Should businesses be taxed at all?

[JakeStarkey]

Anyone who believes that business is the friend of consumer or worker can be fooled on anything nine of ten times.

Yes, business should be taxed at a fair rate while given no subsidies or exemptions. None.

Any business in America should have its overseas operations taxed at the same level as here in America, with an offset for the amount the business is taxed by other countries.

Crush the bourgeoisie!

Pay a fair rate. Doing business in America comes with reciprocal duties, and paying fair taxes is one of them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We could cut the business tax to zero,

right after you tell us whose taxes should be raised to make up for the lost revenue resulting from a zero tax on business.

Too bad you people don't understand that the most prevalent business organizations are S corps and LLCs which pay no taxes as all the profit is reported on the shareholders' or members' personal tax returns via the K1

I'll go slower, toddler.

11% of federal tax revenue comes from the corporate income tax. If you cut that to zero, you've reduced your revenue by 11%.

Whose taxes will you raise to make up that 11%?

No one's. By the way please show me where I said business shouldn't pay taxes. I am merely pointing to you people who whine that corps don't pay taxes that there are reasons for it that they and you probably don't understand

I would institute a flat tax where everyone including business pay the same rate

So you were trolling with off topic blather. Gee, what a talent.

It's not off topic

Business should pay income taxes but they should be no different than individual income taxes
And individual income taxes should all be the same rate

It makes no sense to tax all income at the same rate, unless you think the poor are undertaxed,

 

[NYcarbineer]

We could cut the business tax to zero,

right after you tell us whose taxes should be raised to make up for the lost revenue resulting from a zero tax on business.

The amount of revenue the government never changes...PERIOD. It is always about 18% of the GDP. That number never changes so I suspect after a temporary drop off it will recuperate so you don't have to worry about your government lord running out of money.

You know, every once in awhile I think you'll never say anything dumber than you've said in the past,

but there you go.

If government tax revenue never changes, 'period', no matter what tax policy is,

why don't we cut everyone's tax rates to ZERO. And still, as you claim get revenue that is 18% of GDP.

Goddam that's funny.

 

[Deleted member 53821]

We could cut the business tax to zero,

right after you tell us whose taxes should be raised to make up for the lost revenue resulting from a zero tax on business.

The amount of revenue the government never changes...PERIOD. It is always about 18% of the GDP. That number never changes so I suspect after a temporary drop off it will recuperate so you don't have to worry about your government lord running out of money.

You know, every once in awhile I think you'll never say anything dumber than you've said in the past,

but there you go.

If government tax revenue never changes, 'period', no matter what tax policy is,

why don't we cut everyone's tax rates to ZERO. And still, as you claim get revenue that is 18% of GDP.

Goddam that's funny.

We can't do that because then how would we collect taxes?

I didn't know you were being sarcastic. I thought people were being sarcastic when they said bailing out the automakers with printed money would be good for the economy but it turns people really did think that was true.

 

[Deleted member 53821]

On the local level, this may be an effective way to draw businesses into their community.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We could cut the business tax to zero,

right after you tell us whose taxes should be raised to make up for the lost revenue resulting from a zero tax on business.

The amount of revenue the government never changes...PERIOD. It is always about 18% of the GDP. That number never changes so I suspect after a temporary drop off it will recuperate so you don't have to worry about your government lord running out of money.

You know, every once in awhile I think you'll never say anything dumber than you've said in the past,

but there you go.

If government tax revenue never changes, 'period', no matter what tax policy is,

why don't we cut everyone's tax rates to ZERO. And still, as you claim get revenue that is 18% of GDP.

Goddam that's funny.

We can't do that because then how would we collect taxes?

I didn't know you were being sarcastic. I thought people were being sarcastic when they said bailing out the automakers with printed money would be good for the economy but it turns people really did think that was true.

First of all you were wrong.

Take note for example what happens to tax revenues after Clinton raised taxes in 1993, or after Bush cut taxes twice.

 

[Deleted member 53821]

We could cut the business tax to zero,

right after you tell us whose taxes should be raised to make up for the lost revenue resulting from a zero tax on business.

The amount of revenue the government never changes...PERIOD. It is always about 18% of the GDP. That number never changes so I suspect after a temporary drop off it will recuperate so you don't have to worry about your government lord running out of money.

You know, every once in awhile I think you'll never say anything dumber than you've said in the past,

but there you go.

If government tax revenue never changes, 'period', no matter what tax policy is,

why don't we cut everyone's tax rates to ZERO. And still, as you claim get revenue that is 18% of GDP.

Goddam that's funny.

We can't do that because then how would we collect taxes?

I didn't know you were being sarcastic. I thought people were being sarcastic when they said bailing out the automakers with printed money would be good for the economy but it turns people really did think that was true.

First of all you were wrong.

Take note for example what happens to tax revenues after Clinton raised taxes in 1993, or after Bush cut taxes twice.

DO you mean to point out that the income tax rate was still lower than what it was in 1944 and the percent of GDP was about the same. I took note of that. The revenue went up between 1991 and 1993 because we were beginning a recovery which will always lead to an increase in revenue.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So you admit Bush the Elder's policies led to a recession, and it was Bill Clinton that led us out of it?

 

[Deleted member 53821]

So you admit Bush the Elder's policies led to a recession, and it was Bill Clinton that led us out of it?

I never denied that there was a recession and that there was a recovery. It is the standard business cycle in this country. The causes of those might be debatable. I happen to agree with Ron Paul that the central bank has a lot to do with them but since there are a lot of people who seem to think that only the elites can run such a thing we will never know how they may be contributing to that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So you admit Bush the Elder's policies led to a recession, and it was Bill Clinton that led us out of it?

I never denied that there was a recession and that there was a recovery. It is the standard business cycle in this country. The causes of those might be debatable. I happen to agree with Ron Paul that the central bank has a lot to do with them but since there are a lot of people who seem to think that only the elites can run such a thing we will never know how they may be contributing to that.

TMI!

 

[Arizona Willie]

I want to throw this question out there because it just seems that any tax a business pays gets passed onto the consumer. It is just a part of the cost of doing business that the consumer ends up paying for in higher cost to them so why even tax businesses at all if this is true? This wouldn't be to practical on the federal level but on the state or city level it might since it might attract a lot of businesses into that state. The lure of paying absolutely no taxes must be appealing to any business whatsoever so why even tax a business if the outcome can be positive for the local area?

========
Republicans always claim " taxes are passed on to the consumer so you wind up paying --- not me ".

But yet businesses move to get tax breaks from the community --- why bother if they just pass the tax on? It doesn't really affect them ( or so they claim ).

If they don't pay the tax why would they give a damn what the city / state / feds charge them in taxes === remember they claim the don't pay them === we do.

 

[Brain357]

I want to throw this question out there because it just seems that any tax a business pays gets passed onto the consumer. It is just a part of the cost of doing business that the consumer ends up paying for in higher cost to them so why even tax businesses at all if this is true? This wouldn't be to practical on the federal level but on the state or city level it might since it might attract a lot of businesses into that state. The lure of paying absolutely no taxes must be appealing to any business whatsoever so why even tax a business if the outcome can be positive for the local area?

========
Republicans always claim " taxes are passed on to the consumer so you wind up paying --- not me ".

But yet businesses move to get tax breaks from the community --- why bother if they just pass the tax on? It doesn't really affect them ( or so they claim ).

If they don't pay the tax why would they give a damn what the city / state / feds charge them in taxes === remember they claim the don't pay them === we do.

Tax breaks are an advantage over competition.

 

[Katzndogz]

Should businesses be taxed at all?

Who consumes/uses most public infrastructure resources? Who has the most to protect? Who should repay the national debt?

the welfare scum?

It is not the welfare class that is governments liabilities it is those collecting social security and Medicaid.

The average hard working American who pays taxes their whole life will take more from the government than they pay in through social security and Medicare.That is the largest contribution to the national debt.

The government has promised everybody more than the government can afford.

Well, each year the US government gives "farm subsidies" to folks like Paul Allen (Billionaire), Penny Pritzker (billionaire) Ted Turner (Billionaire) Jon Bon Jovi, Bruce Springsteen, Alice, Jim and Rob Walton of Walmart - on and on and on.

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...mers-grow-subsidies-instead-milking-taxpayers

This has been going on for 50 years. Think that is right? I don't.

The biggest subsidy goes to alpacas. There is a tax break of 110% for alpaca ranching. These rich people may only have one. One alpaca gives them a huge tax break.

Out around Temecula are big alpaca ranches that care for the alpacas that belong to other people. Someone buys the animal then boards it at one of these ranches. The owner gets the benefit of the shearing and babies, less expenses.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Should businesses be taxed at all?

Who consumes/uses most public infrastructure resources? Who has the most to protect? Who should repay the national debt?

the welfare scum?

It is not the welfare class that is governments liabilities it is those collecting social security and Medicaid.

The average hard working American who pays taxes their whole life will take more from the government than they pay in through social security and Medicare.That is the largest contribution to the national debt.

The government has promised everybody more than the government can afford.

Well, each year the US government gives "farm subsidies" to folks like Paul Allen (Billionaire), Penny Pritzker (billionaire) Ted Turner (Billionaire) Jon Bon Jovi, Bruce Springsteen, Alice, Jim and Rob Walton of Walmart - on and on and on.

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...mers-grow-subsidies-instead-milking-taxpayers

This has been going on for 50 years. Think that is right? I don't.

The biggest subsidy goes to alpacas. There is a tax break of 110% for alpaca ranching. These rich people may only have one. One alpaca gives them a huge tax break.

Out around Temecula are big alpaca ranches that care for the alpacas that belong to other people. Someone buys the animal then boards it at one of these ranches. The owner gets the benefit of the shearing and babies, less expenses.

Know I know why Claude is doing so well out there. I had no idea. Good on him. Are they good eating, Tipsy?

 

[Rustic]

I want to throw this question out there because it just seems that any tax a business pays gets passed onto the consumer. It is just a part of the cost of doing business that the consumer ends up paying for in higher cost to them so why even tax businesses at all if this is true? This wouldn't be to practical on the federal level but on the state or city level it might since it might attract a lot of businesses into that state. The lure of paying absolutely no taxes must be appealing to any business whatsoever so why even tax a business if the outcome can be positive for the local area?

No...

 

[yiostheoy]

I want to throw this question out there because it just seems that any tax a business pays gets passed onto the consumer. It is just a part of the cost of doing business that the consumer ends up paying for in higher cost to them so why even tax businesses at all if this is true? This wouldn't be to practical on the federal level but on the state or city level it might since it might attract a lot of businesses into that state. The lure of paying absolutely no taxes must be appealing to any business whatsoever so why even tax a business if the outcome can be positive for the local area?

Tax is on profits, you moron.