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

[jc456]

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

 

[Flash]

[Q

But but but robin hood.....

 

[mudwhistle]

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 Middle-class.

Oh....you must think this is Mexico

 

[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.

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 Middle-class.

Oh....you must think this is Mexico

Speaking of Mexico, when are they going to pay for the wall?

 

[Winston]

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.

Look, this is really simple. A corporation is not taxed on shit until that corporation pulls the money out of the business. If they want to build a factory, they build it with pretax money. If they want to pass out raises, they pass them out with pretax money. If they want to cut prices to stimulate demand, the lost profits come from pretax money. Anything that a company spends money on that the company does best, you know, what it is in the business to do, comes from pretax money.

Now, after tax money is the money companies use to pay their shareholders, or most of the time, buy back their damn stock. Basically, the company is saying, hey--we don't have any profitable investments to make right now in our business, and we think all you stockholders are too damn stupid to know what to do with any dividends, so we are going to purchase up some stock to burn in a bonfire at the back of headquarters. And that's what they are doing. Now I don't know about what the stockholders would do with it, honestly, I don't give a shit. But I do know this, even the government. Yes, the damn government, can put that money to use, perhaps rebuilding infrastructure, in a far more productive manner than building bonfires with stock certificates.

Uh-huh and where does the money come from to pay corporate taxes? The corporate money forest? risk/reward determines capital flows and the reward portion of the equation is also known as profit potential, if you dent profit potential you stunt capital formation in the sector in question thus in order to compete for capital companies will reduce wages and increase prices to maintain competitive returns, of course they're still forced to generate less returns (lower profit potential) because they have to shovel what would otherwise be productive resources to the tax man so investor returns are less than they would otherwise be.

TANSTAFL

"There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen." -- Frédéric Bastiat

About that risk/reward thing, why is it you only focus on the reward side? Does not a change in the marginal tax rate also effect the risk side? And I am sorry if that whole gas tax example and price elastic markets were beyond your comprehension. It just seems relatively easy to understand that in a highly price elastic market a corporation is going to have to accept lower margins instead of passing on a higher tax rate to consumers.

 

[Winston]

The dumbass Left Wingers are so stupid they don't even realize that a tax on corporations is a tax on themselves.

Every cent of that about a trillion a year in corporate tax that is paid by American corporations is collected from the sales of goods and services. In other words the people that buy the goods and service tally up the tax dollars.

They would know things like this if they had ever attended a class in economics.

That has nothing at all to do with economics. Hell, it is a statement of the obvious that means absolutely nothing. It is daylight when the sun is out. Does that prove anything other than the sun comes up?

When faced with a tax cut, or a tax increase, a corporation has a choice of either passing on that tax to the consumer or absorbing the tax from their profits. There is just as much likelihood that the corporation will decide to increase production, decrease the price, and look to capture market share in the face of a tax INCREASE as there is they would make the same decision in the face of a tax cut. The marginal tax rate doesn't make a damn, it is the assessment of market conditions that makes all the difference in the world. In reality, the only place you plug in marginal tax rate is when evaluating the Weighted Average Cost of Capital. When doing so, we find that a HIGHER MARGINAL TAX RATE results in a wider choice of justifiable capital investment due to an increasing Internal Rate of Return with increasing marginal tax rates. Truth is, higher corporate tax rates encourage greater investment in riskier, and higher returning, capital investments. When corporate tax rates are low, and here we are talking AT THE MARGIN--the only investments justified by a capital evaluation are low risk, low returning investments like, say Treasury Bonds. Tell me, are corporations sitting on tons of cash collecting their little bit of interest or are companies taking their cash positions and converting them into capital investments? If it is the later, then we need corporate tax cut. But if it is the former, companies sitting on cash, it is time to increase their taxes. THAT is fundamental ECONOMICS.

 

[LeftofLeft]

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 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?

Fuck you and your fucking talking points.

Look at the originality everyone.

"Fair share."

• The United States has the third highest general top marginal corporate income tax rate in the world, at 38.92 percent. Due to the recent reduction in Chad’s corporate tax rate, the U.S. rate is exceeded only by the United Arab Emirates and Puerto Rico.
• The worldwide average top corporate income tax rate, across 188 countries and tax jurisdictions, is 22.5 percent. After weighting by each jurisdiction’s GDP, the average rate is 29.5 percent.
• By region, Europe has the lowest average corporate tax rate, at 18.88 percent (26.22 percent, weighted by GDP). The G7 has the highest simple average, at 30.21 percent.
• Larger, more industrialized countries tend to have higher corporate income tax rates than developing countries.
• The worldwide average corporate tax rate has declined since 2003 from 30 percent to 22.5 percent.
• Every region in the world has seen a decline in its average corporate tax rate in the past thirteen years.

Corporate Income Tax Rates around the World, 2016 - Tax Foundation


Fuck you, and your stupid long tired democrat talking points.

What about those facts for "fair share?" You know what? I am talking to a robot who is going to go back to the bag of robin hood cliches.

"Steal from the rich, give to the poor!!!"

Morons.

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?

Every time The Left cries about "fair share", understand that it is a ploy with communist roots. Further, it is a failure. The analogy I use is the restaurant party comprised of wealthy, middle class, and poor where the wealthy pays the majority of the bill, the middle class pays the balance, and the poor pay nothing. The wealthy pay the most and consume the least. The poor consume the most and pay nothing. The restaurant makes more additional menu items available to the poor but requires the wealthy to pay more to cover it. The wealthy push back on the increase, saying they already pay the significant share; and in fact, the restaurant should only make essential menu items available to the poor. Now, all of the sudden, the wealthy are not paying their "fair share"

Therein lies the problem: The Left encourage a run up of government spending putting more pressure on the wealthy and the MIddle Class to pay more. When the increase request is rejected, they Left calls it a "cut." Further, any talk of actual cuts in spending is attacked as being "racist."

Fair Share is a ploy and a failure.

 

[Flash]

The dumbass Left Wingers are so stupid they don't even realize that a tax on corporations is a tax on themselves.

Every cent of that about a trillion a year in corporate tax that is paid by American corporations is collected from the sales of goods and services. In other words the people that buy the goods and service tally up the tax dollars.

They would know things like this if they had ever attended a class in economics.

That has nothing at all to do with economics. Hell, it is a statement of the obvious that means absolutely nothing. It is daylight when the sun is out. Does that prove anything other than the sun comes up?

When faced with a tax cut, or a tax increase, a corporation has a choice of either passing on that tax to the consumer or absorbing the tax from their profits. There is just as much likelihood that the corporation will decide to increase production, decrease the price, and look to capture market share in the face of a tax INCREASE as there is they would make the same decision in the face of a tax cut. The marginal tax rate doesn't make a damn, it is the assessment of market conditions that makes all the difference in the world. In reality, the only place you plug in marginal tax rate is when evaluating the Weighted Average Cost of Capital. When doing so, we find that a HIGHER MARGINAL TAX RATE results in a wider choice of justifiable capital investment due to an increasing Internal Rate of Return with increasing marginal tax rates. Truth is, higher corporate tax rates encourage greater investment in riskier, and higher returning, capital investments. When corporate tax rates are low, and here we are talking AT THE MARGIN--the only investments justified by a capital evaluation are low risk, low returning investments like, say Treasury Bonds. Tell me, are corporations sitting on tons of cash collecting their little bit of interest or are companies taking their cash positions and converting them into capital investments? If it is the later, then we need corporate tax cut. But if it is the former, companies sitting on cash, it is time to increase their taxes. THAT is fundamental ECONOMICS.

Bullshit.

You must have never taken a course in Economics.

That almost trillion dollars that the filthy ass bloated corrupt Federal government collects as a corporate tax comes out of the pockets of the people that buy the goods and services that the corporations produce.

That trillion dollars, that is now in the hands of a stupid bureaucrat, whose boss is a corrupt politician elected by special interest groups and is lost to the productive economy to be used for stupid things like food stamps for illegals,. subsidies to Solyndra Executives, shrimp treadmill studies, Muslim Mosques, more welfare for the ghetto monkeys and every other thing you can think of that the government waste money on.

 

[Darkwind]

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?

By this logic, they should be taxed at the individual rate.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

The corporate tax is a thinly veiled federal sales tax. These business just add the cost on to the prices of their goods and services.

 

[Theowl32]

The dumbass Left Wingers are so stupid they don't even realize that a tax on corporations is a tax on themselves.

Every cent of that about a trillion a year in corporate tax that is paid by American corporations is collected from the sales of goods and services. In other words the people that buy the goods and service tally up the tax dollars.

They would know things like this if they had ever attended a class in economics.

That has nothing at all to do with economics. Hell, it is a statement of the obvious that means absolutely nothing. It is daylight when the sun is out. Does that prove anything other than the sun comes up?

When faced with a tax cut, or a tax increase, a corporation has a choice of either passing on that tax to the consumer or absorbing the tax from their profits. There is just as much likelihood that the corporation will decide to increase production, decrease the price, and look to capture market share in the face of a tax INCREASE as there is they would make the same decision in the face of a tax cut. The marginal tax rate doesn't make a damn, it is the assessment of market conditions that makes all the difference in the world. In reality, the only place you plug in marginal tax rate is when evaluating the Weighted Average Cost of Capital. When doing so, we find that a HIGHER MARGINAL TAX RATE results in a wider choice of justifiable capital investment due to an increasing Internal Rate of Return with increasing marginal tax rates. Truth is, higher corporate tax rates encourage greater investment in riskier, and higher returning, capital investments. When corporate tax rates are low, and here we are talking AT THE MARGIN--the only investments justified by a capital evaluation are low risk, low returning investments like, say Treasury Bonds. Tell me, are corporations sitting on tons of cash collecting their little bit of interest or are companies taking their cash positions and converting them into capital investments? If it is the later, then we need corporate tax cut. But if it is the former, companies sitting on cash, it is time to increase their taxes. THAT is fundamental ECONOMICS.

Bullshit.

You must have never taken a course in Economics.

That almost trillion dollars that the filthy ass bloated corrupt Federal government collects as a corporate tax comes out of the pockets of the people that buy the goods and services that the corporations produce.

That trillion dollars, that is now in the hands of a stupid bureaucrat, whose boss is a corrupt politician elected by special interest groups and is lost to the productive economy to be used for stupid things like food stamps for illegals,. subsidies to Solyndra Executives, shrimp treadmill studies, Muslim Mosques, more welfare for the ghetto monkeys and every other thing you can think of that the government waste money on.

But but but robin hood......

 

[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.

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 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?

Fuck you and your fucking talking points.

Look at the originality everyone.

"Fair share."

• The United States has the third highest general top marginal corporate income tax rate in the world, at 38.92 percent. Due to the recent reduction in Chad’s corporate tax rate, the U.S. rate is exceeded only by the United Arab Emirates and Puerto Rico.
• The worldwide average top corporate income tax rate, across 188 countries and tax jurisdictions, is 22.5 percent. After weighting by each jurisdiction’s GDP, the average rate is 29.5 percent.
• By region, Europe has the lowest average corporate tax rate, at 18.88 percent (26.22 percent, weighted by GDP). The G7 has the highest simple average, at 30.21 percent.
• Larger, more industrialized countries tend to have higher corporate income tax rates than developing countries.
• The worldwide average corporate tax rate has declined since 2003 from 30 percent to 22.5 percent.
• Every region in the world has seen a decline in its average corporate tax rate in the past thirteen years.

Corporate Income Tax Rates around the World, 2016 - Tax Foundation


Fuck you, and your stupid long tired democrat talking points.

What about those facts for "fair share?" You know what? I am talking to a robot who is going to go back to the bag of robin hood cliches.

"Steal from the rich, give to the poor!!!"

Morons.

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?

Every time The Left cries about "fair share", understand that it is a ploy with communist roots. Further, it is a failure. The analogy I use is the restaurant party comprised of wealthy, middle class, and poor where the wealthy pays the majority of the bill, the middle class pays the balance, and the poor pay nothing. The wealthy pay the most and consume the least. The poor consume the most and pay nothing. The restaurant makes more additional menu items available to the poor but requires the wealthy to pay more to cover it. The wealthy push back on the increase, saying they already pay the significant share; and in fact, the restaurant should only make essential menu items available to the poor. Now, all of the sudden, the wealthy are not paying their "fair share"

Therein lies the problem: The Left encourage a run up of government spending putting more pressure on the wealthy and the MIddle Class to pay more. When the increase request is rejected, they Left calls it a "cut." Further, any talk of actual cuts in spending is attacked as being "racist."

Fair Share is a ploy and a failure.

You are confusing corporate income taxes with personal income taxes. The fair share problem involves corporate taxes as a portion of total revenue. On the personal income tax side I agree with you. The wealthy pay the vast majority of personal income taxes. I want it to be like it was back in the day, PRE-REAGAN. Way back then the wealthy paid a much lower percentage of personal income taxes. Obviously, we need to return personal income tax rates back to pre-Reagan.

The problem is the REASON the wealthy pay all the income taxes. They have all the income. And when you subtract those additional taxes they pay from the additional income they have attained, they come out smelling like a freakin damn rose. They have tons of PROFIT to spare. The poor, hell they don't pay anything, they never did. At least not personal income tax. And they make about the same as before, nothing from nothing leaves nothing. But the middle class, they are paying about the same in taxes as they always have, they just aren't making as much money, not enough to keep up with rising costs in areas like health care and finance.

So, hell you are in charge, which group would you look to to increase your tax revenues? Or hell, which group would you look to to when handing out tax cuts?

 

[Darkwind]

The dumbass Left Wingers are so stupid they don't even realize that a tax on corporations is a tax on themselves.

Every cent of that about a trillion a year in corporate tax that is paid by American corporations is collected from the sales of goods and services. In other words the people that buy the goods and service tally up the tax dollars.

They would know things like this if they had ever attended a class in economics.

That has nothing at all to do with economics. Hell, it is a statement of the obvious that means absolutely nothing. It is daylight when the sun is out. Does that prove anything other than the sun comes up?

When faced with a tax cut, or a tax increase, a corporation has a choice of either passing on that tax to the consumer or absorbing the tax from their profits. There is just as much likelihood that the corporation will decide to increase production, decrease the price, and look to capture market share in the face of a tax INCREASE as there is they would make the same decision in the face of a tax cut. The marginal tax rate doesn't make a damn, it is the assessment of market conditions that makes all the difference in the world. In reality, the only place you plug in marginal tax rate is when evaluating the Weighted Average Cost of Capital. When doing so, we find that a HIGHER MARGINAL TAX RATE results in a wider choice of justifiable capital investment due to an increasing Internal Rate of Return with increasing marginal tax rates. Truth is, higher corporate tax rates encourage greater investment in riskier, and higher returning, capital investments. When corporate tax rates are low, and here we are talking AT THE MARGIN--the only investments justified by a capital evaluation are low risk, low returning investments like, say Treasury Bonds. Tell me, are corporations sitting on tons of cash collecting their little bit of interest or are companies taking their cash positions and converting them into capital investments? If it is the later, then we need corporate tax cut. But if it is the former, companies sitting on cash, it is time to increase their taxes. THAT is fundamental ECONOMICS.

Bullshit.

You must have never taken a course in Economics.

That almost trillion dollars that the filthy ass bloated corrupt Federal government collects as a corporate tax comes out of the pockets of the people that buy the goods and services that the corporations produce.

That trillion dollars, that is now in the hands of a stupid bureaucrat, whose boss is a corrupt politician elected by special interest groups and is lost to the productive economy to be used for stupid things like food stamps for illegals,. subsidies to Solyndra Executives, shrimp treadmill studies, Muslim Mosques, more welfare for the ghetto monkeys and every other thing you can think of that the government waste money on.

But but but robin hood......

He was a petty thief in tights.

 

[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.

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

That's the old "rain creates umbrellas" theory of economics. It's leftwing demagoguery designed to justify government spending.

No job can be created without some entrepreneur or corporation investing money. That money comes from profits. Furthermore, profits determine where money gets invested. Higher profits means the consumers place a higher demand on that product than on another product earning lower profits. Without profits, economic decision makers would have no idea where to expand production and where to curtail it.

 

[bripat9643]

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!

So when are taxes good for the economy?

 

[Winston]

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!

So when are taxes good for the economy?

The short answer, NOW. Think about it. Think of all that money corporations are holding, in cash. They are not investing it. They are renting it out, collecting interest on short term bonds and notes. If anything, they are suppressing yields for millions in retirement. Honestly, in the current economic environment, that money could be more efficiently used by either reducing the government debt or improving the nation's infrastructure, both within the government's purview.

 

[WinterBorn]

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!

So when are taxes good for the economy?

The short answer, NOW. Think about it. Think of all that money corporations are holding, in cash. They are not investing it. They are renting it out, collecting interest on short term bonds and notes. If anything, they are suppressing yields for millions in retirement. Honestly, in the current economic environment, that money could be more efficiently used by either reducing the government debt or improving the nation's infrastructure, both within the government's purview.

So your plan is for the gov't to take money it did not earn, because it could be used to stimulate the economy?

And if efficiency is the yardstick, then allowing the gov't to seize assets from corporations because they are not investing it is hilarious. I can't think of any organization who is LESS efficient with money than our gov't.

 

[Billo_Really]

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.

Reaganomics didn't work. That's why he jacked up taxes on the rich 2 years later.

 

[Borillar]

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.

Top tax rates in the 1950's were up around 90%, and we had a thriving and growing middle class. Tax rates are far lower now and the middle class is shrinking. Maybe you enjoy paying more in taxes than GE does. I would prefer that businesses raking in billions, and billionaires like Trump would pay more in taxes than a mere thousandaire like myself.

 

[Yarddog]

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?

Yes they do pay their fair share. On average the European Corporate tax rate is around 18%
What would you say it is in the US?
Corporate Income Tax Rates around the World, 2015 - Tax Foundation

If you want to completely stagnate the economy go ahead and raise it to 60%. Taxes are meant to be just that, a tax. Corporations, and businesses do not exist to fund the federal government but thats what you people would like to turn it into.