Obama wants to give 10k of your money to make da chevy volt sell better...lol

[ninjahood]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by theone2401


How is getting rid of tax breaks a good thing? Raising taxes on anyone is bad.

I'll also answer your question.  Our country is running budget deficits so any ways to raise additional tax revenue are needed.  (key term revenue, as in total tax revenues, if the tax increases cause a decline in economic activity, that would most likely reduce total tax revenue)

Why is raising taxes bad?

dont wanna sound like a republican and all...but da vast majority of our budget goes to entitlement programs.

and da reason why we at a defict is because we're borrowing WILD bread from china.

 

[basedwindu]

yo ninja..you come across as pretty intelligent dude IMO but I just wanna know why you still use "da" even when making a serious assertion/argument. I don't think anyone would think less of you for saying "the" once in a while lol

 

[utvol23]

Originally Posted by theone2401


Corporations do not pay taxes. Either the people who buy their products pay them (through higher prices), their employees pay them (through lower wages), or the company's shareholders pay them (through lower dividends or lower share price due to lower profits as I am sure most people knowingly or unknowingly own oil companies stock through 401k's, etc).

Had to quote this. One thing that many people dont realize. You can raise taxes on corporations all you want and it is the consumer or their workers that will suffer.

 

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by UTVOL23

Originally Posted by theone2401


Corporations do not pay taxes. Either the people who buy their products pay them (through higher prices), their employees pay them (through lower wages), or the company's shareholders pay them (through lower dividends or lower share price due to lower profits as I am sure most people knowingly or unknowingly own oil companies stock through 401k's, etc).

Had to quote this. One thing that many people dont realize. You can raise taxes on corporations all you want and it is the consumer or their workers that will suffer.

That's because it's not correct.  It implies that corporations have the pricing power to charge any price that they want or being able to pay their workers any wage of their choosing.  Business isn't that simple, otherwise there would be no need for accountants/CPA's, MBA's, Ph.D's, lawyers, etc.  Even lower level economic studies teach about the concept of demand and elasticity of demand. 

 

[theone2401]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by UTVOL23

Originally Posted by theone2401


Corporations do not pay taxes. Either the people who buy their products pay them (through higher prices), their employees pay them (through lower wages), or the company's shareholders pay them (through lower dividends or lower share price due to lower profits as I am sure most people knowingly or unknowingly own oil companies stock through 401k's, etc).

Had to quote this. One thing that many people dont realize. You can raise taxes on corporations all you want and it is the consumer or their workers that will suffer.

That's because it's not correct.  It implies that corporations have the pricing power to charge any price that they want or being able to pay their workers any wage of their choosing.  Business isn't that simple, otherwise there would be no need for accountants/CPA's, MBA's, Ph.D's, lawyers, etc.

The only way what you said would be relevant is if a tax was targeted at a specific company. I have never seen that. So another red herring.

If tax breaks are eliminated for every US Oil company it affects everyone in that industry negating that whole competition thing.

 

[ninjahood]

Originally Posted by UTVOL23

Originally Posted by theone2401


Corporations do not pay taxes. Either the people who buy their products pay them (through higher prices), their employees pay them (through lower wages), or the company's shareholders pay them (through lower dividends or lower share price due to lower profits as I am sure most people knowingly or unknowingly own oil companies stock through 401k's, etc).

Had to quote this. One thing that many people dont realize. You can raise taxes on corporations all you want and it is the consumer or their workers that will suffer.

good thing to know.

 

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by theone2401

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by UTVOL23


Had to quote this. One thing that many people dont realize. You can raise taxes on corporations all you want and it is the consumer or their workers that will suffer.

That's because it's not correct.  It implies that corporations have the pricing power to charge any price that they want or being able to pay their workers any wage of their choosing.  Business isn't that simple, otherwise there would be no need for accountants/CPA's, MBA's, Ph.D's, lawyers, etc.

The only way what you said would be relevant is if a tax was targeted at a specific company. I have never seen that. So another red herring.

The only way what you said would be relevant is if all companies had the same pricing power(luxury good, necessity, substitute good, etc) and demand/supply curves. 

 

[theone2401]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by theone2401

Originally Posted by cguy610

That's because it's not correct.  It implies that corporations have the pricing power to charge any price that they want or being able to pay their workers any wage of their choosing.  Business isn't that simple, otherwise there would be no need for accountants/CPA's, MBA's, Ph.D's, lawyers, etc.

The only way what you said would be relevant is if a tax was targeted at a specific company. I have never seen that. So another red herring.

The only way what you said would be relevant is if all companies had the same pricing power(luxury good, necessity, substitute good, etc) and demand/supply curves. 

More Red Herrings

Yes some companies might not be able to distribute the tax burden the same way (between labor, shareholders, and employees) but in summation they will all be affected negatively by what ever the increase in taxes are. You singled out employees and consumers for what purpose? You are just splitting hairs. What ever burden those two groups cannot bear will be absorbed by the shareholders who are usually comprised of the consumers or the employees you just excluded.

Ok the so the employee didnt get a lower wage but he lost 5% of his 401K. Are you going to tell me he didnt lose money?

 

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by theone2401


How is getting rid of tax breaks a good thing? Raising taxes on anyone is bad.

I'll also answer your question.  Our country is running budget deficits so any ways to raise additional tax revenue are needed.  (key term revenue, as in total tax revenues, if the tax increases cause a decline in economic activity, that would most likely reduce total tax revenue)

Why is raising taxes bad?

dont wanna sound like a republican and all...but da vast majority of our budget goes to entitlement programs.

and da reason why we at a defict is because we're borrowing WILD bread from china.

No, we have deficits because taxes are at all time lows. 

 

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by theone2401

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by theone2401

The only way what you said would be relevant is if a tax was targeted at a specific company. I have never seen that. So another red herring.

The only way what you said would be relevant is if all companies had the same pricing power(luxury good, necessity, substitute good, etc) and demand/supply curves. 

More Red Herrings

Yes some companies might not be able to distribute the tax burden the same way (between labor, shareholders, and employees) but in summation they will all be affected negatively by what ever the increase in taxes are. You singled out employees and consumers for what purpose? You are just splitting hairs. What ever burden those two groups cannot bear will go right be absorbed by the shareholders who are usually comprised of the consumers or the employees you just excluded.

The majority of stock is owned by a small number of people or 5% or less of our nation's population.  Also, this would imply that there is a 1-1 relationship between tax rates and stock prices.  Last I checked, the stock market was very high under Clinton when tax rates were much higher. 

 

[ninjahood]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Originally Posted by cguy610


I'll also answer your question.  Our country is running budget deficits so any ways to raise additional tax revenue are needed.  (key term revenue, as in total tax revenues, if the tax increases cause a decline in economic activity, that would most likely reduce total tax revenue)

Why is raising taxes bad?

dont wanna sound like a republican and all...but da vast majority of our budget goes to entitlement programs.

and da reason why we at a defict is because we're borrowing WILD bread from china.

No, we have deficits because taxes are at all time lows. 

and our spending is at really high levels...2 wars, and record deficit spending.

 

[theone2401]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Originally Posted by cguy610


I'll also answer your question.  Our country is running budget deficits so any ways to raise additional tax revenue are needed.  (key term revenue, as in total tax revenues, if the tax increases cause a decline in economic activity, that would most likely reduce total tax revenue)

Why is raising taxes bad?

dont wanna sound like a republican and all...but da vast majority of our budget goes to entitlement programs.

and da reason why we at a defict is because we're borrowing WILD bread from china.

No, we have deficits because taxes are at all time lows. 

WHAT!

Just ignore that spending is at all time highs.

