Do Republicans Think Corporations should pay no taxes?

[Bush92]

I'm a Conservative not a Republican however I believe all should have a stake in the game of paying taxes. That said, we need to cut spending across the board and keep the taxes until the debt is retired and then cut taxes for all.

And with 60% of the Federal budget for "Mandatory spending"... i.e. Medicare/SS/ etc.. how do you propose cutting the
Mandatory spending is estimated to be $2.841 trillion for FY 2020. The two largest mandatory programs are Social Security and Medicare. That's 60% of all federal spending. It's almost three times more than the military budget.
The Mandatory Federal Programs That Are Eating the Budget Alive

Where do you propose cutting that?
Then ...
The interest on the national debt is how much the federal government must pay on outstanding public debt each year.
The interest on the debt is $479 billion. (About 10% of the budget.)
That's from the federal budget for fiscal year 2020 that runs from October 1, 2019, through September 30, 2020.
4 Ways to Reduce the Interest on the National Debt

So where do you propose cutting the remaining 30% of Federal Budget?

Come on genius... tell me where you'd cut if 60% for Mandatory spending, 10% for debt interest... LEAVES 30% where to cut!!!
TELL ME PLEASE!!!
Facts really have a way of being a downer!

Corporations should get a HUGE reinvestment tax break.

Yes, exactly. It cracks me up when I see left-wingers scream and yell about tax breaks for business investment.... and then scream and yell when those businesses invest over seas where taxes are lower.

Hello left-wingers..... these two things are connected, you morons.

Taxes and the tax code can also be used as incentives to invest in America.

 

[Brain357]

America Has A Monopoly Problem

So change the definition .

I haven't bought anything at Walmart in years so I guess they don't have a monopoly on anything

So tell me what specific product(s) does Amazon have a monopoly on

I said near monopoly. They are all around us and that ruins markets. Google is a near monopoly, Facebook too. Look at cell phones, you think it's good that so much market share is owned by two companies?

 

[sealybobo]

L

They only hired who they needed to get the job done. And if they were conservatives they paid as little as possible. Do you think they deserve a metal? They needed the person. They didn't do it out of kindness and the minute they don't need them anymore they are gone.

Huh? Should they hire more people than they need? I don't think you quite got all your groceries bagged...

Point is, you act like they are doing some noble deed. Most people are underpaid and the corporation profits greatly from their efforts.

The point you missed is they need those employees to make a profit. So they aren't doing us a favor or being noble when they hire people.

LOL It's plain to see that you're a peon, have always been a peon and always will be a peon. Guess you'll never own or even manage much of anything.

Yet Financially I’m upper class. Go figure.

That's also typical. Rich people, trying to convince poor people, that other rich people are to blame.

Hypocrisy is a hallmark of the left.

No. I came from nothing. I just didn’t forget where I came from.

but now seeing as how I’m in the top 19% of earners, maybe I’m going to start seeing things your way.

are you upper class too?

 

[Andylusion]

L

Huh? Should they hire more people than they need? I don't think you quite got all your groceries bagged...

Point is, you act like they are doing some noble deed. Most people are underpaid and the corporation profits greatly from their efforts.

The point you missed is they need those employees to make a profit. So they aren't doing us a favor or being noble when they hire people.

LOL It's plain to see that you're a peon, have always been a peon and always will be a peon. Guess you'll never own or even manage much of anything.

Yet Financially I’m upper class. Go figure.

That's also typical. Rich people, trying to convince poor people, that other rich people are to blame.

Hypocrisy is a hallmark of the left.

No. I came from nothing. I just didn’t forget where I came from.

but now seeing as how I’m in the top 19% of earners, maybe I’m going to start seeing things your way.

are you upper class too?

No. Last year I earned a total of $31K. That was a record year. It was $25K before that, and $20K for the previous decade.

So what government program, or inheritance caused you to be the evil rich that are destroying the country?

 

[bripat9643]

If not, what tax on every dollar in profits is fair? And what do they pay now?

My belief is Republicans don't think corporations should pay any taxes. That's what their arguments suggest.

the reality is that only individuals pay taxes. Taxing corporations is just an indirect way to tax individuals. We might as well cut out the middle man in this transaction.

