@patb2009, If their products are clearly superior and competitively priced, they don't necessarily have to be viewed as a neutral supplier. Toyota currently purchases electric drivetrain components from Tesla, and I believe that one other car company does as well. In my opinion, they are doing so because Tesla is building world class drivetrain components, apparently at a cost that makes sense to "competitors".
I did not specify how much the disincentive is-simply that it exists. And clearly historical records indicate that tax changes are enough of an influence to invert the rate/revenue relationship.
I'm not saying no one will start/expand a buisness simply that the numbers will be reduced.
Your Buffet example indicates the real question-risk vs. reward. Let's say it isn't making 90%, many buisnesses are operating well below 10% profit. With variations in their markets, changes in the economy etc. getting hit with more tax (whether on the buis or their income) could swing a lot of them to say "enough".
Simply noting that taxs do not stop all users of a product does not tell us of the affect on some.
Some of your arguements seem to fall into a family of fallicy of equating charateristics of the individual item with the charateristics of the whole group.
There also seems to be a certain "all or nothing" approach to your positions. I'm not talking about the complete elimination of taxes, just questioning the rates, and indeed pointing out that higher rates do not always produce higher revenues (a classic "lose, lose" situation).
It is also very unclear that higher levels taxation and spending give us "more" or "better" civilization. More is sometimes less. More water may not give you a "better" bath, just an opportunity to mop afterwards. (See my earlier point on the "War on Poverty", it's one of the earliest posts).
BTW, thanks for remaining civil and not decending into personal attacks as some did earlier. It is appreciated.
"I'm not impressed Reagan "Grew" revenue, if he burned up the Balance sheet
in the process."
Actually I agree. If you will note I was making a point that raising tax rates does not necessarily increase revenue-in fact historically they have an inverse relationship.
Hence the examples of Coolidge, Kennedy and Reagan cutting rates and gaining revenue plus economic acceleration.
I realize it is counter-intuitive. One thing I was taught that helped me understand was to realize that a tax is a price for a behavior. It is rather sad that everybody understands that a higher tax on tabacco, alchohol or gas is a disincentive to use those items. Yet they miss that taxes that raise the price of acheivement, enterprenuership or buisness also reduce the incentives to do the things that create jobs. France recently raised their tax on high incomes and found that the rich started leaving the country. Shocker.
Please note that I do not support deficit spending from either party, whether it is the party of too big govt with too much spending, or the party of really huge govt with even bigger overspending (those are the current choices). Some of the comments I see by folks that actually think that the leadership of their party is the party that cares are rather precious.
In that area it ia also worth noting the affects of govt spending on the economy.
Admittedly these are corralation-I cannot prove causation-though I suspect others can.
1920ish-Stockmarket crash (yes there was another). Harding trims govt spending massively. Fast recovery-roaring 20's!
1929- Stock crash, in next year unemployment peaks at 9% has fallen to 6% prior to govt stepping in. Govt steps in and the Great Depression results. Both Hoover and FDR make the same mistake, indeed one of FDR's cabinet noted thatt there was nothing in the New Deal thatt didn't have a precedent in the Hoover admin. FDR's treas. Sec. (IIRC) stated thst they had "spent more than anybody before, we know it does not work).
Most recessions since have had very little spending by govt and relatively quick recoveries. The current recovery is possibly the slowest ever and it was preceded with...huge govt spending.
As I said earlier on another subject-there are somethings only govt can screw-up.
In many engineering workplaces, there’s a generational conflict between recent engineering graduates and older, more experienced engineers. However, a recent study published in the psychology journal Cognition suggests that both may have something to learn from another group: 4 year olds.
Conventional wisdom holds that MIT, Cal Tech, and Stanford are three of the country’s best undergraduate engineering schools. Unfortunately, when conventional wisdom visits the topic of best engineering schools, it too often leaves out some of the most distinguished programs that don’t happen to offer PhD-level degrees.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.