That's his strategy. "why are you criticizing other people's understanding of economics when literally anybody with any credential in economics whatsoever would laugh you out of the room?" "Lmao i le touched a nerve xD"
I think he claims to be studying for one, doesn't he? Either way, it just goes to show that some people have the most robust denial.
Not realizing that anarchy is absolutely impossible to institute in the real world, especially the left's version, is the purest of delusion. But we already know that.
Naw you have, i've talked with you about it, it was when you were really concerned about being doxxed after some near doxxing happened iircc.
Around the same time I accidentally triggered you by saying Anarchism will always turn into Socialism ( Or it's a Front for Socialism) or Anarchism will always cause people to die and you pointed me towards the Anarchist Essay writers who aren't Portland Hipsters
Because you believe in True Anarchism unlike the Portland Hipster Anarchists
I don't know why people keep claiming that.
At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if r/neoliberal claimed that you are a Russian spy or a Soros shill.
They're tards who draw their entire worldview from three sentence blurbs on the IGM Economic Experts Panel and maybe (MAYBE) the occasional NBER abstract.
It's like if you combined moderate SJWism with moderate libertarian economic views. So they hate white people, they hate men, but they also (crucially) hate the poor.
Like the other ghouls of r/neoliberal, u/84jpg believes the biggest problem with the world today is that the rich haven't stolen enough from everybody else.
They should legit just change their name to r/neofeudalism.
"This time if we give all the money to the rich people, they'll totally give it back to everyone else out of the goodness of their hearts, even though that didn't happen the last thirty times we tried it"
You're making an honest mistake and getting trickle-down economics (which is indeed BS and not economics) mixed up with a totally different thing.
Trickle-down economics was the idea that if we slashed rich people's income taxes, their wealth would "trickle down" to the poor. This was always dumb.
There's a difference between high-income household taxes and corporate taxes. With corporate taxes, you're taxing a business. Now, if you increase taxes on a business, what do you think is the most likely option, honest question:
(A) They slash the CEO's pay proportional to the tax
(B) They raise prices to make up for the additional tax
(C) They hold off on raises for low-rung employees and let those wages decrease due to inflation to make up for the additional tax
(D) They downsize and fire some workers to make up for the additional tax
Some of these options are more realistic than others. Just something to think about.
Global saving glut (also global savings glut, GSG, cash hoarding, dead cash, dead money, glut of excess intended saving, shortfall of investment intentions), describes a situation in which desired saving exceeds desired investment. By 2005 Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, the central bank of the United States, expressed concern about the "significant increase in the global supply of saving" and its implications for monetary policies, particularly in the United States. Although Bernanke's analyses focused on events in 2003 to 2007 that led to the 2007–2009 financial crisis, regarding GSG countries and the United States, excessive saving by the non-financial corporate sector (NFCS) is an ongoing phenomenon, affecting many countries. Bernanke's "celebrated (if sometimes disputed)" global saving glut (GSG) hypothesis argued that increased capital inflows to the United States from GSG countries were an important reason that U.S. longer-term interest rates from 2003 to 2007 were lower than expected.
If you erase all corporate taxes, what's to stop the wealthy from taking all their money and putting it into a corporate structure, allowing them to go effectively 100% untaxed?
That's a concern no matter what, and I would argue it isn't worth it to increase taxes to be level across institutions just to avoid tax avoidance at the expense of economic pragmatism.
I think that while this is a tough challenge, we should take on the challenge of trying to create a regulatory environment that makes it difficult to avoid taxes with tricks like that. It's hard, and it requires international cooperation, but luckily the G20 is already working on it and even has it as a priority alongside things like climate change.
How is it a concern if corporations also pay taxes on their income comparable to what individuals pay?
I think that while this is a tough challenge, we should take on the challenge of trying to create a regulatory environment that makes it difficult to avoid taxes with tricks like that.
Oh well as long as it's difficult. After all, we want to make sure only the properly wealthy who have lots of lawyers and accountants are able to hide their wealth, it wouldn't do for the average shmoe to be able to do it.
If it were somehow possible to create a regulatory environment where it were impossible for the wealthy to incorporate themselves and pay no taxes ever, then I'd maybe consider the 0% corporate tax rate something other than a transparent giveaway to said wealthy people, but 1. I sincerely doubt that such a thing is possible, and 2. I note that approximately zero people in r/neoliberal hawking the 0% corporate tax rate bothered to say "contingent on ensuring that the wealthy can't abuse the massive loophole we want to put right into the middle of the tax system".
How is it a concern if corporations also pay taxes on their income comparable to what individuals pay?
Because (most) rich people will always look for ways to avoid taxes, whether that's offshore bank accounts or gifting or certain kinds of investments.
Oh well as long as it's difficult. After all, we want to make sure only the properly wealthy who have lots of lawyers and accountants are able to hide their wealth, it wouldn't do for the average shmoe to be able to do it.
Oh c'mon, you know what I meant. I would love to make it impossible, but who am I to claim that it's possible to make it impossible?
I'd maybe consider the 0% corporate tax rate something other than a transparent giveaway to said wealthy people
But again, that assumes that the tax incidence of the corporate income tax falls entirely on wealthy people. It doesn't. It affects so many other people too, see my options listed from before.
/r/neoliberal isn't worried about protecting rich people. Go into the sub and suggest that we should implement a land value tax or a carbon tax or even increase household income taxes on the top 20%. Nobody will downvote you unless you go out of you way to be provocative or rude otherwise. Chances are you'll be upvoted and people will agree with you.
Going by the linked thread, most of r/neoliberal considers the land value tax a replacement for existing property taxes, and the one person I saw suggesting a significant increase in income tax was sitting pretty with one upvote.
who am I to claim that it's possible to make it impossible?
If you can't make it impossible, then you shouldn't be talking about advocating for sticking a massive 0% loophole right into the middle of the tax system.
Because (most) rich people will always look for ways to avoid taxes, whether that's offshore bank accounts or gifting or certain kinds of investments.
Which is why I don't think we should make it easier by sticking a massive 0% loophole into the middle of the tax system. The entire idea seems made to be abused.
I'm saying it's impossible to completely eliminate options for tax avoidance. Rich people (and their lawyers) are creative.
I don't think it would be as hard to keep rich people from stashing their money in a corporation tax free. For example, once some good baseline regulations are set up, the threat to make to corporations is easy - engage in this behavior, and you lose your tax free status. Hell, create some kind of punitive firm status they can be set as where engaging in such activities would risk giving them a huge tax burden.
Maybe that's not the answer. My point is, we can come up with ideas and incentives and punishments.
In any case, eliminating the corporate income tax rate is a pipe dream anyway, unfortunately much like the LVT or a more progressive income tax system that turns into a negative income tax on the lower end. I'd like to see the corporate tax rate lower because I think that would benefit most people, but I certainly wouldn't want to see it eliminated in one swoop tomorrow.
I'd be more OK with getting rid of corporate taxes if someone plausibly (in part meaning a politically feasible plan) explained how we could a) increase personal taxes to make up the difference on the rich, and not let them avoid it easily, and b) effectively prevent people from incorporating themselves & running all their personal expenses through that shell company. I am a big fan of Henry George but I want people taxed extremely progressively so that accumulating massive, politically corrosive fortunes is pretty much impossible, and I'm not sure a LVT will do that.
(B) They raise prices to make up for the additional tax
(C) They hold off on raises for low-rung employees and let those wages decrease due to inflation to make up for the additional tax
(D) They downsize and fire some workers to make up for the additional tax
Why would I believe corporations aren't already selling their products for the maximum amount they're able to, while employing as few people as they can get away with, and paying them the lowest amount they can get away with?
If corporations have the ability to raise prices, fire employees, or reduce wages without incurring consequences, why haven't they done so already?
Because we're assuming they aren't monopolies, and have to compete with other firms. Assuming their product isn't identical to other firms (monopolistic competition model) they can certainly get away with not having the lowest price possible either, but unless they're both (1) a monopoly and (2) dealing in a product with totally inelastic demand, they're not in the situation you describe.
But a firm with a somewhat unique product competing with other firms is going to be straddling a line between its costs (which could put it out of the market) versus having too high a price (in which case nobody will buy anyway.)
You could just as easily ask why a firm ever downsizes, or ever increases prices.
Generally because I assume corporations are already employing as few people as they can get away with hiring, for as little as they can get away with paying them, and selling their products for as much as they can get away with selling them for, and so their ability to push costs like taxes onto the backs of those parties is limited.
Also because given the global corporate savings glut, I sincerely doubt that corporations like Google that are already choosing to sit on literally hundreds of billions of dollars in cash are going to take any extra money you give them and start giving it away wholesale to their employees out of the goodness of their hearts.
Your entire shtick is just going to Google Scholar and cherrypicking a single paper to give the aura of "empiricism" around your mega-strong priors. I've seen people do the exact same thing back to you and you've lost your mind about it. You're a hack, not anyone interested in discussion.
68 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2017-09-16
Promoting anarchofascism for 5 years and counting.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2017-09-16
Not surprising. /u/darkaceAUS understands economics about as well as I understand Catholics.
1 Ultrashitpost 2017-09-16
Pedophile, eh?
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2017-09-16
That and cannibalism, I think. Like I said, not an area of my expertise.
1 SDIHTD 2017-09-16
He said Catholic, not female public school teacher.
1 grungebot5000 2017-09-16
are you implying that male public school teachers aren't pedophiles?
1 usedontheskin 2017-09-16
Remember how you're an actual adult anarchist?
1 Prince_Kropotkin 2017-09-16
uh oh did i hit a nerve
1 usedontheskin 2017-09-16
...no?
1 Mort_DeRire 2017-09-16
That's his strategy. "why are you criticizing other people's understanding of economics when literally anybody with any credential in economics whatsoever would laugh you out of the room?" "Lmao i le touched a nerve xD"
1 Fucking_Christ 2017-09-16
PK claims to have a PhD in econ btw
1 Mort_DeRire 2017-09-16
I think he claims to be studying for one, doesn't he? Either way, it just goes to show that some people have the most robust denial.
Not realizing that anarchy is absolutely impossible to institute in the real world, especially the left's version, is the purest of delusion. But we already know that.
1 Matues49 2017-09-16
Well, everybody is claiming something on the Internet.
1 Prince_Kropotkin 2017-09-16
I have never claimed I have a PhD.
1 Imgur_Lurker 2017-09-16
Naw you have, i've talked with you about it, it was when you were really concerned about being doxxed after some near doxxing happened iircc.
Around the same time I accidentally triggered you by saying Anarchism will always turn into Socialism ( Or it's a Front for Socialism) or Anarchism will always cause people to die and you pointed me towards the Anarchist Essay writers who aren't Portland Hipsters
Because you believe in True Anarchism unlike the Portland Hipster Anarchists
1 Prince_Kropotkin 2017-09-16
I have never claimed I have a PhD and you won't be able to find any quote from me saying otherwise.
1 Imgur_Lurker 2017-09-16
I mean I wouldn't be able to find a link of you saying you were an Anarchist, we all know how retarded I am.
1 Prince_Kropotkin 2017-09-16
i teach kindergarten
1 Deity_Of_Darkness 2017-09-16
Yet you claim to be a graduate student studying economics.
1 Prince_Kropotkin 2017-09-16
Yeah but I didn't say I had a PhD, because I don't.
1 Deity_Of_Darkness 2017-09-16
I don't know why people keep claiming that. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if r/neoliberal claimed that you are a Russian spy or a Soros shill.
1 some-other 2017-09-16
Big yourself up fo' that
1 SecretDragoon 2017-09-16
is /r/neoliberal a parody sub?
1 Deity_Of_Darkness 2017-09-16
No, they are die hard radical centrists that really are right wing libertarians in denial. They hate anyone left of Shillary.
1 SecretDragoon 2017-09-16
Whoah, whoah whoah, you can go left of our queen?
1 Deity_Of_Darkness 2017-09-16
Totes, if your a Bernie Bro.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2017-09-16
Don't tell him about the commies. Idk if he can handle it.
1 SirTossAside 2017-09-16
They're tards who draw their entire worldview from three sentence blurbs on the IGM Economic Experts Panel and maybe (MAYBE) the occasional NBER abstract.
It's like if you combined moderate SJWism with moderate libertarian economic views. So they hate white people, they hate men, but they also (crucially) hate the poor.
1 jvwoody 2017-09-16
Not true, I also read The Economist and The Atlantic as well as what ever pop economist everyone else also reads.
1 nmx179 2017-09-16
Like the other ghouls of r/neoliberal, u/84jpg believes the biggest problem with the world today is that the rich haven't stolen enough from everybody else.
They should legit just change their name to r/neofeudalism.
1 darkaceAUS 2017-09-16
https://static.treasury.gov.au/uploads/sites/1/2017/06/03_Incidence_of_company_tax_in_Australia_v3.pdf
1 nmx179 2017-09-16
"This time if we give all the money to the rich people, they'll totally give it back to everyone else out of the goodness of their hearts, even though that didn't happen the last thirty times we tried it"
Lmao, sell that shit sandwich to someone else.
1 TechnocratNextDoor 2017-09-16
You're making an honest mistake and getting trickle-down economics (which is indeed BS and not economics) mixed up with a totally different thing.
Trickle-down economics was the idea that if we slashed rich people's income taxes, their wealth would "trickle down" to the poor. This was always dumb.
There's a difference between high-income household taxes and corporate taxes. With corporate taxes, you're taxing a business. Now, if you increase taxes on a business, what do you think is the most likely option, honest question:
(A) They slash the CEO's pay proportional to the tax
(B) They raise prices to make up for the additional tax
(C) They hold off on raises for low-rung employees and let those wages decrease due to inflation to make up for the additional tax
(D) They downsize and fire some workers to make up for the additional tax
Some of these options are more realistic than others. Just something to think about.
1 nmx179 2017-09-16
If you decrease the taxes on a business, what do you think is the most likely option, honest question:
(a) They raise the CEO's pay proportional to the tax
(b) They give more money to their workers out of the goodness of their tender hearts
(c) They sit on their huge pile of cash
Some of these options are more realistic than others, especially the one that is actually a real thing that has happened.
1 WikiTextBot 2017-09-16
Global saving glut
Global saving glut (also global savings glut, GSG, cash hoarding, dead cash, dead money, glut of excess intended saving, shortfall of investment intentions), describes a situation in which desired saving exceeds desired investment. By 2005 Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, the central bank of the United States, expressed concern about the "significant increase in the global supply of saving" and its implications for monetary policies, particularly in the United States. Although Bernanke's analyses focused on events in 2003 to 2007 that led to the 2007–2009 financial crisis, regarding GSG countries and the United States, excessive saving by the non-financial corporate sector (NFCS) is an ongoing phenomenon, affecting many countries. Bernanke's "celebrated (if sometimes disputed)" global saving glut (GSG) hypothesis argued that increased capital inflows to the United States from GSG countries were an important reason that U.S. longer-term interest rates from 2003 to 2007 were lower than expected.
[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.27
1 TechnocratNextDoor 2017-09-16
That's a concern no matter what, and I would argue it isn't worth it to increase taxes to be level across institutions just to avoid tax avoidance at the expense of economic pragmatism.
I think that while this is a tough challenge, we should take on the challenge of trying to create a regulatory environment that makes it difficult to avoid taxes with tricks like that. It's hard, and it requires international cooperation, but luckily the G20 is already working on it and even has it as a priority alongside things like climate change.
1 nmx179 2017-09-16
How is it a concern if corporations also pay taxes on their income comparable to what individuals pay?
Oh well as long as it's difficult. After all, we want to make sure only the properly wealthy who have lots of lawyers and accountants are able to hide their wealth, it wouldn't do for the average shmoe to be able to do it.
If it were somehow possible to create a regulatory environment where it were impossible for the wealthy to incorporate themselves and pay no taxes ever, then I'd maybe consider the 0% corporate tax rate something other than a transparent giveaway to said wealthy people, but 1. I sincerely doubt that such a thing is possible, and 2. I note that approximately zero people in r/neoliberal hawking the 0% corporate tax rate bothered to say "contingent on ensuring that the wealthy can't abuse the massive loophole we want to put right into the middle of the tax system".
1 TechnocratNextDoor 2017-09-16
Because (most) rich people will always look for ways to avoid taxes, whether that's offshore bank accounts or gifting or certain kinds of investments.
Oh c'mon, you know what I meant. I would love to make it impossible, but who am I to claim that it's possible to make it impossible?
But again, that assumes that the tax incidence of the corporate income tax falls entirely on wealthy people. It doesn't. It affects so many other people too, see my options listed from before.
/r/neoliberal isn't worried about protecting rich people. Go into the sub and suggest that we should implement a land value tax or a carbon tax or even increase household income taxes on the top 20%. Nobody will downvote you unless you go out of you way to be provocative or rude otherwise. Chances are you'll be upvoted and people will agree with you.
1 nmx179 2017-09-16
Going by the linked thread, most of r/neoliberal considers the land value tax a replacement for existing property taxes, and the one person I saw suggesting a significant increase in income tax was sitting pretty with one upvote.
If you can't make it impossible, then you shouldn't be talking about advocating for sticking a massive 0% loophole right into the middle of the tax system.
Which is why I don't think we should make it easier by sticking a massive 0% loophole into the middle of the tax system. The entire idea seems made to be abused.
1 TechnocratNextDoor 2017-09-16
I'm saying it's impossible to completely eliminate options for tax avoidance. Rich people (and their lawyers) are creative.
I don't think it would be as hard to keep rich people from stashing their money in a corporation tax free. For example, once some good baseline regulations are set up, the threat to make to corporations is easy - engage in this behavior, and you lose your tax free status. Hell, create some kind of punitive firm status they can be set as where engaging in such activities would risk giving them a huge tax burden.
Maybe that's not the answer. My point is, we can come up with ideas and incentives and punishments.
In any case, eliminating the corporate income tax rate is a pipe dream anyway, unfortunately much like the LVT or a more progressive income tax system that turns into a negative income tax on the lower end. I'd like to see the corporate tax rate lower because I think that would benefit most people, but I certainly wouldn't want to see it eliminated in one swoop tomorrow.
1 some-other 2017-09-16
Oh boy that assuring.
1 Prince_Kropotkin 2017-09-16
I'd be more OK with getting rid of corporate taxes if someone plausibly (in part meaning a politically feasible plan) explained how we could a) increase personal taxes to make up the difference on the rich, and not let them avoid it easily, and b) effectively prevent people from incorporating themselves & running all their personal expenses through that shell company. I am a big fan of Henry George but I want people taxed extremely progressively so that accumulating massive, politically corrosive fortunes is pretty much impossible, and I'm not sure a LVT will do that.
1 xbettel 2017-09-16
You can tax them directly.
1 Prince_Kropotkin 2017-09-16
Not if its all in the Cayman Islands.
1 nmx179 2017-09-16
Circling back to this
Why would I believe corporations aren't already selling their products for the maximum amount they're able to, while employing as few people as they can get away with, and paying them the lowest amount they can get away with?
If corporations have the ability to raise prices, fire employees, or reduce wages without incurring consequences, why haven't they done so already?
1 TechnocratNextDoor 2017-09-16
Because we're assuming they aren't monopolies, and have to compete with other firms. Assuming their product isn't identical to other firms (monopolistic competition model) they can certainly get away with not having the lowest price possible either, but unless they're both (1) a monopoly and (2) dealing in a product with totally inelastic demand, they're not in the situation you describe.
But a firm with a somewhat unique product competing with other firms is going to be straddling a line between its costs (which could put it out of the market) versus having too high a price (in which case nobody will buy anyway.)
You could just as easily ask why a firm ever downsizes, or ever increases prices.
1 some-other 2017-09-16
i feel unsafe now.
1 TechnocratNextDoor 2017-09-16
?
1 darkaceAUS 2017-09-16
Not a big fan of empiricism, hey?
1 nmx179 2017-09-16
Not a fan of people throwing one study that fits their selfish and self-serving worldview at me and calling it "empiricism"
1 darkaceAUS 2017-09-16
There are dozens of studies on this. Optimal company tax is zero. Same with capital gains.
1 nmx179 2017-09-16
Of course, gotta make sure the rich are as rich as humanly possible, and that everyone else gets a nice shit sandwich.
1 darkaceAUS 2017-09-16
Hi, I'm nmx179 and I have no idea what tax incidence is
Why do you think CIT is paid by the rich? What evidence do you have to support this proposition?
1 nmx179 2017-09-16
Generally because I assume corporations are already employing as few people as they can get away with hiring, for as little as they can get away with paying them, and selling their products for as much as they can get away with selling them for, and so their ability to push costs like taxes onto the backs of those parties is limited.
Also because given the global corporate savings glut, I sincerely doubt that corporations like Google that are already choosing to sit on literally hundreds of billions of dollars in cash are going to take any extra money you give them and start giving it away wholesale to their employees out of the goodness of their hearts.
1 darkaceAUS 2017-09-16
Where's your evidence to suggest it's paid by the rich? Models, peer-reviewed evidence, etc.
1 Prince_Kropotkin 2017-09-16
Your entire shtick is just going to Google Scholar and cherrypicking a single paper to give the aura of "empiricism" around your mega-strong priors. I've seen people do the exact same thing back to you and you've lost your mind about it. You're a hack, not anyone interested in discussion.
1 darkaceAUS 2017-09-16
My shtick is believing what the evidence says mr pk. Evidence doesn't support gift-based economies being welfare enhancing, for instance
1 Prince_Kropotkin 2017-09-16
Your shtick is repeating your strong priors over and over again without regard to reality (beyond the pieces of reality you can cherrypick).
1 darkaceAUS 2017-09-16
Reality seems to back me up, unless you can find something that says otherwise? Optimal CIT is zero from all papers I've seen.
1 grungebot5000 2017-09-16
according to these charts, taxes are good and you have a small penis
1 darkaceAUS 2017-09-16
I'll privatise your bussy
1 grungebot5000 2017-09-16
rude
1 xbettel 2017-09-16
You can tax the rich and still get rid of corporate taxes. They are stupid.
1 grungebot5000 2017-09-16
8/10 post, needs more rigotoni
1 jvwoody 2017-09-16
Considering that sub fucking schisms over beans in chili , this isn't drama. Try again PK.
1 Prince_Kropotkin 2017-09-16
NEOLIBERAL DEFENSE FORCE UNITE
1 jvwoody 2017-09-16
runs away to post in chapo Don't you have your fake quals to study for?
1 Prince_Kropotkin 2017-09-16
I already passed them.