Tax Cuts Steal Democracy

100% stupid Ireland was dramatically in debt from the housing crisis era and had to take a huge bailout so the economies are not comparable

Ah, so government intervention was done before a tax cut? And the US also faced the same conditions and also had bailouts (TARP, ARRA). This didn't happen very long ago. There's no excuse to not know this.

So why did you invoke Ireland in this debate if there are all these asterisks and excuses that come with it? You're pretty much undermining your own argument, FYI.
 
Are you saying about the thousands and thousands of corporations that move there didn't create any jobs in Ireland and that they didn't become a Celtic tiger

You said Ireland created 130,000 jobs in 5-6 years of these tax cuts. Obama created nearly double that number of jobs his last month in office, and he did that without lowering the corporate tax me.
Totally stupid as always:
1) they were in recession we were long out of a recession

2 ) their population is 6 million whereas ours is 330 million
 
100% stupid Ireland was dramatically in debt from the housing crisis era and had to take a huge bailout so the economies are not comparable

Ah, so government intervention was done before a tax cut? And the US also faced the same conditions and also had bailouts (TARP, ARRA). This didn't happen very long ago. There's no excuse to not know this.

So why did you invoke Ireland in this debate if there are all these asterisks and excuses that come with it? You're pretty much undermining your own argument, FYI.
Ireland cut it's Taxes to 12% and thousands and thousands of corporations move there. This is considered a very good thing. If it happened to the United States it would be welcomed not scornEd. If you asked all 50 Governors whether it would be a good thing to have corporations moved to their states all 50 would say yes because employment and taxes come from corporations. 1+1 = 2
 
Good so we should raise taxes on drug companies to get them to hire more scientists and to invent more cures for cancer

Again, they're not spending money looking for cures. Drug companies don't make money if a patient doesn't have to take their drugs anymore. So the drugs they make treat symptoms but do not cure conditions. There is no cure for diabetes because it makes drug companies too much money selling treatments for diabetes rather than a cure. Have someone buy a drug once, and they never have to take drugs again, or have someone buy a drug to treat a condition for the rest of their lives. Duh...the choice is obvious.

Also, Medicare is prohibited from bargaining for lower prescription drug costs, even though Medicare is the largest payor of prescription drugs. Why is that? Why would Medicare be prevented from using its leverage in the market to negotiate for lower fees? That's not very free market, is it?
 
Good so we should raise taxes on drug companies to get them to hire more scientists and to invent more cures for cancer

Again, they're not spending money looking for cures. Drug companies don't make money if a patient doesn't have to take their drugs anymore. So the drugs they make treat symptoms but do not cure conditions. There is no cure for diabetes because it makes drug companies too much money selling treatments for diabetes rather than a cure.

Also, Medicare is prohibited from bargaining for lower prescription drug costs, even though Medicare is the largest payor of prescription drugs. Why is that? Why would Medicare be prevented from using its leverage in the market to negotiate for lower fees?
Good so then drug companies are evil and we should raise taxes on them in the hope that they will then hire more scientist and inventor more cures for diseases.
 
Ireland cut it's Taxes to 12% and thousands and thousands of corporations move there.

They may have moved their Accounting headquarters there, but not production or distribution. And the "thousands" of corporations that moved there turned out to be a blip in the overall economy, and Ireland has a higher unemployment rate than we do, despite taxes being 12% there and 35% here.

Realistically, Ireland's 12% rate is only .4% below the effective corporate rate here. So it didn't really do much other than make a few shareholders wealthier.
 
Good so then drug companies are evil and we should raise taxes on them in the hope that they will then hire more scientist and inventor more cures for diseases.

We should raise taxes on them because they aren't creating jobs, and are spiking health care costs deliberately. So if they're going to charge more for prescription drugs, then they should be taxed more. It's that simple.
 
Ireland cut it's Taxes to 12% and thousands and thousands of corporations move there.

They may have moved their Accounting headquarters there, but not production or distribution. And the "thousands" of corporations that moved there turned out to be a blip in the overall economy, and Ireland has a higher unemployment rate than we do, despite taxes being 12% there and 35% here.

Realistically, Ireland's 12% rate is only .4% below the effective corporate rate here. So it didn't really do much other than make a few shareholders wealthier.
So we should actually raise taxes to attract corporations is that correct
 
Good so then drug companies are evil and we should raise taxes on them in the hope that they will then hire more scientist and inventor more cures for diseases.

We should raise taxes on them because they aren't creating jobs, and are spiking health care costs deliberately. So if they're going to charge more for prescription drugs, then they should be taxed more. It's that simple.
humans. In 1978, Alfred Alberts and colleagues at Merck Research Laboratories discovered a new natural product in a fermentation broth af Aspergillus terreus, their product showed good HMGR inhibition and they named the product mevinolin, which later became known as lovastatin.[2][3][4]
 
Good so then drug companies are evil and we should raise taxes on them in the hope that they will then hire more scientist and inventor more cures for diseases.

We should raise taxes on them because they aren't creating jobs, and are spiking health care costs deliberately. So if they're going to charge more for prescription drugs, then they should be taxed more. It's that simple.
Pfizer alone employs 85 thousand people. How many people do you employ in the search to cure disease
 
In 1978, Alfred Alberts and colleagues at Merck Research Laboratories discovered a new natural product in a fermentation broth af Aspergillus terreus, their product showed good HMGR inhibition and they named the product mevinolin, which later became known as lovastatin.[2][3][4]

Nice cut-and-paste...wholly irrelevant to what we are talking about.
You said drug companies don't do anything and I gave you an example of them inventing drugs and save hundreds of thousands of lives all over the world
 
So we should actually raise taxes to attract corporations is that correct

Not sure what you're trying to say here, but it's sounding more like a straw man.
You said when Switzerland and Ireland drop their tax rate to 12% and tens of thousands of corporations from all over the world moves there it was not a positive thing. This is how he stupid Marxist will deny reality. If you are not knowledgeable enough to be here why not ask questions and try to get in a position where you can participate meaningfully?
 
Pfizer alone employs 85 thousand people. How many people do you employ in the search to cure disease

Who is talking about closing down Pfizer? All I'm advocating for is to allow Medicare to bargain for cheaper drugs, which it cannot do right now. If doing so results in a company like Pfizer cutting back its non-research related jobs, spending less on marketing and advertising, then so be it. It makes little sense for a drug company to spend more on marketing than on R&D.
 
Last edited:
ou said drug companies don't do anything

That isn't what I said. Straw man.

What I said was that drug companies treat symptoms but do not create cures. Why? Because creating cures means no more drugs to sell, which means no more $$, which means no luxury private jet or third/fourth/fifth home for (insert drug CEO here).
 
You said when Switzerland and Ireland drop their tax rate to 12% and tens of thousands of corporations from all over the world moves there it was not a positive thing.

What I said was that it didn't create any jobs. If you take that to mean "bad thing" then so be it.
 
ou said drug companies don't do anything

That isn't what I said. Straw man.

What I said was that drug companies treat symptoms but do not create cures. Why? Because creating cures means no more drugs to sell, which means no more $$, which means no luxury private jet or third/fourth/fifth home for (insert drug CEO here).

Totally Marxist ignorance I had a fifth-grade teacher who assured us that they had a lightbulb that would last forever and automobile tires that would last forever but they were not brought to market because it would put the companies out of business And we all believed it is fifth-graders I'm hoping for you that you are a fifth grader?
 
Totally Marxist ignorance I had a fifth-grade teacher who assured us that they had a lightbulb that would last forever and automobile tires that would last forever but they were not brought to market because it would put the companies out of business And we all believed it is fifth-graders I'm hoping for you that you are a fifth grader?

Sorry, comrade, but you're completely wrong. And now you've kinda gone off the reservation a bit, spiraling the debate away from the main focus which was that tax cuts in Ireland did not translate to jobs here.
 

Forum List

Back
Top