 

[Andylusion]

America Has A Monopoly Problem

So change the definition .

I haven't bought anything at Walmart in years so I guess they don't have a monopoly on anything

So tell me what specific product(s) does Amazon have a monopoly on

I said near monopoly. They are all around us and that ruins markets. Google is a near monopoly, Facebook too. Look at cell phones, you think it's good that so much market share is owned by two companies?

No, not even close.

This is one of the universal problems with left-wing dogma.

You look at outcomes, and assume that the outcomes, means there is a problem with the system.

No, outcomes are just that.

A real monopoly, is one where people have to use your service, because they have no option. If there is another option, then it is not a monopoly, no matter how many use that service, and how few use any other.

Google is not even close to a monopoly. There is info.com, bing, yahoo search, duckduckgo, and numerous others.

The reason most people use google, is not because it's a monopoly, but because it's the best.

Trying to oppose that, means you are against people using the best services. That's a ridiculous position, but perfectly normal for socialism, which is why socialists countries end up in ruins.

 

[Brain357]

America Has A Monopoly Problem

So change the definition .

I haven't bought anything at Walmart in years so I guess they don't have a monopoly on anything

So tell me what specific product(s) does Amazon have a monopoly on

I said near monopoly. They are all around us and that ruins markets. Google is a near monopoly, Facebook too. Look at cell phones, you think it's good that so much market share is owned by two companies?

No, not even close.

This is one of the universal problems with left-wing dogma.

You look at outcomes, and assume that the outcomes, means there is a problem with the system.

No, outcomes are just that.

A real monopoly, is one where people have to use your service, because they have no option. If there is another option, then it is not a monopoly, no matter how many use that service, and how few use any other.

Google is not even close to a monopoly. There is info.com, bing, yahoo search, duckduckgo, and numerous others.

The reason most people use google, is not because it's a monopoly, but because it's the best.

Trying to oppose that, means you are against people using the best services. That's a ridiculous position, but perfectly normal for socialism, which is why socialists countries end up in ruins.

Yeah try to run an online business without being dependent on Google. There is competition, but they have very little market. Markets aren't healthy, that's why wage growth is so slow even with super low unemployment.

 

[Andylusion]

America Has A Monopoly Problem

So change the definition .

I haven't bought anything at Walmart in years so I guess they don't have a monopoly on anything

So tell me what specific product(s) does Amazon have a monopoly on

I said near monopoly. They are all around us and that ruins markets. Google is a near monopoly, Facebook too. Look at cell phones, you think it's good that so much market share is owned by two companies?

No, not even close.

This is one of the universal problems with left-wing dogma.

You look at outcomes, and assume that the outcomes, means there is a problem with the system.

No, outcomes are just that.

A real monopoly, is one where people have to use your service, because they have no option. If there is another option, then it is not a monopoly, no matter how many use that service, and how few use any other.

Google is not even close to a monopoly. There is info.com, bing, yahoo search, duckduckgo, and numerous others.

The reason most people use google, is not because it's a monopoly, but because it's the best.

Trying to oppose that, means you are against people using the best services. That's a ridiculous position, but perfectly normal for socialism, which is why socialists countries end up in ruins.

Yeah try to run an online business without being dependent on Google. There is competition, but they have very little market. Markets aren't healthy, that's why wage growth is so slow even with super low unemployment.

I know many businesses not dependent on google. Yes, if you want to get the best exposure, then logically you would go to where the most people are, and google has the largest audience.

But again... it's not because of a monopoly. It's because the public has chosen the best search system.

You are complaining that people picked the best system... and because people picked the best system, that businesses have to use that system, is not a monopoly. It's the market at work.

And this is such a dumb argument. Pick two different strip malls in a city. One no one goes to, and one everyone goes to. Would you conclude that the big strip mall had a monopoly, because everyone goes to that mall, and no one goes to the other?

or is the reason that all the businesses have to go to big mall, is because all the public goes to the big mall, because the big mall is just better?

 

[Brain357]

America Has A Monopoly Problem

So change the definition .

I haven't bought anything at Walmart in years so I guess they don't have a monopoly on anything

So tell me what specific product(s) does Amazon have a monopoly on

I said near monopoly. They are all around us and that ruins markets. Google is a near monopoly, Facebook too. Look at cell phones, you think it's good that so much market share is owned by two companies?

No, not even close.

This is one of the universal problems with left-wing dogma.

You look at outcomes, and assume that the outcomes, means there is a problem with the system.

No, outcomes are just that.

A real monopoly, is one where people have to use your service, because they have no option. If there is another option, then it is not a monopoly, no matter how many use that service, and how few use any other.

Google is not even close to a monopoly. There is info.com, bing, yahoo search, duckduckgo, and numerous others.

The reason most people use google, is not because it's a monopoly, but because it's the best.

Trying to oppose that, means you are against people using the best services. That's a ridiculous position, but perfectly normal for socialism, which is why socialists countries end up in ruins.

Yeah try to run an online business without being dependent on Google. There is competition, but they have very little market. Markets aren't healthy, that's why wage growth is so slow even with super low unemployment.

I know many businesses not dependent on google. Yes, if you want to get the best exposure, then logically you would go to where the most people are, and google has the largest audience.

But again... it's not because of a monopoly. It's because the public has chosen the best search system.

You are complaining that people picked the best system... and because people picked the best system, that businesses have to use that system, is not a monopoly. It's the market at work.

And this is such a dumb argument. Pick two different strip malls in a city. One no one goes to, and one everyone goes to. Would you conclude that the big strip mall had a monopoly, because everyone goes to that mall, and no one goes to the other?

or is the reason that all the businesses have to go to big mall, is because all the public goes to the big mall, because the big mall is just better?

Don't you claim to know economics? Tell me why is it wage growth is so slow with really low unemployment? Why was the corporate tax cuts such a failure? Just a brief sugar high to the economy. How do you explain these things?

 

[Brain357]

 

[Andylusion]

So change the definition .

I haven't bought anything at Walmart in years so I guess they don't have a monopoly on anything

So tell me what specific product(s) does Amazon have a monopoly on

I said near monopoly. They are all around us and that ruins markets. Google is a near monopoly, Facebook too. Look at cell phones, you think it's good that so much market share is owned by two companies?

No, not even close.

This is one of the universal problems with left-wing dogma.

You look at outcomes, and assume that the outcomes, means there is a problem with the system.

No, outcomes are just that.

A real monopoly, is one where people have to use your service, because they have no option. If there is another option, then it is not a monopoly, no matter how many use that service, and how few use any other.

Google is not even close to a monopoly. There is info.com, bing, yahoo search, duckduckgo, and numerous others.

The reason most people use google, is not because it's a monopoly, but because it's the best.

Trying to oppose that, means you are against people using the best services. That's a ridiculous position, but perfectly normal for socialism, which is why socialists countries end up in ruins.

Yeah try to run an online business without being dependent on Google. There is competition, but they have very little market. Markets aren't healthy, that's why wage growth is so slow even with super low unemployment.

I know many businesses not dependent on google. Yes, if you want to get the best exposure, then logically you would go to where the most people are, and google has the largest audience.

But again... it's not because of a monopoly. It's because the public has chosen the best search system.

You are complaining that people picked the best system... and because people picked the best system, that businesses have to use that system, is not a monopoly. It's the market at work.

And this is such a dumb argument. Pick two different strip malls in a city. One no one goes to, and one everyone goes to. Would you conclude that the big strip mall had a monopoly, because everyone goes to that mall, and no one goes to the other?

or is the reason that all the businesses have to go to big mall, is because all the public goes to the big mall, because the big mall is just better?

Don't you claim to know economics? Tell me why is it wage growth is so slow with really low unemployment? Why was the corporate tax cuts such a failure? Just a brief sugar high to the economy. How do you explain these things?

There is no evidence that the tax cuts failed at anything.

Wage growth is about what we would expect. It has been increasing since 2010.
I don't see any problem.

How do I explain all these things? There are many factors that play into the economy.

For example, I'm sure some amount of damage by the trade war attempt.
Another example, would be Obama care which undeniably increased costs on companies.

But to say that things are bad... no, not by any stretch.

Take my specific company. We were hiring people for the warehouse. Because we've had a hard time getting employees lately... we have upped the starting pay by a dollar an hour.

So clearly the low unemployment is in fact, having a upward push on wages.

What about this do I need to explain?

 

[Brain357]

I said near monopoly. They are all around us and that ruins markets. Google is a near monopoly, Facebook too. Look at cell phones, you think it's good that so much market share is owned by two companies?

No, not even close.

This is one of the universal problems with left-wing dogma.

You look at outcomes, and assume that the outcomes, means there is a problem with the system.

No, outcomes are just that.

A real monopoly, is one where people have to use your service, because they have no option. If there is another option, then it is not a monopoly, no matter how many use that service, and how few use any other.

Google is not even close to a monopoly. There is info.com, bing, yahoo search, duckduckgo, and numerous others.

The reason most people use google, is not because it's a monopoly, but because it's the best.

Trying to oppose that, means you are against people using the best services. That's a ridiculous position, but perfectly normal for socialism, which is why socialists countries end up in ruins.

Yeah try to run an online business without being dependent on Google. There is competition, but they have very little market. Markets aren't healthy, that's why wage growth is so slow even with super low unemployment.

I know many businesses not dependent on google. Yes, if you want to get the best exposure, then logically you would go to where the most people are, and google has the largest audience.

But again... it's not because of a monopoly. It's because the public has chosen the best search system.

You are complaining that people picked the best system... and because people picked the best system, that businesses have to use that system, is not a monopoly. It's the market at work.

And this is such a dumb argument. Pick two different strip malls in a city. One no one goes to, and one everyone goes to. Would you conclude that the big strip mall had a monopoly, because everyone goes to that mall, and no one goes to the other?

or is the reason that all the businesses have to go to big mall, is because all the public goes to the big mall, because the big mall is just better?

Don't you claim to know economics? Tell me why is it wage growth is so slow with really low unemployment? Why was the corporate tax cuts such a failure? Just a brief sugar high to the economy. How do you explain these things?

There is no evidence that the tax cuts failed at anything.

Wage growth is about what we would expect. It has been increasing since 2010.
I don't see any problem.

How do I explain all these things? There are many factors that play into the economy.

For example, I'm sure some amount of damage by the trade war attempt.
Another example, would be Obama care which undeniably increased costs on companies.

But to say that things are bad... no, not by any stretch.

Take my specific company. We were hiring people for the warehouse. Because we've had a hard time getting employees lately... we have upped the starting pay by a dollar an hour.

So clearly the low unemployment is in fact, having a upward push on wages.

What about this do I need to explain?

Wage growth is historically weak while unemployment is historically very low. It's funny you don't seem to think that is odd.

You see GDP growth last year? No evidence the corporate tax cuts did anything other than a quick sugar high. And that at the cost of trillion dollar deficits. I was expecting the deficits, but I also expected better growth.

 

[Andylusion]

regulations and controls, cause consolidation.

But the way, people in government seem to have really goofy ideas, that somehow you can stop consolidation.

If you prevent a merger, it won't stop consolidation. Some companies will sellout. Others will go bankrupt. And other companies, will just merge with someone else.

My old company, tried to merge with another, and when they were denied, the owner sold off, the company lost money, and another competitor bought us out.

If you want more competition in the market, reduce regulations and controls on business.

 

[Brain357]

regulations and controls, cause consolidation.

But the way, people in government seem to have really goofy ideas, that somehow you can stop consolidation.

If you prevent a merger, it won't stop consolidation. Some companies will sellout. Others will go bankrupt. And other companies, will just merge with someone else.

My old company, tried to merge with another, and when they were denied, the owner sold off, the company lost money, and another competitor bought us out.

If you want more competition in the market, reduce regulations and controls on business.

There is no question our corrupt politicians make the problem worse. It will happen when they are so easy to buy.

 

[Andylusion]

No, not even close.

This is one of the universal problems with left-wing dogma.

