US Presidential Candidates

PeterZ wrote:Starsaber,

Undercutting the competition has short term benefits. Sales increase immediately and profits rise as quickly. Politicians might have a great deal of foresight. If they do lower taxes or regulations to lower costs for businesses, the incentives for profit will encourage businesses to lower prices.

Daryl wrote:To increase your profits you lower prices? I've been in business & can't quite grasp that concept.
Your prices should be set at what the market is prepared to pay, if your production costs (including tax) is lower then you make more profit. If your costs are higher you go broke. Admittedly if your costs are low enough that you can lower prices to undercut the opposition then that works, but lower taxes will apply to all.

PeterZ wrote:Starsaber,

Undercutting the competition has short term benefits. Sales increase immediately and profits rise as quickly. Politicians might have a great deal of foresight. If they do lower taxes or regulations to lower costs for businesses, the incentives for profit will encourage businesses to lower prices.

THE FACTS: As he did in the last debate, Sanders leaned on outdated data.

In the first five years of the economic recovery, 2009-2014, the richest 1 percent captured 58 percent of income growth. That’s according to Emmanuel Saez, a University of California economist whose research Sanders uses. That’s a hefty share, but far short of “almost all.”

In the first three years of the recovery, 2009-2012, the richest 1 percent did capture 91 percent of the growth in income. But part of that gain was an accounting maneuver as the wealthiest pulled income forward to 2012 in advance of tax increases that took effect in 2013 on the biggest earners.

Many companies paid out greater bonuses to their highest-paid employees in 2012 before the higher tax rates took effect. Those bonuses then fell back in 2013. And in 2014, the bottom 99 percent finally saw their incomes rise 3.3 percent, the biggest gain in 15 years.

OJsDad wrote:Taxes have more to due with competition with other countries than anything else. If US tax rates are a lot higher than other countries, then companies are going to want to move to those countries. The tax rates don't have to be the lowest, but they need to be simple enough that companies aren't spending large amounts of money to pay as little as possible.

PeterZ wrote:I tend to agree with you, biochem, on most of these issues. I believe I might be a bit more libertarian than you. Not sure by how much. You display a remarkable degree of diplomacy that sound very much like an establishment republican. That of course could be my own prejudice speaking.

biochem wrote:

PeterZ wrote:I tend to agree with you, biochem, on most of these issues. I believe I might be a bit more libertarian than you. Not sure by how much. You display a remarkable degree of diplomacy that sound very much like an establishment republican. That of course could be my own prejudice speaking.

You are somewhat more libertarian than I am. I am in the middle of the road between moderate conservative and libertarian with a heavy dose of religious right. I am not establishment and actually dislike the establishment but I am pragmatic enough to recognize that to get things accomplished the office holder must be able to work with the establishment and know how to get things done behind the scenes. However those in the establishment tend to lose touch with the rest of America having spent way too much time in the insider echo chamber. So my preference would be an individual who can walk that fine line. Someone who is establishment enough to get at least some conservative and libertarian policies actually enacted into legislation but is not so much of an establishment insider that they have been captured by insider thinking.