OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 4

[bdunn13]

Only a monopoly can pass on 100% of a cost increase to consumers.

How so? Where else do corporations get money from besides consumers?

[wco81]

Plus, if you tax the sh*t out of corporations, they'll leave the area in which they're doing business. I know -- I live in New York state, where high corporate and property taxes have caused manufacturing and other jobs to hemorrhage like a severed artery.

Take care,
PK

Taxes aren't the only thing that cause businesses to cut jobs or go under entirely. High & rising healthcare costs are a huge burden that employers have to face.

Wages too. Some companies moved out of state to states which gave them tax breaks (usually temporary) but now, when labor costs pennies on the dollar in other countries, that makes a bigger difference than a few percent change in taxes.

[pk500]

Taxes aren't the only thing that cause businesses to cut jobs or go under entirely. High & rising healthcare costs are a huge burden that employers have to face.

So shifting that burden to the taxpayers is going to help the economy? How?

Every American who espouses a government healthcare program thinks it can be funded out of thin air. Reality states it will be funded through higher taxes on individuals, which will reduce money in their pocketbooks to be spent on goods produced by companies suddenly unburdened by lower corporate taxes.

Then again, Obama says he will raise corporate taxes. Health care can't be funded in this country without an increase in personal income taxes, either, so tax-tax equals lose-lose.

Take care,
PK

[wco81]

Only a monopoly can pass on 100% of a cost increase to consumers.

How so? Where else do corporations get money from besides consumers?

Many of them eat their margins.

For instance, the price of corn has gone up since the corn ethanol mandates a few years back. You heard about people down in Mexico being affected because tortilla is a staple.

Plus it affected the price of other grains, as farmers rushed to plant and harvest corn over other commodities.

But a lot of corn-based processed food products have not increased dramatically, if at all, in price. Companies may have hedging or longer-term contracts which keep their costs down.

In other cases, they're probably eating the cost increase because consumers are probably more price-sensitive to their products.

[pk500]

Wages too. Some companies moved out of state to states which gave them tax breaks (usually temporary) but now, when labor costs pennies on the dollar in other countries, that makes a bigger difference than a few percent change in taxes.

Much of that is driven by labor unions that the left wing loves to praise as champions of the American worker.

In reality, the wage increases and very generous benefit packages negotiated by unions only drive more business overseas. Just look at the American auto industry and the incredible pension and healthcare plan that GM funded until it wisely shed that program to the UAW a couple of years ago.

Take care,
PK

[Feanor]

Only a monopoly can pass on 100% of a cost increase to consumers.

How so? Where else do corporations get money from besides consumers?

In a perfectly competitive industry with infinitely elastic consumer demand, firms cannot afford to raise their prices and would be forced to absorb all of a government sales tax. This is why the government taxes things like alcohol, tobacco and gas where the demand is quite inelastic.

When it comes to corporate income tax (which is probably more important), the best and most recent evidence I can find is that workers bear 70% of the burden. I was surprised; I had assumed it would be closer to 50/50.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1776.html

[XXXIV]

They all get the same tax why wouldnt they all raise their prices?

[pk500]

And it lags every industrialized country in various metrics -- life expectancy, infant mortality, satisfaction with care, etc.

The U.S. also soars past most other industralized nations in fat f*cks who sit around eating junk food and watching TV. That plays just as much of a role -- if not more -- in life expectancy and infant mortality numbers as the type of healthcare program.

The U.S. also is an automobile-based society unlike many European and Asian nations that rely more on foot and bicycle traffic, which only makes Americans even more unfit.

It's pretty simple: If you're fat and sedentary, there's a good chance that you're going to live shorter than those who are thin and fit.

And the fattening of America never was more obvious to me than when the foreign media came to the Indianapolis Motor Speedway for either the United States Grand Prix Formula One or the Red Bull Indianapolis GP MotoGP races from 2000-08.

This is only a slight generalization: You could tell a foreign journalist from an American one without even knowing them. Many of the American journalists had spare tires and more chins than a Chinese phone book. Many of the European and Asian journalists were pretty fit.

Take care,
PK

[RobVarak]

And it lags every industrialized country in various metrics -- life expectancy, infant mortality, satisfaction with care, etc.

The U.S. also soars past most other industralized nations in fat f*cks who sit around eating junk food and watching TV.

So now you're racist and an anti-fatite!

[wco81]

Wages too. Some companies moved out of state to states which gave them tax breaks (usually temporary) but now, when labor costs pennies on the dollar in other countries, that makes a bigger difference than a few percent change in taxes.

Much of that is driven by labor unions that the left wing loves to praise as champions of the American worker.

In reality, the wage increases and very generous benefit packages negotiated by unions only drive more business overseas. Just look at the American auto industry and the incredible pension and healthcare plan that GM funded until it wisely shed that program to the UAW a couple of years ago.

Take care,
PK

You think if we didn't have unions the jobs wouldn't be going overseas?

US per capita income is about $46k. In China, it's under $2500. India, it's under $1000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... per_capita

How much lower would non-union jobs have to pay Americans below this $46k in order for companies not to send jobs overseas?

Look at that table. China and India have the biggest populations but there are plenty of countries where the average is like 1/20 or 1/50th of the American average.

Yes unions drove up labor costs (and raised the standard of living for all). So what should we do, tell employers we'll just take 5 cents on the dollar or less so that they don't have to export jobs?

[Feanor]

They all get the same tax why wouldnt they all raise their prices?

Because consumers will buy other goods that are close substitutes rather than pay a higher price.

[pk500]

Yes unions drove up labor costs (and raised the standard of living for all). So what should we do, tell employers we'll just take 5 cents on the dollar or less so that they don't have to export jobs?

Of course not. But a happy medium can be attained where American workers can still receive fair pay with benefits without excessive costs that drive businesses overseas. A system in which you're paid for performance, not simply for showing up.

In other words, non-union labor. Unions have gone from organizations in Gompers' era that protected and ensured basic rights for hard-working Americans to groups that try to get as much money and power as possible from the same American businesses that employ them. Thankfully that power is eroding.

Take care,
PK

[wco81]

So lets say we get rid of all unions and drive the per capita GDP down to half of what it is today, or around $23k.

That would still be way higher than China and India, almost 10 times the per capita of China, still over 20 times the per capita of India.

Those kinds of differentials won't bring back the factories to the US.

Meanwhile, it will have devastated US wealth.

[XXXIV]

They all get the same tax why wouldnt they all raise their prices?

Because consumers will buy other goods that are close substitutes rather than pay a higher price.

Yeah but wont business B also be taxed?..or do we just want to drive business A under?

[pk500]

So lets say we get rid of all unions and drive the per capita GDP down to half of what it is today, or around $23k.

Why would eliminating unions halve the per capita GDP? If anything, there would be more competition for skilled workers, which would increase salaries for those who are among the very best in their fields.

Why should a guy who does really good work on an assembly line be paid the same as a guy who shows up and doesn't care about his work? Why should a teacher who has earned commendation after commendation be paid the same as the teacher who mailed it in 10 years ago due to tenure and teaches the same uninspiring lesson plan year after year?

WCO, I assume you're good at your job. Do you want to be paid the same as a guy in your same role who does a sh*t job?

Take care,
PK

[wco81]

Obesity is a growing problem everywhere, not just the US.

Despite spending $2 trillion a year, there's not much in the way of a preventive care system, which might not only reduce obesity-related illnesses but also decrease overall costs.

The system we have is great for the health of the private insurers and pharmaceuticals though.

[pk500]

Explain to me how a preventative care system gets a fat ass off the couch, out of the car and out of McDonald's? Another effective government program like Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No?"

If anything, government healthcare will make American even fatter and lazier. Hell, inhale that extra bag of Lay's while watching "America's Biggest Loser." If you need that coronary bypass, no need to worry about the medical bill -- Uncle Sam will pick up the tab.

Take care,
PK

[matthewk]

Only a monopoly can pass on 100% of a cost increase to consumers.

Didn't we already take a ride on this merry-go-round in part 1 of the elections thread?

[Feanor]

They all get the same tax why wouldnt they all raise their prices?

Because consumers will buy other goods that are close substitutes rather than pay a higher price.

Yeah but wont business B also be taxed?..or do we just want to drive business A under?

That's the reason the government (in every country in the world, I suspect) has a specific sales tax on gasoline, but they don't have a specific sales tax on beef. Because people can switch to eating other meats a lot more easily than they can switch from driving a car to another form of transport.

[Teal]

No serious candidate has adopted the Fair Tax plan.

That's because we've had no candidate serious enough to do what was right...only what has been politically expedient. The fair tax plan is so superior to everything Washington has tried, it's no wonder they haven't done it...it would shift the balance of power back to the people...and they don't want that.

[RobVarak]

That's because we've had no candidate serious enough to do what was right...only what has been politically expedient. The fair tax plan is so superior to everything Washington has tried, it's no wonder they haven't done it...it would shift the balance of power back to the people...and they don't want that.

Let me get this straight. The Fair Tax is amazing but politicians won't do it because it's potentially too popular? Probably because politicians are so averse to doing things that are popular and likely to get them votes?

There hasn't been an altenative tax plan yet which has been sufficiently popular and realistic enough to be a real alternative.

Edit: Fixed.

[wco81]

Explain to me how a preventative care system gets a fat ass off the couch, out of the car and out of McDonald's? Another effective government program like Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No?"

If anything, government healthcare will make American even fatter and lazier. Hell, inhale that extra bag of Lay's while watching "America's Biggest Loser." If you need that coronary bypass, no need to worry about the medical bill -- Uncle Sam will pick up the tab.

Take care,
PK

Part of the problem is that a lot of people don't know that their lifestyle needs to be changed.

Maybe a medically-prescribed regimen will have more weight than simply people saying you're too fat, lazy, etc.

What's the alternative, continue with the current path which doesn't reduce obesity and raises health care costs for everyone?

Oh and preventive medicine doesn't have to be done only within a govt.-run system. Some HMOs have allowances for preventive care but the problem is that most of them are so bottom-line oriented that they try to discourage people from going to the doctor.

[Naples39]

Part of the problem is that a lot of people don't know that their lifestyle needs to be changed.

If 'a lot' of obese people in the United States don't know that their lifestyle needs to be changed, we have much bigger problems than can addressed by a federal government policy shift. Mainly that we would be a country of absolute morons.

[pk500]

Part of the problem is that a lot of people don't know that their lifestyle needs to be changed.

Let's see: Someone who has fat hanging over their belt, eats fat-infused foods as a staple of their diet, sits on the couch all evening watching TV and breathes heavily walking one flight of stairs needs a doctor to tell them they're unfit? They can't read the health and nutrient labels that the Federal government MANDATES on all packaging for food sold in this country?

So as a solution we legislate against stupidity?

This is a vivid illustration of the fundamental differences you and I have about personal responsibility.

Take care,
PK

[Feanor]

It would be great if all the real fatties suddenly started being personally responsible, but given that that won't happen and that their personal irresponsibility generates external costs borne by the rest of society, I think there's a clear role for government.