Why again do left wingers believe taxing corporations more is helpful to the middle class?

[Winston]

The left honestly believes that when taxes are raised on companies, the companies pay those taxes out of profits and do not raise prices. That's not what happens. The left really doesn't grasp what really happens.

That is exactly what happens in markets that are either highly price elastic or operating within a monopoly or oligopoly.

 

[Siete]

Why again do left wingers believe taxing corporations more is helpful to the middle class



for the same reason Trump believes taxing foreign businesses that import to the US will raise revenue and balance the trade deficit ?

 

[WinterBorn]

Pass the Fair Tax Act. Then everyone pays the same rate, and no one pays tax on what it takes to survive.

And the government can't function cause it'll be broke.

Brilliant!

Go away, adults are talking.

Spare me your snide remarks. When you claim a for profit company making $600 billion is "inefficient" your claim that adults are talking is laughable.

My non-profit credit union is one of the most efficient businesses I've ever been involved with. As is my non-profit electric co-op.

My credit union is quite efficient too.

Yes, well, then, enough with the myth that the profit motive is the only thing that will make companies efficient.

I never said any such thing. The comment about being efficient came because of my response to a post.

The short answer, NOW. Think about it. Think of all that money corporations are holding, in cash. They are not investing it. They are renting it out, collecting interest on short term bonds and notes. If anything, they are suppressing yields for millions in retirement. Honestly, in the current economic environment, that money could be more efficiently used by either reducing the government debt or improving the nation's infrastructure, both within the government's purview.

Winston made the claim that the federal gov't would provide a more efficient use of the money made by corporations. While many nonprofits are very efficient, our federal gov't is certainly not among those entities who are efficient with their use of money.

 

[bripat9643]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Do you have something to post that shows that lower taxes equal more jobs? All lower taxes do is increase profits, no effect at all on jobs

Higher profits means more jobs, dumbass.

Sent from my SM-G930U using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Hardly. Corporations are constantly trying to decrease their labor costs for the sake of higher profits.

Thanks for spewing your economic ignorance into the forum. How do higher profits allow corporations to lower wages?

They try to lower wages so they can get higher profits. They try to reduce the size of the work force so they can get higher profits.

You claimed higher profits caused unemployment, not the other way around, which is what your claiming now.

 

[Theowl32]

Do you have something to post that shows that lower taxes equal more jobs? All lower taxes do is increase profits, no effect at all on jobs

Higher profits means more jobs, dumbass.

Sent from my SM-G930U using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Hardly. Corporations are constantly trying to decrease their labor costs for the sake of higher profits.

Thanks for spewing your economic ignorance into the forum. How do higher profits allow corporations to lower wages?

They try to lower wages so they can get higher profits. They try to reduce the size of the work force so they can get higher profits.

You claimed higher profits caused unemployment, not the other way around, which is what your claiming now.

And behold the classical liberal double talk. They change from argument to argument. They are so utterly fucked that it makes sense to them.

Hence the reason the democrat socialist think tanks must have a hell of a laugh in creating new victims and new narratives for them to buy into.

I wonder what laughs they had when they decided transgender bathrooms would be the giant ******* issue of 2016.

They still think the russians fixed the election.

 

[bripat9643]

Pass the Fair Tax Act. Then everyone pays the same rate, and no one pays tax on what it takes to survive.

And the government can't function cause it'll be broke.

Brilliant!

Go away, adults are talking.

Spare me your snide remarks. When you claim a for profit company making $600 billion is "inefficient" your claim that adults are talking is laughable.

"For profit" for medical care. It should not be a "for profit" industry, by definition. Profiting off of suffering is anathema to being human, and civilized.

Horse manure. Should farmers make a profit? The profit off of people starving otherwise. Should clothing manufacturers make a profit? Housing manufacturers?

All profits are made off of fulfilling human wants and needs. The theory that medical treatment is some special category is so stupid that only snowflakes would swallow it.

 

[GaryDog]

Higher profits means more jobs, dumbass.

Sent from my SM-G930U using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Hardly. Corporations are constantly trying to decrease their labor costs for the sake of higher profits.

evidence please!

Why would higher profits mean more jobs? The only thing that creates jobs is demand for a product. Without demand higher profits only mean more income

dude, the mere fact that you ask such a stupid statement is amazing. How does one make a profit? you think they just sit on their asses or do you supposed profit means big sales? you tell me, but with big sales means more need, which in turns means more jobs. so yes, more profits can mean more jobs. It may also include new stores or shops depending on the business and with that management, and subordinates. it's fking simple.