You look at outcomes, and assume that the outcomes, means there is a problem with the system.

No, outcomes are just that.

A real monopoly, is one where people have to use your service, because they have no option. If there is another option, then it is not a monopoly, no matter how many use that service, and how few use any other.

Google is not even close to a monopoly. There is info.com, bing, yahoo search, duckduckgo, and numerous others.

The reason most people use google, is not because it's a monopoly, but because it's the best.

Trying to oppose that, means you are against people using the best services. That's a ridiculous position, but perfectly normal for socialism, which is why socialists countries end up in ruins.

Yeah try to run an online business without being dependent on Google. There is competition, but they have very little market. Markets aren't healthy, that's why wage growth is so slow even with super low unemployment.

I know many businesses not dependent on google. Yes, if you want to get the best exposure, then logically you would go to where the most people are, and google has the largest audience.

But again... it's not because of a monopoly. It's because the public has chosen the best search system.

You are complaining that people picked the best system... and because people picked the best system, that businesses have to use that system, is not a monopoly. It's the market at work.

And this is such a dumb argument. Pick two different strip malls in a city. One no one goes to, and one everyone goes to. Would you conclude that the big strip mall had a monopoly, because everyone goes to that mall, and no one goes to the other?

or is the reason that all the businesses have to go to big mall, is because all the public goes to the big mall, because the big mall is just better?

Don't you claim to know economics? Tell me why is it wage growth is so slow with really low unemployment? Why was the corporate tax cuts such a failure? Just a brief sugar high to the economy. How do you explain these things?

There is no evidence that the tax cuts failed at anything.

Wage growth is about what we would expect. It has been increasing since 2010.
I don't see any problem.

How do I explain all these things? There are many factors that play into the economy.

For example, I'm sure some amount of damage by the trade war attempt.
Another example, would be Obama care which undeniably increased costs on companies.

But to say that things are bad... no, not by any stretch.

Take my specific company. We were hiring people for the warehouse. Because we've had a hard time getting employees lately... we have upped the starting pay by a dollar an hour.

So clearly the low unemployment is in fact, having a upward push on wages.

What about this do I need to explain?

Wage growth is historically weak while unemployment is historically very low. It's funny you don't seem to think that is odd.

You see GDP growth last year? No evidence the corporate tax cuts did anything other than a quick sugar high. And that at the cost of trillion dollar deficits. I was expecting the deficits, but I also expected better growth.

But it's not. Wage growth is not any worse than I expected. Remember, obama care has increased dramatically the cost of employing people.

The Average Cost of Employee Benefits in the US

A 2014 report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that the average employee benefits package costs an employer $9.09 per employee per hour worked. For a 40-hour employee that's $18,907.20 per year.​

Your benefits package costs the employer tons of money. One hourly employee, likely costs the employer at least $15,000 a year in benefits.

So an employer that pays out $30K a year in wages, is actually paying $45K.

So when you have something like Obama care, which has dramatically increased costs on employer.

While you are saying that wages have not increased... they have... just in benefits. Benefits do not calculate costs on employer, but the reality is, if the costs to the employers to employ people goes up, that's really an increase in wages, that no employee sees.

 

[Brain357]

Yeah try to run an online business without being dependent on Google. There is competition, but they have very little market. Markets aren't healthy, that's why wage growth is so slow even with super low unemployment.

I know many businesses not dependent on google. Yes, if you want to get the best exposure, then logically you would go to where the most people are, and google has the largest audience.

But again... it's not because of a monopoly. It's because the public has chosen the best search system.

You are complaining that people picked the best system... and because people picked the best system, that businesses have to use that system, is not a monopoly. It's the market at work.

And this is such a dumb argument. Pick two different strip malls in a city. One no one goes to, and one everyone goes to. Would you conclude that the big strip mall had a monopoly, because everyone goes to that mall, and no one goes to the other?

or is the reason that all the businesses have to go to big mall, is because all the public goes to the big mall, because the big mall is just better?

Don't you claim to know economics? Tell me why is it wage growth is so slow with really low unemployment? Why was the corporate tax cuts such a failure? Just a brief sugar high to the economy. How do you explain these things?

