Psaki Doesn't Get How the World Works

[SamSpade]

Psaki: It’s ‘Unfair And Absurd’ That Companies Would Raise Costs For Consumers Due To Higher Taxes | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

REPORTER: I want to ask you about what Republicans are pointing to in the analysis from the Joint Committee on Taxation. They say, according to — if I’ve read the chart correctly, more than 16 percent of taxpayers would see their taxes increase under the bill that’s approved by the House Ways and Means Committee. Will the President sign that bill if — as if — it is coming out of that committee? Or will he insist on the changes so that he will maintain his commitment that taxes won’t go up on people making $400,000 a year?

JEN PSAKI, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I have not looked at the document or the report that you have put out. Obviously, the President — or that you have referenced, I should say — that the Republicans put out.

Obviously, the President’s commitment remains not raising taxes for anyone making less than $400,000 a year. There are some — and I’m not sure if this is the case in this report — who argue that, in the past, companies have passed on these costs to consumers. I’m not sure if that’s the argument being made in this report. We feel that that’s unfair and absurd, and the American people would not stand for that.

But I will take a closer look at this report and get you a more substantive response.



WTAF? I thought everyone on the planet understood this well enough that it never needs explaining. If you raise taxes on corporations, the costs have to COME FROM SOMEWHERE. Generally, higher coporate tax burdens are carried by consumers. The rest comes from somewhere - lower wages, shareholders - someone has to pay it.

She's been around DC too long to NOT be lying through her teeth.

 

[GURPS]

 

[SamSpade]

I was just reading comments on this and other sites - there are people who seriously don't think that raising corporate taxes has any effect on the consumer at all.

What's their reason? LOWERING corporate taxes did not do the opposite - it did not raise wages or lower prices.

Again, morons who do not understand economics. If your costs go up - you minimize expenses or expand revenue. Lower wages, or raise prices. Or stick it to owners and shareholders. And that's about it. But what if the taxes - go down? Why don't prices go down?

Because there's several things that pressure prices to go up and down. The most common and obvious one is supply and demand. Demand up, prices up. Demand down, prices down. So what happens when the demand doesn't change, but taxes go down? NOTHING, to the price. Why should it? It's business, not charity. You don't "owe" the consumer the benefits of your windfall - but you might if your competitors decide to do that.

No, I should think it would be obvious to anyone that corporate tax increases are spread to the consumer.

 

[vraiblonde]

Psaki is such a blatant and prolific liar that I want to punch her snarky face every time she comes on TV.

But she only says that crap because idiot progbots don't know any better and she can get away with it. It's not like the MSM is going to scoff at her or even press her on her absurd statements.

 

[Kyle]

Psaki is such a blatant and prolific liar that I want to punch her snarky face every time she comes on TV.

But she only says that crap because idiot progbots don't know any better and she can get away with it. It's not like the MSM is going to scoff at her or even press her on her absurd statements.

They'll do everything they can to repeat and uphold them.

 

[RoseRed]

Psaki is such a blatant and prolific liar that I want to punch her snarky face every time she comes on TV.

But she only says that crap because idiot progbots don't know any better and she can get away with it. It's not like the MSM is going to scoff at her or even press her on her absurd statements.

She's up there with Pilosi and Hillary. Psakishit.

 

[Kyle]

She's up there with Pilosi and Hillary. Psakishit.

I've been using "BullPsaki" for most of her ####.

 

[RoseRed]

I've been using "BullPsaki" for most of her ####.

I like that one, too.

 

[vraiblonde]

What's their reason? LOWERING corporate taxes did not do the opposite - it did not raise wages or lower prices.

I saw some bot put that out there the other day on one of my friends' FB pages. I had an almost uncontrollable urge to verbally abuse that person, but I have a strict policy not to engage with the dumbasses on other people's pages. To me it's like going to someone's home and laying into one of their other guests - it's rude and uncalled for, and you should simply leave. Even if one of their friends lays into me over something, I simply state my policy and then block them.

It's amazing to me that people can be so obtuse. "Well, when taxes were lowered the megalomaniac billionaires didn't lower prices or pay employees more! So that means if their taxes are raised they won't raise prices or cut staff!"

ARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!

 

[RoseRed]

 

[SamSpade]

It's amazing to me that people can be so obtuse. "Well, when taxes were lowered the megalomaniac billionaires didn't lower prices or pay employees more! So that means if their taxes are raised they won't raise prices or cut staff!"

You have to admit - IF you don't think very hard about it, it almost makes sense.
Unless you own a business. Then it doesn't.

Payroll and taxes are a cost. Sales are income.
If your costs go up, you raise income.
So if you force businesses to pay more wages and tax the crap out of them, they
really have limited options - sell off parts of the business (lost jobs), reduce wages, raise prices
and so on.

