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.
Society needs another lollipop? Even a healthier choice?
The metric is as follows: "Is someone voluntarily willing to part with their hard-earned money to purchase a product that is voluntarily produced & sold at that price?"
In the above case, the answer is clearly yes: some people are voluntarily willing to exchange their hard earned money at a price that the producer is voluntarily willing to produce & sell that product.
That is value creation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational
And what becomes of the other companies and employees already engaged in that business?
Does the disruption of markets and sales add to society as well?
Clearly, yes. Competition is the crucible in which value is created. Some companies may not be able to compete - in which case they go out of business, and their capital is re-allocated to another - possibly better - value-creation enterprise.
Economic competition is like salmon swimming upstream. Some make it and spawn. Some become food for bears.
TaxPhd, I posted it and you just quoted the post. No others memory spans are shorter than yours.
<<Cue heavy sigh>>
It is perfectly clear that it isn't my memory span that is lacking, but rather your understanding.
Here is what you posted. Key points are highlighted:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn ... Due to commercial competition, The extent that enterprises were able to increase their prices and pass taxes onto their customers is limited by what the market would bear and what the individual enterprise's competitors are doing. The phrase, “people rather than companies pay corporate taxes” is much less than true.
Due to competitive pressures, enterprises are less able to pass any abnormal (proportional to revenues) expenses on to their customers. ...
Now, pay close attention to what I said:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd It’s been explained to you many times, and you still don’t get it. But hey, why don’t you tell us all about how the economic impact of a tax is borne by a “company” rather than by individuals. ...
Note that while similar, the two situations aren't the same. You seem to get hung up on the ability to pass the cost to customers, but that isn't the only group of individuals who will bear the economic burden of the tax.
Again, since you refuse to understand. . . The economic burden of ALL taxes is borne by individuals - customers, through higher prices; employees, through reduced wages and benefits; and owners, through reduced returns. Your continual refusal to understand this is quite baffling. Is it that you truly don't understand it, or are you simply being deliberately obtuse?
Determining how the economic impact of a tax is allocated among those three groups is a much more difficult question, but it is perfectly clear that there is no other group or entity that will in fact bear the burden of a tax. Most certainly not some corporation.
It is perfectly clear that it isn't my memory span that is lacking, but rather your understanding.
Here is what you posted. Key points are highlighted:
Now, pay close attention to what I said:
Note that while similar, the two situations aren't the same. You seem to get hung up on the ability to pass the cost to customers, but that isn't the only group of individuals who will bear the economic burden of the tax.
Again, since you refuse to understand. . . The economic burden of ALL taxes is borne by individuals - customers, through higher prices; employees, through reduced wages and benefits; and owners, through reduced returns. Your continual refusal to understand this is quite baffling. Is it that you truly don't understand it, or are you simply being deliberately obtuse?
Determining how the economic impact of a tax is allocated among those three groups is a much more difficult question, but it is perfectly clear that there is no other group or entity that will in fact bear the burden of a tax. Most certainly not some corporation.
In the end, the argument is just rhetorical, rather than factual. It assumes that the business climate is one where there's always intense competition. That's not the case in some industries or fields as competition is restricted or regulated.
The basic problem is that all entities benefit from public services and how to allocate taxes to individuals and corporations to pay for these costs. The other problem is one of the fairness or unfairness in tax arbitrage as many taxpayers can file as both types of entities.
In the end, the argument is just rhetorical, rather than factual. It assumes that the business climate is one where there's always intense competition. That's not the case in some industries or fields as competition is restricted or regulated.
You couldn't be more wrong. The argument is 100% factual. It is unchanged by the level of competition.
Quote:
The basic problem is that all entities benefit from public services and how to allocate taxes to individuals and corporations to pay for these costs. The other problem is one of the fairness or unfairness in tax arbitrage as many taxpayers can file as both types of entities.
Individuals benefit from public services, not entities.
Eliminate taxation of business entities, and any arbitrage goes away.
If only the whiners would start a business to, you know, add value to society. Sort of like this 13 year old girl:
Or maybe like Elizabeth Holmes? After all, she founded Theranos when she was 20 and was on the cover of Inc as the next Steve Jobs, and we know how that turned out.
<<Cue heavy sigh>> ... Again, since you refuse to understand. ... The economic burden of ALL taxes is borne by individuals - customers, through higher prices; employees, through reduced wages and benefits; and owners, through reduced returns. Your continual refusal to understand this is quite baffling. Is it that you truly don't understand it, or are you simply being deliberately obtuse? ...
TaxPhd, unless you're contending an enterprise, (and thus the enterprise's owners) can never “eat” the enterprise's income taxes, we in concept, entirely agree. You're hung up on language.
Although the liabilities of a corporation or other legally limited liability organizations are not their shareholder's individual legal liabilities, lesser value of the enterprise reflects upon the evaluations of the enterprise's individual shareholders' wealths.
The word “people” within the common phrase “people rather than companies pay corporate taxes”, is generally understood to be people who directly or indirectly are the company's customers rather than the companies shareholders.
Rarely would market conditions enable a company to pass their income taxes on to their customers; certainly not in a highly competitive marketplace. The same can be said for any other category of expenses that competing enterprises do not similarly and/or to a similar proportion to sales prices, also pass on to their customers.
You need to think of this as percentage of income paid, not dollar amounts. If I make $50,000,000 a year, naturally I’ll be paying a lot more dollars in taxes than someone making $50,000 a year. But percentage of income wise I will likely pay a much lower rate.
This has many causes. Social Secuity income tax is capped at $128,400. So from the person making $50,000,000 that pretty much caps out after the rich person works 15 minutes, while the middle class guy pays it on all his income. Wealthy people make much of their money via investments that are taxed at a lower rate.
The fact is, on average, the middle class pays a larger percentage of their income to the tax man and they can much less afford to do so.
I’m personally for a 90% mandatory tax rate on earnings over a million and no cap on Social Security taxes. The fact that there are individuals with billions and billions and billions of dollars for pretty much doing nothing else but getting lucky, while others earn peanuts and the federal deficits are skyrocketing, boggles the mind.
This is nonsense. $50k filing single is the 12% bracket. 6.2% FICA and 1.45% Medicare. After the $12k standard deduction, you’re paying tax on $38k. Call it $4,000 in Federal or 8%. Adding those up, I get 15.45% in taxes. Unless you’re in real estate like Trump or run a hedge fund, someone making $50 million is paying a much higher effective tax rate than 15.45%.
The word “people” within the common phrase “people rather than companies pay corporate taxes”, is generally understood to be people who directly or indirectly are the company's customers rather than the companies shareholders.
I disagree.
People means human beings. Human beings tend to fall into the categories of customers, employees, shareholders (business owners), and suppliers. Some human beings fall into multiple categories: many employees are also shareholders and customers. Many suppliers are also shareholders and customers.
Business owners are human beings and hence are people.
100% of all taxes are borne by human beings. Does that help you? Businesses do not bear the burden of taxation; they (inefficiently) collect and forward taxes from actual human beings to the various taxing authorities.
A business by itself never bears the burden of any tax. Only human beings bear the burden.
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.
