# Corporate taxation



## Immolatus (Feb 20, 2011)

An eye opener for me.
In a recent thread, Ant and I got into a discussion about corporations, and specifically corporate taxes. Ant (and others) pointed out to me that corporations dont actually pay the taxes, it is a cost of doing business, and therefore passed along to the consumer, or taken from employees wages. I was arguing (discussing ) that corporations should pay taxes, especially since they apparently have some of the same rights as citizens, in that they can lobby congress, without the same liabilities as a citizen.

I decided to do a little exercize. I figured it would be easy enough to take some large company and figure out some relevant numbers on the impact on consumers and employees. I decided to use Coca Cola (KO) as an example. The product is widely known and easily understood, and the numbers are publicly available.
Heres what I found out:
(NOTE: I rounded off numbers when convenient for me to make the math easier, I assumed that slight alterations in the numbers wouldnt make a difference)
KO has 140,000 employees worldwide, 70,000 of those in the US.
It paid an effective corporate tax rate of 16% even though their actual corporate tax rate is 35%. I did find this in the Atlanta Journal Constitution. 
"Coca-Cola's "current" federal tax expense - not counting "deferred" taxes that might not be paid for decades, if ever - was $470 million last year. That was only 6.5 percent of the $7.2 billion in pre-tax profits that Coca-Cola reported for its U.S. operations in annual disclosures to investors last year. (A Coca-Cola spokesman said the company actually paid federal income taxes "significantly higher" than $470 million last year. It also said its federal tax rate worked out to 38 to 39 percent because its taxable income was lower than the $7.2 billion reported to shareholders, but didn't release supporting figures.)"
I found the $1.2B numbers through other sources, so that the number I used, even though half of it was deferred, so I used $600M in my calculations, because thats how much was actually paid.
KO sells 1.7B SERVINGS PER DAY. This aint all just Coke, but includes Tropicana, Gatorade, and a bunch of other products.

I was trying to figure out the impact of the corporate tax on the US, and since I knew this first calculation would back up my assumption that it was negligible, I did this one first.
That works out to $.002/serving. Obviously to a consumer, this effect is meaningless, and if it aint, I feel sorry for your kidneys.
So, if you did away with the corp tax, and they did the best thing for the US as a whole and reduced the cost of their product, it wouldnt actually be helping anyone.

Now for the good part:
If instead, you gave that money to the employees, and kept the cost of the product the same, that works out to $8,500 PER EMPLOYEE. ($600M in taxes/70,000 US employees)
The only number I could find in my 5 minute G search was that the average KO salary was $53,000/yr. An additional $8500 would be a 16% pay increase (corresponding to their effective tax rate of 16%-I actually missed seeing the relevance at first) for the average worker. Not bad.
Obviously thats not how it would work out, because the people at the top would eat most of that up, leaving the average employee with next to nothing I'm sure, but noone wants income equality or wealth redistribution, right? (Sorry, I couldnt help that, lets move on)
My conclusion is, at least in theory, each KO employee would make $8500 more if they no longer had to pay the corp income tax. Thats a significant amount of money.

Now, onto my interpretations:
Again, the obvious problem with this theory is that there is no way that the $8500 in savings/employee would be distributed evenly. My guess is that it would be paid out in larger dividends and the rest given to upper management, becuase I think its safe to assume that its being unevenly (in a total numbers sense, not in a 'fairness' sense) taken out of the lower end employees salaries to begin with. To suggest anything else, maybe that all of it should go to the average Joe, and none to upper management/shareholders, therefore giving AJ even more money would smack of Socialism, now wouldnt it? I'm not saying it should or shouldnt, but giving the bulk/all of it to AJ instead of 'the rich' would obviously be better for the country as a whole.
Of course I believe that a corporation should be able to spend its money however it wants, and if they decide to give it all to upper management, then thats their perogative, and their right. That doesnt mean its best for the country.
So, how would the govt make up for the loss of this income? Raise your personal income tax? Make up for it with a higher tax on soft drinks? Borrow it from the Fed/China? Cut entitlement spending to the 1 out of 8 Americans who are on food stamps? (That is terrifying in itself)

That $8500 number really opened my eyes. Thats a lot of money.
I'll still stand behind my stance that a corporation should pay taxes if for no other reason, because they are given the right to lobby congress. If they have any of the same rights as a citizen, then they should be taxed.
But it certainly helps to understand the impact on the average worker.

PS: After doing some more reading about this subject, I came across the simplest reason why a corp should pay taxes.
Why do you and I pay taxes? To pay for the stuff that gubt provides that noone else will pay for. Infrastructure and the justice system, mainly. We directly benefit from these, and obviously corps do also. The example I ran across was Fedex and UPS. They utilize public roads, much moreso than you and I do presonally. Since they derive so much utilization from them, they should pay for them also, and not (theoretically) derive profit (utility)from them at no expense.

I really only did this to satisfy my own curiosity, but I welcome the discussion.


----------



## VUnder (Sep 1, 2011)

Corporations have been given the right to lobby congress? Corporations always had the right to lobby congress. Feds took their right away and years later it finally reached the Supreme Court and they struck it down, because it was unconstitutional. A corporation is an individual because without the individual there can not be a corporation. What is the difference between a group of people that are in a corporation and a group of people in the Sierra Club, or the Earth Liberation Front? One type can lobby and the other can't, and look where the government is now. Look at the 25,000 pages of business regulations we have now.

