"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote:

The taxing of corporations and businesses is, in my mind, a hidden tax on
the consumer.

There is a purpose in that. Pol's do not whan the average voter to figure out just how
much tax he or she is paying. Even social security is based on the false fiction that
one's employer is paying half of it. We know it is the workers pile it comes out of.

Wes

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

In this case, Wes, you have it exactly backwards. If corporations WEREN'T
taxed, the infrastructure cost would be passed on to the consumer in the
form of higher individual taxes -- invisibly.

Thats fine with me. I drive those same roads to get to work, the same military protects
me.

I believe in trickle down. Taxes trickle down too.

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote:

The taxing of corporations and businesses is, in my mind, a hidden tax on
the consumer.

There is a purpose in that. Pol's do not whan the average voter to figure
out just how
much tax he or she is paying. Even social security is based on the false
fiction that
one's employer is paying half of it. We know it is the workers pile it
comes out of.

Wes

In this case, Wes, you have it exactly backwards. If corporations WEREN'T
taxed, the infrastructure cost would be passed on to the consumer in the
form of higher individual taxes -- invisibly.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote:

The taxing of corporations and businesses is, in my mind, a hidden
tax on the consumer.

There is a purpose in that. Pol's do not whan the average voter to
figure out just how
much tax he or she is paying. Even social security is based on the
false fiction that
one's employer is paying half of it. We know it is the workers pile
it comes out of.

Wes

In this case, Wes, you have it exactly backwards. If corporations
WEREN'T taxed, the infrastructure cost would be passed on to the
consumer in the form of higher individual taxes -- invisibly.

Either that or our infrastructure would be failing. Kinda like it is now.
Taxes might or might not be too high but that isn't the issue.
The issue is that value, percieved or real, is too low.
That and ignorance.

Did you catch the article over the weekend on MA's health care plan and the
results to date?
I can't understand, and never could, why anyone in business wouldn't be
pushing hard for a single payer health care system.
That this is the case (opposition by small business owners) can't really be
argued but it makes absolutely no sense at all.
I can only attribute this behavior to poor marketing.
The value involved is an easy sell but all anyone ever discusses are the
costs.
We don't sell or market anything else that way. Nothing where the value add
is significant.

Just look at cars or cable TV as examples.
Somebody needs to figure out how to make health care go Vrooom Vrooom or get
some T&A in the mix.
Somebody besides Pfizer that is.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote:

The taxing of corporations and businesses is, in my mind, a hidden
tax on the consumer.

There is a purpose in that. Pol's do not whan the average voter to
figure out just how
much tax he or she is paying. Even social security is based on the
false fiction that
one's employer is paying half of it. We know it is the workers pile
it comes out of.

Wes

In this case, Wes, you have it exactly backwards. If corporations
WEREN'T taxed, the infrastructure cost would be passed on to the
consumer in the form of higher individual taxes -- invisibly.

Either that or our infrastructure would be failing. Kinda like it is now.
Taxes might or might not be too high but that isn't the issue.
The issue is that value, percieved or real, is too low.
That and ignorance.

Did you catch the article over the weekend on MA's health care plan and
the
results to date?
I can't understand, and never could, why anyone in business wouldn't be
pushing hard for a single payer health care system.
That this is the case (opposition by small business owners) can't really
be
argued but it makes absolutely no sense at all.
I can only attribute this behavior to poor marketing.
The value involved is an easy sell but all anyone ever discusses are the
costs.
We don't sell or market anything else that way. Nothing where the value
add
is significant.

Just look at cars or cable TV as examples.
Somebody needs to figure out how to make health care go Vrooom Vrooom or
get
some T&A in the mix.
Somebody besides Pfizer that is.

I did see the MA results, in a summary, I guess. Large corporations have
been pushing for single-payer healthcare for years -- quietly. Not having
one is a huge competitive disadvantage for US companies. Virtually all of
their foreign competition has the advantage of having the healthcare system
off of their books.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message ...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote:

The taxing of corporations and businesses is, in my mind, a hidden
tax on the consumer.

There is a purpose in that. Pol's do not whan the average voter to
figure out just how
much tax he or she is paying. Even social security is based on the
false fiction that
one's employer is paying half of it. We know it is the workers
pile it comes out of.

Wes

In this case, Wes, you have it exactly backwards. If corporations
WEREN'T taxed, the infrastructure cost would be passed on to the
consumer in the form of higher individual taxes -- invisibly.

Either that or our infrastructure would be failing. Kinda like it is
now. Taxes might or might not be too high but that isn't the issue.
The issue is that value, percieved or real, is too low.
That and ignorance.

Did you catch the article over the weekend on MA's health care plan
and the
results to date?
I can't understand, and never could, why anyone in business wouldn't
be pushing hard for a single payer health care system.
That this is the case (opposition by small business owners) can't
really be
argued but it makes absolutely no sense at all.
I can only attribute this behavior to poor marketing.
The value involved is an easy sell but all anyone ever discusses are
the costs.
We don't sell or market anything else that way. Nothing where the
value add
is significant.

Just look at cars or cable TV as examples.
Somebody needs to figure out how to make health care go Vrooom
Vrooom or get
some T&A in the mix.
Somebody besides Pfizer that is.

I did see the MA results, in a summary, I guess. Large corporations
have been pushing for single-payer healthcare for years -- quietly.

Of course. It's the mom and pops that fight this tooth and nail along with
their employees.
That's a lot more votes.

Not having one is a huge competitive disadvantage for US companies.
Virtually all of their foreign competition has the advantage of
having the healthcare system off of their books.

That and when your profits go to zero, so do your health care costs.
You only pay income taxes on profits.

Like I said, single payer needs better advocates, someone that can sell the
value delivered.
It would also help if that advocate didn't start right off poking everyone
in site in the eye.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

In this case, Wes, you have it exactly backwards. If corporations WEREN'T
taxed, the infrastructure cost would be passed on to the consumer in the
form of higher individual taxes -- invisibly.

Thats fine with me. I drive those same roads to get to work, the same
military protects
me.

I believe in trickle down. Taxes trickle down too.

Wes

I'm sure there are lots of corporations out there who would be glad to have
you subsidize their cost of doing business, Wes. However, the true
conservatives will be very ****ed off about it. Their idea is to have the
user bear the costs. That's the idea behind replacing income taxes with a
sales tax. And it runs counter to having subsidies paid out of general
revenues.

Liberals will be glad to go along with you, in principle, at least. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

In this case, Wes, you have it exactly backwards. If corporations WEREN'T
taxed, the infrastructure cost would be passed on to the consumer in the
form of higher individual taxes -- invisibly.

Thats fine with me. I drive those same roads to get to work, the same
military protects
me.

I believe in trickle down. Taxes trickle down too.

Wes

Believing in something is nice but if it's proven to be untrue and you still
believe it then you are stupid. In the last seven years corporate profits
have doubled. During that same time period the wages of workers has
declined. Don't you understand what that means? I guess not. But it means
that trickle down doesn't work. At least not with profits. As many of us
know, when those on top profit they keep it. They don't let any of it
trickle down to anyone below them. Why should they. They are not in business
to be nice to the workers. They are in business to make money for themselves
and the company. Workers are just a commodity and you pay them as little as
you possibly can. So stop believing in trickle down. It's a scam on suckers.

Hawke