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.
But just like "free healthcare", liberals will never understand consequences.
Not that I support this thought --- 'liberals' or those advocating for a basic health care standard for all citizens believe that the 'cost' won't be more than what we pay now via our tax money going to Medicaid/Medicare and what they spend on health insurance premiums/deductibles/out of pocke.
So your idea that they don't understand consequences shows that you don't understand the argument for many of the alternative health care systems being talked about.
The 'feeling' or though process is that the cost to individuals would not be much greater than what we all pay for health care now vias all the various avenues.
Again -- not sure I can argue one way or the other....but I can say that they most definitely understand consequences and because they 'feel' they would be different than what you 'feel' the consequences would be doesn't mean they don't understand them -- they just have different feelings.
Corporations do pass on costs to consumers -- that includes tariffs (which are taxes) and regular old corporate taxes.
Thing is the effective tax rate that corporations pay in the USA has always averaged out to be much lower than the 'stated' tax rate. They are given all kinds of write offs.
Not that I support this thought --- 'liberals' or those advocating for a basic health care standard for all citizens believe that the 'cost' won't be more than what we pay now via our tax money going to Medicaid/Medicare and what they spend on health insurance premiums/deductibles/out of pocke.
So your idea that they don't understand consequences shows that you don't understand the argument for many of the alternative health care systems being talked about.
The 'feeling' or though process is that the cost to individuals would not be much greater than what we all pay for health care now vias all the various avenues.
Again -- not sure I can argue one way or the other....but I can say that they most definitely understand consequences and because they 'feel' they would be different than what you 'feel' the consequences would be doesn't mean they don't understand them -- they just have different feelings.
Corporations do pass on costs to consumers -- that includes tariffs (which are taxes) and regular old corporate taxes.
Thing is the effective tax rate that corporations pay in the USA has always averaged out to be much lower than the 'stated' tax rate. They are given all kinds of write offs.
Corporate tax rates should be ZERO.
Healthcare is screwed up by people and the government.
Here are a few things to greatly improve healthcare costs:
1. Make people responsible for anything under $500.
2. Prices must be posted.
3. Medical malpractice lawsuit reform (tort reform).
4. Deport illegals who go to ER after basic treatment.
5. No pharmaceutical company can charge more in the US than in any other country.
6. Streamline and reduce FDA approvals.
Corporations unfairly pass taxes down to the consumer by embedding them in their products, also known as an embedded tax. Essentially, an embedded tax is a tax that you pay when you buy any consumer item and thus freeing the corporation from the taxes they are supposed to pay by forwarding them on to you.
On average, 22 percent of what you pay for in a consumer item goes to the government. According to Harvard economics professor Dale Jorgenson, this money covers all of those taxes passed on to you.
So, which of you out there in C-D land wants to pretend to know about this topic than a Harvard Economics professor?
Anyone who has studied economics knows that prices are dictated by what the free market will pay for an item. Whether a manufacturer is taxed 0% or 50% doesn't make one iota of difference to the consumer. If prices go up in an attempt to offset a manufacturer's increased tax liabilities but consumers continue to purchase it, that simply means the manufacturer was undercharging in the first instance.
Not that I support this thought --- 'liberals' or those advocating for a basic health care standard for all citizens believe that the 'cost' won't be more than what we pay now via our tax money going to Medicaid/Medicare and what they spend on health insurance premiums/deductibles/out of pocke.
Anyone who has studied economics knows that prices are dictated by what the free market will pay for an item. Whether a manufacturer is taxed 0% or 50% doesn't make one iota of difference to the consumer. If prices go up in an attempt to offset a manufacturer's increased tax liabilities but consumers continue to purchase it, that simply means the manufacturer was undercharging in the first instance.
Only in the short term or in a monopoly or other bizarre one-off scenario.
Here is what an exercise from the University of Chicago, Problem #1
Suppose now the government imposes a per-unit tax of $4 on the sellers.
2. Solve for the new quantity, net price sellers received, and price consumers paid.
Hey look, a higher tax that changes the price!
P.S. In real life I've actually set corporate prices, the formula includes the tax rate(s) as products can have multiple taxes apply to them that are not added on at time of purchase. Not sure where or how much economics you've studied but your politics are giving you tunnel vision to the situation.
Corporations unfairly pass taxes down to the consumer by embedding them in their products, also known as an embedded tax. Essentially, an embedded tax is a tax that you pay when you buy any consumer item and thus freeing the corporation from the taxes they are supposed to pay by forwarding them on to you.
On average, 22 percent of what you pay for in a consumer item goes to the government. According to Harvard economics professor Dale Jorgenson, this money covers all of those taxes passed on to you.
So, which of you out there in C-D land wants to pretend to know about this topic than a Harvard Economics professor?
me. the Harvard professor is a freaking moron. "Unfairly"
good god. what are they supposed to do?
businesses have 2 freaking lines.
income
expenses.
the price of doing business is to insure the income line minus the expense line returns a positive.
to do that, every item sold has to insure that the cost of the item exceeds all expenses.
Taxes are an expense. the cost of the item MUST in every case include the cost of taxation.
moron idiot Harvard dude saying the right thing (they pass it on) in the wrong way (it is unfair).
Anyone who has studied economics knows that prices are dictated by what the free market will pay for an item. Whether a manufacturer is taxed 0% or 50% doesn't make one iota of difference to the consumer. If prices go up in an attempt to offset a manufacturer's increased tax liabilities but consumers continue to purchase it, that simply means the manufacturer was undercharging in the first instance.
LOL!!!
If after the taxes, a company can’t make any profit by selling the product at a price that the market wants to pay, what happens to the company?
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.
