Does everyone understand the tax issue?

[IndependntLogic]

Revenue?
Raising taxes on corporations whether it be Exxon or Ma and Pas Bakery only means the consumer will pay more for the product

We are at a point in this country in which we must curtail spending
The middle class is squeezed all it can stand, and if you make 200,000 a year and give up 70,000 a year in income tax

Your giving up enough

I'm curious. What if anything, would you do about the deficit?

 

[Ravi]

Revenue?
Raising taxes on corporations whether it be Exxon or Ma and Pas Bakery only means the consumer will pay more for the product

We are at a point in this country in which we must curtail spending
The middle class is squeezed all it can stand, and if you make 200,000 a year and give up 70,000 a year in income tax

Your giving up enough

So you're saying the free market is a myth and we need to keep up corporate welfare?

Okie dokie.

 

[JRK]

...........people pay taxes, not corporations
...........................

Legally corporations ARE persons, but apparently they are very special tax-exempt folks, eh. And yes a corporation DOES pay now and SHOULD pay a lot more taxes.

A corporation is a piece of paper
People pay taxes, not paper

You raise the tax rate that person pays, he is going to raise the price of the product he or she sells/provides

It is simple economics, your taking more wealth from the system thence you create fewer jobs

 

[JRK]

Revenue?
Raising taxes on corporations whether it be Exxon or Ma and Pas Bakery only means the consumer will pay more for the product

We are at a point in this country in which we must curtail spending
The middle class is squeezed all it can stand, and if you make 200,000 a year and give up 70,000 a year in income tax

Your giving up enough

So you're saying the free market is a myth and we need to keep up corporate welfare?

Okie dokie.

I do not understand where you get "corporate welfare" and that the free market is a myth out of this
I am not being ugly, I really do not understand how you get there

my point(s) is simple

to start with the tax system in this country is broke
we need a system like Florida and Texas has

If you make profit/income you will pay taxes on it

If you are being subsidized by the federal government and your supplying a product this country needs, everyone needs to understand both sides as to why that subsidy exists

I neither support nor am I against subsidy's
I would assume the term corporate welfare comes from that

By the way, kudos on your choice of avatar

 

[JRK]

Revenue?
Raising taxes on corporations whether it be Exxon or Ma and Pas Bakery only means the consumer will pay more for the product

We are at a point in this country in which we must curtail spending
The middle class is squeezed all it can stand, and if you make 200,000 a year and give up 70,000 a year in income tax

Your giving up enough

I'm curious. What if anything, would you do about the deficit?

change the tax system
separate Medicare and Social Security from the general fund
Input a system like Texas and Florida has
Social security and Medicare tax rates would be just enough to cover the expenses and would be taken from EVERYONES check, including welfare and U.E
Evaluate Subsidies
If you subsidize oil and pharmaceutics, you take that away, the price of the product will
explode
Expand the places we go and get oil and oil shale
Open up our public lands in very selective and out of the way locales to the free market in exchange for a share of there profit, whether

 

[waltky]

Yea...

... Granny says dey's holdin' social security hostage...

... so' the wealthy who own the companies...

... can outsource jobs south of the border an' overseas to Asia...

... an' not pay their fair share o' taxes fer doin' it.

 

[editec]

Well its a drop dead certainty that if taxes are raised SOMEBODY ends up paying for it, right?

But since taxes are based on profits, and presumably profits are that money going to the producer, then the producer is the entity paying the taxes.

But I think there's probably no way in hell that the producer can increase prices enough OFFSET those taxes such that they still have the same AMOUNT they might have if they had not paid taxes.

Suppose for example that a corporation has $1000 in total sales
Their cost to produce these revenues is 90% of gross ($900)
Their TAXABLE profit is therefore on the sum 100
Their tax rate is 15% therefore they pay $15 in taxes and keep $85

Okay so they want to continue making $85 next year when their taxes are raised to 30%.

How much much must the cost go up for them to still end up with $85?

x = total sales needed to make that 85 profit)
(.10x) x .70 = 85 (their targeted profits after taxes)
.07 x = 85
x = $1,214.28

Ergo if this hypothetical corporation's tax doubled from 15% of profit to 30%, and it choose to retain the same amount of profits after taxes it would need to increase its GROSS REVENUE by a little more than 21%.

proof

1,214.28. X .9 =121.42 (profit before tax)
121.48 x .7 = $85.036 ( post tax cash retained)

There's only three ways to increase pretax profits

1. Increase prices of goods sold; and or
2. decrease cost of production; and or
3. Increase total sales.

If the corporation cannot do any of above things, then it will see a lower post tax profit.

If it CAN do any of those then somebody else will be (de facto) paying that corporations additional taxes.

So as to the assertion that the consumer ALWAYS PAYS the additional taxes?

No that is only true IF the producer can foist off that additional taxation onto the consumers by either increasing per unit sales prices, OR by decreasing unit production costs OR by increasing gross sales.

 

[Ravi]

Revenue?
Raising taxes on corporations whether it be Exxon or Ma and Pas Bakery only means the consumer will pay more for the product

We are at a point in this country in which we must curtail spending
The middle class is squeezed all it can stand, and if you make 200,000 a year and give up 70,000 a year in income tax

Your giving up enough

So you're saying the free market is a myth and we need to keep up corporate welfare?

Okie dokie.

I do not understand where you get "corporate welfare" and that the free market is a myth out of this
I am not being ugly, I really do not understand how you get there

my point(s) is simple

to start with the tax system in this country is broke
we need a system like Florida and Texas has

If you make profit/income you will pay taxes on it

If you are being subsidized by the federal government and your supplying a product this country needs, everyone needs to understand both sides as to why that subsidy exists

I neither support nor am I against subsidy's
I would assume the term corporate welfare comes from that

By the way, kudos on your choice of avatar

You're saying corporations should pay less in taxes than anyone else. Therefore, you are for corporate welfare.

I don't know where you get the idea that Florida is some kind of paradise??? There are no taxes on income. And we have very high unemployment and the most foreclosed homes.

 

[Sallow]

Cutting taxes has never helped unemployment.

Ever.

 

[Sallow]

Revenue?
Raising taxes on corporations whether it be Exxon or Ma and Pas Bakery only means the consumer will pay more for the product

We are at a point in this country in which we must curtail spending
The middle class is squeezed all it can stand, and if you make 200,000 a year and give up 70,000 a year in income tax

Your giving up enough

So you're saying the free market is a myth and we need to keep up corporate welfare?

Okie dokie.

I do not understand where you get "corporate welfare" and that the free market is a myth out of this
I am not being ugly, I really do not understand how you get there

my point(s) is simple

to start with the tax system in this country is broke
we need a system like Florida and Texas has

If you make profit/income you will pay taxes on it

If you are being subsidized by the federal government and your supplying a product this country needs, everyone needs to understand both sides as to why that subsidy exists

I neither support nor am I against subsidy's
I would assume the term corporate welfare comes from that

By the way, kudos on your choice of avatar

Because it is.

It's a funneling of cash from the middle class to the wealthy.

Corporations benefit big time from our government. Much much much more then the middle class.

No one goes to war to protect middle class interests overseas.

Bucko.

 

[JRK]

Well its a drop dead certainty that if taxes are raised SOMEBODY ends up paying for it, right?

But since taxes are based on profits, and presumably profits are that money going to the producer, then the producer is the entity paying the taxes.

But I think there's probably no way in hell that the producer can increase prices enough OFFSET those taxes such that they still have the same AMOUNT they might have if they had not paid taxes.

Suppose for example that a corporation has $1000 in total sales
Their cost to produce these revenues is 90% of gross ($900)
Their TAXABLE profit is therefore on the sum 100
Their tax rate is 15% therefore they pay $15 in taxes and keep $85

Okay so they want to continue making $85 next year when their taxes are raised to 30%.

How much much must the cost go up for them to still end up with $85?

x = total sales needed to make that 85 profit)
(.10x) x .70 = 85 (their targeted profits after taxes)
.07 x = 85
x = $1,214.28

Ergo if this hypothetical corporation's tax doubled from 15% of profit to 30%, and it choose to retain the same amount of profits after taxes it would need to increase its GROSS REVENUE by a little more than 21%.

proof

1,214.28. X .9 =121.42 (profit before tax)
121.48 x .7 = $85.036 ( post tax cash retained)

There's only three ways to increase pretax profits

1. Increase prices of goods sold; and or
2. decrease cost of production; and or
3. Increase total sales.

If the corporation cannot do any of above things, then it will see a lower post tax profit.

If it CAN do any of those then somebody else will be (de facto) paying that corporations additional taxes.

So as to the assertion that the consumer ALWAYS PAYS the additional taxes?

No that is only true IF the producer can foist off that additional taxation onto the consumers by either increasing per unit sales prices, OR by decreasing unit production costs OR by increasing gross sales.

Companies cannot become more competitive than there are now

Increasing gross sales come from increasing cost

Lets back up

get rid of the system we have and replace it with the system Florida and Texas has

I cannot give better examples as to what this thread is really about

does anyone really understand what this tax issue is about/

I now that a corporation has no money tree, someone(s) supplies that wealth. who ever supplies that wealth pays there taxes for them
from 0.001 to 50%

 

[JRK]

So you're saying the free market is a myth and we need to keep up corporate welfare?

Okie dokie.

I do not understand where you get "corporate welfare" and that the free market is a myth out of this
I am not being ugly, I really do not understand how you get there

my point(s) is simple

to start with the tax system in this country is broke
we need a system like Florida and Texas has

If you make profit/income you will pay taxes on it

If you are being subsidized by the federal government and your supplying a product this country needs, everyone needs to understand both sides as to why that subsidy exists

I neither support nor am I against subsidy's
I would assume the term corporate welfare comes from that

By the way, kudos on your choice of avatar

You're saying corporations should pay less in taxes than anyone else. Therefore, you are for corporate welfare.

I don't know where you get the idea that Florida is some kind of paradise??? There are no taxes on income. And we have very high unemployment and the most foreclosed homes.

To start with I am 6th generation Floridian, both sides
At no time did I claim Florida has the correct system to spur growth, it is the exact opposite in Florida EXCEPT the tax system they have in place
Many people from the NE live in Florida long enough to get out of paying state income in NY, etc....
I never said anything about the rate corporations pay
What I have said is if it is 0.00001 or 90% the consumer pays every penny of it
Corporations have no money tree
every penny they collect comes from the consumer

The more you take from the consumer the less he or she has to put in the economy
same with the corporation
Profit margin
cash flow
gross income are 3 very different things

 

[nraforlife]

................A corporation is a piece of paper
People pay taxes, not paper

.......................

OK, then require a quaterly 100% distribution of any profits to shareholders and then tax those persons. Corp needs to raise capital, it can sell more stock.

 

[JRK]

................A corporation is a piece of paper
People pay taxes, not paper

.......................

OK, then require a quaterly 100% distribution of any profits to shareholders and then tax those persons. Corp needs to raise capital, it can sell more stock.

You would need to change the way corporate law is written. I really have no issue with doing that
Another thing people miss (as there being lied to by politicians) is that typically a company that grows its asset pool to prevent paying taxes usually are creating jobs

 

[8537]

Let us ponder JRK's shining examples, Florida and Texas:

Florida Median HH income: $44,755
Texas Median HH income: $48,286
Vermont Median HH income: $51,219

Florida unemployment rate: 10.6%
Texas unemployment rate: 8.0%
Vermont unemployment rate: 5.4%

Florida foreclosure rate: 1 in every 372
Texas foreclosure rate: 1 in every 1,041
Vermont foreclosure rate: 1 in every 39,281

Florida percent of people over 25 with a HS diploma: 84.9%
Texas percent of people over 25 with a HS diploma: 79.3%
Vermont percent of people over 25 with a HS diploma: 90.1%

Florida percent of people over 25 with a college degree: 25.6%
Texas percent of people over 25 with a college degree: 25.4%
Vermont percent of people over 25 with a college degree: 33%

Can someone explain why JRK is so eager to be more like Texas and Florida?

 

[IndependntLogic]

"Any business that cannot survive without help from the government, should not survive." Ronald Reagan.

I own a company. I hire 100% American. I pay my taxes 100% in America. I think that should be the simple litmus test for government handouts.
And yes, they are government handouts.
If my American company owes $100K in taxes and the government says "Hey, because your lobbyists buddies were so nice to me, you only have to pay $70K!", they've just handed me $30,000.

What's frustrating is that the companies that are getting the handouts don't hire 100% or even 70% American. They don't pay their taxes 100% or even 70% in America.
We're giving money away to foreigners who, contrary to the latest GOP bumper sticker phrase, are not "job creators". If they were, we would have evidence of it i.e. jobs.

 

[JRK]

"Any business that cannot survive without help from the government, should not survive." Ronald Reagan.

I own a company. I hire 100% American. I pay my taxes 100% in America. I think that should be the simple litmus test for government handouts.
And yes, they are government handouts.
If my American company owes $100K in taxes and the government says "Hey, because your lobbyists buddies were so nice to me, you only have to pay $70K!", they've just handed me $30,000.

What's frustrating is that the companies that are getting the handouts don't hire 100% or even 70% American. They don't pay their taxes 100% or even 70% in America.
We're giving money away to foreigners who, contrary to the latest GOP bumper sticker phrase, are not "job creators". If they were, we would have evidence of it i.e. jobs.

To start with the lie that the GOP has stated there the job creators is become somewhat funny
I have not heard any republican nor have I seen any bumper sticker stating that

Let me add that they (the GOP) have not been in power since 2007

I may not be responding to what your intent is
With respect i am not sure what it is your trying to say

 

[Sarah G]

"Any business that cannot survive without help from the government, should not survive." Ronald Reagan.

I own a company. I hire 100% American. I pay my taxes 100% in America. I think that should be the simple litmus test for government handouts.
And yes, they are government handouts.
If my American company owes $100K in taxes and the government says "Hey, because your lobbyists buddies were so nice to me, you only have to pay $70K!", they've just handed me $30,000.

What's frustrating is that the companies that are getting the handouts don't hire 100% or even 70% American. They don't pay their taxes 100% or even 70% in America.
We're giving money away to foreigners who, contrary to the latest GOP bumper sticker phrase, are not "job creators". If they were, we would have evidence of it i.e. jobs.

To start with the lie that the GOP has stated there the job creators is become somewhat funny
I have not heard any republican nor have I seen any bumper sticker stating that

Let me add that they (the GOP) have not been in power since 2007

I may not be responding to what your intent is
With respect i am not sure what it is your trying to say

They've been obstructionists since then though. There is a reason they are called the party of no. No new ideas and no signing on to anything constructive and substantial for fear Democrats will take the power back. Which they will.

 

[JRK]

"Any business that cannot survive without help from the government, should not survive." Ronald Reagan.

I own a company. I hire 100% American. I pay my taxes 100% in America. I think that should be the simple litmus test for government handouts.
And yes, they are government handouts.
If my American company owes $100K in taxes and the government says "Hey, because your lobbyists buddies were so nice to me, you only have to pay $70K!", they've just handed me $30,000.

What's frustrating is that the companies that are getting the handouts don't hire 100% or even 70% American. They don't pay their taxes 100% or even 70% in America.
We're giving money away to foreigners who, contrary to the latest GOP bumper sticker phrase, are not "job creators". If they were, we would have evidence of it i.e. jobs.

To start with the lie that the GOP has stated there the job creators is become somewhat funny
I have not heard any republican nor have I seen any bumper sticker stating that

Let me add that they (the GOP) have not been in power since 2007

I may not be responding to what your intent is
With respect i am not sure what it is your trying to say

They've been obstructionists since then though. There is a reason they are called the party of no. No new ideas and no signing on to anything constructive and substantial for fear Democrats will take the power back. Which they will.

If what you say is true then why is it the only budget we have that has had approval in the house is the GOP budget that was provided by Senator Ryan?
How about tarp?
Where would we be with out the first 250 billion of tarp in 2008? that we got back most all of it? that was not used as Obama's bail out UAW slush fund?
and no they have only paid us back, about 12 billion of the 80, thats it
Treasury gets $11.7 billion from GM stock sale - AutoSpies Auto News
thats it

Simply put the party of no is not correct
they have a budget that has passed the house
Tarp saved the economy and was not misused until Obama was sworn in

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is this all you have?
Ok
add medicare
add SS
there is no mention of an IRA, but from you
add gas tax, federal, local, state
add state income or sales tax
add local, to include property taxes
well lets see
In a state like NY your probably up to 50%
I do not understand taxes?
your friend Toro called me "slow"
you want to make it about what we really pay?
it just makes it worse for you

The thread is about the effect that raising any tax rate will do to us
what raising corporate rates will do

you want to tell me how you get by without paying all of these taxes?
and how you can claim a person in the state of NY that makes that kind of money only pays 43,000 a year in taxes?
ok

Wow, I almost lost a limb when those moving goalposts flew by.

Yea
you also have nothing to add to the debate
the issues with a tax hike is simple
you take more money from the consumer, he or she is going to spend less
you take more money from a corporation, they will charge more money for ther service and or product
Te term squeeze on the middle class mean anything to you?

You can't keep cutting taxes without cutting spending. You end up bankrupt it's simple math.

The most egregious sin that our politicians have been committing for the past 30 years is cutting taxes without cutting spending proportionately.

We have to stop pretending that America's government need not be paid for.