jcd11235

Yes. Good fiscal policy is a small, but important, aspect of good governance. Responsible policy in other aspects of government is also necessary. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Yes, it actually is that simple. Calculating P is far more complex, and that process will vary from business to business. The important property of P is that it is not a function of r. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

A balanced budget from one year to the next is overrated. While it would certainly be nice to have a balanced budget, on average, over longer periods, such as over a decade, over shorter periods, small surpluses or deficits aren't a big deal, and allow the opportunity for more stable tax rates. If there's a surplus for 2-3 years, that's money that can help cover increased expenditures (or decreased revenues) in other years. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I don't see what the big deal is. It's less than a 12 hour drive if you're willing to average 267 mph. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That's still true. Let P be your pretax profit or loss. If r is your effective income tax rate, then your profit after taxes is P - r*P. If (P - 0.01*P) > 0, then (P - 0.99*P) > 0. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Either your descriptors or your arithmetic is incorrect. Or both. If you have $75k per year to pay wages and associated costs of a new employee, and that employee adds an extra $90k per year to your revenue, then you're adding $15k per year to your pre-tax bottom line. As long as your effective income tax rate is less than 1, hiring that employee (at $75k per year, all in) is a profitable decision. Nice red herring. Labor expense is not a donation. Businesses hire employees because those employees increase revenue by an amount greater than the expense associated with those employees. Agreed, but I didn't claim otherwise. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You do realize that all of that goes into calculating P1 and P2, right? Sorry I didn't go into the details regarding how those are calculated, but that process isn't relevant to the conversation. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Yeah. Friends don't let friends jump Racers! (That's not a joke, seriously, don't jump a Racer). 'Splain, please. Just what, exactly, is wrong with Racers? Thanks, The majority of full time, non-sponsored skydivers I've known have jumped Racers. I always figured that if they were spending their own money on it, they were probably getting what they considered to be the best rig available. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Borrow and spend has been the Republican SOP for at least the last three Republican administrations. And, yes, the counselor IS correct … No, he isn't. I see the counselor taught you the red herring trick. Hiring a new employee is either a profitable decision or it isn't. If it will increase profit, it will increase profit no matter the income tax rate. If it won't increase profit, no income tax rate reduction will make it profitable. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Yes, I remember the jobless recovery under President Bush's administration. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

No, the counselor is wrong. President Bush successfully championed for a tax rebate, which is literally a reduction in tax. He also successfully championed other tax cuts, i.e., the Bush tax cuts. Do you dispute that? Further, under the Bush administration there was little to no job growth. Considering how low tax rates were, if supply side economics actually worked as advertised, job growth would have been much higher than during the previous administration, but it was actually much, much lower, nearly zero. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

They did. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You're wrong on both counts. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Yep I believe what I post And I post what I mean Unlike you but as usual you moved off topic You still thnk every fed judge gets it right the first time? You think every judge follows the Constitution? Or only those who agree with you And of course my thoughts are nonsense because you don't agree with them Again Pure liberal thought on display Do you have a point, or are you just rehashing your previously refuted claims? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

It's naïve to believe that one needs to make payroll in order to understand how taxes affect hiring decisions. It is equally naïve to believe having to make payroll means one can make competent hiring decisions. Considering labor is generally a tax deductible business expense, so tax rates have little, if any, effect on the pool of money available to pay labor costs. In general, if it is profitable to hire someone at 1% tax rate, it is also profitable to hire that person at a 99% tax rate. Suppose we have a rational business owner. She prefers more profit to less profit. Now consider two effective tax rates, r1 and r2, such that 0 < r1 < r2 < 1. Let's say that, before taxes, if you don't hire a new employee, you can expect your pre-tax profit to be P1, and if you do hire a new employee, you can expect your pre-tax profit to be P2. If P2 > P1, then management should hire a new employee. If P1 > P2, the new employee should not be hired. Note that if P2 > P1, then: r1*P2 > r1*P1, and r2*P2 > r2*P1. Hence, the tax rate should not affect the hiring decision. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Wrong again. I leave that to the Judicial Branch. They are the only ones who are authorized to make final determination of what the Constitution and other federal laws mean. I only have your posts to read for insight into your political beliefs. Are you saying that you don't actually believe the nonsense you so often post? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

No. Consulting the Constitution and relevant case law, as was done in this case, should be sufficient. And every federal judge is right the first fucking time got it Again WAFJ It's amusing how you keep coming down on the side of violating the Constitution. You support Arpaio's unconstitutional racial profiling tactics, while opposing the lawful search of a reporter who incited the leak of classified documents. Interesting. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

No. Consulting the Constitution and relevant case law, as was done in this case, should be sufficient. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Hmmm … it seems odd that federal judges don't consult with you before interpreting law. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

But it was part of his agenda. Whether or not he had help implementing it is wholly irrelevant to the conversation at hand, but feel free to continue building up those straw men. Spin it however you like. The fact remains, there was essentially zero job growth under Bush. If the "low taxes means more jobs" rhetoric had any truth to it, job growth under Bush would have been phenomenal due to the irresponsibly low taxes. In reality, however, that didn't happen. You may recall the descriptor jobless recovery frequently (and accurately) used during his administration. Oh goody! A red herring! Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That's one way to fictionalize history. The reality is that President Bush clearly demonstrated that tax cuts do not promote job growth and that eliminating a budget surplus in order to decrease taxes is a foolish fiscal strategy. Two problems: No. 1 - Presidents cannot raise taxes or lower them. Thus your whole point is as ludicrous as saying, "saguaro cacti demonstrated that camouflage and short bursts of speed aid in predation of small mammals." No. 2 - tax cuts demonstrated that significant increases in employment and federal revenues can and usually do result. If you blame the recession on tax cuts, your knowledge of history sucks. Most blamed it on the housing bubble bursting, which like the dotcom bubble bursting a decade before, led to a rough situation for the incoming president. Get facts straight before discussing what the facts are. You, counselor, are the one who needs to get his facts straight. You seem to conveniently forget President Bush's first presidential campaign, in which he promised a tax rebate, i.e., a tax reduction, and how that campaign promise was kept. You also conveniently forget that, despite very low tax rates, job growth under the Bush administration was essentially non-existent. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That's one way to fictionalize history. The reality is that President Bush clearly demonstrated that tax cuts do not promote job growth and that eliminating a budget surplus in order to decrease taxes is a foolish fiscal strategy. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

The onus is on you to show that they do exist. I don't need to show their non-existence any more than I need to prove that unicorns don't exist. There has been no evidence provided to suggest they do exist. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Too late! Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

In your opinion or who's? Do you believe the default position is necessarily the correct one? You would be hard pressed to find any real researcher who would accept those linked sites as credible sources of information. The default position is just that, default. It is certainly open for questioning if credible evidence supporting an alternate conclusion is provided. In this case, you haven't provided any credible support for your claim. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!