That is what I don't understand about liberals. Evil corporations making all that profit. Now, the fact that one dollar out of two hundred dollars goes to the animals at the Humane Society is all fine and dandy with the liberals. I wonder how much the Sierra Club operators make? Or, the leaders of the ELF's?, but that is all fine if they push liberal agendas. 

So, if you were locked in a room with 99 other people and each of you have $1, your greatest potential is to walk out of there with $100. Now, if you were locked in a room with 99 other people and 98 of them are broke, but one has a million dollars, what is your greatest potential then? 

Liberals say corporations and rich people are evil, TAX THEM! TAX THEM! Capitalism doen't work, you don't stand a chance. But, you can come play this lottery we just set up in your town, the odds are only 1 in five hundred million billion that you will win, but at least you know what the odds are. The liberals fought and fought for this for years, and it finally passed in Arkansas. True to the system the first week, the most lottery tickets were sold in the poorest county in the state. Liberals are all about keeping the poor poor.


----------



## Immolatus (Feb 20, 2011)

Sorry, let me put my post in some context.
In the previous discussion, a few people said that corporations should pay no taxes, since they 'dont' anyway and the taxes are passed on to the consumer or taken out of the employees paychecks.
My point was that corps should pay taxes, not that they should be taxed 'heavily' or anything, but certainly in line with a citizens tax rate since they have many of the same benefits of said citizen.

I dont actually know how a liberal wants to tax corporations. I dont think that anyone would say that a corp should be taxed at a higher rate than the highest individual tax rate, but I dont know.
I am a Libertarian. I was only trying to make the point that they should pay taxes as opposed to paying none at all.
I have no problem with anyone making money, corporation or otherwise. One point I will agree with Liberals on is that the huge income inequality gap in the world is a problem. Not necessarily a moral problem (although obviously there are some moral hazards), but certainly a problem. How long will the average person put up with the fact that the top 10% own 90% of the wealth? I'm not making a judgement, but at some point those at the bottom will eventually demand their share.
I dont know anything about the Sierra Club or ELF.

Can I assume that you are an owner of a corporation or 'rich' (which for the most part is totally subjective) yourself that you should stand up for them with such vehemence?
I couldnt tell you what a liberal thinks about the 'rich' or a corp being 'evil'. I would assume that they see income inequality as 'unfair', but I would say its essentially envy.
Certainly the system is far from perfect, and certainly some are exploiters, and some exploited. The question is what percentage of the general population is either? Personally I dont think there are many exploited people as far as employees, because for the most part you always have a choice. If you dont like where you work, go work somewhere else, or find another way to survive.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

Corporations are owned by people. If you own stock you get paid dividends or you get paid when you sell the stock. Dividends are taxed at a rate higher than wages even though your stock ownership is a financial risk to yourself. Corporations shouldn't be taxed at all. Otherwise it's double taxation. America has the highest corporate tax rates in the world and that hurts our competitiveness.


----------



## TheAnt (Jun 7, 2011)

Immolatus said:


> I have no problem with anyone making money, corporation or otherwise. One point I will agree with Liberals on is that the huge income inequality gap in the world is a problem. Not necessarily a moral problem (although obviously there are some moral hazards), but certainly a problem. How long will the average person put up with the fact that the top 10% own 90% of the wealth? I'm not making a judgement, but at some point those at the bottom will eventually demand their share.


There is little hope in convincing you otherwise but the the reason for 10% owning 90% of the wealth has nothing to do with taxation and taxation will not fix the desparity. The biggest reason folks are 'poor' (our poorest still have big screen TVs and Escalades) is because they are lazy and enjoy living off Uncle Sams tit. The biggest reason those of us in the middle class dont have more is because of all the regulation and taxation on us and corporations that makes items too expensive and starting a business too regulated and impossible to make a profit on.

Get the government machine out of our way and the folks that want wealth can earn it and those that dont want to work can starve.:gaah:


----------



## Immolatus (Feb 20, 2011)

TheAnt said:


> There is little hope in convincing you otherwise but the the reason for 10% owning 90% of the wealth has nothing to do with taxation and taxation will not fix the desparity. The biggest reason folks are 'poor' (our poorest still have big screen TVs and Escalades) is because they are lazy and enjoy living off Uncle Sams tit. The biggest reason those of us in the middle class dont have more is because of all the regulation and taxation on us and corporations that makes items too expensive and starting a business too regulated and impossible to make a profit on.
> 
> Get the government machine out of our way and the folks that want wealth can earn it and those that dont want to work can starve.:gaah:


Wait, thats all I get? I write all that mess and I get a half paragraph about a secondary post? I wanted pages and pages of response! With lots of quotations!
 
The OP was me at least semi agreeing with you, that given the KO example, for getting rid of corp taxation.
How do I get sucked into defending Socialist ideas all the time? 
As to the 90/10 thing, I was just pointing it out, and will say that those at the bottom end up getting fed up to the point of rising up against the upper class. I am not saying thats right, or agreeing with it, just pointing it out. I'll totally agree with the laziness factor, but will also say that its the system itself that encourages it.
I'll go ahead and address my 'victim' statement in the other thread here too.
I cant imagine anyone will say that ALL the people that get govt handouts
do so out of sheer laziness. Obviously at least some of them (what %?) are at least 'victims' of circumstance. They cant ALL be lazy bums. Can they?
Women make less money than men. Blacks make less than whites. Is that not victimization? If a man is only able to make the amount that puts him right above the level of gubt handouts, but the same person being a woman puts her under it because of sexism, is that necessarily her fault?

