archer wrote: Are you making the car for stricter government regulations on the trucking industry? Do you think the trucking company should pay for the repairs to or replacement of this bridge?
The bridge did not collapse because of structural problems... it feel because an overloaded truck hit an overhead girder on the bridge which came crashing down onto the bridge surface and brought the road bed and the rest of the structure along with it.
I don't see anywhere I was making a case for anything other than passing on the facts of what caused the collapse. Thanks for playing.
archer wrote: Are you making the car for stricter government regulations on the trucking industry? Do you think the trucking company should pay for the repairs to or replacement of this bridge?
The bridge did not collapse because of structural problems... it feel because an overloaded truck hit an overhead girder on the bridge which came crashing down onto the bridge surface and brought the road bed and the rest of the structure along with it.
I don't see anywhere I was making a case for anything other than passing on the facts of what caused the collapse. Thanks for playing.
Nice try at ducking the question.... Who pays for this? We the people or the trucking company?
archer wrote: Are you making the car for stricter government regulations on the trucking industry? Do you think the trucking company should pay for the repairs to or replacement of this bridge?
The bridge did not collapse because of structural problems... it feel because an overloaded truck hit an overhead girder on the bridge which came crashing down onto the bridge surface and brought the road bed and the rest of the structure along with it.
I don't see anywhere I was making a case for anything other than passing on the facts of what caused the collapse. Thanks for playing.
Nice try at ducking the question.... Who pays for this? We the people or the trucking company?
I'm not ducking anything. You asked a stupid question which I am far from qualified in answering. And I also don't care.
archer wrote: Are you making the car for stricter government regulations on the trucking industry? Do you think the trucking company should pay for the repairs to or replacement of this bridge?
The bridge did not collapse because of structural problems... it feel because an overloaded truck hit an overhead girder on the bridge which came crashing down onto the bridge surface and brought the road bed and the rest of the structure along with it.
I don't see anywhere I was making a case for anything other than passing on the facts of what caused the collapse. Thanks for playing.
Nice try at ducking the question.... Who pays for this? We the people or the trucking company?
I'm not ducking anything. You asked a stupid question which I am far from qualified in answering. And I also don't care.
Well what do ya know...... TLGOPT got caught without an answer..... Mark your calendars.
CHAFFEE, Mo. (AP) - A Missouri highway overpass that partially collapsed when rail cars smashed into one of its support pillars after a cargo train collision was about 15 years old and in good condition but just couldn't withstand the impact, a sheriff said.
When you increase taxes on corporations or companies or families or the zoo....they will do one of two things.
1. Go out of business.
2. Pass it on.
So if they go out of business, well then the tax just ruined them and we suck for taxing them out of business. If they pass it on they have two places they can get it from.
1. Employees
2. Customers
So if you raise taxes on companies, you do a combination of one of two things:
1. you lower the pay of the lowest paid workers (or all of them) if they are not already at min wage, if they are at min wage, you get them fired so they can be replaced with a more productive employee - SO YOU LOWERED WAGES OR INCREASED UNEMPLOYMENT OF THE UNSKILLED (or low skilled). Lower pay sometimes comes in the trick form of no more pay increases or loss of benefits.
2. you raise the price on the consumer, which means you took more money from them for the same amount of goods.
Either way, just so we are clear, the company does not loose. In fact if the company you are taxing already exists, you have helped it wipe out the competation that may have popped up...remember all the employee types that always say (and they are right) that it is very expensive, complicated and regulated to open a business...so they don't ....just they forget that most of this is true because of the taxes and regs.
I just think it is so cool that despite many posts in this thread, LJ has not proven this wrong or even really said it is wrong....then told people to stay on topic, but never really addressed the topic herself. She thought showing a misleading graph whos premise has never been resolved will help her point in stead of pointing out yet another thing she does not understand.
The primary question posed directly here and by the mere posting of your chart (which is full of information you don't have the skills to interpret and integrate with the rest of the world along with most of the folks in the media commenting on it).
Just keep up your forceful tactics (you know sending the govt with guns to protect existing businesses from competition. At least we are clear you are the one paying for it and all the people you are trying to protect. You keep people down, especially the week and needy. You - with your attitude, philosophy and tactics.
But please keep it up - I can always use more profit and workers that expect to get less. That is what you are doing. Helping me and other companies. I just don't need the help and the things you suggest are immoral, so I resist.
And those of you that relate this to political parties or other crap, this is general philosophy and those that dont have the mental skills to think about it, don't bring up your team sports mentality - it does not help or make you seem smarter, it just sounds like a deflection from either side. Both the parties and their supporters are happy to use force to get their way - they should not enter this economic discussion....using a gun to get someone's money is not complicated economics. Convincing people to do things without violence or threats and seeing how they behave is and is worth talking about.
Which, of course, is the usual Randroid philosophy.
"Going out of business", and "passing it on" are NOT the "only" two options, and never have been. That's only true if you presume that all other corporate financials are fixed...and they are not. Gee, they could reduced the amount the pay to the overpaid CEO's; they could find ways to use fewer corporate jets while taking the deductions. They could cut down on any number of corporate perks and expenses. But you knew that. (Think: American Airlines attempting to pay the short-term CEO that led them into bankruptcy a $20-million "bonus" on his way out the door. The courts have nullified the bonus... But, gee, I wonder how much the company will save--that could go toward taxes--by NOT paying a $20-million bonus to an incompetent screwup that led the company into bankruptcy?)
States can (and HAVE) closed the loopholes that Wally-World uses to avoid paying taxes on its property and buildings by setting up shell REIT's to avoid paying local and state taxes, which typically go directly to local school systems. Why are many school systems being starved of the money they need for education?...Because companies like Wal-Mart go out of their way to avoid paying taxes on property they should be paying taxes on. Who makes up the difference? (I take great pride that I was personally involved in the State of New Mexico closing the WalMart "REIT loophole", while Wal-Mart's lawyers and lobbyists were kicking and screaming about having to actually pay the taxes they owed on the property they tried to shield from taxation.)
Spare me your Grover Norquist talking-points...
My contempt for the TEAhadists and TEAliban has already been justified...
I already know how to read that chart. Your insults simply show that you don't want to have to deal with what it proves.
blah blah blah platitudes blah blah blah. More lower income people are on welfare, food stamps, EITC, than ever before. Plus they aren't paying income taxes. The majority of taxes the IRS receives from individual income earners comes from the top earners. They are paying their fair share.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
