dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
14
share rss forum feed


GetReal

@cox.net
reply to footballdude

Re: Worth repeating - corporations don't pay taxes-customers do

said by footballdude:

Wow, that was a really impressive job of COMPLETELY ignoring the argument that you were responding to.

Not quite. The argument was made that taxes should not be levied against businesses, only against natural persons or, in the post replied to, "individuals". There are reasons why businesses should pay taxes, most specifically that they receive benefits from government services. The response was pointing that out that there are reasons businesses should pay taxes too.


amarryat
Verizon FiOS

join:2005-05-02
Marshfield, MA
They pay property taxes on their buildings. Just like you pay them on your house.

Wilsdom

join:2009-08-06
A good percentage of corporations have gotten their government flunkies to reduce or eliminate their property taxes. Try doing that with your house


GetReal

@cox.com
reply to amarryat
said by amarryat:

They pay property taxes on their buildings. Just like you pay them on your house.

Yes that is true, however, the original poster made a statement that taxes should only levied on individuals. If you hash that idea completely out, that preclude property taxes on business properties if they were owned by corporations.


amarryat
Verizon FiOS

join:2005-05-02
Marshfield, MA
reply to Wilsdom
If I employed hundreds of people in my town at my house, I'd probably be able to negotiate something like that.


footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
reply to GetReal
said by GetReal :

The argument was made that taxes should not be levied against businesses, only against natural persons or, in the post replied to, "individuals".

Nope. His point was that taxes levied against businesses are simply passed on to individuals.


amarryat
Verizon FiOS

join:2005-05-02
Marshfield, MA
reply to GetReal
Corporations are merely groups of people. Tax that entity and you are really taxing the investors, eg. 401K plans invested in stocks etc.


GetReal

@cox.com
said by amarryat:

Corporations are merely groups of people. Tax that entity and you are really taxing the investors, eg. 401K plans invested in stocks etc.

Yes they are, which is why the corporate income tax should be zero if we continue to tax capital gains and dividends the way we are doing it now. If the corporation has already paid taxes on its profits, the shareholders shouldn't have to pay taxes again on that same money and vice versa.

However, no person or group of people should benefit from government services without paying for them and corporations receive a benefit from the government in the form of services like fire and police protections. Advocating for no taxes on corporations means that individuals are forced to pay higher rates and are essentially subsidizing the services that businesses receive from the government.


GetReal

@cox.com
reply to footballdude
said by footballdude:

Nope. His point was that taxes levied against businesses are simply passed on to individuals.

In the original post, yes. In the post I responded to, no. The point of the post I responded to was that taxes levied on business should be eliminated because they are simply passed on. My point is that creates a problem whereby business benefits from services it doesn't pay for if you do that. There is no reason to debate that those taxes are passed on to customers since we all know that is the case, however it is fair to debate the idea that business should pay no tax because they pass those costs on.


amarryat
Verizon FiOS

join:2005-05-02
Marshfield, MA
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

1 recommendation

reply to GetReal
said by GetReal :

If the corporation has already paid taxes on its profits, the shareholders shouldn't have to pay taxes again on that same money and vice versa.

I dream of that day. By extension, then all money should be taxed once and only once. However it is taxed again and again in the current system. When I get paid, I also pay taxes. When I pay someone to mow the lawn, they pay taxes on the money that I paid them, which was already taxed. And on and on.....


GetReal

@cox.com
said by amarryat:

I dream of that day. By extension, then all money should be taxed once and only once. However it is taxed again and again in the current system. When I get paid, I also pay taxes. When I pay someone to mow the lawn, they pay taxes on the money that I paid them, which was already taxed. And on and on.....

I don't know how that would work though... You would eventually end up at a point where nothing would be taxed because the money has flowed through the economy a couple of times.

There is no simple solution to an issue like taxation.


amarryat
Verizon FiOS

join:2005-05-02
Marshfield, MA
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
said by GetReal :

said by amarryat:

I dream of that day. By extension, then all money should be taxed once and only once. However it is taxed again and again in the current system. When I get paid, I also pay taxes. When I pay someone to mow the lawn, they pay taxes on the money that I paid them, which was already taxed. And on and on.....

I don't know how that would work though... You would eventually end up at a point where nothing would be taxed because the money has flowed through the economy a couple of times.

There is no simple solution to an issue like taxation.

Maybe a consumption tax, but to prevent re-taxation, only on the end product.


93388818
It's cool, I'm takin it back
Premium
join:2000-03-14
Dallas, TX
reply to GetReal
Tell that to the 47% of individuals who pay NO federal income taxes whatsoever.


Huh

@verizon.net
reply to GetReal
Huh? So you understand business passes the cost of taxation onto customers, hence individuals are already paying for the government services from which the business benefits. Business ALREADY benefits from services it doesn't pay for. Seems you're contradicting your own point...


HuhWhat

@cox.net
Uh, what? If you continue along your line of reasoning, my employer is paying my property taxes because my money comes from them. And if you keep going, it means that anyone that purchased a service from our company is paying for my property taxes. But because I might have paid for something from our customers' employers, I'm paying them to give me my money back to pay my own taxes. Rinse - wash - repeat.

Seriously, that argument can get a bit ridiculous.

dplantz

join:2000-08-02
Roslindale, MA
reply to amarryat
The FairTax does just that taxes once and is a consumption tax. »www.fairtax.org. Gaining more support and more co sponsors each year. I like it.

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
I was not able to find a single negative consequence on that website!! Is this a perfect tax plan? Any real look at an alternative system should put forth its negatives in addition to its positives.

Please explain how this FairTax derives income from bartering.

How does this system generate revenue from money spent overseas?

Does this system encourage big business to spend more or to spend less?


GetReal

@cox.net
reply to 93388818
said by 93388818:

Tell that to the 47% of individuals who pay NO federal income taxes whatsoever.

I love how everyone cherry picks the 47% number. The 47% number comes from the number of tax payers who didn't pay taxes at the worst part of the recession (2009) when millions of people had no jobs, ergo had no taxable income. If you figure in 9 percent unemployment, then it would be close to 38%. If you count total unemployment, including "discouraged workers", which is conservatively around 16%, it drops to 31%. If you count those who work, but are underemployed, that number drops into the upper end of the 20% range.

The number is also inflated due to, get this, the tax cuts that were passed during the Bush administration in 2001 which lowered tax liabilities to zero on many, those same tax cuts that were extended by Obama and then stimulus packages passed by both the Bush and Obama administrations which granted tax credits that pushed even more people to a zero or negative liability.

In other words, the 47% number comes from the fact that the recession has wiped out the earning power of a lot of taxpayers, who before the recession, were paying taxes.

People who use this number clearly have no clue where it comes from and really need to understand where it comes from. The reality is likely much lower than that number when the economic times are less dire.