You know, you're right. We should instead increase taxes on people who make less.

We should feel bad for the empolyers.

/Won't somebody please think of the empolyers?
//Wait, What?

Leave the empolyers alone!

It also affords them a shiatton of legal protections that aren't available to individuals who remain unincorporated. Price of doing business, hoss.

I wonder who suffers the most from this policy...

What politicians?

Let me also point out that the marginal rate tells you jack shiat without an analysis of effective tax rates, laws concerning retained earnings, deductions, dividends, etc. Comparing a top marginal rate of 35 percent to a top marginal rate of 30 percent in order to draw the conclusion this "study" draws is at best ignorant and at worst intentionally misleading.

I think it makes sense to shift the burden to executive salaries.

empolyers ???

what to they empoly?

kronicfeld: Comparing a top marginal rate of 35 percent to a top marginal rate of 30 percent in order to draw the conclusion this "study" draws is at best ignorant and at worst intentionally misleading.

Considering they have a specific tax agenda, I feel pretty comfortable in saying that the latter case is probably truer.

Just remember that every dollar a company "pays" in taxes comes from the consumer. If you increase the rate on corporations or change the accounting so the deductions are not there (thus increasing the effective rate) the company is either going to go out of business because they cannot make a profit or increase prices on their goods so they do make a profit. It is not like the money to pay the taxes appears in their accounts by magic.

that's a faulty argument, and the fault of it is very evident if you look at the effects of the bush tax cuts.

the reason we tax them so much, and it is indeed not enough, is because of what that money is funding. if you decrease those taxes, the money has to come from somewhere... be it government bonds, or increased tax pressure on the middle class.

if you want a conservative federal budget, the absolute first step is to deal with federal expenditures. cut useless programs, reorganize inefficient processes, use modern technology to streamline interfaces and processes... you could probably do a lot to cut expenditures without really cutting that many programs or services, simply by kicking the dust off and upgrading them out of the 80s.

of course, to do so will require capital investment. but it's capital investment that will pay for itself in spades.

this is, however, absolutely the first step. if you skip this step, if you don't address expenditures, and continue on to the next step of decreasing taxes, you are just setting us all up for failure.

and that is exactly the failure we are experiencing right now.

Super Empoly Grip?

Ah yes, the "Tax Foundation". Nice, unbiased group, they aren't. Next up, a study proving the awesomeness of waffles from the "Waffles Are Totally Awesome Foundation".

What a joke. The United States has, by far, the lowest taxes on both its people and its corporations of any Western nation.

That's the cost of doing business in the world's more powerful and safest economy.

Of course, most corporations end up paying no taxes at all...

Dear Politicains,
You can't tax corproations. It's a hidden tax on consumres.
Econoismts.

Being able to write-off massive political donations which ensure and perpetuate other massive write-offs is just our Governments way of saying "We're Sorry"

kronicfeld: Let me also point out that the marginal rate tells you jack shiat without an analysis of effective tax rates, laws concerning retained earnings, deductions, dividends, etc. Comparing a top marginal rate of 35 percent to a top marginal rate of 30 percent in order to draw the conclusion this "study" draws is at best ignorant and at worst intentionally misleading.

This

Other developed countries tax PEOPLE much more than the US.

bubbaprog: What a joke. The United States has, by far, the lowest taxes on both its people and its corporations of any Western nation.

Please show your work.

freedom isn't free

Once again, people complaining about taxes but yet don't understand funding the government costs money.

They want lower taxes, but yet they want an eternal war in Iraq. They want lower taxes, but they want to spend $700 billion annually on the military. They want lower taxes, but they want to spend hundreds of billions on nothing-but-feel-good homeland security. They want lower taxes, but they want to build a gigantic wall along our entire southern border.

oryx: Dear Politicains,
You can't tax corproations. It's a hidden tax on consumres.
Econoismts.

So if we lower the tax rate on corporations, they will lower their prices, right? Right?

nonpartisan tax research group

heh

bgrainger: Just remember that every dollar a company "pays" in taxes comes from the consumer.

People keep saying this, but it's not true. Companies charge what the market will bear. If a company was selling their product for $5 and we added a $1 tax, you're telling me they would just increase the price to $6? Why wouldn't they have been charging $6 already then?

It's true that additional taxation could make some business-models unprofitable and thus those businesses will go away. However, the only companies that can just 'pass' additional costs onto the consumer are for goods and services with inelastic demand. (like oil) Even then, it's ussually not a 1:1 ratio of cost increase to price increase.

I'm okay with taxing corporate profits & capital gains.

It's the Income Tax that I have a serious problem with.

The power to tax income is the power to enslave.

OneNutSaloon: oryx: Dear Politicains,
You can't tax corproations. It's a hidden tax on consumres.
Econoismts.

So if we lower the tax rate on corporations, they will lower their prices, right? Right?

If a competitor does, you bet.

oryx: Dear Politicains,
You can't tax corproations. It's a hidden tax on consumres.
Econoismts.

Again, this is only even partially true for inelastic products.

OneNutSaloon:
So if we lower the tax rate on corporations, they will lower their prices, right? Right?

No,
they will not. Neither will they hire more people, or invest in upgrades or new facilities.

Businesses do these things when doing them will earn them more money. The tax rate may reduce these activities by changing the return on investment, but taxes are not usually the primary factor. If the tax rate makes a signifigant difference in the ROI calculation, the investment is probably not worth making in the first place.

Seabon: People keep saying this, but it's not true. Companies charge what the market will bear. If a company was selling their product for $5 and we added a $1 tax, you're telling me they would just increase the price to $6? Why wouldn't they have been charging $6 already then?

I dunno, are we talking about cigarettes and gas?

bgrainger: Just remember that every dollar a company "pays" in taxes comes from the consumer. If you increase the rate on corporations or change the accounting so the deductions are not there (thus increasing the effective rate) the company is either going to go out of business because they cannot make a profit or increase prices on their goods so they do make a profit. It is not like the money to pay the taxes appears in their accounts by magic.

You forget, that when businesses raise prices, sometimes the customers stop buying the goods.

Demand is not inelastic contrary to the belief of the ill-informed and politicians.

Headso: Seabon: People keep saying this, but it's not true. Companies charge what the market will bear. If a company was selling their product for $5 and we added a $1 tax, you're telling me they would just increase the price to $6? Why wouldn't they have been charging $6 already then?

I dunno, are we talking about cigarettes and gas?

Even for inelastic products, the cost increase to price increase ratio is RARELY 1:1.

Seabon: bgrainger: Just remember that every dollar a company "pays" in taxes comes from the consumer.

People keep saying this, but it's not true. Companies charge what the market will bear. If a company was selling their product for $5 and we added a $1 tax, you're telling me they would just increase the price to $6? Why wouldn't they have been charging $6 already then?

It's true that additional taxation could make some business-models unprofitable and thus those businesses will go away. However, the only companies that can just 'pass' additional costs onto the consumer are for goods and services with inelastic demand. (like oil) Even then, it's ussually not a 1:1 ratio of cost increase to price increase.

I have only a base knowledge of economics from the course I'm currently taking (Macro), but this makes total sense to me.

atlanta_ufo: OneNutSaloon: oryx: Dear Politicains,
You can't tax corproations. It's a hidden tax on consumres.
Econoismts.

So if we lower the tax rate on corporations, they will lower their prices, right? Right?

If a competitor does, you bet.

The competitor won't do it either, not because of taxes.

How about the government spend less and stop waging endless pointless wars?

Naaaaah, that would be too easy and not profitable enough for those big companies that are being taxed oh so heavily.

wow, Ireland FTW? and they have healthcare and robust social security and a great public transportation system...

I knew drinking gallons of Jameson's could make you smart!

burndtdan: that's a faulty argument, and the fault of it is very evident if you look at the effects of the bush tax cuts.

the reason we tax them so much, and it is indeed not enough, is because of what that money is funding. if you decrease those taxes, the money has to come from somewhere... be it government bonds, or increased tax pressure on the middle class.

if you want a conservative federal budget, the absolute first step is to deal with federal expenditures. cut useless programs, reorganize inefficient processes, use modern technology to streamline interfaces and processes... you could probably do a lot to cut expenditures without really cutting that many programs or services, simply by kicking the dust off and upgrading them out of the 80s.

of course, to do so will require capital investment. but it's capital investment that will pay for itself in spades.

this is, however, absolutely the first step. if you skip this step, if you don't address expenditures, and continue on to the next step of decreasing taxes, you are just setting us all up for failure.

and that is exactly the failure we are experiencing right now.

100% This

The irony here, is that while whining about corporate tax rates being high, everyone seems to ignore the fact that people pay taxes multiple times for the same thing.

Say you buy a house. You have to pay property taxes on the house/property. You have to pay taxes on any increase in value, and potentially more property tax as a result as well. Then, if you sell it, you have to claim the entirety of what you earn from the sale as income and pay taxes on it again.

The only limiting factor is that payments you make on a mortgage can be used as a tax write-off up to a certain amount.

The same thing applies to cars. You pay for it, part of the cost of a new car is taxes, foreign cars excise tax, then if you sell it, you have to claim the money as income. You really didn't 'make' anything...and you're certainly not going to make a profit off of a used car sale.

I think that you should only have to claim the profit or increase in value of property sold. We shouldn't penalize people for liquidating assets.

jcooli09: atlanta_ufo: OneNutSaloon: oryx: Dear Politicains,
You can't tax corproations. It's a hidden tax on consumres.
Econoismts.

So if we lower the tax rate on corporations, they will lower their prices, right? Right?

If a competitor does, you bet.

The competitor won't do it either, not because of taxes.

Price can be driven by desire to increase market-share. If you can lower price, it can increase your market-share.

From a liberal perspective, there's some discussion about doing away with the corporate income tax.
For example, we wouldn't have to deal with off-shore companies anymore.
One of the major benefits is it would make it harder to keep giving industries special tax breaks and other considerations.
Companies would be able to make decisions not based on tax policy, but on their own business decisions.
We could then tax Capital Gains and Dividends at higher rates.

moops: Once again, people complaining about taxes but yet don't understand funding the government costs money.

They want lower taxes, but yet they want an eternal war in Iraq. They want lower taxes, but they want to spend $700 billion annually on the military. They want lower taxes, but they want to spend hundreds of billions on nothing-but-feel-good homeland security. They want lower taxes, but they want to build a gigantic wall along our entire southern border.

so, moopsy, can I be anti-tax and pro-small government? no foreign adventurism, no social security, no standing army, no undeclared wars, no farm subsidies, no... well basically no real government? So I can biatch about taxes and wasteful spending! Yay.

Mayhem of the Black Underclass: so, moopsy, can I be anti-tax and pro-small government?

No, you cannot, because there isn't a mainstream party which acts on these principles.

atlanta_ufo:
Price can be driven by desire to increase market-share. If you can lower price, it can increase your market-share.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with taxes. If a company lowers prices to increase market share and it comes just after a tax cut, it is a coincidence.

Mayhem of the Black Underclass:

so, moopsy, can I be anti-tax and pro-small government? no foreign adventurism, no social security, no standing army, no undeclared wars, no farm subsidies, no... well basically no real government? So I can biatch about taxes and wasteful spending! Yay.

Sure, if you stop voting Republican

/queue fark independents pic...

Mayhem of the Black Underclass: so, moopsy, can I be anti-tax and pro-small government? no foreign adventurism, no social security, no standing army, no undeclared wars, no farm subsidies, no... well basically no real government? So I can biatch about taxes and wasteful spending! Yay.

sure you can. i wouldn't hold my breath if i were you, but that is a perfectly valid point of view.

just so long as you understand that small government is the prerequisite for antitax.

Mayhem of the Black Underclass: well basically no real government? So I can biatch about taxes and wasteful spending! Yay.

no you can't because someone would have stolen the wiring off your block for scrap too feed themselves...

moops: Mayhem of the Black Underclass: so, moopsy, can I be anti-tax and pro-small government?

No, you cannot, because there isn't a mainstream party which acts on these principles.

this too.

/pon raul!

bubbaprog: The United States has, by far, the lowest taxes on both its people and its corporations of any Western nation.

I'm sure you have something to back that up, because every single number put out by every single other organization do not say anything even close to that.

Yeah, and then through the use of many loopholes, they pay a fraction of what they owe. And their executives still make a thousand or more times what a middle manager makes. It's obscene.