The left truly believe the notion of profit is evil. Not kidding

For health care? Yes.

 

[GaryDog]

Pass the Fair Tax Act. Then everyone pays the same rate, and no one pays tax on what it takes to survive.

And the government can't function cause it'll be broke.

Brilliant!

Go away, adults are talking.

Spare me your snide remarks. When you claim a for profit company making $600 billion is "inefficient" your claim that adults are talking is laughable.

"For profit" for medical care. It should not be a "for profit" industry, by definition. Profiting off of suffering is anathema to being human, and civilized.

Horse manure. Should farmers make a profit? The profit off of people starving otherwise. Should clothing manufacturers make a profit? Housing manufacturers?

All profits are made off of fulfilling human wants and needs. The theory that medical treatment is some special category is so stupid that only snowflakes would swallow it.

There is CHOICE when it comes to shopping for food, clothing and homes.

Not so with medical care. When you're in the back of an ambulance, you're not shopping, dipshit.

 

[Theowl32]

Pass the Fair Tax Act. Then everyone pays the same rate, and no one pays tax on what it takes to survive.

And the government can't function cause it'll be broke.

Brilliant!

Go away, adults are talking.

Spare me your snide remarks. When you claim a for profit company making $600 billion is "inefficient" your claim that adults are talking is laughable.

"For profit" for medical care. It should not be a "for profit" industry, by definition. Profiting off of suffering is anathema to being human, and civilized.

Horse manure. Should farmers make a profit? The profit off of people starving otherwise. Should clothing manufacturers make a profit? Housing manufacturers?

All profits are made off of fulfilling human wants and needs. The theory that medical treatment is some special category is so stupid that only snowflakes would swallow it.

Ask them about evil pharmaceutical companies. Ask them how much money those companies invest in researching new drugs for dreaded diseases. Now, ask them whether or not the profit motive plays any part in the BILLIONS those companies spend. Ask them how many useful drugs have been invented in countries without the profit motive. Watch them as they squirm in their bullshit.

 

[WinterBorn]

Hardly. Corporations are constantly trying to decrease their labor costs for the sake of higher profits.

evidence please!

Why would higher profits mean more jobs? The only thing that creates jobs is demand for a product. Without demand higher profits only mean more income

dude, the mere fact that you ask such a stupid statement is amazing. How does one make a profit? you think they just sit on their asses or do you supposed profit means big sales? you tell me, but with big sales means more need, which in turns means more jobs. so yes, more profits can mean more jobs. It may also include new stores or shops depending on the business and with that management, and subordinates. it's fking simple.

The left truly believe the notion of profit is evil. Not kidding

For health care? Yes.

What sort of healthcare? Would making a profit on elective surgery be evil? Would making a profit treating STDs someone catches by not taking very simple steps to avoid them, be evil? Would making a profit on treating heart disease caused by diet and sedentary lifestyle be evil?

 

[GaryDog]

Pass the Fair Tax Act. Then everyone pays the same rate, and no one pays tax on what it takes to survive.

And the government can't function cause it'll be broke.

Brilliant!

Go away, adults are talking.

Spare me your snide remarks. When you claim a for profit company making $600 billion is "inefficient" your claim that adults are talking is laughable.

"For profit" for medical care. It should not be a "for profit" industry, by definition. Profiting off of suffering is anathema to being human, and civilized.

Horse manure. Should farmers make a profit? The profit off of people starving otherwise. Should clothing manufacturers make a profit? Housing manufacturers?

All profits are made off of fulfilling human wants and needs. The theory that medical treatment is some special category is so stupid that only snowflakes would swallow it.

Ask them about evil pharmaceutical companies. Ask them how much money those companies invest in researching new drugs for dreaded diseases. Now, ask them whether or not the profit motive plays any part in the BILLIONS those companies spend. Ask them how many useful drugs have been invented in countries without the profit motive. Watch them as they squirm in their bullshit.

Yeah, the profit motive has been TERRRRific. Billions going into curing Donald Trump's limp dick, yet we can't make inroads on cancer.

Thanks for the perfect example of why you're wrong.

 

[GaryDog]

evidence please!

