AP: Half of U.S. pays no federal income tax

[
Corporations just pass their costs on to consumers anyway.

That is classic rightwing horseshit.

If that's true then why does ANY corporation ever have a losing year?

Becuase they can not adjust price above what the rest of the market charges.

Companies with a bad year, did not have their product sell; be it quality, poor marketing, etc.

It is somewhat hypocritical to call corporations greedy, but then say that they are not greedy and therefore do not pass increase in operating costs (such as tax) to the consumer.

Of course they pass on the cost if the market allows them to. Only someone looking to argue for the sake of arguing would deny this.
 
[
Corporations just pass their costs on to consumers anyway.

That is classic rightwing horseshit.

If that's true then why does ANY corporation ever have a losing year?

Well, let's think that through, shall we? :eusa_whistle:

It seems pretty clear that basic supply and demand will dictate that there's only so much a producer can charge for his product if supply is abundant. IOW, if your corporation's cost is more than can be offset by raising the price of the product in a competitive market... you lose.
 
And what a person or group of persons make as individuals is on nobody but THEM... but that also should not exclude them from being treated equally and blindly by the government in terms of taxation for running the government....

Damn you!

Its your own fault you are poor!

At least up until now responsibility for success has rested with the individual.

Now we can blame economic failure on the government.

How many people were complaining on this board about government regulations, or lack thereof, when they were getting 20% returns on their 401K's?
 
You might want to consider that the reason we have so many low income Americans not paying income taxes is the result of having so many low income Americans.

Those good paying jobs in manufacturing etc., that have all disappeared over the years have been replaced, essentially, by lower paying jobs that don't generate income taxes.

Hmmm... wonder WHY all those manufacturing jobs have gone overseas. (????) :rolleyes:
 
You might want to consider that the reason we have so many low income Americans not paying income taxes is the result of having so many low income Americans.

Those good paying jobs in manufacturing etc., that have all disappeared over the years have been replaced, essentially, by lower paying jobs that don't generate income taxes.

Hmmm... wonder WHY all those manufacturing jobs have gone overseas. (????) :rolleyes:

Because corporatists love globalism. Because people in other countries work for lower wages. Now that Americans' wages are sliding downward, they are consequently paying less in income tax.
 
[
Corporations just pass their costs on to consumers anyway.

That is classic rightwing horseshit.

If that's true then why does ANY corporation ever have a losing year?

Becuase they can not adjust price above what the rest of the market charges.

Companies with a bad year, did not have their product sell; be it quality, poor marketing, etc.

It is somewhat hypocritical to call corporations greedy, but then say that they are not greedy and therefore do not pass increase in operating costs (such as tax) to the consumer.

Of course they pass on the cost if the market allows them to. Only someone looking to argue for the sake of arguing would deny this.

That doesn't support what the other poster claimed, if that was your intent.
 
[
Corporations just pass their costs on to consumers anyway.

That is classic rightwing horseshit.

If that's true then why does ANY corporation ever have a losing year?

Well, let's think that through, shall we? :eusa_whistle:

It seems pretty clear that basic supply and demand will dictate that there's only so much a producer can charge for his product if supply is abundant. IOW, if your corporation's cost is more than can be offset by raising the price of the product in a competitive market... you lose.


That's not what you originally claimed.
 
That is classic rightwing horseshit.

If that's true then why does ANY corporation ever have a losing year?

Becuase they can not adjust price above what the rest of the market charges.

Companies with a bad year, did not have their product sell; be it quality, poor marketing, etc.

It is somewhat hypocritical to call corporations greedy, but then say that they are not greedy and therefore do not pass increase in operating costs (such as tax) to the consumer.

Of course they pass on the cost if the market allows them to. Only someone looking to argue for the sake of arguing would deny this.

That doesn't support what the other poster claimed, if that was your intent.

If you dont see that as my supporting that corporations pass an increase in operating costs to the consumer, then I did not articulate properly.

If an industry is hit with an increase in operating costs, such as a new tax, they most certainly will pass it on, as all in the ndustry will pass it on, and the new market price is set. And yes, the demand for the product may decrease, or it may not decrease. Likely, it will not if there is not an alternaitve product out there.
 
If you had a flat 10 percent up to a certain figure....say 20 grand and above that made it a flat 20%.for individuals and corporations, the money problem is over.
 
I guess that explains why half of the country is happy with the continued free hand outs from the Obama admin, and the other half is pissed for having their money taken from them and given to others...

I wonder how liberals would feel if I held them up at gun point and demanded 40% of what they have in their wallet...
 
I guess that explains why half of the country is happy with the continued free hand outs from the Obama admin, and the other half is pissed for having their money taken from them and given to others...

I wonder how liberals would feel if I held them up at gun point and demanded 40% of what they have in their wallet...

A large majority of the liberals will also have the tax increase.

A better question is:

I wonder how the liberals would feel if an ultra conservative President flanked by an ultra conservative majority in both houses decided to impose their entire ideology on all Americans by making homosexuality illegal, abortion illegal, etc.
 
If you had a flat 10 percent up to a certain figure....say 20 grand and above that made it a flat 20%.for individuals and corporations, the money problem is over.

So if your annual gross income was 50,000, you'd pay 8000 in federal income taxes.

How many making 50,000 a year are paying that now?
 
Becuase they can not adjust price above what the rest of the market charges.

Companies with a bad year, did not have their product sell; be it quality, poor marketing, etc.

It is somewhat hypocritical to call corporations greedy, but then say that they are not greedy and therefore do not pass increase in operating costs (such as tax) to the consumer.

Of course they pass on the cost if the market allows them to. Only someone looking to argue for the sake of arguing would deny this.

That doesn't support what the other poster claimed, if that was your intent.

If you dont see that as my supporting that corporations pass an increase in operating costs to the consumer, then I did not articulate properly.

If an industry is hit with an increase in operating costs, such as a new tax, they most certainly will pass it on, as all in the ndustry will pass it on, and the new market price is set. And yes, the demand for the product may decrease, or it may not decrease. Likely, it will not if there is not an alternaitve product out there.

It's not much of an argument for not taxing corporations. If you don't tax the corporations, then you have to tax someone else to make up the revenue. Who's left?
 
That doesn't support what the other poster claimed, if that was your intent.

If you dont see that as my supporting that corporations pass an increase in operating costs to the consumer, then I did not articulate properly.

If an industry is hit with an increase in operating costs, such as a new tax, they most certainly will pass it on, as all in the ndustry will pass it on, and the new market price is set. And yes, the demand for the product may decrease, or it may not decrease. Likely, it will not if there is not an alternaitve product out there.

It's not much of an argument for not taxing corporations. If you don't tax the corporations, then you have to tax someone else to make up the revenue. Who's left?

you cut spending.

We can have that argument as well. But I believe that we are all pretty much stretched to our limit and to increase corporate taxes will only increase cost of living. So yes, time has come for us to put aside our desire to ease the pain of some becuase the result will likely be increasing the pain for all.

Yes, a tough choice. I respect how the left sees things. But the left needs to see the long term ramifications of their initiatives on all Americans.

Unless, of course, the decision is made by the electorate to go with a solid fiscal equality premise.

But that is for the electorate to decide.
 
There is no reason to increase the size of the Federal Government from 20% to 30% (which is what Obama's policies will do). That massive increase comes at the cost of the private sector. Unless we reverse it, we will endure the same structural, high unemployment levels of European countries.

The only answer is to Cut Spending.
 
If you had a flat 10 percent up to a certain figure....say 20 grand and above that made it a flat 20%.for individuals and corporations, the money problem is over.

So if your annual gross income was 50,000, you'd pay 8000 in federal income taxes.

How many making 50,000 a year are paying that now?

Don't worry...the extra money will go to the wealthiest taxpayers
 
This is why i always call Bull Chit on their Unemployment numbers. The real Unemployment number has to be much much higher than 9.7%. If 47% of the country isn't paying federal incomes taxes,i'm pretty sure Unemployment has to be well up into double figures. I just don't buy their numbers anymore.
 
I don't either. I know many recent HS and college grads that are looking for work and I don't believe they are counted in the #s because they don't qualify for UI. Am I correct?
 
I don't either. I know many recent HS and college grads that are looking for work and I don't believe they are counted in the #s because they don't qualify for UI. Am I correct?
Yep. You can't be unemployed without having been employed first. As least that's how i understand it.

Between those legitimately out of work, college grads looking for work and the underemployed, the real unemployment rate is much higher.... but it always has been.
 

Forum List

Back
Top