Tax Inversions Hinder Economy, Boost Large Caps

jaeger19 · Feb 18, 2016

JasperL said:
I know who writes the check, and economists (all of them I can find) disagree with you. So either you get it or they do, and I'll put my faith in experts, and the evidence, not ignoramuses.

And I cited the conclusion, quoted it, from the study, written by the author, so if I don't understand the paper, and the findings, neither does the author of the study. You do however.... :roll::lamo

In addition to the one paper, I cited several others and summarized the findings of those empirical studies. You've cited nothing. That's the bottom line. Evidence isn't an appeal to authority, it's evidence. You've got none.

Keep repeating that meaningless point that you write the check, and maybe someday it will be relevant, but not today! eace

Economists don;t disagree with me.. they would disagree with you. I am sorry sir.. but I have tried to make you understand that you have taken research on another subject entirely.. and have misinterpreted it to support your position.

No economist would argue that when it comes to taxes.. I the employer are not responsible for paying that wage tax and that I bear that cost regardless of market conditions etc.

the ONLY way your premise would be correct.. is that when the tax on the employer was reduced.. that there was an immediate and equal increase in wages regardless of market conditions.

That's simply the facts.

You say I have cited nothing. That's because NO ONE.. is making the assumption regarding taxes that you are. NO ONE.... you THINK your studies prove your point.. but they don't...because that's NOT THE FOCUS OF THEIR RESEARCH.

I can't seem to explain it to you. You see their words.. and you have leapt to an incorrect assumption on what that research means and what they are saying.

For example.. the chile study is not saying that the social security tax was being paid by the workers even thought the employer was paying the check. What it studied was what happened to wages over time when the tax was decreased on employers, and increased on workers. And what happened in that inflationary market was that wages eventually went up. AND there was no change in employment. And the change in employment that they hypothesized WAS THAT WORKERS WOULD DECIDE NOT TO WORK. That's what they were looking to see. If workers would decide that the increase in taxes would mean they would stay home because work didn;t pay. However, they figured out that the workers found enough value in the benefits of the system that they continued to work.. and eventually in an inflationary market.. the wages caught up to the increase in tax on the worker.

You have tried to argue that wage taxes in America are not progressive.. because "well the worker is really paying them".. and that simply is not the case. If it WERE the case.. then the minute that the tax was decreased or increased.. there would have to be an IMMEDIATE and EQUAL change in wages either up or down.

That's all there is to it Jasper.

JasperL · Feb 18, 2016

jaeger19 said:
Economists don;t disagree with me.. they would disagree with you.

I'm going to keep this short because you're just repeating the same stuff over and over. If you want to assert economists agree with you, give me a cite!

For example.. the chile study is not saying that the social security tax was being paid by the workers even thought the employer was paying the check. What it studied was what happened to wages over time when the tax was decreased on employers, and increased on workers. And what happened in that inflationary market was that wages eventually went up. AND there was no change in employment. And the change in employment that they hypothesized WAS THAT WORKERS WOULD DECIDE NOT TO WORK. That's what they were looking to see. If workers would decide that the increase in taxes would mean they would stay home because work didn;t pay. However, they figured out that the workers found enough value in the benefits of the system that they continued to work.. and eventually in an inflationary market.. the wages caught up to the increase in tax on the worker.

Quote the study! I don't care about your "analysis" let me see the words in the study that prove your point. It's what I did - quoted directly from the conclusion. And it's not just the Chile study - I cited several others. You're up to.....ZERO! LMMFAO :lamo

You have tried to argue that wage taxes in America are not progressive.. because "well the worker is really paying them".. and that simply is not the case. If it WERE the case.. then the minute that the tax was decreased or increased.. there would have to be an IMMEDIATE and EQUAL change in wages either up or down.

I can't figure out if you're just this dishonest, don't read anything that I write, can't comprehend the written word, or are trolling. I've said now a couple dozen times that you're creating straw men and completely misrepresenting my position. You did it again there. I've NEVER said the change would be "IMMEDIATE and EQUAL" and yet in the post above you assert that as my position, TWICE, then wonder why my cites don't support an assertion I NEVER MADE.

The first five or six times I can give you the benefit of the doubt of being just lazy or inattentive, but you keep doing it, I keep quoting what I did say and prove you wrong, and you do it again, and again, and again, and again, and again......................................

There is no point debating with you if you insist on just hilarious hackery like that.

jaeger19 · Feb 18, 2016

Quote the study! I don't care about your "analysis" let me see the words in the study that prove your point. It's what I did - quoted directly from the conclusion. And it's not just the Chile

the quote from the study was taken out of the context of the study and the study was NOT about what your premise is. It did not have to do with whether I as an employer pay the taxes on employees. Which is the subject we were discussing.

What you can't figure out is that I am honest.. that's why I spend time trying to explain things to you. I do read what you write.. and I understand where you are wrong in that. I am not misrepresenting your position. YOU actually are making that mistake.

You don't understand that logically if the employee is actually paying the taxes (as in a pass through situation)... the MINUTE that the tax changes for me.. either up or down.. the that would mean an immediate and equal change in the employees wages.
And your research simply doesn't show that.

You've picked a quote out of context of the study and claiming it means something that it does not actually mean.

I am neither lazy nor inattentive.. my only fault is in not being able apparently to show you why you are incorrect in your premise.

Now look.. if you are saying that wage taxes are progressive because the employer is paying that percentage for all his employees.. if you agree with that.. then we have nothing to argue.

If you don't agree with that.. that its not progressive because the worker is really paying those taxes.. then even your own research shows that's not true.

Its just that simple.

JasperL · Feb 18, 2016

jaeger19 said:
the quote from the study was taken out of the context of the study and the study was NOT about what your premise is. It did not have to do with whether I as an employer pay the taxes on employees. Which is the subject we were discussing.

Quote from the study, then, and tell me where I got it wrong!

What you can't figure out is that I am honest.. that's why I spend time trying to explain things to you. I do read what you write.. and I understand where you are wrong in that. I am not misrepresenting your position. YOU actually are making that mistake.

I never said "IMMEDIATE" or "EQUAL" If you think I've said anything close to that, quote me directly with a link or reference to the post.

In fact, ANY time you claim to speak for my position, quote me. I'm tired of dealing with your straw men. At least if you quote me, you'll have to address what I actually say, not what you invent from nothing.

You don't understand that logically if the employee is actually paying the taxes (as in a pass through situation)... the MINUTE that the tax changes for me.. either up or down.. the that would mean an immediate and equal change in the employees wages.

It's not a pass through. Good gosh, you have no clue how economic incidence works, and yet you're debating a topic about which you are clearly utterly ignorant. There is no wonder you keep misrepresenting my position and it's because you don't know enough to understand the starting point of the question, much less how to answer it. The incidence is shifted to the employee through market forces, which will likely NEVER be immediate and as I keep pointing out will vary, by industry, firm, time, country, region, employee, etc. and may be "mostly" to "all" or "nearly all" shifted to employees, according to the empirical studies. I even pointed out one study in a country with strong unions that could prevent a downward shift in wages in which very little of the payroll tax was able to be shifted backwards. If you read any of what I write, and understood the written word, and can remember what you read for longer than 10 minutes, it's impossible for you to so mangle my position.

And your research simply doesn't show that.

Of course it doesn't. It's your straw man.

You've picked a quote out of context of the study and claiming it means something that it does not actually mean.

Fine, pick your own quote from the study, and put the study IN context. I'll wait here.

I am neither lazy nor inattentive.. my only fault is in not being able apparently to show you why you are incorrect in your premise.

You say my position is "all" is shifted "immediately." I never said either of those things, and I have corrected you many times when you made similar claims with the quotes of what I did say, and yet you keep making the same mistakes. You tell me how an obviously intelligent person makes the same "mistake" 10 times over a week on a single thread, is corrected 10 times, and keeps repeating the same mistake. I'm at a loss!

Now look.. if you are saying that wage taxes are progressive because the employer is paying that percentage for all his employees.. if you agree with that.. then we have nothing to argue.

All I'm saying is every labor economist I've read, every study I've seen, and any discussion of the tax incidence of employer paid fringe benefits and payroll taxes and the like assume that at least a large share if not all of those costs are ultimately reflected in lower nominal wages and are therefore effectively "paid" by employees. So in every analysis of tax burden, employers bear the cost of corporate income taxes, but employees bear the entire cost of both sides of the payroll tax. It's not a radical claim - I doubt if you can find a discussion that assumes anything else. Obviously, this is NOT true in all cases, and in some cases, for example employees paid minimum wage, if your employer's share goes up, it is in fact IMPOSSIBLE for you to lower nominal wages and you bear the ENTIRE burden. When labor supply is really tight, you will bear more of the burden since you have less leverage. When labor is in surplus, you can dictate wages more easily and likely bear none of the burden. Etc. But overall, in general, in most conditions for most employees in most industries, etc. the employee bears at least the great majority of payroll taxes - that's what the theory predicts and what the evidence shows. That's it.

If you want to make another argument, put up or shut up. Cite something.

JasperL · Feb 18, 2016

jaeger19 said:
What you can't figure out is that I am honest.. that's why I spend time trying to explain things to you. I do read what you write.. and I understand where you are wrong in that. I am not misrepresenting your position. YOU actually are making that mistake.

OK, I apologize for the previous post, but it's frustrating because you ARE misrepresenting my position and I keep telling you how and when and it keeps happening. I'll assume it's a misunderstanding because I don't believe you're dishonest.

So I'll try this simply.

The equilibrium price for a unit of labor is, say, $X. But X is made up of several components for most employees - at least wages plus direct taxes on wages (i.e. payroll taxes - what we're talking about) and often plus health benefits, sick pay, vacation pay, and more.

The theory is simply that Employers (in a macro sense) demand A units of labor at a price (inclusive of all direct employment costs) of X. If some component of X changes, such as a change in payroll taxes, the general tendency is for wages to remain at that same equilibrium price of X, which requires some change in another component of X, in this case nominal wages. So if the payroll tax component of $X goes up $1 an hour, the tendency is overall, in general, for nominal wages to fall $1 or at least most of $1. That's really the theory in a nutshell, and the empirical studies just exist to see if that's how it works in practice. What they're really looking at is the elasticity of supply and demand for labor, or in layman's terms as I understand it, the theory is employers base that equilibrium price on some notion of value added and price demanded for labor tends to stay at that equilibrium price, which remains rooted in some notion of value added per unit of labor.

jaeger19 · Feb 19, 2016

I never said "IMMEDIATE" or "EQUAL" If you think I've said anything close to that

I know that Jasper.. but that's what would be required to make your premise work.

All I'm saying is every labor economist I've read, every study I've seen, and any discussion of the tax incidence of employer paid fringe benefits and payroll taxes and the like assume that at least a large share if not all of those costs are ultimately reflected in lower nominal wages and are therefore effectively "paid" by employees

No.. not that they are "effectively" paid by the employee... for that to be true.. then it would have to be an immediate and equal change the minute it changed from employer to employee or vice versa.

What is true is that all costs.. from paper to oil.. to the cost of light bulbs factor into what can be paid to a employee in an inflationary market with high demand for labor. If the price of toilet paper goes up tremendously.. then that cuts into what money could go to raises for the employee in a competitive labor market.

no one is going to claim that employees bear the cost of toilet paper. Such a point would be meaningless.

Your evidence does not show that the employee is bearing the majority of payroll taxes.. when it comes to taxation.

For that to be true.. the minute that the tax was transferred from employer to employee then the amount would need to be immediate and equal. and its simply not.

That's it.

JasperL · Feb 20, 2016

jaeger19 said:
I know that Jasper.. but that's what would be required to make your premise work.

No.. not that they are "effectively" paid by the employee... for that to be true.. then it would have to be an immediate and equal change the minute it changed from employer to employee or vice versa.

LMMFAO. It looks like you got into the liquor a little early on a Friday, because that's just hilariously wrong. If you thought about it for, say, 5 seconds, you'd realize that in no other market do changes in the commodity price or even the wholesale price always get "immediate" and "equal" adjustment to retail prices.

It would be funny if it did happen that way. You're in line at McD and the price of fries goes from 99 to 100 to 99 to 98.5 to 99 to 99.3 all while you're standing there to reflect the latest prices of potatoes on the BOT! The whole screen is blinking as the latest prices of chicken, beef, wheat, etc. flow through prices. Old timey restaurants would have to reprint menus at least daily, or at least every time they got a shipment of...ANYTHING! And if not then the prices of commodities are NOT reflected in retail prices because the effect isn't "immediate" and "equal"!!! :shock: :lamo

Maybe you can think about it over the weekend and revisit this topic.... You're digging your hole deeper, with a backhoe at full speed, with that one!

What is true is that all costs.. from paper to oil.. to the cost of light bulbs factor into what can be paid to a employee in an inflationary market with high demand for labor. If the price of toilet paper goes up tremendously.. then that cuts into what money could go to raises for the employee in a competitive labor market.

no one is going to claim that employees bear the cost of toilet paper. Such a point would be meaningless.

Your evidence does not show that the employee is bearing the majority of payroll taxes.. when it comes to taxation.

For that to be true.. the minute that the tax was transferred from employer to employee then the amount would need to be immediate and equal. and its simply not.

That's it.

I've already addressed those points, and you've already ignored them.

If you have any evidence, please cite it. You say economists are on your side - cite them. Should be simple - Google works on your computer.