There is no evidence that the tax cuts failed at anything.

Wage growth is about what we would expect. It has been increasing since 2010.
I don't see any problem.

How do I explain all these things? There are many factors that play into the economy.

For example, I'm sure some amount of damage by the trade war attempt.
Another example, would be Obama care which undeniably increased costs on companies.

But to say that things are bad... no, not by any stretch.

Take my specific company. We were hiring people for the warehouse. Because we've had a hard time getting employees lately... we have upped the starting pay by a dollar an hour.

So clearly the low unemployment is in fact, having a upward push on wages.

What about this do I need to explain?

Wage growth is historically weak while unemployment is historically very low. It's funny you don't seem to think that is odd.

You see GDP growth last year? No evidence the corporate tax cuts did anything other than a quick sugar high. And that at the cost of trillion dollar deficits. I was expecting the deficits, but I also expected better growth.

But it's not. Wage growth is not any worse than I expected. Remember, obama care has increased dramatically the cost of employing people.

The Average Cost of Employee Benefits in the US

A 2014 report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that the average employee benefits package costs an employer $9.09 per employee per hour worked. For a 40-hour employee that's $18,907.20 per year.​

Your benefits package costs the employer tons of money. One hourly employee, likely costs the employer at least $15,000 a year in benefits.

So an employer that pays out $30K a year in wages, is actually paying $45K.

So when you have something like Obama care, which has dramatically increased costs on employer.

While you are saying that wages have not increased... they have... just in benefits. Benefits do not calculate costs on employer, but the reality is, if the costs to the employers to employ people goes up, that's really an increase in wages, that no employee sees.

It's cute you are saying Obamacare, but healthcare costs have been drastically increasing since long before Obamacare. So you are blaming the healthcare industry for low wages then? Sounds like a good argument for medicare for all.

 

[Andylusion]

I know many businesses not dependent on google. Yes, if you want to get the best exposure, then logically you would go to where the most people are, and google has the largest audience.

But again... it's not because of a monopoly. It's because the public has chosen the best search system.

You are complaining that people picked the best system... and because people picked the best system, that businesses have to use that system, is not a monopoly. It's the market at work.

And this is such a dumb argument. Pick two different strip malls in a city. One no one goes to, and one everyone goes to. Would you conclude that the big strip mall had a monopoly, because everyone goes to that mall, and no one goes to the other?

or is the reason that all the businesses have to go to big mall, is because all the public goes to the big mall, because the big mall is just better?

Don't you claim to know economics? Tell me why is it wage growth is so slow with really low unemployment? Why was the corporate tax cuts such a failure? Just a brief sugar high to the economy. How do you explain these things?

There is no evidence that the tax cuts failed at anything.

Wage growth is about what we would expect. It has been increasing since 2010.
I don't see any problem.

How do I explain all these things? There are many factors that play into the economy.

For example, I'm sure some amount of damage by the trade war attempt.
Another example, would be Obama care which undeniably increased costs on companies.

But to say that things are bad... no, not by any stretch.

Take my specific company. We were hiring people for the warehouse. Because we've had a hard time getting employees lately... we have upped the starting pay by a dollar an hour.

So clearly the low unemployment is in fact, having a upward push on wages.

What about this do I need to explain?

Wage growth is historically weak while unemployment is historically very low. It's funny you don't seem to think that is odd.

You see GDP growth last year? No evidence the corporate tax cuts did anything other than a quick sugar high. And that at the cost of trillion dollar deficits. I was expecting the deficits, but I also expected better growth.

But it's not. Wage growth is not any worse than I expected. Remember, obama care has increased dramatically the cost of employing people.

The Average Cost of Employee Benefits in the US

A 2014 report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that the average employee benefits package costs an employer $9.09 per employee per hour worked. For a 40-hour employee that's $18,907.20 per year.​

Your benefits package costs the employer tons of money. One hourly employee, likely costs the employer at least $15,000 a year in benefits.

So an employer that pays out $30K a year in wages, is actually paying $45K.

So when you have something like Obama care, which has dramatically increased costs on employer.

While you are saying that wages have not increased... they have... just in benefits. Benefits do not calculate costs on employer, but the reality is, if the costs to the employers to employ people goes up, that's really an increase in wages, that no employee sees.

It's cute you are saying Obamacare, but healthcare costs have been drastically increasing since long before Obamacare. So you are blaming the healthcare industry for low wages then? Sounds like a good argument for medicare for all.

Medicare for all, would dramatically lower wages.

In order to do Medicare for all, you would have to increase taxes, by a minimum wage 12%. Yeah, you might get a dollar more per hour, but you'll lose 12% of your entire income.

And that 12%, would only be the start. Remember Medicare does not pay out the full cost of care. Which is why doctors and clinics routinely refuse Medicare patients.
Why the Mayo Clinic is refusing to see Medicare patients

So in order for Medicare for all to work, they would have to dramatically increase the payouts. Which means that 12% income tax to pay for medicare for all, would be too low.

Again, there is a reason why all those countries that have government funded health care, have dramatically higher taxes on the poorest people.

On top of that, you would likely have to buy insurance on top of Medicare for all, just like Germans all have private insurance on top of their government funded health care. Government funded health care sucks, that's why in most all countries with government care, they have private insurance on top of it.

See, this is the problem for people on the left.... you look at the poison that is wrecking the economy, and instead of saying we need to cut out the poison, you say let's add even more poison, and that will make things better.

 

[Blues Man]

That's a stupid ass question and you know it.

Based on your claim its the perfect question. You have no answer eh? You might want to think about your claim.

Price hikes happen fasts. Price drops always happen slow. And the reason for this should be obvious to everyone.

If your company is needs money for a project, and you increase taxes... you can't just hold off. You can't wait until you are in bankruptcy. You have to pass on the cost immediately.

However, price drops, happen slowly over time. There is no rush to drop prices.

There is however, another reason prices have not fallen. Namely the increasing costs of required benefits.

By slowly you mean never when it comes to a decrease in taxes.

No, typically when costs do decrease, eventually it shakes out in lower prices, unless there are other cost effects... in which case you tend to see a slower increase in price, because lower taxes offsets the cost effects.

But typically, yes, all things being equal, the result is lower price.

Honestly, it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

Eventually someone is going to determine they can undercut the competition, by passing on lower prices. When that happens, the rest of the market has no choice by to lower prices as well.

Now if you keep the tax there, then that is impossible.

This is business 101 dude. It's not like it has not been practiced for thousands of years.

Maybe the company keeps prices low but instead of $100,000 bonus’ the executives only get $50,000 bonus’

Because they do have competition and raising prices might hurt profits.

corporations got to pay taxes. Their trucks tear up our roads.

You think that trucking companies don't pay taxes that are used to pay for roads?

Trucking companies pay a fuel taxes just like everyone else

They also pay per mile taxes to both the states and the federal government and they pay higher tolls than passenger cars as well

So trucking companies are paying more to use the roads than you arr

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Blues Man]

America Has A Monopoly Problem

So change the definition .

I haven't bought anything at Walmart in years so I guess they don't have a monopoly on anything

So tell me what specific product(s) does Amazon have a monopoly on

I said near monopoly. They are all around us and that ruins markets. Google is a near monopoly, Facebook too. Look at cell phones, you think it's good that so much market share is owned by two companies?

It's not even a near monopoly

You still haven't been able to tell me one product that is only available at Walmart or Amazon

You live your entire life and not buy one thing from Amazon or Walmart

So the word monopoly does not apply

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Brain357]

America Has A Monopoly Problem

So change the definition .

I haven't bought anything at Walmart in years so I guess they don't have a monopoly on anything

So tell me what specific product(s) does Amazon have a monopoly on

I said near monopoly. They are all around us and that ruins markets. Google is a near monopoly, Facebook too. Look at cell phones, you think it's good that so much market share is owned by two companies?

It's not even a near monopoly

You still haven't been able to tell me one product that is only available at Walmart or Amazon

You live your entire life and not buy one thing from Amazon or Walmart

So the word monopoly does not apply

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Since you are in denial, how do you explain really slow wage growth with really low unemployment?