11 minutes ago, placeholder said:

First off, who is going to make up for the lost revenue from corporations? Santa Claus? Why not the reverse? Eliminate taxes on individuals and impose them all on businesses?

In addition you make the implicit assumption that corporations will lower prices in accordance with how much tax relief corporations are granted. The fact is that there's a lot less competition in American than there used to be thanks to lax enforcement of antitrust.

You make the implicit assumption that savings  on labor lowers prices, but scoff at the idea that savings on taxes would lower prices. 

 

How do you square that? 

2 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

.....and give rise to inflation.

With the working poor earning much more. 

 

But I get it, the rich wants cheap strawberries and domestic help, and they don’t really give a fu*k about the poor, except yo virtue signal.

6 minutes ago, mogandave said:

You make the implicit assumption that savings  on labor lowers prices, but scoff at the idea that savings on taxes would lower prices. 

 

How do you square that? 

First off, you haven't answered the question about how are the revenues lost from taxing corporation to be made up? Santa Claus?

Because I'm talking about the status quo, and you are talking about changing it. But you do have a point., In fact , McDonald's has sued the major meatpackers in America for conspiring to raise the price of beef. This is what happens when antitrust laws aren't enforced. But what also happens when labor costs rise is the corporation use that as an excuse to raise prices.

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

First off, you haven't answered the question about how are the revenues lost from taxing corporation to be made up? Santa Claus?

Because I'm talking about the status quo, and you are talking about changing it. But you do have a point., In fact , McDonald's has sued the major meatpackers in America for conspiring to raise the price of beef. This is what happens when antitrust laws aren't enforced. But what also happens when labor costs rise is the corporation use that as an excuse to raise prices.

You answer my questions, and I’ll answer yours. 

3 minutes ago, mogandave said:

You answer my questions, and I’ll answer yours. 

what question do you believe remains unanswered?

On 1/30/2025 at 5:05 PM, BangkokReady said:

 

Sounds like a good thing.  Wokeism is a cancer on society and anything that removes it is a positive.

 

What's the problem?  Just annoyed that the people don't support your ideology?

Dude, you’ve got it exactly backward. “Wokeism” -- which, boiled down to its essence, is simply the ability to see beyond one’s own nose -- places no requirements or obligations whatsoever on you; you can simply ignore it and move on with your life, which is not impeded in any way. If you want to believe that the world should function as if through the gauze of a spaghetti Western, as per your profile photo, nobody’s going to bother you about that! However, you’re the one who’s sobbing about “Wokeism,” or rather your own gross misinterpretation of what it’s about. Just let it go, man; if other people choose to move beyond Clint Eastwood, it’s not going to hurt you!

18 minutes ago, Cory1848 said:

“Wokeism” -- which, boiled down to its essence, is simply the ability to see beyond one’s own nose --

 

I'm not sure if you're being disingenuous or you simply don't know, but that isn't what "wokeism" is, so your whole comment is irrelevant.

7 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

 

I'm not sure if you're being disingenuous or you simply don't know, but that isn't what "wokeism" is, so your whole comment is irrelevant.

That's what he likes to think it means. 

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

That's what he likes to think it means. 

 

I don't know why the loony left is so against the current use of the word.  It's almost as though they think that by disallowing the new meaning, they prevent the highlighting and criticising of their negative, hypocritical and oppressive ideology. 

 

Oh, look at that, I do know why they don't like the new meaning!  🤭

 

"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas."

--Joseph Stalin

4 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

 

I don't know why the loony left is so against the current use of the word.  It's almost as though they think that by disallowing the new meaning, they prevent the highlighting and criticising of their negative, hypocritical and oppressive ideology. 

 

Oh, look at that, I do know why they don't like the new meaning!  🤭

 

"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas."

--Joseph Stalin

They were all for it until everyone figured out what it meant. 

On 1/30/2025 at 6:15 PM, Yagoda said:

Do you deny Bidens open borders, transgender assaults on womens spaces, DEI etc? Do you deny that any of that occurred?

 

 

1 minute ago, johnnybangkok said:

 

 

I dont understand the connection between opposing Socialistic transgender misogyny and the price of eggs. 

Just now, Yagoda said:

I dont understand the connection between opposing Socialistic transgender misogyny and the price of eggs. 

Neither does leftist buffoon that posted the "comic". 

 

I'm old enough to remember when the left had jokes that were funny. 

14 hours ago, placeholder said:

what question do you believe remains unanswered?

How you support your claim that lower direct labor costs (wages) drive prices down, but lower overhead (corporate taxes) does not. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Yagoda said:

I dont understand the connection between opposing Socialistic transgender misogyny and the price of eggs. 

Of course you dont. And I have neither the patience nor the crayons to explain it to you.

 

10 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Of course you dont. And I have neither the patience nor the crayons to explain it to you.

 

Thats good, one dose of your stupidity is enough.

16 hours ago, mogandave said:

I worked putting up hay and picking oranges, I know what it is. You? 

 

Over half the people doing those jobs now are US citizens. Paying more would make it more attractive. 

40% are not, and therein lies the problem. Pay them more, produce on the supermarket shelves goes up. Deport them, a labor shortage with the same result. Worse, because crops are left to rot.

 

 

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

40% are not, and therein lies the problem. Pay them more, produce on the supermarket shelves goes up. Deport them, a labor shortage with the same result. Worse, because crops are left to rot.

 

 

Of course, if you pay higher wages, the prices will go up margionally/somewhat. Are you against higher wages? 

 

Would you support eliminating the minimum wage to reduce food prices? 

 

Would you support eliminating corporate income taxes to reduce food prices? 

 

Would you support expanding fossil fuel production to lower food prices? 

 

Why is it always the poor that have to take the hit so the rich can enjoy cheap strawberries and domestic help?