• 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!

Among Developed Nations American Tax Bills are Below Average

ARealConservative said:
yawn. all inflation calculations ignore the historical precedence that deflation is the norm.
Click to expand...
No, deflation is not the "norm." We use a fiat currency, which means that it has no intrinsic or external value. Its value is essentially based on how much is in circulation, as well as some other factors.

If a government has zero control over a currency, then it will be subjected to wild fluctuations in value -- especially if that currency is itself has some extrinsic value. This is not, in fact, a good situation for an economy, as deflations can exacerbate recessions, and inflations can destroy healthy economies.
 
Visbek said:
And you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Taxes are when a government collects revenue from individuals and organizations.

The fact that "an increase in taxes results in a reduction in purchasing power" does NOT mean that "any reduction in purchasing power is a tax." That is an absurdly irrational claim, because if the government doesn't actually receive any revenue from you, then IT'S NOT A TAX.

That's just basic logic. Your claim is thoroughly irrational.
Click to expand...

It isn’t a tax, it just functions like one. Currency debasement is done for the same reason taxation is done – as a means to an end – in this case the end is goods and services paid from by government decree.

You spent so much time trying to argue axioms. It’s utterly laughable.
 
Visbek said:
No, deflation is not the "norm." We use a fiat currency, which means that it has no intrinsic or external value. Its value is essentially based on how much is in circulation, as well as some other factors.

If a government has zero control over a currency, then it will be subjected to wild fluctuations in value -- especially if that currency is itself has some extrinsic value. This is not, in fact, a good situation for an economy, as deflations can exacerbate recessions, and inflations can destroy healthy economies.
Click to expand...

yes, it is the norm. it takes interference in market activity to counter the norm
 
ARealConservative said:
Yes, corporate taxes too. All things that are an expensive of doing business will try to be baked into a price.

your reply seems to be based on a false premise that corporate taxes are progressive. Your rate doesn’t go up as profit increases. Your taxes do, but so does your sales. But that does not create instability because you have accounted for tax burden in your pricing structure. Your taxes went up because your sales went up. This only creates an unstable atmosphere if you don’t account for taxes in the pricing structure of what you sell.
Click to expand...

sorry but wrong. Corporate income taxes are not built into the price.. they cannot be.

If you account for tax burden in your pricing structure.. then this means that if you make more money than your competitor.. your prices will have to be higher than your competitor.. to make up for the higher taxes you paid.

And it simply doesn't work that way.. It can't. otherwise you could not be competitive if you made more profit. .
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Of course, they are. Even a tiny business, like self employment, does that. If Joe the lawn mowing guy needs to earn (net?) $30K then he must set his prices to make $35K if he must pay $5K in FIT. Taxation is just another cost of doing business - to pretend otherwise is foolish.
Click to expand...

Yeah wrong. If joe mowing lawn "needs to earn" 30K. He cannot simply set his prices to make 35 if he must pay 5 in FIT.

That's because he will have competitors that compete. And that competition will set the price.

And his competitors don't pay the same in taxes. So if Joe tries to set his prices so that he earns 35K.. because he must pay 5k in FIT... he is going to find that he actually makes zero.. because he is competing with someone who sets his prices where he will make profit by getting more marketshare. and Joe will have no marketshare.

You cannot pass income taxes onto prices guys. I compete with non profits that pay no corporate incomes tax... guys.. If I priced my services based on income taxes.. I would lose all my customers and lose all marketshare.
 
jaeger19 said:
sorry but wrong. Corporate income taxes are not built into the price.. they cannot be.

If you account for tax burden in your pricing structure.. then this means that if you make more money than your competitor.. your prices will have to be higher than your competitor.. to make up for the higher taxes you paid.

And it simply doesn't work that way.. It can't. otherwise you could not be competitive if you made more profit. .
Click to expand...

not only can it. but it does.

you make more money for many reasons. more sales volume being the most common reason.

You sold more widgets, so you can pay your increased tax bill via volume activity. Again, you seem to be trying to apply a progressive rate to corporate taxes, but that doesn't happen. If I sold twice as many products, my tax bill is likely higher, but I sold more units and bakes the price in those units. I have the ability to pay my taxes by increases sales.

this ignores the other aspect of increased sales - fixed costs are now spread out via increased sales, making you even more profitable
 
jaeger19 said:
Yeah wrong. If joe mowing lawn "needs to earn" 30K. He cannot simply set his prices to make 35 if he must pay 5 in FIT.

That's because he will have competitors that compete. And that competition will set the price.

And his competitors don't pay the same in taxes. So if Joe tries to set his prices so that he earns 35K.. because he must pay 5k in FIT... he is going to find that he actually makes zero.. because he is competing with someone who sets his prices where he will make profit by getting more marketshare. and Joe will have no marketshare.

You cannot pass income taxes onto prices guys. I compete with non profits that pay no corporate incomes tax... guys.. If I priced my services based on income taxes.. I would lose all my customers and lose all marketshare.
Click to expand...
marketshare is meaningless if you are running at a loss

if you price your goods to not account for taxes and show no profit, who cares what your market share is
 
blackjack50 said:
How does this make you feel? People demand more programs, but are we willing to pay more for them?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

:ranton: :soap Ahhh.... Hells no. This bull**** about how we are below average on taxation, is just that bull****. The people who are taxed more than us are WAY overtaxed. We are WAY overtaxed. Taking more than 10% total federal state and local is bull**** and overtaxed. I don't want to another damn program I want the tax money that I ALREADY paid used CORRECTLY for a ****ing change!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! One of my companies pays a boatload in road taxes in California yet their ****ing roads look like they belong in a third world nation. ****ing pothole ridden goat trails. That state in state tax ALONE has MORE than enough money to maintain and keep those roads ****ing damn near self heated and gold plated. The least they can do is keep them maintained. Except those dumb ****s decide they need core samples of their roads **** them up by cutting them up and patching them and then wonder why they are destroyed in 6 months. EVERY place those idiots cut ends up a giant suspension crushing pothole. That's just one of MANY irritations about the tax code and government spending. I am spitting at my screen now. I better stop or I will get a coronary.:rantoff: I am gona get a drink now. :drink
 
ARealConservative said:
marketshare is meaningless if you are running at a loss

if you price your goods to not account for taxes and show no profit, who cares what your market share is
Click to expand...

If you show no profit, you won't pay taxes. And one's taxes can only negate a portion of one's profit.
 
ARealConservative said:
not only can it. but it does.

you make more money for many reasons. more sales volume being the most common reason.

You sold more widgets, so you can pay your increased tax bill via volume activity. Again, you seem to be trying to apply a progressive rate to corporate taxes, but that doesn't happen. If I sold twice as many products, my tax bill is likely higher, but I sold more units and bakes the price in those units. I have the ability to pay my taxes by increases sales.

this ignores the other aspect of increased sales - fixed costs are now spread out via increased sales, making you even more profitable
Click to expand...

no I am not. Sorry but you are demonstrating that you have no idea of pricing.

Okay.. you sold twice as many products as your competitors... thus you had to pay more income tax because you had more profit.

Under your premise.. BECAUSE YOU PAID MORE IN TAX... you then have to increase the price of your widgets.

Meanwhile.. your competitor.. that did not have to pay the tax you did.. can keep his prices the same.

Are you really going to claim that you are going to raise your prices..?

Come now.
 
ARealConservative said:
marketshare is meaningless if you are running at a loss

if you price your goods to not account for taxes and show no profit, who cares what your market share is
Click to expand...

You only pay INCOME tax on profit.

So you are not running at a loss because of income taxes.

Second.. ,marketshare is not meaningless if you are running at a loss.. because that's probably why you are running at a loss.

If you show no profit.. then you will have no income taxes.
 
jaeger19 said:
Yeah wrong. If joe mowing lawn "needs to earn" 30K. He cannot simply set his prices to make 35 if he must pay 5 in FIT.

That's because he will have competitors that compete. And that competition will set the price.

And his competitors don't pay the same in taxes. So if Joe tries to set his prices so that he earns 35K.. because he must pay 5k in FIT... he is going to find that he actually makes zero.. because he is competing with someone who sets his prices where he will make profit by getting more marketshare. and Joe will have no marketshare.

You cannot pass income taxes onto prices guys. I compete with non profits that pay no corporate incomes tax... guys.. If I priced my services based on income taxes.. I would lose all my customers and lose all marketshare.
Click to expand...

Nice theory there for sure. Trying to compete with non-profits, according to your theory, would mean no profit potential for you then. I suspect that it is not the non-profits who set that market price - the non-profits simply charge that market price and use the built in profit in that market price as a donation for whatever else they do.
 
jaeger19 said:
You only pay INCOME tax on profit.

So you are not running at a loss because of income taxes.

Second.. ,marketshare is not meaningless if you are running at a loss.. because that's probably why you are running at a loss.

If you show no profit.. then you will have no income taxes.
Click to expand...

when you talk profit, are you referring to actual sales or market speculation of stock prices?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nice theory there for sure. Trying to compete with non-profits, according to your theory, would mean no profit potential for you then. I suspect that it is not the non-profits who set that market price - the non-profits simply charge that market price and use the built in profit in that market price as a donation for whatever else they do.
Click to expand...

AHHH.. you don't get it. Non profits pay no tax. NO TAX.

IF I tried to factor my tax into prices.. I would lose marketshare.

the market price IS SET BY THE MARKET.. which includes non profits..and all sorts of entities that may pay a little tax.. a lot of tax or no tax.

You cannot simply go.. gee.. I made profit last year.. and paid tax on it.. so I will raise my prices accordingly..
 
jaeger19 said:
no I am not. Sorry but you are demonstrating that you have no idea of pricing.

Okay.. you sold twice as many products as your competitors... thus you had to pay more income tax because you had more profit.

Under your premise.. BECAUSE YOU PAID MORE IN TAX... you then have to increase the price of your widgets.

Meanwhile.. your competitor.. that did not have to pay the tax you did.. can keep his prices the same.

Are you really going to claim that you are going to raise your prices..?

Come now.
Click to expand...
Wow. Math is not your strong point

I had more profit because I sold more widgets. If I baked taxes into the widget sales price, why do I need to increase my price because I sold more widgets? If anything, I could reduce my price

How? Simple. Some of the costs of running my business are fixed. I heat a building, but the more widgets I sell, I pay less heating per widget. Technically an increase in sales volume would reduce the price I need to charge. You have it backwards
 
ARealConservative said:
Wow. Math is not your strong point

I had more profit because I sold more widgets. If I baked taxes into the widget sales price, why do I need to increase my price because I sold more widgets? If anything, I could reduce my price

How? Simple. Some of the costs of running my business are fixed. I heat a building, but the more widgets I sell, I pay less heating per widget. Technically an increase in sales volume would reduce the price I need to charge. You have it backwards
Click to expand...

YOU JUST BLEW YOUR WHOLE DANG PREMISE OUT OF THE WATER..

You claimed that you would HAVE TO FOLD YOUR TAXES INTO THE PRICE OF YOUR WIDGETS. IF YOU MAKE MORE PROFT.. YOU WILL PAY MORE INCOME TAX... and according to you... YOU HAVE TO INCLUDE YOUR INCREASE IN TAXES INTO YOUR PRICE.

NOW YOU ARE CLAIMING THAT IF YOU PAY MORE TAXES (because you have more profit).. that you could actually lower your prices!!.

The only one that's backwards is YOU.!!!
 
jaeger19 said:
See.. above... you have NO CLUE what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

right. you have a problem though

even if you claim the burden of corporate taxes effects labor, that still has an impact on purchasing power. lower wages = less purchasing power.

or if you claim it is impacting dividends - that impacts purchaser power of individuals too.

did you forget what you were even arguing?
 
jaeger19 said:
YOU JUST BLEW YOUR WHOLE DANG PREMISE OUT OF THE WATER..

You claimed that you would HAVE TO FOLD YOUR TAXES INTO THE PRICE OF YOUR WIDGETS. IF YOU MAKE MORE PROFT.. YOU WILL PAY MORE INCOME TAX... and according to you... YOU HAVE TO INCLUDE YOUR INCREASE IN TAXES INTO YOUR PRICE.

NOW YOU ARE CLAIMING THAT IF YOU PAY MORE TAXES (because you have more profit).. that you could actually lower your prices!!.

The only one that's backwards is YOU.!!!
Click to expand...

wow. you are mathematically challenged.

If I sell 1 million units, and baked a dollar tax into each unit, I have a million dollars to give to IRS

If I sell 500k units, I have 500k.

I don't need to raise price when selling a million units to account for the extra 500k in taxes.


what you are doubly confused by is some of my expenses are fixed. If I sell 500k more units, my rent on my building stayed the same. I now could lower my price because my cost per widget to lease my property went down
 
ARealConservative said:
wow. you are mathematically challenged.

If I sell 1 million units, and baked a dollar tax into each unit, I have a million dollars to give to IRS

If I sell 500k units, I have 500k.

I don't need to raise price when selling a million units to account for the extra 500k in taxes.


what you are doubly confused by is some of my expenses are fixed. If I sell 500k more units, my rent on my building stayed the same. I now could lower my price because my cost per widget to lease my property went down
Click to expand...

good god man. You cannot "bake a dollar tax" into each unit.

You price at the maximum price that the market will bear. That's how you set prices.


I am not confused at all. YOU are confused. The issue is NOT your fixed costs. The issue is taxes. And if you have more profit in a year.. under your premise.. you would have to "bake" that extra tax cost into your prices.

Which means that you would have to RAISE your prices.. not lower them,

You sir are challenged all around.
 
jaeger19 said:
good god man. You cannot "bake a dollar tax" into each unit.

You price at the maximum price that the market will bear. That's how you set prices.


I am not confused at all. YOU are confused. The issue is NOT your fixed costs. The issue is taxes. And if you have more profit in a year.. under your premise.. you would have to "bake" that extra tax cost into your prices.

Which means that you would have to RAISE your prices.. not lower them,

You sir are challenged all around.
Click to expand...


You are clearly confused. After I said the price would try to be baked in, you claimed this would create price instability because more sales equals more taxes and they would have to raise prices to account for more taxes.

You showed you have no clue about simple math concepts. If the tax was baked into the price, how does more sales require a higher price? You claim to not be mathematically challenged, but you said what you said, and I demonstrated how stupid that line of reasoning was

And after all this, you seem to ignore the actual subject here. Taxes effect purchasing power. If a company is unable to bake the increased taxes into the product, they are going to have to find another solution – which would either effect labor rates, or dividends, which effects purchasing power of individuals

You wanted so much to sound like you had a brain, but you crashed and burned in the end.
 
ARealConservative said:
You are clearly confused. After I said the price would try to be baked in, you claimed this would create price instability because more sales equals more taxes and they would have to raise prices to account for more taxes.

You showed you have no clue about simple math concepts. If the tax was baked into the price, how does more sales require a higher price? You claim to not be mathematically challenged, but you said what you said, and I demonstrated how stupid that line of reasoning was

And after all this, you seem to ignore the actual subject here. Taxes effect purchasing power. If a company is unable to bake the increased taxes into the product, they are going to have to find another solution – which would either effect labor rates, or dividends, which effects purchasing power of individuals

You wanted so much to sound like you had a brain, but you crashed and burned in the end.
Click to expand...

SIR.. if income taxes were part of your costs that must be put into your prices. THEN if you have more profit and pay more taxes.. then you have to increase your prices. That's how your premise works. THATS THE ONLY way your premise works

You are absolutely clueless that you are not "baking in" income taxes in.. Can't do it. Can't/. Impossible...

Some taxes affect purchasing power.. excise taxes.. sales taxes.. because those taxes occur whether there is profit or not.

INCOME taxes which are taken AFTER PROFIT.. do not effect purchasing power.

Anything you "purchase".. is done PRE TAXED (when it comes to income taxes).

That smoke you smell is not me crashing and burning.. its you.. and you don't even realize that you are on fire.
 
jaeger19 said:
SIR.. if income taxes were part of your costs that must be put into your prices. THEN if you have more profit and pay more taxes.. then you have to increase your prices. That's how your premise works. THATS THE ONLY way your premise works
Click to expand...

wow. I'm done wasting my time with you on this. it's like trying to explain 1+1 to someone that just can't comprehend 1+1

post 71 is still up for you to try to understand
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom