Why do American CEOs get paid so much?

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by LafayetteBis, Aug 21, 2018.

  1. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hahahahaha! He gave Econ 101 despite empirically proven to be irrelevant. To derive tax burden analysis based on demand elasticity, you need to assume marginal cost pricing holds. It doesn't. You also have to assume willingness to pay is exogenous. It isn't.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2020
  2. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, your claims continue to be reliably and provably false. What on earth do you incorrectly imagine you think you might be talking about? Why can't you ever remember that the astronomical value of land always empirically proves you wrong, as well as empirically proving gottzilla's point extremely relevant and well taken? Why do you disgrace yourself with such absurd and disingenuous nonsense?
    BWAHAHHAHHAAAAA!! Thank you for admitting that your comments here have all been utterly irrelevant. As long as supply elasticity is zero, as in the case of land, any demand elasticity above zero is irrelevant to the tax burden, which all stays on the landowner. The irrelevance of demand elasticity to the case of land really is Economics 101 -- of which you are of course regrettably innocent. You just explicitly confirmed the irrelevance of every comment you have made since gottzilla's post. Your only purpose, as you just confirmed, has been to deflect and derail. But thanks for the laugh.
    No, that's just another empirically false claim from you, even if it were not irrelevant, which it is.
    False as well as irrelevant, as we have already established.
    Again, both false and irrelevant to the case. Your contribution to the discourse has therefore been provably a pure negative.
     
  3. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    gotzilla, to apply their Econ 101, needs firms to adopt marginal cost pricing. According to the available empirical evidence, what % of firm adopt this strategy? Feel free to criticise Keen's analysis on this issue ;)

    Tut tut, you've forgotten what they typed already? They said "A tax can only be "passed on" to the consumer when producers can decrease supply to artificially increase prices". They then tried to hide that comment as, by defniition, they require an outcome of perfect demand inelasticity. Thats the trouble with Georgists: in any econonic debate, they're reliant on neoclassical economics, but they haven't shown the good grace to learn it first.

    I appreciate you havent understood the relevance, despite it being a simple concept. Cost plus pricing is indeed the norm. Now think what happens if a tax is imposed on a firm? The mark-up falls. How will the firm react? Unless its a tax on profit, it could well pass on the entire cost to the consumer. There is no longer any supply and demand certainty. It is dependent on time, on firm, on managerial objective etc etc etc.

    We again only show Georgists apply neoclassical concepts without any finesse. Where the heck have you been? Behavioural concepts have transformed the analysis. It isnt just about game theory (although that can certainly be used to undrrstand how tacit collusion is the norm). Its also about aspects such as anchoring. Effectively the impact of a price increase on perceptions dissipate. A tax can be fully passed on without any long term impact on demand. It makes gotzilla's reliance on elasticities terribly naive...
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2020
  4. gottzilla

    gottzilla Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I had already edited my post before I saw your first reply, as I was too uncertain on something to let it stand at that time, and was also aware of the fact that people like you are around that will jump on any opportunity to sow confusion.

    You seem to try to sound as "smart" and complex as possible, a hallmark of the pseudo-intellectual; I care first and foremost about about the ideas, preferably presenting them in a context appropriate manner, which in this case meant simplifying it. I said "roughly". I'm not here to score points.

    With your "content", it's usually an untangling process for the reader, and I quickly realize that you run around naked. I have very good what is sometimes referred to as fluid intelligence. bringiton can see it in a lot of my posts, even if you can't. You, by contrast, struggle with simple causal relationship and fail at following the simplest of logic. Hahaha!
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2020
  5. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No bother. I've simple informed you of the severity of your error. You really should be thanking me ;)
     
  6. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,023
    Likes Received:
    19,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nowhere is your long post did you address the real issue; Irresponsible management of our hard earned tax dollar. Oversimplifying the same false position over and over again doesn't change that fact. Results speak for themselves.
     
  7. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, that's not the real issue. It's nothing but a red herring, an evasion of the real issue, because there is no credible evidence that public officials are any less competent to manage public expenditures in CA than other states. Your sort always likes to scream that public officials do not spend public funds as wisely as managers in private business -- but scream even louder if it is suggested that we might have more competent public officials if we paid them more like private business managers responsible for spending similar amounts of money.

    The real issue is that in CA, specifically, and strictly because of Prop 13, taxes do fall more on people's hard-earned dollars rather than on the unearned dollars landowners take from the community in return for nothing. That injustice creates perverse incentives that prevent public officials from achieving the results that could be attained under a fairer and more economically efficient tax system.
    His position is correct as a matter of indisputable economic fact, and all your refusals to learn even the most basic principles of economics cannot change that fact.
    Yes, they do, and CA's results since Prop 13 passed in 1978 speak very loudly indeed.
     
  8. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wrong. The supply of land is fixed, so cost has nothing to do with it. Price is strictly determined by demand.
    Your puerile notion that the relevant datum is the percent of firms rather than which types of goods and services such firms are selling cannot be taken seriously as economic analysis, sorry.
    No, that was amended before I read the post. So unlike you, I am not belaboring an irrelevant error.
    You are trying to deflect and derail by belaboring a minor, careless slip that has already been admitted and amended.
    The Law of Rent, which is the relevant economics and which you have not yet shown the good grace to learn, is not neoclassical economics.
    It's indisputably irrelevant to the issue, which is land, because its supply is fixed.
    Not in the case of land, so it is indeed utterly irrelevant to the issue.
    Let's see.... by magically creating more land? Or somehow destroying it? Is that what you are suggesting?
    Please explain how a landowner can pass on the entire -- or any -- cost of a tax on land rent to the tenant.

    I'm waiting.
    False. There is supply certainty in the relevant case -- land -- because supply is fixed; and demand is unaffected by such a tax.
    Nope. Supply is fixed and demand is unaffected. You just have to refuse to understand what that means, because you have already realized that it proves you wrong.
    But not if supply is fixed, which the supply of land indisputably is, so a tax on land cannot be passed on at all.
    No, it just makes your grotesque, pathological belaboring of a minor, irrelevant inaccuracy terribly disingenuous and boring.
     
  9. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He wasn't speaking about land. He was speaking about a tax on a company. Let's not pretend otherwise, as he then rambled on about bikes (for some unknown reason).

    Your post is therefore, as usual, just rant. Everything I've said has been correct. For gottzilla to pretend elasticities determine tax burden he has to prove that firms adopt marginal cost pricing and that behavioural economics is irrelevant. I'm looking forward to that effort ;)
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2020
  10. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,023
    Likes Received:
    19,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It doesn't take an economic genius to see that CA does not have a revenue shortage. Feel free to ignore that CA cities were on the brink of insolvency even before Covid. It takes a profound amount of gullibility and ignorance to believe that the government is responsible and efficient when it comes to our tax dollar. CA taxis are already the highest and you can bet Newsom will have more bright ideas on how to separate you from your money.

    Not everyone knows fraud when they see it.
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  11. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,023
    Likes Received:
    19,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The pot and the kettle had a similar exchange!
     
  12. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    <sigh> I have informed you multiple times that CA's problem is not a shortage of total revenue but the sources of that revenue. It could get far better results with less revenue if its tax system were fairer: i.e., if Prop 13 did not force the state and all local governments to give exorbitant, increasing, and unsustainable subsidies to landowners.
    Feel free to ignore -- again -- the fact that they were NOT on the brink of insolvency before Prop 13 -- but have been relentlessly driven there BY Prop 13.
    "Meeza hatesa gubmint!" is puerile silliness.

    Would you support a policy of paying public officials similarly to private company managers responsible for similar amounts of spending?

    I'm waiting.
    No, I already proved you objectively wrong on that claim. CA does not even make the top 10, remember? Only its personal income tax rate is the highest.
    CA landowners are already doing that far more efficiently than the government, as the astronomical value of land proves.
    Those who voted for Proposition 13 certainly didn't....
     
  13. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, of course he was.
    YOU are the one pretending all your nitpicking is relevant to the issue, when he has already stipulated that it is not.
    He was trying to contrast the case of elastic supply with the case of land's fixed supply.

    As you know perfectly well.
    False and despicably disingenuous.
    But self-evidently calculated to deflect, derail, confuse, evade, confound, distort and mislead.
    The fact that land's zero elasticity of supply ensures all the burden of a land rent tax falls on the owner is not a pretense. It is a plain fact. YOUR pretense is that that fact is somehow altered by other factors that only operate where supply is not fixed, and are therefore not relevant to the case of land.
    Wrong.
    I think he has learned not to interact with a skunk that is eager to spray its foulness on everything it sees.
     
  14. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This, from you???
    If you are clueless.

    If a physics teacher explains that friction will keep a clock pendulum from changing direction as the earth rotates, it doesn't mean his lesson on the effects of the Coriolis force is actually about friction, despite what a particularly clueless student might think. Or pretend.
     
  15. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,023
    Likes Received:
    19,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have only proven that you believe your government is responsible and should be rewarded with more of your money. Your posts are emotional, false, and reveal a profound lack of understanding.

    You are arguing with points I never made: "Meeza hatesa gubmint!" is puerile silliness. I never said I hate anyone. Californians pay the highest overall taxes and get a bad deal. No emotional rants can change that fact.
     
  16. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yep, someone who talks about sales taxes isn't really talking about sales taxes. Hahahaha.
     
  17. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What do you incorrectly imagine voting is for?
    Flat false. It should take less from the honest and productive like me, more from the privileged and parasitic, like... well, you know who.
    False on all three counts, as readers will confirm for themselves.
    Your every post reeks of hatred for government, as well as liberty and (especially) justice. What else can one make of statements like, "It takes a profound amount of gullibility and ignorance to believe that the government is responsible and efficient when it comes to our tax dollar"?
    No, you have provided zero (0) evidence for that claim, while I have PROVED it is not in the top 10, except in personal income tax rate.
    True: Prop 13 forces them to shovel money into landowners' pockets in return for nothing.
    Calling clear, grammatical, and accurate identification of relevant facts "emotional rants" cannot change those facts, sorry.
     
  18. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not in that case he wasn't, as you know perfectly well.

    If I advise a friend against casino gambling, and explain why using the fact that casinos pay all their expenses out of punters' losses, am I really talking about casinos' operating costs, or about the rationality of my friend's spending choices?

    I'm waiting.
     
  19. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hahahaha! I quoted him directly. A ramble about a sales tax on bikes, using that to make nonsense neoclassical claim. Crikey, how far the internet Georgist plays pretend is breathtaking ;)
     
  20. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To deflect from and evade his point.
     
  21. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,023
    Likes Received:
    19,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Meeza hatesa gubmint!" is your creation. I don't hate anyone. I do love my family and by the time I am done paying taxes, I am left with less than half of my hard earned money. I do enjoy being called "privileged" after growing up with nothing and working long hours to provide for my family. Buying real estate makes me a parasite in your eyes. Perhaps CA should chase away more of these parasitic businesses.

    https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article240432781.html
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  22. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He didn't really have a point. He was attempting to chest puff by referring to neoclassical tax burden analysis into tax elasticities. I merely informed him of his multiple error. Still waiting for my thanks mind you.
     
  23. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You do not earn the money you collect as land rent. You have merely bought a legal entitlement to take it.
    No, owning land does. You explicitly admitted that you had not made any improvements to one of your properties. That means your function is to pocket the land's publicly created rental value in return for nothing.

    To be clear, I am not blaming you for doing that. Like many slave owners, you did it in good faith, in financial self-defense against an unjust system you did not create. But if you rationalize, justify, and defend that unjust system now that you have placed yourself in a position to profit from it, that is a different matter.
    It should definitely chase away landowners who just seek to pocket publicly created land value -- which Prop 13 has made available to be pocketed in astronomical quantities.
     
  24. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    GARBAGE. He was trying to educate Doofenshmirtz, who sorely needed it, on the basics of tax incidence. To characterize that as "chest puffing" is false, absurd, and asinine.
    I'm still waiting for you to explain how a landowner can shift the burden of a tax on land rent onto his tenants.

    Still waiting....
     
  25. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,023
    Likes Received:
    19,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have it backwards. It is the government that does not earn the money they take. More than half my labor goes to pay taxes while you compare me to slave owners. Your position is on the side of denying workers the fruits of their labor. (AKA Slavery) Your position is on the side of greed and poverty. Results speak for themselves.

    If you need me to explain where your landlord get the money to pay their property taxes, you shouldn't own land.
     
    roorooroo likes this.

Share This Page