One thing I remember hearing about, was like the argument for homeless people and 16-18 year-olds who buy stuff. They're not getting prebate checks, so stuff just costs more for them. But, I think the point made was what you were saying - if the cost of that loaf of bread is now $2.00, and the national sales tax is 25%, then it's $0.50 more and that's a big increase. The point was that the $2.00 already embeds the corporate taxes and fees, so it would come down to $1.60, taxed at 25%, and it's still $2.00. So, it's a wash. My skepticism about it was always would the corporations / manufacturers take advantage of that and the price comes down to only $1.80, and they keep the profit? I don't know.
We just implemented a select luxury tax in 2022. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/s-8.35/ Expensive cars and boat sales have dropped significantly as a result, but gotta pay for a pandemic somehow I guess.
Nothing you do to help poor people changes the fact that consumption taxes are not progressive and do nothing to help curb the mindless accumulation of billions of dollars. Progressive taxes are how you live in a society. This is just... factually incorrect. Honestly, it's so incorrect that it's almost impossible to try and address in a meaningful way. From the 1930s until 1982, the top marginal income tax rate in the US never dipped below 70%. People were not being taxed out of existence. Goods were still sold at reasonable prices. Taxes on profits and income are not proportionally rolled into the cost of every last good. Markets don't operate that way because customer demand is elastic and responds to changes in price. Additionally, business owners don't simply exit the market en masse the second taxes impact profits; obviously you don't want to tax profit out of existence because there's no incentive to operate a business, but there is a balance to be struck. I think this is generally a good thing, but it's basically a drop in the bucket.
Probably not a coincidence that the nicest yacht I ever worked on was owned by a lobbyist's stay-at-home-husband. A brand new Tartan 4300. Beautiful boat.
Working in commission sales taught me one thing: churches are tax exempt, and every fucking member has access to that form.
In other (News) news: The billionaire owner of the LA Times overruled the editorial board and forced them not to endorse a candidate for President. The billionaire owner of the Washington Post overruled the editorial board and forced them not to endorse a candidate for President. This is starting to become a pattern.
You think the billionaire owner overruling the actual journalists in order to avoid offending a future officeholder that will hold sway over their other financial interests is journalistic integrity?
Especially the ones that get involved in politics. By law they are supposed to lose tax exempt status if they pull that bullshit.
I really don't understand how you can say taxes from corporations and owner's aren't tied to the sale of products and services to consumers. There'd be no money to be taxed if it weren't for revenue minus operating expenses. If you think people are setting prices without a single thought of tax implications... have you ever worked for yourself or owned a business?
Absolutely. They should be there to investigate and report in an unbiased manner, but not endorse. Mainstream media has become bought and paid for propaganda machines with an agenda, full stop.
The fact this is a thing speaks volumes, and is one of the big problems with politics right now... the perpetual echo chamber and blind spot in reporting:
That is absolutely not what I said. You said, "every consumer pays every last tax dollar anyway." This is simply not true. If you raise taxes for a corporation's profits by $1, it absolutely does not directly result in the price of the goods going up by $1. Of course taxes have an impact on pricing. But pretending that we can't tax wealthy companies and owners more because consumers are simply paying those costs anyway is nonsense.
But that's not what an editorial board is. That's why the division between hard news and editorial exists. Editorial pages have always expressed opinions; that's their entire purpose. What I'm pointing out is exactly this. The owner, the man who literally bought and paid for the paper, is overruling the journalists the paper employs, in order to push his agenda.
I mean, of the stories being "ignored" by the left, only the British defence (god it feels gross to spell it like that) assessment is a real story, and even that one is specifically about the UK, so I don't think American politics really applies. The other three are two complaining about things Clinton/Kimmel said, and one is Missouri's notoriously full-of-shit AG trying to gin up a story about nothing in conservative media.