The impossibility of a Fair Tax

[ECUHITMAN]

Does anyone actually support this idea? Go HERE to read about Fairtax.org which is supporting the 2003 Fair Tax Bill. This bill would put a Federal sales tax (23% according to the website) on ALL goods and services. I have read over the information available on the website and cannot figure out how this is a good idea. Here is a quote:

Simply put, the FairTax replaces the way we're currently taxed - based on our annual income - with a tax on goods and services. The FairTax is a voluntary ?consumption" tax: the more you buy, the more you pay in taxes, the less you buy, the less you pay in taxes.

What about corporations? In 2003 the government took in 194 Billion in tax from corporations (before refunds). If the 23% sales tax is the same for corporations it would mean all the corporations in the US would have to spend 850 Billion a year on goods and services for the federal government to make the same amount of money as it did in 2003. The website does not address this issue instead it says :

Corporations are legal fictions that have not, do not, and never will bear the burden of taxation. Only people pay taxes. Corporations pass on their tax burden in the form of higher prices to consumers, lower wages to workers, and/or lower returns to investors. The idea that taxing a corporation reduces taxes on, say the working poor, is a cruel hoax. A corporate tax only makes what the working poor buy more expensive, costs them jobs, lowers their lifestyle, or delays their retirement. Found HERE

So what about the goods and services corporations use, they do not have to pay a 23% sales tax? That is just one thing about this idea that does not seem very fair.

I appreciate anyone in favor of this Fairtax idea to explain how it is fair and why they are in support of it.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
Does anyone actually support this idea? Go HERE to read about Fairtax.org which is supporting the 2003 Fair Tax Bill. This bill would put a Federal sales tax (23% according to the website) on ALL goods and services. I have read over the information available on the website and cannot figure out how this is a good idea. Here is a quote:

Simply put, the FairTax replaces the way we're currently taxed - based on our annual income - with a tax on goods and services. The FairTax is a voluntary ?consumption" tax: the more you buy, the more you pay in taxes, the less you buy, the less you pay in taxes.

What about corporations? In 2003 the government took in 194 Billion in tax from corporations (before refunds). If the 23% sales tax is the same for corporations it would mean all the corporations in the US would have to spend 850 Billion a year on goods and services for the federal government to make the same amount of money as it did in 2003. The website does not address this issue instead it says :

Corporations are legal fictions that have not, do not, and never will bear the burden of taxation. Only people pay taxes. Corporations pass on their tax burden in the form of higher prices to consumers, lower wages to workers, and/or lower returns to investors. The idea that taxing a corporation reduces taxes on, say the working poor, is a cruel hoax. A corporate tax only makes what the working poor buy more expensive, costs them jobs, lowers their lifestyle, or delays their retirement. Found HERE

So what about the goods and services corporations use, they do not have to pay a 23% sales tax? That is just one thing about this idea that does not seem very fair.

I appreciate anyone in favor of this Fairtax idea to explain how it is fair and why they are in support of it.

All costs always get passed down the consumer. There is not point in taxing corperations, as that only pass the cost down the consumer.

 

[ECUHITMAN]

So you?re saying the government does not need the 194 Billion it took in from TAXING corporations? You?re saying that corporations do not 'consume' goods or services?

 

[1EZduzit]

The only fair tax is a progressive income tax on everyone and every corporation. The more you make the more you pay. If a corporation is making billions and tries to pass all the tax along to the consumer then maybe they would make an opening for a smaller corporation to become competive. And competition is as good for the goose as it is the gander.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
So you?re saying the government does not need the 194 Billion it took in from TAXING corporations? You?re saying that corporations do not 'consume' goods or services?

I am saying 194Billion was priced into the goods and services the consumer purchased. In the end, the consumer paid for the 194Billion, not the corperation.

 

[ECUHITMAN]

Ok but what about the goods and services they consume, should it not be taxed?

Also if they people ended up paying a 194 Billon in the end for the good that corperation sold to the consumer wouldn't that be cheaper then making the consumer buy around 850 Billion in goods and services to make up for the 194 Billion the government got from the coperation (which is passed down to the consumer).

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
So you?re saying the government does not need the 194 Billion it took in from TAXING corporations? You?re saying that corporations do not 'consume' goods or services?

