Tax Polixcy Center: Corporate taxes aren't passed on to consumers

[mercury14]

you forget one thing, in the real world (you know, the world that you DONT LIVE IN) companies have pricing pressure and are not able to pass everything on.

Company X is not able to sell their product for $1,000 when company A has the same product for sale at $19.95

Sad, that you do not understand supply and demand....

Pricing pressure is exactly why companies tend to not pass on their income taxes to their product price. In a competitive market companies will not usually injure their sales because they were profitable and had to pay taxes. Especially considering that they likely have competition that pays perhaps less income taxe, or none.

GE made $5 billion profit ($1 billion taxes) selling lightbulbs at the optimal price of $1
Sylvania made $1 billion profit ($0 taxes) selling lightbulbs at the optimal price of $1

Will GE then start selling its lightbulbs at $1.25 conceding all kinds of market share to $1 Sylvania? Nope, never. Their dividend payout is probably going to reflect those taxes though.

 

[trysail]

Thus far, you've managed to prove one thing:

you really don't know anything about accounting.​

 

[mercury14]

Thus far, you've managed to prove one thing:

you really don't know anything about accounting.​

My font is larger than yours bro.

 

[Busybody]

here is THE bottom line

DUMZ believe that increased TAXES doesnt result in DECREASED buying/profits/growth etc

REPOZ believe DECREASED taxes leads to INCREASED GROWTH and PROFITS which leads to increased revenues


DUMZ want to raise REVENUE by increasing TAXES, and that DOESNT WORK, ever

REPOZ want to INCREASE revenue by INCREASING the TAX BASE......

DUMZ=EVIL.VILE.PUTRID.ANTI AMERICAN. ALWAYS WRONG

REPOZ=ALL THE ABOVE, just SOMETIMES RIGHT

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I was just listening to the POTUS channel on SiriusXM radio when the had senior (nonpartisan) Tax Policy Center researcher Robert Williams on talking about taxes. He quoted some of their research into where corporate income taxes go, as in who ends up paying them.

Their conclusion was that 20% of these taxes go into reduced worker wages and resources for employees to work with. The other 80% goes into reduced profitability for investors in the company.

Regarding the conservative notion that corporate income taxes are passed to the consumer in the form of higher prices, their research said that generally goes not occur because price is determined by market elements that are of far greater significance than corporate income tax.

That led me to wonder if conservatives have any evidence to support their conviction that corporate income tax is passed onto the consumer. Anyone care to take this up?

Well, your premise is flawed in the assumption that we say it is solely passed on to the consumers as we have said it also comes at the expense of workers, especially current workers and dividends.

Basically, you are making our point for us, even though you bitterly oppose our economic conclusions on the effects of taxation.

Let us say that you artificially raise the price of sugar. Then there are no market pressures brought to bear because all sugar goes up by the same amount and all of it gets passed onto the consumer. On the other hand, if we now add in sugar substitutes, then their is a replacement good, so the sugar manufacturer then decides to take it out on the wage and dividend in, and here is the point that gets passed the level of the paid Glazier, they are consumers too...



This is what happens when you refuse to look past the immediate. So you see, even when it does not get passed directly onto the consumer, it gets indirectly passed on to the consumer and it robs the companies and industries involved in the increase of further gains in Capital because all reductions in current profit inhibit the upgrades that lead to the improvements in efficiencies that lead to cost reduction in the processing of goods and services.

In strategy, it is important to keep a near view of distanced things and a distanced view of near things.
Miyamoto Musashi

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

My font is larger than yours bro.

You do not know Jack.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Pricing pressure is exactly why companies tend to not pass on their income taxes to their product price. In a competitive market companies will not usually injure their sales because they were profitable and had to pay taxes. Especially considering that they likely have competition that pays perhaps less income taxe, or none.

GE made $5 billion profit ($1 billion taxes) selling lightbulbs at the optimal price of $1
Sylvania made $1 billion profit ($0 taxes) selling lightbulbs at the optimal price of $1

Will GE then start selling its lightbulbs at $1.25 conceding all kinds of market share to $1 Sylvania? Nope, never. Their dividend payout is probably going to reflect those taxes though.

Apple prices well above the market and relies on image and innovation.

Tax them high enough and innovation will end as you tax them out of the market.

 

[mercury14]

Well, your premise is flawed in the assumption that we say it is solely passed on to the consumers as we have said it also comes at the expense of workers, especially current workers and dividends.

I've seen several threads where righties claim that income taxes = higher prices. My assertion (which you appear to agree with) is that income taxes are usually passed on elsewhere. I recall zero conservatives agreeing with what you and I are saying but perhaps I missed them.

Let us say that you artificially raise the price of sugar. Then there are no market pressures brought to bear because all sugar goes up by the same amount and all of it gets passed onto the consumer. On the other hand, if we now add in sugar substitutes, then their is a replacement good, so the sugar manufacturer then decides to take it out on the wage and dividend in, and here is the point that gets passed the level of the paid Glazier, they are consumers too...

Ok. But why are we artificially raising the price of sugar? Income taxes would be unlikely to do that but other kinds of taxes might - not sure if it matters to your point or not.

This is what happens when you refuse to look past the immediate. So you see, even when it does not get passed directly onto the consumer, it gets indirectly passed on to the consumer and it robs the companies and industries involved in the increase of further gains in Capital because all reductions in current profit inhibit the upgrades that lead to the improvements in efficiencies that lead to cost reduction in the processing of goods and services.

I'm not disagreeing with that. But the degree to which this occurs varies greatly.

 

[Busybody]

He does

He knows

JACK SHIT

You do not know Jack.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The point is and remains, costs are passed on and lower purchasing power and productivity.

You have long been on a quest to say that they are of little or no consequence, but you are simply wrong in your assessment in a way that has been known clearly since the mid 19th century (and was alluded to even earlier).

The more government seeks to do in our behalf, the less we are able to do on our own behalf because we finance government with our labor; government does not support us because it cannot supply any labor, it can only appropriate it.
A_J, the Stupid

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

bb, my font was bigger,



IT WAS FATTER!

 

[Busybody]

The point is and remains, costs are passed on and lower purchasing power and productivity.

You have long been on a quest to say that they are of little or no consequence, but you are simply wrong in your assessment in a way that has been known clearly since the mid 19th century (and was alluded to even earlier).

The more government seeks to do in our behalf, the less we are able to do on our own behalf because we finance government with our labor; government does not support us because it cannot supply any labor, it can only appropriate it.
A_J, the Stupid

PUTZ

He doesnt give a shit

 

[VaticanAssassin]

PUTZ

He doesnt give a shit

I only banged my head twice...you continue

http://images.t-shirts.com/you-big-dummy-t-shirt-hr.jpg

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

PUTZ

He doesnt give a shit

Agreed; it is about equality, the appearance of fairness and egalitarian education...

Too bad, he's not from an Ivy; he would have made a great Oligarch. Instead he is doomed to be one of us and I think that drives him bat-guano crazy.

Q: You favor an increase in the capital gains tax, saying, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28%.” It’s now 15%. That’s almost a doubling if you went to 28%. Bill Clinton dropped the capital gains tax to 20%, then George Bush has taken it down to 15%. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues went down.
A: What I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. The top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year--$29 billion for 50 individuals. Those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair.
Q: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.
A: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what’s happening on Wall Street and how business is going.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008

 

[mercury14]

The point is and remains, costs are passed on and lower purchasing power and productivity.

And I'm... not disagreeing. But not all passing on is the same. Look at very high tax nations (ie Finland) and you'll see that their workforce is productive and their purchasing power is fine. It's not as profitable to invest in a Finnish business perhaps (or to be a Finnish CEO) and wages are less diverse, but services are higher.

You have long been on a quest to say that they are of little or no consequence, but you are simply wrong in your assessment in a way that has been known clearly since the mid 19th century (and was alluded to even earlier).

I've never claimed that taxes have no consequence and certainly never "quested" for it. What a bizarre thing to say.