Taxes have a built in thing called diminishing returns. No matter how much you want to tax there is a real limit when raising taxes will lower revenue. What is your excuse gonna be when you hit that point? I am pretty sure what ever that point is wont be enough to fund the government with out borrowing.

 

[theone2401]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by theone2401

Originally Posted by cguy610

The only way what you said would be relevant is if all companies had the same pricing power(luxury good, necessity, substitute good, etc) and demand/supply curves. 

More Red Herrings

Yes some companies might not be able to distribute the tax burden the same way (between labor, shareholders, and employees) but in summation they will all be affected negatively by what ever the increase in taxes are. You singled out employees and consumers for what purpose? You are just splitting hairs. What ever burden those two groups cannot bear will go right be absorbed by the shareholders who are usually comprised of the consumers or the employees you just excluded.

The majority of stock is owned by a small number of people or 5% or less of our nation's population.  Also, this would imply that there is a 1-1 relationship between tax rates and stock prices.  Last I checked, the stock market was very high under Clinton when tax rates were much higher. 

I do not know what your work experience is but a lot of companies offer stock as part of their compensation. I am not implying their is a 1-1 relationship between tax rates and stock prices. I already said that all companies will be affected differently as you pointed out but the cumulative effect will be the same. I am implying that there is a "loss" generated when a company has to arbitrarily pay more and it will be paid by someone. Where do you think it goes? Into outer space? Companies do not print money it will come out of their profits or it will be added to their cost. Have you ever seen a balance sheet? There is no where else for it to go.

 

[levar burton]

Electric vehicles can not only improve the eco system, but national relations as well. Almost if not all our few comes from Middle-Eastern territories, some of the country's leaders are billionaires because of the oil they sale. If we depended on electricity as a fuel source  electricity is limitless, and the corrupt leaders of these foreign nations will be eventually be too poor to fund anti-social campaigns and  agendas.

A lot of city buses are converting to clean air electric fueling options to reduced the oil demand and carbon footprints. 

 

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by theone2401

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by ninjahood

dont wanna sound like a republican and all...but da vast majority of our budget goes to entitlement programs.

and da reason why we at a defict is because we're borrowing WILD bread from china.

No, we have deficits because taxes are at all time lows. 

WHAT!

Just ignore that spending is at all time highs.

Taxes have a built in thing called diminishing returns. No matter how much you want to tax there is a real limit when raising taxes will lower revenue. What is your excuse gonna be when you hit that point? I am pretty sure what ever that point is wont be enough to fund the government with out borrowing.

The same goes for lowering taxes.

 

[utvol23]

When a tax on a corporation goes up and cuts into their bottom line they redistribute that cost to their employees or the consumer.

You say taxes are at an all time high but you can raise taxes on the rich to 100% and you still will not have enough to dent our debt esp with our rate of spending.

 

[keif sweat]

A lot of small picture people in this thread. Progress is a process folks.

 

[theone2401]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by theone2401

Originally Posted by cguy610

No, we have deficits because taxes are at all time lows.�

WHAT!

Just ignore that spending is at all time highs.

Taxes have a built in thing called diminishing returns. No matter how much you want to tax there is a real limit when raising taxes will lower revenue. What is your excuse gonna be when you hit that point? I am pretty sure what ever that point is wont be enough to fund the government with out borrowing.

The same goes for lowering taxes.�

I do not understand why you posted his.

Besides the fact that I am very familiar with the Laffer curve. This post was about what that tax revenue is spent on. I think tax rates should be zero not because I think taxes are to high. I think tax rates should be 0 because I do not want the government spending my money.

Its obvious you have some econ background (like my self) but you are just debating the best way for the government to waste peoples money. I do not wish to participate.

**EDIT**

To add to this. You pointed out to me that companies do not have unlimited pricing power for goods and buying power for labor and supply and demand curves affect that (which is true) but you then try to talk to me about previous tax rates like the Laffer Curve is going to stay constant? You cannot reference Clinton's tax policies or even when marginal rates were 80% an say that tax rates need to be raised to those levels. No one knows where we are on the Laffer Curve right now.

 

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by theone2401

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by theone2401


More Red Herrings

Yes some companies might not be able to distribute the tax burden the same way (between labor, shareholders, and employees) but in summation they will all be affected negatively by what ever the increase in taxes are. You singled out employees and consumers for what purpose? You are just splitting hairs. What ever burden those two groups cannot bear will go right be absorbed by the shareholders who are usually comprised of the consumers or the employees you just excluded.

The majority of stock is owned by a small number of people or 5% or less of our nation's population.  Also, this would imply that there is a 1-1 relationship between tax rates and stock prices.  Last I checked, the stock market was very high under Clinton when tax rates were much higher. 

I do not know what your work experience is but a lot of companies offer stock as part of their compensation. I am not implying their is a 1-1 relationship between tax rates and stock prices. I already said that all companies will be affected differently as you pointed out but the cumulative effect will be the same. I am implying that there is a "loss" generated when a company has to arbitrarily pay more and it will be paid by someone. Where do you think it goes? Into outer space? Companies do not print money it will come out of their profits or it will be added to their cost. Have you ever seen a balance sheet? There is no where else for it to go.

I agree that the taxes will come out of their profits or be added to their cost.  If the tax revenue is used for a purpose that helps our nation become great, I am all for it.  Such as energy independence, which would also go a long way in helping our national defense by reducing dependence on foreign oil.  Additionally, energy independence would keep that cash and tax revenues inside our country, compounding the total increase in tax revenue.  For example, tax the electric/coal plant, tax the electric carmaker, tax the buyer of the electric.  When we are importing oil, that is a significant cost that cannot be taxed in full because it is imported from another country. 

Just like there is no where for the "loss" to go, there is no where for the decreased tax revenue or budget deficits to go.  (See Greece)  You can only borrow so much to cover for the budget deficits. 

 

[theone2401]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by theone2401

Originally Posted by cguy610



The majority of stock is owned by a small number of people or 5% or less of our nation's population.  Also, this would imply that there is a 1-1 relationship between tax rates and stock prices.  Last I checked, the stock market was very high under Clinton when tax rates were much higher. 

I do not know what your work experience is but a lot of companies offer stock as part of their compensation. I am not implying their is a 1-1 relationship between tax rates and stock prices. I already said that all companies will be affected differently as you pointed out but the cumulative effect will be the same. I am implying that there is a "loss" generated when a company has to arbitrarily pay more and it will be paid by someone. Where do you think it goes? Into outer space? Companies do not print money it will come out of their profits or it will be added to their cost. Have you ever seen a balance sheet? There is no where else for it to go.

I agree that the taxes will come out of their profits or be added to their cost.  If the tax revenue is used for a purpose that helps our nation become great, I am all for it.  Such as energy independence, which would also go a long way in helping our national defense by reducing dependence on foreign oil.  Additionally, energy independence would keep that cash and tax revenues inside our country, compounding the total increase in tax revenue.  For example, tax the electric/coal plant, tax the electric carmaker, tax the buyer of the electric.  When we are importing oil, that is a significant cost that cannot be taxed in full because it is imported from another country. 

Just like there is no where for the "loss" to go, there is no where for the decreased tax revenue or budget deficits to go.  (See Greece)  You can only borrow so much to cover for the budget deficits. 

I do not think anyone wants to be dependent on foreign oil the problem is everyone doesn't think electric cars are viable alternatives and I am almost certain they wont be if they do not come up with a different way besides lithium batteries. That is going to create cognitive dissonance because I am being forced to invest in something that I think will fail

Also, you pointed out exactly why spending needs to be cut even if it is painful short term. You said you can only borrow so much to cover budget deficits and the Laffer curve (I cant stand Art Laffer btw he still needs to pay Peter Schiff the money he owes him) shows that you can only tax so much to cover budget deficits. Its inevitable why put it off?