Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Economic Freedom Zones

ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 11:15:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
My Christmas Gift to you: An economic idea from Rand Paul for thought

In lieu of Keynesian style bailouts, cities and communities with unemployment rates over 150% of the national average (about 12% unemployment rates) would be eligible to become "economic freedom zones." Income taxes and corporate taxes would be set at a flat 5%, payroll taxes would be lowered to 2% for the employer and employee, capital gains taxes would be eliminated, the providing of child education tax credits to parents, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) non-attainment designations would be suspended, and the Davis-Bacon wage requirements would be suspended.

What do you think about this idea? Does it need to come with bailouts in order to be successful? Is it not going far enough with deregulation? Would a simple bailout be more effective?

http://www.washingtontimes.com...
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2013 12:03:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 11:15:30 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
My Christmas Gift to you: An economic idea from Rand Paul for thought

In lieu of Keynesian style bailouts, cities and communities with unemployment rates over 150% of the national average (about 12% unemployment rates) would be eligible to become "economic freedom zones." Income taxes and corporate taxes would be set at a flat 5%, payroll taxes would be lowered to 2% for the employer and employee, capital gains taxes would be eliminated, the providing of child education tax credits to parents, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) non-attainment designations would be suspended, and the Davis-Bacon wage requirements would be suspended.

What do you think about this idea? Does it need to come with bailouts in order to be successful? Is it not going far enough with deregulation? Would a simple bailout be more effective?

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

hell no! This is an awful idea.

This is nothing more than a justification for current employees already working hard enough to be further taken advantage of by the corporate giants. And this is fundamentally a bad idea; you talk about "tax credits" for the working class but at the same time drop tax rates as a flat rate: so anyone making no income still has to pay the rate while those making millions has to pay far less. Where would the money to fund this come from then? The working poor: the people your trying to help in the first place, and it does not make sense.

You cannot do this without a bailout/investment of some kind.
Thank you for voting!
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2013 12:20:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/25/2013 12:03:25 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/24/2013 11:15:30 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
My Christmas Gift to you: An economic idea from Rand Paul for thought

In lieu of Keynesian style bailouts, cities and communities with unemployment rates over 150% of the national average (about 12% unemployment rates) would be eligible to become "economic freedom zones." Income taxes and corporate taxes would be set at a flat 5%, payroll taxes would be lowered to 2% for the employer and employee, capital gains taxes would be eliminated, the providing of child education tax credits to parents, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) non-attainment designations would be suspended, and the Davis-Bacon wage requirements would be suspended.

What do you think about this idea? Does it need to come with bailouts in order to be successful? Is it not going far enough with deregulation? Would a simple bailout be more effective?

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

hell no! This is an awful idea.

This is nothing more than a justification for current employees already working hard enough to be further taken advantage of by the corporate giants.

Care to clarify this a little bit?

And this is fundamentally a bad idea; you talk about "tax credits" for the working class but at the same time drop tax rates as a flat rate: so anyone making no income still has to pay the rate while those making millions has to pay far less.

People earning no income still have to pay the same rate? Sure, but 5% of 0 is still 0. When you lower the taxes as drastically as this does, you leave the people with much more disposable income, which allows them to spend more, save more, and leave themselves and others around them fundamentally better off. When you lower the corporate and payroll tax rates that much, you attract more businesses to the area and make it easier for new businesses to pop up (which increases employment rates), which increases competition hugely, which lowers prices. The other thing that happens directly as a result of that is that employing more people becomes more affordable for firms, so it is clearly good from that front.

Where would the money to fund this come from then?

The same place that bailout funds come from. You have to remember that this only takes effect in areas that are in desperate need of economic recovery.

The working poor: the people your trying to help in the first place, and it does not make sense.

See my first response. This sort of measure in recovery areas leaves people with more disposable income and more access to jobs.


You cannot do this without a bailout/investment of some kind.

I don't see why that's necessary.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2013 1:12:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Be a voluntaryist. In a given geographical area, a voluntaryist society could have pockets of social organization from anarchism/freedom to statism/tyranny and everything in between (provided they are voluntary).

That way people who want mixed economies with plenty of safety nets can experiment with it, people who want genuine communism can experiment with that, and people who want human liberty can experiment with that. #YOLOSWAG2013
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2013 1:22:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/25/2013 12:20:27 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 12/25/2013 12:03:25 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/24/2013 11:15:30 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
My Christmas Gift to you: An economic idea from Rand Paul for thought

In lieu of Keynesian style bailouts, cities and communities with unemployment rates over 150% of the national average (about 12% unemployment rates) would be eligible to become "economic freedom zones." Income taxes and corporate taxes would be set at a flat 5%, payroll taxes would be lowered to 2% for the employer and employee, capital gains taxes would be eliminated, the providing of child education tax credits to parents, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) non-attainment designations would be suspended, and the Davis-Bacon wage requirements would be suspended.

What do you think about this idea? Does it need to come with bailouts in order to be successful? Is it not going far enough with deregulation? Would a simple bailout be more effective?

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

hell no! This is an awful idea.

This is nothing more than a justification for current employees already working hard enough to be further taken advantage of by the corporate giants.

Care to clarify this a little bit?

It would cause a plutocracy; the rich get to invest more, sure, but become predators to smaller enterprises which is the driving force of any/all economies. The policy you suggest means that any middle income american wanting to go into work for himself, would not have a chance if he opens a business to compete with his former employer (for example). In essence: the rich get richer, the poor poorer. They would also have lop-sided negotiating power: you would see wages decrease as a result too with no collective bargaining.

And this is fundamentally a bad idea; you talk about "tax credits" for the working class but at the same time drop tax rates as a flat rate: so anyone making no income still has to pay the rate while those making millions has to pay far less.

People earning no income still have to pay the same rate? Sure, but 5% of 0 is still 0.

Theoretically yes, pragmatically no.
Flat taxes charges a rate regardless of if you make an income or not. That's the whole point of a flat tax. (A true flat tax)
Otherwise, your arguing for a marginal flat tax .. which turns into.... take a guess ... hint: it's left wing and starts with a dirty "p" word .. ;)

When you lower the taxes as drastically as this does, you leave the people with much more disposable income, which allows them to spend more, save more, and leave themselves and others around them fundamentally better off.

1) Yes, it's called the "sugar-high"
2) a large body of economic research shows that this is short-lived economic activity that dies very quickly, and is unsustainable
and 3) when looking above, again you would either have to switch to progressive taxation, OR you continue with the flat which actually puts more pressure on lower income earners<--- you completely ignore this point. You never addressed it, even if 5% of 0 were to come true, that person earning less than 10k/year would lose $500; a rather large chunk of their income. Likewise someone earning $1million would only have to pay 50k. That's a complete joke dude! It's trickle-down economics that have already been tried and does not work.

When you lower the corporate and payroll tax rates that much, you attract more businesses to the area and make it easier for new businesses to pop up (which increases employment rates), which increases competition hugely, which lowers prices. The other thing that happens directly as a result of that is that employing more people becomes more affordable for firms, so it is clearly good from that front.

Oh boy .. where do I begin. Robert, this is awful argumentation dude.

1) Correlation is NOT causation
2) Post Hoc Ergo Propctor Hoc Fallacy, businesses need more than just "NO TAXES" ...for instance, infrastructure...built with ... taxes!
3) lowering these tax rates in no way shape or form guarantees investments through businesses, or any investments whatsoever


Where would the money to fund this come from then?

The same place that bailout funds come from. You have to remember that this only takes effect in areas that are in desperate need of economic recovery.

and presume their coffers are depleted then. Which is why I am asking, so either the state offers nothing in the way of motive for people to invest, or it busts out the stimulus packages, while taking on debt. It makes no sense to assume somehow with the economy doing in the can the government has money to spend.

The working poor: the people your trying to help in the first place, and it does not make sense.

See my first response. This sort of measure in recovery areas leaves people with more disposable income and more access to jobs.

no. (above)


You cannot do this without a bailout/investment of some kind.

I don't see why that's necessary.
Then you need to read more on new-Keynesian theory.

BTW. Flat taxes have been tried internationally ... they suck at generating money.

Russia for instance is a great example: http://www.imf.org...

nor did it actually generate jobs.
Thank you for voting!
Tophatdoc
Posts: 534
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2013 7:31:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 11:15:30 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
My Christmas Gift to you: An economic idea from Rand Paul for thought

In lieu of Keynesian style bailouts, cities and communities with unemployment rates over 150% of the national average (about 12% unemployment rates) would be eligible to become "economic freedom zones." Income taxes and corporate taxes would be set at a flat 5%, payroll taxes would be lowered to 2% for the employer and employee, capital gains taxes would be eliminated, the providing of child education tax credits to parents, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) non-attainment designations would be suspended, and the Davis-Bacon wage requirements would be suspended.

What do you think about this idea? Does it need to come with bailouts in order to be successful? Is it not going far enough with deregulation? Would a simple bailout be more effective?

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Interesting, this could possibly work depending on how the zones are created. What would be the level income required to create the zones in certain communities? If it is in lower class communities this would be good. People could invest more and create more jobs.

A bailout would not be more effective because the goal is to encourage growth for the long term. Keynesianism does not encourage growth long term but short term. This would mean more entrepreneurship but Keynesianism does not do this at all. Instead it latches onto existing institutions(I.E the State, Corporations). It is dependent upon tax revenue. So what do you do when you have less revenue and less growth?

This is why a bailout for Detroit would never work. Not too many people are creating new businesses in a decadent city. No new businesses equals no new jobs, the population then declines due to the lack of jobs, then there will be a dwindling tax base. This is one of the main reasons why Detroit's bankruptcy was inevitable. Senator Paul's plan is to give incentives for new growth.

From what I read, it is different from the Kemp-Garcia proposal though. I think his plan sounds good but that is dependent upon where the zones are created. It would be much better to address the state and local politics about property taxes and entry fees.
"Don't click on my profile. Don't send me friend requests. Don't read my debates. There are many interesting people on DDO. Find one of them. Go find someone exciting and loquacious. Go click on their profile. Go send them friend requests. Go read their debates. Leave me alone." -Tophatdoc
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2013 11:27:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/25/2013 1:22:16 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/25/2013 12:20:27 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 12/25/2013 12:03:25 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/24/2013 11:15:30 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:


http://www.washingtontimes.com...

hell no! This is an awful idea.

This is nothing more than a justification for current employees already working hard enough to be further taken advantage of by the corporate giants.

Care to clarify this a little bit?

It would cause a plutocracy; the rich get to invest more, sure, but become predators to smaller enterprises which is the driving force of any/all economies. The policy you suggest means that any middle income american wanting to go into work for himself, would not have a chance if he opens a business to compete with his former employer (for example). In essence: the rich get richer, the poor poorer. They would also have lop-sided negotiating power: you would see wages decrease as a result too with no collective bargaining.

I don't see how the middle income american wanting to go into work for himself would have less of a chance. Small businesses are harmed by high corporate tax rates, and deregulation makes it far easier to start your own business. Lower that corporate tax rate and entrepreneurship becomes a much easier option for everyone.

And this is fundamentally a bad idea; you talk about "tax credits" for the working class but at the same time drop tax rates as a flat rate: so anyone making no income still has to pay the rate while those making millions has to pay far less.

People earning no income still have to pay the same rate? Sure, but 5% of 0 is still 0.

Theoretically yes, pragmatically no.
Flat taxes charges a rate regardless of if you make an income or not. That's the whole point of a flat tax. (A true flat tax)
Otherwise, your arguing for a marginal flat tax .. which turns into.... take a guess ... hint: it's left wing and starts with a dirty "p" word .. ;)

That's not marginal. A flat tax is a percentage. In this case, it's 5%. Multiply 0 by .05 and you get 0.

When you lower the taxes as drastically as this does, you leave the people with much more disposable income, which allows them to spend more, save more, and leave themselves and others around them fundamentally better off.

1) Yes, it's called the "sugar-high"
2) a large body of economic research shows that this is short-lived economic activity that dies very quickly, and is unsustainable

Unsustainable? That's what the criticism of bailouts is- that they only last as long as there is spending. This is a type of growth that puts the power in the hands of the consumer, rather than the government, and lasts as long as the plan is sustained (natural business cycle aside), especially when you consider that the rest of the country maintains the status quo, making the struggling areas, now economic freedom zones, into the main areas for growth.

and 3) when looking above, again you would either have to switch to progressive taxation, OR you continue with the flat which actually puts more pressure on lower income earners<--- you completely ignore this point. You never addressed it, even if 5% of 0 were to come true, that person earning less than 10k/year would lose $500; a rather large chunk of their income. Likewise someone earning $1million would only have to pay 50k. That's a complete joke dude! It's trickle-down economics that have already been tried and does not work.

You do realize that the current tax rate has 10% for the bottom bracket, right? People under 8,925 are paying twice the economic freedom zone rate just by the federal income tax rate. This is them paying less taxes. And in regards to your point about the person earning $1million... so? I don't care about more revenue going to the government, I care about generating growth in those areas by allowing people to keep more disposable income and start businesses with less hassle.

When you lower the corporate and payroll tax rates that much, you attract more businesses to the area and make it easier for new businesses to pop up (which increases employment rates), which increases competition hugely, which lowers prices. The other thing that happens directly as a result of that is that employing more people becomes more affordable for firms, so it is clearly good from that front.

Oh boy .. where do I begin. Robert, this is awful argumentation dude.

1) Correlation is NOT causation
2) Post Hoc Ergo Propctor Hoc Fallacy, businesses need more than just "NO TAXES" ...for instance, infrastructure...built with ... taxes!
Will that infrastructure already built magically evaporate with economic freedom zones?
3) lowering these tax rates in no way shape or form guarantees investments through businesses, or any investments whatsoever

I'm literally just following incentives here.

Imagine that you are an entrepreneur, looking to start a new business. You could open it literally anywhere else, where you'll be taxed between 15% and 35%, or you could open in one of the struggling economic freedom zones, where regulations are a little easier to deal with and the corporate tax rate will only be 5%. You're going to want to start your business there.

This sort of incentive to bring your business to the economic freedom zones will make it so there is enough competition for goods so the prices actually go down, but also that there is actually enough jobs available that, in these areas where unemployment rates are a problem, people will actually have a degree of choice where they go to work.

Where would the money to fund this come from then?

The same place that bailout funds come from. You have to remember that this only takes effect in areas that are in desperate need of economic recovery.

and presume their coffers are depleted then. Which is why I am asking, so either the state offers nothing in the way of motive for people to invest, or it busts out the stimulus packages, while taking on debt. It makes no sense to assume somehow with the economy doing in the can the government has money to spend.

I... honestly don't care if the government has less revenue. I'd rather see that in the hands of people, especially when they are in need of employment and economic recovery.


The working poor: the people your trying to help in the first place, and it does not make sense.

See my first response. This sort of measure in recovery areas leaves people with more disposable income and more access to jobs.

no. (above)


You cannot do this without a bailout/investment of some kind.

I don't see why that's necessary.
Then you need to read more on new-Keynesian theory.
Lol. I studied it for a year and read a whole textbook on it. Doesn't make it necessary in this context.

BTW. Flat taxes have been tried internationally ... they suck at generating money.

Russia for instance is a great example: http://www.imf.org...

Russia's a terrible example of ideas aimed at generating free market activity.
nor did it actually generate jobs.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2013 11:59:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yea, there's nothing non-Keynesian about this. You're still deficit spending, you're just cutting taxes rather then using government spending, both considered keynesian stimulus.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2013 9:14:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/25/2013 11:27:42 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 12/25/2013 1:22:16 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/25/2013 12:20:27 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 12/25/2013 12:03:25 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/24/2013 11:15:30 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:



I don't see how the middle income american wanting to go into work for himself would have less of a chance. Small businesses are harmed by high corporate tax rates, and deregulation makes it far easier to start your own business. Lower that corporate tax rate and entrepreneurship becomes a much easier option for everyone.

Uhh .. okay I hate to be rude because I do have respect for you, but do you even know what your talking about anymore? Hate to tell you this but you seem like you don't.

I agree with reducing individual tax rates. But part of that is because small businesses DO NOT PAY CORPORATE INCOME TAX

They pay individual rates. This ideology your espousing is outright factually wrong.
Theoretically yes, pragmatically no.
Flat taxes charges a rate regardless of if you make an income or not. That's the whole point of a flat tax. (A true flat tax)
Otherwise, your arguing for a marginal flat tax .. which turns into.... take a guess ... hint: it's left wing and starts with a dirty "p" word .. ;)

That's not marginal. A flat tax is a percentage. In this case, it's 5%. Multiply 0 by .05 and you get 0.

No it isn't. A true flat tax has a baseline to expect from everyone, including those with no income. Otherwise it is marginal. Remember the poll tax in Britain? They still expected those financially unable to pay, to pay, which lead to massive riots.

1) Yes, it's called the "sugar-high"
2) a large body of economic research shows that this is short-lived economic activity that dies very quickly, and is unsustainable

Unsustainable? That's what the criticism of bailouts is- that they only last as long as there is spending. This is a type of growth that puts the power in the hands of the consumer, rather than the government, and lasts as long as the plan is sustained (natural business cycle aside), especially when you consider that the rest of the country maintains the status quo, making the struggling areas, now economic freedom zones, into the main areas for growth.

uhhh ... no, that's not the criticism of bailouts: every economists agrees with stimulating the economy, the question is how and to what degree.
Furthermore: http://www.businessinsider.com...

This research was done by the congressional research office with the tax foundation. I'll take the non-partisan research thank you!

You do realize that the current tax rate has 10% for the bottom bracket, right?
You realize if you have no income then you pay no tax in our current system right? And that your suggested reform would do the opposite!?

People under 8,925 are paying twice the economic freedom zone rate just by the federal income tax rate. This is them paying less taxes. And in regards to your point about the person earning $1million... so? I don't care about more revenue going to the government, I care about generating growth in those areas by allowing people to keep more disposable income and start businesses with less hassle.

Great! Then don't do anything you said!

When you lower the corporate and payroll tax rates that much, you attract more businesses to the area and make it easier for new businesses to pop up (which increases employment rates), which increases competition hugely, which lowers prices. The other thing that happens directly as a result of that is that employing more people becomes more affordable for firms, so it is clearly good from that front.

Oh boy .. where do I begin. Robert, this is awful argumentation dude.

1) Correlation is NOT causation
2) Post Hoc Ergo Propctor Hoc Fallacy, businesses need more than just "NO TAXES" ...for instance, infrastructure...built with ... taxes!
Will that infrastructure already built magically evaporate with economic freedom zones?

No but their upkeep will cause an "infrastructure deficit" hampering investment. I prefer an infrastructure bank though.

3) lowering these tax rates in no way shape or form guarantees investments through businesses, or any investments whatsoever

I'm literally just following incentives here.

Well incentives do not guarantee an act, they only try to influence one.

Imagine that you are an entrepreneur, looking to start a new business. You could open it literally anywhere else, where you'll be taxed between 15% and 35%, or you could open in one of the struggling economic freedom zones, where regulations are a little easier to deal with and the corporate tax rate will only be 5%. You're going to want to start your business there.

False.
1) I'll go to somewhere with a lower INDIVIDUAL rate, because I'll start small instead of a corporate rate.
2) Being a liberal, I would probably have a liberal agenda working in business as opposed to what you suggest anyways (for instance I wouldn't pay minimum wage, I'd pay higher)

This sort of incentive to bring your business to the economic freedom zones will make it so there is enough competition for goods so the prices actually go down, but also that there is actually enough jobs available that, in these areas where unemployment rates are a problem, people will actually have a degree of choice where they go to work.

1) In the 1930's a group of austrian economists in oxford did extensive research on price formation in firms. They do it through cost/profit and markups as opposed to laws of supply and demand. In fact, supply and demand are not universally agreed upon, and play little/no influence on price formation. (What they found)
2) Again correlation is not causation. Simply decreasing taxes does not equate to job creation.

and presume their coffers are depleted then. Which is why I am asking, so either the state offers nothing in the way of motive for people to invest, or it busts out the stimulus packages, while taking on debt. It makes no sense to assume somehow with the economy doing in the can the government has money to spend.

I... honestly don't care if the government has less revenue. I'd rather see that in the hands of people, especially when they are in need of employment and economic recovery.

Strawman. I was talking about the tools the state would use to fix this, your making a populist argument instead. This has nothing to do with the role of the state in the economy.


The working poor: the people your trying to help in the first place, and it does not make sense.

See my first response. This sort of measure in recovery areas leaves people with more disposable income and more access to jobs.

no. (above)


You cannot do this without a bailout/investment of some kind.

I don't see why that's necessary.
Then you need to read more on new-Keynesian theory.
Lol. I studied it for a year and read a whole textbook on it. Doesn't make it necessary in this context.

It's one of the major school of economic thoughts and you just overlook it? Foolish I would think.

BTW. Flat taxes have been tried internationally ... they suck at generating money.

Russia for instance is a great example: http://www.imf.org...

Russia's a terrible example of ideas aimed at generating free market activity.

How so? Putin has been known to deregulate like crazy dude...
Thank you for voting!
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2013 9:15:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/25/2013 11:59:03 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Yea, there's nothing non-Keynesian about this. You're still deficit spending, you're just cutting taxes rather then using government spending, both considered keynesian stimulus.
^^
exactly
Thank you for voting!
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2013 10:50:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
About 30% of small business pay corporate tax rates, but whatever.

And regardless of what your perception of what a flat tax rate is, that's not what it is in the economic freedom zones. It's a percentage of income.

And the poor are paying a 10% income tax rate currently- that is the status quo. The rate is 10% for 0-$8925. A 5% flat tax rate is half that for the poor.
http://www.forbes.com...

I'm not saying that bailouts don't work at all, but they are short term. They only generate growth as long as there is bailout money to spend.

Yes, their upkeep will cause a certain amount of infrastructure deficit. However, economic freedom zones are areas that need recovery. This warrants a certain amount of deficit. Yes, this hampers investment. However, this is countered by removing the capital gains tax, which encourages more investment.

Incentives do not guarantee an act, but they make those acts far more likely to happen.

Even if you're just choosing to go to an area with a lower individual rate (which is only applicable if your small business is a sole proprietorship), the economic freedom zones have a ridiculously lower individual tax rate. That's where you would go to start your business. That argument still stands.

Correlation does not equal causation, but in this case, especially since the areas surrounding the economic freedom zones are maintaining the status quo, it logically follows that the lower tax rates there would increase employment. I showed the logical progression.

I'm not just overlooking Keynesian theory. I'm overlooking it in favor of neoclassical models in this instance. Neoclassical school of thought is also pretty big, same with the Chicago school of economics. Seems pretty foolish to overlook those, don't you think?

And Russia is ranked 139th in economic freedom in the world. Terrible example of free market principles.

http://www.heritage.org...
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2013 11:06:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 11:15:30 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
My Christmas Gift to you: An economic idea from Rand Paul for thought

In lieu of Keynesian style bailouts, cities and communities with unemployment rates over 150% of the national average (about 12% unemployment rates) would be eligible to become "economic freedom zones." Income taxes and corporate taxes would be set at a flat 5%, payroll taxes would be lowered to 2% for the employer and employee, capital gains taxes would be eliminated, the providing of child education tax credits to parents, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) non-attainment designations would be suspended, and the Davis-Bacon wage requirements would be suspended.

What do you think about this idea? Does it need to come with bailouts in order to be successful? Is it not going far enough with deregulation? Would a simple bailout be more effective?

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

This is essentially indirect wealth redistribution. The plan acknowledges that these policies create economic barriers, and the plan's solution is to reduce the economic burden for weaker economies, thereby shifting the burden of the policies to the stronger economies. In effect the naturally weaker economies become stronger while the naturally stronger economies become weaker.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2013 1:19:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/25/2013 10:50:41 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
About 30% of small business pay corporate tax rates, but whatever.

100%-30% = 70% ...but whatever ...

And regardless of what your perception of what a flat tax rate is, that's not what it is in the economic freedom zones. It's a percentage of income.

And regardless of what you claim the theory would hold, the actual implementation of the tax shows that this simply isn't true, and history will absolve me.

And the poor are paying a 10% income tax rate currently- that is the status quo. The rate is 10% for 0-$8925. A 5% flat tax rate is half that for the poor.
http://www.forbes.com...

Okay .. see this is why your now annoying me.

1) You need to understand that I AGREE <----see that word? (It means that I concur, or that I am not contesting you on this!!) with reducing individual tax rates, especially with the lower classes, but I DO NOT AGREE (meaning this is where I will fight you!!) That lowering corporate income taxes would also help. I call bulls***t on that.

See what I did there? Because you cannot seem to grasp this simple concept.
and 2) 10% not including deductions, presumably something the flat wouldn't have.

I'm not saying that bailouts don't work at all, but they are short term. They only generate growth as long as there is bailout money to spend.

Well then I agree with you.

Yes, their upkeep will cause a certain amount of infrastructure deficit. However, economic freedom zones are areas that need recovery. This warrants a certain amount of deficit. Yes, this hampers investment. However, this is countered by removing the capital gains tax, which encourages more investment.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

AAAAAHHHHHH

HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

Tell me something Robert: what happens when I invest in a piece of stock, with my money? Say I'm Warren Buffet, and I own 100 shares of Gas from @$$ company valued at 1 million, what happens to said one million?

Well...the short answer is if your the economy, SFA, the money sits there and does nothing! That's not to say investment isn't important, but the investment tax you think ought to be dropped does SH!T for the economy, it just lines the pockets of CEO's and nothing more.

And do you even know what an infrastructure bank does? It facilitates investments with a rate of return! I say do the opposite: increase cap gains, lower individual, and open an infrastructure bank, sell off bonds to CEO's/investors instead!

Incentives do not guarantee an act, but they make those acts far more likely to happen.

Nooot reallly.....

Even if you're just choosing to go to an area with a lower individual rate (which is only applicable if your small business is a sole proprietorship), the economic freedom zones have a ridiculously lower individual tax rate. That's where you would go to start your business. That argument still stands.

Oh my god...please read above.

Furthermore, to become a "person" the business has to undergo a process to become a corporation anyways, so really...this does nothing. (Generally speaking)

Correlation does not equal causation, but in this case, especially since the areas surrounding the economic freedom zones are maintaining the status quo, it logically follows that the lower tax rates there would increase employment. I showed the logical progression.

And I showed, that this is a post hoc ergo procptor hoc fallacy! (PSST google it!)

I'm not just overlooking Keynesian theory. I'm overlooking it in favor of neoclassical models in this instance.
Now were learning!

Neoclassical school of thought is also pretty big, same with the Chicago school of economics. Seems pretty foolish to overlook those, don't you think?

1) I didn't, I accounted for them by countering YOU
2) neoclassical and chicago are pretty much the same thing; chicago is just a sect of neoclassical ...
and 3) neoclassical hacks are overly-simplistic thinkers who make WAYYY too many assumptions about consumers and suppliers, and have been shown to be wrong time and time again.

And Russia is ranked 139th in economic freedom in the world. Terrible example of free market principles.

http://www.heritage.org...

here we go:

http://en.ria.ru...
http://russiaprofile.org...
http://www.americanprogress.org...

Just because they suck at "principal" does not mean they suck in practice. Russia is still a powerhouse. Especially in the energy industry. Regardless Putin still deregulated Russia, and hiding behind that is nothing more than a weak attempt to try and justify with it a weak ideology. When something actually puts a view of yours at risk, most neoclassical advocates then proceed to say "OH but that's not capitalism!!!" When really it still is.

http://i1188.photobucket.com...
Thank you for voting!
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2013 7:56:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/26/2013 1:19:27 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/25/2013 10:50:41 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
About 30% of small business pay corporate tax rates, but whatever.

100%-30% = 70% ...but whatever ...

I hate it when people resort to number games. 70% > 30%, but that does not mitigate the significance of the 30%.

There 27.9 million small businesses in the US. ( http://www.sba.gov... ) 30% of 27.9 million is 8.37 million.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2013 7:13:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/26/2013 7:56:51 AM, DanT wrote:
At 12/26/2013 1:19:27 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/25/2013 10:50:41 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
About 30% of small business pay corporate tax rates, but whatever.

100%-30% = 70% ...but whatever ...

I hate it when people resort to number games. 70% > 30%, but that does not mitigate the significance of the 30%.

I agree with you on the numbers crap, it really doesn't capture the complexities of the economy. I do get that side of the argument, but I simply disagree.

There 27.9 million small businesses in the US. ( http://www.sba.gov... ) 30% of 27.9 million is 8.37 million.

And this is why i disagree, even by your own source, of that 19% choose to corporatize, so really that's their own fault, and when I think of small business, admittedly I think of sole proprietorship's, or home-based businesses rather than anything else.
Thank you for voting!
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2013 8:12:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 11:15:30 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
My Christmas Gift to you: An economic idea from Rand Paul for thought

In lieu of Keynesian style bailouts, cities and communities with unemployment rates over 150% of the national average (about 12% unemployment rates) would be eligible to become "economic freedom zones." Income taxes and corporate taxes would be set at a flat 5%, payroll taxes would be lowered to 2% for the employer and employee, capital gains taxes would be eliminated, the providing of child education tax credits to parents, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) non-attainment designations would be suspended, and the Davis-Bacon wage requirements would be suspended.

What do you think about this idea? Does it need to come with bailouts in order to be successful? Is it not going far enough with deregulation? Would a simple bailout be more effective?

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

It's a nonsense proposal that is merely a cover to advocate for states' rights over federal jurisdiction.

In reality, if such "zones" were enacted, corporations would flock to those jurisdictions. It would become a loophole larger in size than the law that created it. Every single corporation that could afford to move their HQ would move their HQ and lower their tax bill by almost 90% (35% to 5%). Other parts of the country would then turn into what Detroit is now. It would create new problems while attempting to solve old ones. It would be far worse than anything the GOP is charging Obama with doing in regards to the government ostensibly wrecking the economy.

This proposal would make corporate offshore havens look like chump change. It's nothing but a PR stunt by Rand Paul, and a terrible one at that.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2013 8:16:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/25/2013 9:14:40 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/25/2013 11:27:42 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:

I agree with reducing individual tax rates. But part of that is because small businesses DO NOT PAY CORPORATE INCOME TAX

Too many people make this mistake. Sole proprietors do not pay corporate income taxes, but some small businesses are not sole proprietorships, are incorporated, and do indeed pay corporate income tax, many times at the maximal rate.

The definition of "small business" is generally framed via employment. It's generally a cover that Wall streets use in order to have hedge funds fit into a nice, snug place in the debate about corporate America in a way that ostensibly forwards American interests. This aspect of Romney's platform was what made me extremely wary about voting for him in 2012.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2013 8:20:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is some press on the issue of hedge funds being classified as "small businesses":

http://thinkprogress.org...#

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Multi-billion dollar funds with "under 500 employees" would be "small businesses". Bullsh!t.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2013 8:31:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/26/2013 8:16:19 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/25/2013 9:14:40 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/25/2013 11:27:42 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:

I agree with reducing individual tax rates. But part of that is because small businesses DO NOT PAY CORPORATE INCOME TAX

Too many people make this mistake. Sole proprietors do not pay corporate income taxes, but some small businesses are not sole proprietorships, are incorporated, and do indeed pay corporate income tax, many times at the maximal rate.