I don't see why it's so hard to understand. I mean, if every business were a non-profit, or all businesses
were government entities that NEVER have to worry about competition, strikes, taxation or where their revenue is
coming from, it might makes sense.

No, not even that. It's just parroting someone else's words.

 

[vraiblonde]

You have to admit - IF you don't think very hard about it, it almost makes sense.
Unless you own a business. Then it doesn't.

Payroll and taxes are a cost. Sales are income.
If your costs go up, you raise income.
So if you force businesses to pay more wages and tax the crap out of them, they
really have limited options - sell off parts of the business (lost jobs), reduce wages, raise prices
and so on.

I don't see why it's so hard to understand. I mean, if every business were a non-profit, or all businesses
were government entities that NEVER have to worry about competition, strikes, taxation or where their revenue is
coming from, it might makes sense.

No, not even that. It's just parroting someone else's words.

Alternately these mega m/billionaires could scale back their own wealth and disperse it to employees, but they're not going to do that. These are the same people, BTW, who rail in public about how the rich don't "pay their fair share" and equity and blah blah blah, while they're hiding their money from Uncle Sam in foundations, foreign accounts, and other schemes.

Some celebrity who whines about the plight of the poor while wearing $10,000 shoes and sporting a $500 manicure.....yeah, piss off.

This stuff is right in front of our faces, and yet some folks flat refuse to see it.

 

[Kyle]

Alternately these mega m/billionaires could scale back their own wealth and disperse it to employees, but they're not going to do that. These are the same people, BTW, who rail in public about how the rich don't "pay their fair share" and equity and blah blah blah, while they're hiding their money from Uncle Sam in foundations, foreign accounts, and other schemes.

Some celebrity who whines about the plight of the poor while wearing $10,000 shoes and sporting a $500 manicure.....yeah, piss off.

This stuff is right in front of our faces, and yet some folks flat refuse to see it.

Not to mention gaming the system with a range of tax credits that are nothing more than bs to help their leftist friends.

Organic Farming Credits
Renewable Energy Credits
Alternative Fuel Tax Credits
Recycling Tax Credits
Electric Car Tax Credits
Work Opportunity Tax Credit

 

[SamSpade]

Not to mention gaming the system with a range of tax credits that are nothing more than bs to help their leftist friends.

Organic Farming Credits
Renewable Energy Credits
Alternative Fuel Tax Credits
Recycling Tax Credits
Electric Car Tax Credits
Work Opportunity Tax Credit

You ought to read up on what "Tree Equity" is. I can't believe we pay these guys. It's like they invent ways to waste money.

 

[Kyle]

You ought to read up on what "Tree Equity" is. I can't believe we pay these guys. It's like they invent ways to waste money.

Just skimmed over it and am now wondering what crackhead in congress thought this #### up.

 

[SamSpade]

Alternately these mega m/billionaires could scale back their own wealth and disperse it to employees, but they're not going to do that. These are the same people, BTW, who rail in public about how the rich don't "pay their fair share" and equity and blah blah blah, while they're hiding their money from Uncle Sam in foundations, foreign accounts, and other schemes.

Some celebrity who whines about the plight of the poor while wearing $10,000 shoes and sporting a $500 manicure.....yeah, piss off.

This stuff is right in front of our faces, and yet some folks flat refuse to see it.

Let's see if we can find that video where Will Smith is learning about the 75% tax rate the rich pay in France.

This one is hard to follow but -



He's fine with paying 25-30% - but 75? In the words of "J" - HELL no. Damn.

What I don't get is how he was surprised by this. How do you get on national TV in France, comment on taxes and have NO IDEA what the rich pay there?

No, they don't get it. Remember Nancy, and her expensive freezer with nothing in it but designer ice cream?
All these rich celebs encouraging people during the pandemic to just chillax at home - not at all aware that half their fans have homes the size of their bathroom, and NO back yard at all?

 

[SamSpade]

Just skimmed over it and am now wondering what crackhead in congress thought this #### up.

Granted, in terms of the whole budget request, it's a pittance - but - it's still 3 BILLION dollars.
That could employ about 40-50 thousand Americans for a year.

 

[Kyle]

Granted, in terms of the whole budget request, it's a pittance - but - it's still 3 BILLION dollars.
That could employ about 40-50 thousand Americans for a year.

Yep. And their dismissive attitude, when confronted, is "it's not that much," is frustrating.

All those pittances add up to an abundance.

 

[vraiblonde]

Yep. And their dismissive attitude, when confronted, is "it's not that much," is frustrating.

This right here ^^^

Add all that frivolous spending up and what do you get? A HUGE number. But most people can't wrap their mind around $3.5T. It's not even real money to them. That's why I like that meme that takes off some zeros and breaks it down into more relatable numbers. And even still the durhards go, "Nuh uh! That's not how it works!"

 

[Hijinx]

I will say this one more time.

The politicians are rich and they aren't going to tax themselves.
There will be loopholes you could drive a camel-toe through.