Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
The infrastructure, the offices, the system will have to be there for you to choose it as an option. But if being governed closer to home means you're okay with multiple layers of government all offering the same thing, that's your prerogative. I was just asking. Sounds redundant and needlessly wasteful to me, but okay.
|
If a state's constitution gave that state the power to have a welfare system, then there would be no need for counties or cities to have one. No duplication.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
I'm not sure how that's automatically better. If the federal government were to say "all you welfare systems shalt provide the following . . ." and left it up to each state as to how to go about it, that makes sense.
|
Please give me the article and section number where they have that power.
Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
I don't disagree. Businesses would be able to lower prices. Businesses would be able to increase salaries. I don't think they would, though.
|
Competition would force this. At one time, you could only buy a personal computer from IBM and it costs thousands of dollars. Then companies like Dell, Gateway and dozens of others came along. PC Prices dropped. My 386sx (64 MB of memory / 16 Mhz processor) cost $3,200 back in 1990. Three years later, my 486 PC (128 MB of memory / 32 Mhz processor) cost $2,000. If there was no competition prices and performance would stagnate. Same will retail sales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
It's nice that your sister would be able to buy a tractor she has needed for the past ten years. I'm surprised its purchase couldn't be written off right now, but whatever, I'm an engineer and not a businessman. But how is buying a shiny new tractor she happens to need right now an example of the wisdom of trickle-down economics? Great, she's got a shiny tractor so can produce more in less time or pay less in fuel and make more money that way, hooray for her. But that's not what trickle-down economics promises.
|
There are accounting rules that do not let you depreciate hard assets like that in a single year. You have to depreciate it over the life expectancy which is 10 to 20 years in some cases.
It trickles down. The local farm equipment company has a sale. But my wife's family isn't the only farming operation in the area. A larger harvest means more work for the local grain dryer or cotton gin. There are also numerous drivers that haul the harvest between the field and the storage facilities.
Since you are an engineer, think of every industry as a system. Like any building or bridge, there are subsystems that come together to make it all work. If you are building it, there's no one group that does everything. People specialize for efficiency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
And it's my experience that a business could lower prices to undercut competition and get those bids at any time. It's not taxes that determine these things.
|
Taxes are one of many things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
Wal-Mart's low prices stem from their heavy-handedness in their purchasing decisions, and that power stems from buying in massive bulk from Chinese sweatshops and so on. It's not tax-based. You've oversimplified ridiculously. And argued that lower taxes could increase profits for businesses. Well, I know that. That's why big corporations want lower taxes. They don't want to pass the savings on to us, they're not going to pass those savings on to us, the premise behind trickle-down economics is flawed. I'm sure you like it, it increases your business's profits. But the line of bull we're sold on why corporate taxes should be lowered is because prosperity comes from the top and works its way down.
I don't see why taxes should be lowered just so as to increase your business's profits, frankly. Isn't it the market that's supposed to reward success in business? I'm sure lower taxes would be beneficial to your business, I'm just not convinced that's a good reason to lower them.
|
I haven't argued for that. Lowered (none at all) corporate taxes would stimulate the economy and be better for everyone.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
