this is an argument about its merit and effects, not whether it belongs in a tax+jobs reform bill, which is apparently the complaint here.

the insurance industry is already a shitshow. thanks obama (and nixon, and everyone else responsible)
I agree the clause is problematic, but 'literally destroy' is hyperbole, no? they expect a slight premium increase with sicker pools.
the younger healthier people weren't being forced to buy insurance as effectively as they hoped anyways

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Dec 2 2017 08:00am

Do you think i take a democratic position? ;p I take an anti corporate controlled goverent position. Republicans are at the front of it.

what do you think is wrong with lowering taxes?
how much should the rich and corporations be taxed in your view?
what if it makes us less competitive and less productive?
do you recognize that high taxes have negative effects on the masses too and not just rich people?

specifically what do you think crushes the poor and punishes women here?

i wish someone was spitting on democracy the god that failed, but i dont see that here either. they were democratically elected and voted to pass this.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Dec 2 2017 08:19am

Mega corporations should be taxed at 65 percent. If you are one of those trickle down economic followers then understand it really means pissing on those less wealthy than them. Aside from this productivity has increased by US working force over the years yet our incomes have stagnated whilst facing mass inflation caused in great part by corporations rigging our government by bribe handouts to elected officials.

This would be actually terrible for the poor and the country in general.
do you want to drive away businesses?
do you know taxes are passed off onto consumers and employees?





I havent quite figured out how to effectively get through to people new to politics who throw around lefty buzzwords and eat the rich nonsense like this instead of understanding the issues.
if anyone has any solutions please lmk.


smearing people as a trickle down economics followers doesnt actually refute the broad negative effects of high taxation.
democrats are largely responsible for stagnating wages and inflation, not low taxes or just republicans.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Dec 2 2017 08:57am

why stop there?

Rich individuals in top 1% of income bracket past a threshold (eg $200k) - 35%
Big businesses - 17.5%
SME's - 0-12% depending on revenue & PBIT

Would you mind explaining why a 65% tax would be undesirable?

Because I don't believe that the government should be able to take half of anyone's income regardless of how rich they are.

Pre-emptively responding to what I think you might touch on next - I'm not arbitrarily coming up with a tax rate, my belief is that it should be primarily based on factors like potential tax revenue vs inefficiencies caused by disrupting incentives to work, reinvestment of profits and so on. I would take information on the aforementioned factors and try to create a tax policy that is efficient but also fair, which then goes into the subjectivity that we'll disagree on. A 65% tax rate isn't efficient (objectively true in most cases) and I don't believe it's fair (my subjective opinion).

This post was edited by dro94 on Dec 2 2017 09:23am