Corporations don't really pay taxes. To a corporation, the things you mention there are called "costs", and whatever the government collects from them just gets passed on to their customers as higher prices to make up for those higher costs, and with a profit tacked on to boot.
Average American family "can't pay their bills"
- Thread starter turkeyneck
- Start date
Corporations don't really pay taxes. To a corporation, the things you mention there are called "costs", and whatever the government collects from them just gets passed on to their customers as higher prices to make up for those higher costs, and with a profit tacked on to boot.
There are "assumptions" for inflation, too.
1. Gummint and The Talking Heads tell us at least 10 times a day, "inflation is only 2%.. so don't worry, be happy". (Why do they do this? Because that's the "real deal"? NO! It's because they really, REALLY want us to believe it and act accordingly.) This is a classic example of the principle, "Tell a lie [even a BIG one] often enough and people will come to believe it... even develop an economic model which appears to support it."
2. Gummint says, "the only inflation stat which really means anything is WAGES". (Again, they WANT us to accept this.)
3. Many of our middle income wage jobs have been outsourced... we all know that story... and there are many aliens working for low wages... so wages increases have remained low... "Therefore, inflation is not a problem... got it?"
4. Money-pump inflation has been running in the TEENS for the last few years. How does the Gummint reconcile this fact with their determination of the inflation rate? Basically, they LIE about it.
http://www.nowandfutures.com/key_stats.html
Bottom Line... what we REALLY have is either recession/stagnation with ALREADY HIGH INFLATION.... regardless of the Gummint lies.
Sad state of affairs, indeed.
BTW... neither Obama, YoMama nor McCain are going to improve things. (Well, McCain might... if he VETOES THE CRAP out of spending bills... but no chance on that... wouldn't be able to get reelected if he pisses off all the spendthrifts)
Quote from gnome:
There are "assumptions" for inflation, too.
1. Gummint and The Talking Heads tell us at least 10 times a day, "inflation is only 2%.. so don't worry, be happy". (Why do they do this? Because that's the "real deal"? NO! It's because they really, REALLY want us to believe it and act accordingly.) This is a classic example of the principle, "Tell a lie [even a BIG one] often enough and people will come to believe it... even develop an economic model which appears to support it."
2. Gummint says, "the only inflation stat which really means anything is WAGES". (Again, they WANT us to accept this.)
3. Many of our middle income wage jobs have been outsourced... we all know that story... and there are many aliens working for low wages... so wages increases have remained low... "Therefore, inflation is not a problem... got it?"
4. Money-pump inflation has been running in the TEENS for the last few years. How does the Gummint reconcile this fact with their determination of the inflation rate? Basically, they LIE about it.
http://www.nowandfutures.com/key_stats.html
Bottom Line... what we REALLY have is either recession/stagnation with ALREADY HIGH INFLATION.... regardless of the Gummint lies.
Sad state of affairs, indeed.
BTW... neither Obama, YoMama nor McCain are going to improve things. (Well, McCain might... if he VETOES THE CRAP out of spending bills... but no chance on that... wouldn't be able to get reelected if he pisses off all the spendthrifts)
You mean inflation is NOT at 2% and we DON'T have a strong dollar policy???
But...but...that would mean....they LIED!!
Why would they do that...to The American People!? *sniffle*
Reaver while hardcore and non diplomatic in his delivery methods has well thought out posts that are right on the money. If I was going into battle or into business I would pick Reaver to be next to me before I would pick any of the "oh its not his fault he had a change happen"
At least with Reaver you end up with your life/money and with the others your wife gets an excuse of why you/money is gone.
Perhaps where you live the poor don't have all the giveouts they do here (lthough I think mostly they are federal programs) or perhaps your poor renters haven't put the beer and playstation down long enough to find out all the free goodies they can get.
I guess we have different poor people renting from us.
I rent to mid and to low/no income people including FHA.
Here in WI everyone gets taxed about 3% on the electric bill to give the money to people who dont pay their electric bills.
The college students get their money from wherever they get it and while usually late they pay it (or their parents who co-signed end up paying it)
For the low income people here many get subsidized rent so the county which works with the FHA. Aside from the Muong who pay their rent in cash and on time the other baby factories always have an excuse along with the latest video games to play on the big screen.
They get free health care, almost free rent(they pay 25% of income), free electric /heat, mostly free food with the school lunch programs and the food banks. only work about 20 or so hours a week. I couldn't do it BUT if I had no desire to do any better than Old Milwaukee beer and video games I would be loving life with the handouts that are going on.
I have no idea why they need cell phones(they all have them) but I guess from their point of view "why not when we don't have to pay for it anyway".
I think for people with no work ethic and no motivation that are ok with living on an adjusted for all the handouts $35,000 a year they are living the dream.
And its all sold on the concept of "think about the children, they will suffer if we don't help"
These are the same children that grow up to repeat the process.
Also while not often I have seen several times in looking at rentals to buy where the welfare families actually have nicer places to live then some small business owner families that I have rented to or know. Maybe you think I am uncaring but very few things in my life piss me off more than that.
There are examples that show a relationship between taxes and the end cost to the consumer.
1. expensive boats, the feds put on an excise tax to "tax the rich" and the price of boats went up. Sales went down as a result and factory workers ended up losing their jobs and collecting unemployment. I believe the excise tax was removed in part because the additional tax didn't even cover the additional expense. In this case not only did the tax clearly get passed on to the price but the tax destroyed the market.
If you don't like the above example how about the next two. Anyone who lives near a state border probably can understand that taxes are paid by consumers and not companies
2. tobacco, price of smokes are directly related to the amount of state tax on them.
3. Gas, prices are directly related to the state tax on it.
This one is a little bit more complicated and I am not about to write 50 pages so try to wrap your head around this concept.
In Nevada gambling is legal. Its also taxed heavily. the heavy tax REDUCES the market as money that would otherwise go into the industry to create more casinos and more gambling does not go there because of the return on investment AFTER taxes will not be high enough.(I know casinos are going up fast in vegas, but they would be going up even MORE if the high taxes were not the case)
Due to the taxes the industry is smaller and less competition and less giveaways like food, rooms, shows etc.... and that means you have to spend that much more to get x amount back in comps. net effect is its a higher cost to the consumer for what you get. This again shows that the consumer pays ALL the bills
Of course the consumer pays on exicise taxes. It is not a tax on income, it is a tax for anyone who makes the purchase. A guy who makes 10,000 per year who buys cigarettes pays the same amount of tax as a guy who makes 500,000. That is not the point.
If you own a corporation you cannot just raise prices because you paid higher income taxes this year. Maybe your competition lost money and paid none. Maybe you competition is trying to obtain a larger share of the market. Do you honestly believe a company is going to raise its prices even though they know they will lose market share? If they do, you know damn well the profit will be greater than the loss of market share.
Competition sets the market price. Management decides how they are going to deal with the competition. Everyone doesn't get together and say ok, we paid more taxes this year so we have to raise our prices. The market has a say so.
Thanks for the compliment, 1Reason.
That is an outstanding post. I agree with you wholeheartedly. There are no bonus points for excuses in life. 100% total acceptance of responsibility is required to ever get anywhere in this game. Like you said, sure, there are people who are cool drinking Old Milwaukee and playing video games on $35k the rest of their lives living in a crime-ridden neighborhood.....We afford them that lifestyle through our taxes and work ethic.
Hard to elaborate further on what you said because it was so succinct and on point.
Great post. Feeling sorry for people who don't want to help themselves is wasted effort.
Right about the excise tax and thats why I gave an example of the income tax as well(both are still examples of how the consumer pays ALL taxes of the company regardless of the type). The income tax effects the amount of wealth that goes into an industry and that in turn effects the prices to the consumer. your are right that the market dictates the price but your thought process ends there and the economics does not. You have to take it one step further to see how an income tax has a direct relationship to how big the market will be. That is how the tax effects the prices to the consumer. Its an indirect relationship but its there.
Wealth travels to the highest rate of return. If you have two industries/countries/states etc... and both have a return of 5% per year and one has an income tax of 15% and the other 30% its a little easier to see that the end result will be higher prices to the consumer in the 30% category.
If your still having your doubts then do a simple exercise. take it to an extreme. If an industry was taxed at 90%+ of the profits (think WWII) then companies will move out of the industry and you will have less competition and the pricing will go up in relation to the income tax. Its all proportional to the amount of tax. in a nutshell higher tax = less providers = higher prices.
I can't believe I am even discussing this. Yes of course you can tax corporations to an extent where they will go out of business or leave the country. And yes, for a while there will be less compettition. When they go out of business prices drop as they get rid of inventory. When they move to another location with less taxes they come back into the market and lower prices. Wherever money is made there will be competition to take it away. Businessmen are resourceful. They find a way to stay competitive no matter what.
The whole point is when you raise taxes on corporations it is NOT immediately reflected in the consumer price, AND it may NEVER be reflected in the consumer price if the businessman finds other ways to reduce those taxes, or other costs. Taking things to extremes to make a point doesn't make the point because we do not live in extremes.