• 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!

Obama seeks 28 percent corp. tax rate

I take issue slightly with the bolded portion here. If you really believe that business doesn't pass along increases in taxation to the consumer to protect their bottom line for the shareholders they must answer to, then you are fooling yourself.

So, my contention is that increases in rates toward corporations, whether they are derived out of class envy, or governmental greed and control, ultimately hurt the people.

j-mac

In addition to what Hare pointed out, you could also check out what I originally posted in this thread.


To be honest, I really don't see why we have a corporate tax rate.

Corporations don't pay taxes. They're charged a fee by the government which they pass on to consumers through the price tag. All corporate taxes do is raise prices, make us less competitive abroad, and decrease demand. They hurt the consumer, they hurt the worker, and they hurt the business. I would much rather the corporate tax rate be dropped altogether and have revenue made up through some other, more visible, form of taxes.
 
Yeah, but it's more a product of them being in the Eurozone and their financial bubble bursting a couple years back.


So in order for something to be a cost, it must be tax deductible?

You've just confirmed you live in a mental institution because no one living on their own and budgeting their lives could possibly believe such a stupid thing.

Corporate taxes are something corporations have to pay. It eats into their bottom line. If profits are to be maintained, they must increase revenue. That means rising prices. It's painfully simple, and I think you'd agree with me if you weren't conditioned to oppose everything uttered by a liberal.

The part you're missing, is that with the increase of taxable income comes the increase of the tax bill. That works with sales taxes, but not with income taxes. You can insult me all you want and that's not going to change.
 
In addition to what Hare pointed out, you could also check out what I originally posted in this thread.


Ok, Thanks for reposting that..If I could ask, what other more visible form of taxation would you consider that wouldn't be passed along?


j-mac
 
The part you're missing, is that with the increase of taxable income comes the increase of the tax bill. That works with sales taxes, but not with income taxes. You can insult me all you want and that's not going to change.
In my short time here, you're the one name which has stuck out with the unenviable ability to string words together without saying anything. You're not saying anything of worth.

Do corporations pay taxes? Are the costs of those taxes passed on to consumers? Those two answers are obvious yesses. I'm not sure where your disagreement comes in.

Ok, Thanks for reposting that..If I could ask, what other more visible form of taxation would you consider that wouldn't be passed along?


j-mac
I wouldn't be opposed to a national sales tax. Taxing consumption makes more sense to me anyways.
 
Well good. It's a start. But I'd have to see more from you aside of the tongue in cheek snarky small response designed to mock in order to believe a word you say.


j-mac

If you've been paying attention then you have seen much more. Issue No. 1 for me is campaign finance, which is intimately tied to all of these ridiculous loopholes that lard up our tax code. How do they come into existence, one might ask? They come into existence as a result of targeted lobbying campaigns, which are effective because they are backed by campaign contributions. Take away this distortion and it will instantly become easier simplify the tax code.
 
If you've been paying attention then you have seen much more. Issue No. 1 for me is campaign finance, which is intimately tied to all of these ridiculous loopholes that lard up our tax code. How do they come into existence, one might ask? They come into existence as a result of targeted lobbying campaigns, which are effective because they are backed by campaign contributions. Take away this distortion and it will instantly become easier simplify the tax code.


So you don't believe in the right to petition the government for redress of grievance?


j-mac
 
So you don't believe in the right to petition the government for redress of grievance?


j-mac

I'm 100% for the right to petition the government. But I'm 100% against right to bribe public officials with campaign contributions. See the difference?
 
In addition to what Hare pointed out, you could also check out what I originally posted in this thread.

The difference is that the cost is evenly distributed with a corprate tax rate than it would be with an increase in personal income taxes, which would be required if we got rid of corprate taxes. Also, busniesses don't always pass down the tax to their cusomters. Most actually eat a profit loss because. This makes sense because if two people are selling the same product and one charages less because they eat the tax themselves and the other charges more to keep the same profit margin then the cheaper product producer will win. And before you talk about passing the cost down to workers, you should know that the same rule applies. The better worker will work for the company who pays more.
 
I'm 100% for the right to petition the government. But I'm 100% against right to bribe public officials with campaign contributions. See the difference?


Bribery is already illegal. Ask Agnew. If you can prove quid pro quo, then bring a case and prove it. Otherwise you are just making a specious argument.

j-mac
 
Would that be in place of current taxation, or in addition to?


j-mac
Completely in place of. I don't think it's a real political reality because opponents would inevitably portray it as giving corporations a huge tax break while the average American picks up the tab. But I think it would better overall.

The difference is that the cost is evenly distributed with a corprate tax rate than it would be with an increase in personal income taxes, which would be required if we got rid of corprate taxes. Also, busniesses don't always pass down the tax to their cusomters. Most actually eat a profit loss because. This makes sense because if two people are selling the same product and one charages less because they eat the tax themselves and the other charges more to keep the same profit margin then the cheaper product producer will win. And before you talk about passing the cost down to workers, you should know that the same rule applies. The better worker will work for the company who pays more.

Completely false. Two costs imposed on two similar businesses will result in similar price increases. Why do Coke and Pepsi operate at large profits? Your faith in the ability of the free market to drive down prices shows the impracticality of a lot of free market worshipers. Coke and Pepsi are about as interchangeable as anything. In your situation, they would try to undercut each other to the point where their profits were minute. That doesn't happen.
 
In my short time here, you're the one name which has stuck out with the unenviable ability to string words together without saying anything. You're not saying anything of worth.

Do corporations pay taxes? Are the costs of those taxes passed on to consumers? Those two answers are obvious yesses. I'm not sure where your disagreement comes in.


I wouldn't be opposed to a national sales tax. Taxing consumption makes more sense to me anyways.

Because corporate income taxes aren't passed to on to the consumer. It's idiotic to insist that it does.

If you believe so much that you're right, please point out the accounting formula used to do so. Thanks in advance.
 
Completely in place of. I don't think it's a real political reality because opponents would inevitably portray it as giving corporations a huge tax break while the average American picks up the tab. But I think it would better overall.



Completely false. Two costs imposed on two similar businesses will result in similar price increases. Why do Coke and Pepsi operate at large profits? Your faith in the ability of the free market to drive down prices shows the impracticality of a lot of free market worshipers. Coke and Pepsi are about as interchangeable as anything. In your situation, they would try to undercut each other to the point where their profits were minute. That doesn't happen.

Because of their volume.
 
Completely in place of. I don't think it's a real political reality because opponents would inevitably portray it as giving corporations a huge tax break while the average American picks up the tab. But I think it would better overall.

I can agree with you here.

j-mac
 
Completely false. Two costs imposed on two similar businesses will result in similar price increases. Why do Coke and Pepsi operate at large profits? Your faith in the ability of the free market to drive down prices shows the impracticality of a lot of free market worshipers. Coke and Pepsi are about as interchangeable as anything. In your situation, they would try to undercut each other to the point where their profits were minute. That doesn't happen.

Coke and Pepsi do drive down the cost to the point of profits being miute, that is the profits from a single unit or good. Happens all the time with sales. But undercutting cannot drop prices below the cost to make the product. Besides, voulme is why Coke and Pepsi making all their money, not individual unit sales. Volume is also why passing the cost of a tax increase to customers isn't felt as readily as an increase in income taxes. IMO, if we could replace income tax with some form of sales or completely a corprate tax that would be a lot better.
 
Despite the fact that these 25 corporations recorded profits for which they paid no tax (2008-10), they actually received an additional $114.8 billion from the federal government in tax refunds.
There's no way that a corporation can report a profit and pay no taxes. Stop believing the propaganda.

These companies probably paid quarterly taxes, which are shown as deductions on their 1040C. More than likely, the reason they received refunds, is because they overpaid their quarterly payments.

I've made quarterly payments for 2010 and 2011 and received a refund for both.

All that aside, all those companies paid millions, if not billions in payroll taxes, SS and medicare. So, the notion that they paid nothing is rediculous.
My source was "Corporate Taxpayers & Corporate Tax Dodgers 2008-10" - a Joint Project of Citizens for Tax Justice & the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

Citizens for Tax Justice
- a nonpartisan research and advocacy group
- advocates for tax fairness—at the federal, state and local levels
- ranked at the top of the Washington Monthly’s list of America’s “best public interest groups.”
- " “helped to raise public ire against corporate tax evaders.” (The Washington Post)
- “helped propel the taxoverhaul effort,” (The Wall Street Journal)
- “assured that something would be done . . . to make profitable companies pay their share.” ( Associated Press)

..... today corporate tax loopholes are so out of control that most Americans can rightfully
complain, “I pay more federal income taxes than General Electric, Boeing, DuPont, Wells
Fargo, Verizon, etc., etc., all put together.” That’s an unacceptable situation.


http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/CorporateTaxDodgersReport.pdf
Rather than summarily dismissing my source as "propaganda" and "rediculous" (with an "e"), perhaps "apdst" would do us the honor of providing his source!
 
Last edited:
My source was "Corporate Taxpayers & Corporate Tax Dodgers 2008-10" - a Joint Project of Citizens for Tax Justice & the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

Citizens for Tax Justice
- a nonpartisan research and advocacy group
- advocates for tax fairness—at the federal, state and local levels
- ranked at the top of the Washington Monthly’s list of America’s “best public interest groups.”
- " “helped to raise public ire against corporate tax evaders.” (The Washington Post)
- “helped propel the taxoverhaul effort,” (The Wall Street Journal)
- “assured that something would be done . . . to make profitable companies pay their share.” ( Associated Press)


Rather than summarily dismissing my source as "propaganda" and "rediculous" (with an "e"), perhaps "apdst" would do us the honor of providing his source!

More propaganda? That's your source? Really?

What part of, "you can't report a profit and not pay taxes on that profit", don't you understand? My source is plain ol' commom sense.
 
More propaganda? That's your source? Really?

What part of, "you can't report a profit and not pay taxes on that profit", don't you understand? My source is plain ol' commom sense.

apdst, i think it's pretty clear your definition of facts is not the same as most people.
 
Last edited:
More propaganda? That's your source? Really?

What part of, "you can't report a profit and not pay taxes on that profit", don't you understand? My source is plain ol' commom sense.
By this reply, are we to assume that "apdst" considers himself to be the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY on these matters and therefore considers it beneath his dignity to provide sources that support his "OPINION?"
 
Last edited:
By this reply, are we to assume that "apdst" considers his opinion to be the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY on these matters and therefore considers it beneath his dignity to provide sources that support his "OPINION?"

The facts are the ultimate authority and the facts show that these companies don't pay zero taxes.

I've already exposed the lie that GE didn't pay taxes last year. At the very least, they paid payroll taxes to the tune of millions, if not billions.
 
The facts are the ultimate authority and the facts show that these companies don't pay zero taxes.

I've already exposed the lie that GE didn't pay taxes last year. At the very least, they paid payroll taxes to the tune of millions, if not billions.
If "the facts are the ultimate authority," just where do these so-called facts that "apdst" is referring to come from?

Are we to assume that they just spring from "apdst's" head, since he is so adverse to providing sources that might support his opinions?

Paying "payroll taxes" isn't the issue, corporation paying federal tax on their annual profits is!
 
Last edited:
If "the facts are the ultimate authority," just where do these so-called facts that "apdst" is rerferring to come from?

Are we to assume that they just spring from "apdst's" head, since he is so adverse to providing sources that might support his opinions?

Paying "payroll taxes" isn't the issue, corporation paying federal tax on their annual profits is!

I already posted this once, but I don't mind posting it again.



General Electric | Income Taxes | New York Times | The Daily Caller
 
I already posted this once, but I don't mind posting it again.

General Electric | Income Taxes | New York Times | The Daily Caller
The Daily Caller
February 27, 2012

About Us
Founded by Tucker Carlson, a 20-year veteran of print and broadcast media, and Neil Patel, former chief policy adviser to Vice President Cheney, The Daily Caller is a 24-hour news site providing original reporting from an experienced team of professional reporters, thought-provoking commentary and breaking news. In addition to hard news reporting and commentary, The Daily Caller features:

- The DC Trawler: Washington’s most entertaining political blog – hosted by Jim Treacher

- Ask Matt Labash: A wry advice column with writer Matt Labash

- The DC Morning: An unvarnished morning e-mail summary of what’s really happening in political news


Read more: About Us | The Daily Caller
Would "apdst" actually have us believe that a "news site" founded by Tucker Carlson, a conservative commentator, and Neil Patel, former chief policy adviser to Vice President Cheney, is an unbiased source?
 
Back
Top Bottom