Would someone enlighten me please?

[Okla-homey]

I think I understand everything this HRC fan has on her poster, except "demand side taxes"

What, pray tell, are "demand side taxes?"

http://aycu15.webshots.com/image/41494/2003406411148284283_rs.jpg (http://allyoucanupload.webshots.com/v/2003406411148284283)

[SoonerInKCMO]

The opposite of supply-side taxes.

I guess.

[Okla-homey]

I'm assuming, she means gubmint cut taxes for poor folks -- because they spend every dime they get and that boosts the economy...but I'm not sure.

Personally, I'm more a fan of cutting taxes of the folks who provide jobs so they can afford to grow their businesses and provide more jobs. Does that make me a supply-side tax fan?

[sanantoniosooner]

I'm more of a Demand Side Order of Fries kind of guy.

[Jerk]

Personally, I'm more a fan of cutting taxes of the folks who provide jobs so they can afford to grow their businesses and provide more jobs. Does that make me a supply-side tax fan?
The easy way to explain this to someone is to ask them if they've ever been employed by a poor man.

Unfortunately, most dirty libs seem to be either full-time students, government workers, or union workers for big corps.

eta- oh, and lawyers;)

[Okla-homey]

The easy way to explain this to someone is to ask them if they've ever been employed by a poor man.

Unfortunately, most dirty libs seem to be either full-time students, government workers, or union workers for big corps.

eta- oh, and lawyers;)

FWIW, a lot of lawyers are libz because their young brains were influenced by law faculties who are almost universally libz. In fact, at one law skool in particular about which I have personal knowledge, there is but one GOP perfesser. I know, because a few of us checked all their registrations out online for giggles.:D

You will find, however, some lawyers eventually outgrow the influence of their teachers and regain their conservatism. Further, some never crack under the pressure adhering to the philosophy you write what they expect on the exams in order to pass, while sticking to your personal core beliefs.

IMHO, the reason most trial lawyers are Dems is because the Elephants favor tort reform because they believe it's good for business. "Tort Reform" translates into smaller jury awards and therefore less $$$ for trial lawyers.

Personally, I see both sides of the issue, but hold, if we can trust a jury to decide whether a guy is guilty of a crime, goes to jail, or gets the needle, we ought to be able to trust a jury to decide if a tort claim is BS. Put another way, I believe it's mighty inconsistent to hold juries can order the death of an accused in a criminal case, but can't be trusted to do the right thing in civil cases.

[Whet]

Is that Martha Stewart, without her wig, holding that sign?

[Vaevictis]

I believe "demand side" taxation is essentially sales tax. Probably used to deter consumption of particular products; eg, the very high sales taxes you see on cigarettes these days.

The person holding that poster probably has demand-side taxation on oil in mind.

[Frozen Sooner]

Demand-side taxes would be taxes designed to shift the demand curve to the left. So yeah, Vaevictus has it-consumption taxes. Which is a rather odd thing for a Democrat to be advocating.

[Okla-homey]

Demand-side taxes would be taxes designed to shift the demand curve to the left. So yeah, Vaevictus has it-consumption taxes. Which is a rather odd thing for a Democrat to be advocating.

but she also favors ghey rights* (whatever TF those are). So she's all good.:D

For the record, I support ghey marriage...as long as both chicks are really hawt.;)

[Okla-homey]

Demand-side taxes would be taxes designed to shift the demand curve to the left. So yeah, Vaevictus has it-consumption taxes. Which is a rather odd thing for a Democrat to be advocating.

a bit of googling informs me its prolly actually a reference to demand vs. supply side economics she's advocating. Demand siders tend to believe putting money in the hands of people who tend to spend every dime they get stimulates the economy. I thinks its fundamentally flawed reasoning because it requires government to play Robin Hood by taxing the "rich" to give to he "poor."

I rather think it's better for everyone if government lessens the tax burden on business who can then expand and hire more people and/or pay the folks they employ more. That is more sustainable over the long haul IMHO.

[Frozen Sooner]

Oh, I'm sure that's what she meant to say-that supply-side economic policies should be reversed.

I tend to believe that anyone who dogmatically adheres to either demand or supply-side policies is missing the boat.

Demand-side economics indicates that in time of recession, transfer payments should increase, and in time of inflationary growth transfer payments should decrease. Some of this increase and decrease is automatic: unemployment and welfare rolls wax and wane inversely with the economy. Some is discretionary: witness the WPA, TVA, etc.

Supply-side economics tends to promote the idea that tax cuts and increases, particularly at high marginal income brackets, are a better way to regulate the economy. Again, some of that is automatic: as people make less money, less in tax revenue is collected. As they make more money, more tax revenue is collected.

I tend to think that both policies should be maintained in order to properly regulate the boom-bust cycle. The biggest problem is that people on both sides of the aisle have a really hard time cutting spending or raising taxes during an inflationary cycle-but that discipline is needed to 1) avoid bubble economies and 2) keep the budget balanced over a period of several years.

I'm not a huge fan of PAYGO proposals, as they ignore the economic reality that sometimes deficit spending is necessary. However, it should be a recognized fact that long-term deficits are a bad thing for the economy for several reasons: crowding-out effects, monetary inflation, loss of confidence, etc.

[Frozen Sooner]

but she also favors ghey rights* (whatever TF those are). So she's all good.:D

For the record, I support ghey marriage...as long as both chicks are really hawt.;)

Yeah, honestly, I can't imagine that you'd be against gay marriage (or civil union) very vehemently in any case from the standpoint of state recognition of the contract. I think you and I are both of the opinion that you can't force a church to recognize a union they think is immoral, but that society's interests are served by recognizing de facto familial arrangements as de jure.

[BigRedJed]

Mmmmm... ...soup.

[BigRedJed]

I also like that au jou stuff.

[MamaMia]

I'm for a flat tax, but I doubt we'll see that in my life time, which is one of the reasons I plan to haunt the United States Capitol Building.

[Okla-homey]

Yeah, honestly, I can't imagine that you'd be against gay marriage (or civil union) very vehemently in any case from the standpoint of state recognition of the contract. I think you and I are both of the opinion that you can't force a church to recognize a union they think is immoral, but that society's interests are served by recognizing de facto familial arrangements as de jure.

Plus, think of all the business for lawyers when those ghey marriages/civil unions (or whatever they're styled) go bust. Ka-ching!

Oh, and "go bust" many of them will. Two males in a relationship doubles the potential for marital discord. See, one of the two is statistically certain to runnoft and be a fool for love with somebody else.;)

[SicEmBaylor]

Check out Chris Farley a few rows behind her.

[Rogue]

I was readin' this thinkin' that Homey is like so many of my friends...party line GOP'er. And then this bombshell! I am finding fewer and fewer pure libz or conz these days. I'm tellin' ya this is good news for the notion of having 4 or 5 viable political parties in the future.

Some professions attract more folk from one end of the political spectrum.

I think the flaw with the "give the rich more money to end (or stave off) a recession" is that they don't really pass it along. Sort of the 'trickle-down myth.' Poor folk do stimulate the economy because they circulate money. Rich folk tend to deposit and save during lean times. Businesses tend to cut costs when sales are down.

[GottaHavePride]

I'm still trying to figure out if Homey's asking for liposuction in this thread.

[TUSooner]

Pardon me for not reading the whole thread, which probably contained something that would make this post unnecessary. But ist's a consumption of demand-side taex just a sales tax in other words? If sales taxes are "regressive" - because they tax those the poor man's purchases the sane as they tax the rich man's - are not demand-side taxes the same? Please 'splain the difference? Does Dame Clinton mean a luxury tax?
If she means increased taxes on purchases of capital and capital improvements, she should change her name to Hillary Lenin. That is simple war or the engine of wealth for the whole of society. And THAT (if I understand correctly) is why no person who wants the standard of living to improve for EVERYONE should never evr evre evrer (or ever) vote for Madame Lenin.

[Vaevictis]

I think the flaw with the "give the rich more money to end (or stave off) a recession" is that they don't really pass it along. (...) Rich folk tend to deposit and save during lean times. Businesses tend to cut costs when sales are down.

Whenever someone says that lower income tax rates increase business investment, I find myself wondering if that person has ever seen the weighted average cost of capital equation.

If they had, they wouldn't say that. Lower income taxes actually increase the hurdle rate for investment, meaning businesses invest in fewer projects.

(This isn't to say that tax cuts don't stimulate the economy. They just don't stimulate the economy by encouraging businesses to invest.)

[Rogue]

Whenever someone says that lower income tax rates increase business investment, I find myself wondering if that person has ever seen the weighted average cost of capital equation.

If they had, they wouldn't say that. Lower income taxes actually increase the hurdle rate for investment, meaning businesses invest in fewer projects.

(This isn't to say that tax cuts don't stimulate the economy. They just don't stimulate the economy by encouraging businesses to invest.)

So, you're agreeing with me?
Pointing out a fallacy of logic?
Or something else entirely?
;)

[Vaevictis]

So, you're agreeing with me?
Pointing out a fallacy of logic?
Or something else entirely?
;)

Heh, kind of a random rant, eh? ;)

I'm agreeing with you in part and disagreeing in part. To the extent that tax cuts increase consumption, they help the economy. This includes the rich too -- yeah, they're more likely to squirrel more of it away than the other end of the spectrum, but if you give any group more disposable income there's a certain amount that's going to be, well, disposed of.

But, as far as decreased income taxes increasing business investment goes, that's pretty questionable. Decreasing income taxes increases the cost of capital -- it's just a consequence of how most companies calculate the number -- so it necessarily increases the hurdle rate for project acceptance. The exception is companies that have zero debt, but that's not most companies.

If you want to increase investment, you have to provide direct incentives around investments. Allowing accelerated depreciation is the big thing.