Comments on: National Review Online - A Bastion of ‘Non-Sensism’ http://rationalleft.com/2008/10/17/national-review-a-bastion-of-non-sensism/ To promote a political public discourse through a rational and intellectual debate Sat, 31 Jul 2010 09:14:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3 By: muravchik http://rationalleft.com/2008/10/17/national-review-a-bastion-of-non-sensism/#comment-26 muravchik Fri, 24 Oct 2008 19:35:48 +0000 http://rationalleft.com/2008/10/17/national-review-a-bastion-of-non-sensism/#comment-26 Does nobody else realize that what Joe, or whatever his name is, wants to do is the cause for the financial trouble we're having today. He claims that he's a hard working man who's been saving up to buy this business. But the truth of the matter - as is the case for most Americans - is that he's trying to buy something he can't afford and is crying about it. He obviously doesn't have the money to buy the company and his brilliant plan is to use the future profits of the operations to finance his purchase. This reminds me of several hundred thousand people I once knew who tried to buy houses they couldn't afford with the money they would eventually receive from renting them out or selling for a profit. I'm a believer in the free markets, but I myself wouldn't even have to balls to make the argument that McCain is making here. Joe is trying to make the leap from blue to white collar. Wouldn't this leap be easier, although less gainful, if the gap between the collars were smaller? Having a more progressive tax structure would both increase Joe's salary and decrease the value of the business making it easier to buy the company. Whether you think the gap should be bigger or smaller is a question of opinion, but the arguments made here are flawed in many ways. Also, I don't really know why Joe thinks he'll be able to afford to hire more people with a lower tax rate on the company. Taxes only affect a company's bottom line, not the top. Only the company's income is taxed - not its revenues. This means that taking profits away from the company doesn't directly decrease its ability to hire employees. What it does do is take profits away from the owners. Also a matter of opinion - but Joe refuses to admit that this is what he's really worried about. Does nobody else realize that what Joe, or whatever his name is, wants to do is the cause for the financial trouble we’re having today. He claims that he’s a hard working man who’s been saving up to buy this business. But the truth of the matter - as is the case for most Americans - is that he’s trying to buy something he can’t afford and is crying about it.

He obviously doesn’t have the money to buy the company and his brilliant plan is to use the future profits of the operations to finance his purchase. This reminds me of several hundred thousand people I once knew who tried to buy houses they couldn’t afford with the money they would eventually receive from renting them out or selling for a profit. I’m a believer in the free markets, but I myself wouldn’t even have to balls to make the argument that McCain is making here. Joe is trying to make the leap from blue to white collar. Wouldn’t this leap be easier, although less gainful, if the gap between the collars were smaller? Having a more progressive tax structure would both increase Joe’s salary and decrease the value of the business making it easier to buy the company. Whether you think the gap should be bigger or smaller is a question of opinion, but the arguments made here are flawed in many ways.

Also, I don’t really know why Joe thinks he’ll be able to afford to hire more people with a lower tax rate on the company. Taxes only affect a company’s bottom line, not the top. Only the company’s income is taxed - not its revenues. This means that taking profits away from the company doesn’t directly decrease its ability to hire employees. What it does do is take profits away from the owners. Also a matter of opinion - but Joe refuses to admit that this is what he’s really worried about.

]]>