Taxes on Corporations and Business Owners (the rich)
know1
Posts: 6,794
Do people really think higher taxes on corporations and business owners (or the so-called rich of this country) will be paid by anyone other than the people working for them or buying their products?
It may be indirect, but businesses aren't just going to suck it up and absorb the extra expenses. They will be passed on to the consumer through higher prices and the employee through lower wages or lower benefits.
Supposedly shifting the tax burden up the scale isn't going to do anything. Why don't we just lower taxes for everyone and let people decide what they want to spend their money on?
It may be indirect, but businesses aren't just going to suck it up and absorb the extra expenses. They will be passed on to the consumer through higher prices and the employee through lower wages or lower benefits.
Supposedly shifting the tax burden up the scale isn't going to do anything. Why don't we just lower taxes for everyone and let people decide what they want to spend their money on?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
It's a nice theory, except the government is leaking $9 billion a month in Iraq. Then there's the $800+ billion credit card bill for the bailout. Sure, supposedly some of that is going to come back to the government, but I'll believe it when I see it.
Bush came into office with a basically balanced budget. We still had about $5 trillion in debt. Now we've broken the damn debt clock, which didn't have enough digits to go over $9 trillion. Not all of it is Bush's fault; a spineless Congress was too scared of the jingoistic kill-'em-all crowd to vote against the war.
The only way to cut taxes and not totally bankrupt the system (which I'm wondering if it's even possible as long as China doesn't call in its loans) is to drastically cut spending. No war; no healthcare; no education system; no earmarks; nothing but the military and the interstates. That's not gonna happen.
History can help us answer these questions.
The longest sustained period of economic growth in history took place in the US over the 30 years after WWII. In addition it was shared over all income levels. Were we socialists?
Perhaps we should look at what the taxes were for the rich at that time.
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
...progressive taxation doesn't seem to be a problem.
But isn't the solution to cut money so the government can't spend it on things like war and bailouts - both of which I oppose?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
You'd think, but that's not the way it works. Just because the U.S. doesn't have the money, that doesn't mean the gov't won't do stuff. That's why we have a budget deficit every year. It's like using a credit card only instead of owing the money to Visa, the U.S. owes it to whomever buys bonds.
As for not paying for things with which you don't agree, it's part of the deal of living in a society.
So if the amount of money the government has or doesn't have doesn't have any bearing on what they do and they continue to have deficits, why do they even tax us at all? Let's just lower taxes for everyone and let the government do whatever the heck it wants.
(you can't tell me that limiting taxes doesn't at least have some effect on what a government can do)
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
It seems to be your wish to bankrupt this country in order to push your ideology against the will of the people.
They have to have some money coming into the system so they tax us.
Hey, I agree: reign in spending. The thing is, with the bailout and the war, I just don't see how either candidate can justify cutting taxes (and this is coming from somebody who is pretty broke).
We can't keep passing the debt off to the future. How can the government spend about $1 trillion on this "rescue" plan but not bring in more money? I'm no economist, nor am I a financier, but it just doesn't make sense to restrict the amount of money the government brings in while increasing the amount of money it sends out.
I guess my point is that taxes have become something all candidates jump on as if it's some silver bullet. "Lower taxes," they say, "and everything will magically get better." I think it's bullshit.
People want more financial regulation after seeing what decades of deregulation has done for the economy. Regulation costs money. People want better healthcare for Americans. Insurance companies looking to turn a profit don't care about better healthcare; they care about making money. Government would step in and try to 'fix' the issue; that costs money. Even cutting spending on programs would cost money. Cut government jobs, raise unemployment expenses.
Everything has a cost. Everyone wants clean air and water; people like smooth streets, police, schools, social security, FDIC insurance. It all costs money. If we want those services, I don't think it's unreasonable to pay for them.
Huh? I just want the government to start limiting itself.
I also feel that higher taxes on the rich and corporations is a bad, bad, bad thing and accomplishes nothing since the people are going to pay for it anyway.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
My understanding of the bailout is that they printed new currency to put into circulation.
If this logic is applied to your cause and effect with higher taxes... doesn't it MEAN that is applies in the opposite direction? I mean, tax cut, applying your reasoning, would mean lowered costs to the consumer and increased wages for the workers... right? Did costs go DOWN with these tax cuts... and did YOU get a greater raise? Because, that didn't happen to me... where I live.
Hail, Hail!!!
Well, it won't necessarily be paid by the people working for them or the people buying their products... the other option is the firm could leave America due to the high tax rates and get a cheaper tax environment elsewhere.
But, if they don't leave.... yes, it will be covered by altered prices or the employees.
I don't think we CAN lower taxes for everyone right now. 2 wars that are going on the credit card, this $800 Billion + bs bailout that's costing every taxpayer, a $10 Trillion + deficit (some say it's much more than that.) No matter who is president, our taxes are going to be high for a while to come. That's a major reason why I hate when McCain accuses Obama of trying to raise people's taxes. How could a president not raise taxes at a time like this? McCain would do the same thing. It's just a question of on who are those taxes going to be raised. If it's Obama it will probably be the wealthy and if it's McCain it will probably be the lower to middle class. That's just my take.
I'm just thinking out loud here. It may be difficult to use the logic in 2008 that high taxes after WWII did not prevent the economy from growing tremendously. Corporations have options now to take production overseas to lower tax jurisdictions. It was much less of a global economy back then. Decreasing the corporate tax rate could in fact keep companies (and maybe bring them back) into the US. If they must, I say decrease the corporate rates and increase the individual rates.
There are valid reason for this listed below. But there are plenty of corporations that are paying taxes. Out with the old and in with the new. Business cycles peak, and while some corporations fall on hard times, there are other corporations that are growing quickly, making money, and paying taxes. As we become a world economy (or already are), we need to make sure to keep the U.S. an attractive place for businesses to start and stay.
For 2005:
80% of corporations having no tax liability was because they had a negative taxable income (i.e., expenses were greater than income). For example, of course GM will not pay any income taxes (they lose a boatload).
11% of corporations have no tax liability because they are carrying back or carrying forward losses from other tax years (i.e., if you make $5 million in 2005 and lose $5 million in 2006, you made zero income in those two years and should not be taxed for those two years).
5% of corporations had no income because they had losses due to their receipts being less than their cost of goods sold (even before other operating expenses).
Lastly, the evil credits provided for corporations were responsible for only 3% of corporations not paying taxes.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08957.pdf (pages 11 and 12 - figure 3)
I believe I probably did get a bigger raise and lower costs due to the tax cuts. It's hard to tell for sure, but that's what I suspect.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.