How will the working people benefit by Bide increasing the Corporate Tax Rate from 21% to 28?

They won't. In fact, prices for things will increase as the higher taxes are passed along. So a negative on several fronts.

Really. So show me the price drops when corporate income taxes were cut. You can't, because they weren't, and the economic reality is that the price of something has nothing to do with cost, or the corporate tax rate and everything to do with demand.

And riddle me this. All those bonuses that were passed out when the corporate tax rate was cut, how come they were passed out before the corporate tax rate went into effect and how come they are not passing them out now, with the lower corporate tax rate? Show me one company, just one, that handed out bonuses under the lower corporate tax rate.

First, the hard reality of the matter is that the weighted average cost of capital is inversely related to the marginal tax rate. That is an accounting fact. And then there is an economic principle called opportunity cost. Granted, it is poorly understood. The truth is a stay at home mom operating on a shoestring budget knows more about opportunity cost than most Economic professors. But here is the deal. The corporate tax rate is currently 21%. A corporation has a million dollars in profit as they close the year out. If they invest that money it will cost them $799,000. If they are looking for a ten year return on that investment they will need to make $79,900 a year. The "opportunity cost" of not making the investment is $210,000 in taxes paid.

Now, the corporate tax rate is 28%. The cost of that same one million dollar investment is now $792,000. Now they only need to make $79,200 a year to get that ten year return. The opportunity cost of not making the investment is now $280,000. In which scenario is the company more likely to invest? In which scenario is the IRR, that is internal rate of return, lower in order to justify the investment? And take note, the opportunity cost of NOT making the investment is higher under the higher corporate tax rate.
When Corporate Taxes are increased the Companies need to take measures continue to be profitable: Increase the prices of the goods and services they provide. ( Competition is world wide now )Countries with lower Corporate Income Taxes tend to attract Companies to relocate to them. China is a perfect example of this fact. The other options are laying off employees at every level( use to be called Down Sizing ) and increase work products by using Robots and other electronic devices and programs.
Companies on the Stock Exchanges can decrease or no longer pay dividends. This results in the loss of investors which cuts off their revenue stream.
The most important factors in an economy are Supply, Demand and Price. If you don't understand the relationships you will never understand Economics 101!

Supply-side economics destroys the law of supply and demand.

Economics 101 was for babies.
 
They won't. In fact, prices for things will increase as the higher taxes are passed along. So a negative on several fronts.

Really. So show me the price drops when corporate income taxes were cut. You can't, because they weren't, and the economic reality is that the price of something has nothing to do with cost, or the corporate tax rate and everything to do with demand.

And riddle me this. All those bonuses that were passed out when the corporate tax rate was cut, how come they were passed out before the corporate tax rate went into effect and how come they are not passing them out now, with the lower corporate tax rate? Show me one company, just one, that handed out bonuses under the lower corporate tax rate.

First, the hard reality of the matter is that the weighted average cost of capital is inversely related to the marginal tax rate. That is an accounting fact. And then there is an economic principle called opportunity cost. Granted, it is poorly understood. The truth is a stay at home mom operating on a shoestring budget knows more about opportunity cost than most Economic professors. But here is the deal. The corporate tax rate is currently 21%. A corporation has a million dollars in profit as they close the year out. If they invest that money it will cost them $799,000. If they are looking for a ten year return on that investment they will need to make $79,900 a year. The "opportunity cost" of not making the investment is $210,000 in taxes paid.

Now, the corporate tax rate is 28%. The cost of that same one million dollar investment is now $792,000. Now they only need to make $79,200 a year to get that ten year return. The opportunity cost of not making the investment is now $280,000. In which scenario is the company more likely to invest? In which scenario is the IRR, that is internal rate of return, lower in order to justify the investment? And take note, the opportunity cost of NOT making the investment is higher under the higher corporate tax rate.
When Corporate Taxes are increased the Companies need to take measures continue to be profitable: Increase the prices of the goods and services they provide. ( Competition is world wide now )Countries with lower Corporate Income Taxes tend to attract Companies to relocate to them. China is a perfect example of this fact. The other options are laying off employees at every level( use to be called Down Sizing ) and increase work products by using Robots and other electronic devices and programs.
Companies on the Stock Exchanges can decrease or no longer pay dividends. This results in the loss of investors which cuts off their revenue stream.
The most important factors in an economy are Supply, Demand and Price. If you don't understand the relationships you will never understand Economics 101!

Supply-side economics destroys the law of supply and demand.

Economics 101 was for babies.

So, I take it you believe in Say's Law. Supply side economics was a dismal failure and Say's Law was nothing but a fantasy. Supply side economics is little more than a pipe dream.
 
They won't. In fact, prices for things will increase as the higher taxes are passed along. So a negative on several fronts.

Really. So show me the price drops when corporate income taxes were cut. You can't, because they weren't, and the economic reality is that the price of something has nothing to do with cost, or the corporate tax rate and everything to do with demand.

And riddle me this. All those bonuses that were passed out when the corporate tax rate was cut, how come they were passed out before the corporate tax rate went into effect and how come they are not passing them out now, with the lower corporate tax rate? Show me one company, just one, that handed out bonuses under the lower corporate tax rate.

First, the hard reality of the matter is that the weighted average cost of capital is inversely related to the marginal tax rate. That is an accounting fact. And then there is an economic principle called opportunity cost. Granted, it is poorly understood. The truth is a stay at home mom operating on a shoestring budget knows more about opportunity cost than most Economic professors. But here is the deal. The corporate tax rate is currently 21%. A corporation has a million dollars in profit as they close the year out. If they invest that money it will cost them $799,000. If they are looking for a ten year return on that investment they will need to make $79,900 a year. The "opportunity cost" of not making the investment is $210,000 in taxes paid.

Now, the corporate tax rate is 28%. The cost of that same one million dollar investment is now $792,000. Now they only need to make $79,200 a year to get that ten year return. The opportunity cost of not making the investment is now $280,000. In which scenario is the company more likely to invest? In which scenario is the IRR, that is internal rate of return, lower in order to justify the investment? And take note, the opportunity cost of NOT making the investment is higher under the higher corporate tax rate.
When Corporate Taxes are increased the Companies need to take measures continue to be profitable: Increase the prices of the goods and services they provide. ( Competition is world wide now )Countries with lower Corporate Income Taxes tend to attract Companies to relocate to them. China is a perfect example of this fact. The other options are laying off employees at every level( use to be called Down Sizing ) and increase work products by using Robots and other electronic devices and programs.
Companies on the Stock Exchanges can decrease or no longer pay dividends. This results in the loss of investors which cuts off their revenue stream.
The most important factors in an economy are Supply, Demand and Price. If you don't understand the relationships you will never understand Economics 101!

Supply-side economics destroys the law of supply and demand.

Economics 101 was for babies.

So, I take it you believe in Say's Law. Supply side economics was a dismal failure and Say's Law was nothing but a fantasy. Supply side economics is little more than a pipe dream.
Yeah, everyone puts down the one economic system based on competition known as Capitalism. It's funny that its' detractors can not explain why we always have had the strongest economy in the world. The creation of the European Common Market was to become a rival to to the US economy. Their Socialist leaning economic theories failed to achieve their goal. Germany's economics which is more in line with ours continues to have the best economy in Europe.
 
They won't. In fact, prices for things will increase as the higher taxes are passed along. So a negative on several fronts.

Really. So show me the price drops when corporate income taxes were cut. You can't, because they weren't, and the economic reality is that the price of something has nothing to do with cost, or the corporate tax rate and everything to do with demand.

And riddle me this. All those bonuses that were passed out when the corporate tax rate was cut, how come they were passed out before the corporate tax rate went into effect and how come they are not passing them out now, with the lower corporate tax rate? Show me one company, just one, that handed out bonuses under the lower corporate tax rate.

First, the hard reality of the matter is that the weighted average cost of capital is inversely related to the marginal tax rate. That is an accounting fact. And then there is an economic principle called opportunity cost. Granted, it is poorly understood. The truth is a stay at home mom operating on a shoestring budget knows more about opportunity cost than most Economic professors. But here is the deal. The corporate tax rate is currently 21%. A corporation has a million dollars in profit as they close the year out. If they invest that money it will cost them $799,000. If they are looking for a ten year return on that investment they will need to make $79,900 a year. The "opportunity cost" of not making the investment is $210,000 in taxes paid.

