In all honesty: If the tax on sugar were raised, what would happen to the cost of a candy bar?

If the tax on wheat were raised, what would happen to the cost of a loaf of bread?

If the tax on telecommunications were raised, what would happen to the monthly telephone bill?

Truthfully, if you find a way to take away a few pennies (through taxation) from the bottom line of the candy bar makers, the bread makers, and the telephone companies, the cost of a candy bar would go up, the cost of a loaf of bread would go up, and the cost of a collect telephone call would go up, as well as EVERYONE'S monthy bill for telephone service, so as to maintain the bottom line for the shareholders.

Will anyone here dispute that? Bueller? Bueller?

So, since we can all agree that in the above hypotheticals, the decrease in the bottom line due to the the increase in taxes would be passed on to the consumer, let's put a huge question on the table, shall we?

If the INSURANCE COMPANIES had their bottom line reduced due to tax increases, who would pay in the end?

The Consumer. Also Known As... YOU and ME. Tax my candy, my bread, and my telephone; cause those things to cost me more, and THEN tell me I'm not the one being taxed? Can I go mambo dogface to the banana patch?

Dispute that? Or spin it? Bueller? Bueller?

Shareholders expect a minimum return per share--it is the objective of the corporation to ensure this continues by any means possible. If the profits were limited due to taxes or a legislated ratio on their earning to expenditures, they would simply seek ways (cooperatively across the industry) to increase the gross revenue collected (and thereby the profits). Unfortunately, there is no anti-trust law governing this industry.

But thats ok. Have hope, or some shit like that

If we stopped subsidizing sugar, it would be much cheaper even if we then taxed it.

It's wrong with they use this argument.

its wrong when anti-healthcare reform people use it too.

This is simple market economics

The fact is, corporations charge whatever they can get away with.

If they can get away with 90% margins they will. If the market can only support 5% margins, then thats what they get.

This tax on goldplated healthcare will eat into corporate margins. Cry me a river.

all customers so as to minimize the effect.

Your river is called Denial, and it's um, not in Egypt.

Good god.

My primary care is with the uninsured.

few.

Get that?

This is Robin Hood in reverse.

that corporate taxes simply get passed onto consumers and the middle class and poor ultimate pay corporate taxes.

Its a standard pug mantra.

Its not true then, or now.

Prices are set on what the market will bear, not on expenses + fixed profit. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_economics#Value_theory

This is why corporations focus so much on outsourcing. its far easier for them to cut expenses (i.e. people), than it is to get the public to accept price increases and its outright illegal to encourage competitors to increase in concert. (i.e. price fixing)

This tax will extract money out of the insurance business and redirect to the uninsured. THAT is a good thing.

in this case, people will be forced to purchase insurance and the government will be subsidizing the industry on behalf of a large segment of the population.

In other words, we're not talking about a free market anymore. Your argument is flawed.

Health Care Reform in its current form ISN'T ABOUT WHAT THE MARKET WILL BEAR.

We're going to be forced to participate in the "market".

This tax will not extract money from anything or anyone but the workaday citizen. ALL of the insurance companies are publicly held concerns. They have a FEDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY to their shareholders to do whatever it takes to make money for them. That's what corporate law is all about.

I don't know what's so hard to understand about that, or why people keep denying that it's what is the reality.

And what do you think the market will bear when the HCR bill insists that every american come home with something from the market or be fined?

The HCR is eliminating the discretion of the consumer and makes demand less elastic, which pushes more of the tax burden onto the customer.

Them being the shareholders, not the insured.

It's been quite an education to watch progressives pick up so many of the corporate talking points to oppose this bill. It's a new one every day and now this.

And here I am in Oregon trying to convince people that to raise corporate taxes won't hurt the consumer or cost jobs.

Funny world.

The corporate bottom line is what it is.

You're actually going to convince someone that if the government raises Ford's corporate taxes, their cars won't cost more? Or that if you raise Boise Cascade's corporate taxes, a ream of paper WILL NOT COST A PENNY MORE, or that Boise Cascade won't scrimp on controlling how much mercury they put in the water while making said ream of paper to keep the price the same? Are you saying that Potlatch wouldn't charge Boise Cascade a penny more per ton of wood pulp?

Are you saying that United Airlines, American Airlines, AirTran, Jet Blue, Northwestern, and Southwest Airlines wouldn't raise ticket prices if their corporate taxes were raised?

How stupid do think I am? How stupid do you think WE are?

And if people pay more, profits rise and go to the shareholder. Raise taxes and you cut profits. It doesn't equate to an automatic raise in prices. That is a bullshit argument that DUers and progressives fight against all the time.

Until now.

Crazy.

and this bill will remove the single best cost containment measure that currently exists in the marketplace: the ability of the consumer to just say no.

When you have a captive market, you can pretty much charge whatever you want. Thus, in this case, the Republican argument is accurate.

;-)

We are keeping its prices artifically low with corn subsidies.

They'll just give us the cheap stuff that kills us faster.

raise taxes? raise any costs?

the consumer pays more.

is this even a question?

Beef up the windfall profit laws. It's shouldn't be up to individual companies to determine what is a proper amount of profit. There is a maximum beyond which it becomes nauseating.

I haven't yet lost my ideals. Yes, I know -- like a child...

Yer funny.

At least in its present form, at any rate. It only makes a bad situation mandatory. Any health care reform that doesn't specifically install a universal tax-payer-supported, non-optional public system is worthless. All this bill does is allow legislators and the President to say they've done SOMETHING and gives them an excuse to do nothing substantive, while they rest on their false laurels.

Please open your browser and read
http://spot.colorado.edu/~kaplan/econ2010/section4/section4.html
Understand concept of elastic demand and inelastic demand. Note well: "The other extreme is a good with a vertical demand curve and is perfectly inelastic. Perfectly inelastic goods have no substitutes and are necessities. An example of this type of good is insulin or other pharmaceuticals that are required for someone to live. If the demand curve is vertical, the firm can raise prices by 1% or and the quantity demanded will not change. Consumers find a way to continue buying the good." Does mandatory health insurance tend to be an elastic or inelastic demand?

Note also: "The economic effect of an excise tax is to shift the market supply curve of the good being taxed to the left. Both the consumer and producer absorb part of the tax burden. The consumer pays a higher price, the producer sees a drop in sales and revenues. The more inelastic the demand curve, the smaller the resulting change in the quantity demanded of the good when the tax is raised or initially levied. In addition, as elasticity decreases, a greater proportion of the tax burden is passed on to the consumer and less is incurred by the producer."


For a graphic explanation:

See figures 4-6 and 4-7 here http://spot.colorado.edu/~kaplan/econ2010/section4/section4-main.html and read the surrounding text.

up or down.

just answer. no curves, no graphs, no technical.

what about the price of my candy bar?

Since most people don't absolutely need candy bars, the price change will be small. However, government mandated health insurance is not really something people are allowed to choose not to buy. So the percentage of the tax passed on to an insurance customer will be large.

Unless you want to validate the right's claim that every tax increase will hurt the economy because they will all reduce wages and hurt the consumer pocket book. That isn't true. Tax increases can be taken from shareholders just as easily and often is.

and stop buying the product. When there is a maximum that people are willing to pay, then corporations can't raise costs above that amount.

But we are going to be required by law to by Insurance. We will not be allowed to say no, and refuse to pay for it, so insurance companies will have much greater power to force us to pay for any arbitrary cost increase they want to push at us.

This will no longer free a free market economy. It is a captive market.

You are so busy spinning and trying to find excuses and defenses, with this bullshit calling people republicans, that you are missing the obvious. :eyes:

It's a MUST HAVE. While it might not be directly comparable to insulin, it's indirectly comparable because the government says YOU MUST HAVE IT.

"Consumers find a way to continue buying the good." What will they give up in order to be able to continue "buying the good"?

But you do have a bit of wiggle room in deciding what kind of quality you want, so you could adjust there. Kind of like an addicted smoker can't quit, but can save by cutting down on a couple smokes each day from the pack and gradually save one pack every 10 days.

Go right on NEEDING health care insurance because it's MANDATED, but buying whatever is the cheapest form they can afford.

30 days a non-smoker here (and hopefully a lifelong quitter), and I know what it's like to have a hard time supporting that habit. Equate the nicotine habit with a government enforced MANDATE.

:evilgrin:

but your point is well taken. Rather than add taxes, we really need to change the tax structure back to a maximum of 95% with various deductions and credits for hiring Americans within the US borders and paying them a fair wage with decent benefits - and for investing in philanthropy that benefits the country as a whole.

so you can pay your insurance premiums??

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

when taxes are cut, prices don't come down proportionately, now do they? OK, technology prices keep getting lower, but that's because of improvements in production, not tax changes.

The problem is, we don't pay what things cost when we purchase them and end up having to pay for it later. Gas is a great example. Sure if gas taxes were higher we'd all pay more to fill up the tank - and heat our homes (something many of us are particularly aware of right now). But the problem is we don't pay enough for fuel to make up for the damage it does to the environment or to fund research into alternative fuels for if/when we run out of fossil fuel. One day that bill will come due and it will be even more painful because we haven't been paying for it all along.

Food is another example. We subsidize crap rather than healthy food. Walk through the grocery store - the less something costs your wallet, the worse it probably is for you. It's less expensive to get junk food now, but it creates health problems that are more costly (for us all) in the long run.

Municipalities give tax breaks to developers. If they did not, a new house would cost more money and that would make it less affordable. I get it. But, by waiving the impact fees at the time the houses are built, everyone in the community ends up paying when there is not sufficient revenue for roads, schools, emergency services, etc. We may pay for it through increased taxes and/or decreased quality of life (ie: crowded schools, traffic congestion). The price is passed along to new and old residents alike.

the other more glaring flaw with your argument regarding the insurance companies is that there are a good many people out there who feel that the insurance company need to profit is the problem in the first place. Because whether taxed or "burdened" with government regulations, insurance companies are obligated to place profitability above patient care. Their responsibility to their shareholders is greater than their responsibility to their policy holders.

We're talking about tax INCREASES that will be as sure as I'm sitting here drinking White Zin, PASSED ON TO THE CONSUMER.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticky_(economics)

Here's the deal:

Those fancy Godiva and Neuhaus chocolates that go for $40 or $50 bucks a pound are being given out to workers for free (of course, they agreed not to get any extra take-home pay each year, because the chocolates are so yummy they just couldn't resist). The problem is, Godiva and Neuhaus see they have a good deal going with this, so they keep raising the prices. The bosses keep buying their candy to keep the workers happy (hey, why not: instead of that 3% raise, we can just give it to the chocolate makers), and the price of chocolate keeps going up and up. This has an upward pressure on the regular chocolate, too: Hershey's and Fannie Mae figure, hey, the fancy boys are getting $50, $60 bucks for their chocolate and we've been putting out perfectly good chocolate for only $10 bucks a pound. We could charge $20 and still look cheap. And so it goes, up and up each year. Both the fancy and the cheaper.

The problem is, all this chocolate eating is creating acne and heartburn and diabetes. The deal is that chocolate makers have to pay the doctors for each worker visit. The workers think nothing of dropping in monthly for their facial peels and insulin shots and prescriptions. The costs of this are getting to be too much. America is spending more on chocolate per person than ... Switzerland! And their people are sicker!

So the Department of Chocolate Authority sees that this unsustainable. So they decide: we're gonna slap an excise tax on any chocolate that costs twice what the average costs. So all chocolate that costs over $40 a pound gets a 40% excise tax placed on it. The tax is on the chocolate makers. But they just try to pass it down to the employers. These employers start to say, whoa ... that is now starting to cost too much. Hell, it costs more than giving our workers a raise. So they say, um, no thanks--we'll take the Fannie Mae chocolate. It's still pretty good, and people like it.

Well, people like it ... but it's not quite as addictive as that fancy-ass stuff. They eat less of it, and get less diabetes and acne. And they don't go to the doctor quite as often. In fact, the Dept. of Chocolate Authority has told the chocolate makers that they have to pay the doctors for preventive visits: so people start going in and finding out that they can avoid that diabetes and acne before they even get it. Pretty soon, they're not using as much insulin and dermatological stuff and prescriptions, and the amount of money being spent on all this starts to go down gradually.

This metaphor is not perfect ... (and the story isn't even finished: we didn't talk about why the employer starts to pass on the savings it would have been paying the chocolate makers to its workers). But it's a hell of a lot better than your tax on sugar. And certainly no less stupid.

Yeah, because there is nothing union members like more than being hospitalized or receiving long term therapy for work related injuries. Those lucky duckies!

I'm getting sick and tired of all this Republican-type tax scaremongering. It's exactly what the Repubs like to do. Oooo, oooo, the estate tax! Let's call it the death tax! Let's fool people into thinking they are being taxed, even though 99% of Americans never pay it.

God, you'd think the ghost of Ronald Reagan himself was running DU.

this bullshit. Deflecting dissent by bringing estate taxes into the argument WILL NOT keep me from criticizing this bullshit. Pretending that the insurance companies won't increase EVERY premium in an effort to minimize its effect won't keep me from criticizing this bullshit.

Your last paragraph, and its reference to Reagan WILL NOT SHAME ME into criticizing this bullshit.

I know the formula, understand the talking points, and I AIN'T PLAYIN'.

Add in an additional tax on sugar and the price of many foods will go up. The buck and the burden of taxes stops with the consumer. I think we should ALL REVOLT and stop eating.

n/t

A tax increase will only cut into the corporate profits, and force them to become more competitive in order to recoup their profit losses. It will not be passed on to the consumer, because companies are already maximizing profits. If they weren't, they would have already raised prices. If they did irrationally raise prices, the demand for their product would drop, thus wiping out the projected gains.

You need a lesson in basic economics, libertarian dude...

Would it be by sinking more capital into the manufacturing end of the business? Would it be by sinking more capital into the advertising end of the business? Would it be by sinking capital into the logistical end of the business, by way of saving on shipping and storage costs?

Where oh where will that capital come from, friend?

Where you make your mistake is in comparing HCR to the free market. HCR as currently written will FORCE consumers to participate in the market by mandating that they buy, and remove their freedom of choice.

"the demand for their product would drop". WRONG. If the government FORCES citizens into the market, HOW COULD DEMAND DROP? The ONLY way for demand to drop in THIS market, would be for the birth rate to suddenly to drop to ZERO.

Prez of United Steelworkers scoffs at those who say wages will go up

Sun Jan-10-10 02:24 AM

Leo W. Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers, scoffed at arguments that by restraining health costs, the tax would lead to higher wages

“The people who are promoting this tax say companies will make up for this with higher wages,” Mr. Gerard said. “These people who say that have never been at the bargaining table. It doesn’t work that way.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/business/09union.html...

there's damn few that use sugar anymore.

Do they still use telecommunication to make phone calls?

If not, then nevermind I get your point.

What was your point again?

thing to come to mind reading the lead.

I do get your point, however.

That's the best ya got? Not going to call me Reagan? Not going to call me divisive? Not going to call me racist?

'Puke talking points DON'T get positive recs. Sure 'nough, dawg.

Yep, someone posted an article that said we'll lose votes because those with insurance aren't going to want to pay more for those who don't have insurance. Someone who is a huge supporter of single payer... makes an "I got mine" argument against the health care bill. Unreal. People are nuts.

absolutely necessary. Of course, too many Americans are already doing without everything that isn't absolutely necessary and a great deal that is necessary, as well.

They system is such that we have to be willing to hurt ourselves in the process of inflicting harm. It's also such, that the longer we wait to act, and the more impoverished working people become, the less impact our action will have.

Everyone in the supply chain will have to charge some customer more to compensate for increased tax...

Basic economic theory would dictate that if you raise the price of sugar (or high fructose corn syrup in this day and age) you raise the marginal cost of candy bars thus lower the quantity at which marginal cost = marginal revenue. This reduces supply in the candy bar market and thus raises the price of candy bars.

But basic economic theory can't fully analyze the markets for Cadillac health plans because they are not bought and sold in the same way normal goods are. I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong, but these markets don't function like normal markets and you can't make assumptions based on how markets usually function.