|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On November 10 2009 12:22 motbob wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2009 11:54 gchan wrote:
motbob, you're not going to find articles from academics that disclose information about how companies internally run their cost structures and pricing structures. Scientific articles are written by academics who work in a university for a living, not work in private industry. The reason why articles on corporate taxation are so scare when you google it is because in the field of taxation, cost accounting, and accounting in general, there is a huge divided between industry and academia. Most accountants who have the knowhow to work the corporate tax system, or have the know how to manipulate their cost structure for profit maximization are going to be working in industry. They can make money there. And they won't disclose that information out by publishing it in scientific papers because that would give away a company's competitive edge.
Most accountants who are the professors have knowledge that is 20 year old antiquated industry knowledge. That is why good accounting professors will try to bring in guest lecturers to provide contemporary industry insight. The bad accounting professors will lecture straight from the book.
Another factor to consider is that it is very expensive to gather information from industry because companies do not want to disclose their information. Most publicly traded companies have the generic 10-Ks they have to file, but that does not provide insight on what you are to address--how companies change their cost and price structure based on taxation.
Disclosure: I'm a tax accountant. If there's no academic economic theory or empirical analysis concerning the effect of corporate taxes on prices, then as far as I know, such a relationship doesn't exist. If you maintain that information on the effect of taxes is simply impossible, then fine. I can't say definitively that you're wrong. You have experience in the field and I don't. But you can't expect me or anyone else to just take your word for it. You can't just say "it's a trade secret."
I would argue that corporations pass the tax to the people, but that's my personal belief. Common sense says that a corporate tax will cause less money to go to the corporations who, if they want a certain profit, will increase prices to achieve that effect. But common sense isn't always right and there's no way to prove it, so it's a moot point.
On November 10 2009 12:51 LeoTheLion wrote:
So i'm wondering.
How many of you guys actually know what the bill is about?
You win the thread.
The bill is at least a step towards health care reform, but it's nowhere near what really needs to be done.
|
On November 10 2009 09:57 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2009 07:45 motbob wrote:
Don't be condescending. You haven't been following the argument. We're talking about taxes on individuals, not on corporations.
Besides, taxes on corporations are on profits, not revenue, so corporate behavior does not change as a result of taxes. Profit-maximizing behavior before corporate taxes is the same as profit-maximizing behavior after. Taxes are a cost of doing business, when it is applied during the accounting process is irrelevant. If your taxes are increased, you increase the cost of the items to maintain your profit. The debate was that "rich" don't stick the increased cost onto the poor, which is entirely false. The company (and thus an individual, since most people aren't on their own payroll and just make withdrawals from the business when they need money, and will often take all business income as personal income) is still making 10% profit, but the cost of increased tax is shown in the company's increased prices. People who are buying the product are the ones paying, not the one being taxed. Profit "maximization" has nothing to do with a dollar amount. If you're in the IT business, you could be making a million dollars a year, but if you're below a 10% net income, you won't be in business. Maximizing profits is expending assets to produce revenue at a greater than 1:1 ratio, so it has nothing to do with taxes anyways.
How exactly do you work it out in your head to think "if we raise the cost of our product our profits go up." When you raise the cost of your product fewer people can afford it and fewer people want to buy it, so your profits can just as easily go DOWN. If it was as simple as "lets raise our prices to increase our profits" companies would raise their prices every day of the year and charge $1 million for a cheeseburger.
|
Canada11564 Posts
On November 10 2009 12:41 Wr3k wrote:
1 Step closer to us socialist Canadians!
That's why our flag is red, comrade 
I consider my self right of centre, but have to say I'm in favour of our universal healthcare system.
To those arguing that charity should not be forced, well and good, but it doesn't work so well. Most social initiatives start with voluntarism, switch to moral-suasion and in the end find that only state intervention actually provides. (Prohibition followed that route.)
When church membership was more or less a given, then it had the economic base to create a social safety net, education, etc. (Particularly Catholic countries.) It wasn't so much voluntarism there either as tithing was a given too. The church, at one point, was the lowest level of state that provided a form of welfare. (Albeit separate from government.) That economic base is no longer there with declining attendance, and particularly tithing- even in America. (Evangelicals have never been as good as the Catholics with social initiatives.) All that to say that voluntarism did not provide for people in the past on a large scale and I doubt it will now.
The quotes such as "some of us actually work for a living" is rather ignorant of who can't afford healthcare insurance. Think single parents, particularly working at a minimum wage. Debilitating sicknesses/ health issues so they can't work. If they have children, they also will not be covered.
When someone one is born with lupus, requires a kidney transplant, is on dialysis, who's body rejects all sorts of medicines you could say it's theft to force someone to pay for their medical bills. You could say that it should be paid by charity. You can NOT dismiss it by saying "some of us actually work for a living"- at least without sounding incredibly ignorant. Furthermore, voluntary charity is not systematic. It cannot possibly provide proper safety net.
We're not talking about a Marxist 'pie in the sky' revolution. State-run health-cares are in operation throughout the world and are functioning just fine. Furthermore, we are no closer to a Proletariat uprising, then before.
And yes, you will get people that abuse the system, just as people abuse the current insurance system.
As to the OP, I'd like to see it pass, but I'm cautious about my hopefulness.
|
|
|
Undisputed- I apologize for calling you an ass. It was unkind and not at all helpful (unskillful at best).
But consider this: There are regimes in the world that execute their own citizens for speaking out politically and then send the family a bill for the bullet that ended their child's life. You may say that this has nothing to do with health care reform but I disagree. It speaks to who we are as a people and a nation. The total cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is over 930 billion (source http://costofwar.com). We can afford compassionate care for our citizens.
Surely our Congressman and Senators won't deny to us what has been so kindly afforded to them.
|
is awesome32278 Posts
On November 10 2009 12:07 HonestTea wrote:
WOMEN!
Non sequitur.
|
United States47024 Posts
On November 10 2009 13:11 BlackJack wrote:
How exactly do you work it out in your head to think "if we raise the cost of our product our profits go up." When you raise the cost of your product fewer people can afford it and fewer people want to buy it, so your profits can just as easily go DOWN. If it was as simple as "lets raise our prices to increase our profits" companies would raise their prices every day of the year and charge $1 million for a cheeseburger.
If you raise prices, it means that you generate greater marginal profit per item sold. Whether this increases or decreases profits is dependent on the elasticity of demand with regard to the good being sold. The reason that it's inferred that profits will go up in the case of healthcare is that it seems reasonable to assume that healthcare is fairly inelastic (because most people with a legitimate need won't suddenly decide to stop getting healthcare just because the price goes up a bit).
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
whoops I broke my rule of not being condescending
|
This thread kind of makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time.
|
Canada11564 Posts
On November 10 2009 03:37 agorist wrote:
Yes, it's stealing if you take money from an individual who doesn't support building a street. A street should be paid directly by those who use and benefit from it. This is done more efficiently via private ownership, however, can be done publicly with tolls and fees.
I find it hard to believe you'd get anything but a crappy transportation system. They used to do this in the late 1700's, but only the rich aristocrats could actually afford to build and upkeep their portion of the road. So you end up with a patchwork of good and terrible roads.
A person may not support building a street, but they certainly use it. The public uses the roads, so I fail to see why it's not in the public's interest to have it funded publicly.
|
because most people with a legitimate need won't suddenly decide to stop getting healthcare just because the price goes up a bit Is that so?
|
I'm a conscientious objector to this debate. My reasons are twofold. I refuse to get involved in a debate that I don't know enough about to discuss, and I refuse to argue with people who don't know what they're talking about either.
|
On November 10 2009 15:24 TheYango wrote:
The reason that it's inferred that profits will go up in the case of healthcare is that it seems reasonable to assume that healthcare is fairly inelastic (because most people with a legitimate need won't suddenly decide to stop getting healthcare just because the price goes up a bit).
It would be irrational to maintain a price point below the maximum profit price. The elasticity in health care may very well lie in the ability of people to pay over the desires of people to get care.
Looking at the medical bankruptcy rate, health care may be hitting a cap in price. As a person won't pay any more if you bankrupt him once or three times over.
--------------------
The "inelastic demand" up to bankruptcy thing on the other hand suggest that in a monopoly/oligopoly setting, prices would naturally be increased to "just below bankrupting a lot of people" for many medical services. If price discrimination is possible, we are looking at "however much you can pay" instead. This is also independent of the actual cost to provide the services.
==========
All the better argument to just shoot the sick and get over with it.
/tired of this healthcare crap
|
On November 10 2009 02:27 Sky101 wrote:
Capitalism carried the U.S. from a nobody to the super power that it is today. Socialism will just make everyone lazy. Look at the Europeans, no offense, try to compare the work ethics and attitude to that of an American.
Aahahahaha, you win fuckmuppet of the day award. Holy shit. Stupidity this intense is just far too much.
|
On November 10 2009 17:30 kefkalives wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2009 02:27 Sky101 wrote:
Capitalism carried the U.S. from a nobody to the super power that it is today. Socialism will just make everyone lazy. Look at the Europeans, no offense, try to compare the work ethics and attitude to that of an American. Aahahahaha, you win fuckmuppet of the day award. Holy shit. Stupidity this intense is just far too much.
He has quite a valid point. In Europe you can get quite alot of social welfare in many countires, and I've seen ALOT of people get lazy. They sit at home and don't look for work while collecting welfare and play WoW. It's ridiculous. At least in America, people can realize far bigger dreams that getting to level 70 and also have to work to make ends meet.
|
On November 10 2009 15:14 IntoTheWow wrote:Non sequitur.
9/11!
|
Ah the US Healthcare system. It´s both funny and sad at the same time.
For thouse arguing to reduce military spending to pay for Universal healthcare take a look at this, especially the orange countries:
http://www.gadling.com/2007/07/05/what-countries-have-universal-health-care/
America doesn´t bomb countries instead of providing Healthcare. America provides healthcare where they are bombing. Maybe you should start another Civil war?
Sad jokes aside, the US does have a system of universal healthcare best described as universal emergency room. But it´s the second worst method to provide healthcare for your people, right after letting the poor die.
By only making the ER available the US maximises the pain, suffering (and cost to) of it´s people since the any issue is untreated until it´s life threatening (and the most expensive to treat).
|
On November 10 2009 12:51 LeoTheLion wrote:
So i'm wondering.
How many of you guys actually know what the bill is about?
Apparently none of the Americans posted in this thread do...
i'll give u guys a hint, its not as simple as just the economics of it, have u guys checked how exactly is the government healthcare coverage going to work?
|
On November 10 2009 21:49 Unentschieden wrote:Ah the US Healthcare system. It´s both funny and sad at the same time. For thouse arguing to reduce military spending to pay for Universal healthcare take a look at this, especially the orange countries: http://www.gadling.com/2007/07/05/what-countries-have-universal-health-care/America doesn´t bomb countries instead of providing Healthcare. America provides healthcare where they are bombing. Maybe you should start another Civil war? Sad jokes aside, the US does have a system of universal healthcare best described as universal emergency room. But it´s the second worst method to provide healthcare for your people, right after letting the poor die. By only making the ER available the US maximises the pain, suffering (and cost to) of it´s people since the any issue is untreated until it´s life threatening (and the most expensive to treat).
good post, excellent graphic. maybe that rings a bell for some, but I fear the hardliners will only see it as a support to their argument, since the whole world always does things wrong and only the US does it right...
|
On November 10 2009 22:10 Shizuru~ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2009 12:51 LeoTheLion wrote:
So i'm wondering.
How many of you guys actually know what the bill is about? Apparently none of the Americans posted in this thread do... i'll give u guys a hint, its not as simple as just the economics of it, have u guys checked how exactly is the government healthcare coverage going to work?
It is 2000 pages of legalese.... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
