4 ms·
The most likely outcome of this is that exports are sold at the price they are at now, not cheaper. The workers are paid the same as they are now, (which is th
by jethro_tell 11y ago
The most likely outcome of this is that exports are sold at the price they are at now, not cheaper. The workers are paid the same as they are now, (which is the market rate). And the difference in what's normal and cost savings from TTIP will go to company bottom line. And the top officers at the company will collect a performance bonus.
The unlikely scenario is that the price comes down and more units are sold and/or the difference in export costs is divided between the workers to pay them above market rate.
- vasilipupkin 11y agoAnd the company and the executives pay taxes from the bottom line Thus, according to your own logic, the state, which pays social security and benefits is better off and is more fiscally sound
- jethro_tell 11y agoI don't think the goal is getting more money into the coffers of the state. But, if that's a big win for you I guess it makes sense.
- vasilipupkin 11y agoWell, in Germany people get pensions and benefits from the state. So, if your goal is to not have to reduce those, then yes, getting money into the coffers of the state is partially the goal
- jethro_tell 11y agoSure, so the company can pay pennies on the dollar for pensions for employees after a life time of service. What a great deal? What actually ends up happening is the people who carry the tax burden ( workers ) end up paying their own pensions. Which is fine, as long as we aren't pretending that the pensions is a benefit of working.
- maxxxxx 11y agoHow about paying better salaries so the state doesn't have to do that much? Seems the companies want to have it both ways. Not pay much and have the state provide assistance for underpaid workers (see Walmart) and then complain about taxes too high.
- jethro_tell 11y ago>taxes too high. At 3%, while the majority of earnings goes to the company, the workers carry the tax bill @18%
- maxxxxx 11y agoWell that's the typical discussion at least in the US. "Look how much taxes the top 1% pay over those low income slackers."
- jethro_tell 11y agoI don't really know what you mean to say here, but generally, 'low income slackers' pay 18% -24% on their income and the rich pay significantly less then that as a percentage of income. Are you implying this is not the case?
- vasilipupkin 11y agohttp://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/13/high-income-americans-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/13/high-income-...
- raftaa 11y ago"And the company and the executives pay taxes from the bottom line" ... this is sarcastic isn't it? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg_Leaks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg_Leaks] [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-05-22/google-joins-apple-avoiding-taxes-with-stateless-income http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-05-22/google-joi...]
- vasilipupkin 11y agoSo by your logic, since some companies and individuals evade some taxes, it follows that no companies and no individuals pay taxes?