...equitable tax policies.
- Business Taxes
No deductions will be allowed. None. Nada. Zero.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
If you would rise above your partisan fog for a moment, you will see I am addressing your attack on Democrats, not YellowRose's idea. I do not agree with YellowRose's proposal. Your response smearing all Democrats as "CLUELESS" was in itself a clueless partisan attack.Originally posted by: Ornery
...equitable tax policies.Equitable tax policies? Yeah, whatever you say.
- Business Taxes
No deductions will be allowed. None. Nada. Zero.
You can't deny that the main plank in the Dem's platform is soaking the rich. That's their mantra, and their prime voter recruitment method. Doesn't matter if it's cutting off your nose to spite your face, by killing new businesses & jobs, or completely retarded, like the premise of this topic. As long as we 'sock it to the rich', that's all that matters. Hell, we can have as many social programs as your heart desires, and won't cost us a penny, because we'll just get 'the rich' to pay for it! How can a party lose, who makes promises like that? 
You call yourself liberal? Those would be huge tax cuts for everyone.
Business taxes could be too high, but at least they would be simple.
OUr tax code should not be more complex than what you have described.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Yes, in fact, I can deny it, and you're changing the subject in any case. The issue is your clueless partisan claim that Democrats are "CLUELESS".
Oh, no! The sky is falling. Typical cry of the right whenever someone suggests the wealthy should contribute a little more to America.That's their mantra, and their prime voter recruitment method. Doesn't matter if it's cutting off your nose to spite your face, by killing new businesses & jobs, or completely retarded, like the premise of this topic. As long as we 'sock it to the rich', that's all that matters. Hell, we can have as many social programs as your heart desires, and won't cost us a penny, because we'll just get 'the rich' to pay for it! How can a party lose, who makes promises like that?
As someone who makes just a little over 50K I can honestly say if I had to pay any more in taxes I couldn't even remotely consider home ownership here in Massachusetts, my wife and I combined just barely make enough to cover an entry level place here that is somewhat near work/the city...I know in massachusetts, if people making 50K and up are taxed any higher you would see a mass migration out of the state or a large number of people in poverty.
YellowRose, where did you get this information? I would like to see how they get more back than they pay in. Sound like a very good liberal idea.
XZeroII
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2001
- 12,572
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
actually i did not, i got back more money thx to bush's tax cut ,which i then spent along with others and contributed to the economic recovery teh dems try so hard to disguise.
when through taxes or whatever expense it becomes more expensive for a busines/service provider to operate does that mean the business is paying more of it's "fair share"?
if you said "yes" you are wrong. cost of operation/production is ALWAYS passed to the CONSUMER.
for example:
if kerry wins and gets his gas tax increase, who pays it? WE DO but not just at the pump! t creates a chain.
wherever you buy groceries the increased cost of tranpsortation will make goods more expensive for the farmer to produce who offsets the cost by increasing prices which is passed on the wholsaler, who buys and distributes the food who offsets the cost by increasing prices to the grocer to buys the food from the wholsaler who offsets the cost by increasing prices to the CONSUMER...ever the last one in every chain!
when you tax businesses you in reality tax yourself. you just feel better about it!
OMG! Someone with a CLUE! This is remarkable. This guy should get a medal or something.
XZeroII
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2001
- 12,572
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Actually, you did, or rather you will. That $100 million refund was added to the deficit along with the hundreds of millions more Wachovia did not pay on its profits. While you did not pay for 2003 corporate welfare yet, part of the income tax you did pay was applied to past years' corporate welfare and the interest it adds to the national debt.
When someone doesn't pay their share of taxes, other taxpayers pick up the slack. That's just the way it is.
Income taxes are NOT a cost of operation or production. They are a tax on PROFITS. You continue to misunderstand this critical difference.
Profits are returned to a company's owners/investors. Income taxes reduce the amount of profits returned. In a free market, business income taxes do NOT affect the price of goods.
Prudent business owners always price their wares to return the greatest profit for the business. Owners may choose to raise prices so they can draw more profits. They have to do so carefully, however, because this can make their product prices uncompetitive. Owners may choose to lower prices to increase sales, believing they will profit more by selling more widgets at a lower, per-widget profit. Either way, the selling price is set to maximize profits. Income tax comes after the fact.
Businesses will always set their prices as high as necessary to generate the greatest profit. This is true whether their income tax rate is 0% or 10% or 90%. Income tax doesn't affect product prices. It only affects how much profit the investors receive.
Not necessarily. When you assess income taxes on a business, you tax its owners.[ ... ]when you tax businesses you in reality tax yourself. you just feel better about it!
You have no idea how the world works. Taxes are liabilities to companies. This means that they are a drain on the company. If liabilities go up, then profits go down. When profits go down, the company looks for ways to raise them again. They see that their taxes have gone up, so to compensate they raise the price of their products. It happens constantly. It's been proven. Taxes take money away from the company, so they compensate by raising prices.
Think of it this way, imagine a gas station. They sell gas for $1.50 per gallon. Now the gov't raises taxes on gas by $.20 per gallon. Is that gas station going to just eat that cost? Heck no! They are going to raise their price to $1.70 per gallon. They aren't going to lose profit simply because the gov't wants more money. The same theory applies to corporate taxes.
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
Bullsh!t. Wachovia paid $1,833,000,000.00 in income taxes for 2003. That's almost 2 BILLION dollars. That's up from $1,088,000,000.00 in 2002. There was a change in accounting principle during FY03 which resulted in a $17MM addition to reported income, but that was NET of income taxes. Feel free to check yourself on the Wachovia Corp. 2003 annual report/Edgar 10K filing, link below:
Wachovia 2003 annual report (pg. 81 has the relevant data)
Jeez, there's nothing I hate more than someone who lies about something so very easily verified....
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Sorry, son, but that honor seems to belong to you.Originally posted by: XZeroII
You have no idea how the world works.Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Actually, you did, or rather you will. That $100 million refund was added to the deficit along with the hundreds of millions more Wachovia did not pay on its profits. While you did not pay for 2003 corporate welfare yet, part of the income tax you did pay was applied to past years' corporate welfare and the interest it adds to the national debt.
When someone doesn't pay their share of taxes, other taxpayers pick up the slack. That's just the way it is.
Income taxes are NOT a cost of operation or production. They are a tax on PROFITS. You continue to misunderstand this critical difference.
Profits are returned to a company's owners/investors. Income taxes reduce the amount of profits returned. In a free market, business income taxes do NOT affect the price of goods.
Prudent business owners always price their wares to return the greatest profit for the business. Owners may choose to raise prices so they can draw more profits. They have to do so carefully, however, because this can make their product prices uncompetitive. Owners may choose to lower prices to increase sales, believing they will profit more by selling more widgets at a lower, per-widget profit. Either way, the selling price is set to maximize profits. Income tax comes after the fact.
Businesses will always set their prices as high as necessary to generate the greatest profit. This is true whether their income tax rate is 0% or 10% or 90%. Income tax doesn't affect product prices. It only affects how much profit the investors receive.
Not necessarily. When you assess income taxes on a business, you tax its owners.[ ... ]when you tax businesses you in reality tax yourself. you just feel better about it!
You continue to confuse income taxes which are levied against profits with other kinds of taxes which truly do add to product costs (e.g., your gasoline tax, VAT) or operating costs (e.g., property tax, payroll taxes). They are NOT the same.
Competent companies will always set the price as high as they can to generate maximize profits. Income taxes are assessed on those profits. There is no reason any rational company would lower prices because of a drop in income taxes since that would mean they were intentionally reducing their profits.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
I believe the Wahovia example is several years old. It is one of many cited examples of multi-billion dollar companies paying a pittance in taxes, or even, as in the Wachovia case, receiving money (effectively, a negative tax) thanks to special targeted credits, loopholes, etc. Believe it or not, it is true.
YellowRose,
A gun toting liberal democrat. Thank you. The good ol' fashioned liberal. Maybe there still are a few good liberals left.
Anyway, I think the Capital Gain tax should be lowered a bit.
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
So I'm to assume your assertion is correct since otherwise it harms the premise for your overall POV? Your compatriots in worldview are using that as an example to bash corporations, for example:
You stand up and put those spewing this kind of rhetoric into their place, and I'll let your assertion go without support as just an anecdote. Otherwise, I'm going to "0wn3d" your assertions each time with actual evidence.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Whatever. When I see you attacking some of the people on the right who are equally over-passionate, I may start worrying about it. Until then, I've seen no shortage of people eager to jump on Dave with their own over-the-top assaults. There's no need for me to pile on too.
The facts are plain and simple for anyone who cares: our tax system is a screwed up disaster. Many companies manipulate it most effectively to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. To deny this by burying one's head in the sand only encourages continued abuses.
Re. your evidence, it is meaningless. You cannot prove it didn't rain yesterday by showing it's not raining today. The Wachovia example has been cited many times by many sources, most recently by PBS's Front Line IIRC. If you really care about the truth, my guess is it would take you about five minutes to find it. If all you care about is attacking truth to support your preconceived notions, carry on.
Dissipate
Diamond Member
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
The government creates classes in society: the providers of public goods and the consumers of public goods. This is terrible for democracy, in fact democracy cannot be claimed under this system because the burden of democracy and the cost of government lies squarely on the shoulders of the providers. As it is now, the upper half of the population pays almost all the tax revenue, yet everyone gets the same vote at the polls. This is not democracy, this is a pseudo-democracy, or an illusion of democracy if you will.
ROFL!! actually they DO. first off you mistaking cost of operation for cost of production, they are not the same, cost of production is but a PART of cost of operation. a corporation is in itself an entity much like an individual is an like an individual, highr taxes mean that corp. has less money to spend for materiels, raises and benefits for employees, re-investment...etc.
and if a business or corporation is already operating at a low profit margin(as a good many are) ,sacrifices must be made to absorb the new expense of a higher tax. these sacrifices are moving to another place where it is not so expensive to operate, use cheaper/lower quality materiels, cut benefits/salaries to workers or lay off workers. you are wanting the proverbial free lunch...and it does not exist.
and when they set those prices due to cost of operation that burden is carried by the consumer. the last in line of the burden chain who supports the weight of it but the first(actually, ultimately only one) in line at the revenue generation chain!
who pass that cost to the consumer just as any other expense, many times with no choice, because anything that increases cost of operation results that must be offset in some way as i previously outlined.
Dissipate:
That sounds a lot like 1917 political theory.
We are in a completely new era in large part because of the advent of all the new communications devices. The impact of government on culture has been "softened" considerably. My son just graduated from college with a poli sci degree and he told me.
-Robert
That sounds a lot like 1917 political theory.
We are in a completely new era in large part because of the advent of all the new communications devices. The impact of government on culture has been "softened" considerably. My son just graduated from college with a poli sci degree and he told me.
-Robert
Dissipate
Diamond Member
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: chess9
Dissipate:
That sounds a lot like 1917 political theory.
We are in a completely new era in large part because of the advent of all the new communications devices. The impact of government on culture has been "softened" considerably. My son just graduated from college with a poli sci degree and he told me.
-Robert
Its not a theory, its a fact. Millions of voters go to the polls and literally vote themselves benefits, benefits which they do not pay for but in fact many cases they receive. Teachers unions do it for pay raises, old people do it for more SS and drug benefits, corporations which have government contracts do it indirectly through campaign contributions, the list just goes on and on and on. This is no democracy in any real sense of the word. Your son may have been taught that we live in a democracy, and this is true in a technical and theoretical sense, but in reality it is far from true because of the very nature of the tax code and the fact that the government passes judgment on citizens, handing out benefits (social security) and penalties (sin taxes, progressive taxation, conscription), based on government's narrow and often ludicrous idea on what a particular citizen's role in society is (or what government thinks that citizen's role ought to be).
