Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That also goes for your 401K and your paycheck deposits that buy new shares. For many that's automatic purchase of mutual fund shares.
Sander's proposal is $.50 for every $100 in trade..buy or sell. (.5% on stock transactions)
And IRAs and pensions, even public employee pensions (they're also largely invested in stocks, etc.). So each investment is taxed twice, once when the investment is bought and then again when it's sold to provide liquidity for draws/withdrawals. So, actually, it's a tax of 1%, or $1 for every $100 worth of investment.
Notice how so many liberals are so up in arms over the cost of Chinese goods going up and the affect on the cost to consumers; meanwhile, most of them want to increase corporate taxes on US companies which will increase the cost to American consumers.
TDS prevents rational thought.
Corp taxes paid mostly by consumers is a lie. Corps charge as much as they think the market will bear.
Corp taxes are mostly paid by shareholders. Note I said mostly.
What I wonder and do not know the answer is this:
Old rate 35%. I read the old effective rate was ~14%. What was the difference and what specifically was the cause. What I am getting at: Make the stated rate closer to the effective rate. Yet the old rate was high enough to cause inversions... This makes little sense.
Corp taxes paid mostly by consumers is a lie. Corps charge as much as they think the market will bear.
Corp taxes are mostly paid by shareholders. Note I said mostly.
Nope.
Quote:
Section 1: Pricing terms
Overhead expenses
All costs found on the income statement except for direct labor, direct materials, and costs attributable to outside subcontractors that can be billed directly to a customer’s account. Overhead expenses are absorbed by the business and factored into the selling price as a percentage of the direct labor cost. They include indirect costs such as accounting, advertising, depreciation, indirect labor, insurance, interest, legal fees, rent, repairs, supplies, taxes, telephone, travel and utilities.
It is strictly the business of the aggrieved party and not the business of the government or the income theft victim.
It is very much the responsibility of our governement to protect US business interests when another country is allowing companies inside their borders to steal. In particular if we have trade agreements with them. You are touting capitalism, the cornerstone of capitalism is the protection IP. Without it capitalism dies.
Always remember... Corporations don't pay taxes. Their clients/consumers pay the corporate tax. Business 101.
Shrug. I could start citing left of center sources saying the opposite
The US just cut corp taxes by 1/3.
Where are my price cuts?
Short run most is paid by shareholders. Corporations price the highest they can get away with.
That being said: In the very long run the answer is likely workers. That is why I was laughing at the thread about the claim about 200 corporations saying they are not considering profit first. My eyes still hurt from that eye roll.
Shrug. I could start citing left of center sources saying the opposite
Um... aren't universities already left of center? The source I cited is a university. And actually, the pricing formula, including overhead which includes taxes, is standard Business School 101 in every university in the US.
Not every tax cut means money in your pocket. They could have expanded facilities which leads to more jobs. They could have given bigger raises to their employees, invested more in R&D, upgraded equipment, etc.
It's not all about you.
Just responding to the point that we cant raise taxes on corporations because they are passed to the consumer, that should work both ways if true.
We would have more to show for our dollars if they invested in infrastructure rather than a cut.
Here we go again, proposal to cut payroll taxes because of looming recession. Yet another reason we should not have cut taxes in 2017 when the economy was hot.
Quote:
White House officials have begun preparing options to help bolster the American economy and prevent it from falling into a recession, including mulling a potential payroll tax cut and a possible reversal of some of President Trump’s tariffs, according to people familiar with the discussions.
…….
Officials inside the administration have drafted a white paper exploring a payroll tax reduction, which would seek to boost the economy by immediately injecting more money into workers’ paychecks. In 2011 and 2012, the Obama administration employed a two-year payroll tax cut in an effort to stimulate what was a sluggish recovery from the recession that ended in 2009.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
