No taxes?

[Full-Auto]

Mitt Romney on Obama Voters - YouTube

Holy mother of god what a stupid thing for him to say. Not to mention it's not even true. Well... Not really... Follow me on this conservatives because most liberals won't agree...

Any tax on a company is essentially a tax not on the company, but on whoever buys the goods right? I mean a company wants to make a certain percentage return on profit, and if it doesn't get it there isn't any point in actually giving the good or service.

Well... There is a corporate tax.

Taxable Income ($) Tax Rate[22]
0 to 50,000------------------------15%
50,000 to 75,000-----------------$7,500 + 25% Of the amount over 50,000
75,000 to 100,000----------------$13,750 + 34% Of the amount over 75,000
100,000 to 335,000--------------- $22,250 + 39% Of the amount over 100,000
335,000 to 10,000,000------------$113,900 + 34% Of the amount over 335,000
10,000,000 to 15,000,000---------$3,400,000 + 35% Of the amount over 10,000,000
15,000,000 to 18,333,333----------$5,150,000 + 38% Of the amount over 15,000,000
18,333,333 and up 35%

Hey... Sure... That 47% may not pay income tax... But they sure as hell buy food, clothing, shelter, and anything and everything from Walmart. Oh they pay taxes, it's just hidden in corporate tax.


That's how I see it... Feel free to punch any hole in that you can... I'm listening.

You just posted the liberal wet dream.

Making others pay more so you dont have to.


Can you show the equality in those tax rates?

 

[blastoff]

People with functioning brains know exactly who Mitt was talking about and Barry and the Dims know it too, and worry about the thinking folks getting fed up with it as it will cost them in November.

 

[Shelzin]

Mitt Romney on Obama Voters - YouTube

Holy mother of god what a stupid thing for him to say. Not to mention it's not even true. Well... Not really... Follow me on this conservatives because most liberals won't agree...

Any tax on a company is essentially a tax not on the company, but on whoever buys the goods right? I mean a company wants to make a certain percentage return on profit, and if it doesn't get it there isn't any point in actually giving the good or service.

Well... There is a corporate tax.

Taxable Income ($) Tax Rate[22]
0 to 50,000------------------------15%
50,000 to 75,000-----------------$7,500 + 25% Of the amount over 50,000
75,000 to 100,000----------------$13,750 + 34% Of the amount over 75,000
100,000 to 335,000--------------- $22,250 + 39% Of the amount over 100,000
335,000 to 10,000,000------------$113,900 + 34% Of the amount over 335,000
10,000,000 to 15,000,000---------$3,400,000 + 35% Of the amount over 10,000,000
15,000,000 to 18,333,333----------$5,150,000 + 38% Of the amount over 15,000,000
18,333,333 and up 35%

Hey... Sure... That 47% may not pay income tax... But they sure as hell buy food, clothing, shelter, and anything and everything from Walmart. Oh they pay taxes, it's just hidden in corporate tax.


That's how I see it... Feel free to punch any hole in that you can... I'm listening.

You just posted the liberal wet dream.

Making others pay more so you dont have to.


Can you show the equality in those tax rates?

No... I can't show equality in those tax rates.

But again... I can't figure out why more conservatives, ie republicans, aren't stepping up and saying "Damn, I'm paying 30% more for goods/services than what's necessary"

Most conservatives understand and agree that any tax on a company is essentially a tax on the consumer of the good. So... They are happy with 30% taxes on goods/services? This is acceptable?

 

[AmyNation]

Mitt Romney on Obama Voters - YouTube

Holy mother of god what a stupid thing for him to say. Not to mention it's not even true. Well... Not really... Follow me on this conservatives because most liberals won't agree...

Any tax on a company is essentially a tax not on the company, but on whoever buys the goods right? I mean a company wants to make a certain percentage return on profit, and if it doesn't get it there isn't any point in actually giving the good or service.

Well... There is a corporate tax.

Taxable Income ($) Tax Rate[22]
0 to 50,000------------------------15%
50,000 to 75,000-----------------$7,500 + 25% Of the amount over 50,000
75,000 to 100,000----------------$13,750 + 34% Of the amount over 75,000
100,000 to 335,000--------------- $22,250 + 39% Of the amount over 100,000
335,000 to 10,000,000------------$113,900 + 34% Of the amount over 335,000
10,000,000 to 15,000,000---------$3,400,000 + 35% Of the amount over 10,000,000
15,000,000 to 18,333,333----------$5,150,000 + 38% Of the amount over 15,000,000
18,333,333 and up 35%

Hey... Sure... That 47% may not pay income tax... But they sure as hell buy food, clothing, shelter, and anything and everything from Walmart. Oh they pay taxes, it's just hidden in corporate tax.


That's how I see it... Feel free to punch any hole in that you can... I'm listening.

You just posted the liberal wet dream.

Making others pay more so you dont have to.


Can you show the equality in those tax rates?

No... I can't show equality in those tax rates.

But again... I can't figure out why more conservatives, ie republicans, aren't stepping up and saying "Damn, I'm paying 30% more for goods/services than what's necessary"

Most conservatives understand and agree that any tax on a company is essentially a tax on the consumer of the good. So... They are happy with 30% taxes on goods/services? This is acceptable?

I disagree with the premise that all or most corporate taxes are passed to consumers. The 1st thing a busniess does is pass cost to employees, ie cutting hours, benifits, wages. Yes busniess pass costs to consumers however they can only do that to a degree, because raised costs lower demand, and after a point that hurts the business more than just eating the added cost.

 

[Shelzin]

You just posted the liberal wet dream.

Making others pay more so you dont have to.


Can you show the equality in those tax rates?

No... I can't show equality in those tax rates.

But again... I can't figure out why more conservatives, ie republicans, aren't stepping up and saying "Damn, I'm paying 30% more for goods/services than what's necessary"

Most conservatives understand and agree that any tax on a company is essentially a tax on the consumer of the good. So... They are happy with 30% taxes on goods/services? This is acceptable?

I disagree with the premise that all or most corporate taxes are passed to consumers. The 1st thing a busniess does is pass cost to employees, ie cutting hours, benifits, wages. Yes busniess pass costs to consumers however they can only do that to a degree, because raised costs lower demand, and after a point that hurts the business more than just eating the added cost.

I agree that's what happens short term, for new taxes or increased taxes. However corporate tax is hardly either of those.

And I don't think that it's a valid to say that if they got rid of corporate tax that suddenly the workers would be getting paid more money or get better benefits. I mean the company is going to try to get all the profit they can, this includes trying to get the lowest wage possible for the quality of work they want. That's going to stay true whither there is a corporate tax or not.

 

[AmyNation]

No... I can't show equality in those tax rates.

But again... I can't figure out why more conservatives, ie republicans, aren't stepping up and saying "Damn, I'm paying 30% more for goods/services than what's necessary"

Most conservatives understand and agree that any tax on a company is essentially a tax on the consumer of the good. So... They are happy with 30% taxes on goods/services? This is acceptable?

I disagree with the premise that all or most corporate taxes are passed to consumers. The 1st thing a busniess does is pass cost to employees, ie cutting hours, benifits, wages. Yes busniess pass costs to consumers however they can only do that to a degree, because raised costs lower demand, and after a point that hurts the business more than just eating the added cost.

I agree that's what happens short term, for new taxes or increased taxes. However corporate tax is hardly either of those.

And I don't think that it's a valid to say that if they got rid of corporate tax that suddenly the workers would be getting paid more money or get better benefits. I mean the company is going to try to get all the profit they can, this includes trying to get the lowest wage possible for the quality of work they want. That's going to stay true whither there is a corporate tax or not.

I agree corporate tax is a factor in long time pricing, but it's only 1 of many factors.

 

[Shelzin]

I disagree with the premise that all or most corporate taxes are passed to consumers. The 1st thing a busniess does is pass cost to employees, ie cutting hours, benifits, wages. Yes busniess pass costs to consumers however they can only do that to a degree, because raised costs lower demand, and after a point that hurts the business more than just eating the added cost.

I agree that's what happens short term, for new taxes or increased taxes. However corporate tax is hardly either of those.

And I don't think that it's a valid to say that if they got rid of corporate tax that suddenly the workers would be getting paid more money or get better benefits. I mean the company is going to try to get all the profit they can, this includes trying to get the lowest wage possible for the quality of work they want. That's going to stay true whither there is a corporate tax or not.

I agree corporate tax is a factor in long time pricing, but it's only 1 of many factors.

I just want to make it clear that... Yes... Of course there are more factors than just taxes in defining a price for a good.

However... If 30% of the good/service has to be dedicated to taxes... Obviously that good is going to be 30% more expensive than if it wasn't there with everything else being equal.

A tax to a corporation is nothing more than a business expense.

 

[AmyNation]

I agree that's what happens short term, for new taxes or increased taxes. However corporate tax is hardly either of those.

And I don't think that it's a valid to say that if they got rid of corporate tax that suddenly the workers would be getting paid more money or get better benefits. I mean the company is going to try to get all the profit they can, this includes trying to get the lowest wage possible for the quality of work they want. That's going to stay true whither there is a corporate tax or not.

I agree corporate tax is a factor in long time pricing, but it's only 1 of many factors.

I just want to make it clear that... Yes... Of course there are more factors than just taxes in defining a price for a good.

However... If 30% of the good/service has to be dedicated to taxes... Obviously that good is going to be 30% more expensive than if it wasn't there with everything else being equal.

A tax to a corporation is nothing more than a business expense.

Again I don't think you can say

Cost of item + 30% corporate tax = price of item + 30% corporate tax

The item is not 30% more expensive to consumers based on that tax.

 

[Shelzin]

I agree corporate tax is a factor in long time pricing, but it's only 1 of many factors.

I just want to make it clear that... Yes... Of course there are more factors than just taxes in defining a price for a good.

However... If 30% of the good/service has to be dedicated to taxes... Obviously that good is going to be 30% more expensive than if it wasn't there with everything else being equal.

A tax to a corporation is nothing more than a business expense.

Again I don't think you can say

Cost of item + 30% corporate tax = price of item + 30% corporate tax

Eh... Is cost the same thing as price here?

I see cost of item is what it takes to manufacture it.
Price is what it sells for. They would of course be different.

The item is not 30% more expensive to consumers based on that tax.

Then yes... We absolutely do disagree on that. I mean I low balled the hell out of the actual percentage just to not argue about this. o.0

 

[AmyNation]

I just want to make it clear that... Yes... Of course there are more factors than just taxes in defining a price for a good.

However... If 30% of the good/service has to be dedicated to taxes... Obviously that good is going to be 30% more expensive than if it wasn't there with everything else being equal.

A tax to a corporation is nothing more than a business expense.

Again I don't think you can say

Cost of item + 30% corporate tax = price of item + 30% corporate tax

Eh... Is cost the same thing as price here?

I see cost of item is what it takes to manufacture it.
Price is what it sells for. They would of course be different.

The item is not 30% more expensive to consumers based on that tax.

Then yes... We absolutely do disagree on that. I mean I low balled the hell out of the actual percentage just to not argue about this. o.0

Im looking at cost as everything (except corporate tax) that it takes a company to produce it, and price what they are selling for.

The price of an item is not solely determined by how much it takes to produce it. The price is set by the maket, by how much consumers are willing to spend. If I charge too much, demand drops as people choose not to buy my product and seek cheaper alternatives. There is no direct correlation in corporate tax and the price you spend at the store.

 

[tjvh]

You are failing, Libtards.

But please do bring the loser entitlement mentality of the typical gubmint dependent Obama voter to the public discourse.

The media sure as hell won't do it.

LOL

Snipe, what parts of SALES, FUEL, USER, FEES, ASSESSMENTS & "COSTS" do you not comprehend? The poor pay more taxes proportionate to income than do the wealthy, and Romney aims to keep it that way.

What you don't grasp is that the Poor are paying those Taxes on the backs of others... Those Welfare checks aren't free... They are paid for by Taxing those of us who actually work, have jobs, and motivate ourselves to achieve something more than waiting on the Mailman to bring us a check.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

What you don't grasp is that the Poor are paying those Taxes on the backs of others... Those Welfare checks aren't free... They are paid for by Taxing those of us who actually work, have jobs, and motivate ourselves to achieve something more than waiting on the Mailman to bring us a check.

Moron. Again. Most of those "47%" are paying payroll taxes, which means they have JOBS, and most of them aren't receiving any other "welfare". I guess you call not gouging out 15% of a 13K salary welfare, but whatever. These people are spending all their money they make to just survive - we're talking basic food, shelter, transportation. THAT'S why they don't pay income tax. But they do pay 15% payroll taxes and medicare taxes. I don't understand why you don't consider those "income taxes", because they sure do take a big chunk of income out of my paycheck. Does Mittens pay those taxes? No he doesn't... on top of only paying 13% of his income in taxes. Fuck him.

 

[Shelzin]

There is no direct correlation in corporate tax and the price you spend at the store.

I disagree... It's not a one to one ratio and it would vary slightly from product to product... But I do believe it is direct enough to make the claim.

If you drop corporate tax and the price didn't drop damn near the same amount, then there isn't enough competition for that product/service.

 

[AmyNation]

There is no direct correlation in corporate tax and the price you spend at the store.

I disagree... It's not a one to one ratio and it would vary slightly from product to product... But I do believe it is direct enough to make the claim.

If you drop corporate tax and the price didn't drop damn near the same amount, then there isn't enough competition for that product/service.

If you drop corporate tax the price would absolutely not drop in any significant way. It may drop a few pennies depending on the item and if the company thinks they can raise demand with a cheaper price, however many items would not drop at all.

If I'm making money, and people are willing to buy my item for $14, why would I charge less simply because the price to produce that item drops? Some companies would take that extra savings and expand, most large companies would simply pocket the profit.

 

[Shelzin]

There is no direct correlation in corporate tax and the price you spend at the store.

I disagree... It's not a one to one ratio and it would vary slightly from product to product... But I do believe it is direct enough to make the claim.

If you drop corporate tax and the price didn't drop damn near the same amount, then there isn't enough competition for that product/service.

If you drop corporate tax the price would absolutely not drop in any significant way. It may drop a few pennies depending on the item and if the company thinks they can raise demand with a cheaper price, however many items would not drop at all.

If I'm making money, and people are willing to buy my item for $14, why would I charge less simply because the price to produce that item drops? Some companies would take that extra savings and expand, most large companies would simply pocket the profit.

If you drop corporate tax and the price didn't drop damn near the same amount, then there isn't enough competition for that product/service.

 

[AmyNation]

I disagree... It's not a one to one ratio and it would vary slightly from product to product... But I do believe it is direct enough to make the claim.

If you drop corporate tax and the price didn't drop damn near the same amount, then there isn't enough competition for that product/service.

If you drop corporate tax the price would absolutely not drop in any significant way. It may drop a few pennies depending on the item and if the company thinks they can raise demand with a cheaper price, however many items would not drop at all.

If I'm making money, and people are willing to buy my item for $14, why would I charge less simply because the price to produce that item drops? Some companies would take that extra savings and expand, most large companies would simply pocket the profit.

If you drop corporate tax and the price didn't drop damn near the same amount, then there isn't enough competition for that product/service.

I can see you are assuming there would be some sort of price war between competitors. I think I will simply say, I disagree that prices will drop dramatically.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Holy mother of god what a stupid thing for him to say. Not to mention it's not even true.

That’s pretty much all that needs to be said.

And it isn’t true. It’s not true these Americans are all ‘Obama supporters,’ it’s not true they’re all ‘on government assistance,’ it’s not true they make up an ‘entitlement society,’ and it’s not true they ‘expect the be taken care of by the government.’

These Americans take personal responsibility, have worked hard most of their lives, and don’t deserved to be maligned by the likes of Romney, who has clearly demonstrated he’s unfit to be president.

Not just stupid but factually untrue.

But, look at the bright side - Mittens is like Bush. He's the gift that just keeps on giving. He'll never be prez (maybe there really is a gawdz?) but there will still be lists on line and possible books of his Gaffe du Jour.

As each one dies down, he jumps right in to give us another.

I hate to think of him on the national stage. I've said it before because I believe its true - he would have us at war within a very few months of his coronation.

He said that making money by destroying jobs and taking people's jobs was easy. We don't need him to be destroying America and American jobs.

 

[Shelzin]

If you drop corporate tax the price would absolutely not drop in any significant way. It may drop a few pennies depending on the item and if the company thinks they can raise demand with a cheaper price, however many items would not drop at all.

If I'm making money, and people are willing to buy my item for $14, why would I charge less simply because the price to produce that item drops? Some companies would take that extra savings and expand, most large companies would simply pocket the profit.

If you drop corporate tax and the price didn't drop damn near the same amount, then there isn't enough competition for that product/service.

I can see you are assuming there would be some sort of price war between competitors.

That's generally what happens in a free market.

I think I will simply say, I disagree that prices will drop dramatically.

Wouldn't it be pretty easy to prove that we aren't in a free market, if actually shown that we don't by getting rid of these hidden costs that nobody really thinks about and the price doesn't change with the removal of them?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If you drop corporate tax and the price didn't drop damn near the same amount, then there isn't enough competition for that product/service.

I can see you are assuming there would be some sort of price war between competitors.

That's generally what happens in a free market.

I think I will simply say, I disagree that prices will drop dramatically.

Wouldn't it be pretty easy to prove that we aren't in a free market, if actually shown that we don't by getting rid of these hidden costs that nobody really thinks about and the price doesn't change with the removal of them?

We don't live in a "free market".

A "free market" has never existed, in fact.

It's as foolishly utopian to call for a "free market" as it is to call for "socialism".

 

[Shelzin]

I can see you are assuming there would be some sort of price war between competitors.

That's generally what happens in a free market.

I think I will simply say, I disagree that prices will drop dramatically.

Wouldn't it be pretty easy to prove that we aren't in a free market, if actually shown that we don't by getting rid of these hidden costs that nobody really thinks about and the price doesn't change with the removal of them?

We don't live in a "free market".

A "free market" has never existed, in fact.

It's as foolishly utopian to call for a "free market" as it is to call for "socialism".

*shrugs* Then I am obviously a fool for wanting as free of a market as we can have.