How stupid are left wingers? This stupid.

[Billo_Really]

As the taxes are applied to everything, the prices raise everywhere.

Taxes on a cigarette company, does not raise the price of falafal.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

You don't have a choice, because the only way to avoid paying their taxes is to not buy their products. Think of it this way. If I pay 15% overall in income taxes and I want to take home $100,000 this year, I don't price my services so as to earn $100,000. I price my services so as to earn at least $115,000. That's how corporate taxes are passed on to the consumer.

And if your prices are not competitive, then your company suffers a loss of revenue from lack of business.

Taxes set the baseline for your product. Gas can never be below a dollar a gallon due to taxes. Fed taxes, state taxes, employee taxes, etc. So every business has a bottom line not for production costs, not for distribution, not for sales in the taxes that have to be paid. In the case of gas the price starts at about a dollar a gallon and must go up from there.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Profit only comes after the taxes have been paid.

Nice try.

Nice try at accounting.

 

[Andylusion]

As the taxes are applied to everything, the prices raise everywhere.

Taxes on a cigarette company, does not raise the price of falafal.

Brilliant.

So he just said "taxes applied to EVERYTHING.... the prices raise everywhere.".

By logical implication is that if the taxes do not apply to everything, then obviously prices will not rise everywhere.

So your response was..... dur.... taxes on cigarettes do not raise the price of falafal. Well sparky, you are pretty quick.... said no one anywhere ever, to you.

Yeah, taxes that only apply to tobacco products, won't raise the price of milk. Brilliant sparky, brilliant. Forest Gump will give you your gold star for effort.

... good night... talking basic economics to these leftards, is like trying to teach slug how to salsa dance.

 

[Pete7469]

And yet Trump is telling you that a tax on goods from Mexico equates to Mexico paying for the wall.
How stupid are Trump followers?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The wall will pay for itself when wetbacks aren't filling up schools, emergency rooms, and getting fat off the food stamp program.

Please don't tell me they "contribute" to society either. The cost in lives lost to the criminal element alone renders the open border position utterly insipid. If we can't track who comes in here, and if they are indeed contributing, then we aren't a nation.

If we control the border and get rid of the drek, we can talk about a legal status but NEVER citizenship or SS benefits. They better save their money. If they're permitted to stay they're likely successful at some craft anyway.

We can invite even more migrant farm laborers, provide transport and even make sure they have decent housing while they're here working for all I care. As long as we can have some assurance they're going to obey our laws, make some money and GTFO when their time's up or make the appropriate steps to fully immigrate and assimilate.

 

[Andylusion]

If you buy their products... you are paying their taxes for them. If you buy services from someone who buys their product, you are paying their taxes for them.

The only way to not pay their taxes... is to not buy anything from them, or from anyone who buys from them.

If you have NetFlix, you are paying the taxes that NetFlix is paying, plus the taxes that computer manufacturer is paying, plus the taxes that Intel, or IBM, or whatever the company they buy their parts is paying.

You are paying all those taxes... for them. All taxes are passed on to the consumer.

The only way other place to get taxes from, is from investment and growth, and jobs. So if you jack up my corporate taxes, and I know I can avoid paying those taxes by moving my jobs and investment to Canada, or somewhere else....That's likely what I'm going to do.

"We can't stand these companies outsourcing!"..... well you are the cause of that outsourcing.

You're not moving your company anywhere where there is no demand for your product or service. Anyone who makes a profit in this country, has to pay taxes on that profit. There is no way I'm going to let you out of that obligation.

Of course we are not moving the company anywhere there is no demand.

That doesn't magically mean the US is the only place with demand.

KFC has 18,875 stores world wide.

KFC only has 4,200 stores in the US.

KFC has 4,400 in China.

There is more demand for KFC outside the US, than inside the US.

KFC makes more money in the rest of the world, than it does in the US.

In fact, 70% of KFCs money comes from outside the US.

It would be NOTHING for them to move out of the US, and save tons of money on taxes. Nothing. In fact, in looking at their revenue statistics, I'm surprised they haven't already.

Burger King already left the US, and is saving billions.

Anheuser-Busch left the US. They are operating out of Belgium now. No longer American Budweiser.

Medtronic left the US. They are in Ireland. They have been a US company for 67 years, and produce literally every type of medical device in existence.

Purina left the US. They are in Switzerland. An American company for over 100 years.

McDermott construction, moved to Panama. Seagate Technology changed to a private corporation in order to deregulate from the SEC, then moved the HQ out of the country, and now is a public corporation again, just not an American comporation. Good Humor ice cream brands now operate out of the UK. Frigidaire, the original refrigerator company, a US company for 60 years, now operates out of Sweden. Actavis/Allergan maker of many drugs, US company for 40 years, now in Ireland.

This is the short list of companies that have left.

So, no matter how much you demand "Anyone who makes a profit in this country, has to pay taxes on that profit"... you can say that all you want.... but you can't force people to stay here. And the harder you try and force them to stay, the more will leave.

The number of companies that left between 1983 to 2003 was 29. The number that have left between 2004 and 2013, 47.

The more you dump regulations and taxes on companies, the more that will leave, and the less jobs and taxes you will get.

That's how that works. I'm just a messenger. This is how life works.

 

[Billo_Really]

Of course we are not moving the company anywhere there is no demand.

That doesn't magically mean the US is the only place with demand.

KFC has 18,875 stores world wide.

KFC only has 4,200 stores in the US.

KFC has 4,400 in China.

There is more demand for KFC outside the US, than inside the US.

KFC makes more money in the rest of the world, than it does in the US.

In fact, 70% of KFCs money comes from outside the US.

It would be NOTHING for them to move out of the US, and save tons of money on taxes. Nothing. In fact, in looking at their revenue statistics, I'm surprised they haven't already.

Burger King already left the US, and is saving billions.

Anheuser-Busch left the US. They are operating out of Belgium now. No longer American Budweiser.

Medtronic left the US. They are in Ireland. They have been a US company for 67 years, and produce literally every type of medical device in existence.

Purina left the US. They are in Switzerland. An American company for over 100 years.

McDermott construction, moved to Panama. Seagate Technology changed to a private corporation in order to deregulate from the SEC, then moved the HQ out of the country, and now is a public corporation again, just not an American comporation. Good Humor ice cream brands now operate out of the UK. Frigidaire, the original refrigerator company, a US company for 60 years, now operates out of Sweden. Actavis/Allergan maker of many drugs, US company for 40 years, now in Ireland.

This is the short list of companies that have left.

So, no matter how much you demand "Anyone who makes a profit in this country, has to pay taxes on that profit"... you can say that all you want.... but you can't force people to stay here. And the harder you try and force them to stay, the more will leave.

The number of companies that left between 1983 to 2003 was 29. The number that have left between 2004 and 2013, 47.

The more you dump regulations and taxes on companies, the more that will leave, and the less jobs and taxes you will get.

That's how that works. I'm just a messenger. This is how life works.

Just for the sake of argument, lets say you're right. So, how do we get Goldman Sachs and Citicorp out of the fucking country?

 

[Spare_change]

If you buy their products... you are paying their taxes for them. If you buy services from someone who buys their product, you are paying their taxes for them.

The only way to not pay their taxes... is to not buy anything from them, or from anyone who buys from them.

If you have NetFlix, you are paying the taxes that NetFlix is paying, plus the taxes that computer manufacturer is paying, plus the taxes that Intel, or IBM, or whatever the company they buy their parts is paying.

You are paying all those taxes... for them. All taxes are passed on to the consumer.

The only way other place to get taxes from, is from investment and growth, and jobs. So if you jack up my corporate taxes, and I know I can avoid paying those taxes by moving my jobs and investment to Canada, or somewhere else....That's likely what I'm going to do.

"We can't stand these companies outsourcing!"..... well you are the cause of that outsourcing.

You're not moving your company anywhere where there is no demand for your product or service. Anyone who makes a profit in this country, has to pay taxes on that profit. There is no way I'm going to let you out of that obligation.

In a global economy, that's a dumb thing to say. The location of the "demand for your product" is a relatively innocuous part of the equation.

Your hunger for everybody else's money is duly noted.

 

[Andylusion]

Of course we are not moving the company anywhere there is no demand.

That doesn't magically mean the US is the only place with demand.

KFC has 18,875 stores world wide.

KFC only has 4,200 stores in the US.

KFC has 4,400 in China.

There is more demand for KFC outside the US, than inside the US.

KFC makes more money in the rest of the world, than it does in the US.

In fact, 70% of KFCs money comes from outside the US.

It would be NOTHING for them to move out of the US, and save tons of money on taxes. Nothing. In fact, in looking at their revenue statistics, I'm surprised they haven't already.

Burger King already left the US, and is saving billions.

Anheuser-Busch left the US. They are operating out of Belgium now. No longer American Budweiser.

Medtronic left the US. They are in Ireland. They have been a US company for 67 years, and produce literally every type of medical device in existence.

Purina left the US. They are in Switzerland. An American company for over 100 years.

McDermott construction, moved to Panama. Seagate Technology changed to a private corporation in order to deregulate from the SEC, then moved the HQ out of the country, and now is a public corporation again, just not an American comporation. Good Humor ice cream brands now operate out of the UK. Frigidaire, the original refrigerator company, a US company for 60 years, now operates out of Sweden. Actavis/Allergan maker of many drugs, US company for 40 years, now in Ireland.

This is the short list of companies that have left.

So, no matter how much you demand "Anyone who makes a profit in this country, has to pay taxes on that profit"... you can say that all you want.... but you can't force people to stay here. And the harder you try and force them to stay, the more will leave.

The number of companies that left between 1983 to 2003 was 29. The number that have left between 2004 and 2013, 47.

The more you dump regulations and taxes on companies, the more that will leave, and the less jobs and taxes you will get.

That's how that works. I'm just a messenger. This is how life works.

Just for the sake of argument, lets say you're right. So, how do we get Goldman Sachs and Citicorp out of the fucking country?

You people crack me up. It's like talking to a 5-year-old. I listed a dozen example that directly prove my point, and conclusively end the discussion. It's like saying one plus one is two, and getting one apple in a box, and placing another apple in the box, and saying see.... two apples.

And then the 5-year-old says.... "Just for the sake of argument, lets say you're right......."

Let me help you out... I am right, and I proved it. It's not "let's say"... it's "ok you are right".

So you actually want economic decline and poverty? Ok, well the way to do it is to drastically increase taxes and regulations on banks until they leave. Then you will kill the economy, and reduce the standard of living across the nation.

Pretty easy.

 

[FA_Q2]

As the taxes are applied to everything, the prices raise everywhere.

Taxes on a cigarette company, does not raise the price of falafal.

So the real goal here, for you, seems to be to raise taxes on everything that other people buy so that you do not have to foot the bill at all.

Rather interesting.

 

[Billo_Really]

You people crack me up. It's like talking to a 5-year-old. I listed a dozen example that directly prove my point, and conclusively end the discussion. It's like saying one plus one is two, and getting one apple in a box, and placing another apple in the box, and saying see.... two apples.

And then the 5-year-old says.... "Just for the sake of argument, lets say you're right......."

Let me help you out... I am right, and I proved it. It's not "let's say"... it's "ok you are right".

So you actually want economic decline and poverty? Ok, well the way to do it is to drastically increase taxes and regulations on banks until they leave. Then you will kill the economy, and reduce the standard of living across the nation.

Pretty easy.

You can take that condescending attitude of yours and shove it up your arrogant asshole ass! And you didn't prove shit.

The banks already destroyed this economy in 2008 due to deregulation of the financial industry a few years after the repeal of Glass-Steagall by that piece of shit Phil Gramm. That's what led to the meltdown and those are the whores you're in bed with.

 

[Billo_Really]

So the real goal here, for you, seems to be to raise taxes on everything that other people buy so that you do not have to foot the bill at all.

Rather interesting.

And the real goal for you is to keep making up my arguments for me.

 

[Billo_Really]

In a global economy, that's a dumb thing to say. The location of the "demand for your product" is a relatively innocuous part of the equation.

Without demand, there is no equation.

Your hunger for everybody else's money is duly noted.

And your penchant for ad hominems knows no bounds.

 

[FA_Q2]

So the real goal here, for you, seems to be to raise taxes on everything that other people buy so that you do not have to foot the bill at all.

Rather interesting.

And the real goal for you is to keep making up my arguments for me.

Then clarify.

You stated that you did not want to pay companies taxes for them.

It was pointed out that you do, indeed, pay those taxes for them every time you purchase a product.

Then you state that the tax on cigarettes does not raise the price of a falafal.

Tell me, what was your actual point on bringing up selective taxes then? Or was there even a point?

 

[Clementine]

Wasn't the whole purpose of the tax to get people to drink less soda? Or is Philly the greed one?

The purpose of all taxes is to get more of worker's money. They use many excuses to do that, all of which are supposedly for the greater good. Smoking is bad, so tax it. Sugar is bad, so tax it.

Dems especially are experts at getting their hands in people's pockets. And they are always so naïve that it surprises them when people try to safeguard their money from the slimy hands of politicians.

 

[Billo_Really]

Then clarify.

You stated that you did not want to pay companies taxes for them.

It was pointed out that you do, indeed, pay those taxes for them every time you purchase a product.

Then you state that the tax on cigarettes does not raise the price of a falafal.

Tell me, what was your actual point on bringing up selective taxes then? Or was there even a point?

I'm not paying their taxes, because your argument is ludicrous. To force corporations to pay their fair share of taxes, does not automatically mean they raise the cost of their services or products which directly affects me. Even if they raise their prices, the more they raise, the less competitive they become. And the less competitive they become, the less revenue they get. And company's with no revenue, cease to exist.

You're just some corporate shrill trying to sell this country out to the oligarchs.

 

[FA_Q2]

Then clarify.

You stated that you did not want to pay companies taxes for them.

It was pointed out that you do, indeed, pay those taxes for them every time you purchase a product.

Then you state that the tax on cigarettes does not raise the price of a falafal.

Tell me, what was your actual point on bringing up selective taxes then? Or was there even a point?

I'm not paying their taxes, because your argument is ludicrous. To force corporations to pay their fair share of taxes, does not automatically mean they raise the cost of their services or products which directly affects me. Even if they raise their prices, the more they raise, the less competitive they become. And the less competitive they become, the less revenue they get. And company's with no revenue, cease to exist.

You're just some corporate shrill trying to sell this country out to the oligarchs.

So you were just deflecting then.

You really think it is ludicrous that the cost of producing a product is paid for by the consumers of it? I can tell you which argument here is ludicrous.

 

[OKTexas]

Wasn't the whole purpose of the tax to get people to drink less soda? Or is Philly the greed one?

The purpose of all taxes is to get more of worker's money. They use many excuses to do that, all of which are supposedly for the greater good. Smoking is bad, so tax it. Sugar is bad, so tax it.

Dems especially are experts at getting their hands in people's pockets. And they are always so naïve that it surprises them when people try to safeguard their money from the slimy hands of politicians.

So you're saying it's greedy commiecrats wanting to gouge the poor? After all they're the ones that drink the most soda.

 

[Billo_Really]

So you were just deflecting then.

You really think it is ludicrous that the cost of producing a product is paid for by the consumers of it? I can tell you which argument here is ludicrous.

I'm saying making corporations pay the taxes they legally owe, does not directly affect the consumer. Let me make it a little easier for you to understand, your argument is bullshit.

 

[Slyhunter]

So you were just deflecting then.

You really think it is ludicrous that the cost of producing a product is paid for by the consumers of it? I can tell you which argument here is ludicrous.

I'm saying making corporations pay the taxes they legally owe, does not directly affect the consumer. Let me make it a little easier for you to understand, your argument is bullshit.

The stuff they sell must cover the cost of procuring that product to sell it. Taxes are part of that cost.