Do Republicans Think Corporations should pay no taxes?

[Brain357]

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.

Where are you getting your numbers?

 

[healthmyths]

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.

I think people should have met Thomas Carter as I did. Thomas Carter in the "the Carterfone decision" was the basis for breaking
up the AT&T monopoly. Prior to the decision the entire communications networks were owned by ONE company. As a result
you couldn't hook any device to a telephone landline. Thanks to the Carterfone decision, we now have the most extensive and
exhaustive communications network. So please those of you that believe we have "two companies" monopoly? You are just not
old enough to know the difference!
Carterfone - Wikipedia

 

[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

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

What does that have to do with Walmart not being a monopoly?

Oh yeah nothing

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?

What does that have to do with Walmart not being a monopoly?

Oh yeah nothing

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So you have no explanation?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

how do you explain really slow wage growth

Link?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

What does that have to do with Walmart not being a monopoly?

Oh yeah nothing

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So you have no explanation?

I agree, your whining is funny.

 

[Blues Man]

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?

What does that have to do with Walmart not being a monopoly?

Oh yeah nothing

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So you have no explanation?

No and I really don't care.

I've always made my own way and I could always find a way to make more if I needed to

The only time in my life I ever worked anyone else was between the ages of 15 and 21



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[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?

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?

What does that have to do with Walmart not being a monopoly?

Oh yeah nothing

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So you have no explanation?

No and I really don't care.

I've always made my own way and I could always find a way to make more if I needed to

The only time in my life I ever worked anyone else was between the ages of 15 and 21



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Well it’s an important question. Our economy is broken,

 

[Blues Man]

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?

What does that have to do with Walmart not being a monopoly?

Oh yeah nothing

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So you have no explanation?

No and I really don't care.

I've always made my own way and I could always find a way to make more if I needed to

The only time in my life I ever worked anyone else was between the ages of 15 and 21



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Well it’s an important question. Our economy is broken,

No it is not

People want more for less these days

I never worried about how many hours I worked I just worked until I made what I needed.

Now I hardly have to work at all



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[sealybobo]

L

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?

Social security and medicare for one. People like you in the past could never afford to retire. And in the future if Republicans get their way, we'll go back to those pre social security/medicare days where seniors died without dignity because the masses are not going to save. They can't afford to. That's why we created social security. For people like you.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

OMG we now live in a day and age where conservatives will argue that a monopoly is not a monopoly.

Yes, cause and effect. When back in the 2000's republicans loved illegal labor, that had a negative outcome on American workers. When American corporations were allowed to send jobs overseas and their HQ to Ireland and avoid paying taxes, that has an effect. And when you give the rich and corporations tax breaks, it's going to raise our taxes.

But you Republicans can argue Trump did nothing wrong when he and his team even admitted he did something wrong. So now I see you guys are willing to allow monopolistic behavior even though the founders warned us about them? Because you are in big business' pocket. Lap dogs and you don't even know it. You think Trump's policies are going to help middle class Americans? You're being fooled. He's probably back to hiring illegals at Mara Lago already

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Incorrect.
It has been clearly demonstrated that current high health care costs are the main economic problem in the US, that prevents the US from being able to compete globally, as well as greatly reducing wages.
Since medicare for all would greatly reduce the current skimming and health care cost inflation by insurance companies, then wages would increase by over a third.
Not only would employers save huge amounts of money, but they could reduce their prices and greatly increase their overseas sales.

What you are forgetting is that medicare for all is a vast over all reduction of costs, since now employers are not only paying for medicare, but also for private health insurance for employees.
Medicare for all cuts over all employer costs by almost half.

Once you have medicare for all, then providers have to charge less and no one would need insurance, so insurance rates would also greatly reduce.
The current system does not at all work, and medicare for all is proven to work because it is essentially what the whole rest of the world does, successfully.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Obamacare greatly reduced health insurance costs, not increased them.
So then employee benefits did not increase at all.

I agree the cost of employee benefits are a huge and unwarranted burden on employers, but that is the fault of the insurance companies.
Employee benefits should never have been made tax exempt in 1957, so employers should ever have had anything at all to do with employee health care.
And insurance companies should never have been allowed to encourage such massive inflation in health care providers over charging.

 

[Rigby5]

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

Since trucking companies write off the entire cost of fuel, not just the road taxes, they essentially do not pay the road taxes we do when we pay at the pump.

 

[Rigby5]

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

You misunderstand how Amazon and WalMart are monopolies.
They have such advantages from economy of scale, that no one can compete.
You can buy the same or similar goods at local brick and mortar stores, but they have to cost twice as much, even though the local store makes less profit.
So they can't compete.
Which means the money does not stay local.
The large multi national chains like Amazon and WalMart then suck the capital out of the local communities, and send it to the corporate headquarters.

 

[SmokeALib]

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.

OMG we now live in a day and age where conservatives will argue that a monopoly is not a monopoly.

Yes, cause and effect. When back in the 2000's republicans loved illegal labor, that had a negative outcome on American workers. When American corporations were allowed to send jobs overseas and their HQ to Ireland and avoid paying taxes, that has an effect. And when you give the rich and corporations tax breaks, it's going to raise our taxes.

But you Republicans can argue Trump did nothing wrong when he and his team even admitted he did something wrong. So now I see you guys are willing to allow monopolistic behavior even though the founders warned us about them? Because you are in big business' pocket. Lap dogs and you don't even know it. You think Trump's policies are going to help middle class Americans? You're being fooled. He's probably back to hiring illegals at Mara Lago already

That's why I laugh at you libturds. I don't need government policies to be successful. I don't care who is in the white house. I am successful due to my own ambition and work ethic. It's you commies that need government to take away from the successful and give to the lazy.
In other words - kiss my ass.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

L
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?

Social security and medicare for one. People like you in the past could never afford to retire. And in the future if Republicans get their way, we'll go back to those pre social security/medicare days where seniors died without dignity because the masses are not going to save. They can't afford to. That's why we created social security. For people like you.

the masses are not going to save. They can't afford to.

Especially when the government takes 15.3% out of every paycheck.

 

[Blues Man]

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

Since trucking companies write off the entire cost of fuel, not just the road taxes, they essentially do not pay the road taxes we do when we pay at the pump.

They still pay the taxes and the write off isn't as big of as deal as you think.

You write off 1000 on expenses and you only save about 300 dollars in taxes at the end of the equation.

Besides gas taxes are supposed to be earmarked for roads not income taxes.

and trucking companies pay far more in both state and deferral gas taxes than you do not to mention higher tolls and per mile taxes

 

[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.

OMG we now live in a day and age where conservatives will argue that a monopoly is not a monopoly.

Yes, cause and effect. When back in the 2000's republicans loved illegal labor, that had a negative outcome on American workers. When American corporations were allowed to send jobs overseas and their HQ to Ireland and avoid paying taxes, that has an effect. And when you give the rich and corporations tax breaks, it's going to raise our taxes.

But you Republicans can argue Trump did nothing wrong when he and his team even admitted he did something wrong. So now I see you guys are willing to allow monopolistic behavior even though the founders warned us about them? Because you are in big business' pocket. Lap dogs and you don't even know it. You think Trump's policies are going to help middle class Americans? You're being fooled. He's probably back to hiring illegals at Mara Lago already

We live in an age, where you can have 20 different search engines, and have a brainless fool, claim it was a monopoly.

This is ridiculous. You are being absolutely ignorant.

 

[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.

Obamacare greatly reduced health insurance costs, not increased them.
So then employee benefits did not increase at all.

I agree the cost of employee benefits are a huge and unwarranted burden on employers, but that is the fault of the insurance companies.
Employee benefits should never have been made tax exempt in 1957, so employers should ever have had anything at all to do with employee health care.
And insurance companies should never have been allowed to encourage such massive inflation in health care providers over charging.

But it didn't greatly reduce health insurance costs. It didn't. The proof is clear.

You are simply wrong. The cost of insurance dramatically increased.

I agree the cost of employee benefits are a huge and unwarranted burden on employers, but that is the fault of the insurance companies.

False. The insurance companies are doing exactly what they should do. Government regulations, are the cause of the burden.

Employee benefits should never have been made tax exempt in 1957, so employers should ever have had anything at all to do with employee health care.

The left-wing regulations and controls of the left-wing, are what caused this. It was the government backing the Unions, and the wage controls put in place by FDR, that caused health insurance and employment to be connected.

If the left-wing had not screwed up the economy to begin with, this problem would never have existed.

And insurance companies should never have been allowed to encourage such massive inflation in health care providers over charging

There is no evidence that insurance companies are over charging. Insurance companies are doing exactly what they should do, to provide a product that consumers want.

If anything, it is government causing high costs.