(01-21-2014 02:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 12:32 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 11:48 AM)Crebman Wrote:  If you operate under the assumption that we live in a global economy today, free trade agreements obviously affect where corporations decide to make their products. All organized labor does, as it currently operates, is hasten companies moving to places where it doesn't exist - it could be domestic or foreign. There are plenty of costs associated with unions that aren't directly pay related that, in the end, still cost money.
My point is that if we want businesses to stay in the US or attract new businesses here, what we don't want to do is make other places more attractive than here - and corporate tax rates are part of the equation - because, just as you said, the middle class isn't what drives corporate decisions. Consumers they absolutely do consider insomuch as if they turn them off too much, they don't buy their products unless they produce something no one else has. Offshoring and automating cost money. The greater the pressure on the bottom line, the more vigorously a company looks at doing both.
I actually thing Income Tax be it corporate or personal isn't the best way to raise government revenue. All it does is give power to those in Washington to pick winners and losers.

I am more than happy to engage in this discussion with you because it is an interesting one. However, let's not move on to this until we can say we've settled the initial question. Are we in agreement that corporate taxes are not completely passed on to the consumer? Because if you, or anyone else says they are completely passed on, then your new line of inquiry become moot. If corporations can completely pass on their corporate tax burdens to the consumer, then they wouldn't care what that tax level is because they don't ultimately bear it.
So are we finally in agreement that some portion of corporate income taxes, as dictated by demand elasticities, is borne by the owners of the corporation rather than the consumer?

I agree that this is a more interesting topic and would like to discuss.

As for your precondition, you've moved the goal posts quite a bit during this discussion. Your initial comment was that it was "largely untrue" that corporations recovered corporate taxes from customers. In support of this premise you cited a couple of examples where specific market conditions would prevent one or more--but not necessarily all--corporations from recoving 100% of their costs including taxes. First, citing isolated exceptions hardly supports the kind of sweeping point you made initially. Second, in repsonse to the comment that corporations faced with such situations would take corrective actions, you appeared to agree. Now you appear to be claiming that unless all corporations recover 100% of their taxes from customers, that we should all fully agree with your original statement.

I would say that what you have established is that the original statement is "true with exceptions." There's a big gap between that and "largely untrue." You haven't bridged that gap.

And you've attempted to manipulate the argument to require anyone who disagrees with "largely untrue" to prove "true with no exceptions." That's both dishonest and disingenuous.

Again, your disingenuous nature shows through. The original proposition was that corporate income taxes are passed on to consumers and there was absolutely no exception or nuance in that statement. I responded to that as being largely untrue -which is completely accurate. You're trying to reframe that original proposition so that you don't have admit you were wrong when you said,

Quote:Corporations don't pay taxes, they load them onto the price of their products and collect them and pass them through to the government.

Just admit you were wrong and move on.

Nope.

Note what Grad has done here. He's offered a bunch of hyperbolic and unsubstantiated opinions interspersed with ad hominem rants. Nothing substantive.

GE moving headquarters from Connecticut to Boston after Connecticut raises corp income tax.

GE confirms it will move to Boston from Connecticut

(01-13-2016 01:55 PM)VA49er Wrote:  GE moving headquarters from Connecticut to Boston after Connecticut raises corp income tax.

GE confirms it will move to Boston from Connecticut

I dont believe they really wanted to move, but GE was tired of Conn and pissed off at governor Malloy. The new governor (Dan Malloy) broke his campaign promise about corporate taxes there and voted to raise them up, and GE said it would meet with several different states about a HQ move.

Even still, they also invited Connecticut for direct meeting so that Malloy could show what the state would propose to keep GE headquartered there.

But the only thing the inept governor did at the meeting was to show a power point presentation where he simply said "Connecticut will match any other offer by any other state" and showed a picture of a GE jet engine for a feel good moment. The jet engine, however, was not one of GE's. It was a competitors jet engine. Way to blow it big-time, Malloy.

Malloy and his failure of a group would get tossed as interns at a small company, and yet they run an entire state.

Way to go Malloy.

(01-13-2016 01:55 PM)VA49er Wrote:  GE moving headquarters from Connecticut to Boston after Connecticut raises corp income tax.

GE confirms it will move to Boston from Connecticut

Liberals never get it. Company I used to work moved from MD to VA for the same reason a few years back.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

(01-13-2016 02:17 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 01:55 PM)VA49er Wrote:  GE moving headquarters from Connecticut to Boston after Connecticut raises corp income tax.

GE confirms it will move to Boston from Connecticut

Liberals never get it. Company I used to work moved from MD to VA for the same reason a few years back.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

The same ones that wanted the tax increase will beatch about GE leaving. You are right, they just don't get it.

How many of the gun/arms Manufacturers have left Conn.? There was a free for all there for a bit. Shame, really. They're going to turn an otherwise beautiful State (in areas anyway) into another liberal cesspool.

I'm not much of a business man but I think some of what you're debating is a little similar to what I'm going through not in a corporate world but as a regular joe. Here in El Paso, our liberal leaning city and county leaders are kiliing us with all the taxes associated with living in a city. With what we pay in taxes my wife and I could live very comfortably in a rental. We don't move to one because of the inconvenience, privacy, etc issues.

We could move to NM where the taxes are lower but they have a state income tax. So nothing changes as far as amount of money going out to taxes. But if we did move we would be subject to that states other problems not to mention the headache of just moving there. So where does that leave us? Not much unless we decide to downsize and in return maybe not living in as nice a neighborhood.

So in a nutshell what I'm trying to say is that a corporation has to look at everything that will be involved in moving or staying in a certain location. Taxation isn't the cure-all, end-all to a companys problems but it carries a lot of weight. One needs certain benefits to offset the minuses. Transportation of product, housing for employees, an adequate (trained) work force, schools for those employees children, quality of life, etc. But, it better be worthwhile for the company to invest so much in moving to offset the taxes that also in reality doesn't mean it won't change for the worst in the immediate future with new government leadership making the move a losing venture.

(01-13-2016 03:56 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  How many of the gun/arms Manufacturers have left Conn.? There was a free for all there for a bit. Shame, really. They're going to turn an otherwise beautiful State (in areas anyway) into another liberal cesspool.

I heard about some fire arm manufacturers leaving but not sure the number. I have read that IBM is threatening to leave Connecticut for the same reason GE left.

I'm not gonna buy GE anymore.

(01-14-2016 09:49 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  I'm not gonna buy GE anymore.

Why? They'll probably be more profitable now.

(01-13-2016 04:25 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  So in a nutshell what I'm trying to say is that a corporation has to look at everything that will be involved in moving or staying in a certain location.

This is why it took so long for GE to move in the first place, and why they limited their search area. They are somewhat tied to the northeast. It wouldnt have taken much to keep GE, and it took a hell of a lot to get them to move. Liberals know this, which is why they are so inflexible. They believe that corporations will stick around with higher taxes because the logistics of moving a HQ can be such a nightmare.

Had GE been willing to look beyond the northeast, there's no telling what kind of offers they would have received from Texas, Tennessee, etc.

(01-14-2016 09:49 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  I'm not gonna buy GE anymore.

You liberals know its getting bad when Obama's buddies and advisers are saying a hardy FU to higher taxes.

(01-07-2014 10:01 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  There needs to be either a flat tax or a fair tax that is applied equally across the board. Eliminating the corporate tax would be great for Wall Street at the detriment of small business and Main Street. We need to level the playing field, not make it less possible for small business to compete.

This is why Ted Cruz's tax plan is the best. As you can see, I said the same thing 2 years ago before he released his plan. Letting corporations go tax free while hosing already disadvantaged small businesses would be an unmitigated disaster. We need to level the playing field. Entire towns in flyover country are dying left and right. Big cities and large corporations are necessary and essential to the economy, but we can't run the whole economy solely on them. 80% of American workers are employed by small businesses. This is why wages are stagnant.

(01-09-2014 12:01 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 11:49 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  Why would a business, any business, not include the cost of government taxation when pricing their product or service?

How is that expense different from any other expense (Freight, cogs, warehousing, etc) that a company passes on to the final consumer?

So how are taxes different? And do businesses just get to decide what to pass on to consumers?

Well they do until the "progressives" get us where they want to go... Fascist economics.

I don't know if completely eliminating the corporate tax is optimal in the end, but I do think it needs to be slashed significantly if the U.S. wants to maintain its corporate base.

(01-14-2016 11:12 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I don't know if completely eliminating the corporate tax is optimal in the end, but I do think it needs to be slashed significantly if the U.S. wants to maintain its corporate base.

Well, except maintaining it does nothing to get us out of this near decade old rut, and the worst economic recovery in the history of the Country.

We need to GROW the corporate base. Grow manufacturing. Grow good paying jobs. Grow exports. All the things to get this joint working again.

Right now all we're doing is propping up the weak economy by printing money that is backed by basically nothing. more people sitting on the sidelines than ever before (last 40 yrs anyway) and we are fed phony numbers like 5% unemployment. Yea. cause the real unemployed aren't even looking.

We need a dramatic move back to job creation, growth policies, and dare I say it getting great again. (No I'm not a Trump guy, but much of what he says is spot on).

We're not even remotely competitive with much of the rest of the 1st, developed world, when it comes to corporate taxes. Make it more attractive to have have your Co. here, more attractive to keep your capital here, more attractive to bring your money home over here.

Watch this sucker BOOM again. What we're doing now and what we've been doing ........ sucks.

(01-14-2016 11:34 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 11:12 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I don't know if completely eliminating the corporate tax is optimal in the end, but I do think it needs to be slashed significantly if the U.S. wants to maintain its corporate base.

Well, except maintaining it does nothing to get us out of this near decade old rut, and the worst economic recovery in the history of the Country.

We need to GROW the corporate base. Grow manufacturing. Grow good paying jobs. Grow exports. All the things to get this joint working again.

Right now all we're doing is propping up the weak economy by printing money that is backed by basically nothing. more people sitting on the sidelines than ever before (last 40 yrs anyway) and we are fed phony numbers like 5% unemployment. Yea. cause the real unemployed aren't even looking.

We need a dramatic move back to job creation, growth policies, and dare I say it getting great again. (No I'm not a Trump guy, but much of what he says is spot on).

We're not even remotely competitive with much of the rest of the 1st, developed world, when it comes to corporate taxes. Make it more attractive to have have your Co. here, more attractive to keep your capital here, more attractive to bring your money home over here.

Watch this sucker BOOM again. What we're doing now and what we've been doing ........ sucks.

Corporations have done fantastic in this worst recovery in history. Notwithstanding the last 2 weeks, look at the stock market. The weakness of the corporate base isn't the problem. The problem is actually quite the opposite - the corporate base has grown so strong and so intertwined with government, it has become an oligarchy. Outside of medium-large cities where the corporate base is located, there is next to nothing. That's the problem. The corporate base has taken over everything, aside from the restaurants. If I am Joe from Springfield, I can no longer open a grocery store, auto mechanic shop, or sell much of anything because I can't compete with the Walmarts because they pay lower taxes and because they can afford the lawyers and accountants to comply with the crushing government regulation.

America is not a business-friendly country anymore. It is extremely hard to open a business here, mostly due to the overbearing regulations.

I remember watching an episode of Shark Tank and them saying how much easier it is to open a business in Canada. That's just sad.