I am saying 194Billion was priced into the goods and services the consumer purchased. In the end, the consumer paid for the 194Billion, not the corperation.

Th 198 billion is a tax on profit it is paid for by the investors and not the consumers. Adding a sales tax to goods would make sure the tax is paid by consumers so i fail to see any benifit to the consumer.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
Does anyone actually support this idea? Go HERE to read about Fairtax.org which is supporting the 2003 Fair Tax Bill. This bill would put a Federal sales tax (23% according to the website) on ALL goods and services. I have read over the information available on the website and cannot figure out how this is a good idea. Here is a quote:

Simply put, the FairTax replaces the way we're currently taxed - based on our annual income - with a tax on goods and services. The FairTax is a voluntary ?consumption" tax: the more you buy, the more you pay in taxes, the less you buy, the less you pay in taxes.

What about corporations? In 2003 the government took in 194 Billion in tax from corporations (before refunds). If the 23% sales tax is the same for corporations it would mean all the corporations in the US would have to spend 850 Billion a year on goods and services for the federal government to make the same amount of money as it did in 2003. The website does not address this issue instead it says :

Corporations are legal fictions that have not, do not, and never will bear the burden of taxation. Only people pay taxes. Corporations pass on their tax burden in the form of higher prices to consumers, lower wages to workers, and/or lower returns to investors. The idea that taxing a corporation reduces taxes on, say the working poor, is a cruel hoax. A corporate tax only makes what the working poor buy more expensive, costs them jobs, lowers their lifestyle, or delays their retirement. Found HERE

So what about the goods and services corporations use, they do not have to pay a 23% sales tax? That is just one thing about this idea that does not seem very fair.

I appreciate anyone in favor of this Fairtax idea to explain how it is fair and why they are in support of it.

All costs always get passed down the consumer. There is not point in taxing corperations, as that only pass the cost down the consumer.

Except they don't. They pay taxes out of profits, not revenues. So if a company has 10% profit margin, and you increase their taxes by 10%, they only need to raise prices by 1% to get the same profit. You increase taxes on consumer by 10%, and their purchasing power reduces by 10%, instead of 1%.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
Does anyone actually support this idea? Go HERE to read about Fairtax.org which is supporting the 2003 Fair Tax Bill. This bill would put a Federal sales tax (23% according to the website) on ALL goods and services. I have read over the information available on the website and cannot figure out how this is a good idea. Here is a quote:

Simply put, the FairTax replaces the way we're currently taxed - based on our annual income - with a tax on goods and services. The FairTax is a voluntary ?consumption" tax: the more you buy, the more you pay in taxes, the less you buy, the less you pay in taxes.

What about corporations? In 2003 the government took in 194 Billion in tax from corporations (before refunds). If the 23% sales tax is the same for corporations it would mean all the corporations in the US would have to spend 850 Billion a year on goods and services for the federal government to make the same amount of money as it did in 2003. The website does not address this issue instead it says :

Corporations are legal fictions that have not, do not, and never will bear the burden of taxation. Only people pay taxes. Corporations pass on their tax burden in the form of higher prices to consumers, lower wages to workers, and/or lower returns to investors. The idea that taxing a corporation reduces taxes on, say the working poor, is a cruel hoax. A corporate tax only makes what the working poor buy more expensive, costs them jobs, lowers their lifestyle, or delays their retirement. Found HERE

So what about the goods and services corporations use, they do not have to pay a 23% sales tax? That is just one thing about this idea that does not seem very fair.

I appreciate anyone in favor of this Fairtax idea to explain how it is fair and why they are in support of it.

All costs always get passed down the consumer. There is not point in taxing corperations, as that only pass the cost down the consumer.

Except they don't. They pay taxes out of profits, not revenues. So if a company has 10% profit margin, and you increase their taxes by 10%, they only need to raise prices by 1% to get the same profit. You increase taxes on consumer by 10%, and their purchasing power reduces by 10%, instead of 1%.

I would like to thank you for agreeing with me.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
So you?re saying the government does not need the 194 Billion it took in from TAXING corporations? You?re saying that corporations do not 'consume' goods or services?

I am saying 194Billion was priced into the goods and services the consumer purchased. In the end, the consumer paid for the 194Billion, not the corperation.

Th 198 billion is a tax on profit it is paid for by the investors and not the consumers. Adding a sales tax to goods would make sure the tax is paid by consumers so i fail to see any benifit to the consumer.

All costs to produce a good, included taxes are factored into end sales price. To think otherwise would be naive.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
Does anyone actually support this idea? Go HERE to read about Fairtax.org which is supporting the 2003 Fair Tax Bill. This bill would put a Federal sales tax (23% according to the website) on ALL goods and services. I have read over the information available on the website and cannot figure out how this is a good idea. Here is a quote:

Simply put, the FairTax replaces the way we're currently taxed - based on our annual income - with a tax on goods and services. The FairTax is a voluntary ?consumption" tax: the more you buy, the more you pay in taxes, the less you buy, the less you pay in taxes.

What about corporations? In 2003 the government took in 194 Billion in tax from corporations (before refunds). If the 23% sales tax is the same for corporations it would mean all the corporations in the US would have to spend 850 Billion a year on goods and services for the federal government to make the same amount of money as it did in 2003. The website does not address this issue instead it says :

Corporations are legal fictions that have not, do not, and never will bear the burden of taxation. Only people pay taxes. Corporations pass on their tax burden in the form of higher prices to consumers, lower wages to workers, and/or lower returns to investors. The idea that taxing a corporation reduces taxes on, say the working poor, is a cruel hoax. A corporate tax only makes what the working poor buy more expensive, costs them jobs, lowers their lifestyle, or delays their retirement. Found HERE

So what about the goods and services corporations use, they do not have to pay a 23% sales tax? That is just one thing about this idea that does not seem very fair.

I appreciate anyone in favor of this Fairtax idea to explain how it is fair and why they are in support of it.

All costs always get passed down the consumer. There is not point in taxing corperations, as that only pass the cost down the consumer.

Except they don't. They pay taxes out of profits, not revenues. So if a company has 10% profit margin, and you increase their taxes by 10%, they only need to raise prices by 1% to get the same profit. You increase taxes on consumer by 10%, and their purchasing power reduces by 10%, instead of 1%.

I would like to thank you for agreeing with me.

Of courses that assume that the comnany can raises prices with out decreasing demand. If the market will not bear a higher price then the corperation has no choose but to eat the tax increase by reducing the amount of profits paid to investors.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
So you?re saying the government does not need the 194 Billion it took in from TAXING corporations? You?re saying that corporations do not 'consume' goods or services?

I am saying 194Billion was priced into the goods and services the consumer purchased. In the end, the consumer paid for the 194Billion, not the corperation.

Th 198 billion is a tax on profit it is paid for by the investors and not the consumers. Adding a sales tax to goods would make sure the tax is paid by consumers so i fail to see any benifit to the consumer.

All costs to produce a good, included taxes are factored into end sales price. To think otherwise would be naive.

Sales price is the price markets will bear to think otherwise is naive.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
So you?re saying the government does not need the 194 Billion it took in from TAXING corporations? You?re saying that corporations do not 'consume' goods or services?

I am saying 194Billion was priced into the goods and services the consumer purchased. In the end, the consumer paid for the 194Billion, not the corperation.

Th 198 billion is a tax on profit it is paid for by the investors and not the consumers. Adding a sales tax to goods would make sure the tax is paid by consumers so i fail to see any benifit to the consumer.

All costs to produce a good, included taxes are factored into end sales price. To think otherwise would be naive.

Sales price is the price markets will bear to think otherwise is naive.

Which includes all costs to produce the product.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
Does anyone actually support this idea? Go HERE to read about Fairtax.org which is supporting the 2003 Fair Tax Bill. This bill would put a Federal sales tax (23% according to the website) on ALL goods and services. I have read over the information available on the website and cannot figure out how this is a good idea. Here is a quote:

Simply put, the FairTax replaces the way we're currently taxed - based on our annual income - with a tax on goods and services. The FairTax is a voluntary ?consumption" tax: the more you buy, the more you pay in taxes, the less you buy, the less you pay in taxes.

What about corporations? In 2003 the government took in 194 Billion in tax from corporations (before refunds). If the 23% sales tax is the same for corporations it would mean all the corporations in the US would have to spend 850 Billion a year on goods and services for the federal government to make the same amount of money as it did in 2003. The website does not address this issue instead it says :

Corporations are legal fictions that have not, do not, and never will bear the burden of taxation. Only people pay taxes. Corporations pass on their tax burden in the form of higher prices to consumers, lower wages to workers, and/or lower returns to investors. The idea that taxing a corporation reduces taxes on, say the working poor, is a cruel hoax. A corporate tax only makes what the working poor buy more expensive, costs them jobs, lowers their lifestyle, or delays their retirement. Found HERE

So what about the goods and services corporations use, they do not have to pay a 23% sales tax? That is just one thing about this idea that does not seem very fair.

I appreciate anyone in favor of this Fairtax idea to explain how it is fair and why they are in support of it.

All costs always get passed down the consumer. There is not point in taxing corperations, as that only pass the cost down the consumer.

Except they don't. They pay taxes out of profits, not revenues. So if a company has 10% profit margin, and you increase their taxes by 10%, they only need to raise prices by 1% to get the same profit. You increase taxes on consumer by 10%, and their purchasing power reduces by 10%, instead of 1%.

I would like to thank you for agreeing with me.

Except that the company wouldn't need to get the same profits to give their shareholders the same return, since the shareholders would taxed at a lower rate.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
So you?re saying the government does not need the 194 Billion it took in from TAXING corporations? You?re saying that corporations do not 'consume' goods or services?

I am saying 194Billion was priced into the goods and services the consumer purchased. In the end, the consumer paid for the 194Billion, not the corperation.

Th 198 billion is a tax on profit it is paid for by the investors and not the consumers. Adding a sales tax to goods would make sure the tax is paid by consumers so i fail to see any benifit to the consumer.

All costs to produce a good, included taxes are factored into end sales price. To think otherwise would be naive.

Sales price is the price markets will bear to think otherwise is naive.

Which includes all costs to produce the product.

No the price that a market will bear is complete 100% independent of the cost a company expends to produce a product. Supply and demand. If people are willing to pay 500 dollars for a product they will pay 500 dollars for the product if it cost 20 cents to make or if it cost 600 dollars to make. Of courses if the product cost 600 dollars to make then the company will stop producing the product.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
So you?re saying the government does not need the 194 Billion it took in from TAXING corporations? You?re saying that corporations do not 'consume' goods or services?

I am saying 194Billion was priced into the goods and services the consumer purchased. In the end, the consumer paid for the 194Billion, not the corperation.

Th 198 billion is a tax on profit it is paid for by the investors and not the consumers. Adding a sales tax to goods would make sure the tax is paid by consumers so i fail to see any benifit to the consumer.

All costs to produce a good, included taxes are factored into end sales price. To think otherwise would be naive.

Sales price is the price markets will bear to think otherwise is naive.

Which includes all costs to produce the product.

No the price that a market will bear is complete 100% independent of the cost a company expends to produce a product. Supply and demand. If people are willing to pay 500 dollars for a product they will pay 500 dollars for the product if it cost 20 cents to make or if it cost 600 dollars to make. Of courses if the product cost 600 dollars to make then the company will stop producing the product.

IF the company is unable to get the proft they need from said product, it will not be produce. Price works both ways.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
So you?re saying the government does not need the 194 Billion it took in from TAXING corporations? You?re saying that corporations do not 'consume' goods or services?

I am saying 194Billion was priced into the goods and services the consumer purchased. In the end, the consumer paid for the 194Billion, not the corperation.

Th 198 billion is a tax on profit it is paid for by the investors and not the consumers. Adding a sales tax to goods would make sure the tax is paid by consumers so i fail to see any benifit to the consumer.

All costs to produce a good, included taxes are factored into end sales price. To think otherwise would be naive.

Sales price is the price markets will bear to think otherwise is naive.

Which includes all costs to produce the product.

No the price that a market will bear is complete 100% independent of the cost a company expends to produce a product. Supply and demand. If people are willing to pay 500 dollars for a product they will pay 500 dollars for the product if it cost 20 cents to make or if it cost 600 dollars to make. Of courses if the product cost 600 dollars to make then the company will stop producing the product.

IF the company is unable to get the proft they need from said product, it will not be produce. Price works both ways.

You think a company is going to stop producing a product because they net 50 million dollars after tax instead of 60 million dollars? I'm sure that will make for some happy share holders. A sane company will only stop making products when it is losing money.

Edit and a tax on profits by definition can not cause a company to lose money.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
So you?re saying the government does not need the 194 Billion it took in from TAXING corporations? You?re saying that corporations do not 'consume' goods or services?

I am saying 194Billion was priced into the goods and services the consumer purchased. In the end, the consumer paid for the 194Billion, not the corperation.

Th 198 billion is a tax on profit it is paid for by the investors and not the consumers. Adding a sales tax to goods would make sure the tax is paid by consumers so i fail to see any benifit to the consumer.

All costs to produce a good, included taxes are factored into end sales price. To think otherwise would be naive.

Sales price is the price markets will bear to think otherwise is naive.

Which includes all costs to produce the product.

No the price that a market will bear is complete 100% independent of the cost a company expends to produce a product. Supply and demand. If people are willing to pay 500 dollars for a product they will pay 500 dollars for the product if it cost 20 cents to make or if it cost 600 dollars to make. Of courses if the product cost 600 dollars to make then the company will stop producing the product.

IF the company is unable to get the proft they need from said product, it will not be produce. Price works both ways.

You think a company is going to stop producing a product because they net 50 million dollars after tax instead of 60 million dollars? I'm sure that will make for some happy share holders. A sane company will only stop making products when it is losing money.

Edit and a tax on profits by definition can not cause a company to lose money.

The company will a way to make the margins they need and tax costs are part of that equation. It is that simple.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
So you?re saying the government does not need the 194 Billion it took in from TAXING corporations? You?re saying that corporations do not 'consume' goods or services?

I am saying 194Billion was priced into the goods and services the consumer purchased. In the end, the consumer paid for the 194Billion, not the corperation.

Th 198 billion is a tax on profit it is paid for by the investors and not the consumers. Adding a sales tax to goods would make sure the tax is paid by consumers so i fail to see any benifit to the consumer.

All costs to produce a good, included taxes are factored into end sales price. To think otherwise would be naive.

Sales price is the price markets will bear to think otherwise is naive.

Which includes all costs to produce the product.

No the price that a market will bear is complete 100% independent of the cost a company expends to produce a product. Supply and demand. If people are willing to pay 500 dollars for a product they will pay 500 dollars for the product if it cost 20 cents to make or if it cost 600 dollars to make. Of courses if the product cost 600 dollars to make then the company will stop producing the product.

IF the company is unable to get the proft they need from said product, it will not be produce. Price works both ways.

You think a company is going to stop producing a product because they net 50 million dollars after tax instead of 60 million dollars? I'm sure that will make for some happy share holders. A sane company will only stop making products when it is losing money.

Edit and a tax on profits by definition can not cause a company to lose money.

The company will a way to make the margins they need and tax costs are part of that equation. It is that simple.

How a company can't just say it wants to make 10% more a year it needs a way to. Anything a company would do to increase profits after a tax increase they would do with out said tax increases. It is that simple.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
So you?re saying the government does not need the 194 Billion it took in from TAXING corporations? You?re saying that corporations do not 'consume' goods or services?

I am saying 194Billion was priced into the goods and services the consumer purchased. In the end, the consumer paid for the 194Billion, not the corperation.

Th 198 billion is a tax on profit it is paid for by the investors and not the consumers. Adding a sales tax to goods would make sure the tax is paid by consumers so i fail to see any benifit to the consumer.

All costs to produce a good, included taxes are factored into end sales price. To think otherwise would be naive.

Sales price is the price markets will bear to think otherwise is naive.

Which includes all costs to produce the product.

No the price that a market will bear is complete 100% independent of the cost a company expends to produce a product. Supply and demand. If people are willing to pay 500 dollars for a product they will pay 500 dollars for the product if it cost 20 cents to make or if it cost 600 dollars to make. Of courses if the product cost 600 dollars to make then the company will stop producing the product.

IF the company is unable to get the proft they need from said product, it will not be produce. Price works both ways.

You think a company is going to stop producing a product because they net 50 million dollars after tax instead of 60 million dollars? I'm sure that will make for some happy share holders. A sane company will only stop making products when it is losing money.

Edit and a tax on profits by definition can not cause a company to lose money.

The company will a way to make the margins they need and tax costs are part of that equation. It is that simple.

How a company can't just say it wants to make 10% more a year it needs a way to. Anything a company would do to increase profits after a tax increase they would do with out said tax increases. It is that simple.

Trust me, if a company does not make the margins it wants, the product goes away. I dont know why that is so hard for you to understand.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
So you?re saying the government does not need the 194 Billion it took in from TAXING corporations? You?re saying that corporations do not 'consume' goods or services?

I am saying 194Billion was priced into the goods and services the consumer purchased. In the end, the consumer paid for the 194Billion, not the corperation.

Th 198 billion is a tax on profit it is paid for by the investors and not the consumers. Adding a sales tax to goods would make sure the tax is paid by consumers so i fail to see any benifit to the consumer.

All costs to produce a good, included taxes are factored into end sales price. To think otherwise would be naive.

Sales price is the price markets will bear to think otherwise is naive.

Which includes all costs to produce the product.

No the price that a market will bear is complete 100% independent of the cost a company expends to produce a product. Supply and demand. If people are willing to pay 500 dollars for a product they will pay 500 dollars for the product if it cost 20 cents to make or if it cost 600 dollars to make. Of courses if the product cost 600 dollars to make then the company will stop producing the product.

IF the company is unable to get the proft they need from said product, it will not be produce. Price works both ways.

You think a company is going to stop producing a product because they net 50 million dollars after tax instead of 60 million dollars? I'm sure that will make for some happy share holders. A sane company will only stop making products when it is losing money.

Edit and a tax on profits by definition can not cause a company to lose money.

The company will a way to make the margins they need and tax costs are part of that equation. It is that simple.

How a company can't just say it wants to make 10% more a year it needs a way to. Anything a company would do to increase profits after a tax increase they would do with out said tax increases. It is that simple.

Trust me, if a company does not make the margins it wants, the product goes away. I dont know why that is so hard for you to understand.

That's nonsense. The product goes away only if the company is losing money on it, or there is an alternative product they could be making that makes more money. If you are losing money, you don't pay tax anyways, so the point is moot. If you have a soap plant, and you are making 9% instead of 10% profit, you aren't exactly going to stop making soap.

 

[Dissipate]

Anyone who thinks the "Fair Tax" is fair should read this: The Myth of Neutral Taxation

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
So you?re saying the government does not need the 194 Billion it took in from TAXING corporations? You?re saying that corporations do not 'consume' goods or services?

I am saying 194Billion was priced into the goods and services the consumer purchased. In the end, the consumer paid for the 194Billion, not the corperation.

Th 198 billion is a tax on profit it is paid for by the investors and not the consumers. Adding a sales tax to goods would make sure the tax is paid by consumers so i fail to see any benifit to the consumer.

All costs to produce a good, included taxes are factored into end sales price. To think otherwise would be naive.

Sales price is the price markets will bear to think otherwise is naive.

Which includes all costs to produce the product.

No the price that a market will bear is complete 100% independent of the cost a company expends to produce a product. Supply and demand. If people are willing to pay 500 dollars for a product they will pay 500 dollars for the product if it cost 20 cents to make or if it cost 600 dollars to make. Of courses if the product cost 600 dollars to make then the company will stop producing the product.

IF the company is unable to get the proft they need from said product, it will not be produce. Price works both ways.

You think a company is going to stop producing a product because they net 50 million dollars after tax instead of 60 million dollars? I'm sure that will make for some happy share holders. A sane company will only stop making products when it is losing money.

Edit and a tax on profits by definition can not cause a company to lose money.

The company will a way to make the margins they need and tax costs are part of that equation. It is that simple.

How a company can't just say it wants to make 10% more a year it needs a way to. Anything a company would do to increase profits after a tax increase they would do with out said tax increases. It is that simple.

Trust me, if a company does not make the margins it wants, the product goes away. I dont know why that is so hard for you to understand.

That's nonsense. The product goes away only if the company is losing money on it, or there is an alternative product they could be making that makes more money. If you are losing money, you don't pay tax anyways, so the point is moot. If you have a soap plant, and you are making 9% instead of 10% profit, you aren't exactly going to stop making soap.

But if taxes tack that 9% return and turns it into a 1% return that company could easily be shut down. My point still remains that taxes are factored into the end cost of the product.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
So you?re saying the government does not need the 194 Billion it took in from TAXING corporations? You?re saying that corporations do not 'consume' goods or services?

