I worked for a non-profit hospital. As far as I could tell, the only difference between a non profit & a corporation is that the profit is given back to the employees in non profit companies.
After my father retired from practicing law, he ran one- well, he's actually still there but his cancer bout has taken a really bad turn for the worse lately and he's homebound- but the one he ran has hundreds of thousands in CD's, after salaries for employees/board members are paid. They profit from tax dollars generated from federal programs- jus relating it to thread.
I work for a "for-profit" specialty hospital that is attached to a massive "non-profit" one. The non-profit uses a variety of techniques to make profit. For one, it owns a medical construction company. When expansions or work needs to be done, guess who gets the contract? Also, it outsources things like the IS and billing dept to the for-profit hospitals. Legal money laundering: gotta love it.
This would theoretically be true, but I don't think it would be substantial in reality. Companies already know what the market is willing to bear, so only industries with intense competition would have an incentive to cut prices. Plus, while the business' income taxes have been cut, their paying more for goods they buy because of the new sales tax.
To expand on this, there's a further benefit to the rich as well. Rich people can afford to invest, while poor (not necessarily poverty, just not well off) people often can't. By not taxing that income, the government is taking even more of the burden off of the rich.
Mostly, billionaires just invest their money and get richer and more influential. They don't spend retail dollars in direct proportion to their wealth, not by any means. So they don't pay sales taxes in the same proportion either. Mostly they just invest to generate vast amounts of new income, which they would just love to free from taxation. Another large part of their wealth goes into to political, social, and philanthropical donations (tax-free) which gain them great influence to sustain their lives of privilege. Trickle-down economics has never worked as advertised. I repeat, the super-wealthy spend a small percentage of their income on sales-taxable purchases.
Not true. The wealthy like to buy the nicities of life just like everyone. Your ideas seem a bit stereotypical. And if I'm right, Reagan never referred to supply-side economics as "trickle-down" theory. I believe his adversaries coined that term. But Reagan did feel, and rightfully so, that a strong economy benefits everyone, and that the way to encourage a strong economy was to promote consumer spending rather than government spending.
