Why again do left wingers believe taxing corporations more is helpful to the middle class?

[hadit]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

It's funny that they simultaneously argue for raising the MW on the basis that it will put more money in the hands of the workers (though ignoring the ones who lose their jobs as a result), and argue for raising/keeping high corporate taxes, though it pus less money in the hands of workers. They're weird people.

 

[Winston]

LMAO. You talk about "fair share" and yet your numbers reflect nothing in regards to the share of total taxes paid by corporations.

1. The US has the third highest rate.

Who fucking cares what the rate is. I don't give a shit what my tax rate is, hell, I couldn't even tell you what it comes out to. But, I can tell you how MUCH I paid. Armed with that number, well I can tell you what the EFFECTIVE RATE is, and that is what matters.

• Our average effective tax rate is 27.1% compared with 27.7% for the other 30 OECD countries, according to CRS.

Fact Sheet: Corporate Tax Rates - Americans For Tax Fairness

2. World's average tax rate

Again, whoopy-de-damn-do. What is the world's average temperature? Reckon it has about has much to do with the "fair share" argument concerning corporate taxation as the world average tax rate.

3. Europe has lowest average corporate tax rate

No shit Sherlock, Europe also implements a Value Added Tax in ADDITION to the corporate income tax. You add that in and suddenly Europe is the highest taxed region in the world.

4. Larger industrialized nations tend to high higher corporate tax rates than developing countries.

Great, since we are the largest industrialized nation in the world we should probably have the highest corporate tax rate. Or are you claiming we are a "developing nation".

5. Worldwide average corporate tax rate has declines.

What is the argument here, that since everyone else is doing it we should? Great, I am so glad we are going to be moving to single payer healthcare.

6. Every region in the world has seen a decline in the average corporate tax rate.

So what. And hell, it has declined here. But the real problem,

• Corporate share of federal tax revenue has dropped by two-thirds in 60 years — from 32% in 1952 to 10% in 2013.

Unless you want to make the argument that ten percent IS corporate America's "fair share" I think we can safely say that, today, Corporations are not paying their fair share of taxes. We can move forward to the dispelling of more myths, like cutting taxes encourages investment, creates jobs, or increases revenue if you are prepared to learn a little something.

Fair share fair share fair share.

You are so full of shit.

Actually France went as high a 75% just a couple of years ago. It was a dismal failure. Businesses left, startups stopped happening, even small-time farmers whose land had gone up in value in previous years started getting destroyed by the government because they had no idea what their land was worth until the government came demanding payment on the excessive taxes. By then it was too late. They’d end up selling everything and still being in debt to their government.

Keep using the term "fair share" to seduce the morons on the left who pay nothing in taxes. Meanwhile the funny thing is you and people like you think the democrats will not put loopholes in and that it is only republicans.

You have any control over how dumb you allow yourselves to get?

I take it you have no argument as to ten percent not being their "fair share". Great, first you make a claim without any supporting evidence and now you want to commit the fallacy, appeal to the extremes. Can you tag out and send in someone that can actually argue?

You are just a pathetic democrat hack. Spilling out bullshit democrat cliches.

You are a bloviated hypocritical gasbag.

If you can't support your position go back under your bridge and STFU. Ten percent IS NOT corporate America's fair share. Cutting taxes further will not encourage investment, it will do the exact opposite. Investment dollars, dollars placed back in to the business ARE NOT TAXED. When you cut taxes you don't provide additional investment funds to the business, you provide them to the business owners and shareholders. Cutting taxes ENCOURAGES taking money out of a business, not putting money in. If you actually owned a business, you would know this intuitively.

You have not addressed shit. It has been shown how raising taxes on corporations does not benefit the middle class.

You should keep thinking you did.

You didnt.

Again, corporations pay one tenth of the total tax burden. In the 1950's, it was close to one third. Now, was the middle class stronger under that one third burden or under the one tenth burden? Hell, it is a nobrainer. But there are very real and legitimate economic reasons.

First, the WACC--that is the weighted average cost of capital is INVERSELY related to the marginal tax rate. At higher rates, it makes more economic sense to REINVEST than to HARVEST profits. Cutting taxes only encourages the harvesting of profits, it actually discourages investment when marginal rates are south of fifty percent.

 

[Winston]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

It's funny that they simultaneously argue for raising the MW on the basis that it will put more money in the hands of the workers (though ignoring the ones who lose their jobs as a result), and argue for raising/keeping high corporate taxes, though it pus less money in the hands of workers. They're weird people.

How the hell do you get that cutting corporate tax rates puts more money in the hands of the people? Well, except for shareholders MAYBE. More than likely not. So, here is a question. If a company provides a raise to it's employees, is it taxed on the amount of the raise? And if not, would not lowering the tax rate actually encourage companies to take money out of the business rather than reinvest it in their labor force?

That is the supply side. Now the demand side. If we cut taxes on a corporation that is currently selling a product for X amount of dollars why would providing them additional profit encourage them to drop their selling price? Is there additional demand in the marketplace? And if a company gets to KEEP more of the dollars they take in, would they not be encouraged to KEEP even more dollars?

 

[martybegan]

Fair share fair share fair share.

You are so full of shit.

Actually France went as high a 75% just a couple of years ago. It was a dismal failure. Businesses left, startups stopped happening, even small-time farmers whose land had gone up in value in previous years started getting destroyed by the government because they had no idea what their land was worth until the government came demanding payment on the excessive taxes. By then it was too late. They’d end up selling everything and still being in debt to their government.

Keep using the term "fair share" to seduce the morons on the left who pay nothing in taxes. Meanwhile the funny thing is you and people like you think the democrats will not put loopholes in and that it is only republicans.

You have any control over how dumb you allow yourselves to get?

I take it you have no argument as to ten percent not being their "fair share". Great, first you make a claim without any supporting evidence and now you want to commit the fallacy, appeal to the extremes. Can you tag out and send in someone that can actually argue?

You are just a pathetic democrat hack. Spilling out bullshit democrat cliches.

You are a bloviated hypocritical gasbag.

If you can't support your position go back under your bridge and STFU. Ten percent IS NOT corporate America's fair share. Cutting taxes further will not encourage investment, it will do the exact opposite. Investment dollars, dollars placed back in to the business ARE NOT TAXED. When you cut taxes you don't provide additional investment funds to the business, you provide them to the business owners and shareholders. Cutting taxes ENCOURAGES taking money out of a business, not putting money in. If you actually owned a business, you would know this intuitively.

You have not addressed shit. It has been shown how raising taxes on corporations does not benefit the middle class.

You should keep thinking you did.

You didnt.

Again, corporations pay one tenth of the total tax burden. In the 1950's, it was close to one third. Now, was the middle class stronger under that one third burden or under the one tenth burden? Hell, it is a nobrainer. But there are very real and legitimate economic reasons.

First, the WACC--that is the weighted average cost of capital is INVERSELY related to the marginal tax rate. At higher rates, it makes more economic sense to REINVEST than to HARVEST profits. Cutting taxes only encourages the harvesting of profits, it actually discourages investment when marginal rates are south of fifty percent.

correlation does not equal causation.

 

[hadit]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

It's funny that they simultaneously argue for raising the MW on the basis that it will put more money in the hands of the workers (though ignoring the ones who lose their jobs as a result), and argue for raising/keeping high corporate taxes, though it pus less money in the hands of workers. They're weird people.

How the hell do you get that cutting corporate tax rates puts more money in the hands of the people? Well, except for shareholders MAYBE. More than likely not. So, here is a question. If a company provides a raise to it's employees, is it taxed on the amount of the raise? And if not, would not lowering the tax rate actually encourage companies to take money out of the business rather than reinvest it in their labor force?

That is the supply side. Now the demand side. If we cut taxes on a corporation that is currently selling a product for X amount of dollars why would providing them additional profit encourage them to drop their selling price? Is there additional demand in the marketplace? And if a company gets to KEEP more of the dollars they take in, would they not be encouraged to KEEP even more dollars?

They would cut prices as a competitive measure. They would have to, because all the other corporations would be cutting prices too. That would increase sales, move more product and create more jobs.

You do know, correct, that all corporate taxes are ultimately paid by the customer?

 

[Timmy]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

I guess your claim is that we should tax the middle class more and coporations less! That will help the middle class !! Lol!

You make a big assumption that Corps who pay less will in turn create more jobs . Says who?

If anything giv mid class people more money in their pockets as they are far more likely to spend that on the goods and services of corporations.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

So you're agreeable to shifting corporate taxes onto your personal income taxes?

 

[talksalot]

Corporations are people. Corporations benefit from the government providing schools, infrastructure, safety and security and all the other services that keep our nation strong and healthy.
In fact these people benefit the most.
They should pay their fair share, shouldn't they?

If corporations are people, then they are being taxed as individuals and also as corporations....how is that "fair?" And liberals always want to use terms that they infuse with emotion like, "fair share" to avoid dealing in reality.

 

[bripat9643]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Do you have something to post that shows that lower taxes equal more jobs? All lower taxes do is increase profits, no effect at all on jobs

Higher profits means more jobs, dumbass.

Sent from my SM-G930U using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[bripat9643]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Any economist will tell you it doesn't, but Democrats use their anti-American tax the rich rhetoric simply to gin up donations.
What's funny is wealthy Hollywood liberals buy it, gobble it up and ask for seconds.

You can't tax the poor, so who is left, Homer?

The logic of a thief.

Sent from my SM-G930U using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[X.Onasis]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Do you have something to post that shows that lower taxes equal more jobs? All lower taxes do is increase profits, no effect at all on jobs

All higher taxes do is increase the price of whatever is produced. Companies consider corporate taxes as a cost of doing business. So, like raw materials, payroll, utilities, ect, it is factored in the costs. If the costs go up, so do the prices.

In other words, companies don't pay the taxes, their customers do.

Payroll taxes prevent growth. Period. Crushes small business and don't think that is not deliberate.

Corporations like McDonalds and Walmart are heavily subsidized by payroll taxes that pick up the tab for their workers' healthcare and costs for other social services. Many costs have been shifted to locales paid-for by local taxes on income and property. That is one reason why rents and home costs are so high. Payroll taxes don't prevent growth any more than investing in a profitable business does.
Why is it that people want corporations and us wealthy people and business owners to get all the benefits of living and making money in this great country AND pay a lower percentage of our income in taxes?
No need to answer, pinheads, it's a rhetorical question. You'll never figure it out. Keep whining about how dumb leftists are...It's your best sport.

 

[brummelben]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Do you have something to post that shows that lower taxes equal more jobs? All lower taxes do is increase profits, no effect at all on jobs

Higher profits means more jobs, dumbass.

Sent from my SM-G930U using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Why do higher profits mean more jobs? The only way you get more jobs is through demand for a product. Higher profits do not create demand

 

[GaryDog]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Simple: It's more helpful than the alternative of taxing the middle class.

 

[NightFox]

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.
.

Probably not, they also don't appear to know that corporations just pass the cost of taxes along in the form of higher prices, lower wages for employees and lower returns to investors.

 

[GaryDog]

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.
.

Probably not, they also don't appear to know that corporations just pass the cost of taxes along in the form of higher prices, lower wages for employees and lower returns to investors.

And the middle class (consisting of about 200 million more people) passes on the cost of their taxes by NOT patronizing corporations, thus decimating their profits.

But hey, you know. Trickle down!

 

[X.Onasis]

Corporations are people. Corporations benefit from the government providing schools, infrastructure, safety and security and all the other services that keep our nation strong and healthy.
In fact these people benefit the most.
They should pay their fair share, shouldn't they?

If corporations are people, then they are being taxed as individuals and also as corporations....how is that "fair?" And liberals always want to use terms that they infuse with emotion like, "fair share" to avoid dealing in reality.

"Fair share" is meant to include the total tax burden we pay. That include income, payroll, and property taxes. Pinheads always want to make an issue only of income taxes and that's a false argument because it's not a picture of a citizen's tax burden. Think about it.

 

[talksalot]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Any economist will tell you it doesn't, but Democrats use their anti-American tax the rich rhetoric simply to gin up donations.
What's funny is wealthy Hollywood liberals buy it, gobble it up and ask for seconds.

You can't tax the poor, so who is left, Homer?

The logic of a thief.

Sent from my SM-G930U using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Exactly! Anyone who has more of anything than me....owes me.

 

[talksalot]

Corporations are people. Corporations benefit from the government providing schools, infrastructure, safety and security and all the other services that keep our nation strong and healthy.
In fact these people benefit the most.
They should pay their fair share, shouldn't they?

If corporations are people, then they are being taxed as individuals and also as corporations....how is that "fair?" And liberals always want to use terms that they infuse with emotion like, "fair share" to avoid dealing in reality.

"Fair share" is meant to include the total tax burden we pay. That include income, payroll, and property taxes. Pinheads always want to make an issue only of income taxes and that's a false argument because it's not a picture of a citizen's tax burden. Think about it.

If you work for or buy from a corporation (and who doesn't?) then you are paying corporate taxes in addition to other tax burdens.

The fact of the matter, which even leftist economists understand but might not publicly admit, is corporations do not pay taxes. An important subject area in economics, called tax incidence, says the entity upon whom a tax is levied does not necessarily bear the full burden of the tax. Some of the tax burden can be shifted to another party. If a tax is levied on a corporation, and if the corporation hopes to survive, it will have one of three responses to that tax or some combination thereof. It will raise the price of its product, lower dividends or lay off workers. In each case a flesh-and-blood person is made worse off. The important point is that a corporation is a legal fiction and as such does not pay taxes. As it turns out, corporations are merely tax collectors for the government.

 

[hadit]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Do you have something to post that shows that lower taxes equal more jobs? All lower taxes do is increase profits, no effect at all on jobs

All higher taxes do is increase the price of whatever is produced. Companies consider corporate taxes as a cost of doing business. So, like raw materials, payroll, utilities, ect, it is factored in the costs. If the costs go up, so do the prices.

In other words, companies don't pay the taxes, their customers do.

Payroll taxes prevent growth. Period. Crushes small business and don't think that is not deliberate.

Corporations like McDonalds and Walmart are heavily subsidized by payroll taxes that pick up the tab for their workers' healthcare and costs for other social services. Many costs have been shifted to locales paid-for by local taxes on income and property. That is one reason why rents and home costs are so high. Payroll taxes don't prevent growth any more than investing in a profitable business does.
Why is it that people want corporations and us wealthy people and business owners to get all the benefits of living and making money in this great country AND pay a lower percentage of our income in taxes?
No need to answer, pinheads, it's a rhetorical question. You'll never figure it out. Keep whining about how dumb leftists are...It's your best sport.

WRONG. It is not a company's responsibility to pay for a worker's health insurance and social services. End of sentence. If society deems it necessary to provide a minimum salary and level of benefits, than it needs to come as a welfare benefit, not by turning companies into welfare distribution centers.

 

[pwjohn]

Corporations are people. Corporations benefit from the government providing schools, infrastructure, safety and security and all the other services that keep our nation strong and healthy.
In fact these people benefit the most.
They should pay their fair share, shouldn't they?

US corporations should be taxed on all their earnings both overseas and here at home. That way they won't have to spend so much money shifting profits overseas to country's with lower tax rates. Like Catapillar for example.