unforeseen effects of tampering wth the tax code

[fat mike]

our tax system is wired to encourage capital expenditures-a transfer of power away from taxing authority is going to change that-we'll have more business revenue going into operating expenses
this means less b to b commerce
it also means the laborer becomes more important
ok you frgn dumasses-if you have enough brains to even understand the thesis-tell me how youre going to survive working at a lower tier job

[jwreck]

Make a post that is completely incoherent yet somehow insulting. Nice. Stay classy fat fuck.

Dumbass.

[Ice Pick]

Make a post that is completely incoherent yet somehow insulting. Nice. Stay classy fat fuck.

Dumbass.

^ Your post is no trophy either moron. :p

[jwreck]

I suddenly feel like a gnat is buzzing around my head...

[Lulu]

lol another incoherent post by FM then he says people don't have the brains to understand it. I'm seriously tired of trying to decipher what he's saying. The tax code won't be tampered in any significant way...these ideas are simply political platforms - they won't happen.

[fat mike]

i shouldnt insult you guys but youre so predictable-you never understand anything-you blame my punctuation and my grammar and my spelling-but you really just dont know a thing about economics..you lurk at alex jones and ron paul sites and read their political bilgewater and think that makes you smart

the govt offers incentives for capital expenditures in the tax code-there are good posters onthis site that know that-and they know more about the process than i do-ill accept their criticism and try to learn from it...

[antiquity]

i shouldnt insult you guys but youre so predictable-you never understand anything-you blame my punctuation and my grammar and my spelling-but you really just dont know a thing about economics..you lurk at alex jones and ron paul sites and read their political bilgewater and think that makes you smart

the govt offers incentives for capital expenditures in the tax code-there are good posters onthis site that know that-and they know more about the process than i do-ill accept their criticism and try to learn from it...

You want criticism I will give you criticism, take a class in Language arts and learn to read and write English.

[Ice Pick]

You want criticism I will give you criticism, take a class in Language arts and learn to read and write English.

I've got some criticism here too, learn to respect people dude. I can read fat mikes words just fine. :p

[jwreck]

I've got some criticism here too, learn to respect people dude. I can read fat mikes words just fine. :pAnd yet you chose to not respond to him...

[Ice Pick]

And yet you chose to not respond to him...

Respond to who? You're not making much sense as always.

[Lulu]

I can read fat mikes words just fine. :p

No you can't. Respond to his original post about tampering with the tax code then. Anyhow, coddling FM's lousy english isn't helping him any. I didn't realize FM & his homies were economics experts either... huh.

[fat mike]

You want criticism I will give you criticism, take a class in Language arts and learn to read and write English.

i have more competence in english than thou-what about criticizing the ideas>? or dont you know waht im talking about at all?

[Ice Pick]

I am responding in this thread saying how much some of you are douchebags towards fat mike. It is very predictable, it's like you've got nothing else to do here. :p

[jwreck]

No you can't. Respond to his original post about tampering with the tax code then. Anyhow, coddling FM's lousy english isn't helping him any. I didn't realize FM & his homies were economics experts either... huh.He just thinks he's being cute and trying to troll me.

As to fm, I'm quite sure based on the other things he's supposed to be an "expert" in, that he doesn't know shit about economics either.

[jwreck]

Dumbass.

[Lulu]

I'm still laughing to myself about the in depth economics discussions that must happen daily with the FM posse.

[Ice Pick]

Dumbass.

^ Moron

[Freedom&Liberty]

our tax system is wired to encourage capital expenditures-a transfer of power away from taxing authority is going to change that-we'll have more business revenue going into operating expenses
this means less b to b commerceEquipment, buildings, computer networks or whatever the capital expense is, are all manufactured by other business.

[fat mike]

Equipment, buildings, computer networks or whatever the capital expense is, are all manufactured by other business.

omg a real post :usa: this is true-the point is how much of that activity is "programmed" by the tax code? if we eliminate the deductions will we see the same invesment in capital resources?>i dont think so

[fat mike]

He just thinks he's being cute and trying to troll me.

