Do Republicans Think Corporations should pay no taxes?

[SuperDemocrat]

Actually Trump thinks the middle class shouldn't pay any income taxes....

 

[sealybobo]

As a Republican I feel that corporations should pay corporate income taxes at rates no different than individual tax rates us working stiffs pay.

Yet they pay less.

Remember Romney and buffet pay lower tax rates than their secretaries

You're barking up the wrong tree, a success tax will never work we are seeing it in action now with the shitty economy.

What year was this success tax implemented? Who signed it?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Not at all, the argument that increased jobs and the income taxes offset corporate tax cuts can no longer be used because we are losing more jobs to automation than any possible trickle down effect could create.

What doe trickle down mean to you? And where is your evidence that lowering corporate taxes doesn't help? And no, automation isn't the reason jobs go overseas.

Why would a corporation pass on tax savings to its employees or customers? Before doing such a thing I might expect them to buy out competition, especially start ups, expand operations overseas, give raises to the CEO, CFO, etc. and maybe toss a penny or two to common stock holders.

Because of competitions. When other firms have more resources they will try to hire the best and thus wages must come up.

It's simple if only you aren't subscribed to the Marxist version of economics, also known as fairy tales.

"The labor theory of value is a major pillar of traditional Marxian economics, which is evident in Marx's masterpiece, Capital (1867). The theory's basic claim is simple: the value of a commodity can be objectively measured by the average number of labor hours required to produce that commodity."

Now, consider if there is some truth to his theory, why would a corporation higher more and better workers and pay them more when technology & robotics can replace people?

Where do you think robots come from? Are they not produced by employees that need to be hired? The more money corporations have, the more work they need done... and thus the higher the wage offered.


So the solution is simple, once you consider that there is no truth to Marx's theory.

A theory is just that, when you offer a rebuttal I promise to read it, but for now lets skip it.

Robots can work 24-7-365, never get sick and when they do they are tossed into the recycle bin and replaced. They are never late to work, never need breaks and never leave early. So let's leave old Karl out of the issue and then you can respond as to why an industry would hire hundreds of skilled workers when a few can design a robot to be put together with plans not much different than those that came with an erector set.

 

[Rustic]

As a Republican I feel that corporations should pay corporate income taxes at rates no different than individual tax rates us working stiffs pay.

Yet they pay less.

Remember Romney and buffet pay lower tax rates than their secretaries

You're barking up the wrong tree, a success tax will never work we are seeing it in action now with the shitty economy.

What year was this success tax implemented? Who signed it?

It's called corporate tax... Lol

 

[Wry Catcher]

Actually Trump thinks the middle class shouldn't pay any income taxes....

LOL

 

[SuperDemocrat]

No, it's a theory, and a real shitty one at that. Sorry, you won't get Marxist theory of value popping out of balance sheets.

Cutting costs is what makes economies thrive and the middle class rich. Claiming otherwise is again more Marxist nonsense.

Also you might want to reconsider your definition of theft.

This is not Marxist theory, it is econ 101. There are two ways for a company to make a profit, cutting costs and increasing sales. The first makes money flow up and the other down to the working class. It is far easier to show the stockholders a quarterly profit by wringing more productivity from the workers than to increase sales and for the last twenty years this has been the go-to method to remain profitable. The downside to this is stagnant wages and fewer jobs.

Companies tend to not invest in shitty economies. And liberals create shitty economies.

Looking around the world this is clearly not the case however in places where environmental/labor/financial regulations are lax you find some of the most oppressed and poorest people in the world.

Like Greece?

A managed economy has to be managed well, it goes without saying, picking the worst example of mismanagement does not invalidate the practice. I wonder how you think a people can long be free if they do not have the means to hold accountable the most powerful economic entities in their country? Well crafted taxation/regulation keeps the deep pockets more honest and acting in the national interests, left on their own they just worry about the bottom line and fuck everything else.

--acting in the national interests<--- Fascinating...

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No.
Dumb partisan question.

What do you believe they do pay and what should they pay?

They can't/won't answer. Truth is they don't think corporations should pay taxes

Why not just say it then? Where's the great principled moral certainty that cons profess?

 

[Rustic]

What doe trickle down mean to you? And where is your evidence that lowering corporate taxes doesn't help? And no, automation isn't the reason jobs go overseas.

Why would a corporation pass on tax savings to its employees or customers? Before doing such a thing I might expect them to buy out competition, especially start ups, expand operations overseas, give raises to the CEO, CFO, etc. and maybe toss a penny or two to common stock holders.

Because of competitions. When other firms have more resources they will try to hire the best and thus wages must come up.

It's simple if only you aren't subscribed to the Marxist version of economics, also known as fairy tales.

"The labor theory of value is a major pillar of traditional Marxian economics, which is evident in Marx's masterpiece, Capital (1867). The theory's basic claim is simple: the value of a commodity can be objectively measured by the average number of labor hours required to produce that commodity."

Now, consider if there is some truth to his theory, why would a corporation higher more and better workers and pay them more when technology & robotics can replace people?

Where do you think robots come from? Are they not produced by employees that need to be hired? The more money corporations have, the more work they need done... and thus the higher the wage offered.


So the solution is simple, once you consider that there is no truth to Marx's theory.

A theory is just that, when you offer a rebuttal I promise to read it, but for now lets skip it.

Robots can work 24-7-365, never get sick and when they do they are tossed into the recycle bin and replaced. They are never late to work, never need breaks and never leave early. So let's leave old Karl out of the issue and then you can respond as to why an industry would hire hundreds of skilled workers when a few can design a robot to be put together with plans not much different than those that came with an erector set.

''Ol' Karl"...

 

[sealybobo]

If not, what tax on every dollar in profits is fair? And what do they pay now?

My belief is Republicans don't think corporations should pay any taxes. That's what their arguments suggest.

Well, I'm a registered Republican and I favor a sales tax instead of an income tax. I don't see taxing corporations as a good thing myself. Corporation create jobs. Were corporations not taxed and regulated so harshly, they might create more jobs from which personal income taxes could be gained. Corporation are also the source for many of the investments paying the retirement expenses of many of our elderly. A more friendly tax structure would tend to keep corporations from moving abroad and encourage their own reinvestment into capital equipment and expansion.

The USSC & IRS considers a corporation a person. A less friendly approach might be to place a very high tariff on any product made in nation XYZ, once made in the US. That would open the door for new entrepreneurs to build start up companies with US Labor here at home. Said money collected by the tariff to be distributed to the retirees harmed by said company. Also, the assets left by said company should be taken and sold by under an act of Congress and revenue from the sale of real property, furniture and equipment given to those whose jobs were shipped to XYZ.

You want to seize assets from companies who move over seas. Companies that are offered incentive to move to these countries by giving them tax breaks and a more friendly climate to do business.

I would think it wiser to bring this revenue home by offering them a better incentive and a friendlier climate to do business in.

How are you going to seize these assets? Military intervention?

You can't sell here if you don't make it here.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Karl Marx is Obama's mentor.

 

[occupied]

What doe trickle down mean to you? And where is your evidence that lowering corporate taxes doesn't help? And no, automation isn't the reason jobs go overseas.

Why would a corporation pass on tax savings to its employees or customers? Before doing such a thing I might expect them to buy out competition, especially start ups, expand operations overseas, give raises to the CEO, CFO, etc. and maybe toss a penny or two to common stock holders.

Because of competitions. When other firms have more resources they will try to hire the best and thus wages must come up.

It's simple if only you aren't subscribed to the Marxist version of economics, also known as fairy tales.

"The labor theory of value is a major pillar of traditional Marxian economics, which is evident in Marx's masterpiece, Capital (1867). The theory's basic claim is simple: the value of a commodity can be objectively measured by the average number of labor hours required to produce that commodity."

Now, consider if there is some truth to his theory, why would a corporation higher more and better workers and pay them more when technology & robotics can replace people?

Where do you think robots come from? Are they not produced by employees that need to be hired? The more money corporations have, the more work they need done... and thus the higher the wage offered.


So the solution is simple, once you consider that there is no truth to Marx's theory.

A theory is just that, when you offer a rebuttal I promise to read it, but for now lets skip it.

Robots can work 24-7-365, never get sick and when they do they are tossed into the recycle bin and replaced. They are never late to work, never need breaks and never leave early. So let's leave old Karl out of the issue and then you can respond as to why an industry would hire hundreds of skilled workers when a few can design a robot to be put together with plans not much different than those that came with an erector set.

The problem with automation is a thorny one and not really covered by any traditional economic model/philosophy. Are probably going to be forced to institute some sort of guaranteed income scheme just to keep fluidity in the greater economy.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

If not, what tax on every dollar in profits is fair? And what do they pay now?

My belief is Republicans don't think corporations should pay any taxes. That's what their arguments suggest.

Well, I'm a registered Republican and I favor a sales tax instead of an income tax. I don't see taxing corporations as a good thing myself. Corporation create jobs. Were corporations not taxed and regulated so harshly, they might create more jobs from which personal income taxes could be gained. Corporation are also the source for many of the investments paying the retirement expenses of many of our elderly. A more friendly tax structure would tend to keep corporations from moving abroad and encourage their own reinvestment into capital equipment and expansion.

The USSC & IRS considers a corporation a person. A less friendly approach might be to place a very high tariff on any product made in nation XYZ, once made in the US. That would open the door for new entrepreneurs to build start up companies with US Labor here at home. Said money collected by the tariff to be distributed to the retirees harmed by said company. Also, the assets left by said company should be taken and sold by under an act of Congress and revenue from the sale of real property, furniture and equipment given to those whose jobs were shipped to XYZ.

You want to seize assets from companies who move over seas. Companies that are offered incentive to move to these countries by giving them tax breaks and a more friendly climate to do business.

I would think it wiser to bring this revenue home by offering them a better incentive and a friendlier climate to do business in.

How are you going to seize these assets? Military intervention?

You can't sell here if you don't make it here.

Isolationist?

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Why would a corporation pass on tax savings to its employees or customers? Before doing such a thing I might expect them to buy out competition, especially start ups, expand operations overseas, give raises to the CEO, CFO, etc. and maybe toss a penny or two to common stock holders.

Because of competitions. When other firms have more resources they will try to hire the best and thus wages must come up.

It's simple if only you aren't subscribed to the Marxist version of economics, also known as fairy tales.

"The labor theory of value is a major pillar of traditional Marxian economics, which is evident in Marx's masterpiece, Capital (1867). The theory's basic claim is simple: the value of a commodity can be objectively measured by the average number of labor hours required to produce that commodity."

Now, consider if there is some truth to his theory, why would a corporation higher more and better workers and pay them more when technology & robotics can replace people?

Where do you think robots come from? Are they not produced by employees that need to be hired? The more money corporations have, the more work they need done... and thus the higher the wage offered.


So the solution is simple, once you consider that there is no truth to Marx's theory.

A theory is just that, when you offer a rebuttal I promise to read it, but for now lets skip it.

Robots can work 24-7-365, never get sick and when they do they are tossed into the recycle bin and replaced. They are never late to work, never need breaks and never leave early. So let's leave old Karl out of the issue and then you can respond as to why an industry would hire hundreds of skilled workers when a few can design a robot to be put together with plans not much different than those that came with an erector set.

The problem with automation is a thorny one and not really covered by any traditional economic model/philosophy. Are probably going to be forced to institute some sort of guaranteed income scheme just to keep fluidity in the greater economy.

blah blah blah blah blah

 

[Indeependent]

If not, what tax on every dollar in profits is fair? And what do they pay now?

My belief is Republicans don't think corporations should pay any taxes. That's what their arguments suggest.

Blah blah blah...I love communism...taxes are grat....obama is lord....blah blah blah...what is wrong with mass murder...blah blah...I suck dick.

Nobody posted that.

 

[Norman]

Key findings:

• The marginal effective tax rate (METR) on corporate investment (i.e., the tax impact on capital investment as a portion of the cost of capital) is 35.3 percent in the U.S.—higher than in any other developed country.

• The United States has the third highest general top marginal corporate income tax rate in the world at 39.1 percent, exceeded only by Chad and the United Arab Emirates

• Excessively high U.S. corporate tax rates have shrunk the U.S. corporate sector and reduced corporate tax revenues.

The U.S. Corporate Effective Tax Rate: Myth and the Fact

 

[occupied]

This is not Marxist theory, it is econ 101. There are two ways for a company to make a profit, cutting costs and increasing sales. The first makes money flow up and the other down to the working class. It is far easier to show the stockholders a quarterly profit by wringing more productivity from the workers than to increase sales and for the last twenty years this has been the go-to method to remain profitable. The downside to this is stagnant wages and fewer jobs.

Companies tend to not invest in shitty economies. And liberals create shitty economies.

Looking around the world this is clearly not the case however in places where environmental/labor/financial regulations are lax you find some of the most oppressed and poorest people in the world.

Like Greece?

