If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNBC)   In today's edition of MONEY DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY: "Rubio said that taxes remove money that was going to be spent into the economy"   (cnbc.com) divider line 114
    More: Fail, Larry Kudlow, supreme court rules, CNBC  
•       •       •

1304 clicks; posted to Business » on 27 Jun 2012 at 10:47 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



114 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-27 03:36:33 AM
'Hey guys, I would love to buy your insurance, but I have a kid who is sick. Will you cover them as well? Because this other guy will cover them, and I'll go with them if you don't do the same.' I think that now the consumer is empowered to make that argument."

Are you f*cking kidding me? "This other guy will cover them."???? What other-f*cking "guy" is losing $500,000 covering your kid with leukemia just to get your "business" (read losses) from their competitor? Are you for real?

People actually believe this sh*t?

Oh my god. It's like every retard in every economics class I've ever been in has found a collective voice. We laughed your ideas out of the classroom! Did you NOT get the hint?

If you have 10 DUIs and a vehicular manslaughter charge... Hey! Good luck getting car insurance. They'll give you a price, $2,700 per month. Don't you feel like an empowered consumer in the free market? It's Grrrrrrrrrrrreat!
 
2012-06-27 06:37:52 AM

NewportBarGuy: wall of rant


There would be 'another guy' if they were allowed to sell across state lines. Also, competition doesn't drive down prices in your world? Weird.(and wrong)
 
2012-06-27 07:52:13 AM
2.bp.blogspot.com

RUFIO WANTS FREE-MARKET HEALTH CARE SYSTEM!
RUFIO!!!
 
2012-06-27 07:56:55 AM
The only time taxes would actually remove money from the economy is if they were used to repurchase foreign held US government bonds ("paying down the debt") or if the government ran a surplus and began hoarding cash. In all other cases, it gets cycled back into the economy via government employee/military paychecks or purchases. Since the government mostly employs U.S. citizens and mostly contracts U.S. firms to manufacture items or procure services, while private companies and wealthy individuals tend to go solely for the lowest price point, it could be argued that taxation and government spending is more likely to keep the money moving in our economy than leaving the money in the hands of wealthy individuals and corporations.

/all taxation is theft
 
2012-06-27 07:57:39 AM

RobertBruce: There would be 'another guy' if they were allowed to sell across state lines.


LOL! "If only Betty's Insurance Emporium of Greater Peoria was allowed to sell coverage in California. She'd take down Cigna in a heartbeat."
 
2012-06-27 07:59:45 AM

RobertBruce: There would be 'another guy' if they were allowed to sell across state lines.


They'd all relocate to whichever state was the first to allow an "unless we don't feel like paying for that today" clause in their paperwork.
 
2012-06-27 08:01:12 AM

RobertBruce: NewportBarGuy: wall of rant

There would be 'another guy' if they were allowed to sell across state lines. Also, competition doesn't drive down prices in your world? Weird.(and wrong)


Thank you Painfully Obvious Talking Point Machine, your obfuscating stupidity has been noted.
 
2012-06-27 08:14:11 AM
Hey Subby, when did you get your GED in economics?

Money taken as taxes does not encourage growth. People who are allowed to spend the money they earn do encourage growth.

It's really pretty simple.
 
2012-06-27 08:15:00 AM

RobertBruce: NewportBarGuy: wall of rant

There would be 'another guy' if they were allowed to sell across state lines. Also, competition doesn't drive down prices in your world? Weird.(and wrong)


Remember when we did that with the credit card companies and they suddenly all moved to Delaware and started charging 50% interest?

Nothing like a race to the bottom. Good times.
 
2012-06-27 08:32:12 AM
The money is gone, simply gone, poof, never to be found again, it's like it's a miracle.

Also:
Germany individual income tax rates ,2012

Tax % Tax Base (EUR)
0 Up to 8,004
14% 8,005-52,881
42% 52,882-250,730
45% 250,731 and over

Note: The rates are before solidarity tax,all individuals,and business tax-for business income.
Members of the church pay 8%-9% church tax.

Germany GDP Growth rate
www.tradingeconomics.com
 
2012-06-27 08:35:02 AM
Rubio is upset about the government hoarding all that money. Stingy democrats!
 
2012-06-27 09:35:41 AM
So, lemme get this straight. If my taxes go up, I'll still have just as much money to spend on crap (i.e., pour back into the economy)?

AWESOME

NewportBarGuy: 'Hey guys, I would love to buy your insurance, but I have a kid who is sick. Will you cover them as well? Because this other guy will cover them, and I'll go with them if you don't do the same.' I think that now the consumer is empowered to make that argument."

Are you f*cking kidding me? "This other guy will cover them."???? What other-f*cking "guy" is losing $500,000 covering your kid with leukemia just to get your "business" (read losses) from their competitor? Are you for real?

People actually believe this sh*t?


I believe this is the primary reason why Obamacare has the national mandate in it: so that people cannot game the system. "Oh, I feel fine right now, I don't need insurance." Fast forward some bit of time: "Oh noes, got teh cancer, better buy insurance!"

RobertBruce: NewportBarGuy: wall of rant

There would be 'another guy' if they were allowed to sell across state lines. Also, competition doesn't drive down prices in your world? Weird.(and wrong)


Insurance rates are based on the risk pool the insurer covers. Being able to cover more people across state lines--if they belong in the same pool--can bring down rates, because a couple $1m hospitalizations/treatments in a pool of thousands doesn't hurt the insurer's bottom line as much. Now, a couple high-cost treatments in a pool of, say, a hundred means that the insurer has to cover that cost. How do they do that? By raising everyone's premiums. It's why my company's OLD insurer charged us an arm and a leg: our average age here is 50-something, and there are a lot of diabetics here (Native American population--apparently, they're more susceptible to Type II diabetes). Now, our NEW insurer (either thanks to Obamacare or the law Gov. LePage signed some time back, I'm not sure which) is allowed to put us in a risk pool that covers *all Federal employees*. Bigger pool = less risk for the insurer.

So, long story short, opening up insurance companies to go across state lines MAY reduce your premiums. But not always. Competition helps, but not always in the way you think it would.

Also, insurance companies make money not just in premiums, but in how they invest your premium contributions. So, what you pay from company to company also depends on how well their investments are performing.

That's how I understood it, anyway...
 
2012-06-27 09:37:02 AM
Oh, I'm a idiot. I should've formed my post thusly:

I used to work in the insurance industry, so I'm really getting a kick out of some of these replies...

;)

/needless to say, that stint didn't last long
//f*cking HATED selling insurance
 
2012-06-27 09:42:00 AM

Vodka Zombie: RobertBruce: There would be 'another guy' if they were allowed to sell across state lines.

LOL! "If only Betty's Insurance Emporium of Greater Peoria was allowed to sell coverage in California. She'd take down Cigna in a heartbeat."


That, too. Again, it's related to risk pool. Small insurers are much less likely to have a large risk pool. Or large investments.

However, like we once had in Maine, allowing an insurer all but a monopoly for what they sell (*cough*Anthem*cough) doesn't help keep rates down, either.

It's really a bit more complex than "competition drives down prices." There are many factors.

/captain obvious signing off
 
2012-06-27 09:54:52 AM
The private sector more efficiently utilizes money and creates wealth, while the public sector less efficiently utilizes money and creates debt. There is a net cost associated with transferring money from the private sector to the public sector.
 
2012-06-27 09:57:42 AM
What selling insurance across state lines does, is allow folks to ship cash out faster from the economy.

That is the real point. Not just removing some regulations that states enact for their own population--state's rights, whuddathunkit folks would be against that--but speeding up the process of siphoning cash out of local and state economies.

This is why we are seeing a slow recovery. A lack of ability to invest in those local economies. Watching chain stores roll in, with their own distro nets, their own warehouses that purchase overseas and ship to themselves, and produce their own products to bring to themselves. The largest players may employ folks locally, but they don't really contribute as much as local entrepreneurs would. Worse, they ask for subsidies in the form of a lowered tax base, and then ship their cash straight out, not even involving local banks, and then use these savings to stomp on competition.

You want to give tax breaks? Then do so to encourage local players to form. Encourage competition in the market, locally. Reward folks who take risks and contribute to their local tax base, as well as the local distro nets, and chains of services. Local businesses invest in their area, they also use local distributors, those distributors also purchase, buy gas, and a contribute locally as well. We want to see folks flourish, then encourage those smaller players to grow, not just invite chains who ship cash out far and away, and who ignore local distributors and purveyors.

Tax breaks aren't bad, but they have to be a carrot, not a blanket reward for putting out a shingle. Encourage useful behaviors, not just throw out a welcome mat for folks who will prey on local economies and give little in return for the favor...
 
2012-06-27 10:38:41 AM

miss diminutive: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x250]

RUFIO WANTS FREE-MARKET HEALTH CARE SYSTEM!
RUFIO!!!


www.wired.com

If you know what I'm talking about, you can't un-hear it now.
 
2012-06-27 10:57:37 AM

RobertBruce: NewportBarGuy: wall of rant

There would be 'another guy' if they were allowed to sell across state lines. Also, competition doesn't drive down prices in your world? Weird.(and wrong)


Jesus H Christ you are naive.
 
2012-06-27 10:57:42 AM
I recently cancelled a vacation and indefinitely put off home improvements when I saw how much extra I was going to have to pay in 2011 income taxes. So, uhhh, I guess it's just you minimum wage/unemployed (i.e. OWS types) who think money doesn't work that way.
 
2012-06-27 11:04:43 AM
It is amazing that so many people don't know (won't admit) that government spending increases gross domestic product.
 
2012-06-27 11:08:20 AM

SlothB77: The private sector more efficiently utilizes money and creates wealth, while the public sector less efficiently utilizes money and creates debt. There is a net cost associated with transferring money from the private sector to the public sector.


Thank you Naive Bullshiat Platitude Man. Your contributions are noted and laughed at.
 
2012-06-27 11:09:17 AM

Emrick: It is amazing that so many people don't know (won't admit) that government spending increases gross domestic product.


Halliburton knows it, but they prefer not to talk about it.

/that tax money may go back in to the economy, but it's the ultimate example of trickle down theory considering where it goes
 
2012-06-27 11:09:46 AM

enik: I recently cancelled a vacation and indefinitely put off home improvements when I saw how much extra I was going to have to pay in 2011 income taxes. So, uhhh, I guess it's just you minimum wage/unemployed (i.e. OWS types) who think money doesn't work that way.


You are either:

a) extremely uniformed about your finances
b) lying
c) Have a crooked accountant

Tell me exactly whose taxes have gone up in hte last year, or the last 5?
 
2012-06-27 11:11:59 AM

SlothB77: The private sector more efficiently utilizes money and creates wealth, while the public sector less efficiently utilizes money and creates debt. There is a net cost associated with transferring money from the private sector to the public sector.


[citation needed.jpg]
 
2012-06-27 11:16:12 AM

enik: I recently cancelled a vacation and indefinitely put off home improvements when I saw how much extra I was going to have to pay in 2011 income taxes. So, uhhh, I guess it's just you minimum wage/unemployed (i.e. OWS types) who think money doesn't work that way.


Compared to your 2010 tax bill, your 2011 tax bill was so high that you had to cancel a vacation and home improvement projects?

Unless your "vacation" was "stay at a friend's or family member's house halfway across town for a few days while I take paid leave from work" and your "home improvement projects" was "fix a slight leak in the kitchen/bathroom sink faucet," chances are that your income also went up high enough that you could have easily covered those expenses regardless of your tax bill.

/if taxes below $250k are 0%, above $250k is 50% and you make $250,002 per year, your tax bill is one dollar, NOT $125,001
//farking progressive taxation, how does it work?
 
2012-06-27 11:18:22 AM

enik: I recently cancelled a vacation and indefinitely put off home improvements when I saw how much extra I was going to have to pay in 2011 income taxes. So, uhhh, I guess it's just you minimum wage/unemployed (i.e. OWS types) who think money doesn't work that way.


The same thing happened to me. I was making $300,000 last year, but now I am making $330,000. Since the tax rate goes from 33% to 35% at $328,000, my accountant told me I should quit my job and get on welfare so now I make no money. That's what these libs don't get. If high achievers like me don't get to keep our money then we will just GO GALT and there will be no one in the marketplace who knows how to create credit default swaps.

What will you do then, libs? What will you do without Randian Superheroes like me to broker your credit default swaps? Yeah. Think about that.
 
2012-06-27 11:19:54 AM

BillCo: Hey Subby, when did you get your GED in economics?

Money taken as taxes does not encourage growth. People who are allowed to spend the money they earn do encourage growth.

It's really pretty simple.


Things that don't encourage growth:
-Interstate Highway System
-NASA
-Darpanet
-Public schools and universities

Things that encourage growth:
-Chasing risky financial instruments
 
2012-06-27 11:20:32 AM
images1.wikia.nocookie.net

If taxes were zero....Ayyyyyyyyyyy!
 
2012-06-27 11:28:38 AM

RobertBruce: NewportBarGuy: wall of rant

There would be 'another guy' if they were allowed to sell across state lines. Also, competition doesn't drive down prices in your world? Weird.(and wrong)


Except in insurance, the cost is based on the risk pool, and having competing insurers doesn't drive down cost. It's an area where the standard rules of capitalism break down. Link
 
2012-06-27 11:36:56 AM

Magorn: enik: I recently cancelled a vacation and indefinitely put off home improvements when I saw how much extra I was going to have to pay in 2011 income taxes. So, uhhh, I guess it's just you minimum wage/unemployed (i.e. OWS types) who think money doesn't work that way.

You are either:

a) extremely uniformed about your finances
b) lying
c) Have a crooked accountant

Tell me exactly whose taxes have gone up in hte last year, or the last 5?


Well, it could be something other than one of those 3 options. For example, a company I used to work for simply forgot to take MD's county taxes out of its employees' checks for a year. I ended up owing something like $1,300 to the state over that.

That may fall under (a) or (c), but my taxes didn't change; my withholding did.

// can't rule out that the company was crooked, though
// president's getting sued by her silent partner and several of her clients as we speak
 
2012-06-27 11:40:05 AM

Tyrone Slothrop: Except in insurance, the cost is based on the risk pool, and having competing insurers doesn't drive down cost. It's an area where the standard rules of capitalism break down. Link


Because insurance itself is a scheme to drive up costs and profits. Pay cash for your office visits, you'll save a lot of money. Better off if insurance only covered catastrophic things.
 
2012-06-27 11:52:22 AM

BillCo: Hey Subby, when did you get your GED in economics?

Money taken as taxes does not encourage growth. People who are allowed to spend the money they earn do encourage growth.

It's really pretty simple.


If its so simple, you can then explain to me the mechanism that prevents some spending from promoting growth, when other spending promotes growth, based on the identity of the spender.

Citations encouraged.
 
2012-06-27 11:57:15 AM

enik: I recently cancelled a vacation and indefinitely put off home improvements when I saw how much extra I was going to have to pay in 2011 income taxes. So, uhhh, I guess it's just you minimum wage/unemployed (i.e. OWS types) who think money doesn't work that way.


You were going to spend that money, now the government is going to spend that money. It's still spent, so yeah, it still does not work that way.
 
2012-06-27 12:02:26 PM

Robespierre: enik: I recently cancelled a vacation and indefinitely put off home improvements when I saw how much extra I was going to have to pay in 2011 income taxes. So, uhhh, I guess it's just you minimum wage/unemployed (i.e. OWS types) who think money doesn't work that way.

You were going to spend that money, now the government is going to spend that money. It's still spent, so yeah, it still does not work that way.


Heck, some of that money will even go to job creators in subsidized industries...
 
2012-06-27 12:04:12 PM

hubiestubert: Robespierre: enik: I recently cancelled a vacation and indefinitely put off home improvements when I saw how much extra I was going to have to pay in 2011 income taxes. So, uhhh, I guess it's just you minimum wage/unemployed (i.e. OWS types) who think money doesn't work that way.

You were going to spend that money, now the government is going to spend that money. It's still spent, so yeah, it still does not work that way.

Heck, some of that money will even go to job creators in subsidized industries...


And the money from the Bush tax cuts is currently sitting in record numbers in companies' bank accounts.

So...yeah, even that wrong.
 
2012-06-27 12:10:01 PM
Subby:

Actually, it does work that way.

You're welcome.

Douchebag/Hater
 
2012-06-27 12:10:41 PM

Arkanaut: Things that don't encourage growth:
-Interstate Highway System


notsureifserious.jpg
 
2012-06-27 12:15:43 PM

cameroncrazy1984: hubiestubert: Robespierre: enik: I recently cancelled a vacation and indefinitely put off home improvements when I saw how much extra I was going to have to pay in 2011 income taxes. So, uhhh, I guess it's just you minimum wage/unemployed (i.e. OWS types) who think money doesn't work that way.

You were going to spend that money, now the government is going to spend that money. It's still spent, so yeah, it still does not work that way.

Heck, some of that money will even go to job creators in subsidized industries...

And the money from the Bush tax cuts is currently sitting in record numbers in companies' bank accounts.

So...yeah, even that wrong.


Higher taxes can solve that little conundrum. Perhaps on wealth and not income?
 
2012-06-27 12:20:27 PM

AliceBToklasLives: Arkanaut: Things that don't encourage growth:
-Interstate Highway System

notsureifserious.jpg


Maybe you could read the rest of my comment, you might figure it out yourself.
 
2012-06-27 12:24:31 PM

GoodyearPimp: [images1.wikia.nocookie.net image 200x331]

If taxes were zero....Ayyyyyyyyyyy!


Your fish are dead
 
2012-06-27 12:31:35 PM

Arkanaut: AliceBToklasLives: Arkanaut: Things that don't encourage growth:
-Interstate Highway System

notsureifserious.jpg

Maybe you could read the rest of my comment, you might figure it out yourself.


Nope - In today's political environment, my snark detector is broken.
 
2012-06-27 12:36:51 PM
"When the government spends that dollar, they're going to be a lot less efficient, a lot less stimulative," he said.

Ummm...no. Just no. You sir are so ignorant of economics that you should shut up right now.

The truth is their is that the government is more efficient, more stimulative when spending money then the individual. There is even a name for it, it is called the money multiplier, the money multiplier is if the government spends X they get X + Y increase or stimulation in the economy.

Now then you can have a negative money multiplier of the government is taking more money out of the economy then it is possible for them to put back in, but the latest research indicates that point is some where between a top marginal tax rate of 60-70%.
 
2012-06-27 12:40:58 PM

BillCo: Hey Subby, when did you get your GED in economics?

Money taken as taxes does not encourage growth. People who are allowed to spend the money they earn do encourage growth.

It's really pretty simple.


Money taken as taxes spent on goods in services by the US government has a bigger positive impact on the GDP then individuals spending that same money when that spending is on goods manufactured in the US and services provided by US individuals and firms. It's really pretty simple and any Macro Economics 101 course will explain it to you.
 
2012-06-27 12:42:40 PM

BillCo: Hey Subby, when did you get your GED in economics?

Money taken as taxes does not encourage growth. People who are allowed to spend the money they earn do encourage growth.

It's really pretty simple.


Yes, and money taken in taxes then disappears into a secret, evil government wormhole. It is never spent again or never earned as income or profits by anyone ever again. I can see that you did very well in economics class.
 
2012-06-27 12:46:57 PM

xanadian: Oh, I'm a idiot. I should've formed my post thusly:

I used to work in the insurance industry, so I'm really getting a kick out of some of these replies...

;)

/needless to say, that stint didn't last long
//f*cking HATED selling insurance


What kind of insurance did you sell?
 
2012-06-27 12:49:54 PM

cameroncrazy1984: hubiestubert: Robespierre: enik: I recently cancelled a vacation and indefinitely put off home improvements when I saw how much extra I was going to have to pay in 2011 income taxes. So, uhhh, I guess it's just you minimum wage/unemployed (i.e. OWS types) who think money doesn't work that way.

You were going to spend that money, now the government is going to spend that money. It's still spent, so yeah, it still does not work that way.

Heck, some of that money will even go to job creators in subsidized industries...

And the money from the Bush tax cuts is currently sitting in record numbers in companies' bank accounts.

So...yeah, even that wrong.


How much did the bush tax cuts reduce corporate taxes?
 
2012-06-27 12:52:02 PM

Slaves2Darkness: BillCo: Hey Subby, when did you get your GED in economics?

Money taken as taxes does not encourage growth. People who are allowed to spend the money they earn do encourage growth.

It's really pretty simple.

Money taken as taxes spent on goods in services by the US government has a bigger positive impact on the GDP then individuals spending that same money when that spending is on goods manufactured in the US and services provided by US individuals and firms. It's really pretty simple and any Macro Economics 101 course will explain it to you.


Also, here's a question for all those supporting less taxes so the 1% can spend more in America.

How does them buying an Italian sports car and going gambling in Dubai help the American economy?

Just curious... or do you think America is the only economy they can spend their money in?
 
2012-06-27 12:53:03 PM

Slaves2Darkness: "When the government spends that dollar, they're going to be a lot less efficient, a lot less stimulative," he said.

Ummm...no. Just no. You sir are so ignorant of economics that you should shut up right now.

The truth is their is that the government is more efficient, more stimulative when spending money then the individual. There is even a name for it, it is called the money multiplier, the money multiplier is if the government spends X they get X + Y increase or stimulation in the economy.

Now then you can have a negative money multiplier of the government is taking more money out of the economy then it is possible for them to put back in, but the latest research indicates that point is some where between a top marginal tax rate of 60-70%.


Citation please on the "latest research". I'm honestly interested.

Money spent by consumers and investors has a multiplier as well.
 
2012-06-27 12:56:07 PM

BillCo: Hey Subby, when did you get your GED in economics?

Money taken as taxes does not encourage growth. People who are allowed to spend the money they earn do encourage growth.

It's really pretty simple.


So you're saying spending creates growth?
 
2012-06-27 12:57:05 PM

quiotu: Slaves2Darkness: BillCo: Hey Subby, when did you get your GED in economics?

Money taken as taxes does not encourage growth. People who are allowed to spend the money they earn do encourage growth.

It's really pretty simple.

Money taken as taxes spent on goods in services by the US government has a bigger positive impact on the GDP then individuals spending that same money when that spending is on goods manufactured in the US and services provided by US individuals and firms. It's really pretty simple and any Macro Economics 101 course will explain it to you.

Also, here's a question for all those supporting less taxes so the 1% can spend more in America.

How does them buying an Italian sports car and going gambling in Dubai help the American economy?

Just curious... or do you think America is the only economy they can spend their money in?


Well, how much does giving additional handouts to the poor add to the economy, when they spend it on imported Chinese items at Walmart, if you want to cherry pick potential places to spend cash? Or do you think all dollars spent by the poor stay in
the US?

I'm not arguing for lower taxes on the 1% by any means FYI, but your logic is flawed.
 
Displayed 50 of 114 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report