• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Business Insider: Corporations may dodge billions in U.S. taxes through new loophole: experts

RetiredUSN said:
Now you have a taste of what your poorly written ACA meant to many Americans.

The middle class got the shaft.
Click to expand...
Except that the ACA wasn't rushed through in a few days. It was debated and, unlike the tax-bill, had committee hearings. The ACA took nine months to pass.
 
Last edited:
MTAtech said:
Except that the ACA wasn't rushed through in a few days. It was debated and, unlike the tax-bill, had committee hearings. The ACA took nine months to pass.
Click to expand...

That's right, your side had almost a year, and you still ****ed it up.
 
RetiredUSN said:
That's right, your side had almost a year, and you still ****ed it up.
Click to expand...

Well, if that's how you define reducing the uninsured population to modern day lows, so be it.
 
jonny5 said:
No point in continuing this debate then, since youre answer to anything will be 'NOPE, youre ignorant'.
Click to expand...

Citing a study that shows causation between lower tax rates and dropping prices that market forces fail to explain would be a good start. :shrug:
 
RetiredUSN said:
That's right, your side had almost a year, and you still ****ed it up.
Click to expand...

Well, Republicans have had EIGHT years to come up with a replacement, and delivered nothing.

It must not have been so bad after all, if its replacement was so elusive.
 
Last edited:
MTAtech said:
Well, if that's how you define reducing the uninsured population to modern day lows, so be it.
Click to expand...



It was such a huge success that your team had to use unconstitutional funding for insurance companies so they wouldn't roll over?

By many middle class families not being able to afford their ACA plans?

A whopping 500% increase in costs for many.

Yeppers! A huge success! :roll:
 
Critter7r said:
Citing a study that shows causation between lower tax rates and dropping prices that market forces fail to explain would be a good start. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Its pretty simple logic. The less taxes or compliance costs a business pays, the more profit. Which allows them to lower prices to better compete. Thats why we have real world examples already of companies passing the savings on to consumers. It may not even be as obvious as a direct price decrease. Maybe it means delaying a price increase, innovating more products, producing more supply.

Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. wants to pass on $82M in tax savings to customers after federal tax reform - Baltimore Sun
 
MTAtech said:
Except that the ACA wasn't rushed through in a few days. It was debated and, unlike the tax-bill, had committee hearings. The ACA took nine months to pass.
Click to expand...

Why are right wingers so incredibly ignorant? Is it intentional? I mean, they make complete fools of themselves. They really need to turn off Fox news and stop making asses out of themselves
 
jonny5 said:
Its pretty simple logic. The less taxes or compliance costs a business pays, the more profit. Which allows them to lower prices to better compete. Thats why we have real world examples already of companies passing the savings on to consumers. It may not even be as obvious as a direct price decrease. Maybe it means delaying a price increase, innovating more products, producing more supply.

Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. wants to pass on $82M in tax savings to customers after federal tax reform - Baltimore Sun
Click to expand...

OK. Says right in the article that rates are partially based on tax burden and they're doing this before hearings are held. Being "proactive.

Which means the regulations were going to force them to reduce rates because their tax burden went down.

This is a PR campaign.

Lots of the recent "largesse" is.

Call bonuses you were going to give anyway the result of the tax cut.

Makes you appear generous and that the tax cut is really good for everybody.
 
What if...? said:
OK. Says right in the article that rates are partially based on tax burden and they're doing this before hearings are held. Being "proactive.

Which means the regulations were going to force them to reduce rates because their tax burden went down.

This is a PR campaign.

Lots of the recent "largesse" is.

Call bonuses you were going to give anyway the result of the tax cut.

Makes you appear generous and that the tax cut is really good for everybody.
Click to expand...

Its just one example, and it all moot. There is no universe where reducing taxes on businesses isnt good for almost everyone. Even if its not a direct tax decrease, maybe its investment in quality at the same price. Companies with increased cash arent going to sit on it. Theyre going to use any number of ways to increases shareholder value. Maybe that means more customers, better workers, new products, or dividends.
 
jonny5 said:
Its pretty simple logic. The less taxes or compliance costs a business pays, the more profit. Which allows them to lower prices to better compete. Thats why we have real world examples already of companies passing the savings on to consumers. It may not even be as obvious as a direct price decrease. Maybe it means delaying a price increase, innovating more products, producing more supply.

Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. wants to pass on $82M in tax savings to customers after federal tax reform - Baltimore Sun
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that it is a logical assumption. But it's still an assumption. Being a logical answer doesn't automatically make it a correct one.

Taxes don't determine pricing in most instances. The market does. Now, if every company making widgets decides to lower their prices because they can afford to take a little less profit based on the fact that those profits are reduced less by lower taxes, then great. And maybe there are a few instances of that happening. I haven't seen it yet. And you haven't provided proof of a connection.

The BG&E article is about a utility giving back a bunch of money, but they're giving it back because the amount they're allowed to profit is limited by law, so they HAVE to reduce rates by the whole amount of their tax reduction. Also of note, the average BG&E customer will save about $60 per year.
 
jonny5 said:
Its just one example, and it all moot. There is no universe where reducing taxes on businesses isnt good for almost everyone. Even if its not a direct tax decrease, maybe its investment in quality at the same price. Companies with increased cash arent going to sit on it. Theyre going to use any number of ways to increases shareholder value. Maybe that means more customers, better workers, new products, or dividends.
Click to expand...

Based on what? The trillions they've been sitting on for the past couple of decades?
 
Critter7r said:
I don't disagree that it is a logical assumption. But it's still an assumption. Being a logical answer doesn't automatically make it a correct one.

Taxes don't determine pricing in most instances. The market does. Now, if every company making widgets decides to lower their prices because they can afford to take a little less profit based on the fact that those profits are reduced less by lower taxes, then great. And maybe there are a few instances of that happening. I haven't seen it yet. And you haven't provided proof of a connection.

The BG&E article is about a utility giving back a bunch of money, but they're giving it back because the amount they're allowed to profit is limited by law, so they HAVE to reduce rates by the whole amount of their tax reduction. Also of note, the average BG&E customer will save about $60 per year.
Click to expand...

Taxes dont determine it alone, but its a factor. All I said was that corps saving money is good for consumers. To which MTA said nope, im ignorant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom