The problem with taxing the rich

[zeke]

Are you another one of those that think you should pay YOUR taxes at the exact same rate as the ultra rich? 39%?

Or are you fantazing about getting your tax rate down to 10% along with the ultra rich?

You and DD, all men may have been "created" equal in that we all come from a mother with all of the same basic equipment. But if you think being born into poverty is "equal" to being born to wealth, well that's just fuking crazy.

I'm one of those who thinks we should abandon income taxation entirely, and adopt a consumption tax instead. We are a consumer-driven nation who likes to buy shit, so this would work out very nicely, because people wouldn't stop buying shit. I am also one of those who think we should eliminate capital gains taxation and corporate taxes entirely. This would generate trillions of dollars in investment capital from sources all over the globe, and foreign business would literally be lined up to bring their jobs and companies to the US, where there is an abundant educated workforce and no taxation. In 5 years, we would literally have to grant amnesty to the illegal aliens, just to have enough people to fill all the new jobs created. There would be such a high demand for labor, the wages paid would become staggering, as companies vied for the best workers.

But if you think being born into poverty is "equal" to being born to wealth, well that's just fuking crazy.

Make no mistake, every human being is born into a different circumstance. No two people are equal in that regard, except in a Communist Totalitarian state like China, where everyone is born into poverty and never has the opportunity to escape it. This is what you and your ilk think is more acceptable, than having a free market system where people have the opportunity to become as rich as they want to, regardless of where they started out.

Our free market capitalist system is superior to any other system devised by man, it is responsible for creating more millionaires and billionaires than any other system ever tried. Only in America, can a homeless person become a billionaire, if they have the motivation and determination to succeed. This opportunity is what prompts people to construct makeshift rafts to come to America.

De plane boss de plane. You are on Fantasy Island. Right?

Boss. Name ONE. Just one, from homeless to billioniare. 315 million of us. Just name one.

And don't you read the Rethug news. Poor people come here for the free stuff. They ride those rafts for the welfare and all the "free" things. At least that's what I read on here.

Are you saying otherwise? But then, you live on "Fantasy Island". De plane boss de plane.

 

[healthmyths]

I'm one of those who thinks we should abandon income taxation entirely, and adopt a consumption tax instead. We are a consumer-driven nation who likes to buy shit, so this would work out very nicely, because people wouldn't stop buying shit. I am also one of those who think we should eliminate capital gains taxation and corporate taxes entirely.

Why eliminate corporate taxes? We should eliminate all other taxes and replace then with a corporate tax.

All right !!! Why do you idiots argue about something that is totally accessible via this marvel called the "Internet"???
THESE ARE THE TAXES THAT ARE PAID dumb shit!@!

In 2011 this was the Total Federal Revenues and sources:REPEAT this is total Revenue sources for Federal Government!!!

• Personal income tax $1,015 47.4% people that work for companies that work for profits primarily.
• Social security/Medicare tax 818 35.5% employer pays Half of total paid-- where will that come from???
• Corporate income tax 181 7.8% corporate evil profits generate taxes - then dividends taxed again!
• Customs,Duties, Misc. 131 5.7%
• Excise taxes 72 3.1%
• Estate & Gift 7 0.4%

Total: $2,302 100%
Federal Revenues by Source


SO to do what you suggest is
A) NO MORE PERSONAL income tax! FINE... 47.4% of all revenue GONE!
B) NO MORE SOCIAL SECURITY/Medicare... fine... 35.5% of which EMPLOYERS ALREADY PAY HALF... so now THEY don't have to pay right???

 

[Boss]

Boss. Name ONE. Just one, from homeless to billioniare. 315 million of us. Just name one.

Armando De Quesada..

He came to America in 1964 from Cuba. When he arrived, with his wife and two children, he had no money and no home. Armando got a job bussing tables and washing dishes at a local restaurant in Miami, and would later add a second similar job. His wife worked as well, they saved their money, while he also attended school, graduated from Middle Georgia College in Cochran, Georgia, and in 1967, he opened his own restaurant, Mando's Italian Food, in Decatur, AL. He became known for his pizza around the state, and eventually around the South. He opened a second restaurant, then a third. In ~1980(?), he sold rights to franchise and made his fortune. He died in 2004, and the Alabama State Legislature issued a special commemoration honoring his life.