A managed economy has to be managed well, it goes without saying, picking the worst example of mismanagement does not invalidate the practice. I wonder how you think a people can long be free if they do not have the means to hold accountable the most powerful economic entities in their country? Well crafted taxation/regulation keeps the deep pockets more honest and acting in the national interests, left on their own they just worry about the bottom line and fuck everything else.

--acting in the national interests<--- Fascinating...

Certainly, it is in the interests of any free country to keep things clean, the bankers honest and the working class working for fair wages.

 

[Indeependent]

If not, what tax on every dollar in profits is fair? And what do they pay now?

My belief is Republicans don't think corporations should pay any taxes. That's what their arguments suggest.

Well, I'm a registered Republican and I favor a sales tax instead of an income tax. I don't see taxing corporations as a good thing myself. Corporation create jobs. Were corporations not taxed and regulated so harshly, they might create more jobs from which personal income taxes could be gained. Corporation are also the source for many of the investments paying the retirement expenses of many of our elderly. A more friendly tax structure would tend to keep corporations from moving abroad and encourage their own reinvestment into capital equipment and expansion.

The USSC & IRS considers a corporation a person. A less friendly approach might be to place a very high tariff on any product made in nation XYZ, once made in the US. That would open the door for new entrepreneurs to build start up companies with US Labor here at home. Said money collected by the tariff to be distributed to the retirees harmed by said company. Also, the assets left by said company should be taken and sold by under an act of Congress and revenue from the sale of real property, furniture and equipment given to those whose jobs were shipped to XYZ.

You want to seize assets from companies who move over seas. Companies that are offered incentive to move to these countries by giving them tax breaks and a more friendly climate to do business.

I would think it wiser to bring this revenue home by offering them a better incentive and a friendlier climate to do business in.

How are you going to seize these assets? Military intervention?

You can't sell here if you don't make it here.

Isolationist?

Any Entity that made it big here and transferred operations overseas gets shit canned for a year.
That's Adjustment, not Isolationist.
It's also subtle...Conservatives don't understand subtle.

 

[sealybobo]

Where do you think robots come from? Are they not produced by employees that need to be hired? The more money corporations have, the more work they need done... and thus the higher the wage offered.


So the solution is simple, once you consider that there is no truth to Marx's theory.

The stated theory is not even a theory, it is reflected in the cost of production on every balance sheet in the world. Cutting the cost of production is awesome for the owners but it is theft from the working class economy in jobs and wages. American productivity is still among the best in the world but it has done very little for those who actually produce.

No, it's a theory, and a real shitty one at that. Sorry, you won't get Marxist theory of value popping out of balance sheets.

Cutting costs is what makes economies thrive and the middle class rich. Claiming otherwise is again more Marxist nonsense.

Also you might want to reconsider your definition of theft.

This is not Marxist theory, it is econ 101. There are two ways for a company to make a profit, cutting costs and increasing sales. The first makes money flow up and the other down to the working class. It is far easier to show the stockholders a quarterly profit by wringing more productivity from the workers than to increase sales and for the last twenty years this has been the go-to method to remain profitable. The downside to this is stagnant wages and fewer jobs.

Companies tend to not invest in shitty economies. And liberals create shitty economies.

Yet American companies are eager to invest in China now that they've become more economically liberal.

Why is that, Professor?

Their arguments for free trade don't sound like their pro trump tariffs argument. Sounds like cognitive dissonance to me

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Did you guys know that under Trump's proposed 15% corporate tax rate that in many cases some corporations would be paying more. The average rate for corporations is about 12.6% because they can take so many deductions but a flat 15% would increase the taxes they happen to pay because they, as far as I know, won't be able to take any deductions. Why do you accuse Trump of breaking for the rich?

 

[Indeependent]

Key findings:

• The marginal effective tax rate (METR) on corporate investment (i.e., the tax impact on capital investment as a portion of the cost of capital) is 35.3 percent in the U.S.—higher than in any other developed country.

• The United States has the third highest general top marginal corporate income tax rate in the world at 39.1 percent, exceeded only by Chad and the United Arab Emirates

• Excessively high U.S. corporate tax rates have shrunk the U.S. corporate sector and reduced corporate tax revenues.

The U.S. Corporate Effective Tax Rate: Myth and the Fact

Liar.
Cheap labor, no benefits, 24/7.
If China is so great, why not go to work for FoxConn for a year?