The definition of "small business" is generally framed via employment. It's generally a cover that Wall streets use in order to have hedge funds fit into a nice, snug place in the debate about corporate America in a way that ostensibly forwards American interests. This aspect of Romney's platform was what made me extremely wary about voting for him in 2012.

Yeah, I replied in similar fashion, I agree with you.

What's bullsh*t is the definition of small business...which is under 500 employees...
Thank you for voting!
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 6:06:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/26/2013 7:13:32 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/26/2013 7:56:51 AM, DanT wrote:
At 12/26/2013 1:19:27 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/25/2013 10:50:41 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
About 30% of small business pay corporate tax rates, but whatever.

100%-30% = 70% ...but whatever ...

I hate it when people resort to number games. 70% > 30%, but that does not mitigate the significance of the 30%.

I agree with you on the numbers crap, it really doesn't capture the complexities of the economy. I do get that side of the argument, but I simply disagree.

There 27.9 million small businesses in the US. ( http://www.sba.gov... ) 30% of 27.9 million is 8.37 million.

And this is why i disagree, even by your own source, of that 19% choose to corporatize, so really that's their own fault, and when I think of small business, admittedly I think of sole proprietorship's, or home-based businesses rather than anything else.

What about a partnership or a LLC? The general store where I live is a family business, and it is organized as a LLC.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 9:06:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 6:06:42 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/26/2013 7:13:32 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/26/2013 7:56:51 AM, DanT wrote:
At 12/26/2013 1:19:27 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/25/2013 10:50:41 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
About 30% of small business pay corporate tax rates, but whatever.

100%-30% = 70% ...but whatever ...

I hate it when people resort to number games. 70% > 30%, but that does not mitigate the significance of the 30%.

I agree with you on the numbers crap, it really doesn't capture the complexities of the economy. I do get that side of the argument, but I simply disagree.

There 27.9 million small businesses in the US. ( http://www.sba.gov... ) 30% of 27.9 million is 8.37 million.

And this is why i disagree, even by your own source, of that 19% choose to corporatize, so really that's their own fault, and when I think of small business, admittedly I think of sole proprietorship's, or home-based businesses rather than anything else.

What about a partnership or a LLC? The general store where I live is a family business, and it is organized as a LLC.

Those two? Admittedly, I don't know enough about them to make that call.
Thank you for voting!
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2013 7:46:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 9:06:40 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/27/2013 6:06:42 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/26/2013 7:13:32 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/26/2013 7:56:51 AM, DanT wrote:
At 12/26/2013 1:19:27 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/25/2013 10:50:41 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
About 30% of small business pay corporate tax rates, but whatever.

100%-30% = 70% ...but whatever ...

I hate it when people resort to number games. 70% > 30%, but that does not mitigate the significance of the 30%.

I agree with you on the numbers crap, it really doesn't capture the complexities of the economy. I do get that side of the argument, but I simply disagree.

There 27.9 million small businesses in the US. ( http://www.sba.gov... ) 30% of 27.9 million is 8.37 million.

And this is why i disagree, even by your own source, of that 19% choose to corporatize, so really that's their own fault, and when I think of small business, admittedly I think of sole proprietorship's, or home-based businesses rather than anything else.

What about a partnership or a LLC? The general store where I live is a family business, and it is organized as a LLC.

Those two? Admittedly, I don't know enough about them to make that call.

A sole proprietorship has one owner, who assumes control of all company profits, and must bear sole responsibility for the company's liabilities.
A partnership has 2 or more owners, who share profit and liability. The partners act as each other's agents, thereby drawing upon all the advantages and disadvantages of an agency relationship.
A LLC can have 1 or more shareholders, who own the company. The shareholders of an LLC is protected from the company's liabilities, except in cases where the LLC is an alter ego of the shareholders. An LLC has the option of being taxed as a corporation or as a partnership/sole proprietorship. Compared to a corporation, a LLC is less capable of operate across state lines, because they would have to adopt the statutes of the 2nd state. If the LLC is an online business, they adopt the statutes of all 50 states.
A corporation is established through a state or federal charter, and when they pay dividends to shareholders they are taxed twice. The shareholders of a corporation enjoy the limited liability of an LLC, except in cases where the corporation is an alter-ego for the shareholders. Compared to an LLC a corporation is preferable when conducting interstate or international trade, because there is less red tape. A corporation is also preferable to an LLC when operating a charitable or other non-profit organization.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle