The "People's Budget" from Progressive Caucus

[utgibbs]

Interesting choice of words. But you ignore the fact that the polls show the foundations of the Ryan plan to be EXTREMELY unpopular. Just 21 percent favor cutting Medicare spending, for example.

Exactly. There were / are a lot of polls showing supermajority of Americans want things that aren't even on our political agenda. "People want" was chosen very deliberately to coincide with the facts.

"We all know" was chosen deliberately to get a response from BPV.

 

[utvolpj]

Interesting choice of words. But you ignore the fact that the polls show the foundations of the Ryan plan to be EXTREMELY unpopular. Just 21 percent favor cutting Medicare spending, for example.

which might mean something if the people even knew how much the US spends on Medicare. I believe less than 1/3 knew

 

[droski]

heavy inflation in the 70s wasn't do to wage and price controls?

 

[droski]

Interesting choice of words. But you ignore the fact that the polls show the foundations of the Ryan plan to be EXTREMELY unpopular. Just 21 percent favor cutting Medicare spending, for example.

if the polls mimic obama's garbage about cutting it completely than i'm sure they are against it, but ryan isn't arguing that.

 

[utgibbs]

Investors pay for taxes? Party true but to believe that is absolute is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. To not realize that a company factors in product cost, of which taxes are a part of, into the price of doing business which in turn determines product cost which in turn is passed on to the consumer is just plain... Well, dumb

You still have it wrong, I'm afraid. Taxes are NOT product costs. Quite simply this is everyone's starting mark, and it just ain't so.

That is why there is a host of data from the real world which simply doesn't not support your starting premise. As I have shown.

 

[droski]

You still have it wrong, I'm afraid. Taxes are NOT product costs. Quite simply this is everyone's starting mark, and it just ain't so.

That is why there is a host of data from the real world which simply doesn't not support your starting premise. As I have shown.

you have never answered why investors wouldn't look elsewhere with their money if their returns dropped because of higher taxes?

 

[utgibbs]

heavy inflation in the 70s wasn't do to wage and price controls?

When have price controls raised inflation? That would be interesting to study.

"Heavy" inflation in the 1970s was nothing of the sort. That is a myth promulgated by the banking lobby. It was higher than it had been to be sure, but at the time it was not putting a burden on workers whose wages were rising.

 

[utgibbs]

you have never answered why investors wouldn't look elsewhere with their money if their returns dropped because of higher taxes?

Why do I need to do so? This happens all the time for any number of reasons. As far as I know, although it has almost fallen apart many times, the system is still going.

 

[droski]

When have price controls raised inflation? That would be interesting to study.

"Heavy" inflation in the 1970s was nothing of the sort. That is a myth promulgated by the banking lobby. It was higher than it had been to be sure, but at the time it was not putting a burden on workers whose wages were rising.

every time they've been implemented.

inflation was a myth in the 70s? please explain why my parents house doubled in value?

 

[VolDad]

And now you hit it on the head. Investors pay for tax increases, not consumers.

I will try again.

So if tomorrow the government put all rental property owners in a 90% tax bracket, you would not raise your rent?

 

[droski]

Why do I need to do so? This happens all the time for any number of reasons. As far as I know, although it has almost fallen apart many times, the system is still going.

i doubt the system will be very strong if there isn't a economic benefit to running a business.

 

[volinbham]

When have price controls raised inflation? That would be interesting to study.

"Heavy" inflation in the 1970s was nothing of the sort. That is a myth promulgated by the banking lobby. It was higher than it had been to be sure, but at the time it was not putting a burden on workers whose wages were rising.

If inflation was a myth how on earth can you cite it as evidence for your view of taxation and pricing? :blink:

 

[volinbham]

You still have it wrong, I'm afraid. Taxes are NOT product costs. Quite simply this is everyone's starting mark, and it just ain't so.

That is why there is a host of data from the real world which simply doesn't not support your starting premise. As I have shown.

People aren't saying they are product costs. They have the effect of business costs by lowering the amount of profit usable for a business.

 

[VolDad]

And now you hit it on the head. Investors pay for tax increases, not consumers...

Enough of your games:

"A marginal tax on the sellers of a good will shift the supply curve to the left until the vertical distance between the two supply curves is equal to the per unit tax; when other things remain equal, this will increase the price paid by the consumers (which is equal to the new market price), and decrease the price received by the sellers. Alternatively, a marginal tax on consumption will shift the demand curve to the left; when other things remain equal, this will increase the price paid by consumers and decrease the price received by sellers by the same amount as if the tax had been imposed on the sellers, although in this case, the price received by the sellers would be the new market price. The end result is that no matter who is taxed, the price sellers receive will decrease and the price consumers pay will increase."

Effect of taxes and subsidies on price - The Full Wiki

 

[utgibbs]

every time they've been implemented.

inflation was a myth in the 70s? please explain why my parents house doubled in value?

You need to read my posts more carefully.

"Heavy" inflation was a myth. I said it had seen an upswing, yet wages were still growing in line.

It was the "revolt of the bankers" which gave us the "crushing hyperinflation" propaganda culminating in the Volcker Shock.

 

[utgibbs]

I will try again.

You are way off the ranch, DVD. Nowhere near where you started.

 

[droski]

You need to read my posts more carefully.

"Heavy" inflation was a myth. I said it had seen an upswing, yet wages were still growing in line.

It was the "revolt of the bankers" which gave us the "crushing hyperinflation" propaganda culminating in the Volcker Shock.

of course wages grew with inflation. wage inflation is #1 input in the calculation of inflation. what a stupid statement.

i'd love a single reputable article that supports this claim. i suppose it's a coincidence that the inflation started after nixon implemented price controls?

 

[VolDad]

You are way off the ranch, DVD. Nowhere near where you started.

Like your evasiveness, I have never changed.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Exactly. There were / are a lot of polls showing supermajority of Americans want things that aren't even on our political agenda. "People want" was chosen very deliberately to coincide with the facts.

"We all know" was chosen deliberately to get a response from BPV.

And it's still stupid. We all know the eventual death of our republic is steeped in allowing our nation's least proflductive to vote themselves free shiat. It's not debatable.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[BigPapaVol]

Enough of your games:

"A marginal tax on the sellers of a good will shift the supply curve to the left until the vertical distance between the two supply curves is equal to the per unit tax; when other things remain equal, this will increase the price paid by the consumers (which is equal to the new market price), and decrease the price received by the sellers. Alternatively, a marginal tax on consumption will shift the demand curve to the left; when other things remain equal, this will increase the price paid by consumers and decrease the price received by sellers by the same amount as if the tax had been imposed on the sellers, although in this case, the price received by the sellers would be the new market price. The end result is that no matter who is taxed, the price sellers receive will decrease and the price consumers pay will increase."

Effect of taxes and subsidies on price - The Full Wiki

What are these curve thingies?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[utgibbs]

Enough of your games:

"A marginal tax on the sellers of a good will shift the supply curve to the left until the vertical distance between the two supply curves is equal to the per unit tax; when other things remain equal, this will increase the price paid by the consumers (which is equal to the new market price), and decrease the price received by the sellers. Alternatively, a marginal tax on consumption will shift the demand curve to the left; when other things remain equal, this will increase the price paid by consumers and decrease the price received by sellers by the same amount as if the tax had been imposed on the sellers, although in this case, the price received by the sellers would be the new market price. The end result is that no matter who is taxed, the price sellers receive will decrease and the price consumers pay will increase."

Effect of taxes and subsidies on price - The Full Wiki

The producers are INELASTIC, DVD! The consumer is ELASTIC in the example!

Therefore, the costs of the tax are borne by the producer!!!

Competition, especially international competition, makes the producer INELASTIC.

Just like I've been saying all along. And thanks for supporting my argument. :hi:

 

[VolDad]

The producers are INELASTIC, DVD! The consumer is ELASTIC in the example!

Therefore, the costs of the tax are borne by the producer!!!

Competition, especially international competition, makes the producer INELASTIC.

Just like I've been saying all along. And thanks for supporting my argument. :hi:

Woefully sad.

Enough of your games:

"A marginal tax on the sellers of a good ... will increase the price paid by the consumers (which is equal to the new market price), and decrease the price received by the sellers. Alternatively, a marginal tax on consumption ... will increase the price paid by consumers and decrease the price received by sellers by the same amount as if the tax had been imposed on the sellers, although in this case, the price received by the sellers would be the new market price. The end result is that no matter who is taxed, ...the price consumers pay will increase."

 

[utgibbs]

Woefully sad.

Indeed, woefully sad.

Inelastic supply, elastic demand.

Because the producer is inelastic, he will produce the same quantity no matter what the price (because she must maintain market share). Because the consumer is elastic, the consumer is very sensitive to price (because of competition, in the neoliberal world, international competition as well). A small increase in price leads to a large drop in the quantity demanded. The imposition of the tax causes the market price to increase from P without tax to P with tax and the quantity demanded to fall from Q without tax to Q with tax. Because the consumer is elastic, the quantity change is significant. Because the producer is inelastic, the price doesn't change much. The producer is unable to pass the tax onto the consumer and the tax incidence falls on the producer. In this example, the tax is collected from the producer and the producer bears the tax burden.

My notes and emphasis. From the Wikipedia article. Game, Set, and Match. :hi:

As always though, thanks for your support.

 

[VolDad]

Indeed, woefully sad.

My notes and emphasis. From the Wikipedia article. Game, Set, and Match. :hi:

As always though, thanks for your support.

You made a slight, and I am sure accidental, omission.

Because the consumer is inelastic, he will demand the same quantity no matter what the price. Because the producer is elastic, the producer is very sensitive to price. A small drop in price leads to a large drop in the quantity produced. The imposition of the tax causes the market price to increase from P without tax to P with tax and the quantity demanded to fall from Q without tax to Q with tax. Because the consumer is inelastic, the quantity doesn't change much. Because the consumer is inelastic and the producer is elastic, the price changes dramatically. The change in price is very large. The producer is able to pass (in the short run) almost the entire value of the tax onto the consumer. Even though the tax is being collected from the producer the consumer is bearing the tax burden. The tax incidence is falling on the consumer, known as forward shifting.

Thank you for proving my point. :hi:
.

 

[hohenfelsvol]

You still have it wrong, I'm afraid. Taxes are NOT product costs. Quite simply this is everyone's starting mark, and it just ain't so.

That is why there is a host of data from the real world which simply doesn't not support your starting premise. As I have shown.

You have hit rock bottom and kept digging. Good luck to you. You're gonna need it.

Game set match