• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Study finds Corporate America avoided $60B in taxes (2010)

evanescence said:
Trickle down economics is a scam, and it has been proven so by this recent economic depression. If it did work, however, we'd see improvements such as job growth and increasing wages. The government has even come out with recent statistics stating that the economy was worse than originally stated in 2007-2009. :doh No kidding.

But it is important to note that raising taxes on corporations will only result in consumers paying higher prices for their goods. No matter how high corporate taxes get, corporations will never pay taxes because they will pass the increases on to their customers as the cost of doing business. In my opinion, corporate personhood needs to be done away with, and the laws need to go back as they were before the corporate lawyers raped the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...

There's no question that a fair amount of corporate taxes are passed through to consumers, but not all of them. Shareholders absorb some of the hit in lower dividends and/or share prices, and employees absorb some of it the form of lower wages and reduced benefits.
 
AdamT said:
There's no question that a fair amount of corporate taxes are passed through to consumers, but not all of them. Shareholders absorb some of the hit in lower dividends and/or share prices, and employees absorb some of it the form of lower wages and reduced benefits.
Click to expand...

True about the employees-that's an excellent point. But I don't buy that shareholders take a significant hit. They, too, pass that to those lower on the food chain.
 
evanescence said:
True about the employees-that's an excellent point. But I don't buy that shareholders take a significant hit. They, too, pass that to those lower on the food chain.
Click to expand...

It depends on the business

In a competive market the the company will have to eat the costs. Now as to whether it would be the shareholders or the employees would depend on the labour market. If the labour market is tight and the company is well run (meaning it does not have much in the way of excess employees to begin with) the shareholders will take the hit to dividends/overall profits. If the labour market is in a high surplus level then workers would most likely take the hit.
 
Boo Radley said:
Why would you think this would mean anything to me?
Click to expand...

you?

LOL!

why would anyone care what you do or don't find meaningful?

barack the slasher obama cares, hello

At Obama's side, Clinton backs tax deal - politics - White House - msnbc.com

and he's the president

why did forty four democrat senators vote for the bush/obama/clinton/boehner/mcconnell tax cuts for the rich during lame duck?

versus only thirteen who stood up for shared sacrifice?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46426.html

there's no one remaining this side of new south wales to raise taxes, syd

sorry, but them's the facts
 
Last edited:
The Prof said:
you?

LOL!

why would anyone care what you do or don't find meaningful?

barack the slasher obama cares, hello

At Obama's side, Clinton backs tax deal - politics - White House - msnbc.com

and he's the president

why did forty four democrat senators vote for the bush/obama/clinton/boehner/mcconnell tax cuts for the rich during lame duck?

versus only thirteen who stood up for shared sacrifice?

Tax-cut plan clears Senate easily - Carrie Budoff Brown and Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com

there's no one remaining this side of new south wales to raise taxes, syd

sorry, but them's the facts
Click to expand...

Usually when you talk to someone, and give them some information, there is an expectation that you think the information will be meaningfull in some way. You put a lot of stock in politics, but cherry pick a great deal, not to mention not actually understanding what you read and link.
 
THAT's why FORTY FOUR dem senators voted for the bush/obama/clinton/boehner/mcconnell tax cuts for the rich during lame duck?

LOL!
 
TurtleDude said:
its the left that favors slavery. what exactly is a 70 or 80% tax rate but slavery?
Click to expand...

actually -as a matter of fact - its a tax rate. Intentionally confusing it with the institution and practice of owning another human being is the worst sort of over the top hyperbole and an insult to anyone whose family lived in slavery.
 
U.S. Socialist. said:
At least they know where Revolutionary War started unlike that idiot Bachman.
Click to expand...

Unimportant trivia as President, it's how you defend the Constitution that matters, something you leftists won't do.
 
rocket88 said:
Because in your world, anybody who isn't with you is against you. Cons only see two colors, black and white.

Learn something about politics and come back. Until then, STFU. I seriously HATE people like you who lump anybody who criticizes the policies of your precious GOP with socialists. You all have your heads so far up your ass that you couldn't read the Constitution from there unless it's your side that using it for toilet paper.
Click to expand...

No you learn something about pretecting the Constitution, and I don't care if you come back. There is nothing precious about the GOP, except they are one of the two parties....and the only one willing to entertain policies I believe in. But yeah, leftist, socialist...whatever generally want us to be like Europe and move away from American founding principles. The people that started this country, came here to get away from all that. Europeans were against individual liberties at that time, and to some extent still are. We don't need that or them.
 
American said:
Unimportant trivia as President, it's how you defend the Constitution that matters, something you leftists won't do.
Click to expand...

And here I was told it was just a peice of paper, and not a suicide pact (when people were defending the Patriot Act)
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
And here I was told it was just a peice of paper, and not a suicide pact (when people were defending the Patriot Act)
Click to expand...

The timing of this posting is uncanny. According to a person here, Social Security is constitutional because the Supreme Court said it was because it was enacted during a crisis. I said that liberals would be upset with that decision and you have just confirmed it.
 
Boo Radley said:
To corporations? Sure. I agree.
Click to expand...

Well, why not he subsidies to the NEA? However, I am glad to see you are fo ending subsidies to all types of energy companies, including alternative enegy. On that, we are in agreement.
 
Catawba said:
Me too, along with ending anonymous corporate donations to political campaigns. :sun
Click to expand...

I am pleased to see that you want to end subsidies to alternative energy companies along with all others. I think we are making progress here.
 
LesGovt said:
I am pleased to see that you want to end subsidies to alternative energy companies along with all others. I think we are making progress here.
Click to expand...

Oh ABSOLUTELY I do - most certainly.

Which one is it in California that garnished BILLIONS from the government and did 0 . . . 0 . . . absolutely NOTHING in business, research and expansion.
 
Over 98% of homeonwers avoided taxes. I wonder how many people avoid income tax by claiming deductions for local taxes paid. Oh, 100% of custodial parents avoid taxes by claiming the child deduction.

Avoiding taxes is about as evil as avoiding a traffic accident.
 
Patrickt said:
Over 98% of homeonwers avoided taxes. I wonder how many people avoid income tax by claiming deductions for local taxes paid. Oh, 100% of custodial parents avoid taxes by claiming the child deduction.

Avoiding taxes is about as evil as avoiding a traffic accident.
Click to expand...

I agree with the last statement, here. . . the government gives ways of avoiding them on purpose.
But your % are way off.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Oh ABSOLUTELY I do - most certainly.

Which one is it in California that garnished BILLIONS from the government and did 0 . . . 0 . . . absolutely NOTHING in business, research and expansion.
Click to expand...

Cool beans! Glad you agree. Let's just do it!
 
Patrickt said:
Over 98% of homeonwers avoided taxes. I wonder how many people avoid income tax by claiming deductions for local taxes paid. Oh, 100% of custodial parents avoid taxes by claiming the child deduction.

Avoiding taxes is about as evil as avoiding a traffic accident.
Click to expand...

Super, let's just have an income tax structure with one rate and no deductions or exemptions. Super idea!
 
LesGovt said:
Well, why not he subsidies to the NEA? However, I am glad to see you are fo ending subsidies to all types of energy companies, including alternative enegy. On that, we are in agreement.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with that one way or the other. End them. Fine.

But I will say this, if there was ever a reason to have a subsidy it would be for alternative energy, mostly because this is a long term national problem. But, like I said, cut them all out.
 
U.S. Socialist. said:
Since no turtledude seems to think socialism equals big government totalitarianism let's hear from an actual socialist. Albert Einstein. Even turtledude can't be foolish enough to call Einstein lazy or whatever insults he usually uses. Read this to learn what socialism is: Why Socialism? :: Monthly Review
Click to expand...

No trust me he has called Einstein this already. I have brought this up before...
 
TurtleDude said:
socialists and other similar forms of collectivists always want to depict that cancer as some pristine philosophical pure program while ignoring all the ugliness and dead bodies that have been caused by their ideal when it is applied to the real world
Click to expand...
:shock: What the ****?
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
It depends on the business

In a competive market the the company will have to eat the costs. Now as to whether it would be the shareholders or the employees would depend on the labour market. If the labour market is tight and the company is well run (meaning it does not have much in the way of excess employees to begin with) the shareholders will take the hit to dividends/overall profits. If the labour market is in a high surplus level then workers would most likely take the hit.
Click to expand...

In the overwhelming, vast majority of cases, employees take the hit. That's just how things are. Why would a wealthy investor lose any profits if he can kick the can down the road?
 
Boo Radley said:
I have no problem with that one way or the other. End them. Fine.

But I will say this, if there was ever a reason to have a subsidy it would be for alternative energy, mostly because this is a long term national problem. But, like I said, cut them all out.
Click to expand...

National Endowment for the Arts too? We're on an agreement roll here so don't mess it up. :2dance:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom