Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Only if taxes are lowered, and not otherwise? Explain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD
9/11 genius.
I'm no genius... after all I didn't think 9/11 excuse would be used for an era with considerably low unemployment rate? But since you appear to know it better than I do, where would you rank the effect of 9/11 on economy compared to major recessions in the 20th century? Also worth pointing out would be, how long did the recession and bad economic times last, and when did it really begin.
Only if taxes are lowered, and not otherwise? Explain.
Competition won't force losses beyond a certain level, so taxes are passed on rather than absorbed. Passing on savings doesn't cause losses and price competition should cause that to occur.
That's the theoretical answer, reality is probably different.
Personal income taxes still make a lot more sense than corporate taxes to me though.
Only if taxes are lowered, and not otherwise? Explain.
I'm no genius... after all I didn't think 9/11 excuse would be used for an era with considerably low unemployment rate? But since you appear to know it better than I do, where would you rank the effect of 9/11 on economy compared to major recessions in the 20th century? Also worth pointing out would be, how long did the recession and bad economic times last, and when did it really begin.
Thanks in advance.
You make no sense as usual. Do you always talk in riddles and circles? You asked why more government jobs were added under Bush then private sector jobs. If that's true, then the cause would have been 9/11. New agencies were created.
You make no sense as usual. Do you always talk in riddles and circles? You asked why more government jobs were added under Bush then private sector jobs. If that's true, then the cause would have been 9/11. New agencies were created.
hah
so you don't know if it's true or not... but IF it were true, you're POSITIVE it was caused by 9/11. nice.
Competition won't force losses beyond a certain level, so taxes are passed on rather than absorbed. Passing on savings doesn't cause losses and price competition should cause that to occur.
That's the theoretical answer, reality is probably different.
Unlike many around here, at least you're aware that such "ideas" aren't guaranteed in reality. Now tell me, why would they pass down "savings" to customers if taxes are lowered due to competition but the rule of competition does not apply with higher taxes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD
You make no sense as usual. Do you always talk in riddles and circles? You asked why more government jobs were added under Bush then private sector jobs. If that's true, then the cause would have been 9/11. New agencies were created.
9/11 happened on... 9/11. What is your excuse for a half million government jobs added between Jan 1 and Oct 1?
Higher taxes on corporations do create jobs...in India. Then the corporate CEO that donates to the politician makes even more money because wages in India are so cheap. So it's a win win for the CEO and corporate officers and the politician.
Higher taxes on corporations do create jobs...in India. Then the corporate CEO that donates to the politician makes even more money because wages in India are so cheap. So it's a win win for the CEO and corporate officers and the politician.
And so the primary reason is lower wages, not taxes (because effective corporate tax rate in India is generally higher than it is in the USA).
Unlike many around here, at least you're aware that such "ideas" aren't guaranteed in reality. Now tell me, why would they pass down "savings" to customers if taxes are lowered due to competition but the rule of competition does not apply with higher taxes?
Selling goods at or near a loss is not profitable. That's why competition doesn't drive prices down to $0.01 for all goods. If - this is a big IF - costs are high enough that producers aren't earning acceptable profits, they will pass those costs on.
If all producers in a market are earning huge profits, price competition should drive down prices unless there is price fixing or the PED is very low.
Selling goods at or near a loss is not profitable. That's why competition doesn't drive prices down to $0.01 for all goods. If - this is a big IF - costs are high enough that producers aren't earning acceptable profits, they will pass those costs on.
If all producers in a market are earning huge profits, price competition should drive down costs unless there is price fixing or the PED is very low.
Again, in theory.
Doesn't competition hurt then? After all, its effect is to drive down profits. No?
If companies that made significant profits overseas could bring that money back to the US without threat of significant tax pentalties, it would go far in bringing back jobs. A perfect example of a cash rich company sitting on money to avoid those taxes is Apple.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