Now, he was not a billionaire, but I imagine he was very much, a multi-millionaire. But he is someone I personally know of, who started out with nothing and became wealthy.

Donald Trump tells a fascinating story in his book, about his much publicized bankruptcy. While walking with his attorney down the street from the bankruptcy hearings, they passed a bum with a tin can on the corner, as Trump dropped in some change from his pocket, he said to his attorney, "That man is now wealthier than I am." Of course, Trump would regain his fortune and again become a billionaire. In an interview, he was asked, "Was it harder the second time?" He replied, "No, it was actually harder the first time because I didn't know that I could do it."

Star Parker, another great story... this from her Wiki page:
Parker was born to mostly absent parents and raised in a nonreligious home; she says she was raised "by the secular 'I'm okay, you're okay' doctrine that says people should be allowed to make their own rules and shouldn't judge other people's lives." She lived in Japan for three years and returned to the U.S., moving to East St. Louis, Illinois, at twelve, at which point she says she "just joined right in" with the "anger and tension among blacks" in the area. "I bought into the lie that there was nothing in America for me except institutional racism and glass ceilings that would keep me from getting promoted," she said. She said that after one arrest for shoplifting, her white high school guidance counselor told her "not to worry about it, because I was a 'victim of racism, lashing out at society.'" After attending church at the behest of her friends, she became a Christian and her life turned around. She enrolled in Woodbury University and graduated with a degree in marketing. She began advocating for conservative social and political causes. She founded CURE in 1995, and took it on full-time after being laid off from her job as a host on Los Angeles radio station KABC after it was purchased by Disney.

Michael Oher... there is another story... ever watch The Blind Side?

America is full of such stories, and that is what people like you fail to see. We are the land of opportunity. Our system of free enterprise and free market capitalism, enables any person to achieve whatever level of success their hearts desire. They simply have to work hard and be dedicated and determined.

You have been disillusioned and brainwashed by Marxist Socialists, who want to turn America into yet another failed Socialist experiment gone awry. You see, the Socialists keep thinking that if they make a tweak or two here and there, the concept of Socialism will fly, and it will be a glorious day for all.... it just never seems to work out that way. Usually, it ends up with millions of people being executed as political detractors or just because the state can't afford to feed them anymore.

You've been duped into thinking there is a better way, that our system has failed, that we need the glorious 'state' to come in and rectify the situation and make life "fair" for all. But what you're going to get, is a Ruling Class oligarchy, where you and the rest of us, have NO opportunity, and become nothing more than subjugated proles. Those among the Ruling Class become the New 1%ers, only now, they not only control all of the wealth, but also, all the political power and authority.... you are left with nothing, including the freedom to speak out politically. Will any of us be "better off" then? Of course not, we will have given away our freedom and opportunity, for the empty promise never realized. But then, it will be far too late to do anything about it. You'll be dead and gone by then, your children or grandchildren will have to deal with the ramifications of your utter stupidity, and for generations, we would have to cling to the hope that one day, we could again know freedom.

 

[edthecynic]

I'm one of those who thinks we should abandon income taxation entirely, and adopt a consumption tax instead. We are a consumer-driven nation who likes to buy shit, so this would work out very nicely, because people wouldn't stop buying shit. I am also one of those who think we should eliminate capital gains taxation and corporate taxes entirely.

Why eliminate corporate taxes? We should eliminate all other taxes and replace then with a corporate tax.

Then you'd see a mass exodus of US corporations to Canada and Mexico, and places with lower corporate tax rates. Guess what leaves with the corporations? A thing called JOBS!

Why eliminate corporate taxes? Simple, it would revive American manufacturing like nothing else we could do. It would cause the creation of millions of jobs, as companies from around the world flocked to this country to set up shop.

Since all corporate taxes are de facto consumption taxes, corporations pass all their overhead, including taxes, to their consumers, you have just explained what is wrong with consumption taxes.

And a corporate consumption tax would be much easier to understand, since it is already incorporated in the price, the price you see is the price you pay tax and all. With a consumption tax you have to take the sticker price and then multiply by 17.823%, or whatever, and then add the tax to the sticker price to know what you are actually paying.

So if a consumption tax is good, then a corporate tax is better. If a corporate tax sucks, then a consumption tax sucks worse!

 

[Boss]

Since all corporate taxes are de facto consumption taxes, corporations pass all their overhead, including taxes, to their consumers, you have just explained what is wrong with consumption taxes.

And a corporate consumption tax would be much easier to understand, since it is already incorporated in the price, the price you see is the price you pay tax and all. With a consumption tax you have to take the sticker price and then multiply by 17.823%, or whatever, and then add the tax to the sticker price to know what you are actually paying.

So if a consumption tax is good, then a corporate tax is better. If a corporate tax sucks, then a consumption tax sucks worse!

I've not heard anything so dumb all day. Corporate taxes are not consumption taxes, state sales tax would be a consumption tax. Corporations do not simply "pass on" all their overhead to the consumer, prices are determined by supply and demand. If you add overhead through more taxes and the market will not allow the corporation to pass the cost on to the consumer, they may lay people off or downsize, they may reduce the size of their product, or they may move their operations overseas. You've just explained that you don't know beans about consumption tax or capitalism, all in one sentence.

Now, the interesting thing about competition and free markets is, a consumption tax might even be used as a bargaining tool by the corporations to get you to buy their product. Let's say there are two recliner companies, both feature an entry-level recliner with a price tag of $99. Along comes the consumption tax (we'll say 23%)... well now, that $99 "deal" is a less appealing $123.00, but the competitor who is hungrier may decide, in order to capture the lost "bargain hunter" biz, they will cut a few corners here and there and offer their recliners for $99, tax included. Or.. if you come in and buy your recliner this weekend, they will pay the consumption tax! So this consumption tax becomes a useful marketing gimmick for the competitors, and the consumer benefits.

But now.... let's not ignore the fact that you have completely dodged my point about corporate taxation and jobs. I guess that is what caused you to respond with abject idiocy regarding corporate tax really being a consumption tax and whatnot. It was like the rodeo clown, coming in to distract the Boss who was about to gore your ass off.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I'm one of those who thinks we should abandon income taxation entirely, and adopt a consumption tax instead.

Why would you want to fuck old people up the ass so hard? Do you hate them?

 

[Boss]

I'm one of those who thinks we should abandon income taxation entirely, and adopt a consumption tax instead.

Why would you want to fuck old people up the ass so hard? Do you hate them?

Why do you morons keep constructing straw men for me to torch?

Again, for the slow-minded, a consumption tax would be accompanied by a prebate check, which every person below poverty level or on fixed income would receive monthly, to offset the taxes paid on basic living needs. Ostensibly, these people would not pay the tax, unless their expenditures exceeded their basic needs. There would also be a number of companies who would offer "senior discounts" to help offset the extra tax, because that is how capitalists compete.

 

[Political Junky]

No.. it is not equal.. as dollars earned are taxed differently...

Dollar 1, 20%.. dollar 10000, 20%.. dollar 20000000, 20%.. whether you are some CEO or some burger flipper.... Whether you have a hard time paying your bills, or an easy time, or you have no bills.. THAT is equality in treatment

My method treats all income equally. That you cannot see that is a huge part of your problem.

No it does not.. and this has been shown to you many times with simple math..

A person making 10K has a different rate of taxation on all income than a person making 10K and that is different than a person making 1MIL... all income is not treated equally... progressive taxation, by definition, is inequality in treatment

Yes, Romney paid 14%.

 

[Boss]

My method treats all income equally. That you cannot see that is a huge part of your problem.

No it does not.. and this has been shown to you many times with simple math..

A person making 10K has a different rate of taxation on all income than a person making 10K and that is different than a person making 1MIL... all income is not treated equally... progressive taxation, by definition, is inequality in treatment

Yes, Romney paid 14%.

Romney paid 14% on profits realized from investment capital he didn't have to invest. If you increase the tax rate for profit on investment capital, guess what you will get less of?

I know you are smart enough to realize we need available capital for business to grow and expand, create new jobs, and generate economic prosperity. At least, I think you are that smart, maybe not?

 

[edthecynic]

Since all corporate taxes are de facto consumption taxes, corporations pass all their overhead, including taxes, to their consumers, you have just explained what is wrong with consumption taxes.

And a corporate consumption tax would be much easier to understand, since it is already incorporated in the price, the price you see is the price you pay tax and all. With a consumption tax you have to take the sticker price and then multiply by 17.823%, or whatever, and then add the tax to the sticker price to know what you are actually paying.

So if a consumption tax is good, then a corporate tax is better. If a corporate tax sucks, then a consumption tax sucks worse!

I've not heard anything so dumb all day. Corporate taxes are not consumption taxes, state sales tax would be a consumption tax. Corporations do not simply "pass on" all their overhead to the consumer, prices are determined by supply and demand. If you add overhead through more taxes and the market will not allow the corporation to pass the cost on to the consumer, they may lay people off or downsize, they may reduce the size of their product, or they may move their operations overseas. You've just explained that you don't know beans about consumption tax or capitalism, all in one sentence.

I've never read anything so stupid in all my life. If corporations do not include their overhead in their prices they will never break even let alone make a profit! And using your own example, what is to stop a company from not including the tax in the price just as the company that sells the item tax included? Both are eating the tax. Do you stay up at night thinking of how to be stupid?

 

[OnePercenter]

Hey lets talk about the ultra rich. Those making 1 million and up. Do you really think 200k a year is ultra rich? But 200k a year is not chump change. Matter of fact, that amount of income would put the earner in the top 3%. Are you gonna feel sorry for those at the top of the income ladder? Why?

And now you want to change the tax rate based on personal risk for the job being done? That's not very Republican of you. Those people are the ones that chose their profession. Personal responsibility and all that. Maybe the welder like high risk work. Gets a thrill out of it. Next thing you will be worried about taxing baseball millioniares more cause they could get hit with a ball.

Just another matter of fact; If you make $100k or more as an employee, you can change your tax filing status to contract employee and maximum your deductions.

 

[edthecynic]

I'm one of those who thinks we should abandon income taxation entirely, and adopt a consumption tax instead.

Why would you want to fuck old people up the ass so hard? Do you hate them?

Why do you morons keep constructing straw men for me to torch?

Again, for the slow-minded, a consumption tax would be accompanied by a prebate check, which every person below poverty level or on fixed income would receive monthly, to offset the taxes paid on basic living needs. Ostensibly, these people would not pay the tax, unless their expenditures exceeded their basic needs. There would also be a number of companies who would offer "senior discounts" to help offset the extra tax, because that is how capitalists compete.

So now we are back to an IRS determining what is income, how much is below poverty and sending out checks to people with some people paying the consumption tax and others not. Like a total idiot, you have replaced the current system with the same system expecting different results.

 

[Boss]

Let's imagine Las Vegas is the US government, and they are having financial debt problems, need to generate more revenue from the tourists, who are the taxpayers. Some 'genius' comes along as says... Hey, all of these free drinks and comp rooms we're giving away, we need to stop doing that... and these high-rollers who come to town, we need to just take back more than half of what they win, because they don't really need that money.... what do you think the result of this plan would be? Well, the high-rollers would all go to Atlantic City, and forget Vegas altogether. Vegas would be left with the people who didn't have much money to spend, do you think they increase revenues that way?

On the other hand, if the powers that be, decided to do more comps and free drinks, maybe send tokens and incentives out to their high-rollers, to encourage them to visit more often... this might actually work to generate increased revenue.

The point is, you people have this all backwards. You continue to relentlessly attack "the rich" who aren't really "the rich" but people who happen to earn high incomes, and lobby for increasing the taxes on people who are using their wealth to invest in new business and new jobs, and you are actually cutting off your nose to spite your face. You are creating a dynamic which stifles new enterprise, new jobs, economic growth and prosperity for all.

 

[Boss]

Since all corporate taxes are de facto consumption taxes, corporations pass all their overhead, including taxes, to their consumers, you have just explained what is wrong with consumption taxes.

And a corporate consumption tax would be much easier to understand, since it is already incorporated in the price, the price you see is the price you pay tax and all. With a consumption tax you have to take the sticker price and then multiply by 17.823%, or whatever, and then add the tax to the sticker price to know what you are actually paying.

So if a consumption tax is good, then a corporate tax is better. If a corporate tax sucks, then a consumption tax sucks worse!

I've not heard anything so dumb all day. Corporate taxes are not consumption taxes, state sales tax would be a consumption tax. Corporations do not simply "pass on" all their overhead to the consumer, prices are determined by supply and demand. If you add overhead through more taxes and the market will not allow the corporation to pass the cost on to the consumer, they may lay people off or downsize, they may reduce the size of their product, or they may move their operations overseas. You've just explained that you don't know beans about consumption tax or capitalism, all in one sentence.

I've never read anything so stupid in all my life. If corporations do not include their overhead in their prices they will never break even let alone make a profit! And using your own example, what is to stop a company from not including the tax in the price just as the company that sells the item tax included? Both are eating the tax. Do you stay up at night thinking of how to be stupid?

Well they do include their overhead in their prices, but that doesn't mean that increasing their overhead automatically results in them increasing the prices to consumers, that is more dependent on the market, supply and demand, and the competition. They MAY pass the extra overhead on to the customer, they may also fire people and downsize, or relocate to somewhere they don't have to pay as much overhead. In other words, increasing their consumer price is not their only option.

I don't get what you are asking about in the second part. I only offered a possible example of how competing capitalists might exploit the consumption tax by using it an incentive in marketing. They wouldn't be "eating the tax" because they figured out a way to reduce costs enough to offset the tax itself. Some companies might very well lower their prices before tax, in order to make their products more appealing after the tax is applied, like cigarette companies currently do. Prices are still going to be determined by supply and demand... you do understand that basic concept of free market capitalism, correct?

 

[edthecynic]

I've not heard anything so dumb all day. Corporate taxes are not consumption taxes, state sales tax would be a consumption tax. Corporations do not simply "pass on" all their overhead to the consumer, prices are determined by supply and demand. If you add overhead through more taxes and the market will not allow the corporation to pass the cost on to the consumer, they may lay people off or downsize, they may reduce the size of their product, or they may move their operations overseas. You've just explained that you don't know beans about consumption tax or capitalism, all in one sentence.

I've never read anything so stupid in all my life. If corporations do not include their overhead in their prices they will never break even let alone make a profit! And using your own example, what is to stop a company from not including the tax in the price just as the company that sells the item tax included? Both are eating the tax. Do you stay up at night thinking of how to be stupid?

Well they do include their overhead in their prices, but that doesn't mean that increasing their overhead automatically results in them increasing the prices to consumers, that is more dependent on the market, supply and demand, and the competition. They MAY pass the extra overhead on to the customer, they may also fire people and downsize, or relocate to somewhere they don't have to pay as much overhead. In other words, increasing their consumer price is not their only option.

I don't get what you are asking about in the second part. I only offered a possible example of how competing capitalists might exploit the consumption tax by using it an incentive in marketing. They wouldn't be "eating the tax" because they figured out a way to reduce costs enough to offset the tax itself. Some companies might very well lower their prices before tax, in order to make their products more appealing after the tax is applied, like cigarette companies currently do. Prices are still going to be determined by supply and demand... you do understand that basic concept of free market capitalism, correct?

Translation: OVERHEAD. Again you show that a corporate tax on all companies is not the controlling factor in the price of the products.
Thank you.

Even though you are too pig-headed to admit it, prices are determined by supply, demand AND overhead.

P.S.- There is no such thing as "free market capitalism."

 

[Boss]

Translation: OVERHEAD. Again you show that a corporate tax on all companies is not the controlling factor in the price of the products.
Thank you.

Even though you are too pig-headed to admit it, prices are determined by supply, demand AND overhead.

P.S.- There is no such thing as "free market capitalism."

I wasn't the one who claimed corporations would pass along the increased overhead in the form of higher prices, that was YOUR point, Ed. I am the one who pointed out it's not the controlling factor, and only one of several options, which you now seem to want to take credit for. This is fucking astonishing... I don't argue with many libtards who try to outright steal my arguments and pretend I am making their arguments and they have defeated me. I gotta give you credit, that takes a lot of chutzpah.

We're not talking about how prices are determined, really. We are talking about increasing overhead and how that possibly affects prices, it doesn't always increase them. It depends. In some cases, it may well be that any increase would be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher price, but it may also result in smaller amounts of product at the same price, or fewer employees increasing productivity, or relocating to where overhead isn't as high, or dozens of other things the capitalist can do to mitigate the increase, or a combination of several things. Bottom line: None of them are good for either the consumer or employees. None of them will increase jobs and grow the company or the economy.

P.S. Yes, there IS a such thing, it's the system we currently have in America. You are doing your best to destroy it by relentlessly bitching and complaining about it, and what you want to replace it with, is Socialist Marxism. It doesn't matter to you if you put companies out of business, that's just MORE the state can get their fingers into and control... the ends justifies the means.

 

[Political Junky]

No it does not.. and this has been shown to you many times with simple math..

A person making 10K has a different rate of taxation on all income than a person making 10K and that is different than a person making 1MIL... all income is not treated equally... progressive taxation, by definition, is inequality in treatment

Yes, Romney paid 14%.

Romney paid 14% on profits realized from investment capital he didn't have to invest. If you increase the tax rate for profit on investment capital, guess what you will get less of?

I know you are smart enough to realize we need available capital for business to grow and expand, create new jobs, and generate economic prosperity. At least, I think you are that smart, maybe not?

Idle corporate cash piles up | David Cay Johnston


IRS data suggests that, globally, U.S. nonfinancial companies hold at least three times more cash and other liquid assets than the Federal Reserve reports, idle money that could be creating jobs, funding dividends or even paying a stiff federal penalty tax for hoarding corporate cash.

The Fed’s latest Flow of Funds report showed that U.S. nonfinancial companies held $1.7 trillion in liquid assets at the end of March. But newly released IRS figures show that in 2009 these companies held $4.8 trillion in liquid assets, which equals $5.1 trillion in today’s dollars, triple the Fed figure.
<more>

 

[edthecynic]

I only offered a possible example of how competing capitalists might exploit the consumption tax by using it an incentive in marketing. They wouldn't be "eating the tax" because they figured out a way to reduce costs enough to offset the tax itself. Some companies might very well lower their prices before tax, in order to make their products more appealing after the tax is applied, like cigarette companies currently do. Prices are still going to be determined by supply and demand... you do understand that basic concept of free market capitalism, correct?

Translation: OVERHEAD. Again you show that a corporate tax on all companies is not the controlling factor in the price of the products.
Thank you.

Even though you are too pig-headed to admit it, prices are determined by supply, demand AND overhead.

P.S.- There is no such thing as "free market capitalism."

I wasn't the one who claimed corporations would pass along the increased overhead in the form of higher prices, that was YOUR point, Ed. I am the one who pointed out it's not the controlling factor, and only one of several options, which you now seem to want to take credit for. This is fucking astonishing... I don't argue with many libtards who try to outright steal my arguments and pretend I am making their arguments and they have defeated me. I gotta give you credit, that takes a lot of chutzpah.

We're not talking about how prices are determined, really. We are talking about increasing overhead and how that possibly affects prices, it doesn't always increase them. It depends. In some cases, it may well be that any increase would be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher price, but it may also result in smaller amounts of product at the same price, or fewer employees increasing productivity, or relocating to where overhead isn't as high, or dozens of other things the capitalist can do to mitigate the increase, or a combination of several things. Bottom line: None of them are good for either the consumer or employees. None of them will increase jobs and grow the company or the economy.

P.S. Yes, there IS a such thing, it's the system we currently have in America. You are doing your best to destroy it by relentlessly bitching and complaining about it, and what you want to replace it with, is Socialist Marxism. It doesn't matter to you if you put companies out of business, that's just MORE the state can get their fingers into and control... the ends justifies the means.

Wow, the dumb act followed by taking credit for what you disagree with.

You claimed that they would offset the overhead of a corporate tax by cutting overhead, like it could be done by simply waving a magic wand. Reducing costs IS reducing overhead, get it?

The fact remains, adding a consumption tax at the point of sale or adding a corporate tax at the point of production yields the same price to the consumer. Applying the tax at the corporate level is the most practical way to do it. If a corporate tax is bad then a consumption tax is worse.

 

[Boss]

Yes, Romney paid 14%.

Romney paid 14% on profits realized from investment capital he didn't have to invest. If you increase the tax rate for profit on investment capital, guess what you will get less of?

I know you are smart enough to realize we need available capital for business to grow and expand, create new jobs, and generate economic prosperity. At least, I think you are that smart, maybe not?

Idle corporate cash piles up | David Cay Johnston


IRS data suggests that, globally, U.S. nonfinancial companies hold at least three times more cash and other liquid assets than the Federal Reserve reports, idle money that could be creating jobs, funding dividends or even paying a stiff federal penalty tax for hoarding corporate cash.

The Fed’s latest Flow of Funds report showed that U.S. nonfinancial companies held $1.7 trillion in liquid assets at the end of March. But newly released IRS figures show that in 2009 these companies held $4.8 trillion in liquid assets, which equals $5.1 trillion in today’s dollars, triple the Fed figure.
<more>

BING-FUCKIO!!!

This is why you want to REDUCE OR ELIMINATE the capital gains tax. That incentivizes using this money to expand operations, create new jobs, start new businesses. You are not going to get MORE of this money by increasing the tax rates on capital gains.

You are also not going to pass some "Hoarding penalty" because it would never pass constitutional muster, wealth is property, and you can't seize property without due cause, according to the 4th Amendment. Every Republican would oppose such a measure, and most Democrats as well, if they valued their jobs. IF you ever managed to slip it by SCOTUS, and implement it into law, virtually all of this accumulation of wealth would suddenly be found in Switzerland, and you can't tax property in Switzerland.

Rather than continue to yap and nip at the heels of capitalists, why not try appealing to capitalists, who would love to have the opportunity to use this hoarded wealth, if they could benefit with profits? Seems to me, the more profits an American corporation makes, the better it is for jobs and pay, for everyone involved with that company.

 

[Boss]

Wow, the dumb act followed by taking credit for what you disagree with.

You claimed that they would offset the overhead of a corporate tax by cutting overhead, like it could be done by simply waving a magic wand. Reducing costs IS reducing overhead, get it?

The fact remains, adding a consumption tax at the point of sale or adding a corporate tax at the point of production yields the same price to the consumer. Applying the tax at the corporate level is the most practical way to do it. If a corporate tax is bad then a consumption tax is worse.

No, Ed... I claimed they COULD or MIGHT do this. There are a million different factors, we are having a generic conversation, there is no ONE answer here. It depends on the product or service, how much competition there is, what the market demands are, what the relevant supply is, how much overhead is labor cost, how much does a tax increase impact the bottom line, is there another solution besides raising prices or cutting overhead, like outsourcing.... all of these things are considered and mulled over... I HAVE BEEN IN THE BOARD MEETINGS WHERE THIS EXACT THING HAS HAPPENED!

You are stubbornly refusing to accept reality with regard to how capitalism works, and insisting that a corporate production tax would be the same as a consumer tax. Anyone who runs a corporation or sits on a board of a corporation would say you are out of your fucking mind.

TAX production, and see what you will have LESS of! Guaranteed!

Now you can go down this road, but the first problem you'll have to address is outsourcing... so you'll have to pass some restrictive law against that, or corporations would simply start moving their production operations to places you can't impose the tax. Want to take a guess what the ramifications from THAT will be? More American companies will simply close their doors and divert resources to their Indonesian operations. Then you'll need to address the massive and overwhelming unemployment you've created. The next problem you will have, is lack of supply and high demand. Want to know what THAT causes?

So you see, your stupid and idiotic notion of imposing a tax on corporations, is fraught with consequences your fucked up brain is incapable of dealing with. But like any idiot liberal, you don't give a damn about consequences, you'll just spin them into the fault of republicans and tea partiers.