Whoops - Joe the Plumber Hasn't Paid His Taxes!

POSTED BY: Kwicko
UPDATED: Sunday, October 26, 2008 22:57
VIEWED: 12667
PAGE 3 of 3

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, October 24, 2008 2:53 AM

Quote:
"I'm just trying to figure out how exactly Finn sees it."

Give it up, it's pretty unlikely you'll get your head that far up your own ass without years of effort and training.

-F

SIGNYM

Friday, October 24, 2008 3:33 PM

S'wenyways Finn, if I were you, what'd I be saying right now is

Quote:
Of course Joe the Plumber lied

Followed immediately by

Quote:
BUT...

After that, there are two ways I can think of to take the conversation....

1) But John Edwards lied, and I didn't see you get on HIS case, or

2) Joe was using a time-honored rhetorical device to get at a larger truth

Give up on the losing argument that Joe didn't lie. He did.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

SIGNYM

Friday, October 24, 2008 4:13 PM

So Finn, I'm willing to bird-dog this discussion if you are...

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, October 25, 2008 3:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
really? competition doesn't have an effect on prices? That seems counter intuitive to me, but I grant it's possible, if competition in turn creates competiton for the same resources required for a product...but then I'd assume there would be more providers of said product, competing for your business as well...etc.

Competition does drive prices down, but it can’t drive the price down below profitability. Typically a product won’t be sold at a price that doesn’t reimburse the producer for the cost of production. So competition doesn’t necessarily drive prices down as much as force the price to a fair market value or a competitive price. On the other hand, if you lower a tax, then it becomes cheaper to produce that product and competition will rebalance the price to a lower price then would have been possible. So in that case the fair market value is actually going down.

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
Why doesn't it work on the supply and demand theory? if more people are supplying something, and they want to be supplying it to more of the population, aren't prices often a way in which they make their business more attractive?

either way, taht would have just been icing on the cake, because if prices stay the same for everything, at least there are still more people who can afford them.

Why wont it boost investment? Isn't it possible that it boost small investors who have some money to toy with?

If you redistribute wealth from the companies to the consumers, then yes, the consumers will have marginally more money to buy products from the companies, which does create some job, but it will not lower prices or boost investment. It doesn’t boost investment because you're taking the money away from the companies. You can't invest money that is being taken away in taxes. So there’s less investment and less growth in the economy.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 25, 2008 4:38 PM

Quote:
If you redistribute wealth from the companies to the consumers, then yes, the consumers will have marginally more money to buy products from the companies, which does create some job, but it will not lower prices or boost investment. It doesn’t boost investment because you're taking the money away from the companies. You can't invest money that is being taken away in taxes. So there’s less investment and less growth in the economy.

I addressed this in the other thread on Greenspan, but I will re-address it here:
As capital concentrates it becomes like a poker game in which one person winds up holding all the chips. The other players have to borrow in order to keep playing, or they have to leave the table.

This whole notion of "you need money to invest and create jobs" is 100% misunderstanding of the flow of capital. Nobody is going to invest in production if they don't see a demand for their product Henry Ford tried that at the beginning of the great Depression. He knew that unless people kept working and making money, there would be no demand for his product. So he kept his workers building cars as long as he could until he almost went bankrupt, when he was forced to quit. The cars sat idle and unsold.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 25, 2008 4:43 PM

Quote:
After that, there are two ways I can think of to take the conversation....

1) But John Edwards lied, and I didn't see you get on HIS case, or

2) Joe was using a time-honored rhetorical device to get at a larger truth

Give up on the losing argument that Joe didn't lie. He did.

So Finn, I'm willing to bird-dog this discussion if you are...

Apparently not.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

KWICKO

Saturday, October 25, 2008 5:42 PM

Quote:

If you redistribute wealth from the companies to the consumers, then yes, the consumers will have marginally more money to buy products from the companies, which does create some job, but it will not lower prices or boost investment. It doesn’t boost investment because you're taking the money away from the companies.

Henry Ford might have an argument against that simplistic analogy. If you lower prices, then you sell MORE of a product, so although your profits per unit are down, your overall profits are up, and the cost of producing the product tends to fall as you produce more of them - which is how the Model T went from $805 new to $399 new within a few short years.

So there IS merit in what you're saying, but there's also merit in prices going down when more people have the money to buy your widget and you can sell more of them. It's also one of the key ways Wal-Mart has been so profitable selling at such low prices.

Also, many carmakers have models that they actually sell for LESS than the cost to produce them, or at next to no profit at all, just to bring foot traffic into the dealerships. You bring someone in to look at the cheap stuff, then push them into something pricier, or make up your profits on the options.

Mike

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, October 26, 2008 7:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Henry Ford might have an argument against that simplistic analogy. If you lower prices, then you sell MORE of a product, so although your profits per unit are down, your overall profits are up, and the cost of producing the product tends to fall as you produce more of them - which is how the Model T went from $805 new to $399 new within a few short years.

Not if you lower prices below profitability. If it costs Henry Ford $300 to make a Model T, he’s not going to sell it for $299. Competition will not in general lower prices below market value. So no, Henry Ford would not have such an argument, nor would any other manufacture in business to make money. However, if part of that $300 is a tax worth $10/car, and you lower that tax by $5/car, then Henry could can now sell his Model T at $299 and still be profitable. And in fact, the fair market value could continue come down, because the cost of production has gone down, due to lower taxes.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, October 26, 2008 7:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
This whole notion of "you need money to invest and create jobs" is 100% misunderstanding of the flow of capital. Nobody is going to invest in production if they don't see a demand for their product Henry Ford tried that at the beginning of the great Depression. He knew that unless people kept working and making money, there would be no demand for his product. So he kept his workers building cars as long as he could until he almost went bankrupt, when he was forced to quit. The cars sat idle and unsold.

Then we don’t need Barack Obama’s socialist agenda. The market can handle these problems by itself. Thanks for proving that point.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

KWICKO

Sunday, October 26, 2008 2:37 PM

Quote:
Then we don’t need Barack Obama’s socialist agenda. The market can handle these problems by itself.

So you agree that we don't need George Bush's socialist agenda either, right? The one that McCain also supports? After al, the market will correct itself, so quit pumping OUR money into it!

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, October 26, 2008 3:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Then we don’t need Barack Obama’s socialist agenda. The market can handle these problems by itself.

So you agree that we don't need George Bush's socialist agenda either, right? The one that McCain also supports? After al, the market will correct itself, so quit pumping OUR money into it!

I think, in the long run, we’d be better off without it, yes, but in the short run it would be extremely painful without it. This is what happens when you let problems go unfixed too long. The best solution would have been to listen to McCain in 2005, which would have avoided the whole problem. Maybe we should correct that mistake and listen to him now.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISISALL

Sunday, October 26, 2008 3:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Maybe we should correct that mistake and listen to him now.

McCain died three weeks ago, what we are seeing currently is a hologram- if their ticket should win, Palin will become Prez almost immediately, and you and I, my friend, will be royally screwed.

isall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, October 26, 2008 4:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
McCain died three weeks ago, what we are seeing currently is a hologram- if their ticket should win, Palin will become Prez almost immediately, and you and I, my friend, will be royally screwed.

I can't speak for the Democrats mysoginistic ideals, but for me I'm prefect find with Palin, who at least as more experence then the guy the Democrats want to put in charge.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, October 26, 2008 8:09 PM

Taking financial advice from one of the Keating Five ?

Yeah, THERRRES a great idea.
About like taking your accounting notes from Enron, with about the same result.

Lemme know how that works out for ya, before they shut off your internet for lack of payment prior to your foreclosure and eviction.

-F

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, October 26, 2008 8:13 PM

Companies go under all the time. The economy shouldn’t be regulated to prevent companies from going under – that’s a misuse of regulation. On the other hand, if Fannie and Freddie are directly back by the government, which it turns out they are, then they should be regulated. This is not a difficult idea. Enron doesn’t even start to compare to the current credit crisis. So give up on the Enron broken record - it's silly.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SERGEANTX

Sunday, October 26, 2008 8:45 PM

I really wish we'd just make the leap and give rue and signym their dream society. At least then we could get a thriving underground economy going and have something close to a real free market, albeit an illegal one. But hell, I make it a habit of dodging cops the way it is. Only the law-abiding sorts will be stuck playing by the rules, and by and large their the ones screaming for the government to control everything.

Let's get the party started.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

KWICKO

Sunday, October 26, 2008 9:04 PM

Quote:
At least then we could get a thriving underground economy going and have something close to a real free market, albeit an illegal one.

You make it sound like such a thing isn't already in existence, and thriving? It's out there, right under your nose, in places you'd never even suspect, and from people you'd never suspect. Always has been, always will be.

What, no catchy sig-line?

Trolls Against McCain!

CHRISISALL

Sunday, October 26, 2008 9:13 PM

I'm perfectly fine with Palin, who at least has more experience then the guy the Democrats want to put in charge.

*WELCOME TO FANTASY ISLAND*

Chrisisall

SERGEANTX

Sunday, October 26, 2008 10:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You make it sound like such a thing isn't already in existence, and thriving?...

Shhhhh!!!

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3