Economy is roaring

Anonymous
OK - so let's tax these guys:
https://www.axios.com/fortune-500-companies-corporate-income-tax-7a7d3d36-0c48-4098-b352-deb93be1e4c0.html

And top .1%.

And reduce overall health spending by adopting medicare for all.

Sounds like we'd be on our way to reducing the deficit. Suck it, GOP.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Since the economy is roaring it's time to raise the minimum wage.

In 1968 the minimum wage was worth $22 in today's wages.


But that would crash the economy, they say.

Electing a Dem would crash the economy, they say.

Seems like a pretty fragile piece of $hit economy if you ask me. Maybe it's that too little is asked of the people who have most of the money. Hmmmmm. Maybe the economy would be less flimsy if just a bit more of 'their' wealth was invested in society.


A normal Dem candidate would not crash the economy. Probably would make it better.

But someone like Sanders or Warren, making promise after promise costing tens of trillions of dollars, that's not a normal Dem candidate. And, yes, they would crash the economy.



That’s not how economics works. Does Defense spending crash the economy? No. It takes collected taxes and then spends that money in the economy, creating millions of jobs. Health care spending also creates jobs in the economy. Education spending creates jobs in the economy.



30 trillion of new defense spending would certainly crash the economy. Heck, that's why the USSR ceased to be.

30 trillion in new spending for anything means you are taking 30 trillions out from somewhere -- ultimately people's pockets.

30 trillions less available for spending, for saving, for investing.

It is so obvious it would crash the economy that the plan itself, if Dems have the WH and Congress, would be enough to crash the economy.


What is the $30 trillion reference?



The cost of Medicare for All.

Just ONE of the many "plans" by Warren and Sanders.


How much do employers and individuals pay now? And if we are able to bring rates down then maybe it'd be a net savings.


IF you believe in magic, everything is possible.

If not, you may want to pay a bit more attention to the real world.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Since the economy is roaring it's time to raise the minimum wage.

In 1968 the minimum wage was worth $22 in today's wages.


But that would crash the economy, they say.

Electing a Dem would crash the economy, they say.

Seems like a pretty fragile piece of $hit economy if you ask me. Maybe it's that too little is asked of the people who have most of the money. Hmmmmm. Maybe the economy would be less flimsy if just a bit more of 'their' wealth was invested in society.


A normal Dem candidate would not crash the economy. Probably would make it better.

But someone like Sanders or Warren, making promise after promise costing tens of trillions of dollars, that's not a normal Dem candidate. And, yes, they would crash the economy.



That’s not how economics works. Does Defense spending crash the economy? No. It takes collected taxes and then spends that money in the economy, creating millions of jobs. Health care spending also creates jobs in the economy. Education spending creates jobs in the economy.



30 trillion of new defense spending would certainly crash the economy. Heck, that's why the USSR ceased to be.

30 trillion in new spending for anything means you are taking 30 trillions out from somewhere -- ultimately people's pockets.

30 trillions less available for spending, for saving, for investing.

It is so obvious it would crash the economy that the plan itself, if Dems have the WH and Congress, would be enough to crash the economy.


What is the $30 trillion reference?



The cost of Medicare for All.

Just ONE of the many "plans" by Warren and Sanders.


How much do employers and individuals pay now? And if we are able to bring rates down then maybe it'd be a net savings.


IF you believe in magic, everything is possible.

If not, you may want to pay a bit more attention to the real world.


OK - show me some numbers. If Medicare for All is less than current healthcare spending then why wouldn't we realize some "net savings"?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Since the economy is roaring it's time to raise the minimum wage.

In 1968 the minimum wage was worth $22 in today's wages.


But that would crash the economy, they say.

Electing a Dem would crash the economy, they say.

Seems like a pretty fragile piece of $hit economy if you ask me. Maybe it's that too little is asked of the people who have most of the money. Hmmmmm. Maybe the economy would be less flimsy if just a bit more of 'their' wealth was invested in society.


A normal Dem candidate would not crash the economy. Probably would make it better.

But someone like Sanders or Warren, making promise after promise costing tens of trillions of dollars, that's not a normal Dem candidate. And, yes, they would crash the economy.



That’s not how economics works. Does Defense spending crash the economy? No. It takes collected taxes and then spends that money in the economy, creating millions of jobs. Health care spending also creates jobs in the economy. Education spending creates jobs in the economy.



30 trillion of new defense spending would certainly crash the economy. Heck, that's why the USSR ceased to be.

30 trillion in new spending for anything means you are taking 30 trillions out from somewhere -- ultimately people's pockets.

30 trillions less available for spending, for saving, for investing.

It is so obvious it would crash the economy that the plan itself, if Dems have the WH and Congress, would be enough to crash the economy.


What is the $30 trillion reference?



The cost of Medicare for All.

Just ONE of the many "plans" by Warren and Sanders.


How much do employers and individuals pay now? And if we are able to bring rates down then maybe it'd be a net savings.


IF you believe in magic, everything is possible.

If not, you may want to pay a bit more attention to the real world.


OK - show me some numbers. If Medicare for All is less than current healthcare spending then why wouldn't we realize some "net savings"?



You didn't get my point.

What do you think would happen in the real-world if 150 million Americans lose their existing insurance, 2 million folks lose their jobs, 10-15 million healthcare workers need to change the way they work and how they get paid, and everyone's taxes go up significantly, like 30-40% (Sanders has been honest about this, not Warren).

Oh, and all this done at the same time and led by someone whose major accomplishment is...what?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Medicare for all costs are estimated at $30 trillion over ten years, so around $3 trillion a year, a bit less than current overall health spending.


So a net savings...



Our total spending is $4.4 trillion (2019). Of that, we spend $1.1 trillion on medicare/medicaid. To be able to spend $3 trillion each year on medicare for all, we need another $1.9 trillion in revenues each year.

We already don't have enough revenues to cover expenses (that is why we run a deficit and have to borrow money). Where is this extra $1.9 trillion each year going to come from?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Since the economy is roaring it's time to raise the minimum wage.

In 1968 the minimum wage was worth $22 in today's wages.


But that would crash the economy, they say.

Electing a Dem would crash the economy, they say.

Seems like a pretty fragile piece of $hit economy if you ask me. Maybe it's that too little is asked of the people who have most of the money. Hmmmmm. Maybe the economy would be less flimsy if just a bit more of 'their' wealth was invested in society.


A normal Dem candidate would not crash the economy. Probably would make it better.

But someone like Sanders or Warren, making promise after promise costing tens of trillions of dollars, that's not a normal Dem candidate. And, yes, they would crash the economy.



That’s not how economics works. Does Defense spending crash the economy? No. It takes collected taxes and then spends that money in the economy, creating millions of jobs. Health care spending also creates jobs in the economy. Education spending creates jobs in the economy.



30 trillion of new defense spending would certainly crash the economy. Heck, that's why the USSR ceased to be.

30 trillion in new spending for anything means you are taking 30 trillions out from somewhere -- ultimately people's pockets.

30 trillions less available for spending, for saving, for investing.

It is so obvious it would crash the economy that the plan itself, if Dems have the WH and Congress, would be enough to crash the economy.


What is the $30 trillion reference?



The cost of Medicare for All.

Just ONE of the many "plans" by Warren and Sanders.


How much do employers and individuals pay now? And if we are able to bring rates down then maybe it'd be a net savings.


IF you believe in magic, everything is possible.

If not, you may want to pay a bit more attention to the real world.


OK - show me some numbers. If Medicare for All is less than current healthcare spending then why wouldn't we realize some "net savings"?



You didn't get my point.

What do you think would happen in the real-world if 150 million Americans lose their existing insurance, 2 million folks lose their jobs, 10-15 million healthcare workers need to change the way they work and how they get paid, and everyone's taxes go up significantly, like 30-40% (Sanders has been honest about this, not Warren).

Oh, and all this done at the same time and led by someone whose major accomplishment is...what?


That is silly. The transition from private to public insurance would be managed over time so there would be no disruption in coverage. Very little would change for health care providers and workers, except their administrative burden would reduced - they would just be billing much more to Medicare instead of dealing with dozens of insurance plans with different rules and requirements and coverage limits. People who manage claims for insurance companies could easily transition to managing claims for Medicare or for health providers. New taxes would be offset by savings from eliminating or reducing insurance premiums, out-of-pocket costs, etc.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Since the economy is roaring it's time to raise the minimum wage.

In 1968 the minimum wage was worth $22 in today's wages.


But that would crash the economy, they say.

Electing a Dem would crash the economy, they say.

Seems like a pretty fragile piece of $hit economy if you ask me. Maybe it's that too little is asked of the people who have most of the money. Hmmmmm. Maybe the economy would be less flimsy if just a bit more of 'their' wealth was invested in society.


A normal Dem candidate would not crash the economy. Probably would make it better.

But someone like Sanders or Warren, making promise after promise costing tens of trillions of dollars, that's not a normal Dem candidate. And, yes, they would crash the economy.



That’s not how economics works. Does Defense spending crash the economy? No. It takes collected taxes and then spends that money in the economy, creating millions of jobs. Health care spending also creates jobs in the economy. Education spending creates jobs in the economy.



30 trillion of new defense spending would certainly crash the economy. Heck, that's why the USSR ceased to be.

30 trillion in new spending for anything means you are taking 30 trillions out from somewhere -- ultimately people's pockets.

30 trillions less available for spending, for saving, for investing.

It is so obvious it would crash the economy that the plan itself, if Dems have the WH and Congress, would be enough to crash the economy.


What is the $30 trillion reference?



The cost of Medicare for All.

Just ONE of the many "plans" by Warren and Sanders.


How much do employers and individuals pay now? And if we are able to bring rates down then maybe it'd be a net savings.


IF you believe in magic, everything is possible.

If not, you may want to pay a bit more attention to the real world.


OK - show me some numbers. If Medicare for All is less than current healthcare spending then why wouldn't we realize some "net savings"?



You didn't get my point.

What do you think would happen in the real-world if 150 million Americans lose their existing insurance, 2 million folks lose their jobs, 10-15 million healthcare workers need to change the way they work and how they get paid, and everyone's taxes go up significantly, like 30-40% (Sanders has been honest about this, not Warren).

Oh, and all this done at the same time and led by someone whose major accomplishment is...what?


That is silly. The transition from private to public insurance would be managed over time so there would be no disruption in coverage. Very little would change for health care providers and workers, except their administrative burden would reduced - they would just be billing much more to Medicare instead of dealing with dozens of insurance plans with different rules and requirements and coverage limits. People who manage claims for insurance companies could easily transition to managing claims for Medicare or for health providers. New taxes would be offset by savings from eliminating or reducing insurance premiums, out-of-pocket costs, etc.


...and horses would fly, and criminals would become Mother Theresa, and weapons would suddenly become candy, and obese people would become fit.

You're right, PP, it's all easy peasy.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Since the economy is roaring it's time to raise the minimum wage.

In 1968 the minimum wage was worth $22 in today's wages.


But that would crash the economy, they say.

Electing a Dem would crash the economy, they say.

Seems like a pretty fragile piece of $hit economy if you ask me. Maybe it's that too little is asked of the people who have most of the money. Hmmmmm. Maybe the economy would be less flimsy if just a bit more of 'their' wealth was invested in society.


A normal Dem candidate would not crash the economy. Probably would make it better.

But someone like Sanders or Warren, making promise after promise costing tens of trillions of dollars, that's not a normal Dem candidate. And, yes, they would crash the economy.



That’s not how economics works. Does Defense spending crash the economy? No. It takes collected taxes and then spends that money in the economy, creating millions of jobs. Health care spending also creates jobs in the economy. Education spending creates jobs in the economy.



30 trillion of new defense spending would certainly crash the economy. Heck, that's why the USSR ceased to be.

30 trillion in new spending for anything means you are taking 30 trillions out from somewhere -- ultimately people's pockets.

30 trillions less available for spending, for saving, for investing.

It is so obvious it would crash the economy that the plan itself, if Dems have the WH and Congress, would be enough to crash the economy.


What is the $30 trillion reference?



The cost of Medicare for All.

Just ONE of the many "plans" by Warren and Sanders.


How much do employers and individuals pay now? And if we are able to bring rates down then maybe it'd be a net savings.


IF you believe in magic, everything is possible.

If not, you may want to pay a bit more attention to the real world.


OK - show me some numbers. If Medicare for All is less than current healthcare spending then why wouldn't we realize some "net savings"?



You didn't get my point.

What do you think would happen in the real-world if 150 million Americans lose their existing insurance, 2 million folks lose their jobs, 10-15 million healthcare workers need to change the way they work and how they get paid, and everyone's taxes go up significantly, like 30-40% (Sanders has been honest about this, not Warren).

Oh, and all this done at the same time and led by someone whose major accomplishment is...what?


That is silly. The transition from private to public insurance would be managed over time so there would be no disruption in coverage. Very little would change for health care providers and workers, except their administrative burden would reduced - they would just be billing much more to Medicare instead of dealing with dozens of insurance plans with different rules and requirements and coverage limits. People who manage claims for insurance companies could easily transition to managing claims for Medicare or for health providers. New taxes would be offset by savings from eliminating or reducing insurance premiums, out-of-pocket costs, etc.


Exactly.

AND the first place to start with new taxes? The 0.1%ers and these 91 companies:

PROFIT = $106 BILLION
TAX = ZERO

Company Profit Tax Rate
Amazon.com $10,835 $-129.0 -1.2%
Delta Air Lines $5,073 $-187.0 -3.7%
Starbucks $4,774 $-75.0 -1.6%
Chevron $4,547 $-181.0 -4.0%
General Motors $4,320 $-104.0 -2.4%
EOG Resources $4,067 $-304.0 -7.5%
Occidental Petroleum $3,379 $-23.0 -0.7%
Duke Energy $3,029 $-647.0 -21.4%
Dominion Resources $3,021 $-45.0 -1.5%
Honeywell International $2,830 $-71.0 -2.5%
FedEx $2,312 $-107.0 -4.6%
Deere $2,152 $-558.0 -25.9%
American Electric Power $1,943 $-32.0 -1.6%
AMR $1,884 — —
Nvidia $1,843 $-32.0 -1.7%
Williams $1,828 $-83.0 -4.5%
Kinder Morgan $1,784 $-22.0 -1.2%
Public Service Enterprise Group $1,772 $-97.0 -5.5%
Hartford Financial Services $1,753 $-18.0 -1.0%
Principal Financial $1,641 $-55.0 -3.3%
Edison International $1,600 $-57.0 -3.6%
Ally Financial $1,587 $-12.0 -0.8%
FirstEnergy $1,495 $-16.0 -1.1%
McKesson $1,477 $-10.0 -0.7%
Prudential Financial $1,440 $-210.0 -14.6%
Xcel Energy $1,434 $-34.0 -2.4%
PulteGroup $1,340 $-44.0 -3.3%
Molson Coors $1,325 $-23.0 -1.7%
Devon Energy $1,297 $-14.0 -1.1%
Pioneer Natural Resources $1,249 — —
DTE Energy $1,215 $-17.0 -1.4%
WEC Energy Group $1,139 $-218.0 -19.2%
PPL $1,110 $-19.0 -1.7%
Halliburton $1,082 $-19.0 -1.8%
CenturyLink $1,041 $-576.0 -55.3%
Ameren $1,035 $-10.0 -1.0%
Brighthouse Financial $989 $-166.0 -16.8%
Netflix $899 $-22.0 -2.5%
Chesapeake Energy $867 — —
Salesforce.com $800 — —
CMS Energy $774 $-67.0 -8.7%
Darden Restaurants $760 $-7.0 -0.9%
Rockwell Collins $722 $-40.0 -5.5%
Whirlpool $717 $-110.0 -15.3%
Westrock $710 $-4.0 -0.6%
Air Products & Chemicals $671 $-17.0 -2.5%
MGM Resorts International $648 $-12.0 -1.8%
Atmos Energy $600 $-10.0 -1.7%
Eli Lilly $598 $-54.0 -9.1%
Alaska Air Group $576 $-5.0 -0.9%
Cliffs Natural Resources $565 $-1.0 -0.1%
First Data $559 $-121.0 -21.6%
DXC Technology $522 $-6.0 -1.1%
HD Supply $508 — —
International Business Machines $500 $-342.0 -68.4%
Celanese $480 $-142.0 -29.5%
Activision Blizzard $447 $-243.0 -54.4%
UGI $446 $-3.0 -0.6%
Goodyear Tire & Rubber $440 $-23.0 -5.2%
United States Steel $432 $-40.0 -9.3%
Owens Corning $405 $-5.0 -1.2%
Penske Automotive Group $393 $-13.0 -3.3%
Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold $391 $-75.0 -19.2%
Mohawk Industries $373 $-6.0 -1.5%
Ryder System $350 $-47.0 -13.5%
Aramark $315 $-48.0 -15.3%
MDU Resources $314 $-16.0 -5.1%
Tapestry $307 $-24.0 -7.9%
Navistar International $256 — —
Builders FirstSource $255 $-2.0 -0.7%
Tenet Healthcare $251 $-6.0 -2.4%
AECOM Technology $244 $-186.0 -76.5%
JetBlue Airways $219 $-60.0 -27.4%
DowDuPont $217 $-119.0 -54.8%
Realogy $199 $-13.0 -6.5%
AK Steel Holding $169 $-1.0 -0.3%
Levi Strauss $145 $-25.0 -17.3%
Trinity Industries $138 $-19.0 -13.9%
Pitney Bowes $125 $-26.0 -21.0%
ABM Industries $88 $0.0 -0.2%
Avis Budget Group $78 $-37.0 -47.4%
Visteon $76 — —
SPX $67 $-4.0 -6.6%
Beacon Roofing Supply $63 $-4.0 -7.1%
Andersons $46 $-1.0 -1.2%
SpartanNash $40 $-2.0 -4.1%
Phillips-Van Heusen $18 $-31.0 -168.1%
Sanmina-SCI $16 $0.0 -0.8%
Murphy Oil $12 $-10.0 -84.1%
INTL FCStone $9 $-10.0 -110.3%
Gannett $7 $-11.0 -164.2%

TOTAL, THESE 91 COMPANIES $106,468 $-6,285.0 -5.9%


https://itep.org/corporate-tax-avoidance-in-the-first-year-of-the-trump-tax-law/

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Since the economy is roaring it's time to raise the minimum wage.

In 1968 the minimum wage was worth $22 in today's wages.


But that would crash the economy, they say.

Electing a Dem would crash the economy, they say.

Seems like a pretty fragile piece of $hit economy if you ask me. Maybe it's that too little is asked of the people who have most of the money. Hmmmmm. Maybe the economy would be less flimsy if just a bit more of 'their' wealth was invested in society.


A normal Dem candidate would not crash the economy. Probably would make it better.

But someone like Sanders or Warren, making promise after promise costing tens of trillions of dollars, that's not a normal Dem candidate. And, yes, they would crash the economy.



That’s not how economics works. Does Defense spending crash the economy? No. It takes collected taxes and then spends that money in the economy, creating millions of jobs. Health care spending also creates jobs in the economy. Education spending creates jobs in the economy.



30 trillion of new defense spending would certainly crash the economy. Heck, that's why the USSR ceased to be.

30 trillion in new spending for anything means you are taking 30 trillions out from somewhere -- ultimately people's pockets.

30 trillions less available for spending, for saving, for investing.

It is so obvious it would crash the economy that the plan itself, if Dems have the WH and Congress, would be enough to crash the economy.


What is the $30 trillion reference?



The cost of Medicare for All.

Just ONE of the many "plans" by Warren and Sanders.


How much do employers and individuals pay now? And if we are able to bring rates down then maybe it'd be a net savings.


IF you believe in magic, everything is possible.

If not, you may want to pay a bit more attention to the real world.


OK - show me some numbers. If Medicare for All is less than current healthcare spending then why wouldn't we realize some "net savings"?



You didn't get my point.

What do you think would happen in the real-world if 150 million Americans lose their existing insurance, 2 million folks lose their jobs, 10-15 million healthcare workers need to change the way they work and how they get paid, and everyone's taxes go up significantly, like 30-40% (Sanders has been honest about this, not Warren).

Oh, and all this done at the same time and led by someone whose major accomplishment is...what?


That is silly. The transition from private to public insurance would be managed over time so there would be no disruption in coverage. Very little would change for health care providers and workers, except their administrative burden would reduced - they would just be billing much more to Medicare instead of dealing with dozens of insurance plans with different rules and requirements and coverage limits. People who manage claims for insurance companies could easily transition to managing claims for Medicare or for health providers. New taxes would be offset by savings from eliminating or reducing insurance premiums, out-of-pocket costs, etc.


Exactly.

AND the first place to start with new taxes? The 0.1%ers and these 91 companies:

PROFIT = $106 BILLION
TAX = ZERO

Company Profit Tax Rate
Amazon.com $10,835 $-129.0 -1.2%
Delta Air Lines $5,073 $-187.0 -3.7%
Starbucks $4,774 $-75.0 -1.6%
Chevron $4,547 $-181.0 -4.0%
General Motors $4,320 $-104.0 -2.4%
EOG Resources $4,067 $-304.0 -7.5%
Occidental Petroleum $3,379 $-23.0 -0.7%
Duke Energy $3,029 $-647.0 -21.4%
Dominion Resources $3,021 $-45.0 -1.5%
Honeywell International $2,830 $-71.0 -2.5%
FedEx $2,312 $-107.0 -4.6%
Deere $2,152 $-558.0 -25.9%
American Electric Power $1,943 $-32.0 -1.6%
AMR $1,884 — —
Nvidia $1,843 $-32.0 -1.7%
Williams $1,828 $-83.0 -4.5%
Kinder Morgan $1,784 $-22.0 -1.2%
Public Service Enterprise Group $1,772 $-97.0 -5.5%
Hartford Financial Services $1,753 $-18.0 -1.0%
Principal Financial $1,641 $-55.0 -3.3%
Edison International $1,600 $-57.0 -3.6%
Ally Financial $1,587 $-12.0 -0.8%
FirstEnergy $1,495 $-16.0 -1.1%
McKesson $1,477 $-10.0 -0.7%
Prudential Financial $1,440 $-210.0 -14.6%
Xcel Energy $1,434 $-34.0 -2.4%
PulteGroup $1,340 $-44.0 -3.3%
Molson Coors $1,325 $-23.0 -1.7%
Devon Energy $1,297 $-14.0 -1.1%
Pioneer Natural Resources $1,249 — —
DTE Energy $1,215 $-17.0 -1.4%
WEC Energy Group $1,139 $-218.0 -19.2%
PPL $1,110 $-19.0 -1.7%
Halliburton $1,082 $-19.0 -1.8%
CenturyLink $1,041 $-576.0 -55.3%
Ameren $1,035 $-10.0 -1.0%
Brighthouse Financial $989 $-166.0 -16.8%
Netflix $899 $-22.0 -2.5%
Chesapeake Energy $867 — —
Salesforce.com $800 — —
CMS Energy $774 $-67.0 -8.7%
Darden Restaurants $760 $-7.0 -0.9%
Rockwell Collins $722 $-40.0 -5.5%
Whirlpool $717 $-110.0 -15.3%
Westrock $710 $-4.0 -0.6%
Air Products & Chemicals $671 $-17.0 -2.5%
MGM Resorts International $648 $-12.0 -1.8%
Atmos Energy $600 $-10.0 -1.7%
Eli Lilly $598 $-54.0 -9.1%
Alaska Air Group $576 $-5.0 -0.9%
Cliffs Natural Resources $565 $-1.0 -0.1%
First Data $559 $-121.0 -21.6%
DXC Technology $522 $-6.0 -1.1%
HD Supply $508 — —
International Business Machines $500 $-342.0 -68.4%
Celanese $480 $-142.0 -29.5%
Activision Blizzard $447 $-243.0 -54.4%
UGI $446 $-3.0 -0.6%
Goodyear Tire & Rubber $440 $-23.0 -5.2%
United States Steel $432 $-40.0 -9.3%
Owens Corning $405 $-5.0 -1.2%
Penske Automotive Group $393 $-13.0 -3.3%
Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold $391 $-75.0 -19.2%
Mohawk Industries $373 $-6.0 -1.5%
Ryder System $350 $-47.0 -13.5%
Aramark $315 $-48.0 -15.3%
MDU Resources $314 $-16.0 -5.1%
Tapestry $307 $-24.0 -7.9%
Navistar International $256 — —
Builders FirstSource $255 $-2.0 -0.7%
Tenet Healthcare $251 $-6.0 -2.4%
AECOM Technology $244 $-186.0 -76.5%
JetBlue Airways $219 $-60.0 -27.4%
DowDuPont $217 $-119.0 -54.8%
Realogy $199 $-13.0 -6.5%
AK Steel Holding $169 $-1.0 -0.3%
Levi Strauss $145 $-25.0 -17.3%
Trinity Industries $138 $-19.0 -13.9%
Pitney Bowes $125 $-26.0 -21.0%
ABM Industries $88 $0.0 -0.2%
Avis Budget Group $78 $-37.0 -47.4%
Visteon $76 — —
SPX $67 $-4.0 -6.6%
Beacon Roofing Supply $63 $-4.0 -7.1%
Andersons $46 $-1.0 -1.2%
SpartanNash $40 $-2.0 -4.1%
Phillips-Van Heusen $18 $-31.0 -168.1%
Sanmina-SCI $16 $0.0 -0.8%
Murphy Oil $12 $-10.0 -84.1%
INTL FCStone $9 $-10.0 -110.3%
Gannett $7 $-11.0 -164.2%

TOTAL, THESE 91 COMPANIES $106,468 $-6,285.0 -5.9%


https://itep.org/corporate-tax-avoidance-in-the-first-year-of-the-trump-tax-law/



We need an EXTRA $1.9 TRILLION in revenue each year to pay for medicare for all. Taxing $106 billion in profit isn't even going to put a small dent in that number.
Anonymous
Not to mention if these companies are taxed to death then they will immediately reduce payroll and lay people off. It starts a downward spiral.
Anonymous
It's not the only source of revenue. Just the start.

How much did you and your employer pay for your family in premiums last year?

And there is a balance somewhere between "taxed to death" and ZERO.

Anonymous
Another triumph for Trump and his negotiating team as the first phase of the trade agreement is about to be signed.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:It's not the only source of revenue. Just the start.

How much did you and your employer pay for your family in premiums last year?

And there is a balance somewhere between "taxed to death" and ZERO.



Where else is the money going to come from? We already have a nearly $1.0 trillion deficit because we spend too much money. Added to the $1.9 trillion extra we would need to fund medicare for all, we would need an extra $2.9 trillion in additional revenue each year just to balance the budget. Thus, we would need an 85% increase in revenues.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:It's not the only source of revenue. Just the start.

How much did you and your employer pay for your family in premiums last year?

And there is a balance somewhere between "taxed to death" and ZERO.



So, because the employer pays, it costs nothing? So little logic in this thread.

The employer passes on those costs to employees and the consumer. If the employer did not have those costs, it would go to something else.

The American public already pays for healthcare. I would rather pay the government than line the pockets of an insurance executive with tens of millions of dollars. Those are the only people who would really be hurt by Medicare for all.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
It's not the only source of revenue. Just the start.

How much did you and your employer pay for your family in premiums last year?

And there is a balance somewhere between "taxed to death" and ZERO.



Where else is the money going to come from? We already have a nearly $1.0 trillion deficit because we spend too much money. Added to the $1.9 trillion extra we would need to fund medicare for all, we would need an extra $2.9 trillion in additional revenue each year just to balance the budget. Thus, we would need an 85% increase in revenues.


All of these employers are paying a lot for private insurance for their employees already. If that is taken away and then they basically pay those premiums to the government as taxes, I would bet it's actually a pretty good deal for them. I doubt anyone is going to get laid off because of this. And that's not even mentioning the portion that the employee pays (which is a fair amount these days). That health care is getting paid somehow right now and it's very expensive. These ideas are more like cost shifting instead of new higher amounts. Remember how it used to be with people using emergency rooms as their health care? That was what we were trying to solve with Obamacare. It was unsustainable.

As far as balancing the budget, the current government does not seem to care about that. I'm going with keeping people healthy so that we have a healthy workforce.
Forum Index » Political Discussion
Go to: