NationStates Jolt Archive

Should they be abolished? All they do is make products more expensive and workers get paid less. The people who lose out because of corporate taxes are the people who work at those corporations and the consumer.

Raise them to 99%.

Raise them to 99%.

So that workers will be paid less and the price of a product will increase, ultimately hurting the poor who cannot afford that product?

Nice, unbiased poll.

So that workers will be paid less and the price of a product will increase, ultimately hurting the poor who cannot afford that product?Beacuse I'm a passionate anti-humanist.

Nice, unbiased poll.

If you do increase them, the poor are going to suffer. Maybe a bit biased, but raising them would be insane (or very cruel).

do you have any statistics to back up your claim that the poor are best served by corporate tax cuts and not social welfare programs...
if you do i would like to see them, but it seems your arguement is based upon rather poor logic.

do you have any statistics to back up your claim that the poor are best served by corporate tax cuts and not social welfare programs...
if you do i would like to see them, but it seems your arguement is based upon rather poor logic.

My proof is common sense. When a corporation has less money to spend because of taxes, they are going to take the money away from employee wages and increase the cost of their products. If they increase the cost of their products, that hurts American consumption (mostly among the poor who cannot afford it) and decreases real wages. They will also decrease the worker's wages, which will hurt them more than a slight drop in welfare.

Your poll, and by extension, your thread, sucks.

Your poll, and by extension, your thread, sucks.

What's wrong with the poll?

What's wrong with the poll?

The options are assininely biased to a degree where you make it impossible to be for corporate tax without, for some reason, being a callous jerk. If you actually cared about other people's opinions, you wouldn't have made such a slanted poll. As it is, it's insulting.

Corporate Taxes where? US, Ireland, Germany, Dubai?

Corporate Taxes where? US, Ireland, Germany, Dubai?
Why the only nation in the world, the US. Silly German and in his imaginary land.

To the starter of this thread: clearly you are an advocate of assisting poor individuals. Based on this, I will make the assumption that you support government-sponsored welfare and job-seeking programs for the economically disadvantaged. If this is the case, as I assume, then where do you think the government receives the income to sponsor such programs? Yes...taxes. I don't know what the actual breakdown looks like, but it only makes sense that corporate taxes play a good role in government income and, therefore, the budgets for programs that serve to assist the poor.

They should be simplified and standardized rather than increased or decreased.

Billions of dollars are wasted by companies and many smaller ones have their rate of revenue and employment growth slowed by thousands of pages of bullshit tax laws and accounting codes that do nothing to improve the liquidity or transparency of the system but just waste time and money.

You do realize that wages would probably go up if corporate taxes were higher, right?

That's because corporate taxes only apply to profits and not to revenues. Thus, if profits were outrageously taxed, you'd get a sort of black market where the workers get paid more, but in return, they're expected to give some of that money back.

That's just one scenario, but I can't see a single reason as to why things would get more expensive or workers would be paid less.

The key here is to remember that only profits are taxed, not revenues.

They should be simplified and standardized rather than increased or decreased.

Billions of dollars are wasted by companies and many smaller ones have their rate of revenue and employment growth slowed by thousands of pages of bullshit tax laws and accounting codes that do nothing to improve the liquidity or transparency of the system but just waste time and money.

And I agree, we should try to reduce administration as much as is possible.

And I agree, we should try to reduce administration as much as is possible.

Exactly; Sweden has some of the highest nominal tax rates in the world on corporations, but because the system is so efficient and the benefits of the taxation are so directly applied (i.e. no middlemen and little bureaucracy) the real rate of taxation is one of the lowest in the world.

The US has a real rate higher than Sweden's nominal rate; that's a lot of money wasted on nothing rather than going to services or allowing companies to keep.

I voted for a raise, because I'm in favor of seeing the poor suffer. Filthy maggots, they are.

My proof is common sense.

and once again common sense turns out to be useless.

when corporate taxes were actually paid just so happens to correlate quite nicely to the times when income inequality stayed flat or got smaller.

They should be simplified and standardized rather than increased or decreased.

Billions of dollars are wasted by companies and many smaller ones have their rate of revenue and employment growth slowed by thousands of pages of bullshit tax laws and accounting codes that do nothing to improve the liquidity or transparency of the system but just waste time and money.

on top of that, the whole system of subsidies and official loopholes just needs to be scrapped.

year zero for taxes, i say

I refuse to accept the premises of this poll, so I vote "Other: Expropriate them and take the whole thing."

I refuse to accept the premises of this poll, so I vote "Other: Expropriate them and take the whole thing."

well, not all of it - you probably want some of the wealth that is created to be put back into the project.

well, not all of it - you probably want some of the wealth that is created to be put back into the project.

Of course. We don't disagree, my phrasing just wasn't clear. The collective democratic institutions doing the expropriating would put all of it under their control, and would allocate it for the common good, which would probably include funneling some of the money back into the company.

There are good arguements for decreasing or eliminating corporate taxes. But lowering taxes in the U.S. right now is nutzoid. How much further do you want the U.S. to go into debt? If you wanted to remove the Bush tax cuts for the rich and reduce coporate tax, that might be okay, but straight out lowering taxes is crazy talk.

Also cutting corporate tax is not the only way to increase investment and thus future wealth. Alternatives would be forced savings such as in Australia and Singapore, consumption taxes, jail sentences for rich people who don't invest enough, a wealth tax, etc.

jail sentences for rich people who don't invest enough

If you're going to compel them to invest, why not just seize their wealth instead?

...forced savings such as in Australia...
Which scheme in particular were you thinking of?

If you're going to compel them to invest, why not just seize their wealth instead?

No, no, no! Don't you listen to what gets spouted in certain circles in North America? Rich people create wealth by investing money. They make wealth for the whole economy!!!!!!! So obviously if we jail them if they don't invest enough we'll all get richer. Seizeing their wealth would stop them from investing.

Seizeing their wealth would stop them from investing.

It would stop them from investing. The money seized would be invested by the government.

Which scheme in particular were you thinking of?

There's this thing called superannuation where something like 13% of your salery or wages has to be saved for your retirement.

It would stop them from investing. The money seized would be invested by the government.

No, you see you are missing our on the fun. What you do is, you find someone who goes on and on about how rich people create the wealth in an economy, you agree with him entirely and then with a straight face say how rich people who don't invest enough should be jailed. Your target will either meltdown or explode. Either one is fun to watch.

There's this thing called superannuation where something like 13% of your salery or wages has to be saved for your retirement.
Well the percentages change. But that is little more than any other retirement scheme, except I believe you pay for your own retirement, rather than for the retirees that are around right now.

It's not specifically about investment, while in Singapore, it was. Worked wonders too.

It's not specifically about investment, while in Singapore, it was. Worked wonders too.

I thought most of it went into various types of mutual funds investing in shares and bonds and a lot in the money market with typically something like a vampiric 2.5% or more annual fee.

I thought most of it went into various types of mutual funds investing in shares and bonds and a lot in the money market with typically something like a vampiric 2.5% or more annual fee.
Well, you get your own choice of what sort of establishment you give the money.

But you're right, there is an aspect to it that will increase investment. However, that was not the central intention of the scheme (and if you look at debt in Australia, you'll notice that saving is not exactly a strong point in this country anyways).

You do realize that wages would probably go up if corporate taxes were higher, right?

That's because corporate taxes only apply to profits and not to revenues. Thus, if profits were outrageously taxed, you'd get a sort of black market where the workers get paid more, but in return, they're expected to give some of that money back.

That's just one scenario, but I can't see a single reason as to why things would get more expensive or workers would be paid less.

The key here is to remember that only profits are taxed, not revenues.
Um, depends greatly upon the type of corporation. LLC's get taxed on perceived earnings.

You do realize that wages would probably go up if corporate taxes were higher, right? That's because corporate taxes only apply to profits and not to revenues.

What planet are you on? A corporation wants to maximize its profit (after taxes). If its profits are taxed, then it makes less of a profit. However, it wants to make the biggest profit it can. How is it going to do this? There are two ways -- cutting employee salaries and increasing the price of its products. Both of these are detrimental to our society, contrary to the interests of growth and competition, and disadvantageous to the workers.

Um, depends greatly upon the type of corporation. LLC's get taxed on perceived earnings.

And still, it is only their profits and not their revenues that are taxed.

What planet are you on? A corporation wants to maximize its profit (after taxes). If its profits are taxed, then it makes less of a profit. However, it wants to make the biggest profit it can. How is it going to do this? There are two ways -- cutting employee salaries and increasing the price of its products. Both of these are detrimental to our society, contrary to the interests of growth and competition, and disadvantageous to the workers.

I live on a world where I understand the tax system. The previously suggested 99% tax rate means that the companies would get almost nothing from cutting salaries or increasing prices. (100 euro profit = 1 euro left for you, 99 euro gone to taxes)

However, by increasing salaries and cutting a deal with employees that they are to give some of their money back to the company (thus, actually going against the law, but whatever), the company gets more money. (100 euro profit gone to the workers, workers give back 10 euro = 10 euro left for you, 90 euro gone to workers, who spend the money and thus it goes to taxes anyway).

Essentially, they increase their costs until they equal their revenue, which means they have no profits that can be taxed. Then they break the law by having the employees give back money to the company, in return for higher salaries.

And it wouldn't make any sense to change prices of the goods based on corporate tax.

Example:

You have a 100 euro revenue. You have 50 euro cost. You must now pay 98% tax on the remaining 50 euro, so you have 2 euro left.

If you have a 100 euro revenue and a 100 euro cost, you must now pay 98% on the remaining 0 euro, so you have 0 euro left. However, because you're very smart, you agreed with your employees that their pay would be doubled, if they gave a tenth of their pay back to the company. Thus, assuming the entire cost is wages/salaries, you have 10 euro left. Workers are richer, good prices are the same and the company is richer.

Then all we have to do is accept this kind of practice.

So that workers will be paid less and the price of a product will increase, ultimately hurting the poor who cannot afford that product?

no, so that the incentive for going into business will be taken away... the economy will suffer greatly (lost jobs, crappy products, lost investment opportunities, etc.).

...all so the lazy can graze on their couches.

hehe

thus, actually going against the law, but whatever

So you intentionally want companies to break the law to justify your tax system? You want the legit companies to pay?

So you intentionally want companies to break the law to justify your tax system? You want the legit companies to pay?

We'll change the law to allow that to happen, thus giving an incentive to companies to pay their workers more.

We'll change the law to allow that to happen, thus giving an incentive to companies to pay their workers more.

So you're going to make a law taxing companies 99% of their profits and a law that makes it legal for companies to hire a worker with a contract that forces the worker to pay part of his salary to the company? So companies can then pay their workers a lot of money and expect the workers to give part of it back, thus evading the taxes? I don't see the point. What's to stop the companies from giving them enough money so that the company makes no profit and then collecting money from the workers?

The poor have less money to offer in tax payment, the wealthy have all the money, tax them more. Militaristic states can benifit from a universal tax for all citizens, and on top of that a progressive tax.

No, you see you are missing our on the fun. What you do is, you find someone who goes on and on about how rich people create the wealth in an economy, you agree with him entirely and then with a straight face say how rich people who don't invest enough should be jailed. Your target will either meltdown or explode. Either one is fun to watch.

that's the neat thing about financial freedom...

you can do whatever the hell you want to do with your money. (well, aside from the taxes you're forced to pay).

Nobody will be jailed for not investing enough of their own money... they just won't be quite as helpful as those who do.

We'll change the law to allow that to happen, thus giving an incentive to companies to pay their workers more.

Okay so let me see if I get this right. You want companys to manipulate their earnings (profits) to 0 so that the gov't 98% tax will be a tax on nothing. (therefore the gov't gets no money). And then you want the company to pay the workers more money which they might, however you'd then make it legal for the company to ask for the money back..which they will.

In which case the gov't gets 0 money from tax and the workers have all the extra money taken off them?

So you're going to make a law taxing companies 99% of their profits and a law that makes it legal for companies to hire a worker with a contract that forces the worker to pay part of his salary to the company? So companies can then pay their workers a lot of money and expect the workers to give part of it back, thus evading the taxes? I don't see the point. What's to stop the companies from giving them enough money so that the company makes no profit and then collecting money from the workers?

The point is that companies either pay tax, or make no profit.

Otherwise, they have to either a) decrease their prices to reduce their revenue or b) increase their wages to increase their costs.

Then, with strong unions and contracts (along with a few SIMPLE laws) the company and workers then work together to figure out how much the workers have to pay back in return for higher salaries.


(but actually, I would much prefer to get rid of any administration costs that we can get rid of)

Okay so let me see if I get this right. You want companys to manipulate their earnings (profits) to 0 so that the gov't 98% tax will be a tax on nothing. (therefore the gov't gets no money). And then you want the company to pay the workers more money which they might, however you'd then make it legal for the company to ask for the money back..which they will.

In which case the gov't gets 0 money from tax and the workers have all the extra money taken off them?

If all your extra money gets taken from you, would you work?

It's legal for companies to ask for some money back, but if the workers aren't benefitting, are they going to go along with it?

The poor have less money to offer in tax payment, the wealthy have all the money, tax them more. Militaristic states can benifit from a universal tax for all citizens, and on top of that a progressive tax.

Why should the rich be taxed more?

consider the consequences:

a) Less investment money for start-ups (resulting in fewer successful entrepreneurs and fewer jobs created)

b) Less investment money to be put into current companies (which means less money for them to spend on R&D, to pay workers, etc.)

c) Less start-up capital for the rich if they feel like going into business themselves

etc.

I think that if we're going to have a progressive tax system, that obviously the rich should be taxed the most... but it shouldn't be so high that they see the taxes as a punishment for their success. I'd personally like nobody to be taxed more than 33% of their income.

The poor have less money to offer in tax payment, the wealthy have all the money, tax them more. Militaristic states can benifit from a universal tax for all citizens, and on top of that a progressive tax.

Why would the wealthy want to do business in a country that takes more of their profits. Remember the main aim of a business is to make profit, and if your country taxes them to hell while lets say its neighbour offers corporations nice tax cuts and incentives where do you think the company will set up and pay their taxes and hire workers...

We saw this happen in Britain last week when one of the car companys moves somewhere else in Europe because it was getting significant tax breaks there.

Nope. I'm fairly capitalist but I don't think they should get out of taxes. In the end, they can deduct majority of what they have used throughout the year and they end up getting huge amounts of money in returns. And even if they were making nothing in returns, they aren't special.

What planet are you on? A corporation wants to maximize its profit (after taxes). If its profits are taxed, then it makes less of a profit. However, it wants to make the biggest profit it can. How is it going to do this? There are two ways -- cutting employee salaries and increasing the price of its products. Both of these are detrimental to our society, contrary to the interests of growth and competition, and disadvantageous to the workers.

No, no... if taxes are structured so that the more profit you make, the higher taxes you pay, you want to arrange things so that you fall in a LOWER profit bracket, thereby lowering your taxes, and actually allowing you to keep more of the money you make. As an employer, one good way to do this is to pay your workers more, which has many positive effects while also reducing your profits on the books and keeping your taxes lower. The results across the boards are better... the workers can afford to participate in better health insurance, so you have healthier workers. They are happier, as they have better salary and benefits. They can buy more of your products, which keeps you in business.

So the better thing to do, taxwise, is to tax corporations that take larger profit margins at higher rates, thus encouraging them to do themselves what the higher taxes would do if in the government's hands, support the lower income workers.

If all your extra money gets taken from you, would you work?

It's legal for companies to ask for some money back, but if the workers aren't benefitting, are they going to go along with it?

if they don't go along with it, fire them and hire new bees. hehe j/k

Why would the wealthy want to do business in a country that takes more of their profits. Remember the main aim of a business is to make profit, and if your country taxes them to hell while lets say its neighbour offers corporations nice tax cuts and incentives where do you think the company will set up and pay their taxes and hire workers...

We saw this happen in Britain last week when one of the car companys moves somewhere else in Europe because it was getting significant tax breaks there.

yep...

Not to dis Delaware, but there isn't a whole lot in that state (ducks).

But for some reason, a good number of corporations have their corporate offices in Delaware.

Why?

Delaware has incredibly low taxes on corporations.

you want to arrange things so that you fall in a LOWER profit bracket, thereby lowering your taxes, and actually allowing you to keep more of the money you make. As an employer, one good way to do this is to pay your workers more, which has many positive effects while also reducing your profits on the books and keeping your taxes lower. The results across the boards are better... the workers can afford to participate in better health insurance, so you have healthier workers. They are happier, as they have better salary and benefits. They can buy more of your products, which keeps you in business.

So the better thing to do, taxwise, is to tax corporations that take larger profit margins at higher rates, thus encouraging them to do themselves what the higher taxes would do if in the government's hands, support the lower income workers.

Well even if your taxed really high I can't see a company saying, wait we've hit a new tax braket we should stop making profit for the year... Even 50% tax still means your getting 50% of the profit anyway. According to your logic, healthy workers who can buy the products are a bad thing because it might make the company proft and NO a company doesn't want to make profit that will be taxed in a higher bracket!!

They might however want to ship up and move country if they're taxed too highly.

Hmm, the question is formulated with regard of product prices and wages. I believe that there are insignificantly small correlation between those and corporate income tax. There is more like, you know, labor market situation, general wage levels and so (if you are talking about liberal countries).

I vote for decreasing corporate tax in order to decrease income (and therefore spending and therefore role in economy) of government. Let companies decide what they do with their money not the government.

Why?

Delaware has incredibly low taxes on corporations.

Supply side economics - low tax is still tax. + more corporations = more jobs (who in turn pay taxes) and more products on sale as well. In some cases tax cuts can increase gov't revenure and stimulate economic growth

If all your extra money gets taken from you, would you work?

Because you get the same money as before the ultra-high tax law you would pass. If you don't want to work, I'm sure someone else will. Anyway, the government will get less money because the company will have no profit and the company will get the same amount of money as before because it will take it from the employees.

Supply side economics - low tax is still tax. + more corporations = more jobs (who in turn pay taxes) and more products on sale as well. In some cases tax cuts can increase gov't revenure and stimulate economic growth

amen to that

low corporate taxes act as a magnet for entrepreneurs.

Hmm, the question is formulated with regard of product prices and wages. I believe that there are insignificantly small correlation between those and corporate income tax. There is more like, you know, labor market situation, general wage levels and so (if you are talking about liberal countries).

I vote for decreasing corporate tax in order to decrease income (and therefore spending and therefore role in economy) of government. Let companies decide what they do with their money not the government.

BRAVO!

Because you get the same money as before the ultra-high tax law you would pass. If you don't want to work, I'm sure someone else will. Anyway, the government will get less money because the company will have no profit and the company will get the same amount of money as before because it will take it from the employees.

What your system is basically saying is the corporations should pay no tax and the workers should be paid the same as what they are now. Thats basically what your saying, why mess about with the whole 98% taxation rubbish if thats what your saying, it'll save on administration.

What your system is basically saying is the corporations should pay no tax and the workers should be paid the same as what they are now.

First of all, because the company is making a bigger profit, it will definitely reduce the price of its products (thereby raising real wages for the employees and everybody) and/or increase employee wages.

First of all, because the company is making a bigger profit, it will definitely reduce the price of its products (thereby raising real wages for the employees and everybody) and/or increase employee wages.

or just pay the executives and shareholders more - since this is an empirical question, perhaps we should see what actually happens...

or just pay the executives and shareholders more - since this is an empirical question, perhaps we should see what actually happens...

I wonder :rolleyes:

OTHER: No, you should increase them.

Without the biased crap at the end.

If you don't want to pay corporate taxes, don't form a corporation.

Of course, you forego nifty little things like limited liability, etc., but hey, you get what you pay for.

If you don't want to pay corporate taxes, don't form a corporation.

Of course, you forego nifty little things like limited liability, etc., but hey, you get what you pay for.

You know, you really want to encourage corporations to set up near you. They provide jobs local products and many benefits already mentioned a few times in this thread already.

Its all good saying we should make corporations pay lots of tax, but how do you think a country would turn out should corporations stop starting up.

The correct answer is 'Mu'.

You know, you really want to encourage corporations to set up near you. They provide jobs local products and many benefits already mentioned a few times in this thread already.

Its all good saying we should make corporations pay lots of tax, but how do you think a country would turn out should corporations stop starting up.
No. You want to encourage people working near you. There is a difference.
A corporation is a legal fiction. It's not needed to be economically productive, and its existance does not assure prosperity.

People form corporations because there are certain benefits that come with. In exchange for those benefits, the corporation pays taxes.

if you're assuming that higher profits for corporations mean lower prices for consumers, or better wages for rank & file employees, I'd suggest you examine the oil companies. Record profits. Record high prices, and not really a whole lot of note for the average employee. The owners? Sure. They're getting quite rich. But if what you want to do is benefit a few at the expense of the many, you might as well go back to slavery.

By lowering or abolishing corporate taxes the government is essentially buying a fair share of every single product for the consumer beforehand. Products are sold below their real value because the government pays the difference from the real prices of said products in taxes not collected subsidies and other forms of corporate welfare. Tax money or in the US's case, foreign debt, is picking up this tab.

Now, I'm all for stimulating a strong and competitive economy, however corporations or in other words... the filthy rich should pay taxes just like everybody else does and possibly more.

No. You want to encourage people working near you. There is a difference.
A corporation is a legal fiction. It's not needed to be economically productive, and its existance does not assure prosperity.

People form corporations because there are certain benefits that come with. In exchange for those benefits, the corporation pays taxes.

if you're assuming that higher profits for corporations mean lower prices for consumers, or better wages for rank & file employees, I'd suggest you examine the oil companies. Record profits. Record high prices, and not really a whole lot of note for the average employee. The owners? Sure. They're getting quite rich. But if what you want to do is benefit a few at the expense of the many, you might as well go back to slavery.

so... of all of us who don't start our own companies... where are we going to work if not at a big company? There are only so many mom-and-pop joints on Main Street...

so... of all of us who don't start our own companies... where are we going to work if not at a big company? There are only so many mom-and-pop joints on Main Street...
My view is that corporations are good. But they should still pay at least the same taxes as any other entity of similar size.

Should they be abolished? All they do is make products more expensive and workers get paid less. The people who lose out because of corporate taxes are the people who work at those corporations and the consumer.
They shouldn't be abolished, because they generate revenue. Where I live the corporate tax rate is at 12.5% which I would like to see increase to about 15%, but no higher than that. It is good at attracting foreign investment.

I voted for a raise, because I'm in favor of seeing the poor suffer. Filthy maggots, they are.
Let them eat cake, I say, or failing that, dust.

Exactly; Sweden has some of the highest nominal tax rates in the world on corporations, but because the system is so efficient and the benefits of the taxation are so directly applied (i.e. no middlemen and little bureaucracy) the real rate of taxation is one of the lowest in the world.

The US has a real rate higher than Sweden's nominal rate; that's a lot of money wasted on nothing rather than going to services or allowing companies to keep.
I don't see why every country in the world doesn't model itself on Sweden.

on top of that, the whole system of subsidies and official loopholes just needs to be scrapped.

year zero for taxes, i say
There is some room for subsidies and loopholes. Subsidies can often be beneficial in the creation of jobs in small and medium-sized businesses. Unfortunately too many big businesses coerce the government into giving them undeserved and unnecessary money.

Tax incentives for building in certain locations can be good too. For example, in some areas of Ireland companies get to pay less tax if they build there, because it helps prevent stagnation in rural Ireland, and prevents overcrowding in Dublin.

I don't see why every country in the world doesn't model itself on Sweden.
Or Canada for that matter... Most of them try but in the end they don't understand or refuse to accept a liberalized and competitive economy, a reformed and efficient public system and a highly educated population.

Many excuses are used. Some say these things are immoral, others claim that they are against the law according to Hayek or Friedman. The US has mostly Reagan to blame. I find that when blind and idiotic faith in dogmas are abandoned, a victorious centrist approach emerges.

that's the neat thing about financial freedom...

you can do whatever the hell you want to do with your money.
In politics I really think it's better to appeal to pragmatism than to abstract, subjective concepts.

Why should the rich be taxed more?

I think that if we're going to have a progressive tax system, that obviously the rich should be taxed the most... but it shouldn't be so high that they see the taxes as a punishment for their success. I'd personally like nobody to be taxed more than 33% of their income.
While I don't agree with Callaghan's-Britain style punitive higher tax rates, I think that the rich should pay more, because that way, more revenue gets collected without taking from the purchasing power of the working and middle classes. These groups obviously help the economy by buying things.

A corporation wants to maximize its profit (after taxes). If its profits are taxed, then it makes less of a profit. However, it wants to make the biggest profit it can. How is it going to do this? There are two ways -- cutting employee salaries and increasing the price of its products. Both of these are detrimental to our society, contrary to the interests of growth and competition, and disadvantageous to the workers.

You can remove the entire sentence "If its profits are taxed, then it makes less of a profit." from that paragraph and it still makes sense.

"A corporation wants to maximize its profit (after taxes). However, it wants to make the biggest profit it can. How is it going to do this? There are two ways -- cutting employee salaries and increasing the price of its products. Both of these are detrimental to our society, contrary to the interests of growth and competition, and disadvantageous to the workers."

Clearly, by your logic, the existence of profit-making entities like corporations is detrimental to our society, contrary to the interests of growth and competition, and disadvantageous to the workers.

Or Canada for that matter... Most of them try but in the end they don't understand or refuse to accept a liberalized and competitive economy, a reformed and efficient public system and a highly educated population.

Many excuses are used. Some say these things are immoral, others claim that they are against the law according to Hayek or Friedman. The US has mostly Reagan to blame. I find that when blind and idiotic faith in dogmas are abandoned, a victorious centrist approach emerges.
I find it especially remarkable how the Swedish government has managed to provide a great host of public services while not turning into a stagnant, inefficient bureaucracy. Unlike Ireland.

Canada's successful multiculturalist policy on immigrants is also impressive.

I love the naivete` of those who think that the rich and powerful will spread the money around if only they are allowed to keep more of it. It doesn't work that way. You don't increase your workforce just because you have more money. You don't increase wages because you have more money.

Wages increase if there's more competition for those jobs. A company expands only if expanding will increase profits. Just because a company has a greater profit does not mean there is a greater demand for their services/products.

Basically, if more money goes to the top, instead of getting spread around, money gets devalued. It gets more and more concentrated into the hands of those that already have it, and that's exactly the way they want it.

The Half-Hidden, to be honest this is the first I've ever heard of dissatisfaction with bureaucracy in Ireland. I've always thought that the recent Irish growth had been due to deregulation. Many slumping economies in Europe look up to Ireland.

I don't see why every country in the world doesn't model itself on Sweden.

I don't think many countries could; Sweden has some unique demographic assets that enable it to support those kinds of services while still retaining healthy economic growth. It works extremely well for them and would be great to have in other places but I don't think it's possible right now.

I think the sheer size of the population in a lot of countries would make it impossible to maintain the same efficiency as is present in Sweden; the population of Ohio alone is larger than that of Sweden and we can barely keep our schools properly funded.

I don't think many countries could; Sweden has some unique demographic assets that enable it to support those kinds of services while still retaining healthy economic growth. bla bla bla bla I worship Friedman
Then what is Canada's excuse? Australia's? Norway's? Iceland's? Belgium's? Finland's? Denmark's? England's?, etc, etc

The very notion that lack of ethnic homogeny should be an excuse for corporate avarice and bad government is insulting as a citizen and degrading as a human being.

It would stop them from investing. The money seized would be invested by the government.

Yes, because the government is the most efficient thing to trust with your money. After all, as Vetalia said, governments in general are horribly inefficient -- bureaucracy is inefficient. Plus, frankly, I like to keep my money for what I want to do with it, not what the government wants to do with it. Selfish? Not entirely; after all, that's what charities are for. Frankly, I trust my local church more than I do the government, but that's me.

And since I lost my train of thought, I'll close this post.

Yes, because the government is the most efficient thing to trust with your money. After all, as Vetalia said, governments in general are horribly inefficient -- bureaucracy is inefficient. Plus, frankly, I like to keep my money for what I want to do with it, not what the government wants to do with it. Selfish? Not entirely; after all, that's what charities are for. Frankly, I trust my local church more than I do the government, but that's me.

No you won't. You'll pay your taxes like every one else does. And yes Americans do pay a lot of taxes despite their constant rhetoric and complaining about them. Also if any other nation was faced with the prospect of dealing with American government inefficiency the normal solution would be to reform and modernize the system according to the needs of the people. Not throw it away. Its called good government.

Should they be abolished? No

All they do is make products more expensive and workers get paid less. Except the Upper management who get paid the same no matter what? Perhaps if the upper management was paid less then the hit wouldn't be so bad.

The people who lose out because of corporate taxes are the people who work at those corporations and the consumer. No we would lose out because the Corporations WOULDN'T lower the prices and they wouldn't increase the wages even without taxes, they have to keep their lifestyle going you know. Besides the ones that were bothered by it are already outsourced by now.

You're a CEO in disguise aren't you!!

Clearly, by your logic, the existence of profit-making entities like corporations is detrimental to our society, contrary to the interests of growth and competition, and disadvantageous to the workers.

No, that's a non-sequitur. Corporations are hugely beneficial to our society by employing people, competing with other corporations and thus lowering prices, powering the economy, raising the standard of life, delivering better services at lower prices, etc. They are beneficial to everybody involved, even though the CEOs and such make more money than the rest of the employees, there's plenty of money to go around. That's why the US's economy is so powerful.

No, that's a non-sequitur.

Well done. My post was demonstrating the illogically of your original point.

No we would lose out because the Corporations WOULDN'T lower the prices and they wouldn't increase the wages even without taxes, they have to keep their lifestyle going you know.

Corporations seek to maximize their profit. Is the best way to accomplish this by cutting costs or raising them? Typically, it is best to cut them. Wal-Mart is a perfect example of a corporation that lowers prices and turns a huge profit. It's employees get paid less, true, but it's not like they're forced to work. They can quit any time they want.

No, that's a non-sequitur. Corporations are hugely beneficial to our society by employing people, competing with other corporations and thus lowering prices, powering the economy, raising the standard of life, delivering better services at lower prices, etc. They are beneficial to everybody involved, even though the CEOs and such make more money than the rest of the employees, there's plenty of money to go around. That's why the US's economy is so powerful.
Trickle down economics isn't all powerful. It can only do so much. That is why the US's standard of living is consistently lower than a good dozen of other nations. I consider that the disparity between the sheer volume and strength of the American economy and comparatively low American standard of living to be appalling. In short I believe that Americans deserve better.

Well done. My post was demonstrating the illogically of your original point.

Oh, I thought you were trying to conclude the opposite view from what I concluded, which could be a viable argument. One could argue that by its nature, a profit-seeking entity is indeed detrimental to our society because that profit is based on the exploitation of the workers and the consumers. Guess not, though. :/

Corporations seek to maximize their profit. Is the best way to accomplish this by cutting costs or raising them? Typically, it is best to cut them. Wal-Mart is a perfect example of a corporation that lowers prices and turns a huge profit. It's employees get paid less, true, but it's not like they're forced to work. They can quit any time they want.

Sure they can quit...and then what? Go without food? Stop clothing their children? Go on welfare?

My guess is that you've never fell on hard times in your life. Do you come from a well off family? Have you entered the workforce yet?

He might as well have stated that people don't become millionaires because they choose not to. It would've made a lot more sense to me despite not making any at all.

I consider that the disparity between the sheer volume and strength of the American economy and comparatively low American standard of living to be appalling. In short I believe that Americans deserve better.

The US was rated 10th in the world by the UN as having the highest HDI:

http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/countries.cfm?c=USA

It was 4th in GDP per capita. I don't see that much of a disparity. The only reason the other countries got a better score is because of a lot of under-paid Mexican immigrants, legal or illegal (27th for people living below the poverty line), the lower life expectancy (29th in the world) and a number of other small factors. All in all, it has a HDI of 9.44 while Norway, the highest scorer, has one of 9.63. Not that big of a difference. Niger, for example, has one of 2.81.

Sure they can quit...and then what? Go without food? Stop clothing their children? Go on welfare?

If they can find another job and are willing to work hard, they can quit. If they're lazy, they can go on welfare. Otherwise, they can stick around. The unemployment rate in the US is very low -- of those, most aren't trying to find work. If people try hard and persevere, they can get a good job. That's the beauty of capitalism.

The unemployment rate in the US is very low -- of those, most aren't trying to find work.

You obviously haven't looked into how they calculate the unemployment rate.

Those looking for work aren't figured into it.

At all.

The unemployment rate in the US is comprised strictly of those without work who want a job.

You obviously haven't looked into how they calculate the unemployment rate.

Do you have a source for that? You'd think that the unemployment rate is in fact the rate of people that are unemployed, including those looking for work.

..the US government's Bureau of Labour Statistics?

Hopefully that's authoritative enough for you.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_faq.htm#Ques5

"Who is counted as unemployed?

Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work."

If they can find another job and are willing to work hard, they can quit. If they're lazy, they can go on welfare. Otherwise, they can stick around. The unemployment rate in the US is very low -- of those, most aren't trying to find work. If people try hard and persevere, they can get a good job. That's the beauty of capitalism.

That's the beauty of a liberalized and powerful economy. People have job security but not as much job security as you are suggesting. Unemployment varies greatly from one state to the next. You know this. Why use demogogery?

How old are you Begoned?

Corporations seek to maximize their profit. Is the best way to accomplish this by cutting costs or raising them? Typically, it is best to cut them. Wal-Mart is a perfect example of a corporation that lowers prices and turns a huge profit. It's employees get paid less, true, but it's not like they're forced to work. They can quit any time they want.

I think that you completely misunderstand what free will is then. Allow me to elaborate:

Suppose for a minute that you voluntarily chose to rob a bank. Suppose further that if you had chosen otherwise, your family would have been abandoned in a room and starven to death. Is your action truly free simply because you willed it? The answer is of course not, because what is essential to free will isn't willing this or that, but having the option of willing otherwise given differing circumstances. As such, we rightly call that instance of robbing a bank "acting under duress". Unfortunately, the same principle can also be applied to the work you describe: if you don't work at the wages the corporation is willing to pay, then lethal force in the form of abandonment and starvation ensues.

I would say further that you have set up an inconsistent set of propositions in your analysis: if the corporation's goal is to maximize profit, then why would they not keep the additional income from a tax break rather than automatically share it with workers or consumers in the form of a price break?

The unemployment rate in the US is comprised strictly of those without work who want a job.

Not exactly. They are counted, but under different statistics than the unemployment rate.

Not counting the people not actively seeking work makes perfect sense; if you have no desire to work than why should you be counted as unemployed?

The unemployment rate is used to measure the liquidity of the labor market to see if there are risks of inflation or underutilization of available labor; if you don't look for a job, why should you be counted as someone who is? By doing that, you distort the accuracy of the unemployment statistics which leads to it being very difficult to measure exactly how tight the market is, and that is a very bad thing when you need to keep inflation in check.

The purpose of the unemployment rate in a macroeconomic perspective is to see whether or not there is cyclical unemployment in the economy; if there isn't, the economy is at full employment and policymakers have to be vigiliant against inflation. Right now, at 4.7% we're approaching that point and the Fed has to be on watch for inflation as a result.

Then what is Canada's excuse? Australia's? Norway's? Iceland's? Belgium's? Finland's? Denmark's? England's?, etc, etc

They all have small populations that are growing slowly, and several of them have access to large amounts of natural resources that can be taxed for revenue. The US has a large population that is growing quickly, and it lacks the resource revenue that would make supporting a system easy.

The very notion that lack of ethnic homogeny should be an excuse for corporate avarice and bad government is insulting as a citizen and degrading as a human being.

Immigration is the only way you can fight that hegemony; the group with the largest number of entrepreneurs per capita are immigrants. Our small business growth is being driven in a lot of places by them, and small businesses compete with corporations.

They all have small populations that are growing slowly, and several of them have access to large amounts of natural resources that can be taxed for revenue. The US has a large population that is growing quickly, and it lacks the resource revenue that would make supporting a system easy.

This would make perfect sense if the US government didn't waste a hell of a lot more money than any other nation on the planet per capita on health-care. Notice I said waste and not spend. The grand irony of all of this theory is that the US is in fact spending the money it righteously claims it cannot spend so help us Milton Friedmon... Lacking resource revenue or vast population growth... that's all balderdash... The US government could easily spend less and have a more efficient, equitable and fair system for all Americans. The problem is that it would come as always, at the expense of the long-established corporate interests that always seem to rise above the needs of common Americans.

There are good arguements for decreasing or eliminating corporate taxes. But lowering taxes in the U.S. right now is nutzoid. How much further do you want the U.S. to go into debt? If you wanted to remove the Bush tax cuts for the rich and reduce coporate tax, that might be okay, but straight out lowering taxes is crazy talk.
What part of Government revenue does NOT have a direct relationship with the tax rate DON'T you understand?

Sure they can quit...and then what? Go without food? Stop clothing their children? Go on welfare?

My guess is that you've never fell on hard times in your life. Do you come from a well off family? Have you entered the workforce yet?

Wal-Mart is bad for small town where there are no other employment options because they can undercut local business for prices and have a monopoly. This is not true for most places in the US. There is also something we like to call an automobile which allows rapid, cost effective travel from one city to another. Honestly, it isn't worth more than $5 per hour to pick up things that people pulled off the shelves. If one wants to make more money, one has to contribute more to the economy, not just expect the government to subsidize them or legislate that companies pay more than their workers produce. I own a small business, and I like to think that I am pretty generous with my employees. I pay them more than they could get anywhere else, and I am especially generous when we've had a good month. On the converse, I almost lost my house a few years ago when my wife was confined to her bed due to pregnancy complications and I was hospitalized with a freak heart problem. But if I had to move into a small appartment and sell some cars and get food from the food bank, I would be fine with that. As long as I could eventually recover, that is life. Who deserves more than they contribute? I may also add that I donate more to charity than I pay in taxes, but I resent the fact that so many of you think that low income families (barring severe handicaps) are incapable of improving their situation if they have the ambition.

Nationalist Genius... an oxymoron if I've ever seen one. (this has nothing to do with what you've just finished posting but rather to do with the fact that all nationalists are idiots)

When income tax was instituted in the US, (the 16th ammendment) it was never intended that income tax exceed 10%. In the 1980's Ronald Regan cut the highest tax rate from 52% and tax revenues INCREASED dramatically. Corporate taxes hurt the poor. The national debt comes from a congress that spends like drunken sailors. Those of you who live in the US, look and see how many yay votes your senators doled out on the 2007 budget. You can't vote to cut spending because you automatically become the target of a smear campaign from the opposing candidate in the next election. "Senator _____ voted to cut ______ because he hates____, ____, and you, the citizen." They spent more that President Bush's ridiculously large budget. 2.8 trillion dollars. apart from the military, which accounts for only about 25% of that figure, I can't for the life of me figure out what goods and services I am recieving for my money.

Vote John McCain for president, 2008

You are an idiot after all. Your grasp of economics is staggeringly stupid.

Vote Feingold 2008.

Nationalist Genius... an oxymoron if I've ever seen one. (this has nothing to do with what you've just finished posting but rather to do with the fact that all nationalists are idiots)

Only if their nation is inferior to others. If you are on top, why let everyone else drag you down because thay lack the ability or intelligence to do what you have done. I'm proud to be an American because we work longer hours and develop more technology than anywhere else. I also oppose states rights (hence, I am a nationalist) because it produces a hodgepodge of disarray and a lack of unity towards a common goal.

PS: I think Feingold is a better choice than pretty much all of the other Democratic front runners. If only Obama would run. Maybe in 2016. And the standard of living in Canada is inferior to the US. Capitalism is why the US is so successful and why Western Europe is going down the toilet. So I think that maybe we should use the successful economic plan as the one for comparison in determining what is and is not idiotic.

Welcome to the exciting world of Fascism (http://www.fordham.edu/HALSALL/MOD/mussolini-fascism.html).

Only if their nation is inferior to others. If you are on top, why let everyone else drag you down because thay lack the ability or intelligence to do what you have done. I'm proud to be an American because we work longer hours and develop more technology than anywhere else. I also oppose states rights (hence, I am a nationalist) because it produces a hodgepodge of disarray and a lack of unity towards a common goal.
um lol? Try Japan...

Nationalists.... the talking excrements of this world... true waste of cells and living tissue.

:d

You obviously haven't looked into how they calculate the unemployment rate.

Those looking for work aren't figured into it.

At all.

The unemployment rate in the US is comprised strictly of those without work who want a job.

To collect unemployment benefits, at least in my state, all you have to do is have two "contacts" per week towards finding a job. Everyone I know that has gotten it just applies for jobs that they aren't qualified to do, so they won't get hired.
So no, most aren't really looking.
Also, to collect disability, all you have to do is be unable to perform your previous job. So if you are a construction worker and lose a foot to gangrene, even though you could be very capable of getting a job as a secretary, the government will support you anyway. You are no longer considered employable.

:d

You've called me stupid three times without addressing a single thing that I've said. I would further defend my opinions but I'm not sure what I am defending them against. Perhaps because I know what I am talking about and you don't actually have anything but your loyalty to socialism.

And the standard of living in Japan is absolute crap. It is unaffordable, even for the rich, so what do they have for all of their electronics and small automobiles? 100 year mortgages on shoebox apartments.

Capitalism is why the US is so successful and why Western Europe is going down the toilet.
"Western Europe", hey?

Oh, and Canada is on 5th place of the HDI, the US 10th.

"Western Europe", hey?

Oh, and Canada is on 5th place of the HDI, the US 10th.

Not a good reflection of the standard of living. I have spent a lot of time in Canada and lived for a few years in the UK (with German roomates, among others.) I say this as humbly as I possibly can *insert joke here, I know* but I have about as much firsthand experience as one can get in comparing these economies. Socialized medicine is overrated.

Not a good reflection of the standard of living.
What is? The personal experience of someone on the internet?

The HDI measures everything that could be considered important.

What is? The personal experience of someone on the internet?

The HDI measures everything that could be considered important.

Let me reiterate: The scale is subjective to what the authors consider important. *cough socialized medicine cough*

Let me reiterate: The scale is subjective to what the authors consider important. *cough socialized medicine cough*
No it ain't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
Whether or not medicine is socialised is not an issue. How long people can expect to live is.

No it ain't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
Whether or not medicine is socialised is not an issue. How long people can expect to live is.

Must be nice to be from Norway and Canada.

Must be nice to be from Norway and Canada.
Well, I don't think I've ever heard either complain. :p

My proof is common sense. When a corporation has less money to spend because of taxes, they are going to take the money away from employee wages and increase the cost of their products. If they increase the cost of their products, that hurts American consumption (mostly among the poor who cannot afford it) and decreases real wages. They will also decrease the worker's wages, which will hurt them more than a slight drop in welfare.

Perhaps they will just slash the CEO's outrageous pay scales instead

No it ain't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
Whether or not medicine is socialised is not an issue. How long people can expect to live is.

The leading cause of death in the US is cardiovascular, caused by our most delicious cuisine, which we steal from every other country and then double the portions and add salt and fat.

I don't care to delve into the entire formula for the HDI, but suffice it to say that the equations are arbitrary (The third time I have made this point) and the difference in the top countries is minute, which is not actually the case if you've been there...

Case in point: Luxomborg and Sweden (#4 ) shifted FIFTEEN PLACES last year. You can't tell me that the desireability of living in those countries has shifted that much. Also, Belgium is ranked above the US. I had two good Belgian friends in England. One was Flemmish, and one was a Walloon. Both preferred the US to Belgium by a long shot. I heard nothing but how much better America is than Belgium (From Belgians.)

I wonder if you know what Nationalist means...


Either way, getting rid of administration is probably the best way of increasing government tax revenue from corporate taxes, while decreasing corporate costs. At least that way, everybody wins.

But corporations wouldn't be too harmed by having to pay a little bit more, as long as that money actually went to somewhere which benefitted them somehow.

I wonder if you know what Nationalist means...


Either way, getting rid of administration is probably the best way of increasing government tax revenue from corporate taxes, while decreasing corporate costs. At least that way, everybody wins.

But corporations wouldn't be too harmed by having to pay a little bit more, as long as that money actually went to somewhere which benefitted them somehow.

I was gonna make the same criticism, the guy was patriotic not a nationalist.
If the tax money went to benefit them, surely the corporation would be better spending it in a way that benefits them themselves. They don't mind paying some tax its expected for doing business in the country but we just have to make sure it remains worthwhile for them to stay while making sure its worthwhile for the country as well. As soo as it becomes negative for either the country or the company the company should go.

You've called me stupid three times without addressing a single thing that I've said. I would further defend my opinions but I'm not sure what I am defending them against. Perhaps because I know what I am talking about and you don't actually have anything but your loyalty to socialism.

And the standard of living in Japan is absolute crap. It is unaffordable, even for the rich, so what do they have for all of their electronics and small automobiles? 100 year mortgages on shoebox apartments.
Say what? I generaly disslike socialism.



:rolleyes:

Say what? I generaly disslike socialism.



:rolleyes:
...and generally misspell "dislike" and "generally...

And I am the dumb one...

Don't criticize someone unless you can back it up, otherwise people know you're an idiot. Not that you would do a very good job of covering it up if you did have a leg to stand on...

You're a nationalist. There is only one greater proof of a person's stupidity than being a nationalist and that's being lured into an argument with a nationalist.
Good luck.

Perhaps they will just slash the CEO's outrageous pay scales instead

History has proved that to be false. Why would you take pay away from the CEOs when you can take it away from the consumers or the employees?

History has proved that to be false. Why would you take pay away from the CEOs when you can take it away from the consumers or the employees?
Using this exact same logic, and also backed up by history, why give cheaper deals to the consumers and employees when you can just give higher pay-scales to the CEO's?

What we should be doing then, is discarding any philosophical concerns about taxation (which is what I believe this is) and look to what we actually want to happen -- what we want is for more corporations to form and compete, as what benefits the consumer is when corporations have to compete more, not when they have higher profits.

The tools we have to do this are relatively few, and taxation is actually one of the better tools if applied properly. You tax larger corporations proportionately more to compensate for their economies of scale and thus give smaller corporations a chance to get off the ground. If you then apply the revenues from these taxes to the less fortunate, you enable them to become consumers. When there are more consumers there is more demand, which again encourages more corporations to form to supply that demand.

Using this exact same logic, and also backed up by history, why give cheaper deals to the consumers and employees when you can just give higher pay-scales to the CEO's?

Because those two things (lower prices and higher employee wages) can combine to lead to more pay for the CEOs. More consumers will buy lower-priced products because they can afford them, leading to higher profit margins for the company. Similarly, higher employee wages lead to increased productivity and take away more skilled employees from competitors. If the goal of a corporation was to make as much money as possible, cost-slashing and employeee raises might be a good way to do it.

You tax larger corporations proportionately more to compensate for their economies of scale and thus give smaller corporations a chance to get off the ground.

Why would you want to help small businesses get off the ground? Are they going to sell the same product at a lower price than big corporations or are they going to sell different products? If they sell the same product at a higher price, why would you want to help them? Why do you want to penalize success? If they cannot compete with big corporations, they shouldn't. Ultimately, it is up to the consumer to decide from whom to buy each item, and the taxation is hurting the consumer and the economy. Without it, companies could afford to lower their prices more, which is good all-around.

If you then apply the revenues from these taxes to the less fortunate, you enable them to become consumers.

Not all of the tax money goes to the "less fortunate" -- only a small part of it. Let's say that a company makes x in profits. Then approximately x/10 or something like that goes to the less fortunate. However, if you do not tax the company, it will use its profit to decrease its prices and lower employee wages. Being generous, you can say that 1/9 goes to lower prices, 1/9 goes to higher employee wages, and 7/9 goes to the CEO and such. This benefits the consumer more than state taxation -- let the private sector decide how to manage its money.

Should they be abolished? All they do is make products more expensive and workers get paid less. The people who lose out because of corporate taxes are the people who work at those corporations and the consumer.

Yes, god forbid we should make corporations pay for the social and physical infrastructure that supports them and even makes it possible for them to business at all.

Yes, god forbid we should make corporations pay for the social and physical infrastructure that supports them and even makes it possible for them to business at all.

But why should they? In the end, it hurts the US competitive economy and US consumers who cannot afford to buy expensive products due to excessive taxing. The people themselves should pay -- I mean, look at how much the CEOs of companies pay. Taxing the companies, however, is a very bad thing.

But why should they? In the end, it hurts the US competitive economy and US consumers who cannot afford to buy expensive products due to excessive taxing. The people themselves should pay -- I mean, look at how much the CEOs of companies pay. Taxing the companies, however, is a very bad thing.

Because providing roads and other infrasstructure is all part of the cost of producing their goods and should be factored into the price. So they should pay their share.

If they were to eliminate corporate taxes, then individual taxpayers would have to pay proportionately more to cover the shortfall. So essentially the individuals would be subsidising the cost of providing infrastructure for corporations. That means they would be subsidising the cost of their goods, as well as any exported goods. This would lead to even greater overconsumption, requiring even bigger subsidies in the form of infrastructure. The taxpayer would end up paying more, not saving enough on their goods to make up for it. Those who consumed more would get a disproportionate subsidy. Do I need to go on?

In our present society all profit making enterprises should be taxed at 100% while the rate should be far lower for workers' cooperatives - maybe 20 or 30%.

If they were to eliminate corporate taxes, then individual taxpayers would have to pay proportionately more to cover the shortfall.

No, we should also decrease individual taxes. The government is too big and pervasive -- we should get rid of public schooling, health care, welfare, etc., so the individual doesn't have to pick up the burden. Society would work a lot better if we left everything to the private sector (except for the police, army, and institutions like that). Prices would go down, more money would be invested in the private sector, the US economy would become more competitive, etc.

Because those two things (lower prices and higher employee wages) can combine to lead to more pay for the CEOs. More consumers will buy lower-priced products because they can afford them, leading to higher profit margins for the company. Similarly, higher employee wages lead to increased productivity and take away more skilled employees from competitors. If the goal of a corporation was to make as much money as possible, cost-slashing and employeee raises might be a good way to do it.
So while history is to be taken as an argument against corporate taxation, that same history should be discarded when it supports the notion of corporate taxation?

This is what I meant about your stance being ideologically driven. If you're going to discard evidence that doesn't support your case, why bother asking for discussion? You're set in your opinion and really aren't open to considering alternatives.

Why would you want to help small businesses get off the ground?
Because small businesses are where large businesses come from.

Are they going to sell the same product at a lower price than big corporations or are they going to sell different products?
Obviously they'll be selling different products. Much the same way that Nokia and Motorola both make cellular phones. If there are more companies able to produce cellular phones, there is more variety for the consumer to choose from, and every company has to compete more strongly to make their particular product stand out.

If they sell the same product at a higher price, why would you want to help them?Since they're not, as pointed out above this question is meaningless.

Why do you want to penalize success?Why do you want to penalize entrepreneurship?

If they cannot compete with big corporations, they shouldn't.True. But if they can't compete solely because the big corporation can afford to purchase widgets in amounts of 2 million or more, should the consumer be denied the choice?

Ultimately, it is up to the consumer to decide from whom to buy each item, and the taxation is hurting the consumer and the economy.This is a statement of faith on your part. You haven't shown that taxation harms, you've just postulated that lack of taxation would benefit by profits somehow magically being diverted to the consumer rather than the top executive, a claim made despite historical and current evidence (I refer you again to the oil industry) showing no such benefits occuring despite record profits.

Without it, companies could afford to lower their prices more, which is good all-around.Or they could afford to purchase their competition, thus enabling them to raise their prices, or they could afford to build giant statues of Friedman in their lobbies, or they could afford to do any number of things.

Instead of engaging in wishful thinking about what they could do with higher profits, let's instead look at what they actually do..

http://www.latimes.com/business/careers/work/la-fi-exxon13apr13,1,4587847.story?coll=la-headlines-business-careers

I don't see a lot of consumer benefits happening there. According to your theory, record profits at the oil companies should be leading to record low prices for consumers, correct? Well, here we have a perfect counterexample that basically says you don't know what you're talking about.

Not all of the tax money goes to the "less fortunate" -- only a small part of it. Let's say that a company makes x in profits. Then approximately x/10 or something like that goes to the less fortunate.Which is a problem with how the revenues are distributed, not with their collection.

However, if you do not tax the company, it will use its profit to decrease its prices and lower employee wages. Again, you're making a statement of faith that is not backed up by history.

Being generous, you can say that 1/9 goes to lower prices, 1/9 goes to higher employee wages, and 7/9 goes to the CEO and such. This benefits the consumer more than state taxation -- let the private sector decide how to manage its money.Cite your source. Your posterior doesn't count.

No, we should also decrease individual taxes. The government is too big and pervasive -- we should get rid of public schooling, health care, welfare, etc., so the individual doesn't have to pick up the burden. Society would work a lot better if we left everything to the private sector (except for the police, army, and institutions like that). Prices would go down, more money would be invested in the private sector, the US economy would become more competitive, etc.

OK ... that is way outside of the scope of this discussion, and I am not going to get lured into that one.

You still have not addressed the issue of infrastructure. If the corporations provided their own roads, etc, then yes, they might see a decrease in taxes. But as long as these things are paid for by the government, the corporations should share in their cost proportionately with their benefit.

You still have not addressed the issue of infrastructure.

A corporation isn't a person. It doesn't drive down the roads. It's the people that use the roads and other infrastructure and it is they who must be taxed.

No, we should also decrease individual taxes. The government is too big and pervasive -- we should get rid of public schooling, health care, welfare, etc., so the individual doesn't have to pick up the burden. Society would work a lot better if we left everything to the private sector (except for the police, army, and institutions like that). Prices would go down, more money would be invested in the private sector, the US economy would become more competitive, etc.

Not to mention the fact that corporations should share in the cost of the police and military, from which they also benefit.

A corporation isn't a person. It doesn't drive down the roads. It's the people that use the roads and other infrastructure and it is they who must be taxed.

It is not a physical person, but is is a legal person, with all of the rights and responsibilities of one. They want the rights, they have to accept the responsibilities that come along with it.

Corporations ship their goods using the nation's roadways, airports, etc. They should help pay for that infrastructure.

Not to mention the fact that corporations should share in the cost of the police and military, from which they also benefit.

It's not the corporations who benefit. It's not like they are living entities or anything. It's the employees and such who benefit, and it is they who should and do pay. You only tax the people because that's the only thing that makes sense.

It's not the corporations who benefit. It's not like they are living entities or anything.

Can't you think of a single example of how a corporation benefits from the work of the police force?

Here's one: People don't steal thier stock and buy it instead.

It's not the corporations who benefit. It's not like they are living entities or anything. It's the employees and such who benefit, and it is they who should and do pay. You only tax the people because that's the only thing that makes sense.

No. The corporation is an entity and it does benefit. It makes profit. Why should the employees pay the cost of making deliveries on behalf of their employer? That makes no sense.

No, we should also decrease individual taxes. The government is too big and pervasive -- we should get rid of public schooling, health care, welfare, etc., so the individual doesn't have to pick up the burden. Society would work a lot better if we left everything to the private sector (except for the police, army, and institutions like that). Prices would go down, more money would be invested in the private sector, the US economy would become more competitive, etc.

You might need to reread some American history if you buy that. If what you said was true, then the purchasing power of the average American citizen should have been steadily increasing since we got inflation under control in the early 80's. In fact, our purchasing power has been steadily declining since the late 60's.

You don't really seem to understand basic economic theory. First, a capitalism depends upon a strong, active government to support and foster the conditions that give rise to it: extensive protection of private property and contracts, for instance, can only be done by a government with extensive police powers and funding to enforce it. It also requires a government-funded education system, if for no other reason than because the natural inclination of any business is to train a person to work at one little niche, whereas the economy as a whole needs people who can flexibly fit in multiple niches if/when the economy shifts and needs different skills. If you don't believe me, try reading Adam Smith, who was one of the first proponents of government-mandated education systems.

Moreover, you seem completely unfamiliar with the fact that reducing prices does little to help a worker if his wages fall commensurately, because what really matters is not overall price of goods but the ability of a wage-earner to use his earnings to purchase goods. The same factors that reduce price, however, are also the ones driving down the wages of workers, and the amount you can purchase on an average wage is falling far faster than are the price of goods. Compounding this is the fact that now people have to pay for many services that once were taken care of by the company: healthcare, for instance, is now in many cases covered out of pocket by the worker, whereas once it was covered by the company. While this inflates the bottom line of the company, it squeezes the worker.

The short answer, then, is that your proposal is one for social ruination, and ultimately is bad for corporations, not good. You see, the ultimate purpose of most of those services you want to sacrifice on the altar of corporate greed are not so much burdens on the corporate bottom line so much as they are survival mechanisms for the bottom rung of society. Take those survival mechanisms away, however, and people aren't going to go starve quietly in the night. Instead, they're going to grab something heavy and blunt and beat the heads of the rich in and take their stuff, because the uncertainties of the state of nature are infinitely preferable to the certainty of misery and suffering in the system you propose.

You're a nationalist. There is only one greater proof of a person's stupidity than being a nationalist and that's being lured into an argument with a nationalist.
Good luck.

You don't even know what nationalism is, do you...

Everyone, for the record, that is for times he has called me stupid based on the name of my fictional country and has yet to address a single thing I have said, other than to say that it is stupid.

You might need to reread some American history if you buy that. If what you said was true, then the purchasing power of the average American citizen should have been steadily increasing since we got inflation under control in the early 80's. In fact, our purchasing power has been steadily declining since the late 60's.

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUMMMMMMMMMMMM houses are larger, most families have more than one automobile, multiple televisions, a personal computer, etc. The cost of food in the average family's budget is almost negligable these days. I don't know where you got your information, but you clearly didn't live in the US in the 1960's and don't know anyone who did.

[QUOTE=Xenophobialand]You might need to reread some American history if you buy that. If what you said was true, then the purchasing power of the average American citizen should have been steadily increasing since we got inflation under control in the early 80's. In fact, our purchasing power has been steadily declining since the late 60's. /QUOTE]

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUMMMMMMMMMMMM houses are larger, most families have more than one automobile, multiple televisions, a personal computer, etc. The cost of food in the average family's budget is almost negligable these days. I don't know where you got your information, but you clearly didn't live in the US in the 1960's and don't know anyone who did.

That isn't because of increased purchasing power; it's because of easy access to credit. Sure, in the sixties houses were smaller, but a man working a middle-wage job could afford to buy one and pay down the mortgage in five to ten years. Similarly, a man could go out and buy a family automobile out of pocket after saving for only a year or two. Now, however, sure you can afford a fancier automobile, but only because you agree to pay monthly fees on the vehicle long after the value of that vehicle has dropped below what you pay per year for it. You can also buy a house, but a 30-year mortgage is almost a given.

Take those survival mechanisms away, however, and people aren't going to go starve quietly in the night. Instead, they're going to grab something heavy and blunt and beat the heads of the rich in and take their stuff, because the uncertainties of the state of nature are infinitely preferable to the certainty of misery and suffering in the system you propose.

http://c.myspace.com/Groups/00012/08/24/12884280_l.gif

No, we should also decrease individual taxes. The government is too big and pervasive -- we should get rid of public schooling, health care, welfare, etc., so the individual doesn't have to pick up the burden. Society would work a lot better if we left everything to the private sector (except for the police, army, and institutions like that). Prices would go down, more money would be invested in the private sector, the US economy would become more competitive, etc.

Public schooling indirectly affects crime rates, which means a good education system (whether public or private) will ease the work of the police. However, a private education system does not guarantee that everybody gets an education, so a good public education system is the preferable choice. Public schooling, even up to university level, also affects the skills of the populace. Therefore, it seems reasonable that either corporations should pay their share of taxes for the education that is providing them with workers, or they should be giving charity to public education facilities that they consider beneficial.

Public healthcare ensures that workers remain healthy. Of course, private healthcare can do that too, but if the corporations are going to pay tax, they might as well be happy that public healthcare is also going to help them. It's debatable which one is better, but I go with public, because there the doctors aren't trying to make lots of money.

Welfare ensures that people do not fall into a cycle of not being able to get a job once they're fired. It should be limited, but it should also be enough and helpful enough to help in providing a job within a reasonable timeframe. Reasonable timeframe is again debatable, but two weeks sure isn't one.

And I disagree, society wouldn't necessarily work better. Prices aren't forced to go down in such a society. More money isn't certain to be invested. The last bit is irrelevant to a general statement.

By paying more taxes, corporations are paying directly for all the things that also benefit them. By trying to avoid them, they are hurting themselves and everyone else.

Increase them quite a bit - those money-grubbing bastards don't deserve any better!
At the same time, stricly prohibit that they lower wages or increase prices, and if they do, put a sales boycott on them so they can't sell their stuff until they undo it.

Increase them quite a bit - those money-grubbing bastards don't deserve any better!
At the same time, stricly prohibit that they lower wages or increase prices, and if they do, put a sales boycott on them so they can't sell their stuff until they undo it.

Micromanaging the economy never works. And if you tax corporate profits, the CEOs just give themselves bonuses because then it counts as worker salary and not profit. Who does that help? By not taxing corporate profits, you provide an incentive for them to reinvest into the company. While they may be stingy bastards and refuse to raise wages accordingly, at the very least it creates new jobs.
And Seathorn, although it does not garantee taht more money will be invested, that is the natural effect. Or can you cite one instance in the history of the world where this has not been the case? Rather than taxing it at the corporate level, if you
A) pay the workers more, it gets taxed,
B) create more jobs, those people's wages are taxed, or
C) take the profits in the form of a bonus, that bonus is taxed at the highest income bracket.
If you don't tax corporations, the money just doesn't vanish. Every time money changes hands, it it taxed, and a sure fire way to limit the frequency of it being exchanged is put it it the hands of the government.