• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

American Taxes

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.


<< say we should have flat taxes, because at the end of the day, that is going to change precisely nothing, and it might shut up some right wingers. >>


I see a major flaw in your theory. You are raising taxes on the poor under the assumption that companies out of the goodness of their hearts will make up the difference in wages. Furthermore your suggestion is that they get this money from upper management. And at the same time the company pays more taxes. The workers may have a shot at higher wages if they have a stong union (e.g. UAW) however the rest of it will just come from higher prices on whatever product is involved. Companies have on e motive and that is to make a profit and they will do so at any cost. Please correct me if I misunderstood your post . I am not a tax expert by any stretch but I think your scenario has a few basic flaws.
 


<<

<< say we should have flat taxes, because at the end of the day, that is going to change precisely nothing, and it might shut up some right wingers. >>


I see a major flaw in your theory. You are raising taxes on the poor under the assumption that companies out of the goodness of their hearts will make up the difference in wages. Furthermore your suggestion is that they get this money from upper management. And at the same time the company pays more taxes. The workers may have a shot at higher wages if they have a stong union (e.g. UAW) however the rest of it will just come from higher prices on whatever product is involved. Companies have on e motive and that is to make a profit and they will do so at any cost. Please correct me if I misunderstood your post . I am not a tax expert by any stretch but I think your scenario has a few basic flaws. >>



Well, here is my rationale. If taxes are increased on low end workers and decreased on the management, basically the low end workers will have to take a takehome pay cut, while CEO takehome pay will go up. Companies who basically let it stand will be able to attract higher quality CEOs, while being less competitive on the average worker salaries, and thus attracting less qualified average workers than those companies that will increase low level pay and compensate it by cutting CEO salaries.
There is an equillibrium in terms of takehome pay that will maintain itself regardless of what the tax rate is, assuming the overall average tax rate stays the same.
 
I read somewhere that the lowest 95% of the population "gets more" in benefits than they pay in taxes. Sorry, but I dont have a link for it, and it may be outdated.
 


<< The US Government pays out more for Corporate Welfare than they spend on personal welfare. >>



When a corporation is taxed, what do you think they do... absorb the costs, take pay-cuts and screw their investors, or pass the cost on to consumers and lay off employees?

When you raise taxes on business, they simply add that cost to the price of their goods. Taxing businesses is simply another way of taxing Joe six-pack. And the feel-good "sin-taxes" on alcohol and cigarettes have been passed on to the consumer as well. Guess who is affected most? That's right, the lower classes.

Simplistic thinking brought on by class envy propaganda will be the down fall of freedom and prosperity in this country.

So called "corporate welfare" or tax break helps our businesses remain competitive globally, and when used locally, can attract new jobs to an otherwise depressed local economy and make that business more competitive nationally... Thereby INCREASING tax revenue for that area, and federally. It also LOWERS prices for goods and services. EVERYONE wins.

On the other hand, raising taxes on businesses lowers competitiveness, causes jobs to disappear, and raises the costs of goods and services, SCREWING the consumer and EVERYONE loses.
 
Corporate Welfare is great; companies produce goods, jobs and money.
Personal welfare is terrible; people on welfare produce babies.
 


<< Corporate Welfare is great; companies produce goods, jobs and money.
Personal welfare is terrible; people on welfare produce babies. >>



Who, on average, produce more welfare need.
 
The real question, it seems to me, is whether we can trust governments or corporations less 🙂 Seems to me they're always in a race for scummiest organization.

I forget who said it, but a Soviet apologist said, I think in 1964, that despite all the flaws of the socialist system created by not allowing competition, socialism was better than capitalism because of advertising.

While I don't agree, it strikes me as having a grain of truth: what do people think about the (more or less wasted) money spent on advertising, that should be spent on a) wages or b) increasing the means of production by a purely Smithian interpretation.

Also, do you corporate types support strict anti-trust laws?

Any of you libertarians out there (like me) really not like the libertarian rag about how microsoft is really out to help the consumer?
 


<< The real question, it seems to me, is whether we can trust governments or corporations less 🙂 Seems to me they're always in a race for scummiest organization.

I forget who said it, but a Soviet apologist said, I think in 1964, that despite all the flaws of the socialist system created by not allowing competition, socialism was better than capitalism because of advertising.

While I don't agree, it strikes me as having a grain of truth: what do people think about the (more or less wasted) money spent on advertising, that should be spent on a) wages or b) increasing the means of production by a purely Smithian interpretation.

Also, do you corporate types support strict anti-trust laws?

Any of you libertarians out there (like me) really not like the libertarian rag about how microsoft is really out to help the consumer? >>



From what I see here, you can hardly be called a libertarian.
 


<< Well, the top 50% pay 96% of the taxes. It would stand to reason that the bottom 50% while paying 4% of the taxes are getting FAR more for their tax dollar just in public services alone, welfare or not. >>



Interesting...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top