Google does the same thing.
And they should be paying too. There should be no exceptions. If you or I report a profit, we get taxed. Why should it be different for any other "job creator"?
Ultimately, for companies that abuse the system like that, 1% is too high a tax rate. They're not paying taxes, so you're not getting their money until you close the loophole.
Google actually did pay a smaller nominal rate by using a double Irish. It's still wrong. Even I know the loophole they abused. There's no reason not to close those loopholes. You make your money in the US, you should pay your fair share.
It's a world economy.
It's US income.
Wholeheartedly agree.
That is the perfect example of the way confirmation bias distorts ideas and concepts into something that they aren't.
The full concept:
A curve showing two axes, one is nominal tax rate, and the other is amount of tax collected. At some point, increasing tax rates nets less and less per unit of increase.
What makes it through the confirmation bias and simplification process of conservatives:
"increasing tax rates nets less and elss per unit of increase"
This then becomes, via the Telephone Game or its newest variant, The Blog That I Agree With Game:
"increasing tax rates doesn't bring in any extra taxes"
This isn't what the original idea states at all, and as you point out, there is fully room on that curve for additional taxes to bring in additional revenues pretty much in line with the scope of the increase, and the evidence we do have indicates that this is fully the case.
And confirmation bias is equal opportunity for both sides of the argument.and the evidence we do have indicates that this is fully the case.
It has been debunked, because it isn't a policy solution that anyone is seriously proposing, outside a few hard-core commie nutters. It would be akin to saying "we could stomp on the head of a billions kittens, and that wouldn't solve our problems". No one is proposing we stomp on the head of cuddly kittens, so the notion is irrelevant.
It is an idea that gets shipped around the internet and repeated a lot though, because it sounds plausible, and emotionally appealing.
Its debunked by something called history. Say 1995-1998 or 1951-1956.
As to what RG is saying I will provide a graph for the more visually dependent people.
The above is the DC response of a type of transistor. Each blue line represents a different supply voltage.
Looking at one individual line you can see how after a certain point an increase in the drain voltage, the current no longer increases thus it tails off. What RG is saying is that what 'conservatives' claim is that the saturation current is true for all cases. IE any increase taxes will not result in an increase in revenue. That is true if you only look at a certain subset but the system as a whole does respond within a certain range.
Prima facia the 'conservative' notion is ing stupid. I have no doubt that there is a diminishing return and that at a certain point it will provide negative returns but I just want to point out three things.
1) The trickle down economic theory has been proven not to work. We have cut taxes under the notion that it will create growth and revenue. Well guess what it didn't. It didn't in the 1980s its not doing it now. Its ing stupid.
Now the same group of heads that sold us that are trying to feed us the inverse: that raising taxes will kill the economy. If it didn't change going one way then where is the evidence that it would the other way? THE LOGIC WAS NOT TRUE THE FIRST TIME!!! Now its suddenly right? Go yourself if you still buy that .
2) We are at historical lows. We have reams of history where the tax rate relative to GDP was much higher and this doomsday scenario did not happen. If you honestly believe that say raising taxes from nothing to something will result in nothing then you are not worth talking to to begin with. Well this is the lowest its been and were supposed to believe that rasing it to levels that have been experienced before is going to do nothing?
3) Not paying our bills does have a direct effect on our economy. For all of Cheney's assertion that deficits don't matter, paying bonds on time does matter as evidenced by the rollercoaster our economy has been on that has been tied directly to other countries ability to pay theirs. Do you already forget the effect that the scare over the budget showdown put everything on hold for a week?
Its time for the baby boomers to pay their ing bills and quit trying to pass it off to the rest of us.
At least we know you're not using TTL.
Here is another thread and post that didn't age well.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
