Study: Verizon Hasn't Paid a Cent in Taxes in 3 Years → Re: Worth repeating - corporations don't pay taxes-customers do

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.