One of my econ textbooks touches on this problem:
From Microeconomics: Private and Public Choice page 119 Paragraph 3.
I guess you could call this one of the fundamental problems with democracy, or in my opinion as long as this condition exists we live in a pseudo-democracy. Not only because the one-to-one relationship between an individual's payment and receipt of good is broken, but also because this type of democracy causes major distortions and corrupt practices in the political arena. Politicians are literally bought, lock, stock and barrel.
Impact of government on culture is irrelevant, government is still overwhelming in size which inevitably leads to a large impact on our financial lives(especially the enormous tax code which costs .15 cents for every dollar raised just to process) and many other aspects.
I don't know what the advent of communications technology has to do with anything but I can tell you that 15% of the working population is in a government job, I don't care how you cut it, that is without a doubt going to have a significant impact on everyone's lives. Those people (a significant portion of the population) are directly involved with bureaucracy and many of them force us to be involved with their bureaucracies, the DMV and the Social Security Administration just to name a couple.
a "pure" democracy has direct rule by the people without representation.
a republic is a nation where the will of the people is expressed through elected represenatives.
a republic is a nation where the will of the people is expressed through elected represenatives.
Originally posted by: chess9
Dissipate:
That sounds a lot like 1917 political theory.
We are in a completely new era in large part because of the advent of all the new communications devices. The impact of government on culture has been "softened" considerably. My son just graduated from college with a poli sci degree and he told me.
-Robert
actually the impact of government on culture is getting more profound BECAUSE of the expansion of communications. particularly when said communications are in fact in many ways controlled BY the government to varying degrees in different nations, including this one, though not to the extent as in other countries(not yet anyway).
what softens the impact of government on our culture in this country(as far as communications are involved particularly) has been the same thing for over 200 years, it is called the first amendment. overall the constitution was written as a limitation on what the government can do...many people have forgotten this.
without the first amendment protecting WHAT is said, HOW it is said is irrelevant.
Dissipate
Diamond Member
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
I don't see how this is relevant to what I posted. I wasn't talking about a "pure" democracy, I was talking about a representative democracy which is what we have today. However, this democracy is distorted by government's propensity to dole out benefits and penalties to particular groups it has classified through various methods and bureaucracies. For some reason, you and others are getting mighty confused and wrapped up about republics and democracies. As I have said time and time again the primary definition of a republic is a nation whose head of state is not a monarch.
re·pub·lic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-pblk)
n.
1.
a. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
b. A nation that has such a political order.
2.
a. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
b. A nation that has such a political order.
often Republic A specific republican government of a nation: the Fourth Republic of France.
An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation.
A group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field: the republic of letters.
So, if you want to talk about a system of government in which people vote to elect representatives you could use republic, but if you do your statements will be much less clear because of its multiple definitions, with its primary definition simply being a nation that does not have a king or queen as head of state which could mean a democracy or not. Therefore, it is much better to be specific and simply say democracy.
Also, let's take note of some fundamental differences between the secondary definition of a republic and the definition of democracy:
de·moc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
Ok, now a secondary definition of a republic is: "A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them. " This is quite different than the definitions of a democracy. Notice, the supreme power lies in a body of citizens. It doesn't really say what that body of citizens is, it could be a small body, a large body, a majority or a minority. A democracy is " Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives." By the people implies that citizens as a whole are allowed to vote, then another definition is "The common people, considered as the primary source of political power." This is a lot more descriptive of our current democracy, because now it has directly said: "The common people", not a "body of citizens". When only white males with a large amount of land were the only ones able to vote then we did have a republic of the secondary definition, but this has obviously changed to the "common man" and thus, to a representative democracy. In these descriptions I have precluded the idea that I discussed earlier about the current psuedo-democracy, however.
Therefore, today it is not entirely accurate to label the U.S. as being a republic of the secondary definition. We may use the primary definition but this is basically irrelevant, because the fact that the U.S. does not have a monarchy is not profound. If you use the primary definition of a republic then the U.S. is both a republic and a democracy.
I really hope this ends all this confusion about republics and democracies once and for all.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter