The Cold Civil War

You're still going for random I see. I've made no reference to Marxism. Weren't you the one that said Marxism gave us conservative economics? If so, thanks for that! If not, my apologies. Right wing failure to understand economics tends to blend!

 

Um no. You've got a bad memory as well as flawed economic fantasies.
And there was no need for you to refer to Marxism. You've been reciting it.

 

It's like endless crying coupled with fear. Unreal.

 

As I said, right wingers with no economics tend to blend in (particularly when whinging without coherence about Marxism). Let's test your knowledge of basic economics. The income tax increases. Breaking down the impact into an income effect and a substitution effect, how does it impact on someone's desired labour supply?

 

You claimed to never lie, then just told a whopper of a lie.

 

You forgot content. Try the simple question: The income tax increases. Breaking down the impact into an income effect and a substitution effect, how does it impact on someone's desired labour supply?

 

The income tax increases. Where is the revenue going? Welfare subsidies? That's where it usually is siphoned off too. That necessarily DECREASES willing labor supply. Work..............ain't nobody got time fo dat at that point. (see the flood of illegals into this country as Exhibit A)

 

So you're not able to decompose the effect into a substitution effect and income effect? You're not actually able to say anything, but ramble incoherently.

 

I'm breaking down your pretentious gobbledygooked question and breaking it down in simple terms that even you should be able to understand. I see I've failed as my role as remedial teacher. You get an F on the first quiz.

 

Vacuous effort! You've served your purpose by failing to answer a simple Econ 101 question. Thanks for that. You've been very useful.

 

No I’m fully aware that in a theoretical environment, all else equal profit reduction through taxation should not have an impact on how a business is run.

But that’s what I mean when I say you’re spouting theory that doesn’t work in the real world. Because in the real world the human imperative towards greed will cause those business owners to attempt to recoup that loss in profits.

So in a vacuum and if you ignore the human desire for greed on paper and in a classroom, you’re right. But in the real world where people make decisions based upon profit and loss, taxation WILL impact business decisions. Because people will NOT simply accept a loss.

Unless they have no other option but to do so.

 

I actually feel sorry for you. You not only failed but failed to see the fallacy in your question. I'll try again.
Taxes increase. So what? Where did the tax revenue go? Tax revenues do not live in a vacuum unlike half baked economic hypothosese. There is no effect or causation on labor, which is otherwise unrelated.

 

Supply and demand is just theory now is it? Wow!

Wrong! You're stating that the emotional businessman will be forced to change his/her decisions away from profit maximisation. It is not credible.

You can't refer to the real world. You've confused production costs with personal tax. You've made a foolish error and haven't had the good sense to realise it. Only a matter of time, I hope.

 

The devil's in the deets.

 

But you said you never tell a lie.... then told a blatant lie. Here:

that is an obvious lie, silly. Many, many people on every side of the political spectrum understand economics. In fact, you are currently being schooled in economics by many people here, including Conservatives.

Maybe you should apologize and open your mind to learning from them and sharing ideas as opposed to insults. Just friendly advice.

 

I'm using the question to prove my point. You're the second one that couldn't answer it. Its actually 3, once you take into account ShadowX's erroneous comments. Not looking good, given it was an Econ 101 question. Perhaps try and find a right winger that can answer it? Must be one somewhere surely?

 

How do you get all of that from telling you that your anecdotes don’t pass as proof?

Wow

 

No, you are now being very deceptive about admitting what you said. Isn't being deceptive just another form of being dishonest?

 

Whilst you're here, could you answer this question? The income tax increases. Breaking down the impact into an income effect and a substitution effect, how does it impact on someone's desired labour supply?

 

I am never failed to be amazed at some of the stuff I read on this forum. That poster obviously doesn't grasp the concept that taxation is a variable cost of business, completely unrelated to costs of production. Increasing that variable cost will 1) reduce capital outlays for expansion (business growth leading to more jobs 2) Drop out of the business completely to pursue other endeavors or scale back (loss of jobs 3) move the business to a more business friendly climate (outsourcing the entire operation) 4) hire illegals on the cheap and not report income at all

 

This made me laugh. We've already criticised ShadowX's logic, referring to how he'd need to refer to a sales tax and perfectly inelastic demand. That would lead to 100% pass on of the tax. Keep up!

 

Class dismissed Reiver, I believe that was the bell. That's all we have time for today. You failed to answer my simple question, where did the increased tax revenue go? In that regard, there is absolutely no relation to labor costs in your tiny little bubble of a scenario. Now your assignment for tomorrow is to Google as many rebuttals to support your hypothesis, with regard to your answer. Just a guess........ It's going to be tough sledding for you.

 

Just putting you right. I of course noted your failure to respond to what I said. It amused me, however, that you criticised ShadowX without knowing it.

 

Substitution affect is a change in consumption, income affect is the change of consumption due to purchasing power. So if you increase income taxes, it’s going to have the opposite affect of tax cuts. The last part of your question is pretty much irrelevant.

So answer me, why you think anecdotes are substitutes for facts. Because, that’s what you did.

 

You did better than the others, but its still a fail! The substitution effect says reduction in labour supply. The income effect, however, says the overall effect is ambiguous. For the richer person? It can outweigh the substitution effect. A tax increase can therefore incentivise work for these fellows!

Thanks for playing. That's 4 right wingers now who didn't know Econ 101! There seems to be a pattern.