Comments on: The Story Of Huey And Mongo. -Grimgold

By: grimgold

grimgold — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 00:34:04 +0000

Scribe! I saw MPFCircus last night – thought about you.
We need the Silly Party in this country!
Gringold

By: Ye Olde Scribe

Ye Olde Scribe — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:56:44 +0000

Mongo know nothing about this. But Mongo do love Sheriff Bart.

By: grimgold

grimgold — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:20:20 +0000

Daddio, I don’t understand what “an excellent nick” means, but probably not complementary.
All I did was explain the Laffer curve. I said nothing about supply-side econ. When it comes to growing up, how about paying some attention to me concerning inflation? How about a comment about that rather than picking on me for things i didn’t address?

By: Daddy-O

Daddy-O — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:56:15 +0000

Gee…that confiscatory tax rate must be such a problem in the European Union, eh?

Germany…France…the U.K….they’re all socialist countries at heart, because their corporate tax rates make ours look like feudalism. How can they possibly pay for their universal health care, their welfare states? How can they possibly live with their balanced budgets and NO running deficits, like Germany? How can they possibly have a currency that is worth MORE than the U.S. dollar?

You got nothin’ but fairy tales, Grim. That’s an excellent nick you picked, dude. Time to grow up and realize that supply-side economics is a con job designed to bilk you out of as much of YOUR hard-earned tax money as possible, straight into the modern-day J.P. Morgans’s wallets and portfolios.

By: Peregrin

Peregrin — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 06:08:24 +0000

The problem, Grimmy, is that the tax breaks have been going not to entrepeneurs, and not to consumers, but to the super-rich. The ideas you’ve been writing about here are sold to the populace as sound principle, but in practice they amount to giving away more money to corporations that have no need of it.

By: grimgold

grimgold — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 02:58:01 +0000

Thanks for the comments.
My fairytale was done in an effort to avoid being boring. My whole cloth thrust was to explain the Laffer curve. That’s all.
I don’t think corporations pay too much tax, though they do pay tax attorneys and lobbyists too well to avoid taxes, perhaps.
If you’d read my previous stuff, which I quit writing about because I didn’t want Bart’s readers to scream, you would know I don’t particularly like corporations, but favor entrepreneurs. I like competition and the best price for the consumer.
I want the FairTax so everyone pays federal tax.
As you probably know, corporations don’t really pay any tax, because they add that cost of doing business on to the cost of goods sold. The consumer ends up paying the tax that the corporations appear to pay.
Am I on the side of big business? Yes if they are providing an excellent service for consumers.
But corporations like AT&T, which is on the verge of monopoly should be broken up. I want a lot of smaller, very successful companies in this country.
And, BTW, there is nothing wrong with being rich. It’s being poor that bothers me.
Grimmy

By: Rainlander

Rainlander — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 20:07:53 +0000

Yup another pie-in-the-sky parable arguing the virtues of corporate welfare.
I’m sorry but the economic dynamic is much more complicated than the simpletons at the seminary
college thinktanks, dont even mention that celebrated dullard Grover Norquist.
I think the facts garnered from the last three
decades speak for themselves and no amount of spin can undo those facts.
If everyone paid their fair share of taxes to begin with then there would not even be a need for this debate and this country would live up to the ideals of a strong and compassionate
democracy instead of a nation controlled by corporations lobbying and securing every possible handout at the expense of remaining 99%
of the population.
Why would anyone aware of the nature of swindle chearlead for it?
Unless they had a personal stake in it.Hhhmm?

By: Swampdog

Swampdog — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 20:02:32 +0000

Grimgold,

Not only is your story made of whole cloth, it doesn’t support your argument.

“Expanding” from an international specialty area (a near monopoly with a large profit margin); a large boulder business, into a heavily saturated local gravel and dirt market (Dirt and gravel are not cost efficient to ship. They are almost always locally available and profit margins are low.)- or even a franchise chain of local businesses is a bad business decision and would have almost no effect on employment either – since dirt and gravel are already supplied locally fairly well.

What happens, in fact and in history, when we give profitable businesses windfall tax breaks is that they buy each other out – mergers – which tend toward monopoly, less choice for consumers, less competition and therefore less innovation and efficiency and ultimately a poorer economy generally.

Also, 91% was the top INCOME tax bracket and Kennedy’s 70% sounds about right to me too – not the current 37% or so. Huey and Mongo would pay CORPORATE taxes on profits. Kennedy lowered corporate rates five points to 47% for the largest businesses. It’s 35% now.

So now I have a question. Do you believe that the rich and/or corporations are currently taxed so much that economic growth is inhibited?… or is there some other reason you offer this strange and unsupportive story?

By: peachfront

peachfront — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 18:04:51 +0000

Well, it’s easier to tell fairy tales than to cite facts, isn’t it, which is why there is no real historical example offered in this strange little story. The expansion in the economy and in the working man’s income during the post-war era of the 1950s and 1960s says it all about so-called “confiscatory taxes.” I don’t want two rich brothers to expand and take everything, do I? I’m not one of the two rich brothers.