As to fm, I'm quite sure based on the other things he's supposed to be an "expert" in, that he doesn't know shit about economics either.

put up or shut up-if you dont think theres a causal relationship say so-if you dont know what im talking about go troll somewhere else/

[Dick Tator]

the govt offers incentives for capital expenditures in the tax code

The REASON government offers incentives is because private business won't touch the politician's little pet projects (or the pet projects of their donors) because they are typically unsound and unprofitable. The "incentives" makes up for the lack of profit and it allows rich people to make money at the people's expense while working on things they know will never work or be a sound investment. When there is no risk because the government is providing the profit, why not knowingly fail?

If I was told to fight Mike Tyson and that win or lose, I'd get several million dollars... fuck yeah! Sign me up! If told I would only get the money if I won? Go fuck yourself, I'm no idiot.

This incentive problem isn't restricted to Democrats and it isn't restricted to Republicans. Both sides do it. It's nothing but throwing money down a hole regardless of which side does it. :shrug:

[fat mike]

The REASON government offers incentives is because private business won't touch the politician's little pet projects (or the pet projects of their donors) because they are typically unsound and unprofitable. This isn't restricted to Democrats and it isn't restricted to Republicans. Both sides do it. It's nothing but throwing money down a hole regardless of which side does it. :shrug:

again i thank you for a real opinion-but you dont have to b connected to run a b to b business

[jwreck]

put up or shut up-if you dont think theres a causal relationship say so-if you dont know what im talking about go troll somewhere else/Say something in english and I may respond.

[Dick Tator]

again i thank you for a real opinion-but you dont have to b connected to run a b to b business

It's all the same, FM. It doesn't matter who the end consumer is, what's being sold, or how much it's being sold for. All that matters is that a profit is being made. If there is no profit to be made or the risk too great as it's UNLIKELY a profit would be made, business will avoid it. If profit is guaranteed by the government, win or lose, then a business would be more than willing to knowingly fail as profit is there only motivation and responsibility.

[jwreck]

<<<<<<<<Impressed at DT's 'cipherin skillz.

[Dick Tator]

<<<<<<<<Impressed at DT's 'cipherin skillz.

Fat Mike knows that I know him better than he's willing to let on.

[fat mike]

Say something in english and I may respond.

creo que necesito a cotorrear contigo en espanol-tu no entiendes ingles simple


It's all the same, FM. It doesn't matter who the end consumer is, what's being sold, or how much it's being sold for. All that matters is that a profit is being made. If there is no profit to be made or the risk too great as it's UNLIKELY a profit would be made, business will avoid it. If profit is guaranteed by the government, win or lose, then a business would be more than willing to knowingly fail as profit is there only motivation and responsibility.

i got a feeling youre on a different quest-im talking about govt offering deductions for capital expenses

[jwreck]

Wow, your spanish is better than your english, although they are both pretty bad.

I might be able to figure out what you are talking about if I really wanted to, but quite frankly I find you boring, arrogant, and idiotic. Your hubristic attitude is annoying and tiresome. Not to mention your claimed "expertise" on all things black and poor while decrying those of us who actually do deal with those subjects on a daily basis grates on my patience. So, in short...


Dumbass.

[Dick Tator]

i got a feeling youre on a different quest-im talking about govt offering deductions for capital expenses

More of the same. A private company would be willing to make such investments in themselves if it was deemed necessarily and profitable. If the government is going to pay you to update your shit, why not? Even if it doesn't increase profits, it hasn't hurt you any. In the end, it's the government throwing more money down a hole.

It's about like the government paying a HS football team to replace all their weights. Do the old weights weigh less or something? Are the new free weights more efficient? Or is it a complete waste of money that the HS football team would have never done on their own but are more than willing to do with someone else's money?

[9ball8]

omg a real post :usa: this is true-the point is how much of that activity is "programmed" by the tax code? if we eliminate the deductions will we see the same invesment in capital resources?>i dont think so
How much would change due to a simplified tax (on income/profits) is debatable. Further, the true impact is likely unknown on current conditions because of the tax code. One problem: the tax code is a horrible mix of reason, pork earmarks and lobbying.

But there is hope. High speed computers can analyze very complex scenarios, & economics has evolved to a higher level since the current tax code set roots (in the early 1900's). My proposal: a conference of established economists to propose a reformed tax code, based on computer models and experience since 1900. Any lobbying (input from non-economists) must have all information that identifies the source -deleted. Legislation that results from the conference must favor no particular region of the country (no pork), and only contain exceptions from taxation that are approved by a majority of economists. The economists themselves should range from libertarian capitalist to marxist, qualifying for the conference by their work in both private (business) and public (university/gov't) sectors.

[hadit]

omg a real post :usa: this is true-the point is how much of that activity is "programmed" by the tax code? if we eliminate the deductions will we see the same invesment in capital resources?>i dont think so

What you have exposed here, FM, is the reality that government taxing business reduces the amount of business that occurs. Business should not be taxed, since business taxes are operating expenses that get passed on to the consumer anyway. I think you are making the case for less government taxation of business. Government has been using the tax code as a behavior modification tool for a long time. It is obvious that as you increase taxes on a behavior, you get less of it (see tobacco use), while as you lower taxes you get more of it. At this point, the tax code is no longer primarily a revenue generating tool, because if it was, it wouldn't look like it does. It is a social engineering one.

[hadit]

How much would change due to a simplified tax (on income/profits) is debatable. Further, the true impact is likely unknown on current conditions because of the tax code. One problem: the tax code is a horrible mix of reason, pork earmarks and lobbying.

But there is hope. High speed computers can analyze very complex scenarios, & economics has evolved to a higher level since the current tax code set roots (in the early 1900's). My proposal: a conference of established economists to propose a reformed tax code, based on computer models and experience since 1900. Any lobbying (input from non-economists) must have all information that identifies the source -deleted. Legislation that results from the conference must favor no particular region of the country (no pork), and only contain exceptions from taxation that are approved by a majority of economists. The economists themselves should range from libertarian capitalist to marxist, qualifying for the conference by their work in both private (business) and public (university/gov't) sectors.

That will never happen, because the current tax code is designed for social engineering, not for minimizing economic impact and maximizing government revenue.

[Freedom&Liberty]

omg a real post :usa: this is true-the point is how much of that activity is "programmed" by the tax code? if we eliminate the deductions will we see the same invesment in capital resources?>i dont think soIt will likely drop. Businesses should be allowed to reinvest all profits without tax implications of any kind. If we want to get business out of government, the first step is to stop taxing business.

[hadit]

It will likely drop. Businesses should be allowed to reinvest all profits without tax implications of any kind. If we want to get business out of government, the first step is to stop taxing business.

This is true. Government exercising power over business leads to business seeking to corrupt government, which leads to corrupt government. Want to get business money and power out of government? Get government out of power over business.

[9ball8]

This is true. Government exercising power over business leads to business seeking to corrupt government, which leads to corrupt government. Want to get business money and power out of government? Get government out of power over business.

Supposing the gov't no longer tells business what to do with any portion of it's money. Why would business leave gov't alone at that point? That would mean they give up lobbying for bills which benefit their business. That would mean they give up subsidies or any other monies provided by gov't. That would mean business would no longer try to influence gov't. for it's advantage in some other way.

That would violate their rights to free speech for one. It would also violate the natural inclination to seek advantage in the market, with gov't resources providing a part of that advantage.

If you believe there exists some impediment to business meddling in the affairs of gov't, if it were not for taxation, please explain.

[fat mike]

More of the same. A private company would be willing to make such investments in themselves if it was deemed necessarily and profitable. If the government is going to pay you to update your shit, why not? Even if it doesn't increase profits, it hasn't hurt you any. In the end, it's the government throwing more money down a hole.

It's about like the government paying a HS football team to replace all their weights. Do the old weights weigh less or something? Are the new free weights more efficient? Or is it a complete waste of money that the HS football team would have never done on their own but are more than willing to do with someone else's money?

ok we're on the same page...does this reduce the number of people in the upper middle class?


How much would change due to a simplified tax (on income/profits) is debatable. Further, the true impact is likely unknown on current conditions because of the tax code. One problem: the tax code is a horrible mix of reason, pork earmarks and lobbying.

But there is hope. High speed computers can analyze very complex scenarios, & economics has evolved to a higher level since the current tax code set roots (in the early 1900's). My proposal: a conference of established economists to propose a reformed tax code, based on computer models and experience since 1900. Any lobbying (input from non-economists) must have all information that identifies the source -deleted. Legislation that results from the conference must favor no particular region of the country (no pork), and only contain exceptions from taxation that are approved by a majority of economists. The economists themselves should range from libertarian capitalist to marxist, qualifying for the conference by their work in both private (business) and public (university/gov't) sectors.

i dont have the knee jerk hatred against lobbyists many do-theyre merely advocates for business intersts in the final summation


That will never happen, because the current tax code is designed for social engineering, not for minimizing economic impact and maximizing government revenue.

i agree


This is true. Government exercising power over business leads to business seeking to corrupt government, which leads to corrupt government. Want to get business money and power out of government? Get government out of power over business.

i dont even care about that=waht about your job as a professional? less capital investments means less need for professionals

[hadit]

Supposing the gov't no longer tells business what to do with any portion of it's money. Why would business leave gov't alone at that point? That would mean they give up lobbying for bills which benefit their business. That would mean they give up subsidies or any other monies provided by gov't. That would mean business would no longer try to influence gov't. for it's advantage in some other way.

That would violate their rights to free speech for one. It would also violate the natural inclination to seek advantage in the market, with gov't resources providing a part of that advantage.

If you believe there exists some impediment to business meddling in the affairs of gov't, if it were not for taxation, please explain.

You're making my point for me. As government power over business increases, so does business' inclination to buy influence with government. There's a reason that the big corporations are not wining and dining me and showering me with expensive gifts. I have no power to write laws either benefitting or harming them. Government does, and that's why Big Business money is finding its way into government.

[9ball8]

You're making my point for me. As government power over business increases, so does business' inclination to buy influence with government. There's a reason that the big corporations are not wining and dining me and showering me with expensive gifts. I have no power to write laws either benefitting or harming them. Government does, and that's why Big Business money is finding its way into government.
That doesn't answer the question. Let me re-phrase. If gov't did not tax business at all, what incentives would business have to stay out of gov't business?

I was expecting an answer that amounted to a prohibition of business from lobbying gov't., or from receiving any direct benefit from gov't that is not also received by the citizens in their area of operation. For example, would you push for a law that removes personhood status enjoyed by corporations?

[9ball8]

Even a small gov't will be subject to attempts by certain businesses, in order to gain favor. Those who state otherwise are either disingenous or naive.

[Cyclone Ranger]

What you have exposed here, FM, is the reality that government taxing business reduces the amount of business that occurs. Business should not be taxed, since business taxes are operating expenses that get passed on to the consumer anyway.

That's insane. Allowing major industries to get away without paying taxes shift trillions of the burden onto working people.

For example, Big Oil is doing just fine even while they're shelling out billions in taxes on their profits. Businesses only pay commercial taxes on profits, not simply revenues.

[Cyclone Ranger]

You're making my point for me. As government power over business increases, so does business' inclination to buy influence with government.
But as government power over business decreases, massive economic crises, oil spills, environmental dangers, and other catastrophes occur.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant. James Madison

[Cyclone Ranger]

Deregulation, like anti-Communism, is the rallying cry of the idiot and the charlatan.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Deregulation is the cry of freedom, tyrant.

[Cyclone Ranger]

No, deregulation is the cry of Republican greed, dumbass.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Good luck conflating freedom with regulation, dumbass.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Good luck convincing anyone there is no such thing as freedom through structure, idiot.

[Freedom&Liberty]

*snicker*

*Steals CR's watch*

[Cyclone Ranger]

*checks watch*

[antiquity]

*checks watch*

What you should be checking after all that is the level on your oxygen tank.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Bad attempt at a put-down, schmuck.

[hadit]

But as government power over business decreases, massive economic crises, oil spills, environmental dangers, and other catastrophes occur.

Evidence?

[Cyclone Ranger]

Evidence?
The fact that all of the above occurred subsequent to Republican deregulation efforts, the predictable result of legalizing economically desirable corner-cutting.

[hadit]

The fact that all of the above occurred subsequent to Republican deregulation efforts, the predictable result of legalizing economically desirable corner-cutting.

Except that they didn't.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Not only did they, but instances of Republican failure to regulate did too

[Freedom&Liberty]

More like the democrat refusal to provide oversight. Want some quotes, loser?

[9ball8]

Except that they didn't.
One can also go to historical sources. Pre-regulation, say 1890 thru 1910 (although modern standards on regulation were starting to form by 1910). Show us how wonderful markets, environment and emergencies were managed by just plain folks and the business leaders of the time. :rolleyes:

[hadit]

Not only did they, but instances of Republican failure to regulate did too

When democrats are in power, they also fail to regulate. Most recent case in point, the first two years of the Dark Ages, aka the Obama regime.

[Cyclone Ranger]

More like the democrat refusal to provide oversight. Want some quotes, loser?
The Democrats didn't have control of the Senate in the mid 2000's. Moreover, the Dems resisted key deregulation attempts like tort reform.

[Cyclone Ranger]

When democrats are in power, they also fail to regulate. Most recent case in point, the first two years of the Dark Ages, aka the Obama regime.
BS. The Dems introduce all kinds of regulatory efforts, like Sarbanes-Oxley or the consumer protection act.

[hadit]

BS. The Dems introduce all kinds of regulatory efforts, like Sarbanes-Oxley or the consumer protection act.

Unless, of course, the regulation attempts come from a Republican president. Then they resist.

[Freedom&Liberty]

BS. The Dems introduce all kinds of regulatory efforts, like Sarbanes-Oxley or the consumer protection act.Which has been great at driving businesses out of the US. Your agenda continues.

[Freedom&Liberty]

The Democrats didn't have control of the Senate in the mid 2000's. That didn't keep them from mouthing off.
House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 10, 2003:

Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.): I worry, frankly, that there's a tension here. The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios. . . .


Moreover, the Dems resisted key deregulation attempts like tort reform.Which add to the cost of health insurance. Your agenda continues.

Is everything liberals do for their own good, instead of the countries?

[Cyclone Ranger]

Which has been great at driving businesses out of the US. Your agenda continues.

Had little if anything to do with driving businesses out of the USA.

[Cyclone Ranger]

That didn't keep them from mouthing off.
What's that have to do with deregulation?


Which add to the cost of health insurance. Your agenda continues.
It may add to the cost of health insurance, but low-cost health insurance doesn't outweigh the right to a redress of grievances the civil law affords

[Freedom&Liberty]

Had little if anything to do with driving businesses out of the USA.And you're a known lying idiot. Do the math.

[Freedom&Liberty]

What's that have to do with deregulation?It has to with not providing oversight. See: Barney Frank and others



It may add to the cost of health insurance, but low-cost health insurance doesn't outweigh the right to a redress of grievances the civil law affordsLow cost isn't the only one that rises. A cap on awards is all anyones asking for. Or do you want more millionaires?

[Cyclone Ranger]

And you're a known lying idiot. Do the math.

Nope, I'm the smartest, most knowledgeable guy here. As always, you got buttfucked on the actual facts, and you're acting like a spoiled child.

[Cyclone Ranger]

It has to with not providing oversight. See: Barney Frank and others
Frank wasn't advocating either deregulation or not providing oversight in that quote. He's saying that the putative dangers of FM/FM were exaggerated.


Low cost isn't the only one that rises.
Irrelevant. No negligence = no judgments. If you don't like big awards in suits against you, don't be negligent.


A cap on awards is all anyones asking for. Or do you want more millionaires?
Yet more of your lies. The Bush tort reform proposal involved a lot more than just a cap on awards. :crazy:

[optimus]

Nope, I'm the smartest, most knowledgeable guy here.

If that isn't a sigworthy quote, I don't know what is. :|

[Cyclone Ranger]

I meant in this thread, not the forum.

[fat mike]

Unless, of course, the regulation attempts come from a Republican president. Then they resist.

MOYNIHAN

[vernon980]

I'm still laughing to myself about the in depth economics discussions that must happen daily with the FM posse.