Why would higher profits mean more jobs? The only thing that creates jobs is demand for a product. Without demand higher profits only mean more income

dude, the mere fact that you ask such a stupid statement is amazing. How does one make a profit? you think they just sit on their asses or do you supposed profit means big sales? you tell me, but with big sales means more need, which in turns means more jobs. so yes, more profits can mean more jobs. It may also include new stores or shops depending on the business and with that management, and subordinates. it's fking simple.

The left truly believe the notion of profit is evil. Not kidding

For health care? Yes.

What sort of healthcare? Would making a profit on elective surgery be evil? Would making a profit treating STDs someone catches by not taking very simple steps to avoid them, be evil? Would making a profit on treating heart disease caused by diet and sedentary lifestyle be evil?

I don't necessarily oppose insurance companies not covering elective surgery. They largely do not. But it would depend on the type. Breast augmentation or penis enlargement? No.

Cleft-palate surgery? That's SLIGHTLY less elective.

Infectious disease and heart disease treatments are not elective. You're confused.

 

[WinterBorn]

Pass the Fair Tax Act. Then everyone pays the same rate, and no one pays tax on what it takes to survive.

And the government can't function cause it'll be broke.

Brilliant!

Go away, adults are talking.

Spare me your snide remarks. When you claim a for profit company making $600 billion is "inefficient" your claim that adults are talking is laughable.

"For profit" for medical care. It should not be a "for profit" industry, by definition. Profiting off of suffering is anathema to being human, and civilized.

Horse manure. Should farmers make a profit? The profit off of people starving otherwise. Should clothing manufacturers make a profit? Housing manufacturers?

All profits are made off of fulfilling human wants and needs. The theory that medical treatment is some special category is so stupid that only snowflakes would swallow it.

There is CHOICE when it comes to shopping for food, clothing and homes.

Not so with medical care. When you're in the back of an ambulance, you're not shopping, dipshit.

How many medical problems ARE caused by choices made? Refusing to exercise and eating a diet full of junk food is well known for causing serious health issues.


And while an ambulance ride may limit choices, most medical care does not begin with an ambulance. In fact, I would say almost all of my medical care has been such that I could take advantage of choices available.

 

[WinterBorn]

Why would higher profits mean more jobs? The only thing that creates jobs is demand for a product. Without demand higher profits only mean more income

dude, the mere fact that you ask such a stupid statement is amazing. How does one make a profit? you think they just sit on their asses or do you supposed profit means big sales? you tell me, but with big sales means more need, which in turns means more jobs. so yes, more profits can mean more jobs. It may also include new stores or shops depending on the business and with that management, and subordinates. it's fking simple.

The left truly believe the notion of profit is evil. Not kidding

For health care? Yes.

What sort of healthcare? Would making a profit on elective surgery be evil? Would making a profit treating STDs someone catches by not taking very simple steps to avoid them, be evil? Would making a profit on treating heart disease caused by diet and sedentary lifestyle be evil?

I don't necessarily oppose insurance companies not covering elective surgery. They largely do not. But it would depend on the type. Breast augmentation or penis enlargement? No.

Cleft-palate surgery? That's SLIGHTLY less elective.

Infectious disease and heart disease treatments are not elective. You're confused.

Not confused at all. I did not say those treatments were elective. I said that the reason people need treatment for them is often because of their own choices.

 

[GaryDog]

And the government can't function cause it'll be broke.

Brilliant!

Go away, adults are talking.

Spare me your snide remarks. When you claim a for profit company making $600 billion is "inefficient" your claim that adults are talking is laughable.

"For profit" for medical care. It should not be a "for profit" industry, by definition. Profiting off of suffering is anathema to being human, and civilized.

Horse manure. Should farmers make a profit? The profit off of people starving otherwise. Should clothing manufacturers make a profit? Housing manufacturers?

All profits are made off of fulfilling human wants and needs. The theory that medical treatment is some special category is so stupid that only snowflakes would swallow it.

There is CHOICE when it comes to shopping for food, clothing and homes.

Not so with medical care. When you're in the back of an ambulance, you're not shopping, dipshit.

How many medical problems ARE caused by choices made? Refusing to exercise and eating a diet full of junk food is well known for causing serious health issues.


And while an ambulance ride may limit choices, most medical care does not begin with an ambulance. In fact, I would say almost all of my medical care has been such that I could take advantage of choices available.

The competition is not sufficient to making healthcare a simple for-profit, capitalist industry. It's simply wrong.

I'm fine with tax incentives for good choices. But it's not that simple. Genetics predisposes lots of people to diseases even if they're jogging every day and eating carrots.

It comes down to what kind of society and what kind of democracy you want. A healthy and informed democracy functions best. A society where people are fighting over meat in the street and sick people are left to die because they made "poor choices" is not a successful society. History has shown this. Why do you ignore that? Or do you even understand that point?

 

[GaryDog]

dude, the mere fact that you ask such a stupid statement is amazing. How does one make a profit? you think they just sit on their asses or do you supposed profit means big sales? you tell me, but with big sales means more need, which in turns means more jobs. so yes, more profits can mean more jobs. It may also include new stores or shops depending on the business and with that management, and subordinates. it's fking simple.

The left truly believe the notion of profit is evil. Not kidding

For health care? Yes.

What sort of healthcare? Would making a profit on elective surgery be evil? Would making a profit treating STDs someone catches by not taking very simple steps to avoid them, be evil? Would making a profit on treating heart disease caused by diet and sedentary lifestyle be evil?

I don't necessarily oppose insurance companies not covering elective surgery. They largely do not. But it would depend on the type. Breast augmentation or penis enlargement? No.

Cleft-palate surgery? That's SLIGHTLY less elective.

Infectious disease and heart disease treatments are not elective. You're confused.

Not confused at all. I did not say those treatments were elective. I said that the reason people need treatment for them is often because of their own choices.

So?

 

[WinterBorn]

And the government can't function cause it'll be broke.

Brilliant!

Go away, adults are talking.

Spare me your snide remarks. When you claim a for profit company making $600 billion is "inefficient" your claim that adults are talking is laughable.

"For profit" for medical care. It should not be a "for profit" industry, by definition. Profiting off of suffering is anathema to being human, and civilized.

Horse manure. Should farmers make a profit? The profit off of people starving otherwise. Should clothing manufacturers make a profit? Housing manufacturers?

All profits are made off of fulfilling human wants and needs. The theory that medical treatment is some special category is so stupid that only snowflakes would swallow it.

Ask them about evil pharmaceutical companies. Ask them how much money those companies invest in researching new drugs for dreaded diseases. Now, ask them whether or not the profit motive plays any part in the BILLIONS those companies spend. Ask them how many useful drugs have been invented in countries without the profit motive. Watch them as they squirm in their bullshit.

Yeah, the profit motive has been TERRRRific. Billions going into curing Donald Trump's limp dick, yet we can't make inroads on cancer.

Thanks for the perfect example of why you're wrong.

Comparing erectile dysfunction to cancer is ridiculous. One has very specific and treatable causes. The other is about how cells grow and reproduce, with a myriad of causes. It also involves a treatment that destroys cells, often reduces the body's ability to protect itself, and is mainly due to the rate at which cancer cells reproduce in comparison to normal cells.

Plus, if you look at the survival rates of many types of cancer, the claim that we cannot (or have not) made inroads against cancer is simply wrong. There are types of cancer that have defied our efforts. But many types have gone from being a death sentence to being curable if caught in time.

 

[WinterBorn]

Spare me your snide remarks. When you claim a for profit company making $600 billion is "inefficient" your claim that adults are talking is laughable.

"For profit" for medical care. It should not be a "for profit" industry, by definition. Profiting off of suffering is anathema to being human, and civilized.

Horse manure. Should farmers make a profit? The profit off of people starving otherwise. Should clothing manufacturers make a profit? Housing manufacturers?

All profits are made off of fulfilling human wants and needs. The theory that medical treatment is some special category is so stupid that only snowflakes would swallow it.

There is CHOICE when it comes to shopping for food, clothing and homes.

Not so with medical care. When you're in the back of an ambulance, you're not shopping, dipshit.

How many medical problems ARE caused by choices made? Refusing to exercise and eating a diet full of junk food is well known for causing serious health issues.


And while an ambulance ride may limit choices, most medical care does not begin with an ambulance. In fact, I would say almost all of my medical care has been such that I could take advantage of choices available.

The competition is not sufficient to making healthcare a simple for-profit, capitalist industry. It's simply wrong.

I'm fine with tax incentives for good choices. But it's not that simple. Genetics predisposes lots of people to diseases even if they're jogging every day and eating carrots.

It comes down to what kind of society and what kind of democracy you want. A healthy and informed democracy functions best. A society where people are fighting over meat in the street and sick people are left to die because they made "poor choices" is not a successful society. History has shown this. Why do you ignore that? Or do you even understand that point?

I understand it quite well. And I have not suggested that anyone be left dying on the streets. I know it makes for a sensationalistic image for you to claim I have, but I have not.

And yes, there are those who still have heart problems whether the eat well and exercise or not. But those people are in the minority. There are plenty of people who have health issues because they took no personal responsibility for their own health.

I have, numerous times, stated that I want a safety net for those who are unable to afford health insurance. I have stated numerous time, in various threads, that I think no one should die for their financial status. So spare me the overly dramatc "people will be dying on the streets" nonsense. The question is not what to do about the 15-20% of Americans who had no health insurance prior to Obamacare. The question is whether healthcare should make a profit. Given that 80-85% of Americans had health insurance would remove the whole "they will be left to die in the street" claim for the majority. So a simple plan to expand Medicare/Medicaid would be a better fix.

 

[WinterBorn]

The left truly believe the notion of profit is evil. Not kidding

For health care? Yes.

What sort of healthcare? Would making a profit on elective surgery be evil? Would making a profit treating STDs someone catches by not taking very simple steps to avoid them, be evil? Would making a profit on treating heart disease caused by diet and sedentary lifestyle be evil?

I don't necessarily oppose insurance companies not covering elective surgery. They largely do not. But it would depend on the type. Breast augmentation or penis enlargement? No.

Cleft-palate surgery? That's SLIGHTLY less elective.

Infectious disease and heart disease treatments are not elective. You're confused.

Not confused at all. I did not say those treatments were elective. I said that the reason people need treatment for them is often because of their own choices.

So?

So? So if you can't be bothered to take care of your own health, someone else making a profit on it should not be an issue.

 

[WinterBorn]

And the government can't function cause it'll be broke.

Brilliant!

Go away, adults are talking.

Spare me your snide remarks. When you claim a for profit company making $600 billion is "inefficient" your claim that adults are talking is laughable.

"For profit" for medical care. It should not be a "for profit" industry, by definition. Profiting off of suffering is anathema to being human, and civilized.

Horse manure. Should farmers make a profit? The profit off of people starving otherwise. Should clothing manufacturers make a profit? Housing manufacturers?

All profits are made off of fulfilling human wants and needs. The theory that medical treatment is some special category is so stupid that only snowflakes would swallow it.

Ask them about evil pharmaceutical companies. Ask them how much money those companies invest in researching new drugs for dreaded diseases. Now, ask them whether or not the profit motive plays any part in the BILLIONS those companies spend. Ask them how many useful drugs have been invented in countries without the profit motive. Watch them as they squirm in their bullshit.

Yeah, the profit motive has been TERRRRific. Billions going into curing Donald Trump's limp dick, yet we can't make inroads on cancer.

Thanks for the perfect example of why you're wrong.

YOu keep insisting that I am confused, and yet you post some ridiculous nonsense.

Allow me to educate you. You claimed we can't make inroads on cancer?

In the mid-1970s, the survival rates for the 5 most common types of cancer were:
"For the five most common cancers diagnosed in adults, the 5-year survival rates were: breast, 75%; prostate, 69%; lung, 13%; colorectal, 51%; and bladder, 74%."

"As of 2006, the 5-year relative survival rates for the five most common cancers were: breast, 90%; prostate, 100%; lung, 16%; colorectal, 67%; and bladder, 81%"

I would call that, at least, making inroads. And much of that is due to increased screenings.

"Combination chemotherapy is now standard in the treatment of many cancers and has contributed to increasing survival and cure rates. For example, the introduction of combination chemotherapy that contained the drug cisplatin led to cure rates for testicular cancer of approximately 95 percent. Treatment for this disease has become so effective that 80 percent of patients with metastatic testicular cancer can now be cured. Thirty-five years ago, 95 percent of these patients died, usually within 1 year of diagnosis."

80% can now be cured, where before 95% died. But we can't make inroads?

Oh, and your contention that billions were spent curing erectile dysfunction? That is absolutely wrong. Viagra was developed as a treatment for hypertension and angina. The effect on erectile dysfunction was a surprise to researchers. The fact that it was not particularly effective in treating angina prompted Pfizer to market it as a treatment for ED.


Glad I could help educate you.

Quotes are from NIH Fact Sheets - Cancer