| Worth repeating - corporations don't pay taxes-customers do Always this big brouhaha over corporations paying or not paying taxes. It is worth repeating that it is the customers of these companies who pay the taxes thru higher prices. Anyone cheering for corporations paying higher taxes are really just cheering to pay more taxes themselves - unless you are one of those very few people who never buy any product or service. |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Thank you for reminding people of this. It is shameful that so many people are not taught this basic truth, and those who do learn it choose to ignore it.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. |
|
| Sure, when some companies pay corporate taxes and other can avoid it, there are distortions in the marketplace that makes things less economically efficient. That is the fault of government.
There should be no corporate taxes. But public officials love to tax the sheeple indirectly - it makes them believe they aren't being taxed. If all taxes were levied against individuals directly, as it should be, they would finally realize how much money the government was taking from their pockets.
--
»www.politico.com/rss/2012-election.xml
»www.politico.com/rss/2012-election-blog.xml
|
|
 N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs: It is worth repeating that it is the customers of these companies who pay the taxes thru higher prices. Anyone cheering for corporations paying higher taxes are really just cheering to pay more taxes themselves - unless you are one of those very few people who never buy any product or service.
See, now that's specious reasoning IMHO. Especially if the corporation is turning a decent profit.
Consumers pay what the MARKET will bear, regardless of the structure of the corporate tax code. If a corporation can't provide a service at a competitive price, the consumer goes elsewhere.
The real benefit of the current tax structure is to the SHAREHOLDER, and not to the CONSUMER. Corporations aren't going to charge me less just because their taxes are lower. They're going to charge the maximum amount they think they can for their product. The ultimate driving force here is not to charge less, or even pay less taxes, but to maximize profit. The obvious (and some would say proper) primary goal of the corporation.
I seriously doubt Verizon, GE, and Boeing are spending billions on lobbyists in the interests of end consumers like you and me.
These corporations enjoy the protections of the rule of law (both patent law & contract law via the courts). They have a duty to contribute SOMETHING to society.
I'm not saying tax the rich to feed the poor until their "int no rich no more", but pay SOMETHING.
Of course, I could pay nothing in taxes if I had a herd of corporate lawyers & lobbyists too. But since I'm just one person with one vote I have no real voice in this country anymore.
Money talks, bullshit (and the individual) walks.
--
Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
Um, actually you are 100% wrong, and you should know better. Unless the products are completely price inelastic to the consumer, some of the tax incidence falls on the company as well as the consumer. Verizon's basket of goods are not inelastic.
Bottom line, any tax levied on Verizon, some portion fall on the customer, but the rest fall on the company. You know, the one that paid it's CEO nearly $20M a year in compensation.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence |
|
 amarryatVerizon FiOS
join:2005-05-02
Marshfield, MA
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:Thank you for reminding people of this. It is shameful that so many people are not taught this basic truth, and those who do learn it choose to ignore it.
Not to mention the fact that all of the employees are having taxes withheld from their paychecks. |
|
 vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | reply to fAcEtIOUs
That's swell, but Verizon is a C corporation, which has a tax liability independent of its owners. They're expected to pay taxes, and yes, pass them on if they're able to do it without losing customers. Remember that the shareholders themselves are taxed at the capital gains rate, which is less than half of the ordinary income tax rate. That's done because they're an expectation that the corporation already paid tax on that money. Time to raise the capital gains rate to match the ordinary income rate. |
|
 stevek1949We're not in Kansas anymore
join:2002-11-13
Virginia Beach, VA | reply to fAcEtIOUs
So why isn't the headline, "WELLS FARGO and AT&T LEAD THE LIST OF NON TAXPAYERS. VERIZON THIRD".
It seems that when you get a chance to bash Verizon, you go out of your way to do it. Right or wrong, it is very obvious. |
|
| reply to Bill Dollar
said by Bill Dollar:Um, actually you are 100% wrong, and you should know better. Unless the products are completely price inelastic to the consumer, some of the tax incidence falls on the company as well as the consumer. Verizon's basket of goods are not inelastic.
Bottom line, any tax levied on Verizon, some portion fall on the customer, but the rest fall on the company. You know, the one that paid it's CEO nearly $20M a year in compensation.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence
I understand that, but almost all corporations are operating under price inelastcity, so taxes are all passed on to consumers as the example in the link you provided states:
Imagine a $1 tax on every barrel of apples an apple farmer produces. If the product (apples) is price inelastic to the consumer (whereby if price rose, a small demand loss would be accounted for by the extra revenue), the farmer is able to pass the entire tax on to consumers of apples by raising the price by $1. In this example, consumers bear the entire burden of the tax; the tax incidence falls on consumers.
--
»www.politico.com/rss/2012-election.xml
»www.politico.com/rss/2012-election-blog.xml
|
|
1 edit | reply to fAcEtIOUs
taxes are on profits! i.e what is leftover after sales - expenses = gross profit - taxes = net profit.
How on earth does that raise prices? Here is a great article on what has been done to the tax code.
»www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne···20111109
"When they [corporations] do not pay their taxes, someone else does – you and me." Ronald Reagan |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
You don't seem to understand the underlying economic concept of price elasticity, so I'm not sure furthering this discussion is of any use. But it is 100% wrong to say "almost all corporations are operating under price inelasticity." That's completely the opposite of the empirical reality, and it is not even close to reality in telecom. The basket of goods Verizon sells are nowhere near being inelastic, especially their highest margin offerings like mobile and fixed data.
p.s., citing that example without citing the rest of the example is either misleading or pardon the lack of a better word, ignorant. Read further down on the apples example, "On the other hand..." |
|
| Actually, Verizons prices are quite elastic WHERE THERE IS COMPETITION. In those markets prices trend lower to compete. Where none exists, they are not. Both of you are somewhat right and somewhat wrong. In a competitive market, there is a maximum price consumers will pay or they will go to a competitor that offers more value...regardless of taxes the corporation pays. If the market is not competitive, every increase is passed on to consumers. In this market even if taxes were 0 prices wont come down...why would they? You have the market cornered my monopoly, or duopoly. You can't discuss free market solutions when you dont have a competitive free market, and thats the 1000lb elephant in the room everyone refuses to see from the FCC to Congress. |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
 ·DIRECTV
 ·Optimum Online
·Cablevision
| reply to stevek1949
most likely because as bad as AT&T is, they aren't known for the bad deals to sell off networks and bankrupt the regional operators through very craftly deals, so they went with the headline that would get the most clicks, people love verizion service, if they are lucky enough to be in a urban or high density suburban area, I have a quadruple play with them, but as for their dealings with the country at large they are pretty scummy. AT&T is bad no doubt too. |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:If all taxes were levied against individuals directly, as it should be, they would finally realize how much money the government was taking from their pockets. So, businesses should get away with basically using fire and police services for free? They should get the benefits of the military without paying something into the cost? They should benefit from the education system without paying something into that system? Get real.
Businesses use and benefit from government services and should pay for them along with individual taxpayers who benefit. If business don't pay for the services that they use, then the tax payer is subsidizing them and frankly, the individual taxpayer has subsidized profitable private industries far too much. |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
...unless there is a competitor that figures out a way to do it better/cheaper that gives the consumer more value. Example...flat screen TVs. When you had 1 or 2 companies that made them, prices were very high. When the "generic" companies started to manufacture them, prices dropped like a rock, and the 1 or 2 that were making them matched the price drops. Prices can be quite elastic under certain circumstances. Saying all are inelastic is wrong |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:Always this big brouhaha over corporations paying or not paying taxes. It is worth repeating that it is the customers of these companies who pay the taxes thru higher prices. Anyone cheering for corporations paying higher taxes are really just cheering to pay more taxes themselves - unless you are one of those very few people who never buy any product or service.
So business should have to pay ZERO taxes? Do you think that will actually to to lower prices or higher pay? Nope. You repubs all think alike. Business and millionaires and billionaires shouldn't pay a dime and everyone else should support their lifestyles. Funny thing is you aint rich. And guess what supporting the rich won't make them let you into their little club. You aint part of the club you will NEVER be a part of the club. FUCK THEM. |
|
| reply to GetReal
After all, corporations are people, too! |
|
vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | reply to stevek1949
said by stevek1949:So why isn't the headline, "WELLS FARGO and AT&T LEAD THE LIST OF NON TAXPAYERS. VERIZON THIRD". I'm not Karl, but I'd guess it's because this is a site for discussing the telecommunications industry and not the banking industry? |
|
| Considering AT&T comes before Verizion in the list, that's can't really all it is. It is the reason Wells Fargo wasn't selected as the target. |
|
| reply to GetReal
said by GetReal :said by fAcEtIOUs:If all taxes were levied against individuals directly, as it should be, they would finally realize how much money the government was taking from their pockets. So, businesses should get away with basically using fire and police services for free? They should get the benefits of the military without paying something into the cost? They should benefit from the education system without paying something into that system? Get real. Wow, that was a really impressive job of COMPLETELY ignoring the argument that you were responding to.
--
Dresden - I work in Accounts Payable.
Random Bad Guy - In what capacity?
Dresden - I make sure everyone gets what's coming to them. |
|
