If that is the case, why are so many companies making *more* expensive products to lure customers.... organic locally sourced handmade etc etc etc $4.95/lb instead of $1.99/lb for the regular stuff.
For the customers that want to buy at $4.95/lb. There nothing wrong with both, and having the options is good. Take Cadillac and Honda for example. Cadillac makes a dollar a day by selling one car. Honda makes a dollar a day by selling four cars.
The point is that Romney is demonstrating an understanding of how average people live their lives by promising to reduce taxes for middle income America.
The way I understand this is along the lines of what Bon Vivant said...keep commodity prices low and offer an incentive for business and employees to be more competitive with overseas markets.
The reason you understand it that way is that you don't understand it at all. Commodities prices are not determined by income tax levels. If they were(for example), prices would have gone down across the board when the last round of tax cuts hit. That didn't happen.
As to your farmer analogy, why would the farmer lower prices on his crop when people will still pay the same price? Because he's a nice farmer? I don't think so. He, like most people, would keep the extra money.
Because if he doesn't then the farmer down right up the alley will.
China does that all the time..."low balling."
What does China have to do with the amount of taxes a farmer in America pays? Besides, with the massive amount of federal subsidies already afforded the farmer, China can't low ball him. Buy any Chinese bananas or oranges lately?
The reason you understand it that way is that you don't understand it at all. Commodities prices are not determined by income tax levels. If they were(for example), prices would have gone down across the board when the last round of tax cuts hit. That didn't happen.
I am not saying that commodities prices are determined by income tax.
I am struggling here with my point. Regardless, I am trying to connect one thing to another because everything is connected (any chemist will agree). Tax reductions do result in spending increases. How much? It is hard to measure. Is the money spent at average people's businesses? Sometimes.
I am struggling here with my point. Regardless, I am trying to connect one thing to another because everything is connected (any chemist will agree). Tax reductions do result in spending increases. How much? It is hard to measure. Is the money spent at average people's businesses? Sometimes.
The point is that Romney is demonstrating an understanding of how average people live their lives by promising to reduce taxes for middle income America.
The way I understand this is along the lines of what Bon Vivant said...keep commodity prices low and offer an incentive for business and employees to be more competitive with overseas markets.
That isn't what I said, though. I expressly said lowering income tax rates has not, and likely will not, incentivize job creation.
I am not saying that commodities prices are determined by income tax.
I am struggling here with my point. Regardless, I am trying to connect one thing to another because everything is connected (any chemist will agree). Tax reductions do result in spending increases. How much? It is hard to measure. Is the money spent at average people's businesses? Sometimes.
Fair enough, but re-read your earlier posts... you may not have said it outright, but you certainly implied it, intentional or not.
I think I get your intent, but if you really want to make said connection, you might try researching documented examples of the supposed phenomena you describe, and using them in a way that illustrates your point. Vague conjecture won't do that very well.
99% of all votes cast for Romney will just be "hes not Obama" votes . The other 1% will be from all the obscenely rich people who know that their taxes will go down with him in office. No one can claim they are voting for Romney because they like his policies and plans (besides the obscenely rich) because no one knows what they are because he refuses to tell us what they are. If he tell us, he risks a good hunk of that aforementioned 99% because his plans would hurt them/us.
99% of all votes cast for Romney will just be "hes not Obama" votes . The other 1% will be from all the obscenely rich people who know that their taxes will go down with him in office. No one can claim they are voting for Romney because they like his policies and plans (besides the obscenely rich) because no one knows what they are because he refuses to tell us what they are. If he tell us, he risks a good hunk of that aforementioned 99% because his plans would hurt them/us.
I do know what my opinion will be of the 45-55% of voters who cast theirs in his direction, and can confidently project that opinion onto *most* of the ROTW's interested onlookers.
Only the more insular merimen and meriwomen will remain sanguine about that.
No longer content simply putting his foot in his mouth or shooting himself in the foot, today Mitt Romney was heard repeatedly shooting the foot in his mouth. That's not likely to work out too well for him.
Comments
For the customers that want to buy at $4.95/lb. There nothing wrong with both, and having the options is good. Take Cadillac and Honda for example. Cadillac makes a dollar a day by selling one car. Honda makes a dollar a day by selling four cars.
The way I understand this is along the lines of what Bon Vivant said...keep commodity prices low and offer an incentive for business and employees to be more competitive with overseas markets.
can you explain how Romney will accomplish this? Because he sure can't.
Also, please introduce yourself to the site before trolling political threads.
okthxbai
What does China have to do with the amount of taxes a farmer in America pays? Besides, with the massive amount of federal subsidies already afforded the farmer, China can't low ball him. Buy any Chinese bananas or oranges lately?
Can I have a minute?
I am not saying that commodities prices are determined by income tax.
I am struggling here with my point. Regardless, I am trying to connect one thing to another because everything is connected (any chemist will agree). Tax reductions do result in spending increases. How much? It is hard to measure. Is the money spent at average people's businesses? Sometimes.
Welcome to the board, Mitt.
That isn't what I said, though. I expressly said lowering income tax rates has not, and likely will not, incentivize job creation.
You're getting lowballed.
Fair enough, but re-read your earlier posts... you may not have said it outright, but you certainly implied it, intentional or not.
I think I get your intent, but if you really want to make said connection, you might try researching documented examples of the supposed phenomena you describe, and using them in a way that illustrates your point. Vague conjecture won't do that very well.
Awesome.
Where's the credibility?
Freedom
::Johnny Carson::
And anyone voting Mitt deserved everything they get.
Take that whichever way you want.
What a liver do.
Only the more insular merimen and meriwomen will remain sanguine about that.
Archipelagos will too.
Thought of moving over there?
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser
Whoops... looks like Romney just lost the election!