Yes, Tax the Rich » Forum Post by stevendedalus

The few corporations who actually pay 35% are low and they have huge write offs and shelters to minimize the effect of 35%. Apparently you never heard of churning--the process of brazenly selling and buying not for the client but to amass extradordinay fees. How do you account for multibillions in bonuses for traders and brokers? Get a life.

It's no problem for the companies large or small to pay their 35% tax. Apparently you never heard of passing it on to the consumer. There's your middle class tax break fruit cake. No big conspiracy, it's pretty simple, higher costs = more expensive product. Get a brain.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Nitro Cruiser,

reply 1

The few corporations who actually pay 35% are low and they have huge write offs and shelters to minimize the effect of 35%. Apparently you never heard of churning--the process of brazenly selling and buying not for the client but to amass extradordinay fees. How do you account for multibillions in bonuses for traders and brokers? Get a life.
It's no problem for the companies large or small to pay their 35% tax. Apparently you never heard of passing it on to the consumer. There's your middle class tax break fruit cake. No big conspiracy, it's pretty simple, higher costs = more expensive product. Get a brain.

wow I never though of that right off usually I do. I tell the old lady that when she says something about the gas companies or whatever.... I told her that they are going to make the money either way. stuff just gets handed down to the person buying said stuff and overall it just hurts the middle to low income people. ITS AWESOME@

Successfully updated karma reason!

It's no problem for the companies large or small to pay their 35% tax. Apparently you never heard of passing it on to the consumer. There's your middle class tax break fruit cake. No big conspiracy, it's pretty simple, higher costs = more expensive product. Get a brain.

It's not that simplistic, peabrain: corporations still have to consider their market competitors before bluntly passing on the tax cost to the consumer; furthermore, it becomes a vicious circle by passing it on it comes back to haunt them the next year as they will have even more profit to tax. Maybe under the xmas tree you'll find a book on economics.

Successfully updated karma reason!

wow I never though of that right off usually I do. I tell the old lady that when she says something about the gas companies or whatever.... I told her that they are going to make the money either way. stuff just gets handed down to the person buying said stuff and overall it just hurts the middle to low income people.

You're as laughable as Nitro.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+137

Not so. Small businesses may have over 250k of revenue but that is not the same as taxable income. Most use Scedule C and make all kinds of write offs and are lucky if they come close to 100k. As for the example of investing back into the company there is no tax issue as long as its proven.

We're not talking about what small businesses make. We're talking about what people who make $250k or more a year do: They own small businesses.

Most of the people (look it up) who have taxable income > $250k are people who have a small business attached either as an LLC or more commonly as an S-corporation.

Successfully updated karma reason!

We're not talking about what small businesses make.

Precisely what I said earlier.

Most of the people (look it up) who have taxable income > $250k are people who have a small business attached either as an LLC or more commonly as an S-corporation.

These have widespread write offs.

Successfully updated karma reason!

You're as laughable as Nitro

Or Richard pining for FDR's return.

Successfully updated karma reason!

corporations still have to consider their market competitors before bluntly passing on the tax cost to the consumer

That maybe somewhat true if you consider state and local taxes, But the federal tax rate is not variable. You pay your percentage after you reach a certain dollar amount. Two companies of approximately the same size making similar products would share the same federal tax bracket. You can figure in what ever you like to skew the bottom line. If you care to give an example of any corp, that doesn't pass on it taxes along with other costs (Santa at the North Pole, doesn't count), I'll change my opinion that you could be an Alzheimer's patient out of touch with reality.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting stevendedalus,

reply 4

wow I never though of that right off usually I do. I tell the old lady that when she says something about the gas companies or whatever.... I told her that they are going to make the money either way. stuff just gets handed down to the person buying said stuff and overall it just hurts the middle to low income people.You're as laughable as Nitro.

What the higher taxes will be passed on to the consumer. TO think otherwise its just silly. You think companies just soak up cost? didnt you notcie a raise in the food cost recently due to the higher fuel charges? this is just one example of companies making money and passing on the cost to the consumer.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Alzheimer's patient out of touch with reality.

Ouch. COLA has many other factors--state & school taxes, floating bonds, community operating costs, so you think because of a direct publicized levy on a business it's all attributed to mean old federal tax.

Or Richard pining for FDR's return.

Yea, right on!

Successfully updated karma reason!

didnt you notcie a raise in the food cost recently due to the higher fuel charges?

Yes, and also the cost of producing ethanol had something to with food prices, but are they now coming down as rapidly with oil at $50? Nevertheless, you have used an extreme case; otherwise, it is difficult to pinpoint the cost of living index.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Daiwa

Join Date 07/2001

+351

No matter how much you think companies are willing to 'eat' taxes to be 'competitive', it doesn't matter if they are willing to or not - taxes are a cost of doing business that we pay for one way or another, either as purchasers or as investors. Since investors will hardly be happy about a company that only breaks even, we purchasers are going to end up footing at least some of the bill. Not to mention that we are severely hamstrung to begin with in terms of global competitiveness and have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world already. I don't see how increasing corporate taxes is going to help the guys working for those corporations.

And as for concrete examples of corporations 'bluntly passing on the tax cost' just take a glance at your phone or cable bill. Sure, those are 'taxes' that the companies are forced to itemize & collect on behalf of the government (private companies yet again forced to do the gov's dirty work at their own expense, the cost of which also gets factored into the price of goods or services), but if you think companies that aren't required to itemize them aren't factoring them into the cost indirectly, you're simply naive.

Successfully updated karma reason!

taxes are a cost of doing business that we pay for one way or another, either as purchasers or as investors. Since investors will hardly be happy about a company that only breaks even, we purchasers are going to end up footing at least some of the bill

Depends on the type of tax - the one that would produce the result you're referring to isn't the one being proposed. That is, to be a true cost you'd need the tax to actually work like an expense, by say being a tax on each unit produced. However these taxes are on profits, so if a company is making profits before the tax, it will still make them after. Similarly if they're breaking even before, they'll be breaking even after. You won't have taxes causing a profitable company to break even (that is, a company making taxable profits, as opposed to accounting profits, since there are some differences between the two, although it's typically only slight)

Successfully updated karma reason!

And as for concrete examples of corporations 'bluntly passing on the tax cost' just take a glance at your phone or cable bill.

Good point Daiwa. My Internet provider (Cox Cable) just raised my bill 5% (not sure if they also raised cable TV and cable phone as I don't have them). So what is the reasoning behind it? Wage increases, hardly, gas, not since it's cheaper now than 2005 prices, materials, possibly or are they just padding themselves against possible future tax increases (and worker health benefits), most likely. The area I live in is still growing (despite the economy) so is the customer base. As you pointed out, they have to keep the shareholders happy and will not let taxes as well as other costs eat into that.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+137

These have widespread write offs.

First, such as what? (with regards to small business write-offs)

Second, how is it relevant? If you tax them more, they're still going to pay more so the argument remains the same.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+137

No matter how much you think companies are willing to 'eat' taxes to be 'competitive', it doesn't matter if they are willing to or not - taxes are a cost of doing business that we pay for one way or another, either as purchasers or as investors. Since investors will hardly be happy about a company that only breaks even, we purchasers are going to end up footing at least some of the bill. Not to mention that we are severely hamstrung to begin with in terms of global competitiveness and have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world already. I don't see how increasing corporate taxes is going to help the guys working for those corporations.

Well said.

Moreover, companies have a lot of areas that can be cut. I'm sure someone flying an airliner 30 years ago would have laughed at the idea that airliners would one day eliminate inflight meals, free movies and add extra rows to make flying incredibly uncomfortable. They probably would have said that it would make that airliner uncompetitive.

Every company has significant numbers of employees that they can reduce without it affecting the product they're selling.

Now, in Stardock's case, we're profitable so raising our taxes would likely reduce the # of people we hire and probably force us to trim on some employee goodies we have (smaller bonuses).

Even now, the existing tax burden combined with the economic downturn may force us to delay building out one of the floors we own in our building. That, in turn, will mean construction contractors not getting jobs.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Every company has significant numbers of employees that they can reduce without it affecting the product they're selling.

Sounds like unionized featherbedding. In fact in the days of heavier taxation, businesses did hire more and paid them better; and theough profits were not as high the company soared in goodwill. Now, especially in large corporations, CEOs inflate their salariesbut screw the stockholders.

If you tax them more, they're still going to pay more so the argument remains the same.

Ans the write offs get bigger. Write offs are essential to business that are not available to the average taxpayer. I have no argumetn with that because a business should pay taxes only on net profits. In some cases the owner of a business writes off his salary and at the same time arbitrarily determines the value based on the tax code and shelters available. Furthermore, there are hundreds of items generously attributed to operating costs that can limit net taxable profits.

Successfully updated karma reason!