I am saying 194Billion was priced into the goods and services the consumer purchased. In the end, the consumer paid for the 194Billion, not the corperation.

Th 198 billion is a tax on profit it is paid for by the investors and not the consumers. Adding a sales tax to goods would make sure the tax is paid by consumers so i fail to see any benifit to the consumer.

All costs to produce a good, included taxes are factored into end sales price. To think otherwise would be naive.

Sales price is the price markets will bear to think otherwise is naive.

Which includes all costs to produce the product.

No the price that a market will bear is complete 100% independent of the cost a company expends to produce a product. Supply and demand. If people are willing to pay 500 dollars for a product they will pay 500 dollars for the product if it cost 20 cents to make or if it cost 600 dollars to make. Of courses if the product cost 600 dollars to make then the company will stop producing the product.

IF the company is unable to get the proft they need from said product, it will not be produce. Price works both ways.

You think a company is going to stop producing a product because they net 50 million dollars after tax instead of 60 million dollars? I'm sure that will make for some happy share holders. A sane company will only stop making products when it is losing money.

Edit and a tax on profits by definition can not cause a company to lose money.

The company will a way to make the margins they need and tax costs are part of that equation. It is that simple.

How a company can't just say it wants to make 10% more a year it needs a way to. Anything a company would do to increase profits after a tax increase they would do with out said tax increases. It is that simple.

Trust me, if a company does not make the margins it wants, the product goes away. I dont know why that is so hard for you to understand.

That's nonsense. The product goes away only if the company is losing money on it, or there is an alternative product they could be making that makes more money. If you are losing money, you don't pay tax anyways, so the point is moot. If you have a soap plant, and you are making 9% instead of 10% profit, you aren't exactly going to stop making soap.

But if taxes tack that 9% return and turns it into a 1% return that company could easily be shut down. My point still remains that taxes are factored into the end cost of the product.

And your point is still wrong. When was the last time you got a raise because your taxes went up? If you want use to belive your BS you should be netting the same amount of money are you?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
So you?re saying the government does not need the 194 Billion it took in from TAXING corporations? You?re saying that corporations do not 'consume' goods or services?

I am saying 194Billion was priced into the goods and services the consumer purchased. In the end, the consumer paid for the 194Billion, not the corperation.

Th 198 billion is a tax on profit it is paid for by the investors and not the consumers. Adding a sales tax to goods would make sure the tax is paid by consumers so i fail to see any benifit to the consumer.

All costs to produce a good, included taxes are factored into end sales price. To think otherwise would be naive.

Sales price is the price markets will bear to think otherwise is naive.

Which includes all costs to produce the product.

No the price that a market will bear is complete 100% independent of the cost a company expends to produce a product. Supply and demand. If people are willing to pay 500 dollars for a product they will pay 500 dollars for the product if it cost 20 cents to make or if it cost 600 dollars to make. Of courses if the product cost 600 dollars to make then the company will stop producing the product.

IF the company is unable to get the proft they need from said product, it will not be produce. Price works both ways.

You think a company is going to stop producing a product because they net 50 million dollars after tax instead of 60 million dollars? I'm sure that will make for some happy share holders. A sane company will only stop making products when it is losing money.

Edit and a tax on profits by definition can not cause a company to lose money.

The company will a way to make the margins they need and tax costs are part of that equation. It is that simple.

How a company can't just say it wants to make 10% more a year it needs a way to. Anything a company would do to increase profits after a tax increase they would do with out said tax increases. It is that simple.

Trust me, if a company does not make the margins it wants, the product goes away. I dont know why that is so hard for you to understand.

That's nonsense. The product goes away only if the company is losing money on it, or there is an alternative product they could be making that makes more money. If you are losing money, you don't pay tax anyways, so the point is moot. If you have a soap plant, and you are making 9% instead of 10% profit, you aren't exactly going to stop making soap.

But if taxes tack that 9% return and turns it into a 1% return that company could easily be shut down. My point still remains that taxes are factored into the end cost of the product.

The taxes are only on the profits, don't you get it? To turn 9% return into 1% return would require a 90% corporate tax. And even then the company wouldn't shut down unless it had a way to make more money.