To me the question is, why isn’t there a viable 3rd party? And the fact there isn’t means R voters are held hostage by Trump and D’s are held hostage by radical elements in that party. Like I said, whether they like it or not. And also whether they accept it or not.
You would have to put together a party platform that would win the electoral votes of both California and Texas. What would that platform possibly look like? Not a platform that would just win some votes but actually win the state.
That’s why there hasn’t been a viable third party. Instead we’re left with third party candidates who are only in it to try and pull votes from one of the candidates. The other reason is money. Big donors are not going to spend money on people with no chance of winning. That’s not the winning way to buy influence.
You mean the same politics that don’t even provide for the price negotiation benefits until 2026, and even then it’s only for 10 drugs? But by golly you can rest assured they’ll start the corporate taxing much sooner.
Okay, that entire article was about tax cuts for corporations. I guess the assumption is you take everything in that article in reverse and that's how it works for tax increases. The whole thing seemed to be focused on the immediate impact of a change in taxes, not really long term.
Most businesses run on a pretty thin margin and don't necessarily have coffers of money sitting around to pay tax increases. Even if they do, that is kind of a one time solution. Increased expense of any kind has to come from somewhere.
It could come from reduced pay to employees. I think when the debate starts around the rich paying their "fair share" people conflate it with corporations. You want to tax the rich more, fine, that's a different deal. Despite what the politicians want you to think a corporate tax increase is unlikely to come out of the pocket of the fat cat board of directors, CEO or Sr VPs. It doesn't mean the Sr VP's get one less trip to ski in Aspen on the company dime, or take a pay cut. It anything, it could come in the form of layoffs or reduced hiring to reduce payroll expense.
Or it could come from the shareholders, in the form of reduced dividends, as your article seems to digging around for. Even if this is true most shareholders are just regular people like me with my 401k, not some rich guys in NY yelling "Buy!" / "Sell!" from the phone in the back of a limo.
Or it could come from the consumer. I find this the most realistic and have seen the math first hand. If a company has greater expense, not just a one time expense, but each year for the foreseeable future, it always passes it down to the consumer. Always.
Tax those evil oil companies, watch the price of gas go up at the pump. Tax the massive conglomerate that makes tires, shoes, potato chips. Prepare for an increase in the price of tires, shoes and potato chips.
Maybe I'm missing something but where do you think increased expense of any kind, to a corporation, eventually comes from? It's got to come from somewhere.