NationStates Jolt Archive

From CNN.com:

WASHINGTON - More than 60% of U.S. corporations didn't pay any federal taxes for 1996 through 2000, years when the economy boomed and corporate profits soared, Tuesday's Wall Street Journal reported, citing the investigative arm of Congress.

The disclosures from the General Accounting Office are certain to fuel the debate over corporate tax payments in the presidential campaign. Corporate tax receipts have shrunk markedly as a share of overall federal revenue in recent years, and were particularly depressed when the economy soured. By 2003, they had fallen to just 7.4% of overall federal receipts, the lowest rate since 1983, and the second-lowest rate since 1934, federal budget officials say.

The GAO analysis of Internal Revenue Service data comes as tax avoidance by both U.S. and foreign companies also is drawing increased scrutiny from the IRS and Congress. But more so than similar previous reports, the analysis suggests that dodging taxes, both legally and otherwise, has become deeply rooted in U.S. corporate culture. The analysis found that even more foreign-owned companies doing business in the U.S. -- about 70% of them -- reported that they didn't owe any U.S. federal taxes during the late 1990s.

The basic federal corporate-tax rate for big corporations is 35%. But the federal tax code also offers many credits and loopholes that allow many companies to pay far less than that.

Despite the rising rate of tax avoidance among corporations, collections from the federal corporate income tax rose to more than $200 billion in 2000, from $ 171 billion in 1996. But over the next three years they fell each year, reaching $131.8 billion in 2003 -- the lowest annual total since 1993. They are projected to reach $168.7 billion this year.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/06/news/economy/taxes_corporate.dj/index.htm?cnn=yes

think about that the next time you complain about welfare, or medicare, or even the nea draining the tax roles.

This is a good example of the need for an extremely simple tax code. Cut out every loophole. Tax at a flat rate. Impose draconic penalties on offenders.

We need to get tougher on those who dodge taxes period...and its not a Conservative vs Liberal issue

slanderous lies. everybody knows that corporations pay too much in taxes - i have it on the authority of the cato institute.

slanderous lies. everybody knows that corporations pay too much in taxes - i have it on the authority of the cato institute.

:shock: :lol:

We need to cut our corporate taxes (they're at like 35% right now) to a much lower number. We should also increase the penalties for avoiding these taxes. This, IMO, will help the corporations, and make it more benificial on a risk/cost scale to actually pay the taxes than to avoid them.

Ireland did something like this and has had a boom longer and bigger than the rest of the West, IIRC.

so we should reward them because they arent paying taxes? the reason they arent paying taxes is because congress lets these tax holes remain open. and the reason congress allows this is because the people who benifit from them are the ones who finance politicians campaigns. the whole principle of "they arent paying, so we should lower taxes" seems immoral to me.

This is a good example of the need for an extremely simple tax code. Cut out every loophole. Tax at a flat rate. Impose draconic penalties on offenders.

wont help if the politicians who make these draconian penalties are backed by corporations. also, flat taxes affect the was much more than the rich. why? there is a pretty standard cost of living. one needs around $20,000 to cover food, rent, and car payments for a year. this 20,000 is 100% of some peoples incomes and 2% of other's. so a graduated income tax is just a way to adjust for cost of living. the problem is the relationship between those that write the laws and the sources of their power.

We should eliminate all corporate taxes. Shift the burden to voters. The rich vote! The poor vote! The more voters understand the true burden of taxation -- you do know that the Social Security taxes your boss withholds from your paycheck is just part of what is required to be paid into SS for you, right? -- the more likely they will call for lower taxes. ~ Michael.

This is a good example of the need for an extremely simple tax code. Cut out every loophole. Tax at a flat rate. Impose draconic penalties on offenders.

agreed, how much easier and efficient would taxation be if we could fit the tax code onto a 3x5 notecard.

This is a good example of the need for an extremely simple tax code. Cut out every loophole. Tax at a flat rate. Impose draconic penalties on offenders.agreed, how much easier and efficient would taxation be if we could fit the tax code onto a 3x5 notecard.Even a flat tax would be more complicated than could fit on a card for many people. How do you declare all your sources of income? If you have a job, that's one source. If you have an interest-bearing bank account, that's another souce. If you have stocks and bonds (with, that is, no loopholes to make the interest earned tax-free), then you have even more sources of income. If you sold a major piece of property or some such, that's another source of income. ~ Michael.

We should eliminate all corporate taxes. Shift the burden to voters. The rich vote! The poor vote! The more voters understand the true burden of taxation -- you do know that the Social Security taxes your boss withholds from your paycheck is just part of what is required to be paid into SS for you, right? -- the more likely they will call for lower taxes. ~ Michael.

wait, so are you saying people should have to pay more taxes to vote or that we should make income tax higher? i shouldnt have to say why poll taxes arent a good idea, in fact, its unconstitutional.

if you are saying it should result in higher insome tax, maybe that would make sense, as long as you eliminate payroll taxes too, and stopped corporations from using public roads and utilities, and benifiting from other taxpayer money.the second they stop accepting free land and other corporate welfare programs, id be all in favor of lowering corporate taxes.

The U.S. has the 4th highest corporate income tax in the world.

We should eliminate all corporate taxes. Shift the burden to voters. The rich vote! The poor vote! The more voters understand the true burden of taxation -- you do know that the Social Security taxes your boss withholds from your paycheck is just part of what is required to be paid into SS for you, right? -- the more likely they will call for lower taxes. ~ Michael.wait, so are you saying people should have to pay more taxes to vote or that we should make income tax higher? i shouldnt have to say why poll taxes arent a good idea, in fact, its unconstitutional.

if you are saying it should result in higher insome tax, maybe that would make sense, as long as you eliminate payroll taxes too, and stopped corporations from using public roads and utilities, and benifiting from other taxpayer money.the second they stop accepting free land and other corporate welfare programs, id be all in favor of lowering corporate taxes.You the consumer pay all the taxes, Bubba. But by shifting the numbers to the corporations, you don't think you pay the taxes. You think "they" pay the taxes. When you get hired at a Joe Blow job in America, you pay payroll taxes. But what you see written down, withheld from your check, is only half the story. Your boss has to pay more into Social Security. (If you were self-employed, you would pay both the employee half and the employer half.) But if both halves were put on all workers' paychecks, do you think they would put up with that? No! They would be very angry! But since they don't see it, they don't get mad, even after you explain to them how much it costs their bosses in taxes in order to hire them. And even then, you as an employee are not paying your own taxes. The customers are paying the taxes. No customers, no job. ~ Michael.

We need to cut our corporate taxes (they're at like 35% right now) to a much lower number. We should also increase the penalties for avoiding these taxes. This, IMO, will help the corporations, and make it more benificial on a risk/cost scale to actually pay the taxes than to avoid them.

Ireland did something like this and has had a boom longer and bigger than the rest of the West, IIRC.

They don't pay taxes now! How will a cut help them?

Zero from zero = zero.

To my mind, this undercuts the argument that we should give tax breaks because the poor capitalists are suffering from government oppression.

It seems to me more like the rest of us are suffering from the fat cats.

We should eliminate all corporate taxes. Shift the burden to voters. The rich vote! The poor vote! The more voters understand the true burden of taxation -- you do know that the Social Security taxes your boss withholds from your paycheck is just part of what is required to be paid into SS for you, right? -- the more likely they will call for lower taxes. ~ Michael.wait, so are you saying people should have to pay more taxes to vote or that we should make income tax higher? i shouldnt have to say why poll taxes arent a good idea, in fact, its unconstitutional.

if you are saying it should result in higher insome tax, maybe that would make sense, as long as you eliminate payroll taxes too, and stopped corporations from using public roads and utilities, and benifiting from other taxpayer money.the second they stop accepting free land and other corporate welfare programs, id be all in favor of lowering corporate taxes.You the consumer pay all the taxes, Bubba. But by shifting the numbers to the corporations, you don't think you pay the taxes. You think "they" pay the taxes. When you get hired at a Joe Blow job in America, you pay payroll taxes. But what you see written down, withheld from your check, is only half the story. Your boss has to pay more into Social Security. (If you were self-employed, you would pay both the employee half and the employer half.) But if both halves were put on all workers' paychecks, do you think they would put up with that? No! They would be very angry! But since they don't see it, they don't get mad, even after you explain to them how much it costs their bosses in taxes in order to hire them. And even then, you as an employee are not paying your own taxes. The customers are paying the taxes. No customers, no job. ~ Michael.

well then, the rich shouldnt pay taxes either, since they would just have to increase their prices to increase the money they lose in paying taxes. passing the cost onto the consumer doesnt make sense, because everything is made more expensive by taxes, eventually. also, not all corporations make consumer products, most do business to business stuff. besides, this isnt just about social security, its about paying for corporate police and other things that are around only for corporations.

Flat rates are evil. However, you need to watch out that you don't tax any one group too much unless you're going to provide for them. I think that a high-end-steeper progressive tax is needed, and some enforcers with the balls to actually make the big shots pay up.

A flat tax rate is progressive. The more you earn, the more you pay. Duh. ~ Michael.

IS a power house economy any good???

Don't forget that with a flat tax rate that you're taxing everyone at that same rate. This includes people who currently don't pay taxes.

A flat tax rate is progressive. The more you earn, the more you pay. Duh. ~ Michael.

but a flat tax is basiically graduated income tax in reverse, since such a large portion of the poor's income goes to cost of living, which is the same for everybody

IS a power house economy any good???If you supply the power or live in the house, sure! ~ Michael.

Don't forget that with a flat tax rate that you're taxing everyone at that same rate. This includes people who currently don't pay taxes.

in general, the people who dont pay income tax now are those who spend all their money just on making ends meet (those below poverty line) or are really good at using all the loopholes or live in idaho with twenty hound dogs and crates of ak47's

A flat tax rate is progressive. The more you earn, the more you pay. Duh. ~ Michael.but a flat tax is basiically graduated income tax in reverse, since such a large portion of the poor's income goes to cost of living, which is the same for everybodyI am sick of hearing about the cost of living. Most rich people only own but so much stuff. Not all of them buy multiple cars, boats, gigantic houses stuffed with furniture and all that. In fact, many people you think are rich are maxing out lines of credit. They don't actually own must of their stuff, dead to rights, paid off, paid up. Many rich people keep their money tied up in stocks and bonds, which are investments that actually create jobs. No investment, no jobs. There is more to the rich vs. poor tax equation than just the cost of living. If you base it all on cost of living, then you live in a slave society. We already do, by the way. You cannot in most places in America buy enough land so you can live off the land. You have to pay property taxes. If you just grew your own food on your own land and tried to mind your own busines, no driving on the roads or anything else, you'd still need a job or some way to make money...to pay off your property taxes. ~ Michael.

A flat tax rate is progressive. The more you earn, the more you pay. Duh. ~ Michael.but a flat tax is basiically graduated income tax in reverse, since such a large portion of the poor's income goes to cost of living, which is the same for everybodyI am sick of hearing about the cost of living. Most rich people only own but so much stuff. Not all of them buy multiple cars, boats, gigantic houses stuffed with furniture and all that. In fact, many people you think are rich are maxing out lines of credit. They don't actually own must of their stuff, dead to rights, paid off, paid up. Many rich people keep their money tied up in stocks and bonds, which are investments that actually create jobs. No investment, no jobs. There is more to the rich vs. poor tax equation than just the cost of living. If you base it all on cost of living, then you live in a slave society. We already do, by the way. You cannot in most places in America buy enough land so you can live off the land. You have to pay property taxes. If you just grew your own food on your own land and tried to mind your own busines, no driving on the roads or anything else, you'd still need a job or some way to make money...to pay off your property taxes. ~ Michael. so rich people have lots of disposable income that they can use to make more disposable income and that some how makes up for for the difference in the cost of living? it must be so hard on the rich, *having* to invest in the stock market to keep ameica going. breaks my heart, really.

so rich people have lots of disposable income that they can use to make more disposable income and that some how makes up for for the difference in the cost of living? it must be so hard on the rich, *having* to invest in the stock market to keep ameica going. breaks my heart, really.Well, what's the alternative? You'd have to keep all the money in paper bills inside a bank vault if you didn't invest it. ~ Michael.

Besides, only one entity could make something that operates worse than Windows 95: the federal government. That's why I'd rather give tax cuts to the rich than subsidies to the poor. ~ Michael.

so rich people have lots of disposable income that they can use to make more disposable income and that some how makes up for for the difference in the cost of living? it must be so hard on the rich, *having* to invest in the stock market to keep ameica going. breaks my heart, really.Well, what's the alternative? You'd have to keep all the money in paper bills inside a bank vault if you didn't invest it. ~ Michael.

wait, i dont want to put words in your mouth, but are you saying the rich have so much money that they dont have anything to do with it other than invest it? im saying your argument that the rich have it rough because they invest isnt a good one. you can choose how much you invest, you cant choose how much you spend on the cost of living.

Besides, only one entity could make something that operates worse than Windows 95: the federal government. That's why I'd rather give tax cuts to the rich than subsidies to the poor. ~ Michael.

not really sure what that means, but subsidies to the poor stop the gap between rich and poor from widening. if you want everybody to live up to their potential and have a truly fluid society, you need to have safeguards in place to make sure there isnt a destitute, starving working class. bad, bad things happen when that is the case.

so rich people have lots of disposable income that they can use to make more disposable income and that some how makes up for for the difference in the cost of living? it must be so hard on the rich, *having* to invest in the stock market to keep ameica going. breaks my heart, really.Well, what's the alternative? You'd have to keep all the money in paper bills inside a bank vault if you didn't invest it. ~ Michael.wait, i dont want to put words in your mouth, but are you saying the rich have so much money that they dont have anything to do with it other than invest it? im saying your argument that the rich have it rough because they invest isnt a good one. you can choose how much you invest, you cant choose how much you spend on the cost of living.Oh, no, I'm not saying the rich have it rough. But if you think they're out burning money like mad on consumer goods...yes, they are, but only to an extent. I don't think there are as many people out there as some think who are piling up more and more purchased goods, just frivolously buying things because they can. Let's be honest. People want to jack up taxes on the rich because they see rich people, or people they think are rich, driving around in fancy cars, wearing fancy clothes, living in fancy houses. But, I mean, what happens once you get the house, the clothes, and the car? What are you going to do, buy another house? At some point, even the filthy rich generally stop buying things. A few don't, especially among musicians and other celebrities. But most rich, in my opinion, just don't go out and buy, buy, buy, buy, buy, like they have nothing else to do with their money. They save it and invest it and give it either to their kids or to charity in the end. I mean, if I ever get rich, what in the world am I going to buy? A nice house on some land, a nice car, and decent clothes. But beyond that...? Not much. ~ Michael.

But most rich, in my opinion, just don't go out and buy, buy, buy, buy, buy, like they have nothing else to do with their money. They save it and invest it and give it either to their kids or to charity in the end. I mean, if I ever get rich, what in the world am I going to buy? A nice house on some land, a nice car, and decent clothes. But beyond that...? Not much. ~ Michael.

Economics tries to answer one fundamental question: how to satisfy unlimited demand with limited resources.

Believe me, when you become rich, you will have unlimited demand.

A flat tax rate would solve confusion, but would it mean that certain cities such as New York would lose out on investment, or be forced to raise taxes. Would it be a flat rate for each state.

This may interest you: -

http://www.compuserve.co.uk/data/USAlmanacData/37/A0002737.stm

so rich people have lots of disposable income that they can use to make more disposable income and that some how makes up for for the difference in the cost of living? it must be so hard on the rich, *having* to invest in the stock market to keep ameica going. breaks my heart, really.Well, what's the alternative? You'd have to keep all the money in paper bills inside a bank vault if you didn't invest it. ~ Michael.wait, i dont want to put words in your mouth, but are you saying the rich have so much money that they dont have anything to do with it other than invest it? im saying your argument that the rich have it rough because they invest isnt a good one. you can choose how much you invest, you cant choose how much you spend on the cost of living.Oh, no, I'm not saying the rich have it rough. But if you think they're out burning money like mad on consumer goods...yes, they are, but only to an extent. I don't think there are as many people out there as some think who are piling up more and more purchased goods, just frivolously buying things because they can. Let's be honest. People want to jack up taxes on the rich because they see rich people, or people they think are rich, driving around in fancy cars, wearing fancy clothes, living in fancy houses. But, I mean, what happens once you get the house, the clothes, and the car? What are you going to do, buy another house? At some point, even the filthy rich generally stop buying things. A few don't, especially among musicians and other celebrities. But most rich, in my opinion, just don't go out and buy, buy, buy, buy, buy, like they have nothing else to do with their money. They save it and invest it and give it either to their kids or to charity in the end. I mean, if I ever get rich, what in the world am I going to buy? A nice house on some land, a nice car, and decent clothes. But beyond that...? Not much. ~ Michael.

okay, so they dont buy things, it still doesnt mean they dont have more disposable income than poor people. i think id be fine with a flat tax if it were assesed on disposable income. im just saying, a straight up flat tax doesnt work because you end up affecting the poor more than the rich

I want the rich to create more jobs. The government cannot create jobs unless it pays for them with tax money. The rich invest the money that will make the jobs. ~ Michael.

A flat tax rate is progressive. The more you earn, the more you pay. Duh. ~ Michael.Actually, that is not true. A progressive tax is one that takes a higher percentage of total income the more money the paying party has. A flat tax (officially known as a proportional tax) takes the same percentage of total income from everyone, regardless of thier income level. A regressive tax places higher rates on lower incomes.

I want the rich to create more jobs. The government cannot create jobs unless it pays for them with tax money. The rich invest the money that will make the jobs. ~ Michael.

oh, the invisible hand theory. whats stopping the rich from investing in chinese companese and creating chinese jobs? at least through taxes you know the us will try to make us jobs. id rather know that the money is going to make the us economy strong

How about a page from my Economics notes?

There are a few ways to solve income inequality:
- Taxing:
1. Regressive tax: flat-rate tax; as income increases, tax rate decreases; most of the burden lies on the poor.
2. Proportionate tax: as income increases, tax rate increases proportionately; burden lies on the poor.
3. Progressive tax: as income increases, tax rate increases; burden lies on the rich, but over-progressive tax destroys incentive.

If we are to have an equal income tax, then we need a flat tax on all income, even if you only make one dollar in one year's time. What would happen if politicians eliminated taxes for everyone earning less than, say, $200,000 a year? It is not inconceivable. Then those who want to tax the rich will have the perfect mantra: All tax cuts after that will be tax cuts for the rich because only the rich are paying taxes. I believe this has a chance of happening in America. If a sizeable portion of lower-income taxes are eliminated, then there will never be any tax cuts for the rich in the future. This may seem sustainable in the short run, but you and I know that the little guy will want to tax the rich more and more and more, until the upper marginal rates are ninety to one hundred percent. (The upper tax rate for the rich used to be ninety percent, by the way.) ~ Michael.

1. Regressive tax: flat-rate tax; as income increases, tax rate decreases; most of the burden lies on the poor.This is a total lie. If you pay a flat rate of 10%, and you earn $5,000, you will pay $500. If you earn $500,000, you will pay $50,000. The tax rate does not decrease. ~ Michael.

If we are to have an equal income tax, then we need a flat tax on all income, even if you only make one dollar in one year's time. What would happen if politicians eliminated taxes for everyone earning less than, say, $200,000 a year? It is not inconceivable. Then those who want to tax the rich will have the perfect mantra: All tax cuts after that will be tax cuts for the rich because only the rich are paying taxes. I believe this has a chance of happening in America. If a sizeable portion of lower-income taxes are eliminated, then there will never be any tax cuts for the rich in the future. This may seem sustainable in the short run, but you and I know that the little guy will want to tax the rich more and more and more, until the upper marginal rates are ninety to one hundred percent. (The upper tax rate for the rich used to be ninety percent, by the way.) ~ Michael.

first of all, i agree that after adjusting income levels for cost of lving, flat tax makes sense. secondly, if you make the burden of the taxes fall too much on the rich, it destroys incentive, like Dragon Bay said. secondly, everybody wants to have the possibility of getting rich, so nobody's ever going to make a 100% tax rate on the rich.

if you are so worried about the rich shouldering the load, why arent you in favor of holding corporations a little more accountable so they can take some of the tax load off of the rich people?

1. Regressive tax: flat-rate tax; as income increases, tax rate decreases; most of the burden lies on the poor.This is a total lie. If you pay a flat rate of 10%, and you earn $5,000, you will pay $500. If you earn $500,000, you will pay $50,000. The tax rate does not decrease. ~ Michael.

thats the definition of regressive tax. 20% tax on lower incomes, 10% on higher, for example...

1. Regressive tax: flat-rate tax; as income increases, tax rate decreases; most of the burden lies on the poor.This is a total lie. If you pay a flat rate of 10%, and you earn $5,000, you will pay $500. If you earn $500,000, you will pay $50,000. The tax rate does not decrease. ~ Michael.

A regressive tax is like a fixed fine you pay for spitting on the streets. In Hong Kong the fixed fine is $1500.

For a person earning $5000 a month, the rate is 30%.

For a person earning $50000 a month, the rate is 3%

Jesus Christ people, you don't even know what you're talking about! In regards to income tax, the real definitions follow:
Progressive tax: The more you earn, the higher a percentage you pay in tax.
Proportional (flat) tax: All income levels pay the same percentage in tax.
Regressive tax: The more you earn, the lower a percentage you pay in tax.

I don't have anything against rich people, it astounds me that some do. Sure we all feel a bit of a pang of envy when you realize you can barely afford something and a guy living on his own private island ten miles away can FLY to work instead of driving his beat up old car there. But life isn't fair; it would really suck if it did (can you imagine deserving all the crappy stuff that happened to you?).

My point is this, we tax coorperations for a reason; because we fund them with tax dollars; the roads they ship products on, the standards we hold their suppliers to, the air they breathe is all affected by the government. They can certainly pay the gov for all its done for them right?

Governments tax things, if a company wants to do business here they can darn well pay taxes like the rest of us. This loophole nonsense gives them an advantage that will lead to "market distortion", market distortions lead to market corrections, which are painful to all concerned.

first of all, i agree that after adjusting income levels for cost of lving, flat tax makes sense. secondly, if you make the burden of the taxes fall too much on the rich, it destroys incentive, like Dragon Bay said. secondly, everybody wants to have the possibility of getting rich, so nobody's ever going to make a 100% tax rate on the rich.

if you are so worried about the rich shouldering the load, why arent you in favor of holding corporations a little more accountable so they can take some of the tax load off of the rich people?One of my original points is that corporations should pay no taxes. When the corporation pays the tax, fewer people know the tax is there. So fewer people will complain about how the tax affects them. For example, take the gas tax. It is illegal for a gas station to advertise its gas at its pretax rate. Why? For one, it is confusing to advertise gas at a subtotal of $1.18 per gallon and then ring it up as a total of $1.58 per gallon. People understand sales taxes because the tax rates are low. But gas tax rates are not low, so the public would get very angry if they were confronted every time they filled up with how much they were paying in gas taxes.

It's the same principle with corporate taxes. It's just moving a tax to an entity with fewer people looking at the tax. If consumers knew how much taxes really affected the prices of the goods and services they purchased, they would revolt. ~ Michael.

Why do so many of the poor want to punish the rich for being rich? I'm poor, and I'd rather have both of us be rich, by working hard and having a strong economy.

As for corporate taxes, I think corporations should just pay income tax, because they are registered as persons. Mr. or Ms. Microsoft should be paying the same income taxes as I do, with the same penalties if they dodge their taxes as I recieve. Except maybe jail, because it'd be tough to make them fit.

first of all, i agree that after adjusting income levels for cost of lving, flat tax makes sense. secondly, if you make the burden of the taxes fall too much on the rich, it destroys incentive, like Dragon Bay said. secondly, everybody wants to have the possibility of getting rich, so nobody's ever going to make a 100% tax rate on the rich.

if you are so worried about the rich shouldering the load, why arent you in favor of holding corporations a little more accountable so they can take some of the tax load off of the rich people?One of my original points is that corporations should pay no taxes. When the corporation pays the tax, fewer people know the tax is there. So fewer people will complain about how the tax affects them. For example, take the gas tax. It is illegal for a gas station to advertise its gas at its pretax rate. Why? For one, it is confusing to advertise gas at a subtotal of $1.18 per gallon and then ring it up as a total of $1.58 per gallon. People understand sales taxes because the tax rates are low. But gas tax rates are not low, so the public would get very angry if they were confronted every time they filled up with how much they were paying in gas taxes.

It's the same principle with corporate taxes. It's just moving a tax to an entity with fewer people looking at the tax. If consumers knew how much taxes really affected the prices of the goods and services they purchased, they would revolt. ~ Michael.

and if they stopped getting the services paid for by the taxes, they would also revolt

Another page on my Econ notes:

- Limiting Monopolies:
When monopolies do more harm to society than good, it is important that the government employs techniques to limit their growth.
1. Taxation: profit taxes are imposed to remove supernormal profits. However, it does not address the misallocation of resources
2. Subsidies: this will push the supply curve (MC above the shutdown point) to the left. This should be used in conjunction with a profit tax.

Why do so many of the poor want to punish the rich for being rich? I'm poor, and I'd rather have both of us be rich, by working hard and having a strong economy.

the problem is the rich are designing an economy in which they keep getting richer and the poor get poorer. its what happened in 1800's america, when there were boatloads of wage slaves. there can be a booming economy, but if it only benefits a select few, why should you care?

As for corporate taxes, I think corporations should just pay income tax, because they are registered as persons. Mr. or Ms. Microsoft should be paying the same income taxes as I do, with the same penalties if they dodge their taxes as I recieve. Except maybe jail, because it'd be tough to make them fit. well, if you mean they should be taxed based on their income, they already are. if you mean they should be treated as people....wtf?

The conundrum of corporate taxes, and why they are dangerous, can be explained thus:

Remember when the debate happened over taxing dividends? The federal government eliminated taxes on dividends...for personal investors. Corporate dividend taxes were kept in place. In my opinion, this was a purely political move! Why? There are more voters who receive dividends than there are corporations that receive dividends. So if you eliminate taxes on the voters, they will quit complaining as much about being affected by taxes. Taxes on corporate dividends will still affect their personal dividends because the corporations have to pay these corporate dividend taxes before they give out personal dividends on profits! Furthermore, because there are fewer people who will complain about the taxes, politicians will have an easier time raising corporate dividend taxes. Many investors will look at these tax increases and think it affects just the corporations, not them. No, it affects them, too.

Do you see how confusing this is? This is how the shell game is played, so politicians can milk the most taxes out of society with the fewest complaints. All taxes eventually affect you the consumer. The cost of the tax gets into the prices of the goods you buy, the price of the services you order, and so forth. This is why in my home state of Virginia, politicians have raised fees on different kinds of licenses while fighting over whether to raise income and sales taxes. Raising fees is noticed by fewer people. Raising income and sales taxes is noticed by most everyone. ~ Michael.

The conundrum of corporate taxes, and why they are dangerous, can be explained thus:

Remember when the debate happened over taxing dividends? The federal government eliminated taxes on dividends...for personal investors. Corporate dividend taxes were kept in place. In my opinion, this was a purely political move! Why? There are more voters who receive dividends than there are corporations that receive dividends. So if you eliminate taxes on the voters, they will quit complaining as much about being affected by taxes. Taxes on corporate dividends will still affect their personal dividends because the corporations have to pay these corporate dividend taxes before they give out personal dividends on profits! Furthermore, because there are fewer people who will complain about the taxes, politicians will have an easier time raising corporate dividend taxes. Many investors will look at these tax increases and think it affects just the corporations, not them. No, it affects them, too.

Do you see how confusing this is? This is how the shell game is played, so politicians can milk the most taxes out of society with the fewest complaints. All taxes eventually affect you the consumer. The cost of the tax gets into the prices of the goods you buy, the price of the services you order, and so forth. This is why in my home state of Virginia, politicians have raised fees on different kinds of licenses while fighting over whether to raise income and sales taxes. Raising fees is noticed by fewer people. Raising income and sales taxes is noticed by most everyone. ~ Michael.

taxes are extremly concrete, their effects are somewhat intangable. there is a shell game going on, but its the only way people will swallow their taxes. its one of those collective action things, nobody wants to pay taxes, they just want to benifit from them.

Freedomstein is correct Love Poetry. Of course all taxes eventually affect everyone involved. The point is that they also provide numerous benefits and services to the nation at large. They're taking your money for a reason, you know. When you drive on a street, call the police, have the fire department save your house, or need the military to defend you and your fellow citizens from a threat it's your tax dollars at work. It's called "public goods", a term that our resident economics student Dragons Bay is undoubtedly familiar with. Goods paid for by everyone through taxes that benefit everyone (or at least large groups of people). Without taxes every road would be a toll road, you'd have to give your credit card number to the 911 operator, and the military would only defend the corporations that were financing it. Taxes are necessary, like it or not. A pure capitalist society isn't much fun for anyone who's not at the top of the ladder.

taxes are extremly concrete, their effects are somewhat intangable. there is a shell game going on, but its the only way people will swallow their taxes. its one of those collective action things, nobody wants to pay taxes, they just want to benifit from them.I support measures which make tax effects seem more tangible to more voters. That's why I want to eliminate corporate taxes. It's not an effort to enrich the rich even further. No, I don't care if the amount of taxes collected remains the same (at first) just as long as the most voters see the taxes being collected directly from them, if you know what I mean. ~ Michael.

taxes are extremly concrete, their effects are somewhat intangable. there is a shell game going on, but its the only way people will swallow their taxes. its one of those collective action things, nobody wants to pay taxes, they just want to benifit from them.I support measures which make tax effects seem more tangible to more voters. That's why I want to eliminate corporate taxes. It's not an effort to enrich the rich even further. No, I don't care if the amount of taxes collected remains the same (at first) just as long as the most voters see the taxes being collected directly from them, if you know what I mean. ~ Michael.

and im saying its easier to show what you are paying than what you are recieving

Our taxes are wasted on too many unnecessary expenditures. In my local area, the city is demolishing a mall built when I was a child. It was built at great taxpayer expense and flopped. A new convention center was built at great taxpayer expense, and it is flopping. The city is considering blowing even more taxes for a performing arts center, which will probably also flop big time, and to relocate our decaying baseball stadium into a prosperous downtown area, demolishing established businesses and making a traffic and parking headache. Another flop. So many city council members have gone to jail...one was just convicted. The state capitol is spending even more millions blowing a hole into the side of Capitol Hill to make another entrance for the capitol...and this in the middle of a state budget crisis.

And that's just local expenditures! When will the madness end? :roll: ~ Michael.

It's called "public goods", a term that our resident economics student Dragons Bay is undoubtedly familiar with.

:oops: I have three Economics essays due for Wednesday. What can I do?

Here, another page off my notes:

Public goods are goods which is non-rivalrous (paying consumer cannot stop others using it) and non-exclusive (cannot exclude others). Due to the fact that consumers have no incentive to pay, producers are not willing to provide it. Many public goods, like lighthouses, are paid for by the government or charitable funds.

Agreed, taxes are important.

Our taxes are wasted on too many unnecessary expenditures. In my local area, the city is demolishing a mall built when I was a child. It was built at great taxpayer expense and flopped. A new convention center was built at great taxpayer expense, and it is flopping. The city is considering blowing even more taxes for a performing arts center, which will probably also flop big time, and to relocate our decaying baseball stadium into a prosperous downtown area, demolishing established businesses and making a traffic and parking headache. Another flop. So many city council members have gone to jail...one was just convicted. The state capitol is spending even more millions blowing a hole into the side of Capitol Hill to make another entrance for the capitol...and this in the middle of a state budget crisis.

And that's just local expenditures! When will the madness end? :roll: ~ Michael.

and rich people also make really bad business descisions too, just look at the people who run abc. at least the government pumped money back into the local economy, and you can hold the government accountable for their waste. you cant do that with private business.

edit.

Our taxes are wasted on too many unnecessary expenditures. In my local area, the city is demolishing a mall built when I was a child. It was built at great taxpayer expense and flopped. A new convention center was built at great taxpayer expense, and it is flopping. The city is considering blowing even more taxes for a performing arts center, which will probably also flop big time, and to relocate our decaying baseball stadium into a prosperous downtown area, demolishing established businesses and making a traffic and parking headache. Another flop. So many city council members have gone to jail...one was just convicted. The state capitol is spending even more millions blowing a hole into the side of Capitol Hill to make another entrance for the capitol...and this in the middle of a state budget crisis.

And that's just local expenditures! When will the madness end? :roll: ~ Michael.
Taxes are vital, agreed. But how they spend our taxes is something we have to protest.

Down here, the government built some nice blocks of public housing a few years back. But the price of housing plummeted in the recent years. Nobody wanted the public apartments, still brand new, so the government sold the land for a cut-throat price to the richest conglomerate around. The brand new apartments are going to be demolished.

WHAT A WASTE!

Agreed. The public needs more say on where tax money goes.

Our taxes are wasted on too many unnecessary expenditures. In my local area, the city is demolishing a mall built when I was a child. It was built at great taxpayer expense and flopped. A new convention center was built at great taxpayer expense, and it is flopping. The city is considering blowing even more taxes for a performing arts center, which will probably also flop big time, and to relocate our decaying baseball stadium into a prosperous downtown area, demolishing established businesses and making a traffic and parking headache. Another flop. So many city council members have gone to jail...one was just convicted. The state capitol is spending even more millions blowing a hole into the side of Capitol Hill to make another entrance for the capitol...and this in the middle of a state budget crisis.

And that's just local expenditures! When will the madness end? :roll: ~ Michael.and rich people also make really bad business descisions too, just look at the people who run abc. at least the government pumped money back into the local economy, and you can hold the government accountable for their waste. you cant do that with private business.The government pumps money back into the economy by draining it out of the economy through property and meals taxes. I also am suspect of local businesspeople who are calling for higher taxes. I think I know why they want higher taxes on shmoes like me: They get the sweetheart contracts from the government. So my higher taxes go in their pockets. ~ Michael.

Our taxes are wasted on too many unnecessary expenditures. In my local area, the city is demolishing a mall built when I was a child. It was built at great taxpayer expense and flopped. A new convention center was built at great taxpayer expense, and it is flopping. The city is considering blowing even more taxes for a performing arts center, which will probably also flop big time, and to relocate our decaying baseball stadium into a prosperous downtown area, demolishing established businesses and making a traffic and parking headache. Another flop. So many city council members have gone to jail...one was just convicted. The state capitol is spending even more millions blowing a hole into the side of Capitol Hill to make another entrance for the capitol...and this in the middle of a state budget crisis.

And that's just local expenditures! When will the madness end? :roll: ~ Michael.Taxes are vital, agreed. But how they spend our taxes is something we have to protest. Down here, the government built some nice blocks of public housing a few years back. But the price of housing plummeted in the recent years. Nobody wanted the public apartments, still brand new, so the government sold the land for a cut-throat price to the richest conglomerate around. The brand new apartments are going to be demolished. WHAT A WASTE!No, no...according to some in this debate, that new apartment block created jobs for the demolition crews. :lol: ~ Michael.

No, no...according to some in this debate, that new apartment block created jobs for the demolition crews. :lol: ~ Michael.

Right....and the waste of resources? Building materials? Electricity? Water?

I believe the social costs of demolishing the buildings would be higher than if keeping it and renting it out as hotel rooms.

No, no...according to some in this debate, that new apartment block created jobs for the demolition crews. :lol: ~ Michael.Right....and the waste of resources? Building materials? Electricity? Water? I believe the social costs of demolishing the buildings would be higher than if keeping it and renting it out as hotel rooms.The building materials created jobs for brick and mortar manufacturers, for masons; the electricity created jobs for the power company and electricians; the water created jobs for the water treatment plant and plumbers. That's the kind of jobs government creates. I complained to a friend once that the city had said tolls on certain roads in the city were going to be eliminated at such-and-such date, but were not. The tolls are still there, years later. She actually said to me that the tollbooth attendants, whose jobs relied on the tolls, would disagree with me about the benefit of the tolls. What? I'm supposed to pay tolls just so a handful of tollbooth attendants can have jobs??? But strangely enough, that's how some people think. ~ Michael.

No, no...according to some in this debate, that new apartment block created jobs for the demolition crews. :lol: ~ Michael.Right....and the waste of resources? Building materials? Electricity? Water? I believe the social costs of demolishing the buildings would be higher than if keeping it and renting it out as hotel rooms.The building materials created jobs for brick and mortar manufacturers, for masons; the electricity created jobs for the power company and electricians; the water created jobs for the water treatment plant and plumbers. That's the kind of jobs government creates. I complained to a friend once that the city had said tolls on certain roads in the city were going to be eliminated at such-and-such date, but were not. The tolls are still there, years later. She actually said to me that the tollbooth attendants, whose jobs relied on the tolls, would disagree with me about the benefit of the tolls. What? I'm supposed to pay tolls just so a handful of tollbooth attendants can have jobs??? But strangely enough, that's how some people think. ~ Michael.

no, michael, you should pay tolls because you use the road and want it mainained, if it wasnt for the tolls, the cost of maintaining the road would come out in gasoline taxes or income taxes. in fact, this is a more direct way to tax, since why should people not using the road have to pay for its maintinence? and im not saying the government isnt wastefull or that the government creating jobs is a silver bullet, im just saying that one way the government makes sure that wealth doesnt accumilate in the hands of too few is by creating government jobs from money levied by taxes. but dont worry, the people who get those jobs instead of being unemployed can use their money to buy things, and stimulate the economy. its just as important to have a sound base of consumers as it is to have a class of investors.

No, no...according to some in this debate, that new apartment block created jobs for the demolition crews. :lol: ~ Michael.Right....and the waste of resources? Building materials? Electricity? Water? I believe the social costs of demolishing the buildings would be higher than if keeping it and renting it out as hotel rooms.The building materials created jobs for brick and mortar manufacturers, for masons; the electricity created jobs for the power company and electricians; the water created jobs for the water treatment plant and plumbers. That's the kind of jobs government creates. I complained to a friend once that the city had said tolls on certain roads in the city were going to be eliminated at such-and-such date, but were not. The tolls are still there, years later. She actually said to me that the tollbooth attendants, whose jobs relied on the tolls, would disagree with me about the benefit of the tolls. What? I'm supposed to pay tolls just so a handful of tollbooth attendants can have jobs??? But strangely enough, that's how some people think. ~ Michael.no, michael, you should pay tolls because you use the road and want it mainained, if it wasnt for the tolls, the cost of maintaining the road would come out in gasoline taxes or income taxes. in fact, this is a more direct way to tax, since why should people not using the road have to pay for its maintinence? and im not saying the government isnt wastefull or that the government creating jobs is a silver bullet, im just saying that one way the government makes sure that wealth doesnt accumilate in the hands of too few is by creating government jobs from money levied by taxes. but dont worry, the people who get those jobs instead of being unemployed can use their money to buy things, and stimulate the economy. its just as important to have a sound base of consumers as it is to have a class of investors.I would rather have gasoline taxes than tolls. The less you drive, the less you pay in taxes. But all gas taxes should go to building and repairing roads and bridges. Too often, portions of it are dumped into the general funds of states, so it can be used for anything. (This is one reason Social Security is in such a mess. The government has been raiding surpluses every year to pay for other things.) Tollbooths slow down traffic, even if you have an automated system, unless the entire highway is wired. And invisible toll collectors suspended above the highways would lead to abusive fines if your toll account is not replenished with money. And so on. I am not against gas taxes, of course. I just want them reserved for roads and such, and I want the electorate to know what percentage of gas prices consists of taxes.

By the way, those on the left who would love higher gas prices only want higher gas prices if the prices are raised with taxes. They do not want higher prices to result in higher profits for oil companies and OPEC. Just remember that the next time you get into a debate about high gas prices. ~ Michael.

Tolls are a straight user fee, very fair.

Don't want to pay? Drive somewhere else.

No, no...according to some in this debate, that new apartment block created jobs for the demolition crews. :lol: ~ Michael.Right....and the waste of resources? Building materials? Electricity? Water? I believe the social costs of demolishing the buildings would be higher than if keeping it and renting it out as hotel rooms.The building materials created jobs for brick and mortar manufacturers, for masons; the electricity created jobs for the power company and electricians; the water created jobs for the water treatment plant and plumbers. That's the kind of jobs government creates.

This is an utter waste of resources, plus an ultra short-term solution to unemployment. Moreover, it adds much more rubbish to the near capacity landfills, and the deficit government loses money to big, rich, earning corporations. These long term, more serious social costs overrule short term private benefits.

That's because all those corporations were busy swindling their employees out of retirement monies... remember Enron, anyone?

No, no...according to some in this debate, that new apartment block created jobs for the demolition crews. :lol: ~ Michael.Right....and the waste of resources? Building materials? Electricity? Water? I believe the social costs of demolishing the buildings would be higher than if keeping it and renting it out as hotel rooms.The building materials created jobs for brick and mortar manufacturers, for masons; the electricity created jobs for the power company and electricians; the water created jobs for the water treatment plant and plumbers. That's the kind of jobs government creates. I complained to a friend once that the city had said tolls on certain roads in the city were going to be eliminated at such-and-such date, but were not. The tolls are still there, years later. She actually said to me that the tollbooth attendants, whose jobs relied on the tolls, would disagree with me about the benefit of the tolls. What? I'm supposed to pay tolls just so a handful of tollbooth attendants can have jobs??? But strangely enough, that's how some people think. ~ Michael.no, michael, you should pay tolls because you use the road and want it mainained, if it wasnt for the tolls, the cost of maintaining the road would come out in gasoline taxes or income taxes. in fact, this is a more direct way to tax, since why should people not using the road have to pay for its maintinence? and im not saying the government isnt wastefull or that the government creating jobs is a silver bullet, im just saying that one way the government makes sure that wealth doesnt accumilate in the hands of too few is by creating government jobs from money levied by taxes. but dont worry, the people who get those jobs instead of being unemployed can use their money to buy things, and stimulate the economy. its just as important to have a sound base of consumers as it is to have a class of investors.I would rather have gasoline taxes than tolls. The less you drive, the less you pay in taxes. But all gas taxes should go to building and repairing roads and bridges. Too often, portions of it are dumped into the general funds of states, so it can be used for anything. (This is one reason Social Security is in such a mess. The government has been raiding surpluses every year to pay for other things.) Tollbooths slow down traffic, even if you have an automated system, unless the entire highway is wired. And invisible toll collectors suspended above the highways would lead to abusive fines if your toll account is not replenished with money. And so on. I am not against gas taxes, of course. I just want them reserved for roads and such, and I want the electorate to know what percentage of gas prices consists of taxes.

By the way, those on the left who would love higher gas prices only want higher gas prices if the prices are raised with taxes. They do not want higher prices to result in higher profits for oil companies and OPEC. Just remember that the next time you get into a debate about high gas prices. ~ Michael.
well now your just getting into a debate about the practicallity of tolls, when it started you were against tolls because they were higher taxes and the government said they were going to go away and didnt. by paying tolls, you see exactly how much you are paying for the upkeep of roads, and is that really such a bad thing? i knwo, i know, not all toll money goes to roads, but its a pretty good indicator.

and of course the people on the left (id assume you mean environmentalist, because id want gas at a penny a gallon if it could be) dont want opec to profit from higher gas prices. they want that mmoney to go towards paying for the impact gasoline makes on society, such as higher pollution, worse public health, congestion of roads, etc. more money to oil cos or opesc just exarbates the problem.

The U.S. has the 4th highest corporate income tax in the world.

True... on paper. however if 60% of them don't actually pay it.. how high do you rank then?