Do corporations pay taxes?

[Moseley]

Or do they merely act as a go between for double taxation. The government taxes a company and they in turn charge more for the products that they sell.

Is the idea of "corporate taxes" is a laughable sham. Don't they just pass that cost on to the consumer?

Sounds logical doesn't it? So why don't we just obtain ALL of our federal and state taxes from taxing the businesses? They aren't really paying the taxes, the consumer is.


If this were true, we would not need any personal federal/state taxes. We could just tax the corporations.

The result: Those corporations making the biggest profits would pay more taxes, thru the consumers who purchased their goods and services. Those corporations that made the best profits are taxed the most, resulting in them having to charge more for their goods and services.

This would (should) result in the consumer shopping from those corporations making the smaller profits, who, since they are taxed less can charge less for their products, thus raising their profits (due to the larger market share)as the more profitable companies see a decline in sales until finally: all corporations selling the same goods/services would have approx the same amount of customers, as shopping for the less profitable corp would not be of benefit, since the difference in profits (and thus taxes) would not be large enough to allow one corp to charge that much less than the other for their goods and services.

Then there is the "cheap" t.v. compared to the "Top of the line T.v."
You have the couple who makes $35k a year, go to wal-mart and buy a $300.00 t.v., they don't pay much in taxes in that price tag. But the millionaire, who buys the top of the line t.v., he pays much more. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]
Hey! That sounds cool!

The consumer who buys the car with the heated leather seats and top of the line stereo and air conditioning etc. etc. would pay more taxes (hidden in the price tag) than they prudent, environmentally friendly consumer who bought a hybrid.

Rich couple has a 100k inground pool/deck installed in their backyard, they pay taxes! Hidden in the price tag of course. The poor families, who go to the community pool, or lakes, don't pay taxes. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] Freaking cool again.!

Sounds like a great plan to me!

In fact, it sounds like the fairest system imaginable!

We already do it with federal taxes on gasoline. A millionaire pays the same amount in taxes to drive 12000 miles a year as a family of four making 80k a year.

So, we just get all of our federal taxes from the corporations, who get the money from the consumer thru their price tag. Thus, those consumers who buy 100k Mercedes & Hummer's that get 12 MPG, pay more taxes than the guy who buys a Hybrid. Of course, that's the way it is now, but imagine if ALL OF THE FEDERAL/STATE TAXES were obtained that way.!!!

It's the perfect system!! Those consumers who were into buying material things and demanding the best quality of anything they bought; the fast cars, guzzling the gas and 20k sq ft homes consuming all the electricity would pay the bulk of the taxes.

The rich would revolt wouldn't they?

Of course they would!! That's why, once our Founding Fathers passed on, and their ideals were clouded, we ended up with a HUGE IRS Code, full of loopholes for the rich and famous.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
The result: Those corporations making the biggest profits would pay more taxes, thru the consumers who purchased their goods and services. Those corporations that made the best profits are taxed the most, resulting in them having to charge more for their goods and services.

[/ QUOTE ]
does not compute.

[bobman0330]

I don't get it. Less sarcasm and punctuation, more explanation please.

[QuadsOverQuads]

Do workers pay any taxes?

Taxes are paid out of a worker's wages.

Therefore, increases in taxes must be passed on to the wage-payer (the labor-consumer) in the form of higher labor prices.

Therefore, workers pay no taxes, and higher taxes simply result in increased wage-costs.

(Now, see if you can spot the flaw in your reasoning that I'm trying to point out here [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] )


q/q

[Copernicus]

Your first few posts are some of the worst Ive ever seen. You're swimming in water too deep for your level of understanding. Read some old threads and learn something before drown.

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get it. Less sarcasm and punctuation, more explanation please.

[/ QUOTE ]

No more personal incomes taxes.

Company A makes popular tennis shoes. They are a huge corporation paying 30% taxes, because now, the only deductions allowed are those expenses directly related to producing and getting the shoes to market.
No more pricing in a share of the cost of advertising, because the consumer doesn't care if they spend X millions trying to maintain their 50% share of the market. The consumer would prefer more competition.
No more pricing in a share of the cost of maintaining 3 corporate jets, limos for the execs, top of the line marble in the corporate bathrooms. No more pricing in a share of any of those perks.

So, now the $40.00 per pair of shoe that is priced in to pay out the $200 million a year in sports celebrity endorsements, advertising costs, and corporate perks are no longer a deductible expense.

So now the price of the Air Jordan shoe jumps and the price of the generic shoe becomes an even more prudent choice.

The rich run out and buy the Air Jordans and Mercedes, top of the line HDTVs and other high end products that spends millions pushin their products on t.v. and the prudent consumer goes to the library, peruse the Consumer Report magazine and go out and buy a comparable product, that doesn't spend millions in pushing their product but is rated as a quality product.

The rich end up paying the bulk of the taxes.

[tomdemaine]

Um except that for the most part the rich get and stay rich because they send time doing stuff like browsing for the best deal. It is the poor and those that stay poor (on the whole) who are the impulse purchasers. Time preference FTW.

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
Um except that for the most part the rich get and stay rich because they send time doing stuff like browsing for the best deal. It is the poor and those that stay poor (on the whole) who are the impulse purchasers. Time preference FTW.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. I have an uncle in law who is a multi-millionaire. He spent considerable time researching his choice of the HDTV flatscreen he purchased for 5k that he put in his sports den in his San Diego home. The 50k mini cooper he bought for his wife was fully loaded and bought on the cheap from a dealer lookin to unload and his 80k mercedes was the end of the year model.

He still pays (incorp in the price) taxes on 135k in toys, while those who make 80k a year, pay taxes on two 25k vehicles and a 1k t.v. at most.

When a successful company, like Microsoft, splurges on all the bells and whistles when they built their new hdq. they got to depreciate all those bells and whistles. Why?

[bobman0330]

So what you're saying is that you want to use uneven tax rates to promote your vision of how goods should be produced? That's an awful idea.

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
So what you're saying is that you want to use uneven tax rates to promote your vision of how goods should be produced? That's an awful idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't care if the tax rate is progressive or not. All I'm saying is collect all federal taxes from business. It is the consumer who pays them thru the price tag anyways.

In the early 60s business paid over 80% of all federal taxes. Now they pay less than 20%.

In fact, in 2002, corporations paid 12% of all federal taxes (less social security, which ran a surplus) and the surplus from social security paid 20% of the general. Thus the citizens paid another 10% of the budget from their social security surplus (since corp pay 1/2 of the ssi tax) taxes.