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.
No, this is not true. I have looked at a lot of items that were made here and then made in some slave labor country. The consumer did not get a price cut, instead, shareholders and upper management took a pay raise.
You have looked at? You're just one person. You are free to have an opinion, but it's inconsequential.
Quote:
They charge whatever the market can bare, not pass savings to consumers since they are not a charity.
How do you prove labor and tax costs don't factor into their pricing formula?
Quote:
If anything the poor and lower class would benefit if those slave labor countries went away because then the corps would have to use our labor here and would have to raise wages to attract them.
And prices would subsequently increase. It's a zero sum game, at best.
Quote:
Shareholders would have to take a cut in pay.
That's going to be problematic for the millions of US employees/retirees who have $28 trillion worth of share equity, etc., investments in their pension funds, 401Ks, etc. You are essentially arguing for a reduction in nearly everyone's retirement benefits while simultaneously advocating for an increase in the prices of services/goods.
You have looked at? You're just one person. You are free to have an opinion, but it's inconsequential.
How do you prove labor and tax costs don't factor into their pricing formula?
And prices would subsequently increase. It's a zero sum game, at best.
That's going to be problematic for the millions of US employees/retirees who have $28 trillion worth of share equity, etc., investments in their pension funds, 401Ks, etc. You are essentially arguing for a reduction in nearly everyone's retirement benefits while simultaneously advocating for an increase in the prices of services/goods.
The ones doing the work should take the lions share of the money.
Shareholders are a third party parasite.
Wall Street cannot exist without the workers, but the workers can exist without wall street.
In the early 1900's, almost 90% of business did not have stocks on wall street and existed just fine.
The ones doing the work should take the lions share of the money.
Shareholders are a third party parasite.
Well, if corporate profits are cut and/or corporate taxes are increased, that cuts into the workers' pension/retirement account investment yields and therefor reduces their retirement benefits. Now what?
Well, if corporate profits are cut and/or corporate taxes are increased, that cuts into the workers' pension/retirement account investment yields and therefor reduces their retirement benefits. Now what?
How did the do it in the 1900's?
How do they do it other countries?
I've been reading Larry Kudlow's' book on the JFK tax cuts. Before 1964, there were 24 tax brackets, and the bottom bracket was a 20% income tax. It kicked in at a fairly low level of income, IIRC only something like $5600/yr in income (in 2016 dollars) would get you a 20% federal tax. After the JFK and Reagan tax cuts, the bottom rate is now 10%, and obviously the effective rate for the bottom (approx.) 45% of earners is zero.
The percentage of tax filers who pay zero (or less) was pretty stable at around 20% until around 1990. Then it began to shoot up to its current level of about 45-50%.
I've been reading Larry Kudlow's' book on the JFK tax cuts. Before 1964, there were 24 tax brackets, and the bottom bracket was a 20% income tax. It kicked in at a fairly low level of income, IIRC only something like $5600/yr in income (in 2016 dollars) would get you a 20% federal tax. After the JFK and Reagan tax cuts, the bottom rate is now 10%, and obviously the effective rate for the bottom (approx.) 45% of earners is zero.
The percentage of tax filers who pay zero (or less) was pretty stable at around 20% until around 1990. Then it began to shoot up to its current level of about 45-50%.
The cost of living has continued to climb while wages have stagnated because of outsourcing and globalism.
Fix the wage stagnation and lower the cost of living, then you will have more paying taxes again.
If you raise taxes on them when they are already underwater, you create a hopeless situation where people give up and go homeless.
$200,000? That's quite affluent. So you're saying that even people in the upper few percentile shouldn't pay any tax, and we should make the top 1% pay for everything? (That means the 99% will get free this, free that, paid for by someone else.) You sound hateful toward the very rich.
You're advocating for the opposite direction this country needs - and that's for everyone to have skin the game.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