But it's more complex than this. Taxes get spent into the private sector. Wal-Mart might have a high profit and be taxed but the notion of whether there is even anything to pass on becomes nebulous when you consider the broader picture. Wal-Mart generates billions in sales from food stamps - it's a huge percentage of their business. Tax money simply doesn't leave the economy, it just gets moved around. So it's very difficult to determine what the net impact of taxation and government action is.

Side note: if you work full-time for Wal-Mart you probably qualify to be on food stamps yourself.

 

[mercury14]

Agreed; it is about equality, the appearance of fairness and egalitarian education...

Holy shit Bozo... I'm not really disagreeing with you here.

 

[Busybody]

lets remember what the GREAT WIZ ECONOMIC SAGE, Obama said in 2008

He said that TAX INCREASES DONT RAISE REVENUE AT ALL....ITS ABOUT FAIRNESS


He is a DUMMY

and his believers

ARE BIGGER DUMMIES

 

[Busybody]

I only banged my head twice...you continue

Sorry, I dont play his game

I pegged him 100% right from his 2nd post to me

When he called the Wash Times (I linked to it) a RAG

I asked and asked and asked

WHY IS IT A RAG? WHAT MAKES WAPO BETTER?


Of course I knew what he meant, and I knew that no answer would be forthcoming........

So, he is what he is

We all know it and see thru it

 

[jeninflorida]

Holy shit Bozo... I'm not really disagreeing with you here.

How can you ever think that more taxes is a good thing? Clearly, you have never operated a business or been in the private sector. So sad

and why would one want to live in Finland....holy crap, you take stupidity to a whole new level

 

[fuckwaffle]

Thread title edit: I'm talking specifically about income taxes.

Reduced profitability isn't the same thing as passing on the cost of income tax to investors. It's quite possible to pass on the cost to investors in order to remain at a certain profit level.

You pass on any expenses to investors and soon you have know investors.

You pass on expenses to workers by reducing wages and soon you have incompetent morons working for you...all the smart, energetic worker have moved on to a company who pay you what your worth.

That leaves the consumer. Or your profit margin. As income taxes rise you would soon run out of profit margin...so that leaves the consumer to pick up the tab.

Yet in Merc's world the company won't go out of business...well not when there's stimulus money so readily available or you have someone to fudge the books.

Only someone who has never run a business would think like this. They would also think that regulatory compliance doesn't cost anything.

 

[fuckwaffle]

It's just a wealth transfer or gift tax. If your dad gives you 10 million dollars that's taxable income. What difference does it make whether it's him giving it to you via his will or the week before he died?

Not all 10 million is taxable, so you are wrong there. Where else are you wrong?

 

[Busybody]

lower profits=lower wages=lower GDP=Lower employment=lower revenue....

slow death=OBAMONOM ICK S

 

[mercury14]

You pass on any expenses to investors and soon you have know investors.

You pass on expenses to workers by reducing wages and soon you have incompetent morons working for you...all the smart, energetic worker have moved on to a company who pay you what your worth.

That leaves the consumer.

And your logic should they say "soon you have no customers". Which is true if you're raising the price of your product much beyond the optimal price. Why do I bother though, you haven't a clue about any of this.

Not all 10 million is taxable, so you are wrong there. Where else are you wrong?

Uh. I wasn't suggesting that every penny was taxable. Stop being so concrete.

 

[fuckwaffle]

And your logic should they say "soon you have no customers". Which is true if you're raising the price of your product much beyond the optimal price. Why do I bother though, you haven't a clue about any of this.




Uh. I wasn't suggesting that every penny was taxable. Stop being so concrete.

And where have you actually started, run, or taken over running a business?

Sure you were or don't you always mean what you say?

 

[mercury14]

And where have you actually started, run, or taken over running a business?

Sure you were or don't you always mean what you say?

I'm telling you shit that even AJ and I agree on, backed by nonpartisan research. Hell, even Garbage and I agree. Are you saying that the three of us plus this study are all wrong and you're right?