How about this (back to the OP):
1)If KO (or your place of business) was to be released of its tax burden, what is more likely? Everyone gets the same $8500 raise, or upper management takes most/all of it leaving the average guy with little to nothing? Not saying its right or wrong, just askin the question.
2)Which of the above scenarios is 'better' for society? KO does not exist for the 'betterment' of society (whatever that even means), it has its own money, and can do whatever it wants with it. If the CEO/Board wants to keep it all thats their business, and fine with me.
I think thats where a liberal would get upset. They would say 'thats not fair'. *I am not saying its not fair, I am making a guess.*
And I certainly would not say that the 90/10 thing is a result of taxation, or that tax policy can fix it, or even that it 'needs' to be fixed. But if youre at the bottom, lets say the 50% that dont pay taxes because they are poor, whether its their fault or even recognize its their fault or not, they are the ones saying its not 'fair' and the politicians find it easy to play up to this.


----------



## TheAnt (Jun 7, 2011)

Immolatus said:


> Wait, thats all I get? I write all that mess and I get a half paragraph about a secondary post? I wanted pages and pages of response! With lots of quotations!


Believe me, I typed up a mess of a response before anyone else posted then thought better of myself and didnt post it... but you sucked me in. 



Immolatus said:


> The OP was me at least semi agreeing with you, that given the KO example, for getting rid of corp taxation.
> How do I get sucked into defending Socialist ideas all the time?


This is perhaps the wisest question you have asked yourself and perhaps answering it is the most important of all... however you are the only one that can answer it.



Immolatus said:


> As to the 90/10 thing, I was just pointing it out, and will say that those at the bottom end up getting fed up to the point of rising up against the upper class. I am not saying thats right, or agreeing with it, just pointing it out.


Its not necessarily true, its not right, you shouldnt agree with it but thanks for pointing it out. The poor that are lazy are only empowered when those who have power and are hungry for more give them power in exchange for votes. They are the leeches of society that are bringing this nation to its knees and all for a flat screen TV and an XBOX.



Immolatus said:


> I'll totally agree with the laziness factor, but will also say that its the system itself that encourages it.


This is true and we should change the system as soon as possible. What we change it to is critical... and making it more socialist is like treating an alcoholic with Jack Daniels.



Immolatus said:


> I'll go ahead and address my 'victim' statement in the other thread here too.
> I cant imagine anyone will say that ALL the people that get govt handouts
> do so out of sheer laziness.


Not all but those that live off gov't handouts do so out of sheer laziness as a rule. There is no point in debating the exception to the rule...



Immolatus said:


> Obviously at least some of them (what %?) are at least 'victims' of circumstance. They cant ALL be lazy bums. Can they?


As a rule, yes they are all lazy bums. Again there are exceptions but they are few and they are not worth debating. Those exceptions can be dealt with through community efforts by free organizations (churches are the best example I can think of). What %? I would say the percent of lazy bums is probably close to 85-95% but thats just a guess based of what Ive seen. That number would be a lot higher if the rest of us werent being pushed into poverty by the gov't redistributing wealth and making it harder and harder to make an honest living.



Immolatus said:


> Women make less money than men. Blacks make less than whites. Is that not victimization?


Nope. Its not.



Immolatus said:


> If a man is only able to make the amount that puts him right above the level of gubt handouts, but the same person being a woman puts her under it because of sexism, is that necessarily her fault?


Im sure your mother told you this already but life is sometimes not fair. It doesnt mean that someone is out to get you or that you are being discriminated against. Life is just sometimes not fair. Its not the gov'ts job to make things fair and they couldnt do it if it were their job. Pale skinned folks are more likely to get skin cancer, whos gonna make that fair?



Immolatus said:


> How about this (back to the OP):
> 1)If KO (or your place of business) was to be released of its tax burden, what is more likely? Everyone gets the same $8500 raise, or upper management takes most/all of it leaving the average guy with little to nothing? Not saying its right or wrong, just askin the question.


It all depends on so many circumstances it would vary from company to company but I trust the company to do what is in its best interests *WAY* before I would trust the gov't to make things "fair". If the company has an employee that is necessary then they will compensate that employee to what he/she can demand in the free marketplace. If not then the employee leaves... just as you said.



Immolatus said:


> 2)Which of the above scenarios is 'better' for society? KO does not exist for the 'betterment' of society (whatever that even means), it has its own money, and can do whatever it wants with it. If the CEO/Board wants to keep it all thats their business, and fine with me.


As well you should be OK with it. If the CEO/Board is dumb and doesnt invest in their business/employees/product then they will not stay in business long. If the CEO doesnt make the business grow the CEO will lose his job.



Immolatus said:


> I think thats where a liberal would get upset. They would say 'thats not fair'. *I am not saying its not fair, I am making a guess.*
> And I certainly would not say that the 90/10 thing is a result of taxation, or that tax policy can fix it, or even that it 'needs' to be fixed. But if youre at the bottom, lets say the 50% that dont pay taxes because they are poor, whether its their fault or even recognize its their fault or not, they are the ones saying its not 'fair' and the politicians find it easy to play up to this.


Exactly, politicians play to this crowd because they have their hands out and their votes for sale. They are whoring off their vote to whoever will give them the highest bid. They are an abomination to the ideals of free men and deserve neither the handouts nor the right to vote.

The answer to this whole issue of taxes is to simultaneously cut spending, taxation, and regulation so that:

1) Businesses thrive, grow, hire more employees which leads to:
2) more jobs, higher wages, more individual (as well as business) spending which leads to:
3) more tax revenue weather by higher incomes meaning more income taxes or (my choice) replace the income tax with the 'fair tax' which is basically a sales tax (consumption) tax
4) higher tax revenue added to spending cuts will equal surplusses the likes of which have never been seen which will lead to:
5) a strengthened dollar, more purchasing power for US citizens which leads to:
6) cheaper energy prices, cheaper manufacturing and transportation of goods which leads to:
7) better prices on goods

... so on and so on and so on each building on the other cycling into a snowball of prosperity...

Its quite obvious the good that would come from removing any and (nearly) all barriers from business in the US... the reason it wont happen is because it also takes away *TREMENDOUS *power from the hands of the gov't.

Now then Immolatus, are you happy with this post? Glad to be of service! :beercheer:


----------



## JayJay (Nov 23, 2010)

You know, I don't get it---what's the problem??

CORPORATIONS should be treated like us---show me your books..if you made bunches of money...pay damn taxes on that profit.:dunno:

If you are truly struggling, and not off--setting those liabilities, expenses, AND PROFIT, etc..then, hey..you get a break until next year.:surrender: And I'll look at those books again.:gaah:

All you accountants know what I'm saying...if there is a billion dollar profit, and CEOs took it home, didn't invest it back into the company to better the country and expand the company to hire...then you brains use the correct terminology.


----------



## partdeux (Aug 3, 2011)

I would vote for ZERO, yes ZERO corporate taxes.

How much of an impact do you think increasing corporate taxes would have on our deficit spending? Pick any tax rate you want, all the way to 100%. Tax the corporations at 100%. It will have minimal impact on the budget deficit. Seriously, it will have virtually ZERO impact.

Tax all people that make over 200,000 every year. Tax them at 100%, want to guess how much of an impact it will have on deficit spending? Yep, once again virtually ZERO.

If you were to take 100% of every workers income, 100% of corporate profits, 100% of ALL investments, you will cover the published debt. That's not counting the unpublished debt.

Corporate taxes will always get passed along to us, the consumer in the form of hidden taxes.


----------



## Immolatus (Feb 20, 2011)

Ahh, much better!
I agree with almost everything you said. All of your 7 conclusions/assumptions except the fair tax, cause Im set on my flat tax. (Like the old Lite beer commercials? Flat Tax! Fair Tax!)
I want the gubt out of everything, just keep people safe, and build roads/dams/bridges etc. I am not saying corps should be taxed out of 'fairness' to the little guy, just fairness to us all. We pay taxes to build those roads/dams/bridges and to pay for LEOs and protection, and any entity should pay taxes to support them whether its citizens or businesses. Also, if you can lobby congress, and give them millions of dollars and essentially buy their support you should pay taxes.

1)I cant believe that 85% of those on handouts are lazy bums, I just cant. Thats just too pessimistic for me, and I am damned pessimistic. If thats actually true then theres no help for any of us, because if they all got cut off there would be rioting in the street, and they would outnumber everyone else.

2)I understand life aint fair, and I'm not saying its the gubts job to remedy it when its not. Even discrimination. Personally, and this is gonna sound as bad as you saying 'let em starve' (which I assume you dont mean literally) I have no problem with discrimination. If a business discriminates in its hiring or against its own customers, then it would be crushed by a competitor for obvious reasons. *But *I think if a woman is being paid less than a man for the same work, then shes being victimized, because its beyond her control. Maybe victimized is the wrong word? She is being harmed by circumstances beyond her control by an outside force though, which makes her a victim. 
Lets put in more personal terms.
If my/your parents all do the exact same job, but our mothers get paid less, they are victims of discrimination are they not? Whether they make $1, $10, or $100,000 less is irrelevant. They are victims.

3) Should Fedex and UPS not pay taxes to support the roads that they so frequently use? I think its safe to assume that UPS uses the roads more than the same number of citizens/employee of UPS. If they sshouldnt have to pay taxes to support the roads, then why should I?

I do not want corps taxed because I want to right some wrong. I just think that they should pay taxes like everyone else, because they benefit from the same system that everyon pays for. I am for the flat tax, a set amount paid the same for everyone, citizens and businesses alike. No loopholes for anything. Accountants out of business, and your tax form down to 3 lines.
Back to our dirt farm example, if we sell dirt widgets out of our shed, we pay income taxes. If we fill out a gubt form, then we shouldnt pay any taxes? How does that make sense?

*Partdeux:* Im not trying to say that corps should be taxed to help pay downthe defecit, just pointing out that if theyre not taxed, then assumedly that money will have to be made up somewhere else, at least given our current situation, ceteris paribus. And see my UPS exmple above.

*Bill: *I though the current dividend tax rate was 15%? It was one of the great things that are part of the Bush tax cuts that directly affected me and mine. I just looked it up, and it is 15 if you hold a stock for 60 days. Its only taxed as normal income if you hold them for less. You are a commodities trader, right? So I guess for you they are taxed as normal income? I dont see why there would be any difference in those rates, but I'm sure theres some gubt justification buried in some tax law book somewhere. ? Yu would know better than I.

*JayJay*: Exactly. Corps should be taxed just like us.

Hrm. I just looked up the most profitable companies in the world. Only 4 of the top 10 are American. Only 2 of the top 10 biggest employers in the world are American, and one of them is the postal service? Ugh. They have prolly outlived their usefulness. The rest are Chinese (acceptable, as there are a billion of em!) and one French grocery store.

I am a Libertarian. NOT A SOCIALIST. I am just as heartless as the next conservative. If you cant 'roll fa self' then tough noogies. That is not to say I am not for some basic welfare system, because it benefits noone to have destitute homeless people running around in the streets. But should someone who is getting public assistance be driving an Escalade? Absolutely not. If you can pay for that, then you dont need a handout, cause I'm sure there are people who live their lives for less than the cost of one of those.

:beercheer: Hey, I think I'll go grab a Bud to that!


----------



## JayJay (Nov 23, 2010)

AND...while I'm on my rant....I 'ain't' smart a lot when it comes to taxes..I haven't filed our returns in years>>>

But ----STOP GIVING RETURNS TO MOOCHERS THAT DIDN'T PAY IN CHIT!!!
I know a woman on disability...her daughter gets SSI..because mom is on disability...and she got $8000 return from the TReasury ....this chit must stop!!!!!!:gaah:


----------



## VUnder (Sep 1, 2011)

Immolatus said:


> An eye opener for me.
> In a recent thread, Ant and I got into a discussion about corporations, and specifically corporate taxes. Ant (and others) pointed out to me that corporations dont actually pay the taxes, it is a cost of doing business, and therefore passed along to the consumer, or taken from employees wages. I was arguing (discussing ) that corporations should pay taxes, especially since they apparently have some of the same rights as citizens, in that they can lobby congress, without the same liabilities as a citizen.
> 
> I decided to do a little exercize. I figured it would be easy enough to take some large company and figure out some relevant numbers on the impact on consumers and employees. I decided to use Coca Cola (KO) as an example. The product is widely known and easily understood, and the numbers are publicly available.
> ...


So a corporation should pay taxes? If all the people that work at the corporation pays income taxes, and all the people that earn from stocks pay taxes, then why tax the corporation? You are taxing on top of taxing.

If I am white and get a job and the black guy don't, that is not discrimation, he went to the same school that I went to, I just did better on the test. Even though he had 25 free points for being black. What the heck is that? I feel discriminated against......Within 400 yards of me is about a thousand of them. I live in the old south on an old plantation. Some of them live in original houses that were on the plantation before the civil war. Having kids left and right, waiting for the food stamp card to get reloaded and the welfare check to come. Many of them work for me, so I know a whole heck of a lot about what is going on. I know what "baby daddy" and "baby momma" means. Feel me? Word? Homie ride is "dope". You don't go to the grocery store around here on the first of the month, too full of them buying two shopping carts of meat. I thought about videotaping and posting on you tube, with me standing there with a loaf of light bread and a bag of dry pinto beans, because I am paying for theirs.


----------



## JayJay (Nov 23, 2010)

~~~~So a corporation should pay taxes? If all the people that work at the corporation pays income taxes, and all the people that earn from stocks pay taxes, then why tax the corporation? You are taxing on top of taxing.~~~~ 

Gosh..I must be stupider than I thought...isn't the profit/capital gain/investment taxable??
Earned income to us is called capital gain to corps??

The difference being we labored for our money and someone managed(labored) a company or invested(labored) in that company to profit or lose...right???

So why should we pay taxes on money earned and corporations not pay taxes on money earned??

Maybe that manager/CEO/owner doesn't own stocks; someone is earning a huge profit..forget the employees...forget the shareholders....someone is earning from that profit of that company.


----------



## VUnder (Sep 1, 2011)

And the money that so and so takes home as profit, is taxable income. What I don't like is they seem more concerned that you sent a 1099 to your teen aged baby sitter.


----------



## VUnder (Sep 1, 2011)

If all the members of a church work at their jobs and pay taxes, then why should the church pay taxes as a church? Or, all the members of the deer club? If a corporation pays taxes, really, you and I are paying more taxes is how it ends up. So, if you don't tax corporations, choice and competiton will keep the prices down and I will pay less to the porch monkeys around here.


----------



## Kevin108 (Aug 29, 2011)

Businesses don't pay taxes. Consumers just pay higher prices. The government that is funded by our massive taxation is immoral and intentionally wasteful if not outright corrupt. We get a raw deal for what we are forced to pay.


----------



## VUnder (Sep 1, 2011)

That is what I am trying to say. Corporations pay taxes in name only. Corporate taxes are just a way to get us citizens to pay more taxes. All the corporate taxes do is make it more expensive for them to do business, and they don't take a pay cut, they just pass that cost on to the consumer. There should be no such thing as a corporate tax.


----------



## The_Blob (Dec 24, 2008)

found this chart for you Immolatus:

The number of monthly welfare recipients nationwide for every year since Temporary Assistance for Needy Families took effect:

Year Number of welfare recipients

2011: 4,703,343 (not all figures in, expect to be much bigger after winter months averaged in  )

2010: 4,598,929

2009: 4,401,252

2008: 3,782,995 

2007: 3,880,321 

2006: 4,074,689 

2005: 4,386,206 

2004: 4,695,211 

2003: 4,843,562 

2002: 5,013,728 

2001: 5,276,319 

2000: 7,527,071 

1999: 8,175,831 

1998: 9,578,222 

1997: 10,326,683 

1996: 11,533,710 


Source: Dept. of Health and Human Services TANF data 

side note: California has 12% of U.S. population yet has 33.5% of the welfare #s (1575621 in 2011)...


----------



## The_Blob (Dec 24, 2008)

not to get toooo offtrack, but aren't churches tax mostly exempt?

How I understand it... income directly from their main purpose of operation is not taxable at the federal, state or local level. So contributions from members would not be taxed. Pastors do pay taxes on their salaries.

Properties owned can be a bit complicated. They don't pay property tax on properties directly associated with their charitable purpose - like the church itself, a fellowship hall, or parsonage. But if they own property they rent out to earn money for the church, they do pay property taxes on that. And they might be subject to income tax on the rent if the property is mortgaged, although not if it isn't... :dunno: that sounds strange to me, but laws are strange oftentimes.


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*Since the consumer*

Since the consumer ultimatly pays all the tax, shouldn't all tax laws and taxes directly tax the consumer. rather than his income?

How much simpler would it be if we all just paid a sales tax on what we consumed and did away with income taxes ?

:beercheer:


----------



## TheAnt (Jun 7, 2011)

JayJay said:


> ~~~~So a corporation should pay taxes? If all the people that work at the corporation pays income taxes, and all the people that earn from stocks pay taxes, then why tax the corporation? You are taxing on top of taxing.~~~~
> 
> Gosh..I must be stupider than I thought...isn't the profit/capital gain/investment taxable??
> Earned income to us is called capital gain to corps??
> ...


JayJay, you are correct that anyone (person) that profits from the company should pay taxes (and they do) but what we are saying is that profits the company makes should not be taxed at all.

If they were not taxed those profits would be reinvested in the company (because a company doesnt have living expenses or 'desires' -- EDIT: Just wondering, you guys dont think that at the end of every year corporation big wigs empty the company coffers and buy each other lavish gifts and such do ya??? Its not so... even if liberals would like you to think so). Those investments would be in the form of expanding the business, research and development, maybe taking a risk on a new product, maybe even hiring more folks or paying current employees better so that they retain their good employees.

Taxing corporations amounts to stifling business growth, innovation, r&d, and hiring and only serves to slow our economy (which all else aside leads to less tax revenue the following year).

The reason we only have 2 or 3 companies in the top 10 of the world is directly a result of over-taxation and regulation of US business. There was a time when the US probably had all 10 of the top 10 and there is no reason we cant have it that way again. All that needs to take place is for gov't to get out of the way of business. Stop taxing (or at least lower it as much as can be achieved) and stop regulating (or at least lower it as much as can be achieved).

Profits that go to a person should always be taxed in an income-based tax structure. Profits that go to a company should be untouched to promote that business and allow it to grow and profit more people... people that will get taxed for those profits. Our current system kills the goose that laid the golden egg.


----------



## The_Blob (Dec 24, 2008)

TheAnt said:


> If they were not taxed those profits would be reinvested in the company (because a company doesnt have living expenses or 'desires' -- EDIT: Just wondering, you guys dont think that at the end of every year corporation big wigs empty the company coffers and buy each other lavish gifts and such do ya??? Its not so... even if liberals would like you to think so). Those investments would be in the form of expanding the business, research and development, maybe taking a risk on a new product, maybe even hiring more folks or paying current employees better so that they retain their good employees.


I had this VERY same discussion/argument with a couple of Fool-Aid drinking Obamanites that were 'convinced' that is exactly what they do... it's like arguing with a five-year-old, once losing the debate they just fall back on "it's not FAIR...waaaagh!  " ... ... ... :nuts: :gaah:


----------



## TheAnt (Jun 7, 2011)

The_Blob said:


> I had this VERY same discussion/argument with a couple of Fool-Aid drinking Obamanites that were 'convinced' that is exactly what they do... it's like arguing with a five-year-old, once losing the debate they just fall back on "it's not FAIR...waaaagh!  " ... ... ... :nuts: :gaah:


I dont know if I can even have that conversation with folks like that... I dont think I speak that language 

Its folks like this that dont care about freedom (much less understand it) that will lead us all into slavery and/or the dissolution of our (once?) great nation.


----------



## Woody (Nov 11, 2008)

I agree about the taxing part but companies do have expenses in the form of dividends. The company I work for went public many years ago. Before that there was no one except the employees to answer to. We had a great cash flow and more than enough to invest in growth and spread around to all the employees who worked to make it profitable. Now, all we hear is we need to make the investors happy. Times are tough and our cash flow is way down, the investors are screaming that they need to make more money so we need to cut expenses and turn over more money to them. This was happening back since 2004 or 2005 when we went public.

We did invest to grow the company but it was not done with our financial health as its primary interest. It was done with making us as profitable as possible. Big difference to me between the two. One is setting yourself up for long term slow, stable growth like before we went public. The other is to make as much cash as possible (for the investors in the company) and worry about the infrastructure later. Before there was plenty of funds available for raises, bonuses and company events throughout the year. Rather than using our cash flow to build the company, as we did before, we borrowed TONS of cash to grow and it has gotten us where we are today. Now, the only thing we hope for is to keep our jobs.

So it might not all be due to taxes, a lot of it is pure greed. I know the company could have weathered the world crisis we have had so far, easily with our cash reserves and employees caring about the company. With our profits leaving to keep investors happy we have no safety net to tide us over until things turn around.


----------



## TheAnt (Jun 7, 2011)

Woody said:


> I agree about the taxing part but companies do have expenses in the form of dividends. The company I work for went public many years ago. Before that there was no one except the employees to answer to. We had a great cash flow and more than enough to invest in growth and spread around to all the employees who worked to make it profitable. Now, all we hear is we need to make the investors happy. Times are tough and our cash flow is way down, the investors are screaming that they need to make more money so we need to cut expenses and turn over more money to them. This was happening back since 2004 or 2005 when we went public.
> 
> We did invest to grow the company but it was not done with our financial health as its primary interest. It was done with making us as profitable as possible. Big difference to me between the two. One is setting yourself up for long term slow, stable growth like before we went public. The other is to make as much cash as possible (for the investors in the company) and worry about the infrastructure later. Before there was plenty of funds available for raises, bonuses and company events throughout the year. Rather than using our cash flow to build the company, as we did before, we borrowed TONS of cash to grow and it has gotten us where we are today. Now, the only thing we hope for is to keep our jobs.
> 
> So it might not all be due to taxes, a lot of it is pure greed. I know the company could have weathered the world crisis we have had so far, easily with our cash reserves and employees caring about the company. With our profits leaving to keep investors happy we have no safety net to tide us over until things turn around.


Woody, what you describe is exactly the reason I would never want to see the company I work for 'go public'. The fact that the investors really dont care so much about the future of the company and only care if they make money now is another reason 'public' companies fail. It doesnt have anything to do with taxation really but it does drive some companies into the ground.

Personally the stock market has turned into a big joke anyway... rarely do any of the investors know (or care) anything about the company.... rather they think it a ticket to personal wealth or financial security (which often does not happen). Pure greed on the part of the investors and (I believe) a major mistake for companies to 'go public'. JMO.


----------



## TheAnt (Jun 7, 2011)

BillM said:


> Since the consumer ultimatly pays all the tax, shouldn't all tax laws and taxes directly tax the consumer. rather than his income?
> 
> How much simpler would it be if we all just paid a sales tax on what we consumed and did away with income taxes ?
> 
> :beercheer:


BINGO!!! Give that boy a gold star!


----------



## TheAnt (Jun 7, 2011)

Immolatus said:


> Ahh, much better!
> I agree with almost everything you said. All of your 7 conclusions/assumptions except the fair tax, cause Im set on my flat tax. (Like the old Lite beer commercials? Flat Tax! Fair Tax!)


Im certain we would be better off with either over our current income tax.



Immolatus said:


> I want the gubt out of everything, just keep people safe, and build roads/dams/bridges etc. I am not saying corps should be taxed out of 'fairness' to the little guy, just fairness to us all. We pay taxes to build those roads/dams/bridges and to pay for LEOs and protection, and any entity should pay taxes to support them whether its citizens or businesses. Also, if you can lobby congress, and give them millions of dollars and essentially buy their support you should pay taxes.
> 
> 1)I cant believe that 85% of those on handouts are lazy bums, I just cant. Thats just too pessimistic for me, and I am damned pessimistic. If thats actually true then theres no help for any of us, because if they all got cut off there would be rioting in the street, and they would outnumber everyone else.


I do think its likely its that high but I doubt that many would riot in the streets... honestly (no joke intended) they are too lazy. Some would... maybe a bunch but probably not most. Especially if law abiding citizens fought back (which most wouldnt).



Immolatus said:


> 2)I understand life aint fair, and I'm not saying its the gubts job to remedy it when its not. Even discrimination. Personally, and this is gonna sound as bad as you saying 'let em starve' (which I assume you dont mean literally)


I did surely mean 'let them starve'! Damn straight! The truth is most would not starve... most would get off their a$$e$ and work for a living like the rest of us. If you pay folks to be lazy and poor you will get more and more lazy and poor people. Thats just a fact... quit paying them and they will quit being as lazy and poor.



Immolatus said:


> I have no problem with discrimination. If a business discriminates in its hiring or against its own customers, then it would be crushed by a competitor for obvious reasons. *But *I think if a woman is being paid less than a man for the same work, then shes being victimized, because its beyond her control. Maybe victimized is the wrong word? She is being harmed by circumstances beyond her control by an outside force though, which makes her a victim.
> Lets put in more personal terms.
> If my/your parents all do the exact same job, but our mothers get paid less, they are victims of discrimination are they not? Whether they make $1, $10, or $100,000 less is irrelevant. They are victims.


Fine. Maybe they are... I dont give a crap. If I wanted to I could find a handful of ways I have been victimized... nobody gives a rip. I have to be responsible and grit my teeth and keep going -- everyone else should too.



Immolatus said:


> 3) Should Fedex and UPS not pay taxes to support the roads that they so frequently use? I think its safe to assume that UPS uses the roads more than the same number of citizens/employee of UPS. If they sshouldnt have to pay taxes to support the roads, then why should I?


Fedex pays for roads when they buy fuel not when they pay corporate income tax... you are off topic here.



Immolatus said:


> I do not want corps taxed because I want to right some wrong. I just think that they should pay taxes like everyone else, because they benefit from the same system that everyon pays for.


Interesting. You keep saying "they" when you refer to corporations yet corporations dont 'benefit' their employees do but their employees are already taxed on their income too... should 'they' (employees) be double taxed?



Immolatus said:


> I am for the flat tax, a set amount paid the same for everyone, citizens and businesses alike. No loopholes for anything. Accountants out of business, and your tax form down to 3 lines.


Thats fine... but why do you consider it better than a consumption tax?



Immolatus said:


> Back to our dirt farm example, if we sell dirt widgets out of our shed, we pay income taxes. If we fill out a gubt form, then we shouldnt pay any taxes? How does that make sense?


Exactly! So you agree on a consumption tax?



Immolatus said:


> *Partdeux:* Im not trying to say that corps should be taxed to help pay downthe defecit, just pointing out that if theyre not taxed, then assumedly that money will have to be made up somewhere else, at least given our current situation, ceteris paribus. And see my UPS exmple above.


As if the gov't is entitled to the money to begin with... dont forget that we consent to taxation -- its not the gov't 'right'. How about instead of making it up somewhere else by raising taxes we should just cut spending? Interesting idea, eh?



Immolatus said:


> Hrm. I just looked up the most profitable companies in the world. Only 4 of the top 10 are American. Only 2 of the top 10 biggest employers in the world are American, and one of them is the postal service? Ugh. They have prolly outlived their usefulness. The rest are Chinese (acceptable, as there are a billion of em!) and one French grocery store.


Primarily because of over taxation and regulation of business in the US. See my post previous to this one.



Immolatus said:


> I am a Libertarian. NOT A SOCIALIST. I am just as heartless as the next conservative.


I assume you are kidding here because that is offensive. Conservatives are not heartless! We believe in keeping what you work hard for! How is it heartless to want to keep what you work for while others want to sit back and take what you worked hard for? Thats not heartless, thats fair.



Immolatus said:


> If you cant 'roll fa self' then tough noogies. That is not to say I am not for some basic welfare system, because it benefits noone to have destitute homeless people running around in the streets. But should someone who is getting public assistance be driving an Escalade? Absolutely not. If you can pay for that, then you dont need a handout, cause I'm sure there are people who live their lives for less than the cost of one of those.
> 
> :beercheer: Hey, I think I'll go grab a Bud to that!


How was that beer? What did that beer cost? Does it make sense for that beer to cost that much? What should it cost to get one bottle of beer to you? 1$? I bet you paid more than that. I wonder what a beer would cost if the company growing the barley, the company producing it, the company bottling it, the company trasporting it, and the company selling it didnt have to pay corporate tax or adhere to any stupid regulations? 25¢ bottled beer would kick ass even if it is a light pilsner! Now I wish I had good ole dark 'oatmeal' beer!


----------



## Immolatus (Feb 20, 2011)

BillM said:


> Since the consumer ultimatly pays all the tax, shouldn't all tax laws and taxes directly tax the consumer. rather than his income?
> 
> How much simpler would it be if we all just paid a sales tax on what we consumed and did away with income taxes ?
> 
> :beercheer:


*Now THAT is a perfect way to put it.*



TheAnt said:


> Just wondering, you guys dont think that at the end of every year corporation big wigs empty the company coffers and buy each other lavish gifts and such do ya??? Its not so... even if liberals would like you to think so)


I manage a small ($1M) family biz. I went to high school with one of the owners. That is *exactly* what they do. Take the money out for themselves. They will give all the employees a bonus, and take the lions share for themselves. Which is perfectly within their rights to do.

I just got home from my first day of work in 2 months (hiatus, I've been there for 16 years) so I'll address your last post later.
Im all for cheaper beer! Time for another one!
:beercheer:


----------



## VUnder (Sep 1, 2011)

Immolatus said:


> *Now THAT is a perfect way to put it.*
> 
> I manage a small ($1M) family biz. I went to high school with one of the owners. That is *exactly* what they do. Take the money out for themselves. They will give all the employees a bonus, and take the lions share for themselves. Which is perfectly within their rights to do.
> 
> ...


The hold up on a consumer tax is that the government won't have access to all that big money. Face it, lots of wealthy people don't spend any more money than we do to live day to day. I knew one that got several million a month if he didn't get out of bed. Owned an oil company. He drove a fifteen year old cadillac. Had mud grips on the back and a trailer hitch so he could haul his four wheeler to the deer camp. Wore regular old clothes just like me, and was no better than me. He was raised working at a one pump gas station that his dad run. But, he didn't blow any money, so he wouldn't get taxed any more than me, really. So, then the government cant get the multiplied thousands they get from him now.


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

*The Fair Tax*

The "Fair Tax" would replace the" Federal Income tax".

Being a consumer tax, or a sales tax, it would collect from all the people who currently pay no income tax.

Illegal immigrants spend money .

Welfare recipients spend money.

Think about it corporations spend money for materials etc.

It would not let anyone off the hook , hence it is called a fair tax and the rate is real simple.

Politicians don't like simple tax codes. They want to keep you confused about the amount you actually pay and who pays it !


----------

