emerald
Banned User
CCard sock
Posts: 2,632
|
Post by emerald on Aug 24, 2024 21:29:54 GMT -6
We have laws to deal with monopolies. We have laws to deal with price fixing. Enforce them if that's the problem. Do any progressives study anything other than the humanities in school? Unfortunately money talks and they've spread around enough to buy the Republican party. Would that the monopolies be broken up but Democrats have never had control enough to do it. The Big Blue Wave might change that. LOL
|
|
|
Post by gotmewrong on Aug 25, 2024 0:03:05 GMT -6
We have laws to deal with monopolies. We have laws to deal with price fixing. Enforce them if that's the problem. Do any progressives study anything other than the humanities in school? Unfortunately money talks and they've spread around enough to buy the Republican party. Would that the monopolies be broken up but Democrats have never had control enough to do it. The Big Blue Wave might change that. LOLCocaine's a hell of a drug. LOLOLOL
|
|
|
Post by 3 Sport Town on Aug 25, 2024 6:49:26 GMT -6
We have laws to deal with monopolies. We have laws to deal with price fixing. Enforce them if that's the problem. Do any progressives study anything other than the humanities in school? I was an economic major never worked in the field, but understand economic concepts. I would be against price controls, but I am not clear that our laws are adequate at the federal level. Although, you may be partly right about not enforcing laws, but antitrust cases are tough. I guarantee Harris administration is for more likely to enforce the laws than Trump. Especially since it is very clear that Trump is going to not allow the DOJ to be run independently which is terrifying in itself. Here is a paragraph from a time article that states the problem with food companies. time.com/6139127/u-s-food-prices-monopoly/Food companies do face legitimate increased costs and unique shortages, but these aren’t eating into their profits as economists might expect. In fact, the largest publicly traded companies have never had higher profit margins. Such record earnings suggest that food companies have sufficient market power to pass all their higher costs, and then some, onto consumers. Basic economic theory tells us that when a business charges too much, competitors will offer lower prices, take sales, and erode excessive profit. Sustained, exceptional corporate profits raise the question: how much are food companies really competing? And if corporate consolidation helps competitors raise prices together, what will it take to tame price gouging?
|
|
|
Post by Billy John Davy on Aug 25, 2024 7:01:59 GMT -6
;Especially since it is very clear that Trump is going to not allow the DOJ to be run independently which is terrifying in itself. its cute that you think DOJ is independent. Its an executive branch department. You know who runs the executive branch, correct? The idea that any President would allow a DOJ to just do what ever it wants is stupid. From the AG down through all appointed positions, they are staffed by people who will focus on and enforce laws the President deems important.
|
|
|
Post by 3 Sport Town on Aug 25, 2024 8:28:41 GMT -6
;Especially since it is very clear that Trump is going to not allow the DOJ to be run independently which is terrifying in itself. its cute that you think DOJ is independent. Its an executive branch department. You know who runs the executive branch, correct? The idea that any President would allow a DOJ to just do what ever it wants is stupid. From the AG down through all appointed positions, they are staffed by people who will focus on and enforce laws the President deems important. Let me make this simple I do not believe past presidents including Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden or even Trump last time told the DOJ who to charge with crimes or who to file lawsuits against. I do believe that if Trump is elected again he will directly tell them DOJ who to investigate, who to file lawsuits, and who to charge with crimes. There will be virtually no controls on a second Trump presidency. Now you can believe what you want.
|
|
|
Post by Billy John Davy on Aug 25, 2024 8:36:56 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by 3 Sport Town on Aug 25, 2024 8:41:47 GMT -6
Not sure where you are getting your information. Kamala did not propose price controls, she discussed cracking down on price gouging. 40 states have laws against price gouging, but not the federal government. As to the corporate tax, her proposal which is the same as Biden’s is to raise the rate to 28% from 21%, that is not 50% increase. Let’s look at the history. From Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_States“The top corporate tax rate in the U.S. fell from a high of 53% in 1942 to a maximum of 38% in 1993, which remained in effect until 2018, although corporations in the top bracket were taxed at a rate of 35% between 1993 and 2017. After the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, on December 20, 2017, the corporate tax rate changed to a flat 21%, starting January 1, 2018” Corporations had wanted the top rate lowered to 28%, but Trump, other Republicans and their billionaire friends decided why not go down to 21%. I pay tax rate of 22%, so why should corporations such as Walmart, Amazon and Apple Pay lower taxes than many middle class Americans? Because our corporate tax rates need to be competitive globally for our companies to compete globally. How many people do you employ? How much generational wealth have you generated for others? Price gouging already is illegal. She wants to tell purveyors of basic goods and services how much they can charge if the government -- not the market -- decides their prices are too high. Thats been done. It doesn't work. On corporate rates 28% is still competitive, Germany, Japan and Australia are are at 30% and most other first world countries over 25%. So are you telling me that companies like Walmart, Amazon and Apple are not going to want to increase their profits, because they will pay 28% instead of 21%. I think 28% top rate is the sweet spot, 35% is too high and 21% too low. A increase to 28% would raise $1.3 trillion over 10 years. tradingeconomics.com/country-list/corporate-tax-rate
|
|
|
Post by johntchance on Aug 25, 2024 8:53:57 GMT -6
Because our corporate tax rates need to be competitive globally for our companies to compete globally. How many people do you employ? How much generational wealth have you generated for others? Price gouging already is illegal. She wants to tell purveyors of basic goods and services how much they can charge if the government -- not the market -- decides their prices are too high. Thats been done. It doesn't work. On corporate rates 28% is still competitive, Germany, Japan and Australia are are at 30% and most other first world countries over 25%. So are you telling me that companies like Walmart, Amazon and Apple are not going to want to increase their profits, because they will pay 28% instead of 21%. I think 28% top rate is the sweet spot, 35% is too high and 21% too low. A increase to 28% would raise $1.3 trillion over 10 years. tradingeconomics.com/country-list/corporate-tax-rateAll of which would be paid by the consumer
|
|
|
Post by 3 Sport Town on Aug 25, 2024 9:16:43 GMT -6
On corporate rates 28% is still competitive, Germany, Japan and Australia are are at 30% and most other first world countries over 25%. So are you telling me that companies like Walmart, Amazon and Apple are not going to want to increase their profits, because they will pay 28% instead of 21%. I think 28% top rate is the sweet spot, 35% is too high and 21% too low. A increase to 28% would raise $1.3 trillion over 10 years. tradingeconomics.com/country-list/corporate-tax-rateAll of which would be paid by the consumer No it is not paid by the consumer, it might be paid by stock investors. This is tax on corporate profits, it is not part of the cost of goods and services. Now a massive increase in tariffs like Trump is proposing would be paid by consumers.
|
|
Nano
Junior Member
Posts: 301
|
Post by Nano on Aug 25, 2024 9:28:29 GMT -6
All of which would be paid by the consumer No it is not paid by the consumer, it might be paid by stock investors. This is tax on corporate profits, it is not part of the cost of goods and services. Now a massive increase in tariffs like Trump is proposing would be paid by consumers. Thats not quite right. Companies are valued on cash generation. Increased taxes will require companies to cut staff or raise prices to maintain their valuations. It really hurts small businesses where cash is important to their survival. It also curtails investment and the formation of new, innovatove companies. Just an absolutely terrible idea.
|
|
|
Post by 3 Sport Town on Aug 25, 2024 9:42:24 GMT -6
No it is not paid by the consumer, it might be paid by stock investors. This is tax on corporate profits, it is not part of the cost of goods and services. Now a massive increase in tariffs like Trump is proposing would be paid by consumers. Thats not quite right. Companies are valued on cash generation. Increased taxes will require companies to cut staff or raise prices to maintain their valuations. It really hurts small businesses where cash is important to their survival. It also curtails investment and the formation of new, innovatove companies. Just an absolutely terrible idea. They are not talking raising the corporate tax rate on small businesses just big corporations, let me see if I can find the proposed rates.
|
|
Nano
Junior Member
Posts: 301
|
Post by Nano on Aug 25, 2024 9:49:23 GMT -6
Thats not quite right. Companies are valued on cash generation. Increased taxes will require companies to cut staff or raise prices to maintain their valuations. It really hurts small businesses where cash is important to their survival. It also curtails investment and the formation of new, innovatove companies. Just an absolutely terrible idea. They are not talking raising the corporate tax rate on small businesses just big corporations, let me see if I can find the proposed rates. How does she define a "big business?"
|
|
|
Post by bedfordforrest on Aug 25, 2024 9:50:49 GMT -6
We have laws to deal with monopolies. We have laws to deal with price fixing. Enforce them if that's the problem. Do any progressives study anything other than the humanities in school? Unfortunately money talks and they've spread around enough to buy the Republican party. Would that the monopolies be broken up but Democrats have never had control enough to do it. The Big Blue Wave might change that. LOLThe Democrats had complete control of the government in 2009 and didn't do a single thing to punish Wall Street for causing the financial meltdown.
|
|
Nano
Junior Member
Posts: 301
|
Post by Nano on Aug 25, 2024 9:55:16 GMT -6
The Democrats had complete control of the government in 2009 and didn't do a single thing to punish Wall Street for causing the financial meltdown. Clinton caused the financial meltdown. Wall Street is built on greed. They never should have had the opportunity to melt down in this case -- that required a change in law to encourage people to buy homes they couldn't afford.
|
|
|
Post by bedfordforrest on Aug 25, 2024 9:55:22 GMT -6
All of which would be paid by the consumer No it is not paid by the consumer, it might be paid by stock investors. This is tax on corporate profits, it is not part of the cost of goods and services. Now a massive increase in tariffs like Trump is proposing would be paid by consumers. All revenue a company has comes from the end consumer. ALL OF IT! Everything that company pays out, from good and services to taxes, comes from money collected as revenue. You show a profound misunderstanding of economics. You should write a letter to the college you studied at and demand a refund.
|
|