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

[Winston]

The problem is you refuse to see the solution, increasing the marginal corporate tax rate.

Since the WACC is inversely related to the marginal tax rate, a lower marginal tax rate actually DISCOURAGES the very type of investment that you are advocating, investment to boost productivity. Lower marginal tax rates encourage corporations to SEEK RENTS instead of seeking capital investments. Further decreases in the corporate tax rate will only add gas to the fire you are complaining about.

I disagree, IMHO eliminating taxation on production doesn't encourage rent seeking quite the opposite for a few reasons:

1. Corporate income taxes encourage influence buying since owning the politicians and bureaucrats that write the tax code is a very cost effective way to lock out potential competitors while protecting your own interests.

2. Corporate income taxes encourage speculation rather than investment since by taxing production while at the same time infusing the system with moral hazard the rewards and time horizons from speculating become far more attractive than the rewards from investing in actually building things/providing services that consumers want and need.

3. Corporate income taxes are in the end taxes on productive investment since as I've already explained they are part of the equation that determines capital flows; corporations must compete for capital based on the returns they can offer that capital and the current tax regime completely distorts the playing field.

4. Corporate income taxes waste an enormous amount of resources and effort in the form of the lawyers and accountants they require just to shuffle all the paper around pursuant to compliance and filings.

Taxing naked speculation and consumption is fine, taxing production leads us to exactly where we are today, with stagnant/falling real wages, increasing income inequality, low/no economic growth and a giant casino where our financial sector used to be; been there, done that, not working and more of the same isn't the answer.

Please. Again, you are totally ignoring RISK. Look, corporations are not that much different than people. They are not as concerned with the return ON their money as much as they are concerned with the return OF their money. In short, companies don't just evaluate a capital project's possible profits, they also evaluate the RISK of LOSS.

The CEO doesn't go, how much can we make? The CEO asks, how much can we lose? If the marginal tax rate is zero, then the entire investment is subject to loss. If the marginal tax rate is fifty percent, then the government subsidizes the losses, only half the investment is subject to loss. Here, let me try to help you understand.

Think of the poker table. When you start you are on the hook for every dime of loss. Essentially, your corporate tax rate is zero. Strategically, you play your cards conservatively, minimize your risks, and make only high percentage plays. After a couple of months, well let's pretend you made some mad cash. Now, if you lose a hundred dollars of your winnings you can write those losses off against your winnings. Now, that hundred dollar bet is not all lost. If your marginal income tax rate is 25%, you only lose seventy five bucks.

Now, well you can make more aggressive bets, you can take more risk. Hell, you might even stroll over to the craps table. Now, think of those large corporations, like GE, who often have a zero corporate tax liability, a zero marginal tax rate. They are playing their cards conservatively. They are highly risk averse. Instead of making capital investments they use profits to seek rents. Meanwhile, the small firms that pay the actual corporate tax rate because they don't have armies of accountants and lawyers, where the tax department is not a PROFIT CENTER. They don't seek rents, they make capital investments to EXPAND.

Small firms pay a higher marginal tax rate and do not engage in rent seeking while large firms pay a lower marginal tax rate and engage in extensive rent seeking. Now, try here,

http://rcbrnet.com/journals/rcbr/Vol_5_No_1_June_2016/3.pdf

That study shows that six OECD countries have a higher effective corporate tax rate and LESS rent seeking. Increasing the corporate tax rate would reduce rent seeking and stimulate more aggressive capital investments.

 

[boilermaker55]

To quote "the peemesiter" , the system is rigged. Having thousands if not tens of thousands of lobbyists to help write corporate tax laws, gives them the ability to slant the situation.
If you cannot see the flaw in that you are not very astute.

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.

because they have armies of Tax Lawyers that can hide their earnings, either their own, or the ones provided by the Studios.

Some Multi-franchise owner pulling in $250k a year? not so much.

You should talk about anyone hiding their taxes, after you elected Rump

Why do you imply wrongdoing? They have the best lawyers money can pay for.

It's all legit, and all part of the game. Taxes for thee and not for me.

 

[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!

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.

Uh, I can think of MANY. Start with any health insurance company, for instance. $600 billion annually for a cashier business.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Uh, I can think of MANY. Start with any health insurance company, for instance. $600 billion annually for a cashier business.

Unlike our go govt, it is also a For Profit business. So $600 billion makes it very efficient.

 

[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

Higher profits means more jobs, dumbass.

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

Hardly. Corporations are constantly trying to decrease their labor costs for the sake of higher profits.

evidence please!

Why would higher profits mean more jobs? The only thing that creates jobs is demand for a product. Without demand higher profits only mean more income

dude, the mere fact that you ask such a stupid statement is amazing. How does one make a profit? you think they just sit on their asses or do you supposed profit means big sales? you tell me, but with big sales means more need, which in turns means more jobs. so yes, more profits can mean more jobs. It may also include new stores or shops depending on the business and with that management, and subordinates. it's fking simple.

 

[martybegan]

To quote "the peemesiter" , the system is rigged. Having thousands if not tens of thousands of lobbyists to help write corporate tax laws, gives them the ability to slant the situation.
If you cannot see the flaw in that you are not very astute.

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.

because they have armies of Tax Lawyers that can hide their earnings, either their own, or the ones provided by the Studios.

Some Multi-franchise owner pulling in $250k a year? not so much.

You should talk about anyone hiding their taxes, after you elected Rump

Why do you imply wrongdoing? They have the best lawyers money can pay for.

It's all legit, and all part of the game. Taxes for thee and not for me.

Then go with a flat tax and be done with it.

 

[Theowl32]

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

Hardly. Corporations are constantly trying to decrease their labor costs for the sake of higher profits.

evidence please!

Why would higher profits mean more jobs? The only thing that creates jobs is demand for a product. Without demand higher profits only mean more income

dude, the mere fact that you ask such a stupid statement is amazing. How does one make a profit? you think they just sit on their asses or do you supposed profit means big sales? you tell me, but with big sales means more need, which in turns means more jobs. so yes, more profits can mean more jobs. It may also include new stores or shops depending on the business and with that management, and subordinates. it's fking simple.

The left truly believe the notion of profit is evil. Not kidding

 

[boilermaker55]

You must be insane to believe that theory will work.
The lobbyists will put in alternate tax deductions to allow the wealthy and corporations to get more tax credits.
If a flat tax would benefit them now, don't you think it would have passed decades ago. Yes it would.

To quote "the peemesiter" , the system is rigged. Having thousands if not tens of thousands of lobbyists to help write corporate tax laws, gives them the ability to slant the situation.
If you cannot see the flaw in that you are not very astute.

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.

because they have armies of Tax Lawyers that can hide their earnings, either their own, or the ones provided by the Studios.

Some Multi-franchise owner pulling in $250k a year? not so much.

You should talk about anyone hiding their taxes, after you elected Rump

Why do you imply wrongdoing? They have the best lawyers money can pay for.

It's all legit, and all part of the game. Taxes for thee and not for me.

Then go with a flat tax and be done with it.

 

[WinterBorn]

Pass the Fair Tax Act. Then everyone pays the same rate, and no one pays tax on what it takes to survive.

 

[GaryDog]

Pass the Fair Tax Act. Then everyone pays the same rate, and no one pays tax on what it takes to survive.

And the government can't function cause it'll be broke.

Brilliant!

Go away, adults are talking.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The left honestly believes that when taxes are raised on companies, the companies pay those taxes out of profits and do not raise prices. That's not what happens. The left really doesn't grasp what really happens.

 

[WinterBorn]

Pass the Fair Tax Act. Then everyone pays the same rate, and no one pays tax on what it takes to survive.

And the government can't function cause it'll be broke.

Brilliant!

Go away, adults are talking.

Spare me your snide remarks. When you claim a for profit company making $600 billion is "inefficient" your claim that adults are talking is laughable.

 

[GaryDog]

Pass the Fair Tax Act. Then everyone pays the same rate, and no one pays tax on what it takes to survive.

And the government can't function cause it'll be broke.

Brilliant!

Go away, adults are talking.

Spare me your snide remarks. When you claim a for profit company making $600 billion is "inefficient" your claim that adults are talking is laughable.

"For profit" for medical care. It should not be a "for profit" industry, by definition. Profiting off of suffering is anathema to being human, and civilized.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Higher profits means more jobs, dumbass.

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

Hardly. Corporations are constantly trying to decrease their labor costs for the sake of higher profits.

evidence please!

Why would higher profits mean more jobs? The only thing that creates jobs is demand for a product. Without demand higher profits only mean more income

dude, the mere fact that you ask such a stupid statement is amazing. How does one make a profit? you think they just sit on their asses or do you supposed profit means big sales? you tell me, but with big sales means more need, which in turns means more jobs. so yes, more profits can mean more jobs. It may also include new stores or shops depending on the business and with that management, and subordinates. it's fking simple.

The left truly believe the notion of profit is evil. Not kidding

If I'm taxed on my income, why shouldn't a corporation be taxed on its income?

 

[GaryDog]

The left honestly believes that when taxes are raised on companies, the companies pay those taxes out of profits and do not raise prices. That's not what happens. The left really doesn't grasp what really happens.

And the right actually believes if its taxes are cut, it will seek to hire more people. They don't know how business works. Employers will trim the number of employees they have to the ABSOLUTE minimum to avoid headaches. If they could get a machine to fuck horny men, pimps would never pay prostitutes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Pass the Fair Tax Act. Then everyone pays the same rate, and no one pays tax on what it takes to survive.

And the government can't function cause it'll be broke.

Brilliant!

Go away, adults are talking.

Spare me your snide remarks. When you claim a for profit company making $600 billion is "inefficient" your claim that adults are talking is laughable.

My non-profit credit union is one of the most efficient businesses I've ever been involved with. As is my non-profit electric co-op.

 

[WinterBorn]

Pass the Fair Tax Act. Then everyone pays the same rate, and no one pays tax on what it takes to survive.

And the government can't function cause it'll be broke.

Brilliant!

Go away, adults are talking.

Spare me your snide remarks. When you claim a for profit company making $600 billion is "inefficient" your claim that adults are talking is laughable.

"For profit" for medical care. It should not be a "for profit" industry, by definition. Profiting off of suffering is anathema to being human, and civilized.

Whether you agree with it or not, it is still a for profit business. And you claim that making $600 billion is inefficient. That is laughable.

If you want to claim it is morally wrong, you have grounds for an argument. But claiming it is inefficient is simply ridiculous.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Hardly. Corporations are constantly trying to decrease their labor costs for the sake of higher profits.

evidence please!

Why would higher profits mean more jobs? The only thing that creates jobs is demand for a product. Without demand higher profits only mean more income

dude, the mere fact that you ask such a stupid statement is amazing. How does one make a profit? you think they just sit on their asses or do you supposed profit means big sales? you tell me, but with big sales means more need, which in turns means more jobs. so yes, more profits can mean more jobs. It may also include new stores or shops depending on the business and with that management, and subordinates. it's fking simple.

A non-profit whose mandate is to break even is more efficient than a for-profit company. I'm in a non-profit electric co-op. Owned by the customers. No money is skimmed off by outside shareholders. Every year I get a check from the co-op which represents the excess revenue they took in.

 

[WinterBorn]

Pass the Fair Tax Act. Then everyone pays the same rate, and no one pays tax on what it takes to survive.

And the government can't function cause it'll be broke.

Brilliant!

Go away, adults are talking.

Spare me your snide remarks. When you claim a for profit company making $600 billion is "inefficient" your claim that adults are talking is laughable.

My non-profit credit union is one of the most efficient businesses I've ever been involved with. As is my non-profit electric co-op.

My credit union is quite efficient too.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Pass the Fair Tax Act. Then everyone pays the same rate, and no one pays tax on what it takes to survive.

And the government can't function cause it'll be broke.

Brilliant!

Go away, adults are talking.

Spare me your snide remarks. When you claim a for profit company making $600 billion is "inefficient" your claim that adults are talking is laughable.

My non-profit credit union is one of the most efficient businesses I've ever been involved with. As is my non-profit electric co-op.

My credit union is quite efficient too.

Yes, well, then, enough with the myth that the profit motive is the only thing that will make companies efficient.