. People make decisions. I did not buy that quart of oil today at AutoZone because when i drove by, I did not have cash in my wallet. It was NOT because Lowe's took my last dollar when I bought the drain repair kit for my house, even if that is the reason I had no cash in my wallet. i am still going back to get the quart of oil - just not this time. Plain silly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #68 March 23, 2011 the 'emergency meeting' I spoke of - what a load of shit.....and to think, we just elected this guy and he is already grandstanding..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #69 March 23, 2011 QuotePlain silly. Prices go up, people don't make more money, therefore they buy less stuff. If you can't do that math, I can't help you. Especially when you pretty much acknowledge that you are one of the "rich" that just pass along your increased expenses to your customers - which is the basis of the argument you claim to be disputing. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #70 March 23, 2011 QuoteIf you can't do that math, I can't help you. If you can't see reality, I cannot help you. Gas is up, people still drive food is up, people still eat Clothing is up, people still wear clothes iPads are out and people are buying them skydiving went up, and people still jump - more than ever, Now instead of a theory...try some real-life examples of what YOU are saying and I might consider your argument. I have offered PLENTY of real-life arguments, you have only stated a theory. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #71 March 23, 2011 >Prices go up, people don't make more money, therefore they buy less stuff. I don't. But I do save less when prices go up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #72 March 23, 2011 Quote>Prices go up, people don't make more money, therefore they buy less stuff. I don't. But I do save less when prices go up. Lucky you, your spending level has some buffer to play with. Better option than to borrow more then. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #73 March 23, 2011 QuoteI have offered PLENTY of real-life arguments, you have only stated a theory. I can gin up examples all day, but each person responds to less income/higher costs in different ways. Their shortfall has to land somewhere - very simple. or they borrow and go into debt. So apparently your theory is that people, in general, are fiscally irresponsible and you think that's just fine. Gov has to spend a LOT less, they also have to take in more too to balance out the books someday. Everybody here is pretty in line with that - even you. 1st item - no one trusts the government to live up to the 'spend less' portion of that contract if they are taking in more. Why should we? Their job is to purchase votes. 2nd item - EVERYBODY has to pay more, and it will hurt (taxes), or the base opens up and we make more off of the rest of the world (growth) and it doesn't hurt. Focusing on taxing specific groups for more income and then asking for more programs is just more of the take in more and spend more attitude that both parties seem to think is a good formula. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #74 March 23, 2011 QuoteWhat I read was that if your costs go up, you'll charge more. And that you don't care because it doesn't matter, everybody's doing it. QuotePrices go up, people don't make more money, therefore they buy less stuff. ***So apparently your theory is that people, in general, are fiscally irresponsible and you think that's just fine. your assumptions are out to lunch....I'm done with the irrationality. I have nto said any such thing, I have not even come close to any such thing. And if you can 'gin up' examples all day long - then let's hear one - 'cause I ain't buying your crap..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #75 March 23, 2011 QuoteQuotePrices go up, people don't make more money, therefore they buy less stuff. your assumptions are out to lunch....I'm done with the irrationality...... yeah - that's nuts ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
