Increasing Taxes On The Wealthy And Corporations Is Extremely Popular And Has Been For Years

[toobfreak]

Gallup asked people whether they thought certain sectors of the country paid their "fair share" in taxes.

WHAT A STUPID THREAD:

1. The average person doesn't know shit about economics.
2. The average person has no idea if person X or corporation X paid "their fair share."
3. Making wealthy (successful) companies pay more will only raise cost of goods on consumers.
4. Raising costs on wealthy (successful) companies will only make them less successful.
5. The whole thing smacks of the same kind of brain-dead "populism" driving opinions on "popular votes," etc., along with the idiot notion that if a company makes more or pays less, that somehow means less pie for you.

Just another Progressive attempt to punish success while redistributing their hard-won wealth out to a bunch of lazy, fat, dumb people who don't want to work so the gov can better tax/control it.

 

[there4eyeM]

Popular to everyone but the MAGArats/ultra right wingers and GOP legislators

As we see here

How much of what other people earned is your fair share?

Since Lesh doesn't want to answer this question, I open it up to everybody.

How much of what other people earned is your fair share?

There are many questions in this one:
Whom are these "other people"?
What does "earned" mean?
What is "fair"?
Directed to everyone, aimed at no one.

 

[there4eyeM]

It's easy for corrupt politicians to manipulate the intellectually-lowest demographic of a nation into believing that “the wealthy” are to be robbed for the benefit of this demographic. They are always taken off-guard when they find themselves being the targets rather than the beneficiaries of this robbery, and yet they always fall for the same scam over and over again.

Of course, one is faced with doubting the intelligence of "the wealthy" when, just as surely as they always become the target of popular opinion, they have not anticipated this inevitability and taken measures to share the wealthy constructively.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Following that “logic” I guess we shouldn’t tax corporations at all.

You were being sarcastic, but in most cases, I think that corporations that re in the business of providing goods and services to consumers should not be taxed. The “logic” is correct; any taxes on such corporations only end up getting passed along to the consumers in the form of higher prices and reduced availability, or to the workers in the form of lower wages and fewer jobs.

Even to the degree that it is the corporations themselves that bear the burden, its really the shareholders who are hit; and contrary to popular myth, shareholders doesn't mean mostly idle rich men who contribute nothing to society; but working-class or retired former working class whose retirement assets are invested in mutual funds, which, in turn, are invested in those companies.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

PROGS so smart. Big money would never pass down bad news to the middle class while the lower gets it free on the middle class dime.

And and and this will make jobs & working conditions so awesome in PROG, because business would never think about outsourcing and replacing labor with machines.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

It's easy for corrupt politicians to manipulate the intellectually-lowest demographic of a nation into believing that “the wealthy” are to be robbed for the benefit of this demographic. They are always taken off-guard when they find themselves being the targets rather than the beneficiaries of this robbery, and yet they always fall for the same scam over and over again.

Yep. The narrative is, and lots of people believe it, that their poor financial situation is because of the success of the rich people. When in reality, everyone has equal opportunity to become rich. You just have to get a great idea, work hard, or get lucky. And most of the rich not only pay way more taxes, they also share their success by employing countless other people, being it people to do work on their mansions, or hiring thousands of employees.

Everyone wants to be rich. When someone makes it, they don't think, "I made it by pushing other people down and taking advantage of them." They think, "I made it through my hard work and ingenuity." And the latter is normally the case.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Increasing taxes on corporations will result in higher consumer prices. They won't take the loss...YOU will!! More stupid Democrat HiJinks.....Hey gas is $4.00 a gallon. Gee thanks Joe and the Democrats.......

At least the big, evil oil companies are getting screwed over, and that makes it all worth it, right?

I'm reminded of a meme I saw some years back, which showed how much profit the oil companies were making on a gallon of gas, vs. how much in taxes government was collecting on each gallon. The taxes were several times as much as the oil-company profits, yet it's the oil companies that are “greedy”.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

A Gallup tracking poll only buttresses the findings of those surveys. Over the course of several years, Gallup asked people whether they thought certain sectors of the country paid their "fair share" in taxes. Bottom line: Americans haven't thought that "upper-income" individuals and corporations have paid their fair share for many, many years.

Here's how many respondents said upper-income people don't pay their fair share:

• 2019: 62%
• 2018: 62%
• 2017: 63%

People were even less impressed with the contributions of corporations:

• 2019: 69%
• 2018: 66%
• 2017: 67%

Given that reality, Senate Republicans up for reelection next year might just take a pass on heading up opposition to Biden’s eventual bill unless they can find an entirely different point of contention. But by all means, McConnell, keep on crowing about Democrats raising taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations to pay for making high-speed internet available in rural areas. Hear, hear!

Republicans have already lost the argument over infrastructure and they seem to know it

Senate Republicans removed all the non-mystery of whether they might become part of the solution to America's infrastructure problems on Thursday when Minority Leader Mitch McConnell declared bipartisan outreach dead. "That package that they're putting...

www.dailykos.com

But don't worry, that money will trickle up to you, when we get it. No really.

I'm not sure why it's surprising to you that when you rob Peter to pay Paul you almost always get the support of Paul.

If over 60% of America decided slavery would be a big economic boon and we should reinstitute would you support that?

 

[there4eyeM]

Following that “logic” I guess we shouldn’t tax corporations at all.

You were being sarcastic, but in most cases, I think that corporations that re in the business of providing goods and services to consumers should not be taxed. The “logic” is correct; any taxes on such corporations only end up getting passed along to the consumers in the form of higher prices and reduced availability, or to the workers in the form of lower wages and fewer jobs.

Even to the degree that it is the corporations themselves that bear the burden, its really the shareholders who are hit; and contrary to popular myth, shareholders doesn't mean mostly idle rich men who contribute nothing to society; but working-class or retired former working class whose retirement assets are invested in mutual funds, which, in turn, are invested in those companies.

Tax corporation on salaries paid, as when taxing consumer goods; they buy labor and they pay tax on that. That is the only tax; none on profits to corps., none on employees' income. Consumers pay value added for services and goods through progressive taxes on these.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Go ahead and raise taxes on businesses and corporations. Just as long as you understand going in that you the consumer will be the ones paying for it.

Following that “logic” I guess we shouldn’t tax corporations at all.

Doesn't matter how you spin it, the bottom line is any product cost is directly related to business expense.

Yet don’t you think under your wonderful free market capitalism (which doesn’t exist and is a fairy tale), that a company can only price it’s product at what the market will bear and consumers will pay? If priced too high, consumers don’t buy and competitors under cut. Right?

Yes, they will continue to drop the price until eventually they will hand you cash if you will take their product off their hands.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Raising taxes and regulations on corporations is a Chinese dream. Jobs will move out of the US. I guess if you don’t have a job and just want handouts from the government, this sounds like a fine idea as long as you get your check every month. Unfortunately, that is where much of the country is at this point. Lazy, spoiled and uninformed.

What is amazing to me is that so many of those types are completely oblivious to the reality that there need to be enough people working, creating wealth, and paying taxes, to support the handouts that allow these parasites to live in idleness. They have no understanding of what it will mean to them to kill the geese that lay the golden eggs.

We've seen this become especially prominent with the #CoronaHoax2020, with so many utterly failing to understand the mathematical unsustainability of shutting down large portions of the economy, putting large portions of the population out of work, and trying to support everyone with government handouts funded out of a greatly-reduced tax base.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Those who would rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on Paul's vote.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Tax corporation on salaries paid, as when taxing consumer goods; they buy labor and they pay tax on that. That is the only tax; none on profits to corps., none on employees' income. Consumers pay value added for services and goods through progressive taxes on these.

It's the employee who ends up paying that tax, even if you hide it from him by imposing it on the employer. What it ultimately means, no matter how you distribute the apparent taxes between the employee and the employer, is that the employee gets that much less of what it costs the employer to employ him.

If an employer pays me $2,000, and he has to pay $500 in taxes on my salary before I even see it, and I have to pay another $500 in taxes, after I receive it, then that means it cost the employer $2,500, and I only get to keep $1,500.

Alternatively, if the employer paid me $2,500, and paid no tax on my salary, but I paid $1000, then it'd still end up costing the employer the same, and I'd still keep the same, but it would be much more obvious to me how much of what I worked for is being stolen by government. Of course you don't want that, and neither do the greedy crooks ion government.

More to your liking would be for my employer to pay $1000 in taxes, and then pay me $1,500. Again, I still end up keeping the same, and the cost to my employer is the same, but now, the thieves in government have managed to hide from me the extent to which I am being robbed.

All three of these scenarios cost my employer the same $2,500 for me to get to keep $1,500; all that changes is how aware I am of how much of what I worked to earn is being taken by government; and, from the point of view of the kleptocracy, how easily they think they can get me to vote to support them.

 

[Leo123]

Eat the rich

You will become 'rich' when starvation sets in.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's easy for corrupt politicians to manipulate the intellectually-lowest demographic of a nation into believing that “the wealthy” are to be robbed for the benefit of this demographic. They are always taken off-guard when they find themselves being the targets rather than the beneficiaries of this robbery, and yet they always fall for the same scam over and over again.

Of course, one is faced with doubting the intelligence of "the wealthy" when, just as surely as they always become the target of popular opinion, they have not anticipated this inevitability and taken measures to share the wealthy constructively.

Paying taxes, providing useful goods and services and hiring millions of workers sounds constructive to me. Perhaps you'd share your definition of sharing the wealth constructively?

 

[Leo123]

Of course, one is faced with doubting the intelligence of "the wealthy" when, just as surely as they always become the target of popular opinion, they have not anticipated this inevitability and taken measures to share the wealthy constructively.

In America, the wealthy hire folks and buy things that is the proper way to share the wealth. Idiots who go around thinking they can tell everyone else how to share their wealth 'constructively' are nothing but arrogant tyrants as well as parasites on the American economy.

 

[there4eyeM]

Tax corporation on salaries paid, as when taxing consumer goods; they buy labor and they pay tax on that. That is the only tax; none on profits to corps., none on employees' income. Consumers pay value added for services and goods through progressive taxes on these.

It's the employee who ends up paying that tax, even if you hide it from him by imposing it on the employer. What it ultimately means, no matter how you distribute the apparent taxes between the employee and the employer, is that the employee gets that much less of what it costs the employer to employ him.

If an employer pays me $2,000, and he has to pay $500 in taxes on my salary before I even see it, and I have to pay another $500 in taxes, after I receive it, then that means it cost the employer $2,500, and I only get to keep $1,500.

Alternatively, if the employer paid me $2,500, and paid no tax on my salary, but I paid $1000, then it'd still end up costing the employer the same, and I'd still keep the same, but it would be much more obvious to me how much of what I worked for is being stolen by government. Of course you don't want that, and neither do the greedy crooks ion government.

More to your liking would be for my employer to pay $1000 in taxes, and then pay me $1,500. Again, I still end up keeping the same, and the cost to my employer is the same, but now, the thieves in government have managed to hide from me the extent to which I am being robbed.

All three of these scenarios cost my employer the same $2,500 for me to get to keep $1,500; all that changes is how aware I am of how much of what I worked to earn is being taken by government; and, from the point of view of the kleptocracy, how easily they think they can get me to vote to support them.

Since just using a thumbs down is so such a wimpy expression of adolescence, suffice it to point out that your post reveals clearly that paying for what is provided by society has no place in your thinking. You want a free ride (or "free stuff", as some so dearly love to put it).
Otherwise, the indicated lack of understanding of the points referred to is, hopefully, intentional and not a reflection of intellectual incapacity.

 

[there4eyeM]

It's easy for corrupt politicians to manipulate the intellectually-lowest demographic of a nation into believing that “the wealthy” are to be robbed for the benefit of this demographic. They are always taken off-guard when they find themselves being the targets rather than the beneficiaries of this robbery, and yet they always fall for the same scam over and over again.

Of course, one is faced with doubting the intelligence of "the wealthy" when, just as surely as they always become the target of popular opinion, they have not anticipated this inevitability and taken measures to share the wealthy constructively.

Paying taxes, providing useful goods and services and hiring millions of workers sounds constructive to me. Perhaps you'd share your definition of sharing the wealth constructively?

Thanks, and sorry for the typo "sharing the wealthy". Obviously, it should be "sharing the wealth".
Sharing the wealth constructively is simple; in such a way as to avoid the masses rising up and taking what they wanted. History's repetitions of the scenario should alert anyone bright enough to read.

 

[dblack]

People will usually support tax increases on "someone else, not me".

 

[Leo123]

Tax corporation on salaries paid, as when taxing consumer goods; they buy labor and they pay tax on that. That is the only tax; none on profits to corps., none on employees' income. Consumers pay value added for services and goods through progressive taxes on these.

It's the employee who ends up paying that tax, even if you hide it from him by imposing it on the employer. What it ultimately means, no matter how you distribute the apparent taxes between the employee and the employer, is that the employee gets that much less of what it costs the employer to employ him.

If an employer pays me $2,000, and he has to pay $500 in taxes on my salary before I even see it, and I have to pay another $500 in taxes, after I receive it, then that means it cost the employer $2,500, and I only get to keep $1,500.

Alternatively, if the employer paid me $2,500, and paid no tax on my salary, but I paid $1000, then it'd still end up costing the employer the same, and I'd still keep the same, but it would be much more obvious to me how much of what I worked for is being stolen by government. Of course you don't want that, and neither do the greedy crooks ion government.

More to your liking would be for my employer to pay $1000 in taxes, and then pay me $1,500. Again, I still end up keeping the same, and the cost to my employer is the same, but now, the thieves in government have managed to hide from me the extent to which I am being robbed.

All three of these scenarios cost my employer the same $2,500 for me to get to keep $1,500; all that changes is how aware I am of how much of what I worked to earn is being taken by government; and, from the point of view of the kleptocracy, how easily they think they can get me to vote to support them.

Since just using a thumbs down is so such a wimpy expression of adolescence, suffice it to point out that your post reveals clearly that paying for what is provided by society has no place in your thinking. You want a free ride (or "free stuff", as some so dearly love to put it).
Otherwise, the indicated lack of understanding of the points referred to is, hopefully, intentional and not a reflection of intellectual incapacity.

Free stuff is never free.