Now, the corporate tax rate is 28%. The cost of that same one million dollar investment is now $792,000. Now they only need to make $79,200 a year to get that ten year return. The opportunity cost of not making the investment is now $280,000. In which scenario is the company more likely to invest? In which scenario is the IRR, that is internal rate of return, lower in order to justify the investment? And take note, the opportunity cost of NOT making the investment is higher under the higher corporate tax rate.
When Corporate Taxes are increased the Companies need to take measures continue to be profitable: Increase the prices of the goods and services they provide. ( Competition is world wide now )Countries with lower Corporate Income Taxes tend to attract Companies to relocate to them. China is a perfect example of this fact. The other options are laying off employees at every level( use to be called Down Sizing ) and increase work products by using Robots and other electronic devices and programs.
Companies on the Stock Exchanges can decrease or no longer pay dividends. This results in the loss of investors which cuts off their revenue stream.
The most important factors in an economy are Supply, Demand and Price. If you don't understand the relationships you will never understand Economics 101!

Supply-side economics destroys the law of supply and demand.

Economics 101 was for babies.

So, I take it you believe in Say's Law. Supply side economics was a dismal failure and Say's Law was nothing but a fantasy. Supply side economics is little more than a pipe dream.

The REAL supply-side economics defies Say's Law.

Production DOES NOT create demand when the vast majority of the people are grossly underpaid.
 
I would appreciate both sides of the coin.
Can't remember the guy's name. But, when asked why he robbed banks he said "that's where the money is."

We need infrastructure which will benefit everyone.
We need money to pay for infrastructure.
Go where the money is.

The federal gas tax is supposed to be earmarked for infrastructure repairs. in the last 10 years alone the government has collected 500 billion dollars in fuel taxes.

So tell me where is all that money being spent if not on infrastructure?
 
I would appreciate both sides of the coin.
Can't remember the guy's name. But, when asked why he robbed banks he said "that's where the money is."

We need infrastructure which will benefit everyone.
We need money to pay for infrastructure.
Go where the money is.

The federal gas tax is supposed to be earmarked for infrastructure repairs. in the last 10 years alone the government has collected 500 billion dollars in fuel taxes.

So tell me where is all that money being spent if not on infrastructure?
 
I would appreciate both sides of the coin.
Can't remember the guy's name. But, when asked why he robbed banks he said "that's where the money is."

We need infrastructure which will benefit everyone.
We need money to pay for infrastructure.
Go where the money is.

The federal gas tax is supposed to be earmarked for infrastructure repairs. in the last 10 years alone the government has collected 500 billion dollars in fuel taxes.

So tell me where is all that money being spent if not on infrastructure?

So where was all that money spent?
 
I would appreciate both sides of the coin.
Can't remember the guy's name. But, when asked why he robbed banks he said "that's where the money is."

We need infrastructure which will benefit everyone.
We need money to pay for infrastructure.
Go where the money is.

The federal gas tax is supposed to be earmarked for infrastructure repairs. in the last 10 years alone the government has collected 500 billion dollars in fuel taxes.

So tell me where is all that money being spent if not on infrastructure?

So where was all that money spent?
Expenditures have exceeded revenues for over a decade, and even before the coronavirus pandemic, Congressional Budget Office projections showed that gap widening substantially. The gap between revenue and expenses was just over $8 billion in 2020 and is expected to grow to roughly $13.5 billion by 2025. Given how COVID-19 has hurt the economy, actual shortfalls will almost certainly be worse. Without additional funding from other tax revenue sources (current funding expires in 2021), the deficit is expected to grow to $70 billion over five years.
 
The government can pay the welfare for all the people the corporations are underpaying.
As is proper. If society deems a certain level of income to be absolutely necessary, society should levy the taxes and distribute the checks.
 
I would appreciate both sides of the coin.
Can't remember the guy's name. But, when asked why he robbed banks he said "that's where the money is."

We need infrastructure which will benefit everyone.
We need money to pay for infrastructure.
Go where the money is.

The federal gas tax is supposed to be earmarked for infrastructure repairs. in the last 10 years alone the government has collected 500 billion dollars in fuel taxes.

So tell me where is all that money being spent if not on infrastructure?

So where was all that money spent?
Expenditures have exceeded revenues for over a decade, and even before the coronavirus pandemic, Congressional Budget Office projections showed that gap widening substantially. The gap between revenue and expenses was just over $8 billion in 2020 and is expected to grow to roughly $13.5 billion by 2025. Given how COVID-19 has hurt the economy, actual shortfalls will almost certainly be worse. Without additional funding from other tax revenue sources (current funding expires in 2021), the deficit is expected to grow to $70 billion over five years.
Where was all that money spent?
 
Supposedly, on repair.

Expenditures have exceeded revenues for over a decade, and even before the coronavirus pandemic, Congressional Budget Office projections showed that gap widening substantially.
 
They won't. In fact, prices for things will increase as the higher taxes are passed along. So a negative on several fronts.

Really. So show me the price drops when corporate income taxes were cut. You can't, because they weren't, and the economic reality is that the price of something has nothing to do with cost, or the corporate tax rate and everything to do with demand.

And riddle me this. All those bonuses that were passed out when the corporate tax rate was cut, how come they were passed out before the corporate tax rate went into effect and how come they are not passing them out now, with the lower corporate tax rate? Show me one company, just one, that handed out bonuses under the lower corporate tax rate.

First, the hard reality of the matter is that the weighted average cost of capital is inversely related to the marginal tax rate. That is an accounting fact. And then there is an economic principle called opportunity cost. Granted, it is poorly understood. The truth is a stay at home mom operating on a shoestring budget knows more about opportunity cost than most Economic professors. But here is the deal. The corporate tax rate is currently 21%. A corporation has a million dollars in profit as they close the year out. If they invest that money it will cost them $799,000. If they are looking for a ten year return on that investment they will need to make $79,900 a year. The "opportunity cost" of not making the investment is $210,000 in taxes paid.

Now, the corporate tax rate is 28%. The cost of that same one million dollar investment is now $792,000. Now they only need to make $79,200 a year to get that ten year return. The opportunity cost of not making the investment is now $280,000. In which scenario is the company more likely to invest? In which scenario is the IRR, that is internal rate of return, lower in order to justify the investment? And take note, the opportunity cost of NOT making the investment is higher under the higher corporate tax rate.
When Corporate Taxes are increased the Companies need to take measures continue to be profitable: Increase the prices of the goods and services they provide. ( Competition is world wide now )Countries with lower Corporate Income Taxes tend to attract Companies to relocate to them. China is a perfect example of this fact. The other options are laying off employees at every level( use to be called Down Sizing ) and increase work products by using Robots and other electronic devices and programs.
Companies on the Stock Exchanges can decrease or no longer pay dividends. This results in the loss of investors which cuts off their revenue stream.
The most important factors in an economy are Supply, Demand and Price. If you don't understand the relationships you will never understand Economics 101!

Supply-side economics destroys the law of supply and demand.

Economics 101 was for babies.

So, I take it you believe in Say's Law. Supply side economics was a dismal failure and Say's Law was nothing but a fantasy. Supply side economics is little more than a pipe dream.
Yeah, everyone puts down the one economic system based on competition known as Capitalism. It's funny that its' detractors can not explain why we always have had the strongest economy in the world. The creation of the European Common Market was to become a rival to to the US economy. Their Socialist leaning economic theories failed to achieve their goal. Germany's economics which is more in line with ours continues to have the best economy in Europe.

Germany's economy is more in line with ours? Wow, I don't even know where to start. Germany is considered a "mixed" economy. It is in no way classified as a free market capitalist economy like the US. While it does utilize a free market economy in goods and services, those areas are highly regulated to protect consumers. In areas like defense, health care, and education, Germany is a command economy. Individuals pay in to those areas by their means, they take out of those areas by their needs. Downright communist, don't you think. While less than six percent of the private workforce is unionized in the United States, in Germany, it is one in six.

Vacation time in Germany averages six weeks a year. Imagine that type of average here in the US. And taxes are very progressive in Germany, unlike here in the United States where every single state has a regressive state taxation policy and the highest income earners pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than those at lower income levels at the federal level.

My son spent several weeks in Germany on business. One thing that stuck out to him were the transfer trucks. All very modern, no old beater trucks spewing out toxic exhaust fumes in Germany like here in the US. He spent time in several parts of the country and was amazed at how modern everything was. Not just those diesel trucks, but the infrastructure itself. Biden's infrastructure bill, if passed, will still not come close to the investment that Germany makes every year. This week he has video conferences with both Italians and Japanese, mostly because those countries value his work, while here in the US power companies are more than willing to use outdated technology and ignore capital investments to improve efficiencies. Not going to happen in Germany either.

The reality, the German economy is more "socialist" than almost every other economy in the EU, outside of the Scandinavian countries, and we can talk about them if you like. Denmark tops the world in innovation, want to know why? You live in a damn fantasy world.
 
They won't. In fact, prices for things will increase as the higher taxes are passed along. So a negative on several fronts.

Really. So show me the price drops when corporate income taxes were cut. You can't, because they weren't, and the economic reality is that the price of something has nothing to do with cost, or the corporate tax rate and everything to do with demand.

And riddle me this. All those bonuses that were passed out when the corporate tax rate was cut, how come they were passed out before the corporate tax rate went into effect and how come they are not passing them out now, with the lower corporate tax rate? Show me one company, just one, that handed out bonuses under the lower corporate tax rate.

First, the hard reality of the matter is that the weighted average cost of capital is inversely related to the marginal tax rate. That is an accounting fact. And then there is an economic principle called opportunity cost. Granted, it is poorly understood. The truth is a stay at home mom operating on a shoestring budget knows more about opportunity cost than most Economic professors. But here is the deal. The corporate tax rate is currently 21%. A corporation has a million dollars in profit as they close the year out. If they invest that money it will cost them $799,000. If they are looking for a ten year return on that investment they will need to make $79,900 a year. The "opportunity cost" of not making the investment is $210,000 in taxes paid.

Now, the corporate tax rate is 28%. The cost of that same one million dollar investment is now $792,000. Now they only need to make $79,200 a year to get that ten year return. The opportunity cost of not making the investment is now $280,000. In which scenario is the company more likely to invest? In which scenario is the IRR, that is internal rate of return, lower in order to justify the investment? And take note, the opportunity cost of NOT making the investment is higher under the higher corporate tax rate.
When Corporate Taxes are increased the Companies need to take measures continue to be profitable: Increase the prices of the goods and services they provide. ( Competition is world wide now )Countries with lower Corporate Income Taxes tend to attract Companies to relocate to them. China is a perfect example of this fact. The other options are laying off employees at every level( use to be called Down Sizing ) and increase work products by using Robots and other electronic devices and programs.
Companies on the Stock Exchanges can decrease or no longer pay dividends. This results in the loss of investors which cuts off their revenue stream.
The most important factors in an economy are Supply, Demand and Price. If you don't understand the relationships you will never understand Economics 101!

Supply-side economics destroys the law of supply and demand.

Economics 101 was for babies.

So, I take it you believe in Say's Law. Supply side economics was a dismal failure and Say's Law was nothing but a fantasy. Supply side economics is little more than a pipe dream.
Yeah, everyone puts down the one economic system based on competition known as Capitalism. It's funny that its' detractors can not explain why we always have had the strongest economy in the world. The creation of the European Common Market was to become a rival to to the US economy. Their Socialist leaning economic theories failed to achieve their goal. Germany's economics which is more in line with ours continues to have the best economy in Europe.

The standard of living and quality of life in the U.S. is far lower than a lot of European countries. Our economy may be the largest in the world (not the strongest), but for a whole lot of Americans it sucks.

What is and is not a good economy is a matter of perspective.
 
I would appreciate both sides of the coin.
Can't remember the guy's name. But, when asked why he robbed banks he said "that's where the money is."

We need infrastructure which will benefit everyone.
We need money to pay for infrastructure.
Go where the money is.

The federal gas tax is supposed to be earmarked for infrastructure repairs. in the last 10 years alone the government has collected 500 billion dollars in fuel taxes.

So tell me where is all that money being spent if not on infrastructure?
Roads. Not airports, not trains, not seaports...

I suggest you go to OMB and download the budgets and expenditures over the last 10 years and then come back with an answer for the group.

If I were....I'd have said something like "I dunno. Let's start with the $2B+ the Cheeto Crime Family walked away with."
If you want to allege some criminal thing why not make a thread for that.
Let's try to talk about the good/bad of the plan.
 
I would appreciate both sides of the coin.
Can't remember the guy's name. But, when asked why he robbed banks he said "that's where the money is."

We need infrastructure which will benefit everyone.
We need money to pay for infrastructure.
Go where the money is.

The federal gas tax is supposed to be earmarked for infrastructure repairs. in the last 10 years alone the government has collected 500 billion dollars in fuel taxes.

So tell me where is all that money being spent if not on infrastructure?
Roads. Not airports, not trains, not seaports...

I suggest you go to OMB and download the budgets and expenditures over the last 10 years and then come back with an answer for the group.

If I were....I'd have said something like "I dunno. Let's start with the $2B+ the Cheeto Crime Family walked away with."
If you want to allege some criminal thing why not make a thread for that.
Let's try to talk about the good/bad of the plan.

We do not need more airports or sea ports or trains.
 
I would appreciate both sides of the coin.
Can't remember the guy's name. But, when asked why he robbed banks he said "that's where the money is."

We need infrastructure which will benefit everyone.
We need money to pay for infrastructure.
Go where the money is.

The federal gas tax is supposed to be earmarked for infrastructure repairs. in the last 10 years alone the government has collected 500 billion dollars in fuel taxes.

So tell me where is all that money being spent if not on infrastructure?
Roads. Not airports, not trains, not seaports...

I suggest you go to OMB and download the budgets and expenditures over the last 10 years and then come back with an answer for the group.

If I were....I'd have said something like "I dunno. Let's start with the $2B+ the Cheeto Crime Family walked away with."
If you want to allege some criminal thing why not make a thread for that.
Let's try to talk about the good/bad of the plan.

We do not need more airports or sea ports or trains.
That's one opinion.
Dead wrong
But being wrong is your right!
 
I would appreciate both sides of the coin.
Can't remember the guy's name. But, when asked why he robbed banks he said "that's where the money is."

We need infrastructure which will benefit everyone.
We need money to pay for infrastructure.
Go where the money is.

The federal gas tax is supposed to be earmarked for infrastructure repairs. in the last 10 years alone the government has collected 500 billion dollars in fuel taxes.

So tell me where is all that money being spent if not on infrastructure?
Roads. Not airports, not trains, not seaports...

I suggest you go to OMB and download the budgets and expenditures over the last 10 years and then come back with an answer for the group.

If I were....I'd have said something like "I dunno. Let's start with the $2B+ the Cheeto Crime Family walked away with."
If you want to allege some criminal thing why not make a thread for that.
Let's try to talk about the good/bad of the plan.

We do not need more airports or sea ports or trains.
That's one opinion.
Dead wrong
But being wrong is your right!
It's your opinion that we need more of them and you're wrong
 
I would appreciate both sides of the coin.
Can't remember the guy's name. But, when asked why he robbed banks he said "that's where the money is."

We need infrastructure which will benefit everyone.
We need money to pay for infrastructure.
Go where the money is.

The federal gas tax is supposed to be earmarked for infrastructure repairs. in the last 10 years alone the government has collected 500 billion dollars in fuel taxes.

So tell me where is all that money being spent if not on infrastructure?
Roads. Not airports, not trains, not seaports...

I suggest you go to OMB and download the budgets and expenditures over the last 10 years and then come back with an answer for the group.

If I were....I'd have said something like "I dunno. Let's start with the $2B+ the Cheeto Crime Family walked away with."
If you want to allege some criminal thing why not make a thread for that.
Let's try to talk about the good/bad of the plan.

We do not need more airports or sea ports or trains.
That's one opinion.
Dead wrong
But being wrong is your right!
It's your opinion that we need more of them and you're wrong
Cut the discretionary spending on your alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror, right wingers. Right wingers only allege to be for limited government in socialism threads.
 
I would appreciate both sides of the coin.
Can't remember the guy's name. But, when asked why he robbed banks he said "that's where the money is."

We need infrastructure which will benefit everyone.
We need money to pay for infrastructure.
Go where the money is.

The federal gas tax is supposed to be earmarked for infrastructure repairs. in the last 10 years alone the government has collected 500 billion dollars in fuel taxes.

So tell me where is all that money being spent if not on infrastructure?
Roads. Not airports, not trains, not seaports...

I suggest you go to OMB and download the budgets and expenditures over the last 10 years and then come back with an answer for the group.

If I were....I'd have said something like "I dunno. Let's start with the $2B+ the Cheeto Crime Family walked away with."
If you want to allege some criminal thing why not make a thread for that.
Let's try to talk about the good/bad of the plan.

We do not need more airports or sea ports or trains.
That's one opinion.
Dead wrong
But being wrong is your right!
It's your opinion that we need more of them and you're wrong
I'll stand with the airline, shipping, and rail industries on this.
 

Forum List

Back
Top