Corporations and taxes

[Mini 14]

They'll continue to drop coverage because the Healthcare Law doesn't apply to small(er) businesses now. Sure, they're going to lower the minimum employee requirements, but you'll see companies do what I'm doing now (splitting into smaller companies) to avoid qualifying. I don't qualify now to be required to offer coverage, or to be subject to the penalties, but I'm splitting anyway to allow for some growth and in anticipation of the Fed lowering the requirements. Regardless, even if I did still offer coverage, I'd be dropping it because the penalties as proposed now are cheaper per employee than was the cost of my company plan.

It would really help if you had read the law. The parts that actually apply to healthcare aren't very long, and they're near the front.

 

[Avatar4321]

if corporations pay so much to lower corporate tax, then they clearly don't control government since we have some of the highest levels of corporate tax in the world.

I don't know why some of you seem to think we should tax anything that moves, but there is no bad side to letting people keep more of their money. Even people who dare to associate as a dreaded corporation.

 

[sangha]

They'll continue to drop coverage because the Healthcare Law doesn't apply to small(er) businesses now.

When the HCR bill begins to take effect, it doesn't apply to small businesses either

Sure, they're going to lower the minimum employee requirements, but you'll see companies do what I'm doing now (splitting into smaller companies) to avoid qualifying. I don't qualify now to be required to offer coverage, or to be subject to the penalties, but I'm splitting anyway to allow for some growth and in anticipation of the Fed lowering the requirements.

So you give no coverage before the bill takes effect, and you give no coverage after the bill takes effect. So how does this affect coverage?

Regardless, even if I did still offer coverage, I'd be dropping it because the penalties as proposed now are cheaper per employee than was the cost of my company plan.

And so, with or without the law, you will not be offering coverage, proving the law isn't affecting the coverage you offer. Thanks for proving that I was right

It would really help if you had read the law. The parts that actually apply to healthcare aren't very long, and they're near the front.

It would help if you would explain two things
1) How will the extention, which has EXPIRED, cause small businesses to drop their coverage
2) If you don't offer coverage before the law, and you don't offer coverage after the law, then why do you think the law affects coverage?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If corporations always pass their taxes off on the consumer, then why do corporations spend so much effort lobbying to keep their taxes low? What difference does it make to them, they aren't paying it, they make you and I pay for it, so what do they care?

Because it's just a superficially attractive line that corporate shills use to try to fool people.

The other question is, if you don't want corporations to pay taxes, who DO you want to tax to raise that revenue?

Your question is a false dichotemy because you assume all that revenue needs to be raised in the first place and therefore either the corporations paying the taxes or other entities paying the taxes are the only choices.

With deficits where they have been for most of the past 30 years there is no argument to be made that we don't need the revenue. So the question remains, if that revenue isn't going to come from corporate taxes, where should it come from?

 

[industry7]

This is really simple guys. Staying cost competitive. This is why companies dislike high taxes. Taxes are essentially passed on to the consumer in the form of high prices. If company A can make a net savings of money by hiring better accountants, tax lawyers, etc, in order to pay less taxes, then they will be able to offer lower compared to company B who doesn't.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

If corporations always pass their taxes off on the consumer, then why do corporations spend so much effort lobbying to keep their taxes low? What difference does it make to them, they aren't paying it, they make you and I pay for it, so what do they care?

It's easy to tell you're a career employee.

Would you want to hire tax accountants and keep tax attorneys on retainer if you didn't have to?

What's the problem if I can just make the consumer pay for that? What do I care?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Corporations don't mind sales taxes at all. They don't like them, because its an accounting nightmare, but they don't keep them, and they don't count as income. They are nothing but a headache to any business (corporate or small biz).

I own a small business. Sales tax doesn't affect me at all, other than I have to collect it for the various agencies. I don't get to keep it, I'm just responsible for collecting it, then paying it to the various authorities.

I don't pay taxes on the items I buy to resell. Payroll taxes are much the same thing, but they are an even bigger pain than sales taxes.

Income tax is an entirely different animal. That is the one we all fight, and try to lower, because that is the one that comes out of MY pocket, and not the consumer's.

That's not what the vast majority of Randian libertarians on this board believe.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

taxes are paid AFTER the sale has been made. We're not talking about sales taxes here, we're talking about income taxes. The less tax a corporation has to pay on their income, the more they have to pay shareholders or reinvest in the company. They *could* pass those costs on to consumers, in the future, but they (and the shareholder) are better served to keep the taxes as low as possible.

Sales tax isn't "passed on" to the consumer. It is a tax the consumer pays and the company holds for the various taxing authorities. When I collect $1 from a customer, I have to pay 8 cents in tax, then I get taxed at the end of the year on my profit. THAT is the taxes corporations are fighting, not the sales tax.

Corporations don't mind sales taxes? Really?

They don't. Really.

So if I'm a Louisiana based corporation, and my customers have to pay the approx 8% sales tax, I shouldn't mind that I have to compete with mail order companies outside of Louisiana that sell things at the same price but with no sales tax?

If I sell liquor and beer on the border of one state and the sales tax is much lower right over the border in in the other - that's no problem for me, right?

The corporation does not care how much the local sales tax is.

They don't care that the buying power of their customers is reduced? That seems counterintuitive.

It wouldn't be their fault if the rate was 8.75% or 200.65%.

How many plasma TV's do you think people would buy at 200.65% tax? The same number as with 8.75% - with the same before tax price?

 

[sangha]

No fine for me.

Not big enough now, and I'm splitting into smaller companies anyway.

Wrong again. The law eventually will apply to all businesses regardless of size

PS....a year ago my COBRA liability was 65% of the premium. That's why I dropped coverage.

If you knew how to run a business, you'd be able to make enough profit to be able to afford coverage for your employees.

 

[sangha]

Now who is the liar?

The guy who thinks an expired extension is still costing employers. That would be Jon

I don't understand what you don't get. If an employee was terminated before February 28, 2010, they qualify for both the extension AND THE REDUCED PREMIUM. The "expiration" was on the date at which terminations to qualify occurred, not the expiration of the benefit payments. Are you really this daft? I say yes.

The "date at which terminations that qualify occurred" has past. No one terminated from this point on will qualify for those benefits.

Yes, some people are still benefitting from the extension. However, dropping coverage for CURRENT employees does NOTHING to reduce the extensions' cost for FORMER employees. So how will a benefit that their CURRENT employees can't use cause employers to drop coverage for CURRENT employees?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

No fine for me.

Not big enough now, and I'm splitting into smaller companies anyway.

Wrong again. The law eventually will apply to all businesses regardless of size

PS....a year ago my COBRA liability was 65% of the premium. That's why I dropped coverage.

If you knew how to run a business, you'd be able to make enough profit to be able to afford coverage for your employees.

Why? If all of his competitors are dropping coverage, how do you expect him to compete?

 

[sangha]

They'll continue to drop coverage because the Healthcare Law doesn't apply to small(er) businesses now.

Now you are dishonestly "moving the goalposts" Earlier you said it was the COBRA extension that would cause small businesses to drop coverage. Now, you're saying it's the new HCR bill.

Sure, they're going to lower the minimum employee requirements, but you'll see companies do what I'm doing now (splitting into smaller companies) to avoid qualifying.

Eventually, the law will apply to all businesses, regardless of size. And you know that, but you will dishonestly "forget" that detail

I don't qualify now to be required to offer coverage, or to be subject to the penalties, but I'm splitting anyway to allow for some growth and in anticipation of the Fed lowering the requirements. Regardless, even if I did still offer coverage, I'd be dropping it because the penalties as proposed now are cheaper per employee than was the cost of my company plan.

You're lying

You said you used to offer coverage, but you dropped it due to COBRA costs. Now you're saying you would drop it to avoid penalties, even though you know there are no penalties for a business your size.

It would really help if you had read the law. The parts that actually apply to healthcare aren't very long, and they're near the front.

It would really help if you didn't change your story from moment to moment. In one post, you've gone from "the expired COBRA extension is why I dropped coverage" to "the new HCR law is why I dropped coverage" even though you know the new HCT doesn't penalize you for years.

 

[sangha]

No fine for me.

Not big enough now, and I'm splitting into smaller companies anyway.

Wrong again. The law eventually will apply to all businesses regardless of size

PS....a year ago my COBRA liability was 65% of the premium. That's why I dropped coverage.

If you knew how to run a business, you'd be able to make enough profit to be able to afford coverage for your employees.

Why? If all of his competitors are dropping coverage, how do you expect him to compete?

Where does it say all the competitors are dropping coverage?

He has claimed that he WAS providing coverage, so obviously he can afford the coverage. He has falsely claimed the costs of covering CURRENT employees has risen due to a COBRA extension which EXPIRED, so it has no effect on the cost of covering CURRENT employees.

So basically, he never argued that he was dropping coverage to meet the competition because that would undermine his arguement that he was dropping coverage due to the new laws.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Wrong again. The law eventually will apply to all businesses regardless of size



If you knew how to run a business, you'd be able to make enough profit to be able to afford coverage for your employees.

Why? If all of his competitors are dropping coverage, how do you expect him to compete?

Where does it say all the competitors are dropping coverage?

Well if they aren't and he is the first one, and he can retain his employees, that should give him an edge, don't you think?

He has claimed that he WAS providing coverage, so obviously he can afford the coverage.

How the heck would YOU know what his business can afford?

 

[sangha]

If corporations always pass their taxes off on the consumer, then why do corporations spend so much effort lobbying to keep their taxes low? What difference does it make to them, they aren't paying it, they make you and I pay for it, so what do they care?

they have to compete with the foreign companies birdbrain. god you people are DUmb

Now the wingnuts will argue that businesses CAN'T raise their prices in response to increased taxes

They can't keep track of all their lies

 

[sangha]

Why? If all of his competitors are dropping coverage, how do you expect him to compete?

Where does it say all the competitors are dropping coverage?

Well if they aren't and he is the first one, and he can retain his employees, that should give him an edge, don't you think?

Yes, of course it would. However, if that is what he did and why, then he shouldn't lie and say he did it because of the COBRA extension or the new HCR law.

He has claimed that he WAS providing coverage, so obviously he can afford the coverage. [/quote]
How the heck would YOU know what his business can afford?[/QUOTE]

Because he said it. His entire argument is that the EXPIRED COBRA extension has raised costs for employers so high, they will be forced to drop coverage.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Because it's just a superficially attractive line that corporate shills use to try to fool people.

The other question is, if you don't want corporations to pay taxes, who DO you want to tax to raise that revenue?

Your question is a false dichotemy because you assume all that revenue needs to be raised in the first place and therefore either the corporations paying the taxes or other entities paying the taxes are the only choices.

With deficits where they have been for most of the past 30 years there is no argument to be made that we don't need the revenue.

There is because you assume we need to keep spending the money we are spending. The deficit could easily be controlled if the Federal government kept spending within its Constitutional parameters.

 

[Mini 14]

Everyone was right....You're impossibly idiotic.

Is there an "Ignore Moron" button here so I don't have to be subjected to this illiterate asshole anymore?

 

[Toro]

If corporations always pass their taxes off on the consumer, then why do corporations spend so much effort lobbying to keep their taxes low? What difference does it make to them, they aren't paying it, they make you and I pay for it, so what do they care?

They don't always pass on taxes to the consumer. That is simply wrong. Some of it they pass onto consumers and some of it they eat themselves, depending on the elasticity of demand.

Price elasticity of demand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If demand is elastic, i.e. demand falls by more than an increase in prices, then the company eats the tax. If demand is inelastic, then more of the tax is passed onto consumers.

The reason why companies lobby against corporate taxes is because it lowers aggregate profits to the company and makes the company worth less as less of the economics is passed on to the company. The lower the after-tax return on capital, the less there is to return to shareholders and to invest back into the economy. The less there is to invest back into the economy, the less economic activity there will be.

 

[Neubarth]

If corporations always pass their taxes off on the consumer, then why do corporations spend so much effort lobbying to keep their taxes low? What difference does it make to them, they aren't paying it, they make you and I pay for it, so what do they care?

They don't always pass on taxes to the consumer. That is simply wrong. Some of it they pass onto consumers and some of it they eat themselves, depending on the elasticity of demand.

Price elasticity of demand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If demand is elastic, i.e. demand falls by more than an increase in prices, then the company eats the tax. If demand is inelastic, then more of the tax is passed onto consumers.

The reason why companies lobby against corporate taxes is because it lowers aggregate profits to the company and makes the company worth less as less of the economics is passed on to the company. The lower the after-tax return on capital, the less there is to return to shareholders and to invest back into the economy. The less there is to invest back into the economy, the less economic activity there will be.

In the long run, the consumer always pays for the taxes. This double talk that Toro has above is just nonsense. Consumers pay for the products that they buy. If the company is making money, the consumer is paying for the taxes the company has to pay. The consumer may not pay it right away as the tax may be in the price a year out, but the consumer will eventually pay and that is all there is to it.